of Edinburgh, Session 1884-85. 
73 
Thorp’s translation (1777) runs: — 
“ which the very eminent Mr Mariotte soon after thought lit to 
explain in a treatise entirely upon that subject.” 
Finally, Wolfers (1872) renders it thus : — 
“ der zweite zeigte der Societat die ftichtigkeit seiner Erfindung an 
einem Pendelversuche, den der beriihmte Mariotte in seinem 
eigenen Werke aus einander zu setzen, fiir wiirdig erachtete.” 
Not one of these seems to have remarked anything singular in 
the language employed. But when we consult the “ entire hook ” 
in which Mariotte is said by Newton to have “ expounded ” the 
result of Wren, and which is entitled Traite de la Percussion ou 
Choc des Corps , we find that the name of Wren is not once 
mentioned in its pages ! From the beginning to the end there is 
nothing calculated even to hint to the reader that the treatise is not 
wholly original. 
This gives a clue to the reason for Newton’s sarcastic language ; 
whose intensity is heightened by the contrast between the 
Clarissimus which is carefully prefixed to the name of Mariotte, 
and the simple D. prefixed, not only to the names of Englishmen 
like Wren and Wallis, but even to that of a specially distinguished 
foreigner like Huygens. 
Newton must, of course, like all the scientific men of the time 
(Mariotte included), have been fully cognizant of Boyle’s celebrated 
controversy with Linus, which led to the publication, in 1662, of 
the Defence of the Doctrine touching the Spring and Weight of the 
Air. In that tract, Part II. Chap. 5, the result called in Britain 
Boyle’s Law is established (by a very remarkable series of 
experiments) for pressures less than, as well as for pressures greater 
than, an atmosphere ; and it is established by means of the very 
form of apparatus still employed for the purpose in lecture 
demonstrations. Boyle, at least, claimed originality, for he says in 
connection with the difficulties met with in the breaking of his 
glass tube : — 
“ .... an accurate Experiment of this nature would be of great 
importance to the Doctrine of the Spring of the Air, and has not 
been made (that I know) by any man. ...” 
In Mariotte’s Discours de la Nature de V Air, published fourteen 
years later than this work of Boyle, we find no mention whatever of 
