Isaac Barrow and the Bounds of Geometry ∗
Michel Blay,Sara Confalonieri,M. Galuzzi,D. Garber,Niccoì O Guicciardini,D. Jesseph,Vincent Jullien,S. Klaiber,P. Mancosu,S. Maronne,T. Seal
Abstract:During the 17th century, mathematics changed deeply. As it has often been remarked, this went together with a new methodological or, rather, a new philosophical attitude. Nevertheless, in the 17th century, philosophy of mathematics was not just a marginal effect or an implicit and, of course, partial cause of a broad transformation of mathematics itself. It was also a domain of research and the subject of controversies and intellectual disputes; in short, an autonomous discipline1. Of course, the internal evolution of such a discipline could not remain completely unaffected by the contemporary evolution of mathematics. Still, many of the topics that constituted its specific content were intrinsically dependent on traditional quarrels and quite old questions. One of these topics was concerned with the mutual relations and the opposite virtues of arithmetic and geometry. Though inherited from the traditional distinction of quantities in the opposite genera of numbers (or discrete quantities) and magnitudes (or continuous quantities), this question appeared in a new light because of the impressive disclosure of new algebraic techniques to be applied both to numbers and magnitudes. Isaac Barrow and John Wallis, the most prominent and innovative British mathematicians of their time, devoted much of their intellectual energy to such a topic, arguing for two diametrically opposite views. Barrow’s Lectiones Mathematicæ2 and Wallis’s Mathesis uni∗The material discussed in the present paper was first presented at the HOPOS conference held in Paris, on June 2006, during a joint talk with Antoni Malet. I thank Antoni Malet himself and David Rabouin for having drawn my attention to this material and for the many instructive discussions of it and related subjects. I also thank Michel Blay, Sara Confalonieri, Massimo Galuzzi, Daniel Garber, Niccolò, Guicciardini, Doug Jesseph, Vincent Jullien, Susan Klaiber, Paolo Mancosu, Sébastien Maronne, and Theodora Seal, for valuable comments on my talk and earlier versions of my paper. Many thanks also to Luigi Maierù for several very stimulating discussions about Barrow and Wallis, among other things. This view is, at least implicitly, endorsed in [30], [23], [31], and [17]. Cf. [9] and [6]. Though published only in 1683, six years after Barrow’s death, this treatise includes the lectures given by him at the University of Cambridge, as Lucasian professor of mathematics in 1664-1666 (the crucial years in the mathematical schooling of Newton: cf. [27], vol. I, and [28]). In 1734, an English translation of it, due to J. Kirkby, was published: cf. [7]. I quote from this translation. A new edition of the original Latin text is available in [8], pp. 1-378. Concerning the passages which are relevant for my purpose, Kirkby’s translation is accurate enough. Thus, I’ll quote it, though pointing out some typographical errors, and suggesting how to correct it in the few cases where it seems to me to differ considerably from the original.