“Mining All Within”: Clarke’s Notes to Rohault’s Traité de Physique

"MINING ALL WITHIN" CLARKE's NoTEs To RoHAULT's Traite de Phymque SAMUEL CLARKE, the son of a prominent Norwich family, was just sixteen when in 1691 he entered Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. A quarter of a century earlier Roger North had remarked on "a general inclination, especially of the brisk part of the university," 1 to follow the teaching of Descartes; in 1691 Clarke found Cartesian philosophy established and his own tutor, John Ellis, a "zealot" for it.2 One of the reasons for the Cartesian success had been the excellent textbook on physics published in 1671 by Jacques Rohault, a Cartesian whose ability as a teacher had been partly responsible for the vogue for science in the French capital. His Traite de Phymque 3 had been quickly translated into Latin by Theophile Bonet, and an edition of this translation was published in London in 1682. Edition after edition of the Traite continued to appear in both French and Latin/ 1 R. North, Autobiography, Univ. Lib. Cambridge, MS. Baker 37, fol. 163-163v. Cited in M. H. Curtis, Oxford and Cambridge in Transition (Oxford, 1959), p. 257. • B. Hoadley in Samuel Clarke, Works (London, 1738), I, p. i. • For accounts of Rohault's work and especially of the Traite de Physique, see P. Mouy, Le Developpement de la Physique Cartisienne (Paris: Vrin, 1934), pp. 108-138, and R. Dugas, La Mecanique au XVII• siecle (Neuchatel: Editions du Griffon, 1954), pp. 252-263. • Mouy's account of these editions (op. cit., p. 137) has many errors. George Sarton's "The Study of Early Scientific Textbooks," Isis XXXVIII (1947-8), 137148 , is more satisfactory. A fuller list is as follows: French editions, published in Paris: 1671 (1st ed.), 1672 (2nd ed.), 1676/5 (3rd ed. corrigee), 1676 (4th ed., reveiie & corrigee), 1682 (4th ed., tresexactement reveiie & corrigee), 1683 (6th ed.), 1692 (6th ed., tres-exactement reveiie & corrigee), 1705, 1708 (12th ed.), 1723, 1730. French editions published in Amsterdam: 1672, 1676. Latin translation by Bonet: 1674, Geneva: 1682, London; 1682, Amsterdam, with notes of LeGrand; 1700, Amsterdam, with notes of LeGrand. Latin translation by Clarke and with his notes: 1697 (1st version of notes), 353 354 MICHAEL A. HOSKIN but although still unrivalled, it was by Clarke's day becoming seriously out of date. Leaving aside Newton's optical papers (1672-6) and his epoch-making Principia (1687), several important works on Cartesian physics had appeared since 1671/ and the many observations and experiments carried out, especially by Fellows of the Royal Society, had led to numerous detailed improvement in knowledge. Another reason for dissatisfaction in Cambridge was the poor quality of Bonet's translation. In Clarke, Ellis had a pupil of unusual gifts. Before coming to Cambridge he had shown promise of the linguistic ability that later in life led him to prepare editions of such different authors as Caesar and Homer; and at Cambridge he made his mark in natural philosophy by defending a Newtonian thesis in the Schools.6 His insight into the forbidding Principia was shortly to impress no less a figure than William Whiston, who later succeeded Newton in his professorship. On meeting Clarke, Whiston " was greatly surprised that so young a man as Mr. Clarke then was, not much I think above twenty-two years of age, should know so much of those sublime discoveries which were then almost a secret to all, but a few particular London; 1702 (2nd version), London; 1708 (2nd version, with notes of Le Grand), Amsterdam; 1710 (3rd version), London; 1713 (? 2nd version, with notes of Le Grand), Cologne; 1718 (3rd version), London; 1739, " 6th edition," Leiden. English translation of John Clarke with 4th version of Samuel Clarke's notes: 1723, London; 1728/9, London; 1735, London. The various versions of Clarke's notes are discussed below. The term 'edition' is perhaps misleading in this connexion, for the successive versions are radically changed; and it is therefore not appropriate to speak of " the " notes by Clarke. Sarton's inability to obtain a copy of the 1697 edition prevented him from realizing this. One of the few writers to draw attention to the changes in Clarke's notes is F. Cajori...