Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction

they do strain the sacred writings, who there interpret these words for the measured quantities." But Cajori's "improvement" would have Newton say, "On this account, those violate the accuracy of language, which ought to be kept precise, who interpret these words for the measured quantities."16 For those who may wonder how Cajori could have altered those innocent words sacris litteris to "the accuracy of language, which ought to be kept precise," may I remind them that Cajori's alterations of Motte do not generally arise from a verbatim et litteratim confrontation of Newton's Latin and Motte's English versions. And in this case, Cajori's source was neither Newton nor Motte. He chose to replace Motte's correct and literal rendition by Thomas Thorp's, only changing the latter's "which ought to be kept sacred" to "which ought to be kept precise." 7 Each reader may frame his own joke on this travesty of "accuracy of language" which-all would agree-really "ought to be kept precise." 16 Motte-Cajori version, p. 11. though the prospectus, of which there are two copies in the library of the old Ashmolean 17 Only Vol. I of Thomas Thorp's transla- Museum in Oxford, announced that he had tion of the Principia was ever published, al- translated all three books. See n. 8 supra.