<1r>

On thursday Novem. 11th \at a meeting of the R.S./ A Pamphlet \sal \small Tract// was delivered to me as a present from Mr Gulielm William Chevalier the sonn a bookseller at Paris, a person unknown to me, conteining a chronologicall index, entituled Abrege de Chronologie de M. Chavalier Newton, fait par lui meme & traduit sur le Manuscrit Anglais. And the Bookseller hath def premised an advertisement for \in wch he endeavours to/ defending himself for printing it without my leave saying that he had writ three letters to me for my leave & in the third had told me that he would take my silence for a consent, & that he had also charged one of his frieds {sic} at London to speak to me & procure my precise answer. And that having long expected my answer, he thought that he might \take/ my silence for consent a sort of consent, & so resolved to proceed to the press, & for that end procured a Privilege & printed it, & then received my answer from his friend wch was as follows.

I remember that I wrote a Chronologic Index for a particular friend on condition that it should not be communicated. As I have not seen the Manuscript which you have under my name, I know not whether it is the same. That wch I wrote was not at all done with desige {sic} to publish it. I designe not to medle wth the printing of that wch hath been given you under my name, nor to give any consent to the publishing of it. I am yor very humble servant Isaac Newton. London. 27 May 1725. St. vet.

This was the 6t of Iune new style & the Privilege was Registred the day before. |I{illeg} granted Iune 1st & registred Iune 8 & the chronological Index printed of before he received my letter of Iune 6t, & yet not {illeg} sent to me till five months aft the time of election of a new President was at hand.| The Bookseller knew that the translation was made by my enemy I had not seen the translation of this Chronological {illeg} Index & without seeing it could give no consent to the impression, he knew that the traslator {sic} was unknown to me & was my enemy \adversary/ & therefore knew that it was not fit that I should give my consent nor be asked to doe it, th|h|e knew that the translator had printed a confutation \confutation/ written a confutation of the pap {illeg} paper translated & that this confutation was to be printed at the end of it & told me nothing of this. A all this & yet asked my consent to print it.

After the recital of my letter he adds: Mr Newton allows that he did write a chronological Index for a particual {sic} friend. And perhaps this acknowledgment induced him to print my letter. He adds further that the author of the translation & of the observations upon it pretends to have an entire certanty {sic} that this Idex o Abridgement2 or Index1 \of Chronology/ is the same \thing/ with the writing owned by Mr Newton; & the same author is perswaded that the Manuscript wch hath been communicated to him hath been copied from that of this friend, that is from \from the MS/ of the particular friend above mentioned for whome I wrote it & whom the author of the translation calls in the beginning of his Observations calls a great Princess. |And therefore the MS wch hath been communicated to him is that of Senr Conti copied from that of P this Princess.| {F} A few days after I had given it to this Princess, her R. Highness asked my leave that Senior Conti might have a copy. He knew that it was a secred|t| & that it was by \her intercession &/ my leave that he had a copy & yet without my leave \either her leave or mine/ he dispersed copies all over France, \&/ got an antiquary to translate & confute it, & the antiquary has got a Printer to print them the translation with the confutation. And the Printer \wrote to me for my consent to the printing & pretends/ pretends that he had my consent /my consent\ because I {illeg} did not \delayed to/ answer his letters \till he began to print, & by my silence/ & silence gave consent to the printing it with a confutation at its first appearing in publick. < insertion from the left margin > as if any man could be so foolish as to consent to the printing of his papers with a confutation {illeg} annexed at their first appearance in publick.

< text from f 1r resumes >

The translator neare the end of his Observations tells us pag. 90, {illeg} saith: I beleive that I have said enough concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts & the value of generations, so that I may reserve what might be said against the rest. For these are the two foundations of all this new systeme of Chronology{illeg}. What he saith concern {sic} the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts is foren to this purpose \founded on the fo to this purpose supposition/ that I place the Equinox \in the time of the Argonautic Exp/ 15 degrees from the first start of Aries. Which is a mistake. In the time of the middle of the first star of Aries nor Argonautic Expedition I place the Equinox \in the time of the Argonautic Expedition/ not 15 degrees after the first starr of Aries nor 15 degrees before the \last/ star called ultima caudæ \For {illeg}/ but {illeg} in the Colurus wch passeth through the middles of the starrs \constellations/ of Aries \& Libra/ & is at right angles wth the Colurus wch passeth through the middles of the constellations of & . |And I do in such a manner as was done by the Eudoxus who was contemporary to Meton & Thucidides & Xerxes King of Persia.| And as for the value of generations, he saith that I value them one wth another at 18 or 20 yeares a piece: \(pag 52)/ wch is another mistake. For I value agree with the ancients in valuing three generations at about an hundred years. But the reigns of kings I do not equal to generations as the ancient Greeks & Egyptians did, but I value them only at about 18 or 20 years a piece, when ten or twelve kings a piece \or above/ are taken together in continuall succession. So then \the/ Translator has mistaken my meaning in the two main arguments on wch the whole is founded, & has undertaken to translate & confute a paper wch he did not understand, & \been zealous/ to publish it though he thought it good for nothing but to expose me.

<1v>

The Pri{vi}lege was granted May 21 & registred May 25 \& the Letter dated May 27 {st. n.}/ & the Index Chronological or {sic} Index or abridgment printed off before the arrival of My Letter at Paris, & kept ever since to be sent hither at published at the time of the election of yor Offices approaching.

Senior Conti a Venetian nobleman \of Venice/ then in England wrote to me {illeg} that this Princess to at Hampton court desired to speak with me, & introduced me to her. She desired a {illeg} copy of what I written had written about Chronology. I replied that it was imperfect & not fit to be communicated \{sic} confused/ if but if she pleased I would draw an \in few days/ I could draw up an extract thereof if it might be kept private. And some time after I had done this she desired, that Senior Conti might have a copy of it. |He knew that it was a secret & that it was by her intercession & my leave that he had a copy, & yet without either her leave or mine he dispersed copies in France & got an Antiquary to translate & confute it, & the Antiquary has got a printer to print the translation wth ye confutation| And the printer wrote to me \thrice/ for my consent to the printing, & pretends that he had my consent because I did not answer his letters till \before/ he printed, & by my silence gave consent: as if any man would consent to the printing of his papers with a confutation at the end of them at their first publishing, \appearing in publick/ without seeing the confutation & {illeg} writing an answer to it.

[1]And I do it in such a manner as was done by Eudoxus, who flourished in the times of the Persian Empire wh before the precession of the Equinox was discovered, & names the c in describing the ancient sphere {illeg} names the first starrs through wch the Coluri passed.



1 The translator grants that the Constellations were formed by Chiron p. 70, 71, 79. 2 & that the Colures \of/ \solstices & Equinoxes/ were then in the 15th degres of the Constellations (p. \65,/ 69, 75 4 & that Eudoxus in his Enoptron or Speculum \cited by Hipparchus/ followed this opinion (p. \62, 63, 65/ 69, 79 3 & that this recconing was \long/ preserved amongst the Greeks for deter regulating the time of their publick feasts & sacrifices, p. 64         5 but in his Calendar made for the use of country people he & Meton placed the solstices & equinoxes in the eighth degrees of the signes & made no other alteration in the rustic Calender then to add his Cycle of 19 years with the intercalations belonging thereto for making the solstices return on the same day \time/ of the year (p 65    ) The Cal And I follow Eudoxus in {illeg} & Hipparchus in drawing the And Eudoxus tells us & Hipparchus names the first starrs \through wch the Colures/ passed in the old Sphere of Chiron And I |And that Meton observed the height of the son {sic} in the solstic {sic} in the 432 yeare before the birth of Christ, p.64| And Hipparchus names the starrs through wch the Colures passed in the ancient Sphere of Chiron described by Hipparchus Eudoxus. And I find that these Colures passed through the middles of the Constellations of & \not 15gr but 7gr. 23′ {illeg} the first star of ./ & from all this inferr that these were the Colures in the time of the Argonautic Expedition & had gone back from the 15th to the 8th degrees of those signes \Constellations/ in the days of Meton; & because they go back one degree in 72 years & seven degrees in 504, that the Argonautic Expedition was therefore 504 years ancieter {sic} then the rustic Calendar \days/ of Meton, \or there about/ & by consequence about 45 or 50 yeers after the {illeg} \death/ of Solomon. But the translator affirms that I place the Equinox 15 degrees after the first star of Aries & by consequence that the Trojan war was 500 Argonautic Expedition was {illeg} about 532 years older then I put make it.

\But he is mistaken. [The {illeg} Colure is but 7gr. 24 from the first star of Aries] \The first & last star of Aries are not 30 degrees distant from one another// The translator grants that the Constellations were formed by Chiron p. 70, 71, 79, & that the Solstices were then in the \{illeg}/ the {sic} middls \middles/ of the Constellations p. 65 69, 75,      & that Eudoxus in his Enoptron \or Speculum cited by Hipparchus/ followed this opinion p.62, 63, 65, 69, 79 And Hipparchus names the starrs through wch the Coluri passed in this \old/ sphere & that of the solst & his \thereby places the/ Colure of the solstices was about 7gr 24′ from the first starr of Aries, & I follow the|i|m. But the translator represents that I place this Colure 15 degrees from the first starr of Aries & thence makes \deduces that I should have made/ the Argonautic Expedition 532 years ancienter then I do.

He represents that I have a great work to come out, {illeg} but I never told him so. When I lived at Cambridge, \untill the times of the Convention Parliament,/ History & Chronology were one of the studies wth which I refresht my self when I was weary of other studies: but I made nothing of that kind ready for the press.

He represents that I make the canicular cycle of the Egyptians begin in spring 884 years before the birth of Christ, though it never began in spring. But I meddle not with the Egypti{an} canicular Cycle. I speak of the Egyptian year of 365 days.

<2r>

When Senior Conti came first into England, \wch was in spring 17{15}/ Mr          wrote to M{r} Leibnitz that he was 

His first step was to insinuate himself into my acquaintance, & in a while I found him active I he began to be active \at work/ in engaging me in disputes & sometimes finding persons to {assa} defend me. And because I do not trust him he has now found out one to oppose me. < insertion from lower down f 2r > & to soffen soften the business had \lately/ writ a Poem upon me under the colour of a friend < text from higher up f 2r resumes > But I hope that this & the perpetual motion will be the two last efforts of the Leibnitzians friends of Mr Leibnitz.

<3r>

An account of the Observations upon the Chronology
of Sr I. Newton.

On thursday Novemb. 11th 1725 O. St. a small Tract in print \printed in French/ was delivered to me as a present from Mr William Chevelier junior a Bookseller at Paris a person unknown to me, entituled; Abrege de Chronology de M. Chevalier Newton fait per {sic} lui meme, & traduit sur le Manuscript Anglois. And the Bookseller hath premised an advertisment to defend himself for printing it without my leave, saying that he had writ three letters to me for my leave, & in the third had told me that he would take my silence for a consent; & that he had also charged one of his friends in London to speak to me & procure my express answer; & that having long expected my answer, he thought that he might take my silence for a sort of consent; & so procured a Privilege, & printed it, & then received my answer from his friend, wch was as follows.

I remember that I wrote a Chronological Index for a particular friend on account condition that it should not be communicated. As I have not seen the Manuscript wch you have under my name, I know not whether it be the same. That wch I wrote was not at all done with designe to publish it. I intend not to meddle wth that which hath been given you under my name, nor to give any consent to the publishing of it. I am Your very humble servant Isaac Newton. London. 27 May. 1725 st. vet.

The Privilege was granted May 21 & registred May 25 old style & my letter dated May 27, & the Chronological Index or Abridgement, as he calls it, printed before the arrival of my letter at Paris, & kept ever since to be published at a convenient time. The Bookseller knew that I had not seen the translation of the Abridgement & without seing it could not in reason give my consent to the impression. He knew that the translator was unknown to me, & was against me, & therefore he knew that it was not fit that I should give my consent nor be asked to do it. He knew that the translator had written a confutation of the paper translated, & that this paper cof confutation under the title of Observations was to be printed at the end of it; & he told me nothing of all this, nor so much as the name of the Observator; & yet asked my consent to the publishing: as if any man could be so foolish as to consent to the publishing of an unseen translation of his papers, made by an unknown person, with a confutation annexed & unanswered, at their first appearance in publick.

After the recital of my Letter he adds that the author of the translation & of the Observations upon it, pretends to have an entire certainty that this Index or Abridgement of Chronology is the same with the writing owned by me in my letter, & is persuaded that the Manuscript wch hath been communicated to him, hath been copied from that of this friend, that is, from that of the particular friend above mentioned in my letter. And therefore the manuscript wch hath been communicated to him is that of Abbe Conti, a Venetian now at Paris of a noble family. He being about seven years ago in England gave me notice that the friend above mentioned desired to speak with me. And this friend then desired a copy of what I had written about Chronology. I replied that it was imperfect & confused: but in a few days I could draw up an extract thereof if it might be kept secret: And sometime after I had done this & presented it, this friend desired that Abbe Conti might have a copy of it. He was the only person who had a copy, & he knew that it was a secret, & that it was at the desire of this friend & by my leave that he had a copy, & he kept it secret while he staid in England: & yet without either this friends leave or mine he dispersed copies of it in France, & got an Antiquary to translate it into French & to confute it, & the Antiquary hath got a Printer to print the trans <3v> lation & the confutation, & the Printer hath endeavoured to get my leave to print the translation without sending me a copy thereof to be perused, or telling me the name of the translator, or letting me know his designe was to print it with a confutation unanswered & unknown to me.

The Translator neare the end of his Observation (pag. 90) saith: I believe that I have said enough concerning the Epoque of the Argonauts & the length of Generations to make people cautious about the rest. For those are the two foundations of all this new systeme of chronology.

What he saith concerning the Epoque of the Argonauts is founded on the supposition that I place the Equinox in the time of the Argonautic expedition fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries, pag. 75, 79. I place it in the middle of the constellation & the middle of the constellation is not fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries. The Observator grants that the Constellations were formed by Chiron (pag. 70, 71, 79,) & that the solstices & Equinoxes were then in the middles of the Constellations (pag. 65, 69, 75,) & that Eudoxus in his Enoptron or speculum cited by Hipparchus followed this opinion, pag. 62, 63, 65, 69, 79. And Hipparchus names the starrs through which the Colures passed in this old sphere according to Eudoxus, & thereby places the equinoctial Colure about 7degr.36′ from the first star of Aries: & I follow Hipparchus & Eudoxus. But the Observator represents that I place the Colure fifteen degrees from the first star of Aries, & thence deduces that I should have made the Argonautic expedition 532 years earlier then I do. Let him rectify his mistake, & the Argonautic expedition will be where I place it.

And as for the length of generations, he saith that I reccon them one with another at 18 or 20 years a piece (pag. 52, 59:) wch is another mistake. I agree with the ancients in recconing three generations at about an hundred years. But the reigns of kings I do not equal to generations as the ancient Greeks & Egyptians did: but I reccon them only at about 18 or 20 years a piece when ten or twelve kings or more are taken togather in continual successions. So the first 24 kings of France (Pharamund &c) reigned 458 years, wch is one with another 19 years a piece. The next 24 kings of France (Ludovicus Balbus &c) reigned 451 years, wch is one with another 1834 years a piece. The next 15 kings (Philippus Valesius &c) reigned 315 years wch is one with another 21 years a piece. And all the 63 kings of France reigned 1224 years wch is 1912 years a piece. And if the long reign of Lewis XIV be added, all the 64 kings of France will reign but 20 years a piece. And they that examin the matter will find it so in other kingdoms. And I shorten the duration of the ancient kingdoms of France Greece in the same proportion that I shorten the reigns of their kings & thereby place the return of the Heraclides into Peleponesus about 154 \years,/ the taking of Troy about 76 years, & the Argonautic expedition about 44 years after the death of Solomon, & find Sesostris contemporary to Sesac, & Cadmus & Europa to David.

So then the Observator hath mistaken my meaning in the two main arguments on wch the whole is founded, & hath undertaken to translate & confute a paper wch he did not understand, & been zealous to print it without my consent: tho he thought it good for nothing but to get himself a little credit by translating it to be confuted, & confuting his own translation.

The Observator saith that I suppose that the Egyptians began about 900 years before Christ to form their religion, & deify men for their inventions of arts: notwithstanding that it appears by the scriptures that their idolatry & arts were as old as the days of Moses & Iacob, pag. 82, 83. But he is again mistaken. I deny not that the kingdom of the lower Egypt called Mizraim had a religion of their own till they were invaded & subdued by the shepherds who were of another <4r> religion: but I say that when the Thetans (a third people) invaded & expelled the shepherds they set up the worship of their own kings & princes. I say also that arts were brought into Europe principally by the Phenicians & Curetes in the days of Cadmus & David about 1041 years before Christ; & do not deny that they were in Phœnicia Egypt & Idumæa before they came into Europe

The Observator saith also that 884 years before Christ I place the beginning of the Canicular cycle of the Egyptians upon the vernal Equinox, although that cycle never begins in spring, pag 84, 85. But he is again mistaken. I meddle not with that cycle, but I speak of the Egyptian year of 365 days.

The Observator represents that I have a great work to come out: but I never told him so. When I lived at Cambridge I used sometimes to refresh my self with history & chronology for a while when I was weary with other studies: but I never told him that I was preparing a work of this kind for the publick.

Abbe Conti came into England in Spring 1715, & while he staid in England, he pretended to be my friend, but assisted Mr Leibnits in engageing me in new disputes & hath since acted in the same manner in France. The part he acted here may be understood by the account given of him in the Acta Eruditorum for the year 1721 pag. 90, where the Editor excusing himself from repeating some disputes which had been published in those Acta subjoyns: Suffecerit itaqꝫ annotasse Abbatem quendam Italum de Conti, nobilem Venetum, (de quo admiratione digna sibi præscripta esse ab Hermanno fatetur Leibnitius,) cum ex Gallia in Angliam trajecisset, Mediatoris vices in sa suscipere voluisse, atqꝫ literas Newtoni ad Leibnitium deferri curasse, Leibnitianas cum Newtono communicasse. And how Mr Leibnitz by this mediation endeavoured to engage me against my will in new disputes about occult qualities, universal gravity, the sensorium of God, space, time, vacuū, atomes, the perfection of the world, supramundane intelligence, & mathematical problemes, is mentioned in the Preface to the second edition of the Commercium epistolicum. And what he hath been doing in Italy, may be understood by the disputes raised there by one of his friends, who denies many of my Optical experiments, though they have been all tried in France with success. But I hope that these things, & the perpetual motion, will be the last efforts of this kind.

<5r>

Remarques upon ye Abrege de Chronologie de M. le Chevalier Newton Isaac Newton fait par lui meme & traduit sur le Manuscript Anglois. {illeg} & upon the Observations made there upon. A

On thursday last, Novem. 2{illeg}|11|th, at a meeting of the Royal Society, a small Treatis was delivered to me as a present from Mr William Chevelier the son, a bookseller at Paris, a person unknown to me, entituled Abrege de Chronologie de M. Chevalier Newton fait par lui meme & traduit sur le Manuscript Anglay. And the Bookseller hath premised an Advertisement in wch he endeavours to defend himself for printing it without my leave, saying that he had writ three letters to me for my leave & in the third had told me that he would take my silence for a consent; & that he had also charged one of his friends in London to speak to me & procure my precise answer: & that having long expected my answer, he thought that he might take my silence for a sort of consent; & so procured a Privilege, & printed it, & then received my answer from his friend, wch was as follows.

I remember that I wrote a Chronological Index for a particular friend on condition that it should not be communicated. As I have not seen the Manuscript which you have under my name, I know not whether it is the same. That wch I wrote was not at all done with designe to publish it. I intend not to meddle with that wch hath been given you under my name, nor to give any consent to the publishing of it. I am Your very humble servant Isaac Newton.       London. 27 May 1725 st. vet.

This Letter was writ the 6t of Iune {illeg}

The Privilege was printed granted May 24|1|st & registred May 25t & my Letter dated May 27th Old style, & the chronological Index or Abridgement printed off before the arrival of my Letter at Paris, & kept ever since to be published at the time of your election of Officers approaching. The Bookseller knew that I had not seen this translation of the Chrono logical Index & without seeing it could not in reason give my consent to the impression. He knew that the translator was unknown to me & was my adversary, & therefore he knew that it was not fit that I should give my consent, nor be asked to do it. He knew that the translator had written a confutation of the paper translated, & that this confutation under the title of Observations was to be printed at the end of it; & he told me nothing of all this, & yet asked my consent to print it: as if any man could be so foolish as to consent to the printing of his papers with a confutation annexed & unanswered at their first appearance in public.

After the recitall of my Letter he adds: Mr Newton allows that he did write a chronological Index for a particular friend. And perhaps this acknowledgement induced him to print my Letter. He adds further that the author of the translation & of the observations upon it pretends to have had an entire certainty that this Index or Abridgment of Chronology is the same thing with the writing owned by Mr Newton; & the same author is perswaded that the Manuscript wch hath been communicated to him hath been copied from that of his friend, that is, from the Manuscript of this particular friend above mentioned for whom I wrote it, & whom the author of the translation in the beginning of his Observations (pag. 49) calls a great Princess. And therefore the Manuscript which hath been communicated to him, is that of Senior Conti a nobleman of Venice then in England \lately/ now at Paris. He being lately in England wrote to me that this Princess desired to speak with me, & introduced me to her Highness; who \then/ desired a copy of what I had written about Chronology. I replied that it was imperfect & confused: but <6r> in a few days I could draw up an extract thereof if it might be kept private. And sometime after I had done this & presented it, her Highness desired that Senior Conti might have a copy of it. He knew that it was a secret, & that it was by the intercession of the Princess & my leave that he had a copy: & yet without either her leave or mine he dispersed copies of it in France, & got an Antiquary to translate it into french & confute it, & the Antiquary has got a Printer to print the translation & the confutation, & the Printer has endeavoured to get my leave to print the translation without sending me a copy thereof to peruse it, or letting me know that his designe was to print \it/ with a confutation unanswered & unknown to me.

The translator neare the end of his Observations (pag. 90) saith: I believe that I have said enough concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts, & the value of generations, s|t|o that I may reserve what may be said against \make people cautious about {sic}/ the rest. For these are the two foundations of all this new systeme of Chronologie. What he saith concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts is founded on the supposition that I place the Equinox in the time of the Argonautic Expedition fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries .|(||p. 75, 79.)| Which is a mistake. \/ < insertion from f 5v > The first & last starr of Aries are not 30 degrees distant from one another. The Observator grants that the Constellations were formed by Chiron (p. 70, 71, 79,) & that the solstices were then in the middles of the signes Constellations (p. 65, 69, 75,) & that Eudoxus in his Enoptron or speculum cited by Hipparchus followed this opinion p. 62, 68, 65, 69, 79. And Hipparchus names the starrs through which the Colure passed in this old sphere, & thereby places the equinoxial Colure about 7gr. 36′ from the first star of Aries, & I follow Eudoxus Hipparchus & Eudoxus. But the Observator represents that I place this Colure fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries & {sic} thence deduces that I should have made the Argonautic expedition 532 years ancienter then I do < text from f 6r resumes > I place the Equinox at that time not in the fifteen degrees after the first starr of Aries nor fifteen degrees before the last star called ultima caudæ, but in the Colure wch passeth through the middles of the constellations of Aries & Libra, & is at right angles with the Colure which passeth through the middles of the constellations of Cancer & Capricorn. And I do it in such a manner as was done by Eudoxus who flourished in the times of the Persian Empire almost three hundred years before the precession of the Equinox was known, & in describing the ancient sphere names the fixt starrs through which the Colures passed. And as for the value of Generations he saith that I value them one with another at 18 or 20 years a piece (pag 52, \55/) wch is another mistake. For I agree with the ancients in valuing three generations at about an hundred years. But the reigns of {illeg} kings I do not equal to generations as the ancient Greeks & Egyptians did; but I value them only at about 18 or 20 years a piece when ten or twelve kings or above are taken together in continual succession. So then the Translator \And they that examin this will ffind it true. So then the Observator/ hath mistaken my meaning in the two main arguments on wch the whole is founded, & has undertaken to translate & confute a paper wch he did not understand, & been zealous to publish it \without my consent/ though he thought it good for nothing but to discredit me be refuted discredit me.

The Observator represents that I have a great work to come out; but I never told him so. When I lived at Cambridge, I used sometimes to refresh my self with History & chronology \for a while/ when I was weary of other studies: but I made nothing of that kind fit for the press.

<6v>

Remarques
sur les Observations sur la Chronologie
De M. Newton.



Response
aux Observations sur le Chronologie
De M. Newton

His mediatorship began by pressing & obliging me to answer Mr Leibnitz's letter of            concerning

How he acted the part of a mediator may be ssen in the Prefac

How under the colour of a mediator he endeavoured to engage me in new disputes about occult qualities, universal gravity, the sensorium of God, space, time vacuum, attoms, the perfection of the world, supramundane intelligenc {sic} &c {illeg} may be seen & yet \Mathematical Problems &/ with difficulty got me to answer Mr Lei the Letters of Mr Leibnitz may be seen in the Preface to the last \second/ edition of the Commercium Epistolicum.

<7r>

On thursday last, Novem. 11th, at a meeting of the Royal Society, a small Tract was delivered to me as a present from Mr William Chevalier the son, a bookseller at Paris, a person unknown to me, entituled: Abrege de Chronologie de M. Chevalier Newton, fait par lui meme, & traduit sur le Manuscript Anglay|ois|. And the Bookseller hath premised an Advertisement in wch he endeavours to defend himself for printing it without my leave, saying that he had writ three letters to me for my leave, & in the third had told me that he would take my silence for a consent; & that he had also charged one of his friends in London to speak to me & procure my precise answer: & that having long expected my answer, he thought that he might take my silence for a sort of consent; & so procured a Privilege, |&| printed it, & then received my answer from his friend, which was as follows.

I remember that I wrote a Chronological Index for a particular friend on condition that it should not be communicated. As I have not seen the Manuscript which you have under my name, I know not whether it be the same. That wch I wrote was not at all done with designe to publish it. I intend not to meddle with that wch hath been given you under my name, nor to give any consent to the publishing of it. I am yor very humble servant Isaac Newton. London. 27 May 1725. st. vet.

The Prilege Privilege was granted May 21st & registred May 25t & my Letter dated May 27th Old style, & the Chronological Index, or Abridgement, as he calls it, printed before the arrival of my Letter at Paris, & kept ever since to be published at the time of yor election of Officers. The bookseller knew that I had not seen the translation of the Abridgement, & without seeing it could not in reason give my consent to the impression. He knew that the translator was unknown to me & was my adversary: & therefore he knew that it was not fit that I should give my consent nor be asked to do it. He knew that the translator had written a confutation of the paper translated, & that this confutation under the title of Observations was to be printed at the end of it; & he told me nothing of all this, & yet asked my consent to print it: as if amy man could be so foolish as to consent to the printing of \an unseen translation of/ his papers with a confutation annexed & unanswered at their first appearance in publick.

After the recital of my Letter he adds: Mr Newton allows that he did write a chro\no/logical Index for a particular friend. And perhaps this concession induced him to print my Letter. He adds further that the author of the translation & of the observations upon it, pretends to have an entire certainty that this Index or Abridgment of Chronology is the same thing with the writing owned by Mr Newton; & the same author is perswaded that the Manuscript wch hath been communicated to him hath been copied from that of this friend, that is, from the Manuscript of the particular friend above mentioned for whom I wrote it, [& whom the author of the translation in the beginning of his Observations (pag. 49) calls a great Princess.] And therefore the Manuscript which hath been communicated to him, is that of Senior Conti a nobleman of Venice now at Paris. He being about seven years ago in England wrote to me that this Princess \friend/ desired to speake with me, & introduced me to her Highness, who \this friend/ then desired a copy of what I had written about Chronology. I replied that it was imperfect & confused: but in a few days I could draw up an Extract thereof if it might be kept secret. And sometime after I had done this & presented it, Her Highness \this friend the/ desired that Senior Conti might have a copy of it. He \was the only person \who/ had a copy &/ knew that it was secret, & that it was by the intercession \at the desire/ of this Princess \friend/ & \by/ my leave that he had a copy: & yet without either her \my friends/ leave or mine, he dispersed copies of it in Frane|c|e, & got an antiquary to translate it into French, & to confute it, & the Antiquary hath got a Printer to print <8r> the translation & the confutation, & the Printer hath endeavoured to get my leave to print the translation without sending me a copy thereof to be peruse|d| it, or letting me know that his designe was to print it with a confutation unanswered & unknown to me.

The translator neare the end of his Observations (pag. 90) saith: I believe that I have said enough concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts, & the value \length/ of generations, s|t|o that I may {illeg} what may be said against \make people cautious about/ the rest. For these are the two foundations of all this new systeme of Chronology. What he saith concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts is founded on the supposition that I place the Equinox in the time of the Argonautic expedition fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries. \p. 75, 79/ Which is a mistake. The first & last starr of Aries are not thirty degrees from one another. The Observator grants that the Constellations were formed by Chiron (p. 70, 71, 79,) & that the solstices were then in the middles of the Constellations (p. 65, 69, 75) & that Eudoxus in his Enop{illeg}tron or speculum cited by Hipparchus followed this opinion, |where I place it. {sic}| p.62, 63, 65, 69, 79. And Hipparchus names the starrs through which the Colures passed in this old sphere, \according to Eudoxus/ & thereby places the Equinoctial Colure about 7gr. 36′ from the first star of Aries, & I follow Hipparchus & Eudoxus. But the Observator represents that I place this Colure fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries, & thence deduces that I should have made the Argonautic Expedition 532 years earlier then I do. \/ < insertion from f 7v > Let him rectify his mistake & the Argonautic Expedition will fall whe be where I place it. < text from f 8r resumes > // And as for the value \length/ of Generations he saith that I value \reccon/ them one with another at 18 or 20 years a piece (pag. 52, 55): wch is another mistake. For I agree with the ancients in valuing \recconing/ three generations at about an hundred years. But the reigns of kings I do not equal to generations as the ancient Greeks & Egyptians did; but I value \reccon/ them only at about 18 or 20 years a piece when ten or twelve kings or above \more/ are taken together in continual succession < insertion from f 7v > ✝ & I shorten the duration of kingdoms in \the same/ proportion to \that I shorten/ the reigns of kings. < text from f 8r resumes > * < insertion from f 7v > * So the first twenty \four/ kings of France, Pharamond            & reigned 458 years wch is one with another 19 years a piece. The next twenty \four/ kings reigned of France yea Ludovicus Balbus &c         &c reigned 451 years wch is one with another 1834 years a piece; the last \next/ fifteen kings beginning with Philippus Valesius &c              & ending wth Lewis XIVth reigned 315 years wch is one with another 21 years a piece; & all the 63 Kings of France \from the yeare \418/ to {untill} the year 1643/ reigned1224 years wch is 1912 years a piece. \And if the long reign of Lewis 14th be added, the 64 kings will reign but 20 yeare a piece/ And they that examin the matter will find it so {illeg} in other kingdoms. And I shorten the duration of the ancient kingdoms of Greece in the same proportion that I shorten the reigns of their kings

And from the beginning of the reign of Hugh Capet A.C. 987 to the end of the reign of Lewis 14 \1710/ (to take his one example) were 30 reigns & 723 reigns wch is but 24 years to a reign. < text from f 8r resumes > And they that examin this will find it true. // So then the Observator hath mistaken my meaning in the two main arguments on which the whole is founded; & has undertaken to translate & confute a paper wch he did not understand, & been zealous to publish it without my consent, though he thought it good for nothing but to get himself a little credit.

The Observator represents that I have a great work to come out; but I never told him so. When I lived at Cambridge I used sometimes to refresh my self with history & Chronology for a while when I was weary of other studies: but I made nothing of that kind fit for the Press \never told him or seignior Conti that I had made any work/ was making any work of this kind ready for the Press.

While Senior Conti staid in England.

Senior Conti came into England in Spring 1715, & while he staid in England he \pretended to be my friend but/ carried on the intreagues of Mr Leibnitz & his friends under the colour of friendship to me \in engaging me in disputes such disputes as I endeavoured to avoid./ as far as he was able, & hath since acted in the same manner in France: all wch will \be/ better understood by the character given of him in the Acta Eruditorum f{illeg} \for/ the year 1721 pag 90, as follows: \where the editor excusing himself from repeating what ✝ < insertion from the right margin > ✝ had < text from f 8r resumes > been published \before/ in those Acta {illeg} concerning the author of the differential method subjoyns:/ Suffecerit itaqꝫ annotasse Abbatem quendam Italum de Conti, nobilem Ven\e/tum (de quo admiratione digna sibi præscripta esse ab Hermanno fatetur Leibnitius) cum ex Gallia in Angliam trajecisset, Mediatoris vices in se suscipere, \voluisse/ atqꝫ literas \Newtoni/ ad Leibnitium defferri curasse, Leibnitianas cum Newtono communicasse. That is, he assisted Mr Leibnitz in engaging me under

Senior Conti came into England in Spring 1715, & while he staid in England he pretended to be my friend but assisted Mr Leibnitz in engaging me in new disputes, & hath since acted in the same manner in France. The part he acted here may be understood by the character given of him in the Acta Eruditorum for the year 1721 pag 90, where the Editor excusing himself for repeating some disputes wch had been published in those Acta, subjoyns: < insertion from f 7v > where the Editor of the Acta excusing himself from repeating what \some the disputes wch/ had been said before published before in {illeg} those Acta, subjoyns < text from f 8r resumes > Suffecerit itaqꝫ annotasse Abbatem quendam Italum de Conti, nobilem Venetum (de quo admiratione digna sibi prædicta esse præscripta esse ab Hermanno fatetur Lei{b}nitius) cum ex <8v> Gallia in Angliam trajecisset, Mediatoris vices in se suscipere voluisse, atqꝫ literas Newtoni ad Leibnitium deferri curasse, Leibnitianas cum Newtono communicasse. And what he has been doing in Italy may be understood \partly/ by his sending thither Mr Sterling, a person then unkno{w}n to me, to be ready to defend me there if I would afterwards have contributed to his maintenance there, & \partly/ by the disputes since ras|i|sed there by one of his friends who denies many of my Optical Experiments though they have been all tryed in France with success. But I hope that these things & the perpetual motion will be the last efforts of this kinds

<9r>

Response
aux Observations sur le Chonologie {sic}
de M. Newton.

On thursday Novem. 11th, 1725, a small Tract in print was delivered to me as a present from Mr William Chevelier the son \junior/ a bookseller at Paris a person unknown to me, entituled, Abrege de Chronologie de M. Chevalier Newton, fait par lui meme, & traduit sur le Manuscript Anglois. And the Bookseller hath premised an advertisement in wch he endeavoureth to defend himself for printing it without my leave, saying he had writ three letters to me for my leave, & in the third had told me that he would take my silence for a consent; & that he had also charged one of his friends in London to speak to me & procure my precise | express answer; & that having long expected my answer, he thought that he might take my silence for a sort of consent; & so procured a Privilege, & printed it, & then received my answer from his friend, wch was as follows.

I remember that I wrote a Chronological Index for a particular friend on condition that it should not be communicated. As I have not seen the Manuscript wch you have under my name, I know not whether it be the same. That wch I wrote was not at all done with designe to publish it. I intend not to meddle with that wch hath been given you under my name, nor to give any consent to the publishing of it. I am yor very humble servant Isaac Newton. London 27 May 1725. st. vet.

The Privilege was granted May 21st, & registred May 25t, & my Letter dated May 27th Old style, & the Chronological Index, or Abridgement as he calls it, printed before the arrival of my Letter at Paris, & kept ever since to be published at a convenient time. The bookseller knew that I had not seen the translation of the Abridgment, & without seeing it could not in reason give my consent to the impression. He knew that the translator was unknown to me & was against me: & therefore he knew that it was not fit that I should give my consent, nor be asked to do it. He knew that the translator had written a confutation of the paper translated, & that this confutation under the title of Observations was to be printed at the end of it, & he told me nothing of all this \nor so much as the name of the Observator/ & yet asked my consent to the publishing: as if any man could be so foolish as to consent to the printing of an unseen translation of his papers with \a/ confutation |by a nameless person| \by a namel/ annexed & unanswered \by a nameless person/ at their first appearance in publick.

After the first recital of my Letter he adds that the author of the translation & of the observations upon it, pretends to have an entire certainty that this Index or abridgement of Chronology is the same with the writing owned by me in my Letter, & is perswaded that the Manuscript wch hath been communicated to him hath been copied from that of this friend, that is, from the Manuscript of the particular friend above mentioned in my Letter. And therefore the Manuscript wch hath been communicated to him is that of Seignior \Abbe/ Conti a noble Venetian now at Paris. He being about seven years ago in England, gave me notice that the friend \above mentioned/ desired to speak with me. And this friend then desired a copy of what I had written about Chronology. I replied that it was imperfect & confused: but in a few days I could draw up an extract thereof if it might be kept secret. And sometime after I had done this & presented it, this friend desired that Seigneur|Abbe| Conti might have a copy of it. He was the only person who had a copy, & \he/ knew that it was a secret & that it was at the desire of this friend & by my leave that he had a copy, & \he/ kept it secret while he staid in England: & yet without either this friends leave or mine, he dispersed copies of it in France, & got an antiquary to translate \it/ into French, & to confute it, & the Antiquary hath got a Printer to print the translation & the confutation, & the Printer hath endeavoured to get my leave to print the translation without sending me there a coppy thereof to be perused, or telling me the name of the translator, or letting me know that his designe was to print it with a confutation unanswered & unknown to me.

The translator neare the end of his Observations (pag.90) saith: I believe that I have said enough concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts & the length of generations to make people cautious about the rest. For these are the two foundations of all this new systeme of Chronology. What he saith concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts is founded on the supposition that I place the Equinox of the Argonautic <10r> expedition fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries, p. 75, 79. Which is a mistake The first & last starr of Aries are not 30 degrees from one another {illeg} \as they should be/ that the middle of the Constellation may be fifteen degrees from each. The Observator grants that the Constellations were formed by Chiron (pag. 70, 71, 79) & that the solstices \& Equinoxes/ were then in the middles of the Constellations (pag. 65, 69, 75) & that Eudoxus in his Enoptron or speculum cited by Hipparchus followed this opinion, p. 62, 63, 65, 69, 79. And Hipparchus a[2] names the starrs through which the Colures passed in this old sphere according to Eudoxus, & thereby places the Equinoctial Colure about 7gr 36′ from the first starr of Aries; & I follow Hipparchus & Eudoxus. But the Observator represents that I place this Colure fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries, & thence deduces that I should have made the Argonautic Expedition 532 years earlier then I do. Let him rectify his mistake, & the Argonautic Exped\it/ion will be where I place it.

And as for the length of generations, he saith that I reccon them one with another at 18 or 20 years a piece (pag. 52, 55:) wch is another mistake. I agree wth the ancients in recconing three generations at about an hundred years. But the reigns of Kings I do not equal to generations, as the ancient Greeks & Egyptians did: but I reccon them only at about 18 or 20 years a piece when ten or twelve kings or more are taken together in continual succession. So the first 24 Kings of France (Pharmund &c) reigned 458 years, wch is one with another 19 years a piece. The next 24 Kings of France (Ludovicus Balbus &c) reigned 451 years, wch is one with another 1834 years. The next 15 Kings (Philippus Valesius &c) reigned 315 years, wch is one with another 21 years a piece. And all the 63 Kings of France reigned 1224 years, wch is 1912 years a piece. And if the long reign of Lewis XIV be added, the 64 kings will reign but 20 years a piece. And they that examin the matter will find it so in other kingdoms. And I shorten the duration of the ancient Kingdoms of Greece in the same proportion that I shorten the reigns of their Kings, ‡ < insertion from f 9v > ‡ & thereby place the argonautic Expedition about 45 years, & the taking of Troy about 77 years after the death of Solomon.

< text from f 10r resumes >

So then the Observator hath mistaken my meaning in the two main arguments on wch the whole is founded; & hath undertaken to translate & confute a paper wch he did not understand, & been zealous to print it without my consent, though he thought it good for nothing but to get imself a little credit |by translating it & confuting his own translation.|

Symbol (cross with a spare leg surmounted by a dot in a circle) in text < insertion from f 9v > Symbol (cross with a spare leg surmounted by a dot in a circle) in text The Observator saith that I represent suppose that the Egyptians began about 900 years before Christ to form their religion & deify men for their invention of arts, notwithstanding \it appears by scriptures/ that their idolatry & arts were as old as the days of Moses & Iacob, pag. 82, 83. But he is again mistaken. I deny not that the Kingdom of the lower Egypt called Mizraim had a religion of their of their own till \they were subdued by/ the shepherds subdued them who were of another religion: & I say that when the shephers Thebans expelled the Shepherds, they set up the worship of their own Kings; And I say also \&/ that Arts were brought into Europe principally by Cadmus & the Phenicians & Curetes in the days of David \& Cadmus/ about 1041 years before Christ; & do not deny that they were in Phœnicia Egypt & Idumæa before they came into Europe. < text from f 10r resumes > The Observator represents that I ascribe the invention of Arts to the Gods of Egypt about 900 years before the birth of Christ, pag. 82, 83. But he is again mistaken And I say \also/ that Arts were brought into Europe principally by Cadmus & the Phenicians & the Curetes in the reign of King David about 1041 years before Christ, & do not deny that they were in Phenicia & Egypt & Idumea before they came into Europe.

He saith also that 884 years before Christ I place the beginning of the Canicular Cycle of the Egyptians upon the vernal Equinox, although that Cycle never begins in Spring, pag. 84, 85. But he is again mistaken. I meddle not with that Cycle, but speak of the Egyptian year of 365 days.

The Observator represents that I have a great work to come out: but I never told him so. When I lived at Cambridge I used sometimes to refresh my self with history & chronology for a while when I was weary with other studies: but I never told him that I was preparing a work of this kind for the publick.

Seignior \Abbe/ Conti came into England in Spring 1715, & while he staid in England he pretended to be my friend but assisted Mr Leibnitz in engaging me in \new/ disputes, & hath & hath since acted in the same manner in France. The part he acted here may be understood by the character given of him in the Acta Eruditorium for the year 1721 pag. 90, where the Editor excusing himself from repeating some disputes wch had been published in those Acta, subjoynes: Suffecerit itaqꝫ annotasse Abbatum quendam Italum de Conti, nobilem Venetum (de quo admiratione digna sibi præscripta esse ab Hermanno fatetur Leibnitius) cùm ex Gallia in Angliam trajecisset, Mediatoris vices in se suscipere voluisse, atqꝫ literas Newtoni ad Leibnitium deferri curasse, Leibnitianas cum Newtono communicasse. And what he has been doing in Italy may be understood partly by his sending thither2 Mr Sterling1 \thither/ [a person then unknown to me to be ready to defend me there if I would have contributed to his <10v> maintenance] & partly by the disputes which since raised there by one of his friends who denies many of my optical experiments {tho} they have been all tried in France with successe. But I hope that these things, & the perpetual motion, will be the last efforts of this kind for embroiling me

<11r>

Response
aux Obsevations {sic} sur le Chronologie
de M. Newton.

On thursday Novem. 11th 1725, a small Tract in print was delivered to me as a present from Mr William Chevalier junior a bookseller at Paris, a person unknown to me, entituled, Abrege de Chrologie {sic} de M. Chevalier Newton, fait par lui meme, & traduit sur le Manuscript Anglois. And the Bookseller hath premised an advertisement in wch he endeavoureth to defend himself for printing it without my leave, saying that he had writ three letters to me for my leave, & in the third had told me that he would take my silence for a consent; & that he had also charged one of his friends in London to speak to me & procure my express answer; & that having long expected my answer, he thought that he might take my silence for a sort of consent; & so procured a privilege & printed it, & then received my answer from his friend, wch was as follows.

I remember that I wrote a Chronological Index for a particular friend on condition that it should be kept secret not be communicated. As I have not seen the Manuscript which you have under my name, I know not whether it be the same. That wch I wrote was not at all done wth designe to publish it. I intend not to meddle with that wch hath been given you under my name, nor to give any consent to the publishing of it. I am Your very humble servant Isaac Newton. London. 27 May, 1725, st. vet.

The Privilege was granted May 21 & registred May 25 old style & my Letter dated May 27, & the Chronological Index, printed or a|A|bridgement as he calls it, printed {illeg} before the arrival of my Letter at Paris, & kept ever since to be published at a convenient time. The Bookseller knew that I had not seen the translation of the Abridgment & without seeing it could not in reason give my consent to the impression. He knew that the translator was unkown to me, & was against me: & therefore he knew that it was not fit that I should give my consent, nor be asked to do it. He knew that the translator had written a confutation of the paper translated, & that this confutation under the title of Observations was to be printed at the end of it; & he told me nothing of all this, nor so much as the name of the Observator, & yet asked my consent to the publishing: as if any man could be so foolish as to consent to the publishing of an unseen translation of his papers \made by an unknown person/ with a confutation annexed & unanswered at their first appearance in publick.

After the recital of my Letter he adds that the author of the translation & of the Observations upon it, pretends to have an entire certainty that this Index or Abridgement of Chronology is the same with the writing owned by me in my Letter, & is perswaded that the Manuscript wch hath been communicated to him, hath been copied from that of this friend, that is, from that of the particular friend above mentioned in my Letter. And therefore the Manuscript which hath been communicated to him is that of Abbe Conti a noble Venetian now at Paris. He being about seven years ago in England gave me notice that the friend above mentioned desired to speak with me. And this friend then desired a copy of what I had written about Chronology. I replied that it was imperfect & confused, but in a few days I could draw up an abstract thereof if it might be kept secret. And some time after I had done this & presented it, this friend desired that signior Conti might have a copy of it. He was the only person who had a copy, & he knew that it was a secret, & that it was at the desire of this friend & by \my/ leave that he had a copy & thathe kept it secret while he staid in England: & yet without either this friends leave or mine he dispersed copies of it in France, & got an antiquary to translate it into French, & to confute it, & the Antiquary hath got a Printer to print the translation & the confutation, & the Printer hath got endeavoured to get my leave to print the translation without sending me a copy thereof to be perused, or telling the name of the translator; or letting me know what his designe was to print it with a confutation unanswered & unknown to me.

The translator neare the end of his Observations (pag. 90) saith: I beleive that I have said enough concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts & the length of generations to make people cautious about the rest. For these are the two foundations of all this new systeme of Chronology. What he saith concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauti|s|c Expedition is founded on the supposition that I place the Equinox in the time of the Argonautic Expedition fifteen degrees from the first star of Aries, pag. 75, 79. I place it in the middle of the middle constellation & the middle is not fifteen degrees from the first & last starrs of Aries. The observator grants that the Constellations were formed by Chiron (pag. 70, 71), 79) & that the solstices & Equinoxes were \then/ in the middles of the Constellations (pag. 65, 69, 75) & that Eudoxus in his Enoptron or Speculum cited by Hipparchus followed this opinion, pag. 62, 63, 65, 69, 79. And Hipparchus a[3] names the starrs through which the Colures passed in this old sphere according to Eudoxus, & thereby places the Equinoctial Colure about 7degr. 36′ from the first starr of Aries; & I follow Hipparchus & Eudoxus. But the Observator represents that I place the Colure fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries.|,| Let him & thence deduces that I should have made the Argonautic Expedition 532 years earlier then I do. Let him rectify his mistake, & the Argonautic Expedition will be where I place it.

As for the length of generations, he saith that I reccon them one with another at 18 or 20 years a piece (pag. 52, 55:) wch is another mistake. I agree with the ancients in recconing thre generations at about an hundred years. But the reigns of kings I do not equall to generations as the ancient Greeks & Egyptians did: but I reccon them only at about 18 or 20 years <12r> a piece one with another when ten or twelve kings or more are taken in continual succession. So the first 24 Kings of France (Pharamund &c) reigned 458 years which is one with another 19 years a piece. The next 24 Kings of France (Ludovicus Balbus &c) reigned 451 years, which is one with another 1834 years a piece. The next 15 Kings (Philippus Valesius &c) reigned 315 years, wch is one with another 21 years a piece. And all the 63 Kings of France reigned 1224 years which is 1912 years a piece. And if the long reign of Lewis XIV be added, the 64 Kings of France will reign but 20 years a piece. And they that examin the matter will find it so in other Kingdoms. And I shorten the duration of the ancient Kingdoms of Greece in the same proportion that I shorten the reigns of King their Kings, & thereby place the Argonautic Expedition about 44 years, & the taking of Troy about 76 years after the death of Solomon.

So then the Observator hath undertaken to translate & confute a paper wch he did not understand mistaken my meaning in the two main arguments on wch the whole is founded, & hath undertaken to translate & to confute a paper wch he did not understand & been zealous to print it without my consent; tho he thought it good for nothing but to get himself a little credit by translating it to be confuted & confuting his own translation.

The Observator saith that I suppose that the Egyptians began about 900 years before Christ to form their religion & deify men for their inventions of arts, notwithstanding that it appears by the scriptures that their idolatry & arts were as old as the days of Moses & Iacob, pag. 82, 83. But he is again mistaken. I deny not that the Kingdom of the lower Egypt called Mizraim had a religion of their own till they were invaded & subdued by the shepherds who were of of another religion: but I say that when the Thebans expelled the Shepherds they set up the worship of their own Kings & princes. I say also that arts were brought into Europe principally by the Phenicians & Curetes in the time of Cadmus & David about 1041 years before Christ; & do not deny that they were in Phenicia Egypt & Idumea before they came into Europe.

The Observator saith also that 884 years before Christ I place the beginning of the canicular cycle of the Egyptians upon the vernal Equinox, although that cycle never begins in spring, pag. 84, 85. But he is again mistaken. I meddle not wth that cycle, but speak of the Egyptian year of 365 years.

The Observator represents that I have a great work to come out: but I never told him so. When I lived at Cambridge, I used sometimes to refresh my self with history & chronology for a while when I was weary with other studies: but I never told him that I was preparing a work of this kind for the press.

Abbé Conti came into England in spring 1715, & while he staid in England he pretended to be my friend, but assisted Mr Leibnitz in engageing me in new disputes, & hath since acted in the same manner in France. The part he acted here may be understood by the character given of him in the Acta Eruditorum for the year 1721, pag. 90: where the Editor excusing himself from repeating some disputes which had been published in those Acta, subjoyns: Suffecerit itaqꝫ annotasse Abbatem quendam Italum de Conti, nobilem Venetum (de quo admiratione digna sibi præscripta esse ab Hermanno fatetur Leibnitius) cum ex Gallia in Angliam trajecisset, Mediatoris vices in se suscipere voluisse, atqꝫ litteras Newtoni ad Leibnitium deferri curasse, Leibnitianas cum Newtono communicasse. And how under the Colour of a mediator he \Mr Leibnitz by his mediation/ endeavoured to engage me \against my will/ in new disputes about occult qualities, universal gravity, the sensorium of God, space, time, vacuum, a{illeg}|t|oms, the perfection of the world, supramundane intelligence, & mathematical problemes, & \this mediator/ with difficulty got me to answer the letters of Mr Leibnitz, is mentioned in the second Preface to the second edition of the Commercium Epistolicum. And what he has been doing in Italy may be understood by the disputes raised there by one of his friends who denyes many of my \optical/ experiments though they have been all tried in France with success. But I hope that these things, & the perpetual motion, will be the last efforts of this kind.

<12v>

Dr Arbothnot in Cork street in Burlington Gardens.

<13r>

Response
aux Observations sur le Chronologie
de M. Newton.

On thursday Novemb. 11th 1725 a small Tract in print was delivered to me as a present from Mr William Chevelier \junior/ a Bookseller at Paris, a person unknown to me, entituled, Abrege de Chronologie de M. Chevalier Newton, fait per {sic} lui meme, & traduit sur le Manuscript Anglois. And the Bookseller hath premised an advertisement to defend himself for printing it without my leave, saying that he had {illeg} \writ/ three letters to me for my leave, & in the third had told me that he would take my silence for a consent; & that he had also chra|a|rged one of his friends in London to speak to me & procure my express answer; & that having long expected my answer, he thought that he might take my silence for a sort of consent; & so procured a Privilege, & printed it, & then received my answer from his friend, wch was as follows.

I remember that I wrote a Chronological Index for a particular friend on condition that it should be kept secret not be communicated. As I have not seen the Manuscript under my which you have under my name, I know not whether it be the same. That which I wrote was not at all done wth designe to publish it. I intend not to meddle with that w\h/ich hath been given you under my name, nor to give any consent to the publishing of it. I am Yor very humble servant Isaac Newton. London, 27 May 1725, st. vet.

The Privilege was granted May 21 & registred May 25 old style, & my letter dated May 27, & the Chronological Index, or Abridgement, as he calls it, printed before the arrival of my Letter at Paris; & kept \secret/ ever since to be published at a convenient time. The bookseller knew that I had not seen the translation of the Abridgement, & without seeing it could not in reason give my consent to the impression. He knew that the translator was unknown to me, & was against me: & therefore he knew that it was not fit that I should give my consent, nor be asked to do it. He knew that the translator had written a confutation of the paper translated, & that this confutation under the title of observations was to be printed at the end of it; & he told me nothing of all this, nor so much as the name of the Observator; & yet asked my consent to the publishing: as if any man could be so foolish as to consent to the publishing of an unseen translation of his papers made by an unknown person with a confutation annexed & unanswered at their first appearance in publik.

After the recital of my Letter, he adds that the author of the translation & of the Observations upon it, pretends to have an entire certainty that this Index or Abridgement {illeg} of Chronology is the same with the writing owned by me in my letter, & is perswaded that the Manuscript which hath been communicated to him is that of Abbe Conti hath been copied from that of this friend, that is from that of the particular friend above mentioned in my Letter. And therefore the manuscript wch hath been communicated to him is that of Abbe Conti a noble Venetian now at Paris. He being about seven years ago in England gave me notice that the friend above mentioned desired to speak with me. And this friend then d{illeg} desired a copy of what I had written about Chronology. I replied that it was imperfect & confused, but in a few days I could draw up an extract thereof if it might be kept secret. And sometime after I had done this & presented it, this friend desired that Abbe Conti might have a coppy of it. He was the only person who had a copy, & he knew that it was a secret, & he knew that it was at the desire of this friend & by my leave that he had a copy, & he kept it secret while he staid in England: & yet without either this friends leave or mine he dispersed copies of it in France, & got an Antiquary to translate it into French & to confute it, & the Antiquary hath got a Printer to print the <13v> translation & the confutation, & the Printer hath {endeavoured} to get my leave to print the translation without sending me a copy thereof to be perused, or telling me the name of the translator; or letting me know that his designe was to print it with a confutation unanswered & unknown to me.

The Translator neare the end of his Observations (pag. 90) saith: I believe that I have said enough concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts & the length of Generations to make people cautious about the rest. For these are \the/ two foundations of all this new systeme of Chronology.

What he saith concerning the Epoqꝫ of the Argonauts {illeg} is founded on on the supposition that I place the Equinox in the time of the Argonautic Expedition fifteen degrees from the first star of Aries, pag. 75, 79. I place it in the middle of the constellation & the middle of the constellation is not fifteen degrees from the first star of Aries. The Observator grants that the Contellations were formed by Chiron (pag. 70, {illeg} 71, 79,) & that the solstices \& equinoxes/ were then in the middles of the Constellations (pag. 65, 69, 75.) & that {illeg} Eudoxus in his Enoptron or Speculum cited by Hipparchus followed this opinion, p. 62, 63, 65, 69, 79. And Hipparchus a[4] names the starrs through wch the colures \passed/ in this old sphere according to Eudoxus, & thereby places the Equinoctial Colure about 7degr 36′ from the first star of Aries: & I follow Hipparchus & Eudoxus. But the Observator represents that I place the Colure fifteen degrees from the first starr of Aries & thence deduces that I should have made the Argonautic \expedition/ 532 years earlier then I do. Let him rectify his mistake, & the Argonautic epedition {sic} will be where I place it.

And as for the length of generations, he saith that I reccon them one with another at 18 or 20 years a piece (pag. 52, 59:) wch is another mistake. I agree with the ancients in recconing three generations at about an hundred yeares. But the reigns of kings I do not equal to generations as the ancient Greeks & Egyptians did: but I reccon them only at about 18 or 20 years a piece when ten or twelve kings or more are tagen {sic} together in continual succession. So the first 24 Kings of France (Pharamund &c) reigned 458 years, wch is one with another 19 years a piece. The next 24 Kings of France (Ludovicus Balbus &c) reigned 451 years, which is one with another 1834 years a piece. The next 15 Kings (Philippus Valesius &c) reigned 315 years, which is one with another 21 years \a piece/. And all the 63 Kings of France reigned 1224 years, wch is 1912 years a piece. And if the long reign of Lewis XIV be added, all the 64 Kings of France will reign but 20 years a piece. And they that examen the matter, will find it so in other kingdoms. And I shorten the duration of the ancient kingdoms of Greece in the same proportion that I shorten the reigns of their Kings, & thereby place the Argonautic Expedition about 44 years & the taking of Troy about 76 years after the death of Solomon, & make \find/ the reign of Sesostris contemporary to that of Sesac. ✝ < insertion from f 14r > ✝ And as for generations, I say that Hippocrates was 17 generations by the fathers side from Hercules inclusively, & reccon those generations at 28 or 30 years a piece, they being by the chiefe of the family so as to be remembred, & by consequence for the most part by the eldest sons. But he makes the Argonautic Expedition 534 years older then I do, & by consequence this recconing these 17 generations must take up above 60 years to a generation. Which is \very/ much too long for the course of nature. & that of Cadmus to that of David & find Sesostris contemporary to Sesak & Cadmus & Europa to David

< text from f 13v resumes >

So then the Observator hath mistaken my meaning in the two main arguments on wch the whole is founded, & hath undertaken to translate & confute a paper wch he did not understand, & been zealous to print it without my consent: tho he though he thought it good for nothing but to get himself a little credit by translating it to be confuted & confuting his own translation.

The observator saith that I suppose that the Egyptians began about 900 years before Christ to form their religion & deify men for their inventions of arts, notwithstanding that it appears by the scriptures that their idolatry & arts were as old as the days of Ioshua Moses & Iacob, pag. 82, 83. But he is again mistaken. I deny not that the kingdom of the lower Egypt called Misraim had a religion of their own till they were invaded & subdued by the shepherds who were of another religion: but I say that when the Thebans \(a third people)/ invaded & expelled the shepherds, they set up the worship of their own kings & princes. I say also that arts were brought into Egypt Europe principally by the Phenicians & Curetes in the days of <14r> Cadmus & David about 1041 years before Christ; & do not deny that they were in Phœnicia Egypt & Idumæa before they came into Europe.

The Observator saith also that 884 years before Christ I place the beginning of the Canicular cycle of the Egyptians upon the vernal Equinox, although that cycle never begins in Spring, pag. 84, 85. But he is again mistaken. I meddle not with that cycle but speak of the Egyptian year of 365 days.

The Observator represents that I have a great work to come out: but I have a great work to come out never told him so. When I lived at Cambridge, I used sometimes to refresh my self with history & chronology for a while when I was weary of \with/ other studies: but I never told him that I was preparing a work of {illeg} this kind for the publick.

Abbe Conti came into England in Spring 1715, & while he staid in England he pretended to be my friend, but assisted Mr Leibnitz in engaging me in new disputes, & hath {illeg} since acted in the same manner in France. The part he acted here may be understood by the character \account/ given of him in the Acta Eruditorum for the year 1721 pag. 90, where the Editor excusing himself from repeating some disputes wch had{illeg} been published in those Acta, subjoyns: Suffecerit itaqꝫ annotasse Abbatem quendam Italum de Conti, nobilem Venetum, (de quo admiratione digna sibi præscripta esse ab Hermanno fatetur Leibnitius,) cum ex Gallia in Angliam trajecisset, Mediatoris vices in se suscipere voluisse, atqꝫ litteras Newtoni ad Leibnitium deferri curasse, Leibnitianas cum Newtono communicasse. And how Mr Leibnitz by this \pretended/ mediation endeavoured to engage me against my will in new disputes about occult qualities, universal gravity, the sensorium of God, space, time, vacuum, atomes, the perfection of the world, supramundane intelligence, & mathematical problemes, is mentioned in the Preface to the second edition of the Commercium Epistolicum. And what he hath been doing in Italy may be understood by the disputes raised there by one of his friends who denyes many of my Optical experiments, tho they have been all tried in France with success. But I hope that these things, & the perpetual motion, will be the last efforts of this kind.

<15r>

Cronologie de Monsieur le Chevalier Newton qui a este traduit en Anglois francois par un scavant je ce Pays avec des Remarques je vouldroit bine scavoir si Monsieur le Chevallier Newton na Rien a y {Corriger} ayant envie de l'imprimer.

<16r>

Chronologie abridged. 6



Pag. 2. lin 8. For \Philosophe/ Heraclite write Isocrates.

Pag. 3. lin 8, 9, 10, 11. Write. And where he left off, Polybius began & carried on the history.

Pag. 4 lin. 10|1| for un write le.

Ib. lin. 21. for environ write above.

Pag. 6. lin. {9} for & Titelive convient que write & so doth Servius

Ib. lin 13, 14 write Tiglathpilesar.

Pag. 8 lin. 29 write seulment 18 or 20 ye ans

Pag.9. lin. 19, 20 for plus long write {illeg} not much above.

<16v>

Chron{illeg}|iq|ue Abregée.

pag. 2|i|0. lin. 10 lege Tha{illeg}mus ou Thammuz:

ib. lin. 14 lege Bæon, Apachnas, Apophis, Ianias, Assis &c

Pag. 12 lin 22 Pro Tath-Mosis scribe Tethmosis.

P. 21. lin 25 Dele Occidentale.

P. 23. lin. 1. Pro Egypte scribe Syrie.

P. 26. lin. 1. scribe Dij magni majorum gentium.

Ib. lin. 21 scribe & de son fils Antée, ou d'Atlas,

Ib lin. ult. ep. 21 lin.1 pro Osiris & Bosiris scribe O Siris & Bou Siris

P. 28. l. 21. scribe de Zerah & Cissia

Ib. lin 23 & 29 scribe Osarsiph pro Osar Syph

Pag. 30. lin. 1. pro Scorpius scribe Chelæ.

Ib. lin. 6, 7, 8, 9. write in English – \Meton in the year of Nabonassar 316/ observed the summer solstice in the eigth degree of Cancer & therefore the solstice had then gone back seven degrees. It goes back one degree in about seventy 72 years.

Pag.31. lin 10, 11. write in English – and Hippocrates was the 18th from Æsculapius by the fathers side, & the 19th from Hercules by the mothers side

Pag. 33. l. 8. Pro Troye scribe Thebes.

Ib. lin 16 Pro Tubal-Canaan scribe Baal-Canaan

Ib. lin 24 Pro Osar-Syph scribe Osarsyph.

Pag. 34. lin 2, 3. Pro cent ans, and cinqꝫ cent ans, & mille ans, write mille ans, and cinqꝫ mille ans, and dix mille ans.

Ib. lin. 27 Pro Syprie write Syrie.

Ib. lin. 25, 26, 27 write. Anno ante Christum 995 Teucer batit Salami{illeg}|s|, dans l'Isle de Chypre. Hadad ou Benhadad, Roy de Syrie meurt, & on lui batit un Temple a Damas où l'on établit son cult & des fêtes en son honour.          Ib. lin. ult. for 884 write 887

Pag. 35. lin 2 dele – les galeries &

Ib. lin. 9. After – de 360 jours, add, & said that they were added when those five princes were born

Ib. lin. 19. After ce jour la, add. And this circle continued there till Cambyses spoiled the temples of Egypt

<17r>

Pag.36. lin. 28. write. de la primiere année de Nabonassar, c'est a dire, l'an{illeg} 884 avant I.C. And if it began upon the day next after the Vernal Equinox, it might be three or four years earlier. C'est par là qu' no{illeg}|u|s avons –

Pag. 37. lin. 3. blot out si cela est & write per {sic} cela.

Ib. l. 7 for 884 write 886

Ib. l. 8 for d'Ogygie (de Cadis) write (de Cadis ou Cales.

Ib. l. 22 write, and that this age should end when the men then living should gro|e|w hoary & dropt into the grave; & therefore it was but of an ordinary length. And Herodotus has told us that

Pag. 39. lin 11, 12 blot out de ces generations ou plutot. de cés reigns

Ib. lin. 18. for 40 write 140.

Ib. lin. 23. for 803 write 808.

Ib. lin. 24 – & begins the third great Pyramid

Ib. lin. 28. for 803 write 804.

Pag.40. lin 13 read – in the upper Egypt.

Ib. lin 15 for Sesonchis write Anysis or Amosis at Anysis or Hænes.

Pag. 41. lin. 10 for Ana-Kindarax write Anakyndaraxis

Pag. 42. lin. 15, 16. read The government of Egypt committed to {illeg} twelve Princes.

Pag 43. lin 5 for onze write 15.

Pag.44. lin 2 for Cylon write Creon.

Pag. 46. lin. 7 for 565 write 563.

<18r>

And what he has been doing in Italy may be understood by his sending Mr Sterling thither {illeg} without my approbation |Mr Sterling a person then {illeg} unknown to me| to be ready to defend me there if I would have contributed to his maintenance, there & by the disputes since raised there by one of his friends who denies many of my Optical experiments though they have been all tried in France with success.

The Observator represents that place \I ascribe/ the \first/ invention of Arts to the Gods of Egypt about 900 years before the birth of Christ {illeg} |{pag. 82, 83 but he} is mistaken. I| say that arts were brought into Europe by Cadmus & his Phenicians in the reign of David about 1041 years before Christ, & do not deny that they were in Phenicia \& Egypt & Idumaea/ before they came into Europe

He saith also that 884 years before Christ I place the beginning of the Canicular cycle upon the vernal equinox although that cycle never beginns in spring. \pag. 84, 85./ But he is again mistaken. I meddle not with that cycle but speak of the Egyptian year of 365 days.

He saith that I place the beginning of the religion of Egypt about 900 years before the birth of Christ but he is whereas they had a religion {illeg} in the days of Abraham, but he misrepresents things. The lower Egypt called Mizraim had a religion in the days of Abraham & Iacob. The shepherds set up their own religion there till the days of Samuel & David. And the Thebans \& Ethiopians {illeg} Egypt/ who expelled the shepherds set up their own religion when th & the worship of their own kings & Princes when they expelled the shepherds

He saith that I suppose that the Ægyptians \began/ about 900 years before the Christian Æra began to form their religion & |to| deify men for the invention whereas the of arts though their idolatry & {arts} were as old as the days of \{Moses} &/ Iacob & Moses. \pag 92, 93/ but he misrepresents things. I allow \deny not/ that the lower Egypt called Mizraim had a religion of their own till the shepherds invaded them, \who were of & {set} another religion. of their own. And/ {sic} say that the when the Thebans expelled the shepherds they \{illeg}/ set up the worship of their own kings I say also that Arts were brought into Erope {sic} principally by Cadmus & the Phenians {sic} & Curetes in the reign of David about 1041 years before Xt & do not deny that they

4Dr Mead
9MrPitfield
2Sr Hans Sloane
8Mr Folkes
5Dr Iurin
10Mr Machin
1Ld Peasley
3Dr Stanley
6Dr Halley
7Dr Harwood
<18v>

The Observator represents

987. 1710/30)723 (24110

<19r>

And saith that \expressly that Eudoxus drew one of/ these Colures passed through the middle of middle Cancer & the middle of Capricorn & the other through the middle of Chelæ & \through/ the back of Aries. which is {illeg} \in the/ middle between the & by consequence through the middle of Aries And I follow Eudoxus & by doing so place his Equinctial {sic} Colure about 7degr 36′ from the first star of Aries. But the Observator –

Remarques upon the Observations made upon the \a/ Chronology|ic|al \Index/ of Sr I. N. & published at Paris translated into French by the Observator & published at Paris.

Remarques upon

<20r>

When Senior Conti came first into England (which was in Spring He |1715| he insinted {sic} himself into wrote to M Leibnitz that he was \my acquaintance & for \what/ end is apparent by the account wch/ hath be {sic} given of him in the Acta Eruditorum for the year 1721 pag. 90, where after mentioning the disputes that have been {illeg} wth Mr Leibnits, he adds: Suffecerit ad{illeg}isse adnotasse Abbatem quendam Italum de Conti       cum Newtono communicasse.

His first \step/ was to get into my acquaintance. Soon after he began to be at work in engageing me in disputes & somtimes finding persons to defend me. And now he has found one to oppose me. \lately he found out one in Italy to oppose me \/ < insertion from lower down f 20r > whether he had sent one \before/ to defend me. And now he has found out one \another/ in France, to oppose me. But I hope that these & the perpetual motion will be the last efforts of these friends of Mr Leibnitz & Senior Conti. < text from higher up f 20r resumes > & now he hath found out another/ But I hope that this & the pepetual motion will be the last efforts of the friends of Mr Leibnitz.

But I hope that the {illeg} \divulging/ of this abrigment, the {illeg} disputes of Seignior Rizetti & the perpetual motion, & the \the sending of Mr Sterling {behind} into Italy {illeg} be to be ready to defend me/ will be the last efforts of the Leibnitians

– But I hope that the divulging of this abridgment, \Chronological Index/, the sending of Mr Sterling into Italy to be ready to defend me, the disputes of \raised against me there by his friend & {illeg} by/ Senior Rizzetti, & the perpetual motion, will be the last efforts of the friends of Mr Leibnitz to imbroil me.

While \{Sein.} Conti/ he staid in England he carried on the intreagues of Mr Leibnitz & his friends under the colour of Friendship to me as far as he was able; as may be understood by this account given of hi comparing his divulging the Index Chronologicus \his behaviour \since/ in France/ with the following acct given of him in the Acta erutitorum for the year 1721 pag 90, \wch is/ as follows: Suffecerit adnotasse Abbatem quendam Italum de Conti –      cum Newtono communicasse

[1] p. 75, 79,

[2] a See Hipparchus published by Petavius Vol. 3. p. 116, 117, 119, 120.

[3] a See Hipparchus published by {Py} Petavius, vol. 3. p. 116, 117, 119, 120.

[4] a See Hipparchus published by Petavius, vol. 3 p. 116, 117, 119, 120.

© 2022 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

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

Privacy Statement

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