Journal of the History of Ideas Volume 37 Issue 2 1976 [Doi 10.2307%2F2708824] I. Bernard Cohen -- The Eighteenth-Century Origins of the Concept of Scientific Revolution

7/21/2019 Journal of the History of Ideas Volume 37 Issue 2 1976 [Doi 10.2307%2F2708824] I. Bernard Cohen -- The Eightee

1/33

The Eighteenth-Century Origins of the Concept of Scientific RevolutionAuthor(s): I. Bernard CohenSource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1976), pp. 257-288Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708824.

Accessed: 21/06/2014 02:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 02:26:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2708824?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2708824?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn


2/33

THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY

ORIGINS

OF THE CONCEPT

OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION1

BY I. BERNARD OHEN

Many

historians of

science,

like their fellow

general

historians,

believe that

the

concept

of revolution

in

science

is of

fairly

recent

origin,

and that

it

has

been

superimposed

anachronously-and

even

harshly-on

events

of

the

past.2

In

fact,

however,

for

some

three

centuries there

has been a more

or less unbroken tradition

of

viewing

scientific change as a sequence of revolutions. In the eighteenth century,

when this tradition

appears

to

have

taken

its first

rise,

there was

still

some confusion

and

ambiguity

about

the sense

of the word "revolution":

in

relation

not

only

to science

but to

political

events.

Although

"revolu-

tion"

came

into

general

usage during

the

eighteenth

century

to

denote a

breach

of

continuity

or a secular

change

of real

magnitude,

there also

remained

current

the older sense

of "revolution" as

a

cyclical

phenomenon,

a

continuous

sequence

of ebb

and

flow,

a

kind of circula-

'This

article,

based

on

research

supported by

a

grant

from the

Spencer

Foundation,

is

taken

from a

larger

and

more

general

survey

of

the

origins

and

development

of the

concept

and

name,

"scientific

revolution,"

presented

at the

semicentennial

meeting

of

the

History

of Science

Society

(Oct.

1974)

and-in

a somewhat altered

version-at the

Boston

Colloquium

for the

Philosophy

of Science

(Feb. 1975).

2

In the

past

decade or

more,

the

discussions

of

revolutions

in

science have

pivoted

on

Thomas

S. Kuhn's bold

and

challenging

tract,

The Structure

of

Scientific

Revolutions

(Chicago,

1962;

also issued as vol.

2 of the

International

Encyclopedia

of

Unified

Science;

2nd

ed.,

enlarged,

1970).

For a

response

to Kuhn's

analysis,

see Imre Lakatos

and Alan

Musgrave

(eds.),

Criticism and

the Growth

of

Knowledge

(Cambridge,

1970),

comprising

a

primary

paper by

T.

S.

Kuhn,

followed

by

critical discussions

by

J.

W.

N.

Watkins,

S. E.

Toulmin,

L. Pearce

Williams,

K.

R.

Popper,

Margaret

Masterman,

I.

Lakatos,

P.

K.

Feyerabend,

plus

a final

"Reflections on

my

Critics"

by

Kuhn.

Among

many

reviews

and

review

articles,

particular

attention

may

be called to those

by

Gerd

Buchdahl,

Dudley

Shapere,

and Israel

Scheffler. The

propriety

of

using

the word and

concept

of

"revolution"

in relation

to science

is

discussed

by Stephen

E.

Toulmin,

in the

course

of a

lengthy

historical

narrative

of,

and

critique

upon,

Kuhn's

views,

in

Human

Understanding

(Princeton,

1972),

I, 100-30,

esp.

117-18.

The reaction to

Kuhn's thesis

of social dynamics of scientific change in terms of a sequence of revolutions (alternating

with what he calls

"normal

science")

has

been either

to

apply

or

to

challenge

some fea-

tures of

his

analysis,

or to

question

the

meaning

(or

meanings)

of the technical terms

he

uses,

or

to

raise

doubts as

to the

propriety

of

using

the

concept

of revolution

in relation

to scientific

change.

Thus

the

secondary

literature on the

philosophy

and

history

of

science

has

become saturated

with books and articles

using

the word "revolution" in

al-

most

every possible

context,

and

dealing

with

almost

every aspect

of

scientific

revolu-

tions,

save one:

there has been

no

adequate study

of what the

particular

uses

of this

word and

concept may

have

been

in

successive

past ages.

(But

see

note

19

infra.)

257

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/33

258

I.

BERNARD

COHEN

tion

and

return,

or

a

repetition.3

After

1789,

the new

meaning

came

to

predominate

and,

ever

since,

"revolution"

has

commonly implied

a

radical change and a departure from traditional or accepted modes of

thought,

belief,

action,

social

behavior,

or

political

or social

organiza-

tion.

Thus

in

early

modern

times there

occurred a double transforma-

tion of "revolution"

and

the

concept

for

which it is the name.

First,

a

scientific term,

taken

from

astronomy

and

geometry,

came to be

ap-

plied

to

a

general

range

of

social,

political,

economic,

and

intellectual or

cultural

activities;

and, second,

in

this

usage

the term

gained

a

new

meaning

that was

radically

different

from-if not

diametrically opposite

to-the original and strict etymological sense of "revolution" (revolu-

tion,

revoluzione),

which is

derived

from

the mediaeval Latin

revolutio,

a

rolling

back or

a

return,

usually

with

an

implied

sense

of

revolving

in

time.4

During

the

eighteenth

century,

the

point

of

view

emerged

that

scientific

change

is

characterized

by

an

analog

of

the

revolutions

that

alter

the

forms

of

society

and

the

political

affairs of the state. Whereas

earlier,

science had contributed

"revolution" to the discourse

of

social

3An

example

is Colin Maclaurin:

An Account

of

Isaac

Newton's

Philosophical

Dis-

coveries

(London, 1748);

a facsimile

edition,

with an introduction

by

L. L. Laudan

(New

York,

1968).

Here

it

is said

(39)

to be "not worth

while

... to

trace

the

history

of

learn-

ing

thro' its various

revolutions

in

the later

ages."

Maclaurin also referred

to

a

com-

parison

made

by

Aristotle of the

"revolutions

of

learning"

and

"the

rising

and

setting

of

the

stars."

Maclaurin

obviously

had

in

mind a

cyclical

phenomenon,

or

ebb and flow. In

another

passage

(ibid.,

42),

he referred to

the

return

of

learning

to the "western

parts

of

Europe,"

observing

that "the

period

which commenced

upon

the revolution we

have

mentioned,

has

already

continued some hundred

years."

He also wrote that with

the

dis-

pelling

of the

cloud of mediaeval

darkness,

"the liberal arts

and sciences

were

restored,

and none of them has

gained

more

by

this

happy

revolution

than natural

philosophy"

(ibid., 41).

4Some

historical studies of the

concept

and name

of

"revolution" are: Felix

Gilbert,

"Revolution,"

Dictionary of

the

History of

Ideas,

ed.

Philip

P.

Wiener,

5

vols.

(New

York,

1973),

IV,

152-67;

Karl

Griewank,

Der

neuzeitliche

Revolutionsbegriff

En-

stehung

und

Entwicklung

(Weimar, 1955);

Arthur

Hatto,

"Revolution:

An

Enquiry

into

the Usefulness

of an

Historical

Term,"

Mind,

58

(1949),

495-517;

Melvin J.

Lasky,

"The

Birth of a

Metaphor.

On the

Origins

of

Utopia

&

Revolution,"

Encounter,

34

(Feb. 1970), 35-45, 34 (Mar. 1970), 30-42; Eugen Rosenstock [=Rosenstock-Huessy],

"Revolution

als

politische Begriff

in

der

Neuzeit,"

Abhandlungen

der Schlesischen

Gesellschaft fur

vaterlandische

Cultur

(Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe),

5. Heft:

"Festgabe

der rechts-

und

staatswissenschaftlichen

Fakultat

in

Breslau

fur

Paul Heil-

born

zum 70.

Geburtstag

6. Februar 1931"

(Breslau,

1931),

83-124,

of which the main

points

are

given

in

summary

in Hatto's

article;

Vernon

F.

Snow,

"The

Concept

of

Revolution

in

Seventeenth-Century England,"

The Historical

Journal,

5

(1962),

167-74.

Useful as

first

guides

to the

history

and successive

meanings

of

"revolution"

are E.

Lit-

tr6,

Dictionnaire

de

la

languefrancaise,

4

vols.

and

suppl.

(Paris, 1881-83),

and A

New

English Dictionary

on Historical

Principles,

ed. James A. H.

Murray,

Henry Bradley,

W. A.

Craigie,

C. T.

Onions,

and reissued as The

Oxford English Dictionary,

12 vols.

and

suppl.

(Oxford,

1933).



4/33

CONCEPT OF SCIENTIFIC

REVOLUTION

259

and

political

change,

now

social and

political thought

gave

back to

science the

concept

of revolution

in the

newly

established

sense,

no

longer as a term serving in the scientific explanation of natural

phenomena,

but

rather an

expression

to

be used

in

the

social

or

in-

tellectual

explanation

of scientific

change

itself-now visualized as a

series

of secular

discontinuities of

such

magnitude

as

to

constitute defi-

nite breaks with the

past.

The

rejection

of

the

older and more traditional

opinions

in

which

scientific

change

was seen as a

cyclical

continuous

process,

and

the

rise of the

doctrine that science

progresses by

radical

revolutions

has

occurred

by degrees

ever since

the

opening

years

of

the

eighteenth century, and has been continuously influenced by the

development

of

concepts

and theories of

political

and social

(and

cultural)

revolution.

Accordingly,

an

understanding

of the

rise of the

idea of

revolutions

in

science

(and

of

the existence of

the Scientific

Revolution)

requires

some

knowledge

of the

general

history

of the con-

cept

and name

"revolution."6

The

history

of the

idea

of

revolution

in

the sciences

is of

real

im-

portance

for

our

understanding

of

the

development

of the sciences. For

example,

we

today

conceive

Galileo

to have been a

revolutionary

figure

and

write

about

the "intellectual revolution" that he

wrought;

but did he

consider

himself to have been a

revolutionary?7

Did Newton? When

did

the value

of

progress

become linked

to the

concept

of

change

by

revolu-

tion? Such

questions

illuminate the nature

of scientific

change

by

mak-

5

An

example

of the

ways

in which

political

and social

events

may

affect the

image

of

revolution

in

science

occurs in the

acceptance

by

today's

scholars

of the

conception

that

the Scientific

Revolution was

not

an

event or a set of events that occurred

in

a narrow

compass

of

time

(as

was the case for the American

and French

Revolutions),

but

may

have lasted

through

two or even three centuries. Such a notion of a continuing revolution

appears

to have been one

of the innovative features

of the Russian

Revolution,

which

went so far as

to reckon the calendar

in

years

of

the

Revolution,

rather than

years

since

the

Revolution;

so that the

revolution itself became an

era. Students of

revolution

point

out that all

previous

revolutions had been

(or

had been conceived

as)

events in a

limited

time-span

that

produced

a

change-violent,

dramatic,

even

cataclysmic-or

a

rapid

series

of such

events.

The

acceptable

title

of

a

book such

as A. R.

Hall's

The

Scientific

Revolution

1500-1800

(London, 1954),

thus reflects

a

general

point

of view

concerning

revolutions that

has become

common-place

in recent

decades,

but would

itself have been

revolutionary a century ago. Eugen Rosenstock has discussed the ways in which such

phrases

used

in

Russia

as

"the next two

decades

of the Revolution"

imply

an

institu-

tionalizing

of the

revolution;

cf.

loc.

cit.,

84.

6This relation

of the

changing

concept

of revolution

(in

the

political,

social,

and

eco-

nomic

domains)

to the successive

ways

in which

scientists,

philosophers,

and

historians

of science have

conceived the so-called

Scientific Revolution

(and

revolutions

in

science)

is

one

of the main themes

of

a

more

general inquiry

I

have undertaken

into the

origins

and

history

of

the

concept

of revolution in science. The results shall

eventually

be

published

in

book

form

by

Science

History

Publications,

a

division

of

Neale Watson

Academic

Publications,

New York.

7Such a question has both historical and philosophical components. Historical re-

search tells us that

the noun

"revolutionary"

had

not

yet

come into

being,

and that

at



5/33

260

I.

BERNARD COHEN

ing precise

the scientist's

image

of

himself,

which is

directly

related to

the

public

image

of the

scientist,

a factor

in

the

type

of

creative indi-

vidual attracted to the pursuit of science.8 In some of his scientific work,

notably

in

physics,

Newton saw

himself

as

only

rediscovering

some of

the

knowledge

of

nature

and

of her laws

that had

been current

among

certain

ancient

sages;9

but

in

mathematics he was so

jealous

of

his

pro-

prietary rights

in

the invention of

the

calculus

that

he

concluded that

Leibniz could have

produced

similar

results

only by plagiarism

from

the

Newton

mathematical

manuscripts

then

in

circulation.

Furthermore,

the

present enquiry

clarifies

such

fundamental historical issues as the

special defining features of the Newtonian revolution in science by

enabling

us

to

distinguish

between

what

Newton's

contemporaries

and

immediate successors held

to

be his

signal

achievement

and

what seems

to

us-some two

and

a half centuries

later-to have been

so remarkable

and

innovatory

in

Newtonian science.10

In

recent

discussions,

historians

and

philosophers

have

expressed

doubts as to whether

it

is

proper

to

use

"revolution"

to

describe

scientific

change,

and whether in

any

event

there

ever

was a Scientific

Revolution;l1

yet

in

all

writings

on this

sub-

ject

with

which

I

am

familiar,

the

question

is

never

raised as

to

whether

the

scientists

allegedly participating

in

such

supposed

revolutions

may

or

may

not

have

considered themselves to be

active

in

a

revolution or to

have

been

immediate

heirs to

a revolution.

For

these and other

reasons,

the

present

enquiry may

transcend the value of

a

mere

chronicle

of

an

idea,

and

shed some illumination on

the

nature

of science

and

of

scienti-

fic

change

in

the

age

of

Newton.

that time

the

word

"revolution" had not

yet

been

applied

to

the

description

of scientific

change.

But there is an

open

philosophical question

as to whether the

foregoing

his-

torical

fact

would

actually

have

inhibited Galileo from so

considering

himself.

8This

topic

is

explored

in

the

work

cited

in

note

6

supra.

90n this

aspect

of

Newton's

thought

see J.

E.

McGuire

and P. M.

Rattansi,

"Newton

and

the

'Pipes

of

Pan',"

Notes

and

Records

of

the

Royal Society of

London,

21

(1966),

108-43;

I. B.

Cohen,

"'Quantum

in

se

est': Newton's

Concept

of

Inertia

in

Relation to

Descartes

and

Lucretius,"

ibid.,

19

(1964),

131-55.

"?This

question

is discussed

in

my

forthcoming

book,

The Newtonian Revolution in

Science,

with

Illustrations

of

the

Transformation of

Scientific

Ideas

(Cambridge:

at

the

University Press, to be publishedin 1977).

11The Scientific

Revolution

is the

name

commonly

given

today

to

the

particular

scientific

revolution

(or

set

of

revolutions)

of

the

sixteenth

and seventeenth

centuries,

by

means

of

which our modern

science

was

established,

associated

with such

figures

as

Copernicus

and

Vesalius,

Bacon and

Descartes,

Galileo

and

Kepler,

Harvey, Huygens,

and

Newton.

In

the

eighteenth century,

and

in

the

seventeenth

century,

a

revolution was

conceived

as a

single

event

(e.g.,

the

Glorious

Revolution)

or

a

composite

event

(e.g.,

the

French

Revolution).

Thus

it

is

hardly

likely

that

any analyst

would then

have

thought

of

a

revolution

in

science

extending

over

more

than

a

century

of

time,

say

from

Copernicus

(1543)

to

Newton

(1687).

The

writers on science

in

the

eighteenth

century developed

the

notion of revolutionary scientific events, comparable to political events and usually

associated with

the

work

of

a

single

individual:

Copernicus,

Descartes,

Newton. Never-



6/33

CONCEPT

OF

SCIENTIFIC

REVOLUTION

261

During

most

of

the

eighteenth

century-as

in the

preceding

centuries-the

primary signification

of "revolution"

was

astronomical,

and thus-associatively or derivatively-astrological. The revolutions

observed

in

the diurnal

motion

of the heavens12and

the

apparent

diurnal

and orbital

motions of

the

"planetary"

bodies

(or

of their

spheres)

had

been recorded

over centuries

in the

works

of

Chaucer,

Dante,

Alfra-

ganus

(who

was

a

major

source of astronomical

knowledge

for

Dante),

Messahala,

Sacrobosco,

and countless

others.

This term

appears boldly

in

the title of

Copernicus's

celebrated

book,

De revolutionibus

orbium

coelestium

(1543),

and

it occurs

not

infrequently

in

Galileo's

Dialogue

concerning

the Two

Chief

World

Systems.13

It

may

be found

in

almanacs and

in

such

popular

works as Leurechon's

La Recreation

mathematique

(which

was

Englished

by

William

Oughtred),

and

in

Vincent

Wing's

popular

compendiums

of

astronomy

and

astrology

theless,

there

are also

some

implications

of

larger-scale

revolutions

in

science

than

would

be

represented by

any

one treatise

or a

single

discovery

or

invention,

however

monumental.

The historian

of

mathematics,

Montucla,

thus wrote of

"l'heureuse revo-

lution"

that,

soon

after

Copernicus,

"6prouva

la

philosophie."

Bailly,

in his

history

of

astronomy, though asserting that Newton's Principia was to create a "revolution dans

l'astronomie,"

observed

that this revolution

"ne

se

fit

pas

tout-a-coup."

Bailly,

as

we

shall see

below,

extended

the

revolutionary concept

to

a

series

of

events

that could

extend

over the

greater

part

of a

century, including

the

stage

of destruction

of a

received

system

as a

necessary prior

condition

for the

construction

and

acceptance

of a new one.

For him Descartes did

not achieve

revolutionary

status,

although

he was

of the

utmost

importance

in

preparing

the

Newtonian revolution

to come.

Furthermore,

in

the

eighteenth

century,

there

seems to have been

a

widely

held

opinion

that

the

special

fea-

tures of the

science that

emerged

between

Copernicus

and

Newton

did not

merely

constitute an

"improvement"

of ancient

knowledge,

but were

revolutionary,

in the

sense

of being new and unprecedented. The inaugural century of modern science, in other

words,

had

produced

the foundation

for the

future scientific

revolutions

and

for those

that had

occurred

in

the

eighteenth

century.

In the

post-Principia

decades,

the events

of

the

primary

century

of

revolution

were not

called

"the

Scientific

Revolution,"

as

is

done

today,

but this distinction

between

the

conceptions

of that era

and of

ours

may

have less

real fundamental

difference

than

may

at

first

sight appear.

12Throughout

most of

modern times

there has

not been a clear distinction

between

revolution and

rotation,

such as is

generally

made

today:

rotation

being

the

turning

of a

body

about an axis and

revolution

the

motion

of a

body

in an orbit. In the case of

the

heavenly bodies,

the

planets

revolve about

the

sun while

rotating

on their axes. But

their

revolutions

would

actually

be rotations

if

the

planets

were conceived

to

be

attached

to

large

rotating

spheres.

Hence

there

is a lack

of

clarity

in the

title

of

Copernicus's

De

revolutionibus

orbium

coelestium

(1543),

since the

heavenly spheres

in

question

are

presumably

not the

planets

but the

rotating

spheres

that

carry

the

planets

around

the

sun

in

their revolutions.

The

two

words are used somewhat

interchangeably

in

Newton's

Principia

(1687).

And even

today

we still refer

to

a solid

generated

by

the rotation

of a

plane

figure

about

an axis

in that

plane

as a

"solid

of revolution."

'3The

Dialogo

sopra

i

due

massimi

sistemi

(Florence,

1632),

was

published

in an

English

version in 1661.

A

facsimile

of the latter was

published

in 1967

by

Dawsons

of

Pall Mall (London) and Zeitlin and Ver Brugge (Los Angeles), with an introduction by

Stillman Drake.



7/33

262

I. BERNARD

COHEN

(1651,

1669)

and Streete's

Astronomia

Carolina

(1661,

1663,

1710),

from

which the

youthful

Newton

recorded

Kepler's

third law.

In the late Middle Ages, "revolution" came to signify not only the

moving

of

a

celestial

body throughout

a

complete

closed orbit

(or

the

time in which the

circuit of

the

orbit

is

completed),

but also

any turning

or

rolling

back or

around-ranging

from

the

circular

turning

of

a

wheel

to

the

figurative

sense

of

turning

over

in the

mind

or

considering.

By

the

time of

the

Renaissance,

"revolutions"

had a

wider

significa-

tion-including

any

periodical

(or quasiperiodical)

occurrences,

and

eventually

any

group

of

phenomena

that

went

through

an ordered set

of

stages-a cycle (in the sense of "coming full circle").14Even the rise and

fall of

civilizations,

or of

culture,

as a kind

of tidal ebb

and

flow,

was

called

a revolution.

All

of these

usages

are

obviously

linked

to the

primary

sense

in

which

this word occurs

in

astronomy

and

geometry.

It

shall

be seen

below how these several

meanings

were

applied

to science

and the sciences

during

the Scientific Revolution.

One

possible

link between the

original

cyclical

meaning

and

today's

common

usage

of "revolution"-for

a

"complete change

of

affairs"

or

a

"reversal

of

conditions,"

an

overthrowing (usually accompanied by

vio-

lence)

of established

government

or

society

or institutions-lies

in

the

close

association

of a

cyclical "turning-over"

and a secular

"overturn-

ing."

Today,

the associated

verb

used

to denote

cyclical phenomena

is

"revolve";

whereas

the

verb "revolt"

implies

an

uprising against

the

political

state

or social

order.

Both "revolve" and "revolt"

come

from

the same

verb:

revolvere,

revolutus.

In

the

eighteenth

century, prior

to

1789,

these two

distinct

and

very

different senses

of "revolution"

are

apt

to occur

together

in

discussions of

history

and

politics

as

well as the

course

of

development

in

literature,

the

arts,

and

the sciences.

It

is,

ac-

cordingly,

not

always

a

simple

task to discover

whether a

given

eighteenth-century

author

may

have had

in

mind a

cyclical

return

(an

ebb

and

flow)

or a secular

change

of a

significant

magnitude

(often,

but

not

necessarily,

accompanied

by violence).

This

ambiguity

was

particu-

larly

a

feature of the

years

between

the

English

revolutions

of the

seventeenth

century

and the American

and

French revolutions-the

era

'4See

Arthur

Hatto,

"Revolution

. ."

(1949,

cited

in note 4

supra).

A

cyclical

view

of

history

was

propounded

in

antiquity by

Plato and

Polybius,

and

discussed

by

Cicero.

A

major

modern

cyclical

concept

of

history

occurs

in Giambattista

Vico's

Scienza

nuova

(1725);

see

The

New Science

of

Giambattista

Vico,

revised

translation

of the

third

edi-

tion

(1744) by

Thomas

G.

Bergin

and Max

H. Fisch

(Ithaca, 1968). Among

the

many

works on

cycles, particular

attention

may

be

called

to Mircea

Eliade,

The

Myth of

the

Eternal

Return,

trans. from

the French

by

Willard R. Trask

(Princeton,

1954,

1965);

Stephen

G.

Brush,

"The

Development

of

the

Kinetic

Theory

of Gases.

VIII.

Random-

ness and

Irreversibility,"

Archive

for

History of

Exact

Sciences,

12

(1974),

1-88,

esp.

?

7, "The Recurrence Paradox," 67-77; Abel Rey, Le retour eternel et la philosophie de

la

physique

(Paris, 1927).



8/33

CONCEPT

OF SCIENTIFIC

REVOLUTION

263

of the Newtonian

revolution

in science

and

of the

emergence

of the

con-

cept

of revolution

as a mode

of scientific

change.

There is one term, however, whose usage generally enables

the

modern

(i.e.,

post-1789)

reader to

distinguish

between

the two

senses of

"revolution,"

that

is,

the use

of the word

"epoch."

Thus

there

is no am-

biguity

whatsoever

in

Alexis

Clairaut's

blunt

assertion

in 1747:

"Le

fameux

livre des

Principes

mathematiques

de la

Philosophie

naturelle

[de

Newton]

a ete

l'epoque

d'une

grande

revolution

dans la

Physique."15

Here

"epoch"

is

not

used

in

the

presently

current

meaning

of an

era

or

an

age

(the

primary

sense in American

English),

but

rather

signifies

an

event that

inaugurates

an

age

or

that

is

the initial

or

major

occurrence

of or

in

a

revolution:

the

beginning

of a new

era.

Often,

in the

late

seventeenth

and

in the

eighteenth

century,

this word

appears

in its

late

Latin form

as

epocha,

in

historical

and

political

writings

and

in

scientific

works.16

The sixteenth

century

knew no

full-scale or national

revolutions

in

the

sense

in which

we use

the

word

today

in

social

and

political

contexts;

but the seventeenth

century

was

witness to the Glorious

Revolution

(1688)17

and to an

earlier series

of

events and

political

and social

move-

15Alexis-Claude

Clairaut:

"Du

systeme

du

monde,

dans

les

principes

de la

gravitation

universelle,"

Suite

des

memoires

de

mathematique,

et

dephysique,

tires des

registres

de

l'Academie

Royale

des Sciences

de l'annee

M.DCCXL

V

(Amsterdam,

1754),

II,

465;

Clairaut's

paper

was

read

"a

l'Assemble

publique

du 15

Nov.

1747."

16This is

still the

first definition

of

"epoch"

in British

and French

dictionaries:

an

event that

begins

an

era

in

history,

in

life,

or in science.

It is thus

closely

akin to

"epoch-

making."

On

"epoch,"

see

Bossuet's

Discours

sur l'histoire

universelle,

"Dessein

general

de

cet

ouvrage"

(Edition

augmentee

des nouvelles

additions

et des variantes

de

texte, Paris,

1823),

I,

5-6.

'7The primary image of revolution in the eighteenth century was The Glorious Revo-

lution,

cited in

the

general

article

on

"Revolution"

in the Diderot-d'Alembert

Ency-

clopedie,

and

in fact the chief

example

there

given.

The

Glorious

Revolution

grew

greater

and

greater

in

importance

in the

development

of the

concept

of revolution

up

to

1789,

as

it

gradually

became

evident to

both

Englishmen

and Continentals

that

there

had

been

a

revolution

in

England,

possibly

the first true

revolution

in the

modern era.

In

Samuel

Johnson's

Dictionary

of

the

English

Language

(1755),

this revolution

appears

in

the third definition

of

"revolution":

"Change

in

the state of a

government

or

country.

It

is

used

among

us .

.

. for the

change

produced

by

the admission

of

king

William

and

queen Mary."

The Glorious

Revolution

may

not seem as

revolutionary

to us-with

our

outlook

so determined

by

such

greater

cataclysms

as the

French,

Russian,

and

Chinese

revolutions-as

it

did

to the men

and women

of the

eighteenth

century.

But to thinkers

of so different

a

political

stripe

as

Joseph

Priestley

and

David

Hume,

it was indeed

a

revolution,

and

a rather

glorious

one

at that. In

Priestley's judgment,

"the most

im-

portant period

in our

history

is that of the revolution

under

king

William.

Then

it was

that

our

constitution,

after

many

fluctuations,

and

frequent

struggles

for

power by

the

different

members

of it

(several

of them

attended

with

vast effusion of

blood),

was

finally

settled.

A revolution

so

remarkable,

and attended

with such

happy

consequences,

had

perhaps

no

parallel

in the

history

of the

world,

till the still more

remarkable

revolutions

that have lately taken place in America and France. This it was, as Mr. Hume says, that

cut off all

pretensions

to

power

founded on

hereditary

right;

when a

prince

was chosen



9/33

264 I.

BERNARD

COHEN

ments

that

we have

lately

come to

call

the

English

Revolution.18There

were thus

no

political

or

social

events

of

the sixteenth

century,

or

of

the

seventeenth century before 1688, that could provide examples or con-

ceptual

models for

revolution

(in

the sense

of

a drastic

or

even

a sudden

secular

change)

in

the areas of human

creative

effort;

this

fact

is

mir-

rored

in

the failure to find an

example

of

a

coupling

of "science"

and

"revolution"

dating

earlier than

about

1700.19

About a

half-century

after

the

Glorious

Revolution, however,

just

at

the time when the full-

ness

of Newton's achievement had become

recognized,

the new

concept

of

revolution

was

being applied

to

science,

and

specifically

to Newton's

Principia.20 And even earlier, the new infinitesimal calculus of Newton

and

of

Leibniz

had

been

judged

to have constituted a

revolution

in

mathematics.

Those who wrote

of

"revolutions"

in

political

affairs

in

the late

seventeenth

century

most

often had

in

mind

some

kind of

restoration,

a

form

of

return to

a former or

original

state,

or

at

least

the

completion

of

a

cycle.

If

this

meant

the

end of a condition

that

was

found

to

be

in-

tolerable,

then the

act

of

completing

that

cycle

could be a

kind of revo-

lution

in

the

post-1789

sense. In

this way the concept of a revolutionas a

who

received

the crown on

express

conditions,

and found his

authority

established on the

same

bottom

with

the

privileges

of

the

people

.. ." Hume referred

specifically

to

"that

famous

revolution,

which

has

had such a

happy

influence on

our

constitution,

and

has

been

attended

with

such

mightly consequences."

See

Joseph

Priestley,

Lectures

on

His-

tory

and

General

Policy

(London,

1826),

Lect.

36,

286-87;

David

Hume,

A

Treatise

of

Human

Nature,

ed. L. A.

Selby-Bigge

(Oxford,

1967,

reprint;

first

ed.,

1888),

563;

Book

III,

"Of

Morals,"

part

2,

sect. 10.

Guizot,

calling

for a

new

attitude

toward

British

eighteenth-century

history,

observed that

Hume

had

"formed

... the

opinion

of

Europe"

but that his "narrative and

opinions

. . . had ceased to

satisfy

the

imagination

and reason

of the

public."

See his

History

of

the

English

Revolution

from

the Accession

of

Charles

I,

trans. Louise

H. R.

Coutier

(Oxford, 1838),

"Author's

Preface,"

xxi-xxii.

'8The

so-called

English

Revolution

was

not

generally

conceived to have

been

a revo-

lution until the twentieth

century,

although

a few

historians

of the

nineteenth

century

(notably

F. P. G. Guizot and Samuel R.

Gardiner)

had

supposed

the

events of the 1640's

to have

been

a revolution.

(Gardiner

wrote

of a Puritan

Revolution.)

See,

on this

topic,

J. R.

Jones,

The Revolution

of

1688

in

England

(London, 1972),

9;

R.

C.

Latham,

"English

Revolutionary Thought,

1640-60,"

History,

30

(1945),

38-59.

"9Theearliest such instance that I have found cited in the secondary literature is Di-

derot's

essay, "Encyclopedie"

(1755),

in the

great

encyclopaedia

associated

with his

name;

this occurs in Lewis

S.

Feuer,

Einstein and the Generations

of

Science

(New

York,

1974),

241. But Diderot was

preceded

in this

usage

by

Fontenelle, Clairaut,

and

d'Alembert

(and

perhaps

others),

as

shall

be seen below. Feuer's

book,

which

appeared

as

I

was

completing

this

study,

contains

some

notes on

the

history

of

"The Idea

of

Scientific

Revolution"

(239-52),

as a section

of

part

3

dealing

with

"Generational Move-

ments

and

'Scientific

Revolutions',"

in which

the

main

topic appears

to be "The Dis-

analogy

of Scientific Revolution: The Absence

of

Revolutionary

Situations"

(252-68).

Feuer's

brief historical r6sum6

of this

topic

is

impaired by

errors

of

fact and

omissions;

e.g., he mistakenly states that William Whewell did not refer to revolutions in science.

20See note 15

supra.



10/33

CONCEPT

OF SCIENTIFIC

REVOLUTION

265

radical

change

could

be

compatible

with the ancient

cyclical

view

of

his-

tory,

and did

not

necessarily imply

a secular

(non-cyclical)

or linear con-

cept of historical change-even in the political sphere. Revolution thus

could and did mean

a

dynastic change

or

a

dynastic

restoration or

a

change

in

the

actual form or

system

of

government

or

rule,

as well as a

cyclical change,

"in

administration,

economics and

the social

life of a

people."21

The

ordinary

usage

at the end of the

seventeenth

century may

be

illustrated

by

the

writings

of Hobbes

and Locke.

Hobbes

was

perfectly

familiar with

the traditional scientific

sense of "revolution"

and he used

this expression in his writings on geometry and on natural philosophy.

He

wrote of "a

contrary

revolution,"

of

"epicycles,"

and of

revolutions

in the

sense

of

completed

circular motions.

But

apparently

he

did not

transfer

this scientific term to

politics,

where

to "describe

a sudden

political

change

Hobbes-like

Bacon, Coke,

Greville and

Seldon-used

such

words as

'revolt',

'rebellion'

and

'overturning'."22

Locke,

in

both

his

Elements

of

Natural

Philosophy

and

Some

Thoughts

Concerning

Education,

used "revolution"

in

reference to

the

Earth's annual

motion about

the Sun

(her

"annual

revolutions")

and

referred to the

Sun as

the

"Center"

of

our

planet's

"Revolutions."23

In the

political

sphere,

Locke

followed

Francois

Bernier

(whose

Histoire de la

derniere

revolution des

etats du Grand

Mongol

he had studied

in

close

detail)

in

his use of "revolution"

in

the sense

of

completed dynastic change.24

In

his famous

Second

Treatise,

notable

for

its defense

of the Glorious

Revolution and

for its

presentation

of the

theory

of

government

based

on

compact,

Locke used

"revolution"

only

twice-each

time

referring

to

a

political cycle

in which there

was a return to

a

previous

state

with

regard

to some constitutional

points.

Thus he mentioned

the "slowness

and aversion

in the

people

to

quit

their old

constitutions,"

which "has

in

the

many

revolutions

that

have been

seen in this

kingdom,

in this

and

former

ages,

still

kept

us

to,

or

after some

interval of

fruitless

attempts,

still

brought

us back

again

to

our

old

legislative

of

king,

lord,

and com-

mons."25

Rather

early

in

the

eighteenth

century,

when

"revolution"

began

to

gain

currency

in the

meaning

of

a radical or

significant

change,

there

were seen to have been revolutions in

many

domains of human

activity.

21V.

F.

Snow,

"The

Concept

of

Revolution,"

op.

cit.,

172.

22Ibid.,

169.

23Ibid.,

172. Cf. Peter

Laslett,

"The

English

Revolution and

Locke's'Two

Treatises

of

Government',"

The

Cambridge

Historical

Journal,

12

(1956),

40-55;

esp.

55.

A

similar

expression

occurs

in

the

Essay

Concerning

Human

Understanding.

24Snow,

op.

cit.,

173.

25Ibid.,

173. Cf.

Peter Laslett's

critical

edition

of

Locke's

Two

Treatises

of

Govern-

ment

(2nd

ed.,

Cambridge,

1967),

432

(II,

?

223).

Locke also wrote

that

"such

Revolu-

tions happen not upon every little mismanagement in publick affairs"; ibid., 433 (II, ?

225).



11/33

266

I. BERNARD COHEN

It

was

then

that an

interest became

expressed

n

two

aspects

of

possible

revolutions

n

science:

the scientific revolutions

hat

might

have

occur-

redin the past (associatedwithCopernicus,Bacon,Descartes,Galileo)

and

those

that were

actually

in

progress.

In

the

extreme,

in

the

decade

or so before

the

French

Revolution,

possibly

two

scientists

concluded

that

theirown

workwas

revolutionary.2

I

have

not

been able

to

find

any

references

to revolutions

n the

sciences

earlier

than

1700.27One

source that had held

promise

of

possi-

ble

usage

of

"revolution"

was

the

literature

concerning

he Battle

of

the Books

(the

Quarrel

between

the

Ancients

and the

Moderns),

since

in

the sciencesthe superiority f the modernsmightseem to haveimplied

an

order-of-magnitude

reak withthe

past.28

But

a close examination

f

26They

were

Antoine-Laurent

Lavoisier

and

(possibly)

Jean-Paul

Marat;

see notes

78-82

infra.

27Should

any

reader

have encountered

a

pre-1700

occurrence

of "revolution"

in

rela-

tion to the

growth

of

science,

I should

be

grateful

for

the reference.

I

myself

have

not

found

any

in the

writings

of

Galileo,

Kepler,

Descartes,

Bacon,

Leibniz,

Huygens,

Wallis,

Newton,

Halley,

Flamsteed,

Hooke,

or Duhamel

(although

there

may

be one

that I have missed); nor have I had any better luck in perusing the seventeenth-century

volumes of

the

Journal des

Scavans,

or

the

Philosophical

Transactions,

or the volumes

of

Histoire

(and

Memoires)

of the Paris

Academy

of

Sciences;

and a

variety

of other

works

by

seventeenth-century

authors.

I

have

kept

on

the

look-out for

such an occur-

rence for

many

years

and

I

have

asked

more

colleagues

than

I would care

to

mention

as

to whether

they

have ever encountered

the use

of

the term

"revolution"

in

relation

to

scientific

change.

Accordingly,

may

I be allowed to

presume

that

such a

usage

(should

any

ever

turn

up)

would

probably

be rather

obscure

or

uncommon?

28For this

purpose

I

have

carefully

examined-in vain-the

writings

of

Fontenelle,

Glanvill,

Perrault, Swift,

Temple,

and Wotton.

On this

topic

see

Ferdinand

Brunetiere,

Etudes critiques sur l'histoire de la litterature francaise, cinquieme sdrie (Paris, 1893),

183-250,

"La formation de l'idee de

progres

au

XVIIIe

siecle,"

and

also Richard Foster

Jones,

Ancients and

Moderns:

A

Study

of

the Rise

of

the

Scientific

Movement

in

Seventeenth-Century

England

(2nd.

ed.,

St.

Louis,

1961);

the first

edition

(Washington

University

Studies,

New

Series,

Language

and

Literature,

No.

6,

St.

Louis,

1936)

was

entitled:

Ancients and

Moderns:

A

Study

of

the

Background

of

the

Battle

of

the Books.

One of the reasons

why

the

Quarrel

between

the Ancients and the

Moderns seemed

so

promising

is

that one

of the late books

(possibly

the

latest)

in

this

controversy

has a

postil

to

its second

paragraph,

reading:

"Revolution dans les sciences."

This

work

is

Louis Dutens: Recherches

sur

l'origine

des decouvertes

attributes aux

modernes,

oiu.

I'on

demontre

que

nos

plus

celebres

philosophes

ont

puise

les

ouvrages

des

anciens...,

2

vols.

(Paris, 1766).

A

second edition

was

published

in Paris in

1776,

a third in London

in

1796,

and

a fourth

in Paris

in

1812.

This

phrase

occurs also

in the index

to the

second

edition

(and

the later

editions)

in

the

"Table des

matieres,"

where

we find: "Revolution

dans les

sciences, 1.3;

des

astres;

v.

Proportion;

des

planetes

sur

elles-memes,

1,228,

v.

Rotation. Revolution

particuliere

&

gnedrale

des

astres,

1.231:

des

cometes, 1.241;

v.

Seneque."

There

is no other occurrence

of

the

phrase

"Revolution

dans les sciences"

in

Dutens'

book,

and

in

context

it is evident

that he

was

referring

to

a

return,

a

finding

again

of the truths

known-at least

in

principle-in

antiquity.

Some of the

major

publications in the Battle of the Books, or the Quarrel between the Ancients and the

Moderns,

in

modern

editions,

are:

Bernard Le

Bouyer

(or

Bovier)

de

Fontenelle,



12/33

CONCEPT OF

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION 267

the main writers disclosed

that

apparently they

never used the term

"revolution"29 and rather tended

to invoke

"improvement"

of

knowledge, although

two of the

protagonists (Fontenelle

and

Swift)

did

write of "revolutions"

in

other contexts and one

of them

(Fontenelle)

applied

this

very

word to the

development

of mathematics.

Nor did I

find

any explicit

reference to

a

revolution

in

Thomas

Sprat's

defence

of

the

Royal Society

of 1667.30The fact

that the term "revolution" does

not

appear

in

relation to

scientific

change

prior

to

the

eighteenth

century

is

not

unexpected,

since "revolution" did not

begin

to

come

into

general

use-even

in

the discourse

of

politics-until

after the Glorious

Revolution of 1688.31

An

unambiguous

reference to a

revolution

in

the sciences as a

radical

change

occurs

in

Bernard Le

Bouyer

(or

Bovier)

de

Fontenelle's

preface

to his

Elements

de la

geometric

de 'in

fini

(1727).

Fontenelle

has

been

discussing

the

newly

discovered

(or

invented)

infinitesimal cal-

culus

(le

calcul

de

l'infini)

of

Newton

and

Leibniz,

and the several

ways

in which

"Bernoulli,

le

marquis

de

l'Hopital,

Varignon,

tous les

grands

geometres"

carried

the

subject

forward

"a

pas

de

geant."

Then

he

said:

L'infinieleva tout a une.. facilitd,dont on n'eutos6 auparavant oncevoir

l'esperance;

t c'est

la

l'epoque

d'une rdvolution

resque

otale

arrivee

dans la

geometrie.32

Digression

sur les

anciens et les

modernes,

edited

together

with

Fontenelle's

Entretiens

sur la

pluralite

des

mondes,

by

Robert Shackleton

(Oxford,

1955);

Joseph

Glanvill,

Plus

Ultra:

or,

the

Progress

and

Advancement

of

Knowledge

since the

Days

of

Aristotle. In

an

Account

of

Some

of

the

Most

Remarkable Late

Improvements

of

Practical,

Useful

Learning

(London,

1668;

facsimile

reprint

with

an intro.

by

Jackson

I.

Cope:

Gainesville,

1958);Charles Perrault, Paralelle des anciens et des modernes en ce qui regarde les arts

et les

sciences,

4

vols.

(Paris,

1688-97;

facsimile

reprint

"mit einer einleitenden Abhand-

lung

von

H.

R. Jauss

und

kunstgeschichtlichen

Exkursen

von M.

Imdahl," Miinchen,

1964);

Jonathan

Swift,

A

Full

and

True Account

of

the

Battel

fought

last

Friday

between

the Antient and the Modern Books in St. James's

Library

(1704),

available in

Herbert

Davis

(ed.),

The Prose Works

of

Jonathan

Swift

(Oxford, 1939),

I, 137-65;

Sir

William

Temple,

Five

Miscellaneous

Essays,

ed. Samuel

H. Monk

(Ann

Arbor,

1963);

William

Wotton,

Reflections

upon

Ancient

and Modern

Learning

(London,

1694;

a

"third

edition,

corrected"

was

printed

1705).

The

only

one

of

these

authors

cited

by

Dutens

in his

"liste

des

principaux

Auteurs cites dans cet

Ouvrage

..

."

is

Wotton.

29Again,I should be grateful to any reader who may know of such an occurrence that

I

may

have

missed.

30Thomas

Sprat,

The

History

of

the

Royal

Society of

London,

for

the

Improving

of

Natural

Knowledge

(London,

1667;

facsimile

reprint

with a critical

apparatus

by

Jackson

I.

Cope

and Harold W.

Jones,

Saint

Louis,

1958).

31

ee

note 17

supra.

32Elements de la

geometrie

de

l'infini.

Suite

des

memoires de L'Academie

Royale

des Sciences

(Paris,

1727),

"pr6face,"

a4

verso;

a variant edition

or issue

differs

in title

only

in

the

first word

(ELEMENS

for

ELEMENTS),

and has the

same

publisher

and

date

(although

it

was

apparently published

some

decades

later).

The

preface

is

included

in the

CEuvres

e Fontenelle

(nouvelle

edition,

1790),

VI,

43.



13/33

268

I. BERNARD

COHEN

The

conjunction

of words

"epoque"

and "revolution" leaves

no

doubt

that

Fontenelle had

in mind

a

change

of such an

order of

magnitude

as

to alter completely the state of mathematics. And Fontenelle went on at

once

to

emphasize

that

this

revolution was

progressive

or beneficial

to

mathematical

science,

although

not

unaccompanied by

several

prob-

lems.33

Fontenelle

used

the

term

"revolution"

in the

eloge

of

the mathema-

tician,

Michel

Rolle,

which he wrote in

his

capacity ofsecretaireperpe-

tuel of the

Royal

Academy

of Sciences. But "revolution" does

not here

occur

in relation

to the work

of Rolle

himself,

but rather

in an

aside;

on

the Analyse des infiniment petits (Paris, 1696; later eds., 1715, 1720,

1768)

of

the

Marquis

de

l'H6pital,

the first textbook

on

the

new infini-

tesimal calculus:

En ce

temps-la

e

livre du

marquis

de

l'H6pital

avoit

paru,

et

presque

ous les

mathematiciens

ommengoient

se tournerdu c6te de

la nouvelle

g6ometrie

de

l'infini,

usques-la

peu

connue.

L'universalite

urprenante

des

methodes,

1'ele-

gante

brievete

des

demonstrations,

a

finesse

et la

promptitude

es solutions es

plus

difficiles,

une nouveaute

inguliere

t

imprevue,

out attiroit

es

esprits,

et

il se faisoitdans e mondegeometreune revolution ienmarquee.34

Fontenelle

also used

"revolution"

in

the

eloge

of

l'H6pital

(d. 1704),

again

in relation

to his

textbook,

and

the

avidity

with which

"I'Analyse

des

infiniment

petits

a

ete

saisie

par

tous

les

G6ometres

naissans."

L'Hopital's

aim

had

been

"principalement

de

faire

des

Mathe-

maticiens,"

Fontenelle

wrote,

and

he had

the satisfaction

of

seeing

that

"des

Problemes

reservez

autrefois a

ceux

qui

avoient

vieilli dans

les

epines

des

Mathematiques,

devenoient

des

coups

d'essai

de

jeunes

gens":

Apparemment

a

revolution

eviendra ncore

plus

grande,

& il

se seroit

trouve

avec

le

temps

autantde

Disciples,

qu'il

y

eut eu de

Mathematiciens.35

These latter

two uses of "revolution"

in

relation

to

l'Hopital's

textbook

33Ibid.;

"Cette

revolution,

quelque

heureuse

qu'elle

ffit,

a

pourtant

ete

accompagnee

de

quelques

troubles."

A

succinct

appraisal

of this work of Fontenelle's

is

given by

Su-

zanne Delorme in the

Dictionary of Scientific Biography,

ed.

Charles C.

Gillispie

(New

York, 1972), V, 61b; a review by the Abbe Terrasson appeared in Journal des scavans,

July-Oct.

1728, 387-403,

608-25.

34"Eloge

de

Rolle,"

CEuvres

de

Fontenelle

(nouvelle

ed., Paris,

1792),

VII,

67.

This

eloge

was first

published

in the

Histoire

de

l'Academie

Royale

des Sciences

(1719).

Fontenelle was the author of

the

anonymous preface

to

l'Hopital's

book,

which was

writ-

ten

in a

style

that would

lead

the

unsuspecting

reader to

suppose

it

had

been written

by

l'Hopital

himself.

35"Eloge

de

M.

le

Marquis

de

l'H6pital,"

Histoire

du renouvellement

de

l'Academie

Royale

des

Sciences

en M. DC.XCIX. et les

eloges historiques

de

tous

les academiciens

morts

depuis

ce renouvellement

(Amsterdam, 1709),

105-06. In

the

"Eloge

du

Marquis

de l'H6pital," publishedin CEuvres e Fontenelle (Paris, 1790) VI, 131, the word "revo-

lution" is

misprinted

as

"resolution."



14/33

CONCEPT

OF

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

269

differ

from

the former

instance,

in that the calculus

inaugurated

a con-

ceptual

revolution

in

mathematics,

whereas the

Analyse

des

infiniment

petits

consolidated the

achievements

of that revolution

and made its

methods

and

achievements

so

readily

available

as

to revolutionize

the

profession

of

mathematician;

that

is,

I'Hopital

was

(according

to

Fontenelle) primarily responsible

for

attracting

young

mathematicians

("geometres")

to the

new

analysis

and

endowing

them with

new

powers.

Fontenelle

would

thus seem to

have made

a distinction

between

"une

revolution

presque

totale .

. . dans

la

geometrie"36

and

"une revolution

bien

marquee,"

such as

l'Hopital's

book

produced

"dans

le

monde

geometre."37

The revolution within the sciences to which Fontenelle referred was

the

discovery

or invention

of the

calculus

by

Newton

and

by

Leibniz.38

Another

eighteenth-century

reference

to

Isaac

Newton and

a revolution

in

science

is

found

in

Clairaut's statement of

1747 that

Newton's

Prin-

cipia

had marked

"l'epoque

d'une

grande

revolution dans

la

Phy-

sique."39

The fact that

these earliest

references

to a

revolution in

science

occur

in

relation

to

Newton

is

worthy

of

notice,

since

it was

Newton's

achievement

in

pure

mathematics

coupled

with his

analysis

of

36

A

"revolution

presque

totale" would seem

more

fitting

an

expression

for a

cyclical

phenomenon

than for the kind of revolution Fontenelle had

in mind.

37

In

his

"Eloge

du Czar

Pierre,"

Fontenelle used

the word "revolution"

in two

ways,

neither of

them in relation

to science. Thus he wrote

that

"La

revolution,

arriv6e en

Perse

par

la

revolte de

Mahmoud,

attira

de ce

cote-la

les

armes du

Czar et du

grand

Seigneur." Again,

he mentioned

"[la]

nation

Moscovite,

peu

connue

que

de ses

plus

proches

voisins,

. . .

presque

une nation

a

part,

qui

n'entroit

point

dans le

systeme

de

l'Europe,

. . . et

dont

a

peine

6toit-on curieux

d'apprendre

de tems en tems

quelques

revolutions

importantes."

This

eloge

is

printed

in

CEuvres

e

Fontenelle,

nouvelle ed.

op.

cit., VII, 166, 188. This second quotation appears to have cyclical overtones of the ebbs

and flows

of

ordinary

history,

and

as

such

may

resemble a

statement in Fontenelle's

"Preface

sur

l'utilit6 des

mathematiques

et de la

physique,

et sur les

travaux de l'Aca-

demie des

Sciences,"

Histoire de l'Academie

Royale

des

Sciences.

Annee

M. DC.XCIX.

Avec les memoires de

mathematique

& de

physique,

pour

la

meme annee. Tires des

registres

de cette Academie. Seconde

edition, revue,

corrigee

&

augmentee

(Am-

sterdam,

1734),

I,

v-xxvi.

In

this

form,

the

essay

is

merely

entitled

"Preface";

the above

title

comes

from the

somewhat truncated

reprint

in

CEuvres

e

Fontenelle,

nouvelle 6d.

op.

cit.,

VI,

59-75.

An

English

version

was

published

in

Miscellanea

Curiosa,

vol.

1

(London,

1705;

2nd

ed., London,

1708;

3rd

ed.,

London,

1726).

Here Fontenelle

says:

"L'Histoire ne

fournit

pas

dans

toute

son

6tendue,

des

examples

de

vertu,

ni des

regles

de

conduite.

Hors de

la,

ce n'est

qu'un

spectacle

de revolutions

perpetuelles

dans les

affaires

humaines,

de

naissances,

de chuites

d'empire,

de

mceurs,

de

coutumes,

d'opinions, qui

se

succedent

incessament;

enfin de

tout

ce

mouvement

rapide,

quoiqu'insensible, qui

emporte

tout,

et

change

continuellement

la face de

la terre."

38In the "Preface"

to the

Elements

de la

geometrie

de

l'infini,

loc.

cit.,

Fontenelle

said of the calculus: "Newton

trouva le

premier

ce merveilleux

calcul,

Leibnitz

le

publia

le

premier.

Que

Leibnitz

soit inventeur

aussi bien

que

Newton,

c'est

une

question

dont

nous avons

rapport6

l'histoire

en

1716,

et

nous ne la

r6epterons

pas

ici."

39See note 15 supra. This statement was repeated almost verbatim by Joseph-Louis

Lagrange,

John

Playfair,

and

Thomas

Henry

Huxley.



15/33

270 I.

BERNARD

COHEN

the

system

of the world

on

the

basis

of

gravitational

dynamics

that

actually

set the seal on

the "Scientific Revolution" and

caused scientists

and philosophers to recognize that a revolutionhad in fact taken place.40

In this

sense,

Newton's

Principia

of 1687

would have

played

the same

r6le

in the

recognition

of the

occurrence of a scientific revolution that

the Glorious Revolution

of 1688

apparently

did

for

political

revolution.

The

great Encyclopedie

of Diderot and d'Alembert

contains a nota-

ble

entry

on

revolution.

The

concept

of revolution

was,

in

fact,

in-

troduced

at

the

very

start

of this collective

work,

since

it

occurs

in

a dra-

matic

fashion

in

d'Alembert's

Discours

preliminaire,

as well as later on

in his article "Experimental." In the Discours preliminaire (publishedin

1751),

d'Alembert introduced

the

concept

of

revolution

in a

thumb-nail

sketch of the rise of

modern science

or, rather,

of a

philosophy

associated

with modern science. The aim of

the

essay

was to sketch out

a

methodological

and

philosophical analysis

of all

knowledge

(including

science which

occupies

a central

place

in his

scheme41)

and not

to

portray

the

sciences themselves. d'Alembert

begins

his historical

presentation

with

"le Chancelier

Bacon,"

who

occupies

an

avuncular

position, and then moves on to a brief resume of Descartes's radical in-

novations.

Fully appreciative

of

the

significance

of

the

Newtonian

natural

philosophy,

which

in fact

had

just

overthrown and

replaced

the

Cartesian,

d'Alembert

nevertheless felt the need to

say

some kind

words

for

Descartes,

a

fellow

Frenchman

and fellow mathematician. He

thus called

particular

attention to the

great

"revolte"

of

Descartes,

who

had

shown

"intelligent

minds how to

throw

off

the

yoke

of

scholasticism,

of

opinion,

of

authority...."

d'Alembert

had

in

mind

a clear

image

of

the action of

political revolutionary forces,

and

he

portrayed

Descartes

"as a leader

of

conspirators

who,

before

anyone

else,

had the

courage

to

rise

against

a

despotic

and

arbitrary

power

and

who,

in

preparing

a

resounding

revolution,

laid the foundations of a

more

just

and

happier

government,

which he himself

was

not

able

to

see established."42

Descartes's

role in thus

"preparing"

the

"revolution" or his "revolt"

was "a service to

philosophy

perhaps

more difficult

to

perform

than

all

40This

heme

is

developed

in the

work cited

in note 10

supra.

41Ronald

Grimsley,

Jean d'Alembert

(1717-83)

(Oxford,

1963);

Thomas L.

Hankins,

Jean d'Alembert: Science

and

Enlightenment

(Oxford, 1970),

8.

42All of the

following

references are

to

the first

edition,

available in

a

facsimile

re-

print:

Encyclopedie,

ou Dictionnaire raisonne des

sciences,

des arts et des metiers.

Nou-

velle

impression

en

facsimile

de

la

premiere

edition de

1751-1780

(Stuttgart-Bad

Cannstatt,

1966).

See vol.

1

(Paris, 1751),

xxvi.

Quoted

from

the

English

translation

made

by

Richard N. Schwab

(with

the

collaboration

of

Walter

E.

Rex),

available

in

Jean

LeRond

d'Alembert,

Preliminary

Discourse

to

the

Encyclopedia

of

Diderot

(In-

dianapolis,

1963-The

Library

of Liberal

Arts),

80-81.

It

should be observed that

d'Alembert used the metaphor of political life in describing Descartes' rl6e in the revo-

lution.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Documents

Journal of the History of Ideas Volume 37 Issue 2 1976 [Doi 10.2307%2F2708824] I. Bernard Cohen -- The Eighteenth-Century Origins of the Concept of Scientific Revolution