Translating Newton's Principia: The Marquise du Châtelet's revisions and additions for a French audience

Notes and Records of the Royal Society

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 227-245

  Zinsser, Judith P ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009790876     PISSN: 00359149     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsnr.2001.0140     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. See, for example, S. Edwards, The divine mistress (London, Cassell, 1971) or the official French biography, René Vaillot, Madame du Châtelet (Paris, Albin Michel, 1978). For the feminist historians of science, see C. Merchant [Iltis], 'Madame du Châtelet's metaphysics and mechanics', Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 8, 28-48 (1977); L. Gardiner [Janik], 'Searching for the metaphysics of science: the structure and composition of Madame du Châtelet's Institutions de physique, 1737-1740', Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 201, 85-113 (1982).
2. See, for example, S. Edwards, The divine mistress (London, Cassell, 1971) or the official French biography, René Vaillot, Madame du Châtelet (Paris, Albin Michel, 1978). For the feminist historians of science, see C. Merchant [Iltis], 'Madame du Châtelet's metaphysics and mechanics', Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 8, 28-48 (1977); L. Gardiner [Janik], 'Searching for the metaphysics of science: the structure and composition of Madame du Châtelet's Institutions de physique, 1737-1740', Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 201, 85-113 (1982).
3. See, for example, S. Edwards, The divine mistress (London, Cassell, 1971) or the official French biography, René Vaillot, Madame du Châtelet (Paris, Albin Michel, 1978). For the feminist historians of science, see C. Merchant [Iltis], 'Madame du Châtelet's metaphysics and mechanics', Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 8, 28-48 (1977); L. Gardiner [Janik], 'Searching for the metaphysics of science: the structure and composition of Madame du Châtelet's Institutions de physique, 1737-1740', Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 201, 85-113 (1982).
4. See, for example, S. Edwards, The divine mistress (London, Cassell, 1971) or the official French biography, René Vaillot, Madame du Châtelet (Paris, Albin Michel, 1978). For the feminist historians of science, see C. Merchant [Iltis], 'Madame du Châtelet's metaphysics and mechanics', Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 8, 28-48 (1977); L. Gardiner [Janik], 'Searching for the metaphysics of science: the structure and composition of Madame du Châtelet's Institutions de physique, 1737-1740', Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 201, 85-113 (1982).
5. See, for example, P. Brunet, L'Introduction des théories de Newton en France au XVIIIe siècle (ed. Slatkine) (Geneva, 1970); A. Koyré, Newtonian studies (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965); J.L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982); or the more recent D. Gjertsen, The Newton handbook (New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), which makes no mention of the Institutions de physique in the list of works on Newton, implies that the translation was a collaborative project and attributes Du Châtelet's commentary to Clairaut. See the entries on 'Châstellet, Gabrielle-Emilie, Marquise du' and on the 'Principia'. I. Bernard Cohen in his own commentary prepared for the new English translation of the Principia, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', praises her translation as better than Motte's English version, explains that he referred to it when he himself encountered problems with wording and meaning. Even so, he credits Clairaut with exclusive authorship of all of the explanatory sections, her Commentaire. See I. Bernard Cohen, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', The Principia: mathematical principles of natural philosophy (trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz), pp. 200 (footnote 7), 236, 178 (footnote 30), 21 (footnote 33), 165 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999).
6. See, for example, P. Brunet, L'Introduction des théories de Newton en France au XVIIIe siècle (ed. Slatkine) (Geneva, 1970); A. Koyré, Newtonian studies (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965); J.L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982); or the more recent D. Gjertsen, The Newton handbook (New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), which makes no mention of the Institutions de physique in the list of works on Newton, implies that the translation was a collaborative project and attributes Du Châtelet's commentary to Clairaut. See the entries on 'Châstellet, Gabrielle-Emilie, Marquise du' and on the 'Principia'. I. Bernard Cohen in his own commentary prepared for the new English translation of the Principia, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', praises her translation as better than Motte's English version, explains that he referred to it when he himself encountered problems with wording and meaning. Even so, he credits Clairaut with exclusive authorship of all of the explanatory sections, her Commentaire. See I. Bernard Cohen, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', The Principia: mathematical principles of natural philosophy (trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz), pp. 200 (footnote 7), 236, 178 (footnote 30), 21 (footnote 33), 165 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999).
7. See, for example, P. Brunet, L'Introduction des théories de Newton en France au XVIIIe siècle (ed. Slatkine) (Geneva, 1970); A. Koyré, Newtonian studies (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965); J.L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982); or the more recent D. Gjertsen, The Newton handbook (New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), which makes no mention of the Institutions de physique in the list of works on Newton, implies that the translation was a collaborative project and attributes Du Châtelet's commentary to Clairaut. See the entries on 'Châstellet, Gabrielle-Emilie, Marquise du' and on the 'Principia'. I. Bernard Cohen in his own commentary prepared for the new English translation of the Principia, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', praises her translation as better than Motte's English version, explains that he referred to it when he himself encountered problems with wording and meaning. Even so, he credits Clairaut with exclusive authorship of all of the explanatory sections, her Commentaire. See I. Bernard Cohen, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', The Principia: mathematical principles of natural philosophy (trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz), pp. 200 (footnote 7), 236, 178 (footnote 30), 21 (footnote 33), 165 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999).
8. See, for example, P. Brunet, L'Introduction des théories de Newton en France au XVIIIe siècle (ed. Slatkine) (Geneva, 1970); A. Koyré, Newtonian studies (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965); J.L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982); or the more recent D. Gjertsen, The Newton handbook (New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), which makes no mention of the Institutions de physique in the list of works on Newton, implies that the translation was a collaborative project and attributes Du Châtelet's commentary to Clairaut. See the entries on 'Châstellet, Gabrielle-Emilie, Marquise du' and on the 'Principia'. I. Bernard Cohen in his own commentary prepared for the new English translation of the Principia, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', praises her translation as better than Motte's English version, explains that he referred to it when he himself encountered problems with wording and meaning. Even so, he credits Clairaut with exclusive authorship of all of the explanatory sections, her Commentaire. See I. Bernard Cohen, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', The Principia: mathematical principles of natural philosophy (trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz), pp. 200 (footnote 7), 236, 178 (footnote 30), 21 (footnote 33), 165 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999).
9. See, for example, P. Brunet, L'Introduction des théories de Newton en France au XVIIIe siècle (ed. Slatkine) (Geneva, 1970); A. Koyré, Newtonian studies (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965); J.L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982); or the more recent D. Gjertsen, The Newton handbook (New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), which makes no mention of the Institutions de physique in the list of works on Newton, implies that the translation was a collaborative project and attributes Du Châtelet's commentary to Clairaut. See the entries on 'Châstellet, Gabrielle-Emilie, Marquise du' and on the 'Principia'. I. Bernard Cohen in his own commentary prepared for the new English translation of the Principia, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', praises her translation as better than Motte's English version, explains that he referred to it when he himself encountered problems with wording and meaning. Even so, he credits Clairaut with exclusive authorship of all of the explanatory sections, her Commentaire. See I. Bernard Cohen, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', The Principia: mathematical principles of natural philosophy (trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz), pp. 200 (footnote 7), 236, 178 (footnote 30), 21 (footnote 33), 165 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999).
10. See, for example, P. Brunet, L'Introduction des théories de Newton en France au XVIIIe siècle (ed. Slatkine) (Geneva, 1970); A. Koyré, Newtonian studies (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965); J.L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982); or the more recent D. Gjertsen, The Newton handbook (New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), which makes no mention of the Institutions de physique in the list of works on Newton, implies that the translation was a collaborative project and attributes Du Châtelet's commentary to Clairaut. See the entries on 'Châstellet, Gabrielle-Emilie, Marquise du' and on the 'Principia'. I. Bernard Cohen in his own commentary prepared for the new English translation of the Principia, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', praises her translation as better than Motte's English version, explains that he referred to it when he himself encountered problems with wording and meaning. Even so, he credits Clairaut with exclusive authorship of all of the explanatory sections, her Commentaire. See I. Bernard Cohen, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', The Principia: mathematical principles of natural philosophy (trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz), pp. 200 (footnote 7), 236, 178 (footnote 30), 21 (footnote 33), 165 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999).
11. See, for example, P. Brunet, L'Introduction des théories de Newton en France au XVIIIe siècle (ed. Slatkine) (Geneva, 1970); A. Koyré, Newtonian studies (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965); J.L. Heilbron, Elements of early modern physics (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982); or the more recent D. Gjertsen, The Newton handbook (New York, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986), which makes no mention of the Institutions de physique in the list of works on Newton, implies that the translation was a collaborative project and attributes Du Châtelet's commentary to Clairaut. See the entries on 'Châstellet, Gabrielle-Emilie, Marquise du' and on the 'Principia'. I. Bernard Cohen in his own commentary prepared for the new English translation of the Principia, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', praises her translation as better than Motte's English version, explains that he referred to it when he himself encountered problems with wording and meaning. Even so, he credits Clairaut with exclusive authorship of all of the explanatory sections, her Commentaire. See I. Bernard Cohen, 'A guide to Newton's Principia', The Principia: mathematical principles of natural philosophy (trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz), pp. 200 (footnote 7), 236, 178 (footnote 30), 21 (footnote 33), 165 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999).
12. Cohen compared the 1756 and 1759 editions of the translation, noted considerable differences, and concluded that the 1759 version was the one intended for publication. I believe that the 1756 edition was probably done from a mixture of corrected and uncorrected proofs. For reasons that are unclear, when describing his own translation, Cohen refers only to this 1756 incomplete version. See in his 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, p. 165; I. Bernard Cohen, 'The French translation of Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1756, 1759, 1966)'. Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 21, 261-290 (1968). Taton also endeavoured to establish the chronology for composition of both the translation and the commentary. See R. Taton, 'Madame du Châtelet, traductrice de Newton'. Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 22, 185-209 (1969). On the question of chronology, see the more recent and more thorough reconstruction in R. Debever, 'La marquise du Châtelet traduit et commente les Principia de Newton', Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences 73 (5th series), 509-527 (Bruxelles, Palais des Académies, 1987). I am grateful to Olivier Courcelle for this reference.
13. Cohen compared the 1756 and 1759 editions of the translation, noted considerable differences, and concluded that the 1759 version was the one intended for publication. I believe that the 1756 edition was probably done from a mixture of corrected and uncorrected proofs. For reasons that are unclear, when describing his own translation, Cohen refers only to this 1756 incomplete version. See in his 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, p. 165; I. Bernard Cohen, 'The French translation of Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1756, 1759, 1966)'. Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 21, 261-290 (1968). Taton also endeavoured to establish the chronology for composition of both the translation and the commentary. See R. Taton, 'Madame du Châtelet, traductrice de Newton'. Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 22, 185-209 (1969). On the question of chronology, see the more recent and more thorough reconstruction in R. Debever, 'La marquise du Châtelet traduit et commente les Principia de Newton', Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences 73 (5th series), 509-527 (Bruxelles, Palais des Académies, 1987). I am grateful to Olivier Courcelle for this reference.
14. Cohen compared the 1756 and 1759 editions of the translation, noted considerable differences, and concluded that the 1759 version was the one intended for publication. I believe that the 1756 edition was probably done from a mixture of corrected and uncorrected proofs. For reasons that are unclear, when describing his own translation, Cohen refers only to this 1756 incomplete version. See in his 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, p. 165; I. Bernard Cohen, 'The French translation of Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1756, 1759, 1966)'. Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 21, 261-290 (1968). Taton also endeavoured to establish the chronology for composition of both the translation and the commentary. See R. Taton, 'Madame du Châtelet, traductrice de Newton'. Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 22, 185-209 (1969). On the question of chronology, see the more recent and more thorough reconstruction in R. Debever, 'La marquise du Châtelet traduit et commente les Principia de Newton', Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences 73 (5th series), 509-527 (Bruxelles, Palais des Académies, 1987). I am grateful to Olivier Courcelle for this reference.
15. Cohen compared the 1756 and 1759 editions of the translation, noted considerable differences, and concluded that the 1759 version was the one intended for publication. I believe that the 1756 edition was probably done from a mixture of corrected and uncorrected proofs. For reasons that are unclear, when describing his own translation, Cohen refers only to this 1756 incomplete version. See in his 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, p. 165; I. Bernard Cohen, 'The French translation of Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1756, 1759, 1966)'. Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 21, 261-290 (1968). Taton also endeavoured to establish the chronology for composition of both the translation and the commentary. See R. Taton, 'Madame du Châtelet, traductrice de Newton'. Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 22, 185-209 (1969). On the question of chronology, see the more recent and more thorough reconstruction in R. Debever, 'La marquise du Châtelet traduit et commente les Principia de Newton', Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences 73 (5th series), 509-527 (Bruxelles, Palais des Académies, 1987). I am grateful to Olivier Courcelle for this reference.
16. A number of historians of science have written about women scientists and mathematicians in the 17th and 18th centuries. See, for example, A. Cook, 'Ladies in the Scientific Revolution', Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 51, 1-12 (1997) and G. Berti Logan, 'The desire to contribute: an eighteenth-century Italian woman of science [Laura Bassi]', Am. Hist. Rev. 99, 785-812 (1994). Bassi, Du Châtelet's contemporary, held a degree from the University of Bologna and became Professor of Experimental Physics at the Institute of Sciences in recognition of her work in fluid mechanics and electricity. No evidence of any contact between the two women has been found. Other historians have explored the relationship between gender and the evolution of French scientific institutions in the 18th century. See in particular, M. Terrall, 'Gendered spaces, gendered audiences: inside and outside the Paris Academy of Sciences', Configurations 2, 207-232 (1994); and 'Emilie du Châtelet and the gendering of science', Hist. Sci. 33, 283-310 (1995). Also interesting on this subject, see chapter 7 of G. V. Sutton, Science for a polite society: gender, culture and the demonstration of enlightenment (Boulder CO, Westview Press, 1995).
17. A number of historians of science have written about women scientists and mathematicians in the 17th and 18th centuries. See, for example, A. Cook, 'Ladies in the Scientific Revolution', Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 51, 1-12 (1997) and G. Berti Logan, 'The desire to contribute: an eighteenth-century Italian woman of science [Laura Bassi]', Am. Hist. Rev. 99, 785-812 (1994). Bassi, Du Châtelet's contemporary, held a degree from the University of Bologna and became Professor of Experimental Physics at the Institute of Sciences in recognition of her work in fluid mechanics and electricity. No evidence of any contact between the two women has been found. Other historians have explored the relationship between gender and the evolution of French scientific institutions in the 18th century. See in particular, M. Terrall, 'Gendered spaces, gendered audiences: inside and outside the Paris Academy of Sciences', Configurations 2, 207-232 (1994); and 'Emilie du Châtelet and the gendering of science', Hist. Sci. 33, 283-310 (1995). Also interesting on this subject, see chapter 7 of G. V. Sutton, Science for a polite society: gender, culture and the demonstration of enlightenment (Boulder CO, Westview Press, 1995).
18. A number of historians of science have written about women scientists and mathematicians in the 17th and 18th centuries. See, for example, A. Cook, 'Ladies in the Scientific Revolution', Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 51, 1-12 (1997) and G. Berti Logan, 'The desire to contribute: an eighteenth-century Italian woman of science [Laura Bassi]', Am. Hist. Rev. 99, 785-812 (1994). Bassi, Du Châtelet's contemporary, held a degree from the University of Bologna and became Professor of Experimental Physics at the Institute of Sciences in recognition of her work in fluid mechanics and electricity. No evidence of any contact between the two women has been found. Other historians have explored the relationship between gender and the evolution of French scientific institutions in the 18th century. See in particular, M. Terrall, 'Gendered spaces, gendered audiences: inside and outside the Paris Academy of Sciences', Configurations 2, 207-232 (1994); and 'Emilie du Châtelet and the gendering of science', Hist. Sci. 33, 283-310 (1995). Also interesting on this subject, see chapter 7 of G. V. Sutton, Science for a polite society: gender, culture and the demonstration of enlightenment (Boulder CO, Westview Press, 1995).
19. A number of historians of science have written about women scientists and mathematicians in the 17th and 18th centuries. See, for example, A. Cook, 'Ladies in the Scientific Revolution', Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 51, 1-12 (1997) and G. Berti Logan, 'The desire to contribute: an eighteenth-century Italian woman of science [Laura Bassi]', Am. Hist. Rev. 99, 785-812 (1994). Bassi, Du Châtelet's contemporary, held a degree from the University of Bologna and became Professor of Experimental Physics at the Institute of Sciences in recognition of her work in fluid mechanics and electricity. No evidence of any contact between the two women has been found. Other historians have explored the relationship between gender and the evolution of French scientific institutions in the 18th century. See in particular, M. Terrall, 'Gendered spaces, gendered audiences: inside and outside the Paris Academy of Sciences', Configurations 2, 207-232 (1994); and 'Emilie du Châtelet and the gendering of science', Hist. Sci. 33, 283-310 (1995). Also interesting on this subject, see chapter 7 of G. V. Sutton, Science for a polite society: gender, culture and the demonstration of enlightenment (Boulder CO, Westview Press, 1995).
20. A number of historians of science have written about women scientists and mathematicians in the 17th and 18th centuries. See, for example, A. Cook, 'Ladies in the Scientific Revolution', Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 51, 1-12 (1997) and G. Berti Logan, 'The desire to contribute: an eighteenth-century Italian woman of science [Laura Bassi]', Am. Hist. Rev. 99, 785-812 (1994). Bassi, Du Châtelet's contemporary, held a degree from the University of Bologna and became Professor of Experimental Physics at the Institute of Sciences in recognition of her work in fluid mechanics and electricity. No evidence of any contact between the two women has been found. Other historians have explored the relationship between gender and the evolution of French scientific institutions in the 18th century. See in particular, M. Terrall, 'Gendered spaces, gendered audiences: inside and outside the Paris Academy of Sciences', Configurations 2, 207-232 (1994); and 'Emilie du Châtelet and the gendering of science', Hist. Sci. 33, 283-310 (1995). Also interesting on this subject, see chapter 7 of G. V. Sutton, Science for a polite society: gender, culture and the demonstration of enlightenment (Boulder CO, Westview Press, 1995).
21. See the review of her translation and commentary in the Journal Encyclopédique 6, partie 3, p. 4 (September 1759); Arsenal 8oH26260.
22. '...[E]lle fut bientot en état de les developper elle-même aux autres, & même d'entrer en dispute avec les plus fameux Philosophes de ce tems'. Journal Universel 10, 421 (1746); Arsenal 8oH26346.
23. The Mémoires des Trévoux in awarding her these laurels, characteristically, took no side in the argument about physics. Victory came because of 'la finesse de son ironi'. This indicated to the world of the learned that she had, in addition to mastering the literatures of the 'physiciens' and 'géomètres', of her day, achieved the style of an 'honnête homme'. As quoted in K. Kawashima, 'Madame Du Châtelet dans le journalisme'. LLULL 18, 471 (1995). For the review of the Institutions de physique, see Mémoires pour l'Histoire des Sciences & des Beaux Arts [Journal or Mémoires de Trévoux], 894-927 (1741); Arsenal 8oH26311.
24. The Mémoires des Trévoux in awarding her these laurels, characteristically, took no side in the argument about physics. Victory came because of 'la finesse de son ironi'. This indicated to the world of the learned that she had, in addition to mastering the literatures of the 'physiciens' and 'géomètres', of her day, achieved the style of an 'honnête homme'. As quoted in K. Kawashima, 'Madame Du Châtelet dans le journalisme'. LLULL 18, 471 (1995). For the review of the Institutions de physique, see Mémoires pour l'Histoire des Sciences & des Beaux Arts [Journal or Mémoires de Trévoux], 894-927 (1741); Arsenal 8oH26311.
25. From her letters, it seems that she had considered translating John Keill's Introductio ad veram astronomiae (1718). As one of the most popular explications of the theory of attraction, it would have been a way to make Newton available to a French audience. However, the Royal Astronomer, Le Monnier, sent her the page proofs of his version, and, as she explained to Père Jacquier, a co-editor of the 'Geneva' edition of the Principia, and one of her learned correspondents: 'Cet ouvrage m'a fait susprendre celui que vous savez que je méditais sur cette matière [This work made me suspend that which you knew I was planning on this material]'. Du Châtelet to Jacquier, no. 347, 12 November 1745, Lettres de la Marquise du Châtelet, vol. II (ed. Theodore Besterman), p. 143 (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1958).
26. From her letters, it seems that she had considered translating John Keill's Introductio ad veram astronomiae (1718). As one of the most popular explications of the theory of attraction, it would have been a way to make Newton available to a French audience. However, the Royal Astronomer, Le Monnier, sent her the page proofs of his version, and, as she explained to Père Jacquier, a co-editor of the 'Geneva' edition of the Principia, and one of her learned correspondents: 'Cet ouvrage m'a fait susprendre celui que vous savez que je méditais sur cette matière [This work made me suspend that which you knew I was planning on this material]'. Du Châtelet to Jacquier, no. 347, 12 November 1745, Lettres de la Marquise du Châtelet, vol. II (ed. Theodore Besterman), p. 143 (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1958).
27. The third edition of the Principia was 'prepared' by Henry Pemberton. He had planned to do a translation, but concentrated first on completing his description of Newton's work, A View of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy (1728). Motte's translation appeared the year after and became the standard version in English. Motte rendered the Latin quite literally and in unnecessarily complex language. Florian Cajori's edition of Motte, was, until Cohen and Whitman's much more readable translation, the most often reprinted version (University of California Press, 1962 edn, 2 vols). Charles Rochedieu mentions an anonymous 1729 translation of Motte's edition into French. (See C.A.E. Rochedieu, Bibliography of French translations of English works 1700-1800 (University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 229.) The 1759 reviewer of Du Châtelet's Principia and Commentaire attributes a French translation to 'm. [John] Machin' but explains that the English thought it inadequate. Journal Encyclopédique, op. cit., note 5, p. 9. As no such translation exists, these must be references to Machin's 'The Laws of the Moon's Motion according to Gravity', quoted at length in Newton's second Latin edition of the Principia and appended to Motte's 1729 English translation.
28. The third edition of the Principia was 'prepared' by Henry Pemberton. He had planned to do a translation, but concentrated first on completing his description of Newton's work, A View of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy (1728). Motte's translation appeared the year after and became the standard version in English. Motte rendered the Latin quite literally and in unnecessarily complex language. Florian Cajori's edition of Motte, was, until Cohen and Whitman's much more readable translation, the most often reprinted version (University of California Press, 1962 edn, 2 vols). Charles Rochedieu mentions an anonymous 1729 translation of Motte's edition into French. (See C.A.E. Rochedieu, Bibliography of French translations of English works 1700-1800 (University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 229.) The 1759 reviewer of Du Châtelet's Principia and Commentaire attributes a French translation to 'm. [John] Machin' but explains that the English thought it inadequate. Journal Encyclopédique, op. cit., note 5, p. 9. As no such translation exists, these must be references to Machin's 'The Laws of the Moon's Motion according to Gravity', quoted at length in Newton's second Latin edition of the Principia and appended to Motte's 1729 English translation.
29. The third edition of the Principia was 'prepared' by Henry Pemberton. He had planned to do a translation, but concentrated first on completing his description of Newton's work, A View of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy (1728). Motte's translation appeared the year after and became the standard version in English. Motte rendered the Latin quite literally and in unnecessarily complex language. Florian Cajori's edition of Motte, was, until Cohen and Whitman's much more readable translation, the most often reprinted version (University of California Press, 1962 edn, 2 vols). Charles Rochedieu mentions an anonymous 1729 translation of Motte's edition into French. (See C.A.E. Rochedieu, Bibliography of French translations of English works 1700-1800 (University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 229.) The 1759 reviewer of Du Châtelet's Principia and Commentaire attributes a French translation to 'm. [John] Machin' but explains that the English thought it inadequate. Journal Encyclopédique, op. cit., note 5, p. 9. As no such translation exists, these must be references to Machin's 'The Laws of the Moon's Motion according to Gravity', quoted at length in Newton's second Latin edition of the Principia and appended to Motte's 1729 English translation.
30. Du Châtelet scrupulously annotated her scientific treatises and books. Besterman reprints the inventory of her Paris house as Appendix D93, The complete works of Voltaire: correspondence, vol. 95 (ed. Theodore Besterman) (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1968). Déscartes's Méthode, publications of the Académie Royale des Sciences, some works on geometry and trigonometry, and an edition of Newton are listed. Voltaire's library, which may also contain some of her books, is held by the National Public Library in St Petersburg. It includes a few of the scientific works mentioned by Du Châtelet in her Commentary; for example, an edition of 'sGravesande's Physices elementa mathematica (1721-25), Opere di Galileo Galilei (1656) and Pluche's Le Spectacle de la nature (1732-46) - the last two with marginal notations by Du Châtelet. For a complete list of the Voltaire library, see M.P. Alekseev, Bibliothèque de Voltaire: catalogue des livres (Moscow, Editions de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS [sic], 1961).
31. Du Châtelet scrupulously annotated her scientific treatises and books. Besterman reprints the inventory of her Paris house as Appendix D93, The complete works of Voltaire: correspondence, vol. 95 (ed. Theodore Besterman) (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1968). Déscartes's Méthode, publications of the Académie Royale des Sciences, some works on geometry and trigonometry, and an edition of Newton are listed. Voltaire's library, which may also contain some of her books, is held by the National Public Library in St Petersburg. It includes a few of the scientific works mentioned by Du Châtelet in her Commentary; for example, an edition of 'sGravesande's Physices elementa mathematica (1721-25), Opere di Galileo Galilei (1656) and Pluche's Le Spectacle de la nature (1732-46) - the last two with marginal notations by Du Châtelet. For a complete list of the Voltaire library, see M.P. Alekseev, Bibliothèque de Voltaire: catalogue des livres (Moscow, Editions de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS [sic], 1961).
32. Du Châtelet scrupulously annotated her scientific treatises and books. Besterman reprints the inventory of her Paris house as Appendix D93, The complete works of Voltaire: correspondence, vol. 95 (ed. Theodore Besterman) (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1968). Déscartes's Méthode, publications of the Académie Royale des Sciences, some works on geometry and trigonometry, and an edition of Newton are listed. Voltaire's library, which may also contain some of her books, is held by the National Public Library in St Petersburg. It includes a few of the scientific works mentioned by Du Châtelet in her Commentary; for example, an edition of 'sGravesande's Physices elementa mathematica (1721-25), Opere di Galileo Galilei (1656) and Pluche's Le Spectacle de la nature (1732-46) - the last two with marginal notations by Du Châtelet. For a complete list of the Voltaire library, see M.P. Alekseev, Bibliothèque de Voltaire: catalogue des livres (Moscow, Editions de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS [sic], 1961).
33. Du Châtelet scrupulously annotated her scientific treatises and books. Besterman reprints the inventory of her Paris house as Appendix D93, The complete works of Voltaire: correspondence, vol. 95 (ed. Theodore Besterman) (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1968). Déscartes's Méthode, publications of the Académie Royale des Sciences, some works on geometry and trigonometry, and an edition of Newton are listed. Voltaire's library, which may also contain some of her books, is held by the National Public Library in St Petersburg. It includes a few of the scientific works mentioned by Du Châtelet in her Commentary; for example, an edition of 'sGravesande's Physices elementa mathematica (1721-25), Opere di Galileo Galilei (1656) and Pluche's Le Spectacle de la nature (1732-46) - the last two with marginal notations by Du Châtelet. For a complete list of the Voltaire library, see M.P. Alekseev, Bibliothèque de Voltaire: catalogue des livres (Moscow, Editions de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS [sic], 1961).
34. Du Châtelet scrupulously annotated her scientific treatises and books. Besterman reprints the inventory of her Paris house as Appendix D93, The complete works of Voltaire: correspondence, vol. 95 (ed. Theodore Besterman) (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1968). Déscartes's Méthode, publications of the Académie Royale des Sciences, some works on geometry and trigonometry, and an edition of Newton are listed. Voltaire's library, which may also contain some of her books, is held by the National Public Library in St Petersburg. It includes a few of the scientific works mentioned by Du Châtelet in her Commentary; for example, an edition of 'sGravesande's Physices elementa mathematica (1721-25), Opere di Galileo Galilei (1656) and Pluche's Le Spectacle de la nature (1732-46) - the last two with marginal notations by Du Châtelet. For a complete list of the Voltaire library, see M.P. Alekseev, Bibliothèque de Voltaire: catalogue des livres (Moscow, Editions de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS [sic], 1961).
35. Du Châtelet scrupulously annotated her scientific treatises and books. Besterman reprints the inventory of her Paris house as Appendix D93, The complete works of Voltaire: correspondence, vol. 95 (ed. Theodore Besterman) (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1968). Déscartes's Méthode, publications of the Académie Royale des Sciences, some works on geometry and trigonometry, and an edition of Newton are listed. Voltaire's library, which may also contain some of her books, is held by the National Public Library in St Petersburg. It includes a few of the scientific works mentioned by Du Châtelet in her Commentary; for example, an edition of 'sGravesande's Physices elementa mathematica (1721-25), Opere di Galileo Galilei (1656) and Pluche's Le Spectacle de la nature (1732-46) - the last two with marginal notations by Du Châtelet. For a complete list of the Voltaire library, see M.P. Alekseev, Bibliothèque de Voltaire: catalogue des livres (Moscow, Editions de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS [sic], 1961).
36. Du Châtelet scrupulously annotated her scientific treatises and books. Besterman reprints the inventory of her Paris house as Appendix D93, The complete works of Voltaire: correspondence, vol. 95 (ed. Theodore Besterman) (Geneva, Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1968). Déscartes's Méthode, publications of the Académie Royale des Sciences, some works on geometry and trigonometry, and an edition of Newton are listed. Voltaire's library, which may also contain some of her books, is held by the National Public Library in St Petersburg. It includes a few of the scientific works mentioned by Du Châtelet in her Commentary; for example, an edition of 'sGravesande's Physices elementa mathematica (1721-25), Opere di Galileo Galilei (1656) and Pluche's Le Spectacle de la nature (1732-46) - the last two with marginal notations by Du Châtelet. For a complete list of the Voltaire library, see M.P. Alekseev, Bibliothèque de Voltaire: catalogue des livres (Moscow, Editions de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS [sic], 1961).
37. See C.B. Paul, Science and immortality: the éloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791) (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1980). Of the 22 mathematicians, only some spent time at a 'collège', or university. Many, including Clairaut and Maupertuis, learned on their own and from a mentor. See pp. 75, 77, and Table 3, p. 76. See also D.J. Sturdy, 'Academicians in the mathematical sciences, 1702-1750'. In Science and social status: the members of the Academie des Sciences, 1666-1750, pp. 375-398 (Rochester, NY, The Boydell Press, 1995).
38. See C.B. Paul, Science and immortality: the éloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791) (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1980). Of the 22 mathematicians, only some spent time at a 'collège', or university. Many, including Clairaut and Maupertuis, learned on their own and from a mentor. See pp. 75, 77, and Table 3, p. 76. See also D.J. Sturdy, 'Academicians in the mathematical sciences, 1702-1750'. In Science and social status: the members of the Academie des Sciences, 1666-1750, pp. 375-398 (Rochester, NY, The Boydell Press, 1995).
39. See C.B. Paul, Science and immortality: the éloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791) (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1980). Of the 22 mathematicians, only some spent time at a 'collège', or university. Many, including Clairaut and Maupertuis, learned on their own and from a mentor. See pp. 75, 77, and Table 3, p. 76. See also D.J. Sturdy, 'Academicians in the mathematical sciences, 1702-1750'. In Science and social status: the members of the Academie des Sciences, 1666-1750, pp. 375-398 (Rochester, NY, The Boydell Press, 1995).
40. A style of commentary popularized by Samuel Clarke's edition of Jacques Rohault's Traité de physique. The editor wrote at length on the work but through the annotation, not as a separate text. Du Châtelet seems to have considered doing this kind of commentary, but rejected it in favour of a separate set of chapters after the translation. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 157.
41. A style of commentary popularized by Samuel Clarke's edition of Jacques Rohault's Traité de physique. The editor wrote at length on the work but through the annotation, not as a separate text. Du Châtelet seems to have considered doing this kind of commentary, but rejected it in favour of a separate set of chapters after the translation. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 157.
42. A style of commentary popularized by Samuel Clarke's edition of Jacques Rohault's Traité de physique. The editor wrote at length on the work but through the annotation, not as a separate text. Du Châtelet seems to have considered doing this kind of commentary, but rejected it in favour of a separate set of chapters after the translation. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 157.
43. Newton explained that he had modified his original plans for Book III of the Principia. Rather than give an overall prose description of the Universe, he decided on a mathematical presentation of his principles in the order in which they had come to him. He believed that this recreation of his own process of hypothesis and deduction would forestall disputes and force his readers to go beyond their preconceived notions.
44. '[J]e passe ma vie dans l'antichambre du ministre de la guerre pour obtenir un regiment pour mon fils.' Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 12 November 1745, no. 347, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 144; to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, vol. II, p. 148.
45. '[J]e passe ma vie dans l'antichambre du ministre de la guerre pour obtenir un regiment pour mon fils.' Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 12 November 1745, no. 347, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 144; to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, vol. II, p. 148.
46. '[J]e passe ma vie dans l'antichambre du ministre de la guerre pour obtenir un regiment pour mon fils.' Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 12 November 1745, no. 347, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 144; to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, vol. II, p. 148.
47. In her letters Du Châtelet writes of 'épreuves [proofs]' for this project. The manuscript of her Institutions de physique at the Bibliothèque Nationale (Ffr. 12265) includes pages in her hand, a copyist's, and corrected proofs. Voltaire also worked in this way from numerous drafts and printer's 'impressions'. He even expected his secretaries to correct his spelling, grammar, and phrasing. See P.L. Jacob, 'Le Sottisier de Voltaire', Le Moniteur du Bibliophile 3, 65-75 (1880).
48. See the 'Approbation' at the end of volume II of Isaac Newton, Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle (trans. Marquise du Châtelet) (Paris, Jacques Gaby, reprinted 1990) dated 20 December 1745, and Clairaut's letter of 21 March 1746 quoted in Taton, op. cit., note 3, pp. 197-198. Taton speculates that Clairaut made the recommendation to the royal censors on the basis of a preliminary, uncorrected version of the translation and a brief description of the commentary.
49. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 148 and to Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, vol. II, p. 149. The printing of the engravings for this project continued to hold up publication. See the 'Avertissement sur les Planches de cet Ouvrage' (1756, 1759 edns), which ascribes delay to the 'figures' and to 'd'autres obstacles qu'on ne pouvoit pas prévoir [to other obstacles that one could not have foreseen]', Du Châtelet translation, Principia, vol. I, p. xl. Even with the delays, 'figures' in the final 1759 edition do not always correspond exactly to those of Newton's third edition. See, for example, Book I, section IV, proposition XIX figs 31 32 and 35, where solid and dotted lines differ; Book I, section VIII fig. 85 with two extra lines; Book II, section IX, fig. 56 with all the lines made solid. On the accuracy of printed versions of drawings in the Principia and other works by Newton, see introductory remarks to Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (ed. A. Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen with the assistance of A. Whitman), vol. I, pp. xxxii-xxxiv (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972) and J.A. Lohne, 'The increasing corruption of Newton's diagrams', Hist. Sci. 6, 69-89 (1967).
50. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 148 and to Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, vol. II, p. 149. The printing of the engravings for this project continued to hold up publication. See the 'Avertissement sur les Planches de cet Ouvrage' (1756, 1759 edns), which ascribes delay to the 'figures' and to 'd'autres obstacles qu'on ne pouvoit pas prévoir [to other obstacles that one could not have foreseen]', Du Châtelet translation, Principia, vol. I, p. xl. Even with the delays, 'figures' in the final 1759 edition do not always correspond exactly to those of Newton's third edition. See, for example, Book I, section IV, proposition XIX figs 31 32 and 35, where solid and dotted lines differ; Book I, section VIII fig. 85 with two extra lines; Book II, section IX, fig. 56 with all the lines made solid. On the accuracy of printed versions of drawings in the Principia and other works by Newton, see introductory remarks to Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (ed. A. Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen with the assistance of A. Whitman), vol. I, pp. xxxii-xxxiv (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972) and J.A. Lohne, 'The increasing corruption of Newton's diagrams', Hist. Sci. 6, 69-89 (1967).
51. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 148 and to Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, vol. II, p. 149. The printing of the engravings for this project continued to hold up publication. See the 'Avertissement sur les Planches de cet Ouvrage' (1756, 1759 edns), which ascribes delay to the 'figures' and to 'd'autres obstacles qu'on ne pouvoit pas prévoir [to other obstacles that one could not have foreseen]', Du Châtelet translation, Principia, vol. I, p. xl. Even with the delays, 'figures' in the final 1759 edition do not always correspond exactly to those of Newton's third edition. See, for example, Book I, section IV, proposition XIX figs 31 32 and 35, where solid and dotted lines differ; Book I, section VIII fig. 85 with two extra lines; Book II, section IX, fig. 56 with all the lines made solid. On the accuracy of printed versions of drawings in the Principia and other works by Newton, see introductory remarks to Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (ed. A. Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen with the assistance of A. Whitman), vol. I, pp. xxxii-xxxiv (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972) and J.A. Lohne, 'The increasing corruption of Newton's diagrams', Hist. Sci. 6, 69-89 (1967).
52. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 148 and to Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, vol. II, p. 149. The printing of the engravings for this project continued to hold up publication. See the 'Avertissement sur les Planches de cet Ouvrage' (1756, 1759 edns), which ascribes delay to the 'figures' and to 'd'autres obstacles qu'on ne pouvoit pas prévoir [to other obstacles that one could not have foreseen]', Du Châtelet translation, Principia, vol. I, p. xl. Even with the delays, 'figures' in the final 1759 edition do not always correspond exactly to those of Newton's third edition. See, for example, Book I, section IV, proposition XIX figs 31 32 and 35, where solid and dotted lines differ; Book I, section VIII fig. 85 with two extra lines; Book II, section IX, fig. 56 with all the lines made solid. On the accuracy of printed versions of drawings in the Principia and other works by Newton, see introductory remarks to Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (ed. A. Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen with the assistance of A. Whitman), vol. I, pp. xxxii-xxxiv (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972) and J.A. Lohne, 'The increasing corruption of Newton's diagrams', Hist. Sci. 6, 69-89 (1967).
53. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 148 and to Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, vol. II, p. 149. The printing of the engravings for this project continued to hold up publication. See the 'Avertissement sur les Planches de cet Ouvrage' (1756, 1759 edns), which ascribes delay to the 'figures' and to 'd'autres obstacles qu'on ne pouvoit pas prévoir [to other obstacles that one could not have foreseen]', Du Châtelet translation, Principia, vol. I, p. xl. Even with the delays, 'figures' in the final 1759 edition do not always correspond exactly to those of Newton's third edition. See, for example, Book I, section IV, proposition XIX figs 31 32 and 35, where solid and dotted lines differ; Book I, section VIII fig. 85 with two extra lines; Book II, section IX, fig. 56 with all the lines made solid. On the accuracy of printed versions of drawings in the Principia and other works by Newton, see introductory remarks to Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (ed. A. Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen with the assistance of A. Whitman), vol. I, pp. xxxii-xxxiv (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972) and J.A. Lohne, 'The increasing corruption of Newton's diagrams', Hist. Sci. 6, 69-89 (1967).
54. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 148 and to Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, vol. II, p. 149. The printing of the engravings for this project continued to hold up publication. See the 'Avertissement sur les Planches de cet Ouvrage' (1756, 1759 edns), which ascribes delay to the 'figures' and to 'd'autres obstacles qu'on ne pouvoit pas prévoir [to other obstacles that one could not have foreseen]', Du Châtelet translation, Principia, vol. I, p. xl. Even with the delays, 'figures' in the final 1759 edition do not always correspond exactly to those of Newton's third edition. See, for example, Book I, section IV, proposition XIX figs 31 32 and 35, where solid and dotted lines differ; Book I, section VIII fig. 85 with two extra lines; Book II, section IX, fig. 56 with all the lines made solid. On the accuracy of printed versions of drawings in the Principia and other works by Newton, see introductory remarks to Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (ed. A. Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen with the assistance of A. Whitman), vol. I, pp. xxxii-xxxiv (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972) and J.A. Lohne, 'The increasing corruption of Newton's diagrams', Hist. Sci. 6, 69-89 (1967).
55. See Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 17 December 1745, no. 351, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, 148 and to Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, vol. II, p. 149. The printing of the engravings for this project continued to hold up publication. See the 'Avertissement sur les Planches de cet Ouvrage' (1756, 1759 edns), which ascribes delay to the 'figures' and to 'd'autres obstacles qu'on ne pouvoit pas prévoir [to other obstacles that one could not have foreseen]', Du Châtelet translation, Principia, vol. I, p. xl. Even with the delays, 'figures' in the final 1759 edition do not always correspond exactly to those of Newton's third edition. See, for example, Book I, section IV, proposition XIX figs 31 32 and 35, where solid and dotted lines differ; Book I, section VIII fig. 85 with two extra lines; Book II, section IX, fig. 56 with all the lines made solid. On the accuracy of printed versions of drawings in the Principia and other works by Newton, see introductory remarks to Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (ed. A. Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen with the assistance of A. Whitman), vol. I, pp. xxxii-xxxiv (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972) and J.A. Lohne, 'The increasing corruption of Newton's diagrams', Hist. Sci. 6, 69-89 (1967).
56. These are the 'tourbillons', flowing ether-like liquids, that carried the planets in their orbits. Book II of the Principia on the motion of bodies 'in resisting mediums' specifically addresses this hypothesis. Note that Du Châtelet, unlike Motte for his English edition, did not translate the 1728 version of De mundi systemate liber. Her commentary would serve the same purpose. Cohen and Whitman made the same choice in their edition.
57. BN Ffr. 12266 includes Principia: Definitions, Axioms, Book I on Mouvement des Corps, Book III Sistême du monde; FFr12267 includes Principia: Newton's Prefaces to 1st, 2nd, 3rd editions, Cotes's Preface, Book II.
58. The issue was whether or not 'Newton's variables reach their limits'. Jurin and Du Châtelet said 'yes', Pemberton and later D'Alembert said 'no'. F. Cajori, The Mathematical Gazette 862 (V.2, b), p. 252. Gerard Emch has noted the care with which Du Châtelet translated Book II, propositions XLVIIl-L on the speed of sound, a famous example of Newton's efforts to explain a disparity between mathematical and experimental results. G. Emch and A. Emch-Deriaz, 'Is Madame du Châtelet's a fair presentation of Newton's Principia?', International Congress on the Enlightenment, Dublin, 29 July 1999. On this disparity, see also Motte's translation, op. cit., note 9, footnote 38, II, pp. 661-662; and of this and other similar propositions, Cohen, 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, pp. 361-362, 369, 184-186 and R.S. Westfall, 'Newton and the fudge factor', Science 179, 751-758 (1973).
59. The issue was whether or not 'Newton's variables reach their limits'. Jurin and Du Châtelet said 'yes', Pemberton and later D'Alembert said 'no'. F. Cajori, The Mathematical Gazette 862 (V.2, b), p. 252. Gerard Emch has noted the care with which Du Châtelet translated Book II, propositions XLVIIl-L on the speed of sound, a famous example of Newton's efforts to explain a disparity between mathematical and experimental results. G. Emch and A. Emch-Deriaz, 'Is Madame du Châtelet's a fair presentation of Newton's Principia?', International Congress on the Enlightenment, Dublin, 29 July 1999. On this disparity, see also Motte's translation, op. cit., note 9, footnote 38, II, pp. 661-662; and of this and other similar propositions, Cohen, 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, pp. 361-362, 369, 184-186 and R.S. Westfall, 'Newton and the fudge factor', Science 179, 751-758 (1973).
60. The issue was whether or not 'Newton's variables reach their limits'. Jurin and Du Châtelet said 'yes', Pemberton and later D'Alembert said 'no'. F. Cajori, The Mathematical Gazette 862 (V.2, b), p. 252. Gerard Emch has noted the care with which Du Châtelet translated Book II, propositions XLVIIl-L on the speed of sound, a famous example of Newton's efforts to explain a disparity between mathematical and experimental results. G. Emch and A. Emch-Deriaz, 'Is Madame du Châtelet's a fair presentation of Newton's Principia?', International Congress on the Enlightenment, Dublin, 29 July 1999. On this disparity, see also Motte's translation, op. cit., note 9, footnote 38, II, pp. 661-662; and of this and other similar propositions, Cohen, 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, pp. 361-362, 369, 184-186 and R.S. Westfall, 'Newton and the fudge factor', Science 179, 751-758 (1973).
61. The issue was whether or not 'Newton's variables reach their limits'. Jurin and Du Châtelet said 'yes', Pemberton and later D'Alembert said 'no'. F. Cajori, The Mathematical Gazette 862 (V.2, b), p. 252. Gerard Emch has noted the care with which Du Châtelet translated Book II, propositions XLVIIl-L on the speed of sound, a famous example of Newton's efforts to explain a disparity between mathematical and experimental results. G. Emch and A. Emch-Deriaz, 'Is Madame du Châtelet's a fair presentation of Newton's Principia?', International Congress on the Enlightenment, Dublin, 29 July 1999. On this disparity, see also Motte's translation, op. cit., note 9, footnote 38, II, pp. 661-662; and of this and other similar propositions, Cohen, 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, pp. 361-362, 369, 184-186 and R.S. Westfall, 'Newton and the fudge factor', Science 179, 751-758 (1973).
62. The issue was whether or not 'Newton's variables reach their limits'. Jurin and Du Châtelet said 'yes', Pemberton and later D'Alembert said 'no'. F. Cajori, The Mathematical Gazette 862 (V.2, b), p. 252. Gerard Emch has noted the care with which Du Châtelet translated Book II, propositions XLVIIl-L on the speed of sound, a famous example of Newton's efforts to explain a disparity between mathematical and experimental results. G. Emch and A. Emch-Deriaz, 'Is Madame du Châtelet's a fair presentation of Newton's Principia?', International Congress on the Enlightenment, Dublin, 29 July 1999. On this disparity, see also Motte's translation, op. cit., note 9, footnote 38, II, pp. 661-662; and of this and other similar propositions, Cohen, 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, pp. 361-362, 369, 184-186 and R.S. Westfall, 'Newton and the fudge factor', Science 179, 751-758 (1973).
63. In Book III see, for example, her translation of Newton's introduction, the statement of his rules of reasoning, and the concluding 'Scholie Generale', BN Ffr. 12266, pp. 280-283v, 450v-455v and 480-482. [Note that the cahiers have been bound out of order and thus the pages are out of sequence.] It is probably these longer prose sections that prompted her editor in the 'Avertissement' to suggest that much was 'plus intelligible dans cette traduction que dans l'original; et même dans la traduction Angloise [more intelligible in this translation than in the original; or even in the English translation]'. See, 'Avertissement de l'Editeur', Du Châtelet Principia, op. cit., note 17, vol. I, p. i. Olivier Courcelle told me of the thesis by Marie-Françoise Biarnais, 'Les Principia de Newton et "leurs traductions" Françaises au milieu du XVIIIe Siècle' (Paris, 1981). It makes a study of the differences between the manuscript translation and the Latin text of the Principia. I have not yet had the opportunity to consult it.
64. In Book III see, for example, her translation of Newton's introduction, the statement of his rules of reasoning, and the concluding 'Scholie Generale', BN Ffr. 12266, pp. 280-283v, 450v-455v and 480-482. [Note that the cahiers have been bound out of order and thus the pages are out of sequence.] It is probably these longer prose sections that prompted her editor in the 'Avertissement' to suggest that much was 'plus intelligible dans cette traduction que dans l'original; et même dans la traduction Angloise [more intelligible in this translation than in the original; or even in the English translation]'. See, 'Avertissement de l'Editeur', Du Châtelet Principia, op. cit., note 17, vol. I, p. i. Olivier Courcelle told me of the thesis by Marie-Françoise Biarnais, 'Les Principia de Newton et "leurs traductions" Françaises au milieu du XVIIIe Siècle' (Paris, 1981). It makes a study of the differences between the manuscript translation and the Latin text of the Principia. I have not yet had the opportunity to consult it.
65. In Book III see, for example, her translation of Newton's introduction, the statement of his rules of reasoning, and the concluding 'Scholie Generale', BN Ffr. 12266, pp. 280-283v, 450v-455v and 480-482. [Note that the cahiers have been bound out of order and thus the pages are out of sequence.] It is probably these longer prose sections that prompted her editor in the 'Avertissement' to suggest that much was 'plus intelligible dans cette traduction que dans l'original; et même dans la traduction Angloise [more intelligible in this translation than in the original; or even in the English translation]'. See, 'Avertissement de l'Editeur', Du Châtelet Principia, op. cit., note 17, vol. I, p. i. Olivier Courcelle told me of the thesis by Marie-Françoise Biarnais, 'Les Principia de Newton et "leurs traductions" Françaises au milieu du XVIIIe Siècle' (Paris, 1981). It makes a study of the differences between the manuscript translation and the Latin text of the Principia. I have not yet had the opportunity to consult it.
66. Contemporaries did not question her authorship of the translation and of the commentary, though all mentioned that Clairaut reviewed her work, a fact she readily acknowledged in her letters. Subsequent historians of science and Voltaire scholars, like Ira O. Wade and I. Bernard Cohen, have ascribed the whole commentary to Clairaut in one way or another. See I.O. Wade, The intellectual development of Voltaire (Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 437. As previously mentioned, Gjertsen credits Clairaut with a collaborative role in the translation as well. See note 38 below for more on Clairaut's role and the identity of the author of the 'Avertissement de l'Editeur'. Some literary scholars have hinted that Voltaire might have been the editor, however, he was not knowledgeable enough to have done this. He supplied the 'Préface historique', his 'éloge' for Mme du Châtelet.
67. BN Ffr.12268 contains the manuscript versions of only part of the Commentaire: the 'Solution analytique' I-IV, and the 'Table des matières' for each section. The 'Exposition abrégée', and section V of the 'Solution analytique' on the tides, are missing.
68. Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, II, Lettres, op. cit., note 8. p. 157; 'le chemin qu'il a suivi pour parvenir a cette découverte', 'Exposition', Chapter II, XX, II, p. 43 .
69. Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, II, Lettres, op. cit., note 8. p. 157; 'le chemin qu'il a suivi pour parvenir a cette découverte', 'Exposition', Chapter II, XX, II, p. 43 .
70. 'M. Newton a composé ce Livre pour détruire les tourbillons de Déscartes.' The sentences in the text offer more words, but with the same meaning: 'Ce second Livre ... paroit avoir été destiné a détruire le système des tourbillons...?. Du Châtelet 'Exposition', Introduction, XVI, II, p. 9.
71. 'M. Newton a composé ce Livre pour détruire les tourbillons de Déscartes.' The sentences in the text offer more words, but with the same meaning: 'Ce second Livre ... paroit avoir été destiné a détruire le système des tourbillons...?. Du Châtelet 'Exposition', Introduction, XVI, II, p. 9.
72. 'Ce Jesuite ayant être dire à son Supérieur qu'il avoit découvert des taches dans le Soleil, celui-ci lui répondit gravement cela est impossible, j'ai lû deux ou trois fois Aristote, & je n'y ai rein trouvé de semblable.' Du Châtelet, 'Exposition', Chapter I, II, footnote p. 21.
73. 'Ce Jesuite ayant être dire à son Supérieur qu'il avoit découvert des taches dans le Soleil, celui-ci lui répondit gravement cela est impossible, j'ai lû deux ou trois fois Aristote, & je n'y ai rein trouvé de semblable.' Du Châtelet, 'Exposition', Chapter I, II, footnote p. 21.
74. Du Châtelet, 'Exposition', Chapter VI, vol. II, p. 110; Chapter VII [Des Cométes], II, p. 112.
75. Du Châtelet, 'Exposition', Chapter VI, vol. II, p. 110; Chapter VII [Des Cométes], II, p. 112.
76. In Book I of the Principia, Newton gave geometric proofs of all of his basic propositions concerning the behaviour of bodies, of all kinds of shapes, why and how they moved as a result of the laws of gravity and attraction. As Du Châtelet explained in her 'Exposition abrégée', he gave general propositions and then applied them to a number of different cases. This was Newton's own version of Euclidian geometry and Déscartes's analytic geometry taken to its highest form. Du Châtelet, in this section of the 'Solution analytique' of her Commentaire, translates these propositions into algebraic equivalents through calculus. Du Châtelet makes specific reference to the sections of Book I of the Principia that match each of her analytic solutions: see especially, Sections II, Determination of centripetal forces; III, Motion of bodies in eccentric conic sections; IV, Determination of elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic orbits from the focus given; V, Determination of orbits when neither focus is given; VII, Rectilinear ascent and descent of bodies; IX, Motion of bodies in movable orbits and the motion of the apsides. On what Bernard Cohen calls 'the Newtonian style', Newton's use of geometry and calculus, and how to follow his mathematics and method of argument, see Chapter 10, 'How to Read the Principia', 'Guide', op. cit., note 2, pp. 293-368. I am grateful to Sir Alan Cook for his patient explanations of Newton's Principia and to Carson Roberts who helped me puzzle out the correlations between Book I of the Principia and this part of Du Châtelet's Commentaire.
77. '[M]ettre le systême de M. Newton dans tout son jour, & da le perfectionner.' Du Châtelet, 'Solution analytique', Section IV, II, p. 260.
78. Although Du Châtelet quotes at length, she gives her own version of both essays, even altering the order of the argument. For example, Bernoulli begins his description of hydrostatics with the Moon, Du Châtelet begins with the Sun. This is unlike the practice followed by Jacquier and LeSeur in their edition of the Principia in which they simply reprinted entire essays as appendices. Note that they also chose Bernoulli's essay, and included those by the other two prize winners of that particular competition, Leonhard Euler, F.R.S., and Colin MacLaurin, F.R.S. Newton, like Du Châtelet, quoted the work of others; see Bernard Cohen's 'Guide', in which he describes Newton's additions, of Machin, and particularly of new observational data, op. cit., note 2, chapters 6, 7 and 8.
79. '[S]ont aprés le systême du monde.' In the same letter, she explained to Jacquier that Clairaut agreed 'qu'il sera de quelque utilité [that it would be somewhat useful for her to write on his essay]' given that 'l'Académie fait attendre bien longtemps ses mémoires [the Academy delayed publication of its memoirs for some time]'. Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 157. Note that she focused in her explanation on Clairaut's chapters I-IV, XI, XXIV-XXVIII, XXIX-XLI, XLV. This portion of the manuscript, Section IV of the 'Solution analytique', is the only example of the way in which Clairaut 'checked' her précis of his treatise (or the Commentaire as a whole). In a number of places in the manuscript at the Bibliothèque Nationale, he has extended the calculations, given one or two more sentences of explanation, or added an additional short paragraph. These seem to be the kinds of changes that he made. See, for example, BN Ffr. 12268, 111bis, 114, 117, 120bis, 123, 129. His notations appear nowhere else. I am grateful to Olivier Courcelle for supplying me with copies of Clairaut's handwriting. Note that Taton seems to have missed this change in handwriting. See Taton, op. cit., note 3, footnote 101, p. 208.
80. '[S]ont aprés le systême du monde.' In the same letter, she explained to Jacquier that Clairaut agreed 'qu'il sera de quelque utilité [that it would be somewhat useful for her to write on his essay]' given that 'l'Académie fait attendre bien longtemps ses mémoires [the Academy delayed publication of its memoirs for some time]'. Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 157. Note that she focused in her explanation on Clairaut's chapters I-IV, XI, XXIV-XXVIII, XXIX-XLI, XLV. This portion of the manuscript, Section IV of the 'Solution analytique', is the only example of the way in which Clairaut 'checked' her précis of his treatise (or the Commentaire as a whole). In a number of places in the manuscript at the Bibliothèque Nationale, he has extended the calculations, given one or two more sentences of explanation, or added an additional short paragraph. These seem to be the kinds of changes that he made. See, for example, BN Ffr. 12268, 111bis, 114, 117, 120bis, 123, 129. His notations appear nowhere else. I am grateful to Olivier Courcelle for supplying me with copies of Clairaut's handwriting. Note that Taton seems to have missed this change in handwriting. See Taton, op. cit., note 3, footnote 101, p. 208.
81. '[S]ont aprés le systême du monde.' In the same letter, she explained to Jacquier that Clairaut agreed 'qu'il sera de quelque utilité [that it would be somewhat useful for her to write on his essay]' given that 'l'Académie fait attendre bien longtemps ses mémoires [the Academy delayed publication of its memoirs for some time]'. Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 157. Note that she focused in her explanation on Clairaut's chapters I-IV, XI, XXIV-XXVIII, XXIX-XLI, XLV. This portion of the manuscript, Section IV of the 'Solution analytique', is the only example of the way in which Clairaut 'checked' her précis of his treatise (or the Commentaire as a whole). In a number of places in the manuscript at the Bibliothèque Nationale, he has extended the calculations, given one or two more sentences of explanation, or added an additional short paragraph. These seem to be the kinds of changes that he made. See, for example, BN Ffr. 12268, 111bis, 114, 117, 120bis, 123, 129. His notations appear nowhere else. I am grateful to Olivier Courcelle for supplying me with copies of Clairaut's handwriting. Note that Taton seems to have missed this change in handwriting. See Taton, op. cit., note 3, footnote 101, p. 208.
82. '[S]ont aprés le systême du monde.' In the same letter, she explained to Jacquier that Clairaut agreed 'qu'il sera de quelque utilité [that it would be somewhat useful for her to write on his essay]' given that 'l'Académie fait attendre bien longtemps ses mémoires [the Academy delayed publication of its memoirs for some time]'. Du Châtelet to Jacquier, 1 July 1747, no. 361, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 157. Note that she focused in her explanation on Clairaut's chapters I-IV, XI, XXIV-XXVIII, XXIX-XLI, XLV. This portion of the manuscript, Section IV of the 'Solution analytique', is the only example of the way in which Clairaut 'checked' her précis of his treatise (or the Commentaire as a whole). In a number of places in the manuscript at the Bibliothèque Nationale, he has extended the calculations, given one or two more sentences of explanation, or added an additional short paragraph. These seem to be the kinds of changes that he made. See, for example, BN Ffr. 12268, 111bis, 114, 117, 120bis, 123, 129. His notations appear nowhere else. I am grateful to Olivier Courcelle for supplying me with copies of Clairaut's handwriting. Note that Taton seems to have missed this change in handwriting. See Taton, op. cit., note 3, footnote 101, p. 208.
83. See her 'Lettre sur les Elémens de la Philosophie de Newton', Journal des Sçavans, 534-541 (Septembre 1738); Arsenal 4oH8909.
84. '[I]l ne reste a présent qu'a developper cette cause, a en tirer toutes les conséquences, & en calculer les effects'; 'Je me suis sur tout attachée à ... celle de M. [Daniel] Bernoulli, dans laquelle il m'a paru trouver plus d'ordre, de nettete & de précision'. Du Châtelet, 'Solution analytique', Section V, vol. II, pp. 260, 261. Her version of Bernoulli's essay is more descriptive than mathematical, and thus does not exhibit the same obvious similarities as her account of Clairaut's essay. Note that the fullest explanation of the tides came at the end of the 18th century with Joseph-Louis Lagrange's Mécanique analytique (1788).
85. '[I]l ne reste a présent qu'a developper cette cause, a en tirer toutes les conséquences, & en calculer les effects'; 'Je me suis sur tout attachée à ... celle de M. [Daniel] Bernoulli, dans laquelle il m'a paru trouver plus d'ordre, de nettete & de précision'. Du Châtelet, 'Solution analytique', Section V, vol. II, pp. 260, 261. Her version of Bernoulli's essay is more descriptive than mathematical, and thus does not exhibit the same obvious similarities as her account of Clairaut's essay. Note that the fullest explanation of the tides came at the end of the 18th century with Joseph-Louis Lagrange's Mécanique analytique (1788).
86. '[I]l ne reste a présent qu'a developper cette cause, a en tirer toutes les conséquences, & en calculer les effects'; 'Je me suis sur tout attachée à ... celle de M. [Daniel] Bernoulli, dans laquelle il m'a paru trouver plus d'ordre, de nettete & de précision'. Du Châtelet, 'Solution analytique', Section V, vol. II, pp. 260, 261. Her version of Bernoulli's essay is more descriptive than mathematical, and thus does not exhibit the same obvious similarities as her account of Clairaut's essay. Note that the fullest explanation of the tides came at the end of the 18th century with Joseph-Louis Lagrange's Mécanique analytique (1788).
87. '[L]es personnes qui auront eu tous les secours que je leur ai donné par les détails dans lesquels je suis entrée, entendront facilement ce Chapître dans l'ouvrage même'. Du Châtelet, 'Solution analytique', Section IV, vol. II, p. 259. Note that this was Newton's intention in Book III of the Principia: an explanation of observed phenomena with references back to the geometric modes and analytical solutions of Books I and II for more learned readers to explore. See notes 13 and 28.
88. '[L]e Latin de m. Neuton en est une des difficultés'. Du Châtelet to J. Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 149; 'il en coute toujours quelques fatiques a lire des choses abstraites dans une langue étrangère...'. 'Le Français qui est la Langue courante de l'Europe, & qui s'est enrichi de toutes ces expressions nouvelles & nécessaires, est beaucoup plus propre que le Latin a répandre dans le monde toutes ces connaissances nouvelles'. 'Préface historique', Du Châtelet, Principia, vol. I, p. ix.
89. '[L]e Latin de m. Neuton en est une des difficultés'. Du Châtelet to J. Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, Du Châtelet Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 149; 'il en coute toujours quelques fatiques a lire des choses abstraites dans une langue étrangère...'. 'Le Français qui est la Langue courante de l'Europe, & qui s'est enrichi de toutes ces expressions nouvelles & nécessaires, est beaucoup plus propre que le Latin a répandre dans le monde toutes ces connaissances nouvelles'. 'Préface historique', Du Châtelet, Principia, vol. I, p. ix.
90. '[P]aroît la seule qui puisse vraiment satisfaire dans une recherche de cette nature'. Du Châtelet referring to the problem of three bodies, 'Exposition abrégée', chapter VI, vol. II, p. 110. I am grateful to Carson Roberts for a long lesson on Du Châtelet's use of calculus and thus my appreciation of her statement.
91. Note that my picture of the last months of Du Châtelet's life differs from that of other historians some of whom suggest that she played a minimal role in the translation and either did not write the Commentaire, or was unable to complete it. See note 2 above. I believe that she had, in fact, not only finished the translation and commentary, but also the page proofs of the translation, and probably of the commentary as well, by the time of her death. References in the manuscript texts of both the 'Exposition abrégée' and 'Solution analytique' to specific pages as they appeared in the 1759 published translation of the Principia indicate that she must have had proofs of the translation of Books I and II and probably of Book III. She could not have included the pages corresponding to the printed text in any other way. Thus, I believe that she had completed both the draft and the proofs of her translation. A note to abbé Salier (the Royal Librarian) appended to Ffr. 12267 (the translation of Book II, Newton's Prefaces and Cotes's Preface to the Principia), traditionally dated ca. 1 September 1749, confirms this premise. The numbering of the manuscripts could indicate that she had previously deposited Ffr. 12266 (Books I and III, Definitions, Axioms), perhaps as early as 1747 or 1748. All historians agree that she began writing her Commentaire in 1746. Du Châtelet's letters in the spring and summer of 1749 make it clear that she was determined to finish it before going to Lunéville (the court of the Duke of Lorraine) for the birth of her child. On the progress as reflected in her letters, see Du Châtelet to Boufflers, 10 May [1749], no. 467, Du Châtelet, Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol, II, p. 280; Du Châtelet to Saint-Lambert, [10 June 1749], no. 475, ibid., vol. II, p. 292. A receipt from the Royal Librarian dated 10 September included in the Parisian inventory of Du Châtelet's estate could indicate her completion of the page proofs of the Commentaire. The receipt lists 'trois paquets qui contiennent le commentaire de mad. de sur le livre des principes mathematiques de Neuton'. If the 'trois paquets' were later bound together as Ffr. 12268 (the 'Solution analytique' and the 'Table des Matières' of the Commentaire), this could mean that she no longer needed the manuscript because she had finished checking the printer's proofs against her handwritten version.
92. The identity of the author of the 'Avertissement de l'Editeur' in volume I of Du Châtelet's translation remains a mystery. Given comments about Clairaut in the 'Avertissement', Simon Schaffer and I believe he is unlikely to have written it. For example, the 'Editeur' notes that nothing has been included of Clairaut's theory of secondary planets, the subject of his prize-winning essay for the St Petersburg Academy of Science for 1751 ['Théorie de la lune deduite d'un seul principe de l'attraction']. Had he been the editor (or the author) he surely would have included this in a 1756/59 explanation of the system of the world. See 'Avertissement'. Du Châtelet, Principia, op. cit., note 17, vol. I, pp. iii-iv. Sir Alan Cook agrees that had Clairaut prepared the 1756/59 editions, he would have made revisions of the 'Exposition abrégée' and perhaps additions to the section of the 'Solution analytique' describing his own work. Sir Alan Cook, personal communication, 8 September 2000.
93. Debever quotes Voltaire's letter of 25 June 1751 to Michel Lambert, Du Châtelet's publisher, asking for the book, thus suggesting that he was not involved in the project at that time; Debever, op. cit., note 3, p. 520.
94. The reasons for the delay in publication remain unexplained. The publishers ascribed it to the preparation of the drawings. See note 18. The review of Du Châtelet's work in the Journal Encyclopédique of September 1759 mentioned 'contretems [obstacles]', as the reason it was not published before: Journal Encyclopédique 6, partie 3 (September 1759). I am grateful to Simon Schaffer for alerting me to the coincidence of circumstances and the significance of the translation to the dispute on the comets. Unquestionably, this was the reason it was finally brought out. On the excitement, the rush to finish the calculations before the return of the comet and Clairaut's consciously engineered propaganda campaign in favour of his own work, see C.B. Waff, 'Comet Halley's first expected return: English public apprehensions, 1755-58', J. Hist. Astron. 17 (part 1), 1-37 (1986); S. Schaffer, 'Halley Delisle and the making of the comet', and Waff, 'The first international Halley watch: guiding the world-wide search for comet Halley, 1755-1759'. In Standing on the shoulders of giants: a longer view of Newton and Halley (ed. N.J.W. Thrower), pp. 373-411, 254-292 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990); C. Wilson, 'Clairaut's calculation of the eighteenth-century return of Halley's comet', J. Hist. Astron. 24 (part 1), 1-15 (1993).
95. The reasons for the delay in publication remain unexplained. The publishers ascribed it to the preparation of the drawings. See note 18. The review of Du Châtelet's work in the Journal Encyclopédique of September 1759 mentioned 'contretems [obstacles]', as the reason it was not published before: Journal Encyclopédique 6, partie 3 (September 1759). I am grateful to Simon Schaffer for alerting me to the coincidence of circumstances and the significance of the translation to the dispute on the comets. Unquestionably, this was the reason it was finally brought out. On the excitement, the rush to finish the calculations before the return of the comet and Clairaut's consciously engineered propaganda campaign in favour of his own work, see C.B. Waff, 'Comet Halley's first expected return: English public apprehensions, 1755-58', J. Hist. Astron. 17 (part 1), 1-37 (1986); S. Schaffer, 'Halley Delisle and the making of the comet', and Waff, 'The first international Halley watch: guiding the world-wide search for comet Halley, 1755-1759'. In Standing on the shoulders of giants: a longer view of Newton and Halley (ed. N.J.W. Thrower), pp. 373-411, 254-292 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990); C. Wilson, 'Clairaut's calculation of the eighteenth-century return of Halley's comet', J. Hist. Astron. 24 (part 1), 1-15 (1993).
96. The reasons for the delay in publication remain unexplained. The publishers ascribed it to the preparation of the drawings. See note 18. The review of Du Châtelet's work in the Journal Encyclopédique of September 1759 mentioned 'contretems [obstacles]', as the reason it was not published before: Journal Encyclopédique 6, partie 3 (September 1759). I am grateful to Simon Schaffer for alerting me to the coincidence of circumstances and the significance of the translation to the dispute on the comets. Unquestionably, this was the reason it was finally brought out. On the excitement, the rush to finish the calculations before the return of the comet and Clairaut's consciously engineered propaganda campaign in favour of his own work, see C.B. Waff, 'Comet Halley's first expected return: English public apprehensions, 1755-58', J. Hist. Astron. 17 (part 1), 1-37 (1986); S. Schaffer, 'Halley Delisle and the making of the comet', and Waff, 'The first international Halley watch: guiding the world-wide search for comet Halley, 1755-1759'. In Standing on the shoulders of giants: a longer view of Newton and Halley (ed. N.J.W. Thrower), pp. 373-411, 254-292 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990); C. Wilson, 'Clairaut's calculation of the eighteenth-century return of Halley's comet', J. Hist. Astron. 24 (part 1), 1-15 (1993).
97. The reasons for the delay in publication remain unexplained. The publishers ascribed it to the preparation of the drawings. See note 18. The review of Du Châtelet's work in the Journal Encyclopédique of September 1759 mentioned 'contretems [obstacles]', as the reason it was not published before: Journal Encyclopédique 6, partie 3 (September 1759). I am grateful to Simon Schaffer for alerting me to the coincidence of circumstances and the significance of the translation to the dispute on the comets. Unquestionably, this was the reason it was finally brought out. On the excitement, the rush to finish the calculations before the return of the comet and Clairaut's consciously engineered propaganda campaign in favour of his own work, see C.B. Waff, 'Comet Halley's first expected return: English public apprehensions, 1755-58', J. Hist. Astron. 17 (part 1), 1-37 (1986); S. Schaffer, 'Halley Delisle and the making of the comet', and Waff, 'The first international Halley watch: guiding the world-wide search for comet Halley, 1755-1759'. In Standing on the shoulders of giants: a longer view of Newton and Halley (ed. N.J.W. Thrower), pp. 373-411, 254-292 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990); C. Wilson, 'Clairaut's calculation of the eighteenth-century return of Halley's comet', J. Hist. Astron. 24 (part 1), 1-15 (1993).
98. The reasons for the delay in publication remain unexplained. The publishers ascribed it to the preparation of the drawings. See note 18. The review of Du Châtelet's work in the Journal Encyclopédique of September 1759 mentioned 'contretems [obstacles]', as the reason it was not published before: Journal Encyclopédique 6, partie 3 (September 1759). I am grateful to Simon Schaffer for alerting me to the coincidence of circumstances and the significance of the translation to the dispute on the comets. Unquestionably, this was the reason it was finally brought out. On the excitement, the rush to finish the calculations before the return of the comet and Clairaut's consciously engineered propaganda campaign in favour of his own work, see C.B. Waff, 'Comet Halley's first expected return: English public apprehensions, 1755-58', J. Hist. Astron. 17 (part 1), 1-37 (1986); S. Schaffer, 'Halley Delisle and the making of the comet', and Waff, 'The first international Halley watch: guiding the world-wide search for comet Halley, 1755-1759'. In Standing on the shoulders of giants: a longer view of Newton and Halley (ed. N.J.W. Thrower), pp. 373-411, 254-292 (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990); C. Wilson, 'Clairaut's calculation of the eighteenth-century return of Halley's comet', J. Hist. Astron. 24 (part 1), 1-15 (1993).
99. 'Le public l'attendoit déjà depuis plusieurs années avec impatience; mais si quelques contretems en ont retardé jusqu'ici la publication, ce n'a été, ce semble, que pour le rendre plus éclatante, en la faisant concourir avec le moment du triomphe de la philosophie qui y est expliquée & commentée', Journal Encyclopédique, op. cit., note 5, p. 4. Du Châtelet was aware of the significance of the return of Halley's comet as proof of Newton's 'system of the world', and of the universal application of the law of attraction. See, for example, 'Exposition abrégée', Ch. VI, II, pp. 114, 116. Note that she distances herself from the controversy and does not indicate whether she agrees or not.
100. 'Le public l'attendoit déjà depuis plusieurs années avec impatience; mais si quelques contretems en ont retardé jusqu'ici la publication, ce n'a été, ce semble, que pour le rendre plus éclatante, en la faisant concourir avec le moment du triomphe de la philosophie qui y est expliquée & commentée', Journal Encyclopédique, op. cit., note 5, p. 4. Du Châtelet was aware of the significance of the return of Halley's comet as proof of Newton's 'system of the world', and of the universal application of the law of attraction. See, for example, 'Exposition abrégée', Ch. VI, II, pp. 114, 116. Note that she distances herself from the controversy and does not indicate whether she agrees or not.
101. 'Le public l'attendoit déjà depuis plusieurs années avec impatience; mais si quelques contretems en ont retardé jusqu'ici la publication, ce n'a été, ce semble, que pour le rendre plus éclatante, en la faisant concourir avec le moment du triomphe de la philosophie qui y est expliquée & commentée', Journal Encyclopédique, op. cit., note 5, p. 4. Du Châtelet was aware of the significance of the return of Halley's comet as proof of Newton's 'system of the world', and of the universal application of the law of attraction. See, for example, 'Exposition abrégée', Ch. VI, II, pp. 114, 116. Note that she distances herself from the controversy and does not indicate whether she agrees or not.
102. 'Ainsi l'on peut dire de ce Commentaire qu'il nous offre Newton, mis à la portée de tout le monde, du moins de tous ceux qui peuvent suive un raisonnement philosophique.' [13] '[S]e faste géométrique ... au niveau les lecteurs les moins accoutumes aux discussions mathématiques.' [9] This is a compilation of quotations from the 'extrait [review]' in Journal Encyclopédique, op. cit., note 5, pp. 13, 9, 14, 10. The reference to 'mis à la portée de tout le monde' recalls the addition made by the Amsterdam publisher to the title page of Voltaire's Elémens de la philosophie de Newton (1738), an addition that Voltaire objected to strenuously.
103. Du Châtelet to J. Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, Du Châtelet, Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 149.
104. Du Châtelet to J. Bernoulli, 8 January 1746, no. 352, Du Châtelet, Lettres, op. cit., note 8, vol. II, p. 149.
105. It was possible to agree with parts of Newton's theories, but not the whole, or with the general principle and not all of its applications. Into the 1730s, Rohault's Cartesian explanation with Clarke's notes, a text that could be taught with either emphasis, was used at Cambridge, Newton's own university. Principia, Motte edn, op. cit., note 9, vol. II, footnote 5, pp. 631-632. Euler believed in a resistant ether into the 1760s. Even in 1759, César François Cassini of the Paris Observatory, accepted the fact of the return of Halley's comet but continued to explain its movements through impulsion and 'tourbillons'. See Schaffer, op. cit., note 40, p. 260.
106. It was possible to agree with parts of Newton's theories, but not the whole, or with the general principle and not all of its applications. Into the 1730s, Rohault's Cartesian explanation with Clarke's notes, a text that could be taught with either emphasis, was used at Cambridge, Newton's own university. Principia, Motte edn, op. cit., note 9, vol. II, footnote 5, pp. 631-632. Euler believed in a resistant ether into the 1760s. Even in 1759, César François Cassini of the Paris Observatory, accepted the fact of the return of Halley's comet but continued to explain its movements through impulsion and 'tourbillons'. See Schaffer, op. cit., note 40, p. 260.
107. 'Quelques auteurs ont tenté de rendre la philosophie newtonienne plus facile à entendre, en mettant a part ce qu'il y avoit de plus sublime dans les recherches mathématiques, & y substituant des raisonnemens plus simples, ou des expériences [and to set aside that which was most sublime of the mathematical investigations, and to put in its place simpler reasoning or experiments].' Encyclopédie, vol. XXII (Lausanne & Berne, Les Sociétés Typographiques, 1778-82 edn), p. 414.