Page:A budget of paradoxes (IA cu31924103990507).pdf/484

 about the matter, and the reception of the parody of Jokeby, which soon appeared, was a sufficient indication of their notion. Those who would fasten the hodiernal sound upon us may be reminded that the question is, not what they call it now, but what it was called in Cromwell's time. Throw away general usage as a lawgiver, and this is the point which emerges. Probably Rūke-by would be right, with a little turning of the Italian ū towards ō of modern English.

[Some of the above is from an old review. I do not always notice such insertions: I take nothing but my own writings. A friend once said to me, 'Ah! you got that out of the Athenæum!' 'Excuse me,' said I, 'the Athenæum got that out of me!']

It is part of my function to do justice to any cyclometers whose methods have been wrongly described by any orthodox sneerers (myself included). In this character I must notice Dethlevus Cluverius, as the Leipzig Acts call him (probably Dethlen Cluvier), grandson of the celebrated geographer, Philip Cluvier. The grandson was a Fellow of the Royal Society, elected on the same day as Halley, November 30, 1678: I suppose he lived in England. This man is quizzed in the Leipzig Acts for 1686; and, if Montucla insinuate rightly, by Leibnitz, who is further suspected of wanting to embroil Cluvier with his own opponent Nieuwentiit, on the matter of infinitesimals. So far good: I have nothing against Leibnitz, who though he was ironical, told us what he laughed at. But Montucla has behaved very unfairly: he represents Cluvier as placing the essence of his method in the solution of the problem construere mundum divinæ menti analogum, to construct a world corresponding to the divine mind. Nothing to begin with: no way of proceeding. Now, it ought to have been ex datâ lineâ construere, &c.: there is a given line, which is something to go on. Further, there is a way of proceeding: it is to find the product of 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. for ever. Moreover, Montucla charges Cluvier with unsquaring the parabola, which Archimedes had squared as tight as a glove. But he never mentions how very nearly Cluvier agrees with the Greek: they only differ by 1 divided by $$3n^2$$, where is the infinite number of parts of which a parabola is composed. This must have been the conceit that tickled Leibnitz, and made him wish that Cluvier and Nieuwentiit should fight it out. Cluvier, was admitted, on terms of irony, into the Leipzig Acts: he appeared on a more serious footing in London. It is very rare for one cyclometer to refute another: les corsaires ne se battent pas The only instance I recall is that of M. Clavier, who (Phil.