Yet the effects of these causes were so numerous and obvious, that the Aristotelians had been obliged to invent a principle to account for them; namely, “Nature’s Horror of a Vacuum.” To this principle were referred many familiar phenomena, as suction, breathing, the 347 action of a pair of bellows, its drawing water if immersed in water, its refusing to open when the rent is stopped up. The action of a cupping instrument, in which the air is rarefied by fire; the fact that water is supported when a full inverted bottle is placed in a basin; or when a full tube, open below and closed above, is similarly placed; the running out of the water, in this instance, when the top is opened; the action of a siphon, of a syringe, of a pump; the adhesion of two polished plates, and other facts, were all explained by the fuga vacui. Indeed, we must contend that the principle was a very good one, inasmuch as it brought together all these facts which are really of the same kind, and referred them to a common cause. But when urged as an ultimate principle, it was not only unphilosophical, but imperfect and wrong. It was unphilosophical, because it introduced the notion of an emotion, Horror, as an account of physical facts; it was imperfect, because it was at best only a law of phenomena, not pointing out any physical cause; and it was wrong, because it gave an unlimited extent to the effect. Accordingly, it led to mistakes. Thus Mersenne, in 1644, speaks of a siphon which shall go over a mountain, being ignorant then that the effect of such an instrument was limited to a height of thirty-four feet. A few years later, however, he had detected this mistake; and in his third volume, published in 1647, he puts his siphon in his emendanda, and speaks correctly of the weight of air as supporting the mercury in the tube of Torricelli. It was, indeed, by finding this horror of a vacuum to have a limit at the height of thirty-four feet, that the true principle was suggested. It was discovered that when attempts were made to raise water higher than this. Nature tolerated a vacuum above the water which rose. In 1643, Torricelli tried to produce this vacuum at a smaller height, by using, instead of water, the heavier fluid, quicksilver; an attempt which shows that the true explanation, the balance of the weight of the water by another pressure, had already suggested itself. Indeed, this appears from other evidence. Galileo had already taught that the air has weight; and Baliani, writing to him in 1630, says,30 “If we were in a vacuum, the weight of the air above our heads would be felt.” Descartes also appears to have some share in this discovery; for, in a letter of the date of 1631, he explains the suspension of mercury in a tube, closed at top, by the pressure of the column of air reaching to the clouds.

348 Still men’s minds wanted confirmation in this view; and they found such confirmation, when, in 1647, Pascal showed practically, that if we alter the length of the superincumbent column of air by going to a high place, we alter the weight which it will support. This celebrated experiment was made by Pascal himself on a church-steeple in Paris, the column of mercury in the Torricellian tube being used to compare the weights of the air; but he wrote to his brother-in-law, who lived near the high mountain of Puy de Dôme in Auvergne, to request him to make the experiment there, where the result would be more decisive. “You see,” he says, “that if it happens that the height of the mercury at the top of the hill be less than at the bottom (which I have many reasons to believe, though all those who have thought about it are of a different opinion), it will follow that the weight and pressure of the air are the sole cause of this suspension, and not the horror of a vacuum: since it is very certain that there is more air to weigh on it at the bottom than at the top; while we cannot say that nature abhors a vacuum at the foot of a mountain more than on its summit.”—M. Perrier, Pascal’s correspondent, made the observation as he had desired, and found a difference of three inches of mercury, “which,” he says, “ravished us with admiration and astonishment.”

When the least obvious case of the operation of the pressure and weight of fluids had thus been made out, there were no further difficulties in the progress of the theory of Hydrostatics. When mathematicians began to consider more general cases than those of the action of gravity, there arose differences in the way of stating the appropriate principles: but none of these differences imply any different conception of the fundamental nature of fluid equilibrium.

Sect. 2.—Discovery of the Laws of Motion of Fluids.

The art of conducting water in pipes, and of directing its motion for various purposes, is very old. When treated systematically, it has been termed Hydraulics: but Hydrodynamics is the general name of the science of the laws of the motions of fluids, under those or other circumstances. The Art is as old as the commencement of civilization: the Science does not ascend higher than the time of Newton, though attempts on such subjects were made by Galileo and his scholars.

When a fluid spouts from an orifice in a vessel, Castelli saw that the velocity of efflux depends on the depth of the orifice below the 349 surface: but he erroneously judged the velocity to be exactly proportional to the depth. Torricelli found that the fluid, under the inevitable causes of defect which occur in the experiment, would spout nearly to the height of the surface: he therefore inferred, that the full velocity is that which a body would acquire in falling through the depth; and that it is consequently proportional to the square root of the depth.—This, however, he stated only as a result of experience, or law of phenomena, at the end of his treatise, De Motu Naturaliter Accelerato, printed in 1643.

Newton treated the subject theoretically in the Principia (1687); but we must allow, as Lagrange says, that this is the least satisfactory passage of that great work. Newton, having made his experiments in another manner than Torricelli, namely, by measuring the quantity of the efflux instead of its velocity, found a result inconsistent with that of Torricelli. The velocity inferred from the quantity discharged, was only that due to half the depth of the fluid.

In the first edition of the Principia,31 Newton gave a train of reasoning by which he theoretically demonstrated his own result, going upon the principle, that the momentum of the issuing fluid is equal to the momentum which the column vertically over the orifice would generate by its gravity. But Torricelli’s experiments, which had given the velocity due to the whole depth, were confirmed on repetition: how was this discrepancy to be explained?

Newton explained the discrepancy by observing the contraction which the jet, or vein of water, undergoes, just after it leaves the orifice, and which he called the vena contracta. At the orifice, the velocity is that due to half the height; at the vena contracta it is that due to the whole height. The former velocity regulates the quantity of the discharge; the latter, the path of the jet.

This explanation was an important step in the subject; but it made Newton’s original proof appear very defective, to say the least. In the second edition of the Principia (1714), Newton attacked the problem in a manner altogether different from his former investigation. He there assumed, that when a round vessel, containing fluid, has a hole in its bottom, the descending fluid may be conceived to be a conoidal mass, which has its base at the surface of the fluid, and its narrow end at the orifice. This portion of the fluid he calls the cataract; and supposes that while this part descends, the surrounding 350 parts remain immovable, as if they were frozen; in this way he finds a result agreeing with Torricelli’s experiments on the velocity of the efflux.

We must allow that the assumptions by which this result is obtained are somewhat arbitrary; and those which Newton introduces in attempting to connect the problem of issuing fluids with that of the resistance to a body moving in a fluid, are no less so. But even up to the present time, mathematicians have not been able to reduce problems concerning the motions of fluids to mathematical principles and calculations, without introducing some steps of this arbitrary kind. And one of the uses of experiments on this subject is, to suggest those hypotheses which may enable us, in the manner most consonant with the true state of things, to reduce the motions of fluids to those general laws of mechanics, to which we know they must be subject.

Hence the science of the Motion of Fluids, unlike all the other primary departments of Mechanics, is a subject on which we still need experiments, to point out the fundamental principles. Many such experiments have been made, with a view either to compare the results of deduction and observation, or, when this comparison failed, to obtain purely empirical rules. In this way the resistance of fluids, and the motion of water in pipes, canals, and rivers, has been treated. Italy has possessed, from early times, a large body of such writers. The earlier works of this kind have been collected in sixteen quarto volumes. Lecchi and Michelotti about 1765, Bidone more recently, have pursued these inquiries. Bossut, Buat, Hachette, in France, have labored at the same task, as have Coulomb and Prony, Girard and Poncelet. Eytelwein’s German treatise (Hydraulik) contains an account of what others and himself have done. Many of these trains of experiments, both in France and Italy, were made at the expense of governments, and on a very magnificent scale. In England less was done in this way during the last century, than in most other countries. The Philosophical Transactions, for instance, scarcely contain a single paper on this subject founded on experimental investigations.32 Dr. Thomas Young, who was at the head of his countrymen in so many branches of science, was one of the first to call back attention to this: and Mr. Rennie and others have recently made valuable experiments. In many of the questions now spoken of, the accordance which engineers are able to obtain, between their calculated and observed results, 351 is very great: but these calculations are performed by means of empirical formulæ, which do not connect the facts with their causes, and still leave a wide space to be traversed, in order to complete the science.

In the mean time, all the other portions of Mechanics were reduced to general laws, and analytical processes; and means were found of including Hydrodynamics, notwithstanding the difficulties which attend its special problems, in this common improvement of form. This progress we must relate.

[2d Ed.] [The hydrodynamical problems referred to above are, the laws of a fluid issuing from a vessel, the laws of the motion of water in pipes, canals, and rivers, and the laws of the resistance of fluids. To these may be added, as an hydrodynamical problem important in theory, in experiment, and in the comparison of the two, the laws of waves. Newton gave, in the Principia, an explanation of the waves of water (Lib. ii. Prop. 44), which appears to proceed upon an erroneous view of the nature of the motion of the fluid: but in his solution of the problem of sound, appeared, for the first time, a correct view of the propagation of an undulation in a fluid. The history of this subject, as bearing upon the theory of sound, is given in Book viii.: but I may here remark, that the laws of the motion of waves have been pursued experimentally by various persons, as Bremontier (Recherches sur le Mouvement des Ondes, 1809), Emy (Du Mouvement des Ondes, 1831), the Webers (Wellenlehre, 1825); and by Mr. Scott Russell (Reports of the British Association, 1844). The analytical theory has been carried on by Poisson, Cauchy, and, among ourselves, by Prof. Kelland (Edin. Trans.) and Mr. Airy (in the article Tides, in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana). And though theory and experiment have not yet been brought into complete accordance, great progress has been made in that work, and the remaining chasm between the two is manifestly due only to the incompleteness of both.]

Perhaps the most remarkable case of fluid motion recently discussed, is one which Mr. Scott Russell has presented experimentally; and which, though novel, is easily seen to follow from known principles; namely, the Great Solitary Wave. A wave may be produced, which shall move along a canal unaccompanied by any other wave: and the simplicity of this case makes the mathematical conditions and consequences more simple than they are in most other problems of Hydrodynamics. 352

CHAPTER V.

Generalization of the Principles of Mechanics.

Sect. 1.—Generalization of the Second Law of Motion.—Central Forces.

THE Second Law of Motion being proved for constant Forces which act in parallel lines, and the Third Law for the Direct Action of bodies, it still required great mathematical talent, and some inductive power, to see clearly the laws which govern the motion of any number of bodies, acted upon by each other, and by any forces, anyhow varying in magnitude and direction. This was the task of the generalization of the laws of motion.

Galileo had convinced himself that the velocity of projection, and that which gravity alone would produce, are “both maintained, without being altered, perturbed, or impeded in their mixture.” It is to be observed, however, that the truth of this result depends upon a particular circumstance, namely, that gravity, at all points, acts in lines, which, as to sense, are parallel. When we have to consider cases in which this is not true, as when the force tends to the centre of a circle, the law of composition cannot be applied in the same way; and, in this case, mathematicians were met by some peculiar difficulties.

One of these difficulties arises from the apparent inconsistency of the statical and dynamical measures of force. When a body moves in a circle, the force which urges the body to the centre is only a tendency to motion; for the body does not, in fact, approach to the centre; and this mere tendency to motion is combined with an actual motion, which takes place in the circumference. We appear to have to compare two things which are heterogeneous. Descartes had noticed this difficulty, but without giving any satisfactory solution of it.33 If we combine the actual motion to or from the centre with the traverse motion about the centre, we obtain a result which is false on mechanical principles. Galileo endeavored in this way to find the curve described by a body which falls towards the earth’s centre, and is, at the same time, carried 353 round by the motion of the earth; and obtained an erroneous result. Kepler and Fermat attempted the same problem, and obtained solutions different from that of Galileo, but not more correct.

Even Newton, at an early period of his speculations, had an erroneous opinion respecting this curve, which he imagined to be a kind of spiral. Hooke animadverted upon this opinion when it was laid before the Royal Society of London in 1679, and stated, more truly, that, supposing no resistance, it would be “an eccentric ellipsoid,” that is, a figure resembling an ellipse. But though he had made out the approximate form of the curve, in some unexplained way, we have no reason to believe that he possessed any means of determining the mathematical properties of the curve described in such a case. The perpetual composition of a central force with the previous motion of the body, could not be successfully treated without the consideration of the Doctrine of Limits, or something equivalent to that doctrine. The first example which we have of the right solution of such a problem occurs, so far as I know, in the Theorems of Huyghens concerning Circular Motion, which were published, without demonstration, at the end of his Horologium Oscillatorium, in 1673. It was there asserted that when equal bodies describe circles, if the times are equal, the centrifugal forces will be as the diameters of the circles; if the velocities are equal, the forces will be reciprocally as the diameters, and so on. In order to arrive at these propositions, Huyghens must, virtually at least, have applied the Second Law of Motion to the limiting elements of the curve, according to the way in which Newton, a few years later, gave the demonstration of the theorems of Huyghens in the Principia.

The growing persuasion that the motions of the heavenly bodies about the sun might be explained by the action of central forces, gave a peculiar interest to these mechanical speculations, at the period now under review. Indeed, it is not easy to state separately, as our present object requires us to do, the progress of Mechanics, and the progress of Astronomy. Yet the distinction which we have to make is, in its nature, sufficiently marked. It is, in fact, no less marked than the distinction between speaking logically and speaking truly. The framers of the science of motion were employed in establishing those notions, names, and rules, in conformity to which all mechanical truth must be expressed; but what was the truth with regard to the mechanism of the universe remained to be determined by other means. Physical Astronomy, at the period of which we speak, eclipsed and overlaid 354 theoretical Mechanics, as, a little previously, Dynamics had eclipsed and superseded Statics.

The laws of variable force and of curvilinear motion were not much pursued, till the invention of Fluxions and of the Differential Calculus again turned men’s minds to these subjects, as easy and interesting exercises of the powers of these new methods. Newton’s Principia, of which the first two Books are purely dynamical, is the great exception to this assertion; inasmuch as it contains correct solutions of a great variety of the most general problems of the science; and indeed is, even yet, one of the most complete treatises which we possess upon the subject.

We have seen that Kepler, in his attempts to explain the curvilinear motions of the planets by means of a central force, failed, in consequence of his belief that a continued transverse action of the central body was requisite to keep up a continual motion. Galileo had founded his theory of projectiles on the principle that such an action was not necessary; yet Borelli, a pupil of Galileo, when, in 1666, he published his theory of the Medicean Stars (the satellites of Jupiter), did not keep quite clear of the same errors which had vitiated Kepler’s reasonings. In the same way, though Descartes is sometimes spoken of as the first promulgator of the First Law of Motion, yet his theory of Vortices must have been mainly suggested by a want of an entire confidence in that law. When he represented the planets and satellites as owing their motions to oceans of fluid diffused through the celestial spaces, and constantly whirling round the central bodies, he must have felt afraid of trusting the planets to the operation of the laws of motion in free space. Sounder physical philosophers, however, began to perceive the real nature of the question. As early as 1666, we read, in the Journals of the Royal Society, that “there was read a paper of Mr. Hooke’s explicating the inflexion of a direct motion into a curve by a supervening attractive principle;” and before the publication of the Principia in 1687, Huyghens, as we have seen, in Holland, and, in our own country, Wren, Halley, and Hooke, had made some progress in the true mechanics of circular motion,34 and had distinctly contemplated the problem of the motion of a body in an ellipse by a central force, though they could not solve it. Halley went to Cambridge in 1684,35 for the express purpose of consulting Newton upon the subject of the production of the elliptical motion of the planets by means of a central 355 force, and, on the 10th of December,36 announced to the Royal Society that he had seen Mr. Newton’s book, De Motu Corporum. The feeling that mathematicians were on the brink of discoveries such as are contained in this work was so strong, that Dr. Halley was requested to remind Mr. Newton of his promise of entering them in the Register of the Society, “for securing the invention to himself till such time as he can be at leisure to publish it.” The manuscript, with the title Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, was presented to the society (to which it was dedicated) on the 28th of April, 1686. Dr. Vincent, who presented it, spoke of the novelty and dignity of the subject; and the president (Sir J. Hoskins) added, with great truth, “that the method was so much the more to be prized as it was both invented and perfected at the same time.”

The reader will recollect that we are here speaking of the Principia as a Mechanical Treatise only; we shall afterwards have to consider it as containing the greatest discoveries of Physical Astronomy. As a work on Dynamics, its merit is, that it exhibits a wonderful store of refined and beautiful mathematical artifices, applied to solve all the most general problems which the subject offered. The Principia can hardly be said to contain any new inductive discovery respecting the principles of mechanics; for though Newton’s Axioms or Laws of Motion which stand at the beginning of the book, are a much clearer and more general statement of the grounds of Mechanics than had yet appeared, they do not involve any doctrines which had not been previously stated or taken for granted by other mathematicians.

The work, however, besides its unrivalled mathematical skill, employed in tracing out, deductively, the consequences of the laws of motion, and its great cosmical discoveries, which we shall hereafter treat of, had great philosophical value in the history of Dynamics, as exhibiting a clear conception of the new character and functions of that science. In his Preface, Newton says, “Rational Mechanics must be the science of the Motions which result from any Forces, and of the Forces which are required for any Motions, accurately propounded and demonstrated. For many things induce me to suspect, that all natural phenomena may depend upon some Forces by which the particles of bodies are either drawn towards each other, and cohere, or repel and recede from each other: and these Forces being hitherto unknown, philosophers have pursued their researches in vain. And I hope 356 that the principles expounded in this work will afford some light, either to this mode of philosophizing, or to some mode which is more true.”

Before we pursue this subject further, we must trace the remainder of the history of the Third Law.

Sect. 2.—Generalization of the Third Law of Motion.—Centre of Oscillation.—Huyghens.

The Third Law of Motion, whether expressed according to Newton’s formula (by the equality of Action and Reaction), or in any other of the ways employed about the same time, easily gave the solution of mechanical problems in all cases of direct action; that is, when each body acted directly on others. But there still remained the problems in which the action is indirect;—when bodies, in motion, act on each other by the intervention of levers, or in any other way. If a rigid rod, passing through two weights, be made to swing about its upper point, so as to form a pendulum, each weight will act and react on the other by means of the rod, considered as a lever turning about the point of suspension. What, in this case, will be the effect of this action and reaction? In what time will the pendulum oscillate by the force of gravity? Where is the point at which a single weight must be placed to oscillate in the same time? in other words, where is the Centre of Oscillation?

Such was the problem—an example only of the general problem of indirect action—which mathematicians had to solve. That it was by no means easy to see in what manner the law of the communication of motion was to be extended from simpler cases to those where rotatory motion was produced, is shown by this;—that Newton, in attempting to solve the mechanical problem of the Precession of the Equinoxes, fell into a serious error on this very subject. He assumed that, when a part has to communicate rotatory movement to the whole (as the protuberant portion of the terrestrial spheroid, attracted by the sun and moon, communicates a small movement to the whole mass of the earth), the quantity of the motion, “motus,” will not be altered by being communicated. This principle is true, if, by motion, we understand what is called moment of inertia, a quantity in which both the velocity of each particle and its distance from the axis of rotation are taken into account: but Newton, in his calculations of its amount, considered the velocity only; thus making motion, in this case, identical with the momentum which he introduces in treating of the simpler case 357 of the third law of motion, when the action is direct. This error was retained even in the later editions of the Principia.37

The question of the centre of oscillation had been proposed by Mersenne somewhat earlier,38 in 1646. And though the problem was out of the reach of any principles at that time known and understood, some of the mathematicians of the day had rightly solved some cases of it, by proceeding as if the question had been to find the Centre of Percussion. The Centre of Percussion is the point about which the momenta of all the parts of a body balance each other, when it is in motion about any axis, and is stopped by striking against an obstacle placed at that centre. Roberval found this point in some easy cases; Descartes also attempted the problem; their rival labors led to an angry controversy: and Descartes was, as in his physical speculations he often was, very presumptuous, though not more than half right.

Huyghens was hardly advanced beyond boyhood when Mersenne first proposed this problem; and, as he says,39 could see no principle which even offered an opening to the solution, and had thus been repelled at the threshold. When, however, he published his Horologium Oscillatorium in 1673, the fourth part of that work was on the Centre of Oscillation or Agitation; and the principle which he then assumed, though not so simple and self-evident as those to which such problems were afterwards referred, was perfectly correct and general, and led to exact solutions in all cases. The reader has already seen repeatedly in the course of this history, complex and derivative principles presenting themselves to men’s minds, before simple and elementary ones. The “hypothesis” assumed by Huyghens was this; “that if any weights are put in motion by the force of gravity, they cannot move so that the centre of gravity of them all shall rise higher than the place from which it descended.” This being assumed, it is easy to show that the centre of gravity will, under all circumstances, rise as high as its original position; and this consideration leads to a determination of the oscillation of a compound pendulum. We may observe, in the principle thus selected, a conviction that, in all mechanical action, the centre of gravity may be taken as the representative of the whole system. This conviction, as we have seen, may be traced in the axioms of Archimedes and Stevinus; and Huyghens, when he proceeds upon it, undertakes to show,40 that he assumes only this, that a heavy body cannot, of itself, move upwards.

358 Clear as Huyghen’s principle appeared to himself, it was, after some time, attacked by the Abbé Catelan, a zealous Cartesian. Catelan also put forth principles which he conceived were evident, and deduced from them conclusions contradictory to those of Huyghens. His principles, now that we know them to be false, appear to us very gratuitous. They are these; “that in a compound pendulum, the sum of the velocities of the component weights is equal to the sum of the velocities which they would have acquired if they had been detached pendulums;” and “that the time of the vibration of a compound pendulum is an arithmetic mean between the times of the vibrations of the weights, moving as detached pendulums.” Huyghens easily showed that these suppositions would make the centre of gravity ascend to a greater height than that from which it fell; and after some time, James Bernoulli stept into the arena, and ranged himself on the side of Huyghens. As the discussion thus proceeded, it began to be seen that the question really was, in what manner the Third Law of Motion was to be extended to cases of indirect action; whether by distributing the action and reaction according to statical principles, or in some other way. “I propose it to the consideration of mathematicians,” says Bernoulli in 1686, “what law of the communication of velocity is observed by bodies in motion, which are sustained at one extremity by a fixed fulcrum, and at the other by a body also moving, but more slowly. Is the excess of velocity which must be communicated from the one body to the other to be distributed in the same proportion in which a load supported on the lever would be distributed?” He adds, that if this question be answered in the affirmative, Huyghens will be found to be in error; but this is a mistake. The principle, that the action and reaction of bodies thus moving are to be distributed according to the rules of the lever, is true; but Bernoulli mistook, in estimating this action and reaction by the velocity acquired at any moment; instead of taking, as he should have done, the increment of velocity which gravity tended to impress in the next instant. This was shown by the Marquis de l’Hôpital; who adds, with justice, “I conceive that I have thus fully answered the call of Bernoulli, when he says, I propose it to the consideration of mathematicians, &c.”

We may, from this time, consider as known, but not as fully established, the principle that “When bodies in motion affect each other, the action and reaction are distributed according to the laws of Statics;” although there were still found occasional difficulties in the 359 generalization and application of the role. James Bernoulli, in 1703, gave “a General Demonstration of the Centre of Oscillation, drawn from the nature of the Lever.” In this demonstration41 he takes as a fundamental principle, that bodies in motion, connected by levers, balance, when the products of their momenta and the lengths of the levers are equal in opposite directions. For the proof of this proposition, he refers to Marriotte, who had asserted it of weights acting by percussion,42 and in order to prove it, had balanced the effect of a weight on a lever by the effect of a jet of water, and had confirmed it by other experiments.43 Moreover, says Bernoulli, there is no one who denies it. Still, this kind of proof was hardly satisfactory or elementary enough. John Bernoulli took up the subject after the death of his brother James, which happened in 1705. The former published in 1714 his Meditatio de Naturâ Centri Oscillationis. In this memoir, he assumes, as his brother had done, that the effects of forces on a lever in motion are distributed according to the common rules of the lever.44 The principal generalization which he introduced was, that he considered gravity as a force soliciting to motion, which might have different intensities in different bodies. At the same time, Brook Taylor in England solved the problem, upon the same principles as Bernoulli; and the question of priority on this subject was one point in the angry intercourse which, about this time, became common between the English mathematicians and those of the Continent. Hermann also, in his Phoronomia, published in 1716, gave a proof which, as he informs us, he had devised before he saw John Bernoulli’s. This proof is founded on the statical equivalence of the “solicitations of gravity” and the “vicarious solicitations” which correspond to the actual motion of each part; or, as it has been expressed by more modern writers, the equilibrium of the impressed and effective forces.

It was shown by John Bernoulli and Hermann, and was indeed easily proved, that the proposition assumed by Huyghens as the foundation of his solution, was, in fact, a consequence of the elementary principles which belong to this branch of mechanics. But this assumption of Huyghens was an example of a more general proposition, which by some mathematicians at this time had been put forward as an original and elementary law; and as a principle which ought to supersede the usual measure of the forces of bodies in motion; this principle they called “the Conservation of Vis Viva.” The attempt to 360 make this change was the commencement of one of the most obstinate and curious of the controversies which form part of the history of mechanical science. The celebrated Leibnitz was the author of the new opinion. In 1686, he published, in the Leipsic Acts, “A short Demonstration of a memorable Error of Descartes and others, concerning the natural law by which they think that God always preserves the same quantity of motion; in which they pervert mechanics.” The principle that the same quantity of motion, and therefore of moving force, is always preserved in the world, follows from the equality of action and reaction; though Descartes had, after his fashion, given a theological reason for it; Leibnitz allowed that the quantity of moving force remains always the same, but denied that this force is measured by the quantity of motion or momentum. He maintained that the same force is requisite to raise a weight of one pound through four feet, and a weight of four pounds through one foot, though the momenta in this case are as one to two. This was answered by the Abbé de Conti; who truly observed, that allowing the effects in the two cases to be equal, this did not prove the forces to be equal; since the effect, in the first case, was produced in a double time, and therefore it was quite consistent to suppose the force only half as great. Leibnitz, however, persisted in his innovation; and in 1695 laid down the distinction between vires mortuæ, or pressures, and vires vivæ, the name he gave to his own measure of force. He kept up a correspondence with John Bernoulli, whom he converted to his peculiar opinions on this subject; or rather, as Bernoulli says,45 made him think for himself, which ended in his proving directly that which Leibnitz had defended by indirect reasons. Among other arguments, he had pretended to show (what is certainly not true), that if the common measure of forces be adhered to, a perpetual motion would be possible. It is easy to collect many cases which admit of being very simply and conveniently reasoned upon by means of the vis viva, that is, by taking the force to be proportional to the square of the velocity, and not to the velocity itself. Thus, in order to give the arrow twice the velocity, the bow must be four times as strong; and in all cases in which no account is taken of the time of producing the effect, we may conveniently use similar methods.

But it was not till a later period that the question excited any general notice. The Academy of Sciences of Paris in 1724 proposed 361 as a subject for their prize dissertation the laws of the impact of bodies. Bernoulli, as a competitor, wrote a treatise, upon Leibnitzian principles, which, though not honored with the prize, was printed by the Academy with commendation.46 The opinions which he here defended and illustrated were adopted by several mathematicians; the controversy extended from the mathematical to the literary world, at that time more attentive than usual to mathematical disputes, in consequence of the great struggle then going on between the Cartesian and the Newtonian system. It was, however, obvious that by this time the interest of the question, so far as the progress of Dynamics was concerned, was at an end; for the combatants all agreed as to the results in each particular case. The Laws of Motion were now established; and the question was, by means of what definitions and abstractions could they be best expressed;—a metaphysical, not a physical discussion, and therefore one in which “the paper philosophers,” as Galileo called them, could bear a part. In the first volume of the Transactions of the Academy of St. Petersburg, published in 1728, there are three Leibnitzian memoirs by Hermann, Bullfinger, and Wolff. In England, Clarke was an angry assailant of the German opinion, which S’Gravesande maintained. In France, Mairan attacked the vis viva in 1728; “with strong and victorious reasons,” as the Marquise du Chatelet declared, in the first edition of her Treatise on Fire.47 But shortly after this praise was published, the Chateau de Cirey, where the Marquise usually lived, became a school of Leibnitzian opinions, and the resort of the principal partisans of the vis viva. “Soon,” observes Mairan, “their language was changed; the vis viva was enthroned by the side of the monads.” The Marquise tried to retract or explain away her praises; she urged arguments on the other side. Still the question was not decided; even her friend Voltaire was not converted. In 1741 he read a memoir On the Measure and Nature of Moving Forces, in which he maintained the old opinion. Finally, D’Alembert in 1743 declared it to be, as it truly was, a mere question of words; and by the turn which Dynamics then took, it ceased to be of any possible interest or importance to mathematicians.

The representation of the laws of motion and of the reasonings depending on them, in the most general form, by means of analytical language, cannot be said to have been fully achieved till the time of D’Alembert; but as we have already seen, the discovery of these laws 362 had taken place somewhat earlier; and that law which is more particularly expressed in D’Alembert’s Principle (the equality of the action gained and lost) was, it has been seen, rather led to by the general current of the reasoning of mathematicians about the end of the seventeenth century than discovered by any one. Huyghens, Marriotte, the two Bernoulli’s, L’Hôpital, Taylor, and Hermann, have each of them their name in the history of this advance; but we cannot ascribe to any of them any great real inductive sagacity shown in what they thus contributed, except to Huyghens, who first seized the principle in such a form as to find the centre of oscillation by means of it. Indeed, in the steps taken by the others, language itself had almost made the generalization for them at the time when they wrote; and it required no small degree of acuteness and care to distinguish the old cases, in which the law had already been applied, from the new cases, in which they had to apply it.

CHAPTER VI.

Sequel to the Generalization of the Principles of Mechanics.—Period of Mathematical Deduction.—Analytical Mechanics.

WE have now finished the history of the discovery of Mechanical Principles, strictly so called. The three Laws of Motion, generalized in the manner we have described, contain the materials of the whole structure of Mechanics; and in the remaining progress of the science, we are led to no new truth which was not implicitly involved in those previously known. It may be thought, therefore, that the narrative of this progress is of comparatively small interest. Nor do we maintain that the application and development of principles is a matter of so much importance to the philosophy of science, as the advance towards and to them. Still, there are many circumstances in the latter stages of the progress of the science of Mechanics, which well deserve notice, and make a rapid survey of that part of its history indispensable to our purpose.

The Laws of Motion are expressed in terms of Space and Number; the development of the consequences of these laws must, therefore, be performed by means of the reasonings of mathematics; and the science 363 of Mechanics may assume the various aspects which belong to the different modes of dealing with mathematical quantities. Mechanics, like pure mathematics, may be geometrical or may be analytical; that is, it may treat space either by a direct consideration of its properties, or by a symbolical representation of them: Mechanics, like pure mathematics, may proceed from special cases, to problems and methods of extreme generality;—may summon to its aid the curious and refined relations of symmetry, by which general and complex conditions are simplified;—may become more powerful by the discovery of more powerful analytical artifices;—may even have the generality of its principles further expanded, inasmuch as symbols are a more general language than words. We shall very briefly notice a series of modifications of this kind.

1. Geometrical Mechanics. Newton, &c.—The first great systematical Treatise on Mechanics, in the most general sense, is the two first Books of the Principia of Newton. In this work, the method employed is predominantly geometrical: not only space is not represented symbolically, or by reference to number; but numbers, as, for instance, those which measure time and force, are represented by spaces; and the laws of their changes are indicated by the properties of curve lines. It is well known that Newton employed, by preference, methods of this kind in the exposition of his theorems, even where he had made the discovery of them by analytical calculations. The intuitions of space appeared to him, as they have appeared to many of his followers, to be a more clear and satisfactory road to knowledge, than the operations of symbolical language. Hermann, whose Phoronomia was the next great work on this subject, pursued a like course; employing curves, which he calls “the scale of velocities,” “of forces,” &c. Methods nearly similar were employed by the two first Bernoullis, and other mathematicians of that period; and were, indeed, so long familiar, that the influence of them may still be traced in some of the terms which are used on such subjects; as, for instance, when we talk of “reducing a problem to quadratures,” that is, to the finding the area of the curves employed in these methods.

2. Analytical Mechanics. Euler.—As analysis was more cultivated, it gained a predominancy over geometry; being found to be a far more powerful instrument for obtaining results; and possessing a beauty and an evidence, which, though different from those of geometry, had great attractions for minds to which they became familiar. The person who did most to give to analysis the generality and 364 symmetry which are now its pride, was also the person who made Mechanics analytical; I mean Euler. He began his execution of this task in various memoirs which appeared in the Transactions of the Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg, commencing with its earliest volumes; and in 1736, he published there his Mechanics, or the Science of Motion analytically expounded; in the way of a Supplement to the Transactions of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. In the preface to this work, he says, that though the solutions of problems by Newton and Hermann were quite satisfactory, yet he found that he had a difficulty in applying them to new problems, differing little from theirs; and that, therefore, he thought it would be useful to extract an analysis out of their synthesis.

3. Mechanical Problems.—In reality, however, Euler has done much more than merely give analytical methods, which may be applied to mechanical problems: he has himself applied such methods to an immense number of cases. His transcendent mathematical powers, his long and studious life, and the interest with which he pursued the subject, led him to solve an almost inconceivable number and variety of mechanical problems. Such problems suggested themselves to him on all occasions. One of his memoirs begins, by stating that, happening to think of the line of Virgil,