Abstract

In his 1641 biography of Nicolaus‐Claude Fabri de Peiresc , Pierre Gassendi declared that all learned men acknowledged that the most noble Peiresc “had seized the glory of kings” . For Gassendi and his circle of savants, Peiresc, in his public life a member of the Parlement of Provence, was the pattern of beneficence and learning, heroic in his virtue, his magnificent mind, and his care for scholars and scholarship. Peter N. Miller, in his profound and riveting study of what might be called the Peirescian moment of European intellectual life, asks why this grand figure, the hero of his age, was subsequently almost entirely forgotten—or at best considered the model pedant.Peiresc was an antiquarian who investigated the physical remains of the past with delight and perspicacity. He felt that the past offered lessons to the present and that the constitution of the contemporary state could not be understood without a comparative and comprehensive survey of former times and places. Through a far‐flung network of correspondents and friends Peiresc collected his observations, although most of his resulting work remained unpublished. Peiresc, Miller observes, was engaged not only in a prodigious intellectual feat but in a moral discipline teaching “the virtues of constancy, conversation, friendship and beneficence” .Among Peiresc's friends were Galileo, Hugo Grotius, Peter Paul Rubens, Marin Mersenne, Italian humanists, Catholic prelates, Protestants, and Jews. He subscribed, according to Miller, to an irenic religiosity in which reason revealed basic religious truths that could be accommodated to all other belief systems. Miller credits neo‐Stoicism as the animating force behind this religious minimalism that flourished briefly in the middle of the sectarian excesses of the Wars of Religion. Broadly speaking, Stoicism taught and confirmed the virtues of constancy, duty, generosity, and friendship and provided the moral economy for a learned and tolerant civil society.Miller uses Peiresc as a touchstone for his time but also as the point of departure for discussing the thought of others, both before and after Peiresc, who held similar beliefs and pursued similar interests. It is only here that Miller's analysis falters. Disembodied minds require some social context, and Miller's traditional intellectual history does not provide enough.This limited approach is particularly true of his analysis of friendship, gratitude, and ingratitude—terms with important seventeenth‐century social meanings as well as Stoic connotations. Peiresc was not simply a disinterested Maecenas of learning; he was also the center of a patronage network bringing him honor and power within the intellectual community.Neo‐Stoicism as a category also needs to be problematized, a fact Miller acknowledges in his footnotes but rarely addresses in the text. Other ancient traditions informed the thought of the early seventeenth century, most notably skepticism and Epicureanism—which was rehabilitated by Gassendi at the same time he wrote his Life of Peiresc. The most recent historiography of these movements is largely absent from Miller's study. Thus his analysis would have benefited from a broader investigation of both the social and the intellectual context of the Peirescian world.Nevertheless, one can only be awed by Miller's vast if somewhat idiosyncratic erudition. His mastery of the sixteenth‐ and seventeenth‐century neo‐Stoic sources is immense and his integration of echoes of these themes into later centuries is provocative. His conclusion that the polymath Peiresc could seem only a pedant to Enlightenment figures who idolized the practitioners of the New Science, or who valued the polite gentleman over the learned scholar, is perhaps too sweeping. Nonetheless, Miller shares the attributes of his seventeenth‐century subject: learning, curiosity, and the ability to penetrate and befriend the minds of those both past and present