Account of the Cornuiercium Epistolicum. 443 



tbc three months which are always marked 1714-15 : in the 

 same period of the next year (Feb. 26) Newton wrote the letter 

 to Conti; and subsequently, in April or May, the Observations 

 which were printed after Leibnitz's death in Raphson's history 

 of fluxions. Between these later productions, published under 

 Newton's hand, and the anonymous Account, we find, I think, a 

 considerable likeness of style, of a kind which cannot be made 

 evident except to those who examine the whole. But we also 

 find many marked similarities of phrase ; and it will hardly be 

 thought likely that Newton, personally engaged with the chief 

 of his opponents, would pick up the very recent words of a name- 

 less follower. The paging on the left is that of Raphson's history, 

 on the right that of the Account. 



Newton. Author of the Account. 



(P. 100.) They were collected (P. 221.) The Committee 



and published by a numerous was numerous and skilful, and 

 Committee of gentlemen of composed of gentlemen of se- 

 several nations. veral nations. 



(P. 111.) He pressed the (P. 221.) Mr. Leibnitz in- 



Royal Society to condemn Dr. deed desired the Royal Society 

 Keill without hearing both to condemn Mr. Keill without 

 parties. hearing both parties. 



(P. 102.) And what he then (P. 211.) And this 



acknowledged, he ought still to which he then acknowledged to 

 acknowledge. (This phrase is Dr. Wallis, he ought still to 

 repeatedandvariedseveral times acknowledge, 

 in both works.) 



(P. 115.) And second in- (P. 215.) For second in- 



ventors have no right. vcntors have no right. 



I shall produce more instances so soon as I find that more are 

 wanted ; but any one who has access to the papers cited can 

 find them for himself. For myself, however, I am more moved 

 by that general similarity of style which cannot be established 

 by instances, than by special accordances of phraseology. Having 

 been accustomed to use the Latin translation of the Account, I 

 never remarked this similarity until now. 



Throughout the paper in question there is not one compliment 

 to Newton (except in quotations introduced in proof of assertions), 

 not one word expressive of admiration, and not one reference to 

 anything be had done which he might not, in perfect good taste, 

 have been the author of. "Who could have written thus about 

 Newton, in 1711, except Newton himself? No one certainly, 

 champion or assailant, who then put his name to what he wrote. 

 \\< ill and Leibnitz, Taylor ami Bernoulli, always let us sec, both 



