TEXr-BOOKS OF MIDDLEOF CENTUR F205 



Wilson mentions as foUowing Robins, wrote at a 

 later date. 



178. James Wilson claims ^ that Maclaurin in 

 his Fluxions " conformed himself entirely to Mr. 

 Robins's sentiments in regard to Sir Isaac Newton's 

 doctrine," and ''has even expressly followed his 

 pian in treating the subject. " Jurin had contended 

 (says Wilson) "that Sir Isaac Newton's method, by 

 proving the varying quantities carne up to their 

 limits, was more perfect than that of the ancients. 

 Whereas Sir Isaac Newton never claimed such 

 superiority ; . . . The coincidence contended for, 

 and thus highly praised by Philalethes, is the very 

 essence of indivisibles. " Wilson rightly insists that 

 Buffon 's criticisms of Robins are unfair. '*When 

 he talks of the obscurity of Mr. Robins's ideas, the 

 insignificancy of his phrases, and the unintelligible- 

 ness of his style ; he gives the most certain proof, 

 that he had never carefully read his writings, . . . 

 for Mr. Robins is much admired bere for the con- 

 trary excellencies, on whatever subjects he has 

 employed his pen." 



179. Wilson represents Philalethes (Jurin) as 

 championing the use of the infinitely little and of 

 indivisibles. This is putting the case too strongly. 

 In his papers against Berkeley, Jurin uses quantities 

 infinitely little. But toward the end of his debate 

 with Robins he begins to disavow them. Never 

 did Jurin use indivisibles. Few eighteenth-century 



* Mathematical Tracts of the late Benjamin Robins, voi. ii, London, 

 17Ó1, pp. 312, 315, 320. 



