saying that he was unwilling to enter the lists before I appeard [illeg] my self with my forelorn hope
before I appear[e]d my self, & therefore his |e| is the aggressor.

The Libel dated

|3.| M^r Leibnitz insinuates that my probleme complaint of his accu
sing me of plagiary might be to gain attribute to my self the invention of
the new calculus contrary to my knowledge avowed to the contrary in
my book of Principles pag 253 of y^e first edition. And a little after he
sais |t|h that in the first Edition of my Principles p. 253, 254 I allowed him
the invention of the Calculus of differences independantly of my own. But
he here accuses me falsly. For In I there allowed that in his letter of
in his Letter of 21 Iune 1677 he sent My words were these. In literis
quæ mihi cum Geometra peritissimo G. G. Leibnitio annis abhinc decem
intercedebant [i.e. anno 1676] intercedebant, cum significarem me compo-
tem esse methodi determinandi Maximas & Minimas, ducendi Tangentes
& similia peragendi quæ in terminis surdis æque ac in rationalibus
procederet, & literis transpositis hanc sententiam involventalibus [Data
æquatione quotcun fluentes quantitates involvente, fluxiones invenire
& vice versa] eandem celarem: rescripsit Vir clarissimus se quo in
ejusmodi methodum incidisse, & methodum suam communicavit a mea
vix abludentem præterquam in verborum & nota [illeg] rum formulis. This I
was reprinted in the second edition of my Principles & is still allowed by
me. But I never allowed that M^r Leibnitz \was the first inventor or/ found this method without
receiving some light from me |y| Letters me. < insertion from above the line > M^r Craige is a witness that in those days I looked upon the method as mine. He received also copies of my | ^r | Gregories Letter of 5 Sept in w^ch M^r Gregory wrote to M^r Collins that from D^r Barrows methods of Tangents & his own he had found a general method of drawing Tangents to all Curves with <f. 423r> out \any/ Calculus < text from f 422v resumes > In Iune |ly| [illeg] 1676 |M^r |he |L|. [sic] received
copies of my Letters dated 10 Decem. 1672 & 13 Iune 1676. In October
following he came to London & saw some \others/ of my Letters in the hands [illeg] |o|f
M^r Collins. < insertion from above the line > & particularly my Letter of 24 Octob. 1676 & had an opportunity of seeing my Anal <f. 423r> ysis < text from f 422v resumes > In March following he received a copy of my Letter of 24
Octob. 1676 & \after all this/ in a Letter dated 21 Iune 1677 he sent me back his method
M^r | M^r Craig remembers that [illeg] [illeg] representing that it was like the method w^ch I had given notice of. And what he sent back was nothing more then what he had sufficient notice of from my Letters & M^r Gregories together.| In the year 167 |8|4 when M^r Leibnitz first printed the elements
of his method, M^r Craig [illeg] |e| brought to m who was then at Cambridg
brought me the Acta Eruditorum & desired me to explain those |a|t
Elements if I could. | me [sic] | \method|.| to him / I Whereupon I explained then \it/ to him &] \I/ told
him that it \the method would appere to be mine / was mine|,| \a/ in a new dress, [illeg] [I could recover it if
I would print the Letter w^ch had passed between me & M^r
Leibnitz seven or eight years before \were printed/. M^r Craig is still alive &
remembers this, & therefore when I wrote the Scholium above
mentioned, I did tho I forbore to accuse M^r Leibnitz yet I
did not intend to say that he \was the first Inventor or/ found the method without receiving
light from me.

The Royal Society & their Committee \have/ acted by good author-
riity & in a l |r|egular manner & M^r Leibnitz has no authority
to call them to account. < insertion from between the lines > If they would have condemned D^r at his request |demand| they would have condemned D^r Keill without [illeg] ex- [sic] examining into the matter they would have been honest Gentlemen but when he de[cli]ned \refused/ to justify his accusation & put them upon a necessity of publishing appoin <f. 423r> ting <f. 422v> a Committee to exemin the ancient letters & papers about this matter & report their opinion thereupon that the Society m [illeg] |i|ght know what to do in the matter, [ol]  [sic] < text from f 422v resumes > If what the Committee published was sharp
the sharpness was in was in the facts conteined in the \ancient Letters &/ Papers w^ch they
published & if any thing was misrepre misinterpreted M^r Leibnitz was
at liberty to set the interpretation right. But for him & his corres-
pondent to publish a Libel against the Society defamatory Letter against
the Committee of the Society, e[illeg] void of facts & full of \ sharp / reflexions
without the n scurrilous reflexions, without the name of the place
author or printer or place where it was printed, is an illegal \& scandal|ous| & [illeg] infamous/ way of
proceeding|.| & by the statu He saith \that it was enough/ that the name of the author
of the Letter inserted into the an excellent Mathematician whom
he had desired to examin declare his opinion in this matter upon the
Commercium & whose letter was inserted into the other Letter was
sufficiently known. Iohn Bernoulli was cited by the \great/ Mathematitian as the
paper was first printed in Latin, [illeg] three years ago & dispersed into all
Europe, & half a year ago the in a French version printed in Holland