Draft letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Pierre Varignon and others Isaac Newton c. 14,588 words The Newton Project Oxford 2020 Newton Project, University of Oxford

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

 c. 1713-1720, in French, English and Latin, c. 14,588 words, 16 ff. 16 ff.

in French, English and Latin

 MS Add. 3968, ff. 594r-619v, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, UK UKCambridgeCambridge University Library Portsmouth Collection MS Add. 3968, ff. 594r-619v c. 1713-1720 England English Latin French Isaac Newton Unknown Hand (21) Unknown Cataloguer (1) Unknown Cataloguer (2) Unknown Cataloguer (3) Unknown Cataloguer (6) ScienceMathematics Transcription by Marie Soulier Transcription by Michelle Pfeffer Transcription continued by Robert Ralley Transcription completed by Robert Ralley. Code audited by Michael Hawkins.
Add 3968 No 42594

Monsieur

Ie me donne l'honneur de vous ecrire à loccasion de ce que M. Bunnet má marqui dans une de ses lettres que vous n'aviez pas encorre vû ce que M. Bernoulli 595 a fait imprimer l'anneé passeé dans les aites de leipsic, et que vous souhaitiez d'avoir les mois de ces actes on ces pieces se trouvent, je n'aurois pas attendu jusques a present a vous les envoyer s'il m'avoit été possible de les avoir plustot. I'aurois fort souhaite Monsieur d'avoir pu vous marquér par ma promtitude a executer cette commission, avec quel soin je rechercherai toujours les occasions de vous faire voir l'estîme que j'ai pour vous. Vous m'obligerez sensiblement Monsieur de ne me point epargner dans toutes les occasions que je pourai vous estre de quelque utilité dans ce pais et d'estre persuadé que je suis avec respect

Monsieur

de la Haie ce 8 de Iuin 1714.

Vostre tres Humble et tres obeisant serviteur G. I.'s Gravesande.

596

Literas tuas amicissimas accepi, et gratias reddio tibi quam maximas quod exemplaria duo Optices ad D. Iohannem Bernoulli meo nomine misisti et eo pacto nos reconciliare conatus fueris, quod et fecisti, ut ex literis ejus intelligo. Nam D. Leibnitius epistolis aliquot quas vidi, verbis disertis affirmaverat D. Bernoullium authorem esse Epistolæ die 7 Iunij 1673 ad ipsum scriptæ & mox in Germania impressæ & per orbem literarium sparsæ. Et in hoc Epistola affirmatur quod ea omnia [Et author hujus Epistolæ conatur me plagiarij insimulat, quasi olim de calculo fluxionum et fluentium ne quidem somniassem cum in Epistolis in Commercio Epistolico editis nullæ occurrant literæ punctæ, uti nec in Principijs Naturæ mathematicis ubi frequens erat occasio calculo fluxionum utendi: cum tamen h in Lemmate secundo libri secundi Principiorum et et Introductione ad librum de Quadraturis Elementa methodi fluxionum demonstaenturdemonstrentur et methodus ipsa doceatur & exemplis illustretur nullis literis puntatispunctatis adhibitis. Affirmat etiam quod prima vice hæ literæ punctatæ comparuerunt in volumine tertio volumine oOperum Wallisij, multis annis postquam Calculus differentialis jam ubique locorum invaluisset: cum tamen comparuerint in secun volumine secundo operum ejus, desumptæ utique ex literis meis anno 1692 mense ad ipsum scriptis id est antequam methodus calculus differentialis ubique celebrari cœpit.] Et authorem illius Epistolæ ut hominem calumniatorem improbum spectabam. Sed scum D. Bernoullius non sit ejus author, amicitiam ejus lubentissime amplector et colo. Et eo fine literas inclusas ad ipsum scripsi: quas oro ut ubi rursus ad ipsum scribendi occasionem habueris, literis tuis includas vel saltem circumpposito operculo ad ipsum per Tabellarium mittas. Oro etiam ut gratias meas Academiæ vestræ reddas ob munera Historiæ suæ annuatim ad me missæ, te curante & ut easdemque tibi debitas persolvo ob munera Ephimeridum.

Hæc tibi scribi ut Et his intellectis Si quæstiones aliquæa ad librum illum spectantses vel maneant indeterminatæa, vel poshac subntore, lis omnis litem omnem judicio inter D. Bernoullium et me judicio Academiæ vestræ determinetur, ostensis his literis. determinandam lubentissime permitto.

Præter verba quæ ex Libro Principiorum citasti extant aliæa in Scholio ad Prop. LXIX Lib. I, quibus clarissime constitat quod content me gravitate corporibus emssentialem minime fecisse. Quæ in QuætionibusQuæstionibus sub fine Prop Libri tertij de eo Optices in Editione secunda circa causam Refractionis Reflexionis & gravitatis in Editione secunda hujus Libri hujus addidi, leviter attingebam in Editione prima Optice Prop Prop. XII Parte III Lib. II. [But the notion being was only Hypothetical I did not think it worth inserting into yethe Quaæries in the first Edition.] Sed et cum Hypotheticam ess non dignari ent non digna judicabam qu fusius lrælitteræ in illa Editione tractaretur. Sed explicui plenius in Editione scdasecunda ut plenius pateret] Et inde etiam constare potest me vit ab initio mde ab initio nec vacuum absolutum statu isse nec gr vim centripetar absque Medio impellente. esse neos has Objectiones aliunde quam ab aliquārumaliquarum præjudicijs oriri:

Vbi literas tuas accepi, aberrat D. Keilius in agro Northamptoniensi, et propterea

Antequam literis tuis repsonderem cupiebam colloqui cum Dno Keill qui longe aberat in agro Northamptoniensi: sed is jam in verbem hanc redijt & spero quod a litibus in posterum abstinebit.

Hujus libri impressive editionm tertiam forte lucem videsbit et in Exemplari quod corrig in hunc finem correigei, in fine Prop. XVII addidi hæc verba Nam si corpus in his casibus revolvatur in Sectione Conica sic inventa, demonstratum est in Prop. XI, XII et XIII quod vis centripeta erit reciproce et quadratum distantiæ corporis a centro Cætera quæ correxi, ad D. Bernoullium nil spectant.

At t Et si ansa aliqua adhuc maneat litigandi contendendi, rem totam judicio Academiæ vestræ lubentissime permitto.

In libro tertio Principiorum non opus est ut Vires centripetæ quibus corpora cælestia in orbibus suis retinentur et qu gravitatem esse dixi non possunt nominentur gravitas. Nominari possunt vires cœlorunt; & postquam hæ et in fine Libri probari potest quod vis cœlestis qua] Luna retinetur in Orbe si descendatur in Terram æqualis evadet sit gravittati nostræ et æqualem corporeum, et quod descensum efficiet omnium similes vires in singulis Planetarum corporibus superficiebus [gravitatem effice corporum efficere possint.] descensum similem efficiet.

597 A Reply to Varignon 13 DecrDecember 1721

SrSir

I am indebted to you a Letter in relation to Mr I. Bernoulli The injury done me by the Letter in the flying paper ascribed to Mr Bernoulli by Mr Leibnitz was publick & I looked upon Mr Bernoullis Letter to me as intended for a Remedy. But if he intended it only as a private Letter he should have told me so & then I had kept it private. However what Dr Keill did in publishing something out of it was without my consent, & I chid him for it as a breach of friendship; but he is now dead. [Mr Bernoulli desires my picture but should I give him my picture while the world beleives that he was the Author oof the said Letter inserted into the flying paper, they would think me that I confest my self guilty of what I am there charged with.] M A By calling him the Mathematician or pretended Mathematician its plain that I meant nothing more then if I then to call him the Author or pretended author of thaet Letter whom Mr Leibnitz called a great Mathematician. inserted into the flying paper. And by calling him ho Homo novus its plain that I meant nothing more then what Mr Leibnitz meant by calling MDr Keill Homo novus, that is, a man risen up since the days of Mr Oldenburg & unacquainted with what passed between Mr Leibnitz & the English in those days. And what I said of knight errantry in Mathematicks was in opposition to Mr Leibnitz & not to Mr Bernoulli. For I was writing againtst Mr Leibnitz & have not yet begun to write against Mr Bernoulli nor intend to begin. Mr Leibnitz in the beginning of his Letter to Abbe Conti dated 9 Apr. 1716 compared his dispute with me to a Duel, & this his appealing from ancient records to such a Duel for deciding truth I called Filling Mathematicks with knight errantry It was not Mr I blamed the proceedings of Mr Leibnitz by wchwhich as I there said, the ancient Letters & Papers were to be laid must be laid aside & the Original Question must be run off into a squabble about Philosophy & other matters: & the great Mathematician who in his Letter [or pretended Letter] to Mr Leibnitz dated the 7th of Iune 1711, concealed his name that he might pass for an impartial Iudge, must now pull off his mask & become a party-man in this squabble & send a challenge to the Mathematicians in England, as if a Duell or perhaps a battel between what he calls my forlorn hope & the army of disciples in wchwhich he boasts himself happy, were a fitter way to decide the truth, then an appeal to ancient & authentic writings & mathematicks must henceforward be filled wthwith Atchievements in Knight errantry, instead of reasons & demonstrations. All this I wrote against the conduct of Mr Leibnitz. For I had no controversy with Mr Bernoulli. He did not conceale his name that he might pass for an impartial judge. Mr Leibnitz made him a judge & concealed his name. Mr Bernoulli did not desert the original Question & run the dispute into a squabble: for I have not yet had any dispute with him. As he did not make himself a judge so he did not pull of his wizzard & make himself a partyman. Mr Leibnitz made him both a judge & partiman. Mr Leibnitz sent the Problem to be resolved by the English Mathematicians, challenged the English Mathematicians to solve his a Problem & said it was Bernoullis. Mr Leibnitz It was not Mr Bernoulli but Mr Leibnitz who fled from ancient Records to decide the Question by this sort of duelling; & this I called a filling of597 of Mathematicks wthwith atchievements in knight errantry instead of reasons & demonstrations. for deciding the truth Men may propose Problems by way of exercise, but not by way of appeal from proper arguments for determining Questions in dispute.

Add. 3968599 Viro celeberrimo Dno Abbati Varignon Regio Matheses Professori Mathematici & Academiæ scientiarum socio apud Socio apud Parisienses Is. Newtonus S.P.D. salutem plurimam dicit26 sept 21

Clarissime DneDomine

Accepi Historiam et Commentaria ex Archivis Academiæ Scientiarum pro Anno 1719, pro quibus gratias tibi reddo quam maximas. Accepi etiam schedam primam Libri de coloribus elegantem sane & specie nobilem. Et ne Dnus Montalanꝰus expensas moleste habeat dabo illi librosas viginti sterlingas, & expensa compingendi libros insuper solvam. Gratias tibi reddo quamplurimas quod insinuasti libros plures amicis donandos esse, scilicet Cardinali Polignac, & filio Cancellarij, & Bibliothecæ Academiæ. Vellem et alios donandos esse filio & nepoti D. Ioannis Bernoullij, & alios Abbati de Comitibus & P. Sebastian, & D. Remond. Sed et gratias tibi maximas reddo quod onus in te suscipere digneris conferendi Correctiones Dni Coste & Dni Moyvre inter se, et quod optimum videbitur elegendi; ut et emendandi quæcunque alia occurrerint. Metuebam utique ne correctiones Dni Coste, inter plurima tua negotia molestiam nimiam tibi crearent. Sed cum hocce onus in te suscipere non dedigneris, eo magis me tibi obligasti. Schema tuum libris singulis prefigendum probo, sed nondum a Pictore delineatum est. Pictorum mox adibo.

Conqueritur D. Bernoullius

In sententia Mathematici Iudicis quam D. Leibnitius D. Ioanni Bernoullio ascripsit, publice acensor plagij. Et epistola quam D. Bernoullius ad me misit & qua se talem sententiam scripsisse negavit, videbatur ad me missa ut remedium contra injuriam illam publicam: et eo nomine licentiam mihi datam esse putabam diluendi injuriam illam auctoritate D. Bernoullij, præsertim cum is me non prohibuerit. Attamen Epistolam illam non nisi privatim communicavi, & Keilio nullam dedi licentiam aliquid evulgandi ex eadem, et multo minus scribendi contra Bernoullium ob ea quæ in Epistola illa mihi amice scripserat. Et hac de causa Keilium quasi liti St studentem vehementer objurgavi: sed ille jam mortuus est.

Conqueritur D. Bernoullius quod ipsum vocavi hominem novum, & Mathematicum fictum, & Equitem erraticum. Sed contra Bernoullium nondum cœpi scribere. Hæc omnia dixi scribendo contra Leibnitium, & ejus argumenta repellendo. 1 Dixerat utique D. Leibnitius Keilium esse hominem novum et rerum anteactarum parum peritum cognitorem, id est hominem qui floruit post tempora Commercij quod Leibnitius habuit cum Oldenburgio: et idem objeci Leibnitio Bernoullium judicem constituenti, cui utique commercium illud antiquum annis plus triginta post mortem Oldenburgij ignotum fuerat. 2 Cum D. Leibnitius sententiam sui Iudicis mathematici Bernoullio ascriberet, vocavi Bernoullium In dicem illum Mathematicum vel fictum Mathematicum, id est Mathematicum qui vere author esset sententiæ illius, vel fingebatur esse author. Nam Cum Bernoullius in sententia illa ab ejus Authore Sententiæ illius citabatur tanquam ab Author inversus, dubitabam utrum ille author esset, necne. Et Bernoullius ipse literis ta ad me datis agnovit affirmavit se non fuisse autorem. 3 D. Leibnitius in Epistola sua prima ad Abbatem de Comitibus, Quæstionem de primo methodi differentialis inventore deseruit & sub finem epistola ad disputationes novas confugit de gravitate universali et qualitatibus occultis & miraculis & vacuo et atomis, et spatio & tempore & perfectione mundi; et sub finem Epistolæ Problema Bernoullij ex Actis Eruditorum Eruditorum desumptum proposuit Mathematicis Anglis: Et initio proximæ suæ ad Abbatem Epistolæ illæ contulit is hanc novam controversiam cum duello, scribens se nolle in arenam descendere contra milites meos emissarios, sed cum ipse apparerem, se lubenter mihi satisfactionem daturum. Et ad hæc omnia alludens non contra Bernoullium sed contra Leibnitium scripsi in Observationibus meis in hanc ejus Epistolam, ubi dixi quod Epistolæ et chartæ antiquæ [ex mente Leibnitij scilicet] jam abjiciendæ sunt, et Quæstio [de primo methodi inventore] deducenda est ad rixam circa Philosophiam et circa res alias: et magnus ille Mathematicus quem D. Leibnitius Iudicem sine nomine constituit, jam velum detrahere debet [secundum Leibnitium scilicet] et a partibus Leibnitij stare in hac rixa, & chartam provocatoriam ad Mathematicos in Anglia per Leibnitium mittere quasi Duellum vel potius bellum inter milites meos emissarios [uti loquitur] et exercitum discipulorum in quibus se felicem jactat, methodus esset magis idonea ad Quæstionem de primo inventore dirimendam quam examinatio veterum et authenticorum scriptorum, & scientiæ Mathematicæ imposterum factis nobilibus equitum erraticorum vice argumentorum ac Demonstrationum implendæ essent. Hoc totum contra Leibnitium scripsi et non contra Bernoullium. Leibnitius Bernoullium constituit judicem, Leibnitius eundem ex judice constituit advocatum. Leibnitius Commercium Epistolicum fugit quasi a Iudice suo condemnatum, a & Leibnitius vice Quæstionis de primo N Inventore disputationes novas de Quæstionibus Philosophicis proposuit, et Problema tanquam a Bernoullio misit a Mathematicus Anglis solvendum. misit Leibnitius fuit Eques ille erraticus qui vice argumentorum ex veteribus et authenticis scriptis desumendorum, introduxit alias disputationes quas ipse contulit cum duello. Ad hoc duellum illæ me provocavit Methodi infinitesimalis gratia. Hæc methodus erat fæmina virgo illa pulchra pro qua Eques noster pugnabat. Quæstionem de primo methodi hujus inventore per victoriam in hoc duello dirimere sperabat, & Virginem lucrari non examinatis veteribus & authenticis scriptis in Commercio Epistolico editis, per quæ Quæstio illa dirimi debuisset. Problemata Mathematica proponi possunt exercitij gratia, sed non ad dirimendas lites alterius generis: Et solus Leibnitius eadem in hunc finem proposuit.

Hæc tibi scripsi non ut in lucem edantur, sed ut scias me nondum cum Bernoullio lites habuisse. Contra illum nondum scripsi, neque in animo habeo ut scribam: nam lites semper fugi.

Ds Moivreus mihi dixit D. Bernoullium picturam meam optare: sed ille nondum agnovit publice me [Regulam veram differentiandi differentialia uti loquuntur dedisse methodum fluxionum et momentorum habuisse anno 1672 uti conceditur in Elogio D. Leibnitij in Historia Academiæ vestræ edito. Ille nondum agnovit me in Propositione prima Libri de Quadraturis, anno 1693 a Wallisio edita, & anno 1686 in Lem. 2 Lib. 2 Princip. synthetice demonstrata, Regulam veram differendi differentialia dedisse & per Regulam illam Curvaturas Curvarum anno 1672 determinasse. Regulam illam anno 1672 habuisse, per quam utique C Curvaturas Curvarum tunc determainabatm. Non postulo ut hæc concedatssentdat Sed si hæc ægre concedsserit, permittat mihi ut picturam meam ægre concedam Ipsum et fratrem suum annis 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693 methodum Ille nondum agnovit me anno 1669 quando scripsi Analysi per series methodum habuisse quadrandi Curvilineas accurate Si fieri possit sin quemadmodum in Epistola mea 24 Octob. 1676 ad Oldenburgium data et in Propositione quinta Libri de Quadraturis exponitur; et Tabulas Curvilinearum quæ cum Conicis sectionibus comparari possunt per ea tempora a me compositas fuisse. Si ea concesserit quæ lites prorsus amovebunt, picturam meam haud facile negabo. Vale

Dabam Londini

26 Sept. 1721. St. vet.

601

Cl.Clarissime DneDomine

Accepi Historiam et Commentaria ex Archivis Academiæ Scientiarūum deductarum pro Anno 1719; pro quibus gratias tibi reddo quam maximas. Accepi etiam schedam primam Libri de coloribus elegantem sane & specie nobilem. Et ne D. Montalanus expensas moleste habeat, dabo illi libras viginti sterlingas, & expensa compingendi libros insuper solvam. Gratias tibi reddo quamplurimas quod insinuasti libros plures amicis donandos esse & imprimis scilicet Cardinali Polignac & filio Cancellarij & Bibliothecæ Academiæ. Vellem et alios donandos esse filio & nepoti D. Ioannis Bernoulli & Abbati de Comitibus & P. Sebastian, & D. Remond & Set gratias tibi maxime reddo quod onus in te suscipere digneris conferendi correctiones Dnoirum Coste & D. Moivre inter se & quod optimūum videbitur elegendi, ut et emendandi quæcunque alia occurrerint. Metuebam utique ne correctiones Dni Coste inter plurima tua negotia molestiam nimiam tibi crearent. Sed cum hocce onus in te suscipere non dedigneris, eo magis me tibi obligasti.

In Epistola Sententia Mathematici Iudicis qua plagij publice accusor et quam D. Leibnitius D. Ioannni Bernoulio tandem ascripsit, me me publice vit accusor accusor vit plagij. Et epistola quam D. I. Bernoullius ad me misit qua ad me misit & qua se talem epistolam sententiam scripsisse negavit, videbatur ad me scripta missa ut remedium contra injuriam illam adeoque licentiam publicam, et eo nomine licentiam mihi datam esse putabam diluendi injuriam illiam authoritate D. Bernoullij, credebam præsertim cum is me non prohibuerit. Attamen Attamen Epistolam illam non nisi privatim communicavi & Keilio nullam dedi licentiam aliquid evulgandi ex Epistola quam D. Bernoullius ad me misit & multo minus op scribendi ex eadem contra Bernoullium ob Epistolam ejus ad me amice scripsttam eadem et multo minus scribendi contra Bernoulli ob ea quæ in Epistola illa mihi amice scripserat. Et hac de causa Keilium quasi liti studentem vehementer objurgavi; sed ille jam mortuumsan que est.

Conqueritur D. Bernoullius quod ipsum vocavi hominem novum, & Mathematicum fictum & Equitem erraticum: sed contra Bernoullium nondum cœpi scribere: Hæc omnia dixi scribendo contra Leibnitium. scripta sunt. Dixit Dixerat utique Leibnitius Keilium esse hominem novum id est qui florere cœpit et rerum anteactarum parum peritum cognitorem, id est hominem qui florere cœpit post tempora Commercij quod Leibnitij cum Oldenburgio: et idem objeci Leibnitio Bernoullium judicem constituenti, Vocav Authorem epistolæ quam D. Leibnitius Bernoullio ascrips cui utique commercium illud antiquum ins ad 1712 ignotum fuerat annis plus 30 post mortem Oldenburgij ignotam fuerat Cum D. Leibnitius authore Ber Epistolam Sententiam Mathematici sui Iudicis Bernoullio ascriberet, vocavi Bernoullium Mathematicum vel fictum Mathematicum, id est authorem vel fictum authorem epistolæ Nam dubitabam utrum author esset agnovit nec ne, & Bernoullius scripsit se non fictum non fuisse authorem. D. Leibnitius scripsit sententiæ in Epistola sua prima ad De Abbatem de Comitibus, Quæstionem de primo methodi differentialis inventore deseruit, disputa & ad disputationes novas confugit & ad Problemæ solvenda Problema Bernoullij ex Actis eruditorum desumptum proposuit mathematicis Anglis. Et initio proximæ suæ ad Abbatem epistolæ scripsit contulit is hanc novam controversiam cum Duello. Et ind hæc omnia alludens non contra Bernoullium sed contra Leibnitium scripsi in Annotationibus meis Observationibus meis in hanc Leibnitij Epistolamlarum ejus Epistolam, quod secundum Leibnitium Epistolæ et chartæ antiquæ jam abjiciendæ sunt & Quæstio [de primo methodo Inventore] ded determinanda est per rixam de circa Philosophiam et circum res alias, & magnus ille Mathematicus quem D. Leibnitius judicem esse voluit, jam velum detrahere debet (secundūum Leibnitium scilicet) & a partibus Leibnitij stare in hac rixa, pugnare, & chartam provocatoriam ad Mathematicos in Anglia per Leibnitium mittere quasi Duellum vel potius bellum inter milites meos emissarios (uti loquitur) & exercitum discipulorum in quibus se felicem jactat, methodus methodus esset idone magis idonea ad Quæstionem de primo inventore dirimendam quam examinatio veterum et authenticorum scriptorum; & scientiæ Mathematicæ imposterum in factis nobilibus equitum erraticorum vice Argumentorum ac Argumentorum ac Demonstrationum implendæ essent. Hoc totum contra Bern Leibnitium scripsi & non contra Bernoullium. [Leibnitius est eques ille erraticus qui pr vice Leibnitius est eques ille erritus argumentorum ex veteribus & authenticis scriptis chartis antiquis desumendorum induxit duellum] Leibnitius Bernoullium consticit judicem, Leibnitius eundem ex judice constituit advocatum, Leibnitius disputatione proposuit de Questiones philosophicas, Leibnitius problema Bernoullij misit tanquam a Bernoullio; Leibnitius est eques ille erraticus qui vice argumentorum ex veteribus & authenticis scriptis desumendorum introduxit alias disputationes quas ipse contuli cum duello. [Is enim (initio secundæ suæ ad Abbatam Epistolæ) ad Abb scripsit se nolle in arenam descendere contra milites meos emissarios sed cum ipse apparerem se mihi satisfactionem daturum.] Et ad hoc duellum ille me et amicos meos provocavit ut Quæstionem de primo inventore dirimeret per hujusmodi victoriam dirimeret non examinalis veteribus et authenticis scriptis in Commercio epistolico editis, per quæ Quæstio illa dirimi debuisset. Qu Problemata Mathematica proponi possunt exercitij gratia, sed non ad dirimendas lites alterius generis. Et solus Leibnitius eadem in hunc finem proposuit. Is solus in arenam descendietret ut Vigninam acquireret; virginem dico, methodum differentialem ubi prædicta scripsi

Hæc tibi scribo non ut in lucem edantur sed ut scias me nondum cum Bernoullio lites habuisse Contra illum nondum scripsi, neque in animao habeo ut scribam.

Ds Moivræeus

602

Nec variat lux fracta colorem

Dispescit sed non variat lux fracta colobres

non ut peritiam ejus in rebus mathematicis minuerem, sed ut signifaremsignificarem me dubitare an verus author esset Sententiæ vel fictus author sententiæ quam D. Leibnitius ipsi ut Iudici tribueret. Et Bernoullius ipse nuper ad me scripsit per omnia humanitatis sacra se talem Episto sententiam vel Epistolam non scripsisse.

D. Leibnitius in Epistola sua prima ad — contulisi is hanc novam controversiam cum duello, scribens se nolle in arenam descendere contra milites meos emissarios, sed ipse apparerem se lubenter mihi sactisfactionem daturum Et ad hæc omnia alludens non contra Bernoullium sed contra Leibnitium scripsi in Observationibus meis in hanc ejus Epistolam, quod Epistolæ et chartæ æntiquæantiquæ, [ex mente Leibnitij] jam abjiciendæ sunt, et Quæstio [de primo methodi inventore] deducenda est in rixam circa Philosophiam et circa res alias: et magnus ille Mathematicus quem D. Leibnitius judicem anonymum constituit, jam velum detrahere debet et (secundum Leibnitium scilicet)

Dixit enim eos qui contra ipsum scripserant, non habituros esse voluptatem videndi responsa ejus ad parva pusillas illorum rationes, & proposuit quæstiones novas de miraculis qualitatibus occultis, & gravitate universali, & vacuo & Atomis, et spatio ac tempores & perfectione mundi & sub finem epistolæ Problema Bernoullij

Leibnitius Commercium Epistolicum et fugit, & eo fine disputationes novas de Questibonibus Philosophicis proposuit; Leibnitius & Problema mathematicis Anglis misit tanquam a Bernoullio a mathematicis Anglis solvendam misit. Leibnitius fuit eques

— Ad hoc duellum ille me provocavit Methodi differenti infinitesimalis gratia. Hæc erat fæmina illa pulchra pro qua pugnabat. Quæsitionem de primo methodi hujus inventore per victoriam in hoc duello dirimere sperabat non examinatis veteribus – dirimini debuisset. Problemata Math. — proposuit

Non ut peritiam ejus mo ipsei derogarem vel peritiam ejus minuerēem sed ut quia dubitabam utrum ille vere esset esset Mathematicus ille eissetiste qui vere sententiam jusdicis scripserat vel fingebatur candem scripsisse esse Mathematicus iste. Nam cum Auctor Sententiæ illius Bernoullium citabatverat tanquam a seipso diversum, dubitabam utrum Bernoullius author esse posset Sententiæ illius Et Bernoullius tandem literis ad me datis affirmavit se non fuisse authorem.

116603 letter to the Abbé Varignon

SrSir

The words [AtchieventsAtchievements in Knight errantry instead of reasons & demonstrations] wchwhich you meet with the Remarks upon Mr Leibnitz Letters to Abbe Conti, re relate to Mr Leibnitz his proposing declining to answer the Commercium Epistolicum & instead thereof proposing new d Questions to be disputed & problems to be resolved, as if the first Question were to be decided by yethe victory in things of another kind, Those as men appeal to a dDuell for deciding the truth of what they fall out about. Those words are in opposition to the words w first Paragraph of the Letter of Mr Leibnitz to Abbe Conti dated 9th April 1716, wchwhich is in these words C'est sans doute — je serai bien aise de luy donner satisfaction. The Preface here mentioned I did not see till the book of Principles was published & a copy presented to me: & so the Authore thereof was none of my forlorn hope. Mr Dr Keill By refusing to answer the notes upon the Commercium he laid aside the reasons & demonstrations taken from the o Commercium, & by expressing himself ready to give me satisfaction (meaning in the new disputes & solving of Problems wchwhich he proposed)

604 Viro celeberrimo D. Abbati de Varignon, Regio Matheseos Professori, et Academiæ Scientiarum Socio Isaacus Newton. S.P.D.19th Ian 1721 1st Copy

Vir celeberrime

Historiam Academiæ vestræ accepi una cum Ephemeride pro Anno hocce 1721, pro quibus gratius reddo tibi quam maximas. Sed et Pictura tui in manus meas tandem pervenit, elegans sane, et vultus venustate pingentisque. artificio pulcherrima. Vnde et tui similem esse concludo licet spectatorem nondum nactus sum qui te de facie novit. Quod Picturam mei tam benigne acceperis amitcitiæ et humanitati tuæ debetur.

Collectio chartarum D. Leibnitij quam D. Desmaiseaux nuper edidit, cæpta fuit fuit concilio D. Leibnitij ipsius, schedas aliquot eo fine ad ipsum mittentis, ut ex epistola ejus ad D. Desmaizeaux 21 Aug. 1616 data & in secundo Collectionis Tomo, pag 355 impressa, colligere licet. Ineunte anno 1717 D. Abas de Comitibus (qui me mystice admodum tractavit) Epistolas D. Leibnitij ad Dnam Kilmansegg & D. Bothmar aliasque nonnullas communi cum D. Desmaizeaux communicavit ut in lucem etiam ederentur; et alias anno proximo ex Gallia eodem consilio ad ipsum transmisit, ut ex Epistola D. Desmaizeaux ad Abbatem illum 18 Aug. 1718 data et in Collectioneis illius Tomo secundo pag. 362 impressa, facile discas. Hæc omnia me inscio facta sunt donec sschedæ quatuor vel quatuor vel quinque priores Tomi secundi impressæ essent & ex Hollandia missæ et mihi ostensæ, in quibus erant Epistolæ duæ prædictæ D. Leibnitij mense Aprili anni 1716 scriptæ; quarum illa quæ ad D. Kilmansegg scripta fuit, tribuebat Epistolam 13 Iunij 1713 datam Dno I. Bernoullio, eandemque gGallice versam recitabat. Sed hæc nullius sunt momenti cùm Epistola eadem ijsdem verbis Gallice versa, prius impressa fuisset in Belgio in Novelles Litterairs 28 Decem. 1715 pag 414 sub hoc Titulo

Lettre de M. Iean Bernoulli a Bále du 7 Iunij 1713. In charta volante quæ anno 1713 alicubi in Germania impressa fuit & per orbem sparsa, Autctor hujus Epistolæ D. Bernoullium citabat tanquam hominem a se diversum his verbis [quemadmodum ab eminente quadam Mathematico dudum notatum est,] & D. Leibnitius citationem tunc probabbat; jam vero D. Leibnitius in ejusdem Epistolæ versione Gallica citationem omisit ut Epistolam Bernoullio tribueret. Si Epistolæ originali & primo editæ fides adhibenda essit, D. Bernoullius non est auctor.

Post hæc omnia, cum Collectio prædicta prope impressa esset, et D. I. Bernoullius Litteris per manus tuas ad me transmissis, negaviret se auctorem esse illius Epistolæ, & cum fama quod is Auctor esset per D a D. Leibnitio per orbem sparsa, non aliter dilui posset quam per testimonium D. Bernoulli quod is auctor non esset: ostendi Epistolam illam D. Keill ut illi suaderem D. Bernoullium non esse auctorem. Ille autem cum adduci non posset ut crederet, me inconsulto in lucem edidit quæ in ejus Appendice vel P.S. hac de re contra Bernoullium leguntur.

Onus quod in te suscepisti (inter multa tua negotia) iterum edendi Versionem Gallicam Optices meæ, summam in me benignitatem tuam604 tuam arguit, pro qua gratias satis reddere non valeam. D. de Moivre septimana præterita emendationes suas Versiones illius Gallicæ ad te jam miitssurus est Aliorum correctiones (siquas acceperis) minime cures, ne tibi vel molestiam aliquam vel moram creent. Siquæ aliæ occurrerint, hic examinabuntur & hinc mittentur. Vale.

Dabam Londini 19 Ian. st. v. 17201

D. Desmaiseaux exemplar Collectiones suæ ad te misit. Ab eo caveas:
606 A Monsieur Monsieu Monsieur Abbé de Varignon Viro celeberrimo D. Abbati de Varignon Regio Matheseos Professorēem et Academiæ Scientiarum Socio Is. Newtonus salutem plurimam divit S.P.D.19 Ian. 17212d Copy Vir ceberrimeceleberrime Historiam Academiæ vestræ accepi una cum Ephemeride pro anno hocce 1721, accepi pro quibus gratias reddo tibi quam maximas. Sed et Pictura tui in manus meas tandem reddita sto pervenit accessit, elegans sane, & vultus venustate, & colorum artificio et vivacitate pulcherrimam & Pictor et pingendtisque. artificio pulcherrima. Sed Vnde et tui pers simillimam etiam similem esse concludo licet spectatorem nondum nactus sum qui te de facie novit. Quod Picturam mei tam benigne acceperis amicitiæ tuæ & humanitati debetur. Collectio chartarum de Leibnitij quam D. Desmaizeaux nuper edididt, cæpta fuit concilio D. Leibnitij ipsius, qui exemplar Epistola qui aliqua ad ipsum misit ut ex epistola ejus ad D. Desmaizeaux 21 Aug. 1616 data, & in secundo collectionis Volumine impres pag 355, 356 impressa, colligere licet. Et Ineunte anno 171 1717 D D. L Abbas de Comitibus epistolas (qui me mystice admodum tractavit) Epistolas D. Leibnitij ad D. Kilmanseg & D Bothmasr aliasque cum D. Desmaizeaux communicavit ut in lucem ederentur, et alias anno proximo ex Gallia eodem concilio ad ipsum transmisit ut ex Epistola D. Desmaizeaux ad Abbatem illum 18 Aug. 167 1718 data et in Collectione illa pag. 362 impressa, facile discas facile discas. Hæc omnia me inscio facta sunt Sed post donec Schedæ quatuor vel quinque primores Libri secundi jam impressæ sunt et mihi ostensæ sunt in quibus erant literæ illæ duæ Epistolæ illæ duæ prædictæ D. Leibnitij mense Aprili anni 1716 scriptæ. Sed Epistola hæc nullius sunt momenti cum charta Epistola anonyma in Charta volanste septimo Iunij anni 1713 data & Gallice versa, impressa impressa fuisse esset in Belgio in Novelles Litterairs 28 Decem 1715 pag 414 cum hoc Titulo: Lettre de M. Iean Bernoulli a Bále du 7 Iunij 1713, idque ijsdem verbis [Et versio illa eadem sit cum versione ejusdem Epistolæ quæ charta quæ in Epistola Leibnitij ad D Kilmansegg] legitur. ideoque] Hanc enim versionem Dno Leibnitio ascribo eo quod is eandem oin Epistola sua ad D. Kilmansegg mense Aprili subsequente posuit. Tandum cum D. I. Bernoullius literis per manus tuas ad me transmissis negaret se authorem esse illius. E Epistolæ Charta volan et fama quod author esset, per D. Leibnitio inEt ejus amicos in mei præju per oorbem sparsa non aliter dilui posset quam per testimonium D. Bernoulli quod is author non esset, ostendi Epistolam illam D. Keill ut illi suaderem D. Bernoullinon esse authorem. Ille autem cum adduci non posset ut crederet, me inconsulto in lucem edidit quæ in suo Appendice vel P.S. scripti contra Bernoullium hæc de re extant in lucem emittit leguntur. Onus Negotium quod Onus quod in te suscepisti (inter multa tua negotia) iterum edendi secunda vice Versionem Gallicam Libri To Optices meæ permagnum est et C summam in me be neignilemram benignitatem tuam ostendit arguit, pro qua gratias esatis reddere non valeam. D. Desmaizeaux exemplar Collectionis charta prædictæ quam nuper edidit ad te mistit. Ab eo caveas. D. Moivreus septimana præterita & emendationes suas Versiones Gallicæ Libri mei de Optica ad te misit. Aliorum correctiones (siquas acceperis) minime Cures, nisi forte ne tibi forte vel molestiam nimiam vel moram creetnt. Siquæ aliæ occurrerint, hinc mittentur. Vale. quam ad D. Kilmansegg tribuebat Epistolam 13 Iunij 1713 datam tribuebat Do I Bernoullio tribuebat, eandemque gallice versam trib recitabat. Sed hæc nullius sunt momenti Cum Epistola eadem ijsdem verbis Gallice versa impressa essent in Holla Novelles Belgio in Novelles Litterairs 28 Decem. 1715 pag 414 sub hoc titulo Lettre de M. Iean Bernoulli a Bále du 7 Iunij 1713. In charta volante quæ anno 1713 alicubi in Germania impressa fuit, author hujus Epistolæ D. Bernnoullium citat tanquam a se diversum his verbis [quem admodum ab eminente quodam Mathematico dudm notatum est.] et D. Leibnitius citationem probabat. Iam vero D. Leibnitius in ejusdem Epistolæ versione Gallica citationem omisit ut Epistolam Bernoullio tribueret. Post hæc omnia cum Collectio prædicta prope impressa esset et D. I. Bernoullius 607 To Varignon after Decr 1719 SrSir Vnderstanding by yorsyours of 28 August 1719 that there is a good understanding between the Gentlemen of the Academy of Sciences & me, my desire to continue it gives is the occasion of this Mr Iohn Bernoulli wrote in a Letter to Mr Remon the late Mr Monmort dated 8 April 1717 excused himself for communicating a Probleme to Mr Leibnitz, as if representing that he had no design to challenge the English & was surprised that Mr Leibnitz should name him as the author of the Probleme & do this without his leave. And desired Mr Monmort to disabuse me & let me know how much he desired to live in amity with me, & then added. Il seroit pourtant a souhaitter qu'il voulaût bien prendre la peine d'inspirer a son ami MrKeil sentiments de douceur & de equité enverse les etrangers, pour laisser chacun en possession de ce que luy appartient de droit, et a juste litre. Car de vouloir nous exclure de tout pretention ce seraoit une injustice criant. And Mr Monmort soon after the receipt of this Letter endeavoured to reconcile us make us friends but wthwithout success because Mr Leibnitz had fathered upon Mr Bernoulli a scandalous Libel dated 7 Iune 17153; & though I doubted whether Mr Leibnitz Benoulli were the author because the author cited Mr Bernoulli as a person different from himself, & Mr Leibnitz when he began to father the Letter upon Mr Bernoulli left out the citation: yet I thought it reasonable that Mr Bernoulli should disown the Libel as publickly as Mr Leibnitz had fathered it upon him. I have since received a Letter from Mr Bernoulli dated 3 Non. Octob Iulij 1719 in wchwhich And soon after I was shewed a Letter written by Mr Mr Monmort to Dr Taylor concerning these Disputes with the Dr Taylor's Answer: but I took no copy thereof. I have since received a Letter from Mr Bernoulli dated 1 Iul 3 Non. Iulij 1719 in wchwhich wthwith many complements he endeavours to be reconciled, & for that end represents that he wrote no such Letters as that wchwhich I complained of & I returned a friendly answer, but have since received another Letter from him dated 21 Decem. 1719 n. st in wchwhich of a different humour from the former, ex expostulating wthwith one abou upon suspicion that the English are reprinting Raphsons book & making Mr Leibnitz a witness against him & that he has been dismissed the R. S. & telling me that he has Letters written by persons of othe not concerned in this national controversy, & particularly an authentic copy of a Letter written by Mronsr Monmort to Dr Taylor 18 Decem. 1718, wchwhich if he should print would decide a great part of the controversy contrary to the mind of Taylor & his followers, & And yet Ralphsons book was written & in the Press f before I knew of it & I stopt the publishing of it four years together & could stop it no longer without paying for the edition & it is not reprinting. I never thought of making Mr Leibnitz a witness agtagainst Mr Bernoulli but on the contrary look upon look upon the Author of the aforesaid Libel in citing Mr Bernoulli as a person different from himself, & Mr Leibnitz in printing this Libel with the citation, & afterwadrds omitting the citation when he fathered this Libel upon Mr Bernoully & Mr Bernoulli in denying that he was the author of the Libel, to be three good witnesses against Mr Leibnitz Mr Bernoulli has not dism been dismissed the R. S. I do not take the controversy to be national: for Mr Leibnitz spent his life in corresponding wthwith learned men of all nations & particularly wthwith Mr Bernoulli. I look upon Mr I never imployed Dr Taylor to write in my defence nor consented to it, nor think my self concerned in the dispute between him & Mr Bernoulli. I The Letters printed at the end of Rapson Book were reprinted in Holland be before I knew of it & some new ones added to them tho not in good order & smany new ones were added which have been communicated to him by the correspondents of Mr Leibnitz & the person imployed to publish them is is not an English man. And I have prevailed wthwith Dr Keill during the two last years th to suspend publishing what he has written in his against Mr Bernoulli, tho I cannot in justice hinder him constantly perpetually from defending hims.himself from the usage he has met with from persons imployed by Mr Bernoulli. Mr Leibnitz from the beginning avoided medling wthwith Mr Keill & used his utmost endeavour to engage me in person, And wnwhen the Court of Hanover came to London & Mr Bernoulli does the like Mr When the Court of Hanover came to London his friends endeavoured to make up yethe matter reconcile us in order to bring him also over to London, but they could not get me to yeild. Then make the first yeild. Then he tried to get the original Letters out of the hands of the R. S. that he might print them entire in a new Commercium Epist.: but I repretsednted that I607 I was so forfar from printing the Commercium Epist. my self that I did not so much as produce the Letters in my custody: but & for proof of this I produced two old Letters in my custody the one from Mr Leibnitz to me dated 1693 & the other from Dr Wallis to me dated 1695 wchwhich I did not produce least I should seem to make my self a witness in my own cause. And there was the same reason why Mr Leibnitz should not be allowed to write a Commercium Epist himself. And when these Letters were examined by those who kn before the R. S. by those who knew the hands they were laid up in the Archives of the R. S. And the R. S. allowed only that if Mr Leibnitz had any old Letters wchwhich he had received from England, & would send the originalls to any friend in London to she produced before the R. S. & examined by them who knew the hands & attested copies taken of theym might: the Originals might then be sent bakck to Mr Leibnitz & the Letters bee printed either in the Phil. Tr. or in Germany as Mr L. pleased. But no Letters were ever sent, but on the contrary Mr Leibnitz in his Letter to Mr Abby Conti complained that those Letters were either lost or involved in a heap of papers wchwhich would require too time & pains to search out; & SrSir By a Letter wchwhich Thre Guilder piece of Holland or piece of 60 Styrars 62∟46. 23=41∟64 57600720064800 Gulden of Hanover Zell Magdeburg Brandenburg Saxony } 23 { 28d∟14. 27∟70. 28∟67. 27∟81. 28∟12. Mark Lubs. 1s 6d 16⁤18.272∷1″. 16.270∷4.16∟4317∷1′.4″∟108 16.2140000328617∷1′.4″∟108 16.212960016∟4317∷1′.4″∟108 16.271040016∟4317∷1′.4″∟108 16.270984916∟4317∷1′.4″∟108 16.270055116∟4317∷1′.4″∟108. Cræsus king of Lydia began his reign in the first year of Evilmerodach the successor of Nebuchadnezzar Herod l. 1. 609 Reply to Varignon 26 Iuly 1719 1st Copy In autumn 1713 I received from Mr Chamberlain (who then kept a correspondence wthwith Mr Leibnitz) a flying paper in Latin dated 29 Iuly 1713, in wchwhich it was pretended that Mr Leibnitz being then at Vienna, had not seen the Commercium Epistolicum, nor had time to examin it himself, but had referred it to the judgment of a very famous Mathematician who was impartial & very able to judge of it, & that he he had received his judgment in a Letter dated 7 Iune 1713. And this Letter was inserted into the flying paper, & in the end of the Letter Mr Iohn Bernoulli was cited by the author of the Letter as a person different from himself, in these words [quemadmodum ab eminente quodam Mathematico dudum notatum est.] For these words referred to a Paper of Mr I. Bernoulli published in the Acta Eruditorum of Feb. & Mar. 1713. This Latin Edition was dispersed in loose sheets & a translation thereof into French was printed also in Holland in Mr Iohnsons the Iournal Literaire Novem. & Decem. 1713. pag. 448, 449, 450, 451. About two years after this, Mr Leibnitz sent the same another translation of the Letter of 7 Iune 1713 again into Holland, excepting that And now he omitted the citation above mentioned, was omitted. And now he & ascribed theis Letter of 7 Iune 1713 to Mr I. Bernoulli under this Title: Lettre de M. Iean Bernoulli de Belrnoulli, du 7 Iun de Iuin 1713. And what he sent was printed in the Novelles Literairs Decem. 28, 1715. pag. 414. And about four months after he wrote the Letters to Madam Kilmanseg & Count Bothmar into the first of wchwhich he inserted the same french translation.. But these Letters were not published till four years after, & contein nothing more concerning the Letter of 7 Iune 1713 ithen what had been printed in the Novelles Literairs. Mr Des-Maizeaux received copies of them from M. L'Abbé Conti in Spring 1718 in order to print a collection of the some Remains of Mr Leibnitz. And I knew nothing of the designe of printing them till they were shewed me in print: wchwhich was about a year before I received from Mr I. Bernoulli his Letter of 5 Iuly 1719; tho they did not come abroad till some months after & a year & three quarters before they came abroad.. And as Mr Bernoulli in that Letter he assured me that he wrote no such Letter to Mr Leibnitz as that dated 13 Iune 1713, & in my Answer I acquiesced in that Declaration: so I have ever since told my friends that I am satisfied that Mr Bernoulli was not the author of that Letter. And tho some of my friends do not yet beleive me, yet I have encouraged none of them to contradict me. 610 Reply to Varignon 20 Iuly 1714 2d Copy In autumn 1713 I received from Mr Chamberlain (who then kept a correspondence with Mr Leibnitz) a flying paper in Latin dated 29 Iuly 1713, in wchwhich it was pretended that Mr Leibnitz being then at Vienna, had not seen the Commerciucm Epistolicum, nor had time to examin it himself, but had referred it to the judgment of a very famous Mamathematician who was impartial & very able to judge of it & that he had received his judgement in a lettedr dated 7 Iune 1713. And this Letter was inserted into the flying paper, & in the end of the Letter Mr Iohn Bernoulli was cited by the author of the Letter as a Person different from himself in these words [quemadmodum ab Eminente quodam Mathematico dudum notatum est.] For these words referred to a Paper published by of Mr Iohn Bernoulli published in the Acta Eruditorum of Feb. et Mart. 1713 This Latin Edition was dispersed in loose sheets, & a translation thereof into French was printed also in Holland in Mr Iohnsons Iournal literaire Novem & Decem 1713 pag 448, 449, 450, 5451. About two years after this, Mr Leibnitz [began to father declare that the said Letter of 7 Iune 1713 upon was writ by Mr Leibnitz I. Bernoulli & for that end to omit the said citation in the copies of that Letter wchwhich he then sent to his friends For in November or December 1715 he wrote a letter to M. Abbé Conti with a Postscript in wchwhich were these words: suivant ce que M. Bernoulli a tres bien jugé. And at the same time he] sent into Holland the aforesaid flying paper translated into French & ascribed the Letter of 7 Iune 1713 to Mr I. Bernoulli, & therein omitted the abovementioned citation & about four months after he did the like in a letter to Madam Kilmansegg dated 18 Apr. 1716. And at the same he wrote also to Count Bothmar that Mr I. Bernoulli was the author. of What he sent into Holland was printed in the Novelles Literairs Decem 28 16 1715 pag. 414, but the Letters sent to Madam Kilmansegg & Count Bothmar were not published printed till above four years after. They were printed in Holland in Holland about two years & an half after but & came a] till 1718 printed till 1718. And I Mr Des Maizeauz received copies of them from Abbe Conti in spr spring 1718 in order to print a collection of the remains of Mr Leibnitz & I knew nothing of the design of printing them till I saw them in print which was about 1718. But the Collection was not yet complete. Mr Demaizeauz received some other Letters & Papers of Mr Leibnitz from Paris as you may understand by theis Letter of Mr Des Maizeaux to M. L'Abbe Conti 21 Aug. 1718 printed in this Collection Tome II pag. 362. And about eleven months after this when the Collection was almost printed off, I except the Preface, I received from you Mr Iohn Bernoulli's Letter dated Iuly 5 1719 in wchwhich he assured that he wrote no such Letter to Mr Leibnitz as that dated 7 Iune 1713. And in my Answer I acquiesced in that Declaration & have ever since told my freiends that I am satisified that Mr Iohn Bernoulli was not the Author of that Letter. ButAnd tho some of them will not yet beleive me, yet I have given none of them authority to contradict me. And aAbout two years after this he sent the same translation again into Holland but omittinedg only that he omitted the citation above mentioned was now omitted; & the & now ascribinedg now ascribed the Letter of 7 Iune And now he ascribed the Letter of 7 Iune 1713 to Mr I. Bernoulli: And what he sent was printed in the Novelles Literairs Decem 28 1715 pag. 414. And about four months after he inserted the Letter of 7 Iune 1713 into a Letter wchwhich he sent omitting the aforesaid citation to Madam Kilmansegg. dated 18 April 1716, cited ascribed the inserted Letter to Mr I. Bernoulli & for that end omitted there in the above mentioned citation as he had done before in what he sent to the Author of the Novelles Literairs. And at the same time he sent a Letter in a Letter wchwhich he sent to Count BotharBothmar to the same purpose he ascribed the same Letter of 7 Iun 1713 to Mr Iohn Bernoulli.. But these two Letters were not published till four years after he last spring] wrote the Letters to Madam Kilmansegg & Count Bothmar. But these Letters were not published till four years after & contein nothing more concerning the Letter of 7 Iune 1713 then what had been printed in the Novelles Literairs. Mr Des Maiseaux received copies of them in sp from L'Abby Contyi in spring 1718 in order to print a Collection of the remains of Mr Leibnitz And I knew nothing of the design of printing them till they were shewed me in print: wchwhich was some months before I received from Mr I Bernoullis yethe Letter of Iuly 5t 1719, in wchwhich he assured me that he wrote no such Letter to Mr Leibnitz as that dated 7 Iune 1713. And as In my Answer I acquiesced in that Declaration & so I have ever since told my friends that I am satisified that Mr Iohn Bernoulli was not the author of that Letter. And tho some of them my friends do not yet beleive me, yet I have given encouraged none of them authority to contradict me. When the Edomites fled from David into Egypt with their young King Hadad its probable that they carried thither also the use of letters. For letters were then in use upon the northern borders of the red sea as I gather from the writing down of the ten commandments in mount Sinai in the days of Moses where Moses wrote the law. And at the same time the fugitive Edomites might also carry Letters into Phenicia, & Chaldea. Mr Leibnitz wrote the flying Paper dated 29 Iuly 1713 as I gather partly by the phrase illaudabili laudis amore the word illaudabilis being peculiar to himself, & partly by his telling us what passed inat his travells Paris between him & Mr Hugens at Paris in his travells 38 years before, wchwhich no body in Germany could then kno And yet Mr Leibnitz in the Postscript of his Letter to M Count Bothmas tells us that one of his friends published the Letter of 7 Iune 1713 wthwith Remarques, that is with the flying paper of 29 Iuly 1713. In the beginning of this flying Paper we are told that Mr Leibnits being then at Vienna had not seen the Commercium Epistolicum: & yet two Copies of the Commercium were sent by several hands into Germany for him; & in the flying paper he tells us out of the Commercium Epist. that some of my followers had framed an accusation as if he had received from Gregory the series for squaring the circle by which deduces the magnitude of the circular arch from the Tangent though they were ignorant above 36 years that Gregory had any such series. In the same flying paper he represented that he had written that I had found something like the differential calculus; because he beleived me but now some of my friends were not content with this but gave me the first invention he began to suspect that I had formed this method after the example of the Differential. And yet in a Letter written to me in March 1693 he acknowledged that it appeared by the book of Principles that I had such a method. And yet I never told him any thing concerning this method except what in what I wrote before the year 1677 he had it or where I claimed to claimed that I hd it before him. And Dr Wallis told him (without being then contradicted) that I explained the method to him ten years after I had found it. In the Letter of 7 Iune 17131713 two arguments are brought against me me. The first is that prickt letters did not first appear be first appeared in the the third Volume of Dr Wallis's works wchwhich came abroad in the ye in 1699 wchwhich was many years after the differential Method whad prevailed every where. And yet prickt letters came abroad appeared in the second Volume of Dr Wallis's works A.C. 1693 before the differential method began to make a noise in England. The second is that I had not the true method of finding the fluxions of fluxions or differences of differences till a long time after the method of finding the differences of differences it was familiar to others: And yet my Rule for doing this was published by Dr Wallis with examples in first & in the year 16 second Volume of his works A.C. 1693, & with examples in first & second fluxions; & it is the first Rule wchwhich came abroad for doing this & also the best Prickt Letters are not necessary to the method of Fluxions. I taught the method without prickt letters in the Introduction to the Book of Quadratures & Mr Leibnitz wrote his Tract de motu corporum in Medijs resistentibus without his diffferential notation & then addedPricked Letters 612 p. 176 l. 14. So then by the testimony of Dr Barrow found upon paper wchwhich he received from Mr Newton before the publishing of the Logarithmotechnia, Mr Newton had the Method in the year 1666 or before P. 183 l. 7. In the year 1671 two Tracts written by Mr Leibnitz were published at London P. 184. In the end of Feb from London to Paris. He was hitherto unacquainted with the higher Geometry. But the Horologium oscillatorium of Mr Leibni Hugens coming out in April following, he began to learn it with reading that book,. & co He continued his correspondence till Iune with Mr Oldenburgh till about Arithmetical matters till Iune, spent the year following in studying the higher Geometry till & in Iuly 1674 began to renew his correspondence & wrote to Mr Oldenburgh that he had a wonderfull Theoreme &c P. 186. l. 3. add. For by the demonstration of those series, he meant the method of finding them. And since he wrote to Mr Oldenburg that Mr Collins could easily supply him with what he desired, he had heard of the Analysis per æquationes numero terminorum infinitas & wanted a copy of it. For at the same time he wrote also desired also that copies of All the Mr Iames Gregories Letters to Mr Collins might be sintsent to Paris. Vpon the receipt of the aforesaid Letter – P. 187. l. – friends at Paris three years before or above, that is, before August 1673 & by consequence before he understood the higher Geometry. For when he received it in Mr Oldenburghs Letter of Apr. 15 1675, he did not know it to be his own, as appears by his Answer of May 20 16675 above mentioned. P. 190 l 33. after series. Add. The same is mafnifest also from hence by that Mr Leibnitz wrote in his Letter of Aug. 27. 1676 placed the top of Analysis in ot not in the Differential but in method but in T Analytical Tables of Tangents & in the Combinatory Art; saying of one of them: Nihil est quod norim in totTOTa TOTA Analysi momenti majoris; & of the other: Ea nihil differt ab Analysi illa suprema SVPREMA, ad cujus intima Cartesius non pervenit. Est enim ad eam constituendam opus Alphabeto Cogitationum humanarum. Pag. 194 lin. 6. This Letter of Mr Leibnitz was dated Octob. 24 1676 Mr Leibnitz came to London ina second time in October 1676 & there saw Mr Newton's Letter dated Octob 2 this Letter of Mr Newton dated Octob. 24, 1676 2718⁤12″.3941″.6405′.2296⁤12′.114226′ 4.43432938.8686586. 4.59555139.1911026. 4.81324739.6264946. 5.360995210.7219904. 6.057765012.1155300. 2.9562195⁤136657608−2.2904587⁤13 30637008⁤23.23979400⁤23.0.6657608⁤23. 3.2088315⁤13.6657608⁤23.2.5430706⁤23. 3.5739968.236657608⁤23.2.9082359⁤13 4.0385100⁤236657608⁤233.3727491⁤13 1∟95165. 2,5. 3.49196 8∟0953 23∟5911 0 0 3.49196 0 0 1∟95. 2∟5. 3∟49 8∟1 23∟6 1∟95. 2∟5. 3∟49 8∟09 23∟58 19695539. 72880∷ 1436,22300 1148978400 114897840 02872446000 100535610000 104671932240 98477695000 6194237200 5908661700 285575540 196955290 38620150 78782156 9837994 9847000 14362230− 53145− 14309085+ 0 0 (53145000− 0 144)22751200(157855 083500000 072200001315460 011310000 010080000 01232000 01152000 080000 072200 07800 2843900000 473983300 78997220 13166203 Adt=temp. Ap=veloc: ascensus. Ak=resist. Afsq=spatio horizontali 613 To Varignon before Nov. 17 1718 SrSir I have been long indebted my thanks to you for several presents of the annual Memoirs of your Academy & now return them to you very heartily. I thank you also for the present you umade me of Almanacks filled with all variety of things relating to time. And I beg the favour that you will be pleased to return my thanks to Mr Fontenell for the honourable mention made of wchwhich he made of me in the Elogium upon Mr Leibnitz. I was lately told th as from your self that you had done me no injury nothing against me in all that dispute & I beleive it & thank you for your friendship. [By the contrivance of some of the Court of Hannover Mr l'Abbe Conti prevailed with I was prevailed with to write an Answer to a Postscript of a Letter of which Mr Leibnitz wrote to Mr l'Abbé Conti that both might be shewed to the King. But while the Commerciumcium Epistolicum remains unshaken I see no need of my medling with that Controversy any further unless perhaps I should cause that peice Book to be reprinted, or write a short Preface to the Book De Quadratura fig Curvarum to shew that that Book (which has been accused of Plagiary) was in MS in the year before Mr Leibnitz knew any thing of the Differential Method.] A few weeks ago I sent you a copy of a new edition of my English Opticks by [The Latin Edition is almost reprinted.] By the contrivance of some of the Court of Hannover I was prevailed with to write an Answer to the Postscript of a Letter written by Mr Leibnitz to Mr l'Abbe Conti, that both might be shewed to the King. [I did it with reluctance for I looked upon it as a designe to make of Mr Leibnitz to make the Court of Hannover Iudge of the Controversy & thereby to imbroile me The proper question was whether the method of fluxions described in the Book of Quadratures was a piece of plagiary as has been represented in the Acta Eruditorum for Ianuary 1705. Mr Leibnitz & his friends have avoided this proving me guilty & I have forbid my friends from medling with any other questions] You me] Bu its as The meaning may be I did it with reluctancy. And I since convinced that Mr by the Letters wchwhich Mr Leibnitz thereupon wrote to several at Court I soon found that he was at the bottom of the designe. It is now above 20 years since I left of the study of Mathematicks & Philosophy & above 40 since I left of all correspondence by Letters about these matters Mathematicks & Philosophy, & therefore I say nothing further to you about those matters 00316 01903. 114226 22864210753583.070000. 0,52196. Quod gratiæ libros Acta Philosophica a Secretario Academiæ vestræ annuatim editasor ad me aliquoties misisti gratiæ meæ tibi debentur easque quam maximas tibi reddo; ut et pro exemplaribus Ephemeridum omni rerum varietate refertois & pro secundo Exemplari Actorum anni 1714.. Et oro ut ut gratias meas etiam Dno Fontenel Academiæ vestræ Secretariæo etiam reddas eo quod in Elogio Dni Leibnitij honorifice de me locutus sit. Nuper mihi narratum est tuo nomine te in controversia supra Leibnitiana nihil contra me fecisse eaque de re tibi etiam gratias ago. ✝ Iam quadraginta sunt anni et amplius ex quo commercium per literas circa res Philosophicas & mathematicas habere desij ideoque de controversia illa Leibnitiana nihil tibi scribo. Eademque de causa, molestiam tibi amplius creare nollem mittendi annuatim ad me tua dona Philosophica. Nam et Senio enim confectus reb a rebus Philosophicis et mathematicis quantum per negotia Societatis Regalis licet, me abstinereo; & quod D. Leibnitio respondi ægre effectūum est consilijs Aulicorum. Dona tamen tua plurimi facio quatenus sunt honorifica amicitiæ tuæ testimonia. Vale et eodem animo ✝ mMisi tibi nuper exemplar novæ Editionis Libri Opticorum Anglice, & missurus sum exemplar Editionis Latinæ quam primum prodierit. Vale Viro celeberrimo Dn. Abbati de Varignon in Academia Scientiarum Parisijs Isaacus Newton salutem. Add. 3968614 To Iohn Bernoulli before Iuly 5t 1719 or answer to of Iuly 5t 1719 2d Copy Vir dignissime Celeberrime Cum primum Literas tuas ad me mediante Dno Abbate Varignone missas acceperam, et ex ijs intellexeram te non esse authorem Epistolæ cujusdam ad D. Leibnitijūum 7 Iunij 1713 datæ, in animum statim induxi me non tantum lites mathematicas nuper commotas negligere velle (id enim prius feceram) sed etiam amicitiam tuam colere et ob ingentia tua in rem mathematicam merita magni æstimare. Famam apud exteras gentes numquam captavi, sed nomen tamen probitatis, salv quod auctor illius Epistolæ, quasi autoritate magni alicujus Iudicis, convellere conatus est, salvum esse cupio. Studijs Mathematicis jam senex minime delector, neque opinionibisus per orb orbem propagandis operam unquam dedi sed caveo potius ne earum gratia disputationibus involvar. Nam Lites semper odi. et conabor etiam ut amici mei a litibus commotis abstineant. Humanum fuit et gratias meretur quod libros Optices ad te missos benigne accipere dignatus fueris Et hoc etiam nomine me tibi devinxisti, et ami humanitatem tuam amicitia mutua rependere canabor. Quæ sub finem libri D. Ralphson im- ante triennium impressa fuerunt; iterum impressa sunt idque menses aliquot idque in Hollandia una cum nonnullis D. Leibnitij Epistolis in quibus affirmat te authorem fuisse esse Epistolæ prædictæ. Vtrum lucem videbunt necne nondum possum affirmare Si ista lucem tandem videant (quod minime cupio) nollem,) spero quod hoc minime nocebunt te minime officient, cum non sis Auctor ille. Quantum in me est litibus componendis operum dabi. Vale In editione secunda Libri mei Principiorum postulabat D. Cotes ut Corol. I Prop. XIII Lib. I demonstratione munirem, et ea occasione Corollarium illud verbis nonnullis auxi: SEd hoc factum est antequam hæ listes cœeperunt. Nam schedæ primæ viginti octo illius editionis, (id est usque ad pag. 224 inclusive) impressæ fuerunt ante 13 Apr. 1 13, 1710, et schedæ primæ 37 triginta septem (id est usque ad pag 296 inclusive) impressæ fuerunt ante 30 Iunij 1710, et prelum subinde quievit usque ad mensem Iunium anni proximi sequentis, ut ex Literis Dni Cotes eo tempore ad me missis intell et adhuc asservatis intelligo. Corollarium igitur auctum fuit & impressum fuit Scheda igitur septima in qua Corollariūum illud extat, impressa fuit anno 1709. Et haoc annoto ut intelligas me nondum lites tecum isse. contendere cæpisse tecum lites habere. Litibus autem componendis me animo candido Corollarium illud auxisse et hactesnus nullas tecum lites agitasse. Litibus autem componendis quas cum amicis meis habuisti, quantum in me est componendis operam dabo.Answer to NovrNovember 3d 10 Iuly 1719 615 Nova non sunt sed continent tantum explicationem pleniorem eorum To Bernoulli 26th Iuly 1719 2d Copy Vir dignissime Cum primum literas tuas ad me mediante Dno Abbate Varignonio missas acceperam, & ex ijs intellexeram te non esse authorem authorem Epistolæ ad D. Leibnitium 7 Iunij 16 1713 datæ, cœpi amicitiam tuam in animum statim induxi, me non tantum lites mathematicas nuper commotas negligere velle (id enim prius feceram) sed etiam amicitiam tuam colere, et ad insignia merita tua et ob insignia tua in rem literariam merita magni æstimare. Famam apud exteras gentes numquam captavi ✝ sed nomen tamen probitatis, ep quod auctor illius Epistolæ (quasi auctoritate magni alicujus Iudicis) convellere conatus est, salvum esse cupiao: Et cum ipse adhutc ting se ignotum esse velit, lateat Et cum ipse adhuc lateat, gudi Sed cum ipse Et cum Iudex ille adhuc lateat, cessat vacillat ejus actoritas. [Humanum est fuit, et gratias meretur, quod libros Optices ad te missos accipere, dianatus b benigne fueris, & hoc etiam nomine me tibi devinxisti]. Studijs Mathematicis jam senex mineme delector✝ ✝ Studijs mathematicis jam Senex minime delector Neque opinionibus meis hactenus in lucem editis, per orbem propagandis operam do, unquam dedi sed caveo potius ne earum gratia quæ in lucem editæ sunt, disputationibus involvar. Lites semper odi, et conabar ut etiam amici mei a litibus nuper commotis abstineant. Humanum fuit & gratias meretur quod libros Optices ad te missos benigne accipere dignatus fueris: Et hoc etiam nomine me tibi devinxisti. Liberrumrum Principiorum scribebam scriptus fuit scripsscripsi anno 1685 & mensibus quatuor primis anni sequentis brevitate temp & Societate Po isque ob brevitatem temporis et im non satis correctus lucem vidit. In Editione secunda Postulabat D. Cotes ut Corollarium primūum Propositionis XIII demonstratione munirem et ts in Editione secunda et ut ei satisfacerem verba quædam addidi ad Corolarium illud addidi. Demonstrationem Constructionis Prop XVII non opposui propterea quod corpus in Sectione Conica per Constructionem prodeunte, movebitur per Prop. XX XI, XII et XIII antea demonstratas., & lites semper odi, & conabor ut etiam amici mei ab his litibus abstineant. sed nomen tamen probitatis apud omnes salvum esse cupio ut Et Cum autem auctor illius Epistolæ denotat sit & non appareat ignotus maneat, adhuc ignotus sit maneat, accusationes quibus immerito eadem referta est ll nullius esse debent erunt fidei. Nam 3 Literæ utique punctatæ non in secundo operum Wallisij Volumine apparuere. 2 In Principijs natura Naturæ Mathematicis per compositionem utique scriptis, calculo fluxionem utendi nullam habui occasionem. In Introductione ad Quadra librum de Quadraturis, methodus fluxionum absque literis punctatis docetur & exemplis illustratur Et Elementæ ejus Extant in Lem. 2 Lib. II Princip:. 5 Methodus Regula capiendi fluxiones primas secundas tertias &c verissima exhibetur & exemplis illustratur et aliam Regulam dedi nullam. 4 In Propositione prima secundo libri de Quadraturis anno 1693 a Wallisio edita anno ineunte 1693, id est antequam a Wallisio edita 6 et Propositio illa totidem syllabis ad literas citatur in Epistola mea ad Oldenburgum 24 Octob 1676 data]. et elementa methodi extant absque litteris illis in Lem 2 Lib. II Princip. 4 Et in Propositione prima 1 libri 2 de Quadraturis anno ineunte 1693 a Wallisio edita, Regula capiendi fluxiones primas secundas tertias & sequentes verissima exhibetur & eximqilis illustratur et aliam Regulam dedi nullam. & Propositio illa autem ad literam citatur fuit in Epistola mea ad Oldenburgum 24 Octob. 1676 data. 5 Et incrementum constans ipsius x adhuc designo per literāam o Scilicet In Introductione ad librum de Quadraturis methodus fluxionum docetur et absque literis exemplis illustratur absque literis punctatis, et elementa methodi extant absque literis illis in lib Lem. II lib. II. Princip. In Principijs Naturæ Mathematicis illis per Compositionem utique scriptis, calculo fluxionum utendi nullam habui occasionem. Literæ punctatæ & Propositio prima libri de Quadraturis, apparuere in secundo Volumine & & quæ Regulam mea meam continet capiendi fluxiones omn primas secundas tertias aliasque omnes continet, apparuere in secundo Volumine operum Wallisij anno ineunte 1693, et aliam Regulam dedi nullam. Et incrementum constans ipsius x adhuc designo per literāam o. Sed Author illius Epistolæ hæc omnia pervertit. 615 In Editione Libri sed Principiorum postulabat D. Cotes ut Corol. 1. Prop XIII lib 10 Princip Demonstrationemtione munirem Et ut ei satisfacerem: Et ea occasione Corollarium verbis nonnullis auxi. SedEt hoc factum est antequam hæ lites ceperunt. Nam Ed Schedæ primæ 28 aid est usque ad pag 224 inclusive impressæ fuerunt ante Apr 13 1710 et schedæ primæ 37 primæ 2837 Editiones illas (id est usque ad pag. 296 inclusive) impressæ fuerunt ant 13 A ante 30 Iune 1710, et prelum subinde quievit per annum usque ad mensem Iunium anni proximi ut ex Literis D. Cotes eo tempore ad me missis colligo intelligo. Hoc annoto ut intelligas me nondum cœpisse tecumVarignon lites habere. Letter of Newton to Varignon— Literas tuas amicissimas accepi, et gratias reddo tibi quam maximas quod exemplaria duo Optices ad D. Iohannem Bernoulli meo nomine misisti & eo pacto re nos reconciliare non taxtum conatus fueris quod et f fecisti; ut ex literis ejus intelligo. Nam Nam D. Leibnitius Litere Epistolis Literis Epistolis aliquot quas videiram pluribus pluribus ab ipsa subscriptis, disertis verbis affirmabat affimaverataffirmaverat D. Bernoullium authorem esse Epistolæ ad ipsum, 7 Iunij 1713, scriptæ et alicubi mox in Germania impressæ & per orbem literarium sparsæ: qua Epistola affirmatur ② accusor quasi ☉ ② literæ punctatæ primum prodiret in tertia volumine Wallisij nostri p in Principijs Naturæ mathematicis calculo fluxionum utendi frequentem habuissem occasionem cum tamen literæ punctatæ ibi nullæ si mihi calculus ille tunc notas fuisset cum tamen liber ille scriptus esset sit per methodum Compositiones. quam calculus Algebraicus ingredi nota debet. Et quod hæ literæ punctatæ ③ Et quod hæ literæ prima vice comparuerunt in tertio volumine Wallisij operum Wallisij, multis annis postquam calculis differentialis jam ubique locorum invaluisset cum tamen comparuerint in secundo volumine operum ejus quod antequ anno ineunte 1693 antequam calculus differentialis celebra desumptæ utique ex literis meis anno 1692 ad ipsūum scriptis, id est antequam calculus differentialis celebrari cœpit. ④⑤ Et quod Regulam circa gradus ulteriores differentiarum falsam dedi, et recta methodus differentiandi differentialia mihi non innotuesit longo tempore postquam alijs familiaris fuisset familiaris cum tamen Regula circa gradus ulteriores in Propositione prima libri de Quadraturis a me data, et verissima essit et simplicissima et generalissima & omnium prima in lucem prodijt, (videlicet in secundo volumine operum. Wallisij ineunte anno 1693), et Propositio illa in Epistola mea a anno 1676 Octob 24 totidam tb ad Leinitium missa ijsdem syllabis expressa habeatur. Ac denique quod quasi quæ a me absque literis punctatis scripta sunt ad methodum fluxionum nil spectarent ① qdquod ea omnia ☉ quæ in Commercio Epistolico citantur ad methodum fluxionum nil spetant ob defectum literarum punctatarrum cum tamen sine literis punctatis in Lemmate scundosecundo libri secundi principiorum elementa hujus methodi sine literis punctatis verbis expressis proponam ac expresse proponam ac demonstrem & in proæmio libri de Quadraturis methodum ipsam expresse doceam et exemplis illustrem, nullis adhibitis literis punctatis adhibitis. ② et quod Accusor Etiam quod ④ Et quod in Principijs Naturæ mathomaticismathematicis calculo &c et ④ quod in Principijs utar litera o pro fluxio incremento constante ipsius x, quod method commoda destruit cum tamen eadem adhuc utar eadem litera o in eodem sensu. Authorem Epistolæ hujusmodi affirmationibus & corruptis accusationibus refertæ indignum judicabam quiocum amicitiam colerem. Sed cum D. Bernoullius eandem minime scripserit, ut ex literis ejus jam didici, non est cur diutius abstineam ab ejus amicitia. 6 t Hæc omnia Author Epistolæ affirmantur ut me plagiarij reum ag earet, Quo casu author Epistolæ ideoque calumniæ reus est ipse nisi crimen probet. Quo effectum est ut ab amicitia D. Bernoulli hactenus abstinendumrerim. Sed cum D. Bernoullius ille epistolam illam eandem minime scripserit, ut ex literis ejus jam didici, non est cur diutius abstineam Ideoque Literas inclusas ad ipsum deirexi scripsi, quas oro ut ubi rursus ad ipsum scribendi occasionem nactus fueris, literis tuis includas. Oro etiam ut Gratias aetiāam reddas meas Academiæ vestræ quod ob munere quæ meunera annua Historiæ suæ Academiæ vestræ annuatim ad me missæ, te curante ut intelligas me animo candido Corollarium illud auxisse, et nullas tecum lites hactenus inijsse. Litibus autem Quæ sub finem libri D. Rapshson ante triennium impressa cta sunt, fuer iterum impressa sunt in Hollan esse intelligo, idque in in Hollandia An lucem videbunt ha nondum scio. m D. Bernoulli lites nondum habuit At neque habebo sed e contra conabor non tantum [uUt lites inter illum et amicos meos eessentessent conabor Sed Dn setd etiam ut ejus amicitia fru aor. Vid Dignissime Illustrissime Quod Academia vestra munisusculum meum Libri Opticesum benigne accipere dignatus fuerit est, a te gratissimum fuit audire a tente ex literis tuis intelligere, et gaudium auxit quod plurimum intelligere audire quod Edition priimaprima ipsis antea innotuisset & quod jam scire non dedignarentur quid additum sit in hac nova editione. In hoc libro Philosophia hypothetica abstinere conot philosophiam experimentalem hic commendare & prosequior tanquam dignam quæ Philosophia vocoetiur, & philosophiam hypothetam tracto non ut scientiam sed ut per modum questionum. Et quæ ad in hac Editione addidi sunt posterioris generis. Hac occasione gratias tibi persolvere debeo quam maximas ob honoris ficem quos in me contulisti in elogio D. Leibnitij. Et quo minus commemorationem istam tam honorificam textum a te merui, eo mgagis tibi devinxisti servuutu Mons Domine Servum tuum humillimum et maxime obedientem Fundamentum posuisti terminandi liteis circa methodos novas Analyticas & spero quod cito terminabuntur: Et Quo minus autem hæc a te merui, eo magis tibi devinxisti Servum tuum humillimum, et max obed. 616 2 To chamberlen of 3 To Des Maizeu SrSir Mr Bernoulli in his book a Letter to me of Decem 21 1719, seems to writes upon suppositions suppositions that Mr Raphson's book was printed with my consent & has been reprinted by my friends; that the controversy in Englan about the differential method is national, & all persons those of other nations then Englishand & Germany are unconcerned & threatens me wthwith publishing some of their Letters some of whose letters he can publish unless the English desist to provoke him, that I can stop the publishing of them papers against him in England; & particularly that the two Letters of Mr Leibnitz are printed in wchwhich Mr Bernoulli is said to tbe the author of the letter of 7 Iune 1713 are printed here by my friends; & that I admit Mr Leibnitz to be a witness in his own cause against him Mr Bernoulli him; & that Mr Bernoulli he has been dismissed the R. Society. You know how all this matter stands & I beg the favour that you would signify it to Mr l'Abby Varignon. [It is now for above 40 years since I left off all forreign correspondence by Letters about Mathematicks & Philosophy, & much more am I averse from disputes A about those things] You know that Mr Ratphsons book is not reprinted nor concerns Mr Bernoulli. that Mr Leibnitz kept a general correspondence & has friends in England, & France & other countries as well as in Germany that some of themose have been in England in England have been collecting his remains & p in honour of his memory & that The two letters above mentioned are in this collection.; that & I have no hand in what they do, that Mr Bernoulli is not dismissed the R. Society; that The Letter of 7 Iune th 1713 is reflected upon by the in the Elogium of Mr Leibnitz & that the if was translated into French & printed in Holland & there ascribed to Mr Lei Bernoulli fo four years ago; that is it is reflected upon in the Elogium of of Mr Leibnitz, & therefore it was sent into France as well as into England; that the in The author of tThis Letter, as it was at first printed in Germany, cited Mr I Bernoulli as a person different from himself, but in the french citation th translation is omitted this citation is omitted that & this omission of what was at first printed has mad in order to father yethe letter upon Mr Bernoulli, has made me question the testimony of Mr Leibnitz, & that in my answer to one of his Letters three years before I received Mr Bernoulli's declaration that he was not the author thereof. & that And after I received that Declaration I acquiesced therein without thinking of admitting Mr Leibnitz a witness against Mr Bernoulli & I I gave Mr Bernoulli notice of what those what Mr Leibnitz had written tonot to question his Mr Bernoullis Declaration, but as a friend tohat he might not be surprized hereafter at what Mr the friends of Mr Leibnitz were publishing:, & And Mr I. Bernoulli heas not been dismissed the R. S. but is still a Fellow thereof. I believe that you know all this, & beg the favour that you would signify your knowledge to M if you are satisfyed, you would signify your satisfaction to Abby Varignon. For Mr Bernoulli will beleive you tooo sooner then me. I beg the favour also that you would send to Abby Varinion the inclosed copy of the defamatory letters of 7 Iune 1713 & 29 Iuly ×× 17131673 printed in Germany & dispersed that autum in great numbers by the friends of Mr Leibnitz & desire him to communicate it to Mr Bernoulli that he many know what Letter it is that Mr Leibnitz has endeavoured to fathered upon him. As for Mathematicks: the Ancients had two methods, Synthesis & Analysis or Composition & Resolution. They invented things by their Analysis but admitted nothing into Geometry without a Geometrical synthetical Demonstration. & when they had demonstrated any thing synthetically they made use of it as a Lemma for Demonstrating any thing else. 617 SrSir I have received a letter from Mr Iohn Bernoulli full of such misunderstandings as may require some further testimony then my own to sett then right. Mr Ralphson h You know that Mr Ralpson hath been dead these seven years. His book was in the press You know that Mr Ralphsons book is not printed was printed seven years ago, without my approbation & came published three years ago & is not reprinted nor worth reprinting, M f A & I had The two Letters of Mr Leibnitz in wchwhich he affirstmes that Mr Bernoulli wa the Letter of 7 Iune 17013 was writ by Mr Iohn Bernoulli we were printed above a year ago without my knowledge by a friend of Mr Leibnitz w with who has collected & printed many others of his Letters in honour of his memory. And I have nothing to do in that matter, & am so far from making Mr Leibnitz a witness against Mr I. Bernoulli that I have openly declared the contrary that I look upon the testimony of Mr I: Bernoulli & Mr Leibnitz t together to be good evidence against Mr Leibnitz. For the author of the said Letter cited Mr I. B. in the body of the Letter as a another person different from himself. Mr Leibnitz at in the year 1 1713 pubblished the Letter wthwithout that citation & thereby declared to declared to the world that Mr Iohn Bernoulli was not the author. But afterwards in a french translation he of the Letter de declared that omitted that citation & wrote in his Letters that Mr Iohn Bernoulli was the author & thus by varying from citation & wrote in his Letters that Mr Iohn Bernoulli was the author, & thus by varying from himself he hath destroyed his own testimony. You know also that out of a desire to be at rest from squabbles & to let Mr Leibnitz rest in his grave I have neglected these this controversy the three last years, & am very averse from disturbing Mr Leibnitz in his grave. Mr Bernoulli in his letter of Decem. 21. 1719 writes to me upon suppositions that the book of Mr Ralpsons book was printed with my consent & has has been reprinted ☉ ☉ by my friends that I have a hand in the controversy about the differential method is national that whate is printed in England is printed by my consent; for me & by my consent that I the Letters of Mr Leibnits are printed against him, that I have a hand in am consented to them printing them, &that he has been dismissed the R. Society., that tells mee that he has a Letter of Mr & upon these suppositions threatens me wthwith printing some letters in his custody & part enorly a Letter of Mr Monmort to Mr Taylor dated 18 Decem 1718. To Iohn Bernoulli SrSir I do not take the controversy about the differential method to be national, nor is every thing written or printed in England written or printed by my order or by my advice, or with my consent. Mr Ralphson wrote & printed before the Commercium Epistolicum came abroad & his book was in the press before I knew of it, & I stopt its coming abroad for three or four years. It was published three years ago & & is not reprinted. The two Letters wherein Mr Leibnitz represents that you were the the author of the letter dated 7 Iune 1713, were printed above a yeare ago by a friend of Mr Leibnitz who has been collecting his remains & I knew nothing of the matter till I saw the Letters in print. A I do not admitt Mr Leibnitz a witness against y ou, but have told my friends that I admit the author of that Letter, Mr Leibnitz, & you, to be three witnesses against Mr Leibnitz. You are not dismissed the R. Society. In the introduction to the book of Quadratures I affir The Book of Quadratures being The reductions of Problemes to Quadratures being the first degree of the inverse method of fluxions I wrote in the Introduction to that Book that I found the method of fluxions gradually in the years 1665 & 1666. This has been contradicted by Mr Leibnitz & his friends, & particularly by the author of the aforesaid Letter of 7 Iune 1713. I never meant to affirm that River 708 fooot broad.. So solid Peers in 17 arches 30 foot Depth 21 foot at a medium 708.230∷21. 630708 feet 630,12 dig 708=63059 dig. =64060 dig =10 dig ⁤23 dig.  p. 250 l. 1. In eadem Analysi Newtonus posuit secundam Propositionem Libri de Quadraturis dixitque (pag 230, lin. 13) dixitque Curvarum areas &c. Denique cum hglinus crederet sibi fa esse crederet has tuas Literas amice scriptas quas publici juris facere, id is easdem paucis t tribus tantum vel quatuor & tantum amicis privatim ostendit, ut eos convinceret te non Ille porro huic meæ quætioniquæstioni benigne respondistse Equitis erratici nomen D. Leibnitium in prima sua ad Abbatem de Comitibus Epistola numerum discipulorum ejus suorum jactasse; & se ad ejus verbas allusisse loqueri de exercitu æequitems erraticumos non simul cum exercitu sed solum belligerare singulos pugnare; & hos nomen equitis erratici non ad prelium sed ad duelliuim spectare. 2 Præterea testatur, ipso inscio – – – – accepit ostensæ. Et quod chartam D. Des Maizeaus chartas collectas nec & initio secundæ contul Et quod EDes Mazeauz chartas D. Leibnitij collegit & easque accepit partim ant ab ipso Leibnitio paulo ante obitum suum ejus, & partim ab Abbate de Comitibus, uti constat ex epistolisa D: Leibnitij ad Abbate D. Des-Maizeaus 21 Aug. 1716, et epistola D. Des-Maizeausz ad Abbatem de Comitibus 21 Aug. 1718. in secundo collectionūum volumine impressis pag 355, & 362. Adde quod Newtonus asserat collectionem hanc prope impressam esse cum primas tuas Literas accepit ipsumque disputationes inter te et Keilium ipsum minime curasse. uptote Oxonium utique ubi Keilius vixit, abestse a Londino miliaribus prope 50. Newtonums Commercia PmhlilosophicaPhilosophica et Mathematica jam odisse, & [disputationes fuerunt ill præteritæ verbosæ fuerunt et nullius fere momenti.] D. Leibnitiusm conatusm estsse disputationēem a seipso ad D. Bernoulliūum transferre, et eapropter Newtonusm ab lites contra ipsum Bernullium nondum scripsitsse, neque in animo habere ut scribat. Ille porro huic meæ quæstioni benigne respondit, se vocando dicendo te primas tenere inter D. Leibnitij discipulos, D. Leibnitium in prima sua ad Abbatem de Comitibus Epistola numerum discipulorum suorum jactasse & se ad initio Epistolæ suæ secundæ scripsisse Mais pqus il [Newton] velut bien paroitre luy mem, Ie s eray bien aise de luy donner satisfaction Sed cum is jam [Newtonus] per se jam lubens apparebit, paratus sum ipsi satisfactionem dare. Et addidit; et addidit se ad Leibnitij verba priora allusisse loquendo vel de prælio cu prælio cum exercitu discipulorum Leibnitij vel & ad posteriora de Duello cum ipso Leibnitio:. eEquites erraticos utique non ad prælium sed ad duellum spectare. Verba autem sua in Observationibus iquas scripsit in Epistolāam illam secundam, vizt [& Mathematicks must henceforward be filled with Atchievements in knight errantry instead of reasons & demonstrations] Mathesis factis heroicis vice rationum ac demonstrationum abhinc implenda esset] alludunt ad disputationes circa philosophicas & problematicas quæ ad rem nil spectant, introductas ad quas (non Bernoullius sed ) Leibnitius afugit, vice rationum ac demonstrationum ab antiquis Epistolis et Monumentis na desumptarum quæ solæ ad rem spectant. Et A posterioribus ad priores non Bernoullius sed Leibnitius confugit. Præterea Newtonus testatur, ipso inscio, supradictam collectionem editam fuisse, donec schedæ quatuor vel quinque primæ Tomi secundi impressæ essent, ex Hollandia missæ & ei ostensæ. Et observat etiam quod collectio ailla fuit Chartarum D. Leibnitij, quodque quque quoꝫd D. Des-Maizeaux eas accepit in hunc finem par ab ipso Leibnitio et ejus amicis, uti constat ex epistola D. Des Leibnitij etad D Des Maizeaux 21 Aug 17186, et Epistola D. Des Maizeaux ad Abbatem de Comitibus 21 Aug. 1718 in secundo Collectionum Tomo impressis pag. 355 & 362. Adde quod Newtonus asserat collectionem hanc prope impressam esse cum primas tuas Literas accepit: [et quod eas mittendo tanquam remedium contra injuriam publicam, licentiam illi dedisti easdem in lucem edendi, si ita illi visum fuisset, & multo magis easdem cum amicis privatim cum quibuscumque privatim communicandi.] Denique scribit Newtonus Et se credidisse quod tu Literas eas mittendo tanquāam remedium contra injuriam publicam, licen illi licentiam dedisses easdem in in lucem edendi si ita illi visum fuisset, & multo magis eas privatim communicandi communicandi: et Cum autem autctor Iudicij 7 Iun. 16713 dati, te citaret tanquam a seipso diversum, et D. Leibnitius Iudicum illud cum hac citatione mox edi curaret, & post biennium in Versione Gallica citationem omitteret ut te Iudicij auctorem faceret: Newtonus insuper scribit se in Observationibus suis in secundam D. Leibnitij ad Abbatem de Comitibus epistolam, se ob rationes ibi traditas de Auctre Iudicij 7 Iun. 1713 dati, illius adhuc (ob rationes illi traditas) dubitarsse, his verbis [And whether the Mathematician be or Mr Leibnitz is to be beleived I do not know.] Postquam vero Literas tuas prædictas accepit quibus negasti te auctorem illius fuisse, se fidem ijsdem habuisse, et ut Keilium contradicentem convinceret, Literas tuas illi ostendisse sed nullam illi licentiam dedisse aliquid ex ijsdem edendi, nec vidisse quæ edebat antequam in lucem prodiere, & cum tunc eum culpasse objurgasse quod ex literis ei privatim ostensis aliquid edeidetisset absque venia ostendentis, idque disputandi in contrarium. Denique scribit Newtonus, quod cum auctor Mathematicus Iudicij 7 Iun. 1713 dati, te citaret tanquam a seipso diversum & D. Leibnitius Iudicium illud cum hac citatione mox edi curaviret, & post biennium in Versione Gallica citatationem omisit & omittere secundum D. Leibnitij ad Abbatem de Comitibus epistolam de Auctore Iudicij illius dubitasse his verbis [And whether the Mathematician is to be or Mr Leibnitz is to be beleived I do not know; id est, Et Vtrum Mathematicus ille vel D. Leibnitius credendus sit, non scio.] Postquam vero Literas tuas prædictas acceperat quibus negasti te auctorem illius fuisse, se fidem ijsdem habuisse, et ut Keilium contradictentem convinceret, Literas tuas illi ostendisse, sed nullam illi licentiam dedisse aliquid ex ijsdem edendi, nec vidisse quæ edebat antequam in lucem prodiere; & tunc eum culpasse objurgasse quod ex literis ei privatim ostensis aliquid edidisset absque venia ostendentis, idque disputando in contrarium. Denique se cum Auctor Iudicij 7 illius te ci 7 Iulij 7 Iun. 1713 dati te citatret tanquam a seipso diversum, & D. Leibnitius idem Iudicium illud cum hac citatione primum edi cu mox edi curavet;, & post biennium in Versione Gallica citationem omitteret ut te Iudicij auctorem faceret: Newtonus observatscribit se in Observationibus suis in secundam Leibnitij Epistolam ad Abbatem de Comitibus Epistolam se de auctore Iudicij adhuc illius adhuc dubitasse, his verbis: And whether the Mathematician or Mr Leibnits is to be beleived I do not know. Postquam vero Literas literas tuas prædictas accepit quibus negasti te auctorem illius fuisse, ille fidem ijsdem habuitsse, & ut Keilium contradicentem conviceret Literas tuas illi ostendisse., sed nullam illi licentiam dedisse aliquid ex ijsdem edendi, nec vidisse quæ edebat antequam in lucem prodiere; & tunc se eum objurgasse quod ex literis ei privatim ostensis aliquid ederet asq absque venia, idque disputando in contrarium. Denique tse ad lites inter te et Keilium Denique Keilium Oxonij scripsisse quod milliaribus prope 50 Londino absiest. Denique se literis tuis fidem habuisse, easque Keilio ostendisse ut eum convinceret, ipsi vero nullam dedisse licentiam ut aliquid ex ijs ederet & cum objurgasse quod Denique Keilium adversus te suo Marte scripsisse idque Oxonij, et se lites illas vix aut ne v neglexisse, & se litteris tuis modo jam dictis fidem habuisse, easque Keilio contradicenti privatim ostendisse ut eum convinceret, (scilicet te non fuisse (sed frustra, & nec literas Keilij atd te subinde scripstas non vidisse antequam in lucem prodirent, eum se vero et Keilium quasi litibus ob novisum su,tudentem mox objurgasse et Keilium mox subinde mox objurgasse quasi litibus novis studentem. And Homer was of about the same age. For when Vlysses went to Troy he left his family in Ithaca under the care of Mentor. And heHomer lived And Homer afterwards lived sometime with Mentor in Ithaca, & there learnt of him many things of him concerning Vlysses. For Vlysses, when he went to Troy, left mann his family under the care of Mentor. And Herodotus tells us that Homer & Hesiod were not above 400 years older then himself. And Homer was of about the same age. For [Mentor was acquainted with Vlysses in Ithaca & Homer afterwards] he lived sometime with Mentor, in Ithaca & there learnt of him many things concerning Vlysses wthwith whom Mentor had there been personally acquainted. And Now Herodotus the oldest historian of the Greeks now extant tells us that Homer & Hesiod & Homer were not above 400 years older then himself. And by consequence, they [were contemporary to Pygmaleon & Dido, & the taking of Troy was not above one generation earlier] They flourished therefore about 110 or 120 years after the death of Solomon, & the taking of Troy was but one generation earlier.