d'alembert. 293 



de r^pondre aux raisonnemens de d'Alembert, et je crois qu en par- 

 ticulier Daniel Bernoulli a pris la defense de la theorie ordinaire. 



In this passage tlie word cinquieme is wrong; it should be 

 quatrihne. It seems to me that there is no foundation for the 

 statement that Condorcet supports D'Alembert's objections. Nor 

 can I find that Daniel Bernoulli gave any defence of the ordinary 

 theory ; he seems to have confined himself to repelling the attack 

 made on his memoir respecting Inoculation. 



537. Gouraud after referring to Daniel Bernoulli's controversy 

 with D'Alembert says, on his page 59, 



...et quant au reste des mathematiciens, ce ne fut que par le silence 

 ou le dedain qu'il r^jDondit aux doutes que d'Alembert s'etait permis 

 d'emettre. Mepris injuste et malhabile ou tout le monde avait a perdre 

 et qu'une posterite moins prevenue ne devait point sanctionner. 



The statement that D'Alembert's objections were received with 

 silence and disdain, is inconsistent with the last sentence of the 

 passage quoted from Montucla in the preceding Article. According 

 to D'Alembert's own words which we have given in Art. 490, he 

 was attacked by some indifferent mathematicians. 



538. Laplace briefly replies to D'Alembert ; see Theorie... des 

 Proh. pages vii. and x. 



It has been suggested that D'Alembert saw his error respecting 

 the game of Croix ou Pile before he died ; but this suggestion 

 does not seem to be confirmed by our examination of all his 

 ■writings : see Cambridge Philosophical Transactions, Yol. ix. 

 page 117. 



