Not included are such new translations of standard Newtonian works as those into Russian of the Lectiones opticæ (by VavilovS. I. (Academy of Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad, 1946), pp. 294) and of the Arithmetica universalis (by JushkevichA. P. (Academy of Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad, 1948), pp. 440); or those into Italian of the De quadratura curvarum (by E. Carruccio in the Periodico di matematica, 1938, reproduced in CastelnuovoG., Le origini del calcolo infinitesimale nell' era moderna (Feltrinelli, Milan, 1962), 127–62), of selections—including the De analysi—from the Commercium epistolicum (by G. Cantelli in La disputa Leibniz-Newton sull' analisi (Boringhieri, Turin, 1958), pp. 241), or of the Principia (by Alberto Pala from the second (Cologne) edition of Le Seur and Jacquier's version (Unione Tipographico-Editrice, Turin, 1965), pp. 807). Readex Microprint Limited (London) advertise a microfiche series, “Landmarks of Science”, which will apparently include microcard reprints of first editions of the Principia (“apud plures Bibliopolas” issue) and Opticks, but I have not seen these. In any case microfiche reproduction (which still has to justify itself on any ground but its overriding cheapness, even over Xerox offset) raises special problems which I do not propose to discuss. Likewise, there may well be Newton items available on microfilm of which I am ignorant.
2.
Certain of these points are introduced also by L. Rosenfeld in a review (Centaurus, xii (1967) 71–2) of items 26 and 3a in the present appendix.
3.
That at any time a facsimile should cost more than an available original is due initially, no doubt, to ignorance or miscalculation on the part of the reprint publisher, followed up by aggressive marketing of the reprinted work: That the more costly reprint should outsell an available, comparably-priced original text is equally a sign of lack of awareness and good judgement in the reading public. I am here much in sympathy with Nicholas Dewey in his more general strictures on “The Reprint Business” (Times literary supplement, 28 September 1967, p. 888). The Newtonian tradition has, thankfully, produced enough works of intrinsic worth and continuing significance to make any cries of barrel-scraping premature. The danger lurks, however. Recently advertised additions to current series of history of science reprints include, so it seems to me, an increasing number of over-priced facsimiles of works of such relative superficiality or restricted interest that individual Xerox prints of available library copies of the original editions readily meet all foreseeable demands.
4.
We should except perhaps Duncan Fraser's 1927 facsimile of the Methodus differentialis (now itself out of print) and the recent reissue (Appendix, item 1a) of Horsley's unique 1779 printing of the so-called Geometria analytica, also available in contempory English (item 1c) and French (item 4a) versions.
5.
Perhaps the best reasonably up-to-date alternatives are to be had in the Descriptive catalogue of the Grace K. Babson Collection of the works of Sir Isaac Newton … in the Babson Institute Library (New York, 1950) and its Supplement (Babson Institute, 1955) or the working catalogue of a large copyright library.
