 These attempts by canonical philosophers like Berkeley and Hume to find what they regarded as a defensible interpretation of Newtonian forces are mirrored by similar attempts in the writings of leading mathematicians. For instance, the very same issue discussed by Hume had already been debated by two of the leading figures in Continental science, D’Alembert and Euler. For his part, in his famous work, the Traité de dynamique (1743), D’Alembert expressed a view that is very similar to Hume’s (in certain respects). He proclaimed right at the outset that he wished to develop a physics that would dispense with the concept of a force altogether on the grounds that it was an “obscure” idea. He would “reduce all the principles of mechanics to three, the force of inertia, compound motion, and equilibrium” (D’Alembert 1743, 3). He immediately explained the first item: the reason that he could accept Newton’s force of inertia is that it’s characterized as a property of bodies, one in virtue of which they follow the laws of motion, rather than a force or power. So it was not an obscure notion. Ironically, the great Swiss mathematician Euler had precisely the opposite reaction: from his point of view, the “force of inertia” was simply a misnomer, for it was not a force at all and should therefore be expunged from physics altogether. Instead, physics should employ only the idea of an impressed force, a cause of acceleration, which he regarded as a perfectly clear idea. Of course, history was on Euler’s side, indeed so much so that future generations would not even imagine that so many leading philosophers and mathematicians during the Enlightenment debated this topic.