&w=3840&q=75)
&w=3840&q=75)
&w=3840&q=75)
&w=3840&q=75)
&w=3840&q=75)
&w=3840&q=75)
236
MALEBRANCHE Nicolas de (1638-1715)
The item was sold for 8 840 €
Fees include commission and taxes.
MALEBRANCHE Nicolas de (1638-1715)
L.A.S., Livry near Melun June 9 [1708?], to the physicist Louis du
PUGET, "en belle-cour a Lyon"| 4 pages and a quarter in-4, address with broken red wax seal (small tear from broken seal repaired with loss of some line ends).
Long scientific letter commenting on the Nouveau système, ou
Nouvelle explication du mouvement des planètes by Philippe
Villemot (1707).
He thanks for sending the book by Philippe VILLEMOT (1651-1713, astronomer). "There is a lot of spirit and invention in the book of M. Villemot but I find obscure places in it and which seem to me false. I have only read it lightly and hastily.
His principle of centrifugal forces is not new| it was proposed and demonstrated by Mrs. NEWTON HUIGENS Saurin de l'Hopital &c., whom he seems to me not to have seen, by the manner in which he demonstrates it.
Thus he may be regarded as its inventor. But the system he builds on this principle does not seem to me to be so solid and so well bound as that of M. DESCARTES, with which it nevertheless has some connection"... It would be a great deal to undertake a criticism of the whole book| he will only say what he thinks of what the author calls
Bouillonnement, and which is one of the foundations of his system: "The author claims that the upper parts of the circulating fluid are obliged to flow back towards the centre because the centrifugal force of the upper spheres is greater than that of the lower [...].
But his reason does not seem to me to be good because it is sufficient that each point or small part of a lower sphere has more centrifugal force than an equal part adjacent to the upper surface to take its place. Now the author agrees [...] and it is shown that each lower point] has more centrifugal force than a higher point. [...] one cannot conclude from this that each superior part can drive out each inferior part and flow back to the center"... He proposes an experiment with oil and water, in an inverted cone, and draws a diagram to illustrate it... Even supposing that the author's demonstration was correct, "it seems obvious to me that the fluid matter would not flow back towards the centre. It would certainly go where it would find less resistance, that is to say in the very plane of its circulation| but because the lower spheres also press the upper ones, they would circulate all the more rapidly as they would be more compressed by the lower ones, because bodies do not find resistance when they are between others which give way to them"...
Malebranche wishes however not to be named, if du Puget speaks to Villemot about this difficulty, "because I do not have enough leisure to philosophize by letters, and this occupation does not suit me"...
He signs "Malebranche P[rest]re de loratoire".
"Having continued reading the book", he adds a long post-scriptum: "the author attributes to DESCARTES p. 170 a feeling that Descartes does not have and even rejects by the same reason as him 4 part[ie] of his Principles. [...]
What he also says against Descartes about the flux and reflux does not seem to me to be fair enough, nor does his athmosphere of the Moon seem to be well proven.
The Moon alone is sufficient, it seems to me, for the flux and reflux, not by a single passage or turn, but by several, to give the earth the balancing necessary for the flux and reflux. [...] M. Villemot would perhaps have done better not to speak of the distribution of his primitive matter nor of any hypothesis and not even to make use of the signs V because that does not let a reader be embarrassed at first. After having shown the properties necessary for his subject of the centrifugal forces he could have deduced from experience or from astronomical observations the properties of our vortex"... He gives an example: "The observations of the astronomers teach us that the quarrez of the times of the revolutions of the planets are between them like the quarrez of the distances of the common center", what he develops with many formulas of calculation, and a diagram, to elaborate his reasoning on the centrifugal force, before concluding: "With the remainder the more I read the book of M. Villemot the more the esteem that you inspired in me increases. I beg you to assure him of this and to offer him my respects. I am half persuaded of its bubbling - and that the objections which you have seen here can be easily cleared up but this matter requires much meditation and more leisure and spirit than I have"...
PROVENANCE Albin SCHRAM Collection (Christie's, London, 3 July 2007, n° 525).
L.A.S., Livry near Melun June 9 [1708?], to the physicist Louis du
PUGET, "en belle-cour a Lyon"| 4 pages and a quarter in-4, address with broken red wax seal (small tear from broken seal repaired with loss of some line ends).
Long scientific letter commenting on the Nouveau système, ou
Nouvelle explication du mouvement des planètes by Philippe
Villemot (1707).
He thanks for sending the book by Philippe VILLEMOT (1651-1713, astronomer). "There is a lot of spirit and invention in the book of M. Villemot but I find obscure places in it and which seem to me false. I have only read it lightly and hastily.
His principle of centrifugal forces is not new| it was proposed and demonstrated by Mrs. NEWTON HUIGENS Saurin de l'Hopital &c., whom he seems to me not to have seen, by the manner in which he demonstrates it.
Thus he may be regarded as its inventor. But the system he builds on this principle does not seem to me to be so solid and so well bound as that of M. DESCARTES, with which it nevertheless has some connection"... It would be a great deal to undertake a criticism of the whole book| he will only say what he thinks of what the author calls
Bouillonnement, and which is one of the foundations of his system: "The author claims that the upper parts of the circulating fluid are obliged to flow back towards the centre because the centrifugal force of the upper spheres is greater than that of the lower [...].
But his reason does not seem to me to be good because it is sufficient that each point or small part of a lower sphere has more centrifugal force than an equal part adjacent to the upper surface to take its place. Now the author agrees [...] and it is shown that each lower point] has more centrifugal force than a higher point. [...] one cannot conclude from this that each superior part can drive out each inferior part and flow back to the center"... He proposes an experiment with oil and water, in an inverted cone, and draws a diagram to illustrate it... Even supposing that the author's demonstration was correct, "it seems obvious to me that the fluid matter would not flow back towards the centre. It would certainly go where it would find less resistance, that is to say in the very plane of its circulation| but because the lower spheres also press the upper ones, they would circulate all the more rapidly as they would be more compressed by the lower ones, because bodies do not find resistance when they are between others which give way to them"...
Malebranche wishes however not to be named, if du Puget speaks to Villemot about this difficulty, "because I do not have enough leisure to philosophize by letters, and this occupation does not suit me"...
He signs "Malebranche P[rest]re de loratoire".
"Having continued reading the book", he adds a long post-scriptum: "the author attributes to DESCARTES p. 170 a feeling that Descartes does not have and even rejects by the same reason as him 4 part[ie] of his Principles. [...]
What he also says against Descartes about the flux and reflux does not seem to me to be fair enough, nor does his athmosphere of the Moon seem to be well proven.
The Moon alone is sufficient, it seems to me, for the flux and reflux, not by a single passage or turn, but by several, to give the earth the balancing necessary for the flux and reflux. [...] M. Villemot would perhaps have done better not to speak of the distribution of his primitive matter nor of any hypothesis and not even to make use of the signs V because that does not let a reader be embarrassed at first. After having shown the properties necessary for his subject of the centrifugal forces he could have deduced from experience or from astronomical observations the properties of our vortex"... He gives an example: "The observations of the astronomers teach us that the quarrez of the times of the revolutions of the planets are between them like the quarrez of the distances of the common center", what he develops with many formulas of calculation, and a diagram, to elaborate his reasoning on the centrifugal force, before concluding: "With the remainder the more I read the book of M. Villemot the more the esteem that you inspired in me increases. I beg you to assure him of this and to offer him my respects. I am half persuaded of its bubbling - and that the objections which you have seen here can be easily cleared up but this matter requires much meditation and more leisure and spirit than I have"...
PROVENANCE Albin SCHRAM Collection (Christie's, London, 3 July 2007, n° 525).