Int. J. Impact Engng Vol. 21, No. 8, pp.

707710, 1998
( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0734743X(98)000244
0734743X/98 $ see front matter

A NOTE ON JAMES WILSON M.D. (16901771):

BIOGRAPHER AND EDITOR OF SOME OF THE WORKS
OF PEMBERTON, ROBINS AND NEWTON
W. JOHNSON
Ridge Hall, Chapel-en-le-Frith, High Peak SK23 9UD, England, U.K.
(Received 24 April 1998)
SummaryThe vital facts of the life of virtually unknown James Wilson are given with information
relating to his publishing of some of the works of Isaac Newton, Henry Pemberton and Benjamin
Robins (Benjamin Robins: Mathematical racts, Vol. II, 1761). ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

1. INTRODUCTION
There is no entry for James Wilson [1] in the British Dictionary of National Biography
for the 20th century, and likely there will be none in the New 21st century edition. Wilson
was born in Kings Lynn, Norfolk in 1690, educated in Lynn School and admitted as a
gentleman commoner 12 November 1707, to Trinity College, Cambridge: he was made
a scholar in 1709, an M.B. in 1718 and M.D. in 1728; he was incorporated D.C.L. at Oxford
in 1753 [2]. He was admitted to the University of Leyden, 4 March 1713 [3] but was never
a Fellow or a Licenciate of the Royal College of Physicians, [4, 5]. He was, however,
a student with Pemberton in Paris, whither they went to improve their knowledge of
anatomy and was associated with the hospital at St. Mary Aldermary, London, see Note 1.
Wilson died 29 September 1771 [3, 6]. His name is to be found in lists of subscribers or
purchasers in several books, published in those years; these lists were often printed at the
end of a book.
James Wilson provided a substantial amount of biographical material on 18th century
Fellows of the Royal Society, Henry Pemberton and Benjamin Robins, by collecting
and editing some of the works of the former and all of those known from Robins in
mathematics and in physical and engineering science. He also first revealed that Newton
was the author of his famous Account. Without Wilson, we would have had difficulty in
identifying a number of the papers of these three scientists, and in coming to know many
interesting personal and public details of their lives. Robins especially wrote several long
anonymous pamphlets, reports and introductions and made a substantial contribution to
the book of Ansons oyages, from nearly all of which his name as author, was omitted or
concealed [1].

WILSON AND NEWTON (16421727)

Probably, Wilsons first scientific involvement was with Newton, the anonymous
author of the Account of February 1715, which appeared in the Philosophical ransactions.
The contents of the latter and some discussion of them, may be pursued by reading
appropriate articles on the subject in Ref. [7]. It seems that Wilson first became demonstrably involved in scientific publishing when he expressed a wish to publish two letters he
had from Newton, about the latters early mathematical manuscripts for establishing his
priority in his much celebrated controversy with Leibniz. The letters were dated 15
December 1720 and 21 January 1721 [8]. However, Newton would not allow him to do
this because he held that their publication might, occasion disputes concerning their
antiquity, [8].
707

708

W. Johnson

It seems that at some stage Wilson was probably involved in producing Geometric
Analytica sive Specimena arto Analytica, (a specimen of the art of analysis or analytical
geometry), which was reprinted in 1964, (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt). This was a title Wilson
gave to a Newton manuscript, the first page of which was lost and its title, if any, thus
unknown. John Colson referred to it as, De Methodis (in 1731), but Wilson rejected this to
substitute his own Latin one, as above. Apparently, Wilson had made a copy from an earlier
copy or transcript by William Jones (made in about 1710) and originating from an abridged
version that was itself made by David Gregory in 1693, see Ref. [7].
WILSON AND PEMBERTON (16901771)
Coincidentally, these two men had identical years of birth and death. We have noted that
Wilson was a studentcolleague, with Pemberton when they studied in Leyden and Paris,
see Ref. [3]. Wilson wrote a Preface to Henry Pembertons course on chemistry [9], which
was substantially a long biography of its author; a recent full biography of Pemberton will
be found in Ref. [9]. It is curious that these two medical men should both have chosen to
address mathematics deeply in the early years of their manhood but it probably owes
something to the fortuitous circumstance of young Robins joining Pemberton in London at
a time when the latter was engaged as the third editor of Newtons Principia, published in
(1726).
WILSON AND ROBINS (17071751)
An original purpose in composing this article about James Wilson was actually to try to
learn more from him about the work and life of Benjamin Robins whose several
works addressed calculus and optics, and the experimental and theoretical mechanics
of artillery and fortification; he was also a frequent anonymous general essayist
and apologist for senior politicians and men of influence in matters of a semi-political
nature. Apart from his writings, Robins is a little known and obscure character,
an underestimated scientist and with relatively few friends and contacts. James Wilson
clearly states that he was a very special friend of Robins, as we remark below. It
turned out that Martin Folkes (16901754), see Note 2, whom Robins, in 1751,
trusted to execute his will and to dispose of his intellectual property became seriously
ill in 1752 and it was left to Wilson to gather together Robins papers. Finally, 10 years
after Robins death, he produced two volumes of his collected scientific works. Wilson
himself became ill soon afterwards and incapable of furnishing us with further knowledge of
his friend.
The following summary is written from an appendix covering pp. 297380 in Vol. 2 of
he Mathematical racts of Benjamin Robins [1]. We note that throughout these Tracts,
Wilson describes himself as the publisher, a confusing term to present-day readers who see
him as editor. The whole of the appendix is a disquisition on issues raised in Robins works
and seemingly his, Wilsons own views on several mathematical matters to which he binds
himself, remarkable in one who initially graduated in medicine. Wilson early asserts his
intention, to vindicate (Robins) memory from the abusive treatment he received from
a pseudonymous Philalethes Cantabriensis (some believe it to be Dr James Jurin of Trinity
College, Cambridge), and censures from other quarters. This, he declares, will also lead
him to obviate some late insinuations against Sir Isaac Newton himself . Observations on
that great mans (Newtons) early writings are made because papers have fallen into my
hands and these will enable him to determine more fully than hitherto both the order in
which the several Tracts were writ and the steps by which he gradually corrected the
crude ideas he had conceived as divisibles, till he prefected the doctrine by which Mr Robins
has distinguished himself by explaining.
Dr Robert Simson, learned Professor of the Mathematics in the University of Glasgow
is also selected by Wilson for, surprising me by the following insinuations. The matter
concerned the celebrated optical problem due to Alhazan which Dr Simson had under

A note on James Wilson M.D. (16901771)

709

consideration, seemingly of which Robins was unapprised and to which he had therefore
given no recognition.
On p. 299 of the appendix, Wilson writes that whenever Robins was in London, Scarce
a day passed wherein I was not in his company. Wilson believed that Robins would not
have failed to mention to him the demonstration published in his Remarks, and originating
in the papers of Wilsons other confidante, Dr Henry Pembertonthe problem Pemberton
had considered 40 years earlier, when we were fellow students at Paris.
A problem much discussed in this appendix was about trisecting a given circular arc using
ancient geometry, not algebra, investigating also both special and limiting cases. The
problem was much related to the study of the rainbow and derived from Apollonius.
There is also discussion and criticism of Robins on four counts, alleging that he showed
the method of the ancient geometers to be tedious, perplexed and inconclusive and that he
had done ill in distinguishing the method of fluxions from that of prime and ultimate
ratios. He was also declared presumptious in saying that Sir Isaac was too brief in his
explications and that he explained wrongly certain of Sir Isaacs expressions for the prime
and ultimate ratios of the quantitative nascentes and evanascentes.
There is some argument too about Robins having been censured by M. de Buffon using
a train of general invective in a book of his, dated 1740, the latter only knowing the
objections of Philalethes and others, and not from himself having read Robins Tracts.
Subsequent workers followed Robins, especially Maclaurin, who praised his work in his
treatise on fluxions.
After about p. 331 in this long appendix, Robins name makes little appearance and
Wilsons concern is much with facets of the new calculus, especially the Commerciun
Epistolicum (2nd edn, 1722), with copious mention of Leibniz, Barrow, van Hudden, Slusius,
Keil and Gregory, etc. The further 80 pages about topics related to the latter names shows
a high and surprising degree of intimacy with historical and then current mathematical
topics which had been studied. Maybe mathematics was and had been a strong bond of
connection between Pemberton, Robins and Wilson for many years because the former was
editor of the final edition of Newtons Principia, Robins was Pembertons student, and
Wilson and Pemberton medical colleagues.
NOTES
1. Apparently, five new hospitals were founded in the early 18th century in the London
areaWestminster (1720), Guys (1724), St. Georges (1723), London (1740) and Middlesex
(1745). Out-patients only were dealt withfirst diagnosing and then prescribing. About
50,000 poor people were treated per year.
2. There is a general outline of Folkes personal life, career and scientific and
antiquarian interests in the current Dictionary of National Biography and in Ref. [10].
Folkes was for a short period the Vice-President and later, President, of the Royal
Society of London from 1742 to November 1752, when he resigned for reasons of ill-health.
He died in 1754.
AcknowledgementsI wish to thank my wife, Heather, for the typing and comments on this manuscript.

REFERENCES
1. J. Wilson, Benjamin Robins: Mathematical racts, Vol. II (1761).
2. John Venn and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses (A biographical list of all known students, graduates
and holders of office at the University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to 1900.) Part I, Vol. IV. C.U.P.
(1927).
3. A. Chalmers, General Biographical Dictionary, Vol. 26 (1816).
4. R. W. Innes-Smith, English-Speaking Students of Medicine at the niversity of eyden. Oliver and Boyd,
Edinburg (1932).
5. R. W. Innes-Smith, Private communication: 16 July 1990, from Dr. G. Davenport, Librarian of the Royal
College of Physicians, London.

710

W. Johnson

P. J. and R.V. Wallis, Eighteenth Century MEDICS, p. 658. P.H.I.B.B., Newcastle-on-Tyne (1988).
D. Gjertson, he Newton Handbook. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (1986).
D. Gjertson, Correspondence 7, 107110 and 125127.
C. Mathews (Ed.) Henry Pemberton: The New Dictionary of National Biography (in press, 2002. Article by
W. Johnson).
10. W. Johnson, Aspects of the life and works of Martin Folkes (16901754). Int. J. Impact Engng (in press).
6.
7.
8.
9.