Vi keaeery, 
—— 
5384 
general analytic methods, Oldenburg, in answer, 
Ctr dus Oneacey and Newton had also 
found methods, which gave the quadrature of curves, 
geometrical or mechanical, and 
brated 
SF 
z 
9; and a variety of other 
‘and quadratures, but nothing directly 
ii 
- 
letter, Newton speaks of Leibnitz 
cion which atter- 
r 
i 
i 
ZF 
Fe 
i 
7 
i 
Fe 
3 
: 
to O , to be also communicated to 
Leibnitz, he still of his rival with re ; and 
he here, in compliance with a wish ex 
nits, lains the manner in Which he found the bi- 
session of his calculus. 
On the 21st June 1677, Leibnitz sent to Oldenburg, 
to be communicated bi bape r= a — containing the 
first attempts at a m whi ied to ev i 
that could be done by that of Newton, This was his 
Differential Calculus. The death of Oldenburg, which 
soon followed, put an end to this epistolary correspon- 
dence; and seven years afterwards, viz. in 1684, Leib- 
nitz published his method in the Leipsic Acts for Oc- 
tober of that year, with this title, “ Nova Methodus 
maximis et minimis, i ue tangentibus, que nec 
his Principia, where he had occasion to give an ex- 
ory of fluxions: and it is worthy of © ti 
-ton.-At length tician 1 
“ns 
» judged prs trad att be proper to consult 
- - 
— 
FLUXIONS. 
from mine only in the:enindliilon, 
tion.” To this, in the i 
and in the manner of ivi 
generated.” 
It has been s 
who is said to have entertained a dislike to Leib- 
on account of his having omitted to name him in 
an enumeration which he made of eminent mathema- 
ticians, asserted, in a short tract on the curve of swift« 
est descent, and the solid of least resistance, that New- 
ton was the first inventor of the new calculus, and that 
he would leave to others to decide what Leibnitz, the 
second inventor, might have borrowed from the Eng- 
lish geometer. To this attack Leibnitz gave a spiri 
answer, and complai to the Royal Society ; and 
there the dispute rested for atime. Afterwards, when 
Newton's treatise on the Quadrature of Curves, and 
his Enumeration of lines of the third order, came out, 
in 1704, the Leipsic journalists gave an unfavourable 
account of it, and in effect said; that Newton had ta< 
ken his method froni that of Leibnitz, substituting 
fluxions for differences. This assertion called forth the 
indignation of the British mathematicians, and without 
doubt offended Newton himself. Accordingly, in 1708, 
Keill inserted in the Phil ical Transactions a pa 
per, in which he stated , that Newton was the 
first —- vs the Fluxional _ us, ae — 
nitz, in publishing it in ipsic Acts, 
changed the renee the oerren eon of 
Leibnitz thus accused of plagiarism, addressed a lete. 
ter to Hans Sloane, to the Royal iety, 
requiring that Keill should retract what he had said : 
But far from this, Keill replied in a long letter to 
Hans Sloane, in which he enumerated the reasons that 
i 
city. This letter was sent to Leibnitz ; who 
that the Royal Society should cnc: oa 
of a who was too young to 
paseed between him and Newton, The 
on in 1673, and went thence to Paris, where he 
of the differential caleulus, before his letter ox. 
thing 
the 21st of June 1677; which was a year after a copy. 
———O 
