An account of the Commercium Epistolicum

<67r>

An Account of the Commercium Epistolicum.^[1]

This book is composed of \ancient/ Letters & Papers written by \D^r Barrow M^r Newton D^r Barrow, M^r Greg. \M^r Collins/ \M^r Newton// M^r Leibnitz M^r Oldenburg \M^r Gregor{y}/ M^r Collins, M^r Newton & others, the originals of still extant in their hands or in the looks of the R. Society as they were coppied in the days of M^r Oldenburg. And copp And the truth thereof has been examined \& reported/ by a Committee of the R. Society & the Society acquiesce in the Report.

The first occasion of this Committee was this. M^r Leibnitz In {a}{illeg} Pi In the Acta Eruditorum published at Leipsic for y^e month of Ianuary 1704 in Account was given of two Tracts of M^r Newton pub concerning the species & magnitude of figure fig Curvilinear Figures. And in this Account M^r Newton was represented to have \al{illeg}/ substituted fluxions for the Leibnitian differences as Honoratus Faber had substituted motion for the method of Cavellerius, that is, that M^r Newton is saying that he had \had not/ found the method of fluxions in the years 1665 & 1666 as he had affirmed, but had received \deduced/ it from \the method of/ M^r Leibnitz & put only put it into another form. M^r Keil observing that this paper w^th divers others pub{illeg}lished in the name of the editors, was writ in the style of M^r Leibnitz, \& that M^r Newton was hereby sued with plagiary & falshood/ took occasion {illeg} in a paper b published in the Transactions \ A.C. 1708/ to write that the Arithmetic of fluxions M^r Newton without all doubt was the first who found out the Arithmetick of fluxions as will easily appear to any man who shall read his Letters published by D^r Wallis : but M^r Leibnitz afterwards having changed the name & manner of notation, published the same in the Acta Eruditorum. M^r Leibnitz afterwards in a letter to D^r Sloan dated 4 March 1711 complained of this to y^e R. Society, \&/ that he knew no never hea{r}{d} of the name nor saw the characters used by M^r Newton before they were published by D^r Wallis, & proposed to y^e Society that he did not M^r Keil should testify openly that he had no d{illeg} intention to erup cast an imputation upon M^r Leibnitz as if he had learnt his differential method from another & attributed it to himself. M^r Keil refused to recant & chose rather to return an Answer whereas he \represented that what he wrote was occasioned by the Acta Lipiensia &/ explained his meaning to be not that M^r Leibnitz had knew the name or notation used by M^r Newton but that only that M^r Newton was the first inventor & that in two Letters written to M^r Oldenburg & by M^r Oldenburg communicated to M^r Leibnitz, had sufficiently described it to a man of M^r a Leibnitzes perspications \understanding/ with from whence M^r L. had or might have the principles of his calculus, & not being able to learn the modes of speaking & the Notation names & notation used by M^r Newton might {illeg}se |That he was induced to write this by the editors of the Acta Leipsiensia w{illeg} {illeg} affirmed that M^r Newton had substituted his| |did| impose his own. An{d} for this his opinion D^r Keil subjoyned his reasons grounded upon several passages taken out of M^r Newtons said Letters & sa\out of/ his Letter of 10 Decemb. 1672 & his Analysis per æquationes numero terminurum infinitas {illeg} communicated to M^r Iohn Collins A.C. 1669. And M^r Leibnitz replied that his candor was more openly attact then before; that no prudent & just man w^ch that he in such an \old/ age after so many proofs of his life should defend w^th an Apology, & contend w^th a man who was learned but a novice, & unacquainted w^th what what had formerly been done, nor authorized by the person concerned, no prudent or just man would approve of. That the A what was in the Acta Leipsiensia detracted from no man, but every where gave every man his due. That he did not make hast to assert the differential <68r> method to himself but kept it secret \above/ nine years before he began to publish it, that he left it to y^e equity of the Society to restrain the the vain & unjust clamours, that he was persuaded that M^r Newton would willingly which he beleived were displeasing to M^r Newton himself. & was persuaded that M^r Newton would declare as much.

The R. Society being thus twice appealed unto, & there being no witnesses now alive for M^r Newton & M^r Leibnitz\(For M^r Leibnitz could not be witness for hirmself nor Newton for M^r Keil)/, the Society appointed a Committe to search out ancient Letters & papers \& letter books/ extant or either in their own archives or in left by M^r Oldenburg or M^r Collins |in the custody of the society or| otherwise extant, & to examin what might relate to this matter & report their opinion thereupon: & the Committe made the following Report.

Whe have consulted to be made publick

Whereupon the R. Society ordered the collection of epistles & many scripts & th w^th the Report of their Committee to be made pu & what else might occurr in the Acta Eruditorum proper to clear up this matter to be made publick. And the same were accordingly published under the Title of Commercium Epistolicum.

The Letters & MSS themselvers are of unquestionable authority the Originals of most of them & authentic copies of the rest being still preserved. \or long since published by D^r Wallis. And the first paper \in this collection/ is a Tract written/ And the Questions to be decided by them are these.

M^r Leibnitz in his lettter of Iune 21th 1677 wrote that he agreed w^th M^r Newton that Slusius'es method of Tangents was not yet perfect & that he himself had handled the of a long time handled the business of Tangents much more generally, namely by the difference of the Ordinates, & then described his Differential method as if he had found it long before : & in his letter of 29 Decemb 1711 that he had found it above 9 years before he began to publish it, that is before that he found it before Octob. 1675. For he began to published it in Octob. 1684. by M^r Newton \communicated by D^r Barrow to M^r Collins/ in the year 1669 as appears by some \three/ letters of D^r Barrow still extant & by the Letters of M^r Collins who cites several p M^r Gregory, M^r Bertet, M^r Borellus, M^r Vernon, M^r Strode, & \by/ M^r Oldenburgs Letter to M^r Slusius dated 14 Sept 1669 & by a copy of this Tract found by the hand of M^r Collins. This Tract was first first printed by M^r Iones from a copy found in the hand \writing/ of M^r Collins, w^ch of then reprinted in the Commercium from the same copy. It conteins an account of the method of reducing æquations into infinite series, & of of applying those \series/ to the quadrature of curves by meanes of three Rules set down in the beginning & to other Problems by meanes of Quadratures & \of/ the method of \motions or fluxions &/ moments, & to the inverse of those Problemes by \extracting the affected roots / transforming the series & to Mechanical curves in finding their \Ordinates/ tangents, areas, lengths, &c. And And after M^r Newton had shewed how it extended to these Problems he adds that he knows nothing to w^ch this method doth not extend itself & that after various manners. And by its universality & the exactness of its reasoning justifies his giving it the name of Analysis : especially since by the help of it, the Areas & lengths of Curves &c may be determined exactly {&} Geometrically when it is practicable. But he How to do this he describes not here but gives an instance of it in his letter of Octob. 24. 1676 \then/ communicated to M^r Leibnits & printed in this Commercium p.72, 73. Thus M^r Newton before the year 1669 \that is above 44 years ago/ had carried his Analysis to a higher pitch & made it of a more universal extent, then any other person what so ever hath been able to hitherto able to carry the differential method. without M^r Newton For the method of series & moments together make and Analysis <69r> much more universal then y^e method of moments alone. And the conclusions are as exact if you continue the series in infinitum as the conclusions \are/in vulgar Analysis by finite equations if you extract the roots of those Equations in infinitum.

Now tho it was not M^r Newton designe in this Tract to explain the Analysis of moments any further then in relation to infinite seri its use in the working by infinite series, yet by what is here said of it, it appeares that he was then master of it. F he considers the Area of a curve as generated \& described/ by the Ordinate moving upon the Abscissa with an uniform motion & thereby describing it & calls the Abscissa \Ordinate/ the moment of the area, & where several areas are so described by several Ordinates he considers the several Ordinates as the moments of the several areas, & where an abscissa is of a \increases uni/ given length \formly/ he represents the moment by a given quantity & particularly by an unit, & proposes to deduce the find the area\at all time by having/ by having the moment \thereof at all times./ That is, by having an equation expressing the \relation of y^e/ moments \to y^e abscissa/ to find a equation expressing the relation of the area to the Abscissa or to the rectangle of the Abscissa & a given moment or to And then adds that by the same method that an Area may be deduced from its moment any other quantity may be deduced from its moment. Where by he it is manifest that he had at that time the method of deducing quantities of any sort from their moments. {Vide} pag 14 Commercy : An instance of this he gives in finding the lengths of Curves & adds that y^e like may be done for their superficies & solid contents & centers /of gravity\, & on the contrary \he gives examples of deducing/ the Abscissa may be deduced from the Area or Length of a Curve & of extending the method to Mechanical Curves, & of finding such curves as may be squared. All w^ch shew that M^r Newton had at that time the method of moments direct & inverse so far as relates to this Analysis by infinite equations series. And in his letter of Decem. 10 1672 wher he represents that the method of Tangents there described was but a particular or rather a Corollary of a general method w^ch without any troublesome calculation extended it self not only to y^e drawing tangents to any Curves Geometrical or Mechanical or in any manner whatever related to right lines but also to other more obstruse sorts of Problemes concerning the curvities, areas, lengths, centers of gravities &c of curvilinear figures, & this without sticking at æquations affected w^th surd quantities. All w^ch is as much as to say that M^r Newton had extend his method of moments \whereof his method of Tang^ts was extended \a Corrollary extended// to all sorts of æquations whether finite or consisting of an infinite number of terms, rational or affected w^th surd quantities, & dispatcht the known sorts of Problems in all sorts of the Mechanical Curves as well as in those A called Geometrical. And

So The And in \the first of/ his two letters written to M^r Oldenberg A.C. 1676 & by him communicated to M^r Leibnitz, M^r speaking again of this method said that this Analysis by the help of series was so much inlarged as to extend to almost all sorts of problems (except y^e numeral ones \like those/ of Diophantus,) but did not become general w^thout some further methods of reducing problems to series : w^ch methods he comprehended in <70r> the following sentences exprest ænigmatically. Data æquatione fluentes quotcun equati quantitates involuente inventre fluxiones invenire et vice versa. And in his second Letter making mention of the method of Tangents by w^ch he drew tangents determined maxima & minima, squared curves, &c, he exprest this comprehended this method in the following sentence exprest A œnigmatically. Data æquatione quotcung fluentes quantitates involvente, fluxiones invenire, & vice versa. And this is the method general method desc mentioned in his aforesaid Letter of 1672. And by his saying there that he had this method he determined the curvitures of curves it is manifest that he had then extended it to the second fluxions

M^r Newton had therefore in those days {illeg} a method of considering \indeterminate/ quanties as growing by continual increase, & putting some symbols for those quantities, & others for the velocities of their increase which \velocities/ he calls their fluxions & perhap \the rectangle of their fluxions & their/ others \the moment o/ for their particles generated in every moment of time w^ch particles he calls their moments, & deriving the fluxions from the quantities or the quantities from the fluxions as the nature of the Question should require. For that he had symbols for these quantities in the manifest by his Analysis above mentioned For towards the end of that Analysis (pag. 19) he puts some letters as x & z for fluents & others as y or v for fluxions \& where the fluxion is uniform he represents \it/ by an unit/ & drawing the fluxions into the \an/ indefinitely small quantity o, he puts the rectangles oy, ov for ox the moments, & where the fl or o for the moments. And a little before he puts where $\frac{\mathrm{aa}}{\mathrm{64x}}$ is the Ordinate of a Curve he puts $\frac{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{a}}{64\mathrm{x}}$ for the area generated by that Ordinate. And by the like notation if z is the area of any curve whose ordinate is z, & z is the ordinate of any curve whose area is z & z is the fluxion & oz the moment of any quantity whose fluent quantity z & if z be put for any fluent \represented by that area or proport an area or capable of being so represented/ its fluxion will be z & its moment oz, & for the fluxi of z or second fluxion of of z may be put v or any other letter or mark.

And this much appear \at least/ concerning the method of fluxions & & {sic} series appears from the papers \extant in out of the Commercium &/ written by M^r Newton & communicated to his friends before M^r Leibnitz began to speak of his differential method. {illeg}late lately published in the Commercium Epistolicum

In the year 1671 M^r Leibnitz was in London & there printed his Hypothesis Physica nova, & in his Dedication thereof to y^e R. Society mentions his correspondence with M^r Oldenburgh, & in the beginning of the year 1673 being reprehended by D^r Pell for pretending to y^e differential method of Mons^r Mouton he wrote an Apology for himself \to M^r Oldenburg/ as is mentioned above in the Report of the Committee. And soon after went from London to Paris. \being about that time chosen fellow of the R. Society. And the next year in summer Iuly/ & there applied himself to y^e study of infinite series began to write to M^r Oldenburg as if he had found the Area of a circle by a certain series of rational numbers continually produced in infinitum.

When M^r Collins had received the Analysis above mentioned from D^r Barrow he sent communicated the series therein set down to his friends & particularly to D^r Barrow M^r Iames Gregory within the spa who thereby within the space of about a year found out the method & sent back to M^r Collins several other series found thereby, & M^r Collins communicated those also very freely to his friends having M^r Gregories leave to do so. All w^ch appears by the Letters of M^r Collins & M^r Gregory printed in the Commercium.

In the mean time M^r Leibnitz spent some time at London, & in the year 1671 printed there his Hypothesis Physica nova, & in his Dedication thereof to the R. Society mentions his correspondence with M^r Oldenburg; & in the beginning <71r> of the year 1673 being reprehended by D^r Pell for pretending to the differential method of Mons^r Mouton he wrote an apology for himself to M^r Oldenburg extant in the Commercium, & soon after went from London to Paris being about that time chosen fellow of the R. Society. And the next year in Iuly began to \& October/ wrote to M^r Oldenburg representing that Vicount Brounker & N. Mercator had found an infinite series of rational numbers equal to y^e area of an Hyperbola, but no man had hitherto found a progression of rational numbers which being continued in infinitum became exactly equal to the Circle \or in the circumference/ But he had now found such a summ series & durst venture to say that he was the first who had done it. And that by the same method there was|ere| a certain harmony|ie|s between \with/ the quadrature of the circle & that of the Hyperbola \this series had discovered certain harmonies between the/ circle & Hyperbola & \as he had found the proportion of the circumference to the Diameter in such a series/ |so| that by the same method the valor of any Arch whose sine was given might be exhibited Geometrically by a s such a series without knowing the length of the whole circumference, or the proportion of the Arc to the whole circumference. All w^ch is as much as to say that he had a series w^ch by the sine gave the arc & one & the same method from the sine gave the arc & from the whole sine or radius gave the By one & the same method therefore he found either the whole circumference or any part of it & by consequence had got M^r Newtons series described pag 15 of in his Analysis pag 15 {illeg} pag 15, viz if x be the sine of an arc in a circle in a circle whose radius is 1, the arch will be $\mathrm{x}+\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{3}{40}{\mathrm{x}}^5+\frac{5}{112}{\mathrm{x}}^7$ &c. For this series gives the arch of ${30}^{\mathrm{gr}}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{48}+\frac{3}{1280}+\frac{5}{14336}+\mathrm{\&c}$ & this series multiplied by 3 gives the Quadrantal arch, w^ch multiplied by $\frac{1}{2}$ gives the area of a circle whose diameter in an unit. And must be the series of rational numbers boa here boasted of by M^r Leibnitz the summ of whose terms is exactly equal to the area of a circle. For this series is found by the same method whereby the Arch is given by the sig sine, & M^r Leibnitz at that time boasted of no more series then one for the area of the circle. M^r Leibnitz had therefore obteined M^r Newtons series of find the arc by the sine, but the meth Demonstration of M^r Newton"s series he had not yet or method of finding it he had not yet obteined : but for he wrote to M^r Oldenburg for it about two years after.

In the mean time M^r Oldenburg in his Letter dated Aprill 15 1675 sent eight or nine series to M^r Leibnitz w^ch he had received from M^r Collins. One of them was M^r Newtons series for finding the arc by the sine. Another was his series for finding the sine by the arc. And the two last were M^r Gregories for finding the arc by the Tangent & the tang^t by the arc & the arc by the tangent. This Letter came to the hands of M^r Leibnitz, for he wrote an Answer to it dated 20 May 1675, & the asnwer was in these words Literas tuas multa fruge Algebraica refertas accepi pro quibus tibi et doctissimo Collinio gratias ago. Cum nunc præter ordinarias Curas Mechanicis imprimis negotijs distrahar non potui examinare series quas misistis ac cum meis comparare. Vbi fecero per scribam tibi sententiam meam : nam aliquot jam anni sunt quod inveni meas via quadam sic satis singulari. Collinium ipsum magni facio quoniam omnes pura Matheseos partes ab ipso egregie cultas video. Thus M^r Leibnitz know none of the series <72r> sent to him by M^r Oldenburg to be his own, but pretended to have some others found some years before : w^ch others he has not been able to produce to this day. Hence forward therefore he quitted his claim to M the series for finding the sine \arc/ by the sine : for he wanted the Demonstration to support his claim. But the next year having rec having received the by another hand the series for finding the arc by the sine & the inverse thereof for finding the by sine by the arc he wrote back to M^r Oldenberg for the Demonstration or method of finding them. His Letter was dated 12 May 1676 & began in this manner Cum Georgius Mohr Danus in Geometria & Analysi versatissimus nobis attulerit communicatam sibi a Doctissimo Collinio vestro expressionem relationis inter arcum et sinum per infinitas series sequentes. Posito sinu x, Arcu z, Radio 1 erit $\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}+\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{3}{40}{\mathrm{x}}^5+\frac{5}{112}{\mathrm{x}}^7+\frac{35}{1152}{\mathrm{x}}^9+\mathrm{\&c}$ $\mathrm{x}=\mathrm{z}-\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{z}}^3+\frac{1}{120}{\mathrm{z}}^5$ + $-\frac{1}{5040}{\mathrm{z}}^7+\frac{1}{362880}{\mathrm{z}}^9$ + − &c Hæc, inquam, cum nobis attulerit ille quæ mihi valde ingeniosa videntur, & posterior imprimis series elegantiam singularem habeat, ideo rem gratam mihi feceris, Vir Clarissime, si Demonstrationem transmiseris. Habebis vicissium me ab his longe diversa circa hanc rem meditata de quibus jam aliquot abhinc annis ad te perscripsisse credo, demonstratione tamen non addita quam nunc polio.

M^r Leibnitz had now so far forgot that M^r Oldenbergs letter of April i15^th 1675 that he did not so much as remember that he had seen these two series before they received them from M^r Mohr, & tho they were \sent him/ in that Letter. Nor did he remember that the series w^ch he was now polishing & adorning with a demonstration, was his \sent him/ in that letter & that he did not then know it to be his own. But after \Or else whe perhaps when/ he had found the Demonstration & by transmutation of figures & kew how to deduce that series from such a transmutation, he began might reccon himself a collateral inventor as in the case of Mounton's differential method. For he began the last year \1675/ to communicate to his friends a discourse w^ch he had written upon this subject Quadrature as I found \appears/ by his words published in the Acta Eruditorum ffor April 1691. The words are these. Iam anno 1675 compositum habebam opusculum Quadraturæ Arithmeticæ ab Amicis ab illo tempore lectum, sed quod materia sub manibus erescente, limare ad editionem non vacavit postquā aliæ occupationes supervenere præsentim com nunc prolixius exponere. more vulgari more quæ Analysis nostra nova paucis exhibet non satis operæ pretium videatur. By these words it is evident These words are a confession that he did not find out his M Differential Analysis till he had done polishing this Opusculum & began to be taken up with business of another nature. He was polishing it when he wrote his letter of May 12 1676 & sent it to M^r Oldenburg in his letter of 27 Aug 27^th 1676, & returned home by London in October & Holland in October & November to be imployed in publick affairs

And that the Differential method was not yet found out is demonstrated also by what M^r Leibnitz wrote to M^r Oldenberg in his Letter of 27 Aug 1676 <73r> Neither doth he describe his method \way/ of considering quantities as binomials & reducting their powers & radicals & the reciprocals thereof into infinite series by one \& the same/ general Rule : but yet by \he his/ sett Down the beginning of those series & \thereby/ it appears that he had then found out that Rule. see pag the Commercium pag. 19 lin 19, 20 & pag 45|9|9 lin 22.

In his Analysis therefore for making his Method universal, he applyes his method universal by these se universal, he applis these series to the solution of all sorts of Problems by considering quantities as growing or increasing by continual motion or flux, & giving the name of moments to their parts generated in equal moments of time, he puts any symbols for the flowing \increasing/ quantities & any others for the velocities of their increase & by \drawing or multipliying/ these velocities into a moment of time he represents their moments. And when he considers any one of the increasing quantities as increasing uniformly or in proportion to time, he puts an given quantity unit or some other given for the velocity of its increase & that unit multiplied by a moment of time for its moment. So when he represents the growing quantities by the areas of Curves \Figure/, he represents the velocities of their growth the velocities of their growth or flux by the ordinates of the curve figures & time by the Abscissa drawn into a given ordinate, & for the length of w^ch he puts an unit, & the moments of these flowing quantities he represents by the Ordinate drawn into y^e moment of the Abscissa the exponent of time. for in which they are generated. So \in this Tract/ when he puts any sym the Ordinate or velocity of increase \or flux/ is $\frac{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{a}}{64\mathrm{x}}$, \x or/ or y, or v, the are he represents the area or fluent by the symbol $\frac{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{a}}{64\mathrm{x}}$ or x or y or u & their moments by $\frac{\mathrm{aaa}}{\mathrm{64x}}$ or ox or oy or ou. Or else he represents the fluents by some letters as \& where the fluxion is 1 oy v or yo he represents the moment by o, oy, ov/ /or oy\ z oe v or z & their fluxions by other letters. Or where the fluents are represented by \some/ letters he represents the fluxions by other in the Tract by other letter & the moments by other letter or marks & the moments And by the like notation The fluents may be repres if the Ordinates or fluxions be v, x, y, z the fluents will be v, x, y, z & the fluxions moments ov, ox, oy, oz. Or whe Also when he fluent is x or z he puts y or v for the fluxion & oy or ov for y^e moment, & this way of notation he demonstrates the first of his three Rules above mentioned. And by these same ways of notation he reserves to himself a liberty of putting any symbols for the fluents, any other symbols for the fluxions & the symbols of the fluxions multiplied by o for the moments By this means he performed all his computations in this method w^thout any other any other infinitely small quantity then the moment o (as in demonstrating the first of the said three Rules in this Tract & in demonstrating the first Proposition in his book of Quadratures) he performed the wole operation by vulgar considered the symbol o as infinite quantity & performed the whole operation without by vulgar Geometry without considering any one quantity as infinitely small & {illeg} when the computation was brought to an end & the equation reduced : he considered the quantity o as decreasing till it vanish ed & thereby had a new equation w^ch determined & what he sought. And this way of working {illeg} he calls his methods rationum primarum & ultimarum. But if he was minded \not to work demonstratively/ to make dispatch by such approximations as were of \would/ breed no error in the conclusion, he supposed the quantity o to be infinitely little, & this way of working his method of Moments And both these ways of working are his general method w^ch he calls his method of fluxions. And by these methods he applied his series so generally to the solution of Problemes as to say in his Analysis that he knew of no Problems Geo about figures Geometrical or Mechanical to w^ch <74r> this method did not extend & that after various manners

And as by this Tract of Analysis it appeasr that M^r Newton \had/ then applied this method \generally/ to the solution of Problemes by seires : so by his Letter of \to M^r Collins dated/ Decem. 10 1672 dated to M^r Collins & printed in the Commercium it appears that he had then applied it generally to the solution of Problems by finite equations. For in this Letter having M^r Newton having described his method of Tangents w^ch proved to be the same w^th that of Slusius, he added that this method was but a particular or rather a Corollary of a general method w^ch without any toublesome calculation extended itself not only to the drawing of Tangents to any Curves Geometrical or Mechanical or in any manner whatever related to right lines, but also to other more abstrase sorts of Problemes concerning the curvities areas lengths centers of gravities &c of curves &c & this without any sticking at equations affected with such irrational quan tities. And thus much concerning the method of series & fluxions appears out of what M^r Newton wrote before the end of the year 1672 : at w^ch time M^r Leibnitz had not begun to write any thing about either series or the Differential method.

M^r When M^r Collins had received M^r Newtons Analysis he communicated one of the series to M^r Iames Gregory who after a years consideration fell upon the same method & sent some other series to M^r back to M^r Collins in the beginning of the year 1671 & gave M^r Collins leave to communicate them to whom he pleased. And M^r Collins was very free in communicating the series of M^r w^ch he had received from them both as appears by the Letters published in the Commercium.

M^r Leibnitz had been was in England \at London/ in the year 1671 & there printed his Hypothesis Physica nova & in his Dedication thereof the R. Society mentioned his correspondence w^th M^r Oldenburg, & in the beginning of the year 1673 claimed the differential method of Mons^r Mouton pretending that he had found it apart w^thout the assistance of Mouton & had much improved it, & soon after went from London to Paris & the next year A.C. 1674 wrote to M^r Oldenburg that he had found a series of rational numbers equal to y^e circle & by the same method the \any/ arch might be found in such a series w^thout knowing its proportion to the whole circumference. Which is as much as to say that by the sine of an arch whose proportion the to the whole circumference was known he had found a series of rational numbers for the whole circumference & by the same method could find a series for any arc whose \tho its/ proportion to the whole circumference was not known. By the method of finding these \particular/ series in rational numbers he means a ge M^r Newton\a/ general series for find w^ch by assuming the arc sine in \a/ rational numbers gives the arc in a series of rational numbers. And this general series was M^r Newwtons not found out by M^r Leibnitz for he wrote afterwards to M^r Oldenburg to procure from M^r Collins the Demonstration thereof meaning M^r Newtons method for finding it. And all this

The next year viz^t A.C. 1675 in April M^r Oldenburg having received eight series from M^r Collins sent the to M^r Leibnitz then at Paris & M^r Leibnitz Two of them were M^r Newtons for finding the Arc by the sine & the sine by the arc, & other two were M^r Gregories for finding the arc by the tangent & the tangent by the <75r> arc. But M^r Leibnitz knew none of y^e eight series to be his own For his answer dated \at Paris/ May 20 1675 began in these words : Literas tuas multa fruge Algebraica refertas accepi, pro quibus tibi et doctissimo Collinio gratias ago. Cum nunc præter ordinarias curas Mechanicis imprimis negotijs distrahar, non potui examinare series quas misistis ac cum meis comparare. Vbi fecero, perscribam tibi sententian meam: nam aliquot jam anni sunt quod inveni meas via quadam sic satis singulari. These series were in general \terms/ those of M^r Leibintz in particular numbers. And tho he had got the \general/ series for finding the arc whose sine was given, yet he wanted the Demonstration. But having by found a dem\on/stration of the series for fo the arc whose tangent was given he published \began/ this year \to/ communicate it to his friends at Paris as he himself has told us in {illeg} the Acta Eruditorum mense Aprili anni 1691 pag 178 in these words Iam anno 1675 compositum habebam opusculum Quadraturæ Arithmeticæ ab amicis ab illo tempore lectum sed quod, materia sub manibus crescente limare ad editionem non vacavit postquam aliæ occupationes supervenere; præsertim com nunc prolixius exponere vulgari more, quæ Analysis nostra nova paucis exhibet, non satis operæ pretium videatur. M^r Leibnitz therefore had not yet found his new Analysis nor did it out till after he had done filing & polishing this Opusculum in order to publish it.

The next year when M^r Leibnitz had again received two of the aforesaid eight sries by another hand, he took occasion from thence as if he had forgot that he had receved them before, to write to M^r Oldenburg for the Demonstration of them in these words {illeg} Parisijs {illeg} 12 Maij anno 1676: Cum Georgius Mohr Danus in Geometria et Analysi versatissimus, nobis attulerit communicatam sibi a Doctissimo Collinio vestro expressionem relationis inter Arcum et sinum per infinitas series sequentes: Posito sinu x, arcu z, Radio 1.
$\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}+\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{3}{40}{\mathrm{x}}^5+\frac{5}{112}{\mathrm{x}}^7+\frac{35}{1152}{\mathrm{x}}^9+\mathrm{\&c}$ $\mathrm{x}=\mathrm{z}-\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{z}}^3+\frac{1}{120}{\mathrm{x}}^5-\frac{1}{5040}{\mathrm{x}}^7-\frac{1}{362880}{\mathrm{x}}^9$ + &c
Hæc, inquam cum nobis attulerit ille, quæ mihi valde ingeniosa videntur, et posterior imprimis series elegantiam quadam singularem habeat ideo rem gratam mihi feceris, Vir Clarissime si Demonstrationem \DEMONSTRATIONEM/ transmiseris. Habebis vicissium mea ab his longe diversa circa hanc rem meditata, de quibus jam aliquot abhinc annis ad te perscripsisse credo, demonstratione non addita quam nunc polio POLIO. By the Demonstration he understands M^r Newtons method: & by his continuing still to polish his Quad{a} inven Quadrature by the transmutation of figures, it appears that he had not yet found out his new Analysis.

This summer between the 14^th of Iune & 11^th of August M^r Oldenburg sent to M^r Leibnitz at Paris a collection of the Letters & papers of M^r Iames Gregory newly dead. The Collection was made by M^r Collins newly dead w under this title. Extracts from the M^r Gregories Letters to be lett lent to Mon^s Leibnitz to peruse who is desired to return the same to you. And M^r Collins in a letter to M^r David Gregory the brother of M^r Iames dated 11^th Aug. 1711, wrote that they were such. And M^r Tsc\{aurn}/hause then at Paris \{new them af}/ in a letter to M^r Oldenburg dated 1 Sept. 1676 has this pas sentence relating to them : Similia porro quæ in hac re præstitit eximius ille Geometra Gregorius \[sc. quod series infinitas/ memoranda certe sunt & quidem optimæ famæ ipsius consultiri, qui ipsus relicta {illeg} Manuscripta luci publicæ ut exponantur operam navabunt. The collection was therefore received at PAris & sent back, being now in the custody of M^r lately found of M^r Iames Gregory dated 15 Feb. 167\0/1 in w^ch was the series for \finding/ the arc by the Ta whose from the Tangent given & another for the tangent from the Arc given. [And yet M^r Leibnitz goes on \still/ to claim the first of these two series <76r> as having found them \himself/ by himself w^thout by the transmutation of figures. And] There was also a copy of M^r Newton's Letter of 10 Decemb. 1672, in w^ch this the extent genera of this general method method M^r his general method was desc of fluxions was described in gene \{at laping}/ral terms, & the method a & b & hi \&/ his method of tangents w^ch proved to be the same with that of Slusius, \was/ described fully \plainly/ & said to be a branch or Corollary of that gener Meth general method. And about the same time viz^t 13 Iune 1676 a letter of M^r Newtons dated 13 Iune 1676 was sent to M^r Leibnitz in w^ch he he at the requese of M^r Leibnitz he describes his method of infinite series & in the end of w^ch he subjoyns: Ex his videre est quantum fines Analyseos per hujusmodi infinitas æquationes ampliantur : Quippe quæ earum beneficio, ad omnia pene dixerim problemata (si numeralia Diophanti et similia excipias) sese extendit: non tamen omnino universalis evadit nisi per ulteriores quasdam methodos eliciendi series infinitas

And to this M^r Leibnitz returned answer in his Letter of 27 Aug. returned answer : Quod dicere videmini, pleras difficultates exceptis Problematibus Diophantæis) ad series infinitas reduci, id mihi non videtur sunt enim multa us adeo mira et implexa ut NEQVE ABQVADRATVRIS ÆQVATIONIBVS pendeant ne a PENDEANT NEQVE EX QVADRATVRIS, qualia sunt (ex multis alijs) Problemata mathodi tangentium inversa. From w^ch words its most evident that M^r Leibnitz did not yet understand the differential method.

M^r Newton in his Letter of 24 Octob 1676 replied that that the inverse Problemes of Tangents were in w^thin the compass \reach/ of his & others more difficult were in his power: for solving of w^ch he used a double method; one more concise the other more general & {expa} comprised least they

M^r Newton in his Reply dated 24 Octob 1676 making mention of a Tract composed 5 years before but not finished, & of the method of Tangents set down therein w^ch & communicated to M^r Collins in his letter of 10 Decemb 1670 & communicated to M^r Collins two or three years before (viz^t in y^e Letter of 10 Decemb. above mentioned) & how this method \w^ch was the same w^th that of Slusius,/ flowed readily from his Principles & stuck not at surd quantities \questions de/, & that y^e same Principles extended in like manner to the determining Maximas & Minimas & some others & to the Quadratures of Curves w^ch thereby became more easy : he gave some instances of the power of this method in squaring Curves & se in letters put out of order, set down the foundation of this Analysis in this sentence, Data Æquatione fluentes quotcun quantitates involvente fluxiones invenire & vice versa. And towards the end of the Letter he adds that {illeg} the inverse problemes of Tangents & other more difficult were in his power: for resolving of w^ch he used a double method, one more concise the other more general, w^ch methods he set down in two sentences in transposed letters comprehending these sentences Vna methodus consistit in extractione fluentis quantitatis ex æquatione fluxionem ejus involvente: altera tantum in assumptione seriei pro quantitate qualibet incognita ex qua cætera commodederi vari possunt, et in collatione terminorum homologorum æquationis resultantis ad eruendos terminos assumptæ seriei.

And now M^r Leibnitz being convinced that M^r Newtons method <77r> was much more general then he had apprehended, & extended to inverse problems of Tan tangents & others more difficult & stuck not at surd, & the method of Tangents of S in direct problems of Tangents was of the same kind w^th the Method of Slusius; wrote back in a letter & in squaring the Curves gave very general T & useful Theoremes he wrote back in his Letter of 21 Iune 1677, Clarissimi Slusij methodum tangentium nondum esse absolutam Celeberrino Newtono assentior, et jam a multo tempore rem tangentium longe generalius tractovi scilicat per differentias Ordinotarum.

Iacobus Gregorius in Prop 7 Geometriæ suæ universalis anno 1668 impressæ rem tangentium tr

M^r Iames Gregory in y^e 7^th Proposition of his Geometria Vniversalis printed in y^e year 1668 handed the business of Tangents by the differences of the Ordinates. D^r Barrow in his tenth Lecture printed in the year 1669 did the like in a manner something more general. Slusius founded his method of Tangents in this Lemma Differentia duarum dignitatum data ehusdem generis applicata ad Differentiam laterum dat partes singulares gradus inferioris ex binomio laterum, ut$\frac{{\mathrm{y}}^3-{\mathrm{x}}^3}{\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{x}}$ = yy + yx + xx. And these are the differences of M^r Leibnitz. $\frac{{\mathrm{y}}^3-{\mathrm{x}}^3}{\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{x}}$ in the characters of M^r Leibnitz is $\frac{{\mathrm{dy}}^3}{\mathrm{dy}}$ = 3yy, or ${\mathrm{dy}}^3$ = 3yydy & so of other dignities ${\mathrm{dy}}^4=4{\mathrm{y}}^3\mathrm{dy}$, ${\mathrm{dy}}^5=5{\mathrm{y}}^4\mathrm{dy}$, ${\mathrm{dx}}^2=2\mathrm{x}\mathrm{dx}$, ${\mathrm{dy}}^3{\mathrm{x}}^2=3\mathrm{yydy}$ $\mathrm{3yyxxdy}+\mathrm{2y}3\mathrm{xdx}$ The differ M^r Newton's admonition that the Method of Tangents of Slusius was but a branch or coll corollary of a very generall method & easy method was sufficient to put him upon con sidering the method of Slusius w^th the Lemmas upon w^ch it was grounded. The first Lemma was sufficient to give \him/ the elements & notation of & the\every the/ name of the differential method & the universality of M^r Newtons Method was sufficient to put him upon applying this \differential/ method \to the/quadratures determin to the abstruser Problems, & M^r Newton's saying that his method extended to the finding of curvature of curves was sufficient to put him upon considering the second differences.

^✝ < insertion from f 77v > And that M^r Leibintz received light into the differential method from what M^r Newton wrote of his general method whereof the method of Tangents of Slusius was but a branch or corollary may be gathered even from his own words. For in his Letter to D^r Wallis dated 28 May 1697 he wrote Mihi consideratio Differentiarum & summarum primam lucem affuderat cum animadverterem Differentias Tangentibus & Summas Quadraturis respondere. Vidi mox Differentias Differentiarum in Geometria Osculis exprimi. Dixerat \M^r/ Newtonus ({illeg}|i|n Epistola \his Letter dated/ 10 Decem 1672 data \wrote/) curvitates curvarum \(id est circulos|r||um| deosculantes|iu|m)/ per methodum suam determinari, respondet id est circulos ejusdem Curvaturæ cum Curvis il{illeg} d{illeg} inveniri respondet Leibnitius Dicit Leibnitius, \M^r Leibnitz writes of his in{ven}tion anno 1677/ Vidi mox Differentias Differentiarum in Geometria Osculis exprimi. Hoc vit|d|it{illeg}

M^r Newton in the beginning of his Letter dated 13 Iune 1676 sent M^r Leibnitz a Theorem for reducing \any dignity of a/Binomials into a series Let the Binomials be x+o, its digniy (x+0)^{n whe} the indew of y^e dignity n, the dignity ${\overline{)\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{o}}}^{\mathrm{n}}$ & the series will be ${\mathrm{nox}}^{\mathrm{n}-1}+{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{n}}+\frac{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{n}-\mathrm{n}}{2}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{n}-2}+\mathrm{\&c}$. Here if Therefore (x-o)ⁿ−${\overline{)\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{o}}}^{\mathrm{n}}-{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{n}}=\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{n}-1}+\frac{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{n}-\mathrm{n}}{2}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{n}-2}$. That is in the language of M^r Leibintz ${\mathrm{dx}}^{\mathrm{n}}={\mathrm{n}\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{n}-1}\mathrm{dx}+\frac{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{n}-\mathrm{n}}{2}{\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{n}-2}\mathrm{dxdx}$ &c. In this series if all the terms multipli except the first be omitted as being infinitely less then the first, there will remain ${\mathrm{dx}}^{\mathrm{n}}={\mathrm{nx}}^{\mathrm{n}-1}\mathrm{dx}$. Or $\frac{{\mathrm{dx}}^{\mathrm{n}}}{\mathrm{dx}}={\mathrm{nx}}^{\mathrm{n}-1}$ At And this is the first Lemma of Slusius. M^r Leibnitz therefore had not only the notice from M^r Newtons Letters the notice that the metho M^r Newtons general method was of the same kind \founded upon the same/ principle w^th the Method of Tangents of Slusius, the one being a breanch or corollary of the other, but also sent him a series the two first terms of \which/ was the very principle upon w^ch his \general/ method was founded.

And its further observable that M^r by the two first terms of this series M^r Newton in his Analysis per æquationes numero terminorum infi\ni/tas, demonstrated the first Rule in that Analysis. Which Rule is the inverse off the first Lemma of Slusius, & the

\‖/ < insertion from f 77v > ‖ If it be said that M^r Leibnitz might find his ne differential some other way w^thout the help of M^r Newton, thats not the question, but whether he had not light enough into it from M^r Newton, & whether M^r Newton had it not before him. < text from f 77v resumes > Now when M^r Leibnitz had said, as above : Et jam a multo tempore rem generalius tractavi, scilicet per differentias Ordinatarum he goes on &c < text from f 77r resumes > When therefore he had said Et jam a multo tempore rem tangentium longe generalius tractavi scilicet per differentias ordinatarum, he does on to describe his method by the difference of two Ordnates & the difference of two abscissas & then adds. Hinc nominand {sic} in posterum dy differentiam duarum proximarum y & dx duarum proximarum x {illeg} And by the words nominando in posterum its manifest that patet $d{\mathrm{y}}^2$ esse 2ydy & ${\mathrm{dy}}^3$ esse $3{\mathrm{y}}^2\mathrm{dy}$ & ita porro: which is the very Lemma of Slusius. And here by the words hinc nominando posterum it may be concluded that he began at this very time to communicate his differential method in writing.

Then he sets down as example of drawing Tangents by this Method & concludes w^th these words : Quod coincidit cum Regula Slusij, ostendite eam statim occurrere hanc methodum intelligenti. And this is the first argument that he gives for the similitude of his of this differential method & M^r Newtons.

Then he explains how his method \is/ like that of M^r Newtons in that it sticks not at surd quantities, & subjoyns Arbitror quæ celare voluit Newtonus de Tangentibus ducendis ab his non abludere. Quod <78r> addit ex hoc eodem fundamento quadraturas quo reddi faciliores me in sententia hac confirmat, nimirum semper figuræ illæ sunt ad æquationes quadrabiles quæ sunt ad æquationes|m| differentiales|m|

And in October 1684 when M^r Leibnitz first published the elements of his calculus differentialis, he made this the title of his paper Nova methodus pro Maximis et Minimis item Tangentibus quæ nec irrationales moratur & after he had described the elements of his calculus he subjoyned : Et hæc quidem initia sunt tantum Geometriæ cujusdam multo sublimioris ad difficillima & pulcherrima quæ problemata etiam mistæ matheseos pertingentis quæ sine calculo nostro differentiali, aut simili SIMILI, non temere quisquam pari facilitate tractabit. Vide Acta Eruditorum Compare this description of the differential method w^th the \like/ description of the l w^ch M^r Newton in his three Letters of 10 Decemb 1672, 13 Iune 1676 & 24 Octob 1676 had given of his general method; & then you will understand what method M^r Leibnitz meant by his words aut SIMILI & w^th the comparison w^ch M^r Leibnitz in his Letter of 21^th of Iune 1677 makes between M^r Newtons method & his own. & then you will understand \see/ what method M^r Leibinitz understands understood by his words, aut SIMILI.

And two years after in another paper published in the Acta Eruditorum in Iune 1686 w^th under this title De Gemetria {sic} recondita & Analysi eruditorum indivisibilium at eruditorum infinitarum Addenda. he has these words Porro quoniam ad problemata transcendentia, ubicun dimensiones tangentes occurrunt, calculo tractanda, vix quicquam utilius brevius universalius fingi potest calculo meo differentiali seu Analysi indivisibilium at infinitorum, cujus exiguum tantum velut specimen sive Corollarium continetis|u|r in metho {sic} mea Tangentium in Achis Octob. 84 edita. Which description agrees so exactly w^th the description w^ch Newton had given of his in his letter 10 Decemb. 1672, \had given of his method,/ as if that Letter had then been before this|e| eyes of M^r Leibnitz

In the same paper he writes that before he was acquainted with y^e vulgar Algebra he found out many Theoremes a part of w^ch he afterwars met w^th in the works of the Gregories & D^r Barrow. And after he was acquainted w^th the Vulgar Algebra he found out his Arithmetical Quadrature, & at length he found out his calculus differentialis or Analysis indivisibilium aut infinitorum w^ch being once discovered whatsoever he had before admired {illeg} in these matters, became a play & jeast. Which agrees w^th what was said above of his having the advantages of the words of M^r Gregory & D^r Barrow, of his beginning to communicate Gregories quadrature in his own name in the year 1675 & of his finding the differential method in y^e year 1677.

In the same paper of his writes in speaking of his way of notation he writes. Malo autem dx et similia adhibere quam literas pro illis, quia istud dx est modificatio quædam ipsius x, et ita ope ejus fit, ut sola quando id fieri opus est litera x cum suis scilicet potestatibus & differentialibus calculum ingrediatur, et relationes transcendentes inter x et aliud exprima\n/tur. Qua ratione etiam lineas transcendentes æquatione explicare licet. Here M^r Leibnitz allows that li in his differential method he might have represented the differences by letters \(as D^r Barrow did)/ but he chose rather to represent them by the symbols dx, dy &c for this being more <79r> convenient for explaining representing transcental curves by an equation By his own confession therefore, the differential method is one & the same method whether the differences be represented by letters or any oth by the by any other marks such as are dx, dy, dz \or ox, oy, oz/. And therefore if M^r Newton \might/ use any other sort of Notation without using another method. The invention does not lye the method does not lye in the invention of this or that sort of notation but any sort of notation may be used without varying the method, & the method called by M^r Leibnitz the differential method may be M^r Newtons tho the Notation dx, dy, dz be M^r Leibnitz. The area of a curve whose Ordinate is $\frac{\mathrm{aa}}{\mathrm{64x}}$ M^r Leibnitz in his Analysis represents by this mark $\int \frac{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{a}}{64\mathrm{x}}$, M^r M^r Newton in his Analysis by this $\frac{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{a}}{64\mathrm{x}}$. The difference of Notation makes no difference in the method. But M^r Newtons notation being much older then that of M^r Leibnitz makes him the first inventor of the method. M^r When the fluents of a curve is repr are represented by the areas of Curves & their fluxions by the Ordinates, if the let any letters as v, x, y, z be put for y^e Ordinates the fluents will be x, y v, x, y, z & by this way of notation transcendental curves may be exprest in equations as well as by the Notation of M^r Leibnitz. In the eno M^r Newton in the end of his Analysis put some letters for fluents & others for their fluxions, M^r Leibnitz allows that he could have done the same thing in his differential method : but Newtons being \used by him/ in & perhaps before y^e year 1669 \gives/ him preference \priority/ of invention. M^r Newton \Leibnitz/has \now/ confined his met the method to a particular sort of Notation, M^r Newton has not confined it to any sort of Notation but left it all liberty to use what symbols any man shall think fit. In his Tract of Quadratures & some other papers published by D^r Wallis he has used the note symbols $\stackrel{.}{\mathrm{v}}$, $\stackrel{.}{\mathrm{x}}$, $\stackrel{.}{\mathrm{y}}$, $\stackrel{.}{\mathrm{z}}$; but he has not confined his method to those symbols. He leaves every man at liberty to use what symbols he \In his Procipies he has put smaller greater letters for fluents &/ pleases \& small ones for fluxions./ And whatever symbols he uses, if are used, \if/ their signification be \ones/ described in the beginning, he may by them they will be sufficient to express transcendent Curves by equations, & whatever else can be be exprest be the character symbols of M^r Leibnitz.

But its to be observed that in the differential method there are no symbols for fluxions, there the fluxions are finite quantities & the differences dx dy dz are infinitely small. B

But its to be observed that in M^r Newtons method there are symbols for fluents & others for fluxions & that the put symbols for fluxions multiplied by the letter o w^ch he uses for a moment of time become the his symbols of moments or differences: but in M^r the Differential method there are no symbols of fluxions & there but moments differ \(for fluxions are finite quantities)/ & therefore M^r Newtons notation is more complete & comprehensive. Its further to be observed that M^r Newton can use the letter o as a finite quantity whenever he pleases & there by perform the whole computation in finite quantities by the Geometry of Euclide, & make his conclusions demonstratively certain: M^r Leibnitz's his method wants this advantage his differences dx, dy, dz being always considered as infinitely small. And its still further to be considered that M^r Leibnitz when M^r Newton's method preceeds not in finite equations he can work in infinite series & thereby apply resolve \apply his method to/ almost all sort of Problems: wh whereas the working by infinite series is no part of the Analysis of <80r> M^r Leibnitz So Then \the/ method of M^r Newton in the year 1669 when he communicated it to D^r Barrow his Analysis to D^r Barrow & by D^r Barrow to M^r Collins was be more extensive & complete in its notations, more demonstrative in its way of working, & more universal in its application to Problems then that of M^r Leibnitz is at present, or perhaps can \even/ be made w^thout borrowing from M^r Newton. And further, M^r Newton's way of considing quantities as growing \increasing/ by various degrees of velocity is agreable to y^e nature of things; that of considering them as composed of indivisibles is forced ungeometrical, there being then no indivisibles in Geometry. [His differences arefrequently incommensurable & by consequence divisible in infinitum] In his Theoria motus abstract \(pag 8)/ he gives this definition of a point. Punctum, saith he, non est cujus pars nulla est, nec cujus pars non consideratur, sed cujus extensio nulla est, seu cujus partes sunt indistantes, cujus magnitudo est inconsiderabilis, inassignabilis, minor quam quæ ratione, nisi infinita ad aliam sensibilem exponi possit, minor quam quæ dari potest at hoc est fundamentum Methodi Cavallerianæ. Whether Euclid or M^r Leibnitz are in the right you may understand by this considering that two solids touch one another in a superfici no in a superficies without penetrations of dimensions, two surfaces cur one another in \Euclids/ line & two lines cut one another in a point Euclids point. Cer But according to Eucl M^r Leibnitz two solids touch one another in a skin whose depth or thickness is indivisible & penetrate one anothers dimensions to the depth of that skin. And upon this notion of indivisibles he has founded the method of Cavallerio|u|s & his own. Cavallerius \& Leibnitz/ might found their methods upon such an Hypothesis, but the Hypotheses is not Geometrical. The differences of M^r Leibnitz w^ch he calls indivisibles, are in various proportions to one another, & frequently they are incommensurable & by consequence divisible in infinitum. For two unequal incommensurable quantities may be subducted from one another in finitum. The language of indivisibles is not Geometrical & a language not Geometrical ought not to be introduced into Geometry.

The symbols by which M^r Newton represents fluxions are the oldest symbols for that sort of quantities: for M^r Leibnitz has not yet any symbols for fluxions. The symbols by w^ch M^r Newton represents moments are (viz^t the rectangles of fluxions & a moment of time) are older then those of M^r Leibnitz for differences, being used by M^r Newton in his Analysis communicated to M^r Collins in the year 1669. And M^r Leibnitz in his giving an account of this Analys {sic} in y^e Acta Eruditorum for February 16 1712 represents the notation by the letter o was used before by M^r Fermat & others in such cases B M^r Newton in honour of M^r Fermat, so far as Gregory Barrow \Gregory & other who used it/ has kept to their notation as far as was practicable \convenient/ consistant w^th the generality of his method M^r Leibnitz has endeavoured to extinguish the notation of those that went before him by a new sort of Notation has departed from the old way of Notation without any necessity & endeavoured to brought in a new one \tending/ to extinguish the memory of those that went before him & make himself the sole inventor. And therefore its an Act of justice to the memory of Fer those that went before him to keep y^e use of the letter o, especially since its more convenient & {illeg} proper & make the method more demonstrative

<80v>

The dispute between M^r Leibintz & M^r Keil. The last Letter was written by M^r Keil Leibnitz & is printed in y^e Acta Leipsica & M^r Leibnitz has refused to

<81r>

An Account of y^e Commercium Epistolicum D. Ioannis Collinij & aliorum De Analysi promota.^[2]

M^r Newton in his Letter o

|1| This Commercium is composed of several Letters & Papers put together in y^e order in w^ch they were written \of time/ & copied from such originals as are described in the title of every Letter & Paper a Committe of the R. Society being appointed to take care of this matter \examin the originals truth of the Originals & compare the copies therewith/. We shall here give you an Account of the matter they contein.

The first Tract is entituled Analysi per Æquationes numero terminorū ✝

|2| M^r Newton in his Letter of 24 Octob 1676 represented that a little before the plague (w^ch raged in London in 1665) he found his method of series, upon the coming abroad of M^r Mercators Logarithm {otechnia} communicated to M^r Collins by M D^r Barrow a Compendium of that Method, \entituled Analysi Æquationes numero terminorum infinitas/ & two years after wrote a larger Tract upon the \same method/ w^th a designe to have published it but upon disputes arising about his Theory of Colours for the sake of quiet left off to before he had finished the Tract, & intermitted the further considerration of these things till y^e writing of his Letter of Iune 13 1676. [He represented also that in the same Tract was a method by w^ch he drew Tangents after the manner of Slusius, determined a maxima & minima, squared Curves, & found \converging/ series for squaring them w^ch broke gave their squares in finite equations when it was practicable &c al & that his method stuck not at surd quantities, & was couched in the solution of his Probleme Data æquatione fluente quotcun fluentes quantitates involvente fluxiones invenire & vice versa.

|3| For solving this Problem the Book of Quadratures De Quadratura Curvarum was composed. And tho it was printed but lately, yet if be compared w^th M^r Newtons Letters of 24 Octob 1676 it will appear to have been found out before y^e writing of that letter & by consequence five years before or above, M^r Newton having then absteined five years from these stud e{illeg}si these studies. The first Proposition is mentioned expresly in that Letter viz^t Data æquatione fluentes quotcun quantitates involvente fluxiones invenire. The Second is \thus/ mentioned in the Compendium written A. 1669.^[3] |Hinc in transitu notetur modus quo Curvæ quotcun quarum areæ {illeg} |s|unt cognitæ possunt inveniri| The fift is set down at large & illustrated w^th examples of the Theorems for squaring of Curves, & there sixt is y^e second of that sort, & these two depend on the four first, & therefore all the six first Propositions were then known to him {illeg} \found out five years/ before the writing of that Letter \or above/. For the 5^t & sixt are also touched upon in y^e said Compendium in these words. H|c|ujus \[methodi]/ beneficio Curvarum areæ & longitudines &c (id modo fiat) exacte et Geometrice determinantur. Sed ista narrandi non est locus^[4] Which words are thus explained by M^r Colling in his Letter to M^r Strode dated 26 Iuly 1672. Ejus [methodi] ope in quavis figura curvilinea proposita quæ una vel pluribus \Proprietatibus/ definitur, Quadratura vel Area dictæ Figuræ accurata si possibile sit, sin minus infinite vero propinqua — obtineri queat. The fift & sixt Propositions of the book of Quadratures & by consequence all the were known to M^r Newton when he wrote the said Compendium. [And whereas the <81v> tenth Proposition of that book is deduced from the 7^th 8^th & 9^th & the second Corollary of that Proposition is mentioned in a Letter of M^r Newton to M^r Collins dated Nov 8^th 1676 & published by M^r Iones \& the Quadratures set down in the Scholium of that Proposition are mentioned in his Letter of 24 Oct 1676/: it may be thence concluded that these three Propositions & of & the 8^th is of y^e same kind w^th y^e 7^th. So then the first ten Proposi the ten first Propositions of the Book of Quadratures were known to M^r Newton when he wrote his in the year 1676, & the first sum of them in the year 1669, & perhaps earlier. And by this book it may be understood what was M^r Newtons method of fluxions in those days, especially if this book be compared with the Compendium above mentioned.]

For in the I And some things are mentioned out of y^e second Corollary & Scholium of the 10^th Proposition in his letter of 24 Octob, & 8^th Novemb. 1676, & by consequence that Proposition & the three preceding \on w^ch it depends/ were know also known to M^r Newton in those days. An

|4| Now the Method of Analysis conteined in those Tracts & Letters is composed of a double method the Method of Series & y^e method of fluxions conjoyned into one general method. The method of Series is set down very plainly in the Compendium & in the Letter of 13 Iune 1676. The For the But w^th the difference that the reduction of fractions & surds into infinite series \by division & extraction of roots/ described at large in the Compendium were \is/ omitted in the letter of 13 Iune & that of do the reduction of the dignity of any Binomium into an infinite series w^ch is described at large in the Letter of 13 Iune 1676 & only touched upon in the Compendium And by setting down the two first Terms of the series, viz^t ${\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{p}}+{\mathrm{pox}}^{\mathrm{p}-1}$ &c & {ⁿq} ${\mathrm{z}}^{\mathrm{n}}+{\mathrm{noyz}}^{\mathrm{n}-1}$ &c.^[5] But by touching upon it to by w^ch it appears that this red series And in the Letter of 24 Octob 1676

The meth

|5| The method of fluxions conteined in these Tract & Letters is this. M^r Newton considers quantities as increasing continually in time, pub gives the name of fluxions to the velocities of their increase & that of moments to their parts generated in moments of time. The fluxion of time \or of any quantity by w^ch Time is represented & exposed/ he represents by an unit, & a moment of time he represents by the letter o or by o or by any constant letter taken for dn \indefinitely or/ infinitely small quantity. Indeter For indeterminate or flowing quantities he puts any o & he puts any of Letter \or symbols/ & for their fluxions any others, {illeg} & for their moments any others \he puts their fluxions/ multiplied by a moment of time. So in the Compendium he If he is demonstrating a Proposition he puts the moment o for in an indefinitely (not infinitely) small part of time & performs the whole operation in finite quantities & finite figures accuratly by vulgar Geometry w^thout any approximation & when the calculation is over he \{illeg} |a|/^[6] supposes the moment o to decrease & become infinitely small & vanish into nothing, & by the quantities w^ch remain in the equation, he gathers the last ratios of the fluxions But if he is only investigating a truth, he \frequently/ supposes the moment o \& the figures/ to be infinitely \consider/ little, proceeds in the calculation by any approximations w^ch he reccons will produce no errors in the conclusion, & \for making dispatch/ neglects to write down the letter o. The first way is Demonstrative, the second more liable to errors, but quicker for saving of time & labour. These methods \modes of computations/ are described in the Introduction & three first Propositions of his Analysis Quadrature|a| Curvarum & the same are used by him in his Compendium.

For the Compendium is founded upon three Rules \of/ the two first of w^ch an amount to this Proposition. Data æquatione fluen Ordinata Curvæ ex dignitatibus Abscissæ conflata, invenire Aream. And the thing was to reduce the Ordinates of Curves into converging series by divisi{on} or extraction of roots simple or affected. When he had illustrated these Rules by various precepts & examples, he & particularly in squaring the circle & coni sections by converging series, he added. Et hac de areis Curvarum investigandis dicta sufficiant. Imo cum Problemata <82r> omnia de Curvarum Longitudine, de quantitate et superficie solidorum de Centro Gravitatis, possunt eo tandem reduci ut quæratur quantitas superficiei planæ linea Cu curva terminatæ; non opus est quicquam de ijs adjungere. In istis autem quo Ego operor modo, diam brevissime.

|7|Sit ABD Curva quævis, & ADKB AHKB rectangulum cujus latus AH vel BK est unitas. Et cogita rectam DBK uniformiter moveri ab AH motam areas ABD et AK describere; et quod BK (1) sit momentum quo AK (x) & BD (y) momentum quo ABD gradatim augetur; et quod ex momento BD perpetim dato possis, per præcedentes Regulas, aream ABD ipso descriptam investigare, sive cum AK (x) momento 1 descripta, confere \‖/ < insertion from the bottom of f 81v > ‖ Here M^r Newton tells us that the three Rules set down in the begining of y^e Compendium were the foundation of this method of Moments for squaring of Curves, the Ordinate of any curve being considered as the moment of its area And this is as much as to say that in this Compendium where he proposed to <82v> find the Ordinate of a Curve by the Area or the Area by the Ordinate he understood\ands/ the same thing as \afterwards/ in his Letter of 16 24 Octob. 1676 where he proposed|s| Data æquatione fluentes quantitas involvente fluxiones invenire & {illeg} vice versa. For he does not restra For in this Compendium he doth not restrain the method of moments to the Quadrature of Curves but in the next words he adds : Iam qua ratione &c < text from f 82r resumes > Iam qua ratione & superficies ABD. ex momento suo perpetim dato per præcedentes Regulas elicitur eâdem quælibet alia quantitas. Ex momento suo sic dato elicietur. |Here he supposes the line AB to increase or flow uniformely in proportion to time, & y^e areas AK & ABD to increase or flow in proportion to the Ordinates $\mathrm{BK}=1$ & $\mathrm{BD}=\mathrm{y}$ & represents their moments or particles generated in moments of time by the line BK & BD & proposes to derive the \any/ qantities generated from their moments after y^e same manner that he derived the areas of curves from their Or by the thre Rules from their Ordinat{es} considered as the moments of the Areas.| Then he sets down an example of finding the length of the seri an arch of a circle whose sine is given & adds : Sed notandum est quod unitas esta quæ pro momento ponitur est superficies cum de solidis, & linea cum de superficiebus & & {sic} punctum cum de lineis agitur. Nex vereor loqui de punctis cum de sive lineis infinite parvis, siquidem proportiones ibi jam contemplantur Geometræ dum utuntur methodis Indivisibilium.

|8| When therefore he puts a point for the moment of a line by a point he means a line infinitely short, & \so/ when he puts a line for the moment of a surface he meanes by it a surface infinitely narrow, & when he puts a surface for the moment of a solid he means by it a solid infinitely thin. And therefore when he calls \the line/ BK (1) the moment of the or rectangular surface AK, by the line BK he & under the line BD (y) the moment of y^e surface ABD, by the lines BK (1) & BD (x) he understands surfaces infinitely narrow, that is, rectangles whose altitudes B are BK (1) & BD (y) & bases infinitely short lines generated in moments of time. Let those moment be r infinitely short lines be represented by the letter o answering to moments of time, be represented by the letter o (as is done neare y^e end of the Compendium) & the moment BK (1) & BD (y) will be $\mathrm{o}\times 1$ & $\mathrm{o}\times \mathrm{y}$, or o & oy. [Neare y^e {sic} \This way of notation he uses neare the/ end of the Compendium where M^r Newton \he/ is demonstrating the first Rule, he \writes down/ expresses the Letter moment o, but putting o & oy f or ov for the moments of AB × 1 & ABD: but when in teaching only y^e art of investigation, he neglects to write it down \down the letter o the common coefficient o/ & puts only the coefficients \of o viz^t/ 1 & y for the moments, or symbol 1 & for the moments, \For/ 1 & y \For moments/ are finite quantities & wherever finite quantities are put for moments w^ch are infinitely little it is to be understood that they are multiplied by the infinitely little quantity o to make them infinitely little: otherwise they represent not moments, fo but fluxions w^ch are finite quantities]

After M^r Newton had thus given a short

M^r Newton in giving this description of his method of fluxions said

M^r Newton in giving this description of his method of moments said that the Ordinate of any Curve

<82v>

|9| After this description of the Method, he applies it to trancendent curves & in instances in finding the Ordinate & area of the Trochois & Quadratrix he adds: Nec quicquam hujus modi seo ad quod hæc methodus id varijs modis, sese non extendit. Imo tangentes ad Curvas Mechanicas (siquando id nono alias fiat, hujus ope ducuntur et quicquid Vulgaris Analysis per æquationes ex finito terminorum numero constantes (quando id sit possibile perficit, hæc per æquationes infinitas semper perficit: ut nil dubitaverim nomen Analysis etiam huic tribuere. And in the last place he demonstrates the first of the three Rules by the method of fluxi moments using the very same sort of calculation w^th that by w^ch he demonstrates the first \Proposition in his/ nook of Quadratures.

|10| When therefore he wrote this Compendium he had a general method of Analysis composed which consisted in applying Equations both finite & infinite to the solution of Problems by the method of moments, & this method was that described in his book of Quadratures

|4| Mercator in Iune or Iuly following \soon after/ published a Demonstration of this Quadrature by the Division of D^r Wallis, & M^r I. Gregory soon after that published a Geometrical Demonstration thereof, & these books being sent a few months after by D^r Collins to D^r Barrow, the the Doctor sent back naturally sent \to M^r Collins/ the Compendium above mentioned. to M^r Collins \This was in Iuly 1669./ The title of this Tract was Analysis per æquatione numero terminorum infinitas. It conteined a general method of squaring all curves by such \equations or convergens/ series, & of solving such other Problems as by the vulgar Analysis were untractable. Amongst the examples of this A new Analysis were these. Let the Radius of a circle be 1, the arc z, & the sine thereof x, & the equations for finding the arc whose sine is given & the sine whose arc is given will be these.

$\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}+\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{3}{40}{\mathrm{x}}^5+\frac{5}{112}{\mathrm{x}}^7+\frac{35}{6}{\mathrm{x}}^9+$ &c

$\mathrm{x}=\mathrm{z}-\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{z}}^3+\frac{1}{120}{\mathrm{z}}^5-\frac{1}{5040}{\mathrm{z}}^7+\frac{1}{362880}{\mathrm{z}}^9-$ &c

|5| M^r Iames Gregory having received one of M^r Newtons series from M^r Collins, after some consideration found M^r Newtons method of series in December 1670 & in the beginning of the next year (15 Feb 1671) sent M^r Collins some other Theorems of y^e same kind, amongst w^ch was this. Let the radius be r, the arc a & the tangent t, & the equation for finding the arc whose tangent is given will be $\mathrm{a}=\mathrm{t}-\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^3}{3{\mathrm{r}}^2}+\frac{5^5}{5{\mathrm{r}}^4}-\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^7}{7{\mathrm{r}}^6}+\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^9}{9{\mathrm{r}}^8}-$ &c

These Theorems M^r Gregory gave M^r Collins full liberty to communicate to whom he pleased & M^r Collins was very free in communicating them what he had received both from M^r Newton & from M^r Gregory.

<85r>

An Account of the book entituled
Commercium Epistolicum Collinij et aliorum
De Analysi promota.

This Commercium is composed of several Letters & Papers put together in order of time & copied from such Originals as are described in the Title of every Letter & Paper; a Committee of the R. Society being appointed to examin the sincerity of the Originals & compare therewith the copies taken from them. It ☉+ < insertion from f 85v > ☉+ It relates to a general Analysis method of Analysis of resolving finite æquations into infinite ones & resolving Problemes applying these æquations, both finite & infinite to the solution of Problems by the method of moments & fluxions. We will first give an account of that part of the method w^ch consists in resolving finite equations into infinite series into infinite ones & squaring curvilinear figures thereby. By infinite equations are ment such as involve a series of terms converging or approaching the truth nearer & nearer in infinitum so as at length to differ from the truth more less then by any given quantity w^ch can be assigned & at length if continued in infinitum, to leave no difference.

The first piece in the Commercium is small Tract

D^r Wallis in his Opus Arithmeticum published A.C 1657 cap 33 Prop. 68, reduced the fraction $\frac{\mathrm{A}}{1-\mathrm{R}}$ by perpetual division into the series A + AR + ${\mathrm{AR}}^2+{\mathrm{AR}}^3+{\mathrm{AR}}^4+$&c

Vicount Brounker squared the Hyperbola by this series $\frac{1}{1\times 2}+\frac{1}{3\times 4}+\frac{1}{5\times 6}+\frac{1}{7\times 8}+\mathrm{\&c}$, that is by this $1-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{7}-\frac{1}{8}$ &c conjoyning every two terms into one. And the Quadrature was published in the Ph Transactions in April 1668.

M^r Mercator soon after published a Demonstration of this Quadrature by the division of D^r Wallis, & soon after that M^r Iames Gregory published a Geometrical Demonstration thereof. And these books were a few months f a few months after sent to M^r Iohn Collins (viz^t in May or Iune 1669) sent by M^r Iohn Collins to D^r Barrow at Cambridge & by D^r Barrow comunicated to M^r Newton. Where upon D^r Barrow mutually sent to M^r Collins a Tract of M^r Newton entituled Analysis per æquatione numero terminorum infinitas. And this is the first piece published in the Commercium

M^r Newton in a Letter dated < text from f 85r resumes > The first piece \in the Commercium/ is a small Tract of M^r Newton's entituled Analysis per æquatione numero terminorum infinitas. M^r Newton in his ^a[7]Letter dated 24 Octob. 1676 makes \this/ mention of it. Eo ipso Eo ipso tempore quo Mercatoris Logarithmotechnia prodijt communicatum est per amicum D. Barrow (tunc matheseos Professorem Cantab) cum D. Collinio Compendium quoddam harum serierum, in quo significaveram Areas & Longitudines Curvarum omnium & solidorum superficies & contenta ex datis rectis; et vice versa ex his datis Rectas determinari posse: & methodum indicatam illustraveram diversis seriebus. M^r Collins \☉/ < insertion from f 85v > ☉ M^r Collins \in y^e years 1669, 1670, 1671, 1672/ gave notice of this Compendium to M^r Iames Gregory in Scotland M^r Bertet & M^r Vernon then at Paris, M^r Alphonsus Borelli in Italy, M^r Strode M^r Townsend \M^r Oldenburg/, & others \in England/ as appears by his Letters.^[8] And M^r Oldenburg in a letter dated 14 Sept 1669 & entred in the Letter book of the R. Society gave notice of it to M^r Francis Slusius at Liege. & cited several sentences out of it. M^r Collins in a Letter to M^r David Gregory Iames Gregory dated 25 novem. 1669,^[9] speaks thus of the method conteined in it. Barrovius provinciam suam publice prælegendi remisit cuidam nomine Newtono Cantabrigiensi, cujus tanquam visi acutissimo ingenio præditi, in Præfatione Prælectionum Opticarum, meminit: quippe antequam ederetur Mercatoris Logarithmotechnia, eandem methodum adinvenerat, eam ad omnes curvas generalitur, et ad Circulum, diversimode applicarat And in a letter to M^r David Gregory dated 11 August 1676,^[10] he < text from f 85r resumes > in his ^b[11] Letter to M^r David Gregory dated 11 Aug. 1676 mentions it in this manner. Paucos post menses quam editi sunt hi libri (viz^t Mercatoris Logarithmotechnia & Exercitationes Geometricæ Gregorij) missi sunt ad Barrovium Cantabrigiæ. Ille autem responsum dedit hanc infinitarum serierum doctrinam jam ante /a Newtono\ \✝/ \Two years before y^e publication of M^r Mercators Logarithmotechni. Vide Iones/ biennium a D. Isaac Newton inventam fuisse & quibusvis figuris \ante excogitatam fuisse quam ederetur Mercatoris Logarithmotechnia/ |&| generaliter \omnibus figuris/ applicatam, simul transmisit D. Newtoni opus manuscriptum. The last of the said two books came out towards the end of year 1668, & D^r Barrow sent the said Compendium to M^r Collins in Iuly following as appears by ^c[12]three of D^r Barrows Letters still extant And in a ^d[13]Letter to M^r Strode dated 26 Iuly 1672 M^r Collins wrote thus of it. Exemplar ejus [Logarithmotechniæ] misi Barrovio Cantabrigiam qui quasdam Newtoni chartas extemplo remisit: E ^e[14]quibus et alijs, quæ olim ab Authore cum Barrovio communicata fuerant, patet illam methodum a dicto Newtono aliquot annis antea excogitatam et modo universali applicatan fuisse: ita ut ejus ope in quavis Figura Curvilinea proposita, quæ una vel pluribus proprietatibus definitur Quadratura vel Area dictæ figuræ, accurata si possibile sit minus infinite vero propinqua, Evolutio vel longitudo Linea Curvæ; centrum gravitatis figuræ, solida ejus rotatione genita & eorum superficies; sine ulla radicum extractione obtineri queant. Postquam intellexerat D. Gregorius hanc methodum a D. Mercatore in Logarithmotechnia usurpatam & Hyperbolæ quadrandæ adhibitam redditam esse, omnibus figuris applicatam; acri studio eandem acquisivit multum in ea <86r> enodanda desudavit. Vter D. Newtonus & B Gregorius in animo habet hanc methodum exornare: D. Gregorius autem ducit. And in another Letter written to M^r Oldenburg to be commnicated to M^r Leibnitz & dated 14 Iune 1676, M^r Collins adds: Hujus autem methodi ea præsentia ut cum tam late patet o nullam &c

This Tract was first printed by M^r Iones being found by him among the papers & in the hand writing of M^r Collins \& collated w^th the original remaining in the hand of M^r Newton/. It conteins the \above mentioned/ general method of Analysis teaching how to resolve finite equations into converging series or infinite equations \ones/ & how by the \above mentioned/ method of fluxions & moments to apply equations both finite & infinite to the solution of all Problems. It begins with where D^r Wallis left off, & founds the method of Quadratures upon three Rules.

D^r Wallis published his method of Quadratures Arithmetica Infinitorum in y^e year 1655, & by the 59^th Proposition of that Book, if the Abscissa of a Curve any Curvilinear figure be called x, & m & n be numbers, & the Ordinate erected at right angles be ${\mathrm{x}}^{\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{n}}$, the area of the figure shall be x $\frac{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{x}}^{\frac{\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{n}}}$. And this is assumed by M^r Newton aas the first Rule upon w^ch he founds his Analysis Quadrature of Curves. D^r Wallis demonstrated this Proposition by steps in many Propositions, & then collected all the Propositions into one \by a Table of the cases/ M^r Newton in the end of his Compendium demonstrated it at once by his method of moments.

By the 108^th Proposition M^r New of the said Arithmetica infinitorum & by several other Propositions w^ch follow therein; if the Ordinate of a Curve be composed of two or more Ordinates taken w^th their signes + & −, the area shall be composed of two or more areas taken w^th their sines + or − respectively. And this is assumed by M^r Newton as the second Rule upon w^ch he founds his method of Quadratures.

And the third Rule is to reduce fractions Radicals & the affected roots of curve æquations into converging series when the Quadratures does not otherwise succeed & by the first & second Rules to square \the figures whose Ordinates are the series/ the single terms of

M^r Newton in his Letter to M^r Oldenburg dated 13 Iune 1676 \& communicated to M^r Leibnitz/ taught how to reduce any dignity of any binomial into a converging \series/ & how by that series to square the Curve whose Ordinate was \is/ that dignity. And being desired by M^r Leibnitz to explain the original of this Theoreme he replied \in his Letter dated 24 Octob 1676/ that a little before the plag\u/e (w^ch raged in London in the years 1665 & 1666) upon reading the Arithmetica infinitorum of D^r Wallis, & considering how to interpole the series x, $\mathrm{x}-\frac{1}{3}{\mathrm{x}}^3\mathrm{,}\mathrm{x}-\frac{2}{3}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{1}{5}{\mathrm{x}}^5\mathrm{,}\mathrm{x}-\frac{3}{3}{\mathrm{x}}^3$ $+\frac{3}{5}{\mathrm{x}}^5-\frac{1}{7}{\mathrm{x}}^7$, & he found \the area of a circle to be/ the series $\mathrm{x}-\frac{\frac{1}{2}{\mathrm{x}}^3}{3}-\frac{\frac{1}{8}{\mathrm{x}}^5}{5}$ $-\frac{\frac{5}{128}{\mathrm{x}}^7}{7}$ $\frac{\frac{1}{16}{\mathrm{x}}^7}{7}-\frac{\frac{5}{128}{\mathrm{x}}^9}{9}$, &c, w^ch gives the Area of a circle. And by pursuing the method of interpolation he found the Theoreme above mentioned. And by \meanes of/ this Theoreme he found the reduction of fractions & surds into converging series by division & extraction of roots, & then proceeded to the extraction of affected roots. And the Reduction of the Ordinates of Curves into converging series by these operations in his where the Quadrature of Curves does not otherwise succeed in his third Rule.

The time when these things were invented is confirmed by <87r> what D^r Ba M^r Collins wrote upon the credit of D^r Barrow \wrote/ in his Letters to M^r Strode & M^r Townley,^[15] viz^t \in these words/ In September 1668 M^r Mercator published his Logarithmotechnia containing a specimen of this method in one only Figure, to wi in the Quadrature of the Hyperbola. Not long after the Book came out I sent one of them to D^r Wallis at Oxford, who forthwith gave his sense of it in the Philosophical Transactions. Another of them I sent to D^r Barrow at Cambridge [viz^t in Iune following] who forthwith sent me up some papers of M^r Newton . . . . . . . by w^ch & former communications made to the D^r thereof from the Author to the Doctor it appears that the said method was invented some years before & generally applied by the said M^r Newton & generally applied|, &c.| And in his Letter to M^r Strode \David Gregory/ dated 11 Aug. 1676 he wrote that the Doctrine of infinite series was invented by M^r Newton about two years before the publication of M^r Mercators Logarithmotechnia & generally applied to all curves. According to M^r Newtons own account he began to inven interpoled the series of D^r Wallis in spring 1665 & before the end of the next year applied the method ge\ne/rally to Problems concerning \for finding/ the areas, lengths, \areas, solid contents, lengths/ centers of gravity &c of lines & figures. It was not invented & generally applied \not/ at once but by degrees in y^e years 1665 & 1666. But for avoiding disputes M^r Newton supposes that my L^d Brounker might invent & Mercator demonstrate the series for the Hyperbola two or three years before they published it.

These three Rules being laid down & illustrated with D^r Wallis & this Compendium among the examples for illustrating the method &c various examples, M^r Newton proceeds to describe his method of moments. At f And for understanding the description he gives of it, I shall first you \describe/ the method w^ch he now uses. He considers quantities not as aggregated of indivisibles but as growing & increasing by continual motion \& hence calls them fluent quantities./. The velocity of the increase he calls the fluxion of the quantities, & the \momentaneus increases or/ parts generated in moments of times he calls the moments of the fluent quanties, the names of fluxion & moments being taken from the fluxion & moments of time. He exposes time by any quantity w^ch flows uniformly & puts an unit \or some other given quantity/ for its fluxion & the letter o or any other conve\ni/ent mark \he puts/ for its moment. For the fl other fluents he puts any other letters suppose the le{illeg}{ter} most commonly the letter at the end of the Alphabet. For their fluxions he puts any other letters or marks or even the same letters differing in form or magnitude or {illeg} distinguished by \in any other/ any manner. And for their he moments he puts their fluxions drawn into a moment of time. For fluxions are f finite quantities & moments When he is demonstrating any proposition he always expresses the moment of time & considers it in the sense of the vulgar for any as indefinitely small but not infinitely small & so performs the whole operation in finite figures or schemes by Geometry of Euclide & Apollonius exactly without any approximation, And And in the end of the computation supposes the moment of time to decrease in infinitum & vanish. But when he is only investigating a truth or the solution of a Problem, he supposes the moment of time \& the schemes/ to be infinitely small \in the sense of Philosophers/ & uses any approximations w^ch he thinks will create no error in the conclusion (as by putting the arch & it chord sine & tangent equal to one another) & \for making dispatch he/ neglects to write down the symbol of the moment but always in This was his This is his method of fluxions & moments at present. This was his method when he wrote his book of Quadratures as is manifest by his demonstration of the first Proposition thereof. And this was his method when he wrote his Analysis per equationes numero terminorum infinitas, as is manifest by the \transient/ description \w^ch he gives/ of the method \the demonstration of the first of his three Rules in the end/ \of that tract & by the description which gives of the method used in that Tract/ in that Tract in the following words.

Sit ABD curva quævis, et AHKB rectangulum cujus latus AH <87v> <88r> vel BK est unitas et cogita rectam DBK uniformiter ab H notam, areas ABD, & AK describere; & quod BK (1) sit momentum quo AK (x), et BD (y) momentum quo ABD gradatim augetur; et quod ex momento BD perpetim a da Dato possis per præcedentes [tres] Regulas, aream ABD ipso descriptam investigare, sive cum \[crea]/ AK (x) momento 1 descripta confere. Iam qua ratione superficies ABD ex momento suo perpetim dato, per prœcedentes [tres] Regulas elicitur, eadem quælibet alia quantitas ex momento suo sic dato elicitur. Res Exemplo \res/ fiet clarior &c.

Here M^r Newton considers quantities as increasing by continual motion or flux, & represents them by the areas of figures ABKH & ABD described by their Ordinates AB & BK & BD moving forward upon the Abscissa AB with an uniform motion. \And their moments he represents by their Ordinates BK & BD, putting an unit for BK./ The area ABKH he considers as increasing uniformly in proportion time & puts an unite for its moment BK. The exponent of a moment of time That is ma That is he considers \the area/ ABKD as the exponent of time & the its ordinate BK as the exponent of a moment of a moment of time, for w^ch he puts an unit] And a little after he adds: Sed notandum est quod unitas ista quæ pro momento ponitur est superficies cum de solidis, & linea cum de superficiebus & punctum cum de lineis (ut in hoc exemplo agitur. Nec vereor loqui de unitate in punctis, sive lineis infinite parvis, siquidem proportiones ibi jam contemplantur Geometræ, dum utuntur methodis indivisibilium. When therefore M^r Newton considers the a point as the moment of a line he understands by it not the Euclids point but an infinitely little part of the line, & when he considers a line as a moment of a superficies he understands not Euclids line but an infinitely narrow superficies. And therefore when he puts th represents the moments of the area ABKH & ABD by their Ordinates BK & BD by those ordinates he understands \by those ordinates/ not geometrical lines in the sense of Euclide, but physical lines in the sense of those who use the method of Indivisibles, And when that \is/ rectangles infinitely narrow or whose altitudes are the Geometrical lines BK & BD. Let \one of/ those infinitely short parts be called o & the moments of the Areas ABKH & ABD will be oxBK & oxBD. In this manner M^r Newton expresses the moments of areas when
Now the line AB M^r Newton considers as increasing uniformly in proportion to time & when puts the lett when he is demonstrating any Proposition (as at in the letter end of this Analysis where he is demonstrating the first of the three Lemnas Rules) he puts the letter o for its \the/ moment, & by this meanes the moments of the areas ABKH & ABD become $\mathrm{o}\times \mathrm{BK}$ & $\mathrm{o}\times \mathrm{BD}$; And hence the line AB being considered as the exponent of time, & the ordinates BK, BD drawn into the a moment of the exponent of a moment of time become the moments fo the areas. \where/ The ordinates \where/ BK, BD are \being/ proportional to the velocities of the increases of \or fluxions/ by w^ch those areas increase, & de may be considered as the exponents of those velocities the fluxions \& BK being the exponent of the flxion of time is put equal to an unit/ And in this way of considering things the exponents of the fluxions drawn into the exponent of a moment of time generate the moments of the fluents. But when he is not demonstrating a Proposition but only investigating a truth or the solution of a Problem th he then considers the Ordinates not as Geometrical lines \void of all breadth,/ but as physical ones \infinitely narrow &/ commonly called indivisibles For there are & accordingly neglects to write down the letter o \or breath {sic} of the ordinate/ & uses any \manner of/ approximations & compendiums for shortning the <89r> what work. But this way of working is not geometrical. In Geometry there are no indivisiibles, nor are any any demonstrations Geometrical w^ch proceed by approximations: & therefore M^r Newton when he would demonstrate any Proposition considers not the Ordinates of Curves as physical lines infinitely narrow but as Geometrical lines void of all breadth & instead of Ordinates infinitely narrow uses rectangles whose bases are infinitely short, & altitudes are infinitely short the Ordinates. When two solides touch one another in a common surface they touch w do not punctuate one anothers dimentions & the\re/fore the common surface has no depth \or thickness; &/& where two such surfaces cross one another, they cross in a line void of all breadth & thickness, & where two such lines cross one another in a point void of all length breadth & thickness & these are the only lines points lines & surfaces admitted in Geometry A surface infinitely thin is not a Geometrical surface but a solid infinitely thin A line infinitely narrow is not a Geometrical \line/ but a Geometrical surface infinitely narrow, & so of the rest. For this reason therefore when ever M^r Newton puts the Ordinate of a Curve for y^e moment of the Area, by the Ordinate he understands the rectangle under the Geometrical Ordinate & the moment of the Abscissa; & when ever he is working Geometrically he expresses this rectangle; & when the Ordinate is an unite by the Ordinate he understands the rectangle under an unit & the Geom moment of the Abscissa; & whenever he is working Geometrically he expresses this unite rectangle.
when he is demonstrating a Proposition as may be seen in the end of this Tract where he demonstrates the first of the three Rules but where he is only investigating this he puts considers the Ordinates not as Geometrical lines, but as as physical lines in the sense infinitely narrow, as in the method of Cavallesius, & puts them for the moments of the areas.

After M^r Newton had described his method w^th relation to the Quadrature of Curves he subjoyns Iam quo ratione superficies

After M^r Newton had illustrated this method with examples in finding the lengths of \Arithmetical/ Curves & the Ordinates areas & lengths of tr transcendent curves & abscis deduced abscissas from their given areas or lengths whe & observed that by the same method the tan \curved superficies &/ solid contents of curves & the tan might |may| be found & tangents drawn to Mechanical curves: he subjoyns Nec quicquam scio ad hujus modi scio ad quod hæc methodus id varijs modis sese non extendit. Imo tangents ad curvas Mechanicas (siquando id non alias fiat) hujus ope ducuntu. Et quicquid vulgaris Analysis per æquationes ex finito terminorum numero constantes (quando id \sit/ possibile) perficit, hæc per æquationes infinitas semper perficit; et nil dubitaverum nomen Analyseos etiam huic tribuere. And subjoyning his reasons why this method should be called an Analysis he adds: Deni ad Analyticam merito pertinere censeatur cujus beneficio Curvarum areæ et longitudines & (id modo fiat) exacte et Geometrice determinentur sed ista narrandi non est locus. By these last words its manifest that he had then carried this method further then is exprest \described/ in this compendium. And what he means by those words he explains in his Letters dated 13 Iune & 24 Octob 1676. In the first of those Letters he writes thus. Ex his videre est quantum fines Analyseos per hujusmodi æquationes ampliantur: Quippe quæ earem beneficio, ad omnia <90r> pene dixerim problemata (si numeralia Diophanti et similia excipias) sese extendit. Non tamen omnino universalis evadit nisi per alteriores methodos eliciendi series infinitas. Sunt enim quædam Problemata in quibus non licent ad series Infinitas per divisionem vel extractionem Radicum simplicium affectarum\ve/ pervinise. Sed quomodo in istis casibus procedendum sit, jam non vacat dicere; ut ne alia quædam tradere quæ circa Reductionem Infinitarum Serierum infinitas ubi rei natura tulerit, excogitavi. Nam parcius scribo quod hæ speculationes diu mihi fastidio esse cœperunt; adeo ut ab ijsdem jam peae per quin fere annos abstinuerim. How he proceeded in those cases where he where division & extraction of roots were useless he tells in his next letter dated 24 Octob 1676 in these \setting down a double method in these two/ sentences set i exprest enigmatically Vna methodus consistit in extractione fluentis quantitatis ex æquatione simul involuente fluxionem ejus: altera tantum in assumptione Seriei pro quantitate qualibet incognita ex quæ cætera commode derivari possunt & in collatione terminorum homologorum æquationis resultantis ad eruendos terminos assumptæ seriei. He assumes not the whole series at once but after he has assumed & determined the two or three first terms of the series, he assumes & determins the fourth therm & then the fift & so onHow he proceeded in the Reduction of Problemes by means ofinfinite series to finite æquations he describes in the same letter. But I should first tell you that he there represents, that after he had for some time intermitted the consideration of the method of infinite series {illeg} he wrote a treatise thereon in the year 1671 w^th a designe to publish the same; that this Tract conteined \also/ his method of Tangents & maxima & minima &c without sticking at surds & was founded upon the following Proposition Data æquatione quotcun fluentes quantitates involvente invenire fluxiones invenire, & vice versa; & that upon this foundation he un endeavoured to render the Quadrature of Curves more easy, & arrived at certain Theoremes the first of which he there sets down, T & illustrates with examples. This Theoreme conteins y^e Quadrature of a certain sort of Curve by an infinite series w^ch breaks of & becomes finite wherever the Quadrature can be performed by a finite equation. It is the fift Proposition of this kind \his book of Quadratures/ & the sixt Proposition in the second Theoreme of this kind, & these two Theoremes are grounded Propositions are grownded upon the four first Propositions of that book, & therefore all the six first Propositions of that book were understood by M^r Newton in the year 1669 when D^r Barrow communicated the An Compendium of the method to M^r Collins. The first Proposition of that Book is Data æquatione fluentes quotcun æquationes involvente, invenire fluxiones; & M^r Newton in his \said/ Letter of dated 24 Octob 1676 tells us that this was the foundation of the method upon w^ch & the he had wr{illeg} he had written a trasise five years before. The second in this Invenire Curvas quadrari possunt, & this w is all one w^th the first & is mentioned in the Compendium in these words. Hinc in transitur notetur modus quo Curvæ quotcun quarum areæ sunt cognitæ inveniri possunt inveniri; sumendo nempe quamlibet æquationem pro relatione inter aream z & basin x ut inde quæratur applicata y. Vt si supponas $\sqrt{\mathrm{aa}+\mathrm{xx}}=\mathrm{z}$, ex calculo invenies $\frac{\mathrm{x}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{aa}+\mathrm{xx}}}=\mathrm{y}$ Et sic de reliquis The fift & sic are not onl {illeg} fift & six are sufficiently described by M^r Newton in his Letter dated 13 Iune & 24 Octob. 1676 as invented five years before or above, & \also/ in the Compendium where speaking of his method of converging series, he saith. Deni ad Analyticam merito pertinere cenceatur cujus beneficio curvarum areæ & longitudines &c (id modo fiat) exacte et geometrice determinentur

<91r>

An Account of the Commercium Epistolicum Collinij & aliorum De Analysi promota

This Commercium is composed of several Letters & Papers put together in order of tim{illeg}e, & copied from such Originals as are described in the Title of every Letter & Paper, a Committee of the R. Society being appointed to examin the truth about the Originals & compare the Copies therewith. We shall here give you an Account of the matter they contein.

D^r Wallis in his Opus Arithmeticum published A. 1657 lap 33, Prop. 68, reduced the fraction $\frac{\mathrm{A}}{1-\mathrm{R}}$ by perpetual division into the series $\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{A}\mathrm{R}+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^2+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^3+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^4+$&c.

Vicount Brounker squared the Hyperbola by this Series $\frac{1}{1\times 2}+\frac{1}{3\times 4}+\frac{1}{5\times 6}+\frac{1}{7\times 8}+$&c, that is by this $1-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{7}-\frac{1}{8}+$&c conjoyning every two terms into one. And the Quadrature was published in y^e Philosophical Transactions in Aprill 1668.

Mercator soon after published a Demonstration of this Quadrature by the Division of D^r Wallis, & M^r Iames Gregory soon after that published a Ge\o/metrical Demonstration there of And these books were a few months after sent by M^r Collins to D^r Barrow at Cambridge. And upon the receipt of them D^r Barrow mut\u/ally sent to M^r Collins a Tract of M^r Newtons entituled Analysis per æquationes numero terminorum infinitas w^ch is the first Tract in the Commercium. This \is/ related by D^r Barrow & M^r Collins in several Letters still extant in their hands & by M^r Newton his Letter of 13 Iune 1676 where he calls this Tract a Compendium of his method of Series. It was sent to M^r Collins in Iuly 1669, & conteined

— In this C{om}pendium among the examples for illustrating the Method were these. Let the radius \of a circle/ be 1, the arc & \z/ & the sine x, & the Equations for finding the arc whose sine is given & the sine whose arc is given will be $\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}+\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{x}}^3$ $\mathrm{x}=\mathrm{z}-\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{z}}^3$
And M^r I. Gregory having after a years study found out they \M^r Newtons/ \a/ method \of Series/ in December 1670, \about two months after/ {illeg} in a Letter dated 15 Feb. 1671 sent these \several/ Theorems to M^r Collins. \with leave to communicate them freely: amongst w^ch Theorems were these./ Let y^e radius be r, the arc a & the tangent t, & the equations for finding the {illeg}|a|rc whose tang^t is given & the tangent whose arc is given will be $\mathrm{a}=\mathrm{t}-\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^3}{{\mathrm{r}}^2}+\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^5}{5{\mathrm{r}}^4}-\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^7}{7{\mathrm{r}}^6}+\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^9}{9{\mathrm{r}}^8}-\mathrm{\&c}$ $\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{a}+\frac{{\mathrm{a}}^3}{3{\mathrm{r}}^2}+\frac{2{\mathrm{a}}^5}{15{\mathrm{r}}^4}+\frac{17{\mathrm{a}}^7}{915{\mathrm{r}}^6}+\frac{62{\mathrm{a}}^9}{2835{\mathrm{r}}^8}+\mathrm{\&c}$

And M^r Collins was very free in communicating to his \mathematical/ friends what he had received from M^r Newton & M^r Gregory as appears by his Letters to M^r Slusius, Bertet, \Townley/ Borellius, Vernon, Strode, Oldenburg.^[16]

In the year 1671 M^r Leibnitz published two Tracts at London the one dedicated to y^e Royal Society the other dedicated to the Academy of Sciences at Paris & in the Dedication of the first he mentioned his correspondence w^th M^r Oldenburg.

These But M^r Leibnitz never took any further notice of his having received these series, nor how his own differed from them, nor ever producer any other series then those w^ch he received in this Letter or numeral ones derived from them \And what he did with Gregories Series/ – – – lectum &c. By a Theorem for transmuting figures into one another he had \now/ found a Demonstration of the re this Series, but still wanted |t|a|h||e| Demonstration of the rest & meeting with an opportunity \a pretence to ask for it/ he wrote to M^r Oldennburg the following Letter dated

Cum Georgiu|o|s {sic} Mohr Danus . . . . desiderio meo. By the word inquam one would think that he had forgot that never seen these two series before .|&| |that his diversa circa hanc rem meditata was something else then one of the series w^ch he had received from M^r O. y^e year before.|

Vpon this Letter M^r Oldenburg & M^r Collins wrote pressingly to M^r Newton desiring that he would himself would describe his own method to be communicated to M^r Leibnitz. Whereupon M^r Newton wrote described the Metho wrote his Letter of 13 Iune 1676 describing the Method of Series as he had done before in the Compendium above mentioned, but with this difference. There he described \at large/ the reduction of radi fractions & radicals into series by division & extraction of roots at large & only touched upon set down the two first terms of the series to w^ch the dignity of a Binomial might be reduced here he described the re at large the reduction of the dignity of a Binomial into a series & only touched upon the Reduction by Division & Extraction of roots. This Letter was sent away to Paris with other papers from M^r Collins on 26 Iune 1676.

For M^r Iames Gregory died in the latter end of the year 1675 - - - - who is desired to return the same. And that they were sent accorddingly as affirmed by M^r Collins in his letter to M^r David Gregory the brother of y^e deceased dated 11 Aug. 1676, & appears further by the Answers of M^r Leibnitz & M^r Tschurnhause. The Answer of M^r Leibnitz dated 27 Aug. 1676 begins thus Literæ tuæ die 26 Iuly datæ plura ac memorabilium continent circa rem Analyticam continent quam multa volumina spissa de his rebus edita. Quare tibi {illeg}|p|ariter ac Clarissimis Viris Newtono ac Collinio gratias ago qui nos participes tot meditationum egregiarum esse voluisstis. And towards the end of the Letter he had as|n|swered M^r Newtons Letter he proceeds thus. Ad alia tuarum Litterarum venio - - - - - aptissimus &c And M^r Tschurnhause in his Answer to y^e same Letter of M^r dated 1 Sept. 1676 concludes thus similia after he had done w^th M^r Newtons Letter concludes thus. Similia porro - - - - - - navabunt. This Collection of Gregories Letters was sent to Paris at the same time w^th M^r Newtons Letter & a Letter of M^r Oldenburg dated Iune 26. Now in this Collection was a \copy of the/ Letter of M^r Iames Gregory dated 15 Feb 1671 wherein he sent to M^r Collins the the series above mentioned for finding the Arc whose tangent was given But yet M^r Leibnitz persisted in his designe of making himself the inventor of that series. And tho he had now received it twice from M^r Oldenburg sent it back to him with an useless Demonstration by way of recompence for M^r Newtons method, pretending that he had found it long some years before. And he endeavoured also to claim from M^r Newton the three \or four/ following series tho he had no method for finding them before the receipt of M^r Newtons \se/ letter, Let $1-\mathrm{m}$ \& did not yet/ understand the method by w^ch alone they were to be found, but desired M^r Newton to explain it further. Let $1-\mathrm{m}$

The three first \of those seried {sic}/ he pretended to have found \sometimes/ before the receipt of M^r Newtons Letter, T & the fouth {sic} he {illeg} derived from the third as a Corollary thereof.

In the first part of this Letter where he speaks of Newtons m Series he saith that he looked over them cursorily to see if he could find the Series of M^r Leibnitz for squaring the circle or Hyperbola. If he had carefully searched for it in the extracts of Gregories Letters collected by M^r Collins he would there have there found it in M^r Gregories Letter of 15 Feb 1671. For that Letters is still extant among these extractsin the hand \writing/ of M^r Collins.

And yet M^r {C}|L|eibnits|z| sent back \though he had now twice received/ this series frō M^r Oldenburg, sent it back to him as his own \to be communicated to M^r Newton/ in requital for the Method of M^r Newton \Series/ pretending that he had found it out three years before or above |In| The \same/ Letter in w^ch he sent this series back to M^r Oldenburg \& w^ch/ was dated 27 Aug. 1676, he endeavoured also to claim the three following series from M^r Newton

These three series he pretended to have found by his own methods before <92r> the receipt of M^r Newtons \Letter/ method. And yet they are not to be found w^thout the inverse methods of series \or methods of Regress,/ to w^ch M^r Leibnitz was a stranger before the receipt of M^r Newtons \{illeg}/ metho that Method | Letter. And even then he did not understand what he had received, but wrote to M^r Oldenburg for a further explication of it. Sed desideraverim, saith he, ut Clarissimus Newtonus nonnulla quo amplius explicet; ut Originem Theorematis . . . . . . derivetur.

M^r Leibnitz for the $\frac{{\mathrm{y}}^3-{\mathrm{x}}^3}{\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{x}}=$ wrote $\frac{d{\mathrm{y}}^3}{d\mathrm{y}}$ \$=\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}+\mathrm{y}\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}$ wrote/ & for $\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}+\mathrm{y}\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}$ wrote $3\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}$, $\frac{d{\mathrm{y}}^3}{d\mathrm{y}}=3\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}$, or in general $\frac{d{\mathrm{y}}^3}{d\mathrm{y}}=\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{y}}^{\mathrm{n}-1}$.

M^r Leibnitz for $\frac{{\mathrm{y}}^3-{\mathrm{x}}^3}{\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{x}}=\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}+\mathrm{y}\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}$ wrote $\frac{d{\mathrm{y}}^3}{d\mathrm{y}}=3\mathrm{y}\mathrm{y}$, [or in general he put $\frac{d{\mathrm{y}}^3}{d\mathrm{y}}={\mathrm{n}\mathrm{y}}^{\mathrm{n}-1}$ according to the Lemma of Slusius] or else rather \rather/ finding the method {of} D^r Barrow \to be/ founded upon clearer & more general principles, for his a & e he wrote dx & dy. For in his Letter of 24 & 27 August \21 Iune/ 1677 in w^ch he first proposed his general \differential/ method, he wrote thus. Clarississimi Slusij methodum Tangentium nondum esse absolutam celeberrimo Newtono essentior: et jam a multo tempore rem Tangentium longe generalius tractavi, sciliect per differentias Ordinatarum. And a little after he adds Hinc nominando dy differentiam duarum proximarum \Ore/ y & dx differentiam duarum \{illeg}/ proximarum x; patet $d{\mathrm{y}}^2$ esse $2\mathrm{y}d\mathrm{y}$ & $d{\mathrm{y}}^3$ esse $3{\mathrm{y}}^{2}d\mathrm{y}$ & ita porro: w^ch Which is the first Lemma of Slusius. Then \putting y for the Abscissa & x for y^e Ordinate of a Curve he proposes this relation between/ he proposes an Equation to \them $\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{b}\mathrm{y}+\mathrm{c}\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{x}$ & $\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{c}}^2+\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\mathrm{g}{\mathrm{y}}^2\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{h}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}⁤\mathrm{\&c}=0$ in a/ a curve whose tangent is to be drawn, & therein substituting $\mathrm{x}+d\mathrm{x}$ for x & $\mathrm{y}+d\mathrm{y}$ for y, & first writes down \first/ those terms in w^ch dx & dy are not found then th w^th a line under them, then \under that line he writes down/ those terms in w^ch dx & dy are but of one dimension & draws another line & under that line he writes down those terms in w^ch dx & dy are of more dimentions then one. And then adds: Vbi abjectis illis quæ sunt supra primam lineam qu {illeg}|ip||p|s|e|unt nihilo æqualibus — et abjectis per æquationem primam & abjectis illis quæ sunt infra secundam quia in illis duæ infinite parvæ in se invicem ducuntur, restabit tantum quicquid inter repesitur inter lineam primam et secundam. The after he had shewn by what remained \between the lines/ to draw the tangent he added Quod coincidit cum Regula Slusiana, ostendit eam statim occurrere hanc Methodum intelligenti. By hanc Methodum therefore he did not therefore understand the method of Slusius but another Method which readily gave the method of Slusius; & this was the Method of D^r Barrow. For D^r Barrow thus describes his own method. 1 Inter computandum omnes abjicio terminos in quibus ipsarum a vel e potestas habetur, vel in quibus ipsæ ducuntur in se. etenim isti termini nihil valebunt 2 Post æquationem constitutam omnes abjicio terminos literis constantes quantitates notas seu determinatas designantibus, aut in quibus non habentur a vel e. Etenim illi termini semper ad unam æquationis partem adducti nihilum adæquabunt. These were D^r Barrows Rules, & these Rules are followed {illeg} by M^r Leibnitz who sets between two lines the terms that are to be retained & above the upper line & below the lower those two sorts of terms that \by D^r Barrows Rules two Rules/ are to be retained are to be rejected \& rejects them accordingly/. And that this was the original of M^r Lei the Differential Method \M^r Leibnitz method of Tangents/ is farther confirmed by what he wrote in the Acta Eruditorum mensis Iunij 1686 pag 297. Malo autem, saith he, dx et similia adhibere quam literas pro illis, quia istud dx est modificatio quædam ipsius x &c ita ope ejus fit ut sola quando id fieri opus est litera cum suis scilicet potestatibus & differentialibus calculum ingrediatur & relationes transcendentes inter x & aliud exprimantur. Qua ratione etiam lineas transcendentes æquatione explicare licet. D^r Barrow used the letters a & e. M^r Leibnitz \tells us that he/ chose rather to use the symbols dx & dy for the pretending \for/ the reasons here set down. But|And| if his calculations in drawing of tangents be compared w^th those of D^r Barrow they will be found the same without any other difference then that of the symbols.

M^r Leibnitz first published this Method of tangents in the Acta Eruditorum mensis Octobis \A. 1684/ p. 467 with this title Nova methodus pro <92v> maximis et minimis item tangentibus quæ nec fractas nec irrationales moratur quantitates moratur, & singulare pro illis calculi genus per G.G.L And in the end of it he added. Et hæc quidem initia sunt tantum Geometriæ cujusdam multo sublimioris ad difficillima et pulcherrima quæ etiam mistæ Matheseos Problemata pertingentis quæ sine calculo nostro differentiali; aut simili, non temere quisquam pari facilitate tractabit. It remains that we enquire how M^r Leibnitz came to know that this method \of tangents/ stuck not at fractions or surds, |&| that it was but the Elements\principles/ of a far sublimer Geometry reaching to all the most difficult & valuable Problemes in Mathematicks & what was the methodus \calculus/ similis here hinted at.

At the request of M^r Collins M^r Newton sent him his method \of Tangents/ in a letter dated 10 Decem. 1672. It proved to be the same w^th that of M^r S w^ch Slusius about five weeks after sent to M^r Oldenburg but \was/ derived from a better principle. For when M^r Newton had described it he subjoyned in the same Letter. Hoc est unum particulare vel Corollarium potius Methodi Generalis quæ extendit se utra molestum ullum calculum non modo ad ducendum Tangentes ad quasvis Curvas sive Geometricas sive Mechanicas - - - - - - surdis sunt immunes. And a copy of this Letter was sent \by M^r Old. Iune 26 1676/ to M^r Leibnits at Paris amongst the extracts of M^r Gregories Letters collected by M^r Collins as above, {illeg} is still extant among \the same being still extant among/ them in the hand of M^r Collins.

And M^r Newton in his Letter of 13 Iune 1676 & sent by M^r Oldenburg to Paris Iune 2 Iune 26, after he had described his method of Series, subjoyned Ex his videre est quantum fines Analyseos per hujusmodi æquationes infinitas ampliantur: quippe quæ earum beneficio, ad omnia pene dixerim problemata, si numeralia Diophanti et similia excipias sese extendit: non tamen omnino universalis evadit nisi per ulteriores quasdam methodos eliciendi series infinitas — Sed quomodo in illis casibus procedendum sit jam non vacat dicere: ut ne alia quædam tradere quæ circa reductionem serierum infinitarum in fina|i|tas ubi rei natura tulerit, excogitavi.

And in his Letter dated 24 Octob. 1676 he represented how in the Tract w^ch he wrote five years before the method o upon the method of series, the metthod took up but a small part of the Tract The|re| was also \was for the most part taken up by other things. That there was in it/ the method of Tangents of Slusius found after another manner {illeg} deduced {illeg} built upon another foundation w^ch gave the method readily even w^thout a \particular/ Demonstration & made it more general so as not to stick at surds any surds, the Tangent being speedily drawn without any Reduction of the Equation w^ch would often render the work immense. And that the same manners of working held in Questions de Maximus & Minimis & some other w^ch \in the said Letter/ he forbore to speake of. And that upon the same foundation the Quadratures of Curves became more easy: an instance \example/ of w^ch he gave in a Series w^ch brake off & became finite when the Quadratu\r/e admitted might be done by a finite equation. And that this method extended to inverse Problems of Tangents & others more difficult.

<93r>

An Account of the Book entituled Commercium Epistolicium Collinij et aliorum De Analysi promota.^[17]

This Commercium is composed of several Letters & Papers put together in order of time & copied from such Originals as are described in every the title of every Letter & Paper; a Committee of the R. Society being appointed to examin the sinc{illeg}|e|rity of the Originals & compare the copies therewith.

The first piece is a small Tract of M^r Newtons intituled Analysis per æquationes numero terminorum infinitas. M^r Newton in his Letter dated 24 Oct 1676 makes this mention of it. Eo ipso tempore quo Mercatoris Logarithmotechnia prodijt, communicatum est per amicum D. Barrow (tunc Matheseos Professorem Cantab) cum D. Collinio Compendium quoddam harum serierum, in quo significaveram Areas |&| Longitudines Curvarum omnium & Solidorum superficies et contenta, ex datis rectis; et vice versa ex his datis Rectas determinari posse: et Methodum se ibi indicatam illustraveram diversis seriebus. It was communicated b M^r Collins in his Letter to M^r David Gregory dated 11 Aug. 1676 mentions it in this manner Paucos post menses quam editi sunt hi libri (viz^t Mercatoris Logarithmotechnia & Exercitationes Geometricæ Gregorij) missi sunt ad Barrovium Cantabrigiæ. Ille autem responsum dedit hanc infinitarum serierum doctrinam jam ante biennium a D. Isaaco Newton inventam fuisse & quibusvis figuris generaliter applicatam, simul transmisit D. Newtoni opus manuscriptum. The said boo last of y^e said books came out towards the end of the year 1668 & D^r Barrow sent the said Compendium to M^r Collins in Iuly following as appears by three of D^r Barrows Letters still extant. And [M^r Collins the same year in h gave notice of it to M^r Iames Gregory & M^r Slusius & in his letter to Slusius {illeg} to s my Lord Brounker M^r Oldenburg M^r Iames Gregory &] \several of his friends/ M^r Gre Oldenburg in a Letter to M^r Slusius dated 14 Sept 1669 & entred in the \Letter/ books of y^e R Society cites several sentences out of it. And M^r Collins \{}(who/ the same year & the two|hr|e \or four/ years following gave notice of it to several of his friends, as appears by his Letters published in the Commercium) wrote thus of it to M^r Strode in a letter dated 1672 26 Iuly 1672. Exemplar ejus [Logarithmotechnia] misi Barrovio . . . . . . . si cum meridiana claritate conferatur. Also M^r Oldenburg in a Letter to M^r Slusius dated 14 Septem 1669 cites sev gives & entred in the books letter book of y^e R. S. gives an Account of it & cites several things out of it. This Tract was first printed by M^r Iones being found by him among the papers \& in the hand writing of/ of {sic} M^r Collins|.| who had coppied it {illeg} with his own hand. It conteins a general method of Analysis teaching how to resolve finite equationes into infinite series ones & how to|b|y the method of fl fluxions & moments to apply æquations both finite & infinite to the solution of all Problemes. It begins w^th three Rules or Lemmas. The firs || D^r Wallis published . . . . . . . . founds his said Analysis \And the third Rule is to reduce fractions radicals & the roots of converging series/ . . . . . . . . . give the Quadrature of the circle. And M^r {illeg}|N|ewton \A.C. 1665/ by considering how to interpole this series found the series for the Arc whose sine is given. And \by/ pursuing the method of interpolation found also the series for the dignities of Binomials set down in the beginning of his Letter dated 13 Iune 1676 the two first terms of w^ch series are set down \also/ in y^e {illeg} latter end of y^e said Compendium. The time & manner of this invention M^r Newton, at the request of M^r Leibnitz, has described in his Letter dated 24 Octob. 1676. And the time is confirmed by M^r Collins in his ^✝[18]Letter to M^r Townley where he saith that in September 1668 M^r Mercator published his Logarithmotechnia, one of w^ch he soon sent to D^r Barrow, who thereupon sent him up some papers of M^r Newtons, by w^ch & former communications made thereof by the Author to the Doctor, it appears that the said method was invented some years before by the said M^r Newton & generally applied.

<93v>

|1| Of the method of converging series.

D^r Wallis published his Arithmetica infinitorum in the year 1655 & by the 59^th Proposition of that book; if the Abscissa of any curvilinear figure be called x & m & n be numbers, & the Ordinate erected at right angles be ${\mathrm{x}}^{\frac{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{n}}}$: the area of the figure shall $\frac{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{x}}^{\frac{\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{n}}}$. And this is assumed by M^r Newton as the first Rule upon which he founds his Analysis per series numero terminorum infinitas | quadrature of Curves.

By the 108^th Proposition of the \said/ Arithmetica Infinitorum & by several other Propositions w^ch follow therein; if the Ordinate be composed of two or more such Ordinates taken with their signes + or −, the area shall be composed of two or more such areas taken with their signes + or − respectively. And this is assumed by M^r Newton as the second Rule upon w^ch he founs his said Analysis.

In the same Arithmetica Infinitorum D^r Wallis squared a series of Curves whose Ordinates were $1. 1-{\mathrm{x}}^2. {\overline{)1-{\mathrm{x}}^2}}^2. {\overline{)1-{\mathrm{x}}^2}}^3. {\overline{)1-{\mathrm{x}}^2}}^4$ &c. and shewed that if the series of their areas could be interpoled in the middle places the interpolation would give the Quadrature of the circle

1 Of the method of converging series

D^r Wallis \And/ in his opus Arithmeticum published A.C. 1657 cap. 33 Prop. 68 \he/ reduced the fraction $\frac{\mathrm{A}}{1-\mathrm{R}}$ by perpetual division into the series $\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{A}\mathrm{R}+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^2+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^3+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^4+\mathrm{\&c}$. And in his Arithmerica infinitorum published A.C. 1655 he squared a series of Curves & shewed that if the series of their areas could be interpoled in {sic} the the middle places the interpolation would give the quadrature of the circle

M^r Newton being desired by M^r Leibnitz to \(as he represented to M^r Leibnitz/ A.C. 1655 upon reading the Arithmetica infinitorum of D^r Wallis & considering how to interpole the series of Areas above mentioned, found the infinite series for the Arc whose Sine is given as at the request |And pursuing the method of interpolation he found also the Quadrature of all Curves whose Ordinates are the dignities of binomials affected with indices whole fract or surd, affirmative or negative; as at the request| of M^r Leibnitz, he has explained at large in his Letter dated 24 Octob. 1676 & long since printed by D^r Wallis.

Vicount Brounker squared the Hyperbola {& the Qua} by this series $\frac{1}{1\times 2}+\frac{1}{3\times 4}+\frac{1}{5\times 6}+\frac{1}{7\times 8}+\mathrm{\&c}$: that is by this $1-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{7}-\frac{1}{8}+\mathrm{\&c}$, conjoyning every two terms into one. And this Quadrature was published in the Phil. Transactions in April 1668.

M^r Mercator soon after published a demonstration of this Quadrature by the Division of D^r Wallis above described, & soon after that M^r Iames Gregory published a Geometric demonstration thereof. And these books were a few months after sent by M^r Collins to D^r Barrow at Cambridge & by D^r Barrow communicated to M^r Newton & \thereupon D^r Barrow/ mutually sent to M^r Collins a Tract of M^r Newton's entituled Analysis per æquationes numero terminorum infinitas. For M^r Newton had improved his invention into a general method of Analysis: but M^r Mercator proceeded no further then to y^e Quadrature demonstrate my Lord Brunker's Quadrature th by the Division of D^r Wallis tho he lived many years after. Neither did M^r Gregory think of improving it into a method till he had notice of what M^r Newton had done.

This Analysis is the first piece printed in the Commercium. It is the Compendium mentioned in M^r Newtons Letter dated Octob. 24 1676, & was sent to M^r Collins in Iuly 1669 as appears by the dates of three of D^r Barrow's Letters still extant. And M^r Collins &c.

<94r>

^[19] An Account of the Book entituled
Commercium Epistolicum D. Iohannis Collinij & aliorum De Analysi promota.

This Commercium is composed of several Letters & Papers put together in order of time & copied from such Originals as are described in the Title of every Letter & Paper; a Committee of the R. Society being appointed to examin the truth sincerity of the Originals & compare the Copies therewith. We shall here give you an Account of the matters they contein under these four Heads. 1 Of the method of converging Series. 2 Of the method of fluxions & moments 3 Of the Differential method. 4 Of the three Papers entituled Epistola de Lineis Opticis, Schediasma de resistrentia Medij, & Tentamen th de motuum cœlestium causis.

1 Of the Method of converging Series.

M^r Newton in his Letter of 24 Octob. 1676^[20] represented that a little before the plague (w^ch raged in London {illeg} in 1665) he found his method of Series & upon the coming abroad of M^r Mercators Logarithmotechnia communicated to M^r Iohn Collins by D^r Barrow a Compendium of that Method, & five years before the writing of his Letter (that is A. 1671) wrote a larger tract upon that subject method with a designe to have published it; but upon disputes arising about his Theory of colours, for the sake of quiet left off before he had finished the Tract & intermitted the further consideration of these matters till the writing of his Letter of Iune 13^th 1676.^[21]

D^r Wallis in his Opus Arithmeticum published A. 1657, cap. 33, Prop. 68, reduced the fraction $\frac{\mathrm{A}}{1+\mathrm{R}}$ $\frac{\mathrm{A}}{1-\mathrm{R}}$ by perpetual division into the series $\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{A}\mathrm{R}+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^2+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^3+\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{R}}^4+\mathrm{\&c}$.

Vicount Brounker squared the Hyperbola by this series $\frac{1}{1\times 2}+\frac{1}{3\times 4}\times \frac{1}{5\times 6}+\frac{1}{7\times 8}+\mathrm{\&c}$, that is by this $1-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{7}-\frac{1}{8}+\mathrm{\&c}$ conjoyning every two terms into one. And the Quadrature was published in the Ph. Transactions in April 1668.^[22]

|N.| Mercator soon after published a Demonstration of this Quadrature by the Division of D^r Wallis, & soon after that \M^r Iames Gregory/ published a Geometrical Demonstration thereof. And these books were a few months after, sent by M^r Collins to D^r Barrow at Cambridge^[23] & by D^r Barrow communicated to M^r Newton.

|Whe|V|re|\u/pon the receipt of those books D^r Barrow mutually \received from M^r Newton &/ sent to M^r Collins a Tract of M^r Newtons entituled Analysis per æquationes numero terminorum infinitas. And this is the Compendium above mentioned & the first Tract in the Commercium. It was sent to M^r Collins in Iuly 1669 as appears by the dates of three of D^r Barrows Letters still extant,|.|^[24] but|And| M^r Collins in his Letter to M^r Strode dated 26 Iulij 1672^[25] makes this mention thereof: Exemplar ejus [Logarithmotechniæ] misi Barrovio Cantabrigiam qui quasdam Newtoni chartas extemplo remisit: E ^a[26]quibus & alijs, quæ olim ab Auctore cum Barrovio communicata fuerant, patet illam Methodum a dicto Newtono aliquot annis antea excogitatam & modo universali applicatam fuisse: & ita ut ejus ope in quavis Figura Curvilinea proposita, quæ una vel pluribus proprietatibus definitur Quadratura vel Area dictæ figuræ, accurata si possibile sit, sin minus vero infinite vero propinqua; Evolutio vel lo\n/gitudo Lineæ curvæ; centrum gravitatis Figuræ, solida ejus rotatione genita & eorum superficies; sine ulla radium extractione obtineri queant. Postquam intellexrat {sic} D. Gregorius hanc methodum a D. Mercatore in Logarithmotechnia usurpatam, & Hyperbolæ qudrandæ adhibitam, quam adauxerat ipse Gregorius, jam universalem redditam esse omnibus Figuris applicatam; acsi studio eandem acquisivit, multum in ea enodanda desudavit. Vter D. Newtonus & Gregorius in animo habet hanc methodum exornare: D. Gregorius autem D. Newtonum <94v> primum ejus Inventorem anticipare haud integrum ducit. And in another Letter written to M^r Oldenburg to be communicated to M^r Leibnitz & dated 14 Iune 1676,^[27] M^r Collins adds: Hujus autem Methodi ea est præstantia, ut cum tam late pateat, ad multam hæreat difficultatem. Gregorium autem alios in ea fuisse opinione arbitror, ut quicquid uspiam ante{e}|a| de hac re innotuit, quasi dubia diluculi lux fuit, si cum meridiana claritate conferatur.

In this Compendium among the examples for illustrating the method, were these. Let the Radius of a circle be 1, the arc z, & the sine x & the Equations for finding the arc whose sine is given & the sine whose arc is given, will be
$\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}+\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{3}{40}{\mathrm{x}}^5+\frac{5}{112}{\mathrm{x}}^7+\frac{35}{1152}{\mathrm{x}}^9+\mathrm{\&c}$
$\mathrm{x}=\mathrm{z}-\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{z}}^3+\frac{1}{120}{\mathrm{z}}^5-\frac{1}{5040}{\mathrm{z}}^7+\frac{1}{362880}{\mathrm{z}}^9-\mathrm{\&c}$.

M^r I. Gregory Collins gave M^r Slusius & M^r Gregory notice of this method in autumn 1669 & M^r Gregory by the help of one of M^r Newtons Series |a|fr|t|ter a years study fount|d| the method in December 1670, & two months after in a letter dated 15 Feb 1671 sent several Theorems found thereby to M^r Collins with leave to communicate them freely:|.| amongst w^ch Theorems were these two And M^r Collins was very free in communicating what he had received both from M^r Newton & M^r Gregory as appears by his Letters printed in the Commercium. Amongst the series w^ch M^r Gregory sent in the said Letter were these two. Let the radius of a circle be r the arc a & the tangent t & the equations for finding the arc whose tangent is given & the tangent whose arc is given will be these $\mathrm{a}=\mathrm{t}-\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^3}{3{\mathrm{r}}^2}+\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^5}{5{\mathrm{r}}^4}-\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^7}{7{\mathrm{r}}^6}+\frac{{\mathrm{t}}^9}{9{\mathrm{r}}^8}-\mathrm{\&c}$
$\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{a}+\frac{{\mathrm{a}}^3}{3{\mathrm{r}}^2}+\frac{{\mathrm{2a}}^5}{15{\mathrm{r}}^4}+\frac{{\mathrm{17a}}^7}{315{\mathrm{r}}^6}+\frac{{\mathrm{62a}}^9}{2835{\mathrm{r}}^8}+\mathrm{\&c}$

In this year (1671) M^r Leibnitz published two Tracts in|a|t London the one dedicated to the R. Society, the other dedicated to the Academy of Sciences at Paris, & in the dedication of y^e first mentioned his correspondence w^th M^r Oldenburg. He staid in London conversing with M^r Oldenburgh, M^r Boyle D^r Pell, M^r Collins &c till February or March 1673 & then went to Paris, & continuing his correspondence w^th M^r Oldenburg & M^r Collins wrote the next year in Iuly tht he had a wonderfull Theoreme w^ch gave the Area of a Circle or any Sector thereof exactly in a series of rational numbers, & in October that he had found the circumference of a circle in a series of very simple numbers, & that by the same method [or \so he calls the sd/ Theoreme] any Arc whose sine was given might be found in a like series tho the proportion to the whole circumference be not known. His Theoreme therefore was for finding any Sector or Arc whose sine was given. If the proportion to of the Sector or Arc to the whole circle or circumference was not known, the Theoreme or Method gav{illeg}|e|{illeg} him only the Sector or Arc: if it was known it gave him also the whole Circle or Circumference \& therefore it was the first of M^r Newtons two Theorems above mentioned/. But the Demonstration of this Theoreme he \M^r Leibnitz/ wanted & therefore |he| had not invented the Theoreme himself \but had received it from some other hand./. {sic} For in his Letter of 12 May 1676 he desired M^r Oldenburg to procure the Demonstration from M^r Collins, meaning the method by w^ch M^r Newton had invented it.

M^r Oldenburg in a Letter dated 15 April 1675, sent to M^r Leibnitz eight of M^r Newtons & M^r Gregories series amongst w^ch were M^r Newtons two series \above mentioned/ for finding the Arc whose sine was given & the sine whose Arc was given & <95r> M^r Gregories Series \above mentioned/ for finding the Arc whose Tangent was given, & the Tangent whose Arc was given. And M^r Leibnitz in his answer dated 20 May 1675 acknowledged the receipt of this Letter in these words: Literas tuas multa fruge Algebraica refertas accepi pro quibus tibi et doctissimo. Collinio gratias ago. Cum nunc præter ordinarias curas Mechanicis imprimis negotijs distrahar non potui examinare series quos misistis, ac cum meis comparare. Vbi fecero perscribam tibi sententiam meam: nam aliquot jam anni sunt quod inveni meas via \quadam/ sic singulari.

After this \But/ M^r Leibnitz never took any further notice of his having received these Series, nor how his own differed from them, nor ever produced any other Series \as his own/ then those w^ch he had received \in this Letter, or numeral series derived from them in particular cases/. And what he did with Gregories series for finding the Arc whose Tangent is given he has told us in the Acta Eruditorum mensis Aprili 1691 pag. 178. Iam Anno 1675, saith he, compositum habebam \opusculum/ Quadraturæ Arithmeticæ ab amicis ab illo tempore lectum &c. By a Theoreme for transmuting of figures like those of M^r Gregory & D^r Barrow he had now found a Demonstration of this series, & or way of inventing it, & therefore communicated it as his own; but still wanted \M^r Newtons method for/ Demonstration|ng| f{illeg} the rest: & meeting with a pretence to ask it|fo|r it, he wrote to M^r Oldenburg the following Letter dated at Paris 12 May 1676.

Cum Georgius Mohr Danus nobis attulerit communicatam sibi a Doctissimo Collonio vestro expressionem rationis inter Arcum & sinum per infinitas series sequentes: Posito Sinu x, Arcu z, Radio 1.
$\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}+\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{3}{40}{\mathrm{x}}^5+\frac{5}{112}{\mathrm{x}}^7+\frac{35}{1152}{\mathrm{x}}^9+\mathrm{\&c}$
$\mathrm{x}=\mathrm{z}-\frac{1}{6}{\mathrm{z}}^3+\frac{1}{120}{\mathrm{z}}^5-\frac{1}{5040}{\mathrm{z}}^7+\frac{1}{362880}{\mathrm{z}}^9-\mathrm{\&c}$
Hæc INQA|V|AM, cum nobis attulerit ille, quæ mihi valde ingeniosa videntur, & posterior imprimis series elegantiam \quandam/ singularem habeat: ideo rem gratam mihi feceris, Vir Clarissime, si demonstrationem transmiseris. Habebis vicissim mea his longe diversa circa hanc rem meditata, de quibus jam aliquot abhinc annis ad te perscripisse credo, demonstratione tamen non addita quam nunc polio. Oro ut Cl. Collinio multam a me salutem dicas: is facile tibi materiam suppeditabit satisfaciendi desiderio meo. Here the word INQVAM one would think that he had never seen these two series before & that his diversa circa hanc rem meditata were something else then one of the Series w^ch he had newly received from M^r Oldenburg the year before, \&/ a Demonstration \there/of w^ch he was now polishing to make the present \an/ acceptable \recompence/ for M^r Newtons method.

Vpon the receipt of this Letter M^r Collins making a demurre, he & M^r Oldenburg wrote pressingly to M^r Newton desiring that he himself would describe his own Method to be communicated to M^r Leibnitz. Whereupon M^r Newton wrote his Letter of 13^th Iune 1676, describing therein the method of series as he had done before in the compendium above mentioned; but with this difference. There he described at large the reduction of fractions & radicals into series by division & extraction of roots, & only set down the two first terms of the series into w^ch the dignity of a binomial might be reduced, here he described at large the reduction of the dignity of a binomial into a Series & only touched upon the reduction by division & extraction of roots. \And Among the examples there were series for finding the Number whose Logarithm is given & for finding the right sine & versed sine whose arc is given/. This Letter was sent away to Paris Iune 26^th 1676 together w^th \a M{/}S conteining drawn up by M^r Collins conteining/ extracts of M^r Iames Gregories Letters|.| drawn up by M^r Collins.

For M^r I. Gregory died neare the end of the year 1675, & \M^r Collins/ at the request of M^r Leibnitz & some others of the Academy of <95v> Sciences drew up extracts of his Letters, & the Collection is still extant in the hand writing of M^r Collins with this title. Extracts from M^r Gregories Letters to be lent M^r Leibnitz to peruse who is desired to return the same to you. These were And that they were sent is affirmed by M^r Collins in his Letter to M^r David Gregory the brother of the deceased dated 11 August. 1676, & appears further by the Answers of M^r Leibnitz & M^r Tschurnhause.

The Answer of M^r Leibnitz directed to M^r Oldenburg & dated 27 Aug. 1676 begins thus, Literæ tuæ die 26 Iulij datæ ac memorabiliora circa rem Analyticam continent quam multa volumina spissa de his rebus edita. Quare tibi pariter ac Clarissimis viris Newtono ac Collonio gratias ago qui nos participes tot meditationum egregiarum esse voluistis. And towards the end of the Letter, after he \had/ done w^th the contents of M^r Newton's Letter he proceeds thus. Ad alia tuarum Literarum venio quæ doctissimus Collinius communicare gravatus non est. Vellem adjecisset appropinquationis Gregorianæ linearis Demonstrationem. Credo tamen aliam haberi simpliciorem, etiam in infinitum euntem, quæ fiat sine ulla bisectione anguli, imo sine supposita circuli constructione; solo rectarum ductu. Vellem Gregoriana omnia conservari. Fuit enim his certe studijs promovendis aptissimus. And the Answer of M^r Tschurnhause dated 1 Sept. 1676, after he had done with M^r Newton's Letter \about Series/ concludes thus. Similia porro quæ in hac re præstitit eximius ille Geometra Gregorius memoranda certe sunt, et quidem optimæ famæ ipsius consulturi, sunt qui ipsius relicta Manuscripta luci publicæ ut exponantur operam navabunt. In the first part of this Letter where M^r Tschurnhause speaks of M^r Newton's Series, he saith that he looked over them cursorily to see if he could find the Series of M^r Leibnitz for squaring the circle or Hyperbola. If he had searched for it in the extracts of Gregories Letters he would \might/ have found it in the Letter of 15 Feb. 1671 above mentioned. For that Letter \a copy |the MS| of those extracts with that Letter therein/ is still extant among these extracts in the hand \writing/ of M^r Collins.

But yet M^r Leibnits having found a new Demonstration of that series, persisted in his design of making himself the inventor thereof. and tho he had now received it twice from M^r Oldenburg yet \in his Letter of 27 August 1676/ he sent it back to him by way of recompence for M^r Newtons method, pretending that he had found it three years before or above; that is, two years before he received it in M^r Oldenburghs Letter of April 15^th 1675; at w^ch time he did not know it to be his own, as appears by his Answer of May 20^th 1675 above mentioned. But in cases of controversy its against the law of all nations to admit any man to be a witness for himself, & his affirming that he had found it above three years before must not be taken in evidence. It lies upon him to prove it. And if he had found it so long ago yet Gregory had sent it to Collins & Collins had begun to communicate it before that time & Newton had set down y^e series in his Analysis still earlier pag. 6, lin. ult And if he had found it before that time And to give himself a cleare title to that series he it lies upon him {illeg} to prove \further/ that he had invented it |even| before the month of Iuly 1669. For by his Theoreme of Transmutations he taught \found/ only how to reduce the Area of a Circle to the Area of a Curve whose abscissa is x & Ordinate $\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}}=\mathrm{y}$. The squaring of this Curve by the series $\mathrm{x}-\frac{1}{3}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{1}{5}{\mathrm{x}}^5-\frac{1}{7}{\mathrm{x}}^7+\frac{1}{9}{\mathrm{x}}^9$, &c was not his invention. M^r Newton \in the year 1669/ communicated it to M^r Collins in the said Analysis pag. 6, lin. ult. His words are: Eodem modo <96r> si sit $\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}}=\mathrm{y}$, dividendo prodibit $\mathrm{y}=1-{\mathrm{x}}^2+{\mathrm{x}}^4-{\mathrm{x}}^6+{\mathrm{x}}^8$, &c Vnde (per Regulam secundam) erit [area] $\mathrm{ABDC}=\mathrm{x}-\frac{1}{3}{\mathrm{x}}^3+\frac{1}{5}{\mathrm{x}}^5-\frac{1}{7}{\mathrm{x}}^7+\frac{1}{9}{\mathrm{x}}^9$, &c

In the Acta Eruditorum mensis Ianuarij 1689 pag. 37 M^r Leibnitz making mention of the method of series, represents that Mercator found them by division & Newton enlarged the method by extractions of roots both pure & affected, & then adds: A me ut obiter hic dicam, methodo serierum promovendæ præter transformationem irrationalium linearum in rationales symmetras (voco autem rationales symmetra{illeg} quarum Ordinatæ semper ex abscissis haberi possunt in numeris rationalibus) excogita est ratio pro curvis transcendentibus datis, ubi ne extractio quidem lacum habet. Assumo enim seriem arbitrariam, eam ex legibus problematis tractando obtineo ejus coefficientes. Mercator used the Division of D^r Wallis & found not one new series. The Transmutation of figures is no part of the method of series. It is only a Lemma for doing that witho in some few cases without the extraction of roots w^ch may be more readily done by the extraction of roots. The other method of assuming an arbitrary series is M^r Newton's. In his Letter of \24 Octob/ 1676, he set it down in this sentence. Altera [methodus consistit] tantum in assumptione seriei pro quantitate qualibet incognita ex qua cætera commode derivari possint et in collatione terminorum homologorum æquationis resultatis ad eruendos terminos assumptæ seriei.

In the same Letter of 27 Aug. 1676, after M^r Leibnitz had described his quadrature of the circle & equilateral Hyperbola, he added: ^[28]Vicissim ex seriebus regressum pro Hyperbola hanc inveni. Sit sit numerus aliquis unitate manor $1-\mathrm{m}$ ejus logarithmu{illeg}|s| Hyperbolicus l. Erit $\mathrm{m}=\frac{\mathrm{l}}{1}-\frac{{\mathrm{l}}^2}{1\times 2}+\frac{{\mathrm{l}}^3}{1\times 2\times 3}-{\mathrm{l}}^{4}1\times 2\times 3\times 4$ &c. Si numerus sit major unitata, ut $1+\mathrm{n}$, tunc pro eo inveniendo mihi etiam prodijt Regula, quæ ex dato arcu Sinum complementi exhibet. Nempe sinus Complementi $=1-\frac{{\mathrm{a}}^2}{1\times 2}+\frac{{\mathrm{a}}^4}{1\times 2\times 3\times 4}-\mathrm{\&c}$. Sed posteæ quo deprehendi ex ea, illam nobis communicatam pro inveniendo sinu recto qui est $\frac{\mathrm{a}}{1}-\frac{{\mathrm{a}}^3}{1\times 2\times 3}+\frac{{\mathrm{a}}^5}{1\times 2\times 3\times 4\times 5}+\mathrm{\&c}$ posse demonstrari. Thus M^r Leibnitz put in for the coinvention of these four series, tho the method of finding them was sent him at his own request, & he did not yet understand it. For in y^e same Letter he desired M^r Newton to explain it further {illeg} His words are. Sed desideraverim ut clarissimus Newtonus nonnulla quo amplius explicet; ut Originem Theorematis quod initio{illeg} ponit: Item Modum quo quantitates p, q, r in suis Operationibus invenit: Ac deni quomodo in methodo Regressuum se gerat, ut cum ex Logarithmo quærit Numerum. Ne enim explicat quomodo id ex methodo sua derivetur. He pretended to two have found two series for the Number whose Logarithm was given & yet in the same Letter desired M^r Newton to explain to him the method of finding them|ose| very \two/ series.

When M^r Newton had received this Letter he wrote back that all he said four Series had been communicated by him to M^r Leibnitz, the two first being one & the same series in w^ch the letter <96v> l was put for the Logarithm w^th its sine + or −, & the third being the excess of the {illeg} of the /Radius above the\ versed sine above the Radius, w^ch versed sine was sent him in a series. \for w^ch a series was|had be||e|/n\ sent him./ Whereupon M^r Leibnitz desisted from his claim. But when M^r Newton had further explained his methods of Regression, M^r Leibnitz in his Letter of 12 Ilu Iuly 1677 replied that he found by his old pap{illeg}|e|rs that he had formerly used one them \of those methods/; but in the example w^ch he had \then/ by chance made use of, there being produced nothing elegant, by his usual he \did had/ out of his usual impatience neglected to use it any further. |But \he is not a witness in his own case./ i|I|t lies upon him to prove that he had it in his old papers. Otherwise the method must go for M^r Newton's. Could he \M^r Leibnitz/ reject & forget the method w^ch would have given the inverse method of series, as useless? Could he have an elegant direct series which would not have given him an elegant example?|

Yet there is a certain sort of serie as use

Yet there is an invention of series due to M^r Leibnitz It is of such series whose terms may be all summed up. The method consists in subducting from any regular series all the Terms except the first, or two first, or three or four first. From the series $\frac{1}{1}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}+\mathrm{\&c}$ subduct all the terms but the first & there will remain $1=\frac{1}{1\times 2}+\frac{1}{2\times 3}+\frac{1}{3\times 4}+\frac{1}{4\times 5}+\mathrm{\&c}$. And from this series take all the terms but the first & there will remain $\frac{1}{2}=\frac{2}{1\times 2\times 3}+\frac{2}{2\times 3\times 4}+\frac{2}{3\times 4\times 5}+\frac{2}{4\times 5\times 6}+\mathrm{\&c}$. And from the first series take all the terms but the two first & there will remain $\frac{3}{2}=\frac{2}{1\times 3}+\frac{2}{2\times 4}+\frac{2}{3\times 5}+\frac{2}{4\times 6}+\mathrm{\&c}$. And from this series $\frac{1}{1}+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}+\frac{1}{7}+\frac{1}{9}+\mathrm{\&c}$ take all the terms but the first & there will remain $1=\frac{2}{1\times 3}+\frac{2}{3\times 5}+\frac{2}{5\times 7}+\frac{2}{7\times 9}+\mathrm{\&c}$