Draft letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Pierre Varignon and others

Monsieur

Ie me donne l'honneur de vous ecrire à loccasion de ce que M. B{unnet} má marqui dans une de ses lettres que vous n'aviez pas encorre vû ce que M. Bernoulli <595r> 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 <594v> 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.

Literas tuas amicissimas accepi, et gratias reddi|o| 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 {illeg} 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{illeg} in Lemmate secundo libri secundi Principiorum et et Introductione ad librum de Quadraturis \{illeg}/ Elementa methodi fluxionum demonsta|e|ntur {sic} et methodus ipsa doce\a/tur & exemplis illustretur \{illeg}/ nullis literis puntatis {sic} adhibitis. Affirmat etiam quod prima vice hæ literæ punctatæ comparuerunt in volumine tertio volumine o|O|perum Wallisij, multis annis postquam Calculus differentialis jam ubi locorum invaluisset: cum tamen comparuerint in \secun/ volumine secundo operum ejus, desumptæ uti ex literis meis anno 1692 \mense/ ad ipsum scriptis id est antequam methodus \calculus/ differentialis \ubi/ celebrari cœpit.] {illeg}|E|t authorem illius Epistolæ ut hominem \calumniatorem/ improbum spectabam. Sed s|c|um D. Bernoullius non sit ejus author, amicitiam ejus lubentissime amplector et colo. {illeg} Et eo fine literas inclusas ad ipsum scripsi: quas oro ut ubi rursus ad ipsum scribendi occasionem habueris, literis tuis includas vel saltem circum{illeg}p|po|sito 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 {illeg} easdem tibi debitas persolvo ob munera Ephimeridum.

Hæc tibi scribi ut \Et his intellectis/ Si quæstiones aliquæ|a| ad librum illum spectant|s|es vel maneant indeterminatæ|a|, vel {poshac} sub{illeg}ntore, lis omnis \litem omnem judicio/ \inter D. Bernoullium et me/ judicio Academiæ vestræ determine{illeg}tur, ostensis his literis. \determinandam lubentissime permitto./

Præter verba quæ ex Libro Principiorum citasti extant aliæ|a| in Scholio ad Prop. LXIX Lib. I, quibus clarissime constit|a|t quod content me gravitate corporibus em|ss|entialem minime fecisse. Quæ in Quætionibus {sic} 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 y^e Quaæries in the first Edition.] Sed et \cum Hypotheticam ess{illeg}/ {illeg} non dignari |{en}t| \non digna/ judicabam qu{illeg} fusius {lræ} in illa Editione tractaretur. Sed explicui plenius in Editione scda ut plenius pateret] \Et inde etiam constare potest me {illeg} {illeg}vit ab {illeg} initio/ mde \ab initio/ nec vacuum absolutum statu {illeg}|iss|e nec gr vim centripetar abs Medio impellente|.| es{se}{illeg} \{neo}s/ has Objectiones \aliunde quam/ ab aliquārum {sic} præjudicijs oriri:

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

Antequam {illeg}|l|iteris tuis repsonderem cupiebam colloqui cum D^no Keill qui \longe/ aberat in agro Northamptoniensi: sed is jam in verbem hanc redijt & spero quod a litibus in posterum abstinebit.

Hujus libri impressive edition{illeg}m tertiam forte lucem vides|b|it et in Exemplari quod corrig in hunc finem corre|i|ge|i|, in fine P\r/op. 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 {illeg} {illeg}t{illeg} \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{illeg} gravitatem esse dixi non possunt nominentur gravitas. Nominari possunt vires cœlorunt; & postquam hæ e{illeg}t in fine Libri probari potest quod vis cœlestis qua] Luna retinetur in Orbe {illeg} si descendatur in Terram æqualis \evadet sit/ gravittati nostræ \et æqualem corporeum/, et \quod descensum efficie{illeg}t omnium/ similes vires in singulis Planetarum corporibus superficiebus [gravitatem effice corporum efficere possint.] descensum similem efficiet.

A {illeg} \Reply to Varignon 13 Decr 1721/

S^r

I am indebted to you a Letter in relation to M^r I. Bernoulli The injury done me by the \Letter in the/ flying paper ascribed to M^r Bernoulli by M^r Leibnitz was publick & I looked upon M^r 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{illeg} D^r \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. [M^r 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 tha|e|t Letter whom M^r 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 M^r Leibnitz meant by calling M|D|^r Keill Homo novus, that is, a man risen up since the days of M^r Oldenburg & unacquainted with what passed \between M^r Leibnitz & the English/ in those days. And what I said of knight errantry in Mathematicks was in opposition to M^r Leibnitz & not to M^r Bernoulli. For I was writing againt|s|t M^r Leibnitz & have not yet begun to write against M^r Bernoulli nor intend to begin. M^r 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 M^r I blamed the proceedings of M^r Leibnitz by w^ch \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 M^r Leibnitz dated the 7^th 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 w^ch he boasts himself happy, were a fitter way to decide the truth, then an appeal to ancient & authentic writings & mathematicks must henceforward be filled w^th Atchievements in Knight errantry, instead of reasons & demonstrations. All this I wrote against the conduct of M^r Leibnitz. For I had no controversy with M^r Bernoulli. He did not conceale his name that he might pass for an impartial judge. M^r Leibnitz made him a judge & concealed his name. M^r 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. M^r Leibnitz made him both a judge & partiman. M^r Leibnitz sent the Problem to be resolved by the English Mathematicians, \challenged the English Mathematicians to solve his a Problem/ & said it was Bernoullis. M^r Leibnitz \It was not M^r Bernoulli but M^r Leibnitz who/ fled from ancient Records to decide the Question by this sort of duelling; & this I called a filling <597v> of Mathematicks w^th 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.

Viro celeberrimo D^no Abbati Varignon /Regio\ Matheses Professori Mathematici & Academiæ scientiarum socio apu{d} Socio apud Parisienses Is. Newtonus S.P.D. salutem plurimam dicit^[1]

Clarissime D^ne

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 D^nus Montalanꝰ expensas moleste habeat dabo illi libros|a|s 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 quæcun alia occurrerint. Metuebam uti 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{illeg} 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 uti 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 uti 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 {illeg}|C|um 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 {a}gnovit \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 <599v> 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, {illeg}{a} & \Leibnitius/ vice Quæstionis de primo \{N} {sic}/ 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, ne in animo habeo ut scribam: nam lites semper fugi.

D^s 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 determina{illeg}|sse|. Regulam illam anno 1672 habuisse, per quam uti {C} Curvaturas Curvarum tunc determa|i|nabat|m|. Non postulo ut hæc concedat\ss{en}t|dat|/ Sed si hæc ægre conced|ss|\er/it, 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.

Cl. D^ne

Accepi Historiam et Commentaria ex Archivis Academiæ Scientiarū 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 Bern\o/ulli & Abbati de Comitibus & P. Sebastian, & D. Remond & Set gratias tibi maxime reddo quod onus in te suscipere digneris conferendi correctiones D^no|i|rum Coste & D. Moivre inter se & quod optimū videbitur elegendi, ut et emendandi quæcun alia occurrerint. Metuebam uti 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. Ioannn|i| Bernoulio tandem ascripsit, me \me/ publice vit \accusor/ |accusor| |vit| plagij. Et epistola qua{illeg}\m/ 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 adeo licentiam \publicam,/ et eo nomine licentiam mihi datam esse \putabam/ diluendi injuriam illi|a|m authoritate D. Bernoullij, \credebam/ præsertim cum \is/ me non {illeg}|p|rohibuerit. 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 scrip{st}|ta|m \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 mortuum|s|an qu{e} est.

Conqueritur D. Bernoullius quod ipsum vocavi hominem novum, & Mathematicum fictum & Equitem erraticum: sed contra Bernoullium nondum cœpi scribere: {illeg} Hæc omnia \dixi scribendo/ contr{illeg}|a| Leibnitium. scripta sunt. Dixit \ Dixerat/ \uti/ 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, {V}ocav Authorem epistolæ quam D. Leibnitius Bernoullio ascrips{illeg} \cui uti commercium illud antiquum {ins}{illeg} ad {illeg} 1712 ignotum fuerat annis plus 30 post mortem Oldenburgij ignotam fuerat/ Cum D. Leibnitius authore{illeg} 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{illeg} \Abbatem/ de Comitibus, Quæstionem de primo methodi differentialis inventore deseruit, {illeg} 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 Epistolam\larum/ ejus Epistolam, quod \secundum Leibnitium/ Epistolæ et chartæ antiquæ jam abjiciendæ sunt {illeg} & Quæstio [de primo \methodo/ Inventore] ded{illeg} determinanda est per rixam de circa Philosophiam et \circum/ res alias, & magnus ille Mathematicus quem D. Leibnitius judicem esse voluit, jam velum detrahere debet (secundū 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, <601v> 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 Argument{illeg}|o|rum 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, {illeg} 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 scrip{illeg}|t|is in Commercio epistolico editis, per quæ Quæstio illa dirimi debuisset. Qu{illeg} 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 descendi|e|t < insertion from f 602r > ret < text from f 601v resumes > ut Vigninam acquireret; virginem dico, methodum differentialem ubi prædicta scripsi|

Hæc tibi scribo \non ut in lucem edantur sed/ ut scias me nondum cum Bernoulli{illeg}|o| lites habuisse Contra illum nondum scripsi, ne in anima|o| habeo ut scribam.

D^s Moivræ|e|us

Nec variat lux fracta colorem

Dispescit sed non variat lux fracta colo{b}|r|es

non ut peritiam ejus in rebus mathematicis minuerem, sed ut signifarem {sic} 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 — contuli{s\i/} is hanc novam controversiam cum due{illeg}|llo|, scribens se nolle in arenam descendere contra milites meos emissarios, sed ipse apparerem se lubenter mihi sac|t|isfactionem daturum Et ad hæc omnia alludens non contra Bernoullium sed contra Leibnitium scripsi in Observationibus meis in hanc ejus Epistolam, quod Epistolæ et chartæ æntiquæ {sic}, [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 {e}t fugit, & \{eo} fine/ disputationes novas de Questib|o|nibus Philosophicis proposuit; Leibnitius \&/ Problema mathematic{illeg}|is|{illeg} \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 ipse|i| derogarem vel peritiam ejus minue{rē} sed ut quia dubitabam utrum ille vere esset \esset/ Mathematicus ille \e|i|ss|e|t {sic}/ qui vere sententiam jus|d|icis scripserat vel fingebatur candem scripsisse esse Mathematicus iste. Nam cum Auctor Sententiæ illius Bernoullium citabat\verat/ {illeg}|t|anquam a seipso diversum, dubitabam utrum Bernoullius author esse posset Sententiæ illius Et Bernoullius tandem literis ad me datis affirmavit se non fuisse authorem.

letter to the Abbé Varignon

S^r

The words [Atchievents {sic} in Knight errantry instead of reasons & demonstrations] w^ch you meet with the Remarks upon M^r Leibnitz Letters to Abbe Conti, re relate to M^r Leibnitz his proposing declining to answer the Commercium Epistolicum & instead thereof proposing new d Questions to be disputed {illeg} & problems to be resolved, as if the first Question were to be decided by {illeg}|y|^e victory in things of another kind, Those as men appeal to a d|D|uell 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 M^r Leibnitz to Abbe Conti dated 9^th April 1716, w^ch 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. M^r D^r Keill By refusing to answer the notes upon the Commercium he laid aside the reasons & demonstrations taken from the o{illeg} Commercium, & by expressing himself ready to give me satisfaction (meaning in the new disputes \& solving of Problems/ w^ch he proposed)

Viro celeberrimo D. Abbati de Varignon, Regio Matheseos Professori, et Academiæ Scientiarum Socio Isaacus Newton. S.P.D.^[2]

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 pingentis. artificio pulcherrima. Vnde et tui similem esse concludo licet spectatorem nondum nactus s\{illeg}/um qui te de facie novit. Quod Picturam mei tam benigne acceperis amit|c|itiæ et humanitati \tuæ/ debetur.

Collectio chartarum D. Leibnitij quam D. Desmaisea\ux/ \nuper edidit,/ cæpta fu{i}t 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 D^nam Kilmansegg & D. Bothmar alias 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 Collectione|i|s illius Tomo secundo pag. 362 impressa, facile discas. Hæc omnia me inscio facta sunt donec ss|c|hedæ 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 D^no I. Bernoullio, eandem g|G|allice 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, Aut|c|tor 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 es|si|t, 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, negavi|re|t 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 <604v> tuam arguit, pro qua gratias satis reddere non valeam. D. de Moivre septimana præterita emendationes suas Versiones \illius/ Gallicæ ad te jam mi{illeg}it|ssu|rus \est/ Aliorum correctiones (siquas acceperis) minime cures, ne tibi vel molestiam aliquam vel moram cre{illeg}|e|nt. Siquæ aliæ occurrerint, \hic examinabuntur &/ hinc mittentur. Vale.

Dabam Londini 19 Ian. st. v. 172$\frac{0}{1}$

D. Desmaiseaux exemplar Collectiones suæ ad te misit. Ab eo caveas:

A Monsieur Monsieu Monsieur Abbé de Varignon Viro celeberrimo D. Abbati de Varignon \Regio/ Matheseos Professorē et Academiæ Scientiarum Socio Is. Newtonus salutem plurimam divit{illeg} \S.P.D./^[3][4]

Vir ceberrime {sic}

Historiam Academiæ vestræ \accepi/ una cum Ephemeride pro anno hocce 1721, {illeg} accepi pro quibus gratias reddo tibi quam maximas. Sed et Pictura tui in manus meas tandem reddita {illeg}sto{illeg} \pervenit/ accessit, elegans sane, & vultus venustate, & colorum artificio et vivacitate pulcherrimam & Pictor et pingend|t|is. 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 edidid|t|, 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 Bothmas|r| {illeg}|a|lias 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, {illeg} facile discas facile discas. Hæc omnia me inscio facta sunt Sed post donec Schedæ quatuor vel quinque prim{illeg}|ores| Libri secundi jam {illeg}|i|mpressæ \sunt et/ mihi ostensæ sunt in quibus erant literæ illæ duæ Epistolæ illæ duæ {illeg}prædictæ D. Leibnitij mense Aprili anni 1716 scriptæ. Sed Epistola \hæc nullius sunt momenti cum charta Epistola anonyma in Charta/ volans|t|e septimo Iunij anni 1713 data & Gallice versa, impressa impressa fuisse \esset/ in Belgio in Novelles Litterairs 28 Decem 1715 pag 414 cum hoc Titulo: {illeg} Lettre de |M.| Iean Bernoulli a Bále du 7 Iunij 1713, id ijsdem verbis [Et versio illa eadem sit cum versione ejusdem Epistolæ quæ charta quæ in Epistola \Leibnitij/ ad D Kilmansegg] legitur|.| ideo] Hanc \enim/ versionem D^no Leibnitio ascribo \eo/ quod is eandem o|i|n 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{illeg} Epistolæ {illeg} Charta volan et fama \quod author esset,/ per D. Leibnitio in|Et| ejus amicos \in mei præju/ per |o|o|r|bem 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{illeg} summam in me be ne{illeg}|ign|i {sic}le{m}ram \benignitatem/ tuam ostendit \arguit/, pro qua gratias e|s|atis reddere non valeam.

D. Desmaizeaux exemplar Collectionis charta \prædictæ/ quam nuper edidit ad te mist|i|t. Ab eo caveas. D. {illeg} 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/ creet|n|t. Siquæ aliæ occurrerint, hinc mittentur. Vale.

quam{illeg} ad D. Kilmansegg \tribuebat/ Epistolam 13 Iunij 1713 datam tribuebat D^o |I| Bernoullio tribuebat, eandem {illeg}|g|allice versam trib{illeg} recitabat. Sed hæc nullius sunt momenti Cum Epistola eadem ijsdem verbis Gallice versa impressa essen|t| 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 {illeg} tribueret.

Post hæc omnia cum Collectio prædicta prope impressa esset et D. I. Bern\o/ullius

To Varign{on} after Decr 1719

S^r

Vnderstanding by yo^rs of 28 August 1719 that there is a good understanding between the Gentlemen of the Academy of Sciences & me, my desire to continue {illeg}|it| gives is the occasion of this

M^r Iohn Bernoulli wrote \in/ a Letter to M^r Remon the late M^r Monmort dated 8 April 1717 excused himself for communicating a Probleme to M^r Leibnitz, as if \representing that/ he had no design to challenge the English & was surprised that M^r Leibnitz should name him as the author of the Probleme & do this without his leave. And desired M^r 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 voul{a}|û|t bien prendre la peine d'inspirer a son ami M^rKeil 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 sera|o|it une injustice criant. And M^r Monmort soon after the receipt of this Letter endeavoured to reconcile us \make us friends/ but w^thout success because M^r Leibnitz had fathered upon M^r Bernoulli a scandalous Libel dated 7 Iune 171{5}|3|; & though I d{illeg}|ou|bted whether M^r Leibnitz {illeg} Benoulli were the author because the author cited M^r Bernoulli as a person different from himself, & M^r Leibnitz when he began to father the Letter upon M^r Bernoulli left out the citation: yet I thought it reasonable that M^r Bernoulli should disown the Libel as publickly as M^r Leibnitz had fathered it upon him. I have since received a Letter from M^r Bernoulli dated 3 Non. Octob Iulij 1719 in w^ch |And soon after I was shewed a Letter written by M^r| M^r Monmort to D^r Taylor \concerning these Disputes/ with the D^r Taylor's Answer: but I took no copy thereof.

I have since received a Letter from M^r Bernoulli dated 1 Iul 3 Non. Iulij 1719 in w^ch w^th many complements he endeavours to be reconciled, & for that end represents that he wrote no such {illeg}|L|etters as that w^ch I complained of & I returned a friendly answer, but have since received another Letter from him dated 21 Decem. 1719 \n. st/ in w^ch of a different humour from the former, ex expostulating w^th one abou upon suspicion that the English are reprinting Raphsons book & making M^r 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, {illeg} & particularly \an authentic copy of/ a Letter written by M^rons^r Monmort to D^r Taylor 18 Decem. 1718, w^ch 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 M^r Leibnitz a witness ag^t M^r Bernoulli but on the contrary look upon| look upon the Author of the aforesaid Libel in citing M^r Bernoulli as a person different from himself, & M^r Leibnitz in printing this Libel with the citation, \& afterwad|r|ds {illeg} omitting the citation when he fathered this Libel upon M^r Bernoully/ & M^r Bernoulli in denying that he was the author of the Libel, to be three good witnesses against M^r Leibnitz \M^r Bernoulli has not dism been dis{illeg}|m|issed the R. S./ I do not take the controversy to be national: for M^r Leibnitz spent his life in corresponding w^th learned men of all nations & particularly w^th M^r Bernoulli. I look upon M^r I never imployed D^r Taylor to write in my defence nor consented to it, {illeg} nor think my self concerned in the dispute between him & M^r 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 |& s|m|any new ones were added which have been communicated to him by the correspondents of M^r Leibnitz & the person imployed to publish them is| is not an English man. \{illeg}/ And I have prevailed w^th D^r Keill \during the two last \years// th{illeg} to suspend publishing what he has written in his against M^r Bernoulli, tho I cannot in justice hinder him constantly \perpetually/ from defending hims. from the usage he has met with from persons imployed by M^r Bernoulli.

M^r Leibnitz \from the beginning/ avoided medling w^th M^r Keill & used his utmost \endeavour/ to engage me in person, And wⁿ the Court of Hanover came to London & M^r Bernoulli does the like M^r When the Court of Hanover came to London his friends endeavoured to make up y^e 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 repret|s|ed|n|ted that <607v> I was so for {sic} from printing the Commercium Epist. my self that I did not so much as produce the Letters in my custody: {b}ut & for proof of this I produced two \old/ Letters in my custody the one from M^r Leibnitz to me dated          1693 & the other from D^r Wallis to me dated         1695 |w^ch 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 M^r 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 M^r Leibnitz had any old Letters w^ch 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 they|m| might: the Originals might then be sent bak|c|k to M^r Leibnitz & the Letters bee printed either in the Phil. Tr. or in Germany as M^r L. pleased. But no Letters were ever sent, but on the contrary M^r Leibnitz in his Letter to M^r Abby Conti complained that those Letters were either lost or involved in a heap of papers w^ch would require too time & pains to search out; &

S^r

By a Letter w^ch

Thre Guilder piece of Holland or piece of 60 Sty{rar}s 62∟46.

$\frac{2}{3}=\mathrm{41∟64}$

$\begin{array}{c}57600\\ 7200\\ \overline{64800}\end{array}$

$\begin{array}{c}\text{Gulden of Hanover}\\ \text{Zell}\\ \text{Magdeburg}\\ \text{Brandenburg}\\ \text{Saxony}\end{array}\left\}\frac{2}{3}\right\{\begin{array}{c}{28}^{\mathrm{d}}∟14.\\ \mathrm{27∟70}.\\ \mathrm{28∟67}.\\ \mathrm{27∟81}.\\ \mathrm{28∟12}.\end{array}$

Mark Lubs. 1^s 6^d

$\sqrt{16⁤\frac{1}{8}}.\sqrt{272}\colon\colon 1″$.

$\begin{array}{}\sqrt{16}.\sqrt{270}\colon\colon 4.\mathrm{16∟4317}\colon\colon 1\prime .4″∟108\\ \phantom{\sqrt{16}.}\phantom{\sqrt{2}}1400\phantom{00}3286\phantom{17\colon\colon 1\prime .4″∟108}\\ \phantom{\sqrt{16}.}\phantom{\sqrt{2}}1296\phantom{00}\phantom{\mathrm{16∟4317}\colon\colon 1\prime .4″∟108}\\ \phantom{\sqrt{16}.}\phantom{\sqrt{27}}10400\phantom{\mathrm{16∟4317}\colon\colon 1\prime .4″∟108}\\ \phantom{\sqrt{16}.}\phantom{\sqrt{270}}\underline{9849}\phantom{\mathrm{16∟4317}\colon\colon 1\prime .4″∟108}\\ \phantom{\sqrt{16}.}\phantom{\sqrt{2700}}551\phantom{\mathrm{16∟4317}\colon\colon 1\prime .4″∟108}\end{array}$.

Cræsus king of Lydia began his reign in the first year of Evil{m}erodach the successor of Nebuchadnezzar

Herod l. 1.

Reply to Varignon 26 Iuly 1719 1^st Copy

In autumn 1713 I received from M^r Chamberlain (who then kept a correspondence w^th M^r Leibnitz) a flying paper in Latin dated 29 Iuly 1713, in w^ch it was pretended that M^r 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 {sic} 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 M^r 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 M^r 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 M^r Iohnsons \the/ Iournal Literaire Novem. & Decem. 1713. pag. 448, 449, 450, 451.

About two years after this, M^r 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 the|is| Letter of 7 Iune 1713 to M^r I. Bernoulli \under this Title: Lettre de M. Iean Bernoulli \de/ Be{l}|r|noulli, 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 w^ch he inserted the same french translation./. {sic} But these Letters were not p{illeg}|u|blished till four years after, & contein nothing more concerning the Letter of 7 Iune 1713 i|t|hen what had been printed in the Novelles Literairs. M^r 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 M^r Leibnitz. And I knew nothing of the designe of printing them till they were shewed me in print: w^ch was \about a year/ before I received from M^r 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./. {sic} And as \M^r Bernoulli/ in that Letter he assured me that he wrote no such Letter to M^r Leibnitz as that dated 13 Iune 1713, {illeg}|&| in my Answer I acquiesced in that Declaration: so I have ever since told my friends that I am satisfied that M^r 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.

Reply to Varignon 20 Iuly 1714 2^d Copy

In autumn 1713 I received from M^r Chamberlain (who then kept a correspondence with M^r Leibnitz) a flying paper in Latin dated 29 Iuly 1713, in w^ch it was pretended that M^r 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 letted|r| dated 7 Iune 1713. And this Letter was inserted into the flying paper, & in the end of the Letter M^r 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/ M^r 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 M^r Iohnsons Iournal literaire Novem & Decem 1713 pag 448, 449, 450, 5|4|51.

About two years after this, M^r Leibnitz [began to father \declare that/ the said Letter of 7 Iune 1713 upon \was writ by/ M^r Leibnitz I. Bernoulli & for that end to omit the said citation in the copies of that Letter w^ch he then sent{illeg} to his friends For in November or December 1715 he wrote a letter to M. Abbé Conti with a Postscript in w^ch 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 M^r 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 M^r I. Bernoulli was the author|.| of {illeg}|W|hat 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 M^r Des Maizeauz received copies of them from Abbe Conti in spr spring 1718 \in order to print a collection of the remains of M^r 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. M^r Demaizeauz received some other Letters & Papers of M^r Leibnitz from Paris as you may understand by {illeg}|t|he|i|s Letter of M^r 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 M^r Iohn Bernoulli's Letter dated Iuly 5 1719 in w^ch he assured that he wrote no such Letter to M^r Leibnitz as that dated 7 Iune 1713. And in my Answer I acquiesced in that Declaration & have ever since told my fre|i|ends that I am satisified that M^r Iohn Bernoulli was not the Author of that Letter. But|And| \tho/ some of them will not yet beleive me, yet I have given none of them authority to contradict me.

And a|A|bout two years \after this/ he sent the same translation again into Holland but omittin|ed|g only \that he omitted/ the citation above mentioned \was now omitted; & the/ & \now/ ascribin|ed|g \now ascribed/ the Letter of 7 Iune \And now he ascribed the Letter of 7 Iune/ 1713 to M^r 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 w^ch he sent omitting the aforesaid citation |to Madam| Kilmansegg. dated 18 April 1716, cited ascribed the inserted Letter to M^r |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 w^ch he sent/ to Count Bothar {sic} to the same purpose |he ascribed the same Letter of 7 Iun 1713 to M^r 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./ M^r Des Maiseaux received copies of them in sp from L'Abby Conty|i| in spring 1718 in order to print a Collection of the remains of M^r Leibnitz And I knew nothing of the design of printing them till they were shewed me in print: w^ch was some months before I received from M^r I Bernoullis |y^e| Letter of Iuly 5^t 1719, in w^ch he assured me that he wrote no such Letter to M^r 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 M^r 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 {illeg} fugitive Edomites might \also/ carry Letters into Phenicia, & Chaldea.

M^r 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 in|at| his travells Paris between him & M^r Hugens at Paris in his travells 38 years before, w^ch no bod{y} \in Germany/ could then kno And yet M^r 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 w^th Remarques, that is with the flying paper of 29 Iuly 1713.

In the beginning of this flying Paper we are told that M^r 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 f{illeg}|oll|owers 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 D^r 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 1713^[5] two arguments are brought against me me {sic}. The first is that prickt letters did not \first/ appear be first appeared in the the {sic} third Volume of D^r Wallis's works w^ch came abroad in the ye \in 1699 w^ch was/ many years after the differential Method w|h|ad prevailed every where. And yet prickt letters came abroad \appeared/ in the second Volume of D^r 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 D^r 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 w^ch 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 & M^r Leibnitz wrote his Tract de motu corporum in Medijs resistentibus without his diffferential notation & then added^[6]

\p. 176 l. 14./ So then by the testimony of D^r Barrow found upon paper w^ch he received from M^r Newton before the publishing of the Logarithmotechnia, M^r Newton had the Method in the year 1666 or before

P. 183 l. 7. In the year 1671 two Tracts written by M^r Leibnitz were published at London

P. 184. In the end of Feb from London to Paris. He was hitherto unacquainte{d} with the higher Geometry. But the Horologium oscillatorium of M^r Leibni Hugens coming out in April following, he began to learn it with reading that book,|.| & co He continued his correspondence till Iune with M^r Oldenburgh till about Arithmetical matters till Iune, {illeg} spent the year following {illeg} in studying the higher Geometry till & in Iuly 1674 began to renew his correspondence & wrote to M^r 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 M^r Oldenburg that M^r 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 M^r Iames Gregories Letters \to M^r Collins/ might be s{in}t {sic} 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 M^r Oldenburghs Letter of Apr. 15 1675, he did not know it to be his own, as appears by his Answer of May 20 166|7|5 above mentioned.

P. 190 l 33. after series. Add. The same is ma{f}|n|ifest also \from hence/ by {illeg}{illeg}|t|hat M^r 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 tot|TOT|a \TOTA/ Analysi momenti majoris; & of the other: {E}a 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 M^r Leibnitz was dated Octob. 24 1676 M^r Leibnitz came to London in|a| second time in October 1676 & there saw M^r Newton's Letter dated Octob 2 |this| Letter of M^r Newton dated Octob. 24, 1676

$2718⁤\frac{1}{2}″.3941″.6405\prime .2296⁤\frac{1}{2}\prime .114226\prime$

$\begin{array}{ccccc}\frac{4.4343293}{8.8686586}.& \frac{4.5955513}{9.1911026}.& \frac{4.8132473}{9.6264946}.& \frac{5.3609952}{10.7219904}.& \frac{6.0577650}{12.1155300}.\\ \begin{array}{r}2.9562195⁤\frac{1}{3}\\ 6657608-\\ \overline{2.2904587⁤\frac{1}{3}}\end{array}& \begin{array}{r}30637008⁤\frac{2}{3}.\\ 23979400\phantom{⁤\frac{2}{3}.}\\ \overline{0.6657608⁤\frac{2}{3}}\phantom{.}\end{array}& \begin{array}{r}3.2088315⁤\frac{1}{3}.\\ 6657608⁤\frac{2}{3}\phantom{.}\\ \overline{2.5430706⁤\frac{2}{3}}\phantom{.}\end{array}& \begin{array}{r}3.5739968.\phantom{\frac{2}{3}}\\ 6657608⁤\frac{2}{3}.\\ \overline{2.9082359⁤\frac{1}{3}}\end{array}& \begin{array}{r}4.0385100\phantom{⁤\frac{2}{3}}\\ 6657608⁤\frac{2}{3}\\ \overline{3.3727491⁤\frac{1}{3}}\end{array}\\ \mathrm{1∟95165}.& \mathrm{2,5}.& 3.49196& \mathrm{8∟0953}& \mathrm{23∟5911}\\ \phantom{0}& \phantom{0}& 3.49196& \phantom{0}& \phantom{0}\\ \mathrm{1∟95}.& \mathrm{2∟5}.& \mathrm{3∟49}& \mathrm{8∟1}& \mathrm{23∟6}\\ \mathrm{1∟95}.& \mathrm{2∟5}.& \mathrm{3∟49}& \mathrm{8∟09}& \mathrm{23∟58}\\ 19695539.& 72880\colon\colon & \begin{array}{r}\underline{\mathrm{1436,2230}}\phantom{0}\\ 114897840\phantom{0}\\ 114897840\\ 02872446\phantom{000}\\ 10053561\phantom{0000}\\ \overline{104671932240}\\ \underline{98477695\phantom{0}}\phantom{00}\\ 61942372\phantom{00}\\ \underline{59086617}\phantom{00}\\ 28557554\phantom{0}\\ \underline{19695529}\phantom{0}\\ 38620150\\ \underline{78782156}\\ 9837994\\ 9847\phantom{000}\end{array}& \begin{array}{r}14362230\phantom{\mathrm{-}}\\ 53145-\\ \overline{14309085}+\\ \phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}\\ (53145\phantom{000-}\end{array}& \phantom{0}\end{array}$

$\begin{array}{rrr}144)& 227512\phantom{00}& (157855\\ \phantom{0}& 835\phantom{0000}& \phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}& 722\phantom{0000}& 131546\phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}& \overline{1131}\phantom{000}& \phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}& \underline{1008}\phantom{000}& \phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}& 1232\phantom{00}& \phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}& \underline{1152}\phantom{00}& \phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}& 800\phantom{0}& \phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}& \underline{722}\phantom{0}& \phantom{0}\\ \phantom{0}& 780& \phantom{0}\end{array}$

$\begin{array}{r}284390\phantom{0000}\\ 4739833\phantom{00}\\ 7899722\phantom{0}\\ 13166203\end{array}$

Adt=temp. Ap=veloc: ascensus. Ak=resist. Afsq=spatio horizontali

To Varignon before Nov. 17 17{18}

S^r

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 M^r Fontenell for the honourable mention made of w^ch he made of me in the Elogium upon M^r 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 M^r l'Abbe Conti prevailed with \I {illeg} was prevailed with to write an/ Answer to a Postscript of a Letter \of |which| M^r Leibnitz wrote/ to M^r l'Abbé Conti that both might be shewed to the King. But while the Commerciumcium Epistolicum remains{illeg} 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 M^r Leibnitz knew any thing of the Differential Method.] A few weeks ago I sent you a copy of {illeg} 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 M^r Leibnitz to M^r l'Abbe Conti, that both might be shewed to the King. \[I did it with {illeg} reluctance for/ I looked upon it as a designe to make of M^r 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 17{illeg}|0|5. M^r Leibnitz & his friends \have/ {illeg} avoided this {illeg} proving me guilty & I \have/ forbid my friends from medling with any other questions] You me] Bu its {illeg} as The meaning may be {illeg} I did it with reluctancy. And I since convinced that M^r by the Letters w^ch M^r 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

$\begin{array}{c}\phantom{00}316\\ \phantom{0}1903.\\ 114226\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}2286\\ 421\phantom{0}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}753583.\\ \phantom{0}7\phantom{0000.}\end{array}\end{array}0,52196.$

Quod gratiæ libros \Acta/ Philosophica a Secretario Academiæ vestræ annuatim edit{as}|{or}| ad me aliquoties misisti gratiæ meæ tibi debentur eas quam maximas tibi reddo; ut et pro exemplaribus Ephemeridum omni rerum varietate referto|i|s \& pro secundo Exemplari Actorum anni 1714./. {sic} Et oro ut ut gratias meas \etiam/ D^no Fontenel Academiæ vestræ Secretari{æ}|o| \etiam/ reddas eo quod in Elogio Dⁿⁱ Leibnitij honorifice de me locutus sit. Nuper {illeg} mihi narratum est tuo nomine te in controversia supra Leibnitiana nihil contra me fecisse ea de re tibi etiam gratias ago. \✝/ Iam quadraginta sunt anni et amplius ex quo commercium per literas circa res Philosophicas & mathematicas habere desij ideo de controversia illa \Leibnitiana/ nihil tibi scribo. Eadem de causa, molestiam tibi amplius creare nollem mittendi annuatim ad me tua dona Philosophica. \Nam et/ Senio enim confectus re{b} a rebus Philosophicis et mathematicis quantum per negotia Societatis Regalis licet, \me/ abstine{re}|o|; & quod D. Leibnitio respondi \ægre/ effectū est consilijs Aulicorum. Dona tamen tua plurimi facio quatenus sunt \honorifica/ amicitiæ tuæ testimonia. Vale et eodem animo \✝/ m|M|isi 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.

To Iohn Bernoulli before Iuly 5^t 1719 or answer to {illeg} of Iuly 5^t 1719 |2^d Copy|

Vir dignissime Celeberrime

Cum primum Literas tuas ad me mediante D^no Abbate Varignone missas acceperam, et ex ijs intellexeram te non esse authorem Epistolæ cujusdam ad D. Leibnitij|ū| 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, ne opinionibis|u|s 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 \id 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 dab{i}. 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: SE{illeg}|d| hoc factum est antequam hæ lis|t|es cœ|e|perunt. Nam schedæ primæ viginti octo illius editionis, (id est us ad pag. 224 inclusive) impressæ fuerunt ante |13| Apr. 1{illeg} 13, 1710, et schedæ primæ 37 \triginta septem/ (id est us ad pag 296 inclusive) impressæ fuerunt ante 30 Iunij 1710, et prelum subinde quievit us ad mensem Iunium anni proxim{i} \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 Corollariū illud extat, impressa fuit/ anno 1709. Et ha|o|c annoto ut intelligas me nondum \lites tecum i{illeg}sse. contendere/ cæpisse tecum lites habere. Litibus autem componendis \me animo candido Corollarium illud auxisse et hactes|n|us nullas tecum lites agitasse. Litibus autem componendis/ quas cum amicis meis habuisti, quantum in me est componendis operam dabo.^[7]

Nova non sunt sed continent tantum explicationem pleniorem eorum

To Bernoulli {illeg} 26^th Iuly 1719 \2^d Copy/

Vir dignissime

Cum primum literas tuas ad me mediante D^no {illeg} Abbate Varignonio missas acceperam, & ex ijs intellexeram te non esse authorem authorem Epistolæ ad D. Leibnitium {illeg} 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 \✝/ < insertion from the bottom of the page > sed nomen tamen probitatis, ep quod auctor illius Epistolæ \(quasi auctoritate \magni alicujus/ Iudicis)/ convellere conatus est, salvum esse cupia|o|: Et cum ipse adhut|c| {illeg}ting{illeg} se ignotum esse velit, {illeg} 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 {sic} \b benigne/ fueris, & hoc \etiam/ nomine me tibi devinxisti|]|. Studijs Mathematicis jam \senex/ mineme delector|✝| < insertion from the bottom of the page > ✝ \Studijs mathematicis jam Senex minime delector/ Neque opini\oni/bus meis hactenus in lucem editis, per orbem propagandis operam d{o}, \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. Hu{illeg}|m|anum fuit & gratias meretur quod libros Optices ad te missos benigne accipere dignatus fueris: Et hoc etiam nomine me tibi devinxisti.

Liber|ru|m\rum/ Principiorum scribebam \scriptus fuit scrips {sic}/ anno 1685 & mensibus quatuor primis anni sequentis {illeg} brevitate temp & Societate Po{illeg} \is/ ob brevitatem temporis et im non satis correctus lucem vidit. In Editione secunda Postulabat \{illeg}/ D. Cotes ut Corollarium primū Propositionis XIII      demonstratione munirem et {illeg}t{illeg}s \in Editione secunda {et}/ ut ei satisfacerem verba {q}uædam addidi ad Corolarium \illud/ addidi. Demonstrationem {illeg}|C|onstructionis Prop XVII non {op}posui propterea quod corpus in Sectione Conica per Constructionem prodeunte, movebitur per Prop. XX XI, XII et XIII antea demonstratas. < text from the bottom of the page resumes > , {sic} & lites semper odi, & conabor ut etiam amici mei ab his litibus abstineant. < text from f 615r resumes > 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 {illeg}ll{illeg} nullius \esse debent/ erunt fidei. Nam \3/ Literæ uti punctatæ non in secundo operum Wallisij Volumine apparuere. \2/ In Principijs natura Naturæ Mathematicis \per compositionem uti scriptis/, calculo fluxionem utendi nullam habui occasionem. In Introductione ad Quadra librum de Quadraturis, methodus fluxionum abs literis pu{illeg}|n|ctatis doce{illeg}|t|ur & 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 \abs litteris illis/ in Lem 2 Lib. II Princip. \4/ Et in Propo\sitione prima/ 1 libri 2 de Quadraturis anno ineunte 1693 a Wallisio edita, Regula capiendi fluxiones primas secundas tertias & sequentes verissima exhibetur & ex{imq}ilis 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 literā o Scilicet In Introductione ad librum de Quadraturis methodus fluxionum docetur et abs literis exemplis illustratur abs literis punctatis, et elementa methodi extant absque literis illis in lib Lem. II lib. II. Princip. In Principijs Naturæ Mathematicis \illis/ per Compositionem uti scriptis, calculo fluxionum utendi nullam habui occasionem. Literæ punctatæ & Propositio prima libri de Quadraturis, apparuere in secundo Volumine & \& quæ/ Regula|m| mea \meam/ \continet/ capiendi fluxiones omn primas secundas tertias alias omnes \continet/, apparuere in secundo Volumine operum Wallisij anno {illeg}|i|neunte 1693, et aliam Regulam dedi nullam. Et incrementum constans ipsius x adhuc designo per literā o. Sed Author illius Epistolæ hæc omnia pervertit.

In Editione Libri sed Principiorum postulabat D. Cotes ut {illeg}|C|orol. 1. \Prop XIII/ lib 1{illeg}|0| Princip Demonstra{illeg}|tione|{m}\tione munirem Et ut ei satisfacerem/: Et ea occasione Corollarium verbis nonnullis auxi. Sed|Et| hoc factum est antequam hæ lites ceperunt. Nam Ed Schedæ \primæ 28 a|i|d est us ad pag 224 inclusive impressæ fuerunt ante Apr 13 1710 et schedæ primæ 37/ primæ 28|37| \Editiones illas/ (id est us ad pag. 296 inclusive) impressæ fuerunt \{a}nt 13 A {sic}/ ante 3{illeg}|0| Iune 1710, et prelum subinde quievit per annum us ad mensem Iunium anni proximi ut ex Literis D. Cotes eo tempore ad me missis colligo intelligo. Hoc annoto ut intelligas me nondum cœpisse tecum^[8] lites habere.

^[9]— Literas tuas amicissimas accepi, et gratias reddo tibi quam maximas quod exemplaria duo Optices ad D. Io\h/annem Bernoulli meo nomine misisti & {illeg} eo pacto re nos reconciliare \non taxtum/ conatus fueris quod et f fecisti; ut ex literis ejus intelligo. Nam Nam D. Leibnitius Liter{e} Epistolis \Literis Epistolis aliquot/ quas vide|i|ram pluribus \pluribus/ ab ipsa subscriptis, disertis verbis affirmabat \affimaverat {sic}/ 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 p{ro}dir{e}t in tertia volumine Wallisij nostri {illeg}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 ubi 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 ipsū scriptis, id est antequam calculus differentialis celebrari cœpit. \④|⑤|/ Et quod Regulam circa gradus ulteriores \differentiarum/ falsam dedi, et recta methodus differentiandi differentialia mihi non innotu{es}|it| longo tempore postquam alijs familiaris fuisset familiaris cum tamen Regula circa gradus ulteriores in Propositione prima libri de Quadraturis a me data, et verissima es|si|t |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{illeg} anno 1676 Octob 24 totidam {illeg}t{illeg}{b}{illeg} \ad Leinitium missa ijsdem/ syllabis expressa habeatur. Ac deni quod quasi quæ a me abs literis punctatis scripta sunt ad methodum fluxionum nil spectarent |① \qd/ ea omnia ☉ \quæ/ in Commercio Epistolico citantur ad methodum fluxionum nil spetant ob defectum literarum punctatar| cum tamen \sine literis punctatis/ in Lemmate scundo libri \secundi/ principiorum elementa hujus methodi {illeg} 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 mathomaticis {sic} calculo &c et \④/ quod in Principijs utar litera o pro fluxio incremento constante ipsius x, \quod method commoda destruit/ cum tamen eadem {illeg} adhuc utar eadem litera o in eodem sensu.

Authorem Epistolæ hujusmodi affirmationibus \& corruptis accusationibus/ refertæ indignum judicabam qui{illeg}|o|cum amicitiam colerem. Sed cum D. Bernoullius eandem minime scripserit, ut ex literis ejus jam didici, non est cur diutius abstineam ab ejus amicitia.

6 {illeg}t Hæc omnia \Author Epistolæ/ affirmantur ut me plagiarij reum ag {e}|{a}|ret, Quo casu author \Epistolæ/ \ideo/ calumniæ reus est \ipse/ nisi crimen probet. Quo effectum est ut {illeg} ab amicitia D. Bernoulli \hactenus {illeg}/ abstinendumrerim. Sed cum D. Bernoullius \ille epistolam illam/ eandem minime scripserit, ut ex literis ejus jam didici, non est cur diutius abstineam Ideo Literas inclusas ad ipsum de|i|rexi scripsi, quas oro ut ubi rursus ad ipsum scribendi occasionem nactus fueris, literis tuis includas. \Oro etiam ut/ Gratias {a}|etiā| reddas \meas/ Academiæ vestræ quod ob munere quæ {illeg} me{illeg}|u|nera annua Historiæ suæ Academiæ vestræ annuatim ad me missæ, te curante

ut intelligas me animo candido Corollarium illud a\u/xisse, et \{illeg}/ nullas tecum lites hactenus inijsse. Litibus \{illeg}/ autem

Quæ sub finem libri D. Raps|h|son ante triennium impressa \c{illeg}ta/ sunt, fuer iterum {imp}ressa sunt in Hollan esse intelligo|, id| \{in} in Hollandia/ An lucem videbunt ha nondum scio. {illeg} {illeg}{m} D. Bernoulli lites nondum habuit |{At}| \ne habebo sed e contra conabor non tantum/ [u|U|t lites inter illum et amicos meos {ee}ssent {sic} conabor /Sed Dⁿ\ set|d| etiam ut ejus amicitia f{ru a|o|}r.

|Vi{illeg}|d|| Dignissime Illustrissime

Quod Academia vestra munis|u|sculum \meum/ Libri Optice{illeg}|s|um {illeg}|b|enigne accipere dignatus fuerit \est/, \a te/ gratissimum fuit audire \a te{illeg}nte ex literis tuis intelligere/, et gaudium auxit quod plurimum intelligere \audire/ qu{illeg}|{o}|d {illeg} Edition pri{illeg}|{im}|a {sic} ipsis antea innotuisset & quod \jam/ scire non dedignarentur quid additum sit in hac nova editione. In hoc libro {illeg} Philosophia hypothetica abstinere co{no}t{illeg} philosophiam experimentalem \hic/ commendare & prosequi|o|r tanquam dignam quæ Philosophia voc{o}|{e}|ti{illeg}|u|r, & philosophiam hypothetam tracto non ut scientiam sed ut per modum questionum. Et quæ ad \in/ ha{illeg}c Editione addidi sunt posterioris generis. Hac occasione gratias tibi persolvere \debeo/ quam maximas ob honor|is| fic{e}m quos in me contulisti in elogio D. Leibnitij. Et quo minus commemorationem istam \tam honorificam textum/ a te merui, eo mg|a|gis tibi devinxisti servu{u}{illeg}tu

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 m{illeg}|e|rui, eo magis tibi devinxisti

Servum tuum humillimum, et max obed.

2 {illeg} To {chamberl}{en} {illeg} of {illeg} 3 |{illeg}| |To Des Maizeu|

S^r

M^r Bernoulli in his book \a Letter/ to me of Decem 21 1719, \seems to/ writes upon suppositions \suppositions/ that M^r 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 English|and| & Germany are unconcerned & threatens me w^th 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 the{m} papers against him in England;/ & particularly that the two Letters of M^r Leibnitz are printed in w^ch M^r Bernoulli is said to t|b|e the author of the letter of 7 Iune 1713 are printed here by my f{illeg}|r|iends; \&/ that I admit M^r Leibnitz to be a witness in his own cause against him \M^r Bernoulli/ /him;\ & that M^r 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 M^r 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{illeg} about those things] You know that M^r Ra{t}|p|hsons book is not reprinted nor concerns M^r Bernoulli|.| that M^r Leibnitz \kept a general correspondence &/ has friends in England, \& France \& other countries/ as well as in Germany/ that some of them|ose| 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 M^r Bernoulli is not dismissed the R. Society; that The Letter of 7 Iune {th}{illeg} 1713 is reflected upon by the in the Elogium of M^r Leibnitz & that the if \was translated into French & printed in Holland & there ascribed to M^r Lei Bernoulli fo four years ago;/ that is it {illeg} is reflected upon in the Elogium of of {sic} M^r Leibnitz, \& therefore it was sent into France as well as into England;/ that the in \The author of/ t|T|his Letter, as it was at first printed in Germany, cited M^r I Bernoulli as a person different from himself, but in the french citation th translation is omitted this citation is omitted {illeg} that |&| this omission of what was at first printed has mad in order to father y^e letter upon M^r Bernoulli, has made me question the testimony of M^r Leibnitz, & that \in my answer to one of his Letters three years/ before I received M^r Bernoulli's declaration that he was not the author thereof|.| & that \And/ after I received that Declaration I acquiesced therein without thinking of admitting M^r Leibnitz a witness against M^r Bernoulli \&/ I |I| gave M^r Bernoulli notice of what those what M^r Leibnitz had written to|n|ot to question his M^r Bernoullis Declaration, but \as a friend/ to|h|at he might not be surprized hereafter at what M^r the friends of M^r Leibnitz were publishing:, & {illeg} And M^r |I.| Bernoulli h{e}|a|s not \been/ dismissed the R. S. but is still a Fellow thereof. {illeg} 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 M^r Bernoulli will beleive you t{ooo} 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 \^×/^[10]1673 printed in Germany & dispersed that autum in great numbers by the friends of M^r Leibnitz & desire him to communicate it to M^r Bernoulli that he man|y| know what Letter it is that M^r 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 Ge{illeg}|o|metrical \synthetical/ Demonstration. & when they had demonstrated any thing synthetically they made use of it as a Lemma for Demonstrating any thing else.

S^r

I have received a letter from M^r Iohn Bernoulli full of such misunderstandings as may require some further testimony then my own to sett then right. M^r Ralphson h You know that M^r Ralpson hath been dead these seven years. His book was in the press You know that M^r Ralphsons book is not {illeg} printed was printed seven years ago, \without my ap{illeg}|pr|obation &/ came published three years ago & is not reprinted \nor worth reprinting/, M {illeg} f{illeg} {A} & I had The two Letters of M^r Leibnitz in w^ch he |af|first|m|es that M^r Bernoulli wa the Letter of 7 Iune 170|1|3 was writ by M^r Iohn Bernoulli {we} were prin{illeg}|t|ed above a year ago {illeg}|w|ithout my knowledge by a friend of M^r Leibnitz w{illeg} with who has collected {illeg}|&| 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 M^r Leibnitz a witness against M^r I. Bernoulli that I have openly declared \the contrary/ that I {sic} look upon \the testimony of/ M^r I: Bernoulli & M^r Leibnitz \{illeg}t/ together to be good evidence against M^r Leibnitz. For the author of the said Letter cited M^r I. B. in the body of the Letter as a \another/ person different from himself. M^r Leibnitz at in the year 1{illeg} 1713 pubblished the Letter w^thout that citation & thereby declared to declared to the world that M^r 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 M^r Iohn Bernoulli was the author & thus by varying from citation & wrote \in his Letters/ that M^r 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 M^r Leibnitz rest in his grave/ I have neglected these this controversy the three last years, & am very averse from disturbing M^r Leibnitz in his grave.

M^r Bernoulli in his letter of Decem. 21. 1719 writes to me {illeg} upon suppositions that the book of M^r Ralpsons book \w{illeg}|a|s 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 M^r 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 M^r & upon these suppositions threatens me w^th printing \some letters in his custody & part {illeg}{en}{illeg}{orl}y/ a Letter of M^r Monmo{rt} to M^r Taylor dated 18 Decem 1718. {illeg}

To Iohn Bernoulli

S^r

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. M^r 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 M^r Leibnitz represents that you were the the {sic} author of the letter dated 7 Iune 1713, were printed above a yeare ago by a friend of M^r 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 M^r Leibnitz a witness against y ou, but have told my friends that I admit the author of that Letter, M^r Leibnitz, & you, \to be/ three witnesses against M^r Leibnitz. You are not dismissed the R. Society. In the introduction to the book of Quadratures I affir The Book of Quadratures being The reduction{s} 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 M^r 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 708.2|3|0∷21. $\frac{630}{708}$ feet $\frac{630,12\text{ dig }}{708}=\frac{630}{59}\text{ dig. }=\frac{640}{60}\text{dig}={10}^{\text{ dig }}⁤\frac{2}{3}\text{ dig. }$

|p. 250 l. 1.| In eadem Analysi Newtonus posuit secundam Propositionem Libri de Quadraturis dixit (pag 230, lin. 13) dixit Curvarum areas &c.

Deni cum h{illeg}{g}{illeg}l{inu}s crederet \sibi fa{illeg} esse crederet/ has tuas Literas amice scriptas quas {illeg} publici juris facere, i{d}{illeg} is easdem paucis t{illeg} tribus {illeg} \tantum/ vel quatuor & tantum amicis privatim ostendit, ut eos convinceret te non

Ille p{illeg}|o|rro huic meæ quætioni {sic} benigne respondis|t|se Equitis erratici nomen \{illeg} {sic}/ D. Leibnitium in prima sua ad Abbatem de Comitibus Epistola numerum discipulorum ejus \suorum/ jactasse; \& se ad ejus verbas allusisse loqueri de exercitu/ æ|e|quitem|s| erraticum|os| 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 {E}|D|es Mazeauz chartas D. Leibnitij collegit & eas accepit partim a{nt} ab ipso Leibnitio paulo ante obitum suum ejus, & partim ab Abbate de Comitibus, uti constat ex epistolis|a| D: Leibnitij ad Abbate D. Des-Maizeaus 21 Aug. 1716, et epistola D. Des-Maizeaus|z| ad Abbatem de Comitibus 21 Aug. 1718. in secundo collectionū volumine impressis pag 355, & 362. Adde quod Newtonus asserat collectionem hanc prope impressam esse cum primas tuas Literas accepit ipsum disputationes int{illeg}|e|r te et Keilium ipsum minime curasse|.| uptote Oxoniu{illeg}|m| \uti/ ubi Keilius vixit, abest|s|e a Londino miliaribus prope 50. Newtonum|s| Commercia |P|m|hl|ilosop\h/ica {sic} et Mathematica \jam/ odi{illeg}|sse||,| & [disputationes fuerunt \ill{illeg} præteritæ/ verbosæ fuerunt et nullius fere momenti.] D. Leibnitius|m| conatus|m| est|s||se| disputationē a seipso ad D. Bernoulli|ū| transferre, et eapropter Newtonus|m| ab {illeg}lites contra ipsum \Bernullium/ nondum scripsit|s|se, ne in animo habere ut scribat.

Ille porro huic meæ quæstioni benigne respondit, \/ < insertion from f 619v >  se vocando dicendo te primas \tenere/ inter D. Leibnitij discipulos, < text from f 618r resumes > D. Leibnitium in prima sua ad Abbatem de Comitibus Epistola numerum discipulorum suorum jactasse & se ad initio Epistolæ suæ secundæ scripsisse Mais {p}{illeg}qu{illeg}\s/ 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 \{illeg}/ de prælio c{u} \prælio cum/ exercitu discipulorum Leibnitij vel \& ad posteriora/ de Duello cum ipso Leibnitio:|.| e|E|quites erraticos uti non ad prælium sed ad duellum spectare. Verba autem sua in Observationibus i|q|uas scripsit in Epistolā illam secundam, viz^t [& Mathematicks must hencef{illeg}|o|rward 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 {illeg} Bernoullius sed {illeg}) Leibnitius {illeg}a{illeg}fugit, vice rationum ac demonstrationum ab antiquis Epistolis et Monumentis na{illeg} 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 {illeg}|v|el quin primæ Tomi secundi impressæ essent, ex Hollandia missæ & ei ostensæ. Et observat etiam quod collectio a|i|lla fuit Chartarum D. Leibnitij, qu{o|d|} \qu{illeg}/ quoꝫ|d| D. Des-Maizeaux eas accepit in hunc finem \par/ ab ipso Leibnitio et ejus amicis, uti constat ex epistola D. Des Leibnitij et|ad| D Des Maizeaux 21 Aug 1718|6|, 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 quibuscum privatim communicandi.] Deni scribit Newtonus \Et/ se credidisse quod \tu/ Literas {illeg}|e|as mittendo tanquā remedium contra injuriam publicam, licen illi licentiam dedisses easdem in in {sic} lucem edendi si ita illi visum fuisset, & multo magis eas privatim <618v> communicandi: |et| Cum autem aut|c|tor Iudicij 7 Iun. 16|7|13 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)/ dubitar|ss|e, his verbis [And whether the Mathematician be or M^r 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 ede|i|d{illeg}et|isse|t abs venia ostendentis, id disputandi in contrarium.

Deni 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 curavi|re|t, & 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 M^r 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 abs venia ostendentis, id disputando in contrarium.

Deni se cum Auctor Iudicij \7/ illius te ci 7 Iulij 7 Iun. 1713 dati te citat|r|et tanquam a seipso diversum, & D. Leibnitius idem \Iudicium illud/ cum hac citatione primum edi c{u} mox edi curavet;|,| & post biennium in Versione Gallica citationem omitteret ut te Iudicij auctorem faceret: Newtonus observat | scribit 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 M^r 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 habuit|s|se, & 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 abs venia, id disputando in contrarium.

Deni t|s|e ad lites inter te et Keilium

Deni Keilium Oxonij scripsisse quod milliaribus prope 50 Londino absi|es|t.

Deni se literis tuis fidem habuisse, eas Keilio ostendisse ut eum convinceret, ipsi vero nullam dedisse licentiam ut aliquid ex ijs ederet & cum objurgasse quod

Deni \Keilium/ adversus te \suo Marte/ scripsisse \id/ Oxonij, et se lites illas vix aut ne v neglexisse, & se litteris tuis modo jam dictis fidem habuisse, eas Keilio contradicenti privatim ostendisse ut eum convinceret, \(scilicet te non fuisse (sed frustra, &/ nec literas Keilij at|d| te subinde scrips|t|as \non/ vidisse antequam {illeg} in lucem prodirent, eum \se/ vero \et Keilium/ quasi litibus \{o}b novis|u|m/ su{illeg},|tuden|tem mox objurgasse {illeg} 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 I{illeg}|{th}|aca/ under the care of Mentor. And/ he|Ho|/mer\ lived \And Homer afterwards lived/ sometime with Mentor in Ithaca, & there learnt of him many things of him concerning Vlysses. For {illeg} 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 \w^th whom Mentor had there been personally acquain\te{d}//. 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 {illeg} 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.