After Mr Leibnitz had in two Letters \directed to the Secretary of ye R. Society {illeg}/ complained of Mr Keil & the R. Society had appointed a Committee to {illeg} search out old records Letters & papers relating to thi|e| complaint & |to| report their opinion thereupon & ordered the Letters & Papers with the Report of their Committee to be published, & the sa{illeg} the same was published in Jan. 16|7|123 & in August following there was printed somewhere in Germany the following Libel without the name of the Author Publisher Printer or place where the same was printed

29. July 1713
L....us nunc Viennæ —— genti imputari debet.

Concerning this {illeg} Libell it is to be observed that it was set on foot by Mr Leibnitz himself. For {illeg} it represents Cum ipse [Leibnitius] per occupationes diversas rem nunc discutere n{illeg}|o|n satis posset, ad judicium primarij Mathematici & harum rerum peritissimi & a partium studio alieni recurrendum sibi putavit. Id vero omnibus excussis ita pronunciavit literis 7 Junij 1713 datis [ad Leibnitsium] datis: &c. And by this articice {sic} the judgment of a nameless Mathematician is set up in opposition to the judgment of ye Committee of ye 2 It is to be observed that Mr Leibnitz sent this Letter of that pretended Mathematician to R. So Committee of ye R. Society.

2 It is to be observed that this Let Mr Leibnitz sent this Letter of ye pretended Mathematician to his correspondent to be published. For he that published {illeg}|it| wrote that Mr Mr Leibnitz being at \nunc/ Viennæ Austriæ agens ob distantiam locorum nondum vidit libellum in Anglia nuper editum (i.e. Commercium Epistolicum) & gave an account of Mr Leibnit{illeg}|z|'s referring the matte{r} to ye judgment of a primary Mathematician: things wch he could not know without keeping a correspondence wth Mr Leibnitz.

3 The names of the great Mathematician & of the publisher are therefore known to Mr Leibnitz, & since they were imployed by him he is answerable for the whole {illeg} untill he produces their names; {illeg} & if he refuses to produce their names he {illeg} will deserve to be reputed the author of {illeg} what has been published by his means, |the Libel| especially since the style is {illeg} tho pretended to be written by {illeg}|o|ther {illeg} nameless authors. For ye style is not unlike that of Mr Leibnitz. And the reflexions wherewith Mr Newton {illeg} is treated {illeg} are in pursuance of the designe {illeg} of Mr Leibnitz in his expressed in his two Letters to the Secretary of the R. Society, where he declien{illeg}|e|d a dispute {illeg} wth Mr Keil & pressed {illeg} appealed to j|t|he judgment of Mr Newton in order to pick a quarrel with him.

After this Libel had been dispersed in Germany & some other places it was sent to ye Hague with \a paper of/ Remarques upon it to be published in the Journal Lite{illeg}|r|aire. And the Remarques were as follows The author of ye Remarques tells us tha |The Remarques were upon the differences pretended to be between Mr Newton {illeg}|&| {illeg} {illeg}|M|r Leibnitz. The author of the Remarques| pursues the designe of Mr Leibnitz declining to meddle wth Mr Keil & calling the above {illeg} dispute \representing the dispute to be/ between Mr Newton Leibnitz & Mr Keil Newton. He tells us that Mr Leibnitz had not yet seen the {illeg} Commercium Epistolicum {illeg} that he was still had not yet sent his complaint \reasons/ to the R. Society {illeg} in England as being superfluous in a cause \beleiving the matter sufficiently evident/ so just; \with other/ things wch were known only to Mr Leibnitz himself & those to whom he communicated them. And therefore the Author of these Remarks is {illeg} also known to Mr Leibnitz \& might copy from his Letters, or be Mr Leibnitz himself./ {illeg} The Remarques are as follows.

Let this note be in the Margin. Mr Leibnitz wrote to ye Society to condemn Mr <94v> Keil wthout a hearing. The Society hath equal authority over them both. & Mr Leibnitz in complaining \hath/ authorized the Society to leave the matter between \them/ & obliged himself to produce his reasons {illeg} least his complaint should go for a calumny \be deemed a calumny./ [make him liable to be censured by the Society as guilty of calumny.] [Yet \{And then}/ Mr Leibnitz in his second Letter to ye Society condemned calls it unjust to expect that he should defend against {illeg} defend his candor against Mr Keil, & has not prod still refuses \declines/ to give his reasons & thereby has authorised ye Society to look upon his complaint as a calumny] However \And yet/ the Society hath hitherto only ordered the ancient letters & papers & the report of their Committee upon them to be published.] And yet when Mr Leibnitz wrote an answ Keill answered Mr Leibnitz \Keil/ wrote an answer to ye {illeg} accusation \first Letter of/ /accusation,\ Mr Leibnitz instead of justifying his accusation \producing his self his reasons/ wrote back that that {sic} no just man would expect that he at so great an age & after so many documents of his life should justify \def{illeg}|e|nd/ his candor {illeg}. That is he called it injustice to expect that he should give his reasons. But the Society who might have refused to give his reasons \& insisted upon his candor alone/. But the Society hath not yet censured him for this. They have only ordered the an{illeg}|c|ient Letters & papers & the Report of their Committee to be published.

© 2024 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC