George Sinclair’s neglected Treatises: some influences and reactions

Abstract

The works of the Scottish natural philosopher George Sinclair (c.1630–1696) received far more criticism than praise, as described by (Craik, A D D, ‘The hydrostatical work of George Sinclair (c. 1630–1696): their neglect and criticism’, Notes & Records of the Royal Society, 72/3 (2018), 239–273), which focused mainly on Sinclair’s insightful account of hydrostatics. Here, we mention those few who influenced his work, and those who later commented upon it. His flawed account of the motion of pendulums, and the criticisms of it by James Gregory, are particularly examined.

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to Isobel Falconer for inviting me to talk at this workshop, to Philip Beeley and Siegmund Probst for informing me of the Leibniz-related material that is described, to Alison Morrison-Low and Isobel Falconer for helpful comments and to Elizabeth Craik for improving my Latin translations. I am also grateful to Special Collections, University of St Andrews Library, for providing the image in Figure 1, and for permission to reproduce it.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article