Descartes didn't think language was creative, didn't think we could use it to get information about the mind or even that we could study the mind in any empirically based way, and didn't give much of a shit about language anyway. It's a bit unnecessary to have an article like this, since I think even by 1972 the idea of Cartesian linguistics had been roundly debunked, e.g. by Aarsleff, and also it's perhaps a bit uncharitable to Chomsky, since he obviously named his book as a piece of self-promotion (claim a great tradition) and since if it had been called something reasonable like "Port-Royal linguistics with some thoughts on Humboldt" it would have been fine, but on the other hand, Chomsky doesn't need my special pleading, and he really does do some egregious mischaracterizing in his Cartesian book and so this article is fine. In RJ Butler, ed., Cartesian Studies. ( )