Leibnitz and the Royal Society

Abstract

PROF. TAIT and myself ought not to be at issue on this question. I suppose we both want to get at the facts; and, for my part, I have no more desire to whitewash a foul reputation than he can have to blacken a fair one. Where we differ appears to be, as to how far Leibnitz's reputation can stand the test of facts. The question, however, is not whether Leibnitz acted disingenuously in respect to Gregory's series, or any other subordinate matter, but whether he was indebted to something of Newton's, surreptitiously imparted to him, for his differential calculus. If the grounds upon which that charge was made are swept away, there is an end of it. But if, on the other hand, that is not found feasible, and evidence to character becomes a factor in the final decision, then it is right to examine into those subordinate matters. Till then, I, for one, decline to touch them. At the same time let me say that I never undertook to be bail for Leibnitz's impeccability. All I said or say is, that on the published facts I believe that Leibnitz was led to the calculus by his own honest speculations, and had not the means of stealing from Newton, had he been that way disposed. But there are so many relative papers still unpublished, but publishable, that it is impossible to arrive at a true decision till at least some of them have been submitted to an authorised tribunal.