Herschel and Whewell's Version of Newtonianism Author(s): David B. Wilson Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1974), pp. 79-97 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708744 . Accessed: 17/01/2015 13:12 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Ideas. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 150.135.115.108 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:12:39 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions HERSCHEL AND WHEWELL'S VERSION OF NEWTONIANISM BY DAVID B. WILSON* I. John Herschel and William Whewell were two of the most im- portantearly Victoriancommentators on science,and for morethan fifty years their lives were closely linked, personally,professionally, and in- tellectually.Their friendshipbegan when they were young membersof adjacentCambridge colleges. In 1815, for example,they met with a few others for Sunday "philosophicalbreakfasts."' Later, when Herschel had left Cambridge,they embarked on a long correspondencenow preservedat the Royal Society of London and the Wren Library of TrinityCollege, Cambridge.2When Herschelwrote his PreliminaryDis- coursein 1830, Whewellreviewed it,3 and in 1837Whewell dedicated his History of the Inductive Sciences to Herschel.4 Four years later, Herschel reviewed both Whewell's History and his Philosophy of the In- *At various stages, the research for this paper has been assisted by a National Science Foundation Summer Fellowship, a NATO Postdoctoral Fellowship, and the University of Oklahoma Faculty Research Fund. 'I. Todhunter, William Whewell, D.D., Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, 2 vols. (London, 1876), I, 5-6; hereafter Todhunter. For biographical information on Herschel; cf. Agnes M. Clerke, "Herschel, Sir John Frederick William (1792-1871)," Dictionary of National Biography; T. Romney Robinson [Obituary of Herschel], Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 20 (1872), xvii-xxiii; and Agnes M. Clerke, The Herschels and Modern Astronomy (London, 1895). For biographical information on Whewell, cf. Leslie Stephen, "Whewell, William (1794-1866)," Dictionary of National Biography; Mrs. Stair Douglas, The Life and Selections from the Correspondenceof William Whewell, D.D., Late Master of Trinity College Cambridge (London, 1881); R. Robson and Walter F. Cannon, "William Whewell, F.R.S. (1794-1866)," Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 19(1964), 168-91; and Todhunter. 2The correspondencebegan with a letter from Herschel to Whewell dated 4 Feb. 1817. In 1826 Whewell tried to get Herschel back to Cambridge on a permanent basis by at- tempting to persuade him to apply for the Lucasian professorship which was soon to be vacated. (Whewell to Herschel, 13 Oct. 1826, in Todhunter, II, 73-74.) Herschel refused, in part because he wanted to remain an amateur in science. (Herschel to Whewell, 17 Oct. 1826, in Whewell papers.) I am indebted to the master and fellows of Trinity College for permission to quote from the Whewell papers and to the presidentand fellows of the Royal Society for permission to examine Whewell's letters in the Herschel papers. Most of Whe- well's letters to Herschel are reproduced in Todhunter, and I have cited the published source. 3[William Whewell], "A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy," Quarterly Review, 45 (1831), 374-407; hereafter Whewell, "Herschel Review." J. F. W. Herschel, A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy (London, 1831); hereafter Herschel, PreliminaryDiscourse. 4Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time, 3 vols. (London, 1837), I, v-vi; hereafterWhewell, History. 79 This content downloaded from 150.135.115.108 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:12:39 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 80 DAVID B. WILSON ductive Sciences.5 Their continual intercourse as friends and scholars lasted until 1866, when Herschel wrote Whewell's obituary.6 In- tellectually, they were in most respects just as near to one another as they were in other aspects of their lives. However, scholarly research has emphasized their intellectual differences. Representative is Ducasse's observation that "Herschel-un- like his contemporary Whewell whose Novum organon renovatum represents the influence of Kant in this field-clearly belongs in the line of British empiricists. ." Hence, without denying the differences between Herschel and Whewell, this study underscores neglected simi- larities in their thought. It might be said that their common position drew its matter from Newtonian mechanics and astronomy, its form from the legacy of Newton's natural theology and rules of reasoning. II. This section is an attempt to define the areas of disagreement and agreement between Herschel and Whewell in regard to philosophy, mechanics, and astronomy. Newton's three laws of motion were the most prestigious scientific statements available to Herschel and Whewell. Their philosophical divergence was sharply visible in their differing evaluations of the laws. Nevertheless, they agreed that the laws were just as certainly true as mathematical propositions and that their range of ap- plicability, though immense, was circumscribed in definite ways. Also, they were in accord concerning the status of Newton's theory of universal gravitation. According to Whewell, knowledge involves several "fundamental ideas" which are necessarily true. In a passage of great importance for understanding Whewell, he wrote Herschel: my argumentis all in a singlesentence. You must adoptsuch a viewof the nature of scientifictruth as makes universaland necessarypropositions possible; for it appears that there are such, not only in arithmetic and geometry, but in mechanics,physics and other things. I knowno solutionof this difficultyexcept by assuminga priorigrounds ...8 5John Herschel, "Whewell on the Inductive Sciences," in Herschel, Essays from the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews, with Addresses and other Pieces (London, 1857), 142-256; hereafter Herschel, "Whewell Review." It first appeared in the Quarterly Review, 68 (1841), 177-238. William Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded upon TheirHistory, 2 vols. (London, 1840);hereafter Whewell, Philosophy. 6Herschel, "The Reverend William Whewell, D.D.," Proceedings of the Royal Society, 16 (1868), li-lxi. 7CurtJ. Ducasse, "John F. W. Herschel's Methods of ExperimentalInquiry," in Ralph M. Blake, Curt J. Ducasse, and Edward H. Madden, Theories of Scientific Method. The Renaissance through the Nineteenth Century (Seattle, 1960), 180; hereafter Ducasse, "Herschel's Methods." William Whewell, Novum Organon Renovatum, 3rd ed. (London, 1858). This was part of the third edition of Whewell's Philosophy. 8Whewellto Herschel, 22 April 1841 in Todhunter, II, 298. For discussions of Whewell's philosophy of science, see, for example, Curt J. Ducasse, "William Whewell's Philosophy of Scientific Discovery," in Ralph M. Blake, Curt J. Ducasse, and Edward H. Madden, op. This content downloaded from 150.135.115.108 on Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:12:39 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions HERSCHEL AND WHEWELL ON NEWTON 81 Though the truth of Whewell'sfundamental ideas was independentof experience,their initial recognitionrequired experience. As variousideas were put forth to explain naturalphenomena, he argued,the validityof some became so overwhelmingthat their negation was quite incon- ceivable.9These werethe fundamentalideas. One such idea adoptedlong ago was the idea of a mediumwhich was centralto optics, acoustics,and the study of heat. Any theory in these areas would have to involve the idea of a mediumbetween the observerand the sourceof light, sound,or heat. The uncertainquestion was what kind of medium.10A second,more recentexample was the idea of polarity,applicable in electricity,magne- tism, galvanism, chemistry, and optics.11Other fundamentalideas in- cludedspace and time in mathematics,substance in chemistry,and life in biology.12 Mechanicscarried special importance for Whewell'sphilosophy, both because the laws of motion were the first physicalpropositions that he correlatedwith a fundamentalidea and becausethey remainedthe most convincingcomponent of his system.13The laws of motionwere necessary consequencesof the fundamentalidea of cause. "The relation of cause and effect," Whewellexplained, "is a relationor conditionunder which events are apprehended,which relationis not given by observation,but suppliedby the mind itself."14An axiom entailedby the idea of cause is: "Nothing can take place without a Cause."15This axiom furnishes the a priori characterof the first law. "Thus,though the discoveryof the First Law of Motion was made,historically speaking, by meansof experiment, we have now attaineda point of view in which we see that it might have been certainlyknown to be trueindependently of experience."16Since the secondand thirdlaws follow similarlyfrom two otheraxioms, "thewhole science of Mechanics,