Copyright © 2013
Avello Publishing Journal
ISSN: 2049 - 498X
Issue 1 Volume 3:
Principia Mathematica
Jason Wakefield
University of Cambridge
Review: The 1661-1727 Correspondence of Isaac Newton (1959) Vol I-VII. ed. H.W.Turnbull. The
Royal Society. Cambridge University Press. 2008.
A copy of the earliest portrait of Sir Isaac Newton (by Sir Godfrey Kneller painted in 1689) was
unveiled at the University of Cambridge by Sir Micheal Atiyah in 1992. My first viewing of this
portrait copy in person was after the inaugural Avello Publishing Journal Conference on the 10th
June 2013; which culminated with the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences Annual
Meeting of Correspondents Rothschild Distinguished Visiting Fellow Lecture by Peter Constantin;
former Chair of Mathematics, University of Chicago; current Director of Mathematics, University
of Princeton. The original portrait is reproduced as an illustration prefacing the Coat of Arms of the
Royal Society in volume I of The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. In August 1662, King Charles
II gave permission to the Society to use the arms of England as part of its coat, however the portrait
was painted in 1689, when Newton was in London as a member of Parliament in charge of the
Mint, two years after he had published the Principia Mathematica.
The coat motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba,1 which originates from two
hexameters in Horace's Epistles. Current Fellows part of the Royal Society of London now in 2013,
describe this variation of Horace, as being not obliged to swear allegiance to the domination of
authority, wherever the tempest storm drags us to, thus verifying facts by experiment only. This
coincides with much of the ethos of Avello Publishing Journal book reviewing. Rather than skip
1 A minor-planetary object was named 11059 Nulliusinverba when it was discovered in orbit during 1991 by the
Palomar Observatory, California.
1
past these opening pages of The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, one did not take Turnbull's2
editorial word for it and went to see the portait of Newton for myself, rather than accepting viewing
the monochrome reproduction in this digitally printed version of The Correspondence of Isaac
Newton, 2008.
The contents of Volume I are clear and chronologically accurate. Turnbull, like Newton, also
studied mathematics at Trinity, Cambridge. The style and formatting of The Correspondence of
Isaac Newton is lucid, free from symbolic jargon and retains the purity of Newton's English prose.
This opens up its readership to those interested in geometry, invariants and Renaissance literature
alike. It is tragically unfortunate that Robinson suddenly died in April 1960 and Turnbull died in
May 1961; leaving gaps in the Editorial Board of The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. They both
had the pleasure to see the first volume appear, however Turnbull did not live long enough to have
the happiness to see the third to seventh volumes published.
Volume IV's new editor Scott had previously served on the Newton Letters Committee of the
Royal Society of London thus he continued the Trinity style of Turnbull with ease to keep a
consistency of editorial idiosyncrasy between these volumes. A reader considering purchasing this
Newton, Cambridge: 2008 paperback collection (as opposed to a hardback collection such as the
Atiyah, Oxford: 2005 six-volume set) might perhaps decline both in favour of the Oeuvres
Complètes de Christiaan Huygens published in 22 volumes in the Hague.
A standard edition of the collected writings of Newton is yet to be produced to compete on the
market with the other key early modern scientists and mathematicians. A proposal published in a
1924 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society issue under-estimated the task, which has
allowed the Avello Publishing Journal to issue a call-for-papers to scholars interested in
collaborating on such a project now. The project is not devoid of hilarious anecdotes or humour.
The latter half of this paperback re-issue of Volume VII (edited by Hall and Tilling) contains an
2
2
appendix with corrections as well as additions to the letters printed in the earlier volumes of the
Correspondence. Some of these letters the editors have been unable to assign a date with certainty;
such as the one Newton addressed to the Master and Fellows of St. Catherine's College, Cambridge
on page 388. The original letter was borrowed by Isaac Milner, President of Queens', on 15th
February 1799 and never returned to St. Catherine's! This friendly rivalry between colleges in
Cambridge has a long history and continues today. Newton articulates in this letter his perspective
on the impairment of the light within Queens' College Chapel caused by the new buildings of St.
Catherine's. 'Yet all this light is not lost: For ye buildings themselves reflect some light perhaps ⅓
or ⅙ of ye intercepted skies would reflect'. (Hall & Tilling: 389). Despite the difficulties of what
Joseph Larmor published in Nature about the difficulties of producing a complete, systematic
edition of Newton's scientific works; it is compilations of his witty manuscripts that make the task
enjoyable. Drafts, marginilia, notes and personal correspondence help us to give a balanced
examination or interrogation of the pre-Keplerian astronomical interralations of different parts of
Newton's science. The Correspondence catalyses analysis, clear policies, counter-proposals,
definitions, discussion, points of information and motions within Newtonian debates. Despite this
competitive, parliamentary nature of the Correspondence and indeed also the Opera Omnia of Euler
, there need not be an antoginism between Trinity first year students and King's Fellows in
Cambridge today; instead there can be union for scholarly team – work, as Newton's original letters
in English or Latin are found in both the Wren Library and also the Keynes Collection. 3Original
letters by Newton can also be found archived in Clare College between Trinity and King's, thus a
syndicated fellowship of Newtonian experts is possible, in the centre of Cambridge, England. This
does not mean that the Correspondence will not sell widely across America. Regulars at the
Pierpont Morgan Library - New York - as they walk around Grand Central thinking about fine art
and listening to music, will be attracted by the drawings of Newton's reflecting telescope (including
3 See Keynes MS. 126
3
a description in Latin); the 16th March 1671/2 letter from Newton to Oldenburg (revealing Newton's
hand-writing); sketches of experiments on light and theoria lunae.
An endearing feature of the Correspondence, is that it features letters between people other
than Newton, such as Barrow to Collins (20th July 1669) and Leibniz to Oldenburg 5th July 1674).4
These inclusions, in addition to an early Newton manuscript on gravitation, are the main strengths
of the Correspondence. The main weakness of the Correspondence is that one continually needs to
refer to the Cambridge University Digital Library's collection of Newton papers, especially the
copies of his lectures that he deposited in the U.L whilst he held the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics
that have now been assigned the classmarks Dd.4.18, Dd.9.46, Dd.9.67, Dd.9.68, Mm.6.50 and the
Portmouth Collection (MSS Add. 3958-Add. 4007). Despite this weakness, the Correspondence
contains many interesting diagrammatic, philosophical letters about calculus, comets' orbits,
fluxions and theology. General historians of science interested in geometrical reasoning or
philosophical mathematicians interested in reflecting telescopes, will all find reading material they
will wish to purchase from Cambridge University Press.
Several Professors across the world will refuse to read the Correspondence, as they find
Newton's character and relations irrelevant to his science; prefering to read his work that he
intended for publication such as the Tractatus de Quadratura Curvarum appended to the Opticks in
1704. Newton was acutely aware that any controversy caused by his personal contacts in public are
superfluous to his scientific life. Any scrutiny of his personal correspondence from Newton's own
perspective, is dispensable; extraneous; unrequired; unnecessary; trivial; empty and idiotic. A
compromise to this Newtonian rebutal to analysing the Correspondence; is that perhaps we can
ignore inspecting his early letters during his twenties and thirties in favour of studying his mature
letters. This does not mean that Newton's juvenalia is not clear and lucid, just that Newton himself
would not have given his permission to an audit of his philosophical transactions5 in his mail.
4 An English translation is provided after the Latin.
5 The 25th March 1672 Philosophical Transactions is what Newton encourages us to attack with scientific vigour, not
4
Those academics aware of Newton's shrinking away from public appearances and contacts
outside of his narrow circle will frown upon my positive review of the Correspondence and its
creation by the Royal Society of London / publication by Cambridge University Press. Volume VII's
bitter, cantankerous, harsh and humourless letters, symptomatic of ill-health, are private matters that
should never have been read by anyone except by those who the letters where originally addressed
to alone.
There is an excellent variety of letters included in Volume VII. To be specific, the famous
Parisian book – publisher Claude Jombert's holographic letter to Newton dated 1st September 1725
written in French on page 332 (Keynes MS. 142 W); microfilm 1011.26. This makes an excellent
divergence away from the English and Latin that make up the majority of the Correspondence. This
is apt because of the broad, diverse nature of Newton's writing itself. The grammar, vocabulary,
phrases and orthography of Newton's writing is far more theological than the Correspondence
outlines. Pope Alexander VI of Renaissance Italy, was philosophically more similar to Newton than
several of the mathematicians that Newton wrote letters to. Pope Alexander VI, excelled in his
studies, graduating from Bologna as a Doctor of Law. Like Newton, he was excellent at financial
administration and a good business man. Although both men where cold, Machiavellian characters
in their respective political manipulation of economics, they did not share an equal love of alchemy
and chemistry. Newton's main works are An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of
Scripture, Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John andThe
Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. Perhaps Newton's most interesting correspondent on
discoveries in geometry was Leibniz, who studied law at Leipzig, focusing his attention on the
reconciliiation of the Protestant and Catholic Churches with the Archbishop-Elector of Mainz.
Volume II is perhaps the most scientifically important book in the Correspondence. It contains
the first exchange of letters between Newton and Leibniz, as well as, Halley persuading Newton to
his private letters.
5
write the Principia as an application of laws of motion on celestial comet curvature / mechanics. Th
e book is prefaced with an engraving of Trinity College, however it does not depict Blue Boar Court
nor Whewell's Court, where my supervisions where previously held. Instead the engraving's focus is
on the Chapel, Great Court and Trinity's loquacious clock. As this is a monochrome reproduction, it
is not clear if there any slight penmarks to show any hesitation in the writing on the engraving used
as a frontispiece. A colour photographic reproduction, on glossy premium A4 (210 x 297 mm)
paper, would be smoother and do far more justice to the plates throughout the Correspondence. This
would make all the volumes look much more professional.
Do engravings and tables of the North Stars still matter? The notes and transciptions of Volume
II (when originally published in 1960) convinced thousands of sceptics that they still do. Classicist's
no longer find the memoirs of Newton pretentious and overvalued when it is presented alongside
Leibniz's marginalia on the Epistola Posterior, a table of astronomical symbols and an analytical
index. A warning for scholars may be to skip the first 468 pages of Volume I and start reading the
Correspondence at Volume II. To paraphrase Whewell, 'Nobody since Newton has been able to use
geometrical methods to the same extent for the like purpose' (Turnbull: xvii). This argument is
supported by Clerke's letter to Newton dated 26th September6, where Clerke provides criticism or
observations that even a distinguished person such as himself does not understand fully yet the
mathematics of the first three sections of Newton's new book. Gregory's humble, preceding letter
informs Newton that 'your book is of so transcendent fineness and use that few will understand it'
(Turnbull: 484). Before the Principia was published in the summer, a footnote7 informs us that
Newton kept a draft of a paper that dealt with an attempt by James II to override the University
Statutes. The Vice – Chancellor (John Pechell, Master of Magdalene) refused to comply with the
royal letter and was summoned to appear with eight delegates of the Senate (including Newton)
before Lord Chancellor Jeffreys and the Ecclesiastical Commisioners in London on the 21st April.
6 The original letter is archived in the Burndy Library, New York.
7 Volume II, page 468.
6
Despite being abused by Lord Chancellor Jeffreys and John Pechell being stripped from his Vice Chancellorship position, Newton and Halley continued exchanging drafts of the Principia,
determining orbits with great accuracy using arthimetical calculus and graphic operations.
Quelques uns de ces Messieurs qui la composent sont extremement prévenus en faveur d' un
livre de Monsieur Newton qui s' imprime presentement et qui se debitera dans trois semaines
d' ici. (Turnbull: 475).
Duiller sent this letter to Huygens on the 14th June 1687, this was after he thwarted a conspiracy to
kidnap the Prince of Orange in 1686. He befriended Newton and Gregory and considered
participating in a revised edition of the Principia when it was published in July 1687. The letter
alludes to De Motu per Fluida propagato, which is still being discussed today, however our new
context described vortices in fluids through the mathematics of liquid crystals. The Principia's
interplay between geometry, topology and optics is ubiquitous through all liquid crystal research
today; in addition to its connections with techniques of quasi-convexification as well as changes in
Gaussian curvature. In 2013, Japanese thinkers seem to be leading the way in the possible
applications of this research. Fukuda (AIST), Uchida (Tohuku), Urayama (KIT) are all excellent
and eloquent speakers on the theme of liquid crystal defects in Japan; embarking on exciting
projects with institutions in China such as Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
For readers that are not interested in liquid crystals and related systematic structures, they can
skip to Volume III which covers 1688-1694. In this volume, the flight of King James II to the court
of Louis XIV, and a letter from G. Prince d' Orange are published. Radical political theologians will
also find interest in the correspondence between Newton and Locke beginning in March 1689. A
harsh criticism one most direct to the Correspondence is the lack of attention given to forgeries by
fraudsters frequenting the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Several fraudsters have mastered copying both
Locke and Newton's handwriting, as well as, obtaining blank paper that both men once possessed
during 1689/90. Other errata includes the discrepancy between dates written on letters and the
7
postmarks.
Many of these Oxonian forgers have attempted to justify their forgeries by claiming that neither
Flamsteed, Locke nor Newton consented to the auctioning or viewing of their private
correspondence, thus they are creating disinformation to riddle these privacy violations of Newton's
legacy with errata. Expert forgers wish to blend in forgeries with the scattered fragments that
remain of Newton's personal papers, so that even the finest Oxbridge scholars do not notice. That is
not to say that the Correspondence should be pulped, but that it is historically marred, as the lines
between fiction and non – fiction have been blurred by novelists such as Patricia Fara and Rebecca
Stott in their books, respectively Newton: The Making of Genius (New York: Columbia University
Press) and Ghostwalk (New York: Random House). A problematic arises in that the authors Fara
and Stott have both acknowledged to me (on separate occasions) - in person - the fictive nature of
elements of their textual transcriptions of Newton; whereas editors Hall, Turnbull, Scott and Tilling
deny Newton to be their own intellectual avatar.
Authorial or editorial agendas are often transparent. The business acumen of Scott's Volume IV
is visible, as it concentrates on Newton's appointment as Warden of the Mint. This was in March
1696 and Newton almost completed stopped his philosophical studies to stamp out currency
offences for the Government. The Royal Mint currently has a 16-piece limited edition 2013 Proof
Coin Set as a product to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the Golden Guinea; it includes the 2013
Premium Medal that has a spiralling circular inscription inspired by computer language to write
security details and safeguard against counterfeiting. The Bank of England is not the prime editorial
agenda of the next volume, under the co-editorial guidance of Hall and Tilling, however it is
described by them as part of the most important bibliographical time of Newton's life from 17091713. Volume V was published in 1975, after the death of Scott in August 1971, the editor of
Volume IV. Newton virtually ran every aspect of the Mint's business and was offered substantial
bribes by copper-coinage contractors. George Osbourne, the current 2013 Chancellor of the
8
Exchequer, was preceeded by Alistair Darling - an alumni of the University of Aberdeen, who
actively recorded the correspondence between the Treasury and the Mint. The importance of
lending Mexican dollars and sterling at the Mint during June 1711 is negated in favour of Newton's
revision of the Principia with Cotes.
In conclusion, most readers will not want to read Volume VI, as it contains a decline in
Newton's vigorous intellectual activity and a private dispute between himself and Leibniz from
1713-1718. Much of this material would now be protected as private data under the EU data
protection directive of 1995; however it was originally published in 1976, thus it is exempt. The
processing of Newton's personal data, no matter how many centuries have elapsed, seems illegal
without his written consent on each individual letter. It seems like an awful mistake by the second
Earl of Portmouth to permit this release of personal data.
Bibliography
Newton, I. Letter to the Master and Fellows of St. Catherine's College, Cambridge. ?1677. Archive:
Queen's College, University of Cambridge: MS. QC 16/1/i.
9