Galileo and the Theory of the Tides

Author(s): E. J. Aiton and Harold L. Burstyn

Source: Isis, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Spring, 1965), pp. 56-63
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/228458
Accessed: 06-05-2015 07:05 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES

&

CORRESPONDENCE

GALILEO AND THE THEORY

OF THE TIDES

The Fourth Day of Galileo's Dialogue, which called upon the tides to support
the Copernican hypothesis, has long been treated - or left untreated - as a
curious aberration from an otherwise well-reasoned argument. In an article
published two years ago, Harold L. Burstyn 1 analyzed Galileo's theory in terms
of Galilean physics and Newtonian physics. He concluded in both cases that the
tides could be used as a proof of the earth's rotation and its movement about the
sun.
It is refreshing when an article in these pages stimulates controversy, as
Burstyn's has. And this is doubly true when the controversy focuses interest on
a major subject in the history of science, thus transcending the specialized
preoccupations of the participants.
In an earlier issue, E. J. Aiton questioned an incidental point in Burstyn's
analysis. Galileo had postulated that there is a monthly unevenness in the
motion of the earth because, while the force on the earth-moon system remains
constant, the moon varies in its distance from the sun. Burstyn interpreted the
force as gravitational and the unevenness as a changing earth-sun radius; he
thus attributed to Galileo at least the intuition " that the point which described
the earth's orbit about the sun is not the center of the earth but the center of
the earth-moon system." Aiton, in reply, interpreted the force as tangential
to the earth's orbit, and the unevenness as a periodic changing of the speed of
the earth along the orbit. This, Aiton argued, also fits better with the context
of Galileo's argument, which includes a discussion of the regulatory action of
clocks' weights. For the details of this difference of opinion the reader is
referred to Isis, 1963, 54: 265-266 (June) and 400-401 (September).
Now Aiton returns to question some of Burstyn's more fundamental theses.
Burstyn has been asked to reply, and his remarks are printed here also.
B. S. F.
COMMENTS

BY

E. J. AITON

Since the chief object of Galileo's theory of the tides was to prove the earth's

axial and orbital motions, it is of prime importance to decide (1) whether,

within the framework of his own physics, Galileo was justified in his deduction,
(2) whether, in the context of Newtonian physics, the phenomena of the tides
are capable of furnishing the proof sought by Galileo. In my view, the answers
given to these questions by H. L. Burstyn in his article " Galileo's Attempt To
Prove that the Earth Moves"namely, that Galileo's theory of the tides
"demands that the earth rotate on its axis and revolve in orbit around the
sun," and that " these are the conditions demanded by a correct theory of the
tides " 2 - are both false.
According to Galileo the principal causes of the tides are "the determinate
acceleration and retardation of the earth, depending on the combination of the
two motions, annual and diurnal," and " the proper gravity of the water, which
being once moved by the primary cause, then seeks to reduce itself to equilibrium,
with repeated reciprocations." 3 It is only Galileo's primary cause that is in
question. Galileo's idea that the seas, once disturbed by the primary cause,
*
Didsbury College of Education, Manchester, England.
Harold L. Burstyn, "Galileo's Attempt To
Prove that the Earth Moves," Isis, 1962, 53:
161-185.

2 Ibid., p. 181.
3 Galileo, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei (Florence: Societa Editrice Fiorentina, 1842-1856),
Vol. 2, p. 401.

56

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GALILEO AND THE THEORY OF THE TIDES

57

continue to oscillate with periods depending on the sizes and shapes of their
natural boundaries, was a sound intuition foreshadowing modern ideas.4
Let EF (Fig. 1) represent a part of the earth's orbit. At the point A on the
earth's surface, where it will be midnight, the annual and diurnal motions are
in the same sense; whereas at the point B, where it will be noon, these motions
are in opposite senses. Relative to axes fixed in the sun, which Galileo supposed
to be at rest, the speed at A is greater than that at B. Consequently, each part
of the earth's surface, Galileo argued, is alternately accelerated and retarded, thus
giving rise to the tides.
First let us consider Galileo's theory within the framework of his own physics.
It may be inferred from the Dialogo that Galileo regarded the earth's orbital
motion and axial rotation as inertial, though this belief is nowhere stated

E
B
FIGURE 1

explicitly. From this standpoint, Galileo's theory of the tides involved the belief
that the combination of two inertial motions could result in a noninertial or
accelerated motion. Through Simplicius, Galileo admitted that at first sight
this "has the appearance of a very great paradox." 5 It is, in fact, completely
false. Any force on the water arising from the combination of the two motions
would be the vector sum of the forces arising from the separate motions, and
since these are inertial, they cannot give rise to any forces.6 It follows that,
assuming the earth's orbital motion and axial rotation to be inertial, the double
motion of the earth claimed by Galileo to be demonstrated by the tides was
unable to move the water relative to the earth in the slightest degree.
Once it is realized that the earth's orbital motion and axial rotation are
accelerated, the paradox disappears. That Galileo had some understanding of
centrifugal force may be inferred from his discussion of the propulsion of a stone
by slings and similar devices.7 For Galileo, however, the motion of a stone in a
4 For a discussion of this aspect of Galileo's
theory, see D. Burger, "Galilei's theorie van eb
en vloed," Hemel en Dampkring, 1954, 52:
27-36 and Burstyn, op. cit., p. 174.
5 Galileo, Dialogue on the Great World Systems, revised and annotated by Giorgio de

Santillana (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1953), p. 434.
6 Cf. Santillana's explanation, ibid., p. 434,
footnote 6
7Ibid.,

pp. 201 ff.

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

58

E. J. AITON

sling and the motion of bodies on a rotating earth were not comparable. The
discussion of the propulsion of stones from slings and spinning wheels occurs in
the course of a demonstration that bodies on the earth cannot be thrown off
by the earth's axial rotation. Whatever the velocity of a stone when it leaves
the rim of a spinning wheel to which it was attached, Galileo argues, " in the
beginning of the separation, the recession being so small by reason of the infinite
acuteness of the angle of contact, every smallest inclination that draws it back
toward the centre of the wheel would be sufficient to retain it upon the rim
or circumference." 8 Since the stone has no inclination toward the center of the
wheel, it would be thrown off; but bodies on the earth, having a natural inclination toward the center, Galileo argues, can never be thrown off. It is not simply
that the velocity of rotation of the earth is too slow. According to Galileo's
argument, the lightest conceivable body would not be thrown off however great
the velocity of rotation. For Galileo, therefore, the circular motion of bodies
moving with the earth was inertial. If, as we have seen, Galileo regarded the
motion of the stone in the sling as inappropriate to the case of the earth's axial
rotation, we may reasonably infer that he would also have regarded it as inappropriate to the case of the earth's orbital motion. Contrary to the opinion of
Burstyn,9 Galileo's discussion of slings and spinning wheels, considered in its
context, does not provide any evidence that Galileo understood intuitively that
the earth's orbital motion is accelerated.
Galileo's theory of the tides was inspired by the behavior of water in moving
containers, as is evident from the earliest extant statement of the theory, recorded
in the notebooks of Paolo Sarpi.10 In the Dialogo Galileo mentions that he
had a design for a mechanical model to illustrate his theory of the tides, but
no details are given.11 Both Burstyn 12 and Drake 13 have attempted to design
a model such as Galileo had in mind. Analyzed according to the principles of
Newtonian mechanics, such models would give rise to oscillations of the water
with a diurnal period, and this has led some commentators, of whom Strauss
appears to be the first, to the belief that Galileo's theory does in fact predict
a tide. Within the framework of Galileo's physics, however, the models are not
proper analogues of the tides. For in the models, the water has no inclination
toward the center of the wheel on which it turns; whereas the inclination of the
water toward the center of the earth makes its circular motion inertial. It is
possible that a sound physical intuition of the results to be expected from such
thought-experiments gave Galileo the confidence to persevere with his theory of
the tides, even when reason would seem to demand that he should have recognized
such models to be inappropriate for the same reason that the stone and spinning
wheel were inappropriate to represent the motion of a body on a rotating earth.
Although, according to the interpretation of Galileo's theory outlined above,
Burstyn's model is not a true analogue of Galileo's theory of the tides, it may
not be amiss to analyze the results to be expected from it, according to the
principles of Newtonian mechanics, using less sophisticated mathematics than
its inventor. Let the earth, radius a (Fig. 2), rotate about its center A, while
the center describes a circle, radius R, about the sun (D. If the angular velocity
in the orbit is Q and the angular velocity of the earth's axial rotation is o, the
8 Ibid., p. 207.
9 Burstyn, op. cit., p. 167.
10 See Stillman Drake, "Galileo GleaningsX. Origin and Fate of Galileo's Theory of the
Tides," Physis, 1961, 3: 187.

11 Santillana (Galileo, Dialogue . . .), op. cit.,

p. 438.
12 Burstyn, op. cit., p. 172.
13 Drake, op. cit., p. 191.

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GALILEO AND THE THEORY OF THE TIDES

59

acceleration of the point P has components RQ2 parallel to A and aw2 along
PA. Resolving RQ2 into horizontal and vertical components (i.e., perpendicular
to PA and along PA), we find that the acceleration of P consists of a horizontal
component RQ2 sin 0 in the direction of 0 increasing and a downward vertical
component aw2+ RQ2 cos 0. Assuming that inertial motion is rectinlinear, the
water does not share this acceleration. Relative to the earth, therefore, the water
experiences a force in the opposite direction. The vertical component, insignificant compared to terrestrial gravity, is unable to produce any motion relative
to the earth and its effect is simply a slight variation in the apparent density

OFR

FIGURE2

of the water. Measuring the time t from an instant when (AP is a straight line,
0 = (o -- ;) t, so that the point P of the earth's surface experiences a periodic
horizontal acceleration with a diurnal period. A unit mass of water experiences,
relative to the earth, a horizontal force of magnitude RQ2 sin (w- Q) t acting in
the opposite direction. This force would give rise to the diurnal tide, with high
water at midnight, described by Burstyn 14 as a "tide of reaction." Since the
force RQ2 sin ( - Q) t vanishes when Q = 0, the double motion of the earth is
necessary to produce a diurnal tide in Burstyn's model.
From the standpoint of Newtonian mechanics, the cause of the tides is the
attraction of the sun and the moon. For a comparison with Galileo's theory
only the solar tide need be considered. Let the attraction of the sun on unit
mass at P (Fig. 2) be F. Then F = ym/r2, where y is the gravitation constant,
m the mass of the sun, and r the distance of P from the sun. To resolve F into
components FAQ and FPA parallel to A and along PA respectively, PAC may
be taken as a triangle of forces, so that F/r = FAO/R = FpA/a.
14

It follows that

Burstyn, op. cit., p. 173.

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

E. J. AITON

60

FAC= RF/r and Fp -= aF/r. Now r2 = R2 + 2aR cos 0 + a2, so that l/r3
(1 - 3a cos 0/R) /R3, neglecting higher powers of (1/R). It follows that, neglecting powers of (1/R) higher than the third,
3a cos 0\ and F
ym ( yam
and FA1FO -R3
_R
The force ym/R2 is independent of the position of P. Acting equally on the
earth and the water, this force cannot cause any motion of the water relative to
the earth and consequently plays no part in the production of a tide.15Abstracting
this term, the force on the water, relative to the earth, in the direction parallel
to A ( is - (3aym cos 0) /R3. This may be resolved into a horizontal component
- (3atymcos 0 sin 0) /R3 in the direction of 0 increasing and an upward vertical
component (3aym cos2 0) /R3. Relative to the earth, a unit mass of water at
P therefore experiences a horizontal force - (3aym sin 20) /2R3 in the direction
of 0 increasing and an upward vertical force aym (3 cos2 0
1) /R3, where
0- (w-- ) t. These results were first obtained by Euler.16 While the vertical
force, insignificant compared to the earth's gravity, simply causes a slight variation
in the apparent density of the water, the horizontal force gives rise to a semidiurnal tide.
In the correct theory the maximum horizontal force is (3a-ym)/2R3; whereas
in Burstyn's model the corresponding force is RQ2. Since ym/R2 - RQ2, the
tide-generating force in Burstyn's model is (2R) / (3a) times the correct tidegenerating force. It follows that the tide predicted by Galileo's theory, as
interpreted by Burstyn and Strauss, is about 104 times greater than the actual
solar tide. Although Burstyn recognized that Strauss was mistaken in believing
that the tide predicted by his interpretation of Galileo's theory was insignificant
compared to the actual tide,17 Burstyn is himself mistaken in supposing that
the tide called for by his model has any connection with the tide predicted by
the equilibrium theory. If there were any connection, which a priori seems
unlikely since the causes of the two tides are different, it would have to be
sought in the relation RQ2 -ym/R2. In Burstyn's model the tide results from
the centripetal acceleration RQf2but in the equilibrium theory the term ym/R2
in the expression for the attraction of the sun has no effect on the solar tide.
Finally let us consider Burstyn's claim that the double motion of the earth
is demanded by a correct theory of the tides. No problem arises in the case of
the axial rotation. Although this rotation cannot of itself produce tides, the
rotation of the earth beneath the tidal bulge is needed to explain the semidiurnal oscillation at particular points of the earth's surface. Also the earth's
axial rotation is needed to explain the modification of the tidal currents attributed
0
to Coriolis acceleration. If, however, we take the orbital angular velocity 0
in the expression

[3aym sin 2 (w -)

t]/2R3 for the effective tide-generating

force, it is clear that a semidiurnal tide of the same amplitude would still
remain.18 It follows that the earth's orbital motion has no influence on the tides.
15 The force 'ym/R2 equals R92. In Burstyn's
model this force acts on the earth but not on
the water.
16 See E.
J. Aiton, "The Contributions of
Newton, Euler and Bernoulli to the Theory
of the Tides," Annals of Science, 1955, 11:
221.
17 Burstyn, op. cit., p. 183.
s1 The force ym/R2 is the largest term in the
expansion of the attraction of the sun at any

point on the earth. This term causes an

acceleration of the earth toward the sun, equal
to RQ2 if the earth is revolving in a circular
orbit, but equal to - d2R/dt2 if the earth is
moving in a straight line toward the sun.
Since this term, in both cases, is common to
the attraction of every point of the earth and
the surrounding oceans, it cannot give rise to
any relative motion of different points in the
oceans. Such relative motions are caused effec-

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GALILEO AND THE THEORY OF THE TIDES

61

Daniel Bernoulli,19 using a different approach, first established this result.

If the earth were to revolve in its orbit without axial rotation, the different
points of the earth would describe equal ellipses and at any instant the centrifugal
forces on the different points would be equal in magnitude and parallel in
direction. Acting equally on every part of the earth and the ocean, such forces,
Bernoulli concluded, cannot produce any motion of the water relative to the
earth.20 Burstyn 21has misunderstood no less than three commentators - Harris,22
Groen,23 and Aiton,24 who have quoted Bernoulli's argument- attributing to
the three only a statement (which none of them makes) of the rather obvious
fact that the earth's axial rotation gives rise to equal centrifugal forces, so that
the earth's axial rotation cannot give rise to tides.
Since the earth's orbital motion has no effect on the tides, it follows conversely
that this motion cannot be deduced from the tides. If the earth-sun system
were not in rotation, the two bodies would approach. By taking 0 = 0 in the
expression for the effective tide-generating force, we have seen that if the earth
were to cease its orbital motion, the solar tide would remain unchanged until
a significant change in the distance between the two bodies had taken place.
The earth-sun system is clearly in rotation; but whether dynamics required a
motion of the earth about the sun or a motion of the sun about the earth, the
tides would be the same. Consequently, a correct theory of the tides demands the
earth's axial rotation but not its orbital motion; so that, in the light of Newtonian
mechanics, Galileo's belief that the tides prove the earth's orbital motion is seen
to be unfounded. In Newtonian mechanics the earth's orbital motion is demanded not by any terrestrial phenomenon but by the principle that the motion
of the center of mass of the earth-sun system, considered in isolation from other
gravitating bodies, is inertial.
REPLY BY HAROLD L. BURSTYN **

Although I am grateful to Dr. Aiton for the opportunity once more to clarify
my views on the Fourth Day of Galileo's Dialogo, I fear that in the more serious
of the two criticisms he offers above, his eagerness to discredit my position has
led him into error. The more serious criticism of my paper is that, in Aiton's
view, my statement that the earth's orbital motion is responsible for the semitively by the second term in the expansion
of the attraction, and this term remains substantially the same on taking Q = 0. It should
be noted that Mach's well-known discussion
concerns a different system, in which the earth
and the sun, instead of gravitating freely, are
both fixed.
19 Daniel Bernoulli, "Traite sur le flux et
reflux de la mer," Recueil des pieces qui ont
remporte les prix de l'Academie royale des
sciences (Paris, 1752), Vol. 4, p. 79.
20 Bernoulli's argument may be extended to
show Burstyn's error (op. cit., p. 166) in
attributing a "Coriolis" effect to the earth's
orbital motion. Abstracting the earth's axial
rotation, so that the earth maintains a constant
orientation with respect to the fixed stars,
the different points of the earth describe equal
ellipses in parallel planes with the same angular velocity. Consequently, the motion of a
particle of water in latitude transfers it to an

equal ellipse so that the angular velocity is

unchanged. It follows that no motion in longitude relative to the earth is produced.
21 Burstyn, op. cit., pp. 171, 183.
22 Rollin
A. Harris, "Manual of Tides,"
Part 4, Appendix, Report of the Superintendent of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (Washington, 1898-1904), p. 404.
23 P. Groen, Hemel en Dampkring, 1954, 52:
80. Groen's argument was also misunderstood
by Burger (ibid., p. 81) who accepted Groen's
conclusion that the earth's orbital motion could
not affect the tides, but who believed this to
follow from the fact that, over a short distance,
the earth's orbit could be regarded as rectilinear.
" Galileo's
24 E. J. Aiton,
Theory of the
Tides," Annals of Science, 1954, 10: 56.
** Brandeis University. This note is Contribution No. 1524 from the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution.

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HAROLD L. BURSTYN

62

diurnal character of the equilibrium tide is false. Aiton's position here is absurd,
as the reader may see by examining the expression which he derives for the
tide-generating force: 25
- [3aym sin 2 (o - Q) t]/2R3.
(1)
Aiton claims to stop the earth's orbital motion merely by setting == 0 in (1).
Such a step does not, however, accomplish his aim; it merely changes the period
of the expression, so that the tidal year becomes solar rather than sidereal. Aiton's
error here is his facile application of (1) to the case of an earth fixed in space,
to which it does not apply. For (1) is derived on the assumption that the earth
and the disturbing body (in this case, the sun) are freely gravitating. From this
assumption it follows that the earth and the sun move about their common center
of mass, which is another way of saying that the earth is in orbit around the
sun. An earth which does not describe an orbit about the center of mass of itself
and the disturbing body is not freely gravitating; hence, (1) cannot apply.
Another way of seeing the fallacy in Aiton's argument is to note that ym/R2
RQ2, in the case of the earth and the sun.26 Hence, (1) contains t2 elsewhere
than in the argument of the sine function, so that setting f2 0 requires either
that the entire expression vanish or that some other force exist which can provide
a coefficient for the sine function. Since the assumption that the earth is fixed
in space is incompatible with the existence of such a force, (1) is clearly inapplicable to the case of the fixed earth.27
"
My original statement that in the simple equilibrium theory, the semidiurnal
character of the tide is a proof of the earth's double motion" 28 is thus untouched
by Aiton's strictures.

He himself agrees that " the axial rotation ...

of the earth

beneath the tidal bulge is needed to explain the semidiurnal oscillation at

particular points of the earth's surface." 29 His criticism of the necessity of the
earth's orbital revolution to the creation of the second " tidal bulge " has been
shown to be incorrect in the preceding paragraphs, and the reader who wishes a
demonstration of this necessity is again referred to the discussion of Ernst Mach.30
The problem of the equilibrium tide on an earth fixed in space is also treated by
Thomson and Tait.31
25 This expression is given above by Aiton
in the sentence which ends with footnote 18.
26 See Aiton's text above in the paragraph
containing reference to footnote 17.
27 Aiton makes another error in footnote 20
above. Contrary to his notion, the earth's
orbital motion produces a Coriolis effect of a
magnitude 1/365 that of the Coriolis effect produced by the diurnal motion. Therefore, in
geophysical calculations one uses the sidereal
angular velocity of the earth.
28 Burstyn, op. cit., p. 167.
29 Aiton's text above, the paragraph containing reference to footnote 18.
30 Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwichelung, 9th ed. (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus,
1933), pp. 206-208, cited in Burstyn, op. cit.,
p. 167, footnote 23. None of the commentators
whom Aiton accuses me of misunderstanding
deals with this point.
31 William Thomson and Peter Guthrie Tait,
Treatise on Natural Philosophy (Cambridge,

1883), Art. 803. Let me indicate here my agreement with Aiton that the tide called for by
my phonograph and merry-go-round model is
not the same kind of phenomenon as the Newtonian equilibrium tide. Like the tide on an
earth fixed in space, the tide in my model
is first order (a function of 1/R2); whereas the
true tide is second order (a function of 1/R3).
But the sole purpose for which I use the model
is to demonstrate that the earth's double motion in and of itself gives rise to a tide, and
Aiton has misunderstood my use of the model
if he thinks that I find in it an exact analogy
to the Newtonian tide-generating force. The
model shows clearly that the inertia of the
orbiting earth is just as necessary to the semidiurnal equilibrium tide as is the gravitational
attraction of the earth and the disturbing
body. The latter force is Kepler's contribution
to tidal theory; I have suggested that the
former is implicit in Galileo's theory of the
tides.

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WILLIAM PETTY'S MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

63

Aiton's second criticism of my paper is based on my crediting Galileo with a

belief that the earth's orbital motion is noninertial. My case for such a belief
has been made as clearly as I know how in the original paper.32 I do not see
how Galileo's use of the expression " the force which moves . . . the earth around

the sun" 33 can be reconciled with a denial that he believed the earth's orbit
to be accelerated.
If my argument has a weakness, it is that a case can also be made for Galileo's
belief that the earth's orbital motion is inertial, and Aiton has made such a
case above.34 As in our previous disagreement, there is evidence in the Dialogo
to support both positions. It may be possible to reconcile these two apparently
contradictory descriptions of the earth's orbit, each supported by Galileo's own
writings.35 I think that such a reconciliation, if accomplished, would show, not
that one view is decisively vindicated and the other refuted, but that Galileo
had in mind something very different from a clear position on whether or not
the earth's orbit is inertial. A more likely outcome of the present controversy
is the recognition by historians of science that Galileo's physics is not completely
consistent, so that Galileo's inconsistencies and not our misinterpretations can
be blamed for the disagreement between Dr. Aiton and myself.
32

Burstyn, op. cit., pp. 167, 178-179.

33 Galileo, Dialogo, in Le Opere di Galileo

Galilei. Edizione nazionale .. . (Florence: Tipografia Barbera, 1890-1909), p. 478, quoted in
Burstyn, op. cit., p. 178.

WILLIAM

PETTY'S

34 See Aiton's above text, fourth and fifth

paragraphs.
35 Such a reconciliation has been attempted
by my student Donald Koch, " Galileo's Theory
of Fall in hypothesi terrae motae," unpublished
MS, 1963-1964.

MECHANICAL

By Robert Kargon

PHILOSOPHY

Seventeenth-century England was the

scene of a remarkable quickening in
the pace of scientific activity. Beginning
in the early years of the century with
the work of William Gilbert and of
Thomas Hariot,1 and culminating in
Newton's momentous accomplishments
in mathematics, dynamics, and optics,
this " scientific revolution " was not to
see its equal until our own century.
Accompanying and reinforcing the
surge of experimental and mathematical activity was the rise of a new world
view: the mechanical philosophy. The
major contributors to this view were
Pierre Gassendi, Rene Descartes, and
Thomas Hobbes. The comprehensive
systems of Gassendi and Descartes were

doubtlessly the most influential. The

full story of the introduction and establishment of the mechanical philosophy
in England still remains to be told.
The purpose of this note is to make a
small contribution toward that end by
presenting in its historical context the
mechanical view of nature of the eminent virtuoso of the Royal Society, Sir
William Petty.
In 1674, William Petty appeared before the Royal Society and delivered a
discourse which was published at the
request of Lord Brouncker later in the
year as A Discourse Made before the

of Illinois. I should like to

*University
thank Professor Henry Guerlac for his kind
advice.

1 See Johannes Lohne, "Thomas Harriott

(1560-1621): The Tycho Brahe of Optics,"
Centaurus, 1959, 6: 113-121.

Royal Society . . . Concerning the Use

of Duplicate Proportion . . . Together

with a new Hypothesis of Springy or

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Wed, 06 May 2015 07:05:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions