Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-956mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:28:53.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to H. Floris Cohen's essay review on Newtonian scholarship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2019

Marius Stan
Marius Stan*
Affiliation:
Boston College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a review of recent Newton scholarship, H. Floris Cohen charges that my paper is not a ‘case of worthwhile innovation, or even of any innovation at all’. I beg to differ.

Type
Essay Review
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 52 , Special Issue 2: London 1600–1800: Communities of Natural Knowledge and Artificial Practice , June 2019 , pp. 359 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In his ‘Stock and bulk in the latest Newton scholarship’, BJHS (2018) 51, pp. 687–701, 692CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Subsequent page references are given parenthetically in the text. At issue was my paper ‘Newton's concepts of force among the Leibnizians’, in Boran, E.A and Feingold, M., Reading Newton in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2017), pp. 244–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Basnage de Beauval, H., ‘Lettre de M. Bernoulli à l'Autheur’ (1697), Histoire des ouvrages des savans (1721) 13, pp. 452–467, 455Google Scholar.

3 For details see Stan, Marius, ‘Kant's third law of mechanics: the long shadow of Leibniz’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (2013) 44, pp. 493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar.