BERKELEY'S ANALVST (1734) 77 



with what is said in his Introduction to the Ouadra- 

 tures (our § òZ)'- Volui os tendere quod in niethodo 

 fluxionuni non opus sii figuras infinite pai'vas in 

 geovietriaìH introducere. If you should say, it is a 

 mere limit ; be pleased to reconcile this with what 

 we find in the first case of the second lemma in the 

 second hook of his Principles (our § 17): Ubi de 

 lateribus A et B deerant monientorum dimidia, etc. — 

 where the moments are supposed to be divided. I 

 should bc very glad a person of sudi a luminous 

 intellect would be so good as to explain whether 

 by fluxions we are to understand the nascent or 

 evanescent quantities themselves, or their motions, 

 or their velocities, orsimply their proportions . . . 

 that you would then condescend to explain the 

 doctrine of the second, third, and fourth fluxions, 

 and show it to be consistent with common sense if 

 you can" (§ 36). 



100. In an appendi x to the Defence of Free-Think- 

 ing in Matheìnatics^ Berkeley replies to Walton, 

 stating that the issues raised by him had been 

 previously raised by "the other," that he delivered 

 a technical discourse -without elucidating anything, 

 that his sclìolars have a right to be informed as to 

 the meaning of fluxions and should therefore ask 

 him "the foUowing questions. " Then foUow many 

 questions, of which we give a few : 



" Let them ask him — Whether he can conceive 

 velocity without motion, or motion without ex- 

 tension, or extension without magnitude ? . . . 

 Whether nothing be not the product of notliing 



