M.TTI.IIS ON SCIKNTIMC sril.IKi 31) 



your letter, \\hieh indeed is not enough to <^i\e me sat 

 lion. Let Kitt, when lie iroes next to London, spceke to Hill, 

 or utt the Blaekfriers, 1'or a perfect, eopie of IVf iseus ; my 

 brother the captaine will send it to me speedilie. The 

 touch that you give of your doctrine of differences or trian- 

 gular nombers, .... me of them, wherin to understand 

 somethinge, I will one day bee a begger unto you. Your 

 dog, that limits by the sines onlie, and I am growen familiar, 

 and he is an excellent dog; but your she bitch hath no fellow 

 for . . . . , onlie she is slow ; I had not lost hir, but knew hir 

 goodnesse wel enough: the reason why I did nott use her in 

 the former workes, was because, beinge in way of calculation 

 by the tables onlie in that practise, I endevored to cleare that 

 way of all rubbs ; also because I conceaved it to be the short- 

 est, I hastned (so greedie was my desire) to see the issue of 

 my worke ; so that by the assistance of thes dogs of yours I 

 grow so confident as to undertake to pursue in chace anie 

 game : but then onlie I shal be sure that nothinge doe escape 

 me, when you shall please to imparte unto me a betch of 

 your triangular kinde. 



I need not bee so curious to send you my doubts in indi- 

 viduOy for howsoever you satisfie me in private as you have 

 done now, nevertheless, because you require it, I have sente 

 them in two supplements, the one unto my letters that you 

 have alreadie, the other unto thes, which, unlesse you had 

 remembered me of, I should have omitted againe. 



My worke is crow r ned now you allow of it, and indeed ther 

 wanted in mee nether will nor Industrie to accomplish it, nor 

 in you will nor skill to instruct me in the sacred wayes of 

 arte ; be you therfore ever of me unconquerablie respected, 

 or be I not att all. 



You have recomforted mee much to intimate that anie 

 greate difference in my workes will discover a farther mis- 

 terie ; for I was almost dismaied to find thes second observa- 

 tions give an Aphelie different for the former 3 or 4 degrees. 



Of this later worke I send you all the numbers given and 

 found, and had also of manie more by this time, if the impos- 

 sible issue of this last worke had not stayed my proceedinge till 

 I receaved your censure of it. As you direct me I will proceede 

 to doe them all, for I am growen verie experte in this calcu- 

 lation. I did not mistake that a /3 in the diagramme I sent 

 you was double the eccentricitie, and therfore, before the re- 

 cepte of your letter, in this second worke I had placed /3 att 

 the center, and co att the centrorde, not onlie that a /3 mighte 

 still remaine with Kepler the single eccentricitie, but to make 

 it also corresponde with your vice royall probleme beare with 



