Correspondence of Sir Isaac Newton and Professor Cotes : including letters of other eminent men, now first published from the originals in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge; together with an appendix containing other unpublished letters and papers by Newton; with notes, synoptical view of the philosopher's life, and a variety of details illustrative of his history, by J. Edleston.

Isaac Newton

Date:: 1850

Credit: Correspondence of Sir Isaac Newton and Professor Cotes : including letters of other eminent men, now first published from the originals in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge; together with an appendix containing other unpublished letters and papers by Newton; with notes, synoptical view of the philosopher's life, and a variety of details illustrative of his history, by J. Edleston. Source: Wellcome Collection.

69/430

$Michaelmas 1693, we find one valetudinarian fellow allowed his commons in his rooms (“ex. co.”) for 8 weeks, another for 1 : in 1694 one for 6 weeks, another for 2; in 1692 one for 19 weeks, a second for 15 and a third for 20$ ; in 1691 one for 9 weeks, another for U, three others for half a week each, and another for 3. But probably the most elaborate and complete refutation will have less weight with the majority of persons than the testimony of a trustworthy contemporary witness. I will therefore lay before the reader an extract from a letter of Dr Wallis to Waller, the Secretary of the Royal Society, dated May 31, 1695, from which by the way it will be observed what “strength” Colin’s story had “ acquired” in the course of its circulation to this country. Wallis had sent a copy of the second \olume of his Works as a present to Sturm a Professor at Altorf. Sturm wrote to thank Wallis for the present, and it is this letter of thanks which Wallis alludes to in the beginning of the following extract: “1 have, since, one from Sturmius, which signifies that he had, some weeks before, received the Book I sent him. He sends me word of a Rumor amongst them concerning Mr Newton as if his House &c Books & all his Goods were Burnt, & himself so disturbed in mind thereupon, as to be reduced to very ill circumstances. Which being all false, I thought fit presently to rectify that groundless mistake” {in a letter which he desires Waller to forward }. (Lett. Bk. Roy. Soc. W. 2. 50.) I may observe that I should not have devoted so large a space to so transparent a piece of exaggeration but for the remarkable fact of its adoption by M. Biot, whose veneration for the creator of Natural Philosophy will not, I hope, suffer diminution by this exposure of an idle traveller’s tale. (“Et si le sort eut voulu le frapper aussi cruellement, quel sentiment devrait faire naitre en nous son infortune, sinon de plaindre et de venerer davantage cet autre Tiresias, dont l’intelligence se serait ainsi aveuglee pour avoir vu de trop pres les secrets des dieuxl Toute autre pensee serait un sacrilege.” Biot in Jour, des Sav. Apr. 1836, p. 216). A word may be added on the probable date of the fire in Newton’s rooms. The notice which we have given above respecting the publication of Wallis’s Algebra shews that the accident happened before Aug. 1683. The superior limit is the winter of 1677, 1678 as Wallis believed copies of Leibniz’s letters, the last of which was dated June 21, 1677, to have perished in the flames. (Letter to Leibn. Dec. 1, 1696). One of the winters therefore from 1677 to 1682 (excluding perhaps that of 1680, 1681 during which we know a little more of Newton’s movements than in the others) may be fixed upon as the probable date of the occurrence. The version of the story in which “ Diamond” is made to play a prominent part, and according to which the scene is laid in Newton’s latter years, and consequently in London, may perhaps deserve a place here. “His temper was so mild and equal, that scarce any accidents disturbed it. One instance in particular, which is authenti- cated by a person now living1, [1780,] brings this assertion to a proof. Sir Isaac being called out of his study to a contiguous room, a little dog, called Diamond, the constant but incurious attendant of his master’s researches, happened to be left among the papers, and by a fatality not to be retrieved, as it was in the latter part of Sir Isaac’s days, threw down a lighted candle, which consumed the almost finished labours of some years. Sir Isaac returning too late, but to behold the dreadful wreck, rebuked the author of it with an exclamation (ad sidera palmas) ‘ Oh Diamond ! Diamond! thou little knowest the mischief done !’—without adding a single stripe.” (Notes to Maude’s Wensleydale, p. 102. 4th ed. 1816.) (U1) See under Sept. 16. (U2) a Mr Smith “ took a journey” to Cambridge for the purpose of consulting Newton on a problem in chances which had its origin in a lottery recently drawn, and brought with him a letter of introduction from Pepys. The 1st of Newton’s letters is principally occupied with settling the meaning of the question (What are the chances of throwing 1 six with 6 dice, 2 sixes with .12 dice, and 3 sixes with 18 dice'?). The 2nd contains his “easy computation.” See Pepys’s Correspondence.$

Licence and re-use

Contents