Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
NEWTON, ISAAC (b. Woolsthorpe, England,
25 December 1642; d. London, England, 20 March
1727), mathematics, dynamics, celestial mechanics,
astronomy, optics, natural philosophy.
The London Years: the Mint, the Royal Society,
Quarrels with Flamsteed and with Leibniz.
Gregory was appointed (at a fee of £250) as general
supervisor of the conversion of the Scottish coinage
to British.
Newton ruled over the Royal Society with an iron
hand. When Whiston was proposed as a fellow in
1720, Newton said that if Whiston were chosen, he
“would not be president.” At Newton's urging, the
council brought the society from the verge of bankruptcy
to solvency by obtaining regular contributions
from fellows. When a dispute arose between
Woodward and Sloane, Newton had Woodward
ejected from the council. Of Newton's chairmanship
of meetings, Stukeley reported, “Everything was
transacted with great attention and solemnity and
dignity,” for “his presence created a natural awe in the
assembly”; there was never a sign of “levity or
indecorum.” As England's foremost scientist, president
of the Royal Society, and civil servant, Newton
appeared before Parliament in Spring 1714, to give
advice about a prize for a method of finding longitude.
When Newton moved from Cambridge to London
in the 1690's to take up the wardenship of the mint,
he continued to work on the motion of the moon. He
became impatient for Flamsteed's latest observations
and they soon had a falling-out, no doubt aggravated
by the strong enmity which had grown up between
Halley and Flamsteed. Newton fanned the flames by
the growing arrogance of his letters: “I want not your
calculations but your observations only.” And when
in 1699 Flamsteed let it be known that Newton was
working to perfect lunar theory, Newton sent
Flamsteed a letter insisting that on this occasion
he not “be brought upon the stage,” since “I do not
love to be printed upon every occasion much less to be
dunned & teezed by foreigners about Mathematical
things or to be thought by our own people to be trifling
away my time about them when I should be about the
King's business.” Newton and Halley published
Flamsteed's observations in an unauthorized printing
in 1712, probably in the conviction that his work had
been supported by the government and was therefore
public property. Flamsteed had the bitter joy of
burning most of the spurious edition; and he then
started printing his own Historia coelestis Brittanica.
A more intense quarrel arose with Leibniz. This
took two forms: a disagreement over philosophy or
theology in relation to science (carried out through
Samuel Clarke as intermediary), and an attempt on
Newton's part to prove that Leibniz had no claim to
originality in the calculus. The initial charge of
plagiarism against Leibniz came from Fatio de
Duillier, but before long Keill and other Newtonians
were involved and Leibniz began to rally his own
supporters. Newton held that not only had Leibniz
stolen the calculus from him, but that he had also
composed three tracts for publication in the Acta
eruditorum claiming some of the main truths of the
Principia as independent discoveries, with the sole
original addition of some mistakes. Today it appears
that Newton was wrong; no doubt Leibniz had (as he
said) seen the “epitome” or lengthy review of the
Principia in the Acta eruditorum of June 1688, and not
the book, when (to use his own words) “Newton's
work stimulated me” to write out some earlier
thoughts on “the causes of the motions of the
heavenly bodies” as well as on the “resistance of a
medium” and motion in a medium.184 Newton stated,
however, that even if Leibniz “had not seen the
book itself, he ought nevertheless to have seen it
before he published his own thoughts concerning these
matters.”185
That Newton should have connived at declaring
Leibniz a plagiarist gives witness to his intense
possessiveness concerning his discoveries or inventions;
hence his consequent feeling of violation or
robbery when Leibniz seemed to be publishing them.
Newton was also aware that Leibniz must have seen
one or more of his manuscript tracts then in circulation;
and Leibniz had actually done so on one of his
visits, when, however, he copied out some material
on series expansions, not on fluxions.186
No one today seriously questions Leibniz' originality
and true mathematical genius, nor his independence—to
the degree that any two creative mathematicians
living in the same world of mathematical thought
can be independent—in the formulation of the
calculus. Moreover, the algorithm in general use
nowadays is the Leibnizian rather than the Newtonian.
But by any normal standards, the behavior of both
men was astonishing. When Leibniz appealed to the
Royal Society for a fair hearing, Newton appointed
a committee of good Newtonians. It has only recently
become known that Newton himself wrote the
committee's report, the famous Commercium epistolicum,187
which he presented as if it were a set of
impartial findings in his own favor.
Newton was not, however, content to stop there;
following publication of the report there appeared
an anonymous review, or summary, of it in the
Philosophical Transactions. This, too, was Newton's
work. When the Commercium epistolicum was
reprinted, this review was included, in Latin translation,
as a kind of introduction, together with an
anonymous new preface “To the Reader,” which
was also written by Newton. This episode must
be an incomparable display of thoroughness
in destroying an enemy, and Whiston reported
that he had heard directly that Newton had “once