Mersenne ou la naissance du mecanisme by Robert LenobleReview by: George SartonIsis, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Aug., 1949), pp. 270-272Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/227246 .

Accessed: 08/05/2014 21:49

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 21:49:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 70 Reviews (6.) Dijksterhuis has full details on Stevin's

new inventions concerning windmills, as well as on his hydraulic projects, notably his plans for the harbor of Danzig (now Gdansk).

(7.) Dijksterhuis also gives a full account of Stevin's contributions to fortification and other aspects of military science, his ideas on city planning and model home construction.

Readers acquainted with the Dutch language will enjoy the original Dutch formulation of Stevin's theorems, which have a particular grass- roots flavor, not unlike that of Elizabethan English. Stevin was a great believer in the power of the Dutch language in formulating scientific ideas; he was also a pioneer in the introduction of Dutch words for Latin tech- nical terms. Dijksterhuis has compiled a long and impressive list of such innovations; it is remarkable how many of them have survived. The result has been that Dutch, more than any other of the "Western" languages, has its own native technical vocabulary, especially in mathematics. Kepler's attempts to introduce similar innovations into German failed.

The bibliography of Stevin's works is a careful piece of work. We found two small omissions: the partial translation of "La Disme" by V. Stanford (The Mathematics Teacher, I4, 321-333, 1921) and the partial translation by A. Barry of the books on Hydrostatics in The Physical Treatises of Pascal by I. H. B. and A. G. H. Spiers (New York: Columbia Press, 1937, pp. 135-158).

The last chapter, on Stevin's personality, gives a sympathetic and balanced judgment of Stevin's character and ideals; his combination of theoretical understanding and practical ac- tivity, his tolerance and quiet modesty. We believe, with all appreciation for this estimate, that the emphasis in this chapter has been too much on Stevin as an isolated individual. Ste- vin, with his tolerance, his opinions on civic matters (he preaches above everything obedi- ence to civil authority, but believes in govern- ment as a civil contract), his belief in the new national language, represents a type of intellec- tual emerging with the new mercantile civilisa- tion, and we believe that it is fruitful to study, against this social background, not only his works, but also his personality.

Dr Dijksterhuis ends his book with a plea for a more serious study of Stevin's work in Dutch secondary instruction, which still too much identifies the Netherlands language with that of its strictly literary figures. This plea also holds for the instruction in the English language in our American instruction. Many English-speaking scientists have written excel- lent prose, and many students may find more in- spiration in a text by Andubon or Darwin than in one of the more classical school texts.

DIRR J. STRUIK

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

ROBERT LENOBLE: Mersenne ou la nais- sance du mecanisme. lxiii + 633 pp. (Biblio- theque d'Histoire de la Philosophie). Paris: Vrin, 1943.

In my review of Cornelius De Waard's edition of Mersenne's correspondence (first three vols., 1933-1946; Isis 39, 179-8I) no reference was made to Father Lenoble's book, because I did not know of its existence. One would be tempted to say that this book is premature, because so much of Mersenne's correspondence is still un- known, but there is no harm in attempting a synthesis before all the facts are at hand, be- cause that is the general method of learning. This synthesis will help the editors of the cor- respondence, and later when the whole corre- spondence is properly edited, it will be possible to correct the synthesis on many points. After all, the main documents are Mersenne's pub- lished writings, and these are abundant and available.

It is true Mersenne's books are hardly read today, and this explains the popularity of two general prejudices concerning him. The first consists in thinking of him only as an inter- mediary "le secretaire de l'Europe savante," "l'intermediaire des savants et des curieux," the second which is worse is the description of him as "Descartes' man" (l'homme de Descartes). The first prejudice is refuted by the account of his own activities, which, if they were not crea- tive in the highest sense, were very far from passive. As to the second, Leibniz had already disposed of it in a letter to Remond de Montmor (p. 597) "Father Mersenne," wrote Leibniz, "is not as Cartesian as he thought. He was sharing himself between Roberval, Fermat, Gassendi, Descartes, Hobbes. He did not care to go too deeply into their dogmas and controversies, but he was helpful to all, and he encouraged them wonderfully well." That is nicely put, but the list of Mersenne's mutually incompatible friends could have been lengthened considerably. It is true that Descartes and Mersenne had been educated in the same school, the Jesuit College of La Fleche, but it is foolish to speak of them as schoolmates, because when they were there together in I604-I609, their ages were too dif- ferent to make intellectual communication pos- sible; in I609, Mersenne was 2I, Descartes, 13. In fact, they do not seem to have met before I623. Of course, Mersenne admired Descartes, but the latter was neither his favorite master nor his best friend. He preferred Hobbes' sen- sualism to Cartesian metaphysics, and Cartesian physics was less acceptable to him than that of Galileo, Pascal and Roberval. His best friend, perhaps, was Gassendi, though he did not share the latter's views on atomism. When he died on i Sept. I648, it was Gassendi who closed his eyes; Dcscartes had abandoned him four days before, having run back to Holland, because of the state of unrest in Paris. The anecdote is symbolic. It illustrates the friendship of two

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 21:49:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 2 1 I

noble men, as well as Descartes' pusillanimity and ingratitude. It is true that Mersenne had been one of the first defenders of Descartes in France, but he was not a pure Cartesian, and he was much else. Indeed, Cartesian dogmatism and Mersennian eclecticism are poles asunder.

Mersenne was a good mathematician with a Platonic faith in the absolute value of mathe- matics; he was a good astronomer, anti-astro- logical, Copernican, Galileian; between the pub- lication in I623 of his first known work Quaestiones in Genesim and the end of his life twenty-five years later his scientific knowledge was gradually increased and purified. He was not a philosopher or a theologian but a man of science, very inquisitive and too intelligent to indulge in dogmatism of any kind, except that of his religion. He was convinced that truth is one, and that Catholic dogmas and scien- tific knowledge must necessarily harmonize; he would have readily accepted the decision of the Vatican Council Nulla umquam inter fidem et zationem vera dissensio esse potest (Introd. 2,

917). His conclusions were not always clear (to a

modern reader), because he was just emerging from a kind of intellectual chaos. He may be called a forerunner of modern science, but just because he was a forerunner we can hardly ex- pect him to be as good as his followers whom he helped to emancipate. The tumultuous and freakish erudition of the Renaissance was still weighing on his shoulders. The anti-Aristotelian- ism of the sixteenth century had but too often taken the form of a mystical naturalism, magic, occultism, alchemical and astrological fancies. He had realized clearly (and that is perhaps his outstanding merit, the mark of his moder- nity as against Renaissance delusions) that sci- ence and magic are utterly incompatible.' He did not hesitate to attack neo-Platonic, cabalis- tic, gnostic and Rosicrucian obscurities and impostures, nor to criticize the fantasies of Cardano, Trithemius, Paracelsus e tutti quanti, but his main adversaries were Francisco Zorzi (or Giorgio), a Venetian capuchin of the six- teenth century,' and his own contemporary, Robert Fludd. The latter answered violently

' His merit appears even greater when one real- izes that many of our own contemporaries have not yet reached the Mersennian level of rationalism and common sense.

'This Francisco Zorzi was entirely unknown to me. His book In sacram scripturam problemata (1536) had been reprinted in Paris 1575, then again in 1622. That new edition made a great im- pression on young Mersenne, who refuted it in every detail in his Observationes ct emendationes ad Francisci Georgii Veneti Problemata. Hoc opere Cabala evertitur; editio vulgata, et inquisitores sanctac fidei catholicac ab hacreticortm atque politi- corum calumniis accurate vindicantur (Paris I623). These two books are not available to me; I know them only through Lenoble (p. 27, 104).

and Gassendi came to Mersenne's rescue.3 The defense of reason and science which Mer- senne and Gassendi assumed is the more note- worthy when one thinks of the extreme confu- sion of that age, witness the elucubrations of Kepler himself and such an ominous fact as Etienne Pascal's consultation with a witch apropos of Blaise's birth (p. 88); and when one remembers with shame the abundant superstitions of our own days. It is very re- markable that those two early champions of (modern) science were devoted churchmen.

Mersenne made experiments in acoustics, and he was a better experimentalist than Descartes, yet he was chiefly a theorist without being ever a dogmatist like the latter.4 His point of view was mathematical and mechanical; one may regret his excessive curiosity and his lack of decision on many special issues, but his main position was firm; he was always ready to fight obstinate Aristotelians to the right and foolish magicians to the left. It is because of that attitude that we must consider him as one of the heralds of modern science.

Though he was not exclusively an "inter- mediary" as many people seem to believe, his activities as such were extremely useful at a time when science was beginning to grow much faster although the means of communication between men of science were very few, un- certain and casual. He was also one of the first popularizers of scientific knowledge and of the scientific method, a full century before the Encyclopedistes. La vdritd des sciences contre les sceptiques (I625) is a defense of science as well as religion; the five treatises of I634 con- tinued the same tendencies, the most significant of these treatises being Les mdchaniques de Galilde, which was in fact the first publication in any language of Galilean mechanics, together with additions taken from other mechanicians such as Benedetti, Stevin and Guido Ubaldi. In another of those treatises of I634, Prdludes de l'harmonie universelle, Mersenne explained the needs of greater scientific cooperation. One of the best means of encouraging and realizing such cooperation had already been indicated by him as early as 1623 in the preface of his first work: the creation of an academy of sciences; he was

8 Fludd's animadversions were entitled Sopihiac cum moria certamen and Summum bonum quod est vernm subjectum verae magiac, cabalac, alchy- miac, et Fratrum Roseac Crucis . . . Mersenni de- decus publicatum (published together, Francfort x629). Gassendi's rejoinder Epistolica exercitatio in qua principia philosophiac Roberti Fluddi retegun- tur et ad recentes illius libros adverstis R. P. F. Marinum Mersennum respondetur (352 pp., Paris X 630).

? Lenoble complains (p. 607) that there is no general study on Descartes' experiments. It is curi- ous that he does not know the posthumous work of Gaston Milhaud: Descartes savant (Paris 1921;

Isis 5, 426-29).

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 21:49:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 72 Reviews

even thinking of an international academy (p. 591). In some of his letters, he went so far as to suggest the organization of inter-confessional meetings to discuss theological difficulties with- out prejudice and without passion.

In an intolerant age, he was remarkably tolerant. In that respect, Mersenne and his group anticipated the objective attitude which was one of the virtues of the academies of sci- ences and insured their success. There could be no conflict, he thought, between science and re- ligion, but there could be no peace between sci- ence and magic, nor between science and bigotry. From all that we know of him, the Minim Father must have been a very lovable man, without vanity and without malice, loving truth above aught else. He was an admirable critic in that he made great efforts to understand the views of his opponents instead of disposing of them in a dogmatic and angry temper as Des- cartes was wont to do. His readiness to examine other people's opinions was such that he was called a "Huguenot monk"; that epithet was silly yet significant. His orthodoxy was never shaken in his own mind nor doubted by other people except fools, but he was a man of science, not a fanatic, and there was no room in his clear head and his great heart for theological hatred.

Father Lenoble's book is well built and richly documented; there is an elaborate bibliography of Mersennian sources at the beginning and a full index at the end. The only weakness, per- haps, is a little prolixity such as is but too com- mon in French philosophical theses. The Catho- lic imprimatur is dated Paris i6 June I942. This means that the book was composed during some of the darkest years of French history. It must have been a great comfort for the author to spend those years in the company of so good a man as Father Mersenne. The conflicts which he witnessed were not more violent than those which the good Father had been obliged to en- dure in his own time; the latter's equanimity was the best encouragement.

GEORGE SARTON

A. E. BELL: Christian Huygens and the Devel- opment of Science in the Seventeenth Cen- tury. 220 pp. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., '947. $4.00

Mr Bell's study of Huygens is as honest and well-balanced a biography, as it is thorough and fair. There can be no doubt that while Huy- gens' name is recurrent in our books on physics or in histories of the development of physical thought, his stature has been largely over- shadowed by the more spectacular figures of such men as Galileo, Newton, Leibnitz, or even Boyle. And yet Huygens was made of the stuff of true genius and had a hand in most of the basic, scientific ideas and practical inventions which characterize those turbulently fertile years.

Mr Bell divides his book into two parts. The first part deals with an historical account of his subject's life, background, and personality, his labors and travels, his positions and contacts with other scientists, and his impact on the times. In the second part the author discusses the salient features of Huygens' scientific works such as his studies of collision between elastic bodies, centrifugal force, the pendulum clock, the telescope, the miscroscope, gravity, optics, the wave theory of light, his studies on Saturn, and his philosophy of nature. Both parts are treated exhaustively and in equally scholarly and unbiased manner, making this work a model of scientific biography.

Huygens' attitude to Newton's Principia as well as his indebtedness to the scientific philos- ophy of Descartes are brought out in sound personal and historical perspectives. Already Descartes, motivated by his mechanistic concep- tion of the world, struggled with an attempt to account for reflection and refraction on the basis of atomic impact and pressure. The con- cept of a void or perfect vacuum was abhorrent to him, and the Torricellian space was assumed by him to be filled with some subtle matter which was the precursor of the ether that was to follow. Similarly, animals were automata to him, and the universe was presumably governed by cosmic, mechanical laws which proved sub- sequently to be more romantic than scientific, though fully meant to be the latter. While the spirit of mechanism and physical law was in the air, facts were hardly distinguished from fancy and medieval systematization was still prevalent. While Huygens questioned or challenged many of Descartes' assumptions, he was sufficiently under his influence to be inspired on the one hand to pursue such studies as the laws of impact, the center of oscillation, the behavior of lenses, the nature of light, and the cause of gravity, all of which topics had been dealt with by Descartes. But, on the other hand, Huygens was also guided toward the acceptance of an ether, which concept, if discredited at the moment, had led him to the wave theory of light. The importance of Descartes' contribu- tion to the thinking of the time, which was an essentially bewildering period in the history of thought due to the breakdown of Aristotelian- ism and the labor pains of the coming into being of new concepts and methods, is brilliantly brought out by Mr Bell.

Huygens' difficulty with the Newtonian in- novations are equally analyzed in a sympathetic and perspicacious manner. Huygens was critical of Newton's law of gravitation. The inverse square law, he claimed, was a "new and very remarkable property of gravity of which it was very necessary to search out the reason," yet he found it difficult to make peace with gravity as an inherent property of matter because such a conception "takes us very far from the prin- ciples of Mathematics or Mechanics." In addi-

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 21:49:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions