n on this occasion, but then we must not
censure Descartes.

The opinion that generally prevails in England with regard to these new
philosophers is, that the latter was a dreamer, and the former a sage.

Very few people in England read Descartes, whose works indeed are now
useless. On the other side, but a small number peruse those of Sir
Isaac, because to do this the student must be deeply skilled in the
mathematics, otherwise those works will be unintelligible to him. But
notwithstanding this, these great men are the subject of everyone's
discourse. Sir Isaac Newton is allowed every advantage, whilst Descartes
is not indulged a single one. According to some, it is to the former
that we owe the discovery of a vacuum, that the air is a heavy body, and
the invention of telescopes. In a word, Sir Isaac Newton is here as the
Hercules of fabulous story, to whom the ignorant ascribed all the feats
of ancient heroes.

In a critique that was made in London on Mr. de Fontenelle's discourse,
the writer presumed to assert that Descartes was not a great
geometrician. Those who make such a declaration may justly be reproached
with flying in their master's face. Descartes extended the limits of
geometry as far beyond the place where he found them, as Sir Isaac did
after him. The former first taught the method of expressing curves by
equations. This geometry which, thanks to him for it, is now grown
common, was so abstruse in his time, that not so much as one professor
would undertake to explain it; and Schotten in Holland, and Format in
France, were the only men who understood it.

He applied this geometrical and inventive genius to dioptrics, which,
when treated of by him, became a new art. And if he was mistaken in some
things, the reason of that is, a man who discovers a new tract of land
cannot at once know all the properties of the soil. Those who come after
him, and make these lands fruitful, are at least obliged to him for the
discovery. I will not deny but that there are innumerable errors in the
rest of Descartes' works.

Geometry was a guide he himself had in some measure fashioned, which
would have conducted him safely through the several paths of natural
philosophy. Nevertheless, he at last abandoned this guide, and gave
entirely into the humour of forming hypotheses; and then philosophy was
no more than an ingenious romance, fit only to amuse the ignorant. He
was mistaken in the nature of the soul, i