Abstract
The long-running quarrel between Leibniz and Newton has dominated the historical image of both men and has obscured their common aims and interests. The Leibniz-Clarke controversy (1715–1716), in which Samuel Clarke defended Newton against Leibniz’s critique has come to be seen as emblematic of their mutual antithesis, Madame du Châtelet’s championship of both Leibniz and Newton conflicts with this received picture. In her Institutions de physique she took Leibniz’s side against Clarke, Institutions de physique, but she did not wholly reject Newtonian physics. In this essay I examine her position in the wider context of the fluid state of scientific theory in the early eighteenth century. This is reflected in Du Châtelet’s revisions to her Institutions as well as in another work of Clarke’s with which she was well-acquainted, his translation of Rohault’s Physics. This is a hybrid text by virtue of the fact that Clarke added a Newtonian gloss to a textbook of Cartesian physics. This hybridity is paralleled in Du Châtelet’s response to Newton and Leibniz in her Institutions, which was also conceived as a textbook. I suggest Madame du Châtelet’s views on Newtonianism in Institutions de physique is coloured by three things—the hypothetical character of Newton’s as yet unproven theories, theological concerns influenced by her then mentor Maupertuis and her concern with the underlying problems of physics which both Newton and Leibniz sought to address.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Completed in 1749, but not published until 1756/9 it was published with the title Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle par feue Madame la Marquise du Chastellet. On Du Châtelet’s translation, see Cohen. 1968. The French Translation of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. 261–280; Zinsser. 2001. Translating Newton’s Principia: the Marquise Du Châtelet’s Revisions and Additions for a French Audience. 227–45. Tâton. 1969. Madame du Châtelet, tradutrice de Newton. 185–210; idem 1970. Isaac Newton, Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle, traduction de la marquise du Chastelet, augmentée des commentaries de Clairaut. 175–80. Also, Badinter and Muzerelle. 2006. Madame du Châtelet. La femme des lumières. Exhibition catalogue. For Du Châtelet’s biography, see Zinsser. 2007. La Dame d’Esprit. A Biography of Madame Du Châtelet, and Tâton. 1971. Gabrielle-Émilie le Tonnier de Breteuil, Marquise du.
- 2.
Barber. 1967. Madame Du Châtelet and Leibnizianism: the Genesis of Institutions de Physique. 200–22, revised and reprinted in Zinsser and Julie Candler Hayes. 2006. Emilie Du Châtelet. rewriting Enlightenment philosophy and science. 5–23.; Gardiner. 1982. Searching for the Metaphysics of Science: the Structure and Composition of Madame du Châtelet’s Institutions de physique, 1737–1740. 85–113; Zinsser. 2007, La Dame d’Esprit. chapter 4. The claim by Janik, and, following her, Paul Veach Moriarty, that the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence was a primary source for her knowledge of Leibnizian metaphysics is, in my view, unsustainable. Moriarty. 2006. The Principle of Sufficient Reason in Du Châtelet’s Institutions. 203–225.
- 3.
Ira O.Wade deemed her Institutions de Physique, ‘essentially derivative’, believing that she was unlikely to have influenced Voltaire who, he claimed, had ‘a deeper understanding of Newton’, Wade. 1947. Studies on Voltaire. 221.
- 4.
Stuart Brown discusses the adverse impact of this stereotype for Leibniz’s reputation as a philosopher: Brown. 1984. Leibniz. 204.
- 5.
Du Châtelet to Maupertuis, 1st December 1738, LetChBI 152, 273.
- 6.
Du Châtelet to Prault, 16th February1739, LetChBI 186, 329.
- 7.
Ibid. She had access to Principia mathematica prior to this in Voltaire’s library. The reference Clarke and Leibniz must be to the Clarke-Leibniz letters published in Recueil de diverses Pièces sur la Philosophie, la Religion Naturelle, & autres Autheurs célèbres, vol.1 (Amsterdam, 1720), and not to separate editions of their letters as Besterman’s note suggests.
- 8.
- 9.
Du Châtelet to Johann Bernouilli, LetChBII 241, 18. cf. also Du Châtelet to Frederick of Prussia, LetChBII 237, 13.
- 10.
Du Châtelet, LetChBII 244, 24. This work of Wolffian metaphysics was, presumably, planned for a future date. She was already engaged on writing Institutions de physique, of which she had already sent Frederick a copy the first part. See LetChBII 237 and 240.
- 11.
Clarke is overdue for re-appraisal. But see Ferguson. 1974. The Philosophy of Samuel Clarke and its Critics; idem. 1976. Samuel Clarke: an Eighteenth-century Heretic. Also Vailati. 1997. Leibniz and Clarke. A Study of their Correspondence; idem. 1998. Introduction to his edition of Clarke’s A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God and Other Writings.
- 12.
Clarke’s book was condemned by the Convocation of Canterbury in 1714. Clarke shared his Arian view of the Trinity with Whiston and, of course, with Newton – though Newton was careful to dissemble his view. His reputation for heterodoxy can only have been confirmed by Voltaire’s description of him as ‘le plus ferme patron de la doctrine arienne’ in the seventh of his Lettres Philosophiques.
- 13.
On the Boyle Lectures see Jacob. 1976. The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689–1720.
- 14.
Newton. 1704. Opticks, or a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. Further editions with additional queries were published in 1717, 1718, 1721, 1730.
- 15.
This translation was first published in 1702. The annotated version appeared in 1710. This was republished in 1718. It also appeared in Europe (Cologne, 1713, Louvain 1729 and 1739). See Clair. 1978. Jacques Rohault (1618–1672). Bio-bibliographie. One of Clarke’s reasons for undertaking the translation was in order to correct the shortcomings of Theophile Bonet’s Latin translation of 1674. See Barber. 1979. Voltaire and Samuel Clarke. 47–61. His notes were incorporated in European reprints of Rohault, and in his brother, John’s English translation, Rohault 1723 Rohault’s System of Natural Philosophy illustrated with Dr. Samuel Clarke’s Notes taken mostly out of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy.
- 16.
These included his Boyle lecture Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, which was translated by Pierre Ricotier in 1717 (De l’existence et des attributs de Dieu), which saw several editions; his notes, which were included in European editions of his Rohault translations, and his dispute with Leibniz, published in Desmaizeaux’s, Recueil. Clarke’s Latin translation of Rohault, which incorporated his notes, was also published in Europe.
- 17.
According to Barber. 1979. Voltaire and Samuel Clarke. Voltaire’s contact with Clarke was enhanced by the fact that Clarke had a fluent command of French. This gave Clarke an advantage in relations with Princess Caroline who was not an English speaker but was francophone. That was also an advantage for Voltaire when he was introduced to her circle.
- 18.
Voltaire. 1992. Elémens de la Philosophie de Neuton. 193.
- 19.
On the various editions of Voltaire’s Elémens and their composition, see the Introduction to Voltaire. 1992. Elémens de la Philosophie de Neuton. This includes a list of eighteenth-century editions complied by Andrew Brown, pp. 141-68.
- 20.
They were also published in volume 1 of Pierre Desmaizeaux’s Recueil (1720), which printed facing-page French and English versions of the letters, in which Leibniz’s French was translated by Clarke, and Clarke’s English translated by Michel de la Roche. The Demaizeaux Recueil saw several reprintings. There was also a German edition of the Leibniz-Clarke letters, with a forward by Wolff. 1729. Merckwürdige Schriften welche … zwischen dem Herrn Baron von Leibniz und dem Herrn D. Clarke uber besondere Materien der naûrlichen Religion in Franzôs. und Englisher Sprache gewechselt und … in teutscher Sprache herausgegeben worden von Heinrich Köhler. For a modern English edition, see Alexander. 1956. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, which prints relevant excerpts from Principia mathematica, Opticks and Leibniz’s letters.
- 21.
But see H.G. Alexander’s Introduction to Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence; for recent studies, the Bibliography of Clarke 1998 A Demonstration.
- 22.
Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, p. xviii. Also Koyré and Cohen. 1961. The Case of the Missing Tanquam. Leibniz, Newton and Clarke. 555–66.
- 23.
Du Châtelet to Maupertuis, 10th February,1738, LetChBII 120, 217.
- 24.
This is the version on which Voltaire draws in his La métaphysique de Neuton. See Elémens, ed. Besterman, no.1, 201.
- 25.
Newton. 1720. Traité d’optique. This is based on second English Edition, 1717. A second French edition, with corrections, was published in 1722.
- 26.
Hall. 1993. All was Light. An Introduction to Newton’s ‘Opticks’.
- 27.
Newton’s philosophy she wrote, bristles with so many calculations and algebra, that it is a kind of mystery, is only accessible to intiates (‘sa Philosophie hérissée de calculs & d’algèbre, étoit une spece de mistere auqel les seuls initiés avoient droit de participer’) Du Châtelet. 1738. Lettre sur les Eléments de la Philosophie de Newton. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu held the same view. See Grundy. 1999. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Comet of the Enlightenment. 524. As Paolo Cassini notes, the Principia was challenging to non-mathematicians, such as Locke, Halley, and the eruditi of Leipzig, and its reputation ‘was based on the authority of a few competent readers’. See Casini. 1988. Newton’s Principia and the Philosophies of the Enlightenment. 35–52, 42. See also Fellman. The Principia and Continental Mathematicians, ed. ibid., 13–34.
- 28.
Newton. 1952. Opticks. 25. In his study of Opticks, Rupert Hall attributes the success of Opticks in England to its being written in the vernacular, its experimentalism, and the speculative open-ness of the Queries. Hall. 1993. All was Light. 183.
- 29.
Hoskins. 1961. Mining all within. Clarke’s Notes to Rohault’s Traité de physique. 353–63.
- 30.
Of course, it is important not to overstate the parallels between Clarke’s Rouhault and Du Châtelet’s Institutions and thereby lose sight of the differences—differences both of scale and conception.
- 31.
LetChBII 257. The original purpose of Institutions is highlighted in the title of the 1742 edition, and in the German and Italian translations: Institutions physiques de Madame le marquise Du Chastellet addresses a son fils (Inst1742Rep1988) 1742; Der Frau Marquisinn von Chastellet Naturlehre an ihren Sohn, translated by Wolf Balthasar Adolph von Steinwehr (Naturlehre1743); Istituzioni di fisica di Madama la Marchesa Du Chastellet indiritte a suo figliuolo (Venice 1743).
- 32.
Inst1740 Avant-propos I.
- 33.
Ibid.
- 34.
Du Châtelet. LetChBII 244, 24.
- 35.
Marina Frasca-Spada discusses Clarke and the practice of publishing through footnotes in Compendious Footnotes. In Frasca-Spada and Jardine. 2000. Books and the Sciences in History. 171–189.
- 36.
On Du Châtelet’s use of hypothesis, see Karen Detlefsen’s forthcoming paper in the collection edited by Eileen O’Neill. A large extract from Du Châtelet’s discussion was incorporated in the Encyclopédie.
- 37.
E.g. Principia II, proposition X, is followed by ‘Hypothesis I. That the centre of the system of the world is immovable. In her translation of the General Scholium of Newton’s Principia, Du Châtelet renders his famous statement, ‘Hypotheses non fingo’, as ‘Je n’imagine pas d’hypothese’, a translation which indicates that Newton’s Latin retains the possibility of hypothesis, but excludes fanciful ones (‘fingo’ is the root of the English word ‘fiction’).
- 38.
Du Châtelet. LetChBII 257, 12. cf. John Locke, who recommended reading contemporary systems of natural philosophy as hypotheses rather than as purveyors of truth and fact Locke. 1989. Some Thoughts concerning Education. 247.
- 39.
These chapters are incorporated in the articles ‘Espace’ and ‘Tems’ in the Encyclopédie.
- 40.
Voltaire had already sent Frederick II a copy of La métaphysique de Neuton before Madame du Châtelet had completed her Institutions. LetChBII 237, 13. Judith Zinsser interprets this context in terms of antagonism between Voltaire and Du Châtelet, arguing that Voltaire set out to undermine Du Châtelet, and adducing manuscript changes in support of her interpretation. While I defer to her superior knowledge of the sources, it does seem to me that the printed texts suggest disagreement on interpretation, but not necessarily presented as deliberate attempt to undermine her. She herself explained their differences of view to Frederick of Prussia, as good evidence of their amity: citing Montaigne, she says ‘Il me semble meme que notre amitié est plus respectable et plus sûre puisque même la diversité de l’opinion ne la pu altétérer’. LetChBII 237, 14.
- 41.
Inst1740 §74.
- 42.
Inst1740 §73.
- 43.
Inst1740 §75. In Inst1742Am, she replaces this paragraph with the simple statement, ‘Ainsi le raisonnement de Mr. De Leibnitz contre l’Espace absolu est sans replique, & l’on est forcé d’abandoner cet Espace, ou renoncer le principe de la raison suffisante, c’est à dire, au fondement de toute verité, (§ 74, pp. 98-9). On Raphson’s concept of Space, see Copenhaver. 1980. Jewish Theologies of Space in the Scientific Revolution: Henry More, Joseph Raphson, Isaac Newton and Their Predecessors. 515 ff.
- 44.
‘mais je ne m’engagerai pas ici dans le détail des Phénoménes & de leurs causes méchaniques; mon but étant seulement de vous faire voir en générale, comment les Newtoniens prétendent expliquer ces Phénoménes par l’attraction, & quelles sont les raisons qui doivent faire rejetter cette attraction, lorsqu’on la donne pour cause’. Inst1740 §389.
- 45.
I deal with this more fully in my article, ‘Emilie du Châtelet’s Institutions de physique as a document in the history of Newtonianism’.
- 46.
Lettre de M. Mairan à la Marquise du Chastelet, sur la question des Forces Vives and Madame du Châtelet’s reply (originally sent 26th March 1741).
- 47.
Inst1742Am. 541.
- 48.
Hutton. 2004. Emilie du Châtelet’s Institutions.
- 49.
Inst1742Am. 460. Jacob Hermann (1678–1733) is an example of a an admirer of Newton, who like Madame du Châtelet, was also a respecter of Leibniz, to whom he dedicated his Pharonomia (Amsterdam, 1716).
- 50.
See Hankins. 1985. Science and the Enlightenment. 31–3. Before Du Châtelet s’Gravensande was the first Newtonian to see forces vives as an answer to a problem in Newton in 1722.
- 51.
Johann Bernouilli and others used Leibniz’s contributions to mathematics in their study of Newtonian mechanics. (Greenberg 1986). Maupertuis, for example, learned Leibnizian analysis from Bernouilli and applied it to solving problems raised in the Principia (Terrall. 2002. The Man who Flattened the Earth. Maupertuis and the Sciences, 7.)
- 52.
Du Châtelet’s reliance on the Leibnizian principle of sufficient reason, is also consistent with the probability that, at this time Madame du Châtelet’s own competence in mathematics were not yet fully accomplished, and that her knowledge of Newtonianism was largely derived from Opticks, rather than Principia mathematica.
- 53.
I discuss the impact of theological considerations on Du Châtelet’s earlier discussions of Newtonianism in my article: Hutton. 2004. Emilie du Châtelet’s Institutions de physique as a Document in the History of Newtonianism.
References
Alexander, H. G. ed. 1956. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. Manchester: Manchester University Press 1956.
Badinter, E., and D. Muzerelle, eds. 2006. Madame du Châtelet. La femme des Lumières. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
Barber, W. H. 1979. Voltaire and Samuel Clarke. SVEC 179: 47–61.
Barber, W. H. 1967. Mme du Châtelet and Leibnizianism: the genesis of the Institutions de physique. In The Age of Enlightenment: Studies presented to Theodore Besterman, ed. William H. Barber, J.H Brumfitt, R.A Leigh, R. Shakleton, and S.S.B Taylor, 200–22. Edinburgh/London: Oliver and Boyd.
Brown, S. 1984. Leibniz. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Casini. 1988. Newton’s Principia and the Philosophies of the Enlightenment. In Newton’s Principia, eds. Hall and King-Hele 1988, 35–52. The Royal Society.
Clair, P. 1978. Jacques Rohault (1618–1672): Bio-bibliographie, avec l’Édition critique des Entretiens sur la Philosophie. Paris: Editions de Centre National du la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS).
Clarke, S. 1998. A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God and Other Writings, ed. Vailati. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, I. B. 1968. The French Translation of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1756, 1759, 1966). Archives internationales d`histoire des sciences 21:261–90.
Copenhaver, B. P. 1980. Jewish Theologies of Space in the Scientific Revolution: Henry More, Joseph Raphson, Isaac Newton and Their Predecessors. Annals of Science 37: 515 ff.
Du Châtelet, E. 1738. Lettre sur les Eléments de la philosophie de Newton. Paris. Journal des sçavans:434–41.
Ferguson, J. P. 1976. Samuel Clarke: an Eighteenth-century Heretic. Kinetown: Roundwood Press.
Ferguson, J. P. 1974. The Philosophy of Samuel Clarke and its Critics. New York: Vantage Press.
Frasca-Spada, M. and Jardine, N. 2000. Books and the Sciences in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gandt, F. de. 2001. Cirey dans la vie intellectuelle: la réception de Newton en France. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.
Gardiner, L. J. 1982. Searching for the Metaphysics of Science: the Structure and composition of Madame du Châtelet’s Institutions de physique, 1737–40. SVEC 201:85–113.
Grundy, I. 1999. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Comet of the Enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, A. R. 1993. All was Light. An Introduction to Newton’s ‘Opticks’. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hall, A. R., and King Hele, D. G. 1988. Newton’s Principia and its legacy. London: Royal Society.
Hankins, T. L. 1985. Science and the Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoskins, M. 1961. Mining all within. Clarke’s Notes to Rohault’s Traité de physique. The Thomist 24: 353–63.
Hutton, S. 2004. Emilie du Châtelet’s Institutions de physique as a Document in the History of French Newtonianism. Studies in history and philosophy of science 35 A, no. 3:515–31.
Jacob, M. 1967. The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689–1720. Hassocks: Harvester Press.
Koyré A., and Cohen, I. B. 1961. The Case of the Missing Tanquam. Leibniz, Newton and Clarke. Isis 52. 555–66.
Le Ru, V. 2005. Voltaire newtonien. Le Combat d’un philosophe pour une science. Paris: Vuibert.
Locke, J. 1989. Some Thoughts concerning Education, ed. John W. and Jean S. Yolton. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moriarty, P. V. 2006. The principle of sufficient reason in Du Châtelet’s Institutions. In Emilie Du Châtelet: rewriting Enlightenment philosophy and science, ed. Judith P. Zinsser and Julie C. Hayes, 203–25. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.
Newton, I. 1704. Opticks, or a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. Smith and Walford.
Newton, I. 1720. Traité d’optique. Transl. by Pierre Coste. Amsterdam.
Rohault, J. 1723. Rohault’s System of Natural Philosophy, illustrated with Dr. Samuel Clarke’s Notes taken mostly out of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy. Done into English by John Clarke, printed for James Knapton. London.
Samuel, C. 1998. Introduction. In A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God and Other Writings, ed. Vailati, E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taton, R. 1971. Châtelet, Gabrielle-Émilie le Tonnier de Breteuil, Marquise du. In Dictionary of scientific biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie, 215–17. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Taton, R. 1970. Isaac Newton. Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle, trad. de la marquise du Chastellet, augmentée des commentaires de Clairaut. Revue d’histoire des sciences et de leurs applications 23:175–80.
Taton, R. 1969. Madame du Châtelet, traductrice de Newton. Archives internationales d`histoire des sciences 22: 185–210.
Terrall, M. 2002. The Man who Flattened the Earth. Maupertuis and the Sciences. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Vailati, E. 1997. Leibniz and Clarke. A Study of their Correspondence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Voltaire. 1992. Eléments de la philosophie de Neuton, 1738. In The Complete Works of Voltaire, ed. R. L. Walters and W. H. Barber. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.
Wade, I. O. 1947. Studies on Voltaire. With Some Unpublished Papers of Mme du Châtelet. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wolff, C. 1729. Merckwürdige Schriften welche … zwischen dem Herrn Baron von Leibniz und dem Herrn D. Clarke uber besondere Materien der naûrlichen Religion in Franzôs. und Englisher Sprache gewechselt und … in teutscher Sprache herausgegeben worden von Heinrich Köhler. Frankfurt/Leipzig.
Zinsser, J. P. and Julie Candler Hayes, eds. 2006. Emilie Du Châtelet: rewriting Enlightenment philosophy and science. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.
Zinsser, J. 2001. Translating Newton’s ‘Principia’: The Marquise du Châtelet’s Revisions and Additions for a French Audience. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 55, no. 2:227–45.
Zinsser, J. P. 2007. La Dame d’Esprit. A Biography of Madame Du Châtelet. New York and London: Viking.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hutton, S. (2012). Between Newton and Leibniz: Emilie du Châtelet and Samuel Clarke. In: Hagengruber, R. (eds) Emilie du Châtelet between Leibniz and Newton. International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 205. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2093-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2093-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2074-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2093-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)