3 REPORT 1867. 



lieved, ever attempted as connected with science or literature. Sir Daiid then read 

 the following notes : — 1. The correspondence -was founded on the assumption that 

 Newton was a precocious genius, having wiitteu on the Infinitesimal Calculus &c. 

 at the age of eleven, whereas he was then at school and knew nothing of mathe- 

 matics, occupying himself onlj'- with waterwheels, -svindmills, waterclocks, and other 

 boyish amusements. 2. There is no evidence that Pascal and Newton had any 

 correspondence. Having examined the whole of Newton's papers in the possession 

 of the Earl of Portsmouth, I never found any letter or paper in which Pascal is 

 mentioned. 3. The letters from 3Iiss Hannah Ai/sco>ir/h, Newton's mother, hear 

 this sig-nature, although at the time they were ^vlitten she was a married woman 

 and should ha>'e signed Hannah Smith. 4. The letters of Pascal have been found 

 by M. Faugere to be in another hand, and the signature not that of Pascal. 5. The 

 letters and signatures of Newton are not in his hand. 6. An experiment with 

 coffee is mentioned in one of the letters of Pascal, whereas coffee was at that time 

 unknown in France. 7. All Newton's letters are in French, a language in v,'hich he 

 never wi-ote. His letters to the celebrated French mathematician, Varignon, are in 

 Latin, and Newton himself has stated that he could not read French without a 

 dictionary. 8. The style and sentiments in Newton's letters are such as he never 

 could have used. He expresses eternal gratitude to Pascal, a word which no 

 Enghshman would have employed. 9. According to the correspondence, M. 

 DesmaizeaUx got access to Newton's papers after his death, and carried off" a great 

 many of them. Now it is certain that ^Ir. Conduitt, Newton's nephew, arranged 

 and examined all Newton's papers after his death in order to obtain raaterials for 

 a Hfe of him, and, having failed to find a competent person to write it, he under- 

 took it himself, and obtained from persons then alive all the information that 

 existed respecting Newton'.s early life and studies. All this information, which 1 

 have used in my Ufe of Newton, stands in direct contradiction to the assumption of 

 Newton's precocity and early connexion with Pascal, which is the basis of the 

 correspondence now exciting so general an interest. There can be no doubt, there- 

 fore, that the letters of Newton and Pascal are audacious and elaborate forgerie.?, 

 calculated and intended to transfer to Pascal the gloiy of the discoveiy of the law 

 of cavitation and other discoveiies which we owe to Newton. 



On the alleged Corvespondence hetween Newton and Pascal reccntli/ communi- 

 cated to the French Academy. By T. Archer Hirst, F.B.S., F.li.A.S. 



The autlior stated that the alleged correspondence between Newton and Pascal, 

 recently communicated to the French Academy by tlie eminent geometer and his- 

 torian Michel Chasles, had taken the scientific world by surprise. If genuine, it 

 would follow that it is to Pascal and not to Newton that we are indebted for the 

 development of the theoiy of gra\'itation ; that Newton borrowed his ideas from 

 Pascal, and, what is worse, basely concealed and tried to cancel all traces of liis 

 having thus borrowed. Charges so grave as these could not for a moment be 

 entertained by Englishmen, were they not put fji-ward by one vvhosc authority is 

 acknowledged, and whose rectitude of character is beyond suspicion. 



The real history of these documents appeared to be unknown to their present 

 owner, nor was M. Chasles at liberty even to state by ^\-hom they were consigned 

 to him. We were deprived, therefore, of tlie most direct way of testing their 

 authenticity, and must linve recourse to examination of the documents themselves. 

 With a view of enabling us to do so, M. Chasles had kindly sent to Sir David 

 Brewster and to the author of the present communication several specimens, in 

 French, of Newton's handwriting, all which had at once been pronounced to be 

 forgeries by the eminent biographer of Newton. 



.\fter drawing attention to several inconsistencies contained in the letters already 

 published by Chasles and purporting to be from Pascal, Newton, lioyle, Aubrey, 

 and others, the author stated that the question of authenticity could only be con- 

 clusively decided by a careful comparison of the docinnents witli the autlientic pa- 

 pers of Newton now in the possession of Lord Portsmouth, the Earl of Macclesfield, 

 the Royal Society, and Trinity College, Cambridge. This comparison would be 

 much facilitated, and, indeed, scientific literature greatly enriched, if tlie owners of 



