ALBERT

Notes: Marco Beretta, The Starry Messenger and the Polar Star. ScientiJic relations between Italy and Sweden from 1500 to 1800. Pra(Giunti) 1995.Thomas L. Hankins & Robert J. Silver-mann, Instruments and the Imagination. Princeton N.J.Lin Quing, Zur Fruhgeschichte des Elektronenmikroskops. Stuttgart (Verlag Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der.Karin Reich: Die Entwicklung des Ten-sorkalkuls. Vom absoluten Differentialkal-kul zur Relativitatstheorie.

Notes: Book reviewed in this article:Takao Hayashi, The Bukhshāl? Mrinusrript. An Ancident Indian Mathematicul Treatise.Christopher Cullen, Astronomy and Marhematics in Ancient China: The Zhou bi suanjing.James M. Lattis, Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christopher Cluvius and the Col-lapse of Ptolemaic Cosmology.Lennart Berggren, Jonathan Borwein & Peter Borwein. Pi: A Source Book.From Kant to Hlilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, ed.Rudolf Fritsch, unter Mitarbeit von Gerda Fritsch: Der Vierfarbensat Geschichteropologische Grundlagm und Beweisidre.R. G. A. Dolby, Uncertuin Knowledge. An Image of Science for a Changing World.Adolf P. Juskevic et Judith Kopelevic, Chris-tian Goldbach 1690–1 764, translated from the Russian by A. and W. Purkert.Wolf von Engelhardt, Ilse Jahn, DorotheaKuhn (Hrsg.), Zur Edition narurwissen-schaftlicher Texte der Goethezeit.Casper Hakfoort, Optics in the Age of Euler. Conceptions of the Nature of Light 1700–1795.Lynn K. Nyhart, Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universit-ies, 1800–1900.Michael Springford (ed), Electron: A Centenary Volume.L. Hoddeson, L. Brown, M. Riordan, M.Dresden (eds.), The Rise o i the Standard Model. Particle Physics in the 1960s and 1970s.Lilli Peltzer, Die Demontage deutscher natur-wissenschaftlicher Intelligenz nach dem 2.Weltkrieg. Die Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt 1945–1948.Richard L. Hills, Power from Wind. A History of Windmill Technology.Wolfgang Pauli, Wissenschaftliche Brief-wechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a. Volume 4, part I: 1950–1952.R. Kaluza, Through a Reporter's Eyes: The Life of Stefan Eunuch (translated and edited by W. Woyczynski and A. Kostant).Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, Ser. Ser. secunda, XXXI: Commentationes mcch-anicae et nstronomicae ad physicam cos-hiicam pertinentesHelge Kragh, Cosmonology and Controversy. The Historical Development of Two The ories of the Universe.Klaus Hentschel ed., Physics und Nationul Sociulism: An Anthology of Primary Sources.Bernard Bolzano, Gesamtausgabe. Reihe 11, Nachlass, B, Wissenschuftliche TugebucherJ. B. Hearnshaw, The Measurement of Star-light. Two Centuries of Astronomical Pho-tometry.Beate Ceranski. “Und sie furchtet sich vorniemandeni”. Die Physikerin Luura Bussi (1717–1778).Franz Graf-Stuhlhofer. Humrinisnius zwischen Hof und Universitat. Georg Tannsterrer.(Collimitius) und sein wissenschaftiliches Umfeld im Wien des frulien 16. Jahrhunderts.James R. Hofmann, Andre-Marie Ampere. Enlightenment and Electrodynamics Cambridge etc.

Notes: A question that is often formulated by people interested in the history of mathematics is: Did Newton use his calculus in the Principia? This question comes very naturally to mind, since Newton discovered the calculus of fluxions before writing the Principia. It is just obvious to think that Newton had employed the calculus in order to mathematize his natural philosophy. However, very little trace of calculus techniques is to be found in the Principia, which are mostly written in ‘geometric style’. On the other hand, some propositions of the Principia are framed in a geometric language which appears to be very easily translatable into calculus concepts. Thus our question is very tricky.As a matter of fact, the question of the presence of calculus in the Principia has been debated since the 169Os, when Fontenelle stated that almost the whole work is about the differential calculus. The question played an important role in the muddled context of the priority dispute with Leibniz. Since then the opinions of mathematicians and Newtonian scholars have been very contradictory and our question seems still to be waiting for a definite answer. In order to achieve an understanding of Newton's use of calculus in his mugnum opus, we have to consider the exchange of information between a restricted group of adherents to the Newtonian school.By analyzing a group of manuscripts written by Newton and by some of his disciples (D. Gregory, Keill and Cotes), it is possible to show that in some propositions of the Principiu Newton did employ calculus techniques. More precisely it can be shown that he employed his highly algorithmic techniques for squaring curves. The answer to our question must be a resounding yes.The fact that Newton and his disciples knew how to apply the calculus to the science of motion and force implies a new question. Why did they keep the fluxional equations of motion almost entirely hidden? Their attitude is very puzzling, since the application of calculus to the science of motion appears to us as one of the main trends of the development of eighteenth century mathematics. In fact the Leibnizians pursued with enthusiasm a programme of application of the differential and integral calculus to dynamics, giving great publicity to it. On the contrary, the Newtonians, when dealing with natural philosophy, preferred to keep fluxions at the level of private exchange. In the last part of this paper I will address this new question, focusing on the different validation criteria active within the two schools. I will show that different values, expectations and research priorities determined a different approach towards the use of calculus methods in natural philosophy, and consequently an adoption in the two schools of different policies of publication.