Historians of seventeenth-century science have frequently asserted that Kepler's laws of planetary motion were largely ignored between the time of their first publication (1609, 1619) and the publication of Newton's Principia (1687). In fact, however, they were more widely known and accepted than has been generally recognized.

Kepler's ideas were, indeed, rather slow in establishing themselves, and until about 1630 there are few references to them in the literature of the time. But from then onwards, interest in them increased fairly rapidly. In particular, the principle of elliptical orbits had been accepted by most of the leading astronomers in France before 1645 and in England by about 1655. It also received quite strong support in Holland.

The second law had a more chequered history. It was enunciated in its exact form by a few writers and was used in practice by some others without being explicitly formulated, but the majority, especially after 1645, preferred one or another of several variant forms which were easier to use but only approximately correct. The third law attracted less interest than the others, chiefly perhaps because it had no satisfactory theoretical basis, but it was correctly stated by at least six writers during the period under review.

Between about 1630 and 1650 Kepler's Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae (in which all three laws were clearly formulated) was probably the most widely read work on theoretical astronomy in northern and western Europe, while his Rudolphine Tables, which were based upon the first two laws, were regarded by the majority of astronomers as the most accurate planetary tables available.

Kepler's work certainly did not receive all the recognition it deserved, but the extent to which it was neglected has been much exaggerated.

The exploitation of the lead resources of this country by the Romans commenced very soon after their arrival and shows every sign of being a well organized trade. Little evidence of deep mining has survived and it is probable that most of the ore was obtained by means of shallow workings, mainly in Somerset, Salop, Flintshire and Derbyshire. Although the silver content does not seem ever to have been as high as that of some well-known mines in the Mediterranean, it is clear that silver has been extracted by the Romans from some of the British lead. The lead was cast in carefully made moulds, producing pigs with inscriptions which indicate their date. These were then used for the pipes, cisterns and pewter tableware which contributed to the high standard of living of the period.

In 1661 Gerard Kinckhuysen published at Haerlem an introduction to algebra written in Dutch. Because of the clarity and compactness of its presentation it was considered suitable for dissemination to a wider class of readers than those able to read Low Dutch. Nicolaus Mercator, a wellknown mathematician of German origin, who had come to England as a young man in the later 1650s, was asked by Lord Brouncker to prepare a Latin translation of it. To this Isaac Newton, at the request of Isaac Barrow and John Collins, added explanatory notes and comments, and the manuscript was sent to Collins in London on 11 July 1670. Newton's draft, though still unpublished, is preserved, but Mercator's original translation was believed to have been lost. Only recently I rediscovered it in the Bodleian in a bound volume deriving from the estate of the Oxford mathematician John Wallis, which contains several books and pamphlets once in his possession.

This article is divided into four sections:

I. A survey of Kinckhuysen's Algebra ofte Stel-konst.

II. A summary of Newton's notes and additions to it.

III. An account of the unsuccessful efforts of Collins and Newton to publish the Mercator translation, enlarged with Newton's comments—this is abstracted from Collins' correspondence with Newton, Wallis and Gregory.

IV. A description of the volume now in the Bodleian Library, press-marked ‘Savile G. 20’, which has Mercator's translation interleaved with the printed Dutch original and bound with other books once owned by Wallis.

Professor Thomson had been a typical Scottish ‘lad o’ pairts'. Deservant of repute as teacher, scientist, editor and historian, his most distinctive achievements were in scientific journalism and propaganda. These were powerfully exhibited in the interests of Dalton's Atomism and of Prout's Hypothesis—and in university politics.

His work for Chambers' Encyclopaedia and for Nicholson's Journal was influential and effective. His textbooks gained an international esteem and each successive edition was kept up to date.

Much of his professional outlook and experience is expressed in his History of Chemistry (2 vols. 1830–31). Researches in his old Department at Glasgow on his choice and use of material provide the main topics of this Address. These volumes are still important.