| Abstract (croatian) | Na odnos Josepha Henryja prema Boškovićevoj prirodnoj filozofiji tijekom triju posljednjih godina njegove profesure u Princetonu (1844–1846) upućuju tri izvora: učenjakova knjižnica, znanstvena korespondencija i završni pismeni ispit iz prirodne filozofije.
Henry je u svojoj knjižnici posjedovao A System of Mechanical Philosophy (1822) Johna Robisona, koji u prvom svesku uključuje najopširniji prikaz Boškovićeve prirodne filozofije objavljen u Škotskoj u prvoj polovici 19. stoljeća. Robisonovo je djelo Amerikanac pomno proučio i iz njega u svoju »Somatologiju« preuzeo pokuse koji dokazuju naizmjenično djelovanje privlačne i odbojne sile.
Dok je pisao Syllabus of Lectures in Physics, Henry je početne dijelove rukopisa slao na kritičku ocjenu Lewisu R. Gibbesu. Upravo je djelovanje odbojne sile i naizmjenično djelovanje privlačne i odbojne sile bilo predmet Gibbesovih primjedaba Henryjevu priručniku. Jedan drugi korespondent, Daniel B. Smith, vjerojatno pod Faradayevim utjecajem, uvjeravao je početkom 1846. Henryja da _e u fizici, kako budu napredovala istraživanja, ostati samo jedna veličina – sila, a Boškovićeva teorija sila pružit će jedino tumačenje sila u prirodi.
Pri samom kraju svoje profesure u Princetonu, prije nego je postao tajnikom u Smithsonian Institution, Henry je u završni pismeni ispit iz prirodne filozofije uključio i pitanje o Boškovićevoj teoriji kao pitanje iz somatologije. Taj podatak potječe iz dnevnika jednog Henryjeva studenta. Službena dokumentacija o ispitima iz toga razdoblja nije očuvana.
Tri spomenuta izvora otkrivaju tri različita oblika recepcije Boškovićeve prirodne filozofije u Henryja: lektira boškovićevca Robisona, boškovićevske teme u Henryjevih korespondenata i izravni spomen Boškovićeve teorije u pismenom ispitu u Princetonu.
Uz to, usporedbom Henryjeva i Boškovićeva pristupa prirodnoj filozofiji polučuju se i drukčije vrijednosne odredbe. Među njihovim izlaganjima prirodne filozofije može se ustanoviti strukturalna sličnost. Tradicionalno uvodno poglavlje prirodne filozofije, najčešće naslovljeno principia corporum, u Boškovića je preraslo u teoriju sila (lat. theoria virium) koja tumači sastav i svojstva tvari, a u Henryja u somatologiju sa srodnim temama. Ta strukturalna sličnost ne isključuje razlike u važnim pitanjima: definicija gibljivosti, dokazivost principa inercije, stajalište prema živim silama i teorijsko obrazloženje magnetizma. |
| Abstract (english) | Joseph Henry’s view of Bošković’s natural philosophy over the last three years of the former’s professorship at Princeton can be gleaned from three sources: the scientist’s library, his scientific correspondence, and the final exam in natural philosophy.
Among the books of Henry’s private library was John Robison’s A System of Mechanical Philosophy (1822) which, in its first volume, includes a most comprehensive presentation of Bošković’s natural philosophy published in Scotland in the first half of the nineteenth century. No doubt Henry studied Robison’s work very thoroughly, as he adopted and later published in his »Somatology« the experiments which proved alternating action of attractive and repulsive force.
While working on his Syllabus of Lectures in Physics, Henry had the opening parts of the manuscript peer-reviewed by Lewis R. Gibbes, whose critical comments concerned the action of repulsive force and alternating action of attractive and repulsive force. In the early days of 1846 Daniel B. Smith, one of Henry’s correspondents, most likely under the influence of Faraday, argued persuasively that with future research physics would rest only upon one magnitude – force, and Bošković’s theory of forces was to provide a unique interpretation of forces in nature.
Boškovićs theory can be traced among the exam questions in somatology which Henry had formulated for the final exam in natural philosophy in his last days at Princeton, before becoming the first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. As no offical evidence on the exams from this period has survived, this information originates from a diary entry of one of Henry’s students.
The three aforementioned sources reveal Henry’s distinctive reception forms of Bošković’s natural philosophy: the work of Robison the Boschovichian, Boschovichian topics as discussed by Henry’s correspondents, and direct mention of Bošković’s theory in the Princeton exam paper.
In addition, a parallel can be drawn between Henry’s and Bošković’s approach to natural philosophy particularly in terms of structure. Commonly termed as de principiis corporum, an introductory chapter which traditionally serves to open the elaboration on natural philosophy, Bošković has used to expound the theory of forces (Lat. theoria virium), explaining the structure and properties of matter, and so has Henry for his somatology and affiliated topics. Yet, this structural similarity did not exclude different standpoints on some important topics: definition of mobility, the law of inertia, theoretical explanation of magnetism, and approach to the vis viva. |
