T H E B A C K G R O U N D TO

Although the scientific and mattic-

matical manuscripts of the Ports- NEWTON’S P R IN C IPIA
mouth Collection have been available
to scholats for almost a centuryj it b
only comparatively recently that they
have begun to be used for the study
of the development of Newton’s
thought in Physics and Mathematics.
The present i»ok is thus ilie firs: to
be devoted exclusively to the develop^
ment ofNewton^s dynamical thought
leading up to the composition of the
FriTidpia. Part T contains studies of
various aspects of this development*
Part II the text of the manuicripts
from the Portsmouth Collection on
which these studies are based. Cer­
tain of these manuscripts, especially
the ver^^early ones on ci rc ular mo lion*
provide an insight into the nature of
Newton’s genius in dynamics W'hich
it would he impossible to guess at
from the finished form of the
Frini:tfija itself.
 ,: r . THE BACKGROUND TO
NEWTON’S PK/NC/PM
X

» A ^ Study of Newton's Dynamical Researches

in the Years 1664-84
\ nuxl-'tt^ ^
|^lW
i^■ i^lllgi■i ^4 f '*J

I'Ji^aii. On.lA /■ *«/»»«/ #« i»4(n fftn/^t ».. .* '{^, ..fvJinr* ■\

*pu§fm.
BY
•'Tf r »■;•» . S M . i nrit r t i t m itm -n r r i'( E f :« m n*4> m ............................ .

JOHN H E R I V E L

y - / ■ ,/./ ^/. ^’ ■ / ' ■ ^ '-

f e « * » » - C ‘» fd o ti ••■(^^'*^ */*»■» ,

ft : f - f d f ih. «#»■>/,J».' »<■«/>,-/••I* / f f. t/> I f r'm. y- ■.

4 1 :ft f t / e t d ' f fy jfd tr r ff ,

»v,-- ^ * /f • ■' . "^.
^ d ** f ■ ■ ■ ‘ r^rf S" r t 0 *~

H f ■#jif ^NMI ^ < ■!•* / y // .f^ . rtf />’ f d f t t / ’. / '

,.y,„
><-r r. / /<^/.«'ie; fr^ 4 f„^y,.,^
»9 : f '-jd /wtJhyfi t'X ’f'f y.-,pf:.,/'X
')t*ift:^'/f.>tf( ( e>ft^ tt >t ( /» ^)f .i / ¥ e />t f / ( > / ^ ”’ f ^ y •f

> «. « | { « I m W !1 * • : « « ; / ■ « A i itf j f / «• r < ^ / ^ r T fp'Ptfe^'S I ,.

-J'f/^ t / 'Ityfff. (*<»•■ >'I'* d^ef /^ ^

r r f.fM f^4yX .'^ trv ,.

>.f L i» S * l‘ '*/ / • ■. ✓ Z^V A«^^vy

3^^ v4 » V.
OXFORD
lui^A^rMEl ^e-4t f t /■ *"»T~^*f A T T EI E C L A R E N D O N PRESS

1 965
I. T h e first page o f the so-called lectures ife M o tii, 1684
Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W . t
(GLASGOW NKW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON

CAPE TOW N SALISBURY IBADAN NAIROBI LUSAKA ADDIS ABABA PREFACE

BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA

KUALA LUMPUR HONG KONG

I n the summer of 1958, while preparing a course of lectures on the his­
tory of dynamics from Copernicus to Newton, I was struck by how little
Oxford University Press 1965 seemed known of the grozvth of Newton’s dynamical thought. It was
surprising, for example, to find that almost more seemed to be known of
the growth of dynamical thought among Newton’s precursors in Oxford
P R IN T E D TN G R F. A T B R I TA 1 N
and Paris than in the case of Newton himself. Although this first im­
pression was somewhat modified on reading Rouse Ball’s Essay on
Newton's Principia, I was left with the impression that much still
remained to be found. In particular, I noticed how seldom Ball referred
to aetual documents in the Portsmouth Collection, and this despite
the fact that the collection had been catalogued some years previously,
and the mathematieal and physical papers deposited in the University
Library, Cambridge. For example, while I was struck with Ball’s sugges­
tion that the proof given at the end of the Scholium to Prop. 4, Theor. 4, of
the represented Newton’s first discovery o{ the law of centrifugal
force, I was surprised he made no mention of having searched for the
original document in the University Library. At the first opportunity,
then, in April 1959, I visited Cambridge to search for this and other
early documents.
A study of the dynamical papers among the early mathematical docu­
ments sufficed to confirm the correctness of my original impression, and
this was then greatly strengthened by an examination of the Waste
Book Feb. i66p. Here was a wealth of documentary evidence far beyond
anything hinted at in Rouse Ball’s Essay, and it seemed to me then that if
one could interpret and order this evidence it might be possible to pre­
sent some sort of connected account of the growth of Newton’s dyna­
mical thought prior to the composition of the Principia and thus help
fill up one of the large gaps in the history of dynamics. The reader may
judge to what extent this aim has now been realized.
I should like to express my indebtedness to those who in one way and
another have made this work possible. To E. Ashby, D. R. Bates,
and W. B. Gallie for enabling me to enter the field of the History of
Science professionally in the first place. And to W. B. Gallie again and
G. Davie for their encouragement during my first year as Lecturer
in the History and Philosophy of Science at Queen’s University. T o the
late H. W. Turnbull for forbearing to tell me that Newton’s Vellum
 PREFACE
MS had been already deciphered, thus enabling me to get to grips
with Newton’s earliest researches in dynamics. Also for Turnbull’s
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
criticisms of my own provisional solution to this manuscript, and to those
of a referee in the journal Isis which taught me the necessity of inter­
I AM grateful to the Librarian of the University of Cam­
preting Newton in terms of his own approach to dynamics as opposed
bridge for permission to reproduce pages from manu­
to the present-day reformulation of that subject.
scripts in the Portsmouth Collection, to Flermann et
In common with other historians of science I have been indebted to
C ‘°, Paris, for permission to quote in extenso from my
the late Alexandre Koyre for the inspiration of his writings. I was also
article ‘Galileo’s Influence on Newton in Dynamics’
very fortunate to enjoy his friendship and encouragement, especially
in Melanges Alexandre Koyre (Paris, 1963), and to the
the opportunity of lecturing under his auspices on Newton in Paris in
Editors of Isis and the Archives Internationales de
1961. I am particularly indebted to two other colleagues; to I. B, Cohen
VHistoire des Sciences for permission to use articles
for first suggesting that I write this book, and for his continued interest
from their respective journals.
in its composition; and to A. C. Crombie for reading an early draft and J. FI.
encouraging me to persist with others. Also to E. S. de Beer for criticism
and advice on the reproduction of texts and to E. W. Bower for help
with translations from Latin.
The research on which this book is based would have been impossible
without generous grants from the late Research Committee of the
Senate and the present Research Committee of the Council of the
Queen’s University, Belfast. Thanks are due too for typing assistance to
Margaret Sheridan, Freda Silcock, Rosemary Clarke, and particularly
Ann Greer who bore the brunt of the many typings and retypings of
earlier drafts.
I must finally acknowledge my indebtedness to the staff of the Anderson
Room of the Cambridge University Library, especially F. J, Gautrey, for
their unfailing courtesy and assistance, and to the Clarendon Press for
much sound advice and for their skill in printing a difficult text.
Most of all to my wife and children for their continued forbearance over
a book which would never be finished.
J. H.

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

The Queen's University
Belfast
September, ig6j
 CONTENTS

List of Plates XI

General Introduction

Short Titles and Abbreviations XV I

PART I
newton’s dyn am ical researches, 1664-1684

1. The main line of development of Newton’s dynamical thought

1.1 Newton’s first steps in dynamics
1.2 Newton before the problem of circular motion 7
1.3 The solution to the problem of Kepler-motion 14
1.4 The final synthesis of Newton’s dynamical system 22

2. The influence of Galileo and Descartes on Newton’s dynamics 35

2.1 The influence of Galileo 35
2.2 The influence of Descartes 42

3. Newton’s concept of conatiis 54

4. Tests of the Law of Gravitation against the moon’s motion 65

5. The motion of extended bodies 77

5.1 Kinematical aspects 77
5.2 Centre of motion in the dynamical sense 78
5.3 Dynamics of a single rotating body 81
5.4 Collision between two rotating bodies 82
5.5 Discussion in later researches 84

6. Order of composition and dating of manuscripts 87

6.1 Order of composition of earliest manuscripts 87
6.2 Dating of earliest manuscripts 91
6.3 Order of composition of later manuscripts 93
6.4 Dating of later manuscripts 96
6.5 Paget’s propositions 102
6.6 The status of manuscript VIII 108
 CONTENT'S

PART II
L I S T OF P L A T E S
NEWTON D Y NA MI C A L MANUS CRI PTS , 1664-1684

Introduction 119 I.
I. Extracts from early notebook 121
2. facing p. 12
II. Dynamical writings in the Waste Book 128
III. The Vellum Manuscript 183 3- ition 13
IV a. On circular motion 192
4- 184
ivb. On motion in a cycloid 198
V. The Laws of Motion paper 208 5- 292
VI. Extracts from MS. Add. 4003 219
VII. Extracts from correspondence prior to 1684 236
VIII . The Kepler-motion papers 246
IX. The tract de Motu 257
xa. Drafts of definitions and laws of motion 304
xb. Drafts of definitions 315
XI. The lectures de Motu of 1684 321

Note regarding Previous Publication ot Newton Dynamical

Manuscripts 327

Bibliography 328

Index 331

We shall, I think, in this as in other subjects, get
the best view of the matter if we look at the natural
growth of things from the beginning.
Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, Chapter 2 , Section 2
Translated b y T . a . S i n c l a i r
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
W i t h certain notable exceptions,^ the whole history of dynamics from
Newton to Einstein can be thought of as an exploitation, albeit in­
finitely ingenious and resourceful, of the definitions, principles, and
propositions in the Principia. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that
Newton’s achievement in dynamics has largely been equated with the
Principia itself, an opinion reinforced by Newton’s own claim^ to have
composed the whole work within the space of a year and a half apart
from a handful of propositions discovered in 1679 and 1684. Admittedly,
some indication of much earlier work in dynamics epitomized by the
story of the applet has come down to us through the accounts of Pem-
berton^ and Whiston,5 and Newton’s own account^ of his researches in
mathematics and ‘philosophy’ during the Plague Years. But this early
work in dynamics, if such there were,^ and whatever its exact nature and
extent, was inevitably so dwarfed by the towering achievement of the
Principia that it has seemed till recently of quite negligible interest and
importance.
In the nineteenth century a certain shift in this attitude towards the
Principia first became noticeable. Rigaud’s Essay on the Publication of
Newton^s Principia,^ though largely concerned with the events im­
mediately preceding the appearance of the great work, touched also on
some earlier researches of Newton, especially the important tracts de
Motu published for the first time in an Appendix to Rigaud’s Essay.
Edleston, in his Correspondence of Newton and C o t e s , added some
further important details, notably the presence in the University Library,
* For example, the theory of rotating bodies. Curiously, when Newton came to write
Book III of the Principia he either ignored, or had forgotten, the early, and particu­
larly brilliant work on rotating bodies found in M S . V.
^ Quoted in Brewster, D . [i], vol. i, p. 471.
3 See for example Stukeley, W . [i], p. 19. Attention seems first to have been drawn
to this very important account of the story of the apple by Pelseneer, J. [2]. T h e relevant
passage is reproduced below on p. 65, n. 7, Chapter 4.
* Pemberton, H. [i]. Preface. T h e relevant passage is reproduced below at Chapter
4. P- 6 5 .
^ Whiston, W . [i], pp. 35-38. T h e relevant passage is reproduced below at Chap­
ter 4, p. 65.
^ Portsmouth D raft Memorandum, Portsmouth Collection, Section i, division X I,
number 41, as reproduced below at Chapter 4, p. 66.
’’ e.g. Patterson, L. D ., [i], [2] has questioned the veracity of N ew ton’s account.
* Rigaud, S. P. [i].
'' A term first used, apparently, by Rigaud. Edleston, J. [i].
xiv GENERAL IN T R O D U C T I O N
Cambridge, of the original texts of all Newton’s university lectures be­
tween 1669 and 1687,' especially those apparently read in the Michael­
mas term 1684 under the title de Motu Corporum. Brewster, in his
Memoirs of Newton,^ though concerned with the whole sweep of New ­
ton’s life and work, and not only his researches in mathematics and
dynamics, drew attention to some important new material relating to
dynamics.^ Finally, in Ball’s Essay on Newton’s Principia'^ the whole
question of Newton’s researches in dynamics prior to the composition
of the Principia came much more to the fore. Admittedly, Ball’s most
important contribution was his discovery of the greater parts of the
correspondence of 1679 between Hooke and Newton. But apart from
invaluable chapters on this correspondence, and on the tract de Motu,
Ball also had a chapter devoted to Newton’s earliest dynamical researches.
Since Ball’s Essay various studies of Newton have appeared, notably
the biographies of More,^ Sullivan,^ and Andrade,^ and Cohen’s study of
Newton and Frankl i n. None of these works, however, is exclusively,
or even predominantly, concerned with Newton’s researches in dynamics,
so that up to date Ball’s Essay represents the only study of this aspect of
Newton’s intellectual genius. Ball’s Essay, however, in spite of its unique
status and many valuable features, suffered from one serious defect:
although composed after the cataloguing of the Portsmouth Collection,
it contained surprisingly few references to original documents, especially
the earliest ones. This defect may well have been due not to any de­
ficiency in Ball qua historian of science but simply to lack of time.^® On
the other hand, there are certain indications that Ball had not entirely
freed himself from the prevailing attitude towards the Principia. For
example, he finally dismissed one important question relating to the
early researches as being ‘mainly a matter of antiquarian interest’ ."
Since the publication of Ball’s Essay there has been something
approaching a revolution in the attitude of historians of science towards
dynamics. Beginning, perhaps, with Duhem’s celebrated researches into
' Apart from those for 1686 which appear to he missing. See below, Chapter 6.4,
pp. 98-102.
^ Brewster, D . [i].
3 For example, the document referred to on p. xiii, n. 2.
^ Ball, W . W . R. [t].
5 T h e remainder of the correspondence has since been discovered by Pelseneer and
Koyre. See especially Koyre, A . [2].
More, L . T . [i]. ’ Sullivan, J. W. N . [i].
® Andrade, E. N . da C . [i]. ^ Cohen, I. B. [i].
See the remarks at the end of first paragraph on p. i of Ball, W. W. R. [i].
” Ibid., p. 17, end of top paragraph.
GENERAL I N T R O D U C T I O N xv
late medieval dynamics, increasing emphasis has been placed on the
filiation and growth of dynamical thought as opposed to the final pro­
duct of such thought. So that today the importance of the study of the
growth of Newton’s dynamical thought would no longer be questioned.
In the absence of original manuscripts, however, this study would in­
evitably be largely a matter of speculation eked out by the few meagre
details supplied by the above-mentioned accounts of Pemberton,
Whiston, and Newton himself. Fortunately there are a considerable
number of ‘early’^ Newton dynamical manuscripts in that part of the
original Portsmouth Collection now lodged in the Cambridge Univer­
sity Library. Although many of these manuscripts have already been
published in part or in whole, almost half Newton’s early dynamical
writings, especially those in the Waste Book, have remained unpublished.
These latter writings are now made available in company with those
previously published, so that Newton scholars and others interested in
the early development of Newton’s dynamical thought have here before
them what is to my knowledge the whole extant corpus of Newton dyna­
mical manuscripts prior to the composition of the Principia.
Some explanation is called for on the structure of the present work.
Part I consists of an extended commentary on the manuscripts repro­
duced in Part II. In the first chapter an attempt is made to give a con­
nected account of the main line of development of Newton’s dynamical
thought up to the final draft of Book I of the Principia. The remaining
chapters of Part I are devoted to detailed studies of various topics which
could not be incorporated directly in Chapter i, including a final chapter
on the order of composition and dating of manuscripts. The method
followed in the reproduction of texts is explained in the introduction to
Part II, especially the division of footnotes into critical and exegetical.
Exegetical footnotes relating to matters allowing of a potentially wide
variation of opinion, such as those relating to the growth of Newton’s
dynamical thought, have been mostly restricted to a direct reference
to the appropriate section of Part I, or to such a reference preceded
by a brief, unsupported expression of opinion. In this way it is hoped
that other scholars anxious to form their own opinions on the many un­
certain questions raised by these manuscripts will be free to do so un­
biased by the arguments advanced in Part I.
* i.e. prior to the composition of the Principia.
 PART I
SHORT T I T L E S AND ABBREVIATIONS
NEWTON’S DYNAMICAL RESEARCHES
(a) P U B L I S H E D W O R K S
1664-1684
Correspondence The Correspondence of Isaac Newton (Cambridge Univer­
sity Press, for the Royal Society of London, vols. 1-3,
19 59 , i9 6 0 , 19 6 1).

Descartes, (Euvres (Euvres de Descartes publiees par Charles Adam et

Paul Tannery, 13 vols. (Paris, 1897-1913).
Galileo, Dialogue Dialogo Sopra i Due Massimi Sistemi Del Mondo
(Florence, 1632).
1
Galileo, Discorsi Discorsi e Dimonstrazioni Mathematiche Intorno a Due T H E M A I N L I N E OF D E V E L O P M E N T OF
Nuove Scienze (Leyden, 1638).
Galileo, Ed. Naz. Le opere di Galileo Galilei, Edizione Nazionale, 20 vols. NEW TON’S D YN AM ICAL THOUGHT
(Florence, 1890-1909).
Huygens, Horologium Christiani Hugenii Zulichemii, Const. F. Horologium
Oscillatorium (Paris, 1673). 1.1. N e’WTon ’s F irs t S teps in D ynamics
Huygens, (Euvres (Euvres completes de Christiaan Huygens, 22 vols. (The N e w t o n ’ s interest in dynamics would inevitably have awakened very
Hague, 1888-1950).
early, and the boy who constructed a mill turned by the wind or the
{b) M A N U S C R I P T S force of a mouse, or a water clock to measure the time,^ or the youth who
C.U.L. Cambridge University Library. attempted by jumping to gauge the force of the great storm of 1658^
Vellum MS. Newton MS. (C.U.L. MS. Add. 3958, folio 45). would already have begun to ponder the two basic concepts of dynamics
Waste Book Newton MS. (C.U.L. MS. Add. 4004). — force and movement— ^though it is improbable that he would have
had any contact with the subject on the theoretical side before his entry
to Cambridge in 1661.^ At some stage in his undergraduate studies
Newton would inevitably have encountered Aristotle’s theory of local
motion directly or at second hand through a work such as that of
Magirus [i] from which extracts are found in one of the early notebooks.
In any case the passage ‘On Violent Motion’ in the same notebook^
proves that he had already begun to free himself from any such Aristote­
lian or scholastic influences by the second half of 1664.5 For in spite of
the unmistakably medieval flavour of the writing, the upshot of the
argument was to reject the possibility of the motion of a projectile as
due either to the surrounding air (Aristotle), or to a force impresst (im­
petus school), and to And the cause of the continued motion of the body
in its natural gravity, that is, presumably, in its inertia. References to
Galileo^ and Descartes'^ close to this passage ‘On Violent Motion’ suggest
that it was under their influence that Newton began to develop his own
• See Brewster [i], vol. i, p. 9. ^ Ibid., p. 15.
3 Ibid., p. 17. M S . I, § 2.
5 See below, Chapter 6.2, for question of dating of earliest manuscripts.
* M S . I, § 6. ’’ See, for example, M S. I, § 3.
8i)S205 B
 MAIN LINE OF DEVELOPMENT OF 1.1
views on dynamics.^ This development was evidently very rapid, for
an entry in the Waste Book^ dated 20 January 1664 (O.S.) discloses a
recognizably modern quantitative approach to the problem of the inelastic
collision of two bodies.
This entry, like others in the Waste Book and elsewhere among the
earliest dynamical manuscripts, is remarkable for the confident way it
deals with the kinematical side of the problem. It is probably impossible
to disentangle the various influences which went to shape Newton’s
approach to kinematics. He could well have been influenced by Aristotle
himself, or by certain of the late medieval thinkers of the Oxford school
such as Calculator ,3 or by Galileo directly, or indirectly through Torri­
celli or Barrow. Also his interest in kinematics (and later in dynamics)
could have arisen out of his researches in fluxions or vice versa .4 In any
case, kinematics evidently presented no problem to Newton from the
Waste Book onwards, and at various points in the earliest dynamical
manuscripts we find clear definitions of movement as the passage of a
body from one point of extension to another, or change of place, velocity
being the intensity of motion and proportional to the distance covered in
a given time.
With one exception the measurement of velocity always involved
comparisons between the velocities of two different bodies, or of different
velocities in the same body, thus avoiding the ‘forbidden’ division between
the two dissimilar quantities space and time.^ This was equally true of
other quantities such as momentum or force, a typical example at a
much later stage being provided by the enunciation of the law of centri­
* See below, Chapter 2, for the influence of Galileo and Descartes on Newton in
dynamics.
2 See M S . Ilb .
3 Boyer [i], p. 194, notes that the terms fluxion and fluent employed by Newton had
appeared earlier in the work of Calculator.
C f., for example, Prop, i and 2 of the paper ‘T o Resolve Problems by M otion ’
{Correspondence, vol. iii, no. 348) with §§ 2, 3, respectively, of M S . V.
^ T h e notion of a proportion between dissimilar quantities was unthinkable to both
Greek and medieval philosophers. For example, Bradwardine defines proportion as
‘the mutual relationship of two things of the same kind’, Clagett [i], p. 465. And
although the Merton College kinematicists ultimately achieved a perfect definition of
instantaneous velocity in the case of non-uniform motion, it is evident that they still
thought of this velocity not as a ratio but as representing the distance which would have
been covered by the body in a certain time, ibid., p. 167. T h e notion of velocity as a
separate quantity is evident in the section on ‘Uniform M otion’ in the Third D ay of
Galileo’s Discorsi, where he goes so far as to represent individual speeds by lines of
diflferent lengths. But it is still a question always of comparing speeds, and neither in
this section nor elsewhere in the Discorsi does one find a definition of an individual
speed as a ratio o f distance to time.
1.1 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T 3
petal force for circular motion in Prop. 4, Theor. 4, of the Principia.
The unique exception to this comparison rule is found in the note to
Axiom 26 of the Waste Book.^ There Newton considers a single body,
and after noting that in the case of uniform motion the distance and time
may be represented by two of the sides of a right-angled triangle, he
proceeds to state that in the general case of non-uniform motion a
crooked line will result from plotting space against time, the (instanta­
neous) velocity at any point being given by the inverse gradient of the
space-time curve. This brief note must be regarded as representing,
simultaneously, the hidden culmination^ of the train of thought which
went back to the definition of instantaneous velocity by the Merton
College school in the first half of the fourteenth century,^ and, for New­
ton, the dividing of the ways: if he had followed the line indicated in this
note it would inevitably have led him to the construction of a dynamics
based on analytical geometry and the method of fluxions as opposed to
the actual development based on synthetic geometry and the method of
prime and ultimate quantities expounded in Section I of Book I of the
Principia. The long and difficult process of ‘transformation’ and reformu­
lation of the results and methods of the Principia in the first half of the
eighteenth century might then have been avoided.
Almost inevitably the problem of collisions would have been that to
which Newton first applied his exact, quantitative definition of velocity.
It is probable, too, that his first ideas on this problem were based on the
discussion given in Part 2 of Descartes’s Principia Philosophiae including
the fundamental definition of the motion of a body as jointly propor­
tional to its size and speed.^^ If so, Newton must have very soon corrected
the error in Descartes’ law of conservation of motion. For in the dis­
cussion of inelastic collisions in the Waste Book^ we find that for Newton,
unlike Descartes, the unchanging total quantity of motion was the alge­
braic sum of the separate motions taking account of the directions or
determinations^ of the movements of the individual bodies.
In the case of inelastic collisions all that was required for a complete
solution was the size of each body and the magnitudes and directions
of their respective velocities before the collision. To find the magnitude
and direction of the velocity of the composite body after collision was
‘ M S . Ild .
^ Assuming, of course, that Newton was not forestalled in this definition of velocity
as a ratio by some previous writer such as Barrow.
^ See, for example, Clagett [i], Chapter 4, especially §§4, 5.
♦ Op. cit.. Art. 36. 5 See M S . Ilb . * See M S . lie , Def. 4.
 M A I N L I N E OF D E V E L O P M E N T O F 1.1
then a matter of elementary algebra. Noteworthy, however, and very
characteristic, is the systematic way in which Newton allows for all
possible cases.
Of greater interest is the discussion in the Waste Book of the direct
collision of two elastic spheres.^ There the mutual reflection of the
spheres was due to some ‘springing motion’ in the bodies or the matter
crowded between them. And as the spring was more dull or vigorous so
the bodies would be reflected more or less vigorously. During the actual
process of collision the spheres would ‘relent’ from their spherical
shapes and be pressed into ‘sphaeroidicall’ figures up to the point where
they momentarily came to rest when the pressure between them would
be greatest.2 But if the bodies were ‘absolutely solid’ the collision would
take place instantaneously, no relenting from the spherical shape being
possible.2
In the direct collision of two equal, perfectly clastic spheres moving
with equal speeds in opposite directions the relative velocity of separa­
tion would necessarily equal that of approach.^ This would still re­
main true for all sizes and velocities of the bodies.^ No indication of
the proof of the general result was given. Evidently it corresponded
to Newton’s experimental law of collisions for the special case in which
the coefficient of restitution equalled unity. Later it was employed in
the remarkable solution to the problem of the collision of two rotating
bodies.5
By the middle of the seventeenth century the centre of interest in
dynamics in continental Europe had shifted from the problem of motion,
to which it must have seemed that Galileo had provided the definitive
solution in his Discorsi, to the problem of collisions, a topic to which
Galileo had contributed little. Attention had been focused on this latter
problem by its treatment in Part 2 of Descartes’s Principia Philosophiae.
In England any previous interest in this problem would have been
stimulated by Huygens’s successful application of his own theory of
collisions before various members of the Royal Society, including
Laurence Rooke, Wallis, and Wren, at the time of his visit to London in
i66i.^ This theory, as we now know, had been fully worked out as
early as 1656.7 Finally, in 1668, the Royal Society sought to bring to a
* See M S . lid . Ax. 7-10 . ^ M S . I Id, Ax. Q.
3 Ibid., at end. M S . I Id, Ax. 10.
5 See M S . V , §§ 9, 10.
* See Huygens’s CEuvres, vol. xvi, pp. 172-3, 181.
7 Ibid., pp. 10, 137, n. I.
1.1 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T
head the various inconclusive discussions of previous years by inviting
papers on the subject from Wren, Wallis, and Huygens.^
The true importance of the problem of collisions was very different
from that which would have been imagined by the Scientific Establish­
ment of the day. It was, in fact, twofold: it provided material for the pro­
longed controversy between the supporters of Leibniz’s measure of
motion, the vis viva, on the one hand, and the supporters of the Cartesian
measure on the other.^ Even more important, perhaps, it provided an
ideal testing ground for the earliest formal development of Newton’s
concept of force. It is this latter aspect which concerns us here.
There were, as we have seen, three basic elements in Newton’s treat­
ment of the problem of collisions in the Waste Book. First the assump­
tion (following Descartes) that the proper measure of the quantity of
motion in a body was proportional jointly to its size and speed. Next
Descartes’s law of conservation of total quantity of motion suitably
emended as regards direction of motion. Lastly a perfect understanding
of the physical process of elastic collisions with its momentary distortion
of the colliding bodies. It was this last, physical, aspect of the collision
process which figured in Newton’s first definition of force in the Waste
Book as ‘the pressure or crowding of one body on another’.^ We can
thus assume that the pressure between colliding bodies was one of the
first kinds of force seriously considered by Newton. This pressure,
however, had the grave disadvantage that it was impossible to assign
any numerical quantity to mirror its extremely rapid variation from zero
up to a maximum and down to zero again. In fact, in the extreme case
of ‘absolutely solid’ bodies the process of collision was instantaneous.^
Newton’s powerful drive towards a quantitative treatment of dynamics
would then have led him to search for a new quantitative definition of
force. Hence the various Axioms in the Waste Book^ equivalent to the
single definition/orre oc change in quantity of motion produced.
We cannot be sure how Newton arrived at this fundamental definition
of force. But it seems probable that it had some close connexion with
the immediately preceding enunciation of the principle of inertia:^
* See Birch [i], vol. ii, pp. 315, 320.
Huygens’s paper, transmitted to the Royal Society early in January 1669, was un­
accountably, and much to H uygens’s annoyance, not published in the Transactions like
those of Wren and Wallis. Hence the paper ‘Regies du Mouvement dans la Rencontre
des Corps’ appearing in thQ Journal des Scavans in March 1669.
^ For various aspects of this controversy see Costabel [i], Chapter 2; Dugas [i],
Chapter 14, § 7; Dugas [2], Part III, Chapter 2. ^ M S . lie , Def. 9.
M S. Ild , Ax. 9. 5 Ibid., A x. 4, 5, 6, 23. ^ Ibid. Ax. i, 2.
 M AI N LIN E OF DEVELOPMENT OF 1.1
(1) If a quantity once move it will never rest unless hindered by some
external cause.
(2) A quantity will always move on in the same straight line (not changing
the determination nor celerity of its motion) unless some external cause
divert it.
From this enunciation it followed that any change in the state of rest or
motion of a body was due to some external cause. If this external cause
were identified with force then force would be that which produced
change in a body’s state of motion or rest. This is precisely the identifica­
tion found later in the Waste Book where force is said to be the power
of the cause which changes a body’s motion.*
But the measure of the force corresponding to a given change in
velocity had still to he assigned. The simplest assumption would have
been to measure it in terms of actual change of velocity. This, however,
would have ignored the role of a body’s bulk epitomized by the fact
that it is more difficult to induce a given change in the velocity of a large
than a small body. Given the role of quantity of motion in collision pro­
cesses, Newton would inevitably have assumed that the measure of force
depended in some way on the change in quantity of motion produced.
The simplest assumption— force directly proportional to change in
quantity of motion— would have been tried first, and would then have
been found to possess the signal merit of ensuring conservation of
quantity of motion in collision processes on the assumption that the
forces between the colliding bodies were equal and opposite.^
In some such way Newton was led to his fundamental, quantitative
definition of force. It represented the first important step towards his
final achievement in dynamics. But at this point a formidable difficulty
seemed to bar the way to any further progress: how to relate forces thus
defined with the actual, physical forces encountered in Nature, such as
the pressure between bodies, or the tension in a rotating sling. Newton’s
ability to surmount this difficulty in the case of centrifugal force marked
his first decisive breakthrough in dynamics and one which lifted him to
a new plane of achievement in the subject only attained by Huygens^
besides.
* M S . He, A x. 104. 2 M S . Ild , A x. 7, 8.
^ In the treatise D e V i Centrifuga, written by 1659. This, however, was first pub­
lished in 1703 among the Opuscula Posthuma. Various results based on the law of
centrifugal force were published without proof in the Appendix to the Horologium Oscil-
latorium of 1673. See section on centrifugal force in Huygens’s (Euvres, vol. xvi,
pp. 237-328. A detailed comparison between the respective approaches of Huygens
and Newton to the problem of circular motion would be very valuable.
1.2 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L TH O U G H T
1.2. N ew ton before the P roblem of C ircular M otion
It is worth pausing for a moment to consider how fortunate the exis­
tence of uniform circular motion was for Newton, and how important
his successful treatment of it for the whole future development of
his dynamics. Apart from motion in a circle, the only relatively simple
kinds of movement available for study by Newton were rectilinear,
parabolic, and elliptical. The first two occurred in motion under gravity
at the Earth’s surface, and had already been fully explored, at least in
their kinematical aspects, by Galileo. Both bulked large in the growth of
Newton’s dynamical thought, especially uniformly accelerated rectilinear
motion, the paradigm case for all other more complicated motions. But
neither of these motions admitted of any development of the concept of
force. On the other hand, the elliptical motion discerned by Kepler in the
unruly movements of the planet Mars was far too difficult and complex
a case for Newton to treat first. In contrast, the problem of uniform
circular motion was at once not impossibly difficult and yet of sufficient
complexity to call for a real advance in his concept of force and his
method of applying it to motion in a curved path.
The first known discussion by Newton of the problem of circular
motion is found at Axiom 20 of the Waste BookJ The case considered is
that of a ball moving on the interior of a hollow spherical surface. Accord­
ing to the principle of inertia there is a constant tendency for the ball to
continue on in the instantaneous direction of its motion at any point, i.e.
along the tangent to the circle. And the fact that it does not so continue
but moves instead in a circle argues the continuous action on it of a force.
This force can only arise from pressure between the ball and the surface.
But if the surface presses the ball, the ball itself must press the surface.
From which it follows^
that all bodies moved circularly have an endeavour from the centre about
which they move.
This first discussion of the physical origin of centrifugal force bears
evidence of Descartes’ treatment of the same subject in Part 2 of his
Principia Philosophiae.^ Having thus attained to a clear physical under­
standing of the problem Newton was now faced with the task of provid­
ing it with an exact, quantitative treatment. His first tentative steps
toward such a treatment are found at Axiom 22 of the Waste Book.^ There
» M S . Ild . ® Ibid., A x. 21.
3 See below. Chapter 2, § 2, section on circular motion. M S . Ild , A x. 22.
 MAIN LINE OF DEVELOPMENT OF 1.2 1.2 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L THOUGFIT
he notes that the whole force hy which a body co endeavours from the At each corner it would be reflected from one side into the next and so on
centre m in half a revolution is more than double the force that is able to ad infinitum. In this particular case an exact relation could be deduced
destroy or create its motion, that is the quantity of its motion. For in involving the magnitude of the shock encountered by the ball at each
moving from any point of the circle to the diametrically opposite point corner of the square, namely:
the ‘resistance’ of the surrounding surface (equal to the contrary pressure
total sum of shocks at 4 corners sum of sides of square
exerted by the body on the surface) is able to destroy the original quantity
force of movement of ball radius of circle
of the body’s motion along the tangent at the first point and create an
equal quantity of motion in exactly the opposite sense at the second point. The same argument could be applied to regular inscribed polygons of
Two things are noteworthy here: first a small point of capital im­ any order invariably leading to the result:
portance. If a complete revolution of the circle had been considered no total sum of shocks at all corners sum of all sides
conclusion could have been drawn since the final state of the body force of movement of ball radius of circle
would then have been the same as its original one. On the other hand,
Newton then continued:
for half a revolution the position is entirely different. The line of action
and so if [the] body were reflected by the sides of an equilateral circumscribed
of the motion remains the same, certainly, but not its sense, and New­
polygon of an infinite number of sides (that is by the circle itself) the force of
ton, unlike Descartes, was well aware of the importance of sense or de­
all the reflections are to the force of the body’s motion as all those sides {id est
termination in defining the motion of a body. Next there is the phrase the perimeter) to the radius.
‘whole force . . . in half a revolution’. The exact sense of this phrase will
The last proportion was evidently ztt thus explaining the cancellation
become clear later. At present it need only be noted that it is a matter of
of a 4-F elsewhere in the Waste Book^ and its replacement by a 6 + , that
the effect of a continuous force during an extended interval of time. In
is to say ztt. In addition, it is evident now that the expression force of all
fact, without understanding the exact meaning of the argument its
reflections meant sum of all the forces of reflection in a complete revolu­
general drift is sufficiently clear, namely, that the whole effect of the
tion, thus explaining the earlier phrase of doubtful meaning the whole
force on the hall during half a revolution is exactly to reverse its sense of
force . . . hi half a revolution.
movement and consequently to change its motion by an amount equal
This replacement of an inequality by an exact result was a brilliant
to double its original quantity. Equally clear is the attempt to effect a
achievement. Nevertheless the result obtained in the form given is not
connexion between force in the physical sense on the one hand, and
very useful. For example, the sum of all the forces of reflection during a
force in the sense of change of quantity of motion on the other.
complete revolution is considered but no mention is made of the centri­
In this ingenious way Newton was able to introduce number into his
fugal force itself. Again, and even more serious, although the sum of the
treatment of circular motion. Admittedly the result obtained was no
forces of reflection remains finite in passing to the limit of an inscribed
more than approximate. It was a question not of an equality but of an
polygon with an infinite number of sides all the individual forces tend
inequality. The problem now was to improve on this inequality and
towards zero! In addition these forces of reflection continually change
replace it, if possible, by an exact result. As long as the circle itself was
their direction, so that it is rather doubtful if any valid physical sense
retained further progress was impossible. It was necessary, like Des­ can be attributed to their sum. These difficulties may explain the exis­
cartes, but in a very different sense, to escape from the tyranny of the tence of another paragraph immediately preceding the above proof
circle only to return to it again later. And that Newton was able so to where one finds in essence the following result:
escape was entirely due to the fact that he had replaced the stone in the
If a ball moves in a circle, then the force by which it tends away from the
Cartesian sling by a ball moving on an inner spherical surface. For now
centre acting on some other body in a straight line (like the force of gravity)
it was possible to imagine the body moving along a square inscribed in will create in this other body, in the time for motion in the circle through
the circle as opposed to the circle itself, as on folio i of the Waste Book.^
‘ M S . I Id, Ax. 24.
I M S . Ila, § 2.
10 M A I N L I N E OF D E V E L O P M E N T OF 1.2
a distance equal to the radius of the circle, motion equal to the quantity of
motion of the ball.
The equivalence of this result referring to movement in a straight line to
the result obtained for movement in a circle follows without difficulty,
and doubtless Newton would have divined it immediately.
Thus Newton obtained a quantitative result concerning the motion of
a body in a straight line under the action of a constant force equal to the
centrifugal force for a given circular motion. Noteworthy is the fact that
up to this point he had not obtained a formula giving the dependence of
centrifugal force on the speed and the radius of the circle. This com­
pletes the treatment of the problem of circular motion in the Waste Book.
The scene now shifts to MS. I ll, devoted, for the most part, to calcula­
tion of the ratios of the force of gravity to the centrifugal forces of the
diurnal and annual movements of the Earth. These calculations are all
based implicitly, nevertheless certainly,^ on the following formula:
A body moves from rest in a straight line under the action of a force equal
to that acting on an equal body moving in a circle, radius R, with speed V. Then
in the time of movement in the circle through a distance R the other equal
body will move from rest in a straight line through a distance \R.
To consider Newton’s probable derivation of this formula we must
return to the result immediately above his exact quantitative ‘polygonal’
treatment of circular motion on folio i on the Waste Book. The known
behaviour of a body in this case then leads to the ‘\R! formula. For if jR
be the radius of the circle, and V the speed of the ball, the result given
by Newton implies that the second body acquires motion M V in time
RjV, M being the bulk of the ball. If, as in MS. I ll , the second body
happens to have the same bulk as the ball, it will clearly acquire speed V
in time RjV, and by the Merton^ Rule the distance moved in this time will
be (^-R/V)V = \R— precisely the result used by Newton in MS. I ll,
and most probably derived by him in the manner just indicated. T o cal­
culate the ratio of the weight of a body to any given centrifugal force it
was then only necessary to compare the distances moved by the body
under the action of the two forces in the same interval of time. At first the
value assumed for the rate of fall due to gravity was based on a result
given by Galileo in the Dialogue.^ Later becoming dissatisfied with this
result, perhaps as the result of some crude experiment, he redetermined
the rate of fall due to gravity by a very ingenious use of certain results
* See § 2 o f Commentary and Interpretation to M S . III.
* Familiar to Newton if only through Galileo’s Dialogue or Discorsi.
^ See M S . I, § 6; M S . I l l , Appendix A .
1.2 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T 11
relating to the motion of vertical and horizontal pendulums. He thus
arrived at the excellent figure of 196 inches of fall in one second.
The assumption that the distances moved in a given time were pro­
portional to the forces, and the extension of Galileo’s V law from the
special case of motion under gravity to that under any constant force,
would both have appeared self-evident to Newton, requiring no justi­
fication. Later they played a central role in his treatment of motion in an
ellipse where he extended them still further to a case where the forces
acting were no longer constant. ^
Having learnt how to calculate the ratio of weight to centrifugal force,
Newton then discovered that the centrifugal force of a body at the
equator due to the diurnal motion could be safely neglected compared
with its weight. This was his first great practical discovery in dynamics.
The ancient arguments of Ptolemy against the rotation of the Earth
were theoretically sound but in practice the effect was negligible and
would have none of the catastrophic consequences imagined by Ptolemy.
This was a result of great importance and must have powerfully
reinforced Newton’s belief in the Copernican system. Yet it in no way
implied a knowledge of the dependence of centrifugal force on radius and
speed. One calculation in MS. I I P indeed proves that Newton had
reached this result sometime after his first calculations on that manu­
script, and it is even possible that he first derived this result by the
following proof found at the end of the Scholium to Prop. 4, Theor. 4,
of the Principia.^
In any circle suppose a polygon to be described of any number of sides.
And if a body, moved with a given velocity along the sides of the polygon, is
reflected from the circle at the several angular points, the force, with which
at every reflection it strikes the circle, will be as its velocity: and therefore the
sum of the forces, in a given time, will be as the product of that velocity and
the number of reflections; that is (if the species of the polygon be given), as
the length described in that given time, and increased or diminished in the
ratio of the same length to the radius of the circle; that is, as the square of
that length divided by the radius; and therefore the polygon, by having its sides
diminished in infinitum coincides with the circle, as the square of the arc de­
scribed in a given time divided by the radius. This is the centrifugal force,
with which the body impels the circle; and to which the contrary force, where­
with the circle continually repels the body towards the centre, is equal.
The approach to the problem of circular motion in this proof is
evidently the same as that found in the Waste Book. And the possibility'^
' See below, § 3 of present chapter. ^ See M S . I l l , Appendix B, § 2.
3 As first suggested by Ball. See Ball [i], p. 13. ^ See Ball [i], p. 13.
 PLATE 2
12 M A I N L I N E OF D E V E L O P M E N T OF 1.2
that it represents the actual culmination of the discussion in that manu­
script is strengthened by Newton’s statement in his letter of 14 July 1686
to Halley that he came across it when ‘turning over some old papers’.
However, the first undoubtedly early proof of the law of centrifugal
force is that given in MS. IVa.
Once again, as in the polygonal treatment, there is the basic Cartesian ' si ^I V
notion of the natural tendency of the body to follow the inertial path
along the tangent. But whereas the ‘polygonal’ treatment was based on -1 4 : 2 t .
: 5
the idea of replacing the circle by an inscribed polygon, and the con­ * ^
. - i
■ ^
tinuous force by a series of sharp impulsive ‘forces of reflection’, the
circle is now retained throughout, the outward conatus or endeavour
from the centre being measured by the deviation it would produce be­ tS I . V
tween the actual and inertial paths in a given small interval of time.
This deviation, D B (MS. IVa, Fig. i), is thus the distance through
which the conatus would impel the body if free to act in the absence of
o
o
any constraining force. By Galileo’s F law it then follows that the same cq
conatus acting on the body in a straight line, like the force of gravity,
would move it through a distance 2tt^R in the time of a complete revolu­ I
tion in the circle. That this result is equivalent to the ‘ l-R’ formula of
MS. HI follows immediately by a second application of the F law. So
the two treatments, the polygonal and the deviational, agree. But where­
as the derivation of the law of centrifugal force by the polygonal method
is, as we have seen, rather difficult, it follows easily from the deviational
treatment. For if the given conatus moves the body through a distance
2tt^R in the time T of a complete revolution, it will move the body
through a distance 27 t^Rx {i ITY in unit time. From the proportionality
arguments for constant forces it follows that the conati of divers circular
• I O - ;■ ^
motions will vary with the result given by Newton at §2 of MS. IVa.
In this deviational treatment of circular motion we thus find renewed
use of the paradigm case of motion under gravity, including application
of the extension of Galileo’s F law; in addition there is the first intro­ “I
u ^
I i I■ 1 V- I ' ?c '
duction of the important notion of measuring force or conatus in terms " ^ .N , . ,ir ‘ >^ r • V - A-j 11-
- c1 nI .
of the deviation DB in a given time.
5t t I . -
Two things are noteworthy: first, Newton’s apparent belief in conatus
■ v ‘ -I
i t ^ T-1
^ it- ; ' •
as a real species of potential force; z/the body were free then the conatus L fA " *‘ J-JkJf _.^ 4
t| •> ^<- i ' ' -V - f 3 '
would impel it through the distance DB in the given small interval of i S V w ^ ’V ' C - t*
time. This is precisely the same notion of conatus found in Def. 6 of MS. i V.
VI, where it is said to be ‘an impeded force or a force in so far as it is ^ ..:r Cl- t f' ^ ¥
. : '4 ^ ^d <. Ii ^
F '• "K
** i" ‘ ^ ' N V t
resisted’. In the case of circular motion this is an entirely false notion
plate 3

1.2 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L TH O U G H T 13
dynamically, the only true tendency being that along the tangent. That
I iS hfm A H 0 Qiuniuf ^ Newton ultimately came to realize the illusory nature of centrifugal, as
4. ^aAvw h.*Juf Sf#>~j u ^ L i Uk, (f^ opposed to centripetal, force would seem* to follow from his treatment
|0t.J «. *9 of orbital motion from the tract de Motu onwards. For now it is a devia­
£<i«n fi ht-^OVL, tion BD equal to the original one, but in the opposite sense, in terms
of which he compares the centripetal forces for different circular motions.
*** In the second place, it is noteworthy that Newton does not set the
^ <Xt J,
conatus proportional to the distance DB. He states only that the conatus
itO ih«./ 9 C ^ n i t h < t ^
is of such a quantity that it would impel the body through a distance D B
f„^V f u./- n^fciur- M
.
? in the time corresponding to AD . Such an identification would, of course,
*: ' ' T V ’T have been false, since the conatus is finite while the deviation D B is very
% uf- juJArv-u*^ Ai0lA / r </)T,
small. Nor was there any call to consider the actual relation between the
deviation and the conatus, since the constancy of the latter made it
a.1 34 T«; /M' jk .;„■ «» C-t«
possible to deduce the distance moved in any finite time given the dis­
^ e . 0A'--»/4 -
tance moved in the ‘time’ AD . This was sufficient for comparing the
;^ at.O . 2/tf ^ .2 ^ ) ' /l3£/( ’ ..I w " ^
/• #<4-^iCii*, (rr%»jlfii«.^^ 4 . . 4» . ft...
magnitude of the conatus to that of any other constant force, such as the
/V^ \ ' s.v^Mi-swrf - V , ' ^%n4u^ force of gravity, or the conatus of some other circular motion. But this
* ‘1 ^f.r-
fTi'fc'% ■ f Ca^Oi-ivtf WtWi^Pt' O. Ci«.i^ method of comparing forces by the distances moved in a finite interval
3'WlHfi*P^-Hf. of time no longer applied in the problem of Kepler-motion owing to the
variation in the magnitude of the force acting on the body.
Wct^«4 ; ^ The derivation of the law of centrifugal force represented the most
a. «*Jrr 4 »Ut 4 w i ^ ; #* 9tx important achievement of Newton’s early researches in dynamics. It
^vn.0<u0 JUH,‘9!o4»*Ufff A'/^ff'Ujt Am pW b<^<^SJ^
was particularly important in two respects; in the first place it made
^y». ^vr- |XC» tf’ i«t Ht *mAc ^r\A^ f*^
possible his derivation of the inverse square law of gravitation via
plliS^S 1 ^ -it^ :-t*t . ft^u»,'ii! ■ifck
Kepler’s third law and its test against the moon’s motion. Lacking any
i'lif **A pTAM-im. 9 c4>t3M»i. p\APg4'
direct documentary evidence of this test one cannot be entirely certain
\ficCA»*t ^»^*“# **‘ that it did take place, but there is a considerable amount of indirect
i <- v4 - ci>kUt *C 4 rmL evidence largely consistent with this possibility.^ In the second place,
•\i,\‘ fjrrpYPL »•» ' tL «* «<tvts prte>9^^’<n. . ^ the long process leading from the first tentative approach to the problem
^ , ^#itC '**. <jjt4n.*i^ A. u.l~ i|rt. “# • of circular motion to the final derivation of the law of centrifugal force
must have provided Newton with invaluable experience in the dynamical
*A oMiWy t\4 npfi^ , .!,< .CM^m
treatment of motion in a curved path. Lacking this experience of
/k !-> "*'” 7 <f^ «i* / z y SVA' ffi ^4 ^x 5
)«#/*f. <9 i g0 S s ^ 'if^ M k v r^ k 4 i a tv v r i ^ circular motion at the time of Hooke’s intervention in 1679, is per­
iSfi t J J^C 0 i j 4 ikmk'a^ J*tf^/r^Sk i i K et^ l^ haps rather unlikely that he would then have been able to solve the
• • .i l I iA jk c ktUkg pnffirrL'0n.^ »^ *) * vastly more difficult problem of motion in an ellipse.^

A page from an early Newton manuscript on circular motion (MS. IVa) ' But see below, Chapter 3, p. 62. ^ See below, Chapter 4.
^ Assuming that Newton first solved the problem o f Kepler-motion synthetically
rather than analytically. See n. 2, p. 17, below for a discussion of the possibility of an
original analytic?.! solution.
14 M AIN LINE OF DEVEL OPM EN T OF 1.3
1.3. T he S olution to the P roblem of K epler- M otion
The precise dating of the various elements of the early researches will
probably always remain a matter of speculation. But it seems likely that
the first test of the law of gravitation against the moon’s motion took
place at Woolsthorpe in the summer or autumn of i666d and that New­
ton’s return to Cambridge in the following spring marked the end of the
first period of his creative work in dynamics. There follows a long break
in the story from 1667 to 1679 during which there is no evidence of any
further development in Newton’s dynamical thought.^ Brewster sup­
posed that this apparent loss of interest in the subject resulted from his
disappointment at the failure of the first test,3 but it seems more prob­
able that it was due simply to the renewal of his optical researches and
the consequent total absorption even of all Newton’s creative scientific
energy. In any case, it is hardly surprising that these early researches in
dynamics should have been followed by a long gap of years during which
his interest in the subject lay almost entirely dormant. For one can
regard it as the inevitable working of a mind so deeply intuitive as
Newton’s, an infallible index of genius of the rarest kind, that this in­
tensely difficult and creative work in dynamics should have been fol­
lowed by a long fallow period during which the experience gained in the
early researches could be quietly and unhurriedly absorbed and assimi­
lated. So that when the time was ripe, at the height of his powers, with
a mind purged by the most intense emotional experience of his life,
he could turn, at Hooke’s prompting, to the supreme problem of
elliptical motion and find ready to hand just those tools needed to carry
the work through to a final conclusion.
It is possible, however, that Newton’s interest in dynamics revived
temporarily some years before Hooke’s intervention in 1679 following
the receipt of his presentation copy of Huygens’s Horologium Oscilla-
’ See below, Chapter 6.2.
2 M S . V may well have been completed in this period. But it contains no new
developments important for New ton’s later researches in dynamics apart from the
separation of the law for composition of motions from that for resolution of velocity.
Also the treatment of the problem of the collision of two rotating bodies in §§9, 10
must be regarded as the natural completion of the study of collisions in the Waste Book.
T h is problem played no part in New ton’s later researches in dynamics. Its importance
lies rather in the brilliant example it provides of his genius in dynamics.
^ Brewster [i], vol. i, p. 26, no doubt on the authority of Whiston and Pemberton who
both state that this was the reason for Newton laying aside his researches on gravitation
at this time.
1.3 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T 15
torium in 1673. In his letter of thanks to Huygens he refers* to the use­
fulness of the formulae relating to centrifugal force given (without
proof) at the end of that work, instancing a notion of his own that the
invariable aspect of the moon from the Earth was due to the greater
conatus of its motion relative to the Earth compared with that relative
to the sun. This revival of interest, however, must have been at most
short-lived, and if any more extensive work in dynamics was contem­
plated it remained unfulfilled. Newton, as we know, was at this time
heavily engaged in defending his publication in optics against Hooke
and others.2 And the animosity, ill will, and misunderstanding to which
the controversy on light gave rise left him with a strong, almost patholo­
gical, aversion to ever publishing anything in ‘philosophy’ again and even
with some aversion to the subject itself. For example, in 1675 we find
Collins complaining in a letter^ to a friend that Barrow and Newton were
so busy with chemical experiments that they had no time for mathematics
(and, by implication, philosophy). So that Newton’s statement^ that for
some years previous to 1679 he had been endeavouring ‘to bend himself
from philosophy to other studies’ may have been very close to the truth.
If Newton had died before December 1679 he would have held today
a very high place in science for his researches in light and mathematics.
But the researches into dynamics and gravitation on which his popular
fame largely (and perhaps justly) rests would never have been made, and
his early researches in dynamics would have been either entirely ignored
or regarded today as of antiquarian interest only. On the 27 November
1679 he returned to Cambridge after an absence of almost six months,
much the longest since his return in 1667 after the plague. His mother
had died in the preceding May or June.s She had caught a fever when
nursing her other son Benjamin Smith at Stamford Bridge and Newton
had hurried to her side to nurse her him self.After his mother’s death the
‘ See relevant extract of New ton’s letter of 23 June 1673 to Huygens at M S . V ila .
^ See More [i], Chapter 4.
3 See para. 4 of Collins’s letter of 19 October 1675 to James Gregory reproduced in
Rigaud [2], vol. ii, p. 280.
In his letter of 28 November 1679 to Hooke.
5 According to the records of Colsterworth Parish (as reported by T u m o r [i]) a Mrs.
Hannah Smith was buried there on 4 June 1679. In all probability this was New ton’s
mother, nee Hannah Ayscough, who married (secondly) Barnabas Smith in 1645.
^ Conduitt (K M S 130(8) Library, K in g ’s College, Cambridge) describes how
Newton ‘ attended her with a true filial pity, sate up whole nights with her, gave her all
her physick himself, dressed all her blisters with his own hands, and made use of that
manual dexterity for which he was so remarkable to lessen the pain which always
accompanied the dressing (the torturing remedy usually applied in that distemper) with
as much readiness as he ever had employed it in the most delightful experiments’.
16 M AIN LINE OF DEVELOPMENT OF
whole business of winding up and settling her estate devolved on Newton
who had thus no time ‘to entertain philosophical meditations, or so
much as to study or mind any thing else but country affairs’.^ Fortunate
Newton, that he could thus escape all creative intellectual thought for
so long a period and return to Cambridge with a mind entirely refreshed.
For soon after his return he was to be faced by the decisive challenge of
his career. This came about, as it were by chance, as a result of the cele­
brated letter of the 24 November from Robert Hooke.
The ensuing correspondence between Newton and Hooke is well
known thanks to the fortunate recovery of all the letters and to the writ­
ings of Rouse Ball,2 Pelseneer,^ and Koyre.^ Here we are concerned only
with Newton’s famous ‘imagination’ of an experiment to discover the
diurnal motion of the Earth.s In the light of other evidence^ it then seems
certain that it was Hooke’s criticism of the spiral path proposed by
Newton for the falling body which revived Newton’s interest in dyna­
mics, and this time so thoroughly that he went on to construct the two
propositions corresponding to Kepler’s first and second laws, probably
before the end of December 1679.
When Newton first gave his entire attention to the problem of motion
in an ellipse one thing, at least, would have been clear to him; a body, a
planet, could only trace out so unnatural, non-inertial a path as an
ellipse under the constant action of a force. What was so difficult was to
determine the direction and magnitude of this force at every point of
the ellipse. He may, of course, have had some preliminary notions of the
answers to these questions. He may have believed, or guessed, that the
force on a planet was entirely directed to the sun. He may also have
expected that the magnitude of the force would vary inversely with the
square of the distance.'^' But there w^as a world of difference between
guessing the answers to these questions and proving them. T o Newton
was given the privilege of proving that on the basis of Kepler’s laws
it necessarily followed that the force on any planet was entirely directed
* Letter of 28 November 1679 to Hooke.
2 Ball [i], Chapter 3. 3 Pelseneer [i]. ^ Koyre [2].
3 T h e relevant passage from New ton’s letter of 28 November 1679 to Hooke is
reproduced at M S . V H c.
^ Especially New ton’s statement in his letter of 14 July 1686 to Halley: ‘This is true,
that his [Hooke’s] letters occasioned m y finding the method of determining figures,
which when I had tried in the ellipsis, I threw the calculation b}", being upon other
studies.’
7 A possibility suggested by Bullialdus, and referred to specifically by Newton in the
postscript of his letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley. For the passage on the inverse square
law see Bullialdus [i], p. 23.
1.3 1.3 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T 17
towards the sun, varying inversely as the square of the distance there­
from. In this respect, if in no other, our sympathies are entirely with
Newton in his cri de coeur to Halley:
Now is this not very fine ? Mathematicians, that find out, settle, and do all
the business, must content themselves with being nothing but dry calculators
and drudges. . . .'
What is possibly Newton’s first solution to the problem of Kepler-
motion is found in Prop, i and 3 of MS. VIH.^ Before attempting to
estimate the magnitude of the force he would need to have known its
direction, so that he probably discovered Prop, i first. Dynamically the
proof of this proposition rests on the notion of replacing the actual
* Postscript to New ton’s letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley.
2 See below, Chapter 6.6, for a discussion of the status of this manuscript.
Account must also be taken of the possibility that New ton’s first solution to the prob­
lem of Kepler-motion was analytic rather than synthetic. This would seem to be implied
by the well-known passage in the Portsmouth D raft Memorandum : ‘By this M ethod I in­
vented the Demonstration of K epler’s Proposition in the year 1679, and almost all the
rest of the Difficulter Propositions of the Book of Principles in the years 1684, 1685,
and part of the year 1686.’ T h e M ethod in question has usually been assumed to be that
of the fluxions, for example by Rouse Ball (Ball [i], p. 7). But it must be remembered
that the Portsmouth D raft Memorandum was most probably written after the outbreak
of the controversy with Leibniz over the Calculus, so that any references in it to the
Method of Fluxions have to be taken with some reserve. T h e potentially most reliable
indication of the actual method employed b y Newton is contained in his letter of 14 July
1686 to Halley. There he states: ‘T h is is true, that his letters occasioned m y finding the
method of determining figures, which when I had tried in the ellipsis, I threw the calcu­
lation by, being upon other studies; and so it rested for about five years, till upon your
request I sought for that paper; and not finding it, did it again, and reduced it into the
propositions shewed you by M r. Paget.’ Unfortunately the first vital part of this passage
is ambiguous. I f the method referred to was the analytical method for determining
figures sketched out in principle in Prop. 41 of Book I of the Principia, then he should
have stated that he tried it on the inverse square law instead of the ellipse. On the other
hand, if he was referring to Prop. 6, Theor. 5, by means of -which given the figure the cen­
tripetal force for any curve (including the ellipse) may be calculated in principle, then he
should have used the phrase method of determining forces. Lacking any documentary
evidence we can therefore only surmise the actual method employed. I think it is
entirely possible that Newton did develop the method of determining figures in 1679.
On the other hand, there is no reliable evidence that he either then or later proved in
detail that an inverse square law would lead to a conic, with an ellipse as one particular
case. A nd in fact if he had done so, then it is rather surprising that he did not give this
case as a corollary to Prop. 41, Book I, Principia. It is possibly significant that in the
much simpler case of an inverse cube force referred to in Corollary 3 of that proposition
no details are given of the actual orbit. And this remains true for the justification pro­
vided for that corollary by Newton to David Gregory at the time of the latter’s visit to
Cambridge in 1694. See Correspondence, vol. iii, pp. 348-9. Possibly relevant too is
the well-known detail in Conduitt (see Ball [i], p. 26) that New ton’s failure to reproduce
his original proof after H alley’s departure was due to his having drawn the axes of
an ellipse ‘instead of two conjugate diameters somewhat inclined to one another’. This
must surely have referred to a synthetic proof. So that whether or not he achieved
an analytic proof in 1679, he would seem at least to have achieved a synthetic one.f
f See additional note, on p. 34.
18 MAIN LINE OF DEVELOPMENT OF
continuously varying force by a series of equally spaced sharp impulses.
The actual path is then replaced by a polygon made up of the rectilinear,
inertial, motions of the body between successive impulses. Given the
initial velocity of the body the first impulse will turn it sharply into a
determinate new direction, and the position at the end of the first inter­
val of time is then given by the beautiful construction based implicitly
on the law of composition of independent motions enunciated in Hypo­
thesis 3. The position of the body at successive instants then follows in
precisely the same way and the proof is completed by the passage to the
limit of vanishingly small intervals of time.
The development of the law of composition of motions is considered
elsewhere^ and nothing need be said of the use of the principle of
inertia— this could confidently have been predicted a priori. But the
replacement of the continuously acting force by a series of equally spaced
impulses calls for comment. At first sight this recalls the original poly­
gonal treatment of circular motion,^ the impulses in the present treat­
ment corresponding to the discrete ‘forces of reflection’ in the former.
In reality, there is a great difference between the two problems. In the
first it was the circle which was given, the ‘forces of reflection’ arising
from the impacts at the corners of the inscribed polygon. Now it was
the force (and therefore the impulses) which was given as a function of
the time, the polygonal approximation to the actual path being then
determined in terms of the initial position and velocity of the body. In
fact, this step-wise development of the approximate path given the force
as a function of the time represents the first example of the determinacy
of Newtonian dynamics.
From Kepler’s second law and the converse of Prop, i it then followed
that the force on the planet was entirely directed towards the sun. New­
ton was thus free to take up the problem of the motion of a body in an
ellipse under the action of a force directed to one of the foci. His solution
to this problem is contained in Prop. 3 of MS. V III. As in Prop, i he
replaces the continuous force of attraction to the focus by a series of
focally directed sharp impulses separated by a constant interval of time
A^, the corresponding positions of the body on the ellipse being P, Y
(MS. V III, Fig. 6) etc. If the force of attraction were suddenly to cease
when the body is at P, it would continue its inertial path along the
tangent reaching a point X in time Af. Instead it is acted on by one of
* See below, § 4 of present chapter, section on Corollary i to laws of motion,
2 See above, § 2 of present chapter.
1.3 1.3 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H l ' 19
the impulses which turns its motion into the chord P F , Y being the
point on the ellipse reached in time A^. The distance X F , having been
generated by the impulse at P, must therefore be proportional, and
parallel, thereto. The same will be true for any other set of points^, x, y.
From this it follows that the force at P ; force at p ~ X Y : xy. By
application of certain geometrical properties of the ellipse together with
the fact that the rate of description of area is constant, so that A P Y F =
ApyF, it follows that the ratio of the forces at P and p will be inversely
as PF^ to pF-.
From the dynamical point of view the new element in Prop. 3 com­
pared with Prop. I rests in the assumption that the deviation gives a
direct measure of the varying force of attraction. It will be convenient to
examine this assumption later in the light of the slightly different use of
the deviation in the tract de Motu, the lectures de Motu, and the first
edition of the Principia. One other feature of the proof calls for com­
ment: the peculiar mixture of tangents and chords. In reality this invali­
dates the claim that the motions will be along the chord P F , and then
along the next chord, and so on. For the motion along P F resulted from
the impulse at P acting on the inertial motion along the tangent at that
point. Whereas when the body reaches F it will be moving along the
chord. Of course, the difference between the tangent and the chord is
very small and ultimately disappears in the limit. But to remove this
difference beforehand would abolish the deviation X Y and with it the
proof itself. The process envisaged by Newton can therefore only be
applied, if at all, to individual points of the ellipse. So that the analogy
between the method adopted in this proposition and that in the first is
more apparent than real. Newton could have followed another more
consistent method based on a thoroughgoing use of a polygonal approxi­
mation. This will be discussed later when considering the whole
question of his use of deviation as a measure of force.
In the first and later versions of the tract de Motu^ the propositions
corresponding to Kepler’s second and first laws of planetary motion
reappear as Prop, i and Prob. 3, Prop. 3, respectively. The proof of
Prop. I follows on exactly the same lines as Prop, i of MS. V III. As to
the inverse square law for motion in an ellipse under a force directed to
one focus, Newton now derives it as a special case of the general formula
for centripetal force for motion in any curved path given in Prop. 3. Only
this proposition need be considered since it contains all the dynamical
I M S . IX .
20 MAIN LINE OF DEVEL OPM EN T OF 1.3
arguments, the special mathematical arguments appropriate to an
ellipse being concentrated in Prob. 3.
Once again the force at any point P of the curve is calculated in terms
of the deviation. But now both the curve and the force are regarded as
continuous throughout and the deviation found by drawing a line parallel
to S P (MS. IX, Fig. 3) through a point O close to P cutting at R the
tangent to the curve at P. RQ is then the deviation. For a given small
interval of time between P and O, R Q will be proportional to the
magnitude of the actual force, Pp, at P ; and for a given force it will be
proportional to AP. S o that altogether
Fp{Aty,
i.e. oc RQ/(Aty.
The actual result given then follows in the limit assuming the constancy
of description of area about the centre of force S.
In the lectures de Motu^ and the first edition of the Principia the
derivation of the inverse square law exactly follows those in the various
versions of the tract de Motu apart from a marginal reference to the
second law of motion in justification of the assumption that the deviation
is proportional to the force acting.
The central role of deviation in Newton’s treatment of force for
motion in a curved path is now sufficiently evident. He first used it in his
second, deviational, treatment of circular motion, and then modified it to
derive the inverse square law for Kepler-motion. Thereafter it reappeared
in his rather different derivation of the same result in the tract de Motu,
the lectures de Motu, and the first edition of the Principia. In each case
Newton’s handling of the deviation was superb and always led to the
right result. But the arguments advanced in its support seemed less
compelling and call for a critical examination.
There were two unsatisfactory elements in Prop. 3 of MS. V III. The
first was the simultaneous use of chords and tangents. This invalidated
the continuous process envisaged and really necessitated a new argument
at each point of the ellipse. Next there was the assumption that the devia­
tion, being generated by the force (impulse) at P, would be proportional,
and parallel, to the force. This was justified by an appeal to Hypothesis 2
that ‘the alteration of motion is ever proportional to the force by which
it is altered’. But the motion generated by the impulse at P is propor­
tional to the velocity generated rather than the displacement, that is to
X Y j A t as opposed to X Y . If then we set the actual accelerative force at
> M S . X I.
1.3 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T 21
P equal to the corresponding impulse will be FpAt so that the correct
equation should read
X Y j A t oc FpAt,
i.e. X Y oc Fp{At)\
However, since the interval At is everywhere the same, a comparison
between any two points of the ellipse gives
XY _Fp
xy ~ F p '
Newton’s measure of the impulse in terms of the deviation thus in­
evitably led him to the correct result for the force. By removing the
double use of chords and tangents the whole proof can then be placed
on an entirely satisfactory basis. Imagine the given ellipse divided up by
a large but finite number of points reached at equal small intervals of
time. It may then be asked; what set of focally directed impulses at these
points will enable the body to describe this polygon ? The process is now
similar to that considered in the ‘polygonal’ treatment of circular motion;
but whereas in the latter case the body can obviously follow a regular
inscribed polygon indefinitely as a result of continued reflections at the
corners, now the motion in the polygon will only persist if the impulses
at the corners are arranged so as to be of exactly the right magnitude and
direction— there is no question of the body being reflected naturally at
the surface of the containing ellipse. T o find the magnitude of these
impulses— corresponding to the ‘forces of reflection’ in the case of the
circle— it is then only necessary to calculate the change in velocity at
each corner; and it follows easily that for a given point P this is propor­
tional to X Y j A t , thus leading to the same result as before though now
by an entirely unobjectionable method.
Viewed in this light Newton’s own proof appears as a peculiar mixture
of the polygonal (the chord) and deviational (the tangent) methods used
in his two early treatments of circular motion. It likewise contains a
peculiar mixture of the discrete (the impulses) and the continuous (the
accelerative force). Though it appears to be a deviational proof, it is in
fact much closer to a polygonal treatment in terms of which it derives its
true justification. The success of this proof in spite of its deficiencies
could be regarded as an indication that Newton was confident beforehand
what the correct result should be; but it could also be regarded as one of
the best examples of his intuitive grasp of dynamical processes.
 22 MAIN LINE OF DEVELOPMENT OF 1.3
Newton’s use of deviation in Prop. 3 of the tract de Motu and the cor­
responding propositions of the lectures de Motu and the first edition of
the Principia remains to be considered. Here there is no trace of impulses
and polygons. Both the path and the force are regarded as continuous
throughout. The assumption deviation oc (A^)^ for a given force is en­
tirely justified. The deviation is now the distance moved away from the
inertial path under the action of a force effectively constant in the given
small interval of time. Likewise the assumption that the deviation will be
proportional to the magnitude of the force given the small interval of
time This is obviously true, being the same proportionality argu­
ment used in the early researches though now extended to the action of
variable forces in very small intervals of time. But the justification of this
assumption in the lectures de Motu and the first edition of the Principia by
an appeal to the second law is less satisfactory. For the second law of
motion concerns the motive force and the change in motion, whereas
now it is a matter of the accelerative force and the distance moved. This
epitomizes a certain confusion in Newton’s thought between the two kinds
of force, motive and accelerative. It was unfortunate that his second
law referred to the former while his calculations always concerned the
latter. The use of the versed sine in place of the deviation in the second
and third editions of the Principia may possibly indicate that he himself
felt a certain dissatisfaction with his use of the latter concept, especially
in the crucial theorem on the general expression for force for motion in
a curved path. Curiously, however, his justification of versed sine as a
measure of force appears in Coroll. IV of Prop, i, and therefore depends
on a polygonal rather than a continuous treatment, that is on the im­
pulse rather than the actual force. From this impasse there was no escape
except through a thoroughgoing application of the differential calculus.
1.4. T he F inal S ynthesis of N e w t o n ’s D ynam ical
S ystem
Newton’s construction of the propositions corresponding to Kepler’s
first two laws of planetary motion represented his most important single
achievement in dynamics and the very cornerstone of the Principia.
How then explain his apparent loss of interest in dynamics again until
1684? Later he said himself that ‘he threw the calculations by being on
other studies’ I and certainly there must have been much else to claim
his attention after so long an absence from Cambridge. The question of
' New ton’s letter of 14 July 1686 to Halley.
1.4 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T 23
his first successful test of the law of gravitation against the moon’s
motion is possibly relevant here. If this was made in 1679, as stated by
Pemberton, I then his loss of interest at this point would almost seem to
argue an inability to appreciate the importance and significance of his
own discoveries. On the other hand, the fact that Pemberton’s account
is probably erroneous in another respect^ gives us leave to doubt the
veracity of his account in regard to the date of the test of the inverse
square law. And if this test actually took place later, most probably in
1684,3 the lull between 1679 and 1684, though still puzzling, becomes
much less incomprehensible. Another possibility to be considered is
that Newton was held up in 1679 through an inability to prove that a
gravitating sphere attracts external particles as though all its mass were
concentrated at its centre. But against this we know that he certainly
was not prevented from composing the tract de Motu in 1684 by the lack
of the same proposition.^
The remainder of the traditional account is well known.s How Halley
visited Newton at Cambridge in August 1684 to inquire what figure a
body would describe under an inverse square law of force. How he was
overjoyed to learn that Newton knew the answer and had dXxQzdyproved
it. And how Newton, being unable to find the original proof, promised
to rework the solution and send it to Halley at the Royal Society, which
promise was then fulfilled in November of the same year when Paget
carried the proposition or propositions in question from Cambridge to
London. Finally, the registration at the Royal Society, some time before
February 1685, of Newton’s Propositiones de Motu followed by the pub­
lication of the Principia in 1687.
So much has generally been agreed to. Opinions, however, have
differed on the exact nature of the propositions carried by Paget to
London, and on their connexion with the tract de Motu, the lectures de
Motu of the Michaelmas term 1684, and the propositions de Motu regis­
tered at the Royal Society. There is also the possibility that the marginal
entry ‘Octob 1684/Lect. i ’ in MS. X I was added considerably later
and should have read ‘Octob 1685/Lect. i ’,^ and that the actual contents
' Pemberton [i], Preface. ^ See below, Chapter 4, p. 75.
^ A s suggested below, Chapter 4, p. 75.
* In his letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley Newton stated: ‘ I never extended the
duplicate proportion lower than to the superficies of the earth, and before a certain
demonstration I found the last year, have suspected it did not reach accurately down so
low'.’ T h e demonstration in question was presumably the proposition referred to here.
5 See, for example. Ball [i]. Chapter 4.
See below'. Chapter 6.4, pp. 98-102.
24 M AIN LINE OF DEV ELOPMENT OF
of these lectures were considerably different from the text given in
M S .X I.i
However, the available evidence seems to point fairly unambiguously
to the following course of events in 1684 and early 1685. After Halley’s
first visit to Newton at Cambridge, most probably in May 1684,2 and not
in August as generally supposed, Newton reconstructed the two missing
propositions and then added a number of new ones. The result was
Version I of the tract de Motu probably composed by the end of July
1684.^ Version II of this tract, a fair copy of Version I, was later sent to
Halley in fulfilment of Newton’s original promise of May.^ But for
some reason or other, possibly connected with his fear of Hooke’s re­
actions, he at first held it up. Instead he pushed on with his researches, the
result being Version III of the tract. Following Halley’s second (or third)
visit in November he sent Version II of the tract to London via Paget.
The Propositiones de Motu entered in the Register Book of the Royal
Society some time before 23 February 1685 were copied from this paper.
There seems some doubt whether the so-called lectures de Motu of
1684 were actually read in the Michaelmas term 1684 as opposed to
1685; but what is in any case certain is that up to the beginning of
Section I of Book I of the Principia these lectures (MS. XI) contain an
original version which, as emended in the manuscript itself, agrees almost
exactly with the first edition of the Principia of which it must be re­
garded as the final draft. Also that Versions I and III of the tract de
Motu and M SS. Xa, b^ enable us to follow in very considerable detail the
creation of this part of the original version of the lectures de Motu, and
thus of the corresponding part of the Principia. In other words they enable
us to follow the creation of the final synthesis of Newton's dynamical system.
This process will now be studied in detail following the actual order in
the Principia itself. Wherever possible reference will be made to the appear­
ance of particular concepts in the earlier manuscripts, thus stressing the
striking element of continuity between the earlier and later researches.
D efinitions
1. Quantity of matter
In the early manuscripts, especially in the Waste Book, the term
quantity or body refers indiscriminately both to a body and its magnitude,
* A s suggested in a private communication by D . T. Whiteside.
2 See below, Chapter 6.4, p. 97. ^ Ibid., p. 97.
* See below. Chapter 6.5, pp. 105-8.
® For the order of composition of these manuscripts see below, Chapter 6.3.
1.4 1.4 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T 25
bulk, or size.^ At this stage no consideration is given to bodies of equal
size but different mass. So that it is tacitly assumed that all the bodies
considered are of the same material. Earlier drafts of the enunciation of
this definition are found in Def. i of MS. Xb and in Def. i of the original
and revised versions of MS. XI. These are all essentially the same as the
final enunciation, the differences between the total definitions residing
largely in the explanatory passages following the enunciations. Here we
find a smooth progress towards the final definition, the first references
to the possibility of freely pervading medium and to the experimentally
confirmed proportionality between weight and quantity of matter
occurring in the revised version of MS. X I. A brief discussion of the
use of pendulum experiments to prove this proportionality oecurs at
Def. II of MS. Xa, followed by a much fuller discussion at Def. 7 of
MS. Xb where the use oipondus as an alternative to quantity of matter
or mass, even in the absence of any gravitational effects, is brought out
much more elearly than in the Principia. Rather surprisingly a clear
indication of weight-mass proportionality is found already at § 5 of
MS. I.
Newton’s definition of mass or quantity of matter has occasioned con­
siderable controversy.2 Mach ,3 for example, found the definition un­
fortunate in that it involved a circular argument, density itself being
defined by the mass per unit of volume. Crew,^ on the other hand, main­
tained that in Newton’s age density was synonymous with specific
gravity, so that it was reasonable for Newton to define quantity of matter
in terms of it. In this case, however, the proportionality between quantity
of matter and weight would necessarily follow, whereas in Def. i of the
Principia Newton asserts that this proportionality has been proved by
experiment. Mach’s criticism was therefore justified; there was an essen­
tial circularity involved in Newton’s definition of quantity of matter in
terms of density, and this is fully borne out by Def. 6 of MS. Xb where
density is said to be proportional to the quantity of matter and the
volume conjointly. Further confirmation for this view is provided by the
passage towards the end of the second paragraph of Def. 13 of MS. VI
where Newton sets the weight (gravitas) of a body equal to its size (molis)
multiplied by its specific gravity.
However, this flaw in the definition of quantity of matter in no way
’ See, for example, M S . lie , Def. 1-3.
^ See, for example, Cajori [2], p. 638, n. i i .
^ M ach [i], p. 188. * Crew [i], p. 124.
 26 MAIN LIN E OF DEVEL OPMENT OF
interfered with the development of Newton’s thought in the Principia,
for when he had to compare the quantities of matter of two bodies he
did so by making an appeal to his second law of motion. ^It is this law,
therefore, rather than Def. i, which must be regarded as giving the real,
operational definition of mass in Newton’s dynamics.
As to the original development of the concept, we can be confident that
the obvious fact of inertia, or Vis Insita, would inevitably have led
Newton to attach a measure to it. For example, collision experiments
with bodies of equal size, but of different material, revealed that the
inertias of such bodies were not entirely determined by their sizes. Two
bodies of equal size could have quite different capacities to sustain their
states of rest or motion. That he then attempted to give a definition of
mass independently of the second law was understandable, though per­
haps a trifle unfortunate.
2 . Quantity of motion
An equivalent definition is found first in Defs. 2, 3 of the Waste Book
(MS. lie), where the same explanation is given in terms of the motions
of the separate parts of the body. Earlier drafts of the definition in the
Principia are found at Def. i i of MS. Xa, Def. 2 of MS. Xb, and Def. 4
of the original version of MS. XI.
3 . Innate force or inertia of a body
The origin of this concept went back at least to MS. VI, where it is
clearly referred to under the heading of force in Def. 5 as ‘motus et
quietis causale principium' or
internum principium quo motus vel quies corpori insita conservatur, et quodlibet
ens in suo statu perseverare conatur et impeditum reluctatur
or in Def. 8 of the same work as
Inertia est vis interna corporis ne status ejus externa vi illata facile mutetur.
The first formal definition of Vis Insita occurs in Version I of the
tract de Motu. This and later definitions are listed below:
MS. IXa, Def. 2
Et vim corporis seu corpori insitam [appello] qua id conatur perseverare in motii
suo secundum lineam rectam.
‘ See, for example, Principia, Book III, Section V I, Prop. 24, Theor. 18.
1.4 1.4 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L TH O U G H T 27
Identical definitions are given in the other Versions of the tract,
MS. Xa, Def. 12
Corporis vis insita innata et essentialis est potentia qua id perseverat in statu
suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in linea recta, estque corporis quantitati
proportionalis, exercetur vero proportionaliter mutationem status et quatenus
exercetur did potest corporis vis exercita . . . una species est vis centrifuga gyran-
tium.
Ibid., Def. 13, cancelled
Vis motus seu corpori ex motu sua adventitia est qua corpus quantitatem totam
sui motus conservare conatur. Ea vulgo dicitur impetus estque motuiproportionalis,
et pro genere motus vel ahsoluta est vel relativa.
MS. Xb, Def. 3
Materiae vis insita est potentia resistendi qua corpus unumquodque quantum in
se est perseverat in statu suo vel quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum:
estque corpori suo proportionalis neque dijfert quicquam ah inertia massae nisi in
modo conceptus nostri. Exercet vero corpus hanc vim solummodo in mutatione
status sui facta per vim aliam in se impressam. . . .
MS. X I (Original Version), Def, 5
This version differs from that immediately above only in the replace­
ment of conceptus nostri by concipiendi at the end of the first sentence,
and the introduction of the following two sentences immediately after­
wards :
Per inertiam materiae fit ut corpus omne de statu suo vel quiescendi vel movendi
difficultate deturhetur. Unde etiam vis insita nomine significantissimo vis inertiae
did possit.
The version in the first edition of the Principia differs in no important
respect from that in the lectures de Motu.
A cursory examination of these definitions reveals nothing of par­
ticular interest beyond the obvious identity of the various terms vis
insita, vis corporis, vis inertiae, or inertia. Admittedly, there is the quali­
fication of this force from MS. Xa onwards as a power by which the
inertial state of rest or motion is maintained, and from MS. Xb onwards
this power becomes a power of resistance. But a closer examination
of Newton’s description of the circumstances under which this power is
exercised reveals a remarkable transition in his view of vis insita or
inertia. Up to and including MS. Xa this is the force or power by virtue
of which a body maintains its inertial state of rest or motion; in vulgar
parlance, the impetus of the body, as noted in Def. 13 of MS. Xa.
28 M AIN LINE OF DEV ELOPMENT OF 1.4
That this was Newton’s actual belief is confirmed by the corresponding
enunciations of the principle of inertia, each of which contains a refer­
ence to vis insita. In MS. Xa occurs the first hint of an impending
transition in his thought. There he states that the vis insita is exercised
in proportion to the change in state. In MS. Xb the transition is com­
plete. Now the vis insita is exercised only (solummodo) in changes of
state. It would seem, therefore, to have been relegated to a species of
potential force, having no effect as long as the state of rest or of uniform
motion continued, being called into action only in changes of state. That
this was indeed Newton’s new view of the matter is proved conclusively
by the absence of any reference to vis insita in the enunciation of the
principle of inertia from M S. Xb onwards. In these manuscripts we there­
fore have before us the record of how Newton, on reflection, freed himself
from what was apparently his previous, essentially medieval belief in
the necessity of some interior force or impetus to maintain an inertial
state of uniform motion. From now on such a state of motion (or rest)
was a true state in the Cartesian sense, entirely self-sufficient, and the
principle of inertia a true principle, something which had to be regarded
as given, a natural fact, having no explanation and requiring none.
4 . Impressed force
Earlier drafts of this definition are found at Def. 15 of MS. Xa, Def.
4 of MS. Xb, and Def. VI of MS. XI. The qualification that the impressed
force consists in the action only appears first in MS. Xb, and the refer­
ence to the force of motion in MS. XI.
5-8 Centripetal force
Significantly, the term centripetal as opposed to centrifugal is not
found in the early dynamical manuscripts. It occurs first at Def. i of
Version I of the tract de Motu, and in identical form at Def. i of Version
III of the same work. Thereafter it recurs in identical form at Def. 16
of MS. Xa apart from the addition of the examples of this force given
in Def. 5 of the Principia. At Def. 5 of MS. Xb the division into three
distinct quantities absolute, accelerative and motive first occurs, while in
MS. X I (original and final versions) these different quantities are assigned
to separate definitions.
The definition in the Principia is effectively identical with that in the
original version of M S. X I apart from one rather large emendation in
Def. 10 of that manuscript (Def. 8 of Principia).
1.4 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T 29
Scholium to definitions
The first reference to space in the later manuscripts occurs at Law 3
of Version III of the tract de Motu. Another reference in the same work
is found in the addendum (compared with Version I) to the Scholium to
Theorem 4. The first formal definitions of absolute and relative space
and time occur in Def. 1-4 of MS. Xa. In Def. 7, 9 of the same manu­
script occur rudimentary drafts of the definitions of place and absolute
motion in MS. XI. Definition 9 above also contains the germ of the
methods for distinguishing between relative and absolute motions in­
cluding that depending on centrifugal effects. There is no indication of
later expansions of these early drafts, the version in the original of
MS. X I being effectively identical with that in the Principia.
Much has been written of the metaphysieal views on absolute space
(and time) expressed in the Scholium to the Definitions of Book I of
the Principia^ especially in the light of the Leibniz-Clarke controversy.^
A beginning has also been made by Fiersz^ to the study of the influences
which went to shape these views. The discovery of MS. Add. 4003
provides important material which will make possible a new approach to
the question of the early influences on Newton’s metaphysical outlook
in general, and those on space in particular. This study, however, will
only be possible in the light of a detailed commentary of MS. Add.
4003 against the total philosophical background about the period
1660-70.3
Laws of motion
First law. This law, inherited by Newton from Galileo and Descartes,-^
formed the central element of his dynamical thought and method.
Fortunately it is well documented, appearing in some form or other in
most of the major documents throughout the period 1664-84. The
various expressions given to the principle by Newton in these manuscripts
are listed below.
MS. II, Ax. I , 2.
If a quantity once moves it will never rest unless hindered by some external
cause
and
a quantity will always move on in the same straight line (not changing the
' For a summary account see Alexander [i]. For a more recent discussion see
Toulmin [i]. ^ Fiersz [i].
^ A n excellent beginning to this has now been made by Hall and Hall [i]. See pp. 7 6 -
85 of their introduction to text and translation of M S . 4003.
* See below, Chapter 2.
 30 MAIN LINE OF DEVELOPMENT OF 1.4
celerity or determination of its motion) unless some external cause divert
it.
MS. II, Ax. 100.
A body once moved will always keep the same celerity, quantity and deter­
mination of its motion.
MS. VI, § 4.
et multo magis quod corporis sine impedimentis nioti velocitas non did potest
uniformis, neque linea recta in qua motus perficitur.
MS. V III, Hyp. I.
Bodies move uniformly in straight lines unless so far as they are retarded
by the resistance of the medium or disturbed by some other force.
MS. IXa, Hyp. 2.
Corpus omne sola vi insita uniformiter secundum rectam lineam in infinitum
progredi nisi aliqiiid extrinsecus impediat.
MS. IXc, Lex I.
Sola vi insita corpus uniformiter in linea recta semper pergere si nil impediat.
MS. Xa, Lex i.
Vis insita corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uni­
formiter in linea recta nisi quatenus viribus impressis cogitur statum ilium mutare.
MS. XI, Lex I.
Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in
directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum suum mutare.
A noteworthy feature of these enunciations is the absence of any
reference to a state of rest as opposed to that of motion until MS. Xa
immediately preceding the lectures de Motii. This represented a closer
approach to Descartes’s formulation of the principle. The only previous
reference to rest occurs in Def. 5 of MS. VI where force is said to be
‘the causal principle of motion or rest’.
Interesting, too, is the reference to Vis Insita appearing in Versions I
and HI of the tract de Motu and in MS. Xa but absent from later enun­
ciations. A possible explanation of this has already been given above in
the discussion of the genesis of the definition of inertia.
Second law. The germ of this law is found in the early researches. For
the definition of force as change in momentum in the Waste Book corre­
sponds to the first part of the second law, and the second part corresponds
to the statement in the same manuscript that ‘A body must move that
way which it is pressed’.^
^ M S . lie , Ax. 120.
1.4 N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L TH O U G H T 31
Curiously, there is no reference to the second law in MS. V apart from
the statement at the end of § i ‘that the force is equivalent to that motion
which it is able to beget or destroy’. It first reappears as Hypothesis
2 of MS. V III:
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the force by which it is
altered.
The presence of this hypothesis is accounted for by Newton’s explicit
use of it in justification of his assumption of proportionality between
‘force’ and deviation.
There is no trace of the second law in the first two versions of the
tract de Motu. But in the third version we find it enunciated in Law 2
as follows:
Mutationem status movendi vel quiescendi proportionalem esse vi impressae et
fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis ilia imprimitur.
It is employed there in the proof of Lemma i, and in Theorem 4 where
it ensures that equal forces produce equal deviations (in equal times).
In MS. Xa (Law 2) the enunciation is identical with that given above
apart from the replacement of status movendi vel quiescendi by motus.
In the same manuscript a reference is added to the use of the first and
second laws by Galileo in his derivation of the vertical and parabolic
motions of bodies under gravity.
In the lectures de Motu the law retains the same form as in MS. Xa apart
from the introduction of motrici between vi and impressae, and there is
no further change in the Principia.
Third law. The assumption of the equality of action and reaction in
the direct collision between two bodies is found in Def. 7, 8 of the Waste
Book (MS. Hd), and for oblique collisions in Ax. 119, 121 of the same
work (MS. He).
There is no trace of this law after its early indication in the Waste
Book before M S. Xa where it is enunciated as Law 3 in the form:
Corpus omne tantum pati reactione quantum agit in alterum.
Both in MS. X I and in the first edition of the Principia it appears in the
form:
Actioni contrariam semper et aequalem esse reactionem: sive, corporum duorum
actiones in se mutuo semper esse aequales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
The most important use of this law, and undoubtedly one of the rea­
sons for its explicit formulation in the lectures de Motu and the Principia,
was its role in the proof of Corollary 3 to the laws of motion.
32 M AIN LINE OF DEVEL O PME NT OF 1.4
Corollaries to laws of motion
Corollary i. It is easy to confuse the dynamical rule for composition
of motions with the kinematical rule for combining two relative velocities
or for finding the components of a given velocity in two oblique
directions. Newton himself seems to have fallen into this confusion in the
Waste Book where he gives the correct rule for the composition of two
motions as a corollary (without proof) to an apparently incorrect rule for
resolving velocity.^ In MS. V this confusion has disappeared. In § 2 of
that manuscript he gives a perfectly correct rule for finding the re­
solved part of a given velocity in any oblique direction, followed in § 3
by the rule for composition of motions. His formulation of this rule in
MS. V is potentially of great interest. As suggested in Chapter 2.1 it
affords a possible indication of Galileo’s influence on Newton.
The same rule appears as Hypothesis 3 of MS. VIII. Now the two
motions are on an equal footing— the possible indication of Galileo’s
influence contained in MS. V having disappeared— and the same is
true of the rather obscure formulation in Hypothesis 3 of Version I of the
tract de Motu. In Version III of the same work the status of the rule
suddenly changes. Previously it had been a hypothesis, now it has be­
come a lemma (Lemma i) furnished with a proof based implicitly on the
second law of motion. In MS. Xa it reappears as Lemma i, the enuncia­
tion and proof being effectively identical with those in Version III of
the tract de Motu. The same is true of MS. X I and the Principia apart
from the change of title from Lemma to Corollary.
Corollary 2. There is no trace of this corollary before MS. X L Subject
to a substantial emendation of the last three paragraphs this agrees with
Corollary 2 of the Principia.
Corollary 3. This represents Newton’s emended form of Descartes’s
law of conservation of motion. Its probable role in the early develop­
ment of Newton’s dynamical thought has already been noticed in § i of
the present chapter. The first formal enunciation occurs in MS. X I
and is effectively identical with that in the Principia. The outline in the
last paragraph of the method of treatment of the problem of the collision
of two non-spherical bodies, with the possibility of rotation arising from
the collision, must be read in the light of the detailed solution to this
problem provided by Newton in MS. V.
Corollary 4. This appears first as Law 4 of Version HI of the tract de
Motu, being employed in the remarkable discussion of the motion of
I M S. Ilg .
1.4 N E W T O N ’ S D Y N A M I C A L TH O U G H T 33
the solar system in the addendum (compared with Version I) to the
Scholium to Theorem 4.
The same result appears as Law 5 in MS. Xa, and as Corollary 4 to
the laws of motion in MS. X L The proof given in this latter manuscript
is essentially the same as that in the Principia. In the first part of this
proof, that relating to the purely kinematical case in which there are
no collisions between the bodies, an appeal is made to Lemma X X III.
This is the result first proved by Newton at Ax.-Prop. 28 of the Waste
Book (MS. Ilf) for the special case of motion in a plane.
The immediately following Ax.-Prop. 29 provides justification for the
claim in the Principia that the result may also be proved in loco solido.
Corollary 5. This appears first as Law 3 in Version III of the tract de
Motu and then in identical form as Law 4 of MS. Xa apart from the
addition of the example of motion relative to a ship. In MS. X I and the
Principia the enunciation is the same as before but now the law has become
a corollary.
Corollary 6. This first appears in MS. X I and then in identical form
in the Principia.
Scholium to laws of motion
The version of this in MS. X I is effectively identical with that in the
Principia. No trace of earlier drafts has been found apart from the inter­
esting reference to Galileo and the first two laws of motion at the end of
Law 2 in MS. Xa.
Method of prime and ultimate ratios
This method, given immediately after the scholium to the laws of
motion, formed the final element of Newton’s formal dynamical system
in the Principia. With one important exception to be noted presently
there appear to be no earlier drafts of this section before MS. XI, of
which the original version differs substantially from that in the Principia
only in the absence of the two corollaries to Lemma X and the final
paragraph to the scholium. However, this absence of earlier drafts is
of no importance dynamically since the whole section is of purely
mathematical interest apart from Newton’s generalization of Galileo’s
law of falling bodies at Lemma X. In Newton’s early dynamical in­
vestigations this law played a vital role in M SS. I l l and IV. The first
formal enunciation of the generalization of the law to curvilinear motion
occurs at Hypothesis 4 of Version II of the tract de Motu. In Version HI
858205 D
 34 DEV ELOPMEN T OF D Y N A M I C A L T H O U G H T
of the same work its status has changed from a hypothesis to a Lemma
(Lemma 2), the proof being based on an application of the result that the
area under a velocity-time graph equals the space described. For a proof
of this result Newton appeals to the authority of Galileo. In MS. Xa
the same enunciation is given at Lemma 2, but the proof has not been
preserved beyond the first few lines. In Lemma X of MS. X I and the
rrincipia the proof is contained largely in the preceding Lemma apart
from the result relating to the space described which is now unsupported
by a reference to the authority of Galileo.’'
' Curiously, Newton himself supplies no proof of the result. Since Galileo’s proofs in
the Dialogue and the Discorsi were both defective, being based on the method of in ­
divisibles, the foundation of the Principia was at this point insecure. It would be in­
teresting to know when the first published correct proof of the result was given. T h at
given by Beeckman was almost certainly the first in point of time, but it remained un­
published till the rediscovery and publication of his Journal by de Waard. P'or Beeck-
man’s proof see Beeckman [i], vol. i, p. 262.
Additional note f to p. l y :
Since writing note 2 on p. 17 I have become aware through Lohne [i] of two other
relevant passages in Newton manuscripts. T h e first passage occurs in M S . Add. 3968 b,
fol. l o i : after referring to the correspondence of 1679/80 with Hooke, Newton con­
tinues: ‘Whereupon I computed what would be the Orb described by the Planets for
I had found before by the sesquialterate proportion of the tempora periodica of the
Planets with respect to their distances from the sun that the forces which kept them in
their Orbs about the Sun were as the squares of their mean distances from the Sun
reciprocally, and I found now that whatsoever was the law of the forces w'hich kept the
Planets in their Orbs the areas described by a Radius drawn from them to the Sun
would be proportional to the times in which they were described. And by the help of
these Propositions I found that their Orbs would be such Ellipses as Kepler had
described.’
T his would seem to point unequivocally to New ton’s discovery o f the proposition
corresponding to Prop, i of the tract de M otii in the winter o f 1679/80. But it could
imply equally well a direct (analytic) or converse (synthetic) proof of the proposition
corresponding to Kepler’s first law (motion in an ellipse).
In the other passage (M S. Add. 3968 b, fol. 405) Newton states unequivocally: ‘By
the inverse M ethod of fluxions I found in the year 1677 [ = 1679/80] the demon­
stration of Kepler’s Astronomical Proposition viz. that the Planets move in Ellipses,
which is the eleventh proposition of the first book of the Principles.’ Nevertheless, I am
still inclined to agree with Lohne [i] and Whiteside {History o f Science, i (1962), p. 20)
that Newton never possessed an analytic proof that an inverse square centripetal force
implied motion in a conic, including an ellipse as a special case.
1.4
T H E I N F L U E N C E OF G A L I L E O A N D
D E S C A R T E S ON N E W T O N ’ S D Y N A M I C S
2.1. T he Influence of G alileo
I t has always been assumed that Newton was indebted in dynamics
to Galileo, and this would remain highly probable even in the absence
of any corroborative evidence. For by 1661, the year of Newton’s entry
to Cambridge, Galileo’s writings, especially in dynamics, were widely
known throughout Europe including England, witness the translation
of his Dialogue in Tome I of Salusbury’s Mathematical Collections pub­
lished in the same year.
To my knowledge, the only explicit indication of such an influence
in the Principia occurs in the celebrated passage at the beginning of the
Scholium to the laws of motion. There Newton states:
Per leges duas primas & Corollaria duo prima adinvenit Galilaeus descensum
graviumesseinduplicata ratione temporis, & motumprojectiliumfieri in Parabola,
conspirante experientia, nisi quatenus motus illi per aeris resistentiam aliquan-
tulum retardantur.
In certain respects this statement is entirely clear and unexceptionable.
Galileo did discover both the law of falling bodies and the parabolic path
of a projectile, basing his derivations of them on an inertial principle
and a method of compounding motions identical with that found in the
first corollary to Newton’s laws of motion. To what extent, however,
did Galileo’s inertial principle agree with Newton’s principle of
inertia, and how far if at all did Galileo either recognize or use the
second law of motion? Finally, are we to understand from this state­
ment of Newton’s that he felt himself indebted to Galileo for all these
elements of his dynamics ? Before attempting to answer these questions
two things are necessary: one must first decide what were Galileo’s
original contributions to dynamics; and one must then look for documen­
tary evidence of the influence of these contributions on Newton.
There can be no doubt that Galileo was the first to derive the para­
bolic path of a projectile. His derivation' was based on the combination
of two independent and non-interfering motions, the one uniform and
horizontal, appropriate to a ball moving freely on a horizontal plane, the
‘ Discorsi, Fourth Day, Theor. i. Prop. 1.
 36 I NF LU EN C E OF GALILEO AND D E S C A R T E S
other vertical and uniformly accelerated, appropriate to free fall under
gravity. It likewise seems certain that although Galileo may not have
been the first to derive the fundamental formula soc for uniformly
accelerated motion, having been possibly anticipated by Beeckman,'
yet he was the first to publish it and to realize its true physical signifi­
cance.^
It is equally certain that Galileo never enunciated the principle of
inertia,3 and indeed could not have done so correctly, since ‘horizontal’
motion was for him always at the surface of the earth, equidistant from
its centre, and therefore in reality circular and not rectilinear. This was
clearly his belief in the Dialogue, and although there is no indication of
a continuing belief in ‘circularity’ for the greater part of the kinematical
and dynamical writing in the Discorsi, a passage towards the end'^ makes
it evident that he had in no way modified this particular belief in the
interval between the composition of the two works. Nevertheless, al­
though Galileo’s principle of inertia was thus restricted to a very special
terrestrial case, this restriction did not obtrude itself in his vivid physical
discussion of inertial motion on a horizontal plane, especially in his
discussion of the motion of a projectile. And Newton would have been
powerfully impressed and influenced by this discussion.
It is not at all clear how far, if at all, Galileo’s understanding of force
had progressed along the road leading to the second law of motion. New­
ton himself, as we have seen, seems to imply that this law was known to
Galileo, and various historians of science, including Whewell,s Dugas,^
and Singer,^ have all to differing extents adopted the same point of view.
Koyre, however, is rightly very guarded in his estimation of Galileo’s
views on force.® In particular, there seems to be only one passage in
Galileo which gives any hint of the second law. This occurs in the
^ For Beeckman’s derivation, and the part played in it by Descartes, see Duhem [3],
pp. 570-4; Koyre [i]. Part II, pp. 25-40.
^ For Galileo’s treatment of the law of falling bodies, see especially Koyre [1],
Part II.
3 In this connexion see particularly Koyr^ [i]. Part III, Appendix A.
* See Salviati’s statement found in Ed. N a z ., t. viii, p. 274.
5 Whewell, W ., [i], vol. ii, p. 29: ‘T o see that a transverse force would produce a
curve was one step; to determine what the curve is, was another step, which involved
the discoverj'^ of the second law of motion. T h is step was made by Galileo.’
* Dugas, R., [2], p. 206, where New ton’s statement at the beginning of the Scholium
to the laws of motion is reproduced and interpreted as New ton’s homage to his prede­
cessors.
’ Singer, C ., [i], p. 236: ‘New ton’s second law . . . is involved in Galileo’s theory of
projectiles.’ What he means by ‘involved’ is not clear.
* See especially Koyr^ [i]. Part III, Chapter 3.
2.1 2.1 ON N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C S 37
Discorsi, in the well-known passage elaborated by Viviani at Galileo’s
request.^ In this passage, which contains a derivation of the theorem
that the velocity acquired from rest on an inclined plane depends only
on the vertical height fallen, there is certainly an assumption which could
be interpreted^ as implying that the distance moved in given time on
an inclined plane will vary with the component of the weight of the body
along the line of greatest slope. But whether or not Galileo’s use of this
assumption should be regarded as an indication that he possessed an
inkling of the second law of motion seems to me a very moot question.
In any case it would still have to be decided whether Newton knew of,
or was influenced by, this particular passage in the Discorsi at the time
of his earliest researches in dynamics.
Among the dynamical problems touched on by Galileo in the Dialogue
was that of circular motion.^ His treatment of this was rather uneven.
For although he believed that a stone on a revolving wheel tended to be
thrown off along the tangent, yet his argument for supposing it might be
prevented from doing so because of its weight was unconvincing. In
any case, his failure to reach a true understanding of inertial movement,
to separate it completely from terrestrial phenomena and imagine it
taking place in empty space, inevitably precluded him from attaining
that clarity of conception of circular motion found in Descartes’s treat­
ment in Part II of the Principia Philosophiae. Against this, however, we
have to set Galileo’s suggestive argument, in favour of the centrifugal
tendency decreasing with increase of radius for a given rate of rota-
tion.+
Apart from the topics already considered mention must be made of
Galileo’s realization that the efficacy of a body’s motion varied directly
with its bulk and velocity. This notion is found both in the Dialogue^
and in the Discourse on Bodies in Water.^ But although, as is well known,
Galileo had given much thought to the problem of percussion, and even
promised a treatment of it in the Discorsi,"^ he never published anything
* See Ed. N a z., t. viii, p. 214 et seq. (Crew and Salvio [i], p. 180 et seq.).
^ Could be interpreted because in the key phrase ‘since the forces are in the same ratio
as these distances’ (Crew and Salvio [i], p. 184) the term employed by Galileo (or
Viviani) for ‘force’ was ‘ momenti' which may or may not have implied the same thing as
‘Vimpeto’— the force impelling a body to fall— which in turn may or may not have
had the same significance as force for Newton or for us.
^ See pp. 200 et seq. of Salusbury’s translation of the Dialogue in Santillana [i].
Ibid., pp. 231 et seq.
^ Ibid., pp. 229-30.
^ A t Def. 5, A x. 2, 3. See Salusbury’s translation of this work in Drake [i].
^ See Ed. N a z., t. viii, p. 293 (Crew and Salvio [i], p. 271).
 38 IN F LU E N C E OF GALILEO AND D E S C A R T E S
on the subject,^ and his projected treatment of it must remain a matter of
speculation.
Bearing in mind these achievements, and limitations, of Galileo in
dynamics, let us now consider what evidence there is for his influence on
Newton’s earliest researches in the subject. First there is the reference
to Galileo in MS. I. This comes after a critical discussion of Aristotle’s
theory of projectiles in the same manuscript and must date close to the
beginning of Newton’s study of dynamics. Next there are two references
to Galileo in MS. I l l of which the original data must in any case have
been taken by Newton from the Dialogue.^ Here is indisputable evidence
of Galileo’s influence on Newton in dynamics at a very early stage. And
although Newton was probably little indebted to Galileo, if at all, for his
first clear realization of the concept of centrifugal force, it seems very
probable that the peculiar formula on which the calculations in
MS. I l l are based was derived by Newton from the formula given on
folio I of MS. II by application of the Merton Rule.3 In that case, assum­
ing that he was not already familiar with this rule through a study of
medieval works,^ it is possible that he took it either from the Dialogue
or the Discorsi. Some independent support for this view is provided by
Version III of the tract de Motu of 1684 (MS. IXc). For although his
proof of Lemma 2^ of that work uses the fact that the distance travelled
equals the area under the s-t graph, he gives no proof of the result
himself, appealing instead to that given by Galileo— ut exposuit Galilaeus.
Apart from this possible indication of a debt of Newton to Galileo in
respect of the Merton Rule, MS. I l l contains repeated applications of
Galileo’s law, the first, but by no means the last, occasion on which
Newton made use of this fundamental result.^
* W ith the exception of the short section entitled ‘O f the Force of Percussion’ at the
end of the early treatise ‘On Mechanics’ (see pp. 179-82 of the translation of this work
in Drake and Drabkin [i]). This, however, in no way advances the problem of per­
cussion or collision from the dynamical point of view. See, however, the unpublished
dialogue ‘Della forza della percossa’ intended by Galileo to supply the treatment of the
subject promised in the Discorsi. For a French translation of this dialogue together with
an illuminating discussion of its content and historical significance see the article
Remarques sur le dialogue de Galilee ‘D e la force de la percussion' by S. Moscovici, Revue
d'Histoire des Sciences, 16, 7 -1 3 7 (1963), ^ See M S . I l l , Appendix A.
•'* See above. Chapter 1.2, p. lO.
* A possibility by no means to be ruled out, though one of the certain sources
of New ton’s knowledge of Aristotelian physics, Magirus [i], while it contains an
interesting commentary on the problem of projectiles, at no point goes so far as a dis­
cussion of uniformly accelerated motion.
^ T o appear later as Lemma X in the Principia.
^ See, for example, New ton’s generalization of Galileo’s law in 'I’heor. 3 of the tract
de M otu (M S. TX).
2.1 2.1 ON N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C S 39
In MS. II Newton gives a correct statement of the law of composition
of independent motions as a corollary to what appears to be an incorrect
rule for resolving velocityP Later, in MS. V, this connexion between the
kinematical rule for resolving velocity and the dynamical rule for com­
pounding motions has disappeared. Now they are given separately, and
correctly, in succeeding sections. Only the dynamical rule need concern
us. This Newton formulates as follows:
If a body move towards B with the velocity R, and by the way hath some
new force done to it which had the body rested would have propelled it to­
wards C with the velocity S. Then making AB : A C : : R : S, and com­
pleting the parallelogram BC the body shall move in the diagonal AD and
arrive at the point D with this compound motion in the same time it would
have arrived at the point B, with its single motion.
At first sight this enunciation of the parallelogram law seems to differ
from later ones, such as that found in Corollary i to the laws of motion
in the Principia, only in its relative verbosity— which in turn could be
accounted for by the superior conciseness of Latin over English. But
a closer inspection reveals one small, yet possibly significant, difference
between this enunciation and all later ones: namely, in all later enuncia­
tions both motions are treated on precisely the same footing, whereas
here one motion is regarded as prior to the other. Initially the body was
moving from A to B with velocity R when some ‘new force’ was done
to it. Immediately there comes to mind Galileo’s marvellous derivation
(in the Fourth Day of the Discorsi) of the parabolic path of a projectile.
There, too, there was initially a certain motion of the body, along the
table, to which was added at the moment of its reaching the edge a ‘new^
force’, that due to the weight of the body downwards. And to find the
subsequent movement of the body thereafter it was necessary to com­
pound the two motions, the one horizontal and inertial, the other vertical
and accelerated. Admittedly, there was a fundamental difference be­
tween the ‘forces’ considered by Newton and those implicit in Galileo’s
problem. In the latter case there was no force in the horizontal direction,
and the vertical force w^as constant, producing acceleration, whereas here
the forces considered by Newton were really impulses producing
(almost) instantaneous changes in motion. Nevertheless, I think that
* See M S . Ilg .
* See Fig. 2 of M S . V.
3 Notice here New ton’s use of the word ‘new ’. It affords a good illustration of the
peculiar exactness and completeness of his dynamical thought. Another force had acted
on the body previously to produce the original motion in the direction A B .
 40 I NF LU EN CE OF GALILEO AND D E S C A R T E S 2.1
this difference between the present enunciation and all later ones
provides a precious indication of a possible, if not probable, influence
of Galileo on Newton in his formulation of the parallelogram law based
on the compounding of independent motions: given that Galileo was the
first to make real use of this novel and entirely un-Aristotelian notion
there would always have been a strong a priori possibility of its having
influenced Newton, and this possibility must now be somewhat streng­
thened. I
MS. II contains what are undoubtedly the earliest of Newton’s extant
researches in dynamics. There we find an enunciation of the principle of
inertia which could only have been taken by Newton from Part II of Des­
cartes’s Further strong indications of Descartes’s influence are
found in Newton’s concept of centrifugal force in the same manuscript,
and in his treatment of momentum and collisions. On the other hand,
there is no indication whatsoever in the earliest^ dynamical writings in
the Waste Book of any Galilean influence: no treatment, for example, of
uniformly accelerated motion, or of motion on an inclined plane. All
the indications^ therefore, point towards a predominant prior influence
of Descartes on Newton in respect both of the principle of inertia and
the concept of centrifugal force. And this, of course, is just what one
would expect given the great superiority in respect of both completeness
and clarity of Descartes’s treatment of these two topics compared with
that of Galileo. On the other hand, Newton’s treatment of centrifugal
force in MS. IVa where he first derives the law of centrifugal force by a
method entirely different from that which he had followed in MS. II,
shows traces of a possible influence of Galileo. Like Galileo’s argument
in favour of the centrifugal tendency decreasing with the ratio it is
based on the notions of measuring this tendency by the deviation be­
tween the actual circular path and the inertial path along the tangent.^
It remains to consider the second law of motion. Unmistakable
traces of the genesis of this law are found in MS. II. There Newton
defines force as the change in motion produced. Likewise the change in
direction of motion produced in a body is in the direction of the force
‘ Assuming, of course, that Newton had access to the Discorsi at an early date.
^ T h e reasons for this are given in the immediately following section on Descartes’s
influence on Newton.
^ A s opposed, that is, to the somewhat later writings such as those on fol. i of the
same manuscript where there is a reference to Galileo in connexion with the synchron­
ism of the simple pendulum. See M S . Ila, § 4.
On the other hand a rather similar kind of deviation figures in Descartes’s dis­
cussion of centrifugal force in Art. 58, Part 3, o f his Principia Philosophiae.
2.1 ON N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C S 41
acting on it— ‘a body must move that way which it is pressed’. But this
definition of force, its connexion with motion, and its effect on direction
arose directly out of his discussion of the problem of collisions. The
influence, if any, was therefore from Descartes, not from Galileo, and
will be discussed in the immediately succeeding section.
T o summarize, the one ingredient of his early dynamical researches
which Newton undoubtedly owed to Galileo was the latter’s t^ law of
falling bodies. This continued to play a vital role in the growth of New­
ton’s dynamics up to and including the composition of the Principia.
It is enshrined in Newton’s generalization of the law in Lemma X of that
work. In the same Lemma he implicitly assumes the Merton Rule the
proof of which he had previously attributed to Galileo. In all probability
he took this originally from the Dialogue or the Discorsi sometime prior
to the composition of the Vellum MS.
Probably, if not certainly, Newton owed to Galileo the notion of com­
pounding non-interfering independent motions as first used by the
latter in his proof of the parabolic path of a projectile in the Discorsi.
Without this notion Newton could not have formulated his parallelogram
law for the composition of independent motions. A possible indication
of such an influence is provided by the peculiar nature of an early formu­
lation of the parallelogram law. This law, too, played a vital role in the
growth of Newton’s dynamical thought— ^without it, for example, the
original proof of the proposition corresponding to Kepler’s second law of
planetary motion would have been impossible.
Finally, there is no indication in the earliest researches of any influence
of Galileo on Newton in respect of the principle of inertia, centrifugal
force, or the genesis of the second law of motion. In the last case the
possibility of any influence is effectively ruled out by the actual form of
the law and its undoubted origin in Newton’s study of momentum and
collisions, whereas some influence in the case of centrifugal force is
possible at a later stage.
As to the total impact of Galileo on Newton in science in general and
in dynamics in particular, this is something which goes beyond the
present volume and for which there is no evidence in the purely dyna­
mical manuscripts. In all probability it was profound. Certainly the
whole cast of Newton’s thought, his humility before Nature, his drive
towards exact quantitative results, his delight in experiment, was alto­
gether Galilean, and if he recognized any master in science apart from
Archimedes it could only have been Galileo.
 42 IN F LU EN CE OF GALILEO AND DE S C A R T E S 2.2
2.2 T he Influence of D escartes
Newton’s aversion to certain elements of Descartes’s physics has long
been recognized. For example, the Principia was evidently intended to
provide not only a new ‘explanation’ of the solar system based on
Kepler’s laws and Newton’s own dynamical principles, but also a rebut­
tal of Descartes’s theory of vortices. Moreover, as Koyre has demon­
strated, ^a careful reading of the Principia, especially between the lines,
proves how strong was Newton’s aversion to certain elements of Des­
cartes’s I n fact it would not be too strong to say that Newton
eventually came to detest Descartes both as a physicist and a philosopher,
his aversion to Descartes even extending to mathematics with his well-
known belief that a geometrical proof could only be regarded as well
founded if presented in synthetic rather than analytic form. And yet in
spite of Newton’s strong, one might almost say passionate, dislike of
Descartes and all his works, there has always been a strong possibility
that Newton was largely indebted to Descartes for the most important
single element of his dynamics, the principle of inertia! In questions of
the influence of one thinker on another, however, possibilities are rarely
of much help. Other possibilities are almost always equally open. Here,
for example, apart from the possible, even probable, influence on
Newton of Galileo’s imperfect, ytt physically very powerful, discussion
of inertial movement, there is also the possibility of his having taken the
true and complete notion of this concept from Gassendi.^ Failing other
evidence beyond the fact of Descartes’s memorable enunciation of the
principle of inertia in Part II of his Principia Philosophiae further pro­
gress towards establishing Newton’s debt to Descartes in respect of this
element of his dynamics is therefore impossible.
Additional evidence, however, is fortunately available. First there is
MS. VI in which Newton displays a most intimate acquaintance with
Parts II and III of Descartes’s Principia. And since he was then already
interested in dynamics— witness his statement of the principle of
inertia on p. 19 of that manuscript^— he could hardly have failed to notice
the specifically dynamical articles in Descartes’s work. So that the fact
that he pointedly omits any reference to these articles is then of no sig­
nificance apart from the indication it affords of how absolutely he had
^ See Koyre [6].
* Petri Gassendi, D e motu impresso a motore translato, Paris, 1642. See especially
Chapter 15, p. 59, and Chapter 16, p. 62. Translations of the two relevant passages are
given by Koyre [i]. Part III, pp. 152, 153. See M S . V I, § 4.
2.2 ON N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C S 43
set his face against Descartes at the time of composing this manu­
script.
At first sight this seems a very promising start. Parts II and III of
Descartes’s Principia contain effectively all his published^ writings on
dynamics, and MS. V I bears every indication of being an early work.
Newton must therefore have been familiar at an early stage with Des­
cartes’s dynamics, thus improving the prior odds in favour of his having
been influenced by them. But not very much, for we know that Newton’s
knowledge of dynamics was growing rapidly around the beginning of the
year 1665, ^so that to provide any real help towards determining Descartes ’ s
influence MS. V I would need to be dated about the same time. In fact,
no date is given, and some internal indications of date point towards the
second half of 1666 rather than the beginning of 1665.3 Apart from MS.
VI, the only other early references by Newton to Descartes’s Principia
occur in MS. I. These were probably entered sometime in the second
half of 1664, about the beginning of Newton’s work in dynamics,^ so
that once again the probability of an influence by Descartes on Newton
in dynamics becomes somewhat strengthened.
At this point we can summarize the position as follows: given that
Descartes’s enunciation of the principle of inertia in Articles 37 and
39 of his Principia Philosophiae was the first to be published apart from
that of Gassendi, there would always be a distinct possibility of Newton
having been indebted to Descartes for at least this element of his dyna­
mics; and the likelihood of such an influence is increased by the fact
that Newton did make a study of Descartes’s Principia, a study, more­
over, which began very early and was ultimately of a profoundly detailed
nature— as MS. Add. 4003 proves. Nevertheless, to proceed further, to
render Descartes’s influence on Newton in dynamics seem not only
possible but probable, some much more definite evidence is needed.
This is fortunately provided in MS. II. On the basis of the new evidence
supplied by the dynamical writings in this manuscript, certainly among
the earliest of Newton’s which we possess, and in any case very close to
the actual beginning of his researches in dynamics,® it first becomes
* But by no means all his thought on dynamics, of which much valuable evidence is
supplied by the Correspondence. See G abbey [i], for the first comprehensive account
of Descartes’s dynamical thought as a whole.
^ One of the earliest dvnamical entries in the Waste Book is dated 20 January 1664
(O.S.). S e e M S . Ilb .
2 See below, Chapter 6.2, p. 93. * Ibid., p. 91.
5 A t various points between p. 92 and p. 121 of M S . Add. 4003 there are entries
relating to motion, gravity and levity, violent motion, and Aristotle’s theory of
 44 IN F LU E N CE OF GALILEO AND D ES C A R T ES
possible to attempt a serious assessment of the actual influence of Des­
cartes on Newton in dynamics.
A word of explanation is called for on the method of treatment followed.
The dynamical topics in Parts II and III of Descartes’s Principia are
considered in three separate sub-sections, the first two devoted to the
principle of inertia and circular motion, respectively, and the third to
topics other than these two. In each section an account is first given of
Descartes’s method of treatment followed by Newton’s treatment of the
same topic, or topics, in MS. II. No attempt is made in any of these
subsections to draw any conclusions relative to Descartes’s influence on
Newton, since it seemed best to separate the evidence from the argu­
ment based upon it; in any case, although it is convenient to consider
the various dynamical topics separately in the first place, the question of
Descartes’s influence on Newton in dynamics must ultimately be con­
sidered as a whole, in the light of all the available evidence, as in the
final subsection.
Principle of Inertia
Descartes. In Art. 37 of Part II of his Principia Descartes introduces
the first part of the principle of inertia, not casually, in an ad hoc manner,
but as a special case of a general philosophical principle mirroring the
immutability of God, namely:
I. Any particular thing, in so far as it is simple and undivided, remains
always to the best of its ability in the same state, nor is ever changed [from this
state] unless by external causes.^
For example, a square-shaped piece of matter always remains square
unless something intervenes to change its shape, and
II. If [a body] is at rest we do not believe it is ever set in motion, unless it is
impelled thereto by some [external] cause. Nor that there is any more reason
projectiles. On p. 9 3 V , the same page on which occurs a reference to Descartes’s Principia,
there is a cometary observation dated 17 December 1664. T his would seem to point
towards the beginning of a serious interest by Newton in dynamics around the second
half of 1664, not long before the dynamical entry on fob 10 of the Waste Book dated
20 January 1664 (O.S.). See below’, Chapter 6.2.
^ A ll translations of passages from the Principia have been made direct from the
(first) Latin edition as given in Adam and Tannery, v. viir. We cannot be sure which
edition Newton used, though it may well have been that found in his library, the third.
But he would presumably have used a Latin version, given his avowed ignorance of
French. It is worth noting that there are certain important differences between the first
Latin edition and Picot’s French translation. For example, the enunciation of the first
part of the principle of inertia in the Latin version contains no explicit reference to the
uniformity of the motion, whereas in Art. 37, Part II, of the Picot translation the motion
is explicitly stated to be ‘de meme force’.
2.2
2.2 ON N E W T O N ’S D Y N A M I C S 45
if it is moved, why we should think that it would ever of its own accord, and
unimpeded by anything else, interrupt this motion.
To this inertial tendency of rest and motion Descartes then adds in
Art. 39 the supremely important qualification that
III. Any particular part of matter, regarded in itself, is never inclined to
prosecute motion in any curved lines, but only in straight lines.
Which law, states Descartes, follows like the preceding one from the
immutability and simplicity of the operation by which God conserves
motion in matter. Namely, not as it was at some previous instant, but as
it is at the very instant itself. So that although the movement of a body
takes place in time and not instantaneously,' and may in fact be curved
and not rectilinear, nevertheless at each instant the determination^ of
its motion is never in a curved line but always along a straight line—
the tangent to the curved path at the instant in question. And this law
is supported by the fact that a stone loosed from a sling moves always
along the tangent line to its original circular path.
Newton. Newton’s first enunciation of the principle of inertia in MS.
II occurs at Axioms i and 2. There he states:
IV. If a quantity once move it will never rest unless hindered by some
external cause. [Ax. i]
and
V. A quantity will always move on in the same straight line (not changing
the determination nor celerity of its motion) unless some external cause divert
it. [Ax. 2]
Later, at Ax. 100, we find the statement of the following general philo­
sophical principle:
VI. Every thing doth naturally persevere in that state in which it is unless
it be interrupted by some external cause.
‘Hence’ he adds ‘Axiom ist & 2nd’, and
VII. A body once moved will always keep the same celerity, quantity and
determination of its motion.
Circular motion
Descartes. In Art. 38 of Part II of his Principia Descartes cites the
case of the circular motion of a stone in a sling as an example of the
' In this connexion see the discussion in Koyre [i]. Part 3, Appendix B.
* In Art. 39, Part II, Principia Descartes states; ‘ omne id quod movetur . . . determina-
tum esse ad motum suum continuandimi versus aliquam partem, secundum lineam rectani’ .
Newton, in the Waste Book, uses the term determination in the same sense.
 46 IN F LU EN CE OF GALILEO AND D E S CA R T E S 2.2
instantaneous tendency of a body to move rectilinearly along the tangent
to its actual curved path. From which it follows that:
VIII. Every body which is moved circularly tends perpetually to recede
from the centre of the circle which it describes.^
This is something, moreover, which we actually sense with our hand
when we whirl a stone in a sling.
If this were the only discussion of circular motion given by Descartes,
one would be inclined to assume that he did not believe in a centrifugal
tendency in circular motion distinct from the inertial tendency along the
tangent. After all he specifically states that the second tendency follows
from the first. And this deduction is entirely just: motion along the
tangent is necessarily motion away from the centre, something which
Galileo, too, was well aware of. However, it is clear from the more de­
tailed discussion of circular motion in Art. 57, 58, 59 of Part III of the
Principia that Descartes really believed in two separate tendencies, the
one centrifugal, the other along the tangent.
He opens this discussion in Art. 56 by noting that the attempt of
second-class matter to escape from the centre of its vortex due to its
circular motion does not imply any conscious striving, but only a
tendency so to move which may be impeded by other causes. In fact,
as he notes in Art. 57, the simultaneous action of various causes is the
rule rather than the exception, so that one can talk of a body simulta­
neously having divers tendencies or conatus in different directions. It is
at this point that he specifically instances the case of the motion of a
stone in a sling. Under the combined effect of all the causes acting on the
stone it moves in a circle. But if one thinks only of the motive force in
the stone itself— Descartes is clearly identifying this as one of the causes
acting on the stone— the corresponding tendency to motion is always
along the tangent to the circle. And although the sling prevents the
stone from following this tendency it cannot prevent the tendency
itself—
IX. ac quamvis funda hunc effectum impediat, non tamen impedit cona-
tum.
Again, if we do not consider the whole motive force of the stone along
the circle, something wFich he obviously distinguishes from the motive
force in the stone itself, but consider only that part prevented by the sling,
^ Loc. cit., towards end of article.
2.2 ON N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C S 47
then we say that the stone at every instant has a tendency to recede
along the radius from the centre of the circle.
Descartes therefore definitely gives the impression that he believes in
two separate conati: one along the tangent due to the motive force in
the stone itself, and one along the radius away from the centre. Both
tendencies remain potential only, their realization being prevented by
the sling. But this, as he wfisely notes, does not prevent the existence of
the tendencies themselves. This interpretation of Descartes’s views is
then confirmed by his discussion of the motion of an ant on a rotating
ruler in Art. 58, and of a ball in a rotating tube in Art. 59. In each case
he clearly believes both in a tangential and a centrifugal tendency or
endeavour. One can surmise that any doubts he may have had of the
reality of the centrifugal conatus would have been removed by the second,
characteristically ingenious, example of the ball in the rotating tube. For
how can the ball move away from the centre of rotation in the absence of
some centrifugal tendency or conatus} His discussion of the ensuing
accelerated centrifugal motion from the centre also gives the impression
that he looked on this conatus very much in the nature of a force. This
is confirmed when he returns to the example of a stone in the sling at
the end of Art. 59:
X. atque ista tensio, a sola vi qua lapis recedere conatur a centro sui
motus exorta, exhibet nobis istius vis quantitatem.
As to the ‘quantity’ of this ‘force’ Descartes makes no attempt to calcu­
late it beyond noting that it increases with the speed of rotation.
Newton. In Axioms and Propositions 20, 21 of MS. II we have what
must represent something very close to Newton’s first thoughts on circular
motion. There he considers a sphere moving within a spherical or
cylindrical surface:
XI. Axiom 20. If a sphere Oc move within the concave spherical or
cylindrical surface of the body circularly about the centre m, it shall press
upon the body def, for when it is in c (supposing the circle hhc to be described by
its centre of motion, and the line eg a tangent to that at 0) it moves towards g
or the determination of its motion is towards g, therefore if at that moment
the body ed/should cease to check it it would continually move in the line eg
(ax. I, 2) obliquely from the centre m, but if the body de/oppose itself to this
endeavour keeping it equidistant from m, that is done by a continued checking
or reflection of it from the tangent line in every point of the circle chh, but the
body def cannot check and curb the determination of the body co unless they
continually press upon one another. The same may be understood if the body
adb be restrained into circular motion by the thread. . . .
48 IN F LU EN CE OF GALILEO AND D E S C A R T E S
XII. Axiom 21. Hence it appears that all bodies moved circularly have an
endeavour from the centre about which they move, otherwise the body Oc
would not continually press upon edf.
Notice that for Newton the sphere is at any instant moving in the
direction of the tangent line; this is its determination or endeavour,
which endeavour is only prevented by the continual check exerted by
the surrounding surface. And this check can only be exerted by the
surface on the sphere if the two press upon each other. Hence there must
always be an opposite endeavour of the sphere away from the centre.
Thus for Newton at the time of composing these two axioms a body
moving circularly had two endeavours, one along the tangent, one away
from the centre along the radius. In the somewhat later MS. IVa we
still find the same belief in an endeavour or conatus away from the centre
in circular motion.
Other topics
The remaining dynamical topics considered in Descartes’s Principia
come under the general heading of force, resistance, momentum, and
conservation of momentum. All these enter into his treatment of colli­
sions between two bodies.
From our childhood, states Descartes, we labour under the delusion
that more action is required for motion than rest. This, he suggests,
springs from the fact that various forces, including gravity, oppose the
motions of our limbs causing fatigue, whereas we are not aware of the
action of gravity responsible for rest in our own and other bodies. In
fact, no more action^ is required to produce motion in a body than is
required to bring it to rest again by destroying this motion. For example,
the action required to set a boat in still water in motion will be the same
as that required to bring it to rest ;2 apart, that is, from a small diflFerence
due to that portion of the original action used to set the surrounding water
in motion.
It is not clear in what sense Descartes believed this last result would
help to remove the original prejudice in favour of motion rather than rest.
Nor does it seem to play any further part in his Principia. But it is per­
haps important for the connexion it implies between action and move­
ment, between force and momentum.
At Axiom 3 of MS. II we find the following statement:
There is exactly required so much and no more force to reduce a body to
rest as there was to put it upon motion: et e contra.
' T h e term used by Descartes i s ‘flcn’o’. ^ See Art. 26, Part II, Principia.
2.2
2.2 ON N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C S 49
followed immediately by its generalization:
So much force as is required to destroy any quantity of motion in a body
so much is required to generate it; and so much as is required to generate it
so much is also required to destroy it.
Although Descartes believed that the motion conferred on a body by
the action of some external agent or force resided entirely in the body
not as a substance, but as a mode or state of the body, yet this state of
motion had a certain attribute consisting in a tendency to maintain it­
self, as followed, of course, from the principle of inertia. This tendency
of a body to persevere in its motion— adpergendum secundum lineam
rectarrC^— ^was to be compared with the analogous tendency to remain
at rest which revealed itself in the form of a resistance to motion. The
process of collision between two bodies, one in motion and one at rest,
could then be thought of as a contest between the force of motion of the
moving body and the force of resistance of the other.
In MS. II Newton develops his discussion of colliding bodies in two
ways. One is based on the motion of the elastic forces brought into play
by the deformation of the colliding bodies, while the other makes use of
the term perseverance of bodies in their state*^ (of motion or rest) and
regards the collision process as a mutual intervention or hindrance
between these powers.
In the case of a collision between a moving and a stationary body
Descartes supposed that the ‘resistance’ of the latter could exceed the
force of motion of the former.3 In this case, if the two bodies were soft
the moving body would be brought to rest, its motion being absorbed
in some unspecified manner; whereas if the bodies were hard it would
be reflected without loss of motion. On the other hand, if the force of
motion of the moving body exceeded the resistance of the stationary one
the two would move on together the total quantity of motion being con­
served, the quantity of motion in a body being proportional to the mag­
nitude of the body and its velocity. As for the conservation, this was
necessary to ensure that the total quantity of motion in the universe was
unaffected by such encounters between bodies in accordance with the
general law of conservation derived from the immutability of God’s
working in the universe.^
In MS. II the quantity of motion, or simply the motion, of a body was
likewise proportional to its bulk or magnitude and its velocity. Unlike
* Ibid., Art. 40. 2 M S . lie . A x. 104.
3 See Art. 40, Part II, Principia. * Ibid., Art. 36, 42.
8G8205 E
 50 IN F LU EN CE OF GALILEO AND D E S CA R T E S
Descartes, however, Newton realized that the total momentum in a
collision must be calculated algebraically, paying due regard to determina­
tion as well as to magnitude. So that it was now impossible that the
moving body should be reflected from a stationary one which itself con­
tinued at rest.
A comparison between Descartes’s and Newton’s treatment of these
topics at once reveals a most remarkable similarity in the case of the
principle of inertia. There were two peculiar, and quite characteristic,
features of Descartes’s enunciation of this principle: in the first place,
he enunciated it not as a single principle, but in two separate parts, the
first affirming the inertial property of motion or rest in the absence of
external disturbances, the second the tendency of motion always to take
place in straight lines. Secondly, Descartes deduced both parts of the
principle from the nature of God and His working in the universe;
the first as a special case of a more general philosophical principle
mirroring the immutability of God, the second from the immutability
and simplicity of the operation by which God conserved motion.
Both these peculiar features figure in Newton’s presentation of the
principle: he too divides the principle into two parts, the first affirming
the inertial property of motion in the absence of external disturbances,
the second its rectilinearity. Given that Descartes was the first, and
apparently the only, person to enunciate the principle of inertia in
two parts, then the fact that Newton does likewise, and that his parts
closely follow those of Descartes, must make it at least probable that he
modelled his enunciation on that of Descartes. Admittedly, there are
certain differences between Newton’s enunciation and Descartes’s:
Newton omits any references to rest as a state of a body^ in Axiom i,
whereas he refers both to determination and celerity^ in Axiom 2. How­
ever, any residual doubt as to Descartes’s influence is removed by
Axiom 100. For the general philosophical principle in that axiom is
nothing less than a faithful English paraphrase of the principle given in
Latin at Article 37 of Part II of Descartes’s Principia. For good measure,
to make assurance doubly sure, there is New ton’s laconic note following
his enunciation of the philosophical principle ‘Hence Axiom ist and 2nd’,
* Whereas in Def. 5 of M S . V I we find: 'vis . . . est internum principium quo motus vel
quies corpori insita conservatur'.
^ T h e fact that celerity is inserted in the text is just possibly significant. .\s already
noted in n. i, p. 44, there is no reference to uniformity of motion in Art. 37 of Part
II of the first Latin edition of the Principia.
2.2 2.2 ON N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C S 51
precisely the argument used by Descartes to derive the first part of his
principle of inertia.
I conclude, therefore, that Newton took his first known enunciation
of the principle of inertia in Axioms i and 2 of MS. II directly from
Articles 37 and 39 of Part II of Descartes’s Principia. The evidence for
this as it stands, without any further support, seems to me quite con­
clusive, the probability of Newton having reproduced by chance the
peculiar features of Descartes’s enunciation vanishingly small. On the
basis of this evidence, for example, I deduce that Descartes’s Principia
must have been available to Newton around the beginning of the year
1665. Nevertheless, it is comforting to have the reference to the Principia
Philosophiae in M S. I, and to find a copy of Descartes’s work in Newton’s
library.
Knowing that Newton’s first enunciation of the principle of inertia
in MS. II was modelled on that given in Part II of Descartes’s Principia,
we can now confidently look for further indications of a like influence
in the other topics. First there is Newton’s approach to the problem
of circular motion in Axiom 20 of the same manuscript. As with Des­
cartes, the treatment is entirely qualitative, only later does he begin to feel
his way towards an exact quantitative result. Here he is concerned with
the basic physical approach to the problem, and this approach exactly
follows that of Descartes resting on a double tendency, or endeavour,
of the body, the first along the tangent to the circle at any point, the second
away from the centre. This second endeavour away from the centre is
evidenced by the pressure of the ball on the spherical containing surface,
corresponding to the tension in the string in the case of motion in a sling. ^
Given that Descartes’s treatment of circular motion differed from all
previous treatments by his very clear and explicit insistence on tw^o
tendencies, the one tangential, the other centrifugal, and knowing that
Newton must have been familiar with this treatment when composing
Ax.-Prop. 20, then the fact that Newton bases his appreciation of circular
motion on the same two tendencies points strongly to his having modelled
his approach on that of Descartes. This conclusion, already probable, is
then strengthened by the fact that Newton does not content himself with
merely stating the tendency for motion along the tangent, but justifies
it, like Descartes, by an appeal to the principle of inertia: it was pre­
cisely this appeal which constituted Descartes’s supreme contribution
to the problem of circular motion, which enabled him to make a clean
* T h e last sentence of M S . Ild , .\x.-Prop. 20, obviously refers to this case.
52 IN F LU EN CE OF GALILEO AND D E S C A R T E S 2.2 2.2 ON N E W TO N ’ S D Y N A M I C S 53
break with the tyranny of the Platonic circle, ^ and which provided the the concept of momentum itself directly from Descartes must remain
sole basis for its further treatment by Newton. uncertain— for this was a commonly accepted notion which went back
Illuminating also is the comparison between Newton’s use of the at least to Buridan and which is found, for example, in Galileo’s Dia­
concept endeavour^ with Descartes’s use of the term conatus. For Des­ logue. In any case it seems probable that Newton took the idea of using
cartes the conatus away from the centre remained potential only, being momentum (and its conservation) in collision processes directly from
prevented from taking effect owing to the action of the sling. Compare Descartes.
this notion with Newton’s definition of conatus in Def. 6 of MS. V I: The arguments here advanced, if sound, point to a very important
influence of Descartes on Newton in dynamics, direct in the case of
Conatus est vis impedita sive vis quatenus resistitur.
the principle of inertia, circular motion, and collisions, indirect in the
That the conatus here defined is the same as the endeavour used in Ax. case of Newton’s concept of force. Newton’s ‘homage’ to Galileo at the
20 of MS. II is evident from the treatment of centrifugal force in MS. beginning of the Scholium to the laws of motion would then need to be
IV based on the use of the ‘deviation’ between the actual, circular path taken with considerable reserve. We would feel that at this point he
and the natural, inertial one along the tangent. There Newton states should also have made an honest avowal of his debt to Descartes. That
that if the conatus a centra were not impeded (as it actually is) the body he did not do so would then provide one more example of the depth and
would move freely along the tangent. intensity of his aversion to Descartes.
The laws of collision given by Descartes in Part II of his Principia
were notoriously full of error. 3 Nevertheless they represented the first
widely known published attack^ on the problem based on the notion
of momentum and its conservation, and as such would inevitably have
influenced Newton’s approach, if only indirectly. But Newton’s treat­
ment of collisions in MS. II certainly antedated the celebrated papers
of Wren, Wallis, and Huygens,^ so we are entitled to assume that any
influence of Descartes on Newton in that manuscript was direct. In the
light of what we already know of Descartes’s influence in MS. II,
effectively certain in the case of the principle of inertia, highly probable
in that of circular motion, we are justified in looking for an influence also
in the case of collisions. An independent indication of such an influence
is provided by the close similarity between Descartes’s explanation of
the collision process as a contest between the persistence of motion of one
body and the resistance to motion of the other, and one of the explana­
tions put forward by Newton in MS. II.^ Whether or not Newton took
* A s opposed, for example, to Galileo, and even more strikingly to Beeckman, with
his belief that both rectilinear and circular motions could be inertial.
^ For a discussion of New ton’s concept of conatus see below. Chapter 3.
3 See, G abbey [i]. Chapters 3, 4, for an exhaustive and sympathetic account of these
rules.
* A s opposed to that of J. Marcus Marci whose treatment of collisions in his De/)ro/)or-
tione motus seu regula sphygmica (Prague, 1639) seems largely to have escaped notice.
* T h e papers of Wren and Wallis appeared in 1669, that of Huygens (in French) in
1670; whereas some o f New ton’s work on collisions in M S I lb is dated 20 January
1664 (O.S.).
See the section Other topics above.

N E W T O N ’ S C O N C E P T OF C O N A T U S
I t seems likely that Newton’s first views on conatus or endeavour^
resulted from his study of Parts 2 and 3 of Descartes’s Principia Philo-
sophiae.^ In Art. 39, Part 2, of the Principia Descartes discusses the
motion of a stone in a sling in the light of the principle of inertia ad­
vanced in Art, 37, explaining the constant endeavour of the stone to
escape from the centre, as evidenced by the tension in the string, in terms
of its continuous inertial tendency to escape along the tangent at every
point of its path. Descartes thus seems to imply that the centrifugal
endeavour derives entirely from the inertial tendency along the tangent,
whereas in his later, and more detailed, discussion of circular motion in
Arts. 57-59 of Part 3 of the Principia he appears to believe in two separate
endeavours, the one along the tangent as before, and another, indepen­
dent, endeavour away from the centre along the outward radius. This
centrifugal endeavour, like the tangential one, is normally potential
only. Nevertheless, Descartes seems to have supposed it capable of
having the effects of a force, for example, in his ingenious example of a
particle free to slide in a rotating tube.^ There the particle acquires an
increasing outward motion along the tube, and how can this possibly
occur in the absence of some cause or force ? So that when he returns at
the end of Art. 59 to the original case of a stone in a sling it is not sur­
prising to find him employing the term vis in reference to the centrifugal
endeavour: ^atque ista tensio, a sola vi qua lapis recedere conatur a centra
sui motus exorta, exhihet nobis istius vis quafititatem’ .
There is a striking, and I believe significant, similarity between
Descartes’s ultimate views on endeavour and circular motion, and those
first advanced by Newton in MS. II.C onsidering the motion of a ball
within a spherical surface, he postulates, like Descartes, both a constant
endeavour to escape along the tangent, and a centrifugal endeavour along
the outward radius. This latter, centrifugal tendency is evidenced by the
pressure of the surface on the ball, equal and opposite to that of the ball on
the surface, and corresponds to the tension of the string for motion in a
‘ Endeavour will consistently be used in place of conatus apart from the phrase
conatus a centra.
^ T h e best evidence for this is supplied by M S . Add. 4003 from which the extracts
in M S . V I are taken.
Principia Pliilosophiae, Part 3, Art. 59. Especially in AIS. Ild, Ax. 20, 21.
N EW TO N’ S CONCEPT OF CONATUS 55
sling.^ That Newton, like Descartes, regarded the centrifugal tendency as
a species of impeded force, normally potential, yet capable on occasion
of being imagined as active, is likewise clear. In Def. 6, MS. V I, he actually
defines endeavour as an ‘impeded force, or a force in so far as it is
resisted’ in MSS. I l l and IV he employs the terms vis a centra and
conatus a centra^ respectively, when referring to the centrifugal endeavour
or tendency resulting from circular motion; and on folio i of MS. II he
derives an exact relation involving the centrifugal endeavour for uniform
circular motion by calculating the momentum acquired in a certain
interval of time by a body constantly impelled in a straight line by
a force equal to the given centrifugal endeavour.^ A similar procedure is
imagined in MS. IVa,'^ and both there and on folio i of MS. II he com­
pares the resulting rectilinear motion to that under gravity. There can
be little doubt, therefore, that Newton, like Descartes, originally
regarded conatus a centra as a species of force very much on a par with
the force of gravity.
The situation is quite different in Newton’s treatment of orbital
motion in Book I of the Principia., and in his discussion of the motion
of the moon in Book III. Now the notion of centrifugal endeavour so
prominent in the early treatment of circular motion has been replaced
by that of centripetal force. A striking example of this change in outlook,
of this shift from centrifugal to centripetal force, is provided by the
treatment of uniform circular motion in Prop. IV, Theor. IV, of Book I.
Once again, as in MS. IV, the central notion is that of deviation, but
whereas this was formerly measured outwards between the circle and
the tangent, now it is measured inwards between the tangent and the
circle.
In the absence of any reference to centrifugal force in the treatment
of orbital motion in the Principia one might be tempted to assume that
Newton had simply seen the error of his ways, had given up the old,
false notion of a centrifugal endeavour separated from, and independent
of, the inertial, tangential endeavour, and replaced it by the true notion
of an impressed centripetal force. After all, one might argue, there is no
such thing as a true centrifugal force within the framework of dynamics
* A case referred to by Newton at the end of A x. 20, M S . Ild ; ‘the same may be
understood if the body adb be restrained into circular motion by the thread . . .’ .
^ ‘ Conatus est vis inipedita sive vis quatenus resistitur.’
^ 'the force by which it endeavours from the centre n would bepet so much motion in a body'
(italics mine).
* 'hie conatus corpora, si modo in directujn ad modum gravitatis continuo urgeret, im-
pelleret per spatia . . . .’ M S . IVa, second para., beginning.
 56 N E W T O N ’ S CONCEPT OF CONATUS
presented in the Principia where the only unambiguous measures of
both motions and forces are relative to absolute space, motion in a
straight line with uniform speed relative to this space being likewise the
one true type of inertial motion. O f course, relative to a rotating frame of
reference centrifugal forces will make their appearance and bodies will
appear to tend to move outwards away from the centre of rotation. But
such forces and motions are not real, are merely engendered by measur­
ing them relative to the rotating frame, and are in reality no more than
disguised manifestations of inertial motion relative to absolute space.
Unfortunately for this simple attitude there is a great deal of evidence
pointing towards a continued belief by Newton in centrifugal force
right up to and possibly beyond the Principia.
The first indication of such a continued belief in centrifugal force or
conatus a centra is provided by the well-known letter of 23 June 1673 from
Newton to Oldenburg (for Huygens). In the first paragraph of this
letter^ Newton draws attention to the formulae for centrifugal force
given (without proof) at the end of Huygens’s Horologium Oscillatorium,
instancing a notion of his own to explain the invariable aspect of the moon
from the earth on the grounds of her greater endeavour from the earth
compared with her endeavour from the sun. There can be no doubt^
that Newton is here referring to MS. IVa, and he gives no indication
that he has in any way altered the view of conatus a centra found in that
manuscript.
There are no references to centrifugal, as opposed to centripetal,
force in any of the versions of the tract de Motu. Hardly surprising,
since this tract evidently represents a first draft of Newton’s treatment
of orbital motion in the lectures de Motu and the Principia. However,
several references to centrifugal force occur in MSS. X probably com­
posed just prior to the lectures de Motu. In Def. 14 of MS. Xb centri­
fugal force is instanced as one species of the ‘force of a body’ to perse­
vere in its state of movement or rest. It is not stated whether the motion
in question is rectilinear or not. But that this is intended is evident from
a rather more detailed definition of the ‘force of a body’ in Def. 12 of
MS. Xa, where centrifugal force is now instanced as a species of the
‘force of a body’ to persevere in its state of rest or of motion in a straight
line with uniform speed. Why Newton should thus have instanced cen­
trifugal force as an example of the ‘force of a body’, i.e. its inertia, as
opposed to a force derived from the tendency to persevere in a straight
' See M S . V ila . ^ As first pointed out by Hall [2].
3 N E W T O N ’S C O N C E P T OF CONATUS 57
line (along the tangent) is not at all clear. The absence of any reference
to centrifugal force in the preliminary definitions of the lectures de Motu
and the Principia is perhaps an indication that Newton himself was not
altogether happy about the above definitions in terms of the ‘force of a
body’.
The other reference to centrifugal force, at Def. 9 of M S. Xa, is
evidently a preliminary draft of the well-known passage relating to
rotary motion in the Scholium to the Definitions preceding Book I of
the Principia. T o distinguish, says Newton, between relative and abso­
lute rotation, it is necessary to examine the effects, if any, of the rotation.
In the case of relative rotation, such as that between the water and the
bucket, there are no effects. In the case of absolute motion there is
always some real effect, such as the curved surface of the water, or the
tension in the string connecting the two rotating globes. And in all
cases these real effects bear witness to an endeavour to recede from the
axis of rotation. As Newton expresses it:
This ascent of the water shows its endeavour to recede from the axis of
its motion; and the true and absolute circular motion of the water, which is
here directly contrary to the relative, becomes known, and may be measured
by this endeavour.
Soon after the Principia was presented to the Royal Society in June
1686 a bitter controversy broke out over Hooke’s claim that Newton
owed him the notion of the inverse square dependence of gravitation as
applied to the motion of the planets.^ In the ensuing correspondence
between Newton and Halley^ there are a certain number of references
to centrifugal force. With one exception, these all originate in Newton’s
reference, in his letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley, to the first paragraph
of his letter of 23 June 1673 to Oldenburg, and to the original paper
(MS. IVa) from which was taken the example of the usefulness of centri­
fugal force quoted in the first paragraph of the 1673 letter. Nowhere in
his description of this paragraph from the letter to Oldenburg, nor in
his resume of the principal results of the original paper, does Newton
give any indication of having changed his view of centrifugal force from
that expressed in this letter and paper.
A second reference to the 1673 letter occurs in Newton’s letter of
27 July 1686 to Halley. After reporting the discovery of a copy of the
* T h e best general account of this controversy is that given in Koyr^ [2].
^ See Correspondence, vol. ii, Letters 285-91.
58 N E W T O N ’ S CONCEPT OF CONATUS
letter in question, backed up by a quotation of the first paragraph in
extensOy he continues:
Thus far this letter concerned the Vis Centrifuga. . . . Now from these
words it’s evident, that I was at that time versed in the theory of the force
arising from circular motion, and had an eye upon the forces of the planets,
knowing how to compare them by the proportions of their periodical revolu­
tions and distances from the centre they move about: an instance of which you
have here in the comparison of the forces of the moon arising from her men­
strual motion about the earth, and annual about the sun. So then in this theory
I am plainly before Mr. Hooke.
The remaining reference to centrifugal force occurs in Newton’s
letter of 14 July 1686 to Halley. Writing of Halley’s experiment of a
pendulum clock at St. Helena to demonstrate the diminution of gravity
at the equator due to the diurnal motion he says:
The experiment was new to me, but not the notion; for in that very paper
which I told you was written some time above 15 years ago and to the best of
my memory was written 18 or 19 years ago, I calculated the force of ascent
at the Equator arising from the earth’s diurnal motion in order to know what
would be the diminution of gravity thereby.
In the light of the evidence so far presented what answer is to be
given to the question of whether Newton continued to believe in the
physical reality of centrifugal force up to and beyond the composition
of the Principia ? On the one hand we have the striking absence of any
reference to centrifugal force in the treatment of orbital motion in the
Principia'y on the other hand we have the repeated references to this
concept in the discussion of rotation in the Scholium to the Definitions,
and in the correspondence of 1686 with Halley. Perhaps the best approach
to some sort of understanding, and explanation, of this apparent para­
dox is to attempt to trace through the development of Newton’s views on
conatus a centra from the beginning, paying special attention to a pos­
sible transition from the concept of centrifugal to that of centripetal
force.
There can be no doubt, as already indicated, that Newton’s treatment
of circular motion in the earliest researches was firmly based on the
notion of conatus a centro, or centrifugal force. The question then
naturally arises; if he carried out a test of the inverse square law of
gravitation during the Plague Years, ^more probably in 1666, what part,
if any, did the notion of centrifugal force then play? One plausible
’ For a discussion of this question see below, Chapter 4.
NE W TO N ’ S CONCEPT OF C O N A T U S 59
assumption would be that centrifugal force played no role at all; in
which case this test would have marked the transition from a belief in
centrifugal to one in centripetal force, at least in the case of orbital
motion.^ But how then explain the references to centrifugal force in the
letter of 23 June 1673 to Oldenburg, especially that to the endeavour of
the Moon from the Earth? It is natural to regard these references as
evidence of a continued belief by Newton in centrifugal force for
circular orbital motion; in which case one seems forced to assume that
there was either no test of the law of gravitation during the Plague Years,
or that it involved the notion of centrifugal force. This latter assumption
is entirely plausible: Newton could well have regarded the stability of
the Moon in her orbit about the Earth, and of the planets in their orbits
about the Sun, as the direct result of a balance between a centripetal pull
of the Earth, or the Sun, inwards, and a centrifugal force of the Moon,
or the planets, outwards. This was the manner in which Borelli^ attempted
to explain the stability of circular orbits, and Newton could possibly
have been influenced by Borelli’s discussion prior to his first test— cer­
tainly he had read it by 1686.2 In any case, apart from any possible
influence of Borelli,'^ it would have been fairly natural for Newton to
approach the stability of a circular orbit in this way, especially if we
assume, as seems plausible, that his derivation of the inverse square law
of gravitation immediately prior to the first test was based on considera­
tion of the force of a globe rotating within a spherical surface. For in
this case the centrifugal force of the globe, as evidenced by its pressure
on the spherical surface, was exactly balanced by an equal and opposite
pressure of the sphere on the globe, and this could have suggested a
similar balance between the conatus a centra terrae of the Moon and the
' T his was originally my own view.
^ Borelli [i]. For a discussion of Borelli’s views see Koyre [3].
3 And probably much earlier. There was a copy of Borelli’s work in New ton’s
library. He refers to it in the unfortunate postscript to his letter of 20 June 1686 to
Halley; ‘he has published Borell’s hypothesis in his own name; and the asserting of this
to himself, and completing it as his own, seems to me the ground of all the stir he makes.
Borel did something in it; and wrote modestly.’
^ Or of Descartes, who in Art. 140 of Part 3 of his Principia explains the stability of a
planet’s (circular) orbit by a balance between two opposing conati, one outward due
to the circular motion of the planet about the sun, and the other inward due to the
action of the surrounding vortex material. Replace the latter conatus by a natural inward
tendency to the sun and there results Borelli’s hypothesis. Descartes’s view of the
matter is referred to by Newton at the foot of p. 3 of M S . Add. 4003: ‘ S ed postea
tamen in Terra et Planetis ponit conatum recedendi a sole tanquam a centro circa quod
moventur, quo per consimilem conatum Vorticis gyrantis in suis a sole distantijs librantur
Art. 140 part 3.’ See M S . V I, § 2.
 60 N E W T O N ’ S CONCEPT OF CONATUS
inward pull of the Earth. A plausible explanation could then also be
given of Newton’s peculiar suggestion (in his letter of 23 June 1673 to
Oldenburg for Huygens) that the invariable aspect of the Moon from the
Earth was due to her much greater endeavour from the Earth compared
with that from the Sun. At first glance this theory seems absurd, for if the
endeavour of the Moon from the Earth is greater than from the Sun, this
would seem a good reason for the Moon to depart from the Earth rather
than the Sun. But if we assume that Newton measured the inward pull
of the Earth on the Moon by the outward endeavour of the Moon from the
Earth, then the greater value of this endeavour compared with that from
the Sun would now be a measure of the much stronger hold of the Earth
on the Moon compared with that of the Sun. And this in turn could
conceivably explain the invariable aspect of the Moon from the Earth.
A similar interpretation applied to the original argument in MS. IVa
would then tend to show that this manuscript was composed after the
first test, the notion of universal gravitation being present in Newton’s
mind when he composed it though absent from the manuscript itself—
perhaps for reasons of secrecy, or because the agreement between
theory and experiment in the first test, and in the test implicitly con­
tained in this manuscript, still left him in considerable doubt of the
adequacy of the inverse square law of universal gravitation as an explana­
tion of the stability of the lunar and planetary orbits.*
Given Newton’s familiarity with the notion of centrifugal force, his
possible use of it to explain the stability of circular orbits, and his
definite reference to it in the letter of 23 June 1673, it would have been
natural for him to attempt to use it when he first seriously turned his
attention to the problem of Kepler-motion in December 1679. There is
even some evidence that he had actually contemplated applying the
idea of centrifugal force to the problem of motion in an ellipse at a very
early stage. For beneath his discussion of circular motion on folio i of
the Waste Book occurs the following entry:
If a body be moved in an Ellipse that its force in each point (if its motion in
that point be given) would [ ?] be found by a tangent circle of equal crooked­
ness with that point of the Ellipse.
There is no evidence, however, that he succeeded in solving the prob­
lem of Kepler-motion by this method in 1679. Instead it seems certain
* Remember W histon’s statement that N ew ton’s disappointment over the first test
made him suspect ‘that this Power [that restrained the moon in her orbit] was partly
that of Gravity, and partly that of Cartesius’ vortices’.
3 N E W TO N ’ S CONCEPT OF CONATUS 61
that his attention would soon have become directed to centripetal
rather than centrifugal forces. In the case of motion in a uniform circular
orbit, as in the Moon about the Earth, or the approximate orbits of the
planets about the Sun, it is natural to attach equal importance to the in­
ward pull towards the centre and the centrifugal force outwards. But
the situation is vastly different in the case of the elliptical motion of a
planet about the Sun at one focus. Now the problem of paramount in­
terest, one to which Kepler had tried in vain to give an answer, is the
nature of the force exerted by the Sun on the planet. Having first proved
the astounding result that this force must be directed solely towards* the
focus, it remained to find the variation in its magnitude at different
points of the ellipse. In some such way we must suppose Newton’s treat­
ment of motion in an ellipse, and then general orbital motion, became
dominated by the notion of centripetal force directed to a point. It would,
of course, have been possible for him to have introduced . fictitious cen­
3
trifugal force equal and opposite to the centripetal force. But this would
have been entirely gratuitous. For it was now clear that the whole
process of orbital motion under central forces could be looked on as a
continual drawing away of the body from its natural, inertial path along
the tangent into its actual curved path. The problem therefore was:
given the orbit to determine the force, and vice versa. As Newton him­
self expressed it:
for the whole burden of philosophy seems to consist in this— from the pheno­
mena of motions to investigate the forces of nature, and then from these forces
to demonstrate the other phenomena.^
Given the dominant role of centripetal force in the treatment of orbital
motion in Book I of the Principia, and the expected absence of any use
of, or reference to, the notion of centrifugal force, I think we need not
regard the references to centrifugal force and planetary motion in the
1686 correspondence with Halley as evidence for Newton’s real views on
this subject at that time. These are surely to be found in the Principia.
And there is really no paradox here since Newton in his correspondence
with Halley was not concerned to state his actual views on the subject,
but only to describe his views of 1673 and earlier, and to attempt to con­
vince Halley that these proved his understanding of the problem of
planetary motion, including a knowledge of the inverse square law of
* T h e force could equally well have heen directed away from the focus, but in that
case the orbits would have been hyperbolic rather than elliptic.
^ Preface to first edition of Principia.
62 NE W T O N ’ S CONCEPT OF CONATUS
gravitation, prior to that of Hooke. Opinions will differ on whether or not
Newton was justified in citing these views as evidence of such an under­
standing, and whether there was not a certain element of special plead­
ing in his argument.^ It is also a moot point how' far so acute a mind as
Halley, and one so well versed in the Principia, would have been persuaded
by Newton’s case. Certainly it would have been most interesting to know
how Newton would have replied to a request from Halley for an explana­
tion of his references to centrifugal force in the light of the treatment of
orbital motion in the Principia. Nevertheless, although we can thus
easily dispose of the apparent paradox posed by these references to
centrifugal force in connexion with planetary and lunar motion in the
1686 correspondence with Halley, there still remains the other reference
(in the letter of 14 July 1686) to the centrifugal force arising from the
earth’s diurnal motion, and the various uses of the term in the discussion
of rotary motion in the Scholium to the Definitions of the Principia.
In the Scholium to the Definitions preceding Book I of the Principia
Newton discusses the causes and ejfects which distinguish true from
relative motions. The causes are the forces impressed to produce true
motion ; whereas true motion in a body can only be generated by the
action of such forces, motion relative to a given body may be produced
by forces impressed on other bodies, or may even be absent in spite of the
action of impressed forces, as when equal bodies are acted on simul­
taneously by equal forces. As to the effects which distinguish real from
relative motion, these are ‘the forces of receding from the axis of circular
motion’. Evidently, then, he has in mind the conatus or ‘endeavour of
receding from a centre or axis of rotation’, a phrase actually used in the
same passage. These centrifugal forces are in turn demonstrated by
certain observable effects, such as the concave surface of the rotating
mass of water in the bucket, or the tension in the string between the two
rotating globes. Or, he might have added, by the diminution in the force
of gravity at the equator due to the Earth’s supposed diurnal motion,
as referred to in the letter to Elalley of 14 July 1686.
I do not propose to enter here into the question of the proof supplied
by these and other observable effects for the existence of absolute rota­
tion. The point at issue is the existence of centrifugal forces arising from
the rotation of extended bodies. Once again, as in the case of orbital
motion, especially circular motion, there can be no doubt of the answer:
relative to Newton's own system of dynamics there is no need for centrifugal
' For a discussion of this see below, Chapter 4, pp. 72-73.
3 N EW TO N’ S CONCEPT OF CONATUS 63
force, something which can be seen most clearly by following the apparent
development of such forces from a state of rest. For example, if a stone
is attached to a slightly elastic spring whose other end is fixed, and is
suddenly set in motion by a blow at right angles to the length of the
spring, then the ensuing motion of the stone, and the resulting tension in
the spring, can both be explained in terms of the laws of motion and the
elastic properties of the spring. No introduction of centrifugal force is
necessary here any more than in the discussion of the oscillatory motion
resulting from the projection of the stone along, instead of at right angles
to, the spring; nor is the ensuing tension in the spring any more (or less)
mysterious in the first case than in the second. It is only when we imagine
a rotary motion as pre-existing from eternity^ rather than having been
created at some instant of time, that there is any mystery about the
resulting forces in the rotating body.
It can be argued, of course, that centrifugal forces make their appear­
ance relative to rotating frames of reference. For example, a body
attached to a rotating plate experiences a ‘force’ outwards; if released
it will move along the outward radius relative to the plate. But this is
only to say that when released the body will move uniformly in a straight
line along the instantaneous tangent to its original path relative to
absolute space; from which its observed motion relative to the plate can
immediately be deduced. So that it is true to say that the body has a
centrifugal endeavour relative to the rotating plate. But the ‘results’ of
the rotation, for example, the pressure of the body on its support, will
be the same whether we look at the plate from the standpoint of the
rotating frame or from that of absolute space, it is only their explanation
which is different: relative to absolute space their origin and presence is
explained in terms of the laws of motion in precisely the same way as
the tension produced in a slightly elastic spring by a body moving
(approximately) in a circle. Relative to the rotating frame their presence
(but not their origin) can be explained in terms of supposed centrifugal
forces corresponding to the undoubted centrifugal endeavours.
If it is accepted that centrifugal forces have no place within the New­
tonian framework of absolute space and time, being no more necessary
for an explanation of the effects of rotation than in the case of orbital
motion, it has still to be asked why Newton retained these forces for
rotating bodies while dispensing with them for orbital motion. Initially,
of course, the notion of introducing centrifugal force in rotating bodies
would have been a perfectly natural one. For we know that Newton
64 N E W T O N ’ S CONCEPT OF CONATUS

originally believed in the existence of centrifugal forces for single bodies

or particles describing uniform circular motions, and in the case of the
uniform rotation of an extended body all its component parts describe T E S T S OF T H E L A W OF G R A V I T A T I O N
uniform circular motions about centres lying on the axis of rotation. But A G A IN S T THE M O O N ’S MOTIO N
whereas the study of orbital motion after the solution of the problem of
Kepler-motion revealed no properties which could not be accounted for
R e f e r e n c e s to a test of the law of gravitation during the Plague Years
purely in terms of centripetal forces, this was apparently not the case
occur in the following accounts of Whiston,^ Pemberton,^ and Newton^
for the effects produced in the rotation of extended bodies. It was
himself:
therefore natural, though as we have seen inconsistent, for Newton to
Whiston: What the Occasion of Sir Isaac Newton’s leaving the Cartesian
continue to employ the concept of centrifugal force in the latter case while
Philosophy, and of discovering his amazing Theory of Gravity was, I have
dispensing with it in the first. heard him long ago, soon after my first Acquaintance with him, which was
A word finally about the case of centrifugal force instanced by Newton 1694, thus relate, and of which Dr Pemberton gives the like Account, and
in the 1686 correspondence with Halley, that referring to the diminution somewhat more fully, in the Preface to his Explication of his Philosophy:
of gravity to be expected at the equator due to ‘the force of ascent at the It was this. An Inclination came into Sir Isaac’s Mind to try, whether the
equator arising from the Earth’s diurnal motion’. Newton’s first calcula­ same Power did not keep the Moon in her Orbit, notwithstanding her pro­
tion of this force of ascent is to be found in MS. III. It was therefore one jectile Velocity, which he knew always tended to go along a strait Line the
Tangent of that Orbit, which makes Stones and all heavy Bodies with us
of the earliest problems in circular motion to be treated by him. It was
fall downward, and which we call Gravity} Taking this Postulatum, which
likewise the only one in which the notion of conatus a centro was entirely
had been thought of before, that such Power might decrease, in a duplicate
justified, since he would undoubtedly have thought of the problem from Proportion of the Distances from the Earth’s Center,^ Upon Sir Isaac’s First
the point of view of an observer on the Earth’s surface. For such an Trial, when he took a Degree of a great Circle on the Earth’s Surface,
observer the conatus a centro could become a real phenomenon provided whence a Degree at the Distance of the Moon was to be determined also,
the rotation of the Earth were sufficiently large, or the gravity of the to be 60 measured Miles only, according to the gross Measures then in
Earth sufficiently small. Things would then fly off the surface as envis­ Use. He was, in some Degree, disappointed, and the Power that restrained
aged by Ptolemy, but upwards, towards the sky! It would be interesting the Moon in her Orbit, measured by the versed Sines of that Orbit,® appeared
not to be quite the same that was to be expected, had it been the Power of
to know if Newton had this example of conatus a centro in mind when
Gravity alone, by which the Moon was there influenc’d. Upon this Dis­
developing his exact theory of circular motion in MS. IVa. appointment, which made Sir Isaac suspect that this Power was partly that
of Gravity, and partly that of Cartesius’s Vortices,^ he threw aside the
Paper of his Calculation and went to other Studies.
Pemberton: The first thoughts, which gave rise to his Principia, he had, when
he retired from Cambridge in 1666 on account of the plague. As he sat
alone in a garden,7 he fell into a speculation on the power of gravity; that as
* Whiston [i], vol. i, pp. 35-36. ^ Pemberton [i]. Preface.
^ Catalogue of Portsmouth Collection (Cambridge, 1888), Section i, Division xi,
number 41. Ball [i], p. 6, was of the opinion that this was written some years after the
1686 correspondence with Halley, ‘perhaps about 1714 ’.
See, for example, Bullialdus [i], p. 23.
* Implying, rightly or not, that Newton measured the force on the moon in terms of
her ‘fall’ towards the Earth in a given interval of time.
* Various references to Descartes’s vortex theory in M S . I prove New ton’s familiarity
with the theory at an early date.
7 W e are reminded here of the incident of the falling apple of which the most cir­
cumstantial account is that given by Stukeley [i], p. 19;
66 T E S T S OF THE LAW OF G R A VI T AT IO N
this power is not found sensibly diminished at the remotest distance from
the center of the earth, to which we can rise, neither at the tops of the
loftiest buildings, nor even on the summits of the highest mountains; it
appeared to him reasonable to conclude, that this power must extend much
farther than was usually thought; why not as high as the moon, said he to
himself? and if so, her motion must be influenced by it; perhaps she is
retained in her orbit thereby. However, though the power of gravity is not
sensibly weakened in the little change of distance, at which we can place
ourselves from the center of the earth, yet it is very possible that, so high as
the moon this power may differ much in strength from what it is here. To
make an estimate, what might be the degree of this diminution, he con­
sidered with himself, that if the moon be retained in her orbit by the force
of gravity, no doubt the primary planets are carried round the sun by the
like power. And by comparing the periods of the several planets with their
distances from the sun,’ he found, that if any power like gravity held them
in their courses, its strength must decrease in the duplicate proportion of
the increase of distance. This he concluded by supposing them to move in
perfect circles concentrical to the sun, from which the orbits of the greatest
part of them do not much differ. Supposing therefore the power of gravity,
when extended to the moon, to decrease in the same manner, he computed
whether that force would be sufficient to keep the moon in her orbit. In
this computation, being absent from books, he took the common estimate in
use among geographers and our seamen, before Norwood had measured
the earth, that 6o English miles were contained in one degree of latitude on
the surface of the earth. But as this is a very faulty supposition, each degree
containing about 69J of our miles,^ his computation did not answer
expectation; whence he concluded, that some other caused must at least
join with the action of the power of gravity on the moon. On this account
he laid aside for that time any farther thoughts upon this matter.
Newton: I found the method [of fluxions] by degrees in the years 1665 and
1666. In the beginning of the year 1665 I found the method of approximat­
ing Series and the Rule for reducing any dignity of any Binomial into such
a series. The same year in May I found the method of tangents of Gregory
and Slusius, and in November had the direct method of fluxions, and the
‘A fter dinner on 15th April 1726 the weather being warm we went into the garden
and drank thea under the shade of some apple trees, only he and myself. Am idst other
discourse, he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion
of gravitation came into his mind. It was occasioned by the fall of an apple, as he sat in a
contemplative mood.’
* B y means of Kepler’s T hird Law of Planetary Motion.
^ Cajori [i], p. 150, points out that this implies i mile == 5280 ft whereas it seems
more probable that Newton would have taken i mile = 5000 ft. See n. 3, p. 68, below.
3 For example, that of ‘Cartesius’s Vortices’ as remarked by Whiston. A t this point
Whiston is therefore more detailed than Pemberton, thus strengthening the possibility
of his account having been independent o f the latter’s.
A G A I N S T THE MOON’ S MOTION 67
next year in January had the Theory of colours, and in May following I had
entrance into the inverse method of fluxions. And the same year’ I began
to think of gravity extending to the orb of the Moon, and having found out
how to estimate the force with which [a] globe revolving within a sphere
presses the surface of the sphere, from Kepler’s Rule of the periodical
times of the Planets being in a sesquialterate proportion of their distances
from the centers of their Orbs I deduced that the forces which keep the
Planets in their Orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their dis­
tances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared
the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at
the surface of the earth, and found them answer pretty nearly. All this was
in the two plague years of 1665 and 1666, for in those days I was in the
prime of my age for invention, and minded Mathematicks and Philosophy
more than at any time since.
Whiston stated that he had his account from Newton soon after
making his acquaintance in 1694, and it is possible, if not probable, that
he made a note of it at the time. But since Whiston refers to the ‘like
account’ of Pemberton it would be dangerous to regard the two accounts
as entirely independent, and since Pemberton’s account was derived
from Newton towards the end of the latter’s life^ it is natural to regard
Newton’s own earlier^ account as the most reliable of the three.
Nevertheless, the accounts of both Whiston and Pemberton contain
certain circumstantial details having an authentic ring difficult to resist.'^
For example, Whiston’s account gives a strong impression that Newton’s
recollection of his first test of the law of universal gravitation arose from
a chance reference by Whiston to the ‘Cartesian philosophy’ he was
then studying at Cambridge.s Newton possibly replied that he too had
formerly studied the same philsophy,^ and then proceeded to describe
the occasion of his leaving that philosophy and discovering his own
’ T h is could refer either to 1665 or 1666. From the context 1666 would seem to be
the more probable year. It is also the one given by Pemberton.
^ ‘For it was in the very last years of Sir Isaac’s life, that I had the honour of his
acquaintance’ ; Pemberton [i], Preface, p. 2.
3 See n. 3, p. 65 above.
Against the view that Pemberton’s account is worthless, having been taken from
Newton in extreme old age, it could be argued that memories of childhood and youth
are sometimes much more vivid in old age than in middle life. O n this view it is just
conceivable, though perhaps improbable, that Newton remembered his first test of the
law of gravitation in his old age having previously forgotten it in 1686 at the time of the
controversy with Hooke.
5 ‘We at Cambridge, poor Wretches, were ignominously studying the fictitious H ypo­
theses of the Cartesian, which Sir Isaac Newton had also himself done formerly, as I
have heard him say’ : Whiston [i], immediately before quotation on p. 65 above.
^ As proved conclusively by M S . Add. 4003.
 68 T E S T S OF THE L AW OF G R A V I T A T I O N
theory of gravitation. Of particular interest here is the reference to
Newton’s disappointment at the failure of his test having lead him to
suspect that
This power [by which the moon was influenced] was partly that of Gravity,
and partly that of Cartesius’s Vortices.
Evidently he had not entirely freed himself from the persuasive argu­
ments of Part 3 of Descartes’s Principia Philosophiae\ Equally telling is
Pemberton’s statement that Newton took the common measure of 6o
miles to a degree of latitude at the surface of the earth ‘being absent from
books’.
One discrepancy between Newton’s account and those of Whiston and
Pemberton has been the subject of much discussion, namely Newton’s
statement that he found the force necessary to keep the moon in her orbit
to answer ‘pretty nearly’ to the force of gravity, as opposed to Whiston’s
statement that Newton was ‘in some degree disappointed’, and Pember­
ton’s statement that ‘his computation did not answer expectation’. The
extent of this discrepancy obviously hinges on the meaning to be attached
to Newton’s phrase ‘pretty nearly’, and this in turn depends on the actual
value derived by Newton for the ratio of the force of gravity at the
distance of the moon’s orbit to the same force at the surface of the Earth,
or of the corresponding figure for the ‘fall’ of the moon in her orbit in
one minute of time. Assuming that he took the period of the moon in her
orbit as approximately 27 days 8 hours, ^the radius of the moon’s orbit
as sixty times that of the radius of the Earth,^ and the figure of 60 miles
to a degree of latitude at the surface of the Earth mentioned by both
Whiston and Pemberton, the fall of the moon in her orbit in one minute
would have come out at approximately 13*9 or 13-2 feet, according as he
set one mile equal to 5280 or 5000 feet. After a thorough investigation of
contemporary evidence Cajori concluded that Newton was more likely
to have set one mile equal to 5000 rather than to 5280 feet.^ Since this
finding is confirmed by Newton’s use of 5000 feet to a mile in M SS. I l l
and IVa, whereas he nowhere in the early manuscripts uses the figure of
5280, it seems most probable that the actual figure arrived at by Newton
for the ‘fair of the moon in her orbit was approximately 13*2 feet in one
* In M S . IV a it is taken as 27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes.
^ T h e figure adopted in M S . IVa.
^ See Cajori [i], pp. 150-6. Cajori could only find one author prior to 1666 (Oiigh-
tred) using 1° = 60 miles of 5280 ft.
4 A G A I N S T THE MOON’ S MOTION 69
minute.^ This has to be compared with the true figure of approximately
16 feet in one minute, corresponding to a fall of the same distance in
one second at the surface of the Earth, a figure derived by Newton in
MS. III."
It seems probable, therefore, that in this particular respect the accounts
of Pemberton and Whiston are rather more reliable than that of Newton
himself. Nevertheless, in spite of this discrepancy, and in the absence of
any further evidence, there would seem no very good reason to doubt
that Newton carried out a test of the inverse square law of gravitation
during the Plague Years, more probably in 1666, the year mentioned
by Pemberton, and likewise the more probable year from Newton’s own
account.3 Some further items of evidence must now be considered, some
of which support, while some oppose, the supposition of a test during
the Plague Years.
One item of evidence supporting the bare possibility of some test or
other of the law of gravitation at an early period is supplied by Newton’s
treatment of the problem of circular motion in the early dynamical
manuscripts.'^ This, as we have seen, commences in the Waste Book and
culminates in MS. IVa devoted to circular motion and containing an
explicit statement of the law of centrifugal force. Without this law
Newton could not have derived the inverse square law of gravitation by
way of Kepler’s third law of planetary motion. Whereas the certain
knowledge that he was in possession of this law at an early period,s
possibly as early as 1665 or 1666, must necessarily increase our confi­
dence in the account in the Portsmouth Draft Memorandum. One striking
detail of this account increases our confidence still further, namely, New­
ton’s reference to his
having found out how to estimate the force with which [a] globe revolving
within a sphere presses the surface of the sphere.
This was exactly the situation considered by Newton in his first re­
connaissance of the problem of circular motion in the Waste Book.^
* Assuming, of course, that he was thinking in terms of such a ‘fall’ produced by the
pull of the Earth’s gravitation as opposed to a balance between this latter force and an
outward centrifugal conatus. In the latter case 13-2 would represent the distance out­
ward through w hich the moon would have moved in one minute under the action of this
conatus. See Chapter 3 above for New ton’s concept of conatus.
^ T h e original figure employed in that manuscript, about half the figure finally de­
duced, would have led to an intolerably large discrepancy between theory and observa­
tion for the motion of the moon.
^ See n. i, p. 67 above. * See above, Chapter 1.2.
5 See below. Chapter 6.2. * See M S . Ild , Ax.-Prop. 20.
 70 T E S T S OF THE LA W OF GR A VI T AT IO N
A G A I N S T THE MOON’ S MOTION 71
Nevertheless, although he went on to derive an exact result involving the
he was indebted to Hooke for at least the initial impetus which led to his
centrifugal force or conatus at folio i of that manuscript, there is appa­
thorough investigation of the problem of Kepler-motion in the winter
rently no trace of his having completed this line of approach by deriving
of 1679-80. Evidently he would dearly have loved to have been able
the actual dependence of the centrifugal force on the radius and the speed
to present Halley (and the Royal Society) with incontrovertible dated
as implied by the account in the Portsmouth Draft Memorandum. At this
evidence of his knowledge of the inverse square law long prior to any
point a suggestion of Rouse Ball’s^ comes to the rescue, namely, that the
public or private statement of it by Hooke. But he was unable to do so,
proof of the law of centrifugal force at the end of the Scholium to Prop,
having to content himself with two items of evidence, neither of them
IV, Theor. IV, of Book I of the Principia^ was possibly the actual one
very impressive. The first, and much less important, item is contained in
employed by Newton to calculate the force exerted by the globe on the
the postscript of his letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley. There Newton
sphere. That this proof corresponds to the situation referred to by New­
quotes the following passage from his letter of 7 December 1675 to
ton in the Portsmouth Draft Memorandum is at once evident: equally
Oldenburg:
evident is the similarity between the method here employed— replace­
And as the earth, so perhaps may the sun imbibe this spirit copiously to con­
ment of the actual circular path by an inscribed polygon, and the actual
serve his shining, and keep the planets from receding further from him; and
continuous force by a series of sharp forces of reflection at the corners of
they that will may also suppose that this spirit affords or carries with it thither
the polygon— and the method followed by Newton in his treatment of the solary fuel and material principle of light.. . .
circular motion on folio i of the Waste Book. One further item of evidence
Newton himself made no large claim on the basis of this passage, con­
is supplied by Newton at the end of the letter of 14 July 1686 to Halley
tenting himself with noting that it proved his concern with the problem
in which he enclosed the proof in question with instructions to insert it
of planetary motions at this time; as for the inverse square dependence
after the Scholium to Prop. IV, Theor. IV, of Book I of the Principia\^
of the force of gravity supposedly implicit in the passage, it was ‘But an
there he mentions that he met with this proof ‘in turning over some old
hypothesis, and so to be looked on only as one of my guesses’.
papers’.
The other, and much more important, item is found in the following
In the light of this mutually interlocking evidence it seems reasonable
passage in the body of the same letter to Halley:
to suppose that a test of the law of gravitation did take place during the
That in one of my papers writ (I cannot say in what year, but I am sure some
Plague Years, being based on a derivation of the law of centrifugal force
time before I had any correspondence with Mr Oldenburg, and that’s above
by the ‘polygonal’ method, and in all probability also on the figure of
fifteen years ago)^ the proportion of the forces of the planets from the sun, reci­
60 miles of 5000 feet to a degree of latitude at the equator. Otherwise procally duplicate to their distances from him, is expressed, and the propor­
one seems forced to conclude that Newton not only misinformed both tion of our gravity to the moon’s conatus recedendi a centra terrae is calculated,
Whiston and Pemberton, but also fabricated the very circumstantial though not accurately enough. That when Hugenius put out his Horol. Oscil.,
account in the Portsmouth Draft Memorandum, presumably after re­ a copy being presented to me, in my letter of thanks to him, I gave those rules
freshing his memory of his early researches in dynamics by referring to in the end thereof a particular commendation for their usefulness in Philo­
the Waste Book. sophy, and added out of my aforesaid paper an instance of their usefulness, in
comparing the forces of the moon from the earth, and earth from the sun; in
Let us turn now to the evidence provided by the Newton-Halley
determining a problem about the moon’s phase, and putting a limit to the
correspondence of 1686+ arising out of Hooke’s claim that Newton was
sun’s parallax, which shows that I had then my eye upon comparing the forces
indebted to him for the notion of the inverse square law of gravitation of the planets arising from their circular motion, and understood it.
as applied to the motions of the planets. Hooke’s claim stung Newton
Newton was later to substantiate his claim to have written this letter
to the quick, more especially, one feels, because he was well aware that
to Oldenburg by discovering a copy in the hand of his friend John
' See Ball, [1], p. 13. * Reproduced above, at Chapter 1.2, p. i i . Wickins, quoting the first paragraph, that relating to centrifugal force, in
^ A nd thus conveniently ‘compass’, as Neii'ton thought, the dispute between him­
self and Hooke. * In his letter of 14 July 1686 to Halley Newton refers again to this paper, stating
See especially Koyre [2]. ‘to the best of my memory [it] was w’rit 18 or 19 years ago’.
 72 T E S T S OF THE L A W OF G R A VI T AT IO N
his letter of 27 July 1686 to Halley. The existence of the paper referred to
by Newton is likewise certain, since it may be identified with MS. IVa.^
Given Newton’s very detailed and accurate synopsis of this paper
in the above passage it seems likely that he had the actual paper before
him when composing his letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley. In any case it
is evident that nowhere in this letter does he go beyond the actual con­
tents of the paper. In particular, he is very careful to refer always to the
forces of the planets from the sun, or of the moon from the Earth. Like­
wise he nowhere explicitly claims that this paper proved his familiarity
with the inverse square law of gravitation as opposed to the inverse square
dependence of the forces of the planets from the sun. Such a claim would,
in fact, have been entirely unjustified, since an examination of the paper
reveals that although he compares the ratio of the force of gravity at
the Earth to the moon’s endeavour to recede from the sun, and proves
that the endeavours of the planets vary inversely as the squares of their
distances from the sun, yet he makes no mention of the forces on the
planets towards the sun, or of the force on the moon towards the Earth,
so that there is apparently no indication whatsoever of the notion of
universal gravitation.2 And this is particularly evident in the omission
of any comment on the discrepancy between the calculated ratio of
gravity at the surface of the Earth to the moon’s endeavour to recede
from the Earth, and the ratio to be expected on the basis of the inverse
square law of gravitation. Nevertheless, whether intentionally or not,
Newton’s references to the ‘duplicate proportion’ of the forces of the
planets from the sun, and his note that the ratio of the force of gravity
to the moon’s endeavour to recede from the Earth was not calculated
‘accurately enough’, would inevitably have given Halley the impression
that Newton thought this paper proved his early familiarity with the
‘duplicate proportion’ of universal gravitation. For this was the invariable*
* As first pointed out by Hall [2].
^ Though David Gregory evidently formed a different impression on his visit to
Newton at Cambridge in M ay 1694:
‘I saw a manuscript [written] before the year 1669 (the year when its author M r
Newton was made Lucasian Professor of Mathematics) where all the foundations of his
philosophy are laid: namely the gravity of the M oon to the Earth, and of the planets to
the Sun. And in fact all these even then are subjected to calculation. I also saw in that
manuscript the principle of equal times of a pendulum suspended between cycloids,
before the publication of H uygens’ Horologium Oscillatorium.' (University Library,
Edinburgh, Gregory C43, quoted in translation, Correspondence, vol. iii, p. 332.)
Since there » a paper on cycloidal pendulums in the Portsmouth Collection (M S. IVb)
written in the same hand, and on the same size of paper as M S . IVa, it seems very prob­
able that the latter was the manuscript referred to by Gregory in the above passage.
4 A G A I N S T THE MOON ’ S MOTION 73
meaning of the phrase elsewhere in the same and other letters of the
correspondence. ^
Admittedly, the fact that this paper contains no trace of the concept of
universal gravitation does not prove that Newton had not entertained
such a notion prior to its composition. As Hall rightly remarks: ‘With
Newton, however, the argument from silence is never s tr o n g ,O n the
other hand, the continual reference to endeavour from the centre in
circular motion, and the absence of any reference to centripetal force is
in striking, and I think significant, contrast to the position in the
Principia. For there the terms centrifugal force, conatus, or endeavour
from the centre, nowhere appear in Newton’s treatment of orbital
motion in Books I and III .3 Instead the emphasis throughout is on
centripetal force in its capacity of drawing a body away from its natural,
inertial path along the tangent, and forcing it to follow its actual curved
orbit about the centre of force. This approach to the problem of orbital
motion is particularly evident in the discussion of gravitation in terms of
the moon’s motion about the Earth at the beginning of Book III. One
seems forced to conclude that if Newton really intended to give Halley
the impression that this paper implied not only an interest in the prob­
lem of planetary motions, as it certainly did, but also an understanding
of that problem including a knowledge of the ‘duplicate proportion’
of universal gravitation and its application to the motion of the moon,
then he was apparently following a line of argument quite different from
that found in the Principia presented to the Royal Society a short time
previously.'^
Given that this paper contained no explicit evidence for a knowledge
of the inverse square law of gravitation, and that Newton seems scarcely
to have been justified in giving the impression that it implied such a
knowledge, why then did he make no mention of the early test of the
law of gravitation referred to in the accounts of Whiston, Pemberton,
and Newton himself? One possible explanation, of course, would be that
there was no such test apart from the somewhat inaccurate comparison of
' For example, in the letter of 27 M ay (twice), of 20 June (three times), 14 July
(once), 27 July (once).
2 Hall [2].
2 This, however, unfortunately does not prove that Newton had entirely given up the
concept of conatus. There are the references to this concept in New ton’s discussion of
absolute motion in the Scholium to the laws of motion. See above. Chapter 3, p. 62.
* But it must be remembered that the first test of the law of gravitation was
possibly based on the notion of a balance between the inward pull of the Earth and an
equal and opposite outward conatus of the moon. See above. Chapter 3, p. 59.
 74 T E S T S OF THE LA W OF G R A VI T AT IO N
the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth to the moon’s endeavour
to recede from the Earth contained in MS. IVa. In that case one has
to assume that both the reported use of 6o miles to a degree at the surface
of the Earth, and the method of determining the law of centrifugal
force referred to in the Portsmouth Draft Memorandum were figments of
Newton’s imagination. For the measure of the Earth’s radius employed
in MS. IVa was the same as that employed in MS. I ll, in turn derived
by Newton from Galileo’s Dialogue^ and though it happens to differ
little from 6o miles of 5000 feet to a degree at the surface of the Earth,*
this seems no reason for supposing that Newton would have confused the
two measures. Likewise the method of deriving the law of centrifugal
force in MS. IVa, based on the use of the ‘deviation’ as a measure of the
endeavour to recede from the centre together with an application of
Newton’s extension of Galileo’s P law of falling bodies, could never be
confused with the polygonal approach to the same problem begun in the
Waste Book and completed in the proof at the end of the Scholium to
Prop. IV, Theor. IV, of the Principia.
On the other hand, if we reject this possibility, and assume that there
was a true test of the inverse square law during the Plague Years, it is
then hardly surprising that Newton made no mention of it in his cor­
respondence with Halley. For it is evident he was looking for dated
evidence— ^witness his emphasis on the letter of 23 June 1673 to Olden­
burg— and the original calculations of the first test, even if still extant in
1686, would probably have been undated— like almost all early Newton
dynamical manuscripts including MS. IVa— and therefore of no help in
establishing a watertight case against Hooke.
In the absence of further evidence, especially of any documentary
evidence of the calculations of the first test, or of the original of the proof
given at the end of the Scholium to Prop. IV, Theor. IV, of the Principia,
it is impossible to make a definite choice between these two possibilities.
On the one hand, the assumption that there was no true test of the law
of gravitation during the Plague Years argues for a degree of duplicity
on Newton’s part, both in casual conversations with Whiston and
Pemberton (in the latter case long after Hooke’s death), and in his
unpublished account in the Portsmouth Draft Memorandum, difficult to
credit even allowing for a continued desire to establish his indepen­
dence of Hooke in the matter of universal gravitation. On the other
* A radius for the Earth of 3500 Italian miles of 5000 feet gives one degree at the
equator equal to 6 1 -i miles.
4 A G A I N S T THE MOON’ S MOTION 75
hand, it seems possible, even probable, that Newton was guilty of some
doubtful pleading in his letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley, reminding us
forcibly of Hooke’s bitter entry in his diary on 15 February 1688/9:
At Halys met Newton— ^vainly pretended claim yet acknowledged my
information. Interest has no conscience. . . .
On the basis of Pemberton’s account it has generally been assumed
that Newton made his first successful test of the law of gravitation based
on Picard’s figure for the dimensions of the earth in 1679, following
Hooke’s intervention. In that case, given his successful solution to the
problems posed by Kepler’s first two laws of planetary motion, it is
certainly extraordinary that he should have lost interest in dynamics
again till the time of Halley’s first visit to Cambridge in May 1684.*
There is, however, one aspect of Pemberton’s account in flat contra­
diction with other, more trustworthy evidence, namely his statement
that having discovered the proposition relating to motion in an ellipse
Newton went on to compose nearly a dozen propositions relating to the
motion of the primary planets about the sun, the Principia being com­
posed from scarce any other material than those few propositions in the
space of one year and a half. For elsewhere Newton himself stated that
the Principia was entirely composed between December 1684 and May
1686 apart from two propositions discovered in December 1679, and
twelve discovered in June and July 1684. The twelve propositions in
question fit remarkably well with the contents of the tract de Motu^
which was thus most probably composed by Newton around June and
July 1684 following Halley’s first visit in May of that year. The likeli­
hood of an error in Pemberton’s account at this point thus makes it
permissible to doubt his assertion that Newton made his successful test
of the law of gravitation in 1679. In that case the most probable alterna­
tive date would be in 1684 or 1685, at some time following Halley’s
visit in May 1684. In fact, from Conduit’s account^ we know that
Newton was unable to find the proposition of 1679 on the occasion of
Halley’s visit. After Halley had left he would very probably have made a
further careful search through all his old papers in dynamics for the
missing proposition, and it may have been in the course of this search
that he came across the paper containing the calculations of his first test
of the law of gravitation during the Plague Years. If he had reworked
these using Picard’s figure the resulting excellent agreement between
' A s opposed to August. See below, Chapter 6.4, p. 97.
^ See below, Chapter 6.4, p. 96. ^ Given in Brewster [i] vol. i, p. 297.
76 T E S T S OF THE LAW OF GR A V I T A T I O N
theory and observation would have given him just the stimulus he needed
to rework the 1679 proposition, and then carry his dynamics through to
their final completion— as we know he did.
In any case, it seems reasonably certain that the successful test was
carried out before the summer of 1685^ at the latest, for in Version III
of the tract de Motu, in the penultimate paragraph of the Scholium to
Prob. 5 we find the following:
Nam virium centripetarum species una est gravitas: et computanti mihi prodijt
vis centripeta qua luna nostra detinetur in motu suo menstrua circa terram, ad vim
gravitatis his in superficie terrae, reciproce ut quadrata distantiarum a centra
terrae quamproxime.
* See below, Chapter 6.4, pp. 97-102, for a discussion of the date of composition of
Version II I of the tract de M otu (M S. IXc).
T H E M O T I O N OF E X T E N D E D B O D I E S
5.1. K inem atical A spects
T he first dynamical entries in the Waste Book deal only with the move­
ment, in modern parlance, of a mass-point or particle, or an extended
body devoid of rotation. But knowing Newton’s powerful drive to­
wards greater generality it is not surprising to find that he soon turns
his attention to the general motion of extended bodies. His first recon­
naissance into this new territory is based on the concept of centre of
motion (or rotation) as a point ‘which rests when a body is moved with
any circular but not progressive motion’h and on a peculiar criterion for
determining whether one body can be said to move towards another,
namely, that a body is said to move towards another body either when
all its parts move towards it, or else when some of its parts have more
movement towards it than others have from it.^ This criterion is but an
ansatz, and soon exhausts its usefulness, though its free creation by
Newton reminds us that his genius comprised both that of the pure and
the applied mathematician, whereas the concept of centre of motion
continues to play a central role until it finally coalesces with the other,
dynamical centre of motion in his treatment of the collision of two
rotating bodies. ^
From this criterion it follows that a line rotating about its mid-point
has no progressive motion, for the movement of any point of it towards
any fixed line is exactly balanced by the opposite motion of the mirror
points away from the same.'^ It follows likewise that when the centre of
motion (or rotation) is not at the mid-point ‘the whole line moves the
same way which the longest part doth’.s Also that if a line rotates but
has no progressive motion (in the sense of Def. 12) its centre of motion
must coincide with its middle point.^ And ‘by the same reason the middle
point of a parallelogram, parallelipiped, prism, cylinder, etc. (are at the)
centre of their motion’.
Having made a beginning of the study of the pure rotation of an
extended body he next considers the translational motion of such a body.
The simplest case is that in which the body is moved parallel to itself
J M S . lie , Def. 10. ^ Ibid., Def. 12. 3 M S . V . §§ 9, 10.
4 M S . Ild , A x. ir. 5 Ibid., Ax. 12. ^ Ibid., A x. 13.
’ Ibid., Ax. 14a.
78 THE MOTION OF EXTENDED BODIES 5.1
(pure translation) when all its points describe parallel lines each with the
same determination and velocity as that of the body as a whole. * But if
the body moves both ‘straightly forward and circularly’ its centre of
motion has the same determination and velocity as the body.’ For
example, any motion of a line (in a plane) may be compounded of a
certain pure translation of the line parallel to itself followed by a rotation
about its middle point. In the first movement the determination of the
motion coincides with that of the mid-point, i.e. the centre of motion.
In the second there is no progressive motion (by Ax. 11). A reference to
Ax. 17 and the corresponding diagram will show that Newton’s proof of
the result is identical with the modern proof.
In the general case where the progressive part of the motion is no
longer restricted to be rectilinear but is in any ‘crooked line’ the centre
of motion has the same determination and velocity as the body.^ For
this has been proved true in the special case (Ax. 17), and a ‘crooked line’
may be thought of as made up of an infinite number of straight lines.
Alternatively, at any point of the ‘crooked line’ the motion may be con­
ceived to be along the tangent line.
Unlike the case of translational velocity, for which a quantitative
measure has been given, his treatment of circular movement has so far
been entirely qualitative. A quantitative measure of the concept of circular
movement remains to be given; this is found in MS. V where he states
that ‘the angular quantity of a body’s circular motion and velocity is more
or less accordingly as the body makes one revolution in more [or] less
time . . .’.5 The rule for resolving angular velocity is also given in the
same paper.^ Another kinematical result relating to rotational motion is
found in Prop. 38 of the Waste Book.
5 .2 . C entre of M otion in the D ynam ical S ense
We have already noticed Newton’s definition of centre of motion in
the kinematical sense as a point ‘which rests when a body is moved with
any circular but not progressive motion’. Elsewhere in the Waste Book
he uses the same term in another quite distinct, dynamical sense. This
’ M S . Ild , A x. 14b. ^ Ibid., A x. 17. ^ Ibid., A x. 18.
* Evidently the (Archimedean) notion of approximating to a curve by a set of broken
lines was second nature to Newton. It was also one of the most powerful instruments of
his dynamical method as used, for example, in his earliest treatment of centrifugal
force or in his proof of the proposition corresponding to Kepler’s second law. Charac­
teristic too is his method of proceeding from the simple (motion in a straight line) to
the complex (motion in a curved line).
5 Loc. cit., § 5. * Ibid., § 6.
5.2 THE MOTION OF EXTENDED BODIES 79
centre of motion is first defined as a point such that if the body be
rotating about an axis through it there will be the same quantity of
motion on both sides of any plane through this axis.^ It is probable that
this definition dated from a period when Newton still measured circular
movement in terms of quantity of motion, not having developed the
concept of endeavour away from the centre on which the following,
final definition of centre of motion in the dynamical sense is based:
‘in every body there is a certain point called its centre of motion about
which if the body be anyway circulated the endeavours of its parts every
way from the centre are exactly counter poised by opposite endeavours’.2
He has therefore introduced a notion of dynamical balance similar to
that found in practical applications of the theory of rotating bodies. In
fact, if one slightly amends Newton’s definition to read ‘the endeavours
of its parts every way from the axis of rotation’ then it easily follows that
the point in question must coincide with the centre of mass or gravity
of the body in question,^ a result well known to be necessary if the bear­
ings are to be free of periodic forces due to the rotation of the body. It
is interesting to note that on occasion Newton first uses the term centre
of gravity replacing it later by centre of motion.^ It is as if he had divined
that the two points are identical. And as usual his physical intuition is
correct.
On the other hand, it is possible that both this interchangeable use of
the terms centre of motion and centre of gravity and the final definition
of centre of motion originally arose from his consideration of the centre of
motion of a pair of bodies. This he defines as a point so placed between
the bodies that if it be thought to rest and the bodies circulate around
it any way they shall have equal quantities of motion.^ This is clearly
based on the definition of centre of motion given in the immediately
preceding paragraph. But he later ‘proves’ that the centre of motion for
the pair of bodies as thus defined is at a point dividing the line joining
their respective centres of motion in the inverse proportion of their
quantities (i.e. their masses).^ For if the bodies circulate around this
point always keeping opposite one another, they will have equal
motions, and consequently equal endeavours from a\ so that if they be
joined to a ‘the one hinders the other from forcing the centre any way
so that it shall stand in equilibrio between them and (by Def. 10) is
* M S . lie , Def. 10. 2 M S . V , § 4. 2 See M S . V , n. 8.
* For example, in Def. 10 of M S . lie . 5 Ibid., Def. i i .
^ M S . Ild , A x. 25. ’ See Fig. lo to M S . Ild .
80 THE MOTION OF EXTENDED BODIES
therefore their centre of motion’. The reference to Def. lo implies that
he is here thinking of the centre of motion more in the kinematical sense
as a point ‘which rests when a body is moved with any circular but not
progressive motion’.
Thus in this proof of the equivalence of the centre of gravity of two
bodies and their common centre of motion we have at once a peculiar
mixture of centres of motion in the kinematical and dynamical senses,
and also what seems to be a bridge between the original dynamical defi­
nition in terms of quantity of motion and the final definition in terms of
endeavour.
But although his thinking on the question is obviously still provisional
and heuristic yet his thought is always extraordinarily clear. Like good
philosophy it is meaningful and persuasive even where one cannot follow
every detail of the argument. And always his dynamical intuition is
leading him towards the right goal, that final identification of the kine­
matical and dynamical centres of motion found in MS. V.
Having thus defined the centre of motion of a pair of bodies Newton
proceeds to prove a number of theorems relating to the motion of this
point. These theorems provide a remarkable example of his drive to­
wards ever-increasing generalization. First he proves that the centre of
motion of a pair of non-colliding bodies moving uniformly in one plane
itself describes a straight line, ^and with uniform velocity.^ Then he proves
that the same result holds when the lines of motion of the two bodies
are no longer coplanar.^ Finally he shows that the result is unaffected
by collision.4 The proof of the last theorem assumes that the quantities
of motion of two bodies relative to their centre of gravity are equal and
opposite, a generalization^ of the special case where the centre of motion
is stationary,6
After this final result he characteristically notes^ that he is now able
to find the position of the centre of motion of the two bodies at any time,
and since their distance apart is also known the two spheres on which
the bodies must lie at any instant are known, so that ‘there wants there­
fore only their determination to be known that their places in the sphere
be found’.^ A good example of Newton’s tendency to give an exact for­
mulation of the solution in principle to some general problem.
Newton’s discussion in the Waste Book of the centre of motion of a
M S . Ilf, Prop. 28. ^ Ibid., Prop. 30. Ibid., Prop. 29.
Ibid., Prop. 31 , 2. 5 Given without proof.
M S . Ilf, Prop. 27, ’ Immediately after Prop. 32. 8 Ibid.
5.2 5.3 THE MOTION OF EXTENDED BODIES 81
pair of bodies ends with the case in which the two bodies are attached
to a weightless rod lying perpendicular to the direction of motion of a
third, impinging body.^ In this case although the attached bodies them­
selves will no longer describe straight lines, but will check one another
and thus describe ‘crooked lines (perhaps Troichoides)’, yet their
centre of motion will continue serenely to describe a straight line as
when the bodies simply rested on the rod, and with the same speed.
It is clear, then, that at this early stage Newton had already divined
the dynamical importance of the centre of motion ( = centre of gravity)
of a pair of bodies moving under some sort of mutual interaction. So that
we see shadowed forth, as it were, the role which the centre of mass of
the Solar System will play later in the Principia.
5.3 . D ynam ics of a S ingle R otating B ody
We have already noticed Newton’s semi-quantitative definition of the
angular velocity of a rotating body.^ Now we are concerned with the
dynamical aspect of such motion. One must, says Newton, distinguish
between the angular quantity of a body’s circular motion and velocity,
and the real quantity of such motion which is ‘more or less accordingly
as the body has more or less power and force to persevere in that motion’.^
Which real quantity of circular motion divided by the body’s bulk (i.e.
mass) is the real quantity of its circular velocity. But how can a quantita­
tive measure be assigned to this real quantity of circular motion? By the
following method whose beauty is matched only by its inevitability.
Suppose, says Newton, that the body is rotating about an axis E F (MS.
V, Fig. 3) and let it strike a second, spherical body of equal bulk so
placed that it captures all the motion of the rotating body. ‘Then hath
the globe gotten the same quantity of progressive motion and velocity
which the other had of circular.’ Newton attaches special importance to
the distance between the axis of rotation E F and the line of motion of
the centre of the sphere, terming it the ‘radius of circulation’. A simple
analysis'^ based on application of conservation of momentum, angular
momentum about the point of contact, and energy reveals that Newton’s
‘radius of circulation’ equals the radius of gyration, k, of the rotating body
about EF, and that the real quantity of circular velocity, equal by defini­
tion to the velocity of the sphere, is kw where co was the original angular
velocity of the rotating body.
' M S Ilf, Prop. 37. See above, end of § i of present chapter.
3 M S . V , § 5. See M S . V , n. 16.
8.'^820r>
82 THE MOTION OF EXTENDED BODIES 5.3
These three quantities, real quantities of circular motion and velocity,
and radius of circulation later play a vital role in Newton’s solution to
the problem of the collision between two rotating bodies. ^
Combination of circular motions
Imagine a body rotating with angular velocity^ R about an axis A C
acted on by a new force which if applied alone would cause the body to
rotate about another axis CB with angular velocity S. Newton then gives
a rule for finding the new axis of rotation of the body and its angular
velocity about it. Although the rule only holds if the moments of inertia
of the body about the three axes in question are equal, it is interesting
for the indication it affords of Newton’s realization of the vector nature
of angular momentum.
Free rotation of an extended body
In § 8 of the same MS. V Newton gives a wonderfully just physical
appreciation of the free rotation of an extended body. In the first place
every such body keeps the same real quantity of circular motion so
long as it remains undisturbed. This is the principle of inertia for rota­
ting bodies. Moreover, it continues to rotate about the same axis which
always remains parallel to itself provided the endeavours of its four
quarters away from the axis of rotation balance. This condition is
obviously necessary though apparently not sufficient. But if this balance
does not obtain then although there will be a tendency for the body to
draw ever nearer to such a balance it will never actually attain to it.
And as the actual axis of rotation moves continually in the body, so it will
also move continually space some kind of ‘spiral motion’, always
drawing nearer and nearer to a ‘centre of parallelism with itself’ but
never attaining it. ‘Nay ’tis so far from ever keeping parallel to itself
that it shall never be twice in the same position.’
It is to be regretted that Newton did not proceed to give a quantitative
treatment of this problem. It is clear that his unerring intuition had led
him to an almost perfect physical appreciation of the problem.
5 .4 . C ollision b e t w e e n T wo R otating B odies
We consider next Newton’s treatment of the problem of the collision
of two rotating bodies, beginning with the special case where one body
is immobile. It is likely that this special case, found towards the end of
' In §§ 9, l o of M S . V . ^ See Fig. 5 to M S . V.
5.4 THE MOTION OF EXTENDED BODIES 83
the dynamical writings in the Waste Book, represented Newton’s first
orientation towards the much more difficult general problem.
One body immobile
A spherical body colliding at right angles with an immobile plane will
be reflected back along its original path, the pressures on each side of the
vertical through the centre being equal and so producing no tendency
to motion on one side or the other of the vertical.^
If a body collides at one corner with an immovable plane its motion
parallel to the plane will be unaffected by the collision.^ From the dis­
cussion it is clear Newton had in mind a smooth plane such that a body
‘might slide upon it without losing any motion’.
In the case just considered all the points in the body in the line Op
perpendicular to the plane through the point of contact O shall move
away from the plane immediately after impact with the same velocity
they had before impact.^ This result follows from the facH that in rotary
motion all the points of any line (and in particular Op) have the same
velocity in the direction of this line, together with the assumption that
the velocity of the point of contact from the plane immediately after
impact is the same as that towards the plane immediately before.
Both bodies rotating
Owing to the unfamiliar manner of his approach Newton’s treatment
of this problem in §§ 9 and 10 of MS. V is at first sight incomprehensible.
However, by solving the problem by modern methods and then expressing
everything in terms of the parameters used by Newton in § 5 of the
same manuscript his solution may be shown to be correct.^ It remains,
therefore, to consider the method by which he arrived at it. Here there
are two distinct factors, his assumption that the relative velocity of the
two points of contact merely changes its sign as a result of the collision,
and his method of distributing the resulting change in relative velocity
among the translational and real angular velocity components of the two
points of contact.
There is no indication of the origin of the first assumption. But know­
ing Newton’s invariable habit of passing from the simple to the complex
we can be fairly confident that he derived it by direct generalization
' M S . Ilf, Prop. 33. * Ibid., Prop. 39. ^ Ibid., Prop. 40.
* Proved in Prop. 38. 5 See M S . V , n. 22.
84 THE MOTION OF EXTENDED BODIES 5.4
from the case of the head-on collision of two elastic spheres considered
in the Waste Book.^
No indication is given either of the origin of his method of distri­
bution based on factors of easiness or difficulty of change of the four
distinct velocities in question. As to the factors themselves, for a given
impulse P acting on the body of quantity (— mass) A the change in
translational velocity will be
p
8F = _^,
SO that for given P, SF is proportional to ijA.
Again, the same impulse P acting at the point B will produce a change
in angular velocity SQ given by
P F = AG^ SQ,
so that the real quantity of angular velocity D — GO. will change by an
amount
8D =
AG'
For given P the change in D is therefore proportional to FjAG.
These are the factors given by Newton. He could well have arrived
at the first factor in much the same way as given here, but failing a
knowledge of the principle of angular momentum he must have derived
the second factor by some general argument: clearly the greater F the
greater the change produced in the angular velocity, and so on. . . .
Given the various resistance factors it remains to decide on the proper
distribution formula. The one given by Newton has the double advantage
of being not only the simplest formula imaginable, but also the correct
one. Having provided this impressive proof of his dynamical genius,
Newton proceeds to draw on all the preceding sections of the paper
(apart from the first) to present the solution in principle to the problem
of the collision of two rotating bodies.
The next section entitled ‘Some Observations about Motion’ is in the
hand of Newton’s friend John Wickins. Newton, however, was almost
certainly the author. It shows how clearly he had understood the con­
ditions actually governing collisions between rotating bodies in practice
as opposed to the ideal conditions assumed in §§ 9 and 10.
5 .5 . D iscussion in L ater R esearches
Among the early researches we have noticed the remarkable set of
theorems relating to the motion of the centre of gravity of a pair of moving
^ See M S . lid , A x. lo.
5.5 THE MOTION OF EXTENDED BODIES 85
bodies.^ We have also noticed Newton’s development of the concept of
centre of motion in the dynamical sense culminating in his use of this
concept in his solution to the problem of the collision of two rotating
bodies. Moreover, his interehangeable use of the two terms, and his proof
of their equivalence in the case of two bodies, would seem to indicate
that he had divined that they were identical in the case of a single body
also.
After the early researches there is no trace of either concept before
Version 3 of the tract de Motu (MS. IXc). In Law 4 of that work he states
that the communal centre of gravity of a set of mutually interacting bodies
maintains its state of rest or motion with uniform velocity in a straight
line. In the lectures de Motu this law becomes Corollary 4 to the laws of
motion, the proof supplied being based on a generalization of the result
for two bodies previously derived in the Waste Book. But whereas there
it was presumably derived by Newton with no particular aim in view,
but simply as an application of his new-found facility in dynamics, in
Version 3 of the tract de Motu we have a clear indication of the physical
motivation behind its introduction. For in the Scholium to Theorem 4
of that paper Newton notes that the centre of gravity of the solar system
will either be at rest or move uniformly in a straight line, thus providing
a proof a priori of the Copernican system.
The concept of centre of motion in the dynamical sense found in
Newton’s treatment of rotating bodies in MS. V plays no part in the
Principia. But very remarkably, and significantly, it appears in the
original Definition 3 of MS. X L There Newton defines the centrum
materiae as the intersection of two axes of the body, an axis having
previously been defined (Def. 2) as a line about which the body can
revolve in free space maintaining always the same position relative to
the parts of the body. This axis is clearly the same as that referred to in
§ 8 of MS. V, and the centre the same as the centre of motion defined in
§ 4 of that work. Moreover, Newton notes that the centre of matter as
thus defined will coincide with the centre of gravity provided the latter
is calculated according to the masses rather than the magnitude of the
various parts of the body.
Thus Newton explicitly confirms in MS. X I that identification of the
two points, centre of motion and centre of gravity, previously hinted at
in MS. V and in the Waste Book. The presence of these two Definitions
2 and 3 in the original version of MS. X I thus provides a remarkable
* See § 2 above.
86 THE MOTIO N OF EXTENDED BODIES 5.5
example of the continuity and persistence of Newton’s thought in dyna­
mics between the early and later researches.
Apart from the reference to axes and centre of matter in Definitions
2 and 3 there is no further reference to rotating bodies in the lectures
de Motu. Nor is there any indication of any further development of
Newton’s thought on this topic in the Principia itself. On the contrary,
his erroneous treatment of the precession of the equinoxes^ would seem
to point to a definite retrogression in his thought on this subject com­
pared with the original treatment of it in the problem of the collision of
two rotating bodies. There is, however, a very interesting reference to
rotation at the end of his enunciation of the principle of inertia in MS.
Xa: there he continues
Motus autem uniformis hie est duplex^ progresswus secundum lineam rectam
quam corpus centro suo aequabilite lato descrihit et circularis circa axem suum
quemvis qui vel quiescit vel motu uniformi latus semper manet positionibus suis
prioribus parallelus.
It would seem, therefore, that originally Newton had in mind a prin­
ciple of inertial rotatory motion besides that of translatory motion.
' See Book 3, Prop. 39, Prob. 20, Principia (3rd ed.).
O R D E R OF C O M P O S I T I O N A N D D A T I N G
OF M A N U S C R I P T S
T he relative degree of certainty attainable in the following discussion is
inevitably subject to great variation; at some points the true order of
composition of the manuscripts is unmistakable, at others no more than
probable, while the almost total lack of dated entries renders the question
of dating much more uncertain than the order of composition. Thus it is
not claimed that the order of composition and dating here suggested is
other than uncertain, though I think it is the most probable one in the
light of the evidence considered. If further evidence becomes available
it may, of course, at some points invalidate, or perhaps strengthen, the
order here suggested.
Newton’s dynamical manuscripts prior to the composition of the
Principia fall into two distinct sets; the first set comprises the earliest
manuscripts, all most probably composed before Newton’s letter of
23 lune 1673 to Huygens, and the majority almost certainly much earlier;
the second set comprises the remaining manuscripts, one possibly
dating from the winter of 1679-80, and the remainder all probably
written between May 1684 and the summer of 1685. Given the gap be­
tween these two sets, nothing is lost by regarding them as independent,
and they will therefore be treated separately in sections 6.1, 6.2 and
6.3, 6.4 respectively. The topics treated in the last two sections also
refer to the later manuscripts but could not conveniently be included
in sections 6.3, 6.4.
6.1. O rder of C om position of E arliest M anuscripts
Given its unmistakable medieval flavour, and the serious qualitative
discussion of the old problem 'a quo moveantur projecta\ there can be
no doubt that the passage ‘On Violent Motion’ in MS. I preceded all
the dynamical writings in MS. II with their recognizably ‘modern’
approach to dynamics firmly based on the principle of inertia and quanti­
tative measures for motion and force. The same is then presumably true
of the small number of other dynamical entries in MS. I.
Internal evidence^ points unmistakably towards the following order
• See para. 3 of general introduction to M S . II. It is reproduced here for complete­
ness’ sake.
 88 ORDER OF CO M P O S IT I O N AND 6.1
of composition in MS. II; Def. 1-14, Ax.-Prop. 1-26, Ax. 100-122,
Ax.-Prop. 27-40. Given that the order of composition for these entries
corresponds to their order of entering in the Waste Book, it is then
natural to assume this is true also for the remaining entries on folios 1,10,
and 38 respectively. No internal contradiction results from this assump­
tion for the last pair of entries; in fact in both cases there is some sup­
porting evidence. P'or the calculations on folio 10 are restricted to the
specially simple case of totally inelastic collisions, whereas the physical
discussion in Ax.-Prop. 7-10 deals with the much more difficult case
of perfectly or partly elastic collisions. Again, the entries on resolution of
velocity and composition of motions on folio 38 are the first to treat
of these topics in the Waste Book, and follow the preceding dynamical
entries on folio 15 after a considerable gap. Lacking further evidence it is
therefore reasonable to assume that the most probable order of com­
position of the entries on folios 10 and 38 is given by their position of entry
in the Waste Book. A similar assumption, however, cannot be made for the
treatment of circular motion on folio i which evidently came after the first
tentative discussion of the problem in Ax.-Prop. 20. Striking confirma­
tion of this is provided by the alteration of the figures 4-]- in Ax.-Prop.
24 to 6 - f , corresponding to the exact result 2 tt obtained in folio i.
As noted previously,^ the peculiar formula of MS. I l l may be
derived from a result obtained on folio i by an immediate application of
the Merton Rule. Even if it cannot be absolutely certain that this w^as
the actual method of derivation employed by Newton, nevertheless the
fact of the derivation itself can scarcely be in doubt. In particular, it
seems inconceivable that Newton would have accidentally directed
attention in both cases to so ‘odd’ a time as that for circular motion
through a distance equal to the radius. MS. I l l must therefore be
placed after folio i of MS. II.
The position of MS. IVa after MS. I l l is likewise certain. This rests
on the values employed in these manuscripts for the rate of fall under
gravity. Originally, on the left-hand side of MS. I ll, Newton employed
a wildly erroneous figure about half the true value. Later, on the right-
hand side of the same manuscript, he recalculated the rate of fall arriv­
ing at a figure of 196 inches of fall from rest in one second. This agrees
almost exactly with the figure of 16 ft of fall in one second employed in
MS. IVa, so that we can be certain that MS. IV followed the completion
of MS. III.
‘ See above, Chapter 1.2, p. 10.
6.1 DA TI N G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 89
MS. IVa is particularly memorable for its explicit statement of the
dependence of centrifugal force on the radius and period of revolution
of the motion— that is, for the law of centrifugal force. Although MS.
IVa as a whole must have been composed after MS. I ll, there is good
evidence that the law of centrifugal force was discovered by Newton
sometime between the calculations of centrifugal force on the left-hand
side of MS. I ll, and the calculations of the rate of fall due to gravity
on the right-hand side. In the first place, it seems very unlikely that if
Newton had already been in possession of the law of centrifugal force
he would have based his calculations of centrifugal force on the left-
hand side of the manuscript exclusively on the formula. At least
one application of the '^R', or equivalent, formula is certainly necessary
to compare the force of gravity with a given centrifugal force; there­
after, however, the law of centrifugal force provides a far more con­
venient method of comparing other centrifugal forces with the original
one and thus with the force of gravity. This is precisely the method em­
ployed in MS. IVa. It seems probable, therefore, that the discovery of
the law of centrifugal force followed the calculations on the left-hand side
of MS. III. That it preceded the calculations on the right-hand side of
the same manuscript is made probable by the use of this law (at 2.4) to
compare the centrifugal forces due to the annual and diurnal motions
of the Earth. This single use of the law of centrifugal force in MS. I l l
may well point to its first employment by Newton. His subsequent use
of the result obtained for the above ratio is equally interesting. He com­
bines it with the figure 144 for the ratio of the force of gravity to the
centrifugal force due to the diurnal motion. This figure, however, is
based on the original, erroneous value for the rate of fall under gravity.
It would thus seem probable that this particular application of the law
of centrifugal force was made not only after the original calculations on
the left-hand side but before the calculations on the right-hand side. The
actual position of the calculation itself, in the ‘middle’ of the manu­
script, ‘between’ the two sets of calculations, supports this interpretation.
The position of Newton’s first test of the law of gravitation relative
to M SS. HI and IVa must now be considered. This test must have been
based on a figure of around 16 ft of fall per second under gravity as
opposed to the figure about half that value employed originally in MS.
I ll ; otherwise the disagreement between theory and observation would
have been intolerably large. So that we can be certain that if there were
a test it must have taken place after the commencement of MS. III.
90 ORDER OF CO M P O S IT I O N AND
While its position relative to MS. IVa is less certain it is perhaps rather
more likely to have taken place after the composition of that manuscript.
For although MS. IVa contains a comparison between the force of gravity
and the conatm recedendi of the moon from the Earth, and a deduction
via Kepler’s Third Law of the inverse square dependence of the conati
of the planets from the sun, any reference to a force of gravity on the
moon towards the Earth, or on the planets towards the sun, or of universal
gravitation, is conspicuously absent. It is as if the one thing absent from
a stage entirely set for its reception w^ere the notion of universal gravita­
tion itself. On the other hand, as Hall has rightly remarked in discussing
this curious absence of any reference to universal gravitation in MS. IV a :
‘With Newton the argument from silence is never strong’, and it could
well be that MS. IVa was composed after the test, any reference to
universal gravitation having been intentionally suppressed in a paper
quite possibly originally intended for publication. On the other hand,
the chances of MS. IVa having been composed after the first test are
somewhat improved if we allow for the possibility that this test may have
been based on the notion of a balance between a centrifugal force out­
wards and a gravitational pull inwards. ^ If MS. IVa were composed
before the test, then the original discovery of the law of centrifugal
force in the ‘middle’ of MS. I l l would most probably have resulted
from the treatment of circular motion in MS. IVa, as opposed to its
presumably distinct derivation by the ‘polygonal’^ method just prior to
the test itself.
Just as M SS. I l l and IVa must be regarded as the continuation of
the original discussion of circular motion in MS. II, so MS. V must
be regarded as both a resume and extension of certain other subjects
treated in the same manuscript. For example, the true method of resolu­
tion of velocity in § 2 of MS. V must be compared with the erroneous
method given at folio 38 of MS. I I ; the law of composition of independent
motions in § 3 corresponds to the first enunciation of the same law on
folio 38; the definition of centre of motion in § 4 is a final form of the
earlier drafts in Ax.-Prop. 11-18. Finally, the solution to the problem
of the collision of two extended, rotating bodies in §§ 9, 10, represents
the culmination of the discussion of collisions at various points of MS.
II, especially that of the collision between one moving and one stationary,
extended body in Ax.-Prop. 39; this proposition gives every indication
of representing Newton’s first orientation towards his treatment of
' See above, Chapter 3, p. 59. ^ See above, Chapter 1.2, pp. 8 - 1 1.
6.1 6.1 DATING OF M A N U S C R I P T S 91
the completely general collision problem. MS. V must therefore be placed
after Ax.-Prop. 39 of MS. II.
MS. V I remains to be considered. Given its largely philosophical,
non-technical nature, it is not surprising that there is little or no indica­
tion of its order of composition relative to the other manuscripts. There
are, perhaps, some indications that it was composed, in part at least,
before MS. V ; for example the definition of place in § i of that manu­
script—
There is an uniform extension, space, or expansion continued every way
without bounds: in which all bodies are, each in several parts of it: which parts
of space possessed & adequately filled by them are their places [italics mine]
is reminiscent of Def. i of MS. V I :
Place is that part of space which a thing entirely fills.
Nevertheless, the only really firm indication of the early nature of this
manuscript is provided by the handwriting which places it definitely
among M SS. II-V , and certainly before 1673.
6.2 . D ating of E arliest M anuscripts
The following indications of date for the earliest manuscripts are
available:
1. The various cometary observations between 4 December 1664 and
I April 1665 found among the ‘original’ * entries in MS. I including the
dynamical entries, especially the passage ‘On Violent Motion’. This
would seem to point towards a date of composition for this passage to­
wards the second half of 1664, and in any case before 20 January 1665
given the much more advanced nature of the discussion of collisions in
MS. Ilb.
2. The marginal entry 20 January 1664 [= 1665 N.S.] on folio 10 of
MS. II.
3. //the dependence of the period of a simple pendulum on the square
root of its length, expressed at § 5 of MS. Ila, was taken by Newton
from Galileo’s Discorsi,^ the entries on folio i of MS. II would have
been composed after 1665, the year of publication of Tome II of
Salusbury’s Mathematical Collections, of which Part I contains an English
translation of the Discorsi.^
* A s opposed to abstracts of books.
^ It is found at p. 139 of the Discorsi (ed. Naz.) but not in the Dialogue.
^ T o my knowledge there was no Latin version of the Discorsi prior to Salusbury’s
English translation.
92 ORDER OF C O M P O S IT I O N AND 6.2 6.2 D A TI N G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 93
4. Certain indications of the place and date of the first test of the law profound study of that work on which MS. VI is based was under way
of gravitation. First there is the statement in Pemberton’s account* that towards the second half of 1664. {b) Newton’s proud, but rather juvenile­
The first thoughts, which gave rise to his [Newton’s] Principia, he had sounding claim at p. 16:
when he retired from Cambridge in 1666 on account of the plague. As he sat Et sic plurimorum solidorum turn longitudine turn latitudine infinitorum quanti­
alone in a garden, he fell into a speculation on the power of gravity. tates solidas positive et exacte determinare possum.
Also that Newton took the figure of 60 miles to a degree at the surface would seem to refer to his inverse method of fluxions possibly dis­
of the earth ‘being absent from books’. The statement that Newton was covered in May 1666.* In which case this part of the manuscript would
sitting in a garden when the notion of universal gravitation first entered have been composed after that date.
his head agrees with the various accounts of the story of the falling apple The results obtained for the probable order of composition and dating
of whieh the most circumstantial and compelling is that of Stukeley.^ of the earliest manuscripts are displayed in the following chart.
Aceording to this account Newton was sitting in the shade of the apple MS. I Second half 1664
tree, so that the falling of the apple w'ould seem to point towards late MS. Ilb c. January 1665
summer or autumn. MS. lie.
Again, Newton’s account in the Portsmouth Draft Memorandum^
asserts that the first test took place during the Plague Years. The actual
year intended, 1665 1666, is not absolutely clear, but in the context
of the whole account 1666 seems the more probable candidate. This is
also the year given in the above passage by Pemberton.
MS. Ila MS. Ild-g 1665-6?
On the basis of this evidence it would seem that if a test of the law of
I
gravitation took place during the Plague Years it was certainly away from MS. Ill 1665-6?: < 1669
Cambridge, and probably in the summer or late autumn of 1666 rather I
MS. IVa . . . b MS. V <1669?
than 1665.
MS. VI c. 1665-9?
5. Indications of the date of composition of M SS. IVa, b. According
to Gregory these manuscripts were composed sometime before Newton’s 6.3. O rder of C om position of L ater M anuscripts
election to the Lucasian Chair,^ that is sometime before 1669; while to
Given the uncertainty regarding its early status it will be best to
the best of Newton’s memory MS. IVa was composed eighteen or
consider MS. V III separately.^ The remaining manuscripts^ are then
nineteen years prior to 1686, that is in 1668 or 1667.5
all apparently ‘early’ (i.e. prior to the Principia) and their true order
6. There are no explicit indications of the date of MS. V. But in
of composition can be established with certainty apart from a small
view of what has been said of its order of composition in the preceding
element of doubt in the case of M SS. Xa and Xb.
section it must have been composed after Ax.-Prop. 39 of MS. II, and it
It will be convenient to express certain relations of order between the
seems not improbable that it was composed like M SS. IV before 1669.
manuscripts in equation form by means of the symbols < and = signi­
7. Indications of the dates of composition of MS. VI. {a) Various
fying ‘composed earlier than’ and ‘identical with’ respectively. We then
references to Descartes’s Principia in MS. D make it probable that the
have:
* Given above at Chapter 4, p. 65.
M S. IXa < M S. IXc. (0
^ Given above at Chapter 4, p. 65, n. 7. * See Portsmouth D raft Memorandum reproduced above at Chapter 4, p. 66.
^ Given above at Chapter 4, p. 66. ^ In § 6 of present chapter.
* See Correspondence, vol. iii, p. 332. T h e passage in question is given above in n. 2, 3 Apart from M S . IX b which might have been copied from IXa after the Principia.

p. 72 of Chapter 4. However, there are good reasons for identifying this manuscript with the original of the
See his letter of 14 July 1686 to Halley. propositions carried by Paget from Cambridge to London in 1684. See § 5 of present
See, for example, that at M S . I, § 3. chapter.
94 ORDER OF C OM P OS IT IO N AND 6.3
This is almost inevitable given the more advanced state of dynamical
thought in the second manuscript. It is proved conclusively by a compari­
son of the texts of Prob. 3 in the two manuscripts. These are found to be
identical apart from a certain number of emendations in M S. IX c; in
almost all cases the original text is legible, and is then identical with that
in MS. IXa:
M SS. Xa, b < MS. X I Orig. (2 )
There can be no doubt of this; for example, Def. 1-4 and Def. 9 of
MS. Xa constitute what is evidently a rough preliminary draft of the
finished, and much more detailed, discussion of absolute and relative
space and time in the Scholium to the Definitions at the beginning of
MS. X I Orig., and Def. 5 of MS. Xb is evidently a preliminary draft
of Def. 7-10 of MS. XI Orig.
Prob. 3 MS. IXc = Prob. 3 MS. XI Orig. (3)
Lemma i MS. IXc = Lemma i MS. Xa.
(4 )
Consider next the hypothesis
MS. X I Orig. < MS. IXc. (Hypothesis i)
In that case given equation (3), and the relationship between Prob. 3 in
M SS. IXa and IXc used to establish equation (i), it has to be assumed
that Prob. 3 of MS. IXc was first copied from MS. IXa and then emended
so as to agree with the text of MS. X I Orig. This emendation, though
of course not the original copying from MS. IXa, must necessarily have
been carried out between the date of composition of MS. XI Orig. and its
emendation— that is, sometime before the presentation of the Principia
to the Royal Society in April 1686. So that the possibility of a date of
composition and emendation of MS. IXc as late as 1694 can definitely
be ruled out. This is important, given that M S. IXc may possibly be in
the hand of David Gregory who is known to have visited Newton at
Cambridge in 1694.
If Prob. 3 of MS. IXa was emended in the light of MS. X I Orig.,
then one would have expected all the addenda in MS. IXc compared
with MS. IXa to have been taken from MS. X I Orig. But this is not the
case either for the definitions, laws, or lemmas. On the contrary, both
the definitions and the laws give every sign of being rather distant drafts
of those in MS. X I Orig. For example, there is a reference to vis insita
in Law 2 which is missing from the version in MS. XI Orig. It can be
argued that this omission corresponds to Newton’s ultimate realization
6.3 DATIN G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 95
that no explanation was required for the principle of inertia.' Also,
there is no law in MS. IXc corresponding to the third law in MS. X I
Orig. Finally, and perhaps most conclusive evidence of all against
Hyp. I, there is the identity between Lemma i of MS. IXc and that in
MS. Xa. Since MS. Xa was undoubtedly composed before MS. XI
Orig., we are forced to assume that although Prob. 3 of MS. IXc was
emended in the light of the corresponding proposition in M S. X I Orig.,
nevertheless Lemma i was taken not from the very similar version in
the same manuscript, but from a fragmentary document preceding MS.
X I ! There can therefore be no doubt that Hypothesis i is false, so that
MS. IXc < MS. IX Orig. (5)
This latter equation seems to fit all the evidence.^
The order of MSS. Xa, b relative to each other and to MS. IXc
remains to be considered.
The relative order of M SS. Xa, b cannot be established with certainty.
But what indications there are point towards MS. Xa < MS. Xb. For
example, whereas in (a) there are definitions of locus (7), quies (8), motus
(9), and velocitas (lo), in (b) only the headings are given, as if Newton
were referring to the definitions already given in the other manuscript.
Again Def. 17-19 of (a) reappear neither in (b) nor in M S. X L Finally,
the actual order of the definitions in (b) follows that in MS. XI Orig.
much more closely than does the order in (a). The equation
MS. Xa < MS. Xb (6)
therefore seems probable.
Next, given that the definitions in MS. IXc are less detailed than the
corresponding ones in both MS. Xa, b, and less numerous, and that
MS. Xa contains one law^ not found in MS. IXc, the equation
MS. IXc < MS. X (7)
seems again probable.
Finally a comparison of MS. X I (Emended) with the First Edition of
the Principia proves conclusively that
MS. X I Orig. < First Edition Principia. (8)
* See above, Chapter 1.4, p. 28.
* T h e fact that M S . IXc, unlike M S . X I, contains applications of the results obtained
for elliptical motion to the problem of planetary motion provides a good indication that
M S . X I was always intended as the beginning of a larger work in which the motion of
the planets would find its proper place, as in Book III of the Principia.
^ T h at numbered 3, corresponding to the third law of motion in the Principia.
96 ORDER OF C O M P O S IT I O N AND
This latter equation, in company with equations (i), (2), and (5),
establishes the ‘early’ status of all the manuscripts so far, the probable
order of composition being:
IXa < IXc < Xa < Xb < XI Orig, < First Edition Principia.
6 .4 . D ating of L ater M anuscripts
Newton’s letter of 23 February 1685 to Aston contains the following
well-known passage:
I thank you for entering in your Register my notions about motion. I de­
signed them for you before now, but the examining several things has taken a
greater part of my time than I expected, and a great deal of it to no purpose.
And now I am to go into Lincolnshire for a month or six weeks. Afterwards
I intend to finish it as soon as I can conveniently.
The ‘notions about motion’ referred to in this passage must be those
contained in the paper Isaaci Newtoni Propositiones de Motu, apart from
the Principia the only work of Newton’s on dynamics in the Archives
of the Royal Society. Since this paper represents an emended version
of MS. IXa the latter must have been composed before February 1685,
and possibly considerably earlier, judging by Newton’s statement ‘I
designed them for you before now’.
A possible indication of the actual date of composition is provided by
a document^ originally forming part of the Portsmouth Collection in
which Newton states that the propositions in the Principia were all
composed after the end of December 1684 apart from the ist and n th
of Book I, in December 1679, and the 6th, 7th, 9th, loth, 12th, 13th,
and 17th of Book I, and the ist, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of Book II, in June
and July 1684. Disregarding the order, this list tallies with the problems
and propositions in MS. IXa, apart from Theor. 4 of MS. IXa and
Props. 8, 9, 12, and 13 of Book I. However, Props. 8 and 9 are no more
than special applications of Prop. 6, on the law of force to a given point
under which a body describes a given orbit (— Prop. 3, MS. IXa); and
Props. 12, 13 extend to the case of the hyperbola and parabola what has
already been proved for the case of an ellipse in Prop, i i ( = Prob. 3,
MS. IXa).
The fact that apart from Theor. 4, and the two propositions discovered
by Newton in December 1679, the remaining theorems and problems
of MS. IXa are included among the propositions Newton admitted to
* Reproduced in Brewster [i], vol. i, p. 471. Present whereabouts unknown.
6.3 6.4 DATING OF M A N U S C R I P T S 97
having discovered in June and July 1684 makes it not improbable that
MS. IXa was composed about that time. But in that case what of the
belief that Newton took up his researches in dynamics following
Halley’s visit to him at Cambridge in August 1684?^ Not that there is
any reason to doubt that Halley was responsible for renewing Newton’s
interest in dynamics. But whether or not he paid a visit to Newton in
August 1684,2 there is some evidence that his first, decisive visit took
place in May of that year. This is the month referred to in Conduitt’s
account,3 while Newton himself refers to Halley visiting him in ‘Spring
1684’.4 Again, Halley relates^ that his interest in the subject was aroused
by a discussion with Wren and Hooke in January 1684, and that Wren
promised either of them a book if they found a solution to the problem
of motion in an ellipse within two months. Why then did Halley, having
failed to win the book by March, wait till the following August before
paying his visit to Newton ? It seems more likely that he would have
tried to visit him earlier, for example in May.
T o summarize, in the light of the available evidence it seems most
probable that MS. IXa was composed around June and July 1684
following Halley’s first visit to Newton at Cambridge in May of the
same year.
Given that MS. IXc was composed before MS. X I Orig.,^ and that the
emended version of the latter manuscript is effectively identical,^ as
far as it goes, with the corresponding part of Book I of the Principia, there
can be no doubt that M S. IXc was composed some considerable time
before the presentation of the Principia to the Royal Society in April
1686, and even possibly before October 1684, the date given on folio i
of MS. XI. Without further investigation, however, it would be dan­
gerous to assume October 1684 preceded the actual date of composition
of MS. X I, as we shall now see.
* A s implied, apparently, by H alley’s letter of 29 June 1686: ‘T h e August following
when I did myself the honour to visit you, I then learnt the good news that you had
brought this demonstration to perfection.’
^ It is just possible that Halley paid three visits to Newton in Cambridge. T h e first
in M ay, the second in August, the third in November. It seems unlikely that Newton
would have given the impression that he had ‘brought the demonstration to perfection’
at the time of the first visit, especially considering he could not then find the original
paper. But he could have given this impression in August after the composition of
Version I of the tract de M otu.
^ Reproduced in Brewster [i], p. 297.
* M S . Add. 3968b, fol. l oi .
® In his letter of 29 June 1686 to Newton.
^ See preceding discussion of order of composition of later manuscripts.
’ Apart, that is, from a number of emendations and insertions, none of great moment.
858205 II
 98 ORDER OF CO M P O S IT I O N AND
MS. X I of the present work forms part of MS. Dd-9-46 C.U .L. The
latter manuscript consists of 102 folios written recto only apart from a
small number of addenda on the verso of certain folios. The folios them­
selves are in a state of great disorder, but after rearrangement they may
be grouped in four sections a, y, each consisting of a number of
propositions, &c., following in unbroken sequence without gaps. MS.
XI consists of a only. and ^2 ^^e at first identical but then diverge.
Either or ^2 could have been the original continuation of a, but the
writing, which is the same in a and and different in points to
having followed a. This is confirmed by the division of a and jSj into a
number of ‘lectures’ by marginal entries not found in ^2- Oo the other
hand, there is no doubt that y followed though like and unlike
^2, it is divided up into a number of ‘lectures’ by marginal entries.
Folios I of a and y are dated Octob. 1684 and 1685 respectively. Finally,
the emended version of a^2 is effectively identical with the correspond­
ing part of Book I of the First Edition of the Principia of which it must
have provided a final draft.
A regulation relating to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics required
Newton to give a course of public lectures each year.* Those from
January 1669 to October 1683 are extant, the number of lectures in
different years varying between three and ten, with ten the most fre­
quent number. So that given the division of and y by marginal
entries into a number of lectures, nine in the first case, ten in the
second,^ there seems no reason to doubt that each represents one course
of Newton’s public lectures. Also considering that the lectures up to
October 1683 are complete, and that there is a set dated September
1687,3 the dates actually given on and y, namely October 1684 and
October 1685, must be regarded as plausible. Nevertheless, two awk­
ward facts bar the way to an easy acceptanee of the correctness of these
dates.
First, as already noted, the presumed set of lectures y follows ^2
rather than /Sj, and this in spite of the fact that the second set was
evidently numbered 10, i i , 12, . . . originally in place of i, 2, . . ., thus
giving the impression that Newton regarded the two sets as forming
a single whole, as was the case for the four courses of Optics Lectures
from January 1669 to October 1672 which are numbered as if they
' See Edleston [i], pp. xci-xcviii, for a useful synopsis of these lectures.
- In each case the last lecture is incomplete.
^ See Edleston [i], pp. xcviii and 209. Also the footnote to p. 27 of Ball [i].
6.4 6.4 DA TIN G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 99
consisted of only two sets of fourteen and sixteen lectures respec­
tively.*
Then there is the reference in a. Coroll. 4, to the laws of motion to
Lemma 21. In the Principia the reference at this point is to Lemma 23,
and there is no doubt this was the lemma Newton had in mind. But when
we examine y we find that although the lemma in question is actually
numbered 23 there is some indication that it was originally numbered
21. This is supported by traces of corresponding changes in the numbers
of the three following lemmas, and is then confirmed absolutely by a
reference to Lemma 21 (instead of 23) in Lemma 25. Evidently Lemma
23 in y was originally numbered 21, probably due to a simple error over
the number of the immediately preceding lemma which happens to
occur in jSj. So it seems that Newton was referring in a. Coroll. 4 of the
laws, to a lemma appearing in section y. This is difficult to understand,
for a comparison of the common beginning of and ^2 reveals that jSg
must have been composed after and y, which follows ^2y would have
been composed still later. Since a would certainly have been composed
before jSj, we have to assume a reference in a to a lemma in y composed
after oc. It will be argued later that y was composed some considerable
time after a, thus making the forward reference to Lemma 23 (alias 21)
even more difficult to understand. I shall return to this problem presently.
A possible explanation of the significance of the two continuations
jSj, ^2 fo a, and the faet that y follows ^2 ^rid not is provided by the
following passage from Newton’s letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley.
The Proof you sent me I like very well. I designed the whole to consist of
three books, the second was finished last summer being short and only wants
transcribing and drawing the cuts fairly. Some new Propositions I have since
thought on which I can as well let alone. The third wants the Theory of
Comets. In Autumn last I spent two months in calculations to no purpose for
want of a good method, which made me afterwards return to the first Book
and enlarge it with divers Propositions some relating to Comets, others to other
things found out last Winter. The third I now design to suppress.
Judging by this passage the original version of Book I of the Principia
was finished some time before the summer of 1685 but was later altered
to incorporate certain new material, some of it ‘relating to comets’ and
some found out the ‘last winter’— in the context necessarily the winter
of 1685-6. The actual incorporation of this new material may have pro­
ceeded in stages, but it evidently did not begin till after the two fruitless
* See Edleston [i], loc. cit. - jSa is at first identical with as amended.
 100 ORDER OF C OM P OS IT IO N AND
months devoted to the problem of comets in the autumn of 1685, and
it possibly took place early in the year 1686.
In the light of this passage, of the fact that oc^2y represents a final
draft of part of Book I of the First Edition of the Principia^ and of the
existence of the two alternative continuations jSj, ^2 to the following
hypothesis naturally suggests itself:
Hypothesis. corresponds to the ‘original’ draft, and ajSgy to the ‘revised’
draft of part of Book I of the Principia.
A comparison of with appears to support this hypothesis. For
contains only three propositions and one lemma from Art. IV of Book I
of the Principia, and nothing from Art. V. Instead, after Prop. 19 of jS^,
corresponding to Prop. 21 of there follows Prop. 20 corresponding to
Prop. 30, Prob. 22, of jSg, that is the first proposition of Art. V I of Book I
of the Principia. In other words, if we suppose represented the begin­
ning of the original version of Book I of the Principia, then it was lacking
most of Art. IV and all of Art. V of the final version. But Art. V is devoted
to the problem of determining conics from various sets of given data
excluding a knowledge of foci or axes, precisely the problem posed by
cometary orbits. In fact, although there appear to be no direct references
to Art. V in the treatment of cometary orbits in Part III of the First
Edition of the Principia, Lemma 5 there corresponds to Prop. 22, Prob.
14, of Art. V, Book I.
Returning now to ajSj, y regarded as two sets of lectures, this same
hypothesis provides an explanation of why y follows ^2 instead of jSj.
For we need only suppose that the additions to found in ^2 were
made after the lectures a^i had been read, in which case it is not par­
ticularly surprising that Newton should not have continued with the
original continuation of (of which the manuscript appears not to have
been preserved) but with part of the final continuation ^27 * 5 that he
started this second set of lectures at y and not earlier, in jSg, for example
at the beginning of Art. V, is perhaps a little surprising but raises no
insuperable difficulties.
Finally, if we hold to this hypothesis the section y must have been
composed several months after the composition of oc. So that the full
reference to Lemma 21 could not possibly have been made at the time
of composing a. We are therefore forced to assume some insertion at
this point of a. On examination of the text it seems almost certain that the
whole of the phrase ab Lemmate X X P was present originally with the
* A t 1. 4, proof of Coroll. 4 to laws of motion, Principia (First Edition).
6.4
6.4 DATIN G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 101
possible exception of the numeral X X L This gives the appearance of
being written slightly more heavily than the surrounding text. Not
only so, there is a noticeably large gap between the right-hand side of
X X I and the extreme left of the immediately following word. In fact,
by measuring the intervals between successive words it appears that
the gap immediately to the right of X X I is the largest in the body of the
text of a. The supposition of an insertion as required originally by the
hypothesis thus gains powerful backing from the text itself.
We are now in a position to re-examine the problem of the dates of the
lectures represented by and y, especially that of the first set. The only
plausible dates for the first lecture of are October 1684 or October
1685, for October 1686 is ruled out as being after the transition from
ajSj to ajSay. If the lectures were given in October 1684 they would
need to have been composed between that date and the preceding May.^
Assuming MS. IXa was composed around June and July this seems just
possible, since all the most difficult theorems of are already found
in the earlier manuscript.
Relevant also is the following passage from the minutes of a meeting
of the Royal Society on 10 December 1684:
Mr. Halley gave an account that he had lately seen Mr. Newton at Cam­
bridge who had shewed him a curious treatise de Motu\ which upon Mr.
Halley’s desire, was, he said, promised to be sent to the Society to be entered
upon their register. Mr. Halley was desired to put Mr. Newton in mind of his
promise for the securing of his invention to himself till such time as he could
at leisure publish it.
Since the propositions carried by Paget to Halley in November 1684
were almost certainly those contained in Version I of the tract de Motu,
it is a little difficult to believe that this was the work referred to here.
In which case he was presumably referring to part of the first draft of
Book I of the Principia, i.e. to part or all of But this does not prove
that what he had seen was already being given by Newton for his
public lectures of the Michaelmas term 1684. In fact, there are various
internal indications that was originally conceived as part of the
Principia, being used later as lecture material only as an afterthought.
For example, there is the title itself De Motu Corporum Liber Primus,
the phrase unde caveat Lector . . . at the beginning of the last sentence
following the Definitions, and the sentence at the end of the succeeding
Scholium: Hum enim in finem Tractatum sequentem composui. None of
‘ August would have left an impossibly short time even for Newton.
102 ORDER OF C O M P O S IT IO N AND
these sound right in the text of a work originally intended as a set of
public lectures as opposed to a book.
On the whole, therefore, it seems rather more probable that the lec­
tures ajSj were given in the Michaelmas term 1685, beginning in October.
This would leave open the actual date of commencement of ajSj though
it would necessarily have been some considerable time before the sum­
mer of 1685, and perhaps even as early as November 1684. As for the
lectures y, it seems most likely that they were begun in October 1686;
for October 1685 would have given very little time for the rather large
insertions found in /S.^y compared with ^8^after the two fruitless months
spent on the problem of cometary motion in the autumn of that year.
In any case, apart from the question of the actual texts of the lectures
delivered by Ne\Mon in the years 1684-6, there is good reason to be­
lieve that a represents the first part of the original draft of Book I of
the Principia, in which case MS. X I would have been composed some
time before the summer of 1685.
6 .5 . P a g e t ’s P r o p o s i t i o n s
Opinions have differed on the nature of the propositions carried by
Paget from Newton to Plalley in November 1684.^ Brewster^ was of the
opinion that there was only one proposition, that corresponding to
Kepler’s first law of planetary motion, while Edleston^ thought it more
probable that the propositions in question corresponded to those entitled
Isaaci Newtoni Propositiones de Motu in the Register Book of the Royal
Society. Ball’s^ views on the nature of ‘Paget’s Propositions’ are not
very clear, though he presumably would not have equated them with the
tract de Motu, since he believed that all three versions of this work were
composed in December or January 1685. Opinions have likewise dif­
fered on the identity of the ‘curious treatise de Motu' referred to by Halleys
at the meeting of the Royal Society of 10 December 1684. Rigaud^
identified this work with the tract de Motu, whereas Edleston thought
Halley’s reference was to Newton’s Public Lectures of the Michaelmas
term 1684. More recently Hall and HalL have given it as their opinion
that it ‘is now impossible to decide which (if any) of the surviving drafts
was intended and how much was communicated by Newton to his friends
* As described in Extract C below.
^ Brewster [i], vol. i, pp. 298-9, esp. n. i, p. 299.
^ Edleston [i], p. Iv, n. 75. ■* Ball [i], pp. 30-32.
^ See Extract A below. Rigaud [i], pp. 14-16.
’ Hall and Hall [i], p. 237.
6.4 6.5 DA TING OF M A N U S C R I P T S 103
in London at any given date between August 1684 and March 1685’.
In any case, they judged the matter to be ‘trivial’ since ‘comparison of the
various pxQ-Principia drafts makes it perfectly clear from internal evi­
dence that all of them precede the Michaelmas term lectures, which
themselves are headed in Newton’s own hand ‘Octob 1684’.^
Nevertheless, for completeness’ sake, and because of the unique
historical interest attaching to Newton’s first public announcement of
his decisive discoveries in dynamics, it seems worth while to re-examine
the above and related questions in the light of all the available evidence,
a thing so far apparently not attempted.-
The first known public reference to Newton’s researches in dynamics
was made at a meeting of the Royal Society on 10 December 1684. At
this meeting^
(A) Mr. Halley gave an account that he had lately seen Mr. Newton at
Cambridge who had shewed him a curious treatise, de Motir, which upon Mr.
Halley’s desire, was, he said, promised to be sent to the Society to be entered
upon their register. Mr. Halley was desired to put Mr. Newton in mind of his
promise for the securing of his invention to himself till such time as he could
at leisure publish it.
Various references to certain ‘papers’, evidently on motion, are found
soon afterwards in letters between Newton and Flamsteed. On 27
December 1684 the latter wrote:
I am obliged by your kind concession of the perusal of your papers, tho I
believe I shall not get a sight of them till our common friend Mr. Hooke and
the rest of the town have been first satisfied.
In his letter of 5 January 1685 to Newton, Flamsteed wrote again:
If you will give me leave to guess at your design I believe you are endeavour­
ing to define the curve that the comet described in the aether from your Theory
of Motion
and later in the same letter:
Sir I have not had the happiness of Mr. Paget’s company this Christmas
tho’ he promised it me; the hard weather perhaps prevented him as it did me
from going to London so I have not yet had the happiness of the perusal of
your papers. I am very well pleased how^ever to hear that you intend to oblige
us with the publication of them next term when I hope to have the use of
them [not] being obliged to any but your self for it.
* This, however, may be in error for Octob. 1685. See above, § 4.
^ Further evidence has come to hand since the account given in Herivel [2], [3].
^ Birch [i], vol. iv, p. 347.
104 ORDER OF CO M P O S IT IO N AND 6.5
In his letter of 12 January 1685 Newton excused the non-arrival of
the papers by reason of Paget’s sickness but promised to instruct the
latter to transmit them to Flamsteed ‘as soon as he has a convenient
opportunity’. Finally, from Flamsteed’s letter of 27 January 1685 we
learn of his safe reception of the papers in question from Paget.
The next relevant reference occurs in Newton’s letter of 23 February
1685 to Aston, one of the then Secretaries of the Royal Society;
(B) I thank you for entering in your Register my notions about motion. I
designed them for you before now, but the examining several things has
taken a greater part of my time than I expected, and a great deal of it to no
purpose. And now I am to go into Lincolnshire for a month or six weeks.
Afterwards I intend to finish it as soon as I can conveniently.
In connexion with the above passage it is worth noting that the ver­
sion of the tract de Motu in the Register Book of the Royal Society has
the date-line 10 December.
Next there is the following well-known passage in Halley’s letter of
29 June 1686 to Newton at the time of the controversy with Hooke on
the inverse square law of gravitation:
(C) The August following when I did myself the honour to visit you, I then
learnt the good news that you had brought this demonstration to perfection,
and you were pleased, to promise me a copy thereof, which the November
following I received with a great deal of satisfaction from Mr. Paget; and
thereupon took another jour[ne]y down to Cambridge, on purpose to confer
with you about it, since which time it has been entered upon the Register
Books of the Society.
And in Newton’s letter of 14 July 1686 to Halley:
(D) . . . and so it rested for about 5 years, till upon your request I sought
for that paper; and not finding it, did it again, and reduced it into the pro­
positions shewed you by Mr. Paget.
Relevant too is the following passage in Halley’s letter of 11 December
1686 to Wallis:
(E) You were pleased to mention some thoughts you had of communicating
your conclusions concerning the opposition of the Medium to projects moving
through it; the Society hopes you continue still inclined so to do, not
doubting but that your extraordinary talent in matters of this nature, will be
able to clear up this subject which hitherto seems to have been only mentioned
among Mathematicians, never yet fully diseussed. Mr. Isaac Newton about
2 years since gave me the inclosed propositions, touching the opposition of the
Medium to a direct impressed Motion, and to falling bodies, upon supposition
6.5 DA TI N G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 105
that the opposition is as the Velocity; which tis possible is not true: however
I thought any thing of his might not be unacceptable to you, and I beg your
opinion thereupon, if it might not be (especially the 7th problem) somewhat
better illustrated.
Finally there is the following passage in Newton’s letter of 13
February 1687 to Halley:
(F) Dr. Wallis has sent up some things about projectiles pretty like those of
mine in the papers Mr. Paget first shewed you. . ..
Since the version of the tract de Motu entitled Isaaci Newtoni Pro-
positiones de Motu is the only dynamical work by Newton in the Register
Book of the Royal Society, there can be no doubt that these propositions
corresponded to the ‘notions on motion’ referred to in extract (B). This
version of the tract de Motu must then have been sent to London some
time before 23 February 1685, and judging by Newton’s remark in
the same letter ‘I designed them for you before now’ they were possibly
‘composed’ considerably earlier. As for the statement ‘I intend to
finish it as soon as I can conveniently’, the ‘it’ in question presumably
referred to the Principia of which the second book was apparently com­
pleted in the summer of 1685.^
It appears that Newton sent certain propositions relating to motion in
a resisting medium to London ‘about 2 years’ before i i December
1686, that is around the winter of 1684-5. According to Newton (F)
they were shown to Halley by Paget; whereas Halley stated (E) that they
were given to him by Paget. Since the tract de Motu contains two pro­
positions relating to motion in a resisting medium, and a version of this
tract was certainly sent by Newton to London before 23 February 1685,
it is possible that the propositions referred to in extracts (E) and (F)
were identical with those in the tract de Motu. This possibility is then
greatly strengthened by the reference in (E) to the ‘7th problem’. For
the last ‘proposition’ in the tract de Motu, the second of two on motion
in a resisting medium, appears in that work as ‘Prob. 7’. It seems very
probable, therefore, that both Newton and Halley were referring to the
two propositions on motion in a resisting medium at the end of the Royal
Society copy of the tract de Motu, and that consequently the original
of that copy was brought to London by Paget around the winter of
1684-5, either given to Halley or ‘first shewed’ him by Paget.
^ See passage at beginning of last paragraph of New ton’s letter of 20 June 1686 to
Hallev.
106 ORDER OF C OM P OS IT IO N AND
Conclusive evidence in support of this hypothesis is supplied by Version
II of the tract de Motu in the Portsmouth Collection at Cambridge.
At first sight this version of the tract de Motu appears to be little more
than a fair copy of Version I. But a closer examination reveals a number
of peculiar features:
1. Compared with Versions I and III Version II was composed with
extreme care as regards writing, punctuation, and Latin quantities. It
also contains a list of contents not found in the other versions.
2. Version II consists of a number of single sheets and one double
sheet. If, as seems probable, the double sheet was originally used to
contain the others, on the cover sheet were part of the list of contents,
and the back sheet was blank apart from the following note: ‘Letter,
Book No. 7, P. 234, Mr. Locke’s letter to Mr. Oldenburg le.’ The letter
referred to, on poisonous fishes, is in the Archives of the Royal Society.
3. Where the Royal Society version of the tract de Motu differs sub­
stantially from Version I it agrees with Version II, namely:
{a) Both the Royal Society copy and Version II lack the Scholium
to Prop. 2 found in Versions I and III. This Scholium notes that
the case considered in Coroll. 5, where the square of the periodic
time is assumed proportional to the cube of the radius (leading to
an inverse square dependence of the force on the radius), holds
both for the revolutions of the major planets about the sun, and
for the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn. ^
{h) At the end of the table of contents in Version II appear two
lemmas numbered 3 and 4 and not found in Version I. The same
lemmas now numbered 2 and i, respectively, appear in the Royal
Society copy.
It appears, therefore, that Version II was copied from Version I with
some particular end in view (i); that it passed at some time through the
hands of an official of the Royal Society (2); and that the Royal Society
copy of the tract de Motu w^as either taken from Version II, or from some
other manuscript differing similarly from Version I (3). Since there is
already a very strong presumption that the proposition referred to in
(E) and (F) formed part of the original of the Royal Society copy, the
'■ A modified form of the same Scholium was eventually introduced by Newton after
Prop. 4, Theor. 4, of the Principia to ‘compose’ the dispute between himself and
Hooke (see N ew ton’s letter of 14 July 1686 to Halley). T h e omission of this Scholium
in the version of the tract de M otu sent to London in 1684 is therefore just possibly an
indication that Newton anticipated some reaction by Hooke in the matter of the inverse
square law.
6.5
6.5 DA TIN G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 107
possibility now inevitably suggests itself that Version II of the tract de
Motu represents the actual papers carried by Paget from Cambridge to
London. And one further peculiarity of that version not so far alluded
to— the absence in it of the two last propositions— provides with (E)
final confirmation of the correctness of this supposition.
If extract (C) is omitted, the remaining evidence agrees internally and
with the conclusion arrived at above. There is now every reason to
identify the papers (on motion) referred to in the Flamsteed-Newton
correspondence of the winter 1684-5 with Version II of the tract de
Motu, in which case it probably reached London prior to 27 December
1684. Judging by extract (A) it would also seem to have reached London
after 10 December, for there now seems every reason to identify the
‘curious treatise de Motu' referred to in Halley’s account with Version
II of the tract de Motu: this latter work was entered in the Register Book
of the Royal Society, and no other reason for this suggests itself than
that given in (A), namely, to ‘secure’ Newton’s invention(s in dynamics)
to himself‘till such time as he could at leisure publish it’ ( = his invention)
— as in fact he later did in the Principia. This pleasing picture, however,
is somewhat marred by the evidence in extract (C). According to this
some proposition or propositions were brought by Paget to London in
November 1684, that is before the meeting of 10 December. And the
reference in extract (A) to Halley having ‘lately seen Mr. Newton in
Cambridge’ seems to tie up with Halley’s statement in (C) that he took
another journey down to Cambridge after receiving the proposition(s)
from Paget in November.
One possible solution to this apparent conflict of evidence is that there
were two sets of propositions carried by Paget to London, the first
before 10 December 1684, probably in November, and the second set,
after 10 December, consisting of the complete Version II of the tract
de Motu. But arguments can be advanced against this solution. For
example, Newton’s reference to his reduction of the demonstration of
the inverse square law to the proposition showed Halley by Paget
sounds more like the tract de Motu than a separate demonstration. Again,
Halley states in (C) that the copy of the demonstration of the inverse
square law which he had received ‘with a great deal of satisfaction from
Mr. Paget’ in November was later ‘entered upon the Register Books of
the Society’ and this was true only of the demonstration contained in
the Royal Society copy of the tract de Motu.
On the other hand, if there was only one set of Paget’s propositions
 108 ORDER OF C O M P O S IT I O N AND 6.5
(C) implies that it was sent to London before lo December 1684. And
in that case the account in (A) would seem to be somewhat misleading
— provided of course we continue to identify the ‘curious treatise de
Motu' with Version II of the tract de Motu.
Lacking further evidence it is impossible to decide definitely between
the existence of one or two sets of Paget’s propositions. It seems
certain, however, that if there was only one set then it must have con­
sisted of the propositions in the complete Version II of the tract de Motu,
and this would likewise have been true of the second set in the other case.
It also seems certain that in both cases these propositions were brought
by Paget to London before 23 February 1685, and probably before 27
December 1684, and shown to various people including Halley and Flam­
steed, and possibly Hooke; that they were later copied into the Register
Book of the Royal Society and then retained in London, probably by
Halley, until the last two propositions were sent by him to Wallis with
his letter of i i December 1686; and that finally, at some later date, by
some unknown route, the remaining propositions found their way back
into the Portsmouth Collection.
6.6. T he S tatus of M anuscript VIII
As already noted, ^the existence of the Locke copy, with its endorse­
ment ‘Mr. Newton Mar. 1689-90’ throws doubt on the early status of
the Newton copy. It is then natural to assume^ that the original (or
originals) of both copies was composed around March 1690 to provide
Locke with a more straightforward exposition of the two vital proposi­
tions from which followed the inverse square law of attraction on the
basis of the known elliptical orbits of the planets about the sun. But there
are certain difficulties in the way of accepting this assumption of the
late status of the original MS. V III. These will now be considered.
An examination of the copy in the Locke papers, hereafter referred to
as the ‘Locke copy’, makes it certain that this must have been taken
from some earlier manuscript.^ For the handwriting is certainly not
Newton’s,4 and the complicated and detailed nature of the argument,
especially the mathematical parts, makes it inconceivable that even
' M S . V I I I , Introduction.
^ T his was the view taken by Brewster [i], vol. i, p. 339, and Ball [i], p. 116.
^ It will appear later that this earlier manuscript could not have been the Newton
copy.
* According to Cranston [i], p. 337, the handwriting is that of Locke’s valet and
amanuensis Brownover.
6.6 D A TI N G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 109
Newton could have dictated it extempore. This is confirmed by the
presence of only two corrections in the whole copy, something again
almost inconceivable in the extempore dictation of so long and difficult
a paper. In fact, one of these corrections, the substitution of ‘times’ for
‘lines’,! provides good support for the copy hypothesis; whereas this
seems a rather unlikely error in dictation, an examination of the other
copy, in Newton’s handwriting, referred to hereafter as the ‘Newton
copy’, reveals how easy it would have been for an unwary copyist to
misread Newton’s ‘times’ as ‘lines’, an error even committed at one point
by Newton himself!^
The establishment of an original manuscript from which the Locke
copy was taken has been laboured at some length because of its impor­
tance for the remainder of the argument. Hereafter this original manu­
script, or manuscripts, since there may well have been several, will be
referred to as the ‘Original M S .’
Consider now the hypothesis that the Original MS. was composed
specially for Locke’s benefit, probably around March 1690, but in any
case certainly after the composition and publication of the Principia.
The assumption then is that Locke had asked Newton for a more
straightforward derivation of the inverse square law than that given in
the Principia. Newton did supply such a proof. One can even agree with
Brewster^ that it is somewhat more ‘popular’ than the one in the Principia.
Though of course, given the essential depth of the proposition in ques­
tion, the great ‘distance’ between it and the axioms of dynamics, not
even Newton could make the proof simple. It is also an entirely dijferent
kind of proof; whereas the proof in the Principia follows by application
of Prop. 6, Theor. 5, Book I, applicable to any curve, to the special
case of motion in an ellipse under a force to one focus, the present proof
begins and ends with an ellipse, and, in particular, makes no use of
Newton’s beautiful generalization of Galileo’s law of falling bodies, as
in Prop. 6, Theor. 5. What is surprising, however, is that Newton felt
any need after the publication of the Principia to supply Hypotheses
1-3 and Prop. i. Why did he not simply refer at the appropriate places
in Prop. 2 to Laws i, 2, Coroll, i, of the Laws, and Prop, i, Theor.
I, Book I, of the Principia, to which Hypotheses 1-3 and Prop, i
evidently correspond? He had, after all, a recent precedent for so
’ A t Prop. 2, para. 4, word 15. A t the end of the enunciation of Prop, i the same
error of ‘lines’ for ‘times’ occurs, this time uncorrected.
^ Six words from the end of the penultimate sentence of Prop, i .
^ Brewster [i], vol. i, p. 340.
no ORDER OF C OM P OS IT IO N AND 6.6
doing in his correspondence with Huygens of the previous autumn.^
Then he referred at need to the Principia, instead of working out every­
thing ab initio.
Even if it is granted, however, that for some unknown reason Newton
now felt unwilling to quote references from the Principia,^ it would still
have been surprising if he had not consulted it when composing, at
Locke’s request, a new and more comprehensible version of two of the
propositions in that work. Yet such would appear to have been the case.
First there is Prop, i : apart from the detailed justification of the con­
struction for the position of the body at the end of the second moment
of time, the proof of this proposition in the Locke copy is essentially the
same as that in Prop, i, Theor. i, of Book I of the Principia. Yet it would
be impossible to regard it as in any sense a translation of that proposi­
tion from Latin into English. This confers a unique status on Prop.
I in the Locke (and Newton) copies. For example, a comparison of
Theor. i of the tract de Motu with Prop, i, Theor. i, of Book I of the
Principia reveals that apart from the transition to the limit at the end
the proof in the Principia is an almost exact copy of that in the tract de
Motu. This in itself is not surprising. The proof in the tract de Motu
is well nigh perfect, unmatched in all Newton’s dynamical writings for
its simplicity, elegance, and display of profound physical intuition.
Little wonder that he felt no need to modify it in any essential detail
in the Principia. Yet we now have to assume that in March 1690 he
had somehow become dissatisfied with this proof. Or, alternatively, that
he did not have a copy of the Principia available when composing the
Original MS., a rather improbable hypothesis, especially if the Original
MS. was composed after Newton’s return to Cambridge in February
1690^ following the dissolution of the Convention Parliament, as seems
most probable.
To explain the difference between the form of Prop, i in the
Original MS. and that found in other versions of the same proposition,
it has been necessary to assume that Newton had either become tem­
porarily dissatisfied with the previous form of that proposition, or else
did not have a copy of the Principia available when composing the
^ See the various references to the Principia in the two letters from Newton to
Huygens reproduced as items 341, 2, of vol. iii of the Correspondence.
^ One possible explanation, that Locke himself never possessed a copy of the Prin ­
cipia, can be eliminated, since a copy of that work, with manuscript corrections in
New ton’s own hand, was found among Locke’s possessions. It is of course not certain
that Locke was in possession of this copy in March 1690.
See More [i], p. 356, foot.
6.6 DATIN G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 111
Original MS. But another explanation suggests itself: that Newton not
only had not a copy of the Principia available, but could not have had,
that work not yet having been composed. It is the three hypotheses, the
same in both the Locke and Newton copies, and therefore presumably in
the Original MS. also, which seem to point to this conclusion.
First, the very term ‘hypothesis’ itself is a little surprising. We know
that as Newton grew older he increasingly tended to avoid use of this
term.^ An interesting example of this tendency is provided by the tract
de Motu. In Version I of that work there are four hypotheses, of which
the first is the principle of inertia. In Version III there were also origi­
nally a number of hypotheses, of which the first was again the principle
of inertia. But later the term ‘hypothesis’ was cancelled and replaced by
‘Lex’, the term exclusively used thereafter. The use of the term ‘hypothe­
sis’ as applied to the principle of inertia in the Original MS. (Hypothe­
sis i) therefore represents a small reversion towards the more primitive
viewpoint of the summer of 1684.2
Newton, however, might have used the term ‘hypothesis’ in a paper
intended to show how a certain result (the inverse square law) followed
logically from certain initial assumptions or hypotheses. After all, it was
precisely the strict deducibility of Newton’s system of the world which
so impressed the philosopher Locke .3 Nevertheless, the actual form of
the first two hypotheses, corresponding respectively to the first and
second laws of motion, is rather surprising in the author of the Principia
little more than two years after the publication of that work. Why,
for example, does he omit any reference to rest as opposed to motion
in Hypothesis i ? Once again this represents a small reversal to the
level of the tract de Motu in no version of which is there a reference
to the state of rest, although it could be countered that Newton makes
no use of the assumption of rest in the Original MS. But the omission
in Hypothesis 2 of any reference to the change of motion being in the
direction of the force cannot be disposed of so easily. For this part of the
second law is not only of great intrinsic importance but is actually used
at one point in Prop. 2.‘^ It is difficult to assess the improbability of
Newton making so serious an omission in the enunciation of the second
’ See especially Koyre [4].
^ See § 4 above for a discussion of the date of composition of Version I of the tract de
M otu.
^ See, for example, the quotation from Locke’s essay ‘On Education’ given in foot­
note 6 of p. 76 of vol. iii of the Correspondence.
* See reference to Hypothesis 2 towards the end of penultimate paragraph of this
proposition in the Newton copy.
112 ORDER OF C O M P O S IT I O N AND 6.6
law of motion after his final synthesis of dynamics in the Principia. One
simply feels that it is not the sort of omission he would have made.
Finally, there is the evidence supplied by Hypothesis 3 against the
supposition that the Original MS. was composed around 1689-90.
This hypothesis is clearly a form of the parallelogram law for the com­
position of independent motions. In Version I of the tract de Motu it
occurs as Hypothesis 4. But in Version HI of that work it has suffered
a most important and significant change of status. From being an hypo­
thesis, something ipso facto incapable of proof, it has become a lemma,
something derived from more primitive assumptions, in this case the
second law of motion. Thereafter it naturally maintained its new status,
appearing as Coroll, i to the laws of motion in the lectures de Motu
and the Principia, and as such was referred to in Newton’s correspon­
dence with Huygens in the autumn of 1689. Once again, therefore, we
find a reversion in the level of Newton’s thought to that of Version I
of the tract de Motu (or earlier). This time, however, the reversion be­
comes far more difficult to account for: that the author of the Principia,
a philosopher in his own right, always most punctilious about the exact
meaning of his terms, suspicious of hypotheses in general, and with
Ockham eschewing unnecessary multiplication of causes— Causas
rerum naturalium non plures admitti debere, quam quae et vera sint et earum
Phaenomenis explicandis sufficiunt^— that Newton should have given as
an hypothesis in 1689-90 what two years previously he had given as a
corollary in the Principia is surely difficult to accept. All the more so
remembering that for Newton qua mathematician the reduction in the
number of independent axioms in his system of dynamics effected by
the abrupt change in the status of this law would necessarily have been
a most significant and memorable event.
To summarize the argument so far: the presence and form of the
three hypotheses and Prop, i in both the Locke and Newton copies
raises certain difficulties for the supposition that the Original MS. was
composed by Newton specially for Locke’s benefit, probably around
March 1690, and in any case definitely after the publication of the
Principia. Of these difficulties much the most serious are those raised by
Hypothesis 3: it is at this point one feels the onus most definitely rests on
the supporters of the 1689-90 hypothesis to defend their case. Never­
theless this hypothesis encounters further difficulties arising from
certain differences between the Locke and Newton copies.
' Hypothesis i, Book III, Principia.
6.6 D A TI N G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 113
In the first place, it is certain that the Locke copy could not have been
taken from the Newton copy. If one examines the very small number
of cancellations in the Newton copy then in two cases one finds that the
original versions, later cancelled, exactly agree with the Locke copy,i
whereas in no case is the converse true. So that it seems certain that the
Newton copy was taken either from the Locke copy or the Original MS.,
and not vice versa. As to the more substantial differences between the
two copies, these are as follows;
1. The detailed justification in the Locke copy for the ‘construction’
in Prop. I is missing from the Newton copy.
2. The proof of Lemma i in the Newton copy represents an emended
and improved version of that in the Locke copy: in particular, as
noted below (n. i), a small, yet nevertheless real, non-sequitur in the
Locke copy has been corrected in the Newton copy.
3. The Newton copy contains an additional proposition, numbered
2, not found in the Locke copy. This is a special case of the last propo­
sition.
4. Certain parts of Prop. 3 in the Newton copy represent emended,
and on the whole improved and clarified, versions compared with the
corresponding parts of Prop. 2 in the Locke copy.
In the light of these differences between the two copies, and bearing
in mind that the Locke copy could not have been taken from the Newton
copy, consider again the hypothesis that the Original MS. was com­
posed specially for Locke’s benefit at some time after the publication of
the Principia. There are then two mutually exclusive possibilities: either
Newton sent the Original M S., or one of the Original M SS., to Locke
in the form of a letter to be retained by Locke, or not. If he did so, then
the existence of the Newton copy is at once explained as the copy
' T h e first, and more striking, o f these two cases is found in the last paragraph of
Lemma i. Originally Newton had begun this paragraph as follows: ‘For joyn i y and
d raw /F parallel to C D and because F f and F E are bisected in C and £)’ exactly as in the
Locke copy (and presumably also in the original manuscript). Later he emended this
to read: ‘ For joyn P f and d ra w /E parallel to C D and because F f is bisected in C , F E
shall be bisected in D , and therefore z P D shall be equal to the sum of P F and P E that is
to the summ o f P F and P f , that is to A B , and therefore P D shall be equal to A C . '
Clearly the Locke copy contained a small non-sequitur removed in the Newton copy.
For the fact that P D is half the sum of P E and P F does not follow directly from the
fact that F E and F f are both bisected, as stated in the Locke copy, but from the bi­
section of F E alone, itself derived of course from the bisection of F f, as stated in the
Newton copy. T h e other case is found at the beginning of the last sentence of Lemma 3
where Newton had originally written: ‘But PX'^ was to G//® as . . .’ as in the Locke
copy, replacing it by: ‘But Y X I was to P X ^ as . . . ’. T his emendation, like the previous
one, results in a certain logical improvement in the presentation of the argument.
114 ORDER OF CO M P O S IT I O N AND 6.6
retained by Newton. But in this case why was it not an exact copy, as
one would have expected ? Why the omission of the justification of the
construction in Prop, i ? This justification, found nowhere else outside
the Locke copy, represents an important clarification of the proposition
in question and was presumably introduced specially for Locke’s benefit.
Why then omit it from the copy} Again, the improvements in the Newton
copy compared with the Locke copy are difficult to understand. Why
not incorporate them in the manuscript sent to Locke One is almost
forced to assume there were two Original M SS., one of which was sent to
Locke, the other retained by Newton from which at some time after the
transmission of the first to Locke Newton made the new and improved
version represented by the Newton copy. Other small factors against the
supposition that Newton sent one of the Original MSS. to Locke are
the absence of such a manuscript, or of any covering letter, or of a
letter of acknowledgement from Locke. Also that if Locke was in
possession of an original manuscript in Newton’s hand why bother to
have a copy made of it— remember the Locke copy is certainly not in
Newton’s hand.
Now consider the other possibility. In that case either the Locke copy
was taken from the original ‘in Newton’s presence’, or else it was
taken from the Original MS. which was later returned to Newton. In
either case the Original MS. must have remained with Newton. In
which case one has to assume that Newton, after the publication of the
Principia, went to the trouble of copying out the manuscript again very
carefully, emending and improving it, and omitting the justification of
the construction in Prop. i.
It seems, therefore, that either of these two mutually exclusive
possibilities regarding the actual origin of the Locke copy are fraught
with certain difficulties arising from the existence of the Newton copy
and the peculiar differences between it and the Locke copy.
This completes the case against the assumption of late status for the
Original MS. V III. It remains to consider alternative explanations of the
composition of the Original MS. and the Newton copy. Two such
explanations suggest themselves: the Original MS. may have been
composed in the winter of 1679-80 following Hooke’s intervention, thus
containing Newton’s first proofs of the propositions in question: or it
may have been composed in 1684 after Version I of the tract de Motu
representing the original of 2i first set of propositions^ carried by Paget
' Assuming that there were two sets. See § 5 above, p. 107.
6.6 DATIN G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 115
from Cambridge to London in November 1684 in fulfilment of Newton’s
promise to Halley. To assess the relative probabilities of these two alter­
native explanations certain comparisons will now be made between the
Newton copy and Version I of the tract de Motu. The sections of the
Newton copy involved in these comparisons are the same in the Locke
copy, and thus presumably occurred in unchanged form in the Original
MS.
1. The form of the principle of inertia given in Hypothesis i com­
pared with that given in Hypothesis 2 of Version I of the tract—
Corpus omne sola vi insita uniformiter secundum lineam rectam in infini­
tum progredi nisi aliquid extrinsecus impediat— throws no light on the
question of the relative order of composition of the two manuscripts.
The reference here to the resistance of the medium is without signifi­
cance considering the reference to resisting mediums in Def. 3 of Ver­
sion I of the tract, and the fact that Prob. 6 of that work deals with the
actual motion of a body in a resisting medium.
2. Hypothesis 2 of the present manuscript is clearly an early form of
the second law of motion. An equivalent and closely similar form of
this law first appears in Version III of the tract. The presence of this
hypothesis could therefore be interpreted as evidence in favour of the
present manuscript post-dating Version I of the tract.
3. The presence of Hypothesis 3 (the parallelogram law of compo­
sition of velocities) in the present manuscript also provides some slight
evidence in favour of it post-dating Version I of the tract, since an
equally clear formulation of the law first appears in Version III, the
form given in Hypothesis 3 of Version I— Corpus in dato tempore virihus
conjunctis eo ferri quo virihus divisis in temporibus aequalibus successive—
being much more obscure. On the other hand one must remember the
very clear formulation of the same law in the much earlier MS. V.
4. The proof here given in Prop, i of the result equivalent to Kepler’s
second law of planetary motion differs in no important respect from
those given in the three versions of the tract de Motu. But the fact that
the reference to the planar nature of the motion in the present manu­
script is absent from all three versions of the tract could be regarded as
evidence that the present manuscript post-dated these works.
5. The partial approximation to the ellipse by a broken line in
Prop. 2 and 3 shows unmistakable evidence of the influence of the
procedure adopted in Prop. i. No trace of such an influence is found
in Version I of the tract. It seems difficult to account for this unless
116 ORDER OF C O M P O S IT I O N AND 6.6
one regards it as an indication of the way Newton first arrived at his solu­
tion to the problem of elliptical motion, and it is even more difficult
to understand why he should have reproduced these details in a paper
written after Version I of the tract, unless, of course, one assumes that
Newton was trying to make the proofs easier for Halley, as opposed to
Locke, a rather improbable assumption.
6. In Prob. 3 of Version I of the tract Newton derives the inverse
square law for elliptical motion under a force to a focus by applying the
general result of Theor. 3 to the special case of motion in an ellipse,
whereas here he concerns himself solely with the problem of motion in
an ellipse. Again it is difficult to understand why Newton should have
composed the present paper after Version I of the tract.
The evidence supplied by the above comparison fails to decide de­
finitely between the two explanations, though there is perhaps a slight
balance of evidence in favour of the 1684 hypothesis. Against this we
have the argument based on Prop, i already employed in consideration
of the 1689-90 hypothesis. For if this proposition existed already in
a perfectly acceptable form in Latin in Version I of the tract de Motu
why did Newton not take it directly from that work? The same
argument could even be applied to the last proposition, though perhaps
with less force, since the proof in the tract de Motu was given in the form
of an application (Prob. 3) to elliptical motion of the general theorem
given in Theor. 3, whereas if there were two sets of Paget proposi­
tions the assumption is that the first set was devoted to motion in an
ellipse.
The above comparison between M SS. V III and Version I of the
tract de Motu was based on certain elements the two copies have in
common. It remains to consider the substantial differences between
them noted already in connexion with the 1690 hypothesis, namely;
1. Certain improvements in the Newton copy compared with the
Locke copy.
2. The omission in the Newton copy of the justification of the con­
struction in Prop. I of the Locke copy.
3. The existence in the Newton copy of an additional proposition not
found in the Locke copy.
These differences raised certain difficulties for the supposition that the
Locke and Newton copies were composed after the Principia. But these
difficulties no longer apply if it is assumed that the Original MS. was
composed before the Principia. For in each case it may be assumed that
6.6 DA TIN G OF M A N U S C R I P T S 117
the Newton copy was also composed before the Principia shortly after
the Original MS. of which it represented an emended and somewhat
improved version. The omission in the Newton copy of the con­
struction justification in Prop, i could then be explained in one of two
ways: either it was not in the Original MS., being introduced first in the
Locke copy as an aid to Locke’s understanding; or else it was in the
Original MS. and was simply omitted as unnecessary in the Newton
copy. Finally, the existence of the additional proposition would have
been quite natural if the Newton copy had been composed in 1679, and
might or might not have been in the Original MS. It would perhaps
have been a little less natural in 1684. Whereas its presence in a paper
composed in 1690 is difficult to credit.
T o summarize, three explanations of the composition of the Original
MS. V III have been considered. It may have been composed:
1. In the winter of 1679-80 following Hooke’s intervention, thus
containing the original proofs of the proposition in question.
2. In 1684 following Version I of the tract de Motu representing the
original of a first set of Paget propositions.
3. After the Principia, around March 1690, specially for Locke’s
benefit.
The evidence for explanation 3 rested on Locke’s known interest in
Newton’s Principia, the existence of the Locke copy, and the admittedly
more ‘popular’ nature of the propositions compared with the correspond­
ing ones in the Principia. But there were several items of internal evi­
dence against this explanation all pointing towards the early status of the
Original MS. One of the strongest of these was the use of the term
‘hypothesis’ applied to the parallelogram law of composition of motion.
As regards explanations i and 2, the relevant evidence failed to de­
cide definitely in favour of one or the other, though there was perhaps
a small balance in favour of the second explanation. The possibility of
other explanations must naturally be allowed for.^
^ T h e above interpretation of M S . V I I I follows closely that given in Archives
Internationale d ’Histoire des Sciences, 16 , 13-22 (1963). T h is interpretation has been
criticized by A . R. and M . B. Hall (ibid., pp. 23-28) who hold to the traditional inter­
pretation (previously advanced by Brewster and Ball) of this M S . as having originated
in the request from Locke for clarification of the corresponding proposition in the
Principia. D . T . Whiteside has also drawn m y attention to a Latin translation o f the
same M S . in Whiston [2], Lecture X IV /X V . Whiston notes that he gives the
deduction ‘ Qualem nempe earn e charta M S . ipsius Newtoni olim acceperim'. T he
fact that Newton apparently said nothing to Whiston about the origin of the M S .
does not seem to tell much for or against the above interpretation.
 PART II

NEWTON DYNAMICAL MANUSCRIPTS

1664-1684

INTRO D UCTIO N
T h e text aimed at throughout is a faithful ‘compromise’ reproduction
of the original manuscripts. Thus the use of capital letters, archaic forms
of spelling, and the punctuation follow the original manuscripts exactly,
whereas contractions such as ‘ye’ for ‘the’, ^ for par, &c., are every­
where extended as being a matter of handwriting and not of language.
All extensive, legible cancelled passages are given in full in critical foot­
notes, but certain cancellations of words and short phrases judged
unimportant have been omitted silently. Marginal entries in the original
manuscript other than footnotes are indicated in critical footnotes apart
from certain titles of sections entered in the text. Newton’s own footnotes
are given at the foot of the relevant page separated where necessary by
a rule from other footnotes. Alternatives in the manuscript are indicated
by a bar in the text. Everything within square brackets represent additions
to the text apart from [ ] representing a word or words missing from
the manuscript, or [?] representing a word or words illegible in the
manuscript. A word or words inserted within square brackets and suc­
ceeded by a ? indicate an editorial conjecture.
All manuscripts, or sections thereof, are supplied with an introductory
note giving details of location, probable order and date of composition
where possible, and a brief description of contents. Any indications of the
growth of the original texts are given at the end of these notes.
Other notes are of two kinds: critical notes, labelled alphabetically,
and given as footnotes; exegetical notes, labelled numerically, and given
together at the end of each manuscript or section of manuscript. These
latter notes fall under the following headings: (i) Cross-references to
the occurrence of the same or cognate topics elsewhere. For the most
part these have been restricted to the more important/omard' references,
a complete list of contents of manuscripts according to topic being given
in the Index. (2) References to the works listed in the Bibliography.
120 IN T R O D U C T IO N
(3) Comments not involving expressions of opinion, for example, those
referring to the modern equivalent of certain terms used by Newton.
(4) Non-controversial interpretations of certain technical dynamical or
mathematical questions, for example the majority of the notes to the
commentary to MS. III.
The remaining notes, for example those referring to the growth of
Newton’s dynamical thought, all relate to matters allowing of a poten­
tially wide variation of personal opinion. For the reasons already given
in the General Introduction these latter notes are confined wherever
possible either to a direct reference to the appropriate section of Part I,
or to such a reference followed by a brief unsupported expression of
opinion.
With two possible exceptions, all the manuscripts here reproduced
certainly belong to the period 1664-84. The first of these exceptions,
that represented by MS. XI, is comparatively unimportant. For even if
that manuscript does not contain the text of public lectures given by
Newton in the Michaelmas term 1684, it must still have been composed
by the autumn of 1685, and in any case it certainly represents the direct
continuation of the earlier drafts given by M SS. IX, Xa, and Xb. The
other possible exception, that represented by MS. V III, is a much more
serious one. For the existence of the Locke copy, with its endorsement
‘Mr. Newton Mar 1689-90’, points to the possibility that it may have
been composed after the Principia. Nevertheless, for the reasons given
in Part I, Chapter 6.6, it seems to me on balance more probable that the
original of both the Locke and Newton copies was composed either in
December 1679 or in 1684. In any case, the treatment here afforded to
MS. V III should help other interested scholars to decide for themselves
on the status of this manuscript and its original.
I
E X T R A C T S FRO M E A R L Y N O T E B O O K
MS. Add. 3996 consists of a small notebook of 140 leaves bound in worn
leather bearing within the inscription ‘Isaac Newton Trin. Coll. Cant.
1661’. A careful general description of contents, together with a repro­
duction of certain passages, especially on optical subjects, has been given
by Hall [i]. Apart from extensive quotations from certain philosophical
works, among which those from Magirus [i] seem of particular interest
as one of the most likely sources of the scholastic background to Newton’s
physical thought, the book contains original entries by Newton covering
a wide variety of topics listed at folios 87, 87V. With few exceptions,
largely of a psychological or physiological nature, such as ‘fantasy’,
‘soule’, or ‘sleepe’, these topics all treat of physical matters, the most
substantial entries being on motion, optics, and properties of matter. It
seems likely that the majority of these entries were made in 1664 or early
1665 at the latest (among them are various cometary observations dated
between 9 December 1664 and i April 1665) that the present manu­
script probably provides the best available evidence of Newton’s
preparation for his decisive discoveries in optics and dynamics during
the plague years. Another notebook (U .C.L. MS. Add. 4000) provides
parallel evidence for his preparation for the mathematical discoveries
during the same period.
The text is clean throughout apart from a small number of unimpor­
tant deletions. Unlike the later manuscripts, the punctuation in the long
passage on violent motion is very deficient and has been supplied and
emended where necessary to facilitate understanding of what is in any
case a rather difficult piece of writing.
Text
(1) * Note that the mean distances of the primary Planets from the Sunne
are in sesquialiter proportion to the periods of their revolutions in time. 2
(2)3 of violent motion
[i] Violent motion is continued either by the aire or by a force impresstor
by the natural gravity in the body moved. Not by the aire, since the aire
crowds more uppon the thing projected before, than behind, and must
therefore rather hinder it. For you may observe in water that a thing moved
in it doth carry the same water behind it along with it as in a cone, or at
least the water is moved from behind it with but a small forced as you may
122 E X T R A C T S FROM EARLY NOTEBOOK
observe by the motes in the water. Suppose {a) [Fig. i] to be the body
moved, (b.d.i.f.) to be the water moved behind (a) to give it place, (r)
the water behind {a) following it and going along with it.s Then if the
water at (/) ran so violently against the backsid of [a) it would beate away
the water at (r) with violence, but the water is moved very slowly from
behind (a) if it be moved away [at all]: as you may perceive by the motes
in the water. The like must hapen in aire. If you say no I answer must
then move (a) forwards in water.^ So if hot leade drop into water that
parte which is behind will be pointed the fore parte round which would
be otherwise if the aire pressed as much on it behind as before. Thirdly,
how can the aire continue the motion of a globe on it axis.7 Fourthly in
the former figure the aire is supposed to have the same propensity* to
motion which the ball {a) is supposed to have, that is will move no
longer than it is propelled on. Then I say the water at (r) cannot move
the ball unless the ball do not at the same time move {b), that {b) may
[move] (g) and {h), and (g) may move (d), and (d) move (/), and (f) move
(/), and (/) move (r), and force it to rush upon the ball. And consequently
at the same instant (r) must [move] the ball, and the ball move (r), which
cannot be. But suppose the aire and the ball were detained from motion
by some outward agent, yet kept the same respect to one another in
situation as they did in theire flight then as soone as they were both
let loose againe the aire would have as much power to move the ball as it
had when they were in theire former flight. If it be answered that the
I I E X T R A C T S FROM EARLY NOTEBOOK 123
aire well be more compressed at (/) than at (b) and consequently when
let loose againe it will dilate it self and so begin a new motion. I answer
how comes the aire to be more crowded behind the ball than before it
since (a) will communicate as much force on (b) as it receives from (r),
and the fore parte of the aire will croud no more on the latter parte than
the ball will croude on it. Againe whence is it that a piece of leade will
move farther and with more force than a piece of wood of the same
bignesse since the aire will have the same influence on both.*®
(2)** of violent motion
This motion is not continued by a force impresst because the force
must be communicated from the mover into the moved either by some
corporeall efflux or incorporeall one or nothing. If by corporeall attomes
we are still at a losse how those attomes must continue theire one motion.
If by an incorporeall efflux it must be by either spirit or some quality.
If by a spirit how comes the spirit to be so easly united to the body and
not to slip through it and when united to it how comes the spirits to
cease so soone and the spirit to leave it and hence every little attome must
have soules in store to cast away upon every body they meete with. If a
quality then qualitas transfigurat de subjecto in subjectum}^ and this quality
cannot be the motion of the mover since it and the mover are separated
at once from the thing moved. In a word how can that give a power of
moveing which it selfe hath not.
of violent motion
Therefore it must be moved after its separation from the mover by it
one gravity. *3 Which will be cleare by seeing whether there can be motion
in a vacuum and what that motion is and so comparing it with motion
in plena.
That there may be motion in vacuo let us suppose (a, b) [Fig. 2] to be
a body as a piece of Aire, {c, d, e) to be three globes, (/, gy h, i) and all the
space about the globes and that aire to be inane.*^ Now in the chapter de
vacuo we have shewed that these three globes would be really separate
and not touch one another. You will grant that halfe the globes are in
places, and consequently may move. Suppose then the halfe of (i:) in the
aire move towards {d) we aske whether that part in vacuo would move
along with it or stay behind and be separated frome it. If the first we have
our desire, if the last wee ask what should separate it from it. Not the
vacuum since that is accounted nothing. But you may say that it is not
truly motion for the upper parte of (c) to be carried to {d). We answer that
124 E X T R A C T S FROM EARLY NOTEBOOK
where there is action (for such is the passing of (c) to (d)) and where there
are new respects acquired to the same bodys there must be motion, but
the upper part of (c) hath neither the same respect to the aire nor to (d)
which it had before it began to pass towards d. If this going oi cto d be
not motion I aske what is it, But this is onely to [strive ?] about termes
and if it please you not to call it motion call
of motion
it what you will but it is that which we aimed to prove and there is but
this difference twixt it and motion inpleno^ that the one is environed with
such mater as is impenitrable and consequently the mater must be
crouded out of the moving bodys way before or rather at the same time
that the body moves, it must needs impede the motion and be continually
thrusting against and resisted by the body before it: but in vacuo it meets
with nothing impenitrable to stay it. Tis true God is as far as vacuum
extends but he being a spirit and penetrating all matter^^ can be noe
obstacle to the motion of matter noe more than if nothing were in its
way. Let me aske why one should be motion more than another since in
pleno [it] is so stopped by one body rubbing uppon another and in
vacuum it hath its liberty. Can the same thing (viz. a being environed
with bodys) at the same time give a being to motion and yet destroy it, *7
wherefore to be in pleno cannot be essentiall to motion. And if it were,
things would be more properly sade to move where there is most body
or they find most resistance to theire motion and so more properly in
water than in aire etc. But if it is objected by A risto tleth a t a vacuum is
uniforme and everywhere alike and a body hath the same respects to a
vacuum in all places alike but there is no motion with [out ] some mutation
of circumstances. And so in vacuo no motion, I answer as to our senses
I I E X T R A C T S FROM EARLY NOTEBOOK 125
the aire is uniforme. And we judge a thing to be moved when we see it
come nigher or goe farther from some thing which our senses can per­
ceive and so we judge not a thing to be moved in respect of the aire but
of the earth or something.
(3) ‘^ Cartes defines motion 2nd parte Pr to be the Transplantation
of one part of matter or one body from the vicinity of those bodys which
immediately touch it and seem to rest, to the vicinity of others.
(4) 21 How much longer will a pendulum move in the Receiver22 than in
the free aire. Hence may bee conjectured what bodys there bee in the
receiver to hinder the motion of the pendulum.
(5) 23 The gravity of bodys is as their solidity, because all bodys descend
equall spaces in equall times consideration being had to the Resistance
of the aire etc.
(6y^ ‘According to Galilaeus, a iron ball of 100 Florentine (that is 78 at
London Adverdupois Weight) descends an 100 braces Florentine or
cubits (or 49,01 ells, perhaps 66 yds) in 5" of an hower.’
1. At fol. 2 9 . It is possible that Newton first encountered Kepler’s laws of
planetary motion through a reading of Streete [i]. For example, some astro­
nomical entries on fol. 2 7 V are headed ‘Out of Streete’.
2. See Newton’s reference in the Portsmouth Draft Memorandum (repro­
duced above at Part I, Chapter 4, p. 66) to ‘Kepler’s Rule of the Periodical
times of the Planets being in a sesquialterate proportion of their distances from
the centers of their Orbs’.
3. Beginning at fol. 98 and continuing (from the beginning of section 2) at
fol. 113. This considerable discussion of violent motion is memorable as being
the earliest extant extended piece of writing by Newton on a dynamical subject.
It is also of great interest for the evidence it provides for the medieval background
to Newton’s thought. The tone of the whole passage is immistakably scholastic,
being cast almost in the form of a medieval disputation. Equally unmistakable,
however, is the extreme clarity of expression in striking contrast to that of many
of Newton’s contemporaries. Noteworthy, too, is the characteristically detailed
nature of his observations of the vortices produced in fluid motion, and especially
of the behaviour of small motes in the water at the ‘stagnation point’ immediately
behind the moving body.
At the top of fol. 88, before the first of the topics listed on fols. 87, 87a, Newton
has written: 'Amicus Plato amicus Aristoteles magis arnica veritas.' In this passage
on violent motion he has already parted company with the Aristotelian belief
that projectiles were moved by the circumambient air, though he is largely con­
cerned (in § [i]) with refuting the theory of antiperistasis which he may possibly
have confused with Aristotle’s own rather different theory of the motion of a
projectile. Just as Aristotle’s cosmological views became largely irrelevant after the
publication of Galileo’s Siderius Nuncius, so Aristotle’s theory of motion ceased
to have any true scientific value after the publication of Newton’s Principia
126 E X T R A C T S FROM EARLY NOTEBOOK I I E X T R A C T S FROM EARLY NOTEBOOK 127
in 1687. Nevertheless it is gratifying to find Newton taking his place at the end 18. Physics, Book IV, Chapter 8.
of the long and distinguished line of critics of Aristotle’s theory of motion. 19. At fol. 117. Whereas Newton here gives Descartes’s definition of motion
At the beginning of the passage three distinct causes of the continuation of in the true and philosophical sense without comment, later, in MS. VI, he
violent motion are mentioned: the air, a ‘force impresst’, or the ‘natural gravity’ criticizes the same definition at length and to great effect, ultimately replacing it
of the body. The first section is devoted to a refutation of the first cause, the by his own definition of absolute motion relative to absolute space. There are a
second cause is rejected at the beginning of the second section, and the remainder number of other references to Descartes in the present notebook, including one
of the passage is devoted to a defence of the third and, in Newton’s view, correct to ‘page 54 Princip. Philos. 3rd’ at fol. 9 3 V in connexion with Descartes’s Vortex
cause. Theory. On the same folio occurs a cometary observation dated Sat. December,
4. This ‘small force’ (of the body’s motion) is clearly intended to be measured 4th 1664.
relative to the moving body. 20. That is, Descartes’s Principia Philosophiae first published in Amsterdam,
5. That is the region of the backward stagnation point relative to the moving 1644. There was a copy of the third (Latin) edition of this work in Newton’s
body. library. See de Villamil [i], p. 74.
6. The meaning of this sentence as it stands is obscure. Possibly Newton in­ 21. At fol. 117.
tended to supply ‘the water’ between ‘answer’ and ‘must’. 22. References to ‘Mr. Boyle’s Receiver’ occur at fols. 9 6 V , 9 9 .
2 3 . At fol. 1 2 1 V . This passage would seem to point towards a realization of the
7. An argument found, for example, in Buridan. See Duhem [3], p. 37. For
the best-documented and most detailed account of medieval dynamics see distinction between the concepts of mass and weight. Solidity would have to be
Clagett [i], and for the best brief account Crombie [i], vol. ii. Part I, § 3. equivalent to density in the sense of the quantity of matter per unit of volume.
8. This like propensity (towards cessation of motion) followed from the For a discussion of Newton’s concept of mass and density see above. Part I,
Aristotelian belief that all motion required a cause failing which it would im­ Chapter 1 . 4 , p. 2 5 .
2 4 . At fol. 1 2 1 V . The figure of 1 0 0 braces in 5" reappears in the Vellum
mediately cease.
9. The sense of this and the preceding passage is obscure. Most probably Manuscript (MS. Ill) and was taken by Newton from the Dialogue of Galileo.
Newton meant to imply that the air would have no more power to move the ball See MS. Ill, Appendix A, para. (i).
when they were released than when they were restrained.
10. This argument, based on the assumption that the same force (— influence)
will have the same effect on two different bodies, one heavy, one light, provides
a good indication of the primitive state of Newton’s dynamical thought at the
time of composing this passage. It should be compared with Buridan’s much
juster argument against the Aristotelian theory on the grounds that a feather
would then go further than a heavy body. See Duhem [3], p. 39.
11. The arguments in this section against the continuation of motion by a
‘force impresst’ do not seem so conclusive as those in the previous section.
12. One would have expected non migrat in place of transfigurat.
13. That is, the body’s natural gravity. An echo, perhaps, of the medieval
distinction between natural gravity = weight, and unnatural gravity = im­
petus or force. See, for example, Duhem [i], p. 114 et seq.
14. It appears later that Newton somehow intended the spheres to be partly
in vacuo and partly in air. Originally he had written earth throughout in place
of Aire which would have made the supposed arrangement more plausible.
15. As opposed, for example, to Descartes’s belief {Principia, Pt. 2, Art. 18)
that a vacuum in a vessel would be unthinkable since the walls of the vessel
would then necessarily touch. In the chapter de vacuo referred to (at fol. 8qv)
Newton bases his belief in the possibility of empty space between bodies on the
existence of atoms not infinitely divisible, so that if the bodies are nearer than
the least atom there would necessarily be empty space between them.
16. The view, for example, of Henry More: for a discussion of More’s views
on space, spirit, and matter see Koyre [5], especially Chapter 6. The influence
of More on Newton remains to be established. A beginning has been made by
Koyre and by Fiersz [i].
17. Reminiscent of Ockham’s argument against Aristotle based on the collision
of two stones, when one and the same portion of air would have simultaneously
to move the two stones in opposite directions

II
DYNAMICAL WRITINGS IN THE WASTE B O O K
the religious commonplace book of Newton’s stepfather,
O r ig in a l l y
the Rev. Barnabas Smith, whose signature, dated 12 May 1612, appears
on the fly-leaf, the Waste Book (MS. Add. 4004) probably passed to
Newton on the death of his stepfather {c. 1656) along with the latter’s
library. Some of the pages have theological entries followed by notes in
Smith’s handwriting, and the original index is also extant. When first
examined by the Syndics of the University of Cambridge appointed to
catalogue the Portsmouth Collection the book was in a state of great
confusion with many folios missing. It has now been restored and appears
to be complete. It contains many entries by Newton apart from the
dynamical ones, those on mathematics being of particular importance.
The dynamical entries occur as follows:
At folio I (Ila)
At folio 10 (Ilb)
Definitions, at folio lov. (lie)
Ax.-Prop. 1-26 at folios iov-12 (Ud)
Ax. 100-22 at folios 12-13 (lie)
Ax.-Prop. 27-40 at folios 13V-15, 39 (llf)
At folio 38 (Ilg)
The occurrence of references to the Definitions in both Ax.-Prop.
1-26 and Ax. 100-22 proves that lib was composed before lie and Ild.
Likewise references to certain of Ax.-Prop. 1-26 in Ax. 100-22 prove
that lie was composed before lid . Finally in He there are references to
all the preceding sections so that the order of composition of Ilc-e
follows the alphabetical order, that is, the order of entering in the Waste
Book. It is then natural to assume the same to be true for the remaining
entries on folios 1,10, and 38. No internal contradiction results from this
assumption for the last pair of entries; in fact, in both cases there is some
supporting evidence. For the calculations on folio 10 are restricted to the
specially simple case of totally inelastic collisions, whereas the physical
discussion in Ax.-Prop. 7-10 deals with the much more difficult case of
perfectly or partly elastic collisions. Again, the entries on resolution of
velocity and composition of motions on folio 38 are the first to treat of these
topics in the Waste Book, and follow the preceding dynamical entries on
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 129
folio 15 after a considerable gap. Lacking further evidence it is therefore
reasonable to assume that the most probable order of composition of the
entries on folios 10 and 38 is given by their position of entry in the Waste
Book. A similar assumption, however, cannot be made for the treatment
of circular motion on folio i, for this must have come after the first tenta­
tive discussion of the problem in Ax.-Prop. 20. Striking confirmation of
this is supplied by the alteration of the figures 4 + in Ax.-Prop. 24 to 6 + ,
corresponding to the exaet result 2tt obtained in folio i.
Given the date ‘Jan. 20th 1664’ [O.S.] oeeurring in the margin of
folio 10 it is probable that all the dynamieal entries in the Waste Book were
made on or after that date. On the other hand it is possible that some of
these entries represent final versions of earlier drafts composed earlier
in January 1665 or towards the end of 1664.!
I la
At folio I. The heading Dens on this folio in Barnabas Smith’s hand,
against the normal alphabetical order, is confirmed by the index, and is
explained by the original nature of the book. There can be no doubt that
the first two dynamical entries on this folio must have been made later
than the discussion of circular motion beginning at Ax.-Prop. 20. It is
just possible that Newton originally left the first page blank either out
of a feeling of respect for his stepfather’s memory, or on religious grounds,
whereas the mathematical entry on the verso, bearing the date Septem­
ber 1664, the earliest in the Waste Book, could well have been the first
entry in the book.
Apart from a few unimportant erasures the text is clean and shows no
signs of being worked over. Given the rather complicated nature of the
argument on circular motion it is perhaps unlikely that it was written in
extempore.
Text
[i.]^ If the ball b [Fig. i] revolves about the center n the force by which it
endeavours from the center n would beget soe much motion in a body as
there is in h in the time that the body h moves the length of the semidia-
miter bn. (as if b is moved with one degree of motion through b7i in one
seacond of an hower then its force from the center n being continually
(like the force of gravity) impressed upon a body during one second it
will generate one degree of motion in that body.) Or the force from n in
one revolution is to the force of the bodys motion as : : periph : rad.
t T h e dating of the earliest dynamical manuscripts is considered above in Part I,
Chapter 6.2.
130 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK II
Demonstration.
[2.]“ If e/ fg = g h ~ he — zfa — zfb = zgc = zed. And the globe move
from a to b then zfa : ab : : ab : fa : : force or pression of b upon fg at
its reflecting : force of 6’s motion, therefore ^ab = ab be cd da :
fa : : force of the reflection in one round (viz: in b, c, d, and a) : force of
Figure i.
Vs motion, by the same proceeding if the Globe b were reflected by each
side of a circumscribed polygon of 6, 8,12, 100, 1000 sides etc. the force
of all the reflections is to the force of the bodys motion as the sume of
those sides to the radius of the circle about which they are circumscribed.
And so if [the] body were reflected by the sides of an equilaterall circum­
scribed polygon of an infinite number of sides (i.e. by the circle it selfe)
the force of all the reflections are to the force of the bodys motion as all
those sides {id est the perimiter) to the radius.
[3.] If the body b moved in an Ellipsis^ that its force in each point (if its
motion in that point bee given) [will ?] bee found by a tangent circle of
Equall crookednesse with that point of the Ellipsis.
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 131
[4.] If a body undulate in the circle bd all its undulations of any altitude
are performed in the same time with the same radius. Galileus.^
[5.] As radius ab to radius : : so are the squares of there times in which
they undulate.5
[6.] If c circulate in the circle egef [Fig. 2], to whose diameter ce, ad = ab
being perpendicular then will the body b undulate in the same time that
c circulates.6
a
[7.] And those bodies circulate in the same time whose lines drawne
from the center a to the center d are equall.7
[8.] And ad : dc : : force of gravity to the force of c from its center d.^
[9.] Coroll : hence may the force of gravity of the motion of things falling
were they not hindered by the aire may very exactly [be] founds (viz.
[}] cd : ad : : force from d : force from a.
1. For an interpretation of this and the following subsection see above,
Part I, Chapter 1.2, pp. 7-1 r. An equivalent result is derived by an entirely
different method in MS. IVa. It seems probable that Newton used this result to
derive the peculiar formula employed in the calculations of MS. III. See
§ 2 of the ‘Commentary and Interpretation’ to that manuscript.
2. This demonstration must have followed Newton’s first estimate of the
fo r c e o f the body's endeavour fr o m the centre in h a lf a revolution given in Ax.-Prop.
22. Particularly interesting in this connexion is the cancellation of the figure 4 +
in Ax.-Prop. 24 and its replacement by 6 + corresponding to the 2^ of the present
section. For a similar ‘polygonal’ treatment of circular motion see the demon­
stration of the law of centrifugal force at the end of the S ch o liu m to Prop. 4,
Theor. 4, Book, I, P rin cip ia . Ball ([i], p. 13) suggested that this latter demon­
stration was the one employed by Newton to calculate ‘the force with which a
ball revolving within a sphere presses the surface of the sphere’ prior to his
132 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W A S T E B O O K 133
derivation and first test of the inverse square law of gravitation against the Text
moon’s motion during the Plague Years. See above, Part I, Chapter 1.2, especi­ Of Reflections.
ally pp. 8-11.
3. Although the results derived in the preceding subsections are exact, they [i.]'* Suppose that the bodys a, h, [Fig. i] have noe zis elastica to reflect
give no hint as yet of the dependence of centrifugal force on speed and radius: the one from the other but at theire occursion conjoine and keepe together
this dependence is first given (implicitly) in MS. IVa. Nevertheless Newton is
already pondering the more difficult problem of motion in an ellipse. Given the as if they were one body. Then
reference to Kepler’s third law of planetary motion noted in § i of MS. I, it is not first if Theire bulke and motion be
improbable that he had in mind the elliptical paths of the planets about the sun. equall then at theire meeting they
4. See, for example, the Dialogue (edit. Santillana [i], p. 246).
shall rest.
5. This result does not appear in Galileo’s Dialogue. It is found, however, in
his Discorsi (edit. Crew and Salvio [i], p. 96). See above. Part I, Chapter 6.2, (2). If {b) have more motion than
p. 91, for the possible indication of date thus provided. (fl) all the motion of {a) shall be lost
6. An early, if not the earliest, correct statement of this result appeared with­ Figure i.
and soe much of {b)s as (a) had and
out proof in Huygens’s Horologium Oscillatorium. See Theorem IX of the
appendix on centrifugal force at the end of Part 5 of that work. The problem of they shall both move towards c shareing the difference of the motion
the circular pendulum does not seem to have been considered by Galileo. There proportionally twixt them.
is a passing reference to it by Descartes in the Cogitationes Privatae (Qiuvres, Demon: Suppose the motion of ehf =■ motion of a
vol. X, p. 224) probably inspired by an entry in Beeckman’s Journal (Beeckman
[i], vol. i, pp. 256-7). The use of a conical pendulum as a regulator for clocks (2). If a rest and b hit it they shall both move towards c shareing the
was demonstrated by Hooke at meetings of the Royal Society at the beginning motion of b twixt them.
of the year 1667 (see Birch [i], vol. ii, pp. 150 et seq.). Later Huygens contested
Hooke’s claim to have been the first to employ such a method. It seems prob­ O f Reflection
able that Huygens had employed the circular pendulum in clock regulation as [2.]*^ Suppose the Bodys a, b [Fig. 2] doe not reflect one another but
early as 1658 (see Huygens, CEuvres, vol. vii, pp. 390-1). An important reference conjoyne*= at their meeting and soe
to the circular pendulum is also found in Hooke’s paper ‘Concerning the in­
flection of a direct motion into a curve by a supervening attractive principle’ move or rest together, a = the body
read before the Royal Society at their meeting of 23 May 1666. See Birch [i], a^\b = the body fee; c = body ced\
vol. ii, pp. 90-92. G
d = body fedc. m — motion of a, n
7. Horologium Oscillatorium, Theorem VII.
— motion of b, p = motion of c,
8. Ibid., Theorem X, for a special case of the result given by Newton. This
special case is the one employed in MS. HI. See § 3 of the ‘Commentary and q = motion of d — n-\~p, before re­
Figure 2.
Interpretation’ of that manuscript. flection. e = motion of a, f = motion
9. Characteristic of Newton’s invariable search for exact quantitative results. of b, g ^ motion of c, h = motion of d after reflection, r = swiftnesse
of a, ^ = swifness of b, c or d, before reflection, t — swiftness of a,
u =^swiftnes of b, c or d after occursion. 0 the point of theire occursion
I lb
Axiome first
At folio 10. The date, ‘Jan. 20th 1664’ (O.S.), in the margin is the only [3.] Two bodys {b, c) [Fig. 2] being alike swift the motion of b : motion of
one occurring among the dynamical entries in the Waste Book. This c : : b : c. for equall parts have equall motion. Therefore b : c : : a\\ the
whole section is devoted to the problem of collisions between two
parts of b : all such parts of c : : motion of b : the motion of c.
perfectly inelastic bodies. It is assumed throughout that the bodies move
together after collision the total directed motion (= momentum) being [4.] Prop: first. If before the occursion of a [Fig. 2] and d a rest then shall
conserved. Subsection 2 gives the impression of being a revised and more e^ h = q.~ and since t = v, tis alsoe e : q : : a : a-\-d.^ Or e ~ -also
far-reaching version of the cancelled subsection i. It is possible, there­ a-\-d
fore, that in spite of the small number of emendations the subsections h == f/— = -A -
2-8 were written in extempore. There are no errors in the calculations a-\-d a\ d
apart from the small slip indicated at note (f). [5.] Prop; 2*^1 If a meete d, and have lesse motion than it, then.
 134 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 135
q— m = e-\-hA for suppose m — n. then should a and rest after cdm-\-bam dn-\-an j , , 7j , 7 1 cdmA-bam
---- ------ ~ — ----- or cdm^bam = bdn-\-ban and — — -— — n.
occursion did not p = q— ni force them towards k. ba a bd\--ba
[6.] Prop, 3: Suppose the center of gravity^ in d [Fig. 2], y i n a . z and bd-yba : cd^ba : : m n. tm vn : b : \ tbd-\-tba : vcd-\-vba.
/ the [points] in which the bodys a and d touch in theire meeting 0 the cdvA-abv , aetA-det
— e and v =
point of theire meeting, {a) the magnitude of the body («). (d) the magni­ td-\-ta obA-cd
tude of (d) m — motion of a before meeting, n = motion d before meet­ [8.i°] If a and d [Fig. 6] meete one another that c must be negative that is
ing. the time in which a or d<^ moves to 0 = time in which they both
move to y [Fig. 3]. p = motion oi a, q — motion of d after occursion ^ negative the pointy must be taken on the same

side of [0 as z]

Figure 3.

a. This sub-section deleted.

b. At this point there is a marginal entry, ‘Jan 20th/i664’.
c. Succeeded by either moving or resting together deleted.
d. See Diagram 2.
e. Immediately after this occurs the equation: zo x a ■ fo x d : :m : n equivalent to
the assumption motion proportional to magnitude of body X distance moved in given
time.
f. In error for m : p : : zo : oy.
1. Meaning a is the magnitude or bulk of the body a. From ‘Axiome first’ it
is clear that both bodies are assumed to be of the same material so that the
question of mass and density does not arise.
2. For the definitions of these and other terms in subsections 3-5 see sub­
section 2.
dm^dn 3. This assumes the motions of two equivelox bodies to be proportional to
m-^n = p+q- a : d :: p : q, or a-\-d :d : : m^n (= p + q ): q
CL-[- d their bulks. See MS. lie, Def. 3.
am-\-an am X zo-{-an X zo 4. The first indication that Newton had corrected Descartes’s law of conserva­
p. m [ p : zo : zy^. oy.
Q,-\- d am-\-dm tion of motion in respect of the direction of movement.
5. The reason for the division of the body d in Fig. 2 into two parts b and c
[7.]^ a = magnitude of the body a. [Figs. 4 and 5] = mag: of body d. now becomes evident.
0 = the point of concourse : z , f = the points of contact, at 0. zo — h, 6. Although the centre of gravity plays no part in the discussion its appear­
ance here indicates that Newton was thinking of extended bodies rather than
fo — c, op — e. t — time in which the bodys move from z and / to o. idealized particles.
V — time in which they move from 0 to p. m = motion of a before oc- 7. The calculations in this subsection, with their introduction of times and
cdnfi distances for measuring speed, may have been intended to serve as a basis for an
cursion. n = motion of it afterwards, ba : cd : : m = motion of experimental test of the law of conservation of motion.
ba 8. In conformity with MS. He, Def. 3, this assumes that motion is propor­
dn tional conjointly to bulk (magnitude or quantity) and distance moved in given
d before occursion. a : d motion of d after occursion.
time.
136 DYNAAIICAL W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK II II DY N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BOOK 137
9. T h is is eq u ivalent to the assum ption speed proportional directly to distance Alsoe if the cube Inniqyz [Fig. 3] 8 move the length of op 5; and
and inversely to tim e. A lth o u g h N ew to n n orm ally com pares speeds b y the dis­ the piramis [Fig. 4] tvwx — 7 move the length of rs —- 3 in the same time;
tances m o ved in the same tim e, as in M S . l i e , D e f. 2, he does giv e the m ore
general expression in vo lvin g the ‘ fo rb id d en ’ division o f one kind o f ejuantity
then, as opxlmqyz : rsXtvwx : : 40 : 21 : : the motion of Imqyz to the
(distance) b y another (time) in the note to M S . I l d , A x .-P r o p . 26. H ere he is
careful on ly to com pare quantities o f the sam e kin d on each side o f the equation.
10. T h is su bsection again dem onstrates N e w to n ’s clear realization o f the
im portance o f direction. H is easy m astery o f the significance o f e n egative is also
striking.

lie
Commencing at folio lov. Four diagrams occur at the top margin
opposite Defs. i, 2 having no connexion with these definitions but
Figure i.
similar to the diagrams found at the foot of folio 10. Apart from the
substitution of ‘quantity’ for ‘body’, and the cancellations of the original
version of Def, 3 and the end of Def. 10, there are few alterations in the
text which could thus have been a write-out of an earlier draft. Some
support for this possibility is supplied by the absence of definitions
numbered 6 and 8, and by the fact that in Def. 3, of which the preceding
passage would seem to represent an earlier version, the term ‘quantity’
is used throughout in contrast to the original use of ‘body’ in the
immediately preceding and succeeding definitions.

Text
Definitions.
When a Quantity^ is translated/passeth from one parte of Extension^
to another it is saide to move^
2.3 One Quantity® is soe much swifter than another, as the distance
through which it passeth is greater than the distance through which the
other passeth in the same time.
One'^ Quantity® hath soe much more motion^ than another, as the summe
of the spaces through which each of its parts moveth is to the summe of
the spaces through which each of the parts of the other quantity® moveth'^ Figure 3.

in the same time, supposeing each of the parts in both Quantitys'^ to be

equall and alike to one another'' and moved in the same p osition .O r
3. One Quantity hath so much more motion than another, as the distance
through which it moveth drawne into its quantity, is to the distance
through which the other moveth in the same time, drawne into its
quantity. As if the line ah [Figs, i and 2] move the length of be and ef
the length of eh in the same time, the motion of ah is to the motion of cd,
as abxbc — abed, to e fx eh — iehk.
motion of tvwx. Or the motion of one quantity to another is as their
powers to persever in that state.s
4. Those Quantitys'i are said to have the same determination^ of their
motion which move the same way, and those have divers which move
divers ways.
5. ^'^A quantity® is reflected when meeting with another quantity it looseth
the determination of its motion by rebounding from it. As if the bodys
138 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE fiOOK II
a [Fig. 5], h meete ones another in the point c they are parted either
by some springing motion in themselves or in the matter crouded
betwixt them, and as the spring is more dull or vigorous/quick soe the
bodys will bee reflected with with [sic] more or lesse force: as if it
endeavour to get liberty to inlarge it selfe with as greate strength and
vigor as the bodys a, b, pressed it together, then the motion of the body a
Figure 5.
from b will bee as greate after as before that reflection, but if the spring
have but halfe that vigor, then the distance twixt a and b, at the minute
after the reflection shall bee halfe as much as it was^’ at the minute
beefore the reflection.
7.9 Refraction is when the body ^passing obliquelythrough the surface ed
[Fig. 6] at the point b meets with more opposition on one side of the
surface than on the other and soe looseth its determination; as if it turne
towards a.
9.1° Force is the pressure or crouding of one body upon another.
10.^^ The center of motion* in the same body is such a point with in a
quantity! which rests when a body is moved with any circular but not
progressive motion!; **that'^ if it be conceived to rest as at a [Fig. 7] and
some line as (nrn) be drawne through it, about which (as about an axis)
the quantity (dklp) revolving there shall bee the same quantity of motion
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 139
on both sides any plaine with which [mn) is coincident**; also the line
mn drawne through it is called an axis of motion.*
11 .*3 The center of motion in 2 divers bodys is a point soe placed twixt
these bodys that (if it bee conceived to rest and) if the bodys bee moved
about it with circular motion they shall both have an equall quantity of
motion, the line about which they move is the axis of motion.
Figure 7.
12. ’^ A Body is said to move toward another body either when all its
parts move towars it or else when some of its parts have more motion
towards it than others have from it. Otherwise not.
13. * Bodys are more or lesse distant as the distances of their "^centers of
motion*" are more or lesse. or as their distances might bee acquired with
more or less motion.
a. Replacing body deleted. Quantity, as appears from Def. 3, either means body,
or its quantity, or bulk, a term sometimes used by Nezvton, as in M S. V, § i.
b. The succeeding passage dozen to position deleted. It is clearly an earlier version
of Def. 3.
c. Succeeded by supp deleted.
d. Replacing bodys deleted.
e-e. Substituted for Or struck out and zvritten at the end of the line.
f. Marginal entry noe motion is lost in reflection. For then circular motion
being made by continuall reflection would decay.*
g. Succeeded on the left-hand side, as though at the beginning of a nezv definition,
by A quantity is said to bee refracted deleted.
h. Succeeded by before deleted.
i. Replacing gravity deleted.
j-j. Written in above the passage within a quantity.
k -k . Deleted.
1. This definition entered in the margin.
m-m. Replacing parts deleted.
 140 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK
1. See reference to extension, space, or expansion in MS. V, § i. Newton’s
metaphysical views on the nature of extension are given in MS. Add. 4003.
Certain extracts from this manuscript are given in MS. VI.
2. Similar definitions of motion are given in MS. V, § i, and MS. VI, Def. 4.
3. Cf. the definitions of velocity in MS. V, § i ; MS. VI, Defs. 13, 14. With
one remarkable exception (see note to MS. I Id, Ax.-Prop. 26), Newton always
compares either the velocity of one body with another, or two different velocities
in the same body.
4. A more sophisticated definition of ‘motion’ is given in MS. V, § i, sent. 4.
Normally motion for Newton means quantity of motion momentum) but on
occasion he uses it in the sense of movement, as in MS. V, § i, sent. 3.
5. This statement refers back to that at the beginning of the Definition and
implies that for Newton the pow er o f a body to persevere in its state is proportional
to its motion. See MS. lie, Ax. 100.
6. Cf. Descartes, P r in cip ia Ph ilosop h iae, Art. 39, Part 2: omne id quod m ovetur
. . . determ inatum esse a d motum suum continuanduni versus aliquam p artem ,
secundum lineam rectam .
7. Notice how Newton follows his definition of reflection by a vivid illustra­
tion of the process as in certain of the definitions in P rin cip ia , Book I.
8. Cf. same notion in MS. I Id, Ax.-Prop. 20.
9. Recalling, possibly, his early experiments in optics.
10. The force here defined is force in the instantaneous, physical sense. Else­
where, as in MS. I Id, Ax.-Prop. 3-6, he uses the term in the sense of an impulse
measuring the total effect of a variable, physical force. It is this latter type of
m otive force which features in the second law of motion. For a discussion of
the development of Newton’s concept of force see above, Part I, Chapter i.i.
11. For a further discussion of the movement of extended bodies beyond that
in Defs. 10-13, see MS. Ild, Ax.-Prop, i i et seq.
12. If the deletion of the remainder of the passage is ignored there results a
definition of centre of motion in the dynam ical sense. Whereas on omitting the
cancelled section there results a definition of centre of motion in the kinem atical
sense. For a further discussion of this centre of motion see MS. Ild, Ax.-Prop.
11-18, and for the centre of motion in the dynamical sense MS. V, § 4.
Newton’s kinematical centre of motion corresponds to, though it does not
always coincide with, the modern instantaneous centre of motion, whereas his
dynamical centre of motion as defined in MS. V, § 4, may be shown to coincide
wdth the centre of mass or gravity of the body (see MS. V, n. 8), so that his
alternative use of the term ‘gravity’ for ‘motion’ in the present definition was
entirely just as applied to the dynamical centre of motion.
13. This gives the extension to two bodies of the immediately preceding
definition of the dynamical centre of motion for a single body. See MS. Ild,
Ax.-Prop. 25.
14. References to this definition occur in MS. Ild, Ax.-Prop, i i, 12.
I ld
The Axiom-Propositions commence at folio lov immediately after
Def. 12 and continue recto and verso to Ax. 100 at folio 12. They recom­
mence with number 27 after Ax. 122 on folio 13V and continue recto and
verso to Ax.-Prop. 37 at foot of folio 15. 'I'here is then a break till folio 39
II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 141
where the set is completed at Ax.-Prop. 40. The stop after ‘Axiornes’ in
the heading would seem to indicate that the original heading was ‘Axiomes’
only. This is confirmed by various references to certain of Ax. 1-26 in
Ax. 100-22, for example, those to Ax. i, 2 in Ax. 100. The term Propo­
sition first occurs in a reference to Prop. 28 in Ax.-Prop. 29. Again, there
is a reference in the revised version of Ax.-Prop. 28, 30 to Prop. 25
which had previously been referred to as Ax. 25 in Ax.-Prop. 27. It can
be assumed, therefore, that the original title of numbers 1-26 inclusive
was ‘Axioms’, the term ‘Proposition’ having been added after the compo­
sition of those following Ax. 100-22. The whole set of Axioms and
Propositions has therefore been divided into two sections Ild and Ilf,
separated by Ax. 100-22 at lie .
The members of the present set treat of the following topics:
Principle of inertia (i, 2)
Force and motion (3-6, 23)
Collision between two bodies (7-10)
Kinematics of an extended body (11-18)
Circular motion (19-22)
Centre of motion of a pair of bodies (24-25)
Kinematics of a single particle (26)
Several inversions of number order point towards the original exis­
tence of an earlier version. With the exception of a number of considerable
deletions (all noted) the text is almost entirely clean.
2'ext
Axiomes. and Propositions
1.1 If a quantity once move it will never rest unlesse hindered by some
externall caus.
2. A quantity will always move on in the same streight line (not changing
the determination nor celerity of its motion) unlesse some externall cause
divert it.
3.2 There is exactly required so much and noe more force to reduce a
body to rest as there was to put it upon motion: et e contra.
4.3 Soe much force as is required to destroy any quantity of motion in a
body, soe much is required to generate it; and soe much as is required to
generate it soe much is alsoe required to destroy it.
6. If the s[ame] force move 2 unequall bodys {a and h) the swiftnesse of
142 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BOOK II
one body {a) is to the swiftnesse of [the ot]her as h is to and there­
fore the motion of both bodys shall bee equall.
5. If two [equal ?] bodys [b, c) bee moved by uneqiiall forces, as the force
moveing (b) is to the force [movjing c, so is motion of b, to the motion of
c, so is the swiftnes of b, to that of c.
7. If two bodys [a and b moving?] against one another the same way
towards O [Fig. i], {a) overtaking {b) none of theire motion shall be lost,
for {a), presses [(6) as much] as {b) presses {df^^ and therefore the motion
of (i!)) shall increase [as much] as that of (<2) decreaseth.
a h
d\ ct
Figure i. Figure 2.
8. ^ If two quantities [a and b) [Fig. 2] move towards one another and
meete in O, Then the difference of theire motion shall not bee lost nor
loose its determination. For at their occursion they presse equally uppon
one another and^P^ therefore one must loose noe more motion than the
other doth; soe that the difference of their motions cannot bee destroyed.
If one body {a) overtake another body {b) they both moveing towards
O then they shall always move together. If the body (c) move against
an immoveable quantity {d) it shall not bee rebounded for c having
urged d with
9. *=If two equall and equally swift bodys {d and c) meete one another they
shall bee reflected, soe as to move as swiftly frome one another after the
reflection as they did to one another before it. For
first suppose the sphaericall bodys e, f [Fig. 3] to
d f 1 ^ have a springing or elastic force soe that meeting one
another they will relent and be pressed into a
sphaeroidicall figure, and in that moment in which
Figure 3.
there is a period put to theire motion towards one
another theire figure will be most sphaeroidical and theire pression
one upon the other is at the greatest, and if the endeavour to
restore theire sphaericall figure bee as much vigorous and forcible as
theire pressure upon one another was to destroy it they will gaine as
much motion from one another after their parting as they had towards
one another before theire reflection. Secondly suppose they be sphaericall
Def. 3^^. Axiome 4th. Axiom 4th.
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 143
and absolutely sollid'^ then at the period of theire motion towards one
another (that is at the moment of theire meeting) theire pression is at
the greatest, or rather ’tis done with the whole force by which theire
motion is stopt (for theire whole motion was stoped by the force of theire
pressure upon one another in this one moment, and there cannot bee/
succeede divers degrees of pressure twixt two bodys in one moment).
Now so long as neither of these 2 bodys yeild to one another they will
retaine the same forcible pressure towards one another : that is soe much
force as deprived the bodys of their motion towards one another soe
much doth now urge them from one another and therefore^'^ they shall
move from one another as much as they did towards one another before
theire reflection.
10.5 There is the same reason when unequall and unequally moved
bodys reflect, that they should separate from one another with as much
motion as they came together.
11 If a line df [Fig. 4] bee moved not with d
a Progressive but onely a Circular motion its
middle point (n) shall rest. For if it move let
it move towards r soe that, when the point (d)
is in p and / in {q), then (w) shall be moved to
{s).
11. If aline {ce) [Fig. 5] be bisected in (a) about
which the line (ce) doth circulate and that
Figure 4.
point bee fixed. Then the whole line hath noe
progressive motion. For making ab = ad, bf, ag, and dh bee parallel, and
perpendic to fh, then is vb = dp and vf-\~ph = bf-\-dh = zag. Wherefore
the point c moveing towards n the point d shall move soe much towards
the line/A as the point b doth from it, and all the points in {a, c) or the line
ac move as much to the line fh as all the points in {ae) or the line (ae)
moves from it soe that the whole line ce stays in equilibrio neither
moveing to nor from//?, by the 12th Defin.
12. Hence when the center of a line (a) is not in the midst of a line (/« e)
[Fig. 5] the whole line moves the same way which the longest parte doth,
for supposeing ca = ae then the line ce is in equilibria (par ax. ii) but if
{m c) moves towards (fh) and be added to (c e) then (m e) moves towards
ce (by def. 12).
13. When (ce) [Fig. 5] moves circularly but maketh noe progression its
axiome 3''.
 144 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK II
midle point shall rest and is therefore the center of its motion, for if the
middle point move let it bee to r from a soe that the line ec bee moved
into the place [w t) then let {w t) move about the fixed center r into the
place xi’, then xs and wt are equally distant fromfh (by def. 13 and ax. 11)
and alsoe (In) and [ce) are equally distant from the [line ?] f h : but xs and
In are not equally distant from/A: therefore neither are wt and ce equally
distant from fh. and therefore the line ce had progressive motion when it
passed into wt.
i4(a).^ By the same reason the middle point of a parallelogram paralleli-
pipedon, prisme, cilinder, circle, sphaere, elipsis, sphaeroides [are at the ?]
center of theire motion.
15.'^ A Body hath the same determination of its motion which the center
« of its motion hath. As if the line ac
Q f .
^ [Fig. 6] move into the place the
center of its motion b moveing into
the place d, then let gh move about
the center d untill it be parallell to
ac, as into ef, soe that the point a fall
into the point e. Now since gh by
turning about the center d hath noe
progressive motion (by Def. 10) tis
plaine that gh and ef have determination from ac but ef hath the same
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 145
determination from ac which d hath from h (for if ac be understood to
move parallell to its selfe into the place ef, all its points describe parallel
lines and therefore have the same determination one with another and
each with the whole body (by axiom 14) therefore gh hath the same
determination from ac which the point d hath from the point b.
14(b). A Body being moved parallell to its selfe all its points describe
parallel lines and each of them have the same determination and velocity
with the body, for (by axiom 2)^ they must all bee streight ones which
if they intersect the body will not be moved parallel to its selfe. etc.
16.*’^ If a body move forward and circularly its center of motion shall
allways bee in the same streight line. For the body hath allways the same
determination (ax. 2) and the center of its motion hath the same deter­
mination with the body (ax. 15) therefore it hath always the same
determination, and soe will move continually in the same streight line.
If a body move streightly forward and circularly its center of
motion shall have the same determination and velocity that '4he body
hath'\ For suppos ac [Fig. 6] to be moved into the place and its center
of motion b into the place d, then let it turne about the center d into the
place ef parallel to ac soe that the point whieh was in {a) bee now in {e).
Now since [gh) by moveing into the place (/<?) makes noe progressive
motion (def. 10) it follows that’ the same quantity (or since
the same velocity (defin. 10)) and determination of motion in the same
time would translate ac parallell to it selfe into the place ef, that wold
translate it into the place had it both progressive and circular motion.
But the point d hath the same velocity and determination which the line
e/hath when moved parallel to its selfe^’’^ therefore the point d hath the
same determination and velocity which the line gh hath when moved
with both eircular and progressive motion vide ax. 37.
18. If a body move progressively in some crooked line and alsoe circu­
larly its center of motion shall have the same determination and velocity
which the body hath. foH (ax. 17) this is trew when its motion is in a
streight line but a crooked line may bee conceived to consist of an infinite
number of streight lines.'" Or else in any point of the croked line the
motion may bee conceived to be on in the tangent.”
19. If 2 bodys make the same number of circulations with the same
distance from the center c [Fig. 7]: then as the Radij of the circles which
their centers of motion describe are to one another soe are the perimeters
axiom 14.
1,
 146 DY N A M I CA L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 11
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 147
call surface of the body edf circularly about the center m, it shall press
upon the body def for when it is in c (supposeing the circle bhc to be
described by its center of motion and the line eg a tangent to that circle
at 0) [it] moves towards g or the determination of its motion is towards
therefore if at that moment the body efd should cease to check it it
would continually move in the line eg (ax. i, 2) obliqly from the center m.

\
/ \
7/
a /
/ nv
\

\
\ /

/ continually presse upon edf.
Figure 8.
one to another soe are theire velocitys one to another (ax. lo, def. 2) and
their motions are to one another as theire bulkes drawne into the Radij
of those circle (which theire centers of motion describe) are to another
(Def. 3). A s ; ec : CO : : velocity of eb : velocity of ao and eh xec \aoXco : :
motion eb : motion of ao.
20.^ If a sphaere or [Fig. 8] move within the concave shaeicall of cilindri-
but if the body def oppose it selfc to this endeavour keeping it equi­
distant from m, that is done by a continued checking or reflection of it
from the tangent line in every point of the circle ebh, but the body edf
cannot check and curbe the determination of the body eo unless they
continually presse upon one another. The same may be understood if
the body adb [Fig. 9] bee restrained into circular motion by the thread
{om)W
2 1. Hence it appeares that all bodys moved circularly have an endeavour
from the center about which they move, otherwise the body oe would not
22. '^ The whole force by which a body eo indevours from the center m in
halfe a r e v o lu t io n is more than double to the force which is able to
generate or destroy its motion, that is to the force with which it is moved:
for supposeing it have moved from (c) by {h) to {h) [Fig. 8]. Then the
resistance of the body def (which is equall to its pressure upon def) is
able to destroy its force of moveing from e to g and to generate in it as
much force of moveing from [b) to {h) the quite contrary way.
148 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BOOK II II D Y N A M IC A L W R IT IN G S IN TH E W A ST E B O O K 149

25.™ Having [the] cent[er] of motion of the 2 bodys ob and de [Fig. 10] to velocity of a is to the velocity oi e 2is, a b x d f to ed X be.^^ For supposeing
find the common center of both [their motions] draw a line oe from the 7 .1 • eb X ed * 1 / , 1 * r •
that gp — eb then is ep = — ^ — And (by def. 2) the velocity of a is to
centers of their motions o and e, and div[ide it at a ?] so that the body ob
is to the body de as the line ae to the line oa: that is so that obxoa = , r 7 . . eb Aed 7 7- 7 7 7 * 1 1
the velocity oi e : : ab : ep : : ab : ■— ^ - : : a b xfd : ebx ed. Alsoe the
ae X de.^^ For then if they move about the center a being always opposite fd
to one another they have equall motion (ax. 19) and consequently have" motion of a is to that motion of e (by def 3^) : : a xa b : eXcp : : aXab:
, eb Xed i n 7 7 • 1 .
eXep : : aXab : e x - : : a x a b x f d : eX eb xed : : a X its velocity :
e x its velocity.**^
a
Figure 10.

Figure 12.

an equall endeavour from the center a (ax. 24) soe that if they bee joyned
to center (a) by the lines ae and ao, the one hindereth the other from
forcing the centre a any way soe that it shall stand in equilibrio betwixt
them and (by def. 10)1^ is therefore theire center of motion.
24." If two bodies {cb and de) [Fig. ii] move about a center (a) then
making be ~ a, de — b, ac — c,ae — d, the time in which be makes halfe
a revolution call e, that in which de doth the same call /, the pressure of
cb from the center a in halfe a revolution call g, and that of de call h : the
motion of eb in halfe a revolution call k, and that of de call /, then k : I : :
24. If two bodys {eb and de) [Fig. 11] move about a center a thenP The Note^o that when the motion is uniforme that is when a body moves over
whole force by which the body eb tends from the center a in one revolu­ the same space in the same time (which will ever bee when the motion
tion (being equall to 6-f^7 times the force by which the body is moved of that body is neither helped nor hindred) then in a right angled
(ax. 22)^^ is to the motion of that body eb as the whole force by which the triangle ab may designe the space through which a body moveth in the
body de tends from the center a in one revolution (which is equall to time eb. Otherwise, when ’tis not uniforme the proportion of the time
6 + ^7 times the force by which the [body] de is moved, or which is able to in which a body moves to the distance through which it moves may be
stop its motion (ax. 22)) is to the motion of the body de. Vide Axioma 23""’. designed by lines drawne to a crooked line, as the time by [Fig. 13] or
26. If the body a [Fig. 12] move through the space ab =r- b m the time ih, the distance by gh or fi, the velocity by the proportion of nh to hi, ni
d = be, and the body e through the space cd — e in the time /. then the being tangent to the crooked line at i, etc.
 150 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BOOK
23.’' ®If the body bacd [Fig. 15] acquire the motion q by the force cT, and
the body/the motion / by the force then d : q : ; ^ for suppose the
body rscb = / to acquire the motion w by the force d, then (ax. s) ^ S ■ '■
w : p. but q = zv (by ax. 4) therefore d : g : : q : p.
F'igurc 15.
a. F o l. I I begins.
b. D ele te d in fa v o u r o f the succeeding version.
c. E n title d in the margin O f the separation o f bo dys after reflection
d. D eleted in fa v o u r o f the succeeding version.
e. F o l. I I V begins. T h is zvhole section deleted.
f. W hole section deleted.
g. E n title d in the margin T h e center o f m otions deter and velocity.
h-h. R ep lacin g It w o u ld have had did the b o d y m o ve parallel to it selfe deleted.
i. Su cceed ed by i f ac w o u ld be m oved parallel to it selfe into the place o f e f it
w ou ld keep the same determ ination and q u an tity o f m otion deleted.
j. S ucceed ed by in an y poin t o f the crooked line its determ ination is in the
tan gen t deleted.
k. E n title d in the margin O f endeavor from the center.
l . I n error f o r g.
m. E n title d in the margin T o find the center o f m otion in two bodys.
n. F o l. 12 begins.
o. D eleted in fa v o u r o f the succeeding version.
p. T h e r e follow s a n u m ber o f dashes in the m anuscript as if N e w to n were
pon derin g the correct continuation.
q. S u cceeded b y a p artly illegible deleted portion containing a p ro of o f the
same result som ew hat less elegant than the final version.
r. M a r g in a l entry let this follow the s ' ax:
s. B en ea th I f 2 b o dys be m oved w ith equall or uneq deleted.
1. N o tic e h o w in this and the su cceed ing n um ber N ew to n enunciates the
p rinciple o f inertia in tw o separate parts. See A x . 100. See also above Part I,
C h a p ter 2.2, for a discussion o f the evidence p rovid ed here and elsewhere in
the W aste B o o k for the influence of D escartes on N ew to n in dynam ics. A co m ­
parison o f this and other enunciations o f the p rinciple o f inertia up to and in ­
clu d in g that in the P rin cip ia is given above in Part I, C h a p ter 1.4, p p. 29.
2. T h is and the three follo w in g num bers are each special cases o f the general
II
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 151
result fo r ce oc change in m otion produced given later in A x .-P r o p . 23. A n alm ost
identical expression o f the present n um ber occurs at M S . H e, A x . X14.
3. See M S . H e, A x . 115.
4. N o tice for N e w to n absolutely solid m eant p erfectly elastic, whereas for
Descartes in his P rin cip ia P h ilosop h iae it im plied p erfectly inelastic. See, h o w ­
ever, G a b b e y [i]. C h a p ter 4.
5. T h e result given in this n um ber is true for a p erfectly elastic collision, as
follows, for exam ple, either from N e w to n ’s ow n law for relative velocities w ith
e =- I , or b y sim ultaneous application o f conservation o f m om en tu m and co n ­
servation o f energy. B u t it is not clear how N e w to n supposed that the general
result follow ed from the very special case considered in the p revious num ber.
T h e general result is em p loyed in M S . V , §§ 9, 10. N o tic e that the term ‘m o tio n ’
is here em p loyed in the sense o f m o vem en t rather than in the usual sense o f
cjuantity o f m otion ( — m om entum ).
6. In troduced to distin guish it from the later section o f the sam e num ber. T h is
latter section is clearly the ‘A x io m 14 ’ referred to in n u m ber 15, and therefore
presum ably bore the same n um ber in som e previous draft o f the present version.
7. T h e reference to A x . 2 is curious in this apparently kinem atical proposition.
N e w to n m ay have had in m ind a b o d y m o vin g w ith o u t rotation un der the
action o f no forces.
8. N u m b e r 17 evid e n tly represents an im proved, com posite version o f the
present n um ber and the p revio u sly cancelled n um ber 15. In an y case the state­
m ent in the first sentence is u n tr u e : the centre o f m otion need n ot m o ve in a
straight line b u t m ay describe instead som e ‘ crooked lin e’ , as in n um ber 18.
9. N o tice the identical nature o f the dem onstration em p loyed to prove this
proposition and that giv en in the ‘ m o dern ’ p ro o f that any m o vem en t o f a b o d y
in a plane m ay be replaced b y a translation follow ed b y a rotation.
10. F o r exam ple, a circle, as in N e w to n ’s polygo n al treatm ent o f centrifugal
force at fol. i (M S . Ila ).
1 1. A s in the case o f circular m otion. See n um ber 20.
12. T h e case considered b y D escartes in A rt. 38, Part 2, P rin cip ia Philosop hiae.
13. T h is first ten tative attem p t to introduce number into the treatm ent o f
circular m otion is carried to a precise conclusion in fol. i (M S . H a).
14. T h e exact m ean in g o f the p recedin g part first becom es evid en t in fol. i
(M S . H a).
15. S o that a is at the centre o f mass o f the tw o bodies.
16. T h e reference is obscure. D e f. 10 refers to one b o d y only, whereas the
dynam ical definition o f centre o f m otion o f a pair o f bodies in D e f. 11 contains
no reference to equilibrium ( -- rest). N e w to n p ro b ab ly had in m ind the re­
quirem ent that the centre o f m otion should be at rest, som eth ing w h ich fo l­
low ed in this case from the equal and opposite endeavours o f the tw o bodies
from the poin t under consideration. H ow ever, the im portan t th in g w as his
divination o f the special dyn am ical significance o f the poin t (centre o f mass) thus
defined. M a n y propositions relating to the m otion o f this p oin t are giv en in
A x .-P r o p . 27 et seq. T h e s e propositions, in turn, m u st be regarded as the fore­
runners o f C o ro ll. 4 to the laws o f m otion in M S . X I and in the P rin cip ia .
17. R ep la cin g a cancelled 4 k w h ich w o u ld correspond to the tentative
approxim ation found in n um ber 22. W hereas 6 + corresponds to the exact result
2TT derived at fol. i, good evidence that the present en try was originally m ade
before those on fob i.
152 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BOOK II
18. N o tic e in A x . 22 N e w to n equates the fo r c e by vAiich a body is m oved to
the force able to generate or destroy its m otion. B y A x .-P r o p . 23 (found out o f
order at end o f the present set) this latter force w ill be proportional to the m otion
created or destroyed. T h is explains the final reference to A xio m a 2 3 ”” '.
19. T h e first occasion on w h ich qu a n tity o f m otion (as originally defined in
D e f. 3) is set jo in tly proportional to bu lk and velocity.
20. W h a t follow s represents an extraordinary excep tion to N e w to n ’s cu sto ­
m ary m anner o f dealing w ith velocities b y com parison o f one w ith another
rather than directly, as here, as the gradien t o f the space-tim e graph. See above.
Part I, C h a p ter i . i , p. 3.
lie
At folio 12 immediately after Ax.-Prop. 23, and thereafter without a
break to folio 1 3 V. Several inversions of number order, especially in the
last four axioms, point towards the existence of a previous version.
With the exception of the last four, the present set of axioms constitute
a closely interconnected whole whose significance and purpose is at first
sight difficult to grasp. The clue to their interpretation is provided by
Ax. 1 18. This axiom is evidently equivalent to the general result relating
force and motion generated or destroyed given in Ax.-Prop. 23, itself
the generalization of the special cases given in Ax.-Prop. 3-6. Now it can
be proved that Ax. 1 18 is connected, directly or indirectly, to almost all
the results derived in the preceding axioms, and these results can in turn
ultimately be derived from a small number of basic assumptions regarded
as self-evident by Newton. Ax. 100-18 therefore amount to an attempted
proof of the necessity of the result given as an axiom in Ax.-Prop. 23. In
addition, and quite independently, though in the same spirit, the
principle of inertia enunciated previously at Ax.-Prop. i, 2, is derived
from a certain more general philosophical principle at the beginning of
Ax. 100.
As an aid towards comprehension an outline of the argument cul­
minating in the proof of Ax. 118 will now be given. At Ax. lo i, itself
a revised draft of that part of Ax. 100 following the discussion of the
principle of inertia, Newton ‘proves’ that the ‘hindrance impediment,
resistance or opposition’ required to destroy the velocity of a given
body is double that required for an ‘equivelox’ (= equally fast) body of
half the size. Or generally, that the resistance or hindrance required to
destroy a body’s velocity is proportional to its size (Ax. 102). Likewise
for the generation of velocity, the ‘power or efficacy vigor strength or
virtue of the cause’ required to generate new velocity is proportional to
the body acted on (Ax. 103). A particular type of hindrance to the motion
of one body is provided by the motion of another, and two equal, equivelox
bodies offer equal and opposite hindrances to each other (Ax. 105). In
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 153
this case the hindrance to the motion of one results from the pow er of
the other to ‘persevere’ in its velocity or state. This power is usually
called ‘the force of the body’. The endeavour of the force of one body to
hinder the progress of another is performed by pressure (Ax. 106). For
two equivelox bodies, their forces (equal to the forces with lehich they are
moved or their respective powers to persevere on their motion) are propor­
tional to the bodies (i.e. their sizes) (Ax. 107 via Ax. 102).
At this point a sharp distinction must be drawn between the force of
a body (as defined previously) and the force (acting) on a body. The
velocities acquired by equal bodies are proportional to the force acting on
them (Ax. 108). The same is true for the destruction of velocity. For
example, if the velocity of a is triple that of an equal body h, the force
required to deprive a of its velocity will be triple that required to deprive
b of its (Ax. 109). Hence the force of a ’s motion is triple that of A’s (Ax.
1 10 using the definition of force of a body’s motion in Ax. 106). The same
holds generally for equal bodies (Ax. i i i ) .
The concept of a body’s motion (= momentum) is now introduced:
‘A body is said to have more or less motion as it is moved wdth more or
less force, that is, as there is more or lessforce required to generate or destroy
its whole motion' (Ax. 1 12). The motion of a body or the force of its motion
is proportional jointly to its bulk and the distance it moves in a given
time (Ax. 1 13, via Ax. 107, 111). But if the same force acts on two bodies
a, b, with a = 36, then the velocity generated in b is triple that generated
in a (Ax. 1 16, via Ax. 108). And generally for equal forces as « is to 6 as
the velocity generated in b to the velocity generated in a (Ax. 117). Hence
the motion generated in any two bodies is proportional to the forces
acting on them. Likewise if motion is destroyed in both or generated in
one and destroyed in the other (Ax. 118, via Ax. 108, 113, 117).
The total structure of the argument leading up to the demonstration
of Ax. 1 18 is exhibited in the following chart. Only general results have
been included.
Text
Ax: 100. Every thing doth naturally persevere in that state in which it
is unlesse it bee interrupted by some externall cause, hence axiome ist
and 2^ and [2?] A body once moved will alw^ays keepe the same
celerity, quantity and determination of its motion.
IT two equall bodies {bepq and r) [Fig. i] meete one another wdth
equall celerity (unlesse they could pass through one the other by
penetration of dimensions) they must mutually hinder their perseverance
in their states and (since the one hath noe advantage over the other they
 154 DYNAAIICAL W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BOOK
must equally hinder the one the others perseverance in its State having
both of them an equall power to persever in their state, likewise if
the body aocb be = and equivelox with r they meeting would equally
///
hinder or oppose the one the others progression or perseverance in
their states and therefore the power of the body aopq (when tis equivelox
with r) is double to the power that r hath to persever in its state,
that is the efficacy force or power of the cause which can reduce aopq
to rest must bee double to the power and efficacy of the cause which
can reduce r to rest, or the power which can move the one must be
double to the power which can move the other soe that they bee made
equivelox.'
Hence in equivelox bodies the powers of persevering in their states^
are proportionall to their quantitys.
Hence may bee perceived what is meant
lo i. Supposing the bodies aobc and cbqp [Fig. i] to be equall and equi­
velox; Then that cause hindrance impediment resistance or opposition
II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 155
which can onely deprive cbqp of its whole velocity and motion by hinder­
ing its perseverance in its state, can also only deprive aocb of its whole
velocity and motion, for that cause hath the same advantage over both
the bodys. Now if I add the opposition {a) which can onely deprive
cbpq of its motion to the opposition {b) which can onely deprive aobc of
its motion the whole opposition {a^b = 2a = 2b) can onely deprive
both the bodys aobc~\-cbqp of their motion when they are joyned into
one {aopq) for a : cbpq : \ b : aobc : : a-\-b : cbqp-\-aobc : : 2a : aopq. Also
neither the opposition a nor b alone can deprive aopq of its motion for
then the parte*^ {a or b) would be equall to the whole {a-\ b — 2a — 2b).
Figure i.
By the same reason aopq and cbqp loosing equall velocity the impediment
of aopq must be double to the opposition of cbqp.
1 0 2 . Since^ because aopq [Fig. i] is double to cbqp and both of them
equivelox therefore the opposition which can deprive aopq of its motion
must be double to that which can deprive cbpq of its motion; by the same
reason^ it will follow that in equivelox bodys as one body {a) is to
another [b) soe must the resistance which can deprive that body (a) of
its velocity/motion bee to the resistance which can deprive {b) of its
whole velocity/motion so is the resistance which can deprive («) of some
parte of its velocity, to the resistance which can deprive {b) of the same
quantity of velocity, soe that a and b bee still equivelox.
°Now it may be perceived how and why amongst bodys moved some
require a greater some a lesse opposition to deprive them of theire whole
velocity or of some parte of it.*'
103. By the same reason alsoe If two bodys rest or bee equivelox: then
as the body {a) is to the body {h) so must the power or efficacy vigor
strength or virtue of the cause which begets new velocity in (a) bee to
the power virtue or efficacy of the cause which begets the same quantit\-
of velocity in {b), soe that a and b bee still equivelox.
 156 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BO O K II
104. Hence it appeares how and why amongst bodys move some require
a more potent or efficacious cause others a lesse to hinder or helpe their
velocity. And the power of this cause is usually called force. And as this
cause useth or applieth its power or force to hinder or change the perse­
verance of bodys in theire state, it is said to Indeavour to change their
perseverance.
105. ^ If the equall and equivelox bodys a [Fig. 2] and b meete (unlesse
they could passe the one through the other by penetrating its dimentions)
d ct b c
Figure 2.
they must necessarily hinder the one the others progression, and since
these bodys have noe advantage the one over the other the hindrance on
both parts will be equall, likewise if the bodies d~\-a and b \-c bee equall
and equivelox they must equally hinder one another’s progression. But
the body {b) (being lesse than the body (6-fc)) and equivelox with [d-[-a)
cannot hinder the progression of the body d-\-a soe much as the body
(6+c) can; for then the power of [b) being part of the power of the body
b-\-c would bee equall to the whole power of therefore that b-\-c
and d-\-a being equivelox doe equally hinder the one the others pro­
gression tis required that they be equall.
106. g Now if the bodys a and b meete one another the cause which hin-
dereth the progression of a is the power which b hath to persever in its
velocity or stated and is usually'^ called the force of the body b and as the
body b useth or applyeth this force to stop the progression of a it is said
to Indeavour to hinder the progression of a which endeavour in body
is performed by pressure and by the same reason the body b may bee
said to endeavor to helpe the motion of a if it should apply its force to
move it forward; soe that it is evident what the Force and indeavor in
bodys are.
107. ' If the bodys b and c be equivelox then as 6 : c : : the force with which
b is mov ed (or the power of b to persever in its velocity or [helpe ?] or
to hinder another body from persevering in its velocity) to the force of c.
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BOOK 157
For let there be 2 other bodys a and d equivelox to them soe that a
meeting b, and d meeting c they would equally hinder one anothers
progression then is, a = b, and c — d (ax. 105) and a { — b) \ d { = c) : :
the force which can stop a (= to the force of b) to the force which can
stop d (= to the force of c). [vide ax. == 102)^
io 8.j’7 Tis knowne by the light of nature that equall forces shall effect an
equall change in equall bodies. Therefore if the forces^, h, k, m be equall,
and the bodys a, b equall and rest, then let {a) bee moved by the force
a /
k b ■9
Figure 3. Figure 4.
g ; and b h y h ,a and b shall be equivelox: Also (since tis noe greater change
for (a) to acquire another part of motion now it hath one than for it to
acquire that one when it had none)^ if {a) bee againe moved forward by
the force k, its velocity shall be double to the velocity of b, and if it bee
againe moved forward by the force m its velocity shall be triple to that
of b, etc. Whence as the force moving (a) is to the force moving (b) soe is
the velocity acquired in (a) to the velocity acquired in (b) by that force.
109. By the same reason if a = b and the velocity of a be triple to the
velocity of b, that force can deprive a of its velocity which is triple to the
force which can deprive b of its velocity. Or in generall so is the lost
velocity of a to the lost velocity of b as the force which deprives a of some
or all of its velocity, to the force which deprives b of some or all of its
velocity.^
112.6m body is saide to have more or lesse motion as it is moved with
more or lesse force, that is as there is more or lesse force required to
generate or destroy its whole motion.
1 13." If a body {a) [Fig. 3] move through the space ab = r in the time c,
and the body / [Fig. 4] through .§/ = v in the time h then, time c : time
h X cib
h : : line ab — r : - — = ak, and the body a would move through the
c
space ak in the same time {K) in which the body / moves through the
space jg. Therefore the velocity of a is to the velocity of / as the line
b V nb
ak — : line fg : : h xa b : c x fg (def. 2). Then I ad the body r t o f
soe that/'+/=-:= a. Since/and rare equivelox, (ax. 107) as / : f ^ r ^ a :
 158 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BO O K II II D Y N A M IC A L W R IT IN G S IN TH E W A STE B O O K 159

am by that force. Tis axiome the 4th.^ And (by ax; 113) the bodys will have
m = force or motion of /, to -y = force o f/ + r. againe since a = /-|-r
equall motion.
(ax. i n ) as the velocity of a; to the velocity o f / + r : : h xa b : c x fg : : 1 18." If the body / be moved by the force q, and r by the force 5, (to find
n = the force or motion of a, to ~ = to the force of (t?) the celerity of / and {w) that of q). I add (f) to / , soe th a t/+ / — r,
hxab f and that (/) and (/+ /) are moved with equall force, then p-\-t ( = r)
f-[-r. Soe that n x f x c x f g = m x a x h x a b . Soe that haveing any 7 of
these the 8th may bee found, but suppose the bodys moved in equall : p : :v ; ^ t h e celerity of p-\-t (ax: 117) alsoe (ax: 108) ^ : q : :w :
times that is if c = h, then the rest of the termes may bee found by,
^ = or qrw = pvs. that is the celerity of / is to the celerity of r as qr
m x a x a b = n X fx fg etc. that is as f x fg is to a X ab soe is the motion
(m) of the body / to the motion (n) of the body a etc. VO
If the body (a and b) bee equall and the celerity of a triple to
that of b, then if the force d can deprive b of its motion the force can
deprive a of its motion. But if there bee less force {},d--p) it cannot de­
prive a of its motion for soe the parte (3<^—/) would be = to the whole
2,d; if there be more force (3<^+/>) it will doe more than deprive the body
a of its motion (i.e. move it the contrary way) otherwise the parte (3^/)
would be equall to the whole (3^^+^).'^ Therefore the force which can
deprive a of its motion must bee triple to the force which can deprive b
of its motion and consequently (def.’' 106) the force wherewith a is moved
is triple to the force wherewith b is moved is to ps. And by ax. 113 the motion of / is to the motion of r as the force
of / to the force of ^s r. And by the same reason if the motion of / and r bee
H I . By the same reason as the celerity of the body a ( = b) is to the
hindered by the force q and the motion lost in / is to the motion lost
celerity of b soe is the force wherewith a moveth to the force wherewith
in r, as q is to s. or if the motion of / be increased by the force q, but the
b moveth.
motion of r hindered by the force s] then as to ^ : : so is the increase
1 14. '! There is required soe much and noe more force to reduce a body to of motion in /, to the decrease of it in r (ax: i i i )
rest than there is to move it: et a contra. And
121.^ If 2 bodys / and r meet the one the other, the resistance in both is
1 15. Soe much force a[s] is required to generate any quantity of motion the same for soe much as / presseth upon r so much r presseth on / . ’<’
in a body, so much is required to destroy it, and e contra. For in loosing And therefore they must both suffer an equall mutation in their motion.
or to [«c] getting the same quantity of motion a body suffers the same
119. If r [Fig. 5] presse / towards zv then / presseth r towards i ’.’®Tis
quantity of mutation in its state, and in the same body equall forces will
evident without explication.
effect a equall change.
120. A body must move that way which it is pressed.*^
I i6.f If the bodys a — 36, and a and b are m o v e d w i t h the same force d
then the celerity of b is triple to the celerity of ap for 36 moved by 2>d is 122.2'’ Therefore if the body / come from c [Fig. 5] and the body r from
equivelox to b moved by dp^ but since 36 = a, therefore a moved by ^d d soe much as / ’s motion is changed towards w, so much the motion of
is equivelox to b moved by d. And (ax. 108) as the celerity of a moved r will be changed towards v. vide prop. [?]
by d to the celerity of a moved by 3 / soe is i to 3 soe is the celerity of a
a. T h e succeeding passages dozen to the beginning o f A x . 1 0 1 deleted.
moved by d to the celerity of b moved by d. b. F o l. I 2 v begins.
c. M a r g in a l entry referring to 1 0 2 , 1 0 j . W h a t force is required to beget or
I I 7. By the same reason. Any bodys / and g being moved by the same
destroy equall velo city in unequall bodys.
force, as (/) is to {g) soe is the celerity of {g) to the celerity of (/) acquired
160 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BO O K
d. P reced ed B y th ey same reason that deleted.
e -e . D eleted .
f. M a r g in a l entry. W h a t resistance in bodys.
g. M a r g in a l entry. W h a t force In deavor and Pression is.
h. Com m encing above usu ally an d betzveen the lines occurs soe that a b o d y is
said to be m o ved w ith m ore or lesse force® w h ich m eetin g w ith another b o d y can
cause a greater or lesse m u tation in its state, or w h ich requireth m ore or less
force® to destroy its m otion.
i. M a r g in a l entry. W h a t force or M o tio n is in E q u iv e lo x bodys.
j. M a r g in a l entry referring to i o 8 , l o g . W h a t v elo city acquired or lost in
equall b o dys b y un equ all forces.
k. S u cceed ed a fter tzvo d eleted an d largely illegible lines by the follozcing d eleted
passage. T h e force w h ich the b o d y (a) hath to preserve it selfe in its state shall
bee equall to the force w h ich p u t it in that s ta te ; n ot greater for the effect cannot
exceede the [cause ?] for there can be n o th in g in the effect w h ich w as n ot in the
cause nor lesse for since the cause o n ly looseth its force aw ay b y co m m u n ica tin g
it to its effect there is no reason w h y its [«c] should [not] be in the effect [w hat ?]
is lost in the cause. H en ce appeares the tru th o f the 3"^^ and 4 “^axiom e.
l. F o l. 1 3 begins.
m . M a r g in a l entry. W h a t m otion in bo dys.
n. M a r g in a l entry. A generall theorem o f the p roportion o f v e lo city and
m otion o f g iv en b o d y m o vin g th rou gh g iv e n spaces in giv en tim es.
o. M a r g in a l entry referring to n o , i n . W h a t force required to bege t or des­
tro y u n equ all celerity in equall bodys.
p. I n error f o r A x .
q. M a r g in a l entry referring to 1 1 4 , i i 5. O f hin derin g and help in g m otion.
r. M a r g in a l entry referring to 1 1 6 , 1 1 7 . W h a t celerity acquired or lost b y
equall forces in u nequall bodys.
s. S u cceed ed by a p a r tly illegible deleted passage, evid en tly the beginning o f a
fir s t attem pt a t p roving the result in question.
t. In error f o r
u. M a rg in a l entry. W h a t velo city and m otion gotten or lost b y un equall forces
in u nequall b odys. A G en erall T h e o rem .
V. M a r g in a l entry. O f the m utuall force in reflected bodys.
1. N e w to n ’s conven ien t term for ‘eq u ally s w ift’ .
2. In A x . 106 this pow er o f p ersevering in its state is term ed the ‘force o f the
body’.
3. T h e extension o f the previous definition for a - - zb to the case a ^ nb w ith
n integral is im m ediate, after w h ich it can be farther extended to the case p a ---
qb w here p and q are integral.
4. N o tic e here, as at the b eg in n in g o f A x . 100, how N e w to n follow s D escartes
in id en tifyin g m o vem en t as a state rather than a process.
5. N o tic e the different m eanings o f these tv'o kinds o f fo r ce.
6. W h ere he states that for eq u ivelo x bodies a, d, a - d = force w h ich can stop
a : force w h ich can stop d.
7. W hereas A x . 10 0 -7 dealt w ith unequal, e q u iv e lo x bodies A x . 1 0 8 -1 1 w ill
be concerned w ith equal bodies havin g different speeds.
8. A v e r y plausible assum ption. B u t it w o u ld n ot be true in the Special
T h e o r y o f R elativity.
9. P reviously, in .Ax. l o i , he had defined a force double another as ecjual to tw o
II II DYNAAdICAL W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 161
forces equal to the latter actin g sim idtaneously, the extension to a force n tim es
another b ein g im m ediate. N o w he defines a force n tim es another as the latter
force actin g n tim es in succession. T h e result given finally is eq uivalent to that in
A x .-P r o p . 5.
10. Im p licit here is the identification o f m otion (in the sense o f q u an tity o f
m otion) and the fo r c e o f the body's m otion. T h is identification is also used at the
en d o f the su cceed in g axiom .
1 1 . N o tic e the inversion o f order at this point.
12. T h e p recedin g sentence is really a parenthesis, the argum en t fo llo w in g on
from the end o f the first sentence.
13. T h a t is a cted on by the sam e force.
14. T h e assertion 36 m o ved b y (the force) 3d eq u ivelo x to b m o ve d b y d im ­
plies that the force on b, that is d, is reproduced sim ultan eously on each o f
b, b, b. T h is is his im plied definition o f an y force 3d.
15. ‘ O f ’ in error for ‘ o n ’ . T h e reference to A x . 113 is e v id e n tly to the last
equation m X a X a b = n x f x f g w h ich im plies that the force o f a b o d y ’s m otion,
that is its q u an tity o f m otion, or sim p ly its m otion, is proportional co n jo in tly to
its b u lk and velo city.
16. C o rrespo n din g to the third law o f m otion.
17. A ssu m in g force is m easured b y change o f m otion p roduced , as in A x . 1 18.
18. A c tio n and R eaction equal and opposite!
19. C o rrespo n d in g to that part o f the second law o f m otion w h ich states that
the change o f m otion is in the direction o f the force acting.
20. T h is and A x . 1 19, 1 2 1 sho w that N e w to n had b egu n to thin k o f the m ore
general problem o f oblique collisions to w h ich the com plete solution is given in
M S. V.
I lf
At folio 13V immediately after Ax. 122. The fact that there are no
inversions of order in this set of Axioms and Propositions, whereas such
inversions occur in Ax.-Prop. 1-26 and Ax. 100-22, is perhaps an indi­
cation that the present set were original having no previous draft. Some
confirmation for this is afforded by the comparatively large number of
cancellations, and the manner in which Ax.-Prop. 27 breaks off abruptly
in the middle of a calculation. Against this is the total absence of error
in any of the algebraic calculations, some of which are extremely heavy,
though this could simply be regarded as the algebraic counterpart of the
impressive standard of arithmetical accuracy displayed in the calculations
of MS. I l l which are certainly extempore.
Ax-Prop. 27-30 deal with the motion of the centre of motion of
two non-colliding bodies, establishing that in all cases this motion is
rectilinear and uniform, and Ax.-Prop. 31,2 extend this result to the ease
of two colliding bodies. The remaining propositions are concerned with
various collision problems. The last four seem to represent the orientation
of Newton’s thought towards the general problem of the collision of two
Hr.K^ori M
162 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BO O K II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE 11/^.b’ TE il O O A 163
rotating bodies to which the complete solution is given in MS. V. The
fact that these four propositions were entered separately at folio 39, in a
hand rather more mature than the last of the preceding propositions, is
probably an indication that they were not only entered but also composed
at a somewhat later date.

Text
27.® If two bodys b and c [Fig. i] move from (0) their center of gravity
they shall have equall motion.^ For suppose h moved into the place d\

h d o e c
Figure i

bxdo
then putting, c : b :: do oe (ax. 25) the body c must be then
c
moved into the place e. Alsoe c :b : :bo = oc (ax. 25) therefore
b x b o — b xd o b xb d
ec — , that is cXec bxbd. But (ax. or)
c c 26
cXec : bdx b : : the motion of c, to the motion of d, and therefore c and
d have equall motion towards o.
If b-2 the body b [Fig. 2] move through the places d, f, r and the body c
move through the places e, g, r and their center of [motion] 0, p, q, r, the
line opqr shall be a streight line. For nameing the lines be — g, cr = h,
BX
br k,bd ^ X . d e : x:ce. Then ce — ^ . Supposing be parallel to dv
d
g k -g x
parallel to ps then k : g : : k —x ; dr. b-{-c : c : : de : pe : : dv :
k
hx , ex hx
ps : : ve : es also k : h : - - = cv, and ^ ve. Therefore
k d k
cgk~cgx cekx— cdhx ex
ps and es cr— ce = er — h —
bdk^edk
cekx— cdhx dh— ex Figure 3.

bdk-\-cdk d
2 8 . If two bodys b and c [Fig. 3] move in the lines br and cr. The body c
bdhk A- edhk— bkex— cdhx moveing through the space eg in the time vs, and th[rJough^/e in the time
Or rs
bdk~\~dck nv, and through kr in the time nr. and the velocity of the body b is to the
bA-c : c : : be : CO : : a : CP
h : -A - : : bh A-ch :cp : :rs : velocity of c as if : e, and as the line eg to the line be, or as ck to br,'^ then
CO. c r : CO
^ b-i-c b+ c ^ ^ when the body c is in the place g, b will bee in e, and when c is in k, b
sp : : bdhk-\-cdhk~bkex— dhcx : cdgk— cdgx. Whence will be in r. to find the line which the center of their motion describes,
cdgkbh — edgxbh+ edgkeh— cdgxch = bdhkcg cdhkcg — kexbcg— dhexeg. viz. dfo. Then nameing the quantitys br = a, cr f, be g. e : d : :
164 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BO O K II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOO K 165
da ef— da
a : - — ck. kr = — ^— . If o be the center of motion‘dof the bodys at k q moves over the space qa in the time vw, and ap in the time wt. Also
suppose another body b (= q) and equivelox to {q) that is to move over
and r, then b+ c :b^ : : ^ , .^.^1 qa\ . . . vw\
e eb^-ec ■' the space bc\>= i/tt,^m thp time \ when (c) is in [g) or [k),
er] ap] wt] v/
passe through o. againe making gk = v. then d \ e \ \v ev (b) will bee in {e) or (r) and {q) in (a) or (p). Then drawing four^ streight
er. and
7

if be parallel to f i parallel to em, then a: g : -7^ := er : — em. and

d ad
r ev fev
mr, gr — gk-\-kr = —^ 4
-a d
ev-\-ef— ad fev adev4 -adef— aadd~feev^
gni — gr— mr = —— ------ ■'— = ------ '---- A______ ,
e ad ade
S in ce/is the center of motion in the bodys at ^and e ’tis b~fc : c : ; ge ;
gev egev
jg. b \ c : c :: eg : fg : : em = = f i : : gm = etc :
ad abd-\~acd
cadev+ cadef— caadd— cfeev ev-\-ef— ad
gl gr = gk+kr =
bade-\-cade
ev-fef~ ad , abd—bef bev-\-cev4 -cef— cad
go = gr— or — -----^--------1---------- £ — ---- ------ — L____.
e be-\-ec eb-^ec
adbev^ cfeev abdv^cefz fec-f-abd
go—gi — 10 . CO ~ cr— or
bade-\-cade abd-\-acd eb-\-ec
C9
b-\-c \ c : \ g : — = cd. Now if the lines oi : if : : oc : cd. Then the lines qc, ag, pk if : c^ :: be : cd :: eg : fg :: rk : ok\ the points
o-)-c
d,f, and 0, shall be the centers of motion'^ of the bodys b and c, when they
line o[f\d must bea streight line: but of ; // : : adb^efe : ege : : oc : cd : :
are in the places b and c, e and g, r and k, and (prop. 28) therefore the line
; eg : :fec-\-abd : ecg. therefore the line d[f]o is a streight line, dfo is a streight line. Likewise if it bee q-\-c : c : : qc : Ic : : ag : mg \ :pk
: nk, then the points I, m, n are centers of motion to the bodys {q and c)
which which [^fc] may bee found by the two points d and o. The
being in the places (q) and (c), a and g, p and k. Then drawing the lines
demonstration is the same if the body b moved from a^ to b.
Id, mf, no (twixt the neighbouring centers of motion) since b-j-c : c^ : :
29.* If two bodys q and c [Fig. 4] be moved in divers plines, then find q^ c : c :: be : cd :: qc : Ic therefore Z qbc = ZJdc and by the same
the shortest line {pr) which can bee drawne from one line {cr) to the reason Zgfm = Agea and Z krp = Akon. Wherefore all the lines qb,
other line {qp) in which those bodys are moved, and that Xmtpr shall bee ae, pr, Id, mf, no are parallell to one another. And b-\-c \ c^ \ \ be : dc : :
perpendicular to both the lines cr and qp, viz. Aqpr — Arps = pre — qb : Id : : eg :fg : : ea {= qb) : mf : : kr : ko : : pr — {bq) : no, soe that
recto, then draw qb equall and parallell to pr and draw br = qp. Then Id = mf = no and since these line line [«r] Id, mf, no are parallell equall
shall the plaine qbrp be perpendicular to the plaine bcr. Suppose alsoe in the same plaine Idon, and stand upon the same streight line do,^ the
eg 1 vw i line [Imn) in which their other ends I, m, n are are [sic] terminated (i.e.
the body c moves over the space gk | in the time wt 1 and that the body in which are all the centers of motion'' of the bodys (c and q)) must bee
kr ] tr ] a streight line.
166 D Y N A M IC A L W R IT IN G S IN TH E W ASTE B O O K II II D Y N A M IC A L W R IT IN G S IN TH E W A STE B O O K 167

'Fhe demonstration is the same if {q) moved from {p) to {q). b

30.j’'" Suppose the bodys b and c moved towards r; [Fig. 5] so that when
(h (c
h is in { e then f is in ( and theire centers of motion describe the line dq.
[k
Then the motion of theire centers of motion shall be uniforme. For if pw
parallel to nt parallel to ey parallel to fs parallel to he pr : er : :pw : ey : :

Figure 5.

nt : fs^ \ : nq : fq. that is pr : ep (= er—pr) : : nq : fn — (fq— nq) and

therefor since the motion of the body in epr is uniforme, the motion of
theire centers of motion in the line fnq must be uniforme, that is have
allway alike velocity.
The demonstration is the same in all other cases.
28 and 3 0 . Supposing the things suppose in the 28th prop by schem
30th it may be thus done er : br :: ey : be :: fs \ dc. [Fig. 6] Also ep :
eb :: eg : gk : \ ey : yw and eg : ek : : ey : aw : : gy (= cy— eg) : kw (=
ew— ek) : : gs : kt : : sy : tw : : be : bp cs et : : de--fs : de— nt etc.
Makeing fs parallel to dc parallel to fit. and mf parallel to qn parallel to
be : bp : : dm : dq : : mf : qn. and consequently the points dfn are in one
ct, then is mf — cs and qn ~ ct. and/y = me, and nt — qc ~ is. Then be :
streight line, and since the motion of (b) is uniforme and be : bp \ : dm :
bp :: ey : cw : '.eg : ck (so is the velocity of h to the velocity of c) : : gy
dq : : df : fn, the motion of the center d is uniforme
(= ey— eg) : kw (= cw— ck) : : sy \ tw (for c^ h : :: eg : ef : : gy:
sy : :kp : np : : kw : tw) : : mf (= c y —sy) : qn {— ew— tw). Againe br : er 28 and 30"’“ Or Thus the bodys {b and c) being in b and c [Fig. 7], e and
: :hc : ey : : dc :fs ^ me (for b-\-c : : : be : dc : : eg :fg : : ey : fs) whence g, r and k, in the same times, and dn being described by their centers of
be (-= br—er) : br : : dm (= dc — mc) : de. Also br : pr : : be : pw : : dc : motion. Also making de parallel to fs parallel to ey, and m/parallel to en.
nt (-- qc). Therefore be : bp (-- br - pr) : : dm : dq (— dc qc). That is Then be :br : : ey : cr : : eg : ck (for the motions of b and c are uniform)
 168 DY N A M I CA L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BO O K II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BOO K 169
; :g y { ^ cy~cg) : kr (= c r - c k ) : :gs : kn (for b + c : c : :g e : g f : :gy : motion of the bodys {b) and (r) when they are in the places g and e, and
g s : : k r : kn) [: :] m f (= cs — cg-\^gs) : cn ck-\-kn). Againe hr : er : : it is in the line kp . The demonstration is same in all cases.
be : e y : : dc : fs = me (for (prop.
b + e : e : : g e : g f : : ey : f s : : be : de
32.^ If the bodys {b and e) reflect at q [Fig. 9], to e and^, and the centers
25))- Therefore be : br : : dm : d e : : m f \ en, and consequently the points of their motion describe the line kdop the velocity of that center (0) after
dfn are in one streight line, also since be : br : : d f : dn the center of
reflection shall bee equall to the velocity of that center {d) before reflec­
motions motion must bee uniforme. tion. For from the center {d) draw the line a/perpendicularly to kp and

Figure 9.

A suppose the line a f to have the same celerity which (the point d ) the
Figure 8.

31.° If two bodys (h and e) meete and reflect one another at q [Fig. 8]
their center of motion shall bee in the same line {kp) after reflection in
which it was before it. For the motion of b towards d the center of their
motion is equall to the motion of e towards d, by prop. 2 5 . then drawing
bk J_ kp, and em _j_kp, then e d : b d : : em : bk, therefore the bodys b and e
have equall motion towards the points k and m, that is towards the line
kp. And at their reflection so much as (r) presseth fb) from the line k p ;
so much [b) presseth (r) from it (ax. 121). Wherefore they must have
equall motion from the line kp after reflection, that is drawing g p _]_ kp and
7 te _L kp, (e) and (g) have equall motions towards (n), (p ), then drawing
center of motion hath before reflection, soe that when the bodys (after
reflection) are in e and g, the line a f may bee in hr. Also drawing ab
parallel to kp parallel to fe parallel to eh parallel to rg parallel to kp. Then
since d is the center of motion in [b) and (c), the bodys {b) and (c) have
equall motion towards d, but b d : ba : ; de : f e . Therefore the bodys {b)
and (c) have equall motion towards a and / that is towards the line adf.
Now when the bodys reflect, so much as the body b presseth the body e
from the line a f (or st) or towards p soe much the body e presseth the
body b from the same line, or towards k (by ax. 1 19) therefore the bodys
b and e have equall motion from the line af, after reflection (by ax. 121)

the line eog tis ne : n o * \ : g p \go. Therefore e z n d g have equall motion that is when [they] are at e and g they doe equally move from the points
from the point 0^^ which by prop. 25'*^ must? therefore be the center of h and then drawing eg, tis eh :e o : \rg :go. Therefore*^ the bodys doe
* In error for f’o. equally move from the point (o) which (by ax. 25) must bee their center
 170 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK II
of motion, and since the motion of the line [ a f or hr) is uniforme (by
supposition) and the point o is in the line hr, and also in k p (by prop. 31)
its motion must be uniforme.
Note that by this and the 31st prop. I can find the center of motion of
two bodys at any given time; and by prop. 9, or def. I can find their
distance, 17 and by prop. 25 their distance from their center of motion
that is the 2 spheres in whose perimeters they must be found; There
wants therefore onely their determination to bee knowne that their
places in the sphaere bee found'^
Figure 10.
33. '^Suppose the body dcgk [Fig. 10] to be immoveable, the surface deg
being plaine. Also let the shaerical body am n bee moved in the perpen­
dicular ch, so as to be reflected in c. Then since the side am hath as much
force to weigh or press towards {d) as the side an to press towards e by
reason that the center of its motion is in the line ch, the body must be
in equilibria neither pressed towards d nor e but reflected back in the line
ch. The same may be said of any bodys whose motive center is in the
perpendicular to the reflecting point.
34. ®Take an = 2bn = e^cn — Sdn [Fig. ii] soe that a d : dn : : y : i
Then draw the perpendiculars eb, f c , g d , hm . And set a body (aem) upon
the points a and m and let {efk) stand on the points e and k which are in
the perpendiculars eb and h km , and f h on the points / and h, and lay a
Globe {g) on the midst off h . Suppose also the bodys aem, e f k , f h , to have
noe pressure on one another or on the line [ajti) except what they receive
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 171
from the Globe {g).~^^ Let the same be supposed of h km . Then suppose
(for distinctions sake) (^) have 8 parts of force, with which it presseth f h .
Then must/A presse with 8 parts of force; that is (since^ = g h or c d =
dn) with 4 parts on the point h, and with 4 on the point/upon the body
efk, so that e f k must presse with 4 parts of force viz. (since it presseth
equally on the the [«V] points e and k ) it presseth on k with 2 parts of
force and with the other 2 at e on the body aem, so that aem presseth with
2 parts of force, viz. with one on the point m with the other on the point
a ; Soe that the body {hkm ) hath 7 parts of pression upon the point n, 4 at
h, 2 at k , and one at m, and since the pressure of all the points h, k , and
m is directly towards n, n will be pressed by it all, but the Globe causeth
but one part of pression upon a. Now if these bodys f h , ek, aem, be
understood continually to diminish and come nearer to the line adn
untill it bee coincident with it, the pressure of the body g upon a and n
will still bee the same that is as i is to 7, and so is the line dn to da. By
the same reason it may be generally pronounced a d : dn : : pressure of
the body g upon n : to the pressure of it upon a.
35. Or if the bodys a and n bee [Fig. 12] supposed united by the line
{and) and another body {g) moving towards them hit perpendicularly
upon the line an 2X d\ as dn to a d so is the pressure of g upon a, to its
pressure upon n, so is the motion in (<2) to the motion in {n) which is
generated in them by those pressures of g , that is which they received
from g , at the moment of reflection, and which they might continually
enjoy as in fig. 6 [Fig. did not there union by the line adn [Fig. 12]
hinder.
By the same reason if g reflect not twixt the bodys [Fig. 15a, b] then
a d : d n : : pression of { n ) towards ^ : the pression of a towards r : : motion
of w to ^ : motion of a to r.
 172 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BO O K II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOO K 173
Note that here a and n are taken for the centers of motion in a and n ps = and ^ A qdA -qp x qr
dt —
and adn for a line which passeth through them. n xpd qp
[36a]*^ AH" things put as before that a and n are loose, then [Fig. i6] qd
: p d : : motion of n : motion of a received from^ (pr. 34) Therefore (by Therefore dt = ^ _ ^*2 ^ ^ _[_qr. Now if in the same time
nXpdXqp qp
that the body g moved from {h) to {d) in the same time suppose that a
O- and n move to r and s, and the point d to the point t, and the body g to
d o
Figure 12.

CL n @
________________d __ 1
.s
Figure 15 h.

the point e, then must et = dh (by ax: Let the whole motion of ^
(at h towards d) be called m. the whole motion of a and and [«c] w to r
and s be called then the motion of g after reflection = m — y and tn :

m—y : ; hd : de. Or de = ^ and since et = hd,

m

zhdxm — hdxy axqrxqdxdq qrxqd

tis dt = qr.
tn nxpdx pq qp
And since the whole motion of a and n toward r and s is equall to
, axqdxqr _ pdxy
a X qr-{-n x p s a X q r A ------ ^ yZ 4 or, -v--------------- qr.
Figure 14.
^ pd axpq

prop, i i ^ y ^ n x p d : a x q d : :velocity of (a) : velocity of {n). Orsupposeing Wis d t ^ ^ d 'A m — h d x y q d x q d x .y dqxpdxy ^p d x y etc .25
that the bodys a and n move through the distances qr and p s in the same m nxpqxpq axpqxpq axpq
time then, n x p d : a x q d : : qr : p s. and producing h d to [t in) the line
Or thus
rs, since qr parallel to d t parallel t o p s , qp = ri : is p s — qr : : qd ~ rv :
36. If the bodys/globes a and n [Fig. 17] doe rest, but soe that the body
p s X q d — qr X dq {g) moving perpendicularly to qp to them and reflecting on the line qp
vt.
qp
174 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN T H E W A S T E B O O K
k (which is supported by but not fastened to the bodys a and n and ought
II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BO O K 175
now to be conceived a line onely) doth move them by communicating
its whole motion to them which it selfe looseth, tis required what motion
a and n shall receive from g . Suppose that in so much time as g moveth
to [d ) before reflection in so much time it moveth from d to e after
reflection and in so much time the bodys a and n move the one to r the
other to s, and that then the point of reflection {d) is moved to (^)a Then
naming the given quantitys g d = b, qd = c, qp ~ e. dp = e — c = f . qr —
z the whole motion of {a) and {n) to (r) and {s) call x x , that is a X qr-\r
n X p s = xxd ^ or if : w : ; p w : zvq, (then w is the center of the bodys
motion) and if w l parallel to d t parallel to qr parallel to p s, then (Iw) is
a line described by their center of motion. Then is ( )xx =
X /w.27 Now, as the motion of a to the motion of n (prop. 34) so is [dp)
to {dq)\ Therefore (ax. 113) as the velocity of {a) to the velocity of « : :
caz
n x pd : a X qd qr ps that is fn \ ca \ ; ps. but
fn

a z ^ n X p s = xx;

caz fxx fxx

that is az -f or qr.
/ af-]-ac ae

caz cxx
and ps
fn en
fx x cxx fn xx— caxx
IS ri : is : : rv : tv. therefore,
ae fie ane
cfnxx— ccaxx
tv =
anee
efnxx— cfnxx-^ccaxx ffnxx~\-ccaxx
and td ~ qr
anee anee
Also (by ax: gd = et - b Therefore
ffnxx^ccaxx— banee
ed
anee
Now since g hath soe much motion before reflection as all three bodys
{g-fa-\~n) have after-ward, therefore (ax. T-if) gh = xx-{-gde; Or,

st
gb— xx ffnxx^ccaxx— banee
g anee
Figure 17. That is 2abeegn = aeenxx-\-gffnxx-\-ccgaxx.
zabeegn
Or, XX
aeen -^gffn -{-gcca
176 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S I N T H E W A S T E B O O K II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 177
zabeegn (when they are not equivelox) rs is longer than pq, the one cannot be at
Or, calling « + « — d\ then = wl.
adeen -\-gdffn -\-gccad ^ when the other is at r, but they will check the one the others motion
Soe that by this equation the point I twixt the bodys at r and ^ being soe as their centers of motion shall not describe streight lines (as {qr) or
then their center of motion may bee always found. Note that the line qr {ps)) but crooked ones (perhaps Trochoides as qmk, phi). Yet the com­
mon center of their motion w or I shall retaine both the same determina­
tion and velocity that it would did the bodys move parallell to
themselves or were they not united (by ax. Soe that if the conjoyned
bodys (fig. z'^) [Fig. 18] move to m and h in the same time that they would
have moved to r and s were they [free ?] their center of motion (/) when they

/ ^
I /
/ d, and not from i towards d, the body g will find more opposition on that
Figure i8.
and ps must be described by the centers of motion of 2 bodys on divers
sides of the point d that is ar by center of motion of the body [a) or {ad),
and ps by that center of {n) or [dn).
37. Now when a and n or ad and dn are united together (as in the 2^ fig)
[Fig. 18] they cannot separate the one from the other, and therefore since
are at m and h is the same that it would be were they at r and 5 and there­
fore may be found by the former rule. viz. aeedn-\-gdffn-\-gccad : zaeegn
\ :b : w l: ; the velocity of the point I to the velocity of the body g before
reflection. Vide pag 39.
Vide'''^ pag: 15. But here observe that unlesse the reflecting line adn bee
drawn through the point (w) the center of motion in the whole body
aiwn [Fig. 19] the determination of the motion of adn will not be the
same with the determination of the motion of g before reflection (as in
the first figure) [Fig. 19] but verge from it (as in the 2^ fig) [Fig. 20] that
is wl and gdi will not bee parallell. For since the chiefe resistance of the
body adn is from its center of motion (prop. 32)^^ that is from w towards
side towards the center w, than on the other side towards a and therefore
at its reflection it must incline toward v (ax. 120) and not returne in the
line dg. But if the body awn presse g towards v then g presseth the body
awn towards the contrary parte as from w towards I (ax. 119) and not
from w towards m, if wm parallel to gd. But if the line adn pass through
the point w (as in fig i®‘) then-^^
178 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE WASTE BO O K II II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK 179

\ 38. If the superficies ahr (fig. 3^^) [Fig. 21] circulate [about r\ all its points
\ in the line cd move with equall velocity from c towards d, ffor make
,^sfr = Tier = recto and Asrf = / ert and draw ta _L 6c then is the
motion of the point e from c to the motion of the point/from c as ae to
CY /K s f
but ae = (for Arsf similis Aret therefore — et also Aaet

er X ae erxsf
similis A er/therefore er \fr : :et :aeor, et and ae = sf)
fr fr
therefore the motion of e from c is equall to the motion of/ from c

39. If the body g reflect on the immoveable surface {dv) at its corner o
(fig 4th) [Fig, 22] its parallell motion (viz. from d to v) shall not bee
hindered by the surface dv, (viz. if the center of g'& motion w^ere distant
from the perpendicular dn an inch at one minute before reflection it shall
bee so farr distant from it at one minute after reflection), ffor dv is noe
ways opposed to motion parallel to it, and a body might slide/move upon
it without looseing any motion, and if at the first moment of contact the
body g should loose its perpendicular and only keep its parallel motion
it would (perhaps) continue to slide upon it and not reflect.^^
40. The body g reflecting on the plaine vd [Fig. 22] at its corner o all its
points in the line op vd shall move from the plaine vd with the same
velocity which before reflection they moved to it. ffor the point 0 (prop.
9) moves with that velocity backwards which it before did forwards (viz.
to vd) and all the other points (prop. 38) move with the same velocity
Figure 21. from it.
 180 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK II
a. F o l. i j v begins.
b. F rom here to beginning o f A x .-P r o p . 28 deleted.
c. M a r g in a l title T w o bodys b ein g u n iform ely m oved in the same plaine their
center o f m otion w ill describe a streight line.
d. S u b stitu ted fo r grav ity deleted.
e. Throughout x x stands fo r x^.
f. M a r g in a l entry T h e y doe the same in divers plaines.
g. F o l. 1 4 begins.
h. S u b stitu ted f o r grav ity deleted.
i. S u cceed ed by their other ends (the centers o f m otion o f c and a) bun m ust
bee in the same straight line Imn, w h ich line deleted.
j. M a r g in a l title O f the v elo city o f the center o f m otion.
k. T h is section deleted.
l. M a r g in a l entry T h e 2 8 and 30*'’ prop done otherwise.
m . T h is section deleted.
n. M a r g in a l entry O r thus opposite last line o f preceding section.
o. M a rg in a l title T h e center o f m otion is in the same straight line before and
after reflection.
p. F o l. 14 V begins.
q. M a r g in a l title T h e center o f m otion in finite bo dys hath the same v elo city
before and after reflection.
r. M a r g in a l entry T h is ou gh t to be p roved b y the 3 4 “’ and 35'^, and the 36*’’
b y this concern in g the im presse o f {g) on (qdp).
s. M a r g in a l entry O f the advantages o f force in divers positions to som e center.
t. T h is section is unnum bered in the m anuscript an d is deleted.
u. F o l. 1 5 begins.
V. S ucceed ed by T h e n (b y ax. 9th) et = g d and since b y reflection noe m otion
is lost or gotten g X g d - a X a r + n X w s + g X f/e. A n d (b y prop. 113 ) as the
v elo city and b y prop. 34 the m otion o f « is to a deleted.
w. F o l. Jp begins. T h e zchole passage dozen to the beginning o f A x .-P r o p . 3 8
deleted.
1. T h e p ro o f assum es that the centre o f g ra v ity is at rest. It is true gen erally
i f for m otion is su b stitu ted ‘ m otion relative to centre o f g r a v ity ’ . T h is general
result is used in A x .-P r o p . 31, 2 tho u gh N e w to n there appeals to A x .-P r o p . 25,
instead o f n u m b er 27.
2. In this first approach to the p roblem o f the m otion o f the centre o f mass o f
a pair o f bodies, to w h ich he u ltim ately in A x .-P r o p . 32 gives the m o st general
solution, N e w to n characteristically considers the sim plest case in w h ich the
bodies o rigin ally coincide at r.
3. T h e calculation breaks o ff at this poin t. T h e last equation reduces to dh
he. Sin ce d je = x jee, this gives x h — kce, w h ich is equivalent to bdjbr - cejer.
T h is last result w ill be satisfied if b oth bodies m ove un iform ly and reach r sim u l­
taneously. In that case the result erjeo = rsjsp, from w h ich the final equation
resulted, w ill be true and the p oin t p w ill lie on or, so that the centres o f m otion
w ill be collinear. In the n ext section N e w to n e x p licitly introduces the assum p ­
tion o f u n iform ity o f m otion for bo th bodies. F a ilin g this the proposition does
n ot hold.
4. S o that b reaches r as <: reaches k.
5. T h is ratio should have read h -^ c : c and the same error occurs elsewhere in
the calculations. T h e final result, how'ever, is unaffected.
II D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W A S T E BOOK 181
6. Probably in error for r.
7. Error for 3.
8. As in the previous proposition Newton writes b f c ; c in place o i b A c : a.
Once again the consistent use of the error ultimately makes no difference.
9. Since eg and bk are divided at /and n in the same ratio.
10. As before these should read b y e : c and b -V c : b, respectively.
11. Newton’s search for brevity and elegance finds its goal in this version.
12. Rather by the generalization of Prop. 27 to the case where the centre of
motion is not at rest.
13. This does not strictly follow' from the previous assumption. One cannot
argue from a com ponent of the relative motion to the tota l relative motion.
14. Once again a more appropriate reference would seem to be to the con­
verse of Prop. 27.
15. The meaning seems to be this; originally, when the bodies were at b and c
their relative motions towards the line a f W'ere equal. This will be true at the
moment of impact of the position of the line a f at that time (assuming its motion
uniform). It will likewise be true immediately after impact and will thus
continue to be true thereafter. It must be remembered that the motions towards
a f are relative motions.
16. Once again this does not seem to follow from eh : eo \ : rg : go and motion
towards h == motion towards r. He should first have added motion tow^ards
n = motion towards p .
17. Assuming the bodies to be perfectly elastic.
18. Notice the reference to ‘Prop.’ 25 whereas in the previous number it is to
‘Ax.’ 25.
19. A similarly brilliant summing up is given in § 11 of MS. V .
20. That is, the bodies are assumed light.
21. Between this and diagram 12 occurs diagram 13 not specifically referring
to any of the results obtained. Its relevance, however, to the general result at the
end of Prop. 34 is obvious.
22. In error for ‘axiom’.
23. The point dividing the line joining r, s in the ratio qd : dp has a constant
velocity equal to that of the point d of the line qp immediately after impact, et is
therefore the measure of the velocity of g relative to qp immediately after
impact.
24. Omitting the constant time factor.
25. The calculation breaks off at this point.
26. Omitting the constant time factor.
27. Meaning { a - f n ) x l z c .
28. Since no motion is generated or destroyed by their interaction.
29. The significance of this reference is obscure.
30. The above argument seems of doubtful validity. If the direction of
motion of g before impact is perpendicular to the face of the other body then the
impulse between them on impact will likewise be perpendicular to this face, and
the subsequent motions of both g and zc should be parallel to the original line of
motion of g.
31. Newton probably divined this result (which does not seem obvious) by
approximating to the actual circular arcs described b y/ and e by the lines/i and
et. The component of velocity of e from c w'ould then be proportional to ea.
32. For example in the case of optical reflection at glancing incidence.
 182 D Y N A M I C A L W R I T I N G S IN THE W ASTE BOOK
Ilga
If the body b [Fig. i] move in the line bd and from the point d two
lines da^ dc be drawne the motion of the body b from ad is to its motion
from dc as ab parallel to dc is to cb parallel to ad^
Coroll 1.2 the body b receiving two divers forces from a and c and the
force from ba is to the force from be as ba to be then draw ad parallel to
be and cd parallel to ab and the body b shall be moved in the line bd.
a were published by A. R. Hall [2]. The manuscript itself has been repro­
Fi gure i.
a. At fol. 38.
1. Assuming that the motion from ad (or dc) means the component of
motion perpendicular to ad (or be), the result given would only be true in the
special case of ad perpendicular to dc. For a correct statement relating to resolu­
tion of motion (or velocity) see MS. V, § 2.
2. The statement in this so-called corollary is correct, though it cannot be
derived from the previous, incorrect result. It is given as an independent result
in MS. V, §3.
II
Ill
THE V E L L U M M A N U S C R I P T
MS. Add. 3958, folio 45, consists of a torn legal parchment on which a
lease is engrossed, the calculations appearing on the back. Attention
was first drawn to this manuscript by the late H. W. Turnbull in a
letter of 3 October 1953 to the Manchester Guardian and some extracts
duced photographically in Isis 52, part 4 (1961), with a commentary
by Herivel [4], and at pp. 46-54 of vol. iii of the Correspondence. The
present interpretation follows closely that given in the Isis article
which appears to be substantially the same as that in vol. iii of the
Correspondence.
As first noticed by Turnbull, the original data on which the calcula­
tions are based appears to have been taken by Newton from Galileo’s
Dialogue, probably from Salusbury’s translation. ^ From the hand­
writing and other indications it seems probable that the manuscript was
composed very early, most probably in 1665 or 1666.2
In this manuscript Newton calculates the ratios of the force of gravity
to the centrifugal forces due to the diurnal and annual motions of the
earth. Beginning with two primitive calculations possibly preceding
any clear understanding of centrifugal force, he then calculates the two
ratios making implicit use of the following result;
a body moves in a straight line under the action of a force equal to the centri­
fugal force for a given motion in a circle, radius R \ then in the time for motion
in the circle through distance R, the body will move in the straight line
through distance \R.
At first, the value assumed for the rate of fall due to gravity is that
given on p. 200 of Salusbury’s translation of the Dialogue, namely 100
cubits in 5 seconds. Later, becoming dissatisfied with this result, perhaps
as the result of some crude experiment, he sets out to redetermine the
value himself experimentally, making ingenious use of the following:
(i) in a conical pendulum of semi-angle 45° the force of gravity equals
the centrifugal force; (2) the time of complete revolution of a conical
pendulum equals that for a simple pendulum of length equal to the ver­
tical depth of the conical pendulum below the point of support.
In this way he finally arrives at a value of corresponding to a fall of
196 inches in one second, about double the figure assumed originally.
184 THE V E L L U M M A N U S C R I P T III
hence explaining the final doubling of the value originally obtained for
the diurnal and annual ratios, namely, i : 144 and i ; 3749, respectively.

C o m m e n t a r y a n d I n t e r p r e t a t io n

Newton’s arguments in this manuscript can be divided into three

groups, primitive calculations, calculations based on the correct formula
for centrifugal force, and calculations of the acceleration, due to
gravity. They will be considered separately in that order. A rough grid is
used for reference purposes. For example, the calculation 133225 : 500c
is found at (2, 4), 2 divisions down and 4 divisions across from the top
left-hand corner.

d e s c r ip t io n of c a l c u l a t i o n s

I. Primitive calculations
At (2, 3) occurs the statement:
^Terra sub Equatore movet 165000004 cubit [.yfc] in 6 horis\
Basing himself on Galileo’s law of falling bodies^ expressed for example
at (6, i), where y represents time in seconds, and x distance in braces
or cubits, and assuming with Galileo that a body falls 100 cubits in
5 seconds (i, i)h e then calculates (3, 1-2) it will fall through 165 X lo^
cubits in 2031-1 seconds. This leads to the ratio
90 X 60 X 60/2031=159-5 ( L 3-4)
and the statement (i, 5-9)
‘the force from gravity is 159-5 tiiues greater than the force from the
Earth’s motion at the equator’.
The use of 90 is puzzling. I suggest that he confused degrees with hours
when working with the quarter circumference (see diagram at (2, 4), and
so substituted 90 in place of the correct figure of 6 hours. He would
then seem to compare the magnitude of two ‘forces’ by the times taken
to move the body through a distance equal to a quarter of the earth’s
circumference. A somewhat similar comparison is made in the second
primitive calculation ^ x
i 360/23-935 = 15, (3, 3)
where 360 is now 6 hours expressed in minutes, and 23-935 (5>
time in minutes for free fall through half the distance of the quarter
circumference of the earth. ^ ' f 't \ i t'

II. Calculations based on correct formida for centrifugal force

Half-way down the left-hand side of the manuscript occur a series of
statements concerned with the centrifugal forces of the diurnal and The Vellum manuscript
Ill THE V E L L U M M A N U S C R I P T 185
annual motions of the earth. All these are based, implicitly, on the fol­
lowing expression^ of the centrifugal force law:
A body moves in a straight line under the action of a constant force
equal to the centrifugal force for a given uniform motion in a circle,
radius R\ then in the time required for motion in the circle through
distance R, the body will move in the straight line through distance

In terms of this expression, referred to hereafter as (N), and of

Galileo’s law, referred to hereafter as (G), these statements on centri­
fugal force become clear.
First he calculates (bottom right-hand corner) that
‘The Earth in about 83677 minutes moves the length of the solar
distance’ (given immediately above as 525 X 10^ braces) (7, 1-5); then
'v is g ra v ita tis in 83677 minutes m ovebit corpus p e r distantiam
100826500737600 braces’ (G) (4, 3)-(5, 4).
'v is terrae a sole m ovebit corpus p e r distan tiam 262 5 X i o"7( = 525 X 10^/2)
braces in 83677 minutes’ (N).
'v is g ra v ita tis in 60 seconds m ovebit corpus p e r dista n tia m 14400 braces’

(G)-
'v is terrae a sole in 60 seconds m ovebit corpus p e r d ista n tia m 2625 X 10^/
7001840329 = 3749014354 (braces)’ (G) (4, 3)-(5, 3) and (5, 5).
‘so that the force of a body from the sun is to the force of its gravity
as one to 3749 or thereabouts’ (6, 3).
Immediately below follow the statements for diurnal motion. The
figure 229-09 equals the time in minutes for a point on the equator to
turn through a distance equal to the Earth’s radius

_ 24 _ ^ _ 818 hours (4, 5).

2 tt II

'v is terrae a centro m ovebit corpus in 229-09 minutes p e r distantiam

5250000 braces’ ( == 3500 miles of 3000 braces (7, i)) (N).
'v is g r a v ita tis in 229-09 . . . minutes 755747081 braces’
(G) (3, 4)-
‘So that the force of the Earth from its centre is to the force of gravity
as one to 144 or thereabouts. (755 . . . /525000 = i43'9) (4, 4)~(4> S)-
Immediately beneath this result we find
‘Or rather as i : 300 : : vis a centro terrae: vim g r a v ita t is '
and beneath this
 186 t h e v e l l u m m a n u s c r i p t III
. . 1:7500 : : vis terrae a sole : vim gravitatis.^
In order to understand this doubling of results we must turn to the
final group of calculations on the acceleration due to gravity.
III. Calculations of the acceleration due to gravity
At (3, 8) we find
‘Grave cadit 2| yds in i second or 10 yds in 2 seconds’
and immediately beneath
secundam Gallil. caderet 4 cubits id est 3 yds in i second’.
This disagreement between the two values of ‘g\ one quoted by
Galileo, the other possibly obtained from a rough experiment by Newton
himself, may have led him to undertake the calculations now to be de­
scribed.
Besides the previous assumptions (G) and (N), implicit use is made of
two further assumptions, hereafter referred to as I and II respectively:
I. The time of revolution of a conical pendulum equals the period of
oscillation of a simple pendulum of length equal to the depth of the
‘centre’ of the conical motion below the point of support.
As Newton expresses it:^
‘Pendulum gyrans et undulans si sint aeque profunda in eodem tempore
redeunt.'
II. In a conical pendulum, the ratio of the gravity of the body to the
centrifugal force due to its circular motion equals the tangent of the angle
of inclination of the string to the horizontal.
In particular, the only case here considered by Newton, if the string
is inclined at 45° to the horizontal, so that the ‘depth’ of the conical
pendulum equals the radius of the circle described, the force of gravity
equals the centrifugal force.
Based on I and II we find two independent calculations of g.
First calculation. At (4, 8) there is a faint drawing of a conical pendu­
lum of length 81 inches. The string is inclined at 45° to the horizontal
as follows from the calculation 812/2 = 57'28 (4, 9).
This pendulum makes 1512 ‘ticks'^ in hora' (3, 8). The figure 3024
immediately beneath could refer to the number of to and fro vibrations
of the equivalent simple pendulum.
Beneath the diagram we find
‘gravitas movebit corpus per 28-64 inches in hours. . . .’
Ill THE V E L L U M M A N U S C R I P T 187
The division by two was an afterthought which will be explained presently.
Since the pendulum string is inclined at 45° to the horizontal the force
of gravity on the body will equal the centrifugal force (II), and the
above statement follows from an application of (N) to the given circular
motion; 28-64 inches is and 0,0002. • . /2 hours should be the time
for motion along the circumference through a distance R, namely, 1/277 X
1/1512 hours. At (3, 5) we find 44:7 : : 1/756 exactly twice the result just
quoted. This explains the final division of the time by two. The calcu­
lation of the time in hours is carried out at (3, 6), and then converted
to minutes, seconds, and second seconds, finishing with the result
45-38961102, and, on division by two, 22-6958 [«c] second seconds (5, 8).
Newton next applies {g) to calculate the distance moved under
gravity in one second. First he uses 0-756 seconds, approximates this
by I and finds the result 50-915 inches (5, 7) quoted as:
‘A heavy thing in falling moves 50 inches in one second’ (5, 8-9).
Later, realizing his initial mistake, he corrects the time to second, and
deduces beneath that the body falls 200 inches in one second. Immedi­
ately beneath this he states:
‘or rather 196 inches = 5 yds.’
There is no trace of a recalculation of the figure 200 inches in one
second, and I suspect the 196 derives from the second calculation.
Newton may well have devised a mechanism for maintaining steady
motion in a conical pendulum with the string at a given inclination.
Otherwise he would have been familiar with the difficulty of initiating
and maintaining a given motion accurately. In any case he felt the need
for a second independent experiment; the corresponding calculation
will now be described.
Second calculation. At (6, 8) we find:
‘A pendulum of 6o| inches vibrates 3024 in an hour -j- 1/30.’
The figure 3024 refers to the number of to and fro vibrations.
He begins to use this result at (6, 4) with 7:22: : 1033:3024, continuing
dowm to (7, 6) but then breaks the calculation off.
Next he states (7, 8)
‘a pendulum of 56-I- vibrating (.^) 1512 times in 1,005 (0 - -
This time the calculation is carried right through. At (3, 5-6) we find
44:7 : : 1003/1512,'° the time for motion in the corresponding conical
pendulum, revolving 1512 times in 1-005 hours, through a distance equal
 188 THE V E L L U M M A N U S C R I P T III III THE V E L L U M M A N U S C R I P T 189
to the radius (I). This expression equals 0-000105745 hours (3, 7), and
A ppendix A
is converted to 0-380682 seconds at (4, 7). Using II and (N), he arrives
Units and distances
at the result: gravity moves a body through |(56|) —- 28] inches in
0-380682 seconds. The distance x moved through in one second is I am indebted to the late II. W. I ’urnbull for pointing out that almost
therefore given b y : all the original data for Newton’s calculations in this manuscript must
1:0-14491802376 : : X1281 (G) (4, 7-8). have come from Galileo’s Dialogue, most probably from p. 200 of
Salusbury’s translation. On the corresponding page (239) of Santillana’s
This is first calculated roughly at (6, 5) approximating to 0-579672 edition of Salusbury (Santillana[i]) we find:
by 0-58, and then more fully at (5, 6)” leading to the result x = 195 (1) value of 'g' given as 100 cubits or brace (translated yards by Salus­
(immediately under conical pendulum diagram). bury) in 5 seconds (i, 1-2);
(2) the distance of the lunar concave from the centre of the earth as
D iscussion 196,000 (Italian) miles = 56 semi-diameters of the earth, yielding a
The value for ‘g' obtained in the second calculation, corresponding to value for radius = 196,000/56 = 3500 miles ((i, i) almost indeci­
196 inches = i6|^ ft. of fall in one second, is roughly twice the value pherable) ;
(of 4 cubits = 3 yards) assumed in the calculations of centrifugal force. (3) 17,280 miles = 51,840,000 cubits yielding value 3000 cubits == i
This presumably explains the doubling of the original results. The (Italian) mile (i, 4-6).
calculations of ‘g^ would then be later than those of centrifugal force; In the second, later, manuscript IVa he takes
independent evidence for this is furnished by the manuscript itself at I mile = 1000 passus
(7, 5) where part of the abortive calculation based on the pendulum of i.e. I passus = 3 brace
length 6o| is seen to jump over the last three zeros of the solar distance. then I passus = 5 pedes (feet)
It is natural to compare the value 300 for the ratio (force of gravity/ i.e. 3 braces = 5 pedes.
centrifugal force of diurnal motion) to the value 350 given by Newton His value of in this manuscript is 16 pedes = i 6 x f brace in one
in MS. IVa. Allowing for the differing units and values for 'g' in the two second. Comparing this with the value 4 braces per second originally
manuscripts, these two ratios may be proved equivalent. used in the present manuscript, the ratio of the force of gravity to the
The significance of the ‘primitive’ calculations remains to be consi­ centrifugal force of diurnal motion should come out at
dered. Rejecting the possibility of Newton having forgotten the true
48 .
formula for centrifugal force, once found, these calculations must be dated 144 X = 345^6
20
prior to the second group. Moreover, his manner of finding the ‘force
from the Earth’s motion’ purely in terms of the uniform motion along the in exact agreement with the value i6/y og (— 350) obtained in the second
circumference (allowing for the error of 90 in place of 6), and the omis­ manuscript, IVa.
sion of any reference to the centre compared with his later use of A ppendix B
‘the force of the Earth from its centre’, makes it probable that the first
Miscellaneous calculations
primitive calculation was made before Newton had any true concept
of centrifugal force. The second primitive calculation, in which the A number of calculations remain unaccounted for; these will now be
(correct) time for the diurnal motion through the quarter circumference considered.
is compared with the time for free fall through half that distance, may I. At (i, 8-9) occur the figures
date from a period of uncertainty preceding the true concept of centri­ 21-6
fugal force, and the great discovery of ‘the force with which a globe re­ 7-54
volving within a sphere presses the surface of the sphere’. 56-
190 THE V E L L U M M A N U S C R I P T III HI THE V E L L U M M A N U S C R I P T 191
Beneath we find a calculation equivalent to the result 1512 = i / x ^\^X56. 8. See para. 3 of MS. IVa.
9. Newton may have limed his conical pendulum by observing its passage
The pairs of figures quoted seem therefore to refer to his calculation of across the ends of a diameter. The time between successive passages would then
the number of revolutions per hour (1512) of the conical pendulum of have been equal to the time for a single ‘tick’ of the corresponding simple
length 81 inches used in the first determination of ‘g\ pendulum.
1005 I
2. At (2, 4) we find the statement: 10. Newton’s method of writing - X— .
1512 2TT
T 33225:5000 :: vis terrae a centro ad vim ejus a sole' and immediately 11. But there appears to be a small error in this calculation.
beneath 12. See Appendix A above.
13. See Portsmouth Draft Memorandum as reproduced above at Part I,
‘a centro 26,645 that a sole'
Chapter 4, p. 66.
The figure 133225 is arrived at (immediately above) as 365 X 365, while
5000 is the solar distance taking the earth’s radius as unit. This calcula­
tion must therefore have been made at a time when Newton had realized
his formula for centrifugal force was equivalent to RjT^ (a form he uses
explicitly in MS. IVa). Having thus found the ratio of the centrifugal
forces due to the diurnal and annual motion, he proceeds at (4, 5-6)
to use it as a check of his original calculation multiplying by 144 to
obtain 3836,88 in sufficient agreement with the figure 3749 (or more
accurately 3841 (6, 3) already found.
3. There remain calculations at
(4, 3-4) ^/656250oooo == 81009,2, 3600)81009,2 = 22
(4.5) 44:7:
(6.5) 23,9357:229,09
(i, 5-6) 1000000:4345
None of these play any part in the main calculations. Each of them can
be given a reasonable interpretation apart from the last.
1. See Appendix A above.
2. See above Part I, Chapter 6.2.
3. Newton himself does not use the term acceleration. It is used here for
convenience, sometimes abbreviated as ‘g'.
4. Cf. Appendix A above for the origin of the units and dimensions used by
Newton.
5. That the distance moved in a straight line under the action of gravity
varies as the square of the time. Newton extends the law to the case of a con­
stant force equal to the centrifugal force.
6. An equivalent result, corresponding to the time for a complete revolution,
is given explicitly in MS. IVa. In the present manuscript Newton is put to
considerable trouble to calculate the time for motion through a distance equal
to the radius. This would seem to indicate that the present manuscript is the
earlier one. See above Part I, Chapter 6.1.
7. For uniform speed V, the time for motion in the circle through distance
R = RjV. In this time, under acceleration V~/R, the body will move in a straight
1 j/2 R
line through distance “ (—j = .

IV
T h e s e two papers are juxtaposed in section 5 of MS. Add. 3958. The
close similarity of the handwriting in both papers, and the fact that they
are written on paper of the same size, possibly indicate that this
juxtaposition corresponds to a close connexion between the original
manuscripts as regards either times of composition or drafting. This
possibility is reinforced by David Gregory’s statement relating to his
visit to Newton at Cambridge in 1694.
I saw a manuscript [written] before the year 1669 (the year when its author
Mr Newton was made Lucasian Professor of Mathematics) where all the
foundations of his philosophy are laid: namely the gravity of the Moon to the
Earth, and of the planets to the Sun. And in fact all these even then are sub­
jected to calculation. I also saw in that manuscript the principle of equal times
of a pendulum suspended between cycloids, before the publication of Huy­
gens’s Horologium Oscillatorium.
It seems probable (as suggested at fn. i of p. 301 of vol. i of the Corre­
spondence) that Gregory was here referring to the present manuscripts.
IV a
ON C I R C U L A R M O T I O N
MS. Add. 3958 (5), folios 87, 89 (left half), among the papers listed as
‘Early Papers by Newton’ in the Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection
(Cambridge, 1888). The text of the manuscript with translation and
commentary was published first by Hall [2], and then at pp. 297-303 of
vol. i of the Correspondence. As pointed out in Hall’s paper and in the
Correspondence, this manuscript is undoubtedly the one referred to
by Newton in his letter of 20 June 1686 to Halley. For example,
the ratio 10000 to 56 referring to the ratio of the maximum distances
of the sun and moon from the Earth was originally written 100,000
to 559^ as in the present manuscript. As noted above, it was also
most probably the manuscript referred to by David Gregory in a
memorandum referring to a visit to Newton at Cambridge in May 1694
(U.L. Edinburgh, Greg. C 43) reproduced at p. 331 of vol. iii of the
Correspondence. According to this memorandum the manuscript was
composed before Newton’s appointment to the Lucasian Chair of
Mathematics in 1669.
Apart from a small number of unimportant deletions the text is clean
IVa ON C I R C U L A R MOTION 193
throughout and gives the impression of being a final draft possibly
intended for publication.
Text
I. Corporis A [Fig. i] in circulo A D versus D gyrantis, conatus a
centro tantus est quantus in tempore A D (quod pono minutissimum
esse) deferret a circumferentia ad distantiam DB: siquidem earn dis-
tantiam in eo tempore acquireret si modo conatu non impedito libere
moveret in tangente AB.
Jam cum hie conatus corpora, si modo in directum ad modum gravi-
tatis continue urgeret, impelleret per spatia quae forent ut quadrata
temporum:^ ut noscatur per quantum spatium in tempore unius revo-
lutionis A D E A impellerent,^ quaere lineam quae sit ad B D ut est
quadratum periferiae A D E A ad AIH. Scilicet est B E . B A : : B A . BD
(per 3 elem). Vel cum inter B E ac DE ut et inter B A ac D A
differentia supponitur infinite parva, substituo pro se invicem et emergit
DE .D A \ : D A .DB.-\ Faciendo denique DA'i (sive D E x D B ).
ADEA^
ADEA^ : : D B .— >obtineo lineam quaesitam (nempe tertiam pro-
DE
portionalem in ratione periferiae ad diametrum) per quam conatus
recedendi a centro in directum constanter applicatus propelleret corpus
in tempore unius revolutionis.^
f Notice that in this and succeeding manuscript Newton writes D E jD A , etc., as
D E .D A in place of D E : D A as in the Waste Book.
858205 O
 194 ON C I R C U L A R MOTIOxN IVa
Verbi gratia cum ista tertia proportionalis aequat 19,7392 semidiame-
tros si conatus accedendi ad centrum^ virtute gravitatis tantus esset
quantus est conatus in aequatore recedendi a centro propter motum
terrae diurnum: in die periodico propelleret grave per 19I semidiame-
tros terrestres sive per 69087^ milliaria. Et in bora per 120'’”^*. Et in
minuto primo per 1/30™^^ sive per 100/3 passus, id est 500/3 pedes.
Et in minuto se[cun]do per 5/108®^*^, sive per 5/9 digit. At revera tanta
est vis gravitatis ut gravia deorsum pellat 16 pedes circiter in i" hoc est
3505 vicibus longius in eodem tempore quam conatus a centro circiter,
adeoque vis gravitatis est toties major, ut ne terra convertendo faciat
corpora recedere et in aere prosilire.
2. Coroll. Hinc in diversis circulis conatus a centris sunt ut diametri
applicatae ad quadrata temporum revolutionis,^ sive ut diametri ductae
in numerum revolutionum factarum in eodem quovis tempore. Sic cum
Luna revolvit in 27 diebus 7 horis et 43'7 sive in 27,3216 diebus (cujus
quadratum est 746I) ac distat 59 vel 60 semidiametris terrestribus a
terra. Duco distantiam lunae 60 in quadratum revolutionis Imnaris i ;
ac distantiam superficiei terrestris a centro i, in quadratum revolutionum
746I, et sic habeo proportionem 60 ad 746I, quae est inter conatum
Lunae et superficiei terrestris recedendi a centro terrae. Itaque conatus
superficiei terrestris sub aequatore est I2-| vicibus circiter major quam
conatus Lunae recedendi a centro terrae. Adeoque vis gravitatis est
4000 vicibus major conatu lunae recedendi a centro terrae, et amplius.^
Et si conatus ejus a terra efficit ut cum eadem facie terram semper res-
piciat;^ Hujus Lunaris et terrestris systematis conatus recedendi a sole
debet esse minor quam conatus Lunae recedendi a Terra, aliter luna
respiceret solem, potius quam terram.
Sed ut de hac re justiorem aestimationem faciam sit 100000 distantia
systematis Lunaris a sole, & y distantia lunae a terra. Et cum luna con-
ficit i3revoi^s]g J28'r 52' in anno stellari, sive 13,369 revolutiones (cujus
quadratum est 178,73): duco distantiam solis 100000 in quadratum ejus
revolutionis i, et distantiam Lunae y in quadratum ejus revolutionum
178,73 et fit 100000 ad 178,733;, ita conatus terrae a sole ad conatum
Lunae a terra. Unde constat quod distantia lunae a Terra debet esse
major quam 100000/178,73 sive 559^ respectu distantiae solis 100000.
Et inde Solis maxima parallaxis in orbita lunari non erit minor 19''*'
et solis horizontalis parallaxis in terra non minor 19'^^ puta cum O et
}) distant 90“^’ab Apogaeis. Pone vero parallaxim esse 24" et erit distantia
IVa ON CIRCULxVR MOTION 195
lunae a terra 7o6|,^2 gt conatus ejus recedendi a terra ad conatum terrae
recedendi a sole ut 5 ad 4 circiter. Et sic vis gravitatis erit 5000'“^vicibus
major conatu terrae recedendi a Sole. Sit Magni orbis |diam 100000,
terrae Jdiam. xEritque 3651x365!^; (sive 132408 ita conatus hominis
a terra, ad conatum ejus a sole.^s
Denique in Planetis primarijs cum cubi distantiarum a sole reciproce
sunt ut quadrat! numeri periodorum in dato tempore conatus a sole
recedendi reciproce erunt ut quadrata distantiarum a sole. Verbi gratia
est in $, ©, ut i, 27’ , qof, sive ut i, 3I, 6f, 15I,
183^, 614^-, reciproce. Vel directe ut 614; 173; 91; 39; 3^; i.
3. Pendulum gyrans et undulans si sint aeque profunda in eodem
tempore redeunt.^7
4. Si pendulum gyrans et undulans sint aeque profunda, arcus vibrantis
a perpendiculo descriptus est ut’^ chorda arcus quern gyrans descripsit
in eodem tempore.
Translation
The endeavour from the centre of a body A revolving in a circle A D
towards D is of such a magnitude that in the time [corresponding to
movement through] A D (which I set very small) it would carry it away
from the circumference to a distance DB\ since it would cover that
distance in that time if only it were to move freely along the tangent
without hindrance to its endeavour.
Now since this endeavour, provided it were to act in a straight line
in the manner of gravity, would impel bodies through distances which
are as the square of the times to know through what space they would
[be] impell[ed] in the time of a single revolution AD EA, I ask for a line
which may be to BD as the square of the circumference AD E A to the
square of AD. Now BE jBA ~ B A jB D (by [Book] 3 [of Euclid’s]
Elements). But since the difference between B E and DE, and also be­
tween B A and D A is supposed infinitesimally small, I substitute one for
the other in each case and it follows DEjDA = DAjDB. And then by
making DA^ (or D E x D B ) to ADEA^ as D B to ADEA^jDE I obtain the
required line (namely the third proportional of the circumference to the
diameter) through which its endeavour of receding from the centre w'ould
impel the body in the time of a complete revolution when applied con­
stantly in a straight line.-
 196 ON C I R C U L A R MOTION IVa
P'or example, since that third proportional equals 19.7392 semi­
diameters, if the endeavour of approaching to the centre^ [of the Earth]
in virtue of gravity were exactly equal to the endeavour of receding from
the centre at the equator due to the diurnal motion of the earth: then in
a periodic day it would impel a heavy body through 19I terrestrial semi­
diameters, that is through 69087"^ miles: and in an hour through 120
miles. And in a first minute through i/30 mile or through 100/3 paces, that
is 500/3 feet; and in a second minute through 5/108 feet or 5/9 inches.
But actually the force of gravity is of such a magnitude that it moves
heavy bodies down about 16 feet in one second, that is about 350^ times
further in the same time than the endeavour from the centre [would
move them], and thus the force of gravity is many times greater that what
would prevent the rotation of the earth from causing bodies to recede
from it and rise into the air.
2. Corollary: Hence the endeavours from the centres of divers circles
are as the diameters divided by the squares of the periodic times,^ or as
the diameters multiplied by the [squares of the] numbers of revolution
made in any given time. So that since the Moon revolves in 27 days 7
hours and 43 minutes or in 27-3216 days^ (whose square is 746I) and is
distant 59 or 60 terrestrial semidiameters, from the Earth. I multiply the
distance of the moon 60 by the square of the Lunar revolution, i, and the
distance of the surface of the Earth from the centre, i , by the square of the
revolutions, 746^, and so I have the ratio 60 to 746^, which is that between
the endeavour of the Moon and the surface of the Earth of receding from
the centre of the Earth. And so the endeavour of the surface of the Earth
at the equator is about 12-|- times greater than the endeavour of the Moon
to recede from the centre of the Earth. And so the force of gravity [as at
the surface of the Earth] is 4000 and more times greater than the en­
deavour of the Moon to recede from the centre of the Earth.^
And if the Moon’s endeavour from the Earth is the cause of her always
presenting the same face to the Earth,^ the endeavour of the lunar
and terrestrial system to recede from the Sun ought to be less than the
endeavour of the Moon to recede from the Earth, otherwise the Moon
would look to the Sun rather than to the Earth.
But that I may make a more exact estimate in this matter, let 100,000
be the distance of the lunar system from the Sun, and y the distance of
the Moon from the Earth. And since the Moon completes 13 revolutions
4 sig. 12 gr. 52' in a stellar year, or 13-369 revolutions (whose square
IVa ON C I R C U L A R MOTION 197
is 178-73) I multiply the distance of the Sun, 100,000, by the square of
its revolution, i, and the distance of the Moon [from the Earth], y, in
the square of her revolutions 178-73 and make 100000 to 178-733^ as
the endeavour of the Earth [and Moon] from the sun to the endeavour
of the Moon from the Earth. From which it follows that the distance of
the Moon from the Earth ought to be greater than 100000/178-73 or
5 5 9 i compared with the distance of the Sun, 100000. And hence the
greater solar parallax in the lunar orbit will not be less than 19 minutes,
and the Sun’s horizontal parallax not less than 19 seconds,” reckoned
when the Sun and Moon are distant 90° from their apogees. Assume the
parallax actually to be 24 seconds and the distance of the Moon from the
Earth y o b f a n d the endeavour of the Moon to recede from the Earth
to the endeavour of the Earth to recede from the Sun will be about 5:4.^^
And so the force of gravity will be 5000” times greater than the endeavour
of the Earth to recede from the Sun. If the great orbit’s semidiameter be
100000, X the Earth’s semidiameter, then the endeavour of a man from
the Earth to his endeavour from the Sun will be 365^X 365|^c or 132408
to unity ^5
Finally since in the primary planets the cubes of their distances from
the Sun are reciprocally as the squares of the numbers of revolutions
in a given time:’^the endeavours of receding from the Sun will be re­
ciprocally as the squares of the distances from the Sun. For example in
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn as ^7, i, 2 ^ , 27I, qof,
or as I , 3f, 6f, 15!, 183^, 614I, reciprocally. Or directly as 614; 173;
91; 39; 3 i ; I-
3. If a rotating pendulum and a pendulum swinging to-and-fro are of
the same depth they return in the same time.”
4. If a rotating pendulum and a pendulum swinging to-and-fro are of
the same depth, the arc of swing described from the perpendicular is
proportional to the chord of [twice] the arc which the rotating pendulum
describes in the same time.^^
a. The sense seems to require im pellerentur .
b. Preceded by lit distantia gyrantis a loco initiali sive deleted.
1. As follows from the extension of Galileo’s law for bodies falling under
gravity to the case of a body moving under the action of any constant force or
conatus. The same extension has already been used in MS. III.
2. Since the ratio in question equals 2tt^, approximated to by 19,7392 in the
succeeding paragraph, it follows that the distance moved by the body in a
straight line under the action of the conatus in the time of a complete revolution
equals zn^R. Ry a further application of the t^ law it follows that the distance
 198 ON C I R C U L A R MOTION IVa IVb ON MOTION IN A CYCLOID 199
m o ved in the tim e for m otion along the circle th rough distance R equals ztt^R x Oscillatorhim. This would certainly have been very plausible if it were
(R I zttR-Y — R / z , the result em p loyed in M S . I I I . not for the statement by Gregory quoted above. The importance at­
3. In contrast to the endeavour o f receding from the centre due to circular tached by Newton to the possible derivation of a value for from the
m otion. N e w to n has ev id e n tly in m in d the p ossibility o f a balance betw een the
time of vibration of a cycloidal pendulum in the last paragraph of the
tw o o pp osin g tendencies.
4. N o tic e 19 -7 3 9 2 X 3 5 0 0 = 69087-2 so that the figure assum ed for the
paper is interesting. It should be read in the light of the other method of
radius o f the E arth is 3500 m iles. T h e value ultim ately derived for the ratio o f determination in MS. III.
the endeavour due to gravity to that due to the diurnal m otion proves that these The text is relatively clean and shows no sign of any major develop­
m iles are Ita lia n , so that N e w to n is taking over the figure for the radius o f the
ment.
E arth used in M S . I l l , itself taken from G a lile o ’s D ialogue (see note 5 below and
M S . I l l , A p p e n d ix A , Section 2).
5. A s show n in A p p e n d ix A to the interpretation o f M S . I l l , this result
agrees w ith that derived there on the basis o f the uncorrected figure for ‘g ’ , cor­
responding to 20/3 ft o f fall from rest in one second, the radius o f the E arth
b ein g set equal to 3500 Italian miles. See above. Part I, C h a p ter 4, p . 68, for
the bearing o f this result on the problem o f N e w to n ’s first test o f the inverse
square law o f gravitation.
6. I f the distance m o ved in the tim e, T , o f a com plete revolution is p ro po r­
tional to R , then b y the law the distance m o ved in unit tim e (the natural basis
o f com parison for different m otions) w ill be proportional to R jT ^ .
7. In M S . A d d . 3996 C . U . L . (from w h ich are taken the extracts given in
M S . I) the len gth o f the lunar m onth is given at p. 20 as alm ost 27 days 8 hours.
8. T h e large discrepancy betw een this figure and the correct figure o f about
3600 results from the erroneous figure ad opted for the radius o f the earth. T h is ,
in turn, differs som ew hat from the figure o f 60 m iles to a degree o f latitude m en ­
tioned in the accounts o f Pem berton and W h iston. See above. Part I, C h a p ter 4,
p. 68.
In Fig; prima
9. A s su ggested b y N e w to n in his letter o f 23 June 1673 to H u ygen s (see
extract at M S . V i l a below). Sit D CE [Fig. i] Trochoides ad circulum B C Y pertinens quae
10. S in 19 ' — 559J/100000. planum horizontal tangat in C insistens ei normaliter. Inque curva D C
11. A ssu m in g radius o f m o o n ’s orbit == 60 x radius o f Earth. grave descendat a D ad C dilapsum per puncta 8, P, et tt . Et agantur SYS,
12. 5 5 9 ^ X 2 4 /19 = 706-74.
13. R atio o f endeavours = 24/19 — 5/4.
PVR, ttxQ parallelae ad DE, etc.
14. A ssu m in g previous result that vis g ra vitatisjcona tu s L u n a e > 4000.
I Dico quod gravitatis efiicacia sive descendentis acceleratio in singulis
15. P resu m ab ly in error for (365J)^x 1000000 • In M S . I l l the solar distance
is taken as 50000 X radius o f Earth. descensus locis, D, S, P, etc est ut spatium describendum DC, SC, P C
16. K e p le r ’s T h ir d L a w o f Planetary M o tio n . etc. Scilicet obliquitas descensus minuit efficaciam gravitatis ita ut si
17. A result already qu oted in M S . I la , § 6, and used in M S . I I I .
gravia duo descensura sint ad C alterum B recta per diametrum BC,
18. A s su ggested in Correspondence, vol. i, p. 303, note 14, this result is true
i f for ‘the chord o f the arc’ is read ‘ the chord o f tw ice the a rc’ .
alterum oblique per chordam YC: Minor erit acceleratio gravis Y
propter obliquitatem descensus idque in ratione Y C ad B C ita ut ambo
gravia simul perveniant ad C.^ Est autem B C parallela curvae in D,^
IV b
ac Y C parallela ipsi in S,^ ideoque acceleratio gravis in D est eadem cum
ON M O T I O N IN A C Y C L O I D acceleratione gravis descendentis in B C ut et acceleratio gravis in S
eadem cum acceleratione gravis descendentis per YC.^ Quare descen­
MS. Add. 3958(5), folios 90-91V, with diagrams at fol. 89 (right half).
dentis acceleratio in D est ad accelerationem ejus in S ut B C ad YC, sive
The text of this manuscript together with a translation have already been
published in Hall and Hall [i], pp. 170-80. They consider that it may ut eorum dupla D C ad SC.
have been composed after Newton’s receipt of Huygens’s Horologium Q.E.O.
 200 ON MOTION IN A CYCLOID IVb
2 Gravia^ in Trochoide descendentia, alterum a Z), alterum a quolibet
alio puncto P, simul pervenient ad C. Nam ut sunt longitudines DC,
PC, ita accelerationes sub initio motus in Z) et P : quare spatia primo
descripta puta Dd et P/>‘=erunt in eadem ratione.^ Unde dividendo est
DC. PC :: dC.pC. Quare accelerationes in delp permanent in eadem
ratione, et '^etiamnum generabunU velocitates descendentium in eadem
ratione, efficientque ut gravia pergant describere spatia dh et p-n in
F'igure 2.
eadem ratione. Adeoque spatia SC'" et ttC erunt in ilia ratione idque
continue donee utrumque simul in nihilum evanescat. Quare gravia
simul attingent punctum C.
Potuit etiam hoc inde ostendi quod posito DC. SC ; : PC. vC sit
D 8 . P tt : : ^/BS.^'RO : : velocitas post descensum ad profunditatem
B S ad velocitatem post descensum ad profunditatem RO.^
3 Itaque si grave undulet in Trochoide undulationes quaelibet erunt
ejusdem temporis.
In ffig: seda
Super diametrum Trochoidis DE [Fig. 2] erige perpendiculum BA—
BC et a puncto A hinc inde describe duas semi-Trochoides AD, AE
tangentes rectam DE in D et E, adeoque ejusdem magnitudinis cum
Trochoide DCE. Jam puncto Q in BD ad arbitrium sumpto, fac arcus
BT ac DS aequales longitudini DO et comple parallelogramma BOPT ac
DORS. Et constat.7
I Quod OP normaliter insistit Trochoidi DC in P et quod OR tangit
Trochoidem DRA in R.
IVb ON MOTION IN A CYCL OID 201
2 Quod OP et OR in directum jacent propter parallelismum rectarum
DS, BT. Adeoque omnis recta perpendicularis ad I'roch DC tanget
Troch AD et contra.
3 Quod est PO — TB — DS = ^ curvae DR, adeoque zPQ sive PR =
DR. Et recta P P + curva RA = toti curvae DRA = Rectae CA.
4 Quare si ARP sit filum datae longitudinis,^ cui pondus P appenditur ita
undulans intra trochoides AD et AE ut filum ab ipsis paululum prohi-
beatur ne in rectum protendatur, quemadmodum videre est in parte AR,
ubi se applicat ad Trochoidem: Tunc pondus P undulabit in Trochoide
DCE, adeoque quamlibet utcumque longam vel brevem undulationem
in eodem tempore perficiet.
5 Patet etiam quod undulationes in circulo FCI centre A descripto modo
sint perbreves (puta los^ hinc inde vel minus) sunt ejusdem temporis
proximo ac in Trochoide DCE.^ Nam undulatio in utroque casu fit circa
centrum A nisi quod filum paululum incurvatur in uno casu; quae
curvatura quam parva sit ex eo percipies quod R tantum supra rectam
DE esse debet imaginari quantum P cadit infra.
In Figura tertia
1 Stantibus jam ante positis cum gravis a D [Fig. 3] per P ad C descen-
dentis velocitas in loco quolibet P est uts radix altitudinis BV^ hoc est ut
linea B T pro designanda ilia velocitate exponatur^^ eadem BT.
2 Dein sit Pp particula spatii DC in ejusmodi particulas infinite multas et
aequales divisi, et agatur par parallela ad PTV secans semicirculum in a
et rectam TC in r. Jam propter parvitatem, curvarum portiunculae Pp ac
Ter pro rectis haberi possunt, adeoque Pp ac Tr erunt aequales propter
parallelismum et inde t T erit datae licet infinite parvae longitudinis;
ductaque semidiametro TK, triangula Tar, TKB erunt similia, siquidem
latera unius sunt perpendiculariter posita ad alterius latera correspon-
dentia viz To ad TK, T t ad TB et ar ad BK. Quare est BT. TK : : rT.
ra sive BTxTa = TKxTr. Adeoque cum TKacrT pro datis habenda
sunt, erunt BT ac Ta reciproce proportionalia. Cum itaque tempus et
velocitas quibus datum spatium ut Pp describitur sunt reciproce propor­
tionalia, et P T pro velocitate exponitur exponi potest etiam Ta pro
tempore. Atque ita si spatii Dp pars quaelibet Pp describitur in parte
tempo[re] Ta, describetur totum spatium Dp in toto tempore A^a.
3 Hinc posito quod semicircumferentia BTC designat tempus in quo
 202 ON MOTION IN A CYCLOID IVb
spatium D C percurriturp' ut noscas in quo tempore pars D P describetur
age P T parallelus D B et arcus B T designet tempus.
4 Potest etiam tempus per angulum^CT vel per inclinationem descensus
Pp aut per longitudinem DO^^ designari.
5 Caeterum ut tempora perpendicularis descensus cum temporibus
descensus in hac curva conferantur, pone quod grave B per V ad C
Figure 3.
descendit, et cum linearum B T quadrata sunt ut lineae BV: exponatur
B T pro designando tempore descensus ad V. Adeo ut si grave descendat
ad C in tempore BC, descendet ad V in tempore BT.
6 Jam cum descensus aeque a D ac i? sub initio sunt ad Horizontem
perpendiculales, manifestum est quod utrumque grave D ac B incipit
aequaliter’*^descendere, etsi D confestim in obliquum fertur. Adeoque
lineae per quas tempora descensuum designantur ita debent inter se
constitui ut initialiter exhibeant aequalia tempora descensuum aeque
altorum et postea recte exhibebunt tempora descensuum aeque altorum
ut fiunt sensim inaequalia. Et hinc patet arcum et ejus chordam B T (cum
sint initialiter aequalia) non modo recte designare haec tempora seorsim,
sed et inter se conferre. Ita ut posito quod grave defertur a D ad C in
tempore BTC , non modo sequetur quod deferetur ad P in tempore BT,
IVb ON MOT ION IN A CYCL OID 203
sed etiam quod descendet a B ad F in tempore B T vel a i? ad C in
tempore B C ; et contra,
Tempora etiam descensus ab alijs curvae punctis ut P exhinc no-
scuntur siquidem partes proportionales in aequalibus temporibus pera-
guntur.i2
Sed praecipuum est quod ex dato tempore in quo pendulum datae
longitudinis vibrat, datur tempus in quo grave ad datam profunditatem
descendet.^ Nam si grave decidat a B ad C in t e m p o r e f a c BC^ .B T C ‘
: : B C .Ay, ac decidet ah A ad y in tempore BTC^^ quod est unius semi-
vibrationis. Posito a u t e r n = i,ooo, calculus dabityly 1,2337, per cujus
quadruplum 4,9348 descendet in tempore unius vibrationis, hoc est per
^AC fere, et per 19,7392 sive ig §A C fere in vibratione replicata.
Nota [i] quod motus gravis a D ad C descendentis persimilis est motui
puncti in rota uniformiter mota quod describit Trochoidem, respectu
velocitatis.
2 Quod pendulum ex argento vivo confectum diutius perseverat in motu.
Translation
In the first figure
Let D C E [Fig. i] be a trochoid belonging to the half circle B C Y and
touching the horizontal plane, to which it is normal, at C. Suppose a
heavy body descends in the curve D C from D to C falling through the
points 8, P, and tt. And draw 8 Y S, PV R , iryO parallel to D E etc.
I. I affirm that the efficacy of gravity, or the acceleration of descent, in
the singular points D, S, P, etc of the descent are proportional to the
spaces to be described DC, 8C, P C etc. Clearly the obliquity of the
descent diminishes the efficacy of gravity so that if two weights are about
to descend to C, the one B directly by the diameter B C , the other C
obliquely by the chord YC : the acceleration of the weight Y will be less
on account of the obliquity of the descent in the ratio Y C to B C so that
both weights will arrive simultaneously at C.^ But B C is parallel to the
curve at D,^ and Y C is parallel to it at 8,^ so that the acceleration of the
weight in D is equal to the acceleration of the weight descending in
BC, and the acceleration of the weight in 8 the same as the acceleration
of the weight descending in YC.^ Therefore the acceleration of descent
at D is to the acceleration at S as B C to YC, or as the ratio of their
doubles [i.e.] D C to SC. Q.E.O.
 204 ON MOTION IN A CYCLOID IVb
2. Weights descending in the cycloid, one from Z), the other from any
other [given] point P, reach C simultaneously. For as are the distances
DC, P C so are the accelerations at the beginning of the motions at D
and P : therefore the spaces described to begin with, for example Dd
and Pp, will be in the same ratios [as before]. Whence by divisionPC/PC
= dCIpc. Therefore the accelerations at d and p remain in the same ratio,
and so now generate velocities of descent in the same ratio, which ensure
that the weights continue to describe spaces dS and prr having the same
ratio. And so the distances SC and ttC will be continually in the same
ratio until both simultaneously dwindle to nothing. Therefore the
weights reach the point C simultaneously.
It can also thereby be proved that given DC/SC = PC/ ttC then DS/P tt
= V(PN)/V(PO) = velocity after descent through depth PiS is to velocity
after descent through distance RQ.^
3. And so if a heavy body oscillates in a cycloid all oscillations whatsoever
will occupy the same time.
In the second figure
On the diameter of the cycloid DE [Fig. 2] erect a perpendicular
B C and on both sides of the point A describe the half-cycloids AD , A E
touching the line D E at D and E, and of the same size as the cycloid
DCE. Having chosen the point Q anywhere in BD, make the arcs B T
and D S equal in length to D O and complete the parallelograms B O P T
and DORS. We have then^
1. That Q P stands normally to the cycloid D C in P and that OR touches
the cycloid D R A in R.
2. That O P and OR are collinear on account of the parallelism of the
lines D S and B T . And so every line perpendicular [i.e. normal] to the
cycloid D C touches the cycloid A D and conversely.
3. T h a tP P = 7’P = D S = i curve P P , and that 2PO or P P ~ P P . And
the line P P + cu rve RA = whole curve DRA = line CA.
4. Therefore if A R P is a string of given length,^ to which a weight P is
attached oscillating between the cycloids A D and AE, so that the string
is just prevented from stretching in a straight line as can be seen in the
part A R where it is applied to the cycloid: then the weight P will
oscillate in the cycloid DCE, so that howsoever long or short the
oscillation may be it will be executed in the same time.
5. It also appears that the oscillations in the circle P C I described about
IVb ON M O TI O N IN A CYCLOID 205
centre A, provided only they are very small (for example lo-'’ or less on
each side) are approximately of the same duration as in the cycloid DCE.
For the oscillations in both cases are about the centre A except that the
string in one case curves slightly inwards; and how small this curvature
is can be seen from the fact that P is to be thought of as far above the
line DE as P falls below it.
In the third figure
1. On the same assumption as before when a heavy body [falls] from P
[Fig. 3] to C via P the velocity of descent in any place whatsoever, P, is
as the square root of the length PF,^ that is as the line BT^^\ and so BT
may be used for denoting that velocity.
2. Then let Pp be a small element of the space DC which is divided into
infinitely many equal elements of the same length, and let par be drawn
parallel to PTV cutting the semicircle in a and the straight line 7'C in t .
Then on account of their smallness the elements Pp and Ta oi the curve
can be taken as straight, and so Pp and Tr will be equal by parallels and
then t T will be [equal] to the given arbitrarily small length; then the
radius T K being drawn, the triangles Tar, T K B will be similar, so that
the sides of one are set perpendicularly to the corresponding sides of
the other, namely, Ta to TK, Tr to TB and ar to B K . Therefore is
B T / T K = rT/ra or P P x Ta = T K x Tr. Therefore since T K and rT
are to be taken as given, B T and Ta will be reciprocally proportional to
each other. Since therefore the time and velocity in which a given space
such as Pp are described are reciprocally proportional, and B T [from i]
represents the velocity, Ta can then represent the time. And thus if any
part whatsoever Pp of the space Dp is described in the part of time Ta,
the total space Dp will be described in the total time A^a.
3. This being so since the semicircumference BTC represents the time
in which the space DC is traversed, to know in what time the part DP
is described draw PT parallel to DB and the arc BT will represent the
[required] time.
4. The time can also be represented by the angle BCT or by the inclina­
tion of the descent Pp, or by the length DO.^^
5. Moreover that the time of the perpendicular descent may be compared
with the time of descent on the curve, assume that a body descends from
B to C via V ; then since the square of the line B T is proportional to the
line BV, BT may be taken to represent the time of descent to V. So that
206 ON MOTION IN A CYCLOID
if the body descends to C in the time BC, it descends to V in the time
BT.
6. Now since the descents from D and B are initially both perpendicular
to the horizontal, it is clear that both D and B begin to descend equally,
although D is immediately forced in an oblique direction. And so the
lengths representing the times of descent should be so constituted
relative to one another that initially they exhibit equal times of descent
by lengths as equal one to the other, and immediately afterwards they
represent equal times of descent as becoming unequal. And this proves
that the arc B T and the corresponding chord B T (since they are initially
equal) do not only rightly represent these times separately, but also in
the correct proportions one to the other. And so assuming that the body
is translated from D to C in time B T C , it follows not only that it is
translated to P in the time BT, but also that it descends from 5 to F in
time B T , or from B to C in time BC, and conversely.
Moreover the times of descent from other points of the curve such as
P are likewise known provided only proportional parts are covered in
equal times.
But especially important is the fact that given the time in which the
pendulum vibrates a given distance, there follows the time in which a
heavy body falls through a given depth. For if the heavy body falls from
jB to C in time B C make BC^jBTC^ = BCjA y, and it falls from A to y in
the time BTC,^^ which is one half oscillation. Putting A C — looo calcu­
lation gives Ay 1-2337, through whose quadruple 4*9348 it descends in
the time of one oscillation, that is through ^AC approximately, and
through 19-7392 or through ig^AC approximately in a double oscilla­
tion.
Note [i] that as regards velocity the motion of a heavy body falling from
Z) to C is very similar to the motion of the point of the uniformly moved
wheel which describes the cycloid.
2. That a pendulum made from quicksilver continues longer in motion.
a. In error for Y.
b. Followed by a quolibet puncto P descenclet ad C in eodem tempore ac si
descendisset a D cancelled.
c. Followed by [} quantum vis parva cogit] deleted.
d-d. Inserted in text in place of cancelled generant/o//o?a’wg descendentium.
e. Folloiced by DS, ttP et eorum residua cancelled.
f. Followed by Nam punctum R tunc baud recedit a puncto A et filum vix
omnino incurvatur cancelled.
IVh IVb ON MOTION IN A CYCLOID 207
g. Follozved by quadra cancelled.
h. Follozved by illius B V radix [?] est B T si modo diameter cancelled.
i. In error for B.
j. Follozved by arcus B T designet tempus in quo spatium DP cancelled.
k. Follozved by in eodem tempore cancelled.
l. Followed by Nam si grave descendat a D ad C in tempore DTC — 15708,
decidet ab 5 ad C in tempore BC = 10000. Et facto BC^.BTC^ : : BC . Ay
= 24674 [decidet?] ad y in tempore BTC, hoc est dum semissis undulationis
peragitur, adeoque in tempore unius undulationis decidet per 4Ay sive per
spatium 98696 cancelled.
1. Newton may have been familiar with the result through Galileo. It is given
in Theor. 6, Prop. 6, of the Discorsi.
2. That is, the tangent to the curve at D is parallel to BC.
3. A standard property of the cycloid (-- trochoid).
4. This is true only of the tangential component of the acceleration. Newton
throughout ignores the normal component.
5. Understood to be described in the same short interval of time.
6. Since the ratio of the accelerations of the two weights remains the same
throughout the motion, the same will likewise be true of the speeds so that Speed
at S/Speed at tt = DCjPC. Now D CIPC^ hC/zrC, from which it follows by use
of he = zC Y ,C Y ^ = CS.CB and analogous relations that DC/PC = f(BS/RQ)
~ Speed atS/Speed atvr. That the velocities of vertical descent through distances
BS, RQ are proportional to fB S , fR Q follows from Galileo’s law of falling
bodies.
7. Results I to 3 follow easily from standard properties of the cycloid.
8. According to the preceding argument the length of the string would need
to be equal to that of the arc AD of the cycloid ARD.
9. Compare the result quoted at the end of paragraph 2 of the 2nd section on
Fig. I .
10. Since BT^ = BV.BC.
11. Compare Fig. 2.
12. The significance of this statement is obscure.
13. From Galileo’s law of falling bodies.

V from them that is, as AB , A C , AD , A E etc.
T H E LAIVS O F M O T I O N PAPER
MS. Add. 3958 (5), folios 81-3, listed in the catalogue of the Portsmouth
Collection (Cambridge, 1888) among ‘Early Papers by Newton’. There
exists also a rough autograph draft of the same manuscript. There can
be little doubt that this is an early manuscript written well before the
Principia. For a discussion of the question of its order of composition
among the early manuscripts see above Part I, Chapter 6.1. The hand­
writing is Newton’s apart from the first lines of section i, the marginal
title of § II, and the passage headed ‘Some observations on Motion’,
which are all in the hand of Newton’s friend and one-time chamber
fellow John Wickins. For some information regarding Wickins see
Newton Correspondence, vol. ii, p. 447, note 2. The text of the manu­
script has previously been published in full at pp. 60-64 of vol. iii of
the Correspondence and by Hall and Hall [i], and the text of §§ 5, 9, 10
together with an interpretation by Herivel [5].
The original is clean throughout apart from a very small number of
unimportant deletions and was possibly intended for publication.
Text
The Laws of Motion
How solitary bodys are moved
Sect, i.^ There is an uniform extension space or expansion continued
every way with out bounds: in which all bodys are each in severall
parts of it : which parts of space possessed and adequately filled by them
are their places. And their passing out of one place or part of space into
another, through all the intermediate space is their motion.^ Which
motion is done with more or lesse velocity accordingly as tis done through
more or i^lesse space in equal times or through equall spaces in more or
lesse time. 2But the motion it selfe and the force to persevere in that motion
is more or lesse accordingly as the factus of the bodys bulk into its
velocity is more or lesse.^ And that force is equivalent to that motion
which it is able to beget or destroy.*^
2.<^’5 The motion of a body tends one way directly and severall other ways
obliqly. As if the body A [Fig. i]^ move directly towards the point B
it also moves obliquely towards all the lines B C , BD, B E etc. which passe
through that point B : and shall arrive to them all at the same time.
V THE L A W S OF M O TIO N PAPER 209
Whence its velocity towards them is in such proportion as its distance
3.^' If a body A [Fig. 2] move towards B with the velocity jR,^ and by
the way hath some new force done to it which had the body rested would
have propelled it towards C with the velocity S. Then making A B :A C : :
R : S, and completing the Parallelogram B C the body shall move in the
Diagonall A D and arive at the point D with this compound motion in
the same time it would have arrived at the point B with its single motion.
B
D
4. ®In every body there is a certaine point, called its center of motion
about which if the body bee any way circulated the endeavours of its
parts every way from the center are exactly counterpoised by opposite
endeavours.^ And the progressive motion of the body is the same with
the motion of this its center^ which always moves in a streight line and
uniformly when the body is free from occursions with other bodys.
And so doth the common center of two b o d y s w h i c h is found by divid­
ing the distance twixt their propper centers in reciprocal! proportion to
their bulk.’^^And so the common center of 3 or more bodys etc.*^ And all
the lines passing through these centers of motion are axes of motion.
5. ^ The angular quantity of a bodys circular motion and velocity is more
or lesse accordingly as the body makes one revolution in more [or] lesse
timers but the reall quantity of its circular motion is more or lesse accord­
ingly as the body hath more or lesse power and force to persevere in
that motion; which motion divided by the bodys bulke is the reall
quantity of its circular velocity. Now to know the reall quantity of a
bodys circular motion and velocity about any given axis E F [Fig. 3];
suppose it hung upon the two end E and F of that axis as upon two poles:
And that another globular body of the same bignesse, whose center is
858205 P
 210 THE L A W S OF M O T IO N PAPER
A, is so placed that the circulating body shall hit it in the point B and
strike it away in the line B A G (which lyeth in the same plane with one of
the circles described about the axis EF) and thereby just loose all its owne
motion. Then hath the Globe gotten the same quantity of progressive
motion and velocity which the other had of circular, its velocity being
the same with that of the point C which describes a circle touching the
line BG. The radius D C of which circle I may therefore call the radius of
circular motion or velocity about the axis EF. And the circle described
with the said Radius of Circulation in that plane which cuts the axis E F
perpendicularly in the center of motion I call the Equator of circulation
about that axis, and those circles which passe through the poles, meri­
dians etc.i^
6. " A body circulates about one axis (as P C [Fig. 4]) directly and about
several other axes (as AC, BC, etc.) obliquely. And the angular quantity
of its circulations about those axes {PC, A C, B C etc.) are as the sines
{PC, AD, BE, etc.) of the angles which those axes make with the Equator
{EG) of the principall and direct axis (PC). *7
7. ^ If a body circulates about the axis A C [Fig. 5] with the angular
quantity of velocity R : and some new force is done to it, which, if the
body had rested, would have made it circulate about another axis BC,
with the angular quantity of velocity S. Then in the plane of the two
axes, and in one of those two opposite angles (made by the axes) in which
the two circulations are contrary one to another (as in the angle ACB),
THE LAWS OF M O T IO N PAPER 211
1 find such a point P from which the perpendiculars {PK, PH) let fall to
those axes bee reciprocally proportional to the angular velocitys about
those axes (that is P K .P H : :R:S). And drawing the line PC, it shall
bee the new axis about which the compound motion is performed. And
the summe of C H j C P x R and C K j C P x S when the perpendiculars
P H and P K fall on divers sides of the axis PC, otherwise their difference,
is the angular quantity of circulation about that axis; which in the angle
A C P jB C P tends contrary to the circulation about the axis ACjBC.^^
8. * Every body keepes the same reall quantity of circular motion and
velocity so long as tis not opposed by other bodys.^^ And it keeps the
same axis too if the endeavour from the axis which the two opposite
quarters twixt the Equator and every meridian of motion have, bee exactly
counterpoised by the opposite endeavours of the 2 side quarters, and
then also its axis doth always keepe parallel to it selfe.^® But if the said
endeavours from the axis bee not exactly counterpoised by such oppo­
site endeavours: then for want of such counterpoise the prevalent parts
shall by little and little get further from the axis and draw nearer and
nearer to such a counterpoise, but shall never bee exactly counterpoised.
And as the axis is continually moved in the body, so it continually moves
in the space too with some kind or other of spirall motion, always draw­
ing nearer and nearer to a center or parallelisme with it selfe, but never
attaining to it. Nay tis so far from ever keeping parallel to it selfe, that
it shall never be twice in the same position.-^
How Bodys are Reflected--
9. J Suppose the bodys A and ot [Fig. 6] did move in the lines DA and ey.
till they met in the point .6: that B C is the plane which toucheth them
in the point of contact B : that the velocity of the Body A towards the
 212 THE L A W S OF M O TIO N PAPER V V THE L A W S OF M O TIO N PAPER 213
said plane of contact is B and the motion A B ; and that the change which Which mutations x, and v tend all of them from the plane of Contact.
is made by reflection in the velocity and motion is x and Ax. Suppose And these four rules I gather thus: The whole velocity of the two points
also that from the body A its center of motion two lines are drawne the of contact towards one another perpendicularly to the plane of contact is
one A B to the point of contact the other A C to the plane of contact; \Q (arising partly from the bodys progressive velocity 5 and ^ and partly
that the intercepted line B C is F: that the axis of motion which is per­ from their circular D and 3): And the same points are reflected one from
pendicular to the plane A B C and its equator are called the axis and another with the same quantity of such velocity. So that the whole change
equator of reflected circulation: that the radius of that equator is G : of all that their velocity which is perpendicular to the plane of contact is
that the reall quantity of velocity about that axis is D, and the motion 0 . Which change must bee distributed amongst the foure opposed velo­
citys B, /3, D and 8 proportionably to the easinesse (or smallnesse of resis­
tance) with which those velocitys are changed, that is, proportionably to
I j F (f)
A’ oc’ AG’ ay
Soe that
1+1+JL+. 0 O
I ±
A a AG ay A ^ AG ^ ay
Q = 8_ (f>Q r 1
that is F — y and — P [ - v]
AP ~ aP ^ AGP ayP
ii.i Now if any two reflecting bodys A and a, with the quantity of
their progressive and angular motions, and their position at their
meeting and consequently their point and plane of contact etc be given
to know how those bodys shall bee reflected, first find B and fl by Sec. 2.
Then the lines F and cf) and the axis of reflected circulation by Sec. 9
A D : that the change which reflection makes in that velocity and motion
and their Radij G and y by Sec. 5. Then their angular quantity of velo­
is y and A y ; And that the correspondent lines and motions of the other
city about the axes of reflected circulation by Sec. 6, and the reall quantity
body a are a^, <f), y, S, aS, v and (xv. Lastly for brevity sake suppose
D and 8 by Sec. 5. Then P and Q by Sec. 9. Then x, i, y and v by Sec. 10.
that T T F . (f)
Then the bodys new progressive determinations and velocitys by Sec.
A ^ a^ A G ^ ocy
3. Then the angular quantity of that circulation (y and 1^), which is
n Q 2DF 28(f) generated by reflection by Sec. 5. And lastly the new axes and angular
And 0.
G y quantity of velocity about them by Sec. 7.
Observing that at the time of reflection if in either body the center of
Some Observations about Motion’" ^^
motion doth move from the plane of contact, or those parts of it nearest
the point of contact doe circulate from the plane of contact: then the Only those bodys which are absolutely hard are exactly reflected accord­
said motion is to bee esteemed negative and the signe of its velocity ing to these rules. Now the bodys here amongst us (being an aggregate
B, D or 8 must bee made negative in the valor of Q. of smaller other bodyes) have a relenting softnesse and springynesse,
which makes their contact be for some time and in more points than one.
10A The velocitys B, D and 8 and they only are directly opposed and
And the touching surfaces during the time of contact doe slide one
changed in Reflection; and that according to these rules
upon another more or lesse or not at all according to their roughnesse.
Q — X ^ ^ _V and — v And few or none of these bodyes have a springynesse soe strong as to
AGP-y y^p-"- force them one from another with the same vigor that they came together.
 214 THE L A W S OF M O TIO N PAPER V V THE L A W S OF M O TIO N PAPER 215
Besides, that their motions are continually impeded and slackened by For completing the square Bj3 , the body a shall move in the
dou bled . 25
the mediums in which they move. Now he that would prescribe rules Diagonall ocC, and arrive at C but at the same time it would have arrived at
for the reflections of these compound bodies, must consider in how many j8 without reflection, see the third section.
points the two bodies touch at their meeting, the position and pression 5. Motion may be gained by reflection.
of every point, with their planes of contact etc.: and how all these are For if the body a return with the same motion back again from C to a.
varyed every moment during the time of contact by the more or lesse The two bodyes A and a after reflection shall regain the same equall
relenting softnesse or springynesse of these bodies and their various motions in the lines A D and aS (though backwards) which they had at
first.

a. Marginal entry o f Place m otion, v e lo city and force.

b. At this point Newton took over from Wickins.
c. Marginal entry W ith w h at v e lo city a b o d y m oves severall w ays at once.
d. Marginal entry H o w tw o progressive m otions are jo yn e d into one.
e. Marginal entry o f centers and axes o f m otion and the m otion o f those
centers.
f. Marginal entry o f circular m otion and v e lo city about those axes.
g. Marginal entry W ith w h at v elo city a b o d y circulates about severall axes at
once.
h. Marginal entry H o w tw o circular m otions are jo y n e d into one.
i. Marginal entry In w h at cases a circulatin g b o d y perseveres in the same
state and in w h at it doth not.
j. Marginal entry Som e nam es and letters defined.
k. Marginal entry T h e R u le for Reflection.
l. Marginal entry T h e conclusion.
m . T h is section w ritten in W ick in s ’s hand.

1. T h is definition o f m otion, based on the p recedin g definition o f space and

place, corresponds to the definitions o f absolute space, tim e, place and m otion
given in D e f. 2 -4 o f the Scholium to the D efinitions o f Book I o f the Principia.
Figure 7. See M S . V I for som e indications o f the genesis o f N e w to n ’s view s on this subject.
2. A s noted p reviously ( M S . l i d , n. 20), N e w to n alm ost always w orked w ith
slidings. And also what effect the air on other mediums compressed the ratio o f one v elo city to another, rather than w ith a single velo city. B u t the
betwixt the bodies may have. definition o f m otion in the im m ed iately fo llo w in g sentence is v e ry close to a
direct one.
2. There are some cases of Reflections of bodies absolutely hard to which
3. See M S . H e, D e f. 3.
these rules extend not: As when two bodies meet with their angular 4. T h is m ethod o f m easuring force b y the corresponding m otion created or
point, or in more points than one at once; Or with their superficies. But destroyed had already been em p loyed b y N e w to n in M S . II, especially at A x .-
these cases are rare. Prop. 3 -6 , 23 o f M S . I ld .
5. T h is , and the su cceed ing section, should be com pared w ith the entries
3. In all reflections of any bodies what ever this rule is true; that the on fob 38 o f the Waste Book (see M S . H g). A proof oi the rule for co m po u n din g
common center of two or more bodies changeth not its state of motion in dependent m otions appears first in L e m m a i o f Version H I o f the tract de
or rest by the reflection of those bodies one amongst another. 24 Motu (see M S . IX c).
6. T h e s e and subsequen t diagram references are taken from the original
4. Motion may be lost by reflection. As if two equall Globes A [Fig. 7] m anuscript.
and a with equall motions from D and S done in the perpendicular lines 7. In all know n later form ulations o f the result b o th m otions are assum ed to
have been generated sim ultaneously. F o r the possible significance o f this fact see
D A and Sa, hit one another when the center of the body a is in the line DA. Part I, C h a p ter 2 .1, p p . 39-40.
Then the body A shall loose all its motion and yet the motion of a is not 8. T h e dynam ical definition o f centre o f m otion corresponds to that already
 216 THE LAWS' OF M O TIO N PAPER V TH E L A W S OF M O T IO N PAPER 217
f?iven in D e f. lo o f M S . l i e . F ro m the present definition it follows easily that the
17. A s follow s im m ediately b y resolution, regarding angular v e lo city as a
centre o f m otion w ill coincide w ith the centre o f mass o f the b o d y. F o r i f the
(polar) vector.
b o d y is assum ed to be m ade up o f particles rn-i, w hose directed distances
18. T a k e directions and sense o f rotations o f R and S as in diagram 5, so that
from a given axis th rou gh the centre o f m otion are r^, rz,..., then the fa ct that
in the angle A C B the resulting m otions are opposite. A ssu m in g that the reaction
the various endeavours from the axis balance requires that ^ t-gnig a>l — o, cog
S
(if any) to the applied couple acts through C , the new total angular m om en tum
b ein g the angular v e lo city o f the p article m,, about the axis. Since cOg w ill be the w ill be equal to the vector sum o f the original angular m om en tu m p lus that due
same for all parts o f the b o d y it follow s that '^ n ig T g = o. I f Xg, y>g are the re- to the applied couple. T h e resulting rotation w ill therefore b e about the axis C P ,
S

solved parts o f r , w ith respect to an y tw o m u tu ally perpendicular axes through Ji R sin P C H == / , S sin P C K ,
the centre O in a plane p erpendicular to the axis, the above equation requires
and its m agn itude w ill be given b y
V nigXg ~ 2 ^^hy’ s - O) so that the centre o f mass o f the b o d y m u st lie on the
LgV. ly R cos P C H ! /a 6" cos P C K .
axis throu gh O . I f this is true for every axis th rough O , as required in the defini­
tion, then O m u st be at the centre o f mass o f the body. T h e results given b y N e w to n then fo llo w on the assum ption ly - h -- h .
9. See A x .-P r o p . 17, M S . I ld . O th erw ise th ey w o u ld seem to be untrue.
10. A s follow s from the principle o f inertia. 19. T h is statem ent follow s, o f course, fio m the p rinciple o f angular m o m en ­
1 1 . A s p roved b y N e w to n in A x .-P r o p . 2 7 -3 0 o f M S . I lf. tum .
12. T h e definition given in A x .-P r o p . 25 o f M S . I ld . 20. T h is corresponds, although it does n ot appear to be actually equivalent,
13. A n extension n o t given in M S . I I . T h e p ro o f is g iv en in the P r in cip ia at to the m otion of principal axes of rotation.
C oroll. 4 to L a w s o f M o tio n . 2 1. I t is to be regretted that N e w to n d id n ot provide a quantitative ju stifica­
14. A x is o f m otion b ein g defined b y im plication at the begin n in g o f the tion o f this statem ent. H is treatm ent o f the p ro blem o f the collision betw een
section. tw o rotating bodies in the present m an uscript m akes it seem en tirely possible
15. See A x .-P r o p . 19 o f M S . I ld . that such a justification w o u ld have been w e ll w ith in his powers.
16. T o elucidate the m eanin g o f the various term s in the p recedin g section, 22. T o elucidate N e w to n ’s treatm ent o f this p roblem in the tw o follow in g
let us solve the collision prob lem b y ‘m o d ern ’ m ethods. sections it is necessary to reform ulate it in m odern terms.
Let M be mass o f either body, In ad dition to the term s defined b y N e w to n in § 9 l e t ;
u> be angular v elo city o f the rotating b o d y before im pact, H, Cl' b e the (clockwise) angular v e lo city o f A before and after im pact,
I m o m en t o f inertia o f rotating b o d y about axis E F , oj, <x)' be the (anticlockwise) angular v elo city o f a before and after im pact,
V be speed in du ced in A , B ', be the velocities o f A and a respectively aw ay from the plane o f contact
r = CD, after im pact,
P = m agn itu d e o f im pulse experienced b y A . I , i be the m om ents o f inertia o f A , a respectively about the axes o f rotation
Then P = M V. th rough A , cx.
P x r ~ I c j, since the im pulse P actin g on the rotating b o d y m u st be equal T h e fo llo w in g equations then ho ld;
and o pposite to that on A , and the m o m en t o f this im pulse about E F equals the Conservation of linear momentum perpendicular to plane of contact:
en su ing dim in u tion o f the angular m om en tu m o f the rotating b o d y about
A B ~ ol^ = ol^ '-A B '. ( i )
EF.
M V ^ Iz I v P jz , assum ing (i) the rotating b o d y is brou gh t to rest, (2) that Conservatioyi o f angular momentum about B (through w h ich the force o f im pact
en ergy is conserved. T h is later assum ption im plies that the collision is elastic. m ust act) for A :
m \BAF - I Q '- B 'A F ; (2)
F ro m these equations w e deduce
sim ilarly for or. ioj—^af ~ ico' (.3)
I = Mr^, and V = rcu.
C onservation o f energy f o r elastic collision (from section ‘ Som e observations about
S o that N ezvton's 'radius o f circular motion or velocity about the axis E F ' equals our m o tio n ’ it is clear the collision is assum ed to be ela stic):
radius o f gyration k : w h ile the quantities o f circular m otion and v e lo city o f the
rotating b o d y, b y definition equal to V and M V respectively, are eq ual to roj ~ I C P j z f - A B ^ l z + ioj'^jz-roc^^lz = I C l'^ lz - fA B '^ jz ^ ia o '- lz - y a ^ '^ lz . (4)
koj, and M r o j = M k co, respectively. In other w ords, N e w to n ’s real qu a n tity o f F ro m these four equations it follows that
circular v e lo city is that o f the b o d y on its equator o f circulation, and the real
qu antity o f circular m otion, w h ich he takes, b y definition, as the m easure o f the B —C IF ^ to<l> ~ B ' C l ' F (5)
b o d y ’s p ow er to persevere in this rotation, is equal to the momentum o f a single i.e. the relative v elo city o f separation after collision equals the relative v e lo city
particle o f mass M rotating w ith the b o d y around the equator o f circulation. o f approach before, the assum ption m ade b y N ew to n . M o reover, referring to
T h is measure o f the p ow er to persevere in rotation should be contrasted w ith note 16, the value o f this relative v e lo city — l ( z B z ^ — z D F j G + z S f l y ) — Q j z
the m odern m easure o f angular m o m en tu m ; the tw o differ b y a factor k. (allow ing for an un im portant difference in sign).
 218 THE L A W S OF M O TIO N PAPER
O n solvin g i, 2, 3, and 5 w e ultim ately find:

O VI
{B' + B) ( 6)
AP’

.0
E X T R A C T S FROM MS. A D D . 4003
cxP’ (7)
QF
(0^-0) (8) U .L.C. MS. Add. 4003 consists of a small book of forty pages in
IP '
Newton’s hand in Latin. The text of the manuscript together with an
(co~o)') — (9 )
introduction and translation has been published by Hall and Hall [i].
ip ’
After a short introduction there are four definitions of certain basic
where Q , P have the values given b y N ew to n .
physical concepts followed by a long philosophical discussion. Then
Sin ce I = A G ^ , i ^ ay^ the last tw o equations m ay be written
come fifteen more definitions, followed by a section entitled Propositiones
( 8)' defluido non elastico containing two propositions, five corollaries, and a
concluding Scholium. Although the presence of this section on hydrosta­
{yoj —ycxj') =1^ Q i (9)' tics may be an indication that the preceding part was originally intended
ayP
by Newton as an introduction to a projected treatise on hydrostatics,
N o tin g that B ' F B , give the changes x, ^ in the corresponding linear the true importance of the book lies elsewhere. In the first place, it
velocities, and that G O '— G i l , yco~ya>' give the changes y , v in the real quantities
contains what is to my knowledge the only known extended writing by
o f circular m otion (cf. note 16) w'e find
Newton on a purely philosophical subject ; as such it throws most inter­
O = .r,
Q C FQ fQ esting light on Newton’s standing as a philosopher. In the second place,
AP ocP AGP
y, ayP
it provides conclusive evidence both for Descartes’s influence on Newton,
as given b y N ew to n .
and for the nature of Newton’s reaction to Descartes’s philosophy. And
23. T h e first part o f this section proves how clearly N ew to n had understood
finally it throws important light on Newton’s view^s on space, time and
the conditions actu ally go vern in g collision betw een bodies in practice as opposed
to the ideal conditions assum ed in §§ 9, to. body.
24. A s p roved for the case o f tw o bodies in Prop. 32, M S . I lf. The philosophical discussion between Def. 4 and 5 may be divided
25. T h is rather surprising result follow s from the assum ptions o f conservation up as follows, (i) pp. 3-10: An attack by Newton on the definition of
o f en ergy and m o m en tu m and that the collision is such that A receives no motion in the true and absolute sense given in Part 2 of Descartes’s
m otion p erpen dicular to D B . It also seems to in dicate that N e w to n had n ot
Principia Philosophiae. (2) pp. 11-19: An exposition of Newton’s own
realized the -vectorial nature o f the law o f conservation o f m om entum .
26. A good exam ple o f the reversibility o f classical N ew ton ian dynam ics.
views on space, time and motion. (3) pp. 20-31 : A criticism of Descartes’s
identification of body and extension, and of his assertion of an absolute
dichotomy between mind and body, together with Newton’s own views
on the nature of body.
Extracts will largely be restricted to those of dynamical interest, and
those bearing on Newton’s theory of space. For a discussion of the
question of dating see above, Part I, Chapter 6.2.
Apart from a small number of unimportant deletions the text is clean
throughout.

Text
I. De^ Gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum et solidorum in fluidis
scientiam duplici methodo tradere convenit. Quatenus ad scientias
Mathematicas pertinet, aequum esl ut a contemplatione Physica quam
 220 E X T R A C T S FRO M MS. ADD. 4003
maxime abstraham. Et hac itaque ratione singulas cjiis propositiones
e principijs abstractis et attendenti satis notis, more Geometrarum,
stricte demonstrare statui. Deinde cum haec doctrina ad Philosophiam
naturalem quodammodo affinis esse censeatur, quatenus ad plurima ejus
Phaenomena enucleanda accommodatur, adeoque cum usus ejus exinde
praesertim elucescat et principiorum certitudo fortasse confirmetur,
non gravabor propositiones ex abundanti experimentis etiam illustrare S
ita tamen ut hoc laxius disceptandi genus in Scholia dispositum, cum
priori per Lemmata, propositiones et corollaria tradito non confundatur.
ffundamenta ex quibus haec scientia demonstranda est sunt vel
definitiones vocum quarundam; vel axiomata et postulata a nemine non
concedenda. Et haec e vestigio tradam.
Definitiones.
Nomina quantitatis, durationis et spatij notiora sunt quam ut per alias
voces definiri possint.
Def: 1.3 Locus est spatij pars quam res adaequate implet.'^
D e f: 2. Corpus est id quod locum implet.*^
Def: 3. Quies est in eodem loco permansio.
D ef: 4. Motus est loci mutatio.'^
Nota. Dixi corpus implere l o c u m, h o c est ita saturate ut res alias
ejusdem generis sive alia corpora penitus excludat, tanquam ens im-
penetrabile."^ Potuit autem locus did pars spatij cui res adaequate inest,
sed cum hie corpora tantum et non res penetrabiles spectantur, malui
definire esse spatij partem quam res implet.
Praeterea cum corpus hie speculandum proponitur non quatenus est
substantia Physica sensibilibus qualitatibus praedita sed tantum quatenus
est quid extensum mobile et impenetrabile; itaque non definivi pro more
philosophico, sed abstrahendo sensibiles qualitates (quas etiam Philo-
sophi ni fallor abstrahere debent, et menti tanquam varios modos cogi-
tandi a motibus corporum excitatos tribuere) posui tantum proprietates
quae ad motum localem requiruntur. Adeo ut vice corporis Physici
possis figuras abstractas intellegere quemadmodum Geometrae con-
templantur cum motum ipsis tribuunt, ut fit in prop 4 & 8, lib i Elcm
Euclid .5 Et in demonstratione definitionis decimae, lib i i debet fieri;
siquidem ea inter definitiones vitiose recensetur et potius inter proposi­
tiones demonstrari debuit, nisi forte pro axiomate habeatur.
VI VI E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 221
Definivi praeterea motum esse loci mutationem,'^ propterea quod
motus, transitio, translatio, migratio etc videntur esse voces synonymae.
Sin malueris esto motus transitio vel translatio corporis de loco in locum.
Caeterum in his definitionibus cum supposuerim spatium a corpore
distinctum dari et motum respectu partium spatij istius, non autem
respectu positionis corporum contiguorum determinaverim ne id gratis
contra Cartesianos assumatur, ffigmenta ejus tollere conabor.
2. ^ Jam vero quam confusa et ration! absona est haec doctrina’ non
modo absurdae consequentiae convincunt, sed et Cartesius ipse sibi
contradicendo videtur agnoscere. Dicit enim Terram caeterosque
Planetas proprie et juxta sensum Philosophicum loquendo non mover!,^
eumque sine ratione et cum vulgo tantum loqui qui dicit ipsam mover!
propter translationem respectu fixarum (Art. 26, 27, 28, 29 part 3). Sed
postea tamen in Terra et Planetis ponit conatum^ recedendi a Sole tan­
quam a centro circa quod moventur, quo per consimilem conatum Vorticis
gyrantis in suis a Sole distantijs librantur Art 140 part 3.3° Quid itaque?
an hie conatus a quiete Planetarum juxta Cartesium vera et Philo-
sophica, vel potius a motu vulgi et non Philosophico derivandus estP^'
3. *^ Ex utraque harum consequentiarum^^ patet insuper quod e motibus
nullus prae alijs dici potest verus absolutus et proprius, sed quod omnes,
sive respectu contiguorum corporum sive remotorum, sunt similiter
philosophici, quo nihil absurdius imaginari possumus. Nisi enim con-
cedatur unicum cujusque corporis motum physicum dari, caeterasque
respectuum et positionum inter alia corpora mutationes, esse tantum
externas denominationes: sequetur Terram verb! gratia conari recedere
a centro Solis propter motum respectu fixarum, et minus conari rece­
dere propter minorem motum respectu Saturni et aetherei orbis in quo
vehitur, atque adhuc minus respectu Jovis et aetheris circumducti ex
quo orbis ejus conflatur, et iterum minus respectu Martis ejusque orbis
aetherei, multoque minus respectu aliorum orbium aethereae materiae
qui nullum Planetam deferentes sunt propiores orbi annuo Terrae;
respectu vero proprij orbis non omnino conari quoniam in eo non
movetur. Qui omnes conatus et non conatus cum non possunt absolute
competere dicendum est potius quod unicus tantum motus naturalis
et absolutus Terrae competit, cujus gratia conatur recedere a Sole, et
quod translationes ejus respectu corporum externorum sunt externae
tantum denominationes.
4.35 Denique ut hujus positionis absurditas quam maxima pateat, dico
 222 E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 VI
quod exinde sequitur nullam esse mobilis alicujus determinatam veloci-
tatem nullamque definitam lineam in qua movetur. Et multo magis quod
corporis sine impedimentis moti velocitas non dici potest uniformis, neque
linea recta in qua motus perficitur. Imo quod nullus potest esse motus
siquidem nullus potest esse sine aliqua velocitate ac determinatione.
5. ^^ Quin imo sequitur motum Cartesianum non esse motum, utpote
cujus nulla est velocitas, nulla determinatio et quo nullum spatium,
distantia nulla trajicitur.'^ Necesse est itaque ut locorum determinatio
adeoque motus localis ad ens aliquod immobile referatur quale est sola
extensio vel spatium quatenus ut quid a corporibus revera distinctum
spectator, Et hoc lubentius agnoscet Cartesianus Philosophus si modo
advertat quod Cartesius ipse extensionis hujus quatenus a corporibus
distinctae ideam habuit, quam voluit ab extensione corporea discrimi-
nare vocando genericam. Art. 10, 12 et 18 part 2 Princip. Et quod
vorticum gyrationes, quibus vim aetheris recedendi a centris, adeoque
totam ejus mechanicam Philosophiam deduxit, ad extensionem hance
genericam tacite referuntur.'^
6. *'^ De extensione jam forte expectatio est ut definiam esse vel substan-
tiam vel accidens aut omnino nihil. At neutiquam sane, nam habet
quendam sibi proprium existendi modum qui neque substantijs neque
accidentibus competit. Non est substantia turn, quia non absolute per
se, sed tanquam Dei effectus emanativus, et omnis entis affectio quae-
dam subsistit; turn quia non substat ejusmodi proprijs affectionibus
quae substantiam denominant, hoc est actionibus, quales sunt cogita-
tiones in mente et motus in corpore. Nam etsi Philosophi non definiunt
substantiam esse ens quod potest aliquid agere, tamen omnes hoc
tacite de substantijs intelligunt, quemadmodum ex eo pateat quod facile
concederent extensionem esse substantiam ad instar corporis si modo
moveri posset et corporis actionibus frui. Et contra baud concede­
rent corpus esse substantiam si nec moveri posset nec sensationem aut
perceptionem aliquam in mente qualibet excitare. Praeterea cum ex­
tensionem tanquam sine aliquo subjecto existentem possumus dare
concipere, ut cum imaginamur extramundana spatia aut loca quaelibet
corporibus vacua; et credimus existere ubicunque imaginamur nulla esse
corpora, nec possumus credere periturum esse cum corpore si modo
Deus aliquod annihilaret, sequitur earn non per modum accidentis
inhaerendo alicui subjecto existere. Et proinde non est accidens. Et
multo minus dicetur nihil, quippe quae magis est aliquid quam accidens
VI E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 223
et ad naturam substantiae magis accedit. Nihili nulla datur Idea neque
ullae sunt proprietates sed extensionis Ideam habemus omnium claris-
simam abstrahendo scilicet affectiones et proprietates corporis ut sola
maneat spatij in longum latum et profundum uniformis et non limitata
distensio.2” Et praeterea sunt ejus plures proprietates concomitantes
hanc Ideam, quas jam enumerabo non tantum ut aliquid esse sed simul
ut quod sit ostendam.
7.2’' Denique spatium est aeternae durationis et immutabilis naturae,
idque quod sit aeterni et immutabilis entis effectus emanativus. Si-
quando non fuerit spatium, Deus tunc nullibi adfuerit, et proinde spatium
creabat postea ubi ipse non aderat, vel quod non minus rationi absonum
est, creabat suam ubiquitatem. Porro quamvis fortasse possumus imagi-
nari nihil esse in spatio tamen non possumus cogitate non esse spatium;
quemadmodum non possumus cogitate durationem non esse, etsi possi-
bile esset fingere nihil omnino durare. Et hoc per extramundana spatia
manifestum est, quae (cum imaginamur mundum esse finitum) non
possumus cogitate non esse, quamvis nec a Deo nobis revelata sunt, nec
per sensus innotescunt nec a spatij s intramundanis quoad existentiam
dependent. Sed de spatijs istis credi solet quod sunt nihil. Imo veto sunt
spatia. Spatium etsi sit corpore vacuum tamen non est seipso vacuum.
Et est aliquid quod sunt spatia quamvis praeterea nihil. Quin imo
fatendum est quod spatia non sunt magis spatia ubi mundus existit quam
ubi nullus est, nisi forte dices quod Deus cum mundum in hoc spatio
creabat, spatium simul creabat in seipso vel quod Deus si mundum in
his spatijs posthac annihilaret, etiam spatia annihilaret in seipsis.
Quicquid itaque est pluris realitatis in uno spatio quam in altero, illud
corporis est et non spatij, quemadmodum clarius patebit si modo
puerile illud et ab infantia derivatum praejudicium deponatur quod
extensio inhaeret corpori tanquam accidens in subjecto sine quo revera
nequit existere.
8.22 Cum autem aqua minus obstat motibus trajectorum solidorum quam
argentum vivum et aer longe minus quam aqua, et spatia aetherea adhuc
minus quam aerea rejiciamus praeterea vim omnem impediendi motus
trajectorum et sane naturam corpoream penitus rejiciemus. Quem­
admodum si materia subtilis vi omni privaretur impediendi motus
globulorum, non amplius crederem esse materiam subtilem sed vacuum
disseminatum. Atque ita si spatium aereum vel aethereum ejusmodi
esset ut Cometarum vel corporum quorumlibet projectilium motibus
 224 E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 VI
sine aliqua resistentia cederent crederem esse penitus inane. Nam impos-
sibile est iit fluidum corporum non obstet motibus trajectorum, puta si
non disponitur ad motum juxta cum eorum motu velocem (Part 2 Epist
96 ad Mersennum),23 quemadmodiim suppono.
Hanc autem vim omnem a spatio posse tolli manifestum est si modo
spatium et corpus ab invicem differunt; et proinde tolli posse non est
denegandum antequam probantur non differre, ne paralogismus,
petendo principium admittatur.
Sed nequa supersit dubitatio, ex praedictis observandum venit quod
inania spatia in rerum natura dantur. Nam si aether esset fluidum sine
poris aliquibus vacuis penitus corporeum, illud, utcunque per divisionem
partium subtilitatum, foret aeque densum atque aliud quodvis fluidum,
et non minori inertia motibus trajectorum cederet, imo longe majori,
si modo projectile foret porosum; propterea quod intimos ejus poros
ingrederetur, et non modo totius externae superficiei sed et omnium
internarum partium superficiebus occurreret et impedimento esset.
Sed cum aetheris e contra tarn parva est resistentia ut ad resistentiam
argenti vivi collata videatur esse plusquam decies vel centies mille vicibus
minor: sane spatij aetherei pars longe maxima pro vacuo inter aetherea
corpuscula disseminate haberi debet. Quod idem praeterea ex diversa
gravitate horum fluidorum conjicere liceat, quam esse ut eorum den-
sitates sive ut quantitates materiae in aequalibus spatijs contentae mon-
strant turn gravium descensus turn undulationes pendulorum.^^ Sed his
enucleandis jam non est locus,
9. Def. 5. Vis est motus et quietisms causale principium. Estque vel exter-
num26 quod in aliquod corpus impressum motum ejus vel generat vel
destruit, vel aliquo saltern modo mutat; vel est internum principium^^
quo motus vel quies corpori insita conservatur, et quodlibet ens in suo
statu perseverare conatur et impeditum reluctatur.
Def. 6. Conatus est vis impedita sive vis quatenus resistitur.28
Def. 7. Impetus est vis quatenus in aliud imprimitur.
Def. 8. Inertia29 est vis interna corporis ne status ejus externa vi
illata facile mutetur.
Def. 9. Pressio est partium contiguarum conatus ad ipsarum dimen-
siones mutuo penetrandum. Nam si possent penetrare cessaret pressio.3°
Estque partium contiguarum tantum, quae rursus premunt alias sibi
contiguas donee pressio in remotissimas cujuslibet corporis duri mollis
vel fluid! partes transferatur. Et in hac actione communicatio motus
mediante puncto vel superficie contactus fundatur.
VI E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 225
Def. 10. Gravitas est vis corpori indita ad descendendum incitans.
Hie autem per descensum non tantum intellige motum versus centrum
terrae sed et versus aliud quodvis punctum plagamve, aut etiam a puncto
aliquo peractum. Quemadmodum si aetheris circa Solem gyrantis conatus
recedendi a centro ejus pro gravitate habeatur, descendere dicetur aether
qui a Sole recedit.^i Et sic analogiam observando, planum dicetur
horizontale quod gravitatis sive conatus determination! directe oppo-
nitur.
Caeterum harum potestatum, nempe motus, vis, conatus, impetus,
inertiae, pressionis, et gravitatis quantitas duplici ratione aestimatur;
utpote vel secundum intensionem earum vel extensionem.
Def. II. Intensio potestatis alicujus praedictae est ejus qualitatis
gradus.
Def. 12. Extensio ejus est spatij vel temporis quantitas in quo exer-
cetur.
Def. 13. Ejusque quantitas absoluta est quae ab ejus intensione et
extensione componitur. Quemadmodum si quantitas intensionis sit 2, et
quantitas extensionis 3, due in seinvicem et habebitur quantitas absoluta
6.
Caeterum hasce definitiones in singulis potestatibus illustrare juvabit.
Sic itaque motus intensior est vel remissior^^ quo spatium majus vel
minus in eodem tempore transigitur, qua quidem ratione corpus dici solet
velocius vel tardius moveri. Motus vero magis vel minus extensus est
quocum corpus majus vel minus movetur, sive qui per majus vel minus
corpus diffunditur. Et motus absoluta quantitas est quae componitur ex
utrisque velocitate et magnitudine corporis moti. Sic vis, conatus, im­
petus, et inertia intensior est quae est in eodem vel aequali corpore
major; extensior est quae est in majori corpore; et ejus quantitas abso­
luta quae ab utrisque oritur. Sic pressionis intensio est ut eadem super­
ficiei quantitas magis prematur, extensio ut major superficies prematur,
et absoluta quantitas quae resultat ab intensione pressionis et quantitate
superficiei pressae. Sic denique gravitatis intensio est ut corpus habeat
majorem gravitatem specificam, extensio est ut corpus grave sit majus,
et absolute loquendo gravitatis quantitas est quae resultat ex gravitate
specifica et mole corporis gravitantis. Et haec quisquis non dare distin-
guit, ut in plurimos errores circa scientias mechanicas incidat necesse
est.
Potest insuper quantitas harum potestatum secundum durationis
intervallum nonnunquam aestimari: qua quidem ratione quantitas
858205 Q
 226 E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 VT
absoluta erit quae ex omnibus intensione extensione ac duratione com-
ponitur. Quemadmodum si corpus 2 velocitate 3 per tempus 4 move-
tur: totus motus erit 2X3X4, sive I2[s^c].-^^
Def. 14, Velocitas est motus intensio, ac tarditas remissio ejus.
Translation
I. is proper to expound a knowledge of the heaviness and equili­
brium of fluids and of solids in fluids by a double method. In so far as
this knowledge relates to mathematical topics, it is proper that I should
depart as much as possible from physical considerations. And so on
this account I have decided on a rigorous demonstration of particular
propositions of the subject from self-evident abstract principles in the
manner of mathematicians. But then since this subject is considered to
be somewhat akin to Natural Philosophy, in so far as it is employed in
elucidating many of the phenomena thereof, and also that its usefulness
may be particularly evident and the certainty of its principles perhaps
confirmed, I shall not hesitate also to illustrate propositions by abundance
of experiments yet in such a way that this freer type of argument
assigned to scholia may not be confused with the form expounded in
lemmas, propositions and corollaries.
The foundations from which this science is to be deduced are either
definitions of certain terms or else axioms or postulates admitted by all.
And these I set forth herewith.
Definitions.
The names quantity, duration and space are too familiar to be definable
in other terms.
Def. 1.3 Place is a part of space that a thing fills evenly.**^
Def: 2. Body is that which fills a place.
D e f: 3. Rest is continuance in the same place.
D e f: 4. Motion is change of place.^
Notes. I have said that a body fills a pl ace, that is so completely that
it utterly excludes other things of the same kind or other bodies, like an
impenetrable thing.^ On the other hand, place could have been defined
as a part of space in which a thing exists uniformly, but since bodies only
and not penetrable things are here considered, I have preferred to define
it as a part of space which a thing fills.
Moreover, since the body discussed here is put forw'ard not as a physi­
cal substance endowed w'ith sensible qualities but only as something
VI E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 227
extended, mobile and impenetrable, I have defined it not in a philosophical
manner, but in abstracting sensible qualities (which unless I am mis­
taken philosophers ought also to abstract, and assign to the mind as vari­
ous modes of thinking excited by the motion of bodies) I have posited
only properties requisite for local motion. So that instead of physical
bodies you may understand abstract figures in the same way as they are
regarded by Geometers when they assign motion to them, as is done in
Prop. 4 and 8 Book I of Euclid’s Elements.s And as ought to be done in
the demonstration of Definition 10 of Book II, since it is taken as a defini­
tion in error and ought rather to be demonstrated among the proposi­
tions, unless perhaps it should be regarded as axiomatic.
Moreover I have defined motion to be change of place, because
motion, transition, translation, migration etc. seem to be synonymous
words. If you prefer it let motion be the transition or translation of a
body from place to place.
In addition, since in these definitions I shall suppose space to be given
apart from bodies, and motion in respect of the parts of this space, and
I shall not determine it in respect of the position of neighbouring bodies,
lest this is taken as gratuitously contrary to the Cartesians I shall [first]
endeavour to dispose of his [Descartes’] imaginings.
2. ^ Now truly not only the absurd consequences of this doctrine"^ prove
how confused and foreign to reason it is, but Descartes himself by con­
tradicting himself seems to acknowledge this to be the case. For he says
the Earth and other planets are at rest speaking truly and in the philo­
sophical sense,s and that he wEo says it is moved on account of its trans­
lation relative to the fixed stars lacks reason and speaks only in the vulgar
sense (Art. 26, 27, 28, 29, Part 3). But later he nevertheless posits in
the Earth and the planets an endeavour*^ to recede from the Sun as if
from a centre about which they are moved, by means of which and the
like endeavour of the revolving vortices they are poised at their distances
from the Sun (Art. 140 Part 3).!° What then? Is this conatus to be
derived from the Planets’ rest, according to Descartes true and philo­
sophical, or from their vulgar and non-philosophical motions?”
3 . From both of these consequences'’ it appears moreover that of
motions no one can be said to be true, absolute, and more proper beyond
the others, but that all in respect of both neighbouring and remote
bodies are equally philosophical, than which w^e are able to imagine
nothing more absurd. For unless a unique physical motion is allowed
 228 E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4 0 0 3
to any particular body, additional changes of its situation and position
among other bodies being regarded as external denominations only, it
will follow, for example, that the earth will have an endeavour to recede
from the centre of the sun on account of its motion relative to the fixed
stars, and a less endeavour on account of its lesser motion relative to
Saturn and the aetherial orbit in which it is carried, and so much the less
again relative to Jupiter and the surrounding aether composing its orbit,
and less again relative to Mars and its aetherial orbit, and much less
relative to other aetherial orbits which carry no planets and are closer to
the annual orbit of the Earth; and indeed relative to its own orbit no
endeavour to recede at all since it is not moved in that orbit. And since
all these endeavours and non-endeavours are incapable of absolute agree­
ment, it must rather be affirmed that there is only one natural and absolute
motion appropriate to the Earth thanks to which it endeavours to
recede from the Sun, and that its translations relative to external bodies
are external denominations only.J*^
4.^5 Finally that the absurdity of this position may appear most evident,
I say that it then follows that any moving thing has no determinate velo­
city and no definite line in which it is moved. And much more that the
velocity of a body without impediment to its motion cannot be said to
be uniform, nor the line straight in which its motion takes place. Nay
rather that there can be no motion since there is none without a certain
velocity and determination.
5.I*’ Indeed it follows that Descartes’ motion is not motion, seeing that
it has no velocity, no determination and that by it no space and no
distance is covered. Jt fg necessary therefore that the assignment of
places (and thus likewise local motion) should be referred to a certain
immobile entity, such as extension or space alone in so far as it is regarded
as something truly distinct from bodies. And this the Cartesian Philo­
sopher would more easily acknowledge if he would but notice that
Descartes himself had the notion of such extension as distinct from
bodies, which he intentionally distinguished from bodily extension by
calling it generic, Art. 10, 12, and 18 Part 2. Principia. Also that the
gyration of vortices (from which he deduced the force of aether to recede
from the centres and thus his whole mechanical philosophy) are referred
implicitly to this generic extension.
6.^9 Now concerning extension it may perhaps be expected that I would
define it as either a substance or accident or nothing at all. But by no
VI
VI E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 229
means, for it has a certain mode of existence proper to itself which
befits neither substances nor accidents. It is not substance, then, because
on the one hand it does not subsist absolutely by itself, but like an effect
emanating from God and as a certain affection of each thing; on the other
hand because it does not sustain the peculiar effects which characterise
substance, that is actions, such as thoughts in mind and motion in body.
For although Philosophers do not define substance as a thing capable
of some action, nevertheless they all tacitly understand this of substances,
on which account, for example, it is evident that they would readily
admit extension to be substance in the manner of body if only it were
able to be moved and enjoy the actions of body. And conversely, they
would scarcely admit body to be substance if it were incapable either of
being moved, or of exciting sensation or perception in some mind or
other. Moreover, since we can clearly conceive extension existing alone
without any subject, as when we imagine extra-mundane spaces or cer­
tain places devoid of bodies; and since we believe it to exist wherever we
imagine absence of bodies and cannot believe it to perish with a body
(if God were to annihilate that), it follows that it does not exist in the
manner of an accident inhering in a certain subject. And hence it is not
an accident. And much less can it be said to be nothing, in as much as it
is more thinglike than an accident, and approaches more closely to the
nature of a substance. There is no idea attached to nothing, but of
extension we have the clearest idea of all by abstracting corporeal
effects and properties, so that there remains only a stretching out
of place uniform and unlimited in length, breadth, and d e p t h . A n d
besides there are many properties of space concomitant with this idea,
which I shall now enumerate that I may show not only that space is some­
thing but what it is.
7.2* Then finally space is of eternal duration and immutable nature, and
is thus because it is an effect emanating from an eternal and immutable
being. If ever space had not been, God would then have been nowhere,
and then he either created space later where he was not present himself,
or else, and no less absurd, he created his own ubiquity. Moreover
although we may perhaps imagine that there is nothing in space yet we
cannot think space non-existent; just as we cannot think that there is
no duration [of time], even though it might be possible to imagine
that nothing at all endures. And this is made manifest by extra-mundane
spaces, which (since we imagine the world to be finite) we cannot think
to be non-existent, although they are neither revealed to us by God, nor
 230 E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 VI
become known through the senses, nor depend for their existence on
intra-mundane spaces. But such spaces are usually believed to be noth­
ing. Yet truly they are spaces. Space even if it were empty of bodies
yet would not be empty of itself. And [space] is something because
there are spaces although there may be nothing else besides. Again it
is necessary that spaces are not more space where the world is than
where there is no world, unless perhaps you would say that when God
created the world in this space he simultaneously created space itself,
or that if God later annihilated the world in these spaces he were also to
annihilate these spaces themselves. And so whatever is more real in one
space than in another belongs to body and not to space, as will appear
more clearly provided only that puerile prejudice derived from childhood
is given up according to which extension inheres in a body as an accident
in a subject without which it cannot actually exist.
8.22 However, since water opposes the motion of solid projectiles less
than quicksilver, and air much less than water, and aetherial spaces that
mueh less again than air-filled ones, if we reject all force of impeding
the motion of projectiles we must surely also entirely reject any corpo­
real nature [in empty space]. For example, if subtle matter were deprived
of all force of impeding the motion of globes, I would no longer believe
it to be subtle matter but rather disseminated vacuum. And so if aerial or
aetherial space were of such a kind that it yielded without any resistance
to the motions of comets or bodies of any kind, then I would believe it to
be entirely empty. For it is impossible that a corporeal fluid should not
oppose the motions of projectiles, assuming (as I suppose) that it is not
set in motion with the same speed (Part 2 Letter 96 to Mersenne).2 >
But it is evident that all this force [of opposing the motion of projectiles]
can be removed only if space and body differ from each other; and then
the possibility of this removal must not be denied before they are proved
not to differ, lest we commit a paralogism by positing the principle in
question.
But lest any doubt remain, from what has been said it follows that
empty spaces exist in the natural world. For if aether were a fluid with­
out any empty pores, entirely corporeal, it would, however subtilised by
division of parts, be equally dense as any other such fluid, and would yield
not with less but with much more inertia to the motion of projectiles
if these were porous; because then it would enter the intimate pores,
and run against and impede not only the total external surface but also
all the surfaces of the internal parts. But since the resistance of aether
VI E X l ’R A C TS FROM MS. ADD. 4003 231
is on the contrary so small that compared to the resistance of quick­
silver it seems to be more than ten or one hundred times smaller, clearly
by far the greatest part of aetherial space must be regarded as emptiness
spread between aetherial corpusculcs. And the same may be conjectured
besides from the divers heaviness of these fluids, which is as their den­
sities or the quantities of matter contained in equal spaces, as is shown
both by the descent of heavy bodies and the vibration of pendulums.2+
But this is not the place to go into these matters.
9. Def. 5. Force is the causal principle of motion and rest,25 and is either
something externaF^ which, impressed in a certain body, either generates
or destroys its motion, or at least to some extent changes it; or it is the
internal principle27 by which the motion or rest imprinted on the body
is conserved, and by which every entity endeavours to persevere in its
actual state, and opposes itself to any impediment.
Def. 6. Conatus is an impeded force, or a force in so far as it is resisted.28
Def. 7. Impetus is force in so far as it is impressed on something else.
Def. 8. Inertia2^ is the internal force of a body [ensuring] that its state
is not easily changed by any external force.
Def. 9. Pressure is the conatus of adjacent parts [endeavouring]
mutually to penetrate their [respective] boundaries. For if they were able
to penetrate [each other] the pressure would c e a s e . And it belongs to
adjacent parts only, which [nevertheless] press all other adjacent parts,
until the pressure is transmitted into the remotest parts of the given body
whether it be hard, soft, or fluid. And communication of motion springs
from this action of contact across a point or surface.
Def. 10. Gravity is the intrinsic force imparted to a body inclining it
to descend. By descent, however, is here to be understood not only the
motion towards the centre of the earth, but also towards any other point
or region, or also [motion] away from any point. For example, if the
conatus of the ether revolving about the sun to recede from the centre is
taken as its gravity, ether receding from the sun is said to descend.31
And, analogously, it is to be observed that a plane may be said to be
horizontal because it is directly opposed to the determination of the
gravity or conatus.
Moreover the quantities of these powers such as motion, force, conatus,
impetus, inertia, pressure and gravity may be estimated in two ways;
according, namely, to their intensity or their extension.
Def. II. The intensity of any of the aforementioned powers is the
measure of its quantity.
 232 E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003
Def. 12, Its extension is the quantity of space or time in which it
acts.
Def. 13. And its absolute quantity is that compounded from the
intensity and extension. For example, if the intensity of the quantity be
2, and the quantity of its extension 3, multiply one by the other and the
absolute quantity is given by 6.
Further it is proper to illustrate these definitions in the case of particu­
lar powers. Thus motion is more intense or remiss^^ according as a greater
or lesser space is traversed in the same time, for which reason a body is
usually said to be moved faster or slower. Motion is greater or less ex­
tended in so far as the body moved is greater or smaller, that is in so far as
it is spread through a greater or a smaller body. And the absolute quantity
of motion is that which is compounded from both the velocity and magni­
tude of the body moved. Force, endeavour, impetus, and inertia is more
intense which is greater in the same or an equal body; is more extensive
which is in a greater body; and its absolute quantity is that which
derives from both. So the intensity of pressure is more when it consists
of a greater pressure on the same quantity of surface, and is [more]
extensive as it presses a greater surface, and the absolute quantity is that
which results from the intensity of pressure and the quantity of the sur­
face pressed. And so again the intensity of gravity is greater in the body
having a greater specific gravity, and its extent [is greater] in the larger
body, and speaking absolutely the quantity of gravity is that which
results from the specific gravity and the bulk of the gravitating body.
And anyone who does not clearly distinguish these things must neces­
sarily fall into many errors concerning the science of mechanics.
It is possible in addition that the quantities of these powers may be
sometimes calculated in respect of the duration of intervals: in which
case the absolute quantity will be that compounded from all of intensity,
extension and duration. For instance if a body 2, with velocity 3 is moved
for time 4, the total motion will be 2X3 X4, or 12^3 [^/c!].
Def, 14. Velocity is the intensity of motion, and retardation its remis­
sion.
1 . C o m m en c in g at the b egin n in g o f the m an uscript w h ich lacks a title.
2. N o such experim ental illustrations, how ever, are actually given.
3. C o m pare this and the three im m ed iately su cceed in g definitions w ith D e f.
7, 5, 8, 9, respectively, o f M S . X a.
4. A s opposed to D escartes, w ho, at least in his Principia Philosophiae, d id
regard im pen etrability as an essential p ro perty o f bo dy. L eib n iz, likewise, d is­
agreed w ith D e sca rte s’s view o f im pen etrability as a secondary cjuality.
VI VI E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 233
5. T h e significance o f these references is obscure.
6. A t p. 3.
7. T h e double theory o f m otion ad vanced b y D escartes in his Principia Philo­
sophiae, especially in A rt. 25, Part 2, and A rts. 28, 29, Part 3, o f w h ich N ew to n
has ju s t giv en a v e ry detailed and careful account.
8. N e w to n was p ro b ab ly unaware that D escartes had argued in Le Monde
for the m otion o f the earth and the planets b u t had w ithdraw n the w o rk from
publication on learning o f G a lile o ’s condem nation b y the In quisition. T h e fact
that Le Monde was based on a single theory o f m otion w h ich resulted in the
m o vem en t o f the planets, whereas the Principia contained a double theory o f
m otion w h ich resulted in the planets b ein g really at rest, th o u gh th ey m o ved in
the v u lga r sense, has usually b een taken as an indication that D escartes d e ­
velop ed his peculiar definition o f m otion in the true and philosophical sense in
order to escape the fate o f G alileo , W h ile this no d o u b t supp lied the original in ­
cen tive for D escartes to develop a theory o f proper m otion, insufficient attention
seems to have been directed to other possible m otives. I f one com pares Le Monde
w ith the Principia it is clear that the form er can o n ly be regarded as a prelim inary
draft o f the latter, w ith its far m ore detailed developm en t o f D e sca rte s’s view s
on m atter and m otion. In particular, D escartes’s identification o f m atter w ith
extension in evita b ly led to an en tirely undifferentiated, featureless universe
unless som e further factor w as in troduced to accoun t for the separateness and
in d iv id u ality o f bodies. T h is elem ent could o n ly be supp lied b y m otion, and
abso lute m otion at that, since m otion in the vulgar sense was ju st as subjective
and relative as any o f the secondary qualities. T h a t this is w h at D escartes had in
m in d is m ade quite clear in the Principia itself. In A rt. 23, P art I I (C ousin
edition), he states '’que toutela diversite des formes qiii s'y rencontrent depend du
mouvement local'; in A rt. 24 he shows that m otion in the vulgar sense is subjective,
that depen din g on our p oin t o f view w e can say o f a th in g‘qu'en mime temps elle se
meat et ne se meut point'. F in ally, in A rt. 25, he puts forw ard a definition o f m otion
w h ich enables us ‘lui attribuer une nature qui soil determinee'.
9. T h e centrifugal conatus accom p an yin g circular m otion p layed as central a
role in D escartes’s vortex theory (see especially A rt. 140 o f P art 3 o f Principia
Philosophiae) as centripetal force was ultim ately to p lay in N e w to n ’s ow n theory
o f gravitation.
10. I t is striking how close this explanation o f the stability o f a circular orbit
is to that advanced b y Borelli (see Borelli [i]). It is o n ly necessary to replace D e s ­
cartes’s endeavour to the centre due to the surrounding v ortex m aterial b y
B o relli’s natural ten den cy tow ards the central b o d y. It is also n otew orth y that
in D e f. 10 o f this present m an uscript N e w to n actually instances as a potential
case o f gravity the conatus o f ether m o vin g circularly about the sun aw ay from
the sun.
1 1 . T h e drift o f this and the su cceed in g argum ent against D escartes w ould
seem to b e : absence o f m otion cannot produce any real effect. B u t there is a real
effect— the conatus from the centre. T h is cannot, therefore, be due to the absence
o f m otion in the philosophical sense. It could, how ever, be due to the presence o f
circular m otion, though D escartes o n ly takes this to b e present in the vu lgar
sense. H en ce the latter (vulgar) m otion is to be preferred to the former, w h ich
leads to a contradiction — the im proper m otion p ro ducin g the real effect.
not
12. A t p. 6, follow in g a series o f argum ents against D e sca rtes’s double
theory of m otion.
13. T h e tw o consequences referred to were ( i) the im possibility o f true
234 E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD. 4003 VI E X T R A C T S FROM MS. ADD.
VI 4 0 0 3 235
m otion in the interior o f a b o d y given that any interior part was always in co n ­
24. A t first sight this clear realization o f the distin ction b etw een mass and
tact w ith the same im m ediate n eighb o u rin g parts, (2) the existence o f in n u m er­
w eigh t w o u ld seem to go against a su pp osedly early date o f com position of the
able true m otions in a b o d y, as follow ed from the assertion (A rt. 25, P a rt 2,
m anuscript. B u t the extract in § 5 o f M S . I points to N e w to n h a vin g m ade this
Principia Philosophiae) that the true m otion o f a b o d y w as shared b y all its
distinction v e ry early, in all p ro b ab ility before the end o f 1664.
interior parts, even if these were in relative m otion am ong them selves. In the
25. W hereas in M S . I I force w as the causal prin ciple o f m otion only, no m en ­
present extracts N e w to n seems o n ly to be referring to the second o f these tw o
tion b ein g m ade o f rest.
consequences.
26. R em in iscen t o f the ‘ external causes’ responsible for ch an gin g the inertial
14. C om pare this passage w ith N e w to n ’s use o f centrifugal force in D e f. 9
state o f a b o d y in the general p hilosophical prin ciple (A rt. 37, Part 2, Principia
o f M S . X a for draw ing a distinction betw een relative and absolute m otion.
Philosophiae) from w h ich D escartes derived the p rinciple o f inertia.
See above, Part I, C h a p ter 3, for a discussion o f N e w to n ’s views on centrifugal
27. C o m pare this wdth the vis corporis said to be responsible for a b o d y ’s en ­
conatus.
deavour to continue in its state o f m otion in D e f. 2 o f V ersion I o f the tract de
15. A t p. 8. T h is extract has been given for its implicit reference to the
Motu (M S . IX a).
p rinciple o f inertia; the absence o f any explicit references to any o f the p urely
28. T h u s m aking it clear that for N e w to n at the tim e o f com posin g this work
dynam ical articles o f D esca rtes’s Principia is a curious feature o f a m an uscript
conatus, in clu d in g the conatus due to circular m otion, was a real species o f p oten ­
otherwise so w e ll furnished w ith detailed chapter and verse. It is p o ssib ly an
tial force. See above, Part I, C h a p ter 3, for a discussion o f N e w to n ’s concept o f
indication o f h o w absolu tely N e w to n had set his face against D escartes at the
conatus.
tim e o f com posin g the present m anuscript.
29. T h e use o f inertia as an alternative for the internal force, or principle, o f a
16. A t p. 10. C o m in g at the end o f a w hole set o f argum ents against D e s ­
b o d y responsible for m aintaining its state o f m otion or rest is interesting. I t is
cartes’s double theory o f m otion, this passage is m em orable as contain in g
n o t used in M S . I X and first appears in M S . X l b , D e f. 3.
N e w to n ’s first assertion o f the necessity o f som e absolute frame o f reference
30. T h e conatus w o u ld then beco m e actual.
against w h ich to m easure the position and m otion o f bodies.
3 1 . T h is exam ple reinforces the im pression that N e w to n believed at this tim e
17. T h is result follow ed for N e w to n from the im possibility o f determ ining
in the real existence o f cen trifugal conatus. See above. Part I, C h a p ter 3.
accurately the true position o f a b o d y in the Cartesian sense at an y previous
32. T h e use o f these term s, and the previous definitions o f in ten sity or e x ­
instant o f tim e, itse lf due to the im possib ility o f determ ining the corresponding
tension, p ro vid e an indication o f the possible influence on N e w to n o f the late
positions of all the surrounding particles.
scholastic doctrine o f the intension and remission o f form s, especially in its
18. T h e last sentence allows o f the possibility o f a continual belief b y N e w to n
application to kinetics b y the M e rto n C o llege S ch ool. See M a ie r [i] for an
in the m echanism o f D esca rtes’s vortex theory; see, for exam ple, the reference to
illu m in atin g discussion o f this question. F o r a discussion o f the contribution
‘ C artesiu s’s V o rtic e s’ in W h isto n ’s account (reproduced above, in Part I,
o f m edieval p h iloso ph y to the birth o f dynam ics see C la g e tt [i]. Chapters i i
C h a p ter 4, p. 65).
and 12.
19. A t p. 1 1 . T h is passage is a good exam ple o f N e w to n ’s purely philosophical
33. A similar notion is that of the total force in a given time found in M S . I l d
w ritin g. It is also interesting to com pare the v ie w here expressed o f space as
at A x .-P r o p . 22.
'Dei effectus emanativiis’ w ith N e w to n ’s later v ie w o f space as the sensorium o f
G o d , and w ith the view s p u t forw ard b y C larke in his controversy w ith L eib n iz.
F o r a discussion o f N e w to n ’s view s on space in the ligh t o f this co ntroversy see
A lexan d er [i], p p . x x x ii-x l.
20. A process o f abstraction strongly rem iniscent o f that adopted b y D e s ­
cartes in his Principia Philosophiae.
2 1. A t p. 19. A good sum m ary o f the properties o f absolute space advanced
in p recedin g sections.
22. A t p. 30. In tb e previous paragraph N e w to n had refused to allow the
capacity o f bodies to excite perceptions in m ental beings as secondary, able to be
stripped aw ay in the Cartesian process o f reduction to the essence. T o rem ove
this facu lty, he said, w ou ld be as serious as to rem ove that other fa cu lty o f
m utual interaction o f bodies, and this w o u ld reduce bodies to em p ty space. T h e
present passage discusses the consequences o f such a reduction. I t should be
com pared w ith a rather sim ilar passage in the Scholium to Prob. 5 o f V ersion
I I I o f the tract de Motu (M S . IX c).
23. N e w to n m u st here be referring to vol. ii o f C lerselier’s edition o f D e s ­
cartes’s Correspondence. A t para. 5 o f letter 96 o f this volu m e D escartes explains
h o w he conceives o f a b o d y m o vin g w ith o u t resistance in a m edium w h en the
velo city o f the latter is ex actly equal to that o f the bo dy.

VII
E X T R A C T S FROM C O R R E S P O N D E N C E
PRIOR TO 1684
T h e passages following appear to be the only important discussions of
dynamical topics in extant Newton letters prior to 1685. This is rather
surprising, given what we know of Newton’s earliest researches in
dynamics, and is in marked contrast to the fairly large number of mathe­
matical discussions in the same period. But on examining these latter
we find that most if not all of them arose as the result of some definite
query, which queries in turn were occasioned by the widespread
knowledge of, and interest in, mathematics, as in the case of Collins.
Dynamics, on the other hand, was a much more esoteric subject
a knowledge of which was restricted almost entirely to a very small
number of original thinkers, so that it is not surprising that Newton had
seldom occasion to discuss it in letters with his correspondents. In any
case, given his extreme (and understandable) secrecy in regard to a
subject in which he may possibly have sensed he was to make his sup­
reme contribution to knowledge, it is rather doubtful if he would have
gone any further in revealing his actual discoveries in dynamics than in
the first paragraph of the letter of 23 June 1673 Oldenburg. The
omission of this paragraph from the version later forwarded by Olden­
burg to Huygens, if not actually indicative of this secrecy, at least provides
a memorable symbol of it.
V ila
E x t r a c t ’' f r o m N e w t o n ’ s L e tt e r of 23 J
O l d e n b u r g
Sr
I received your letters with M. Hugens kind present, ^ which I have
viewed with great satisfaction, finding it full of very subtile and usefull
speculations very worthy of the Author. 13 am glad that we are to expect
another discours of the vis centrifuga, which speculation may prove of
good use in naturall Philosophy and Astronomy as well as mechanicks.
Thus for instance if the reason why the same side of the Moon is ever
towards the earth be the greater conatus of the other side to recede from
it; it will follow (upon supposition of the Earths motion about the Sun)
VII CORRESPONDENCE PRIOR TO 1684 537
that the greatest distance of the sun from the earth is to the greatest
distance of the Moon from the earth, not greater than 10000 to 56 and
therefore the parallax of the Sun not less than Parallax of the
M oon; Because were the sun’s distance less in proportion to that of the
Moon, she would have a greater conatus from the sun than from the
earth. I thought also sometime that the moons libration might depend
upon her conatus from the Sun and Earth compared together, till I
apprehended a better cause.
1. C f. Correspondence, vol. i, p . 290. T h is letter p layed an im portant role in the
N e w to n -H a lle y correspondence o f 1686 arising out o f H o o k e’s claim s regarding
the inverse square law.
2. N e w to n ’s presentation co p y o f H u y g e n s ’s H orologium O scilla to r him .
3. T h e rem ainder o f the extract was un acco u n tably om itted from the co py
o f the letter forw arded b y O ld e n b u r g to H u ygen s. T h e w h ole passage was
reproduced b y N e w to n in his letter o f 27 Ju ly 1686 to H alley. In a previous
letter (14 July 1686) he had claim ed that the argum ents p u t forw ard in this
paragraph had been taken from an earlier paper ‘w rit 18 or ig years a go ’ . T h e re
can be no do u bt that the paper in question is that reproduced in M S . IV a . F o r
the possible bearing o f the present passage on N e w to n ’s view s on centrifugal
force, and on the p roblem o f the test o f the inverse square law o f gravitation
during the Plague Y ears, see above, Part I, C h a p ter 3, p . 56, and C h a p ter 4,
p. 7 1 , respectively.
V llb
E x t r a c t ' from N e w t o n ’s L etter of 20 J une 1674 to
C o l l in s
Sr
I thank you for your kind present.^ Mr Andersons book is very in­
genious, and may prove as usefull if his principles be true. But I suspect
u n e 1673 to one of them, namely that the bullet moves in a Parabola. 3 This would
be so indeed were the horizontal celerity of the bullet uniform, but I
should think its motion decays considerably in the flight. Suppose for
instance a bullet shot horizontally from A moves in the line AE, and A I
being perpendicular to the horizon in it take A F, AG , AH , A I etc in
proportion as the square numbers i, 4, 9, 16 etc: and its certain that if in
one moment of time the bullet descend as low as F, in the next moment
it shall descend as low as G, in the third as low as H etc. And therefore
drawing the horizontal! lines FB, GC, HD, 1 E\ the bullet at the end
of the first moment will be somewhere in the line F B suppose at B,
and at the end of the second moment it will be somewhere in the line
238 CORRESPONDENCE PRIOR TO 1684
G C suppose at C etc. But that FB, GC, HD and IE are in Arith­
metical! progression (which is the condition of the Parabola) seems not
probable; for if it were so, the celerity of the bullet would increas
becaus the spaces A B , BC, CD, D E described in equall times are the
latter bigger than the former; whereas I should rather think that the
celerity decreases very considerably. And perhaps this rule for its de­
creasing may pretty nearly approach the truth, v iz: Letting fall the per­
pendiculars B K , CL, DM, etc to make IK , K L , L M etc, a decreasing
Geometricall progression. If you should have occasion to speak of this
to the Author, I desire you would not mention me becaus I have no
mind to concern my self further about it.
VII VII CORRESPONDENCE PRIOR TO 1684 239
once a day about its center C from west to east according to the order of
the letters BDG\ and let A be a heavy body suspended in the Air and
moving round with the earth so as perpetually to hang over the same
point thereof B. Then imagin this body A let fall and it’s gravity will
give it a new motion towards the center of the Earth without diminishing
the old one from west to east. Whence the motion of this body from west
to east, by reason that before it fell it was more distant from the center of

1. C f. Correspondence, vol. i, p. 309.

2. C o p ies o f the same book were sent b y C o llin s to James G r e g o r y and W a llis.
T h e form er gave his opinion o f the w ork in a letter to C o llin s o f 8 O cto b e r 1674
(see R ig au d [i], vol. ii, letter 215). G r e g o r y fo u n d A nderson [and StreeteJ’s
book ‘ p itifu l s tu ff’ . L ik e N e w to n he criticized the assum ption that the horizontal
m otion w o u ld be uniform . W allis, in his letter o f 24 A u g u s t 1674 to C o llin s (see
R ig au d [i], vol. ii, letter 339), su ggested that A nd erso n m igh t have taken his
principles from Prop. 8, C ap . 10, o f W a llis’s o w n M ech a n ica . H e also criticized
the assum ption o f the u n iform ity o f the horizontal m otion in practice as opposed
to theory, referring to the S ch o liu m to the above proposition in w h ich the
effect o f the resistance o f the air was noted.
3. It is curious that now here in an y o f the extant dyn am ical m anuscripts does
N e w to n discuss the ideal, parabolic p ath o f a projectile. T h e first reference to
G a lile o ’s deduction o f the result occurs in M S . X a , L a w 2, and is repeated at the
b egin n in g o f the S ch o liu m to the laws o f m otion in the P rin cip ia . I t w o u ld be
interesting to kn ow h o w N e w to n first learnt o f the parabolic path, w h eth er
d irectly from the translation o f the D iscorsi in S a lu sb u ry’s translation, or in ­
directly, perhaps throu gh T o rricelli [i]. Likew ise, w h ether he had th o u gh t o f the
effect o f air resistance him self, or was p ro m pted to do so b y the discussion o f
this and other p ertu rb in g factors in G alileo [D iscorsi, ed. N a z., p. 274]. the earth then the parts of the earth at which it arrives in its fall, will be
greater then the motion from west to east of the parts of the earth at
VIIc which the body arrives in it’s fall: and therefore it will not descend in
the perpendicular A C , but outrunning the parts of the earth will shoot
E x t r a c t ^ f r o m N e w t o n ’s L e tt e r of 2 8 N ov e m be r 1679
forward to the east side of the perpendicular describing in it’s fall a
TO H ooke
spiral line AD EC, quite contrary to the opinion of the vulgar who think
I am glad to heare that so considerable a discovery as you made of the that if the earth moved, heavy bodies in falling would be outrun by its
earth’s annual^ parallax is seconded by Mr Flamstead’s Observations. parts and fall on the west side of the perpendicular. The advance of the
In requital of this advertisement I shall communicate to you a fansy of body from the perpendicular eastward will in a descent of but 20 or 30
my own about discovering the earth’s diurnal motion. In order thereto yards be very small and yet I am apt to think it may be enough to determin
I will consider the Earth’s diurnal motion alone without the annual, the matter of fact. Suppose then in a very calm day a Pistol Bullet were
that having little influence on the experimt I shall here propound. Sup­ let down by a silk line from the top of a high Building or Well, the line
pose then BD G [Fig. i] represents the Globe of the Earth carried round going through a small hole made in a plate of Brass or 'Einn fastened to
 240 CORRESPONDENCE PRIOR TO 1684 VII VII CORRESPONDENCE PRIOR TO 1684 241
the top of the Building or Well and that the bullet when let down al­ least if the falling Body were supposed in the plaine of the equinoxciale
most to the bottom were setled in water so as to cease from swinging supposing then the earth were cast into two half globes in the plaine of
and then let down further on an edge of steel lying north and south to the equinox and those sides separated at a yard Distance or the like to
try if the bullet in setling thereon will almost stand in aequilihrio but yet make Vacuity for the Desending Body and that the gravitation to the
with some small propensity (the smaller the better) decline to the west former Center remained as before and that the globe of the earth were
side of the steel as often as it is so let down thereon. The steel being so supposed to move with a Diurnall motion on its axis and that the falling
placed underneath, suppose the bullet be then drawn up to the top and body had the motion of the superficial! parts of the earth from whence it
let fall by cutting clipping or burning the line of silk, and if it fall con­
stantly on the east side of the steel it will argue the diurnall motion of
the earth. But what the event will be I know not having never attempted
to try it. If any body may think this worth their triall the best way in
my opinion would be to try it in a high church or wide steeple the windows
being first well stopt. For in a narrow well the bullet possibly may be
apt to receive a ply from the straitned Air neare the sides of the Well, if in
its fall it come nearer to one side then to another. It would be convenient \E

also that the water into which the bullet falls be a yard or two deep or
more partly that the bullet may fall more gently on the steel, partly that
the motion which it has from west to east at its entring into the water
by meanes of the longer time of descent through the water, carry it on
further eastward and make the experiment more manifest.

1. C f. Correspondence, vol. ii, p p . 3 0 1 -2 . F o r an illum in atin g account o f the

w hole N e w to n -H o o k e correspondence o f the w in ter 16 79 -8 0 see K o y r e [2].
2. T h e r e can be su rely no d o u b t that it was H o o k e ’s reference to his ow n su p ­
posed discovery o f the parallax due to the earth’s an m ial m otion w h ich p ro m pted
N e w to n ’s su ggested experim ent for the d isco very o f the diurnal m o tio n . N ew to n ,
o f course, had lon g before (M S . IV a) learnt h o w to calculate the centrifugal
force due to the E a r th ’s rotation, or the 'force o f ascent at the equator, arising
from the earth’s diurnal m o tio n ’ as he expressed it in his letter o f 14 J u ly 1686
to H alley. T h a t it required an external stim ulus to persuade him to consider
the m atter again is perhaps an indication o f a certain lack o f interest in dyn am ics
in the p eriod 1667 to 1679.
V lld
E x t r a c t ^ f r o m H o o k e ’s L etter of 9 D e cem be r 1679
TO N e w t o n
But as to the curve Line which you seem to suppose it to Descend
by (though that was not then at all Discoursed of) Vizt a kind of spirall
which after sume few revolutions Leave it in the Center of the Earth
my theory of circular motion^ makes me suppose it would be very differ­
ing and nothing att all akin to a spirall but rather a kind Elleptueid. At
F igu re 2.
was Let fall Impressed on it, I conceive the line in which this body
would move would resembles An Elleipse:for Instance Let A B D E [Fig. 2]
represent the plaine of the equinox limited by the superficies of the earth;
C the Center therof to which the lines of Gravitation doe all tend. Let
A represent the heavy Body let fall at A and attracted towards C but
Moved also by the Diurnall Revolution of the earth from A towards
BD E etc. I conceive the curve that will be described by this desending
body A will be A F G H and that the body A would never approach neerer
the Center C then G were it not for the Impediment of the medium as
Air or the like but would continually proceed to move round in the Line
A F G H A F G etc. But w[h]ere the Medium through which it moves has a
power of impeding and destroying its motion the curve in which it would
move would be some what like the Line A IK L M N O P etc and after
many resolutions would terminate in the Center C. But if the Body litt
[5/c] fall be not in the aquinochill plain as here at London Ja 51°. 32' the
elleipsed will be made in a plain inclined to the plaine of the Equinox’
 242 CORRESPONDENCE PRIOR TO 1684 VII
V II C O R R E SPO N D E N C E PRIOR TO 1 6 8 4 243
51.32 soe that the fall of the Ball will not be exactly east of the per­
3. T h is w ould seem to rule out the p ossib ility o f the p ath actu ally bein g an
pendicular'^ but South East and indeed more to the south then the east;s ellipse.
as lett N L O S [Fig. 3] represent the Meridian of London and O the 4. T h e p erpendicular in question w'ould have been assum ed b y H ooke to
equinox L London and P L the parrallel in which it moves about the rotate w ith the earth.
5. H o o k e ’s reason for this assum ption is n o t clear. N ew to n , how ever, agreed
Axis N S : the body let fall at L would desend in the plaine L C supposed w ith it subject to the qualification that the b o d y was let fall from som e consider­
at Right angles with the plaine of that Meridion N LQ SR and not in able h e igh t above the earth.
the superficies of the cone P L C whose apex is C the Center of the earth
V ile
E xtract' from N e w t o n ’s L e t t e r of 13 D ecember 1 67 9
TO PIOOKE

Sr
I agree with you that the body in our latitude will fall more to the
south then east if the height it falls from be any thing great. And also

s
Figure 3.

and whose base is the plaine of the parrallel circle PL. I could adde many
other conciderations which are consonant to my Theory of Circular
motions compounded by a Direct motion and an attractive one to a
Center. But I feare I have already trespassed to much upon your more
Usefull thoughts with these my impertinants yet I would desire you not
to look upon them as any provacations to alter your mind [to] more
mature and serious Resolutions. Goe on and Prosper and if you succed
that if its gravity be supposed uniform it will not descend in a spiral to
and by any Freind Let me understand what you think fit to impart, any
the very center but circulate with an alternate ascent and descent made
thing from you will be Extremly Valued by
by it’s vis centrifiiga and gravity alternately overballancing one another.
Sr Your very Humble Sarvant
Yet I imagin the body will not describe an Ellipsoeid but rather such
R O ; HOOKE
a figure as is represented by A F O G H IK L etc. [Fig. 4] Suppose A the
1. C f. Correspondence, vol. ii, pp. 305-6.
2. U n fo rtu n ately for H ooke he was n ever able to p ut the theory on a firm,
body, C the center of the earth, A B D E quartered with perpendicular
quantitative basis, as was m ade evident b y his failure to w in the book prom ised diameters AD , BE, which cut the said curve in F and G ; A M the tangent
b y W ren to H a lle y and h im self for a p ro o f o f the inverse square law' for m otion in which the body moved before it began to fall and GA^ a line drawn
in an ellipse. See H a lle y ’s letter o f 29 June 1686 to N ew to n .
parallel to that tangent. When the body descending through the earth
244 CORRESPONDENCE PRIOR TO 1684
(supposed pervious) arrives at G, the determination of its motion shall
not be towards N but towards the coast between A^and D. For the motion
of the body at G is compounded of the motion it had at A towards M and
of all the innumerable converging motions successively generated by
VII VII CORRESPONDENCE PRIOR TO 1684 245
solution. T h e r e is, for exam ple, no firm indication th at he had actually attem pted
a quantitative solution. In this connexion see Pelseneer [i]. H o w ever, N e w to n ’s
assertion that he m igh t have added som eth ing to the p roblem ‘ b y poin ts quam
p roxim e' could be interpreted as an in dication that his th o u gh t on the problem
had advanced further than he w as prepared to adm it to H ooke.

the impresses of gravity in every moment of its passage from A to G:

The motion from A t o M being in a parallel to G N inclines not the body
to verge from the line GN. The innumerable and infinitly little motions
(for I here consider motion according to the method of indivisibles)
continually generated by gravity in its passage from A to F incline it to
verge from G N towards D, and the like motions generated in its passage
from F to G incline it to verge from G N towards C. But these motions
are proportional to the time they are generated in, and the time of passing
from A to F (by reason of the longer journey and slower motion) is greater
then the time of passing from F to G. And therefore the motions gene­
rated in A F shall exceed those generated in F G and so make the body
verge from G N to some coast between N and D. The nearest approach
therefore of the body to the center is not at G but somewhere between
G and F as at O. And indeed the point O, according to the various propor­
tions of gravity to the impetus of the body at A towards M, may fall any
where in the angle B C D in a certain curve which touches the line BG
at C and passes thence to D. Thus I conceive it would be if gravity were
the same at all distances from the center. But if it be supposed greater
nearer the center the point O may fall in the line CD or in the angle
D C F or in other angles that follow, or even no where. For the increase
of gravity in the descent may be supposed such that the body shall by
an infinite number of spiral revolutions descend continually till it cross
the center by motion transcendently swift.
Your acute Letter having put me upon considering thus far the species
of this curve, I might add something about its description by points
qiiam proxime. But the thing being of no great moment I rather beg your
pardon for having troubled you thus far with this second scribble wherin
if you meet with any thing inept or erroneous I hope you will pardon
the former and the latter I submit and leave to your correction remaining
Sr
Your very humble Servant
IS. NEWTON.

I. C f. Correspondence, vol. ii, p p . 3 0 7-8 . It is chiefly m em orable for the

eviden ce it provides o f the u n developed state o f N e w to n ’s thought on the p ro b ­
lem at w h at was p resu m ably o n ly a short tim e before he arrived at a definitive

VIII
T H E K E P L E R - M O T I O N PAPERS
T here are two closely similar versions of the present manuscript. One
in Newton’s hand,i of which the text is reproduced here, and another
among the Locke papers- bearing the title: ‘A Demonstration!that the
Planets by their gravity towardsj the sun may move in Ellipses' The two
VllI THE KE PLE R- M OT IO N PAPERS 247
Let A [Fig. 2] be the center towards which the body is attracted, and
suppose the attraction acts not continually but by discontinued impres­
sions® made at equal intervalls of time which intervalls we will consider
as physical moments. Let B C be the right line in which it begins to
move ffrom and which it describes with uniform motion in the first
physical moment before the attraction make its first impression upon it
B D

versions will be termed the Newton and Locke copies, respectively.

The Locke copy is not in Newton’s hand but according to Cranston^
in that of Locke’s valet and amenuensis Brownover.
Given that the Locke copy is endorsed in Locke’s hand ‘Mr. Newi:on
Mar 1689/90’ it is natural to assume that the original of both copies was
composed after the Principia especially for Locke’s benefit, most pro­
bably shortly before March 1689/90. Nevertheless for the reasons given
above in Part I, Chapter 6.6, it is possible that the original was composed
before the Principia^ and in that case most probably in 1679 or 1684.
The normal procedure has been followed of dividing footnotes into
two sets, numerical and alphabetical, the non-trivial variations between
the two copies being included in the latter set. Trivial variations are
largely due to the erratic use of ‘contractions’ and ‘expansions’ in the
two copies.

T he N ew ton C opy

Hypoth. 1.4 Bodies move uniformly in straight lines unless so far as they
are retarded by the resistance of the Medium or disturbed by some
other force.
Hyp. 2.5 The alteration of motion is ever"* proportional to the force by
which it is altered.
Figure 2.
Hyp. 3.^ Motions imprest^ in two different lines, if those lines be taken
in proportion to the motions and completed into a parallelogram, com­ At C let it be attracted towards the center A by one impuls Ror impres­
pose a motion whereby the diagonal of the Parallelogram shall be de­ sion of force, and let CD be the line in which it shall move after that
scribed in the same time in which the sides thereof would have been impuls. Produce B C to I so that C l be equall to B C and draw ID parallel
described by those compounding motions apart. The motions^/? [hig. i] to C A and the point D in which it cuts CD shall be the place of the body
and A C compound the motion AD at the end of the second moments. And because the bases B C C l of the
Prop, id triangles A B C , A C I are equal those two triangles shall be equal. Also
because the triangles A C I, A C D stand upon the same base A C and be­
If a body move in vacuo and be continually attracted toward[s] an
tween two parallels^' they shall be equall. And therefore the triangle A C D
immoveable center, it shall constantly move in one and the same plane,^
described in the second moment shall be equal to the triangle A B C
and in that plane‘s describe equal areas in equall times.
described in the first moment. And by the same reason if the body at
 248 THE K EP LE R -M OT IO N PAPERS VI] I
the end of the 2^, 3^, 4^^, 5*^ and following moments be attracted 'by
single impulses' in Z), E, F, Gi etc. describing the line D E in the 3^^
moment, E F in the 4^*', F G in the 5*^ etc: the triangle AED shall be
equall to the triangle A D C and all the following triangles ^AFE, A G F
etc. to the preceding ones and^^ to one another. And by consequence the
areas compounded of these equall triangles (as ABE, AEG, A B G etc.)
are to one another as thetimes^ in which they are described. Suppose now
that the moments of time be diminished in length and encreased in
number in infinitum, so that the impulses or impressions of the attrac­
tion may become continuall and that the line BCD E FG by the infinite
number and infinite littleness of its sides BC, CD, D E etc. may become
a curve one: and the body by the continual attraction shall describe
areas of this Curve ABE, AEG, A B G etc. proportionall to the times in
which they are described. '"W. W. to be Dem.”'
Prop. 2."
If a body be attracted towards either focus of an Ellipsis and the
quantity of the attraction be such as suffices to make the body revolve in
the circumference of the Ellipsis; the attraction at the two ends of the
Ellipsis shall be reciprocally as the squares of the body in those ends from
that focus.
Let A E C D [Fig. 3] be the Ellipsis, A, C its two ends or vertices, E'
that focus towards which the body is attracted, and AF'E, CFD areas
which the body with a ray drawn from that focus to its center, describes
at both ends in equal times: and those areas by the foregoing Proposi­
tion must be equal because proportionall to the times: that is the rect­
angle ^ A F x A E and ^ F C x D C must be equal supposing the arches
A E and CD to be so very short that they may be taken for right lines
and therefore A E is to CD as F C to E'A. Suppose now that A M and CiV
VIII THE KE P L E R -M O T I O N PAPERS 249
are tangents to the Ellipsis at its two ends A and C and that E M and
D N are perpendiculars let fall from the points E and D upon those
tangents: and because the Ellipsis is alike crooked at both ends those
perpendiculars E M and D N will be to one another as the squares of the
arches A E and CD, and therefore E M is to D N as FC^ to F A ‘^. Now in
the times that the body by means of the attraction moves in the arches
A E and CD from A to E and from C to D it would without attraction
move in the tangents from A to M and from C to N. Tis by the force of
the attractions that the bodies are drawn out of the tangents from M to E
and from N to D and therefore the attractions are as those distances
M E and ND, that is the attraction at the end of the Ellipsis A is to the
attraction at the other end of the Ellipsis C as M E to N D and by conse­
quence as FC*? to FA^. W. W. to be dem.
Lemma, i.
If a right line touch an Ellipsis in any point thereof and parallel to
that tangent be drawn another right line from the center of the Ellipsis
which shall intersect a third right line drawn from the touch point through
either focus of the Ellipsis: the segment of the last named right line
lying between the point of intersection and the point of contact shall be
equal to half the long axis of the Ellipsis.
Let A P B O [Fig. 4] be the Ellipsis; A B its long axis; C its center; F, /
its ffoci; P the point of contact; PR the tangent; CD the line parallel to
 250 TH E K E P L E R -M O T IO N P A P E R S VIII VIII THE KE PLE R- M OT IO N PAPERS 251
the tangent, and PD the segment of the line FP. I say that this segment gent, X Y the subtense'^' produced to the other side of the Ellipsis and
shall be equal to AC."^ Y Z the distance between this subtense and the first line. I say that the
For joyn i y i ’ and draw/F parallel to CD and because 'is‘ bisected rectangle Y X I is to the rectangle A B x P O as YZ'^ to KL^.
in C,® F E shall be bisected in D and therefore 2^PD shall be equal to^‘ For let FA be the diameter of the Ellipsis parallel to the first line P F
the summ of P F and P E that is to" the summ of P F and Pf, that is to and G H another diameter parallel to the tangent PX , and the rectangle
A B and therefore PD shall be equal to AC.^ W.W. to be Dem. Y X I ^will be to the square of the tangent PX^^ as the rectangle A C F to the
rectangle G C H that is as AF'^ to GH^. This a property of the Ellipsis
Lemma, 2, demonstrated by all that write of the conic sections. And they have also
Every line drawn through either Focus of any Ellipsis and terminated demonstrated that all the Parallelograms circumscribedy about an Ellipsis
at both ends by the Ellipsis is to that diameter of the Ellipsis which is
parallel to this line as the same Diameter is to the long Axis of the
Ellipsis.
Let A P B O [Fig. 4] be the Ellipsis, A B its long Axis, F ,f its foci, C
its center, P O the line drawn through its focus F, and V C S its diameter
parallel to PO and P Q will be to V S as V S to AB.
For draw fp parallel to Q F P and cutting the Ellipsis in p. Joyn Pp
cutting V S in T and draw PR which shall touch the Ellipsis in P and
cut the diameter V S produced in R and C T will be to C S as C S to
CR, ^as has been shewed by all those who treat of the conic sections'^.
But C T is the semisumm of F P and fp that is of F P and F O and there­
fore 7.CT is equal to PO. Also z C S is equal to V S and (by the fore­
going Lemma) zCR is equal to A B . Wherefore PO is to V S as V S to
A B . W.W. to be Dem.
Corol. A B x P Q ^ VS^^ = ^CS‘J

Lem. 3.
If from either focus of any Ellipsis unto any point in the perimeter
of the Ellipsis be drawn a right line and another right line doth touch
the Ellipsis in that point and the angle of contact be subtended by any
third right line drawn parallel to the first line; the rectangle which that
subtense conteins with the same subtense produced to the other side of
the Ellipsis is to the rectangle which the long Axis of the Ellipsis conteins
with the first line produced to the other side of the Ellipsis as the square
of the distance between the subtense and the first line is to the square
of the short Axis of the Ellipsis.
Let A K B L [Fig. 5] be the Ellipsis, A B its long Axis, K L its short
Axis, C its center, F ,f its foci, P the point of the perimeter, P F the first
line P O that line produced to the other side of the Ellipsis P X * the tan-
* T h is letter and V , Z written in capitals in the text but in lower case on Fig. 5.
are equall. Whence the rectangle z P E x G H is equal to the rectangle
A B X K L and consequently GH is to K L as A B that is (by Lem. i) 2PD
to 2PE and ^in the same proportion is P X to YZ^. Whence P X is to
G H as Y Z to K L and PX^ to GH^ as YZ'? to K L ‘h^^ But^‘ Y X I was to
as SV^ that is (by Cor. Lem. 2) A B x P O to GH^, whence inver-
tedly Y X I is to A B x P O as PX'> to GH‘>and by consequence as Y Z ‘'
to K D l W. W. to be Dem."'
Prop. I l l
If a body be attracted towards either focus of any Ellipsis and by that
attraction be made to revolve in the Perimeter of the Ellipsis: the
attraction shall be reciprocally as the square of the distance of the body
from that focus of the Ellipsis.
 252 THE K E P L E R -M O T I O N PA PERS VIII VIII THE K E P LE R -M O T I O N PAPERS 253
Let P [Fig. 6] be the place of the body in the Ellipsis at any moment Axis of the Ellipsis. And by the third Lemma Y X I will be to A B X PQ as
of time and P X the tangent in which the body would move uniformly FZ*^ to KL^ and by consequence Y X will be equall to
were it not attracted and X the place in that tangent at which it would
arrive in any given part of time and Y the place in the perimeter of the A B x P O x YZ^i
XIxKL<i
Ellipsis at which the body doth arrive in the same time by means of the
attraction.9 Let us suppose the time to be divided into equal parts and And in like manner if be the chord of another Arch py which the
that those parts are very little ones so that they may be considered as revolving body describes in a physical moment of time and px be the
physical moments and that the attraction acts not continually but by tangent of the Ellipsis at p and xy the subtense of the angle of contact
drawn parallel to pF, and if p F and xy produced cut the Ellipsis in q and
i and from y upon p F be let fall the perpendicular y z : the subtense yx
shall be equal to
ABxpqxyz^^^^^^’ - di

And therefore Y X shall be to yx as

A B x P Q x YZ^ AB xpqx
X lx K L i xi X KL^
Lb
that is as^^^ YZ^ to ^ ysfswad-
XI XI

And because the lines P Y py are by the revolving body described in

equal times, the areas of the triangles P Y F pyF must be equal by the
first Proposition; and therefore the rectangles P F x Y Z an6.pFxyz are
PQ
equal, and by consequence Y Z is to as ^P to PP. Whence Y Z ‘i
JCl
is to ^ yziitiad. as ppquad. M ppquad.^ therefore Y X is to yx
XI A .1 XI

as p p q iia d . p p q u a d .^
intervalls once in the beginning of every physical moment and let the XI ^ xi
first action be upon the body in P, the next upon it in Y and so on per­ And as we told you that X Y was the line generated in a physical
petually, so that the body may move from P to F in the chord of the moment of time by the force of the attraction in P, so for the same reason
arch P Y and from Y to its next place in the Ellipsis in the chord of the is xy the line generated in the same quantity of time by the force of the
next arch and so on for ever.^^ And because the attraction in P is made attraction in p. And therefore the attraction in P is to the attraction in p
towards F and diverts the body from the tangent P X into the chord P F ”
as the line X Y to the line xy, that is a s^ ^ ppiuad.^Q^ ppquad.^
so that in the end of the first physical moment it be not found in the place XI xt
X where it would have been without the attraction but in F being by the Suppose now that the equal times in which the revolving body
force of the attraction in P translated from X to F : the line X Y gene­ describes the lines P F and py become infinitely little, so that the attrac­
rated by the force of the attraction in P must be proportional to that tion may become continual and the body by this attraction revolve in
force and parallel to its direction that is parallel to PF.^'’ Produce X Y the perimeter of the Ellipsis and the lines PO, X I as also pq, xi be-
and P P till they cut the Ellipsis in I and O. Joyn F Y and upon F P let PO
fall the perpendicular Y Z and let A B be the long Axis and K L the short coming coincident and by consequence equal, the quantities - y ppiund.
JCJ
 254 THE K E P LE R -M O T I O N PA PERS VIII VIII THE KE P LE R- M OT IO N PAPERS 255
di. The Locke copy continues P Y , py are b y the rev o lv ­
N o w because the lines
and ~ ppmiad- become and And therefore the attrac- ing b o d y described in equal tim esf the areas o f the triangles P YF, pyF m ust be
xt equall b y the first Proposition and therefore the rectangels P F x YZ and P F x yz
are E q u a l; and pF is to P F as YZ to yz and pF‘^'""^ to as YZ'"^""^ to
tion in P will be to the attraction in p as pF'^ to PF^, that is reciprocally
y^quad.^ and (if yo u m u ltip ly the antecedents alike and the consequents alike)
as the squares of the distances of the revolving bodies from the focus of
ppm ad ^ ^ H p p q u a d as YZ'inad yz'"''"^ that is « as ^ to
the Ellipsis. W. W. to be Dem. XI XI XI X IX KL'^
ABxpqXyz'"'-'"^ . , • • D 1
■------------------------ that IS as YX to yx therefore as the attraction in P to the
xt X KL'^
a. Absent from Locke copy. attraction i n p b y H y p o th : 2 and 3.
b. Succeeded by by forces in Locke copy. Sup pose n o w that the E q u al tim es in w h ich the revolvin g b o d y describes
c. Succeeded by which a right line drawn continually from its own center to the lines PY and py beco m e infinitely litle so that the attraction m a y becom e
the immoveable center of attraction in the Locke copy. continual and the b o d y b y this attraction revolve in the perim eter o f the E llipsis
d. The Locke copy has lines. and the lines PQ, X I as also pq, xi beco m in g coincident, and b y consequence
e. Succeeded by or impulses in Locke copy.
f-f. Absent from Locke copy. equal the quantities pF" and^ PF '' w ill becom e pF'^ and PF'', and therefore
A j XI
g-g. Replaced in the Locke copy by Produce BC to I so that C l be equal to the attraction in P w ill be to the attraction in p as pF" to PF'' that is reciprocally
BC. In CA take CR in such proportion to C l as the motion which the impulse as the squares o f the distances o f the revolvin g b o d y from that focus o f the
alone would have begotten hath to the motion of the body before the impulse E lip sis tow ards w h ich the attraction is directed. W h ic h was to be dem onstrated.
was imprest. And because these two motions apart would in the second moment
of time have carried the body the one to I by reason of the Equality of C l and “ by multiplying the terms of the ratio b y A B and dividing them by K L ''.
B C and the other to R by reason of the aforesaid: proportion: complete the b by the conclusions of the two last paragraphs.
parallelogram ICRD and they shall both togeather in the same time of that second 1. M S . A d d . 3965(1).
moment carry it in the Diagonal of that Parallelogram to D by Hypoth. 3. 2. M S . L o ck e C 3 1, f. 1 0 1 -4 , B odleian L ib ra ry, O xfo rd .
h. The Locke copy has parallel lines A C and DI. 3. See Cran ston [i], p. 337.
i-i. The Locke copy has again by single impulses successively, 4. C o m pare this definition o f the prin ciple o f inertia w ith that in D e f. i o f
j . Succeeded in the Locke copy by H referring to an additional point in the dia­ V . I o f the tract de Motu.
gram of the Locke copy compared tvith the Nezoton copy. 5. C o m pare this w ith the enunciation o f the same law in V . H I o f the tract de
k-k. Absent from Locke copy. Motu. N o tice the absence o f any reference to a state o f rest.
1. Replacing lines cancelled in Newton copy. 6. A m ore prim itive en unciation o f this ‘parallelogram la w ’ is given in H y p . 3
m-m. Written out in full in Locke copy. o f V . I o f the tract de Motu. O n the other hand, a com plete en unciation o f the
n. This proposition is not found in the Locke copy. same law has already been given in § 3 o f M S . V .
o. The Locke copy has CB. 7. C o rrespo n din g to Prop, i o f the tract de Motu.
p. Replacing P F deleted. 8. T h e r e is no m ention o f this fact in any o f the enunciations o f the corre­
q-q. In the Locke copy this passage reads and FE are bisected in C and D, spo n d in g propositions in the various versions o f the tract de Motu.
PD shall be Equall (to half the Summ of P f and PE, that is to half the summ of g. T h e sam e assum ption is m ade in all o f N e w to n ’s kn ow n proofs o f Prop, i
P F and Pf, that is to half A B that is) to CB.
corresponding to K e p le r ’s second law o f planetary m otion.
r-r. Replacing and Fe are deleted.
10. N o tice the striking sim ilarity betw een the assum ptions in this paragraph
s. Succeeded by and D deleted. and those m ade in Prop. i.
t. Probably inserted.
1 1 . N o tice the peculiar m ixture o f m otion both along the p o lygo n and the
u. u. Succeeded by half deleted.
tangent. T h e same sort o f assum ption is m ade, tho u gh less explicitly, in the
v-v. This passage absent from Locke copy. p ro of o f Prop. 2.
w. Succeeded by X I the same subtense in the Locke copy.
12. T h a t A F is parallel to the direction o f the force (or im pulse) at P, i.e.
x-x. Written Shall be to PX^ the square of the tangent in Locke copy.
parallel to PF, is assum ed b y N e w to n w ith o u t proof. It can be show n to follow
y. Replacing subscribed cancelled in Locke copy.
from the assum ption (2nd paragraph) that X and F are the points arrived at b y
z-z. The Locke copy has by consequence as P X to YZ.
the b o d y in one and the same tim e on the tangent and the ellipse respectively.
ai-aj. The Locke copy has But P X ‘ was to GH'‘ as Y X I to S V ‘ and SF'^ (by
B u t it w ould be necessary to replace the ellipse b y an inscribed p o lygo n through­
Cor. Lem. 2) is equal to x P 0 , and therefore Y X I to A B x PQ as YZ'' to K L ''.
out and follow the type o f argum ent (based on H ypo th esis 3) found in the p ro of
W.W. to be Dem. to Prop. I.
bj. Succeeded by PX'' was to GH'' as deleted, as in the Locke copy.
Cx. Succeeded by as is manifest by the third Hypothesis in Locke copy. I R e p la c in g lines d e le t e d .
 256 THE K E P L E R -M O T I O N PAPERS VIII
That -iAF is proportional to the magnitude of the force (or impulse) at P is a
basic assumption which Newton justifies neither here nor in the tract de Motu.
In Prop. 6, Theor. 5, of Book I of the Principia, however, he justifies the same
assumption by an appeal to the second law of motion.
In Prob. 3 of the tract de Motu Newton derives the inverse square law for
motion in an ellipse under a force to a focus as a special case of the general formula
for motion in any curve given in Prop. 3. The dynamical argument is therefore
concentrated in Prop. 3 , and the mathematical argument, corresponding to the
three lemmas in the present paper, in Prob. 3 . In Prop. 3 of the tract de Motu
he omits all reference to the two points on the ellipse and the tangent being
reached in the same time. Instead he takes a point Q on the curve close to the
initial point P, and draws a line through Q parallel to SP intersecting at R the
tangent to the curve at P. He then simply states, without any justification, that for
motion in a given time from P to Q the centripetal force at P will be proportional
to QR. It is clear, then, that the dynamical argument in the present document,
though still incomplete, is more detailed than that given in the tract de Motu. See
above. Chapter 1.3, p. 19.
1 3 . No such comparison between two distinct points on the curve is made in
Prop. 3 of the tract de Motu. Instead he makes an ingenious application of
Galileo’s P law.
1 4 . The limiting process here envisaged is effectively a double one. It is
necessary, in the first place, because the ellipse has been replaced (partially, at
least) by an inscribed polygon; and in the second place, because the results
already obtained are merely approximate. Only the second type of limiting pro­
cess is necessary in Prop. 3 of the tract de Motu where the curve is not approxi­
mated to by an inscribed polygon.
IX
T H E T R A C T DE M O T U
T h e r e are five known versions of the tract de Motu, three in that part
of the Portsmouth Collection in the University Library, Cambridge,*
one in the archives of the Royal Society of London, and one in the
Macclesfield Collection. All are substantially the same, so that the
possibility of independent origins can be excluded. For convenience’
sake the versions in the Cambridge University Library will be numbered
I, II, III, corresponding respectively to M SS. IXa, IXb, IXc. As shown
later, I is undoubtedly the earliest version, and II is essentially a copy
of I, as is also the case for the Royal Society and Macclesfield versions. 2
Version III, however, has substantial additions compared with I, and
represents a more advanced state of dynamical thought.
The full text of I is given in § i together with exegetical and textual
footnotes. Certain of these latter footnotes refer to differences between
I, II, and III. These form the basis of the general comparisons between
I and II, and I and III in §§ 2, 3 respectively. In § 3 the additions in III
compared with I are also given.
The question of the probable dates of composition of Versions I and
III is discussed above in Part I, Chapter 6.4. A tentative identification
of Version II with all but the last of the actual propositions carried by
Paget from Newton to Halley in late 1684 is given in Part I, Chapter 6.5.
1. Manuscript Add. 3 9 6 5 ( 7 ) , fols. 5 5 - 6 2 V , 6 3 - 7 0 , 4 0 - 5 4 , respectively.
This is certainly true in the case of the Royal Society copy, first published
2.
in Rigaud [i]. Appendix I, and then in Ball [i], pp. 35-51. I understand on good
authority that it is also true in the case of the elusive Macclesfield Version.
1. V e r s io n I
De Motu Corporutn in Gyrum
Def Vim centripetam appello qua corpus impellitur vel attrahitur
versus aliquod punctum quod ut centrum spectatur.
Def 2^ Et vim corporis seu corpori insitam qua id conatur perseverare
in motu suo secundum lineam rectam.
Def 3^ ‘^
‘I Et resistentiam quae est medij regulariter impedientis.
Hypth Resistentiam*^' in proximis novem propositionibus nullam
esse, in sequentibus esse ut corporis celeritas et medij densitas conjun-
ctim.
s.'isuo.') S
 258 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
Hypoth Corpus omne sola vi insita uniformiter secundum rectam
Jineam in infinitum progredi nisi aliquid cxtrinsecus impediat.
Hypoth Corpus in dato tempore viribus conjunctis eo ferri quo
viribus divisis in temporibus aequalibus successive.
Hypoth [Spatium quod corpus urgente quacunque vi centripeta ipso
motus initio describit esse in duplicata ratione temporis.]
Theorema
Gyrantia omnia radijs ad centrum ductis areas temporibus propor­
tionals describere.
Dividatur tempus in partes aequales, et prima temporis parte describat
corpus vi insita rectam A B [Fig. i]. Idem secunda temporis parte si
nil impediret" recta pergeret ad c describens lineam Be aequalem ipsi
A B adeo ut radijs A S , B S, cS ad centrum actis confectae forent aequales
areae A S B , BSc. Verum ubi corpus venit ad B agat vis centripeta
impulsu unico sed magno, faciatque corpus a recta Be deflectere et
pergere in recta B C . Ipsi B S parallela agatur eC occurrens B C in C
et completa secunda temporis parte^ corpus reperietur in G.® Junge S C
et triangulum S B C ob parallelas SB, Ce aequale erit triangulo SBc atque
adeo etiam triangulo SA B . Simili argumento si vis centripeta successive
agat in C, D, E, etc., faciens corpus singulis temporis momentis singulas
describere rectas CD, DE, EE, etc., triangulum .SC/) triangulo S B C et
Myp. I." Ivcm. I.*'
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 259
SDE, ipsi SC D et SEE ipsi SD E aequale erit. Aequalibus igitur tem­
poribus aequales areae describuntur. Sunto jam haec triangula numero
infinita et infinite parva, sic, ut singulis temporis momentis singula
respondeant triangula, agente vi centripeta sine intermissione, et con-
stabit propositio.
Theorem 2^
Corporibus in circumferentijs circulorurn uniformiter gyrantibus vires
centripetas esse utv arcuum simul descriptorum quadrata applicata ad
radios circulorurn.
Corpora B, b [Fig. 2] in circumferentijs circulorurn BD, bd gyrantia
simul describant arcus BD, bd. Sola vi insita describerent tangentes BC,
be his arcubus aequales. Vires centripetae sunt quae perpetuo retrahunt
corpora de tangentibus ad circumferentias, atque adeo hae sunt ad
invicem ut spatia ipsis superata CD, ed, id est productis CD, ct/adFet/ut
T in q u a d Uf-quad J )J)q u a d hAquad
—r^E Cn j? ' -j— • Hoquor despatijsB D ,b d minu-
tissimis inque infinitum diminuendis sic ut pro \CF, \ef scribere liceat
circulorurn radios SB, sb. Quo facto constat Propositio.
Cor Hinc vires centripetae sunt ut celeritatum quadrata applicata
ad radios circulorurn.
Cor 2 Et reciproce ut quadrata temporum periodicorum applicata ad
radios.
Cor 3 Unde si quadrata temporum periodicorum sunt ut radij circu-
lorum vires centripetae sunt aequales. Et vice versa.
Cor 4 Si quadrata temporum periodicorum sunt ut quadrata radiorum
vires centripetae sunt reciproce ut radij. Et vice versa.
260 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
Cor 5 Si quadrata temporum periodicorum sunt ut cubi radiorum
vires centripetae sunt reciproce ut quadrata radiorum. Et vice versa.
Schol.’i Casus Corollarij quinti obtinet in corporibus coelestibus.
Quadrata temporum periodicorum sunt ut cubi distantarium a communi
centre circum quod volvuntur. Id obtinere in Planetis majoribus circa
Solem gyrantibus inque minoribus circa Jovem ""‘et Saturnum™* jam
statuunt Astronomi.
Theor. 3I”
Si corpus P [Fig. 3] circa centrum S gyrando, describat lineam quamvis
curvam APQ , et si tangat recta PR curvam illam in puncto quovis P et
R
ad tangentem ab alio quovis curvae puncto Q agatur QR distantiae S P
parallela” ac demittatur O T perpendicularisad distantiam-SPidico quod
^pquad 0 'J 'q u a d
vis centripeta sit reciproce ut solidum ------- ----------- , si modo solidi
illius ea semper sumatur quantitas quae ultimo fit ubi coeunt puncta
P et O.
Namque in figura indefinite parva Q R P T lineola OR dato tempore
est ut vis centripetal 2 gt data vi ut*^ quadratum temporis atque adeo
neutro dato ut vis centripeta et quadratum temporis conjunctim, id est
ut vis centripeta semel et area S Q P tempori proportionalis (vel duplum
ejus S P x Q T ) bis. Applicetur hujus proportionalitatis pars utraque ad
SP'^xOP^
lineolam OR et fiet unitas ut vis centripeta et — — conjunctim,
SP^xOT^
hoc est vis centripeta reciproce ut Q.E.D.
QR
" Lem. 2."'
IX TH E T R A C T DE M O TU 261
Corol. Hinc si datur figura quaevis et in ea punctum ad quod vis
centripeta dirigitur, inveniri potest lex vis centripetae quae corpus in
figurae illius perimetro gyrare faciet. Nimirumcomputandum est solidum
---- — huic vi reciproce proportionale. Ejus rei dabimus exempla
in problematis sequentibus,
Prob.
Gyrat corpus in circumferentia circuli requiritur lex °ivis centripetae*^!
tendentis ad punctum aliquod in circumferentia.
Esto circuli circumferentia S O P A, [Fig. 4] centrum °'vis centripetae®*
S, corpus in circumferentia latum P, locus proximus in quern movebitur
Q. Ad SA diametrum et S P demitte perpendicula P K , Q T et per Q
ipsi S P parallelam age LR occurrentem circulo in L et tangenti PR
in R, p*et coeant TQ, PR in Z. Ob similitudinem triangulorum
ZOR, ZT P , SPA^^ erit PP® (hoc est QRL) ad ut SA^ ad SP^. Ergo
OPLxSP*^ SPq
QT^. Ducantur haec aequalia in —~ et punctis P et O
QR
S P qc Q T^ xSP'i
coeuntibus scribatur S P pro RL. Sic fiet . Ergo °‘vis
SAi OR
Spao
centripeta®' reciproce est ut - - j - , id est (ob datum SA"') ut quadrate-
cubus distantiae SP. Quod erat inveniendum.
Schol."'^’*'* Caeterum in hoc casu et similibus concipiendum est quod
postquam corpus pervenit ad centrum S, id non amplius redibit in orbem
 262 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 263
sed abibit in tangente. In spiral! quae secat radios omnes in dato angulo Prob. 3^^
vis centripeta tendens ad Spiralis principium est in ratione triplicata Gyrat corpus in ellipsi; requiritur lex ’‘‘vis centripetae*' tendentis ad
distantiae reciproce, sed in principio illo recta nulla positione deter- umbilicum Ellipseos.
ininata spiralem tangit. Esto Ellipseos superioris umbilicus S [Fig. 5]. Agatur S P secans
Ellipseos diametrum D K in P .y Patet E P aequalem esse semiaxi major!
A C eo, quod acta ab altero Ellipseos urnbilico H linea H I ipsi E C
parallela, ob aequales CS^ CH aequentur ES, EE adeo ut PPsemisumma
sit ipsarum PS, P I id est =''(ob parallelas HI, PR et angulos aequales IPR,
HPZY'^ ipsarum PS, P H quae conjunctim axem totum 2 A C adaequant.
Ad S P demittatur perpendicularis QT. Et Ellipseos latere recto princi­

pal! |seu j dicto L, erit L X OR ad L X P V ut OR ad P V id est ut

PE, (seu AC) ad P C e t L x P V ad G V P ut L ad G V et G V P ad OF^ ut

CP^ ad CD^I Et OV'^ ad ut M ad A" et ad
ut EP^ ad PF^ id est ut CA'^ ad PF^ sive^ ut CD'^ ad CP'^ et con­
junctis hie omnibus rationibus, LxQR^^ ad ut A C ad PCXL^^
ad G F + C P ^ ad ad ad CB^, id est ut A C x L (seu
2PGO ad P C X G F + C P ^ ad ad sive ut 2PC ad GFe^+
M ad N.^- Sed punctis 0 et P coeuntibus rationes ^^2PC ad ^^GVi^ et
M ad N hunt aequali tati sergo et ’^"ex his composita ratio'^'' L x OR
Prob. 2'5 Spa SP'^xOT'^
ad Ducatur pars utraque in et fiet L X SP^ = ---- - -— .
^ o/?
Gyrat corpus in Ellipsi veterum: requiritur lex Vis'"' centripetae ten-
Ergo"'* °”-vis centripeta®'* reciproce est ut L x S P ^ id est?'* in ratione
dentis ad centrum Ellipseos.
duplicata distantiae SP. Q.E.I.
Sunto CA, C B [Fig. 5]^* semi-axes Ellipseos, GP, D K diametri
Schol. Gyrant ergo Planetae majores in ellipsibus habentibus umbili­
conjugatae, PF, Qt perpendicula ad diametros, Q V ordinatim applicata
cum in centro solis, et radijs ad solem ductis describunt areas temporibus
ad diametrum G P et O V PR parallelogrammum. His constructis erit
proportionales, omnino ut supposuit Keplerus. Et harum Ellipseon
("‘ex conicis"') P V G ad OV^ ut PC^^ ad et QF® ad OP ut PO^ ad
pji'Qij et conjunctis rationibus P V G ad ut PC'^ ad et ad PP</, latera recta sunta'* punctis P e tQ ‘^"spatio quam minimo et quasi
OP PF'i QR
id est VG ad ut PO> ad - — • Scribe OR pro PF« et B C x C A infinite parvo distantibus'"*.
pro C D x P F , nec non (piinctis P et O coeuntibus) 2PC pro VG et Theorem 4'^
Ot^xPC'i zBC'^xCA^^ Posito quod vis centripeta sit reciproce proportionalis quadrato
ductis extremis et medijs in se mutuo, liet
~ PC ■ distantiae a centro,quadratatemporum periodicorum in Ellipsibus sunt
E st'‘ ergo vis centripeta reciproce ut ---- ^ — - id est (ob datum ut cubi transversorum axium.
Sunto Ellipseos axis transversus A B [Fig. 6] axis alter PD, latus
2BO^x CA^>) ut hoc est directe, ut distantia PC. Q.E.T. rectum L, umbilicus alteriter S Centro S intervallo S P describatur
PC
circulus PM D. Et eodem tempore describant corpora duo gyrantia
I’er Lem 4.'*- " Per. Lem. 4."'*
 264 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
arcum Ellipticum PQ et circularem PM , vi centripeta ad umbilicum S
tendente. Ellipsin et circulum tangant PR, P N in puncto P. Ipsi P S
agantur parallelae QR, M N tangentibus occurrentes in R et N. Sint
autem figurae PQR, P M N indefinite parvae sic ut (per schol. Prob. 3)
fiat L x Q R = et zSP^^xM N — MV'L Ob communem a centre
S distantiam S P et inde aequales vires centripetas sunt M N et OR
aequales.22 Ergo QT'i ad MV'^ est ut L ad zSP, et Q T ad M V ut medium
proportionale inter L et 2 ^^SP seu PD ad z SP'^k^^ H oc est area S P Q
ad aream S P M ut area tota Ellipseos ad aream totam circuliA^ Sed partes
arearum singulis momentis genitae sunt ut areae S P Q et S P M atque
adeo ut areae totae et proinde per numerum momentorum multiplicatae
simul evadent totis aequales. Revolutiones igitur eodem tempore in
ellipsibus perficiuntur ac in circulis quorum diametri sunt axibus
transversis Ellipseon aequales. 25 Sed (per Cor 5. Theorem 2) quadrata
temporum periodicorum in circulis sunt ut cubi diametrorum. Ergo et
in Ellipsibus. Q.E.D.
Schol. Hinc in systemate coelesti ex temporibus periodicis Planetarum
innotescunt proportiones transversorum axium Orbitarum. Axem unum
licebit assumere. Inde dabuntur caeteri. Datis autem axibus determina-
buntur orbitae in hunc modum. Sit S [Fig. 7] locus Solis seu Ellipseos
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 265
umbilicus unus A, B, C, D loca Planetae observatione inventa et O axis
transversus Ellipseos. Centro A radio 0 —A S describatur circulus FG
et erit ellipseos umbilicus alter in hujus circumferentia. Centris B, C, D,
etc., intervallis Q — B S, Q ~ C S , Q — D S etc., describantur itidem alij
quotcunque circuli et erit umbilicus ille alter in omnium circumferentijs
atque adeo in omnium intersectione communi F. Si intersectiones omnes
non coincidunt, sumendum erit punctum medium pro umbilico. Praxis
___________ Q
-c
hujus commoditas est quod ad unam conclusionem eliciendam adhiberi
possint et inter se expedite comparari observationes quamplurimae.
Planetae autem loca singula A, B, C, D etc., ex binis observationibus,
cognito Telluris orbe magno invenire docuit Halleus.26 Si orbis ille ma-
gnus nondum satis exacte determinatus habetur,^? ex eo prope cognito,
determinabitur orbita Planetae alicujus puta Martis propius: Deinde ex
orbita Planetae per eandem methodum determinabitur orbita Telluris
adhuc propius: turn ex orbita Telluris determinabitur orbita Planetae
multo exactius quam prius: et sic per vices donee circulorum inter­
sectiones in umbilico orbitae utriusque exacte satis conveniant.28
Hac method© determinare licet orbitas Telluris, Martis, Jovis, et
Saturn!, Orbitas autem Veneris et Mercurij sic. Observationibus in
maxima Planetarum a Sole digressione factis, habentur orbitarum
 266 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
tangentes. Ad ejusmodi tangentem K L [Fig. 8] demittatur a Sole per-
pendiculum SL centroque L et intervallo dimidij axis Ellipseos des-
cribatur circulus K M . Erit centrum Ellipseos in hujus circumferential^
adeoque descriptis hujusmodi pluribus circulis ^'^reperietur in omnium''^
intersectione. "'^Cognitis tandem"^ orbitarum dimensionibus, longitu-
dines horum Planetarum postmodum exactius ex transitu suo per discum
Solis determinabuntur.’^^^o
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 267
rectum Ellipseos. Sit istud L. Datur praeterea Ellipseos umbilicus S
Anguli R P S complementum ad duos rectos fiat angulus R PH et dabitur
positione linea P H in qua umbilicus alter H locatur. Demisso ad P H
perpendiculo S K et erecto semiaxe minore B C est SP^--2KPH^--{-PH^
= SH^-^ = = {SP+PHy^<^d-Lx{SP-\-PH) = 5 P«+
2SPH-\-PH^-~L (*S'P+PH). Addantur utrobique 2KPH^^-\-Lx{SP-\-
P H )~ S P ^ -~ P m et fiet L x{SP -\-P H ) = 2SP H ^ 2K P W ^ seu S P +

K L
r‘ T

M
/
\ I /

F igu re 8.

Prob. 4'^^
Posito quod vis centripeta sit reciproce proportionalis quadrato dis-
tantiae a centro, et cognita vis illius quantitate: requiritur Ellipsis quam
corpus describet de loco dato cum data celeritate secundum datam
rectam emissum.
Vis centripeta tendens ad punctum S [Fig. 9] ea sit quae corpus 7r| in
circulo TTx centro S intervallo quovis Sn descripto gyrare faciat.^^ p)e
PH ad PH ut 2SP-\-2KP'°^ ad L. Unde datur umbilicus alter H. Datis
loco P secundum lineam PR emittatur corpus Py^ et mox inde cogente
autem umbilicis una cum axe transverse SP-\~PH datur Ellipsis. Q.E.I.
vi centripeta deflectat in Ellipsin PO. Hanc igitur recta PR ianget in P.
Haec ita se habent ubi figura Ellipsis est. ffieri enim potest ut corpus
Tangat itidem recta np circulum in tt sitque PR ad irp ut prima celeritas
moveat‘^3 in Parabola vel H yp er bol a. Ni mi rum si tanta est corporis
corporis emissi P ad uniformem celeritatem corporis 7 7 . Ipsis S P et Sn
celeritas ut sit latus rectum L aequale 2SP^2KP,'°^ ffigura erit Parabola
parallelae agantur RO et px haec circulo in x Ellipsi in O occurrens,
umbilicum habens in puncto -S' et diametros omnes parallelas lineae PH.
et a O etx ad SPtX Sn demittantur perpendicula Q T et nT. Est RO ad px
Sin corpus majori adhuc celeritate emittitur movebitur id in Hyperbola
ut vis centripeta in P ad vim centripetam in n^^ id est ut Sn^“^^^ad SP^*’^^*^,
habente umbilicum unum in puncto S alterum in puncto H sumpto
adeoque datur ilia ratio. Datur etiam ratio O T ad RP^^ et ratio P P a d pn
ad contrarias partes puncti P et axem transversum aequalem differentiae
seu x l. et inde composita ratio O P ad x1- De hac ratione duplicata aufer-
linearum P S et PH.
OP® nM •
atur ratio data OR ad vp et manebit data ratio ^ — ad — id est (per Schol Schol. Jam vero beneficio ^shujus Problematis solutF®, cometarum'“3
OP XP
orbitas definire concessum est, et inde revolutionum tempora, et ex
Prob. 3) ratio lateris recti Ellipseos ad diametrum circuli. Datur igitur latus
orbitarum magnitudine, excentricitate, Aphelijs, inclinationibus ad
t T h e archaic form vr for tt sometim es used by N ew ton in this passage has been planum Eclipticae et nodis inter se collatis cognoscere an idem cometa
replaced throughout by tt. vj is also found in Fig. 9. ad nos saepius redeat. Nimirum ex quatuor observationibus locorum
 268 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
cometae, juxta Hypothesin quod Cometa movetur uniformiter in linea
recta,37determinanda est ejus via rectilinea.3^Sit taAPBD , [Fig. lo] sint-
que A, P, B, D loca cometae in via ilia temporibus observationum, et S
locus solis. Ea celeritate qua cometa uniformiter percurrit rectam A D
finge ipsum emitti de locorum suorum aliquo P et vi centripeta mox
correptum deflectere a recto tramite et abire in Ellipsi Pbda. Haec
Ellipsis determinanda est ut in superiore Problemate.39 In ea sunto a, P,
b, d loca cometae temporibus observationum. Cognoscantur horum loco-
rum e terra longitudines et latitudines. Quanto majores vel minores sunt
his longitudines et latitudines observatae tanto majores vel minores
observatis sumantur longitudines et latitudines novae. Ex his novis
inveniatur denuo via rectilinea cometae et inde via Elliptica ut prius. Et
loca quatuor nova in via Elliptica prioribus erroribus aucta vel diminuta
jam congruent cum observationibus ssexacte s a t i s . A u t si fortes^ errores
etiam num sensibiles manserint potest opus totum repeti. Et ne computa
Astronomos moleste habeant suffecerit haec omnia per *^3descriptionem
linearum’^3 determinare.
Sed’3areas aSP, PSb, bSd temporibus proportionales assignare difficile
est. Super Ellipseos axe majore EG [Fig. ii], describatur semicirculus
EHG. Sumatur angulus ECH tempori proportionalis. Agatur SH eique
parallela C K circulo occurrens in K . Jungatur H K et circuli segmento
H K M (per tabulam segmentorum vel secus) aequale fiat triangulum
S K N . Ad EG demitteJ^ perpendiculum NQ, et in eo capei^^ PQ ad NO
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 269
ut ^ffillipseos axis minor ad axem majorem et erit punctum P in Ellipsi
atque acta recta S P "’^abscindetur area'"^ Ellipseos E P S tempori pro-
portionalis.'^s Namque area H S N M triangulo S N K aucta et huic aequali
segmento H K M diminuta fit triangulo H S K id est triangulo H SC
aequale. Haec aequalia adde°» areae ESH, pffient areaeP* aequales E H N S
et EHC. Cum igitur Sector EH C tempori proportionalis sit et area E P S
areae E H N SN erh etiam area E P S tempori
proportionalis.
Prob. 5^2
Posito quod ^nis centripetal^ sit reciproce
proportionalis quadrato distantiae a centro*^*
spatia definite quae ^“corpus recta®* cadendo
datis temporibus describit.
Si corpus ^^*non cadit perpendiculariter
describet id Ellipsin puta A P B [Fig. 12]
cujus umbilicus inferior puta S congruetcum
centro.^* Id ex jam demonstratis constat.
Super Ellipseos axe majore A B describatur
semicirculus A D B et per corpus*^* decidens
transeat recta D PC perpendicularis ad axem,
actisque DS, PS, erit area A S D areae A S P
atque adeo etiam tempori proportionalis.
Manente axe A B minuatur perpetuo latitude Figure 12.
Ellipseos, et semper manebit area A S D tempori proportionalis. Minuatur
 270 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
latitude ilia in infinitum et orbita A P B jam coincidente cum axe
A B et umbilico S cum axis termino B descendet corpus'^^ in recta
A C et area A B D evadet tempori proportionalis. Definietur itaque
spatium A C quod corpus‘“ de loco A perpendiculariter cadendo tempore
dato describit si modo tempori proportionalis capiatur area A B D et a
puncto D ad rectam A B demittatur perpendicularis DC. Q.E.F.
Schol."3 Priore Problemate definiuntur motus''^ projectilium in acre
nostro hacce motus gravium perpendiculariter cadentium ex Hypothesi
quod gravitas reciproce proportionalis sit quadrate distantiae a centre
terrae quodque medium aeris nihil resistat. "''‘Nam gravitas est species
una vis centripetae.'''^’
Prob. 6^3ya
Corporis sola vi insita per medium similare resistens delati motum
definire.
Asymptotis rectangulis AD C, CH [Fig. 13] describatur Hyperbola
secans perpendicula AB, D G in B, G. Exponatur turn corporis celeritas
turn resistentia medij ipso motus initio per lineam A C elapso^3 tempore
aliquo per lineam"** D C et tempos exponi potest per aream A B G D
atque spatium eo tempore descriptum per lineam AD. Nam celeritati
proportionalis est resistentia medij et resistentiae proportionale est decre-
mentum celeritatis/^ i^4hoc esC*, si tempus in partes aequales dividatur,
celeritates ipsarum initijs sunt‘=*differentijs suis proportionales. Decrescit
ergo celeritas in'* proportione Geometrica dum tempus crescit in Arith-
metica. Sed <^*tale est decrementum'^* lineae D C et incrementum*'* areae
AB G D , ut notum est. Ergo tempus per aream et celeritas per lineam
illam recte exponitur. Q.E.D. Porro celeritati atque adeo decremento
celeritatis proportionale est incrementum spatij descripti sed et decre-
“ Lem. **
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 271
mento lineae D C proportionale est incrementum lineae AD. Ergo
incrementum spatij per incrementum lineae AD, atque adeo spatium
ipsum per lineam illam recte exponitur Q.E.D.
Prob.
Posita uniformi vi centripeta, motum corporis in medio similar! recta
ascendentis ac descendentis definire.
Figure 14,
Corpore ascendente exponatur vis centripeta per datum quodvis rectan-
gulum B C [Fig. 14] et resistentia medij initio ascensus per rectangu-
lum BD sumptum ad contrarias partes. Asymptotis rectangulis AC ,
CH per punctum B describatur Hyperbola secans perpendicula DE, de
in G, g et corpus ascendendo tempore DGgd describet spatium EGge,
tempore D G BA spatium ascensus totius EGB, tempore AB^G^D
spatium descensus BE^G atque tempore W^G-g^d spatium descensus
^GEe^g\ et celeritas corporis resistentiae medij proportionalis, erit in
horum temporum periodis ABED, ABed, nulla, ABE^D, ABe^d; atque
maxima celeritas quam corpus descendendo potest acquirere erit BC.
Resolvatur enim rectangulum A H [Fig. 15] in rectangula innumera
Ak, Kl, Lm, Mn, etc. quae sint ut incrementa celeritatum aequalibus
totidem temporibus facta et erunt'* Ak, Al, Am, An etc., ut celeritates
totae atque adeo" ut resistentiae medij in fine singulorum temporum
" H yp. >**
272 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 273
aequalium. j^ffiat A C ad A K , vel A B H C ad A B k K ut vis centripeta ad Ex loco quovis D [Fig. 16] ejaculetur corpus secundum lineam quamvis
resistentiam in fine temporis primi et erunt AB H C, KkH C, LIHC, rectam DP, et per longitudinem D P exponatur ejusdem celeritas sub initio
NnHC etc. ut vires absolutae quibus corpus urgetur atque adeo ut motus. A punctoPad lineam horizontalem D C demittatur perpendiculum
incrementa celeritatum, id est ut rectangula Ak, K l, Lm, Mn etc et PC, ut et ad D P perpendiculum C l ad quod sit D A ut est resistentia
proinde^ in progressione geometrica. Quare si rectae Kk, LI, Mm, Mn
productae occurrant Hyperbola in 17, A, /x, v etc. erunt areae ABrjK,
Kr]XL, LXfxM, MfjLvN etc aequales, adeoque turn temporibus aequali-
bus turn viribus centripetis semper aequalibus analogae. Subducantur
rectangula Ak, Kl, Lm, Mn, etc viribus absolutis analoga et relinquentur

areae Bkr], kr]Xl, lAixm, mixvn, etc resistentijs medij in fine singulorum
temporum, hoc est celeritatibus atque adeo descriptis spatijs analogae.
Sumantur analogarum summae et erunt areae Bkrj, BIX, Bm(i, Bnv etc.
spatijs totis descriptis analogae, nec non areae ABrjK, ABXL, AB[xM,
ABvN, etc. temporibus.Corpus igitur inter descendendum tempore
quovis ABXL describit spatium BIX et tempore LXfxn spatium Xlnv.
Q.E.D. Et similis est demonstratio motus expositi in ascensu. Q.E.D.
Schol. Beneficio duorum novissimorum problematum innotescunt medij ipso motus initio ad vim gravitatis. Erigatur perpendiculum A B
motus projectilium in aere nostro, ex hypothesi quod aer iste similaris cujusvis longitudinis et completis parallelogrammis, D A BE, C A B H per
sit quodque gravitas uniformiter et secundum lineas parallelas agat. Nam punctum B asymptotis DC, C P describatur Hyperbola secans DE in G.
si motus omnis obliquis corporis projeti distinguatur in duos, unum Capiatur linea n ad EG ut est D C ad CP, et ad rectae D C punctum
ascensus vel descensus alterum progressus horizontalis: motus posterior quodvis R erecto perpendiculo R tT quod occurrat Hyperbolae in T et
determinabitur per Problema sextum, prior per septimum ut fit in hoc D R tE -D R T B G
diagrammate. rectae EH in t, in eo cape Rr = et projectile tempore
Lt‘m. '’ 1
 274 THE T R A C T DE M O T U
D R T B G perveniet ad punctum r, describens curvam Jineam DarFK
quam punctum r semper tangit, perveniens autem ad maximum aititu-
dinem a in perpendiculo A B , I'deinde incidens in lineam horizontalem
D C ad F ubi areae DFsE, D F S B G aequantur^i et postea semper
appropinquans Asymptoton PH CL. Estque celeritas ejus in puncto
quovis r ut curvae tangens rL.
Si proportio resistentiae aeris ad vim gravitatis nondum innotescit;
cognoscantur (ex observatione aliqua) anguli AD P, AFr in quibus curva
DarFk secat lineam horizontalem DC. Super D F constituatur rectan-
gulum DFsE altitudinis cujusvis, ac describatur Hyperbola rectangula
ea lege ut ejus iina Asymptotes sit DF, ut areae DFsE, D F S B G
aequentur et ut sS sit ad EG sicut tangens anguli AFr ad tangentem
anguli AD P. Ab hujus Hyperbolae centre C ad rectam D P demitte
perpendiculum C l ut et a puncto B ubi ea secat rectam Es, ad rectam D C
perpendiculum B A , et habebitur proportio quaesita D A ad C l, quae est
resistentia medij ipso motus initio ad gravitatem projectilis. Quae omnia
ex praedemonstratis facile eruuntur. Sunt et alij modi inveniendi
resistentiam aeris quos lubens praetereo. Postquam autem inventa est
haec resistentia in uno casu capienda est ea in alijs quibusvis ut corporis
celeritas et superficies sphaerica conjunctim (Nam projectile sphaericum
esse passim suppono) vis autem gravitatis innotescit ex pondere. Sic
habebitur semper proportio resistentiae ad gravitatem seu lineae D A ad
lineam C L Hac proportione et angulo A D P determinatur specie figura
DarFKLP: et capiendo longitudinem D P proportionalem celeritati
projectilis in loco D determinatur eadem magnitudine sic ut altitudo Aa
maximae altitudini projectilis et longitudo D F longitudini horizontali
inter ascensum et casum projectilis semper sit proportionalis, atque
adeo ex longitudine D F in agro semel mensurata semper determinet
turn longitudinem illam DFt\im alias omnes dimensiones figurae DarFK
quam projectile describet in agro. Sed in colligendis hisce dimensionibus
usurpandi sunt logarithmi pro area Hyperbolica DRTBG.
Eadem ratione determinantur etiam motus corporum gravitate vel
levitate et vi quacunque simul et semel impressa moventium in aqua.
ai- C a n celled in V . I l l a n d replaced by L e x i.
b]. E v ery th in g dozen to beginning o f Theorem i deleted.
C|. E v id en tly inserted as an afterthought betzveen D e f. 2 a n d H y p . i .
di. R ep lacin g the follozcing d eleted version o f the p rin cip le o f inertia C orpora
nec m edio im pediri nec alijs causis externis [qua?] m inus viribus insitae ct
centripetae exquisite eadem.
IX IX 4TIE TRA C 4' DE M O T U 275
e^. Su cceed ed by esse ut corporis celeritas et m edij densitas conjun ctim
deleted.
fi. Im m ediately beneath this hypothesis is zcritten H y p o th [3 ?]. R esistentiam in
proxim is n ovem p ropositionibus n ullam esse in sequentibus esse u t celeritas ct
m edij densitas co njun ctim deleted.
gL. W ritten in margin.
h]. T h e enunciation o f this hypothesis is taken fr o m V . I I , the title only being
given in V . I , in the m argin. I t is succeeded in V. I I [but n ot in V . I l l ) by a list
o f the enunciations o f a ll the subsequent theorems an d problem s follozved fin a lly
by tzvo lemmas ziumbered 3 an d 4 agreeing zcith the corresponding lemmas in
V. I II .
ii. R eplacin g H y p . 3 deleted.
ji. S ucceed ed by insertion celeritatum [qua ?] deleted.
ki- In V . II these corollaries are o m itted havin g already figured in the original
list o f en unciations o f theorem s and problem s,
h . T h is S ch oliu m is om itted from V . II.
m i-m i. D ele te d in V . I I I .
ni- R eplacin g H y p . 4 deleted.
Oi-Oj. R eplacin g gravitas deleted.
P i-p i- Inserted into V . I , present in V . I l l , missing fr o m V . I I .
cii- R eferrin g to Lem m a 4 o f V . I I I .
ri. Sch oliu m om itted in V . I I .
Si. Preceded by gravitas deleted.
tj. T an d t are interchanged in the D iagram o f V . I I com pared u it h those o f V . I ,
I I I . A llow a n ce is made f o r this interchange in the subsequent p ro o f in V . I I .
Ui. Inserted into V . I , present in V . I l l , missing fr o m V . I I .
Vi. M a rg in a l fo o tn o te (b) to C o r. T h e o r . 3 in V . I I I .
\\q. R eferring again to Lem m a 4 o f V . I I I .
Xi~x.. W ritten in above gravitas deleted.
yi- E t lineam O F in x et com pleatur parallelogram m um Q x P R inserted in
V . I l l fo r clarification since the same diagram is used as in P roh. 2 zvhile nozv Q R is
supposed to be drawn p a ra llel to S P as opposed to C P . W hereas it is actu ally
p a ra llel to C P . I t is curious to fin d the same error in the diagram to the corre­
sponding proposiHon {P rop. X I , P rob . V I ) in the F ir st E d itio n o f the P rin cip ia .
I n later editions it is corrected.
Inserted in I , present in I I I , missing fr o m I I .
aa-ag. D eleted in V . I l l an d replaced by p unctis Q et P coeuntibus fit ratio
aequalitalis et Qx'^ seu Qr>'' est.
ba- A lte r e d fr o m QT'^ to Q t ‘ in V . I I to allozv f o r the interchange o f t fo r T in
D iagram 5 previously n oted in fo o tn o te t^.
c ,. S ucceed ed by insertion fit in V . I I I .
do. T h is an d succeeding signs + a ll im ply m ultiplication.
ej-Ca. D eleted in V . I I I .
fa-fo. D eleted in V . I I I .
D eleted in V . I I I .
ha. D eleted an d replaced by aequantur in V. I I I .
i j. R ep laced by et in V . I I I .
ja-jo. D eleted in V . I I I .
ka-ko. D eleted in V . I I I .
la. D eleted in V . I I I .
mo. S ucceed ed by insertion A eq u a n tu r in V. I I I .
 276 THE T R A C T DE M O T U
H2. Marginal reference (b) to Cor. Th. 3 in V. III.
O2-O2. Written in above gravitas deleted in both VI and VIII.
P2. Succeeded by insertion reciproce in V. III.
Q2. Succeeded by insertion quantitas in V. III.
T2. Given in error in V. II as ~ - in place of
QR ^ •’ QR
S2. Succeeded by quae ultimo fit ubi coeunt in V. III.
t2~t2. Deleted in V. III.
U2-U2. Missing from V. II.
V2-V2. Replaced by reperientur in M omnium intersectiones in V. II represent­
ing an attempt to remove an imagined obscurity in the text. But the subject of
reperietur was intended to be centrum and not intersectiones. V. I ll follows V. I.
W2-W2. Replaced in V. II by Turn cognitis.
X2. A long passage intervenes at this point in V. I l l before Prob. 4. See B of§j.
Y2. Succeeded by ea celeritate qua sit ad celeritatem uniformem corporis m ut
recta quaevis PR ad rectam quamvis -mp deleted.
Z2. V. I I has ± 2KPH corresponding to the possibility of K lying in H P pro­
duced as is actually the case in the diagram in that version.
83. Succeeded by = 4CH'Gnserted in V. III.
b3. ± 2 K P in V .I I .
C3. Altered to moveatur in V. III.
ds-dg. Altered to soluti hujus Problematis in V. III.
eg. Substitutedfor Planetarum in all versions.
f g . Succeeded by insertion id adeo ut correctiones respondeant erroribus in
V. III.
S3~g3- Deleted and replaced by quam proxime. At Si in V. III.
hg-hg. R e p l a c i n g Geometricam deleted. V. Illfollozvs V. I, zvhereas V. II
has praxin Geometricam.
ig . Replaced by Verum in V. III.
j g . Demittatur in V. III.
k g . Capiatur in V. III.
Ig. Succeeded by insertion est in V. III.
mg-mg. Altered to Abscindet aream in V. III.
ng. Altered to proportionalem in V. III.
03. Altered to addita in V. III.
pg-pg. Altered to facient areas in V. III.
qg-qg. Replacing gravitas deleted.
rg. Succeeded by terrae deleted.
S3-S3. Replacing gravia deleted.
tg. Replacing grave deleted.
Ug. The Scholium in V. I l l is different. It is given belozc in § 3 C.
V g. Succeeded by gravium deleted.
Wg-Wg. Replacing sequentibus resistentia medij similaris primo absque gravi­
tate dum cum gravitate uniforme consideratur. Nam vis centripetae species una
est gravitas deleted apart from vis centripeta allozced to stand.
X g. V. II ends here.
Yg. Preceded in V. I l l by sub-heading De motu corporum in medijs re-
sistentibus.
Z g. Replaced by insertion datae longitudinis, elapso autem in V. III.
a^. Succeeded in V. I l l by insertion indefinitam.
b4~b4. Replaced by proinde in V. III.
IX IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 277
C4. Replaced by erunt in F. III.
d4~d4. Replaced in V. I l l by proportione priore decrescit.
C4. Replaced in V. I l l by posteriore crescit.
f4. Number 3 supplied in V. III.
g4. Altered to Lex 5 in V. III.
h4. Number 3 supplied in V. III.
in. Succeeded by insertion nihil in V. III.
j4~j4- After considerable emendation, partly illegible, this passage in V. HI
reads;
Fiat A C ad A K vel ABH C ad A BkK ut vis centripeta ad resistentiam in prin-
cipio temporis deque vi centripeta subducantur resistentiae et manebunt ABHC,
KkHC, LIHC, NnHC etc ut vires absolutae quibus corporibus in principio singu-
lorum temporum urgetur atque adeo ut incrementa celeritatum, id est ut rectan-
gula Ak, Kl, Lm, Mn etc. et proinde in progressione geometrica. Quare si
rectae Kk, LI, Mm, Nn productae occurrant Hyperbola in rj. A, p, v, etc erunt
areae ABrjK, Kt]\L, LXpM, MpvN etc. aequales adeoque turn temporibus
aequalibus num est autem area ABrjK ad aream Bkr) ut K t) ad hkK seu A C ad
\A K viribus centripetis semper aequalibus analogae. Hoc est ut vis centripeta
ad resistantiam in medio temporis primi. Et simili argumento area rjKLX,
XLMp, pMNv, etc. Sunt ad areas 17/e/A, Xlnp, pmnv ut vires centripetas ad resis-
tentias in medio temporis secundi tertij quarti etc. Proinde cum areae aequales
AKrj, rjKLX, XLMp, pMNv etc sunt viribus centripetis analogae, erunt areae
Bkrj, rjklX, Xlmp, pmnv etc resistentijs in medio singulorum temporum, hoc est
celeritatibus atque adeo descriptis spatijs analogae.
k4. Immediately beneath in V. I l l occurs Et hae areae [ ?] rectangula numero
infinita et infinite parva evadunt coincidunt cum Hyperbolicis deleted.
I4-I4. Deleted in V. HI.
Translation
The Motion of Revolving Bodies
Definition i.^ I call centripetal that force by which a body is impelled
or drawn towards any point which is regarded as a centre [of force].
Definition 2.^ And I call that the force of a body or the force innate in a
body by reason of which it endeavours to persist in its motion along a
straight line.
Definition 3.3 And the resisting force that arising from the steadily
impeding medium.
Hypothesis i.“^The resisting force in the next nine propositions is zero,
and in the succeeding ones jointly as the speed of the body and the
density of the medium.
Hypothesis 2.5 Every body under the sole action of its innate force moves
uniformly in a straight line to infinity unless anything extraneous hinders
it.
 278 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
Hypothesis 3.^ A body is carried in a given time under the combined
action of [two] forces so far as it would be carried by the forces acting
separately in succession for equal times.
Hypothesis 4. [The space described by a body at the beginning of its
motion under the action of any centripetal force is proportional to the
square of the time.]
Theorem
All bodies circulating about a centre [of force] sweep out areas pro­
portional to the times [of description].
Let the time be divided into equal intervals, and in the first interval of
time suppose the body by reason of its innate force describes the line
A B [Fig. i]. Likewise in the second interval of time if nothing were to
impede it'* suppose it would continue straight on to c covering a length
Be equal to the line ABy so that the radii A S , B S, cS being drawn to the
centre [5 ] the areas A S B , BSc would be made equal. But actually when
the body comes to B let the centripetal force act [on it] with a single
great impulse, forcing the body to deviate from the line Be and continue
on in the line BC. Let eC be drawn parallel to B S meeting B C in C and
on the completion of the second interval of time^^ the body will be found
at C.^ Join S C and because of the parallels SB, Ce the triangle S B C will
be equal to the triangle SBc and so also to the triangle SA B . By a like
argument if the centripetal force acts successively in C, D, E etc.,
causing the body to describe separate lines CD, DE, EE etc. in separate
intervals of time, the triangle S C D will be equal to SB C, and S C D itself
equal to SDE, and SD E itself equal to SEE, Therefore equal areas are
described in equal times. Suppose now these triangles are infinite in
number and infinitely small so that the centripetal force acts without a
break, to the individual intervals of time corresponding individual
triangles, and the proposition will be established.
Theorem 2''
The centripetal forces of bodies revolving uniformly in the circum­
ferences of circles are as the squares of the arcs described in the same
time divided by the radii of the circles.
Suppose the bodies B, b [Fig. 2] revolving in the circumferences of the
circles BD, hd describe arcs BD, hd in the same time. By the action of
" 1 lyp oth fsis J. Ivemm.i r.
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 279
their innate forces alone they would describe tangents BC, he equal to
these arcs. The centripetal forces continuously pull back the bodies from
the tangents to the circumferences, and consequently are respectively as
the distances CD, cd by which the tangents exceed the circumferences,
BC~ hc^ BD^ bd^
that is, producing CD, cd to F and f, as — to or as T^^to .I
CF cf \C F w
speak of spaces BD, bd very small and infinitely decreased so that for
\CF, \ef it is permissible to write the radii SB, sb of the circles. Which
being done the proposition is established.
Corollary i. Hence centripetal forces are as the squares of the speeds
divided by the radii of the circles.
Corollary 2. And reciprocally as the squares of the periodic times divided
by the radii.
Corollary 3. Hence if the squares of the periodic times are as the radii
of the circles the centripetal forces are equal. And vice versa.
Corollary 4. If the squares of the periodic times are as the squares of the
radii the centripetal forces are inversely as the radii. And vice versa.
Corollary 5. If the squares of the periodic times are as the cubes of the
radii the centripetal forces are inversely as the squares of the radii. And
conversely.
Scholium. The case of the fifth corollary holds for the celestial bodies.
The squares of the periodic times are as the cubes of the distances from
the common centre around which they revolve. Astronomers are agreed
that this holds for the major planets circulating about the sun and for
the minor about Jupiter and Saturn.
Theorem 3**^
If the body P [Fig. 3] circulating about the centre 5 describes some
curved line APO , and if the straight line PR touches that curve in a
certain point P, and if from any other point O of the curve OR is drawn
to the tangent parallel” to S P and the perpendicular O T is dropped on
to the line SP: I say that the centripetal force will be inversely as the
SP^xOT^
ratio---- — , provided only the quantity of that ratio is always taken
as that which it becomes in the limit when the points P and O coincide.
For in the indefinitely small figure O R PT the little line OR varies for
a given time with the centripetal force,” and with the square of the time
 280 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 281
when the force is given,^ and therefore when neither is given varies along the tangent. In a spiral which cuts all its radii at a given angle a
conjointly as the centripetal force and the square of the time, that is as centripetal force directed to the eye of the spiral is inversely as the third
the centripetal force directly and the area S O P proportional to the time power of the distance, but at the actual eye there is no line of determinate
(or the double of this area S P x OT) squared. Let each side of this pro­ position which touches the spiral.
portionality be applied to the little line QR and the centripetal force and
SP^xQT^ Problem
together make unity, that is the centripetal force is inversely
QR Given a body revolving in the ellipse of the ancients, there is required
SP^xOT^ the law of centripetal force directed to the centre of the ellipse.
as - . Q.E.D.
QR Let CA, CB [Fig. 5] be the semi-axes of the ellipse, GP, D K conjugate
Corollary. Hence if any particular figure is given and a point in it to diameters, PF, Ot perpendiculars to the diameters, Q V the ordinate
which the centripetal force is directed, it can be found what law of centri­ applied to the diameter G P and Q VPR a parallelogram. By these con­
petal force makes the body revolve in the perimeter of that figure. structions it will follow (by conic sections) that PV. VG 'i^toQV^ as PC^
SP^xO T^ to and QV^ to Q u as PC^ to PF^,^^ and taking these ratios together
Clearly the ratio — proportional to this force is to be calculated.
PV. VG to OU as PC^ to CD^ and PC^ to PF^, that is VG to as PC^
We shall give examples of this result in the following problems.
CD^xPF^
to . Writing OR for P F “ and B C X CA for CD X PF, and also
Problem PC~^
If a body revolves in the circumference of a circle there is required the (since the points P and 0 coincide) 2PC for VG and multiplying the
law of centripetal force tending to a certain point in the circumference. extreme and middle terms together, there results
Let S Q P A [Fig. 4] be the circumference of the circle, S the centre OVXPC^ 2BC^-x CA^
of the centripetal force, P the body carried in the circumference, and Q OR PC
the next place into which it will be moved. Drop perpendiculars PK^ Q T 2BC^ x CA^
Therefore the centripetal force is inversely as PC , that is (since
to the diameter S A and to SP, and through O draw LR parallel to S P
cutting the circle in L and the tangent P R in R, and let TQ, P R meet 2BC^ x CA^ is given) as — that is directly as the distance PC. Q.E.I.
in Z. On account of the similarity of the triangles ZQR, ZT P , SPA,
RP^ (that is OR.RL) will be to QT^ as SA^ to SP^, Therefore Prob. 3^^
O R .R L x S P ^ Given a body revolving in an ellipse there is required the law of
OT^
SA^ centripetal force directed to a focus of the ellipse.
SP^ Let S [Fig. 5] be the superior focus of the ellipse. Draw S P cutting the
Multiplying these equal quantities by and writing S P for RL as the
QR diameter D K of the ellipse in E. E P evidently equals the semi-major axis
AC, for drawing H I parallel to E C from the other focus, H, of the ellipse,
points P and Q coincide, one has . Therefore the
^ ^ SA^ OR ES, E l are equal because of the equal lines CS, CH, so that EP is half
SPs the sum of PS, P I that is (on account of the parallels HI, PR and the
centripetal force is inversely as that is (since SA^ is given) as the
equal angles IPR, HPZ) of PS, PH which together make up the whole
fifth power of the distance SP. Q.E.I. axis 2^C. Drop the perpendicular Q T to SP. And calling the latus
Scholium.'^ Moreover in this and like cases it is to be supposed that
rectum of the ellipse |or j L, L x QR to L x P V will be as QR to P V
after the body reaches S it will not return again in its orbit but go off

® Lemma 2 . “ By Lemma 4 .
 282 ^rilE 'i 'R A C T DE MOTLJ IX
that is as P E (or A C ) to P C and L x P V to G V .V P as L to G V ar.d
G V .V P to Q V- as CP~ to CD~. And OV^ to as M to A^, say, and
Ox- to OT^ as EP^ to PF^, that is as CA^ to PF-, or“ as CD^ to CB-,
and taking all these ratios together L X Oi? to QT^ as A C to P C x L to
G V X CP^ to C D ^ x M to N x CD^ to CB^ that is as A C x L (or zBC^) to
P C x G V x CP^ to C B - x M to N, or z P C to G V x A l to N. But when
the points P and O coincide the ratios z P C to G V and M t o N both equal
unity: therefore the combined ratio of all these is L X OR to 0 T-. Multi­
plying both parts by there results L X S P ^ = . There­
t j ^ r j OR QJl
fore the centripetal force is inversely as Z>X S P - that is as the square
of the distance SP. Q.E.I.
Scholium. Therefore the major planets revolve in ellipses having a focus
in the centre of the sun and radii drawn to the sun describe areas pro­
portional to the times, all as supposed by Kepler. And the latera recta
OT-
of these planets equal the points Pand O being the least possible and
OR ^ similarly described and that other focus will be in all their circumferences,
as it were infinitely small distance apart.
Theorem 4'^
Given that the centripetal force is inversely proportional to the square
of the distance from the centre^® the squares of the periodic times in
ellipses vary as the cubes of the transverse axes.
Let A B [Fig. 6] be the transverse axis of the ellipse, P B the other axis,
L the latus rectum, S one of the foci, and suppose the circle PM D with
centre S and radius S P be drawn. And in the same time suppose the two
revolving bodies describe the elliptical arc PQ and the circular PM , the
centripetal force being directed to the focus S. PR, P N touch the ellipse
and the circle at P. Draw OR, Af A parallel to P S meeting the tangents in
R and iV. But the figures POR, P M N are indefinitely small so that (by
the Scholium to Problem 3) we have L X OR — OT^ and zSP^^ X MA^ =
MV^. On account of their common distance S P from the centre S and
the resulting equality of the centripetal forces MA' and OR are equal.22
Therefore O T- to MV^ is as L to zSP, and O T to M V as the mean pro­
portional between L and zS P or PD to zSPX^ That is the area S PO is
to the area S P M as the whole area of the ellipse to the whole area of the
circle.24 But the portions of area generated in individual moments are as
the areas SPO and SPM , and hence as the total areas, and hence when
" By Lemma 4.
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T H 283
multiplied by a [certain] number of moments become equal to the whole
areas. Therefore complete revolutions in ellipses are performed in the
same time as in circles whose diameters are equal to the transverse axes
of the ellipses.25 But (by Cor. 5 Theorem 2) the squares of the periodic
times in circles are as the cubes of the diameters. And so also in ellipses.
Q.E.D.
Scholium. Hence in the celestial system from the periodic times of
the Planets the proportions of the transverse axes of the orbits become
known. It will be permissible to assume [the magnitude] of one axis.
Then the others will be given. But if the axes are given the orbits will
be determined in this manner. Let S [Fig. 7] be the position of the sun
or one focus of the ellipse. A, B, C, D the positions of the planet found
from observation and O the transverse axis of the ellipse. With centre A
radius Q — A S let the circle EG be described and the other focus of the
ellipse will be in its circumference. With centres B, C, D, etc., and
distances O — B S , 0 ~ C S , 0 — D S etc., let so many other circles be
and so in their common intersection F. If all the intersections do not
coincide, the mean point will have to be taken for the focus. The con­
venience of this procedure is that very many observations can easily be
brought together and used to produce a single conclusion. Moreover the
individual position A, B, C, D etc., of the planet can be found from pairs
of observations, given the great orbit of the Earth, as shown by Halley.26
If that great orbit is not yet determined with sufficient accuracy,27 then
knowing it approximately the orbit of any other planet, for example
Mars, will be determined more accurately: Then from the orbit of the
planet the orbit of the Earth will be determined still more nearly: then
from the orbit of the Earth the orbit of the planet will be determined
more accurately than before: and so by turns until the intersections of
the circles in the focus of both orbits agree sufficiently well.28
By this method the orbits of the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn
can be determined, but the orbits of Venus and Mercury thus: from
observations made at the maximum separation of the planets from the
Sun the tangents of the orbits are given. To such a tangent K L [Fig. 8]
a perpendicular SL is dropped from the Sun and with centre L, and radius
the semi-axis of the ellipse, a circle K M is described. The centre of the
ellipse will be in the circumference of this circle,2‘>and so when several
circles have been described in this way the centre will be given by the
intersection of them all. Finally, knowing the dimensions of the orbits.
 284 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
the longitudes of these planets will be determined later more exactly by
their transit across the Sun’s disc.3°
Problem 431
Given that the centripetal force is inversely proportional to the square
of the distance, and knowing the magnitude of that force, required to
find the ellipse which a body describes when projected from a given point
with given velocity in a given straight line.
Suppose the centripetal force directed to the point S [Fig. 9] be such
that a body tt may be made to revolve in a circle ttx centre S with any
radius S tt?^ Suppose the body P be projected from the point P along
the line PR and is thereupon immediately deflected by the action of the
centripetal force into the ellipse PQ. P R therefore touches this ellipse
at P. Let the straight line np likewise touch the circle at tt, and let PR be
to TTp as the initial speed of the projected body P to the uniform speed of
the body tt.33 Draw RQ and px parallel to iSPand Sn, respectively, the
one cutting the circle in the other the ellipse in O, and from O and x
drop perpendiculars Q T and yT to S P and S t t . Then RQ is to px as the
centripetal force in P to the centripetal force at 77,34 that is as S tt^to SP^,
and so that ratio is given. The ratios Q T to RP^^ and R P to prr or x'T_ are
also given, and hence the composite ratio Q T to x"J- To this ratio squared
Q T^
apply the given ratio QR to xp and there will remain the known ratio
QR
X'~j2
to --A- that is (by Scholium Problem 3) the ratio of the latus rectum of
XP
the ellipse to the diameter of the circle. The latus rectum of the ellipse is
therefore known. Let that be L. The focus S of the ellipse is also known.
Let the angle R PH be the complement of the angle R P S to two right
angles, and the line P H in which the other focus lies is given as regards
position. Then the perpendicular S K to P H having been dropped and
the semi-minor axis B C being erected it follows that SP^— 2KP.PH-\^
PH^ = SH^ = = {S P + P H Y -L x{S P + P H ) =
2S P .P H + P H ^ ~ L {S P + P H ). Adding to both sides 2K P .P H +
L (S P + P H )-S P ^ -P H ^ there results L x { S P + P H ) = 2 P S .S H +
zK P .P H or S P + P H to P H as 2SP-^2K P to L. And so the other
focus H is known. But given one focus together with the transverse axis
SP-\-PH the ellipse is known. Q.E.I.
This is the way when the figure is an ellipse. But it can happen that
the body moves in a parabola ora hyperbola.3^ Thus if the speed of the
IX TH E T R A C T DE M O T U 285
body is such that the latus rectum L equals 2SP-\-2KP, the figure will
be a parabola having its focus in the point S and all its diameters parallel
to PH. If the body is projected with even greater speed, it will be moved
in a hyperbola having one focus in the point S and the other in a point H
chosen on the other side of the point P, and having its transverse axis
equal to the difference between P S and PH.
Scholium. Now truly with the help of the solution of this problem it
is possible to define the orbit of comets, and thence their periodic times,
and by comparison of the orbital magnitudes, eccentricities, aphelions,
inclinations to the plane of the eclipse, and nodes to recognise if the same
comet returns to us frequently. Certainly from four observations of the
comet’s position on the hypothesis that the comet moves uniformly in a
straight line37its rectilinear path may be determined. 38 Let that [path] be
A P B D [Fig. 10], and let A, P, B, D be the positions of the comet at the
times of observation, and S the position of the sun. Now imagine the
comet projected from the point P with that speed with which it uniformly
traverses the line AD , and constrained immediately by the centripetal
force to deviate from the straight path and go off into the ellipse Pbda.
This ellipse is to be determined as in the above problem .39 In it let a, P, b, d
be the places of the comet at the times of observation. The longitude and
latitude of these points relative to the Earth are known. By how much
greater or less than these are the longitudes and latitudes of observation,
so much greater or less than observation are the new longitudes and
latitudes to be chosen. From these new [positions] the rectilinear path of
the comet is to be found anew, and hence the elliptical path as before.
And the four new positions in the elliptical path diminished or increased
by the former errors now agree well enough with observation.4^ But if it
happens that sensible errors still remain the whole process can be repeated.
And that the calculation may not be burdensome to astronomers it will
suffice to determine everything by geometrical drawing.
But it is difficult to assign the areas aSP, PSb, bSd, proportional to
the times. On the major axis EG [Fig. 11] of the ellipse let the semicircle
EHG be described. Let the angle E CH be set proportional to the time.
Draw SH and C K parallel to it cutting the circle in K . Join H K and (by
a table of segments or secants) make the triangle S K N equal to the cir­
cular segment H K M . Drop N Q perpendicular to EG, and in it choose
PQ to N Q as the minor to the major axis of the ellipse, and the point P
will lie on the ellipse, and the line 5 P having been drawn an area E P S of
the ellipse is cut off proportional to the time. For the area H SN M
 286 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
increased by the triangle S N K and diminished by the equal segment
H K M makes up the triangle H SK , that is the equal triangle H SC . To
these equal parts add the area E S H making the areas EH N S and EH C
equal. Since therefore the sector EH C is proportional to the time, and
the area E P S proportional to EHNS,^^ the area E P S will also be pro­
portional to the time.
Problem 5^2
Given that the centripetal force is inversely proportional to the square
of the distance from the centre to define the spaces described in given
times by a body falling straight to the centre.
If the body does not fall down perpendicularly let it describe an
ellipse, A P B say [Fig. 12] whose inferior focus, say S, coincides with the
centre [of force]. This follows from what has already been proved. On
the major axis A B of the ellipse let the semicircle A D B be described, and
through the falling body passes the line D P C perpendicular to the
axis, and D S, P S being drawn, the area A S D will be proportional to the
area A S P and so also to the time. Retaining the a.xis A B let the width
of the ellipse be decreased steadily, and the area A S D will always remain
proportional to the time. Let the width be decreased indefinitely and the
orbit A P B now coinciding with the axis AB , and the focus S with the
end B of the axis, the body descends in the straight line A C and the area
A B D comes out proportional to the time. And so the space A C which
the body describes in falling perpendicularly from the position A in a.
given time may be defined, provided only the area A B D is taken propor­
tional to the time, and from the point D the perpendicular D C is let fall
to the line AB . Q.E.F.
Scholium. By the preceding problem the motions of projectiles in our
air are defined, and the motions of heavy bodies falling perpendicularly
on the hypothesis that gravity is inversely proportional to the square of
the distance from the centre of the earth and that the medium of the air
in no wise resists. For gravity is one species of centripetal force.
Problem
To define the motion of a body carried along by its innate force alone
in a uniformly resisting medium.
Let a hyperbola be described with rectangular asymptotes A D C , CH
[Fig. 13] cutting the perpendiculars AB , D C in B, G. I.et both the speed
of the body and the resistance of the medium at the beginning of the
motion be represented by the line A C , and after some lapse of time by
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 287
the line DC, then the time may be represented by the area A B G D and
the space described in that time by the line AD. For the resistance of the
medium is proportional to the speed, and the decrease of the speed is
proportional to the resistance,44 that is, if the time is divided into equal
parts, the speeds at the beginnings of these parts are proportional to
their differences. Therefore the speed decreases in geometrical propor­
tion^* as the time increases in arithmetical proportion. But such is the
decrease of the lines D C and the increase of the area AB G D , as is well
known. Therefore the time can properly be represented by the area and
the speed by that line. Q.E.D. Moreover the increment of the space
described is proportional to the speed and so to the decrement of the
speed; but the increment of the line A D is proportional to the decrement
of the line DC. Therefore the increment of the space is represented by
the increment of the line AD, and thus the space itself is rightly repre­
sented by that line. Q.E.D.
Problem 7^5
Given a uniform centripetal force, to define the motion of a body
ascending and descending rectilinearly in a uniformly resisting medium.
I'or the ascending body let the centripetal force be represented by a
certain given rectangle B C [Fig. 14] and the resistance of the medium at
the beginning of the ascent by the rectangle BD taken on the other side.
With rectangular asymptotes A C , CH let an hyperbola be drawn through
the point B cutting the perpendiculars DE, de in G, g, and the body in
ascending in time DGgd covers a distance EGge, and in time D G BA the
space of the whole ascent EGB, and in time AB^G^D a distance of de­
scent BE^G, and in time ^D^G^g^d the space of descent ^GEe^g: and the
speed of the body, proportional to the resistance of the medium, will be
in the ends of these times ABED , ABed, zero, ABE^D, ABe^d ; and so the
greatest speed that the body is able to acquire in descending will be BC.
For if the rectangle A H [Fig. 15] is split up into innumerable rectangles
Ak, Kl, Lm, Mn etc., which are proportional to the increments of the
speed made in the like number of equal times, then Ak, Al, Am, An etc.
will be as the total speeds and therefore'^ as the resistances of the medium
at the end of the individual equal times. So that A C is to A K , or A B H C
to A B k K as the centripetal force to the resistance at the end of the first
time, and ABH C, KkH C, LIHC, NnHC etc., will be as the absolute
forces by which the body is impelled, and so as the increments of the
L e m m a [ 3 ]. Hypothesis.
 288 THE T R A C T DE M OTU IX
speed, that is as the rectangles Ak, Kl, Lm, Mn etc., and hence" in
geometrical progression. Therefore if the lines Kk, LI, Mm, Nn produced
meet the hyperbola in rj. A, v etc., the areas AB-qK, KqXL, LXjxM,
MixvN etc., will be equal, and so analogous both to the equal times and
to the constantly equal centripetal forces. Subtracting the areas Ak, Kl,
Lm, Mn analogous to the total forces there remain the areas Bkq, kqXl,
IXfxm, mfxvn etc., analogous to the resistances of the medium at the end
of the individual times, that is to the speeds and so to the spaces
described. Taking the sum of analogous parts the areas Bkq, BIX, Bmfx,
Bnv etc., will be analogous to the total spaces described, and besides the
areas A B qK , ABXL, ABjxM, ABvN etc., will be analogous to the times.
The body therefore in descending for a certain time ABXL covers a dis­
tance BIX, and for a time LX(in a distance Xlnv [sic]. Q.E.D. And the
demonstration of the motion in ascending is similar to that just given.
Scholium. By the help of the last two problems the movements of pro­
jectiles in our air are known on the hypothesis that the air is homogeneous
and that gravity acts uniformly and in parallel straight lines. For if the
total motion of the body is separated into two, the one ascent or descent,
the other a progressive horizontal one; the latter motion will be deter­
mined by Problem 6, and the former by Problem 7, as in this diagram.
Let the body be projected from any place D [Fig. 16] along any line
DP, and let its speed at the beginning of the motion be represented by
the length DP. From the point P let the perpendicular P C be dropped
to the horizontal line DC, so that the ratio of the perpendicular C l to
D A is as the resistance of the medium at the beginning of the motion
to the force of gravity. Erect the perpendicular A B of any length and
having completed the parallelograms D ABE, C A B H describe through
the point B an hyperbola with asymptotes DC, C P cutting in G. Take
the ratio of line n to EG as D C to CP, and at any point R of the line D C
erect a perpendicular R tT cutting the hyperbola in T and the line EH
. j . . , DvtE—DRTBG r r ii 1 • -i •
m t, and m it take Rr = ------------------ . 1 hen the projectile in time
n 1 . See V . H I , D e f. i . It is fittin g that N e w to n should b egin w ith the definition
D R TB G will arrive at the point r, describing a curved line DarFK
which always touches the point r, reaching also to its maximum altitude
a in the line AB , and from thence encountering the horizontal line D C
at F (where the areas DFsE, D F S B G are equal) and afterwards always
approaching the asymptote PH CL. And its speed at any point r is pro­
portional to the tangent to the curve rL.
" Lemma 3 .
IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 289
If the ratio of the resistance of the air to the force of gravity is not yet
known, the angles AD P, AFr in which the curve DarFk cuts the
horizontal line D C may be discovered (by some experiment). On DE
let a rectangle DFsE of any altitude be drawn and a rectangular
hyperbola of such a form that one of its asymptotes is DF, that the areas
DFsE, D F S B G are equal, and that 56” be to EG as the tangent of the
angle AFr to the tangent of the angle AD P. From the centre C of this
hyperbola drop a perpendicular C l to the line DP, and from the point B
where the curve cuts the line Es drop a perpendicular B A to the line DC,
and the ratio sought for, namely the initial resistance of the medium to
the gravity of the projectile, will be given by D A to C l. All which things
may easily be sought out from what has already been proved. And there
are other methods of determining the resistance of the air which I gladly
pass over. However, after this resistance has been determined in one case
it is to be taken in all others proportional jointly to the velocity and the
surface of the sphere (for I assume throughout the projectiles to be
spherical) whereas the force of gravity is known through the weight. And
so the ratio of the resistance to the gravity on the line D A to the line C l
is always known. By this ratio and the angle A D P the form of the figure
D arFKLP is determined and taking the length D P proportional to the
velocity of the projectile on the point D its size; so that the altitude Aa
of the maximum elevation of the projectile and the length D F of the
horizontal length between the ascent and face of the projectile are
always in proportion, and so the length D F measured once in the open
determines both the length D F itself and all the dimensions of the figure
DarFK which the projectile describes in the open. But in calculating
these dimensions logarithms are to be used in place of the hyperbolic
area DRTBG.
By the same argument may be determined the motion of bodies moving
in water under the simultaneous action of gravity or levity and any
other force.
o f vim centripetam giv en that the central proposition correspon din g to K e p le r ’s
first tw o laws o f p lanetary m otion is concerned w ith such forces. It is interest­
in g also that now here in an y versions o f the tract de M o tu does N ew to n em p loy
the term centrifugal force.
2. See V . H I , D e f. 2.
3. See V . H I , D e f. 3.
4. T h e corresponding version o f this hypothesis in V . H I is at L e x 5. T h e
definition o f resistance proportional to the v elocity corresponds to that used in
Prob. 6, 7.
 290 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 291
5. See V . I l l , Lex i. 22. Sin ce th ey are the deviations from the inertial paths p roduced b y ecjual
6. A rather obscure form ulation o f the p arallelogram law for the com position forces in equal tim es.
o f indep en den t m otions given as Lemma i in V . I I I . Q TJ _ L QT
^ {L IzS P ) - ^j{{L K z S F ) ! { z S P - ) ]
7. C o rrespo n din g to K e p le r ’s second law o f planetary m otion. N o tic e the M V^ ■ ■ zS P M V
absence o f any reference in the enunciation to the planar nature o f the m otion QT PD
b u t V (T . z S P ) = \!{{2b~la)';<2a)} = 2b = P D .'.
8. N o tic e the absence o f an y ju stification o f this beautiful construction w h ich M V zS P '
depends on an application o f the parallelogram law referred to in the correspon d­ A re a S P Q QT PD 77 P D S P A rea of ellipse
24.
in g Prop. I, T h e o r . i , in the lectures de Motii and the Principia. T h e o n ly place A re a S P M M V z S P "" 2 tt S P ^A rea o f circle
w here the ju stification is giv en in detail is in the L o ck e c o p y o f the original o f 25. In other w ords, if is the com m on tim e to describe areas S P Q and
M S. V III. , ,1- . • . A A re a o f ellipse
S P M , the tim es o f revolution in the ellipse and circle are M x — 7------ >
9. C o rresp o n d in g to Prop. 4, T h e o r . 4, o f the lectures de Motu and the Prin­ A re a S P Q
cipia and to the sam e p roposition in V . I I I . T h e germ o f the p resent p ro o f has
M X ^---------respectively, and these are equal ow in g to the result
already been n oted in M S . IV a . B u t n o w all m en tion o f centrifugal conatus has A re a o f S P M
disappeared, the deviation CD, cd, directed to the centre, and n ot aw ay from it as A rea o f S P Q A rea o f ellipse
in M S . IV a g iv in g the measures o f the correspon din g centripetal forces. I t is also A re a o f S P M A re a o f circle
n otew orth y that ( i) neither here n or in the lectures de Motu nor the Principia is
an y ju stification offered for the proportionality betw een the deviation and the N o te that the specially favourable choice o f P at the end o f the m in or axis does
centripetal force, (2) the fact that the directions o f the ‘ deviation ’ are n ot quite n ot invalidate the p ro of since the central nature o f the force ensures that the
parallel to those o f the forces is ignored. F o r a discussion o f N e w to n ’s use o f the rates o f description o f area in b o th the circle and the ellipse are constant.
‘d eviatio n ’ as a m easure o f force see above Part I, C h a p ter 1.3, p p . 1 9 -2 2 . 26. I have been unable to trace the m etho d referred to here b y N ew to n .
10. C o rrespo n d in g to the sam e proposition in V . I l l , and to Prop. 5, T h e o r . 5, 27. Im p ly in g that the transverse axis is o n ly kn ow n approxim ately, and
o f the lectures de Motu (M S . X I ) . likew ise the positions A , B , C , D , so that the various circles w ill not quite
1 1. N o tic e the difference betw een this m etho d o f constructin g the ‘d e via tio n ’ intersect in a single point.
and that em p loyed in Prop. 2. 28. T h e success o f the m ethod sketched w o u ld depend on the convergence
12. O n ce again, as in Prop. 2, no ju stification is given for this assum ption. o f the series o f approxim ations w h ich w o u ld in turn be in dicated b y an im pro ve­
13. C o rrespo n din g to the same p roblem in V . I l l , and to Prop. 7, Prob. i, o f m en t in the closeness o f intersection o f the circles for the E arth and the Planet.
the lectures de Motu. N o n ew points o f dyn am ical interest arise in this and the 29. A s follow s at once from the bisector p ro perty o f the tan gen t and the
tw o su bsequ en t problem s. result S P + P H = za .
14. N o tic e the m asterly w a y in w h ich N e w to n deals w ith the m otion o f the 30. T h e im portance o f the transit o f an inferior p lanet across the sun’ s disc
Scholium is m issin g from
b o d y after reach ing the centre o f force. C u rio u sly this for determ in ing its true apparent m agn itude was recognized b y H orrox as early
the correspon din g problem in the lectures de Motu and the Principia. as 1639. See the extract in S h ap le y and H o w arth [i], p p . 58 -62 .
15. C o rrespo n din g to the same p roblem in \'^ III, and to the Scholium to 31. Co rrespo n din g to the same proposition in V . I l l , to Prop. 16, Prob. 8, o f
Prop. 7, Prob. 2, o f the lectures de Motu. the continuation to M S . X I , and to Prop. 17, Prob. g. B ook I, P rin cip ia
16. N o tic e how fundam ental this result was for N e w to n ’s treatm en t o f the ( is t edn.).
ellipse. 32. B u t to k n o w this circular m otion its uniform speed m u st have been
17. S in ce the angles QtV, PFC are rig h t angles, and LQVt = Z PCF by observed, or the exact form ulae for centripetal force, in clu d in g the mass d e p en ­
parallels. dence, m u st be know n. T h is represents a weakness o f the present m ethod.
18. T h e fact that N e w to n nam es this central proposition, corresponding to 33. T h u s ensuring that the arcs P Q , ttx are described in equal times.
K e p le r ’s first law o f p lanetary m otion, a problem is an indication o f the extrem e 34. Sin ce these deviations are generated in equal tim es, as noted in note
logicality o f his th o u g h t and n ot o f any failure to realize its im portance, as b e ­ 33 above.
comes evident from the Scholium. See the same proposition in V ersion I I I and 35. T h is ratio b ein g the tan gen t o f the given inclination o f the initial p ath to
Prop. 8, Prob. 5, o f the lectures de Motu. I t w ill be n oticed that apart from the SP.
tw o results for ellipses already em p loyed in Prob. 2, viz. that referred to in note 36. It w o u ld be interesting to kn ow how N e w to n arrived at this result.
16, and the co nstan cy o f the area o f circu m scribed parallelogram s, the o n ly n ew P o ssibly it was on the basis o f the im m ed iately su cceed ing consideration o f the
properties em p loyed are those o f the tan gen t bisectin g the exterior angle ratio o f z S P h 2 K P to L .
form ed b y the focal lines through its p oin t o f contact, and o f the sum o f the two 37. R igau d [i], p. 29, took this to m ean that N e w to n still b elieved in recti­
focal distances b ein g equal to the len gth o f the m ajor axis. linear paths for com ets at the tim e o f com posin g the tract de M o tu in spite o f the
19. C o rrespo n din g to the same p roposition in V . I l l , and to the rather deduction o f the elliptical paths o f the planets in that work. B u t an exam ination
different p ro o f in Prop. 15, T h e o r . 7 , o f the lectures de Motu. o f the su cceed in g argum en t show s that the rectilinear hypoth esis is only em ­
20. M e a n in g the centre o f force as opp osed to the centre o f the ellipse. p lo yed as a first approxim ation to the actual elliptical orbit. T h e p roblem o f
21. 7 / for a circle b ein g equal to the diameter. com ets caused N e w to n m uch trouble— witness the fo llo w in g passage in his
 PLATE 5
292 THE T R A C T DE M O T V IX
\ U T>';,
letter o f 20 June 1686 to H a lley : T h e third zvatits y e T heory o f C om ets, h i A u tu m n
last [r6tS\5] I spent tzvo months in calculations to no purpose fo r zvant o f a good
m ethod. . . . H is treatm ent o f the problem in the P rin cip ia ((is t edn.), B ook H I ,
p p. 4 7 4 -e n d ) is pure!}’ m athem atical and is free from the weakness o f the present
m ethod w ith its assum ption o f an exact kn ow ledge o f the central force. It is
based on the su bstitu tion o f an approxim ate parabolic path for the actual
elliptical orbit o f the com et. T h is was p resu m ably the good m ethod N e w to n had
searched for in vain in the autum n o f 1685.
38. A s shown, for exam ple, b y N e w to n in Prob. 56 o f his A rith m etica U n iv er­
salis, a reference g iv e n b y R igau d [i], p. 29.
39. A s poin ted ou t above (note 32), this assumes a kn ow ledge o f the actual
value o f the cen trifugal force w h ich cou ld scarcely have been available to
'“H
N ew to n . I* J- ijf
40. It is n ot clear w h y the n ew elliptical p osition should be increased or d e­
creased b y the form er errors. N o r is it at all certain that the com plicated double
process o f approxim ation here envisaged w o u ld necessarily converge tow ards t .* v ^ vi.
the p ath o f the com et.
C-rl-
4 1. F ro m the m etho d o f construction o f the ellipse it follows that

A rea E H N Q a ^ A rea S N Q
so that b y subtraction
A rea E P Q ^ b‘ A rea S P Q
* «».v£ci
Area ^ N S _ ' ■— * cXmd*^.*4tx.
A r ea E P E ~ ree/* (Sc ^
42. C o rresp o n d in g to the same p roblem in V . H I , to Prop. 21, Prob. 13, o f the t y^u - Jv* *<«.w**< ^ ^
continuation jS^to M S . X I , and to Prop. 32, Prob. 24, Book I, Prin cip ia ( is t edn.).
43. C o rrespo n din g to the same problem in V . H I , and to Prop. 2, T h e o r . 2,
fc cL fic , r j m . a ^
B ook I I , P rin cip ia ( i st edn.). T h e interest o f this and the succeed ing p ro blem is
largely m athem atical. For a detailed interpretation in terms o f the calculus see
f
'T }’0«
Correspondence, vol. ii, pp. 4 5 9 -6 2.
■ y\e/04 VC A«-
44. F ro m the second law o f m otion.
45. C o rrespo n din g to the same p roblem in V . H I , and to Prop. 3, Prob. i.
Prop. 4, Prob. 2, o f B ook I I , P rin cip ia ( i st edn.).
A«cc A.v^r^ ----------- 5^'^ ^

2. C o m p a r is o n of V ersions I an d II I u , .j
In the first place, it is clear that V. II must have been composed after
X , Ct-rluf-wCCHi ii^grW ,
V. I. This is conclusively proved by the fact that with one exception
wherever there are deletions in V. I, V. II follows the final rather than
the original draft. Apart from this the texts of the two versions are so Cthpmym. **
nearly identical wherever they can be compared that V. II must have
been copied directly from V. I, or from another manuscript elTectively
identical with the emended draft of that version. And the one exception $ c jc L r
referred to above (note hg-hg) in which V. II follows the original <^>v« p>.fjp9 Ur
rather than the final draft of V. I, makes it probable that V. II was ' ^ ‘^ '■ '‘ - y ..— r-/’-. <Oi» Jut sH
^ c i. , Q ^ CH, id . rH * T <tl f
actually copied from V. I. V. II is also definitely not in Newton’s hand. ^^ ^«.0 ^ ^ 11^ _ ^
There are, however, a certain number of substantial differences -h ;" - 4-c-r ir c r , i ./
h 04
between the two versions: e n s U P Y r»jp0h'C tf ,

T h e first folio o f the tract de M o tu

IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 293
(«) Following the definitions and hypotheses in V. II— identical with
those in V. I— there is a complete list of the enunciations of the theorems
and problems of V. I. The corollaries to Theorem 2 are given in this list
and not after the theorem itself, as in V. I. Also, the enunciations to the
two lemmas numbered 3 and 4 are found at the end of the list. These
agree with those in V. III.
(b) The Scholium to Prop. 2 of V. I is absent from V. II.
{c) V. II lacks the last two problems of V. I though the enunciations
of these are given in the preliminary list of contents.
{d) Unlike the free-hand diagrams in V. I those in V. II were drawn
with instruments and differ in certain respects from those in V. I. For
example, T and t are interchanged in diagram 5 (note t^), and with one
exception (note rg) care has been taken to allow for this in the subsequent
proof (note b2). Also in Diag. 9 of V. II K lies on H P produced as op­
posed to between H and P as in V. I. Once again careful allowance has
been made for this possibility by the appropriate introduction of + and
— signs (notes Zo, bg).
(e) Certain insertions in V. I are missing from V. II but given in V. I ll
(notes pi-pi, Ui, Zi^Zi).
Apart from the differences noted above there are a certain number of
unimportant differences between the two versions such as small variations
in spelling, punctuation and use of capital letters, the use of ii in place
of ij, the absence of footnotes in V. II, and the omission in V. II of a
small number of words.
T o summarize: with the exception of that part of the list of contents
after the definitions and hypotheses, and the absence of the last two
problems, V. II was copied from V. I or another effectively identical
manuscript. This copying took place before the composition of V. I ll
((e) above) although the enunciations of Lemmas 3 and 4 in V. II were
presumably added after the composition of V. III. The copyist was
evidently something more than a mere amanuensis, for he had a real
acquaintance with mathematics, as evidenced by the changes noted in
notes Zo, bg, and also with Latin, as witness his attempts to improve the
clarity of the text— see note Vg. For some reason or other he omitted
the whole of the Scholium to Theor. 2, possibly an oversight. Judging
by the presence of their enunciations in the preliminary list. Problems
6 and 7 formed part of V. II originally, but have since become separated
from it.
It must be emphasized finally that V. II nowhere goes beyond V. I as
 294 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX IX 4'HE T R A C T DE M O T U 295
regards dynamical content. Its interest, if any, is therefore purely his­ Lex 5.'^ Resistentiam medii esse ut medii illius densitas et corporis
torical. In fact, a case can be made out for identifying it with the originals moti sphaerica superficies et velocitas conjunctim.
of the set of propositions carried by Paget from Newton to Halley towards Lemma Corpus viribus conjunctis diagonalem parallelogrammi
the end of 1684. A discussion of this is given above in Part I, Chapter 6.6. codem tempore describere quo latera separatis.
Si corpus dato tempore vi sola m [Fig. i] ferretur ab A ad 5 , et vi sola
n ab A ad C, compleatur parallelogrammum A B D C , et vi utraque
3. V ersion III feretur id eodem tempore ab A ad D. Nam quoniam vis n agit secundum
De Motu Sphaericorum Corporum in fluidis lineam A C ipsi BD parallelam, haec vis, per Legem 2, nihil mutabit

Except for the small number of variants already noted in the alpha­ C
betical footnotes in § i, the greater part of V. I l l is a faithful copy of the
final emended draft of V, I. There are, however, some substantial
additions in V. I l l compared with V. I. Some of these represent impor­
tant conceptual advances in Newton’s dynamical thought, such as the
change in status of the parallelogram law from an hypothesis in V. I to
a derived lemma in V. III. These additions are reproduced below with
relevant footnotes in three sections. Section A consists of the preparatory
definitions, laws, and lemmas of V. III. These are largely new although
certain of the definitions and axioms of V. I reappear in the same or
slightly different guise. The remaining sections B and C represent two
Figure i.
large insertions in V. I ll compared with V. I.
celeritatem accedendi ad lineam illam B D vi altera impressam. Accedet
A igitur corpus eodem tempore ad lineam BD sive vis A C imprimatur
sive non, atque adeo in fine illius temporis reperietur alicubi in linea ilia
Def. 1.^ Vim centripetam appello qua corpus attrahitur vel impellitur
BD. Eodem argumento in fine temporis ejusdem reperietur alicubi in
versus punctum aliquod quod ut centrum spectator,
linea CD, et proinde in utriusque lineae concursu D reperiri necesse est.
Def. 2,^ Et vim corporis seu corpori insitam qua id conatur perseverare
in motu suo secundum lineam rectam. Lemma 2.^^ Spatium quod corpus urgente quacunque vi centripeta
Def. 3.^ Et resistentiam quae est medii regulariter impedientis. ipso motus initio describit esse in duplicata ratione temporis.
Def. 4.^ Exponentes quantitatum sunt aliae quaevis quantitates pro- Exponantur tempora per lineas AB , A D [Fig. 2]. Datis Ah, Ad pro-
portionales expositis. portionales,^- et urgente vi centripeta aequabili exponentur spatia
Lex I.'"' 5 Sola vi insita corpus uniformiter in linea recta semper per- descripta per areas rectilineas ABT", A D H perpendiculis BF, DH, et
gere si nil impediat. recta quavis A F H terminatas, ut exposuit Galilaeus.'^ Urgente autem vi
Lex 2.^ Mutationem^ status movendi vel quicscendi proportionalem centripeta inaequabili exponantur spatia descripta per areas ABC, ADE,
esse vi impressae et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis ilia imprimitur. curva quavis A C E quam recta A F H tangit in A, comprehensas. Age
Lex 3.^ Corporum dato spatio inclusorum eosdem esse motus inter rectam AE, parallelis BF', bf, dh occurrentem in G, g, e, et ipsis bf, dh
se sive spatium illud quiescat sive moveat id perpetuo et uniformiter in occurrat A F H producta in / et h. Quoniam area A B C major est area
directum absque motu circulari. A B F, minor area AB G , et area curvilinea A D E C major area AD H
Lex Mutuis corporum actionibus commune centrum gravitatis non minor area ADFJG, erit area A B C ad aream AD E G major quam area
mutare statum suum motus vel quietis. Constat ex Lege 2. ABF' ad aream ADEG, minor quam area A B G ad aream ADH, hoc est
 296 THE T R A C T DE M O T U
major quam area A bf ad aream Ade, minor quam area Abg ad aream
Adh. Diminuantur jam lineae A B , A D in ratione sua data usque dum
puncta Al, B, D coeunt, et linea Ae conveniet cum tangente Ah, adeoque
ultimae rationes A bf ad Ade et Abg ad Adh evadent eaedem cum ratione
A bf ad Adh. Sed haec ratio est dupla rationis Ab ad Ad, seu A B ad AD.
Ergo ratio A B C ad A D E C ultimis illis intermedia jam fit dupla rationis
A B ad AD, id est ratio ultima evanescentium spatiorum seu prima
nascentium dupla est rationis temporum."
Lemma 3. Quantitates difFerentiis suis proportionales sunt continue
proportionales.
Ponatur A ad A —B ut B ad B — C, tt C ad C —^D etc. et dividendo
fiet A ad B ut B ad C, et C ad D, etc.
Lemma 4. Parallelogramma omnia circa datam ellipsin descripta esse
inter se aequalia.
Constat ex Conicis.
Next come eleven propositions. The first nine of them are headed De
motu corporum in medijs non resistentibus. The last two are headed De motu
corporum in medijs resistentibus. Except for the following additions, the
text is substantially the same as that in Version I.
IX IX THE T R A C T DE M O T U 297
B
At the end of the Scholium to Theorem 4 is the following paragraph;
Caeterum totum coeli Planetarij Spatium vel quiescit (ut vulgo
creditor) vel uniformiter movetur in directum et perinde Planetarum
commune centrum gravitatis (per Legem'^ 4) vel quiescit vel una move­
tur. Utroque in casu motus Planetarum inter se (per Legem'' 3) eodem
modo se habent, et eorum commune centrum gravitatis respectu spatij
totius quiescit, atque adeo pro centro immobili Systematis totius
Planetarij haberi debet. Inde vero systema Copernicaeum probatur a
priori. Nam si in quovis Planetarum situ computetur commune centrum
gravitatis hoc vel incidet in corpus Solis vel ei semper proximum erit.
Eo Solis a centro gravitatis errore fit ut vis centripeta non semper
tendat ad centrum illud immobile, et inde ut planetae nec moveantur in
Ellipsibus exacte neque bis revolvant in eadem orbita. Tot sunt orbitae
Planetae cujusque quot revolutiones, ut fit in motu Lunae et pendet
orbita unaquaeque ab omnium Planetarum motibus conjunctis, ut
taceam eorum omnium actiones in se invicem. Tot autem motuum
causas simul considerare et legibus exactis calculum commodum admit-
tentibus motus ipsos definire superat ni fallor vim omnium humani
i ng enii .Omi tt e minutias illas et orbita simplex et inter omnes errores
mediocris erit Ellipsis de qua jam egi. Siquis hanc Ellipsin ex tribus
observationibus per computum trigonometricum (ut solet) determinate
tentaverit, hie minus caute rem aggressus fuerit. Participabunt observa-
tiones iliac de minutijs motuum irregularium hie negligendis adeoque
Ellipsin de justa sua magnitudine et positione (quae inter omnes errores
mediocris esse debet) aliquantulum deflectere facient, atque tot dabunt
Ellipses ab invicem discrepantes quot adhibentur observationes trinae.
Conjungendae sunt igitur et una operatione inter se conferendae obser­
vationes quam plurimae, quae se mutuo contemperent et Ellipsin
positione et magnitudine mediocrem exhibeant.
C
At the end of problem 5 and before problem 6 is the following
Scholium:
Schol. Hactenus motum corporum in medijs non resistentibus exposui;
id adeo ut motus corporum coelestium in aethere determinarem.
Aetheris enim puri resistentia quantum sentio vel nulla est vel perquam
exigua. Valide resistit argentum vivum, longe minus aqua, aer vero longe
 298 THE T R A C T DE M O T U
adhuc minus.'5 Pro densitate sua quae ponderi fere proportionalis est
atque adeo (paene dixerim) pro quantitate materiae suae crassae resistunt
haec media. Minuatur igitur aeris materia crassa et in eadem circiter
proportione minuetur medij resistentia usque dum ad aetheris tenuitatem
perventum sit. Celeri cursu equitantes vehementer aeris resistentiam
sentiunt, at ^^navigantes exclusis e mari interiore ventis'*^ nihil omnino ex
aethere praeterfluente patiuntur. Si aer libere interflueret particulas
corporum et sic ageret, non modo in externam totius superficiem, sed etiam
in superficies singularum partium, longe major foret ejus resistentia.
Interfluit aether liberrime nec tamen resistit sensibiliter. Cometas
infra orbitam Saturni descendere jam sentiunt Astronomi saniores quot-
quot distantias eorum ex orbis magni parallaxi praeterpropter colligere
norunt; hi igitur celeritate immensa in omnes coeli nostri partes in-
differenter feruntur, nec tamen vel crinem seu vaporem capiti circum-
datum resistentia aetheris impeditum et abreptum amittunt. Planetae
vero jam per annos millenos in motu suo perseverarunt, tantum abest
ut impedimentum sentiant.
Demonstratis igitur legibus reguntur motus in coelis. Sed et in aere
nostro, si resistentia ejus non consideratur, innotescunt motus proje-
ctilium per Prob. 4 et motus gravium perpendiculariter cadentium per
Prob. 5 posito nimirum quod gravitas sit reciproce proportionalis qua-
drato distantiae a centro terrae. Nam virium centripetarum species una
est gravitas; et computanti mihi prodijt vis centripeta qua luna nostra
detinetur in motu suo menstruo circa terram ad vim gravitatis his in
superficie terrae, reciproce ut quadrata distantiarum a centro terrae
quamproxime.^^ Ex horologij oscillatorij motu tardiore in cacumine
montis praealti quam in valle liquet etiam gravitatem ex aucta nostra
a terrae centro distantia diminui, sed qua proportione nondum obser-
vatum est.
Caeterum projectilium motus in aere nostro referendi sunt ad im-
mensum et revera immobile coelorum spatium, non ad spatium mobile
quod una cum terra et aere nostro convolvitur et a rusticis ut immobile
spectator. Invenienda est Ellipsis quam projectile describit in spatio illo
vere immobili et inde motus ejus in spatio mobili determinandus. Hoc
pacto colligitur grave, quod de aedificij sublimis vertice demittitur,
inter cadendum deflectere aliquantulum a perpendiculo, ut et quanta sit
ilia deflexio et quam in partem. Et vicissim ex deflexione experimentis
comprobata colligitur motus terrae. Cum ipse olim hanc deflexionem
Clarissimo Hookio significarem,^^ is experimento ter facto rem ita se
IX IX THE T R A C T DE MOTU 299
habere conlirmavit, deflectente semper gravi a perpendiculo versus
orientem et austrum ut in latitudine nostra boreali oportuit.
a. In this an d the other lazvs L e x has been substituted f o r H y p . deleted.
b. P reced ed by insertion M o tu u m gen itu m deleted.
c. R eplacin g H y p . deleted.
Translation
The Motion of Spherical Bodies in Fluids
A
Definition i . H call centripetal that force by which a body is attracted or
impelled towards any point which is regarded as a centre [of force].
Definition 2.^ And I call that the force of a body or the force innate in a
body by reason of which it endeavours to persist in its motion along a
straight line.
Definition 3.^ And the resisting force that arising from the steadily
impeding medium.
Definition The representatives of quantities are any other quantities
proportional to those under consideration.
Law 1.5 By its innate force alone a body will always proceed uniformly
in a straight line provided nothing hinders it.
Law 2.^ The change in the state of movement or rest [of a body] is pro­
portional to the impressed force and takes place along the straight line
in which that force is impressed.
Law 3.^ The relative motions of two bodies contained in a given space
are the same whether the space in question rests or moves perpetually
and uniformly in a straight line without circular motion.
Law 4.^ By the mutual actions between bodies the common centre of
gravity does not change its state of motion or rest. It follows from Law 2.
Law 5.'^ The resistance of a medium is proportional conjointly to the
density of the medium, the speed, and the spherical surface of the body
moved.
Lemma A body acted on simultaneously by [two] forces describes the
diagonal of a parallelogram in the same time as it would the sides if the
forces acted separately.
If the body were carried in a given time from A [Fig. i] to B by the
force m alone, and from A to C by the force n alone, then completing the
 300 THE T R A C T DE M O T U IX
parallelogram AB D C, it will be carried by both forces in the same time
from A to D. For since the force n acts along the line AC, parallel to BD,
this force, by Law 2, will nowise change the speed of attaining that line
BD induced by the other force. Therefore the body will attain to the line
BD in the same time whether a force is impressed in A C or not, and
therefore at the end of that time it will be found somewhere in that line
BD. By the same argument at the end of the same time it will be found
somewhere in the line CD, and hence it must be found at the intersection
of the two lines.
Lemma 2.” The distance a body describes from the beginning of its
motion under the action of any force whatsoever is in the duplicate ratio
of the time.
Represent the times by the lines AB , A D [Fig. 2]. Let Ab, A d be
proportionah^ to these lines, then when [the body is] acted on by a uniform
centripetal force the distances covered will be represented by the rect­
angular areas A B F , A D H terminated by the perpendiculars BF, D H
and a certain line AFH , as shown by Galileo. But when acted on by a
non-uniform centripetal force the distances covered will be represented
by areas A B C , ADE, terminated by a certain curve A C E which A F H
touches at A. Draw a line A E cutting the parallels BF, bf, dh at G, g, e
and let A F H produced meet these same bf, dh at / and h. Since the area
A B C is greater than the area A B F and less than the area A B C , and the
curvilinear area A D E C is greater than the area A D H and less than the
area ADEG, the ratio of the area A B C to the area AD EG will be greater
than the ratio of area A B F to area ADEG, and less than the ratio of area
A B G to ADH, that is greater than area Ahfto the area Ade, and less than
area Abg to area Adh. If now the lines AB, A D are diminished while
maintaining their ratio until the points A, B, D coincide and the line Ae
coincides with the tangent Ah, the limiting ratios Abf to Ade and Abg
to Adh will coincide with the ratio Abf to Adh. But this ratio is the square
of the ratio Ab to Ad, or A B to AD. Therefore the ratio A B C to A D E C
intermediate between these limits now becomes the square of the ratio
A B to AD, that is the limiting ratio of the evanescent spaces or the first
ratio of the vanishing spaces is the square of the ratio of the times.
Lemma 3. Quantities proportional to their differences are continually
proportional.
Assuming A to A ~ B as B to B ~ C , and C to C — D etc., then by
division we have A to ^ as /? to C, and C to D etc.
IX ^niE TRAC/r DE M O T U 301
Lemma 4. All parallelograms drawn about a given ellipse are equal.
It follows from conic sections.
B
Moreover the whole space of the planetary heavens either rests (as is
commonly believed) or moves uniformly in a straight line, and hence the
communal centre of gravity of the planets (by Law 4) either rests or
moves along with it. In both cases (by Law 3) the relative motions of
the planets are the same, and their common centre of gravity rests in
relation to the whole of space, and so can certainly be taken for the still
centre of the whole planetary system. Hence truly the Copernican system
is proved a priori. For if the common centre of gravity is calculated for
any position of the planets it either falls in the body of the Sun or will
always be very close to it. By reason of this deviation of the Sun from
the centre of gravity the centripetal force does not always tend to that
immobile centre, and hence the planets neither move exactly in ellipse nor
revolve twice in the same orbit. So that there are as many orbits to a
planet as it has revolutions, as in the motion of the Moon, and the orbit
of any one planet depends on the combined motion of all the planets, not
to mention the action of all these on each other. But to consider simul­
taneously all these causes of motion and to define these motions by exact
laws allowing of convenient calculation exceeds, unless I am mistaken,
the force of the entire human intellect.’ ^ Ignoring those minutiae, the
simple orbit and the mean among all errors will be the ellipse of which
I have already treated. If anyone tries to determine this ellipse by trigo­
nometrical computation from three observations (as is customary), he
will have proceeded without caution. For these observations will share
in the very small irregular motions here neglected and so cause the
ellipse to deviate somewhat from its actual magnitude and position (which
ought to be the mean among all errors), and so there will be as many
ellipses differing from each other as there are trios of observations em­
ployed. Very many observations must therefore be joined together and
assigned to a single operation which mutually moderate each other and
display the mean ellipse both as regards position and magnitude.
Scholium. Thus far I have considered the motion of bodies in non­
resisting media: so that I may determine the motion of celestial bodies
in ether. But as far as I can judge the resistance of pure ether is either
nothing or excessively small. Quicksilver resists strongly, water much
 302 THE T R A C T DE M O T U iX IX THE T R A C T DE MOTU 303
less, air certainly far less again, These media resist according to their released from the top of a high building will deviate a little from the
density which is almost proportional to their weight and so they resist vertical in falling, and also how much that deflection will be and to what
(or rather almost resist) according to the quantity of their solid matter. side. And conversely from experimental evidence of this deflection the
Therefore as the solid matter of air is diminished so is the resistance of [diurnal] movement of the earth is inferred. When I myself formerly
the medium and in about the same proportion up to the point that it pointed out this deflection to the most excellent Hook,’^he confirmed the
attains to the tenuity of ether. In swift flight horsemen feel the violent matter to be so by an experiment performed three times, the deflection
resistance of the air, but '^sailors inside the ship when the winds are in the heavy body being always from the vertical towards the east and
excluded!^ feel nothing at all of the ever flowing ether. If air were to south as in our northern latitude it should.
penetrate the parts of bodies freely and so were to act not only in the
1. S e e M S . X a , D e f. 16.
external surface of the whole but also in the surfaces of the individual 2. See M S . X a , D e f. 12.
parts, its resistance would be far greater. Now ether penetrates freely 3. See M S . X a , D e f. 17.
4. See M S . X a , D e f. 18.
but does not offer sensible resistance. That comets descend below the
5. See M S . X a , L e x i.
orbit of Saturn is the opinion of all those sounder astronomers who know 6. See M S . X a , L e x 2.
how to calculate their approximate distance from the parallax of the 7. See M S . X a , L e x 4.

great orbit: these comets are therefore carried with immense speed
indifferently in all parts of our heavens yet do not lose their tail nor the
vapour surrounding their heads [by having them] impeded or torn away
by the resistance of the ether. And the planets actually have now per­
sisted in their motion for thousands of years, so far are they from ex­
periencing any resistance.
Motions in the heavens are ruled therefore by the laws demonstrated.
But the motions of projectiles in our air, ignoring its resistance, are
known by Problem 4, and also the motions of heavy bodies falling per­
pendicularly by Problem 5, given of course that gravity is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of the earth.
For certainly gravity is one kind of centripetal force: and my calculations
reveal that the centripetal force by which our Moon is held in her monthly
motion about the Earth is to the force of gravity at the surface of the earth
very nearly as the reciprocal of the square of the distance [of the Moon]
from the centre of the Earth. From the slower motion of oscillating
clocks in the tops of very high mountains than in valleys it is clear also
k See M S . X a , L e x 5.
9. See M S . X a , L e x 6.
10. See M S . X a , L e m m a i . A p a rt from a reference to L a w 2 n ot fo und in the
p resent p ro o f the tw o versions are identical. N o tice that the forces referred to in
this lem m a are n ot continuous b u t im pulsive.
1 1 . See M S . X a , L em m a 2.
12. T h e phrase is som ew hat obscure b u t it is probable that b, d are intended
to b e any tw o points on the line su ch that A b / A d = A B j A D . T h is is confirm ed
e x p licitly in the pen ultim ate sentence o f the proof. T h e s e points are introduced
w ith the ultim ate lim itin g process in v i e w ; b, d are to b e kep t fixed w h ile By D
ten d to A so that A B j A D remains fixed and therefore equal to A b j A d .
13. See above, Part I, C h a p ter 2 .1. N e w to n , how ever, w as m istaken in su p ­
p osing that G alileo ever gave a satisfactory proof o f the M e r to n R u le . It seems
likely that Beeckm an w as the o n ly person to do so in the seven teen th century.
H is p ro of rem ained un kn ow n till the rediscovery o f his Journal b y de W aard.
14. C u rio u sly rem iniscent o f the line from L u cretiu s on R o u b ilia c ’s statue o f
N e w to n in the chapel o f T r in it y C o llege , C am b rid ge— Qui genus humanumm
ingenio superavit.
15. C f. M S . V I , § 8, first sentence.
1 6 -1 6 . T h e phrase is obscure. P o ssibly N e w to n th o u gh t o f the exclusis e mari
a p p lyin g to the navigantes. A ltern a tive ly e mari could be an error for in nave.
17. C o m pare the p reced in g sentence w ith M S . V I , § 8, third paragraph.

that gravity is diminished by an increase in our distance from the centre 18. T h e first explicit reference b y N e w to n to this experimentiim crucis o f his
theory o f gravitation.
of the earth, but in what proportion has not yet been observed. 19. A reference to the correspondence w ith H ooke in the w in ter o f 1679.
Moreover the motions of projectiles in our air are to be referred to
the immense and truly immobile space of the heavens, not to the movable
space which turns round with the earth and our air and is commonly
regarded as at rest. The ellipse which the projectile describes in that truly
immobile space is first to be found, and then its motion in the mobile
space must be determined. Knowing this it is inferred that a heavy body

X ordinem situs locantur universa. De illorum essentia est ut sint loca et
Xa D R A F T S OF D E F I N I T I O N S A N D
LAWS OF M O T I O N
Xb D R A F T S OF D E F I N I T I O N S
T h e s e two manuscripts, referred to hereafter as MSS. Xa and Xb,
clearly preceded the lectures de Motu,-\ constituting preliminary drafts
of parts of the Definitions and Axioms of that work. It is also probable
that they succeeded Version III of the tract de Motu. The actual order
of composition of the two manuscripts seems to be of no great impor­
tance, but it will be convenient to give them in their probable order of
composition, namely Xa followed by Xb. Although there is a certain
amount of overlap between the two manuscripts, each contains material
not found in the other. In particular, Xa alone contains drafts of the
discussion of absolute space, time and motion in the Scholium to the
Definitions of Book I of the Lectures de Motu (and the Principia), and
of the Laws of Motion, whereas Xb consists largely of drafts of the
Definitions.
Both manuscripts contain a considerable number of insertions and
alterations.
M S . Xa^
D e M otu Corportim in m edijs regu la riter cedentibus
Definitiones
Def 12 Tempus absolutum est quod sua natura absque relatione ad
aliud quodvis aequabiliter fluit. Tale est, cujus aequationem investigant
Astronomi, alio nomine dictum Duratio.
Def 2^ Tempus relative spectatum est quod respectu fluxionis seu
transitus rei alicujus sensibilis consideratur ut aequabile. Tale est tempus
dierum mensium et aliarum periodorum caelestium apud vulgus.
Def 3 Spatium absolutum est quod sua natura absque relatione ad
aliud quodvis semper manet immobile, Ut partium temporis ordo
immutabilis est sic etiam partium spatij, Moveantur hae de locis suis et
mo\ ebuntur de seipsis. Nam tempora et spatia sunt suiipsorum et rerum
t The reasons for this and succeeding assertions a.bout order of composition are
fii\ en aho\ e in Part I, Cliapter 6 .3 .
Xa D E F I N I T I O N S AND L AW S OF MOTION 305
omnium loca. In tempore quoad ordinem successionis, in spatio quoad
loca primaria mover! absurdum est. Porro vi illata moveatur una pars
spatij et vi tanta ad omnes in infinitum partes applicata movebitur totum,
quod rursus absurdum est.
Def 4 Spatium relativum est quod respectu rei alicujus sensibilis con­
sideratur ut immobile: uti spatium aeris nostri respectu terrae. Distin-
guuntur autem haec spatia ab invicem ipso facto per descensum gravium
quae in spatio absoluto recta petunt centrum in relative absolute gyrante
deflectunt ad latus.
Def 5'* Corpora in sensus omnium incurrunt ut res mobiles quae se
mutuo penetrare nequeunt.
Def 6^'^ Centrum corporis cujusque est quod vulgo dicitur centrum
gravitatis et axis corporis est linea quaevis recta per centrum transiens.
Def 75 Locus corporis est pars spatij in quo corpus existit, estque pro
genere spatij vel absolutus vel relativus.
Def 8^ Quies corporis est perseverantia ejus in eodem loco, estque vel
absoluta vel relativa pro genere loci.
Def 9’ Motus corporis est translatio ejus de loco in locum, estque itidem
vel absolutus vel relativus pro genere loci. Distinguitur autem ipso facto
motus absolutus a relatiVO in gyrantibus, per conatum recedendi a centre,
quippe qui ex gyratione nude relativa nullus est, in relative quiescentibus
permagnus esse potest, ut in corporibus coelestibus quae ex mente
Cartesianorum^ quiescant, tamen a sole recedere conantur. Conatus ille
certus semper et determinatus arguit certam aliquam et determinatam
esse motus realis quantitatem in singulis corporibus, a relationibus quae
innumerae sunt totidemque motus relatives constituunt minime pen-
dentem. Porro motum et quietem absolute dictos non pendere a situ et
relatione corporum ad invicem manifestum est ex eo quod hae nunquam
mutantur nisi vi in ipsum corpus motum vel quiescens impressa, tali
ante vi semper mutantur; at relativae mutari possunt vi solummodo
impressa in altera corpora ad quae sit relatio et non mutari vi impressa
in utraque sic ut situs relativus conservetur.
Def Velocitas^ est quantitas translationis quoad longitudinem itineris
certo tempore confecti. Iter vero est quod corporis puncto medio
describitur a Geometris dicto centro gravitatis. Loquor de motu
progressive.
 306 D E F I N I T I O N S AND L A W S OF MOTION
Def i i ‘° Quantitas motus est quae oritur ex velocitate et quantitate
corporis translati conjunctim. Aestimatur autem quantitas corporis^ ^ ex
copia materiae corporeae quae gravitati suae proportionalis esse solet.
Pendulis aequalibus numerentur oscillationes corporum duorum ejus-
dem ponderis, et copia materiae in utroque erit reciproce ut numerus
oscillationum eodem tempore factarum.^^
Def 12*3 Corporis'^ vis insita innata et essentialis est potentia qua id
perseverat in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in linea recta,
estque corporis quantitati proportionalis, exercetur vero proportionaliter
mutationem status et quatenus exercetur dici potest corporis vis exer-
cita . . . cuius [?] una species est vis centrifuga*^ gyrantium.
Def i3*s.e Vis motus seu corpori ex motu sua adventitia est qua corpus
quantitatem totam sui motus conservare conatur. Ea vulgo dicitur
impetus estque motui proportionalis, et pro genere motus vel absoluta
est vel relativa. ^Ad absolutam referenda est vis centrifuga gyrantium^.
Def 14*6’^ Vis corpori illata et impressa est qua corpus urgetur mutare
statum suum movendi vel quiescendi estque diversarum specierum ut
pulsus seu pressio percutientis, pressio continua, vis centripeta, resi-
stentia medij etc.
Def 161*7 Vim centripetam appello qua corpus impellitur vel attrahitur
versus punctum aliquod quod ut centrum spectatur. Hujus generis est
gravitas tendens ad centrum terrae, vis magnetica tendens ad centrum
magnetis et vis coelestis cohibens Planetas ne abeant in tangentibus
orbitarum.
Def 17*8 !' Per medij Resistentiam in sequcntibus intelligo vim medij
regulariter impedientis. Sunt et aliae vires ex corporum elasticitate,
mollitie, tenacitate etc., pendente quas hie non considero.
Def 162*'^’ * Momenta quantitatum sunt ipsarum principia generantia vel
alterantia fluxu continue: ut tempus praesens praeteriti et futuri, motus
praesens praeteriti et futuri, vis centripeta aut alia quaevis momentanea
impetus, punctum lineae, lineae superficiei, superficies solidi et angulus
contactus anguli rectilinei.
Def 18 Exponentestemporumspatiorum, motuum celeritatum et virium
sunt quantitates quaevis proportionales exponendis.^**
Haec omnia fusius explicate visum est ut Lector praejudeijs [r/c]
quibusdam vulgaribus liberatus et distinctis principiorum Mechanicorum
conceptibusimbutusaccederet ad sequentia. Quantitates autem absolutas
Xa Xa D E F I N I T I O N S AND L A W S OF MOTION 307
et relativas ab invicem sedulo distinguere necesse fuit eo, quod phaeno-
mena omnia pendeant ab absolutis. Vulgus autem qui cogitationes a
sensibus abstrahere nesciunt semper loquuntur de relativis, usque adeo
ut absurdum foret vel sapientibus vel etiam Prophetis apud bos aliter
loqui. Unde et sacrae literae et scripta Theologorum de relativis semper
intelligenda sunt, et crasso laboraret praejudicio qui inde de rerum
naturalium motibus absolutis PhilosophicisJ disputationes moveret.*^
Leges Motus
Lex 1^1 Vi insita corpus omne^ perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel
movendi uniformiter in linea recta nisi quatenus viribus impressis’"
cogitur statum ilium mutare. Motus autem uniformis hie est duplex,
progressivus secundum lineam rectam quam corpus centro suo aequa-
biliter lato describet et circularis circa axem suum quemvis qui vel
quiescit vel motu uniform! latus semper manet positionibus suis prioribus
parallelus.
Lex 2^2 Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi impressae et fieri
secundum lineam rectam qua vis ilia imprimitur. Hisce duabus Legibus
jam receptissimis Galilaeus invenit projectilia gravitate uniformiter et
secundum lineas parallelas agente, in medio non resistente lineas Para-
bolicas describere. Et suffragatur experientia nisi quatenus motus pro-
jectilium resistentia aeris aliquantulum retardatur. Ab.
Lex 3^3 Corpus omne tantum pati reactione quantum agit in alterum.
Quicquid premit vel trahit alterum, ab eo tantum premitur vel trahitur.
Si vesica acre plena premit vel ferit alteram sibi consimilem cedet
utraque aequaliter introrsum.'^ Si corpus impingens in alterum vi sua
mutat motum alterius et ipsius motus (ob aequalitatem pressionis
mutuae) vi alterius tantum mutabitur. Si magnes trahit ferrum ipse
vicissim tantum trahitur et sic in alijs. Constat vero haec Lex per Def. 12
et 1424 in quantum vis corporis ad status sui conservationem exercita sit
eadem cum vi in corpus alterum ad illius statum mutandum impressa,
et vi priori proportionalis sit mutatio status prioris posteriori ea pos-
terioris.
Lex 4-3 Corporum dato spatio inclusorum eosdem esse motus inter se
sive spatium illud absolute quiescat sive moveat id perpetuo et uni­
formiter in directum absque motu circulari. E.g. motus rerum in navi
perinde se habent sive navis quiescat sive moveat ea uniformiter in
directum.
 308 D E F I N I T I O N S AND L A W S OF MOTION Xa
Lex 526 Mutuis corporum actionibus commune centrum gravitatis non
mutare statum suum motus vel quietis. Haec lex et duae superiores se
mutuo probant.
Lex 627.0 Resistentiam medij esse ut medij illius densitas et sphaerici
corporis moti superficies et velocitas conjunctim. Hanc legem exactam
esse non affirmo. Sufficit quod sit vero proximo. Corpora vero Sphaerica
esse suppono in sequentibus, ne opus sit circumstantias diversarum
figurarum considerare.
Lemmata
Lem. Corpus viribus conjunctis diagonalem parallelogrammi eodem
tempore describere quo latera separatis.
D
B
Figu re i.
Si corpus dato tempore vi sola M ferretur ab ^ ad ^ [Fig. i] et vi
sola N ab A ad C, compleatur parallelogrammum A B D C et vi utraque
feretur id eodem tempore ab A ad D. Nam quoniam vis M agit secun­
dum lineam A C ipsi BD parallelam, haec vis nihil mutabit celeritatem
accidendi ad lineam illam BD vi altera impressam. Accedet igitur corpus
eodem tempore ad lineam BD sive vis A C imprimatur sive non, atque
adeo in fine illius temporis reperietur alicubi in linea ilia BD. Eodem
argumento in fine temporis ejusdem reperietur alicubi in linea CD, et
proinde in utriusque lineae concursu D reperiri necesse est.
Lem. 229 Spatium quod corpus urgente quacunque vi centripeta ipso
motus initio describit, esse in duplicata ratione temporis.
Exponantur tempora per lineas AB, A D datis Ab Ad proportionales,
et urgente vi centripeta aequabili exponentur spatia descripta per areas
rectilineas A B F A D H perpendiculis.p
Xa D E F I N I T I O N S AND L A W S OF MOTION 309
a. T here are a considerable number o f unim portant an d p a rtly illegible deletions
in the original text o f this definition.
b. Introdu ced a t some tim e a fter com position o f present D e f. i S as proved by the
renumbering o f a ll D e f. 7 - 1 8 .
c. R ep lacin g celeritas m otus deleted.
d. Preceded by V is corporis seu deleted.
e. T h is section deleted.
f - f . T h is section deleted.
g. O rig in ally num bered 1 3 an d changed to 1 5 , presum ably in error f o r 1 4 .
h . T h is section deleted.
i. D eleted , presum ably after introduction o f previous D e f. 1 6 , as the number 1 6
has not been altered.
j. W ritten above absolutus.
k. Succeed ed by P erinde est ac si quis lunam [(in G em in i) ?] m agn itudin e non
apparente sed absoluta inter duo m axim a lum ina [G em in i ?] num erari co n -
tenderet cancelled.
l. S u b stitu ted f o r sem per deleted.
m . Succeed ed by im pedim entis deleted.
n. S u cceed ed by Si m agnes trahit ferrum ipsi vicissim tan tum trahitur deleted
an d inserted later belozc.
o. T h is section deleted.
p. E n ds abruptly here.
Translation
On the M otion o f B odies in uniform ly yield in g m edia
Definitions
Definition 12 Absolute time is that which according to its own nature,
unrelated to anything else, flow's evenly. It is that whose equation
astronomers investigate, and by another name is called duration.
Definition 2 Time regarded as relative is that which is uniform in
respect of the flux or variation of any sensible thing. Such is the time of
days, months, and other periodic celestial phenomena as commonly
received.
Definition 3 Absolute space is that which by its own nature and un­
related to any other thing whatsoever always remains at rest. As the order
of temporal parts is immutable so also is that of parts of space. If these
were to move from their places they would move out of themselves. For
times and spaces are of themselves and all things the places. All things
are located in time as regards order of succession, and in space as regards
order of situation. The essence of these is that they are positions and it
is absurd that basic positions be moved. For example if one part of space
mav be moved by a certain force then if an equal force be applied to all
 310 D E F I N I T I O N S AND L A W S OF MOTION Xa
parts of space to infinity the whole of space will be moved, which is
again absurd.
Definition 4 Relative space is that which is regarded as immobile in
relation to any sensible thing; such as the space of our air in relation to
the earth. However these spaces are in fact distinguished from each
other through the descent of heavy bodies which in absolute space seek
the centre directly but in relative space rotating absolutely are deflected
to one side.
Definition 5^ By common consent bodies are moveable things unable to
penetrate each other.
Definition 6“^ The centre of any body is what is commonly called its
centre of gravity, and the axis of a body is any straight line through the
centre.
Definition 75 The place of a body is the part of space in which the body
exists, and according to the kind of space is absolute or relative.
Definition 8^ A body’s rest is its continuation in the same place, and
according to the kind of place is absolute or relative.
Definition 9^ The motion of a body is its translation from one place to
another, and is consequently either absolute or relative according to the
kind of place. But absolute motion is in fact distinguished from relative
in circular motions by the endeavour to recede from the centre, which
in an entirely relative circular motion is zero, but in a circular motion
relative to bodies at rest may be very large, as in the celestial bodies
which the Cartesians® believe to be at rest, although they endeavour to
recede from the sun. The fact that this endeavour [from the centre of
circular motion] is certain and determinate argues some certain and
determinate quantity of real motion in individual bodies in no wise
dependent on the relations [between the bodies] which are innumerable
and make up as many relative motions. For example, that motion and
rest absolutely speaking do not depend on the situation and relation of
bodies between themselves is evident from the fact that these are never
changed except by force impressed on the body moved or at rest, and
are always changed after [the action of] such a force; but the relative
[motion and rest of a body] can be changed by forces impressed only on
other bodies to which the relation belongs, and is not changed by a force
impressed on both so that their relative situation is preserved.
Xa D E F I N I T I O N S AND L AW S OF MOTION 311
Definition lo^ Velocity is the quantity of translation as regards the
length of path traversed in a certain time. Where of course the path is
that described by the middle point of the body called the centre of gravity
by mathematicians, I speak of progressive motion.
Definition ii**’ The quantity of motion is that which arises from the
velocity and quantity of a body conjointly. Moreover the quantity of a
body” is to be estimated from the bulk of the corporeal matter which is
usually proportional to its gravity. The oscillations of two equal pendu­
lums with bodies of equal weight are counted, and the bulk of matter in
both will be inversely as the number of oscillations made in the same
time.”
Definition 12” The internal and innate force of a body is the power by
which it preserves in its state of rest or of moving uniformly in a straight
line. It is proportional to the quantity of the body, and is actually exer­
cised proportionally to the change of state, and in so far as it is exercised
it can be said to be the exercised force of the body, of which [ ?] one kind
is the centrifugal force” of rotating bodies.
Definition 13” The force of a body arising from its motion is that by
which the body endeavours to preserve the total quantity of its motion.
It is commonly called impetus and is proportional to the motion, and
according to its kind is absolute or relative. The centrifugal force of
rotating bodies is to be referred to the absolute kind.
Definition 14^^ Force impressed on a body is that by which a body is
urged to change its state of moving or resting and is of divers kinds such
as impulse or pressure of percussion, continuous pressure, centripetal
force, resistance of medium etc.
Definition ifij” I call centripetal force that by which a body is impelled
or drawn towards a certain point regarded as centre. Of this kind is
gravity tending to the centre of the earth, magnetic force tending to the
centre of the magnet, and the celestial force preventing the planets from
flying off in the tangents of their orbit.
Definition 17^® By the resistance of the medium in the following I under­
stand the force of a uniformly resisting medium. And there are other
forces arising from the elasticity, softness, tenacity etc., of bodies which
I do not consider here.
Definition 162” The moments of quantities are their principles of gene­
ration or alteration, as time present of the past and future, present
 312 DEFIxNri’IONS AND L A W S OF MOTION Xa
motion of past and future motion, centripetal or any other momentary
force of impetus, as point of a line, a line of a surface, a surface of a solid,
and a contacting angle of a straight angle.
Definition i8 The representatives of times, spaces, motions, speeds and
forces are any quantities whatsoever proportional to the things rep re­
sented
The aim of explaining all these things at length is that the reader may
be freed from certain vulgar prejudices and imbued with the distinct
principles of mechanics may agree in what follows to distinguish carefully
from each other quantities which are both absolute and relative, a thing
very necessary since all phenomena depend on absolute quantities. But
ordinary people who fail to abstract thought from sensible appearances
always speak of relative quantities, so much so that it would be absurd for
wise men or even Prophets to speak to them otherwise [than of relative
quantities]. Hence both the sacred writings and theological writings are
always to be understood in terms of relative quantities, and he who would
on this account bandy words with philosophers concerning the absolute
motions of natural things would be labouring under a gross misappre­
hension.
Lam of Motion-
Lav^ 1 B y reason of its innate force every body preserves in its state of
rest or of moving uniformly in a straight line unless in so far as it is
obliged to change its state by forces impressed on it. Uniform motion,
however, is of tw'o kinds, progressive along a straight line which the body
describes uniformly with its centre, and circular about a certain axis
which either rests or with a motion of constant size always remains
parallel to its previous position.
Law 2^^ The change of motion is proportional to the force impressed
and takes place along the straight line in which the force is impressed.
By means of these two laws now widely acknowledged Galileo discovered
that projectiles under a uniform gravity acting along parallel lines
described parabolas in a non-resisting medium. And experiment sup­
ports this unless in so far as the motion of the projectiles is a little
retarded by the resistance of the air.
Law 32-’ As much as any body acts on another so much does it experience
in reaction. Whatever presses or pulls another thing by this equally is
pressed or pulled. If a bladder full of air presses or carries another equal
X;i D E F I N I T I O N S AND L A W S OF MOTION 313
to itself both yield equally inwards. If a body impinging on another
changes by its force the motion of the other then its own motion (by
reason of the equality of the mutual pressure) will be changed by the
same amount by the force of the other. If a magnet attracts iron it is
itself equally attracted, and likewise in other cases. In fact this law
follows from Definitions 12 and 14^4 in so far as the force exerted by a
body to conserve its state is the same as the impressed force in the other
body to change the state of the first, and the change of state of the first
is proportional to the first force and of the second to the second force.
Law 425 The relative motion of bodies enclosed in a given space is the
same whether that space rests absolutely or moves perpetually and
uniformly in a straight line without circular motion. For example, the
motions of objects in a ship are the same whether the ship is at rest or
moves uniformly in a straight line.
Law 52^ The common centre of gravity of [a number of] bodies does not
change its state of rest or motion by reason of the mutual actions of the
bodies. This law and the two above mutually confirm each other.
Law 6^7 The resistance of a medium is jointly proportional to the density
of that medium, the area of the moved spherical body and the velocity.
I do not assert this law to be exact. It suffices that it should be approxi­
mately true. Hereafter I actually suppose the bodies spherical lest it be
a question of considering the states of different figures.
Lemmata
Lemma A body acted on simultaneously by [two] forces describes
the diagonal of a parallelogram in the same time as it would the separate
sides.
If the body is carried in a given time by the force M alone from A
to B [Fig. i] and by the force N alone from A to C, then the parallelo­
gram A B D C being completed it will be borne by both forces in the same
time from A to D. For since the force M acts along the line A C parallel
to BD, this force will nowise change the speed of attaining to that line
BD impressed on it by the other force. The body will therefore attain
to the line BD in the same time whether the force A C is impressed or
not, and so at the end of that time it will be found somewhere in that
line BD. By the same reasoning at the end of that time it will be found
somewhere in the line CD, and thus it must be found in the inter­
section D of both lines.
 314 D E F I N I T I O N S AND L A W S OF MOTION Xa Xa D E F I N I T I O N S AND L A W S OF MOTION 315
Lemma 2^^ The space described by a body from the beginning of its 22. C o rrespo n din g to the second law o f m otion, together w ith the germ o f
motion under the action of any force is proportional to the square of the the first part o f the S ch o liu m to the laws o f m otion in the lectures de M o tu and
time. the P rin cip ia .
23. A prim itive draft o f the third law o f m otion.
Let the times be represented by lines AB , A D to which Ab, Ad are 24. T h e reference here w o u ld seem to be to D e f. 12, 14 o f M S . X b .
proportional, then under the action of a uniform centripetal force the 25. C o rresp o n d in g to C o ro ll. 5 to the laws o f m otion in the lectures de
spaces described are represented by the rectilinear areas A B F , A D H by M o tu and the P rin cip ia .
26. C o rrespo n din g to C o ro ll. 4 to the laws o f m otion in the lectures de M o tu
the perpendiculars.
and the P rin cip ia .
27. C o rrespo n din g to Section I o f B ook I I o f the P rin cip ia .
1. M S . A d d . 3965 (5a), fols. 25, 26 (right half) 23, 24.
28. C o rrespo n din g to C o ro ll, i to the laws o f m otion in the lectures de M o tu
2. C o m pare this and the tw o fo llo w in g definitions w ith the corresponding ones
and the P rin cip ia .
in the Scholium to the D efinitions o f the lectures de Motu.
29. C o rrespo n din g to L e m m a X o f Sectio n I Book I o f the lectures de M o tu
3. C o m pare this w ith note (a) to D e f. 2 o f M S . V I . T h e r e is no correspon din g
and the P rin cip ia .
definition in the lectures de Motu or the Principia.
4. C o m pare w ith the original D e f. 3, later cancelled, o f the lectures de Motu
(M S. X I). M S . Xb^
5. C om pare this w ith D e f. 3 o f the Scholium to the D efinitions o f the lectures
de Motu and the Principia. De M otu C orporum
6. C o m pare this w ith D e f. 3 o f M S . V I . T h e r e is no corresponding definition
in the lectures de Motu or the Principia. Definitiones
7. T h e germ o f the celebrated attem p t to distin guish absolute from relative
m otion in the Scholium to the D efinitions o f (the lectures de Motu and) the
1.2 Quantitas materiae est quae oritur ex ipsius densitate et magnitudine
Principia.
8. T h is specific reference to the Cartesian p h ilo so p h y is significantly om itted conjunctim. Corpus duplo densius in duplo spatio quadruplum est.
both in the lectures de Motu and the Principia. Hanc quantitatem per nomen corporis vel massae designo.
9. N o definition o f v elo city is giv en either in the lectures de Motu or the
Principia. 2.3 Quantitas motus est quae oritur ex velocitate et quantitate materiae
10. C o rrespo n din g to D e f. 2, M S . X b , and to D e f. 4 o f the lectures de Motu. conjunctim. Motus totius est summa motuum in partibus singulis,
1 1 . C o m p a re the alternative definition o f qu a n tity o f m atter in D e f. i , o f M S .
adeoque in corpore duplo majore aequali cum velocitate duplus est et
Xb.
12. F o r a m ore detailed expression o f the same ideas see D e f. 7 o f M S . X b . dupla cum velocitate quadruplus.
13. A m ore detailed treatm ent o f this co n cep t is given in D e f. 3 o f M S . X b .
3. '^ Materiae vis insita est®potentia resistendi qua corpus unumquodque
14. T h e r e is a reference to centrifugal force as an exam ple o f the corporis
exercita in the cancelled definition 14 o f M S . X b , b u t no such reference occurs quantum in se est perseverat in statu suo vel quiescendi vel movendi
in D e f. 3 o f that m an uscript nor in the correspon din g definition o f the lectures uniformiter in directum: estque corpori suo proportionaliss neque differt
de Motu or the Principia. F o r a discussion o f N e w to n ’s concept o f cen trifugal
quicquam ab inertia massae nisi in modo conceptus nostri. Exercet vero
force see above, Part I, C h a p ter 3.
15. C om pare this w ith the cancelled D e f. 14 o f M S . X b . corpus hanc vim '^solummodo^ in mutatione status sui facta per vim
16. C o rrespo n din g to D e f. 4 o f M S . X b . aliam in se impressam estque Exercitum ejus Resistentia et Impetus
17. C o rresp o n d in g to D e f. 5 o f M S . X b . respectu solo ab invicem distinct!: Resistentia quatenus corpus reluc-
18. A n echo o f the corresponding definition in all versions o f the tract de
Motu. N o such definition is given in M S . X b , nor in B ook I o f the lectures de tatur vi impressae. Impetus'^ quatenus corpus difficulter cedendo conatur
Motu or the Principia. mutare statum corporis alterius. Vulgus apud resistentiam quiescentibus
19. N o trace o f this definition, later cancelled, is fo und in M S . X b nor in the et impetum moventibus tribuit: sed motus et quies ut vulgo concipiuntur
lectures de Motu or the Principia.
respectu solo distinguuntur ab invicem; neque vere quiescunt quae vulgo
20. C o m pare this w ith D e f. 4 o f V ersion I I I o f the tract de Motu. N o trace
o f it is fo u nd in M S . X b , or thereafter. tanquam quiescentia spectantur^.
21. C o rrespo n din g to the first law o f m otion. B u t the reference to tzvo
types o f uniform m otion, one rectilinear, the other circular, is not found else­
4. ® Vis impressa est "^actio in corpus exercita ad mutandum statum ejus
where. See above. Part I, C h a p ter 5, § 3. vel quiescendi vel movendi. Consistit haec vis in actione sola neque post

316 DEFINITIONS Xb
actionem permanet in corpore. Est autem diversarum originum, ut ex
impetu, ex pressione, ex vi centripeta.^'
5.9 Vis centripeta est vel actio vel potentia quaelibet qua corpus versus
punctum aliquod tanquam ad centrum trahitur impellitur vel utcunque
tendit. Hujus generis est gravitas qua corpus tendet ad centrum terrae,
vis magnetica qua ferrum petit centrum magnetis, et vis ilia, quaecunque
sit, qua Planetae retinentur in orbibus suis et perpetuo cohibentur ne
abeant in eomm tangentibus. Est autem vis centripetae quantitas triplex;
absoluta, acceleratrix et inotrix. Quantitas absoluta (quae et vis absoluta
dici potest) major est ad unum centrum minor ad aliud, nullo habito
respectu ad distantias et magnitudines attractorum corporum; uti virtus
magnetica major in uno magnete minor in alio. Quantitas seu vis acce­
leratrix est velocitati proportionalis quam dato tempore generat; uti
virtus magnetis ejusdem major in minori distantia minor in majori, vel
vis gravitatis major prope terram minor in regionibus superioribus. Quan­
titas seu vis matrix est motus proportionalis quern dato tempore produ­
c t ; uti pondus majus in majori corpore minus in minore. Ita se habet
igitur vis matrix ad vim acceleratricem ut matus ad celeritatem. Namque
oritur quantitas matus ex celeritate dueta in corpus mobile et quantitas vis
matricis ex vi acceleratrice ducta in idem corpus, ETnde juxta superliciem
terrae ubi gravitas acceleratrix in corporibus universis eadem est, gravi­
tas motrix seu pondus est ut corpus: at si longius recedatur a terra, inque
regiones ascendatur ubi gravitas acceleratrix fit minor, pondus pariter
minuetur eritque semper ut corpus in gravitatem acceleratricem ductum.
Porro attractianes et impulsus eodem sensu acceleratrices matrices nomino.
Voces autem attractianis impulsus vel prapensianis cujuscunque in cen­
trum indifferenter et pro se mutuo usurpo, has vires non physice sed
mathematice tantum considerando. Unde caveat Lector ne per hujusmodi
voces cogitet me speciem vel modum actionis causamve aut rationem
physicam alicubi definire,
6. ’'° Densitas corporis est quantitas seu copia materiae collata cum
quantitate occupati spatij.
7. ” Per pondus intelligo quantitatem '^’seu copiam materiae movendae'^
abstracta gravitationis consideratione quoties de gravitantibus non
agitur. Quippe'' pondus gravitantium proportionalc est quantitati
materiae et analoga per se invicem exponare et designare licet. Analogia
vero sic colligabitur pendulis aequalibus numerentur oscillationes cor­
porum duorum ejusdem ponderis et copia materiae in utroque erit
Xb D E F IN IT IO N S 317
reciproce ut numerus oscillationum eodem tempore factarum. Experi-
mentis autem in auro, argento, plumbo, vitro, arena, sale communi,
aqua, ligno, tritieo, diligenter factis^ incidi semper in eundem oscilla­
tionum numerum (ob hanc analogiam et defecta vocis commodioris
expono et designo quantitatem materiae per pondus etiam in corporibuss
quorum gravitatio non consideratur).
Locus.
9. Quies.
10. Motus.
11. Velocitas.
Quantitas motus est quae oritur ex velocitate et pondere corporis
translati conjunctim. Motus additione corporis alterius tanto cum motu
fit duplus et duplicata velocitate quadruplus.
14.^-^ Corporis vis exercita est qua id conatur conservare* status sui
movendi vel quiescendi partem^ illam quam singulis momentis amittit
estque status illius mutationi seu parti singulis momentis amissae pro­
portionalis nec improprie reluctatio vel resistentia corporis dicitur.
Hujus^' una species est vis centrifuga gyrantium,
a. S ucceed ed by inertia sive deleted.
b - b . R eplacing an earlier and p a rtly illegible version.
c - c . R eplacin g an earlier and p a rtly illegible version.
d -d . R eplacin g m ateriae abstracta consideratione deleted.
e. Succeed ed by copiae m ateria deleted.
f. S ucceed ed by institutis reperi deleted.
g. Preceded by non gravitantibus deleted.
h. T h e headings only are given o f this an d the three subsequent definitions.
i. W ritten above is singulis m om en tis deleted.
j. Su cceed ed by amissam deleted.
k. Succeed ed by referenda deleted.
Translatian
On the M otion o f B odies
Defmitians
1.2 The quantity af matter is that arising conjointly from its density and
magnitude. A body twdce as dense in double space is four fold. This
quantity I designate by the name body or mass.
2.^ The quantity afmatian is that arising conjointly from the velocity and
the quantity of matter. The total motion is the sum of the motion in
 318 DEFINITIOxNS Xb
individual parts, and so in a body twice as large with the same velocity
[the motion] is double and with double velocity quadruple.
3.4 The internal force of matter is the power of resistance by means of
which any one body continues so far as it can in its state of rest or moving
uniformly in a straight line: and it is proportional to its bodys nor differs
at all from the inertia of matter except in our mode of conceiving it. In
fact a body only*^ invokes this force in changes of state produced in it by
another force impressed on it, and its exercise is Resistance and Impetus
which are distinct only in relation to each other; being resistance in so
far as the body opposes itself to an impressed force, and impetus^ in so far
as the body by yielding with difficulty attempts to change the state of
the other body. It is customary to attribute resistance to bodies at rest
and impetus to those in motion; but motion and rest as commonly con­
ceived are distinct only in relation to each other: nor do those things truly
rest which are regarded as if they rested by ordinary people.
4.8 Impressed force is an action exercised on a body to change its state
of rest or motion. This force consists truly in the action only, nor does
it remain in the body after the action. However it is of diverse origins,
as of impetus, or pressure or centripetal force.
5.9 Centripetal force is a certain action or power by which a body is
impelled or drawn or in any way tends towards a certain point as if to a
centre: of this ilk is the gravity by which a body tends to the centre of
the earth, the magnetic force by which iron seeks the centre of a magnet,
and that force, whatsoever it may be, by which the Planets are held in
their orbits and perpetually restrained from flying off at a tangent.
Moreover, there are three quantities of centripetal force: absolute^
accelerative and motive. The absolute quantity of a centripetal force
(which can also be called absolute force) is greater to one centre than
another, no attention being paid to the distances and the magnitudes of
the other bodies attracted; as the magnetic virtue is greater in one
magnet and less in another. The accelerative quantity ox force is propor­
tional to the velocity generated in a given time; as the power of the same
magnet it is greater at a lesser distance less at a greater distance, or of the
force of gravity is greater near the Earth, less in the higher regions.
The motive quantity or force is proportional to the motion it produces in
a given time; as of weight more in a larger body less in a smaller one.
Therefore motive force is to accelerative force as motion to speed, f'or
quantity of motion is derived from speed multiplied by the body moved
Xb DEFINITIONS 319
and the quantity of accelerative force from the accelerative force multiplied
into the same body. Hence near the surface of the earth where the
accelerative quantity is the same in all bodies, the motive gravity or
weight is as the body; but if one recedes further from the Earth, and
ascends into regions where the accelerative quantity is less, the weight
is diminished equally, and will always be as the body multiplied by the
accelerative gravity. Moreover in the same sense I call attractions and
impulses, accelerative and motive. And use the words attraction, impulse
or propensity of any sort towards a centre indifferently and inter­
changeably one for the other, considering these forces not in the physical
but only in the mathematical sense. Hence let the reader beware lest he
think that by words of this kind I define a type or mode of action or cause
or physical reason of any kind,
6. ’®The density of a body is the quantity or bulk of matter compared
with the quantity of space occupied.
7 . ” By the heaviness of a body I understand the quantity or bulk of
matter moved apart from considerations of gravity as often as it is not
a matter of gravitating bodies. T o be sure the heaviness of gravitating
bodies is proportional to their quantity of matter by which it can by
analogy be represented or designated. And the analogy can actually be
inferred as follows. The oscillations of two equal pendulums of the same
weight are counted and the bulk of matter in each case will be inversely
as the number of oscillations made in the same time. But careful experi­
ments made on gold, silver, lead, glass, sand, common salt, water, lignite
and twill led always to the same number of oscillations. On account of
this analogy and lacking a more convenient word I represent and desig­
nate quantity of matter by heaviness, even in bodies in which there is no
question of gravity.
8. Position,
9. Rest.
10. Motion.
11. Velocity.
12. ^^ The quantity of motion is that which arises jointly from the velocity
and quantity of matter of the moving body. The motion by addition of
another body of the same motion is double and with doubled velocity
quadruple.
 320 DEFINITIONS
14.^3 The exercised force of a body is that by which it attempts to pre­
serve that part of its state of rest or motion which it gives up at particular
moments and it is proportional to the change or part of its state given up
at particular moments, and not improperly is said to be the reluctance
or resistance of the body, of which one species is the centrifugal force of
rotating bodies.
1. M S . A d d . 3965 (5), fol. 21, fol. 26 (left half).
2. C o rrespo n d in g to D e f. i o f lectures de Motu.
3. C o rresp o n d in g to D e f. 4 o f lectures de Motu.
4. C o rresp o n d in g to D e f. 5 o f lectures d e M otu . T h e latter part represents a
considerably em ended version o f an earlier and p artly illegib le version.
5. T h e phrase estque co r po r i suo proportionalis agrees w ith that in the lectures
de M otu, rather than the Principia.
6. T h e possible significance o f solummodo here is discussed above in Part I,
C h a p ter 1.4, p. 28.
7. N e w to n ’s co ncept o f impetus is touch ed on above in Part I, C h a p te r 1.4,
p. 27.
8. C o rrespo n d in g to D e f. 6 o f lectures d e Motu.
9. A draft o f D e f. 7 - 1 0 o f the lectures de Motu.
10. N o such definition occurs in the lectures de M o tu or the Principia,
althou gh the co ncept is used in D e f. i o f bo th those works. For N e w to n ’s co n ­
cept o f d ensity see above. Part I, C h a p ter 1.4, p. 25.
1 1 . See the reference to pon dus and to p en d u lu m experim ents at the end o f
D e f. 3 o f the lectures de Motu.
12. A return to D e f. 2.
13. T h e r e is no D e f. 13. T h is definition later cancelled. It corresponds to
D e f. 3 and is in terestin g for the reference at the end to vis c en tr ifu ga g y r a n t iu m
m issin g from the latter definition, at least in its final version.
Xb
XI
T H E L E C T U R E S £)£ M O T V OF 1684
T h is manuscript, entitled De Motu Corporum Liber primus, and dated in
Newton's hand, in the right hand margin of fol. i, ‘Octob. 1684’, forms
part of MS. Dd-9-46 C .U .L. The original text has been subjected to
considerable emendation at certain points, including a number of omis­
sions and insertions. As emended, the manuscript agrees so closely with
the corresponding part of Book I of the Principia^ that it must represent
something very close to, if not identical wdth, the final draft of that work,
from which was taken the copy transmitted to the Royal Society in 1686.
Consideration of the differences between the Principia and the revised
text of the present manuscript falls outside the scope of the present work,
and we shall be concerned only with significant differences between the
final and original versions.
A discussion of the probable date of composition of the present manu­
script, and of its connexion with the other parts of MS. Dd-9-46 C.U .L.
is given above in Part I, Chapter 6.4.
S ig n if ic a n t D if f e r e n c e s betw een O r ig in a l and F in a l
V e r s io n s
Definitions
Def. 1-3 in the original version read as follows:
I P Ouantitas materiae est copia seu mensura ejusdem orta ex illius densitate
et magnitudine conjunctim. Vas idem plus continet aeris vel pulveris cujust is
qui compressione magis condensantur. Corpus aiitem diiplo densius in duplo
spatio quadruplum est. Hanc quantitatem per nomen corporis vel massae
designo.
2. ^ Axis materiae est Tinea quaevis recta circum quam materia servato
partium situ inter se, in spatio libero absque impedimentis et incitamentis
uniformiter revoTci possit.
3. Centrum inatcriae est axium diiorum conciirsus,^ estque in corpore similari
punctum illud quod rulgo centrum gravitatis dicitur. Sed et in materia
dissimilari idem est cum centra gravitatis, si modo centrum illud non ex
magnitudine sed quantitate materiae determinatur. Verbi gratia centrum
gravitatis magnitudiniim globi aiirei et globi lignei punctum illud est quo
dividitur distantia inter centra globorum in ratione reciproca magnitudinum.

322 THE L E C T U R E S DE M O T U OF 1684 XI
at venini gravitatis centrum centrumque materiae est punctim illud quo
dividitur haec distantia in ratione reciproca sen ponderum sen quantitatum
materiae in globis. Nam materiam in corpore unoquoque esse ponderi pro-
portionalem reperiper experimentum pendulorump uti posthac explicabitur.
Allowing for the dilferent numbering consequent on the original exis­
tence of Defs. 2, 3 not found in the Principia, the next six definitions of
the original version were subjected to trivial emendations only. This is
true likewise for the next definition (Def. V III of the Principia) up to
vim autem absolutam ad centrum (1. 12, p. 4, Principia) after which there
is a substantial difference between the original and final version down to
the end of the paragraph. The continuation in the original version read:
. . . vel si mavis ad corpus aliquod in centro consistens, tanquam efficaciam
eius ad propagandas vires acceleratrices de se per regiones omnes in circuitu.
Mathematicus est hie conceptus. Nam virium causas physicas jam negligo.
In Physica referendae sunt vires absolutae ad earum causam veram sive
causa ilia sit corpus aliquod in centro {uti magnes in centro vis jnagneticae
vel Terra in centro vis gravitatis) sive alia aliqua quae non apparet. Nam
centrorum quae sunt puncta Mathematica, vires j'evera niillae sunt. In
Mathesi autem has vires vel abstracte considerare licet, et disputationibus
de causa vera omissis, ad centrum ceu principium Mathematicum simpliciter
referre, vel corpori alicui in centro, ceu causae sine qua non sunt, atque adeo
a cujus efficacia et quantitate pendent concrete tribuere.
Thereafter there are no significant emendations in the original text
down to the end of the Scholium to the Definitions.
Latos of Motion
Coroll. II beginning at S ifilio p r ... (1. 7, p. 1^, Principia) and continuing
down to the end of the corollary, read in the original version:
Pondus autem v ip N trahit filum directe et vi IIN urget planum pG hide
vi directum oppositum. Unde tensio fili hujus obliqui erit ad tensionem fili
alterius perpendicularis PA3 utpN ad pH. Ideoque si pondus p sit ad pondus
A in ratione qua componitnr ex ratione reciproca minimarum distantiarum
filorum suorum AM , p N a centro rotae et ratione directa pH ad p N ; pon-
dera idem valebunt ad rotam movendam, atque adeo se mutuo sustinebunt
ut quilibet experiri potest.
Per similem virium divisionem innotescit vis qua pondus simul urget plana
dua oblique quae et vis cunei est. Nam erecto ad lineam p N piano perpen-
dicularo pQ, si corpus p planis pO, pG utrinque incumhat, hoc inter plana
ilia consistens rationem habebit cunei inter corporis fissi facies internas: vis
XI TH E L E C T U R E S DE M O T U OF 1 6 8 4 323
autem qua urget planum vel faciem pO, eadem erit qua, sublato hoc piano,
distenderet filum pN, atque adeo est ad vim qua vel pondere suo vel ictu
mallei, impellitur secundum lineam Hp in plana utp N ad pH, et ad vim qua
urget planum alterumpG utpN ad pH. Sed et vis cochlea per similem virium
divisiofiem colligitur; quippe quae cunetis est a vecte impulsus.
Usus igitur Corollarij hujus latissime patet, et late patendo veritatem
ejusdem evincit, cum pendeat ex jam dictis Mechanica tota ah Authoribus
diversimode demonstrata. Ex hisce enim innotescunt vires Machinarum quae
ex rotis, tympanis, trochleis, vectibus, radijs volubilihus, nervis tensis et
ponderibus directe vel oblique ascendentibus ac descendentibus, caeterisque
potentijs Mechanicis componi solent; ut et vires nervorum ad animalium
ossa movenda, quatenus a contractione musculorum tendentur.
Apart from the insertion in the Scholium of the phrase Et primus quidem
D. Wallisius, dein D. Wrennus et D. Hugenius inventum prodidit there are
no further substantial alterations of the original text.
Article I : Method of prime and ultimate ratios
With the exception of the insertion of the two corollaries to Lemma X
found in the Principia and the addition of the final paragraph of the
Scholium, there are no substantial alterations of the original text.
Article I I : Propositions
Prop. I, Theor. i. The original enunciation of this proposition agreed
with that of MS. IXc, Prop. i. An interesting addition to the original
text is the phrase
in eodem piano cum triangulo A S B
at the end of the fourth sentence from the beginning. The last sentence
of the original version is cancelled and replaced by the passage found in
the Principia. Corollaries i, 2 found in the Principia are missing from
the original version.
Prop. 3, Theor. 3. The first three corollaries to this proposition
originally read as follows:
Corol. I. Him si corpus unum radio ad alterum ducto describit areas tempo-
ribus proportionales, urgetur hoc corpus 7iulla alia vi praeter compositam
illam ex vi centripeta ad corpus alterum tendente, et ex vi omni quae agit in
corpus alterum et in utrumque aequaliter {pro mole corporum) et secundum
lineasparallelas agere intelligitur. Namque additio et subductio virium in hoc
Theoremate sit secundum situm linearum, ut in Legum Coroll, i exponitur.
Y 2
324 THE L E C T U R E S DE M O T U OF 1684 XI
CoroL 2. Et ijsdem positis si areae sint temporibus quam proxime proportio­
nates vis ilia communis aut aequaliter agit in corpus utrumque quamproxime,
aut agit secundum lineas quamproxime parallelas, aut perquam exigua est si
cum vi centripeta ad corpus alterum tendente conferatur.
Corol. 3. Et vice versa si haec tria contingunt, corpus radio ad alterum
corpus ducto describet areas quamproxime proportionates temporibus.
Prop. 4, Theor. 4. The original enunciation agreed with that in MS. IXc,
Prop. 2. Originally there were only five corollaries, as in MS. IXc, corol­
laries 3, 7 in the Principia having been inserted later. The Scholium to
this proposition was also emended considerably, the original version
agreeing with that in MS. IXc.
Prop. 5, Prob. i. This was not in the original version. Its insertion
necessitated certain alterations in the numbering of the subsequent
propositions. The revised numbering will be adhered to thereafter for
convenience of reference to the Principia.
Prop. 6, Theor. 5. The end of the second paragraph originally agreed
with the corresponding portion of the text of Prop. 3 of MS. IXc.
Prop. 10, Prob. 5. The corollary to this in the Principia was inserted.
Article III: De motu corporum in conicis sectionibus excentricis
This article number, and title, was inserted after Prop, i i , Prob. 5,
having originally been immediately before Prop. 14, Theor. 6.
Lemma 13 of the Principia was inserted. The original lemma 13,
corresponding to lemma 14 of the Principia, read
Quadratum perpendiculi quod ab umbilico Parabolae ad tangentem ejus
demittitur est ad quadratum intervalli inter umbilicum et punctum contactus
lit lotus rectum principale ad latus rectum quod pertinet ad diametrum
transeuntem per punctum contactus.
Sit A O P Parabola, S umbilicus ejus, A vertex principalis, P punctum
contactus. P M tangens diametro principali occurrens in M, et S N linea
perpendicularis ab umbilico in tangentem. Produce S A ad Z lit sit A Z latus
rectum principale. Huic A Z erige perpendicularum Z Y , cui occurrat P Y
ipsi A Z parallela, et erit haec P Y latus rectum pertinens ad diametrum
transeuntem per punctum contactus P. Id ex conicis patet. Dico igitur quod
sit PS^ ad SN'^ ut P Y ad A Z. Nam completis parallelogrammis AG PM ,
Z Y P O ob aequalia triangula PSN , M S N et similia M SN , M PO, est P S i
ad SN^‘ ut PM'^ sell AG'' ad PO'', hoc est {ex natiira Parabolae) ut rectan-
XI THE L E C T U R E S DE M O T U OF 1684 325
gulum Y P G ad rectangulum ZA O , id est, ob aequales, PG, AM , AO, ut
P Y a d A Z Q.E.D.
Prop. 13, Prob. 8. Originally there was the following Scholium to this
Proposition:
S i vis centripeta ageret in omnibus distantijs aequaliter, corpus autem
hac vi urgente describeret curvam A B C G E et in A longissime distaret a
centro S, perveniret idem corpus ad minimam a centra distantiam in C ubi
angulus A S C est n o graduum circiter, deinde ad Augem seu maximam a
centro distantiam in D ubi angulus C S D est aequalis angulo A S C , postea
ad minimam a centro distantiam in E ubi angulus D SE est aequalis angulo
C SD et sic infinitum. Quod si vis centripeta reciproce proportionalis esset
distantiae a centro, corpus de loco maximae sui a centro distantiae A descen­
deret ad locum minimae a centro distantiae, puta ad G, ubi angulus A S G
est quasi 136 vel 140 graduum, dein hoc angulo repetito ascenderet rursus ad
maximam a centro distantiam et sic per vices in infinitum. Et universaliter,
si vis centripeta decresceret in majore quam duplicata et minore quam tripli-
cata ratione corpus prius minori quam duplicata ratione distantiae a centro
corpus ad maximam a centro distantiam prius rediret quam compleret
circulum, sui vis ilia decresceret in majore quam duplicata et minore quam
triplicata ratione corpus prius compleret circulum quam rediret ad maximam
a centro distantiam. A t si vis eadem decresceret in triplicata vel plusquam
triplicata ratione distantiae a centro, et corpus inciperet moveri in curva
quae in principio motus fecaret radium A S perpendiculariter, hoc si semeI
inciperet descendere, pergeret semper descendere usque ad centrum, si semel
inciperet ascendere abiret in infinitum.
Prob. 16, Theor. 8. The present manuscript ends at Coroll. 5 of this
proposition.
1. H ere and elsewhere the reference is to the First E dition .
2. T h is version was subjected to considerable em endations and cancellations
and then finally replaced (at fol. 5v) b y the follo w in g version corresponding to,
th o u gh not identical w ith, D e f. i, P rincipia:
Quantitas m ateriae est mensura ejiisdem orta ex illius densitate et magnitudine con-
j un ctim . Aer duplo d ensior in duplo spatio quadruplus est. Idem intellige de n i v e et
pulveribus p e r compressionem v e l liquefactionem condensatis. Et p a r est ratio c o r ­
po ru m omnium quae p e r operationes naturae diversim ode condensantur n eg le ct o
scilicet a d medium respectu, s iq uo dfuerit, in[ter]stitiapartium libere pervaden s. Inno-
tescit autem quantitas m ateriae p e r corporis cujusque pondus. Nam p on der i p r o -
portionalem esse r ep e r i p e r experimenta pendulorum accuratissim e instituta, uti
p o st ha c docebitur. Eandem v e r o sub nomine corporis v e l massae in sequentibus
passim intelligo.
326 THE L E C T U R E S DE M O T U OF 1684 XI
3. B o th this and the su cceed in g definition were o m itted from the Principia. NOTE REGARDING PREVIOUS
T h e y are o f interest fo r the evidence th ey su p p ly o f the co n tin uity o f N e w to n ’s
P U B L I C A T I O N OF N E W T O N D Y N A M I C A L
dyn am ical tho u ght. See above, C h a p te r 5, p . 86.
4. C an ce lled and replaced b y intersectio. MANUSCRIPTS
5. N o tic e h o w this im portan t fact was incorporated in the final version o f
D e f. I given in n. 2 above.
I. MS. Add. 3996 has not yet been published in full. Certain extracts
other than those given here have been published by Hall [i].
II. Unpublished previously apart from certain extracts relating to centri­
fugal force in Herivel [i].
III. The Vellum MS. has been published previously by Herivel [4], and in
vol. iii of C or re sp on de nc e.
IVa. Published previously with translation by Hall [2], and in vol. i of
C o r re sp on de nc e.
IVb. Published previously with translation by Hall and Hall [i] apart from
the Diagrams which they reconstructed from the text.
V. Published previously in part by Herivel [5], and completely in vol. iii
of C o r re sp on de nc e.
VI. MS. Add. 4003 published previously with translation by Hall and Hall
[!]•
VII. Correspondence.
VIII. The Newton Copy MS. first published by Whiston [2] in a Latin ver­
sion and in English incompletely by Ball [i], and completely by Hall
and Hall [i]. The Locke Copy has been published previously by King
[i], and in vol. iii of C o r re sp on de nc e.
IX. The Royal Society Copy (Isaaci N e w t on i P r op os it io ne s d e M otu ) was the
first version to be published, by Rigaud [i]. An emended version of
the same manuscript was then published by Ball [i] who also gave the
substantial differences and additions of Version HI. Hall and Hall [i]
have published Version HI with translation giving certain of the differ­
ences between that version and the first two versions in footnotes.
Xa. Unpublished previously.
Xb. Definitions 1-5 published previously with translation by Hall and
Hall [i].
XL Unpublished previously.
 BI BLI OG RAPH Y 329
H ai .l , a . R., and Hali., M . B. [ i ]. U npublished S cien tific Papers o f Isaac Nezvton
BIBLIOGRAPHY (C am bridge, 1962).
Herivel, j . W . [ i ], ‘ N e w to n ’s D is co v e ry o f the L a w o f C en trifu ga l F o r ce ’ ,
Isis, 5 1 , 5 4 6 -5 3 (i960).
A lexander, H . G . [ i ], T h e L e ib n iz -C la r k e Controversy (M anchester, 1956).
------- [2], ‘ O n the D a te o f C o m p o sitio n o f the F irst Version o f N e w to n ’s T r a c t dc
A ndrade, E . N . da C . [ i ]. S ir Isaac N ew ton (L o n d o n , 1954).
M o t u ', A rch iv es Internationales d 'H isto ire des Sciences, 13, 6 7 -7 0 (i960).
B all , W . W . R . [ i ]. A n Essay on N ew to n 's P r in cip ia (L o n d o n , 1893).
------- [3], ibid., p p . 7 1 - 7 8 .
B eeckman, I. [i\ , J o u rn a l, w ith in troduction and notes b y C . de W aard, 4 vols.
(L a H aye, 19 3 9 -53 ).
------- [4], ‘ Interpretation o f an early N e w to n M a n u scrip t’ , Isis, 52, 4 10 -16
(1961).
B irch, T. [ i ], A H isto ry o f the R o y a l S o ciety o f Lond on , 4 vols. (L o n d on ,
------- [5], ‘ N e w to n on R o tatin g B o d ie s’ , ibid. 53, 2 1 2 -1 8 (1962).
1 7 5 6 -7 )-
K in g , L ord [ i ]. L if e o f L o c k e (2nd ed., London, 1830).
B orelli, J. a . [ i ], T heorica medicearum planetarum a causis physicis deducta
(Florence, 1666).
K oyre, A . [i]. E tu des G alileen nes, Parts I - H I (Paris, 1939).
B oyer, C . B. [ i ]. T h e H istory o f the C a lcu lu s an d its C on cep tual D evelop m en t ------- [2], ‘A n U n p u b lish ed L e tte r o f R ob ert H oo ke to Isaac N e w to n ’ , Isis, 43,
(N e w Y o rk , 1959).
312-38 (1952).
------- [3], ‘L a m ecan ique celeste de J. A . B o relli’ , R ev u e d 'H isto ir e des Sciences, 5,
Brewster, D. [ i ]. M em oirs o f the L ife , W ritings, an d D iscoveries o f S ir Isaac
N ew ton , 2 vols. (E d in b u rgh , 1855). 101-38 (1952).
Bullialdus, I. [i], A stronom ia P h ilo la ica (Paris, 1645). ------- [4], ‘ L ’h yp oth ese et I’experience chez N e w to n ’ , B u ll. S o c. F r a n f. P h il. 48,
C ajori, F . [ i ], ‘ N e w to n ’s T w e n t y Y ears D e la y in A n n o u n cin g the L a w of 59-97 (1956).
G ra v ita tio n ’ , p p. 1 2 7 -8 8 o f S ir Isa a c N ezcton, a B icenten ary E v a lu a tio n o f ------- [5], F ro m the C lo sed W o rld to the In fin ite U niverse (Baltimore, 1957).
his W ork (Baltim ore, 1928). ------- [6], N ezvtonian S tu d ies (inpress).
------- [2] (Revisor), S ir Isaac N ezvton’s M a th em a tica l P rincip les . . . T ran slated L ohne, j . [ i ], ‘ H ooke versus N e w to n ’ , C entaurus, 7 , 6 -5 2 (i960).
into English by Andrezv M o tte (Berkeley, 1934). M ach, E . [ i ]. D ie M ech a n ik in ihre Entzoicklung (L e ip zig , 1921).
C lagett, M . [ i ]. S cien ce o f M ech a n ics in the M id d le A g es (M adison and O xfo rd , M agirus, j . [ i ], Physiologiae P erip a tetica e L ib r i S e x C u m Com m entariis . . .
(C a m brid ge edition, 1642).
1959).
C ohen, I. B. [i], F ra n k lin an d N ew ton (Philadelphia, 1956). M aier, A . [i], ZzveiP roblem e der scholastischen N a tu rp h ilosop h ie, (2nd ed., R om e,
C ostabel, P. [ i ], L e ib n iz et la dynam ique (Paris, i960). 1951)-
C ranston, M . W . [ i ], J o h n L o ck e (L o n d on , 1957). M ore, L . T . [ i ], Isaac N ezvton, a B iography (N e w Y o rk , 1934).
C rew, H . [ i ]. T h e R ise o f M od ern P h ysics (Baltim ore, 1928). P atterson, L. D. [ i ], ‘ H o o k e ’s G ravita tio n theory and its influence on N e w to n ’,
------- and S alvio , A . de [ i ] (Translators), G a lile o 's D ialogues Concerning Tzco Isis, 40 (1949).
N ew Sciences (D o v er edition o f 19 14 N e w Y o r k edition, no date). — — [2], ibid. 41 (1950).
C rombie, a . C . [ i ], A u g u stin e to G a lileo , 2 vols. (Lo n don , 1961). Pelseneer, j . [ i ], ‘ U n e lettre inedite de N e w to n ’ , Isis, 12, 2 3 7 -5 4 (1929).
DE V illamil , R . [ i ], Nezvton: T h e M a n (L o n d on , no date). ------- [2], ‘ L a p om m e de N e w to n ’ , d e l et Terre, 53, 190 -3 (1937).

D rake, S. [ i ] (Editor), G a lileo G a lilei, D iscourse on B odies in W ater. T ran sla te d
b y T homas S alusbury (U rbana, i960).
------- and D rabkin , I. E. [i] (Translators), G a lileo G a lile i O n M o tio n an d O n
M ech a n ics (M adiso n , i960).
D ugas, R . [ i ]. L a M eca n iqu e an X V I F siecle (N eu ch atel, 1954).
------- [2], A H isto ry o f M ech a n ics translated b y J. R . M a d d o x (L o n d on , 1957).
Pemberton, H . [ i ], A Viezv o f S ir Isaac N ezvton's P h ilosop h y (D u b lin , 1728).
R igaud, S. P. [ i ]. H isto rica l E ssay on the F irst P u b lica tio n o f S ir Isaac N ezvton's
P rin cip ia (O xford , 1838).
------- [2] (Editor), Correspondence o f S cien tific M e n o f Seven teen th C en tu ry ,
2 vols. (O xfo rd , 1841).
S antillana, G . de [ i ] (Editor), G a lileo G a lilei, D ialogue on the G reat W orld

D lihem, P. [ i ], [2], [3], E tu d es stir L eon a rd de V in ci, Serie i , 2, 3 (Paris, 1906, System s (C hicago, 1953).
1909, 1913). S hapley, H. and H owarth, H . E. [ i ], A S ource B o o k in A stronom y (N e w Y o rk ,
E dleston, j . [ i ]. Correspondence o f S ir Isa a c Nezvton an d Professor C otes 1929)-
(L o n d on , 1850). S inger, C . [ i ], A S h o r t H istory o f S cien tific Ideas to i g o o (O xfo rd 1959).
F iersz, M. [ i ], ‘U b e r den U rsp ru n g u n d B ed eu tu n g der L eh re Isaac N ew to n s
S treet, T. [ i ], A stronom ia C arolin a: A Nezv Theory o f C oelestia l M o tio n (L o n ­
don, 1661).
vom absoluten R a u m ’, Gesnerus, i i , 6 2 -1 2 0 (1954).
G abbey, W . a . [ i ], ‘ D e sca rte s’ D y n a m ica l T h o u g h t ’ (un published thesis.
S tukeley, W . [ i ]. M em oirs o f S ir Isaac Nezvton s L ife , edited by W hite, A . W .
(L o n d o n , 1936).
Q u e e n ’s U n iversity, Belfast, 1964).
Hall , A . R . [i], ‘ Sir Isaac N e w to n ’s N o te Book, 1 6 6 1 -6 5 ’, Cam bridge H isto rica l
S ullivan , J. W . N . [i], Isaac Nezvton i 6 4 2 - i j 2 y (L o n d o n , 1938).
J o u rn a l, 9, 2 3 9 -5 0 (1948).
T orricelli, E . [ i ], D e M o tu Projectorum : O p . G eom etrica (Florence, 1644).

------- [2], ‘N e w to n on the C alcu latio n o f C en tral F o rces’ , A n n a ls o f Scien ce, 13, T oulmin, S. [ i ], P h il. R ev . 68, 1 -2 9 (1959).
I'u R N O R , E. [i]. C ollections fo r the H istory o f the Tozvn and S o k e o f G rantham
6 2 -7 1 (1957)-
(L o n don , 1806).
330 inBL10C;RAPHY
W hew ell , W. [ i ], H istory o f the I n d u c ti ve Sciences, 2 vols., 3rd ed. (London,
INDEX
1857)-
W h is to n , W. [ i ], M em oirs o f the Life o f Mr. William Whiston by himself, 2 vols. Where a manuscript is in Latin references are given only to the translation. Entries
(London, 1749). involving Newton and another individual are generally given under the latter only.
------[2], P r a ele ct io n es P h y s i c o -M a t h e m a t i c a l (Cambridge, 1710).
Acceleration, 203.
Adam, A ., and Tannery, P., 44 n.
Alexander, H. G ., 29 n., 234 n. 19.
Anderson, A ., 237.
Andrade, E. N . da C., xiv.
Antiperistasis, theory of, 125 n. 3.
Archimedes, 41.
Aristotle, i, 2, 38, 43 n., 124, 125 n. 3,
126 nn. 8 and 10.
Aston, F., 96, 104.
Axis, of body, 310 Def. 6; of circulation,
210 § 5, 312 Law I.
Ball, W . W . R., xiv, i i n., 12 n., 16,
17 n., 23 0 ., 6 50 ., 70 n., 98 n., 102,
108 n., 117 n., 131 n. 2, 257 n. 2.
Barrow, I., 2, 3 n., 15.
Beeckman, E, 340., 36, 52 n., 132 n. 6,
303 n. 13.
Birch, T ., 5 n., 103 n., 132 n. 6.
Bodies, absolutely solid or hard, 143 Ax.
9, 10, 151 n. 4, 213; colliding, spring of,
4, relative velocity of, 4, 83, 213;
definition of, 226 Def. 2, 310 Def. 5;
descent of, in relative and absolute
space, 310 Def. 4; distance between,
139 Def. 13; elasticity of, 151 n. 4; ex­
tended, motion of, xiii n., 77-86,
collision between, 14 n., 32, 82-86, 90,
171-9 , 2 1 1 -1 5 , 2 1 7 -1 8 ; falling, law of,
see under Descartes, Galileo, and New ­
ton; motion towards one another, 77,
139 Def. 12; nature of, 227 § i ; pair
or system of, centre of motion of, see
under Motion, centre of.
Borelli, J. A., 59, 233 n. 10.
Boyer, C. B., 2 n.
Boyle, R., his receiver, 127 n. 22.
Bradwardine, T ., 2 n.
Brewster, D., xiii n., xiv, i n., 14, 75 n.,
96 n., 97 n., 102, 108 n., 117 n.
Brownover, S., 108 n., 246.
Bulk, proportionality of motion to, 133
§ 3, 135 n. 3; and weight, 3 1 1 Def. i i .
Cajori, F., 25 n., 66 n., 68.
Calculator, 2.
Centrifugal force, absence from treatment
of orbital motion in Principia, 73 ; and
Descartes, 7, 40, 47, 54; and Pluygens,
15) 56, 7 1 ; as species of force of a
body to persevere in its motion, 56, 3 11
Def, 13, 314 n. 14, 320 Def. 14; due to
diurnal and annual motions of the
Earth compared with gravity, see under
Force, of gravity; its replacement by
centripetal force, 13, 55, 59,73,289 n. i,
290 n. 9; law of, 196, derivation of, 1 1 -
13, discovery of, 89, result equivalent
to, 185; of the M oon from the Earth,
58, 72; of the planets from the Sun, 58,
72; physical origin of, 7; quantitative
treatment of, 7 -1 3 ; question o f its
existence w'ithin framework o f Newton­
ian dynamics, 56, 62-63.
Centripetal force, 277-89, 300 Lemma 2,
302, 318 Def. 4; and orbital motion, 13,
55i 61, 73, 277-89; definition of, 28,
277 Def. I, 299 Def. i, 3 1 1 Def. 16,
318 Def. 5; different kinds of, 318 Def.
5; examples of, 318 Def. 5; general
formula for its calculation in orbital
motion, 17 0 ., 19, 279 Theor. 3; its
real nature as opposed to centrifugal
force, 13; its replacement o f centrifugal
force, 13, 55, 59, 73, 289 n. i, 290 n. 9.
law of, for motion in circle under
force to centre, 278 Theor. 2, for motion
in circle under force to circumferential
point, 280 Prob. i, for motion in ellipse
under force to centre, 281 Prob. 2, for
motion in ellipse under force to focus,
281 Prob. 3, for motion in equiangular
spiral under force to eye, 280 Prob. i
Scholium-, uniform, 287 Prob. 7.
Circle, tyranny of, 8, 52; uniform motion
in, 45-48, 51-52, 145 Ax. 19, and
Galileo, 37, 40, 46, and Hooke, 240,
242, 242 n. 2, deviational treatment of,
12-13, 195-8, 278 Theor. 2, endeavour
from centre in {see under Endeavour),
force from centre in, 9, polygonal treat­
ment of, 7-10 , 18, 129-30, 139 n. f,
146-8.
Clagett, M ., 2 n., 3 n., 126 n. 7, 235 n. 32.
Clarke, S., 29, 234 n. 19.
Clerselier, 234 n. 23.
Cohen, I. B., xiv.
Collins, J., 15, 237, 238 n. 2.
Collisions, 142 A x. 7, 8, 9, 10; and D es­
cartes, 3, 4, 48, 49, 52; and Huygens,
4-5, 52; and third law' of motion, 31,
332 INDEX
312 Law 3; between extended body and
immovable surface, 83, 90, 170 Prop.
33, 179 Prop. 39, 40; between extended
bodies, 14 0 ., 32, 82-86, 90, 1 7 1-7 ,
2 1 1 -1 5 , 2 1 7 -1 8 ; elastic, 4, 137 Def. 5,
142 Ax. 9; oblique, 31, 159 A x. 119,
121, 122; perfectly elastic, 4, 5, 143 Ax.
9, 1 5 1 n. 5; perfectly inelastic, 3, 132-
6, 143 A x. 9; problem of, 3, 4, 5, 6, 49;
see also Reflection.
Comets, 99, 102, 284 Prob. 4 Scholium,
291 n. 37, 302.
Conatus, see under Endeavour.
Conduitt, J., 15 n., 1 7 0 ., 75, 97.
Conic sections, 249-51.
Copernican system, i i , 301 B.
Costabel, P., 5 n.
Cotes, R., xiii.
Cousin, V., 233 n. 8.
Cranston, M . W., 108 n., 246.
Crew, H., 25.
Crew, H., and Salvio, A., 37 n., 132 n. 5.
Crombie, A. C., 126 n. 7.
Curve, approximation to by broken line,
18, 21, 78, 115, 130, 145 Ax. 18, 151 n.
10, 247, 256 n. 14.
Degree of great circle on Earth’s surface,
65-
Descartes, R., and, action required to
create and destroy motion, 48, centri­
fugal force, 7, 40, 47, 54, conservation
of motion, 3, 32, 49, 135 n. 4, definition
of motion, 3, determination of motion,
8, 140 n. 6, horizontal pendulum, 132
n. 6, impossibility of vacuum, 126 n. 15,
law o f falling bodies, 36 n., motion as a
state, 160 n. 4, particle free to slide in
revolving tube, 47, 54, principle of
inertia, 30, 40, 43, 44-45, 235 n. 26,
problem of collisions, 3, 4, 48, 49, 52,
stability of planetary orbits, 59 n., 227
§ 2, 233 n. 10.
his, concept of conatus ( = endea­
vour) 46, 47, 52, correspondence,
dynamical discussion in, 43 n., double
theory o f motion, 125 § 3, 127 n. 19,
233 nn. 7 and 8, 234 n. 16, 310 Def. 9,
314 n., 8 double theory o f motion and
Newton, 219, 227-30, 233 n. 8, in­
fluence on Newton, i, 29, 40, 41, 42-53,
150 n. I, 219, 234 n. 15, Principia
Philosophiae and Newton, 226-35,
Vortex theory, 42, 60 n., 65, 66 n., 68,
127 n. 19, 227 § 2, 228 n. 5, 233 n. 9,
234 n. 18.
Density, 25, 319 Def. 6, 320 n. 10.
Determination, of motion, 3, 45, 137 Def.
4; of centre of motion, 78.
Deviation, as measure of centrifugal ten­
dency in motion in a circle, 195; as
measure of centripetal force, 19-22,
249 Prop. 2, 252-3, 255 n. 12, 279
Theor. 3, 290 nn. 9 and i i , 291 nn. 22
and 34; between actual and inertial
paths, 12.
Division, forbidden, 2, 3, 136 n. 9, 149,
215 n. 2.
Drake, S., 37 n,
Dugas, R., 5 n., 36.
Duhem, P., xiv, 36 n., 126 nn. 7, 10, and
13-
Edleston, J., xiii, 98 n., 99 n., 102 n.
Endeavour, along tangent, 51, 147 A x. 20;
from centre in motion in circle, 7, 1 2 -
13, 48, SI, 52 , 54-64, 79 , 129 § I, 147
A x. 21, 22, 148 Ax. 24, 25, 195-8,
231 Def. 10, and absolute motion, 228
§ 3, 310 Def. 9, and centre of motion in
rotating body, 209 § 4, and Descartes,
46, 47, 52, and gravity, 231 Def. 10,
233 n. 10, as impeded force, 13, 55; of
Earth from Sun compared with force of
gravity, 197; of Moon from Earth,
69 n., compared with endeavour of
Moon from Sun, 15, 197, 237, com­
pared with force of gravity at Earth’s
surface, 196; of planets from Sun, 72,
197.
Equiangular spiral, motion in, 280 Prob. i
Scholium.
Equinoxes, precession of, 86.
Ether, resistance of, 301, 302.
Extension, 136 Def. i, 208 § i ; of powers,
232 Def. 12.
Fiersz, M ., 29, 126 n. 16.
Flamsteed, J., 108, 238; his correspon­
dence with Newton in winter of 1684/5,
103, 104, 107.
Fluent, 2 n.
Fluxions, 2, 17 n., 34 n., 66, 67, 93.
Force, absolute, 318 Def. 5 ; accelerative,
20, 21, 22, 318 Def. 5; and change of
motion, 48, 141 Ax. 3, 4, 6, 142 Ax. 5,
150 Ax. 23, 150 n. 2, 157 Ax. 108, 158
Ax. 1 14, 115, 159 Ax. 1 18, 208 § I, 231
Def. 5; and rest, 27, 231 Def. 5;
approximation to, by discrete impulses,
18, 21, 70, 247, 252, 278 Theor.
I ; by which a body endeavours from
I NDE X
centre in motion in a circle, in half a
revolution 8, 9, 147 A x. 22, in a whole
revolution, 148 A x. 24; centrifugal, see
centrifugal force; centripetal, see centri­
petal force; concept of, 5-6, 7, and
Galileo, 36, 37; definition of, 138 Def.
9; equality of, between colliding bodies,
6, 142 Ax. 7, 8; exercised, of a body,
311 Def. 12, 320 Def. 14; impeded, and
conatus, 13, 55; impressed, 28, and
change of state, 312 Law 1 ,3 1 2 Law 3,
318 Def. 4, and change of motion, 299
Law 2, 312 Law 2, and motion of pro­
jectile, 123; impulsive, 18, 20, 21, 39,
140 n. 10, 247, 252, 278 Theor. i, 303
n. 10, 3 1 1 Def. 14; innate or internal,
of body or matter, 26-28, 277 Def. 2,
H yp. 2, 278 Theor. i, 286 Prob. 6, 299
Def. 2, Law i, 311 Def. 12, 312 Law' i,
318 Def. 3; instantaneous, 140 n. 10;
motive, 22, 318 Def. 5; nature of, 231
Def. 5; of a body, see force, innate or
internal; of a body’s motion, 156 Ax.
106, 161 n. 10, 3 1 1 Def. 13.
of gravity, as centripetal force, 302,
318 Def. 5, compared with centrifugal
force, 131 §§ 8, 9, 132 n. 8, at Earth’s
surface compared with centrifugal force
there due to diurnal motion, 10, i i ,
183-6, 188, 196, at Earth’s surface com­
pared with endeavour of Earth from the
Sun, 197, at Earth’s surface compared
with endeavour of the Moon from the
Earth, 196, compared with centripetal
force on the Moon, 302, compared with
the resistance of the air, 289, its
diminution due to diurnal motion, 58,
62.
of planets from the Sun, 72; on a
planet, 16, 18; physical, 6; qualitative
definition of, 5, 6; resisting, 277 Def.
3, Hyp. I, 299 Def. 3, 299 Law 5, 313
Law 6; varying inversely as square of
distance, 19, 20, 23, 34 n., 248 Prop. 2,
251 Prop. 3, 281 Prob. 3, 282 Theor. 4,
284 Prob. 4, 286 Prob. 5.
Gabbey, W. .A., 43 n., 52 n., 1 5 1 n. 4.
Galilei, G., i, 2, 7, 29, 32, 3 5 -4 1; and,
area under velocity-time graph, 33,
34 n., 38, 300 Lemma 2, assumption
that distance moved in given time pro­
portional to magnitude of force acting,
37, concept of force, 36, 37, inertial
motion, 37, 42, 52 n., Merton Rule,
io n ., 38,41, motion ( = momentum) 37,
333
motion in a circle, 37,40, 46, principle of
inertia, 35, 36, problem of percussion,
37, 38, rate of fall under gravity, 125,
127 n. 24, 186, 189, second law of
motion, 35, 36, 37.
his Dialogue, 10, 34 n., 36, 37, 38,
41, 74, 127 n. 24, 132 nn. 4 and 5, 183,
189, 198 n. 4, Discorsi, 2 n., 4, io n .,
34 n., 35 m, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 m, 41,
91, 132 n. 5, 207 n. I, Discourse on
Bodies in Water, 37, discovery of para­
bolic path of projectile, 35, 36, 39, 41,
312 Law 2, Siderius Nuncius, 125 n. 3,
supposed use o f first and second laws
of motion, 31, 33, 35, P law of falling
bodies, i i , 12, 35, 36, 38, 41, 74, 184,
185, 195, 197 n. I, 207 nn. 6 and 13,
256n. 13; New ton’s homage to, 360., 53.
Gassendi, P., 42, 43.
Geometry, analytical versus synthetical, 3.
Gravitation, inverse square law of, 57, 58,
62, 67 n., 70, 71, 72, 104, 106 n.,
237 n. I ; and Bullialdus, 16 n .; deriva­
tion of, 13; tests against M oon’s motion,
13, 14, 23, 58, 59, 60, 65-76, 89-90, 92,
132 n. 2, 302.
Gravity, acceleration due to, 203; and
endeavour, 231 Def. 10, 233 n. 10; and
levity, 43 n .; as species of centripetal
force, 286 Prob. 5 Scholium, 318 Def.
5; centre of, 85, 135 n. 6, 310 Def. 6,
3 1 1 Def. 10; definition of, 231 Def.
10; efficacy of, on inclined plane, 203;
force of, see force of gravity; natural, i ,
121, 123, 126 n. 13; of body and its
solidity, 125; rate of fall due to, i i , 88,
125, 127 n. 24, 185, 186, 187, 188, 206;
uniform, 312 Law 2.
Gregory, D., 17 n., 72 n., 92, 94, 192,
199.
Gregory, J., 15 n., 66, 238 n. 2.
Hall, A. R., 560., 72 n., 183, 192.
Hall, A. R., and Hall, M . B., 29 n., 102,
1 17 n., 198, 208, 219.
Halley, E., 62, 70, 73, 105, 108, 257, 283;
his correspondence with Newton in
1686, 12, 16 n., 17, 22 n., 23 n., 57, 58,
59 n., 61, 62, 65 n., 71 n., 72, 74, 92 n.,
97 n., 99, 104, 105, 106, 192, 237 nn. i
and 3, 240 n. 2, 242 n. 2, discussion
with Hooke and Wren in 1684, 97,
experiment of pendulum clock at St.
Helena, 58, 64, visits to Newton at
Cambridge in 1684, 17 n., 23, 24, 75,
97, lo i, 102, 103, 104, 107, 1 15.
 j :?4 INDEX
Herivel, J. W., 103 n., 183, 208.
Hooke, R., 24, 74, 75, 108, 303; and, con­
troversy with Newton over inverse
square law of gravitation, 57, 58, 62,
670., 7on., 71, 104, io6n., 237 n. i, con­
troversy with Newton over optics, 15;
his discussion with Halley and Wren in
1684, 97, intervention of 1679, xiv, 13,
14. 3 4 n., 7 5 . 1 14. 1 17. 238-45, 303 n.
19, supposed discovery of parallax due
to Earth’s annual motion, 238, 240 n. 2,
theory of circular motion, 240, 242,
242 n. 2.
Horrox, J., 291 n. 30.
Huygens, C., 14, 60, 72 n., 87, n o , 112,
132 nn. 6 and 7, 198, 236, 237 nn. 2
and 3; and, centrifugal force, 6, 15, 56,
71, horizontal pendulum, 132 nn. 6 and
7, problem of collisions, 4-5, 52.
Hyperbola, motion in, 284.
Impetus, 27, 28, 231 Def. 7, 311 Def. 13,
318 Def. 3, 318 Def. 4, 320 n. 7;
School, I.
Impulse, see under Force, impulsive.
Indivisibles, method of, 244.
Inertia, i, 26-28, 318 Def. 3; as internal
principle of conservation of rest or
motion, 231 Def. 5; definition of, 231
Def, 8; principle of, 5, 28, 29-30, 35,
36, 43, 44-45, 141 A x. I, 2, 150 n. I,
153 A x. 100, 234 n. 15, 246 Hyp. i,
274 n. di, 277 Hyp. 2, 299 Law 1 ,3 1 2
Law I, 314 n. 21, for circular motion,
86; see also under Descartes and
Galileo.
Inertial movement, and Galileo, 37, 42,
52 n.; along tangent, 12, 18, 19; be­
tween impulses, 18.
Intension and remission of forms, 235
n. 32.
Intensity of power, 231 Def. ir.
Isochronism of cycloidal pendulum,
203-4.
Kepler, J., his first law o f planetary
motion, 16, 19, 22, 34 n., 102, 290 n.
18, proposition corresponding to, 248
Prop. 2, 251 Prop. 3, 281 Prob. 3; his
laws of planetary motion, 16, 42, 125
n. I, 281 Prob. 3 Scholiujn, 289 n. i;
his second law of planetary motion, 16,
19, 22, 34 n., qr, 78 n., 115, 255 n. 9,
290 n. 7, proposition corresponding to,
246 Prop. I, 255 n. 9, 278 Thcor. i ;
his third law of planetary motion, 13,
66 n., 67, 69, 125 n. 2, 132 n. 3, 197,
198 n. 16, 279 Corol. 5 Scholium, 282
Theor. 4,
Kepler-motion, problem of, 13 n., 16 -
22, 34 n., 60, 61, 7 1 ; solution to, 246-
56, 278 T'heor. i, 281 Prob. 3, analytical
rather than synthetical, 13 n., 17 n.
Koyre, A., x iv n ., 16, 36, 42, 45 n., 57 n.,
59 n., 70 n., I l l n., 126 n. 16, 240 n.
Leibniz, G ., 5, 17 n., 29, 234 n. 19.
Lever, principle of, 170 Prop. 34.
Levity, 289.
Locke, J., 106, 108-17 pcissim, 120, 246,
254-s, 290 n. 8.
Lohne, J., 34 n.
Lucasian Chair of Mathematics, 72 n.,
92, 98, 192.
Lucretius, 303 n. 14.
Macclesfield Collection, 257.
Mach, E., 25.
Magirus, J., i, 380., 121.
Alaier, A., 235 n. 32.
Marci, M ., 52 n.
Mass, and weight, 25, 127 n. 23, 231 § 8,
235 n. 24; centre of, and centre of
motion, 79, 85, 215 n. 8.
Matter, quantity of, 317 Def. i, 319
Def. 7.
Mersenne, M ., 230.
Merton, College, 2 n. 3, 235 n. 32; Rule,
10, 38, 41, 88.
Alore, H., 126 n. 16.
More, L. T ., xiv, 15 n., n o n.
Moon. See under Endeavour, Gravitation,
Motion.
Moscovici, S., 38 n.
Motion ( = Momentum), and, Descartes,
3, 8, 32, 49, 135 n. 4, Galileo, 37, power
to persevere in state of movement, 137
Def. 3; angular, principle of, 84;
change of, and force, see under Force,
and change of motion; composition of,
law, i4 n ., 18, 31-32, 35, 39-40, 41, 182,
209 § 3, 246 Hyp. 3, 278 Hyp. 3, 290 n.
6, 290 n. 8, 294, 299 Lemma i, 313
Lemma i ; conservation of, 3, 5,133 §§ 5,
6, 135 n. 4, 142 A x. 7, 8, 159 A x. 122,
218 n. 25; definition of, 3, 136 Def. 2,
3; gained or lost by reflection, 214 § 4,
215 § 5; proportionality to, bulk, 133
§ 3, 135 n. 3, distance moved in given
time, 134 § 7, 135 n. 8; quantity of,
total, 3, 26, 49, 317 Def. 2, definition
of, 3 11 Def. II, 317 Def. 2, 319 Def. 12.
INDEX
Motion ( = M ovem ent); absolute, and en­
deavour from centre, 228 § 3, 310
Def. 9, its distinguishing from relative
motion, 57, 62, 310 Def. 9, 314 n. 7;
and, Descartes, 125, 127 n. 19, i6 o n . 4,
219, 227-30, 233 nn. 7 and 8, 234 n. 16,
310 Def. 9, 314 n. 8, impressed force,
123, natural gravity, 121, 123, quantity,
123, rest, relative natures of, 318 Def. 3,
spirit, 123; as state of body, 153 Ax.
100, 156 Ax. 106, 160 n. 4.
centre of, in dynamical sense, 77,
78-79, 80, 85, 138 Def. 10, 140 n. 12,
209 § 4, 215 n. 8, in kinematical sense,
77-78 , 138 Def. 10, 140 n. 12, 144 A x.
13, 14a, IS, 145 Ax. 16, 17, 18, 209 § 4,
of extended body, motion of, 176,
Prob. 37, of pair of bodies, 79, 80, 81,
84, 139 Def. II, 140 n. 13, 148 A x. 25,
209 § 4, of pair of bodies, motion of, 80,
162-70, of system of bodies, motion of,
85, 209 § 4, 216 n. 13, 299 Law 4, 313
Law 5.
circular ( — rotation), and distin­
guishing between true and relative
motion, 57, 62, 310 Def. 9, and prin­
ciple o f inertia, 312 Law i, angular
quantity of, 78, axes of circulation of,
210 § 5, 312 Law I, combination of,
82, 210 § 7, continuation of, under no
forces, 211 § 8, equator of circulation
of, 210 § 5, measure of, 145 A x. 19,
209 § 5, 210 § 6, measurement of, in
terms of quantity of motion, 79, poles
of circulation of, 210 § 5, principle of
inertia for, 86, radius of circulation of,
81, 210 § 5, real quantity of, 81, 209 § 5,
resolution of, 78.
definition of, 136 Def. i, 226 Def. 4,
310 Def. 9; determination of, 137 Def.
4, 144 Ax. 15, and Descartes, 8, 140
n. 6; first law of, see under Inertia,
principle o f; in circle, see Circle,
motion in; in curve, measurement of
velocity of, 149, 152 n. 20; in cycloid,
203-7; inertial, 12, 18, 19, and Galileo,
37, 42, 52 n.; in ellipse, 7, 13, 16-20,
1 16, 130 § 3, 248-9, 251-4, 281-6; in
hyperbola, 284, parabola, 284, in plena,
124, polygon, 9, II, resisting medium,
286-9; instantaneous direction of, 7 ;
in straight line, measure of velocity ot,
149, 152 n. 20; in vacuo, 123-4; Kepler,
see under Kepler-motion; laws of,
312-13, and Galileo, 31, 33, 35, corol­
laries to, 31-33, 315 nn. 25, 26 and 28.
3 35
of extended body, 77-86, 143-5; of
globe, 122, 126 n. 7; of moon, 55, and
test of inverse square law of gravitation,
13, 14, 23, 58, 59, 60, 65-76, 89-90,
92, 132 n. 2, 302; of bodies toward one
another, 77, 139 Def. 12; of planets,
see under Kepler and Planets; of plane­
tary heavens, 301 B; o f projectiles, 12 1 -
3, 302, and Galileo, 35, 36, 39, 41, 312
Law 2, in resisting medium, 287
Prob. 7 Scholium, relative to rotating
Earth, 238-45, 303 ; of solar system, 32;
orbital, and centripetal force, 13, 17 n.,
19, 55, 61, 73, 277-89; power to per­
severe in, measure of, 208 § i ; relative,
its distinguishing from absolute motion,
57, 62, 310 Def. 9, 314 n. 7, and con­
taining space, 299 Law 3, 313 Law 4;
resolution of, 182, 209 § 3; second law
of, 20, 22, 26, 30-31, 161 n. 19, 246
H yp. 2, 299 Law 2, 300, 312 Law 2,
3 15 0 . 22, and Galileo, 35, 36, 37; third
law of, 31, i6 i nn. 16 and 18, 312 Law
3, 315 n. 23; translational, 78; uniform,
312 Law I ; uniformly accelerated, in a
straight line, 7; violent, r, 43 n., 121-5.
Newton, I, and, apparent loss of interest
in dynamics betw een 1679 and 1684, 22,
argument from simple to complex,
78 n., assumption that distance moved
in given time proportional to force
acting, 10, 22, attempted derivation of
proportionality between force and
change of motion, 152-61, attraction of
homogeneous sphere at external point,
23, calculations relating to comets in
August 1685, 99, 102, confusion be-
tw'een motive and accelerative forces,
22, derivation of principle of lever, 170
Prop. 34, doctrine of intension and re­
mission of forms, 235 n. 32, drawing of
axes of ellipse in error for conjugate
diameters, 17 n., exact formulation in
principle of general solution to a prob­
lem 80, 84, exact law' of falling bodies,
286 Prob. 5, explanation of invariable
aspect of Moon from Earth, 60, 236,
extension of inverse square law down
to surface of the Earth, 23 n., extension
of Galileo’s law, i i , 190 n. 5, to
case of non-uniform motion, 20, 22,
38 n., 109, 278 Hyp. 4, 279 Theor. 3,
300 Lemma 2, 314 Lemma 2, geo­
metrical rather analytical proofs, 42,
method of determining figures, 16 n..
 336
INDEX
17 n., nature of body, 219, necessity for
unique physical motion, 227 § 3, Royal
Society of London, 94, 96, 97, 102, 103,
104, 105, 106, 107, 108, solution to
Kepler’s problem, 285, the falling
apple, xiii, 65 n., 92, vectorial nature of
law of conservation of momentum,
218 n. 25.
his absence from Cambridge due to
plague, 92, Arithmetica Universalis,
292 n. 38, attitude to hypotheses, i i i ,
1 12, belief in possibility of vacuum,
123-4, belief in centrifugal force, 58-
59, copy of Descartes’s Principia Philo-
sophiae, 51, 127 n. 20, departure from
Cartesian philosophy, 65, 67, drive
towards generality, 77, 80, drive to­
wards quantitative treatment o f dy­
namics, 5, 41, 132 n. 9, imagination of
an experiment to prove the diurnal
motion of the Earth, 16, 238-45, 310
Def. 4, mathematical researches, 15,
mother, 15, optical lectures, 98, optical
researches, 14, 15, 140 n. 9, Proposi-
tiones de M otii, 23, 24, 96, 102, 105,
physical thought, the medieval back­
ground to, 121, 125 n. 3, preparation
for early discoveries in dynamics,
mathematics and optics, 121, researches
in dynamics in 1684, 24, realization of
importance of direction of motion, 136
n. 10, stepbrother, 15, stepfather, 128;
on, body and time, 219, space, 219,
228-30.
Norwood, R., 66.
Ockham, W., 112, 126 n. 17.
Oldenburg, H., 56, 57, 59, 60, 71, 74,
106, 236, 237 n. 3.
Optics, 14, 15, 98, 121, 140 n. 9.
Oughtred, W., 68 n. 3.
Paget, E., 17 n., 24, 93 n., 101-8, passim,
1 1 4 ,1 1 7 ,2 5 7 .
Parabola, motion in, 284.
Patterson, L. D ., xiii n.
Pelseneer, J., xiii n., x iv n ., 16, 245 n.
Pemberton, H., xiii, 23, 65, 66 n., 67,
68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 92, 198 n. 8.
Pendulum, cycloidal, 72 n., 204-5; hori­
zontal, I I , 91, 131, 132 nn. 6 and 7,
186, 187; vertical, i i , 25, 58, 64, 125,
131, 186, 187, 231 § 8, 3 1 1 Def. II,
319 Def. 7.
Picard, J., 75.
Picot, 44 n.
INDEX 337
Santlllana, G . de, 37 n., 132 n. 4, 189. Torricelli, E., 2, 238 n. 3.
Place, definition of, 226 Def. i, 310
Sine, versed, 22, 65. Toulmin, S., 29 n.
Def. 7.
Singer, C., 36. Turnbull, H. W ., 183, 189.
Planets, com m on centre of gravity of,
Slusius, 66. Tum or, E., 15 n.
301B; determination of their orbits,
283 Scholium, 301B; force on 16, 18; Smith, Rev. B., 128.
Solar system, centre of gravity of, 85; Vacuum, 126 n. 15, 123-4.
force of, from Sun, 72; longitude of,
motion of, 32. Velocity, comparison of one w'ith another,
285; mean distances of from Sun in
Space, 29, 208 § I, 219, 228-30; absolute, 2; composition of, 31, 32; definition of,
relation to their periods of revolution,
309 Def. 3; of planetary heavens, its 3, 232 Def. 14, 311 Def. 10, 314 n. 9;
1 2 1 ; relative motion of, 301B; stability
motion, 301B; relative, 310 Def. 4. measurement of, 208 § i, for motion
of their orbits, 59, 60, and Descartes
Speed, definition of, 136 n. 9. in, circle 145 Ax. 19, curved path, 149,
59 n., 227 § 2, 233 n. 10; their en­
Spirit, 123. 152 n. 20, straight line, 149, 152 n. 20;
deavour from Sun, 72, 197.
Spring of colliding bodies, 4. relative, of approach and separation of
Plato, 125 n. 3.
Stability of lunar and planetary orbits, two colliding bodies, 4, 83, 143 A x. 9,
Polygon, motion in, 9, i i .
59, 60. 10, 151 n. 5, 213; resolution of, 14 n.,
Portsmouth Collection, xiii n., xiv, xv,
State, motion as, 153 A x. 100, 156 Ax. 31, 39, 208 § 2.
65 n., 96, 106, 208, 257.
106, 160 n. 4; perseverance of body in Vortex theory, see under Descartes.
Portsmouth Draft Memorandum, xiii n.,
its, 154, 155, 156; resistance to change
17 n., 66-67, 69, 70, 74, 92, 93 n.,
of, 318 Def. 3. Waard de, C ., 34 n., 303 n. 13.
125 n. 2, 191 n. 13.
Street, 125, 238 n. 2. Wallis, J., 4, 5, 52, 108, 238 n. 2.
Projectile, motion of, see under Motion.
Stukeley, W., xiii n., 65 n., 92. Weight, and bulk, 3 1 1 Def. 1 1 ; distinction
Ptolemy, i i , 64.
Sullivan, J. W. N., xiv. betw'een mass and, 127 n. 23, 231 § 8,
Qualities, absolute and relative, 312; Swiftness, estimation of, 136 Def. 2. 235 n. 24; proportionality of, to mass,
method of prime and ultimate, 3; 25-
moments of, 311 Def. 162; representa­ Tendency, centrifugal, as species of im­ Whewell, W., 34 n.
tives of, 299 Def. 4. peded force, 5 5; of M oon along tangent Whiston, W., xiii, 60 n., 65, 66 n., 6 7-
to her path, 65. passim, i i 7 n . , 1980. 8.
Reflection, of bodies, 4, 9, i i , 12, 18, Tim e, 219, absolute, definition of, 309 Whiteside, D . T ., 24 n., 34 n., 117 n.
130 § 2, 137 Def. 5, 139 n. f, 142 A x. 9, Def. I ; relative, definition of, 309 Woolsthorpe, 14.
214 § 4, 215 § 5; optical, 181 n. 32. Def. 2. Wren, C., 4, 5, 52, 97, 242 n. 2.
Refraction of body, 138 Def. 7.
Relativity, Special Theory of, 160 n. 8.
Resistance, of air, compared with force of
gravity, 289; of ether, 301, 302; of
medium, 277 Def. 3, 299 Def. 3, 302,
3 11 Def. 17, dependence on density and
speed, 277 Hyp. i, 299 Law 5, 302,
313 Law 6; to change in state, 318
Def. 3.
Resisting medium, motion in, 286-9.
Resolution, of motion, 182, 209 § 3; of
velocity, 140., 31, 39, 208 § 2.
Rest, 231 Def. 5; and force, 27, 231
Def. 5; and motion, relative nature of,
318 Def. 3; Definition of, 226 Def. 3,
310 Def. 8; state of, 30.
Restitution, coefficient of, 4.
Rigaud, S. P., xiii, 15 n., 102 n., 238 n. 2,
257 n. 2, 291 n. 37, 292 n. 38.
Rooke, L., 4.
Roubiliac, L . F., 303 n. 14.
Royal Society of London, and problem of
collisions, 4, 5 n .; see also under
Newton.
Salusbury, T ., 35, 37 n., 91, 183, 189,
238 n. 3.
 PRIN TED IN G REAT BRITAIN
AT THE U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS, OXFORD
BY VIVIAN R ID L E R
PRINTER TO THE U N IV E R S IT Y