DOCSLIB.ORG

Selected Correspondence of Descartes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selected Correspondence of Descartes Selected Correspondence of Descartes René Descartes Copyright © Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . indicates the omission of a brief passage that has no philosophical interest, or that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. (Where a letter opens with civilities and/or remarks about the postal system, the omission of this material is not marked by ellipses.) Longer omissions are reported between brackets in normal-sized type. —The letters between Descartes and Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, omitted here, are presented elsewhere on this website (but see note on page 181).—This version is greatly indebted to CSMK [see Glossary] both for a good English translation to work from and for many explanatory notes, though most come from AT [see Glossary].—Descartes usually refers to others by title (‘M.’ for ‘Monsieur’ or ‘Abbé’ or ‘Reverend Father’ etc.); the present version omits most of these.—Although the material is selected mainly for its bearing on Descartes as a philosopher, glimpses are given of the colour and flavour of other sides of his life. First launched: April 2013 Correspondence René Descartes Contents Letters written in 1619–1637 1 to Beeckman, 26.iii.1619........................................................1 to Beeckman on 23.iv.1619.....................................................2 to Beeckman, 29.iv.1619.......................................................3 to Gibieuf, 18.vii.1629........................................................3 to Mersenne, 8.x.1629........................................................3 to Mersenne, 13.xi.1629.......................................................5 to Mersenne, 20.xi.1629.......................................................6 to Mersenne, 18.xii.1629.......................................................8 to Mersenne, i.1630........................................................... 11 to Mersenne, 25.ii.1630....................................................... 12 to Mersenne, 18.iii.1630....................................................... 13 to Mersenne, 15.iv.1630........................................................ 14 to Mersenne, 6.v.1630........................................................ 16 to Mersenne, 27.v.1630......................................................... 17 to Beeckmann, 17.10.1630..................................................... 18 to Mersenne, 25.xi.1630....................................................... 20 to Mersenne, 23.xii.1630........................................................ 21 to Balzac, 15.iv.1631.......................................................... 21 to Balzac, 5.v.1631.......................................................... 22 to Villebressieu, summer 1631................................................... 22 to Mersenne, x or xi 1631...................................................... 23 to Golius, 2.ii.1632........................................................... 24 to Mersenne, 5.iv.1632......................................................... 24 to Mersenne, 10.v.1632........................................................ 25 to Mersenne, vi.1632......................................................... 26 to Mersenne, xi or xii 1632...................................................... 26 to Mersenne, late xi.1633........................................................ 27 to Mersenne, ii.1634......................................................... 28 to Mersenne, iv.1634......................................................... 28 to Mersenne, 14.viii.1634...................................................... 30 to Beeckman, 22.viii.1634....................................................... 31 Correspondence René Descartes to Morin, ix or x 1634......................................................... 32 to Golius, 16.iv.1635......................................................... 32 to Golius, 19.v.1635.......................................................... 33 to Mersenne, vi or vii 1635...................................................... 33 to Huygens, 1.xi.1635:......................................................... 34 from Huygens, 3.xii.35......................................................... 34 to Mersenne, iii.1636......................................................... 35 from Huygens, 5.i.1637........................................................ 36 to Mersenne, 27.ii.1637........................................................ 37 to Huygens, 3.iii.37.......................................................... 38 to Silhon, v.1637........................................................... 39 Fermat to Mersenne, iv or v 1637:................................................. 39 to Huygens, 20.v.1637........................................................ 40 to Mersenne, late v.1637........................................................ 41 to ***, late v.1637........................................................... 42 to Mersenne, 25.v.1637........................................................ 43 to Noël, 14.vi.1637........................................................... 44 to Huygens, 12.vi.1637......................................................... 44 to Plempius, 3.x.1637......................................................... 45 to Plempius for Fromondus, 3.x.1637............................................... 46 to Huygens, 5.x.1637......................................................... 49 to Mersenne, 5.x.1637:........................................................ 52 to Noël, x.1637............................................................. 53 to Huygens, 4.xii.1637......................................................... 54 to Plempius, 20,xii.1637:........................................................ 54 to Mersenne, end of xii.1637..................................................... 55 Correspondence René Descartes Letters written in 1638–1640 57 to Mersenne, i.1638........................................................... 57 from Pollot to Reneri for Descartes, ii.1638............................................. 57 to Plempius, 15.ii.1638:....................................................... 59 from Morin, 22.ii.38........................................................... 61 to Vatier, 22.ii.1638.......................................................... 62 against Fermat, 1.iii.38......................................................... 64 to Mersenne, 1.iii.1638........................................................ 65 to Reneri for Pollot, iv or v 1638................................................... 66 to Huygens, 9.iii.1638........................................................ 70 from Mersenne, 28.iv.1638...................................................... 72 to Mersenne, 27.v.1638........................................................ 72 to Morin, 13.vii.1638.......................................................... 74 to Mersenne, 13.vii.1638....................................................... 78 to Mersenne, 27.vii.1638........................................................ 81 to Hogelande, viii.1638........................................................ 83 to Morin, 12.ix.1638.......................................................... 84 to Debeaune, 12.ix.1638....................................................... 86 to Mersenne, 11.x.1638........................................................ 86 to Mersenne, 15.xi.1638....................................................... 88 to Mersenne, xii.1638......................................................... 90 to Mersenne, 9.i.1639.......................................................... 91 to Mersenne, 9.ii.1639........................................................ 93 to Mersenne, 20.ii.1639........................................................ 94 from Regius, 9.iii.39.......................................................... 95 to Debeaune, 30.iv.1639....................................................... 95 to Desargues, 19.vi.1639....................................................... 96 to Mersenne, 19.vi.1639........................................................ 97 to Mersenne, 27.viii.1639...................................................... 98 to Mersenne, 16.x.1639........................................................ 99 to Mersenne, 13.xi.1639....................................................... 100 to Mersenne, 25.xii.1639:....................................................... 101 to Mersenne, 29.i.1640........................................................ 102 to Meysonnier, 29.i.1640....................................................... 103 Correspondence René Descartes to Hogelande, 8.ii.1640......................................................... 104 to Mersenne, 11.iii.1640....................................................... 105 to Mersenne, 1.iv.1640........................................................ 105 to Regius, 24.v.1640......................................................... 106 to Mersenne, 11.vi.1640........................................................ 107 to Mersenne, 30.vii.1640....................................................... 108 to Huygens, 31.vi.1640.......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What the Renaissance Knew Piero Scaruffi Copyright 2018
    What the Renaissance knew Piero Scaruffi Copyright 2018 http://www.scaruffi.com/know 1 What the Renaissance knew • The 17th Century – For tens of thousands of years, humans had the same view of the universe and of the Earth. – Then the 17th century dramatically changed the history of humankind by changing the way we look at the universe and ourselves. – This happened in a Europe that was apparently imploding politically and militarily, amid massive, pervasive and endless warfare – Grayling refers to "the flowering of genius“: Galileo, Pascal, Kepler, Newton, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Racine, Moliere, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Rubens, El Greco, Rembrandt, Vermeer… – Knowledge spread, ideas circulated more freely than people could travel 2 What the Renaissance knew • Collapse of classical dogmas – Aristotelian logic vs Rene Descartes' "Discourse on the Method" (1637) – Galean medicine vs Vesalius' anatomy (1543), Harvey's blood circulation (1628), and Rene Descartes' "Treatise of Man" (1632) – Ptolemaic cosmology vs Copernicus (1530) and Galileo (1632) – Aquinas' synthesis of Aristotle and the Bible vs Thomas Hobbes' synthesis of mechanics (1651) and Pierre Gassendi's synthesis of Epicurean atomism and anatomy (1655) – Papal unity: the Thirty Years War (1618-48) shows endless conflict within Christiandom 3 What the Renaissance knew • Decline of – Feudalism – Chivalry – Holy Roman Empire – Papal Monarchy – City-state – Guilds – Scholastic philosophy – Collectivism (Church, guild, commune) – Gothic architecture 4 What
    [Show full text]
  • Classical and Modern Diffraction Theory
    Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3701993/frontmatter.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 Classical and Modern Diffraction Theory Edited by Kamill Klem-Musatov Henning C. Hoeber Tijmen Jan Moser Michael A. Pelissier SEG Geophysics Reprint Series No. 29 Sergey Fomel, managing editor Evgeny Landa, volume editor Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3701993/frontmatter.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 Society of Exploration Geophysicists 8801 S. Yale, Ste. 500 Tulsa, OK 74137-3575 U.S.A. # 2016 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists All rights reserved. This book or parts hereof may not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. Published 2016 Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-1-931830-00-6 (Series) ISBN 978-1-56080-322-5 (Volume) Library of Congress Control Number: 2015951229 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3701993/frontmatter.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 Dedication We dedicate this volume to the memory Dr. Kamill Klem-Musatov. In reading this volume, you will find that the history of diffraction We worked with Kamill over a period of several years to compile theory was filled with many controversies and feuds as new theories this volume. This volume was virtually ready for publication when came to displace or revise previous ones. Kamill Klem-Musatov’s Kamill passed away. He is greatly missed. new theory also met opposition; he paid a great personal price in Kamill’s role in Classical and Modern Diffraction Theory goes putting forth his theory for the seismic diffraction forward problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes' Optics
    Descartes’ Optics Jeffrey K. McDonough Descartes’ work on optics spanned his entire career and represents a fascinating area of inquiry. His interest in the study of light is already on display in an intriguing study of refraction from his early notebook, known as the Cogitationes privatae, dating from 1619 to 1621 (AT X 242-3). Optics figures centrally in Descartes’ The World, or Treatise on Light, written between 1629 and 1633, as well as, of course, in his Dioptrics published in 1637. It also, however, plays important roles in the three essays published together with the Dioptrics, namely, the Discourse on Method, the Geometry, and the Meteorology, and many of Descartes’ conclusions concerning light from these earlier works persist with little substantive modification into the Principles of Philosophy published in 1644. In what follows, we will look in a brief and general way at Descartes’ understanding of light, his derivations of the two central laws of geometrical optics, and a sampling of the optical phenomena he sought to explain. We will conclude by noting a few of the many ways in which Descartes’ efforts in optics prompted – both through agreement and dissent – further developments in the history of optics. Descartes was a famously systematic philosopher and his thinking about optics is deeply enmeshed with his more general mechanistic physics and cosmology. In the sixth chapter of The Treatise on Light, he asks his readers to imagine a new world “very easy to know, but nevertheless similar to ours” consisting of an indefinite space filled everywhere with “real, perfectly solid” matter, divisible “into as many parts and shapes as we can imagine” (AT XI ix; G 21, fn 40) (AT XI 33-34; G 22-23).
    [Show full text]
  • Huygens' Principle and the Phenomena of Total Reflection
    Pans. Opt. Soc. (London) 28 149-160 (1927) Huygens' principle and the phenomena of total reflection PROFESSOR C V RAMAN, F.R.S. (The University, Calcutta) MS received, 1st January, 1927. Read and discussed, 7th April, 1927 Abstract. In this paper the phenomena of total reflection are considered, de nouo, from the standpoint of the principle of Huygens, no use whatever being made of the Fresnel for ulae for reflection and refraction. Huygens' principle enables us to evaluate the disturbance appearing"'h i the second medium when light is incident on the boundary between two media and is totally reflected into the first medium. The disturbance takes the form of a superficial wave moving parallel to the boundary. The existence of such a superficial wave is then shown to involve, as a necessary consequence, an acceleration of the reflected wave with reference to the incident wave, the acceleration being zero at critical incidence and increasing to half an oscillation at grazing incidence. The intensity of the superficial wave is at critical incidence greater for the component having the magnetic vector parallel to the surface, but diminishes more rapidly with increasing incidence than for the component having the electric vector parallel to the surface; the phase-advance reaches its maximum value correspond- ingly sooner. The phase-angle between the two components is evaluated and found to be an acute angle, in agreement with the classical treatment based on the Fresnel formulae, but in disagreement with the conclusions of Lord Kelvin and Schuster. The source of error in the Kelvin-Schuster treatment is pointed out.
    [Show full text]
  • Music and the Making of Modern Science
    Music and the Making of Modern Science Music and the Making of Modern Science Peter Pesic The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England © 2014 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use. For information, please email [email protected]. This book was set in Times by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited, Hong Kong. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pesic, Peter. Music and the making of modern science / Peter Pesic. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-02727-4 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Science — History. 2. Music and science — History. I. Title. Q172.5.M87P47 2014 509 — dc23 2013041746 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 For Alexei and Andrei Contents Introduction 1 1 Music and the Origins of Ancient Science 9 2 The Dream of Oresme 21 3 Moving the Immovable 35 4 Hearing the Irrational 55 5 Kepler and the Song of the Earth 73 6 Descartes ’ s Musical Apprenticeship 89 7 Mersenne ’ s Universal Harmony 103 8 Newton and the Mystery of the Major Sixth 121 9 Euler: The Mathematics of Musical Sadness 133 10 Euler: From Sound to Light 151 11 Young ’ s Musical Optics 161 12 Electric Sounds 181 13 Hearing the Field 195 14 Helmholtz and the Sirens 217 15 Riemann and the Sound of Space 231 viii Contents 16 Tuning the Atoms 245 17 Planck ’ s Cosmic Harmonium 255 18 Unheard Harmonies 271 Notes 285 References 311 Sources and Illustration Credits 335 Acknowledgments 337 Index 339 Introduction Alfred North Whitehead once observed that omitting the role of mathematics in the story of modern science would be like performing Hamlet while “ cutting out the part of Ophelia.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatise on Light Christiaan Huygens Member of the French Royal Society Since 1663
    Treatise on Light Treatise on Light Christiaan Huygens Treatise on Light was published in 1690 and is probably the largest scientific volume on light published before Newton's Opticks. The book explains how light travels (i.e., that it has a certain velocity), and what happens when it hits a surface (refraction and reflection). A large portion of the book is devoted to the double refraction occurring in Iceland chrystal, and all drawn conclusions are proved geometrically. Christiaan Huygens (1629 - 1695) was a prominent physicist and astronomer. His ChristiaanHuygens main discoveries are the centrifugal force, collision laws for bodies and the argument ChristiaanHuygens that light consists of waves. He was a contemporary of Galilei and Descartes, and a member of the French Royal Society since 1663. Read for librivox.org by Availle Total running time 4:43:21 This LibriVox recording is in the public domain and may be reproduced, distributed or modified without permission. The LibriVox objective is to make all books in the public domain available, for free, in audioformat on the Internet. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org Treatise on Light Cover designed by Availle.This design is in the public domain..
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Young and the Wave Theory of Light
    Thomas Young and the wave theory of light by Riad Haidar Researcher at Onera,1 lecturer at the École polytechnique Thomas Young is considered as a genius and polymath, a man who was equally gifted at languages and science. The founder of physiological optics and father of the wave theory of light, he was also the first person to decipher a number of Egyptian hieroglyphics. Figure 1: Thomas Young, 1773–1829 (portrait by Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1769–1830) He was born on 13 June 1773 in Milverton in Somerset, the son of Sarah David and Thomas Young, a cloth merchant and prosperous banker. Shortly after his birth he was entrusted to his maternal grandfather, Robert Davis, who would raise him in Minehead, a village a few miles from the family home. The young Thomas was an extraordinarily gifted pupil. He was self-taught and an avid reader, consuming books in half the time it took his tutors to read them. In 1782 he was sent to a school in Crompton where pupils were free to learn at their own pace, and which seemed better suited to his intellectual precociousness. Yet, even there, Thomas was a prodigy. He left in 1786 with a 1. [Translator’s note] Office national d’études et de recherches aérospatiales (National Office for Aerospatial Study and Research). 1 solid grounding in Newtonian physics and in optics. He spoke more than twelve European, Oriental, extinct and modern languages. MEDICAL SCHOOL In 1792 he moved to London to study medicine at the Hunterian School, and was accepted as an intern at the Saint Barthelemy Hospital.
    [Show full text]
  • How Light Works by William Harris and Craig Freudenrich, Ph.D
    How Light Works by William Harris and Craig Freudenrich, Ph.D. What Is Light? .Over the centuries, our view of light has changed dramatically. The first real theories about light came from the ancient Greeks. Many of these theories sought to describe light as a ray -- a straight line moving from one point to another. Pythagoras, best known for the theorem of the right-angled triangle, proposed that vision resulted from light rays emerging from a person's eye and striking an object. Epicurus argued the opposite: Objects produce light rays, which then travel to the eye. Other Greek philosophers -- most notably Euclid and Ptolemy -- used ray diagrams quite successfully to show how light bounces off a smooth surface or bends as it passes from one transparent medium to another. Arab scholars took these ideas and honed them even further, developing what is now known as geometrical optics -- applying geometrical methods to the optics of lenses, mirrors and prisms. The most famous practitioner of geometrical optics was Ibn al-Haytham, who lived in present- day Iraq between A.D. 965 and 1039. Ibn al-Haytham identified the optical components of the human eye and correctly described vision as a process involving light rays bouncing from an object to a person's eye. The Arab scientist also invented the pinhole camera, discovered the laws of refraction and studied a number of light-based phenomena, such as rainbows and eclipses. By the 17th century, some prominent European scientists began to think differently about light. One key figure was the Dutch mathematician-astronomer Christiaan Huygens.
    [Show full text]
  • A Treatise on Optics
    fr\ ^ fa a itihm 1 &*>•' ' $ National Library of Medicine FOUNDED 1836 Bethesda. Md. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE TREATISE ON OPTICS. SIR DAVID BREWSTER, LL.D.,F.R.S. L.&E. CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE OF FRANCE, HONORARY MEMBER OF THE IMPERIAL ACADEMY OF PETERSBURG, AND OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF BERLIN, STOCK- HOLM, COPENHAGEN, GOTTINGEN, &.C. &C. FIRST AMERICAN EDITION WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING AN ELEMENTARY VIEW OF THE APPLICA- TION OF ANALYSIS TO REFLEXION AND REFRACTION, BY A. D. BACHE, A. M. PROFESSOR OF NAT. PHILOS. AND CHEMISTRY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNS1 LVAHIA, ONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF AM. PHILOS. SOC, MEM. ACAD. NAT. SC, HON. MEM. ASSOCIATE SOC. OF NEWPORT, R. I. |3I)iIa&eIpJ)ta : CAREY, LEA, & BLANCHARD—CHESNUT STREET. 1833. /$33 www mm uww of BEltSSDA W. MD- NOTE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Iy object in undertaking the revision of the Treatise a Optics by Dr. Brewster was, principally, to introduce an Appendix, containing such a discussion of the subjects of Reflexion and Refraction, as might adapt the work to use in those of our colleges in which considerable exten. sion is given to the course of Natural Philosophy. In this revision, I have thought it best, without specially calling the attention of the reader to them, to correct such errors as my comparatively limited knowledge of the subject assured me, would not have been passed over by the author in a second Edition. A. D. BACHE. Philadelphia, Jan., 1833. CONTENTS. Introduction Page 11 PART I.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Significant Dates
    APPENDIX Some Significant Dates ca. 2000 BC Sundials used for timekeeping in the Tigris and Euphrates vale leys. circa 1500 BC Sundials widely used in Egypt. circa 200 BC Eratosthenes' calculation of the circumference of the earth as equivalent of39,690 kms (compared to modem 40,000 kms value). circa 250 BC Ctesibius' refined water clocks in Alexandria. circa 335 BC Aristotle proposes a reductionist account of time whereby time is identified with movement. 400 Saint Augustine in his Confessions raises modem philosophical questions about time and proposes a nonreductionist account whereby movements occur in time 1092 Su Sung's heavenly clockwork built in China 1283 A mechanical clock, probably the first in Europe, is built at Dunstable Priory in England circa 1300 Foliot and verge escapement first utilized in mechanical clocks. 1350 Giovanni de Dondi builds his masterpiece clock at Padua. 1352 Strasbourg cathedral clock built. 1360 Charles V of France installs Henry de Vick's clock in his Paris palace and requires all other clocks including church clocks to keep to its time. 1377 Nicole Oresme writes on the pendulum in his On the Book of the Heavens, describes the world a clock and uses this metaphor in his version of the design argument. 1419 Prince Henry establishes the Sagres Institute for navigational im­ provement. circa 1490 Leonardo da Vinci sketches pendulums and writes on mechani­ cal clocks. 1492 Columbus's voyage to the Americas. 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, dividing Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence. 353 354 Time for Science Education 1530 Gemma Frisius, Flemish astronomer, writes of timekeeping as the solution to longitude determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Huygens and the Beginnings of Rational Mechanics
    THE NEWTONIAN REVOLUTION – Part One Philosophy 167: Science Before Newton’s Principia Class 10 Huygens and the Beginnings of Rational Mechanics November 4, 2014 I. Science in the Thirty Years after Galileo’s Death .............................................................................. 1 A. The Development of Astronomy: 1642-1672 (a brief summary) …..................................... 1 B. Post-Galilean Developments in Mechanics ........................................................................... 2 C. Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695): a chronology until 1673 .................................................. 3 D. Huygens and the Measurement of g (1659) .......................................................................... 4 II. Huygens on Motion Under Perfectly Elastic Impact .......................................................................... 6 A. Hypotheses Underlying the Initial Theory …………………................................................ 6 B. The Initial Theory: Relative Motion Results ………………………………..……………... 7 C. Toward the Extended Theory: Proposition VIII …………...….………..………………….. 8 D. The Extended Theory and Its Consequences …………......................................................... 9 E. Empirical Evidence for the Two Theories ............................................................................. 10 III. Huygens on Circular Motion and Centrifugal Force ......................................................................... 11 A. The Basic Conceptualization of the Problem .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Christiaan Huygens 1629-1695
    BIOGRAPHIES 479 ,. • . ;' , CHRISTIAAN HUYGENS 1629-1695 Huygens was bom on 14 April 1629, the second son of Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) and Suzanna van Baerle. His grandfather (Christiaan) and father were secretaries to stadholders of the House of Orange, and Christiaan grew up in a very wealthy and highly cultured milieu. He was educated at home, by private tutors as well as his father, until sixteen. In 1645 Huygens went to study Law and matiiematics at Leiden, the latter under Frans van Schooten, Jr., and two years later he transferred to the Illustrious School in Breda, where besides studying Law he may have profited from John Pell, who taught mathematics there. At home, Huygens met Rene Des­ cartes, and his father introduced him into the correspondence circle of Marin Mersenne. Huygens obtained a degree at the University of Angers in 1655. Because of the family's wealth, Huygens was free to pui"sue his studies without having to eani a living. During the late 1640s and 1650s, Huygens completed works on hydrostatics, mathematics (in which he published De circuli magnitudine inventa in 1654 and Tractatus de ratiociniis in alae ludo in 1657), and geometrical optics. In 1654 he and his brother Constantijn began making telescopes, and with one of their first products Huygens discovered a moon of Satum (now named Titan) in 1655. He went on to solve the problem of Saturn's appearances by supposing that the planet was surrounded by a ring, and in 1657 published his Horologium, in which he described the application of the pendulum to clocks.
    [Show full text]