GASSENDI
748
GATAKER
reflection as the origin of our ideas, lie was liy no means inclined to pure materialisni. This incoherence of language and doctrine was not peculiar to liim. It cliaracterizes the wliole school of Locke, and maj' he ascrii)ed in part to tlie ambiguity of the terms employ- ed, in part to tiie indistinctness and undistinguished cliaracter of the phenomena commented on. There was a similar inconsequence in the physical system of Gassendi. He received from Epicurus, or, rather, from Lucretius, the doctrine of atoms, of a vacuum, and of the regular operation of natural forces; but he did not admit the accidental collision and casual impli- cation of primar}' particles, nor did he exclude the di- vine will and the divine intelligence from the order of creation. In his separate tenets as in his general in- tellectual habit, he presented a strong contrast to his more famous and more methodical contemporary, Des Cartes. Positions apparently materialistic were main- tained by him in conjunction with a faitliful adherence to both natural and revealed religion ; and he ottered tlie strange spectacle of a sincere and preposterous Epicurean who was equally sincere as a Christian and as an oi'dained teacher of Christianity. Des Cartes, on tlie other hand, with principles essentially idealis- tic, combined tlie postulates of the infinite tenuitj^ and divisibility of matter, of a plenum, and of the vertigi- nous evolution of the universe, with practical but un- a vowed Pyrrhonism. There was point, but there was also inadecjuacy and injustice in the reciprocated an- tonomasias with whicli these philosophers discredited each other's system — in the 0 anime ! applied by Gas- sendi to Des Cartes, and in the 0 euro ! with which Des Cartas retorted upon Gassendi. No doubt the contro- ver-ial attitude of Gassendi betrayed him into exagger- ated and unguarded expression ; but his physical sys- tem, though borrowed from Epicurus, may be so limited and explained as to offer no offence to religious faith. It should be remembered that his speculations were hazarded in the infancy of phj'sical science; that his ajititudes, studios, and aims were chiefly scientific ; tliat the materials, j)rocesses, and instruments of sci- ence were as yet rude, cumbrous, and unshapen ; that, even after the lapse of two centuries, the scientific method and scientific conclusions often appear irrecon- cilable with religion and revelation. The certain har- monj' of the Iwok of nature and the Book of God maj', indeed, be asserted a jriori to be a necessity, and was so asserted bj' Lord l?acon ; but this harmony is still very indistinct. The Epicurean creed was an extrav- agant and premature attempt at scientific procedure, yet it has been recently recognised by high scientific authority to be essentially scientific in form and aim, however conjectural and arbitrary in development. In character as in purpose, it is curionsh^ analogous to the most recent speculations of scientific infidelity. 71ie sublimated Epicureanism of Gassendi was, in like manner, an imperfect anticipation of modern scientific reasoning. It resembles the heterogeneous schemes of those wlio too hastily combine problematical science with old religious dogmatism. Though it proved it- s( If incapable of instituting a school, it was a potent influence in stimulating, directing, and moulding the scientific spirit which illumined the latter half of the 17th century, and inaugurated the In-illiant era of mod- ern science. Dalton's atomic theory' is not the only ilream of present scientific belief which may be traced back to Gassendi. Ilobbes and Locke, ISarrow and Newton, were largely indebted to the impetus commu- nicated bj' him, if not to his teachings; and it is need- less to acknowledge our continued and manifest obli- gations to those great nameij. On the subject of Gas- sendi, there is little to be consulted beyond the several editions of his works, the historians of modern philos- opliy, and the lives of the pliilosojiher by Sorliiere (Paris, 1058) and by Bongerel <Paris, 1737), with M. de Lcvarde's Ilistoncal (md Cnlical Epistle to the latter biographer. (G. F. H.)
Gassner, Johaxn Joseph, a Roman Catholic priest, was born at Branz, neat Pludenz, August 20, 1727, studied theology at Innsbruck and Prague, was ordained priest in 17.50, and in 1758 was settled as par- tor at Klosterle. After filling that station for some fifteen years, he began to believe in the cure of physi- cal disorders bj'^ exorcism, in virtue of tlie power con- ferred on him by his ordination. His first attempts were made upon himself, and having been, as he thought, successful, he felt encouraged to follow what he considered his calling. He travelled mucli, curing the sick, wlio were brought to him often from places afar off". "The bishop of Constance called him to his residence, but, having come verj' soon to the convic- tion that he was a charlatan, advised him to return to his parsonage. Gassner betook himself, however, to other prelates of the empire, some of whom believed that his cures were miraculous. In 1774 he even re- ceived a call from the bishop at Katisbon to Ell wan- gen, where, by the mere word of command, Cess<-t (Give over), he cured persons who pretended to be lame or blind, but especially those afflicted with con- vulsions and epilepsy, who were all supposed to be possessed by the devil. Although an official person kept a continued record of his cures, in which the most extraordinary things were testified, yet it was found only toor scon that Gassner very often made persons in health plaj' the part of those in sickness, and that his cures of real sufferers were successful only so long as their imagination remained heated by tlie persua- sions of the conjuror" (Chambers, from Conr. Lexikon, s. v.). Finally, the emperor, Joseph II, forbade his exorcisms, and the archbishops Anton Peter of Prague and Hieronj'inus of Salzburg declared themselves against him (see Act. liistor. eccl. nostri tevtpoiis, xix, 315). Pope Pius VI expressed his disapprobation both of Gassner's deeds and writings. He died in retire- ment April 4, 1779. Lavater (q. v.) believed in the reality of man)' of the cures ascribed to Gassner, and regarded them as the result of an extraordinary pow- er of faith. Among his works, the most rcmaikable are Weise,fromm und gesimd zu Ithtn, und 7iihig und gottselig zu sierbev, etc. (Kempten, 1774; Augsb. 1775, 3d ed.), and .7. J. Gassner's Antuort avf d. Anmerkun- gen wider seine Gri'mde v. Weise z. exorciren (Augsburg, 1774). — Herzog, Real-Eiicyhlop.ix, G64; Hoefer, Noiiv. Biog. Generale, xix, 595 ; Sterzinger, Die avfgedecltcn Gassnerschen Wundercuren (1775) ; Semler, iSammhmg von Brie fin tt. Aufsdtaen uber die Gassiiersche Geister- heschworung (Halle, 177G).