[89] The banquet which was on this occasion given in the college hall to the royal visiter seems to have cost about 1000_l._, and the university was obliged to borrow 500_l._, to defray the expense of it.—Monk’s _Life of Bentley_, p. 143, 144. [90] The candidates in 1705 were as follows: The Hon. Arthur Annesley 182 Hon. Dixie Windsor 170 Mr. Godolphin 162 Sir Isaac Newton 117 [91] Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xvii. p. 677, 716. [92] Whiston’s “Longitude Discovered.” Lond 1738. [93] This anecdote concerning the Chronological manuscript is not correctly given in the Biographia Britannica, and in some of the other lives of Newton. I have followed implicitly Newton’s own account of it in the _Phil. Trans. 1725_, vol. xxxiii. No. 389, p. 315. [94] M. Biot has supposed that this abstract was an imperfect edition of Newton’s work on Chronology. [95] Father Souciet was supposed by Halley and others to have been the author of these observations, but there is no doubt that they were written by M. Freret. [96] It is stated in the _Biogr. Britannica_, Art. _Newton_, that the copy of the French translation was not accompanied with the refutation. Though the reverse of this is not distinctly stated by Sir Isaac himself, yet it may be inferred from his observations. [97] Vol. xxxiii. No. 389, p. 315. [98] According to Whiston, Sir Isaac wrote out eighteen copies of this chapter with his own hand, differing little from one another.—_Whiston’s Life_, p. 39. [99] This work is the first article in the fifth volume of Dr. Hersley’s edition of Newton’s works. The next article in the volume is entitled, “A Short Chronicle from a MS., the property of the Reverend Dr. Ekins, Dean of Carlisle;” which is nothing more than the abstract of the Chronology already printed in the same volume. We cannot even conjecture the reasons for publishing it, especially as it is less perfect than the abstract, two or three dates being wanting. [100] See vol. xxxiv. p. 205, and vol. xxxv. p. 296. [101] See an excellent view of this chronological controversy in an able note by M. Daunou, attached to Biot’s Life of Newton in the _Biog. Universelle_, tom. xxxi. p. 180. [102] This letter is published without any date in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1755, vol. xxv. p. 3. It bears internal evidence of being genuine. [103] His _Historical Account of two notable Corruptions of the Scriptures_. 50 pp quarto. [104] The editor supplied the beginning down to the 13th page, where he mentions in a note that “_thus far is not Sir Isaac’s_.”