With regard to the progress of the Newtonian philosophy in England,
some difference of opinion has been entertained. Professor Playfair
gives the following account of it. “In the universities of England,
though the Aristotelian physics had made an obstinate resistance, they
had been supplanted by the Cartesian, which became firmly established
about the time when their foundation began to be sapped by the general
progress of science, and particularly by the discoveries of Newton. For
more than thirty years after the publication of these discoveries, the
system of vortices kept its ground; and a translation from the French
into Latin of the _Physics_ of Rohault, a work entirely Cartesian,
continued at Cambridge to be the text for philosophical instruction.
About the year 1718, a new and more elegant translation of the same
book was published by Dr. Samuel Clarke, with the addition of notes, in
which that profound and ingenious writer explained the views of Newton
on the principal objects of discussion, so that the notes contained
virtually a refutation of the text; they did so, however, only
virtually, all appearance of argument and controversy being carefully
avoided. Whether this escaped the notice of the learned doctor or not
is uncertain, but the new translation, from its better Latinity, and
the name of the editor, was readily admitted to all the academical
honours which the old one had enjoyed. Thus the stratagem of Dr. Clarke
completely succeeded; the tutor might prelect from the text, but the
pupil would sometimes look into the notes; and error is never so sure
of being exposed as when the truth is placed close to it, side by side,
without any thing to alarm prejudice, or awaken from its lethargy
the dread of innovation. Thus, therefore, the Newtonian philosophy
first entered the university of Cambridge under the protection of the
Cartesian.” To this passage Professor Playfair adds the following as a
note:—
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account