S^r

M^r Leibnitz Letter of              is like all the rest of his
Letters & like the Libel of                pub all of them like the
Libel of \(like the Libel of               )/                published in Germany without the name of y^e
Author & |O|r Printer or place where it was purinted, viz^t full of [illeg]
assertions accusations & his railing reflexions without proving any
thing. No proof that he had I[illeg] To avoid proving that he And as \And by this character you may guess at the Author of that/
Libel.

He is unwilling to acknowledge himself the Aggressor, & complains
that the Passage in the Acta Lipsiensia of Ianuary 1715 \alleged against him,/ has been poison
ed by a malicious interpretation of a man who would pick a quarrel.
In the Preface \Introduction/ to the the Book of Quadratures I affirmed that I found
the Method of fluxions gradually in the years 1665 & 1666. And in
opposition to this the Ac said Acta in giving an Act |c|ount of the said Introduction we
represent that for the better unding |ers|standing the said Introduction we
must have recourse to the Differential Method cujus elementa ab
Inventore Dn. Gothofredo Gulielmo Leibnitio in his Actis sunt tradita
varij usus tum ab ipso, tum a Dn |om|. fratribus Bernoullijs tum &
D^no Marchione Hospitalio (cujus nuper sunt ostensi. Pro diffentijs
igitur Leibnitianis Dn. Newtonus adhibet semper adhibuit fluxiones
quæ sint quamproxime ut fluentium augmenta æqualibus tempo-
ris particulis quam minimis genita; ijs tum in suis Principijs
Naturæ Mathematicis, tum in alijs postea editis eleganter est
usus, quemadmodum et Honoratus Fabrius in sua Synopsi Geome-
trica, motuum progressus Cavallerianæ Methodo substituit. And then
they go on to explain the [illeg] method & character of M^r Leibnitz instead
of that of M^r Newton. & But they that read \& compare/ the Introduction to
M^r Newton's book of Quadratures, the Account given thereof in
wherein he affirms that he found the method gradually in the y [illeg] |e|ars
1665 & 1666, the Answer of D^r Keill, \24 May 1711/ \the \whole/ Account given thereof in the
Acta Eruditorum, the Answers of D^r Keill dated / & the Answer of M^r Leib-
nitz to the Doctor \dated 29 [illeg] |D|ecem. 16 1711/, will find the contrary. The matter is suffici-
ently stated in the Acta E Commercium Epistolicum, & I need not
repeat it. A In the Preface to the book of Quadratures I wrote
that I had \found/ the method of fluxions \gradually/ in the years 167 |6|5 & 1666 M^r .
The Acta gave a contrary account of the method, & M D^r Keill &
wrote M^r justified justified this account & thereby made it his own.

& gives a contrary Interpretation of his own, saying that the words adhibet semper adhibuit imply that I used fluxions not only after
I had seen his differences, but even before; as if pro differentijs L . . . anis
D. N . . . us \adhibet/ semper ah |d|hibuit fluxiones |quemadmodum I H. Fabrius motuum progressus Cavellerianæ Methodo substituit | could signify that M^r Newton \I/ used
fluxions f[e] before M^r Leibnitz used Differences \or I knew that he used them/. In the Introduction to
the Book of Quadratures I affirmed – – – instead of that of M^r Newton
And M^r Leibnitz in his Letter of 29 Decem: 1711, has justified all this &
made it his own. A If he that interpreted the word adhibuit by the word
substituit has poisoned this Vassage in the \ Acta by a malitious interpretation the/ A crime is his that wrote the
Passage.

And as for his suggesting that I might be willing to find a pre-
tence to ascribe to my self the invention of the new calculus contrary