ROBERT HEATH v. JOHN TURNER 215 



Fluente uniformly generateci ; when the one is a 

 Ouantity of actual Velocity, and the other a Ouantity 

 of Space, described by that Velocity, which can be 

 only proportional to it." 



189. After some poetry **To the Family of the 

 the Wou'd-be's," foUovv " Animadversions on Mr. 

 Simpson's Fluxions," " By 2 Tertius," vvho quotes 

 a criticism of Simpson from the pen of J. Landen. 

 Where Landen's review first appeared we do not 

 know. As quoted here, Landen objects to the 

 definition of fluxions ^ ' diS faulty, by the Author's 

 difìferent Idea given of them to that by the 

 Inventor"; Landen disapproves of *'denoting ali 

 Ouantities whatsoever by Lines, to bring them to 

 one Denomination, and those Lines, to be described 

 by Bodies in Motion." In criticism of fluxions in 

 general, Landen says that the finding, from the 

 velocities, the spaces passed over, and vice versa, 

 " may be' managed by common Algebra, without 

 the least Obscurity. The Business had always 

 been better considered in that Light, without ever 

 making Use of the Term Fluxions, as if a new Kind 

 of Analysis, tho', in Faci, only the Do e trine of 

 Motion improved, and applied to Purposes before 

 unthought of. " 



190. The next article in Truth Triumphant is a 

 reprint of the first criticism of Simpson, contributed 

 in 1750 by Cantabrigiensis to the MontJily Review. 

 Eight more articles concerning motion, fluxions, and 

 mechanics bring the pamphlet to a dose ; they 

 make no reference to Simpson, '' Heliocentricus " 



