452 Prof. De Morgan on the Additiojis made to the 



IX. (43, 123). The note " N.B. In hoc impressae " is 



new. It is not material. 



X. (45, 125). The first sentence of the extract, " Duaruni 

 tibi literarum debitor, rogo ne sequius interpreteris silentium 

 nieum, soleo enim interrumpi nonnunquam, et haec studia per 

 intervaila tractare," is the insertion of the new editors, who 

 may have been desirous to clear the old ones of the suppres- 

 sion to which I alluded above. 



XI. (46, 127). In " Hoc anno cum D. Gregorius anno su- 

 periore ad finem vergente emortuus esset," the five words onno 

 .... vergente are new. 



XII. (47, 128). In the following comment the bracketed 

 parts are new : — 



" In hac Collectione habetur [Epistola superius impressa 

 Gregorii ad Collins 5 Sept. 1670. Habetur et] Epistola supe- 

 rius impressa, quo (sic; qua in original) Gregorius Quadra- 

 turam praedictam Arithmeticam initio Anni 1671 cum D. 

 Collins communicavit: Habetur et Epistola D. Newtoni ad 

 D.Collins, 10 Decemb. 1672 data, et superius impressa, in qua 

 Newtonus se Methodum generalem habere dicit ducendi Tan- 

 gentes, quadrandi Curvilineas, et similia peragendi ; et Me- 

 thodum Exemplo ducendi Tangentes exponit: quam Metho- 

 dum D. Leibnitius dijfcrentialem postea vocavit. [Haec Col- 

 lectio ad D. Leibnitium missa fuit 26 Junii 1676]." 



With this must be joined the addition presently marked 

 XVIII., announcing the date at which Collins died. The 

 second addition above is the most unjustifiable of all, as being 

 the most important. In fact, this one addition makes the 

 second edition of the Commevcmm Epistolicum a very different 

 thing from the first, as I shall proceed to show. 



Look at the final report of the Committee, and it will ap- 

 pear that two distinct points are enunciated and declared to 

 be sustained by the evidence printed before that report : first, 

 that Newton had his method at an early date ; secondly, that 

 Newton's method had been communicated to Leibnitz. With 

 the first I have here nothing to do. The second point is sum- 

 med up by saying, that Leibnitz had no other differential me- 

 thod except that of Mouton " 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 correspond- 

 ents; in which letter the method of Fluxions was sufficiently 

 describ'd to any intelligent person." The bracketed words 

 are additions. 



Look back at the evidence which is meant to support this 



