{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030538037611499348, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014885517868302937, 'mean_word_length': 5.087324917862701, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Collegie der Sçavanten: A Seventeenth-Century Cartesian Scholarly Society in Utrecht

Scholarship on Dutch academic culture of the Golden Age often evokes a ‘college of savants’ held to have been operative in Utrecht during the middle decades of that century, be it as a network of Cartesians or as a rather vague ‘club’ of sorts. In this article I weigh a variety of source materials, often highly polemically charged, to demonstrate that such a thing as the ‘college’ really did exist, and describe its members and activities from inception to demise. It emerges that a network of ‘progressives’ was established in the early 1650s with the appointment of the Cartesians Johannes de Bruyn, Regnerus van Mansveld, Johannes Georgius Graevius, Francis Burman, and Louis Wolzogen to the university faculty, due at least in part to the secret scheming of the physician and councillor Lambertus van Velthuysen. This Cartesian network would clash repeatedly with the city’s ‘conservative’ party, led by the influential theologian Gisbertus Voetius, often seeking freedom from the meddling and censure of the latter’s Dutch Reformed church. I furthermore show how Van Velthuysen and company also began meeting weekly in the mid 1660s as a scholarly society, discussing a variety of literary, scientific, and philosophical themes in that closed setting until the early-to-mid 1670s. Above all, this scholarly society provided Utrecht’s leading intellectuals with a platform where they could openly reflect on and think through the latest and most provocative ideas—including those of Spinoza—and their implications for religion, away from the alarmed cries of the Voetians and their prying interference.


Introduction
Throughout the social, political, and intellectual upheavals of the seventeenthcentury Dutch Republic, the city of Utrecht often found itself on center stage. Of course, towns such as Leiden, Amsterdam, and Groningen were hardly immune to the clashes between republicans (or 'Wittians') and Orangists, the campaigns for and against Cartesian philosophy, and the growing cleft dividing the proponents of various currents of theological practice into 'Voetian' and 'Cocceian' camps. Nevertheless, in Utrecht these conflicts arguably reached a particular intensity due to the strength and vivacity of the former 'conservative' camp, under the leadership of Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676), professor ordinarius of theology at the university as well as pastor to the city's Reformed church. Voetius, who today is associated above all with his intransigent defense of outdated standpoints, was in his own time a force to be reckoned with because of his influence on Dutch Reformed culture through pulpit and lectern, pen and press.1 His 'progressive' opponents were therefore forced to form a powerful front against him, which has led to the common evocation among scholars of a rather nebulous 'college of savants' (collegie der sçavanten). The term collegie der sçavanten came into use after the publication of a nineteenth-century article by the Utrecht historian Jan Hartog,2 written after he had come across an anonymous 1674 pamphlet containing the name in its title.3 Imagining a fictional conversation between a pastoral candidate from Utrecht (Proponent) and a resident of the province of Holland (Hollander), this pamphlet reflects the new political situation following the end of the French occupation of Utrecht (1672-3), when the fortunes that had favored the city's republican elite for the better part of the previous two decades now shifted to their Voetian opponents, with far-reaching implications for the makeup of the vroedschap (city magistracy).4 The Proponent takes pains to warn his fellow traveler of a "Cartesian or Wittian college" in Utrecht, founded-after the example of the Catholic Council for the Propagation of the Faith and the Extirpation of Heresies-"for the extirpation of the truly pious and upright who love the church and the Prince, and for the propagation of Cartesian philosophy together with other related novelties."5 The pamphlet makes for entertaining reading, as the Voetian author not only identifies the main members of the 'college' but also launches a smear campaign against them to expose their errors, ranging from individual shortcomings like overfamiliarity with the wife of another 'savant' to the cabal-like mentality by which the members mutually protected one another from their respective positions. While Hartog indeed put the 'college of savants' on the map and continues to be cited as the author of the classic study about it, he in fact failed to make clear what the 'college' really might have been beyond a conniving group of Cartesian anti-Orangists, even if at one point he remarked that it must now be numbered among the growing number of 'societies' (genootschappen).6 More than that, Hartog was unable to offer much in the way of supporting evidence for the 'college,' having found just two additional, very brief references to it in pamphlets from the period.7 This doubtless explains why the name 'college of savants' has come to be used predominantly as a convenient collective term designating the members of Utrecht's Cartesian network,8 or else is described rather nondescriptly as a 6 Hartog, 'Het Collegie" (see above, n. 2), p. 102. Similarly, A. C. Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, 4 vols. (Leiden, 1897(Leiden, -1914, 3: 80 n. 1 ("dit gezelschap"). 7 Hartog, 'Het Collegie' (see above, n. 2), p. 102. The pamphlets in question are Rehabeams raedt van  "Cartesian club"9 or (less felicitously) a "gentleman's club."10 Not surprisingly, during the twentieth century some scholars began to doubt that such a 'college' had ever existed.11 Nevertheless, in a 1993 article on Dutch cultural societies predating at least some of these studies, Rienk Vermij briefly treated two letters of the 'savant' Johannes Georgius Graevius (1632-1703) confirming the reality of the collegie der sçavanten by his admission of membership in it-although, significantly, in doing so the Utrecht classicist countered the pamphlet's depiction of the 'college' as an anti-Voetian network of conspirators with his own description of an innocuous scholarly society, whose activities included the discussion of classical texts and scientific experimentation.12 In what follows I will build on Vermij's work, which unfortunately has received little scholarly attention,13 and will offer the first comprehensive account of the Utrecht 'college of For if that pontiff of this episcopal city20 and those who follow his sect were to find out, we will fail to obtain our wish."21 An Utrecht native of patrician stock, Van Velthuysen had studied theology at the orthodox Genevan academy from 1636 to 1639 before returning to his hometown to complete his studies. Back in Utrecht, he became a member of the French-speaking Walloon churches,22 where discipline was known to be less rigidly exercised than in the Dutch-speaking church from which he hailed. This move was a harbinger of things to come: Van Velthuysen was to break definitively with the orthodox camp by 1651-notwithstanding Voetius's high hopes for a career in the church23-when he anonymously published a defense of Cartesian natural philosophy and an apology for Hobbes's De cive.24 Having added the title of doctor in both philosophy and medicine during the intervening years, Van Velthuysen abandoned his candidacy for the ministry and began to practice as a physician. And, as might be expected given his patrician status, he went on to accumulate a variety of appointments in church, government, and society at large, ranging from elder (1651-3, 1657-9, and Remarkably, Van Velthuysen never held a university post, in spite of his evident capacities. Yet from the beginning he remained close to the academic scene, such that a 1657 letter recommending a young man (Lamoraal van Nottelen) to study philosophy under De Bruyn was sent to Van Velthuysen rather than De Bruyn himself.29 Van Velthuysen's machinations to secure the appointment of Graevius in 1661 are therefore hardly surprising, and it is tempting to suppose that he was in some way responsible for the other Cartesian appointments from this period as well. In 1662 the Cocceio-Cartesian theologian Francis Burman (1628-79), at the time sub-regent to Leiden's Staten-college, was lured to the faculty of theology as Voetius's direct colleague-a particularly galling choice for the papa ultrajectinus and his followers, since Burman took the place vacated by their own Matthias Nethenus after his dismissal by the vroedschap. This was further aggravated by the pressure the vroedschap subsequently exercised on the consistory, in spite of its protestations, to add Burman as pastor and make him a member of the consistory.30 Then, in the spring of 1664, Louis Wolzogen (1633-90) was called to Utrecht as pastor to the Walloon church, and that fall was also appointed professor extraordinarius of church history.31 While no evidence has surfaced yet to confirm Van Velthuysen's During the third quarter of the seventeenth century, the theologically orthodox, philosophically conservative, and politically Orangist party under the leadership of Voetius therefore came to face a growing number of progressive thinkers, with De Bruyn and Van Velthuysen as their senior members.

Cohesion and Collusion
The Enjoying an increasing strength in numbers at the university over the first half of the 1660s, the Cartesian professors' position came to be shored up also from the side of church and magistracy during the latter half of the decade.47 Under normal circumstances the consistory would have been the first channel through which the Voetians would have brought their grievances to the attention of the city government. Yet that route was made more difficult when Burman became a member of the consistory by virtue of his contested appointment as minister, and he doubtless used his position there to good effect in favor of the Cartesian circle to which he belonged. In fact, Burman'sperceived or real-betrayal of the consistory, perhaps most poignantly displayed in the Malecoot affair when he submitted charges against the very body of which he was a member, may well explain why he bears the brunt of the attacks in the pamphlet literature of the period. Furthermore, one can hardly underestimate the effect of Van Velthuysen's appointment as political commissioner, charged to attend the meetings of the consistory to ensure that it did not deal with anything beyond its province. In fact, his appointment itself illustrates the uncomfortable position of the Voetians during this time, since it was made in spite of his earlier clashes with the Dutch Reformed consistory 44  I expounded for these great magistrates52 some satires of Juvenal, and Suetonius, and Grotius's De iure belli et pacis. At times we also looked at the anatomy of the principal parts of the body, such as the heart, the eye, the ears, the spleen, and others, which work De Bruyn, a very good and most experienced master of dissection, performed for us. We also read new books as they were published, either about the causes of natural things or other matters, and debated about them.53 The account Graevius gives of the 'college of savants' thus differs radically from its depiction in the pamphlets.54 Far from a band of conspirators, it was a 'scholarly society' that he and his likeminded friends had formed. The timing indicated by the Utrecht classicist furthermore leads one to assume it was initiated in the second half of the 1660s, not long after the network of 'Cartesian professors' had been established, and continued until the early 1670s-long enough, at any rate, to still threaten Graevius's reputation when he wrote to Heinsius in the spring of 1674. While scholarly societies may be a phenomenon typically associated with the eighteenth century,55 there is no reason to doubt that the network that had gathered around De Bruyn and Van Velthuysen in the early 1660s had formed a kind of society later that decade.56 These are, after all, the years of the establishment of the well-known Accademia del Cimento in Tuscany (1657), the Royal Society in London (1660), and the Académie royale des sciences in 52 praetextatis: literally 'those who wear the toga praetexta.' This was an outer garment worn by free-born children until they came of age, and by Rome's higher magistrates; see C. T. Lewis and C. Short, Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1963), s.v. "praetexo," II.A.B.1. That Graevius envisions Utrecht's magistrate class is evident from the context, speaking in the preceding sentence of "those whose fortunes have recently been overturned"-that is, the ousted magistrates.  (1638-86). While a directed search in potentially promising letters between these men and the Utrecht classicist has yielded no discussion of these other societies, it is difficult to imagine, given also the dynamics of the Republic of Letters, that they never spoke or wrote to one another about these matters. At any rate, for all the similarities between the 'college' and the better-known societies abroad, there is one important difference: while the other scholarly societies all left records of their proceedings, published works bearing their name, and the like, no such documents survive for the Utrecht 'college,' nor is there any indication that they ever existed. This is not to say that nothing supports Graevius's description of the 'college' as a scholarly society, akin to the way the university and vroedschap records confirm at least part of the pamphlets' account regarding the collusion of its members. One specific aspect Graevius mentions in his letter to Heinsius is that the meetings were occasionally attended by the likes of the classicists Gronovius and Marquard Gudius (1635-89) or the naturalist Jan Swammerdam (1637-80), a member of the Amsterdam Collegium privatum.58 These men are obviously adduced as witnesses, with Graevius supposing that Heinsius's mind might now be triggered by something the late Gronovius had mentioned to him about a visit to the Utrecht 'college' in the course of their frequent correspondence. A search in their extant letters has yielded no definitive reference to the 'college' and its activities, however.59 Visitors' attendance, however, is indeed reflected in a letter to Graevius from another naturalist and close friend of Swammerdam, the Dane Niels Stensen, who in 1670 had to decline an invitation from Graevius to attend a meeting of the 'college.' Citing the serious illness of a housemate as his excuse, Stensen assures Graevius: "Were it not for [the illness], nothing would be more welcome to us than that most learned 57  companionship, where erudite men contend for victory with gentleness."60 The setting Stensen depicts with this flowery accolade is a milieu where likeminded scholars can freely discuss and debate with a view to the advancement of science, recalling Graevius's insistence that the guests of the 'college' "extolled to the heavens the most pleasant and innocent enjoyment we derived from these discussions on various studies."61 The annotated title-page of Utrecht University's copy of the Collegie der sçavanten pamphlet provides another piece of evidence, since there an unidentified seventeenth-century person has listed the names of those whom he presumably considered to be the leading members of the 'college.' These include the names we have seen before-i.e., Wolzogen, Van Velthuysen, Graevius, Van Mansveld, Van Solingen, De Bruyn, and Burman-as well as Van Mansveld's cousin the Utrecht burgomaster Johan van Mansveld (1621-73) and the physician Everard van Sypesteyn (1637-1716). On the face of it, one might be inclined to think that this information was simply taken from the text of the pamphlet. Nevertheless, the only mention of Johan van Mansveld occurs in a context other than membership,62 and Van Sypesteyn's name does not even appear in the pamphlet, suggesting that the annotator had access to inside information. And indeed, this impression finds confirmation in a final annotation added below the names, observing that Burman and De Bruyn "seldom came."63 While this last annotation may fail to offer new information on the actual discussions held by the 'savants,' it does testify to the existence of the meetings and also suggests possible implications about the structure of the 'college.' After all, the pamphleteer explicitly sets Burman and De Bruyn apart from the other 'collegiants' (Collegianten) as, respectively, the chair (praeses) and the vice (assessor).64 Indeed, Burman would have been the obvious choice for chair by virtue of his incomparable reputation, and the less flashy De Bruyn for vice chair on account of his seniority. Yet one wonders whether the pamphleteer gave the group a more formal organization than it actually had, so as to make it appear a larger threat-just as he had coined the name 'college of savants' for this group,65 doubtless to give his Cartesian opponents an added air of pretentiousness.66 Further confirmation of Graevius's account of the 'college' is found in yet another annotated period pamphlet. During the French occupation of Utrecht, several citizens kept diaries in which they recorded details pertaining to military events, political decisions, outrages committed by the occupying party, and even the French officers' sociability. One such diary is Abraham de Wicquefort's Journael, of dagelijcksch verhael, published anonymously in 1674. The copy held at the Utrecht University Library is heavily interleaved with pages containing numerous remarks from a contemporary eyewitness keyed to specific passages of the Journael.67 At the place where De Wicquefort describes the controversial 1673 decision simply to extend the appointment of the incumbent Utrecht magistrates without the customary elections,68 the unidentified annotator added remarks totaling no less than eleven sides. He begins with the observation that in response to the pending continuation of the magistrates, "a number of mostly Wittian-minded conspirators held a 64 Het Collegie (see above, n. 3), p. A2v. This is doubtless the passage that suddenly transformed Burman into the very founder of the 'college,' as reported in Verbeek, Descartes and the Dutch (see above, n. 9), p. 75; Gaukroger, Descartes: An Intellectual Biography (see above, n. 9), p. 473; and Luisa Simonutti, 'Tra Cartesianesimo e Spinozismo: Limborch e la polemica con Burman,' in:  , 1674). The annotated copy is held at Utrecht University (shelfmark: Hs. 3.L.17), and has been included in the Annotated Books Online database coordinated by Arnoud Visser (Utrecht University). It can be viewed online at http://abo.annotatedbooksonline.com/#binding-9-1 (accessed 5 April 2017). 68 [De Wicquefort,] Journael (see above, n. 67), p. 214. The same decision had been less controversial in the fall of 1672, since it was imposed by command of the French and offered some stability so shortly after the invasion.
meeting of that great savant college on 1 October," specifically naming "that great Argus69 Van Velthuysen, aside from that pompous and seasoned mind of Van Solingen70 who, having become a [city] councillor, beat his chest and said: 'I'll also make the [Provincial] States one day!'"71 This brief remark of course calls into question Graevius's insistence that the 'college' was in no way politically motivated. Yet the annotator, who is significant for providing independent firsthand information, continues with a further description of the 'college' that does indeed confirm the overall tenure of the Utrecht classicist's characterization to Heinsius: "The 'college of savants' there was composed of ten men, almost all of them well-educated, who had the custom of meeting together at a certain place alone and set apart, since they always held heavy, deep, and erudite discussions there."72 This description of the discussions is easily matched with the list of 'college' activities detailed in the letter to Heinsius, just as this record of the October 1673 gathering in the wake of the continuation harmonizes well with Graevius's worries over his recent association with the 'college' in the spring of 1674. What is new here, albeit hardly unexpected, is the annotator's indication-using a redundant expression (cf. alleen, afgesondert)-that the meetings of the 'college' were closed or restricted in nature. The most significant source confirming Graevius's description of the 'college,' however, comes from the Groningen professor of theology Samuel Maresius (Desmarets, 1599-1673).73 In a brief 1672 Latin treatise soon translated into Dutch, the Huguenot theologian laments the deplorable state of theological instruction in the Dutch Republic at the time, targeting among other things 69 argus: presumably referencing Argos Panoptes, the many-eyed giant of Greek mythology, to depict Van Velthuysen as overly watchful. 70 I.e., Nicolaas van Solingen; see above, n. 35. 71 [De Wicquefort,] Journael (see above, n. 67), fol. 87r°: "1 october hebbe enige meest witte cabalisten vergaderinge gelegt van dat groote scavante collegie die groote argus velthuysen neffens dat hoogdravende wel door kneet verstant van solingen die geworden synde raat op syn borst klopte seggende hier steeckt nog een staten in." The men who opposed the decision were themselves incumbent magistrates, and as such stood to benefit from the proposed continuation. Their concern was thus procedural, perhaps anticipating the problems that they as republicans were bound to face after the imminent departure of the French occupiers. No doubt these republican men felt that if properly elected to their positions, the chance they would be ousted upon the arrival of the Prince of Orange-as indeed happened!-might be decreased. 72 [De Wicquefort,] Journael (see above, n. 67), fol. 87r°: "NB het scavante collegie bestont aldaer uyt 10 persoonen meest alle wel door lettert die gewoon waren op seeker plaets alleen by een comst te hebben afgesondert alsoo aldaer altyt swaere diepsinnige en geleerde discoursen omgingen." 73 For Maresius, see the old but still excellent work from Doede Nauta, Samuel Maresius (Amsterdam, 1935 For since several years ago, a number of Pinarian and Potitian75 brethren from the basest class of the Cartesian and Catalinarian76 religion had the habit of holding their weekly, drink-filled77 guild festivals,78 or rather assemblies79 for the propagation of the Cartesian faith (Voetius used to call them the 'scholars' daily,' Le journal des savans)80 in which they contrived careful plans for promoting their sect in both theory and practice. The gathering was chaired by Van Velthuysen, a man hardly troubled by Godhead or piety; it was also attended by the theologian Burman, and several other sworn-in professors of philosophy and the arts.81 This is a difficult passage on several accounts, so one should not be surprised to find that its importance for the 'college' has been overlooked or underestimated.82 Nevertheless, when the classical references are properly placed and the overt vilification typical of the ever- Particularly tempting is the connection to the discussions Graevius mentions over the latest books (which, as a side note, is probably what Voetius had in mind when he reportedly characterized the Utrecht meetings as a "scholars' daily"). Among all the works that appeared during the decade or so when the 'college' was actively meeting, two arguably stand out most: the Philosophia Scripturae Sacrae interpres (1666) commonly attributed to the Amsterdam physician Lodewijk Meyer (1629-81), and the Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670) of his friend the philosopher Benedict de Spinoza (1632-77). It is therefore only natural to suppose that both were read and debated in the context of the 'college,' all the more so due to the obvious threat these two expressions of a 'radical' Cartesianism represented to the Utrecht network.89 More than that, in Wolzogen, De Bruyn, and Van Velthuysen the 'savants' were quite well represented among the Philosophia's first public detractors,90 and one wonders whether their ideas, or perhaps even portions of their texts, were discussed at the meetings of the 'college.' A similar case can be made for Spinoza's anonymously published treatise. As has been demonstrated, shortly after the appearance of this work, the Utrecht Cartesians launched a veritable campaign against the Tractatus, which included recruitment efforts directed toward the celebrated Groningen orientalist Jacobus Alting (1618-79), as well as his former student, the Cologne minister Johannes Melchioris (1646-1689). The immediate flurry of anti-Spinoza activity in Utrecht, and its coordinated appearance, are in fact suggestive of collective discussions over the Tractatus theologico-politicus held in 1670.91 So, too, one wonders whether the massive, chapter-by-chapter refutation (Adversus anonymum Theologo-politicum liber singularis92) that Van Mansveld wrote in the final year of his short life was not just a team effort in that fellow 'savants' Graevius and Wolzogen brought it to press posthumously,93 but also because it owed something to the meetings of the 'college' as Maresius describes them in the Tractatus brevis.
The literary production of the 'college' was a delicate point, however, particularly when it came to pamphlets. When Maresius referred to the "Trophonian cave" of the Utrecht Cartesians, he did so to identify it as the place where-as he had it from hearsay-"the satires of the masked [author] Petrus ab Andlo,94 written against me in favour of Cartesianism and Socinianism at the time the Pacific Theologian95 was preparing to go to press, were forged."96 The charge of pamphleteering appears in the anonymous Het Collegie der sçavanten and Rehabeams raedt as well, as both recount how the 'savants' were aided by the city magistrates in bringing their pamphlets (pasquillen) to press.97 Of course this charge is denied from the side of the 'college.' The pamphlet Bileams raedt, whose title reflects the contention that the preceding Voetian tract contains not the wise counsel given to King Rehoboam (cf. 1 Kings 12) but the treacherous advice of Balaam that seduced the Israelites to evil (cf. Numbers 31:16), counters that the pamphleteer is in the dark on this point, and furthermore insists: "One of the members has declared to me on this occasion, as they would all be ready solemnly to declare, that they have never put their hand or pen to this in their meetings, or have deliberated doing so."98 So too Graevius, following his description of the 'college' as a scholarly society, writes that the charge of pamphlet-making is false: "No pamphlet was ever written by this Collegium doctorum."99 While on the face of it the evidence over the pamphleteering charge presents us with a deadlock, consideration of the way the opportunistic Graevius writes as he finds himself in this tight situation appears to offer a way out. One gets the impression throughout that he has chosen his words most carefully when writing to Heinsius for support at the dawn of the new stadholder period. An example is the way he dissociates himself from the charge of Cartesianism: "I have constantly kept myself aloof from cultivating the teaching of Cartesian instruction, so far, in fact, that I do not even own any of his books, nor have I read them through."100 This assertion, and its more forceful version expressed to Constantijn Huygens the Elder (1596-1687) the following day,101 certainly seems exaggerated in light of Graevius's reputation as one of Utrecht's 'Cartesian professors.' Nevertheless, if this statement is read literally and under the assumption that Graevius formulated this passage very carefully, it may not, after all, be that far from the truth. For it is quite possible that his knowledge of Descartes's philosophy was largely secondhand, and his university appointment to lecture on history, rhetoric, and politics (rather than philosophy or theology) would have made it easy to steer clear of the more problematic elements of Cartesian epistemology, metaphysics, and physics. Moreover, in spite of his indubitable position within the Cartesian, republican camp, Graevius's actual commitments are difficult to pin down, in spite of the myriad surviving letters, since he rarely expressed himself on the substance of debate. So, too, the entire letter to Heinsius, written in the hope of saving his career in Utrecht, leaves one with the impression that it was cast in most careful terms to tell formal truths while skirting falsehood-witness his admission, on the one hand, that the 'college' once spent a winter poring over Descartes's replies to his sceptics in the Meditations, while insisting, on the other, that more poignant criticism was offered in their company than anywhere else.102 Therefore, it may indeed be true that the 'college,' understood most literally in terms of its meetings, did not produce any of the anti-Voetian pamphlets in circulation. But there is little doubt that it was close to the fire. Graevius, at any rate, seems to have known more than he was willing to divulge. Thus, after denying that the Collegie ever made pamphlets in a letter to Heinsius, Graevius curiously adds that such pamphlets would have been printed even had there been no Collegie, and he remarks in closing: "At all events, I can plainly affirm in a sworn statement that nothing was mandated by writ from this college."103 The very next day Graevius sent Heinsius another letter, as his position was rapidly worsening because of those who spoke ill of him before the Prince of Orange. These detractors included Maresius's son Henri (fl. 1652-96), since "several years ago a number of pamphlets on Cartesian philosophy bearing the name Petrus ab Andlo were published against his father, which he believed to have come from that company I discussed with you yesterday."104 In this second letter Graevius again insists he is willing to swear that the booklets were published "without the knowledge of that college," but here, too, one cannot escape the impression that he actually knows more: "We might be able to guess at the author, but it is certain that he did not clearly stand with that company." 105 Given the vested interest of both the Voetian polemicist and the desperate Graevius in their respective versions of the Utrecht 'college,' neither the precise involvement of this society in the production of pamphlets nor the identity of Petrus ab Andlo can be definitively determined as long as new evidence remains wanting.106 Nevertheless, there is no doubt that in the eyes of the Voetians, the meetings held by the 'college of savants' during the decade or so of its existence were not as innocent as Graevius depicted them. On 2 May 1670 the Utrecht Dutch Reformed consistory took note of "the teaching of a certain college,"107 deciding a week later to speak to those "involved in certain disturbances during or over the teaching of a certain college."108 While this matter died a quiet death in the consistory acts,109 the prevalent suspicions concerning the kind of ideas the 'savants' were exchanging (in draft form or otherwise) at their meetings, and the polemical pamphlets they were thought to be producing, make it entirely possible that this represents a final piece of evidence for the Utrecht 'college.'110

Conclusion
The 'college of savants' is thus indeed an expedient collective term designating the circle of Cartesians that had gathered around Van Velthuysen and De Bruyn in Utrecht during the early 1660s, and may be used as such. Nevertheless, of equal or even greater significance is their formation not long thereafter of a scholarly society, around the same time when the Royal Society, the Académie royale, and the Accademia del Cimento were being established respectively in England, France, and Tuscany. That this development has long been overlooked is due not only to the paucity of extant evidence for the abortive Utrecht enterprise but also to its underlying, highly charged polemical circumstances, leading to exaggerated accusations on the one hand, and half-truths passing over less convenient details on the other. Yet when the evidence is carefully sifted, it would seem that the Utrecht 'Cartesian professors,' along with several of the city's physicians and students from the university, and in the occasional presence of better-or lesser-known guests, met on a weekly basis from the mid-1660s to sometime before the spring of 1674 to read canonical philosophical and political texts together under the guidance of an authority, to witness medical experiments performed by specialists, to inform each other of the latest books and to discuss them, and to share some of their ideas in nascent or draft form. Moreover, despite Graevius's protestations, it seems reasonable to suppose that the 'savants' produced, or helped to produce, anti-Voetian pamphlets, whose contents were at least to some degree inspired by the discussions held during their weekly meetings. That the Utrecht 'college' failed to last and has largely fallen into oblivion is not entirely coincidental. By virtue of the enormous correspondence by which he gained the latest news, Graevius might be seen as a kind of intelligencer like Henry Oldenburg (1619-77). Yet as for the rest, the reports attributing some kind of formal structure to the 'college' conflict with each other, and their polemical nature makes it difficult to give one preference over the other. The Royal Society and the Académie royale, in contrast, each possessed not only a fixed organizational structure but also benefited from royal patronage promising them longevity. With the financial backing and interest of the Medici family, the Tuscan Accademia del Cimento would have enjoyed a longer life than the decade of its actual existence, had it not lost several of its key members within a short span.111 Moreover, these societies all had an overriding experimental-Baconian or otherwise-program that required suitable tools and materials. Therefore, for the Utrecht 'college,' a member initiative without a formal institution or physical location, it would have been even easier simply to peter out and die-what appears to have happened after Wolzogen left for Amsterdam late in 1670, followed half a year later by the unexpected death of Van Mansveld.
But another reason for the demise of the 'college' was doubtless its somewhat ad hoc character within the theological and political climate specific to Utrecht and absent elsewhere. It was there that the 'conservative' camp of the public church, with its broad understanding of societal reform, continued to make its presence known, a fact that several 'savants'-who appear for all intents and purposes to have remained orthodox, still holding to such major doctrines as the Trinity, Christ's twofold nature, and even predestination112experienced firsthand following upon their books and disputations. On the one hand, the local circumstances under which the 'college' grew makes it 111