<559v>

|1.| Mr Newton gave an instance of his Differe method of fluxions in his Analysis
per Æquationes numero termin communicated by Dr Barrow \to Mr Colling |s| / in the year 1669 & described
the universality of it in the his Letter to Mr Collins dated 10 Decem 1672 with an
example the\r/of in drawing of Tangents, & desc[illeg] a copy of wch \Letter/ was sent to Mr Leibnitz
at Paris in the year 1676, & in his Letters of 13 Iune & 24 Octob. 1676 described the
method further \to Mr Leibnitz/ by as extending to \Quadratures of Curves, invers/ Problems of Tangents & others more difficult &
there \also/ gave an example of it in a general series wch breake off for squaring of Curves.
Mr Leibnitz \ came from Paris to / was in London in the same October |began to learn the higher Geometry in the year 1674 & came from Paris to London in October abovemention 1676,| & there saw this last Letter in the hand
of Mr Collins \& by his Letter & that of 10 Decem 1672 knew that|✝ understanding that the method of new methods of Tangents were a Corollary of M branch of Mr Newtons general method, fell upon considering how to make Mr Newtons method of Tangents (wch was the same wth that of Slusius, become general, & the next year| / & the next year wrote in a Letter \from Hannover/ dated 21 Iune 1677 wrote bak
sent back Dr Barrows method of Tangents, as his own & with the name & charac
teristick changed to make it his own, & \shewed/ how this method gi |a|ve the method of Slusius
& became \& might be improved \much/ beyond his former method (that of Dr Barrow) so as to/ proceeded without taking away fractions & surds as \like/ Mr Newton|s| had described
method & extended to Quadratures, like Mr Newton's method & then \he/ took notice that
this method [illeg] Mr Newton, having described that his method did the same
these performances being the same wth those wch Mr Newton had ascribed
to his method, the |i| |s| methods seemed \he took this | [his]  [sic] | \his/ new method/ to be alike |Mr Newtons. Thus was he e |t|hen endeavouring to find out Mr Newtons method. But now he contends that Mr Newton|. But how he contends that Mr
Newton [sic] had no such method in those days. Mr Newton in his Letter of 24 Octob
represented that his method is |wa| |s| founded in \solving/ this Probleme Data æquatione fluentes
\quotcun / quanti\a/tates [sic] involvente fluxiones invenire & vice versa, & that his method of series
became universal by solving this Probleme Ex æquatione fluentes quotcun
Fluentem ex æquatione fluxiones involvente extrahere. But Mr Leibnitz tells
us that Mr Newton had in those days had no method of fluxions no fluxional
equations, but the[illeg] no characteristick for fluxions & moments. Dr Barrow
published his \differential/ method of Tangents in the year 1670. Mr Newton knew that
method long \some years/ before Mr Leibnitz & yet \is accused of/ wanted |in| |g| a differential Characteristic

| 2 |4| | When h |M| | r | e \Leibnitz/ first published his differential Method,1 he wrote that it
reacht to such difficult Problems as could not be solved
without it \the method/ or another method like it. And what other method
he meant you may know by his Letter to Mr Newton dated 17 March 1693
& still extant in his own hand writing. His words are Mirifice ampliaveras
Geometriam tuis seriebus, sed etiam edito Principiorum opere ostendisti patere
tibi etiam quæ Analysi receptæ non subsunt. Conatus sum ego quo, notis
commodis adhibitis quæ Differentias & Summas exhibeant, Geometriam
illam quam transcendentem appello Analysi quodammodo subjicere; nec res
male processit. And hitherto Mr Leibnitz forbore to contend wth Mr
Newton for the preference.

|4| Afterwards in the year 1699 Mr Fatio contended th published
that Mr Newton was the oldest inventory by many years & Mr
Leibnits pub in his Answer published in the Acta Eruditorum for May 1700
did not dispute it but granted that Mr Newton was the first who by giving
|a| publick specimen of this method \openly/, \had/ proved that he had it, & contended himself|or|
nothing more then that each of them had found the method apart without receiving
light from the other.

|5| In October 1704 Dr Wallis died, the last of the old men who corresponded with
Mr Oldenburg & Mr Collins in these matters. And then Mr Leibnitz began
to claim the precedency. For in Ianuary 1705 in giving an Account of Mr
Newton's Quadratura Curvarum it was presented in the Introduction of wch Mr it was
in wch Mr Newton had said that he found the Method of fluxion gradually in the
years 167 |6|5 & 1666, it was retorted upon him that he had substituted fluxions for the
differences of Mr Leibnitz the first Inentor. And this representation Mr Leibnitz
And when Dr Keill defended Dr Wallis & Mr Newton, Mr Leibnitz defended what had
been published in the Acta Eruditorum, & demanded that Dr Keill should recant & Mr
Newton exp de taxed Mr Newton with knowing that Dr Keill was in the wrong &
pressed that he should declare his opinion in the |i|s matter, that is, that Mr
Newton should retract what had been \ publickly publickly/ affirmed by Dr Wallis Mr Fatio Dr Keill &
himself, & granted by Mr Leibnitz in his Letter of 21 Iune \1677/ [See Commercium p 88
lin 14 & p. 8 8 |9| lin penult. & p. 90 lin. 26, 27, 28] & in his c not disputed
in his correspondence with Dr Wallis & answer to Mr Fatio The accusation against Mr Newton amount [e]s |s to| to plagiary, & if it be not made good
it ought to go for calumny, & Mr Leibnitz is the man who ought to make it
good.

Notes:

1

Acta Erudit. pro Novem. 1684