Dr. Wallis's Opinion Concerning the Hypothesis Physica Nova of Dr. Leibnitius, Promised in Numb. 73. and Here Inserted in the Same Tongue, Wherein It Was Written to the Publisher, April. 7. 1671

Author(s) Johannes Wallis
Year 1671
Volume 6
Pages 6 pages
Language la
Journal Philosophical Transactions (1665-1678)

Full Text (OCR)

cerned, enfeebles more than the loss of much Blood. He refuteth those that have taught the original of the Seed from the Brain; as also those, that have believed it to proceed from the whole Body. He assigneth the manner, how this Spirit is corporified and incrassated, and why 'tis so? proveth experimentally, that being subtilized by the warmth of the Uterus, it becomes a very fine Spirit; refuting, on this occasion, the opinion of Galen, importing that from the corpulency of the Semen virile the spermatick parts are generated, and asserting on the contrary, that these are formed de sero utili sanguinis menstrui. By the same Experiment he undertakes to evince, that Dr. Harvey was mistaken, believing the Uterus to be immaterially made second, when he found nothing of a seminal body in the wombs of all those Animals open'd by him. Besides he teacheth, how the Semen is mixed cum menstruis; and how it is moved suitably to the diversity of kinds. He examins, how the solid parts are generated, and refuting all other opinions about this point, he maintains that they are produced all at once, though they be discern'd at different times, according to the greater or less necessity of those parts. He shews, how they become sensitive, and begin to have life, contending that they are not nourish'd till they are sensible. He explains, from what cause and for what end the Heart is moved; what thing the punctum saliens is, and upon what account it hath been reputed to be the Heart. And having attempted to resolve many difficulties, he thinks he hath determined many other curious and considerable particulars by experimented principles. Dr. Wallis's opinion concerning the Hypothesis Physica Nova of Dr. Leibnitzius, promised in Numb. 73. and here inserted in the same tongue, wherein it was written to the Publisher, April. 7. 1671. Clariss. vir, Legi ego semel atque iterum, quam impertitis, Dn. Leibnitzii Hypothesin Novam, de qua opinionem meam petitis, Author. Authorem quod spectat, ut ut de nomine (quod memini) mihi ignotum prius, estimare tamen debeo, ut qui, in magno loco inter magna negotia positus, vacare tamen potest liberæ philosophiae, rerum causis investigandis, quique ad multa responisse videtur. Opus quod attinet, multa ibi reperio summa cum ratione dicta, quibusque ego planè assentior, ut qua sint sensis meis planè consonae. Talia sunt; Debere Physicum ad Mechanicas rationes, quod ejus fieri potest, omnia accommodare, §.15. Nihil seipsum, ex abstracti Motûs rationibus, in lineam priorem restituere, etiam sublato impedimento, nisi accedat nova vis, §.22. Omnia corpora sensibilia, saltem dura, esse Elastica, atque ab Elatere oriri Reflexionem, §.21. (Quae meis de Motu hypothetibus Transactionibus Philosophicis * jam antehac insertis, omnino congruent; quaque in Mechanicis seu de Motu Tractatu fusiis prosequor cap. II. 13.) Item, Attolli gravia, non metu Vacui, sed propter Atmosphæræ æquilibrium, §.25. Levitatem veò per accidens tantum sequi ex Gravitate, gravioribus minus gravia sursum pellentibus, §.24. Irruptio Aërìs (led & Aquæ, &c.) in vas exhaustum, ob Aërìs Gravitatem & Elaterem fieri, §.26. Nec non, Exhausti atque distenti (ut loquitur) effectus, unde Fermentations, desflagrationes & dislosionum omne genus; nempe displodente altero quod alterum absorbet (seu admittit potius,) §.27. 39, 40. Nam & hæc etiam ab Elatere sunt, in Contento, vel in Continente, vel in utroque; illic, explicante se quod nimis fuerat compressum; hic, contrahente se quod nimis distentum fuerat; quippe utrovis modo, nédum utroque, fit irruptio vel explosio, dummodo locus sit quo recipi sine impedimento possit quod ejiciendum fuerit. Suntque hæc plane consona traditis nostris Mechan. c.14. Sed & illud, Gravitatem in Inferioribus oriri ex motu (vel pressu) superioris Ætheris, §.13. 16. magnâ saltem verisimilitudine dicitur. Quanquam enim gravitatis causa (ut & Elateris) tam fit in abscondito, ut mihi nondum usquequaque satisfactum sit quid in ea re statum, Naturæ tamen phænomena, Pulsione quam Tractione felicius utplurimum expli- cantur cuntur. Atque multa sunt quae repetitum non est opus, qua magna verisimilitudine, si non et certitudine, dicta judico; qua- que per se satis consistunt independenter ab aliis: neque enim ita inter se connexa sunt omnia, ut una vacillante cætera simul ruant. De tota vero Hypothesi ne quid statim pronunciem, id saltem facit, quod non sim pronus Ego (in rebus saltem pure Physicis, non Mathematicis,) assentiam novis placitis adhibere, donee vel Eruditorum sententiis in utramque partem ventilatis quid sta- tuendum sit rectius constet, vel ipsâ sui evidentia (quod in veris Hypothesibus non rarâ fit) veritas elucent. Fundamentum Hy- potheseos Novae repetit ex Abstracta sua Motûs Theoria (quam non vidi, ut nec Tractatus hu- jus posteriora, que passim citantur*),) nempe, Quod nulla sit Cohæsio Qui- escenties, sed omnis consistentia seu cohæsio oriatur à Motu, §. 7. 12. 34. (quod cum Gulielmi Nelii * nostri placitis coincidit.) Contra ve- ro Honoratissimus Boylius, cum aliis, Consistentiam in particularium quiete, & Fluiditatem in earundem continuo motu collocat. Alii ad varias Atomorum figuras, hama- tas & variè implicitas, rem referunt. Neque ego is sum, qui in tanta sententiarum varietate me vellem ar- bitrum interponere. Sed temporis res permitenda est, & do- torum in utramque partem rationibus. Quippe idem ferè obtinet in novis Hypothesibus, quod in Oscillationibus Pendu- torum; ubi, post crebras hinc inde reciprocationes factas, tan- dem in perpendiculo fit quies. Id vidimus in Hypothesi Coper- nicana, qua utut fuerit Veteribus cognita, tandem tamen sepulta iacuit ut pro Nova haberetur: Et quamvis optimâ effectora- tione suffulta, non tamen statim obtinuit, sed a variis fuit variis modis impetita, & acriter discptata, donec tandem rationibus authoritati prevalentibus ita jam universim admittitur, ut vix quispiam barum rerum gnarus de ea dubitet nisi quibus Car- dinalium decretem prejudicio est. Et quanquam Tycho no- vam illius loco substituerit quae illi equipolleret, tot tamen ea in incom: commodis est onerata, ut existimandus videatur potius ad frangendam invidiam id fecisse (quoniam Telluris Motus ita vulgi opinionibus horribilis videbatur,) quam quod Copernici Hypothesin ex animo repudiaverit. Idem dicendum de Circulatione Sanguinis Harvæana, qua utut optimè fuerit stabilitas, & ocularum adrovis comprobata, disceptata tamen fuit inter Londinienses Medicos viginti plus minus annis antequam in publicum prodierat, & ab aliis deinceps: Quae tamen post maturam rei pensationem (quod temporis dandum erat) ab omnibus ut indubitata recipitur. Sic Galilæi Hypothesis (ob Antlias, aquam non ultra certam altitudinem attrahentes, primum excogitata) quam Torricellius in graviori liquido adeoque magis tractabili promovit, Aequilibrium Atmosphæra pro Veterum Fuga vacui substituens, non nisi post diutinas hinc inde disputationes eum apud viros doctos locum obtinuit quem jam habet. Idem disendum de Jo livii nostri Vasis Lymphaticis, ante multos annos Medicis Londoniensiis ab illo indicatis atque ab eis admisis & approbatissimis tamen ita rationi consona reperta sunt & Oculari inspectioni manifesta, ut tandem longo post tempore inter alios aliquot acriter disputaretur, quis eorum primus Inventor fuerit, &c. Idem in hoc negotio aliisque Novis hypothesibus expectandum, quae nec oculi inspectione nec certâ demonstratione probari possunt, ut se veris rationibus fundatae sint, tandem, sed non nisi post velitationes utrinque factas, in liberè philosophantium animis locum obtineant; interea pendulae mensurae. Clarissimo interim Viro habenda gratia, qui eam de Societate nostra opinionem concepit, ut sensa sus illis communicare, novâmque suam Hypothesis (rem certè ipsis non ingratam) exhibere dignatus fuit. Vale. Tuus Johannes Wallis. After that the other part of this Tract was (a great while after) come to hand, namely De Abstracta Motus Theoria, and sent also to the same Dr. Wallis, he made this return to it in a Letter of June 2. 1671. Clariss. Vir, Accepti nuperrimè à Te transmissam D. Leibnitii Theoriam Motus Abstracti, de qua judicium meum petitur. Duo autem sunt quae suadeant ne illud praestem. Alterum, quod res invidiosa videatur de aliorum scriptis censuram agere: Alterum, quod occupatisimo tempore huc advenerit, quo agrè vacavit semel atque iterum attentius perlegere, ne dum omnia pensculatus considerare. Quasi iam verò Tu id exspectis, hæc pauca dicam. Multa scil. inibi contenta Ego planè approbo, ut subtiliter & solidè dicta, quæque Virum curiosum & cogitabundum indicant. Si pausa sint quibus non statim assentiar, ignoscet, spero, vir humanissimus. Et speciatim, fateor, mihi nondum satisfactum esse, ut, primis saltem cogitationibus, statim assentiar, Cohesionem omnem ex continuo celerique sed inobservabili particularum motu fieri (quod ille Theoriæ motus Concreti fundamentum ponit;) ut nec pridem, cum ante aliquot annos, similem Quietis & Cohesionis causam assignaverat Nelius noster. Quid olim aliquando futurum sit, post rem accuratiùs perspensam, nec dicere possim nec prævidere. Interim ego ἐπίχω, nec quicquam in aliorum præjudicium pronuntio; quin liberum cuique sit, eam quam ratione magis consentaneam judicaverit sententiam amplexi. Vale. Tuus JOH. WALLIS. An Accomp of some Books. I. A Discourse touching the ORIGINALL OF HUMAN LITERATURE, both PHILOLOGY and PHILOSO- PHY; in two Parts: By Theoph. Gale M. A. Oxford,1669. and 1671. in 4°. The Business of this Book is, to derive Human Arts and Sciences from the Jewish Church; for the doing of which the Author professeth he hath been encouraged by considerable hints and assistances of the Scaligers, and of Grotius, Vossius, Bochartus, Selden, Usher, Preston, and others, besides the concurrent testimonies of many of the Ancients. In the First part he endeavours to prove, that all Languages have their origin and rise from the Hebrew; instan- cing particularly in the Oriental Tongues, as the Pheni- cean, Coptic, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Samaritan