442 Prof. De Morgan on the Authorship of the 



the Comm. Epist. And this not once, but many times; and not 

 as laying any stress on the assertion of authorship, but just in 

 the same manner as when he affirms that Maclaurin wrote on 

 fluxions, or that John Bernoulli's letter is at page 448 of the 

 Journal Litterairc : taking all these matters to be equally beyond 

 controversy. Nowhere does he hint at a doubt upon the sub- 

 ject. The following extracts will establish these points : — 



(Pp. 323, 324.) "But the weakness of this judgment [the 

 celebrated judicium primarii mathematici] has been fully exposed 

 by Sir Isaac Newton himself, at the end of the Commercium 

 Epistolicuni." The same assertion again in page 359. 



(P. 331.) "They talk indeed of their exponential calculus as 

 a great discovery* (*[note irrelevant]) but this Sir Isaac Newton 

 himself has hinted to be really of no usef. (t Philos. Trans. 

 N° 342. p. 212. Or Comm. Epist. p. 46.)" 



(P. 332, 333.) N° 342 again cited to prove that Newton re- 

 peats most explicitly that he had no physical cause of gravity. 



(P. 334.) " Now Sir Isaac Newton has himself informed usf, 

 (t Comm. Epistolic. in the preface, page penult.) " Quae novae 

 Principiorum editioni prseinissa sunt, Newtonus non vidit ante- 

 quam Liber in lucem prodiit ;" and it is well known that he was 

 much dissatisfied with that preface for more reasons than one . . ." 

 That is, Wilson affirms the Ad Lectorem to be also written by 

 Newton. 



(P. 335.) "But that no opinions may be attributed to this 

 great man which he never held; see what he has said excellently 

 well himself in the Philosophical Transactions, N° 342 p. 222*, 

 (*Com. Epist. p. 55, &c.) about his method of philosophising." 

 In the same page the same reference occurs again, as reference 

 to objections cleared up " by Sir Isaac Newton himself." And 

 again in the next page on a note to " Sir Isaac Newton has him- 

 self told us his real motives." Again also in pp. 342, 355, 361. 



(Pp. 367, 368.) " . . . . the second edition of the Commercium 



Epistolicum where Sir Isaac Newton has, in the Preface, 



Account and Annotation, which were added to that edition, par- 

 ticularly answered . . . . " In a note this statement is repeated, 

 both as to No. 342, and the preface, or Ad Lectorem, which 

 Newton inserted in " a second edition, he made, of the Commer- 

 cium Epistolicum/' 



This statement, namely, that Newton wrote the paper now 

 chiefly under discussion, as well as the Ad Lectorem and post- 

 script to the second edition of the Comm. Epist., is thus woven 

 into the very fabric of Wilson's argument, and could not pos- 

 sibly have been passed over by Pcmberton. I shall now proceed 

 to the internal evidence. 



The paper, No. 342, was presented to the Royal Society in 



