Nicolaus Engelhard (1696-1765) en zijn kritiek op de Beginselen der Natuurkunde van Petrus van Musschenbroek (1692-1761): wolffianisme versus newtonianisme

Abstract

Nicolaus Engelhard (1696-1765) and his critique of the Beginselen der Natuurkunde by Petrus van Musschenbroek (1692-1761): Wolffianism versus Newtonianism. In the Netherlands Newtonianism was successfully propagated by both the Leyden professor W.J. 's Gravesande (1688-1742), the first to teach experimental physics within a Newtonian framework at a Dutch university, and Petrus van Musschenbroek, who established the ideas of Newton in Utrecht. Their pupils introduced the new idas in various other institutes of higher education, like those in Franeker and Harderwijk. An exception, however, was Groningen. Here the successive professors of philosophy in the eighteenth century adhered to the ideas of Leibniz and Wolff. A typical example was N. Engelhard (1696-1765), who was appointed professor of philosophy and mathematics in 1728. After Van Musschenbroek had published his Beginselen der Natuurkunde (Elements of Natural Philsophy) in 1736, Engelhard composed a treatise, in which he criticised Van Musschenbroek's (meta)physics (1738). The work mainly dealt with the same topics as those discussed in the famous Leibniz-Clarke correspondence (1716). Engelhard contested, for instance, empty space and attractive forces. He also brought up the use of hypotheses, the goal of physics and the importance of a proper (i.e. Leibnizian-Wolffian) metaphysics. Whereas Van Musschenbroek had argued for the overriding importance of experiments in physical matters, Engelhard maintained that metaphysics could decide questions concerning the existence of empty space and attractive forces. Van Musschenbroek himself did not answer Engelhard's criticism. Instead, John Lulofs (1711-1768), who was to succeed 's Gravesande at Leyden (1742), defended the Newtonian philosophy (1738). In 1739 two more pamphlets appeared: the first probably by Engelhard's pupil A. Hulshoff, who attacked Lulofs, and the second a rejoinder by Lulofs. All four books appeared pseudonymously. Although the whole debate was not on a high level, it provides us with a good insight into the prolonged debates between Newtonians and the adherents of the philosophy of Leibniz-Wolff.