1. Now in Trinity College, Cambridge: R.4.47, first published by Edleston Joseph in his Correspon dence of Sir Isaac Newton and Professor Cotes (London, 1850), Appendix, 274–5. Despite Turnbull's H. W. affirmation (The correspondence of Isaac Newton, iii, 155) that this is a “copy in Bentley's hand”, the manuscript is autograph except for Bently's endorsement that it contains “Directions from Mr Newton by his own hand”.
2. In his History of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present time, Book II, Ch. VII (London, 1837, 167 = 21857, 128), Whewell proclaimed that “No one for sixty years after the publication of the Principia, and, with Newton's methods, no one up to the present day, had added anything of any value to his deductions. We know that he calculated all the principal lunar inequalities…. But who has presented, in his beautiful geometry, or deduced from his simple principles, any of the inequalities which he left untouched? The ponderous instrument of synthesis, so effective in his hands, has never since been grasped by one who could use it for such purposes; and we gaze at it with admiring curiosity, as on some gigantic implement of war, which stands idle among the memorials of ancient days, and makes us wonder what manner of man he was who could wield as a weapon what we can hardly lift as a burden”. A similar remark three years afterwards in his Philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history, Part 1, Book II (London, 11840, 152 = 21847, 158) affirms that “Newton's synthetical modes of investigation … were an instrument, powerful enough in his mighty hand, but too ponderous for other persons to employ with effect”. Akin to this is Whewell's assertion (Philosophy of the inductive sciences, 11840, 150 = 21847, 156–7) that “If the properties of the conic sections had not been demonstrated by the Greeks, and thus rendered familiar to the mathematicians of succeeding ages, Kepler would probably not have been able to discover the laws respecting the orbits and motions of the planets which were the occasion of the greatest revolution that ever happened in the history of science”. This high-flown generalization Isaac Todhunter gently deflated in his critique of the Philosophy (William Whewell: An account of his writings (London, 1876), i, 128–49), justly observing (p. 132) that “It is not true that any large amount of familiarity with the conic sections is required for the discoveries of Kepler; a very small fraction of the treasures accumulated by the Greek geometers would suffice for this purpose: Probably a dozen pages would supply the necessities of a student who wished to master even the Principia of Newton”.