Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa

Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of

18th century mechanics
Andrea Reichenberger
Paderborn University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Social and Human Sciences, Center for the History of Women Philosophers and
Scientists, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Émilie Du Châtelet is well known for her French translation of Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Received 8 May 2016 Mathematica. It is the first and only French translation of Newton’s magnum opus. The complete work
Received in revised form appeared in 1759 under the title Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle, par feue Madame la
15 November 2017
Marquise Du Chastellet. Before translating Newton’s Principia, Du Châtelet worked on her Institutions de
Available online xxx
physique. In this book she defended the Leibnizian concept of living forces e vis viva. This paper argues
that both of these works were part of a critical transformation and consolidation of post-Newtonian
Keywords:
mechanics in the early 18th century, beyond Newton and Leibniz. This will be shown by comparing
Émilie Du Châtelet
Newton’s Principia
Du Châtelet’s translation of Newton’s axioms with her own formulations of the laws of motion in light of
Geneva edition Thomas Le Seur’s and François Jacquier’s Geneva edition which holds a special place among the several
Laws of motion editions of the Principia that appeared in the early 18th century.
vis viva controversy Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction these works should be joined Mr. MacLaurin’s Account of Sir

On 30 January 1868, Emil du Bois-Reymond gave a speech in
honor of Frederick the Second in Berlin titled “Voltaire as a Scien-
tist.” He remarked (du Bois-Reymond, 1868, p. 324):
Madame DU CHÂTELET translated the Principia and commented
on it in an algebraic manner with the assistance of CLAIRAUT. At
the same time the two French Minorites, Jacquier and Le Seur in
Rome, were occupied with this work.1
Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries, translated into French a
few years ago, and the commentary on Newton’s Principia that
Madame la Marquise du Chatelet left us along with a translation
of the same work.2
It is indisputable that Du Châtelet’s modern notation and clear
style made Newton’s Principia accesible to French scholars.3 It is
therefore astounding how little attention was paid to her

Du Bois-Reymond gave hints at an interesting connection be- 2

tween Émilie Du Châtelet’s translation of Isaac Newton’s Philoso-
phiae naturalis principia mathematica, and François Jacquier’s und
Thomas Le Seur’s edition of the same text. One also finds a similar
reference in the entry “Newtonianism or Newtonian philosophy” by
Jean Rond d’Alembert in the Encyclopédie (d’Alembert, 1765, p. 123):
The Franciscan fathers Sueur and Jacquier have also published
Newton’s Principia in three quarto volumes, along with a very
extensive commentary, which may be very useful to those who
wish to read the excellent work of the English philosopher. To
E-mail address: andrea.reichenberger@uni-paderborn.de.
1
”[.] übersetzte die Madame DU CHÂTELET die Principia, und kommentierte sie
unter CLAIRAUT’S Beistand algebraisch, eine Arbeit, mit der gerade damals auch die
beiden französischen Minoriten, Jacquier und Le Seur, in Rom sich beschäftigten.“
Unless otherwise noted, all translations in the text are my own.
« les pères le Sueur et Jacquier, minimes, ont aussi donné au public en trois
volumes in 4
. le livre des principes de Newton avec un commentaire fort ample, et
qui peut être très-utile à ceux qui veulent lire l’excellent ouvrage du philosophe
anglais. On doit joindre à ces ouvrages celui de M. Maclaurin, qui a pour titre,
Exposition des découvertes du chevalier Newton, traduite en français depuis
quelques années, et le commentaire que madame la marquise du Chatelet nous a
laissé sur les principes de Newton, avec une traduction de ce même ouvrage.»
3
Isaac Newton’s original Latin edition from 1687 was published by the care of
Edmund Halley, the second by Roger Cotes in 1713 and third by Henry Pemberton in
1726. An English translation was published in 1729, after Newton’s death. In 1972,
Alexandre Koyré and I. Bernard Cohen edited a critical edition of the Pemberton
edition with the assistance of Anne Whitman. It is the standard edition of Newton’s
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica till today (Newton, 1972 [1726]),
together with the new English translation by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman
(Newton, 1999). The first critical edition of Du Châtelet’s translation appeared in
2015. It was edited by Michel Toulmonde who conducted research work, which was
long overdue. Several articles in Kölving and Courcelle (2008) provide insights into
the problems that are associated with this endeavor. For more details, including a
reference list, see Reichenberger (2016, pp. 35e40).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
0039-3681/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
2 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11
translation by contemporary Newton scholars. However, there is
growing interest in Du Châtelet’s translation of the Principia.4
There are numerous reasons to look anew at Du Châtelet’s
translation of Newton. First, research on the history of women phi-
losophers and scientists has long been neglected. There is currently a
movement toward correcting this historical bias against women.
Second, recent manuscript discoveries and online publications
require a reevaluation of Du Châtelet as a scientist and philosopher,
rather than simply regarding her as a translator. Third and perhaps
most importantly, the contributions of 18th century physics to our
modern scientific outlook have long been underestimated.
Many historians have characterized 18th century physics as
discovering mathematical implications of Newtonian laws, and as
rejecting metaphysical frameworks in favor of bare, mathematically
expressed, empirically adequate descriptions. This is, however, an
inadequate way of understanding the complexity of the develop-
ment of 18th century mechanics. As Thomas Hankins notes, the
“growth of rational mechanics in the eighteenth century was far
more than a formal extension and elaboration of Newton’s laws of
motion” (Hankins, 1990, p. 7). The popular view that the addition of
the calculus was merely a notational change, adding nothing
conceptually to mechanics e except Leibnizian notation applied to
Newton’s calculus e oversimplifies the transition from the syn-
thetic methods of Newton’s Principia to the calculus of 18th century
mechanics. Émilie Du Châtelet’s writings on physics provide an
excellent example for this complex pattern of change.
2. Leibniz or Newton?
Émilie Du Châtelet is well known for her translation of Newton’s
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, or the Principia as it is
commonly known, from its original Latin text into French (see e.g.,
Zinsser, 2001). Shortly after she completed this work, she died at
the age of 42. A part of the work was published in 1756, seven years
after her death, under the direction of Alexis Claude Clairaut with a
preface written by Voltaire (Voltaire, 1756). The complete work
appeared in 1759 under the title Principes mathématiques de la
philosophie naturelle, par feue Madame la Marquise Du Chastellet (Du
Châtelet, 2015 [1759]).5 Clairaut reviewed the work, approved its
publication and praised it as revolutionary (Clairaut, 1745/49, p.
329; see also Cohen, 1976):
The famous book Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
marked the epoch of a great revolution in physics.6
4
To mention some relevant literature on this subject in chronological order:
Cohen (1968), Taton (1969), Scriba (1971), Biarnais (1981), Debever (1987),
Whitfield (2002), Zinsser and Courcelle, (2003), Emch and Emch-Deriaz (2006),
Blay and Toulmonde (2008), Chambat and Varry (2008), Courcelle (2008),
Toulmonde (2008), Hesselink (2010).
5
The genesis of Du Châtelet’s translation is difficult to reconstruct. We know that
Alexis Claude Clairaut aided Du Châtelet as adviser and as reviser throughout the
1740s when she was preparing her translation. On 20 December 1745, Clairaut
approved the order for the translation. In February and March of 1746, the royal
decree document was signed by representatives of the king, from the Royal
Chamber of Booksellers and Publishers of Paris. But Clairaut then was involved in a
debate on the law of universal gravitation in order to explain an anomaly observed
in the movement of the moon’s apogee (Bodenmann, 2010). Presumably, on
February 1749, Du Châtelet came to Paris to finish her book in collaboration with
Clairaut. Before her death e she died of pulmonary embolism on 10 September 1749
e she consigned the manuscript of her annotated translation, including the com-
mentary, to the librarian of the Bibliothèque du Roi in Paris. It is unclear why there
was a time lag of more than a decade from the first completion of the translation to
the first publication in 1756 and why there was a further delay of three years until
the publication of the 1759 edition (for further reading see Zinsser, 2006, chapter 6).
6
« Le fameux livre des Principes mathématiques de la Philosophie naturelle, a été
l’époche d’une grande révolution dans la Physique.»
Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
The story of the publication and reception of Du Châtelet’s
translation is deeply connected to the commentary which she added
to the text. The commentary is composed of two parts. The first
recounts the history of astronomical models from the Babylonians
and Pythagoras up to Newton’s death. This part aims to highlight the
approach of Newton and explains the results obtained by him.
The second presents algebraic equivalents for disputed and
difficult sections of the Principia, e.g., planetary orbits under the
force of attraction, or the refraction of light based on the principles
of attraction. Instead of Newton’s geometric method, analytical
formulas are used, based on Leibniz’s differential calculus along the
lines of Johann II Bernoulli, Leonard Euler, Jean-Baptiste le Rond
d’Alembert et al. Du Châtelet’s translation ends with a Glossary
Index and an Appendix.7
Before translating Newton’s Principia, Du Châtelet worked on
her Institutions de physique. The book was printed anonymously in
1740 (Du Châtelet, 1740). A second edition was published in 1742
under the slightly altered title, now with explicit mention of her
author’s name: Institutions physiques de Madame la marquise du
Châstellet adressés à Mr. son fils (Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742]). One year
later a German and an Italian translation had already appeared: Der
Frau Marquisinn von Chastellet Naturlehre an Ihren Sohn (Du
Châtelet, 1743a), respectively Instituzioni di fisica di Madama la
Marchesa du Chastellet indiritte a suo figliuolo (Du Châtelet, 1743b).
According to Mary Ellen Waithe, Du Châtelet’s “Institutions
provided the metaphysical account of why the universe is as Prin-
cipia explains it to be” (Waithe, 1991, p. 135). Andrew Janiak claims
that Du Châtelet established a “Leibnizian metaphysical foundation
for Newtonian physics” (Janiak, 2015, p. 15). Both refer to Linda
Gardiner Janik’s landmark article “Searching for the Metaphysics of
Science: The Structure and Composition of Mme. Du Châtelet’s In-
stitutions de physique, 1737e1740” (Gardiner Janik, 1982) which
supposes a strong connection between both works, the Institutions
and the Principia-translation. This view stands in sharp contrast to
the widely spread opinion that Du Châtelet, one of the earliest
French Newtonians, converted to the Leibnizian doctrine of living
forces under the influence of Johann I Bernoulli and Pierre Louis
Moreau de Maupertuis, and finally returned to Newton, deciding to
dedicate all of her scientific activity to perfecting a French trans-
lation of the Principia.
This was the view asserted by Voltaire in his « Eloge historique
de Madame la Marquise du Châtelet » (Du Châtelet, 2015 [1759]).
The following study aims to show that Du Châtelet’s Institutions
physiques were neither a shift in her area of interest, nor a radical
break with Newtonian physics, nor a Leibnizian metaphysics
applied to Newton’s physics. Both of Du Châtelet’s works were part
of a critical transformation and consolidation of post-Newtonian
mechanics in the early 18th century. This will be shown by
comparing Du Châtelet’s translation of Newton’s axioms with her
own formulations of the laws of motion in light of Thomas Le Seur’s
and François Jacquier’s Geneva edition (Newton, 1739e1742).
3. Newton’s laws of motion and Du Châtelet’s translation
The way in which Newton’s laws should be understood has been
extensively discussed by historians of science, along with the re-
lations between Newton’s own formulations of these laws, and
their translations and modern modifications. Today it is taught that
the velocity of the object is constant if the net force (the vector sum
7
The Appendix includes Alexis Claude Clairaut’s « Théorie de la figure de la terre.
Tirée des principes de l’hydrostatique » (1743) and Daniel Bernoulli’s essay « Traité
sur le flux et le reflux de la mer » (1741).
 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11 3

of all forces acting on an object) is zero (first law) and that the The French translation replaces the Latin phrase “uniformiter in
vector sum of the forces on an object is equal to the mass of that directum” (“straight forward”) with « en ligne droite dans lequel il
object multiplied by the acceleration vector of the object (second se trouve,» i.e., “in a straight line which the body follows.”
law), whereas the third law means that all forces are interactions Furthermore, the Latin terminology “nisi quatenus illud a viribus
between different bodies. impressis cogitur statum suum mutare” (“insofar as it is compelled
Some authors interpret the first law (the law of inertia) in its to change its state by forces impressed”) is translated with « à
modern version as a corollary of the second. They argue that F ¼ O moins que quelque force n’agisse sur lui et ne le contraigne à
is a special case of F ¼ ma, i.e., F ¼ O implies a vanishing accel- changer d’état,» i.e., “unless some force acts upon it and does not
eration, thus uniform motion (e.g., McCulloch, 2014, p. 8). Others constrain it to change its state.” Particularly noteworthy is the
disagree. They assert that the second law only holds in inertial replacement of “nisi quatenus illud a viribus impressis” with « force
reference frames. Therefore, the first law cannot be a special case of n’agisse sur lui,» i.e., “unless some force acts upon it.” In the second
the second law, because the first law defines what an inertial law, the phrase “vi motrici impressae” is abbreviated to « force
reference frame is (e.g., O’Donnell, 2014, p. 17). In both cases it is motrice,» i.e., “moving force,” although “imprimatur” is taken
taken for granted that Newton’s second law is expressed by the literally as « imprimée,» i.e. “impressed.” The third law is a trans-
equation F ¼ ma. But this modern form does not occur in any lation without significant changes. In the Principia, before Newton
edition of the Principia. introduced his axioms of motion, he presented eight definitions.
As is well known, Newton’s first law states that “every body These definitions are crucial for the understanding of the axioms.
perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly Therefore, a comparison between Newton’s Latin original and the
straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state French translation is appropriate.
by forces impressed” (Newton, 1999, p. 416). Newton’s second law
states that “the change in motion is proportional to the motive force
impressed and takes place along the straight line in which that
force is impressed” (Newton, 1999, p. 416). The third law states: “To DÉFINITIONS DEFINITIONES
(Du Châtelet, 2015 [1759], pp. 169ff.) (Newton, 1972, pp. 39ff.)
every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; in other
words, the actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal Définition I: La quantité de matière se Definitio I: Quantitas materiae est quae
mesure par la densité & le volume oritur ex ipsius densitate et
and always opposite in direction” (Newton, 1999, p. 417). At first
pris ensemble. magnitudine conjunctim.
glance, Émilie Du Châtelet’s translation of Newton’s axioms is very Définition II: La quantité de Definitio II. Quantitas motus est
close to the original, but it is worth taking a close look at it: mouvement est le produit de la mensura ejusdem orta ex velocitate et
masse par la vitesse. quantite materiae conjunctim.
Définition III: La force qui réside dans la Definitio III: Materiae vis insita est
AXIOMS, OU LOIS DU MOVEMENT AXIOMATA, SIVE LEGES MOTUS matière (vis insita) est le pouvoir potentia resistendi, qua corpus
(Du Châtelet, 2015 [1759], pp. 17f.) (Newton, 1972 [1726], pp. 54f.) qu’elle a de résister. C’est par cette unumquodque, quantum in se est,
force que tout corps persévère de perseverat in statu suo vel quiescendi
PREMIÉRE LOI. Tout corps persévère LEX I. Corpus omne perseverare in statu
lui-même dans son état actuel de vel movendi uniformiter in directum.
dans l’état de repos ou de suo quiescendi vel movendi
repos ou de mouvement uniforme
mouvement uniforme en ligne uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus
en ligne droite.
droite dans lequel il se trouve, à illud a viribus impressis cogitur statum
Définition IV: La force imprimée (vis Definitio IV: Vis Impressa est actio in
moins que quelque force n’agisse sur suum mutare.
impressa) est l’action par laquelle corpus exercita, ad mutandum ejus
lui, et ne le contraigne à changer
l’état du corps est changé, soit que statum vel quiescendi vel movendi
d’état.
cet état soit le repos, ou le uniformiter in directum.
SECONDE LOI. Les changements qui LEX II. Mutationem motus
mouvement uniforme en ligne
arrivent dans le mouvement sont proportionalem esse vi motrici
droite.
proportionnels à la force motrice, et impressae, & fieri secundum lineam
se font dans la ligne droite dans rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
laquelle cette force a été imprimée.
TROISIEME LOI. L’action est toujours LEX III. Actioni contrariam semper &
égale et opposée à la réaction; c’est- aequalem esse reactionem: sive
à-dire, que les actions de deux corps corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo The translation reads as follows:
l’un sur l’autre sont toujours égales, semper esse aequales & in partes
et dans des directions contraires. contrarias dirigi.

The translation reads as follows:

DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS
(Du Châtelet, 2015 [1759], pp. 169ff.) (Newton, 1999 [1726], pp. 403ff.)

Definition I: Quantity of matter is Definition I: Quantity of matter is a

AXIOMS, OU LOIS DU MOVEMENT AXIOMS, OR THE LAWS OF MOTION
measured by density and volume measure of matter that arises from its
(Du Châtelet, 2015 [1759], pp. 17f.) (Newton, 1999, pp. 416f.)
taken together. density and volume jointly.
FIRST LAW. Every body perseveres in LAW I. Every body perseveres in its Définition II: Quantity of motion is the Definition II. Quantity of motion is a
state of being at rest or of moving
the state of rest or uniform motion in product of its mass and velocity. measure of motion that arises from the
uniformly straight forward, except
a straight line in which it is, unless velocity and the quantity of matter
some force acts upon it, and does notinsofar as it is compelled to change its jointly.
constrain it to change its state. state by forces impressed. Definition III: The force that resides in Definition III: Inherent force of matter
SECOND LAW. The changes in motion LAW II. A change in motion is matter (vis insita) is the power of is the power of resisting by which every
are proportional to the motive force,proportional to the motive force resisting. It is by this force that every body, so far as it is able, perseveres in
impressed and takes place along the
and take place along the straight line body perseveres of itself in its its state either of resting or of moving
in which that force is impressed. straight line in which that force is present state of rest or uniform uniformly straight forward.
impressed. motion in a straight line.
THIRD LAW. The action is always equal LAW III. To every action there is always Definition IV: The impressed force (vis Definition IV: Impressed force is the
and opposite to the reaction; that is opposed an equal reaction; in other impressa) is the action by which the action exerted on a body to change its
to say, the actions of two bodies words, the actions of two bodies upon state of the body is changed, state either of resting or moving
upon each other are always equal each other are always equal and always whether this state is rest, or uniform uniformly straight forward.
and in opposite in direction. opposite in direction. motion in a straight line.

Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
4 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11
Newton opened the Principia with “quantitas materiae”
(“quantity of matter”). The French translation substitutes the word
“magnitudo” for « volume.» Further, the French « mesure » is used
for the Latin “oritur.” Newton’s “quantitas motus” (“quantity of
motion”) is defined as the « produit de la masse par la vitesse,»
instead of using Newton’s “velocitate et quantite materiae con-
junctim.”, i.e., the force that resides in matter. The third definition
refers to “materiae vis insita” (“inherent force of matter”). The
French version puts the concept “vis insita” in brackets. It is cir-
cumscribed as « qui réside dans la matière.» The fourth definition is
taken literally from the Latin original. That is to say, an impressed
force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change its state,
either of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line. Definitions Ve
VIII define three measures of centripetal force: the absolute quan-
tity of centripetal force, the accelerative quantity of centripetal
force, and the motive quantity of centripetal force. Here, the French
translation follows Newton’s Latin original for the most part.
What follows from the comparison of the texts above? Du
Châtelet’s translation does not only modify the sentence structure,
it replaces Newton’s Latin with modern terminology. The tendency
to reduce “impressed force” to “force” and to avoid the concept of
inherent force is particulary noteable. This was a landmark stage in
the complex development from Newton’s Principia to 18th century
mechanics and the definitive refusal of medieval impetus theory.
4. Du Châtelet’s laws of motion in the light of the Geneva
edition
In Chapter Eleven “Of Motion and Rest in General, and of Simple
Motion” of her Institutions physiques Du Châtelet formulated the
laws of motion as follows (Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742], x 229):
The active force and the passive force of the bodies are modified
by their impact according to certain laws, which can be reduced
to three principles.
FIRST LAW. A Body perseveres in its state, be it rest or motion,
unless it is compelled to change its state of motion or rest by
some cause.
SECOND LAW: The changes of the motion of a body are always
proportional to the moving force which acts upon it; for other-
wise this change would happen without sufficient reason.
THIRD LAW: The reaction is always equal to the action; for a
Body could not act upon another Body, unless that other Body
resisted it: thus action and reaction are always equal and
opposite.8
Before presenting the three laws of motion, Du Châtelet dis-
tinguishes between active and passive forces. Moving force (« vis
motrice ») is characterized as active force (« vis active »), inertial
force (« vis d’inertie ») as passive force (« force passive »). It is
8
« La force active & la force passive des Corps, se modifient dans leur choc, selon
de certaines Loix que l’on peut réduire à trois principales. PREMIÈRE LOI: Un Corps
persévère dans l’état où il se trouve, soit de repos, soit de mouvement, à moins que
quelque cause ne le tire de son mouvement, ou de son repos. SECONDE LOI: Les
changement qui arrive dans le mouvement d’un Corps, est toujours proportionel à
la force motrice qui agit sur lui; car sans cela ce changement se seroit sans raison
suffisante. TROISIEME LOI: La réaction est toujours égale à l’action; car un Corps ne
pourroit agir sur un autre Corps, si cet autre Corps ne lui resistoit: ainsi, l’action & la
réaction sont toujours égales & opposées.»
9
At that time, it was a custom to use the notion “externa causa” instead of
impressed force in order to formulate the law of inertia. Maria Gaetana Agnesi, for
instance, restated the law of inertia as follows, praising Newton’s natural philoso-
phy as “pulcherrima et simplicissima theoria” (Agnesi, 1738, p. 81): “Corpora omnia
perstant in statu suo quietis, aut motus uniformis in directum, nisi aliqua externa
causa intercesserit, qua eorum status mutetur” (Agnesi, 1738, p. 30).
Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
remarkable that Du Châtelet implanted the principle of sufficient
reason in her formulations of the laws and replaced the concept of
“impressed force” by “cause.”9 She does not write that every body
“perseveres” in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly
straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state
by impressed force. She says that every body perseveres in its state,
except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by cause (« à
moins que quelque cause ne le tire de son mouvement, ou de son
repos »). The word “impressed” is omitted. The same holds for
“moving uniformly in a straight line.” Du Châtelet does not mention
that “state of motion” also refers to the direction of the motion of a
body, i.e., moving uniformly straight forward. Du Châtelet speaks
about moving force (« force motrice »). Otherwise, the change of
motion of a body would happen without sufficient reason (« car
sans cela ce changement se seroit sans raison suffisante »).
It is not easy to properly contextualize Du Châtelet’s formula-
tions of Newton’s laws. At this point, it is worth comparing Du
Châtelet’s laws of motion with the laws of motion formulated in the
Geneva edition. The editors of this text were Thomas Le Seur und
François Jacquier. Both belonged to the Ordo Minimorum, founded
by Francesco di Paola in the late fifteenth century, and thus it is
incorrect to refer to this as the “Jesuit edition.” Le Seur und Jacqu-
ier’s edition of Newton’s Principia reproduces the Latin text of the
third edition (1726) edited by Henry Pemberton. The three volumes
(1739, 1740, and 1742 respectively) were published by Jaques
François Barrillot in Geneva. The printing had been supervised by
Jean Louis-Calandrini (or Calendrini), who, together with Gabriel
Cramer, belonged to a first generation of Genevan Newtonians. It
was Calandrini who wrote the commentary on this edition, along
with a huge, systematic apparatus of notes to Newton’s
propositions.10
Calandrini and Jacquier were in touch with the French répub-
lique des lettres, most notably with Clairaut and Du Châtelet, and
with the Bernoulli family in Basel. François Jacquier had visited
Emilie’s château at Cirey-sur-Blaise from May to July 1744, where
both discussed Newtonian matters. Later, the Marquise and Jac-
quier continued their correspondence (see also Zinsser, 2006).11 In
a letter dated on 3 July 1745, Du Châtelet thanked Johann I Ber-
noulli for sending her the Pemperton-edition of Newton’s Prin-
cipia and she asked him for the Jacquier edition.12 Two years later,
on 13 April 1747 she informed Jacquier that her translation was
currently being printed; the commentary would be extremely
difficult, but his edition would be of great help (Du Châtelet, 1958;
II: nr. 361):
10
Paolo Bussotti and Raffaele Pisano are working on a new critical edition of the
Geneva edition (Bussotti and Pisano 2014a, 2014b, 2016). Independently of Bus-
sotti’s and Pisano’s co-editing works, Niccolὸ Guicciardini has published the
excellent article “Editing Newton in Geneva and Rome: the Annotated Edition of the
Principia by Calandrini, Le Seur and Jacquier” (Guicciardini, 2015). Guicciardini’s
article presents deep insight in the historical context of the French république des
lettres, most notably with Clairaut and Du Châtelet, and with the Bernoulli family in
Basel.
11
According to Niccolὸ Guicciardini, the complete correspondence of Jacquier is
lost (Guicciardini, 2015, p. 359). The library of Vitry-le-François held 106 letters to
Jacquier, which were burned in a bombing raid during the Second World War.
Fortunately, they had already been transcribed und published by Ernest Jovy (1922).
Jovy also edited letters belonging to the Correspondence between Jacquier and Du
Châtelet in Quelques lettres inédits de la Marquise de Chatelet et de la Duchesse de
Choiseul (1745e1775) (Jovy, 1906). They were included in the Bestermann edition
(Du Châtelet, 1958).
12
« Mon Newton qui sera bientôt à l’impression, mais qui demande un travail
continuel, m’occupe toute entière. [.] Vous avez déjà eu la bonté de me procurer
un Newton de l’édition de 1726 que je n’aurais pu traduire sans vous faute d’avoir la
bonne édition. J’ai encore recours à vous pour vous prier de me faire avoir un
Jacquier » (Du Châtelet, 1958; II: nr. 153).
 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11
I am always very busy with my Newton. It is in press. I am going
over the proofs, which is very boring, and I am working on the
commentary, which is very difficult. Your excellent work is of
great help to me, and if I had the courage to undertake a perpetual
commentary, I would not have hesitated to translate yours.13
In the main text of the Geneva edition one finds lower case
letters (as “a,” “b,” “c”), which invite the reader to consult the
relevant footnote at the bottom of the page. The footnotes are
printed in two columns (with few exceptions) and in a smaller type.
They often bear a number, or are even divided into numbered
sections to allow cross-referencing in subsequent footnotes. Some
of the notes are written in the symbolism of Leibniz’s calculus,
others refer to Leibniz’s terminology. For example, footnote d) to
Definitio III (vis insita) reads as follows:
(d) 7. Force is twofold, active and passive; active force is the
power to produce motion; passive force is the power to recieve
or to lose motion; active force is usually subdivided into living
force, which is joined with actual motion, and dead force, which
is an “endeavor” (conatus) or “tendency” (solicitatio) to motion.
8.In every matter there is an innate passive force, or inertia [ .].
This inertial force is in every body, whether moving or resting.
Footnote e) to Definitio IV (vis impressa):
9. Nothing happens without a cause; every body, which perse-
veres in its state, is able to be inert, or passive, unless it is
compelled to change its state by a cause, or external force;
therefore, some force acts on an actual body; so, impressed
force, or action changes the body’s state.14
In this passage, Leibnizian concepts e such as living force (vis
viva) and dead force (vis mortua) e were incorporated into the
commentary of Newton’s definitions and axioms. Leibniz had
introduced both terms in order to distinguish the force of a body
which has only the tendency to motion, from the force of a body
which is actually moving. This conciliatory attitude between Leib-
nizian and Newtonian philosophy and science was a feature of
important trends in the reception of Newtonianism on the continent,
and most probably explains Le Seur’s and Jacquier’s success among
the French scientific élites. An extraordinary example is Du Châtelet,
who sided for living forces during a celebrated polemic with Jean-
Jacques Dortous de Marain in the early forties of the 18th century.
5. Du Châtelet’s laws of motion contextualized: the vis viva
controversy
In 1686, Leibniz published the article “Brevis demonstratio” in
the journal Acta Eruditorum. Leibniz aimed to demonstrate that the
13
« Je suis toujours fort occupée avec mon Newton. On l’imprime actuellement. Je
revois les épreuves, ce qui est fort ennuyeux, et je travaille au commentaire, ce qui
est fort difficile. Votre excellent ouvrage m’est d’un grand secours, et si j’avais le
courage d’entreprendre un commentaire perpétuel, je n’aurais pas hésité à traduire
le vôtre. »
14
“(d) 7. Vis duplex est, activa et passiva; Activa est potentia motum efficiendi;
Passiva est potentia recipiendi vel amittendi; vis activa subdividi solet in vim vivam
quae cum motu actuali conjuncta est, et in vim mortuam quae est tantum conatus
seu sollicitatio ad motum. [.] 8. Inest omni materiae vis insita passiva, seu inertia [
.]. Vis illa inertiae eadem est in corporibus motis et quiescentibus. 9. Nihil fit sine
causa; unde omne corpus ut pote iners at passivum (8) in suo quocumque statu
perseverat, nisi causa aliqua, seu vi externa, statum suum mutare cogatur; cum
igitur vis aliqua in corpus actu agit; vis impressa seu actio mutat quidem corporis
statum.”
Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
5
moving force (“vis motrix”) has to be distinguished from the
quantity of motion (“quantitas motus”) in order to calculate the
motion of a body (Leibniz, 1999 [1686], pp. 2027f.). Descartes had
considered that the quantity conserved in collisions equals the
combined sum of the products of size and speed of each impacting
body. This conserved quantity, which Descartes refers to indis-
criminately as “motion” or “quantity of motion,” is not always
contained in the same parts of matter, but transferred from some
parts to others depending on the ways in which they come into
contact.
Leibniz maintained that the conservation principle would be
violated if the moving force was equivalent to the Cartesian
quantity of motion; rather, the force of a body has to be estimated
from the quantity of the effect which it can produce. Appealing to
Galileo’s treatment of free fall and pendula, Leibniz argued that the
force needed to lift a weight can be determined by the product of
weight and height. According to Galileo’s law of falling bodies, a
fourfold increase in the height of fall results in a doubling of the
speed, i.e., the moving force must be proportional to mv2 15 This
measure of force was later expressed by Leibniz as living force (vis
viva).
Leibniz did not hesitate to recognize mv2 as the absolute mea-
sure of force that he had been looking for in order to argue against
Descartes: “it was conserved (in elastic collisions), it was a scalar, it
stemmed from Galileo’s results for freely falling bodies, and, ulti-
mately, it stemmed from the impossibility of perpetual motion e in
other words, from the requirement, that the cause should be equal
to the effect” (Coopersmith, 2015, p. 42).
In Specimen dynamicum (Leibniz, 1695), Leibniz presented a
mature synthesis of his concept of force, incorporating meta-
physical views based on his reinterpretation of Scholastic sub-
stantial forms: what is real in the universe is activity; the essence of
substance is action, not extension as Descartes had insisted. This
activity is constituted as a primitive force or a striving toward
change; it is the innermost nature of a body.
Later, Leibniz called the basic indivisible substances whose
essence is a continual tendency toward action “monads.” These
units can neither be created nor destroyed. Primitive forces are the
essence of substance. Derivative forces are well founded phenom-
ena, measurable and experimentally testable. They are the
phenomenal manifestation of primitive forces, i.e., substantially
present in all corporeal entities. Both primitive and derivative
forces are either active or passive. Active derivative forces are the
physical forces by which bodies act, and to which the laws of mo-
tion apply.
Newton agreed with Leibniz that Descartes’ explanation of the
universe as extended matter in motion was insufficient. Extension
cannot be itself the source of activity found throughout nature.
Furthermore, this activity cannot be derived from corporeal mo-
tion, since motion either is impressed upon a body by another body,
or originates from activity pre-existing in the body itself. Both
Newton and Leibniz re-established the concept of force in
15
To quote from Brevis demonstratio: “Verum ibi praeter spem discrimen
maximum reperietur. Quod ita ostendo. Demonstratum est a Galilaeo, celeritatem
acquisitam lapsu CD, esse duplum celeritatis acquisitae lapsu EF. Multiplicemus
ergo corpus A quod est ut 1, per celeritatem suam quae est ut 2, productum seu
quantitas motus erit ut 2; rursus ultiplicemus corpus B quod est ut 4, per suam
celeritatem quae est ut 1, productum seu quantitas motus erit ut 4. Ergo quantitas
motus quae est corporis (A) existentis in D, est dimidia quantitates motus quae est
corporis (B) existentis in F, et tamen paulo ante vires utrobique inventae sunt
aequales. Itaque magnum est discrimen inter vim motricem et quantitatem motus,
ita ut unum per alterum aestimari non possit, quod ostendendum susceperamus”
(Leibniz, 1999 [1686], pp. 2028f.). Among others, Carolyn Iltis has reconstructed
Leibniz’s argumentation in detail (Iltis, 1971, pp. 23f.).
6 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11
mechanics and demonstrated how to incorporate the representa-
tion of forces into the geometrical approach to motion. However,
Newton disagreed with Leibniz regarding the measure and concept
of force. Newton accused Leibniz for neglecting “the different times
of fall of the bodies. In a free fall, Newton argued, the ‘impulsive
forces’ imparted to a body are proportional to its velocity, and since
in a free fall acceleration is for practical purposes constant, then the
‘impulsive force’ applied to the body is proportional to the time of
fall” (Freudenthal, 1986, p. 44).
The controversy came to a head when Newtonians intervened in
the first decades of the 18th century (for further reading see
Reichenberger, 2012). Du Châtelet knew about the bygone and
current debates very well. She had studied the main treatises about
the vis viva and had discussed them with others. Her correspon-
dence with Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis in particular moti-
vated her to go public with her objections to the Cartesian measure
of motion. The result was a critique of the positions held by Jean
Jacques d’Ortous de Mairan and James Jurin. Like Leibniz, Du Châ-
telet argued that according to Galileo’s law of falling bodies a
fourfold increase in the height of fall results in a doubling of the
speed. Consequently, living force must be proportional to mv2 (Du
Châtelet, 1988 [1742], x 567). Du Châtelet offered at least three ar-
guments for living forces and their Leibnizian measure.
The first argument is a metaphysical one and concerns the
problem of the apparent loss of force in Newtonian mechanics.
From the description of the motion of globes on the balance,
Newton concluded that motion, or force, is lost. In his Opticks
Newton reintroduced divine intervention in the core of physics. He
argued that force was lost to the Universe and thus necessitated a
Deity who would replenish that force periodically. Du Châtelet,
having carefully studied the LeibnizeClarke correspondence,
objected that this statement violates the principle of conservation.
The universe is not in need of an intervention by God preventing
the world from running down (Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742], x 586). In
his correspondence with Samuel Clarke, Leibniz had used the same
argument against Newton’s God e a clumsy clockmaker who had
built a machine that needs to be reset from time to time
(Desmaizeaux, 1720).
The second argument is an empirical one (Du Châtelet, 1988
[1742], x 584). Willem Jacob ’s Gravesande, a famous Dutch math-
ematician and natural philosopher, conducted experiments in
which he found out that if dents in clay were used to measure the
force of a body in motion, the height from which a ball falls is as the
square of the velocity acquired in falling and with which the body
strikes the clay. Thus, force would have to be understood as vis viva
(’s Gravesande, 1720; 1722). The Italian physicist Giovanni Poleni
conducted similar experiments. He dropped balls onto tallow to
compare impacts. He also demonstrated that the force of motion is
proportional to the square of the velocity (Poleni, 1718).
The third argument concerns the mathematical derivation of
living forces from dead forces. Du Châtelet distinguished between
dead and living forces as follows (Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742], x 519):
Dead force consists of a simple tendency to motion: such is that
of a spring ready to relax; living force is that which a body has
when it is in actual motion.16
The main proponents of the measure of living forces based their
calculations on the distinction between two different cases
regarding the effect of a force. In the first case, the effect of a force is
16
« La force morte consiste dans une simple tendance au movement: telle est
celle d’un ressort prêt à se détendre; et la Force vive est celle qu’un corps a, lorsqu’il
est dans un movement actuel.»
Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
“harmless,” “innocus,” or « non-nuisible » (Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742],
x 560). In this case force has no power to produce motion, i.e., it is a
dead force. Dead forces are merely solicited to move without
actually moving. Living forces, by contrast, result in real effects.
According to Du Châtelet living forces arise from an infinite number
of continuous impressions of dead forces. Like Leibniz before her,
Du Châtelet said that the dead force and living force are in the same
ratio as points to straight lines (Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742], x 566):
Without entering into the discussion of the measure of this
living force, one can easily see that it is of a different kind of
force than dead force; it must be infinitely greater than its
element, as a line to a point, or as a surface to a line.17
This analogy should help one to understand better how living
force can be derived from dead force. It expresses a difference in
order, i.e., of dimensionality. A line can be constituted by points,
although both are heterogeneous quantities. Infinitely little quan-
tites are heterogeneous to finite quantitites. Making an explicit
reference to Leibniz, Du Châtelet emphasized that dead forces and
living forces are heterogeneous quantities, and between them lies
an infinity (« quantités hétérogènes, entre lesquelles il y a
infine » Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742], x 535).18
Dead force is infinitely small, living force is a finite quantity, i.e.,
living force is of a different order to dead force. The former is
measured by the product of a body’s mass and velocity, the latter by
the product of the mass by the square of its velocity. Nevertheless,
both quantities are held together in virtue of Leibniz’s principle of
continuity and are transformable into each other. Infinite dead
force “can become a finite living force if it is repeated an infinity of
times and accumulated by an infinite number of successive pres-
sures in the body which receives the motion” (Du Châtelet, 1988, x
561).19
This formulation hints at a relationship of integration. However,
there is some disagreement among historians whether living force
is correctly described as the integral of dead force. If living force is
the integral of dead force, the question then arises whether living
force should be integrated over time or over distance. Integration
over time results in a quantity that is proportional to the chance of
the quantity in motion, i.e., mv. Integration over distance is pro-
portional to the chance in living force, i.e., mv2.
Since Leibniz’s controversy with Abbe Catalan and Denis Papin it
was well known that the estimation on time rather than on dis-
tance results in a different measured quantity (see Iltis, 1971). For
that reason, it is no surprise that the controversy over the true
measure of force was widely considered as a dispute about words.
William ’s Gravesande, Roger Boscovich, Joseph Saurin, Pierre Louis
Moreau de Maupertuis, Jean-Baptiste le Rond d’Alembert, Leonhard
Euler et al. portrayed it as such a quarrel. In his Metaphysique de
Newton, published in 1740, Voltaire responded to Du Châtelet with
17
« Sans entrer encore dans la discussion de la measure de cette force vive, on
s’apperçoit aisément qu’elle est d’un autre genre que la force morte, qu’elle doit être
infiniment plus grande que son élément, et qu’elle doit lui être comme une ligne est
à un point, ou comme une surface est à une ligne.»
18
The notion « quantités hétérogènes » was not Du Châtelet’s invention. Johann
Bernoulli (1727), Jacob Hermann et al. used the notion “quantitates heterogenae,”
providing a mathematical derivation of the relation between dead and living force
via infinitesimals. Leonard Euler (1745/46) questioned the heterogeneity of living
and dead forces by turning the law of continuity against the Leibnizian argument.
He noted that the effect of force is not produced at an instant, but requires a certain
interval of time. Consequently, the heterogeneity between living and dead force
vanishes.
19
« qui ne peut devenir une force vive finie, que lorsqu’elle est répétée une
infinité de fois, et accumulée par une infinité de pressions successives dans le corps
qui reçoit le mouvement.»
 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11
the same argument (Voltaire, 1740). Ironically, Du Châtelet never
denied that the measure of force leads to different results,
depending whether time or distance is taken into account.
It has often been said that d’Alembert settled the vis viva con-
troversy in his Traité de dynamique (d’Alembert, 1743). In fact,
d’Alembert was strongly influenced by Du Châtelet’s and Voltaire’s
work on that matter. In his preface d’Alembert pointed out that in a
given deceleration the change in velocity was proportional to time.
One could therefore define force in terms of the velocity of an ob-
ject. On the other hand, if one were concerned with the number of
“obstacles” that had to be overcome to stop a moving body (here he
probably refered to Du Châtelet’s discussion of ’s Gravesande’s
experiments), then it was clear that such a definition of force
depended on the square of the velocity. In this case, the related
metric was distance, not time. D’Alembert concluded that both
methods were successful.
Nevertheless, d’Alembert preferred mv to mv2 because, in his
view, the first quantity is conserved in all cases, the latter is lost in
the case of inelastic impact. “Only in those problems where ‘hard’
particles change their velocities gradually in a continuous fashion
will the conservation of vis viva hold and so d’Alembert limits its
use to this particular case. It is a valuable mathematical device for
solving a special class of problems, but it cannot be a fundamental
and general law of mechanics” (Hankins, 1965, p. 284). Du Châtelet
argued that the apparent loss of force in cases of inelastic collision,
which appear to violate the conservation of vis viva, could be
explained if we hypothesize that living forces are being trans-
formed to the smaller parts of the larger bodies (Du Châtelet, 1988
[1742], x 590):
But what is certain is that force does not perish; it may seem
that it is lost; but force would always be found in the effects
produced by it, if these effects were always observable.20
Du Châtelet’s Institutions physiques (1988 [1742]) ends with
these sentences which demonstrate once more her familiarity with
the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. Du Châtelet was strongly
convinced that the hypothesis of the conservation of force will be
confirmed even in the case of inelastic collisions. We know today
that inelastic collisions conserve energy, but kinetic energy is lost in
such collisions as it transforms into other forms of energy (sound,
deformation, head).
From today’s perspective it seems obvious that Leibniz estab-
lished a rudimentary expression for the conversion of potential
energy to kinetic energy, at least if we concede that Leibniz used the
word “living force,” or vis viva, to signify what we would call
“work.” From today’s perspective, the dispute about the question of
whether the force of bodies in motion, striking each other, is pro-
portional to the simple velocity of the motion or proportional to the
square of the velocity, was wrongly posed. Both quantities are
conserved, the product of mass and velocity as well as the quantity
of the product of mass, multiplied by its velocity squared. The first
refers to what is now called momentum, the second to the kinetic
energy of a moving body.
6. The concept of force: from Newton and Leibniz to Du
Châtelet
Today, we are able to draw a clear distinction between the
change in velocity, which is directly proportional to time when
20
« Mais ce qui est certain, c’est que la force ne périt point, elle peut à la vérité
paroître perdue, mais on la retrouveroit toujours dans les effets qu’elle a produits, si
l’on pouvoit toujours appercevoir ces effets.»
Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
7
acceleration is constant, and kinetic energy, which is proportional
to the square of velocity. In Leibniz’s and Newton’s time “it was not
at all clear on which physical effects were proportional to the
change of velocity and which were proportional to the change in
the square of velocity” (Hankins, 1990, p. 208). It is often said that
the controversy could not be resolved without thermodynamics. Up
until the early 19th century the mechanical equivalent of heat and
work was unknown. Therefore, Leibniz’s law of conservation of
force was surely not the law of conservation of energy, formulated
in the 19th century. However, this is only one half of the story.
The idea of the conservation of a physical quantity, namely vis viva,
was confused with the inertial state of motion. “Force” was not only
understood as the cause of acceleration (external to matter), but also
as the cause of uniform rectilinear motion, i.e., of inertial motion
(intrinsic to matter). Here, the Latin phrase “quantum in se est” is of
some significance. Johann I Bernoulli used the phrase “quantum in se
est” in order to characterize an essential property of matter. Bernoulli
considered that vis viva was something substantial, which existed by
itself and by its quantity and depended on nothing else. Bernoulli
“maintained, as Leibniz had done, that wherever vis viva seems to
disappear the power to do work, facultas agendi, is not lost but is only
changed into some other form” (Hiebert, 1962, p. 85).21
Bernard I. Cohen has reconstructed the historical roots of “quan-
tum in se,” going back to Lucretius and Aristotle. One of the funda-
mental building blocks of Aristotelian physics consisted in the
distinction between “natural” and “violent” motions. Violent motion
was understood as any motion imparted by an external mover, power
or force that displaced a body from its state of rest, or that forced the
body to assume a motion whose direction diverted it from its recti-
linear, natural motion towards the center of the earth. “From these
examples it is clear that throughout the seventeenth century quan-
tum in se est, when used in such a context, meant ʻnaturallyʼ or ʻby
natureʼ or ʻwithout external forceʼ ” (Cohen, 1964, p. 147). Cohen adds,
“Descartes altered the sense of the phrase by implying that what is
ʻnaturalʼ is that a body maintains its state of rest or of uniform recti-
linear motion. [.] It was in fact Newton who showed that in any body
this ʻpowerʼ or ʻforceʼ of inertia is always directly proportional to the
ʻbodyʼ or the ʻmassʼ or the ʻquantity of matterʼ ” (Cohen, 1964, p. 148).
Cohen fails to notice that “quantum in se est” was also assigned to
the conservation of “vis viva,” in striking contrast to Newton’s
“perseverare.” In his explanation provided to Definitio III of “vis
insita,” which is “in many ways, the most puzzling of all the defini-
tions in the Principia” (Newton, 1999, p. 96), Newton introduced
inertia of matter as a force, i.e., the “power of resisting by which
every body [.] perseveres in its state of resting or moving.” How can
inertia be a property of both, of matter and of force? From today’s
perspective, inertia is a property of mass; it is not a force. Newton, by
contrast, called force “the causal principle of motion and rest.” In De
Gravitatione22 Newton distinguished between two kinds of forces: “it
[force] is either an external one that generates or destroys or
otherwise changes impressed motion in some body; or it is an in-
ternal principle by which existing motion or rest is conserved in a
body, and by which any being endeavors to continue in its state and
21
To quote from Bernoulli (1735, p. 522): “Hinc patet, vim vivam (quea aptius
vocaretur facultas agendi, Gallice le pouvoir) esse aliquid reale & substantiale, quod
per se subsistit, &, quantum in se est, non dependent ab alio.”
22
The untitled and unfinished manuscript which begins “De Gravitatione et
aequipondio fluidorum et solidorum,” was written perhaps a decade or more before
the Principia. For the most part it consists of an extensive and scathing critique of
Descartes’ theory of motion (see Newton, mid-1680s).
8 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11

opposes resistance.”23 The internal force (passive principle) is the
cause for the body’s attempt to continue in its state; the external
force (active principle) is the cause of the change of state.
Based on a careful investigation of Newton’s manuscripts and on
the several editions of the Principia, Richard Westfall, the premier
Newtonian scholar until his death in August 1996, argued that
Newton abandoned the ancient doctrine that every motion must
require a mover or some kind of moving force (Westfall, 1994, p.
167):
In the Principia itself, he further eliminated the reference to
inherent force from the statement of the first law, thus obliter-
ating the principal record of the path by which he arrived at it.
Zev Bechler disagreed: “Westfall wants to exonerate Newton
from the sin of holding to the force of inertia as a cause” (Bechler,
1991, p. 270). It was no accident that Newton preserved an essen-
tial hint at the innate force in the third definition of the Principia.
According to Bechler, Newton did not go so far as to interpret in-
ertial motion as a forceless and uncaused motion: inertial motion
was not a state of forcelessness to Newton. According to Howard
Stein, Newton’s “vis insita,” i.e., the force of inactivity, “is a per-
manent attribute of a body e not always exercised, but always
present” (Stein, 2002, p. 284).24 Domenico Bertoloni Meli takes up a
similar interpretation (Meli, 2006, p. 324):
Thus the force of inertia should be seen as a force present in the
body at all times, but actually exerted only during a change of
state. For this reason John Herivel perceptively called it a ‘po-
tential’ force. For the same reasons I shall call it a latent force
ready to manifest itself only in the right circumstances. Thus no
impressed force is required for a body to preserve its state of rest
or rectilinear uniform motion; or, as Newton put it, impressed
force ‘consists solely in the action and does not remain in a body
after the action has ceased. For a body perseveres in any new
state solely by the force of inertia’.
resistance to acceleration. The re-interpretation of inertia as a
property of matter and of gravity as an essential feature of matter
(instead of a relational, accidental property of matter) promoted a
breakthrough for Newtonian mechanics.
Du Châtelet’s commentary on her translation of the Principia
demonstrates how innovative this approach was. In x XIII of Expo-
sition abrégée, she reformulates Newton’s laws of motion as fol-
lows25 (Du Châtelet, 1759, II, p. 13: XIII):
1. Every body perseveres in itself in its state of rest, or of uniform
motion in a straight line.
2. The change of motion is always proportional to the moving
force, and is made in the direction of this force.
3. Action and reaction are always equal and opposite.26
If one compares this version of Newton’s axioms with its for-
mulations in Du Châtelet’s Institutions physiques it seems obvious
that the latter were doomed to fail. This is, at least, the opinion of
Marius Stan. In his recently published article “Newton’s Concept of
Force among the Leibnizians” (Stan, 2017), Stan concludes that the
integration of Leibnizian dynamics into Newtonian mechanics as
propagated by Christian Wolff and Du Châtelet was more a juxta-
position than a synthesis which failed to grasp the Newtonian
concept of force. Their approaches were based on the idea of force as
something a body possess by virtue of its own nature and “falls back
to the empty repetitions of the Scholastics” (Stan, 2017, p. 279).
On the contrary, I argue that Du Châtelet never confused the
Newtonian concept of force with the Leibnizian one, nor did she try
to substitute Leibniz’s living force for Newton’s impressed force.
This becomes clear if one compares the three slightly different
presentations of x 229 of the Institutions. One can find this para-
graph in the manuscript Bibliotheque nationale de France (Paris),
Fonds français 12265 (Du Châtelet [anon.], 1738-1740), and in the
two published editions of the Institutions: Paris: Chez Prault Fils,
1740 (Du Châtelet [anon.], 1740), and Amsterdam: Aux Depens de la
Compagnie, 1742 (Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742]).

The significance of this revisions can be appreciated if one Institutions de physique. Institutions de physique Institutions physiques
considers the preliminary works Newton wrote leading up to the Manuscript Bibliotheque (Du Châtelet, 1740, x (Du Châtelet, 1988
Principia, such as “De motu corporum in gyrum” (Newton, Nov. nationale de France (Paris), 229): [1742], x 229):
1684) and “De motu corporum in medijs regulariter cedentibus” Fonds français 12265 (Du
Châtelet, [anon.] 1738-
(Newton, early 1685). Either way, the problem of force and its
1740):
relation to inertia remained at the heart of the debates on the
Monsieur Newton a La force active & la force La force active & la force
foundations of physics in the 18th century. Émilie Du Châtelet’s
renfermé les Loix du passive des Corps, se passive des Corps, se
translation of the Principia is an excellent example which illustrates Mouvement dans trois modifient dans leur choc, modifient dans leur choc,
the complex progress from Newton to modern inertial physics. Loix principales, par selon de certaines Loix selon de certaines Loix
Within the course of further developments, the dualism be- lesquelles on peut que l’on peut réduire à que l’on peut réduire à
tween internal (passive) and external (active) forces was aban- expliquer tous led effets trois principales. trois principales.
du mouvement qui nous PREMIÈRE LOI: Un Corps PREMIÈRE LOI: Un Corps
doned. The concept of inertia lost its status as force. The effect of
sont connus. persévère dans l’état où persévère dans l’état où
force was unified to the change rate of motion. Today, we do no PREMIÈRE LOI: Un Corps il se trouve, soit de repos, il se trouve, soit de repos,
longer speak of “impressed force,” but of “force.” Inertia is no longer persévère dans l’état où soit de mouvement, à soit de mouvement, à
viewed as an inherent force (either motive or resistive), but only il se trouve, soit de moins que quelque cause moins que quelque cause
repos, soit de ne le tire de son ne le tire de son
equates to inertial mass. Inertial mass is a measure of a body’s
mouvement, à moins mouvement, ou de son mouvement, ou de son
que quelque cause ne le repos. repos.
tire de son mouvement,
ou de son repos.
23
“Def 5. Vis est motûs et quietis causale principium. Estque vel externum quod in
aliquod corpus impressum motum ejus vel generat vel destruit, vel aliquo saltem
modo mutat; vel est internum principium quo motus vel quies corpori indita
conservatur, et quodlibet ens in suo statu perseverare conatur & impeditum
25
reluctatur.” The distinction between two kinds of forces, or principles is reflected in Michel Toulmonde’s edition (Du Châtelet, 2015 [1759]) does not entail the
Definitio III and IV of the Principia and near the end of Query 31 of the Opticks commentary. Therefore, the quotation from Exposition abrégée is taken from the
(Newton, 1952 [1730]). 1759 edition (Du Châtelet, 1759).
24 26
To give a further example: “Although this ‘force of inactivity,’ as Newton « 1. Que tout corps persévère de lui-même dans son état de repos ou de
explicitly states, is exerted only when another force endeavors to change the mouvement uniforme en ligne droite. 2. Que le changement qui arrive dans le
condition of the body, the force as such exists in the body as if hibernating through mouvement est toujours proportionnel à la force motrice, et se fait dans la direction
all time” (Jammer, 1957, p. 71). de cette force. 3. Que l’action et la réaction sont toujours égales et contraires.»

Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11 9

(continued ) The introductory note of the manuscript explicitely mentions

Institutions de physique. Institutions de physique Institutions physiques Newton’s name: “Mr. Newton has reduced the laws of motion to
Manuscript Bibliotheque (Du Châtelet, 1740, x (Du Châtelet, 1988 three fundamental principles, by which we may explain all the
nationale de France (Paris), 229): [1742], x 229): effects of motion which are known to us.” In both published edi-
Fonds français 12265 (Du
tions of the Institutions this sentence is replaced by the distinction
Châtelet, [anon.] 1738-
1740):
between active and passive force without mentioning Newton’s
name. The first and third law is the same in all three versions. All
SECONDE LOI: Le SECONDE LOI: Le SECONDE LOI: Le
the more remarkable are the modifications of the second law. The
changement qui arrive changement qui arrive changement qui arrive
dans le mouvement d’un dans le mouvement d’un dans le mouvement d’un sentence “this change always takes place along the straight line in
Corps, est toujours Corps, est toujours Corps, est toujours which this force is directed” in the manuscript was cancelled out by
proportionel à la force proportionel à la force proportionel à la force hand and replaced by “There can be no change in the velocity and
motrice qui agit sur lui; motrice qui agit sur lui; il motrice qui agit sur lui;
direction of the body in motion except by an external force; for
& ce changement se fait ne peut arriver aucun car sans cela ce
toujours dans la ligne changement dans la changement se seroit
otherwise this change would happen without sufficient reason.” In
droite dans laquelle vitesse, & la direction du sans raison suffisante. the final version of 1742, the reference to “no change in the velocity
cette force est dirigee. Corps en mouvement and direction of the body in motion except by an external force” is
que par une force left out.
extérieure; car sans cela
What conclusions can be drawn from this comparison? New-
ce changement se seroit
sans raison suffisante. ton’s first and second axioms reveal that impressed forces come in
TROISIEME LOI: La réaction TROISIEME LOI: La TROISIEME LOI: La pairs: To any action there is always an opposite and equal reaction;
est toujours égale à réaction est toujours réaction est toujours the actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal and
l’action; car un Corps ne égale à l’action; car un égale à l’action; car un
always opposite in direction. Du Châtelet’s third law exactly repeats
pourroit agir sur un Corps ne pourroit agir Corps ne pourroit agir
autre Corps, si cet autre sur un autre Corps, si cet sur un autre Corps, si cet
and explains Newton’s action-reaction principle. Also in line with
Corps ne lui resistoit: autre Corps ne lui autre Corps ne lui Newton, Du Châtelet distinguishes between active forces and pas-
ainsi, l’action & la resistoit: ainsi, l’action & resistoit: ainsi, l’action & sive forces. Newton characterized inertia as an innate force and
réaction sont toujours la réaction sont toujours la réaction sont toujours passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest.
égales & opposées. égales & opposées. égales & opposées.
Inertia tends to preserve existing states of motion. For every change
in motion an active principle is necessary, i.e., impressed moving
The translation is as follows: force. Moving force means, as Du Châtelet rightly states, a force
externally impressed upon the body, and such an impressed force is
an action exerted on a body, and hence from outside the body. The
Institutions de physique. Institutions de physique Institutions physiques
Manuscript Bibliotheque (Du Châtelet, 1740, x (Du Châtelet, 1988
reason why Du Châtelet avoided the adjective “impressed” was not,
nationale de France (Paris), 229): [1742], x 229): as Marius Stan claims, that she intended to replace it by “living
Fonds français 12265 (Du force.” On the contrary, she tried to prevent possible confusions and
Châtelet, [anon.] 1738- misunderstandings regarding the Leibnizian manner of speaking,
1740):
namely that living force arises from an infinity of continual im-
Mr. Newton has reduced The active force and the The active force and the pressions of dead force.
the laws of motion to passive force of the passive force of the
On the other hand, one cannot deny that Du Châtelet defended
three fundamental bodies are modified by bodies are modified by
principles, by which we their impact according to their impact according to
Leibniz’s living force, its measure and its conservation. Neverthe-
may explain all the certain laws, which can certain laws, which can less, she did not confuse it with the Newtonian concept of force
effects of motion which be reduced to three be reduced to three which is subject of different chapters of her Institutions. Leibniz
are known to us. principles. principles. explained the transformation from a potential state of motion to its
FIRST LAW: A Body FIRST LAW. A Body FIRST LAW. A Body
actualization by means of a sophisticated distinction between
perseveres in its state, perseveres in its state, be perseveres in its state, be
be it rest or motion, it rest or motion, unless it rest or motion, unless different kinds and levels of forces. Du Châtelet struggled with this.
unless some cause some cause compels it to some cause compels it to Newton’s active impressed force was an external force, Leibniz’s
compels it to change its change its state of motion change its state of motion active force was an internal one. The former was the cause of the
state of motion or rest. or rest. or rest change of a body’s motion (or rest), the latter the cause of a body’s
SECOND LAW: The SECOND LAW: The SECOND LAW: The
changes of the motion changes of the motion of changes of the motion of
motion, i.e., the power, or capacity to act. This discrepancy also
of a body are always a body are always a body are always explains the gap lying between Newton’s and Leibniz’s concept of
proportional to the proportional to the proportional to the passive force, or inertia. According to Leibniz the so-called primitive
moving force which moving force which acts moving force which acts force is inherent in every substantial unity, the monad. Leibniz
acts upon it; and this upon it; There can be no upon it; for otherwise
called it substantial form or first entelechy, i.e., the principle and
change always takes change in the velocity this change would be
place along the straight and direction of the body (happen) without source of activity. The primitive force always remains constant;
line in which this force in motion except by an sufficient reason. derivative forces, on the other hand, arise as modifications of
is directed. external force; for primitive forces through the collision of bodies with one another. A
otherwise this change further distinction between active forces and passive forces gives
would be (happen)
without sufficient reason.
rise to four kinds of force: (1) the primitive active force refers to the
THIRD LAW: The reaction THIRD LAW: The reaction THIRD LAW: The reaction substantial form, or first entelechy; (2) the primitive passive force
is always equal to the is always equal to the is always equal to the constitutes that which is called primary matter. (3) Derivative
action; for a Body could action; for a Body could action; for a Body could active force is of two kinds: dead force (i.e., the force of the po-
not act upon another not act upon another not act upon another
tentiality of motion) and living force (i.e., the force expressed in
Body, unless that other Body, unless that other Body, unless that other
Body resisted it: thus Body resisted it: thus Body resisted it: thus actual motion). (4) Derivative passive forces manifest in resistance
action and reaction are action and reaction are action and reaction are to motion; they account for the impenetrability of bodies and their
always equal and always equal and always equal and inertia.
opposite. opposite. opposite.

Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
10 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11
Du Châtelet adopted Leibniz’s taxonomy of force and referred to
Leibniz’s distinction between primitive forces and derivative forces
(Du Châtelet, 1988 [1742], x156), but she never ascribed mind-like
perception to forces like Leibniz did. She clearly separated Leib-
niz’s classification between “primitive” force, which is in the
domain of metaphysics, from the “derivative” one, which is related
to physics, or dynamics by focusing on the opposition of “active”
and “passive” force, or, “virtue” and “resistance.” Active derivative
force, both living and dead, is the cause of motion observed in
bodies. In this sense, the idea of a physical force is the capacity to
act, to do work (not be confused with Newton’s force as the cause of
a body’s change of motion). The importance of the inclusion and
consolidation of potential energy (dead force) and kinetic energy
(living force) into post-Newtonian mechanics, tracing back to
Leibniz’s derivative active force without confusing it with Newton’s
force, can hardly be overestimated. Du Châtelet made a valuable
contribution to this development.
7. Conclusion
In a footnote to his lecture “Voltaire as a Scientist” Emil du Bois-
Reymond added the following note (du Bois-Reymond, 1868; fn.
10):
Jacquier und Le Seur anticipated Du Chatelet’s work: their
commentary appeared in 1739, the one of her appeared post-
humously in 1759.27
Obviously, du Bois-Reymond never took time and effort to
compare the Geneva edition with Du Châtelet’s translation of the
Principia and her Institutions. Du Châtelet’s translation was a
consistent step forward in the ongoing development of her
Newton-studies which began in her Institutions. Due to her pre-
mature death, her work was not finished, let alone her work on
Leibniz.
Unlike the Geneva edition, Du Châtelet’s sophisticated trans-
lation and interpretation opened the door to the unification of force
as a cause for changing the state of motion and to a clear differ-
entiation between the inertial state of motion and the conservation
of a physical quantity (energy and momentum). Whereas the
Geneva edition confused Leibnizian with Newtonian terminology,
Du Châtelet distinguished one from the other.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank Dieter Suisky and Judith Zinsser for
their highly useful comments and suggestions, which significantly
helped to improve this essay and the ideas expressed in it, although
any errors are my own. I am also grateful to Ruth Hagengruber,
founder and director of the Center “History of Women Philosophers
and Scientists” at Paderborn University (Germany), for her support
and guidance during my research. Last but not least, I would like to
thank all participants of the Conference Époque Émilienne. Philoso-
phy and Science 1700e1750 at Paderborn University (5e7 April
2017) for their stimulating discussions.
References
d’Alembert, J. L. R. (1743). Traité de dynamique. rep., Bruxelles: Culture et civilisation,
1967. Paris: David.
27
”kamen jedoch mit ihrer Veröffentlichung der Marquise du Chatelet weit zuvor,
da ihr Commentar 1739, der der Marquise erst postum 1759 erschien.“
Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
d’Alembert, J. L. R. (1765). Newtonianisme ou philosophie newtonienne. In
J. L. R. d’Alembert, & D. Diderot (Eds.), Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des
sciences, des arts et des métiers (Vol. 11, pp. 122-125)Neufchastel: Faulche.
Agnesi, M. C. (1738). Propositiones philosophicae. Milan: Malatesta.
Bechler, Z. (1991). Newton’s physics and the conceptual structure of the scientific
revolution. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bernoulli, J. I. (1727). Discours sur les loix de la communication du mouvement. In J.
Bernoulli (1742). Opera omnia (Vol. 3, pp. 1-107). Lausannae et Genevae:
Sumptibus Marci-Michaelis Bousquet et Sociorum; rep., Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 1968.
Bernoulli, J. I. (1735). De Vera notione virium vivarum, earumque usu in Dynamicis.
Acta Eruditorum, 5, 210-230.
Biarnais, M.-F. (1981). Les principia de Newton et leurs traductions françaises au milieu
du XVIIIe siècle: Étude critique et épistémologique. Diss., Hist. des cultures, des
savoirs et de l’éduc. Université Paris-Sorbonne.
Blay, M., & Toulmonde, M. (2008). Vers une nouvelle édition des Principes mathé-
matiques. In U. Kölving, & O. Courcelle (Eds.), Émilie Du Châtelet, éclairages et
documents nouveaux (pp. 333-340). Paris: Ferney-Voltaire (Centre international
d’étude du XVIIIe siécle).
Bodenmann, S. (2010). The 18th-century battle over lunar motion. Physics Today, 63,
27-32.
du Bois-Reymond, E. (1868). Voltaire als Naturforscher. In du Bois-Reymond, E. (Ed.).
(1902). Reden von Emil du Bois-Reymond in zwei Bänden (Vol. 1, pp. 318-348)
Leipzig: Veit & Comp.
Bussotti, P., & Pisano, R. (2014a). On the Jesuit edition of Newton’s Principia. Science
and advanced researches in the western civilization. Advances in Historical
Studies, 3(1), 33-55.
Bussotti, P., & Pisano, R. (2014b). Newton’s Philosophiae naturalis principia math-
ematica “Jesuit” edition: The tenor of a huge work. Rendiconti Lincei. Matematica
e Applicazioni, 25(4), 413-444.
Bussotti, P., & Pisano, R. (2016). A Newtonian tale details on notes and proofs in
Geneva edition of Newton’s Principia. BSHM Bulletin. Journal of the British So-
ciety for the History of Mathematics, 31(3), 160-178.
Chambat, F., & Varry, D. (2008). Faut-il faire une description bibliographique des
Principes mathématiques? In U. Kölving, & O. Courcelle (Eds.), Émilie Du Châ-
telet, éclairages et documents nouveaux (pp. 317-332) Ferney-Voltaire: Centre
international d’étude du XVIIIe siécle.
Clairaut, A.-C. (1745/49). Du système du monde, dans les principes de la gravitation
universelle (pp. 329-364). Mémoires de l’Académie royale des sciences.
Cohen, I. B. (1964). “Quantum in Se est”: Newton’s concept of inertia in relation to
Descartes and Lucretius. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 19,
131-155.
Cohen, I. B. (1968). The French translation of Isaac Newton’s philosophia naturalis
principia mathematica (1756, 1759, 1966). Archives internationales d’histoire des
sciences, 21, 261-290.
Cohen, I. B. (1976). The eighteenth-century origins of the concept of scientific
revolution. Journal of the History of Ideas, 37(2), 257-288.
Coopersmith, J. (2015). Energy, the subtle concept. The discovery of Feynman’s blocks
from Leibniz to Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Courcelle, O. (2008). La publication tardive des Principes mathématiques. In
U. Kölving, & O. Courcelle (Eds.), Émilie Du Châtelet, éclairages et documents
nouveaux (pp. 301-308). Ferney-Voltaire: Centre international d’étude du XVIIIe
siécle.
Debever, R. (1987). La marquise du Châtelet traduit et commente les Principia de
Newton. Bulletin de la classe des sciences, 73, 509-527.
Desmaizeaux, P. (1720). Recueil de diverses pièces sur la philosophie, la religion
naturelle, l’histoire, les mathématiques, etc., par Mrs Leibniz, Clarke, Newton, et
autres autheurs célèbres. Amsterdam: Chez H. Du Sauzet.
Du Châtelet, É. [anon.] (1738e1740). Institutions de physique. Manuscript Bib-
liotheque nationale de France Paris, Fonds français 12265. URL: http://gallica.
bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b60007500/f1.image.r¼Institutions%20de%20physique
Du Châtelet, É. [anon.] (1740). Institutions de physique. Paris: Prault.
Du Châtelet, É. (1743a). Der Frau Marquisinn von Chastellet Naturlehre an ihren Sohn,
Erster Theil nach der zweyten französischen Ausgabe übers. v. Wolf Balthasar Adolf
von Steinwehr. Halle at al.: Regnerische Buchhandlung.
Du Châtelet, É. (1743b). Instituzioni di fisica di Madama la Marchesa du Chastellet
indiritte a suo figliuolo. Traduzione dal linguaggio francese nel Toscano,
accresciuta con la Dissertazione sopra le forze motrici di M. de Mairan. Venedig:
Pasquali.
Du Châtelet, É. (1759). Newton, Isaac: Principes mathématiques de la philosophie
naturelle par feue madame la marquise Du Chastellet. Paris: Desaint et Saillant.
Du Châtelet, É. (1958). In Theodore Bestermann (Ed.), Les lettres de la marquise du
Châtelet (Vol. 2). Genf: Institut et Musée Voltaire.
Du Châtelet, É. (1988). Institutions physiques de Madame la marquise du Châstellet
adressés à Mr. son fils. Hildesheim et al.: Olms. (First published 1742)
Du Châtelet, É. (2015). Newton, Isaac: Principes mathématiques de la philosophie
naturelle. La traduction francaise des Philosophiae naturalis principia mathe-
matica, 2 vols. Édition critique du manuscript par Michel Toulmonde, Ferney-
Voltaire: Centre international d’étude du XVIIIe siècle. (First published 1759)
Emch, G., & Emch-Dériaz, A. (2006). On Newton’s French Translator: How faithful
was Mme du Châtelet? In J. P. Zinsser, & J. C. Hayes (Eds.), Émilie du Châtelet:
Rewriting enlightenment philosophy and sciences (pp. 226-251). Oxford: Voltaire
Foundation.
 A. Reichenberger / Studies in History and Philosophy of Science xxx (2018) 1e11
Euler, L. (1745/46). De la force de percussion et de sa veritable mesure. Mémoires de
l‘académie des sciences de Berlin 1 (pp. 21e53) Opera Omnia: Series, 8(2), 27-53.
E082 in the Eneström Index, URL http://eulerarchive.maa.org/pages/E082.html
Freudenthal, G. (1986). Atom and Individual in the Age of Newton: On the Genesis of
the Mechanistic World View. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Gardiner Janik, L. (1982). Searching for the metaphysics of science: The structure
and composition of Mme. Du Châtelet’s Institutions de physique, 1737e1740.
Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 201, 85-113.
’s Gravesande, W. J. (1720). Physices elementa mathematica, experimentis confirmata.
Sive introductio ad philosophiam Newtonianam, 2 vols. Leyden: van der Aa &
Balduinum.
’s Gravesande, W. J. (1722). Essai d’une nouvelle théorie sur le choc des corps. Den
Haag: Johnson.
Guicciardini, N. (2015). Editing Newton in Geneva and Rome: The annotated edition
of the Principia by Calandrini, le Seur and Jacquier. Annals of Science, 72(3), 337-
380.
Hankins, T. L. (1965). Eighteenth-century attempts to resolve the vis viva contro-
versy. Isis, 56, 281-297.
Hankins, T. L. (1990). Jean D’Alembert. Science and the enlightenment. London: Taylor
& Francis.
Hesselink, P. (2010). La marquise Mathématicienne. Émilie du Châtelet et les Principia
mathematica de Newton. Master en langue et culture française: Orientation
Vertalen, Université d’Utrecht.
Hiebert, E. N. (1962). Historical roots of the principle of conservation of energy.
Madison: Madison State Historical Society of Wisconsin.
Iltis [Merchant], C. (1971). Leibniz and the vis viva Controversy. Isis, 62, 21-35.
Jammer, M. (1957). The concept of force. A study in the foundations of dynamics.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Janiak, A. (2015). Newton. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jovy, E. (1906). Quelques lettres inédits de la Marquise de Chatelet et de la Duchesse de
Choiseul (1745-1775). Paris: H. Leclerc.
Jovy, E. (Ed.). (1922). Une illustration scientifique vitryate: le P. François Jacquier et ses
correspondants, 116 lettres inédites conservées, pour la plupart, à la bibliothèque de
la ville de Vitry-le-François. Vitry-le-François: Brulliard.
Kölving, U., & Courcelle, O. (Eds.). (2008). Émilie Du Châtelet. Éclairages et documents
nouveaux. Ferney-Voltaire: Centre international d’étude du XVIII siècle.
Leibniz, G. W. (April 1695). Specimen Dynamicum, pro admirandis naturae legibus
circa corporum vires et mutuas actiones detegendis, et ad suas causas revoca-
ndis. Acta Eruditorum, 145-157.
Leibniz, G. W. (1686). Brevis demonstratio erroris memorabilis Cartesii. In Leibniz,
G. W. (1999), Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Reihe VI: Philosophische Schriften
(Vol. 4, pp. 2027e2030). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
McCulloch, M. E. (2014). Physics from the edge: A new cosmological model for inertia.
Singapore: World Scientific.
Meli, D. B. (2006). Thinking with objects: The transformation of mechanics in the
seventeenth century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Newton, I. (1739e1742). In T. Le Seur, & F. Jacquier, Newtoni principia Philosophiae,
cum Commentario Perpetuo (Vol. 3). Geneva: Barrillot.
Newton, I. (1952). Opticks: Or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and
colours of light. New York: Dover (First pulished 1730).
Newton, I. (1972). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. With variant read-
ings. 2 vols., ed. by Alexandre Koyré & I. Bernard Cohen (3rd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (First published 1726).
Newton, I. (1999). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Trans. by I. Bernard
Cohen & Anne Whitman, assisted by Julis Budenz. With an introductory “Guide
to Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” by I. Bernard
Cohen (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Please cite this article in press as: Reichenberger, A., Émilie Du Châtelet’s interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century
mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.006
11
Newton, I. (1680). De Gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum et solidorum. MS Add.
4003 mid. Cambridge, UK. URL: Cambridge University Library http://www.
newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00093. (Accessed 8
February 2017).
Newton, I. (Nov. 1684). De motu corporum in gyrum. MS Add. 3965.7, ff. 55e62*.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. http://www.newtonproject.
sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/NATP00089. (Accessed 8 February 2017)
Newton, I. (early 1685). De motu corporum in medijs regulariter cedentibus. Cam-
bridge, UK. URL: Cambridge University Library. MS Add. 3965.5, ff. 25re26r,
23r-24r http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/
NATP00091. (Accessed 8 February 2017).
O’Donnell, P. J. (2014). Essential dynamics and relativity. London: CRC Press.
Poleni, G. (1718). De castellis per quae derivantur fluviorum aquae habentibus latera
convergentia liber. Padua: Cominus.
Reichenberger, A. (2012). Leibniz’s quantity of force: a heresy? Émilie du Châtelet’s
Institutions in the context of the vis viva controversy. In R. Hagengruber (Ed.),
Emilie du Châtelet between Leibniz und Newton (pp. 157-171). Springer. Dor-
drecht et al.
Reichenberger, A. (2016). Émilie du Châtelets Institutions physiques. Über die Rolle von
Prinzipien und Hypothesen in der Physik. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Scriba, C. J. (1971). The French edition of Newton’s Principia-translation of the
Marquise du Châtelet 1759 or 1756? Actes XIIe congrès international d’histoire
des sciences. Paris, 1968, vol. 3, series B: Science et philosophie: XVIIe et XVIIIe
siècles (pp. 117-119). Paris: Blanchard.
Stan, M. (2017). Newton’s concept of force among the Leibnizians. In M. Feingold, &
E. Boran (Eds.), Reading Newton in early modern europe (pp. 244-289). Leiden:
Brill.
Stein, H. (2002). Newton’s metaphysics. In I. B. Cohen, & G. E. Smith (Eds.), The
cambridge companion to Newton (pp. 256-307). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Taton, R. (1969). Madame du Châtelet, traductrice de Newton. Archives inter-
nationales d’histoire des sciences, 22, 185-210.
Toulmonde, M. (2008). Le Commentaire des Principes de la philosophie naturelle. In
U. Kölving, & O. Courcelle (Eds.), Émilie Du Châtelet, éclairages et documents
nouveaux (pp. 309-315). Ferney-Voltaire: Centre international d’étude du XVIIIe
siécle.
Voltaire. (1740). La métaphysique de Newton en parallèle des sentiments de Newton et
de Leibniz. Amsterdam: Ledet.
Voltaire. (1756). Préface historique. In É. Du Châtelet, & Newton, Isaac (Eds.), Prin-
cipes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle: Par feue madame la marquise du
Chastellet (Vol. 1, pp. 5-8). Paris: Desaint & Saillant.
Waithe, M. E. (1991). Gabrielle Émilie le Tonnelier de Breteuil Du Châtelet-Lomont.
In M. E. Waithe (Ed.), A history of women philosophers, vol. 3: Modern women
philosophers, 1600e1900 (pp. 127-151). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Westfall, R. S. (1994). The life of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Whitfield, A. (2002). Emilie du Châtelet, traductrice de Newton, ou la traduction-
confirmation. In J. Delisle (Ed.), Portraits de traductrices (pp. 87-116). Ottawa: Les
Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.
Zinsser, J. P. (2001). Translating Newton’s Principia: The Marquise du Châtelet’s
Revisions and Additions for a French Audience. Notes and Records of the Royal
Society of London, 55(2), 227-245.
Zinsser, J. P. (2006). La dame d’Esprit: A biography of the Marquise du Châtelet. New
York: Viking.
Zinsser, J. P., & Courcelle, O. (2003). A remarkable collaboration: The Marquise du
Châtelet and Alexis Clairaut. Studies on Voltaire in the Eighteenth Century (SVEC),
12, 107-120.