the case of the missing tanquam – cohen & koyré

7/29/2019 The Case of the Missing Tanquam Cohen & Koyr

1/13

The Case of the Missing Tanquam: Leibniz, Newton &ClarkeAuthor(s): Alexandre Koyre and I. Bernard Cohen

Source: Isis, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1961), pp. 555-566Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/228648 .

Accessed: 23/04/2013 18:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toIsis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:42:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hsshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/228648?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/228648?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/13

T h e C a s e o f t h eMiss ing

Leibniz , Newton & C l a r k eBy Alexandre Koyre * and I. Bernard Cohen **

IN the war of the giants, Newton and Leibniz, the last battle is usuallyreferred to under the modest title: The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence.This collection consists of five " letters" by Leibniz and a reply to eachone by Samuel Clarke, written in 1715-16; they were published by Clarkein 1717, after the interruption of the correspondence by Leibniz' death,as: A Collection of Papers which passed between the late Learned Mr.Leibnitz, and Dr. Clarke, in the Years 1715 and 1716. Relating to thePrinciples of Natural Philosophy and Religion.1 This battle is especiallyinteresting to the scholar because it presents a serious opposition of twophilosophies and not, as in the polemics about the priority in invention ofthe calculus, a simple clash of two wounded vanities.The war between Leibniz and Newton had begun in earnest by 1705,when Leibniz was accused of plagiarizing from Newton in the discovery ofthe calculus. By 1710 Leibniz was attacking the Newtonian theory of

*The Institute for Advanced Study.** Harvard University.This original edition was published " Withan Appendix. To which are added, Letters toDr. Clarke concerning Liberty and Necessity;From a Gentleman of the University of Cam-bridge [J. or A. Bulkeley] With the Doctor'sAnswers to them. Also Remarks upon a Book,Entituled, A Philosophical Enquiry concerningHuman Liberty [by Anthony Collins]" (Lon-don: printed for James Knapton, 1717).Bulkeley's Letters and "The Doctor's Answerto them" have a separate title-page but con-tinue the pagination of the main book, whereasClarke's "Remarks" upon Collin's book haveboth a separate title-page and separate pagina-tion.In this edition, Leibniz' and Clarke's textsare printed in both French and English (onfacing pages). Extracts from Newton (in Latinand in French with English translations) ac-company Clarke's contributions, while there is,

in the appendix, a selection from Leibniz'writings in French and Latin, with an Englishtranslation.For proper texts, the edition made by AndreRobinet is most valuable: CorrespondanceLeibnitz-Clarke presentee d'apres les manu-scrits originaux des bibliotheques de Hanovreet de Londres (Paris: Presses Universitaires,1957).A list of later printings and translations isto be found in a recent edition, by H. G.Alexander, The Leibniz-Clarke correspondence,together with extracts from Newton's Principiaand Opticks, edited with introduction andnotes (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press,New York: Philosophical Library, 1956), pp.lv-lvi.Clarke himself was responsible for the trans-lation of Leibniz' papers from French intoEnglish, while Clarke's replies were renderedinto French by de la Roche.

555

Tanquam:

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

ALEXANDRE KOYRI AND I. BERNARD COHENgravity.2 He returned to this topic in a famous letter to Hartsoeker, pub-lished in the Journal de Trevoux in 1712, and reprinted in the Journal desSavants and - in an English version - in the Memoirs of Literature. Itwas in great measure in reply to this criticism that Newton published theconcluding " General Scholium" in the second edition of the Principia(1713), while the preface to that edition by Roger Cotes was a furtheranswer to Leibniz' charges that Newtonian gravity is "an occult quality"and that the motion of the planets in the Newtonian system is a perpetual"miracle." 3 Angered by John Keill's articles in the Philosophical Trans-actions in 1714, reprinted in a French version in the Journal Litteraire,4and by the anonymous review of the Commercium Epistolicum whichNewton had written himself and had published in the Philosophical Trans-actions,5 Leibniz entered correspondence with Newton in the winter of

2 In his Theodicy, of which an English trans-lation by E. M. Huggard, edited with an intro-duction by Austin Farrer, was published in1952 by Yale Univ. Press. In ? 19 (pp. 85-86),Leibniz says: " Thence we see that the dogmaof real and substantial participation can besupported (without resorting to the strangeopinions of some Schoolmen) by a properlyunderstood analogy between immediate opera-tion and presence. Many philosophers havedeemed that, even in the order of Nature, abody may operate from a distance immediatelyon many remote bodies at the same time. Sodo they believe, all the more, that nothing canprevent divine Omnipotence from causing onebody to be present in many bodies together,since the transition from immediate operationto presence is but slight, the one perhaps de-pending upon the other. It is true thatmodern philosophers for some time now havedenied the immediate natural operation of onebody upon another remote from it, and I con-fess that I am of their opinion. Meanwhileremote operation had just been revived inEngland by the admirable Mr. Newton, whomaintains that it is the nature of bodies to beattracted and gravitate one towards another,in proportion to the mass of each one, andthe rays of attraction it receives. Accordinglythe famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to BishopStillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. New-ton's book he retracts what he himself said,following the opinion of the moderns, in hisEssay concerning Human Understanding, towit, that a body cannot operate immediatelyupon another except by touching it upon itssurface and driving it by its motion. Heacknowledges that God can put properties intomatter which cause it to operation from adistance."

3 We have in preparation a study of theseletters of Leibniz and Hartsoeker, togetherwith the text of the reply which Newton wrote

but which has never been published. On therelation of these letters to the writing of theGeneral Scholium at the end of Book III ofthe Principia, see J. Edleston, Correspondenceof Sir Isaac Newton and Professor Cotes (Lon-don: John W. Parker, 1850), p. 153.4 These facts about the Newton-Leibniz con-troversy are not intended to trace the com-plete chronology of that affair, but only togive the reader some hint of the temper ofNewton and Leibniz and their partisans on theeve of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. Agreat desideratum would be a fresh study ofthe Newton-Leibniz controversy, based on acareful examination of the manuscripts andwritten with less partisanship than most ofthose done in the past.5 " An Account of the Book entituled Com-mercium Epistolicum Collinii & aliorum, DeAnalysi promota, published by order of theRoyal-Society, in relation to the Dispute be-tween Mr. Leibnits and Dr. Keill, about theRight of Invention of the new Geometry ofFluxions, otherwise call'd the DifferentialMethod," Phil. Trans., January 1714/5, 29:173-224. (The above is the title given in thePhil. Trans., but is, of course, not the exacttitle of the Commercium Epistolicum [firstedition] itself). For a discussion of this work,see I. B. Cohen, " Newton in the light of recentscholarship," Isis, 1960, 51: 489-514. Thisrecensio libri, translated into Latin, wasprinted as a kind of introduction to the newedition of the Commercium Epistolicum (1722),following the new foreword or Ad Lectorem.A French translation appeared in the JournalLittdraire, Nov./Dec. 1715, 6: 13 ff., 345 ff.

In fact the prevailing opinion in the nine-teenth century was that this recensio was thework of Newton. His authorship was sug-gested by the editors of the PhilosophicalTransactions Abridged, London, 1809, 6: 153,in a note reading: "From the precise and

556



4/13

THE CASE OF THE MISSING TANQUAM1715-16 through an intermediary, the Abbe Conti. In his first letter, aftervoicing his complaints about the unfair manner in which he had beentreated by the English in the Commercium Epistolicum, Leibniz againaccused Newton of having introduced into physics " scholastic occult quali-ties or miracles." 6 Toward the end of the "Apostle d'une lettre de M.Leibniz, a M. l'Abbe Conti," written at the end of 1715, Leibniz said:

M. Newton n'apporte aucune experience, ni raison suffisante pour le Vuide&Ses Atomes, ou pour l'attraction mutuelle, generale. Et parce qu'on nefait pas encore parfaitement & en detail comment se produit la gravite oula force elastique, ou la magnetique, &c. on n'a pas raison pour cela d'enfaire des Qualitez occultes scholastiques, ou des Miracles; mais on a encoremoins raison de donner des bornes a la sagesse & a la puissance de Dieu,&de lui attribuer un Sensorium, c choses semblances. Au reste, je m'etonneque les Sectateurs de M. Newton ne donnent rien qui marque que leurmaistre leur a communique une bonne Methode.7

Newton, to whom Conti communicated this letter (as he was meant to do),answered by a letter to the self-same Conti in which he defended the Com-mercium Epistolicum and upheld its judgments. As to the criticism ofhis " philosophy," he replied to it by a counter-attack:As for philosophy, he colludes in the signification of words, calling thosethings miracles, which create no wonder; and those things occult qualities,

correct language, from the highly importantmatter, and from the very strong and ablemanner of the foregoing composition, it seemsto give evidence of its great author, Newtonhimself." This note, following a printing ofthe recensio in full in English, pp. 116-153,was probably written by Charles Hutton, oneof the three abridgers of this edition of thePhil. Trans. Newton's authorship of therecensio was the subject of an article byAugustus De Morgan, " On the Authorship ofthe Account of the Commercium Epistolicum,published in the Philosophical Transactions,"Philosophical Magazine, Fourth Series, 1852,3: 440-444. (One of the chief sources of evi-dence used by De Morgan was a book by JamesWilson, M.D., published in London in 1722and entitled Epistola ad Amicum de Cotesiiinventis, apparently reissued with an appendixin 1723.) James Wilson was one of those whohad access to unpublished Newton manu-scripts; see Brewster's Memoirs of . . . SirIsaac Newton, Vol. II, p. 75, n. 4.Yet another eighteenth-century scholar whoimputed the recensio to Newton was BishopSamuel Horsley who printed the recensio (inLatin) in vol. 4 of his edition of Newton'sOpera.Sir David Brewster (Memoirs, Vol. II, p. 63,n. 1) admitted the recensio to be of Newton'sauthorship, saying " It was written by Sir IsaacNewton, a fact which Professor De Morgan had

deduced from a variety of evidence.."Actually, in addition to these many attribu-tions to Newton, the recensio was said to be ofNewton's authorship by J. B. Biot and F.Lefort in their edition of the CommerciuinEpistolicum (Paris: Mallet-Bachelier, 1856).6 Leibniz to Conti, November or December,1715, from the extracts given by Alexander(note 1 supra), p. 186. The full texts ofLeibniz' and Newton's letters to the Abb6 Contimay be found in Pierre Des Maizeaux, Recueilde diverses pieces, sur la philosophie, la religionnaturelle, I'histoire, les mathematiques, &c.par Mrs. Leibniz, Clarke, Newton, & autresAutheurs cielbres, (Amsterdam: chez H. DuSauzet, 1720), Vol. II, and in Joseph Raphson,Historia fluxionum (London: Typis Pearson-ianis, 1715), pp. 97-123, as well as in Horsley'sedition of Newton's Opera Omnia, Vol. IV,pp. 595-9. According to a note in A descrip-tive catalogue of the Grace K. Babson Collec-tion of the works of Sir Isaac Newton (NewYork: Herbert Reichner, 1950), p. 90, mostcopies of Raphson's history end at p. 96 anddo not contain the correspondence (pp. 97-123) of Newton, Leibniz, and their friendsand cohorts.7 Des Maizeaux, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 9-10,(also printed by Raphson and Horsley). Leib-niz adds the further comment, "J'ai ete plusheureux en Disciples."

557



5/13

ALEXANDRE KOYR]I AND I. BERNARD COHENwhose causes are occult, though the qualities themselves be manifest; andthose things the souls of men, which do not animate their bodies. Hisharmonia praestabilita is miraculous and contradicts the daily experienceof all mankind; every man finding in himself a power of seeing with hiseyes, and moving his body by his will. He prefers hypotheses to argumentsof induction drawn from experiments, accuses me of opinions which are notmine; and instead of proposing questions to be examined by experimentsbefore they are admitted into Philosophy, he proposes hypotheses to beadmitted and believed before they are examined. But all this is nothingto the Commercium Epistolicum.

As we see in this defence-counterattack, Newton, though cryptically accusingLeibniz of ascribing to him opinions which he does not hold, does notexplicitly refer to the Sensorium. Leibniz, therefore, having dealt withthe defense of the Commercium in a second letter to the Abbe Conti,decided to come back to it. This time, however, he chose another corre-spondent: Princess Caroline (the princess of Wales), a former student ofhis. Unwittingly, he thus started the battle.Leibniz himself described the origin of the battle with which we areconcerned here in a letter to Johann Bernoulli in June, 1716: he tellsthat after he had been attacked by Keill and Cotes, he wrote a letter to" Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales . . . saying that philosophy orrather natural theology is declining considerably among the English." 8 Anextract from this letter to Princess Caroline, written in November, 1715,forms " Mr. Leibnitz's first paper" in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence;in it Leibniz uses his concern about the status of religion and philosophy inEngland as a prelude to a direct attack on Newton:

1. II semble que la ReligionNaturelle meme s'affoiblit extremement.Plusiuers font les Ames corporelles; d'autres font Dieu luy-meme corporel.2. M. Locke, &eses sectateurs, doutent au moins, si les Ames ne sont Ma-terielles, & naturellement perissables.3. M. Newton dit que l'Espace est l'Organe, dont Dieu se sert pour sentirles choses. Mais s'il a besoin de quelque Moyen pour les sentir, elles nedependent donc entierement de luy, et ne sont pas sa production.9s Leibniz to Bernoulli, June, 1716, trans. H.Alexander (see note 1 supra), p. 189. Theoriginal is to be found in Virorum celeberr.Got. Gul. Leibnitii et Johan. Bernoulli Com-mercium philosophicum et mathematicum(Lausanne & Geneva: Sumpt. Marci-MichaelisBousquet & Socior, 1745), Vol. II, p. 381 andin Leibnizens Mathematische Schriften heraus-gegeben von C. I. Gerhardt, Abt. I, Bd. 3,p. 963 (Halle: H. W. Schmidt, 1855).9 In the original edition, page 3, the Englishversion of these paragraphs reads:"1. Natural Religion it self, seems to decay[in England] very much. Many will haveHuman Souls to be material: Others makeGod himself a corporeal Being.

"2. Mr. Locke, and his Followers, are un-certain at least, whether the Soul be notMaterial, and naturally perishable."3. Sir Isaac Newton says, that Space is anOrgan, which God makes use of to perceiveThings by. But if God stands in need of anyOrgan to perceive Things by, it will follow,that they do not depend altogether upon him,nor were produced by him."The words in England, added in squarebrackets in paragraph 1 of the English version,presumably by Clarke, agree with the restrictedinterpretation made by Leibniz himself in hisletter to Bernoulli. In the German edition,translated by A. Buchenau and edited by ErnstCassirer [G. W. Leibniz: Hauptschriften zur

558



6/13

THE CASE OF THE MISSING TANQUAMSuch an accusation 10could not, of course, remain unanswered. Accordingto Leibniz' letter to Bernoulli, referred to above. " The Princess of Walescommunicated excerpts of this letter to Clarke. He gave her a paper inreply written in English which she sent to me, I replied, he answered, Iwrote a second paper; he a third, I, just now, a fourth, that is I answeredhis third paper." 11 From the correspondence between Princess Carolineand Leibniz, it appears that Clarke had at one time been suggested as theonly man capable of making an English translation of Leibniz' Theodicy 12and that Princess Caroline had sent Leibniz "the two books of Dr.Clarke." 13 In a letter of 10 January 1716, sending Leibniz Clarke's secondpaper, the Princess said of the replies to Leibniz' papers: " You are rightabout the author . . ; they are not written without the advice of Chev.Newton, whom I should like to be reconciled with you." 14In his biography of Newton, L. T. More 15 barely mentioned the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, but David Brewster devoted several pages to thissubject. After quoting the printed extract of Leibniz' letter to Caroline,Brewster observed:

These views of Leibnitz having become the subject of conversation at court,where Newton and Locke were in high esteem, the king, who never seemsto have had much affection for his countryman, expressed a wish that SirIsaac Newton would draw up a reply in defence of his philosophy, as wellas of his claim to be the original inventor of Fluxions. It was accordinglyarranged that Newton should undertake the mathematical part of thecontroversy, while Dr. Clarke was entrusted with the defence of the Englishphilosophy. The Princess of Wales, therefore, communicated to the Dr.the preceding extracts from Leibnitz's letter, and Dr. Clarke's reply wastransmitted to Leibnitz through her Royal Highness. Leibnitz replied tothis communication; and after Dr. Clarke had returned his fifth answer toGrundlegung der Philosophie (Leipzig: Verlagvon Felix Meiner, 1903, 2d. ed., 1924)], thesewords are incorporated into Leibniz's textwithout brackets or parentheses.10In the concluding portion of this extract(? 4), Leibniz continues his criticism of New-ton-as he had done in his letter to AbbeConti-by attacking the Newtonian conceptionthat with the passage of time the world-systemdevelops certain irregularities that necessitatethe periodic intervention of God for theircorrection; he opposes to this view his ownconception of a pre-established and eternalharmony. We shall not examine this part ofthe controversy here, but we shall discuss itat length as part of a separate study (in prog-ress) of Newton's statements against Leibnizon the aims and methods of their respectivenatural philosophies. On this score, see A.Koyre: From the Closed World to the InfiniteUniverse (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,1957), chap. ix.

11From ? 2, Appendix B, of Alexander'sedition (see note 1 supra), p. 189.12 Par. 3, Appendix B, ibid., pp. 190-191(letters from Caroline to Leibniz, 14 November1715 and 26 November 1715, and Leibniz'

reply).13 The two books in question are the ser-mons preached by Clarke in 1704 and 1705,"at the Lecture founded by the HonourableRobert Boyle, Esq."; these were titled Dis-course concerning the Being and Attributes ofGod and Discourse concerning the unalterableobligations of natural religion, and the truthand certainty of the Christian Revelation.First published in 1706, they were several timesreprinted.14 From Alexander's edition, ? 3, AppendixB (Caroline to Leibniz, 10 January 1716), p.193.15 L. T. More: Isaac Newton: A Biography(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934),p. 601.

559



7/13

ALEXANDRE KOYRIg AND I. BERNARD COHENthe fifth paper of Leibnitz, the death of the latter on the 14th November1716, put an end to the controversy.16

Brewster, a page or so later, added the comment, "It is very obvious fromthe notes on Dr. Clarke's replies to Leibnitz, that he had received assistanceon several astronomical points from Newton himself." And in a footnoteto this sentence, Brewster informed the reader, " I have found, among SirIsaac's papers, many folio pages of manuscript containing the same viewsas those given by Dr. Clarke."These statements of Brewster's are all the more extraordinary in thatthere are no "astronomical points" as such discussed by either Leibnizor Clarke. (Perhaps Brewster was using the word " astronomical" to in-clude cosmology, the nature of gravity, and the qualities of space.) But,indeed, there are among the Newton manuscripts which we have beenstudying many drafts by Newton of statements replying to Leibniz' attacksupon his natural philosophy.17 These leave no doubt whatsoever that thesource of Clarke's replies to Newton was Newton himself. On this score,Whiston's remark- in his Historical Memoir of Dr. Samuel Clarke- maybe pertinent. Whiston was replying to a comment by Arthur Ashley Sykesand wrote: " Dr. Sykes still speaks, as if Dr. Clarke's Philosophy was hisown, or of his own Invention: when it was generally no other than SirIsaac Newton's Philosophy; tho' frequently applied by Dr. Clarke, withgreat Sagacity, and to excellent purposes, upon many Occasions." 18 Further

16 Sir David Brewster: Memoirs of the life,writings, and discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton(Edinburgh: Thomas Constable and Co.,1855), vol. II, p. 285.17 In this study we give many of the New-tonian draft-statements which contain, interalia, important autobiographical statementsgiving the dates of Newton's discoveries.8i William Whiston: Historical memoirs ofthe life of Dr. Samuel Clarke . . . (London:sold by Fletcher Gyles and by J. Roberts,1730), p. 155. On pp. 5-7, Whiston relates thefollowing anecdote of their first meeting:"About the Year 1697, while I was Chaplainto Dr. John Moor, then Bishop of Norwich,I met at one of the Coffee-houses in theMarket-Place of Norwich, a young Man, tome then wholly unknown, his Name wasClarke, Pupil to that eminent and carefulTutor, Mr. Ellis, of Gonvil and Caius Collegein Cambridge. Mr. Clarke knew me so far atthe University, I being about eight Years elderthan himself, and so far knew the Nature andSuccess of my Studies, as to enter into a Con-versation with me, about that System of Car-tesian Philosophy, his Tutor had put him totranslate; I mean Rohault's Physicks; and toask my Opinion about the Fitness of such aTranslation. I well remember the Answer Imade him; that 'Since the Youth of the Uni-versity must have, at present, some System

of Natural Philosophy for their Studies andExercises; and since the true System of SirIsaac Newton was not yet made enough forthat Purpose; it was not improper, for theirSakes, yet to translate and use the Systemof Rohault, [who was esteemed the best Ex-positor of Des Cartes,] but that as soon as SirIsaac Newton's Philosophy came to be betterknown, that only ought to be taught, and theother dropp'd.' Which last part of my Advice,by the way, has not been follow'd, as it oughtto have been, in the University: But, asBishop Hoadley truly observes, Dr. Clarke'sRohault is still the principal Book for theyoung Students there. Though such an Obser-vation be no way to the Honour of the Tutorsin that University, who in reading Rohault,do only read a Philosophical Romance to theirPupils, almost perpetually contradicted by thebetter Notes thereto belonging. And certainly,to use Cartesian fictitious Hypotheses at thisTime of Day, after the principal Parts of SirIsaac Newton's certain System have been madeeasy enough for the Understanding of ordinaryMathematicians, is like the continuing to eatold Acorns, after the Discovery of new Wheat,for the Food of Mankind. However, upon thisOccasion, Mr. Clarke and I fell into a Dis-course about the wonderful Discoveries madein Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy. And theResult of that Discourse was, that I was greatly

560



8/13

THE CASE OF THE MISSING TANQUAMevidence of Newton's personal involvement in the Leibniz-Clarke corre-spondence may be seen in the fact that some years later, when Des Maizeauxbrought out a two-volume collection in French of various Newton-Leibnizpapers,l9 Newton wrote - or at least made several preliminary drafts of -a letter purporting to have been written by Clarke, explaining the signifi-cance of the principal words and concepts that appear in the controversy.20Clarke's reply to Leibniz' original letter to Caroline deals directly withLeibniz' allegation that, "Sir Isaac Newton says that space is an organ,which God makes use of to perceive things by." Clarke wrote:

Sir Isaac Newton doth not say, that Space is the Organ which God makesuse of to perceive Things by; nor that he has need of any Medium at all,whereby to perceive Things: But on the contrary, that he, being Omni-present perceives all Things by his immediate Presence to them, in all Spacewherever they are, without the Intervention or Assistance of any Organor Medium whatsoever. In order to make this more intelligible, he illustratesit by a Similitude: That as the Mind of Man, by its immediate Presenceto the Pictures or Images of Things, form'd in the Brain by the means ofthe Organs of Sensation, see those Pictures as if they were the Things them-selves; so God sees all Things, by his immediate Presence to them: he beingactually present to the Things themselves, to all Things in the Universe;as the Mind of Man is present to all the Pictures of Things formed in hisBrain....And this Similitude is all that he means, when he supposes Infinite Spaceto be (as it were) the Sensorium of the Omnipresent Being.21

Somewhat taken aback by Clarke's Reply, Leibniz, in his second paper(p. 24), objects: "3. Il se trouve expressement dans l'Appendice del'Optique de M. Newton, que l'Espace est le Sensorium de Dieu. Or le motSensorium a toujours signifie l'Organe de la Sensation." 22 By no means,Clarke answered (Second Reply, p. 41): " 3. The word Sensory does notproperly signify the Organ, but the Place of Sensation. The Eye, the Ear,etc., are Organs, but not Sensoria. Besides, Sir Isaac Newton does not saythat Space is the Sensory; but that it is, by way of Similitude only, as it werethe Sensory, etc."Leibniz was outraged (troisieme ecrit, p. 64): "10. Il sera difficile denous faire accroire que, dans l'usage ordinaire, Sensorium ne signifie pasl'Organe de la Sensation. Voicy les paroles de Rudolphus Goclenius dansson Dictionarium Philosophicum. v. Sensiterium: Barbarum Scholasticorum,

surpriz'd, that so young a Man as Mr. Clarke printed with commentary in a separate study,then was, not much, I think, above twenty- in press.two Years of Age, should know so much of 21 This extract and those that follow arethose sublime Discoveries, which were then taken from the original edition, in French andalmost a Secret to all, but to a few particular in English, of 1717; see note 1 supra.Mathematicians. Nor did I remember above 22At this point, on page 25 of the printedone, or two at the most, whom I had then text, a note accompanies the English transla-met with, that seemed to know so much of tion of Leibniz' second paper, referring thethat Philosophy, as Mr. Clarke." reader back to Clarke's first reply, where19 See note 6 supra. Clarke has given " the passage referred to," an20 Newton's drafts of this letter will be extract-together with a rendition into English

561



9/13

562 ALEXANDRE KOYRI AND 1. BERNARD COHENdit-il, qui interdum sunt Simiae Graecorum. Hi dicunt ao8'O7r-'ptov. Exquo illi fecerunt Sensiterium pro Sensorio, id est, Organo Sensationis."Dr. Clarke, however, maintained his position. Witness his interpretationof the meaning of the term Sensorium (third reply, p. 83): " 10. TheQuestion is not, what Goclenius, but what Sir Isaac Newton means by theword Sensorium when the Debate is about the Sense of Sir Isaac Newton's,and not about the Sense of Goclenius's Book. .. ."We cannot but agree with Dr. Clarke: the debate is about Sir Isaacand not about Goclenius.... Moreover, we cannot but acknowledge thathe is right in asserting that Sir Isaac did not wish to endow his God withorgans of perception. To prove this point, the printed edition of theLeibniz-Clarke correspondence reproduced the famous passage from QueryXX of the Latin version of the Opticks (1706), in which Newton had said(p. 315):

Annon Sensorium Animalium, est locus cui Substantia sentiens adest, & inquem sensibiles rerum species per nervos & cerebrum deferuntur, ut ibipraesentes a praesente sentiri possint? Atq; his quidem rite expeditis,Annon ex phaenomenis constat, esse Entem Incorporeum, Viventem, In-telligentem, Omnipraesentem, qui in Spatio infinito, tanquam Sensorio suo,

and into French-from Quaest. XX in theLatin version of Newton's Opticks (1706), thetext of which had been translated from Eng-lish into Latin by Clarke himself. This Querywas published for the first time in this Latinedition, in which the number of Queries wasincreased from 16 to 24. In the second Englishedition (1717), these new Queries (17 to 24)were renumbered 24 to 31, and further Queries17 to 23 were added; certain textual changeswere made too. See I. Bernard Cohen andRobert E. Schofield (eds.): Isaac Newton'spapers and letters on natural philosophy (Cam-bridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958), introduc-tion, pp. 14-15; and detailed study of thetextual changes in the Queries, by A Koyre,"Etudes Newtoniennes, II. Les Queries del'Optique," Archives Internationales d'Histoiredes Sciences No. 50-51, 1960.In the text of the Leizniz-Clarke correspond-ence, immediately following the Latin extractfrom Quaest. XX, Clarke gives the followingEnglish translation: "Is not the Sensory ofAnimals, the Place where the Perceptive Sub-stance is present, and To which the SensibleImages of Things are convey'd by the Nervesand Brain, that they may there be Perceived,as being Present to the Perceptive Substance?And do not the Phaenomena of Nature show,that there is an Incorporeal, Living, Intelli-gent, Omnipresent Being, who in the InfiniteSpace, which is as it were His Sensorium (orPlace of Perception,) sees and discerns, in theinmost and most Thorough Manner, the VeryThings themselves, and comprehends them as

being entirely and immediately Present withinHimself; Of which Things, the Perceptive andThinking Substance that is in Us, perceivesand views, in its Little Sensory, nothing butthe Images, conveyed thither by the Organsof the Senses?"This version differs in phraseology fromthat which appears in the English editions ofthe Opticks (1717, and later), in which thisQuery (now numbered 28), reads, in part: " Isnot the Sensory of Animals that place to whichthe sensitive Substance is present, and intowhich the sensible Species of Things arecarried through the Nerves and Brain, thatthere they may be perceived by their immedi-ate presence to that Substance? And thesethings being rightly dispatch'd, does it not ap-pear from Phaenomena that there is a Beingincorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent,who in infinite Space, as it were in his Sensory,sees the things themselves intimately, and thor-oughly perceives them, and comprehends themwholly by their immediate presence to himself:Of which things the Images only carriedthrough the Organs of Sense into our littleSensoriums, are there seen and beheld by thatwhich in us perceives and thinks." From thereprint of the fourth edition (London, 1730)issued in 1952 by Dover Publications with apreface by I. B. Cohen and an analytical tableof contents prepared by Duane H. D. Roller,p. 370.The reason for the discrepancy betweenthese two versions will be presented below,note 25.



10/13

THE CASE OF THE MISSING TANQUAMres Ipsas intime cernat, penitusq; perspiciat, totasq; intra se praesens prae-sentes complectatur; quarum quidem rerum Id quod in nobis sentit & cogitat,Imagines tantum ad se per Organa Sensuum delatas, in Sensoriolo suo percipit& contuetur? 23

Reading this text, we cannot help asking ourselves how Leibniz (1) couldpossibly have ascribed to Newton the assertion that space is the sensoriumof God and (2) could have maintained so positively that this assertion isto be found " in expressed words, in the Appendix to Sir Isaac Newton'sOpticks." Have we to assume that Leibniz had " overlooked " the tanquam?That would explain his first pronouncement; but not the second. More-over, it is difficult to admit that, with his scholastic training, Leibniz couldhave " overlooked" a tanquam; and even more so that, having made sucha terrific blunder, he would have been bold enough to assertthat the identifi-cation of space with the sensorium of God is expressement in the Optice.There is no reason to assume that Leibniz was not perfectly sincere andhonest in his affirmation. Could he have been guilty only of misunder-standing the exact meaning of the word sensorium as used by Newton?Indeed, there is a passage in another Query (XXIV; p. 346) that Clarkedoes not quote, and that explains that God, being everywhere, can: " Volun-tate sua corpora omnia in infinito suo Sensorio movere, adeoq; cunctasMundi universi partes ad arbitrium suum fingere &refingere."24The extract from Query XX of the Latin translation of the Opticks,which Clarke printed in his edition of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence,and which we have printed above, was not however the firstand only versionof this text to have been printed. In an example of the 1706 Latin Opticein the library of the Institute for Advanced Study (in the collectionassembled by Herbert McLean Evans and given to the Institute by LessingJ. Rosenwald), we have had the luck to find that the final paragraph ofQuery XX is formulated in a manner that differs profoundly from theversion usually encountered. In this copy, indeed, the phrase dealing withthe Sensorium Animalium is lacking, and the following one, dealing withthe Sensorium of God is as follows: "Annon Spatium Universum, Sen-sorium est Entis Incorporei, Viventis, & Intelligentis; quod res Ipsas cernat& complectatur intimas, totasq; penitus & in se praesentes perspiciat;quarum id quidem, quod in Nobis sentit & cogitat, Imagines tantum inCerebrocontuetur? " A close examination of a number of different examplesof the 1706 Optice proves beyond doubt that the text we have just quoted

23 For a translation, see the previous foot- 25 Hence we can explain why the Englishnote. Clarke printed that paragraph (p. 13) translation given of Quest. XX by Clarke (seein roman type, save for certain words in note 22 supra) differs from the version writtenitalics: ". . . Tanquam Sensorio suo, Res by Newton and published in the English edi-Ipsas intime cernat . . ., Imagines tantum ad tion of 1717. The Clarke version was a trans-se per Organa Sensuum delatas . . ." lation which he had made of the Latin text24 In the later English editions this Latin which he and/or Newton had rewritten afterQuery XXIV became Query XXXI, ". . . more the Latin Optice had been printed and wasable by his Will to move the Bodies within not Newton's own version which did nothis boundless uniform Sensorium .. (Dover, appear until the second English edition ofedition, p. 403). the Opticks.

563



11/13

ALEXANDRE KOYRE AND I. BERNARD COHEN

fit, ut CorporaAnimaliumtam exquifitafint Arte atq;Confio fabricata ? ' .,uos ad fines conformatefut di'verJfepforumPartesFierinepotuitut Oculusine cientiaOpticesfuerit conftrucs ? autAuris, fine IntelligentiaSonorum.ui fit, utMotusCorporis6fequanturmferioVoluntatis?& UndeeftInftinu; tile quemvocant, n An'imalibus nnon SpatiumUniverfum,Senforium ft EntisIncorporei,Viventis, L Intelligentis; quodres Ipfascernat & compleaaturintimas, tota f; penitus L in ferefentes ferfpiciat; quarumid quidem,quod n NrobisfentitL cogitat, Imagines tantum in CerebroontueturUtique,f verusomnisin hacPhilofophiaatus pro-greffus, non quidem ftatim nos ducit ad Caufepime cognitionem; at certepropius propiufq;nosadearnperpetuoadducit, eaque re permagnieft afti-mandus.Queft. 2 . AnnonRadii Luminis exigua funtCor-pufcula,e corporibus ucentibus emiffa, & refrataAttraationibus uibufdam,quibusLumen& Corporain fe mutuoAgunt? Etenim iftiufmodi corpufculaper Media uniformia tranfmitti debebunt in lineisreatis, fine infledtendo in Umbram ; Quo utiq;modoranfmittunturRadii Luminis. Poteruntquoq;diveriashabere proprietates, proprietatefq; iftasinter tranfeundum per diverfa Media immutabi-les confervare: Quae& ipfa itidem radiorum Lu-minis ft Natura. CorporapellucidaAgunt in RadiosLuminis,per intervallumaliquodinterjeaum; quumeos refringunt, refledunt, & infleeuunt:Radiiq;vi-ciffimcorporumiftorumparticulas, per interjectumaliquodntervallum,agitant, ad eacalefacienda:Atq;haecquidemAtio & Reatio, qux eft per intervallumS f aliquod

A. The original page 315 of Newton's Optice, 1706.

564



12/13

THE CASE OF THE MISSING TANQUAM 5653 1 [fit, utCo'poraAnimaliumamexquifitatnt Arte atq;Confilio fabricata? Qwuosd fines conformate unt diverfieipforumPartes? Fierine aotuit,ut Oculusne fcientiaOpti-cesfueritconruCtus aut Auris, ne Intelligentiaonorum?.Qi fit, ut MotusCorporishfequanturmperio 7oluntatis ?U UndeeftInfJinLus/leqzuernocant,nAnimalilus An-nonSenjoriumAnimalium,eftlocus uiSubfantia entiensadeft, U in quemrn iles rerurnecies per nervosU cere-;Srumeferuntur,utibiprrefentesprefenteentiripofint?

Atq; his quidernrite expeditis, Annonex ph^enomenison-Jati,efe EntemIncorporeum,riventem^ntelligentem,m-nifpjentem, qui n Spation into, tanquamenforiouo,resIp:faintimecernat,penitufq;perficiat, totafq; ntrafeprefens prSJentes omple$fatur quarumquidem erumId quodin notisfentitI cootat, Imaginesantum dfe perOaganapSenfuumdelatas, in Senforiolo[uo percipitb contueturUtiq; fi verusomnis n hacPhilofophia aaus progreffus,nonquidemftatimnosducitadCauleprimceognitionem;at certepropiuspropiufq;nos ad cam perpetuoadducit,eaquere permagnieftaefiimandus.eueft.2 . Annon Radii Luminis exigua funt Cor-pufcula, e corporibus lucentibus emiffa, & refrataAttrationibus quibuldam, quibus Lumen & Corporain fe mutuoAgunt?Etenim ftiufinodicorpufcula erMe-dia uniformiatranfmittidebebuntin lineis retis, fineinfledtendon Umbram; Quo utiq; modotranfmittun-tur RadiiLuminis. Poteruntquoq; diverfashaberepro-prietates, iftafq; proprietates ntertranfeundum er diuverfa Media mmutabiles oniervare: Qux &ipfi itidenradiorumLuminiseft Natura. CorporapellucidaAguntin Radios Luminis,per intervallum liquodinterjetum;quumeos refringunt,refle6hint,& infledunt Radiiq;viciffimcorporumiftorumparticulas, per interjeeumS f aliquod.

B. The cancel.



13/13

ALEXANDRE KOYR: AND I. BERNARD COHENwas the original one, and that, at some time after the completion of theprinting (but before the binding of the volume), Newton and Clarke-for reasons that we shall not discuss here - decided to delete this and toreplace it by another in which the formal identification of space with theSensorium Dei would be weakened by the introduction of the word tan-quam. Accordingly, the page in question was cut out and another wassubstituted for it. Thus in almost all examples page 315 can readily beseen to be a cancel.25 Did Clarke assume, in his denial of Leibniz' allega-tion that for Newton space is the sensorium of God, that the early formof page 315 had been so thoroughly destroyed that no trace remained ofthat first version which had been withdrawn? We have no way of telling,but if this was Clarke's belief, he was quite wrong. For we have foundthat the Evans-Rosenwald copy of the 1706 Optice is not unique. Of thetwo examples of this edition to be found in the Babson Collection one hasthe cancel while the other has the original page 315.26 The copy in theBodleian Library, Oxford, also has the original page 315, while one ofthe copies in the Cambridge University Library contains both the canceland cancellandum, one following the other.27 It is certainly curious further-more, that although a cancel was substituted for page 315, no similaralteration was made with respect to the other mention of God's sensoriumin Query XXIV.Since four out of eighteen examples of the 1706 Optice examined by usstill have the original page 315,28 it is surely not outside the bounds ofpossibility that Leibniz too had encountered such a copy. Can we not goa step farther and assume that it was the earlier discarded text that expressedNewton's real conviction?

26 See A descriptive catalogue of the GraceK. Babson Collection of the works of Sir IsaacNewton and the material relating to him inthe Babson Institute Library, Babson Park,Mass., with an introduction by Roger BabsonWebber (New York: Herbert Reichner, 1950).The Latin edition with the original page 315is catalogued as No. 137, Copy 1, whereas thecopy with the cancel is Copy 2.27 Pressmarked: M.9.31.

28 These are the copies in the BibliothequeNationale (Paris), Bibliotheque Mazarine(Paris), British Museum, Columbia Univer-sity, New York Public Library, the Evans-

Rosenwald copy in The Institute for Ad-vanced Study, the copies in the collectionsof David P. Wheatland (Cambridge, Mass.)of Harrison D. Horblit (New York City), andof Prof. E. N. da C. Andrade (London), andthe copies in the Babson Institute (BabsonPark, Mass.; two copies), the Princeton Uni-versity Library, the Library Company of Phila-delphia, the Bodleian Library (Oxford),Trinity College (Cambridge), the Royal So-ciety of London and the two copies in theCambridge University Library (one of which,pressmarked Adv.b.39.4, comes from Newton'slibrary and has the cancel of p. 315).

566

the case of the missing tanquam – cohen & koyré

Documents