[62] Henry Oldenburg, whose name is so intimately associated with the history of Newton’s discoveries, was born at Bremen, and was consul from that town to London during the usurpation of Cromwell. Having lost his office, and being compelled to seek the means of subsistence, he became tutor to an English nobleman, whom he accompanied to Oxford in 1656. During his residence in that city he became acquainted with the philosophers who established the Royal Society, and upon the death of William Crown, the first secretary, he was appointed in 1663, joint secretary along with Mr. Wilkins. He kept up an extensive correspondence with the philosophers of all nations, and he was the author of several papers in the Philosophical Transactions, and of some works which have not acquired much celebrity. He died at Charlton, near Greenwich, in August, 1677. [63] These words in brackets are in the second edition, but not in the first. [64] As this passage is of essential importance in this controversy, we shall give it in the original. “_Pro differentiis igitur Leibnitianis D. Newtonus adhibet, semperque adhibuit, fluxiones_, quæ sunt quam proxime ut fluentium augmenta, æqualibus temporis particulis quam minimis genita; iisque tam in suis Principiis Naturæ Mathematicis, tum in aliis postea editis, eleganter est usus; _quem admodum et Honoratus Fabrius in sua Synopsi Geometrica, motuumque progressus Cavallerianæ methodo substituit_.” [65] Homine docto, sed novo, et parum perito rerum ante actarum cognitare. [66] Vanæ et injustæ vociferationes. [67] Letter to Count Bothman in Des Maizeaux’s _Recueil de diverses pieces_, tom. ii. p. 44, 45. [68] See Des Maizeaux, tom. ii. p. 116. [69] Written in November or December, 1715. [70] This is the _Recensio Commercii Epistolici_, or review of it, which was first published in the _Phil. Trans. 1715_. [71] M. Biot remarks, that the animosity of Newton was not calmed by the death of Leibnitz, for he had no sooner heard of it than he caused to be printed two manuscript letters of Leibnitz, written in the preceding year, accompanying them with a very bitter refutation (en les accompagnant d’un refutation tres-amere). Who that reads this sentence does not believe that the bitter refutation was written after Leibnitz’s death? The animosity could not be shown by the simple publication of the letters. It could reside only in the _bitterness_ of the refutation. The implied charge is untrue; the bitter refutation was written before Leibnitz’s death, and consequently he showed no animosity over the grave of his rival; and in our opinion none even before his death.