312

HISTORICAL VIEW OP THE

rise to the discussion of the problems mentioned; butits after effects were those of alienating the British fromthe continental mathematicians, to a degree highly in-jurious to the advance of the sciences in England. This,however, is a subject belonging to a future stage of ourhistory. For the present we must recur to the date ofNewton’s discoveries, and have now to notice the riseof another controversy, in which the fluxional methodwas yet destined to be involved, though of a morerational character than the last, being directed to thequestion of the validity of its principles.

So great a revolution in science as that which thenew analysis effected it was not to be expected wouldbe accomplished without opposition. There were nu-merous mathematicians throughout Europe wedded tothe old methods; many who, from prejudice or evenincapacity, were likely to prove formidable enemies tothe introduction of so great an innovation. But it issatisfactory to find that, among the older mathema-ticians, some of the most eminent were foremost inperceiving the value and forwarding the introduction ofthe new methods. Among these none deserves to bementioned with more respect than Huyghens ; who(though now advanced in life) was among the first tomake himself acquainted with its principles, to masterits difficulties, and to teach and recommend its pro-cesses.

Opponents, however, were not wanting. Nieuwentyt ,a Dutch naturalist and writer of some ability, but verylittle versed in mathematics, aimed the first blow at thedifferential calculus, objecting to the notion of infinitelysmall quantities, in two tracts published in 1695. Itwas well remarked of him that he was unwilling to be-lieve in the reality of objects less than those shown byhis microscope. Leibnitz , Herman, and Bernoulli an-swered him.

Rolle was a man of that pleasant disposition, whoseprincipal gratification consists in detecting faults. Heemployed his mathematical acuteness, which was con-