On the Jesuit Edition of Newton’s Principia. Science and Advanced Researches in the Western Civilization

Paolo Bussotti, Raffaele Pisano

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Berlin, Germany.
Centre Sciences, Sociétés, Cultures Dans Leurs évolutions, University of Lille 1, Villeneuve d’Ascq-Lille, France.

DOI: 10.4236/ahs.2014.31005                

Abstract

In this research, we present the most important characteristics of the so called and so much explored Jesuit Edition of Newton’s Philosophi? Naturalis Principia Mathematica edited by Thomas Le Seur and Fran?ois Jacquier in the 1739-1742. The edition, densely annotated by the commentators (the notes and the comments are longer than Newton’s text itself) is a very treasure concerning Newton’s ideas and his heritage, e.g., Newton’s geometry and mathematical physics. Conspicuous pieces of information as to history of physics, history of mathematics and epistemology can be drawn from it. This paper opens a series of study concerning Jesuit Edition, whose final scope is to put in evidence all the conceptual aspects of such edition and its role inside the spread of scientific ideas and inside the complex relation science, popularization & society.

Keywords

Newton; Principia’s Jesuit Edition; La Seur; Jacquier; Calandrini; Mathematical Physics; History of Mathematics; History of Physics; History of Astronomy; Popularization

Received June 13^th, 2013; revised July 20^th, 2013; accepted July 29^th, 2013

Figure 2. The plate in the first edition of Poli’s Elementi (Poli, 1781) with the illustration of Atwood’s machine built by Ramsden.

tiveness, or, rather, was convinced that it would not have im- proved the measurements. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, Atwood mentioned this problem―though giving only a broad outline of it―in his Treatise, this being probably a reminis- cence of Poli’s advice (Atwood, 1784: p. 308). Interestingly enough, the machines that were built later (during the XIX century) had all this trigger, though the instrument makers chose to use two vertical arms instead of only one, by keeping separate the pendulum clock from the weights.

The set of five friction wheels was quite immediately simpli- fied: in the 1801 edition of the Traité eleméntaire de Physique by A. Libes (Malaquias & Thomaz, 1994), for example, At- wood’s machine was already represented with just a simple pulley on the top of a vertical arm with a ruler. Even without resorting to such extreme simplifications, it is nevertheless a matter of fact that, in any of the copies realized in the XIX century, the removable apparatus with the friction wheels in the original prototype was replaced by a fixed one: the original intent of a “universal” machine for translational and rotational motions disappeared.

An apparent exception to such boost to simplify is given by Poli’s Elementi (Poli, 1781) which, in any of its 23 editions (ranging from 1781 to 1837, i.e. well beyond the death of Poli), Atwood’s machine is invariably depicted as in the 1781 edi- tion [12] , this being evidently related to the original instrument that Poli had at his disposal. It is interesting to note that, al- though Poli himself gave a simplified presentation in his trea- tise of Atwood’s machine and of the experiments that could be performed with it, as any other author did, nevertheless he stressed his will to revisit the subject in a later work:

Tutte le rapportate dottrine riguardanti la discesa de’ gravi, rintracciate mirabilmente dall’immortal Galileo, render si possono sensibilissime, ed evidenti, mercé di una Mac- china inventata, non è molti anni, dal Signor Atwood, Professore di Fisica nell’Università di Cambridge, e mio rispettabile Collega nella Società R. di Londra. Conver- rebbe scrivere un intiero trattato per dare una compiuta idea di siffatta Macchina, e per indicare la maniera, onde si debbono con essa istituire tutti gli esperimenti. Sarà questo in qualche parte il soggetto di un’altra mia Opera (Poli, 1781). [13]

However, not only Poli did not add a specific chapter on this subject in any of the subsequent editions of his Elementi, but he did not publish even any other work regarding Physics, de- voting himself in those years to the writing of a major work concerning testaceans (De Gennaro, 2006).

A Different Use

The small (but relevant) changes introduced in the realization of copies of Atwood’s machine seen above were, of course, functional to a better operation of the machine, but the “sim- plification” of it as a whole intervened already at the beginning of the XIX century does not call for a similar explanation. This can be searched, instead, by looking at the use that scholars made of the machine which, as already envisaged in the quota- tion above from Poli’s Elementi, was substantially different from the original Atwood’s intention. Even more explicitly than Poli, the following words by Volta are illuminating:

V.E. può giudicare di qui se [la Macchina] è novissima: lo è tanto, che non è comparsa ancora l’Opera che il Sig. Atwood medesimo promette di pubblicare sopra questa sua Macchina di Dinamica, dove la descrizione ne sarà più compiuta di quella che or ci dà il Sig. Magellan [...] Ho ripetute io già le principali sperienze proposteci in essa ne’ 14 problemi, e le ho variate in più maniere; e sempre l’esito ha corrisposto alla teoria con una precisione, che maggiore desiderar non si potrebbe. Le leggi della caduta dei gravi son messe così chiaramente e dis- tintamente sott’occhio, che anche chi nulla conoscesse della teoria, vi è tosto condotto e le intende a maraviglia. Da qualche giorno che ho messo alla prova la Macchina non so quasi occuparmi d’altro, tanta e la soddisfazione che ne ritraggo [Volta to Count Firmian, 1 May 1781, in (Volta, 1951)] [14] .

What was the original motivation for the construction of the machine―that of displaying the Newtonian paradigm―has now been changed: its use was quite soon limited just to per- form several illustrative experiments on the falling of bodies with a single and accurate device. This is, indeed, the use made of Atwood’s machine since the end of the XVIII century until recent times (whereas, sometimes, the experimental study on the falling of bodies is replaced by generic studies on uniform and uniformly accelerated motion).

The reasons for this apparent change of mind are, again, contained in the quotation above: the machine arrived in the Continent well before the appearance of the Treatise where Atwood explained its original use, while the description of the experiments that could be performed with it was spread only through the work of the eyewitnesses Poli and, especially, Ma- gellan. While, on the one hand, this implied a rapid fortune of Atwood’s machine, given the success of the Poli’s Elementi with its 23 editions and the indefatigable work as intermediary of Magellan, on the other hand it evidently allowed the subse- quent scholars to make (only) a different use of the machine, given the already occurred achievement of the Newtonian para- digm. Furthermore, Atwood himself contributed indirectly to such direction, since he never reissued the 1784 edition of his Treatise, having later changed his interests, as recalled above.

Summary

The structure of Newtonian physics is, as well known, based on the organization of scientific knowledge as a series of ma- thematical laws and, according to early codification by Galilei, such laws require experimental validation. In the XVIII cen- tury, physical demonstrations took place in different ways and for different audiences, ranging from academic courses to po- pular lectures. In the present paper, we have shown how the Newtonian paradigm was definitively accepted in science courses―in England as well as in the Continent―by means of the dynamical machine invented by Atwood in late 1770s just for this purpose. Although being aware that the ultimate test of Newton’s mechanics would have come from experiments showing the effect of variable forces, the experimental conditions of his epoch forced Atwood to turn to constant forces, for which he designed a single machine in order to test, in simple experiments, all the kinematical and dynamical laws for those forces, as coming out from Newton’s mechanics. Particularly relevant is the mechanism he devised to measure the velocity acquired by the body during its accelerated motion: in Galilei’s inspired experiments on the free fall or on the motion along an inclined plane, indeed, only the proportionality between the traveled spaces and the square of the elapsed time could be established. But, probably, the astonishing result was the unprecedented accuracy with which Atwood tested the Newtonian laws of motion, being able to measure acceleration as low as 1/64 of the free fall value. As described in his Treatise of 1784, Atwood’s original aim was not limited to the mechanical laws of the rectilinear motion, the machine having to serve also for studying the rotation of bodies (in the Treatise, a number of experiments are described concerning this topic, with the aid of additional parts, never effectively realized), but such an incredible accuracy catalyzed the interest of any of the subsequent scholars who used the machine in their demonstrations.

The spreading of Atwood’s machine outside England oc- curred well before the appearance of the Treatise, where it was described along with the experiments to be performed with it. In fact, some scholars who had the opportunity to attend At- wood’s demonstrations in Cambridge in the late 1770s, realized immediately the importance of the novel machine, and dis- seminate the news, even subscribing (or suggesting the sub- scription to other scholars) to the acquisition of copies of that machine. Thus, it was the Portuguese Magellan the first to pub- lish (in 1780) a pamphlet where the new machine was broadly described, along with a set of experiments concerning uniform and accelerated motion, in the form of a letter addressed to Volta in Pavia. Instead, it was the Italian Poli to report (in 1781) for the first time an illustration of the novel machine, realized on the copy ordered to the instrument maker Ramsden, in his textbook where a choice of experiments are described as well.

The model manufactured by Ramsden (the second one ever realized, including the original one owned by Atwood) intro- duced an additional device, suggested by Poli, in order to trig- ger the simultaneous activation of the pendulum clock and the start of the descending mass. Clearly aimed at a better operation of the machine and, consequently, at a reduction of the meas- urement errors, this additional lever was always included in later copies of the machine during the XIX century, irrespective of the “simplification” of Atwood’s machine (the removable set of five friction wheels was replaced by a fixed set of wheels or even just a simple pulley) that was going on already at the very end of XVIII century.

Such changes which were occurring on the machine are em- blematic of the different use made of it. Once Newton’s me- chanics was definitively accepted in academic courses as the only possible theory of motion, Atwood’s machine did not serve anymore as a device displaying the success of the Newto- nian paradigm. Its use then changed accordingly: several illus- trative experiments on the falling of bodies, or even just on uni- form or uniformly accelerated motion may be performed with a single and accurate machine. This is, indeed, the use made of Atwood’s machine until now.

The historical case studied here, therefore, allows us to rec- ognize the relevant role played by a properly devised instru- ment in the acceptance of a new paradigm by non-erudite scho- lars, in addition to the traditional ways followed by erudite ones (almost exclusively considered in the literature), where mathe- matical, philosophical or even physical reasoning certainly do- minates over machine philosophy.

References

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Gravesande, W. J. (1720-1721). Physices elementa mathematica, experimentis confirmata, sive introductio ad philosophiam Newtonianam (two volumes). Leiden: Vander & Vander, Lugduni Batavorum.
[2]	Agassi, J. (1978). The ideological import of Newton. Vistas in Astronomy, 22, 419-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0083-6656(78)90032-6
[3]	Agostino, Sd’ (1988). Boscovich’s reception of Newton’s legacy. In M. Bossi, & P. Tucci (Eds.), Bicentennial commemoration of R. G. Boscovich (pp. 28-45). Milano: Edizioni Unicopli.
[4]	Ahnert, T. (2004). Newtonianism in early Enlightenment Germany, c. 1720 to 1750: Metaphysics and the critique of dogmatic philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 35, 471-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.003
[5]	Allen, L. D. (1998). Physics, frivolity and “Madame Pompon-Newton”: The historical reception of the Marquise du Chatelet from 1750 to 1996. Doctoral Dissertation, Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati.
[6]	Apollonius of Perga (1896). Treatise on conic sections. Edited in modern notation with introductions including an essay on the earlier history of this subject by T. L. Heath, M. A. Sometime fellow of Trinity College. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7]	Arthur, R. T. W. (1995). Newton’s fluxions and equably flowing time. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26, 323-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(94)00037-A
[8]	Axtell, J. L. (1965). Locke’s review of the principia. Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 20, 152-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.1965.0013
[9]	Baillon, J. F. (2004). Early eighteenth century Newtonianism: The Huguenot contribution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 35, 533-548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.006
[10]	Barber, W. H. (1979). Voltaire et Newton. Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 179, 193-202.
[11]	Barker, P. (2006) New work in early modern science. Centaurus, 48, 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.2006.00037.x
[12]	Beaver, D. de B. (1987) Textbooks of natural philosophy: The beautification of technology. In Berggren and goldsein (pp. 203-213).
[13]	Berggren, J. L., & Goldsein, B. R. (1987). From ancient omens to statistical mechanics. Copenhagen: University Library.
[14]	Biagioli, M. (1998). The scientific revolution is undead. Configurations, 6, 141-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/con.1998.0011
[15]	Biagioli, M. (1999). The science studies reader. New York and London: Routledge.
[16]	Blay, M. (1983). La conceptualisation newtonienne des phénomènes de la couleur. Paris: Vrin.
[17]	Boss, V. I. (1972). Newton and Russia, the Early Influence 1698-1796. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
[18]	Bourdieu, P. (1975, 1999) The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. In Biagioli (pp. 31-50), First published in Social Science Information, 14, 19-47.
[19]	Bricker, P., & Hughes, R. I. G. (1990). Philosophical perspectives on Newtonian science. Cambridge-MA-London: The MIT Press.
[20]	Briggs, E. R. (1983). English socinianism around Newton and Whiston. Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 216, 48-50.
[21]	Brockliss, L. W. B. (1992). The scientific revolution in France. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The scientific revolution in France (pp. 55-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[22]	Buchwald, J. Z., & Feingold, M. (2011). Newton and the origin of civilization. Princeton, NJ: The Princeton University Press.
[23]	Bussotti, P., & Pisano, R. (2013). On the conceptual frames in René Descartes’ physical works. Advances in Historical Studies, 2, 106- 125. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2013.23015
[24]	Calinger, R. S. (1968). The Newtonian-Wolffian confrontation in the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1725-1746). Journal of World History, 11, 417-435.
[25]	Calinger, R. S. (1969). The Newtonian-Wolffian controversy: 1740- 1759. Journal of the History of Ideas, 30, 319-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2708560
[26]	Carnot, L. (1786). Essai sur les machines en général. Dijon: Defay.
[27]	Carnot, L. (1803a). Principes fondamentaux de l’équilibre et du movement. Paris: Deterville.
[28]	Carnot, L. (1803b). Géométrie de position. Paris: Duprat.
[29]	Carnot, L. (1813). Réflexions sur la métaphysique du calcul infinitésimal. Paris: Courcier.
[30]	Carriero, J. (1990). Newton on space and time: Comments on J. E. McGuire (pp. 109-133). In P. Bricker, & R. I. G. Hughes (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on Newtonian science (pp. 109-133). Cambridge, MA, London: The MIT Press.
[31]	Casini, P. (1988). Newton’s principia and the philosophers of the enlightenment. Notes & Records of the Royal Society, 42, 35-52.
[32]	Champion, J. A. I. (1999) Acceptable to inquisitive men: Some Simonian contexts for Newton’s biblical criticism, 1680-1692. In J. E. Force, & R. H. Popkin (Eds.), Newton and religion: Context, nature, and influence (pp. 77-96). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
[33]	Chandrasekhar, S. (1995). Newton’s principia for the common reader. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[34]	Chatelet, (du) é. (1759). Isaac Newton. Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle par feu madame la Marquise du Chatelet. Paris: Desaint et Saillant.
[35]	Clark, W. (1992). The scientific revolution in the German nations. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The scientific revolution in France (pp. 55-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[36]	Clark, W. (1997). German physics textbooks in the Goethezeit. History of Science, 35, 219-239, 295-363.
[37]	Clark, W., Golinski, J., & Schaffer, S. (1997). The sciences in Enlightened Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[38]	Clarke, J. ([1730], 1972). Demonstration of some of the principal sections of Sir Isaac Newton’s principle of natural philosophy. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation.
[39]	Cohen, I. B. (1990). Newton’s method and Newton’s style. In F. Durham, & D. Purrington (Eds.), Some truer method (pp. 15-17). New York: Columbia University Press.
[40]	Coudert, A. P. (1999). Newton and the Rosicrucian Enlightenment. In J. E. Force, & R. H. Popkin (Eds.), Newton and religion: Context, nature, and influence (pp. 17-43). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
[41]	Craig, J. (1963). Isaac Newton and the counterfeiters. Notes and Re- cords of the Royal Society, 18, 136-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.1963.0017
[42]	Crasta, F. M. (1989). Aspects of eightenth–century cosmology. Memorie della Società Astronomica Italianam, 60, 823-836.
[43]	Cunningham, A., & Williams, P. (1993). Decentring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the modern origins of science. British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 407-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400031447
[44]	Darrigol, O. (2005). Worlds of flow: A history of hydrodynamics from the Bernoullis to Prandtl. Oxford: The Oxford University Press.
[45]	Darrigol, O. (2012). A history of optics: From Greek antiquity to the nineteenth century. Oxford: The Oxford University Press.
[46]	De Gandt, F. (1995). Force and geometry in Newton’s Principia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[47]	Dear, P. (1987). Jesuit mathematical science and the reconstitution of experience in the early seventeenth century. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 18, 133-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(87)90016-1
[48]	Dear, P. (1995). Discipline & experience. The mathematical way in the scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226139524.001.0001
[49]	Dear, P. (1998). The mathematical principles of natural philosophy: toward a heuristic narrative for the scientific revolution. Configurations, 6, 173-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/con.1998.0015
[50]	Desaguilers, T. (1717). Phisico-mechanical lectures. [Printed for the Author and sold by him]. London: Richard Bridger and William Vream.
[51]	Ducheyne, S. (2005). Mathematical models in Newton’s Principia: A new view of the ‘Newtonian Style’. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 19, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02698590500051035
[52]	Durham, F., & Purrington, R. D. (1990). Some Truer Method. New York: Columbia University Press.
[53]	Elliott, P. (2000). The birth of public science in the English provinces: Natural philosophy in Derby, c. 1690-1760. Annals of Science, 57, 61-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/000337900296308
[54]	Fara, P., & Money, D. (2004). Isaac Newton and Augustan Anglo-Latin poetry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 35, 549-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.007
[55]	Feingold, M. (2004). The Newtonian Moment, Isaac Newton and the making of modern culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[56]	Fellmann, E. A. (1988). The Principia and continental mathematicians. Notes & Records of the Royal Society, 42, 13-34
[57]	Ferrone, V. (1982). Scienza, natura, religione. Mondo newtoniano e cultura italiana nel primo Settecento. Napoli: Jovene.
[58]	Force, J. E. (1983). Some eminent Newtonians and providential geophysics at the turn of the 17th century. Earth Sciences History, 2, 4-10.
[59]	Force, J. E. (1985). William Whiston, honest Newtonian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[60]	Force, J. E. (2004). Providence and Newton’s Pantokrator: Natural law, miracles, and Newtonian science. In J. E. Force, & S. Hutton (Eds.), Newton and Newtonianism: New studies (pp. 65-92). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[61]	Force, J. E., & Hutton, S. (2004). Newton and Newtonianism: New studies. New York, Boston Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2238-7
[62]	Force, J. E., & Popkin, R. H. (1999). Newton and religion. context, nature and influence. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[63]	Friesen, J. (2006). Hutchinsonianism and the Newtonian Enlightenment. Centaurus, 48, 40-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.2006.00033.x
[64]	Gascoigne, J. (1988). From Bentley to the Victorians: The rise and fall of British Newtonian natural theology. Science in context, 2, 219- 256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700000582
[65]	Gaukroger, S. (1986). Philosophical responses to the New Science in Britain, 1644-1799. A survey of texts. Metascience: An Inter-national Review Journal for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, 4, 60-71.
[66]	Gillispie, C. C., & Pisano, R. (2013). Lazare and Sadi Carnot. A scientific and filial relationship. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4144-7
[67]	Goldish, M. (1998). Judaism in the theology of sir Isaac Newton. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2014-4
[68]	Goldish, M. (1999). Newton’s of the church: Its contents and implication. In J. E. Force, & R. H. Popkin (Eds.), Newton and religion: Context, nature, and influence (pp. 145-164). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
[69]	Golinski, J. (1998). Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[70]	Gregory, D. (1702). Astronomiae physicae et geometricae elementa. Oxford: Theatre Sheldonian.
[71]	Guerlac, H. (1981). Newton on the continent. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
[72]	Guerrini, A. (1985). James Keill, George Cheyne, and Newtonian physiology, 1690-1740. Journal of the History of Biology, 18, 247-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00120111
[73]	Guicciardini, N. (1989). The developments of Newtonian Calculus in Britain, 1700-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511524745
[74]	Guicciardini, N. (1998). Did Newton use his calculus in the Principia? Centaurus, 40, 303-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.1998.tb00536.x
[75]	Guicciardini, N. (1999). Reading the Principia. The debate on Newton’s mathematical methods for natural philosophy from 1687 to 1736. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511524752
[76]	Guicciardini, N. (2002). Analysis and synthesis in Newton’s mathematical work. In I. B. Cohen, & G. Smith (Eds.), Companion to Newton (pp. 308-328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[77]	Guicciardini, N. (2004). Dot-Age: Newton’s legacy in eighteenth century mathematics. Early Science and Medicine, 9, 218-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573382042176272
[78]	Guicciardini, N. (2004). Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In I. Grattan-Guinness (Ed.), Landmark Writings in Western Mathematics, Case Studies 1640-1940 (pp. 59-87). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[79]	Hall, M. B. (1978). Newton and his theory of matter in the 18th century. Vistas in Astronomy, 22, 453-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0083-6656(78)90036-3
[80]	Hampson, N. (1981). The Enlightenment in France. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The Enlightenment in National Context (pp 41-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[81]	Hankins, T. L. (1990). Newton’s mathematical way a century after the Principia. In Durham, & Purrington (Eds.), Some Truer Method (pp. 89-112). New York: Columbia University Press.
[82]	Harman, P. M. (1988). Newton to Maxwell: The Principia and British physics. Notes & Records of the Royal Society of London, 42, 75-96.
[83]	Harrison, P. (1995). Newtonian science, miracles and the laws of nature. Journal of the History of Ideas, 56, 531-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2709991
[84]	Haycock, D. B. (2004). The long-lost truth: Sir Isaac Newton and the Newtonian pursuit of ancient knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 35, 605-623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.009
[85]	Heidarzadeh, T. (2006). The reception of Newton’s theory of cometary tail formation. Centaurus, 48, 50-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.2006.00036.x
[86]	Heimann, P. M., & McGuire, J. E. (1971). Newtonian Forces and Lockean Powers: Concepts of matter in eighteenth century thought. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3, 233-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27757320
[87]	Henry, J. (1992). The scientific revolution in England. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The scientific revolution in national context (pp. 178-209). New York-Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
[88]	Hessen, B. (1931). The social and economic roots of Newton’s Principia. In N. I. Bukharin (Ed.), Science at the Cross Roads. Papers Presented to the International Congress of the History of Science and Technology, 1931. London: The Delegates of the U.S.S.R. www.russelldale.com/philmaterial/V1_Hessen.pdf
[89]	Hutton, S. (2004a). Emilie du Chatelet’s Institutions de physique as a document in the history of French Newtonianism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 35, 515-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.005
[90]	Hutton, S. (2004b). Women, science, and Newtonianism: Emilie du Chatelet versus Francesco Algarotti. In J. E. Force, & S. Hutton (Eds.), Newton and Newtonianism: New studies (pp. 183-203). New York-Boston-Dordrecht-London-Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[91]	Iliffe, R. (2004). Abstract considerations: Disciplines and the incoherence of Newton’s natural philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 35, 427-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.004
[92]	Iltis, C. (1977). Madame du Chatelet’s metaphysics and mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 8, 29-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(77)90017-6
[93]	Jackson, M. W. (1994). A spectrum of belief: Goethe’s ‘Republic’ versus Newtonian ‘Despotism’. Social Studies of Science, 24, 673-701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631279402400403
[94]	Jacob, M. C. (1976). The Newtonians and the English Revolution 1687-1720. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
[95]	Jacob, M. C. (1977). Newtonianism and the origins of the Enlightenment: A reassessment. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 11, 1-25.
[96]	Jacob, M. C. (1978). Newtonian science and the radical enlightenment. Vistas in Astronomy, 22, 545-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0083-6656(78)90046-6
[97]	Jacquier, F. (1755). Elementi di perspettiva, secondo i principii di Brook Taylor con varie aggiunte spettanti all'ottica e alla geometria. Roma: Per generoso Salomoni.
[98]	Keill, J. (1701). Introductio ad veram physicam. Oxford: Sheldonian Theathre.
[99]	King-Hele, D. G., & Rupert Hall, A. (1988). Newton’s Principia and its legacy. [Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting, 30, June 1987. London: The Royal Society of London, London]. Special Issue of the Notes & Records of the Royal Society of London, 42, 1.
[100]	Koyré, A. (1965). Newtonian studies. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.
[101]	Le Seur, T., & Jacquier, F. (1768). Elémens du calcul integral. 2 Vols. Parma: Monti.
[102]	Le Seur, T., Jacquier, F., & Boscovich, G. R. (1743). Riflessioni de' Padri Tommaso Le Seur, Francesco Jacquier de el' Ordine de' Mini-mi, e Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich della Compagnia di Gesù Sopra alcune difficoltà spettanti i danni, e Risarcimenti della Cupola Di S. Pietro. Roma: Domenico Sante Santini.
[103]	Leshem, A. (2003). Newton on mathematics and spiritual purity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[104]	Lord, F. H. (2000). Piety, politeness, and power: Formation of a Newtonian culture in New England, 1727-1779. Doctoral Dissertation, New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire [adviser: Jan Golinski].
[105]	Lüthy, C. (2000). What to do with seventeenth-century natural philosophy? A taxonomic problem. Perspectives on Science, 8, 164-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/106361400568064
[106]	Lynn, M. R. (1997). Enlightenment in the republic of science: The popularization of natural philosophy in eighteenth-century Paris. Doctoral Dissertation, Madison, WI: The University of Wiskonsin-Madison [adviser: Domenico Sella].
[107]	Malet, A. (1990). Gregoire, Descartes, Kepler and the law of refraction. Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences, 40, 278-304
[108]	Mandelbrote, S. (2004a). Newton and Newtonianism: An introduction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 35, 415-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.001
[109]	Mandelbrote, S. (2004b). Eighteenth-century reactions to Newton’s antitrinitarianism. In J. E. Force, & S. Hutton (Eds.), Newton and Newtonianism: New studies (pp. 93-111). New York-Boston-Dordrecht-London-Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers
[110]	Marcialis, M. T. (1989). Francesco Algarotti’s worldly Newtonianism. Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana, 60, 807-821.
[111]	Markley, R. (1999). Newton, Corruption, and the Tradition of Universal History. In J. E. Force, & R. H. Popkin (Eds.), Newton and religion: Context, nature, and influence (pp. 121-143). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
[112]	Mazzotti M (2004). Newton for ladies: Gentility, gender and radical culture. British Journal for the History of Science, 37, 119-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087404005400
[113]	McLaurin, C. ([1748] 1971). An account of Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophical discoveries, in four books. New York: Georg Olms Verlag.
[114]	McMullin, E. (1978). Newton in matter and activity. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
[115]	Montgomery, S. L. (2000). Science in translation: Movements of knowledge through cultures and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[116]	Munby, A. N. L. (1952). The distribution of the first edition of Newton’s Principia. Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 10, 28-39.
[117]	Newton, (1713). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Editio secunda auctior et emendatior. Cambridge: Cornelius Crown-field.
[118]	Newton, (1714). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Editio secunda auctior et emendatior. Amsterdam: Sumptibus Societatis.
[119]	Newton, I. ([1713] 1729). The mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Translated by Motte Andrew. London: Motte B.
[120]	Newton, I. ([1726] [1739-1742], 1822). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, auctore Isaaco Newtono, Eq. Aurato. Perpetuis commentariis illustrate, communi studio pp. Thomae le Seur et Francisci Jacquier ex Gallicana Minimorum Familia, matheseos professsorum. Editio nova, summa cura recemsita. A. et. Glasgow: J. Duncan.
[121]	Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Imprimatur S. Pepys. Reg. Soc. Preses. Julii 5. 1686. Londini, Jussi Societatus Regiae ac Typis Josephi Streater. Prostat apud plures Bibliopolas. Anno MDCLXXXVII
[122]	Newton, I. (1726). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Editio tertia aucta et emendate. London: Guil. and Joh. Innys.
[123]	Newton, I. (1739-1742). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, auctore Isaaco Newtono, Eq. Aurato. Perpetuis commentariis illustrate, communi studio pp. Thomae le Seur et Francisci Jacquier ex Gallicana Minimorum Familia, matheseos professorum. Geneva: Barillot et filii.
[124]	Newton, I. (1760). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, auctore Isaaco Newtono, Eq. Aurato. Perpetuis commentariis illustrate, communi studio pp. Thomae le Seur et Francisci Jacquier ex Gallicana Minimorum Familia, matheseos professorum. Editio altera longe accuratior et emendatior. Geneva: Philibert.
[125]	Newton, I. (1972). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Harvard: The Harvard University Press.
[126]	Newton, I. (1999). The principia: Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Translated by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz; preceded by ‘A guide to Newton’s Principia’ by I. Bernard Cohen. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[127]	Osler, M. (2004). The new Newtonian scholarship and the fate of the scientific revolution. In J. E. Force, & S. Hutton (Eds.), Newton and Newtonianism: New studies (pp. 1-13). New York-Boston-Dordrecht- London-Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers
[128]	Pagden, A. (1988). The reception of the ‘New Philosophy’ in eighteenth century Spain. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Insti- tutes, 51, 126-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/751266
[129]	Panza, M. (2003). Newton. Paris: Belles Lettres.
[130]	Pater C de (1994). Willem Jacob’s Gravesande (1688-1742) and Newton’s Regulae Philosophandi, 1742. Lias: Sources and Documents Relating to the Early Modern History of Ideas, 21, 257-294.
[131]	Pemberton, H. (1728). A view of Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy. London: Palmer.
[132]	Pesic, P. (2003). Abel’s Proof. An essay on the sources and meaning of mathematical unsolvability. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[133]	Phemister, P. (1993). Locke, sergeant, and scientific method. In T. Sorell (Ed.), The rise of Modern Philosophy: The tension between the new and traditional philosophies from Machiavelli to Leibniz (pp. 231-249). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[134]	Phillipson, N. (1981). The Scottish Enlightenment. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The enlightenment in national context (pp. 19-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[135]	Pisano R., & Capecchi D. (2014-Forthcoming) Tartaglia’s science weights and Mechanics in XVI century. Selection from Quesiti et inventioni diverse: Books VII-VIII. Dordrecht: Springer.
[136]	Pisano, R. (2007). Brief history of centre of gravity theory. Epistemological notes. Proceedings of 2nd Proceedings of 3rd Conference of European Society for the history of science, Krakow: Poland Academy of Science, 934-941.
[137]	Pisano, R. (2011). Physics-mathematics relationship. Historical and epistemological notes. In E. Barbin, M. Kronfellner, & C. Tzanakis (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESU 6 European Summer University History And Epistemology in Mathematics, Vienna: Verlag Holzhausen GmbH-Holzhausen Publishing Ltd., 457-472
[138]	Pisano, R. (2013). Reflections on the scientific conceptual streams in Leonardo da Vinci and his relationship with Luca Pacioli. Advances in Historical Studies, 2, 32-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2013.22007
[139]	Pisano, R. (2013a-forthcoming). On the electromagnetic theory. Lagrangian mathematical conceptual streams in Maxwell’s Physics Mathematics Relationship. Rio de Janeiro: Scientiarum Congress. Preprint.
[140]	Pisano, R. (2013b). Notes on the historical conceptual streams for mathematics and physics teaching. Pedagogika. In press.
[141]	Pisano, R. (2013c). On the principle of virtual laws and its framework in Lazare Carnot’s mechanics. Submitted to Archive Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences.
[142]	Pisano, R., & Bussotti, P. (2012). Galileo and Kepler: On theoremata circa centrum gravitatis solidorum and mysterium cosmographicum. History Research, 2, 110-145
[143]	Pisano, R., & Bussotti, P. (2013). Notes on the concept of force in Kepler. In R. Pisano, D. Capecchi, & A. Lukesová (Eds.), Physics, astronomy and engineering. Critical problems in the history of science and society. International 32nd Congress for the SISFA-Italian Society of Historians of Physics and Astronomy (pp. 337-344). Siauliai: The Scientia Socialis UAB & Scientific Methodical Centre Scientia Educologica Press, Lithuania.
[144]	Pisano, R., & Capecchi, D. (2013). Conceptual and mathematical structures of mechanical science in the western civilization around 18th century. Almagest, in press.
[145]	Pisano, R., Capecchi, D., & Lukesová, A. (2013). Physics, astronomy and engineering. Critical problems in the history of science and Society. International 32nd Congress for the SISFA-Italian Society of Historians of Physics and Astronomy. Siauliai: The Scientia Socialis UAB & Scientific Methodical Centre Scientia Educologica Press, Lithuania.
[146]	Porter, R. (1981). The Enlightenment in England. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The Enlightenment in National Context (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[147]	Porter, R., & Teich, M. (1992). The scientific revolution in national context. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139170215
[148]	Pulte, H., & Mandelbrote, S. (2011). The reception of Isaac Newton in Europe. London: Continuum, Publishing Corporation.
[149]	Purrington, R. D., & Durham, F. (1990). Newton’s Legacy. In Durham and Prurrington (Eds.), Some Truer Method (pp. 1-13). New York: Columbia University Press.
[150]	Rattansi, P. M. (1981). Voltaire and the Enlightenment image of Newton. In H. Lloyd-Jones, V. Pearl, & B. Worden (Eds.), History and imagination. Essays in honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (pp. 218-231). New York: Holmes and Mei-er.
[151]	Rouse Ball, W. W. (1893, 1972). An essay on Newton’s Principia. London: Macmillan.
[152]	Rousseau, G. S., & Porter, R. (1980). The ferment of knowledge. Studies in the historiography of eighteenth century science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511572982
[153]	Ruderman, D. (1997). On defining a Jewish stance toward Newtonianism: Eliakim ben Abraham Hart’s Wars of the Lord. Science in Context, 10, 677-692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700002866
[154]	Rupert Hall, A. (1999). Isaac Newton: Eighteenth-century perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[155]	Schama, S. (1981). The Enlightenment in the Netherlands. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The Enlightenment in National Context (pp. 54-71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[156]	Schuster, J. A. (2000). Descartes opticien: The construction of the law of refraction and the manufacture of its physical rationales, 1618-1629. In S. Gaukroger, J. Schuster, & J. Sutton (Eds.), Descartes’ natural philosophy (pp. 258-312). London and New York: Routledge.
[157]	Schuster, J. A. (2013). Descartes Agonistes: Physico-mathematics, method and corpuscular-mechanism 1618-1633. Dordrecht: Springer.
[158]	Shank, J. B. (2008). The Newton wars and the beginning of French Enlightenment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226749471.001.0001
[159]	Smolinski, R. (1999). The logic of millennial thought: Sir Isaac Newton among his contemporaries. In J. E. Force, & R. H. Popkin (Eds.), Newton and religion: Context, nature, and influence (pp. 259-289). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
[160]	Snobelen, S. (1997). Caution, conscience, and the Newtonian reformation: The public and private heresies of Newton, Clarke, and Whiston. Enlightenment and Dissent, 16, 151-184.
[161]	Snobelen, S. (1998). On Reading Isaac Newton’s Principia in the 18th Century. Endeavour, 22, 159-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9327(98)01148-X
[162]	Snobelen, S. (2004). William Whiston, Isaac Newton and the crisis of publicity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 35, 573-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.008
[163]	Stewart, L. (1992). The rise of public science: Rhetoric, technology, and natural philosophy in Newtonian Britain, 1660-1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[164]	Stewart, L. (2004). The trouble with Newton in the eighteenth century. J. E. Force, & S. Hutton (Eds.), Newton and Newtonianism: New studies (pp. 221-238). New York-Boston-Dordrecht-London-Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[165]	Taylor, S. S. B. (1981). The Enlightenment in Switzerland. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The Enlightenment in National Context (pp. 72-89). Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
[166]	Teich, M. (1981). Bohemia: From darkness into light. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The Enlightenment in National Context (pp. 141- 163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[167]	Thijssen, J. M. M. H. (1992). David Hume and John Keill and the structure of Continua. Journal of the History of Ideas, 53, 271-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2709874
[168]	Van der Wall, E. G. E. (2004). Newtonianism and religion in the Netherlands. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 35, 493-514.
[169]	Wallis, P. J., & Wallis, R. (1977). Newton and Newtoniana, 1672-1975: A bibliography. Folkstone: Dawson.
[170]	Westfall, R. S. (1958). Science and religion in seventeenth century England. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[171]	Westfall, R. S. (1971). The construction of modern science: Mechanism and mechanic. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc.
[172]	Westfall, R. S. (1983, 1995). Never at rest: A biography of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[173]	Whaley, J. (1981). The Protestant Enlightenment in Germany. In R. Porter, & M. Teich (Eds.), The enlightenment in national context (pp. 106-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[174]	Whiston, W. (1707). Praelectiones astronomicae. Charkouiae: Typis Academicis.
[175]	Wigelsworth, J. R. (2003). Competing to popularize Newtonian philosophy: John Theophilus Desaguliers and the preservation of reputation. Isis, 94, 435-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/380653
[176]	Wright, J. (1833). Commentary on Newton’s Principia, with a supplementary volume. Designed for the use of students at the university. London: Tegg.
[177]	Yolton, J. (1994). Philosophy, religion and science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. New York: University of Rochester Press. First published in 1990.
[178]	Young, B. (2004). Newtonianism and the enthusiasm of Enlightenment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 35, 645-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.06.011
[179]	Zambelli, P. (1978). Antonio Genovesi and 18th-century empiricism in Italy. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 16, 195-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hph.2008.0733
[180]	Zinsser, J. (2003). Essay Review: The ultimate commentary: A consideration of I. Bernard Cohen’s Guide to Newton’s Principia. Notes and Record of the Royal Society of London, 57, 231-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2003.0208
[181]	Zinsser, J. P. (2001). Translating Newton’s Principia: The Marquise du Chatelet’s revisions and additions for a French audience. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 55, 227-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2001.0140