Bot-S: Isaac Newton

No sooner was the rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth crushed,
than James gave free rein to Jeffreys to strike terror into any who
might question his purpose. As Chief Justice of the Court of the
King’s Bench, he made the Western Circuit and sickened England
with horror at his treatment of the adherents of that ill-fated cause.
It is very possible that the stories of his gloating cruelty, and of his
wild debauchery, have been exaggerated by his political enemies. He
was undoubtedly a man of ability and, as a judge, he had the faculty
of making evident the essential points of the question at issue. But,
it is also certain that he paralysed with fear those who appeared in his
court, and that James had found a servant after his own heart and
one willing to do what he desired. To reward his service and his fidelity
he was created Lord Chancellor and raised to the peerage at the ex¬
traordinarily early age of thirty-eight years.

Flushed with success, James now openly declared that he intended
to use his whole power to destroy the Established Church. With this
purpose in mind, he determined, in 1686, to revive the High Court
of Commission. All the powerful and rigorous ecclesiastical courts
of the Tudors had been abolished by the Long Parliament. After the
Restoration, they had been reinstituted, although restricted in power;
the High Court of Commission, however, had been expressly ex¬
cepted, so there was no question but that, in reviving this court, the
King’s act was illegal. 1 Under the authority of this illegal court:
“All colleges and grammar schools, even those which had been
founded by the liberality of private benefactors, were placed under
the authority of the new board. All who depended for bread on sit¬
uations in the Church or in academical institutions, from the Primate
down to the youngest curate, from the Vice-chancellors of Oxford
and Cambridge down to the humblest pedagogue who taught Cor-
derius, were subjected to this despotic tribunal. The Commission were

1 Cf. Portsmouth Collection .—Newton made, and preserved, a copy of the legal questions
involved in the dispute between the Crown and the University about the admission of
papists.. The following refers to the abolition of ecclesiastic courts. “By statute 16 Chas. I an
act repealing of a branch of stat. i Elizabeth concerning Commissions for causes Ecclesi¬
astical and said branch is repealed. It is enacted that no new Court shall be created,
ordained, or appointed within this realm which shall or may have like power, jurisdiction
or authority as the High Commission Court then had or pretended to have, but that all and
every such Commissions and Grants and all powers and authorities granted or pretended
to be granted thereby shall be void and of none effect as in and by the said statutes more
fully appear.”

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 337

both prosecutors and judges. The accused had no copy of the
charge and could be examined and cross-examined. He could be
suspended or permanently ejected and, if he were contumacious, he
could be deprived of his civil rights and imprisoned for life. Over
this court, the Lord Chancellor Jeffreys presided as Chief Commis¬
sioner, and even the staunchest adherents of James might well be
alarmed at the consequences.” 2

The acts of the Court do not concern this biography except in its
dealings with the Universities. The papist advisers of the King re¬
alised that Oxford and Cambridge were the firmest buttresses of the
Church of England. The ecclesiastical dignitaries and the parish
priests were among their alumni; most of the fellows were in orders;
and their students would later fill the influential offices of church and
state. Because of their importance, it was determined to strike at the
Universities and thus cut the root of the opposition to Rome. No
policy could have been rasher or more foolish. The Universities had
been, and were then, consistently loyal to the Stuarts. But, they were
even more jealous of their statutory rights and strongly attached to
their Church; such an action was certain to arouse deep opposition
and change their sentiment. Not only those then in the Universities
would be aroused to a just indignation but they would have the
sympathy and active support of the alumni, many holding important
positions in church and state, who preserved a peculiarly deep affec¬
tion for an Alma Mater where their early days had been passed and
their minds trained. The Universities might have been crushed as the
final step in the design; it was fatal to attack them first.

The more moderate advisers of the King proposed to establish, in
each of the Universities, new colleges devoted to the teaching and
promulgation of the doctrines of the Roman Church, and to make
them so superior to the other colleges that the abler and more am¬
bitious students would choose to enroll in them. This plan would,
however, be slow in effect and, because of its expense, it would
arouse the parsimony of the King. It was judged to be easier and
cheaper to transform the existing colleges into Catholic seminaries. 3

2 Macaulay, History of England, Chapter VI.

3 An interesting side-light on the cost of maintaining a college at that time is given
by Burnet, History of His Own Time, London, 1724, VoL I, p. 697. “Some of the more
moderate among them proposed, that the King should endow a new college in both Uni¬
versities, which needed not have cost above tw“o thousand pounds a year.” The following
account of the struggle between the Universities and the Court relies principally on
the documents and letters preserved by Newton and now in the Portsmouth Collection. The
importance he attached to his share in the case of Cambridge before the Court of Com-

ISAAC NEWTON

338

The first move was directed against Oxford, whose See was be¬
stowed on Dr. Parker. He was a man of mediocre ability and his re¬
ligious integrity can be judged from the fact that he had been a
violent Independent till the time of the Restoration, and had then
changed over into the highest form of the Church of England. The
Deanery of Christ-Church, the most important post in the Univer¬
sity, was next given to Massey, one of the new converts, tho he had
neither the gravity, the learning, nor the age that was suitable to such
a dignity. But all was supplied by his early conversion.” 4 The most
flagrant case of the King’s folly was his later attempt to impose a
popish president on Magdalene College. This arbitrary and illegal
act was bitterly opposed by the Fellows, who, by law, were required
to elect their own Head. The struggle between the college and the
court so inflamed the University and the nation that, according to
Burnet who was at the time in Holland, the church party and the
clergy sent urgent messages to the Prince of Orange to intervene and
even to resist with force the King’s exercise of despotic power.

Just after the King, in 1687, began to meddle with Oxford, and be¬
fore he engaged in the affair of Magdalene College, he attempted, by
a seemingly insignificant act, to break down the law which excluded
Roman Catholics from the University of Cambridge. 5 On Ash-
wednesday, the 9th of February, 1687, the Vice-Chancellor received a
letter under his Majesty’s sign manual; the substance whereof was:
“That hearing much in commendation of one Alban Francis, a
Benedictine, the King was pleased to command the University that
they should admit him to the degree of Master of Arts without ad¬
ministering to him any oath or oaths; whatsoever any law or statute
to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding with which his Majesty
was pleased graciously to dispense in behalf of the said Alban
Prancis.

The University authorities recognised at once the gravity of the
mandate, and that the King was embarking on his plan of breaking
down the restrictions against the papists. It was a more or less com¬
mission is shown by the fact that he kept copies of the University statutes from the time
of Elizabeth; of the full proceedings of the trial; of detailed memoranda and of several
letters explaining his opinions. He rightly felt that the struggle between the King and the
Universities was the direct cause of the Revolution and formed a crisis in his own life.
The reader should also refer to Burnet’s History.

4 Burnet, Vol. I, p. 696.

5 For the account of this incident, see: Portsmouth Collection; also Burnet, Vol. I, pp.
697—699; Brewster, Vol. II, pp. 106-109; and Edleston, note 90, p. lviii.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION

339

mon custom to receive, and to obey, such royal mandates to confer
honorary degrees on ambassadors and foreign princes irrespective of
their religion. And when the University Senate refused to obey this
order, the gibe was made that they had formerly granted an hon¬
orary degree to the secretary of the Moroccan Embassy, a Moham¬
medan, and were now balking against a like honour to a Christian.
But there was this essential difference, the recipients of honorary de¬
grees have no vote in the Senate, while Masters of Arts, having such
a vote, direct the policy of the University. There was, thus, a possible
danger that the King, by continuing this policy, would be able to ob¬
tain a majority in the Senate, and so overturn the Protestant char¬
acter of the University.

The mandate involved such a serious threat that the Vice-Chan¬
cellor delayed action till the Senate should obtain legal advice. At
first, it was resolved to express their almost unanimous disapproval,
and a Grace was drawn up to be put to the vote of the Congregation
of the University in the usual way. But, since the constitution of the
House was such that the Grace must first be proposed by a committee
of Heads of six persons any one of whom could by his veto hinder it
from being put to the House, this method was laid aside as imprac¬
ticable. The reason for this unusual decision was because a Mr.
Basset, one of the Heads and a declared Roman Catholic, openly
espoused Fr. Francis’s cause; and it was feared that, by using his
veto, he would prevent the Grace from being presented. “This con¬
sideration constrained them to use another method,—to avoid a
formal vote and to ask members to testify voluntarily their concur¬
rence with the Vice-Chancellor, and advise him to refuse to admit
Fr. Francis till the King had been petitioned to revoke the Mandate.”

As soon as the King’s letter had been received by the Vice-Chan¬
cellor, he wrote to the Chancellor, the Duke of Albemarle, to beg his
intercession with the King. But the Duke replied that he had already
tried without effect and recommended that a petition from the Uni¬
versity might have more force. The Congregation, when it met,
drew up such a petition setting forth their opinion that the admission
of Fr. Francis, without the usual oaths, was illegal and unsafe. The
petition was approved by all members, except three papists and one
or two others; as it was thought that a petition signed by 150-200
persons “might look tumultuary,” the more quiet, decent, and re¬
spectful way of sending it by two messengers was adopted. At the

340

ISAAC NEWTON

same time, a gentleman was admitted Doctor of Physic by Mandate
after taking the oaths; “and the Esqre. Beedle and Register were
sent to Fr. Francis to say the Senate would admit him provided he
would swear as the laws appointed.”

Francis insisted on the King’s dispensation and, immediately upon
the breaking up of the Congregation, he took horse for London to
tell at White-Hall what had been done. The same afternoon the
Heads sent their letter of petition to the Duke of Albemarle and a
copy to the Earl of Sunderland, Secretary of State. The University
messengers, Professor Smoult and Mr. Norris, could get no access to
Sunderland. On February 24th, a second letter was sent from the
King reiterating his Mandate and warning the University to refuse at
its peril.

In the meanwhile the Senate had had very satisfactory opinions
from eminent lawyers approving their action. They then com¬
posed a second letter, giving their reasons for their decision, and
sent it up to London by two Fellows. These messengers were refused
an audience by the King; and Sunderland, who admitted them, at the
request of Albemarle, the next morning at his bed-side, merely in¬
formed them that the King was offended and would shortly give the
University a further answer.

On Saturday, April 9, 6 Mr. Atterbury went to Cambridge with
the following summons from the High Court of Ecclesiastical Com¬
missioners: “Whereas complaint had been made to them against the
Vice-Chancellor and Senate of the University of Cambridge for hav¬
ing refused to comply with his Majesty’s Royal Letters in behalf of
Mr. Francis they were therefore commanded to appear the Vice-
Chancellor in person and the Senate by themselves and their deputies
before the Lord Commissioners in the Council Chamber the 21st
April to answer such things as should be objected against them in
his Majesty’s behalf upon the premises, etc.”

Two days later, on April n, the Senate drew up an outline of
their defense which cited the statutes forbidding admission to can¬
didates who would not take the specified oaths, setting forth the lack
of jurisdiction, and also the illegality of the Court of High Commis¬
sion. They then appointed the Vice-Chancellor and eight other Fel¬
lows, one of whom was Newton, to represent them with full powers
under the seal of the University. Newton preserved a memorandum
explaining the “reason why the delegates did not adopt the usual

6 Newton’s Mss. has the date erroneously as April 19.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION

34i

custom of demurring from the Court’s jurisdiction which is com¬
monly the first and only plea in such cases. The delegates felt them¬
selves obliged not only to defend their cause, but to satisfy the world,
and they wished all persons to know the facts and reasons for their
actions; wherefor they insisted on those being discussed first. If the
Court’s jurisdiction had come first that would, in all probability have
occasioned the whole plea to be shifted and overruled.”

The delegates met the Commissioners 7 in the Council Chamber on
April 21. The case excited immense interest; many attended to sup¬
port the University, and others to enjoy the baiting of the delegates
by Jeffreys. The noise and crowd were so great that Mr. Bridgman
was forced to repeat the reading of the summons. Burnet states that
the defense by Pechell, Master of Magdalene and Vice-Chancellor of
the University, was feebly made: “He was a very honest, but a very
weak man. He made a poor defense. And it was no small reflection
on that great body, that their chief magistrate was so little able to as¬
sert their privileges, or to justify their proceedings. He was treated
with great contempt by Jeffreys.”

Jeffreys directed all his questions to the Vice-Chancellor and soon
reduced him to helpless agitation. 8 After each grilling, the embar¬
rassed Pechell would be unable to repeat even such matters as his
oath of office, and would beg to have time to put his answers into
writing. When any of the delegates, shamed by the spectacle, at¬
tempted to speak, Jeffreys said insolently to one, “Nay, good Doctor,
you was never Vice-Chancellor: yet when you are we may consider
you”; to another, “Nay, look you that young gentleman expects to
be Vice-Chancellor too, when you are Sir you may speak. Till then
it will more become you to forbear.”

The Commissioners were quite aware of the fact that there was
no case against the University, but they tried to intimidate the dele¬
gates into submission by sentencing Pechell, for his disobedience and
contempt, to be deprived of the Vice-Chancellorship and to be
suspended from the Mastership of his College during his Majesty’s
pleasure. 9 The Court then met the delegates without Pechell. Re-

7 The Commissioners present were Ld. Chanc. Jeffreys, Ld. Pres. Sunderland, Ld. Mul-
grave, Earl of Huntington, Ld. Bishops of Durham and of Rochester, Ld. Ch. Justice
Herbert.

8 Newton preserved a verbatim report of the questions and answers.

. 9Dr * Pechell was restored to the Mastership of Magdalene in 1688. “After the Revolu¬
tion he starved himself to death, in consequence of having been rebuked by Archbishop
Sancroft for drunkenness and other loose habits; and after four days’ abstinence, would
have eaten, but could not.,” Note by Lord Dartmouth in Burnet’s History, Vol. I, p. 698.

ISAAC NEWTON

34 2

lieved of his embarrassing presence, they declared that they no
longer represented the Senate as their delegation terminated with the
deprivation of the Vice-Chancellor. They then drew up a statement
answering the questions of Jeffreys and showing their obedience to
the laws. No answer was given to this document and Jeffreys dis¬
missed them with the warning: “Gentlemen, the best way will be a
ready obedience to his Majesty’s commands for the future, and by
giving a good example to others to make some amends for the ill
example has been given you. Therefore I shall say to you what the
Scripture says, and the rather because I see most of you are divines.
Go your way and sin no more lest a worse thing befall you.

Alarmed by the steadfast stand of the University and the wide¬
spread interest the case aroused, the King abandoned his attempt to
coerce the Universities. But it was too late, as an influential party of
the nobility opened negotiations with the Prince of Orange to assume
an active part in settling the affairs of the nation. Because Newton
was silent during the proceedings of the Court it has been assumed
that he was a more or less negligible member of the delegation. He
was not a ready speaker and was easily embarrassed in public. But
two documents in the Portsmouth Collection prove that it was he
who stiffened the delegation to resist the unlawful action of the King
when the other members had agreed on a compromise. Conduitt
noted for his proposed Life that, when the delegates were about to
start to London, Stanhope, the Chancellor of Ely, drew up a paper
agreeing to admit Fr. Francis to a degree provided it should not be a
precedent or be repeated. All seemed ready to sign the compromise
except Newton, who rose from the table and, after taking two or
three turns about the room, said to the Bedell sent by the University
to attend them: “This is giving up the question.” “So it is,” said the
Bedell, “Why do you not go and speak to it?” Newton then re¬
turned to the table and told them his mind and desired them, before
signing, to obtain a legal opinion. When Mr. Finch agreed with
Newton, the delegation resolved to make no compromise.

The other document was the following letter by Newton which
has never been published. It is important as it shows that he was
active in explaining the action of the University and in trying to win
support. It is also important as it is the first intimation of his deep
opposition to, and dread of, Roman Catholicism which will be shown
later to be one of the principal reasons for his theological writings.
In this letter also, Newton makes it clear that he was opposed to the

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION

343

doctrine of the divine right of Kings, and placed the law of the land
above obedience to Royal Mandate. Both of these settled convictions
undoubtedly had their influence in electing him to the Convention
Parliament. It proves, too, that Newton was a Whig by principle,
and shows that the counsel he gave to the University on how to act
towards King William was not dictated by others. His steadfastness
against encroachments on the rights of the Church of England and
of the University so impressed his colleagues that, when a greater
crisis came upon the nation, they elected him to represent the Uni¬
versity in the Convention Parliament.

Newton to -

Sir,

Here’s a strong report in the town that a Mandamus has been
brought to the Vice-Chancellor to admit one F. Francis a Benedictine
Monk to be a Master of Arts, and that the Vice-Chancellor sent to
the Chancellor to endeavour to get the same recalled but could not
prevail; which was an error in him. For all honest men are obliged
by the Laws of God and Man to obey the King’s lawful commands,
but if his Majesty be advised to require a matter which cannot be
done by law, no man can suffer for neglect of it. The Vice-Chan¬
cellor cannot by law admit one to that degree, unless he take the
oaths of supremacy and allegiance which are enjoined by 3 or 4 stat¬
utes ; and it is not to be said he disobeys the King’s commands when
he is ready to fulfil them if the party be capable to receive the act
commanded which this monk cannot be, and ’tis not probable that
a Convocation can be induced to give Grace for the degree to an un¬
qualified person. And tho it should be expressed in the Mandamus
that his Majesty dispenses with those oaths, yet it cannot excuse the
Vice-Chancellor for he is no judge thereof, but he knows that the
law of the land enjoins the taking of the oaths; and if he admits
anyone without doing it he is indictable for the same, and if he
modestly refuse to admit this person he can run no risk in it, and if
F. Francis be acquainted with the obstacles in his way in a decent
manner, and is not satisfied therewith, let him take his remedy at
law, and to be sure the V. C. will hear no more of him, and by
civilly standing his ground he will save the University. Let him
peruse Q. Eliz. Charter for the University of Cambridge, Sat. the 26
of April in the 3d year of her reign and an act of Parliament not
printed which is kept with the Statutes of the University entitled An

344

ISAAC NEWTON

Act for the Incorporation of both the Universities. In the statutes
you will find that all Letters Patents of the Qn’s Highness or any of
her progenitors or predecessors made to either of the Universities are
confirmed. See of this matter Cook [Coke] 4, Institutes, page 227.

The King was advised to send a Mandamus to the Master and
Governers of the Charter House requiring them to admit an old
Gentleman to be a Pensioner. Now every pensioner is to take the
oaths of supremacy and allegiance by the constitution of their house,
but the man being a papist they refused to admit and there’s no more
said of it. The Master’s name is Burnett, late of Christ Coll, and by
the rule of elections in the giving their votes, he as the meanest man,
speaks first. There were eight present. The Master and four were
to lay the Mandamus aside and there were three to retain it, but the
majority being against the Mandamus the Pensioner was rejected.

D. Burnett Master
Earl Danby
Bp. Winchester
Marquis Halifax
Archbp. of Cant.
against it

Earl Rochester
Earl Mulgrave
Ld. Chancellor
for it

The refusing the M. was not said to be because he is a papist but
because he refused the oaths. Those that counselled his Majesty to
disoblige the University cannot be his true friends for ’tis notorious
that no body of men in England have been so loyal. They gave his
father all their plate and infusions [ ? ] which the gentry of England
received there entrusted most of them with their lives and estates to
support the crown against the wealth and strength of London and all
the associated counties and the Fleet, the chiefest riches of the land.
Be courageous therefore and steady to the Laws and you cannot fail
and in time the King may thank you for it. If one priest be a Master
you may have a hundred and they must choose Burgesses to Parlia¬
ment.

I wonder that the Goodmen of Sidney do not elect their Master.
An honest courage in these matters will secure all, having law on
our sides.

Adieu

Feb. the 19th.

[Is. Newton.]

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 345

The prodigious strain involved in writing the Principia and the
excitement of his experiences in London had exhausted his energy
and depressed his spirits. Although he gave, as usual, a course of
lectures during the Michaelmas Term of 1688 and probably con¬
tinued to do so while he remained at Cambridge, we have no record
of their subjects or contents. He must also have been further de¬
pressed by the death of Henry More in whose circle of friends he had
been a frequent and interested associate. 10 In the spring of 1688,
Montague, who had first aroused his interest in the world of affairs,
permanently severed his connection with the University by vacating
his fellowship. He was now in London and probably met Newton
again while the latter was representing the University. If so, he
would have described his own busy life and have divulged his hope
of preferment from the patronage of Dorset; and, perhaps the older
man envied him, and developed a certain disgust for the retired life
of a scholar. Though Montague did not give up his rooms until
Midsummer, he had abandoned his intention of entering the Church
and, to further his political career, he married his Aunt-in-law, the
Countess Dowager of Manchester. He seems to have made other un¬
successful ventures to advance his career by matrimony as the
Duchess of Marlborough said of him: “He was a frightful figure,
and yet pretended to be a lover; and followed several beauties who
laughed at him for it.”

In the meanwhile, affairs in England were going from bad to
worse; and when, in June, 1688, a son was born to James, all hope of
a Protestant succession was destroyed. The peers sent an invitation
to William of Orange to place himself at the head of the Protestant
cause; by December he had mastered the country and James had fled
to France. In the interim of government, writs were issued for the
election of a Convention Parliament which should settle the succes¬
sion to the throne and restore the affairs of the nation after the
Revolution. In this emergency Cambridge remembered the stead¬
fast conduct of Newton against the encroachments of the late King,
and elected him and Sir Robert Sawyer, also a Whig, to represent
the University. At break of day on the twenty-second of January,
1688/9, he took his seat in the House of Commons, and he sat in

10 “Sept. i, 1687. Dr. Henry More of Christ’s College died; and was buried by torchlight
the third day, being Sunday. His last words, as I heard, were these, or to this effect:
calling his nurse he said to her, Nurse, I am going a long journey, when I shall change
these for better possessions; and so presently departed. Sic Obiit Divinus ille Philosophus
Cantabrigiensis: Extinctus amabitur idem.” Whiston, Memoirs, ist ed. p. 24.

ISAAC NEWTON

346

that notable assembly till its dissolution in the following February.
There were many distinguished veterans amongst the members who
had returned to public life after a long seclusion; but they were
thrown into the shade by two young men who took their seats for
the first time. John Somers and Charles Montague speedily became
the two great Whig parliamentarians of their time. They rose to the
highest honours in the state, they weathered the fiercest storms, they
were the munificent patrons of genius and learning, and they died
within a few months of each other. While they were taking an
active part, their friend, Newton, was a silent spectator of the great
debates. He is supposed not to have spoken once in the House ex¬
cept, as was sarcastically reported, when he asked an usher to close
a window. But, it does not follow that he was a useless member; he
undoubtedly supported steadfastly the Whig measures, and he zeal¬
ously attended to the interests of the University. Although he, later,
showed pronounced administrative ability, it is doubtful if he had
the readiness of mind to become a parliamentarian. At least he did
not impress William III with his aptitude for affairs, if we can be¬
lieve a statement of Duclos in his Considerations sur les Moeurs.
William, who had a profound knowledge of character, was once
embarrassed by a matter of politics; he was advised to consult New¬
ton: but his reply was, Newton is merely a great philosopher. 11

Newton’s advice as to the attitude of the University is contained in
thirteen letters addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, John Covel. 12 Just
as the Revolution may be said to have had its inception from royal
interference with the Universities, so now it was vital to its success to
have their support. Newton’s tactful advice was then a most impor¬
tant matter. Before the Parliament met, disorder had broken out
amongst the students of so serious a nature that the Vice-Chancellor
had addressed a general letter to the Heads of the Colleges:

Gentlemen,

Whereas, in this disorder many scholars are now in arms, and the
effects thereof are to be feared as very dangerous to the whole Uni¬
versity, as well as destructive to all good manners, I do humbly con¬
ceive our best course to reduce them would be to convene them in
some public place of your Coll, to-morrow morning, if they return;
and gravely, but calmly, advise them to all civil behaviour, believing

11 Quoted by Edleston, note 196, p. lxxxi.

12 Printed in 1848 in pamphlet form from the originals in his possession by Dawson
Turner.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 347

all severity at this juncture might rather tend to exasperate them
more, and bring the unruly people’s fury upon us all.

Your Servant,

~ , . 00 Ioh. Covel, Procan.

December 15, 1688.

It was expedient for Newton to keep the authorities closely in¬
formed of the events as they occurred in London, and to advise them
how to act so as to prevent opposition to the new reign. The day the
King and Queen were proclaimed, he forwarded a copy of the
proclamation and the following letter of advice.

Newton to Covel

Rev. Sir,

The King and Queen being proclaimed here yesterday, I presume
you will soon receive an order for proclaiming them at Cambridge.
I have enclosed the form of the Proclamation. I could wish heartily
that the University would so compose themselves as to perform the
solemnity with a seasonable decorum; because I take it to be their
interest to set the best face upon things they can, after the example
of the London divines. I am of opinion that Degrees be not given
till you are authorised to administer the new Oaths. Whether that
will be speedily done by authority of their Majesties and the Con¬
vention, or after the Convention is turned to a Parliament, I cannot
yet resolve you. The Oath of Supremacy, as you administer it im¬
perfectly in Latin, ought to be omitted, and both the new Oaths
administered in English. You will see these Oaths in the end of the
declaration. I have enclosed this post in a letter to Dr. Beaumont.

Sir, I am

Your most humble Servant,

London, Feb. 12, 1688/9. ^ EWTON ‘

As soon as the new King and Queen were proclaimed in London,
the Vice-Chancellor and the Heads of the Colleges issued a procla¬
mation of the allegiance of the University for the reason that God
had vouchsafed “us a miraculous deliverance from popery and
arbitrary power, and that our preservation is due, next under God,
to the resolution and conduct of His Highness, the Prince of Orange,
whom God hath chosen to be the glorious instrument of such an

ISAAC NEWTON

348

inestimable happiness to us and to our posterity.” While Newton
and the new Government were relieved by the news that the cere¬
mony of the Proclamation had passed without serious disorder, there
yet remained the more dangerous subscription to the oath of alle¬
giance. Parliament had a most difficult and delicate task before it.
The memory of the Civil Wars was still fresh and, however unpopu¬
lar and arbitrary James had been, he had done nothing to make the
throne vacant according to the widely accepted belief in the divine
right of kings. His brother, Charles, had been restored on that
theory and many people felt that without such allegiance continuity
of government was impossible. William III, however able an ad¬
ministrator he might have been, was not one to arouse a popular
sympathy; and the common revulsion of sympathy for the unfor¬
tunate James had turned many towards him in his exile. Nor did
the exultant Whigs, now in power, help matters. They had an
immense majority in Parliament, and they used all their power to
crush opposition to the Revolution which they had made their party
issue. In this phase of the political situation, Newton must have been
of very great assistance. He was a staunch Whig and a convinced
member of the Church of England: in the fashion of the day he
interpreted the prophecies of the Book of Daniel as a warning
against the power of the Pope and the Roman Church. He was an
intimate friend of Montague and had become acquainted with
Somers. In order to supplement the arguments of Covel for admin¬
istering the oath, he sent him a long letter which really expounds
the new Whig doctrine of limited allegiance to the King. It is an
important document as it gives the principles then directing the
government.

Newton to Covel
Sir,

I have had an account of the solemnity of the Proclamation; and
I am glad to understand it was performed with so much decence by
the wiser and more considerable part of the University, and gen¬
erosity on your part. The next thing is a book of verses [sic]. If you
do it at all, the sooner the better. Concerning the new oaths which
you are to administer, I need not give instructions to you about their
legality. But because many persons of less understanding (whom it
may be difficult to persuade) will scruple at them, I will add my
thoughts to yours, that you may have the fuller argument for con-

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 349

vincing them, if I can add anything to what you have not thought
of; for, seeing these oaths are the main thing that the dissatisfied
part of the University scruple, I think I cannot do the University
better service at present than by removing the scruples of as many
as have sense enough to be convinced with reason. The argument I
lay down in the following propositions:—

1. Fidelity and allegiance sworn to the King is only such a fidelity
and obedience as is due to him by the law of the land; for were that
faith and allegiance more than what the law requires, we should
swear ourselves slaves, and the King absolute; whereas, by the law,
we are free men, notwithstanding those oaths.

2. When, therefore, the obligation by the law to fidelity and alle¬
giance ceases, that by the oath also ceases; for might allegiance be
due by the oath to one person, whilst by the law it ceases to him and
becomes due to another, the oath might oblige men to transgress the
law and become rebel or traitors; whereas the oath is a part of the
law, and therefore ought to be so interpreted as may consist with it.

3. Fidelity and allegiance are due by the law to King William, and
not to King James. For the Statute of 25 Edw. 3, which defined all
treasons against the king, and is the only statute to that purpose, by
the king understands not only a king de jure and de facto, but also a
king de facto, thought not de jure, against whom those treasons lie.
Whence the Lord Chief Justice Hales, in his Pleas of the Crown,
page 12, discoursing of that statute, tells us that a \ing de facto and
not de jure, is a \ing within that Act, and that treason against him
is punishable, tho the right heir get the crown. And that this has
been the constant sense of the law, Sir Robert Sawyer also, upon my
asking him about it, has assured me. And accordingly, by another
statute in the first of Hen. 7, ’tis declared treason to be in arms
against a king de facto, (such as was Richard the Third,) tho’ it be
in behalf of a king de jure. So then by the law of the land all things
are treason against King William which have been treason against
former kings; and therefore the same fidelity, obedience, and alle¬
giance which was due to them is due to him, and by consequence
may be sworn to him by the law of the land. Allegiance and pro¬
tection are always mutual; and, therefore, when K. James ceased to
protect us, we ceased to owe him allegiance by the law of the land.
And, when King W. began to protect us, we begun to owe allegiance
to him.

These considerations are in my opinion sufficient to remove the

35°

ISAAC NEWTON

grand scruple about the oaths. If the dissatisfied party accuse the
Convention for making the P. of Orange King, tis not my duty to
judge those above me; and therefore I shall only say that, if they
have done ill, “Quod fieri non debuit, factu valet.” And those at
Cambridge ought not to judge and censure their superiors, but to
obey and honour them according to the law and the doctrine of
passive obedience.

Yesterday a bill for declaring the Convention a Parliament was
read the 2 d time and committed. The Committee have not yet
finished their amendments of it. There is no doubt but it will pass.
I am in haste,

London, Feb. 21,1688/9.

Your most humble Servant,

Is. Newton.

Both Brewster and De Morgan apparently considered this letter to
be a personal expression of Newton’s convictions. Brewster 13 com¬
mends him as conducting himself with firmness and moderation,
and for upholding the principles of civil and religious liberty. And
De Morgan, 14 who is engaged in combating undiscriminating hero
worship, asks what had Newton and passive obedience just done to
King James, that now he can claim it for King William? Then, he
uses the arguments of this letter to contrast the high intellectual
integrity of Newton with his social weaknesses. Both writers seem
to have misjudged the whole situation. It is undoubtedly a cam¬
paign document written by Newton acting with the advice and ap¬
proval of the party leaders. To me, it seems an excellent document,
tactful and persuasive in its attitude towards the University and
giving clearly the reasons upon which the new government could
base their claims. As for the doctrine of passive obedience, it was the
one in force at that time amongst those who favoured a monarchy
and it had now to be twisted to apply to William and Mary, and
against James. The Revolution had given the death blow in Eng¬
land to the doctrine of the divine right of kings, but it took many
years for the fact to be recognised and admitted, and in the mean¬
while reasons must be found to justify the election of William.
Obedience was passing from the King to Parliament, from the
Court to the Bench. Attention has been drawn to certain weaknesses
in Newton’s character in previous instances, and perhaps like De
Morgan too much so and for the same reason; but, in this case, there

13 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 113. 14 De Morgan, Essays, p. 133.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 351

are no moral inferences to be drawn unless one is to condemn party
government. The country had taken a grave and wise step; to suc¬
ceed and to bring order to a distracted country new interpretations
had to be given to old and recognised formulae. Parliament was
anxious to obtain the support of the Universities, and Newton sent
word that the Statutes going back to 13 Elizabeth, the Letters Patent,
and Charters of both Universities had been confirmed. But Parlia¬
ment also determined to prevent further meddling by the King and
the Romanists. So, as a quid pro quo, Dr. Covel was informed that
royal mandates in future would be inhibited and that a further
clause would be introduced, to revise the statutes of the colleges,
striking out whatever favoured Popery and substituting other pre¬
cepts agreeable to the reformed religion. The University authorities
feared that the greatest opposition to the new Government would
be aroused when the attempt was made to administer the oath of
allegiance and they suggested that it would help if mild objectors
were permitted to swear by proxy. To this request Newton wrote,
“I think it my duty to acquaint you that I have endeavoured much
to feel the pulse of the House about such an explication of allegiance,
and find such an averseness from it, that I am of opinion the petition
can do no good, but may do much hurt if ill-resented by the Houses.”
His last letter of the series bears the date, May 15. It is easily seen
that Newton, contrary to the general impression, played an impor¬
tant part in the Convention Parliament by acting as mediator and
adviser to the University, and he, apparently, handled a difficult task
with tact and success. Parliament did not rise until August; it re¬
sumed its session in October and was dissolved February 6, 1689/90.
We have no record of Newton’s other activity in legislation.

At this time, an event occurred which made a profound break in
his life. We have noted the frequency with which he visited Wools-
thorpe and the fact that he seems to have found an environment in
his home which called forth his greatest powers. There is good
reason to believe that his mother had been the attraction. That tie
was now to be broken; his half-brother, Benjamin Smith, had been
seized with a malignant fever while at Stamford. His mother, who
attended him in his illness, was taken ill with the same complaint,
and Newton left London to nurse her. Even when he was most
engrossed in his work he would leave it to visit her; and now, when
she was sick at Stamford, he sat up whole nights, using his marvelous
manual dexterity to apply the blisters and so to reduce the torture

ISAAC NEWTON

352

which attended their dressing. 1 ' His efforts were, however, in vain.
She is buried in the churchyard at Colsterworth with others of his
family. 16 Conduitt also states that Isaac had always been deservedly
favoured by his mother, and when she died she left him the much
greater share of the real and personal estate. This legacy which was
very considerable, together with his paternal inheritance, enabled
him not only to follow his studies but also to indulge his fondness
for charity and liberality. 17

While he lived in London his address was Mr. More’s house, in
the broad Century, at the west end of Westminster Abbey., His
health does not seem to have been good as he was once kept in his
room several days by illness and again he was confined to his cham¬
ber by a “cold and bastard pleurisy.” His stay in London was a turn-
ing point in his life. He had published his Principiu and his position
as a man of consummate genius was established. At Cambridge, he
had been a solitary worker and academic society had not been con¬
genial to him. What few friends he had there had either died or
had left so that he was now practically alone. As a member of
Parliament he had renewed his intimacy with Montague, and had
come in contact with the leading men of the age. His whole out¬
look on life seems to have changed; he met, and was courted by,
those who were prominent in the affairs of the state and the church;
he mingled in society and lost all desire for the academic life and for
scientific work. He probably attended some of the meetings of the
Royal Society and, on June 12, he had the pleasure of meeting Huy¬
gens. The differences between the two men had long since passed
away, and they had grown to measure properly each other’s ability.
Oddly enough each addressed the same meeting, and each chose a
topic in which the other was his superior; Huygens gave an account
of his theory of gravitation, and Newton made some erroneous ob¬
servations on double refraction in Iceland spar.

It would be interesting to know whether Newton attended the
weekly meetings of the Society regularly. The members must now

15 Conduitt, Intended Life, "Portsmouth Collection.

16 Turnor, Grantham, p. 155. Brewster (VoL II, p. 119) states that she was buried in the
north aisle of the church.—In the parish record there is the item, “1679. Mrs. Hannah
Smith was buried June 4.” The date is evidently wrong.

17 Portsmouth Collection .—In the Catalogue of this Collection, there is listed a letter to
Newton from his mother. I was eager to read this letter as I hoped it would give some
clue to her character. After a thorough search, the document was found; but, alas, it proved
to be a letter to Sir John Newton, who lived in Soho, from his mother., If there was a letter
from our Isaac’s mother, it has disappeared.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 353

have regarded him with the deference due one who had conferred a
most signal honour on them by the dedication of his great work to
the Society; and their reception of him would do much to heal the
sting which he had previously felt because of what he believed to
have been an unjust attitude towards his work. We may assume
that he was received with flattering distinction because the smoul¬
dering jealousy of Hooke was again aroused. As early as 1674,
Aubrey wrote to Anthony Wood of a complaint by Hooke that
several eminent men, including himself, had been omitted in his
History and Antiquities of Oxford. Aubrey advised him that the
omission of Hooke’s name had been an injustice to one of the greatest
men of the age. Again in March, 1692, when Wood was about to
publish his Athence Oxonienses, Aubrey wrote him two letters in
which he requested a transcript should be sent to Hooke of what was
to be printed concerning him. 18

Aubrey and Hoo\e to Anthony Wood

Mr. Wood! Sept. 15, 1689.

Mr. Rob. Hooke, R. S. S., did in anno 1670 write a discourse called,
An Attempt to prove the Motion of the Earth, which he then read
to the Royal Society; but printed it in the beginning of the year 1674
.... to Sir John Cutler, to whom it is dedicated, wherein he has
delivered the theory of explaining the celestial motions mechanically;
his words are these, pag. 27, 28, viz.

About 9 or 10 years ago Mr. Hooke writ to Mr. Isaac Newton of
Trin. Coll. Cambridge, to make a demonstration of [it] this Theory,
not telling him at first the proportion of the gravity to the distance,
[and] nor what was the curved line that was thereby made.

Mr. Newton [did express], in his answer to the letter, did express
that he had not thought of it; and in his first attempt about it, he
calculated the curve by supposing the attraction to be the same at all
distances: upon which Mr. Hooke told him in his next letter the
whole of his Hypothesis, scil. that the gravitation was reciprocal to

lu Rigaud {Essay, p. 41, and App. XIII and XIV) first published the above items and also
the following letter in which the claims of Hooke are related. The letters were printed, in
1813, from originals in the Bodleian. Rigaud found, on examination of the original
draught, that the letter, which bore the signature of Aubrey, had been written under Hooke’s
immediate direction; it was corrected and altered by him in many places, and the greater
part is in his own hand. Following Rigaud, I have printed the original draught, with
Aubrey’s part in Roman type and Hooke’s insertions in Italics; words erased by Hooke in
order to substitute others are enclosed in brackets. Cf. Aubrey, Miscellanies.

ISAAC NEWTON

354

the square of the distance, which would ma\e the motion in an
ellipsis, in one of whose foci the sun being placed, the aphelion and
perihelion of the planet would be opposite to each other in the same
line, which is the whole celestial theory / 9 concerning which Mr.
Newton hath made a demonstration, not at all owning he received
the first intimation of it from Mr. Hooke. Likewise Mr. Newton has
in the same book printed some other theories and experiments of
Mr. Hooke’s as that about the oval figure of the earth and sea: with¬
out acknowledging from whom he had [it] them, though he had
not sent it up with the other parts of his boo\, till near a month after
this theory was read to the society by R. H., [Mr. Hooke,] when it
served to help to answer Dr. Wallis his arguments produced in the
R. S. against it.

In the Attempt to prove the Motion of the Earth, &c printed 1674,
but read to the Royal Society 1671, pag. 27, lin. 31. . . . [A long
passage in Hooke’s hand-writing is omitted in which he defends his
discovery of the law of gravitation]. . . . Mr. Wood! This is the
greatest discovery in nature, that ever was since the world’s creation:
it never was so much as hinted by any man before. I know you will
do him right. I hope you may read his hand: I wish he had writ
plainer, and afforded a little more paper. rp

’ J. Aubrey.

P. S.] Before I leave this town I will get of him a catalogue of what
le hath wrote, and as much of his inventions as I can; but they are
many hundreds; he believes not fewer than a thousand. ’Tis such a
hard matter to get people to do themselves right.

This letter shows clearly how bitterly Hooke still felt towards
Newton, so bitterly that he could accuse him of plagiarism in so
underhand and false a fashion. And we can readily imagine that he
would continue to do all he could to destroy Newton’s popularity
in the Society.

With the exception of Hooke, the stay of Newton in London must
have been a very pleasant episode in his life. In addition to members
of the Royal Society and political associates, he also made the ac¬
quaintance of John Locke which ripened into an enduring friendship
based on mutual esteem and common interests. This friendship
brought him into Locke’s circle which included the Earl of Pem-

19 Reference to Hooke’s letter will show that he made no such accurate and detailed
statement of the law of gravitation.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 355

broke, Lord Monmouth (better known as the celebrated Earl of
Peterborough), the Mashams, and also John Somers. Amongst
others, he met Pepys who knew everyone in Town and would de¬
light to introduce one whose work was now recognised as worthy of
the highest respect, even if it could not be understood.

Of all these acquaintanceships, that with Locke had the most
influence on Newton. In the last year of Charles II, the philosopher
had fallen under the unjust suspicion that he was the author of a
pamphlet which gave offence to the Government, and the King was
induced to insist on his removal from his Studentship at Christ¬
church. 20 The Secretary of State addressed the following letter to
the Bishop of Oxford, demanding Locke’s dismissal:

To the Lord Bishop of Oxford

■x r T j Whitehall, Nov. 6, 1684.

My Lord,

The King being given to understand that one Mr. Locke, who
belonged to the late Earl of Shaftesbury, and has upon several occa¬
sions behaved himself very factiously and undutifully to the Govern¬
ment, is a student of Christ-church; his Majesty commands me to
signify to your Lordship, that he would have him removed from
being a student, and that, in order thereunto, your Lordship would
let me know the method of doing it.

I am, my Lord, &c

Sunderland. 21

The meanness of the conduct of the Dean 22 of Christ-Church
would be difficult to exceed since he confessed that he had laid snares
without success to destroy a member of his own College, and now
dismissed him on a perfectly illegal charge. Locke left England and
retired to Holland for four years. The Revolution of 1687 enabled
him to return to his native country, and he arrived in the fleet that
brought the Princess of Orange to England. His Essay on Human
Understanding had been finished during his exile and was published
shortly after his return to London. Such a scheme of natural law as

20 The Fellows of this College are called Students.

21 Ld. King’s Life of Loc\e, 2 vols., London, 1830. Vol. I, p.. 278.

22 The Dean was the Dr. Fell made notorious by the doggerel, “I do not love you, Dr.
Fell.”—He became Bishop of Oxford in 1676, and what was unusual, if it was not
irregular, he was at the same time Dean of Christ Church in commendam.

ISAAC NEWTON

356

Newton had portrayed was a powerful support to Locke’s own
philosophy. Attracted though he was to the book, he found that he
could not follow the mathematical demonstrations. In this difficulty,
he inquired of Huygens if the mathematics could be assumed to be
sound. And, when he was assured that they might be accepted, he
read the philosophical parts with care and profit to himself. Just
when they met we do not know, but, in March, 1689, Newton gave
him a short paper containing a proof that the planets, because of
their attraction towards the sun, must move in ellipses. 23 The paper
is valuable since the diagrams and demonstrations differ materially
from those in the Principia; they are simplified and have explanatory
illustrations not used elsewhere.

As the session of Parliament drew to a close it was increasingly
evident that the Whigs had carried out their will with too high a
hand and a general election was imminent. Public feeling had
undergone a great change, in part due to the intemperate and vin¬
dictive conduct of the Whigs. Parliament, in fact, was dissolved Feb¬
ruary 6, 1689/90 and the new House of Commons contained a
Tory majority. Newton could foresee that there would be no chance
for his reelection. In spite of his past efforts to retain the support of
the University for his party two Tories were returned by an over¬
whelming majority. At the head of the poll was his former colleague
Sir Robert Sawyer who had changed party; this revulsion of feeling,
and Sir Robert’s return were largely due to the unjust, or at least
unwise, severity with which he had been treated. On a charge of
malpractice, the Whigs had expelled him during the last Parliament.
It is worthy of note that Newton, who has been pictured as a sub¬
servient party-man and as taking his politics on faith, cast his vote
for Sawyer. The friends of Newton had evidently been impressed
by his administrative ability and they influenced the King to issue a
mandamus to appoint him Provost of King’s College. The attempt
was ill-advised as the appointment was resisted on the legal grounds
that the Provost, by statute, must be in priest’s orders and a Fellow
of the College. “Aug. 29, 1689. Before the King and Council was
heard the matter of King’s College about Mr. Isaac Newton, why he
or any other not of that foundation should be Provost, and after the
reasons shewed and argued Mr. Newton was laid aside.” 24

His duties in Parliament finished, Newton returned to Cambridge
on February 4, 1689/90. He spent the year quietly in his chambers

23 Life of Locke, Vol. I, p. 389. 24 Edleston, p. lix; and Brewster, Vol. II, p. 116.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 357

except for two short visits, and we may conjecture that he, in a rather
despondent mood, busied himself correcting and making additions
to the Principia. From now on, we have to note an increasing inter¬
est in religious subjects. His friendship with Locke had evidently led
to discussions on the doctrine of the Trinity and on the prophecies.
This year he put into shape, with additions from earlier notes, a very
important paper on Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture , 25 As the
following two letters show, Newton feared that his criticism of the
authenticity of the two passages in the New Testament, on which the
doctrine of the Trinity chiefly rests, would subject him to serious
danger or, at least, involve him in a controversy. He therefore
planned to send the manuscript to Holland by Locke, where it
would be translated into French and published anonymously in that
country or in France. Also, the position at King’s College having
failed, Locke and his friends were casting about to find something
else which would satisfy his desires.

Newton to Locke
Sir,

I had answered your letter sooner, but that I stayed to revise and
send you the papers which you desire. But the consulting of authors
proving more tedious than I expected, so as to make me defer send¬
ing them till the next week, I could not forbear sending this letter
alone, to let you know how extremely glad I was to hear from you;
for though your letter brought me the first news of your having been
so dangerously ill, yet by your undertaking a journey into Holland,
I hope you are well recovered. I am extremely much obliged to my
Lord and Lady Monmouth for their kind remembrance of me, and
whether their design succeeded or not, must ever think myself
obliged to be their humble servant. I suppose Mr. Falio [Fatio] is
in Holland, for I have heard nothing from him the half year.

Sir, I am,

Your most humble servant,

r> u -a c . o c Is. Newton. 26

Cambridge, Sept. 20, 1690.

25 Cf. Horsley, Vol. V, p. 493. This is his most important work on theology. I shall
discuss it in a chapter devoted to that subject. It is sufficient to say now that it practically
proves that he was not an orthodox Trinitarian. Cf. Chapter XVI.

26 The date of this letter is incorrect as Edleston, p. lx, states that the London post-mark
is Oct. 29. Mr. Falio is probably a misprint for Fatio, a young man of whom we shall
hear more. The correspondence with Locke is to be found in his Life by Ld. King, Vol. I.

358

ISAAC NEWTON

Newton to Loc\e

Sir, Nov. 14, 1690.

I send you now by the carrier, Martin, the papers I promised. I
fear I have not only made you stay too long for them, but also made
them too long by an addition. For upon the receipt of your letter
reviewing what I had by me concerning the text of 1 John, v. 7, and
examining authors a little farther about it, I met with something
new concerning that other of 1st Tim. iii. 16, which I thought would
be as acceptable to inquisitive men, and might be set down in a
little room; but by searching farther into authors to find out the
bottom of it, it swelled to the bigness you see. I fear the length of
what I say on both texts may occasion you too much trouble, and
therefore if at present you get only what concerns the first done into
French, that of the other may stay till we see what success the first
will have. I have no entire copy besides that I send you, and there¬
fore would not have it lost, because I may, perhaps, after it has gone
abroad long enough in French, put it forth in English. What charge
you are at about it, (for I am sure it will put you to some,) you must
let me know; for the trouble alone is enough for you. Pray present
my most humble service and thanks to my Lord and Lady Mon¬
mouth, for their so kind remembrance of me; for their favour is
such that I can never sufficiently acknowledge it. If your voyage
hold, I wish you a prosperous one, and happy return. I should be
glad of a line from you, to know that you have these papers, and
how far you have recovered your health, for you told me nothing

^ at * I am, Sir,

Your most faithful and most humble servant,

Is. Newton. 27

During the latter part of the past year, Locke had had a serious
illness and had made a short trip to Holland to recuperate. On his
return, he had renewed his attempt to find a place for Newton. He
had engaged the interest of Lord and Lady Monmouth, who were
then high in the favour of King William, and also of the Mashams.
With such patronage, it would seem that success was assured. But
we should remember that, at this time, the Whigs were in deep dis¬
grace, and the triumphant Tories were in no frame of mind to give
honour, or place, to a member of the late Parliament. To Newton's
chagrin, all the plans of his powerful friends failed. Brewster be-

27 Ld. King’s Life of Loc\e, Vol. I, p. 401.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION

359

comes almost hysterical in his denunciation of the English: “We do
not envy,” he laments, “the reader who peruses these simple details
without a blush of shame for his country. That Locke, and Lord
Monmouth, and Charles Montague, could not obtain an appoint¬
ment for the author of the Principia, will hardly be believed in any
country but our own. ... At the age of fifty, the high priest of
science found himself the inmate of a college, and, but for the gen¬
erous patronage of a friend, he would have died within its walls.” 28
It would seem to the simple mind, that the natural state of a “high
priest of science” was to be an inmate of a college, and that it was
not a shameful disgrace to die within its walls. Brewster’s lament
might be excused as a mere burst of sentimentality, if it were not
that it marks a more serious fault which goes far to destroy our
confidence in him as a biographer or historian. He shows an unfor¬
tunate ignorance of the age of which he is writing. The patronage
of the men he mentions would, at the time, operate against Newton;
he and they were Whigs, and the Whigs were out of power. As a
matter of fact, when they returned to office an important place was
soon found for him. Brewster seems quite oblivious to the state of
politics. It was a period of one of the fiercest struggles of party
government, and each side was engaged in strengthening its own
lines, rather than in rewarding abstract merit. Nor should we assume
that Newton’s past life had augured especial ability as an adminis¬
trator. It was significant of Montague’s judgement of character that
he trusted him with the delicate problem of the recoinage. To men
of affairs and to the world at large, Newton was of more concern as
an important office-holder and as the friend of statesmen than as a
philosopher. 29

Shortly after Locke’s return to England, Newton visited him at
Oates, in Essex, the estate of Sir Francis and Lady Masham. 30 Be-

28 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 118.

29 Two examples of this fact may be given. The first is a quotation from an old
play: “Newton! Oh ay—I have heard of Sir Isaac—everybody has heard of Sir Isaac—great
man-—master of the Mint.” The second is a quotation from Swift’s burlesque compliment
in his Polite Conversations : “Some of my enemies have industriously whispered about that
one Isaac Newton, an instrument-maker, living near Leicester Fields, and afterwards a
workman at the Mint in the Tower, might possibly pretend to vie with me for fame in
future time.”

30 The Mashams were intimate friends of Locke, who visited them frequently. Their son,
in 1707, married Abigail Hill, a cousin of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough. As Mrs. Masham,
she became the bosom friend of Queen Anne. Brewster erroneously puts this visit during
the year before when Newton travelled from London to Cambridge after the dissolution of
Parliament.. The Buttery Book of Trinity College shows that he was away from College dur¬
ing part of the fortnight of Jan. 2-16, 1690/91.

ISAAC NEWTON

360

sides his textual work on the Scriptures, Newton was employing his
leisure to elucidate the prophecies of the Books of Daniel and of the
Apocalypse, a subject on which he spent much time and ingenuity.
The following letter should now be clear.

Newton to Loc\e

_ Cambridge, Feb. 7, 1690/1.

Sir,

I am sorry your journey proved to so little purpose, though it de¬
livered you from the trouble of the company the day after. You
have obliged me by mentioning me to my friends at London, and I
must thank both you and my Lady Masham for your civilities at
Oates, and for not thinking that I made a long stay there. I hope
we shall meet again in due time, and then I should be glad to have
your judgement upon some of my mystical fancies. The Son of man,
Dan. vii. I take to be the same with the Word of God upon the
White Horse in Heaven, Apoc. xix. and him to be the same with the
Man Child, Apoc. xii. for both are to rule the nations with a rod of
iron; but whence are you certain that the Ancient of Days is Christ?
Does Christ any where sit upon the throne? If Sir Francis Masham
be at Oates, present, I pray, my service to him with his lady, Mrs.
Cudworth, and Mrs. Masham. Dr. Covel is not in Cambridge.

I am

Your affectionate and humble servant,

Is. Newton.

P. S. Know you the meaning of Dan. x.21: There is none that
holdeth with me in these things hut Mich, your Prince? 31

The next letter we have addressed to Locke shows that Newton
hoped a letter of recommendation might secure for him the comp-
trollership of the Mint, and also that Locke was wrestling with the
Principia. The incident of the effect of strong light on the eyes was
very interesting to me as I, in my early boyhood, had been fascinated
by the same phenomenon. I used frequently to stare at the reddish
disc of the early morning sun until from fatigue it first became dark.
Then gradually a coloured disc would form, grow bright and seem
to slip downward; only to be followed by another coloured outline
until there would be a succession of these discs forming and slipping

31 Ld. King’s Life of Loc\e, Vol. I, p. 402.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 361

down like a string of balloons. Fortunately, I performed this dan¬
gerous experiment before the brilliance of the sun had made it
serious.

Newton to Loc\e

gj r Cambridge, June 30th, 1691.

Your deferring to answer my letter is what you needed not make
an apology for, because I use to be guilty of the same fault as often as
I have nothing of moment to write, and therefore cannot in justice
complain. If the scheme you have laid of managing the controller’s
place of the M., will not give you the trouble of too large a letter, you
will oblige me by it. I thank you heartily for your being so mindful
of me, and ready to assist me with your interest. Concerning the
Ancient of Days, Dan. vii. there seems to be a mistake either in my
last letter, or in yours, because you write in your former letter, that
the Ancient of Days is Christ; and in my last, I either did, or should
have asked, how you knew that. But these discourses may be done
with more freedom at our next meeting. I am indebted to my solici¬
tor, Mr. Starkey. If you please to let me have your opinion what I
should send him, I will send it with a letter by the carrier. My Lady
Masham and you have done me much honour in looking into my
book, and I am very glad to have the approbation of such judicious
persons. The observation you mention in Mr. Boyle’s book of Col¬
ours, I once made upon myself with the hazard of my eyes. The
manner was this: I looked a very little while upon the sun in the
looking-glass with my right eye, and then turned my eyes into a
dark corner of my chamber, and winked, to observe the impression
made, and the circles of colours which encompassed it, and how they
decayed by degrees, and at last vanished. This I repeated a second
and a third time. At the third time, when the phantasm of light and
colours about it were almost vanished, intending my fancy upon
them to see their last appearance, I found to my amazement, that
they began to return, and by little and little to become as lively and
vivid as when I had newly looked upon the sun. But when I ceased
to intend my fancy upon them, they vanished again. After this, I
found that as often as I went into the dark, and intended my mind
upon them, as when a man looks earnestly to see any thing which
is difficult to be seen, I could make the phantasm return without

ISAAC NEWTON

362

looking any more upon the sun; and the oftener I made it return, the
more easily I could make it return again. And at length, by repeat¬
ing this without looking any more upon the sun, I made such an
impression on my eye, that if I looked upon the clouds, or a book,
or any bright object, I saw upon it a round bright spot of light like
the sun; and, which is still stranger, though I looked upon the sun
with my right eye only, and not with my left, yet my fancy began
to make the impression upon my left eye, as well as upon my right.
For if I shut my right eye, and looked upon a book or the clouds
with my left eye, I could see the spectrum of the sun almost as plain
as with my right eye, if I did but intend my fancy a little while upon
it; for at first, if I shut my right eye, and looked with my left, the
spectrum of the sun did not appear till I intended my fancy upon it;
but by repeating, this appeared every time more easily. And now, in
a few hours’ time, I had brought my eyes to such a pass, that I could
look upon no bright object with either eye, but I saw the sun before
me, so that I durst neither write nor read: but to recover the use of
my eyes, shut myself up in my chamber made dark, for three days
together, and used all means to divert my imagination from the sun.
For if I thought upon him, I presently saw his picture, though I was
in the dark. But by keeping in the dark, and employing my mind
about other things, I began in three or four days to have some use of
my eyes again; and by forbearing a few days longer to look upon
bright objects, recovered them pretty well, though not so well, but
that for some months after the spectrum of the sun began to return as
often as I began to meditate upon the phenomenon, even though I
lay in bed at midnight with my curtains drawn; but now I have been
very well for many years, though I am apt to think, that if I durst
venture my eyes, I could still make the phantasm return by the
power of my fancy. This story I tell you, to let you understand, that
in the observation related by Mr. Boyle, the man s fancy probably
concurred with the impression made by the sun’s light, to produce
that phantasm of the sun which he constantly saw in bright objects:
and so your question about the cause of this phantasm, involves
another about the power of fancy, which I must confess is too hard a
knot for me to untie. To place this effect in a constant motion is
hard, because the sun ought then to appear perpetually. It seems
rather to consist in a disposition of the sensorium to move the imag¬
ination strongly, and to be easily moved both by the imagination and
by the light, as often as bright objects are looked upon.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 363

If the papers you mention come not out, I will tell you at our
next meeting what shall be done with them.

My humble service to Sir Francis, my lady, and Mrs. Cudworth.

I am

Your most humble servant,

Is. Newton . 32

In addition to Locke and his friends, the brilliant young scholar,
Bentley was drawn to the mechanistic philosophy of the Principia
as an illustration of the wisdom of a Divine Creator. He, too, was
appalled by its mathematical difficulties and decided to accept the
geometric demonstrations on faith after he received from John
Craigie, a mathematician, a list of preparatory works to study. 33 The
Principia was also beginning to attract the attention of the younger
mathematicians. One of the most important of these disciples was
David Gregory of Edinburgh, whom we have noticed before. He
was elected Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford this year,
largely by the influence of Newton, and introduced the new me¬
chanics to his students. Newton was always most generous in aiding
his followers and not only wrote him a testimonial 34 but also gave
him the following personal letter of introduction to Flamsteed.

Newton to Flamsteed

gj r London, August 10, 1691.

Tis almost a fortnight since I intended, with Mr. Paget and an¬
other friend or two, to have given you a visit at Greenwich; but,
sending to the Temple Coffee-house, I understood you had not been
in London for two or three weeks before: which made me think you
were retired to your living for a time. The bearer hereof, Mr.
Gregory, Mathematic Professor of Edinburgh College in Scotland,
intended to have given you a visit with us. You will find him a very
ingenious person, and good mathematician, worth your acquaint¬
ance. I hope it will not be long before you publish your catalogue
of the fixed stars. In my opinion, it will be better to publish those
of the first six magnitudes observed by others, and afterwards, by
way of an appendix, to publish the new ones observed by yourself

32 Ld. King’s Life of Loc\e, Vol. I, p. 404. 33 Edleston, p. 273.

34 To be found in the Portsmouth Collection, Cf. Baily’s Flamsteed, p. 670.

ISAAC NEWTON

3^4

alone, than to let the former stay too long for the latter. I would
willingly have your observations of Jupiter and Saturn for the 4 or
5 next years at least, before I think further of their theory: but I had
rather have them for the next 12 or 15 years. If you and I live not
long enough, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Halley are young men. When
you observe the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites, I should be glad to
know if in long telescopes the light of the satellite, immediately be¬
fore it disappears, incline either to red or blue, or become more ruddy

or more pale than before.

Sir, I am your most humble servant,

Is. Newton. 35

The reference to the eclipses of satellites is an excellent illustration
of Newton’s acuteness of mind. He was evidently interested in the
question whether the separate colours of the spectrum travel with
different velocities. The satellites of Jupiter are so small that they are
almost instantly blotted out when an eclipse takes place. If the red
and blue rays of their white light travel with even slightly different
velocities in vacuo then, during so long a path, the final appearance
of the light should be tinged with the colour which travels slowest;
and when the satellite emerges from the eclipse its appearance should
be tinged with the colour which travels fastest and gradually turn
to white when they all reach the eye. It may be added that no such
effect occurs, and it is even now held to be the best evidence that all
rays travel at the same speed in va-cuo. Newton’s casual remark, that
Halley would be able to complete their work, if they should not live
long enough, was not tactful nor likely to help Gregory’s chances;
Flamsteed had a veritable obsession against Halley, as his answer to
this letter and other letters prove.

Flamsteed to Newton

The Observatory, February 24, 1691/2.

Though I have long delayed to return an answer to yours of the
10th of August last, yet I have always had it in my mind; and having
now got a fit opportunity, I shall not longer decline it, lest you think
me unmindful of our former friendship, or as unwilling, or unpre¬
pared to answer it, as I am represented to you. I did Mr. Gregory,
who brought it, all the kindness I could, without prejudice to an

35 Baily’s Flamsteed, p. 129.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 365

ingenious old friend who was much solicited by the University to
put in for the vacant Professorship, but was prevailed with to de¬
cline, by the management of a person, [Halley] who is always put¬
ting the question to my friends, why I do not print my observations ?
He might have satisfied you, and all others with whom he converses,
if he pleases, of the reason; but I perceive, by yours, he is not de¬
sirous: but rather to gain me the ill opinion of my friends, from
whom I have ever desired to deserve the best, and am confident I
have ever endeavoured to serve very heartily. You advise me (and I
am sure it is upon his suggestions and misrepresentations) to pub¬
lish first a catalogue of the correct places of such fixed stars of the
first six magnitudes as have been observed by others; and afterwards,
by way of an appendix, to publish those new ones, observed by my¬
self alone.

I take your advice very kindly, because I know you are sincere in
it, and wish me all the success I can desire in my labours, and all the
reputation they can deserve from them: and I shall give you very
substantial reasons why I cannot do this at present, and show you
what you may expect from me, and in what time hereafter; nor shall
I forget to give such an answer as it deserves to our friend's question
and calumny, in the close of my letter.

It would be needless, as well as a tedious task, to give you the
history of my observations; since I believe you are acquainted with
it sufficiently, by what discourse I have had with you formerly:
otherwise it would be requisite to give it, to vindicate myself in
every particular of my conduct.

It only remains that I give you the answer I would make to our
suggesting friend, when he asks me why I do not print my observa¬
tions ? ’Tis first I do not find myself under any obligations to receive
instructions what to do, or be governed by him and his associates, the
Muss's [?]. Secondly, I would not thrust such an incomplete cata¬
logue on the world as he has done from St. Helena: 36 nor be obliged
to compliment the best reputed astronomers of our time (as he has
done all of them) by telling them that, had their catalogues been
extant, he would have called his a supplement to theirs, as he has
done (for want of them) of Tycho’s. Nor will I give any one occa¬
sion to tell the world I have erred a 60th part of what La Hire has
published he does in a star of the Crosiers and one of the Centaur:

3(5 Halley had recently returned from an expedition to St. Helena where he had made
magnetical and astronomical observations.

ISAAC NEWTON

366

that I understand what I have to do, much better than he; and when,
and how, it will be best for me to publish my own labors; that I will
not be beholden to him for his assistance or advice: that if he wants
employment for his time, he may go on with his sea projects, or
square the superficies of cylindric ungulas: find reasons for the
change of the variation, or give us a true account of all his St. Helena
exploits; and that he had better do it, than buffoon those to the
Society, to whom he has been more obliged than he dares acknowl¬
edge: that he has more of mine in his hands already, than he will
either own or restore; and that I have no esteem of a man who has
lost his reputation, both for skill, candour, and ingenuity, by silly
tricks, ingratitude, and foolish prate: and that I value not all, or any
of the same of him and his infidel companions; being very well
satisfied that if Christ and his apostles were to walk again upon
earth, they should not escape free from the calumnies of their ven¬
omous tongues. But I hate his ill manners, not the man: were he
either honest, or but civil, there is none in whose company I could
rather desire to be.

But my letter makes you now do penance. I beg your pardon for
a just indignation, to which some very foolish behaviour of his very
lately has moved me: and desire you to assure yourself, that no one
is more sincerely your servant, than your affectionate friend and

brother, John Flamsteed . 37

In December of this year, another of Newton’s admirers amongst
the younger scholars of the day makes his first appearance. Fatio
(or Facio) de Duillier, a young Swiss refugee, had come to London
and, according to his own account, had studied the Principia more
intensely and more understandingly than had any one else. Fatio,
later, played a prominent, and not very creditable, part in the Leibniz
controversy and a more extended notice will be given about him in

37 The letter is much too long to quote in full. The parts omitted are purely technical.
The person so bitterly referred to is Halley. The cause seems to have been partly jealousy,
partly Halley’s rather importunate eagerness and vivacity, and partly what Flamsteed and
Newton termed his atheism. Flamsteed was a clergyman without toleration for any tinge
of even latitudinarianism; Newton rebuked Halley severely for his religious views but
preserved his admiration and friendship., Flamsteed’s abuse of Halley is a real blot on his
own character but we should not judge him by our own standard of propriety as it was
an age notorious for extravagant epithets. The advice which Newton offers about the
publication of the catalogue of stars, and Flamsteed’s determination to follow his own
plans, are important as they give the cause for the later controversy between the two
men. For the complete letter, see Baily, p. 129.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 367

that connection. At present, we learn from him that copies of the
Principia had become scarce, and that he had importuned Newton
to publish a revised edition. Finding it impossible to succeed by that
method, he proposed to undertake the editorship himself and, by
inserting his own notes and explanations, improve the treatment and
expand the work into a folio. Fortunately nothing came from the
project. But the young man’s attentions flattered and pleased New¬
ton, and admitted him into the inner circle of his followers. Fatio
visited him in Cambridge the following year. He was depressed both
physically and spiritually and was much encouraged by the kind
reception and wholesome advice which he received. On returning to
London, he became much alarmed by a severe cold which affected
his lungs and he wrote to Newton, “I thank God that my soul is
extremely quiet, in which you have had the chief hand” and then
expressed the wish that, in case of his death, the same kind friend¬
ship should be extended to his eldest brother. The letter was, at once,
answered, assuring Fatio that he was dear to him and would be
remembered in his prayers. Newton’s intercourse with young men
is one of the most attractive sides to his character. He was quick to
recognise ability in them, and to foster it with advice and with con¬
crete evidences of his interest. He treated them with a certain grave
courtesy which must have appealed greatly to their aspiring ambi¬
tions. It was, perhaps, their difference in age and accomplishment,
which put the older man at his ease and precluded the possibility
of arousing the sensitiveness and jealousy that marred so frequently
his relations with those more apt to oppose or to criticise him. A
striking illustration of his interest in young men is shown by his
tactful and delicate plan to aid Fatio with a gift of money and even
to provide him with accommodations at Cambridge by making him
an allowance. “I have now received,” he wrote, “the box of rulers,
with your receipt of jC 14. I sent you that money because I thought
it was just; and therefore you compliment me, if you reckon it an
obligation. The chamber next me is disposed of; but that which I
was contriving was .... to make you such an allowance, etc.” 38

We shall rely on the correspondence of Locke for most of the
events of the year 1692. Newton’s anxiety to obtain an official position
had grown to such a degree that his repeated failures bred in him a
feeling of humiliation and disgrace. Others were obtaining rewards
for their services in behalf of the Revolution, but he, who had loyally

38 Cf. Edleston, p. lx. Quoted from the Gentleman’s Magazine, LXXXIV, 3.

3 68

ISAAC NEWTON

frame of mind, aggravated by the nervous reaction from his excessive
intellectual labour, he began to brood over his condition and, by a
not uncommon twist of the mind, he became obsessed with the idea
that the failures were owing to the hostility of some of his friends
and to the inertness of others. He imagined that Montague, ab¬
sorbed in his own schemes and rapidly rising to power, had raked
up an old and forgotten grudge against him in order to rid himself
of such a dead-weight on his shoulders. He lamented that Locke
would not care to visit such an unsuccessful place-hunter as himself,
and if the Monmouths now forsook him, there would be no hope
left - and he must reconcile himself to end his days in the obscurity o
an academic life. Lest he may have hurt this last chance, he apolo¬
gised with almost abject humility for what may have seemed to be
an intrusion upon the nobleman’s society. He had tried to solace
his enforced solitude with an enquiry into religious subjects; but,
here again, his fears intervened, and he desired to have his manu¬
script on the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity returned to him,
since its authorship might become known and add to his other
troubles. The following four letters justify this introduction.

Newton to Loc\e

Cambridge, Dec. 13, 1691.

Sir

When I received your former letter, I was engaged here by the
term, and could not stir. I thank you for putting me in mind of
Charter-house, but I see nothing in it worth making a bustle for:
besides a coach, which I consider not, it is but 200 per annum, with
a confinement to the London air, and to such a way of living as I
am not in love with; neither do I think it advisable to enter into such
a competition as that would be for a better place. Dr. Spencer, the
Dean of Ely, has perused the specimen of Le Clerc’s Latin Version of
the Old Testament, and likes the design very well, but gives me no
remarks upon it. Pray return my most humble service and hearty
thanks to my Lady Masham, for her Ladyship’s kind invitation;
and accept of mine to yourself for so frankly offering the assistance
of your friends, if there should be occasion. Mr. Green called on me

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 369

last Tuesday, and I designed to have answered your letter sooner,
but beg your pardon that I did not.

I am

Your most humble servant,

Is. Newton . 39

Newton to Loc\e

Cambridge, Jan. 26th, 1691/2.

Being fully convinced that Mr. Montague, upon an old grudge
which I thought had been worn out, is false to me, I have done with
him, and intend to sit still, unless my Lord Monmouth be still my
friend. I have now no prospect of seeing you any more, unless you
will be so kind as to repay that visit I made you the last year. If I
may hope for this favour, I pray bring my papers with you. Other¬
wise I desire you would send them by some convenient messenger,
when opportunity shall serve. My humble service to my Lady
Masham, and to Sir Francis if at Oates.

I am

Your most humble servant,

Is. Newton.

[P. S.] I understand Mr. Boyle communicated his process about the
red earth and Mercury to you as well as to me, and before his death,
procured some of that earth for his friends. 40

Newton to Loc\e

Cambridge, Feb. 16th, 1691/2.

Your former letters came not to my hand, but this I have. I was
of opinion my papers [his Tract on the Corrupt Passages in the New
Testament] had lain still, and am sorry to hear there is news about
them. Let me entreat you to stop their translation and impression so
soon as you can, for I design to suppress them. If your friend hath
been at any pains and charge, I will repay it, and gratify him. I am
very glad my Lord Monmouth is still my friend, but intend not to
give his Lordship and you any farther trouble. My inclinations are
to sit still. I am to beg his Lordship’s pardon, for pressing into his
company the last time I saw him. I had not done it, but that Mr.
Pawling pressed me into the room. Miracles of good credit con-

9 Ld* Kings Life of Loc\e, Vol. I, p. 414. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 408.

ISAAC NEWTON

370

tinued in the Church for about two or three hundred years. Gre¬
gorius Thaumaturgus had his name from thence, and was one of the
latest who was eminent for that gift; but of their number and
frequency, I am not able to give you a just account. The history of
those ages is very imperfect. Mr. Pawling told me, you had writ for
some of Mr. Boyles red earth, and by that I knew you had the

receipt. Your most affectionate and humble servant,

Is. Newton. 41

Newton to Loc\e

Cambridge, May 3rd, 1692.

Sir, .... ,

Now the churlish weather is almost over, I was thinking, within

a post or two, to put you in mind of my desire to see you here, where
you shall be as welcome as I can make you. I am glad you have pre¬
vented me, because I hope now to see you the sooner. You may lodge
conveniently either at the Rose tavern, or Queen s Arms inn. I am
glad the edition is stopped, but do not perceive that you had mine,
and therefore have sent you a transcript of what concerned miracles,
if it come not now too late. For it happens that I have a copy of it
by me. Concerning miracles, there is a notable passage or two in
Irenaeus I. 22, c. 5 6, recited by Eusebius, 1.5 c. 17* The miraculous
refection of the Roman army by rain, at the prayers of a Christian
legion, (thence called fulminatrix) is mentioned by Ziphilina apud
Dionam. in Marco Imp. and by Tertullian Apolog. c. 5, and ad
Scap. c. 4, and by Eusebius 1.5, c. 5. Hist. Eccl., and in Chronico, and
acknowledged by the Emperor Marcus in a letter, as Tertullian men¬
tions. The same Tertullian somewhere challenges the heathens to
produce a demoniac, and he will produce a man who shall cast out
the demon. For this was the language of the ancients for curing
lunatics. I am told that Sir Henry Yelverton, in a book about the
truth of Christianity, has writ well of the ancient miracles, but the
book I never saw. Concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus, see Gregory
Nystra in ejus vita, and Basil de Spiritu Sancto, c. 29.

My humble service to Sir Francis and his lady.

I am

Your most humble servant,

Is. Newton.

P. S. I know of nothing that will call me from home this month. 42

41 Ld. King’s Life of Loc\e, VoL I, p. 409. 42 Ld. King’s Life of Loc\e, Vol. I, p. 415.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 371

We, unfortunately, have not Locke’s replies, but he evidently as¬
sured Newton that his friends had not deserted him; to prove his
own steadfast regard, he had arranged to pay a visit to Cambridge.
The reference to Boyle and alchemy in these, and the following let¬
ters, requires some explanation.

Robert Boyle had died December 30, 1691. His death had re¬
moved the most distinguished philosopher of the day. He was not
only a great chemist and physicist to whom we owe a profound study
of the nature and properties of gases but, rich and allied with a
powerful family, he was also a most generous patron of learning and
was regarded as an example of the highest integrity and nobility of
character. The great Dutch chemist Boerhave has given us this
splendid tribute to his genius. “Mr. Boyle, the ornament of his age
and country, succeeded to the genius and enquiries of the great Chan¬
cellor Verulam. Which of Mr. Boyle’s writings shall I recommend?
All of them. To him we owe the secrets of fire, air, water, animals,
vegetables, fossils; so that from his works may be deduced die whole
system of natural knowledge.” 43 He was not only eminent as a man
of science but could have been equally so in literature and in
theology. Dr. Johnson affirmed that “The attempt to employ the
ornaments of romance in the decoration of religion, was, I think,
first made by Mr. Boyle’s Martyrdom of Theodora; but Boyle’s
philosophical studies did not allow him time for the cultivation of
style; and the completion of the great design was reserved for Mrs.
Rowe.” 44 He also quoted a famous aphorism of Boyle’s: “Testimony
is like the shot of a long-bow, which owes its efficacy to the force of
the shooter; argument is like the shot of the cross-bow, equally forci¬
ble whether discharged by a giant or a dwarf.” 45

Boyle, like Newton, was an ardent alchemist, and he had con¬
vinced himself that he had found a recipe for multiplying gold by the
agency of mercury and a certain red earth. At his death, he left the
inspection of his papers to three friends, of whom Locke was one.
Now Locke enquired of Newton what he thought of its promise.
Newton had, evidently, become somewhat sceptical, not of the prin¬
ciples of alchemy, but of our ability to transmute the metals. Al¬
though he is still tempted to try the process, he counsels caution, and
expresses his doubt that Boyle had succeeded. His doubt arose from
the fact that Boyle had first told him of the discovery years before and

!! Weld s Hist. R. S., Vol. I, p. 328. 44 Hill’s Ed. of Boswell, Vol. I, p. 312.

45 Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 281. y 5

ISAAC NEWTON

372

yet nothing had come of it; and also because a company, which had
been formed to exploit the recipe, had gone to pieces. But the most
suspicious fact was that Boyle, while professing to give him the
complete recipe, had withheld one important step in the process as
he, himself, had discovered. We get an interesting side-light on
Newton’s own attitude towards alchemy from the following letters
which show that the subject fascinated him, as it did so many others,
and that he could not give up all hope of its truth. One would give
much to know what was the “one argument against it, which I could

never find an answer to.”

Newton to Loc\e
Sir,

You have sent much more earth then I expected. For I desired
only a specimen, having no inclination to prosecute the process. For
in good earnest I have no opinion of it. But since you have a mind to
prosecute it I should be glad to assist you all I can, having a liberty
of communication allowed me by Mr. B. in one case which reaches
to you if it be done under the same conditions in which I stand
obliged to Mr. B., for I presume you are already under the same ob¬
ligations to him. But I fear I have lost the first and third part out of
my pocket. I thank you for what you communicated to me out of

your own notes about it. Sir I am

Your most humble servant

Is. Newton.

Cambridge July 7th
1692.

[P. S.] When the hot weather is over I intend to try the beginning
tho’ the success seem improbable.

For John Locke, Esq. at Mr. Paulen s in Dorset Court in

Chennel Row in Westminster.

Newton to Loc\e

August 2d, 1692.

I beg your pardon that I sent not your papers last week; the carrier
went out a quarter of an hour sooner than I was aware of. I am
glad you have all the three parts of the recipe entire; but before you
go to work about it, I desire you would consider these things, for it
may perhaps save you time and expense. This recipe I take to be

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 373

the thing for the sake of which Mr. Boyle procured the repeal of the
Act of Parliament against Multipliers, [i.e., alchemists] and there¬
fore he had it then in his hands. In the margin of the recipe was
noted, that the mercury of the first work would grow hot with gold,
and thence I gather that this recipe was the foundation of what he
published many years ago, about such mercuries as would grow hot
with gold, and therefore was then known to him, that is, sixteen or
twenty years ago, at least; and yet, in all this time, I cannot find
that he has either tried it himself, or got it tried with success by any
body else: for, when I spoke doubtingly about it, he confessed that
he had not seen it tried; but added, that a certain gentleman was now
about it, and it succeeded very well so far as he had gone, and that all
the signs appeared, so that I needed not doubt of it. This satisfied me
that mercury, by this recipe, may be brought to change its colours
and properties, but not that gold may be multiplied thereby; and I
doubt it the more, because I heard some years ago of a company,
who were upon this work in London, and after Mr. Boyle had
communicated his recipe to me, so that I knew it was the same with
theirs. I enquired after them, and learnt that two of them were since
forced to other means of living; and a third, who was the chief artist,
was run so far into debt that he had much ado to live; and by these
circumstances, I understood that these gentlemen could not make the
thing succeed. When I told Mr. Boyle of these gentlemen, he
acknowledged that the recipe was gone about among several chem¬
ists, and therefore I intend to stay till I hear that it succeeds with
some of them.

But, besides, if I would try this recipe, I am satisfied that I could
not, for Mr. Boyle has reserved a part of it from my knowledge. I
know more of it than he has told me; and by that, and an expression
or two which dropped from him, I know that what he has told me is
imperfect and useless without knowing more than I do: and, there¬
fore, I intend only to try whether I know enough to make a mercury
which will grow hot with gold, if perhaps I shall try that. For Mr.
Boyle to offer his secret upon conditions, and after I had consented,
not to perform his part, looks oddly; and that the rather because I
was averse from meddling with his recipe, till he persuaded me to it;
and by not performing his part, he has voided the obligation to the
conditions on mine, so that I may reckon myself at my own dis¬
cretion to say or do what I will about this matter, though perhaps I
shall be tender of using my liberty. But that I may understand the

374

ISAAC NEWTON

reason of his reservedness, pray will you be so free as to let me know
the conditions which he obliged you to, in communicating this
recipe; and whether he communicated to you any thing more than is
written down in the three parts of the recipe. I do not desire to know
what he has communicated, but rather that you would keep the par¬
ticulars from me, (at least in the second and third part of the
recipe,) because I have no mind to be concerned with this recipe any
farther than just to know the entrance. I suspect his reservedness
might proceed from mine; for when I communicated a certain ex¬
periment to him, he presently, by way of requital, subjoined two
others, but cumbered them with such circumstances as startled me,
and made me afraid of any more: for he expressed that I should
presently go to work upon them, and desired I would publish them
after his death. I have not yet tried either of them, nor intend to
try them; but since you have the inspection of his papers, if you de¬
sign to publish any of his remains, you will do me a great favour to
let these two be published among the rest. But then I desire that it
may not be known that they come through my hands. One of them
seems to be a considerable experiment, and may prove of good use
in medicine for analysing bodies; the other is only a knack. In dis¬
suading you from too hasty a trial of this recipe, I have forborne to
say any thing against multiplication in general, because you seem
persuaded of it; though there is one argument against it, which I
could never find an answer to, and which, if you will let me have
your opinion about it, I will send you in my next. 46

[Is. Newton.]

Boyle’s death had an important, although indirect, influence in
spreading the philosophical and religious tendencies of the Prin-
cipia. He, himself, belonged to that group of English men of
science who saw in the discovery of natural laws the best evidence of
a Divine Providence. They were convinced with Milton that:

“The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide.”

To further the idea that science should be the expositor of the
Christian religion, Boyle bequeathed by his will the sum of fifty
pounds a year to establish a lectureship for the defense of religion
against infidels. By the terms of the bequest, eight sermons a year

46 Ld. King’s Life of Loc\e, Vol, I, p. 410.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION

375

were to be delivered in one of the London churches by a lecturer
chosen annually by four trustees. The distinguished honour of being
nominated as the first of these lecturers fell to Richard Bentley, prin¬
cipally by the influence of Bishop Tenison, one of the trustees.
Bentley was, at that time, barely thirty years old; he was chaplain to
Dr. Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, and had leaped to sudden
fame the year before by the publication of his Epistle to Dr. Mills.
This essay exhibited such erudition and critical acumen, that it
established the author’s reputation in the highest rank of scholar¬
ship; and from that moment the eyes of every scholar in Europe
were directed towards his work. 47

Bentley chose the general title of A Confutation of Atheism for
the subject of his lectures, delivered in the spring of 1692 in Teni-
son’s former church of St. Martin’s in the Fields. The fame of the
founder was so great as to excite the deepest interest in this lecture¬
ship, and it was an extraordinary honour to inaugurate them with
so young a man. Bentley surpassed even the expectations of his pa¬
trons. His attack on atheism was directed specifically against the doc¬
trines of Hobbes and Spinoza which had seriously affected the ideas
of the higher classes of society. He deliberately led up to the con¬
clusion, discussed in the seventh and eighth lectures, of the demon¬
stration of a divine Providence as proved by evidence of design which
followed from Newton’s discoveries of the laws of the physical uni¬
verse. The Principia had been published five years previously, but it
was still a closed book to most persons because of the difficulty of the
mathematical proofs. Bishop Monk informs us that, “to Bentley be¬
longs the undoubted merit of having been the first to lay open these
discoveries in a popular form, and to explain their irresistible force
in the proof of a Deity”; 48 and also we are assured rather too con¬
fidently by him, that the effect of these discourses was such, that
atheism was deserted as untenable ground; or, to use his own ex¬
pression, “the atheists were silent since that time, and sheltered them¬
selves under deism.”

Bentley’s lectures were published the following year. Before they

Cf. Monk’s Life of Bentley, Vol. I, pp. 33—46.

Edleston, p. 273, states that Bentley, in the summer of 1691, solicited the aid of Craig
and Newton to help him master the Principia. Brewster, Vol. H, p. 125, makes a curious
mistake in this connection. He states that Bentley made the enquiries in order to prepare
for these lectures. He evidently forgot that Boyle, their founder, did not die until December
30, 1691, or five months later. Bentley could hardly have foreseen this future use he would
find in^ studying the Principia. Bishop Monk thinks Bentley had attended some of
Newton’s lectures, and that he mastered the mathematics of the treatise. As to the first
point it was only a surmise, and I seriously doubt the second.

37 6

ISAAC NEWTON

were issued from the press, he took the precaution to consult New¬
ton as to the correctness of the use of his ideas. An important cor¬
respondence followed, and Newton’s four letters are a most valuable
contribution to our knowledge of his ideas on the nature of gravity
and the cosmic system. 49

Bentley, in his introductory letter to Newton, tells him that his
mind would be at ease if he were sure that he had kept his argument
conformable to a correct exposition of the hypothesis found in the
Principia. He desires Newton’s criticism on the following points.
First, he proved in the sixth sermon that the present system of the
world cannot have been eternal. Therefore atheists are in error be¬
cause they, denying the existence of a Divine Creator, must assume
that matter was uncreated and eternal. Thus, according to them,
all was once chaos; or what is the same thing, in the beginning all
matter was evenly, or nearly evenly, diffused throughout all space.
Secondly, in his seventh sermon, he proceeded to show that matter,
in such an initial state of chaos, could never by natural laws convene
into our actual universe, or into any like system. He, lastly, accepted
the universal law of gravitation of all matter as a natural cause of
phenomena, as a matter of fact and not of hypothesis. That Newton
may see if he is tender enough how he engaged his name in this
matter, he quotes the following passage from the sermon: “Indeed as
to the cause and origin of this gravity Newton was pleased to de¬
termine nothing. But you will perceive in the sequel of this discourse
that it is above all mechanism or power of inanimate matter, and
must proceed from a higher principle and a divine energy and im¬
pression.” Bentley’s conclusion is obvious: Since the universe was
created and is now governed by a divine Providence, the operating
force of gravity cannot be an inherent property of matter acting
through a distance, but it is the power of the divine will exerted up¬
on matter.

Apparently, Newton had not thought much upon the philo¬
sophical foundation of his ideas nor had he gone deeply into the
conclusions which others would derive from his cosmic system. He
seems to have been quite content to consider the universe as a divine¬
ly created machine composed of certain mechanical parts, and

49 The original letters are in Trinity College Library. They were published as a separate
pamphlet in 1756, when they were reviewed by Dr., Johnson in the Literary Magazine.
They have since been published by Horsley, Op. Newtoni, Vol. IV, pp. 429-442. The
understanding of these letters has been much aided by the publication of Bentley’s letter of
enquiry to Newton by Brewster. Cf. Vol. II, p. 463.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION

377

operating according to prescribed laws. The sole business of the
natural philosopher was to discover by observation and experimen¬
tation the construction and principles of this machine; and, from
the data so obtained, derive mathematically their consequences. He
thus limited science to the investigation of a mechanical world from
which had been abstracted all phenomena of life, of will, and of
consciousness. So he answered Bentley with that baffling tone of
detached diffidence, which he often exhibited when some of his
work was criticised or questioned, and which fastened on him the
opinion that he was exceedingly modest. But, it should be re¬
membered, that he was unbendingly firm in his convictions and in¬
different to criticism on questions he had deeply meditated. He ex¬
pressed this diffidence in the opening passage of his third letter: “The
hypothesis of deriving the frame of the world, by mechanical prin¬
ciples, from matter evenly spread through the heavens, being incon¬
sistent with my system, I had considered it very little before your
letters put me upon it.” The tentative groping for an answer to
Bentley’s questions is so apparent that Dr. Johnson’s remark is
sound, when he said that, “The principal question of these letters
gives occasion to observe how even the mind of Newton gains ground
gradually upon darkness.”

Newton began his series of three letters to Bentley with a statement
of his purpose when he wrote his Principia, which will certainly
sound strangely to modern ears that have come to regard science
as an end in itself,—a discipline able to displace religion rather than
to uphold it. “When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had
an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men,
for the belief of a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to
find it useful for that purpose. But, if I have done the public any
service this way, it is due to nothing but industry and patient
thought.”

After stating his purpose, Newton then answers Bentley’s ques¬
tions. He first postulates matter, throughout all space, to be uni¬
formly distributed in the beginning, and every particle to have an
innate force of gravity towards all the rest. He then considers two
cases. If space were finite then the mutual forces of gravity would
cause all the matter to drift down to a centre and there form one
great spherical mass which is contrary to fact. If space, however,
were infinite, there would be no central point, and matter could not
concentrate into one mass; but some matter would fall towards one

ISAAC NEWTON

378

point and some towards another, so as to make an infinite number
of great masses, scattered at great distances from one another
throughout infinite space, such as is exhibited by the positions of the
stars. But, whatever primary arrangement of matter might have
existed, it was his settled conviction that the motions, the orderly ar¬
rangement, and the orbits of the planets could not spring from any
natural cause, but must have been impressed upon them by an
intelligent agent. Dr. Johnson made the comment that matter dis¬
tributed through infinite space either must have been created or be
eternal. If it was created, then it infers a creator; if eternal, it must
have remained evenly spread from eternity, and so would not ever
begin to coalesce except by a cause beginning to act as it never had
before. This objection to a uniform distribution of matter, he con¬
tinued, Sir Isaac seems by degrees to have understood since in a sec¬
ond letter, he changes his hypothesis to the extent of admitting that
to begin to move, matter would originally have to be unevenly dis¬
tributed in order to create a multitude of bodies. But as Dr. Johnson
again pointed out; if matter were ever unevenly spread, its motion
towards centres would be coincident with its existence. Newton’s
dilemma is obvious. If space be finite, the imagination insists on a
boundary and enquires of what it consists and what is beyond. If
space be infinite, then we cannot postulate an even distribution of
matter for space and matter would be identical. In his last two letters,
Newton, apparently, clearly recognised the futility of speculating on
an initial state of the universe, or on the causes of its development.
The function of science should be limited to an investigation of those
natural phenomena which exist now and can be perceived objec¬
tively by our senses.

There seems to be much ignorance about his conception of gravity
as an inherent property of matter, or as an occult force. I shall give
two quotations from these letters which should make his attitude
clear and explicit. “I would now add,” he wrote, “that the hypothesis
of matter being at first evenly spread through the heavens is, in my
opinion, inconsistent with the hypothesis of innate gravity, without
a supernatural power to reconcile them; and therefore it infers a
Deity.” This is the postulate assumed by both Kant and Laplace in
their nebular hypotheses as the primordial state of a universe which
was to be dependent only on natural causes. It was Newton’s deeper
insight which made him recognise that matter evenly distributed
throughout space and acted upon only by gravity must remain in

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 379

that state forever unless the balanced force of gravity was disturbed
by some supernatural cause. Again: “It is inconceivable, that in¬
animate brute matter should, without the mediation of something
else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter
without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation, in the sense of
Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why
I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity
should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body
may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the
mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and
force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an ab¬
surdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be
caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but
whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the con¬
sideration of my readers.”

When men of science attempt to explain the nature of space, time,
and substance, to picture an initial state of the universe, or even to
deal with the universe as a whole, they are so far outside the field of
science that their conclusions are mere empty words, without signifi¬
cance. Science is, by its very nature, restricted to problems based on
our sense perceptions and capable of experimental observation.
Space, time, and substance are postulates, accepted as true, on which
science is built and by which phenomena are explained; to derive
their properties, in turn, from the conclusions derived from them is
but a vicious argument in a circle which gets us nowhere and has no
end. To assert the contrary, is to subscribe to the belief that we can
attain an absolute knowledge of phenomena. It is the most striking
evidence of the sanity of Newton’s genius that, while he speculated
on such problems because of the natural curiosity of the mind, he
saw they could not be included in the scientific method. The con¬
clusion of such speculations always ended with him in the acceptance
of a divine Providence, of whose design we have an intuitive knowl¬
edge sufficient for us to predict with considerable accuracy a limited
order of events. True science to him, and ultimately the idea must
be accepted by all of us, is restricted to the world of the finite in
space, time, and substance; both the infinitely large and the infinitely
small are inaccessible to discovery through our sense perceptions and
by science.

The greatest minds have speculated on the cosmic problems. Des-

380

ISAAC NEWTON

cartes’s world of pure extension is an abstraction which could never
start its operation of grinding the cosmic dust and creating planetary
vortices except by the initial jog of an outside power. And his glit¬
tering edifice has dissolved in a mist of meaningless words. The
nebular hypotheses of Kant and Laplace, independently evolved from
Newtonian dynamics and so like each other as to be one of the
striking coincidences of chance, fail to give any clear and exact ideas,
and crumble at the test of an enquiring mind. It would have been
jejune to have discussed Bentley’s and Newton’s confutation of
atheism by scientific empiricism if there were not still existent the
lingering hope that science has the key to unlock those impenetrable
mysteries. It is a matter of the deepest regret that Professor Einstein,
after his efficient service in extending Newton’s ideas of the relativity
of our knowledge, should, with his followers, have then plunged in¬
to a peculiarly aggravated case of propounding a positive and ab¬
solute system of space, time, and energy. They have, in essence,
thrown science, which had emerged from the Renaissance into a sane
and powerful method, back into the spirit of the Middle Ages. If
they succeed, our conception of the objective world will be as dog¬
matic, and as foreign, to our common sense perceptions as were the
cosmic ideas of the monks. They created a world founded on a
pre-supposed divine revelation, and we are creating another with no
more substantiality than mathematical symbols and formulae.

It is necessary to return to Newton’s personal affairs. There is
evidence that his health had not been good for some years and
towards the end of 1693, his condition assumed an alarming and
sinister aspect, as he showed signs of serious mental disturbance. This
illness has been clouded by mystery and conflicting reports; some
have tried to pass it off lightly, and others have so exaggerated it
that they regarded it as the dominant influence in all his later life.
We have now sufficient material from which to present an accurate
and reasonable statement of its character and effects.

This illness has been laid to many causes,—to an intense desire to
obtain office, social position and wealth, followed by a morbid
chagrin because of repeated failures to satisfy this ambition; to men¬
tal shock due to a mysterious fire which destroyed a mass of cher¬
ished manuscript; to religious excitement; to depression of spirit be¬
cause his scientific work had not received a sympathetic and proper
appreciation. But, these supposed causes are not in accordance with

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 381

his character and temperament, either before, or after, this period of
his life. At no other time, did he show any solicitude for wealth or
popular approval, rather the contrary; and his disposition was
equable and serene except in rare cases; even during his personal con¬
troversies his conduct gave no evidence of unrestrained passion.
Why, then, should we suppose that passionate emotions so intense as
to cause physical and mental derangement were created by desires
which did not exist at any other period of his life? Is it not alto¬
gether simpler, and more probable, to regard them as symptoms
and results of his illness, and to seek for its cause elsewhere,—
especially so since, when he recovered his health, these morbid symp¬
toms disappeared and never again returned ? Nor, does the cause of
his illness seem difficult to find.

If the reader will examine carefully the account which Humphrey
Newton gave of Newton’s manner of life during the strenuous years
devoted to the composition of the Pnncipia , 50 a feeling of wonder
will arise that he survived such a total neglect of the fundamental
rules of health. It is an extraordinary chronicle of absolute careless¬
ness about food, lack of sleep, total absorption in profound thought
during long hours broken by feverish activity in his laboratory. His
nervous state is graphically pictured by his incessant restlessness, and
interminable pacing up and down his room. Is it surprising that re¬
lief from this pressure was followed by an attack of what is now
familiarly known as nervous prostration ? In the autumn of 1692, he
complained of sleeplessness and loss of appetite. His letters clearly
show signs of his despondency and loneliness; he began to have the
idee fixe of a conspiracy against him and that his dearest friends were
deserting him or treacherously trying to thwart his desires. At the
same time, his work showed no confusion of mind; his philosophical
letters to Bentley, his theological writings, his mathematical and
chemical work are as sane and clear as usual; his perturbation exists
only in an uncontrollable exaggeration of his naturally jealous and
suspicious temperament.

Newton’s condition finally aroused the apprehension of his friends
who had, evidently for some time, been puzzled by his conduct. The
first definite news came from Pepys. They had become acquainted
during Newton s term in Parliament, and although Pepys was now
out of office, he was still a man of influence, and maintained his
eager desire to associate with learned men. Shortly after Boyle’s

50 Cf. Chap. VII, pp. 246, 249.

ISAAC NEWTON

382

death, he wrote to Evelyn: “Pray let Dr. Gale, Mr. Newton, and
myself, have the honour of your company to-day, forasmuch as Mr.
Boyle being gone, we shall want your help in thinking of a man in
England fit to be set up after him for our Peireskius, besides Mr.
Evelyn.” 51 That Newton was suffering from a pronounced attack of
nervous prostration, and that he was a victim of mental delusion in
so far as to believe in a conspiracy against him, is only too certain
from a letter he wrote to Pepys with no apparent cause as there is no
evidence of his being in trouble or embroilment.

Newton to Pepys

September 13, 1693.

Sir,—Some time after Mr. Millington had delivered your message, he
pressed me to see you the next time I went to London. I was averse;
but upon his pressing consented, before I considered what I did, for
I am extremely troubled at the embroilment I am in, and have
neither ate nor slept well this twelve-month, nor have my former
consistency of mind. I never designed to get any thing by your in¬
terest, nor by King James’s favour, but am now sensible that I must
withdraw from your acquaintance, and see neither you npr the rest
of my friends any more, if I may but leave them quietly. I beg your
pardon for saying I would see you again, and rest your most humble
and most obedient servant, j s n ewton . 62

Pepys was dumfounded by such a letter and, not knowing how to
answer it, he wrote first to Millington to enquire casually whether
Newton was ill. After he received an equally vague answer, his fears
were increased, and he then wrote the following letter that he might
have explicit news.

Pepys to Millington

September 26, 1693.

Sir,—After acknowledging your many old favours, give me leave
to do it a little more particularly upon occasion of the new one con-

51 Pepys Diary and Correspondence, ed. Braybrooke. Dr. Gale was one of the Sec. R. S.,
and Nicholas Peiresc was held to be the type of what a learned and accomplished man
ought to be.

62 Cf. Brewster, Vol. II, pp. 142-146, for this and the succeeding letters which were in
Lord Braybrooke’s collection. Millington was a Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge,
Pepys’s Alma Mater. Brewster gives the erroneous impression that Pepys was then Secre¬
tary to the Admiralty. He, of course, lost his position when James lost his throne. The
error is of some importance as it makes Newton’s disclaimer of seeking Pepys’s and King
James’s favour a stronger evidence of his mental perturbation.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION

383

veyed to me by my nephew Jackson. Though, at the same time, I
must acknowledge myself not at the ease I would be glad to be at
in reference to the excellent Mr. Newton; concerning whom
(methinks) your answer labours under the same kind of restraint
which (to tell you the truth) my asking did. For I was loth at first
dash to tell you that I had lately received a letter from him so sur¬
prising to me for the inconsistency of every part of it, as to be put into
great disorder by it, from the concernment I have for him, lest it
should arise from that which of all mankind I should least dread
from him and most lament for,—I mean a discomposure in head,
or mind, or both. Let me, therefore, beg you, Sir, having now told
you the true ground of the trouble I lately gave you, to let me know
the very truth of the matter, as far at least as comes within your
knowledge. For I own too great an esteem for Mr. Newton, as for a
public good, to be able to let any doubt in me of this kind concern¬
ing him lie a moment uncleared, where I can have any hopes of
helping it.—I am, with great truth and respect, dear Sir, your most
humble and most affectionate servant, ^ Pepys 63

Millington to Pepys

Coll. Magd. Camb., Sept, the 30, 1693.
Honor’d Sir,—Coming home from a journey on the 28th instance at
night, I met with your letter which you were pleased to honour me
with of the 26th. I am much troubled I was not at home in time
for the post, that I might as soon as possible put you out of your gen¬
erous pain that you are in for the worthy Mr. Newton. I was, I
must confess, very much surprised at the enquiry you were pleased
to make by your nephew about the message that Mr. Newton made
the ground of his letter to you, for I was very sure I never either re¬
ceived from you or delivered to him any such; and therefore I went
immediately to wait upon him, with a design to discourse him about
the matter, but he was out of town, and since I have not seen him,
till upon the 28th I met him at Huntingdon, where, upon his own
accord, and before I had time to ask him any question, he told me
that he had writ to you a very odd letter, at which he was much con¬
cerned; added, that it was in a distemper that much seized his head,
and that kept him awake for above five nights together, which upon
occasion he desired I would represent to you, and beg your pardon,

53 Brewster II, p. 143.

384

ISAAC NEWTON

he being very much ashamed he should be so rude to a person from
whom he hath so great an honour. He is now very well, and,
though I fear he is under some small degree of melancholy, yet I
think there is no reason to suspect it hath at all touched his under¬
standing, and I hope never will; and so I am sure all ought to wish
that love learning or the honour of our nation, which it is a sign how
much it is looked after, when such a person as Mr. Newton lies so
neglected by those in power. And thus, honoured Sir, I have made
you acquainted with all I know of the cause of such inconsistencies
in the letter of so excellent a person; and I hope it will remove the
doubts and fears you are, with so much compassion and publicness
of spirit, pleased to entertain about Mr. Newton; but if I should
have been wanting in any thing tending to the more full satisfaction,
I shall, upon the least notice, endeavour to amend it with all grati¬
tude and truth. Honoured Sir, your most faithful and most obedient

SerVant> Joh. Millington. 54

Pepys to Millington

October 3d, 1693.

Sir,—You have delivered me from a fear that indeed gave me much
trouble, and from my very heart I thank you for it, an evil to Mr.
Newton being what every good man must feel for his own sake as
well as his. God grant it may stop here. And for the kind reflection
he has since made upon his letter to me, I dare not take upon me to
judge what answer I should make him to it, or whether any or no;
and therefore pray that you will be pleased either to bestow on me
what directions you see fit for my own guidance towards him in it, or
to say to him in my name, but your own pleasure, whatever you
think may be most welcome to him upon it, and most expressive of
my regard and affectionate esteem of him, and concernment for him.
I have a debt to acknowledge to you, (but was prevented in my last,
by the thoughts I was then overborne with in this matter,) from the
great satisfaction you was pleased to give me by your pupil (on
whose behalf I have lasting thanks also to pay you) to my enquiries
about Mr. Pyets, beseeching you to make the same scrupleless use of
me in whatever relation you can think me capable of rendering you
any service, for I would do it with great pleasure, remaining, dear
Sir, your most humble and most faithful servant, ^ 55

64 Brewster II, p.. 144.

55 Ibid., II, p. 145.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 385

It is quite clear from these letters that Newton, in his ordinary con¬
versation with strangers, appeared quite rational, it was only when
certain subjects were in his mind that his aberration was noticeable.
Pepys was apparently reassured and, two months later, he wrote to
Newton, wisely ignoring his incoherent letter and his health, and
merely expressing a continued friendship and good-will towards
him. At the time, the town was much interested in the mathematical
chances of the Groom-Porter’s lottery, and he took the liberty of
asking Newton to give a solution to a problem of dice throwing.
Newton’s answer is quite clear and calm, and he is anxious to assist
his friends upon all occasions. 56

But Newton was far from well. One can imagine the consterna¬
tion that Locke felt when, without warning, he received such a letter
as is given below. The letter to Pepys and the two following letters
to Locke can leave no doubt that he was on the verge of a total
mental collapse which, if not checked, would have led to insanity.
Nor can we doubt that the judicious and truly amiable replies of
Pepys and Locke had great influence in dissipating the hallucina¬
tions which were seizing him.

Newton to Loc\e

dll*}

Being of opinion that you endeavoured to embroil me with women
and by other means, I was so much affected with it, as that when one
told me you were sickly and would not live, I answered, ’twere bet¬
ter if you were dead. I desire you to forgive me this uncharitable¬
ness. For I am now satisfied that what you have done is just, and I
beg your pardon for my having hard thoughts of you for it, and for
representing that you struck at the root of morality, in a principle
you laid down in your book of ideas, and designed to pursue in an¬
other book, and that I took you for a Hobbist. I beg your pardon
also for saying or thinking that there was a design to sell me an
office, or to embroil me.

I am your most humble

And unfortunate servant,

At the Bull, in Shoreditch,
London, Sept. 16th, 1693. 57

Is. Newton.

66 There are four of these letters; three are published in Braybrooke’s Diary and Corre¬
spondence of Pepys and the fourth by Brewster, Vol. II, p. 471.

57 This and the two subsequent letters are printed in King’s Life of Loc\e, Vol. I, pp. 416-
420.

3 86

ISAAC NEWTON

Loc\e to Newton

Oates, Oct. 5th, 93.

I have been ever since I first knew you, so entirely and sincerely
your friend, and thought you so much mine, that I could not have
believed what you tell me of yourself, had I had it from any body
else. And though I cannot but be mightily troubled that you should
have had so many wrong and unjust thoughts of me, yet next to the
return of good offices, such as from a sincere good will I have ever
done you, I receive your acknowledgement of the contrary as the
kindest thing you could have done me, since it gives me hopes that I
have not lost a friend I so much valued. After what your letter ex¬
presses, I shall not need to say any thing to justify myself to you. I
shall always think your own reflection on my carriage both to you
and all mankind, will sufficiently do that. Instead of that, give me
leave to assure you, that I am more ready to forgive you than you
can be to desire it; and I do it so freely and fully, that I wish for
nothing more than the opportunity to convince you that I truly love
and esteem you; and that I have still the same good will for you as if
nothing of this had happened. To confirm this to you more fully, I
should be glad to meet you any where, and the rather, because the
conclusion of your letter makes me apprehend it would not be
wholly useless to you. But whether you think it fit or not, I leave
wholly to you. I shall always be ready to serve you to my utmost, in
any way you shall like, and shall only need your commands or per¬
mission to do it.

My book is going to the press for a second edition; and though I
can answer for the design with which I writ it, yet since you have
so opportunely given me notice of what you have said of it, I should
take it as a favour, if you would point out to me the places that gave
occasion to that censure, that by explaining myself better, I may
avoid being mistaken by others, or unawares doing the least preju¬
dice to truth or virtue. I am sure you are so much a friend to them
both, that were you none to me, I could expect this from you. But I
cannot doubt but you would do a great deal more than this for my
sake, who after all have all the concern of a friend for you, wish you
extremely well, and am without compliment.

[The draught of the letter is endorsed: “ J. L. to Is. Newton.”]

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 387

Newton to Locke
Sir,

The last winter, by sleeping too often by my fire, I got an ill habit
of sleeping; and a distemper, which this summer has been epidem¬
ical, put me farther out of order, so that when I wrote to you, I had
not slept an hour a night for a fortnight together, and for five nights
together not a wink. I remember I wrote to you, but what I said of
your book I remember not. If you please to send me a transcript of
that passage, I will give you an account of it if I can.

I am your most humble servant,

Is. Newton.

Cambridge, Oct. 5th, 1693.

I believe that Newton recovered entirely his health by the end of
the year; the last letters to Pepys and to Locke show that he had re¬
alised his condition, and his apologies express a pathetic humility
for his unwarranted attacks on them. We hear of no more trouble,
and the only permanent effect of his illness was a certain lassitude of
mind and unwillingness to engage in creative work. The Scotch
philosopher, Dugald Stewart, has left a beautiful tribute to Locke’s
character, in a comment on his letter, which deserves quoting: “For
the preservation of this precious memorial of Mr. Locke, the public
is indebted to the descendants of his friend and relation, the Lord
Chancellor King,” and he adds, speaking of Locke’s replv, “it is
written with the magnanimity of a philosopher, and with the good-
humoured forbearance of a man of the world; and it breathes
throughout, so tender and so unaffected a veneration for the good,
as well as great, qualities of the excellent person to whom it is ad¬
dressed, as demonstrates at once the conscious integrity of the writer,
and the superiority of his mind to the irritation of little passions”:
he concludes, I know nothing from Locke’s pen which does more
honour to his temper and character. 58

Academic circles are not entirely free from gossip, and we can not
doubt that rumours of the mental condition of so conspicuous a
member, as Newton, must have spread through the Common Rooms
of the Colleges. There is even some cause for believing that the ad¬
visability of at least investigating his sanity was discussed officially,

58 Ld. King’s Life of Loc\e, Vol. I, p. 416.

ISAAC NEWTON

388

and that the Chancellor placed him under the supervision of his
friends. At least, some persons believed that he had been confined,
for a time, in his rooms. There is, however, no certain evidence that
Newton was temporarily insane or that he was confined to his rooms;
but such rumours were certainly carried to the Continent, and must
have been more or less current in England. Biot, who was an ardent
admirer of Newton and who wrote a most appreciative life of him in
the Biographie JJniverselle, published there a letter from a Mr. Van-
swinden which is certainly authentic, and which has caused endless
discussion. In this letter, the following passage occurred: “There is
among the manuscripts of the celebrated Huygens, a small journal
in folio, in which he used to note down different occurences; it is
side Z., No. 8, page 112, in the catalogue of the library at Leyden:
the following extract is written by Huygens himself, with whose
hand-writing I am well acquainted, having had occasion to peruse
several of his manuscripts and autograph letters. On the 2 9th May,
1694, a Scotchman of the name of Colin, informed me, that Isaac
Newton, the celebrated mathematician, eighteen months previously,
had become deranged in his mind, either from too great application
to his studies, or from excessive grief at having lost, by fire, his chem¬
ical laboratory and some papers. Having made observations before
the Chancellor of Cambridge, which indicated the alienation of his
intellect, he was taken care of by his friends, and being confined to
his house, remedies were applied, by means of which he has lately so
far recovered his health as to begin to again understand his own
Principia. Huygens [Biot continues] mentioned this circumstance to
Leibniz, in a letter, dated the 8th of the following June, to which the
latter replied on the twenty-third: ‘I am very happy that I received in¬
formation of the cure of Mr. Newton, at the same time that I first
heard of his illness, which, without doubt, must have been most
alarming. It is to men like Newton and yourself, Sir, that I desire
health and a long life.’ ” 59

This anecdote bears the ear-marks of what, at least, was com¬
monly believed at the time to be Newton’s state of mind and health.

59 Biot’s Life of Newton, Eng. Trans, p. 25.—The original as written by Huygens is:
“1694, die 29 Maii, narravit mihi D.. Colin, Scotus, celeberrimum ac rarum geometram,
Ism. Newtonum, incidisse in phrenitin abhinc anno ac sex mensibus. An ex nimia studii
assiduitate, an dolore infortunii, quod in incendio laboratorium chemicum et scripta
quaedam amiserat. Cum ad archiepiscopum Cant. [Chan. Cantab.?] venisset, ea locutum,
quae alienationem mentis indicarent; deinde ab amicis cura ejus suscepta, domoque
clausa, remedia volenti nolenti adhibita, quibus jam sanitatem recuperavit, ut jam nunc
librum suum Principiorum intelligere incipiat.”

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 389

The mysterious fire here referred to has become one of the stock leg¬
ends about him, and is assigned by various writers to very different
periods of his life. The most popular and false account places the in¬
cident in London during his latter years, and should have a place
here in order to try to suppress it. The story is given in Maude’s
Wensleydale as follows: “His temper was so mild and equal, that
scarce any accidents disturbed it. One instance in particular, which
is authenticated by a person now living, (1780) brings this assertion
to a proof. Sir Isaac being called out of his study to a contiguous
room a little dog, called Diamond, the constant but incurious at¬
tendant of his master’s researches, happened to be left among the
papers, and by a fatality not to be retrieved, as it was in the latter
part of Sir Isaac s days, threw down a lighted candle, which con¬
sumed the almost finished labours of some years. Sir Isaac returning
too late, but to behold the dreadful wreck, rebuked the author of it
with an exclamation (ad sidera palmas) ‘Oh Diamond! Diamond!
thou little knowest the mischief done!’—without adding a single
stripe. This famous little dog, Diamond, is a mythological beast
which I have ventured to believe was created in the undergraduate
mind to relieve the solitude of a lonely scholar. I am quite willing to
believe that Newton did suffer the loss of some manuscripts by a fire,
but I am certain that such a loss would not unhinge the mind of
such a man as Newton. Dr. Stukeley, whose reminiscences are
trustworthy, stated that Newton, “wrote a piece of chemistry, ex¬
plaining the principles of that mysterious art upon experimental and
mathematical proof, and he valued it much; but it was unluckily
burned in his laboratory, which casually took fire. He would never
undertake that work again,—a loss much to be regretted. Mr. New¬
ton [i.e. Humphrey Newton] of this town, tells me likewise, that
several sheets of his Optics were burnt by a candle in his room, but I
suppose he could recover them again.” 60 But, Humphrey Newton,
in his letter to Conduitt, stated that he knew nothing of the Optics
being burned except by report as it happened before the Principia
was written; that is, before 1685. There is another account, which is
perhaps the most trustworthy of any, and it is important especially
for the reason that it was written in 1692 by an undergraduate. The
story he tells shows pretty clearly that rumours were current in the
University, and had even percolated down to the undergraduates, of
something mentally wrong with Newton. The anecdote, as I give it,

60 Portsmouth Collection. Also quoted by Brewster, Vol. II, p. 94.

39 °

ISAAC NEWTON

is in a manuscript diary of Abraham de la Pryme, a student then in
his second year of residence in St. John’s College. It is as follows:

“1692. Feb. 3d. What I heard to-day I must relate. There is one Mr.
Newton (whom I have very oft seen) Fellow of Trinity College,
that is mighty famous for his learning, being a most excellent Math¬
ematician, Philosopher, Divine, etc. He has been fellow of the Royal
Society these many years, and amongst other very learned books and
tracts he’s written one upon the mathematical principles of Philos¬
ophy, which has got him a mighty name, he having received espe¬
cially from Scotland abundance of congratulatory letters for the
same: but of all the books that he ever wrote there was one of colours
and light established upon thousands of experiments which he had
been 20 years of making, and which had cost him many hundred of
pounds. This book which he valued so much, and which was so
much talked of, had the ill luck to perish, and be utterly lost just
when the learned author was almost at putting a conclusion at the
same, after this manner:—

“In a winter’s morning leaving it amongst his other papers, on his
study table whilst he went to Chapel, the candle which he had un¬
fortunately left burning there too, catched hold by some means of
other papers and they fired the aforesaid book, and utterly consumed
it, and several other valuable writings, and which is most wonderful
did no further mischief.

“But when Mr. Newton came from Chapel and had seen what
was done, every one thought he would have run mad, he was so
troubled thereat that he was not himself for a month after. A long
account of this his system of light and colours you may find in the
Transactions of the Royal Society which he had sent up to them long
before this sad mischance happened unto him.” 61

There can be little doubt, from the evidence which has been
presented, that Newton had suffered a serious mental break-down
and it is very probable that, for a short time, he was subjected to
some form of oversight and restraint. If the latter be true, he soon re¬
covered from the attack, and was to all appearances his normal self.
His friends in London and Cambridge stifled, as far as possible, the
rumour which had spread to the continent. Wallis, for example
wrote to Waller, Secretary of the Royal Society, as late as 1695: “I

61 Edleston, p. lxi.

THE ALBAN AFFAIR AND THE REVOLUTION 391

have, since, a letter from Sturmius [a Professor of Mathematics in
Altdorf] which signifies that he had, some weeks before, received
the book I sent him. He sends me word of a rumor amongst them
concerning Mr. Newton as if his house and books and all his goods
were burnt, and himself so disturbed in mind thereupon, as to be
reduced to very ill circumstances. Which being all false, I thought
fit presently to rectify that groundless mistake.”

Opinions as to the permanent effect of Newton’s illness range
from that of Brewster to Biot’s. Brewster marshals his evidence, to
prove that his mind was not even temporarily affected, by citing his
letters to Bentley and other intellectual work. It needs no proof to
show that Newton was capable of clear and sustained philosophical
thought; but he may at the same time have been so obsessed with the
idea that his friends had forsaken him or were conspiring against
him as to have suffered from a mania of persecution and melan¬
choly. On the other hand, Biot regarded this illness as a critical
turning point in his life and the cause why “Newton, though only

forty-five [50] years old, never more gave to the world a new work
in any branch of science.”

If one examines Newton’s life with critical detachment he will be
forced to the conclusion that the regrettable traits of his character
were permanently intensified during the later half of his life. He be¬
came steadily more dictatorial, more suspicious, and more worldly.
His treatment of Flamsteed, of Leibniz, and of uncomplaisant mem¬
bers of the Royal Society, is hard to reconcile with his character as a
young man. When an obsession of persecution once seizes on a
mind so delicately adjusted, it is difficult to shake off and, in his case,
he found relief in the flattery which a new set of admirers was only
too ready to lavish upon him. Biot also thought his interest in re-
igion and theology was greatly intensified by his illness and, to sup¬
port that opinion, his theological works are assigned to a late period
of his life. But his correspondence with Locke proves quite the con¬
trary. His most important works, the Two Corrupt Passages in the
New Testament, his Interpretation of Prophesy, and his ChronoU
begun much earlier than 1691. His scientific work, which
resulted from his manual dexterity and his logical imagination, has
een so emphasized that we are apt to forget an equally strong trait
of imagination which caused him to meditate on the mystery of the
cosmos, the mystical doctrine of the Trinity and of the Prophecies,

392

ISAAC NEWTON

To assign the cause of his interest in religion either to fear, or to
mental debility, is to judge his character quite erroneously. It was
the natural outlet of a true piety and humility, and it aroused the
highest effort of his intellect and industry. The comparative value of
his scientific and theological work is not involved in the question.

CHAPTER XI

RELUCTANCE TO PUBLISH. THE LUNAR THEORY AND
CORRESPONDENCE WITH FLAMSTEED. APPOINT¬
MENT TO THE MINT

1 693-1696

T he friends of Newton were, at this time, deeply concerned
not only about his health and disquietude of mind, but also
lest his dilatoriness and reluctance to publish would rob him
and England of the glory of his discoveries. His work on light had
brought him fame, but he persistently refused to publish anything
further in that subject so long as Hooke was alive. It was known
that he had a mass of notes and manuscripts which recorded new
experiments on light, but the rumour was abroad that they, and
others on chemistry, had been burned, and that he refused to re¬
write them. And, in the meanwhile, other men were profiting by
his silence. His Pnncipia had been accessible to scholars for four or
five years but it was now out of print. A second revised and enlarged
edition was badly needed. In many places it was obscure; there were
many errors of print; but above all the theory of the moon’s motion,
its most striking application, had been merely sketched and needed to
be developed. Two young mathematicians, David Gregory and Fatio
de Duillier, had prepared voluminous notes on the text and were eager
to assist him in the editing. Duillier’s hopes in this direction have
een mentioned; Gregory s commentary on the Pnncipia extended
to 213 closely written folio pages and, in May, 1694, he visited in
Cambridge for the purpose of consulting the divine author [con-
sulendi divini autoris gratia.]” 1 His friends, however, could not
arouse him; he was sick, weary, and depressed; and the realisation of

the sort of letters he had written to Pepys and Locke must have added
to his depression.

In the fields of light and mechanics, his reputation was established;
but Wallis saw clearly the trouble he was laying up for himself by
his neglect in explaining and completing his discovery of the fluxions.
Leibniz had published his differential calculus in the Acta Erudi-
torum of Leipzig for 1684, in a form quite similar to that which he

1 Rigaud, p. 100.

393

394

ISAAC NEWTON

had described in his private letters to Newton. This calculus, cul¬
tivated by himself and the brothers, Bernoulli, had by 1695 become a
powerful tool, vivifying the whole field of mathematics and physics.
And, a year later, de FHopital published a treatise on the calculus so
systematic and so modern in treatment that it could be used today.
All Newton had done was to establish his priority of discovery by
writing to Leibniz that he had found some years previously a gen¬
eral method of finding curves and areas; but he had refused to ex¬
plain his method and had concealed it in a jumbled sentence. He
had, according to the opinion of most mathematicians, used his
fluxions to solve some of the problems in the Principia, but he had
translated them into Euclidean form and had omitted the analytic
solution. So in England, no progress was being made with fluxions,
and Wallis was anxious that the credit should be given to Newton
and his country.

Newton, to all appearances, seemed quite indifferent to the prog¬
ress of Leibniz’s work; he may even have been ignorant of it, but, in
the Principia, he had certainly acknowledged that Leibniz had dis¬
covered the calculus independently of any aid from himself. In a
Scholium to Proposition VII, Book II, he stated: “In a correspond¬
ence which took place about ten years ago, between that very cele¬
brated mathematician G. Leibniz and myself, I mentioned to him
that I possessed a method (which I concealed in an anagram) for de¬
termining maxima and minima, for drawing tangents, and for
similar operations, which was equally applicable both to rational
and irrational quantities: that illustrious man replied that he also
had fallen on a method of the same kind [se quoque in ejusmodi
methodum incidisse], and communicated to me his method, which
scarcely differed from mine, except in the notation and the idea of
the generation of quantities.”

This statement seems perfectly clear in its acknowledgement of
Leibniz’s independent discovery of the calculus, except for the pos¬
sibly ambiguous phrase he also had fallen on a method of the same
kind; this might be construed to mean that Leibniz had solved the
jumbled sentence and so had received a hint which was sufficient to
start the mind of so able a mathematician on the same road to dis¬
covery. If the reader, however, will refer back to what Newton here
calls his anagram he will grant that such a supposition is an absolute
impossibility. Biot 2 is quite justified in stating: “The above passage

2 Biot, Life of Newton, p, 30.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

395

in the Principia is in truth a formal recognition of Leibniz’s claims.
It was so considered by every one when it appeared, and during
twenty years Leibniz was allowed, without any dispute, to develop
all the parts of the differential calculus, and to deduce from it an
immense number of brilliant applications, which seemed to extend
the power of mathematical analysis far beyond any preconceived
limits.” Unfortunately, when the later controversy arose, Newton,
either on his own initiative or swayed by the influence of others, took
advantage of his ambiguous phrase and repudiated, in his third
edition, this honourable acknowledgement.

Wallis was, at this time, preparing his collected works for the press
and determined to include in them an account of Newton’s fluxions
in order to remedy as far as possible the unfortunate situation which
had arisen. At his urgent request, Newton wrote two letters, dated
27 August and 17 September, 1692, in which he gave the two Latin
sentences that he had so far successfully concealed. He also ex¬
plained briefly his method of fluxions and illustrated its power by
solving two problems. These letters, which Wallis included in his
own works, are thus the first information the public received of
Newton’s fluxions. 3

While Wallis’s works were still in the press, Leibniz, 7/17 March,
1693, wrote a most friendly and appreciative letter to Newton in
which, for the purpose of trying to renew their former correspond¬
ence, he expressed the hope to have something great from him on
tangents and quadratures. 4 Leibniz’s conduct towards Newton in
this whole matter had been above reproach. After explaining fully
his own method to Newton and giving him ample opportunity to
publish his discovery, there can be no question that he was fully
justified in making public his own calculus. Nor can we find any
fault with him for not mentioning in the Leipzig Acts the earlier
discovery of the fluxions by Newton, who might resent a reference

3 Wallis, Opera, Vol. II, p. 391. The second volume was published in 1693, the first in
1695; but false title-pages make them appear as of 1699, when the third volume was
published. When the controversy between Newton and Leibniz broke out, the question
of the dates of this publication became important. De Morgan {Essay, p„ 92, foot-note),
comments on this matter of dates: A person who reads Wallis’s collected works under the
date of 1699 easily convicts the author, as honest a man as ever lived, of the grossest un¬
fairness, upon his own testimony. He, also, in the preface to the first volume, excuses
himself from mentioning the differential calculus since he considered it merely a form of
the fluxions which Leibniz had grasped from the celebrated Oldenburg letters. Such a
statement goes to show that Wallis knew these letters from hearsay only and had, from that
national pride which seems to have animated all those who engaged in this unhappy
controversy, blindly neglected or misconstrued the plain facts of the case.

4 Raphson, Histona Fluxionum, London, 1715, pp. 119, 120.

ISAAC NEWTON

396

to what he, himself, had so persistently concealed. There is a fine
ring of sincerity to the statement Leibniz made some ten years later
when he gave his reason for publishing his first account of the cal¬
culus: “I made known the elements of the new analysis some years
ago; at the time, I was more concerned with its general use than
with my own fame, which I, perhaps, could have furthered better
if I had held back the method. But it is pleasant to me to see in the
gardens of others the fruit grown from seeds then scattered by me.” 5

This final appeal by Leibniz succeeded in drawing an answer from
Newton which should be read with careful attention. It has been
neglected by those who have tried to unravel their complicated
controversy, yet it throws a clear light on Newton’s earlier attitude
of mind. Only the first portion need be quoted; the latter part gives
an elegant solution, by his method of fluxions, of what Euler after¬
wards called a “celebrated problem much agitated amongst Geome¬
ters,” and a critique of Huygens’s theory of gravitation which are
now of no importance except to students of the history of mathe¬
matics. The letter, which was written in Latin, is as follows.

Newton to Leibniz

Celeberrimo Viro
Godefrido Gulielmo Leibnitio
Isaacus Newton S. P. D.

I did not reply to your letter immediately upon its receipt,—
because it escaped my attention from having been lost a long time
amongst my papers; it was not until yesterday that I came upon it
unexpectedly. This has greatly vexed me since I hold your friend¬
ship in the highest regard, and have considered you for many years
past to be one of the most eminent Geometers of this age, as I have
testified on every proper occasion. For, although I shun philosoph¬
ical and mathematical correspondence as much as I possibly can, yet
I feared lest our friendship might suffer some detriment if I re¬
mained silent and that, the more, since Wallis is about to publish
again his History of Algebra and will insert some new matter from
the letters which I sent to you formerly by Mr. Oldenburg, and thus
gave to me the occasion for writing to you concerning that fact. For,
he requested me to reveal a certain twofold method which I had con¬
cealed till then by transposed letters. Thus I was constrained to ex¬
plain, as briefly as I could, my method of fluxions which I had

5 Guhrauer, Biog. Liebniz, Breslau, 1846, p. 290.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

397

concealed in this sentence. Data cequatione quantitates quotcunque
fluentes mvolvente invenire fluxiones, et vice versa. I trust, also, that
I have written nothing which may displease you, and if there be
anything which you find worthy of blame that you will point it out
to me by letter, because I value friends more than mathematical in¬
ventions.Vale. 6

Dabam Cantabrigiae, Octob. 16/26, 1693.

We must not forget that this letter was written nine years after
Leibniz had published his calculus and during that time it had come
to be recognised on the continent as one of the fundamental dis¬
coveries in mathematics. Now, he writes this letter which no one
can read without the conviction that its author was sincere in his
warm expression of esteem, and in his mortification that his negli¬
gence might be construed as a discourtesy. Would anyone go out of
his way to testify to the distinction and genius of another if there
were even a suspicion in his mind that the man had been guilty of
gross plagiarism or had even received assistance from himself? The
idea is absurd. Note also, that Newton was deeply apologetic be¬
cause he had been persuaded to give Wallis the explanation of his
method and of his concealed sentences before he had imparted this
information to Leibniz. It is clearly an open acknowledgement that
the first information of his fluxions was due to Leibniz as a reciprocal
courtesy for the full and candid disclosure of the calculus which had
been made to him years before. And now, even though he had for¬
saken mathematics and so, by inference, would develop his method
no further, he wished to give his friend the meaning of his jumble
of letters and an illustration of how problems could be solved by
fluxions before they became public property. In the hope that he
has done the honourable thing, he calls their friendship to witness,
and begs for criticism if his statement of the case is not entirely
satisfactory.

How keen Wallis had become to conquer Newton’s reluctance to
publish is seen from the following letter:

Wallis to Newton

Sir, Oxford, Apr. 10, 1695.

I was in hopes of seeing you in Oxford last summer; which made
me neglect sending you (by the carrier) two cuts which belonged

6 Edleston, p. 276.

398 ISAAC NEWTON

to the volume you had before. They were not wrought off at the
rolling-press when you had the rest; but are easy to be inserted in
their proper places. I send them now, with the other volume; which
I desire you to accept. [Vols. I and II of his Collected Works.]

I understand (from Mr. Caswell) you have finished a treatise
about light, refraction and colours; which I should be glad to see
abroad. ’Tis pity it was not out long since. If it be in English (as I
hear it is) let it, however, come out as it is; and let those who desire
to read it, learn English. I wish you would also print the two large
letters of June and August [October] 1676. I had intimation from
Holland, as desired there by your friends, that somewhat of that
kind were done; because your notions [of Fluxions ] pass there with
great applause, by the name of Leibniz s Calculus Differentialis . I
had this intimation when all but (part of) the preface to this volume
was printed-off; so that I could only insert (while the press stay’d)
that short intimation thereof which you there find. You are not so
kind to your reputation (and that of the nation) as you might be,
when you let things of worth lie by you so long, till others carry
away the reputation that is due to you. I have endeavoured to do you
justice in that point; and am now sorry that I did not print those
two letters verbatim .

I understand you are now about adjusting the moon’s motions;
and, amongst the rest, take notice of that of the common centre of
gravity of the earth and moon as a conjunct body; (a notion which,
I think, was first started by me, in my discourse of the flux and reflux
of the sea.) And it must needs be of a like consideration in that of
Jupiter with his satellites, and of Saturn with his. (And I wonder
we have not yet heard of any about moon.) But Saturn and Jupiter
being so far off, the effects thereof are less observable by us than
that of the moon. My advice upon the whole, is, that you would not
be too slow in publishing what you do.

I am Sir

Your very humble Servant,

For Mr. Isaac Newton John Wallis. 7

Fellow of Trinity College and
Professor of Mathematics,
in Cambridge.

Nor was he content with a personal appeal to Newton, as he in
the same year enlisted the aid of others. He wrote to Waller, Secre-

7 Edleston, Newton’s Correspondence with Cotes, p. 300.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

399

tary of the Royal Society, to ask him to help and also to use his
influence with Halley. In answer, Waller wrote that, “Mr. Halley
has promised to write to Mr. Newton concerning those letters [those
written to Leibniz in 1676] you mention. I hope they may be pro¬
cured from him and thank you for the intimation thereof.” The
Royal Society, also, had aroused itself and on July 4, 1694, entered in
the Journal Boo\: “Ordered that a letter be written to Mr. Isaac
Newton praying that he will please to communicate to the Society
in order to be published his treatise of light and colours and what
other mathematical or physical treatises he has ready by him.” In
view of the fact that this action was taken in order to counteract the
fame of Leibniz, it is worth mentioning that he also wrote to the
Society urging them to persuade Newton to publish his further
thoughts and improvements on the Principia, and his other physical
and mathematical discoveries, lest his death should rob the world of
such valuable work.

The last appeal I shall cite is an extract from a letter of Wallis to
Halley: “I have written several letters to Mr. Newton about it [i .e.
printing the two letters] pressing with some importunity the print¬
ing of them, and of his treatise about light and colours (as being
neither just to himself nor kind to the public to delay it so long.)
As to the letters, I sent him a fair transcript ready for the press, 8
which if he would print, it might best be done here, (and I would
take the care of it). . . . But he did not seem forward for either.

. . . As to that about light and colours (for which I am more
solicitous) your interest may possibly prevail with him better than
mine to get it published.” 9 While the ostensible purpose of this pres¬
sure on Newton to publish was to protect his rights of discovery of
the calculus, there seems to me to have been a wide-spread fear that
his recent illness might result in mental incapacity, or death, and so
prevent his unfinished work from ever being completed.

The relations between Newton and Leibniz, at this time, can be
summarised as follows:

1. Newton had secured proof of the priority of his discovery of
the calculus by sending, as was frequently done at that time a con¬
cealed sentence, to Leibniz whose activity in the subject was to be
feared. He was satisfied with this proof of priority; but he did not

Newton s copies of them may have perished in the fire which destroyed a mass of other
papers, and, as Wallis supposed, Leibniz’s answers among them; see Wallis’s Works, III,
654, or Commerc. Epistol. 2d ed., pp. no and 211.

9 Edleston, Newton’s Correspondence with Cotes, p. 301.

ISAAC NEWTON

400

wish to publish his method because of the criticism his work on light
had aroused.

2. He admitted Leibniz’s subsequent and independent discovery
of a method similar to his own, and was indifferent to the public
reputation and use which followed from its publication.

3. After repeated solicitation, he permitted Wallis to publish in
his collected works the concealed sentences and just enough of the
method to show the world what it was; but he had lost interest in
natural philosophy, and was unconcerned whether or not it was
developed by others into a method for general use.

4. He was satisfied so long as Leibniz and a chosen few were
aware of his priority of discovery. This is in agreement with his
peculiar views on the question of rights of discovery. To him, a
new invention was the exclusive property of its discoverer whether
he published it or not; as he, himself, declared, no credit is due to a
second discovery even if done independently. It is needless to say
that it is the established custom to give the credit to the one who
first publishes a discovery.

5. He did not change this attitude until some of Leibniz’s par¬
tisans insinuated that he had received assistance from Leibniz. Then
he grew bitter; but he forgot that his own partisans had also accused
Leibniz of plagiarism. The sequel to the controversy will be told in
its proper place.

An incident occurred in May of the year, 1694, which gives an in¬
teresting side-light on the prevalent belief in ghosts amongst even
sedate and learned university dons, and the scornful disbelief in them
of Newton. A house opposite St. John’s College, occupied by a .Mr.
Valentine Austin, was thought to be haunted. A crowd of curious
people had gathered at the door and were watching three of the
Fellows, and a Fellow-commoner, of the college, who had rushed in
armed with pistols. It chanced that Newton passed by and seeing
several of the scholars gaping at the door, “Oh ye fools!” says he,
“will you never have any wit? Know you not that all such things
are mere cheats and impostures? Fie! Fie! go home for shame.”
And so he left them, scorning to go in. 10

It is to be expected that a man, who had developed his own ideas
so carefully as did Newton and who had passed his life in a uni¬
versity, would have very definite opinions on education. It is fortu¬
nate that we have two letters written by him at this time which give

10 Edleston, note 113, p. lxiv.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

401

quite fully his reflections on the subject. They show very clearly
that, however detached from the ordinary currents of life he may
have seemed to be, he had the gift of knowing how the minds of the
young should be disciplined. He might have been an excellent
school-master if his fate had placed him in that position. Edward
Paget had been appointed, as mentioned before, mathematical mas¬
ter at Christ’s Hospital on the recommendation of Newton and
Flamsteed. He found the scheme of study in mathematics for the
boys to be unsatisfactory and drew up a new one. Before accepting
his plan, the directors of the school sent the Treasurer, Mr. Hawes,
to Cambridge to advise with the Lucasian Professor, and other
mathematicians, and to get their opinions in writing as to the ad¬
visability of adopting the proposed changes. Newton, with his usual
care and thoroughness, sent an elaborate report and critique in a
letter to Hawes, enclosed in another to Paget. The letter is too long
to give in full and some of the particular recommendations are no*t
of general value, but certain portions are well-worth reading as they
are the only examples we have of his ideas on education and show
a generally unsuspected side of his character. 11 So much attention
has been concentrated on Newton’s transcendant scientific genius
that we are apt to overlook the fact that his meditations covered the
most diverse subjects and that his judgement was eminently sound on
both theoretical and practical matters. He would have attained
eminence in almost any profession in which he had engaged.

He first gave seven reasons for condemning the old scheme. “In
general, he concluded, the whole scheme is so confused and im-
methodical, as makes me think that they who drew it up, had no
regard to the order of the things, but set them down by chance as
they first thought upon them, without giving themselves the trouble
to digest and methodise the heap of things they had collected to¬
gether; which makes me of opinion, that it will not be for the
reputation of the foundation to continue this scheme any longer
without putting it at least into a new form.

“But then for the things it contains I account it but mean and of
small extent. It seems to comprehend little more then the use of
instruments, and the bare practice of seamen in their beaten road,
which a child may easily learn by imitation, as a parrot does to speak’
without understanding in many cases the reason of what he does; and
which an industrious blockhead, who can but remember what he

11 The letters and Newton’s own scheme are published in Edleston, pp. 279-299.

ISAAC NEWTON

402

has seen done, may attain to almost as soon as a child of parts, and he
that knows it is not assisted thereby in inventing new things and
practices, and correcting old ones, or in judging of what comes be¬
fore him: Whereas the mathematical children, being the flower of
the Hospital, are capable of much better learning, and when well
instructed and bound out to skillful masters, may in time furnish
the nation with a more skillful sort of sailors, builders of ships,
architects, engineers and mathematical artists of all sorts, both by

sea and land, than France can at present boast of.”

He was quite certain in his own mind of the advantage to be
obtained by a theoretical discipline for even the most practical of
professions. “ Tis true that by good natural parts some men have
a much better knack at mechanical things then others, and on that
account are sometimes reputed good mechanics, but yet without the
learning of this article, they are so far from being so, as a man of
a good geometrical head who never learnt the principles of geometry,
is from being a good geometer. For whilst mechanics consist in the
doctrine of force and motion, and geometry in that of magnitude
and figure: he that can’t reason about force and motion, is far from
being a true mechanic, as he that can t reason about magnitude and
figure from being a geometer. A vulgar mechanic can practise what
he has been taught or seen done, but if he is in an error he knows not
how to find it out and correct it, and if you put him out of his road,
he is at a stand; Whereas he that is able to reason nimbly and
judiciously about figure, force and motion, is never at rest till he
gets over every rub. Experience is necessary, but yet there is the
same difference between a mere practical mechanic and a rational
one, as between a mere practical surveyor or gauger and a good
geometer, or between an empiric in physic and a learned and a

rational physician.”

He also enclosed his own outline of the mathematical course best
suited to boys who are preparing themselves to be engineers. It fol¬
lowed Paget’s plan in the main in proposing a graded course be¬
ginning with arithmetic, followed by geometry, trigonometry and
navigation. His own contribution was to supplement the mathe¬
matical work by a study of the physical laws of force and motion.
It seems to me that, beginning with the correspondence with Locke,
his letters became more human and lose some of the dry formality
and constraint which mark his earlier style. This is shown in his
letter to Hawes, especially in its conclusion which is almost genial:

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

403

I will add, that if instead of sending the observations of seamen
to able mathematicians at land, the land would send able mathe¬
maticians to sea, it would signify much more to the improvement
of navigation and safety of men’s lives and estates on that element.
I hope Sirs you will all interpret my freedom in this letter candidly
and pardon what you may think amiss, because I have written it
with a good will to your Foundation, and now I have spoke my
thoughts I leave the whole business to the wisdom of yourself and
the Governors.” Not content with this counsel, he fortified it by a
second letter to Hawes in which he recommended the Governors
to investigate an outline of mathematical courses of instruction
drawn up by Sir Jonas Moore some fifteen or sixteen years pre¬
viously. He, himself, had examined this proposal and had found it
excellent, and, in addition, the support of a man of such wealth
and influence would be a great assistance to their Foundation. Sir
Jonas was an influential Fellow of the Royal Society and a most lib-
eral patron of science; amongst his other public benefactions, his
gifts of money and instruments to the Royal Observatory had en¬
abled Flamsteed to carry on the work when no funds were forth¬
coming from the public Treasury.

The proposed scheme of Paget, with Newton’s comments, was
then sent to Wallis and Gregory, at Oxford, who gave their opinion
and advice in a joint paper. It is significant of the importance which
education held in the minds of the Governors that it was only after
the approval of three such eminent men had been received that
they decided to make the change. In the meanwhile, the ill-fated
Paget had lost his position because of his drunkenness and loose
morals, and a Mr. Samuel Newton had succeeded him, largely on
the recommendation of his name-sake. Not content with securing
him the place, Newton in the following year wrote Hawes to explain
his reasons for his recommendation. “As for Mr. Newton, I never took
him for a deep mathematician, but recommended him as one who
had mathematics enough for your business, with such other qualifi¬
cations as fitted him for a Master in respect of temper and conduct
as well as learning. ... I thank you for your concern and pains in
behalf of Mr. Newton, and am very glad to understand that he
behaves himself so well. For tho’ I was almost a stranger to him
when I recommended him, yet since he was elected, I reckon myself
concerned that he should answer my recommendation. The ill-will
you may have got by your acting for him I perceive is but of little

ISAAC NEWTON

4°4

extent and cannot hurt you. Mr. Caswell’s friends at Oxford blame
his friend near London, and some of them think the place would
not have suited with his humour, so that I am satisfied you made
the best choice.” 12 The friend near London, who had recommended
Caswell for the position, was Flamsteed. The failure to defeat New¬
ton’s candidate and the blame for the appointment of Paget, which
seems to have been laid on Flamsteed, may have exasperated his
jealous and suspicious nature, and may account in part for the pique
which later appeared in his correspondence with Newton on the
subject of the moon’s motion. Newton’s interest in the Hospital
did not end with the adoption of the new curriculum. In 1696,
when he was in London in connection with his appointment to the
Mint, he visited the Hospital, examined its library, and gave his
advice on the purchase of books. Again, in the following year, he
examined five of the boys and found them perfected in their work,
except for a few particulars, and well qualified to be placed at sea
as apprentices. For this help he received the unanimous thanks of
the Committee. In the same year he was present at two of the Hos¬
pital meetings and served on a committee to determine how a gift
of £100 might best be spent on the mathematical library.

While Newton, apparently, turned a deaf ear to the solicitations
of others to publish, he had quietly taken up the work of correcting
errors in the Principia and of extending the law of gravitation to
various cosmic problems; the most difficult and the most interesting
of these was the theory of the moon’s motion. Next to the attraction
of the sun, it is readily seen that the moon exerts a greater effect on
the earth’s motion than any other of the heavenly bodies. Before his
discovery of the universal attractive force which determines the
paths of the planets, there could be no method of attacking the prob¬
lem except the roughly empirical one of plotting the successive posi¬
tions of the moon during a long period of time, and of attempting to
find from them such variations in its motion as could be shown to
be periodic in nature. The cause of such variations was entirely
unknown. As soon as Newton had discovered that there was an
actual force of attraction between every two bodies which depended
only on their masses and the geometrical distance between them, it
was at once seen that the attraction of the sun, and of the planets,
must constantly alter the speed and the course of the moon’s primary
elliptical orbit about the earth.

12 Edleston, p. 296.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

405

Could, then, a formula be derived from the law of gravitation, and
from the mutual distances of the bodies composing the solar system,
which would permit us to calculate with accuracy the future positions
of the moon ? He had shown that if the earth and moon could be
discussed as two bodies alone in space then its orbit would be a true
ellipse, drawn with the earth as a focus. But such a supposition is
entirely academic, and the actual path of our satellite, pulled simul¬
taneously by many bodies, is rather like the course of a drunken man
trying to follow a prescribed path, alternately hurrying and lingering,
and staggering from side to side. Owing to the small size of the
moon, the attraction of the sun and planets has a first order effect on
its path. The problem of calculating the position of the moon under
the combined pulls of the earth and the sun is the celebrated problem
of the three bodies and no general solution is attainable 5 if we add
to this problem the attraction of a fourth body, say Jupiter, we are
faced with one which has not even a particular solution.

Besides the influence of the sun and planets there are many other
causes of perturbation; for example, the common centre of gravity
of the earth and moon does not coincide with the centre of the earth
because of the relatively large mass of the moon; the equatorial belt
of the earth, the tides, the precession of the equinoxes, and all irregu-
larities in the earth s motion, have their effect. It is no wonder that
the cosmic system failed to account for even the major perturbations
of the moon. Before the time of Ptolemy only one was known, he
found a second, and Tycho Brahe discovered two others; these were
all that could then be discovered from observation. The first real im¬
provement in the lunar problem was made in 1638 by Jeremiah
Horrox, a most brilliant English astronomer who announced his
theory at the age of nineteen and died at the premature age of
twenty-two years. Newton, who followed the method of Horrox,
merely indicated the general principles of the moon’s motion in the
first edition of the Principia; it was not until the second edition ap¬
peared in 1713 that he developed, but still incompletely, those ideas
which have enabled his successors to perfect to such an extraordinary
degree the lunar theory. The great treatise of Professor Ernest
Brown distinguishes some thirty, or more, perturbations and cal¬
culates them with more or less accuracy.

Newton, to succeed in his attempt to develop the lunar theory, was
absolutely dependent on the most accurate observations of the suc¬
cessive positions of the moon available at the time. He seems to have

ISAAC NEWTON

406

been influenced to make a try at the general solution of the problem
by having accidentally seen a catalogue of 150 places of the moon
during a visit to the Royal Observatory. Flamsteed had noted them,
with the errors between the observed and computed positions indi¬
cated, for his own use and as a check on Horrox’s theory. With Flam¬
steed’s assistance in furnishing observations, he worked on the prob¬
lem persistently during the latter part of the year, 1694, and all the
year following, and more or less intermittently after that till some
time between 1698 and 1700. The results of this work were given in
the second edition of the Principia in 1713; but, while he there cor¬
rectly expounded the two principal perturbations of the moon and
had discussed four new ones, it would be erroneous to suppose that
the true positions of that satellite could be calculated with accuracy
from his work. As Flamsteed, with the bias for accuracy natural to
the foremost practical astronomer then living, pointed out to New¬
ton’s deep chagrin, the calculated and observed positions were not in
sufficient agreement for astronomical purposes, and it required the
labour of later men to bring them into harmony and to demonstrate
the reliability of the theory.

The alliance of two such men, if they could work together in in¬
tellectual amity and mutual good-will, would have been an ideal
combination. Unfortunately, they were temperamentally incom¬
patible and, although the work was done, it was accompanied by a
certain amount of ruffled spirits and rather petty bickering which was
magnified in importance by a bitter controversy which arose between
them at a later date. Both were what Locke termed men nice to deal
with. Flamsteed was carrying on his great catalogue of the stars un¬
der heart-breaking difficulties. He was, it is true, the Astronomer Royal
and was supposedly supported by the state; he had been given the title
and a building, but there royal patronage ceased. Almost no instru¬
ments had been provided, and he had been forced to equip his ob¬
servatory by borrowing what apparatus he could, by begging funds
from private benefactors such as Sir Jonas Moore, and by making
many with his own hands. He was wretchedly paid and had to use
his valuable time in giving private lessons and carrying on the duties
of a parish priest to eke out his income. But, perhaps, his greatest
distraction came from the lack of assistants and calculators so that
he had to spend much of his precious time in purely mechanical
work and to pay, out of his pocket, what help he did procure. Add to
all these difficulties the fact that he was frequently incapacitated for

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

407

work by attacks of headache and indigestion, and we can easily ac¬
count for, and excuse, his irritability, his intolerance of religious
scepticism, and his jealous insistence that his conquest of such dif¬
ficulties should be recognised. If we neglect these minor frailties, we
find him to be a man of great integrity, of high character, and of a
deep and sincere piety. Nor should we overlook the fact that Flam¬
steed held the high position of Astronomer Royal and was the most
distinguished observer of the age; it was, in itself, a generous act to
subordinate his own work to assist another to prove a theory which
could not be, at the time, certain of success. Neither Newton, nor he,
to say the least, was fitted for team-work.

The reputation and character of Flamsteed suffered deeply for
nearly a century and a half. It was generally believed, and quite un¬
justifiably, that he had wilfully and jealously withheld data in his
possession and necessary for Newton, and so had prevented the ac¬
complishment of this great achievement. This slur on Flamsteed’s
character was not only widely current in England, where it was
fostered by a concerted action to exalt Newton by detracting from
the reputation of anyone who ventured to oppose him, or was in¬
volved in the unfortunate controversies which marred his life; but,
it also spread to the continent and was believed there, as a letter of
Leibniz to the astronomer, Roemer, convincingly shows: “Flamsteed
withheld his observations of the moon from Newton. On that ac¬
count, they say he has as yet been unable to complete his work on
the lunar motion.” 13 And even now, whe,j the material to disprove
this unjust charge is accessible, a sinister reputation clings to Flam¬
steed as well as to Leibniz, so hard is it to dispel the illusion of the
unhuman perfection of Newton’s character.

The facts concerning the relations between Newton and Flamsteed,
both during this period and during their later and final rupture,
were not known till Francis Baily, who was himself an able astron¬
omer, published the Life of Flamsteed, 14 He was led into undertak¬
ing this work by accidentally learning that a neighbour had in his
possession a large collection of original manuscript letters of Flam¬
steed written to his former assistant, Abraham Sharp. On examina¬
tion, he found that they contained much new matter, connected with

13 Quoted by Edleston, p. Ixvii.

14 The full title of the book is: An Account of the Rev d John Flamsteed, The First
Astronomer Royal; compiled from his own manuscripts, and other authentic documents,
never before published. To which is added his British Catalogue of the Stars, corrected and
enlarged. By Francis Baily, Esq., Vice-President R. A. S. Printed by order of the Lords
Commissioners of the Admiralty. London, 1835.

408

ISAAC NEWTON

the astronomer’s labours, not generally known. Spurred on by this
find, Baily, with the assistance of the then Astronomer Royal, dis¬
covered a vast mass of manuscript books, papers, and letters, belong¬
ing to Flamsteed which had been lying, unnoticed and neglected,
on the library shelves of the Observatory for sixty years. After ar¬
ranging and minutely examining the manuscripts, he soon found
that the character of Flamsteed had not been properly presented by
his biographers and that, in justice to him, they should be published. 15
Baily’s proposal to undertake the work of publication was made in a
letter addressed to the Duke of Somerset, President of the Board of
Visitors of the Royal Observatory, and by him it was ordered to be
transmitted to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, with a
recommendation that it should be carried into effect. With the
compliance of the Commissioners, the work was printed at the public
expense. Because of the criticism directed against Baily for publish¬
ing a book which was held to disparage Newton, it should be noted
that a large majority of the Board of Visitors who recommended the
publication were men of science holding important positions, and its
chairman was ex officio the President of the Royal Society. The
propriety of issuing a work dealing with the life of an eminent man
of science and supported by such a recommendation should hardly
be a subject for discussion. The only life of Flamsteed available, at
the time was the one given in the General Dictionary, and his char¬
acter as there portrayed is so at variance with the facts accessible in
the documents and letters deposited in the Observatory that Baily
accused the editors of deliberately suppressing this information be¬
cause they considered it imprudent to risk an article reflecting so se¬
riously on the characters of two such men as Newton and Halley.
As he justly says: “These personal motives however have long passed
away, and now cease to exist: and however unpleasant and painful
it may be to an enlightened mind, to find two such eminent char¬
acters as Newton and Halley mixed up with subjects of the kind to
which I shall presently allude, and pursuing a line of conduct towards
Flamsteed, which tends to make them appear less amiable in our
eyes, yet a proper regard for truth and justice prevents any sup¬
pression, at the present day, of the many curious and important
(though often at the same time lamentable) facts which these manu-

15 Baily (cf. p. xvi, note) particularly notes, “Sir David Brewster, in his recent life of
Newton, has (by a singular error, to which I have alluded more at length, in page
xxxiii) exhibited Flamsteed also in a character which he by no means deserves, and which
indeed is totally at variance with Flamsteed’s whole history.”

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

409

scripts have, for the first time, now brought to light.” He adds that
he had tried to find documents which would explain and extenuate
the conduct of Newton and Halley but, to his regret, without suc¬
cess ; for this purpose, he searched the British Museum, the libraries
of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Vortsmouth Collection.

Of Flamsteed, he says, that his dominating characteristic was his
interest in religion and that he would have followed whole-heartedly
the life of a clergyman if his bodily weakness had not prevented an
active career. Towards Newton, Flamsteed felt a high esteem and,
till their final rupture, always spoke of him with the greatest respect:
“Mr. Newton’s approbation is more to me (exclaimed Flamsteed)
than the cry of all the ignorant in the world.” And even after their
total breach of friendship, he wrote in a letter: “I believe him to be
a good man at the bottom; but, through his natural temper, sus¬
picious.” 16 This opinion is in agreement with that of others who
came in close contact with him. We must remember also that all
through their first intercourse their relations were friendly and
courteous, except for occasional bickering; and the coolness, which
afterwards developed into active hostility, did not show itself till
Newton moved to London. Even then, Flamsteed says that he some¬
times visited him in Jermyn Street; that they were civil towards each
other, but that Newton was not as friendly as formerly. 17

The first hundred pages of Baily’s book contain Flamsteed’s diary
of his life written principally to vindicate his own conduct towards
Newton and Halley, and to preserve a record of the difficulties he en¬
countered in carrying on his work and in equipping the Observa¬
tory. This historical account is followed by all of Flamsteed’s corre¬
spondence which the editor could find. Of the 281 letters published,
the correspondence with Newton consists of nineteen letters written
between October 7, 1694 and September 14, 1695, 18 together with two
before that date which have been previously referred to, and eighteen
later ones which will be considered in their proper time. The sec¬
ond part comprises the corrected and enlarged British Catalogue of
Stars, 19 followed by voluminous notes and comments of the editor. 20
The book concludes with a supplement, printed two years later, in
which Baily reviews his earlier opinions, and justifies his action in
publishing the book in spite of the virulent attacks which had been
directed against him.

16 Baily, pp. xx-xxii.
19 Ibid., pp. 365-505.

17 Ibid., p. xxxii.

20 Ibid., pp. 506-672.

18 Ibid., pp. 133-160.

410

ISAAC NEWTON

We can hardly understand the excitement and indignation with
which the book was received, nor the contempt which was directed
against its author for making public a matter which reflected on the
character of Newton. We can ascribe these attacks only to the
idolatry which had grown up about his character as well as about his
intellectual genius, and the determination to suppress all facts which
in any way ran counter to this ideal. In adopting this method of sup¬
pression, two important considerations were forgot; rumours had
always been current that Newton had unfortunate temperamental
weaknesses and, like all rumours, they exaggerated his failings and
imputed them to malice. In the second place, simple justice required
that other men, of high attainments and character, should be vin¬
dicated ; there are few things more contemptible than to whiten the
character of one man by blackening that of another. The truth was
bound to come out at some time and it was fortunate that the un¬
grateful task was undertaken by such a man as Francis Baily. He
was a man of sterling character, an astronomer of repute, and he was
actuated by no mean nor scandalmongering motives. He presented
all the documents he could find with verbal accuracy; he rendered a
fine service to science by making accessible a most valuable astro¬
nomical work of his country’s first Astronomer-royal; his prefatory
comment was moderate and restrained, and expressed his deep re¬
gret that Newton and Halley appeared in an unamiable light. Even
after his own motives were assailed, and he felt it necessary to justify
himself, he refrained from bitterness.

It is expedient to consider Baily’s defense and Brewster’s attitude
towards the book at some length; if for no other reason than that
Brewster’s Life of Newton is still the standard work from which most
persons’ knowledge and estimate of Newton are derived. As I have
said before, I have been forced to the conviction that the book is a
singularly unreliable work. The facts as given are correct but, as the
author himself confesses, he felt it to be his duty as a biographer not
to publish facts, which were not generally known and which he had
discovered from documents privately owned, if they detracted from
the personal character of his hero. A second serious defect is that it
depicted Newton as an independent genius; it thus fails to give his
predecessors and contemporaries due credit for their work; nor does
it trace their influence on his ideas. The third fault is that a his¬
torical background to Newton is almost totally missing. Brewster
seems, at least, to have been but very slightly acquainted with the life

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

4 11

and thought of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Now, the
political, religious, and even literary ideas of the time had a pro¬
found effect on Newton’s ideas and life. Brewster hardly considers
them and, when he does, his apparent ignorance of the philosophy
of life in its general sense, and his unfamiliarity with the mode of
expression and even of the language of the period, make him in¬
capable of giving an accurate or useful critique. But the gravest de¬
fect of the book lies in the fact that Brewster adopts the role of the
advocate instead of the historian. He was too honourable to suppress
the truth, or at least to give false evidence, but having convinced
himself that Newton was perfect in character he so presents each
event in his life that Newton’s conduct appears to be quite justified.
We get no lights and shadows, and, as a result, the reader is left to
wonder what really was his character, what were his motives, why
was his life so marred by quarrels, and even whether he was a human
being at all. We owe to Brewster a great debt of gratitude for the im¬
mense amount of new material which he discovered, but he failed to
give us a philosophical and critical life of Newton because he failed
to penetrate his character. Like most historians of science, his narrow
and specialised training unfitted him to treat his subject historically
or critically. Students of science learn only the theories and ex¬
perimental discipline fashionable in their day and are lamentably
ignorant of the historical background of their subject.

Baily, in the supplement to his book 21 discusses the charges made
against Flamsteed under two heads:

“i- That Flamsteed did not understand, and therefore could not
justly appreciate, Newton’s theory of gravitation, and more espe¬
cially his new theory of the moon; consequently, he was not fully
aware of the great assistance that could be afforded, by his observa¬
tions, in the formation and verification of that theory.”

“2. That Flamsteed showed an unwillingness, and even an ob¬
jection, to furnish Newton with the requisite lunar observations to
enable him to perfect that theory; a reluctance which consequently
endangered the completion of that important work.”

Baily treats the first of these charges at length. He proves that
Newton’s lunar theory was based on the work of Horrox, and that
Flamsteed had known and studied the theory for thirty years. In fact
the observations on the moon, which gave Newton the incentive to
undertake the problem and enabled him to succeed, were collected

21 Baily, p. 677.

412

ISAAC NEWTON

for the purpose of comparing the calculated with the observed posi¬
tions of the moon. But, such a detailed discussion of this first charge
should have been unnecessary. It is absurd, on the face of it, to sup¬
pose that one of the ablest living astronomers did not understand, and
appreciate, the value of the lunar theory; or that he did not know ac¬
curate observations were essential to its development and verifica¬
tion. He may have been in doubt whether Newton could satisfac¬
torily apply his law of gravitation to its solution, but he certainly
showed a willingness, and even eagerness, to aid him to put it to the
test.

As for the second charge, Baily points out that Flamsteed at once
sent, on Newton’s first request, 150 observations of the moon’s posi¬
tions and shortly added thirteen more. On examination of the second
volume of Flamsteed’s Historia Ccelestis, Baily found that they com¬
prised all of the lunar observations made by him up to that time. 22
He then examined each letter of their correspondence and shows, as
the reader may verify, that at each future request made by Newton
for more observations, Flamsteed sent, as promptly as possible, all the
additional observations which he had been able to make and com¬
pute in the interval. There was, at times, some delay which was
shown to be due to unpropitious weather, illness, or necessary at¬
tention to his parochial duties. Newton, on the other hand, who
seemed in a feverish haste at times to finish the work, did not hesi¬
tate to delay it on account of short journeys home, or for other busi¬
ness. Towards the close of the correspondence, although Newton
had written to him an almost insulting rebuke, 23 Flamsteed returned
good for evil by offering to transcribe and to send all his approximate
observations with the sextant which he had made from 1679 to 1690.
The friendly correspondence was then renewed, and Newton’s last
letter proves that it was he, and not Flamsteed, who stopped the
work, since he wrote: “I am newly returned from a journey I lately
took into Lincolnshire, and am going on another journey: so that I
have not yet got any time to think of the theory of the moon; nor
shall I have leisure for it this month or above: which I thought fit to
give you notice of, that you may not wonder at my silence.” On the
back of this letter, Flamsteed noted his answer as follows: “My dis¬
temper abates; the pains of my head are not greater, but I am
rarely free from them but when I am travelling. I am setting on that
work that was interrupted by them in the spring. My exercise will

22 Baily, p., 711. 23 Cf. infra, the letter of June 29, 1695.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

4 i 3

devour no small part of my time, and therefore I shall desire my
friends to excuse me if I answer not their letters so fully nor readily
as formerly; however, when you want more of my lunar observations
I shall cause them to be transcribed, and it will be no trouble.”

Flamsteed’s only stipulations, before he gave to Newton his in¬
valuable personal observations, were that he would not communicate
the data to anyone, and would not impart the theoretical results ob¬
tained from them to anyone else, without his consent. The request
that his w T ork should be protected, lest anyone else should use it for
his own benefit, was directed specifically against Halley whom he
hated and feared. But, as a general stipulation, it was a perfectly
proper one to make, and Newton promised categorically to respect it.
Flamsteed records in his autobiography: 24 “Nevertheless he im¬
parted what he derived from them, both to Dr. Gregory and Mr.
Halley, contra datam fidem. The first of these conditions I was not
much concerned whether he kept or not: but he has, I believe, kept
it. The latter (which was the most material) he has forgot or broke.”
In confirmation of Newton’s breach of promise, Baily 25 states that,
when Gregory published his Astronomiac Elcmenta in 1702, he in¬
troduced as a Scholium, in page 332, what he designated as Newton’s
lunar theory and claimed it to be given in the very words of its
author,— “ipsis auctoris verbis expressam.” Brewster, even, admits
the grave charge, but excuses it in these extraordinary words: “His
connexion with Flamsteed had ceased for many years, and there¬
fore the brief notice of the lunar theory which he communicated to
Gregory in June, 1702 [rather quick work as Gregory’s book was
published the same year,] could not be considered as a breach of the
condition under which Flamsteed brought him.” 26 Then he quotes
an unpleasant incident quite foreign to the subject and given only by
Rigaud, “that the reader may be sufficiently aware of the rash
charges which Flamsteed never scrupled to make against those who
displeased him,” and so he raised a smoke-cloud to conceal his own
admissions.

It is an extraordinary commentary on Brewster’s historical method
that, after railing against Baily for publishing the correspondence,

24 Baily, p. 62. 25 p> 533.

2 ® Brewster, Vol. II, p. 167, foot-note. It should be remembered that Newton and Flam¬
steed were both living in London after 1696, that they visited each other, and that letters
passed between them in 1698 about the lunar theory and again in 1700, so that Brewster’s
“many years” was at most four and probably only two. Also Flamsteed, being near at
hand, could with less effort be given the results than Gregory who was in Oxford,

4 i4

ISAAC NEWTON

after being unmercifully severe on Flamsteed’s character, and after
categorically stating that, “In consequence of the delay in getting
Flamsteed’s observations, he [Newton] was not able to proceed any
farther with the lunar theory,” 27 he calmly concludes his discussion,
a few pages later, by admitting that Baily had completely exonerated
Flamsteed of the charges made against him: “We have no hesitation
in saying, that the two charges against Flamsteed of ignorance of the
importance of the theory of gravity, and of unwillingness to supply
Newton with the observations he required for his lunar theory, have
no sufficient foundation. With the exception of those occasional
bursts of spleen against Halley, which must have been annoying to
his friend, his letters to Newton, though sometimes of an irritating
tendency, are yet respectful, and even affectionate, and exhibit not
only a willingness, but an anxious desire to supply him with every
observation he possessed and even to make and to reduce new ob¬
servations expressly for his use.” 28

Not even Baily would claim more. The historian, who sets out to
write the life of a man with the intention of not permitting himself
to admit any faults, or weaknesses, in him, is driven into desperate
straits and subjects himself to grave criticism. Brewster, because he
was an honourable man, does admit the truth when he cannot avoid
it, but he does so only after he has first made a vicious attack on
those who force him to acknowledge the faults of his hero. While he
admitted that Baily had cleared Flamsteed of a serious blot on his
character and on his scientific reputation, he is outraged because the
admission has reflected on Newton’s character. He will therefore
paint Flamsteed in as unpleasant colours as possible and ascribe to
Francis Baily the most contemptible motives. As I have said before,
Brewster is the authoritative source of Newton’s life and his lack of
responsibility should be demonstrated. He, in this instance, first
created a false impression of facts by stating in his Preface, page xi,
“It was reserved for two English astronomers [Flamsteed and Baily,]
one a contemporary and the other a disciple, to misrepresent and ca¬
lumniate their illustrious countryman.” He knew this was false about
Baily at least, who was his own friend and who was esteemed as a
man of the highest honour; and he sinned the more deeply in that
he waited to slander his friend until he was dead and could not de¬
fend himself.

And, although he admitted in the body of his work that Baily’s

27 Brewster, II, p. 167, note. 28 Brewster, II, p. 183.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

4 i 5

exoneration of Flamsteed was complete, Brewster clouds the issue
by first attacking the publication of the book in the preface where he
states: “In 1835 the scientific world was startled by the publication
of Baily’s Life of Flamsteed, a huge volume, deeply affecting the
character of Newton, and, strange to say, printed, and circulated
throughout the world, at the expense of the Board of Admiralty.
The friends of the great philosopher were thus summoned to a pain¬
ful controversy, which, had it been raised in his lifetime, would have
been summarily extinguished.” We should be quite willing to over¬
look the slur implied by the reference to the size of the volume and
the manner of its publication, if it had not been made to give the im¬
pression that the world, including himself, was startled because the
author had secretly prepared his book and obtained authority, by
improper methods, to publish it at the public expense for fear it
would be suppressed if its contents had been known. Now the fact is,
Baily took the precaution to read a paper to the Astronomical So¬
ciety in which he outlined his defense of Flamsteed two years before
his book was published. This paper was printed in the Society’s
Monthly Notice which Brewster would receive as a Fellow. The
nature of Baily’s forthcoming book was a common topic of con¬
versation in scientific circles, and Brewster must have been familiar
with it.

The propriety of the savage attack on Baily because his publication
of Flamsteed’s diary and correspondence provoked a controversy
which “deeply affected the character of Newton” is a question of
Brewster’s good taste and judgement, whose answer must be left to
the reader. When, however, he expressed his astonishment and dis¬
gust, in his Memoirs of Newton, because Baily had published a life
of Flamsteed, and had included the differences between him and
Newton, it is not a question of taste, but one of veracity. Some
twenty years earlier he had written to Bailey: “If you have not al¬
ready resolved upon it, I would venture to urge you to prefix a life
of Flamsteed to your edition of the British Catalogue, and this
would afford you an excellent opportunity of giving an account of
the differences between him and Newton.” 29 But, after all, Flam¬
steed’s fits of irritability towards Newton, which were matched by
an equal pettishness of Newton, and his outbursts of hatred and
suspicion against Halley, which Newton bore with sufficient
equanimity to make no protest, are of minor importance; the signifi-

29 De Morgan, Newton: his Friend: and his Niece, London, 1885, p. 106.

4 i 6

ISAAC NEWTON

cant thing is that Brewster finally agreed with Baily in absolutely
clearing Flamsteed from the charge of preventing the completion
of the lunar theory.

The fact is, too much has been made of the question of the prompt
assistance of Flamsteed. The failure to complete the lunar theory
must rest on Newton alone. He was singularly independent of the
aid of others in all his work, and jealously concealed from everyone
what he was meditating. He allowed the Principia to germinate for
twenty years, and then completed it because of the persistent prod¬
ding of Halley; he could not be aroused to prepare for its second
edition until twenty-six more years had elapsed, and the third edition
came out just before his death. So notorious was his reluctance to
complete any of his work in a form for publication that it has been
seriously claimed we should have had no published results of his
work except for the solicitations of others. Why then should we be
surprised that his lunar theory was completed only to a point which
satisfied its author and then was abandoned ? Newton gave a sketch
of the theory in the Principia as an illustration of the law of gravita¬
tion and he worked on it intensively and fairly persistently during
the years 1694 and 1695. Then he went to London and absorbed
himself so deeply in his new duties that he rebuked Flamsteed severe¬
ly for suggesting any interruption of the King’s business in order to
continue his scientific work; there are, however, reasons for believ¬
ing that he worked intermittently on the problem till 1698, or pos¬
sibly till 1700. But he lived for twenty-seven years afterwards in the
full possession of his faculties, and there is no evidence that he
showed any active interest in scientific production. It is absurd to
suppose Newton, during all that time the most honoured man in the
scientific world, could not for the mere asking have obtained from
astronomers, including Flamsteed, all the observations available. In
addition to his constitutional procrastination, we should accept at face
value his statement to Leibniz that he had definitely forsaken philo¬
sophical and mathematical work for other business; and a total break
in his interests was made feasible by his appointment to the Mint.
How far his illness contributed to this languor in creative work, we
can not judge with assurance, but it does seem to have been a plausi¬
ble cause. His letters to Flamsteed show an irritability of mind and
periods of unwonted haste to finish the task, followed by intervals of
despondency during which it was laid aside for trifling reasons. Nor
did his mind operate with its customary machinelike precision and

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

4 i 7

untiring regularity. It is the only work which wrung from him any
expression of distress. When he was complimented on his success, he
answered that it was the only subject which caused his head to ache;
and when Halley frequently urged him to complete his lunar theory,
he replied that he would think of it no more as it made his head
ache, and kept him awake so often. That this was a real excuse and
not indifference is more than probable from a remark he made later
to Conduitt; if he lived till Halley made six years’ observations, “he
would have another stroke at the moon.” 30

After this long discussion, I shall give excerpts from the corre¬
spondence of Flamsteed and Newton with little comment. 31

Flamsteed notes in his biography for the date, Saturday, September
1st, 1694. “Mr. Newton came to visit me. Esteeming him an obliged
friend, I showed him about 150 places of the moon, derived from my
observations and tables by myself, and servants hired at my own ex¬
pense; with the differences or errors, in three synopses written on
large sheets of paper, in order to correct the theory of her motions.
On his earnest request I lent them to him, and allowed him to take
copies of them (as I did not doubt but that by their help he would be
able to correct the lunar theory).” 32

A week later Flamsteed wrote to Newton, who had been unwell at
the time of his visit to the Observatory, to send him a medical recipe
and assured him of his cooperation: “What I gather from my ob¬
servations shall be freely imparted to you, and I shall never refuse to
impart either the observations themselves, or my deductions from
them, to any persons that will receive them with the same candour
that you do. If I desire to have them withheld from others who make
it their business to prick faults in them, to censure them, and asperse
me no less unjustly than ingratefully, you will not blame me for so
doing. When Mr. H[alley] shows himself as candid as other men,

30 Brewster, Vol. II, pp. 157, 158.

31 Baily, pp. 133-160. This section gives all of their correspondence he could find. He
states that he examined the Portsmouth Collection but did not find Flamsteed’s letters
to Newton. He was therefore limited to publishing the memoranda and comments which
it was the custom of Flamsteed to write on the backs of letters he received to preserve a
rough draught of his answers. Brewster, however, remarks (Vol. II, p. 161) that he found
nearly forty of these letters which complete the correspondence, while Mr. Baily was able
to publish only eleven of Flamsteed’s letters. Brewster claims that he has thus been able
to form a more correct judgement on those delicate questions to which this controversy
gave rise. But the fact is the differences which Brewster instances between the letters and
the memoranda are so slight as not to affect the main issue. I have read carefully the
thirty-six letters of Flamsteed to Newton in the Portsmouth Collection and have included
longer extracts from them as they give interesting information about both

32 Baily, p. 61.

men.

418

ISAAC NEWTON

I shall be as free to him as I was the first seven years of our acquaint¬
ance, when I refused him nodiing that he desired.”

Newton to Flamsteed

Cambridge, October 7, 1694.

Since my return hither, I have been comparing your observations
with my theory, and now I have satisfied myself that, by both to¬
gether, the moon’s theory may be reduced to a good degree of exact¬
ness : perhaps to the exactness of 2 or 3 minutes. I forbore writing to
you a few days, till I had considered your observations, that I might
be able to acquaint what further observations are requisite. And be¬
sides those 50, which you tell me you have, ready calculated, and
those I have already, your observations of this winter will be very
material: and therefore I am very glad you have ordered your servant
to calculate them. . ..

I thank you heartily for your receipt. At present I beg your ob¬
servations of Jupiter and Saturn: and what you send by penny post
direct for Mr. William Martin, a Cambridge carrier at the Bull in
Bishopsgate-street; and order it to be delivered there before 2 of the
clock on Monday, lest he be gone: for he goes every Monday, at 2
o’clock, from London to Cambridge. I am yours to serve you,

Is. Newton. 83

Flamsteed to Neu/ton

Observatory, October 11, 1694.

I have yours of the 7th instant: before it arrived I had prepared a
letter to you, which I sent not: because I was too late for the post. I
shall give you the contents of it; and then answer that I received last
night.

After you were gone hence, Mr. Halley applied himself to me, and
desired I would allow him to see the lunar observations I had im¬
parted to you. I told him that I should not be unwilling, provided
that he in like manner would impart what he had talked so much of
to the Society; his amendments of the lunar theory. We had some
discourse of it: and he told me that there was an equation of about 9'
necessary in the quadrature: that this was begun and ended in the

33 Baily, p. 133.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

4 T 9

line of the syzygies; and occasioned the variation in the octants to
be 7' or 8' greater or less than the tables made it. This I perceived was
your equation; and told him so. He was silent.

Soon after, he came to Greenwich with one friend only in his com¬
pany. I was surprised at it; and took the occasion of minding him of
his disingenuous behaviour in several particulars; which he bore be¬
cause he could not excuse it. . . .

Sir, I am yours to serve you,

John Flamsteed.

P. S. I shall write to you again, as soon as I can get another synopsis
transcribed. At present I am very busy about some other papers I am
to send to a philosophical friend. J. F.

To Mr. Isaak Newton, at Trinity
College, in Cambridge. 34

Newton to Flamsteed

Trin. Coll., October 24, 1694.

I return my hearty thanks to you for the communications in your
last; and particularly for your table of refractions near the horizon.
The reason of the different refractions, near the horizon, in the same
altitude, I take to be the different heat of the air in the lower region.
For, when the air is rarefied by heat, it refracts less: when condensed
by cold, it refracts more. And this difference must be most sensible
when the rays run along in the lower region of the air for a great
many miles together; because ’tis this region only which is rarefied
and condensed by heat and cold: the middle and upper regions of
the air being always cold. I am of opinion also that the refraction in
all greater altitudes is varied a little by the different weight of the air
discovered by the baroscope. For, when the air is heavier, and by
consequence denser, it must refract something more than when ’tis
lighter and rarer. I could wish therefore that in all your observations,
where the refraction is to be allowed for, you would set down the
weight of the baroscope, and heat of the air; that the variation of the
refraction by the weight and heat of the air may be hereafter allowed
for, when the proportion of the variation by those causes shall be
known.

A day or two before I left London, I dined with Mr. Halley, and

Ports. Coll. Baily (p. 134) omits the postscript and gives one slight variation.

420

ISAAC NEWTON

had much discourse with him about the moon.... He told me, some
years ago, his correction of the moon’s eccentricity, and repeated it
when I was with him last in London: and this made me free in com¬
municating my things with him. By your observations I find it to be
a very good correction. I reckoned it a secret which he had intrusted
with me; and therefore never spake of it till now. Upon my saying
that I hoped to mend the moon’s theory by some observations you
had communicated to me, and that those observations made the
parallactic equation in the quadratures between 8' and io', he was
desirous to view them. But, I told him he must not take it ill if I
refused him that, because I stood engaged to communicate them to
nobody without your consent. I am very glad that there is like to be
a new correspondence between you; and hope it will end in friend¬
ship. . . , 85

On October 25, Flamsteed wrote that he had had a conversation,
the day before in London, with Halley who had said much about the
moon’s motion. On being told that what he disclosed about the
moon “smelled of Newton’s theory;” he answered, “in truth you
helped him with that.” Later in the letter, he mentioned: “Mr.
Paget I hear is ill of a fever. I am heartily sorry for it. If he should
die I know no person to succeed him but Mr. Caswell who wants his
talent of drawing and writing neatly. In others is much his superior.
But I hope he may recover though he has buried three of his pupils
of this distemper.” 36 And on the 29th, he sent the synopsis of the
lunar observations and refractions which had been promised.

On November 1st, Newton wrote that he “desired only such ob¬
servations as tend to perfecting the theory of the planets, in order to
a second edition of my book [the Principia ]: and would not give you
the trouble of superfluous communications.” He then softened this
hint not to be burdened with too many suggestions by giving him the
explanation of the menstrual parallax of the sun. Flamsteed, No¬
vember 3d, answered that he understood Newton was as yet only
comparing his observations with the emendations resulting from the
new theory; but he hoped when the theory was complete the results
would be sent to him as freely as he had supplied the data which
confirmed it.

35 Baily, p. 137.—This is the first reference to Newton’s important correction of atmos¬
pheric refraction when measuring altitudes of stars.

36 Ports. Coll. —It should be recalled that Caswell was defeated by Samuel Newton because
of Newton’s recommendation.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

421

Newton to Flamsteed

Cambridge, Novem. 17, 1694.

I believe you have a wrong notion of my method in determining
the moon’s motions 37 : for I have not been about making such cor¬
rections as you seem to suppose, but about getting a general notion
of all the equations on which her motions depend; and considering
how afterwards I shall go to work, with least labor and most exact¬
ness, to determine them. For the vulgar way of approaching by de¬
grees is bungling and tedious. The method which I propose to my¬
self, is, first to get a general notion of the equations to be determined,
and then by accurate observations to determine them. If I can com¬
pass the first part of my design, I do not doubt but to compass the
second: and that made me write to you, that I hoped to determine
her theory to the exactness of two or three minutes. But I am not
yet master of the first work; nor can be, till I have seen something
of the moon’s motions when her apogee is in the summer signs: and
to go about the second work, till I am master of the first, would be
injudicious; there being a complication of small equations which can
never be determined till one sees the way of distinguishing them, and
attributing to each their proper phenomena. Sir, if you can have
but a little patience with me till I have satisfied myself about these
things, 38 and make the theory fit to be communicated without danger
of error, I do intend that you shall be the first man to whom I will

• • OCk

communicate it.

And because I would give you as little trouble as may be, if you
please to communicate to me the right ascensions and apparent
meridional altitudes of the moon, as you have found them in your
observations, without allowing for the refraction and parallax, I will
take care of all the rest, and return your synopsis of her longitudes
and latitudes, etc. But I desire her right ascensions by the correct
places of the fixed stars: for otherwise, your observations will not
reach to distinguish and determine those small equations which re¬
main to be found out: and I would not have the work to do over a
second time. This may give you a little trouble at present, but it will

37 Flamsteed’s note: “I had; and he of me: and still has.”

38 Flamsteed’s note: “As much as he pleases: I have waited 5 years for them.”

39 This statement establishes the fact that he had agreed to Flamsteed’s stipulation not to
give the results to anyone else.

422

ISAAC NEWTON

save you ten times the trouble which you must otherwise undergo
hereafter; and that perhaps without bringing the moon’s theory to
half that perfection which I think I have a prospect of. If you please
to do me this favour, then I desire that you would send the right as¬
censions and meridional altitudes of the moon, in your observations
of the last six months. . . .

And for the trouble you are at in this business, besides the pains
you will save of calculating (and that upon an erroneous hypothesis
as I must do) the observations you communicate to me, and the
satisfaction you will have to see the theory you have ushered into the
world brought (as I hope) to competent perfection, and received by
astronomers, I do intend to gratify you to your satisfaction: though at
present I return you only thanks; as I do heartily for what you have
already communicated.

I am, your affectionate and humble servant,

Is. Newton.

P. S. I sent your papers back by the carrier yesterday, and this letter
should have been sent by the post before. 40

In the above letter, Newton enclosed his promised table of the
apparent displacement of a star due to the bending of the rays of
light by refraction as they passed through the atmosphere. He had
used the time, when the moon’s theory was at a stand-still, to com¬
pute this correction for each degree of altitude from o° to 90° for
the summer, spring, autumn, and winter. It was a most valuable aid
to astronomers and was a graceful return for Flamsteed’s assistance
to him. But Newton’s tactless offer to pay Flamsteed for his co¬
operation deeply hurt his pride and did much to counterbalance any
feeling of gratitude. One should not offer a fee to an Astronomer
Royal for scientific cooperation, and Newton several times adopted
the tone that he was engaging the help of an assistant rather than en¬
joying the benefit of a collaborator.

Flamsteed to Newton (Extract)

27 November, 1694—I have been very ill of a cold ever since I
wrote to you last and have had great pains in my head, nor am I yet
free of them, but I hope to get to London this week on the election
day [of the Royal Society], not having been there this month before.
I shall there acquaint Mr. Halley that I have a new table of refrac-

40 Baily. p. 139.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

423

tions from you that answers my observations, but I hold it advisable
not to let it go abroad as yet, for they seem bigger ascending towards
the vertex than you make them, which causes me to think you make
the height of the air less than it ought to be. . . . Mr. Halley, I am
told, is for printing what he has to say concerning the moon and ’tis
thought we shall have it in some Transaction.

Newton wrote to him on December 4th to express a hope that he
was again well, and then urged him to apply himself to make all the
observations he could, “A little diligence in making frequent ob¬
servations this month and another month or two hereafter, will
signify more towards setting right the moon’s theory than the scat¬
tered observations of many years.” Newton’s offer to pay Flam¬
steed for his services and his somewhat pedantic request to be diligent
“this month” were, I am sure, made quite innocently, but they
touched two of the astronomer’s most sensitive points, his poverty
and his pride. In the following letter he complains of Newton’s
treatment and justifies himself. He evidently knew his failing of a
quick temper since he kept a first draught on his desk for four days
before he posted his letter. We know this because Baily printed the
first draught, dated December 6, which he found in Flamsteed’s
papers; this draught differs considerably from the posted letter, dated
December 10, which is preserved in the Portsmouth Collection and
which I read. The whole tone of the letter is milder, and what
Brewster terms “the four obnoxious paragraphs” in Baily’s draught
are omitted. 41

Flamsteed to Newton

The Observatory, December 10, 1694.

I am glad I did not impart your table of refractions to any body
(since I find you have better considered and think of altering it)
since you were not pleased to impart the foundations on which you
calculated it to me. I have been seeking of them and at last found a
way of answering them, admitting 2 spheres of vapors, one the
usual height about 2% miles, the other much less, with two hori-

41 Brewster (Vol. II, p. 172) has a long and, what seems to me, an obtuse foot-note about
this letter. He asserts that we can place no confidence in Baily’s abstracts of the letters to
Newton although he, himself, admits elsewhere these differences from the letters as sent
are unessential. He says of this case they are entirely different, which is not true; and he
intimates that Flamsteed deceitfully kept draughts which were milder in tone than the
letters actually sent; whereas whep there are variations the opposite is true. One wonder*

424

ISAAC NEWTON

zontal refractions; and with little labor have answered those under 5
degrees within half a minute, those above much nearer. . . .

I know very well the equations of the moon’s motion are the
highest this month and the next, than they can be again this 9 years:
and had therefore determined to let slip no opportunity of observing
her. My indisposition has not hindered me; but the fogs and clouds
have kept her from my view since the first quadrature of the last
month till now the clouds seem to break, and if it proves frost I
promise myself fair weather, and frequent opportunities of de¬
termining her place in the meridian, which you need not doubt but
will be imparted to you. But, I must entreat you to be patient and
bear with me for a little time: for I must visit my cure at Christmas,
and prepare before for my journey to it, which will employ me some
days: so that I cannot give you the places of the moon you desire, till
after the holidays. But then you shall have them, if God spare me
life and health; and without any consideration or recompense but
such communications as are usually made betwixt persons conversant
in the same sort of studies.

But I am displeased with you not a little for offering to gratify
me for my pains; either you know me not so well as I hoped, or you
have suffered yourself to be possest with that character which the
malice and envy of a person, from whom I have deserved much bet¬
ter things, has endeavoured to fix on me and which I have disputed
because I know he used me no other ways than he has done the best
men of the Ancients, nay our Saviour, his Apostles. Permit me to
give a truer character of myself and which you shall always find me
answer. I can boldly say I was never tempted with covetousness. God
always blest me with more money than I know well how to dispose
of, and those that know me, even those who calumniate me, know
how free I have been of it on good occasions. . . .

All the return I can allow, or even expected from such persons
with whom I corresponded, is only to have the results of their studies
imparted as freely as I afford them the effect of mine or my pains[ ?].
I have told you my disposition plainly, and, if hereafter you offer me
any other than this just reward, I shall think as meanly of you as I

whether Brewster had never written preliminary draughts and then softened some of their
expressions.—In this letter Flamsteed also accuses Halley of deceitfulness in regard to a
book by Viviani which he heard had been given to Newton. It offered Flamsteed a new
cause of complaint. The incident is obscure and trifling, and merely shows that he sought
every occasion to justify his hatred against Halley. As it has no bearing on Newton I
have omitted it.—Brewster wrongly dates the letter, December 16.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

4 2 5

fear you have been persuaded to think of me by false and malicious

suggestions. v t ^ r . . .

Your sincerely affectionate friend and

humble servant

John Flamsteed. 42

Just as Newton’s tendency to sudden gusts of ill-temper and un¬
founded criticism of his friends was one of his worst faults, so one
of his finest qualities was his sincere repentance. And, now, when he
saw that he had deeply offended Flamsteed, he was quick to apolo¬
gise. In his letter of December 20th, he assured him that he had not
intended to conceal the method of calculating the table of refractions
but had omitted it because of the haste in which the letter was writ¬
ten. Then he gave a full demonstration of the beautiful theorem
from which he had calculated his table of refractions and which
Biot regarded as one of the finest efforts of his genius. The note
closes with this apology: “What you say about my having a mean
opinion of you is a great mistake. I have defended you when there
has been occasion, but never gave way to any insinuations against
you. And what I wrote to you, proceeded only from hence, that you
seemed to suspect me of an ungrateful reservedness, which made me
begin to be uneasy. But if you please to let all this pass, and concur
with me in promoting astronomy, I’ll concur with you, being your
faithful friend to serve you.”

Newton’s letters of January 15 and January 26, 1694/5, are devoted
to requests for more observations on the moon, and a further discus¬
sion of atmospheric refraction. From now on his correspondence
shows an increasing nervous irritability as if the pressure of the work
were beginning to weigh on his mind and to make him impatient to
finish it at the earliest possible moment. He would be done with it
at all costs. He wrongly imagines that Flamsteed is dilatory and
does not appreciate the value of the theory; and he adopts a magis¬
terial tone, warning Flamsteed that his reputation will rest on his un¬
questioning assistance rather than on his own independent work.
He also complains to others, certainly to Bentley and probably to
Halley, that Flamsteed was preventing the successful completion of
the lunar theory. It was these complaints which made Edleston stick

42 The extracts from this letter, as I give them, are copied verbatim from the original in
ihc Portsmouth Collection. If the reader will compare them with the preliminary draught

published by Baily, p.. 143, he will be convinced that my criticism of Brewster in my preced¬
ing foot-note is justified.

426

ISAAC NEWTON

to his opinion that Flamsteed had withheld his observations after
January, 1694/5, and so had robbed us of the lunar theory. 48

There is certainly no justification for this opinion. On January 18,
1694/5, Flamsteed wrote that he was busily engaged on the work of
preparing the necessary tables for shortening his work of calculation.
Again, on January 29, he promises to send nine places of the moon
observed and calculated from his tables in the summer of the year,
1692. There follows a long account of his work and of his desire to
help. This letter ends with a postscript, which perhaps accounts for
Newton’s silence and his growing suspicion that Flamsteed was not
aiding him; “I am sorry for the indisposity and pray God send you
your health again, etc.” On February 7, Flamsteed wrote again to
express a bitter disapproval of Halley whom he accuses of having
boasted of certain of his lunar observations which were really Flam¬
steed’s. He works himself up into a great fury and promises that
Newton “shall hear no more of him [Halley] from me till we meet
when I shall tell you his history which is too foul and large for a let¬
ter.” There seems to be little doubt that Newton had again suffered
from a serious break-down or, at least, such a rumour was current,
for Flamsteed finishing by writing: “The day after I received your
last, Mr. Hanway brought me news from London that you were
dead, but I showed him the letter which proved the contrary. He
had it from Sir C. Wren to whom he wrote immediately to satisfy
him of the falsehood of that report. I bless God for the [sic] life and
pray for your perfect health.” 44

Newton to Flamsteed

Cambridge, Feb. 16, 1694/5.

As for your observations, you know I cannot communicate them to
any body, and much less publish them, without your consent. But if
I should perfect the moon’s theory, and you should think fit to give
me leave to publish your observations with it, you may rest assured
that I should make a faithful and honorable acknowledgement of
their author. 45 . . .

On March 15th, Newton wrote to Flamsteed in regard to the ap-

43 Edleston, note No. 118, pp. lxiv and lxvii.

44 From the original letters in the Portsmouth Collection. 45 Baily, p. 151.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

427

pointment of the successor to Paget as mathematical master of
Christ’s Hospital and gave his reasons for having proposed three
persons for the place. His next letter, of date April 23rd, contains the
following passage which is significant of his alternate periods of
haste and delay, and his weariness of the task: “When I set myself
wholly to calculations (as I did for a time last autumn and again
since Christmas in making the table of refractions) I can endure
them and go through them well enough. But when I am about
other things (as at present) I can neither fix to them with patience
nor do them without errors; which makes me let the moon’s theory
alone at present, with a design to set to it again and go through it at
once. When I have your materials I reckon it will prove a work of
about three or four months: and when I have done it once I would
have done with it for ever.” 46

On the 25th of April, Newton wrote a short letter which can be
omitted. He then waited for two months before writing again; ap¬
parently, he became impatient because additional observations were
not forthcoming and, on June 29, he brusquely urged Flamsteed to
send observations as he found them and not to bother about calculat¬
ing the positions of the moon as he could attend to that work more
expeditiously himself.

Newton to Flamsteed

Cambridge, June 29, 1695.

I received your solar tables, and thank you for them. But these,
and almost all your communications will be useless to me, unless you
can propose some practicable way or other of supplying me with ob¬
servations. For as your health and other business will not permit you
to calculate the moon’s places from your observations, so it never
was my inclination to put you upon such a task, knowing that the
tediousness of such a design will make me as weary with expectation
as you with drudgery. I want not your calculations, but your observa¬
tions only. For, besides myself and my servant, Sr. Collins (whom
I can employ for a little money, which I value not) tells me that he
can calculate an eclipse, and work truly. I will therefore once more
propose it to you, to send me your naked observations of the moon’s
right ascensions and meridional altitudes; and leave it to me to get
her places calculated from them. If you like this proposal, then pray

46 Baily, p. 153.

ISAAC NEWTON

428

send me first your observations for the year 1692, and I will get them
calculated, and send you a copy of the calculated places. But if you
like it not, then I desire you would propose some other practicable
method of supplying me with observations; or else let me know
plainly that I must be content to lose all the time and pains I have
hitherto taken about the moon’s theory, and about the table of re¬
fractions.

I am glad you betake yourself to riding for your health, rather
than to physic. It is certainly the best and safest remedy for an ill
habit of bQdy, arising from bad blood in most cases; and therefore
you may do well to continue it.

I am your humble servant,

Is. Newton. 47

Newton’s blunt statement, that all he wanted from Flamsteed was
the service of an observer and not the assistance of a colleague in de¬
riving the lunar theory, may have suited his own convenience but it
was not a courteous return for the essential help of a distinguished
astronomer. Flamsteed justified himself by making a memorandum
on the back of the letter to which was added a detailed list of all the
observations he had furnished: “Let the world judge whether Mr.
Newton had any cause to complain of want of observations, when all
these were imparted to him. I was ill of the headache all the summer,
which ended in a fit of the stone: yet I forbore not, as I was able, to
serve him without reward or the prospect of any. I contend it.” 48
His list of observations adds up to the impressive number of 201 ob¬
served and calculated positions of the moon and 243 rougher ones
which had not been calculated.

But, Newton had fallen into what can only be described as an un¬
controllable fit of nervous irritation and, out of a clear sky, wrote the
following letter which was almost as incoherent and insulting as
those he formerly sent to Pepys and Locke.

Newton to Flamsteed

gj r Cambridge, July 9, 1695.

After I had helped you where you had stuck in your three great
works, that of the theory of fupiters satellites, that of your catalogue

47 Baily, p. 157. 48 Baily, p. 142.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

4 2 9

of the fixed stars, and that of calculating the moons places from ob¬
servations, and in all these things freely communicated to you what
was perfect in its kinds (so far as I could make it), and of more
value than many observations, and what (in one of them) cost me
above two months’ hard labor, which I should never have undertaken
but upon your account, and which I told you I undertook that I
might have something to return you for the observations you then
gave me hopes of, and yet, when I had done, saw no prospect of ob¬
taining them, or of getting your synopses rectified . I despaired of
compassing the moon’s theory, and had thoughts of giving it over as
a thing impracticable, and occasionally told a friend so who then
made me a visit. But now you offer me those observations which you
made before the year 1690, I thankfully accept of your offer, and
will get as many of them computed as are sufficient for my pur¬
pose. ... T 111

1 am your most humble servant,

Is. Newton . 49

Flamsteed noted on the back of the letter, “I was ill all this sum¬
mer, and could not furnish him as I had done formerly. He mistook
my illness for design, and wrote this hasty, artificial, unkind, arro¬
gant letter. Answered it July 13th.” 50 In this answer Flamsteed
ignored the attack on him but warns Newton that “a report is indus¬
triously spread in town that I have refused to impart any more ob¬
servations to you. I heard that he [Halley] who spreads it intends
you a visit ere long. I hope you will take notice of his disingenuity
in this particular, since ’tis only my violent distemper and your own
silence that were the cause of mine. I shall answer yours more fully
next week.” And then, on July 18th, he delivered a rebuke so digni¬
fied and so charitable that it should have made Newton blush: “I
have just cause to complain of the style and expression of your last
letter. They are not friendly, but that you may know me not to be
of that quarrelsome humour I am represented by the Clerk of the
Society, [Halley,] I shall waive all save this expression, that what you

49 Baily, p. 157.—The only cause, which I can find for this sudden outburst is a passage
in Flamsteed’s letter of a week previous ( Cf . Portsmouth Collection) in which he confesses:
“I had unwarily given Mr. Caswell of it [Newton’s Table of Refractions] when first sent me
but, on the information of your desire not to have it pass abroad, I acquainted him with it.
Tis as safe as in your own desk. Of the second [Table] no one has yet any copy from me, nor

shall have it without your leave.” In view of Newton’s idiosyncrasy for secrecy about his
work, this seems to me a sufficient cause of his anger.

50 Ibid., p„ 158.

430

ISAAC NEWTON

communicated to me was of more value than many observations . I
grant it—as the wire is of more worth than the gold from which it
was drawn. I gathered the gold matter, and fined and presented it to
you sometimes washed. I hope you value not my pains the less be¬
cause they became yours so easily. I allow you to value your own as
high as you please, and require no other reward for what assistance I
sometimes afford you, but that I may now and then see some of the
workmanship; and if that be not ready when I desire it, or if you
think it not fit to favour me with it, I can easily be contented. Nor
do I take it amiss that you often take no notice of some small par¬
ticulars whereon I have desired to know what you have determined.
Since I know very well that in things of their nature it is difficult to
determine, and we often change what at first we thought would need
no alteration or towards none. I have altered my solar numbers five
times, and would not be ashamed to change again if I saw reason
for it. If you answer me that you have not determined whether any
other than the usual equations are to be used in the syzygies, if you
are not resolved how the moon’s mean motion is to be corrected, you
may say it. I shall urge you no farther, and nevertheless whenever
you let me know that it lies in my power to serve you, I shall do it
freely. But you will not complain of me to others without cause, and
thereby add to the affliction I suffer from my obstinate distempers,
and the calumnies of disingenuous and impudent people, if you have
any value for your friend and humble servant.” 51
July 18, 1695. [J° HN Flamsteed.]

Newton’s answer, while it tacitly admits his rudeness, does not
seem adequate to have made peace between them as it evidently did;
Flamsteed’s ready acceptance of what was only an implied apology
puts his character in a very favourable light.

Newton to Flamsteed

Sir, Cambridge, July 20, 1695.

The report you mention 52 was much against my mind, and I have
written to put a stop to it. I thank you for your communications of

51 Portsmouth Collection .—This rebuke evidently cut Newton deeply. Many years after¬
wards he referred to it in this ungracious manner. “Machin told me that Flamsteed said ‘Sir
Isaac worked with the ore he dug,’ to which Sir Isaac replied, ‘if he dug the ore, I made the
gold ring.’ ”—Conduct’s MSS.

52 Flamsteed’s withholding observations. Newton’s denial of the report should be empha¬
sized.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

43 1

the table of fixed stars and your lunar observations. So soon as I have
got some business off my hands, I intend to get such of them cal¬
culated as I have need of, and send you the places. The moon’s mean
motion is not much amiss, and may be retained as you printed it
till I can determine it more exactly. I believe there is an equation
requisite in your syzygies, but I am not yet master of it. Such
niceties I have not yet determined, and you must have patience with
me till I can compass them, otherwise I must desist; as your im¬
patience had once made me resolve to do. The Horroxian Theory,
by the table of eccentricities and equations of the apogee which I sent
you, never errs above io or 12 minutes; and so is twice as exact as
your printed tables, which err sometimes 20 or 21 minutes: but I
would not advise you to spend your time in calculating by it till I
have compassed the small equations, which I cannot do till I have
observations for a sufficient number of cases. Such expostulations or
expressions, in your last and some other letters as tend to a difference,
I pass by. Pray take care of your health. Dr. Battely (chaplain to
Archbishop Sancroft) was much troubled with violent headaches,
and found it a certain cure to bind his head straight with a garter till
the crown of his head was numbed: for thereby his head was cooled
by retarding the circulation of the blood. ’Tis an easy remedy, if
your pain be of the same kind.

I am your humble servant,

Is. Newton . 53

Flamsteed to Newton

23 July, 1695.

Yours of the 20th instant I have received this morning. It sets all
right betwixt us. I have as great a stock of patience, and as good an
one as I have of observations, and ’tis all ways drawn out on every
occasion to serve my friends. My indisposition hindered me from
serving you as I desired. You mistook the reason of my silence. I
hope you will have the patience on my account that you demand of
me on yours. . . . The next week I am going to my parsonage, but
I shall take care to have you furnished with another sheet of observa¬
tions before. If you would rather have any other than the remains
of 1677, me know it. I shall fit you according to your desires.
• • • By frequent trials and alterations of his contrivances, Kepler
found out the true theory of the planetary motions. You must not
be ashamed to own that you follow his example. When the inequali-

68 Baily, p. 159.

432

ISAAC NEWTON

ties are found, you will more easily find the reason of them than he
could do when but little of the doctrine of gravity was known.

[John Flamsteed.] 64

In answer to this letter, Newton patches up the incipient quarrel,
but he rather tactlessly starts it again by offering to pay Flamsteed’s
assistant a fee.

Newton to Flamsteed

Cambridge, July 27, 1695.

The other day I had an excuse sent me for what was said at Lon¬
don about your not communicating [observations], and that the re¬
port should proceed no further. I am glad all misunderstandings are
composed. I thank you for your nonagesimal table: I designed to
make such a table, and it saves me the labor. You may continue your
observations if you please till Octob. 10th, 1677. But I had rather you
would send me those from Aug. 24th, 1685, to July 5th, 1686, when
the aphelium was in the same position as in the year 1677. For when
I see all your observations together in this position of the aphelium,
I can tell better what to select for this case. The transcribing of
these things gives your servant trouble: and for encouraging him I
shall order Will Martin, the Cambridge carrier, (who lodges every
week, from 9 in the morning on Saturday till 3 in the afternoon on
Monday, at the Bull in Bishopsgate-street,) to pay him; [two guineas
if you please to let him call for it, or to pay it to his or your order
in London, if you please to let me know where. 55 ] I shall not have
time to go through all your observations, but will send you the times,
for which I would have them, when I have done with these for this
position of the aphelium.

I am your thankful, humble servant,

Is. Newton. 50

I shall add two short extracts from Flamsteed’s replies to Newton’s
letter:

(August 4, 1695) “I take it very kindly that you acquainted me
with your intent to gratify him for his pains before you did it, but I

54 Portsmouth Collection.

65 This passage was crossed out in the manuscript and the word “guineas” altered into
“shillings,” apparently by Flamsteed for no known reason.

R0 Baily, p.. 159.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

433

must entreat you to forbear. He is paid all ready. A superfluity of
moneys, I find, is all ways injurious to my servants. It makes them
run into company, and waste their time idly, or worse. I take care
he wants nothing. If you send him verbal acknowledgement of his
pains, and commendations for his care and fidelity in copying, it will
be a reward for him, and encouragement the best you can give him,
and further I cannot allow. . . . Pray say nothing to anybody of
your proposal.”

(August 6, 1695) “I write this purposely to you, because I know
a spark [Halley] is with you, that complains much I have lived here
twenty years and printed nothing. I do not intend to print a St.
Helena catalogue, and for that reason I defer the printing of any¬
thing thus long, that when I do print it may be perfect, as by the
grace of God it shall. . . . Yesterday and this day, I bless God for
it, I have only had some small grudgeings of my headache so that I
hope now in a little time to be clear and able to follow my studies as
formerly . . . which have been interrupted by the most uncom¬
fortable kind of distemper that I have ever had; for, during the stone
and in a consumption, I had the satisfaction of enjoying the pleas¬
ures of my thoughts, but this would not permit me that.” 57

Newton finally broke a silence of two months by writing the fol¬
lowing letter which closes this correspondence on the lunar theory.

Newton to Flamsteed

g* r Cambridge, Sept. 14, 1695.

When I received your last, Mr. Halley was with me about a design
of determining the orbs of some comets for me. He has since deter¬
mined the orb of the comet of 1683 by my theory; 58 and finds, by an
exact calculus, that it answers all your observations and his own to a
minute. I am newly returned from a journey I lately took into
Lincolnshire, and am going another journey: so that I have not yet
got any time to think of the theory of the moon, nor shall have
leisure for it this month or above: which I thought fit to give you

57 Portsmouth Collection.

58 This is evidently the first record of Halley’s determination of the orbit of what is now
known as Halley’s Comet and it is also the first great astronomical discovery derived directly
from Newton’s gravitational dynamics.

434

ISAAC NEWTON

notice of, that you may not wonder at my silence. I hope you get

ground of your distemper, and that I shall ere long hear that you are

well recovered. T 111 .

1 am your humble servant,

Is. Newton. 59

This letter was written on the day Newton started on a second
journey of a fortnight. It is a question whether he now abandoned
his work on the lunar theory because he had solved the problem in
its general form to his own satisfaction and, as in other cases, had
lost his desire to complete it in detail; or whether his two journeys
were taken in connection with his coming appointment to the Mint.
Whichever may have been the cause, he abruptly broke off his corre¬
spondence with Flamsteed just as he previously had refused to write
to Leibniz in regard to fluxions. The charge that Newton was
handicapped in his work by the dilatoriness and lack of cooperation
of Flamsteed, has been proved to be without foundation. If any
further proof were needed that its abandonment was due to Newton
alone, it can be found in the fact that Flamsteed was eager to con¬
tinue. Puzzled by the silence of Newton, after waiting four months
for an answer to his last letter, he again wrote to enquire why the
work had stopped but could extract no reply. He offered to provide
further observations, and then went on to say: “But if what I hear be
true, you will have little need of them, for I have been told, ever
since I came out of Surrey, that you have finished the theory of the
moon on incontestable principles; that you have determined six gen¬
eral inequalities not formerly known; and that nevertheless the cal¬
culations will not be much more troublesome or difficult than
formerly. I am heartily glad to hear this, and should be more so to
have it from yourself, for in truth I suspect you are scarce so forward;
and I flatter myself with the opinion, that if you were, you would
have acquainted me with it, as you promised both when I imparted
the three synopses of lunar calculations, and observed places to you,
and in your letters since. Pray let me know how far you are pro¬
ceeded, you will oblige me, and, if you please, the true reason why 1
have had no letters from you this four months A 60

The chief source of trouble between the two men was undoubtedly
Halley. On the one side, Newton had a feeling of gratitude towards

59 Baily, p. 159.

60 Quoted from a letter dated January 11, 1695/6. Brewster, Vol. II, p. 182.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

435

him and was influenced by his advice. On the other side, Flamsteed
hated him; no other feeling can account for the bitterness of his
language. In judging his intemperate accusations we must discount
the language in which they were clothed, as it was a time when
trifling disapproval was expressed with bitter invective. If one ac¬
cepted at face value the statements of the leading writers of the day,
one would conclude that England contained only unmitigated scoun¬
drels. We do know that he shocked both of them by what they be¬
lieved to be his atheism and immoral ideas: to Flamsteed, they were
utterly abhorrent; by Newton, they were judged with tolerant dis¬
approval. Today, he would probably be accused of neither. When
he learned that Newton was actually engaged on the lunar theory,
he expected Flamsteed to subordinate his own work, and to supply
data without delay. He exaggerated Newton’s casual and irritable
complaints and spread reports, that Flamsteed was wilfully with¬
holding necessary and precious observations, when it would have
been easy for him to learn the facts. Also knowing Newton’s pro¬
crastinating habits, he disapproved of the agreement not to publish
the results till Flamsteed permitted the inclusion of his observations.
In order to get the lunar theory before the public he, with David
Gregory, persuaded Newton to break his promise and to permit
Gregory to use the results in his Astronomy. Whatever Halley’s
motives may have been, he must bear a large part of the blame for an
unpleasant episode in the lives of two very eminent men.

While Newton was trying to distract his mind from dwelling on
his disappointment in not securing an appointment to a public
office, great changes had occurred in the political situation; the
Whigs had returned to power in a new Parliament, and Somers and
Montague had begun those careers which were to dominate the
Government for so many critical years. Montague had not forgotten
his friend, and with rare good judgement he had determined to en¬
list the services of the scientific philosopher in his new and drastic
financial policy. In the autumn the rumour was current that New¬
ton had been appointed Master of the Mint. 01 It seems probable that
the expectation of the coming change in his life was the true reason
for his sudden lack of interest in the moon; but, made cautious by

61 Wallis wrote to Halley, Nov. 26, 1695: “We are told here [Oxford] that he is made
Master of the Mint, which if so, I do congratulate to him.” Edleston, note 126, p. lxviii
and p. 302.

ISAAC NEWTON

436

past disappointments, he took pains to contradict the report. Even as
late as the following spring, when the matter was undoubtedly
settled, he wrote to Halley to deny the rumour.

Newton to Halley

Sir,

Cambridge, March 14, 1695/6.

I understand that a report has been some time spreading among
the Fellows of the Royal Society, as if I was about the longitude at
sea. For putting a stop to that report, pray do me the favour to
acquaint them, (as you have occasion,) that I am not about it. And
if the rumour of preferment for me in the Mint should hereafter,
upon the death of Mr. Hoar, or any other occasion, be revived, I
pray that you would endeavour to obviate it by acquainting your
friends that I neither put in for any place in the Mint nor would
meddle with Mr. Hoar’s place, were it offered me. You will thereby

°blige y 0ur most humble and most obedient servant,

Is. Newton. 62

Five days after this letter was written, Newton received the official
notice of his appointment to the Mint.

Montague to Newton

19th March, 1695/6.

I am very glad that at last I can give you a good proof of my
friendship, and the esteem the king has of your merits. Mr. Over-
ton, the Warden of the Mint, is made one of the Commissioners of
the Customs, and the king has promised me to make Mr. Newton,
Warden of the Mint. The office is the most proper for you. ’Tis the
chief officer in the Mint. ’Tis worth five or six hundred pounds per
annum, and has not too much business to require more attendance
than you may spare. I desire you will come up as soon as you can,
and I will take care of your warrant in the meantime. Pray give my
humble services to John Lawton. I am sorry I have not been able to
assist him hitherto, but I hope he will be provided for ere long, and
tell him that the session is near ending, and I expect to have his
company when I am able to enjoy it. Let me see you as soon as you

62 Macclesfield Corr., Vol. II, p. 419.

LATER WORK IN CAMBRIDGE

437

come to town, that I may carry you to kiss the king’s hand. I be¬
lieve you may have a lodging near me. I am, Sir, your most obedient

servant, Chas. Montague . 63

There have been few cases of such an abrupt change in the life and
work of an eminent scientist as now fell to Newton’s lot. He had,
after a series of humiliating supplications, obtained his wish; a rec¬
ord which makes an anecdote due to Conduitt seem ludicrous. He
stated that Montague, when asked why he “gave Newton employ¬
ment before he wanted it or as\ed it ” replied, “that he would not
suffer the lamp which gave so much light to want oil.” Although
Newton never expressed the least regret that his creative work
stopped so abruptly in the flower of his age, and however useful his
new life may have been, the world can never cease to regret that
either temperament or a permanent lassitude from ill-health robbed
it of the services of one of the greatest geniuses of all time. Before
we narrate the second half of Newton’s life, we must pause for a
moment to consider the political and financial condition of England.

63 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 191.

CHAPTER XII

REVISION OF THE COINAGE. LIFE IN LONDON

1696-1703

B efore the new life of Newton in London can be narrated, we
must consider the political and social condition of England
and, especially, the lives of two men, John Somers and
Charles Montague, with whom his career and fortunes were inti¬
mately bound. The theory of the divine right of kings, which had
been so obstinately held by the Stuarts, had been shattered by the
Commonweath, patched up at the Restoration, and finally destroyed
by the election of William and Mary to the throne. Although Mary,
at least, was a Stuart, they could claim no birth-right to the throne
so long as James and his son were alive. The leaders of the Whig
party, who staged the Revolution, were committed to a constitutional
monarchy and placed William on the throne in agreement with that
principle of government. For example, Somers wrote a tract on the
right of James II to the throne in which he contended for the ab¬
solute authority of parliament to limit, restrain, or qualify the right
to the succession. Again, six years before the Revolution, he de¬
fended the principle of a limited monarchy in no uncertain terms:
"If ^ey mean by those lovers of commonwealth principles men
passionately devoted to the public good, and to the common service
of their country,—who believe that Kings were instituted for the
good of the people, and the government ordained for the sake of
those that are to be governed, and therefor complain or grieve when
it is used to contrary ends, every humane and honest man will be
proud to be ranked in that number.” 1 How sympathetic Newton
was with these views of Somers was strikingly shown by his letter
on allegiance to King William which he wrote to Vice-Chancellor
Covel. His statement there that Fidelity and allegiance sworn to
the King is only such a fidelity and obedience as is due to him by
the law of the land, is typical of the new principles of government

1 Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, Vol. IV, p. 76. 2 cf. Chapter X, p. 348

438

LIFE IN LONDON

439

which were guiding Somers and the Whig party in their transforma¬
tion of England into a limited monarchy. For the first time, we
note the existence of party government; the people had split upon
a great question. On the one side, were the Tories who were loyal
to James; in its ranks were the conservatives, the Roman Catholics,
and the strong Churchmen. Opposed to them were the Whigs who
had engineered the Monmouth Rebellion, had now seated William
safely on the throne, and were determined to govern through the
agency of the House of Commons. The rise of power of the Com¬
mons was facilitated by the personal qualities of the new King. Fie
was an alien who never really mastered the English language and, in
spite of his undoubted ability as an administrator and soldier, his cold
and restrained temperament made no personal appeal to loyalty or
affection. His heart was in the Netherlands, and his intimate friends,
with whom he could relax from his austerity, were his Dutch asso¬
ciates who had followed his fortunes, and whom he now loaded
with favours. His one absorbing desire was to humble the ambition
of Louis XIV, and he looked upon England as the reservoir from
which to draw the power to form and maintain a European coalition
against a common enemy. Under his guidance, England threw off
her subserviency to France, and became the dominant influence in
continental affairs. The frequent absences of the King required
him to delegate his power to the leaders of the Whig party who were
quick to take advantage of their opportunity.

It is easy to see that William was absolutely dependent on the
loyal support of the Whigs; without it, the repeated attempts to
bring back the Stuarts might have succeeded, and the dream of his
life would have been thwarted. The Whigs came to power hungry
for position after a long abstinence. Elated by their triumph, they
quickly caused a revulsion of sentiment by their rash, obstinacy and
vindictive measures. To prevent the wrecking of his plans, the King
was forced to dissolve Parliament frequently, and to dilute his
Cabinet and Privy Council with a mixture of Tories. Although
party government rapidly established itself in the reigns of William
and of Anne, the policy of a Cabinet composed of members only of
the dominant party had not been developed; thus government, more
or less divided in its ideas and sympathies, was distracted and a prey
to the personal ambitions of its members. Such a period of confusion
offered a rare opportunity to young men of strong will and keen
intellect who rose to great positions with startling rapidity, and fell

440

ISAAC NEWTON

as quickly. The Whigs were consolidated and kept absolutely under
control, while in power during the reign of William, by a small
clique which under the famous name of the Junto was directed by
Somers, Montague, Wharton, and Russell. Although the Junto fell
into disgrace during the reign of Anne, it still retained its control
of the party without interruption, in office or out of it, till the Han¬
overian succession.

The ideas of the nation in the three great fields of law, finance,
and religion, underwent profound changes. The responsibility of
leadership in all three fell to the Whigs, and in two of them the influ¬
ence of Newton was direct and powerful. In government, the nation
had changed from an absolute, to a constitutional, monarchy and the
legal questions involved were decided during the chancellorship of
Somers. The financial system of England had staggered through the
disturbances of the Civil War and had grown worse during the
inefficiency and corruption of the Stuarts. There was no banking
organisation to stabilise business such as had been developed in
Florence and Holland, and the current money had deteriorated to a
state of desperate confusion. Meanwhile, cost of government had
increased enormously; the country was at war, and the prospect that
it would be protracted pointed to a steadily growing budget. The
reform of the finances which carried England through this crisis and
made it the richest country in Europe is a monument to the genius
of Montague. The most difficult and hazardous part of this task was
the recoinage of the money and according to Montague, himself, its
success was largely due to the administrative work of Newton.
Lastly, the long and bitter struggle between Roman Catholicism and
the extreme forms of Protestantism had ended in the precarious
supremacy of the Church of England. It is frequently asserted that
the Anglican Church is a mere compromise between the absolute
authority of Romanism and the logical anarchy of Sectarianism; but
such an opinion does little justice to the English theologians of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who developed a positive doc¬
trine which aimed to reconcile a revealed religion with the new
scientific discoveries. In a later chapter, I shall show the influence of
Newton in this field, and trace the effect of the Pvmcipui on modern
religious thought.

Newton’s life and opinions were so bound up with the fortunes of
the Whigs that, although the direct influence of Somers consisted
only in a recommendation for his appointment to the Mint, a brief

LIFE IN LONDON

441

survey of his life is advisable. John Somers, 3 the son of a prosperous
country attorney, after a brilliant career in Parliament was appointed
Lord Chancellor; and during the seven years he presided over the
Court of Chancery only one of his decrees has been discovered to
have been reversed. He possessed the rare combination of a great
mind, a modest and noble character, and the “most exquisite taste of
politeness.” There have been few, if any, men in public life who have
commanded such universal respect, admiration, and affection. Lor
Campbell says of him that he was a “a ripe and good scholar as well
as lawyer; and, regard being had to his acquaintance with modern
languages and literature, perhaps the most accomplished man that
ever rose to high eminence in the profession of the law of England.
He was a favourite of the King and Parliament; the High Church
party coveted him; the merchants respected his knowledge of trade
and finance; the lawyers were proud of him; and as a discriminating
patron “all works of any merit in verse or prose were inscribed to
him.” In spite of his popularity and accomplishments, he could not
weather the storm which overwhelmed his party. During the Parlia¬
ment of 1698, feeling in the country ran high against the Whigs.
The Commons threw off the guidance of Somers and Montague; in
this the members were influenced by the Tory supporters of Anne,
who saw in the ill-health of William the prospect of future power.
They used certain unpopular clauses of the Treaty of Ryswick with
such effect that the exasperated King threatened to abdicate; dis¬
suaded from this rash move, he yielded to popular clamour and de¬
prived Somers of the Great Seal. Flushed with this success, the
Tories impeached him in 1701 but he was acquitted in the most
honourable terms. He, by his charm of manner, even partially over¬
came Anne’s prejudice, and would have been restored to his high
offices, at the accession of George I, if his health had permitted. In
1698, he succeeded Montague as President of the Royal Society and
gracefully resigned five years later in order that Newton might be
elected to that high office.

Valuable to Newton as the support of Somers may have been, he
owed far more to the steadfast friendship and influence of Montague,
who introduced him to society and the Court, and who brought his
friends to the house of the philosopher, enlivened by the attractions
of his young and charming niece, Catherine Barton. We have al-

3 Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors; Macaulay’s History of England; Weld’s History of
the Royal Society.

442

ISAAC NEWTON

ready described the early life of Montague and shall now continue it
from the time he had won the town by his parody of The Country
Mouse and the Town Mouse. Lord Dorset presented his young
protege to the King shortly after his coronation with the whimsical
introduction: “ ‘May it please your Majesty, I have brought a Mouse
to have the honour of kissing your hand’; at which the King smiled,
and being told the reason of his being so called, replied with an
air of gayety, ‘You will do well to put me in a way of making a Man
of him, and ordered him an immediate pension of ^500 per annum,
out of the privy purse, till an opportunity should offer.” 4 Such was
the pleasant and easy beginning of the young man’s brilliant career.
While opportunity, through patronage, was often a most delightful
method, it was somewhat erratic in its choice, and the other Mouse,
Matthew Prior, saw with chagrin his companion’s luck, and his own
neglect. Some time later he called Lord Dorset’s attention to his
own needs in a metrical epistle to which he added as a postscript:

My friend Charles Montague’s preferred;

Nor would I have it long observed,

That one Mouse eats, while t’other’s starved.

But his reward did not come till later and then from Montague,
who, after many years of neglect, gave him the temporary position
of secretary to the Commission to negotiate the Treaty of Ryswick. 5

In the Convention Parliament, Montague had not taken a prom¬
inent part in the debates. Now, certain of royal favour and having
acquired an income with some social standing from his marriage, he
directed his energies to a political career. His opportunity came in
1691 when he was appointed Chairman of a Committee to prepare
a Bill for regulating trials in cases of high treason. He gained such
applause in the management of the Bill, and showed such eloquence
in debate that, with the support of Dorset, he was immediately made
a Commissioner of the Treasury and Privy Councillor. For nearly
seven years, he was the undisputed master of Parliament; by his

4 Wor\s and Life of Halifax, Anonymous, p. 17.

. 5 c The s , hai f of Montague in the composition of the parody is contemptuously referred to

w*th P Sr CC p An % do ^ s ’ P- I02 ’ b .y Lord Peterborough: “ ‘Did not he write the Country Mouse
with Mr. Pryor. Yes, just as if I was in a chaise with Mr. Cheselden here, drawn by his fine
horse, and should say,—Lord how finely we draw this chaise!’’’—Montague’s neglect of

^ n , 0r R nd ' hl \l 10n i S Share °r t t e rewards o£ their work were also held up against him. Mrs
de la Riviere Manley one of the society gossips and scandal-mongers of the day, thus accuses

Montague: Pryor whose easy natural Muse and early friendship, has made both of ’em im-
mounted faTiSti- “ h ° n ° Ur ’ “ neg ' eCting the Step U P on which **

LIFE IN LONDON

443

eloquence and by his power in the Junto, he controlled a majority of
votes; his genius revolutionised the finances of the country and was
rewarded by his appointment, in 1694, as Chancellor of the Excheq¬
uer. Macaulay says of him that every one of those years had been
made memorable by great parliamentary victories, and by great
public services. His career had been more splendidly and uninter¬
ruptedly successful than that of any member of the House of Com¬
mons, since the House of Commons had begun to exist. But when
the Parliament of 1698 met, his good fortune forsook him; he had
long been hated by the Tories for his rapid rise to fame, and his
extraordinary good luck had excited the envy and secret hostility of
many of the Whigs. While his enemies could not attack him on the
side of his ability, they found his personal traits an easy mark. The
faults of his character were glaring and such as to make him un¬
popular; his intoxicating rise to success and fame had made him
proud and haughty even to insolence; he shunned his old com¬
panions who had consorted with him in his days of obscurity. It was
said that admiration of himself, and contempt of others, were in¬
dicated by all his gestures and written in all the lines of his face.
The very way the little jackanapes, as the hostile pamphleteers loved
to call him, strutted through the lobby, making the most of his small
figure, rising on his toes, and perking up his chin, filled his enemies
with rage. He was described as living in riotous extravagance and
debauchery in his great estate on the Thames, where, surrounded by
a crowd of toadies, he eagerly listened to the gross flattery they
poured into his ears. Boundless rapacity and corruption were
charged against him to account for his great fortune. In spite of his
genuine love of literature, and of his munificent patronage of literary
merit, he was greedy and undiscriminating in his taste which Pope
said was fed on dedications. And Grub Street could devise no fable
so absurd about Montague that it was not certain to find credence in
more than half the manor houses and vicarages of England. As a
reward for his services, he was more savagely reviled and lampooned in
prose and verse than almost any other politician in English history.
The best evidence that his real character was maligned are his rela¬
tions with persons who would not have tolerated intimacy with so
contemptible a man. He helped to make the fortune, and retained
the affectionate esteem of Addison and of Newton. Even after Swift
had turned in bitterness against his old associates, he still declared

444

ISAAC NEWTON

that he loved Montague better than any other Whig. And no man,
with a character such as has been painted by his enemies, could have
won the love of Catherine Barton and retained it until his death in
spite of the rumours which were circulated about their relations.

The record of Montague’s achievements in Parliament is an im¬
pressive catalogue. He raised the first general mortgage of £ 1,000,-
ooo to provide funds for the wars and was thus the founder of the
national debt; taking advantage of a plan of Paterson, he instituted
the Bank of England and established its modern financial system; he
revised the charter of the East India Company and gave it a new life;
and he also restored the currency, the greatest of his services, meet¬
ing its great expense by the substitution of the far more popular win¬
dow tax 0 for the customary and obnoxious hearth tax. In spite of
such services, he had hardly taken his seat in the Parliament of 1698
when he realised the bitterest mortification which a successful poli¬
tician can experience: he had lost his influence; and his eloquence,
which formerly swayed his listeners, now fell on deaf ears.

Whatever Montague’s character might have been, he was doomed
to failure as can be seen from the fate of Somers. A step, however,
which he had taken a few weeks before Parliament met had made
his downfall more certain and ignominious. He had hedged, and
prepared a shelter for himself in fear of approaching trouble, by
securing for his brother Christopher the Auditorship of the Ex¬
chequer with reversion to himself. The Auditorship was a life
position with a large salary, and the duties were formal and easy; it
is evident that he could not, himself, with decency, or probably even
legally, audit his own accounts. Although he carried through this
bold stroke and made certain for himself an ample income, secure
from the hazards of political changes; yet he increased the animosity
of his enemies and cooled the zeal of his adherents. When the mem¬
bers learned of this trick, their rage was unbounded. He was nick¬
named the Filcher and was baited to such an indecent extent in the
House of Commons that on one occasion he was irritated into utter¬
ing an oath and, on another, he burst into tears of rage and vexation
which only increased the mockery of his foes. Montague, unable to
bear the mortification of his position, resigned his places and took
the Auditorship; the King, although their relations had never been

6 This tax was the cause of blocking up unnecessary windows. Newton’s house is an
example.

LIFE IN LONDON

445

personally intimate, rewarded his services and relieved his embarrass¬
ment, by raising him to the peerage with the title of Baron Hali ax.
He, like Somers, was impeached and acquitted.

The difference in attitude towards public principles, then and
now, could not be better illustrated than by an incident which oc¬
curred at the death of King William. It is included in the Life of
Halifax by his panegyrist, who evidently saw nothing unusual in
it. So keen was Montague for place that: “when her late Majesty,
Queen Anne, to whom the malice of his enemies had rendered him
obnoxious, ascended the Throne, and to whom, notwithstanding, his
supposed aversion to the measures some persons about her had
taken, he paid the first compliments of condolence and congratula¬
tion, that were made her, by taking coach from Kensington to St.
James’s Palace, as soon as the breath was out of the deceased King s
body.” 7 His friends saw no impropriety in this indecent haste; but
his enemies, who were guilty of the same eagerness to welcome the
new and rising star, added it to their budget of calumny. One of
their writers, in a poem called the Golden Age, referred to the

incident,

“Dissembling States-men shall before thee stand,

And Halifax, he first shall kiss thy hand.”

Montague, now Halifax, remained in more or less obscurity during
her reign; but his persistent anti-Romanism together with his steady
advocacy of the Hanoverian succession brought their reward; he was
appointed one of Regents at the accession of George I. He was shortly
after permitted to transfer the Auditorship to his nephew and heir,
George Montague; and he was then made First Commissioner of the
Treasury, Earl of Halifax, and invested with the Order of the Garter.
He did not enjoy his new honours long, as he was taken ill suddenly
on May 15th, 1715, with an inflammation of the lungs, and died

four days later. 4 ^

Montague’s greatest service to the nation lay in the field of finance,
and of all this work none compared in importance with his success¬
ful recoinage of the currency. Money is now so stabilised, and so
accurately minted, that counterfeiting and adulterating the coin are
infrequent crimes; then, they were so general that a piece of full
value was a rarity. The penalty for both crimes was hanging; but

7 Life of Halifax, Anon.,, p. 75.

446

ISAAC NEWTON

in spite of a constant procession of these unfortunate wretches to
the gallows, the evil was in no way checked. The general debase¬
ment of the currency had become a national calamity, but the in¬
dividual act of removing a minute portion of metal from a few coins
seemed an insignificant crime for so drastic a punishment. The
sympathy of the people extended to the malefactors; juries would
not convict except in flagrant and wholesale cases, and judges would
not sentence; while the evil effect of the practice spread its poisonous
influence throughout the trade and life of the nation. Macaulay
gives a vivid, but not overdrawn, account of the desperate state into
which the money had fallen; and he rightly estimates the importance
of the work of Montague and Newton in rehabilitating the coinage
far above the more spectacular reforms of bad government. During
even a most disturbed and evil rule, the common people manage to
pursue their personal affairs, but such a state of the money as then
existed affected every moment and every transaction in their lives.

The standard currency of the country was silver; and till the reign
of Charles the Second the minting of the coin had been carried on
by the process introduced by Edward the First in the thirteenth cen¬
tury. The metal was cut with shears and then shaped and stamped
by the hammer. Coins made thus by hand were not exactly round
nor true in weight and, as they were neither milled nor inscribed on
their rims, they were easy to clip, or file, without detection. Clipping
thus became one of the most profitable kinds of fraud. The custom
had become so detrimental that, in the reign of Elizabeth, it was
treated as high treason. At the time of the Restoration, a large pro¬
portion of the coins had been more or less mutilated. To remedy
this condition, a mill worked by horses was set up in the Tower
which stamped the coins accurately and inscribed their edges with a
legend; as, however, the old money was kept in circulation, the
remedy was useless. The new coins were either hoarded, or melted
down and shipped abroad, the old coins persisted as the medium
°f business, and they continued to shrink in weight and value.

In the autumn of 1695, it was found by actual and careful test that
the average value of a shilling coin had been reduced to six pence.
Every transaction was accompanied by a bitter altercation between
the buyer and the seller; the former insisting on estimating the coins
by tale, and the latter by weight. Every Saturday night, all over the
country, was a period of riot and bad feeling between employer and
employe. The labourer and the clerk might receive the stipulated

LIFE IN LONDON

447

number of shillings, but for their purchases they acted like sixpences
or less. We have, as a startling witness of these troubles, the com¬
plaints of Dryden that his publisher, Tonson, on one occasion in¬
cluded forty brass shillings in a payment of clipped money, and at
another time the money was so bad that all of it was returned. If the
foremost writer of the day was so treated, we can easily imagine the
distress of the common people. The question had become so serious
that King William, in his address to Parliament, in 1695, included a
recommendation that the coinage should be completely reformed.
As a result Montague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was em¬
powered to prepare a Bill to provide for the recoinage of all the

money. 8 .

It was a bold decision of Montague to risk so serious a disturbance

in the affairs of the nation during a time of war. The greatest ap¬
prehension was aroused; the Jacobites used every effort to discredit
the government, and many of the Whigs counselled timorous and
half measures. By the most skillful management, Montague carried
his Bill for the recoinage through the House which, on the twenty-
first of January, 1695/6, was signed by the King. The more impor¬
tant measures of this Bill were that the money of the kingdom
should be recoined according to the old standard of weight and fine¬
ness; that the new pieces should be milled; that the loss on the
clipped pieces should be borne by the public exchequer; that a time
should be fixed after which no clipped coin should pass except in
payments to the government; and that a final date, May 4> 1696,
should be set when mutilated money could not pass at all.

The loss to the government involved in the redemption of the
mutilated money could not be estimated, but Montague prepared for
the emergency by obtaining a loan from the Bank of England,
secured by a new tax levied on the number of windows of the houses,
excepting only the inhabitants of cottages who had been cruelly

8 Macaulay, Chapter XXI, states that “the world had never seen ... an alliance so close,
so harmonious, and so honourable as that which bound Somers and Montague to Locke and
Newton.” This statement, which has also been accepted by Brewster as applicable to New¬
ton, is misleading. Somers and Locke were of the greatest assistance to Montague in pre¬
paring the Bill and securing its adoption. It is easy to prove by the known dates, that the
Bill was passed, its provisions were in operation, and the actual recoinage was begun by
February 1695/6. Newton did not receive his appointment as Warden of the Mint till the
following month and it must have taken some time for him to assume active charge of the
work. We have no evidence that he was ever consulted during the preliminary portion of
the work and, from his letters, there is reason to believe that he took no share in it. His
service is memorable only by his efficient management during the later months of the coin¬
age, and of the Mint till his death.

ISAAC NEWTON

448

harassed by the assessors of the former hearth tax. By February,
*695/65 recoinage was begun. Ten furnaces were built in the
gardens behind the Treasury; huge heaps of mutilated coins were
melted and cast into ingots, and then were immediately transported
to the Tower to be minted. From that time till the fourth of May,
the first panic subsided, and the scarcity of money was not severely
felt. In March, Newton assumed charge of the work, and branch
mints were established in several towns; notably, Chester, where
Halley was installed as his representative. The real agony began in
May when the clipped coins were no longer received by the govern¬
ment in payment of taxes. There was little of the old money which
would pass the test and the new money was just beginning to trickle
from the Mint; but, by means of barter, of promissory notes given
by merchants, and of negotiable paper issued by the Exchequer, the
summer slowly wore away. It was not till August that the first faint
signs of returning ease in the money situation appeared, and there
is no doubt that the able administration and indefatigable industry
of Newton shortened this period of distress. He wrote peremptorily
to Flamsteed that he would not be teased about mathematical things
nor trifle away his time while he was about the King’s business. The
Wardens of the Mint had previously been fine gentlemen who drew
their salaries and rarely condescended to do any work. It had been
considered a great feat to coin silver to the amount of fifteen thou¬
sand pounds weight a week; but under the energetic management
of Montague and Newton, the weekly coinage soon rose to sixty
thousand pounds, and finally to a hundred and twenty thousand
pounds. But even this rate was inadequate, and normal conditions
were not restored till the following spring.

The history of Newton’s connection with the Mint can be told
briefly. He retained the position of Warden, which gave to him the
actual management of the work, till 1699 when the great undertak¬
ing of the recoinage was completed. When this was safely out of the
way, and the Mint had settled down to normal conditions, he was
promoted to be Master of the Mint and held the position for life; as
soon as his income was ample, he resigned all connection with Cam-
bndge. On the authority of Conduitt, who was in a position to
know, Newton’s income as Master of the Mint has been generally
stated to be between ^1200 and ^1500 a year. But Colonel de Vil-
lamil, who recently discovered the complete inventory of Newton’s
estate, has proved that Conduitt spoke carelessly; in that document

LIFE IN LONDON

449

he testified on oath the true figure of his uncle’s income was as
follows:

Salary as Master of the Mint, per annum
Salary as Assay Master, per annum .

Perquisite of one shilling tenpence per pound weight
gold minted from Jan. i to March 20, 1726/7, the day

his death . ,

Perquisite of threepence farthing per pound weight

silver minted from Jan. 1 to March 20, 1726/7

jf 6 00— 0—0

60— 0—0
of
of

303—17—6

3— 5—9%

As there is no reason to suppose that more metal was coined during
the seventy-nine days from January first to his death, his income
from the Mint was, at least, £2078 per annum. Thus, for twenty-
eight years, Newton received a more than generous salary; those
were pleasant times for an official who was fortunate enoug to
possess the proper influence.

His position, during the first three years, was a most difficult one,
not only must the employes be spurred to the greatest loyalty an
effort but, also, political troubles had to be counteracted. The
Jacobites and Tories seized the chance to use the crisis to discredit
the government and to foment discord in the workmen and officers
of the Mint. Serious disturbances broke out first at Chester; friction
arose between Clark, the Master-worker, Lewis and other clerks at
Chester, on one side, and Halley and Weddell, friends of Newton,
on the other. Clark challenged Weddell to a duel which ludicrously
ended in words, and Lewis threw a standish at him. Halley, alarmed
at these dissensions, finally wrote to Newton to use the potent in¬
fluence of Montague, Chancellor of the Exchequer, should it e
necessary, and to exercise great prudence in trying to compose the
quarrel/He accused Clark of being the source of the dissensions and
wrote that the troubles would cease if the “proud, insolent fellow
were removed. He “has been at London this two months, and left
all business (which has for this month past kept us all fully em¬
ployed) to our care, though we know not why we should charge
ourselves with, he not desiring it. But we have been willing to serve
the public by giving a constant attendance and animating all parts
of the mint so that, at this time, we have closed offf] all that was
imported above five weeks since; and have issued about fifty thou-

9 Cf. de Villamil, Newton: the Man, p. 33*

450

ISAAC NEWTON

sand pounds of new money.” 10 He offered to resign but thought he
should continue in order to further the work. Newton, with friendly
consideration, undertook to relieve him of his embarrassment by
finding for him another position although it would have removed
a devoted and valuable ally from the work.

Newton to Halley

Sir, London, Feb. n, 1696-7.

This morning Colonel Blunt, the King’s first Engineer, was with
me and acquainted me with the design the King has to allow ten
shillings per diem for two masters to teaching Engineering (I mean
the mathematical grounds of it) two hours each day, to those of the
army who will come to hear them publicly, Engineers, and Officers,
and others, who shall have the curiosity and capacity. I proposed you
a , llt f )erson to be one of the two, if you should think fit to accept
. the th \ n 8 - B y bringing you acquainted with the Officers and mak¬
ing you known to the King, it may be a means of making way for

something better. The Colonel will call on me seven or eight days
hence for an answer. Iam

Your faithful friend to serve you,

D c T , f Is. Newton.

F. 1 wrote to you the last post for an Engineer’s place. I question
you can have both. 11

ut Halley stuck to his post till the Chester branch was closed, and
then he received an appointment as observer on the first scientific
expedition to be undertaken by England, which had for its object

to aid navigation by studying the variation of the compass in dif¬
ferent parts of the earth.

In addition to the troubles created at Chester, Newton had to meet
a serious attack on his own administration. A certain William
Chaloner claimed to have discovered gross irregularities in the con¬
duct of the Mint. He was ordered to disclose his information to a
special Committee of the House of Commons under a guarantee of
personal protection against threats which he asserted had been made
on his life. Chaloner s story was that the officers of the Mint had

LIFE IN LONDON

45 1

trumped up charges against himself, had committed him to New¬
gate Prison, and had kept him in irons for seven weeks. When they
failed to secure evidence against him, they then laid a plot to involve
him in coining false money in the hope of undermining any tes¬
timony he might bring against their own criminal acts. At this
point, the affair seems to have faded out; the Committee sat several
times, but no action was taken and no report of its proceedings has
been found. As Newton’s character was deeply involved, Brewster, 12
with the assistance of Lord Brougham, made a diligent search for
evidence of the truth of the charge, and found in the British Museum
documents which completely exonerated him. Amongst other
papers, a short tract was unearthed giving an account of the life and
execution for high treason of Chaloner. According to this account,
he was undoubtedly a man of great talents, but of an evil character,
who devised the plot in order to conceal his own criminal actions.
His biographer says: “He scorned to fly at low matters. He pre¬
tended his commitment to be malicious, and accused that worthy
gentleman, Isaac Newton, Esq., Warden of his Majesty’s Mint, with
several other officers thereof, as connivers (at least) at many abuses
and cheats there committed. This accusation he impudently put into
Parliament, and a committee was appointed to examine the same
who, upon a full hearing of the matter, dismissed the same gentle¬
man with the honour due his merit, and Chaloner with the character
he deserved.”

Direct attempts were also made to oust Newton from his position.
He was offered other places and bribes of money for favours and
patronage. Such attempts might have one of two motives; either to
provide a lucrative place for a political henchman, or to impair the
efficiency of the Mint in order to embarrass Montague. One remark¬
able instance of his integrity of character, and of his determination
to stick to what he believed to be his duty, is preserved in a letter to
Conduitt from the Rev. Dr. Derham, an intimate acquaintance of
Newton. 13 “The last thing, Sir, that I shall trouble you with, shall be
a passage relating to the coinage of the copper money some years
ago, which pleased me much in setting forth the integrity of my
friend Sir Isaac. The occasion of our discourse was, the great in¬
conveniences which many underwent by the delay of the coinage of
this sort of money. The occasion of which delay, Sir Isaac told me,
was from the numerous petitions that were presented to them, in

12 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 201. 13 Portsmouth Collection.

45 2

ISAAC NEWTON

most of which some person or other of quality was concerned.
Amongst others, he told me that an agent of one had made him an
offer of above ^6000, which Sir Isaac refusing on account of its
being a bribe, the agent said he saw no dishonesty in the acceptance
of the offer, and that Sir Isaac understood not his own interest. To
which Sir Isaac replied, that he knew well enough what was his
duty, and that no bribes should corrupt him. The agent then told
him, that he came from a great Duchess, and pleaded her quality and
interest. To which Sir Isaac roughly answered, ‘I desire you to tell
the lady, that if she was here herself, and had made me this offer, I
would have desired her to go out of my house; and so I desire you,
or you shall be turned out.’ Afterwards he learned who the Duchess
was.”

During his administration of the Mint, Newton was several times
offered large gifts and pensions, but he always declined them. The
astronomer Cassini, during a visit to England shortly after the treaty
of Ryswick, was authorised by Louis XIV to ask him to accept such
a pension as a recognition of his discoveries. Also, towards the close
of Queen Anne’s reign, Bolingbroke sent Dean Swift to his intimate
friend, Catherine Barton, asking her to let her uncle know “the
Government thought it a sin that his thoughts should be diverted by
his place at the Mint, and that the Queen would settle upon him a
pension of £2000 a year.” The proposal was dropped when Newton
briefly replied, “My place is at their disposal, but I will have no
pfension].” 14 This incident is always cited as an attempt to bribe
Newton in order that his lucrative place might be given to a Tory
henchman. While it is true that party was then using every means
to strengthen their lines and prevent the approaching Han¬
overian succession, I doubt if such a method would have been
necessary to obtain his resignation. The Tories had permitted him
to keep his place undisturbed during years of bitter party strife, and
they had honoured him with knighthood; to remove a political
opponent would have been looked upon as a matter of course. Both
Bolingbroke and Swift were distinguished men of letters and there
is no reason to assume that they were not offering a graceful tribute
to the most illustrious scholar of the age.

The record of Newton’s official life is meagre but, such as it is, it
confirms the accepted opinion that he performed his duties faithfully
and well in an age of general coruption; in fact, he set a standard of

14 Conduitt MSS. Portsmouth Collection.

LIFE IN LONDON

453

public service. Edleston has collected a few items worth preserving.
In 1717 and 1718, he presented in person to the House of Lords
elaborate reports on the comparative values of domestic and foreign
coins, and on the amount of coinage accomplished during those
years. These reports were afterwards laid before the House of Com¬
mons in pursuance of an address to the King. The value of the gold
guinea had been steadily falling after the silver money had been
standardised in purity and weight, and one effect of his statistics was
to fix the guinea at twenty-one shillings, the ratio which it still main¬
tained when the standard was changed to gold. In 1724, h e presented
an adverse report on the circulation of Wood’s brass half-pence.
This action won him the bitter opposition of Swift who was deeply
interested in providing the Irish with an abundant medium of small
value. In his Voyage of Gulliver to Laputa he retaliated by caricatur¬
ing the activities of the Royal Society, and it is generally supposed
that Newton, the President, was the prototype of those philosophers
who dreamed preposterous undertakings, and were aroused from
their foggy abstraction by taps of a bladder administered by a watch¬
ful attendant. Newton’s ideas on criminal punishment are known
from a letter written to Lord Townshend.

__ T . Newton to Lord Townshend

My Lord,

I know nothing of Edmund Metcalf convicted at Derby assizes of
counterfeiting the coin; but since he is very evidently convicted, I
am humbly of opinion that it’s better to let him suffer, than to ven¬
ture his going on to counterfeit the coin and teach others to do so un¬
til he can be convicted again, for these people very seldom leave off.
And it’s difficult to detect them. I say this with most humble sub¬
mission to his Majesty’s pleasure and remain

My Lord

your Lordship’s most humble and obedient Servant

A Is. Newton . 16

Mint Office Aug. 25, 1724.

During the last years of Newton’s life, he rarely went to the Mint
and desired to resign in favour of Conduitt who was satisfactorily
carrying on the duties of the office as his deputy. After his death,
Conduitt succeeded him as Master. There is a story connected with

15 Edleston, p. 316

454

ISAAC NEWTON

Conduitt’s appointment which sheds a light on a practice common
enough at the time but offensive to our sense of propriety. It is re¬
lated by Whiston in his Memoirs of Dr. Samuel Clarke, and his
reference to Bishop Hoadly is strong evidence of its truth. 16

‘A. D. 1727, upon the death of Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Clarke was
offered by the Court the place he possessed of Master of the Mint,
worth, communibus annis, £1200 to ^1500 a year. Upon this offer
the doctor advised with his friends, and particularly with Mr. Emlyn
and myself, about accepting or refusing it. We were both heartily
against his acceptance, as what he wanted not, as what was entirely
remote from his profession, and would hinder the success of his
ministry. Whereupon, after no small consideration, he absolutely
refused it. Nor do I give credit to those surmises, as if Mr. Conduitt,
who succeeded, was obliged to give the Doctor, privately, an annual
share of his profits, or what was equivalent thereto; with this only
abatement, that Mr. Conduitt did actually give £ 1000 to void a place
among the king’s writers, which place was freely bestowed on a son
of the Doctor’s, who could not otherwise be so well provided for,
after himself had refused the former much greater place. . . . And as
for the Doctor’s refusal of the former improper preferment, though
entirely omitted by Dr. Sykes, and almost entirely by Bishop Hoadly,

I take it to be one of the most glorious actions of his life. . . ,” 17
The estimation of the value of Newton’s public service to the
nation has varied widely; even the propriety of a man of such genius
devoting so large a portion of his life to a more or less routine office
has been questioned. It would be absurd to subscribe to Brewster’s
sentimental effusion that Newton, the High Priest of Science, had
been ignored by a callous nation and doomed to the obscure life of
a scholar immured in academic cloisters until a tardy recognition of
his services placed him in a position of affluence and honour as
Master of the Mint. Newton had always had an income sufficient for
the needs of a scholar and bachelor. As for the comparative honour
of the two positions, that to be paid to him as a Master of the Mint
can hardly match with that as a scholar and philosopher. Nor was

16 Whiston s Memoirs _ have been discredited by Newton’s partisans and unjustly. Because

a man was a somewhat fanatical Arian and tried to revive primitive Christianity, and because
he unfortunately had a grievance against Newton, are not reasons for discrediting his direct
statements. His life is a witness to his willingness to suffer for what he believed to be the
truth. Dr. Samuel Clarke was a prominent divine and philosopher; as a staunch supporter
of Newton, he defended the Newtonian philosophy against Leibniz in a series of letters pub¬
lished in the Des Maizeaux Collection. P

17 De Morgan—Newton: His Friend: and His Niece, p. 153.

LIFE IN LONDON

455

he neglected during his life time; there have been few scientists who
have enjoyed so deep a respect and admiration by their contem¬
poraries as did he. Again the statement of Brewster 8 that: Elevated
to the Chair of the Royal Society, and enjoying the confidence of the
Prince Consort, Sir Isaac had it in his power to do something for
the promotion of science.” What an extraordinary statement to be
made by an author, himself a distinguished scientist! What could
Newton do for science, through the patronage of a Prince Consort
or even of a learned society, to compare with the discoveries he
might have made ? Even thus to address him invariably as Sir Isaac
is irritating, as if his fame and memory had been certified by the
complaisance of a stupid Queen Anne.

But, the more one studies the vital importance of the recoinage,
the more one is convinced that it needed the united effort of four
such men as Montague, Somers, Locke, and Newton. If he had tem¬
porarily laid aside his philosophical studies to assist in such an
emergency, he would have deserved the honour due to a benefactor
of the nation; but one cannot regard his position in the Mint for
thirty years except as a sinecure. He was fifty years of age at the
time of his appointment and, apparently, at the height of his powers.
He had given to the world inestimable fruits of his genius. If he
preferred to give no more, and to change his manner of life, it
would be churlish even to question his motives; but no one can take
satisfaction in his choice. There is no doubt that he desired social
distinction and contact with men of affairs; that he enjoyed his
intimacy at Court, or that he found satisfaction as a dispenser of
patronage; but none of these causes accounts for his abrupt cessation
from scientific work. To find a reason for it, we are driven to the
conjecture that he never had been deeply interested in science for
itself, and that he wished to have the opportunity to follow his
stronger inclination towards theology and history; or we must accept
the opinion that the excessive strain incident to the composition of the
Principia, and his subsequent illness, had permanently debilitated his
will power, or had disturbed the delicate adjustment of his marvel¬
lous brain. Newton, only, could answer the question, and he has
left no word to tell us of his motives. All we can say is: in the first
half of his life, his inventive power excelled that of other men; and
in the latter half, it ceased.

It is altogether probable that Newton, when he first moved to

18 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 219,

456

ISAAC NEWTON

London, accepted Montague’s invitation to lodge near him. The
recoinage had already been begun, and he would find little leisure
to look about for permanent quarters; also it would be convenient
to be with his friend while learning his new duties. At any rate, it
was not till autumn that he moved into his own house in Jermyn
Street, where he was to live for the next twelve years. The house
stood just behind St. James’s Church, Piccadilly, and its site, which
is now occupied by Jules’s Hotel, is marked by a commemorative
tablet. While there were living quarters in the Tower for the
Warden, he does not ever seem to have occupied them, although
both Swift and Voltaire supposed he did. The choice of a residence
so far from the Mint may, at first sight, seem surprising, but his
work was probably mostly conducted at the Exchequer which was
nearby in Whitehall. It was there that the old coins were received,
valued, and cast into bullion, and where the principal duties of the
Warden would be performed. In fact he seems, at least after the first
rush of work was over, to have spent only one day a week at the
Tower. When he became President of the Royal Society he had its
weekly meeting changed from Wednesday to Thursday so as not to
interfere with his duties at the Mint. And it was well known by his
friends that he was engaged there on Wednesdays as is proved by a
letter of Locke who requested his cousin, Lord King, to call on
Newton, but to avoid Wednesday as that was his day at the Tower.

Jermyn Street, lying as it does in Westminster, was beginning to
be a fashionable neighbourhood, but we must suppose that Newton’s
income for some years would require him to maintain a modest
housekeeping. Shortly after he set up for himself, he installed a
favourite niece, Catherine Barton, as manager of his establishment,
and she by her wit and beauty soon made it a centre of young and
gay life. Even when he enjoyed a much larger salary as Master of
the Mint, his biographers found it difficult to understand how he
managed to live in an ample fashion, and yet to leave so large a
fortune, unless he were a shrewd investor of his savings. Fortu¬
nately, the researches of Colonel de Villamil have proved that his
income was much greater, and his establishment more frugal, than
they were supposed to have been. That, in the later years of his life,
he lived well is recorded by Conduitt, who was himself a man of
means and who, after his marriage with Mrs. Catherine Barton in
1717, lived with Newton for ten years. He stated in a letter to

LIFE IN LONDON

457

Fontenelle 19 that Newton lived alone except for his niece who was
with him nearly twenty years before and after her marriage. They
lived in a handsome and hospitable manner, without ostentation or
vanity. There he received visits from many distinguished foreigners
attracted to him by his fame, and to them he gave, on occasion,
splendid entertainments. “All the time he had to spare from business
and the civilities of life, in which he was scrupulously exact and com¬
plaisant, was employed in the same way on history, chronology,
divinity, and chemistry, and he was hardly ever alone without a pen
in his hand and a book before him. All the studies he undertook,
he had a perseverance and patience equal to his sagacity and inven-
tion.

Newton has given so many proofs of generosity and had so equable
a disposition that we can readily believe he was an affectionate and
indulgent guardian to his niece and provided her with the means to
preside worthily over the society attracted by her charming person¬
ality. There is only one adverse account of his hospitality which may
be given now, although it relates to his last years when he was ill. It
bears all the marks of personal pique and rather cheap wit at the
expense of a man, crowned with a great age and honour. In 1725, the
Abbe Alari, former tutor of Louis XV and a friend of Bolingbroke,
spent two months in London: He visited the University of Cam¬
bridge and the great Newton, who enjoyed, at that time, in the
capital of England, the general esteem of Europe, and 50,000 livres
of salary as Master of the Mint. The Abbe having gone to his house
at nine o’clock in the morning, Newton began by telling him that he
was eighty-three years of age. There was in his chamber the portrait
of his patron, Lord Halifax, and one of the Abbe Varignon, of whose
geometrical writings he had a high opinion. Varignon, he said, and
Father Sebastien, the Carmelite, are those who have understood
best my system of colours.’ The conversation at last turned on an¬
cient history, with which Newton was then occupied. The Abbe,
who was deeply read in Greek and Latin authors, having made him¬
self very agreeable, was asked to dinner. The repast was detestable.
Newton was stingy, and gave his guests wines of Palma and
Madeira, which he had received in presents. After dinner he took
the Abbe to the Royal Society, of which he was the President, and
made him sit at his right hand. The business began, and Newton
fell asleep. When it was over, every body signed the register, and the

19 Turnor, p. 163. Portsmouth Collection.

458

ISAAC NEWTON

Abbe among the rest. Newton took him to his house, and kept him
till nine o’clock in the evening.” 20

We may be sure that Montague was an important factor in the
new household. And however much he may have alienated others
by his arrogance, ostentation, and libertinism, he must have shown
there his better side as Newton was not a person to tolerate such
traits. Newton s circle must have been drawn from many and di¬
verse sources; in it could be found the political associates of Monta-
gue, serious men of letters and science attracted by Newton, and the

“Wits” who made the niece one of the toasts of the famous Kit-Cat
Club. 21

Although Newton was a silent man and often abstracted in gen¬
eral society, he was sought after by the leaders of thought even in his
early and busy years at the Mint. For example, Bentley, who then
occupied the position of the Keeper of the King’s Library housed in
St. James’s Palace, formed a club of a few friends who for their in¬
tellectual powers could hardly be matched at that, or any other, time.
In a letter to Evelyn, written in the autumn of 1697? he mentions his
intention of founding such evening meetings: “I think I have at last
obtained of the Treasury, to repair and augment the King’s Library
here. Sir Christopher Wren, Mr. Locke, Mr. Newton, etc., (and I
hope when in Town Mr. Evelyn) are to meet here once or twice a
week in the evening.” 22 Evelyn’s diary and Bentley’s letters, which
give so much information about the life of their time, are strangely
silent about the discussions which took place in such a unique gath-

20 Essats Hist, sur Bolingbro\e. Compiled by Gen. Grimoard. Vol. I, p tee Paris 1808
quoted by Erervsrer, Vo!. II, p. 3 88.-Newton’s inventory shows tha he was frugal and
s.mple in h.s tastes. He spent little on his service, his wardrobe, or his furniture.
c • , . °p SoI I ners and Montague were original members of this famous Whig Club. It is
said to have been founded by Jacob Tonson, the bookseller.. Its name was taken from its

frXu«on e pt: Se ° f ChriSt ° Pher Cat ’ ^ Shlfe LanC ’ neaf « ^ was famous

“Immortal made as Kit-Cat by his pies.”

Ur as some say, the name was derived from the sign of his house, the “Cat and Fiddle ”

bega„ ng a the S laTh r ou 7 ofT berS T e t a * T? Ul T F“” °» Hampstead Heath. Dtnn'r
egan at the late hour of three o clock and often lasted until six. The meetings were noted

their wit and, by rumour, for heavy drinking. One custom was to choose the most dodu-

The 'f 111 ° ' ‘ f°T? as a t0ast ’ and to inscribe her charms on a wine glass with a diamond
1 he following feeble verses to Catherine Barton are ascribed to Montague: dlamond -

Beauty and wit strove each in vain

To vanquish Bacchus and his train;

But Barton, with successful charms,

From both their quivers drew her arms:

The roving god his sway resigns,

o 2 p ,, , , And cheerfully submits his vines.”

Bentley s Correspondence, Vol. I, p. i 52 .

LIFE IN LONDON

459

ering. We could dispense willingly with many other anecdotes to
have had a first hand report of some of those intimate conversations.

Newton had no sooner forsaken the life of the scholar, and em¬
barked on his new career, than he made a diligent search into his
family connection in order to establish his status as a gentleman. He
was in the embarrassing position of being a lord of a manor, but the
manor was a pitifully small one, his immediate family were palpably
yeomen farmers, and he evidently could not trace his ancestry further
back than his grandfather. As mentioned before, he testified on oath
to the Herald’s College that he had reason to believe that he was
descended from the Newton family of Lincolnshire but could not
trace the connection. That he was not satisfied with the proof of this
relationship is shown by a conversation reported to have been held
between Newton and James Gregory: “Sir Isaac said, 'Gregory, I be¬
lieve you don’t know that I am a Scotchman ?—Tray, how is that ?
said Gregory. Sir Isaac said he was informed that his grandfather (or
great-grandfather) was a gentleman of East (or West) Lothian:
that he went to London with King James I at his accession to the
crown of England: and that he attended the Court, in expectation, as
many others did, until he spent his fortune, by which means his
family was reduced to low circumstances.” We might suppose that
Gregory would have been proud to welcome a Newton into his
family, but his Scotch pride of race interfered. To Newton s insinua¬
tion, Gregory bluntly replied, “Newton a gentleman of East
Lothian? I never heard of a gentleman of East Lothian of that
name.” Newton, thereupon, said he had it only by tradition, and im¬
mediately turned the conversation to another subject. 23

Those who look upon Newton as a philosopher, dwelling in the
clouds, have an erroneous picture of the man. He was observant and
interested in small things, and was careful in his dealings with others
lest they should overcome him in a bargain. He was generous in
helping the affairs of his village community but he retained through¬
out life the country boy’s attitude towards little affairs. It is amusing
to note how attentive he was to have his instructions carried out and
how minutely he watched his neighbours. When he was an old man,
the most famous in the world, he took time to settle just how many

23 It was a common practice of the time to bolster up a shaky pedigree by attaching it to
one of the impecunious but haughty Scotch lairds who swarmed to London with James I
to mend their fortunes. It is wiser to consider the advent of Newton as one of the unaccount¬
able appearances of a great genius rather than to seek for the source of his qualities in a
mediocre county family. Those who are curious about his pedigree should consult Brewster,
Vol. II, pp. 537-545*

460

ISAAC NEWTON

sheep and cattle he was entitled to have graze on the common. And
when he was thought to be so immersed in the composition of the
Principia as to be oblivious to the most important things of his life
and of the world, we are astounded by the fact that he interrupted
his meditations to write a long letter, going into minute details about
repairing a house and barn, and threatening his tenants with a law¬
suit if they did not mend their ways. While the following letter is
long, it will give the reader a totally new and unexpected idea of
Newton as a human being. It is also one of the very few of his per¬
sonal letters which has been preserved.

Newton to a Friend

Before I received yours I had an account from Mr. Parish of the
arbitration, and thereupon wrote to Mr. Parkins to know how the
indentures run, and to Mr. Storer, to know distinctly what it is that
his son Oliver deposes. I had a speedy answer from Mr. Parkins,
whereby I understand that Mr. Storer is bound to leave all things in
a tenantable repair, by a clause which you do not mention j but from
Mr. Storer I have not yet received an answer, and therefore cannot
write to you what I designed for putting an end to these differences.

When I met Mr. Storer and his sons at Wolstrope, that is at Lady-
day last, I was satisfied with the removal of the wheat hovel and with
the thatch of the houses in view, as I went up the yard to the house.
I do not say that there was no faults, for I am shortsighted, and did
not (that I remember) go close to the barn, not being then minded
to call Mr. Storer to a strict account for repairs. Thence we went
into the orchard, and I was pleased with the repairs of the slated
house, but told Mr. Storer s sons that he was an ill husband with the
drain below, and he promised it should be scoured. Then turning to
Robin’s house I pointed to two very faulty places in the thatch, and
Mr. Storer’s sons confessed it rained in, and promised it should be
mended. Thence I went into the dwelling-house to receive Mr.
Storer s rent, and when he was going to pay it he told me that his
son found boards for the gutters of the Lucome windows, which I
was to pay for, but the bill was lost, and so desired that I would al¬
low 30s for these boards. After some words, I put it to him whether
he could honestly affirm that the boards were worth so much. He
answered he could not, but he hoped I would not stand with him for
a small matter. To which I presently answered that I would not

LIFE IN LONDON

461

stand with him, and so remitted 30s. of his rent on account of the bill
which he said was lost. About a fortnight after coming to Colster-
worth, I was three or four times at Wolstrope, and one of those times
going into the garden I found the walls ruinous, and in going
through the pales between the garden and the house, I observed that
they, and the great gates, were much out of order. At the time also
the pales were wanting to the swine-coat and some of the long pales
plucked off from the cow-house. At that time I heard also that they
had carried away the fence from the new quick in the clay-field, 24
and made money of it. Mr. Storer represents that the hedge was de¬
cayed and grown useless before; but this is to excuse one fault with
another, for Mr. Storer was to keep it in repair, I paying for the
wood. After I understood these things, I was called out of the country
before I could speak with Mr. Storer, and afterwards, in hay time, I
had notice that the linghouse was ruinous, for want of repair, and
that Mr. Storer’s son refused to repair it. Soon after a friend viewed
the tenements, and sent me an account of those things out of repair
which I had observed, and some other things also which I had not
noted. And at that time, or some time after, I understood that Mr.
Storer’s son refused absolutely to do any repairs, and had treated
Will. Cottam with ill language about it. Whereupon, considering
that they had not repaired Robin’s house, and left divers other things
out of repair, and that Mr. Storer’s son, living with his father, and
being his father’s agent, could not persist in a refusal of repairs,
without his father’s knowledge and encouragement, I resolved to call
the father to a general account for repairs, which could not be done
but by suit, and because the son was concerned in the aforesaid
hedge, I resolved to sue them both, and this the rather because his son
had disparaged the living at Lady-day in my hearing, I being of
opinion that he did it as well behind my back as before my face, to
hinder me of tenants who might put me upon calling them to ac¬
count for repairs. This was the occasion of the suit which I tell you,
that you may understand I was not rash in beginning it, as Mr.
Storer endeavours to persuade his friends.

I hear ’tis represented I should be well pleased with repairs at
Lady-day, and allow Mr. Storer 30s. on that account, and say that
things were better in repair than when Mr. Burch left them. But I
have told you that the 30s. was in discharge of a bill, and respected
only the slating of the house, which was done at my charges, and if I

24 This clay-field is still used. Quick was the familiar name for a hedge.

462

ISAAC NEWTON

was pleased with what I had repaired, what is that to Mr. Storer? Be¬
cause I eased [him] of repairs of the side of the house, there is the
more reason that he should leave other things in good repair. He was
indeed at the charge of carriages, but that was a bargain, and I have,
on the other hand, allowed him 30s. for boards, which perhaps were
not worth half the money. And if I was kind to him in that, he is
very disingenuous to turn it to my disadvantage. For this is to snap
me by the fingers for giving him bread.

Whether I said that things were left better in repair by Mr. Storer
than by Mr. Burch I do not remember, and if it be understood gen¬
erally, it’s manifestly false. For I could not say so of Robin’s house,
because I complained of its being out of repair, nor of the garden
walls, because I had not then viewed them, nor of the gates and pales,
because I did not see any repairs of late done to them, nor could I say
so of the repairs of anything for which I now sue. But of the slated
house, and, if you please, of all the houses taken one with another, I
and do now say, that they were better in repair when Mr.
Storer left than when he entered. But then I add, that this is nothing
to Mr. Storer’s purpose, for ’tis my charge of ^11-ios. in slating,
which makes amends for all the rest. And if I have repaired the
main building substantially, that must not excuse Mr. Storer from
repairing what belongs to his own share. So you see that what Mr.
Storer alleges himself amounts to nothing. In short, as I did not be¬
gin this suit without just occasion, so now I have begun it I do not
intend to end it without satisfaction. If Mr. Storer will send me a
satisfactory answer to my last, I’ll endeavour to make a final end in
my next, but if he goes on to misrepresent things, I’ll solicit Mr.
Parish to give you another meeting. I thank you for undertaking
the office of an arbitrator, and that you may inherit the blessing
promised to peace-makers, is the hearty wish of.. . .

^ 1 • 1 r , opr [Is. Newton.]

Cambridge, Jan. nth, ’ 8 y/ 8. 25

In 1698, Montague’s wife died and, whether or not he regarded
that loss as a great affliction, it made a profound change in his life
It was also the year when he fell from power, and there can be no
doubt that he was a prey to the deepest anxiety. Newton, too, must
have regarded the future with alarm; it was only too probable that he
would share in the downfall of the statesman. Their consultations

25 Brewster, Vol. II, pp. 546-548.

LIFE IN LONDON

463

must have been frequent and prolonged. But Montague had made a
still stronger attachment in the house of his friend in the person of
his niece. We do not know just when Catherine Barton came to
London but the probability is that she had been her uncle s house¬
keeper for some years. Montague early developed a deep affection
for her, and proved his love with a devotion which was perhaps the
most disinterested relationship in his chequered life.

We know little about Newton’s immediate family, but we do
know that he was unfailingly generous towards his relatives and that
his affection for his mother and his niece, Catherine, was whole¬
hearted and steadfast. I have been unable to find any references
about his half-sisters, and their brother; and the few about their
children lead one to believe that they were a rather worthless lot.
De Morgan has discovered an unsavoury anecdote of Newton’s half¬
nephew, Benjamin Smith. He is reported to have been one of the
most profligate clergymen of the day and that is to admit a great
deal. He was ordained by Newton’s friend, Dr. Stukeley, an act
which Bishop Warburton termed a “furious scandal.” 26 We learn
something of the attitude of the time towards the office of the clergy
from the apology of Stukeley that he had refused to give him a tes¬
timonial of character, and had only given him a title of office which
had reference to his livelihood and not to his morals. This ex¬
traordinary version of the affair caused Warburton to congratulate
Stukeley on the excellence of his justification. When this nephew
was a youth, Newton wrote him scorching letters of rebuke, describ¬
ing his actions and his character in terms which were as blunt and
descriptive as the conduct was indecent. These letters fell into the
hands of a clergyman after Smith’s death and were destroyed, for
fear Newton’s reputation might suffer if it were known that he was
acquainted with such coarse language. Such was the colourless char¬
acter that his worshipers were determined to invest him with, and
have us forget that he had passed his childhood amongst the roughest
of country boys where he would become quite familiar with the
rudest language, and would use it on occasion without being himself
indecent. His sister Hannah married a clergyman named Barton
and had several children. One of these was the Catherine Barton
who has already been mentioned. A son entered the army and was
killed in Hill’s ill-fated expedition against Quebec. Swift refers to

26 The “scandal,” in the Bishop’s opinion, may have been due to Smith’s character, or to
the fact that he was not ordained by a bishop,

ISAAC NEWTON

t lis Colonel Barton in his /ournal to Stella as Catherine’s good-for-
nothing brother for whom she could mourn only as a matter of form,
and adds that his manner of death was the most praiseworthy act
of his life. There is also the startling statement in the life of the
famous witty divine Sidney Smith,” by his daughter Lady Holland,
that he was the grandson of the famous witty Catherine Barton,
which is obviously an error. In the fourth edition of the book, the
name of this ancestress was changed to Maria Barton and, possibly,

L Ve been a dau S hter or granddaughter of Colonel Barton.

With the exception of his mother, Catherine Barton, born in 1680,
was the only one of Newton’s relatives who was in any way dis¬
tinguished, or who exerted any real influence on his life. While her
rather was probably poor, his ancestors had possessed estates in

orthamptonshire for several hundred years and were related to a
number of the honourable families of that neighbourhood. New¬
ton was early attracted to her and singled her out to give her the best
of educations. Shortly after he moved to London, he practically
adopted her and placed her in charge of his establishment.

In August, 1717, she married John Conduitt, M. P., who was New-
ton s deputy in the Mint during the latter years of his life, and suc¬
ceeded him, at his death. The Conduitts lived with him from their
marriage until his death; their only child, Catherine, married John

T? i cti ° r< Lymington, and their son succeeded to the title of
arl of Portsmouth, and from this connection Newton’s papers came
into the possession of that family. She must have been a charming

and beautiful girl whose picture has come down to us as the famous
witty, and virtuous Mrs. Barton. 27

In spite of the general and emphatic belief in the rectitude of both
Newton and his niece, there has persisted a smothered rumour that
she lived for years with Montague as his mistress, and that Newton
not only connived at the illicit connection, but obtained his public
post because of it. It is simply incredible to us now that a man of
Newtons integrity and strict principles could have tolerated such a
relationship or that he could have been ignorant of it, if it existed.
1 he question, and it is one of interest to settle if possible, is, did Mrs
Barton live in Montague’s house or not? Was she his friend his
mistress or his unacknowledged, but legitimate, wife? The’un¬
qualified answer to these questions has been made almost impossible

1 e or Mrs. t have thought it unnecessary to add the Christian name.

LIFE IN LONDON

465

because no one, at the time, deemed it advisable to publish the facts
of the case. Neither Newton’s family, nor his friends, gave any
public explanation of the connection. Even Montague s biographer,
who published his life immediately after his death, mentioned the
affair in such an ambiguous manner as to increase suspicion and to
add to the obscurity. We must conclude that the secret was for some
adequate reason jealously guarded, or else that the rumour of a
liaison with so great a nobleman was not a serious blot on a woman s
reputation.

Fortunately, De Morgan became interested in the problem and,
with his keen interest in intricate historical questions, he collected all
the evidence he could find. As a result of his investigation, he has
proved that the scandal, while publicly suppressed, was privately
widespread during Newton’s life; he has shown it to be almost cer¬
tain that she lived in Montague’s house; and, as an illicit connection
was unbelievable to him, both on Newton’s and her account, he con¬
cluded that they were privately married and that, while the mar¬
riage was known to their circle of friends, it was for some reason
never publicly acknowledged. 28 Brewster also discusses the problem
at length. 29 He takes the stand that, because of Newton’s high
moral character, Catherine Barton could not have lived in Monta¬
gue’s house in any capacity except as his publicly acknowledged
wife; therefore their relationship was one merely of Platonic friend¬
ship. He states categorically that there was no rumour of a scandal
during Montague’s life-time, and that Newton and Conduitt would
have been compelled to acknowledge the marriage, or to explain the
connection, when the great legacy he left to her in his will aroused
the “censure of the world,” if there had been any doubt of her virtue.
Although Brewster thus unqualifiedly declares in his Memoirs of
Newton that she had never been an inmate in Montague’s house, he
wrote while the work was in preparation several letters to De Mor¬
gan, who had published an essay giving his argument for a private
marriage; in these letters he showed only too clearly that he privately
believed, or almost believed, just the contrary. De Morgan later pub¬
lished portions of these letters, and a few extracts from them will
show his grounds for criticising Brewster’s reliability as a biog¬
rapher. In one letter Brewster wrote: “I am trying to put together a

28 De Morgan, Newton: His Friend: His Niece. Published posthumously by his wife, Lon¬
don, 1885—In addition to an acute analysis of this problem, the book contains many inter¬
esting comments on Newton’s life and his times.

29 Brewster, Vol. II, pp. 270-28 x .

ISAAC NEWTON

466

few pages re Halifax, and the wife you have given him. It is the
most disagreeable portion of Newton’s history. Newton’s character
is not protected, even if a private marriage could be proved, I have
come to the conclusion, on grounds which I fear will not satisfy you,
that Mrs. Barton never lived in Halifax’s house.” Having assumed
this stand, he declared that: “Every means of defense, therefore,
against such an hypothesis becomes obligatory on me as his biog¬
rapher.” If the function of a biographer is thus purely one of de¬
fense we should not be surprised that he could admit: “In writing
the first volume of his life, I have been led to think Newton more
human than I had formerly believed; and I must confess that I en¬
tertain very nearly, if not wholly, the views which you have pub¬
lished.” 30 However the reader may decide from the evidence which
will now be presented, Brewster’s conclusions must be discounted as
he, himself, acknowledged that he presented the case as counsel for
the defense, and not as a dispassionate biographer.

When Montague, whom we shall now call Halifax, died he left
Mrs. Barton a large legacy which aroused gossip and even scandal.
Brewster sums up his opinion as to the motives of this legacy, as
follows: “When the contents of this will became known after the
death of Halifax, Mrs. Barton did not escape the censure of the world,
though she was regarded by all who knew her as a woman of strict
honour and virtue. During his lordship’s life, and when a frequent
visitor at the house of Newton, his affection for Mrs. Barton and his
delight in her society, never once excited the criticism of his con¬
temporaries; and there is not the slightest reason to believe that it
exceeded that love and admiration which married men, and men of
all ages, ever feel in the presence of physical and intellectual beauty.
Halifax was not a libertine, and the very terms of affection in which
he accounts for his liberality to Miss Barton are the most satisfac¬
tory proof that his love was virtuous and her conduct pure.” 31 In the
first place, the terms of affection which Halifax used towards Mrs.
Barton would be natural and appropriate to a wife, but such terms of
affection, addressed to an unmarried friend, thirty years of age, and
accompanied with a rich legacy, are anything but a convincing proof
that his love was virtuous, and her conduct pure; there were even
persons so sceptical as to think they strengthened the contrary opin-

30 These extracts are taken from De Morgan, pp.. 109, hi. — It is needless to say that no
such doubts are expressed in Brewster’s volume where the incident is treated, and Newton
is shown to be more human than in the first volume.

31 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 271.

LIFE IN LONDON

467

ion. If a marriage had been known then, or earlier, there would
have been no censure or comment. In the next place, Halifax was a
widower and not a married man, as his wife died in 1698, only two
years after Newton moved to London. Brewster must have been
profoundly ignorant of the history of the time if he did not know
that the statesman was admired for his ability, but was almost uni¬
versally characterised as a shameless libertine. There would have
been no surprise in the popular mind if he were accused of a liaison
with any woman; a contrary belief in this case would result from a
conviction of the character of Newton and of his niece, and not from
the virtue of Montague. The statement that she was a virtuous
woman is quoted from Halifax’s biography, but Brewster throws dis¬
credit on that evidence by later attacking the reliability of the work,
—except when he agrees with it. As to the last point, that the crit¬
icism of Newton’s contemporaries was not excited 5 the decision must

rest on the evidence now to be given.

Voltaire, while he was in England during the years 1725 to 1728,
and while both Newton and his niece were alive, became a fervent
admirer of the Newtonian philosophy ; and, in fact introduced it into
France. In 1765? he published his Lcttvcs Philosophicjucs to explain
that philosophy and, with his customary malicious habit, he in¬
serted this gibe as an illustration of the selfishness and low motives
which actuate politicians even when they ostensibly reward merit.
“I thought in my youth,” he says, that Newton made his fortune by
his extreme merit. I had supposed that the Court and the city of
London named him Master of the Mint by acclamation. Not at all.
Isaac Newton had a most charming niece, Madame Conduitt; she
greatly pleased the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Halifax. The in¬
finitesimal calculus and gravitation would have been of no assistance
to him without a pretty niece.” 32 Brewster’s comment is that Vol¬
taire’s sneer scarcely deserves our notice; but a sneer by Voltaire was
sure to influence public opinion; it usually was based on fact, and it
certainly deserves serious attention. To prove that Newton did not
owe his appointment to his niece is an easy matter of dates; when he
was selected for his position, his niece was only fifteen years old and

32 Lettres Philosophiques, number 21. “J’avais era, dans ma jeunesse que Newton avail
fait sa fortune par son extreme merite., Je m’etais imagine que la cour et la ville de Londres
l’avaient nomme par acclamation grand maitre des monnaies du royaume Point du tout.
Isaac Newton avail une niece assez aimable, nommee Madame Conduit; elle plut beaucoup
au grand tresorier, Halifax. Le calcul infinitesimal et la gravitation ne lui auraient servi de
rien sans une jolie niece.”

ISAAC NEWTON

468

had not met Halifax, nor probably been in London. But as evidence
that there was a widespread and contemporaneous opinion as to the
relations of Halifax and Mrs. Catherine Barton, it is very significant.
Voltaire may have got his facts mixed, but he must have got the
scandal from conversation with the many persons he met in London,
and it must have been pretty widely known, or his hit would have
had no effect. To suppose that it insinuated a reward for a virtuous
affection is not to know Voltaire, or the age.

The most circumstantial evidence that the rumour was wide¬
spread in London, is to be found in a book of fashionable gossip and
scandal published in 1710 by Mrs. de la Riviere Manley. 33 In the
book, Eginardus visits London, disguised as Constantinople and sup¬
posedly in the eighth century, and chronicles the eighteenth century
gossip and scandal about its principal personages, also thinly dis¬
guised under Roman names. Halifax figures as Julius Sergius and
Mrs. Barton as Bartica. The work was undoubtedly scandalous, and
often indecent, but it had a great run and was reprinted several times.
Now, such books may be notorious for not telling the truth, but they
must serve up stories, highly spiced, which are widely whispered, or
else they fail to attract attention. 34

Eginardus visits Halifax in his palace on the Thames and describes
its lavish luxury and its wanton debaucheries in terms appropriate
to the Roman Emperors. Mrs. Manley knew his history intimately,
and cynically recounts all the scandals of his life. In particular,
Eginardus asks, “What is become of the charming Bartica?” And
Sergius answers sobbing: “She’s a traitress, an inconsistent proud
baggage, yet I love her dearly, and have lavish’d myriads upon her,
besides getting her worthy ancient parent a good post for connivance.
But would you think it? She has other things in her head, and is
grown so fantastic and so high, she wants me to marry her, or else I
shall have no more of her truly; ’twas ever a proud slut.” Again
Eginardus: “He presented me the wine, and continued his indigna-

33 Memoirs of Europe, towards the close of the eighth century. Written by Eginardus,
Secretary and Favourite to Charlemagne;•>and done into English by the translator of the New
Atlantis. London: Printed for John Morphew, near Stationers Hall, 1710.—As I could ob¬
tain no copy of this rare work, I am deeply indebted to Mr.. F. E. Brasch, of the Library of
Congress, who furnished me with a photostatic copy of the pages which refer to Halifax.

34 Mrs. Manley was sufficiently important and decent to be a friend of Swift. He sent her
“hints” for a sixpenny narrative of the stabbing of Harley by Guiscard; he tried to get her a
pension; and he dined with her at least once apparently in the company of Mrs. Van Hom-
righ. De Morgan, Newton, etc. p. 34.

LIFE IN LONDON 4 6 9

tion against Bartica. He told me, if he pined himself to death, he was

resolved not to marry her whilst she was so saucy.” 35

And lastly as contemporary evidence, we have a statement of Hali¬
fax’s biographer. In 1715, the year of his death, The Wor\s and
Life of Halifax was published anonymously. It contains the poetical
works of Halifax and follows them with a eulogistic life of the states¬
man. The facts of his life are but lightly touched upon, the emphasis
being placed on his parliamentary career with long reports of his
speeches. The work is supposed to have been written by William
Pittis and, as it is dedicated to Halifax’s nephew and heir,^ we should
regard it as an official record, sponsored by the family. “I am like¬
wise,” he writes, “to account for another omission in the course of
this history, which is that of the death of the Lord Halifax s Lady;
upon whose decease, his Lordship took a resolution of living single
thence forward, and cast his eye upon the widow of one Colonel
Barton, and niece to the famous Sir Isaac Newton, to be superin-
tendant of his domestic affairs. But as this lady was young, beautiful,
and gay, so those that were given to censure, passed a judgement
upon her which she no ways merited, since she was a woman of
strict honour and virtue; and though she might be agreeable to his
Lordship in every particular, that noble peer’s complaisance to her,
proceeded wholly from the great esteem he had for her wit and most
exquisite understanding, as will appear from what relates to her in
his will at the close of these Memoirs.” 36 Unless we throw out this
evidence as entirely false, and there are no grounds for doing so and
many for not doing so the meaning is obvious. Sometime after Hali¬
fax became a widower in 1698, Catherine Barton, mentioned as the
widow instead of the sister of Colonel Barton, lived with him as his
housekeeper. To refute the gossip that she was his mistress, the
biographer states emphatically that her position was one of strict
honour and virtue. No one will credit the idea that she left her
uncle, who had shown her such tender affection and who certainly
needed a housekeeper more than her friend, to be the hired superin-
tendant of a fashionable widower’s house. But, if she were married to
him, the statement of the biographer is perfectly clear. The custom
of maintaining marriages secret was far from uncommon at that time
and if, for an unknown reason, they determined on that course, it

35 Memoirs of Europe, pp. 294 and 295. The word parent refers to Newton as a relative

in the French sense.

36 Life of Halifax, p. 195.

47 °

ISAAC NEWTON

would be expedient to establish her at the head of his table as a
widow. 37 If she was not his wife we should have to accept what
Nichols says of her in his edition of Swift: 38 “This lady, the widow
of Colonel Barton, and niece to Sir Isaac Newton, was a distin¬
guished beauty and is celebrated in three different poems in the fifth
volume of Dryden’s Miscellanies. In her widowhood she was enter¬
tained by Lord Halifax, who was very liberal to her at his death.” 39

It thus seems practically certain that Catherine Barton lived with
Halifax in some capacity for several years, and the evidence is greatly
strengthened by the provisions of his will which will be given later.
We can also, with less certainty, fix the period during which this re¬
lationship existed. The date when she came to London to live with
Newton is indicated as being some time before 1700 by a letter to her,
from him.

Newton to Catherine Barton

To Mrs. Catherine Barton

At Mr. Gyre’s at Pudlicot,
near Woodstock, in Oxfordshire.

London, Aug. 5, 1700.

Dear Niece,—I had your two letters, and am glad the air agrees
with you; and though the fever is loth to leave you, yet I hope it
abates, and that the remains of the small-pox are dropping off apace.
Sir Joseph Tilley is leaving Mr. Toll’s house, and it’s probable I may
succeed him. I intend to send you some wine by the next carrier,
which I beg the favour of Mr. Gyre and lady to accept. My Lady
Norris thinks you forget your promise to write her, and wants a
letter from you. Pray let me know by the next how your face is, and

37 Brewster says that this biography cannot be regarded as a work of any authority as it
was written by some literary hack connected with the disreputable house of Curll.—Curll may
have been a disreputable man but he published many respectable books. But this is of small
consequence, since Brewster quotes the above passage and follows with the comment, “with
the exception of the mistake that the lady was the widow of Colonel Barton, we may admit
the truth of the preceding passage.” In the Memoirs of Newton, Brewster admits the truth
of the passage and explains it as meaning that she did not live in Montague’s house. In one
of his letters to De Morgan there is this passage: “I fear I shall make a poor story about Mrs.
Conduitt. You have exhausted the subject. I find it distinctly stated by Conduitt that his
wife lived with Sir Isaac twenty years. How then could she have been housekeeper to Lord
Halifax? I thin\ his Lordship’s biographer does not spea\ the truth.

Cf. Worlds of Dr. Jonathan Swift. Ed. by Bowyer, Nichols, et al, London, 1765—1770
The passage is one of Nichols’s notes (Vol. XVI, p. 135) on a letter of Swift to Lady Wor-
sley April 19, 1730. In the letter Swift enquires, “How is our old friend Mrs. Barton? (I

forget her new name.) I saw her three years ago, at Court, almost dwindled to an echo, and
hardly knew her.

The word entertained was then regularly used in the sense of entretenu, or kept.

LIFE IN LONDON

47 1

if the fever be going. Perhaps warm milk from the cow may help
to abate it.—I am your very loving uncle, i s . Newton. 40

While there is no explicit statement that she was then hying with
him its whole tone is that of a letter written to one who had left
home for a visit. If she had not been in London, and in her uncle s
house, the reference to Mr. Toll’s house and to Lady Norris wou d
not be matters that would have been mentioned. As Newton set up
housekeeping in Jermyn Street in theautumnofib 96 when Ms niece
was sixteen years old and had probably finished her edu “ t4 ^’
natural to assume that she became an inmate of the house at that t ,
or shortly afterwards. The time of her coming to London has been
confused by a memorandum of Conduitt which states, that no o y
ever lived with him [Newton] but my wife, who was with him near
twenty years, before and after her marriage [to Conduitt]. As
Newton lived in London thirty-one years, it leaves about ten years
unaccounted for. Brewster interprets this statement to mean not
only that no one except Mrs. Barton lived with Newton, but also
that she lived with no one else during his life He then fixes the
date of her going to London in 1701, in spite of the evidence of the
letter just quoted. Thus, she lived with her uncle, by his reckoning,
sixteen years before her marriage to Conduitt in 1717, and four years
after it As Newton did not die till six years later, Brewster assumes,
without any evidence, that the Conduitts spent them separated from
him, and mostly at their country estate. 41 Such a supposition seems
most unlikely as those were just the years when the advanced age
and infirmities of Newton required the companionship of his niece,
and also they were years when Conduitt assisted at the Mint, lo
make my estimate agree chronologically with Conduitt s statement
of “near twenty years,” I should say that she lived with her uncle
from about 1698 till his death, except for nine years when she lived
with Halifax 42 The chief reason for assigning the year 1706 as the
date of her removal to Halifax s house, is because in that year e

40 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 213. Cf. Portsmouth Collection.

41 Mrs Conduitt owned the country estate bequeathed to her by Halifax, but there is no
record that they lived in it. In Newton’s inventory, there appears the item of Manuscripts

: C a° bol sealed up a. the house of John Conduitt Esq.” This inventory is dated May 5, «W.

1 afrpr Newton’s death. This house was in Hanover Square.

ne 42 ly T rda?e“o;^the ab“: n ing are as follows: from ,698 [?] .0 .706 with Newton
from 1706 to 1715, with Halifax as “superintendent of his domestic affairs ; after Halifax s
death, from 1715 to 1717, with Newton; from 1717 to 1727 with Newton, as wife of

Conduitt.

472

ISAAC NEWTON

made a codicil to his will in which he bequeathed his jewels and
three thousand pounds to Mrs. Catherine Barton and, in the same
year, an annuity of two hundred pounds was purchased in the name
of Newton to be held in trust for her by Halifax. 43

It is proper now to discuss the provisions of Halifax’s will which
gave the fuel to the smouldering fire of gossip and scandal about
Newton. His will was drawn up and witnessed on the 10th of April,
1706. 44 By it, he left his entire estate to his relatives, with small be¬
quests to his friends and servants; neither Newton nor his niece is
mentioned. But, two days later, he added a codicil to “give and be¬
queath to Mrs. Catherine Barton, all the jewels I have at the time of
my death; and likewise three thousand pounds as a small token of
the great love and affection I have long had for her.”

On the first of February, 1712/3, Halifax revoked his first codicil,
and wrote a new one in which he gave to Newton one hundred
pounds, as a mark of the great honour and esteem I have for so
great a man.” He then gave to Mrs. Catherine Barton five thousand
pounds, the rangership and lodge of Bushy Park with all its furnish¬
ings for her life, and the rents from his manor of Apscourt to keep
the estate in repair and good order. “These gifts and legacies, I leave
to her as a token of the sincere love, affection, and esteem I have
long had for her person, and as a small recompense for the pleasure
and happiness I have had in her conversation.” 45

Brewster argues that since it was bought in Newton’s name, it must have been bought
by him, a conclusion which does not necessarily follow. If Newton did pay for the annuity
I should regard it as a generous gift to provide for her marriage to Halifax. I certainly cannot
agree with Brewster who calls it “a debt due to his favourite niece whom he had educated
I™ f went y.years kept his house.” In the first place, when the annuity was made
she had kept his house for only five or six years; and, in the next place, most persons would

hCr m com P arative luxur y and by introducing her to the
best intellectual and fashionable society of the country, had laid a heavy obligation on her.

is difficult, too, to believe that he could buy such an annuity. According to all accounts he
had saved little, or nothing, when he went to London. It is most improbable that he could
maintain his establishment on his income and within ten years invest from £2000 to £2400

must have £enHti e ifax n eVen “ faV ° Ume niece - ” NeWton were not the h

tt W - lJ1 an L d cod / ils are S iven verbatim in the Life of Halifax as an aDDendix
• A } tentlon should again be called to the fact that conversation then meant the general

nterLmse"BrewstLheTa " S 'TY W3S a ' S ° commonl >' «ed to express sexual
n ercourse. Brewster here, as in several other important cases, falls into the confusion which

P?atonV fr f°r m nlf h° ra h Ce v eightcenth centul T usage. He justifies his interpretation of their
me friendship by this statement: “Miss Barton presided at her uncle’s table and bv her

l0 - ■&«*» everf of some of £

™,!u l l -r , Brewster had made the same statement to her contemnoraries h^
would have been horrified by the interpretation which would have been put upon it Flam

steed gave point to the common interpretation of Halifax’s gift by quotingT and simriv
italicising the words excellent conversation quoting it, and simply

LIFE IN LONDON

473

To close this long discussion, I shall quote a letter, which De
Morgan considered to be a proof of the marriage.

Newton to a Relative

Leicester Fields, May 23, 1715.

S 'l amconcerned that I must send an excuse for not waiting upon
you before your journey into Lincolnshire. The concern I am in for
the loss of my Lord Halifax, and the circumstances in which I stand
related to his family, will not suffer me to go abroad till his funeral
is over. And therefore I can only send this letter to wish you and
your lady and family a good journey into Lincolnshire, an a
health and happiness during your stay there. And upon your hrst
return to London I will wait upon you, and endeavour by frequenter

visits to make amends for the defect of them at present.

I am, Sir,

Your most humble and most obedient servant,

Isaac Newton.

The Sir John of Lincolnshire can only be the Sir John Newton
who was reputed to be a kinsman and the head of the family. De
Morgan considers that the phrase he has italicised is a formal state¬
ment of Newton’s relationship by marriage to Halifax, made four

days after his death. . ., „ .

There is little more to be said about this puzzling incident in

Newton’s life. The evidence is convincing to me that Mrs. Cath¬
erine Barton lived in Montague’s house in some capacity for several
years. It is also equally convincing to me that neither Newton s, nor
Montague’s, family, nor their intimate associates regarded the con¬
nection as in any degree questionable. Newton’s letter to Sir John,
whom he considered as the head of the family, establishes a rec¬
ognised relationship with Montague and the form of his reference
puts it in the class of a proper one. Also, Montague’s biographer goes

46 ne Morgan, Newton, p. 49—This letter was sold by Christie and Manson in 1856 as
part of a quantity of Newtoniana owned by Thomas Rodd, and bought by De Morgans
? tu^T ihri who showed it to him. The handwriting was declared to be Newtons.
The letter was unknown to Brewster. But, he would probably have claimed it to be a forgery
on the evidence of the signature. In the Athenceum, he asserted, in connection with some
other letters, that the full name Isaac occurring in a signature was a strong presumption o
foreerv as he recollected only one instance in which the signature was written with the full
name Y This is a palpable error. In the correspondence published by Edleston there are five
Srs in English and one in Latin signed Isaac; in Flamsteed’s correspondence, one; in the
Macclesfield Collection, four; and in Brewster’s own Life, where very few letters are quoted
in full, there are two in English and one in Latin.

474

ISAAC NEWTON

out of his way to testify to her strict honour and virtue as if he were
answering rumours to the contrary. Again, much dependence can
be placed on Swift’s admiration for her, as he was critical in regard
to the reputation of his female friends. Lastly, Newton’s life was
passed in the strong light of publicity and, while the prevailing
attitude towards female virtue was easy, he could not have escaped
censure. On the other hand, it is incredible that she, a member of a
fashionable set, and enjoying an ample income, should have accepted
the position of hired superintendent of Montague’s household. We
are thus driven to the conclusion that they were married. Why it
was kept secret will probably never be known. The only plausible
reason is that Montague had suffered once from the stings of the
wits because of his first marriage. And he, a great but parvenu noble¬
man, may have feared to reawaken further gibes if he allied himself
with a plebeian family. No help can be obtained from Newton’s
papers. I found only two or three memoranda which bore on the
subject and they merely referred to the transfer of the annuity and
of the estate from the heir of Halifax to Mrs. Catherine Barton. If
there was a marriage, it may come to light some day from the ex¬
amination of parish registers; otherwise the question seems likely
never to be answered satisfactorily.

Newton may have found in his new occupation a full and satis¬
factory life, and have persisted in his resolve to be done with scien¬
tific investigations j but his phenomenal mastery of mathematics
persisted to the end of his life, and only needed a spur to call it
forth. A remarkable instance of this is shown in his famous solution
of the brachistochrone. In June, 1696, John Bernoulli challenged the
mathematicians of the world, as was a frequent custom, to solve the
two problems: 1. To find the curve connecting two points, at dif¬
ferent heights and not in the same vertical line, along which a body
acted upon only by gravity will fall in the shortest time. 2. To find
the curve, having this same property (the brachistochrone), such
that the two segments of a straight line, drawn through the curve
from any given point, will, when raised to any given power and
added together, make the same sum. Bernoulli allowed six months
for the solutions, but, at the request of Leibniz who had solved one
of them, he extended the time for a year longer in order that all
contestants should have an equal chance. On the 29th of January,
1696/7, the challenge was received by Newton from France and, on

LIFE IN LONDON

475

the next day, he sent to Montague, who was then President of the
Royal Society, solutions of both problems. They were published
anonymously in the January number of the Transactions, and were
read before the Society in February. It is said that Bernoulli recog¬
nised the author from the sheer power and originality of the work;

“tanquam ex ungue leonem A 47 ,

Another instance of Newton’s ability to solve mathematical prob¬
lems “at sight” is well-known. In 1716, Leibniz, who was smarting
under the accusation by the friends of Newton of plagiary, and of
mathematical inferiority, sent a problem as a postscript in a letter
to the Abbe Conti “for the purpose of feeling the pulse of the Eng¬
lish analysts.” 48 The problem proposed was to determine the equa¬
tion of a curve which will intersect at right angles an infinite num¬
ber of curves of a given nature, expressible by a general method. It
is credibly reported that Newton received this problem about five
o’clock, while returning home from the Mint weary with the day’s
business, and that he solved it the same night before going to bed.

To the examples previously given of Newton’s courtesy towards
young men, and his interest in their ideas, the following may be
added. While he was in the thick of his work on the recoinage, he
received a letter from John Harington, an undergraduate of Oxford,
explaining a method of representing harmonic musical ratios by
additions to the sides of a right-angled triangle, and alluding to the
bearing the subject had upon the principles of architectural beauty.
The artistic side of music does not seem to have interested Newton.
At least, he never went to the opera but once and afterwards criticised
it in this pithy manner: “There was too much of a good thing, ’twas
like a surfeit of dinner. The first act, I heard with pleasure; the
second stretched my patience; at the third, I ran away.” 49 On the
other hand, he was profoundly affected by the significance of the
constant and unaccountable occurrence of simple geometrical ratios
in physical phenomena. He found in musical harmony the principle
of law and order in the cosmos, and believed that the Creator re¬
vealed Himself to us through our appreciation of those mathematical
ratios. Indeed, we can assign the cause of his predilection and ad-

47 Catherine Barton is the authority for this anecdote. A short note signed with her
initials C. C. states: “1697. Bernoulli sent problem.,—I. N. home at 4 p.m. —finished it by
4 a.m." Cf. Portsmouth Collection . As both of these problems have an important bearing on
the Leibniz controversy they will be referred to in that connection.

48 Des Maizeaux Collection, 2d. Ed., Tome II, p. 10.

49 Letter of Stukeley to Mead, Portsmouth Collection.

ISAAC NEWTON

476

miration for the classical geometers to their use of the pure geomet¬
rical method. In his discovery of the law of universal gravitation and
his elucidation of its effects by the classical method, his greatest
satisfaction was that he had finished the beautiful edifice which they
had so well begun and had established forever,—

“Harmonisch all das All durchklingen.”

In this advocacy of the Pythagorean-Platonic philosophy, he was
following the ideas of his great predecessors, Copernicus, Kepler,
and Galileo. But he went even further than they: “He thought
Pythagoras’s music of the spheres was intended to typify gravity and,
as he makes the sounds and notes depend on the size of the strings,
so gravity depends on the density of matter.” 50 So he laid aside his
own work to write to a young man a letter, too long to give in full,
but which is cited as a model of wise and courteous encouragement.

Newton to Harington

By the hands of your friend, Mr. Conset, I was favoured with your
demonstration of the harmonic ratios, from the ordinances of the
47th of Euclid. I think it very explicit and more perfect than the
Helicon of Ptolemy, as given by the learned Doctor Wallis. Your
observations hereon are very just, and afford me some hints which,
when time allows, I would pursue, and gladly assist you with any
thing I can, to encourage your curiosity and labours in these matters.
I see you have reduced, from this wonderful proposition, the inhar¬
monic as well as the coincidences of agreement, all resulting from
the given lines three, four, and five. You observe that the multiples
hereof furnish those ratios that afford pleasure to the eye in architec¬
tural designs: I have, in former considerations, examined these
things, and wish my other employments would permit my further
noticing thereon, as it deserves much our strict scrutiny, and tends
to exemplify the simplicity in all the works of the Creator; however,

I shall not cease to give my thoughts towards this subject at my
leisure. I beg you to pursue these ingenious speculations, as your
genius seems to incline you to mathematical researches.

In fine, I am inclined to believe some general laws of the Creator
prevailed with respect to the agreeable or unpleasing affections of
all our senses; at least the supposition does not derogate from the

50 Conduitt’s MSS. Portsmouth Collection.

LIFE IN LONDON

477

wisdom or power of God, and seems highly consonant to the mac¬
rocosm in general. Whatever else your ingenious labours may
produce I shall attentively consider, but have such matters °“ *

mind, that I am unable to give you more satisfaction at this time,
however, I beg your modesty will not be a means of preven 1 g y
hearing from you, as you proceed in these curious researches; an

assured of the best services in the power of

Your humble Servant,

Is. Newton . 61

[Jermyn Street] May 30, 1698.

It is pleasant to keep this charming letter of Newton in mind for
it will be necessary to narrate a series of exceedingly regrettable

quarrels which marred these later years of his life. ..

Flamsteed notes that he sometimes visited Newton at the Mint, or
at his house in Jermyn Street. “We continued civil: but he was no
so friendly as formerly, because I could not [confirm] M £- “ al Jf 7 s
and Dr. Gregory’s assertions concerning his corrections of the Ho -
roxian lunar theory.” However that may be, Newton paid a visit to
the Observatory, on December 4,1698, at the time of evening se ™ 1 . c f>
in order to obtain twelve more computed places of tne moon whic
he needed for the work he was then doing on the lunar theory. The
importance of these favours must be borne constantly in mind, tor,
as Baily remarks, there was no other person, either in England or on
the continent, who could supply this essential material for develop-

ing the theory. . . . . .1

In the autumn of 1698, Wallis had written several letters to the

Astronomer to say that he was publishing the third volume ot his
Collected Wor\s and was printing in an appendix some Latin let¬
ters, written by other men, amongst which he would be to in¬
clude Flamsteed’s discovery of the parallax of the pole-star. It will
not, he adds, be to your disadvantage to publish it there; it will be

51 Edleston, p. 302—While Newton did not follow Kepler in his whole-hearted acceptance
of the Pythagorean cult of numerical harmony, he was profoundly influenced by that astrono¬
mer’s belief that the purpose and plan of the Creator was revealed to us by a scarcl J. fo ^ 8 ^
ratios In the curious treatise, Hannon. Mundi, Kepler seeks for the rules of this divine
principle and, as usual, mixes much acute observation with his mystical hypotheses. Newton
outgrew the mysticism of Kepler, but he advised Hanngton to study such acute su gg«^
of Kepler as the following, quoted by Edleston: “Wheresoever, in architecture, we examine
accurately the proportions of lengths, to breadths, and depths, they are ^ oun , even yo
servers unskilled in mathematics, to be very closely in harmonic ratios. The truth of this
dictum is appreciated by anyone who seeks to understand the supreme beauty of the

P3r 2 Flamsteed was the first to discover an apparent motion of the fixed stars. He assigned
the cause to a parallax, or displacement of a star, produced by the orbital motion of the

478

ISAAC NEWTON

an honour to you, and to our nation, to have it thus announced that
you were the first to discover a stellar parallax.

During this correspondence with Wallis, Flamsteed wrote to his
friend Colson to inquire about a malicious report which had been
reported to him by his servant. According to this story, Colson and
a Colonel Bruce “had told him that Mr. Newton had perfected the
theory of the moon from Mr. Halley's observations, and imparted it
to him, with leave to publish it; and that Mr. Halley would publish
it in a short time.” Flamsteed, remembering Newton’s solemn
promises not to divulge his observations to anyone, and not to pub¬
lish this theory before it had first been shown to him, wished to
have the report verified as he thought it must have been a mistake
of his servant’s, and might injure Halley with Newton or Colonel
Bruce. He concluded his letter with this simple statement of a fact:
Mr. Newton s theory, when perfected, must needs agree with my
observations, since it is built, as he freely owns, upon them and his
doctrine of gravitation: and the one without the other will not do
the business; but both together will, as he says himself. Mr. Halley’s
could be of no use to him.” It should also be remembered that
Flamsteed’s suspicion was justified as Newton did, let us hope
thoughtlessly, break his promise and give the information both to
Gregory and Halley.

Flamsteed complied with Wallis’s request and, either to protect
himself from Halley and Gregory, whom he profoundly distrusted,
or from the pardonable vanity of wishing to have his aid to Newton
publicly expressed, he inserted a paragraph to be published with his
discovery of the parallax, which brought down on him the wrath
of that sensitive person, Newton.

His reference was as follows: “Contraxeram etiam cum Do. New-
tono, doctissimo, tunc temporis in academia Cantabrigiensi Profes-
sore, necessitudinem, cui lunae loca ab observationibus meis ante
habitis deducta 150 dederam, cum locis simul e tabulis meis ad earum
tempora supputatis turn similia in posterum prout assequerer prom-
iseram cum elementis calculi mei in ordine ad emendationem
theoriae lunaris Horroccianae qua in re spero eum successus consecu-
turum expectationi suae pares.” 53

Earth. In this, he was wrong as that parallax is too small to have been observed with his
instruments. The true cause of his seeming parallax was later proved by Bradley to be due
to the aberration, or bending, of the rays of light.

. , Portsmouth Collection. It may be translated as follows: “I had contracted a friendshin
with Mr. Newton, then the most learned professor of the time in Cambridge University. To

LIFE IN LONDON

479

The history of the breach in the friendship of Newton and Flam¬
steed, caused by this paragraph, is easy to follow from extant docu¬
ments; 54 and however irritable in temper Flamsteed may often have
been, he acted throughout this episode with dignity and moderation.
Wallis wrote to him again in December that the letter on paral ax
had been translated into Latin and he found it to be quite proper for
publication. He had sent the sheets to Flamsteed by Dr. Gregory,
who was on his way to London and would deliver them to him in
person. He also advised that an English version should be published
in the Royal Society Transactions. It seems that Gregory was accus¬
tomed to meet his friends in Hindmarsh’s Shop in Cornhill and,
either on his initiative or on their advice, he acquainted Newton
with the proposed reference to his lunar theory. Newton, evidently,
objected violently to any published statement being made about his
work as if he had needed help; for Wallis, at the end of the month,
wrote to Flamsteed that a friend of his, and of Newton, had re¬
quested him not to print the paragraph, “which speaks of your giv¬
ing Mr. Newton observations of the moon.”

As soon as Flamsteed heard this news, he, at once, wrote to New¬
ton on 2 January, 1698/9, to explain the circumstances of his obnox¬
ious paragraph. He began his letter by saying he had been in the neigh¬
bourhood of Jermyn Street on that day but had not called as he had
nothing to offer except his respects and best wishes on Newton s
birthday. Nor would he write now if he had not had a letter from
Wallis. He then reviewed the history of the affair and quoted the
obnoxious paragraph. He gave as his sole reason for agreeing to
publish his discovery of the parallax that, by thus announcing the
results of his work at the Observatory, he could “silence some busy
people who are always asking why 1 did not print.

The letter concludes as follows:

Flamsteed to Newton

Sir, this is the paragraph, [as quoted; cf. supra ] and all of it. I think
there is not near so much in it as I acknowledge to myself, and (I
have heard from other worthy gentlemen) you have acknowledged

him I had given 150 positions of the moon deduced from observations which I had made
previously, and I promised to supply him with additional observations as I should make them
together with my principles of calculation. This I did, in order to correct the lunar theory
of Horrox, and I trust that he may have a success equal to his expectations.”

54 see Baily, pp. 160-169, Brewster, Vol. II, pp. 476 ~ 479 > and the Portsmouth Collection.

480

ISAAC NEWTON

to them, and therefore cannot think it was from any intimation of
yours, (tho’ he says it would be displeasing to you if it were printed,)
but out of a design to ingratiate with you that he put an arrest upon
this paragraph. I think the word Horroccianae may be omitted,
tho’ I put it in because you allow that theory as far as it goes; you
found the faults of it by the differences from my observation. He
was a countryman, and tho’ your theory will be new in that, (tho’
you give us the reasons, and derive it from natural cause,) yet he
gave the groundplot, and it will be an honour both to you and me
to do him justice.

Sir, My observations lie the king and nation in at least 5000 lb. I
have spent above 1000 lb. out of my own pocket in building, instru¬
ments, and hiring a servant to assist me now near 24 years. ’Tis time
for me (and I am now ready for it) to let the world see I have done
something that may answer this expense, and I therefore hope you
will not deny me the honour of having said that I have been useful
to you in your attempts to restore the theory of the moon. I might
have added the observations of the comets, places given you formerly
of the superior planets, and observations at the same time with the
moon’s, but this I thought would look like boasting, and therefore I
forbore it.

I desire you would please to let me know by a line whether Dr.
Gregory ever shewed you my letter, I mean Dr. Wallis his transla¬
tion of it, which I think I have altered in the paragraph above from
what it was, but cannot say in what words, because I returned the
Doctor his copy, with my transcript of it enlarged and altered, to¬
gether; but whenever ’tis printed, you will find it agree with the
copy above exactly.

Sir, I am told Dr. Gregory is to be tutor in mathematics to the
Duke of Gloucester, which place, 1 was told some months ago (when
the settling of his household was first discourst of) was designed for
me. To make a variance betwixt you and me and Dr. Wallis, and to
engage you to procure him the favour of Mr. Montague, I am apt to
believe he recommends himself in this business. He thinks, perhaps,
it will depreciate me, and keep me from being his competitor. Let
him not trouble himself. I have an interest much beyond his when¬
ever I please to move that way, but I do not think the Duke yet fit
for a mathematical tutor, or that he will be this four or five years.

I hate flattery, and shall not go to Court on this account till I am
sent for, or have notice that I am desired. That place might, indeed,

481

LIFE IN LONDON

afford me the opportunity of procuring help for my assistance or I
could defray the charges out of pay; but fear it wou d be: as preju
dicial to me otherwise, and therefore shall not move to traverse t
Doctor’s designs, except he force me to it by his treacherous be-

^TTbeg an answer to this letter speedily and you need tell me
no more but that you have seen the paragraph before, or not seen it,
that you gave such orders to Dr. Gregory or not, that I may r
an answer to Dr. Wallis; and hereafter, if any such flatterers as he
come to say any thing to you that may tend to make a differenc
betwixt us, pray tell them you will inform me, and you will fo
with be rid of them. I shall always use the same course towards you,
whereby a friendship that began early may continue long and be
happy to both of us, which, through God’s blessing, I hope it may,

at least I shall always endeavour it, being ever, Sir,

Your most affectionate friend and humble servant,

John Flamsteed, M. K.

TP S 1 Pray enquire what company Dr. Gregory keeps, that you may
not be deceived in his character. The Scotch think to carry all be¬
fore them by the Bishop of Salisbury, whom I esteem, (next the
Bishop of Wester above the rest of the clergy,) but I cannot think
him wise in placing his countrymen about the young Duke.

To Mr. Isaak Newton
Warden of the Mint,
at his house in German Street, near ^

St. James’s, London.— These present.

When Newton ignored this explanation, Flamsteed wrote to him
again to know whether the interdiction was his own or merely an
officiousness of Dr. Gregory. And he also wrote to Wallis: I ex¬
pected an answer [from Newton] on Thursday: and none coming,
wrote to him then again to desire him to let me know whether what
Dr. Gregory had wrote to you was by his direction or not; and
havin'* no return conclude he thinks not fit to take notice of it, or
that he is not in town. I think it concerns not Dr. Gregory to have
been thus busy, and that neither you nor I ought to take any more
notice of it than Mr. Newton does; and, therefore, you may please
to let that paragraph, and the next, stand as it is, without alteration.

But Flamsteed had not long to wait to learn Newton’s true feel-

55 Portsmouth Collection .

482

ISAAC NEWTON

ing, his second letter had loosed all the pent-up hostility which had
been for a long time suppressed with difficulty, and he was over¬
whelmed to receive what Baily moderately terms that most ex¬
traordinary reply, and what most persons would name that most un¬
warranted insult.

Newton to Flamsteed

Jermyn Street, Jan. 6, 1698/9.

Upon hearing occasionally that you had sent a letter to Dr. Wallis
about the parallax of the fixed stars to be printed, and that you had
mentioned therein with respect to the theory of the moon, I was
concerned to be publicly brought upon the stage about what, per¬
haps, will never be fitted for the public, and thereby the world put
into an expectation of what, perhaps, they are never like to have. I
do not love to be printed upon every occasion, much less to be
dunned and teased by foreigners about mathematical things, or to be
thought by our own people to be trifling away my time about them,
when I should be about the King’s business. And, therefore, I de¬
sired Dr. Gregory to write to Dr. Wallis against printing that clause
which related to that theory, and mentioned me about it. You may
let the world know, if you please, how well you are stored with
observations of all sorts, and what calculations you have made to¬
wards rectifying the theories of the heavenly motions. But there may
be cases wherein your friends should not be published without their
leave; and therefore I hope you will so order the matter that I may

not on this occasion, be brought upon the stage. I am your humble
servant,

Is. Newton. 56

However irritable Flamsteed’s temper may have been, he kept it
in admirable control through this whole trying incident. He con¬
tented himself with the following dignified rebuke.

. Y e „ C °? d haV k e no mo . re Spring instance of Brewster’s bias and prejudiced opinions
against all those who came into contact with Newton than his views on this letter. In his
f/ S / a ^ s ^ a111 Li f e of A ewton published in 1831, he made the singular mistake of quoting
it as a letter from Flamsteed to Newton (v. p. 243) and says that it is “characteristic of
Flamsteed to whom he assigns a vicious temper. And he draws the conclusion that “Flam-
rfnr d ’ h sufficiency aware of the importance of the lunar theory, received Newton’s requests
[for observations] as if they were idle intrusions [on the King’s business at the Observatory!
in winch the interests of science were but slightly concerned.”—But, when he wrote his later

rili N S L r t M ' m T ° Newton, published in 1855, he had learned his mistake and correctly
d Newton as the author; and, although he there reluctantly admitted that Flamsteed had

LIFE IN LONDON

4 8 3

Flamsteed to Newton

January io, 1698/9.

Sl Yours dated Jermyn-street, January 6th arrtved here last night,

the Qth with the general post mark and charge upon , ,

come from some place less than 80 miles remote from London. I
waTted for it from the 2nd to the 7th instant, Saturday night; and
rr/“ ;,' Dr . Wallis, that I thought he needed not take an,
notice of Dr. Gregory's letter to him, to forbear printing that clause
In mine wherein I had mentioned yon, since you took no notice of
iwo of mine I had wrote to you that week, concerning it, wh ch
made me think, you thought it not worth your while to concern
yourself about it. Now I find you did desire Dr. Gregory to write so
Thim I shall write to him myself to alter that passage, so as he was
advised, and so as I believe you will find no just cause of offence : 1
it- my letter goes to him this night, the altered paragraph you have

^ th didn"tlL h k "ci have disobliged you, by letting the world
know that the King’s Observatory had furnished you with 150 places
of the moon, derived from observations here made and compa
with tables; in order to correct her theory: since (not to seem
boast) I said nothing of what more it has furnished you freely with.
As I had leisure, and Mr. Halley has not stuck to tell ltabroad ’ both
at the Society and elsewhere, that you had completed her theory,
and given it to him as a secret, I could not think you would be
unwilling our nation should have the honor of furnishing you wi
so many and good observations for this work, as were not (I speak
it without boasting) to be had elsewhere: or that't shoukl be said
you were about a new work, which others said you had perfected,
thought not it could be any diminution to you, since you pretend not

freely and fully supplied his observations, and had recognised the importance of the lunar

rViesp circumstances, Newton was entitled to express his feelings at being g P ,

urjxxti sWRi: “.. ysrw

brachistocrone to expose Newton s ignorance of the calculus.

484

ISAAC NEWTON

to be an observer yourself. I thought it might give some people a
better notion of what was doing here, than had been impressed
upon them by others, whom God forgive. You will pardon me this
freedom, and excuse me when I tell you, if foreigners come and
trouble you it is not my fault, but those who think to recommend
themselves to you, by advancing the fame of your works as much as
they possibly can. I have sometimes told some ingenious men, that
more time and observations are required to perfect the theory; but
I found it was represented as a little piece of detraction, which I
hate, and therefore was forced to be silent. I wonder that hints
should drop from your pen, as if you looked on my business as
trifling; you thought it not so, surely, when you resided at Cam¬
bridge: its property is not altered: I think it has produced some-
thing considerable already, and may do more, if I can but procure
help to work up the observations I have under my hands, which it
was one of the designs of my Letter to Dr. Wallis to move for. I
doubt not but it will be of some use to our ingenious travellers and
sailors; and other persons that come after me, will think their time
as little misspent in these studies, as those did that have gone before
me. The works of the Eternal Providence I hope will be a little bet¬
ter understood through your labours and mine, than they were
formerly. Think me not proud for this expression; I look on pride
as the worst of sins: humility as the greatest virtue. This makes me
excuse small faults in all mankind, bear great injuries without
resentment, and resolve to maintain a real friendship with ingenious
men: to assist them what lies in my power, without the regard of
any interest, but that of doing good by obliging them.

To Mr. Newton. 57 [J OHN Flamsteed.]

It is claimed that Newton was justified in objecting to Flamsteed’s
published notice because it would distract him from the King’s
business, but he permitted himself other distractions, he could find
time to write to Harington on harmony and could carry on his work
on the lunar theory; it is also claimed that the notice was itself ob¬
jectionable, but it is difficult to see on what grounds. 58 I fear that

57 Baily, p. 168.

58 As contemporary evidence that Wallis found nothing objectionable in Flamsteed’s con¬
duct, I may quote a postscript of a letter from him to Newton: “I don’t apprehend any preju¬
dice to you in printing it being merely true matter of fact: and it seems of concernment to

idlT- rh am £ te K d i t0 S3tlSfy thc W j Hd ^ r ° m thlS and other things mentioned) that he is not

he is frpnSndv b olH ^ ^ ^ a( ? mess t0 publlsh the whoIe of his observations (for which
he is frequently called upon), it being a great work.”

LIFE IN LONDON

485

those, who admire him most will the ““"'S' 1 “we*

w," CtSd b, flatJe.y,^and th*«

b „fr e B“ 8 !, v uid 1 a ld l" :«mp«ioi;

much influenced by Halley and Gregory, o anyone

tensely jealous of his reputation and rescntedtheddeaha^nyo

aided him in his divine inventions. They had the: selhsh, butM >

donable, enthusiasm of the discoverers of S enius ^ °, ne istence aI Jd
look upon the Principia as due to his initiative an p ,1

Se other as the first teacher of its philosophy; and they bodrwufod
to keen him to themselves. Nor should we be surprised that selt-
interes? influenced them, as Flamsteed so bitterly ^jsted. New
was now an important personage with the influence o P

ful Montague at his command. Halley had obtained his P° sl
1 C Mint.Ld Gregory hi, professorship a,

fluence of Newton. And one was shortly to be offered two teaching
positions and a post on a scientific expedition, wh.le the o|he, looked
to be given the lucrative tutorship to the Duke J
Flamsteed was correctly informed. Nor can we doubt that they
resented deeply Flamsteed’s continual diatribes against their ch -
acters. In my own mind, I can find some little excuse for Newton s
outburst * I believe that Flamsteed was intensely irritating to him
nersonallv and by the repeated warning not to be deceived by those
who professed toV his friends, finally broke down his self-control.

It is extraordinary that those who suffered from Newton s sus¬
picious and difficult temperament,—Flamsteed, Locke, Leibniz,
Pepys Whiston, Montague,—preserved a profound respect for him.
Either they recognised his essential rectitude and nobility of char¬
acter and forgave this one weakness, or else they were overawed by
the sheer majesty of his genius, “that divinity which doth hedge a
King,” and submitted to what in another would be deemed a per-

ThelSship between Newton and Flamsteed was ended b,
this episode but they continued to meet occasionally. Flamsteed
satisfied his wounded feelings by a retort which was ingeniously
contrived to sting Newton in his tenderest spot by the insinuation
of a reproof drawn from the Bible. In a letter to a friend, Mr. Low-

4 8 6

ISAAC NEWTON

thorp, he first warns him to be careful in his behaviour to Newton.
He tells him that he had been three times to call during which they
had discussed the publication of his own catalogue of stars and the
old complaint of the pernicious interference of friends. He then
narrates this incident during his last visit: “I believe him to be a
good man at bottom, but, through his natural temper, suspicious,
and too easy to be possessed with calumnies, especially such as are
impressed with raillery. To cure him of it, finding a Bible in his
room where I waited his rising (for I got to his house before he was
up, and spent a part of the time I waited in reading,) meeting with

a sheet of paper I wrote upon it this distich, which I remembered
from a late satire—

A bantering spirit has our men possessed,

And wisdom is become a standing jest.’

Read Jeremiah, ch. ix to the 10th verse.

I do not know whether he has seen it, but I think he cannot take it
amiss if he has; and if he reflects a little on it, he will find I have
given him a seasonable caution against his credulity, and showed

i i d of tlle world much better than his P olitics or a play

Theie was some excuse for Newton’s irritability and dislike to

r V1 fr atte r n T tl0n direct ed towards any activity except his duties at
the Mint. He, a scholar inexperienced in executive work, had been
brought to London for the responsible work of the recoinage, and
11s position was a target for the complaints and fears that arose from
e desperate financial straits in which the recoinage had temporarily
involved the nation. As he evidently desired to retain his office he
may well have feared lest any attention drawn to his scientific work
might arouse the criticism that he was neglecting his duties, and so
give the enemies of Montague the excuse to displace him. In fact
he had every reason to be worried about the future. It might have
been thought necessary to enlist temporarily the services of such a

TV* !i' u “ en jcrgency; but the recoinage was now fin¬
ished, and the office would, under normal conditions, return to its

is indictmcnt

one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught th ' l W1 dcceiVe e yery
and weary themselves to commit iniquity Thine habitation Tin t-h, ^ .j ngl E *° s P ea k lies,
would like to know what was Newtons

LIFE IN LONDON

487

previous condition of being a sinecure to be held by a needy gentle
man or a political henchman; also, at this time, the Whigs were in
desperate straits, and Montague was fighting the final battle whic
ended in his downfall. Under these circumstances, it was only too
probable that he would share the misfortunes of his party an o
his patron. That he considered his position to be precarious and
temporary, is suggested by the fact that he had retained his fellow¬
ship and professorship at Cambridge. It was a great tribute to his
work that he was not only kept in office, but was promoted to be
Master and Worker of the Mint at a much larger salary. From now
on, since the duties of his position were not onerous and he could
regard it as permanent, we find him engaged in many outside in¬
terests, and enjoying the honours which came to him.

The French Academy of Sciences had been remodelled and, in
1699, Newton was created one of the first eight Foreign Associates. It
is surprising to us that his name appeared as low as seventh in the list.
If he had then had the reputation which later he enjoyed, he cer¬
tainly would have been the first choice, instead of Leibniz; and we
can surmise that the Academy would have honoured him further
by restricting its first list of foreign members to him, alone. He also
became interested in the Royal Society and began to attend its meet¬
ings regularly. Montague, who was retiring from public offices, re¬
signed the Presidency and the Lord Chancellor Somers was elected
in his stead. In August, Newton exhibited an improved form of his
sextant, an instrument for determining longitude at sea. For some
reason, perhaps because Hooke, as usual, laid claim to the discovery,
it was not followed up. The instrument was rediscovered, years
later, and is now known as Hadley’s sextant. He also, with Aston
and Flamsteed, was elected a member of the Council. 6

The German Diet had passed a decree, in the year 1699, to
reform the Julian Calendar. The two principal provisions were that
the day after February 18, 17 00 ? should be changed to March first?
and that Easter Sunday should be determined by astronomical ob¬
servations of the vernal equinox and the full moon following it.
Thus began the long confusion of double dating. The second pro¬
vision affected a church festival and aroused much discussion be¬
tween theologians and scientists. At the request of Leibniz, the

60 This is on the authority of Edleston. On the other hand Weld, in his History of _ the
Royal Society, Vol. I, p. 365, states that he was elected into the Council for the first time,
and the Presidency on the same day, in 1703. And he gives the jealousy of Hooke as the rea¬
son why he had not been called earlier into the Council.

4 88

ISAAC NEWTON

Royal Society took up the question and referred it to Newton. With
Flamsteed’s assistance, he drew up a schedule calculating the dif¬
ferences of the time of the equinox at the principal observatories. 61
In the same year, a M. du Verger sent a letter from Rome to the
Society in which he offered a solution of those three famous prob¬
lems,—the trisection of an angle, the duplication of a cube, and
squaring the circle. Newton, as the versatissimus in hisce rebus, was
again consulted and his answer, that they could not be demonstrated
mathematically, was forwarded to the deluded author.

In May, 1701, Newton read the only paper on Chemistry which
was published except his short articles on acids. 62 Under the title of
Sc ala graduum cal or is, he described a thermometer which he had
invented probably some years previously; at least his note-books
show that he was experimenting with thermometers in 1693. It was
during those experiments that he discovered his law of cooling
bodies; the second discovery was his observation of the constancy of
fusion and boiling temperature; and his third, was the graduation
of thermometers between these constant temperatures, thus making
them comparable.

The lectures which were a part of the duties of his professorship
had not been given for several years and, as Newton had decided
not to return to Cambridge, he appointed William Whiston as his
deputy with the full profits of the place. On December 10th, 1701,
he resigned his professorship and shortly after retired from his fel¬
lowship. 63 Thus ended his connection of forty-one years with Trinity
College. On his recommendation, Whiston was appointed to succeed
him as Lucasian Professor and began his lectures on astronomy. The
University, in this year of his retirement, showed its appreciation of
the great honour Newton had brought to his Alma Mater by electing
him one of its representatives in Parliament. Bentley, who was now
Master of Trinity, “had the satisfaction of assisting in the return of
his illustrious friend.” 64 The life of this Parliament was short as it
was prorogued in the following May, and dissolved on July 2d,
shortly after the death of William III. Newton may have taken part
in committee work, but he was a silent spectator of the debates. He

61 Montucla, Hist, du Math. IV, p. 325, and Edleston, p. 304.

62 Brewster, II, p. 362.

63 Conduitt seems to have been mistaken when he stated that: “Newton made Mr. Whis¬
ton his deputy professor of mathematics at Cambridge [1701], and gave him all his salary
from that time, though he did not absolutely resign the professorship till 1703. Turnor, p.
*62.—Edleston used the University records to correct this statement.

64 Monk, Life of Bentley, p. 122.

LIFE IN LONDON

489

also missed in the House the companionship of his friend, as Mon

tague had moved to the House of Lords And with the deatho
King William, both Halifax and Newton lost much of their political

^InThe autumn of 1702, Newton visited Locke at Oates,the country
seat of Sir Francis Masham. The two philosophers had been hrown
much together during the recoinage and their friend ship_ had
ripened. Locke had been for a short time the President of the B
of Trade; but he had been forced to resign because of what he
termed the crazyness of his body, due to an asthmatic ( affection
his lungs. Not being able to endure the air of London, h ^[ etlr
to the country and spent the short remainder of his life with h
devoted friends, the Mashams. We learn of Newton s visit from a
letter which Locke wrote to his cousin. This letter is probably th
best estimate we have of Newton’s character from a contemporane¬
ous source; it was written for a private purpose by a keen and ap¬
preciative judge who admired his genius and rectitude, but recog
nised his one inherent weakness of temperament. It is a remarkable
evidence of Newton’s inordinate sensitiveness and jealous personal
pride, that a tried and trusted friend, of Locke s reputation and
character, should have felt it necessary to counsel such elaborate
precautions in so trivial a matter as to find out the cause for not
returning some borrowed papers.

Loc\e to Lord King

Oates, April 30, 1703.

Dear Cousin, , , c _

I am puzzled in a little affair, and must beg your assistance for th

clearing of it. Mr. Newton, in autumn last, made me a visit here;
showed him my essay upon the Corinthians, with which he seemed
very well pleased, but had not time to look it all over, but promised
me if I would send it him, he would carefully peruse it, and send me
his observations and opinion. I sent it him before Christmas, but
hearing nothing from him, I, about a month or six weeks since, writ
to him, as the enclosed tells you, with the remaining part of the
story. When you have read it, and sealed it, I desire you to deliver

65 London, even then, was afflicted with a smoke-laden atmosphere. Evelyn wrote: a
small tract with the title of Fumifugium, in which he proposed plans for abating the
nuisance- one of which was to compel factories and large users of coal to move to the

suburbs.

490

ISAAC NEWTON

it at your convenience. He lives in German St.: you must not go on
a Wednesday, for that is his day for being at the Tower. The reason
why I desire you to deliver it to him yourself is, that I would fain
discover the reason of his so long silence. I have several reasons to
think him truly my friend, but he is a nice man to deal with, and a
little too apt to raise in himself suspicions where there is no ground;
therefore, when you talk to him of my papers, and of his opinion of
them, pray do it with all the tenderness in the world, and discover,
if you can, why he kept them so long, and was so silent. But this you
must do without asking why he did so, or discovering in the least
that you are desirous to know. You will do well to acquaint him,
that you intend to see me at Whitsuntide, and shall be glad to bring
a letter to me from him, or any thing else he will please to send; this
perhaps may quicken him, and make him despatch these papers if
he has not done it already. It may a little let you into the freer dis¬
course with him, if you let him know that when you have been here
with me, you have seen me busy on them (and the Romans too, if
he mentions them, for I told him I was upon them when he was
here,) and have had a sight of some part of what I was doing.

Mr. Newton is really a very valuable man, not only for his wonder¬
ful skill in mathematics, but in divinity too, and his great knowledge
in the Scriptures, wherein I know few his equals. And therefore
pray manage the whole matter so as not only to preserve me in his
good opinion, but to increase me in it; and be sure to press him to
nothing, but what he is forward in himself to do. In your last, you
seemed desirous of my coming to town; I have many reasons to
desire to be there, but I doubt whether ever I shall see it again. Take
not this for a splenetic thought; I thank God I have no melancholy
on that account, but I cannot but feel what I feel; my shortness of
breath is so far from being relieved by the renewing season of the
year as it used to be, that it sensibly increases upon me. ’Twas not
therefore in a fit of dispiritedness, or to prevail with you to let me see
you, that in my former I mentioned the shortness of the time I
thought I had in this world. I spoke it then, and repeat it now upon
sober and sedate consideration. I have several things to talk to you
of, and some of present concernment to yourself, and I know not
whether this may not be my last time of seeing you. I shall not die
the sooner for having cast up my reckoning, and judging as im¬
partially of my state as I can. I hope I shall not live one jot the less
cheerfully the time that I am here, nor neglect any of the offices of

LIFE IN LONDON

491

life whilst I have it; for whether it be a month or a year, or seven
years longer, the longest any one out of kindness or compliment can
propose to me, is so near nothing when considered, and in respect
of eternity, that if the sight of death can put an end to the comforts
of life, it is always near enough, especially to one of my age, to have
no satisfaction in living.

I am your affectionate cousin

And humble servant,

J. L. 66

We can make a shrewd guess as to the purpose of this visit. Years
before, Locke and the Mashams had been the most energetic and
persistent of Newton’s friends in trying to secure an office for him.
Now, he was in grave danger of losing what he had obtained after so
many disappointments. Anne was on the throne, Montague was in
disgrace, and the Whigs were out of power. The Queen’s favourites
were the Marlboroughs and their cousin, Abigail Hill, who after¬
wards married the son of Sir Francis Masham. Thus, the influence
of these friends of Newton and Locke had become powerful at
Court, and it is reasonable to suppose that he made this visit in
order to solicit their aid in retaining his position. Nor, would it be
too much to believe that the Queen’s continued favour was ascribable
more to the influence of the Mashams than to his own record of
past achievement.

Some persons, who read the following proposal of marriage to a
Lady Norris who has been mentioned before as an intimate acquaint¬
ance, may be tempted to think that Newton had resolved to copy
Montague’s example of mending his fortune by matrimony and so
avoid what Brewster would have considered the disgrace of a return
to the academic life. At any rate, Brewster found amongst the
Portsmouth Papers a proposal of marriage to her which he believed
to have been made by Newton about this time: “It is in the hand¬
writing of Mr. Conduitt, who, doubtless, intended to publish it, and
is entitled, in the same hand, ‘Copy of a Letter to Lady Norris by

-,’ while on the back is written in another hand, ‘A Letter from

Sir I. N. to-.” G7 Although it is most improbable that Newton,

at the age of sixty years and after a life apparently indifferent to
love and matrimony, suddenly stooped to this method of securing a
livelihood or wrote the letter, yet it must be placed on record.

66 King’s Life of Loc\e, Vol. II, p. 37. 67 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 211.

492

ISAAC NEWTON

Newton [?] to Lady Norris

Madam,—Your ladyship’s great grief at the loss of Sir William,
shews that if he had returned safe home, your ladyship could have
been glad to have lived still with a husband, and therefore your
aversion at present from marrying again can proceed from nothing
else than the memory of him who you have lost. To be always
thinking on the dead, is to live a melancholy life among sepulchres,
and how much grief is an enemy to your health is very manifest by
the sickness it brought when you received the first news of your
widowhood: And can your ladyship resolve to spend the rest of your
days in grief and sickness ? Can you resolve to wear a widow’s habit
perpetually,—a habit which is less acceptable to company, a habit
which will be always putting you in mind of your lost husband, and
thereby promote your grief and indisposition till you leave it off?
The proper remedy for all these mischiefs is a new husband, and
whether your ladyship should admit of a proper remedy for such
maladies, is a question which I hope will not need much time to
consider of. Whether your ladyship should go constantly in the
melancholy dress of a widow, or flourish once more among the
ladies; whether you should spend the rest of your days cheerfully or
in sadness, in health or in sickness, are questions which need not
much consideration to decide them. Besides that your ladyship will be
better able to live according to your quality by the assistance of a hus¬
band than upon your own estate alone; and therefore since your
ladyship likes the person proposed, I doubt not but in a little time to
have notice of your ladyship’s inclinations to marry, at least that you
will give him leave to discourse with you about it.

I am, Madam, your ladyship’s most humble,

and most obedient servant. 68

Brewster discusses at length the authorship of this letter. He, first,
decides that Newton did not write it as an intermediary to assist the
suit of the unknown “person proposed” on the ground that this was
“a quaint and not uncommon form of expression to avoid the use of
the first person.” To support this argument, he runs over in his
mind the names of Newton’s acquaintances, and finds no one who
would be likely to engage the aid of the philosopher in a matri¬
monial adventure. We agree with this opinion that no one would

68 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 211.—I also found this letter in the Portsmouth Collection.

LIFE IN LONDON

493

look to him as a person having interest or dexterity in this field; but
we are surprised that he did not happen upon the name of Mon¬
tague, who was a widower, keen for money and not scrupulous
against obtaining it in this very same manner; and about whom
there was a report that he had proposed to a wealthy lady and had
been rejected. To have thus assigned the authorship to Montague
would have disposed of him as the husband to Mistress Barton.

So Brewter accepts it as an unexpected but regrettable episode in
Newton’s life. It is odd, it does not seem to have occurred to him
that Conduitt may have made a copy of a letter written several years
before to Lady Norris by a ridiculous and importunate suitor whose
name was deliberately omitted. In support of this interpretation,
Newton simply does not fit in the role of a go-between in such an
affair or as a consoler of a rich widow; and, finally, the style of the
letter is totally unlike that of his known correspondence.

Let us hazard a guess of our own. Suppose, Lady Norris, who was
an intimate friend as shown by Newton’s reference to her in the
letter to his niece, had received such an epistle from a professional
fortune-hunter and had shown it to him, or to his niece, as a joke.
Conduitt may then have copied it later to keep it as an amusing in¬
cident, and the unknown endorser have filled in Newton’s initials,
presuming him to be the author. To make the joke, if joke it was,
more striking, Lady Norris had been already married three times.
Her last husband was Sir William Norris, a former Fellow of
Trinity College and colleague of Newton in his Cambridge days.
After leaving the University, he became a prominent member of
Parliament and was created a baronet for his services. He then entered
the diplomatic service and died, at sea, on his way home from India,
October ioth, 1702. Whoever may have been the author of the
letter, it should be cancelled as an exhibit of Newton’s character.

Two events occurred in 1703 which affected Newton’s life and,
especially, his relations with the Royal Society. Hooke, who had
been such a thorn in his flesh, and had made him vow that he would
not submit any work to the Society, died; and Somers, who had been
President, resigned at the Anniversary Meeting. At the same meet¬
ing, Newton was chosen in his place and was re-elected annually till
his death.

CHAPTER XIII

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY. PUBLICATION OF
“HISTORIA COELESTIS.” KNIGHTED AND STANDS FOR
PARLIAMENT. SECOND EDITION OF THE PRINCIPIA

I 7 ° 3 _I 7°9

T he election of Newton to the presidency of the Royal Society
marks a real epoch in his life. It was the full recognition of
his work. He was regarded as without a peer in the scientific
world, and already the legends of superhumanity were beginning to
collect about him; even those who had suffered more or less from his
recurrent outbreaks of jealousy were never doubtful of his tran-
scendant genius. Flamsteed protested bitterly against what he be¬
lieved to be unjust and dictatorial actions but, until the last and final
quarrel, he evidently submitted to the domination of that overpower¬
ing mind. Locke forgave a cruel and unwarranted accusation of
treachery, and was so fearful of giving further offence that he re¬
quested his nephew to be diplomatic when asking for the return of
one of his own manuscripts. Even Leibniz sought his commendation,
and is reported to have said to the Princess of Wales that his rival’s
achievements in mathematics outweighed the combined accomplish¬
ments of all other mathematicians. There could be no stronger evi¬
dence of the domination which his character and his genius imposed
on his contemporaries, a domination amounting almost to awe. His
position as president of the Royal Society was a natural expression
of this uncontested leadership, and his reelection from year to year
till his death was uncontested. The last quarter of a century of New¬
ton’s life was so centred in the activities of the Society that an account
of its foundation and early history is important to a right understand¬
ing of his life.

Prior to the sixteenth century, the cultivation of science was car¬
ried on by solitary workers whose progress was slow enough to make
personal letters and books an adequate means of communicating
their ideas and results. But, during that century, the experimental
method had so spread, and the interest in medicine and the physical

494

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

495

sciences had become so general that, even in the smaller towns of
Europe, there could be found groups of men devoted to the New
Science. Instead of trusting to an inner sentiment of truth, the induc¬
tive method of drawing conclusions from observations was rapidly
gaining gound. That universal genius, da Vinci, had foreshadowed
this method in his own personal studies in science. His note-books
are full of detailed experiments which were a mine from which later
scientists unscrupulously pilfered. Almost a century before Kepler,
Galileo, and Gilbert had laid the foundations of experimental science,
and before Bacon had formulated the principles of the inductive
method, the Florentine artist had written: “We should begin with
experimentation, and by that means discover the cause.” 1 In order,
also, to bring together for a mutual exchange of ideas those, who
were interested in geometry and other intellectual subjects, he
founded an Academy of Arts in Milan.

Towards the end of the sixteenth century, the New Science had
become thoroughly rooted and its followers felt the need of associa¬
tion. The first society established for the investigation of physical
science was the Academia Secretorum Naturae, or / Segreti, in 1560,
at Naples, under the presidency of Io. Baptista Porta. This Neapolitan
was one of those prodigies who knew everything and wrote a library
of books which still are valuable historically, as they give a vivid pic¬
ture of the learning and superstitions of the day. The members of
the society probably threw a veil of mystery about their meetings and
work; they, thus, aroused the indignation of the people who de¬
nounced the organization to the Pope as a gang of sorcerers, and
brought the Academy to an untimely end. But the habit of forming
such associations became fixed and, by the close of the century,
Tiraboschi 2 lists 171 of them. Many of them adopted fanciful names,
such as Gli Ebbri ,—drunken with the new knowledge. Most of them
had a very ephemeral existence, but three deserve special mention;
the Accademia della Crusca, founded at Florence in 1582, still car¬
ries on its useful work in the Palazzo Riccardi; del Lyncei, organised
in Rome in 1609, was distinguished by the membership of Galileo,
and has since then been the most noteworthy scientific society in
Italy; and del Cimento of Florence which, though it lasted only ten
years, yet was the scene of very important work.

The tendency to form these scholarly associations, outside the

1 “Dobbiamo comminciare dall’ esperienza, e per mezzo di questa scopruie la ragione.”

2 Tiraboschi: Storia della lett. Ital., Vol. VII, p. 495.

ISAAC NEWTON

496

universities, spread from Italy to other countries. About 1629,
nine men of letters formed a private society in Paris and agreed to
meet once a week to converse on all subjects, and especially on lit¬
erature. Such was the origin of the famous French Academy. A few
years later, it attracted the attention of Richelieu who persuaded the
members, against their wishes, to enlarge their membership and to
incorporate under a royal charter. The Academy began its official
life in 1635 and from the beginning of its career its principal object
has been to establish a standard French language and to foster a
critical taste in literature. The original society was later enlarged by
incorporating with it an Academy of Sciences and one of Inscriptions
and Belles Lettres. From the start, it flourished under the protection
and generosity of Richelieu. In 1699, Academy was remodelled
and eight foreign associates were added to the membership.

England was slower in following the example of Italy in establish¬
ing scientific societies, 3 and the Royal Society grew, as did those in
the other countries, out of the private meetings of a few men inter¬
ested in natural philosophy. According to Dr. Wallis, the mathema¬
tician, a few friends interested in the new experimental philosophy
formed the habit, about 1645, of meeting once a week to discuss
scientific affairs at the house of Dr. Goddard in Wood Street, or at
the Bull-Head Tavern in Cheapside, or sometimes at Gresham Col¬
lege. Their discourse ranged over a wide field; from the Copernican
hypothesis to general medicine, the grinding of lenses, and the latest
discoveries in physics. The desire for such meetings seems to have
been due to two causes; the first was as a distraction from the des¬
perate social condition of the country, and the other came from the
profound influence exerted by the scientific philosophy of Lord
Bacon. For example; Sprat says that: “Their first purpose was no
more than only the satisfaction of breathing a freer air, and of con¬
versing in quiet one with another, without being engaged in the
passion and madness of that dismal age.” 4 And he evidently thought
that the sobering influence of the Society had a real effect in bring-

3 The sources for this sketch of the history of the Royal Society are Bishop Sprat’s Hist. R • S.,
written four years after its founding as a defense against its critics; Weld’s Hist. R. S., 1848,
giving an interesting and valuable narrative to 1830; Birch’s Hist, of the R. S., a very valu¬
able collection of its records to 1688; The Record of the R. S., 3rd ed., 1912, edited by its
President, Sir Archibald Geikie, which contains an account of the early history of the society
and complete lists of officers, members, medallists, etc.; The Trans. R. S., in which are pub¬
lished the important monographs.

4 Bishop Sprat’s History undoubtedly exerted a great influence in warding off attacks on
the Society. Apparently, also, it was esteemed so excellent in argument and style that others
hesitated to continue it. I found in the Portsmouth Collection these interesting notes by

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

497

ing the nation back to its senses. “What can be more delightful,” he
writes, “for the Englishman to consider, than that notwithstanding
all the late miseries of his country, it has been able in a short time
so well to recover itself, as not only to attain to the perfection of its
former civility, and learning, but also to set on foot a new way of
improvement of arts?” Wallis, also, notes the need of such private
gatherings when the academical studies in both Universities were
much interrupted by the Civil Wars.

We can, however, be certain that some such organisation as the
Royal Society would have resulted from the influence of Bacon’s
inductive philosophy whatever had been the condition of national
affairs. In his New Atalantis and later in his Novum Organum, he
had attacked the Aristotelian scholasticism, and had advocated ex¬
perimentation by associated groups of investigators. Facts of observa¬
tion on all subjects were to be gathered by an army of seekers after
knowledge; they were then to be sorted, and the laws governing each
classification would readily come to light. That Bacon was the prime
influence in founding the Society is definitely affirmed by its earliest
Fellows such as Sprat, Boyle, and others. Thus Sprat says of its
founders, “I shall only mention one great man, who had the true
imagination of the whole extent of this enterprise, as it is now set on
foot; and that is, the Lord Bacon; in whose books there are every¬
where scattered the best arguments, that can be produced for the
defense of experimental philosophy, and the best directions, that are
needful to promote it.” And Geikie, in 1912, echoes the same opinion
in his preface to the Record of the Royal Society: “The foundation
of the Royal Society was one of the earliest practical fruits of the
philosophical labours of Francis Bacon.” There has been a tendency,
which still persists, to underrate Bacon’s importance as a scientist be¬
cause he left no experimental discoveries behind him, but such a
criticism is very shortsighted, to have directed others in the true
scientific method is a work of the highest value and makes him rank
amongst the most eminent natural philosophers. There is no doubt
that Newton was greatly influenced by Bacon in his adoption of the
experimental and mechanistic philosophy, and by his exclusion of
hypothesis from science.

Conduitt: “Hans Sloane told me the History of Royal Society was written in 1677 and that
he had often pressed several to continue it but in vain. Sprat’s first sketch which was intended
as a sample and to encourage others to continue it was written with such perfection that no
one durst continue.” Also, “Dr. Swift says the Hist, of the R. S. is the best book in the
English tongue.”

498

ISAAC NEWTON

The informal meetings of what Robert Boyle several times in his
letters names “our Invisible College” continued till about 1648. At
that time several of the members, including Wallis, Dr. Wilkins,
and Dr. Petty, moved to Oxford and started a branch society there
which met first in Dr. Petty’s lodgings, and afterwards in the house
of Dr. Wilkins, Warden of Wadham College. The London society,
however, continued to prosper and drew to it so many “eminent
and noble persons” that its meetings were held regularly, and with
more formality, in Gresham College. But in 1658, or 1659, because of
what Sprat calls “the miserable distractions of that fatal year,” pro¬
fessors and philosophers were driven out of the College in order to
turn it into a barracks for the soldiers, who later under Monck’s
leadership brought about the Restoration. 5 The condition of the lec¬
ture halls, after this military occupation, is vividly described in the
Memoirs of the Times by Bishop Wren: “I went to visit Gresham
College, but found the place in such a nasty condition, so defiled, and
the smells so infernal, that if you should now come to make use of
your tube [telescope], it would be like Dives looking out of hell into
heaven. Dr. Goddard, of all your colleagues, keeps possession, which
he could never be able to do, had he not before prepared his nose for
camp-perfumes by his voyage into Scotland, and had he not such ex¬
cellent restoratives in his cellar.”

In spite of this interruption, the members did not lose hope, and
plans were drawn up by Evelyn and Cowley for organising a scien¬
tific college or society. When the “fatal year 1659” was followed by
the wonderful pacific year 1660,” the meetings were renewed with
a membership largely increased by some who had regained their
leisure from the cessation of war, and by others who had shared the
exile of Charles and who now returned with him in exuberant
spirits. On November 28th, the first Journal-book of the Society was
opened and plans were begun to establish a permanent organization.
Sir Robert Moray, a close friend of Charles, acquainted the King
with the design, and brought back the news of royal approval and
encouragement. During the years before the Society was incor¬
porated, Moray acted as President and is reported to have been “the
life and soul of the body.”

The Royal Charter of Incorporation received the Great Seal on
July 15th, 1662, and the Royal Society began its honourable career of

There is some doubt about the date. Birch states that Gresham College was not occupied
by soldiers till 1659, but Sprat and Wren both state positively that it occurred the year be¬
fore. Cf. Weld, Vol. I, p. 42.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

499

substituting scientific knowledge for the delusions of superstition
and witch-craft. Lord Brouncker was elected the first president and
continued in that office till 1677. As the first charter did not give
the Fellows all the privileges which they desired, a second Charter
was granted, and passed the Great Seal on April 22nd, 1663. In this
document the King styled himself as Founder and Patron. Although
a third Charter was given in 1669, it is the second Charter which
ensures the privileges of the Society. By its provisions, the Society
was administered by a Council of twenty-one, of whom ten shall
retire each year on St. Andrew’s day; and the first Register of 119
names constituted the original list of Fellows. Of many of the
original Fellows little or nothing is known; they were “gentlemen,
free and unconfined” to use Sprat’s phraseology. Not more than
one-fifth of the members could be called scientists, and they adopted
from the beginning the broad and wise policy of associating with
themselves a body of men united in a common fellowship for the
promotion of natural philosophy.

While the influence of Charles II was essential in giving prestige
and protection to the young Society, he rendered very little sub¬
stantial aid. He granted it a royal coat of arms with the motto of
Nullius in Verba to signify that its purpose was to depend on facts
rather than on words, and that communications should be unadorned
with rhetoric; he also presented the Fellows with a mace to lie on the
table while the President was in the chair. 6 But, although he made
tentative offers of grants of land and money, he was unable, or
unwilling, to pass beyond promises. The Society was for a long while
poor, and sometimes in desperate need of funds owing to arrears of
dues. Nor can we find that much help has ever been given to it by
royalty.

The Society met on Wednesday afternoons in their rooms at
Gresham College. The annual meeting is held on St. Andrew’s
Day, November 28, and in honour of him, as their patron saint, the
Fellows wore St. Andrew’s crosses in their hats. 7 The papers pre-

6 The legend became current that this mace was the one owned by the House of Commons
and which disappeared when Cromwell dissolved the Long Parliament with the curt words,
“Take away that fool’s bauble.” Weld has proved that it was made especially for the Royal
Society.

7 The annual dinner was in the early years less formal than it is today. For example, in
1746, the place of dining was changed from Pontock’s Tavern in Abchurch Lane, which was
inconveniently situated for the majority of the Fellows, to the Devil Tavern, near Temple
Bar.. This Tavern was a resort of the wits and writers. Ben Jonson was one of its frequenters
and there he drank deeply and often. In its convivial room, he laid the plot and wrote most
of the lines of Volpone, and planned others of his plays.

500

ISAAC NEWTON

sented to the Society have gradually become technical, and often
abstruse, but the original plan was to witness experiments performed
by members, very frequently by Hooke, who had been given definite
problems on which to work. Papers were read on a great variety of
subjects and a discussion followed. These early papers are of great
historic value; they show, as nothing else can, the state of science and
the topics of most interest. The elaborate technical language of
modern science had not yet been developed, and most of the papers
could be followed by anybody who had a fairly general education.
Although the declared purpose of the Society was to depend on ex¬
perimental evidence, and thus to counteract the prevailing belief in
the supernatural, many of the papers gravely discuss prodigies hav¬
ing no foundation except rumour and hearsay. One constantly meets
with the same mixture of accurate personal observation and naive ac¬
ceptance of wild tales of travellers in distant countries which is so
evident in the biological treatises of Aristotle. In many respects, a
parallel could be drawn between the early creative periods in the
Classical and Renaissance science. In addition to experimental papers
and lectures, the Society set up a museum into which flowed a
strange mixture of objects of real value with others of only passing
interest; and the passion for collecting biological freaks brought
many worthless and even fraudulent objects into its cases.

The Society had hardly begun to operate under its Royal Charter,
and to settle into its quarters in Gresham College, before it experi¬
enced its share of the two great calamities which burst on the nation.
On the 28th of June, 1665, the meetings were discontinued because of
the plague which was ravaging London and Westminster. Most of
the Fellows fled into the country taking with them the exhortation
“of the President to bear in mind the several tasks laid upon them,
that they might give a good account of them at their return.” It has
already been told how Oldenburg, the Secretary, stuck to his post and
had made arrangements, in case of his expected death, to pass on to
others the properties of the Society which he jealously guarded. And
it has also been told how this same plague drove the young Cam¬
bridge student, Newton, to his rural home where he meditated those
astounding discoveries which made him the most illustrious Fellow
on the register of the Society.

When the plague subsided, meetings were resumed and experi¬
ments on transfusion of blood became the absorbing topic of the
Fellows and of the town. Again, the calamity of the great fire, which

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

5 01

broke out on Sunday, September 2nd, 1666, threw everything into
confusion. Although the fire did not extend to the College, it was
requisitioned by the Mayor for the use of fugitives and of supplies,
and was afterwards occupied by the Exchange till 1673. During this
period the Society removed to Arundel House. After the fire, two of
its Fellows, Hooke and Wren, were busily engaged on the plans for
rebuilding the city.

The early history of the Society would not be complete without
an account of Gresham College. The founder of the College was Sir
Thomas Gresham one of the great merchant princes in the time of
Queen Elizabeth. Besides having been ambassador to Brussels and
financial adviser to the Queen, in which capacity he explained to her
his famous principle that “bad money drives out good,” he also built
the Royal Exchange modelled on the one at Antwerp and a palatial
residence at Bishopsgate. In his will he left to the Mayor and Citizens
of London a moiety of the building of the Royal Exchange under
certain conditions; one was that ^50 a year should be given to each
of four persons meet to read lectures on divinity, astronomy, music,
and geometry in his mansion in Bishopsgate Street. And the other
moiety of the Exchange to the “Commonalty of the mystery of the
Mercers of London,” of which he was a member, with the provision
that they should provide for lecturers on law, physic, and rhetoric,
under the same terms. At the death of Lady Anne Gresham in
1596, the seven lecturers were chosen and installed in comfortable
quarters; and there they delivered their lectures daily in term-time
“to the great delight of many, both learned, and lovers of learning.”

“Here the Royal Society has one public room to meet in, another
for a repository to keep their instruments, books, rarities, papers, and
whatever else belongs to them; making use besides, by permission, of
several of the other lodgings, as their occasions do require. And,
when I consider the place itself, methinks it bears some likeness to
their design. It is now a college, but was once the mansion-house of
one of the greatest merchants that ever was in England: And such a
philosophy they would build; which should first wholly consist of
action and intelligence, before it be brought into teaching and con¬
templation.” 8

The history of Gresham College is a melancholy example of the
misuse of a public trust. As the value of the land increased, the two
trustee corporations centred their attention on realising money by

8 Bp. Sprat, Hist. R. S.. p. 93.

502

ISAAC NEWTON

letting the ground on building leases and allowed the lecturers’
quarters to become ruinous. When the Society moved from the
building in 1710 the lectures had become futile and the College an
object of contempt. In 1767, the trustees agreed to demolish the
building and to give up the land, a property really belonging to the
public, for the sum of £500 a year in order to build on it an Excise-
office. One of the most extraordinary and scandalous provisions of
this Act was that the trustees were compelled to commit a flagrant
violation of their trust by paying ^1800 of Gresham’s funds for de¬
molishing Gresham’s College.

It is said the University of Cambridge had warned Gresham, one
of its alumni, that: “If you design your institution to last, you will
place it here.” An instructive lesson can. be read in the rise of these
scientific societies and their relations to the Universities, which is
pertinent to the situation today. The cause of the wide-spread found¬
ing of learned societies and special colleges in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries was undoubtedly due to the pressure of the
New Science and the rapid expansion of industry. The Universities
kept as usual to the conservative learning of the time, the discipline
of the Aristotelian scholasticism. The radicals and the young men
who had taken up the new ideas, either could not, or were too im¬
patient to, force the Universities into a deliberated modification of
the curriculum. In the new institutions subjects and methods were
moulded nearer to their hearts’ desire. This feeling is expressed in
the verses written on the founding of Gresham College and is ap¬
plicable to the general impatience towards scholastic training:

“The College Gresham shall hereafter
Be the whole world’s University;

Oxford and Cambridge are our laughter;

Their learning is but pedantry;

These new Collegiates do assure us,

Aristotle’s an ass to Epicurus.”

The societies and colleges of that time had a value in causing a
modification of the curricula of the universities without, however,
inducing them to abandon the fundamental disciplinary studies; but
the associations, themselves, mostly vanished or became mere gath¬
ering places where the university professors delivered the results of
their researches. They were built on too narrow and too shallow a
base to endure the changes of time. Today the pressure of industry

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY 503

and humanitarianism has been exerted on the universities, and the
claim is made again that they do not fit the youth for the needs of
the work-a-day world. The purpose of a university, according to
these modernists, is not to make its students acquainted with the
thoughts and actions of the past, but to prepare them quickly for a
business or profession. The successors to the older scientific societies
are the broad elective systems based on the declaration that all sub¬
jects are equally effective as an education; the professional schools
based on a specialised smattering of science; and pedagogic and socio-
logic schools based on nothing. Their products may acquire busy
minds but they lack the vision and the judgement that come only
from the discipline of those classic and philosophic studies which have
persisted through the tumults of the past, and must persist in the
future if a well-balanced attitude towards life is to endure.

The early history of the Royal Society was not a uniform course
of progress. Its final success was due to the devotion and active
work of a small group which was keenly interested in promoting ex¬
perimental knowledge. The bulk of the membership was lukewarm.
Attendance seems to have been irregular and the greatest difficulty
was experienced in collecting the weekly dues of a shilling. The
Journal-book was peppered with melancholy financial reports and at
one time the treasurer was directed to solicit dues every day. But an
even greater danger was the jealousy and fear which were at once
aroused. Bishop Sprat’s History was written for the specific purpose
of defending the Society. He was careful not to mention individual
objections but it is easy to discover what were the chief causes of dis¬
approval. It aroused the jealousy of the universities as tending to de¬
tach students from the accepted methods of instruction; the clergy
feared lest the reliance on observation and experimentation would
lead to atheism and heterodoxy; the physicians looked askance
at new-fangled ideas in medicine; the wits and literary men viewed
the Society as a collection of solemn pedants curiously investigating
matters of little or no importance. Cowley and Dryden extolled it
in verse, but Shadwell ridiculed it in his comedy of The Virtuoso,
and Butler pictures, in the Hudibras, the excitement of the learned
members who thought they had discovered an elephant in the moon
but were chagrined by finding that a fly had lodged in the tube of
their telescope. Addison and Steele satirised the Fellows as dull
pedants, Pope included them in the Dunciad, and Swift bitterly cari¬
catured them in the Voyage to Laputa.

ISAAC NEWTON

504

When Newton was elected President on November 30th, 1703, he
assumed office when the nation was in the throes of political faction
and straining its resources to carry on the war of the Spanish Suc¬
cession. The first and most important problem then confronting the
Society was the need of providing new quarters, and Newton, whose
duties at the Mint now left him much leisure, assumed active lead¬
ership in the movement. Continuance at Gresham College was out
of the question, and the time had come when, in the words of New¬
ton, the Society ought “to have a being of their own.” The first move
had been a petition to Queen Anne to grant them a plot of ground
fifty feet by sixty in Westminster on which to erect a suitable build-
This plan failed and, considering the affairs of the nation, one
can hardly blame the indifference of the Queen’s advisers. The Coun¬
cil next applied to the Trustees of the Cotton Library for permission
to meet in their apartments. In this connection Burnet mentions;

Lord Halifax moved the House of Lords to petition the Queen, that
the Cotton Library and the Queen’s Library should be joined’ and
that the Royal Society, who had a very good Library at Gresham
College, would remove, and hold their assemblies there as soon as it
was made convenient for them.” 9 But all the plans proposed failed
and it was not until 1710 that the Council made a successful effort.
In that year Newton informed them that the house of the late Dr.*
Brown in Crane Court was to be sold, “and being in the middle of
the town, and out of noise, might be a proper place to be purchased
by the Society for their meetings.” After a month’s negotiations the
property was bought for ^1450 and a mortgage was given for the
entire amount. 1 The repairs and improvements on the building were
apparently met by donations and subscriptions. Newton, himself,
gave ■ £ 20 to the Society in January 1709/10, and £100 in De-
cember, towards the easing of the debt; and again in 1718 he made a
gift of /70. The minute in the Journal-Book of his first gift was
ollowed by the note, Instead of the like sum he intended after his
death. It was ordered to be put by itself and to be subject to such
end or benefaction as the President shall direct.” According to Edles-
ton, this note is the foundation for Thomas Hearne’s scandal that,

failed P ”° miSed ^ beC ° me a benefactor to the Royal Society, but

The purchase of the new meeting place aroused a very considerable
opposition in at least some of the Fellows who described the house

9 Burnet, Hist. Own Times, II, p. 44 i. 10 Weld, Hist. R. S., I, pp. 387-391.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

505

as small, inconvenient, and so dilapidated as to require ^1800 to put
it into habitable condition; although the approach to it through a
long court was fair and handsome, yet a man could hardly escape be¬
ing thoroughly wet if there were a heavy rain. It is easy to appreciate
the thousand and one objections that would be raised by any pro¬
posed move of a Club; but the severest criticism was directed against
the dictatorial and high-handed procedure of Newton and the Secre¬
tary, Hans Sloane; apparently there were some grounds for this ac¬
cusation. In a rare pamphlet, 11 one of the malcontents described the
events in this caustic manner. After the Council had resolved on
buying Mr. Brown’s property, Newton gave orders at night to sum¬
mon as many Fellows as were in town to meet on the night of
September 1st. He then told them that a Committee had viewed the
house and found it convenient, and that he had called them to hear
what objections they had to offer. The general surprise was followed
by a profound silence. Those, who opposed the change, argued that
the quarters which they occupied were hallowed by the past history
of the Society. Till adequate reasons were given for moving it was
out of season to enquire into the inconveniences of the house he was
recommending. Newton “was not prepared (or perhaps not in¬
structed) to enter upon that debate: but freely (though methinks
not very civilly) replied, That he had good reasons for their remov¬
ing, which he did not thin\ proper to be given there. The acting
Secretary, who has engrossed the whole management of the Society s
affairs into his own hands, and despotically directs the President, as
well as every other member, took upon him to relate a fact, etc.”
Finally the opinion was expressed that more time should be given for
them to discuss so important an affair. But the President refused to
consider any alteration in the plan so unmovably that “some of the
gentlemen, with warmth enough, asked him, To what purpose then
he had called them thither? Upon which the meeting broke up
somewhat abruptly, and not only the members of the Society, but
most of those of the Council also, left the President with Dr. Sloane,
Mr. Waller, and one or two more, to take such measures at the Coun¬
cil as they best liked.” 12 The impression that the acting Secretary,
Hans Sloane, had engrossed the whole management of the Society
and despotically directed the President may have a basis of truth; in

11 An account of the late proceedings in the Council of the Royal Society, in order to
remove from Gresham College into Crane Court in Fleet Street, iyio. Weld found a copy
of this pamphlet in the British Museum.

12 Cf. Weld, Vol. I, p.. 391.

506

ISAAC NEWTON

most cases where Newton had to act in a public capacity or to con¬
tend with others, he seems to have been obstinate but, at the same
time, to have followed the guidance of advisers who, unfortunately,
were not always actuated by wise or disinterested motives. What¬
ever may have been the rights of the dispute, the plan was carried
through and the Society occupied Crane Court for seventy-two years
with apparent satisfaction.

In January, 1704, Newton gave to the Society a powerful burning
glass which he had contrived by combining seven lenses, and at sev¬
eral later meetings he demonstrated its power by melting metals, bits
of red tile, and other refractory objects. The following month he
presented his Optics. It is more than probable that the material for
this book had been compiled years previously and had been with¬
held from printing until the death of Hooke had removed the pos¬
sibility of his bitter criticism. It is remarkable in the fact that it is
the only one of his works which was prepared for the press by him¬
self. When it was written or whether it was burned and rewritten,
we do not know, but it is likely that the finished manuscript was
quickly composed from his lectures, his papers in the Transactions,
and his voluminous notes and queries. The book became immediate¬
ly popular. It went into several English editions and was translated
into French, German, and Latin. 13 The translation into Latin was
done by his friend Dr. Samuel Clarke and was published in 1706; it
so pleased Newton by its exactness and elegance that he presented
the translator with £500, or for each of his five children, as

a token of his approbation and gratitude. Fontenelle, in his Eloge of
Newton, states that the mathematician, Demoivre, revised and di¬
rected the Latin edition, on which he spared neither care nor pains.
According to this account they met every evening at a coffee house,
probably Slaughter’s in St. Martin’s Lane, and went from there to
Newton’s house where they spent the rest of the evening in philo¬
sophic conversation. This anecdote seems to be doubtful, or perhaps it
refers to some other work of translation; otherwise why was Clarke
favoured with so handsome a gift while Demoivre received noth¬
ing ? Also the reference to St. Martin’s Lane is without point if it

13 A second edition, octavo, bears the advertisement 1717. It was published in 1718, and
the date, 1704, of the first edition was added to the preface, apparently to fix the original

m — Se 01 c ^ s P u,:e •. ^he number of new Queries added begins with the seventeenth. A
third edition appeared in 1721, and a fourth edition was published from a copy of the third
corrected by the author and left before his death with the bookseller. Recently, a new edition
has been issued by Messrs. Bell.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY 507

indicates nearness to his house in St. Martin Street, since he did not
move there till three years after the book was published.

In the first edition, Newton appended two short treatises on the
species and magnitudes of curvilinear figures. The first of these
gives a classification of seventy-two curves of the third order, and
the second contains the first description of the method of fluxions,
and of the binomial theorem. They were omitted from later editions
as not being germane to the subject of the book. They were un¬
doubtedly first printed at the solicitation of his friends who saw with
anxiety the rapid advance which the calculus of Leibniz was making,
and who were preparing to start an active campaign to establish his
priority of invention. Newton, again in this preface, reiterates his
reluctance to publish. “To avoid being engaged in disputes about
these matters [on optics], I have hitherto delayed the printing, and
should have delayed it, had not the importunity of friends prevailed
upon me.” Concerning the publication of the paper on fluxions, he
refers to the short description of his method which was published
by Wallis in 1679. Then he adds: “And some years ago I lent out a
manuscript containing such theorems, and having since met with
some things copied out of it, I have on this occasion made it public.”
This is a covert insinuation that Leibniz had seen this manuscript
when in London and had obtained from it hints which led to his dis¬
covery of the calculus. In earlier years Newton certainly did not hold
this opinion. But in later years he became more and more con¬
vinced of this plagiarism. We do not know whether some new fact
became known to him, whether he was influenced by his friends, or
whether he simply became anxious to believe it. It seems to me un¬
fortunate that his fluxions was published in this manner. His
priority of discovery was uncontested and that was all he could hope
for. No effort at that late date by him, or by English mathematicians,
could substitute his fluxions for the systematic exposition of Leib¬
niz’s method; and the insinuation of plagiarism led at once to the
great controversy which embittered his last years and left a tarnish
on his name.

One of the most honourable bequests to science came to the Royal
Society in the early years of Newton’s presidency. Sir Godfrey
Copley, a Fellow since 1691, left in his will, dated 1704, “one hundred
pounds, in trust for the Royal Society of London for improving
natural knowledge, to be laid out in experiments, or otherwise, for
the benefit thereof, as they shall direct and appoint.” On his death,

ISAAC NEWTON

508

five years later, this bequest came to the society and was administered
by Sir Hans Sloane and Mr. Hill, his trustees, jointly till Hill’s death,
and then by Sloane till 1753. For many years the income from the
fund was paid to Dr. Desagulier, Curator of the Society, 14 as a fee
for performing experiments. But in 1736, President Martin Folkes
proposed to make the gift a signal mark of honour by using it for a
medal to be awarded annually to the author of the most important
scientific discovery or contribution to science by experiment or other¬
wise. The Copley medal has long been considered as the highest dis¬
tinction that the Royal Society can bestow, and the list of Copley
Medallists is an almost complete record of the most eminent men of
science in the world during the past two centuries. At first, the
awards were limited to British scientists and were made on the
nomination of the trustees. On Sloane’s death, the choice devolved
on the President and Council, and all restrictions of nationality
were removed. The first Medallist chosen under the new administra¬
tion was Benjamin Franklin in 1753.

When Newton, as mentioned before, came to the presidency of the
Royal Society, he assumed office at one of the most critical periods in
English history. At home, the accession of Queen Anne had tem¬
porarily postponed the hopes of her brother, the Elder Pretender, but
she was in frail health and the prospects of the Jacobites, led by her
relatives the Hydes, were high. Abroad, there was the imperative
question of carrying on the war begun by William III against
France. Whatever sympathies Anne may have had towards her
family as rightful heirs to the throne, they were overshadowed by
her increasing dislike to the domineering Hydes and by her de¬
termination to prosecute the war. Her retired life of an invalid put
her in the hands of a small domestic circle over which the Marl-
boroughs reigned supreme. Up to the time of her final break with
her dear friend Sarah Churchill, she backed Marlborough with stead¬
fast loyalty, and made possible that series of brilliant victories which
humbled Louis and shattered his dream of world power. Anne be¬
gan her reign so strong a Tory and so prejudiced against the mem¬
bers of the Junto, that the Whigs had no influence in her first Parlia¬
ment. As a consequence, the High Tories went so far in alienating
her by opposing the war and the influence of Marlborough that it
became of the highest importance to manipulate a balance of power.
Her fear of the High Tories split that party in two and really gave

14 Weld, I, p. 384, and Record R. S., p. 174.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY 509

rise to three parties. Thus, the Moderate Tories never had a working
majority and her reign was marked with a prolonged and fierce
political struggle that is unmatched in English history. The excite¬
ment, the bitterness, and the character of the political leaders gave
vent to an unparalleled license in language and personal slander
which must be reckoned with when judging the epithets used in even
the altercations of the Royal Society, or in the personal controversies
of Newton. The Court was compelled to bid alternately for the
votes of the High Tories and of the Whigs, in order to carry on.thc
policies of the Moderate Tories. While the Whigs did not come into
power, they still had great influence. They were represented in the
Ministry and in the Privy Council; and the five leaders of the Junto,
all of whom were then in the House of Lords, were able from that
House to guide the policy of the Commons in voting money bills for
the vigorous prosecution of the war and for domestic measures.
Newton’s fear of losing his position at the Mint, because of his Whig
affiliations, had, as I believe, led him to solicit the support of the
Mashams and Marlboroughs some years previously. And, though
Halifax was nominally in disgrace, his support of the war was es¬
sential to the Ministry, and his friendship with Newton helped to
keep him secure in his office. Unless we take into account the con¬
fused political history of Anne’s reign, it is difficult to understand
why Newton, a confirmed Whig, was so highly esteemed and hon¬
oured by the Court, or why he was permitted to retain so envied a
political office. This explanation is strengthened by Flamsteed’s
frequent complaint that Newton was able to crush all opposition to
him because he had free and intimate access to the Court, and had
the support of a powerful patron, Halifax.

On the Anniversary Day of the Royal Society, when Newton was
elected President, the nation was stunned by the effects of the great
storm of November 26 and 27, O. S. London streets were piled with
heaps of wreckage, and forests of oak and elm trees throughout the
south of England were devastated. But the following Anniversary
brought great satisfaction to the Society by the election of Prince
George of Denmark to membership. The Journal-book stated, that
“the Society were extremely pleased with the honour the Prince did
them, in suffering them to choose him a member,” and the Council
desired “the President and Secretary to wait on the Prince with the
Statute-book, to have the honour of his subscription.” 15 We have

15 Weld, I, p. 376 .

5io

ISAAC NEWTON

also a note from Newton to Sloane asking him to be ready on De¬
cember 7th to wait on His Royal Highness. This mark of royal
favour, which had been lacking in the previous reign, was im¬
portant to the Society as a protection against its critics, and it was
personally important to the President, since a mark of attention to
her husband was a sure means of favour with the Queen. During the
audience, Newton succeeded in pledging Prince George to defray the
expense of publishing Flamsteed’s great catalogue of the stars on
which he had been working all the years since his appointment as
Astronomer Royal.

Whatever motive may have influenced Newton to undertake an
active part in the publication of this monumental work, and it is
reasonable to suppose that it was to advance science and perhaps also
to repay the assistance he had received for his lunar theory, his pro¬
cedure in managing the undertaking was as tactless and as arbitrary
as it well could be. The printing was delayed interminably; Flam¬
steed was reduced to a state of passionate and baffled rage; the edi¬
tion was finally burned and a new one printed at the author’s ex¬
pense. The episode is an interesting and tangled story of two par¬
ties trying to do a piece of work when every move of either was op¬
posed by the other. According to the account by Flamsteed, which
was set down in letters, and in his diary as the negotiations dragged
along, he was treated as if he were but a minor factor in the publica¬
tion of a work to which he had devoted his life and had accom¬
plished in spite of heart-breaking difficulties. 16

The relations between Flamsteed and Newton since their last
break had remained, as Flamsteed notes, sufficiently cordial for them
to converse civilly as often as they accidentally met, and Newton al¬
ways enquired “how the catalogue went on.” But Flamsteed had
deepened Newton’s hostility by pointing out faults in the Principia
which he naively says, “instead of thanking me for, he resented ill”
and “was so presumptuous that he sometimes dared to ask why I
did not hold my tongue.’ ” Again, when Newton sent him a com¬
plimentary copy of his newly published Optics, the Astronomer

The source of our information is to be found in Baily’s Life of Flam steed where the
letters and diary are published in full. As Baily states, there is absolutely no reason to doubt
Flamsteed’s direct statements of facts, even though his irritability of temper and intense
hatred of Halley led him into exaggerated language and made him difficult and suspicious.
Brewster has added a few important facts but his comment is worse than misleading; Flam¬
steed is all black, and Newton is all white. It never seems to have occurred to him that
Flamsteed was the author and had some interest in the publication. I have also examined all
the documents and letters contained in the Portsmouth Collection.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY 511

wrote to his friend Sharp: “My discourse, about the faults of Mr,
Newton’s Optics and correction of my lunar numbers, brought the
subtle gentleman down hither [the Observatory] the 12th past
[April, 1704]. I thanked him for his book: he said then he hoped I
approved it. I told him truly, no.” We can be sure that if outwardly
civil their private feelings were anything but cordial. At this junc¬
ture, after having withstood pressure to publish, and Halley s in¬
sinuations of his inefficiency, Flamsteed had not only formed a cata¬
logue of from two to three thousand stars whose positions he had
determined with his new mural arc, but had also suggested several
corrections to the solar, lunar, and planetary tables. He had spent
£2000 for instruments, assistants, and calculators out of his pittance
of an income; he had never, received any money from the Govern¬
ment except his scant salary; he was now ready to publish his com¬
plete work and he hoped it would justify his labour, with some re¬
turn of money from its subscribers. He gives the following account
of the hope he had of royal aid:

“Some friend of mine (that was frequently in company with me,
and saw how the work went on with such assistance as I hired and
paid myself, and was informed what the charge would be of print¬
ing the observations of 30 years, and engraving the maps of the con¬
stellations I had prepared) acquainted Prince George of Denmark
with my performance. Mr. Newton lived near the Court: I, always
at a distance. He was the President of the Royal Society, and had a
great courtier [Halifax] as his friend, and one who was frequently at
his office [the Mint], required at Court, and attending on the
Prince. So that he [Halifax] could not but hear of the Prince’s in¬
clination to make me easier in my work; nor could Mr. Newton fail
to be informed of it. So, on the 10th of April, 1704? [Newton
came down to Greenwich, visited me on my request, staid, and dinec
with me. At his first coming he desired to see what I had ready for
the press, . . . which having looked over carefully, he desired me to
let him have the recommending of them to the Prince. I was sur¬
prised at this proposition. I had formerly tried his temper, and al¬
ways found him insidious, ambitious, and excessively covetous of
praise, and impatient of contradiction. ... I considered if I granted
what he desired, I should put myself wholly into his power, or be at
his mercy, who might spoil all that came into his hands, or put me
to unnecessary trouble and vexation about my labours.” 17

17 Baily, p. 73 *

512

ISAAC NEWTON

The character which Flamsteed invariably gives to Newton is so
contrary to the equable, mild, and disinterested behaviour which has
been always portrayed to us by his biographers, that his opinion has
always been brushed aside as being what Brewster terms Flamsteed’s
revolting correspondence”; to which he piously added: “We have
hesitated, however, to associate the sacred character of the accuser
with systematic calumny; and we hasten to forget that there may be
an astronomer without principle; and a divine without charity.”

lamsteed was undoubtedly cursed with a suspicious temperament
and a pen bitter even for that age which was accustomed to express
its feelings with a bluntness of terms that shocks our softer usage.
But his estimate of Newton’s character cannot be ignored, for he was
not lacking in generosity of mind. He had suffered in the past from
the contrariness of Newton; he was to suffer still worse in the
future, and yet he undoubtedly tried to preserve their friendship.
What he predicted would happen about the publication of the
Catalogue, did occur. We should not forget that Whiston, who was
ewton s successor as Lucasian Professor, a great admirer and an
early friend, uses very nearly the same characterisation. “So did I
enjoy a large portion of his favour for twenty years together But
he then perceiving that I could not do as his oLr darling friends
did, that is learn of him, without contradicting him, when I differed
in opinion from him, he could not, in his old age, bear such con¬
tradiction. He was of the most fearful, cautious, and suspicious
temper, that I ever knew.” 18

Shortly after Newton’s assistance had been refused, Flamsteed
rew up a prospectus of his proposed work, estimating the number of
pages, the order of contents, and the general scope of his observations.
He then gave a copy or two to an acquaintance that it might be
shown to those who had unjustly suspected his industry and accom¬
plishment. By chance it was handed to some of the Fellows at a
meeting of the Royal Society and was delivered to the Secretary to
be read public y. The interest of the Fellows was aroused and a com¬
mittee, with the President as Chairman, was appointed to wait on
1 nnce George and to solicit his aid in printing the whole work.

On December 5th, Newton wrote to Secretary Sloane to hold him-
selt in readiness to wait on the Prince on the seventh for the purpose
of having the honour of his signature in the Statute-book as a Fellow.
During the interview, he gave the Prince a copy of Flamsteed’s

18 Whiston, Memoirs, ist Ed., 1749, p. 294.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY 513

prospectus, and persuaded him to undertake the entire cost of the
publication which was estimated to amount to ^863. Mr. Trevel¬
yan 19 gives us a picture of the loved and loving husband, George of
Denmark, Prince Consort, as a man either too dull or too shrewd to
take any part in political activities; and to most persons his dullness
was his most characteristic trait. He had identified himself with his
adopted country but his accent still betrayed the foreigner. He was a
kindly man who rarely appeared in public, but he was well liked by
his servants. Bishop Burnet bravely asserted that he was free from
all vice”—after his marriage as qualified by Trevelyan. It might be
added that he was the father of at least fifteen children. He drank
like a fish but that was no vice in those days, and he grew very fat on
English food. “After many a succulent meal, he died in 1708—a
kindly, negligible mortal.” But this can be said in his favour, he was
a patron of science, a friend and supporter of Newton, and he pro¬
foundly gratified the Royal Society by enrolling his name as a Fel¬
low. 1 T

A few days after the Committee had waited on the Prince, New¬
ton received a letter from his Secretary saying that His Royal High¬
ness was desirous of aiding the work and requested that Newton, Mr.
Robertes, Sir Christopher Wren, Dr. Gregory, and Dr. Arbuthnot,
should act as Referees, (to whom Mr. Francis Aston was later added),
to inspect Mr. Flamsteed’s papers and consider what was fit to print.
A week later, Newton wrote to Flamsteed that the Referees were to
dine at his house the next day and he would like him to join the
company and to consider the matter. On January 23rd, the Referees
reported to the Prince that they had inspected the manuscript “and
are humbly of the opinion that all the observations which he pro¬
posed to be printed in the first and second parts of the work are
oroper to come abroad, together with his two catalogues of the fixed
stars in Latin.” The work was estimated to run to about 1200 pages

in folio. . .

It needed no prophet to predict that the printing of the Histona

Codestis Britannica would not run smoothly. The appointment of
the membership of the Referees was made without consulting the
wishes, or interests, of Flamsteed; and Newton, knowing the sus¬
picious attitude of the author, should have been careful to insist that
some of the members be appointed to represent the author. But in¬
stead of asking Flamsteed to name persons who would satisfy him, it

Trevelyan, England Under Queen Anne, o 177 *

5 i 4

ISAAC NEWTON

is only too evident that the Referees were friends and partisans of
Newton. There was only one, Wren, who had sufficient reputation
to assert himself against the wishes of the Chairman, and he, as
Flamsteed points out, was seventy years of age and far too busy with
his multifarious occupations to pay close attention to this duty, so
that the whole management was left to Newton. The Referees acted
as if the work were their own, or rather the Prince’s because of his
gift; and as if the author, who was one of the most distinguished of
living astronomers, who had spent thirty years of labour and a far
larger sum of money than the Prince, were merely a minor actor in
the transaction. They did not consult him on what was to be done,
how done; and they chose the printer. Flamsteed was suspicious and
disgruntled from the start, and he was not one to act complacently
under even favourable circumstances. He filled his letters and diary
with lamentations and objurgations which usually ended with the
pious hope that God would grant him patience. But he was afraid
to break entirely with the Referees lest, for lack of money, his great
work should never be published. Two criticisms have been made
against him. It has been asserted that Newton deserved to have
his way because he must have the data printed which he needed for
perfecting his lunar theory. But while he may have occasionally con-
templated taking another try at the moon,” he gave no evidence
after 1700 that he was working on the problem. And it has been
proved that he had had access to all the observations which Flam¬
steed had in his possession. It has also been stated that all the observa¬
tions of the Astronomer Royal belonged to the nation. But that is
not true. The manuscripts of Halley, his successor, were purchased
a ter his death by the Government. And a test case was made as to
the ownership of the books and papers of Bradley, Halley’s successor,
with the result that they were decided by the court to be the absolute

1 • 1 « 11l1 ^ a waste of space to follow the

bickerings and the delays which occurred. After a period of three

years, the first volume came from the press in December, 1707, and
preparations were made to print the more important second volume
of the observations which had been made with the new mural arc.

The sequel of this unpleasant, and even disgraceful affair will be
given at the proper time, but one incident should be referred to now.
Both Edleston and Brewster place all the blame on Flamsteed and
claim that, although they were unable to find the Articles of Agree-

20 Baily, p. 732.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

515

ment actually signed by Flamsteed and the Referees, we must assume
Newton carried out their provisions consistently, while Flamsteed
signed but afterwards repudiated them. Brewster flatly declares that
Flamsteed had resolved from the beginning not to perform his part
of the agreement. Baily found four unsigned draughts amongst
Flamsteed’s papers, which differ but slightly with each other, and he
has published one of them; Brewster found three unsigned draughts
of them in Newton’s hand-writing which he also published. He
then remarks “I regret to say that they are essentially different from
those published by Mr. Baily,” meaning that Newton’s proposed
draughts must be identical with the signed articles. Of Flamsteed’s
draughts, he says “they are only articles proposed by Flamsteed, and
not the articles which he signed. Of these he has left no copies, because
he had wilfully violated them,” 21 meaning that he perpetrated a
deliberate lie to shield his character. That the two parties to an
agreement should have prepared different proposals is natural; and it
is to be expected, without definite proof, that the signed covenant
would differ from both.

Although no signed copy of the Articles of Agreement has been
found, I think a fairly accurate idea of the document can be obtained
from a comparison of the tentative draughts of Newton and Flam¬
steed, and from Flamsteed’s diary and letters. 22 It should be remem¬
bered, in the first place, that the chief purpose of the agreement
should have been to make a contract with the publisher. And it was
most unfortunate that the differences of opinion between the Ref¬
erees and the author were known to the publisher, as he would
naturally follow the wishes of the party holding the funds. That the
Referees and the author disagreed is evident from Flamsteed’s diary
and correspondence. He notes on October 12, 1705: “Met Mr.
Roberts, Sir C. Wren, and Sir I. Newton, at Sir C. Wren’s office:
showed my paper of articles: ’twas laid by: Sir I. Newton would like
nothing I proposed, though he could not say it was unreasonable:
drew up another paper: appointed another meeting on the 18th fol¬
lowing.—October 22, when we met: read over all the Articles very
[carefully?]: I did not assent to many of them: much talk, little
done: in the mean time sent to the Prince, by Mr. L., that I would

21 Brewster, II, p. 223. Italics are Brewster’s, not mine.

22 I have before me Flamsteed’s draughts ( Cf. Baily, p„ 253), Brewster’s copy of Newton’s
draughts ( Cf. Brewster, VoL II, p. 480) and also my own copy of the same made from the
original manuscripts of the Portsmouth Collection (Cf. Ports. Coll., Cam. Univ. Lib. Add
4006).

5 i 6

ISAAC NEWTON

throw myself on God’s providence and his favour: had a favourable
answer from Mr. L. next morning.”

Now it is evident that neither Newton’s nor Flamsteed’s draughts
are identical with the signed agreement. The only one of Newton’s
proposed articles which is dated begins with the words, “Articles
of agreement made this — day of October” and we know that changes
were made at the meetings during that month. Flamsteed’s pro¬
posals were dated November ioth, and there was a meeting seven
days later when he succeeded in having the catalogue of the fixed
stars placed in the second volume, instead of in the first as Newton
in one of his draughts had proposed. Thus, the final agreement, as
the following letter shows, was not reached till Saturday, November
17, and the articles as then signed contain at least one concession to
Flamsteed’s wishes.

Newton to Flamsteed

Mr. Flamsteed, J erm y n Street > Nov - x 4 > i 7 ° 5 -

On Saturday next [Nov. 17] about twelve o’clock, the referees meet
at my house, to finish the agreement and sign the Articles about
printing your book; and I shall be glad to have your company here
at the same time, and that you will be pleased to dine with me.

I am, your humble servant,

Isaac Newton.

[The following memorandum was written on the letter by Flam¬
steed.]

I was there and signed the Articles, but covenanted that the cata¬
logueof the fixed stars to ma\e a part of the first volume should not
be printed but with the last. Dr. Arbuthnot was there, with Mr.

Roberts, and Mr. Churchill, but neither Sir. Chr. Wren, nor Dr.
Gregory.” 23

Brewster made such a point of the differences between the Ref¬
erees and Flamsteed and condemned the latter so bitterly that a

23 Cf. Baily, p. 253.—The significance of the words which I have italicised clearly is- that
the articles were signed only after the place of the catalogue had been changed from the
first volume to the second in accordance with Flamsteed’s wish and contrary to one of
Newton’s proposed draughts.. This position of the catalogue in the book was one of the
principal points of difference and was obstinately adhered to by Flamsteed during all the
subsequent contentions. Yet Brewster (Vol. II, p. 224) interprets the italicised phrase in
this extraordinary fashion: “This [Flamsteed’s covenant] is an express declaration that the
articles provided otherwise; and Flamsteed’s covenant had this strange character, that after
signing the articles, he either said to himself, or wrote upon the document, that he *cove-

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

517

rather detailed comparison of the terms as proposed in the draughts
of Newton and of Flamsteed should be made.

The draughts agree that exactly 400 copies were to be printed, and
that the author was bound to supply copy promptly and to be solely
responsible for correcting proof. He was to have access to the press
at all times and to break it when the stipulated number of each sheet
had been printed. The publisher was required to print five sheets
weekly and was to have no interest in the manuscript or in the
finished books. The Referees were responsible for all the financial
receipts and expenditures of the Prince’s money.

The Referees insisted on employing a publisher or bookseller.
They chose Aunsham Churchill without consulting the author and
fixed his compensation at thirty-four shillings a sheet. Flamsteed
wished to avoid that expense and to employ only a printer; but, when
he was forced to concede the point, he made no personal objection
to Churchill. He was bitterly disappointed that he, as the author
who had spent so many years’ labour and so much money on its
preparation, should be allowed no share of the Prince’s bounty or of
the sale of the book, while the publisher was to be well paid. The
Referees allowed him ^280 for the wages of an amanuensis and of
two calculators but nothing for himself. 24 There is only one item in

nanted’ something different from them.” Erewster either did not, or would not, understand
the English language when he had to discuss a question involving Newton’s character. He
had decided that Newton’s draughts (which one of the four he does not say) were the
signed articles; therefore, the word “covenant” does not mean an agreement between the
two parties.

24 There is in the Portsmouth Collection the following memorandum in Newton’s hand¬
writing of his complete account for publishing the Historia Coelestis.

EXPENSE OF FIRST VOLUME; PUBLISHED BY THE REFEREES

Paid to Mr. Churchill for paper and printer. /N94—17— o

To Mr. Flamsteed for his copy. 125— 0— 0

To Mr. Machin for correcting the copy by the minute-book,

and examining some calculations. 30— o—00

Referees received from Prince George ^ 349 —17— o

Newton explains: “Some time after this Dr.. Halley undertook to finish the book, and the
referees of the Prince acted no further. . . .”

EXPENSE OF SECOND VOLUME; PUBLISHED AT EXPENSE OF

THE GOVERNMENT

Paid to Mr. Churchill for paper and printing. £ 98—n— o

Paid for designing and graving the draughts and rolling off

the plates . 116— 4— 7 Vi

Paid to Dr. Halley. 150— 0— o

Newton also paid £ 20 out of his own pocket to the engraver.

£364—15— iVi

ISAAC NEWTON

518

the expense account of the first volume which is puzzling. On the
face of it, the Referees seem to have violated the contract by paying
^30 to Machin, when it was expressly stipulated that the author was
to make all corrections and calculations. They undoubtedly drove a
hard bargain but, after Flamsteed had agreed to it, he should cer¬
tainly not have complained constantly of its injustice. The account
of the publication of the second volume is another story which will
be told in the next chapter. It is sufficient now to point out that the
Referees ceased to act after the Prince’s death, and less than one-half
of his promised grant was used. The death of the Prince and the
withdrawal of the Referees certainly terminated the agreement; and,
on the evidence available, there could be no justification for the gov¬
ernment and the Royal Society to keep the manuscript, and to pro¬
ceed with the publication of the second volume without his consent
and under a new agreement. To add insult to injury, Halley, the
bitter enemy of the Astronomer Royal, was made editor and well
paid for his services, while the author received not even the balance
due him for assistants.

The Referees and Flamsteed also differed as to the disposal of the
published volumes. They insisted that Churchill should give the
books to them to be sent to the Prince; while he wished them to be
forwarded to the Observatory in order that he might have the
honour of putting them in the Prince’s hands, and perhaps receive
some profit from their disposal.

Finally, the most important article of disagreement was the place of
the catalogue. And here, Flamsteed apparently won, if my interpre¬
tation of the meaning of “covenant” be correct. It is, at least, true
that the Referees did not include it in the first volume. Arbuthnot
and Halley when they assumed the editorship, treacherously tried
to follow the Referees’ wishes and print the catalogue from an in¬
complete copy which they had retained after the agreement was
ended.

Although none of the tentative draughts, which have been found,
agrees exactly with the signed Articles, it is probable that they were
closer in agreement with Newton’s draughts than with Flamsteed’s,
because the latter wrote to his friend Sharp, on November 20th, “Sir
Isaac Newton has, at last, forced me to enter into Articles for print¬
ing my works with a bookseller, very disadvantageous to myself:
but ’tis not time to tell you the story of his behaviour: I shall here¬
after, and how much he has thereby injured me.” But, even if the

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

519

signed agreement were identical with one of Newton s draughts,
there is absolutely no excuse for insulting Flamsteed’s character by
asserting, as Brewster did, that he destroyed his signed copy and
preserved his preliminary draughts because he knew he had wil¬
fully violated his covenant.

In spite of the vexatious troubles resulting from his contentions
with Flamsteed, the first years of Newton’s presidency of the Royal
Society were marked by pleasant and important events. He enjoyed
leisure; apparently his official duties required him to spend only one
day a week at the Mint. He had abandoned sustained creative work
and now passed his days reading and writing in his favourite subjects
of religion, history, and chronology. Under these circumstances, he
entertained the idea, in 1705, of representing the University again in
Parliament. He had sat in the House of Commons during the Conven¬
tion Parliament and again in the short session of 1701 which termi¬
nated the following summer because of the death of King William.
The first Parliament of Anne’s reign was certain to be strongly Tory,
and Newton could readily see that he would have but a slight chance
then of re-election by a University constituency which was normally
conservative. He thus wisely wrote to a group of his friends that he
preferred not to be a candidate, as the following letter explains.

Newton to -

[17 01 ?]

Sir,—I wrote lately to Mr. Vice-chancellor, that by reason of my
present occasions here, I could very ill come down to your University
to visit my friends in order to be chosen your burgess. I would have
it understood that I do not refuse to serve you, (I would not be so
ungrateful to my Alma Mater, to whom I owe my education, nor so
disobliging to my friends,) but by reason of my business here I
desist from soliciting, and without that, I see no reason to expect
being chosen. And now I have served you in this Parliament, other
gentlemen may expect their turn in the next. To solicit and miss for
want of doing it sufficiently, would be a reflection upon me, and it’s
better to sit still. And tho’ I reckon that all one as to desist absolutely,
yet I leave you and the rest of the gentlemen to do with all manner
of prudence what you think best for yourselves, and what pleases
you shall please—Your most bumble and most obedt. servant. 25

[Is. Newton]

25 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 215.

520

ISAAC NEWTON

Brewster found two rough copies of this letter in the Portsmouth
Papers, neither of which bears a date. He unaccountably assigns the
letter to the year 1705, and remarks: “we might suppose that New¬
ton was unwilling to canvass personally for a seat in the new Parlia¬
ment which by the Triennial Act would be elected that year. The
sentence I have italicised would have no meaning if we accept
Brewster s date, as he had not sat in the preceding Parliament; it
has a clear meaning if we date the letter, 1701, since he had served
in that session. Newton had a fair chance of success in the general
election of 1705* The complexion of politics had changed greatly
during the first three years of Anne’s reign. Her Government had
begun with strong Tory tendencies. But, however strongly the
Queen desired the Stuart succession, she had subordinated that and
other Tory policies to her inflexible purpose to carry on the war
against France, and to continue Marlborough’s command of the
army, which had but the year before achieved the dazzling victory
of Blenheim. The Tories had split badly on both of those questions
and Government, in order to counteract a strong opposition in their
own party, had to secure the support of the Whigs who were com¬
mitted to the continuation of William’s war. Thus, as mentioned
before, the Junto, though officially in disgrace, had still much in¬
fluence. Newton could hope that his great reputation would carry
him to victory and, in fact, the election did very well by his party.
Though Parliament did not expire till August, that event was antic¬
ipated by a prorogation on March 14, and Newton made a visit to
Cambridge on election business some time that month. He had the
strong support of Halifax as appears from the following letter.

Halifax to Newton

Sir,—I send you the address of the House of Lords, to which the
Queen made so favourable an answer, that the enemy are quite en¬
raged. The paragraph in her speech against the Tackers 26 provokes
them [the Tories] still more than this [address]. And whatever the
ministers may think, they will never forgive them for either. I be¬
lieve they begin to think so, and will take measures to make other
friends. I was in hopes by this post to have sent you an account of
several altercations that would have pleased you, but they are not

26 Tackers was the name given to a section of the High Tories who tried to secure the
brnfSed I7 ° 4 ’ ° f thC ° CCaS10naI Conformit y Bill by tacking it on to the Land Tax Bill,

27 That is, amongst the Whigs.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

521

yet made, tho’ you may expect to hear of them in a very little time.
Among other expectations we have, we do depend upon a good
Bishop, Dr. Wake is likely to be the man. We are sure Sir William
Dawes will not. I think this will have great influence in the place
where you are, and therefor I think you may mention it among your
friends as a thing very probable, tho’ it be not actually settled. He is
to hold St. James’s in commendam , 28 and Dr. Younger will be Dean
of Exeter. Mr. Godolphin will go down to Cambridge next week,
and if the Queen goes to Newmarket, and from thence to Cam¬
bridge, she will give you great assistance. The Tories say she makes
that tour on purpose to turn Mr. Ansley out. He is so afraid of being
thrown out, that Lord Gower has promised to bring him in at Pres¬
ton, which they should know at Cambridge. If you have any com¬
mands for me, I desire you would send them to me, who shall be
very ready to obey them.—I am your most humble, and most obedi-

ent servt > Halifax . 29

17 March, (1705).

Before the Whig candidates had been decided on, Newton wrote
a letter to ask for consideration.

"Newton to -

I understand that Mr. Patrick is putting in to be your representa¬
tive in the next Parliament, and believe that Mr. Godolphin, my
Lord High Treasurer’s son, will also stand. I do not intend to oppose
either of them, they being my friends, but being moved by some
friends of very good note to write for myself, I beg the favour of
you and the rest of my friends in the University to reserve a vote for
me till I either write to you again, or make you a visit, which will be
in a very short time, and you will thereby very much oblige yours,

O 3 °

[Is. Newton.]

This visit to Cambridge was brief as Flamsteed wrote to Newton
on April 5th about the publication of his Catalogue, and closed by
wishing him good success in his affairs, health, and a happy return;

28 The practice of assigning a benefice, or living, temporarily to a cleric or layman till
a pastor was appointed, or even permanently, and permitting the enjoyment of the revenue
was not abolished till the reign of William IV.

29 Portsmouth Collection. Also quoted by Brewster, II, p. 216.

39 This letter is without date or address and was communicated to Brewster by the Rev.
Jeffrey Ekins. Brewster, II, p. 217.

522

ISAAC NEWTON

but it was not sent as he returned to London too soon. During his
visit to Cambridge he renewed his friendship with Bentley who, as
Master of Trinity College, was now in the full career of his ambitious
projects. In spite of his high-handed misappropriation of funds and
his tyrannical treatment of the Fellows, he was rapidly raising its
intellectual level and cultivating the Newtonian philosophy. He also
restored and adorned its buildings. Amongst his other works, he
rebuilt the Chapel at great expense to make it worthy of a new and
magnificent organ he had bought for the College. The work,
though beautifully executed under the direction of Professor Cotes,
caused extreme uneasiness and agitation by creating a large defi¬
ciency. Newton, with his customary generosity, contributed £60
towards its completion. Bentley also completely refitted and re¬
furnished the Master’s Lodge, and to him is due its great oak stair¬
way.

Not long after the completion of this work, Bentley had the
honour of entertaining the Queen. She had passed the month of
April, 1705, at Newmarket, and went over on the sixteenth, with
her husband and the whole Court, to visit the University. Osten¬
sibly this was a mere visit of ceremony but, from the statement in
Halifax’s letter, it was really undertaken to strengthen her political
position in the University. She spent the day in sightseeing, nom¬
inated many persons for honorary degrees, and held a court at
Trinity Lodge where she made the day memorable by conferring
knighthood on Newton, who went up to Cambridge to receive the
honour; and she closed the day with a great banquet. 31 It is not now
such a rare thing to confer knighthood for distinguished achieve¬
ment in science, but so far as I can discover this was the first time
anyone had been so honoured for such service. It is true that two
of his contemporaries were knighted, but Wren and Sloane owed
the honour to their public work rather than to their eminence in
science. England was slow to reward scientific achievement by this
distinction and I believe that Davy, in the early years of the nine¬
teenth century, was the next to receive royal recognition; and even
during that century such physicists as Faraday and Maxwell, and
such a biologist as Darwin, were not knighted. Thus, in Newton’s
case, it was an unprecedented expression of the unique position
which he occupied in the world. It marked him as without a peer.

There is no evidence to show that Newton was deeply concerned

31 Monk, Life of Bentley, I, p. 183.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

523

in the outcome of the election, but he was sufficiently interested to
canvass again in Cambridge on the twenty-fourth, or twenty-fifth, of
April. Flamsteed tells us, “Mr. Newton is knighted; stands for parlia¬
ment man at Cambridge; and is going down thither, this day or
tomorrow, in order to his election. ’Tis something doubtful whether
he will succeed or no, by reason he put in too late. I expect him back
about a fortnight hence; and, within a month after, we may begin to
print, if God spare me life and health. I was with him on Saturday
last to wish him joy of his honour; he was more than usually gay
and cheerful: but I well perceived the same temper that I had al¬
ways found under it, and therefore took care to be no more open
than formerly. I dealt plainly and sincerely with him as I used to do;
and this keeps me always safe: but I take care to inform him no
further of my business, than he does me of his, or necessity requires,
since he make such uses of it (when I do) as no deserving man would
allow. He will see his error in a short time, and be the firmer friend
to the Observatory hereafter.” 32

Halifax predicted in a letter to Newton that both he and the other
Whig candidate, Godolphin, would be defeated by the influence of
the Court.

Halifax to Newton

Sir,—I have sent to my Lord Manchester to engage Mr. Gale for
Mr. Godolphin, but I am afraid his letter will not come time enough.
There can be no doubt of Lord Manchester’s sentiments in this affair.
Mr. Gale may be sure he will oblige him and all his friends by ap¬
pearing for Mr. Godolphin, and he can do you no good any other
ways. I am sorry you mention nothing of the election. It does not look
well, but I hope you still keep your resolution of not being disturbed
at the event, since there has been no fault of yours in the manage¬
ment, and then there is no great matter in it. I could tell you more
stories where the conduct of the Court has been the same; but com¬
plaining is to no purpose; and now the die is cast, we shall have a
good Parliament.—I am your most humble and most obedient

servant > Halifax. 33

5th May, 1705.

32 Letter of Flamsteed to Sharp. Baily, p. 239.—This passage is significant of the curious
attitude of all who came in contact with Newton., They felt the power and the essential
integrity of the man; his aloofness baffled them, and they feared the suspiciousness and the
influence of a flattering coterie which complicated and distorted his simpler and generous
qualities.

33 Brewster, II, p. 217.

524

ISAAC NEWTON

On the polling day, May 17, the two Whig candidates came in
last, defeated according to Cobbett on the cry that the “Church was
in danger.” 34 This ended Newton’s political aspirations.

In the autumn, he completed the honour of his knighthood by
signing his rather doubtful pedigree and adopted, I suppose, his
arms of “two shin bones saltire-wise.” 35 He, also, arranged with
Sloane to have Francis Hauksbee bring an air-pump to his house
some evening when he could “get some philosophical friends to see
his experiments, who will otherwise be difficultly got together.” The
meeting, as first scheduled, was however, postponed as Lord Halifax,
the Archbishop of Dublin, and Robertes were out of town. 38

We have so little direct information about Newton’s personal and
domestic affairs that his biographer must exercise his ingenuity in
piecing them out from inferences. It will be remembered that Hali¬
fax was now a widower and, in this year, provided Catherine Barton
with an annuity and bequeathed a legacy to her in his will. It will
also be remembered that, on the explicit statement of Halifax’s his¬
torian, she became “the Superintendent of his domestic affairs.” If
this be a correct statement, and we have no contrary evidence, we
must suppose that she left her uncle’s house to assume her new
duties. Whatever view we may take of the affair, it is exceedingly
strange that there should be no allusions, especially by Flamsteed, to
such a change in Newton s household. Not even a casual remark by
him, or by others, can be found which would clear up the circum¬
stances of his domestic life at this time. We have so few personal
letters preserved that the following insignificant incident is worth
quoting.

, Newton to Sir John Newton

Sir John, [1707?]

I was very much surprised at the notice of Mr. Cook’s death
brought me this morning by the bearer who being an undertaker
came to me to desire that I should speak to you that he might be
employed in furnishing things for the funeral. He having married
a near kinswoman of mine I could not refuse troubling you with this
letter in his behalf believing that he will do it well if you are not

34 Brewster, II, p. 218. 35 Turnor, p. 170.

36 Francis Hauksbee, F.R.S.., was a most ingenious experimenter. He was noted for his
work with Boyle’s air-pump; he accepted Newton’s theory of light and colours, and appar¬
ently carried out many experimental observations for him on light and electricity.. Hauksbee
published a collection of his ingenious and interesting experiments in a volume dedicated to
Lord Somers, and now very rare, with the title Physico-Mechanical Experiments on Various
Subjects, etc., London, 1709.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

5 2 5

otherwise provided. I had an opinion that my Cousin was not in
danger though weak, which makes my concern the greater for the

loss. I am Your affectionate Kinsman

and most humble Servant,

A Is. Newton . 37

Jermyn Street Apr. 1707.

For Sr. John Newton, Baron 4

at his house in Soho Square.

Newton, at this time, was asked to assist in drawing up the regu¬
lations to govern a new professorship in Cambridge University which
was designed to promote the experimental sciences, and which has
been filled by a succession of distinguished scientists. In 1704*
Plume, Archdeacon of Rochester, left by his will the rent of an
estate, situated at Balsham, of the value of ^1800 to found the
Plumian Professorship of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy.
It was stated by Professor Smith, who afterwards occupied the chair,
that he was induced to make this bequest by the pleasure he had had
in reading Huygens’s Cosmotheoros which the celebrated Mr. Flam¬
steed had recommended to him. The statutes governing the profes¬
sorship were drawn up by the trustees of the will with the assistance
of Sir John Ellis (Master of Caius), Sir Isaac Newton and Dr. [sic]
Flamsteed. As would be supposed, Flamsteed opposed the trustees
in the choice of the first incumbent. He had immediately written
to Whiston to recommend his assistant, John Witty, to the chair, but
was chagrined to find that the matter had practically been settled.
He wrote, in his disappointment, to Sharp: “Dr. Bentley has deter¬
mined [about Dr. Plume’s Professor of Astronomy], without even
so much as letting me know that he was about such business, and,
I fear, directly contrary to the archdeacon’s design: wherewith, I am
apt to think, none of the trustees in Cambridge were so well ac¬
quainted as I am. I had not known of it but by an accident. I have
wrote about it to Mr. Whiston, who tells me the thing is done as to
the nomination of a Professor, and past remedy. I am sorry for it,
because this first election will be a precedent for the future, and I
fear a very ill one.”

Dr. Bentley was not a person who, when he wished to do any¬
thing, permitted his plans to be thwarted. Flamsteed entered in his

37 Edleston, p. 307. Edleston surmises that Mr. Cook was Edw. Coke, Esq., of Holkham
(great-great-grandson of the Chief Justice), who married Cary, daughter of Sir John Newton,
and died April 13, 1707.

ISAAC NEWTON

526

diary on March 15. “Met Dr. Bentley at Garraway’s [Tavern]: Sir
I. Newton was there: we discoursed first about Dr. Plume’s Astro¬
nomical Professorship; the Doctor would have had my hand to a
paper for the election of Mr. Cotes to be Professor: I refused till I
saw him: he told me Mr. Whiston and Mr. Cotes should wait on me
next week.” We do not know what impression Cotes made on the
irascible and obstinate astronomer, but he was elected October 16,
1707. If his appointment set a precedent for the future it was a most
fortunate one; he was an extremely brilliant and promising mathe¬
matician, and to him we owe the masterly revision of the second
edition of the Principia. It was his untimely death at the age of
thirty-four which drew from Newton the memorable comment, “If
Mr. Cotes had lived we might have known something.” When we
consider the fact that Newton had had every opportunity of gauging
the ability of the young man during their intimate work in editing
the Principia, such a statement is a remarkable tribute to the genius
of the recipient and a fine instance of modesty and generosity by the
author.

Roger Cotes was the son of a rector of Burbage parish in Leicester¬
shire. He early showed great proficiency in mathematics and the
classics, and was admitted to Trinity College as pensioner from St.
Paul’s School, London, at the age of seventeen years. He was elected
to a minor fellowship in 1705 and two years later, at the early age of
twenty-five, he became first Plumian Professor. During his brief
tenure of the professorship, he impressed all who came in contact
with him by his genius; and his colleagues were deeply grieved when
he died at the age of thirty-four from a fever, followed by constant
delirium.

Cotes, even during his undergraduate days, had become a great
favourite of Bentley who quickly appreciated his ability and amiable
character. The Master had gathered about him a small group of
the abler scholars, junior Fellows, who were impatient of the dom¬
ination of the older men and were enthusiastic over the reforms he
was introducing. He rashly, and often insolently, restricted his
intercourse to this inner circle, in which Cotes stood easily first both
in talents and reputation, and treated the other Fellows with harsh
contempt. In fact, it was his open hostility towards most of the
senior Fellows and his determination to clear the College of dead
wood by driving them out, as much as his extravagance and mal¬
versation of the funds, that caused him to be accused before two

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

527

successive Bishops of Ely, Visitors of the College. He was practically
ordered by them both to be expelled for maladministration; a sen¬
tence that he escaped with great difficulty.

On the Master’s side, there was much justification for his attitude
towards many of the Fellows. It was common knowledge that the
College had sunk to a low level during the preceding masterships.
As mentioned before, too many of the Fellows refused to vacate
their fellowships after a reasonable time. They preferred to hold on
to their college quarters and continued to live in lazy and dissipated
idleness. Whiston relates the absolute ruin of two young scholars of
exceptional promise who died of drunkenness, apparently believing
that heavy drinking was a necessary aid to college preferment. Al¬
though it was the custom of the day to use exaggerated expressions
which shock our ears and give us a wrong estimate of the characters
of the men of the time, yet all the evidence goes to show that lazi¬
ness, loose living, and drunkenness were undoubtedly too common.
As examples of unbridled epithet, we cannot imagine the present
Master of Trinity rebuking the habits of his colleagues, whatever
they might be, by writing as Bentley did: “I found the College filled
(for the most part) with ignorant, drunken, lewd Fellows and
Scholars.” Or, again, when he wished to describe the Fellows who
objected to his arbitrary and illegal acts he wrote: “These very
Seniors that were thus asked, are such a parcel of stupid drunken Sots,
that the like are not in the whole kingdom: they are the Scab, the
Ulcers, the Abhorrence of the whole University.” Whiston, who
admired the Master for restoring discipline and learning in Trinity
College and by consequence in the University also, ascribed the be¬
ginning of his later unhappy management to abandoning his com¬
mendable rule of giving fellowships for merit only. The first lapse
from integrity occurred when he appointed a Mr. Stubbs to a fel¬
lowship because his uncle, the Vice-master, was so rich as to be able
to give the College ;£ 10,000 (though he never gave a groat), and
also would be so pleased by the honour as to let Bentley govern as
he pleased.

It is a relief to turn to Bentley’s distinguished service to the College
and University by raising the standard of scholarship and sober liv¬
ing, and by inspiring an enthusiasm for work. Ranking himself as
one of the foremost English classical scholars, he was a prodigious
worker and could not tolerate indolence in others. He was, from his
youth, deeply sympathetic to the New Science and one of the first

ISAAC NEWTON

528

converts to the Newtonian philosophy. In his Boyle lectures, he used
the new discoveries in dynamics and gravitation as an evidence of
the design of God to create an orderly world, through a knowledge
of which we could best learn His nature. He was thus one of the
English divines who influenced the Deistic tendencies of the eight¬
eenth century. He gave every encouragement to promote the
sciences. It was his zeal and determination which gave a unanimous
election to Cotes as Plumian Professor while still only a Bachelor of
Arts. No sooner was that accomplished than he set to work to get
subscriptions to build a proper Observatory in order that the study
of astronomy, promoted by such a professor, might become natural¬
ised and permanent in Trinity College. And he succeeded in erect¬
ing above the King’s Gate an Observatory equipped with the best
instruments obtainable. 38 He also procured for Professor Whiston
chambers adjoining the King’s Gate so that he, and his pupils,
should be near the Observatory.

Till the death of Cotes and the expulsion of Whiston, those two
scientists taught and lectured on Newtonian natural philosophy, and
started the school of physical sciences for which Trinity College has
been famous ever since. They worked together in complete har¬
mony. Whiston, with rare modesty, stated in his Memoirs that he
was but a child compared to Cotes. In another place in his Memoirs,
he noted that “Mr. Cotes and I began our first course of philosophical
experiments at Cambridge, May 5, 1707. In the performance of
which, certain hydrostatic and pneumatic lectures were composed;
they were in number twenty-four; the one half by Mr. Cotes, and
the other half by myself. . . . But I esteem mine so far inferior to
his, ... I cannot prevail with myself so much as to revise and
improve them, as they ought to be before they are fit for publica¬
tion.” 39 Whiston, also in the same year, published “by the author’s
permission, Sir Isaac Newton’s Arithmetica Universalis, or Algebra,
from that copy which was laid up in the Archives of the University,
as all Mr. Lucas’s Professor’s Lectures are obliged to be, and where
my own Lectures were laid up accordingly: which Algebra had been
nine years Lectiones of Sir Isaac Newton’s; but because that acute
mathematician Mr. Machin, Professor of Astronomy at Gresham
College (where I formerly read many Lectures for him) and one of

38 This situation was opposed by Flamsteed who thought the entrance gate of John’s, or
Caius’s College, was more suitable; but he advocated a separate building. This Observatory
did not continue long in existence.

39 Whiston, Memoirs, ist Ed., p„ 135.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

529

the Secretaries of the Royal Society, has published this work again,
by the author’s later desire or permission; I lay no claim to it. It has
also been put into English from my edition printed at London.” 40

Bentley also promoted the study of chemistry, and for that purpose
he repaired and fitted up an old lumber house as “an elegant chemical
laboratory” and there Vigani, the former associate and friend of
Newton, barring his lewd story about some nuns, regularly delivered
courses of lectures for some years.

But Bentley’s greatest service to Newton’s philosophy was his
energetic prodding of that dilatory author till he was finally induced
to undertake a second, and revised, edition of the Principia. Ap¬
parently also, Bentley intended at first to edit the work, and printing
was actually begun. In a letter to Newton, on June 10, 1708, he dis¬
cussed the need of great care in selecting a printer as English com¬
positors were ignorant and unable to print Latin with the accuracy
and elegance attained on the continent. He also sent samples of
paper and printing. “By this time,” he wrote, “I hope you have
made some progress towards finishing your great work, which is
now expected here with great impatience, and the prospect of it has
already lowered the price of the former edition above half of what
it once was. I have here sent you a specimen of the first sheet, of
which I have printed about a quire; so that the whole will not be
wrought off before it have your approbation. I bought this week a
hundred reams of this paper you see; it being impossible to have got
so good in a year or two, (for it comes from Geneva,) if I had not
taken this opportunity with my friend Sir Theodore Jansen, the
great paper merchant of Britain.” 41 At this point the enterprise
stopped. It is not difficult to surmise the cause. Newton had for
years been collecting notes and additional illustrations to support his
theory of gravitation, and had been making corrections in the first
edition which had been hurriedly printed. His desk copy was inter-

40 Ibid., p. 135.—According to Biot, page 28, the Arithmetica was published by Whiston
without Newton’s knowledge or consent. He adds: “Science, however, must congratulate
itself on the transgression of confidence that has fortunately made this work known; for it
were impossible to see a more perfect model of the art by which geometrical or numerical
questions may be submitted to algebraical calculation.”—It seems to me most improbable
that the work was published without the author’s permission since the MSS. was in the pos¬
session of the University and would not be surrendered without the author’s written consent.
It is far more probable that another reason caused Newton to republish it in 1712 with
Machin’s name as editor. Two years earlier, Whiston had been expelled from the University
for heterodoxy and irreligion, and Newton would be reluctant to have his name or work
associated with one who was a confessed Arian in religion as he was, himself, suspected of
that taint.

41 Brewster, II, p„ 248.

530

ISAAC NEWTON

leaved with such emendations, but as usual he could not be prevailed
on to take the plunge. It must have been realised quickly that the
combination of an author, who would not attend to the details him¬
self, and an editor, who could not understand the work, was a hope¬
less one. It was a most fortunate circumstance that Bentley finally
turned the editing over to Cotes who, by his ability and tact, was
eminently fitted for the work. As a young man he could show the
deference which was a necessity when collaborating with Newton
and, like Collins, he had the gift of arousing the finest qualities in
him. The result of this combination was a mutual esteem, and an
excellent and far-reaching revision.

On May 21, 1709, Bentley and Newton had a conference and the
new plan of editing was agreed upon. Cotes was apprised of the
agreement by a note, “Sir Isaac Newton will be glad to see you in
June, and then put into your hands one part of his book corrected
for the press.” In July, Cotes went down to London, expecting to
have the corrected portion of the manuscript given to him, but was
put off with the promise that it would be sent to him in a fortnight.
After the delay had been protracted to a month, Cotes became anx¬
ious and wrote.

Cotes to Newton

Cambridge, August 18th, 1709.

Sir,—The earnest desire I have to see a new edition of your Principia
makes me somewhat impatient ’till we receive your copy of it which
you was pleased to promise me, about the middle of the last month,
you would send down in about a fortnight’s time. I hope you will
pardon me for this uneasiness from which I cannot free myself and
for giving you this trouble to let you know it. I have been so much
obliged to you by yourself and by your book that (I desire you to
believe me) I think myself bound in gratitude to take all the care I
possibly can that it shall be correct. . . .

I take this opportunity to return you my most hearty thanks for
your many favours and civilities to me who am

Your most obliged humble servant

For Sr. Isaac Newton at his House Roger Cotes.

in Jermin Street near St. James’s

Church Westminster.

42 Edleston, p. 3—Unless otherwise stated, letters about the second edition of the Prin-
ctpia are taken from Edleston. Ninety-one letters dealing with the progress of the work arc

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

53i

Newton paid no apparent attention, for a month or more, to this
urgent appeal. The first intimation Cotes had that the work was
really to begin was when Whiston, his next door neighbour, un¬
expectedly put into his hands the greatest part of the copy of the
Principia, ending with the thirty-second proposition of the second
book. A week or so afterwards, a letter from Newton informed him
that the copy had been sent to Whiston, and added the modest
statement, “Its impossible to print the book without some faults and
if you print by the copy sent you, correcting only such faults as
occur in reading over the sheets to correct them as they are printed
off, you will have labour more than than it’s fit to give you.” Such
was not Cotes’s idea of his editorship. He examined carefully each
proposition and, by his tactful suggestions and corrections, he finally
aroused Newton to put his mind seriously to work. Four years were
required for the editing, but when the book was published in 1713
it well repaid the labour. How lucky it was that the earlier plans had
failed can be appreciated by considering them briefly.

We have referred to the desire of the pretentious Fatio de Duillier
to take the matter into his own hands and improve the work of
Newton. It is one thing for Newton to confess that, “The book of
the Principles was writ in about seventeen or eighteen months,
whereof about two were taken up with journeys, and the MS. was
sent to the R. S. in spring 1686; and the shortness of the time, in
which I wrote it, makes me not ashamed of having committed some
faults.” But it is another thing to have it expounded and improved
by Fatio. There is a tradition, without specific evidence, that David
Gregory was to superintend a second edition. 43 He was a great ad¬
mirer of Newton, and was one of the group which Flamsteed in¬
veighed against as leading him by flattery into dubious ways. He
had gone through the Principia with minute care, making notes of
what occurred to him, and examining each proposition critically.
His notes covered 213 folio pages, and he had published in his
Astronomiac Physicae ct Geometricae Elementa the first exposition
of the applications of Newtonian philosophy to astronomy. The text
certainly followed the Principia very closely; it was for this book
that Newton gave to Gregory a summary of his new lunar theory

there given besides others of general interest. This work of Edleston is a most valuable
assistance to the biographer, as he has also added an accurate and comprehensive chrono¬
logical table of Newton’s life, amplified with 191 explanatory notes, and much other ma¬
terial.

43 Rigaud, pp. 89-106.

53 2

ISAAC NEWTON

and thereby broke his express and written promise to Flamsteed,

“I do intend you shall be the first man to whom I will communicate
it.” If we can accept Hearne’s memorandum 44 of December io, i 7 ° 5 >
“Sir Isaac Newton has complained that Dr. Gregory, who borrowed
most of the best materials in his book of astronomy from Sir Isaac,
has made little or no mention of him, but just in the preface; so that
Sir Isaac, fearing lest that, in the process of time, Dr. Gregory’s book
might happen to be printed without this preface, and consequently
he be thought the author of what Sir Isaac himself had before him
discovered, resolved to make another edition of his book called
Principia Math.” Newton was intolerant of any encroachment on
his own preserves, and he may have been piqued because Gregory
did not acknowledge more explicitly his indebtedness, but he could
not have feared that the originality of the Principia would be ques¬
tioned. Hearne’s anecdote, however, has value in proving that New¬
ton as early as 1705 expected to print a new edition. If he had ever
seriously looked to Gregory as his assistant, he had changed his
mind, and his papers were put into Cotes’s hands the year Gregory
died. 45

The manuscript of the Principia was no sooner delivered to Cotes
than it was turned over to the printer. By the twentieth of October,
the energetic Bentley was able to report progress in a letter to New¬
ton in behalf of Cotes who was spending a month in the country.

Bentley to Newton

Trin. Coll., Octob. 20, 1709.

Dear Sir,—Mr. Cotes, who had been in the country for about a
month, returned hither the very day Dr. Clarke brought your letter,
in which, I perceive, you think we have not yet begun your book;
but I must acquaint you that five sheets are finely printed off al¬
ready, and had not we staid for two cuts that Rowley carried to town
to be mended by Lightbody, which we have not yet received, you

44 Hearne was, at the time, one of the keepers of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and was
prejudiced against Gregory, the Savilian Professor of Astronomy. His slur should probably
be somewhat discounted.

45 Flamsteed wrote to Sharp, 24 March, 1708/9; “I suppose you have heard that Dr.
Gregory is dead. Mr., Caswell, my friend, is chosen to succeed him in the Astronomy Pro¬
fessorship at Oxford. Mr. Keill put in for it. Mr. Halley did all he could to serve him, that
he might marry his daughter; but his vile character caused some sober persons concerned to
urge Mr. Caswell to accept it; who resigned his Divinity Beadle’s place, worth more than

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

533

had had sent you six sheets by this time. I am sure you’ll be pleased
with them when you see them. Besides the general running title at
the head of every leaf, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathe¬
matical I have added the subdivisions of the book, like Hugenii de
Oscillatione,) first, Definitions, then Axiomata Sive Leges Motus,
then De Motu Corporum Liber Primus. Next will come Secun-
dus, and lastly, De Mundi Systemate Liber Tertius. All these stand
in the top of the margin of the several leaves. Your new corol¬
lary, which you would have inserted, came just in time, for we had
printed to the fiftieth page of your former edition, and that very
place where the insertion was to be was in the compositor’s hands.
... I proposed to our master printer to have Lightbody come down
and compose, which at first he agreed to; but the next day he had a
character of his being a mere sot, and having played such pranks
that nobody will take him into any print-house in London or Ox¬
ford; and so he fears he’ll debauch all his men. So we must let him
alone, and I daresay we shall adjust the cuts very well without him.
You need not be so shy of giving Mr. Cotes too much trouble. He
has more esteem for you, and obligations to you, than to think the
trouble too grievous; but, however, he does it at my orders, to whom
he owes more than that, and so pray you be easy as to that. We will
take care that no little slip in a calculation shall pass this fine edition.
Dr. Clarke tells me you are thinking for Chelsea, 46 where I wish you
all satisfaction. I hope my picture at Thornhill’s will have your last
sitting, before you leave the town. 47 The time you set under your
hand is already lapsed. When the two cuts are sent us we shall print

£200 per annum, for this, worth about £120.”—Again, on July 5, 1712; “Modest Mr.
Caswell is dead: Mr. Keill gives out that he has his place —at quam dissimilis homo! It was
reported some time since, that if he attained this preferment, he should marry Raymer’s
[pseudonym for Halley] daughter. Raymer and he are both of the same principles; and
’tis pity two houses should be troubled with them.” The succession to the Savilian Pro¬
fessorship is important as Keill became a friend of Newton and was responsible for starting
the Leibniz controversy.

46 Newton was then moving to Chelsea.

47 Bentley had engaged Newton to sit for his portrait which he presented to Trinity Col¬
lege. Sir James Thornhill (1676-1734) was a noted painter of many large mural works, the
most important of which was the interior of the dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral. He also
painted several portraits. Besides this one of Newton which now hangs in the reception
room of Trinity Lodge where he was knighted, he made two others which are in Hurst-
bourne Park. Viscount Lymington graciously allowed me to photograph them for the first
time. They differ widely from the usual idealised portraits and give, I believe, a faithful
likeness of the profile and full face. Their most noticeable features are the width and heavi¬
ness of the jaw-bones and the extraordinarily long line without a break from the chin to the
crown of the head. It is a great privilege to be permitted to reproduce one of them in
this work. Lady Thomson told me that Thornhill’s visiting card was found beneath one
of the floors of Newton’s St. Martin Street house when it was recently demolished.

534

ISAAC NEWTON

faster than you are aware of—therefore, pray take care to be ready
for us.—I am, Sir, your very obedient humble sevant,

To Sir Isaac Newton, Rl - Ben ^ ey - 48

at his house in Jermin Street,
near St. James’s Church, London.

This letter augured a rapid completion of the work, but the initial
burst of speed was not kept up and the editing required four years.
There were other reasons for the delay besides Newton’s character¬
istic dilatoriness. Cotes became increasingly exacting in his revision,
and he influenced the author to make additions and changes. New¬
ton, also, was busy with other matters; he had the publication of
Flamsteed’s Catalogue, and the search for new quarters for the
Royal Society, on his hands.

It would be safe to say that Newton’s chief interest and pleasure
during the later years of his life centred in the Royal Society. He
permitted nothing to prevent his attendance at the weekly meetings;
he is said to have missed hardly one and, as mentioned before, he
changed the day from Wednesday to Thursday as that day inter¬
fered with his duties at the Mint. As a President, he would have
been ideal in less controversial times, or when the Society had at¬
tained to its maturity of power and dignity. But I am not so sure
that he was well fitted to guide it at this time. The Society was
evidently torn by factions, and Newton, who was strongly biased by
the influence of his friends, seems to have allowed it to be governed
by an inner and active circle. He lacked the tact to manage by
persuasion, and had no ability as a speaker. He was silent and dif¬
fident in public meetings. Yet he certainly enjoyed the respect, al¬
most amounting to veneration, of the members, and no criticism of
his motives has been found. 49

The dissensions in the Society clustered around Dr. Hans Sloane,

48 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 250.

49 An incident occurred in 1704 which may be noted as it shows that the Royal Society
was appealed to for a decision on questions other than scientific. The hypocrite and impostor
George Psalmanazar, published his Historical and Geographical Description of Formosa in
that year. He had claimed to be a native of that island converted to Christianity. The forgery
was so gross a one that it is almost unbelievable that it could have been accepted, but his
abuse of the Jesuits was sufficient to create a multitude of willing believers, amongst whom
was Compton, Bishop of London. He was brought before the Royal Society and con¬
fronted with a Chinese. The fraud must have been disclosed to the members but Psalmanazar
continued to profit from his adopted role. After forty years of life as a lying hypocrite he
was converted to an honest and laborious life by reading Law’s Serious Call. He in his
last years, became an intimate friend of Johnson who regarded him as a saint.

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

535

the Secretary. He was a physician of Scotch-Irish extraction and had
studied medicine in London and France. His opportunity came
when he accompanied the Duke of Albemarle to Jamaica. He was
an indefatigable collector and brought back a prodigious number of
botanical specimens from the island. Soon after his return, he pub¬
lished his Natural History of Jamaica. He rose to be the leading
physician of his time and Physician in Ordinary to George II. His
collections formed the nucleus of the British Museum, and his name
is still attached to an important district in London. As Secretary, he
made enemies by his officiousness, and it was claimed that though
Newton may have presided, he managed everything. In the first
year of Newton’s presidency, Flamsteed wrote that “Our society
decays and produces nothing remarkable, nor is like to do it, I fear,
whilst ’tis governed by persons that either value nothing but their
own interests, or understand little but vegetables [Sloane], and how,
by making a bouncing noise, to cover their own ignorance.

The Royal Society early took the stand that it would not be re¬
sponsible for the ideas of its Fellows, nor would it adjudicate dif¬
ferences of opinion which might arise between them. A precedent
was established when Secretary Sloane was ordered by Council to
acquaint Dr. Bidloo, who had attacked certain statements of Mr.
Cowper “that the Society are not erected for determining contro¬
versies, but promoting natural and experimental knowledge, which
they will do in him or anybody else.” But they were equally deter¬
mined to seek out and, if possible, to discipline those who attacked
the Society. An occasion arose in 1700 which caused much dis¬
turbance and led to rather serious results. An anonymous author
published a satire on the Society in which a bitter attack was directed
especially against Sloane, who as Secretary was editor of the Trans¬
actions. It was entitled The Transactioneer, with some of his Philo¬
sophical Fancies, in two dialogues. The preface, which was mainly
an attack on Sloane as editor of the Transactions, begins: “By the
following dialogues it is apparent that by industry alone a man may
get so much reputation, almost in any profession, as shall be sufficient
to amuse the world, though he has neither parts nor learning to
supply it.” Weld, who examined a copy in the British Museum, 51
considered it of so low and ridiculous a nature that he was surprised
the Council paid any attention to it. But he overlooked the fact that,

50 Baily, p. 218.

51 Weld, Vol. I, p. 353.—The library of the R. S. does not possess a copy.

536

ISAAC NEWTON

at the time, the Society was subjected to constant criticism and ridi¬
cule; he also forgot that it was a day of scurrilous pamphlets which
made or broke many a reputation. At any rate, the Council took up
the matter vigorously and made every effort to discover the author.

According to Dr. Johnson the author of the pamphlet was “Dr.
William King, a man of shallowness.” But some of the Fellows,
amongst whom was Secretary Sloane, suspected Dr. Woodward. He
was a man of fine parts, who from a humble origin became one of
the great pioneers in the science of geology. His temper was quick
and his tongue was sharp, but he was not one to hide behind anonym¬
ity. He indignantly denied that he had had any hand in the
pamphlet in a letter to the Society, which clearly indicated the dis¬
satisfaction amongst the members, and placed the blame on Sloane.
The gist of his grievance can be given by quoting two passages: “I
am sorry to find two or three Members of the Society, and my par¬
ticular friends, ill-treated in it: the writer of it is but meanly qualified
for what he undertakes; though whether there was not occasion
given, may be worth your consideration. This I’m sure, the world
has been now for some time past very loud upon that subject: and
there were those who laid the charges so much wrong, that I have
but too often occasion to vindicate even the Society itself, and that in
public company too. . . . The matter is this: Dr. Sloane and his
friend Mr. Pettiver cause it to be spread abroad that I am the author,
or at least concerned in writing the aforesaid pamphlet. They do
not directly charge me with it: that is not their way, but they do the
thing as effectually by insinuating in their clubs and meetings, from
whence all the rumour comes, that the world ascribes the pamphlet
to me. At other times they assert that it was wrote by a Member or
Members of the Society. I cannot but believe they know the true
author all the while: at least they know I utterly disown it.” 52

It is probable that the incident of the Transactioneer was smoothed
over but it, and other differences of opinion as to the conduct of the
Society, aroused a bitter feeling which was directed mainly against
the Secretary and, to a less degree, against the President. The quarrel
came to a head in 1709 when Sloane was up for re-election as Secre¬
tary and the removal to new quarters was under discussion. It is
clear that Newton publicly supported the Secretary, but his personal
feelings towards him are not so certain. Flamsteed evidently thought
this supposedly undue influence of the Secretary was to the disad-

52 Weld, Vol. I, p. 354.

537

PRESIDENCY OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

vantage of the Society, for he wrote to Sharp in that year: Newton
is now removing to Chelsea, and has been lately much talked of;
but not much to his advantage. Our society is ruined by his close,
politic, and cunning forecast; I fear past retrieving, for our Doctor s
Transactions have been twice burlesqued publicly; and now we have
had none published I think this four months.” 53 Again he wrote the
following July: “Sir I. Newton has put our Royal Society into great
disorder by his partiality of E. Halley and Dr. Sloane, upon a sma
and inconsiderable occasion: so that they have broke up some tew
weeks before their time.” 54 On the other hand, one of the friends of
Woodward, stated in an anonymous letter to Newton: You had
complained of Dr. Sloane’s artifices in surprising you with things at
the Council, frequently very unfit, without having given you any
previous account. As upon others, you had declared to more than
one friend, how little qualified he was for the post of Secretary, so
upon these occasions you as freely declared him a tricking fellow;
nay, a villain and rascal, for his deceitful and ill usage of you in the

affair of Dr. Wall.” 55 , A ,

In spite of opposition, Sloane was re-elected Secretary. At one or

the regular meetings shortly afterwards, he read a translation from
the Memoirs of the French Academy of Sciences 56 in which it was
maintained that the Bezoar is a gall-stone. 57 To this statement Sloane
added the information that gall-stones caused colic. Woodward was
quick to contradict these opinions and, while he was speaking, the
Secretary made faces at him or, in the language of the writer, when
he was not able to maintain what he had asserted in words, he had
recourse to grimaces very strange and surprising, and such as were
enough to provoke any ingenuous sensible man to a warmth, at
least equal to that which Dr. Woodward used.” Apparently, Sloane

53 Baily, p. 272.—Dr.. Sloane was editor of The Transactions. Flamsteed’s gloomy opinion
should, perhaps, be discounted somewhat as Edleston has noted that he was suspended from
the Society during that year for non-payment of dues.

55 This' lette/ is preserved in the Portsmouth Collection. The author did not hide behind
his anonymity as he offered to have a personal interview with Newton if it was desired. I
think Newton must have considered the letter important and reliable as he kept it amongst
his papers. Brewster thought that Newton had no such terms in his vocabulary, because he
never used towards Flamsteed in public a harsher term than Puppy.

56 The following account of this extraordinary scene is taken from the anonymous letter
referred to above. It is instructive in showing the license of speech and action indulged in
during the Augustan age. The general reliability of the account is confirmed by the action

° 57 A Bezoar or Bezoar Stone is a concretion occasionally found in the stomach or in¬
testines of ruminant animals. It was believed to be an antidote to poison. The oriental

bezoar is burned as incense.

53»

ISAAC NEWTON

made his grimaces in such a way that only a few members saw them.
But Woodward was one of the number, and he attacked him
warmly, using the words, “no man that understands anatomy, can
assert that the stones in the gall-bladder are the cause of the colic.”
During the altercation, the opinions were asked of some of those
present, especially of Dr. Mead, 08 who was forced to decide against
Sloane. The altercation became so bitter that it was formally taken
up by the Council. Sloane denied that he had made grimaces in such
a way that Woodward retorted, “Speak sense, or English, and we
shall understand you.” As a result of this renewed quarrel, Wood¬
ward refused to apologise, and he was expelled “from the Council
for creating a disturbance by the said reflecting words,” and Sloane
was thanked for the pains and fidelity with which he had served the
Society as Secretary. Woodward brought an action at law to be
re-instated but was unsuccessful. What side Newton took is not
known, but he evidently retained the respect of both the disputants.
He continued to support the Secretary; and although he is reported
to have said, “Dr. Woodward might be a good natural philosopher,
but he was not a good moral one,” that irascible geologist dedicated
his great work on the Classification of Fossils to him as the Vir
illustris by whose influence the book had its being. This is, I think,
another example of that profound impression which Newton’s
genius made on his contemporaries and which made them judge
him in all respects by it rather than by his personal actions. But
Sloane did not escape censure. He lost his secretaryship in 1713 and,
apparently, he almost brought about the defeat of Newton, if we can
give credit to a statement by Flamsteed in a letter written a week or
so after the election: On St. Andrew’s day, Dr. Sloane laid down
his secretaryship of the Royal Society: but either he, or another, had
so managed the business, that Sir Isaac Newton had like to have been
left out of the presidency. There were high and furious debates.
Dr. Halley is Secretary in Dr. Sloane’s room; and Dr. Keill is
brought into the Council. Sir I. Newton sees now that he is under¬
stood.” If Newton’s authority was thus shaken, he came out of the
contest stronger than ever as is shown by the results of the election.
Sloane, also, recovered from the mischance, as he later was created a
baronet and succeeded Newton in the presidency.

68 Dr. Mead was one of the most distinguished physicians of the day. He was medical
adviser of George II; a warm friend and the physician of Newton; and head of St Thomas's
Hospital. His ludicrous duel with Woodward has been already referred to. He also introduced
Pemberton, who edited the third edition of the Principia, to Newton.

CHAPTER XIV

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED. SECOND EDITION

OF PRINCIPIA

1709-1713

W hile Newton was occupied with the disturbances in the
Royal Society, with the exasperating business connected
with the publication of Flamsteed’s Historia Ccclestis,
and with the editing of the Principia, he moved in 1709 from Jermyn
Street to Chelsea. A year later, he returned to the city and occupied
a house on the east side of St. Martin’s Street just off Leicester
Square, where he lived till 1725, when because of illness he was
taken to Kensington in the vain hope that the purer air of the village
would restore his health. The appearance of the house, during
Newton’s occupancy, is well known from an old print, and indeed
it was still standing with but little change till about 1915 when the
building was demolished to the first story. It was left in that mel¬
ancholy state for a decade and, when the bicentenary of his death
was celebrated, workmen were picking away the foundations. After
another long delay, a new public library of the City of Westminster
now occupies its site.

The house was one of considerable size and of some pretensions. It
was three stories in height, built of stone with a slated attic on which
rose a low wooden structure used, according to tradition, as an ob¬
servatory. Shortly after Newton’s death, the Conduitts removed to
George Street, Hanover Square, a more fashionable part of the town,
and I believe it is unknown who were its next tenants. But Dr.
Charles Burney lived there in 1779 and gathered in the pleasant
Jacobean house, with its panelled rooms and charming little stair¬
case, a musical, literary, and artistic coterie so various, and so bril¬
liant, that it could not be matched in the stateliest mansions of
Grosvenor Square. Such men as Garrick, Reynolds, Burke, and Dr.
Johnson, 1 frequently passed in and out the low doorway level with

1 Boswell frequently mentions the visits and intimacy of Dr. Johnson and erroneously adds
“in the house where the great Newton lived and died.”

539

540

ISAAC NEWTON

the street. Here Fanny Burney wrote Evelina and, like Catherine
Barton before her, charmed her distinguished friends.

The question whether Catherine Barton presided over her uncle’s
household at this time, or was acting as housekeeper for Lord Hali¬
fax, will have to be decided by the reader from the evidence pre¬
viously presented. It is irritating that Swift, who was in London in
1710-1711 and sent to Stella a detailed account of what he did, and
of whom he met, should not have left a clue as to where she lived.
He mentions frequently his great affection for Mrs. Barton, and that
he often visited and dined with her. He also tells us that, although
he had turned Tory, he kept up his friendship for Lord Halifax, and
visited him occasionally. But he never couples their names together,
although they were intimate friends, nor indicates where either of
them lived. De Morgan believed that Swift deliberately suppressed
this information because they were privately married, and he wished
to respect the delicacy of her equivocal position. In the Diary to
Stella, Newton’s name is not mentioned, and this fact strengthens
De Morgan’s opinion since the names of so many other less dis¬
tinguished men, whom he met, are carefully recorded. We know also
that he was commissioned by Bolingbroke to offer a large pension
to Newton and that he proposed the plan to Catherine Barton. It
seems reasonable to assume that he would not have chosen such an
indirect method if he had known Newton personally, or if he met
Mrs. Barton at her uncle’s house. Swift’s long and affectionate
friendship with his niece is shown by the following letter, written
many years later, the only one of hers which has been preserved.

Catherine Barton to Dean Swift

gj r George Street, November 29,1733.

Mrs. Barber did not deliver your letter till after the intended wed¬
ding brought me hither. She has as much a better title to the favour
of her sex than poetry can give her, as truth is better than fiction,
and shall have my best assistance. But the town has been so long in¬
vited into the subscription, that most people have already refused or
accepted, and Mr. Conduitt has long since done the latter. I should
have guessed your holiness would rather have laid than called up the
ghost of my departed friendship, which since you are brave enough
to face, you will find divested of every terror, but the remorse that
you were abandoned to be an alien to your friends, your country, and

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

54i

yourself. Not to renew an acquaintance with one who can twenty
years after remember a bare intention to serve him, would be to
throw away a prize I am not now able to repurchase; therefore, when
you return to England, I shall try to excel in, what I am very sorry
you want, a nurse. In the mean time I am exercising that gift to
preserve one who is your devoted admirer.

Lord Harvey has written a bitter copy of verses upon Dr. Sherwin,
for publishing, as ’tis said, his Lordship’s epistle, which must set your
brother Pope’s spirits all a working. Thomson is far advanced in a
poem of 2000 lines, deducing liberty from the patriarchs to the pres¬
ent time, which, if we may judge from the press, is now in full vig¬
our. But I forget I am writing to one who has the power of the keys
of Parnassus, and that the only merit my letter can have is brevity.
Please therefore to place the profit I had in your long one to your
fund of charity, which carries no interest, and to add to your prayers
and good wishes now and then a line to

Sir, your obedient humble servant,

C. Conduit.

Mrs. Barber, whom I had sent to dine with us, is in bed with the
gout, and has not yet sent me her proposals. 2

We have no record of the furnishing of the house when it was first
occupied, but at the time of Newton’s death a true and perfect in¬
ventory 3 of all his possessions was made by his nephew, Conduitt.
From it we can obtain an idea of the appearance of a comfortable
home in the early part of the eighteenth century. Newton was
partial to crimson since that colour largely predominated throughout
the house. His own bedroom, with its dressing-room, contained
rather simple furniture and more draperies than one would expect.
His niece’s rooms were furnished in crimson and more in sympathy
with feminine ideas of taste. Oddly enough, in neither room were
any washing accommodations catalogued and, as there were cer¬
tainly no separate bathrooms, the ablutions of all were performed
with four pails and washing tubs listed amongst the kitchen utensils.
In the dining room, the most notable object was a bust of Newton

2 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 494. . .

3 The recent discovery of this important document is due to the diligent search of Colonel
R. de Villamil. The inventory, which was drawn up by order of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, is a document sixteen feet long and five inches wide, written on strips of vellum
and each officially stamped. For a complete list of Newton’s household goods and library,
Cf. his Newton: The Man.

54 2

ISAAC NEWTON

carved in ivory under a glass frame. This work of art, of which he
was proud, is not the excellent ivory bust by Le Marchand now in
the British Museum. His study, where he lived the latter years of life,
and where he meditated and worked with a book or pen constantly
in his hand, is the room that most excites our interest. Situated just
above his bedroom, its significant articles were a walnut cabinet
writing desk and a large table, both with drawers. Around the walls
stood six book-cases containing his library. Other items included 210
prints, a small piece of tapestry, some Irish stitch lace hangings, two
platen busts and library chairs. Colonel de Villamil pictures Newton
as being quite indifferent to his personal surroundings, and states
that there were no beautiful or valuable pieces of furniture any¬
where in his house. He kept two servants, and a man who slept in
the hall on a settle bedstead.” He kept no coach but owned a sedan
chair. Colonel de Villamil quotes Seward that u backagmmon was a
favourite recreation with him, at which he used to play with Flam¬
steed. The total appraised value of his household goods was
£520-6-6, and it seems to me that this is a sum which would argue a
well furnished house and rather contrary to Colonel de Villamirs
opinion. In addition to the furnishings there were listed 1896 books
appraised at ^270 and personal manuscripts at £250.

The disappearance of the library and its discovery have been previ¬
ously referred to; now, thanks to the diligent enquiry of Colonel de
Villamil the wanderings of this collection can be followed. 4 Living
also in St. Martin’s Street was the notorious warden of the Fleet Prison
and, at Newton s death, he pounced on the library which he bought
f° r £ 3 00 an d gave to his son, Charles Huggins, Rector of Chinnor,
near Oxford. The owner pasted his book-plate in all the volumes. La¬
ter, the benefice was presented to Dr. James Musgrave who purchased
the collection tor ^400, an d his book-plate was pasted over that of
fiy marriage, the descendants of Dr. Musgrave have now
the name of Wykeham-Musgrave of Thame Park, Oxfordshire and
Barnsby Park, Gloucestershire. About 1920, Thame Park was sold
and a large part of Newton’s books were sold in bundle lots, and
were scattered or destroyed. But Colonel de Villamil found 896
volumes and Dr. Musgrave’s original catalogue still remaining at
Barnsby Park. Thus much of this library so useful to students of
Newton s character has come again to light after its disappearance of
two centuries.

4 Cf, Newton: The Man, pp. 2-7.

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

543

It has been shown in the previous chapter how the strained rela¬
tions between Newton and Flamsteed had gone from bad to worse
during the publication of the Historia Ccelestis. After long and vexa¬
tious delays, accompanied by constant bickering on both sides, the
first volume was finally printed in December, 1707, and the sheets
were left with Churchill till the question was decided whether the
catalogue of stars should be included in it. Flamsteed was paid the
^125 which had been agreed upon, 5 and then months passed with¬
out any progress being made towards the printing of the second
volume.

Although the Referees and the author had had no difference of
opinion as to the question of the contents of the now finished volume,
they were hopelessly at issue as to the arrangement of the second
volume. The Referees had wished to prefix the catalogue of the fixed
stars to the first volume, but Flamsteed insisted that it be printed at
the end of the second, and that it be set up under his immediate su¬
perintendence and control. On the order of arrangement he was
steadfast, but he appears to have been kept in ignorance that the
Referees were meanwhile editing and mutilating his observations.
Apparently, also, to conceal this real cause of the delay, they met in
July and adopted a resolution that “the press should go on without
delay: and that if Mr. Flamsteed do not take care that the press be
well corrected, and go on with dispatch, another corrector be em¬
ployed.” 6 Flamsteed answered, a week later, by a letter addressed to
Wren as he feared a communication sent to Newton might be sup¬
pressed. He protested vigorously that he had not delayed the first
volume, and pointed out that he could not be the cause of the present
stoppage of the press as he had deposited with the Referees, on March
20th last all the observations made between September, 1689 and
1705, complete on 175 sheets of paper, in order that the printing
might begin. Then he states, what was evidently the real trouble,
that Newton insisted on placing the catalogue in the first volume and
that he would not consent to the arrangement. Also Flamsteed^ per¬
sisted in maintaining his contractual right to correct all proofs: The
catalogue is of that importance that I shall never consent that any
page of it should be printed off till I have fully corrected and re¬
ceived from the press a proof without faults.”

5 Flamsteed either forgot that he had been paid on 12 April, 1708, or else complained that
his payment had been maliciously deferred in order to add weight to his grievance for what
he felt to be a niggardly treatment.

6 Cf. Baily, p. 87.

544

ISAAC NEWTON

Flamsteed had made a good case for himself, but its effect was to
stiffen Newton’s obstinate pride and to make him more determined
than ever to have his own way. What would have been the final out¬
come, no one can say, but the press was stopped the rest of the year.
In October, Prince George died and that event ended the agreement.
Newton returned the unexpended balance of the Prince’s grant and,
as he noted in his accounts, previously given, the Referees ceased to
act. No progress on the second volume could now be made till some¬
one provided the funds and a new contract should be drawn. But
Newton had not relaxed his determination to manage the business as
he wished, and he had still in his possession 175 sheets of the ob¬
servations.

However mild and equable Newton’s temperament might be in
his ordinary contact with men, he was aroused to intense, and even
vindictive, resentment by any personal criticism which reflected on
his integrity and honour. And Flamsteed, especially in his letter to
so eminent a man as Wren, had not hesitated to denounce both his
conduct and motives. He had by now reached the point of such ex¬
asperation that he would be satisfied only when he had not merely
thwarted Flamsteed’s wishes about his book, but had also broken his
authority at the Observatory. Although it has often been said that
Newton was a Whig and a Churchman by habit, he had managed
to hold his lucrative office during Tory governments, and he also en¬
joyed the friendship and admiration of Bolingbroke. However, at
the time of Prince George’s death, the ministry had changed, and the
time was not propitious for getting a new grant to continue the pub¬
lication. Nothing was done about the book for two years till, in
iyio, Bolingbroke returned to office as Secretary of State; with his
help and that of Dr. Arbuthnot, who was high in Queen Anne’s
favour, Newton obtained a royal grant to continue the printing of
the work, and also secured the appointment of a Board of Visitors of
the Observatory; both of these plans were placed under the direction
of committees of the Royal Society with himself as chairman.

It is very probable that the appointment of Visitors has been to the
advantage of the Observatory, but it was an ungracious and unwise
act at the time. Flamsteed was a distinguished astronomer; he was
old and had been neglected; the least the Government could have
done for him as a reward for his services was to publish his great
book as he wished and to let him manage his work without hindrance
till his approaching retirement. Coming at the time it did, the ap-

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

545

pointment of the Visitors was undoubtedly the result of Newton’s
revenge and plan of subjecting Flamsteed to his will. The minutes
of the Royal Society have constant references, for the next few years,
to orders for the Royal Astronomer to send reports of his observations
to the Visitors, and directions by them as to what he should under¬
take. On the other side, Flamsteed petitioned the Queen to dispense
with the Visitors, and he paid but scant attention to their wishes.

The feeling between the Visitors and Flamsteed became so bitter
that Newton, as President, desired him to attend a meeting of the
Council on October 26, 1711, “to know of him if his instruments be
in order, and fit to carry on the necessary celestial observations. This
request was an extraordinary one as Newton, by reason of his
frequent visits to the Observatory, knew the condition of the instru¬
ments, and he had used Flamsteed’s lunar observations as the most
accurate ever made. It would be difficult to view such an order as
anything but an effort to humiliate the Astronomer Royal. Flam¬
steed attended and a disgraceful scene ensued. It was fortunate for
the Society that there was not a quorum present and that there is
consequently no entry of the humiliating occurrence in their records.

Flamsteed narrated the interview in a letter written two months
later: “I have had another contest with the President of the Royal
Society, who had formed a plot to make my instruments theirs; and
sent for me to a Committee, where only himself and two physicians
(Dr. Sloane, and another [Dr. Mead] as little skilful as himself)
were present. The President ran himself into a great heat, and very
indecent passion. I had resolved aforehand his kn sh talk should
not move me ; showed him that all the instruments in the Observa¬
tory were my own. . . . This nettled him 5 for he has got a letter
from the Secretary of State for the Royal Society to be visitors of the
Observatory j and he said * as good have no observatory as no instru¬
ments! I complained then of my catalogue being printed by Raymer
'Halley], without my knowledge, and that I was robbed of the
ruits of my labors. At this he fired, and called me all the ill names,
puppy, etc., that he could think of. All I returned was, I put him in
mind of his passion, desired him to govern it, and keep his temper.

7 Cf Baily, p. 294. There seems to be no doubt as to the correctness of his statement of
this scene. Flamsteed has left three accounts which differ only in minor detail Even Brew¬
ster rVol II, p. 239] grudgingly admits its probability. “How simple minded he remarks,
“Newton must have been in whose vocabulary of vituperation the epithet [puppy] given to
Flamsteed was the most prominent.” Somehow, he seems human but not simple minded on

account of this outburst.

546

ISAAC NEWTON

During the squabble Mead also ran into the same passion as New¬
ton, but Sloane said nothing all the while, and Flamsteed thanked
him for this civility. Shortly afterwards he met Halley, drank a dish
of coffee with him, and told him calmly of the villainy of his con¬
duct, and called it blockish. This is a striking example of the license
of talk indulged in even by sedate men of high position and today,
two persons, who had accused each other of such base conduct as had
Flamsteed and Halley, would hardly enjoy a dish of coffee together.

We can now return to Newton’s plan for publishing the second
volume of the Historia Coelestis. A royal grant to defray the cost had
been obtained through the influence of Arbuthnot, 8 and the former
Referees were replaced by the Royal Society. All this was done with¬
out Flamsteed’s knowledge and, although the old Agreement was
thus abrogated, he was left at their mercy as no new contract was
drawn. Flis first intimation of what was in store for him was a letter
from Arbuthnot.

Arbuthnot to Flamsteed

Sir London, March 14, 1710/n.

Her Majesty having commanded me to take care that the Historia
Coelestis, which was begun by his Royal Highness’s order, and car¬
ried on at his charge, should be finished as soon as possible, and that
it should appear in a dress suitable to the honour of such a patron,
I should fail in my duty if I did not acquaint you that there remain
several things to be performed on your part towards the perfection
of so useful a work; and particularly what retards us at present is, the
want of your most accurate catalogue of the fixed stars, which the
world has so long wished to see. The copy you have hitherto deliv¬
ered is imperfect. . . . Therefore, I desire you will deliver into my
hands, as soon as possible, a perfect copy of your catalogue of the

8 Dr - Arbuthnot, born in 1667, was a native of Scotland and received his medical educa-
tl( J”u* “ e Um r ve ™ ty Aberdeen - He moved to London and, not being able to support him¬
self by his profession, he taught mathematics in which he was proficient. His first success in
medicme resulted from a lucky accident. Prince George was suddenly taken ill at Epsom,
and Arbuthnot who happened to be near at hand was called to attend upon him. His treat-
ment was so successful that he became the physician and great personal friend of the Prince;
And the year following, physician in ordinary to Queen Anne. A man of great wit and learn¬
ing he was a prominent Fellow of the Royal Society and a friend of Newton, Pope and Swift.
Dr. Johnson spoke of him as an illustrious physician and believed that he was the author,
aided by Pope and Swift, of the Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus. With Pope, he annotated
the Dunciad, in fact, Johnson thought he excelled Swift in coarse humour, and ranked him
as the most eminent writer in Queen Anne’s reign.

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED 547

fixed stars, and you shall have a receipt, in due form, upon the de¬
livery of it. . . . 9

Flamsteed was greatly encouraged by the news that the work of
printing was to be resumed, and informed Arbuthnot that he had
enlarged and corrected his observations and catalogue to the advan¬
tage of the book. But his hopes were dashed by the answer that his,
Arbuthnot’s, commission permitted him to publish only the observa¬
tions which had been given to the Referees before his Royal High¬
ness’s death. After, however, they were printed he would be ready
to solicit the Queen to add the new material to the work as an Ap-

The history of the negotiations can now be followed from Flam¬
steed’s letters and autobiography; the facts are doubtless true even
if their presentation is coloured by his chagrin. March the 19th,
1710/11, I received a letter from Dr. Arbuthnot, one of the Queen s
physicians, signifying that the copy of a part of my catalogue, whic
had been delivered into Sir I. Newton’s hands at his desire, sealed up,
was now in the Doctor’s, who desired that I would give him four
constellations that were wanting in it, with the variations, etc. for the
rest. For, when the part of my catalogue was put into Sir I. New¬
ton’s hands (March the 15th, 1705/6) these constellations were not
begun, and the rest unperfect: which, though Sir Isaac knew very
well, he still persisted to have the keeping of it in his hands, sealed
up; that, as he said, he might have all things in his power. Two
years later, March 20, 1707/8, the packet was opened with Flam¬
steed’s consent, in order that the magnitudes of the stars might be in¬
serted in their proper places; the packet was then resealed and left
with Newton. On March 25, 1711, he was informed by a friend that
the packet had been opened again and without his knowledge; the
catalogue was in press and some sheets of it had been printed. On
March 29, four days later, Arbuthnot and Flamsteed met at Garra-
way’s Tavern when Arbuthnot stated categorically before two wit¬
nesses that not a sheet had been printed. Flamsteed was certain that
this statement was false since, at the same time, he was offered /, 10
for every press fault that could be found in it, and only four days
later he received the first printed sheet.

9 For the correspondence of Arbuthnot and Flamsteed, cj. Baily, pp. 280-289; pp. 93 951

' n WB S a °ly comments on this episode: “Flamsteed was right: and it seems scarcely possible that
>, Arbuthnot could have been ignorant of the fact. Some gross decept.on was ev.dently

54 B

ISAAC NEWTON

The incident of the sealed packet must be discussed however it
may affect Newton’s integrity. There is no doubt that the incomplete
catalogue had been deposited in his hands sealed, and by his own re¬
quest. In fact, the precautions then taken are a commentary on the
lack of confidence between the Referees and Flamsteed. It is also
certain that it was opened by mutual consent that necessary data
might be inserted. The only doubt, as to the conduct of Newton, is
whether it was again sealed; and Brewster’s only argument to the
contrary rests on his opinion that such an act was not in accordance
with Newton s character as he understood it. But if it were not re¬
sealed in accordance with the explicit promise that its data could
not be used without Flamsteed’s approval then his whole complaint
falls to the ground. Now Flamsteed definitely charges Newton with
this breach of faith several times in letters to his friend, Sharp, and
in one of them claims Newton justified himself that he had done it
by the Queen s order. But the Queen must have issued the order on
either Newton’s or Arbuthnot’s request.

It may be claimed that statements in personal and private letters
are not proofs of fact. But Flamsteed made the same accusation in
public and before witnesses. He also requested an unknown cor¬
respondent to lay the matter before the Duke of Bolton, who later
was instrumental in getting the published volumes returned to him;
finally, he included his charge in a remonstrance to Queen Anne.
Such evidence must be conclusive, and the subsequent history of the
packet confirms it, and shows Newton’s determined obstinacy and
unrelenting hostility when once he had decided on a line of conduct.
In 1716, Flamsteed wrote him a formal note demanding the return
of the catalogue and the 175 sheets of observations. As that demand
produced no effect he sent an attorney to Newton, but he refused to
be seen and the attorney left a note for him. No considerations of
right ever prevailed, and he never returned Flamsteed’s property.
Nor did Newton’s vengeance limit itself to mutilating Flamsteed’s
life-work. When the second edition of the Principia appeared, in
name was erased in nearly all the places where recognition
for his great services had previously been made.

The subsequent history of the book can be told briefly. As Flam¬
steed was unable to stop the press, Halley continued to act as editor,
and Baily states that he made many misrepresentations and misstate-

carrying on: and Flamsteed was justified in breaking off all negotiation with parties that

co.. * ct m thls manner. Nevertheless it appears that he was still willing to abide by his
original agreement with the Referees.” Cf. p. 94. y

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

549

ments and, in his preface, gave a colouring to facts which leave a
false impression in the mind of the reader. Halley s edition appeare
in 1712 and contained, besides the spurious catalogue and the garbled
observations, nearly the whole of what now forms the first volume
of the Historia Ccelestis. 11 In the meanwhile, Flamsteed recopied his
enlarged catalogue and observations, at great personal labour a ^d ex¬
pense. Political changes brought the Duke of Bolton and Sir Robert
Walpole into office and he had the great satisfaction, through their
interest, of having 300 copies delivered up to him. These were
probably all of the 400 printed which remained after the presenta¬
tion copies distributed by Newton and a few sales were deducted. He
immediately committed them to the flames “that none might re¬
main to show the ingratitude of two of his countrymen, who had
used him worse than ever the noble Tycho was used m Denmark.
Although he made every effort to complete his work, he died be ore
the second volume was finished. The remainder of the second and
the third volumes were edited by Joseph Crosthwaite, his assistant,
with the aid of Abraham Sharp; and the whole work was published

in 1726, six years after Flamsteed’s death.

It is pleasant to turn from the sordid and devious quarrels in
which Newton was involved; if for no other reason than that the
emphasis which I am forced to put upon his peculiarities of tempera¬
ment may seem to include me in the class of biographers who delig t
in detracting from the characters and achievements of the men they
portray. At the same time in which he was directing the publication
of the Historia Ccelestis, he was engaged in editing with Cotes the
second edition of the Principia. In this work he shone at his best As
I pointed out previously, his relations with young men, Collins,
Gregory, Halley, Fatio, and now Cotes, were charming in their
mixture of dignity and modest friendliness; and in Cotes he ha
found the most amiable and the most brilliant of this very excep¬
tional group. In a former chapter, the early stages of the work were
described to the year 1709. In the beginning, Newton’s interest in
the undertaking had been listless. He felt that, if the marginal notes
and corrections which he had made in his desk copy of the first
edition were put into shape by Cotes, it was as much as could be
expected. This was not at all the idea of the young and enthusiastic

11 It is but fair to Halley to quote a remark of the mathematician, Jones, made in a letter
to Cotes: “Dr. Halley has almost finished the printing of the Greenwich Observations, which
will be a work of good use; especially as it is now freed from the trifles it was loaded with.

Edleston, p. 208.

550

ISAAC NEWTON

editor who was determined to make a thorough revision of the
work. Newton quickly recognised the industry and ability of Cotes,
and soon formed the habit of accepting his corrections. No better
illustration of his own curious and haughty indifference to his
intellectual children could be given than the following: a You need
not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the
scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can
be of no great consequence and may be corrected by the reader.” But
that was not Cotes’s method and he answered: “I received your letter
of June 15th in which you consent to the alterations that I proposed
in that scholium. I have examined the whole calculation and done
it anew where I thought it necessary.”

It will be remembered that Cotes received the greater part of the
manusciipt in October, 1709 by April 15, 1710? nearly one-half
of the whole work had been printed; that is, as far as the scholium
to proposition x of the second book. Greater speed was possible at
the beginning because little new matter was added to the earlier por¬
tion, and Cotes could usually manage the correction of errors and
misprints by himself. At least, he had but little assistance from
Newton, as there is a break in their correspondence for six months.
He then wrote: I have ventured to make some little alterations my¬
self whilst I was correcting the press such as I thought either ele¬
gancy or perspicuity or truth sometimes required. I hope I shall have
your pardon if I be found to have trusted perhaps too much to my
own judgement, it not being possible for me without great incon¬
venience to the work and uneasiness to yourself to have your ap¬
probation in every particular.” Newton is probably to be excused for
his dilatoriness as he was excessively occupied in other business. He
moved his household twice within the year, and he was unusually
busy at the Mint coining the silver necessary to meet war expenses of
the army in Flanders. During this time also he was negotiating for
the house in Crane Court and preparing it for the Royal Society; his
troubles with Flamsteed were at their height both in the matter of
publishing and in that of the Visitors to the Observatory; and the
controversy with Leibniz had reared its ugly head.

The first real snag was struck when editing the problem on the
velocity of efflux of a fluid through an orifice in the base of a cylin¬
drical vessel. Newton had made a mistake in the first edition and,

XXXVlTnM ? P T P - XXXVII > Book U ’ in hi * edition (Prop!

?? f X Y X L ? S 1 ?*} Tra "0 wh f re he stated that a jet of water from an orifice rose to

half the height of the fluid in the vessel. This error was exposed by experiments made by the

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

55i

when his attention was called to his error, he made some strikingly
ingenious experiments, discovered the unknown effect of the vena
contracta, and solved the problem correctly. The incident is well
worth noting as it shows that his ability in experimentation and his
powers of scientific deduction were unimpaired; only his inclination
was wanting. Another case of an error made by Newton can be in¬
stanced in order to show that even he was fallible. The mistake
occurred in finding the value of the resistance to the motion of a
projectile in air, and was pointed out to him by Nicholas Bernoulli. 13

The most important revisions were made in the theories of the
moon and of comets, 14 derived from the observations which Newton
had received years before from Flamsteed. While this part of the
work was in progress, he became keenly interested, and there was a
quick interchange of letters. We can, therefore, ascribe the last two
years required to finish the work to the important changes and
additions in the text rather than to dilatoriness.

During the progress of the revision, the controversy between New¬
ton and Leibniz on the invention of the calculus had reached an
acute stage. It had been reawakened by an article of Keill’s published
in the Philosophical Transactions in 1708 which led to a review of
the case by the Royal Society. The continental men of science were
almost unanimously on the side of Leibniz and, as rumours had
arisen that a new edition of the Principia was in preparation, they
opened an attack on the Newtonian philosophy. Since it was dif¬
ficult to find fault with his mathematical exposition of the law of
universal gravitation, they concentrated on his claim that his phil¬
osophy involved no hypotheses and thus was superior to the Car¬
tesian postulate of vortices. 15 The gravamen of their criticism was

Royal Society in 1691. The discrepancy in calculating the velocity of efflux from the ob¬
served height of the jet and from the quantity of fluid discharged was not reconciled till
Cotes, after performing some new experiments, forced Newton’s attention to the subject, and
he then investigated anew and by experimentation discovered the principle of the vena con¬
tracta.

Bernoulli was on a visit to England during the months of September and October, 1712.
Newton mentioned in a letter (Macclesfield’s Collection, Vol. II, p. 437 ) Haying been
shown an error in Prop. X, Book III by Nicholas Bernoulli, I corrected the construction of the
proposition, and showed the correction to him, and I took care to have it printed not deceit¬
fully but with his knowledge.” He also repaid the Bernoullis by proposing John Bernoulli as
a member of the Royal Society, into which he was elected December 1st, 1712.

14 As early as 1694, Newton began to revise his lunar theory, and there are in Sect. I, § IX
B of the Portsmouth Collection many memoranda on the subject and a list of propositions
in the lunar theory, prepared for a 2d., edition of the Principia, but not used. This list has
been published in an Appendix to the Preface of the Cat. of the Ports. Coll, and also in Bans

Essay on the Principia, p. 126. .

15 Professor Jones wrote to Cotes, October 25, 1711: “I have nothing of news to send you,
only the Germans 2nd French have in a violent manner attacked the philosophy of Sir Is.

55 2

ISAAC NEWTON

that Newton held attraction at a distance to be an essential property
of matter; if so, then they argued, he had introduced an occult
quantity, and his philosophy was as hypothetical as the Cartesian
hypothesis of vortices in an occult medium. 10

It is evident that Bentley and Cotes were worried lest the new
criticism of the Principia should affect Newton’s reputation and also
the sale of the new edition, now rapidly approaching completion.
They agreed that a preface should be prepared which would defend
Newton against the charge of introducing occult quantities, and
attack Leibniz’s priority in invention of the calculus. Newton, also,
was to defend his philosophy by a general statement to be added to
the body of the text. On March 2, 1712/3, he wrote to Cotes that
he enclosed the last batch of copy which finished the book. This he
says is “the scholium which I promised to send you, to be added to
the end of the book.” Before taking up the subject of the preface, it
is important to consider the scholium, itself, because he there sums
up the essence of both his scientific and religious philosophies.

The celebrated General Scholium begins with the sentence: “The
hypothesis of vortices is pressed with many difficulties.” Its chief
difficulties are then discussed: first, the necessary periodic times of
the vortices do not conform to the periodic times of the planets,
secondly, the rotations of the sun and the planets do not correspond
with the motions of their vortices; thirdly, the motions of comets
are exceedingly regular and their eccentric orbits are incompatible
with a vortex and, in addition, their paths cut through the planetary
orbits and vortices in all directions. He next argues that the regu¬
larity and beauty, or rather the rhythmic harmony, of the solar sys¬
tem presuppose the existence of a designing and intelligent Creator,
whose attributes are to be discovered from a study of his works.

To answer the insinuations of Leibniz, that he believed God to be
merely a part of the mechanical universe and to be defined as the
sensorium of infinite space, in agreement with the Cambridge
Platonists, Newton emphatically declares that God is a true spiritual
being who “governs all things, and knows all that are or can be done.

Newton, and seem resolved to stand by Descartes; Mr. Keill, as a person concerned, has un¬
dertaken to answer and defend some things, as Dr. Friend, and Dr. Mead.” Edleston, p. 21a
That the attack on the Principia was the result of the Leibniz controversy, and that it was
directed against the hypothetical character of the Newtonian philosophy is evident from the
letters in Edleston, pp. 149-160.

16 The particular meaning of occult should be carefully noted. An occult substance is one
which cannot be directly perceived by the senses, e. g. the luminiferous asther; an occult force
is one unknown to experience, c. g. action at a distance.,

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

553

He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; He is not
duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for¬
ever, and is everywhere present; and by existing always and every¬
where, he constitutes duration and space.” This declaration of faith
is important. In spite of his personal beliefs, it is certainly true that
naturistic Deism found one of its strongest supports in the mechanistic
philosophy of the Principia. In Leibniz’s debate with Clarke, it was
claimed that Newton’s God was but the creator of an universal
machine which was self-acting and needed but a mechanician to
keep it in repair. In this discussion, an important matter was over¬
looked, Newton confined his mechanisms to the physical world; it
was not till the nineteenth century that man, unfortunately, was
made a part of the machine. It seems from his former statements
on the aether, and his present ones on God, that he regarded absolute
space, not as God, but as the divine sensorium of God. Here he
apparently did not go quite so far as Henry More who came, at
times, almost to the point of identifying space with God, as Aristotle
did celestial motion. The following passage is, perhaps, the most
definite statement by More on the subject: “For if after the removal
of corporeal matter out of the world, there will be still space and
distance in which this very matter, while it was there, was also
conceived to lie, and this distant space cannot but be conceived to be
something, and yet not corporeal, because neither impenetrable nor
tangible, it must of necessity be a substance incorporeal necessarily
and eternally existent of itself; which the clearer Idea of a Being
absolutely perfect will more fully and punctually inform us to be
the self-subsisting God .” 17

Newton, then, combats the charge of having introduced occult
quantities by saying that he had explained the phenomena of the
heavens and of the sea by the power of gravity, but that he had not
as yet assigned the cause of this power. And then he fortifies the
statement by adding: “But hitherto I have not been able to discover
the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I
frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phe¬
nomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether
metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical,
have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy par¬
ticular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and after-

17 More. Antidote Against Atheism. Appendix, 2d edition, p. 338.—The influence of
More and the Cambridge Platonists on Newton’s ideas of space, time, and God, was direct
and important; it would be interesting to work it out more fully.

554

ISAAC NEWTON

wards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impene¬
trability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the
laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is
enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws
which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all
the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea .” 18 Such were the
limits which he would impose on himself and on the scientific
method.

After he has thus shown the will to refrain from conflating specu¬
lation with true knowledge, he turns on his accusers and proves that
his humility does not result from a lack of imagination equal to
those who, then and now, confidently discuss the causes and nature
of the universe. For, he concludes, if we prefer an occult substance
to an occult cause, he might add something about a subtle Spirit
which pervades all bodies and whose actions are the cause of
gravitation, electrical energy, light, heat, sensation, and nervous
stimuli: “But these are things that cannot be explained in a few
words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments
which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration
of the laws by which this electric and elastic Spirit operates.” And
we wonder whether the army of scientists and pseudo-scientists, who
are today telling us all about this “subtle Spirit” which governs the
universe, have a knowledge so accurate as to make their statements
anything but futile guesses. Those, who are now speaking so con¬
fidently of the age and nature of the universe, of its contracting or
expanding, are in Newton s opinion neither philosophers nor scien¬
tists. They are merely juggling with a word which signifies the
negative of finite time and space. As Galileo long ago said, the
scientist should restrict himself to a world of experience and not one
of paper.

I had long puzzled over the reason for the addition of the General
Scholium. The text of the first edition ends in a most inconspicu¬
ous manner with the solution of the proposition of how to determine
the trajectory of a comet, and there is no summing up of the purpose
of the book. The reader is left with the impression that the author
stopped merely because he did not choose to discuss any more prob-

18 The most important phrases in this memorable statement of Newton’s conception of the
limitations of the scientific method are: “Sed causam gravitatis nondum assignavi. . . „ Ra-
tionem vero harum Gravitatis proprietatum ex Phaenomenis nondum potui deduc'ere, et
hypotheses non fingo.. Quicquid enim ex phaenomenis non deducitur, Hypothesis vocanda
est; et hypotheses, seu Metaphysicae, seu Physicae, seu Qualitatum Occultarum, seu Mcch-
anicae, in Philosophia Experimentali locum non habent.”

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

555

lems. In the later editions, the masterly Scholium was added with
its broad sweep covering in a few words the author’s confession of
faith, and his philosophy of science; golden words which should be
engraved on the minds of all students of natural phenomena. I had
supposed, as I believe many others had also, Newton penned those
words in order to teach the general lesson that the chief purpose of
science is to inspire character and religion. It interested me greatly
to discover that so broad a philosophical discussion had its cause in
the desire to repel a personal attack on his character . 19

But this apologia did not fully satisfy Bentley and Cotes. It did
not sufficiently crush the Cartesians or manifest the glory of the
Principia; it softened the denial that occult qualities had been in¬
troduced; it was silent as to Leibniz and the invention of the cal¬
culus. Most important of all it did not hurl back with scorn the
charge of the materialism of his philosophy, and the irreligion of
its author, which Leibniz had insinuated in the ear of that royal blue
stocking, the Princess of Wales, who had just come to England from
Hanover and the teaching of Leibniz. After a conference, they de¬
cided that these matters were very necessary and should be incor¬
porated in a preface. Three days later, Bentley went to London and
obtained Newton’s consent. In order that there might be no mis¬
understanding they wrote a joint letter to Cotes in which Bentley’s
share was, “I have Sir Isaac’s leave to remind you of what you and
I were talking of, an alphabetical index, and a preface in your own
name; if you please to draw them up ready for the press, to be
printed after my return to Cambridge, you will oblige. Yours. R.
Bentley.”

Cotes answered the letters separately. To Newton, he wrote he
would undertake the index, and would write to Bentley about the
preface. To Bentley, he points out that he should know what New¬
ton thinks to be proper for the preface. In his opinion, the defense

10 How great an effect this attack on Newton had made in England can be judged from
an anecdote given in the Biographia Britannica, Art. Newton. “Leibniz renewed the charge
of irreligion against Newton and attempted to disparage his philosophy because of pique over
fluxions. This blackening method had its effect. It is supposed that Pope added two lines
to the Denial as a censure of Newton’s philosophy:

‘Philosophy that Iean’d on Heav’n before,

Shrinks to her hidden cause, and is no more.’

Dr. Warburton remarks that if Pope’s excellent friend Dr. Arbuthnot had been consulted, ‘so
unjust a reflection had never disgraced so noble a satire.’ On the hint of Warburton, Pope
changed the lines with great pleasure into a compliment, as they now stand, on that divine
genius.

‘Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more.’ ”

ISAAC NEWTON

556

of Newton which the Royal Society had recently published in the
Commercium Epistolicum gave such an indubitable proof of Leib¬
niz’s want of candour that he would like to speak out the full truth
of the matter if it were thought convenient. Then he adds, knowing
Newton’s invincible reluctance to attack over his own name: “I
think it will be much more advisable that you or he, or both of
you, should write it whilst you are in town. You may depend upon
it that I will own it and defend it as well as I can if hereafter there
should be occasion.”

So wary a fox was not to be drawn by such a plea. Bentley held
a conference with Newton, and his instructions were sent to Cotes
in the following letter, which throws some light on his character.

Bentley to Cotes

o' At Sir Isaac Newton’s March 12.

Dear Sir,

I communicated your letter to Sir Isaac, who happened to make
me a visit this morning, and we appointed to meet this evening at
his house, and there to write you an answer. For the close of your
letter, which proposes a preface to be drawn up here, and to be
fatherd by you, we will impute it to your modesty; but you must not
press it further, but go about it yourself. For the subject of the pre¬
face, you know it must be to give an account, first of the work itself,
2 dIy of the improvements of the new edition; and then you have Sir
Isaac’s consent to add what you think proper about the controversy
of the first invention. You yourself are full master of it, and want no
hints to be given you: However when it is drawn up, you shall
have his and my judgement, to suggest any thing that may improve
it. Tis both our opinions, to spare the name of M. Leibniz, and ab¬
stain from all words or epithets of reproach: for else, that will be
the reply, (not that its untrue) but that its rude and uncivil. Sir
Isaac presents his service to you.

For Mr. Roger Cotes Professor of
Astronomy at Trinity College in
Cambridge.

I am Yours

R. Bentley . 20

On receipt of this letter, Cotes sent to Newton an outline of his
proposed preface. He received two letters in reply, devoted mostly

20 Edleston, p. 150.

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

557

to an explanation of what is meant by the mutual attraction of two
bodies, and a definition of what he meant by an hypothesis. It is
interesting to note that the remarkable passage in the Genera
Scholium, beginning “Whatever is not deduced from phenomena
must be called an hypothesis . . .’ was not included in his original
draught, but was first given in this letter to be inserted. In the
second letter, Newton drew up a short note describing what had
been done in the new edition which he desired to be printed below
his original Praefatio ad Lectorem. And, as a postscript, there is
this warning, “If you write any further preface, I must not see it,
for I find that I shall be examined about it.”

Hampered by these restrictions, Cote’s preface is a rather tame
affair, confined to a general exposition of the Newtonian philosophy.
There are no references to the controversy over the calculus, or to
the charges of materialism and irreligion; only a veiled reference is
made to Leibniz in a general condemnation of the system of Car¬
tesian vortices.

The last package of manuscript was sent to Cotes on March 2d,
1712/3, but the publication was delayed till the latter part of June
and, a month later, Newton waited on the Queen to present her with
a copy. The edition, judging from a statement of Cotes, was limited
to 750 copies of which 200 were sent to France and Holland at a
great abatement of price. In England the book, in quires and un¬
bound, sold for 15s. When bound the price varied; Flamsteed paid
18s. for his copy, Charles Morgan gave a guinea, and Keill obtained
his for a pound. The expense of publishing this second edition was
met by Bentley, and he received all the profits from its sale; it is
said that the author, even, was charged for some of the printer’s
corrections. Conduitt mentioned that he once asked Newton, how
he came to let Bentley print his Principia, which he did not under¬
stand—‘Why,’ said he, ‘he was covetous, and I let him do it to get
•> >>21

money.

It is evident that the Master of Trinity did not confine his financial
exactions entirely to the Fellows of his college. He also had the
audacity, unknown to Newton and Halley, to alter the Latin verses,
which the latter had composed for the first edition. Cotes’s reward
for his arduous part in the undertaking was a gift of twelve copies.
Although it was quite in accord with Bentley’s character to take
advantage of the obligations which the young professor was under

21 Conduitt’s MSS. Portsmouth Collection.

558

ISAAC NEWTON

and to pay him nothing for his work, it is not in accord with New¬
ton’s custom. He had always been more than generous to those who
assisted him. He gave lavish presents of money to Clarke, Pember¬
ton, Pound, and repeatedly offered compensation to Flamsteed. It
seems very possible that Cotes declined to accept a reward other than
the honour of assisting in the editing of a Principia.

Six months after the publication of the book, Newton sent to
Cotes a formidable list of corrections and additions through Corne¬
lius Crownfield, the University Printer. Cotes’s feelings were ap¬
parently hurt, and his justification shows the prevalent lack of care
in proofreading which would not be tolerated today. Thus, he an¬
swered: “I observe you have put down about twenty errata besides
those in my table. I am glad to find they are not of any moment,
such I mean as can give the reader any trouble. I had myself ob¬
served several of them, but I confess to you I was ashamed to put
them in the table, lest I should appear to be too diligent in trifles.
Such errata the reader expects to meet with, and they cannot well
be avoided. ... I am sure it is much more correct than the former,
which was carefully printed; for besides your own corrections and
those I acquainted you with whilst the book was printing, I may

venture to say I made some hundreds, with which I never acquainted
you.” 22

What a fortunate thing the Principia was edited by Cotes instead
of by Duillier can be judged by the spirit of the two men. Duillier
wrote to Huygens that he hoped to enlarge and improve the treatise
by his emendations, and he modestly [!] inscribed these verses in his
personal copy of the third edition:

“Insculptoque basi Newtoni nomine; in ipso

Culmine scribatur, Facius multum addidit aedi:

Aedi, quae immensi typus est templi Omnipotentis.” 23

Cotes wrote: “I never think the time lost, when we stay for Sir
Isaac s further corrections and improvements of so very valuable a
book, especially when this seems to be the last time he will concern
himself with it. I am sensible his other business allows him little
time for those things, and therefore I cannot hasten him so much
as I might otherwise do. I am very well satisfied to wait till he has
leisure.” 24 Cotes was certainly the most amiable and brilliant of the

22 Edleston, p. 167. 23 Ball, p. 125.

24 Macclesfield, Corr., I, p. 260; Edleston, p. 209.

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

559

young men who fell under the spell of Newton’s genius. In early
manhood he had given fame to the new Plumian professorship and
had become one of the most respected and influential Fellows of
Trinity College. His death in 1716, on the threshold of his career,
was a great loss to science and a personal sorrow to Newton.

One of Cotes’s most intimate friends was William Whiston, and
to him we are indebted for many of the incidents of Newton’s life
and an estimate of his character. Whiston’s life 25 had become in¬
creasingly eccentric; endowed with great ability, he early became
obsessed with the idea of restoring the Christian Church to its primi¬
tive state and gave up his career and prosperity for conscience’s sake.
Like many of the mathematicians and scientists of the day he was
more interested in theology than in science except as it might serve
as a handmaiden to religion; like Newton, he studied the Scriptures
persistently in order to explain the prophetic writings, and to draw
up a chronology of sacred history. By some twist in the mind, he
saw in the law of gravitation a prognostication of a happy return to
the primitive state of the Christian Church, but when he considered
Newton’s religious and chronological writings he found only folly
and imbecility. The vanity of the irritabile genus is to be allowed
for in his estimate: “As to this wonderful man, Sir Isaac Newton, I
mean wonderful in mathematics, and natural philosophy, and their
consequences: he is one of the greatest instances that ever was, how
weak, how very weak, the greatest of mortal men may be in some
things, though they be beyond all men in others. ... Sir Isaac, in
mathematics, could sometimes see almost by intuition, even without
demonstration. . . . And when he did but propose conjectures in
natural philosophy, he almost always knew them to be true at the
same time; yet did this Sir Isaac Newton compose a Chronology,
and wrote out eighteen copies of its first and principal chapter with
his own hand, but little different one from another, which proved
no better than a sagacious romance, as I have fully proved in my
confutation of it.” 26 One of Whiston’s earliest works bore the stu¬
pendous title— A new theory of the earth, from its original to the

25 When he was eighty-two years old he published his Memoirs of Mr. Whiston (London,
1749) which was popular enough to require a second and corrected edition four years later,
and is a valuable book for the student of the times. Brewster invariably throws discredit on
its accuracy, but it is manifestly because Whiston indulges in severe criticism, as well as high
praise, of Newton. So far as can be discovered, Whiston was truthful, and his testimony
should not be discredited because he found fault with Newton, or because he was willing to
be a martyr for his religious beliefs.

36 Memoirs, p. 38,—2d edition, p. 34.

560

ISAAC NEWTON

consummation of all things, wherein the creation of the world in
six days, the universal deluge, and the general conflagration, as laid
down in the Holy Scriptures, are shewn to be perfectly agreeable to
reason and philosophy. This book was shown in manuscript to Dr.
Bentley, Sir Christopher Wren, but chiefly laid before Sir Isaac
Newton himself, on whose principles it depended, and who well ap¬
proved of it. And the great John Locke wrote in commendation of
it.

Whiston gives a striking illustration of Newton’s almost morbid
sensitiveness to any personal criticism. It seems that Bentley was
deeply offended by Bishop Lloyd because he interpreted a day in the
prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation to denote the duration of a
year, “And long afterwards The Master bluntly asked Newton, who
had expounded the prophecies in the same manner, whether he
could demonstrate the same. Sir Isaac Newton was so greatly
angered at this, as invidiously alluding to his being a mathematician;
which science was not concerned in this matter; that he would not
see him, as Dr. Bentley told me himself, for a twelvemonth after¬
wards.” On such questions did the greatest minds of the time
exercise themselves and grow heated in discussion.

After Whiston returned to Cambridge, he continued his study of
the Bible, in addition to his scientific work, and became an ardent
propounder of primitive Christianity and Unitarianism. His first
public utterance of those heretical doctrines was made, I think, in
the Boyle lectures which he delivered in St. Paul’s Cathedral, in
1707. One of the heads of the lecture was, “The new prophets enter¬
tain vulgar untrue notions in divinity; such as the Athanasian
Trinity.” His friends became alarmed, foreseeing that he was headed
towards serious trouble, and begged him to renounce the Arian
heresy. But his answer was that they might as well try to persuade
the sun to come down from the firmament as to turn him from his
resolution. Conscious of the fate before him, he began to prepare
himself for martyrdom, being satisfied that no other death was so
eligible to a Christian. While he did not suffer the extreme penalty
for his faith, he was expelled from Cambridge, on October 30, 1710,
as an obstinate heretic by the Heads of the Colleges after he had
twice convented before them. 27 A month later Cotes urged him to

^ 7 Bishop Monk, Life of Bentley, Vol. I, p. 290, says: “He was twice convened before the
academical court; and, remaining' obstinate in his resolution to propagate opinions hostile to
those of the Church, was banished from the University by the sentence of the Vice Chancellor
and eleven Heads. In these proceedings the Master of Trinity took no share: he entertained

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED 561

recant and submit to the judgement of the Convocation; but Whis-
ton never changed his opinions and was never permitted to return

to the University. .

The effect on Whiston of banishment from the University was to

add the fervor of martyrdom to his writing. He not only attacked
the trinitarian doctrine of Athanasius and accused him of forgery,
but he also advocated a return to primitive Christianity and the
necessity of infant baptism. In all these ideas, he was confident that
he had the support of Newton, and must have greatly embarrassed
him by publishing that opinion. For example, he sent his paper on
infant baptism to Newton by a mutual friend for his criticism and
stated: “He was so hearty for the Baptists, as well as for the doctrines
of Eusebius and Arius, that he sometimes suspected they were the
two Witnesses in the Revelation " Thus to tear the veil behind
which Newton carefully concealed his private opinions and to expose
them to public criticism, aroused his bitter resentment and, perhaps
also, his fear of being involved in a similar punishment. Whiston
claimed that Newton, having first greatly favoured him for twenty
years, finally grew to hate him because of his independence of
mind. He shocked the public by the blunt statement that Newton s
cautious and suspicious temperament had been so fed by the flattery
of his friends as to make him unable, in his old age, to bear the least
contradiction. As proof of this opinion, Whiston cites the fact that
he was refused admission to membership in the Royal Society: The
case was this: Sir Hans Sloane, and Dr. Edmund Halley, and myself
were once together at Child s Coffee-House, in St. Paul s Church¬
yard, and Dr. Halley asked me, Why I was not a member of that
Society ? I answered, Because they durst not choose an heretic. Up¬
on which Dr. Halley said to Sir Hans Sloane, that if he would pro¬
pose me, he would second it: which was done accordingly. When
Sir Isaac Newton, the President, heard this, he was greatly con¬
cerned; and, by what I then learned, closeted some of the members,
in order to get clear of me; and told them, that if I was chosen, he
would not be President. Whereupon, by a pretence of deficiency in

the form of proceeding, the proposal was dropped, I not insisting

•«. >>28
upon it.

for Whiston a personal regard.” Anti-trinitarianism was regarded as more dangerous than
out-right atheism. Halley did indeed fail to obtain a professorship at Oxford because of his
openly professed infidelity, yet he afterwards secured a like professorship there without mak¬
ing any pretence to a belief in Christianity.

28 Whiston’s Memoirs, o. 202.

562

ISAAC NEWTON

One other incident recorded by Whiston will be narrated not so
much for its intrinsic value as for the inferences Biot drew from it.
In 1714, several captains in the navy and of merchantmen, with
merchants of London, petitioned Parliament to offer a large reward
to the person who should discover an accurate method of determin¬
ing longitude at sea.“ J Whiston and a Mr. Ditton, the same year,
discovered a method of finding longitude by signals. They first
communicated it to Newton and then, at his desire, to Halley, Dr.
Samuel Clarke, and Cotes; and with their approval they applied to
the House of Commons for the reward. A large Committee was
appointed, whose report was taken into consideration on June nth,
and the four persons mentioned above were summoned to attend.

According to the report of the Committee, which Brewster ex¬
amined, Whiston and Ditton stated that they had found a method
of taking longitude at sea, and that they had explained their method
to the four persons mentioned, who all approved the theory but
found difficulties in its practical application. Newton then reported
on four possible methods for finding longitudes which may be given
in condensed form: 1. By a watch to keep time exactly, but such a
watch had not yet been made. 2. By observing eclipses of Jupiter’s
satellites, but, because of the length of the telescopes needed and the
motion of a ship, the eclipses cannot yet be observed. 3. By observing
the place of the moon, but the lunar theory was not yet exact enough
for the purpose. 4. By Mr. Ditton s project. He then discussed
briefly and clearly the possibilities of the four methods, but the Com¬
mittee were unable to follow his reasoning or to understand whether
or not he thought the proposed method was practical. Whiston gave
the following inside account of the meeting. “As soon as the Com¬
mittee was set, which was a very large one, Newton, Halley, Clarke
and Cotes appeared. A chair was placed for Sir. I. Newton near the
Chairman, and I stood at the back of it. What the rest had to say
they delivered by word of mouth, but Sir I. Newton delivered what
he had to say in a paper. Upon the reading of this paper, the Com¬
mittee were at a loss, as not well understanding its contents: Sir I.
Newton sitting still and saying nothing by way of explication. This
gave the chairman an opportunity, wffiich it was perceived he
wanted, of trying to drop the bill; which he did by declaring his

commits C o°nwhat

Brewster^VoL H, $ **““*"' ^ Edfat0 "’ P-

CONTROVERSY WITH FLAMSTEED

563

own opinion to be that ‘Unless Sir I. Newton would say that the
method now proposed was likely to be useful for the discovery of
the longitude, he was against making a bill in general for a reward
of such a discovery’; as Dr. Clarke had particularly proposed to the
Committee. Upon this opinion of his, not contradicted by any other
of the Committee; and upon Sir I. Newton’s silence all the while, I
saw the whole design was in the utmost danger of miscarrying. I
thought it therefore absolutely necessary to speak myself: which I
did nearly in these words, ‘Mr. Chairman the occasion of the puzzle
you are now in is nothing but Sir I. Newton’s caution. He knows
the usefulness of the present method near the shores (which are the
places of greatest danger).’ Whereupon Sir Isaac stood up and said
that ‘He thought this bill ought to pass, because of the present
method’s usefulness near the shores.’ Which declaration of his was
much the same with what he had said in his own paper, but which
was not understood by the Committee, and determined them unan¬
imously to agree to such a bill.” 30 This report by Whiston is held
to be unreliable; Edleston says, “the requisite allowance must be
made for the forwardness and vanity of the reporter” and Rigaud,
with Brewster’s later approval, believed the story to be tinctured by
his spleen and disappointment. But I can find no grounds for their
opinion except their predetermined dislike to the unfortunate Whis¬
ton who, although he always expressed the highest admiration for
Newton’s genius, found certain faults in his character, and had suf¬
fered from their effects. His story, so far as it can be checked, agrees
with the report of the Committee; and so far as Newton’s personal
part is described, Whiston makes no slur on his character. To me,
it seems to be quite in line with what one might expect. Newton
was undoubtedly not a ready speaker; he had written an excellent
report and he was not accustomed to express himself in terms which
the layman could understand. When he found that he was not
understood he would very likely be puzzled to give a simple ex¬
planation, and when the decision was forced on him by the Chair¬
man his caution and characteristic dislike of argument and conten¬
tions might very well keep him sitting and silent, and finally merely
repeat Whiston’s explanation. When the above commentators con¬
demned Whiston, they were really exasperated by what Biot read
into his statement. Biot was obsessed with the idea that Newton’s

30 The Biographia Britannica states that as a result of Newton’s report the House of Com¬
mons threw aside the petition of Ditton and Whiston.

ISAAC NEWTON

564

break-down in health in 1693 had left him with a permanent and
fatal aberration of the intellect, and had been the cause of his forsak¬
ing science for religion and chronology. He cited this incident as a
proof of Newton’s imbecility in this extraordinary fashion: “Newton
then repeated word for word what Whiston had said, and the project
of the bill was accepted. This almost puerile conduct, 31 in a circum¬
stance so solemn, could lend itself to stranger consequences, above all
if the fatal accident which Newton experienced in 1695 [1693] be
recalled, though it might have been merely the effect of excessive
shyness, produced by the retired and meditative habits of his life.
For, to judge from a letter of Newton, written some time before the
disastrous epoch, in which he points out the conduct to be pursued
by a young traveller, it would appear that he was very ignorant of
the habits of society.” 32

81 Whiston made no such insinuation.

32 The “disastrous epoch” was in 1693 and the letter to Aston was written in 1669 so the
“sometime before” was a stretch of twenty-four years. As Newton was a youth of twenty-
seven years when he wrote the letter he might well have been “ignorant of the habits of so¬
ciety” but it is ludicrous to use it as an example of Newton’s social experience at the age of
seventy-two and after his life in London. Cf. Biot, Life of Newton, p„ 37.

CHAPTER XV

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ ON INVENTION OF

THE CALCULUS

1699-1718

A feeling of embarrassment is the lot of the biographer who
must unravel the long and complicated controversy which
arose over the invention of the calculus. It is undoubtedly the
bitterest and most notorious dispute in the history of science; it en¬
gaged its principals and their sympathisers in recriminations for a
quarter of a century; it will never lose its interest and never be satis¬
factorily settled. The charge and countercharge of actual plagiarism
have been dismissed by documentary evidence; we know that New¬
ton discovered and developed the method of fluxions first, and that
Leibniz invented the method of the calculus at a later date and in¬
dependently. But whether fluxions and calculus are identical is a
matter of opinion; whether either inventor, unconsciously or de¬
liberately, was influenced by the other in the later development of
his ideas, is a second undecided question; and lastly the conduct of
both men seems unaccountable on the grounds of common sense and
honour. In the end, Newton lost the fruit of his great invention; his
last years were embittered and his character smirched; Leibniz
reaped a great reward, but the suspicion of being a plagiarist still
clings to him; he betrayed a friend, and stooped to anonymous
attacks.

When we judge the motives and actions of those immediately
involved in this controversy, we must remember that they were play¬
ing for a great stake, one so great that cool judgement was clouded,
and they were swayed by the passions of gamblers. The invention of
the calculus was, in mathematics like the discovery of universal
gravitation in physics, one of those unique pieces of good fortune
that can come but once, and but to one man. Almost the whole
modern science of mathematics is derived from the postulate of in¬
finitesimally variable quantities; all problems in theoretical physics
are stated as differential equations, and are solved by the integral

565

566

ISAAC NEWTON

calculus. Such a prize was sufficient to excite the passions of nations
and to involve in it those lower and more brutal standards of con¬
duct which influence men when they act in concert, and are ab¬
solved from personal responsibility. This evident double standard
now passes under the rather foolish name of mob psychology, al¬
though it is merely the natural consequence of the fact that the in¬
dividual can in such cases soothe his conscience by dividing the
shame with others.

The temperaments of the principals involved in this altercation
have a direct bearing on its history. Leibniz was essentially a teacher
as well as a thinker, and he was not content till he had developed
his idea of the calculus into an organised mathematical system. He
communicated his work freely to others, and his reputation was
increased by the contributions of his followers. He, himself, was
impulsive, and his occasionally rash and boastful statements irritated
the English intensely; Cotes once described him as “swaggering
upon the occasion, according to his usual vanity”; and Conduitt,
who must have discussed the matter with Newton, wrote to Fon-
tenelle, that Leibniz’s manner of defending himself would convince
everybody that he had taken his calculus from Newton. Thus, Leib¬
niz’s contradictory statements of the sources of his idea, his subter¬
fuges, his betrayal of his friend and his anonymous articles were
easily exposed by his adversaries. The conviction became fixed that
a man who would stoop to such methods of defense must have done
so from the guilty knowledge of having plagiarised. Even though
the publication of his early papers has made it clear that he de¬
veloped his calculus honourably, yet the suspicion of having re¬
ceived help from fluxions in some unknown manner still clings to
him, and sullies his reputation.

On the other hand, Newton never once evinced any desire to make
public his invention or the least interest in public approval. After
he had written to Leibniz, that he had discovered a method of flux¬
ions and had safely secured priority of invention by two sentences
dissected into a jumble of letters which could not possibly be de¬
ciphered, he persistently refused to discuss the subject with him, or
any one else. His refusal to publish and his apparently sphinx-like
indifference to popular fame impressed his contemporaries as the
indication of modesty. On the contrary, it resulted from his dom¬
inant passion for meditation and for being free from the distractions
which arise from the publication of new ideas. In his youth, he had

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ 5 6 7

made a bid for popular approval and the mild criticism, which his
work on light received, made him declare science to be a taskmaster
which he would in the future be rid of; in his old age, when his
character had hardened and he had become dictatorial from adula¬
tion and flattery, he could not endure any opposition. While he
cared little for what is ordinarily classed as fame, the least reflection
on his personal character, or an intimation that he had been de¬
pendent on others for help, aroused in him an unrelenting hostility.
So far as we can see, Leibniz might have published any number of
papers on the calculus; he and his followers might have developed
it to any extent without interesting Newton in the least. But we
know he secretly nursed a grudge against Leibniz for not having
acknowledged in his first published paper that he was merely the
second inventor of the calculus and that his later invention in time
had no merit. And he was aroused to an implacable and cold rage
when the continental mathematicians intimated that he had re¬
ceived aid from his rival in the development of the fluxions.

In contradistinction to Leibniz’s subterfuges which were easily
exposed, Newton never made clear his part in the controversy till
after Leibniz’s death. The public charges against his rival were
made under the cover of his friends, Fatio, Keill, Raphson, and of
the Royal Society. The countercharges were directed against them,
and they were supposed to have had no aid from him; while the
truth is that he directed most, if not all, of the attacks without
acknowledging his participation in them. He packed the investi¬
gating committee of the Royal Society, supplied it with data and
directed its enquiry; and he anonymously wrote the preface for their
published report, and made changes in the text. The leading part
he personally took in the quarrel was not guessed till his manu¬
scripts were examined by Brewster a century and more after his
death, and till De Morgan disclosed many unknown facts in a series
of critical essays. Even with this knowledge, I was amazed, during
my own examination of the Portsmouth Papers , to find the mass of
notes and manuscripts on the subject which Newton preserved. It
is shocking to find that two such eminent men as the principals, and
practically all of those associated with them, wantonly made state¬
ments which were false; and not one of them came through with a
clean record. In such a tangled story, all the biographer can hope to
do is to set the facts down as clearly and as accurately as possible,
and let the reader apportion the degrees of blame as he best may.

568

ISAAC NEWTON

In order to make the subsequent history of the controversy clear
a brief resume of the earlier events will aid the reader. 1 Leibniz had
discovered, and had developed, the method and notation of both the
differential and integral calculus about 1675 or 1676. This is now
certain from his early papers in the Hanover collection recently
published by Gerhardt, and by his letters to Newton; and it seems
thoroughly established that, in agreement with his statement, the
first idea of the calculus came to him from his study of Pascal’s
work on series. In 1684, he published his first paper on the calculus
in the Leipzig Acts, in which he made no mention of the fact that
Newton had invented a similar method some years prior to his own
discovery. His explanation of this omission was the reasonable one
that, as Newton had not explained to him his method of fluxions,
and had refused to publish it, he was not at liberty to refer to a
discovery which the author declined to reveal. By 1695, Leibniz and
the two Bernoullis had developed the calculus into a powerful
mathematical tool, and a year later de l’Hopital published his sys¬
tematic text-book on the subject. Amongst the continental mathe¬
maticians it was generally referred to as Leibniz’s calculus, and few
of them had any knowledge of Newton’s prior invention.

There is no doubt that Newton invented the fluxions in 1665, or
1666, and had, at times, used dots over the symbols to signify a
velocity. How far he developed his method during those early years,
we do not know. In 1669, Barrow sent the tract De Analysi to Col¬
lins. He and Oldenburg discussed the work and showed the tract
to a number of mathematicians in England and on the continent,
among whom was Leibniz. We now know that Leibniz saw the
tract when in London and made extracts from it; but it is still a
debatable question with mathematicians whether the De Analyst
discussed the method of the fluxions and calculus, or whether it was
limited solely to the method of solution of problems by infinite
series.

When Newton published the Principia in 1687, he introduced a
Scholium to Lemma II in which he paid a compliment to Leibniz
for having invented a calculus similar to his own except for its sys¬
tem of notation and language; but he gave no explanation of either
method. He stated that Leibniz had described his method to him
but that he had concealed his own invention in two sentences with
transposed letters. There can be no doubt he thereby acknowledged

1 Cf. supra, Chapter VI.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

569

that Leibniz had made a later and independent invention of the
calculus, for such a statement would have been ridiculous if he had
suspected him of plagiarism. Furthermore, the world would also
be forced to judge that Newton could have received aid more readily
from Leibniz, than Leibniz from him, if the question were to be
decided on this statement in the Pnncipia. In 1693, Wallis published
in volume II of his Collected Wor\s a brief account of Newtons
fluxions with the solution of a few problems and, in the preface, he
mentioned the calculus as being another name for fluxions. This
was the first opportunity mathematicians had had for comparing
the two methods.

Thus, towards the end of the century, mathematicians found
themselves equipped with a magnificent new tool; and, being far
more interested in the perfection and accessibility of the instrument
than in the abstract question of its inventor, they currently referred
to it as Leibniz’s calculus. So far as we can learn the scientific world
was at peace till 1699, when Fatio de Duillier published a tract which
opened the whole question and started a bitter controversy which
raged for twenty-five years, aroused international jealousies, and still
smoulders.

The publication by Wallis of the method of fluxions, even in an
abbreviated form, and his statement that the calculus was the same
thing under a different name, were clear indications that the English
were preparing themselves to claim the honour of the invention.
Leibniz and Bernoulli, who had adopted a rather boastful tone in
their publications, were much perturbed and devised a test to show
that certain classes of problems could be solved only by those who
had studied and had become proficient in their method. According
to the custom of the day, Bernoulli published in the Leipzig Acts for
June, 1696, a challenge problem “to the acutest mathematicians of
the world.” The problem was,—To determine the curve line con¬
necting two given points, at different distances above the horizon
and not in the same vertical line, along which a body passing by its
own gravity shall descend to the lower point in the shortest time
possible. 2 Originally, six months was allowed for the contest. As no
solutions were received during that period, on the advice of Leibniz,
the time was publicly extended for a year longer so that French and

2 This curve for shortest time of fall, or brachistochrone, is the well-known cycloid,—a
curve which had been much studied as it is the apparent path of a planet in the Ptolemaic sys¬
tem. But this was a new property and it required the calculus for solution.

57 °

ISAAC NEWTON

Italian mathematicians might have an equal opportunity with those
in Germany. According to Conduitt’s Memoirs / Newton received
two copies of the problem from France on January 26, 1696/7, at
four o’clock in the afternoon, when he was very tired with the busi¬
ness at the Mint, where he had been employed all day, and yet he
solved it before he went to bed that same night.

This story, which has been related in an earlier chapter, is always
given as a detached event in Newton’s life, and it had greatly puzzled
me as it seemed so contrary to his habit of avoiding just such dis¬
tractions. It occurred when he was newly appointed to the Mint,
and even two years later, when he was not so deeply immersed in its
affairs, he wrote in that curious letter to Flamsteed: “I do not love to
be printed upon every occasion, much less to be dunned and teased
by foreigners about mathematical things, or to be thought by our
own people to be trifling away my time about them, when I should
be about the King’s business.” 4 This reference, to being teased by
foreigners, is meaningless unless it refers to this problem sent by
Leibniz and Bernoulli. Why should he take the time from the
King’s business for it, and yet rebuke Flamsteed about the lunar
problem in which he was deeply interested? The answer is per¬
fectly simple; Newton suspected the problem had been devised and
sent to him to prove, by his inability to solve it, that his fluxions was
not the general and powerful method he claimed it to be. And, by
exerting his matchless powers, he routed his adversaries and vin¬
dicated himself.

It can be shown easily that Newton’s suspicion was justified.
Bernoulli had proposed the problem to illustrate the unique power
of the new calculus; the only solutions were sent in by Leibniz and
de l’Hopital, and they had naturally used that analysis. From 1696
to 1699, the correspondence of Leibniz and Bernoulli 5 is full of refer¬
ences to this problem and of their speculations about its success as
a test case. Leibniz proposes to name the curve the Tachystoptota,
but is told that it is to be called the Brachystochrone. He surmises
that solutions could be expected only from l’Hopital, James Ber¬
noulli, and Newton, to whom Hudde might have been added if he
had not too long laid aside his mathematical meditations. They
show their anxiety lest the solutions will not prove the necessity of
the use of the calculus, and when one comes anonymously from Eng-

\ Turnor, p. 161. Also, the Portsmouth Collection. 4 Bailv. d i 66

5 Commerc. Phil., Leib. et Bern., passim.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

57 1

land they both guess it to be from Newton, “tanquam ex ungue
leonem.” They are chagrined by this upset of their plan, and they
discuss how closely the methods of fluxions and the calculus agree;
finally, Leibniz writes to explain their differences so far as he can
determine them from Wallis’s short exposition of his rival’s work.

Since Bernoulli’s answer to this letter contains the first accusation,
that he believed Newton was indebted to their work, it is important
to quote from it at some length: “Wallis explains Newton’s method
in very few words; yet as I understand them, it by no means differs
in substance [in re neutiquam] from the differential calculus, as
Newton himself acknowledges in his Principia, page 254. What in
the one is called a differential, in the other is a fluxion, and what is
called an integral [summa], is there a fluent. And the strength of
his method, as also of the differential calculus, rests on the two
problems: Given fluent quantities, to find their fluxions; and on the
other hand, Given fluxions, to find their fluents. Instead of your
letter, d, to designate a first differential, or fluxion, he uses a dot over
the symbol. Thus dx is x, ddx is x, etc. Otherwise the method of
procedure is the same for both, so that I do not know whether
Newton had developed his method till after he had seen your cal¬
culus; especially since, from the passage cited, I see that you had
communicated your calculus to him, before he had published his
method.” 6 Thus, they satisfied themselves that the problem had
been a test of the power of the calculus, and Newton, by solving it,
had shown that his method was similar to theirs. The reason why
they were the same, Bernoulli suggests, was because Newton had
benefited by knowing Leibniz’s work. Bernoulli and Leibniz were
to regret that they had aroused Newton to action, and still more that
they had fostered the poisonous idea of his plagiarism. He was justi¬
fied in his suspicion that the problem had been sent to test his claims,
and nothing was more certain to arouse him from his indifference
than thus to touch his personal pride. He laid aside the King’s busi¬
ness and struck back at them; by solving the problem at a sitting, he
performed an incredible feat, and proved that his unmatchable
mathematical powers were as vigorous as ever. He had forsaken
mathematics not because his power had failed, but because the sub¬
ject had ceased to interest him.

Leibniz seems, at this time, to have lost his head completely, for
he took the unfortunate step, in 1699, of publishing in the Leipzig

6 Commerc. Phil. Leib. et Bern., Vol. I, p. 190.

57 2

ISAAC NEWTON

Acts a review of the solutions of Bernoulli’s problem which he
heralded as a triumph for his own calculus. In the article, he told
of his prophecy to Bernoulli that it could not be solved except by the
aid of his earlier inventions. And, in fact, only those, he boasted, had
solved it who had penetrated sufficiently into the mysteries of his
calculus; they were the two Bernoullis, de l’Hopital, and Newton;
of other possible contestants, Huygens had recently died and Hudde
had abandoned mathematical studies. “These I repeat, that it may
not seem as if I despised those excellent men who either had no
desire or no time to occupy themselves with our inventions.” Thus,
to publish to the world that Newton was his pupil was more than
the English mathematicians could stomach. The chance to take their
revenge on Leibniz fell to Fatio.

If one depends only on the biographies of Newton, the reason why
Fatio undertook his defense and attacked Leibniz is not at all clear,
for the fact is baldly stated as if it were an act of pure loyalty. But
the causes, leading to his explosion of resentment, go back several
years; and it is evident, from the correspondence of Leibniz and
Huygens, that he was giving two blows for himself to one for New¬
ton. He had gone to England in 1687 to live and had been made
a Fellow of the Royal Society the same year. In 1690-1691, he
paid a visit to Huygens, at The Hague, whom he had met the
year before he went to England. 7 While he was in Holland, he
showed Huygens a new mathematical work on tangents and quad¬
ratures of his own which greatly interested Leibniz also as he was
working in the same field. As a result, the correspondence of
Leibniz and Huygens mentions Fatio frequently, and they both ex¬
press a high appreciation of his ability. 8 Leibniz offers to help him;
and it is proposed to exchange their notes on the subject by the
mediation of Huygens. While they are extremely complimentary to
each other, it is easily seen that Leibniz adopts the tone of the men¬
tor, Fatio resents the idea that his method is inferior; and each fears
to expose his incomplete manuscript lest an advantage be given to
the other. Finally, Huygens suspected how the matter stood and

j-j Fr ^ster, T P* 37 > states that, except for a visit to Switzerland in 1699-1701, he
did not leave England and so overlooked the important stay in Holland. Huygens wrote to
Leibmz on 21 April, 1691; (Cf. Brief weeks* von Leib. Ed., by Gerhardt, Vol. II, p. 647)

Mr : Fatl ° 1S ^ here ’ and on 16 November, he wrote that Fatio had left two months
previously for Eng and. Newton also refers to Fatio’s visit to Holland in a letter to Locke

(Oct 28, 1690): I suppose Mr. Falio [sic] is in Holland, for I have nothing from him for
the hair year. Loc\e s Life, I, p. 404.

8 Briefwechsel von Leib., Vol. II, pp. 603-727, passim .

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

573

wrote to Leibniz, “You do not believe you will profit much by his
method, he does not greatly desire yours.”

Fatio, towards the end of the year, 1691, returned to England, exas¬
perated by what he believed to be Leibniz’s contemptuous attitude
towards his work. The year following, he paid a visit to Newton in
Cambridge, and deeply aroused his interest and sympathy. It is easy
to guess that they discussed his work on tangents, and what Leibniz
was accomplishing with the calculus. Also we may suppose Newton
explained his method of fluxions and referred to their former cor¬
respondence.

After Newton moved to London, their intimacy increased. Be¬
sides their common interest in the Royal Society, Fatio had be¬
come an eager disciple of the Newtonian philosophy, and he
boasted that he had mastered the Principia more thoroughly than
anyone else; so thoroughly, indeed, that he hoped to edit a second
and improved edition. Besides their intellectual interests which drew
them together, a deeper personal sympathy had strengthened the
tie; the young man had sought Newton’s help in his religious doubts
and had been comforted when he was ill and thought he was in
danger of death. He gives the impression of having been of a
neurotic temperament and afflicted with doubts which he stilled by
joining the mystical sect of the Camisards. He became their secre¬
tary and had sufficient influence on Newton to excite in him “a
strong inclination to go and hear these prophets, and was restained
from it, with difficulty, by some of his friends, who feared he might
be infected by them as Fatio had been.” 9 The relations between
Newton and Fatio became so intimate as to have been a matter of
comment even on the continent. Leibniz and his friends frequently
couple their names together as if they held their ideas in common,
and as if Fatio’s influence were harmful. Thus, Leibniz wrote to
Huygens, in 1694, that Newton and Fatio persisted in believing in
the corpuscular theory of light and ascribed the cause of gravitation
to the pressure of an aethereal fluid.

Fatio and Huygens maintained a correspondence, in which Fatio
evidently expressed his resentment towards Leibniz and his belief
that he was not the inventor of the calculus. Thus, Huygens warned
Leibniz that trouble was brewing: “Fatio believes Mr. Newton
knows on this subject [the calculus] both all that he, and all that
you, Monsieur, have ever found and even more, and also that he will

9 Spence’s Anecdotet.

574

ISAAC NEWTON

publish a tract on the subject.” This is the first intimation that
Newton had been persuaded to publish an account of his fluxions,
and the persuasion very possibly came from Fatio. 10 This news
brought the following sarcastic reply from Leibniz: U I am obliged
to M. Fatio who offers me his methods of tangents, but believing
that I have gone almost to the bottom of it, I would not wish to give
him the trouble. I am seeking a more general method, which will
apply to the reduction of transcendental curves, and I have made a
beginning in that direction. I am not surprised to learn that Mr.
Newton has gone far in the subject. But still each follows his own

path, I perhaps have found one, with which he is not yet ac¬
quainted.”

It is evident that Fatio had a personal resentment against Leibniz
and had become a hot partisan of Newton. He had been working
for some time on Bernoulli’s test problem of the Brachistochrone and
on the solid of least resistance to motion in a fluid. His work was
now ready for the press 12 and it gave him a convenient opportunity

to revenge himself and Newton on Leibniz. For this purpose he in¬
serted the following passage:

The distinguished Leibniz may perchance enquire from whom
this calculus, which I use, may have been learned. At all events,
its general principles, and very many of its rules, i invented by
my OWN exertions, about the month of April and the following

Option i jot' UndCr thC dde ° f DC Quadratura was Published as an appendix to the

n * lF t tK \ 1S a Person who aroused very different opinions. I have collected the following
,• S f ab ? Ut K im ' Bre wster (Vol. II, p. 37) calls him an eminent mathematician and favours
1m for his advocacy of Newton. Guhrauer always refers to him in most contemptuous terms

Ect Ed Z n m °r ° £ .. h p iS att f k ° n Ldbniz to wounded vanity. Lefor? (CoZ™.
tpist Ed. Biot, p. 224) says: Fatio deserves as a juster title the qualification of rogue, which

Keifi gave so liberally to the editors of the Leipzig Acts [Leibniz, Bernoulli, et al .] in the
effusions of a private correspondence with Newton. ... He was successively a conspirator,
a common informer, geometer, prophet, condemned and exposed in the pillory. It is regret¬
table that Newton should have accepted, and perhaps solicited such an auxiliary.” While in
London he taught mathematics at the Spitalfields School. The Camisards, or French prophets,
which he joined, were fanatical believers in prophecy and miracles accomplished by women
an guls afflicted with epilepsy. After they were expelled from France many of them emi¬
grated to England.. Unscrupulous men preyed on the weakness of the women and Hearne
relates an indecent incursion made into Oxford by one of their bands. According to Spence
he received in a heavenly inspiration the knowledge that an ethereal fluid was the cause of
gravitation which Newton also believed.. His connection with the Camisards came to an ig¬
nominious end, in 1707, when he was stood in the pillory at Charing Cross for terrifying the
people by his prophecies. He spent the rest of his life in Worcester, where he died in 1753.

Nicolaii Fatii Duillierii R. S. S. lineae brevissimi descensus investigate geometrica du¬
plex. Cui addita est investigate solidi rotundi, in quod minima fiat resistentia. Londini:
1099. . . . The passage quoted is translated by me from the extract in the Commerc. Epist.
Ed. Biot, p. 223. Brewster (Vol. II, p. 39) also translates the same passage, but he certainly
softened its terms.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

575

months of the year 1687, and during the succeeding years. At the
time I thought no one, except myself, used that kind of a calculus.
Nor would it have been less known by me, if Leibniz had not then
been born. And so he may brag of other disciples but certainly not
of me. This fact will be fully established if, in the future, die letters
which passed between the distinguished Huygens and me are made
public. But I am now fully convinced by the evidence itself on the
subject that Newton is the first inventor of this calculus, and the
earliest by many years; whether Leibniz, its second inventor, may
have borrowed anything from him, I should rather leave to the
judgement of those who had seen the letters of Newton, and his
original manuscripts. Neither the more modest silence of Newton,
nor the unremitting vanity of Leibniz to claim on every occasion the
invention of this calculus for himself, will deceive anyone who will
investigate, as I have investigated, those records.”

By this insulting attack, Fatio stood out as the eager defender of
Newton’s reputation; but it is rather a vicious attack on Leibniz be¬
cause of his treatment towards himself. The personal animus, be¬
hind his feeling of hatred, was his chagrin because Leibniz had form¬
erly treated his claim to the discovery of a general method with in¬
difference, and had later omitted his name from the list of dis¬
tinguished mathematicians who could be expected to solve Bernoul¬
li’s test problem by the calculus. The conclusion of the passage can
be interpreted as a thinly veiled charge of plagiarism, under the
politer term of borrowing. 13 This is the first time that the accusa¬
tion had been made openly on either side. It is true, Leibniz had in¬
ferred in his article that Newton had been aided in the later de¬
velopment of fluxions by his more systematic calculus, but he never
denied that his rival was the first inventor of a calculus; there is a
real distinction between the two statements, since the first involves
legitimate aid and the second, plagiary.

The question whether Fatio’s attack was made entirely on his own
initiative, or whether Newton and his circle knew about it and collab¬
orated with him, is a difficult point to decide. 14 It seems hardly pos-

Brewster comments thus: “Strong as these expressions are, they cannot be regarded as
charging Leibniz with plagiarism. He is styled second inventor, the title with which he, on
many occasions, expressed himself satisfied, and he is blamed only for everywhere ascribing
the invention to himself” (Vol. II, p. 40). If the passage had been directed against Brew¬
ster, would he not have used insulting, rather than strong, to describe these expiessions, and
would he not have known that he had been charged with plagiarism?

14 Guhrauer held that Newton prompted the attack of Fatio. But Brewster notes that he
inspected all the manuscripts of Newton and did not find ‘the slightest evidence in support

576

ISAAC NEWTON

sible that Fatio would have acted as a spokesman for the honour of

nglish science without the knowledge, and even connivance, of his
friends; his vanity, if not his caution, would lead him to read his
declaration to those who were equally hot against Leibniz. On the
other hand, it was contrary to Newton’s fixed habit to take an active
part in an altercation. His early dealings with his critics through
the medium of Collins and Oldenburg and his refusal to read the
pre ace to the second edition of the Pnncipia by Cotes, point to the
probability that he now refused to read what Fatio had written in his
defense. But I do not believe that anyone, who knew him well
would dare to defend him in such a manner without previously ob¬
taining his consent. There are also grounds for believing that New¬
ton was not pleased with the form Fatio’s vindication took, as
Bernoulli refers to a rumour of a grave quarrel between them. I

think, myself, that he would also be offended by the author’s undue
emphasis on his own achievements.

Leibniz was indignant over what he declared to be an unwar-
ranted attack He wrote to his friends that Newton was ignorant of
the affair and would vindicate him, since he had acknowledged in
the Pnncipia the independent discovery of the calculus. But, when
Newton maintained a haughty silence, Leibniz published a defense
of his conduct in the Leipzig Acts, in which he dismissed the charges
as emanating from a boorish and jealous young man. Fatio at¬
tempted to publish an answer, but the editors declined to accept it
on the principle that the journal was not a proper medium for
personal disputes.

After this the controversy subsided for five years. The indirect
cause of its revival, and the beginning of its virulent phase, was the
publication, in 1704, of Newton’s Optics. He took that opportunity
to add two mathematical tracts 15 to the main body of the work. In
the preface to this first edition of the book, he inserted the following
passage to explain his reason for including these tracts: “In a letter
written to M. Leibniz in the year 1676, and published by Dr. Wallis
I mentioned a method by which I had found some general theorems’
about squaring curvilinear figures [i. e. finding their areas] on

C '’ a j R '-‘ "! lk . h d( f rv / S th . e severcst ^Probation.” The attention of the reader hardlv

an,l n, t lTv° 1Cd “ 'j" fact . that N =wton may have prompted the attack, wholly or partly
ancUot have preserved a written record. Both opinions are really guesses.

„„„/ r , aCtatUS ‘ "° de s P ec l ebus 0/ magnitudine figurarum curvilinearum, ist Tractatus de
quadrature curvarum; ad. Enumerate Unearum term ordinis. The tract De quadrature iLbe

la£ P e U dS: ofTeTr' "T™ si I“ by NeWt0 ”' ^iWSd »

cations or the Optics as being of an extraneous character.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

577

comparing them with the conic sections, or other the simplest figures
with which they might be compared. And some years ago I lent out
a manuscript containing such theorems; and having since met with
some things copied out of it, I have on this occasion made it public.

The reference to matter purloined from a manuscript refers to
Leibniz. Even in the earlier days Newton felt that Leibniz had
found out more of his work than he admitted; and as time went on
he became more and more convinced that Leibniz had in some way
got the key to his calculus while he was in England. The following
passage, from a paper in the Portsmouth Collection which, I believe,
has never been published, is important as a confirmation of this
suspicion:

“Mr. Collins, having received from me and Mr. James Gregory
several series for squaring the circle and conic sections, was very
free in communicating them to the mathematicians both at home
and abroad in the years 1670-1- and 2, and Mr. L. was in London in
the beginning of the year 1673 and went from thence to Paris in the
end of February, carrying with him Mercator s Loganthmotechma
along with him and kept a correspondence with Mr. Oldenburg till
June following about arithmetical questions.

“Upon the news of Mr. James Gregory’s death he wrote for a col¬
lection of Gregory’s paper and the derivation of my series meaning
my method of finding them and promised Mr. Oldenburg a reward
for my method and told him that Mr. Collins could help him to it.
I suppose he meant my Analysis per series numero terminorum
infinitas. For that was the only paper in which I had sent my

method of series to Mr. Collins.”

It is an extraordinary fact that, from the time of Newton to the
present day, nearly everyone, who has treated the subject, has either
accused Leibniz of plagiarism or has, even when defending him,
left his reputation to some extent tarnished. He, himself, stated that
his first idea of the calculus came to him suddenly when reading
a little book by Pascal written, under the pseudonym of Dettonville,
as letters to Carcavi. As more and more of Leibniz s early papers are
published, we find that his statements about the sources of his in¬
vention are true, however much he may have twisted the truth when
defending himself. Thus, Dietrich Mahnke has recently examined
his unpublished papers, and states that the notes which Leibniz made
when he was reading Pascal’s Traite des Sinus are still among his

578

ISAAC NEWTON

method S,1 ° W b ’ S gro P ings towards his more general

An anonymous review of Newton’s two mathematical tracts was
published in the Leipzig Acts for January, 1704/5. After criticising

the mathematical contents, the following passage was given in an
appendix:

The vei y ingenious author precedes the discussion of the quadra¬
ture of curves with a brief Preface. In order that this Introduction
may be better understood, the following facts should be known.
When any quantity increases continuously, as for example a line
increases by the flow of the point which describes it, those momen-
taneous increments are called differences, that is between the quan¬
tity w ich was before and that which has been produced by means
of the momentaneous mutation. And hence has arisen the differential
ca cu us and its converse the integral calculus. The elements of this

w-m 1 h T ave L been gl , ven t0 the P ublic b y inventor Dr. Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz in these Acts, and its various uses have been shown

a . nd T by Dr , s - brothers Bernoulli, and by Dr. the Marquis de
Hopital. Instead of the Leibnizian differences, then, Dr. Newton

e ^K S ; m d ha$ aIwa ys employed, fluxions [adhibet, semperque
adhibuit, Fluxiones], which are very much the same as the augments

of fluents produced in the least equal intervals of time; and these
fluxions he has used elegantly in his Mathematical Principles of
Nature and m other later publications, just as Honoratus Fabri, in

his Synopsis of Geometry substituted [substituitl progressive mo¬
tions for the method of Cavalieri.” 17 J P g

There is no doubt that Newton, who immediately suspected Leib¬
niz to be the author of the review, took the passage to be a direct
and cowardly accusation of plagiarism. Besides the account in the
Portsmouth Collection which Brewster published, I found more than
a dozen other articles all bearing on the same subject as if it had be-

is Profemr^hiM.” H^TcSn thMUibnlz" 5 "”'; L’ lJ- 35-“—The latest defender of Leibniz

in th I^TclttrclpisT As ,*Sf Leipzig Ac,s as published verbatim

ton’s wrath and on which he based his counter-attack, I ^bmited

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

579

come an idee fixe with him. In every one of these papers, his bitter¬
ness against Leibniz is directed against this article in the Leipzig
Acts: For example: “There is some ambiguity in the words, but the
most proper sense is that I always used fluxions instead of the differ¬
ences of Mr. Leibniz. And is not this to make the readers believe
that I always knew the differential method of Mr. Leibniz and in¬
vented the method of fluxions by using fluxions instead of differences ?
This gave occasion to Mr. Keill to represent, on the contrary, that Mr.
Leibniz used his differences instead of my fluxions. And if this dero¬
gates from the candor of Mr. Leibniz, the contrary derogates from my
candor, and that unjustly.”

Till now he had let others defend his reputation, but from this time
he directed the attack, usually under cover of others’ names. He had
no scruples about using any weapons as if a man, who would reflect on
his personal honour, had put himself without the pale of the law;
he met Leibniz’s false statements with chicane; he never forgot,
nor ever spared, his enemy even after his death; but he did forget
that Fatio had accused Leibniz first of plagiarism, and he had said
nothing.

If Newton, himself, admitted there was some ambiguity in Leib¬
niz’s words, 18 we may be sure that writers on this controversy will
take opposite sides. The Committee in the Commercium Episto-
licum give, in a foot-note, their interpretation to be that Newton
substituted fluxions for the differences of Leibniz in the same man¬
ner as Fabri had substituted progressive motion for the method of
Cavalieri; that is, Leibniz was the first author of this method and
Newton took the same from Leibniz by substituting fluxions for
differences. English writers down to, and including, Brewster take
the same view. De Morgan, who criticised Brewster’s Life of Newton
so severely and who, in a series of brilliant essays, was the first Eng-

and checked their translation with my own. I especially asked for the implied significance of
the words in brackets. Brewster (Vol. II, p. 41) gives a free and sufficiently accurate state¬
ment of that portion of the passage. He follows this with the Latin text of the whole pas¬
sage which he found copied in Newton’s MSS., with some inserted explanatory words. Oddly
enough there are several errors in this text which may have been due to carelessness by New¬
ton, but they are such grammatical mistakes as to make parts of it untranslatable. I may men¬
tion here, as an aside, that Thos. Hearne, in his Diaries, stated that Newton “understands not
one bit of classical learning, nor can he, as I hear, write Latin, but is beholden to others to do
that for him.” He repeats this on two other occasions, but there is certainly no truth in the
sneer.

18 The passage in the Leipzig Acts which raised the storm is “Pro difTerentiis igitur Leib-
nitianis D. Newtonus adhibet, semperque adhibuit, Fluxiones, . . . iisque turn in suis Princ.
Nat. Math, turn in aliis postea editis eleganter est usus, quemadmodum et Honoratus Fabrius
in sua Synopsi Geometrica, motuum progressus Cavallerianae methodo substituit.”

580

ISAAC NEWTON

lishman to break down the legends of perfection which had been
created about Newton, says flatly that it “was by no means a charge
of plagiarism.” 10 But we should remember that De Morgan was the
first to combat the national idea that Leibniz was all black and
Newton, pure white. While his acute and unwearied research
brought many unknown facts to light, he was at times, carried away
by scorn of the injustice towards Leibniz.

On the other side, Leibniz denied in 1716, in a letter to the Coun¬
tess de Kilmansegg, that the passage meant that Newton had plagi¬
arised from him. 20 And again, in the same year, he wrote to the
Abbe Conti more fully; “the Editors of the Commercium Episto-
licum had,” he declared, “interpreted the meaning to be that New-
tonus Fluxiones differentiis Leibnitianis substituit. That is the
malicious interpretation of a man who seeks a quarrel. It seems that
the author [i. e., Leibniz himself] of the words, inserted in the
Leipzig Acts, expressly wished to avoid that meaning by selecting
the words, adhibet semperque adhibuit , in order to insinuate it was
not after seeing my differences, but before then that he made
use of fluxions. And I defy anyone to give any other meaning to
the words semperque adhibuit; instead of which substituit was used
when speaking of what Pere Fabri had done after Cavalieri.” 21

Most of the continental historians, more or less, actively side with
Leibniz For instance, Rosenberger, one of the most thorough and
reliable critics of Newton’s work and character, gives as his opinion
that Leibniz, by publishing a pointed comparison between Newton
and himself, committed an impolitic and foolish act, but any un¬
biased person must deny that he planned a deliberate attack against
Newton s services to science. 22 On the other hand Guhrauer, the
biographer of Leibniz, holds that the author has point-blank, and
without any subterfuge, accused Newton of plagiarism. The author¬
ship of the review aroused much discussion and Leibniz persistently
denied that he was responsible for it. Guhrauer, however, settled the
question; by the aid of Ludovici, the Director of the Pauline Library
in Leipzig, the original manuscript of the review was discovered, and
it bore the signature of Leibniz. 23

While there may be ambiguity in the passage, it seems to me to
be, in fact, an accusation of plagiarism. The possible ambiguity lies
in the meaning of the phrase, " adhibet semperque adhibuit, ” which

19 Essays on Newton, p. 27, f.-n. 20 Commerc. Epist. Ed. Biot et Lefort, p. 243.

21 Ibid., p. 244. 22 Rosenberger, p. 473. 23 Guhrauer, p. 311.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

581

can safely be translated, employs and has always employed ; and
“adhibuit” has practically the same meaning as “ sub stituit” used
further on, in spite of Leibniz’s specious explanation that the two
words were used to express a difference of implication. What is to
be understood by “semperque adhibuit’’ will depend rather on the
time when Newton first employed fluxions for differences. Since
none of the details of his work on fluxions was known till after the
publication of the calculus, the reader would assume that he had
always trailed after Leibniz from the beginning. Priority of dis¬
covery has always been based on priority of publication, or at least
on documentary evidence dated in the presence of a witness, and
Leibniz’s inference is apparent. And this is a proper custom for,
without it, there would be no guaranty against false claims. Few
great discoveries have been made which have not been guessed, or
have not been worked on, by others. Even granting as a fact, which
is rarely denied, that Newton discovered first the method of an
infinitesimal calculus, he had only himself to blame for losing the
undisputed fruits of his invention by his dilatoriness. Several of his
friends, and especially Wallis, urged him in vain to publish, as they
foresaw this danger. And Newton, himself, on another occasion
took the position which he now opposed. When he published his
discovery of the universal law of gravitation, others, and especially
Hooke who had in fact written a paper on the subject, claimed a
share in the discovery. Newton’s letter to Halley will surely be re¬
membered in which he bitterly complained that Hooke, who having
merely guessed there was such a law, was now trying to rob him of
the fruits of his labour although he had first successfully demon¬
strated and published the law.

If there be left any doubt whether Leibniz meant to imply that
Newton had been helped, (not perhaps in grasping the original idea,
but in devising a nomenclature, and in developing the idea into a
systematic method), it must be abandoned when we consider his
comparison of Newton and himself with the well-known case of
Fabri and Cavalieri. Fabri knew Cavalieri’s work and changed it
in no essential particulars when he published it as his own. He had
greatly damaged his reputation by the publication, in 1669, of his
Synopsis of Geometry which would have been forgotten, as a work of
little value, except for its mention in this connection. 24 And Leibniz
had instanced this flagrant case of plagiarism by an insignificant

24 Cantor, Gesch. der Math., Vol. Ill, p. 293.

582

ISAAC NEWTON

Fabri as a parallel to the case of the incomparable Newton. One
might forgive the bad taste shown by a reviewer anonymously
praising his own achievements; one might excuse the temptation to
make a counter-charge of plagiarism; but to place Newton on a level
with Fabri was an outrageous insult. There is only one possible
explanation of Leibniz’s conduct in publishing this review; the same
reckless insinuation, which had been made about him by Newton’s

intimate friend, Fatio, had spread its evil contagion over all the par¬
ticipants.

In spite of the anger which Leibniz’s review aroused, no public
notice was taken of it for three years; Fatio dropped permanently
out of sight, and the controversy was reopened even more bitterly by
John Keill, who became from that time the chief defender of the
English cause. Keill, who was a Scotchman, had gone with James
Gregory to Oxford as a student, and had thus early been inducted
into the Newtonian philosophy. In 1708, he was a Master of Arts
and had completed a paper on The Laws of Centripetal Forces. This
paper, he addressed as a letter from Christ Church to Halley, who
was Savilian Professor of Geometry in Oxford; and under his aus¬
pices it was published in the Philosophical Transactions for Septem-
ber-October of that year. We need not discuss this work except to
cite the following passage which was evidently inserted as a counter¬
blast to Leibniz \ All these [laws] follow from that very celebrated
arithmetic of fluxions which without any doubt Dr. Newton in¬
vented first, as can readily be proved by any one who reads the letters
about it published by Wallis; yet the same arithmetic afterwards,
under a changed name and method of notation, was published by
Dr. Leibniz in the Acta EruditorumT 25

There can be little doubt that the offensive passage was known to
Halley and others; but Newton was not involved in its preparation,
and was annoyed when it was published. 26 The volume of the

Commerc. Eptst. Ed. Biot., pp. i 7 i and 228.—Of the three accusing passages Brewster
claims that Fatio s was not a charge of plagiarism, as Leibniz is allowed to be the second in-

hrhnirl bU th h t e T d0 K S n ° t mentlon the scarcel y veiled charge that the invention was borrowed*
he holds that Leibnizs review was a virtual, but ambiguous, charge of plagiarism* he states

that if the reader finds Keill retorts the charge of plagiarism he must Idmil k was not
coarsely or insidiously made He indignantly wrote that “who dares accuse a man like New-
on, or indeed any man holding a fair character in society, of the odious crime of plagiarism,
places himself without the pale of the ordinary courtesies of life, and deserves to have the

himself -” But ’ of the wickedness of the charges made against
Leibniz by Fatio and Keill, he writes not a word.—As for myself, I can see little difference in
the three accusations, except that Fatio’s came first and Leibniz exonerated Newton of any
S 20" m an ^ °^ Ber two charges were retorts discourteous.

Cf . Edleston, p. lxxn; where a detailed summary is given of the minutes of the Royal
Society pertaining to the controversy. y

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

583

Transactions containing Keill’s article was not published till 1710;
and, as Leibniz was then in Berlin, the copy sent to him by Secretary
Sloane was further delayed. Thus, it was not till March 4th, 1710/n
that Leibniz wrote to Sloane to complain of this second attack on
his integrity. He mentioned in the letter, that Fatio had attacked
him first, and that he had taught him a lesson; and both Sloane,
himself, as he knew from his letters, and Newton, so far as he knew,
had disapproved of that attack. And now, he complained, Keill
seems to have renewed the same inept accusation of plagiarism.
“That it is false no one knows better than Newton. Assuredly I had
not heard the name of the calculus of fluxions by report, or had seen
with these eyes the characters which Dr. Newton used, before they
were published in Wallis’s Works. . . . Yet I do not believe Dr.
Keill to be a calumniator, but rather I think he offended more from
rash judgement than from malice.” He concluded by demanding
Keill to testify publicly that he did not mean what his words seemed
to imply.

The letter would have rung truer if it had not been preceded by
Leibniz’s anonymous review. When it was read to the Royal Society,
Newton, as I mentioned, was irritated by Keill’s attack. However,
Keill sent him a letter with the Leipzig Acts containing the review,
and later described at a meeting of the Society the unjust treatment
accorded him; then Newton, from the Chair, gave a short history of
the fluxions, the date of its discovery, and the letters published by
Wallis. After a discussion, Keill was desired to draw up an account
of the matter in dispute and to set it right. Further discussions fol¬
lowed at later meetings, and finally his reply, addressed to Secretary
Sloane, was read and ordered to be printed in the Transactions as
soon as Leibniz’s reply should have been received. The author’s
importance had greatly increased since the publication of his scien¬
tific article, as he had been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and
Savilian professor of Astronomy in Oxford. While he gave no dis¬
tinction to either position, he proved himself to be an eager partisan
and a keen polemical writer. To him was given a leading part in
the defense of Newton, but after the publication of this letter he
became rather the mouth-piece than the originator of ideas, for
Newton really furnished the materials and really directed the cam¬
paign. Brought up in an atmosphere of violent political strife, Keill
adopted the fashionable tone of the day, and his correspondence,
with its constant reference to rogues and the shameless actions of his

584

ISAAC NEWTON

opponents, is not attractive. His flattery of Newton makes one realise
the temptation to become dictatorial which would have been difficult
for even the most modest man to withstand.

While Keill’s second letter 27 of May 24th, 1711, to Leibniz, re¬
views the question of priority in a way to give the credit to Newton,
the former passage against Leibniz is softened, and one suspects that
the Fellows had counselled more moderation. Thus he explained:
“I acknowledge I had said that the arithmetic of fluxions had been
invented by Dr. Newton and, with a changed name and method of
notation, had been published later by Leibniz. But I do not wish
these words to be so understood as if I contended that either the
name which Newton had given to his method, or the form of the
notation which he had used was known to Leibniz; but I meant only
that Dr. Newton had been the first inventor of the arithmetic of the
fluxions, or of the differential calculus. Also I meant that, in the
two letters written to Oldenburg and sent by him to Leibniz, there
was given information sufficiently obvious to so perspicuous a genius;
whence Leibniz derived \hausit\ the principles of his calculus or at
least could have derived them.” The remainder of the letter, which
reiterates the charge that Leibniz had published nothing before the
receipt of the Oldenburg letters, is undoubtedly intended to impress
on the mind of the reader the suspicion that he did get the clue to
the calculus from them. This matter has already been discussed and
it is generally agreed that Leibniz did not get, and could not have
got, his discovery from the correspondence. The letter closes with
the compliment that anyone should be satisfied with the glory
which the development of so noble an invention had given to him.

While it was a lame and incomplete apology, Leibniz could, and
should, have accepted it; and have left to posterity the decision. The
development of the calculus by the work of his school had so far
outstripped the fluxions that his great reputation was secure. But he
smarted under the feeling of injustice; he was badly counselled by
Bernoulli, who had given his opinion that Newton was indebted to
him; and he decided to put the decision to the test of a public in¬
vestigation.

In a letter 28 to Secretary Sloane of date December 29th, 1711,
Leibniz claimed that Keill had again attacked his candour and worse
than before; and, in a sense, it is true that the explanation as given
did strengthen the accusation. He claims that it was done without

27 Commerc. Epist., p. 172. 28 Commerc. Epist., p. 181.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

585

Newton’s authority or consent; there, of course, he was quite in
error, and his complaint against the author was indirectly one
against Newton. It was in vain, he wrote, that the anonymous re¬
view in the Leipzig Acts had been cited as “I do not find that any
injustice had been done to anyone, but rather each one had been
given due credit.” As this matter involved a knowledge of events
long ago and documents which must be examined, it could not be
left, he declared, to a man learned, but young, and thus an advocate
too little acquainted with what had happened before his time. 29
And he concluded by requesting the Society to repress “such vain
and vociferous clamours.”

It was a tactical blunder for Leibniz to appeal to the Royal Society.
In the first place, he was really attacking its President since, contrary
to his idea, Newton was responsible for Keill’s second attack; and,
in the next place, the government under Bolingbroke was hostile to
the Hanoverian succession and everything connected with that in¬
terest. He should have known that the English Society would de¬
fend its President and would find in his favour; and if the conditions
had been reversed does one doubt that a German commission would
have sided with Leibniz? On receipt of Leibniz’s first letter, de¬
manding a public investigation, the Society discussed what their
procedure should be at almost every meeting from March to the
following January. Newton, as has been remarked, was opposed to
continuing the dispute, but after he became acquainted with Leib¬
niz’s Review and his two letters, he became passionately determined
to manage his defense. At the meeting of 6 March, 1711/12, a Com¬
mittee was appointed to examine all the documents, letters, etc., in
the possession of the Society which pertained to the matter, to
publish them, and to draw up a report of their findings. The finished
Report was read on April 24, 1712 and during the following January,
it was published with the title Commercium Epistolicum . 30 The
names of the Committee appear nowhere in the report; all that was

29 The phrase is: Cum homine docto, sed novo, et parum perito rerum ante-acturum cogni-
tore. Brewster (Vol. II, p. 46) renders it in this inexcusable fashion: “He brands Keill with
the odious appellation of an upstart, and one little acquainted with the circumstances of the
case.”

30 Commercium Epistolicum D. Johannis Collins et aliorum de Analysi Promota: Jussu
Societatis Regiae. In lucem editum. Londini. Typis Pearsonianis, Anno MDCCXII. As the
Report was printed in a very limited edition and was not for sale, it soon became scarce and
this quarto edition is almost impossible to find; in 1722, a second edition in octavo, purport¬
ing to be an exact reprint, was published, and copies are not so rare. In 1856, Biot and Lefort
edited an edition, giving comparative readings of the two editions, critical notes, extracts of
other pertinent documents, and a critique of the controversy. This is a remarkably fine piece
of work and is invaluable to anyone attempting to follow this tangled history.

ISAAC NEWTON

586

known of its composition was that Newton stated, ten years later,
in the Recensio for the second edition: “Numerosus quippe consessus
erat, e viris eruditis diversarum nationum lectus and in a letter to
the Abbe Conti, in 1716, he wrote, “The materials for the Com-
mercium Epistolicum were collected and published by a numerous
committee of gentlemen of different nations.”

The names of this Committee were not known to the public till
Turnor printed, in 1806, the following minutes of the Royal Society
which pertain to the present subject: 81

“March n, 1711/12. Upon account of Mons. Leibniz’s letter to Dr.
Sloane, concerning the disputes formerly mentioned, a committee
was appointed by the Society to inspect the letters and papers relating
thereto, viz. Dr. Arbuthnot, Mr. Hill, Dr. Halley, Mr. Jones, Mr.
Machin, and Mr. Burnet, who were to make their report to the
Society.”

“1712, April 24. The Committee, appointed to inspect the papers,
letters, and books of the Society, on account of the dispute between
Mr. Leibniz and Mr. Keill, delivered in their report, which was read
as follows: etc. . ..

“To which report the Society agreed nemine contradicente, and
ordered that the whole matter from the beginning, with the extracts
of all the letters relating thereto, and Mr. Keill and Mr. Leibniz’s let¬
ters, be published with all convenient speed that may be, together
with the report of the said Committee. [The report is in the hand¬
writing of Dr. Halley.]

“Ordered, that Dr. Halley, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Machin, be desired
to take charge of the said impression (which they promised,) and
Mr. Jones to make an estimate of the charges, against the next meet¬
ing”

“1712/13. Jan. 8. Some copies of the book entitled Commercium
Epistolicum, etc. printed by the Society’s order being brought, the
President ordered one to be delivered to each person of the Commit¬
tee, appointed for that purpose, to examine it before its publication.”

The personnel of the Committee, as given by Turnor, hardly
agreed with Newton’s statement that it was numerous and of
different nations. The discrepancy was not explained till De Mor¬
gan discovered in 1846 32 that Mr. Robartes was added to it on March

31 Town and So\e of Grantham, p. 181, Extracts [1671-1713] from Journal Books of the
Royal Society relating to Sir Isaac Newton. And, in a foot-note, Turnor states that these ex¬
tracts have not previously been printed and were made by Dr. Rutty, for Mr. Conduitt, in
1728.

32 Phil. Trans., Vol. XLVI, pp. 107-109.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

587

20; M. Bonet, the Prussian Minister to England, on March 27; and
Mr. Demoivre, a French refugee, Mr. Aston, and Dr. Brook Taylor,
on April 17. Of this Committee, only two were foreigners and only
one of the two, Demoivre, was a mathematician; six were mathe¬
maticians; and seven, at least, were intimate personal friends of
Newton and Keill. It had been generally assumed that this was a
judicial committee to enquire impartially into the whole matter,
and that its report was adopted by the Society. On the contrary, its
function was to examine the archives and to defend Newton and
Keill; and this it did without giving any notice to Leibniz, still less
giving him any invitation to produce documents or to defend him¬
self. Besides the inference which can be drawn from its composition
and method of action, direct evidence of its partisanship is available.
Demoivre (who, with Aston and Brook Taylor, had only seven days
to examine the mass of documents) considered himself, according
to an intimate friend, as then drawn out of the neutrality which he
had observed before he had joined the Committee. 33 Burnet, an¬
other of the Committee, wrote to John Bernoulli in August, 1712:
“We are, at present, occupied in the Society in proving, by the orig¬
inal letters, that the method of fluxions had been known more than
seven years before M. Leibniz published anything on it, and that
M. Leibniz could have seen the principles of it at the house of a
Mr. Collins. . . .” 34 Lastly, the Royal Society, apparently, made
itself responsible for the report of this anonymous and partisan Com¬
mittee. The opposite to this opinion has been stated by Brewster
and De Morgan. 35 The origin of this grave error may be readily
shown. Leibniz wrote a letter to John Chamberlayne, 36 who later

83 Dc Morgan, Essays, p. 28.

34 Commerc. Phil, et Math. Leibniz et Bernoulli, Vol. II, p. 283..

35 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 58, supports his opinion against Weld on the grounds that the So¬
ciety "agreed to receive it, and ordered it to be printed” and on a statement of Newton to
Conti in 1716 ( Cf. Raphson, Fluxions, p. 112); "If the Royal Society have not yet given
judgement against him, it is because the Committee did not act as a jury, nor the Royal So¬
ciety as a formal court of justice. The Committee examined old letters and papers, and gave
their opinion on them alone, and left room for Mr. Leibniz to produce further evidence for
himself. And it is sufficient that the Society ordered their report, with the papers upon which
it was grounded, to be published.” Since the title page states that it was published by the
Society without any reference to an irresponsible Committee, it certainly makes itself respon¬
sible for the work. From their action of May 20, 1714, it would seem that, worried by the
effect of the book on the Continent, the members wished to hedge. It is difficult to follow
Newton’s argument that Leibniz was given an opportunity to produce his evidence. One may
suspect that the members were sick of the mess into which they had been led. Also I suspect
that the troubles which arose in the Society about this time may have come partly from this
cause.

36 John Chamberlayne was educated at Oxford and was later Chamberlain to George,
Prince of Denmark. He was elected F. R. S. in 1702 and contributed three papers to the
Transactions. He died in 1723.

588

ISAAC NEWTON

tried to act as mediator, inveighing against the Commercium Epis -
tolicum and requesting him to lay a complaint before the Society.
Chamberlayne complied with this request, but either he reported the
action of the Society erroneously or gave Leibniz a mistaken im¬
pression, for Leibniz answered: “I am obliged to you for the attempt
you made with the Royal Society. The extract of its Journal of May
20th makes known that it does not consider the report of its Com¬
mittee should pass for a decision of the Society.” 37 He also wrote to
Bernoulli that Chamberlayne had written to him and had told him,
the Society “denied it had decided the controversy.” 38 What really
happened was, the Society, on May 20th, 1714, adopted the following
resolution which certainly implies its own full responsibility:

“It was not judged proper (since this letter [from Leibniz] was
not addressed to them), for the Society to concern themselves there¬
with, nor were they desired so to do. But that if any person had
any material objection against the Commercium, or the Report of
the Committee, it might be reconsidered at any time.” 39

When the report of the Committee was read, it was approved
unanimously at an ordinary meeting of the Society and ordered to
be printed without apprising Leibniz of its findings. By this action
the Society, if it so wished, could disclaim responsibility. While the
controversy was about a purely scientific question, there is little
doubt that it served as a political document, since the health of
Queen Anne was precarious, and a desperate intrigue was in prog¬
ress to prevent the Hanoverian succession; nothing was thus easier
than to colour a personal controversy between Newton and Leibniz
with a political issue between England and Hanover. 40

The report of the Committee was published under the title of the
Commercium Epistolicum, in 1712. This original edition, in quarto,
was edited by Halley, Jones, and Machin. The book was not for sale,
but was given to important individuals and institutions. Twenty-five
copies were sent to Johnson, a bookseller at The Hague and editor

37 Des Maizeaux’s Recueil. 2d Ed., Vol. II, p. 128.

38 Com. PM. Bern, et Leib., Vol. II, p. 340.

39 Journal-book., Vol. XII, p. 481., Quoted by Weld, Hist R. S., Vol. I, p. 415, Historians
have thus followed Leibniz’s letters rather than the unpublished minutes of the Society.

40 Leibniz wrote to Bernoulli, 19 August, 1713, that an English friend had written to in¬
form him the action of the Society was not one on mathematics but one of the Tories against
the Whigs.— Commerc. Leib. et Bern., II, p. 321.—Brewster scouts this idea because Newton
was a Whig and consequently Hanoverian. But I have pointed out that he always had suf¬
ficient influence with the Tories to keep his lucrative office, and that Bolingbroke admired
him sufficiently to offer him a great pension and to be his staunch supporter during the Flam¬
steed controversy. Nor should we forget that Swift was a friend of his niece, and that Anne
knighted him.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

of the newly founded Journal Litter air e, to be distributed on the
continent. It is now thoroughly established that Newton was the
directing power behind the Committee; he chose the documents
which, though accurately copied, were extracted so as to put his
case in the most favourable light; he made a running comment in
foot-notes which interpreted obscurities in the documents, and turned
them to his own advantage; he thus directed anonymously his own
defense and laid the burden of responsibility on his friends, and on
the Society of which he was President. The evidence of his personal
direction of the Committee is to be found in his papers preserved in
the Portsmouth Collection, and also in a rough draught of a critique
on three papers of Leibniz’s which formerly belonged to Keill and
is now preserved among the Lucasian papers. Edleston, 41 who found
this paper, states that its language is in close agreement with that
used in the Commercium Epistolicum and the editors must have seen
the document or perhaps a corrected form of it.

In 1722, a second edition, which purported to be an exact reprint,
was published in octavo. A Recensio and an Ad Lectorem were pre¬
fixed. As this edition was larger and was put into the hands of
book-sellers, the reading public has had to depend on it, and did so
in the belief that the text was a verbatim reprint of the original re¬
port. The title page is an exact copy of the original, and there is no
mention of its being a second, or revised, edition. Some copies bear
the date, 1725, but it has been established that all the copies were
published in 1722, and that the false titles with the later date were
pasted over the originals. The first intimation, that the reprint con¬
tained variations from the original text, came from De Morgan,
who, in 1846, was loaned a copy of the first edition by the Royal
Society and compared the two texts. 42 In spite of De Morgan’s dis¬
closure neither Brewster or Edleston referred to it, and it was left to
Biot and Lefort to publish in their superb edition of the Commer¬
cium Epistolicum issued in 1856 at the expense of the French Gov¬
ernment, the variations in the two editions, extracts from many
documents which related to the subject, and a critical review of
the report of the Committee.

41 Edleston, p. 307.

42 “One testimony to the significance of the variantes is that of Sir D. Brewster, who holds
it wise to omit all mention of them. After my paper, which I took care he should have, and
with a full knowledge of the new work being reprinted under the old date, he calls it ‘a new
edition with notes, a general review of it and a preface of some length.’ [Vol. II, p. 75.]
He did not even give the true date (1722), but sticks by that of the second title-page (1725)*
This is of some consequence; for three years, at Newton’s age, then made a difference in the
palliation which years and infirmities may be made to give.” De Morgan, Essays, pp. 190-192.

590

ISAAC NEWTON

As for the supposed reprint of 1722, Keill was its editor, but
Newton was really responsible for it. He inserted, omitted, and
changed passages in the text; and, as it was not published till six
years after Leibniz’s death, and when the original was almost in¬
accessible, the alterations were not suspected for a century and a
quarter. The Ad Lectorem which serves as a preface, and the
Recensio which follows it, were ascribed to Keill; but they were
written by Newton. This charge was first advanced by Biot; it was
contradicted by Brewster in his first Life of Newton in 1831; and
finally established by De Morgan, in 1852, by an examination of the
style and on the authority of Dr. Wilson, a friend of Pemberton.
Finally, when Brewster was given the privilege of examining the
Portsmouth Collection he found an almost complete manuscript of
the Recensio and five or six copies of the Ad Lectorem in Newtons
own hand-writing, and retracted his former opinion.

The Recensio contains a polemic against Leibniz, and a justifica¬
tion of his own conduct, which Newton prepared in his letters ad¬
dressed to the Abbe Conti in 1716. The history of this Recensio is
a curious one. It was first written in English by Newton and pub¬
lished anonymously in the Philosophical Transactions for 1715 with
the title, “An account of the Book entitled Commercium Episto¬
licum.” It was then translated into French by Demoivre according
to Lefcrt, and sent by Keill to the Journal Litteraire where it ap¬
peared, again anonymously, in 1715-16. Finally, it was translated
by Newton into Latin, and prefixed anonymously to the second edi¬
tion of the Commercium Epistolicum. And to make his authorship
even less suspected he, indirectly in an Annotatio, attributes it to
Keill. 43 Knowing the facts of the case, as we now do, it does not seem
possible that he could have dared to write the following in the Recen -

The above account of the proof of Newton s editorship of the Commerc . Epist. and au¬
thorship of the Recensio follows the generally accepted story.. But De Morgan, Brewster,
and Lefort seem to have overlooked a contemporaneous statement which should have made
their research unnecessary. In 1719, Des Maizeaux, a friend of Newton, published a collec¬
tion of documents on the Newton-Leibniz controversy and, in a preface, he gave a summary
of its history. In a foot-note (Des Maizeaux’s Recueil, 2d edition, Amsterdam, 1740, p. lxx.)

I find the following: “To make it [Commerc. Epist .] more public, Mr. Newton prepared a
second edition in 1722 in 8vo, preceded by an Advertisement [the Ad Lectorem ] where he
gives an idea of his dispute with Mr. Leibniz. This Advertisement is followed by a Latin
Translation [the Recensio ] of the Extract of the Commercium Epistolicum, which after hav¬
ing appeared in English in the Philosophical Transactions, was then translated into French
and printed in London. . . „ This Extract was inserted in Tome VII of the Journal Lit¬
teraire. At the end of this second edition, Mr. Newton printed the Judgement of a Mathema¬
tician (Mr. Bernoulli) on the first Inventor of the fluxions or the differential calculus, with
a short refutation of what this illustrious mathematician had advanced.”

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

59 i

sio to this second edition, (p. 26): “Nemo in causa propria sibi testis
est. Iniquus admodum fuerit Judex, omniumque gentium jura concul-
caverit, qui quemquam in sua causa pro legitimo teste admiserit.” 44
Of all the regrettable events in this lamentable altercation, this is to
me far the worst. That one should thus secretly condemn himself
for self-witnessing and use it to buttress the impression that he was
being vindicated by others is a depth of hypocrisy impossible to
excuse.

We can now turn to the report of the Committee of the Royal
Society, and to present their findings more clearly, each article will
be given and then followed by a critical comment. After examining
the documents in their archives, abstracts of those portions which
were considered pertinent to the controversy were printed and the
case was summed up: “By these letters and papers we find,—

“I. That Mr. Leibniz was in London in the beginning of the year
1673, and went thence in or about March to Paris, where he kept a
correspondence with Mr. Collins by means of Mr. Oldenburg, till
about September, 1676, and then returned by London and Amster¬
dam to Hanover: And that Mr. Collins was very free in com¬
municating to able mathematicians what he had received from Mr.
Newton and Mr. Gregory.”

Comment: These are undisputed facts.

“II. That when Mr. Leibniz was the first time in London, he con¬
tended for the invention of another differential method properly so
called; and notwithstanding that he was shown by Dr. Pell that it
was Mouton’s method, persisted in maintaining it to be his own in¬
vention, by reason that he had found it by himself, without knowing
what Mouton had done before, and had much improved it. And
we find no mention of his having any other differential method
than Mouton’s, before his letter of the 21st of June 1677, which was
a year after a copy of Mr. Newton’s letter, of the 10th of December
1672, had been sent to Paris to be communicated to him; and above
four years after Mr. Collins began to communicate that letter to his
correspondents; in which letter the method of fluxions was suffi¬
ciently described to any intelligent person.”

Comment: This is a clever bit of camouflage, made in order to
predispose the reader against Leibniz, by charging him with an
earlier indiscretion. If he took his first method from Mouton, and

44 “No one is a proper witness for himself. He would be an iniquitous Judge, and would
crush under foot the laws of all the people, who would admit anyone as a lawful witness in
his own cause.”

59 2

ISAAC NEWTON

his series for finding the arc of a circle from Gregory which was
intimated in the body of the text by the anonymous commentator,
it was only natural to believe that he would take from Newton the
method of fluxions, and disguise it by a different name and notation.
Thus a feeling of suspicion was injected into the mind of the reader.

In the first place, the facts are misleading because Leibniz frankly
admitted that Dr. Pell’s criticism was correct but, as he had not seen
Mouton’s work at the time, his work had been done independently. 45
Although the question of discoveries by the method of infinite series,
such as Mouton’s, bulks so largely in the text of the Commercium
Epistolicum and in the Recensio, we should remember that it is not
germane to the controversy about the invention of the calculus.
Newton’s great work on infinite series, and his discovery of the
binomial theorem were expansions of the work of Barrow, Wallis,
and others. Leibniz never claimed to be in the same class with New¬
ton and Gregory in that field, and frequently urged Newton to con¬
tinue and publish his work. He claimed to have found only one
series (that for finding the arc of a circle from a tangent) by his own
invention, and the claim was substantiated by Huygens. 46

Next, as to the famous letter of December ioth, 1672, which the
Committee declare was sent to Leibniz and that in it “the method of
fluxions was sufficiently described to any intelligent person.” 47 The
history of this letter, its content and its dispatch to Leibniz, has al¬
ready been discussed. Even if the extract containing the example

45 In regard to the Mouton incident Leibniz had a curious lapse of memory. In his Hist,
et Origo Calc. Differ, (first published by Gerhardt, now translated and made more accessible
by Child in his Early MSS. of Leib., Chicago, 1920), Leibniz states “Pell told him that they
were not new, but that it had been recently made known by Nicolaus Mercator . . . this
made Leibniz obtain the work of Mercator.” Child notes on page 37: “What Pell told him
was that his theorems on numbers occurred in a book by Mouton entitled De diametris ap -
parentibus Solis et Lunce. Leibniz, to defend himself from a charge of plagiarism, made haste
to borrow a copy from Oldenburg and found to his relief that not only had Mouton got his
results by a different method, but that his own were more general.” The words italicised are
interesting in connection with the present accusation by the Committee.

46 In his Hist, et Origo, Leibniz points out this device of his opponents who “neither
from the Commercium Epistolicum that they have published, nor from any other source,
brought forward the slightest bit of evidence whereby it might be established that [Newton]
used the differential calculus before it was published by [Leibniz]; therefore all the accusa¬
tions that were brought against him by these persons may be treated with contempt as beside
the question. They have used the dodge of the petti-fogging advocate to divert the attention
of the judges from the matter on trial to other things, namely to infinite series. But even
in these they could bring forward nothing that could impugn his honesty, for he plainly
acknowledged the manner in which he had made progress in them.” Child, p. 57.

47 The Committee used the words “intelligent person” for their English readers, and
translated them with the word “cognitori” for foreigners. As the meaning of “cognitori”
is an advocate, or one skilled in a subject, the delicate change in significance for home
and foreign consumption is evident.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

593

published in the text by the Committee had been sent to Leibniz,
there would have been no possibility of his having received a clue
to the calculus from it. De Morgan answers this charge in the fol¬
lowing vigorous manner: 48 “We are obliged frequently to recur to
the assertion of the Committee that Newton’s example, which we
have translated, was description enough of the method of fluxions
for any intelligent person. That this, which we shall believe to be
the most reckless assertion ever made on a mathematical subject,
until some one produces its match, was solemnly put forward by the
Committee, is not in our day excuse enough for dwelling upon it.
But the sufficient excuse is that writers of note, upon the Newtonian
side of the question (Brewster, et ai .), still quote the assertion with
approbation.” But the question, whether an intelligent person could
have received a hint from the example, is academic because it is cer¬
tain beyond dispute that Leibniz never saw the example.

There are two manuscripts in the Archives of the Royal Society
which clear up the whole matter. 49 One of these, the manuscript
referred to by the Committee as the Collectio or Historiola of Col¬
lins, is entitled Extracts from Mr. Gregories Letter; it contains the
full text of Newton’s letter of December ioth, 1672, including the
problem: the other has the superscription, To Leibniz the 14th of
fune 1676 About Mr. Gregories remains; it is an abridgement of the
Collectio, and does not contain the problem on the tangent. For¬
tunately, we now know what Leibniz actually received from Olden¬
burg. From papers of Leibniz found in the Royal Library of Han¬
over and published by Gerhardt, it is certain that Oldenburg wrote
to him from London, July 2 6th, i 6 j 6 , not forwarding Collins’s Col¬
lectio, but merely describing it. He quoted the descriptive part of
Newton’s letter of December ioth, 1672, but he did not even
mention the example of the tangent which the Committee states
“sufficiently described the method of fluxions to any intelligent per¬
son.” Thus, it is difficult to explain the conduct of the Committee
in making the statement in this Article II, when they had at their
disposal the abridgement marked to be sent to Leibniz. If we must
condemn the Committee for making such a grave and inexcusable
charge against Leibniz in the edition of the Commercium of 1712,
what must we think of the editor of the reprint of 1722 (that is,

48 Essays, p. 85.

49 They were found by Edleston and commented on by him, p„ xlvii. Unfortunately his
conclusions are made to shield Newton and the Committee rather than to make clear the
significance of his discovery. Cf. De Morgan, Essays, p. 73.

594

ISAAC NEWTON

Newton) who secretly added the following sentence to the original
text “This Collectio was sent to Dr. Leibniz on June 26, 1676” ?°°

“III. That by Mr. Newton’s letter of the 13th of June 1676 it ap¬
pears, that he had the method of fluxions above five years before the
writing of that letter. And by his Analysis per Aequationes numero
Terminorum lnfinitas, communicated by Dr. Barrow to Mr. Collins
in July 1669, we And that he had invented the method before that
time.”

Comment: This section is quite disingenuous. No one, certainly
not Leibniz, had ever claimed that Newton had not invented the
method of fluxions when he claimed to have done so. The letter of
13th of June 1676 is the Epistola prior already discussed in a former
chapter. It, and the Epistola posterior of October 24th, 1676, an¬
nounce the invention of the method of fluxions. But it is generally
admitted that Leibniz could not have found a clue to the calculus
from the problems in infinite series, or from the jumble of letters,
contained in them.

As for the de Analysi, it is the opinion of mathematicians that it
does not show Newton had then developed a method which could
be called the calculus.

From the research of Gerhardt, 51 we can learn what acquaintance
Leibniz had with the De Analysi and the Collectio of Collins. Ger¬
hardt found that Leibniz acquired nothing of importance with ref¬
erence to mathematics during his first visit to London in 1673.
During the following three years he made great progress in the sub¬
ject. The letter of Oldenburg dated July 26, 1676, that is the abridge¬
ment of Collins’s Collectio, excited his curiosity to learn what the
English were doing, and induced him to return to Germany by way
of London in October of the same year. “He stayed there about a
week and made the acquaintance of Collins who willingly let him
have access to his collection of treatises and letters. What Leibniz
found in them, that he thought worth noting, he set down on two

50 The last two sentences of Section XLVI in the edition of 1722 are: “Habetur et Epistola
D. Newtoni ad D. Collins, 10 Decemb. 1672 data, et superius impressa, in qua Newtonus se
Methodum generalem habere dicit ducendi Tangentes, quadrandi Curvilineas, et similia
peragendi; et Methodum Exemplo ducendi Tangentes exponit: quam Methodum D. Leib-
nitius differentialem postea vocavit. Haec Collectio ad D. Leibnitium missa fuit 26 Junii
1676.”—After comparing this passage with the original text, Biot and Lefort, p. 100, found
that the last sentence had been added. It should be noted that there were also two interpola¬
tions made in the text of this section which, although not important in themselves, are
illustrations of the unwarranted changes made in this edition.

61 Published in the Sitzungsber. Ahjxd. zu Berlin, 1891. For translation of this article, cf.
Child, Chap. VI.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

595

folios; the one has the heading, Excerpta ex tractatu Newtoni de
Analyst . . ., the other sheet has the heading, Excerpta ex Commerc.
Epist. inter Collinium et Gregorium!’ It is apparent, since he made
these notes from the De Analyst and the Collectio of Collins, that he
had not seen, nor had had in his possession either of these documents
before October, 1676. 52 From the extracts made during this week,
Gerhardt states that “what Leibniz found in Collins’s collection re¬
lating to algebraic analysis was new to him and excited his interest;
also the verbal interchange of ideas between himself and Collins was
upon the same subject. On the other hand, as regards the infinites¬
imal calculus, Leibniz obtained nothing during his second visit to
London.” 53

“IV. That the differential method is one and the same with the
method of fluxions, excepting the name and mode of notation; Mr.
Leibniz calling those quantities differences, which Mr. Newton calls
moments or fluxions; and marking them with the letter d, a mark
not used by Mr. Newton. And therefore we take the proper ques¬
tion to be, not who invented this or that method, but who was the
first inventor of the method. And we believe that those who have
reputed Mr. Leibniz the first inventor, knew little or nothing of his
correspondence with Mr. Collins and Mr. Oldenburg long before;
nor of Mr. Newton’s having that method above fifteen years before
Mr. Leibniz began to publish it in the Acta Eruditorum of Leipzig.

“For which reasons, we reckon Mr. Newton the first inventor; and
are of opinion, that Mr. Keill, in asserting the same, has been no
ways injurious to Mr. Leibniz. And we submit to the judgement of
the Society; whether the extract of letters and papers now presented
to you, together with what is extant to the same purpose in Dr.
Wallis’s third volume, may not deserve to be made public.”

Comment: Almost at the time the Committee wrote article IV,
Newton issued the 2d edition of the Principia in which it is stated
that “the two methods were scarcely different, except in the forms of

52 In connection with this visit and the examination of Collins’s collection the following
dates are important. The Epistola prior of Newton to Leibniz is dated 13 June 1676. In it he
discusses the binomial theorem but not fluxions. On August 27, 1676, Leibniz wrote asking
for more information. Newton’s answer, the Epistola posterior, was written on October 24,
1676. In this letter he elaborates the binomial theorem and mentions nothing about fluxions
except to announce an invention in his famous jumble of letters. Leibniz was in London
for a week in October and so missed the letter if it was sent to Paris. It was received in
Germany some time after March, 1676/7. On June 21, 1677, he wrote to Oldenburg a letter
giving a full and clear statement of the calculus. All these letters, in full or in extract, were
published in the Commerc. Epist.

53 Child, pp. 162-170.

ISAAC NEWTON

596

terms and notation, and in the idea of the generation of quantities”
which is an essential difference. But if the identity of the two
methods be granted, then the honour of priority of invention by
accepted practice would be given to him who first publishes or, at
least, can exhibit a certified paper describing satisfactorily the same
method,—in other words, to Leibniz. And I have already cited
Newton’s previous stand against Hooke on the discovery of gravita¬
tion.

The Committee is not honest in its statement of the question given
it to decide. Leibniz had never denied that Newton had invented an
unknown method of fluxions, but he had claimed the independent
discovery of the calculus; and he had demanded of the Society to
vindicate him from what he asserted to be an accusation of plagi¬
arism made by Fatio and Keill. Since the Committee certainly did
not prove such plagiarism their statement that “Mr. Keill, in assert¬
ing the same, has been no ways injurious to Mr. Leibniz” was pre¬
posterous. In spite of the fact that the charge of plagiarism has been
proved to be false, the baneful effect of the Committee’s conclusion
still persists. The controversy, which led to the preparation of the
Commercium Epistolicum, will always excite a deep interest because
it involved a great question, and the honour and passions of great
men. I have endeavoured to discuss it critically and dispassionately,
and to support my opinions on documentary evidence. The more
thoroughly the question is studied the stronger the conviction be¬
comes that the President, the Committee, and the Fellows of the
Royal Society are to be condemned for a reckless and disgraceful
exhibition of injustice against one of their oldest and most illustrious
members. In coming to the decision that the chief blame must fall
on the Society, I in no degree palliate the conduct of Leibniz and his
friends: the difference lies in this; when it accepted the adjudication
of the dispute, the world believed that the taint of partisanship had
been eliminated, and that its report was based on justice. We can be
charitable towards the faults of passion of those immediately con¬
cerned; but no such excuse pertains to such a body as the Royal
Society.

We can now go back and pick up the thread of events which fol¬
lowed the first printing of the Commercium Epistolicum . 64 The

54 The principal sources for this account are: Commerc. Phil, Bern, et Leib.; Des Maizeaux
Recueil; Commerc. Epist. Biot et Lefort; Corr. of Newton and Keill; the Portsmouth
Collection.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

597

correspondence on this subject between Bernoulli and Leibniz begins
on 28 February, 1712/13, with a letter to Leibniz who was making
a long stay in Vienna: “I have shown to Newton some of his errors,
but gently, lest I should offend him; besides he has been friendly to
me, seeing that he recently proposed me for membership in the
Royal Society and secured my election, which dignity he promised
also should be conferred on my son. . . . The history of the dif¬
ferential calcalus of Collins [ Commerc . Epist .], as Demoivre wrote
me recently, has not yet appeared; he said it would certainly be issued
the week following his letter was written. Without doubt it will be
sent to you more quickly than to me. ... I agree with you that the
fluxions flowed from the differential calculus, and that this is self-
evident although the English dissimulate it.”

In his answer, Leibniz congratulates Bernoulli, or rather the
Society, on his election. He has not received the Commercium. Then
Bernoulli writes to him the important letter of June 7th, 1713, which
Leibniz afterwards published, and which caused its author such
trouble. This letter has passed into history under the title of Judi¬
cium Mathematici.

“My son has received a copy of the Commercium Epistolicum,
given to him in Paris by the Abbe Bignon who had several copies
sent to him from London for distribution. I have read it, but not
carefully. In the first place, the method of proceeding is displeasing.
You are, at the start, accused before a tribunal which, it appears, is
composed of the plaintiffs themselves and their witnesses, so to
speak the one accused of plagiarism, after the documents are pro¬
duced against you is put to vote; you fall under the law, you are
condemned. ... It is certain, therefore, that Newton was ignorant
of the correct method of taking second differentials a long time after
it was familiar to us. But I must break off; I ask you [rogo ] to use
properly what I write, and not to commit me with Newton and with
his countrymen; I do not wish to be mixed up with these quarrels.”

The next interchange of letters contains a warning from Leibniz,
that Newton is trying to curry favour with Bernoulli; and the reply
that there is no danger. In the meanwhile, both sides began a
campaign to win supporters in France and, especially, the good
opinion of Abbe Bignon, of Varignon, whom Newton thought the
most acute geometer in Europe, and of Remond de Montmort.

Keill, under the guidance of Newton, published a letter in the
Journal Litteraire in which he gave an account of the dispute much

ISAAC NEWTON

598

as it was later given in the Recensio, the Report of the Commitee,
and the letter of December 10th, 1672. He also stated: “The Report
must be regarded as the judgement of the Society.”

On his side, Leibniz without waiting to see the Commercium
Epistolicum retaliated by spreading over Europe one of those anony¬
mous Flying Sheets, or a Charta Volans, without date or place of
publication, which were commonly in use by politicians. Leibniz,
who wrote the paper, speaks of himself in the third person and says
that, being in Vienna, Leibniz had not seen the attack on himself,
and had left its answer to the judgement of a very eminent mathe¬
matician, impartial and quite capable of judging; then, without giv¬
ing Bernouilli’s name, the Judicium Mathematici letter of June 7th,
1713, was included. Leibniz also published anonymously this same
letter, in the November-December number of the Journal Litteraire 55
for 1713, with amplifications. He points out that the eminent mathe¬
matician believed Newton should be content with the honour of
having perfected the synthesis by infinitesimal lines, since he could
not pretend to have found the differential calculus. As a confirma¬
tion of Newton’s habit of injustice towards himself and others, he
cites the mortification of Flamsteed and Hooke because due credit
had not been given to them in connection with the formulation of
the law of planetary attraction; he also asserted that the series which
expresses the arc of a circle in terms of its tangent had been taken
from Gregory. Finally, the author concludes: “I shall not particu¬
larise on what Newton and his disciples do not know about the
exponential calculus, which is the highest branch of the transcen¬
dental calculus. M. de Leibniz has used it first, and M. Bernoulli has
found it later independently. Nor shall I stop to show what errors
some disciples of Newton have made, when they have wished to
use the differential calculus.”

The wrath of the English was raised to a white heat by the Charta
Volans; Newton, when he received a copy from Chamberlayne, pro¬
nounced it to be an infamous libel; and Keill exclaimed that “they
had thrown all the dirt and scandal they could without proving any¬
thing,” and dubbed them those “Leipzig rogues.” Newton did not
at once guess that the author was Leibniz, himself, but the charge
stung him so sharply that he asked Keill to prepare an answer. 56

55 Cf. Biot et Lefort, p., 230. Newton also published the Judicium Mathematici as an
Appendix to the 2d edition of the Commerc. Epist.

56 For the letters of Newton to Keill, see Edleston, pp. 169-1785 the answers of Keill are
in the Ports. Coll.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

599

Newton to Keill
Sir,

Your letter of Feb. 8th I delayed to answer till the Journal Lit-
teraire for November and December should come out. It has just
come from Holland and I desired Mr. Darby to send you a copy
which I doubt he has not done because he sent one to me this morn¬
ing which I reckon to be for you, and I design to send it to you the
first opportunity by the carrier. Mr. Leibniz in August last, by one
of his correspondents, published a paper [the Charta Volans] in
Germany containing the judgement of a nameless mathematician in
opposition to the judgement of the Committee of the Royal Society,
with many reflections annexed. This paper has been sent to Mr.
Johnson with remarks prefixed to it. And the whole is printed in
the Journal letter air e, page 445* And now it is made so public I
think it requires an answer. It is very reflecting upon the Committee
of the Royal Society, and endeavours to derogate from the credit of
some of the letters published in the Commercium Epistolicum as if
they were spurious. If you please when you have it, to consider of
what answer you think proper, I will within a post or two send you
my thoughts upon the subject, that you may compare them with your
own sentiments and then draw up such an answer as you think
proper. You need not set your name to it. You may write either in
English, or Latin, and leave it to Mr. Johnson to get it translated into
French. Mr. Darby will convey your answer to the Hague.

I am

Your most humble servant,

For Dr. John Keill, Professor of * s ‘ Newton.

Astronomy, at his house in Oxford.

In agreement with this request, Keill prepared an elaborate reply
of forty-two pages with the constant advice and suggestions of New¬
ton. They both soon penetrated the thinly disguised fact that
Bernoulli was the eminent mathematician, but Newton counselled
that his name should be omitted: “The Acta Eruditorum for the last
year are but just come to London, and I find thereby that John
Bernoulli is the great mathematician who accuses me on this ac¬
count. But I believe its better not to reflect upon him for it, nor so
much as to name him any otherwise than by the general name of the
great mathematician. They are seeking to pick a quarrel with me,
and its better to let them begin it still more openly without a provoca-

6 oo

ISAAC NEWTON

tion.” Halley also was consulted; and when the paper was finished,
Keill sent to Newton “the whole of his answer to Bernoulli and the
Leipzig rogues, for you and Dr. Halley to change or take away what
you please.”

Keill’s paper is an able and bitter attack on Leibniz and his anon¬
ymous great mathematician. The arguments, to prove Newton’s
priority of invention, are practically the same as those he used later
in the Recensio; and the charge of Newton’s injustice towards Hooke
and Flamsteed is dismissed as the slur of a cowardly calumniator.
The conclusion is a retort in the best style of the current political
pamphlets: “M. Leibniz censures M. Descartes sharply for having
published the discoveries of other men, and for having concealed the
names of those from whom he took them; meanwhile there are not
nearly such proofs that M. Descartes had appropriated the ideas of
others, as there are that M. Leibniz has published the discoveries of
Messrs. Newton and Gregory, without making the least mention of
them.” 57

As early as January ioth, 1713/14, Leibniz had written to Bernoul¬
li 58 that he intended to attack Newton, and that he would use Ber¬
noulli s now famous letter, but would protect his anonymity by giv¬
ing it as the opinion of an eminent mathematician. Bernoulli an¬
swered that Leibniz would do well to use anonymously what he had
written him in his Apology [the Charta Volans] against the Com -
mercium Epistolicum’, and, in his next letter, he gives further advice
on how to make an effective attack. Leibniz did not return to Han¬
over till the end of the year, and his Charta Volans was a shot in the
dark as he published it before he had seen the Commcrcium Epis¬
tolicum. Bernoulli also informed him about the first paper by Keill
in the Journal Litteraire, which he described as a famosus Libellus
and most injurious to themselves. He had become worried lest his
share in the pamphlet should become known and continued to
criticise Keill after Leibniz apparently had dropped the subject.
Leibniz, in fact, had impulsively taken up a new line of attack. He
had been an intimate friend and counsellor of Caroline who, on the
accession of George I, became Princess of Wales. He seized the op¬
portunity to write her a letter in which he warned her to beware lest
her simple German faith should become sophisticated by the irre-
ligion of the English in general, who had been carried away by the

M Journal Litteraire, July-August, 1714. Extract in Biot et Lefort, p. 236.

58 Commerc. Phil. Leib. et Bern. II, p. 329.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

601

atheism of Hobbes, and of Newton in particular, whose Principia
fostered the idea of a mechanical universe and of a God who was
merely a super-mechanician. Her Most Serene Highness, however,
imparted this warning to Dr. Samuel Clarke who made it the topic
of a sermon. As a result Leibniz became involved in a lengthy
philosophico-religious debate. Leibniz described it to Bernoulli in
this terse manner: “Clarke sent the sermon to me, I responded, he
replied; I duplicated, he triplicated; I have just quadruplicated;
that is, I have answered now his third letter.” One may add, that
the successive replies of this famous discussion embraced an ever
greater and vaguer field. 59

Two other excerpts from their correspondence should be given as
they throw light on what has been called “the betrayal of Bernoulli
by Leibniz.”

Leibniz to Bernoulli

Hanover, 13 April, 1716.

The English quarrel has been renewed, Newton himself, when he
saw that I considered Keill unworthy of a reply, descends into the

arena_You will be amazed at the trifling arguments he advances.

. . . He knows the letter [in the Charta Volans ] was yours, he says
it was written by a mathematician or by one aspiring to mathematics
[par un mathematicien ou pretendu mathematicien] as if he were
ignorant of your merit. He claimed the entire article, in which your
letter was inserted, to be defamatory, as if his reputation could be
more injured than by the Commercium Epistolicum .. ..

Bernoulli to Leibniz

Bale, 20 May, 1716.

I am pleased that Newton himself has descended into the arena;
the contest will be fought under his own name and the mask be laid
aside_Whatever happens, I hope now the true history will be bet¬

ter revealed. If Newton, because of his freedom from prejudice
which I assume and trust, narrates faithfully what happened and
what you have done, the public may know the truth. .. .

I wonder how Newton could know that I was the author of the

59 Leibniz referred to the discussion in this fashion in a letter to Bernoulli ( Commerc.
Phil., Vol. II, p. 381): “Serram etiam Philosophicam nunc cum Newtono, vel quod eodem
redit, cum ejus Hyperaspita Clarkio Regis Eleemosynario me reciprocare fortasse jam intellex-
eris. Scis Keillium et Praefatorem novae Editionis Principiorum Newtoni etiam Philosophiam
meam pungere voluisse. Itaque scripseram ego forte Serenissimae Principi Regiae Walliae, pro
excellenti ingenio suo harum rerum non incuriosae, degenerare nonnihil apud Anglos Phi¬
losophiam, vel potius Theologiam Naturalem.

602

ISAAC NEWTON

letter, which you inserted in the Charta against Newton 60 since no
mortal man knew I wrote it, except you to whom it was written, and
I by whom it was written. Perhaps the expression, “by a mathe¬
matician or so-called mathematician,” has a meaning other than you
suppose. It could be assumed to mean that Newton believed the let¬
ter to be supposititious and yet composed by a certain mathematician;
written in fact, yet invented and inserted by the author of the
Charta, himself; if you read the matter so, you will understand “by
a so-called mathematician” one who was created for the purpose and
never existed.

As Leibniz had temporarily engrossed himself in the philosophical
discussion with Clarke, a reply to Keill’s last article was prepared and
published by Bernoulli in the Leipzig Acts for July, 1716, under the
title of Epistola pro eminente Mathematico, Do . ]ohanne Bernoullio,
contra quendam ex Anglia antagonistam scripta. In some ways,
Bernoulli’s conduct in this controversy was worse than that of either
Newton or Leibniz, as he added the trait of cowardice to the sins of
the others. His interest in the business was almost as keen as Leib¬
niz’s; he was the first to put the charge of plagiarism by Newton
into his friend’s mind, and he supplied him with materials for attack;
but he also tried by anonymity to avoid being entangled; he tried to
keep friendly with Newton for favours shown him, and he was
afraid of Keill. So he now sent his paper to Christian Wolf, one of
the editors of the Acts, and asked him and Leibniz to alter it, and to
publish it in an anonymous form. For he wrote “it would be exceed¬
ingly unpleasant to me to be anointed with Keill’s bile and con-
tumeliously traduced as his antagonists are accustomed to be, after he
has so far treated me quite courteously.” The article was accordingly
put into the third person, abridged and considerably changed. But
these precautions were all to no purpose, as the editors overlooked in
one place the words meam formulam which, by the context, gave the

60 The editor of this correspondence remarks: “Newton knew it from Leibniz’s letter to
Bothmar.” This is easily proved to be wrong. Leibniz wrote letters to his friends the Count
de Bothmar and the Countess de Kilmansegg in the month of April, 1716, and in both of
them he defends himself, and states that Bernoulli was the author of the letter accusing
Newton of plagiarism. But Newton and Keill, in their correspondence two years previously,
had been in no doubt that Bernoulli was the author; in fact, he was the only one who could
have written it. If Leibniz’s editor could do him such a turn, it is easy to imagine that
Brewster totally misrepresents the incident and makes it seem as if Leibniz had publicly
betrayed his friend. Furthermore, Bernoulli had so deeply involved himself in this con¬
troversy that he was not justified in keeping his opinion of Newton’s plagiarism secret, if he
really believed it.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ

603

clue to the authorship. It was not till a year later that the unlucky
meam was called to his attention. Much chagrined, he desired
Wolf to insert as an erratum, “for meam read earn!’ As that was no
refuge he finally, on the advice of de Montmort, employed his son
Nicholas to get him out of the scrape. The son wrote to de Mont¬
mort that his father was annoyed by the rumour of his authorship.
He admits that, at the request of a friend, he put down in writing
the main facts contained in the letter, but the form of the letter was
not his, but his friend’s. Truly Leibniz was not blessed with friends as
courageous as Newton’s, who rushed eagerly into the fray and
shielded him from all attacks.

Bernoulli’s letter added fresh fuel to the wrath of the English.
Keill, the avowed champion of Newton in this quarrel as Halley calls
him, again dipped his pen in vitriol and prepared to hit back; but his
answer was not published, and perhaps because of the following let¬
ter.

^ Tr ... Newton to Keill

Dr. Keill,

I received about a month ago the inclosed letter from Mr. Mont¬
mort. It contains some extracts of letters to him from Mr. Bernoulli
and his son. The chief point is that Mr. Bernoulli denies that he is
the author of the Memoir entitled Epistola pro eminente, etc., that is
inserted in the Acts of Leipzig 1716. The Memoir itself lays it upon
Mr. Bernoulli by the words meam solutionum [sic, for formulam ],
and if Mr. Bernoulli is injured thereby it is not you but the author of
the Memoir who has injured him. The injury is public and in justice
requires a public satisfaction, not from you but from him that has
done the injury. The question is therefore whether you will take
notice of Mr. Bernoulli’s excusing himself in private or leave him to
do it in public. I have not yet returned any answer to Mr. Montmort,
because I thought it best to stay till I had your sense upon this mat¬
ter. I think to discourse also your friends Dr. English and Dr. Bower

about it. I am Your faithful friend and

humble Servant

Isaac Newton.

London, 2 May, 1718.

[P. S.] I pray return Mr. Montmort’s letter by Dr. Halley because I

am to answer it. 61
For Dr. John Keill, Professor of
Astronomy at Oxford.

61 Edleston, p. 185.

ISAAC NEWTON

604

As the dispute increased in bitterness and in its unscrupulous meth¬
ods, the continental mathematicians showed an increasing distaste of
the whole affair. Varignon and Montmort sympathised with Leibniz
and disapproved strongly of the method and action of the Royal So¬
ciety; but they both refused to commit themselves on the questions
of priority of invention and of plagiarism; they thus kept both sides
on the anxious seat.

Leibniz had not changed his original opinion that Newton had
had the idea first of a method of solution by infinitesimals, or flux¬
ions; but he had come to believe, largely I am convinced by the sug¬
gestions of Bernoulli, that Newton, when he developed the fluxions
into a workable system of analysis, had used the information given in
his own frank disclosures. A statement, in a letter from him to M. la
Croze supports this opinion: 02 “M. Bernoulli, who knows the matter
better than any one, and who is absolutely impartial, believes that M.
Newton has invented his calculus later than mine, and in fact did
not give any sign of it before. But I should not have contradicted
his pretensions of having known it previously to my work, if he had
not attacked me.”

Newton, also, had been shaken from his early generous acknowl¬
edgement in the Principia of Leibniz’s independent work by the in¬
sinuations of his friends till he, too, had become convinced of his
rival’s plagiarism. The best evidence of this exists in the six copies of
a letter varying but slightly which I found in the Portsmouth Collec¬
tion. This letter expresses his conviction that Leibniz got his infor¬
mation from a correspondence with Collins and Oldenburg.

Such a dispute was certain to beget mediators, but the uncom¬
promising attitude of both the principals foredoomed their efforts to
failure. Chamberlayne was the first to make the attempt, but he
merely made matters worse. His plan was to interchange letters be¬
tween Leibniz and Newton; whereupon, each of them merely de¬
clared his own innocence, and a perfect willingness to forgive the
other, if he would withdraw his charge of plagiarism. One incident,

which occurred during the negotiations of Chamberlayne, should be
discussed.

After Chamberlayne had sent to Leibniz the decision of the Royal
Society that it was not responsible for the Report of the Committee,
Leibniz answered: “Since it seems that there are letters which con-

6- This letter is to be found in a rare book entitled Epistolae Leibnitii, edited by Korth-
oltus, Lpzg. 1734, P* 449.

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ 605

cern me, amongst them some of Mr. Oldenburg’s and Mr. Collins’s
which have not been published, I desire the Royal Society to com¬
municate them to me. For, when I return to Hanover, I also may
publish a Commercium Epistolicum, which may add to literary his¬
tory. I shall be disposed to publish the letters opposed to me as well
as those which favour me. And I shall leave the judgement to the
public.”

This letter was read to the Society, but Newton represented that
the statement was injurious to the honour of the Committee; that
he, personally, had had no part in the Commercium Epistolicum,
and had left complete liberty to the Committee in its choice and use
of documents; that he had abstained from presenting two letters
favourable to himself; and that he believed it would be improper
for Mr. Leibniz to publish a Commercium Epistolicum. He added
that it would be dangerous to send the originals of the letters de¬
manded, but attested copies might be forwarded. Also, if Leibniz
had any letters favourable to himself, he could send the originals to
some of his English friends; they could then be examined by mem¬
bers of the Society, who knew the hand-writing, and be returned.
He, lastly, proposed that these letters might be published in the
Philosophical Transactions, or in Germany, as Mr. Leibniz might
prefer. 63 There was not much chance, after such an uncompromising
attitude by Newton, that Leibniz could expect any consideration, or
justice, from the Society, or from the English.

The other mediator was the Abbe Conti, a Venetian nobleman,
who visited England in 1715. He had had a correspondence with
Leibniz on a philosophical question and, to a letter written at the end
of the year, Leibniz added a long postscript reviewing his dispute
with Newton. This postscript, or Apostille, begins sarcastically: “I
am overjoyed that you are in England; you will profit by it as it is
true that there are able men there; but they wish to pass as almost the
only inventors and that is apparently what they will not succeed in
doing.” 64 He then reviews his claim of being, on the authority of

63 Des Maizeaux Recueil, Vol. T, pp. lxxvii—lxxx and Vol. II, p. 188. Leibniz never pub¬
lished a Commercium Epistolicum. But he prepared an answer to the charges against him
that was apparently ready for the press but was not published because of his death. Gcr-
hardt discovered the manuscript in the mass of papers preserved in the Royal Library of
Hanover and published it in 1846. This Histona et Origo Calculi Differentialis has now
been translated by Child into English, and included in his Early Math. MSS. of Letbtuz,

Open Court Pub. Co., 1920. . .

64 The account of Conti’s mediations and the correspondence relative to them is to be

found in Des Maizeaux’s Recueil.

6 o6

ISAAC NEWTON

Bernoulli, the first inventor of the calculus. He follows this up with
an attack on Newton’s conception of gravitation, of a vacuum, and
of his idea of God. The note closes with a problem which he sent
“to feel the pulse of our English analysts.”

Leibniz’s challenge excited a lively interest at the English Court.
Conti, and other distinguished people, tried to induce Newton to
reply, but they could not prevail against his aversion for personal
contests. Finally, Newton requested Conti to assemble the foreign
Ambassadors and Ministers in the rooms of the Royal Society. After
they had examined the letters and documents in its archives, the Han¬
overian Minister, the Count de Kilmansegg, said to Newton that this
was not sufficient, as the way to end the quarrel was for him to write
a letter personally to Leibniz. All the other Ministers approved the
idea. Ten days later, Newton gave his answer, dated 26 February,
1715/16, and addressed to Conti, who forwarded it with a covering
letter of his own. The King read and approved it, with the remark
that the explanations were very simple and clear, and the facts dif¬
ficult to answer.

Newton’s defense is a long and temperate review of the entire
dispute from the beginning, and ends with the statement that as
Leibniz had been the aggressor, so he should prove his accusations.
Leibniz answered what he termed the Cartel de Deft in a letter
addressed to Conti on April 14, 1716. He was greatly provoked with
Conti and wrote that “it was undoubtedly only a love of truth which
induced you to concern yourself with a sort of challenge from New¬
ton.” The letter to Newton was a heated vindication of his own con¬
duct, and he adopted a method of sending it calculated to wound
Newton’s susceptibilities most deeply. He sent his letters, and copies
of Newton’s and Conti’s letters, to de Montmort to be read, and then
to be forwarded to London, for the purpose as he cynically remarked
that he might have “neutral and intelligent witnesses of our dispute.”

The way of the peacemaker is proverbially difficult, and Conti’s
was no exception. He afterwards lamented that Leibniz had been
deeply irritated against him; the Germans had reproached him; the
French had turned against him. And to cap the climax Newton, in
spite of the honour and respect shown to him, had changed his atti¬
tude, and now accused him of having instigated the quarrel with
Leibniz.

The controversy died down as Newton, sick and weary of it, re¬
fused to be drawn into a further discussion. Leibniz, who had been

CONTROVERSY WITH LEIBNIZ 607

suffering from gout which had gone from his feet into his hands and
shoulders, was seized with a sharp attack and attempted to relieve it
by taking a triple portion of a decoction recommended by a J e ^ ult ^ t
Ingolstadt. His constitution was too feeble to react, and he died sud¬
denly on November 14th, 1716. The last act of Newton in this af¬
fair has been severely condemned by some, notably De Morgan, and
excused by others. He wrote a reply to Leibniz’s last letter,^after his
death, which he communicated only to some of his friends. As soon
as he learned of Leibniz’s death, he had printed at London the Apos¬
tille and letter of Leibniz to Conti, his own letter to the Abbe, and
his Remarks; he preceded the Remarks with a Preface where he ex¬
plained the subject and the occasion.” 60 These documents, which
could not be answered, were given to Raphson who appended them

to his History of Fluxions. . , , .

To conclude a long, and perhaps wearisome, discussion of this

most famous of scientific disputes, two passages may be quoted from
a letter of Remond de Montmort to Brook Taylor, written December
18th, 1718, and which admirably sum up my own opinion : I agree
with you as to the merit of M. Newton. I always speak of him as a
man above others, and that one cannot too much admire. But I can¬
not agree with your opinion that the public has received from M.
Newton, and not from MM. Leibniz and Bernoulli, the new calculus
and the art of making it serve in all the researches that have been
made with it in geometry. That is an error of fact. It is unsustainable
to say that MM. Leibniz and Bernoulli are not the true, and almost
sole, promoters of this calculus. ... There is nothing more beautiful
nor better of its kind, than the treatise De Quadrature Curvarum of
M. Newton, but it appeared too late. The date of issue of this wor
is unfortunate, not for M. Newton, who has attained so much glory
that the most ambitious man could not desire more, but for some
Englishmen who seem to envy those who had discovered and pub¬
lished first these new methods which have so greatly advanced ge¬
ometry.” 66

65 Des Maizeaux Recueil, Vol. I, p. lxxxvi.

66 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 511, and Biot et Lefort, p. 240.

Collection.

A copy of it is in the Portsmouth

CHAPTER XVI

ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY. THEOLOGY. RELIGIOUS

BELIEFS

T he historical and theological work of Newton has been
slighted and considered to have been of little importance,—
even often condemned as a waste of effort. Yet, if we can
judge from the amount of time he spent upon it, and the care with
which he preserved it, Newton himself must have regarded it as of
major importance; even to the point of stating that the chief value of
his scientific work lay in its support of revealed religion. The com¬
manding position which he holds as a scientific thinker necessarily
affects our judgement of his achievement in other fields; we uncon¬
sciously adopt too severe a standard of criticism, and condemn work
by him which by another would receive our commendation. We
have progressed so much further in our knowledge of archaeology
and ancient history, and have so shifted our sympathy from the re¬
ligious questions which occupied the seventeenth and eighteenth
century thinkers, that the positive value of his work in those fields
is almost negligible. Yet we must estimate Newton as one of the
foremost chronologists of his day, and as one who laid the founda-
lor scholars. Nor can we dismiss his theological work as

aS * S ^ 0ne S ° lightl l ^ scientists. He discussed the questions
which were then of true importance, and he was regarded as an
erudite theologian. In proof of his reputation, Conduitt states 1 in his
intended life of his uncle that “Archbishop Tenison offered him, if
he would take orders, the Mastership of Trinity College when it was
given to Montague, and importuned him to accept any preferment in
the Church; saying to him: ‘Why will you not? You know more
divinity than all of us put together.’ Why then, said Newton, 1 shall
be able to do you more service than if I was in orders.’ ” In the minds
or his contemporaries, I think, his work was looked upon as im¬
portant in trying to replace the authority of the Roman Church by

1 Portsmouth Collection .

608

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 609

the authority of the Bible, and to counteract the sceptics who were
beginning to question its miracles and prophecies.

When we turn to the consideration of this work as a phase of
Newton’s personal life, and as a criterion of his interest and char¬
acter, then history and divinity play most important roles. It is alto¬
gether probable that ancient history and theology were constantly in
his thoughts from youth to extreme old age. He was brought up in
a religious atmosphere; it is likely that he went to Cambridge with
the expectation of being ordained and of being appointed to a rural
parish. And from such a career he was diverted, apparently, by the
discovery of his mathematical and scientific genius, and by a certain
intellectual leaning towards Arianism and unorthodox Protes¬
tantism.

While the world will always regard his scientific work as an end
in itself, he seems always to have felt it was a hard and dreary task¬
master, and not of intrinsic value except as it should give evidence
of the laws and attributes of God. It is altogether a mistake to sup¬
pose that his interest in religion served as a relaxation for his mind
when exhausted by his scientific studies. He read constantly in his¬
tory and theology, and he must steadily have made notes, or have
turned the corners of the pages of his books in his peculiar manner,
in no other way could he have left such a mass of papers on those sub¬
jects. It is true, he told Conduitt that his studies in chronology were
the work of his vacant hours and a relief from his scientific studies,
and this is true in the sense that he loved to disentangle complicated
numerical puzzles, but he read persistently in theology and especially
after he had forsaken science. He wrote draught after draught of
many of his papers for the sheer love of noting down his meditations,
nor was this labour undertaken to prepare them for publication.

As his great achievements in science were ascribed to the sane bal¬
ance of an extraordinarily fertile imagination and a passion for prac¬
tical handicraft or experimentation,—a balance which checked either
from dominating the otherso, also, the same characteristics are to
be found in his historical and theological work. Attention has al¬
ready been drawn to his early dominant traits, his solitary medita¬
tion and his passion for constructing toys, and they were mentioned
then as the source of his future power. Later, his introduction to his
great enquiry into the nature of light grew out of his practical work
in grinding lenses. If he had followed the custom of scientists he
would at once have proposed an hypothesis to explain the cause of

6 io

ISAAC NEWTON

light; but, even as a youth, while he may have pictured in his mind
metaphysical aethers and corpuscles as causes of phenomena, he re¬
frained from incorporating them in his finished essays. The same
is true of his work on gravitation; his imagination again led him to
picture a sort of universal and aethereal cause; but such ideas he con¬
sidered to be only Queries outside his search for scientific law based
on experimental observation. Thus, this restraining balance pre¬
vented his imagination from sweeping him into the scientific mys¬
ticism which has so dominated the minds of Professor Einstein and
his school. To Newton the universe was an objective reality, whose
phenomena and laws we could to a limited extent verify and estab¬
lish; to them it is a mental phantasmagoria as foreign to experience
as were the medievalists’ conceptions of heaven.

On the other hand Newton’s imagination lifted his manipulation
out of the rut of mere statistical observations. For pleasure and re¬
laxation, he made an astonishing number of chemical manipulations.
His curiosity led him into the most unexpected fields; one of his
most surprising ventures is entered in the Journal Books of the Royal
Society: “Newton mentioned a remarkable experiment he made,
formerly in Trinity College kitchen at Cambridge, upon the heart of
an eel which he cut into three pieces, and observed every one of them
beat at the same instant and interval: putting spittle upon any of the
sections had no effect, but a drop of vinegar utterly extinguished its
motion.” 2 But such observations were made for the pleasure of
satisfying his boundless curiosity; when he was engaged in systematic
experimentation, like Galileo, “he said that he first proved his in¬
ventions by geometry and only made use of experiments to make
them intelligible, and to convince the vulgar.” 3 And his youthful
skill with tools proved to be a major factor in making him one of the
great experimentalists. When Conduitt once enquired of him where
he got his tools with which to make his telescope, he answered that
he made them himself, and laughingly answered: “If I had stayed
for other people to make my tools and things for me I had never
made anything of it. The only help I had in those operations was
from my next chamber fellow who was stronger than I and used to
help me on with my kettle sometimes, for he had several furnaces
in his own chambers for chemical experiments.” 4

So also Newton’s imagination tempted him to explore the mys-

2 Edleston, p. lix.

8 Conduitt’s intended life of Newton, Ports. Coll.

4 Ibid.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

611

teries of alchemy; made him sympathetic with the mysticism of
Boehme and of the Camisards; and led him to enquire into the doc¬
trine of the Trinity, the prophecies of Daniel, and of the Apocalypse.

If we were to look for other examples of this combination ot re-
ligious fervour and scientific caution, we should find it best exem¬
plified in Kepler and Pascal. Of the three only Pascal and Newton
could balance those two mastering forces and Newton s colder and
more cautious nature alone could stand the strain. Religious mys¬
ticism might tempt him, but in the end he strove to prove by facts the
authority of the Bible. If we keep in mind that he was essentially a
Protestant and constantly sought to prove the usurpation of authority
by the Roman Church, we shall find the cause of his chronological
and theological work, and realise that he was one of the chief actors
in the acute conflict in England between Protestantism and Roman-

Newton may have lightly spoken of his work in chronology and
divinity as a pastime for his vacant hours, and as a relaxation when
mentally fatigued; but no one who follows his thought can fail to
recognise that he was deeply read in the Bible, in the Christian litera¬
ture, and in the classical authors; and the catalogue of his library
shows that it was rich in theological and classical works. We can be
certain that he acquired these books for use as he was not one to
spend money for show. And we may be pretty certain that he read
such authors for historical information rather than for literary

We ran easily dispose of Biot’s opinion that Newton’s religious
and historical work is to be dated after what he calls “the disastrous
epoch of 1695” when his nervous break-down had produced an aber¬
ration of the intellect and “his mind, fatigued by long and painful
efforts, had need of complete and entire repose. At least we know,
that thenceforward he only occupied his leisure with re lgious
studies, or sought relief in literature or in business.” Against such a
guess there is need only to place his own statement that he employed
his leisure in such studies during his whole life. However little value
they may have in comparison with his scientific work they are not
the fruit of a morbid state of mind. He did not turn to religion as a
solace from discouragement or from fear, but cultivated it stea 1 y

6 Biot^ “p '^Newton's correspondence with Locke proves that his most important reli¬
gious work was completed in 1690. And it will be shown later that he was discussing the

prophetic books with Henry More in 1680.

6 l2

ISAAC NEWTON

because he believed it to be the noblest occupation of the mind. His
estimate of the comparative values of science and religion is best
shown by the fact that he considered his Principia and Optics to be
useful since they had helped to make manifest the laws of God, and
had revealed His nature. The failure to publish his theological and
historical work is no evidence of its time of composition or of his
opinion of its importance, as his dislike of criticism and of contention
would operate even more strongly in such controversial subjects than
in the more impersonal field of science.

The history of the events leading up to the publication of New¬
ton’s chronological summary of ancient times is a curious one, and it
exemplifies the trouble which his dilatoriness caused him. After the
accession of George I, the Princess of Wales, Caroline of Anspach,
carried her interest in philosophy from Hanover, and created a
salon in the English Court. She set aside one evening a week to the
discussion of philosophical questions and Newton became a frequent
and welcome guest at the Court. In fact, Caroline seems to have
transferred her favour from Leibniz to him, and to have declared
herself fortunate in having lived in an age which had produced so
illustrious a man. These discussions centred on the mechanistic phi¬
losophy of the Principia which was warmly espoused by Dr. Samuel

Clarke and Bishop Hoadly, and as strongly attacked by the idealists,
Bishops Berkeley and Sherlock.

One day the Princess and Newton discussed the education of her
children, and he was led to explain to her a new system of ancient
chronology which he had devised during his Cambridge days. The
Royal Lady was so pleased with the ingenuity of the plan that she
asked for a copy of the work. As it existed only in loose papers which
were incomplete, and in a state of confusion, he promised in a few
days to draw up an abstract for her private use. This manuscript
was entitled A Short Chronicle from the First Memory of Things in
Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great 1 and some
time after, at the request of the Princess, Newton permitted the Abbe
Conti to make a copy, but with the distinct promise that it should be
kept strictly private as it probably contained some errors.

In spite of his promise, Conti loaned the manuscript to several per-
sons in Paris as soon as he left England. Amongst others, it was given
to^Ereret, a learned chronologist and antiquary, who translated it into

NewLTcf' in . ,ended £ ° r publication; but it was later prefixed to Conduct's edition of
pp T;-2 9 i mn ° 0gy publlshed ln i728 > and also t0 Horsley's Op. Omnia Newtoni, Vol. V,

613

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

French, and added a commentary for the purpose of refuting some of
its principal results. Newton seems to have been quite ignorant at
this breach of faith for some years, and to have been taken quite by
surprise by a letter in 1724 from Cavelier, a book-seller in Paris.

Cavelier to Newton

a Paris le n me May 1724.

il m’est tombe en main un petit manuscrit que Ton assure venire de
vous, Monsieur, comme votre nom est tres estime par toute 1 Europe
jay voulu le faire imprimer, mais Ton me assure quil y avait des
fautes et que cela pouvait vous faire de la peine de le voir paraitre
sans votre illustre nom ce qui fait que je prens la liberte de m adresse
a vous et de vous prier, Monsieur comme le manuscript que jay est
peu de choses, de vouloir bien me marquer, si vous pouviez m en
faire tenire une copie corecte de votre Chronologie plusieurs per-
sonnes qui en ont des copies defectueuses seront bien aises de’n avoir
de correctes et moy Libraire qui ne cherches que de bonnes choses
suis persuade quil ny a rien de meilleur que ce qui part de votre
plume j’afens L’honneur de votre reponse et suis avec un protond

respec

Monsieur Votre tres humble et tres

obeissant serviteur

G. Cavelier fils Libraire
rue S. Jacques. 8

Newton, unfortunately for his later peace of mind, took no notice
of this request. About a year later, Cavelier wrote a second time to
warn him that a failure to answer would be taken as a tacit consent
to publish the manuscript in the French translation, and with the
comments of Freret. When he found that Newton paid no attention
to a direct appeal, he finally, by the aid of a friend in London, ob-
tained the following answer.

Newton to Cavelier

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 MS. which you have under my name, I know not
whether it be the same. That which I wrote was not at all done with

8 This letter and a later one of Cavelier’s were preserved by Newton. 1 have given the
above verbatim from the original in the Forts. Coll.

614

ISAAC NEWTON

the design to publish it. I intend not to meddle with that which hath
been given you under my name, nor to give any consent to the pub¬
lishing of it.—I am, your very humble servant, T u

; 9 Is. Newton.

London, May 27th, 1725 St. Vet.

But the refusal of consent, whether it would have had any effect or
not is a question, was received too late as the tract was already pub¬
lished 10 and a copy was sent to the exasperated author. When New¬
ton received this work he published a reply in the Philosophical
Transactions. 11 In this paper, he quite rightly charged Conti with a
breach of faith which had greatly embarrassed him; and with less
justice blamed the printer. He then defended his chronological
system against the criticisms of Freret. We must believe that Brew¬
ster thought it unnecessary for a biographer to make himself ac¬
quainted with the subject of ancient chronology. To him it was
sufficient that Newton had been criticised and he merely remarked,
To all the observations of M. Freret, Sir Isaac returned a tri¬
umphant answer.” We may greatly admire Newton’s labour and
ingenuity in assigning dates, and in explaining so imposing a num¬
ber of legendary and historical incidents; but, as will be shown later,
the results he obtained are practically worthless. Since both chronol-
ogists, as did all others of the day, accepted the Mosaic account of the
creation and placed it some 4000 years B. C., they necessarily had to
compress the whole unrecorded and recorded history of man, and
also of the earth, within that period. A single example will suffice
to prove that, as both chronologists were hopelessly wrong, it would
be an act of supererogation to compare their excellence: Newton cal¬
culates the important event of the Argonautic expedition in Greek
history as occurring in 937 B. C.; Freret assigns the same event to
the year 1469 B. C.; while modern research places it about 1200 B. C.
Newton s defense closed with a bitter complaint against Conti who,
he charged, treacherously to befriend Leibniz had Erst engaged him
in philosophical and mathematical quarrels and since then “what he
hath been doing in Italy may be understood by the disputes raised
there by one of his friends [Rizzetti] who denies many of my optical
experiments, though they have been all tried in France with suc-

9 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 303.

b 1 ^ as cntlt ^ : Abrege de Chronologie de M. Le Chevalier 'Newton, fait par lui-mhne,
et traduit sur le manuscript Anglois. Paris, 1725. I have not seen a copy of this tract.

trandnT/-! 7 ° bs€ [ vat '° ns mad * on a Chronological Index of Sir Isaac Newton,
translated into French by the Observator, and published at Paris. Phil. Trans., 1725.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 615

cess; but I hope that these things and the perpetual motion[P] will
be the last efforts of this kind.”

The Nemesis of contention dogged Newton to the very end of his
life, for Father Souciet attacked his new chronology in five most
virulent dissertations. Although Newton was now eighty-one years
old and was suffering from attacks of stone, gout, and inflammation
of the lungs, he set himself resolutely to the work of preparing his
chronology in proper form for the press. Although he finished this
work of 376 quarto pages in less than three years, it was, after his death,
left to his nephew, Conduitt, to publish with a dedication to Queen
Caroline. 12 Conduitt was not a practical writer and he was perturbed
with the responsibility of “ushering into the world, under Your
Sacred Name, the last work of as great a Genius as any age ever
produced.” In his trouble, he turned for advice to Pope, whom he
had met at the house of a Mrs. Howard, because “anything connected
with that great man concerns the whole world and the honour of the
nation.” The poet criticised the dedication in a most urbane and
tactful manner. His principal caution was not to overdo the praise of
Royalty for “it takes very much from the praise of Sir I. N., and I fear
unjustly, to imagine that any Prince’s reign can ma\e Newtons,
however it might encourage or admire them.” The letter closes with
this fine and just tribute: “I could wish it were enlarged with some
memoirs and character of him, as a private man. I doubt not his life
and manners would make a great discovery of virtue and goodness
and rectitude of heart, as his works have done of penetration and the

utmost stretch of human knowledge.”

Except to the person inquisitive about the intellectual movements
of the eighteenth century, or to one especially interested in the life of
Newton, the Chronology Amended is hardly worth reading since its
positive value is very slight. In six chapters the author tabulates with
a descriptive comment the important events in the early history of
Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia, and describes the

Temple of Solomon.

Our modern archaeological discoveries, defective as they still may
be, have carried our knowledge of the recorded history of ancient
civilisations so far back in years; and our conviction, that a slow
course of many millennia was necessary to advance primitive peoples
to a state recorded civilisation, has so changed our point of view

12 The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended. Printed for J. Tonson. London, 1728.
Horsley also included it in his edition of the Opera Omnia, Vol. V.

6 i6

ISAAC NEWTON

as to make the chronologies of Newton and his contemporaries prac¬
tically useless.

To the scholars of his time, there were two fixed events which
served as definite starting dates. From the genealogical tables in
the Old Testament it was possible, with the ingenious exercise
of the imagination, to establish the date of the creation of the
world. The year 4004 B. C., as calculated by Bishop Ussher, was
universally accepted in England as the beginning of things and was
early adopted in the King James Version of the Bible. 13 The other
date was that of the Deluge, 1656 years later or 2348 B. C., when the
human race, after that drastic eugenic experiment, began again from
the family of Noah. 14 Now Newton 15 accepts the account of the early
history of mankind given in the Old Testament as accurate. From
casual mention of foreigners inserted in Jewish history; from a care¬
ful examination of classical authors, and from vague astronomical
data, he was able by cross references to build up a consistent chronol¬
ogy of the other great ancient kingdoms which in his opinion was
accurate. So certain of his ground was he, that he closed his intro¬
duction with the modest statement: “I have drawn up the following
chronological table, so as to make chronology suit with the course of
nature, with astronomy, with sacred history, with Herodotus the
Father of History, and with itself; without the many repugnancies
complained of by Plutarch. I do not pretend to be exact to a year:
there may be errors of five or ten years, and sometimes twenty, and
not much above.” 16 Alas, for the complacency of the human mind,
his errors are more often to be measured in centuries or millennia.

Newton, quite rightly I think, gave a historical background to
many of the legends of heroes and gods, but the following example
will be sufficient to show that he could not distinguish between myths
and history: “1035, B. C. Erectheus reigns in Attica. Aethlius, the

13 The chronology of Bishop Ussher was published in his Annales Veteris et Novi Testa¬
ment (1650-1654), and the dates there determined have been inserted in the later editions
of the Authorised, or King James, Version.

There are three genealogical tables in the Old Testament. I have followed in my calcu¬
lations the numbers of the Hebrew text, rather than those of the Samaritan or the LXX texts,
a *J believe it was the one used by Newton.. The period between the Creation and the Flood
dmers widely in the three texts; 1656, 1307, and 2242 years, respectively.

1 w j sh t0 acknowledge my thanks to my colleague, Dr. Allen West, Professor of Ancient
History in the University of Cincinnati, who was kind enough to examine the Chronology
Amended, to unravel the complexities of Newton’s system, and to compare his deductions

with those of modern scholarship. Without this generous aid I should have hesitated to pre¬
sent this critique.

¥Y 10 , P \ 8 » or P* 7 - The first page references are to Conduitt’s edition and the second to
Horsley s.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

617

grandson of Deucalion and father of Endymion, builds Elis. The
Idaei Dactyli find out iron in Mount Ida in Crete, and work it into
armour and iron tools, and thereby make a beginning to the trades
of smiths and armourers in Europe; and by singing and dancing in
their armour, and keeping time by striking upon one another’s
armour with their swords, they bring in music and poetry; and at
the same time they nurse up the Cretan Jupiter in a cave of the same
mountain, dancing about him in their armour.” 17

With the assumption of the historical accuracy of the Book of
Genesis, Newton was able to fix from its genealogical tables a date
from which he could reckon the whole history of every nation. The
time of the scattering of the human race, after the Deluge, is de¬
termined from the account in Genesis, Chapter xi, of the abortive
attempt of the descendants of Noah to dwell permanently together
in the land of Shinar: “All mankind lived together in Chaldaea un¬
der the government of Noah and his sons, until the days of Peleg:
so long they were of one language, one society, and one religion : and
then they divided the earth, being perhaps disturbed by the rebellion
of Nimrod, and forced to leave off building the tower of Babel: and
from thence they spread themselves into the several countries which
fell to their shares, carrying along with them the laws, customs, and
religion, under which they had till those days been educated, and
governed, by Noah, and his sons and grandsons.” 18

It was also easy to calculate the date of Abraham’s birth. Taking
the Deluge as 2348 B. C. and Shem to be 100 years of age at that time,
then Peleg, the fourth generation in descent, was born 99 years later
or 2249 B. C.; and the five succeeding generations of 191 years to
Abraham fix the date of his birth in 2058 B. C.

Having established to his satisfaction that the first spread of man¬
kind over the earth had happened not long before the time of
Abraham, Newton could assume that the population of the various
countries was small. And he found confirmation of his opinion in
Exodus 1, 9 and 22, which he paraphrased as follows: “Pharaoh 19
said of the Israelites; behold the people of the children of Israel are
more and mightier than we: and to prevent their multiplying and
growing too strong, he caused their male children to be drowned.” 20

17 p. 14, or p. 11. 18 P- 186, or p. 139.

19 The Pharaoh of the Jewish captivity has been positively identified with Rameses II, the
Sesostris of the Greeks. His date is about 1350 b.c. As we shall see later, Newton identifies
Sesostris with Sesac who reigned in the time of Rehoboam, he thus makes the son of Solomon
contemporary with Moses.

20 P. 186, or p. 139.

6 i8

ISAAC NEWTON

If Egypt was thus sparsely inhabited, he could take it for granted
that Greece also was occupied only by nomad tribes, especially as he
accepted Herodotus’s statement that Cadmus, with a small band of
Phoenicians, had a large share in the settling and civilisation of
Greece. He then, from references to Egyptians and other foreign per¬
sons mentioned in the Bible, fixed certain dates in the histories of
those countries. And, from similar instances in Greek history, he
drew up a comparative table in which he attempted to make a syn¬
thesis of ancient legends, to explain chronological discrepancies, and
to bring secular history into conformity with Biblical tradition.

Although Newton agreed with other chronologers in assigning
three generations to a century, he thought he had discovered their
chief source of error in the fact that many of the dates are stated
in terms of the length of the reigns of successive kings and “by the
ordinary course of nature kings reign, one with another, about eigh¬
teen or twenty years apiece.” 21 To prove this point, he listed all the
reigns of ancient kings, and also those of France and England, and
so determined eighteen to twenty years to be what he can call the
average length of a reign. Thus, he believed that chronologers, by
taking the length of a reign to equal the longer period of an average
generation, had lengthened the lapse of time by about one-third.

Also Newton believed that chronologies had been greatly length¬
ened by duplication of persons. For example; tradition records two
rulers with the name of Minos; by assuming them to be the same
person, one generation is struck out. In order to compress by this
means the long histories of the Greeks and Egyptians within the
fixed Biblical dates, he is led into deep water. One of the most re¬
markable instances of the historical confusion so introduced is the
protean form he gives to Sesac. He starts with the statement in 2d
Chronicles, xn, 2, “that in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak
king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem.” This king’s name is else¬
where spelled Sesac, and Newton places him as the second king of
Egypt. And, apparently, for no other reason than that the first
syllables of their names are spelled the same, he is identified with
Sesostris, mentioned by Herodotus and known to us as Senusret, who
ruled in Egypt more than a thousand years before the time of Sesac
and Rehoboam. 22 By this simple and effective method he makes the

21 P. 52, or p. 39.

22 This identification of Sesac and Sesostris was not original with Newton as he cites
Josephus and the great English chronologer, Sir John Marsham, as authorities for his merger
of these two into one.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 619

beginning of the dynastic history of Egypt contemporaneous with

the reign of Solomon. ,

Not content with this slight discrepancy of a thousand years, he

proceeds to make Sesac-Sesostris a name to conjure with, and by him
to correlate Greek and Egyptian history by the following ingenious
identification: “Osiris, Bacchus, and Sesostris lived about the same
time and by the relation of historians were all of them kings of all
Egypt, and reigned at Thebes, and adorned that city, and were very
potent by land and sea: all three were great conquerors and carried
on their conquests by land through Asia, as far as India: all three
came over the Hellespont, and were there in danger of losing their
army: all three conquered Thrace, and there put a stop to their vic¬
tories, and returned back from thence into Egypt: all three left pillars
with inscriptions in their conquests: and therefore all three must be
one and the same King of Egypt; and this King can be no other than
Sesac.” 23 But the ubiquitous Sesac had still other uses, as he also be¬
comes a son of Jupiter-Ammon. By these means, Newton telescoped
more than two millennia of Egyptian history into a single genera-

Sesac-Osiris also is the link connecting up Greek history since all
legends regarding Dionysus or Sesac-Bacchus can now be dated in
the reign of the Biblical Sesac, or between 1002 and 956 B. C. The
sons of Dionysus and Ariadne were the Argonauts, and their famous
expedition is thus placed one generation later than Sesac. As Dionysus
loved a woman named Venus, who became the mistress of Anchises
and the mother of .Eneas, the fall of Troy occurred not long after
the Argon autic expedition. And since Ariadne was the daughter of
Minos of Crete, his date is also settled. To make confusion worse
confounded, Sesac is finally merged with /Egyptus, and so becomes
the brother of Danaus and the grandson of Io, who turns out to be
no other than the Egyptian goddess Isis. But Isis was certainly the
wife of Osiris and so must be also his grandmother. And Epaphus,
the son of Io, turns out to be no other than the father of Sesac-
.Egyptus, yet Newton also identifies Epaphus with Sesac.

By such devious devices, Newton dates the capture of Troy in 904
B. C., despite the fact that ancient writers placed it about 1200 B. C.,
an approximate date now generally accepted. One more example
will suffice. The first dynastic king of Egypt, supposed to have
founded Memphis, was called Menes by the Greeks; Newton con-

23 P. 193, or p. 144.

620

ISAAC NEWTON

fuses him with Amenophis or Memnon, who is probably Amen-
hotep III, a ruler some 2000 years or more later.

Besides these methods of constructing his calendar, Newton
thought he had confirmed the date of his Menes-Amenophis by an
astronomical method.” 4 The Egyptian year of 365 days was divided
into twelve lunar months, to which were added five extra days de¬
dicated to five gods. In the temple of Menes-Amenophis, there was
a golden circle divided into 365 equal parts, and on it were noted
day by day the heliacal risings and settings of the stars. Newton,
from this legend, conjectured that the solar calendar was estab¬
lished “in the reign of Ouranus, or Ammon, the father of Sesac,”
who ruled shortly before Amenophis. Since this calendar year is
about six hours shorter than the true solar year, the New Year’s day
moves backward one day in every four years. This year of 365 days
was later adopted in Babylonia in 747 B. C., the first year of the so-
called era of Nabonassar, and the New Year began on February
26th of the old Roman Calendar. If, as Newton was convinced, the
era of Amenophis began on the vernal equinox, or thirty-three days
later, then the date of Amenophis becomes 884 B. C. But it has since
been discovered that the Egyptian astronomers chose July 20th, the
constant date of the heliacal rising of Sirius, to initiate the new
calendar, instead of the March 22d, the vernal equinox, so his calcula¬
tions are quite erroneous. According to Breasted the calendar of
365 days was introduced into Egypt in 4241 B. C., some 3400 years
earlier than Newton’s calculation.

Newton made use of another astronomical calculation, the preces¬
sion of the equinox, in order to establish his chronology. 25 Chiron,
ne says, was a practical astronomer and mapped the stellar sphere
to aid the Argonauts during their long and perilous voyage. Accord¬
ing to this map, he claimed that the “points of the equinoxes and
solstices were [then] in the middles of the constellations of Aries,
Cancer, Chelae, and Capricorn. He then from the positions of these

24 J\° r Newt on’s discourse on ancient astronomy, cf. pp. 71-94, or pp. 55-75.

The Greek astronomer, Hipparchus, was the first to note that the sun arrived at the
equinox a little earlier each year. According to the observations of Flamsteed this annual
precession amounts to 50" of arc which agrees very closely with the present accepted value.
Newton had discovered its principal cause to be the moon’s attraction on the earth’s
equatorial belt which makes the pole of the earth to describe a slow circle. At the rate of
5° a year it takes the pole 25920 years to make the complete circuit, and evidently in that
period the calendar gains a year. Thus, if we observe the equinoctial point in the constella-
tions at two different times we can measure the precession and if we know one of the dates
the other can be calculated on the basis of 50" per year.

26 P. 83, or p. 64.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

621

points in the year 1689 A. D. found that the equinox was gone back
36°, 44' which, at the annual rate of 50", is equivalent to a lapse of
2646 years. Thus, the date of the Argonauts would be 956 B. C. Be¬
cause of the coarse observations of the ancients, he introduced various
corrections till he made the date agree with his former statement of
937 B. C., or twenty-five years after Solomon. But, as the correct date
is approximately 1260 B. C., we must accept the opinion of modern
astronomers that the astronomical observations recorded before Hip¬
parchus are too vague to be used as a basis for chronology. 2

Deucalion and the Flood .

Cadmus comes to Greece .

Erechtheus reigns in Athens .

Minos reigns in Crete .

NEWTON

ca.1045 ....

. 1045....

. 1033....

. 1015- 964. ...

. 1047....

MYRES

. .. ca. 1430
. .. . 1400

1360
.... 1230

.... 1530

Hirmc .

. 958 ....

. . . . 1260

A r crr \nonfc .

. 937 -

. ... 1260

Trojan War .

.... 1200

It must be evident that Newton’s long labour on his chronology
was thrown away if we consider its practical value, but it is im¬
portant as evidence of his love of calculating and fitting together the
pieces of a puzzle. If he had lived today, he might have solaced his
vacant hours by omnivorous reading of detective stories, or by work¬
ing cross-word puzzles, instead of ancient chronologies and Biblical
prophecies. It is a similar example of his youthful confession of hay¬
ing calculated the area of a hyperbola to fifty-two decimal places. His
love of detailed work, and of drawing, is also shown by his devoting
Chapter V of his Chronology to an elaborate description, with three
detailed plates, of Solomon’s Temple. I shall omit any comment on
this work except to note an anecdote of Dr. Stukeley which I dis¬
covered in the Portsmouth Papers. Dr. Stukeley relates that he dis¬
coursed with Newton on Christmas (1720) about Solomon’s Temple:
“He says it was older than any other great temple. From this model
Sesostris built his temples in Egypt and from thence the Greeks bor-
rowed their architecture and religion.” With this last example of
confusion introduced by Sesac-Sesostris-Osirisj ct ul. } I shall leave the

subject. . £ ,

Newton’s interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and or the

27 I have as an illustration of the errors of Newton’s system made a comparative table of
his dates with those given in Mr. Myres’s, Who were the Greeks?

622

ISAAC NEWTON

Apocalypse brings out even more clearly his mystical tendencies, and
his love of practical details, than does his chronology. In his inter¬
pretations of mystical and prophetic writers, he sought to verify their
vague statements by intricate chronological tables and to support
their philosophy by mathematical analysis. There is sufficient con¬
temporaneous evidence for this opinion. William Law, the author of
The Serious Call, stated that Newton “did but reduce to mathemat¬
ical form the central principles of nature revealed in Behmen.” 28
Henry More thought he was misled in his interpretation of Daniel by
his mathematical genius. 29 And there is also the anecdote of his anger
when Bentley accused him of expounding the prophecies, as he
would demonstrate a mathematical proposition. 30 It seems to us an
utter waste of time to try to interpret the symbolism of the Biblical
writers as a prediction of future events. Modern scholarship has
proved conclusively that such books were written during times of
political disruption and conquest. They narrated the past history
and sufferings of the Jews under their conquerors in order to keep
up their national spirit, and to encourage them by foretelling the ad¬
vent of a Messianic ruler who would institute a reign of spiritual
righteousness and restore their ancient power. These chronicles
were disguised in symbolic language because it would not have been
safe to mention such matters openly.

We also have grown to be lax in seeking for any religious author¬
ity, but in Newton’s time the effort to replace the authority of the
Roman Church by that of the Bible was an all important question.
The growth of science and, especially, Newton’s own work were
fostering a critical examination of Biblical miracles and natural his¬
tory; and the English had entered upon a period of scepticism and
irreligion as a reaction against the rigors of the Commonwealth. To
meet the unanswerable attacks on the literal revelation of the Bible
as a whole, the belief was gaining ground that only those parts neces¬
sary to salvation were infallible, and that they had been expressed so
clearly as to enable any enquiring mind to understand them. The
attempt was also being made to use the mechanistic philosophy of
Newton’s Principia as a proof of God’s revelation by the establish¬
ment of natural law. The leaders of the Church of England, and
such men as Locke and Newton, accepted the Scriptures as a divine
revelation and remained professing churchmen; while they might

Conway Letters. Ed. by Nicolson. Oxford, 1930, p. 381 n.

0 p. 479 * Whiston, Memoirs, p. 107.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 623

question the authenticity of some passages, they withstood the at¬
tacks of the then obscure Deists who denied the truth of miracles as
being contrary to the invariability of natural law. But, the fact is,
Newton and Locke gave a much greater impulse to modem mecha¬
nistic naturism than did the professed Deists, for their philosophy was
adopted by Voltaire and the French philosophers of the eighteenth
century and, through them, the mechanistic evolutionists of the
nineteenth century transmitted to us our rejection of ^all knowledge
not based on the scientific method of sense perception. 31

Thus Newton, who was essentially a Protestant and who was also
heterodox enough to be classed as an Arian and therefore sceptical
concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, would still find deep satis¬
faction in reconciling the prophecies with future history. By that
means he would strengthen his belief in the authority of the Bible at
least so far as spiritual miracles were concerned. There is no doubt
that his profound belief in the rigor of natural law must have made
him doubt many of the natural miracles of the Old Testament. A
note, which is preserved in the Portsmouth Papers and which ap¬
parently has not been published, is almost conclusive evidence of his

scepticism:

“For miracles are so called not because they are the works of God
but because they happen seldom and for that reason create wonder.
If they should happen constantly according to certain laws impressed
upon the nature of things, they would be no longer wonders or mir¬
acles but might be considered in philosophy as a part of the phenom¬
ena of nature [notwithstanding their being the effects of the laws im¬
pressed upon nature by the powers of God] notwithstanding that the
cause of their causes might be unknown to us. 532

Newton’s boyhood had been passed in a religious atmosphere,
and, from the evidence of the verses on King Charles, which he at
least preserved even if he may not have been their author, we should
suppose that he, and his family, were High Church and Royalist in
sympathy. But there were two influences which would exercise a

31 This indirect influence of Newton’s mechanistic philosophy, which he would have
scorned, is too intricate to be treated here; but I hope in a future work to show that it is

the dominant factor in our present philosophy of life. . ,

82 This note was most carefully written and interlined with corrections. It was apparently
to be used in combating Leibniz’s charge of the irreligious tendencies of the Pnnapia. I he
passage in brackets was written and then crossed. Newton’s explanation of natural miracles
can hardly be considered orthodox.

624

ISAAC NEWTON

great effect on his growing mind. He lived in the heart of Crom¬
well’s country, and he must have listened to many advocates of the
Protestant movement; also the feeling of Cambridge was much less
Royalist in sympathy than at Oxford. At all events, he became a
confirmed Whig and anti-Romanist. We may suppose that his
friendship with the young Charles Montague affected his sym¬
pathies; but we can ascribe the principal causes of his change of
opinions to the moral laxity of Charles II, which would deeply shock
him, and to the steady drift of the Stuarts to the Roman Church. At
all events, the attempt of James II to bring the Universities to tolerate,
at least, that faith aroused in him such unqualified opposition as to
make him take the leading part in refusing to obey the King’s man¬
date to give a degree to Fr. Alban, and to represent the University
in the Convention Parliament. From that time, his steady adherence
to the Whig party and to the Anglican Church was summarised in
the gibe that he accepted his politics and his religion without doubt
or question. No opinion could have less accurately described him. No
subject occupied his thoughts more than religion and, while he was
critical of some of the tenets of the Church of England and a rather
lax attendant on public worship, he evidently felt that it and the
Whigs were the strongest bulwarks against the encroachments of
Rome. If the fear of Rome so affected his religion, it was entirely
consistent for him to be a Whig as that party was committed to the
Protestant Church and opposed to the restoration of the Stuarts. His
opposition to Rome was so strong that, fearing the effect of Jacobite
plots at the accession of George I, he drew up the following declara¬
tion against the Roman Catholics which was evidently intended to
be circulated and presented to Parliament:

“Whereas of late years some opinions have been propagated by
superstitious men among the Christians of the Church of England
which tend to incline those of the Church of England to break all
communion and friendship with the Protestant Churches abroad and
to return into the communion of the Church of Rome; such as are
the opinions that the Church of Rome is a true Church without al¬
lowing her to be a false Church in any respect, and that the Protestant
Churches abroad are false Churches and that they have no baptism
and by consequence are no Christians, and that the Church of Eng¬
land is in danger, meaning by the succession of the House of Han¬
over. . . .” 33

33 Portsmouth Collection.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 625

This introduction should make clear Newton’s purpose in his
study of the prophetic books of the Bible. Before considering his
work I shall sketch the modern interpretation of the Book of Daniel.

It is generally agreed amongst Biblical scholars that Daniel is the
most important, and most easily understood, of the apocalyptic books.
It describes the historical events of the four captivities of the Jews by
the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians, and the Greeks, disguised
as visions in symbolic language. It was written by a single author
during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes and, probably, in 165 B. C.
Of the successors of Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes of
the Seleucid Dynasty was the bitterest oppressor of the Jews; he had
despoiled the Temple, thereby committing “the abomination of
desolation,” and was attempting vigorously to stamp out their re¬
ligion. In this desperate state of the nation, the purpose of the prophet
was to enhearten the people by showing that, as the troubles of the
three former conquests had passed away, so also would this bitterest
of all, the Greek domination. And if they would have courage and
faith, they could expect a Messianic, or spiritual Kingdom of great

power and glory. , , . , , . c

The scene of the Book is set during the third year of the reign ot

Jehoiakim in the sixth century, B. C. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Baby¬
lonia, had conquered Jerusalem and had carried off some of the gold¬
en vessels of the Temple and many captives, among whom were
Daniel and three other noble youths. Daniel rises to great favour with
the king by interpreting his dream of a great image whose head was
of goldjiis breast and arms of silver, his belly and thighs of brass, his
legs of iron and his feet part of iron and part of clay. And a stone cut
without hands smote the feet of the image and broke them. Later
Daniel, himself, has a vision of four ravening beasts, each more ter¬
rible than the former. Without going into details, Daniel interprets
both dreams as foretelling successive conquests by the Babylonians
under Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar; by the Medes under
Darius; by the Persians under Cyrus; and by the Greeks under Alex¬
ander, and his successors of the Seleucid Dynasty. The author finally
predicts the success of the insurrection of the Maccabees in 167 B. C.
but he does not mention the re-dedication of the Temple in 165, nor
the death of Antiochus in 163, and thus establishes the date of the
composition with approximate accuracy. The portion of the book
which describes the Greek conquest and, especially, the events of the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes is exact and detailed, but there are sev-

626

ISAAC NEWTON

eral serious errors in the narrative of the earlier events. For example,
there is no record of a Babylonian conquest in the third year of
Jehoiakim; Belshazzar was neither the son of Nebuchadnezzar nor a
ruler, but was the commander of the army in the reign of his father,
Nabunahid; and there is no historical record of a king Darius the
Mede preceding Cyrus. 34

Newton’s work on Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John was not
published till six years after his death, and was then edited by Ben¬
jamin Smith, the son of his half-brother Benjamin. 35 It was after¬
wards included by Bishop Horsley in his Opera Omnia of Newton
in 1785. There is no known record of when Newton began this
work, but it was evidently well under way in 1690 for he referred to
it several times in his correspondence with Locke. 36 In one letter he
wrote: “The Son of man, Dan. vii, I take to be the same with the
word of God upon the white horse in heaven, Apoc. xix. and him
to be the same with the man child, Apoc. xn., for both are to rule
the earth with a rod of iron; but whence are you certain that the
Ancient of Days is Christ? Does Christ any where sit upon the
throne?” Evidently, at this time, Newton was sceptical of Daniel’s
prophecy as predicting the coming of Christ, for he wrote again:
“Concerning the Ancient of Days, Dan. vn. there seems to be a
mistake either in my last letter, or in yours, because you wrote in
your former letter, that the Ancient of Days is Christ; and in my last,
I either did, or should have asked, how you knew that.”

In the first two chapters of his book, Newton gives a rapid sum¬
mary of the history of the Old Testament, and the key for inter¬
preting prophetic language. He declares his protestant faith in these
vigorous terms: “The authority of emperors, kings, and princes, is
human. The authority of councils, synods, bishops, and presby¬
ters, is human. The authority of the prophets is divine, and compre¬
hends the sum of religion, reckoning Moses and the Apostles among
the prophets; and if an angel from heaven preach any other gospel,
than what they have delivered, let him be accursed!’ Of Daniel, he
says “to reject his prophecies, is to reject the Christian religion. For

34 Dictionary of the Bible. Scribners, New York, 1901.

35 Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John. In two
parts. By Sir Isaac Newton: Dublin, 1733. Printed by S.. Powell.—The book is dedicated to
Peter, Lord King, who was a relative of John Locke and wrote his life. In 1733 he was
Lord Chancellor.

36 For this correspondence, cf. pp. 360, 361.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

627

this religion is founded upon his prophecy concerning the Messiah.”
He parted company with many of the other interpreters in that he
believed future events were not predicted with sufficient clarity to be
understood beforehand but, after they had happened, one could
recognise they had been foretold and thus be fortified in the faith of
revelation.

Newton believed the first six chapters to be a collection of historical
papers written by later, and unknown, authors who narrate the in¬
cidents of Daniel’s life at the Babylonian Court; and the last six
chapters to contain the prophecies of future events as foreseen and
written by Daniel, himself. He identified the composite image, and
the four beasts, with Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. It would
be quite a waste of time to follow Newton as he tried to reconcile the
many events of ancient times with the imagery of Daniel; he is in¬
genious, and he went to prodigious labour in reviewing history, but
his guesses were no better than were those of other interpreters. It
will pay us, however, to consider his interpretation of the fourth
beast of Chapter vn, which to him foretold Rome, instead of King
Antiochus. It will be remembered this beast had ten horns, and
Daniel saw that there came up among them another little horn
which plucked up three of the first horns by the roots; and this horn
had eyes like the eyes of a man and “a mouth that spake very great
things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the
same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
until the Ancient of days came, and judgement was given to the
saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed
the kingdom.”

Now Newton had identified this beast with the Roman Empire,
and the ten horns with ten kingdoms into which that Empire broke
about the time it was conquered by the Goths. It is quite evident his
long and meticulous discussion of the fourth beast was for the pur¬
pose of showing that the prophecies are accurate, and can be proved
to have been true from our knowledge of later events of Roman his¬
tory. His real interest in writing the book was, on the strength of
this background, to show that the little horn of the fourth beast was
prophetic of the Roman Church.

The little horn, Newton states, is a little kingdom; since it be¬
longed to the fourth beast, Rome, and rooted up three kingdoms, he
looked for it among the nations of the Latin Empire, established af-

628

ISAAC NEWTON

ter the break up of the Roman Empire into the ten kingdoms. His
ingenious argument for his identification of the Roman Church with
the little horn should be told in his own words: 37

“It was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten king¬
doms, having a life or soul peculiar to itself, with eyes and a mouth.
By its eyes it was a see; and by its mouth speaking great things and
changing times and laws, it was a prophet as well as a king. And
such a see, a prophet and a king, is the Church of Rome.

“A see, episcopus, is a bishop in a literal sense of the word; and
this Church claims the universal bishopric.

“With his mouth he gives laws to kings and nations as an oracle;
and pretends to infallibility, and that his dictates are binding to the
whole world; which is to be a prophet in the highest degree.

“In the eighth century, by rooting up and subduing the Exarchate
of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lombards, and the Senate and
Dukedom of Rome [the three horns], he acquired Peter s patrimony
out of their dominions; and thereby rose up as a temporal prince or
king, or horn of the fourth beast.”

To confirm this identification of the Church of Rome with the
little horn, Newton reviews the early history of the Church and its
relations with the secular powers in great detail and with astonish¬
ing erudition. But his great endeavour is to announce the downfall
of Papal authority and the succeeding dominion of the saints; and
this conclusion he gives in the following words which reveal the pas¬
sionate depths of a man who ordinarily appeared so restrained and
aloof:

“By the conversion of the ten kingdoms to the Roman religion,
the Pope only enlarged his spiritual dominion, but did not yet rise
up as a horn of the beast. It was his temporal dominion which made
him one of the horns: and this dominion he acquired in the latter
half of the eighth century, by subduing three of the former horns as
above. And being arrived at a temporal dominion, and a power
above all human judicature, he reigned ‘with a look more stout than
his fellows, and times and laws were hence forward given into his
hands for a time, times, and half a time’, or three times and a half;
that is, for 1260 solar years, reckoning a time for a calendar year of
360 days, and a day for a solar year. After which ‘the judgement is
to sit, and they shall take away his dominion’, not at once but by de¬
grees, ‘to consume, and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom

87 Cf. p. 75.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

629

and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom under the whole
heaven shall’, by degrees, ‘be given unto the people of the saints of
the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all

dominions shall serve and obey him.’ ” 38

It is not necessary to comment on Newton’s interpretation of the
Apocalypse of St. John as it is not nearly so detailed or important.
Nor would so much space have been devoted to Daniel if by doing
so a most important trait of his character had not been disclosed for
the first time. It is clear to me, and I hope now to others, that New¬
ton had been deeply affected by the Protestantism of the Common¬
wealth from 1642 to 1660 and, while he never left the Church of
England, he regarded Roman Catholicism with hatred and fear.
And I believe the chief purpose of his religious study was to satisfy
his hope of the downfall of the papal power, which he confidently
predicted would happen about the year 2000 A. D. If he were living
today he would be torn by two fears, the revival of Roman temporal
and spiritual power, and the decadence of Protestantism.

Like all the other scholars of his day, Newton regarded Mede as
the great source for chronological and prophetic study. It is not
likely that he took counsel with Whiston as they disagreed on almost
every question. Whiston caustically wrote, “how weak, how very
weak, the greatest of mortal men may be in some things” and gave
as an example Newton’s Chronology which after all his painstaking
effort was “no better than a sagacious romance.” Again, he criticised
the interpretation of Daniel and of the Apocalypse as so imperfect,
“even after the successful labour of the great Mr. Mede (whom I
have heard him own as the best of expositors), ... I could hardly as¬
sent to more than one of his expositions. 39

Newton found a most sympathetic friend and adviser in Henry
More. In fact, the earliest information of his interest in the pro¬
phetic writings is to be found in a letter, written in 1680, by More
to Dr. Sharp, who had asked about Newton’s apocalyptic no¬
tions. To this question, More answered: “I remember I told you
how well we were agreed. For after his reading of the Expo¬
sition of the Apocalypse which I gave him, he came to my
chamber, where he seemed to me not only to approve my Exposi¬
tion as coherent and perspicuous throughout from the beginning

38 This passage is to be found on pp. 113, 114; and the quotations he inserted are from
Daniel, vn, verses 20, 25, 26, and 27.

89 Whiston, Memoirs, p. 4 °«

ISAAC NEWTON

630

to the end, but (by the manner of his countenance which is or¬
dinarily melancholy and thoughtful, but then mightily lightsome
and cheerful, and by the free profession of what satisfaction he
took therein) to be in a manner transported. So that I took it
for granted, that what peculiar conceits he had of his own had
vanished.” Then there follows a disapproval of some of New¬
ton’s “extravagant conceits,” but in a postscript More adds: “When
my Exposition of Daniel comes out with this appendage, I hope
you will easily discover that Mr. N. was over sudden in his conceits.
I have told him myself of this appendage, and that if he be not con¬
vinced thereby, he has free leave from me to enjoy his own opinions.
We have a free converse and friendship, which these differences
will not disturb.” 40

We cannot learn much about Newton’s religious beliefs from his
Chronology, or from his interpretation of Daniel. But from his
tract on Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture which was published
posthumously, and from his manuscript papers, some of which were
published by Brewster and others examined by myself, it is possible to
arrive at a fairly clear knowledge of his personal beliefs.

During Newton’s life there were pretty definite rumours of his
heterodoxy, in so far as his acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity
was concerned. And in those days to deny the doctrine of the
Trinity was a serious matter as it prevented one from holding any
position of trust, and if persisted in the penalty was imprisonment. 41
Whiston, in his Memoirs, twice stated that Newton, like himself,
was an Arian, and a Baptist, and that he thought these two sects were
the two witnesses to the truth in the book of Revelations. Hopton
Haynes, who was a clerk in the Mint, declared that Newton was a
Unitarian and lamented that his friend, Dr. Samuel Clarke, had
stopped at Arianism. 42 On the other hand, the Biographia Britannica
stated in the article on Newton: “Mr. Whiston, who represented Sir
Isaac as an Arian, which he so much resented that he would not suf¬
fer him to be a member of the Royal Society while he was President.”

40 Conway Letters, p. 478.

41 The anti-Trinitarians can be classed under three main divisions: the Arians who denied
that the Son was coeternal with the father, though he was begot before time began and by
him the Father created all things. Arius was the chief opponent of Athanasius who held
that the Son is of the same substance (homoousion) as the Father; the Socinians who be¬
lieve that he did not exist before his appearance on earth, but that he was an object of
prayer; the Humanitarians, or Unitarians, who believe him to be a man, and not an object
of prayer.

42 This latter evidence is not direct, as it was reported by the Unitarian minister, Richard
Baron, a friend of Haynes. Cf. De Morgan, Essays, p„ 55.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 631

This statement is however not to be found in either edition of Whis-

ton’s Memoirs. 43 tutu

The stigma of being an Arian, if such it be, would probably have

died out after Newton’s death if it had not been re-awakened by the
publication of his tract on the Two Corrupt Passages , which he had
first intended to print anonymously and had then suppressed. And
even this manuscript purports to be merely a critical examination of
a Biblical text and not a criticism of the doctrine of the Trinity. The
fact of the matter is that the belief in Newton s heterodoxy does not
rest on such statements as Dr. Johnson’s that in his youth he was a
furious atheist, but rather on the insinuations of his apologists. When
Bishop Horsley was preparing his edition of Newton s works, he had
the opportunity given to him of examining the Portsmouth manu¬
scripts; and there is a widespread tradition that he found many
papers on religion which he deemed unfit for publication as they
would have great weight and would encourage atheism or, at least,

heterodoxy. , ,

It was most unfortunate that such a man as Bishop Horsley had

the first chance to examine Newton’s private papers, and to foster the
rumour that there was something sinister in his religious beliefs. It
was still more unfortunate that Brewster, when he wrote his first Life
of Newton in 1830 and without any real examination of the ques¬
tion, had no hesitation in declaring that he was a believer in the
Trinity. After De Morgan had made public his critical researches,
Brewster, who had in the meantime examined the Portsmouth Papers
while preparing his later Memoirs of Newton, qualified his opinion
by the admission that Newton s orthodoxy was not proved, but in
the charity which thinketh no evil, we are bound to believe that our
neighbour is not a heretic till the charge against him has been dis¬
tinctly proved.” 44 While Brewster did publish some of the Ports¬
mouth Papers, he failed to publish others which in my opinion are
decisive, and he added to the suspicions of heterodoxy by stating that
“Dr. Horsley exercised a wise discretion in not giving them formally
to the world.” 45 The day is long past, if it ever existed, when such

43 Dc Morgan first pointed out the falseness of this statement. I have verified De Morgan
in both editions of Whiston. On page 206 (edition 1749), and on page 178 (edition 1753 ),
Whiston merely says that Newton was an Eusebian or Arian; on pages 293, 294 (edition
1749) and on pages 249, 250 (edition 1753) he states that Newton refused to let him be
elected to the Royal Society because he could not bear to be contradicted and so was afraid
of Whiston the last thirteen years of his life. Thus the biographer deliberately joined these
two detached statements together to bolster up Newton s orthodoxy. Brewster rests part of
his plea for orthodoxy on this false evidence.

44 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 34 °. 45 lbld '> VoL H ’ P* 355 '

632

ISAAC NEWTON

mild heterodoxy as Newton’s can encourage atheism; and a dispas¬
sionate review of his theological opinions will settle the question.

We shall examine his most important theological tract first pub¬
lished posthumously in a slightly mutilated form in 1754, and after¬
wards included in Horsley’s edition of Newton’s works under the
title of An historical account of two notable corruptions of Scrip¬
ture (“in a letter to a friend, now first published entire from a MS.
in the author’s hand-writing in the possession of the Rev. Dr. Ekens,
Dean of Carlisle”). The history of the composition of this work
has been made accessible by Lord King. 46

On November 14, 1690, Newton wrote to John Locke: “I send you
now by the carrier, Martin, the papers I promised. I fear I have not
only made you stay too long for them, but also made them too long
by an addition. For upon the receipt of your letter reviewing what
I had by me concerning the text of 1st John v. 7, and examining
authors a little farther about it, I met with something new con¬
cerning that other of 1st Timothy in. 16, which I thought would be
as acceptable to inquisitive men, and might be set down in a little
room. ... If at present you get only what concerns the first done
into French, that of the other may stay till we see what success
the first will have. I have no entire copy besides that I send you, and
therefore would not have it lost, because I may, perhaps, after it has
gone abroad long enough in French, put it forth in English.”

Locke was expecting to make a trip to Holland and Newton’s pur¬
pose was that he should take the manuscript with him and, through
the medium of some literary acquaintance, have it translated into
French and published anonymously. As the texts criticised are the
two on which the doctrine of the Trinity is principally based, New¬
ton, with his characteristic timidity and dislike of contention, desired
to see how the work would be received before publishing it in Eng¬
land. But Locke either postponed, or abandoned, his trip, and for¬
warded the manuscript to his friend Le Clerc with instructions to
have it translated and published. Newton, who had learned that his
friend was still in England, wrote on February 16, 1691/2, “Your
former letters came not to my hand, but this I have. I was of opin¬
ion my papers had lain still, and am sorry there is news about them.
Let me entreat you to stop their translation and impression as soon
as you can, for I design to suppress them.” In a third letter written
three months later he merely said that he was “glad the edition was

Cf. Kings Life of Loc\e, Vol. I, pp, 401, 409, 415, 423—434.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

633

stopped.” We learn from the letters of Le Clerc to Locke that he
faithfully carried out his instructions, although he appreciated the
value of the dissertations and was most anxious to publish them.
After Locke’s death in 1704, he apparently deposited the manuscnp
in the library of the Remonstrants in Holland as the name of the
author had not been divulged to him, and he did not know where to
return them. There they lay for fifty years they were pub-

lished by an anonymous editor who, as some of the first a
pages were missing, supplied them as best he could. Porson the
Greek scholar, in his Preface to his Letters to Travis comments on
this work: “Between the years 1690 and 1700, Sir Isaac Newton wrote
a Dissertation upon 1 John v. 7, in which he collected, arranged, an
strengthened Simon’s arguments, and gave a clear, exact, and com-
prehensive view of the whole question.

The two texts which Newton criticised are:

1st Epistle of John v. 7,-For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three

“ °8 —And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1st Epistle to Timothy 111. 16,—And, without controversy, great is
the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, )ustified in

the Spirit, etc.

It will not be useful or interesting to follow Newton’s detailed
argument. In brief, he agrees with Simon 48 that verse seven o
John’s Epistle is not to be found in any of the early Greek texts,
mentioned by the early Greek fathers. The one exception of Cyprian
is explained by both as not being authoritative, ashe merely states
that we should understand the water, blood, and spirit, as being

for the tte SS JiJ' du Vieu , Testanen' (.678) aroused a

and forced him to It«

?r V om Rotterdam ntbetf th'e

Church^Fathers^ and Hound it interesting to check them up ^£

MSS* 3 &T of the

Greek fathers were in both Greek and Latin.

48 Critique du Nouveau Testament, Chap. xvm.

6 34

ISAAC NEWTON

significant of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is quite dif¬
ferent from saying they are the same, or that the Holy Ghost is a
person.

After Newton had disposed of the verse as a late interpolation in
the canon of the Scriptures, he accuses Jerome of having deliberately
inserted it in the Vulgate when he translated the then existing Greek
versions into Latin, about 385 A. D. One of his strongest arguments
is the fact that during the long and bitter controversy at the Council
of Nicaea in 325 A. D., which was waged on the doctrine of the
rimty, none of the Athanasian party makes any reference to this
witness of “the Three in Heaven.” From this and other evidence, he
concludes that later scholars, finding the passage in the Vulgate,
made a note of it in the margins of their Greek copies; and from such
scholia it ultimately crept into the subsequent Greek versions.

In thus flatly accusing Jerome of a forgery and of falsifying the
Scriptures, Newton differs from Simon. The French scholar admits
that verse seven is a spurious insertion in the Vulgate, but he claims
that it was interpolated in the Latin text by Victor, Eveque de Vite
who lived a century after Jerome. He also claims that the Prologue
o the Canonic Epistles attributed to Jerome was not written by him,
and cites its unknown author who “complains that the interpreters
have not translated the Epistles faithfully, and especially this verse in
St. John. He accuses them of having fallen into great error when
they retained in their Version only the three words, the water, the
ood, and the spirit, and of having omitted the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost who are authentic witnesses of the belief of
Catholics in the mystery of the Trinity.”

In his criticism of the verse in Timothy, Newton was breaking new
ground as Simon does not mention it. His argument is that the verse
s 011 lea . Great is the mystery of godliness, which was mani-
fested in the flesh. He cites that all the churches of the first four or
ve centuries, and all the authors of the ancient versions, even
Jerome s, give it in that form. Also it reads the same in the Ethiopic,
oynac, and Latin versions down to Newton’s time. But the Greeks
e claims, changed 0 into C® , the abbreviation of ©cos, so that the
passage now reads, “Great is the mystery of godliness: God mani-
fested in the flesh.” As he does not hesitate to charge Jerome with
alsifymg the Epistle of St. John so he summarises on the falsification
of the Epistle to Timothy: “The man that first began thus to alter
t ie sacred text, was Macedonius, the patriarch of Constantinople, in

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 635

the beginning of the sixth century. For the emperor Anastasius ban¬
ished him for corrupting it.”

In order to complete the investigation of these two passages, I am
permitted to include the following statement of my colleague Profes¬
sor Robert P. Casey who, because of his study of Athanasius, is

eminently fitted to sum up the case.

“The verse is a gloss which originated either in Spain or Africa be¬
fore the end of the fourth century. It is first quoted as part of 1st
John by a Spanish author Priscillian in 381 A. D. [?]. There are
only three late Greek witnesses, all dependent on the Latin. It was
natural for Newton to suppose Jerome inserted the verse since the
Vulgate was the earliest source in which he could find it. Brook sum¬
marises his exposition of the evidence:

“ 'The gloss was certainly known as part of the text of the Epistle
in Africa in the fifth century. Its acceptance as part of the text can¬
not be found in any country except Spain in the fourth century.
There it was undoubtedly used by Priscillian (380 ?). The influence
of his works and writings on the Latin texts of the Bible, which
passed over into orthodox circles through Peregrinus is an undoubted
fact. It is through the Theodulhan recension of the Vulgate that the
gloss first gained anything like wide acceptance.’ 49 It appears, quite
certain, however, that Jerome took over what was already in ex¬
istence.

“With regard to 1st Timothy 111. 16, there is no doubt that the
right reading is 6?:, although there is inferior manuscript authority
for 6 and Geo?. The difficulty lies in the absence of an antecedent for
6?, and it is generally held that the verse is a clumsily introduced
quotation, perhaps from some early Christian hymn. The theory,
that 0? was altered to Geo? by Macedonius, is first advanced by Hinc-
mar of Rheims. Liberatus of Carthage, in the sixth century, in an
anti-heretical tract, accuses Macedonius of changing o? to <*>?. The
editor of this treatise in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca Patrum suggested that
the original editor should have emended the text of Liberatus to
agree with that of Hincmar on the supposition that Hincmar was
acquainted with Liberatus. This conjecture was unhappily adopted
by Tischendorf, and the text of Liberatus is thus quoted in its
emended form in his apparatus. It is, however, not the reading of the
manuscript and I am inclined to think that the editor of Gallandi
was wrong.”

49 Cf. A. E. Brook, Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. International Critical Com¬
mentary. New York, 1912.

63 6

ISAAC NEWTON

Our chief interest in this work of Newton is not whether he proved
the spuriousness of these important texts, but to learn why he spent
such time and labour on the problem, and whether we can find
evidence in it of his own belief. There can be no doubt that he con¬
sidered the doctrine of the Trinity as of fundamental importance in
theology, and by proving the spuriousness of these verses he had
shattered the chief and most definite source of the mystery. Simon
could come to the same opinion without disturbing his acceptance of
the doctrine as an article of faith, since he could hold that the doc¬
trine of the Trinity had been established by the infallible authority
of the CEcumenical Councils of the Church; but Newton was a
Protestant, who denied the authority of the Church Councils and
rested his whole belief on the authentic words of the Bible. If he
thus proved that this verse had not been incorporated in the New
Testament before the fourth century he was absolved in his own
mind from accepting it. Also by fastening the act of falsifying the
Scriptures on Jerome he confirmed one more grievance against the
Roman Church.

It has been claimed that Newton, by countermanding the request
to have this tract published, had thereby indicated that he had not
convinced himself as to the truth of his research. But this argument
is without weight when we consider his characteristic reluctance to
publish anything, and especially a work on such a topic which in¬
volved actual danger to his position and liberty. While he is discreet,
there are several passages which show his sympathy with Arianism.

The tract opens with the significant statement of his purpose, “I
have done it the more freely, because to you, who understand the
many abuses which they of the Roman Church have put upon the
world, it will scarce be ungrateful to be convinced of one more than
is commonly believed. . . . But whilst we exclaim against the pious
frauds of the Roman Church, and make it a part of our religion to
detest and renounce all things of that kind, we must acknowledge it
a greater crime in us to favour such practices, than in the Papists we
so much blame on that account: for they act according to their re-
ligion, but we contrary to ours.” He then explains that he is not dis¬
cussing an article of faith, but only the authenticity of a text of
Scripture; but he omits to say that for Protestants the two questions
are hardly separable.

Again, Newton does directly attack the doctrine of the Trinity
and, what is extremely rare in his writings and occurs only when he

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

637

is deeply moved, he indulges in sarcasm. When discussing the opin¬
ions of Cyprian he remarks, Cyprian “does not say, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost, as it is now in the seventh verse; but the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as it is in baptism; the place
from which they tried at first to derive the Trinity.” 50

We find here also Newton’s very emphatic statement of his
Protestantism. He says of this seventh verse as it now appears in the
Bible: “Let them make good sense of it, who are able. For my part,

I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is
scripture, and what not, by our private judgements, I confess it in
places not controverted: but in disputable places, I love to take up
with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and
superstitious part of mankind, in matters of religion, ever to be fond
of mysteries; and for that reason, to like best what they understand
least.” 51 This dependence on the reason was the attitude not only of
the extreme Protestants, but it might also serve as the fundamental
doctrine of the English Deists who held that all the portions of the
Bible essential for salvation were revealed in language so clear they
would not be subject to dispute: thus, since he found this text sub¬
ject to dispute, the doctrine of the Trinity was not essential.

One more passage will be quoted, as it shows Newton’s tenderness
towards the Arians and is an example of his power of sarcasm. Yes,
truly, those Arians were crafty knaves, that could conspire so cun¬
ningly and slily all the world over at once (as at the word of a
Mithridates) in the latter end of the reign of the emperor Con-
stantius, to get all men’s books into their hands, and correct them
without being perceived: ay, and conjurors too, to do it without leav¬
ing any blot or chasm in their books, whereby the knavery might be
suspected and discovered; and to wipe away the memory of it out
of all men’s brains; so that neither Athanasius, or anybody else, could
afterwards remember that they had ever seen it in their books before;
and out of their own books too.” 52

50 Horsley, Vol. V, p. 498.—The Bishop, although he published this tract, was none too
well pleased with its tone, and probably included it only because it had already appeared in a
mutilated form. He notes on this passage: “The insinuation contained in this expression,
that the Trinity is not to be derived from the words prescribed for the baptismal form, is
very extraordinary to come from a writer who was no Socinian. As the Socinians were a
shade worse in the eyes of the orthodox than the Arians, the Bishop certainly was con¬
vinced of Newton’s heterodoxy and refused to publish other of his documents which would
reveal his Unitarianism.

51 Horsley, Vol. V, p. 529.

52 Ibid., p. 508.—Perhaps I should add a note of explanation as there seems to be preva¬
lent not only ignorance of the great questions of theology but also a curious apathy towards

6 3 8

ISAAC NEWTON

Newton’s purpose in writing this dissertation, and then deciding to
suppress it, is obvious enough. He was deeply interested in the mys¬
tery of the Trinity. Its chief support, in the New Testament, is verse
seven of John’s epistle. He finds, following the lead of the French
critic, Simon, that it was fraudulently inserted into the text of
Jerome as late as the fourth century and after the Council of Nicaea.
As a Protestant he could reject the doctrine of the Trinity if it is not
legitimately in the Scriptures; and also he finds support for Deism in
that it is not intelligible. Lastly I think he rejoiced to uncover a pious
imposture of the Roman Church which he holds would be worse
still for the Protestants to conceal. And one can understand that,
when so dangerous a manuscript was out of his hands, he began to
fear lest its authorship would be discovered, and so he not only sup¬
pressed it but, after Locke’s death, he did not dare to write to Le
Clerc to ask for its return.

One of Newton’s important papers, judging from the care with
which it was written, is the Irenicum: or ecclesiastical polity tending
to peace. As Brewster has published this document, 63 a running com¬
mentary on its main points will be sufficient. The author sketches
the history of church government from the earliest Jewish times
down to his own, with the purpose of showing that the Protestant,
rather than the Roman, form is the true successor of the primitive
Jewish church. Before the Babylonian captivity, he states, the cities
of Israel were governed by elders who sat at the gates of the cities.
The place of worship was nearby, and sometimes there was an altar
for sacrifices on a neighbouring hill. After the captivity, the King of
Persia, Artaxerxes Longimanus, commissioned Ezra to restore the
government, and to appoint magistrates and judges. Newton sup¬
poses that he revived, as nearly as possible, the ancient customs. Of
the new courts of judicature, the highest was the Sanhedrin, and the
lower courts sat in the synagogues whose development was due to
Ezra. The government, thus established, continued to the time of
Christ, and was then extended over all the Roman Empire by the scat¬
tered Jews. This same government passed from the Jews to the
early Christianised Gentiles who merely changed the name of
synagogues to that of churches, and of the Chief Rulers and Princes

enquiring about them. Newton is referring to the vital controversy between Athanasius and
Arius at the Council of Nicsa in 325 when the Arian view of the nature of the Son was
decided to be heresy. Newton is of course sarcastically stating that the Arians had erased the
seventh verse of John from the early Greek texts and writings of the Fathers so that the
Athanasians would not find any support for their pronouncement on the Trinity.

53 Vol. II, p. 526.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

639

of the synagogues, to Bishops and Presbyters. According to continu-
ous precedent the duty of Bishops and Presbyters is to govern, but
not to make laws.

The laws of the King extend only to things undetermined by the
laws of God; he is supreme head of the church in all things indif¬
ferent to the faith and can nominate or depose Bishops and Presby¬
ters. The being of the church does not depend upon an uninterrupted
succession of Bishops and Presbyters for it was broken in the time of
Ezra, and, having been broken once, it may be broken again.

All persons baptised are members of Christ’s body, called the
Church, even those who are not yet admitted into the communion
of the synagogue of any city. “The commission to teach and baptise
was given to the Apostles as the disciples of Christ, and to their dis¬
ciples, and the disciples of their disciples, to the end of the world,
there being no bishops or presbyters or church government yet in¬
stituted among the Christians. But after the institution of govern¬
ments, the governors appointed men to catechise and baptise, except
in cases of necessity, where the original right returned.”

The main line of Newton’s argument is, therefore, that the gov¬
ernment of the true church goes back continuously to the establish¬
ment by Ezra, after the Babylonian captivity, of synagogues without
priests or sacrifices, and that the institution of the Temple and its
High Priest was an usurpation of authority. Thus, he argues the con¬
tinuity of the Protestant Churches, and the usurpation of the Bishops
of Rome from the example of the Temple; that is, the primitive
Christian Church and its successor the Protestant Church were a con¬
tinuation of the synagogue and modelled on it. Since, also, a break
in the succession occurred in the time of Ezra so an uninterrupted
succession of Bishops is not necessary for the being of a church as the
Roman Church claims. But his reasoning is defective, because he for¬
gets that the Temple, and the authority of the High Priest, grew out
of the synagogue, as the Pope and the Bishop grew out of the Temple.

In general, Newton subscribes to the state government of the
Church of England. His ideas on baptism are correct in that it is a re¬
quirement for the Christian, but he is wrong in affirming that it can
be performed by any one except in cases of extreme urgency. If his
statement that baptism may be performed on those “who are not
yet admitted into the communion of the synagogue of any city” is one
defining his own belief, he cannot have accepted the doctrine of the
Baptist Church of his day. But the Irenicum, or peace, may be a com-

ISAAC NEWTON

640

promise to consolidate the Protestant Churches against the papacy,
and may not be a declaration of his own principles.

If we can rely on the evidence of the manuscripts which Newton
preserved to determine what religious questions in addition to his
faith in Protestantism and antagonism to Rome, most occupied his
thought, we shall find that they group themselves about the doc¬
trine of the Trinity. He enquired into the Biblical authority for the
doctrine; the controversy between Arius and Athanasius at the Coun¬
cil of Nicaea; the doctrine of consubstantiation or whether the Father
and the Son are of the same essence; and lastly he examined whether
Jesus is an object of worship, and whether the Holy Ghost is a per¬
son. I found eight documents on these subjects; they were written
most carefully, corrected and interlined, and often repeated. Of these
eight documents, Brewster published only two, and he apparently
selected those of an historical nature which could be regarded as an
enquiry into facts rather than as an expression of personal belief.

The first of these documents published by Brewster 54 proposed six¬
teen Paradoxical questions concerning the morals and actions of
Athanasius and his followers. Newton questions the report spread
by Athanasius that Arius died in a house of prostitution and several
other scandals of the same sort; whether Athanasius was a properly
constituted Bishop; and whether the Council of Nicaea was truly an
oecumenical council. To every question, he finds the answer favoura¬
ble to the Arians.

The other document published by Brewster 00 is a list of twenty-two
Quaeries regarding the word homoousios. While these questions
are not answered, the drift of Newton’s sympathy is evident. Homo¬
ousios is the battle cry of the Trinitarians as it signifies the belief in
the identical, and uncreated, essence of the Father and Son. New¬
ton asks whether such metaphysical questions have any meaning, or
are essential to religion. Then he asks whether the Emperor Con¬
stantine did not interpose his authority to defeat the wish of the ma¬
jority, and whether even then the Council did not decide that Christ
was merely the express image of the Father. He also proposes the
questions whether the doctrine of the equality of the three substances
was not first set on foot by Athanasius and others in the reign of
Julian the Apostate, and so later than the Council of Nicaea; whether

Vol. II, p. 342. Brewster thought that the manuscript had been written for publica¬
tion; I think he was mistaken as no one with any public position or reputation would have
dared to publish such scandals about the Council of Nicaea.

55 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 532.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 641

the worship of the Holy Ghost was not first decreed after the Council
of Sardica; and whether the doctrine of the three Persons in one was
not also the decision of that Council."'' Newton’s last questions turn
again to the subject of the usurpation of authority by the Bishops of

Rome.

What we can learn from the published theological works of New¬
ton is obscured by his caution, a caution which must have been in¬
creased by the misfortunes of Whiston. When I was generously given
permission to examine, and to make extracts from, the Portsmouth
Collection I was particularly anxious to see whether the vexed ques¬
tion of his religious opinions could not be answered from the docu¬
ments which Horsley and Brewster did not feel it wise to publish.

And I think the answer can now be given.

There are, in the Portsmouth Collection, a set of seventeen
Queries and one of ten Observations on the history of the Council
of Nicaea which do not greatly differ from those published by
Brewster. But there are other papers which give his personal beliefs
on these religious questions, and have never been printed. It was a
curious attitude for Brewster to take in suppressing such documents.
He devoted a long biography to show that Newton was not only the
greatest of all scientists, but also a man with almost no human faults.
And yet he undoubtedly thought that Newton’s religious convic¬
tions, the subject which he had meditated deeply and held to be the
most important of all, should not be divulged lest they should
weaken the faith of others, and lead them towards atheism. One
can better appreciate the pressure which was put upon a writer, in the
middle of the last century, to suppress any enquiry into matters held
to be orthodox from the rebuke administered to Brewster because of
his very mild questioning of Newton’s orthodoxy. His short Life of
Newton had no sooner been published than he received a letter from
Dr. Burgess, Bishop of Salisbury, protesting against his conduct, and
enclosing the advance sheets of an article which included the follow¬
ing passage:

“The name of Sir Isaac Newton has been lately employed by So-

56 Newton’s purpose, in trying to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity was first decreed
by the Council of Sardica, seems to be that he believed he would thus weaken it even in the
minds of Catholics. Many medieval theologians held the decisions of a council to be bind¬
ing only when they were received as such by the whole Church. That resolved itself into
the question of which councils were oecumenical. The Council of Nicaea was the first of such
councils, and that of Sardica is never included in the list. But if such were his purpose,
it has no value since the doctrine, however it may have originated, has been a&rmed in later

oecumenical councils.

642

ISAAC NEWTON

cinians and Unitarians, in opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity,
on the authority of a Tract, which he anxiously and deliberately sup¬
pressed. Dr. Brewster, in his recent publication of the Life of Sir
Isaac Newton, has, it is much to be regretted, done the same injustice
to the memory of Sir Isaac by his restatement and revival of the gen¬
eral contents of the suppressed Dissertation on the controverted
verse of St. John, and by omitting to notice Sir Isaac’s suppression of
the Tract.”^ 7 It is fortunate for me that the Bishop cannot thunder
against me for I shall be far more bold, as I think the time has come
to give to the world even his most private thoughts.

In a hitherto unpublished and unmentioned paper, Newton lays
down fourteen Argumenta in Latin, with supporting passages from
the Scriptures, to show that the Son is neither coeternal with, or
equal to, the Father. The most important arguments are the fol¬
lowing. 58

2. Because the Son is called the Word: John 1. 1.

4. Because God begot the Son at some time, he had not existence

from eternity. Prov. vm. 23, 25.

5. Because the Father is greater than the Son. John xiv. 28.

6. Because the Son did not know his last hour. Mark xm. 32,—

Matt. xxiv. 36,—Rev. 1. 1, and v. 3.

7. Because the Son received all things from the Father.

9. Because the Son could be incarnated.

In addition to adducing the support of the Bible against the doc¬
trine of the Trinity, Newton wrote another paper giving seven
Rationes or reasons against it. For example:

1. Homoousion is unintelligible. ’Twas not understood in the
Council of Nice (Euseb. apud Soc. .. .) nor ever since. What cannot
be understood is no object of belief.

6. The Father is God, creating and a person; the Son is God,
created and a person; and the Holy Ghost is God, proceeding and a
person; et tamen non est nisi unus Deus. He follows this statement
by an illustration; there is a Western Church, an Oriental Church
and an Egyptian Church, et tamen non est nisi una Ecclesia. The
ambiguity in both cases is that each is a particular individual and in
that sense cannot be said to be one.

57 Brewster, Vol. II, p. 523.

58 These, and the following Rationes, are given verbatim. The reader may, by consulting
tne citations, discover Newton’s evidence for his opinions.

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 643

7. The Person is intellectual substance [.substantia intellectualis\
therefore the three Persons are three substances.

Besides these hitherto unnoted papers, there are two short memo¬
randa which really amount to a declaration of his faith in Christ,
and they can mean only that he did not believe in the divinity of
Jesus. I quote the most significant portions of them:

“God has the prophecy originally in his own breast and Christ re¬
ceived it from God, and delivers it to his messenger, and by his mes¬
senger to John, and by John to the Churches in a continual sub¬
ordination. He delivers it not as having it originally in his own
breast, but as a faithful and true witness of what He received from
the Father as a witness or prophet whose testimony is the spirit of
prophecy. And to deny this subordination would be to deny Jesus
Christ as he is a Prophet, the only Prophet to whom God reveals him¬
self immediately, and who is therefore called the Word of God.”

His Unitarianism is, I think, even more pronounced in the follow¬
ing: “Jesus therefore by calling himself the Son of God and saying I
and the Father are one meant nothing more than that the Father had
sanctified him and sent him into the world.” Then Newton justifies
“the calling them Gods to whom the word of God came lest the
Scriptures should be broken; and that by consequence that he, be¬
ing a man, might have called himself a God in the sense of the
Scriptures without blasphemy, and much more may he call himself
the son of God.”

Newton had thought out his religious beliefs with sufficient clear¬
ness, and there would not have been a long controversy about them
if those, who had access to his papers, had not tried to make him ap¬
pear orthodox. He was wholly committed, as was Milton, to the
Protestant doctrine against the authority of the Church Councils. He
was especially interested in proving that the Council of Nicaea was
dominated by the Emperor and by the evil machinations of Atha¬
nasius, and should not even be credited as authoritative by the Cath¬
olics. His purpose was not to do away entirely with the interpreta¬
tion of the Athanasian doctrine of the one substance, but to show
that the argument over homoousios was not an important, or rather
not a fundamental doctrine. He would have us believe that the
Church was all the while Arian. His scholarship was weak in the
modern sense, and he had not grasped the broader aspects of the
problem as did the great English divines, such as Hooker, or he
would have realised that the doctrine of the substance is a funda-

ISAAC NEWTON

644

mental one, since without it the Christian God becomes a vague sort
of a creative action.

Personally, Newton was an Arian since he states definitely that
the Father and the Son are not one substance; that the Son was
created and therefore of a different substance for, if they were of one
substance then, the Father having created the substance of the Son,
He must have created his own substance. Having placed the source
of authority in the Bible and not in the Councils, he shows that the
Holy Ghost is not a person or substance by calling the two pas¬
sages in the New Testament spurious which specifically mention the
Holy Ghost as a person.

But Newton goes much farther than merely to deny the doctrine
of consubstantiation. He had rationally adopted the Unitarian posi¬
tion that Jesus was sent by the Father into the world as a Prophet who
differed from the other Prophets only in the immediacy of the mes¬
sage delivered to him. Thus he explains the claim that “I and my
Father are one” as a unity of purpose and not one of identity. Like
so many other Unitarians of the day, such as Locke, he here makes a
break between reason and practice, since he maintained his affiliation
with the Church of England. But, as I have remarked before, I find
in this the cause of his refusal to take orders; as a private worshipper
he felt he was justified in making reservations which his conscience
was too tender to permit him to make as a priest.

The natural philosophers of Newton’s time were wiser than the
scientists of today because they saw more clearly the inevitable con¬
flict which must always exist between materialistic science and ideal¬
istic religion. They saw that the doctrine of the Trinity was a vital
and fundamental question, and not a matter of words as it is so fre¬
quently and contemptuously assumed to be by those who find truth
only in what appeals to the senses. It is, at bottom, the answer of the
Christian Church to the question of the reality of immaterial sub¬
stance; it is the question which most occupied Plato and Aristotle;
and it is the question which made them, and Newton also, condemn
the philosophy of materialism.

While Newton’s specific statement that “what cannot be under¬
stood is no object of belief” might have been quoted as the funda¬
mental tenet of the Deists, he cannot be classed with them. Even if
no other consideration had weighed with him, he would have
repudiated a connection with that movement because all the digni¬
taries of church and state of his time looked upon the professed

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 645

Deists as out of the pale. But, on the other hand, his world of
rigorous mechanical law as portrayed in the P nncipia became by the
skillful pen of Voltaire the chief source of the later deistic philosophy.
Nor would it be difficult to show the influence of Newton’s mecha¬
nistic philosophy on the agnosticism of Huxley and the humanitarian-
ism of the present day.

Although Newton wrote so voluminously on religious subjects, he
never seems to have anticipated that his mechanistic natural philos¬
ophy could have any effect on religion other than to strengthen our
belief in the Christian faith. He was therefore taken entirely by sur¬
prise when Leibniz, in a letter to the Princess Caroline, expressed his
disapproval of the Principiu on the ground that its philosophy was
materialistic and subversive of the Christian religion. Newton s
God, he claimed, was merely a super-mechanic who could not even
create a satisfactory universe, but to keep it going must constantly
repair its worn parts.

This criticism aroused a storm of indignation in England and the
animus of Leibniz was attributed, with some apparent justification,
to the personal jealousy of its author who was irritated by the charge
of plagiarism which had been made against him. By most people,
the purity and piety of Newton s life was instanced as a sufficient
evidence of the wickedness of the accusation, although it should have
been clear that his religious faith and practice had nothing to do with
the question. Since Newton was considered not to be skillful in
philosophic debate, the task of defending his philosophy was left to
Samuel Clarke. 59 The fact is that Newton’s philosophy and religion
were two separate things, and he does not seem to have concerned
himself with the problem of reconciling them. Intellectually, he
could develop a system in which God and man had but a minor
role in comparison with Nature; but practically he remained a con¬
fessing member of the Church of England whose doctrines are not
in conformity with rigorous laws of mechanics.

From brief statements scattered through his scientific writings, a
fairly accurate idea of Newton’s conception of the physical universe,
and of man’s place in it can be formed. This universe, at least so far
as it can be examined scientifically, he regarded as a vast and com¬
plicated machine created by a personal and spiritual God, who also

59 A spirited correspondence passed between Clarke and Leibniz which has been published
in Des Maizeaux’s Collection —Recueil de diverses pieces, par Mss. Leibniz, Clarke, Newton,
et autres. 2d edition corrected and enlarged. 2 vols., Amsterdam, I 74 °- Also an edition by
Dr. Sam’I Clarke giving the collection of Papers in French and English. London, 1717.

ISAAC NEWTON

646

ordained rigorous laws according to which it must operate. While
the world was young, God may have set aside the orderly operation
of natural law in order to teach ignorant men His power; the age of
such miracles is now past. The record of those intimate relations of
God and men is found in the Old Testament; but now He reveals to
us His purpose and His power through natural laws which He no
longer miraculously contravenes. Thus, if we, by diligent seeking,
discover the laws of the universe we are at the same time making
manifest the Divine purpose; and science becomes one of the chief
aids to religion. The miraculous power which men, with Divine aid,
could exercise formerly to alter the motions of the stars and to
suspend the laws of nature was taken from us when the full revela¬
tion had been granted in the death and resurrection of the Messiah;
since then it is sufficient for us, as detached observers, to learn and
obey natural and spiritual law. So strong was his conviction of the
universe as a rigorous machine that he thought the planets must, be¬
cause of friction, gradually lose their motion. One might sum up
this philosophy by saying that God had created the world machine
and, having in its early history experimented with it, now limited
Himself to repairing and adjusting its worn parts. Possibly even it
might wea** out and have to be recreated at intervals.

If we are thus limited to a mere observation of an objective world,
how shall we conduct ourselves in it during our life, and how shall
we learn from our sensations what is the Divine purpose towards
us ? Newton, apparently without regard to the difficulties involved,
accepted the ideas of the Cambridge Platonists. According to that
philosophy, the flux of external events comes to us as mechanical
agitation of the sense organs which is then transferred to the brain
by motion in our nerves. Although the brain, as a whole, contributed
to the translation of these motions into the sensations of sight, touch,
etc., their interpretation as emotion and thought was the function of
a small and imaginary organ situated somewhere in the brain. This
organ, the sensorium as it was named, was the seat of the self-con¬
scious soul, and in it were concentrated all those processes which to¬
gether constitute the intellectual and spiritual personality. As the
flux of events which comes to our sense organs is very limited in
quantity and confused in character, so also its interpretation by the
human sensorium is equally limited and distorted by our imperfect
and finite nature. To the approximation with which we can con¬
ceive of an infinite and omniscient sensorium that receives the uni-

CHRONOLOGY AND THEOLOGY 647

versal flux and translates it absolutely without limitation of time and
space, we have to the same degree defined the nature of God. Since
the sensoria of God and man differ thus only in degree and not in
kind, we can by the exercise of accurate observation and thought
understand more clearly the divine nature, and obey more readily
the divine will.

It is quite evident that such a philosophy left man entirely out¬
side of the physical world in which he lived. And for the most part
men of science were content, during the eighteenth century, to study
the material and the living worlds as quite separate from each. With
the growth of the biological sciences in the nineteenth century, there
was an attempt by the evolutionists to close this gap, and to regard
life and its functions as special configurations and motions of mate¬
rial atoms. Thus biology became but a branch of mechanics. The
height of this movement was attained by the cosmic evolution of
Spencer who pictured a continuous evolution, from a primordial
chaos to the present state of the universe, controlled by the laws of
mechanics. Man had indeed been made a part of the universe, but
he had also entirely lost his self-conscious identity. It is safe to say
that the trend of thought is at present to regard life as an entity dis¬
tinct from matter and subject to its own laws.

By the irony of fate, Newton’s religious heterodoxy, which was so
much feared, has now not a particle of influence; but his scientific
work, which was heralded by Bentley and others as a bulwark for
orthodox faith, has been built upon as a basis for the attacks on the
Christian religion by such scientists as can recognise no phenomena
and no laws except those of matter, space, and time.

CHAPTER XVII

THE LAST YEARS
1718-1727

T he last years of Newton’s life were passed in the enjoyment
of the honour and respect which his achievements merited.
At the advanced age of seventy-five years, he still enjoyed ex¬
cellent health, and his mental powers were unimpaired except for
some decay of memory; with his snow white hair and with the bloom
and colour of youth, he presented a notable and venerable appear¬
ance. While he had suffered from the inevitable death of acquaint¬
ances, yet his habitual isolation from society would enable him to
bear such losses with composure of mind. The death of Halifax,
however, must have made a great difference in his life, if, as seems
probable, his niece, Catherine Barton, returned to his house. She was
now a rich woman and, whatever her status may have been as Hali¬
fax’s housekeeper, within two years she married John Conduitt, a
man of influence several years younger than herself. Without any
positive evidence, except the statement of Conduitt that Newton’s
niece lived with her uncle twenty years before and after her mar¬
riage, it is believed the Conduitts lived with him in St. Martin’s
Street. A year after their marriage, their only child, Catherine Con¬
duitt, was born.

In spite of the additional life which these new relationships
brought to Newton, we still picture him as living mostly in his
private study, eating his meals alone and passing his days reading
and writing. Occasionally, he had visitors, and occasionally he met
Halley and others at taverns and coffee houses. His duties at the
Mint were light and required attendance only one day a week, and he
went regularly to the weekly, and to the Council, meetings of the
Royal Society. How rarely he travelled is strikingly illustrated by the
tact that he had never been in Oxford till, at the age of seventy-eight,
he visited Keill.

Although the active phases of the controversies with Flamsteed
and Leibniz had died out, they still affected his life and occupied his

648

THE LAST YEARS

649

time. The visits of Flamsteed and their morning games of back¬
gammon had long since ceased. The Historia Ccelestis had been
published in spite of the exasperated protests of its author, but New¬
ton had suffered the bitter mortification of learning that Flamsteed
had triumphantly burned all the copies undistributed, and was
pushing his own edition with desperate haste. All that Newton
could do to delay this work was to refuse obstinately to return the
sealed packet of data, and now he knew that although his former
friend had sunk under his infirmities and labours, yet the catalogue
was to be published posthumously.

Also the Pyrrhic victory over Leibniz had left Newton embittered
and determined to vindicate himself. Nor did the death of Leibniz
in 1716 end the matter; for Bernoulli’s Epistola pro Eminente Matk-
ematico had had a great influence in securing the support of the con¬
tinental mathematicians; and now Bernoulli was alternately denying
the authorship of the letter, and trying to excuse himself to New¬
ton. The bitterness of this controversy had eaten into his very soul
and he spent hour after hour drawing up a vindication of his own
conduct, and a proof to show that Leibniz had plagiarised his ideas.
Raphson had published a History of Fluxions in 1715? an< ^ now
Newton turned over these papers to him in order that they might
appear as an appendix, which was not added to the copies till after
Leibniz’s death. 1

It seems probable that Newton was even more exasperated by
Leibniz’s attack on the anti-Christian influence of the Principia than
by the controversy over the invention of the calculus. To justify
himself, he aided Des Maizeaux in preparing for publication the
long debate between Leibniz and Samuel Clarke on the religious
significance of the Newtonian philosophy. For this purpose he gave
to the author the documents relating to the controversy, and assisted
him in preparing an historical preface which reviewed the whole af¬
fair. Nor did he stop with these efforts; it has already been told that
he personally revised and edited the Commercium Epistolicum,

1 De Morgan ( Essays , p.. 31) states: “Leibniz died in November, 1716, and Newton forth¬
with handed the whole correspondence, with his final notes, to Raphson, whose History of
Fluxions was then in process of printing. The book appeared with this correspondence as an
appendix: it is dated 1715, but the publication was retarded.”—This is, I am convinced, an
error The book was published in English and in a Latin translation in 1715. As it happens
I own a Latin copy without the appendix and another copy with the appendix which includes
documents dated 1716. I conclude that the appendix was added to the copies which were sold
after Leibniz’s death in 1716. The books, themselves, support this opinion as the appendix
begins with a new sheet, marked Bb, and the paper has turned a deep brown while the body
of the book is white, which indicates a different stock had been used.

ISAAC NEWTON

650

which had had a very limited distribution, and that he did not hesi¬
tate to alter the text or to write an anonymous apologia which was
attributed to Keill.

If one were to seek for the cause for this almost feverish desire on
Newton’s part to vindicate himself and to crush his opponents, one
would be apt to lay it to personal vindictiveness; but such a trait was
not consonant with his character since it was natural for him, when
opposed, to retire into silence. It seems more plausible to accept
Flamsteed’s judgement that he was prone to be swayed by the flat¬
tery and influence of those he trusted. And at this time he was led
by those who counselled active retaliation; such a spur acting on his
sensitive personal honour and his obstinate patience to exhaust a
subject would account for what must appear to be a cold blooded
ruthlessness.

As a result of his renown, many requests for Newton’s portrait
were made. He had given one by Jervase to the Royal Society in 1717
and three years later he sat for Sir Godfrey Kneller. At this time, Dr.
Stukeley seems to have been a frequent visitor and, in particular, he
was present during the sittings. He afterwards wrote to Dr. Mead:
“I was with him in the year 1720 when he sat for his picture to Sir
Godfrey Kneller to be sent into France. ’Twas pleasant to hear Sir
Godfrey, in his wild way of discourse, sifting Sir Isaac about his
notions of religion, and with what caution and modesty he was
answered.” Stukeley also wrote to Conduitt that he had hoped New¬
ton would sit for his profile. “What says Sir Isaac, would you make
a medal of me and refused it, though I was then in highest favour
with him” ? While Stukeley mentions that he frequently visited New¬
ton during these last years, he relates two incidents, 2 occurring in
1721, which may well have happened at the same time and which in¬
dicate strikingly Newton’s fixity of opinion when once it had been
formed and also his sensitiveness or “niceness” to opposition. “23
February, 1721,1 breakfasted with him in company with Dr. Halley,
Sir Isaac mentioned the poverty of the materials he had for making
his theory of the moon’s motion. Mr. Flamsteed would not com¬
municate any of his observations to him, that he could as then finish
it, if he would go about it, but that he left it to others.” It should be
remembered that this conversation occurred in the same year in
which he refused to give Flamsteed’s attorney the sealed packet of
observations, and when he must have been mortified because of the

2 Portsmouth Collection.

THE LAST YEARS

651

destruction of Halley’s edition of the Historia Cortestis. If he so for¬
got his former correspondence with Flamsteed as to make such a
statement, it is no wonder that the rumour of the astronomer’s lack
of help became fixed. The other incident related to Stukeley s as¬
sistance in supplying Conduitt with memoranda. He excused him¬
self for not sending more anecdotes on the ground that: “I had the
misfortune to fall under Sir Isaac’s displeasure for many years on ac¬
count of putting up for Secretary against Dr. Jurin: or these papers
would have been much fuller, for I should have taken pains in it in
his lifetime.” 3

Mention has been made that Newton lived simply, although in his
later years he was a wealthy man; and it was shown he had enjoyed
a much larger income from the Mint than was supposed, because of
perquisites in addition to his salary. At his death, he left an estate of
almost 32,000 pounds. The principal items in his inventory were:

Stock in the Bank of England at 12 6 l / 2 , with accrued div. >£18,130

Stock in the South Sea Company at 104. 5200

Annuities, South Sea Company at 97with accrued div. 5000

Cash . * 7 “

Now Newton, although he was singularly generous, was a man
not at all likely to be carried away by impulsive excitement and, at
the time of the debauch of speculation in South Sea Stock, Lord Rad¬
nor is quoted in Spence’s Anecdotes as saying: “When Sir Isaac New¬
ton was asked about the rising of the South Sea Stock, he answered
that he could not calculate the madness of the people.” The invest¬
ment of so large a sum in the Bank of England stock bears out this
opinion of his character; but what can we say of a third of his
estate having been put in the notorious gamble of the South Sea
Company ? Did he join the excited throngs in Change Alley, or had
he made a conservative investment? It was evidently believed by
many at the time that he had been bitten by the greed of gain. Sew¬
ard, in his Anecdotes of Some Distinguished Men, expressed what
was evidently an accepted opinion:

“Sir Isaac Newton, indeed, was in one respect but too like the com¬
mon race of mortals; his desire of gain induced him to have some
concern in the fatal Bubble of the South Sea; by which (as his niece

3 The date of this incident is settled by the election of Dr. James Jurin as Secretary of the
Royal Society in 1721. He “was a very respectable philosopher of the Newtonian school, who
cultivated medicine and mathematics with equal success.” Weld, Vol. I, p. 435.

652 ISAAC NEWTON

used to say) he lost twenty thousand pounds. Of this, however, he
never much liked to hear.” And Macaulay fastened on him, from this
report, the absurd characterisation that “with all his genius, he was as
simple as a child,”—a statement about as far from the truth as could
well be.

The most confirmatory evidence of this “desire for gain” was given
by Weld. 4 He found, amongst the Newtoniana in the possession of
the Royal Society, the following note in Newton’s handwriting ac¬
companied by a letter of the donor. Dr. Wollaston.

Mint Office, 27 th July, 1720.

Sir,

I desire you to subscribe for me and in my name the several Annui¬
ties you have in your hands belonging to me amounting in the whole
to six hundred and fifty pounds per ann. for which this shall be your
warrant.

Isaac Newton.

To Dr. John Francis Ffouquier.

The letter of Wollaston reads:

Dorset Street, December 4, 1828.

“Dr. Wollaston has desired that an autograph of Sir Isaac Newton
be presented to the Royal Society.

“It is an order, addressed by Newton to Dr. Francis Ffouquier, 5
directing him to supply certain sums in his possession belonging to
Newton in purchasing on Newton’s account South Sea Stock; and is
dated July 27 th , 1720, a time when the price of that stock had nearly
reached its maximum.

“Dr. Wollaston, not knowing that any such occurrence in the life
of Newton had ever been made public, was for many years unwill¬
ing to divulge this transaction; but, having found that the losses
which Newton sustained by the South Sea scheme have been noticed
in the biographical memoir drawn up on the authority of Mr. Con-
duitt, who married the niece of Newton, he no longer hesitates to
present the document; being satisfied that it will be considered by
every reflecting mind an instructive instance of the soundest under¬
standing being liable to have its judgement perverted by the appear-

4 Hist, of R. S., VoL I, p. 440.— Cf. also Villamil, Newton: the Man, who found the in¬
ventory and who investigated the transaction with great care.

6 Fouquier was a French Huguenot who went to England after the revocation of the edict
of Nantes and became a Governor of the Bank of England. Dr. Wollaston was an eminent
chemist and physicist. His father married Fouquier’s daughter.

THE LAST YEARS 653

ance of enormous profit; and to forget that such profit can only be

aimed at with proportionate risk of failure.”

Weld, in commenting on this letter, merely softens the judgement
that Newton had been perverted by the appearance of enormous
profit by bidding us to remember he was not the only great man im¬
plicated in this foolish adventure. Fortunately, Col. de Villamil has
now investigated the affair thoroughly and has quite cleared Newton
of either folly or greed of gain. He first points out that Dr. Wollas¬
ton has added another instance to what might be termed a concerted
conspiracy to suppress any facts which seemed to reflect adversely on
Newton’s character: as if it were, like a delicate porcelain vase, too
fragile to bear any rough handling, and thus this mistaken policy
has served to increase those rumours which flourish on suspicion.
Col. de Villamil also points out Dr. Wollaston’s false interpretation
of the note to mean that Newton bought with cash South Sea Stock
when it had nearly reached its maximum price. He is thus accused
of gambling wildly, and thereby lost 20,000 pounds. On the contrary,
the warrant is clearly an order to subscribe for Annuities, and was
in no sense a gamble as can be easily shown by a brief history of the

South Sea Company.

Looking backwards, our ideas are confused by the term Bubble
which is always, attached to the South Sea Company, and by the fact
that it is synonymous with the most disastrous crash in the history
of British finance. But, in the beginning, it was a legitimate trading
company on the lines of the East India and Hudson Bay Companies.
It was incorporated, in 171°? by an Act which gave it a monopoly
of trading in the Pacific Ocean and along the east coast of South
America. Also, by an Assiento Treaty, it obtained from the Spanish
Government a lucrative and practical monopoly of the slave trade
with her colonies. In return, the Company took over about 10,000,000
of the National Debt on which the Government paid 6 per cent in
the form of an issue of unredeemable “Annuities.” In 1717, the
Company advanced another 5,000,000 to the Government on the se¬
curity of 5 per cent “Annuities.” They were thus “gilt-edged” se¬
curities; and Newton had evidently invested in them considerably
more than the 650 pounds worth per annum which he ordered to be
exchanged for capital stock in 1720, since he still possessed some at
his death. XJp to this time the Company had been highly successful
in the slave trade. But in 1720, the Company offered to pay off the
whole National Debt of some 57,000,000 and to buy up the irre-

ISAAC NEWTON

654

deemable “Annuities” amounting to ,£800,000 a year. After a de¬
bate in Parliament, the proposal was accepted; the moot question was
whether the holders of the unredeemable “Annuities” would con¬
vert them into capital stock. On April 13th, the Company opened a
subscription of 2,000,000 of capital stock at 300 per cent, declared a
stock dividend of 10 per cent and, besides offering liberal terms to
holders of the “Annuities” for conversion, inflamed the cupidity of
the public with glowing tales of gold and silver awaiting exploitation
in South America. There ensued one of the wildest gambles in his¬
tory, and the stock rose to £ 1000 per share. The few, who subscribed
and immediately sold their stock, made fortunes, but the great ma¬
jority, who bought during the inflation and held on, were ruined as
the stock dropped to £ 135 a share.

By a simple calculation Col. de Villamil shows Newton’s part in
this affair. He decided, on July 27, 1720, to subscribe for stock equiv¬
alent to £650 per year of 5 per cent “Annuities” for which he must
have paid ,£13,000. He received ,£5000 in capital stock and ,£4000
in cash; and, as he still held this same amount of stock at his death
when it was quoted at 104, he lost about ,£9000. It is quite clear that
he could have made a great profit by selling his stock immediately
after conversion. He had acquired his stock at 180 per cent, while
the market price had stood at about 300 per cent during the past
three years and had risen to over 600 per cent during the latter part
of July, 1720. Any conservative banker, such as Dr. Fouquier, would
have advised him to sell; and, if he had taken such advice, he would
have profited by something like £ 20 , 000 . Is it not probable his
niece’s statement of his loss in South Sea Stock meant he could have
gained that sum but lost the opportunity because he neglected to
sell ?

Is not the conclusion then to be drawn that Newton invested his
money honourably and conservatively ? He invested a large sum in
South Sea 5 per cent unredeemable “Annuities” which were “gilt-
edged” securities backed by the Government. He transferred a part
of them to capital stock and could have reaped a great profit. But, if
the statement by Lord Radnor be authentic, he regarded the subse¬
quent speculation as a “madness” of which it would be improper to
take advantage, and thus sustained a loss for the sake of his principles.
Besides his personal loss, his heirs must have suffered heavily since
the proprietors and subscribers finally got back about one-third of
their money by a composition with the Government.

THE LAST YEARS

655

It is extraordinary how the persistent efforts to suppress the truth
about Newton’s character succeeded in obliterating all the strong
points of his personality. To make him orthodox, his earnest en¬
quiries in the dogmas of religion were slurred over; he is made so
meek that he could not appreciate the transcendent power of his
work, or when aroused to wrath or indignation would not express
himself in blunt and even coarse terms; when opposed he is pic¬
tured as being always forbearing instead of obstinate and, occasion¬
ally, vindictive. Thus, he, a man of mixed passions, has been made
into a lifeless monument of lath and plaster which must be pro¬
tected from every harsh wind lest it fall to pieces. But, of all the ef¬
forts to suppress the facts, the fear lest he be accused of gambling in
stocks was the most foolish. It is simply grotesque to suppose that he,
who had all his life been uniformly frugal in his own habits, and
lavishly generous to all who were related to him or who in any way
aided him, should suddenly in his old age and when rich, be seized
with a greed for gain. Many instances, when he gave large sums
to those who had little call upon him or secured positions for mere
acquaintances, have been previously mentioned; before leaving this
subject, I shall present a number of others without troubling to sort
them by their dates or subjects. Some of these examples of his gen¬
erosity are almost quixotic; and from some of them a caustic humour
peeps out which makes one wonder whether he was quite so sedate
as he has been made to appear.

We can pass over Newton’s constant support of his niece, Cath¬
erine Barton, and frequent gifts to all the other members of his fam¬
ily. To those who aided him in his work, he gave all the proceeds of
the first edition of the Principia to Halley; the proceeds of the second
edition he gave to Bentley, and enraged Flamsteed by repeatedly
offering to compensate him and his assistants; Pemberton was pre¬
sented with 200 guineas for editing the third edition and the astrono¬
mer Pound with 100 guineas for furnishing observations. Dr. Clarke
pleased him so much with a Latin translation of the Optics that he
received a gift of 500 pounds, delicately offered as a present of a hun¬
dred pounds to each of his five children.

Conduitt is the authority for the following anecdotes which are
worth repeating just as he noted them down roughly for his intended
life of his uncle.

“His arithmetic was first printed by Whiston, against Newton’s
inclination but, being full of errors, he afterwards printed it himself,

6 5 6

ISAAC NEWTON

corrected the faults and Machin overlooked the press, for which he
intended to have given him ioo gs.; but he made him wait 3 years
for a preface and then did not write one but left it to the bookseller to
put one in.”

“Dr. Arbuthnot told me—he told I. N. that Cheyne had writ an
ingenious b[ook] upon mathematics—but that his [ ? | had not money
to print.—Bring i t] to me says I. N. and when he brought it—I. N.
offered Cheyne a bag of money,—which he refused and I. N. would
see him no more.”

“He offered Cheselden 0 for a fee a handful of guineas out of his
coat pockets, and when he refused them and said, I should have only
one or two—I. N. answered suppose I do give you more than your
fee.”

“When he missed banknotes of ^3000 or more and there was

[some] reason to suspect one of his [-], Will Whiston, a nephew

of Whiston’s, had picked his pocket, because —al] time he left him
and bought an estate in land of that value without any visible means,
he never could be prevailed to prosecute him. And when I asked
him hew much he had lost,—he said too much.”

“When he was imposed on and gave double the value for an
estate, he said he would not for the sake of ^2000 go to Westmin¬
ster Hall to prove he had made a fool of himself.”

There is, as I have said, an element of whimsicality, or of blunt
humour, in these stories which consorts oddly with the staid, and
may I say dull, demeanour in society which his associates seem de¬
termined to invest him vvith. The two following anecdotes, show
such a fine appreciation of worth that they will be given at some
length. The first is related in Rigaud’s Life of Bradley:

A young and brilliant Scotch mathematician, James Stirling, edu¬
cated at Oxford, became involved in the Jacobite rebellion of 1715
and fled to Venice. While there he wrote several important papers;
in particular, a commentary on Newton’s work on curves of the
third degree. Newton was so impressed with the young man’s prom¬
ise that he sent to him a present of money, arranged to have his work
published in England, and finally succeeded in having him par¬
doned. Stirling was deeply touched by such an interest in his wel-

William Cheselden was a famous surgeon. He was surgeon at the St. Thomas’s, St.
jeorge s and Westminster hospitals, and his skill as an operator has seldom been surpassed.

I he lateral operation for stone in the bladder was his invention. He was a friend of Newton
and attended him when he suffered from that affliction. The equally famous Richard Mead
was Newton’s physician and friend.

THE LAST YEARS

657

fare and wrote that: “As your generosity is infinitely above my merit,
so I reckon myself ever bound to serve you to the utmost; and, in¬
deed, a present from a person of such worth is more valued by me
than ten times the value from another.” After his return to Scot¬
land, Stirling had a varied career and ended as a manager of a coal

mine. * . .,

The second example of Newton’s generous and sympathetic aid to

young men of genius refers to his relations with Colin Maclaurin,
probably the most brilliant of Scotch mathematicians, and certain y
the ablest contemporary expositor of the Newtonian philosophy.
Maclaurin 7 was appointed professor of mathematics in Marischal Col¬
lege, Aberdeen, at the unusually early age of nineteen years and after
a competitive examination lasting ten days. During the two sum¬
mer vacations following his election, he went to London and met,
amongst others, Bishop Hoadly, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Martin Folkes,
and Sir Isaac Newton; “whose friendship he ever after reckoned the
greatest honour and happiness of his life.” He was also made a Fel¬
low of the Royal Society. He became an ardent Newtonian and was
one of the first to teach the fluxions and mechanics. At the age of
twenty-seven years, he offered himself to the Curators of the Univer¬
sity of Edinburgh as a candidate to be assistant and successor to
James Gregory “whose age and infirmities had rendered him incapa¬
ble of teaching.” He had several difficulties to overcome,—“par¬
ticularly, the competition of a gentleman eminent for mathematical
abilities, who had good interest with the patrons of the university;
and the want of an additional fund for the new professor.

In order to assist his young friend, Newton wrote to him the fol-
lowdng letter with permission to show it to the university authori¬
ties: “I am very glad to hear that you have a prospect of being joined
to Mr. James Gregory in the professorship of the mathematics at
Edinburgh, not only because you are my friend, but principally be¬
cause of your abilities, you being acquainted as well with the new
improvements of mathematics, as with the former state of those
sciences: I heartily wish you good success, and shall be very glad of
hearing of your being elected; I am, with all sincerity, your faithful

friend and most humble servant.”

Maclaurin, however, answered that he had some scruples about

7 Cf. the life of Maclaurin prefixed to his Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical

Discoveries. Published posthumously by his children. London, 1748. This work is probably
still the best survey of the Principia.

658

ISAAC NEWTON

making public a letter addressed to him, personally; so Newton
wrote a recommendation to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh.

Newton to the Provost of Edinburgh

My Lord,

I received the honour of your letter, and am glad to understand
that Mr. Maclaurin is in good repute amongst you for his skill in
mathematics, for I think he deserves it very well. And, to satisfy you
that I do not flatter him, and also to encourage him to accept of the
place of assisting Mr. Gregory, in order to succeed him, I am ready
(if you please to give me leave) to contribute twenty pounds per
annum towards a provision for him, till Mr. Gregory’s place become
void, if I live so long, and I will pay it to his order in London. When
your letter arrived at London I was absent from hence, which made
it the later before I received it, otherwise I might have returned an
answer a little sooner.—I am, my Lord, your Lordship’s most humble
and most obedient servant.

Isaac Newton. 8

To his Lordship the
Provost of Edinburgh,
in-Scotland

Maclaurin was elected on the strength of this influence and oc¬
cupied the chair of mathematics with great distinction for some
twenty years. When the Jacobite uprising of 1745 occurred, he took
the side of the English and was among the first to point out the im¬
portance, and at the same time the defenceless condition, of Edin¬
burgh. “He made rdans of the walls, proposed the several trenches,
barricades, batterie;, and such other defences as he thought could be
got ready before the arrival of the rebels, and by which, he hoped,
the town might be kept till the King’s forces should come to its re¬
lief. The whole burden, not only of contriving, but also of oversee¬
ing the execution, of these hasty fortifications fell to Mr. Maclaurin’s
share; he was employed night and day, in making plans, and run¬
ning from place to place; and the anxiety, fatigue and cold to which
he was then exposed, affecting a constitution naturally of weak
nerves, laid the foundation of the disease of which he died.”

Maclaurin lived little more than a year after his arduous exposure,

8 Portsmouth Collection. There are preserved two draughts of this letter, written on the
same page and differing slightly. The copy as given in Maclaurin’s Life ends with the words,
“order in London.”

THE LAST YEARS

659

and died while dictating the last chapter of his commentary on the
pnncipia. Brewster tells how, when he was a youth at college in
Edinburgh, he often gazed upon the tablet in memory of Maclaurin
attached to the south wall of the Greyfriar s Church, and envied the
unique tribute to his genius, N cwtono Suudcntc.

The first warning of the final decay of Newtons constitution came
to him in 1722 in the form of a bladder trouble. At first, he seems
to have been seriously ill, but under the direction of Hr. Mead he im¬
proved in health and was able to write to Varignon in July that he
was slowly recovering his strength and hopes soon to be well. But
from this time to his death, he was forced to live very quietly and to
leave off dining abroad or having much company at home. Since
an'/ motion increased his disorder he substituted a sedan chair for the
jolting motion of a coach. And he was advised to eat but little meat,
but to live chiefly on broth, vegetables, and fruit, of which he al¬
ways eat very heartily. 55 It was during these last five years when he
was confined to his room that the persistent reading of the Bible be
carnc so noticeable to his friends. He seems to have realised that the
end of his life was imminent and he bravely and patiently set him¬
self the task of putting his house in order. Since his attendance at the
Royal Society was precarious he had Martin Folkes appointed as his
deputy or vice-president; and he offered to resign from the Mint, but
his nephew, Conduitt, undertook to carry on that work for him.

Newton’s first concern was to arrange for a new edition of the
Prmcipia. The second edition had been a small one, copies of it are
about as rare as those of the first, and it was again out of print. The
demand on the continent was being met by a reprint at Amsterdam
which did not appear till 1714, and as that supply was exhausted a
second reprint had been issued nine years later. Newton, himself,
had continued to insert marginal notes in his own desk copy and to
make corrections and memoranda which are to be found in the
Portsmouth Collection. He also seems to have hankered to have an¬
other try at the problems of the moon and of comets, for he wrote to
Halley on December 3, 1724, 9 asking him to examine two of the cal¬
culated places in the elliptic orbit of the comet of 1680, and to cal¬
culate another place, supposing the orbit to be a parabola. He stated
that he wished this information for use in the third book of the Prin -
cipia, second edition, page 459. However, either he did not carry out
his intention or Halley did not accommodate him as the material was

Vol. II, p. 4 ^ 5 -

66 o

ISAAC NEWTON

not used in the third edition. But at the age of eighty, he found it
to be too heavy a task to revise the work by himself and he sought
to find an assistant to help him. He was again fortunate, as he
established another congenial relationship with a young man, Henry
Pemberton, who has left a charming account of his courtesy and
kindl in ess.

Pemberton, 10 while studying medicine at Leyden under Boerhaave,
was loaned a copy of the Principia and to his surprise he did not find
it too difficult to understand. Greatly pleased with this success, he
studied Newton's fluxions and his Dc Ouadratura. On his return to
England he made the acquaintance of Keill; and when Leibniz sent
his problem by Conti to test the English mathematicians, Keill wrote
to Newton that not only he, himself, had solved the problem, but so
had Mr. Stirling, an undergraduate at Oxford, and Mr. Pemberton
who sent him also solutions of several other problems. 11 But, when
Keill introduced Pemberton to Newton, “some ill offices done by a
malevolent person who then had Sir Isaac’s ear,” according to Dr.
Wilson, made him receive the eager young man but coldly. Still de¬
termined to succeed, Pemberton projected his popular exposition of
the Principia; but a fortunate chance brought him to his goal by a
quicker path. A certain Professor Poleni of Padua had brought out a
paper which was supposed to overthrow Newton's law of gravity
and to support the contrary views of Leibniz, and this thesis, Pem¬
berton cleverly disproved. This was so well approved by Newton
that he sought his friendship and asked him to edit the proposed new
edition of the Principia .

For the third time Newton seems to have cast the spell of his per¬
sonality over a young assistant and to make him feel as if the work
were his own intellectual child. It is well for us, when thinking on
Newton's true character to bear in mind Pemberton's tribute to
him: 12

Though his memory was much decayed, I found he perfectly un¬
derstood his own writings, contrary to what I had frequently heard in
discourse from many persons. 13 This opinion of theirs might arise per¬
haps from his not being always ready at speaking on these subjects,

10 For a short statement of the relations between Newton and Pemberton, cf. his View of
Sir Isaac Newtons Philosophy, 1728, which gives a popularised exposition of the Principia.
Pemberton became professor of physic at Gresham College. He also lectured on chemistry!
These lectures were published after his death by his friend. Dr. Wilson, who prefixed a short
biographical sketch.

11 Macclesfield, Vol. II, p. 424. 12 Preface, Pemberton’s View.

33 The old rumours of his mental breakdown seem still to have persisted.

THE LAST YEARS

661

when it might be expected he should. ... As to the moral endow¬
ments of his mind, they were as much to be admired as his other
talents. But this is a field I leave others to expatiate in, I only touch
upon what I experienced myself during the few years I was happy
in his friendship. But this I immediately discovered in him, which at
once both surprised and charmed me: Neither his extreme great
age nor his universal reputation had rendered him stiff in opinion,
or in any degree elated. Of this I had occasion to have almost daily
experience. The remarks I continually sent him by letters on his
Principia were received with the utmost goodness. These were so
far from being any ways displeasing to him, that on the contrary it
occasioned him to speak many kind things of me to my friends, and
to honour me with a public testimony of his good opinion.”

The printing of the new edition of the Principia was begun late
in 1723, or early in the following year, and was not finished till
February, or March, 1726. During the progress of the work, a great
many letters passed between them, as they lived at some distance
apart. Most of Pemberton’s letters have been preserved and they will
be valuable if a critical edition of the treatise should be undertaken:
Newton’s answers, however, have been lost; it is possible they may
merely have been notes, jotted down on the proof-sheets. No such
important corrections and additions, as were made in the second
edition, were attempted. 14

One charge of a personal nature was made which has sub¬
jected Newton to criticism. He omitted the paragraph in the
Scholium, which was believed to acknowledge Leibniz’s independ¬
ent discovery of the calculus. He explained elsewhere, in a man¬
ner which seems inadequate and artificial, that the original pas¬
sage had not been intended to convey the meaning commonly
given it, but “his silence put me upon a necessity of writing the
Scholium upon the second Lemma of the second Book of Prin¬
ciples, lest it should be thought that I borrowed that Lemma from
Mr. Leibniz.” Whether Newton took this step on his own initiative
or on the advice of others, it was undoubtedly a mistake; the words
had been written and allowed to stand without comment too long
to make any explanation satisfactory, or free from the suspicion that
an advantage was taken of an opponent whose death had prevented
any reply.

14 Brewster (Vol. II, p.. 549) has drawn up a very complete list of the alterations and ad¬
ditions made in the third edition.

662

ISAAC NEWTON

Newtons last important work, which he carried on with an in¬
domitable will in spite of rapidly failing health and of suffering, was
to try to counteract the faulty and pirated French edition of his
Chronology by rewriting and preparing it for the press. This task he
finished just before his death, and the manuscript was left for Con-
duitt to publish.

The remaining three years of Newton’s life are a melancholy
chronicle of successive attacks on his vigorous constitution before it
finally succumbed. In August, 1724, the presence of a dread disease
declared itself by his voiding, without any pain, a stone about the
size of a pea which passed in two pieces. While this afforded him a
temporary relief, he suffered from a slight attack of the gout and, in
the following January, was seized with a dangerous cough and in¬
flammation of the lungs. As the bad air and smoke of the city ag¬
gravated his condition, he was persuaded with great difficulty to take
a house in the village of Kensington. 15 Conduitt tells us that,
“though he found the greatest benefit from rest, and the air at Ken¬
sington, and was always the worse for leaving it, no methods that
were used could keep him from coming sometimes to town.” It is
probable that the Conduitts did not accompany him to his new home
but moved then to their house in George Street, Hanover Square; for
in Newton’s inventory there is the item “Manuscripts in a box sealed
up at the house of John Conduitt, Esqre.”, and it is reasonable to sup¬
pose that they were deposited there for safe-keeping when Newton
left his own house. 16 We get the impression that Conduitt and
Stukeley were often with him; the latter visited him for the last time
in April, 1726, and Conduitt reports a long conversation with him
which will be given in abstract.

“I was on Sunday, the 7 th of March 1724/5,” Conduitt wrote, 17
“at Kensington with Sir Isaac Newton, in his lodgings, just after he
was come out of a fit of the gout, which he had in both of his feet,
for the first time, in the eighty-third year of his age; he was better
after it, and his head clearer, and memory stronger than I had known

15 The house he took, and in which he died, was known as Orbell’s Buildings, afterwards
called Pitt Buildings. It is situated in Pitt Street, west of Church Street and north of the
High Street.

16 These manuscripts were the Chronology, published posthumously by Cor.duitt (valued
at £250) and the history of the prophecies. This latter manuscript is referred to as unfin¬
ished which argues that Newton had contemplated another work on the subject. Conduitt’s
use of the phrase of “coming sometimes to town” is significant for, if they had been with
him, the natural expression would have been “going.”

17 Turnor, p. 172..

THE LAST YEARS

663

them for some time.” During the course of the conversation, Newton
conjectured that the heavenly bodies were periodically subject to de¬
cay and replenishment; that the vapours and light emitted by the sun
“gathered themselves by degrees into body, and attracted more mat¬
ter from the planets; and at last made a secondary planet [a moon],
and then by gathering to them and attracting more matter, became a
primary planet; and then by increasing still, became a comet, which
after certain revolutions, by coming nearer and nearer to the sun,
had all its volatile parts condensed, and became a matter fit to re¬
cruit, and replenish the sun, which must waste by the constant heat
and light it emitted.” To illustrate this idea he cited the probability
that the comet of 1680 would, after perhaps five or six revolutions,
drop into the sun; and when such a catastrophe occurred “it would
so much increase the heat of the sun, that this earth would be burnt,
and no animals in it could live.”

How far Newton was from being a mechanist in the modern
sense of the term is shown by Conduitt’s statement that: “He seemed
to doubt whether there were not intelligent beings superior to us,
who superintended these revolutions of the heavenly bodies, by the
direction of the Supreme Being, He appeared also to be very clearly
of opinion, that the inhabitants of this world were of a short date,
and alleged as one reason for that opinion, that all arts, as letters,
ships, printing, needle, etc. were discovered within the memory of
history.” When Conduitt “asked him how this earth could have been
repeopled if ever it had undergone the same fate it was threatened
with hereafter by the comet of 1680; he answered, that required the
power of a creator.” Again, when Conduitt asked “why he would
not publish his conjectures, as conjectures, and instanced that Kepler
had communicated his. . . . His answer was, I do not deal in con¬
jectures.” The conversation closed by Conduitt wishing to know
why he would not, in the Principia, acknowledge that the sun was
replenished and recruited by comets dropping into it, when he had
made a similar statement about the fixed stars [“stellae fixae refici
possunt”]. “He said, that concerned us more; and laughing, added
that he had said enough for people to know his meaning.”

Such were the last recorded thoughts of Newton on the world
system, whose laws he had done so much to discover; and it is well
to remember that he said of himself: “I kept an eye upon such prin¬
ciples as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity,
and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that pur-

664

ISAAC NEWTON

pose.” However he may have regarded himself in comparison with
other men, he was piously humble in the presence of the mystery of
God and the universe. Just a little while before his death he said:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I
seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the sea-shore, and di¬
verting myself, in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a pret¬
tier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all un¬
discovered before me.” 18

As so frequently happens, Newton’s thoughts, while his life hur¬
ried towards its end, turned back to the scenes of his childhood. He
wrote to the Rev. Mr. Mason, Rector of Colsterworth, that he wished
to subscribe £12 towards erecting a gallery in the church, also ^3
to repair the floor; and, when he learned the work was finished, he
authorised the surplus to be applied “to the use of the young people of
the parish that are learning to sing Psalms.” And, only a month
before his death, he took the trouble to have assays made of some
ore sent to him by a Woolsthorpe friend of Mason and sent word
that it contained no iron. So, too, he retained his interest in the
affairs of the little village and wrote the following homely note to his
tenant.

Newton to Percival of Woolsthorpe
Sir,

I desire you acquaint John Groves, and the rest of the neighbours
in the parish of Colsterworth and Woolsthorpe, that I agree to the
design proposed to me of bringing their commons to a rule, suppose,
by allowing eighty sheep commons to a farm, and ten to an ancient
cottage, and settling the beast commons according to ancient right,
to be set down in a list of them; and where any dispute arises, the
commons may be proportioned to the annual value of the farm or
cottage. And I should be glad to see the settlement finished. There
are one hundred and twenty sheep commons due to me by ancient
right, on account of the royalty.

I am, &c.

Isaac Newton.

London, May 12, 1725.

There is little more to relate; on Tuesday, 28 February, 1726/7,
Newton, having sufficiently recovered from a second attack of the

18 Conduitt’s MSS. Portsmouth Collection. 19 Turnor, p. 158.

THE LAST YEARS

665

gout, went to London to preside at a meeting of the Royal Society.
He stayed in town till Saturday; and, when Conduitt assured him
that he was looking better than for many years past, he answered
with a smile that he was sensible of the fact, as he had slept the
Sunday before, from eleven at night to eight in the morning, with¬
out waking. The fatigue and motion of the journey, however, were
fatal to him, as he became ill on arriving home. Dr. Mead and Dr.
Cheselden, who were summoned, pronounced the cause to be stone
in the bladder and gave him no hope of recovery. From this time he
suffered from violent attacks of pain and, though the sweat rolled
down his face from the agony, he neither complained or cried out
And during the short intermissions of the torture, he would smile and
talk with his usual cheerfulness. It is probable, also, that he sorted
and burned a great number of his personal papers.

The following account of Newton s death and funeral is taken
from Conduitt’s letter to Fontenelle of the French Academy.

“On Wednesday the 15th of March, he seemed a little better, and
we conceived some hopes of his recovery, but without grounds. On
Saturday morning, the 18th, he read the newspapers, and held a
pretty long discourse with Dr. Mead, and had all his senses perfect,
but that evening at six, and all Sunday, he was insensible, and died
on Monday the 20th of March, between one and two o’clock in the
morning. He seemed to have stamina vitae (except the accidental
disorder of the stone) to have carried him to a much longer age. To
the last he had all his senses and faculties strong, vigorous, and lively,
and he continued writing and studying many hours every day to the

time of his last illness.”

“On the 28th past, the corpse of Sir Isaac Newton lay in state in the
Jerusalem Chamber, and was buried [April 4th] from thence in
Westminster Abbey, near the entry into the choir. The pall was sup¬
ported by the Lord High Chancellor, the Dukes of Montrose and
Roxborough, and the Earls of Pembroke, Sussex, and Macclesfield,
being Fellows of the Royal Society. The Hon. Sir Michael Newton,
Knight of the Bath, was chief mourner, and was followed by some
other relations, and several eminent persons, intimately acquainted
with the deceased. The office was performed by the Bishop of Roch¬
ester, attended by the prebends and choir.”

Newton had kept himself too aloof from society, and his work
had been too far removed from the ordinary occupations of life, for

666

ISAAC NEWTON

his death to call forth a wide-spread feeling of personal loss; it rather
aroused in the people a national consciousness that so great a philos¬
opher had been their countryman. Thus the notices of his death took
the form of a review of his work, and of moral reflections that such
intellectual power had been exemplified in so virtuous a life. The
Royal Society forbore to make any public expression of the genius
and discoveries of the most eminent Fellow and President on their
rolls from the beginning even to the present time. Appended to the
minutes of Council is the simple, but eloquent, note “Sir Isaac New¬
ton departed his life on Monday the 20 March, 1726/7: and in the
minutes of the Journal-book for the ordinary meeting on the next
Wednesday, “The chair being vacant by the death of Sir Isaac New¬
ton, there was no meeting this day.”

When the weight of his great authority was lost to the Society,
trouble broke out while seeking to find a successor who would unite
the factions which had existed in the membership. Thus, Stukeley
wrote, “I don’t wonder that there are divisions in the Society now
the great soul and genius of it has left them.”

Since Newton died intestate, his personal property was divided
equally amongst his nephews and nieces, and his manor descended
to his heir-at-law John Newton, great grandson of his father’s next
oldest brother, Robert. There seems to have been some doubt as to
his being the heir, or perhaps a hope that one nearer of kin might be
found, since Conduitt wrote to Mason for information and received
the followi ag reply.

Mason to Conduitt

Good Sir: 2 3 March > ^ h •

This morning I received from you the melancholy news of that
truly great and good gentleman’s death, Sir Isaac Newton, and I have
according to your desire made Sir Isaac’s heir and representative, who
is the bearer of this acquainted with it, but God knows, a poor rep¬
resentative of so great a man, but this is a case that often happens.
There are two families of the Newtons in this Parish, both descended
from the 2 d and 3 d brothers of Sir Isaac Newton’s father. The 2 d
brother was Robert Newton from whom the bearer of this, John
Newton, is descended. The 3 d was Richard from whom descends
Robert Newton now living in this Parish, so that without dispute
John Newton, the bearer, is heir to the estate now devised by will

THE LAST YEARS

667

[there was no will]. . . . Neither do I exactly know how long the
Manor of Woolsthorpe has been in Sir Is. Newton’s family, but the
first Newton that I can find at Woolsthorpe was Robert Newton,
Sir Isaac’s grandfather, and him I take to be the first lord thereof,

but I may be mistaken. ... t ho . Mason.

P. S. Sir Isaac, in the days of his health and prosperity, used to talk
pretty much about founding and endowing a school in Woolsthorpe
for the use of the Parish, as the neighbours and his relations inform
me. I, myself, never knew him but in his declining years, having
been but six years Rector; but he used to talk pretty much upon that
subject, though his dying without a will leaves no room for any such

hopes.

To John Conduitt

in Great George Street

Hanover Sq.

The disparaging comment on the heir was justified by his subse¬
quent history. He sold the Manor in 1732 to Edmund Turnor of
Stoke Rochford, whose family have preserved it with solicitous care
as a memorial. The heir, himself, “being dissolute and illiterate, soon
dissipated his estate in extravagance, dying about his thirtieth year,
in 1737, at Colsterworth, by a tobacco pipe breaking in his throat, jn
the act of smoking, from a fall in the street, occasioned by ebriety.
Thus Newton’s family name is preserved only in the memory of his

undying fame.

There is no need to elaborate a eulogy on the character and achieve¬
ment of Newton, they speak for themselves. No one can be better
aware than the biographer of the imperfections of nis work, but he
can find some excuse for his faults in the lapse of time and in the
scarcity of materials, and still indulge the hope that something o t e
real Newton has been made more accessible. On the twentieth of
March, 1927, the bicentenary of Newtons death, I first entertaine
the idea of writing his biography. As I now finish this long and
arduous task, which has kept my mind absorbed in the life and
philosophy of such a consummate genius, satisfaction is mingled with
regret,—a regret made the more poignant by the recollection that so

20 Maude, Wensleydale.

668

ISAAC NEWTON

many of those who found pleasure in its beginning are not witnesses
of its conclusion. To the abiding memory of one, who, far more than
I, would have rejoiced in its success and have excused its failure,
I dedicate this Life of Newton.

Cincinnati,

20 March, 1934.

INDEX

Abbreviations: N for Newton; Roy. Soc. for Royal Society

Adams, J. C., Professor, 295
Alari, Abbe, 457
Alban Affair, 338, seq.

Albategnius, 266

Albemarle, Duke of, 339

Albertus Magnus, 262

Alchemy, discussion of, 160, seq.; 263

Almamun, 262

Aquinas, Thomas, 262

Arbuthnot, Dr., 544; assumes direction of
Historia Coelestis, 5445 letter to Flam¬
steed, 546; sketch of, 546; letter to Flam¬

steed, 547 . , , c . .

Aristotle, 255; scientific method, 250 202,
conclusion of Organon, 331
Armstrong, H. E., 166, 255
Aston, Francis, sketch of, 48 ( f.n .); letter
from N, 49—5 1 ; 17°) 2 45
Astrology, 264

Astronomy, relation to astrology, 02

Atterbury, Bishop, 127, 340

Aubrey, J., espouses cause of Hooke, 353

Averrhoes, 262

Avicenna, 262

Ayscough, James, 31

Ayscough, Rev. William, uncle of N, o

Babington, Humphrey, 31
Bacon, Francis, influence on Cambridge Uni¬
versity, 22; 497

Baily, Francis, publishes Life of Flamsteed,
407; criticism of Life of Flamsteed, 407,
seq.; defense of his motives, 408; defense
of Flamsteed, 411; story of Historia Coeles¬
tis, 515
Baliani, 282

Barrow, Isaac, 27, 33, 345 sketch of, 37;
54 > 55 > 69; publishes Lectures on Light,
81; death of, 199; appreciation of, 199
Barton, Mrs. Catherine, 44, I 3 °> I 33 > 2 5 2 >
293; as N’s housekeeper, 456; fate of
her brother, 463; her family and relation¬
ship to Sidney Smith, 464; marries John
Conduitt, 464; relationship to Montague,
464; letter to Swift, 540
Bentley, Richard, 24, 27, 125; first Boyle
lecturer, 375; opposes atheism by the
Principia, 375; correspondence with N on
cosmogony, 376, seq.; founds club, 458;
administration of Trinity College, 525-

530; undertakes edition of Principia, 5 2 9 >
letter to N, 532; 55 2 ; preface to Prin¬
cipia, 555; letter to Cotes, 556; irritates
N, 560; receives proceeds of Principia,

655

Berkeley, Bishop, on empiricism, 322
Bernoulli, John, brachistochrone, 474; 55 1
(f.n.); challenge problem, 569; on first
invention of calculus, 5 7 1 5 correspondence
with Leibniz on the Commercium Epis-
tolicum, 597; correspondence with Leib¬
niz on Charta Volans, 601; Epistola pro
eminente Mathematico, 602
Bernoulli, Nicholas, 551
Biology, contrasted with physics, 261
Biot, on N’s injustice to Descartes, 103; on
N’s “Fits,” 116; 244; account of discovery
of gravitation, 293; 388; on N’s illness,
391; 394; opinion of N’s law of refraction,
425; on effect of N’s illness, 563
Boehme, Jacob, influence on N, 25; 159 _
Bolingbroke, Lord, critique of Descartes s
method, 79; proposed pension for N,

45 2; 544

Borelli, 59 > M 5 > 2 ° 3 > 2 ^4
Boyle, Robert, 77, 93 ; on alchemy, 161,
162; piety, 202; correspondence with N
on aether, 211; on alchemy, 369, 370;
appreciation of, 37 U aphorism, 37 U i n '
stitutes lectures, 374
Brahe, Tycho, 270

Brewster, Sir David, 5 1 81, 9 o> on

alchemy, 159 (/•«.); on ill-liberal treat¬
ment of N, 167 (f.n.); on controversy
with Hooke, 178 (f.n.), 350^on ingrati¬
tude towards N, 359; on N’s illness, 391;
criticism of Baily, 410, seq.; unjust attack
on Baily, 413, 414; again attacks Baily,
423; defends N’s administration, 451;
on ingratitude towards N, 454; discussion
of Barton-Montague, 465, seq.; Historia
Coelestis, 514, 515
Briggs, Dr. William, 208
Brook, A. E., Commentary on the Johannine

Epistles, 635

Brouncker, Lord, 69, 93, 140
Buckingham, Duke of, 70
Bullialdus, 283

Burgess, Bishop defense of N s orthodoxy,
641

6yo

INDEX

Burke, 539
Burnet, Bishop, 131
Burnet, Thomas, 46
Burney, Charles, 539

Cambridge University, state of, 21-28; su¬
perstition prevalent, 23; opposition to
James II, 340; defeats King James, 342
Casey, Robert P., exposition of 1st Timothy
III, verse 16, 635
Cassegrain, 44

Chaloner, accuses N of maladministration,
450; result of accusation, 451
Chamberlayne, 604

Charles I, relation to Cambridge Univer¬
sity, 21, 22

Cheselden, William, gift from N, 656
Cheyne, gift from N, 656
Child, Professor, on N’s fluxions, 185, 186;
282

Clark, Mr., 7, 10, 12

Clarke, Samuel, refuses appointment to Mint,
454; translates Optics, 506; philosophical
discussion with Leibniz, 601; gift from
N, 655

Coinage, reform of, 440; state of, 445;

depreciation of coins and its effect, 446
Collins, John, 54, 68, 70; sketch of, 138, 139;
interest in N, 140; correspondence, 141-
145, 149, 155; correspondence, 196; death,
199; ill-health, 203; appreciation of, 204
Commercium Episolicum, first edition, 588;
second edition, 589; discussion of editions,
590

Conduitt, Mrs. Catherine, see Barton, Mrs.
Catherine

Conduitt, John, sketch of, 4; anecdotes of N,
31; 127, 134; moves to George Street,
539

Conti, Abbe, 605
Copernicus, 79, 267-270
Copley medal, 507
Cosimo III, Duke, 94

Cotes, Roger, Plumian professor, 525, 526;
sketch of, 526; relation with Whiston,
528; edits Principia, 530-534; qualities as
editor, 549; defense of N against occult
quantities, 552; preface to Principia, 555,
557; as editor, 558
Covel, John, 346, 347, 348
Cox, 69

Cruickshank, 131

Darwin, Charles, 258
Dary, 142

Democritus, atomic theory, 254
Demoivre, 32

De Morgan, Augustus, on N’s income, 47;
52, (/.».), 350; on Liebniz controversy,
395; defense of Baily, 415; discussion of
Barton-Montague, 465, seq.

Derham, Rev. D.., on attempt to bribe N, 451
Descartes, 33; theory of colour, 64-65; 79;
critique of by Lord Bolingbroke, 79;
theory of light, 98; 103; theory of light,
no, 285

Dominis, Antonius de, 63, 103
Dryden, John, The Hind and the Panther,
217; 447

Duillier, Fatio de, 357; begins friendship
with N, 366; desires to edit Principia, 531;
verses on Principia, 558; opens controversy
with Leibniz, 569; relations with Leibniz
and Huygens, 572; relations with N, 573;
accuses Leibniz of plagiarism, 574; char¬
acter, 574, (/.».); consequence of attack
on Leibniz, 575

Einstein, Albert, 113; theory of relativity,
333 .

Electricity, experiment by N, 170
Ellis, 252
Empedocles, 255

England, political state of, 438; power of
the Whigs, 439; the Junto, 440; effect of
revolution on law, finance, and religion,
440

Ent, 68

Epicureans, 255

Evelyn, John, on Roy. Soc., 203; 458

Fatio, see Duillier, Fatio de
Feme, Henry, 27

Flamsteed, John, 127; on earth’s rotation,
227; appointed Astronomer Royal, 238;
observations on comet of 1680, 238; justi¬
fies his attitude towards Halley, 365; justi¬
fies delay in publication, 365; life and
character, 408, seq.; attitude towards N,
409; correspondence with N on lunar
theory, 417-434; promises N lunar ob¬
servations, 417; accuses Halley of injus¬
tice, 417; delays lunar theory by illness,
422; rebukes N for offering pay, 424;
disapproval of Halley, 426; defends his
conduct and accuses Halley, 429; discov¬
ery of stellar parallax, 477; to Newton,
explaining his conduct, 479; to N, justi¬
fies his conduct, 483; rebukes N, 486;
publication of Historia Ccelestis, 510-519;
criticises Roy. Soc., 536; publication of
Historia Ccelestis, 543-548; burns edition
and reprints Historia Ccelestis, 547; accuses
N of breach of faith, 548
Fluxions, 184

Francis, Father Alban, proposed Master of
Arts by Royal Mandate, 338; see also
Alban Affair

Galileo, invents telescope, 60; discoveries in
astronomy, 61; 79, 184, 276-282
Gandy, 126

INDEX

671

Garrick, 539
Gascoines, 90

Geikie, Sir Archibald, 497
George, Prince, 509, 512, 513, 544
Gilbert, 275

Glanville, Plus Ultra, 203

Gregory, David, 58, 318; publishes Ns

lunar theory, 413; 53 1
Gregory, James, 44* 148, 1 55 » 459 > 577
Gresham College, history of, 501
Gresham, Sir Thomas, 501, 502
Greville, Fulke, Lord Brooke, establishes first
lectureship of modern history, 24
Grew, Nehemiah, 203
Grimaldi, 96, 108

Halifax, Lord, see Montague, Charles
Hall, Chester More, 90

Halley, Edmond, 12; on pendulums, 232;
on orbit of comet, 241; on gravitation, 298;
conference with N on gravitation, 299 5
correspondence and work on Principia,
303—317; his atheism, 366; asks Flamsteed
for lunar observations, 418; lunar correc¬
tion, 420; determines orbit of comet, 433;
accusations of atheism, 4355 appointment
to Chester Mint and difficulties, 4495 cor¬
respondence with N on Mint, 449
Hare, Bishop, 135
Harington, John, 475

Hawes, 401 . . .

Hearne, Diaries, on N’s deficiency in Latin,
38, (/.».) 5 127
Hipparchus, 264-266

Hooke, Robert, reports on N’s telescope, 69;
70, 77, 83; life and work, 92-95; theory
of light, 97, 98, 99> 100; accused of de¬
pendence on others, no; on alchemy,
163; controversy on light, 1 73— 1 775 arith¬
metic engine, 186, (/.«.) 5 202; secretary
Roy. Soc., 203; asks N’s opinion on solar
system, 221; criticises N on earth’s rota¬
tion, 228; demonstration of earth’s rota¬
tion, 230-232; claims discovery of law of
gravitation, 235; on gravitation, 298;
claims to discovery of gravitation, 306,
307, 310-313; again claims discovery of
gravitation, 353; death, 493
Horsley, Bishop, on N’s heterodoxy, 631
Huggins, Charles, acquires N’s library, 542
Hume, David, 47

Huygens, Christian, 34; on N’s theory of
colour, 84; criticises N’s work in optics,
92; 98, 108, 214, 282; on centrifugal
force, 294; on N’s illness, 388

James II, revives High Court of Commis¬
sion to control education, 336; attempts
to Romanize universities, 337; struggle
with Magdalen College, 338; anger at
Cambridge, 340

Jansen, 59, 60

Jeffreys, Chief Justice, 336, 337 > 34 1 * 342
Johnson, Dr. Samuel, 47; on biography, 251;
critique of N’s cosmogony, 37 s ; 539

Keill, John, first attack on Leibniz, 582;
second letter to Leibniz, 584; defense 01
Commercium Epistolicum, 5975 answers
Charta Volans, 600

Kepler, Johann, 58; on optics, 58; 79 >

276; on harmonic ratios, 476, 477
Kinkhuysen, 141, I 4 2 > x 43 > J 49 > *83
Kit-Cat Club, 458
Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 126

Laughton, 252, 318

Leibniz, 183; sketch of, 186, 187; 191on
conduct towards N, 395; calculus alluded
to in N’s Optics, 507; accuses N of athe¬
ism, 551; effect of character on contro¬
versy, 566, 567; on Bernoulli’s problem,
571; answer to Duillier, 57^5 anonymous
review of N’s Quadratura, 578; indirectly
accuses N of plagiarism, 578; attacked by
Keill, 582; appeals to Roy. Soc., 583; de¬
mands investigation by Roy. Soc., 585;
correspondence with Bernoulli on the
Commercium Epistolicum, 5975 Charta
Volans, 598; warns Princess of Wales
against N, 600; correspondence with Ber¬
noulli on Charta Volans, 601; philosophi¬
cal discussion with Samuel Clarke, 601

Lely, 126 . , ,

Leucippus, mechanistic method, 254
Linus, Francis, 88, 89, 90
Lippersheim, 59 . ,

Locke, John, begins acquaintance with N,
354; dismissed from Oxford, 3555 corre¬
spondence with N on theology and a posi¬
tion, 357-363; correspondence with N,
368-374; vindicates himself to N, 386;
458; on N’s character, 489-491
Lucas, Antoine, 90
Lunar theory, 404-437

Macaulay, on recoinage, 447

Machin, gift from N, 656

Maclaurin, Colin, sketch of, 657

Maddock, Dr., 208

Manley, Mrs., de la Riviere, 468

Masham, Sir Francis and Lady, 359

Mason, Rev., 664

Mathematics, state of, 183

Maude, 389

Meade, Dr., 545

Mechanistic hypothesis, 253-285

Mede, Joseph, 24

Mercator, 140

Messanges, Mallemont de, 221
Millington, on N’s illness, 383
Monmouth, Lord and Lady, 357, 369

INDEX

672

Montague, Charles (later Lord of Halifax),
sketch of, 216; burlesques Dryden, 217;
marries Countess of Manchester, 218; 245;
resigns fellowship, 345; 346; offers N ap¬
pointment to Mint, 436; reform of finances
by, 440; sketch of, 441-445; undertakes
recoinage, 445; bill for recoinage, 447;
relations with N and Barton, 458; affec¬
tion for Barton, 463; bequest to Cathe¬
rine Barton, 466; discussion of his Mem¬
oirs, 469; will, 472; 487; letter to N, 520;

523

Montague, Hon. John, 27
Montmort, Remond de, on first invention of
calculus, 607
Moore, Jonas, 148, 238
Moray, Sir Robert, 70, 93
More, Henry, n, 31, 182, 245; death of,
345; idea of God, 553; on N’s attitude
towards prophecy, 622; on N’s interpre¬
tation of Daniel, 629

More, Richard, translates Clavis Apocalyp-
tica, 25

Musgrave, James, 542

Nebular hypothesis, 378-380
Neile, Sir Paul, 70

Newton, Hannah Ayscough, mother of N,
her character, 4; married to Mr. Smith, 4
Newton, Humphrey, 158; reminiscences of
N’s character and habits, 246; 381, 389
Newton, Sir Isaac
Life and Career

Birth, 1; ancestry and family, 2, 6; early
education, 6-11; early character by Dr.
Stukeley, 11-13; verses by, 15; early
physical and moral character, 16; early
intellectual pursuits, 17-19; engagement
to Miss Storey, 19; goes to Cambridge
University, 19; undergraduate social
life, 28-30; his undergraduate studies,
mathematics, 31-37; other studies, 38-
40; elected Scholar of Trinity, 39; ru¬
mour of failing examinations, 39; Bache¬
lor of Arts, 40; goes to Woolsthorpe on
account of plague, 40; discoveries in
mathematics, optics, and mechanics at
Woolsthorpe, 41-45; anecdote of falling
apple, 44; returns to Cambridge and
elected Minor Fellow, 45; assigned
rooms, 46; elected Major Fellow, 46;
Master of Arts, 46; financial condition,
46; engagement to Miss Storey ended,
48; extends reading and social activi¬
ties, 48; letter to Aston on foreign
travel, 49-51; account books, 52-54;
elected Lucasian Professor of Mathe¬
matics, 55, 56; lectures on optics, 57;
lens grinding and telescopes, 65-67;
sends telescope to Roy. Soc.,, 68; elected

Fellow Roy. Soc., 70; first published
paper on composition of white light,
72; his outline of the scientific method,
78-80; fails to inform Barrow of his
discoveries in light, 81; indebtedness to
others, 95; opposition to hypothesis, 103,
105; chambers, 124—126; appearance
and portraits, 126-128; social habits,
128-133; character, 133—137; professor¬
ial duties, 137; anecdote, custom house,
146; edits Varenius, 149; acuteness of
hearing, 150; on scientific method, 152;
Law Fellowship, 153; resigns Roy. Soc.,
154; visit by Gregory, 155; mysticism,
158; financial worry, 167; resignation
Roy. Soc., 168; on ear trumpets, 169;
retains fellowship, 169; on electricity,
170; modesty, 177, 178, 179; attitude
towards Roy., Soc., 180; on universal
aether, 181-182; on apple trees, 182;
early attitude towards Leibniz, 186—
196; disgust of criticism, 197; contrib¬
utes to library, 197; offered Master¬
ship of Trinity, 200; characterised by
Wickins, 205; health, 207; letter to
Boyle on aether, 211; beginning of
friendship with Montague, 216; effect
of Montague on character, 218; to
Hooke on theory of Mallemont, 223;
justifies himself against Hooke’s claim
of discovering law of gravitation, 235;
recommends Mr. Paget, 242; on found¬
ing philosophical society, 245; engages
secretary, 246; character and habits by
H. Newton, 246; sense of humour, 252;
his first ideas of gravitation, 288; his
account of discovery of gravitation, 290;
lays work aside, 295; prepares for Prin-
cipia, 300; begins lectures De Motu,
300; correspondence with Halley, 305;
criticism of Hooke on gravitation, 306;
refuses to publish third book of Prin-
cipia, 310; agrees to publish third book
of Principia, 314; opposes Hooke’s
claims, 310; effect of Principia, 317;
delegated by University in Alban Af¬
fair, 340; opposes compromise, 342;

letter to - outlining defense

of University, 343; elected to conven¬
tion Parliament, 345; intermediary be¬
tween Parliament and University, 346-
351; correspondence with Vice-Chancel¬
lor Covel, 347-350; ideas on govern¬
ment, 349; political importance, 351;
death of his mother, 351; opposed by
Hooke on discovery of gravitation, 353;
enlarges his acquaintance and interest
in Roy. Soc., 354; defeated for re-elec¬
tion to Parliament, 356; proposed for
Provost of King’s College, 356; writes
Two Notable Corruptions of Scriptures,

INDEX

673

357; correspondence with Locke on the¬
ology and a position, 357-363; seeks
political position, 358, seq.; acquaintance
with the Mashams, 359; interest in
prophetic books of the Bible, 360; ap¬
plies for comptrollership of Mint, 360;
effect of strong light on eyes, 361; ex¬
tends influence over Bentley and others,
363; advises Flamsteed to publish obser¬
vations, 363; interest in velocity of
light, 364; befriends Fatio, 367; cor¬
responds with Locke, 368-374; refuses
Mastership of the Charter-House, 368;
accuses Montague of ingratitude, 369;
puts his hope in Lord Monmouth, 369;
belief in miracles, 369, 370; attitude
towards alchemy, 372-374; correspond¬
ence with Bentley on cosmogony, 376,
seq.; serious illness, 380; curious letter
to Pepys, 382; accuses Locke of treach¬
ery* 385; apologises to Locke, 387;
rumours of his insanity, 387; rumour of
burnt manuscript, 389; intellectual pow¬
ers not impaired, 390; indifference to
fame, 393; acknowledges Leibniz’s dis¬
covery of calculus, 394; letter to Leib¬
niz on invention of fluxions, 396; inci¬
dent of ghost, 400; criticises education
at Christ’s Hospital, 401; recommenda¬
tion for S. Newton, 403; interest in
Christ’s Hospital, 404; begins lunar
theory, 404; agrees not to publish re¬
sults, 413; reason for delay of lunar
theory, 416; angers Flamsteed by de¬
siring observations only, 421; irritability
with Flamsteed, 425; reports of his
death, 426; proposes instructor for
Christ’s Hospital, 427; complains of
delay of lunar observations, 427; savage
attack on Flamsteed, 428; rumour of
appointment to Mint, 435; denies re¬
port, 436; appointed Warden of Mint,
436; his influence in national affairs,
440; appointed Master of Mint and his
income, 448; troubles at the Mint, 449;
correspondence with Halley on Mint,
449; offered bribes and pensions, 452;
ideas on counterfeiting, 453; estimate
of his national services, 454; moves to
Jermyn Street, 456; manner of living,
456; joins Bentley’s Club, 458; anecdote
on Scotch ancestry, 459; interest in es¬
tate, 460; family relations, 463; letter
to Catherine Barton, 470; letter to Sir
John Newton, 473; solves Bernoulli
problem, 475; solves Leibniz problem,
475; on harmonic ratios, 475, 476;
anger at Flamsteed for quoting him,
479; letter to Flamsteed about referring
to his work, 482; N Associate French
Academy, 487; invents sextant, 487;

resigns positions in Cambridge, 488;
elected to Parliament, 488; gains support
of Mashams, 491; supposed proposal
of marriage, 491; President Roy.. Soc.,
493; secures new quarters for Roy. Soc.,
504; publishes Optics, 506; engages to
publish Flamsteed’s catalogue, 510;
Historia Coelestis, 510-519; stands for
Parliament, defeated, 520, 524; knight¬
ed, 522; letter to Sir John Newton, 524;
Plumian professorship, 525; second edi¬
tion Principia, 529-534; interest in Roy.
Soc., 534-538; moves to St. Martin St.,
539; offered pension, 540; mode of liv¬
ing, 541; his library, 542; undertakes
publication of Historia Coelestis, 543;
Visitors to Observatory, 544; scene at
Roy. Soc., 545; incident of sealed packet,
547; selects Cotes as editor for Prin-
cipia, 549; defends his philosophy, 552,
553; relation to Platonists, 553; refuses
to write preface, 555; incident of ap¬
pearance before Parliament, 562; ef¬
fect of character on controversy, 566;
acknowledges Leibniz’s independent dis¬
covery, 568; solves Bernoulli problem,
570; publishes Optics, 576; insinuates
plagiarism of Leibniz, 576; appoints
committee of Roy. Soc., 586; responsi¬
bility for Commercium Epistolicum,
590; to Keill on Charta Volans, 599; to
Keill on Bernoulli’s Epistola, 603; ef¬
fect of controversy, 606; estimate of
work in history and theology, 609-611;
friendship with Princess of Wales, 612;
prepares Chronology, 612; effect of its
publication in France, 612-615; critique
of the Chronology of Ancient King¬
doms, 615-621; on interpretation of
prophecy, 621; on miracles, 623; anti-
Romanism, 624; critique of prophecies
of Daniel and the Apocalypse, 626—629;
on the papacy, 627; review of Two
Notable Corruptions of Scripture, 632-
635; on the doctrine of the Trinity, 636—
638; Irenicum, 638-639; Queries on
Homoousios, 640; Argumenta on the
Trinity, 642; his Unitarian doctrine, 643;
influence on deism, 644; social life, 648-
650; estate, 651; relation to South Sea
Co., 651-654; effect of suppressing facts
about N, 655; anecdotes on generosity,
655, 656; aids Stirling, 656; aids Mac-
laurin, 657; prepares third edition, 659;
rewrites Chronology, 662; moves to
Kensington on account of illness, 662;
on cosmogony, 663; interest in Wools-
thorpe, 664; last attendence at Roy.
Soc.., 665; last illness and death, 665;
funeral, 665; minutes of Roy. Soc., 666;
estate and heir, 666

INDEX

674

Newton, Astronomy and Physics

Discovers law of gravitation, 44; proposes
problem on earth’s motion, 224; corre¬
spondence with Hooke on earth’s rota¬
tion, 224-232; discusses comet of 1680
with Flamsteed, 238; sources of ideas
on gravitation, 282; the Principia, 286-
334; first calculation of gravitation, 288-
295; recalculation of gravitation, 295;
on motion of falling bodies, 296; on
attraction of a sphere, 297; lectures on
gravitation, 300; writes Principia, 301-
317; effect in England of Principia, 317;
effect abroad of Principia, 319; critique
of Principia, 320-332; conclusion of
Principia, 330; modern attitude towards
Principia, 332; ideas on the cosmogony,
376, scq.; gravitation not inherent, 378;
works on lunar theory, 404-437; cor¬
respondence with Flamsteed on lunar
theory, 417-434; on atmospheric rare¬
faction, 419; second edition Principia,
529-534; second edition Principia, 549-
558; problem of efflux, 550; problem of
projectile, 551; General Scholium and
its purpose, 552; third edition of Prin¬
cipia, 659

Newton, Chemistry

Early interest in alchemy, 50-52; on
chemistry and alchemy, 157-167; atti¬
tude towards alchemy, 372-374; on ther¬
mometry, 488
Newton, Mathematics

Undergraduate mathematical studies, 31-
37; first work on fluxions, 40; develops
fluxions at Woolsthorpe, 41; paper on
Analysis by Equations with an Infinite
Number of Terms, 54; on Kinkhuysen’s
Algebra, 141; on fluxions, 144, 184, 185,
186; summary of inventions, 187, 188;
correspondence with Liebniz on fluxions,
188-191; to Collins on fluxions, 196
Newton, Optics

Explanation of halos, 39; buys prism, 40;
discovery in optics at Woolsthorpe, 40,
41; invents telescope, 43; begins lec¬
tures, 56; Lectiones Opticce, 57; lens
grindingand telescopes, 65-67; describes
telescope, 68; development of telescope,
68-72; discovery of composition of white
light, 72; sends paper on new theory of
light and colour to Roy. Soc., 72-77;
Roy. Soc. report on N’s theory of light,
83; criticised by Hooke, 83; on Huygens’
attitude, 85; critique by Pardies, 86;
criticised by Linus, 88; letter to Olden¬
burg on criticism, 89; answers Linus,
90; criticised by Lucas, 90; to Olden¬
burg, 89, 90, 91; criticised by Huygens,
92; new scientific method, 100; cri¬
terion of colour, 100; criticises Hooke’s

hypothesis, 105; attacks Hooke’s theory,
107; corpuscular theory, 108; critique
of Hooke’s theory, no; digest of queries
in Optics, m-114; ancillary wave hy¬
pothesis, 115; on telescope, 147; to
Oldenburg, on hypothesis, 172; contro¬
versy with Hooke, 173-177; on dark
rays, 208; on vision, 208; publishes
Optics, 576

Newton, Sir John, kinsman and head of
family, 2

Newton, Robert, grandfather of N, 2
Nichols, opinion of Catherine Barton, 470
Norris, Lady, 491
North, Hon.. John, 27

Ode to Charles II, 217

Oldenburg, Henry, Secretary Roy. Soc., let¬
ter from N on election to Roy. Soc., 71;
72, 80; letter from N on Hooke’s critique,
84; correspondence, 89, 90, 91; from N
on attacking Hooke, no; correspondence,
147, 150, 151, 154, 162; on resignation
of N, 168; correspondence, 172; death,
199; sketch of, 200-202
Optics, state of knowledge of, 58-65; theories
of colour, 63-65, 72-81; critique of N’s
theory of colour, 77-80. ( See also Newton,
Optics)

Oughtred, William, 36
Oxford University, 92

Paget, Edward, 241, 401
Pardies, Ignatius, 86, 88, 98, 104
Pearson, John, 27
Pechell, Vice-Chancellor, 341
Pelseneer, 229

Pemberton, Henry, account of discovery of
gravitation, 290; gift from N, 655; sketch
of, 660; eulogy of N, 660; edits third edi¬
tion of Principia, 661
Pembroke, Earl of, 135, 207
Pepys, Samuel, 47, 201, 381; correspond¬
ence on N’s illness, 382-384
Peterborough, Lord, 442 (f.n.)

Physics, scientific method, 100
Picard, 244

Plato, scientific method, 256-258; 263
Plot, Dr., 203
Pope, Alexander, 2

Portsmouth, Earls of, relationship to N, 464
Pound, gift from N, 655
Prior, Matthew, 217; parody on Dryden,
442; not given recognition, 442
Pryme, Abraham de la, 390
Psalmanazar, George, 534 (f.n.)

Psychology, as a science, 100; contrast with
physics, 256
Ptolemy, 264

Pulleyn, Benjamin, tutor of N, 32
Pythagoreans, 269, 283

INDEX

675

Raphson, 192

Raymond, Archbishop, 262
Recoinage, methods and effects of, 447
Religion vs. science, 262
Reynolds, 539

Royal Society, receives telescope, 69; thanks
N for paper on theory of light, 77; report
on N’s theory of colour, 83, 92, 93; mem¬
oir on light by N, 107; Journal-Book on
N’s theory of light, 109; opposition to,
203; reception of N’s problem on earth’s
motion, 226; demonstration of earth’s ro¬
tation, 233; on N’s De Motu, 300; on Prin-
cipia, 304, 305; publication of Prwapia,
307; reception of Principia, 315; urges N
to publish, 399; rise of learned societies,
494; foundation and early history of, 496—
501; attacks on, 503; removal to Crane
Court, 504-506; dissensions in, 534-538;
appoints committee to investigate claims
of Leibniz, 585; composition of commit¬
tee, 586; discussion of method of com¬
mittee, 587; discussion of report on Leib¬
niz controversy, 591-595
Roubiliac, 126

Sawyer, Sir Robert, 345, 356
Scheiner, Father, 62
Schooten, Franz van, 36
Scientific method, N on hypothesis and the¬
ory, 78-80; contrast of psychology and
physics, 100; theory vs. hypothesis, 103
Seeman, 126

Simon, Richard, on the Trinity, 633, 634
Sloane, Hans, criticism of, 505; attacks on,
534; affair with Dr. Woodward, 536, 545
Slusius, 34

Smith, Rev.. Barnabas, stepfather of N, 6
Smith, Benjamin, 351, 463
Somers, Lord John, 346; political views, 438-
439; sketch of, 441; 487, 493
South Sea Company, history of, 653
Spence’s Anecdotes, 442
Sprat, Bishop, History of Royal Society, 203,
496, seq.

Stewart, Dugald, tribute to Locke, 387
Stirling, James, 656

Stokes, Henry, Master of Grantham School,
8, 10

Storey, Miss, afterwards Mrs. Vincent, inti¬
mate friend of N, 15, 19, 28, 30, 48
Stukeley, Dr. William, sketch of, 3 (/.«.);
8, 11; on N’s absent-mindedness, 14; 127,
134, 146, 166, 251, 389, 463; anecdote on

N’s portrait, 650; on N’s hostility to Flam¬
steed, 650; on N’s displeasure towards
himself, 651

Sunderland, Earl of, 340, 355
Swift, proposed pension for N, 452; bur¬
lesques N and Roy. Soc., 453; relations
with N, 540

Telescope, discovery of, 59
Tenison, Archbishop, 200, 375; offers N
church preferment, 608
Thornhill, 126

Trinity College, its appearance and Fellows,
122-124

Uvedale, Robert, 153

Vanderbank, 126
Varenius, 152
Vieta, Francois, 36
Vigani, 252

Villamil, Colonel de, estimate of N’s salary,
448; on N’s establishment, 456; inventory,
542; clears up N’s relation to South Sea
Co., 654

Vincent, Nathaniel, 304
Voltaire, 44; account of discovery of gravi¬
tation, 293, 467

Waller, Richard, 94, 398
Wallis, John, 36; urges N to publish, 395;
letter to N urging publication, 397; to
Halley, 399; justifies Flamsteed, 484 (f.n.)
Warburton, Bishop, 463
Ward, Bishop of Salisbury, 70, 77
Whiston, Will, accused of theft, 656
Whiston, William, account of discovery of
gravitation, 289; anecdotes, 304; 318; on
Conduitt’s appointment to the Mint, 454;
appointed Lucasian Professor, 488; pub¬
lishes N’s algebra, 528; estimate of N,
559; anecdote on N’s sensitiveness, 56°;
Arianism and banishment from Univer¬
sity, 560, seq.; accuses N of hostility, 561;
on method for longitude, 562; on N as
historian, 629; accuses N of Arianism, 630
Whitehead, A. N., on mechanistic hypothesis,
323

Wickins, John, 124; room-mate of N, 205;

reminiscences of N, 205
Wollaston, on N’s speculation, 652
Wood, Anthony, 353
Woodward, Dr., 536, seq.

Wren, Christopher, 69, 70; on earth’s rota¬
tion, 227; on gravitation, 298; 458

Isaac Newton - Part 2