The Newton-Leibniz controversy over the invention of the calculus

S.Subramanya Sastry

1 Introduction

Perhaps one the most infamous controversies in the history of science is the one between Newton and Leibniz
over the invention of the infinitesimal calculus. During the 17th century, debates between philosophers
over priority issues were dime-a-dozen. Inspite of the fact that priority disputes between scientists were

common, many contemporaries of Newton and Leibniz found the quarrel between these two shocking.
Probably, what set this particular case apart from the rest was the stature of the men involved, the significance
of the work that was in contention, the length of time through which the controversy extended, and the sheer
intensity of the dispute.
Newton and Leibniz were at war in the later parts of their lives over a number of issues. Though the
dispute was sparked off by the issue of priority over the invention of the calculus, the matter was made worse
by the fact that they did not see eye to eye on the matter of the natural philosophy of the world. Newton’s
action-at-a-distance theory of gravitation was viewed as a reversion to the times of occultism by Leibniz and
many other mechanical philosophers of this era. This intermingling of philosophical issues with the priority
issues over the invention of the calculus worsened the nature of the dispute.
One of the reasons why the dispute assumed such alarming proportions and why both Newton and
Leibniz were anxious to be considered the inventors of the calculus was because of the prevailing 17th
century conventions about priority and attitude towards plagiarism. Today, we consider the criterion of
printed publication to confer on the author credit for the published work. However, in the 17th century,
correspondence and even disclosure in front of reliable witnesses of private manuscripts or instruments
had considerable weight; the work need not necessarily have been published. As a result, such private
correspondence led to personal claims which could never have been made if the communication, in the first
instance, had been made public. Priority also had a subtle relation with the prestige and credibility of an
interpretation: the ingenuity of the first inventor went hand in hand with the favourable reception of his work.
The second inventor, by contrast had to protect himself from the shade of doubt about his integrity from the


Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 2, Page 80; Domenico Bertolini Meli, Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus
Leibniz, Page 4. Meli mentions that the second half of the 17th century has been aptly characterised as the golden age of mud-
slinging priority disputes.


Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 4

1
suspicion of having stolen a secret from a colleague. There are a number of instances that highlight this
attitude towards second inventors and plagiarism, some of which are:


The Leibniz-Hooke controversy over the calculating machine. When Hooke examined Leibniz’s
machine very carefully and later criticized it and proposed a simpler model, Leibniz accused Hooke
of dishonesty. He claimed that the basis of the construction of Hooke’s machine was the same as his
own.

Leibniz’s defence when he was accused of plagiarizing Francois Regnaud’s work on a method for the
interpolation of series by constructing series of differences. Leibniz was so distressed and embarrassed


by this accusation that he publicly displayed his private notes to defend himself. This was during
Leibniz’s visit to London in 1673.


Newton’s assertion that “Second inventors have no right”. This was in reference to Leibniz at the
peak of the calculus dispute.

In this context where second inventors were almost always treated with suspicion, it is interesting to
observe that from 1676, when Newton and Leibniz first corresponded until about 1704 when the dispute
was full-blown, neither Newton nor Leibniz considered the other to be guilty of plagiarism. Both seemed
content in assuming that the other had independently arrived at his formulation of the calculus. However, by
1712, when the controversy was at its peak, each had accused the other of plagiarism. The relations between


the two had soured to such an extent that Boyer views the resulting controversy to be “shamefully bitter”.
Rupert Hall elucidates this situation very well in his book, Philosophers at War.

2 The origins of the calculus

2.1 Debt to the predecessors

These days, we universally ascribe the invention of the calculus to Newton and Leibniz. However, both men
owed a very great deal to their immediate predecessors in the development of the new analysis. According
to Boyer, the time was ripe, in the second half of the 17th century, for someone to organize the views, meth-
ods, and discoveries involved in the infinitesimal analyses into a new subject characterized by a distinctive


method of procedure. Some historians have taken this line of argument to the extreme and have sought to
establish Barrow as the inventor of the calculus and to represent the labours of Newton and Leibniz merely


Domenico Bertolini Meli, Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus Leibniz, Page 4; H.D.Anthony, Sir Issac Newton, Pages
67-69


Ibid., Page 5

Ibid., Page 5; Margeret E. Baron, The Origins of the Infinitesimal Calculus, Page 273
Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 179



Carl B. Boyer, The history of the calculus and its conceptual development, Page 188
Ibid., Page 187

2
as a translation of Barrow’s work into algebraic form. However, this view does extreme injustice to the
genius of these two mathematicians. As Rupert Hall rightly puts it, the discovery of the calculus was more


than a synthesis of previously distinct pieces of mathematical technique.

2.2 Who did it first? Newton or Leibniz?

Because of the mass of Newton’s surviving papers, it has now been established beyond doubt that Newton
was the first to arrive at the calculus. He first developed his theory of “fluxions” in 1665-66. By the middle
of 1665, Newton was able to set down the standard differential algorithms in the generality with which they
were to be expounded by Leibniz two decades later. Further, this demonstrates that Newton could not
have plagiarised anything from Leibniz precisely because of the fact that around 1665-66, Leibniz, at the

age of twenty, still knew nothing of mathematics.

Now, the other question that remains to be answered is whether Leibniz was guilty of plagiarism.
Whereas historians quickly established early on that Newton had arrived at the calculus much earlier than
Leibniz, the case of Leibniz is different. Newtonian supporters right into the 20th century leveled allegations
of plagiarism against him, some of which border on the ridiculous. For example, Arthur Hathaway casts
Leibniz as a German propagandist accustomed to political deceit. He squarely accuses Leibniz of hatching
a well-thought out plan to deprive Newton of all credit and carrying it out on a timed schedule. Further, he
accuses Leibniz of inaugurating the system of espionage on scientific work in foreign countries by which
the usefulness and credit of as much of that work as possible might be transferred to Germany.
At this point, however, it has been established beyond doubt that Leibniz arrived at the calculus indepen-
dently during the time period of 1673-1676. In the sense that Leibniz’s discoveries occur chronologically
in time after those of Newton, some historians have considered Leibniz to be the second inventor of the
calculus. But, this does not and should not take away from Leibniz the credit that is due him for inventing
the algorithmic procedures of the differential calculus.
Now that we know Newton and Leibniz should be considered co-inventors of the calculus, the more
interesting questions are why the dispute arose in the first place. The following section examines the case
against Leibniz and attempts to answer why Leibniz was accused of stealing Newton’s work. A later section
discusses the origins of the dispute.

 Margeret E. Baron, The Origins of the Infinitesimal Calculus, Page 273



Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 7



Ibid., Page 13



Ibid., Page 15


Arthur Hathaway, The Discovery of the Calculus, Science 1919, 50:Pages 41-43; Arthur Hathaway, Further History of the
Calculus, Science 1920, 51:Pages 166-167

3
3 Leibniz: The case against him

The accusations against Leibniz have their roots in the sequence of events that occurred between 1673 and
1676. These events played a crucial role in the priority dispute that arose later on.

3.1 Leibniz’s 1673 visit to London

Before 1672, Leibniz was a novice in Mathematics. When in Paris, he met Christiaan Huygens and studied
under his tutelage. In 1673, Leibniz first visited London on some diplomatic mission. At this time, he knew
very little of Newton, but had favourably impressed Newton’s most intimate acquaintances in the Royal
Society, Henry Oldenburg and John Collins. During his two month stay in London, he never met Newton.
Neither did he learn anything about the work done by Newton since none of his works were yet in print.
However, he did meet Oldenburg and other mathematicians and probably got an inkling of the work on
infinite series being done by the mathematicians in the Continent.
While at London, he purchased a copy of the Geometrical Lectures of Isaac Barrow, Newton’s prede-
cessor in the Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge. This is significant since Barrow had worked
on the method of tangents(this is related to the differential calculus) and the book contained a lecture on
this topic. Newton and his supporters used this fact in the priority dispute and accused Leibniz of borrowing
from Barrow. However, Leibnizians deny that Leibniz ever read this book before his calculus. Hall mentions


that Leibniz read this book cursorily and claims that Leibniz could not have been influenced by the book.


Feingold presents a strong case that Leibniz must have read Barrow’s book. Though this does not neces-
sarily mean that Leibniz plagiarized from Barrow, it highlights the fact that there was a lot of confusion and
debate among historians in interpreting this event(and many other events of this period). Some historians
were guilty of interpreting this event in ways that best suited their hypotheses. In 1916, J.M.Child used this
event to argue that Barrow was the original inventor of the calculus and that Leibniz was in some measure


indebted to Barrow’s work.

It was during this visit to London that Leibniz was first accused of plagiarism, although on a different
case. At Pell’s house, he claimed to have a method of differences for series. But, Pell pointed out that this
work was already done by Francois Regnaud and had been priorly published by Mouton. Though Leibniz
managed to acquit himself by displaying his private notes, this incident was later used by Newton against
him.

3.2 Leibniz’s correspondence with Oldenburg

Once Leibniz got back to Paris, he started studying the mathematical works of Cavalieri, James Gregory,
Pascal, Sluse and others. He also started working on the nature of series and their summations. Further,



Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 55


Mordechai Feingold, Newton, Leibniz and Barrow too: An attempt at a reinterpretation, Isis 84(1993), pages 310-338
Ibid., Page 311; Margeret E. Baron, The Origins of the Infinitesimal Calculus, Page 273

4
he was in regular correspondence with Henry Oldenburg. From the mathematical reports and letters that he
received from Oldenburg, Leibniz learnt of the British work on infinite series and thus learnt that some of
his work on series had been anticipated by the British (notably Gregory and Newton). As a result, Leibniz
all along was under the impression that Newton’s greatest expertise was in the method of series. The two


famous letters of 1676 written by Newton only served to confirm this impression of Leibniz.
By October 1675, Leibniz had developed ideas of his differential calculus. Since, until this time, none
of Newton’s works were published, Leibniz had no way of knowing that Newton had already hit upon the
calculus. The only way he could have known anything about Newton’s work was through his correspondence
with Oldenburg and Collins. However, Hall mentions that this correspondence in the early summer of
1675 was concerned with the algebra rather than the calculus. Later on, when the dispute was full-blown,
Newtonians argued that Leibniz learnt a lot about British mathematics from Tschirnhaus who spent some
time in England before he visited Leibniz in 1675. However, the notes made by Leibniz indicate that he only


had casual conservations with Tschirnhaus and thus he could not have learnt much from Tschirnhaus.
In June 1676, Newton wrote a letter to Oldenburg in which he described the binomial theorem using
which quantities can be reduced to infinite series. He mentions that all mechanical curves can thus be
reduced to infinite series and that the areas and lengths of curves, and the volumes and surfaces of solids
can be computed from these series. Newton never discusses fluxions in the whole letter. Since Newton
does not discuss his fluxional calculus explicitly and given that Leibniz was under the mindset that Newton
essentially was a expert in the method of series, Leibniz failed to see any similarity to his own work on the
calculus.
Immediately, Leibniz sent off a reply to Newton in which he described his own work on series and
also asked for clarifications on certain points of the first letter. In the second letter that Newton wrote in
October 1676 as a reply to Leibniz’s letter, Newton mentioned that he had obtained a general methods of
drawing tangents, of determining minima and maxima and other topics which he did not want to disclose.
He concealed the mention of “fluxions” and “fluents” (which are in a way, analogous to differentials and
integrals), in an anagram. Thus, these two letters of 1676 did not tell Leibniz very much about Newton’s
fluxional calculus except that Newton had something similar to his(Leibniz) own calculus. However, Leibniz
received the second letter only in 1677. In his reply to this letter, which he sent in 1677, he fully described
his differential calculus. Before that, however, he paid a second visit to London.

3.3 Leibniz’s 1676 visit to London

Collins, on learning of Leibniz’s interest in series, prepared a compendium of Gregory’s work and also
Newton’s fluxional calculus. During his second visit to London, Leibniz got a chance to go through this
compendium. This then raises the suspicion of Leibniz having gained important insights from such a perusal.



 
Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 66
Ibid., Page 59-60

5
Hall concedes that Leibniz could have taken the first independent steps on differentiation, and then, on seeing
Newton’s work and having appreciated its value, gone on to “borrow” the development of the calculus in
his own notation. He counters such a suggestion as follows: “.. Leibniz took long notes from Newton’s On
Analysis, written in 1669, but these notes deal exclusively with ... series ... Leibniz passed over Newton’s
brief and obscure allusions to what is tantamount to differentiation .. because there was in them nothing new

for him”. Thus, if it is accepted that Leibniz developed his differential calculus in 1675, this reasoning
sounds very plausible.

3.4 Putting it all together: The accusations

Leibniz finally published his differential calculus in a treatise in 1684, almost 8 years, after his second visit
to London. Combined with the fact that the fluxional calculus and differential calculus are very similar in
terms of their applicability in solving problems, it can be seen how the all these preceding events can be used
to build a case of plagiarism against Leibniz. In 1712, when the dispute had gathered enough momentum,
Newton was convinced that the Leibnizian calculus was not an independent discovery, but only an imitation



of his own fluxional calculus. His arguments went thus:

1. Leibniz was in London in 1673 from where he went to Paris. From Paris, he was in regular correspon-
dence with Collins and Oldenburg. He learnt a lot of British mathematics, especially those of Gregory
and Newton, via this correspondence.

2. During this first visit, Leibniz contended for a method of series which was already published. This
was meant to imply that Leibniz had exhibited tendencies to plagiarize.

3. Leibniz learned more from Tschirnhaus in 1675 when the latter visited Leibniz in Paris.

4. Leibniz never acknowledged before 1677 that he had any kind of calculus at all. In 1676, he got from
Collins a compendium of letters and treatises. This contained the 1672 letter from Newton to Collins
in which the fluxional calculus was completely described. Thus, he had an entire year in which to
study Newton’s fluxional calculus and suitably modify it and claim it as his own in his letter of 1677.

5. Leibniz had the benefit of the two letters of 1676 from which he could “pick his gold”.

6. Leibniz had access to all the materials in Collin’s possession during his second visit to London in
1676.

Given all of the above, Newton claimed that Leibniz was able to reconstruct, on the basis of published work
of Gregory and Barrow, Newton’s fluxional calculus in the form of the differential calculus. Many of these



  Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Pages 73-74

Ibid., Page 72; David Brewster, The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Pages 190-191

6
arguments were present in the report of the committee that was instituted by the Royal Society to investigate
into the calculus dispute.
Perhaps the most serious charge against Leibniz among these is Claim 4. However, Newton is grossly

mistaken here. The compendium was never sent to Paris. Instead, he only received a short uninformative
summary of the letter. Further, Leibniz accessed the compendium only during his 1676 visit to London.
Thus, before 1676, Leibniz could not have known much about Newton’s fluxional calculus. Since Newton’s
Second Letter of 1676 reached Leibniz only in 1677 and further since it did not contain any details of the
calculus, Leibniz could not have obtained anything worthwhile(with respect to developing of the calculus)
from these 1676 letters either.
Thus, the events of the period from 1673-1676 transpired to put Leibniz in a situation where he could be
easily accused of plagiarism. The argument that Leibniz had access to materials in Collins possession and
hence would have learnt of Newton’s calculus is tough to counter. Without any evidence that would acquit
Leibniz, it is indeed very hard to judge what Leibniz might have gleaned out of those documents. In such
a situation, any claims of invention would naturally be met with skepticism and suspicion, especially when
the fluxional and differential calculus happened to be so alike. Indeed, if we did not know today that Leibniz
had independently arrived at his calculus in 1675, it would be hard to acknowledge him as an independent
inventor, even if he indeed had.
Hofmann, a Leibniz scholar, attempts to defend Leibniz from the charges of plagiarism. Hofmann
says that Leibniz could not have learnt anything useful from his 1673 visit to London because he was
virtually ignorant of mathematics at that time and everything would have been over Leibniz’s head. He says
that Tschirnhaus could not have imparted anything useful to Leibniz during his 1675 Paris visit because
Tschirnhaus was too opinionated, locked-up, confused and unsettled. He says that Leibniz did not read
Barrow’s book until after he discovered the calculus because he(Hofmann) did not find any dated notes in
them. He claims that some of the Collins correspondence is irrelevant because they did not intimate any real

knowledge. Feingold replies:

And how can one determine with certainty what a genius like Leibniz was capable of com-
prehending from various books and letters he encountered or discussions he participated in,
however vague and confused their context appears to us today? Such reasoning, it seems to me,

substitutes preconceived notions for constructive historical knowledge.

Now that the case against Leibniz has been dismissed, let us examine why the controversy arose in
the first place. As has been stated before, Newton conceded for a long time, that Leibniz was indeed an
independent discoverer of the calculus. Further, Leibniz too for his part was content in his status as an
 

 
Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 181
 
Mordechai Feingold, Newton, Leibniz and Barrow too: An attempt at a reinterpretation, Isis 84(1993), Page 331
Ibid., Page 331

7
independent inventor. So, what went wrong? The following section tries to determine the causes for the
outbreak of the dispute.

4 Origins of the dispute

Historians differ on the question as to when the seeds of the dispute were first sown. Hall mentions that
some historians have tended to see the priority dispute as beginning in 1676 and assign Newton the role of


a suspicious, distrustful and watchful opponent of Leibniz’s mathematical evolution. However, as Hall
argues, that is a rather extremist view. If Newton indeed had such opinions of Leibniz, Newton would not
have written those letters of 1676 to Leibniz.

4.1 Leibniz’s first publication of the calculus in 1684

From 1676 till 1684, nothing of interest happened. In 1684, Leibniz published his calculus in Acta Erudito-
rum. Thus, even though Leibniz had his calculus as early as 1675, it was only nine years later that he finally
published it. Had he published it right in 1675, Leibniz probably would not have faced the accusations he
did, at least, many of the arguments used against him would not have arisen.
Newton’s reactions to this publication can be first seen in the Principia. Newton started work on the
Principia in 1684 and it came out in print in 1687. Hall mentions that the form of the mathematical argu-
ments in the Principia are far more familiar and convenient than either the fluxional calculus of Newton



or the differential calculus of Leibniz, i.e. Newton never explicitly introduced the fluxional calculus in
expounding his philosophy of nature. Thus, when Newton introduces the “fluxion lemma”(Lemma II of
Book II), and never again uses it in the book, it strikes us as being odd. This is especially so, since in Book
I, he had been implicitly differentiating without bothering to explain the process. Hall argues that the reason
Newton did this was so that he could insert the now famous scholium of an autobiographical nature in which
he asserts that he was in possession of the fluxional calculus for a long time (“ten years ago”) before Leibniz



published his differential calculus. Newton states that he informed Leibniz via the 1676 letters that he
possessed the fluxional calculus. Newton says that in response, Leibniz described to him his differential cal-
culus, which appears the same as his fluxional calculus except for notation. Note that Newton never asserts
that he described to Leibniz his fluxional calculus, neither does he assert that Leibniz might have learned
anything from him. However, we do not know if at this time, Newton considered Leibniz to be the second
inventor or if he believed Leibniz to have seen his papers on fluxional calculus. Some historians believe that


it is very probable that Newton did indeed consider Leibniz to be a second inventor of the calculus.
It appears that Newton inserted this scholium so that he could state his claim about the invention of



Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 68


Ibid., Page 30


Ibid., Page 33
Ibid., Page ...; David Brewster, The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Page 185

8
the calculus and assert his independence of Leibniz, since he realized that the fluxional and the differential
calculus were very similar. It was especially important for Newton to state his independent claim since
he realized the significance of the calculus with respect to solving important problems. After all, he had
successfully used his fluxional calculus in providing mathematical justifications in the Principia.
Leibniz was happy to accept the assertion of the scholium at face value although neither he nor any-



one else knew what the method of fluxions entailed. As Hall repeatedly mentions throughout his book,
Newton’s work was hardly better known by his countrymen than by Leibniz, simply because Newton never
published any of his work. In any case, around this time, everything seems to be fine between Newton and
Leibniz.

Some historians have tended to view this event as the beginning of the dispute. However, that is
probably a rather strong statement considering that Newton is only making an independent claim over the
invention of the calculus. Other events in the following years were far more instrumental in sparking off the
dispute.

4.2 The beginnings of the dispute

The next significant event in our story was the arrival in 1693 of the revised edition of John Wallis’ Algebra.
In this book, Wallis printed a brief essay on the fluxional calculus. Hall mentions that this essay once again
served to put on record that Newton had long possessed and devised a notation for the differential and
integral calculus. There is no claim being made that Leibniz had taken anything from Newton or had even


been helped by him. Two years later, in 1695, Wallis published his Mathematical Works. In Volume II,
which is nothing but the Algebra, the essay on the fluxional calculus is presented. However, Wallis misleads
his reader by stating that he obtained this method from the 1676 letters of Newton. This can then be meant to
imply that Newton had communicated his method of fluxions to Leibniz in 1676 before the latter published
his calculus. This, as we know, is blatantly false. Here, perhaps, for the first time, we see suggestions that
Leibniz might have plagiarized Newton’s work. Indeed, Hall says, “Inadvertently, therefore, Wallis was
beginning a process of public deception ...”. Not surprisingly, Leibniz takes offense at this implication and
says so in his letter to Thomas Burnet.
Hall sheds some light on this behaviour of Wallis. Wallis throughout his life had fought for the claims of
Englishmen against foreigners. He had offended almost every foreign mathematician with whom he came in
contact by his robust, unabashed xenophobia. Once he had begun to suspect that Newton’s typically English

inventiveness was likely to be overlooked, he longed to take up his case.

 

  Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 42

G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, Page 110, In Newton And The New Direction
In Science
 

Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 94-95



Ibid., Page 95


Ibid., Page 95-96

9
4.3 The brachistochrone problem

In 1696, Johann Bernoulli, who was instrumental in the development of the differential calculus, issued a
challenge problem, which is now known as the brachistochrone problem. The problem was published in
the Leipzig Acta Eruditorum and was addressed to “the shrewdest mathematicians in the world”. Copies
of the problem were posted to Newton and Wallis. Some historians believe that the problem was posed to
demonstrate that the fluxional method was not as powerful enough as the differential calculus. It is argued
that Newton realized that this was the case judging by the rapidity with which he applied himself to the
problem and solved it inspite of his own declarations that he should be concentrating on the King’s business


at the Mint and not trifle away his time on mathematics. However, Rupert Hall does not agree with this
reading of the situation. If Bernoulli indeed believed that Newton was incapable of solving the problem,
then when he received an anonymous solution, he would not have guessed without any surprise whatsoever


that the solution came from Newton. At a later time, Leibniz published a review of the challenge problem,
where he says that only those who understood the mysteries of “our” differential calculus managed to solve
the problem. At this point, another character makes his entrance in the drama. Fatio de Duiller was a Swiss
mathematician who had associated for some time in the past with both Leibniz and Huygens, Leibniz’s
mentor. But, later, he shifted to the Newtonian camp when Leibniz adopted a demeaning attitude towards


him. By 1696, he had already became an ardent follower and close friend of Newton. Fatio interpreted
Leibniz’s statements to mean that Newton had learnt the calculus from Leibniz and resented this. What
Newton felt in this matter is not clear. Further, in the list of mathematicians that Leibniz mentioned as being
capable of solving the problem, Fatio was not present. Fatio perceived this as an insult and did not take it
lightly.
Meanwhile, Bernoulli in a private letter to Leibniz, wondered if Newton developed his method after


having seen Leibniz’s calculus which the latter communicated to Newton in 1677. This was the first
suggestion of plagiarism on either side.
However, Fatio has the dubious distinction of bringing out the squabble into the open. In 1699, he
published his Investigations in which he claims that Newton is the first inventor of the calculus and that
Leibniz’s zeal in ubiquitously attributing the invention of the calculus to himself will not deceive anyone


who has gone through the documents. Once again, it is not at all clear whether Newton supported Fatio in
this attack. Leibniz probably believed that Newton was ignorant of this and expected Newton to dissociate
 

Ibid., Page 105; G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, Page 111, In Newton And
The New Direction In Science




Ibid.


Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 106

G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, Page 111, In Newton And The New Direction
In Science



Ibid., Page 116; G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus Page 111, In Newton And
The New Direction In Science
 

G.V.Coyne, Page 112; Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Pages 106-107; David Brewster, The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Page
185

10
himself from this attack. But, when Newton kept mum, Leibniz published in the Acta and dismissed these
charges as emanating from a boorish and jealous young man. He referred to Newton’s scholium in the
Principia and accepts their independent developments of the calculus. Fatio attempted to rebut these
charges but the Acta refused to publish his rebuttal. So, everything went quiet for some time.
Thus, by 1700, the controversy had started. However, it should be noted that upto this time, neither
Newton and Leibniz were directly involved in raking up this controversy. In the Newtonian camp, it was
Wallis initially and Fatio now who were responsible for starting the squabble. Newton, all along was in the
sidelines. However, it is not clear what to make of Newton’s silence about the whole issue. On the one
hand, he professed to accept Leibniz’s independence and even said so in his letters to Leibniz, but on the
other hand, he never dissociated from the allegations being leveled by his followers. Hall assigns the best of
intentions to Newton’s behaviour. He says: “... Newton(to the best of our knowledge) has left no indication



of an earlier awareness of Fatio’s Investigations nor of involvement in its nasty aftermath”. In general, it
is probably a fair characterization of Newton’s role prior to the year 1700. However, Hall remarks later on:
“Wallis’s own role in the slow warming of the calculus dispute had been to act as an uncritical mouthpiece
for Newton ... Wallis was there (Algebra) writing - as so many Newtonians were to write - under Newton’s


instructions”.
Out in the Leibnizian camp, Bernoulli vociferously asserted Leibniz’s claims to the invention of the
calculus. Leibniz also asserted his claims to the invention of the calculus. However, as was mentioned
earlier, Bernoulli went so far as to suggest that Newton might have plagiarized from Leibniz. As in the case
of Newton, Rupert Hall says that Leibniz did not seek from Bernoulli an accusation of Newton and was


anxious to drop the uncomfortable subject when Bernoulli brought it up. However, as we will see, all this
would change very quickly in the following years.

4.4 Change in Leibniz’s opinion of Newton

The next major incident in the developing quarrel between Newton and Leibniz was Newton’s publication of
two mathematical treatises (On the Quadrature of Curves, Enumeration of Lines of the Third Order) in 1704.
The content of the first treatise drastically altered Leibniz’s view of Newton’s evolution as a mathematician.
When Leibniz read this treatise, he probably realized that Newton’s fluxional calculus was not just a series


of ad hoc mathematical devices put together, but were as general and powerful as his calculus itself.
Further, he realized that it was very identical to his differential and integral calculus except for notation.
Thus, Leibniz realized that Newton’s friends had all along been claiming priority for this full majesty of
the calculus and not for the discovery of some inferior methods. Leibniz knew that his calculus was the
 


 David Brewster, Pages 185-186; Rupert Hall, Pages 123-125; H.D.Anthony, Sir Issac Newton, Page 69



Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 118



Ibid., Page 129



Ibid.
Ibid., Page 130

11
beginning of a great system of mathematics and had enormous potential. Leibniz thus far was under the
impression that Newton probably had just hit upon extensions of the work of predecessors without having
 

hit upon his discovery in its full beauty. Now, this impression was shattered.
It has been suggested that it was only after the marked success of the Leibnizian calculus that Newton
came to regard his method of fluxions as a new subject and an organized mode of mathematical expression



rather than simply as a useful modification of earlier rules. Boyer counters this argument by stating that
Newton had by 1676 written out three different accounts(as infinitesimals, as ultimate ratios, and as fluxions)
of his method thus implying that Newton did indeed understand the significance of his work. However,



Boyer concedes that Leibniz probably expressed himself much more vigorously on the subject.
In 1703, George Cheyne, a Newtonian, published a book On the Inverse Method of Fluxions which was a
treatise on the integral calculus based on Newton and Gregory’s achievements in calculus procedures. At the
end of the book, he declared that all that has been published in the past 24 years is only a repetition or an easy
corollary of what Newton long ago communicated to his friends or the public. It was very partial of Cheyne
to thus ascribe all achievements to the British and pass over all the published achievements of Leibnizians.
This naturally shocked both Bernoulli and Leibniz. Leibniz reacts to this suggestion by portraying Cheyne
as no more than a beginner with little understanding of the series. Further, his contempt for Cheyne induced
Leibniz into asserting that he never encountered any indication that the differential calculus or an equivalent
to it was known to Newton before he(Leibniz) knew it. Here, we see a turnaround in Leibniz’s opinions.
Earlier, in 1676, he had readily admitted in his 1677 letter to Newton, that he was satisfied that Newton too
was master of something analogous. Thus, these set of events had started a process by which he was ready
 

to dismiss evidence that established Newton’s equality and independence as an inventor of the calculus.
To quote Hall,

If Newton allowed his disciples to put about highly unjust and damaging claims for his own
benefit, Leibniz may have reasoned - perhaps not quite consciously - was it possible any longer
to regard him as honest and truthful? Was not the master brushed with the tar of the pupils’



incompetence and partiality?

When Newton published his treatises in 1704, Leibniz could not regard this belated emergence of New-
ton as a trivial event, in the light of the preceding discussion. Further, Leibniz knew nothing of the immediate
history of the treatises. This might have aroused suspicions in him about Newton’s priority claims. Leib-
niz published in the Leipzig Acta an anonymous review of Newton’s treatises. In this anonymous review,
which one historian views as being an “imperfect analysis”, it is claimed that Leibniz was the inventor of
 

Ibid., Page 127


Carl B. Boyer, The history of the calculus and its conceptual development, Page 208



Ibid.



Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Pages 131-133
Ibid., Page 133

12
the calculus. Further he states: “Accordingly, instead of the Leibnizian differences, Mr Newton employs,
and has always employed, fluxions, .... He has made elegant use of these both in his Principia Mathematica
and in other publications since, just as Honore Fabri in his Synopsis Geometrica substituted the advance


of movements for the method of Cavalieri.” It was well known at that time that Cavalieri was one of
the most conceptually inventive of mathematicians while Fabri was a competent second-rater who in the
method referred to above, merely borrowed Cavalieri’s method and changed the mode of expression. Given
this historical background, the analogy that Leibniz employs immediately leads us to believe that he is im-
plying that Newton had stolen his work. This viewpoint is all the more strengthened given the surreptitious


nature of Leibniz’s publication. In fact, this is the interpretation assumed by some historians. However,


others see it differently. Hall gives Leibniz the benefit of doubt. Hall argues that the analogy employed
by Leibniz also renders itself to a conceptual analogy which the latter must have been aware of. He argues
that Leibniz probably meant to impress this conceptual analogy rather than imply the analogy of priorities.
But, Hall concedes that, even if only in the unconscious manner of a Freudian slip, he had made an as-


sertion that he was the originator and Newton the adaptor. And, as Coyne also rightly admits, Leibniz
displays extremely bad taste when he compares Newton with Fabri, who clearly had plagiarized the work of


Cavalieri. Though Leibniz would later on deny this implication, the damage had been done.
Newton, for his part, probably did not read the review or failed to discover any malevolence in it.
Leibniz, meanwhile, was content to let the ambiguous state of affairs last indefinitely. He had little desire to
institute a definitive historical inquiry into the origins of the calculus because the progress of the calculus in



the public domain since 1684 had made the preeminence of himself and his pupils obvious. A testimony
of the power and excitement that Leibniz’s work held for the contemporaries is the fact that at the age of
40, Pierre Varignon, a French mathematician, set himself to master and teach these new methods and later
 

embark to set out the whole of mechanics(including Newton’s work) in the new mathematical language.
Further, Leibniz, and a lot of other mechanical philosophers of the era thought that Newton, who was at that
time primarily viewed as a brilliant mathematician, was mistaken in the physical theories he propounded.
Accordingly, Hall argues that Leibniz had no reason to fear that Newton’s reputation would enhance and
spread outside England due to his physical theories. Thus, Leibniz had no reason to break the peace, though
uneasy, that reigned. The next initiative was far likely to come from the Newtonians who were fighting for
 

recognition in a largely Cartesian universe.




 Ibid., Page 138
H.D.Anthony, Sir Issac Newton, Pages 69-70; David Brewster, The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Page 186


G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, Page 112, In Newton And The New Direction
In Science; Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 140


Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 140



G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, Page 112, In Newton And The New Direction
In Science



Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 141-143

Ibid., Page 84

Ibid., Page 143

13
4.5 Keill’s attack on Leibniz

The uneasy peace lasted only four years. John Keill, a Newtonian, was the culprit. Keill was a pupil of
David Gregory who probably introduced him to Newton. However, at the time that Keill attacked Leibniz
in 1708, Newton only had a slight acquaintance with Newton and his writings. Thus, it is argued by Hall,



that Keill like Fatio de Duillier, wrote his first defence of Newton without consulting Newton himself. In
1708, Keill wrote a paper On the Laws of Centripetal Force published in the Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society which only saw the light of day in 1710. In this paper, Keill claims for Newton the
priority of the first invention of the calculus, turning to Wallis’s publications of Newton’s letters for proof.
Further, he asserts that the Leibniz’s publications were essentially the same as Newton’s work “having
 

changed the name and symbolism”. It is interesting to compare the reactions of Hall and Brewster to this
letter of Keill. Hall considers this an open accusation of plagiarism which was deliberate, unnecessary and
offensive whereas he considered Leibniz’s implications in his earlier anonymous review to be accidental and
unintended. Brewster, for his part says: “If the reader is disposed to consider this passage as retorting the
charge of plagiarism upon Leibnitz(sic), he will readily admit that the mode of its expression is neither so


coarse nor so insidious as that which is used by the writer in the Leipsic Acts(sic).” Thus, we see exactly
opposite opinions here. Brewster is writing about Newton’s life and is probably being partial to Newton.
He criticizes Leibniz’s underhanded attitude in this incident and another similar one later on. However, it
is not clear if Brewster is aware of Newton’s role in the Royal Society’s report against Leinbiz in 1712.
Newton was the President of the Royal Society when Leibniz complained to the Royal Society. Newton


then wrote the whole report himself and just got the committee to approve it. Thus the committee was a
farce. Brewster, when writing this book in 1831 was not aware of this incident since the membership of the


committee was only known 133 years after the report was published in 1712. As regards Rupert Hall, he
is probably more impartial writing about 300 years after the controversy and when a lot of facts about the
dispute have been cleared up. Throughout the book, he portrays Newton and Leibniz in good light whenever
possible and shifts the blame in many a case to their followers. Though this might be true, Hall is probably
not being entirely objective either.
Getting back to the story, Hall explains the motivation behind Keill’s actions. Apparently, Keill per-
ceived himself the principal target of criticisms in the Acta Eruditorum against forces of attraction. As a


result, the English, by 1710, felt that they had two grievances against the Germans. Leibniz, though ini-
tially favourably inclined towards Newton, had changed by this time, as we have seen. Combined with the


Ibid., Page 144


Ibid., Page 145; David Brewster, The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Page 187; G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over
the  invention of the calculus, Page 112, In Newton And The New Direction In Science

 David Brewster, The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Page 187

Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 178



G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, Page 113, In Newton And The New Direction
In Science



Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 145

14
fact that he failed to understand Newton, he consistently trivialized Newton’s thoughts as a philosopher. Hall
claims that it is virtually certain that this determined Newton to give Keill his support since Newton now


believed that Leibniz, a dishonorable man, had attacked his own honor and competence. Thus, we see
here issues of natural philosophy intermingling with those of the priority dispute resulting in a worsening of
the controversy.

4.6 Leibniz’s appeal for redress

Offended by Keill’s remarks, Leibniz wrote to Hans Sloane, secretary of the Royal Society, requesting that
the Society ask Keill to publicly apologize for his insinuations. Sloane sought Newton’s advice on the letter,
who at that time was the President of the Royal Society. Newton, for his part, took it up personally with
Keill. At this time, Keill justified himself by pointing at the earlier reviews in the Acta. On reading those
reviews, Newton agreed with Keill that he had been everywhere deprived of his discovery. Further he found
that his On the Quadrature of Curves was considered to be a compilation of earlier work by Leibniz, Cheyne
and Craige. It was at this time that Newton gave his support to Keill. When Keill successfully defended
himself in front of the society by referring to the Acta reviews, the society now approved Keill to submit a
written account of the matter.
In the letter that Keill submitted, he modified his earlier claims and instead asserted that Newton dis-
covered his calculus before Leibniz and opined that some hints of this calculus were revealed to Leibniz in
the 1676 letters. In the letter, Keill formally asserts that he is not pressing any “criminal” charge against



Leibniz. This letter was also sent to Leibniz in May 1711. Leibniz then wrote back in December 1711
declaring that Keill’s justification by referring to the Acta was worthless since “everyone had received his
due”. He then once again claimed the right to the discovery of the calculus and that no one could claim to
 

have forestalled him. He further appealed to Newton to get Keill, the upstart, to back down.
Brewster is correct in declaring that Leibniz probably worsened the situation by declaring that “everyone
had received his due”. Surprisingly, Hall ignores this statement of Leibniz in his analysis. Instead, he blames
Keill for not putting the matter to rest by refusing to admit Leibniz’s vindication of his own independent
discovery of the calculus. In any case, the Royal Society decided to appoint a committee to look into the
dispute and report back. As was discussed before, the whole investigation was a farce and stagemanaged by
Newton. In the report, Leibniz is found guilty of concealing his knowledge of the prior, relevant achievement
of others. There was however, no formal accusation of plagiarism against Leibniz in the report. However,
as Hall says, “.. if proved, it would defame him as effectively as the worse crime of open theft: that
 

he had first silently ignored, and later explicitly denied, Newton’s genuine right as first inventor”. The
report, along with extracts from relevant documents was published in 1712 under the title Commercium




Ibid., Page 167


Ibid., Page 169-170; David Brewster, The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Page 188

Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 176; David Brewster, The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, Page 189
Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 179

15
Epistolicum. As noted earlier, one glaring mistake in the report was Newton’s assertion that Leibniz had
access to Newton’s 1672 letter to Collins. This mistake of Newton was corrected only about a hundred years
ago. Hall defends this error on Newton’s part as resulting from misunderstanding and that Newton was not
deliberately maligning Leibniz.
Leibniz, in response, distributed the Charta Volans, an anonymous bulletin, in which he deprecates the
Commercium Epistolicum and squarely accuses Newton and his disciples of stealing the differential calculus



of Leibniz and then committing gross errors in their applications of it. Hall says of this approach of Leibniz
as “.. evincing a certain deviousness of character not inconsistent with those anonymous reviews in which
 

he praised himself as another person might.”

At this point in the story, we see that there has been a deadlock. Neither party was willing to grant the
other any credit for the invention of the calculus and had essentially accused the other of plagiarism. The
controversy did not end here. This phase was followed by a barrage of caustic correspondence between the
two parties. It carried on far beyond the death of Leibniz in 1716. There was nothing new that was written
after a certain point. Accusations and counter-accusations, childish abuse was being hurled around. Of the
situation, Halls says: “To examine the last years of the calculus dispute does not increase one’s admiration


for some of the greatest of mankind”

5 Conclusions

Hall analyzes the whole dispute very nicely in his book. He examines the phenomenon of simultaneous
discovery in the context of the existing sociological conditions at that time. Simultaneous discovery is not
a rare occurrence in science. It has happened a number of times in the past and might happen in the future
too. As recent as the 20th century, the theory of the big bang explanation for the origin of the universe



was put forth simultaneously by two physicists, one in Russia and the other in the US. In the Newton-
Leibniz case, as we know today, the calculus was effectively discovered simultaneously by both Newton
and Leibniz. Hall makes a very strong argument when he says that mathematics, because it offers the
possibility of attaining results equally vigorously by different means, and because of its logical character,
virtually necessitates the occurence of convergence. Hence, this field was peculiarly likely to be troubled by
quarrels and priority disputes, just as, at the opposite extreme, natural history was almost completely free


of such disagreeable incidents. Further, the dispute was also to some extent the result of the prevailing
conventions of priority in which publication was not necessary. This, combined with the great value attached
to personal merit, emphasis on innovation and lack of formalized conventions prompts Hall to state that the


G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, Page 113, In Newton And The New Direction
In Science



 Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 200
 Ibid., Page 232



Source: PBS documentary on Stephen Hawking’s Universe


Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 6

16
common occurence of disputes is indicative in a striking way of those faults in the “reward system” of the


period.
In this particular case, what exacerbated the situation was Newton’s reluctance in publishing his treatises.
Probably, had he published his treatises right in the beginning, the dispute might not have taken off in the first
place. Even if he had published his treatises when he first got hints of Leibniz’s work instead of resorting
to scholiums and the like, he might have been spared some of the pain and heartache that followed. In fact,
he was repeatedly urged by a number of his friends and even by Leibniz to go into print right till the end
of the 17th century. It is not very tough to search for answers into this behaviour of Newton. He had burnt
his fingers when he had published his theory of light and colours. He had been subjected to a great deal of


labour replying to criticisms and he said that he had sacrificed his peace . Probably, because of this, and
also maybe because he wanted his works to be as perfect as possible, he was extremely reluctant to publish
his works. Further, he was glad to win private merit within the circle of competent mathematicians and had
no wish to contend in a broader field. Hall says that it was a tragedy of the whole dispute that Newton later,
changing his mind and seeking to undo the consequences of his earlier inactivity, tried to make this private
 

reputation equivalent to one fully established and recognized by the public. Finally, Newton was forced
into the open by two factors. First, by the priority claims being made by his fellow countrymen who sought
to establish the superiority of Englishmen over others. Second, by the suggestions by Leibnizians that he
relied upon someone else in his intellectual pursuits. This latter character trait of Newton wherein he could



not tolerate the idea of indebtedness to anyone probably partly explains the vengeance with which he hit
back at Leibniz later on.
Getting back to the phenomenon of convergence and simultaneous discovery, Rupert Hall quotes the
sociologist Robert Merton wherein the latter states that the initial stability that arises out of the independent
discoveries deteriorates later on. This instability occurs because of the ambiguous situation in which it
is difficult to ascertain the role of each but since each knows that he had himself arrived at the discovery,
because the institutionalized stakes of reputation are high and the joy of discovery is immense. The situation



gets worse by reinforcement of group-loyalties and chauvinism. This analysis fits the Newton-Leibniz case
very well.
In conclusion, the dispute, though it casts these men of genius in very poor light with respect to the
way they quarrelled, however was a necessary result of their personalities and the prevailing sociological
conditions. However, this should not cast shadows on the brilliance of the mathematics that these men
developed.


Ibid., Page 7



Ibid., Page 22



Ibid., Page 23

G.V.Coyne, Newton’s controversy with Leibniz over the invention of the calculus, Page 114, In Newton And The New Direction
In Science; Mordechai Feingold, Newton, Leibniz and Barrow too: An attempt at a reinterpretation, Isis 84(1993), Pages 321


Rupert Hall, Philosophers at War, Page 254-255

17