The Newton-Leibniz Calculus Priority Dispute Turns Bitter
Both men built calculus independently, then spent decades accusing each other of theft
Quick facts
- Figures
- Isaac Newton, 1643 to 1727; Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1646 to 1716
- Royal Society report
- Commercium Epistolicum, 1713
- Modern consensus
- Independent discovery, different notations
What happened
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz developed his own version of calculus while working in Paris in the mid-1670s, arriving at a working notation, including the integral sign, by November 1675, independently of Newton's earlier but unpublished fluxions. Newton wrote to Leibniz through the Royal Society's secretary Henry Oldenburg describing some of his own results without revealing his methods; by the time Leibniz replied, Newton believed his letter had been answered too quickly to be an honest independent response and grew suspicious that Leibniz had learned his methods secondhand. The dispute escalated into open accusations of plagiarism by 1699 and came to a head in 1711, when Leibniz appealed to the Royal Society to settle the matter. Newton, who was the Society's president at the time, appointed the investigating committee himself, wrote its supposedly impartial 1713 report, Commercium Epistolicum, anonymously, and then anonymously reviewed his own report favorably in the Philosophical Transactions.
Why it matters
Historians of mathematics now generally agree both men developed calculus independently using different notations and somewhat different underlying concepts, with Leibniz's differential notation proving more flexible for later development even though Newton had priority in time. The dispute split European mathematics for decades afterward, since British mathematicians loyally stuck with Newton's clumsier notation while continental mathematicians adopted Leibniz's, slowing British progress in mathematical physics relative to the continent well into the 18th century.
How we know
The Newton-Leibniz correspondence through Oldenburg, the 1713 Commercium Epistolicum report, and Newton's anonymous review of it all survive in the Royal Society's records; MacTutor's biography of Leibniz reconstructs the sequence of letters and the escalating suspicion between the two men from this correspondence, and its biography of Newton documents his manipulation of the 1713 investigating committee.
Sources
- MacTutor History of Mathematics, University of St Andrews. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz · Reputable sourcemathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk · The domain "mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk" is on our Reputable source registry. · Link is live and its text matches the event's key terms (Jul 2026)
- MacTutor History of Mathematics, University of St Andrews. Isaac Newton · Reputable sourcemathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk · The domain "mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk" is on our Reputable source registry. · Link is live and its text matches the event's key terms (Jul 2026)
See something wrong? . Corrections with a source get fixed fastest.
Part of a timelineThe Scientific Revolution20 events · How observation and mathematics replaced ancient authority between 1543 and 1727View all →