Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rohault’s Cartesian Physics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cartesian Empiricisms

Part of the book series: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science ((AUST,volume 31))

Abstract

In 1671, Jacques Rohault published his Traité de physique, a textbook on physics relying on his weekly conferences held in Paris. A good mathematician and at the same time a curious experimenter, Rohault was one of the main Cartesian figures of his time. Connected to Parisian philosophical circles, Rohault was deeply concerned with the reception of Descartes’ philosophical views. He was associated with Claude Clerselier and he encouraged Pierre-Sylvain Régis to spread Cartesianism in Toulouse. Performing experiments and using instruments in his observations, allowed for a very good reception of Rohault’s natural philosophy in the late seventeenth century. Thus, his textbook on physics was quickly translated and disseminated across Europe. Of a particular interest is the English version of this book, which was annotated by the celebrated Newtonian, Samuel Clarke. This chapter will provide a deep analysis of Rohault’s system of physics, with an emphasis on his experimental approach. Equally important, the Newtonian reception of Rohault’s treatise will be discussed in close connection to the structure of his philosophical system and the methodological novelties introduced by the French philosopher.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a good discussion of Rohault’s life, see Clair 1978. This is the still the best biography available and it sheds a good light on Rohault’s social status and on his personal connection with Clerselier. On Clerselier and Rohault as promoters of Cartesianism in France, see Balz 1930. For the general placement of Rohault within the Cartesian movement, see Bouillier 1868 and Mouy 1934; and for a discussion of Rohault as an experimental philosopher, see McClaughlin 1996, 2000.

  2. 2.

    Rohault’s birth was debated in the literature. For instance, Gérard Milhaud ascribed it to May 23, 1623 (see Milhaud 1972); a famous portrait of him has 1620 inscribed as his year of birth; but more convincing is the view expressed by McClaughlin (see McClaughlin 1976), which ascribes it to 1617. In this chapter, I shall follow the chronology suggested by Clair (see Clair 1978).

  3. 3.

    Mouy 1934, 108: “S’efforçait de constituer, sur les bases cartésiennes, une physique expérimentale. A ses ‘mercredis’, tout Paris, la province, l’étranger même se pressaient pour assister aux belles expériences par lesquelles il confirmait la physique de Descartes.” For an alternative reading of Rohault’s role in the Parisian academies, see Chap. 3 by Roux.

  4. 4.

    See Nouvelles de la République des Lettres Octobre 1685, 1014: “Ce qui fait souvent que l’on ne rencontre pas le nom d’un Auteur, c’est qu’on ne le prononce pas comme on l’écrit. De là est venu que si peut de gens ont bien cité M. Rohault, avant qu’il eût publié lui-même son nom. Les uns le citoient M. Roo, & les autres M. Roho. Qui sçait si un jour l’on ne fera pas de tout cela 2 ou 3 Auteurs differens come l’on a fait à l’égard de plusieurs anciens à cause de l’oubli ou de la transposition d’une seule lettre?”

  5. 5.

    See Journal des sçavans April 26, 1666, 208. Another variation of spelling his name is to be found in Denis, Jean Baptiste. 1668. Lettre ècrite à M. Sorbière…, Paris, where he is called “Roh.”

  6. 6.

    See Matton’s “Remarques sur le manuscrit de la Physique nouvelle” in Rohault 2009.

  7. 7.

    Rohault 2009, LXXXV.

  8. 8.

    This is further supported by the content of the Ms. 2225 of the Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, which collects reports from Rohault’s Wednesday conferences from November 1660 to April 1661 and a discourse from 1669. There seem to be no differences between the Ms. 2225 and the Physique nouvelle with respect to Rohault’s famous experimental cases—his experiments with magnets, his demonstrations of the effects caused by the glass drops, etc. See Rohault 1660.

  9. 9.

    Birch 1756, I, 28.

  10. 10.

    Oldenburg addresses two letters to Saporta where he discusses about Rohault’s public conferences. Thus, on June 28, 1659, Oldenburg gives a high praise to Rohault’s account of vision and on August 11, 1659, he refers to the Frenchman’s explanation of colours. For Oldenburg’s reports, see Oldenburg 1965–1986, I.

  11. 11.

    See Claude Clerselier’s unpaginated preface in Descartes 1659: “d’un tres-grand nombre de personnes…a fait aller à l’assemblée qui se tient tous les Mercredis chez Mr. Rohault, tres-sçavant Mathematicien, & fort experimenté dans les Mechaniques.”

  12. 12.

    For the connection between Rohault, Cyrano, and Moliére, see McClaughlin 1976, 179.

  13. 13.

    Another important biographical detail about Rohault is the name of his first wife, Nicole Fillassier, to whom he married in 1650. After her death in 1663, Rohault remarried in 1664 with Geneviève Clerselier and became, thus, the son-in-law of Claude Clerselier. See McClaughlin 1976, 181 and Clair 1978, 27–28. Fillassier was a family of merchants and craftsmen, which would have facilitated Rohault’s better access to different artisans and workshops. This can explain both Rohault’s familiarity with handling instruments, but also his possibility to get less common materials for his experiments (e.g., glass-drops). I would like to thank Trevor McClaughlin for pressing this point.

  14. 14.

    See McClaughlin 1979; Clarke 1989. For a general discussion of the Eucharist affair and its consequences for Cartesian philosophy, see Schmaltz 2002; Chap. 2 by Ariew; Chap. 8 by Easton.

  15. 15.

    Pierre Clair makes a list of the various editions of Rohault’s book. See Clair 1978, 5–8.

  16. 16.

    See Nouvelles de la République des Lettres October 1706, 455–460.

  17. 17.

    On Le Grand’s Cartesianism, see Chap. 11 by Hatfield.

  18. 18.

    See Nouvelles de la République des Lettres October 1706, 457: “il faut convenir avec Mr. Clarke, que ce premier Traducteur a commis des fautes assez grossiéres.…” The book review is concerned with the Latin edition printed in 1702, which is the second edition prepared by Samuel Clarke. The first edition was printed in 1697.

  19. 19.

    For the history and the evolution of these annotations, see Hoskin 1961; Schüler 2001.

  20. 20.

    See Hoskin 1961.

  21. 21.

    Sarton 1948, 145.

  22. 22.

    See Des Chene 2002, 185; Schüler 2001, 96.

  23. 23.

    For Rohault’s first edition of the Traité, see Rohault 1671. However, due to the role of Clarke’s annotations to Rohault’s text, I shall mainly refer to the System (Rohault 1987).

  24. 24.

    See Clerselier’s unpaginated preface in Descartes 1664. For a discussion of Montmor academy, see Chap. 8 by Easton. For a general discussion of the relation between the French academies and Cartesianism, see Brown 1934; Chap. 3 by Roux.

  25. 25.

    For more on this, see the rules drawn by Samuel Sorbière in his letter to Thomas Hobbes from February 1, 1658, in Sorbière 1660, 663–664.

  26. 26.

    See Oldenburg 1965–1986, II, 73.

  27. 27.

    For a list of the instruments and devices found in Rohault’s possession at his death in 1672, see McClaughlin and Picolet 1976.

  28. 28.

    Descartes 1659, unpaginated preface: “les Spectateurs des experiences que l’on y fait, se render aussi les Juges & les Arbitres des explications qu’on leur donne.”

  29. 29.

    Rohault 1682, unpaginated preface: “Ces sortes de preuves si claires, si convaincantes, & si sensibles, fort differentes de ces vertus & qualitez occultes dont les autres Philosophes ont coûtume de se servir pour rendre raison de ce qu’ils ignorent, justifient ce me semble bien clairement la verité des principes dont elles dépendent; car moyen de pouvoir tirer un si grand nombre de consequences justes, & que les effets verifient, d’un si petit nombre de Principes, si ces Principes n’estoient veritables.”

  30. 30.

    See Chap. 1 by Dobre and Nyden.

  31. 31.

    For some examples of Cartesian philosophers who put emphasis on experiment and observation, see Ariew 2006 and other chapters in this volume.

  32. 32.

    Blay, introduction to Rohault 2009, xxix: “Une sorte de conception mécanisto-expérimentale se substitue à la physique métaphysique de Descartes et participe ainsi à la construction d’une nouvelle manière de faire de la science échappant progressivement à la question du sens.”

  33. 33.

    The unofficial version was the Physique nouvelle, as we have seen above.

  34. 34.

    Rohault 1987, unpaginated preface.

  35. 35.

    Rohault 1987, unpaginated preface.

  36. 36.

    Rohault 1987, unpaginated preface.

  37. 37.

    See Mouy 1934, 114–115: “Ce n’est pas contre Descartes que Rohault se prononce ici, évidement. C’est plutôt contre Cordemoy, inventeur d’un atomisme fondé sur des principes métaphysiques soi-disant cartésiens, et aussi contre les scolastiques qui s’embarrassent de définir l’idée métaphysique du mouvement au lieu d’en étudier les lois et les effets” (It is, of course, not against Descartes that Rohault speaks about here. It is more against Cordemoy, supporter of an atomism founded upon so-called Cartesian metaphysical principles and also against the Scholastics…) For Cordemoy’s natural philosophy, see Ablondi 2005.

  38. 38.

    For Boyle’s so-called nescience regarding the divisibility of matter, see Boyle 1999, I, 355–356. For a general discussion of this problem in Boyle, see Anstey 2000, 41–45.

  39. 39.

    Descartes 1667, 543: “que chaque corps peut estre divisé en des parties extremement petites; Je ne veux pas determiner si leur nombre est infiny, ou non, mais à tout le moins il est certain qu’au regard de nostre connoissance il est indefiny.” This third volume of correspondence contains several letters in defence of Cartesian views, written by Clerselier and Rohault.

  40. 40.

    See the title for this letter [97] “Lettre de M. Clerselier, (qui fut luë dans l’assemblée de M. de Montmor le treiziéme Juillet 1658, sous le nom de Monsieur Descartes, & comme si c’eust esté luy qui l’eust autrefois écrite à quelqu’un de ses Amis) servant de réponse aux difficultez que Monsieur de Roberval y avoit proposées en son absence, touchant le mouvement dans le plein” in Descartes 1667, 538.

  41. 41.

    Rohault 1987, unpaginated preface.

  42. 42.

    See Rohault 1987, unpaginated preface.

  43. 43.

    Rohault 1987, unpaginated preface. The second type of experiment listed by Rohault is remarkable for several reasons, including his similarity with Baconian methodology of variation within experiment and its reference to the method of the chymists. For a discussion of seventeenth-century chymists’ reaction to Cartesianism, see Chap. 6 by Joly.

  44. 44.

    Rohault 1987, unpaginated preface. This claim encompasses in a nutshell the double meaning of experiment in Rohault: a negative one, where experiment is used to confirm a particular hypothesis, and a positive one, where experiment is employed in the expansion of a theoretical model to new phenomena. For a discussion of the meaning of Cartesian expérience, see Clarke 1989, 209.

  45. 45.

    The mutual benefit of experiment and speculation for each other is a recurring theme in Robert Boyle’s natural philosophy. For example, commenting Boyle’s method from the Designe about Natural History, Peter Anstey and Michael Hunter argue: “Boyle envisages a reciprocal relation between histories and hypotheses, the one informing the other and vice versa.…Boyle’s methodology is better described as a two-stage reciprocal enterprise in which theory informs experiment with a view to constructing a natural history, which in turn informs theory” (see Anstey and Hunter 2008, 107).

  46. 46.

    Rohault 1987, unpaginated preface. On the same page, his words looks even more confusing, “for scarce can a Philosopher present the Publick with any Fruits of his Studies, but some unknown Person who has a Mind to signalize himself, attacks them before he understands them.”

  47. 47.

    Rohault 1987, I, 1.

  48. 48.

    Rohault 1987, I, 3.

  49. 49.

    Descartes’ move from metaphysics to physics is achieved through his theory of matter. The existence of bodies and the identification between body, matter, and extension are mainly done on the basis of his prior metaphysics. However, there is a gap in the passage from one res extensa to a multitude of res extensae, which Descartes’ philosophy fails to accommodate. For a detailed discussion of the individuation problems in Descartes, see Dobre 2011. For an overview of problems caused by Descartes’ general physics in the Principia philosophiae, see de Buzon and Carraud 1994.

  50. 50.

    For some of the problems raised by Descartes’ classification of types of certainty, see Ariew 2011; Dobre 2013a; Chap. 2 by Ariew; Chap. 10 by Nyden; Chap. 11 by Hatfield.

  51. 51.

    For the “breakdown” of Cartesianism, see Watson 1966. For the general problems posed by the Cartesian tensioned relation between metaphysics and physics, with a detailed discussion of four cases of early French Cartesians, including Jacques Rohault, see Dobre 2010.

  52. 52.

    For the corresponding section in the Physique nouvelle, see Rohault 2009, 6: “les facultés de comprendre, ou apprehender, de iuger, de raisonner ou conclure, et enfin de sentir.”

  53. 53.

    See Rohault’s title for Chap. III of the first part of his book: “The Manner of Applying Philosophy to Particular Subjects.” Rohault 1987, I, 13.

  54. 54.

    Rohault 1987, I, 13.

  55. 55.

    Rohault 1987, I, 13–14.

  56. 56.

    Besides Ariew 2011, where Descartes’ quest for certainty is discussed in close connection to the scholastic tradition, for an overview of how the problem evolves within Cartesian philosophy, see Dobre 2013a. See also Chap. 2 by Ariew; Chap. 11 by Hatfield.

  57. 57.

    AT IXb 328, CSM I 290.

  58. 58.

    Rohault 1987, I, 14.

  59. 59.

    Rohault 1987, I, 14. For the similar passage in the Physique nouvelle, see Rohault 2009, 15–16. We should notice that in his earlier text Rohault does not provide any examples, as it will later be the case with Copernicus.

  60. 60.

    Rohault 1987, I, 14.

  61. 61.

    See Rohault 1987, I, Part 1, Chap. IV, 15–18.

  62. 62.

    See for example, Galileo’s Assayer (1623), where the difference is between qualities pertaining to senses (i.e., touch), which are supposed to be in the object and qualities that are in the mind of the observer (e.g., colours). Another important place to find this distinction is Boyle’s Origin of Forms and Qualities (1666). For the current chapter, it is not important to discuss the shift of nuances and the evolution of this distinction in the context of seventeenth-century thought, suffice is to say that Rohault draws a similar distinction. For a survey of the problem in the historical context, see Nolan 2011.

  63. 63.

    Rohault will use the same Cartesian view regarding “modes” in his so-called Aristotelian acceptation of the three principles of material things, both in the Traité and the Entretiens. For a discussion of this use in both writings, see Dobre 2010.

  64. 64.

    See Rohault 1987, I, Part 1, Chap. V.

  65. 65.

    Rohault 1987, I, 20.

  66. 66.

    See Rohault 1987, I, 18–20. For his claim that “there are yet more Axioms which I shall afterwards draw many Conclusions from; but because they are not so general as these, I shall content my self with mentioning them, when I have occasion to make use of them,” see p. 20.

  67. 67.

    Rohault 1987, I, 23.

  68. 68.

    Rohault 1987, I, 24.

  69. 69.

    See Clarke’s footnote in Rohault 1987, I, 24.

  70. 70.

    AT IXb 73, CSM I 231.

  71. 71.

    Rohault 1987, I, 28.

  72. 72.

    For the Newtonian reaction against Rohault’s explanation, see Rohault 1987, I, 27. But just before listing several (Newtonian) reasons for rejecting it, Clarke agrees: “This is consistently enough said by him, who affirms the Essence of Matter to be Extension.”

  73. 73.

    Rohault 1987, I, 28.

  74. 74.

    See Chap. 1 by Dobre and Nyden.

  75. 75.

    For Rohault’s connection to craftsmen and artisans, see McClaughlin 1996, 475–476.

  76. 76.

    See letters no. 823 (December 18, 1660), 924 (December 7, 1661), and especially 952 (January 4, 1662) in Huygens 1890–1891, III–IV. Note that in some of these letters, Rohault’s name is spelled “Rohaut.”

  77. 77.

    For the reception of Rohault’s Traité in the two scientific journals, see Journal des Sçavans June 22, 1671, 25–30 and the Philosophical Transactions 1671, 2138–2141.

  78. 78.

    See Rohault 1987, I, 56. The same example is given in Rohault 2009, 32.

  79. 79.

    For a comparison between the barometric experiments performed by Pascal, Roberval, and Rohault, see Mouy 1934, 126–132. The aim of the current chapter is not to make a similar comparison, but rather to focus on a different aspect of Rohault’s natural philosophy.

  80. 80.

    Rohault 1987, I, 57.

  81. 81.

    Rohault 1987, I, 57.

  82. 82.

    Rohault 1987, I, 57n1.

  83. 83.

    Rohault 1987, I, 58.

  84. 84.

    Rohault 1987, I, 58.

  85. 85.

    See Rohault 1987, I, 58–61.

  86. 86.

    Rohault 1987, I, 61.

  87. 87.

    Rohault 1987, I, 61.

  88. 88.

    See for example Rohault’s explanation of the production of glass-drops in Rohault 1987, I, 136–140; for the explanation in Physique nouvelle, see Rohault 2009, 80–84. The same strategy is applied in his discussion of magnetism; see Rohault 1987, II, 163–187 or Rohault 2009, 370–390. For the glass-drop experiment, see Dobre 2013b, 117–120.

  89. 89.

    Rohault 1987, I, unpaginated preface.

  90. 90.

    Journal des sçavans June 22, 1671, 26: “tout ce Livre n’est qu’une suite d’experiences raisonnées & arranges methodiquement.”

  91. 91.

    By following Le Clerc, Ruestow refers to de Volder’s classes as relying on Rohault, among others; see Ruestow 1973. See Chap. 4 by van Bunge and Chap. 10 by Nyden.

  92. 92.

    Vanpaemel 1984, 33.

  93. 93.

    Vanpaemel 1984, 39.

  94. 94.

    On the similarity between Rohault and Boyle with respect to causation, see Kenneth Clatterbaugh’s excellent chapter on “The Limits of Classical Mechanism: Boyle, Rohault, and Newton” in Clatterbaugh 1999.

  95. 95.

    See Laudan 1966.

  96. 96.

    See Roux 1998.

References

  • Ablondi, Fred. 2005. Gerauld de Cordemoy. Atomist, occasionalist, Cartesian. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anstey, Peter. 2000. The philosophy of Robert Boyle. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anstey, Peter, and Michael Hunter. 2008. Robert Boyle’s ‘Designe about Natural History’. Early Science and Medicine 13: 83–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariew, Roger. 2006. Cartesian empiricism. Revue Roumaine de Philosophie 50: 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew, Roger. 2011. The new matter theory and its epistemology. Descartes (and late scholastics) on hypotheses and moral certainty. In Vanishing matter and the laws of motion. Descartes and beyond, ed. Dana Jalobeanu and Peter Anstey, 31–46. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balz, Albert. 1930. Clerselier (1614–1684) and Rohault (1620–1675). The Philosophical Review 40(3): 221–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, Thomas. 1756. History of the Royal Society, 4 vols. London: A. Millar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blay, Michel. 2009. Introduction. In Physique nouvelle (1667), Jacques Rohault, V–XXIX, Paris/Milan: Séha/Archè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouillier, Francisque. 1868. Histoire de la philosophie cartésienne. 2 vols., 3rd ed. Paris: C. Delgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, Robert. 1999–2000. The works of Robert Boyle. London: Pickering & Chatto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Harcourt. 1934. Scientific organizations in seventeenth century France (1620–1680). Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzon, Frédéric de., and Carraud Vincent. 1994. Descartes et les “Principia” II. Corps et mouvement. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clair, Pierre. 1978. Jacques Rohault (1618–1672). Bio-Bibliographie. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, Desmond. 1989. Occult powers and hypotheses. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clatterbaugh, Kenneth. 1999. The causation debate in modern philosophy, 1637–1739. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Des Chene, Dennis. 2002. Cartesian science: Régis and Rohault. In Blackwell companions to philosophy: A companion to early modern philosophy, ed. Steven Nadler, 183–196. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1659. Lettres de M. Descartes, vol. II. Paris: Charles Angot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1664. Le monde. Paris: Jacques le Gras.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1667. Lettres de M. Descartes, vol. III. Paris: Charles Angot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1970. Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery. Paris: J. Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1985–1991. The philosophical writings of Descartes, 3 vols., ed. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre, Mihnea. 2010. Metaphysics and physics in Cartesian natural philosophy: Descartes and early French Cartesians on the foundation of natural philosophy. Proefschrift Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre, Mihnea. 2011. The vanishing nature of body in Descartes’s natural philosophy. In Vanishing matter and the laws of motion. Descartes and beyond, ed. Dana Jalobeanu and Peter Anstey, 11–30. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre, Mihnea. 2013a. Knowledge and certainty in the foundation of Cartesian natural philosophy. Revue Roumaine de Philosophie 57(1): 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobre, Mihnea. 2013b. On glass-drops: A case study of the interplay between experimentation and explanation in seventeenth-century natural philosophy. Journal of Early Modern Studies 2(1): 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskin, Michael. 1961. ‘Mining all within’: Clarke’s notes to Rohault’s Traité de Physique. The Tomist 24: 353–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huygens, Christiaan. 1890–1891. Oeuvres complètes, vols. III–IV. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Journal des Sçavans. 1666, 1671. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, Laurens. 1966. The clock metaphor and probabilism: The impact of Descartes on English methodological thought, 1650–65. Annals of Science 22(2): 73–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matton, Sylvain. 2009. Remarques sur le manuscrit de la ‘Physique nouvelle’. In Physique nouvelle (1667), Jacques Rohault, LXXIII–XC, Paris/Milan: Séha/Archè.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClaughlin, Trevor. 1976. Quelques mots sur Rohault et Molière. Europe 54(569): 178–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClaughlin, Trevor. 1979. Censorship and defenders of the Cartesian faith in mid-seventeenth century France. Journal of the History of Ideas 40(4): 563–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClaughlin, Trevor. 1996. Was there an empirical movement in mid-seventeenth century France? Experiments in Jacques Rohault’s Traité de physique. Revue d’Histoire des Sciences 49(4): 459–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClaughlin, Trevor. 2000. Descartes, experiments, and a first generation Cartesian, Jacques Rohault. In Descartes’ natural philosophy, ed. Stephen Gaukroger, John Schuster, and John Sutton, 330–346. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClaughlin, Trevor, and Guy Picolet. 1976. Un exemple d’utilisation du Minutier central de Paris: la bibliothèque et les instruments scientifiques du physicien Jacques Rohault selon son inventaire après décès. Revue d’histoire des sciences 29(1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milhaud, Gérard. 1972. Rohault et Molière. Europe 50(523–524): 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouy, Paul. 1934. Le développement de la physique cartésienne: 1646–1712. Paris: J. Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, Lawrence. 2011. Primary and secondary qualities: The historical and ongoing debate. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nouvelles de la République des Lettres. 1685, 1706. Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldenburg, Henry. 1965–1986. The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, ed. Alfred Rupert Hall and Marie Boas Hall. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philosophical Transactions. 1671. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohault, Jacques. 1660. Ms 2225 Conférences sur la physique, faites en 1660–1661, par Jacques Rohault, et recueillies par un de ses auditeurs qui, dit-il, y a ajouté du sien. Paris: Manuscript in the archives of the Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohault, Jacques. 1671. Traité de physique. Paris. doi:dx.doi.org/10.3931/erara-4795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohault, Jacques. 1682. Oeuvres posthumes de M. Rohault. Paris: Guillaume Desprez.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohault, Jacques. 1987. System of natural philosophy, illustrated with Dr. Samuel Clarke’s notes, taken mostly out of Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy. New York/London: Garland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohault, Jacques. 2009. Physique nouvelle (1667). Paris/Milan: Séha/Archè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roux, Sophie. 1998. Le scepticisme et les hypothèses de la physique. Revue de Synthèse 4(2–3): 211–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruestow, Edward G. 1973. Physics at seventeenth and eighteenth-century Leiden: Philosophy and the new science in the university. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sarton, George. 1948. Second preface to volume 38: The study of early scientific textbooks. Isis 38(3–4): 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmaltz, Tad. 2002. Radical Cartesianism. The French Reception to Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schüler, Volkmar. 2001. Samuel Clarke’s annotations in Jacques Rohault’s ‘Traité de Physique’, and how they contributed to popularising Newton’s physics. In Between Leibniz, Newton, and Kant: Philosophy and science in the 18th century, ed. Wolfgang Lefèvre, 95–110. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorbière, Samuel de. 1660. Lettres et discours de M. de Sorbière: sur diverses matières curieuses. Paris: François Clousier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanpaemel, Geert. 1984. Rohault’s Traité de physique and the teaching of the Cartesian physics. Janus: Revue Internationale de l’Histoire des Sciences, de la Médecine et de la Technique 71: 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Richard. 1966. The downfall of Cartesianism. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the strategic grant POSDRU/89/1.5/S/62259 (University of Bucharest). I would like to thank Peter Anstey, Trevor McClaughlin, and Tammy Nyden for their comments on the previous draft of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Center for the Logic, History and Philosophy of Science (CELFIS), Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei 204, 060024, Bucharest, Romania

    Mihnea Dobre

Authors
  1. Mihnea Dobre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mihnea Dobre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Mihnea Dobre

  2. Philosophy Department, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa, USA

    Tammy Nyden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dobre, M. (2013). Rohault’s Cartesian Physics. In: Dobre, M., Nyden, T. (eds) Cartesian Empiricisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 31. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7690-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation