232 



NOTES AND QUEEIES. 



[2"* S. X. Sept. 22, '60. 



Thorpe's Eegistrum Roflfense, the Custumale 

 Roffense, and Denne's Extracts from the Registers 

 (a MS. in the British Museum Library), contain 

 the clue to most of the documents in the Roches- 

 ter Registers. 



A tew extracts from the Registers of St. Da- 

 vid's, which are now lost, are in the Bodleian MS., 

 Tanner, folio 146. 



These notes refer chiefly to. the Registers of the 

 ante-reformation Bishops, but some of the In- 

 dexes — Torre's, Ducarel's, and Cole's' — come 

 down to the last century. 



Most of Dr. Button's abstracts are copied in 

 Wharton's hand ; among the Lambeth MSS., and 

 in the British Museum, are copies by Kennett. 

 The dates at which the Registers begin are given 

 in the Registrum Sacrum Anglicanuniy pp. x — xii. 



The fees payable at the different Registries 

 vary from 5s, for a general search to 3s. Qd. for 

 each volume brought out. The Canterbury Re- 

 gisters are at Lambeth Palace ; the York, in the 

 Will Office there. The London, in St. Paul's. 

 The Winchester, Rochester, Wells, Lichfield, Nor- 

 wich, and Chichester, in the Cathedrals ; those of 

 Worcester and Hereford, in the Diocesan Regis- 

 trars' offices. Those of Salisbury in the Palace. 



; W. S. N. 



NEWTON'S TREATISE ON FLUXIONS. 

 (2°'» S. X. 163.) 



Me. Cockle having obliged me by the loan of 

 his copy of the edition of 1737 mentioned by him, 

 I am able to say that it is a spurious edition, that 

 is, an edition unsanctioned by the owners of the 

 copyright. 



I had heard of such an edition, but had never 

 seen it. Hardly any reference is made to it : and 

 the bibliography of English scientific works, from 

 the death of Newton to the end of the century, is 

 in a very unsatisfactory state. I had some difli- 

 culty in discovering where I had seen mention of 

 this edition : but at last I found it in the so-called 

 list of editions of Newton's works which accom- 

 panies the life in the Library of Useful Knowledge. 

 There are so many errors m this list that it is of 

 no authority : the life is a translation from Biot's 

 article in the Biographie Universelle ; and probably 

 the list forms part of the article, or is augmented 

 by help of Watt, who however does not mention 

 the Fluxions of 1737. 



The work known as Newton's Fluxions was 

 written by the author, in Latin, about 1671. 

 Pemberton persuaded Newton to consent to the 

 publication of it, and would have edited it himself, 

 but Newton's death prevented the plan from being 

 realised. The manuscript then came into the 

 hands of William Jones — or, more probably, was 

 in his hands from the time when he became pos- 

 sessor of Collins's papers, that is, before 1711. 



Pemberton had it in his hands for some time, as 

 Dr. Wilson, presently mentioned, testifies : and 

 Dr. Wilson further testifies that the work pub- 

 lished by Colson is the very same as that which he 

 saw in Pemberton's hands. And he further testi- 

 fies, as matter known to Jones, Pemberton, and 

 himself, that this work was really the tract which 

 Newton wrote as early as 1671. And it is only 

 in this roundabout way that we know the date of 

 the work. For Colson, more intent u^on fluxions 

 than upon Newton on fluxions, only states that his 

 translation was from the work which Pemberton 

 had intended to edite. And Pemberton only states 

 that the work he intended to edite was written a 

 long while ago. 



Dr. James Wilson (1694?— 1771) was the friend 

 of Jones, of Pemberton, of Brook Taylor, and 

 others of Newton's later day. He was the most 

 intimate of Pemberton's friends, and Pemberton 

 was Newton's last editor and latest scientific asso- 

 ciate. 



In his appendix to his edition of Robins's tracts, 

 published in 1761, Wilson gives more detail of fact 

 connected with Newton's writings than any one 

 else had attempted : and there can be little doubt 

 that every line he wrote was inspected before 

 publication by his daily associate, Pemberton. 

 Now Wilson informs us that Jones gave copies of 

 Newton's tracts on fluxions, of a small one of 

 1666, and of the larger one of 1671, to Dr. Pellet, 

 of whom I know nothing else. He then proceeds 

 as follows : — 



" This was deficient in several places ; for Mr. Jones 

 was wont to curtail or otherwise disguise the papers he 

 communicated to his scholars [this word does not mean 

 that he taught pupils] that none might make up a com- 

 plete book. The translation Mr. Colson has published of 

 this treatise was from Mr. Jones's own copy, which, I 

 believe, was very perfect, as far as Sir Isaac Newton had 

 at first composed it ; as well as I can remember from my 

 having read many j'ears ago the original manuscript, 

 when it was in my friend Dr. Pemberton's custody." 



Colson published his edition in 1736, with a 

 commentary following the end of the text. 

 Some copies have not the commentary : and this 

 means that there was an issue of the work before 

 the commentary was ready. For in the Republic 

 of Letters for 1736, p. 223, there is a review of 

 poison's translation, which is described as of 140 

 pages with a preface of 23 pages. This is an ex- 

 act description of the work without the commen- 

 tary. I suspect that Colson, having notice of the 

 forthcoming spurious edition, published the trans- 

 lation before the commentary was ready, in order 

 to forestal his rival. 



Again, in the words from Dr. Wilson quoted 

 above, I think I see a reference to the spurious 

 edition, — "the translation which 71/r. Colson has 

 published was from Mr. Jones's own copyT These 

 words follow the account of Jones's curtailments ; 

 and the whole would have been to no purpose 



