Newton Papers Letter Nat Phil Cohen Ed

/
)"
ISAAC NEWTON’S
&
On Natural Philosophy
an d related docum ents
Containing Newton’s contributions to the Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society, his letter to Boyle about the cether, “De Natura
Acidorum,” Newton’s letters to Bentley and the “Boyle Lectures”
related to them, the first published biography of Newton, Halley’s
publications about Newton’s “Principia,” &c.
With explanatory prefaces by Marie Boas, Charles Coulston
Gillispie, Thomas S. Kuhn, & Perry Miller.
H A R V A R D U N IV E R S IT Y PR ESS
Cambridge, Massachusetts '• 1958
© Copyright 1958 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 58-5607

Printed in the United States of America
V
Preface
S tu d e n ts of intellectual history and the history of science need no

reminder that the majestic figure of Isaac Newton dominates the
18th century. The “Age of Newton” must be studied in the works
of Newton himself, as well as in the writings of his commentators
and the scientific books and articles that either continued the
investigations undertaken by Newton or ventured into new domains
of knowledge which he had not explored. The intention of the
present volume is to bring together for the first time Newton’s
scattered papers and letters on natural philosophy (excluding math
ematics, pure theology, and biblical chronology) as they were actu
ally available in print during most of the 18th century, that is, prior
to Horsley’s edition of Newton’s works in 1779-1785. Newton’s two
major books on physical science, the Principia and the Opticks, are
today readily accessible, and in print; this volume complements
them by placing in the hands of students all of Newton’s related
publications issued during his lifetime or soon after his death. The
Principia, the Opticks, and the papers collected in this volume thus
represent the complete corpus of Newton’s writings on physical
science that actually influenced the scientists and thinking men of
v
VI PREFACE
the “Age of Newton” ; the Optical Lectures, however interesting, were

of less importance in conditioning the advance of science or mod
erating the general climate of opinion on the frame of the universe
or the mechanism of nature.
Since the aim of this volume is to present to the modern scholar
the very works studied during Newton’s life and the decades fol
lowing his death, each document is reproduced in facsimile from
the original publication; a facsimile is provided of a standard
translation into English of those documents which are in Latin.
Since many of Newton’s communications are letters, as was cus
tomary in the 17th and 18th centuries, there have also been included
facsimiles of the printed letters and documents written by others
that were the occasion of each of Newton’s communications. In
every case, the page numbers of the originals have been kept, so
that the scholar will have available to him in facsimile the actual
pages of many rare works which are not to be found in all libraries,
and certainly not on the shelves of students who wish to study the
development of physical thought in the age of Newton.
In addition to Newton’s own letters and papers, and documents
immediately relating to them, several Newtonian productions of
rarity have been included. Fontenelle’s eloge is the first published
biography of Newton and was widely read in England and abroad.
Halley’s review of the Principia and the account of the theory of the
tides which he wrote for James II are as useful today as they were
then, serving to orient the nonspecialist to some major aspects of
Newton’s monumental achievement. Finally, all students of Newton
will be grateful for a “Newtonian index” to Birch’s History of the
Royal Society.
The editor wishes to acknowledge the kindness of the scholars
who have aided this cooperative venture by contributing prefaces
to the several sections of the volume: Marie Boas, University of
California (Los Angeles); Charles Coulston Gillispie, Princeton
University; Thomas S. Kuhn, University of California (Berkeley);
and Perry Miller, Harvard University. Dr. Robert E. Schofield, of
the University of Kansas, has helped in every stage of preparing
the book and has written several contributions to it.
The editor respectfully acknowledges the stimulation to the pro
duction of this volume given by Professor A. Koyre of the Ecole
PREFACE V ll
\
Pratique des Hautes Etudes of the University of Paris (Sorbonne),

who urged upon him the necessity of producing it. The editor
gratefully records the sincere interest in the history of science of
Mr. Bern Dibner, the guiding spirit in the formation of the Burndy
Library of the history of science in Norwalk, Connecticut, who has
sponsored many important publications in the history of science as
well as this one. Valuable information was provided by Professor
H. W. Turnbull, editor of the projected edition of Newton’s corre
spondence, Mr. A. N. L. Munby, Librarian of King’s College,
Cambridge, and Curator of the Keynes Collection of Newton
Manuscripts, and Professor E. N. da C. Andrade of London, master
interpreter of science in our day, whose many publications on
Newton and his times have provided illumination with an elegance
and charm all too rare in the current literature of the history
of science.
The editor hopes that this volume may be conceived as a trans
atlantic tribute to the Royal Society of London, whose role was of
such major importance in the development of Newton’s thought.
All scholars who have had the privilege of using the great library
of the Royal Society are aware of the feeling of awe that arises from
confronting the manuscripts that record the major progress of science
in a continuous succession of almost three centuries; the remem
brance of that experience is always tempered by a warm feeling of
gratitude for the extreme kindness and helpfulness of the present
and past librarians, Messrs. I. Kaye and H. W. Robinson, and
especially of the Assistant Secretary, Dr. D. C. Martin. In saluting
the Royal Society, and its two Newtonian scholars, Professors
Andrade and Turnbull, a word may be said about the forthcoming
Royal Society edition of Newton’s correspondence, being prepared
under Professor Turnbull’s editorship. This task, of immense com
plexity and beset by extremely difficult questions at every turn, will
prove to be one of the most important collections of source material
for the study of 17th-century science. Based upon a careful study
of the manuscripts, it will provide a complete and accurate text of
each document. Hence the student who wishes to know exactly
what Newton wrote, or exactly what Newton’s correspondents
wrote, must always turn to the Royal Society edition of Newton’s
correspondence. But for the student who wishes to find out what
X CONTENTS
5. “ Mr. Isaac Newton’s Considerations upon part of

a Letter of Monsieur de Berce. . . concerning the
Catadrioptrical Telescope, pretended to be im
prov’d and refined by M. Cassegrain” 72
“Some Experiments propos’d [by Sir Robert
Moray] in relation to Mr. Newtons Theory of
light . . . together with the Observations made
thereupon by the Author of that Theory” 75
[Phil. Trans., No. 83, May 20, 1672, pp. 4056-4062]
6. “A Latin Letter . . . by Ignatius Gaston Pardies .. .
containing some Animadversions upon Mr. Isaac
Newton . . . his Theory of Light . . .” and “ Mr.
Newtons Letter . . . being an Answer to the fore
going Letter of P. Pardies” 79
[Phil. Trans., No. 84, June 17, 1672, pp. 4087-4093]
English translations of the two Latin letters above 86
[Phil. Trans., Abridged; Hutton, Shaw, Pearson, editors (London,
1809), vol. 1, pp. 726-732]
7. “A Serie’s of Quere’s propounded by Mr. Isaac

Newton, to be determin’d by Experiments, positively
and directly concluding his new Theory of Light
and Colours; and here recommended to the Indus
try of the Lovers of Experimental Philosophy . . . ” 93
[Phil. Trans., No. 85, July 15, 1672, pp. 5004 (misprinted as
4004)-5007]
8. “A Second Letter of P. Pardies . . . to Mr. Newtons

Answer, made to his first Letter . . .” and “Mr.
Newtons Answer to the foregoing Letter” [and final
capitulation by Pardies] 97
[Phil. Trans., No. 85, July 15, 1672, pp. 5012-5018]
English translations of the two Latin letters above 104
[Phil. Trans., Abridged (London, 1809), vol. 1, pp. 738-743;
lines 4-45, p. 5015, lines 1-18, p. 5016, and lines 31-36,
p. 5018 are omitted in this English version]
9. Robert Hooke’s Critique of Newton’s Theory of

Light and Colors 110
[Thomas Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London (Lon
don, A. Millar, 1757), vol. 3, pp. 10-15]
“Mr. Isaac Newtons Answer to some Considera
tions [of Hooke] upon his Doctrine of Light and
Colors” 116
[Phil. Trans., No. 88, November 18, 1672, pp. 5084-5103]
/
>
CONTENTS xi
10. “An Extract of a Letter lately written by an ingen

ious person from Paris [Christiaan Huygens], con
taining some Considerations upon Mr. Newtons
Doctrine of Colors, as also upon the effects of the
different Refractions of the Rays in Telescopical
Glasses” 136
“ Mr. Newtons Answer to the foregoing Letter fur
ther explaining his Theory of Light and Colors,
and particularly that of Whiteness; together with
his continued hopes of perfecting Telescopes by Re
flections rather than Refractions” 137
[Phil. Trans., No. 96, July 21, 1673, pp. 6086-6092]
11. “An Extract of Mr. Isaac Newton’s Letter . .. con

cerning the Number of Colors, and the Necessity of
mixing them all for the production of White; as
also touching the Cause why a Picture cast by
Glasses into a darkned room appears so distinct
notwithstanding its Irregular refraction . . . [a fur
ther answer to the letter from Paris, above, now
printed after having been mislaid]” 143
“An Answer (to the former Letter) . . . by the same
Parisian Philosopher .. .” 147
[Phil. Trans., No. 97, Octob. 6, 1673, pp. 6108-6112]
12. “A Letter of the Learn’d Franc. Linus . . . animad

verting upon Mr. Isaac Newton’s Theory of Light
and Colors .. .” 148
“ An Answer to this Letter” 150
[Phil. Trans., No. 110,Januar. 25, 1674/75, pp. 217-219]
13. “A Letter of Mr. Franc. Linus . . . being a Reply to

th e . . . Answer to a former Letter of the same Mr.
Linus, concerning Mr. Isaac Newton’s Theory of
Light and Colours” 151
“ Mr. Isaac Newton’s Considerations on the former
Reply; together with further Directions, how to
make the Experiments controverted arig h t. . . ” 153
“ An Extract of another Letter of Mr. Newton
relating to the same Argument” [written in answer
to a letter from Gascoines, student of Linus,
deceased] 155
[Phil. Trans., No. 121, Januar. 24, 1675/76, pp. 499-504]
XII CONTENTS
14. “A particular Answer of Mr. Isaak Newton to Mr.

Linus his Letter [item 13] about an Experiment
relating to the New Doctrine of Light and Colours” 157
[Phil. Trans., No. 123, March 25, 1676, pp. 556-561]
15. “ A Letter from Liege [by Anthony Lucas] concern

ing Mr. Newton’s Experiment of the coloured
Spectrum; together with some Exceptions against
his Theory of Light and Colours” 163
“Mr. Newton’s Answer to the precedent Letter” 169
[Phil. Trans., No. 128, September 25, 1676, pp. 692-705]
16. Newton’s second paper on color and light, read at

the Royal Society in 1675/6 177
[Thomas Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London (Lon
don, A. Millar, 1757), vol. 3, almost continuously from page
247 to page 305]
17. “An Instrument for observing the Moon’s Distance

from the Fixt Stars at Sea” 236
[Phil. Trans., No. 465, October and part of November 1742,
pp. 155-156]
III. N ew ton on chemistry, atomism, the

aether, and heat
1. Newton’s Chemical Papers, by Marie Boas 241

2. Newton’s Letters to Boyle, Feb. 28, 1678/9, and to
Oldenburg, Jan. 25, 1675/6 249
[Thomas Birch, The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle (Lon
don, A. Millar, 1744), vol. 1, pp. 70-74]
3. “ De N atura Acidorum” and “Some Thoughts

about the Nature of Acids” 255
[John Harris, Lexicon Technicum (first edition, London, printed
for Dan Brown .. . 1710), vol. 2, introd.]
4. “Scala graduum Caloris” 259

[Phil. Trans., No. 270, March and April 1701, pp. 824-829]
“A Scale of the Degrees of H eat” 265
[Phil. Trans., Abridged (London, 1809), vol. 4, pp. 572-575]
CONTENTS x iii
7
IV. N ew ton’s Four Letters to Bentley, and
the Boyle Lectures R elated to Them
1. Bentley and Newton, by Perry Miller 271
2. Four Letters from ^'ir Isaac Newton to Doctor Bentley con
taining Some Arguments in Proof of a Deity 279
[London, R. and J. Dodsley, 1756, pamphlet, 35 pp.]
3. Richard Bentley: A Confutation of Atheism from the
Origin and Frame of the World (parts II and III, Being
the Seventh and Eighth of the Lecture Founded
by the Honourable Robert Boyle, Esquire) 313
[London, H. Mortlock, 1693, two pamphlets, separate pagina
tion: 40 pp., 42 pp.]
V. H alley and the Principia

1. Halley and the Principia, by Robert E. Schofield 397
2. Edmond Halley’s review of the Principia 405
[Phil. Trans., No. 186, Jan. Feb. March 1687, pp. 291-297]
3. E. Halley: “The true Theory of the Tides” 412
[Phil. Trans., No. 226, March 1697, pp. 445-457]
VI. T he first biography of Newton

1. Fontenelle and Newton, by Charles Coulston
Gillispie 427
2. The Elogium of Sir Isaac Newton: By Monsieur Fontenelle,
Perpetual Secretary of the Royal Academy of Sciences at
Paris 444
[London, J. Tonson, 1728; 32 pp.]
Appendix: Comments on Birch’s History of the Royal Society

and an index to its references to Newton, by Robert E.
Schofield. 477
Index 493
/
V
I.
G eneral In tro d u ctio n

General Introduction
I. B e r n a r d C o h e n
Q
k_/cholars are unanimous in describing the 18th century as the
“age of Newton,” but the exact sense of this phrase requires some
clarification. Pope’s couplet, about nature and her laws being “hid
in night” until God created Newton “ and all was light,” has
probably misled the many historians who have quoted it and it
betrays a wonderful ignorance of the nature of science. We do not
understand nature by the revelation of single laws, but rather by
an apparently endless sequence of discoveries and of theories in
vented to explain them. If any stage of this sequence seems to rep
resent so great an advance that it marks a new era, it may appear
as a revelation but the revelation is never complete. The greatest
work in science is as much characterized by the creation of new
questions for the next generations as by the formulation of partial
answers to questions raised in the past. Newton may be esteemed
as the dominating figure of the 18th century—and even, to some
degree, the 19th—because the questions he raised were so funda
mental that the best brains in science were hardly up to answering
them.
Those who have written about the “age of Newton” have tended
3
4 I. BERNARD COHEN
to concentrate their attention on the Principia, admittedly his mas

terpiece and one of the greatest productions of the human mind,
and on the problems Newton solved rather than the fruitful ques
tions his work raised. In Newton’s lifetime as during the 18th cen
tury—and ever since—the Principia was a formidable book to read
and, prior to the appearance of the second edition in 1713, it was
also a difficult book to obtain, owing to the small size of the orig
inal edition, which has been estimated at somewhere between 300
and 400 copies. The Principia was a difficult book to read, making
enormous demands on the reader because of the mathematical
complexities and abstract approach to the subject matter—terres
trial and celestial dynamics, and the general physics of fluids.
The major result of Newton’s heroic endeavor was the law of
universal gravitation, which enabled him to account for planetary
motion in accordance with Kepler’s laws, the motion of the moon
and the phenomena of the tides, the falling of bodies to the earth,
and the precession of the equinoxes as a result of the earth’s figure.
But simple as the form of the law of universal gravitation was—
stating that any two bodies in the universe would attract each
other with a force directly proportional to the product of their
masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance be
tween them—the application of this law created a problem of fun
damental importance which Newton could never answer to his
complete satisfaction, and which has been of concern to men of
science ever since; even in our own day it has not been resolved.
This problem can be stated simply in the following question:
how can one body act upon another that it does not touch? “Con
tact forces” seem readily understandable, whereas “ action-at-a-
distance” is puzzling. A horse that pulls a wagon, for example, acts
upon it through the physical medium of the traces, just as a man
who pushes a cart exerts his force at the point of contact between
his hands and the cart. But, according to Newton’s concept of uni
versal gravitation, the sun must exert a considerable force upon
the earth at a distance of some hundred million miles, and upon
Jupiter and Saturn at even greater distances. How can this be
possible?
Newton’s critics were quick to sieze upon this obvious flaw in
the great system, and they accused him of reintroducing into
GENERAL INTRODUCTION 5
V. .
physics those “occult” qualities which were supposed to have been
banished. Friend and foe of Newtonian dynamics explored the
question of action-at-a-distance, and so did Newton himself. The
problem of how a body might “act where it is not” was not dis
cussed by Newton in the first edition of the Principia but in the
second edition of 1713, in the General Scholium added to Book
Three. Here Newton stated that he “framed no hypotheses” and
that it was enough to account mathematically for the motion of
moon and planets and for the tides, even though the cause or
mechanism of gravitational action remained unknown. But he did
give the reader a hint
concerning a certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in
all gross bodies; by the force and action of which spirit the particles of
bodies attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous;
and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as
attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, re
fracted, inflected [that is, diffracted], and heats bodies; and all sensa
tion is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the com
mand of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually
propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward
organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles.1
The character of this “electric and elastic spirit” was explored
more fully by Newton in other publications or communications. It
is the subject of various queries in the successive editions of the
Opticks and is there applied to the problem of universal gravitation,
curiously omitted from the list of phenomena in the General
Scholium to Book Three of the Principia, even though that scholium
as a whole was largely devoted to gravitation. This elastic “aether”
and its various properties also appear in a letter to the Hon. Rob
ert Boyle, dated Feb. 28, 1678/9, which was published in Boyle’s
works in 1744,2 reprinted in 1772, and was published separately
with a commentary by Bryan Robinson in 1745. In this letter,
1Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, a revision of An
drew M otte’s English version of 1729 (University of California Press, Berkeley,
1934), General Scholium at the end of Book Three.
2 See John F. Fulton, “A bibliography of the Honourable Robert Boyle, Fel
low of the Royal Society,” Oxford Bibliog. Soc. Proc. and Papers 3, 1-172, 339-365
(1932); also I. B. Cohen, Franklin and Newton, an inquiry into speculative Newtonian ex-
6 I. BERNARD COHEN
Newton attempted to show that the aether was responsible for the
cohesion of bodies, played a part in the actions of acids and other
chemical reactions, operated to produce and maintain the gaseous
state, caused various optical phenomena, and could be considered
“the cause of gravity.” This letter was widely studied in the middle
of the 18th century, and its influence on chemists and physicists
was marked.3 It was quoted or cited by many students of electricity
and affected the form that was taken by theories of electrical action.
The hypothesis of the aether also turns up in Newton’s optical
papers, published in the Philosophical Transactions during his young
manhood,4 and was the subject of a famous long paper read at the
Royal Society in 1675/6, and published by Birch in his History of
the Royal Society in 1757.5 Finally, the aether is seen to be of impor
tance in the letters Newton wrote to Richard Bentley in 1692/3,
which were published in 1756.6
The ability of the aether, or “ aetherial medium,” to produce so
many different types of natural phenomena must have been partic
ularly satisfying to Newton in demonstrating a kind of unity of
nature. In a letter to Oldenburg, 25 Jan. 1675, Newton wrote:
Where I say, that theframe of nature may be nothing but cether condensed by
afermental principle, instead of these words write, that it may be nothing
but various contextures of some certain aetherial spirits or vapours con
densed, as it were, by precipitation, much after the manner, that vapours
are condensed into water, or exhalations into grosser substances, though
not so easily condensable; and after condensation wrought into various
forms, at first by the immediate hand of the Creator, and ever since by
the power of nature, who, by virtue of the command, Increase and multiply,
became a complete imitator of the copies set her by the Protoplast. Thus
perhaps may all things be originated from aether, &c.
Yet Newton’s hypothesis of the aether was not entirely satisfactory,

even to all his admirers. In the new scholium for the second edition
of the Principia, Newton observed that we are not “furnished with
penmental science and Franklin’s work in electricity as an example thereof (American Phil
osophical Society, Philadelphia, 1956).
3 This letter is reprinted below in Section Three.
■'These papers or letters are reprinted below in Section Two.
5 Reprinted below in Section Two.
6 Reprinted below in Section Four.
that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate
determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric
and elastic\spirit operates.” Although he always presented his
thoughts on the aether with some degree of tentativeness, he did so
over so long a period of time that the conclusion is inescapable that
a belief in an aetherial medium, penetrating all bodies and filling
empty space, was a central pillar of his system of nature.
As postulated by Newton, the aether was composed of particles
that mutually repelled one another or that were endowed with a
centrifugal force. The aether was imponderable, odorless, tasteless,
and colorless, but had certain implied properties of rigidity so as
to support undulations, such as those which were a concomitant
part of optical phenomena and also those allied with the transmis
sion of sensations to the brain. Differing in density throughout space
according to the location of bodies in that space, the aetherial me
dium was capable of causing gross bodies to move toward one an
other according to the law of universal gravitation. Thus Newton
could, by invoking the aether, satisfy the criterion set forth in a letter
to Bentley:
It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and
affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation
in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one
reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That
gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one
body may act upon another at a distance thro’ a vacuum, without the
mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force
may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity,
that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a compe
tent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.
Newton’s speculations were studied very carefully during the
next two centuries, and they produced important consequences.
The writings about a universal fluid gave sanction to the creation
of other imponderable fluids, such as the electrical “fluid” and the
“fluid” of caloric. The development of the concepts of these “fluids”
did not slavishly follow Newton’s principle of “density.” The scien
tists who tried to explain electrical phenomena by variations in den
sity of some “subtle fluid” were not able to produce results of
importance, while those who sought to identify the “electric fluid”
8 I. BERNARD COHEN
or the “fluid of heat” with Newton’s universal aether appear never

to have advanced beyond the stage of hypothesis and speculation.
Newton’s suggestion that many of the phenomena which were
categorized by “ action-at-a-distance” might be explained on the
supposition of a single universal fluid undoubtedly inspired Faraday
in his attempt to uncover by experiment the relations between the
various ways in which the several forces of nature are manifested.
Newton, concentrating attention on what happened in the space
between bodies rather than on the bodies themselves, prepared the
way for the fruitful concept of “field,” in particular for Faraday’s
version of it as a set of “strains” in the setherial medium around
charged or magnetized bodies—the famous theory of “lines of force.”
In turn, Faraday’s research led to Clerk Maxwell’s theory of “dis
placement currents” in the aether, and Clerk Maxwell’s electro
magnetic theory may be considered legitimately the high point of
“classical” physics, the physics of the 19th century. Faraday loved
to quote the passage from Newton’s letter to Bentley, cited above,
and Clerk Maxwell also repeated it with enthusiastic approval. To
be sure, since the acceptance of Einstein’s restricted theory of rela
tivity (published in 1905), the concept of the aether, along with all
Newtonian “ absolute” space and time, has vanished from the dis
course of physics—apparently having served a useful function for
at least two centuries but needed no longer. It is not amiss, how
ever, to note that P. A. M. Dirac, one of the most distinguished
physicists of our era, has just raised the question whether the aether
is completely dispensable.
Even in the early 19th century, some physicists discerned inher
ent difficulties in applying the concept of the aether in the fashion
proposed by Newton. John Playfair put the whole problem in suc
cinct form:
It is very true that an elastic fluid, of which the density followed the
inverse ratio of the distance from a given point, would urge the bodies
immersed in it, and impervious to it, toward that point with forces in
versely as the squares of the distances from it; but what could maintain
an elastic fluid in this condition, or with its density varying according
to this law, is a thing as inexplicable as the gravity which it was meant
to explain. The nature of an elastic fluid must be, in the absence of all
inequality of pressure, to become everywhere of the same density. If
/
V
the causes that produce so marked and so general a deviation from this
rule be not assigned, we, can only be said to have substituted one diffi
culty for another.7 1
Another difficulty came from the fact that the aether as postulated
by Newton acted as it did because the particles of which it was sup
posed to be made were mutually repulsive. While this very fact
delights the student of Newton in affording an example of that
atomism which was fundamental to the Newtonian view of nature,
it raises the thorny question why a wholly inexplicable short-range
repulsive force between tiny particles of aether may be considered
more satisfying than an equally inexplicable long-range attraction
between gross bodies.
The profound puzzle of Newton’s views on the aether disturbs
Pope’s view that after the revelation according to the Principia “all
was light.” Newton’s discussion of how nature might produce the
forces whose laws he had illuminated is, therefore, essential to our
understanding of the whole Newtonian natural philosophy. The
development of physics in the 18th and 19th centuries cannot be
studied without a clear view of Newton’s own statements on what
we may call the mechanism of nature’s actions. To this end, the
present volume reprints, with commentaries, the original docu
ments that were the vehicles for transmitting Newton’s speculations
—and it does so in the exact form in which scientists and philoso
phers and men of learning studied them during most of the 18th
century, and afterwards.
There are only three books by Newton that deal with physical
subjects. The best-known of these are his Principia and Opticks, both
published during the author’s life and revised by him in later edi
tions. The Optical Lectures, published posthumously in 1728, were
based on a translation made from Newton’s Latin manuscript; a
Latin edition was published in 1729. The Principia is available to
the modern reader in the edition published in 1934 by the Univer-
John Playfair, “Dissertation third: exhibiting a general view of the progress of
mathematical and physical science since the revival of letters in Europe,” pages
433-J72 of Dissertations on the history o f metaphysical and ethical, and mathematical and
physical science, by Dugald Stuart, the Right Hon. Sir James Mackintosh, John
Playfair, and Sir John Leslie (Adam and Charles Black, Edinburgh, 1835), Sec-
tion IV, “Astronomy.”
10 I. BERNARD COHEN
sity of California Press, containing the 18th-century translation of

Andrew Motte as revised by Florian Cajori. This handsomely
printed volume is based on a version that was never completed by
the editor and it appeared only after Cajori’s death; perhaps this
may serve to explain why it has neither a table of contents nor an
index, so that the reader encounters extreme difficulty in finding
his way about in it.8 The Opticks was reprinted in 1931 by Messrs.
Bell of London, and was reissued in 1952 by Dover Publications
of New York City with the welcome addition of an analytical table
of contents.9 The Optical Lectures has not been reprinted since the
18th century in either the Latin or the English version, although
a Russian translation by S. I. Vavilov, late president of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, was published in Moscow in 1946.
The intention of the present volume is to bring together in com
plete form all of Newton’s publications on physical subjects—save
for the above-mentioned three books—that were available in the
18th century. To our knowledge, this is the first time that even all
the Newtonian material in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London has been gathered together. All of Newton’s let
ters that were published in the Philosophical Transactions were printed
by the Rev. Samuel Horsley in his five-volume edition of Newton’s
works (1779-1785), even though it is often stated that they are not
to be found in Horsley’s edition! Horsley, however, based his texts
on manuscript versions of the letters, so that there are notable dif
ferences between them and the first printings. The student of New
ton’s thought may, therefore, profit by consulting Horsley’s edition,
supplemented by the great new edition of Newton’s correspond
ence to be published by the Royal Society of London. But the
student of the history of physical thought in the 17th and 18th centuries
must use the texts as they were actually printed and read in the
Philosophical Transactions and as they are reproduced in the present
8W hat is needed at the present time is a critical and variorum edition in which
there will be displayed all the changes made by Newton in the successive versions
he produced during his lifetime. Such an edition is presently being undertaken by
Professor Alexandre Koyre and the writer.
9 Regrettably, in the first printing of 1952, the printer omitted part of the valu
able Analytical Table of Contents that had been prepared by Professor Duane
H. D. Roller. This fault has been corrected in the second printing.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION II
volume. Horsley did not include the letters about Newton’s discov
eries that were published in the Philosophical Transactions, and to
which Newton replied; since a reply is meaningless without the
document that occasioned it, the present reprinting includes all the
contemporaneous printed material relevant to the controversy—by
Newton and also by those who took i^sue with him. Horsley re
printed Newton’s four letters to Bentley, but he did not include
the two sermons—or Boyle Lecture—relating to them. We have
included the latter because they help the reader to understand
Newton’s letters and also because they represent the first popular
ization of Newton’s system, and inaugurate the doctrine that New
tonian celestial mechanics may prove the existence of the God who
created the universe.
In addition to the Bentley material and the Newtonian letters
and papers from the Philosophical Transactions, we have included a
letter by Hooke and the long paper by Newton (explicating his
hypothesis of the aether) from Birch’s History of the Royal Society.
Both were made public by having been read at meetings of the
Royal Society, but neither one was published in the Transactions.
Since all too few readers in the 20th century are familiar with
Latin, the 19th-century translations of the Latin documents have
been included. But the short “ Theory of the Moon” is not repre
sented in the present collection, since it consists primarily of a prob
lem in applied celestial mechanics. It may be found in various
eighteenth-century works, e.g., the English version of David
Gregory’s The Elements of Astronomy (2 vols., London, 1715), and its
Latin predecessor, and in John Harris’s Lexicon Technicum. Also
omitted is Newton’s table of refractions of stars, published by
Halley in an article of his own in Phil. Trans. No. 368.
Finally, the volume also contains Fontenelle’s eloge of Newton,
the first biography of Newton to be printed, which was based in
large measure on materials furnished to him by John Conduitt,
Newton’s nephew and amanuensis. This work was immediately
translated into English from the French and was widely reprinted;
it gives us some indication of the popular reaction to what Newton
did, and also serves as one of the primary documents in the strug
gle between Newtonianism and Cartesianism. There is a certain
anomaly about Newton’s position as associe etranger of the Academie
12 I. BERNARD COHEN
Royale des Sciences (Paris), since his Principia was so largely de
voted to an attack on the Cartesian philosophy, which was then
the reigning system in France. Not only did Newton show in the
Principia that the “hypothesis of vortices” is inconsistent with ob
served phenomena, but his Opticks also confuted the Cartesian sys
tem. We know that Newton’s antagonism to Descartes was ex
treme, that he not only made a pointed attack on Cartesian physics
again and again in the Principia, but in his own copy of Descartes’
geometry “marked in many places with his own hand, Error, Error,
non est Geom.’no So strong was this feeling on the part of Newton
that we are led to suspect that the title of his masterpiece, Philo-
sophice Naturalis Principia Mathematica, was intended to show its su
periority over Descartes’s Principia Philosophies, of which a copy of
the edition of 1656 in quarto was in his library. And it is tempting
to suspect further that when Newton altered the HYPOTHESES
at the beginning of Book Three of the Principia (in the first edition
of 1687) to “ Hypotheses,” “Phsenomena,” and “ Regulse Philo-
sophandi,” the latter were intended to supplant Descartes’ “Regulae
ad Directionem Ingenii.”
Newton is generally said to be one of the first group of eight
associes etrangers elected to the Academie Royale des Sciences, and
the official list of members includes his title as premier titulaire. The
manuscript Registres show, however, that he was the last of the
eight to be chosen, and that the choice was made only on the
fourth discussion of the question. Under the new charter of 1699,
there was place for eight associes etrangers, of whom the first three
were G. G. Leibniz, E. W. v. Tschirnhaus, and Domenico Gugliel-
mini, who were already members when named to the new title on
28 January 1699. According to the manuscript Registres, on Sat
urday 14 February 1699, “ On a resolu a la pluralite des voix de
proposer au Roy M rs. Hartsoeker, et Bernoulli, Paine et le cadet,
pour Associez Etrangers,” the Bernoullis being the brothers Jacques
and Jean (Ier). Then, according to the Registres, on Saturday 21
February, “M r. Roemer qui a ete autrefois membre de l’Academie
et qui est retourne en Dannemarc depuis longtemps, et Mr. Newton10
10 Sir David Brewster, Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac New
ton (Thomas Constable and Co., Edinburgh, 1875), vol. 1, p. 22n.
ont ete nommes pour les deux places qui restoient d ’Associes
Etrangers.”
The juxtaposition of the papers and letters of Newton in this

volume clarifies at once one of the major Newtonian problems. It
is clear that throughout his life Newton regarded the concept of
the aether as a hypothesis. However much he may have cherished
this particular hypothesis, hypothesis it always remained. W hat
ever Newton meant by the word hypothesis—and his writings dis
close a variety of usages11—he was certainly aware that the aether
had never attained that same high level of demonstrable certainty
and accuracy that seemed to characterize his experiments and his
theory of light and colors, and his principles of terrestrial and
celestial physics. In the General Scholium written for the conclu
sion of the third book of the Principia in the second edition of 1713,
Newton said specifically that there was not “that sufficiency of ex
periments which is required to an accurate determination and
demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit
operates.” But in the preceding paragraph of that General
Scholium, the penultimate paragraph with which the final ap
proved version of the Principia concludes, Newton had said unequi
vocally that he framed or feigned no hypotheses—Hypotheses non
Jingo. Why, then, did he give a vague hint of just such a hypothesis
as he said had no place in his philosophy? Clearly, the results dis
played in the Principia seemed to him independent of any hypoth
eses like that of the aether, and, so long as the aether remained
merely a hypothesis, it could have no place in the system of the
Principia. But why mention it at all?
This baffling question is at once resolved by reading Newton’s
papers and letters printed below. In 1713, when Newton published
the concluding General Scholium in the second edition of the
Principia, his own hypothesis had already become known to a fairly
large group. It appears in the early optical papers, in the famous
letter to Boyle, and at great length in the long statement that had
been read at meetings of the Royal Society years earlier and that
still reposed in the archives of the Society, where presumably it
11 The major ways in which Newton used the word “hypothesis” are classified
in Franklin and Newton (see note 2, above), Appendix One.
i4 I. BERNARD COHEN
could be read by anyone who was interested. He had, furthermore,

discussed his hypothesis with friends such as David Gregory. When,
therefore, in all sincerity he wrote that he would not feign hypotheses
as a substitute for sound demonstrable theory, he must have been
aware that there were many people who knew full well that—even
so—he had at various times explored just such a hypothesis, how
ever tentatively he may have considered the aether. The final para
graph must then have served as a reminder to the cognoscenti that
Newton had not forgotten that he had framed a rather elegant
hypothesis of the aether, one that might account for gravitation and
a host of other phenomena.
In the second (1717, 1718) and third (1721) English editions of
the Opticks, the Queries at the end of Book III were enlarged from
the original sixteen in the first edition (1704) to thirty-one. Query
17 takes up the problem of vibrations in the medium in which light
travels, vibrations which put the rays of light into “ fits” of easy
reflection and easy transmission; Query 18 deals with further
properties of this medium in relation to radiant heat; Queries 19
and 20 suggest that variations or differences in the “density” of the
“ setherial medium” may account for refraction and inflection. In
Query 21 Newton addressed himself to gravitation, the possibility
that variations in the “density” of the “medium” may produce
gravitation since the “medium” is much rarer within dense bodies
such as the sun, planets, comets, stars, than in empty celestial
space. Query 22 is devoted to the demonstration that this “aether”
can offer a negligible resistance to the motion of planets and
comets. Finally, in Query 23 vision is said to result chiefly from
vibrations of this medium propagated through the optic nerve, and
in Query 24 the vibrations of the medium are related to animal
sensation being conveyed to the brain.
In 1706, two years after the first English edition and seven years
before the second Latin edition of the Principia with the famous
concluding General Scholium, a Latin version of the Opticks was
published, prepared by Samuel Clarke at Newton’s request. In this
edition the number of Queries was increased from the original six
teen to twenty-three. But the new Queries in this Latin version do
not correspond to Queries 17-23 in the second and third English
editions of the Opticks; they do not deal with the aether at all.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION *5
These new Queries of 1706 rather correspond to Queries 25-31 in

the later English editions of the Opticks.
When Newton brought out the second English edition of the
Opticks in 1717, he printed for the first time the Queries there
numbered 17-24, which presented his general views on the nature,
properties, and effects of a supposed aether; and these were followed
by revised English versions of the Queries he had added in the
Latin version of 1706, now renumbered 25-31. In respect to these
new Queries about the aether, Newton said (in this English edition
of the Opticks, 1717), that “to shew that I do not take gravity for
an essential property of bodies, I have added one question con
cerning its cause, chusing to propose it by way of a question, be
cause I am not yet satisfied about it for want of experiments.”
Evidently, in 1717 Newton was willing to discuss the aether since
he had already given a hint about this hypothesis in the 1713 edi
tion of the Principia and there was no longer any secret about it.
He did so in the Opticks and not the Principia, where the possibility
of the aether as a cause of gravity was scrupulously avoided. This,
too, is not surprising. The Opticks already contained a considerable
amount of speculative material; it was not inappropriate to add
more. Furthermore, the placement of the fuller discussion of the
aether outside the Principia maintained the point of view that the
principles of gravitation could be adequately discussed without
solving the problem of the cause of gravitation and without recourse
to any ancillary hypotheses, even Newton’s.
The publication of the,present volume brings to the fore certain

major questions of Newtonian scholarship at the present time. Our
interest in Newton takes two forms, which are complementary to
each other. The first of these is to understand Newton’s complex
personality and the nature of the creative process as illustrated by
his activity; the second, to trace the influence of what he said on
the development of physical thought and general culture. To com
prehend Newton requires a knowledge of everything that he wrote,
and is difficult today because there is not yet available a complete
edition of his works. The Royal Society’s edition of the correspond
ence of Newton will illuminate many facets of Newton’s personal
ity, and will unquestionably be a rich source of information on the
i6 I. BERNARD COHEN
scientific life of Newton’s day. Valuable as this collection will be—

and its value cannot be overstated—the student who wishes to
understand Newton the man will have to consult the whole corpus
of the manuscript writings of Newton, much of which deals with
problems of theology, alchemy, and administration. That these are
extremely important for an understanding of the mind and char
acter of Newton goes without saying, though they may not con
tribute anything specifically to our estimate of his actual scientific
achievement. We cannot separate Newton’s creative activity
according to the canons of departments of learning in our modern
universities, because Newton’s thoughts were closely intertwined in
his own mind. His reflections on alchemy were undoubtedly
colored by his theological studies and his writings on physical sub
jects always bear the mark of his theological concern. The atomism
he developed had also a theological cast and serves to link his
studies of optics, chemistry, and the physics of gross bodies. We
cannot say of Newton, Let us take the chemistry and let the
alchemy go, or, Let us take the physics and forget the theology.
The “absolute space,” so essential to his conception of dynamics,
was for him identified with the “sensorium” of God, and even the
atomism of his optics and chemistry was connected with his view
of the form of the Creation.
Newton’s Observations upon the Prophecies ofDaniel, and the Apocalypse
of St. John was published in 1733 and has remained his major theo
logical study. Although a few of Newton’s theological manuscripts
were published recently under the editorship of H. McLachlan,12
we do not know the basis of his selection, and it is difficult to know
whether the works he reprinted are in any sense truly representative.
But not all of Newton’s manuscripts and uncollected writings
are theological or alchemical. In King’s biography of Locke, for
example, there is to be found a statement of the principles of me
chanics prepared by Newton for Locke; it deserves study and
should be reprinted with an adequate commentary. It is not in
cluded in the present volume because it was not printed until the
19th century and so was not read by the physicists of the 18th
century.
12 Sir Isaac Newton: Theological manuscripts. Selected and edited, with an introduc
tion, by H. McLachlan (University Press, Liverpool, 1950).
GENERAL INTRODUCTION £7
A critical edition of the Principia is very much needed. As I men
tioned earlier, there is no available edition of the Principia that con
tains a decent index, or even a full analytical table of contents, nor
has there been prepared a modern edition that is fully annotated.
W hat is needed is a true critical edition, in which there would be
plainly displayed the variations from one edition to the next.
Curiously enough, there was prepared in the 19th century, by J. C.
Adams, a list of the variations between the second and the third
editions of the Principia, 13 but I do not know of any similar work on
the differences between the first and second editions, which are in
many ways more fundamental. Thus, all too many writers about
Newtonianism have ignored the fact that the famous General
Scholium to Book Three was not a part of the original edition at
all, but was written for the second edition, and in answer to
criticisms.
The late Lord Keynes collected a large number of unpublished
Newton manuscripts, which are now in the library of King’s Col
lege, Cambridge,14 and which he discussed in a brilliant essay on
Newton which was published in the Royal Society’s volume, Newton
Tercentenary Celebrations 15-19 July 1946.16 It is greatly to be hoped
that these unpublished Newton manuscripts may soon see the light
of printed day, and that they may be supplemented by other vol
umes containing Newton manuscripts in other collections.
As matters now stand, there seems to be no immediate prospect
of an edition of all of Newton’s manuscripts and other writings, nor
of a critical annotated edition of his published works on m athe
matics and physical science. But the major sources of Newton’s
contributions to physical thought that were available to scientists
and nonscientists in the “ age of Newton” are now in print: the
Principia and the Opticks, and the letters and papers included in the
present volume.
“ Published by Brewster (see note 10, above).
14 A. N. L. Munby, “The distribution of the first edition of Newton’s Principia.
The Keynes Collection of the works of Sir Isaac Newton at King’s College, Cam
bridge,” Notes and Records Royal Soc. of London 10, 28-39, 40-50 (1952).
15 Published by Cambridge University Press, 1947. This volume also contains
an important essay by Professor E. N. da C. Andrade, which should be supple
mented by his “Newton and the science of his age,” Proc..Royal Soc. A 181, 227-
243 (1943).
i8 I. BERNARD COHEN
Those who have learned physics from modern textbooks may

be surprised at the violence of the controversy that followed the
announcement of Newton’s discovery of dispersion and the com
position of white light. Scientific publications were apt to be more
polemical in the 17th century than nowadays, but we must also
keep in mind that great discoveries ja r the cherished beliefs of
scientists and are apt to produce a shock reaction at all times. The
argument over Newton’s theory of light and colors continued into
the 18th century; it may be seen in the papers of J. T. Desaguliers
in the Philosophical Transactions of 1716 (No. 348, pp. 433-451) and
of 1722 (No. 374, p. 206) and, later on in the century, in Goethe’s
Farbenlehre.
Newtonian science in the 18th century was apt to have two as
pects, one mathematical and the other experimental. The Principia,
as its full title indicates, was devoted (or, perhaps, limited) to the
“ mathematical principles of natural philosophy” but the Opticks
was a primer of experimental physics and contained, largely in the
section of “ Queries,” Newton’s speculations on all aspects of
physical science. The distinction between experimental Newtonian
natural philosophy and mathematical Newtonian experimental
philosophy, I believe, becomes clear from a study of what the
scientists of the 18th century did, and the Newtonian works they
read—or were able to read.
Newton said that the science of colors was mathematical and as
certain as any other part of optics (for example, geometric optics),
but he later felt the need to clarify his statement. The clarification
was omitted from the publication in the Philosophical Transactions
but was printed in Horsley’s.edition (vol. 4, p. 342):
In the last place, I should take notice of a casual expression, which

intimates a greater certainty in these things, than I ever promised, viz-
the certainty of Mathematical Demonstrations. I said, indeed, that the science
of colours was mathematical, and as certain as any other part of Optics;
but who knows not that Optics, and many other mathematical sciences,
depend as well on physical sciences, as on mathematical demonstra
tions? And the absolute certainty of a science cannot exceed the cer
tainty of its principles. Now the evidence, by which I asserted the
propositions of colours, is in the next words expressed to be from exper
iments, and so but physical: whence the Propositions themselves can be
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 19
esteemed no more than physical principles of a science. And if those
principles be such, that on them a mathematician may determine all
the phenomena of colours, that can be caused by refractions, and that
by disputing or demonstrating after what manner, and how much, those
refractions do separate or mingle the rays, in which several colours are
originally inherent; I suppose the science of colours will be granted
mathematical, and as certain as any part of Optics. And that this may
be done, I have good reason to believe, because ever since I became
first acquainted with these principles, I have, with constant success in
the events, made use of them for this purpose.
The Newtonian documents that follow are chiefly illustrative of
experimental and speculative Newtonianism. They provide the ex
citing experience—alas! no longer possible, owing to the terse and
formal style of our scientific journals—of reading how one of the
world’s greatest scientists actually made one of his major discov
eries. We are rapidly transported backward in time through
almost three centuries to the time of Newton, as we follow the re
actions of the scientists of his day to that discovery and as we read
Newton’s answers to each objection: sometimes patient and kind,
but at other times curt and even rude. We may “listen” to the long
paper as it was read to the Royal Society and perhaps understand
why Newton did not want to have it published. Above all, we may
glimpse some of Newton’s innermost thoughts about the mechan
ism of nature, the creation of the universe, and the need for prov
ing by the “phenom ena” about us that there was a creating God
and that the universe was His handiwork. Like the scientists,
philosophers, and ordinary thinking men of the 18th century, we
cannot help being moved at the enormity of the fundamental
questions to which Newton addressed himself and, like them, we
will appreciate the ingenuity of his speculations and the often lofty
and poetic rapture that was the result of his profound insight.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
R obert E. S c h o f i e l d
The Newton material appearing in this volume is reproduced in
facsimile from the texts as they originally appeared, preserving the pag
20 BIBLIO GRA PH ICA L NOTES
ination, spelling, and general format. In a few instances, at the begin

ning or end of an article, material at the top or bottom of a page has
been blanked out, being the work of another person and unrelated to
the text reproduced.
There are three general bibliographies of Newton material: a short
one by H. Zeitlinger in the Newton bicentenary volume, Isaac Newton
(London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1927), edited for the Mathematical
Association by W. J. Greenstreet; George J. Gray’s A Bibliography of the
Works of Sir Isaac Newton (first edition, Cambridge: MacMillan and
Bowes, 1888; second edition, Cambridge: Bowes and Bowes, 1907); and
A Descriptive Catalogue of the Grace K. Babson Collection of the Works of Sir
Isaac Newton (New York: Herbert Reichner, 1950). None of these is com
plete and in all of them the listing of Newton’s papers in the Philosoph
ical Transactions is more or less inadequate. We believe that the table of
contents of this volume contains a complete list of all of Newton’s
papers in the Philosophical Transactions and the related letters, except the
writings on mathematics and those on biblical chronology.1
The optical papers from the Philosophical Transactions are reproduced
from the copies owned by the Burndy Library. All other papers from
the Philosophical Transactions—namely, II, 17: “An Instrument for ob
serving the Moon’s Distance from the fixed Stars at Sea”; III, 4: “Scala
Gradum Caloris”; and V, 2 and 3: Halley’s review of the Principia and
the “True theory of the tides,” are reproduced from the numbers of the
Philosophical Transactions in the Harvard College Library. The citations
to the Philosophical Transactions (in the table of contents) are by number
rather than volume, as this seemed the only reasonably satisfactory way
of identifying the original sources without confusion. Although present
custom dictates reference by volume, the erratic publication of the early
issues of the Transactions is inimical to the consistent assigning of volume
numbers, while the issue numbers offer a consistent continuous pattern.
The English translations from the Latin originals are reproduced
from the Philosophical Transactions, Abridged (London, 1809).
Two of the documents (II, 9: Hooke’s critique of Newton’s theory
of light and colors, and II, 16: Newton’s second paper on color and
light) were read at meetings of the Royal Society, but never printed
in the Philosophical Transactions. The Hooke critique is discussed, in a
somewhat misleading way, in document II, 9: “Mr. Isaac Newtons
Answer to some Considerations upon his Doctrine of Light and Colors.”
The “second paper on color and light” was originally withheld from
1A Supplement to the Catalogue of the Grace K. Babson Collection of the Works of Sir Isaac
Newton was published by Babson Institute in 1955.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 21
publication at Newton’s request. Much of the information contained

therein appeared publicly for the first time in Newton’s Opticks (1704),
but we may assume that some of it was in the air from the time of its
presentation at the meetings of the Royal Society in 1675-76. The re
production of these papers, taken from the Burndy Library copy of the
only edition of Birch’s History of the Royal Society of London (London,
1756-57 [see facsimile of title page on page 478, below]), provides a
more complete opportunity to follow the course of Newton’s thinking,
leading to the Opticks, than is generally available.
Newton’s letter to Boyle (III, 2) first appeared in the introduction to
Birch, The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle (London: A. Millar, 1744).
Our reproduction is taken from the Harvard College Library copy [see
facsimile of the title page on page 249 below] (not in Babson, Gray, or
Greenstreet).
“De Natura Acidorum” first appeared in both a Latin and an Eng
lish version in the introduction to the second volume, first edition, of
John Harris’s Lexicon Technicum. The first volume of this edition ap
peared in 1704, the second volume not until 1710. The Lexicon Technicum
was a general “dictionary” of arts and sciences, justly famous in its day,
and has been called the prototype of the numerous “dictionaries” of the
sciences that were published in the 18th century. It went through at
least five editions (the fifth printed for T. Walthoe, etc., in 1736, with
a supplement by a Society of Gentlemen, London, 1744); all editions
subsequent to the first edition of the second volume in 1710 contain
“De Natura Acidorum.” Our reproduction [the title page of volume II
is reproduced on page 255 below] is from the copy of the 1710 (vol
ume II) first edition, in the Harvard College Library (not in Gray or
Babson; mentioned briefly by Greenstreet).
The Four Lettersfrom Sir Isaac Newton to Doctor Bentley . .. first appeared
in a pamphlet printed in 1756. Our reproduction is from the Harvard
College Library copy [title page, page 279 below] (Babson 226, Gray
345, not in Greenstreet).
The sermons of Richard Bentley are reproduced from a collection, in
one volume, of the eight sermons preached by Bentley in 1692 as the
Boyle Lectures. According to Rev. Alexander Dyce, editor of The
Works of Richard Bentley, D. D., (London: Francis MacPherson, 1838,
vol. 3, pp. v and vi) each sermon was originally published independ
ently, the first six in 1692, the seventh and eighth in 1693, each with its
own title page, imprimatur (that of the seventh and eighth is signed
Ra. Barker), and separate pagination. In 1693, a general title page was
prefixed to them reading: The Folly and Unreasonableness ofAtheism Dem-
22 BIBLIO GRA PH ICA L NOTES
onstratedfrom the Advantage and Pleasure of a Religious Life, the Faculties of

Human Souls, the Structure of Animate Bodies, & the Origin and Frame of the
World . . . London, printed by J. H. for H. Mortlock . . . 1693 (Babson
40; not in Gray or Greenstreet).
The Elogium of Sir Isaac Newton (London: J. Tonson, 1728) is repro
duced from the copy in the Yale Medical School Library, loaned by Dr.
John F. Fulton. Mr. A. N. L. Munby, Fellow and Librarian of King’s
College, Cambridge, describes the Tonson Elogium as probably the
“official” translation. In addition to the 1728 Tonson printing of the
Elogium (Babson 270, Gray 388), there were published several other
English translations (for example, Babson 271 and Gray 389, 390). One
of the most interesting of these is An account of the life and writings of Sr.
Isaac Newton. Trans, from the Eloge of M. Fontenelle. . . . The Second Edi
tion. 89. London, T. Warner, 1728 (not in Babson; perhaps this is Gray
390); the Harvard College Library contains a copy of the T. Warner
“second edition,” dated 1727. There is some question whether the date
1727 is a typographical error or whether possibly this is a printing
made during the months of January to March, a period during which
dates could be given as 1727, 1727/28, or 1728, depending upon feel
ings toward the old or the new style of dating since the official accept
ance of “new style” dating did not occur in England until 1751/52.
There is also a question about the designation “Second Edition.” The
Harvard 1727 Warner second edition is the earliest translation that we
have found, but we have encountered no reference to a Warner first
edition. Unfortunately the Harvard 1727 copy is imperfect, lacking a
first leaf which is presumably the half title. Mr. Munby has kindly sent
us a copy of the following advertisement which appears on the verso of
the half title of a Warner, 1728, Second Edition, in the Trinity College,
Cambridge, Library:
The first Edition of this Translation was printed in Quarto, in

order to be bound up with Sir Isaac Newton’s Chronology: But for
the Benefit of those who cannot afford to purchase a Book of so
high a Price, it was thought necessary to publish this edition . . .
This possibly may be a reference to the edition by John Conduitt of

Newton’s Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended . . . printed in quarto for
J. Tonson in 1728, but the Harvard College Library copy of this work
does not include the translation of Fontenelle’s eloge, nor do the descrip
tions of Babson 214 or Gray 309 indicate its presence. It is possible that
PRINTIN G OF BENTLEY’S SERMONS 23
the J. Tonson 1728 quarto which we reproduce here is the first edition
mentioned by Warner and that it was published separately instead of
being included with the Chronology.
NOTE ON THE PRINTING OF BENTLEY’S SERMONS

W illiam B. T odd
Each of Bentley’s last two discourses against atheism is here repro
duced from a previously undifferentiated first edition represented at the
Yale University Library (Mpd50.B69.1692). Both of these copies, to
gether with the six earlier sermons, were separately issued, much
thumbed by the original owner, bound in a single volume, and even
tually rebound in modern library buckram.
At Harvard, the copies of these two sermons (*EC65.B4465.B693f)
represent a later edition, not hitherto recognized. These were issued
under a general title as part of a collected set and shortly thereafter in
cluded with other tracts in an early 18th-century binding. As the col
lected set was first advertised in the Term Catalogue for Easter, 1693
(Arber 11.449), it doubtless comprised, upon issue, the original edition
of the final sermon, bearing an imprimatur dated 30 May 1693. The
Harvard set, however, though still exhibiting a general title dated 1693,
appears to be of a later issue, since it incorporates, among the eight ser
mons, three reprints dated 1694. One of these is properly called a
“Second” and the two others a “Third Edition.”
Of these reprints the Second Edition, part 1 of the last three sermons
(No. VI), is especially significant, for it indicates that the .two other
parts are of a date somewhat later than that assigned by the printer.
Like the corresponding piece in the Yale series, this sermon, in title,
imprimatur, and scriptural text heading page 1,.is composed of type re
tained for the most part in the other two tracts. The settings both old
and new provide the various points listed in the accompanying table,
all of which demonstrate not only successive presswork in each series
but, for the latter, a printing of the two “ 1693” sermons some time in
1694.
24 PR IN T IN G OF BENTLEY’S SERMONS
F ir s t E d it io n S eco n d E d it io n
Line Reading Part Variant Part Variant

Title 7 SERMON 1 S intact 1 S correctly imposed
2-3 S broken 2-3 S reversed
11 Being 1-3 B broken 1-3 B intact
Edition 1-3 — 1 Second Edition
2-3 —
Imprint LONDON 1-3 swash italic 1-3 straight italic
1 for Henry Mortlock 1 by J. H. for Henry
. . . 1692. Mortlock.. .1694.
2-3 for H. Mortlock 2 by J. H. for Henry
. . . 1693. Mortlock .. . 1693.
3 for H Mortlock. . . 1693.
Imprimatur 3 Dn° D"° 1-3 1st D broken 1-3 D intact
3 Archiep. 1-3 A intact 1 A intact
2-3 A broken
5 [place] 1 LAMBETH 1-3 LAMBETH
2-3 LAMBHITH
Text [italic 1-3 9 lines, first ends 1-3 7 lines, first ends
heading] unto the the living
1 1st setting, double
s ligatured, lines 5,7.
2-3 2d setting, double
s separate.
II.
N ew to n ’s P apers on the Im p ro v em en t of
the Telescope an d on Physical O ptics
Newton’s
Optical Papers
T homas S. K uhn
JLhe original publication of the optical papers of Isaac Newton

marked the beginning of an era in the development of the physical
sciences. These papers, reprinted below, were the first public pro
nouncements by the man who has been to all subsequent genera
tions the archetype of preeminent scientific creativity, and their
appearance in early volumes of the Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London constituted the first major contribution to
science made through a technical journal, the medium that rapidly
became the standard mode of.communication among scientists.
Until the last third of the seventeenth century most original con
tributions to the sciences appeared in books, usually in large books:
Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus (1543), Kepler’s Astronomia Nova
(1609), Galileo’s Dialogo (1632), Descartes’s Dioptrique (1637), or
Boyle’s Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours (1664). In such
books the author’s original contributions were usually lost within a
systematic exposition of a larger subject matter, so that construc
tive interchange of scientific experiment and hypothesis was
hampered by premature systematization or, as in the case of Boyle,
27
28 THOM AS S. KU HN
by the mere bulk of the experimental compilation.1 Each scientist

tended to erect his own system upon his own experiments; those
experiments that could not support an entire system were fre
quently lost to the embryonic profession.
The first important breaches of this traditional mode of presen
tation occurred in the decade of 1660. The chartering of the Royal
Society in 1662 and of the Academie Royale des Sciences in 1666,
the first publication of the Journal des Sgavans and of the Philosophical
Transactions in 1665, gave institutional expression and sanction to
the new conception of science as a cooperative enterprise with
utilitarian goals. The immediate objective of the individual scien
tist became the experimental contribution to an ultimate recon
struction of a system of nature rather than the construction of the
system itself, and the journal article—an immediate report on
technical experimentation or a preliminary interpretation of ex
periments—began to replace the book as the unit communique of
the scientist.
Newton was the first to advance through this new medium an
experimentally based proposal for the radical reform of a scientific
theory, and his proposal was the first to arouse international dis
cussion and debate within the columns of a scientific journal.
Through the discussion, in which all the participants modified their
positions, a consensus of scientific opinion was obtained. Within
this novel pattern of public announcement, discussion, and ulti
mate achievement of professional consensus science has advanced
ever since.
Newton’s optical papers have a further importance to the stu
dent of the development of scientific thought. These brief and oc
casionally hasty communications to the editor of the Philosophical
Transactions yield an insight into the personality and mental proc
esses of their author that is obscured by the more usual approach
1 For example, Experiments IV and V in Part III of Boyle’s Colours are almost
identical with the first and last of the three experiments that Newton employed
in his first published presentation of the new theory of light and color. In Experi
ment IV Boyle generates a spectrum and in V he uses a lens to invert the order
of the colors. But in Boyle’s Baconian compilation these are but two among hun
dreds of experimental items. There is no evidence that they had the slightest effect
on Boyle’s contemporaries or successors. See The Works of the Honourable Robert
Boyle, ed. Thomas Birch (London, 1744), vol. 2, p. 42.
N EW TO N ’S OPTICAL PAPERS 29
to Newton through his Principia (1687) and Opticks (1704). In these
later monumental creations, from which has emerged our picture
of Newton the Olympian father of modern science, the creative
role of the author is deliberately hidden by the superfluity of docu
mentation and illustration and by the formality and impersonality
of the organization.2 It is primarily in his early papers, as in his
letters, his notes, and his largely unpublished manuscripts, that
Newton the creative scientist is to be discovered. And the shock of
the discovery may be considerable, for this Newton does not always
fit our ideal image.
Newton’s first paper, the “New Theory about Light and Colors,”
is almost autobiographical in its development, and so it facilitates,
more than any of Newton’s other published scientific works, the
search for the sources of the novel optical concepts that he drew
from the “celebrated phaenomena of colours.” 3 The prismatic
colors to which Newton referred had been well known for centuries:
white objects viewed through a triangular glass prism are seen with
rainbow fringes at their edges; a beam of sunlight refracted by a
prism produces all the colors of the rainbow at the screen upon
which it falls. Seneca recorded the observations, which must be as
old as shattered glass; Witelo, in the 13th century, employed a
water-filled globe to generate rainbow colors; by the 17th century
prisms, because of their striking colors, were an important item in
the negotiations of the Jesuits in China.4 Before Newton began his
experiments at least four natural philosophers, Descartes, Marcus
Marci, Boyle, and Grimaldi, had discussed in optical treatises the
colored iris produced by a prism, and Hooke had based much of
his theory of light upon the colors generated by a single refraction
of sunlight at an air-water interface.5 The “phaenomena” were
2The “Queries” that Newton appended to the Opticks are the one portion of his
later published scientific works in which he allowed the fecundity of his creative
imagination to appear. These speculative postscripts to his last technical work do pro
vide a more intimate view of their author. Of course even the Opticks proper is a
less impersonal work than the Principia, but, despite the frequent informality of
literary style, the contents and organization are those of a treatise.
3The phrase is Newton’s. See the beginning of the first optical paper, below.
“Joseph Priestley, The History and Present State of Discoveries Relating to Vision,
Light, and Colours (London, 1722), pp. 7, 21, 169.
5 Descartes’s discussion of the prism occurs in Discours VIII of Les meteores
(1637). For Boyle’s experiments see note 1, above. M arci’s experiments are de
30 TH OM AS S. KUHN
indeed “celebrated.” Newton, when he repeated them for his own

edification, can have had no reason to anticipate a result that he
would later describe as “the oddest, if not the most considerable
detection, which hath hitherto been made in the operations of
nature.”6
But Newton’s version of the experiment differed in an essential
respect from that employed by most of his predecessors; further
more, as we shall see, Newton’s optical education and experience
were not those of the earlier experimentalists who had employed
the prism. Previously, when white light had been passed through
a prism, the image of the refracted beam had normally been ob
served on a screen placed close to the prism.7 W ith such an ar
rangement of the apparatus, the diverging beams of “pure” colors
had little opportunity to separate before striking the screen, and
the shape of the image cast on the screen was therefore identical
with that produced by the unrefracted beam. But in passing
through the prism the beam had acquired a red-orange fringe
along one edge and a blue-violet fringe along the other.
The colored fringes on an otherwise unaltered beam of white
light seemed to bear out an ancient theory of the nature of the
rainbow’s colors, a theory which held that a succession of modifi
cations of sunlight by the droplets of a rain cloud produced the
colors of the bow. In the century and a half preceding Newton’s
work such a theory was repeatedly and variously reformulated and
applied to the colored iris generated by the prism. In all theories
the colors were viewed as a minor perturbation restricted primarily
to the edges of the homogeneous beam of sunlight. They were due
scribed in his Thaumantias liber de arcu coelesti . . . (Prague, 1648) and are discussed
by L. Rosenfeld in Isis 17, 325-330 (1932). Grimaldi’s Physico-mathesis de lumine . . .
(Bologna, 1665) includes many discussions of prism experiments. Hooke’s theory
and experiments appear in his Micrographia (1665), reprinted by R. T. Gunther as
vol. X III of Early Science in Oxford (Oxford, 1938), pp. 47-67. There is no reason
to suppose that Newton in 1672 knew of the work of either Marci or Grimaldi,
but it is an index of the state of optical experimentation in the 17th century that
Grimaldi, Marci, and Boyle had, among them, performed all three of the experi
ments that Newton employed in his first optical paper.
6 Letter from Newton to Oldenburg, the secretary of the Royal Society, dated
Cambridge, 18 January, 1671/2. Thomas Birch, The History of the Royal Society of
London (London, 1757), vol. 3, p. 5.
7 See particularly Descartes’s diagrams and discussion, cited in note 5, above.
N EW T O N ’S OPTICAL PAPERS 31
to a mixture of light and shade at the region of contact between
the refracted beam and the dark (Descartes); or they were a con
sequence of the varying “condensation” and “rarefaction” pro
duced at the edges of the beam by the variation in the angle at
which rays from the finite sun were incident upon the prism
(Grimaldi); or they were generated by some other mechanical
modification (Hooke and the later Cartesians).
There was no consensus as to the nature of the particular modi
fication that tinted white light, but there was agreement that there
was only one such modification and that its positive or negative
application (for example, condensation or rarefaction) to white
light could produce only two primary colors. These two colors,
usually red and blue, represented the extreme applications of the
modification, so that their mixture in appropriate proportions
would generate any other color by producing the corresponding
intermediate degree of modification. More recent experiments
have, of course, shown that two primary colors will not suffice, but
color-mixing experiments performed with crude, equipment are ex
tremely deceptive, a fact that may also account for Newton’s ini
tially surprising assertion that spectral yellow and blue combine
to produce a green.8
All of the modification theories of prismatic colors fail ultimately
because of their inability to account quantitatively for the elonga
tion of the spectrum observed when, as in Newton’s version of the
experiment, the screen is placed a long distance from the prism.
But even with the equipment so arranged, it is not immediately
apparent that the elongation of the spectrum is incompatible with
the modification theories. For since the sun has a finite breadth,
rays from different portions of its disk are incident upon the prism
at different angles, and even in the absence of dispersion this dif
8 In modern terminology, blue and yellow light are complementary; that is, they
mix to give white. The green produced when blue and yellow pigments are mixed
is the result of subtractive color mixing, a process different from the mixing of
spectral colors. But in fact a long-wavelength spectral blue and a short-wave
length spectral red can be combined to produce a light-green tint. By combining
in different proportions a blue near the green region of the spectrum with a red
near the yellow it is actually possible to produce a number of shades of blue,
green, red, yellow, and intermediate colors. The two-color theories were not so
foreign to experience as has been imagined.
32 THOM AS S. KUHN
ference in angle of incidence will normally produce an elongation

of the refracted beam qualitatively similar to that observed by
Newton. Those of Newton’s predecessors who, like Grimaldi, had
noted the elongation of the spectrum had employed this device to
account for it, and this was the explanation given by the Jesuit
Ignatius Pardies, in his first letter objecting to Newton’s theory.9
To destroy the modification theory it was necessary to notice a
quantitative discrepancy between the elongation predicted by that
theory and the elongation actually observed, and this required an
experimenter with a knowledge of the mathematical law govern
ing refraction (not announced until 1637) and with considerable
experience in applying the law to optical problems. In 1666 these
qualifications were uniquely Newton’s. Descartes, who shared New
ton’s mathematical interests, had performed the experiment with
the screen close to the prism, and had noted no elongation. Boyle
and Hooke, whose apparatus probably generated an elongated
spectrum, shared with Grimaldi a prevalent indifference to the
power of mathematics in physics.
It was, then, the large elongation produced in the Newtonian
version of the experiment plus the recognition that the size of the
spectrum was not that predicted by Snel’s new law of refraction
that transformed a routine repetition of a common experiment
into the “oddest . . . detection, which hath hitherto been made in
the operations of nature.” The oddity was not the spectrum itself,
but the discrepancy between the observed length of the spectrum
and the length predicted by existing theory. And this discrepancy,
emphasized and investigated with far more mathematical detail
in Newton’s earlier oral presentations of the experiment, forced
Newton to search for a new theory.10
9 Ignace Gaston Pardies, S.J. (1636-1673), was born at Pan in Southern

France. At the time of his dispute with Newton he was the professor of rhetoric
at the College Louis-le-grand in Paris.
10Newton first presented his new theory in a series of lectures delivered at
Cambridge during 1669. The lectures were not printed until 1728, after his death,
when they appeared in an English translation from the Latin manuscript. A
Latin edition, containing lectures for the years 1669, 1670, and 1671, appeared in
1729. Certain of the features emphasized in the present discussion emerge with
even greater clarity from the lectures than from the first optical paper. The two
may profitably be read together.
Newton found the clue to the new theory in the geometrical ideali
zation that he reported as the shape of the spectrum rather than
in the elongation that had caused the search. His beam of sun
light was a cylinder Vi inch in diameter, formed by allowing sun
light to enter his chamber through a circular hole in his “window
shuts.” After refraction the beam fell upon the opposite wall of the
room, distant 22 feet from the prism, where, according to Newton,
it produced an elongated spectrum, 13V4 inches in length, bounded
by parallel sides 2% inches apart, and capped by semicircular ends.
The shape suggested its own interpretation. For the semicircular
“caps” could be viewed as the residua of the shape imposed by the
circular hole in the shutter, and the spectrum could then be
analyzed into an infinite series of differently colored overlapping
circles whose centers lay on a straight line perpendicular to the
axis of the prism. In his early lectures, as in the later Opticks, New
ton frequently sketched the spectrum in this way, one end formed
by a pure blue circular image of the original hole, the other
formed by a pure red image, and the intermediate region com
posed of a number of variously colored circles displaced along the
axis of the spectrum. By this device the existing laws of refraction,
which for Newton’s arrangement of the prism predicted a circular
image, could be preserved. But the law now had to be applied, not
to the incident beam as a whole, but to every one of the colored
beams contained in the original beam. Sunlight was a mixture of
all the colors of the rainbow; each of the incident colored beams
obeyed the laws of optics; but each was refracted through a dif
ferent angle in its passage through the prism. This was the essence
of Newton’s new theory, derived primarily from the reported shape
of the spectrum.11
11 The preceding reconstruction of Newton’s research follows the essentially

autobiographical narrative provided by Newton himself in the first of the optical
papers. It may require important modification as a result of a recent study of
Newton’s manuscripts by A. R. Hall, “Sir Isaac Newton’s Note-Book, 1661—
1665,” Cambridge Historical Journal 9, 239-250 (1948). Hall believes that Newton
discovered the variation of refractive index with color by observing a two-colored
thread through a prism, and he suggests that the experiment in which a beam of
sunlight is passed through a prism was not performed until a later date. For a
variety of reasons (to be discussed elsewhere) I find this portion of Hall’s recon
struction implausible. The textual and historical evidence available, though not
34 THOM AS S. KUHN
The reported shape leaves a puzzle illustrative of the nature of

Newton’s genius. Though the spectrum described cries aloud for
the interpretation that Newton provided, it is very doubtful that
he saw any such shape. Only the central 2-inch strip of his 2%-
inch-wide spectrum was illuminated uniformly by light from
the disk of the sun. The balance of the width of the spectrum con
sisted of a penumbral region in which the various colors gradually
shaded off into the black. Since the eye can distinguish red much
farther into the penum bral region than it can distinguish blue,
Newton probably saw a figure appreciably narrower and more
pointed at the blue end than at the red.12 This is the shape that
Newton’s bitterest and least intelligent critic, Franciscus Linus, de
scribed, and this is the only one of Linus’s criticisms to which New
ton never responded.13 Newton combined a precise and detailed
decisive, persuades me that Newton had already passed a beam of sunlight
through a prism when he performed the experiments that Hall has discovered in
the “Note-Book.”
If so, Newton’s account of the development of the new theory remains auto
biographical in the sense that the prism experiment did provide the initial im
petus as well as an important clue for the new theory, as discussed above. But, as
Hall does conclusively show, the implication of Newton’s account is wrong in that
Newton did not proceed so directly or so immediately from the first prism experi
ment to the final version of the theory as the first paper would imply. W hen he
made the entries in his college notebook, Newton had not arrived at the final
form of the new theory. So far as I can tell from the fragments reproduced by
Hall, Newton then believed that different colors were refracted through different
angles, but he still held that the individual colors were generated within the prism
by modifications of the initially homogeneous white light. This intermediate stage
of Newton’s thought provides a fascinating field for further study.
12 It is impossible to be precise about the actual shape of the spectrum viewed
by Newton. The sensitivity of the human eye to short-wavelength blue varies from
one individual to another, and the relative intensity of the blue in the spectrum
is also a function of atmospheric conditions.
13 Linus’s description occurs midway through the first paragraph of his second
letter of criticism. Although the position of Linus’s prism was different from that
of Newton’s, the “sharp cone or pyramis” described by Linus is due to the same
penumbral effects that must have caused the sides of Newton’s spectrum to de
viate from parallelism.
Franciscus Linus (Francis Hall or Line), S.J., was born in London in 1595. Dur
ing his controversy with Newton he was a teacher of mathematics and Hebrew
at the English college of Liege. He spent much of his later life attempting to
reconcile the results of 17th-century experimentation with Aristotelian physics.
Linus was the author of the “funiculus” hypothesis by which he claimed to ex
plain the results of Boyle’s barometer experiments without recourse to the vacuum
description of his experimental apparatus with an imaginative
idealization of his experimental results.
Newton’s leap from the full and unintelligible complexity of the
observable phenomenon to the geometrical idealization underlying
it is symptomatic of the intellectual extrapolations that mark his
contributions to science. And he was apparently aware of and
concerned with the extrapolation, though he made it explicit in
none of his communications to the Royal Society. In the optical
lectures, which he delivered in Cambridge prior to the composi
tion of his first published paper, Newton included a description of
two experiments that he had designed to investigate the shape of
the spectrum produced without a penum bral region. In one of
these he used a lens, placed one focal length in front of the screen,
to refocus the colored circular sun images of which the spectrum
was composed. In a second he utilized the planet Venus, effectively
a point source, instead of the sun in order to generate his spectrum.
He had justified his extrapolation to himself, but, except for im
plicit references to the problem in his correspondence with Moray
and in the Opticks, he did not tell his readers how to follow him.
Newton’s announcement in 1672 of the discoveries made six to
eight years earlier induced a great controversy within the columns
of the Philosophical Transactions.14 The prismatic colors that he dis
cussed were well known, at least qualitatively, and there was
or atmospheric pressure, and experiments designed to refute him led to the dis
covery of Boyle’s Law. Linus died in 1675, midway through the dispute with New
ton, but his cause was taken up by two of his students, Gascoigne and Lucas.
Anthony Lucas (1633-1693), another British Jesuit, appears to have been a
meticulous experimenter. His inability to obtain the large dispersion reported by
Newton must have been due to his use of a different sort of glass. Lucas’s experi
mental “proofs” of the inadequacy of Newton’s theory are a fascinating index of
the difficulties in designing unequivocal dispersion experiments. In most experi
ments the effects are so small that they can be fitted to any theory, so incisive
documentation of a particular theory requires careful selection from the multi
plicity of available phenomena. At first glance Newton’s failure to answer any of
Lucas’s experimental criticism seems strange, particularly since Newton did re
spond at such length to the one remark by Lucas that did not reflect at all upon
the validity of Newton’s conclusions. But see the discussion, below, of Newton’s
attitude toward controversy.
14 A. R. Hall, “Sir Isaac Newton’s Note-Book,” has pointed out that Newton
probably intended to write “ 1665” rather than “ 1666” for the date of the prism
experiment which opens his first paper. He also argues that Newton’s work with
the prism may have begun as early as 1664.
36 TH OM AS S. KUHN
widespread conviction among 17th-century opticians that they

could be adequately treated by existing optical theories. No won
der there was resentment of a newcomer who claimed that precise
analysis of a well-known effect necessitated discarding established
theories. Opponents could easily find grounds for rejecting the
proposals. They could, for example, deny the existence of the ex
perimental effect. The sun is an unreliable and a moving source of
light; the prism generates a number of emergent beams, only one
of which satisfies Newton’s description; quantitative results vary
with the sort of glass employed in the prism. Alternatively, they
could accept Newton’s experimental results, but deny the necessity
or even the validity of his interpretation.
The nature and psychological sources of the controversy were
typical, but the reaction was less severe than that usually produced
by so radical a proposal. Newton’s predecessors had all employed
some form of modification theory, but, having reached no con
sensus on the nature of the modification, they lacked a stable base
for a counterattack. And Newton’s experimental documentation
of his theory is a classic in its simplicity and its incisiveness. The
modification theorists might finally have explained the elongation
of the spectrum, but how could they have evaded the implications
of the experimentum crucis? An innovator in the sciences has never
stood on surer ground.
As a result the controversy that followed the original announce
ment is of particular interest today for the light it sheds upon New
ton’s character.15 In particular the controversial literature illumi
nates the genesis of Newton’s relation with the Royal Society’s
curator, Robert Hooke, with whom he later engaged in a priority
battle over the inverse-square law of gravitation.16 Hooke’s claim
to the authorship of the inverse-square law almost caused Newton
to omit the Third Book of the Principia, and it was apparently
15 There are, however, many points of technical interest in the debate. These
are discussed more fully in L. Rosenfeld, “ La theorie des couleurs de Newton et
ses adversaires,” Isis 9, 44-65 (1927). A stimulating elementary account of some
of the same material has been provided by M. Roberts and E. R. Thomas, New
ton and the Origin of Colours (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1934).
14 For bibliography and a definitive account of the gravitation controversy, see
A. Koyre, “An Unpublished Letter of Robert Hooke to Isaac Newton,” Isis 43,
312-337 (1952).
Hooke’s continuing opposition to Newton’s optical theories that
caused Newton to delay publication of the Opticks until long after
his own active research in the field had ended. Hooke died in 1703,
and the Opticks, much of which had existed in manuscript for years,
first appeared in the following year.
Newton’s first paper was read to the assembled members of the
Royal Society on February 8, 1671/2. On February 15 Hooke de
livered, at the request of the Society’s members, a report on and
evaluation of Newton’s work. Coming from a senior member of the
profession, a man already established as the most original optical
experimentalist of the day, the report was most judicious, though
it contained important errors and displayed Hooke’s typically
Baconian indifference to quantitative mathematical formulations.
Hooke praised and confirmed Newton’s experimental results, and
he conceded that the theory which Newton had derived from them
was entirely adequate to explain the effects. His only major criti
cism (excepting the remarks on telescopes, for which see below) is
that Newton’s interpretation was not a necessary consequence of the
experiments. Hooke felt that Newton had performed too few experi
ments to justify the theory, that another theory (his own) could
equally well explain Newton’s experiments, and that other experi
ments (particularly his own on the colors of thin films) could not
be explained by Newton’s theory.
Hooke’s Baconian criticism is an index of the prevalent meth
odological emphasis upon experimentation, an emphasis that made
the “experimental history” a typical scientific product of the day.
Most members of the Royal Society would have concurred. But
Hooke was quite wrong in thinking that his own version of the
modification theory could explain Newton’s results; at least he
never gave a satisfactory explanation of the production of colors.17
On the other hand, Hooke was right that Newton’s theory could
" The difficulty in adapting a pressure-wave theory of light like Hooke’s to the
various color phenomena explored by Newton is well illustrated by the experience
of Huygens, who brought these theories to their most perfect 17th-century form in
his Traite de la lumiere (1690). Huygens wrote Leibniz that he had “said nothing
respecting colours in my Traite de la lumiere, finding this subject very difficult, and
particularly from the great number of different ways in which colours are pro
duced.” Sir David Brewster, Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac
Newton (Edinburgh, 1855), vol. 1, p. 95 n.
38 THOM AS S. KUHN
not explain some of the experiments upon which Hooke had based
his own theory. In particular, Newton’s theory, as of 1672, would
not explain either diffraction or the colors of thin sheets of mica,
both of which Hooke had described in his Micrographia (1665). Nor
would Newton’s theory explain the colors produced by confining
air between sheets of glass, an observation that Hooke reported to
the Society on April 4 and June 19 in his further examination of
Newton’s doctrine.18 The latter communication, incidentally, in
cluded a clear description of the phenomenon usually known as
“ Newton’s rings,” and it seems probable that Newton borrowed
it from Hooke and employed it to develop a revised theory ade
quate to handle Hooke’s experiments. For Newton, in his long letters
of December and January 1675/6, did succeed in solving Hooke’s
problems to his own satisfaction and to that of most of his con
temporaries. But to do so he had to modify his original theory by
the introduction of an explicit sethereal medium which could trans
mit impulses as pressure waves, and this was an immense step
toward Hooke’s theory. Hooke, of course, did not accept even this
later modification. He always felt that Newton’s use of both cor
puscles and aether impulses violated Occam’s injunction against
the needless multiplication of conceptual entities.19
In the final analysis Hooke was wrong. As Newton clearly
showed in his belated reply, Hooke’s pulse theory of light was in
capable of accounting for linear propagation; nor could Hooke’s
modification theory of color account either for the experimentum
crucis or for any of the novel color-mixing experiments that Newton
apparently designed specifically to meet Hooke’s objections. This
much of the reply was effective, and Newton might better have
begun and ended with the elaboration of these arguments, for
Hooke had challenged neither Newton’s experiments nor the
adequacy of his theory to resolve the experiments. But this is not
what Newton did. In his lengthy and gratuitously caustic response,
whose incongruity with Hooke’s critique has escaped attention
since the two have not before been printed together,20 Newton at
18Birch, History of the Royal Society, vol. 3, pp. 41 & 54.

18Ibid., p. 295.
““Oldenburg, the secretary of the Royal Society and editor of the Philosophical
Transactions, is known to have hated Hooke. This may well explain his failure to
tacked Hooke on three apparently incompatible grounds: Hooke
had attributed to Newton a corpuscular theory that Newton had
not developed; Hooke’s impulse theory was not basically incom
patible with the corpuscular theory (which Newton had disowned);
and Hooke’s impulse theory was incapable of accounting for the
phenomena. Newton might have employed any of these three lines
of attack alone—though only the third seems both relevant and
accurate—but it is difficult to see how anything but consuming
passion could have led him to employ them concurrently.
Newton was a man of passions. It is difficult to read many of his
responses to criticism without concurring in a recent judgment of
Newton’s personality by the late Lord Keynes. After a lengthy ex
amination of Newton’s manuscripts Keynes wrote:
For in vulgar modern terms Newton was profoundly neurotic of a
not unfamiliar type, but—I should say from the records—a most ex
treme example. His deepest instincts were occult, esoteric, semantic—
with profound shrinking from the world, a paralyzing fear of exposing
his thoughts, his beliefs, his discoveries in all nakedness to the inspec
tion and criticism of the world. “Of the most fearful, cautious and sus
picious temper that I ever knew,” said Whiston, his successor in the
Lucasian Chair. The too well-known conflicts and ignoble quarrels
with Hooke, Flamsteed, Leibnitz are only too clear an evidence of this.
Like all his type he was wholly aloof from women. He parted with and
published nothing except under the extreme pressure of friends.21
Newton’s fear of exposure and the correlated compulsion to be
invariably and entirely immune to criticism show throughout the
controversial writings. They are apparent in both the tone and the
substance of his reply to Hooke, where they are also combined
with the beginning of that tendency to deny the apparent implica
tions of earlier writings (rather than either defending them or ad-
print Hooke’s critique with Newton’s reply. The omission must have seemed a
gratuitous insult to Hooke, particularly in view of the tone and substance of New
ton’s comments.
21J. M. Keynes, “Newton the Man,” in the Royal Society’s Newton Tercentenary
Celebrations (Cambridge, 1947), p. 28. These documents can be put to other uses,
however. Examine, for an opinion of the Hooke-Newton exchange directly opposed
to the one given above, the analysis provided by Brewster, Memoirs, vol.l, pp. 86-
92. But Brewster cannot avoid providing repeated illustrations of Newton’s efforts
to escape from controversy (for example, pp. 95-99).
40 THOM AS S. KUHN
mitting to a change of mind) which has so consistently misled sub

sequent students of his work. Did Hooke really misinterpret the
intent of Newton’s remarks on the difficulties of constructing re
fracting telescopes? Is Newton honest in rejecting the corpuscular
hypothesis that Hooke ascribes to him? Or, to take a later and far
clearer example, is not Newton convicted of an irrationally moti
vated lie in his reply to Huygens’s remarks about the composition
of the color white? In his first paper Newton had said, in discussing
colors:
But the most . . . wonderful composition is that of Whiteness . . . ’Tis
ever compounded, and to its composition are requisite all the aforesaid
primary Colours, mixed in a due proportion . . . Hence therefore it
comes to pass, that Whiteness is the usual colour of Light; for Light is a
confused aggregate of Rays indued with all sorts of Colours . . . if any
one predominate, the Light must incline to that colour.
Yet when Huygens suggested that the combination of yellow and
blue might generate white, Newton adm itted the possibility but
claimed that he had never meant anything else. The apparent
contradiction he reconciled by saying that Huygens’s white would
be different from his own by virtue of its composition. Newton’s
position was correct in the reply, but surely he had changed his
mind in reaching it.
The same defensiveness had more serious consequences in New
ton’s writings on telescopes. Here Newton’s influence appears to
have been predominantly negative. His own work on telescopes was
of little practical importance, and his remarks on design were fre
quently wrong. Although he built the first working reflector, he
was never able to perfect the model sufficiently to enable it to com-
.pete with existing refractors, and so his position was not very dif
ferent from that of the contemporary and independent designers,
Jam es Gregory and Guillaume Cassegrain.22 The reflecting tele
scope remained a curious toy on the shelves of the Royal Society
22James Gregory (1638-1675), a Scottish mathematician, described a reflecting
telescope in his Optica Promota (1633), and Newton had studied Gregory’s design
when he started his own. Sieur Guillaume Cassegrain was a modeler and founder
of statues in the employ of Louis XIV. His design was surely independent of
Newton’s and may have been independent of Gregory’s. Both Gregory and
Cassegrain tried to build reflectors but were unable to polish adequate mirrors.
N E W T O N ’S O PTICA L PAPERS 41
until, in 1722, James Hadley succeeded in grinding a parabolic

mirror. But as soon as the reflector could compete with the refrac
tor, Newton’s design was discarded in favor of the designs by
Gregory and Cassegrain that Newton had so vehemently criticized
for essentially irrelevant reasons.23
Far more important in the development of telescopes were New
ton’s mistakes in the evaluation of optical aberrations. Having
been led to the reflecting telescope by the discovery of the chro
matic aberration caused by the variation of refractive index with
color, Newton always insisted that chromatic rather than spherical
aberration imposed the major limitation upon the power of refract
ing telescopes. Newton’s theoretical comparisons of the two were
both mathematically and optically correct, but, as Huygens
pointed out in his comment, Newton’s interpretation of the calcu
lations was incompatible with the observed performance of spheri
cal lenses. Newton explained the discrepancy correctly as due to
the small effect on the eye of the widely dispersed red and blue
rays, but he failed to notice that in practice this made chromatic
aberrations little or no more important than spherical. So New
ton continued to insist upon the practical superiority of reflectors.24
23 On Newton’s contributions to the development of telescopes see Louis Bell,

The Telescope (New York, 1922).
21The study of Newton’s most important and damaging error in his writings on
the telescope is complicated rather than clarified by the papers reprinted below.
In his Opticks (Book I, Part II, Experiment 8) Newton “proved” that it was im
possible to build an achromatic lens, that is, a lens compounded from two or more
materials so differing in dispersive power that they will refract a ray of white light
without separating the colors in it. Newton claimed to have found by experiment
that when a beam of light was passed through a succession of prisms of glass and
water a spectrum was invariably generated unless the emergent and incident beams
were parallel. He concluded that any combination of materials which could cor
rect dispersion would also nullify refraction, so that no achromatic lens was possi
ble. The error may well have hindered the development of achromatic lenses.
To get the experimental result Newton must either have shut his eyes, used
sugar to raise the refractive index of his water, or employed a variety of glass
with unusually low dispersive power. All three of these explanations have been
advanced by subsequent historians, most of whom have also expressed surprise
at Newton’s readiness to draw so general a conclusion from such slight experi
mental evidence. For a full account of the development of achromatic lenses see
N. V. E. Nordenmark and J. Nordstrom, “Om uppfinningen av den akromatiska
och aplanatiska linsen,” Lychnos 4, 1-52 (1938); 5, 313-384 (1939). The second
42 THOM AS S. KU HN
Subsequent history bore out the judgm ent expressed by Huygens

in his last letter of the optics controversy that until it became pos
sible to grind nonspherical mirrors the future of practical telescopic
observations would be associated with refractors of long focal
length and consequently low aberrations.25
But among the aspects of Newton’s thought that are illuminated
by recognition of his dread of controversy, the most im portant is
his attitude toward “hypotheses.” Like most of his contemporaries,
Newton was guided throughout his scientific career by the concep
tion of the universe as a gigantic machine whose components are
microscopic corpuscles moving and interacting in accordance with
immutable laws.26 Most of Newton’s work in physics can be viewed
appropriately as a part of a consistent campaign to discover the
mathematical laws governing the aggregation and motion of the
corpuscles of a mechanical “clock-work universe,” and many of his
specifically optical, chemical, or dynamical writings are difficult
to comprehend without reference to the corpuscular metaphysic
which played an active role in their creation.27 Yet from most of
his published writings Newton tried, never completely successfully,
portion of the article includes some appendices and an abstract in English.
It is apparent from the optical papers below that Newton’s theorem concerning
the relation of dispersion and refractive index was the best possible refutation for
three of his early critics. It nullified the objections of Hooke and Huygens, who had
urged that more attention be given to the perfection of refracting telescopes, and
it made it certain that Lucas had erred in reporting the small dispersion of his prism.
For this reason most historians have argued that the theorem developed in the
Opticks was in Newton’s mind, at least implicitly, from the beginning of his optical
researches and that this is why he failed to consider more seriously the merits of
his opponents’ positions. But—and this is where the new complication enters—I
can find no way of interpreting the text of Newton’s response to Hooke without
supposing that Newton is there proposing an achromatic lens made by compound
ing a water lens with two convexo-concave lenses of glass.
25 The letters to and from Huygen’s reprinted below are only a part of a larger
correspondence, most of which was not published until recently. L. T. More dis
cusses the complete correspondence more fully in his biography, Isaac Newton (New
York, 1934). The letters themselves will be found in volume VII of the Oeuvres
completes de Christiaan Huygens (The Hague, 1888-1944).
26 M. Boas, “The Establishment of the Mechanical Philosophy,” Osiris 10, 412—
541 (1952).
27 For the role of the metaphysic in Newton’s chemistry see the next section of
this book. For its role in Newton’s dynamics, see A. Koyre, “The Significance of
the Newtonian Synthesis,” Archives internationales d’histoires des sciences 29, 291-311
(1950), andT. S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), chap. 7.
to eliminate just these hypothetical and therefore controversial
elements.
In the notebook in which he recorded the progress of his early
optical research Newton continually referred to light rays as com
posed of “globules,” traveling with finite velocities and interacting
in accordance with the known laws of im pact.28 But in his first
published paper Newton omitted all explicit reference to particular
corpuscular mechanisms which determine the behavior of light. He
substituted geometrical entities (“rays”) for physical entities (cor
puscles moving in definite paths); and he contented himself with a
retrospective argument showing that the experimentally determined
properties of the rays must make light a substance rather than a
quality. In his controversy with Hooke, who seems to have known
more about the hypotheses than Newton had allowed to enter in
his published discussion, he reneged on even this argument, and
thus continued a retreat that had begun in his first paper and de
veloped further in his letters to Pardies.
That this is a genuine retreat from the defense of metaphysical
hypotheses which Newton believed and employed creatively is
amply, if incompletely, attested by the inconsistencies in his dis
cussions and use of hypotheses throughout the optical papers
printed below. In the first paper light was a substance. In the let
ters to Pardies light was either a substance or a quality, but the
definition of light rays in terms of “indefinitely small . . . inde-
88 For example: “Though 2 rays be equally swift yet if one ray be lesse y" y°
other that ray shall have so much lesse effect on y“ sensorium as it has lesse motion
y” y“ others &c.
“Whence supposing y* there are loose particles in y‘ pores of a body bearing pro
portion to ye greater rays, as 9:12 & y8 less globules is in proportion to y° greater
as 2:9, ye greater globulus by impinging on such a particle will loose ^ parts of
• . o
its motion y° less glob, will loose j parts of its motion & y° remaining motion of
ye glob, will have almost such a proportion to one another as their quantity have
viz. y : 9: l^w 0'1is almost 2 y° lesse glob. & such a body may produce blews and
purples. But if ye particles on wch ye globuli reflect are equal to ye lesse globulus
it shall loose its motion & y“ greater glob, shall loose — parts of its motion and
such a body may be red or yellow.” H all,.“Sir Isaac Newton’s Note-Book,”
p. 248.
44 THOM AS S. KUHN
pendent” parts made light again corporeal. In the same letter

Newton proclaimed that his observations and theories could be
reconciled with the pressure hypotheses of either Hooke or Descartes,
but in the letter to Hooke he forcefully demonstrated the inade
quacy of all pressure hypotheses to explain the phenomena of
light and colors. Newton denied his adherence to the corpuscular
hypothesis, and he stated that his credence was restricted to laws
that could be proved by experiment, but he returned to the pattern
of his notebook by employing implicitly the hypothetical scatter
ings of corpuscles at points of focus to prove the disadvantages of
the Gregorian telescope.29 In 1672 he denied the utility of hypoth
eses when presenting a theory which he believed could be made
independent of them, but in dealing with the colors of thin films
in the important letters of 1675/6 he employed explicit hypotheses,
presumably because the new subject m atter of these letters could
not otherwise be elaborated. Significantly, it was just these later
letters, from which large segments of Books II and III of the Opticks
were transcribed, that Newton refused to publish until after
Hooke’s death. O f all his optical writings, these letters best reflect
the procedures of Newton at work.30
M uch of modern science inherits from Newton the admirable
pragmatic aim, never completely realized, of eliminating from the
final reports of scientific discovery all reference to the more specu
lative hypotheses th at played a role in the process of discovery.
The desirability of this Newtonian mode of presenting theories is
well illustrated by the subsequent history of Newton’s own hypoth
29 Brewster, Memoirs, p. 50 n.
30 These critically im portant letters, reprinted below, deserve far more study
and discussion than they here receive. But such discussion necessarily assumes the
proportion of a critical analysis of the second and third books of the Opticks for
which these letters provided a draft, and the space for such an analysis is not here
available. For a discussion of the central ideas in these later letters, as they emerge
in the Opticks, see I. B. Cohen’s introduction to the recent reissue of the Opticks
(New York, 1952).
Space limitations also prevent my discussing Newton’s posthumously published
design of “An instrument for observing the Moon’s Distance from the fixed Stars
at Sea.” W hen written this paper contained im portant novelties_pf design, but
before it was published these new features had been independently incorporated
in practical navigational instruments by several designers. On these instruments
see Lloyd Brown, The Story of Maps (Boston, 1949), pp. 191 ff.
eses. The next great step in optics, the development of an adequate
wave theory, was retarded by the grip of Newton’s corpuscular
hypotheses upon the scientific mind. But Newton’s remarks about
the role of hypotheses in science were dictated by personal idio
syncrasy as often as by philosophical acumen; repeatedly he re
nounces hypotheses simply to avoid debate. And so he has seemed
to support the further assertion that scientific research can and
should be confined to the experimental pursuit of mathematical
regularity—that hypotheses which transcend the immediate evi
dence of experiment have no place in science. Careful examina
tion of Newton’s less systematic published writings provides no evi
dence that Newton imposed upon himself so drastic a restriction
upon scientific imagination.
The achievements initiated by Newton’s own imagination are
unsurpassed, and it is primarily the magnitude of his achievements
that directs attention to the man. If the resulting study displays
error and idiosyncrasy in Newton’s complex and difficult person
ality, it cannot lessen his unparalleled accomplishments. It can
alter only our image of the requisites for preeminent scientific
achievement. But this alteration is a goal worth pursuing: a true
image of the successful scientist is a first condition for understand
ing science.
NEW TON’S THEORY ABOUT L IG H T & COLORS 47
( 3°75 ) Plumb.Bo.
PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSACTIONS.
February 19. i6£ .
The C O N T E N T S .
A Letter of M r.Ifaac Newtoas'Matbematick<Profe/Jdr in the Vniverfi- ‘
ty of Cambridge• containing bit New Theory about Light and C o
lors : Where Light it declaredto be not Similar or Homogeneal , but
confiflingof dijformrays, fame of which are more refrangible than o-
tbers : And Colors are affirm'a to be not Qualifications of Light, de
riv'd from RefraUions of natural Bodies3{as ’tis generally believed j )
but Original and Connate properties, rvbicb in divers rays are divers:
Where feveral Obfervations and Experiments are alledgedto prove the
[aid Theory, An Accompt of fame Boobs: I. A Defcription of the
E A S T - 1N D I A N CO A STS, M A L A B A R ,C O R O M A N D E L ,
CEYLON,&c. in Dutch, by Phil.Baldasus* II. Antoni! le Grand
1N S T I T V T 10 PHlLOSQPHlAZ,(ecun&xim principia Renati
D es-Cartes; novel methodo adornata & explicata. III. An Efjay
to the Advancement of MVSlCK^b by Thomas Salmon SII.A.
Advertifement about Thason Smyrnaeus* An Index for the Trails
of the Year 1671.
A Letter of Mr. Ifaac Newton, Profeffor of the Mathematic^ in the

Vniverfity of Cambridge s containing his New Theory about Light and
C o lo r s : fent by the Author to the Publijher from Cambridge, Fcbr. 6.
1 6~ 5 in order to be communicated to the R. Society*
S I R,
O perform my late promife to you, I Ihall without Further
T ceremony acquaint you, that in the beginning o f the Year
1666 (at which time I applyed my felf to the grinding o f O ptick
glades o f other figures than Spherical,^ I procured me a Triangu
lar glafs-Prifme, to try therewith the celebrated Phenomena o f
G g g g Colours,
48 NEW TON’S THEORY ABOUT L IG H T & COLORS
C 3°76 )
Colours, And in order thereto having darkened my chamber,and
made a fmall hole in my wiudow-ihuts, to let in a convenient
quantity o f the Suns light, I placed my Prifme at his entrance, that
it might be thereby refradted to the oppolite wall. It was at firft
a very pleafing divertifement, to view the vivid and intenfe co«
lours produced thereby j but after a while applying my felf to con-
fider them more circumfpeddy, I became furprifed to fee them in
an oblong form j which, according to the received laws o f R efra.
dlion, I expedted fliould have been circular.
They were terminated at the fides with (freight lines, but at the
ends, the decay o f light was fo gradual, that it was difficult to de
termine juftly, what was their figure; yet they feemed femicir-
cular.
Comparing the length o f this coloured SpeUrum with its breadth,
I found it about five times greater 5 a difproportion fo extrava*
gant, that it excited me to a more then ordinary curiofity o f ex
amining, from whence it might proceed* I could fcarce think,
that the various Tbtcknefs o f the glafs, or the termination with fha=
dow or darknefs, could have any Influence on light to produce
fuch an effedtj yet 1 thought.it not amifs, firft to examine thofe
circumftances, and fo tryed, what would happen by tranfmitting
light through parts of the glafs o f divers thicknefles, or through,
holes in the window o f divers bigneffes, or by fetting the Prifme
without fo, that the light might pa(s through it, and be refira&ed
before it was terminated by the hole : But I found none o f thofe
circumftances material. The fafbion o f the colours was in all thefe
cafes the fame.
Then I fufpedted, whether by any unevennefs in the glafs, or o-
ther contingent irregularity, thefe colours might be thus dilated.
And to try this, [ took another Prifme like the former, and fo
placed if, that the light, palling through them both, m ightbe re*
fradied contrary ways, and fo by the latter returned into that
courfe,from which the former had diverted it. For, by this means
I thoUght,the regular effedts o f the firft Prifme would be dcftroyed
by the fecond Prifme, but the irregular ones more augmented, by
the multiplicity o f rcfrattions. T he event was, that the light,
which by the firft Prifme was diffufed into an oblong form, was by
the fecond reduced into an orbicular one with as much regularity,
as when it did not at all pafs through them. So that, what ever was
the caufe o f that length,’twas not any contingent irregularity.
I
( a°77 )
I then proceeded to examin more critically, what might be ef
fected by the difference of the incidence o f Rays coming from di
vers parts o f the Sun» and to that end, meafured the feveral lines
and angles, belonging to the Image. Its diftance from the hole
or Prifme was 22 fo o t ; its utmoft length 13* inches; its breadth
2 -f; the diameter o f the hole o f an inch j the an gle, with the
Rays, tending towards the middle o f the image, made with thofe
lines, in which they would have proceeded without refraCtion,was
44 d e g ,56'. And the vertical Angle o f the Prifm e, 63 deg. 12'.
A lfo the Refractions on both fides the Prifme, that, is, o f the In
cident, and Emergent Rays, were as near, as I could make them,
equal,and confequently about 54 deg. 4'. And the Rays fell per
pendicularly upon the wall. Now fubduCting the diameter of the
hole from the length and breadth o f the Image, there, remains 13
Inches the length, and 2|- the breadth, comprehended by thqfe
Rays, which pafTed through the center o f the faid hole, and con*
fequently the angle o f the hole, which that breadth fubtended,
was about 31', anfwerable to the Suns Diameter; but the angle,
which its length fubtended, was more then five fuch diameters,
namely 2 deg. 49'.
Having made thefe obfervations, I firft computed from them
the rcfraClive power o f that glafs, and found it meafured by the
ratio of the fines, 20 to 31, And then, by that ratio, I computed
the Refra&ions o f two Rays flowing from oppofite parts o f the
Sun’s dificus, fo as to differ 31* in their obliquity o f Incidence, and
found, that the emergent Rays fhould have comprehended an
angle o f about 31', as they did, before they were incident
But becaufe this computation was founded on the Hypothefis
o f the proportionality o f the fines o f Incidence, and Refradion,
which though by my own Experience I could not imagine to be
fo erroneous, as to make that Angle but 31', which in reality was
2 deg. 49'5 yetm y curiofity caufed me again to take my Prifme,
And having placed it at my window, as before, I obferved,that by
turning it a little about its axis to and fro, fo as to vary its obli
quity to the light, more then an angle o f 4 or 5 degrees,the C o
lours were not thereby fenfibly tranflated from their place on the
wall, and confequently by that variation o f Incidence, the quan
tity o f Refradion was not fenfibly varied. By this Experiment
therefore, as Well as by the former computation, it was evident,
that the difference o f the Incidence o f Rays, flowing from divers
Gggg2 parts
NEW TON’S TH EO RY ABOUT L IG H T & COLORS
5°
C 3°78 )
parts o f the Sun, could not make them after decufTation diverge
at a fenfibly greater angle, than that at which they before conver
ged j which being, at mo ft, but about 31 or 33 minutes, there
ftill remained fome other caufe to be found out, from whence it
could be 2 degr, 49'.
Then I began to fufpeft, whether the Rays, after their trajedti*
on through the Prifme, did not move in curve lines, and accord
ing to their more or left curvity tend to divers parts o f the wall.
And it increafed my fufpition, when I remembred thatl had often
feen a Tennis ball, ftruck with an oblique Racket, deferibe fuch a
curve line. F or, a circular as well as a progreflive motion being
communicated to it by that ftroak, its parts on that fide, where
the motions confpire, muft prefs and beat the contiguous Air
more violently than on the other, and there excite a reludtancy
and reaction o f the Air proportionably greater. And for the fame
reafon, if the Rays o f light fhould poffibly be globular bodies,
and by their oblique paflage out o f one medium into another ac
quire a circulating motion,they ought to feel the greater refiftance
from the ambient iEther, on that fide, where the motions con«
fpire, and thence be continually bowed to the other. But not*
withftanding this plaufible grouud o f fufpition , when I came to
examine it, I could obferve no fuch curvity in them. And be
sides (which was enough for my purpofe) I obferved , that the
difference ’twixt the length o f the Image, and diameter o f the
hole, through which the light was tranfmitted,was proportionable
to their diftance.
T he gradual removal o f thefe fufpitions5atIength led me to the
ExperimentumCrucisf which was this: I took two boards, and pla
ced one o f them clofe behind the Prifme at the w indow , fo that
the light might pafs through a fmall hole, made in it for the pur
pofe, and fall on the other board, which I placed at about 12 feet
diftance, having firft made a fmall hole in it alfo, for fome o f that
Incident light to pafs through. Then I placed another Prifme be*
hind this fecond board, fo that the light, trajedted through both
the boards, might pafs through that alfo, and be again refradted
before it arrived at the wall* This done, I took the firft Prifme in
my hand , and turned it to and fro flowly about itsA xit, fo much
as to make the feveral parts o f the ImagejCaft on the fecond board,
fucct flively pafs through the hole in i t , that I might obferve to
what places on the wall the fecond Prifme would refradt them.
And
NEW TON’S THEORY ABOUT LIG H T & COLORS 51
C 3079 )
And I faw by the variation o f thole places, that the light, tending
to that end o f the Image, towards which the refraction o f the firlt
Prifme was made, did in the fecond Prifme fuffer a R efrad ion ,
confiderably greater then the light tending to the other end. And
fo the true cau feo f the length of that Image was detected to be
no other, then that Light confifts of Rays differently refrangible,
which,without any refped to a difference in their incidence,were,
according to their degrees ofrefrangibility, tranfmitted towards
divers parts o f the wall.
When I underftood this, I left o ff my aforefaid Glafs works;
for I faw, that the perfedion o f Telefcopes was hitherto limited,
not fo much for want o f glaffes truly figured according to the pre*
fctiptions o f O ptick Authors, (which all men have hitherto ima
gined,) as becaufe that Light it felfis a Heterogeneous mixture of
differently refrangible Rays, So that,were a glafs fo exadly figured,
as to c o lle t any one fort o f rays into one point, it could not cob
le d thofe alfo into the fame point, which having the fame Inci
dence upon the fame Medium are apt to fuffer a different refracti
on. N ay, I wondered, that feeing the difference of refrangibili-
ty was fo great, as I found ir,Telelcopes fliould arrive to that per*
fed ion they are now at, For,meafuring the refradions in one o f
my Prifmes, I found, that luppofing the common fine o f Inci
dence upon one o f its planes was 44 parts, the fine o f refradion o f
theutmoft Rays on the red end ofthe Colours, made out o f the
glafs into the Air, would be 68 parts, and the fine o f refradion o f
the utmoft rays on the other end, 6p parts: So that the difference
is about a 24*/; or 25^ part o f the whole refradion. A n d cin fe-
quently, the objed-glafs o f any Telefcope cannot co lled all the
rays, which come from one point o f an o b je d fo as to make them
convene at its Joeys in lefs room then in a circular fpace, whofs
diameter is the 5 o ^ p a rto f the Diameter o f its Aperture ; which
is an irregularity, fome hundreds o f times greater, then a circu
larly figured Lens, o f fo fmall a fedion as the O b je d glaffes o f
long Telefcopes are, would caufe by the unficnefs o f its figure,were
Light uniform.
This made me take Reflexions into coDfideration, and finding
them regular, fo that the Angle o f Refledion o f all forts o f Rays
was equal to their Angle o f Incidence; I underftood,that by their
mediation Optick inftruments might be brought to any degree o f
perfection imaginable, provided a RefleXing fubftance could be
NEW TON’S THEORY ABOUT L IG H T & COLORS
52
( 3080 )
found, which would poliih as finely as Glafs, and refieft as much
light, as glafs tranfmits, and the art of communicating to it a Pa-
rabo\ic\ figure be alfo attained. Eut there feemed very great dif
ficulties, and I have almoft thought them infuperable, when I fur
ther confidered, that every irregularity in a reflecting fuperficies
makes the rays ftray 5 or 6 times more out o f their due courfe,
than the like irregularities in a refracting one : So that a much
greater curiofity would be here requifite, than in figuring glafles
for Refraction.
Amidft thefe thoughts I was forced from Cambridge by the Inter
vening Plague, and it was more then two years,before I proceed
ed further. But then having thought on a tender way o f polifh-
ing, proper for metall, whereby, as I imagined, the figure alfo
would be corredted to the Iaft j I began to try, what might be ef-
fedted in this kind, and by degrees fo far perfected an Inftrument
(in the effential parts o f it like that I lent, to London,) by which I
could difeern Jupiters 4 Concomitants, and fhewed them divers
times to two others o f my acquaintance. I could alfo difeern the
M oon-like phafe o f Fenus, but not very diftindtly, nor without
fome nicenefs in difpofiDg the Inftrument.
From that time I was interrupted till this laft Autumn, when I
made the other* And as that was fenfibly better then the firft
(efpecially for Day-O bjects,)fo I doubt not, but they will be ftill
brought to a much greater perfection by their endeavours, who,
as you inform me, are taking care about it at London.
I have fometimes thought to make a Microfcope, which in like
manner fhould have, inftead o f an O bject-glafs, a Reflecting
piece o f metall. And this I hope they will alfo take into confe
deration. For thofelnftruments feem as capable o f improvement
as Tele(copes, and perhaps more, becaufe but one reflediive piece
o f metall is requifite in them,as you may perceive by the annexed
diagram, where A B
reprefenteth the o b
je c t metall, C D the
eye glafs,F their com
mon Focus,and O the
other focus o f the rue-
tall, in which the ob»
jedt is placed.
But
( 3o S l )
But to return from this digrefiion, I told you, that Light is not
fimilar, or homogeneaI,butconfiftsof<#^0nwRays,fomeof which
are more refrangible than others : So that o f thofe, which are
alike incident on the fame medium, fome fhall be more refra&ed
than others, and that not by any virtue o f the glafs, or other ex*
ternal caufe, but from a predifpofition, which every particular
Ray hath to fuffer a particular degree o f Refradion*
I fhall now proceed to acquaint you with another more notable
difformity in its R a y s, wherein the Origin of Colours is unfolded :
Concerning which I fliall lay down the Dottrinc firft, and then, for
its examination, give you an inftance or two o f the Experiments,
as a fpecim enofthereft.
T he D od rin c you will find comprehended and illuftrated in
the following propofitions*
I* As the Rays o f light differ in degrees o f Refrangibility, fo
they alfo differ in their difpofition to exhibit this or that particu*
lar colour. Colours are not Qualifications of Light) derived from
R efradions, or Reflections o f natural Bodies(as ’tis generally be.
lieved,) but Original and connate properties, which in diyers Rays are
divers. Some Rays are difpofed to exhibit a red colour and no
other; fome a yellow and no other, fome a green artd no other,
and fo o f the reft. N or are there only Rays proper and particu
lar to the more eminent colours, but even to all their intermediate
gradations.
2. T o the fame degree o f Refrangibility ever belongs the fame
colour, and to the fame colour ever belongs the fame degree o f
Refrangibility. The leaf Refrangible Rays are all difpofed to ex
hibit a Jêd colour, and contrarily thofe Rays, which are difpofed
to exhibit a R e c o lo u r, are all the leaft refrangible: So the mofl
refrangible Rays are all difpofed to exhibit a deep Violet Colour,and
contrarily thofe which are apt to exhibit fuch a violet colour, are
all the moft Refrangible, And fo to all the intermediate colours
in a continued feries belong-intermediate degrees of refrang'bili-
ty. And this A n alo gy’twixt colours, aud refrangibility, is very
precife a n d ftr iffj the Rays always either.exadly agreeing in
both, or proportionally difagreeing in both.
3. The fpecies of colour, and degree of Refrangibility proper
to any particular fort o f Rays, is not mutable by R efradion, nor
by Reflection from natural bodies, nor by any other caufe, that
I could yet obferve. When any one fort o f Rays hath been well
parted
54 NEW TON’S THEORY ABOUT L IG H T & COLORS
( 3o82 )
parted from thofe o f other kinds, it hath afterwards obftinately
retained its colour j notwithftanding my utmoft endeavours to
change it. I have refracted it with Prifmes, and reflected it with
Bodies, which in Day-light were o f other colours; I have inter
cepted it with the coloured film o f Air interceding two comprefi
fed plates of glafs * tranfmitted it through coloured Mediums,and
through Mediums irradiated with other forts o f Rays, and di-
verfly terminated it; and yet could never produce any new co
lour out o f it. It would by contra&ing or dilating become more
brisk, or faint, and by the lofs o f many R ays, in fom ecafes
vary obfcure and d a rk ; but I could never fee it changed in
fpecie*
Y e t Teeming tranfmutations of Colours may be m ade, where
there is any mixture o f divers forts o f Rays. For in fuch mixtures,
the component colours appear not, but, by their mutual allaying
each other, conftitute a midling colour. And therefore, if by
refra&ion, or any other o f the aforefaid caufes, the difForm Rays,
latent in fuch a mixture, be feparated, there {hall emerge colours
different from the colour o f the compofition. Which colours
are not N ew generated,but only made Apparent by being parted*
for if they be again intirely mix't and blended together, they will
again compofe that colour, which they did before feparation.And
for the fame reafon, Tranfmutations made by the convening o f
divers colours are not real; for when the difform Rays are again
fevered, they will exhibit the very fame colours, which they did
before they entered the com pofition; as you fee, Blew and Y e llo w
powders, when finely mixed, appear to the naked eye G reen3 and
yet the Colours o f the Component corpufcles are not thereby
really tranfmuted, but only blended* For, when viewed with a
good Microfcope,they ftill appear B le w and D5?//c»>interfperfedly.
5. There are therefore two lorts o f Colours* The one original
and fimple, the other compounded o f thefe. T he Original or pri*
nviry colours are, B e d , Y ello w , G reen , B le w , and a Violet-.purple,
together with Orange, Indico, and an indefinite variety of Inter
mediate gradations.
6 . The fame colours in S p e cie with thefe Primary ones may be
alfo produced by com pofition: F or, a mixture o f Y ello w and B le w
m ikes G r e e n ; o f B e d and Y ello w makes O r a n g e ; o f Orange and Y e h
lo w ijh g reen m a k y e llo w . And in general, if any two Colours be
mixed, which in the feries o f thofe, generated by the Prifme,are
not
NEWTON’S THEORY ABOUT LIG H T & COLORS 55
( 3083 )
not too far diftant one from another, they by their mutual alloy
compound that colour, which in the faid feries appeareth in the
mid* way between them* But thofe, which are utuated at too
great a diftance, do not fo. Orange and In d ico produce not the
intermediate Green , nor Scarlet and Green the intermediate
yellow.
7. But the moftfurprifing.aud wonderful compofition was that
o f Wbitenefs. There is no one fort o f Rays which alone can ex
hibit this. ’Tis ever compounded,and to its compofition are re-
quifite all the aforefaid primary Colours, mixed in a due propor*
tion. I have often with Admiration beheld, that all the Colours
o f the Prifme being made to converge, and thereby to be again
mixed as they were in the light before it was Incident upon the
Prifme, reproduced light, intirely and perfedly white, and not
at all fenfibly differing from a direB Light o f the Sun, unlefs
when the glaffes, I ufed,were not fufficiently clear 5 for then they
would a little incline it to their colour.
8. Hence therefore it comes to yzUjhatWbitenefs is the ufual co«
lour o f Light 5 for, Light is a Confufed aggregate o f Rays indued
with all forts of Colors,as they are promifeuoufly darted from the
various parts of luminous bodies. And o f fuch a confufed aggre
gate,as I faid,is generated Whitenefs, if there be a due proporti
on o f the Ingredients * but if any one predominate,the Light muft
incline to that colour $ as it happens in the Blew flame o f Brim-
fto n e; the yellow flame o f a Candle j and the various colours o f
the Fixed ftars.
9. Thefe things confidered, the manner, how colours are pro
duced by the Prifme, is evident. For, o f the Rays,conftituting
the incident light, finde thofe which differ in Colour proportio
nally differ in Refrangibility, they by their unequall refradions
muft be fevered and difperfed into an oblong form in an orderly
fucceffion from the leaft refraded Scarlet to the moft refraded
Violet. And for the fame reafon it is, that objeds, when looked
upon through a Prifme,appear coloured. For,the difform Rays,
by their unequal Refradions, are made to diverge towards fe-
veral parts o f the Retina, and there exprefs the Images o f things
coloured, as in the former cafe they did the Suns Image upon a
wall. And by this inequality of refradions they become not
only coloured, but alfo very confufed and indiftind
10. Why the Colours o f the Rainbow appear in falling drops
H hh h of
56 NEW TON’S TH EO RY ABOUT L IG H T & COLORS
/ 3o 8 4 )
o f Rain, is alio from hence evident. For, thofe drops,which re-
fr a d the Rays, difpofed to appear purple, in greateft quantity to
the Spectators eye, refrad th e Rays o f other forts fo much lefs,
as to make them pafs befide it and fuch are the drops on the ii>
fide o f the P r im a r y Bow, and on the o utfideof the Secon d a ry or
Exteriour one. So thofe drops, which refrad in greateft plenty
the Rays, apt to appear red, toward the Spectators eye, refraCt
thofe o f other forts lo much more,as to make them pafs befide i t »
and fuch are the drops on the exteriour part of the P rim a ry , and
interiour part o f the S econ d a ry Bow.
11. The odd Phamomena of an infufion o f L ignu m N e p h r itic u m ,
L e a f g o ld ) F ra g m en ts o f colou red g la fs , and fome other tranfparently
coloured bodies, appearing in one pofition o f one colour,and o f
another in another, are on thefe grounds no longer riddles* For,
thofe are fubftances apt to reflect one fort o f light and tranfmit
another; as may be feen in a dark room, by illuminating them
with fimilar or uncompounded light* For, then they appear o f
that colour only, with which they are illuminated, but yet in one
pofition more vivid and luminous than in another, accordingly
as they are difpofed more or lefs to refled: or tranfmit the incident
colour*
12. From hence alfo is manifeft the reafon o f an unexpected
Experiment, which Mr. H o o \ fomewhere in his M icrog ra p h y re
lates to have made with two wedg-like tranfparent veffels,fill’d the
one with a red, the other with a blew liquor : namely,that though
they were feverally tranfparent enough, yet both together became
opake j F o r,if one tranfmitted only red,and the other only blew,
no rays could pafs through both.
1 3. I might add more inftances o f this nature, but I fliall con
clude with this general one, that the Colours o f all natural Bodies
have no other origin than this, that they are varioufly qualified to
refled one fort o f light in greater plenty then another. And this
1 have experimented in a dark Room by illuminating thofe bodies
with uncompounded light o f divers colours. For by that means
any body may be made to appear o f any colour. They have
there no appropriate co lo u r, but ever appear o f the co
lour o f the light caft upon them, but yet with this difference,
that they are raoft brisk and vivid in the light o f their own day-
light-colour. M in iu m appeareth there o f any colour indifferently,
with which'tis illuftrated, but yet moft luminous in red, and fo
NEW TON’S THEORY ABOUT LIG H T & COLORS 57
( 3°85 )
Bife appeareth indifferently o f any colour with which‘ tisilluftra-*
ted, but yet moft luminous in blew. And therefore Minium re-
fleCieth Rays ofany colour, but moft copioufly thofe indued with
red j and confequently when illuftrated with day-lighr, that is,
with all forts of Rays promifcuoufly blended, thole qualified with
red fhall abound moft in the reflected light, and by their preva
lence caufe it to appear o f that colour* And for the fame reafon
Bife, reflecting blew moft copioufly, fhall appear blew by the ex*
cefs o f thofe Rays in its reflected light $ and the like o f other bo*
dies* And that this is the intire and adequate caufe o f their co«
lours, is manifeft, becaufe they have no power to change or alter
the colours o f any fort of Rays incident apart, but put on all co*
lours indifferently, with which they are inlightned.
Thefe things being fo, it can be no longer difputed, whether
there be colours in the dark, nor whether they be the qualities
o f the objects we fee, no nor perhaps, whether Light be a Body*
F o r, fince Colours are the qualities o f Light, having its Rays for
their intire and immediate fubjeCt, how can we think thofe Rays
qualities alfo, unlefs one quality may be the fubjeCt o f andfuftain
another; which in effeCtis to call it Subftance. W e fhould not
knowBodies for fubftances,were it not for their fenfible qualities,
and the principal o f thofe being now found due to fomething
elfe, we have as good reafon to believe that to be a Subftance
alfo.
Befides, whoever thought any quality to be a heterogeneous ag
gregate, fuch as Light is difcovered to be. But, to determine
more abfolutely, what Light is, after what manner refra&ed, and
by what modes or aCtions it produceth in our minds the Phan-
tafm sofColours, is not fo eafie* And I fhall not mingle con
jectures with certainties.
Reviewing what I have written, I fee the difcourfe it felf will
lead to divers Experiments fufficient for its examination : And
therefore I fliall not trouble you further, than to defcribe one o f
thofe,which I have already insinuated.
In a darkened Room make a hole in the Chut o f a window,
whofe diameter may conveniently be about a third part of an
inch, to admit a convenient quanti y o f the Suns ligh t: And there
place a clear and colourlefs Prifme, to refraCt the entring light
towards the further part o f the Room,which,as I faid,will thereby
be diffufed into an oblong coloured Image. Then place a Lens o f
H hhh 2 about
58 N EW TON’S THEORY ABOUT LIG H T & COLORS
( 3085 )
about three foot radius (fuppofe a broad Obje£fc-g!af$ o f a three
foot Telefcope,) at the diftanceof about four or five foot from
thence, through which all thofe colours may at once be tranfmit-
ted, and made by its Refraction to convene at a further diftance
o f about ten or twelve feet, i f at that diftance you intercept this
light with a fheet o f white paper, you will fee the colours convert
ed into whitenefs again by being mingled. But it is requifite,that
the Prifme and Lens be placed fteddy, and that the paper, on
which the colours are caftj be moved to and fro $ for, by fuch
motioD, you will not only find, at what diftance the whitenefs is
moft perfeft,butalfo fee.how the colours gradually convene, and
vanifh into whitenefs, and afterwards having crofted one another
in that place where they compound Whitenefs, are again diffipa-
ted, and fevered, and in an inverted order retain the fame co
lours, which they hud before they entered the compofition. You
may alfo fee, that, if any o f the Colours at the Lens be intercept
ed, the Whitenefs will be changed into the other colours. And
therefore, that the compofition o f whitenefs be perfect,care muft
be taken, that none o f the colours fall befides the Letts.
In the annexed defign o f this Experiment, A B C expreffeth
the Prifm fet endwife to fight, clofe by the hole F of the window
E G . Its vertical Angle A C B may conveniently be about 60

degrees: MTS! defigneththe L e n s k Its breadth a j or 3 inches,
S F one o f the {freight lines, in which difform Rays may be con
ceived to flow fucceffively from the Sun, F P,aud F R. two o f
thofe Rays unequally refracted, which the Lem makes to converge
towards Q , and after decuflation to diverge again. And H I the
paper, at divers diftances, on which the colours are projected :
which in Q , conftitute W h iten ejs , but are Red and T ellow in R,r> and
t, and Bhwaud Purple in P, p, and *.
( 3°®7 )
I f you proceed further to try the impoffibility o f changing any
uncompounded colour (which I have aflerted in the third and
thirteenth Propofitions,) 'tis requifite that the Room be made ve*
ry dark, leaft any fcattering lightjinixing with the colour,difturb
and allay it, and render it compound, contrary to th ed efign o f
the Experiment. ’Tis alfo requifite, that there be a perfeCter fc-
paration o f the Colours, than,after the manner above defcribed,
can be made by the Refraction o f one Angle Prifme, and how to
make fuch further reparations,will fcarcebe difficult to them,that
confider the difcovered laws o f Refractions. But i f tryal fhall
be made with colours not throughly feparated, there muft be al
lowed changes proportionable to the mixture. Thus if com*
pound Yellow light fall upon Blew Bife^ the Bife will not appear
perfectly yellow, but rather green, becaufe there are in the yel
low mixture many rays indued with green, and Green being lefs.
remote from the ufual blew colour o f Bife than yellow, is the
more copioufly reflected by it.
In like manner, if any one o f the Prifmatick colours, fuppofe
Red, be intercepted, on defign to try the aflerted impoffibility
o f reproducing that Colour out of the others which are preter-
mitted ; 'tis neceflary,either that the colours be very well parted
before the red be intercepted, or that together with the red the
neighbouring colours, into which any red is fecretly difperfed,
(that is, the yellow , and perhaps green too) be intercepted, or
elle, that allowance be made for the emerging o f fo much red ouc
o f the yellow green, as may poffibly have been diffufed, and
fcatteringly blended in thofe colours. And if t hefe things be ob-
ferved, the new Production o f Red, or any intercepted colour
will be found impoffihle.
This,I conceive, is enough for an Introduction to Experiments
o f this kind ; which if any o f the J{.Seeiety (hall be fo curious as to
profecute,I fhould be very glad to be informed with what fuccefs:
That,if any thing feem to be defeCHve.or to thwart this relation, I
may have an opportunity o f giving further direction about it, or
o f acknowledging my errors, if I have committed any.
Sofar this Learned and very Ingenious Letter ■, which having
been by that Jlluftrmu Com pany, before whom it was read, with
much applaule committed to the confideration of fome o f their
Fellows,well verfed in this argument, the Reader may poffibly in
an other TraU be informed o f fome report given in upon this Dif*
courfe. An
6o N E W T O N ’S CATADIOPTRIGAL TELESCOPE
'Tab. I-
N EW TO N ’S CATADIOPTRICAL TELESCOPE 6l
C 4o04 )
An Accompt of a New Catadioptrical Telefcope invented by Mr.

Newton, Fellow of the /(.Society, and Vrofcjjor of the Ma-.
thematiques m the ZJmveifty of Cambridge.
His Excellent Mathematician having given us, in the

T Tranfadtions o f February laft, an account o f the caufe,
which induced him to think upon FsfleSitig T elefco p es, in-
ftead of JêfraUing ones, hath thereupon prefented the Cu»
rious W orld with an EJfay of what may be performed by
fuch Telefcopes 3 by which it is found, that Telefcopical
Tubes may be confiderably fhortued without prejudice
to their magnifying effedt
This new inftrument is compofed o f two Metallin fpecu-
lum s, the one Goncave, (inftead o f an Objedl-glafs) the
other Plain 5 and alfo of a fmall plano-convex Eye«
Glafs.
By Figure I. o f Tab. 1* the ftrndfure of it may be eafily
im agined; viz. That the Tube o f this Telefcope i« opeu at
the end which refpedts the objedt 3 that the other end is clofe,
where the faid Concave is laid , and that near the open end
there is a flat oval fpeculum^made as fmall as may be,the lefs to
obftrudfc the entrance o f the rays o f Light, and inclined to*
wards the upper part o f the Tube, where is a little hole fur-
nifh’t with the faid Eye-glafs. So that the rays coming from
the objedt, do firfi: fall on the Concave placed at the bot«
tome o f the Tube ; and are thence refledted toward the o*
ther end o f it, where they meet with the flat fpeculum, ob*
liquity pofited, by the refledfion o f which they are diredfced
to the little plano-convex G la fs, and fo to the fpedtators
E ye, who looking downwards fees the O bjedt, which the
Telefcope is turned to*
T o underftand this more diftindfcly and fully, the Reader
may pleafe to look upon the faid Figure, in which
A B is the Concave fpeculum} o f which the radius or femi*
diameter is i2 f or 13 inches*
C D another metalline fpetulum, whole furface is flat, and
the circumference oval,
Ga
62 N E W T O N ’S CATADIOPTRICAL TELESCOPE
( 4005 )
G D an Iron wire , holding a ring o f brafs, in which the
fpeculum CD is fixed,
F, a fmall Eye-glafs flat above, and convex below, o f the
twelfth part o f an inch radius^ if notlefs; forafmuch as the
metal collects the Sun’s rays at 6j inches diftance, and the
Eye-glafs atlefs than! o f an inch diftance from its vertex :
Befides that the Author (as he informs us) knew their di-
menfions by the tools to which they were ground, and par-,
ticularly meafuringthe diameter o f the hemi-fpherical Con
cave , in which the Eyc-glafs was wrought, found it the fixtb
part o f an inch.
G G G , the fore part o f the Tube fafto’d to a brafs-ring
H I , to keep it immoveable.
P the hind-part o f the T u be, faftn'd to another
brafs-ring P Q ,
0 ,an Iron hook faftn’d to the Ring P and furniflvt
with a fcrew N> thereby to advance or draw back the hind-
part o f the T u b e, and fo by that means to put the fpecula
in their due diftance.
M Q J} 1 a crooked Iron fuftaining the Tube, and faft-
ned by the nail R to the Ball and Socket S , whereby the
Tube may be turned every way.
T h e Center o f the flat fpeculum C D , muft be placed in
the fame point o f the T u be’s Axe, where falls the perpen
dicular to this A x e , drawn to the fame from the center
o f the little Eye.glafs : which point is here marked
a t T.
And to give the Reader feme fatisfa&ion to underftand, in
what degree it reprefents things diftindt, and free from co
lours, and to know the aperture by which it admits light $
he may compare the diftances o f the focus E from the ver
tex's o f the little Eye-glafs and the Concave fpeculum, that is,
E F , t o f an inch, and E T V , 63 inches; and the ratio will
be found as 1 to 38 $ whereby it appears, that the Objedfo
will be magnified about 38 times. T o which proportion i;
very confentaneous, an Obfervation o f the Crown on the
weather-cock,about 300 feet diftant.For the fcheme X fig.9„.
reprefents it bigger by times in diam eter, when leen
through
N EW TO N ’S CATADIOPTRICAL TELESCOPE 63
( 4006 )
through this, than through an ordinary Telefcope o f about
2 foot long. And fo fuppoling this ordinary one to mag*
nifie 15 or 14 times, as by the defcription it Ihould, this new
one by the Experiment muft magnifie near as much as hath
been affigued*
Thus far as to the ftru&ure o f this Telefcope* Concern
ing the Metalline matter, fit for thefe reflecting Speculutnt,
the Inventor hath alfo confidered the fame, as may be feen
by two o f his Letters, written to the Publifher from Cam
bridge Jan. 18. and 29. 1677. to this effeCt, vi
1* That for a fit metalline fnbftance, he would give this
Caution, that whileft men feek for a white , hard and du
rable metallin compoficion, they rcfolve not upon fuch an
one, as is full o f fmall pores, only difcoverable by a Micro-
fcope. For though fuch an one may to appearance take a
good polifh, yet the edges o f thofe fmall pores will wear
away fafter in the polifhing than the other parts o f the me
tal j and fo, however the Metal teem polite, yet it fhall not
reflect with fuch an accurate regularity as it ought to do*
Thus Tin-glafs mixt with ordinary Bell-metall makes it more
white and apt to refled a greater quantity o f lig h t ; but
withall its fumes, raifed in the fuGon, like fo many aerial
bubles ,fill the metall full of thofe Microfcopical pores. Bite
white Arfenick both blanches the Metall and leaves it folid
without any fuch pores,efpecially if the fufiod hath not been
too violenr. What the Stellate Ptyulus o f Mart ( which I
have fometimes ufed) or other fuch like fubftance will do,
deferves particular examination.
T o this he adds this further intimation, that Putty or other
fuch like p ow d er, with which ‘ tis polilhed, by the iharp
angles o f its particles fretteth the metall, if it be not ve*
ry fine, and fills it full o f fuch fmall holes, as he fpeak-
eth of. W herefore care muft be taken o f th a t, before
judgm ent be given, whether the metall be throughout the
body o f it porous or not.
2. He not having tried, as he faith, many proportions
o f the Arfenick and Metall, does not affirm, which is ab-
foIuteJy beft, but thinks, there may conveniently be ufed
any
( 4007 )
any quantity of Arfenick equalling in weight between a fixe
and eight part o f the Copper, a greater proportion m aking
the Metal brittle*
T h e way, which he ufed, was this. He firft melted the
Copper alone, then put in the Arfenick, which being melted,
he ftirred them a little together,bewaring in the mean time,
not to draw in breath near the pernicious fumes. A fter this,
he put in Tin, and again fo foon as that was melted ( which
was very fuddenly) he ftirred them well togeth er, and im
mediately powred them off*
He faith, he knows n ot. whether by letting them ftand
longer on the fire after the Tin was melted, a higher degree
o f fufion would have made the metall porous; but he thought
that way he proceeded to be fafeft,
He adds, that in that metall, which he fent to London%there
was no Arfenick, but a fmall proportion of Silver 5 as he re
members,one (hilling in three ounces o f metall. But he thought
withal), that the Silver did as much harm in making the me*
tall fofr, and fo lefs fit to be polilh’t, as good in rendring it
white and luminous*
A t another time he mixed Arfenick one ounce, Copper fix
ounces,and T in two ounces: And this an Acquaintance o f his
hath,as he intimates,polifh’t better,than he did the other.
As to the objection) that with this kind o f Perfpedtives, ob»
jedfcs are difficultly found, he anfwers in another letter o f his
to the Publifher, o f Jan. 6. 16%. that that is the inconveni
ence o f all Tubes that magnifie much 5 and that after a little
ufe the inconvenience will grow lefs, feeing that himfelf could
readily enough find any day-Objedfo, by knowing which way
they were pofited from other objedts that he accidentally faw
in i t ; but in the night to find Stars, heackuowledges it to be
more troublefom e; which yet may, in his opinion, be eafily
remedied by two fights affixed to the Iron rod, by which the
T u be is Jfufteined; or by an ordinary perfpedtive gJafs faftn’d
to the fame frame with the Tube, and directed towards the
fame objedt, as Des- Cartes in his Dioptricks hath deferi-
bed for remedying the fame inconvenience o f his beft T e-
lefcopes.
LI1I
N EW T O N ’S CATADIOPTRICAL TELESCOPE 65
( 4 OO8 )
S o f a r the In v en to rs L e tte r s touching th is I n jlm m e n t : o f which
having communicated the defcription to Monfieur C h rijiia n
H m e n s de Sfu lichem ^ we received from him an Anfwer to this
effedt, in his L etter o f Febr. ig* 1672. ft.n*
I fee by the Defcription, you have fentme o f Mr. N e w to n s
admirable Telefcope, that he hath well confidered the advan
tage, which a C oncave fpeculum hath above C onvex p ia ffes in
collefring the parallel rays, which certainly according to the
calculation, I have made thereof, is very great* Hence it \
is, that he can give a far greater aperture to that fp e c u lu m ,
than to an Objedt-glafs o f the fame diftance o f thc fo c u s , and
confequently that he can much more magnifie objedb this
way, than by an ordinary Telefcope. Befides, by it he a-
voids an inconvenience, which is infeparable from convex
Objedb Glafles, which is the Obliquity o f both their furfaces,
which vitiateth the refraction o f the rays that pafs towards
the fides o f the glafs , and does more hurt than men
are aware o f . Again, by the meet refletftion o f the metallin
Jp ecu lu m there are not fo many rays loft, as in Glafles, which
refledt a confiderable quantity by each o f their furfaces, and
befides intercept many o f them by the obfeurity o f their
matter*
Mean time, the main bufinefs will b e , to find a matter for
this fp ecu lu m that will bear fo good and even a poliih as Glaf-
fe s , and a way o f giving this polifh without vitiating the
fpherical figure. Hitherto Ihavefound no S p e c u la , that had
near fo good a polifh as G la fs; and if M. N e w to n hath not
already found a way to make it better, than ordinarily 1 ap
prehend, his Telefcopes will not f o well diftinguifh objedfcs,
as thofe with Glafles. But 'tis worth while to fearch for a
remedy to this inconvenience, and I defpair not of finding
one. I believe, that M ^N ew ton hath not been without con-
lidering the advantage, which a P a ra b o lica l fpeculum would
have above a S p h erica l one in this conftrudtion j but that he
defpairs, as well as I d o , of working other furfaces than
fpherical ones with due exadtnefs; though elfe it be more
eafie to make a P a r a b o lic a l than E llip t ic a l or H y p e r b o lica l ones,
by reafon o f a certain propriety o f the P a r a b o lic ^ Com idt which
( )
is, that all the Sections parallel to the Axis make the fame Pa*
rabola*
Thus far M. Hugenius his judicious L etter $ to the latter part
o f which, concerning the grinding Parabolical Conoids, Mr.
Newton faith, in his Letter to the Publiflier o f Feb. 20. 7 1 .
that though he with himdefpairs o f performing that work by
Geometrical rules, yet he doubts not but that the thing may
in fome mcafure be accomplilhed by Mechanical de-
viles.
To all which I cannot but fubjoyn an ExtraCi of a Letter, received

very lately, (March 19th) from the Inventor o f this new Te*
lefcope, from Cambridge, vi%.
N my laft Letter I gave you occafion to fufpeft, that the

I Inftrument which I fent you, is in fome relpeft or other
iudifpofed, or that the metals are tarnifhed. And by your
Letter o f March 16* la m fully confirmed in that opinion.For,
whileft I had if, it reprefented the Moon in fome parts o f it as
diftinftly, as other Telefcopes ufually do which magnifie as
much as that. Yet I very well know , that that Inftrument
hath its imperfections both in the compofition o f themetall,
and in its being badly caft, as you may perceive by a fcabrous
place near the middle o f the metall o f it on the polifhed fide,
and alfo in the figure o f that metall near that fcabrous place.
And in all thofe reipefrs that inftrument is capable o f further
improvement*.
Y o u feem to intimate, that the proportion o f 38 to 1 holds
only for its magnifying Objects at fmall diftances* But i f for
luch diftances, fuppofe 500 feet, it magnifie at that rate, by
the rules o f O pticks it muft for the greateft diftance imagi
nable magnifie more than to 15 which is fo confiderable
a diminifhing, that it may be even then as 38 to 1.
H ere is made another Inftrument like the form er,
which does very well* Yefterday I compared it with a fix
foot Telefcope, and found it not only to magnifie more, but
alfo more diftin&ly. And to day I found, that I could read
m one of the Philofophical TranfaBions, placed in the Sun’s
L I 11 a light.
N EW T O N ’S CATADIOPTRICAL TELESCOPE 67
( )
light, at an hundred foot diftance, and that at an hundred
and twenty foot diftance I could difeern fome of the words.
When I made this tryal, its Aperture ("defined next the Eye)
was equivalent to more than an inch and a third part o f the
Obje6t-metalU This may be of fome ufe to thofe that fhall
endeavour any thing in Reflexions j for hereby they will in
fome meafure be enabled to judge o f the goodnefs ©f their
Inftruments, Sec.
N . B. T he Reader may expetft in the next Month another
L etter, which came fomewhat too late to be here inferted j
containing a Table, calculated by the fame Mr. Newton, a*
bout the feveral Apertures and Charges anfwermg the feveral
Lengths o f thefe Telefcopes.
68 N EW TO N ON HIS NEW TELESCOPE
C 4032 )
ifir.Newton’s L e tte r to th e T u b lijh e r o f M a r c h 2 6 . 1 6 7 2 . con ta in -

in g fo m e more fu p g ejlio n s about h is N e w Tele [cop e, a n d a Table
o f Apertures a n d Charges fo r th e (ev e r a t Lengths op th a t In*
plrum ent.
SIR,
in ce my laft Letter I have further compared the two Te-
S lefcopes, and find that o f Metal to reprefent as well the
Moon,as neerer ObjeCts, fomethingdiftin&er than the other.
But Itnuft tell you 3lfo,tbatI am not very well aflured o f the
goodnefs o f that other, which I borrowed to make the Com-
parifonjand therefore defire,that the other Experiment fhould
be rather confided in, o f reading at the diftance o f between
a 100 and 120 foot, at which I and others could read with it
in th cTratifaflions, as I found by meafure : At which time
the aperture was i j - o f an Inch 5 which I knew by trying,
that an o b fta cleo f that breadth was requifite to intercept all
the light, which came from one point o f the objeCi.
I fhould tell youalfo, that the little plain piece o f metall,
next the eye-glafs, is not truly figured: whereby it happens,
that objects are not fo diftinCt at the middle as at the edges.
And I liope, that by correcting its figure, ( in which I find
more difficulty than one would expeft,.) they will appear all
over diftinCt, and diftinCter in the middle than at the edges.
And I doubt not but that the performances will then be
greater.
But yet I find,that there is more light loft by reflection o f
the metall which I have hitherto ufed, than by tranfmifiion
through glafles: for which reafon a fhallower charge would
probably do better for obfcure objeCts jfuppofe fuchan one,
as would make it magnifie 34 or 33 times. But for bright
objeCts at any diftance, it feems capable o f magnifying 38 or
40 times with fufficient diftitnftnefs. And for all objects, the
fame Charge, I believe, may with advantage be allowed, i f
the fteely matter, imployed at London, be more ftrongly re*
fleCtive than this which I have ufed.
The performances o f one o f thefe Inftruments o f any length
feeing known* it will appear by this following Table, what may
b«
NEW TON ON HIS NEW TELESCOPE 69
( 4033 )
be expe&ed from thofe o f other Lengths by this way, if Art
can accomplifh what is promifed by the Theory. In th tfirjl
Column is expreffed the Length o f the Telefcope in feet 5
which doubled gives the femidiameter o f the Sphere,on which
the concave metall is to be ground. In the fecen d column are
the proportions of the Apertures for thofe fcveral Lengths.
And in the th ir d column are the Proportions o f the Charges, or
diameter o f the fpheres, on which the convex fuperfictes o f
the eye*glaffcs are to be ground.
Lengths* AptHurts. C'vtKgts.

X
* IOO IOO
1 l68 *•9
2 28g 141
3 g8g *57
4 476 168
5 562 178
6 645 186
8 800 200
10 946 211
12 1084 221
16 *345 2g8
20 1591 254
24 1824 263
The ufe o f this Table will beft appear by example .*

Suppofe therefore a half foot Telefcope may diftin&ly mag
nifie go times with an inch Aperture,and it being required to
know, what ought to be the analogous conftitution and per
formance o f a four foot Telefcope: By the fecond colum n,
as 100 to 4765 fo are the Apertures, as alio the number o f
times which they magnifie. And confequently fince the half
foot Tube hath an inch aperture and magnifieth go tim es; a
four foot Tube proportionally fliould have 4 ^ inches aper
ture, and magnifie i4g times. And by the third column, as
1 00 to 1 685 fo are their C harges: And therefore if the dia
meter o f the convexity o f theeye.glafs for a half foot Telef
cope be z o f an inch, that for a four foot fliould be —j-, that
is, about f o f an inch*
* O ooo 2 In
70 N EW TO N ’S ANSW ER [TO AUZOUT]
( 4°34 )
In like manner, i f a half foot Telefcope may diftin&Iy mag-
nifie 36 times with o f an Inch A perture, a four foot T e
lefcope fhould with equal diftinftnefsmagnific 171 times with
6 inches Aperture ; and one o f fix foot lhculd magnifie 23a
times with 8 j inches A perture» and-fo o f other lengths. But
what the event will really be, we muft wait to fee determined
by experience. O nly this I thought fit to infinnate, that they
which intend to make trials in other lengths, may more rea
dily know how to defign their Inftruments. Thus for a four
foot Tube, fince the Aperture fhould be 5 or 6 inches, there
will be required a piece o f metal 7 or 8 inches broad at leaft,
becaufe the figure will fcarcely be true to the edges. And the
thicknefs o f the metal muft be proportional to the breadth,
leaft it bend in the grinding. T h e metalls being polifbed ,
there may be tryals made with feveral eye>glafles, to find,
what Charge may with beft advantage be made ufe
of.
An Extrafl of another Letter of the fame to the Publijher, dated

March 30.1672. by way o f Atifwer to fame OhjeBionty made
by an Ingenious French Philofopher to the New Reflefling Telef-
tope♦
SIR,
D oubt not but M .A . will allow the advantage o f reflexion

I in the Theory to be very great, when he fhall have infor
med himfelf o f the different Refrangibtlity o f the feveral rays
o f l'ght. And for the prattique part, it is in fome meafure
manifeft by the Inftruments already m a d e, to what degree
o f vivacity and brightnefs a metaline fubftance may be po-
liihed. N o r is it improbable but that there may be new ways
o f polifhing found out for metal, which will far excell thofe
that are yet in ufe. And when a-metal is once well polifhed,
it will be a long while preferved from tarnifhing, if diligence
be ufed to keep it dry and clofe, fhutupfrom A ir: F or the
principal caule o f tarnifhing feeras to be, the condenfing o f
moifture on its polifhed furface, which by an Acid fpirit,
wheifl-
N EW TON’S ANSWER [TO AUZOUT] 71
C 4035 )
•wherewith the Atmofphcre is impregnated, corrodes and
rufts i t ; or at le a d , at its exhaling,' leaves it covered o-
ver with a thin skin, confiding partly o f an earthly fe-
diment o f that moifture, and partly o f the duft, which
flying to and fro in the Air had felled and adhered to
it.
When there is not occafion to make frequent ufe o f
the inftrument , there may be other waies to preferve
the metal for a lon.g time ; as perhaps by immerging
it in Spirit o f wine or fome other convenient liquor*
And i f they chance to tarnifh ; yet their polifh may he
recovered by rubbing them with a foft piece o f leather,
or other tender fubftance, without the affiflance of any
fretting pow ders, unlefs they happen to be rufty .• for
then they muft be new polifhed.
I am very fenfible, that metal refle&s lefs light than
glafs tranfmits; and for that inconvenience, I gave you
a remedy in my lad L e tte r , by affigning a fliallowar
charge in proportion to the Aperture, than is ufed in o*
ther Telefcopes* But, as I have found fome metaline
fubdances to be more drongly reflective, and to polifh
b etter, and be freer from tarnifhing than oth ers; fo I
hope there may in time be found out fome fubdance
much freer from thefe inconveniences , than any yet
known*
N EW TO N ON CASSEGRAIN’S TELESCOPE
72
C )
M r. Ifaac Newton’/ Considerations upon p a r t o f a L e tt e r o f
JM onfeur de Berce p r in te d in th e E ig h t French Memoirs, c o n .
cetning the C a t a d n o p tr ic a l Telefcope} preten d ed to be im p rov’d
and refined by M . Caflfegrain.
T h a t t i e R e a d e r may be en a b led the better to Judge o f th e whole ,

by comparing togetherthe co n triv a n ces both o f M r , Newton a n d
Mr. GafTegrain ; i t w ill be n ecejja ry , to borrow f r o m th e [ a id
French Me :
moire w hat is there / a id c o n c im in g th e m w h ich is as
fo llo w e s .
Send you ( faith M. de B e rce to the Publifher o f the Me.

I moire , ) the Copy o f the Letter, which M. Cajfagrain hath
written to me concerning the proportions o f Sr, Samuel
Morelands Trumpet. And as for the Telefcope o f Mr. ZNlew.
lo»it hath as much furprifed m e, as the fame Perfon, that
hath found out the proportions o f the Trumpet. F o r ’tisnow
about three months_,that that perfon communicated to me the
figure o f a Telefcope, which was almoft like it, and which he
had invented; but which I look upon as more witty, 1 fhall
here give you the defeription o f it in fliort,
A b cD . is a ftrong T u b e , in the bottom o f which there
is a great concave Sp ecu lu m C D , pierced in the midle E.
F. is a convex S p ecu lu m , fo difpofed, as to its convexity 9
that it refle&s the s p e c ie s , which it receives from the great s p e -
culum , towards the hole E, where is an Eye-glafs, which one
Jooketh through.
The advantage, which I find in this Tnftrumeot above that
o f Mr - N e w t o n , isfirft, that the mouth or aperture A B o f the
Tube may be of whatbignefs you pleafe; and confequently
you may have many more rays tlpon the Concave Speculumi
than upon that, o f which you have given us the defeription.
i . T h e reflexion o f the rays will be very natural, fin ceitw ill
be made upon the a x is it f e l f , and therefore more vivid.
3, The vifion o fit will be fo much the morepleafing, in that
you fhall not be incommoded by the great light, by reafon o f
the bottom C D , which hideth the whole face, Befides that
NEW TON ON CASSEGRAIN’S TELESCOPE 73
C 4°57 )
you’l have lefs difficulty in difcovering the Q bje& s, than in
that o f Mr, Newtons,
A
Confiderations of M r . N ew ton , as we receiv ed them from him

in a L e tte r , w ritten fr o m Cambridge M ay 4thi 6 j 2 }as fo llo w s.
S IR
Should be very glad to meet with any improvement o f
I the Catadioptrical Telefcope * but that defign o f it, which
fas you informe me)Mv.Cafpgrainhath communicated 3months
fince, and is now printed in on e o f the French Memoires^ I
fear will notanfwcr Expe&ation. For, when I firft applied my-
fe lf to try the effedfo of Reflexions, Mr. G reg ory s O ptica P r o -
tn ota ( printed in the year 1663 ) being fallen into my hands,
where there is an Inftrument ( defcribed pag, 94) like that
o f Monfieur Cajjegrain’s with a hole in the midftof the O bjeft-
Metal to tranfmit the Light to an Eye-glafs placed behind it 5
I had thence an occafion o f confidering that fort o f conftrudi-
ons, and found their difadvantages fo great, that I faw itne-
ceflary, before I attempted any thing in the Pra&ique, to al
ter the defign o f them, and place the Eye glafs at the fide of
the Tube rather than atthemidle*
T he difadvantages o f it you will underftand by thefe parti
culars. i/There will be more light loft in the Metal by reflexion
from the little convexJpeculum , than from the Oval plane. For,
it is an obvious obfervation, that Light is moft copioufly re-
fleftedfrom anyfubftance when incident moft obliquely.aThe
convex specu lu m will not refled: the rays fo truly as the oval
plane, unlefs it b e o fa n Hyperbolique figure $ which is in
comparably more difficult to forme than a plane; and if tru-
R r r r 2 ly
74 N EW TON ON CASSEGRAIN’S TELESCOPE
C 4°58 )
ly form ed, yet would only refled: th o fe n y s truly, which re*
fpedt the axir. 3 1 he errours o f the faid convex will be much
augmented by the too great diftance, through which the ra y s,
reflected from i t , muft oafs before their arrival at the Eye-
glals. For which reafon 1find it convenient to make the Tube
no wider than is ncceflary, that the Eye glafs be placed as
near to the Oval plane, as is poffible, without obftrudting any
ufeful light in its pafl'age to the objedt metal. 4. T he errors o f
the objedt-metal will be more augmented by reflexion from
the convex than from the plane, becaufe o f the inclination or
deflexion o f the convex on all fides from the points, on which
every ray ought to be incident. 5, For thefe reafons there is re-
quifite an extraordinary exadfcnefs in the figure o f the little
convex, whereas I find by experience, that it is much more
difficult to communicate an exadt figure to fuch fmall pieces o f
Metal, than to thofe that are greater. 6 Becaufethe errors at
the perimeter o f the concave Objedfc-Metal, caufedby the
Sphericalnefs ofits figure,are much augmentedby the convex,
it will not with diftindtnefs bear fo large an aperture,as in the'
other conftrudtion. 7. By reafon that the little convex condu
ces very much to the magnifying virtue o f the inftrument,
which the Oval plane doth not, it will magnify much more in
proportion to theSphere,on which the greatconcaveis ground,
than in the other defign; And fo magnifying Objects much
more than it ought to do in proportion to its aperture,it muft
reprefent them very obfeure and d a rk » and not only fo, but
alfo confufed by reafon o f its being overcharged. N o r is
there any convenient remedy for this. For, if the little con
vex be made o f a larger Sphere, that will caufe a greater in
convenience by intercepting too many o f the beft rayes; o r,if
the Charge o f the Eye-glafs be made fo much fhallower as is
neceflary,the angle o f vifion will thereby become fo little,that
it will be very difficult and troublefom eto find an objedt, and
ofthat objedfc, when found, there will be but a very fmall part
(eenat once.
By this you may perceive, that the three advantages, which
Monfieur CaJJegrain propounds to himfelf, are rather difad-
vantages* For, according to his defign, the aperture o f the
iuftrnment
NEW TON ON CASSEGRAIN’S TELESCOPE 75
( 4° 59 )
inftrument will be but fnjall,the object dark and coufufed,and
alfo difficult to be found. Nor do I fee, why the reflexion is
more upon the fame axis,and fo more natural in one cafe than
in the other: fince the axis it felf is reflected towards the Eye
b y the Oval plains and the Eye m aybe defended from ex
ternal light as well at the fide, as at the bottome of the Tube*
You fee therefore, that the advantages o f this defign are
none, but the difadvantages fo great and unavoidable, th rtl
fear it will never be put in pradtife with good effedt, And when
I confider, that by reafon o f its refemblance with other Te-
lefcopes it is fomething more obvious than the other conftrudb
io n ; I am apt to believe, that thofe, who have attempted any
thing in Catoptricks, have ever trycd it in the firft place, and
that their bad iuccefs in that attempt hath been the caufe, why
nothing hath been done in reflexions. For,Mr. Gregory, ftpeak
ing of thefe inftruments in theaforefaid book pag 9 7, fayeth;
Demechanica hctum fpectdorum & lentium, ab aliis fruflra tenta*
ta, ego in mechanicis minus verfatus nihil dico. So that there have
been tryals made o f thefe Telefeopes, but yet in vain. And I
am infot med,that about 7 or 8 years fince,Mr. Gregory himfelf,
at London, caufed one of fix foot to be made-by Mr. Eeive^
which I take to have been according to the aforefaid defign
defcribed in his book ; becaufe, though made by a skilful Ar-
tift, yet it was without fuccefs.
I could wifli therefore, Mr. Cafpgrain had tryed h!s defign
before he divulged it .* But if,for further fatisfa&ion, he pleafe
hereafter to try i t , I believe the fuccefs will inform him, that
fuch projects are o f little moment till they be pat in pradtife.
Some Experiments propos’d in relation to M r. Newtons Theory of

lightprinted in Numb. 805 together with the Obfervations made
thereupon by the Author oj that Theory 3 communicated in a
Letter of his from Cambridge, April 13. 1672.
I. /“ |^ O c o n tra d t the beams o f the Sun without the hole o f

X the w indow , and to place the prifm between the
focus o f the Lens and the hole,fpoken o f in M.Newtons theory
o f light,
H. To
76 M O RA Y ’S SUGGESTIONS & N E W T O N ’S COM M ENTS
(4 0 6 0 )
IL T o cover over both Ends o f the Prifm with paper at /everal
diftances from the middle j or with moveable rings,to fee,how
that will vary or divide the length o f the figure, infilled upon
in the faid Theory.
III, T o move the Prifm f o , as the End may turn about the
middle being fteady,
I V . T o move the prifm by (hoving it,ti!lfirfttheoncfide,than
the midle, than the other fide pafs over the hole, obferving the
fame Parallelifm.
The O b fsrv a tio n s, m ade upon th efe propofals.

Suppofethe defign o f the Propofer o f thefe Experiments
I is, to have their events expreffed , with fuch obfervations
as may occur concerning them. 1. Touching theyJr/?, I have
obferv'd, that the Solar image falling on a paper placed at the
f o c u s o f the L e n s , was by the interpofed Priim drawn out io
length proportional to the Prifms reflexion or diftance from
tha t f o c u s . And the chief obfervable here, which I remem
ber, was, that the Streight edges o f the oblong image were
diftin&er than they would have been without the L e n s .
Confidering that the rays coming from the Planet Venus are
much lefs inclined one to another, than th o fe, which com e
from the oppofice parts o f the Suns difquej Io n c e try e d a n
experiment or two w ith e r light. And to make it fufificient-
ly ftrong, I found it necellary to colletft it firft by a broad lenst
and then interpofing a Prifm between the lens and itsfocus at
fuch diftance, that all the light might pafs through the Priftn}
I found the fo cu s, which before appeared like a lucid point, to
be drawn out into a long fplendid line by the Prilms reflexion.
I have fometimes defigned to try,how a fixtStar,feen through
a long Telefcope, would appear by interpofing a Prifm be
tween the T elefcope and my eye. But by the appearance o f
Venus, viewed with my naked eye through a Prifm, I prelage
the event.
2.Concerning the fecondexperiment,I have occafionally ob-
ferved, that by covering both ends o f the Prifm with Paper at
feveral diftances from the m idle, the breadth o f the Solar
image will be increafed or diminilhed as m u ch , as is the aper
ture
MORAY’S SUGGESTIONS & NEW TON’S COMMENTS 77
C 4061 )
ture o f the Prifm without any variation o f the length: Or, if
the aperture be augmented on all fides, the image on all fides
will be fo much and no more augmented,
3. O f the third experiment I have occafion to fp ea k in m y
aofwer to another perfon 5 where you*l find the effects o f two
Prifms in all crofs pofitions o f one to another deferibed. But
if one Prifm alone be turned about, the coloured image
will only be tranftated from place to place, deferibing a cir
cle or lome other ConiekSedtion on the wall, on which it is
projected, without fuffering any alteration in its fbape, unlefs
fuchas may arife from theobliquity ofthe wallorcafual change
o f the Prifms obliquity to the Suns rays.
4. The effedt ot the fo u r th experiment I have already infi-
nuated telling you(in pag.3076 ofthe T ra n (a ftio n s') that Light,
paffingthrough parts ofthe Prifm of divers thickneffes, did
ftill exhibit the fame Phenomena.
ATor^thatthe long axes o f the two Prifms in the experiment
deferibed in the faid pag*3076 o f the Tranfaftiotu, were parah
lei one to another* And for the reft o f their pofition}you will
beft apprehend it
by this Scheme ;
where let EG de- £
figu the window;
F the hole in it 5
through which the
light arrives at the
Prifms 5 A BC the
firft Prifm , which
refra&s the light
towards PT,paint*
ing there the co*
lour in an oblong
fo rm » and aCy the fecond Prifm, which refracts back again the
rays to where the long image P T is contracted into a round
oue.
T hep lane*y toB C , and $y to AC, I fuppofe parallel, that
the rays may be equally refracted contrary ways iu both Prifms.
Aod the Prifms muft be placed very near to one another j For
if
78 M O RA Y ’S SUGGESTIONS & N EW T O N ’S COMMENTS
( 4062 )
i f their diftance be fo g r e « 9that colours begin to appear u uh e
light before its incidence on the fecoud Pri£ra, thofc colours
will nor be deftroyed by the contrary refractions of tharprj/OT
T hefe things being obfervedache round image Q jv ill appear
o f the fame biguefs, which it doth when both the Prifmsare
taken away,that the light may pafs directly towardsQfrom the
hole without any refradion at all. And its diameter will equal
the breadth o f the long image P T , i f thofc images be equal!,,
diftant from the Prifms. ” ^
If an accurate confideration o f thefe refradions be d e fin e d
it is convenientjthat a Lens be placed in the hole F,or imtnedi!
ately after the Prifm s/o that its foeut be at the image Q or P T
For,thereby the Perimeter o f the image Qand the ftraight fides*
ofthe image P T will become much better defined than other-
wife.
PARDIES’ FIRST LETTER 79
C 4o87 )
A Latin Letter written to the Publiflier April p. r 6 ji. n. ft,-

by Ignatius Gafton Pardies P. Prof, o f the Mathema-
ticks in the Parifian Colledge o f Clermont 5 containing
fome AnimadverfionsuponMr.//4*ciV«»f0«, Prof, o f the
Mathematicks in the Univerfity o f Cambridge, his Theory of
Light, printed in N \ 8o.
_T E g i ingenioftjjimam H ypothcfin de Lumine (3 Coloribas

§ i C la rijfim i Newtoni, E t qu ia nonnullam Ego opera/n d ed i
i n ijla contem platione a tq u s E xp erim en tis peragendis , perferibam a d
T e p a u c a , q u £ tnihi circa novam iftam doU rinam occurrerunt.
Circa ipfarn L u m in is naturam illu d p r o fs fib extraordinarium v id e «
■
far, q u od a it v ir eru d itijjim u s , Lum en c o n fu te e x aggregations
infin itoru m propem odum radiorum , q u i fu A p te indole fuum q u i(q m
colorem refer a n t retineantque , atque adeo n a ti a p ti fin t cert'd q u a «
, a lij m inus, r e fr in g i: R a d io s
d a m & p e c u lia r i ra tio n e, p lu s a lij
ejufm odi , dum prom ifcut in aperto lum ine confw iduntnr, n u lla ten u t
d ijc e r n i. fe d candorem p o tiu s referre ; in refraU ione verb ftn g u los
m i u i co lo n s ab a liis a lteriu s color is fe c e r n i, & hoc m o do Jeer et os,
f u b p ro p rio (3 n a tiv e colore apparere : E a corpora fu b aliquo co lo n y
v. rubro, v id e r i, quae apta f t n t refleU ere a u t tr a n fm ittere ra d i
os folu m m odb rubros, (3c.
i f t a c tarn ex tra o rd in a ria H ypothefts, qtt£, u i ipfe o b fe r v a t, D i
optrics: fu n d a m en ta e v e r tit, p ra x e fq u e baUenus in ftitu ta s in u tiles
r e d d it, to ta n ititu r illo E x p e r im e n t P rifm a tis C ry fta llin i, ubi ra*
d jj p er fo r a m e n feneftree in tra obfcurum cu b icu lu m in g rejji, a c deitide
in p a r ie te m im p a U i , au t in cba rta recepti, non in rotundum confor-
m a ti , ,
ut ipfi ad regulas refradtionum receptas attendentij
expedtandum videbatur, f e d in oblongam fjguram e x t e n f apparu-
e r u n f : V n d e con clu jit, oblongam eju fm o d ip g u ra m e x eo ejfe, q u o d
jio n n u lli ra d ij m in u s3 nonnuUi magis refringerentur ♦
Sed mihiquidem videtur juxta communes (3 receptas Dioptrics
leges fgnram illam, non rotnndam, fed oblongam efie oportere. Cum
enim radij ex oppofitis difci Solaris partibus procedentes, varum
habeant in ipfo tranfttu Prifmatis inclinationem, varie quoque re
fringi debent s ut cim unorum inclinatio 30
faltem minutis major
fit inclinations aliorum, major quoque evadat illorum ftefraBio.
* Xxxx JgHur
8o PARDIES’ FIRST LETTER
( 4088 )
Igitur Radii oppofiti, ex altera fuperficie Prifmatis emergentes ma-
gis divergunt (5> divaricantur, quarnf i nallatenus, aut fatten*
qualiter, omnes infraBi procejjijjent. ticfraBio aatem ifia radiorum
fit folummodo versus eas partes quee fingipoffunt in plants ad axem
Prifmatis. reBis 5 nulla autem refraBionis■ itucqualitas contingit
versus eas partes, qua intelliguntur in plants axi parallelis ; nt
facile demonjirari potefl: fuperficies enim due Prifmatis cenjeri
pojjunt interfit parallelret ratione habita ad inclinationem axis^cum
fingula ipfi axi parallelce fint. RefraBio autem per duos paralleles
pianos fuperficies nulla computaturi quia quantum a primafuperficie
radius in unam partem torquetur , tantum ab altera in oppofitam
partem detorquetur. Igitur cum radij folares e foramine per Prif.
ma tranfmijji ad latera quidem mnfrangantur, procedunt ulterius3
perhide ac fi nulla Prifmatis fuperficies obfiitiffet, (habita, inquamy
ratitne folxm ad lateralem iUam divaricatienem5 ) at verb cum
iidem radij adfuperiores feu inferiors partes, alij quidem magis>
alij verb minus, utpote incequaliter inclinati, infringantur 5 nectjfe
eft eos magis inter fe dmaricari, adedque (£ in longiorem figuram
extendi.
gfuinfi calculus rite obeatur, ut radij laterales inventi funt h
Cl. N ewtono in ea latitudine quce fubtendit arcum g 1 \qui arcus
refpondet diametro Solis j it a nullus dubito} quin ilia inventa
quoque altitudo imagmis, qua 2 gradus & 49' fubtendit 3 fit ilia
ipfa qua eidem diametro Solis pofl incequales refraBiones in illo
jpfo cafu refpondeat<r
E t revera , pofito
Prifmate A B C , cu-
jus angulus A fit 60
grad. Radio D E flut
faciat cum perpendi
culari E H angulum
go grad. Invenio il-
lumy dum emergitper
F G , facere camper»
pendiculari F I angtu
lumy6gr> i i '. M ve
rb pofito alio radio d
E, quicum perpendi
cular t
PARDIES’ FIRST LETTER 8l
C 4 o89 )
culariE H facial unguium 29*. 3o', invenio ilium, <&/« emirgit
per f g, facere cumperpendiculari fi, cingulum 78*. 45'. Vnde ifti
duo radij D Ej d E, quiprocedere fupponuntur ex oppofitis partibus
difci Solaris, faciuntque inter fe angulum 30', iidem dum emergum
per linens F g , f g } ita divergtiut ut conftituant angulum inter fe 2
gr, 23. Quod fi duo alj radij ajfumerentur magis accedentes ad
perpendicularem E H, fv.g. qui cum eademperpendiculari facerent,
unus quidem, angulum 290. 30*, alter verb,293. o f ) tunc iidem ra-
dij emergentes magis adhuc divergerent3conflituerenlque angulum
majorem etiam aliquandoplus quamtrium graduum. Et prceterea
augetur ulterius ifla intercapedo refrafforum radiorum ex eo, qudd
duo radj D E , d E,concurrentes in E, illico incipiunt divan cart,
atque impingunt in duo punUa disjunUa alterius fuperfjciei, tiempe
in F 6? in f. Quapropter non fiifficit ad obeundtim rite caleulum, ex
longitudine imaginis impaHce in ehartamfubtrahere magnitudinem fe-
raminis feneftrce , quandoquidem etiam pofito foramine indtvifibili
E, adhuc fieret aliud veluti foramen latum in alia fuperficie , nempc
Ff.
Quod etiam vocat Experimentum crucis, mihi quidem videtur
quadrare cum vulgaribus £s?receptis Refracliontim regulis. Nam, ut
modo ojlendi, radij folares, qui accedentes & convergentes faciunt
angulum 30', egredientes deinde etiam pofl indivifbile foramen di
vergunt in angulum duorum & triumgrad, Quapropter non minim,
fi tjli radij, figillatim impingentes in alterum Prifma, perexiguo
item apertum foramine, imtqualiter infringantur, cumfit incequalis
illorum inclinatio. Neque refert, quod ifli radij attollantur aut
deprimantur per converfionem primi Prifmatis, manente immoto fe-
cundo Prijniatefquod tameninomni cafti fieri non poteft) vel qudd
manente prime immobilifecundum moveatur, ut fucccffive radios co
loratos totius imaginis excipiat ti!perptopriumforamen tranfmittat;
utrolibet enim mode neceffe eft radios illos extremos, hoc eft, Rubrum
ff? Viohceumjneidere in fecundum Prifma fub imquali angulo, a-
deoque eorundemrefraUionem ejje imequalem, ut Violaceorum fit
major.
Cumigitur manifefta caufa apparent oblongae cjufmodifigurce radi
orum, caufaque ilia ex ipfa natura ftefra&ionis oriatur $ non vide-
:ur neceffe recurrere ad aliani Hypothefm, aut admittere diverfam it-
lam radiorum frangibilitatem.
Xxxx 2 Quod
82 PARDIES’ FIRST LETTER
( 4 o 9-o )
Quod deinde excogitavit de Coloribus ? iUtidquidem egrdt
gie confequitur ex pretedente Hypothefi ; veruntamen nonntillas
(S ipfum patitur difficuitates. Nam quod ait3 nudum colorem,
Jed potius candore’m apparere, ubi omnes omnium colerum
radij prom}/cue eonfunduntnr3 id verb non videtur conforms om~
nibus phcenomenis, Certe qwe varied ones cernuntur in permifii-
one diverJorum corpor-um , diverfs co’onbus imbutorum 3 tee-
dem omnirib obfervantur in pertni(lions diverforum radiorum divetjts
item coloribus imbutorum : Atqne optime ipfe advertit, quod qntm-
iidmodum ex flavo & ceeruleo corptre exfurgit viridis colorj it a. ex
Jlavo & ceeruleo radio viridis item color ejjicitur. §}uare ft omnes
omnium colorum radii fmnlcenfunderentur3 necejfe ejjet in ijla hypo-
theft, ut ille color appareret, qui revera apparet in permixdone om
nium pigment otum, A tquifhjla, bocejl, rubrum fm ul & flavum
and cum Ceeruleo & purpurea aliifque omnibus , Ji qute ftnt3 contes
rantur & cenfundantur} non jam candidus3 fed obfearus & fatter
color exfurget. Ergo (imilis color appareret in lutnine ordinario,
quod conflaret ex aggregatione omnium colorum.
Preeterea nihil prime afpeUu magis ingeniofum magifqut aptum
videtur, quam quod ait circa experimentum acutifjimt H o o k ii,
quo duo diverft liquores3 quorum alter rubeus3 alter carulensy
terque ftgilladm pellucidus, Jimul permixd, opaci evadunt. idau-
tem ait Clarijfimus Newtonus ex eo oriri, quod unus liquor folos
rubeos natus fit tranfmittere, alter verb folos flavos 5 unde pert
ntifli nnllos travfmittent. Hoc 9 inquam, videtur Jlatim valdc
appofitum 5 nihilominus tamen ex eo conficeretur s quod frnilis
opadtas fieret in permijlione qtmumcmque liquorum qui ejfint du
verji colons • quod, tamen vernm non ejl,
Mt, Nttvtont
NEWTON’S REPLY TO PARDIES’ FIRST LETTER 83
C 4 0? 1 )
Mr. Newtons Letter o f April i g . 1672. ft. v. written to the

Publiiher, being an Anlwer to the fore-going Letter o f
P, Par dies,
Ccepi Obfervationes fever endi Patris Ignatii Pardies in

A Epijlolam meam de Lucis RejraBionibus C3 Coloribus ad
Te confcriptam: quo nomine me illi valde devinBum agnofeo 5 atque
hoc difficultatibus, quaspropofuit, cluendis referibo. Imprimis ait}
longiludinem folaris Imagines d refraBione Prifmatis ejfeBam non
alia indigere causagquam divers a radiorum ab oppifitis partibus fo
laris dijli profluentium incidentia} adeoque non probare diverfam
refrangibilitatem diverforum radiorum, Et, quo ajfertionis ejus v ce
nt attm confirmet, oflendit cafum, in quo ex diverfa incidentia go
minutorum, differentia refraBionispotejl ejje 2 grad, 23, min. vel
etiam paulo major , preut exigit mettm experimenttim. Sed hallu
cinate efi R, P. Nam refraBiones a diverfa parte Prifmatis quan
tum potejl ituequales Jlatuit, cum tamen ego turn in experiments,
turn in cajculo de experiments iflis inito, (equates adhibuerimgut in
Epiflola preefata videre efi. Sit ergo A B C Prifmatis feBio ad
axem ejus perpendicularis, F L & 1\G radii duo in x (medio fo-
raminit) decuffantes & in Prifhia illud incidentes ad G & L 5
fntque eorum refraBi G H & L m , ac denub-H I S3 m n, E l
cum refraBiones adlatut A C (equates effe refraBionibus adlatus B C

quamproximefuppofnerim$ Si A C & B C Jlatuantur aqualia,f mi
lls erit radiorum G H S3 L m ad AB haffn Prifmatis inclinatio 3
adeoque ang. C L m = ang. C flG S3 ang. C m L ^ a n g . C G H ,
ffjupre etiam refraBiones in G S3 m aquales erunt, ut S3 in E S3. H i-
84 NEWTON’S REPLY TO PARDIES’ FIRST LETTER
C 4°92 )
atqm adeo ang. KflAâng* n m B 9 $3 ang, F L A —ang.BHI'9(£
proinde refraUorum H i & tnn eadem erit adinvicem inclmatia ac
eft incidentiumradmum FL (3 JfG. Sit ergo angulus F k K^ 30 win,
tequalisnempe folart diametro9 (3 erit angulus , quem H I S3 mn
comprehendunt, etiam 30 min.fi modo radii FL S3 JfG <equaliter ret
frangibiles ftatuantur.At mibi experientiprodiit angulus ille ckciter
a grad. 49. min. quem radius H I, extremum violaceum colorem, S3
m n,cseruleum exhibens} conftituere j acproinde radios illos diverfi-
mode refrangibiles effe, five refraUiones fecundum difparemfinuum
incidentice S3 refraUionis rationsmperagi necejfiario concedendum eft.
Addit praterea R,P. quodnonfuffieit adobeundum rite calculum,
ex longitadine imaginis impaUce in Chartam fubtrabere magnitudinem
foraminis feneftrre 5 quandoquidem etiam pofitoforamine indivi(ibilit
adhttcfieret aliudveluti foramen latum in fofteriori fuperficieprifma.
tis. Mihi tamen videtur9 his non ebftantibus, quod rejraPliones ra*
diorumjn anteriori ceque ac inpofteriorifuperficie Prifmatis dccuffan-
tium,ex adhibitis prineipiis pojfint rite computari, Sed f t res (ecus
ejjety latitude hiatus in pofteriori fuperficie, quod ad infiar forami
nis eft, baud efjiceret erroremduorumminutornm fecundorumj & in
rebus prail ids non opercepretium duco ad minutias iftas attendere.
Illiinfiiper experiment, quod Crucis vocaveram, nihil adverfa*
tur 1{fP 9 aum contendit, incequales radiorum, diverfis coloribus im-
butorum, refraUiones ex ineequalibus incidentiis effeUasfuiffe. Ham
radiis per duo admodum parva, ah invicem diftantia S3 immota fo
ramina,tranfeuntibus, incidentice ilia, prout ego experimentum inftu
tui, omnino cequales erant, & tamen refraUiones liquido incequales.
Sin ille de experiments noftris dubitet, oro,ut radiorum diverfis co
loribus prceditorum refraUiones ex incidentiis paribus men(uret9 S3
fentiet incequales ejft. S i modus ille, quem ego ad hoc negotium ad-
bibui, minusplaceat (quo tamen nullus poteft ejfe luculentiorf) facile
eft alios excogitate 5 ficut S3 alios ipfe baud paucos cum fruUu ex*
pertus film.
ContraTheoriam Coloribus obtjcitur9 quid pulveres diverfo
rum colorumpermifti.tion candidumfedfubobfcurum S3 fufcumcolorem
exhibent. Mihi verb albus, niger, (3 omnes intermedii fufci, qui ab
albo (3 nigro permiftis componipojfunt, non fpecie colons fed quanti
tate lucis tantum dijferre videntur. E t mm in mifttone pigmentorum9
fingula cotpufcula non nifi proprium colorem refietianttadeoqqmaxima
pars
C 4°93 )
pars lucis incidents fupprimatur & retimatur 3 lux reflexafubobfcu-
ra evadequaftearn tenebris 'permifia^deb ut non intenfum albarem,
fed qualem nigredmis permiftio conpcitftoc eJLfufturn, exhibere debeat.
Obijcitur dcinde, quod a liquoribus quibujcunque diverfi colons in
eodemvaje commiftisyceque ac in diverps vafis contentisôpacitas oriri
debet s quodtamen, aity verumnon ejje. Sed non video confequen-
tiam. Namplurtmi liquores agunt in (e invicem,(3 novamfibi mu-
tuo partium contexturamfecretb inducunt 3 unde opeicis diaphani}vel
variis coloribusy ex coloribus permiflorum nulla medo oriundis,pr<edi*
ti evaderepoffunt. Et bac de causa experimenta hujtsfmodi minus
apta femper exiftimaviy a quibus conclufiones deduct pojjhit. Subnoto
tamen} quod ad hoc experimentum requiruntur liquores faturis £? in*
tenfis coloribuspnediti, quiperpaucos nifi proprii colons radios tranf-
mitfant 3 quales rarb occurrunty ut videbitur illuminando liquores
cum diverps coloribus Prifmaticis in obfcurato cubiculo, Nampauci
reperientur} qui inpropriis coloribus fatis diaphani appareant, inque
alienis opaci. Convenit pneterea, ut adhibit1 colores ftnt inter (e op-
poptiy quales exiflimofore rubrum & cceruleum3 vel fiavnm 13 vm
idceum, vel etiam viridem 6 purpureum ilium qui coccineo affirms eft.
E t ex bujufmodi liquoribus nonnulli (quorumpartes tingentes non con*
gredientur) forCafe permifti evadent opaciores. Sed ae evetitu nihil
Jum follicitusy turn quod luculentius eft experimentum in liquoribus
feorftm exiftentibusi turn quod experimentum illud (ftcut & Iridis,
TinUura N e p h r i t i c (3 aliorum corporum naturalium phenomena)
non ad probandam fed ad illuftrandam tantum doUrinam propofui.
QuodR. P, Tbeoriam mftrarn Hypothefin vocat, amice habeo,
Iiquidtm ipft nondumconftet. Sed alio tamen conftlio propofiieram, IS
nihil altudcontinere videtur quam proprietates quafdem Lucis,
quasjaminventas probare baud difficile exiftimo, IS quasft non veras
epe cognofcerem3 pro futili (3 inani fpeculatione mallem repudiaret
quam pro mea Hypotbeft agnofcere. Quid verb cenferi mereaturgex
refponjionibus adanimadverftones Domini N.N.fortaile ftatim p r o
dituris thrifts patebit'. Intereamle, (3 perge amare
Tibi devinHiffimum
J Newton
726 PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. [ANNO 1 0 7 ^ .
Some Anim adversions on the Theory o f L ig h t o f M r. I saac N ewton ,

P ro f, o f M athem atics in the U niversity o f C am bridge, p rin te d in
N °. 80. In a L e tte r o f A p r il 9, 1672, N . S- fr o m I gnatius G as
ton P ardies ,* P . P ro f, o f M athem atics in the P arisian College o f
Clermont. T ran slated fr o m the L a tin . N ° 84, p . 4087.
I have read Mr. Newton’s very ingenious hypothesis of light and colours.
* Ignatius Gaston Pardies, a French Jesuit, and professor of mathematics in the Parisian college
of Clermont, was borh in 1636. He entered the Jesuits order at 16 , and after some time he devoted
himself entirely to mathematics and natural philosophy . In this latter branch he followed the opi
nions of Descartes, though he feebly affected the contrary. H e died at Paris in t673, aged only 37,
of a contagious disorder caught at the Bicetre, where he officiated as a preacher and a confessor. He
VOL. V II.] PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. 727
And as I have given some attention to that subject, and also made experiments,
I shall here inform you of what has occurred to me on that new doctrine.
It seems very extraordinary that the learned author should make light to con
sist of an almost infinite number of rays, endued with a natural disposition of
retaining and exhibiting their own proper colours, and that are disposed in a
certain peculiar way to be refracted, some in a greater, and others in a less de
gree : that these rays which, while promiscuously blended- together in open
daylight, are undiscernible, and exhibit only the colour of whiteness, should
notwithstanding in refraction have rays of one colour separated from those of all
others, and, thus separated, appear in their proper and native colours: and that
bodies should appear of a certain colour, red for instance, which are adapted to
reflect or transmit rays of that colour only.
This extraordinary hypothesis, which, as he observes, overturns the very
basis of dioptrics, and renders useless the practice hitherto known, is founded
entirely on the experiment of the prism, in which rays entering into a dark
room through a hole in the window-shutter, and then falling on the wall, or
received on a paper, did not form a round figure, as he expected according to
the received rules of refraction, but appeared extended into an oblong form :
whence he concluded, that this oblong figure was owing,to the different refran-
gibility of the rays of light.
But it appears to me that, according to the common and received laws of
dioptrics, the figure ought to be, not round but oblong. For since the rays •
proceeding from the opposite parts of the sun’s disk, are variously inclined in
their passage to the prism, they ought also to be variously refracted; that since
the inclination of some rays is at least 30' more than that of others, their re
fraction must also be greater. Therefore the opposite rays, emerging from the
other surface of the prism, become more diverging, than if they had proceeded
without any refraction, or at least with an equal one. Now that refraction of
the rays is made only towards those parts, which may be supposed to be in the
planes perpendicular to the axis of the prism; for there is no inequality of re
fraction towards those parts which are conceived to be in planes parallel to the
axis, as may easily be demonstrated: for the two surfaces of the prism may be
was author of several ingenious works, which are written in a manner remarkably neat and clear, by
which he acquired considerable credit, and by his talent as a teacher; but, unfortunately for him, lost
himself by the above imprudent attack on Sir I. Newton’s theory of light aiid colours His works
were chiefly, 1 . Elements of Geometry, translated into English by Dr. John Harris, secretary of the
Royal Society. 2 . Discourse on the Knowledge of Beasts. 3. Statics, or the science of Moving
Forces. 4. Two machines for drawing dials. 5. Discourse on Local motion, 6'. Horologium Thau-
mauticum Duplex. 7. Dissertation on the Nature and Motion of Comets.
728 PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. [ANNO 1673.

considered as parallel, with respect to the inclination to the axis, since they are
both parallel to it. But the refraction through two parallel plane surfaces is
accounted none, because by how much a ray is refracted one way by the first
surface, by just so much is it refracted the contrary way by the other surface.
Therefore since the solar rays, transmitted by a hole through a prism, are not
refracted sideways, they proceed in that respect as if no prism at all stood in their
way, that is with regard to the lateral divarication ; but when the same rays on
the superior and inferior parts, are refracted, some more, some less, as being
unequally inclined, they must needs diverge more, and consequently be extended
in an oblong figure.
But when a calculation is rightly made, as the lateral rays were found by M r.
Newton, of a breadth that subtended an arc of 3 l', which answers to the sun’s
diameter; so there is no doubt but the length of the image, which subtended
2° 49', would correspond with the same diameter after the unequal refractions.
Thus, supposing the prism at ABC, (fig. 7 , pi. 15,) having the angle A of
60 °; and a ray D E making with the perpendicular E H an angle of 30°; after
emerging in the line EG,. I find it makes with the perpendicular F I an angle of
yCf 22'. But taking another ray dE, which, makes with the perpendicular E lf
an angle of UQ° 30,, I find that, when it emerges by fg, it makes with the per
pendicular fi, an angle of 78° 45'. Hence those two rays DE, dE, which are
supposed to proceed from opposite parts of the solar disk, and forming between
them an angle of 30', where they emerge by the lines FG, fg, they diverge
so as to form between them an angle of 2° 23'. And if two other rays were
assumed approaching nearer the perpendicular EH , as .suppose one of them
forming with it an angle of 20° 30', and the Other 290; these rays, after
emerging, would diverge still more, and form a greater angle, even sometimes
more than 3°. And besides, this distance between: the refracted rays is further
increased, on: this account, that the two, rays DE, dE, meeting in E, begin im
mediately to diverge, and then fall on two distantpoints of the second surface,
viz. in F and f. Therefore, in order to render the calculation just, it js not
sufficient barely to subduct the diameter of. the hole from the length of the
image; for supposing the hole E to be invisible, or almost nothing, yet there
would be formed a great hole as it were, in Ff, in the second surface of the
prism.
W hat the author calls the Experimentum Crucis, seems also to agree with the
commonly received laws of refraction. For, as was 'just now shown, the sun’s
rays, which approaching and converging from an angle of 30', coming from an
invisible hole, do afterwards diverge in an angle of two or three degrees. It |s
not then to be wondered at, if these rays falling severally on a second prism,
7
and having a very small hole in it, be unequally refracted, since their inclina
tion is unequal. Nor does it alter the case, that those rays are raised or de
pressed by the rotation of the first prism, the second remaining immoveable,
(which however cannot be done in all cases, or contrarysvise, the second being
turned while the first is fixed, that it may successively receive the coloured rays
of the whole image, and transmit them through its proper hole; for in either
case it is necessary that the extreme rays, viz. the red and the violet, should
fall on the second prism under unequal angles, and consequently that their
refraction be unequal, that of the violet being the greater.
Since then, here is an evident cause ofthat oblong figure of the rays, and
that cause such as arises from the very nature of refraction ; it seems needless to
have recourse to another hypothesis, or to admit of that diverse refrangibility of
the rays.
The author’s notion of colours indeed follows very well from the preceding
hypothesis ; yet it is not without its difficulties. For when he says, that all the
rays being promiscuously blended together, yield no colour, but rather a white
ness, this does not seem conformable to all the phenomena. Doubtless the'
same variations that are seen in the mixture of divers bodies of different colours,
are also observed in the mixture of different rays of various colours: and the
author himself has well observed, that as a green colour arises from a yellow and
3 blue body, so likewise a green colour is produced from a yellow and a blue
fay. Therefore, i:f all the rays of the several colours be blended together, it is
necessary in that hypothesis, that that colour should appear, which in reality
arises on mixing together the several sorts of painters colours. That is, as the
red, yellow, blue, purple; and all the others, when mixed together, produce,
not a white, biit an obscure sated colour. So also ordinary light should appear
of the same colour, being a like aggregate of all the colours.
Indeed nothing can be more ingenious and proper, than what he says about
M r. Hook’s experiment, in which are two different liquors, the one red, the
other blue, and eich apart transparent, yet when mixed together they become
opaque -, this the ingenious author thus explains: that the one liquor is disposed
to transmit only the red rap, the other only the yellow; hence, both being
mixed together, they transmit none at all. But it should seem that the like
opacity should take place on the mixture of liquors of any other different colours:
which however is for enough from the truth.
VO L I. 4Z
730 TimOSOPHICA*. TRANSACTIONS. [ anno 1672.
M r. N e w t o n s L e tte r o f A p r il 13, 1672, O. S . w ritte n to the E d ito r,

being an A n sw er to the fo reg o in g L e tte r o f F. P ardies . T ra n sla ted
f r o m the L a tin . N°_ 84, p . 4091*
I received, Sir, the observations of the Rev. Father Ignatius Pardies, on my
letter, concerning the refractions and colours of light: for which I acknowledge
myself much obliged ,to him ; and shall here clear up the difficulties he com
plains of. In the first place, he says that the length of the solar image pro
duced by the refraction of the prism, requires no other cause to account for it,
than the different incidence of the lays from opposite parts of the sun’s disk ;
and that therefore it does not prove, a different refrangibility in the different
rays. And, to prove the truth of his assertion, he states a case, in which from
a difference of 30' in the incidence, the difference of the refraction may be 2°
23', or rather more, as my experiment requires; But the Rev. Father is under a
mistake. For he has made the refractions by the different parts of the prism to
be as unequal as possible, whereas in the experiments, and in the calculation
from them, I employed equal refractions. Thus, let ABC (fig. 8, pi. 13,) be a
section of the prism perpendicular to its axis; Fly and KG two rays crossing
each other in x, the middle of the hole, and incident on the prism at G and L ;
which let be first refracted into G H and Lm, and then into H I and mn. And
since I supposed the refractions at the side AC are nearly equal to those at the
side B C ; if AC and BC be equal, the inclination of the rays G H and Lm, to
the base AB of the prism, will be similar ; and therefore the angle C L m = the
angle CHG, and the angle C m L =the angle CGH. Therefore the refrac
tions in G and m will be also equal, as well as those at Land H ; consequently
the angle K G A = the angle nm B, and the angle F L A = th e angle B H I;
and hence the inclination of the refracted rays H I and mn will be the same with
that of the incident rays FL and K G. Therefore let the angle FxK of 30' be
equal to the sun’s diameter, then the angle made by HI and mn will be also of
30', provided the rays FL and KG be equally refrangible. But my experi
ment gave that angle about 2° 49', which is constituted by the ray HI of the
extreme violet colour, and by the ray m n which gives the blue; and therefore
those rays were differently refrangible, or the refractions were necessarily pro
duced according to the unequal ratio of the sines of incidence and refraction.
The Rev. Father further adds, that to make ajust calculation, it is sufficient
to subtract the magnitude of the window hole from the length of the image on
the paper; since, even supposing the hole indivisible, yet there, would be
formed as it were a broad hole in the posterior surface of the prism. But yet it
seems to me, that the refractions of rays crossing each other, both in the an
terior and posterior surface of the prism, may be justly calculated from my
principles. But if the case were otherwise, the breadth of the hole in the
posterior surface, if such there be, would hardly produce an error of two seconds;
and in practice such niceties may well be neglected.
W hat the Rev. Father contends is not inconsistent with what I called the
Experimentum Crucis, viz. that the unequal refractions of rays endued with
different colours, were produced by unequal incidences: for transmitting rays
through two very small immoveable holes, and at a distance from each other,
the incidences, as I made the experiment, were always equal, and yet the re
fractions were manifestly unequal. If he has any doubt of our experiment, I
request that he may measure the refractions of the said rays of divers colours
from equal incidences, and he will then see that they are unequal. But if he
dislikes the manner in which I have performed this matter (than which however
nothing-can be clearer) it is easy to devise other ways; as indeed I myself have
tried several other methods with advantage.
Against the theory of colours it is objected, that powders of divers colours
mixed together, do not yield a white, but an obscure and dusky colour. But
to me, white, black, and all the intermediate dusky colours, which can be
compounded of mixtures of white and black, do not differ as to their species,
but only as to their quantity of light. And since in the mixture of painters’
colours, each corpuscle reflects only its own proper colour, and therefore the
greatest part of the incident light is suppressed and retained; the reflected light
will become obscure, and as if mixed with darkness, so that it exhibits not an
intense whiteness, but an obscure dusky colour.
Again it is objected that an opacity ought equally to arise from a mixture of
any liquors of different colours in the same vessel, as from the same liquors
contained in different vessels; which however he says is not true. But I see no
consequence in this. For many liquors act mutually on each other, and acquire
a new texture of parts; hence they may become opaque, or diaphanous, or of
various colours, in no manner owing to the colours of the compound. And
on that account I have always esteemed experiments of this kind not so proper
to draw conclusions from. It must also be noted that this experiment requires
liquors of full and intense colours, which transmit very few rays besides those
of their own colours; such as rarely occur, as will be seen by illuminating
liquors with different prismatic colours in a dark room. For few will be found
diaphanous enough in their own proper colours, and opaque in the others. Be
sides, it is proper that the colours employed be opposites, such as I count red
and blue to be, or yellow and violet, or green, and that purple which ap-
4 z 2
fZI FHIL050BHICAL TRANSACTIONS. [ANNO 1 6 / 2 .
proaches to scarlet. And perhaps some of these liquors mixed together, whose
tinging parts do not coalesce, will become more opaque. But I am not solicit
ous about the event, both as the experiment is clearer in liquors apart, and as
-the experiment (like the phenomena of the iris, and the tincture of lignum
nephriticum, and of other natural bodies) I proposed not to prove but only to
illustrate the doctrine.
I do not take it amiss that the Rev. Father calls my theory an hypothesis,
inasmuch as he was not acquainted with it. But my design was quite different,
for it seems to contain only certain properties of light, which, now discovered, I
think easy to be proved, and which if I had not considered them as true, I
would rather have them rejected as vain and empty speculation, than acknow
ledged even as an hypothesis.
NEWTON’S QUERIES ON LIGHT AND COLOURS 93
C 4004 )
A S t r u t of Quere's propounded by M r . Ifaac Newton, to be de
term in 'd by E x p e r im e n ts , p o jitiv ely a n d d ir e B ly concluding b it
neve Theory of L ig h t a n d Colours 3 a n d here recom m ended to th e
In d ustry o f the L o v e rs o f E x p e r im e n ta l P bilofop b y, a s they were
gen erou jly im p a rted to the P u b lijh e r in a L e tte r o f the f a t d M r .
Newtons o f July 8 .16 72 .
N the mean while give me leave, Sir, to infinuate,that I can-
5 notthink it effectual for determining truth, to examin the
fcveral waies by which Phenomena may be explained, unlefs
where there can be a perfect enumeration o f all thole waies*
You know,the properMethod for in q u irin g after the properties
o f things is,to deduce them from Experiments,And 1 told you,
that the Theory,which I propounded, was evinced to me, not
by inferring’tis thus becaufe not otherwife, that is , not by
deducing it only from a confutation o f contrary fuppofitions,
but by deriving it from Experiments concluding pofitively
and direCtly. T he way therefore to examin it is, byconfi-
dering, whether the Experiments which I propound do prove
thole parts o f the Theory, to which they are applyed; or by
profecuting other Experiments which the Theory may fug-
geft for its examination. And this I would have done iu a due
Method 3 the Laws o f R efra B io n being throughly inquired in
to and determined before the nature o f Colours be taken into
confederation. It may not be amifs to proceed according to
the S e r ie s o f thefe Q u e r ie s 3 which I could wifh were determi*
ned by the Event o f proper Experiments • declared by thofe
that may have thecurioficy toexamin them.
1. Whether rays, that are a lik e incident on the fame M e d u
urn, have u nequal refractions3 and how'great are the inequa
lities o f their refractions at any incidence ?
a. What is the Law according to which each ray is more
orlefi refraCted ; whether it be that the fame ray is ever re
fracted according to the fame ratio o f the fines o f incidence
and refraCtion; and divers rays,according to divers r a tio 1ss, o r
that the refraCtion o f each ray is greater or lefs without any
certain rule ? T h a t i s , whether each ray have a certain de*
gree o f refrangibility according to which its refraCtion is per*
formed 3 or is refra&ed without that regularity f
3. Where
94 NEWTON’S QUERIES ON LIGHT AND COLOURS
( 5°°5 )
3. W hether rays, which are endued with particular degrees
o f refrangibility, when they are by any means feparated, have
particular colours conftantiy belonging to them; v i the leaffc
refrangibleySVar/^ j the molt refran gible,^ ^ Violet 3 the mid
d l e , 5 and odiers,other colours ? And on the contrary?
4* W hether the colour o f any fort o f rays apart may be
changed by refraCtion ?
5. W hether colours by coalefcing do really change one an
other to produce a new colour,or produce it by m ixing only j?
6. W hether a due mixture o f rays, indued with all variety
o f colours, produces Light perfectly like that o f the Sun,and
which hath all the fame properties,and exhibits the fame P h t-
nom etia ?
7. W hether the component colours o f each mixture be re*
ally changed 3 or be only feparated when from that mixture
various colours are produced again by RefraCtion ?
8* W hether there be any other colours produced by refra
ction than fuch, as ought to refult from the colours belonging
to the diverfly refrangible rays by their being feparated or
mixed by that refraCtion ?
T o determine by Experiments thefe and filch like Qu&re’s
which involve the propounded Theory, feems the molt pro
per and direct way to a conclufion* And therefore I could
wilh all objections were fufpended, taken from Hypothecs or
any other heads than thefe two 3 O f (hewing the inefficiency
o f Experiments to determine thefe g>u*res or prove apy other
parts o f my Theory, by affigning the flaws and defects in my
conclufioas drawn from them » O r o f producing other Ex
periments which direCtly contradiCfc me, i f any fuch may feem
to occur. F or if the Experimeifts, which I urge, be defective,
it cannot be difficult to fho w the defeCts; but if valid , then by
proving the T heory they mull render all Objections invalid.
So far this accurate Propofer; whofe Method appearing to be
molt genuine and proper to the purpofe it is propounded for,
anddeferving therefore to be confidered and put to trial by
Philofophers, abroad as well as at home 5 the Publiflier, to
invite and gratify F oreign ers, was willing to deliver the a-
bove recited Extradt o f Mr* Newtons Letter in the language
alfo o f the Learned, as folio w eth ; Zzzz a E x-
NEWTON’S QUERIES ON LIGHT AND COLOURS 95
( 5006 )
E x c e r p tu m e x 'Ifaacl k e m m E p if t o la , n u p er a d E d ito r e m f c r ip t ,q u a
i p f e g e n u i n a m f u g g e r i t M e t h o d u m , d o f t r i n a m fu a m d eLuc 8c Cv-
loribus, a n te h a c p r o p o ( it a m ,e v in c e n d i , f u b je ft a c c r t o r u r a ^ M ^
torum, d e b itis E x p e r im e n tis fo lv c n d o r u m a f e r ic .
I let at mihi hac occupant tibi pgnipcare, nequaquam cenfere me, efficacem
_j cum ejf? determittand* veritatis rationem,qud diverp examinantur mci
di, quibus Phenomena explicari pojfunt, nip ubi perfella fHerit omnium ifo-
rurn modorum Enumeratio. Nofii, gentsinam proprietAtes rerum invepigandi
Afethedum ejfe, qua ill* ab Experimentis deducuntur. Ac jam ante tibi dix-
eramTheoriam a mepropoptam evittam mihifuijfe, n o n q u i d e m i n f e -
r e n d o r c m i t a f e h a b e r e q u i a h a u d f e b a b e a t a J it e r , i. e. non earn de-
ducendo duntaxat d contrAriarum fnppopthnum confutation ■, f e d ip f a m a b
E x p e r im e n tis , p o fitiv £ & d ir e f t e c o n d u d c n t ib u s , d e r iv a n d o . Ve
ra itaque ratio earn examinandi hac erit, p conpderemus fcilicet, mm E x
perimenta a mepropopta illas Theoria partes , quibus accommodantur, reve
rse probent , velp alia profequamur Experimenta, qua ab ipfa Theoria ad
examinandam earn fuggerantur. Atque hoc ipfum JMethode genuind peri ve-
lim \ pervepigatkprimum ac determinatis Legibus R c f r a f t i o n i s , priufquam
C o l o r u m naturadi/quiratur. Prater rem itaque haudfare crediderim,dif-
quiptionem hanc exJequentium Q u a e f it o r u m ferie inpituere; qua quidem ut
d folertibwfagacibufqut natura Afjfu^ronunciatis Experimentorum Even-
tibus,dirimantur ,in votis qudm maxim'ehabeo.Eafunt \
P r i r n o , Num radii, qui x q u a l i incidentid in idem medium incidunt^Re-
frattiones habeant in a r q u a le s quantaquepnt refraclionum,quas illi fubeunt,
inaqualitates in quavis incidentia ?
S ecundo, ea Lexpt, juxta quam radius quilibet magis minufve
refringitur}ptne, quod idem radius femper refringatur fecundum eandem ra-
tienem Sinuum Incidentia & RefraUionis } diverp autem radii, fecundum
rationes diverfas ? An verb, quod cujufibet radii refraSlio major minorve
pt abfque alia regula certa ? Hoc ep, Vtrum mufquifque radius certurn ha-
beat gradum Refrangibilitatis, juxta quern pat ippus refrattia ■, an verb re
fringatur pne ijta regularitate ?
T e r t i o , Num radii, certisgradibut refrangibilitatis praditi, quanio,quo.
demttm cumquemodo ,fecernuntur,certos obtineant colores ipps proprios $puta
radii minimi omnium refrangibiles, Coccineum '■>maxima refrangibiles, fa-
tttrum Violaceum \ intermedii, fub-Viridem S alii, alios? Et e contra.
Q u a r t o , Num color cujufvis generis radhrum feorpm ettipentium
mutari popint Refrablione ?
Q u i n t O , Vtrum colores coalefcendo reverd fe invicem mutent adprodu-
cendum colorem novum i an verb eum producant nonnip fe invicem com*
mifcendo ?
Sexto, Num debita radiorum mifcela , omnigend colorumvarietate prx-
dita, Lucem producat Solari luci pmUUmam-, quaqttt eafdem omnino pro^
prietates obtineat,eadcmque Phsttomtna exhibm ?
Septim#
96 NEWTON’S QUERIES ON LIGHT AND COLOURS
( 5007 )
S e p t i m o , Vtrum componentes cujufvi* mifctU colores revert mutentur \
tn verb fecernantur duntaxat, qttando ex mixture illavarii colores ritrfum
prodaatntnr per Refrablionem ?
O f t a V O , Denturne ulli alii colores RefraSlione produbli prater eos,qnts oriri
oportet d Coloribus, ad radios diverJtmod'e rcfrangibiles pertinentibns, dum
illt refrallioHc iftd fecernantur vel mifcentur ?
Per ExperimentA determinare h.tc fmiliave Quafta , qua propoftam
Theoriam involvant, max'tme genaina direSlaqae videtar ad Conclujionem-
via i Proindeque omnes velim Objellionesfufpcndi, qua ab Hypothefibus de-
[amantur allifve Fontibus aliis , qitdm his auobus -y quibtts nempe v e l often t
datur Experintentorum ad detcrminanda hac prebandajve nilas alias
Eheoria meet partes infujficientia, hallucinationes defelhif]fie in Conchijieni-
bsu meis inde dedaflu indigitando •, v e l alia prodiicantnr Experimenta, e dia-
metro mihi oppojita, Ji qax talia occurrere videantnr. Si enim Experimental.,
qnx d me urgentur, laborant defettibtts , difficile haudfuerit eos oflendere h
Ji vero validafuerint, to ipfo dim Theoriam meam afferent probantqae om
nes Objecliones convellmt.
PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER 97
C So12 )
A S e co n d L e tte r o f P .Pardiet, w r i t t e n t o th e P u b liflie r fr o m Paris
May 2 1 . 1 6 7 2 . toUt.Newtons A n f w e r , m a d e t o h i s f ir f t L e t t e r ,
p r i n t e d i n Numb. 8 4 .
R EdditA mihifunt tux litera cum Obfervationibus CUyiJfimi atque Inge-

N e w t o n i , quibus ad wens difficultates refpondit. E as ego
led nonfine maxima voluptatc : Etprimum, quod attinet ad ipfium Expert-
mentum ntajorts Latttudinis colorum quam exigeret vulgaris Thsorsa Re-
fracl'ummn 5 fateor, me i n x q u a l e s refragones in oppofitfi Prifmatis facie-
bus fuppofuijfe, nee nila tenus advertise in Uteris relAtis in r r a n fa (ft i o n i -
b u s , obfervatamfuiffied N e w t o n o majoremillam latitudinem^ ineocafuin
quo refralliones ponerentur reciproce E q u a l e s , eo modo quo hie in ifiis obfer-
vatiambus dicitur. Sed nec ab eo tempore in iifdem T r a n f a f t i o n i b u s vide-
re licuit, cum cos non potuerimrecuperare. Curn igitur, nunc videam,etiat»
in eo Cafuobfervatam majorem illam Colorum latitudinem \ cert'e ex hoc ca-
pite nihil mihi ulterius refiat difficultatis : E x hoc, inquam, c.spite , nam a-
liunde videtur pojfe reddi ratio illius Phsnomeni abfique ifiavaria Radiorum
Refrangibilitate. Etenim in ea Hypothefi, quamfufse explicit noftcr G r i -
m a l d u s , in qua ftippomtur Lumen effie fubfiantia quxdam rapidiffime mota ,
pojfet fieri aliqua diffiufio luminis pofi tranfitum foraminis & decufiationcm
radiorum. I t e m in ea Hypothefi, qua lumen ponitHr progredi per certa s quaf-
dam materia fnbtilis Vndulationes, ut explkat fubtUiffimm H o o k i u s , pof-
funt explicari colores per cert amquandam diffiufionem atque expanfionem Z/n-
duiationum,qna fiat ad l atera radiorum ultra foramen, ipfo comagio ipfaque
materia continuations. Certe ego talem adhibeo hypothefin in D i f l c r t a t i o n e
d e m o t u u n d u l a t i o n i s , qua efifexta pars meorum Mechanicortm \ ut po-
nam, colores ifios apparentes fieri ex fol'a ilia Communication motion!:, qua
ssb Vndulationibus direlie proeedentibits ad latera efundatur: V t, fi radii
intraotes per foramen a progrediantur
versus b 3 undulationes quidem direll e
terminari deberent ( habendo rationem ad
motum reSlum (dr naturalem) ad lincam
rellam a b ; nihilominus tamen, propter
corttinuitatem materia,fit aliqua commu-
nicatio commotionis verfus latera c c,
ubi tremula quadam & crifpans fuccuf-
fio excitatur : Jtque fi in ilia laterali
erifpatione confifiere colores fnpponatur,
exifiimo omnia phenomena colorum ex
plicari pojfe, Ut fnfins in ea , quam dixi, Dijfertatione expono. guibus
ttem pofitis apparet etiam, cur ultra quam ferat radiorum ipforum^ divarfi-
catio, expands colorum latitudinem necefficfit « h er 'umifia obitirhsctant urn
admajfe fufficiat.
98 PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER
( 5013 )
ftluodamctat, errorem, qui oriri poffet in ca/culo, ex eo, quod dixerantt
veluti foramine faUo in pofteriori facie prifmatts ■, errorcm , inquam> il
ium eon pojfe indueere fenfibilem varietatem : id optime annotatum eft -
neque ego exiftimavi, inde multum augeri colerum latitudinem , fed tan-
tummodo accuratam calculi rationem indicare volui: ftftuaprotter etiam &
ego in praxi negligendam hanc cautionem cenfeo.
Circa E x p e r i m e n t u m c r u c i s , ncquaquam dubito, quo minus in fm
experiments talem fttum adbibuerit, in quo s e q u a li s inclinatie fuerit Ra
diorum incidentium 3 qtiandoquidem id ita d fe praftitum expreffe aftir-
vtat. Verum id non ego peteram conijcere ex its qua in T r a n f a & i o n i -
b u s legeram i, ubi ponuntur duo exigua dr maxim'e diftantia foramina, dr
mum Prifma prope p r i m u m foramen quod eft in feneslra ^ per quod
Prifma radij colorati erumpentes incidunt in alterum diftans foramen.
Addebatur autem, quod ad hoc nt omnes illi radii fucceftive inciderent in
f e c u n d u m illud foramen , convertebatur primum Prifma fnpra axem :
Atqui hoc tnodo neceffe eft mutari inclinationem radiorum qtii incidunt in
fecundum foramen : atque indicavi ego in Uteris , quod perinde fe fe res
habiret, five manente primo Prifmate immobili, fecundumforamen attolle-
retur ant deprimeretur, tit poffet fucceftive radios omnes depicia imaginis
Solaris excipere -t Jive manente ifto fecundo foramine immobili, prtmum
prifma converteretur , ut ita eadem imago fttum mutaret , atque in fo
ramen impingere fecundum omnes fucceftive partes poffet. Sed alias fine
dubie adhibuit cautiones folertijftmus N e w t o n u s .
ftlug circa C o l o r c s objeceram , eptimi foluta exiftimo. ftftyod au
tem T h e o r i a m iftam , appellarim H y p o t h e f i n , id cert'e ego nullo ad-
hibito conftlio feci ; atque nomen ufurpavi quod primum occur) it : qua-
propter velim ut ne per contempturn adhibitam vocem ejufmodi exiftmet.
Praclara fane inventa femper ego magni feci3 Clariftimum verb N c w t O -
n u m imprimis fufpicio ac veneror,
A a a aa 3 Mr* Newtctu
NEWTON’S REPLY TO PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER 99
f 4 OI4 )
Mr, Newtons Anfwer to the foregoing Letter.
I N Obfiervatiombus R. Patris J. Pardies, quas adte denub confcripfit, an

j rnajmJit Humanitatis argumenturn quod meis refponfionibus vim omnem
attribuit '•> an Ingenii, quod Objeflisnes proponit, qua, ft non probe tollantur,
JDoElrinam nofiramfrufiraripojjint, vix dixerim. ZJmtmquefane ad de.
terminandam veritatem optime conducts, ejficitque nt acceptis qukm lubentif-
fime refpondeam.
Ait R. P. quod abfque varta diverforurn radiorum refrangibilitate pof-
fibilc f t explicate longitudinem colorum •, puta ex Hypothefi P. Grimaldi,
per dijfufionem lum'mis, quod fupponitur ejfe fubfiantia qtudam rapidiffimt-
mota •, vel ex Hypothefi Hookii nofir i,per dijfuftonem t 'el expanfionem Vn-
dulationum, quas fiatnit in athere a lucidis corporibus excitatas quaqnaver-
fum propagari. Addo, quod ex Hypothefi Cartefiana potefi etiam ejfiugi
confimilis dijfufio conatus vel prejfionts globulorum , perinde nt in explica
tions Caudae Cometx fupponitur. Eteadem dijfufio vel expanfio juxtaa-
liam quamvis Hypothefin, in qua lumen fiatuitur ejfe vis, aftio, qualities,
vel fubflantia. qudibet a luminofis corporibus tmdique emijfa , effingi po
tefi.
Ut his refpondeam, animadvertendum efi, quod Dotlrina ilia, quam de
Refraflione & Coloribus cxplicui, in quibujdam Lucis Proprietatibus fo-
lummodo confiitit, ncglefiis Hypothelibus per quas Proprietates ilia expli-
cari debent. Optimus enim & tutijfimus philofophandi modus videtur , ut
imprimis rerum proprietates diligenter inquiramus, & per experimentafia-
biliamus •, ac dein tardius contendamus ad Hypothefes pro ear'um explica*
tione. Nam Hypothefes ad explicandas rerim proprietates tantism accom-
modari debent, & non ad determinandas afurpari, nifi quatenus experi-
menta fubminifi.rare poffint. Et fiquis ex fola Hypothelium poffibilitate
de verkate rerum conjefiuram faciat, non video quo patio quicquam certi
in ulla fcientia determinate pojfit } fiquidem alias atque alias Hypothefes
femper liceat excogitate, qua novas difficulties fuppeditare videbuntur.
ffuamobrem ab Hypothelium contemplations , tanquam improprio argu-
mcntandi loco, hie abfiinendum ejfe cenfui , & vim Objectionis abfira-
hendam , ut pleniorem magis generalem refponfionem accipiat.
Itaque per L u m e n intelligo quodlibet Ens vel m is potefiatem (five fit
fubfiantia, five qmvis ejusvis, aflio, vel qualities) quod a corpore lucido
retld pergens upturn fit ad excitandam vifionem & per radios Luminis
intelligo minimus vel quaslibet indefinite parvus ejus partes, qua ab inv't-
cem non dependent ; quales funt ills omnes radii, quos lucentia corpora vel
fjmul vel fucceffive fecundum refl as linens emittunt. Nam illa turn.col-
laterales turn fucceffiva partes luminis funt independentes\ fiquidem Una
abfque aids intercipi pojjint, & in quaslibet plagas feorfim rejlecii velre-
fringi. Et hoc pracogr.ito, Objellionis vis omnis in eofitii erit; fluod co
lors: per aliquam Luminis ultra foramen dijfufionem, qua non oritur ab ina-
quati
100 NEWTON’S REPLY TO PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER
C 5 01 5 )
quali diverforum radiorum (feu Inminis independentium partiurn) refrangibi-
litate, in longum diduci pojftnt.
Jûod autem non aliunde oblongentur, monftravi in Liter is relatis in P j l l l .
Tranfaftionibus, Num. 80. E t ut rationes facilius percipianttsr , non
gravabor jam fuftits explicare.
Scilicet ex obfervatione, quod radii poft refraflionem non incurvabantur,
fed redid ad parietem prtgreffi fuere, patuit, eandemfuijfe eorum ad fe mu-
tno inclinationem cum modo exierunt Prifmate, atque cum impegermt in
parietem -, & proinde Longitndo colorurn ex inclinatione radiornm emerfit quam
inter refringendum obtinucre, hoc eft, ex quantitate refrattionis quam fin-
guli radii in Prifmatepatiebantur : Adeoque cum colorttm longitude latitu-
dinem aliquot vicibus ex obfervatione fuperavit, fequitur, majorem fuijfe itt-
aqualitem refraftionum qtidm potuit oriri ex inaqualitate incidentiarum.
fiftuin imo ex figura imaginis colorat £, quad nempe non fait Ovalts, fed ad
latera duabus parallelis reflis lineis terminata, patnit, earn ex indefinite
multis imaginibus Solis, per inaqualem refraElionem in longum diftrattis ( <sr
ferie continud difpofttis, conftitui j adeoque radios d finguhs partibus folaris
Difci provenientes per tot am fere lonfttudinem colorum difpergi ; & proinde
fimiliter incidentium inaquales effe refrafHones. id quod aliis etiam indiciis
oftendi poffet.
Conftat itaque diverfas ejfe refraEliones, ubi pares funt incidentho, Sed
amplius inquirendum eft-, ZJnde oriatur ilia diverfttas ■, An fit a caufa ali~
qua incerta & irregulari, vel certd lege, fecundum quam radius quilibet
aptuseft determinatam aliquam refraflitnem pati. Per incertas & irrega-
lares caufas intellige afperitates infuperftcie, velvenas diverfet denfttatis in
interiori parte vitri ex quo Prifma conftaturh item irregularem [iturn pororum,
quos nomtuU't ob luminis tranfmiffionem direfto tramite per vitrum omnifa-
riam traijei ftatuunt b nec non tremores <$' inaquales eommotlones parttum
atheris , aerie, vel vitri •, radiorum in refringente fuperftcie fe mutuo for-
taffe comprimentium refulturam ab invicem ejufdem cujufque. radii divift_
onem ac dtffipationem in partes divergentes, quas velnumero ftnitas vel in
definite multas in fuperftcie aliqud continuatim jacentes imagtnari liceat; vel
quamvis aliam diffuftonem & dilatationem Luminis quam pojfumtts excogitare,
non ortarn ex diverft pradifpofttione cujufque radii ad refraUionem, in certo
aliquo & conftanti gradtt patiendam.
fftuod autem diverfa refraflio non orta fit ex nllis ejufmodi caufii incertis
& irregularibus, probavi per Experimentum duortim confimilium Prifmatum
in contrario fitu juxta-pojitorum, itaut po/terius contrari'd fad refrafttone
retro-fleSleret radios, & fic regulares efteEhts prioris deftrueret , fed per
iteratas refradiiones attgeret irregulares. Vtpote f t print Prifma diffunde-
ret ac divergere faceret parallels radios e.g.per afperam polituram-, ina-
quabilem denfitatem, aut irrcgularem fttum pororum Prifmatis vel per
tremulos mottts partitm atheris,atris ant vitri \ vel per dilatationem luminis
propter partium ejus (i.e. radiornm) fe mutuo comprimentium relaxationem
verfus adjacenttafootia)qm vel nnllo vel minus conftipato lamine, irradiantur •
NEW TON’S REPLY T O PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER 101
C $0I&)
vel denique per cujufque radii dilatationem aut difirattionem in complures di-
vergcntes radios: turn fane poflerius Prifma magis dijfunderet ac diffiparet
radios per dittos irregularitates atherts, aSris, ant vitripvel per iteratam di -
latotionem luminis d refringentisfuperficiei rcfiflcntia demo confiipati ac dif-
fnfi, vel etiam per cujufque radii dpriori diffrattione ort't iteratam dijfrottto-
nem ac dtvifionem in longe plures divergences radios. Et fic Lumen magis
differgeretur per refrattionem fecitndi Prif motis, & in parictemprojcttant
Imagines,n duplo longiorem minimum exhiberet, quant perfolam ^refrattionem
prioris Prifmatit exhiberi potuiffet. fififamobrem cunt, experientid telle,
refrattiofecundi Prifmatis adeo non difpergat lumen ut contrahat & in prifii-
nutnfiatum reducat, efficiatque ut informa Coni pojlea progrediatur, perinde
ac ft nullam omnino refrattionem pajfum fuijfet ’•> concedendum efl,Dijfufionem
Luminis, a refrattione anterioris Prifmatis ejfottam, non oriri ab aliqua pra-
fat arum caufarum, out alia quavis irregularitute, fed diverfe refrangibili-
tati diverforum radierumfolummodo tribuendameffe '■>utpote qua radius unufi-
quifque, ex injitadifpofitione tantamrefrattionem in pofieriori Prifmate ac in
priori pajfus,reducitur in parallclifmum cumfeipfo b & fic omnes radii ad fie
mutuo eafdem inclinationes refumunt quas ante refrattiones habuere.
Demum, ut hoc omnia fiumme confirmarem, adject Experimentum illud
quodjam nomine C r u c i s paffim infignitur : de cujus conditionibus cum R. P.
dubitaverit ,placuit jam defignare Schemate. Sit B C anterior tabula, cui
Prifma A immediate prdfigitur, fitque D E altera tabula, quafi duodecim
pedibus abinde difians, cui fiuffigitur alterum Prifma F. Tabula autem ad x
& y ita perforentur, ut aliquantulum lucis ab anteriori Prifmate refratta,
traijci pojfit per utrumqueforamen ad fecundum Prifma, inque eo denul re-

fringi. jam Prifma anterius circa axem reciprocomttu convertatur, & co
lores in Tabttlam pofteriorem D E procidentes,per vices attollentur ac depri -
mentur, eoquepatto alius atque alius color fucceffiv'e pro arbitrio traijcipotefi
per foramen ejus y ad pofierius Prifma, dum cateri colores in Tabulam im-
pingtsnt: Et videbis,radios diverfis coloribus prxditos diverfampati refrattio-
nej»
102 N EW TON’S REPLY T O PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER
C 5017 )
ntnt in itto pofteriori Prifmafe, ex eo quod ad diverfa loca parietis vel cujuf-
visobftaculi G H, pedibus aliquot nlterius remoti, allabentur \ putay i o -
l a c e i radii ad H, r u b r i ad G, & i n t e r m e d i i ad loca intermedia : & tamen
propter determinatam pafitionemforaminum neeejfe eft ut ft mills fit incidentia
radiorun* cujufque coloris per utrumque trajebli. Atque ita ex menfura con.'
ft at radios, diverfts coloribus ajfetlos, habere diverfas leges refraclionum.
Sedfufpicor unde adduchss fit R.P, in dnbitationem , nempe videtur collar
tajfe p r i m u m Prifma A p o l l Tabulam B C,atque ita convertendo circa A x-
cm, veriftmile eft inelinationem radiorum qui interjacentforamina propter in
termedium refractionemfuijf ? mutatam. A t ex deferiptione expoftta in P h i l .
T r a n f a f t i o n i b u s debutt Tabula ilia collocari p o f t * vid. A W . 80. p.3078.
Prifma,ut radii inter foramina in diredtm jacerent, qitie 'vci'ia ' Latino
' ita fo-
quemadmodum ex verbis '■> I t o o k t w o B o a r d s a n d mint', Capiebam duas
p la ce d o n e o f them c lo fc b eh in d the P rifm Tabulas ]ignea$,.unam-
qua earum immediate
at t h e W i n d o w * , conftare poteft. JEt ttfsu E x collocabnm pojl Prifma
periments idem innuit. ad feneft ram.
E x abund.rnti placet obfervare, quod in hoc Experimento colorata Lux ob
refraftionem fecundi Prifmatis longs minus dijfunditur ac divartcat, quarts
cum alba exiflit, adeo ut imago ad G vel H fit pen'e circularis ■, preferdm ft
Prifmata ftatuantur parallela& in contrario fitu angularum, prout in Sche-
mate deftgnantur. JHuinetiam, ft praterea diameter foraminis y adaquet la-
titudinem colorum, nulla erit ejufdem colorata lucis in longum dijfufto fed
imago, qua d quopiam colore ad G vel H cjfwgitur, (pofttis circularibus fo-
r amiribits, & refraUione pofterioris Prifmatis non majori qudm prioris, ra-
diifque ad obftaculum qudm proximo perpendicularibtts, ) erit plane circularis„
Id quod arguit dijfuftonem, de quafupra egimus, non ex contagions vel con-
tinuitate materia mdulantis am celerrime mota velftmilibus caufts ortarty-ejfe,
fed ex certa rtfractionum cujufque generis radiorum lege. Cur antem Imago
ilia in mo cafu fit circularis, & in aliis nonnihil oblongata, & quomodo dijfu
fto lucis in longitudinem in quolibet cafu pro arbitrio minui.poffttfi Geometric
determinandum & cum experientia conferendum relinqus.
Poftquam P r o p r i e t a t e s L u c i s his & ftmilibus experimentisfatis explorata
fuerint, fpeblande radios tanquamejus five collateralsfive fucceftlvas partes,
de quibsu experts ftmus per independentiam quod ftnt ab invieem diftinbla \
Hjpothefes exinde dij.udicandxfunt, & qua non pojfunt conciliari reijeiendse.
Sed levijftmi negotii eft, accommodare Hypothefrs ad hanc DoEtrinam. Nam
ftqttis Hypothefin C a r t e f i a n a m defendere velit, dicendum. eft, globulos• efts
inaqunles • vel preffionesglobulorum ejfe ali.ts aliis fortiores, & inde di ver-
ftmod'e refrangibiles, & aptas ad excitandamfenfationem diverftorum colorum.
E t ftc juxta Hypothefin C l . H o o k i i dicendum eft, TJndulationes atheris efts
aliis majoresfive crafftores aliis. Atque ita in cateris. Hac enim videtur
effefumms necejfaria Lex & Conditio H y p o t h e f i u m , in quibus Naturalist
corporaponuntur conftare ex quamplurimis corpufculis acervatim context is, ut
a, diverfts lucentium corpufculis,vel ejufdem corpufculi diverfts partibus (prout
mainfigure*,mole>ant aliis qstalitmbns differuntftnaquaks prefftoncs,modones
( 5018 )
aut motacorpufcula per athera quaquaverfum traijciantur, ex quibtts,confuse
miftis, lux conjHtuifupponetur. Et nihil durius ejfepotejl in iflis Hypothe-
Jibus quarts contraria fuppoftio.
E x apertura five dilatatione Ends inpofteriori facie Prifmatis ,quam R. P.
dixit ejfe veluti foramen, fujficit, quod error non emerget fenft'bills ft medo
aliqnis emergcret. ûfodji calculus juxta Obfervattones precise ineatur,
error erit nullus. Nam diametroforaminis h longitudine Imaginis fubduBd,
reftabit longitudo quam Imago haberet fi modoforamen antf Prifma ejfet indi-
viftbtlc , idque non ohflante prafatd lucis dilatatione in pofieriori facie Prif.
matis ; ut facile ofienditur. Deinde ex data ilia longitudine Imaginis,ac di-
flantia dforamine indivifibili, tit & pofitione & forma Prifmatis, & ad id
inclinatione incidentium radiorum, ac angulo,qutm refradii radii, ad medium
Imaginis tendentes, cum d centro Solis incidentibus conflituunt, catera omnia
detcrminantur. Et qua determinant refraBiones & poftiones radiorum,fuf-
ficiunt ad caleulum i f arum refraUionumritc ineundum. Sed res non tanti ejfe
videtur ut maram inferat.
Jfubd R.P.DoBrinam noflram H y p o t h e f i n vocaverit, non aliundefaBum
ejfe credo qudm quod vocabulum ufurpavit quod primum occurrit-, fquidem
mos ebtinuit ut quicquid exponitur in Philofophia dicatur Hypothefs. E t ego
fane non alio con(ilio vocabulum ijlud reprehendi qudm ut ne invalefceret ap-
pellatio qua reBe Philofophant'tbus prajudicio ejfe pojfet. R.Patris verb can
dor in omnibus confpicitur -, indeque modus ejferendi Benevolentiam, qui mihi
minimb convenit. ffuod tamen nofra non aifplicent,vehementergaudeo. Vale,
Dab. C a n t a b r i g . u moJ u n i i 1 6 7 2 .
Hac refponfo adi J . P . T g n a t i u m P a r d i e s max tranfmijfa id effecit,ut ille

die 9 . J u l i i 1 6 7 2 . referiberet Gallice in huncfenfum '■>
O m n i n o m i h i f a t i s f e c i t n o v i f i l m a r c f p o n f i o , a D n . Nerrtono a d m e a s
In fta n tia s d ata. N o v i f f i m u s f c r u p u l u s , q u i m i h i h a e r e b a t c i r c a Ex-
perimentum Crucis, p e n i t u s f u i t ex e n n p tu s . A t q u e n u n c p l a n e e x F i g u r a
ip iiu s i n t e llig o q u o d n o n in t e lle x e r a m a n te . E x p e r im e n t u m p e r a t t u m
d i m f u e r i t i l t o m o d o , n il h a b e o q u o d in e o d e fid erem a m p liu s . R e m
m ih i p e rg ra ta m fe c e ris , fi i p li f i n g u l a r e m m e u m i n g e n i i & d o f t r i n a :
e ju ; c u ltu m c o n t e fte r is , & p r o i l l 0 ftu d io m axim as g r a tia s a g a s,q u o
v o lu it A n n o ta tio n e s m eas exa m in a re iifq u e refp o n d ere. P rste r ex-
i f t i m a t i o n e m i l l a m , q u a m jam a n te d e a c u m in e eju s c o n c e p e r a m , a f-
t e f t u s h ie o ffic io fu s m a g n o p e r e m e ip fi d e v in x it .
104 PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER
738 PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. [ANNO* l 6 ^ 2 .
A second b e tte r o f P . P ardies , w ritten r to the■E d ito r fr o m P a ris,

M a y 21, 16'72,10 M r. N ewton 's A n sw er made to his f r s t L e tte r ,
p r in te d in N °. 84. N °. 8 5 , p . 5012. T ra n sla ted fr o m the L a tin .
I have received your letter, with the observations of the very ingenious M r.
Newton, in which he answers my difficulties, which I have read with great
pleasure. And first, with respect to that experiment of the greater breadth of
the colours than what is required by the common theory of refractions; I con
fess that I supposed the refractions at the opposite sides of the prism unequal,
till informed by the letter in the Transactions, that the greater breadth was
observed by Newton in that case in which the refractions are supposed recipro
cally equal, in the manner mentioned in those observations. But since I now see
that it was in that case that the greater breadth of the colours was observed, on
that head I find no further difficulty. I say on that head; for the greater
length of the image may be otherwise accounted for, than by the different
refrangibility of the rays. For. according to that hypothesis, which is. explained
at large by Grimaldi, and in which it is supposed that light is a certain substance
very rapidly moved, there may take place some diffusion of the rays of light
after their, passage and decussation in the hole.. Also on that other hypothesis,
in which light is made to proceed by certain undulations of a subtile matter, as
explained by Mr. Hook, colours may be explained.by a certain diffusion and ex
pansion of the undulations, made on the sides of the rays beyond the hole by
that there is no other channel by which the chyle is conveyed into the blood than that of the thoracic
duct, which generally opens into the left subclavian vein at the angle formed by it and the internal
jugular yein. Sometimes however it is inserted directly into the internal jugular,]
PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER 105
VOL. V I ! .] PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. 73Q

the influence and continuation of the subtile matter. Indeed I admit such an
hypothesis in “ the Dissertation on the Motion of Undulation,” which is the
sixth part of my mechanics, as I suppose that those apparent colours are the
sole effect of that communication of motion which is diffused laterally by the di
rect undulations. As if the rays entering by the hole a, (fig. 9, pi. J 5) should
proceed towards b, the undulations ought indeed to terminate directly, with re
gard to their direct and natural motion, at the right line ab; yet nevertheless,
because of the continuity of the matter, there is some communication of the
motion towards the sides cc, where it becomes tremulous and undulatory. And
if colours be supposed to consist in the lateral undulation, all their phenomena
may be explained in this manner, as I have shown in the dissertation before-
mentioned ; by which also the reason will appear, why the breadth of the co
lours must be expanded beyond the divergency of the rays themselves.
As to what he says of the error, which might arise in the calculation, from
what I mentioned like a hole made in the posterior face of the prism, that that
error could not cause any sensible variation ; his remark is very proper : neither
have I judged that hence the breadth of the colours would be much in
creased, but I wished only to indicate an accurate mode of calculation: and
therefore I also think this caution may be neglected in practice.
As to the Experimentum Crucis, I make no doubt that the incident rays had
an equal inclination, since the author expressly affirms it. But that is what I
could not gather from what I read in the Transactions; where it is stated, that
there are two small and very distant holes, and one prism near the first hole in
the window; through which prism the coloured rays escaping, fall on the other
distant hole. And it is added, that the first.prism was turned round its axis, to
cause all the rays to fall successively on the second hole. Now in this case the
inclination of the rays which fall on the second hole, must necessarily be changed:
and I hinted in my letter, that it would be the same thing, whether the second
hole were raised or depressed, for all the rays pointing to the sun’s image, to
fall successively on it, while the first prism was invariable; or whether, the
second hole being immoveable, the first prism were turned round, so that the
same image might change its situation, and all its parts successively fall on the
second hole. But no doubt the sagacious’ Newton used other precautions.
As to what I objected about colours, I am well satisfied with the solutions.
And as to my calling the author’s theory an hypothesis,, that was done without
any design, having only used that word as first occurring to me ; and therefore
request it may not be thought as done out of any disrespect. I have always
esteemed ingenious discoveries, and the excellent Newton I very highly admire
and honour.
5A 2
io 6 NEW TON’S REPLY T O PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER
740 PHILOSOPHICAL transactions . [ anno 1672.
M r. N ew ton 's A n sw er to the fo reg o in g L e tte r . N 85, p . 5 0 id .

T ran slated fr o m the L a tin .
In the observations of the Rev. F. Pardies, one can hardly determine whe
ther there is more of humanity and candour, in allowing my arguments their
due weight, or penetration and genius in starting objections. And doubtless
these are very proper qualifications in researches after truth. But to proceed,
F. Pardies says, that the length of the coloured image can be explained, with
out having recourse to the divers refrangibility of the rays of light; as suppose
by the hypothesis of F. Grimaldi, viz. by a diffusion of light, which is supposed
to be a certain substance put into very rapid motion ; or by M r. Hook’s hypo
thesis, by a diffusion and expansion of undulations ; which, being formed in the
aether by lucid bodies, is propagated every way. To which may be added the
hypothesis of Descartes, in which a similar diffusion of conatuSy or pression of the
globules, may be conceived, like as is supposed in accounting for the tails of
comets. And the same diffusion or expansion may be devised according, to any
other hypotheses, in which light is supposed to be a power, action, quality, or
certain substance emitted every way from luminous bodies.
In answer to this, it is to be observed that the doctrine which I explained
concerning refraction and colpurs, consists only in certain properties of light,
without regarding any hypotheses, by which those properties might be explain
ed. For the best and safest method of philosophizing seems to be, first to in
quire diligently into the properties of things, and establishing those properties
by experiments and then to proceed more slowly to. hypotheses for the expla
nation of them. For hypotheses should be subservient only in explaining the
properties of things, but not assumed in determining them ; unless so far as
they may furnish experiments. For if the possibility of hypotheses is to be the
test of the truth and reality o f things, I. see not how certainty can be obtained
in any science; since numerous hypotheses may be devised, which shall seem to
overcome new difficulties. Hence it has been here thought necessary to lay
aside all hypotheses, as foreign to the purpose, that the force of the objection
should be abstractedly considered, and, receive a more full and general answer.
By light therefore I understand, any being or power of a being, (whether a
substance or any power, action, or quality of it, which proceeding directly
from a lucid body, is apt to excite vision. And by the rays of light I understand
its least or indefinitely small parts, which are independent of each other; such
as are all those rays which lucid bodies emit in right lines, either successively or
all together. For the collateral as well as the successive parts of light are hide-
NEWTON’S REPLY T O PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER 107
▼OL. V II.3 PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. 741
pendent; since some of the parts may be intercepted without the others, and
be separately reflected or refracted toward’s different sides. This being pre
mised, the whole force of the objection will lie in this, that colours may be length
ened out by some certain diffusion of light beyond the hole, which does not arise
from the unequal refraction of the different rays, or of the independent parts
of light. And that the image is no otherwise lengthened], was shown in my
letter in Numb- 80 of the Transactions ; and to confirm the whole in the strictest'
manner, I added that experiment now known by the name Experimentum Cru-
cis ; of the conditions of which, since the Rev. Father has some doubt, I have
qhought fit to represent it by a scheme. Let BC (fig. 10, pi. J5) then be the
anterior board, to which the prism A is immediately prefixed, and let DE be
the other board, at the distance of about 12 feet from the former, to which the
other prism F is affixed. And let the boards be perforated at x and y in such
a manner, that a little of the light refracted by the former prism may pass
through both the holes to the second, prism, and be there refracted again. Now
let the former prism be turned about its axis with a reciprocal motion; then the
colours falling on the latter board DE will be raised and depressed by turns; and
thus the several colours-may at pleasure be made to pass successively through the
hole y to the latter prism, while all the other colours fall on the board. Then
you will see that the said rays of different colours will be differently refracted at
the latter prism, as they will be seen on different places of the opposite wall, or
of any obstacle GH, at the distance of some feet from i t ; as suppose the violet
rays at H, the red at G, and the intermediate rays at the intermediate places:
and yet, because of the determinate position of the holes, the incidence of the
rays of each colour through both must- be similar. And thus it appears, by
measuring, that the rays of different colours have different laws of refractions.
But I suspect what it was that caused the Rev. Father to doubt; viz. it seems
he placed his first prism A behind the board B C, and thus by turning it about
its axis, it is probable that the inclination of the rays intercepted between the
two holes may have suffered some change by the intermediate refraction. But
by the description before given in the Transactions, the first board ought to be
placed after the prism, that the rays may pass in a straight direction between
the-holes, agreeably to my words ; “ I took two boards, and placed one of them
close behind the prism at the window.” And the design of the experiment re
quires the same thing.
It may be further observed; that in this experiment, because of the refraction of
the second prism, the coloured light is much less diffused and less divergent, than
when it is quite white, so that the image at G or H is nearly circular ; espe
cially if the prisms be placed parallel, and their angles in a contrary position, as
io 8 NEW TON’S REPLY T O PARDIES’ SECOND LETTER
7 M2 PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. [A NN O . l 6 7 2 »
ip the present figure. And besides, if the diameter of the .hole y be equal to
the breadth of the colours, the coloured light -will not ho diffused lengthwise;
but the image, which is formed by any colour at G or H, will be manifestly
circular,; supposing the holes tp be circular, and the refraction of the latter
prism not to be greater than, that of the former, and the rays to be nearly per
pendicular to the obstacle. This shows that the diffusion, above-mentioned,
does not arise from the influence or continuity of the undulating matter, pr
matter put into a rapid motion; or any suGh like,causes, but from a certain law
of refractions for every species of rays. But why the image is in one case circu
lar, and in others a little oblong, and how the diffusion of light lengthwise may
in apy case 'be diminished at pleasure, I leave to be determined by geometri
cians, and compared with experiments.
After the properties of light shall, by these and such like experiments, have
been sufficiently explored, by considering its rays either as collateral or succes
sive parts of it, of which we have found by their independence that they arte
distinct from one another; hypotheses are thence to be judged of, and those
to be rejected which cannot be reconciled with the phenomena. But it is an.
easy matter to accommodate hypotheses to this doctrine. Tor if any one wish
to defend the Cartesian hypothesis, he need only say that the globules are un
equal, or that the pressures of some of the globules are stronger than others,
and that hence they become differently refrangible, and proper to excite the
sensation of different colours. And thus also according to Hook’s hypothesis,
i t may be said, that some undulations of the sctber are larger or denser than
others. And so of the rest. For this seems to be the most necessary law and
condition of hypotheses, in which natural bodies are supposed tg consist gf a
multitude of corpuscu)es cohering together, and that from the different particles
o f lucid bodies, or from the different parts of the same corpuscule, (as they may
happen to differ in motion, figure, bulk, or other qualities) unequal pressions,
motions, or moved corpuscules, may be propagated every way through the aether,
of the confused mixture of which light may be Supposed to be constituted,
And there car be nothing more difficult in these hypotheses than the contrary
supposition-
As to that aperture or dilatation of the light in the posterior face of the prism,
which the Rew Father supposes to resemble a hole, it is sufficient that ,no sensi
ble error can arise from it, if any at all. For if a calculation be made precisely
according to the observations, the error will be found nothing. For by sub
tracting the diameter of the hole from the length of the image, there will remain
that length which the image would have, if the hole before the prism were an
indivisible point, and that notwithstanding the aforesaid dilatation of the light
1
VOL. W . ] PHILOSOPHICAL TRAN'S ACTIONS. 7*43
in the posterior face of the prism; as is easily shown. Then from that given
length of the image, and its distance from the indivisible-hole, as also from the
position and' form of the prism, and besides from the inclination of the incident
rays, and from the angle whiph the refracted rays betiding to ’the-middle of the
image make with those that are incident from the sun’s centre, all other things
may be determined. And the same data that determined the refractions and
positions of the rays, are sufficient for an accurate calculation of these refrac
tions. But this matter seems not to be of importance enough to be much re
garded.
As to the Rev. Father’s calling our doctrine an hypothesis, I believe it only
proceeded from his using the word which first occurred to him, as a practice has
arisen of calling by the name hypothesis whatever is explained in philosophy
and the reason o f my making exception to the word, was to prevent the preva
lence of a term, which might be prejudicial to true pliilosopny.
The above answer being sent to the Rev- Father Ig. Pardies, he returned his
acknowledgement in a note as below.
I am quite satisfied with Mr. Newton’s new answer to me.. The last scruple
which I had, about the Experimentum Crucis, is fully removed. And I now
clearly perceive by his figure what I did not before understand. When the ex
periment was performed after his manner, every thing succeeded, and I have-
nothing. further to desire.
X10 H O O K E’S CR ITIQ U E OF N EW TO N ’S THEORY
T H E II I S T O R Y OF T H E [ , 6 7 '.
Mr. H o o k e ’s confiderations upon Mr. N e w t o n ’s difcourfe on. light and co

lours were read. Mr. H ooks was thanked for the pains taken in bringing in
fuch ingenious reflexions > ahd.it was ordered, that this paper fhould be regiftred
and a copy of it immediately fent to Mr. N e w t o n : and that in the mean time
the printing of Mr. N e w t o n ’s difcourfe by itfelf might go on, if he-did not con
tradict it;, and that Mr. H o o k e ’s paper might be printed afterwards, it not be
ing thought fit to print them together, left Mr. N e w t o n lhould look upon it
as a difrefpeX, in printing fo. hidden a refutation of a difcourfe of his, which had
met with fo much applaufe at the Society but a few days before.
Mr. H ooke ’s paper was as follows:
“ I have perufed the difcourfe of Mr. N e w t o n ab o u t colours and refraXions,

51and I was not a little pleafed with the niccnefs and curiofity of his obfervations.
“ But, tho’.I wholly agree with him as to the truth of thofe he hath alledged,
’ Letter-book, vol. v. p. 15 5 . ' Remitter, voL iv, p. 14 8 .
c< as
HOOKE’S CRITIQUE OF N EW TON’S THEORY III
16 7 4 ] ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. n

“ as having, by many hundreds of trials, found them fo ; yet as to his hypo-
“ thefis of folving the. pbenomtena of colours thereby, I confefs, I cannot fee yet
“ any undeniable argument to convince me of the certainty thereof. For all
“ the experiments and obfervations I have hitherto made, nay, and even thofe
“ very experiments, which he alledgeth, do feem to me to prove, that white
“ is nothing but a pulfe or motion, propagated through an homogeneous, uni-
“ fornv and tranfparent medium : and that colour is nothing but the diftuib-
“ aneeqf that light, by the communication of that pulfe to other tranfparent me-
“ diums, that is, by the refraction thereof: that whitenefs and blacknefs are no-
“ thing but the plenty or fcarcity of the unditlurbed rays of light: and that
“ the two colours (than the which there are not more uncompounded in nature)
“ are nothing but the effects of a compounded pulfe,. or difturbed propagation
“ of motion cau fed by refradtion.
tf But, how certain foever I think myfelf of my hypothefis (which I did not take
M up without firft trying fome hundreds of experiments) yet I fhould be very glad
“ to meet with one experimentum cruris from Mr. N e w t o n , that fhould divorce me
“ from.it. But it is o.ot that, which he fo calls, will do the turn; for the fame phte-
“ nomenon will be folved by my hypothefis, as well as by his, without any man-
“ ner of difficulty or {training : nay, I will undertake to lhew another hypothefis,
“ differing fr o m both his and mine, that lhall do the fame thing.
“ That the ray of light is as it were fplit or rarified by refradtion, is moft cer-
“ tain ; and that thereby a differing pulfe is propagate'd, both on thofe fides, and
“ in all the middle parts of the ray, is eafy to be conceived and alfo, that differ-
“ ingpulfes or compound motions fhould make differing impreffions on the eye,
“ brain, or fenfe, is alfp eafy to be conceived : and that, whatever refracting me-
“ dium does again reduce it to its primitive Ample motion by deflroying the ad-
“ ventitious, does likewife reftore it to its primitive whitenefs and fimplicity.
“ But why there is a neceffity, that all thofe motions, or whatever elfe it be
“ that makes colours, fhould be originally in the fimple rays of light, I do not
yet under Amu the neceffity of, no more than that all thofe founds muff be in
“ the air of the bellows, which are afterwards heard to iffue from the organ-
“ pipes; or in the ftriog, which are afterwards, by different ftoppings and ftrik-
“ logs produced •, vylfich firing (by the way) is a pretty reprefentation of the fhape
** of .a refracted ray to the eye; and the manner of it may be fomewhat imagined
“ by the fimilitude thereof: for the ray is like the firing, ftrained between the
M luminous abjedt and the eye, and the flop or fingers is like the refradting fur-
“ face, 00. the one fide of which the firing hath no motion, on the other a vi-
“ bracing one. Now we may fay indeed and imagine, that the reft or flreight-
“ nefs of the firing is caufed by the ceffation of motions, or coalition of all vi-
“ farations; and that all the vibrations are dormant in i t : but vet it feems more
w natural to me to imagine it the other way.
C a “ A nd
I 12 H O O K E’S CR ITIQ U E OF N EW TO N ’S THEORY
12 T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E
“ And I am a little troubled, that this fuppofition fhould make Mr. N ewton
“ wholly lay afide the thoughts of improving telefcopes and microfcopes by re-
“ fractions ; fince it is not improbable, but that he, that hath made fo very, good an
“ improvement of telefcopes by his own trials upon reflection, would, if he had
“ profecuted it, have done more by refraCtion. And that reflection is not the
“ only way of improving telefcopes, I may poffibly hereafter Ihew fome proof
“ of. The truth is, the difficulty of removing that inconvenience of the fplit-
“ ting of the ray, and confequently of the effeCt of colours, is very great; but
“ yet not infuperable. I have made many trials, both for telefcopes and mi-
“ crofcopes by reflection, which I have mentioned in my Micrographia, but de-
“ ferted it as to telefcopes, when I confidered, that the focus of the fpherical con-
“ cave is not a point but a line, and that the rays are lefs true reflected to a
“ point by a concave, than refraCted by a convex-, which made me leek that by
u refraCtion, which 1 found could not rationally be expeCted by reflection : nor
“ indeed could I find any effeCt of it by one of fix foot radius, which, about fe-
“ ven or eight years fince, Mr. R e e v e made for Mr. G r e g o r y , with which I
“ made feveral trials; but it now appears it was for want of a good encheiria
“ (from which caufe many good experiments have been loft) both which confi-
“ derations difcouraged me from attempting further that way; efpecially fince I
“ found the parabola much more difficult to defcribe, than the hyperbola or el-
“ lipfis. And I was wholly taken from the thoughts of it, by lighting on divers
“ ways, which in theory anfwered all I could wifh for ; tho* having much more
“ bufinefs, I could not attend to bring them into ufe for telefcopes; tho* for mi-
“ crofcopes I have for a good while ufed it. Thus much as to the preamble ; I
“ fhall now confider the propofitions themfelves.
“ Firft then, Mr. N e w t o n alledgeth, that as the rays of light differ in re-
“ frangibility, fo they differ in their difpofition to exibit this or that colour:
“ with which I do in the main agree; that is, that the ray by refraCtion is, as it
“ were, fplit or rarified, and that the one fide, namely that which is moft refraCted,
“ gives a blue, and that which is leaft a red: the intermediate are the dilutings
“ and intermixtures of thofe two, which I thus explain. The motion of light in
“ an uniform medium, in which it is generated, is propagated by Ample and
“ uniform pulfes or waves, which are at right angles with the line of direction ;
“ but falling obliquely on the refracting medium, it receives another impreffion
“ or motion, which difturbs the former motion, fomewhat like the vibration of a
“ firing : and that, which was before a line, now becomes a triangular fuperfi-
** cies, in which the pulfe is not propagated at right angles with its line of direc-
“ tion, but afcew, as I have more at large explained in my Micrographia; and
“ that, which makes excurfions on the one fide, imprefies a compound motion on
“• the bottom of the eye, of which we have the imagination or red; and that,
“ which makes excurfions on the other, caufes a fenfation, which we imagine a
*l blue ; and fo of all the intermediate dilutings of thofe colours. Now, that the
^ intermediate are nothing but the dilutings of thofe two primary, 1 hope I have
“ fufficiently proved by the experiment of the two wedge-like boxes,, defcribed
in my Micrographia. Upon this account I cannot affent to the latter part of
^ u the
HOOKE’S CRITIQ UE OF N EW TO N ’S THEORY 1 *3
x6y\.] ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 13

“ the propofition, that colours are not qualifications of light, derived from refrac-
“ tions, or refections of natural bodies, but original and connate properties, &c.
“ The fecond propofition I wholly, allow, not exaftly in the fenfe there meant,,
“ but with my manner of exprefiing it; that is, that part of the fplit ray, which is
“ moil bent, exhibits a blue, that which is leaft, a red, and the middle parts midling
“ colours; and that thofe parts will always exhibit thofe colours till the com-
“ pound motions are defixoyed, and reduced by other motions to one fimple and
“ uniform pulfe as it was at firft.
“ And this will eafily explain and give a reafon of the phenomena of the third
“ propofition, to which I do readily afient in all cafes, except where the fplit ray
“ is made by another refraCtion, to become intire and uniform, again to diverge
“ and feparate, which explains his fourth propofition.
“ But as to the fifth, that there are an indefinite variety of primary or original
colours, amongft which are yellow, green, violet, purple, orange, &c. and
“ an infinite number of intermediate gradations, I cannot afient.thereunto, as
“ fuppofing it wholly ufelefs to multiply entities without necefiity, fince I have
“ ellewhere fhewn, that all the varieties of colours in the world may be made
“ of two. I agree in the fixth, but cannot approve of his way of explicating
“ the feventh. How the fplit ray being made doth produce a clear and uniform
“ light, l have before (hewed ; that is, by being united thereby from a fuperfi-
cial motion, which is fufceptible of two, to a lineary, which is_ fufceptible o f
“ one only motion ; and it is as eafy to conceive how all thofe motions again ap-
“ pear after the rays are again fplit or rarified. He, that fhall but a little confider
“ the undulations on the furface of a fmall river of water, in a gutter, or the-
“ like, will eafily fee the whole manner curioufiy exemplified.
** The eighth propofition’I cannot at all afient to, for the realons above ; and
“ the reafons of the blue flame of brimftone, of the yellow of a candle, the
“ green of copper, and the various colours of the ftars, and other luminous bo-
** dies, I take to proceed from quite another caufe, eafily explained by my for-
“ mer hypothefis.
“ I agree with the obfervations of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, though not
tc with his theory, as finding it not abfolutely necefiary, being as eafily and na-
“ rurally explained and folved by my hypothefis.
41 The reafon of the phenomena of my experiment, which, he alledgeth, is

“ as eafily folvable by mv hypothefis as by his; as are alfothofe, which are men-
“ tioned in the thirteenth. I do not therefore fee any abfolute necefiity to be-
“ lieve his theory demonftrated, fince I can allure Mr. N e w t o n , I cannot only
folve all the phenomena of light and colours by the hypothefis I have for-
**• merly printed, and now explicate them, by, but by two or three other very dif—
“ fering
1 14 H O O K E’S CR ITIQ U E OF N EW TO N ’S THEORY
14 T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [ if y i.
“ fering from if, and from this, which he hath defcribed in his ingenious dif-
courle.
“ Nor would I be tinderftood to have faid all this againft his theory, as it is
“ an hypothefis; for I do moll' readily agree with them in every part thereof, and
“ efteem it very fubtil and ingenious, and capable of iolving all the phaenomena
“ of colours: but I cannot think it to be the only hypothelis, nor fo certain as
“ mathematical demonftrations.
“ But grant his firft propofition, that light is a body, and that as many co-
“ lours as degrees thereof as there may be, fo many forts of bodies there may
“ be, all which compounded together would make white •, and grant further,
“ that all luminous bodies are compounded of fucb fubftances condenfed, and
“ that whilft they fhine, they do continually fend out an indefinite quantity there-
“ of, every way in orbem, which in a moment of time doth difperfe itfelf to the
“ uttnoft and moft indefinite bounds of the univerfe •, granting thefe, I fay, I
“ do fuppofe there will be no great difficulty to demonftrate all the reft of his
“ curious theory : though yet, methinks, all the coloured bodies in the world
“ .compounded together fhould not make a white body, and I fhould be glad
“ to fee an experiment of that kind done on the other fide. If my fuppofition
be granted, that light is nothing but a fimple and uniform motion, or pulfe
“ of a homogeneous and adopted (that is a tranfparent) medium, propagated from
“ the luminous body in orbem, to all imaginable diftances in a moment of time,
“ and that that motion is firft begun by fome other kind of motion in the lu-
“ minous body ; fuch as by the diflolution of lulphureous bodies by the air, or
“ by the working of the air, or the leveral component parts one upon another,
“ in rotten wood, or putrifying fifti, or by an external ftroke, as in diamond, fu-
“ gar, the fea-water, or two flints or cryftal rubbed together •, and that this
“ motion is propagated through all bodies fufceptible thereof, but is blended or
“ mixt with other adventitious motions, generated by the obliquity of the ftroke
“ upon a refradting body, and that, fo long as thofe motions remain diftindt in
tc the fame part of the medium or propagated ray, fo long they produce the fame
>“ effedt, but when blended by other motions, they produce other effects: and
“ fuppofing, that by a diredt contrary motion to the newly imprefled, that ad-
“ ventitious one be deftroyed and reduced to the firft fimple motion ; I believe
<c Mr. N e w t o n will think it no difficult matter, by my hypothefis, to folve all the
“ phenomena, not only of the prifm, tinged liquors, and folid bodies, but of
“ the colours of plated bodies, which feem to have the greateft difficulty. It
“ is true, I can, in my fuppofition, conceive the white or uniform motion of
“ light to be compounded of the compound motions of all the other colours,
“ as any one ftraic and uniform motion may be compounded of thoufands of
compound motions, in the fame manner as D e s c a r t e s explicates the reafon
■“ of the refradtion; but I fee no neceflity of it. If Mr. N ew ton hath any
argument, that he fuppofes an abfolute demonftration of his theory, I fhould be
8 “ very
HOOKE’S CRITIQUE OF NEW TON’S THEORY 115
R O Y A L S O C I E T Y OF L O N D O N .
>67-0
“ very glad to be convinced by it, the phenomena of light and colours being, in
“ my opinion, as well worthy of contemplation, as any thing elfe in the world.”
1 x6 N EW TO N ’S ANSWER T O HOOKE
C 5084 )
M f. Ifaac Newtons A nfm r tofome €onfiderationt upon his Do-
Urine of L ight and Colors 3 which DoUrine tvas printed in
N um b. 80. ofthefe “t raUs.
1I{, I have already told you, that at the perufal o f the con-
S fiderations, you fent me, on my Letter concerning Refrac
tions and Colors, I found nothing, that, as I conceived,mighc
not Without difficulty be anfwer’d. And though I find the
Conjiderer fomewhat more concern’d for an Hypothecs, than I
expedited $ yet I doubt not, but we have one common defign 3
I mean, a fincere endeavour after knowledge, without valuing
uncertain fpeculations for their fubtleties, or defpifing cer
tainties for their plainnefs : And on confidence o f this it is,
that I make this return to his difcourfe.*
The firjl thing that offers it felf
* Which D ifcourfe was thought
nee diep to be here printed at length,
is lefs agreeable tom e, and I begin
becaufe in the body o f this Jnfw er with it becaufe it is fo. T h e confi-
are to be met with the chief particu derer is pleafed to reprehend me
lars, wherein the A nfwerer was
concern’d, for laying afide the thoughts o f im
proving Optiques by Rpfraftions.
1. Of the Pradiût part of Op-
tigtiet.
I f he had obliged me by a private
Letter on this occafion, I would
have acquainted him with my fucceffes on the Tryals I have
made o f that kind, which I (hall now fay have been lefs than
I fometimes expected, and perhaps than he at prefent hopes
for. But fince he is pleafed to take it for granted, that I have
let this fubjeCtpafs without due examination, Iffiallreferh im
, . „ . „ . , „ to my former Letter, * by which
x'ffc * fi that conjcfiure will appear to be
un-grounded. For, what I faid
there, was inrefpeCt o f Telefcopes o f the ordinary couftruCti*
on, fignifying, that their improvement is not to be expected
from the n>ell-figuring o f Glaffes, as Opticians have imagin’d j
but I defpaired not o f their improvement by other conftru-
Ctions, which made me cautious to infert nothing that might
intimate the contrary. For, although fucceffive refractions
that are all made the fame way, do neceffarily more and more
augment the errors o f the firft refraction 5 yet it feem’d not
im pofliblefor contrary refractions fo to co rred each others
inequalities, as to make their difference regular 3 and, i f that
coultl
NEWTON’S ANSWER TO HOOKE 117
C 5085 )
could be conveniently effe&ed, there would be no further dif
ficulty. N o w to this end 1 examin’d, what may be done not
only by GlaJJes alone, but more efpecially by a Complication o f
divers fucceffive Medtumsi as by two orm ore Glafles or Cry-
ftals with Water o r fome other fluid between them ; all which
together may perform the office o f oneGlafs, efpecially o f the
Objedfc-glafs, on whole conftru&ion the perfection o f the in-
ftrument chiefly depends. But what the refults in Theory or
b y Tryals have been, I may poffibly find a m ore proper occa-
fion to declare.
T o the Aflertion, that Rays are lefs true refleeted to a point
by a Concave, than refracted by a Convex, I cannot aflen t5 nor
do lunderftandj that the focus o f the latter is lefs a line than
that o f the former. T he truth o f the contrary you will rather
perceive by this following Table, computed for fuch a Reflec-
ting Concave, and Refracting convex, on fuppofition that they
have equal Apertures, and c o lle t parallel rays at an equal di-
ftance from their vertex ; which diftance being divided into
15000 parts, the Diameter o f the Concave Sphere v/ill be
60000 ofth ofe parts, and of the Convex, 10000 5 fuppofing
the sines o f Incidence and RefraCtion to be, in round num
bers, as 2 to 3* And this Table fhews, how much the exterior
rays, at feveral Apertures, fall fhort o f their principal foe us.
The f/trts ofthe Axis intercepted

The Diameter between the v e r t e x and the rays.' The Error by
ofthe Aperture. Reflected, Ref ratted. Reflexion. Refrattioni
2000 I499if 14865 ~ 8f 135 •
4000 14966 14449 33 551 •
6000 14924 13699 76 1301 .
8000 14865 12475 1 3X
IOOOO 14787 9472 213 5528 .
By this you may perceive, that the Errors o f the Refracting

convex are fo far from being tefsi that they are more than fix-
teen times greater than the like errors of the RefiectingConcave ,
efpecially in great Apertures j and that without refpedt to the
Heterogeneous conftitution o f light. So that, however the
contrary fuppofition might make the Author o f thefe Animad*
v^rfions rejeCt Reflections as ufelefs for the promoting o f Op-
Kkkkk2 tiques
1 18 N EW TO N ’S ANSWER T O HOOKE
( 5086 )
tsques» yet I mull for this as well as other confideratio ns prc
fer them in the Theory before Refractions.
W hether the Parabola be more difficult to describe than the
Hyperbola or ElUpp> may be a Quyere : But I fee no abfolute
neceffity o f endeavouring after any o f their defcriptions. For,
i f Metals can be ground truly Spherical, they will bear as great
Apertures, as I believe men will be well able to communicate
an exact polifh to. And for Dioptrique Telefeopes, I told
you, that the difficulty confifted not in the Figure o f the glafs,
but in the DifFormity o f Refra&ions : W hich if it did nor, I
could tell you a better and more eafie remedy than the ufe
o f the Conic Sections.
Thus much concerning the Practique
tan th> rieor*1"e part of Optiques. 1 flsall now take a view
o f the Confiderations on m ^Theories. And
thofe confift in afcribing an Hypothecs to me,which is not minej
in Aflerting an Hypothecs, which, as to the principal parts, is
not againft me 5 in Granting the greateft part o f my difcourfe
i f explicated by that Hypothe/ir $ and in Denying fome things,
the truth o f which would have appear’d by an experimental
examination.
O f thefe Particulars I, fhall difcourfe in
n‘- order. And firft o f the Hyp.tfofii, which
is afcribed to me in thefe w ords: But grant
his firjl fuppofition, that light is a bodyi and that as many colour$ or
degrees as there may bei fo many bodies there maybe s aU"which com-
ponndedtogether wouldmake White, & c. This, it feems, is taken
for my Hypothecs. ‘Tis true, that from my Theory I argue the
Corporeity o f Light; but I do it without any abfolute pofitive-
nejfs, as the word perhaps intimates j and make it at moft but a
very plaufible confequenee o f the D o& rine, and not a funda
mental Suppojitton, nor fo much as any part o f it 5 which was
wholly comprehended in the precedent Propofitions. And I
fomewhat wonder, how the Objector could imagine, that,when
I had afferted the Theory with the greateft rigour, I Ihould
be fo forgetful as afterwards to affert the fundamental fuppo-
fition itfelfw ith no more than a perhaps. Had I intended any
fuch Hypothefis, I fhould fomewhere have explain'd it. But I
knew, that the Properties>which I declar’d o f Light} were in
forife
N EW TON’S ANSWER T O HOOKE 119
( 50 8 7 )
fom e meafure capable o f being explicated not only by that,
but by many other Mechanical Hypothefes♦ And therefore I
chofe to decline them all, and to fpeak o f Light in general
terms, confidering itabftra&Iy, as fomething or other propa*
gated every way in ftreight lines from luminous bodies, with,
out determining, what that Thing is,* whether a confufed
Mixture o f difform qualities, or Modes of bodies, or o f Boa
bies themlclves, or o f any Virtues, Powers, or Beings what-
foever* And for the fame reafon I chofe to fpeak o f Colours
according to the information o f our Senfes, as if they were
Qualities o f Light without us. Whereas by that Hypothecs i
muft have confidered them rather as Modes o f Senfation, ex.
cited in the mind by various motions, figures, or fizes o f the
corpufcles o f L>ght, making various Mechanical impreflions
on the Organ o f Senfe; as 1exprefTed it in that place, where I
fpake o f the Corporeity o f Light.
But fuppofi'ng I had propounded that Hypothcfi/, I under-

ftand not, why the ObjeCtor fhould fo much endeavour to op-
pofe it* For certainly it has a much greater affinity with his
own Hypothecs, than he feems to be aware o f $ the Vibrations
o f the uEther being as ufefnl and neceffary in this, as in for.For,
afluming the Rays o f Light to be fmall bodies, emitted every
way from Shining fubftances, thofe, when they impinge on
any Refracting or Reflecting fuperficies, muft as necefiarily
excite Vibrations in the cetber^ as Stones do in water when
thrown into it* And fuppofing thefe Vibrations to be of fe=
veral depths or thickneffes, accordingly as they are excited by
the laid corpufcular rays o f various fizes and velocitiesôf what
u(e they will be for explicating the manner o f Reflection and
Refraction, the production o f Heat by the Sun-beams, theEN
million of Light from burning putrifying, or other fubftances,
whole parts are vehemently agitated, the Phenomena o f thin
tranfparent Plates and Bubles, and o f all Natural bodies, the
Manner o f Vifion, and the Difference o f Colors, as alfo their
Harmony and Difcord j 1 fhall leavo to their confideration ,
who may think it worth their endeavor to apply this Hypathtfit
to the fylutiou o fphenomena*
la
120 N EW TO N ’S ANSWER T O HOOKE
C 5088 )
In the fecond place, I told you,that the O bjectorsHypothecs,

as to the fundamental part o f it, is
not » g ™ tt “ e. fundamental
flitutioit of that attd all etherAfecba- Suppofltion is i That the parti o f
*sco*>fotmct^t t0ml bodies, when briskly agitated, do ex
cite Vibrations in the Mther, rvbich are
propagated every way from tbofe bodies in [ireight linest and catife a
Senfation oj Light by beating and dajhing^ againjl the bottom of the
Eye, (ometbing after the manner that Vibrations in the Air capfe a
Senfation of S ound by beating againjl the Organs of Hearing. N ow,
the moft free and natural Application o f this Hypothecs to the
Solution o fphenomena I take to be this: That the agitated parts
of bodies, according to their feveral fizes, figures, and mo=
tions, do excite Vibrations in the (ether o f various depths or
bignefles,which being promifcuotifly propagated through that
Medium to our Eyes,efFeCt in us a Senfation o f L ight of a White
colour; but if by any means thofe o f unequal bignefles be fe*
parated from oneanother, thelargeft beget a Senfation o f a
Red colour, the leaft or fhorteft, of a deep Violet^ and the in-
tertnediatones, o f intermediat colors; much after the man
ner that bodies, according to their feveral fizes, fhapes, and
motions, excite vibrations in the Air of various bignefles,
which, according to thofe bignefles, make feveral Tones in
Sound: That the largeft Vibrations are belt able to over
come the refiftance o f a Refracting fuperficies, and fo break
through it with leafl RefraCtion 5 whence the Vibrations o f
feveral bigneffes, that is, the Rays o f feveral Colors, which
are blended together in Light, muft be parted from oneano
ther by RefraCtion, and fo caufe the Phenomena o f Pnfmes and
other refraCting fubftances; And that it depends on the thick -
nefsofa thin tranfparent Plate orBuble, whether a Vibration
fhall be refleBed at its further fuperficies,or tranfmitted; fo that,
according to the number o f vibrations, interceding the two
fuperficies,they may be reflected or tranfmitted for many fuc-
ceflive thickneffes. And fince the Vibrations which make
Blew and Violet^ are fuppofed fhorter than thofe which make
Red and Yellow, they muft be reflected at a lefs thicknefs o f the
Plate ; Which is fufficient to explicate all the ordinary phceno>
tfjenaofthofe Plates orBubles, and alfo o f all natural bodies,
whole
( 5089 )
whofe parts are Jlike fo many fragments o f fuch Plates.
T h ele feem to be the molt plain, genuine and neceffary
conditions o f this Hypotbefi: And they agree fo juftly with my
T heory, that if the Animadverfor think fit to apply them, he
need not, on that account, apprehend a divorce from it. But
yet how he will defend it from other difficulties, I know not,
For, to me, the Fundamental Suppofitiou it lelf feems impof-
fible • namely,That the Waves or Vibrations o f any Fluid,can,
f k e the Rays o f Light, be propagated in Streigbt lines,without
a continual and very extravagant fpreading and bending every
way into thequiefeent Medium, where they are terminated
by it. I tniftake, if there be not both Experiment and De-
monftration to the contrary. And as to the other two or three
Hypothefes, which he mentions, I had rather believe rhem fub-
je tt to the like difficulties,than fufped the Jnimadverfur fhould
ielecSt the world for his own.
What I have laid o f this, may be eafily applied to all other
Mechanical Hypothefes, in which Light is fuppofed to be caufed
by any Preffion or Motion whatfoever, excited in the eether by
the agitated parts o f Luminous bodies*For,it feems impoffible,
that any o f thofe Motions or Preffions can be propagated in
streight lines without the like fpreading every way into the
fhadow’d M edium , on which they border. But yet, if any
man can think it poflible, he muft at leaft allow,that thofe Mo;
tions or Endeavors to motion, caufed in the ather by the feve-
ral parts ofany Lucid body that differ in fize, figure, and agi
tation, muft neceffarily be unequal .* Which is enough to de
nominate Light an Aggregat of dijjbrm rays, according to any
o f thofe Hypothefes. And if thofe Original inequalities may
fufficeto difference the Rays in Colour and Refrangibility, I
fee no reafon, why they, that adhere to any o f thofe hypothefes,
fhould feek for other Caufes o f thefe Effe&s, unlefs (to ufe the
Objectort argument) they will multiply entities without ne-
ceffity.
T he third thing to be confidered is, the Condition of the
Animadverfor s Conceffions, which
is, that I would explicate my 7 heo- °f
? , . , .r i . 1 a w *, and t bur hmiiatm tv m IhP9*
net by his Hypothecs: And it I could , ^ f
comply with him in that point,
there
C SO9 ° )
there would be little or no difference between U s. For he
grants, that without any refpect to a different Incidence o f
rays there aro different Refradtions 5 but he would have it ex
plicated, not by the different Refrangibility o f feveralRays,
b u tb yth e Splitting and Rarefying ot ethereal pulfes. He
grants my third, fourth and fixth Propositions; the fenfe o f
which is, That Umcompounded Colors are unchangeable,and
that Compounded ones are changeable only by refolving them
into the colors, o f which they are compounded ; and that alt
(he Changes, which can be wrought in Colours, are effected
only by varioufly mixing or parting them : But he grants theta
on condition that I will explicate Colors by the two Aides o f a
fplit pulfe, and fo make but two fpecies o f them, accounting
all other Colors in the world to be but various degrees and di-
lu tin gso fth o fetw o. And he further grants, that Whitenejje is
produced by the Convention o f all Colors j butthen I mull ab
low it to be not only by Mixture o f thofe Colors, but by a far
ther Uniting o f the parts o f the R ay fuppofed to be formerly
fplit.
I f I would proceed to examine thefe his Explications, f
think it would be no difficult matter to fhew, that they are not
only mfufftcientybnt in fome refpectsto me Cat leaft) un-inttfli-
gible* For, though it be eafie to conceive, how M otion m aybe
dilated and fpread, or how parallel motions may become di
g g i n g 5 yet I underftand not, by what artifice any Linear
motion can by a refracting fuperficies be infinitely dilated and
rarefied, fo as to become Superficial: O r, i f that be fuppofed,
y e t i underftand as little, why it fhouldbe fplit at fo fmall an
angle only, and not rather fpread and difperfed through the
whole angle o f Refraction. And further, though 1can eafily
imagine, how Unlike motions may crofs one another ; yet I
cannot well conceive,how they fbould coalefce into one uniform
motion, and then part again, and recover their former U n-
likenefs 5notwithstanding that I conjecture the ways,by which
the Animadverfor may endeavour to explain it. So that the D b
rect, uniform and undifturbed Pulfes would be fplit and di
sturbed by Refraction j and yet the Oblique and difturbed
Pulfes perfift without fplitting or further difturbance by fol
lowing Refractions, is (to me) as unintelligible. And there is
( S089 )
as great a difficulty iu the Number of Colours; as you will fee
hereafter.
But whatever be the advantages
or difadvantages o f this Hypothecs, 6explain .that it is not itecejfitr/, to limiter
m f DoBrine by any Hypo-
1 hope I may be excufed from ta thefis.
king it up, fince I do not think it
needful to explicate my Doftriue by any Hypothecs at all. For
it Light beconfider'd abftradtedly without refpe& to any Hy«
pothefis, I can as eafily conceive, that the feveral parts of a (In
ning body may emit rays ofdifiering colours and other quali*
ties, o f all which Light is conftituted, as that the feveral parts
o f a falfe or uneven firing, or o f uneavenly agitated water in
a Brook or Cataradt, or the feveral Pipes o f an Organ infpi*
red all at once, or all the variety o f Sounding bodies in the
world together, fhould produce founds o f feveral Tones, and
propagate them through the Air confuledly intermixt. And,
i f there were any natural bodies that could refieft founds o f one
tone, and ftifle or tranfmit thofe ofanother; .then, as the Echo
o f a confuted Aggregat of all Tones would be that particular
T o n e , which the Echoing body is difpofed to refledt; fo,fince
("even by the Animadver[or's conceffions) there are bodies apt
to reflect rays o f one colour, and ftifle or tranfmit thofe o f ano
ther j I can as eafily conceive, that thofe bodies, when illumi
nated by a mixture o f all colours, muft appear o f that colour
only which they refledi.
But when the Objector would infinuate a difficulty in thefe
things, by alluding to Sounds in the firing o f a Mufical inftru-
ment before percuffioo,or in the Air o f an Organ Bellowes be
fore its arrival at the Pipes; I muft confefs, I underftand it as
little, as if one had fpoken o f Light ina piece o f Wood before
it be fee on fire, or in the oyl o f a Lamp before ft alcend up the
match to feed the flame.
You fee therefore, how much
7. The difficulties of the Aniinadver*
it is befides the bufinefs in hand, fors difcottrfe xbflratied ftam Hy
to difpute about Hypothecs., For pothecs, and cen/idcr’d mote gem*
rally.
which reafou I (hall now in the
laft place,proceed to abftradi the
difficulties in the Animadverfors difeourfe, and,without having
regard to any Hypotbeflsi confider them in general terms. And
tftey may be reduced to thefe 3 ûstres: L i l l i 1.Whs*
( S ° 92 )
1. W hether the unequal Refra&ions, made without refpeft
to any inequality of incidence, be caufed by the different Re-
frangibility o f feveral R a y s; or by the fplitting, breaking or
difTipatiug the fame R ay into diverging parts ?
2. W hether there be more than two forts of Colours ?
3. W hether Whiteuefs be a mixture of all Colours f>
The Firjl o f thefe Quteret you
3i T h a t th e , R a y a ! n o t f p l i t , c r a n y
tth c r v a ife d i l a t e d . may find already determin'd by
an Experiment in my former L e t
ter; the defign o f which w astofhew , That 1he length o f the
colour’d Image proceeded not from any unevennefs in the
Gtafs, or any other continent Irregularity in the Refra&ions.
Amongft: other Irregularities I know not, what is more obvb
ous to fufpedt, than a fortuitous dilating and fpreading o f
L igh t after fome fuch manner, as Des-Cartes hath defcribed in
his ./Ethereal Refratftions for explicating the Tayle o f a Comet;
or as the A nimadver[or now fuppofes to be effedfed by the
■ Sphering and Rarifying o f his Êthereal fpulfes, And to p:e=
vent the fufpicion o f any fuch Irregularities, I told you, that
1 refradted the L ight contrary ways with two Prifmes fuccef-
fively, to deftroy thereby the Regular effects o f the firjl Prifine
by the fecond, and to difeover the Irregular effects by augments
ing them with iterated refractions. Nov/, amongft:other Ire
regularities, if the firjl Prifme had fpread and difupated every
ray into an indefinit number o f diverging parts, the fecond
fhouid in like manner have fpread and diffipated every one o f
thofe parts into a further indefinite number, whereby the I.
mage would have been (till more dilated, contrary to the e-
venr, And this ought to have hapned, becaufe thofe Linear
diverging parts depend not on one another for the manner o f
their Refra&ion, but are every one ofthem as truly and com-
pleatly Rays as h i whole was before its Incidence; as may ap
pear by intercepting them feveraliy.
T h e reafonablenefs of this proceeding will perhaps better
appear by acquainting you with this further circumftatice* l
fometimes placed the fecond Prifme in a pofition Tranfverfe to
the firjl) on defign to try, if it would make the long Image be
come four-fquare by refra&ions croffing thofe that had drawn
the round Image into a long one. For, ifam ongft othtr Ir
regularities the Refradfion o fth e fifi Prifme, did by Splitting
dilate
NEW TON’S ANSWER T O HOOKE !2 5
C 5C93 )
dilate a Linear ray into a Superficial, the Crofs refradions o f
thatfecond Prifme ought by further fplitting to dilate and draw
that Superficial ray into a Pyramidal folid. Bur, upon tryal,
I found it otherwife ; the Image being as regularly Ob*
long as before, and inclin’d to both the Prifmes at an angle o f
45, degrees,
I tryed alio all other Pofitions of the fecond Prifme, by tur-
ningtheEnds about its middle parti and in no cafe could ob-
ferve any fuch Irregularity. The Image was ever alike incli-
n ed to b o th Prifmes, its Breadthanfweringto the Suns D ia
meter, and its length being greater or lefs accordingly as the
Refra&ions more or lefs agreed, or contradi&ed one ano
ther.
And by thefe Obfervations, fince the Breadth o f the Image
was not augmented by theCrofs refra&ion ofthe/<?ro»dPrifme,
that refradion muft have been perform’d without any fplitting
or dilating o f the ray ; and therefore at leaft the Light inci
dent on that Prifme muft be granted an A ggregatof Rays un
equally refrangible in my fenfe. And fince the Image was e-
qually inclin’d to both Prifmes, and c.onfequently the Refra«
dions alike in both, it argues,that they were perform’ d accor
ding to fome Conflant Law without any irregularity.
T o determine thefecondQoaz- ,
re,the Animadverjor referr* to an
Experiment made with two
Wedge-like boxes, recited in the Micrography o f the Ingenious
Mr, Hoo\ Obferv. io , pag. 73. the defign of which was to
produce all Colours out o f a mixture o f two. But there is, I
conceive, a double defed in this inftance. For, it appears
not, that by this Experiment all colours can be produced out
o f two 5 and, if they could, yet the Inference would not fol
low*
That all Colours cannot by that Experiment be produced
out o f two, will appear by confidering, that the T in durc of
Aloes ^which afforded one o f thofe Colours, was not all over
ofone uniform colour, but appear’d yellow near the edge o f
the Box,and redat other pi aces where it was thicker: affording
all variety o f colours from afale yellow to a deep red orScarler,
according to the various thicknefs o f the liquor. And Co the
L 1 1 11 2 folution
( 5c88 )
Solution o f Copper, which afforded the other colour, was o f
various Blews and Indigos. So that inftead o f two colours,
here is a great variety made ufe o f for the produ&ion o f all o-
thers. Thus, for inflance3to produce all forts o f Greens, the fe-
veral degrees o f Yellow and paie 8/jh»mud: be mixed 5 but to
compound Purples, the Scarlet and deep Blew are tq be the In
gredients.
N o w , if the Animadverfor contend, that all the Reds and Tel-
lows o f the one Liquor, or Slews and Indigo's o f the other, are
only various degrees and dilutings of the lame Colour, and not
divers colours, that is a Begging o f the Queftion : And I
fhould as foon grant, that the two Thirds or Sixths in M ufick
are but feveral degrees o f the fame found, and not divers
founds. Certainly it is much better to believe our Senfes, in
forming us, that Red and yellow are divers colours, and to make
ital'hilofophical Quaere) W hy the fame Liquor doth, accor
ding to its various thicknefs, appear o f thole divers colours,
than to fuppofe them to be the fame colour becaufe exhibited
by the fame liquor ? For, i f that were a fufficient reafon, then
Blew and Yellow muft alfo be the fame colour, fince they are
both exhibited by the fame Tintfture o f NepbritickWood. But
that they are divers colours, you will more fully underftand by
the reafon, which, in m y Judgment, is this.* T h eT in & u re o f
Aloes is qualified to tranftnit mofl eajtly the rays indued with red%
moil difficultly the rays indued with violet, and with intertnedn
at degrees of facility the rays indued with intermediat CoIours«So
that where the liquor is very thin, it may fuffice to intercept
moft o f the violet, and yet tranfmit moft o f the other colours;
all which together muft compound a middle Colour, that is, a
faint yellow. And where it is fo much thicker as alfo to inter
cept moft o f the Blew and Green, the remaining Greeny Yellow,
and Red,it muft compound an 0 *enge. And where the thick
nefs is fo great, that fcarce any rays can pafs through itbe-
fides thofe indued with J{td, muft appear o f that colour,and
that fo much the deeper and obfcurer, by how the liquor is
thicker* And the fame may beunderftood o f the various de
grees o f Blew, exhibited by the Solution o f Copper, by reafon o f
its difpofition to intercept J{ed moft eafily, and traflfmic a deep
.8lew or Indigo^ Colour moft freely.
B ft
C 5089 )
But, fuppofing that a l l Colours might,according to this ex'
peri men rep rod u ced out of t i r o by mixture 3 yec it follow®
nor, that thofe two are the only O r ig in a l colours* and that for
a double reafon. F i r j l 3becaule thofe two are not themfelve®
Original colours, bur compounded ofothers; there being no
liquor nor any other body in nature,whofe colour in Day- light
is wholly un-compounded. And th e n i becaufe, though thofe
two were Original, and all others might be compounded o f
them, yet it follows not, that they cannot be otherwile prodiu
ced* For I faid, that they had a double Origin, the lame Co
lours coienfe being in fomecafes compounded and in others
un Compounded s and fufficiently declar'd in my t h i r d and
fourth Fropofitions, and in the Conclufion, by what Properties
the .one might be known and diftinguilh’t from the other. But,
becaule I fufpedi by fome Circumftances, that thq D iJ lin B io n
might not be rightly apprehended, I lhall once more declare
it, and further explain it by Examples.
That Colour is Primary or Original, which cannot by any
Art be changed, and whofe Rays are w o t a lik e refrangible :
And that Compounded, which is changeable into other colours,
and whole Rays are not a lik e refrangible. F o r i n j l a n c e b to
know, whether the colour of any G r e e n obje&be compoun*
dedor not, view it through a Prime, and if it appear c o n fu fe d j
and the edges tinged withB/w, Yellow* or any variety o f o-
ther colours, then is that G r e e n compounded of fuch colours
as at its edges emerge out of it: But if it appear d i f ti t i B , and
well defin’d, and entirely Green to the very edges, without
any other colours emerging, it is of an Original and un-cona-
pounded Green. In like manner, ifa refraded beam of light,
being call on a white wall, exhibit a G r e e n colour* to know
whether that be compounded, refra&the beam with an in-
terpoled Prifmc$ and if you find any Difformity in the refra
ctions, and the G r e e n be transform’d into B le m ) Y e llo w 3or any
variety o f other colours, you may conclude, that it was com
pounded o f thofe which emerge : But if the Refra&ions be
uniform, a n d t h e G r e e n perfift without any change o f colour,
then is it Originaland uu compounded* Andthe reafon why
I call it fo, is, beeaulea G r e e n indued with fuch properties can
not beproduced by any mixing o f other colours.
JVow
128 NEWTON’S ANSWER TO HOOKE
C 5097 )
N ow ,if two G r e e n ObjeCts may to the naked eye appear of
the fame colour, and yet one o f them throngh a prifme feera
c o n f ttf e d and variegated with other colours at the edges, and
the other d i f li n U and entirely Green » or, if there may be two ,
Beams of Light, which falling on a white wall do to the na
ked eye exhibit the fame G r e e n colour, and yet one of them,
when transmitted through a Prifme, be uniformly and r e g u -
l a r l y refraCted,and retain its colour unchanged, and the other
be ir r e g u l a r l y refracted and to divaricate into a multitude o f
other colours j I fuppofe, thefetwog»v£W.r will in both cafes be
granted o f a different Origin and conftitution. And if by
mixing colours, a g r e e n cannot be compounded with the pro*
perties of t h e V n c h a n g e a b l e Green, I think, I may call t h a t an
V n - c o m p o n n d e d colour, efpecially fince its rays are alike refran-
gible,and uniform in all refpects.
The fame rule is to be obferv’d in examining, whether R e d ,
,
Orenge Yellorvfileiv, or any other colour be compounded or
not. And, by the way, fince all White obje&s through the
Prifme appear confus’d and terminated with colours, Whitenefs
muft, according to this diftinCfcion, be ever compounded, and
that the moft of all colours, becaufe it is the moft confus’d and
changed by Refractions*
From hence I may take occafion to communicate a way for
the improvement o fM ic r o fc s p e s by RefraCtion. The way is,
by illuminating the ObjeCt in a darkned room with Light o f
any convenient colour not too much compounded: for by that
means the Microfcope will with diftinCtuefs bear a deeper
Charge and larger Aperture, efpecially if its conftruCtion be
fuch, as I may hereafter defcribe for, the advantage in Or
dinary Microfcopes will not be fo fenfible.
f. , There remains now the t h i r d
a l l C o lo u rs . Quasre to be confider d, which is,
Whether W h iten tfc be an Uniform
Colour, or a diffimilar Mixture o f all colours ? The Experiment
■which I brought to decide it, the A n im a d v e r fo r thinks may be
otherwife explain’d, and fo concludes nothing. But he might
eafily have fatisfied himfelf by trying, what would be the re*
fult o f a Mixture of all colours. And that very Experiment
might have fatisfied him, if he had pleafedto examine it by
the
C 5 ° 96 )
the various circumftances* One circumftauce I there decla*
red , o f which I fee no notice taken; and it is* That if any co*
lour at the Lem be intercepted, the Wbitenefs will be changed
into the other colours : If all the colours but red be intercept
ted, that Red alone in the concourfe or crofting of the Rays
will not conftitute Whitenefs, but continues as much Red as
before; and fo o f the other colours. So that the bufinefs is
not only to (hew, how rays, which before the concourfe exhi
bit colours, do in the concourfe exhibit White 5 but to (hew,
How in the fame place, where the feveral forts of rays apart
exhibit feveral colours,a Confufiou o f all together make White.
For inftance, if red alone befirft tranfmitted to the paper at
the place o f concourfe, and then the other colours be let fall
on that Red, the Q u e f lio n will be, Whether they convert it in*
C >White, by mixing with it only, as Blew falling on Yellow
light is fuppos'd to compound Green 5 or, Whether there be
fume further change wrought in the colours by their mutual
afting on one another, until!, like contrary P e r i p a t e t i c qualb
ties, they become aflimilated. And he that (hall explicate this
laft Cafe m e c h a n ic a lly , muft conquer a double impofiibility.
He muftyfr^fliew, that many unlike motions in a Fluid can by
clafhingfoaft on one another, and change each other, as to
become one Uniform motion ; and th e n ) that an Uniform mo
tion can o f itfelf, without any new unequal impreflions, de
part into a great variety o f motions regularly un-equal. And
after this he muft further tell me, Why all Objefts appear
not o f the fame colour, that is, why their colours in the Air,
where the rays that convey them every way are confufedly
raixt, do not aflimilate one another and become Uniform be
fore they arrive at the Speftators eye!3
But if there be yet any doubting,’tit better to put the Event
on farther Circumftances o f the Experiment, than to acquiefce
in the poffibility o f any Hypothetical Explication. As, for in*
fiance, by trying,What will be the apparition of thefe colours
in a very quick Confcctttion of one another. And this may be
eafily perform’d by the rapid gyration of a Wheel with [many
Spoaks or coggs in its perimeter, whofe Interfaces and thick*
nefles may be equal and of fuch a largenefs, that, if the Wheel
beinterpofed between the Prifme and the white concourfe
of
C$084 )
o f the colours, one half of the Colours may be intercepted by
a fpoake or cogg, and the other half pafs through an inter*
ftice. The Wheel being in this pofture, you may firft turn it
{lowly about, to lee all the colours fall fucceffively on the
lame place of the paper, held at their aforefaid concourfe 5
and if you then accelerate its gyration, until the Confecution
o f thofe colours be fo quick, that you cannot diftinguilh
them feverally,the refulting colour will be a Whitenefs per
fectly like that, which an an-refracted beam o f Light exhibits,
when in like manner fucceffively interrupted by the fpoaks or
coggs o f that circulating Wheel* And that this W h i t e n e f t is
produced by a fucceffive Intermixture o f the Colours, with
out their being affimilated , or reduc’d to any Unifor
mity, is certainly beyond all doubt, unlefs things that exift
not at the fame time may notwithstanding a 6t on one a*
nother.
There are yet other Circumftances, by which the Truth
might have been decided} as by viewing the White concourfe
o f the Colours through another Prifme plac’d clofe to the eye,
by whole Refraction that whitenefs may appear again tranf-
form’d into Colours: And then, to examine their Origin, if an
Affiftant intercept any o f the colours at the L e n s before their
arrival at the Whitenefs, the fame colours will vanilh from a-
mougft thofe, into which that Whitenefs is converted by the
J e c o n d Prifme, Now, if the rays which difappear be the fame
with thofe that are intercepted, then it mult be acknowled;
ged, that the f e c o n d Prifme makes no new colours in any rays,
which were not in them b e f o r e their concourfe at the paper.
Which is a plain indication, that the rays o f feveral colours re
main diftinft from one another in the Whitenefs, and that from
their p r e v i o u s difpofitions are deriv’d the Colours of the fecond
Prifme. And, by the way, what is faid o f their Colors may be
applied to their Refrangibility.
The aforefaid W h e e l may be alfohere made ufe o f } and, if
its gyration be neither too quick nor two flow, the fuc-
cefsion of the colours may be difeern’d through the Prifme,
whilft to the naked eye of a Byftander they exhibit white
ned
There is fomething ftill remaining to be faid of this Experi.
ment
( 5 ° 5>9 )
merit. But this, I conceive, is enough to enforce it, and fo to de-’
cide the controverfy. How*ever, I fhall now proceed to fliew fome
other ways of producing whitenefs by mixtures, fince I perfwade my
felf, that this Affertion above the reft appears Paradoxical, and is
with moft difficulty admitted. And becaufe the Animadverfor defires
an inftance of it in Bodies of divers colours3 I Dial 1 begin with that.
Butin order thereto itmuftbe confider’d, thatfuch colour'd Bodies
reflect but fome part of the Light incident on them •, as is evident
by the 13 Proportion : And therefore the Light reflected from an Ag-
gregat of them will be much weakned by the lofs of many rays.'
Whence a perfed and intenfe Whitenefs is not to be expedcd, but
rather a Colour between thofe of Light and Shadow, or fuch a
Gray or D irty colour as may be made by mixing White and Black
together.
And that fuch a Colour will refult, may be colleded from the
colour of Daft found in every corner of an houfe, which hath been
obfcrv'd to confift of many colour'd particles. There may be alfo
produced the like Dirty colour by mixing feveral Painters colours
together. And the fame maybeeffeded by Painting a Top (fuch
as Boys play with,) of divers colours. For, when it is made
to circulate by whipping it, it will appear of fuch a dirty co
lour.
Now, the Compounding of thefe colours is proper to my pur-
pofe, becaufe they differ not from Whitenefs in the Species of co
lour, but only in degree of Luminoufnefs: which ('did not the An
imadverfor concede it) I might thus evince. A beam of the Suns
Light being tranfmitted into a darkned room, if you illuminate a
ffieet of White Paper by that Light, refleded from a body of a-
ny colour, the paper will always appear of the colour of that bo
dy, by whofe refleded light it is illuminated. If it be a red bo
dy, the paper will be red, if a green body, it will be green; and fo
of the other colours. The reafon is, that the fibers or threds, of
which the paper confifts, are all transparent and fpecular ; and fuch
fubftances are known to refled colours without changing them. To
know therefore, to what Species of colour a Grey belongs, place a-
ny Gray body(fuppofe a Mixture of Painters colours,)in the faid Light,
and the paper, being illuminated by its reflexion, ftiall appear White.
And the fame thing will happen, if it be illuminated by reflexion
from a £/4r£,fubftance,
Thefe therefore are all of one Species ; but yet they feem diftin-
guilht not only by degrees of Lummoufnefs, but alfo by fome other
Inequalities, whereby they become more harfh or pleafant, And the
diftindion feems to be, that Greys and perhaps Blacks are made by an
uneven defed of Light, confifting as it were of many little veins
or ftreams, which differ either in Luminoufnefs or in the Unequal di-
1 M ram mm ftribution
( 5100 )
ftribution of diverfly cotour’d rays •, fuch a* ought to he caus'd by
Keflexion from a Mixture of white and black, or of diverfly eo.
lour’d corpufcl.es. But when fuch imperfb&Iy mixt Light is by aj e -
cond Reflexion from the paper more evenly and uniformly blended,
it becomes more pleafant, and exhibits afaint or fhadow'd Whice-
nefs. And that fuch little irregularities as theft: may caufethefe dif
ferences, is not improbable, if we confider, how much variety may
be caufed in Sounds of the fame tone by irregular and uneven jar-
rings. And befidesjthefe differences are fo little, that I have fome-
times doubted, whether they be any at all, when l have confider’d
that a Black and White Body being plac'd together, the one in a
ftrong light, and the other in a very faint light, fo proporti-
on'dthat they might appear equally luminous s it has been dif-
fioultto diftinguifh them, when view'd at diftance, unlefs when the
Black feem’d more blewlfh » and the White body in a light ftill
fainter, hath, in comparifon of the Black body, it felf appear’d
Black.
This leads me to another way of Compounding TYhitenefs •, which
is, That, if four or five Bodies of the more eminent colours, Or a
Paper painted all over, in feveral parts of it, with thofe feveral
colours in a due proportion, be placed in the faid Beam of Light j
the Light, reflc&ed from thofe Colours to another White paper,
held at a convenient diftance, fliall make that paper appear White.
If it be held too near the Colours, its parts will feem of thofe colours
tb it are neareft them •, but by removing it further, that all its part*
maybe equally illuminated by all the colours, they will be more and
more diluted, until they become perfe&ly White. And you may
further obferve, thatif any of the colours be intercepted, the Paper
will no longer appear White, but of the (Jther colours which are not
intercepted, Now, that this whitenefs is a Mixture of the feverally
colour’d rays, falling confufedly 00 the paper, I fee no reafon to
doubt of •, becaufe, if the Light became Uniform and Similar before
it fell confufedly on the paper, it muft much more be Uniform, when
at a greater diftance itfaiisonthe Spe&ators eye, and fo the ray*,
which.come from feveral colours, would in no qualities differ from
one another, but all of them exhibit the fame colour to the Specta
tor, contrary to what he fees.
N ot much unlike this Inftanceit is,That,if a polifht piece of Metal
be for placed, chat the colours appear in it as in a Looking-glafi?,
and then the Metal be made rough, that by a confus’d reflex
ion thofe apparent colours may be blended together, they fhall
difappear, and by their mixture caufe the Metall to look
White.
But
NEWTON’S ANSWER TO HOOKE *33
( 5101 )
B u t fu r th e r t o e n fo r c e th is Experiment ; i f , in fte a d o f th e P a p e r s
a n y W h i t e Froth, c o n f i f t i n g o f f m a l l b u b l e s , b e i l l u m i n a t e d b y r e
f l e x i o n f r o m t h e a f o r e fa id C o l o u r s , i t (h a ll t o th e n a k ed e y e feem
W h i t e , a n d y e t th r o u g h a g o o d M ic r o f c o p e the fev e ra l C o lo u r s w i l l
a p p e a r d if t in - d o n t h e b u b le s , as i f f e e n by re flex io n fro m fo m a n y
fp h er ica l fu rfa ces, W ith m y n ak ed e y e , b e i n g v e r y n e a r , I h a v e al-
f o d i f c e r n ’d t h e f e v e r a l c o l o u r s o n e a c h b u b l e } a n d y e t a t a g r e a t e r
d if t a n c e , w h e r e I c o u ld n o t d iftin g u ifh th em a p a rt, th e F r o t h h a th
a p p e a r ’d e n t i r e l y W h i t e . A n d a t the fa m e d ifta n c e , w h e n I l o o k ’d
i n t e n t ly , I h a v e feen th e c o lo u r s d ift in d ly o n e a c h b u b le ; an d y e t,
b y f t r a i n i n g m y e y e s as i f I w o u l d l o o k a t f o m c t b i n g far o f f b e y o n d
t h e m , t h e r e b y t o r e n d e r t h e V i f i o n c o n f u s ’d , t h e F r o t h h a s a p p e a r ’d
w i t h o u t an y o th e r c o lo u r than W h ite n e fs . And w h a t is h e r e l a i d
o f F r o t h s ,m a y e a fily b e u n d e r f t o o d o f th e P a p e r o r M e t a l in th e f o r e
g o i n g E x p er im en ts. F o r , th e ir p arts a re fp e c u la r b o d ie s , lik e th e fe
B u b l e s •. A n d . p e r h a p s w i t h a n e x c e l l e n t M i c r o f c o p e t h e C o l o u r s may
b e a lfo feen in te r m ix e d ly r e fle d e d fro m them .
In p r o p o r t i o n i n g t h e f e v e r a l l y C o l o u r ’d b o d i e s t o p r o d u c e th efe
e f f e d s ,t h e r e m a y b e fo m e n ic e n e fs } and it w ill be m o re c o n v e n ie n t,
t o m a k e u f e o f t h e c o l o u r s o f t h e P r i f m c , c aft o n a W a l l , b y w h o f e
r e f le x io n th e P a p e r, M e ta l, F r o t h , an d o th e r W h it e fu b ftan ces m a y
b e illu m in a te d . A n d I u f u a l l y m a d e m y T r y a l s th is w a y , b e c a u f e
I c o u ld b e tte r e x c lu d e any flu t t e r in g L ig h t fr o m m ix in g w ith the
c o lo u r s to d ila te them .
T o th is w a y o f C o m p o u n d i n g W h i t e n e f s m a y b e r e f e r r ’d th ato-
t h e r , b y M i x in g l i g h t a fte r it h a th b e e n t r a j e d e d t h r o u g h t r a n f p a -
r e n t l y c o l o u r ’d f u b f t a n c e s . Forinftaxce, i f n o L ig h t be a d m itted in
to a room but o n ly through C o l o u r ’d g l a f s , w h o fe fev e ra l parts
a r e o f fe v e r a l c o l o u r s in a p r e t t y eq u a l p r o p o r t io n ; a ll W h i t e t h in g s
in th e r o o m H u ll appear W h it e , i f th e y be n o t h eld t o o near th e
G la fs. A n d y e t th is lig h t , w ith w h ich th e y are illu m in a te d , can
n o t p o f lib ly b e u n if o r m , b eca u fe, i f the R a y s , w h ic h at th e ir e n tr a n c e
a r e o f d i v e r s c o l o u r s , d o in t h e i r p r o g r e f s t h r o u g h t h e r o o m fuffer
a n y a lte r a tio n t o b e red u ced t o an U n ifo r m ity ; the G la fs w o u ld n o t
in th e r e m o te ft p arts o f the r o o m appear o f the v er y fam e c o lo u r ,
w h i c h i t d o t h w h e n th e S p e c ta to r s e y e is v e r y n ea r i t ; N o r w o u l d
th e rays, w hen tra n fm itte d in t o a n o t n e r d ark ro o m th r o u g h a little
h o le in an o p p o lite d o o r o r p a r titio n -w a ll, p r o j e d o n a P a p e r th e
Species o r r e p r e f e n t a t i o n o f t h e g l a f s i n i t s p r o p e r c o l o u r s ,
A n d , b y t h e b y , t h i s f e e m s a v e r y f it a n d c o g e n t I n l h n c e o f fom e
o t h e r p arts o f m y Theory, a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y o f t h e 13 Propsfuton. For,
in th is r o o m a ll n a tu r a l B o d ie s w h a te v e r appear in th e ir p r o p e r c o
lo u r s. A n d a ll the o f c o lo u r s in n a tu r e , m ad e e ith e r by
R e fr a d io n o r w i t h o u t i t , a r e h e r e t h e f a m e as i n the O pen A ir .
W o w , the L i g h t i n t h is r o o m b e i n g f u c h a D i f f i m i l a r m i x t u r e , as
M m mmm2 l
C 5 i °2 )
* h a v e d e fc r ib 'd in my Theory, the C a u fes o f a ll th efe Phenomena
m u f f b e t h e f a m e t h a t 1 h a v e t h e r e a f i i g n ’d . And I fee n o r e a fo n t o
fu fp ed , th a t th e fam e Phenomena I h o u l d h a v e o th e r cau fes in th e O -
p e n A ir.
T h e f u c c e f s o f t h i s E x p e r i m e n t m a y b e e a f i l y c o n j e d u r ’d b y t h e a p -
p e a r a n c e s o f th in g s in a C h u r c h o r C h a p p e l, w h o f e w in d o r e s are o f
c o l o u r ' d g l a f s •, o r i n t h e O p e n A . r , w h e n i t i s i l l u f t r a t e d w i t h C l o u d s
o f v a rio u s c o lo u r s.
T h e r e are y e t o th e r w a y s , b y w h ich I h a v e p ro d u ced PFhitcnefs as
by c a l l i n g f e v e r a l C o l o u r s f r o m t w o o r m o r e P rifm es u p o n th e fam e
p l a c e ; by R e f r a d i n g a Bt a n o f L ig h t w ith t w o o r th ree P rifm es fu c -
c . e f f i v e l y , t o m a k e t h e d i v e r g i n g c o l o u r s c o n v e r g e 3 g a i n ; by R e f l e
c tin g o n e c o lo u r to a n o t h e r ; and by l o o k i n g th r o u g h a P rifm e on an
O b j e d o f m a n y c o l o u r s •, a n d , ( w h i c h is e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e a b o v e m e n
t i o n ’d w a y o f m i x i n g c o l o u r s b y c o n c a v e PFedges f ill’d w i t h c o l o u r ’ d
l i q u o r s , ) I h a v e o b f e r v ’d t h e f l i a d o w s o f a p a in ted G la f s - w in d o w to
b eco m e W h it e , w h e re th o fe o f m a n y c o lo u r s h ave at a g r e a t d ifta n ce
in terfered . B u t y e t , fo r fu rth er fa tis fa d io n , th e Animadverfor m ay
t r y , i f h e p le a fe , th e e f f e d s o f f o u r o r fiv e o f fu ch Wedges f i l l e d w ith
l i q u o r s o f as m a n y f e v e r a l c o l o u r s .
B efid es a ll th e fe , th e C o lo u r s o f VFater-bubbles a n d o t h c r th in p ellu
c id fu b ftan ces afford fev era l in fta n ces o f W h ite n e fs p r o d u c e d by
t h e i r m i x t u r e •, w i t h one o f w h i c h I f lia ll c o n c l u d e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r . L e t
f o m e W a t e r , in w h ic h a c o n v e n i e n t q u a n t it y o f S o a p o r w a fli-b a ll is
d if f o lv ’d , b e a g it a te d in t o F r o t h , a n d , a fte r th a t fr o th has R o o d a
w h ile w it h o u t fu r th e r a g it a t io n , t ill y o u fee th e b u b b le s, o f w h ic h
i t c o n fifts ,b e g in t o b rea k , th e r e w ill ap pear a g r e a t v a r ie ty o f c o lo u r s
a ll o v e r t h e t o p o f e v e r y b u b b l e , i f y o u v i e w t h e m n e a r a t h a n d j b u r , 1
i f y o u v ie w them at fo g r e a t a d ifta n ce th a t y o u c a n n o t d iftin g u ilh th e
c o lo u r s o n e fro m a n o th e r ^ h e F r o th w ill appear p e r f e d ly W h it e .
T h u s m uch c o n c e r n in g th e d efig n
u . T b e t t ife B x p e n m e n t u m c r u c i s a n d f u b f t a n c e o f t h e Ammadverfcr's
isfah. C o n fid er a tio n s, T h e r e are y e t fo m e
p a rticu la r s t o b e ta k en n o t ic e o f , be
f o r e I c o n c l u d e ; a s t h e d e n y a l o f t h e ExpenmentftmsCmcis. On this
I c h o f e t o l a y t h e w h o l e f t r e f s o f m y d i f e o u r f e ■, w h i c h t h e r e f o r e w a s
th e p r in c ip a l t h in g t o h i v e b een o b j e d e d a g a in ft. _ B u t I c a n n o t b e
c o n v in c e d o t its in fu f fic ic n c y b y a b a re d e n y a l w ith o u t a lig n in g a
R e a f o n f o r it. Iam ap t t o b e lie v e , it has b een m ifu n d c r fto o d ; f o r
o th e r w ife it w o u ld h ave p reven ted th e d ifc o u r fe s a b o u t R a t i f y in g
a n d S p l i t t i n g o f r a y s , b e c a u fe t h e d e f ig n o f it is, t o f l i e w , t h a t R a y s
o f d i v e r s c o l o u r s , c o n f i d e r ’d a p a r t , d o a t Equal I n c i d e n c e s fu ffer V n-
tqxal R e f r a d i o n s , w ith o u t^ b ein g fp lic, r a r ific d , o r a n y w ays d ig
fa ted .
C 5203 )
I n t h e C o n f i d e r a t i o n s o f m y f ir f t a n d
f e c o n d P r o p o r t i o n s , t h e A d m a d vtrfo r ’*• Some particulars u em m n d td u
h a t h r e n d r e d m y D o c t r i n e o iVn-eqâl ^wi ir" ,<>n'
Refrangibility v e r y im p e r fe c t and m a im
e d , b y e x p l i c a t i n g it w h o l ly by t h e S p litt in g o f r a y s * w h e r e a s I c h ie fly
i n t e n d e d i t i n t h o f e R e f r a c t i o n s t h a t a r e p e r f o r m ’d w i t h o u t t h a t f u p -
p o s ’ d I r r e g u l a r i t y ^ f u c h as t h e Experimenttm Crude m i g h t h a v e i n
f o r m ’d h i m o f . A n d , in g e n e r a l I fin d , th a t , w h i lll h e h a th e n d e a
v o u r ’d t o e x p l i c a t e m y P r o p o r t i o n s Hypothetically, the m o r e m a teria l
f u g g e f t i o n s , b y w h i c h I d e i i g n ’d t o r e c o m m e n d t h e m , h a v e e f c a p ' d
h i s c o n l i d e r a t i o n ; f u c h as a r e , T h e U n c h a n g e a b l c n e f s o f t h e d e g r e e
o f R e fr a n g ib ility p ecu lia r to an y fo r t o f rays; the d r if t A n a lo g y b e
t w e e n th e d eg re es o f R e fr a n g ib ility and C o lo u r s } the D iftin ftio n
b e tw e e n co m p o u n d e d and u n -co m p o u n d ed co lo u rs > the U n c h a n g e a -
b le n e fs o f un- c o m p o u n d e d c o lo u r s } and the A flertio n , th at if a n y o n e
o f th e P r ifm a tiq u e c o lo u r s be w h o lly in te r c e p te d , th at c o l o u r c a n n o t
b e n e w p r o d u c e d o u t o f the r e m a in in g L ig h t b y a n y fu rth er R e f r a c
tio n o r R e fle x io n w h a tfo ev er . A n d o f w h a t ftr en g th a n d effica cy
t h e f e P a r t i c u l a r s a r e f o r e n f o r c i n g t h e Thesry, 1 d e f i r e t h e r e f o r e m a y
b e n o w c o n f i d e r ’d .
136 LETTER ON NEWTON’S THEORY [FROM HUYGENS]
( 6 c %6 )
An ExlraB of a Letter lately written by an ingenious perf i n a l s '

P a ris , containingfotne Conjiderations upon M r. N e w to n s
Brine'of C o lo rs , as alfi upon the effefts of the different Refta*
Uions of the Rays inTelefcopical Glafes*
Have fee.Dshow Mr .Newton endeavours to maintain his new
I Theory concerning Colours. Me thinks, that the moft im
portant Objection, which is made againft him by way of g> u&
re, is that,Whether there be more than two forts of Colours.
For my part, I believe, that an Hypothecs, that fhould explain
mechanically and by the nature of motion the Colors Jel/ow
and Blew, would be fufficieut for all the reft, in regard that
thofe others, being only more deeply charged ( as appears by
the Prifmcs of Mr. H o o ^ ) do produce the dark or deep-Red
and Blewj and that of theft four all the other colors may be
compounded. Neither do I fee, why Mr* Newton doth not con
tent himfelf with the twoColors.Yellow and Blew^for it will
be much more eafy to find an Hypothefis by Motion, that may
explicate theft two differences, than for fo maoy diverfities as
there are of others Colors* And till he hath found this Hypo-
t h e f t , he hath not taught us, what it is wherein confifts the na
ture and difference of Colours,but only this accident (which
certainly is very confiderable,) of their d iffe re n t Refrangibi-
%*
As for the composition of White made by all the Colors to
gether,it may pofiibly be, that Yellow and Blew might alfo be
fufficient for th a t: Which is worth while to try 5 and it
may be done by the Experiment,which Mr.Newton propofeth,
by receiving againft a wall of a darkn’d room the Colours of
the Prifme, and to caft their reflefted light upon white pa
per. Here you muft hinder the Colors of the extremities, v i z ,
the Red and Purple, from ftriking againft the wall, and leave
only the intermediate Colors,yellow,green and blew, to fee,
whether the light of thefe alone would not make the paper
appear white,ns well as when they all give light. I even doubt,
whether the lighteft place of the yellow color may not all a-
lone produce that effett, and I mean to try it at the fit ft con-
vcniency 5 for this thought never came into my mind but juft
n°Vfc
NEWTON’S DISCUSSION OF [HUYGENS’S] LETTER *37
( 6087 ;
now. Mean time you may fee, that if thefe Experiments do
fucceed, it can no more be faid, that all the Colors are neccffa-
ry to compound White, and that ’tis very probable,that all the
reft are nothing but degrees of Tellom and Blew , more or lefs
charged.
Laftly, touching the Effcftof the different Refraflions of
the Rays in Telefcopical Glafles, Vts certain) that Experience
agrees not with what Mr. Newton holds* For to confider
only a picture, which is made by an objeft-glafs of 12 feet in
a dark room, we fee, it is too diftinft and too well defined to
be produced by rayes,that fhould ftray the 50th.
part * of the Aperture. So that, (as I believe f nTw-
I have told you heretofore) the difference of ton, faith
the Refrangibility doth not, it may be, alwayes ‘
follow the lame proportion in the great and 307?.
fmall inclinations of the Rayes upon the furface
of the GJafs.
Mr. Newtons Anfwerto theforegoing Letter further explaining
his Theory of Light and Colors, and particularly that of White-
nefs 5 together with his continued hopes of perfecting telefcopes
by Reflections rather than Reft ad ions.
oncerning the bufinels of Colors 5 in my faying that

C when Monfieur N. hath (hewn how White may
be produced out oftwo uncompounded colors,I will tell him,
why he can conclude nothing from that ^ my meaning was,
that fuch a White, ( were there any fuch,) would have diffe*
rent properties from the White, which I had refped to, when
I deferibed my Theory, that is, from the White of the Sun’s
immediate light 5 of the ordinary objefts of ourfenfes, and
of all white Phenomena*hat have hitherto fain under my ob-
fervauon* And thofc different properties would evince it to
be of a different conftitution .* Infomuch that fuch a producti
on of white would be fo far from coutradi&ing, that it would
rather iiluffrate and confirm my Theory j beesufe by the dif
ference of that from other whites it would appear,.that other
Whitts are not compounded of only two colours like that.
And therefore if Monfieur N. would prove any thing,it is re*
quifite that he do not only produce out of two primitive Co
lors,
138 N EW TO N ’S DISCUSSION OF [HUYGENS’S] LETTER
( 6088 )
lors a white which to the naked eye fhall appear like other
whites, but alfo fhall agree with them in all other proper
ties.
But to let you underftand wherein fuch a white would
differ from other whites and why from thence it would fol
low that other whites arc otherwife compounded , I fhall lay
down this pofition.
fhat a compounded color can he refolved into no more Jimpleco-

lots then thofe of which it it compounded.
This (eems to be fe lf evident, aod I have alfo tryed itfevc-

ral ways, and particularly by this which
follows. L et «»reprefent an oblong piece A
o f white-paper about £ or t o f an inch | ' |
broad,and illuminated in a dark room
with a mixture o f two colours caff upon B
it from tw o Prifms, fuppofe a deep blew l| I
a n d fc a rle t, which muft feverally be as II
uncompounded as they can convenient- >1 I
ly be made. T hen at a convenient di* C
ftance,fuppofe o f fix or eight yards,view
it through a clear triangular glafs or cryftal Prifin held paral
lel to the paper, and you fhall fee the tw o colors parted from
one another in the falhion of tw o images o f the paper,as they
are reprefented at C and where fuppofe 0 the fcarlet and y
the b le w , without green or any other color between
them.
N ow from the aforefaid Pofition I deduce thefe two con-
clufions. 1, That i f there were found out a way to compound
white o f twofim ple colors only,that white would be again re-
folvable into no more than two. a. That i f other whites fas
that o f the Suns light, & c . be refolvable into more than two
ficnple colours (as I find by Experiment that they a re ) then
they muft be compounded o f more than two.
T o make this plainer, fuppofe that A reprefents a white b o
dy illuminated by a diredt beam oftheSun tranfmitted through
a fraall hole into a dark room, and a fuch another body illu
minated by a mixture o f tw o fimple colors, which if poffible
NEW TON’S DISCUSSION OF [HUYGENS’S] LETTER : 39
( 6089 )
may make it alio appear o f a white color exaftly like A. Then
at a convenient diftaoce view thefe two whites through a
Prifin,and A will be changed into a feries o f all colors, Red,
Yellow ,G reen, Blew, Purple,with their intermediate degrees
(ucceediug in order from B to C . But «, according to the a-
fbrefaid Experiment, will only yield thofc two colors of
w hich't was compounded, and thofc not conterminatc like
the colors at BC,but fcparate from one another as at c and y,
by means o f the different refrangibility o f the rays to which
they belong* And thus by comparing thefe two whites, they
would appear to be o f a different conftitution, and A to con-
fift o f more colors then*. So that what Monfieur N. contends
for, would rather advance my Theory by the accelsof a new
kind o f white thaa conclude againft it. But 1 fee no hopes,
o f compounding fuch a white*
As for Monfieur N.his expreffion,that I maintain my do<$trine
with fome concern, I confefsit was a little ungrateful to me
to meet with objections which had been anfwered before,
without having the leaft reafon given me why thole anfwcrs
were inefficient. The anfwcrs which I Ipcak o f are in the
Tranfa&ionsfrom/Mg. $°92topdg, 5102. And particularly in
pag, 5095 5 to Ihewthat there are other fimple colors befides
blew and yellow , 1 inftance in a fimple or homogeneal Green,
fuch as cannot be made by mixing blew and yellow or any o*
thcr colours. And there alio I.lhew why , fuppofing that all
colors might be produced out o f tw o , yet it would not fo l
low that thofe two arc the only Original colors. The rcalbns
I defire you would compare with what hath been now faid o f
W hite. And fo the necefltty o f all colors to produce white
might have appear’d by the Experiment/*^. 5097,where 1fay,
that if aDy color at the Lent be intercepted, the whitened
(which is compounded o f them all) will be changed into (the
re fu lto fj the other colors.
However, fince there feems to have happened fome mif-
underftanding between us, 1 fhall endeavor to explain myfelf
a little further in thefe things according, to the following me
thod.
( 60^0 )
Definitions.
i I call that Light homogeneal, fimilar or uniform, whofe
rays are equally refrangible.
2- Atfd that heterogenealjwhofe rays are unequally refran
gible.
N ote.There are but three affedtions o f Light in which I have
obferved its rays to differ. v/s,Refrangibility, Reflvxibility,
and Color; and thole rays which agree in refrangibility a-
gree alfo in the other two,and therefore may well be defined
homogeneal, efpecially fince men ufually call thole things ho-
mogeneal,which are fo in all qualities that come under their
knowledg, though in other qualities that their knowledg ex*
tends not to there may poffibiy be fome heterogeneity.
3. Thofe colors I call firaple, or homogeneal, which are ex
hibited by homogeneal light.
4. And thofe compound orheterogeneal,which are exhibi
ted by hetcrogeneal light.
5. Different colors I call not only the more eminent fpe-
cies,red,yellow, green, blew, purple, but all other the minu-
teft gradations; much after the fame manner that not only
the more eminant degrees in Mufick3but all the lead: gradati*
ons are efteemad different lounds.
Proportions.
1. The Sun's light confifts o f rays differing by indefinite
degrees o f Refrangibility.
2. Rays which differ in refrangibility, when parted from
one another do proportionally differ in the colors which they
exhibit. Thefe two Propofitions are matter o f fadt
3. There are as many fimple or homogeneal colors as d e
grees o f refrangibility. For, to every degree o f refrangibi
lity belongs a different color,by Prop.2.And that color is fimple
by Def. i. and 3.
4. Whitenefs in all refpe&s like that o f the Sun’s immediate
light and o f all the ufual objetts o f our fenfes cannot be com
pounded o f two fimple colors alone. For fiich a compofition
m uftbem ade by rays that have only two degrees o f refran-
gibility,by Def. 1. and 3 j and therefore it cannot be like that
o f the Sunslight,by Prop. 1 $Nor,for the fame re?.fon, like that
o f ordinary white objects.
5, Whitcnefo
N EW TO N ’S DISCUSSION OF [HUYGENS’S] LETTER 141
( 6091 )
5» Whitenefsio all refpefts like that o f the Sun's immedi
ate light cannot be compounded o f Ample colors without an
indefinite variety o f them* For to fuch a compofition there
are requifite rays indued with all the indefinite degrees o f r< *
frangibility,by Prop. i. And thofe infer as many fimple colorsj
by Def. 1. and 3. and Prop. 2, and 3.
T o make thefe a little plainer, I have added alfo the Pro-
pofitions that follow.
6. The rays o f light do not aft on one another in palling
through the fame Medium. This appears by feveral paflages
in the Tranfa£tions pag. 5097, 50518,jioo, and 5101. and is
capable o f further proof.
7. T he rays o f light fuffer not any change o f their qualities
from refraftion.
8* N o r afterwards from the adjacent quiet Medium. Thefe
tw o Propofitions are manifeft facto in homogeneal light,
whofe color and refrangibility is not at all changeable cither
by refraftion or by the contermioation of a quiet Medium*
And as for heterogeneal light, it is but an aggregate o f feveral
forts o f homogeneal light, no one lort of which fullers any
more alteration than if it were alone, becaufe the rays aft not
on one another, by Prop, 6. And therefore the aggregate can
fuffer none. Thefe two Propofitions alfo might be further pro
ved apart by Experiments, too long to be here deferibedo
9. There can no homogeneal colors be educed out o f lig h t'
by refraftion which were not commixt in it before : Becaufe,
by Prop. 7 , and 8,Refraftion changeth not the qualities o f the
rays, but only feparates thofe which have divers qualities, by
meanes o f their different Refrangibility.
1 o. The Sun’s light is an aggregate o f an indefioite varie-
ety o f homogeneal colors; by Prop, i, 3, and 9. And hence
it is, that I call homogeneal colors alfo primitive or original.
And thus much concerning Colors.
Monfieur N. hasthought fit toinfinuate,that theaberration
o f rays ( by theirdifferent refrangibility) is not fo confide-
rable a difadvancage in glaffes as I feemed to be willing to
make men believe,when I propounded concave mirrors as the
only hopes o f perfefting Tclefeopes. But if hepleafe to take
his pen and compute the errors o f a Glafs and Speculum that
O o o 000 colleft
( 6Q$2 )
c o lle d rays at equal diftances, he will find how much he is
miftaken, and that I have not been extravaganzas he imagins,
in preferring Reflexions. And as for what he fays o f the diffi
culty o f the praxis, I know it is very difficult, and by thofe
ways which he attempted it I believe it unpra&icable. But
there is a way infinuated in the 7ratifa&iont pag.%080.by which
it is net improbable but that as much may be done inlargeTc-
lelcopes, as I have thereby done in fhort ones, but yet not
without more thenordinary diligence and curtofity.
NEWTON’S REPLY TO [HUYGENS’S] LETTER 143
( 6108 )
A n E x t r a c t o f ^ .I f a a c
Newton’s L e tt e r , m i t t e n to th e P u b li-
J h e r f r o m Cambridge April 3. 1673. co n cern in g th e N u m b er
Colors, a n d th e N eeejjity o f m ix in g th e m a ll f o r th e p r o
d u c tio n o f White 5 as alfo to u ch in g th e Caufe w hy a P iU u r e c a fi
by G la jjes in to a d a r k n e d room appearsfo d ifiin C t n o tw ith sta n d
in g i t s Irre g u la r r e f r a t i o n : ( W h ic h L e t t e r , b ein g a n Im m e -
d ia t a n jw e r to th a t f r o m Paris, p r in t e d N * .g 6 ,p ,6 o 8 6 > o fth e fi
Tradts, ,
J h o u ld alfo i f i t h a d n o t been m if-la id , h a v e i m m e d i
ately fo llo w e d th e (a m e.')
T feems to me,that N. takes an improper way o f examining

I the nature of Ce/or/,whilft he proceeds upon compounding
thofe that are already compounded 5 as he doth in the former
part o f his Letter. Perhaps he would fooner fatisfie himfelf
by refolving Light into Colors, as far as may be done by Art,
and then by examining the properties o f thofe colors apart,
and afterwards by trying theeffe&s o f re-conjoining two or
more or all o f thofe; andlaftly, by feparating them again to
examine, what changes that re-conjun&ion had wrought in
them. This,I confefs, will prove a tedious and difficult task
to do it as it ought to be done; but I could not be fatisfied,
till I had gone through it. However,! only propound it,and
leave every man to his own method.
As to the Contents o f his Letter,! conceive,my former An-
fwer to theg>u£re about the N u m ber o f Colors is fufficient, which
was to this etfed ; That all Colors cannot practically be deri
ved out o f the T ello w and Blew, and coqlequently that thole
H ypothefes are groundlefs which imply they may. If you ask,
What colors cannot be derived out o f yellow and blew ? I an-
fwer,none o f all rhofe which I defin’d to be O riginal; and i f
he can Ihew by experiment,how they may,I will acknowledge
my feIf iu an error. Nor is it eafier to frame an H y p o th efs by
afluming only two Original colors rather than an Jndefinit
varie;y ; unlels it be eafier to fuppofe, that there are but two
figures,(izes and degrees of velocity or force o f the ./Ethereal
corpufcles or pulfcs,rather than indefinit variety ; which cer
tainly would be a harlh fuppoficion. No man wonders at the
indefinit variety of Waves o f the Sea,or offands on thefhorc;
i 44 NEWTON’S REPLY TO [HUYGENS’S] LETTER
c 6 icp )
but were they all but two fizes, it would t« a v a ry yu zlin g
phenomenon. And I fliould think it as unaccountable, if the
feveral parts or corpufcles, of which a fhining body.confifta,
which rauft befuppos’d of various figures, fizes and motions,
(hould imprefsbut two forts of motion on the adjacent Ethe
real medium, or any other way beget but two forts of Kays.
But to examine,how Colors may be explain’d hypothetically îs
befides my purpofe. I never intended to (hew, wherein con-
fifts the Nature and Difference of colors,but only to fhew, that
defa&o they are Original and Immutable qualities of the Rays
which exhibit them ; and to leave it to others to explicate by
Mechanical Hypothecs the Nature and Difference of thofe
qualities: which I take to be no difficult matter. But I would
not be underftood, asif their Difference confifted in the Dif
ferent Refrangibiliry ofthofe rays $ for,that different Refran-
gibility conduces to their production no ctherwife, than by
feparating the Rays whofe qualities they are. Whence it is,
that the fame Rays exhibit the fame Colors when feparated by
any other means 5 as by their different Reflexibility, a quality
not yet difeourfed of.
In the next particular, where N, would fhew, that it is not
neceflary to mix all Colors for the production of W hite } the
mixture of TeUoxv^ Green and Blew, without Red and Violet,
which he propounds for that end, will not produce w h i t e s t
Green 5 and thebrighteft part of the Yellow will afford no o-
ther colour but Yellow, if the Experiment be made in a room
well darkn’d,as it ought becaufe the Colour’d light is much
weaken’d by the Reflexion, and fo apt to be diluted by the
mixing of any other (battering light. But yet there is an Ex
periment or two mention’d in my Letter in the Trar.flidions
Numb,%83 by which I have produced White out of two colors
alone,and that varioufly, as out of Orange and afull Blew3 and
out of Red and pale Blew, and our of Yellow and Violet, as alfo
out of other pairs of Intermcdiat colors. The moft conveni
ent Experiment for performing this,was that of calling the co
lors ofoue Prifme upon thofe of another, after a duemanuer.
But what N. can deduce from hence, I fee not. For the two
colors were compounded of all others, and fo the refulting
White, ( to fpeak properlyJ was compounded of them all,
Q.q q q q q a and
NEWTON’S REPLY TO [HUYGENS’S] LETTER 145
C 6110 )
and ouly <J«-ootwfionnded of thofe two. For injiance, the
Orange was compounded of Red, Orange, Yellow and fome
Green 5 and the 5/£n?,of Violet,full Blew,light Blew,and fotne
Green,w*ith all their Intcrmediat degrees $ and confcquently
the Orange and Blew together made an Aggregate o f all co
lors to conftitute the White. Thus,if one mix red,orange and
yellow Powders to make an O range5 and green,blew and vi
olet colors to make a Blew , and laftly, the two mixtures, to
make a G rey; that Grey,though de-compounded of no more
than two Mixtures, is yet compounded o f all the fix Powders,
as truly as if the powders had been all mixtatonce.
This is fo plain, that I conceive there can be no further
ferupie 5 efpecially to them who know how to examine,whe
ther a colour be fimpleor compounded,and o f what colors it
is compounded 5 which having explained in another place, I
need not now repeat. If there foreN. would conclude any thing,
he muff Ihew, how White may be produced out o f two Vn.
compounded colors} which when he hathdone, I will further
tell him,why he can conclude nothing from that.But I believe,
there cannot be found an Experiment o f that kind j becaufc,
as l remember,! once tryed,by gradual fucceffion,the mixture
o f all pairs o f Un-compounded colors, and, though fome o f
them were paler, and nearer to White, than others, yet none
could be truly call’d White. But it being fome years fince this
tryal was made, I remember not well the circumftanccs, and
therefore recommend it: to others to be tryed again.
In the laft place, had I thought, the Diftinfrnefs o f the Pi
cture,which (for infiance) a T w clffoot Objeft glafscafts into
a darken’d room,to be fo contrary tome as N. is pleafed to af
firm,! fhould have waved my Theory in that point before I
propounded it. For, that I had thought on that difficulty ,
you may eafily guels by an exprefinn, fome-
* 5e«Numb. 80. vvhere in my firft Letter *, to this purpofe,That
I wonder’d,how Telefcopes could be brought
to fo great perfection by RefraCtions which were fo Irregular.
But,to take away the difficulty,! muff acquaint you /rtf,That,
though I put the greateft Lateral trior of the r*ys from one
another to be about j-0o f the Glaffes diameter •, yet -heir grea
ter error from the Points on which they ought to fall, will be
b®t
REPLY TO [HUYGENS’S] LETTER
146
( 6lll )
And the rays, whofeerror
but ~ o f that diameter • coa, parifon to thofe, which are
is fo great,are but very ^ which fall upon.the mid-
refrafted m ore Juftly 3 *° *efra& cd with fufficient exadtnefs,
dle-parts o f the Glafo ar® a
the p e r im e te r and have m ea n de-
as al foare thofe that fall n . efe remain only the rays,
gree o f Reiirangibihty aD(j arc MOj l or leafl refrangible
which fall near the perim ^c p .^ urc< And thef | are
to caufe any fenfibie cont , . by tbe greater fpace, through
yet fo much further wea ^ jjg h t which falls on the due
which they are fcatter , ^ than that which falls on any
P''dot, is infinitely ôre Which though it may feem a
o,hrr polm round abou - rable_ Yea, although (he
Paradox, y.et is certainly a hero.ddk m o f the Glafs,
Light, which Paflcs 1 d A would the remaining light con-
were wholly intercep »J tb ed ue points,than at other pla-
vene infinitely more denfc Denfity,the Light, which falls in
« s . And by n°ofi07 conceive, ftrike .he (m.
^ f c ^ W » te^ r°f,herflHg,,,,wh,,h
m sT ound fb o u , if,(ball,in comparlfon, not be flrong enough
lo be animadverted,or to caufe any more fenBble confufiou m
the P iau re than » foumlbjr ^ ,he p ia „ re sppM„
r T h M co n ce tv e , tê i rrcgular refraaion. But, if
o diflni ,notwit pieafe,how diftina the P iau re
this fatisne not,N. may try,uncpi«.«* > 1:^1-
will appear,when all the U rn is cover d excepting a lit le hole
next its edge on one fide only : A nd,.fm th iSca(e he pleafe °
meafure the breadth o f the colors thus made at the edge o f the
Suns piaure, he will perhaps find it to approach nearer to my
proportion than he expe&s.
AN ANSWER [BY HUYGENS] 147
( 6n a )
A n A n fw e r { to th e fo r m e r L e t t e r ,) w r itte n to the T u b lifk er June

10.167-3. by th e fa m e Par i f an P h ile fo p h e r jh u t was lately f a i d to
h a v e w r itte n th e L e tte r already e x t a n t in N°. c?6,p.6o86.
/ 8 'Ouching the Solutions,given by M.N ew to n to the

X fcruples by me propos’d about hisTheory of'Co
lors,there were matter to anfwer them, and to form new diffi
culties ; but feeing that he maintains his opinion with fo much
concern,I lift not to difpute. But what means it,I pray, that
he faith, Though J J h o t tld fe w h i m j h a t th e W h ite c o u ld be p r o d u
c e d o f only tw o V f r c o m p o u n d ed co lo rs,y et I co u ld co n clu d e n o th in g
And yet he hath affirm’d in p . 3083. of the T r a n f
f r o n t th a t.
that tocompofe the White, all primitive colors are
a ft io n t )
neceffary*
As to the manner,whereby he reconciles the effeft o f Con
vex glaffesfor fo well affiembling the rays, with what he efta-
blifhes concerning the different refrangibility, I am fatisfied
with it 5 but then he is alfo to acknowledge,that this aberrati
on o f the rays is not fo difadvautagious to Optic glafles as he
feems to have been willing to make us believe, when he pro-
pofed C o n c a v e fp e c u lu m s as the only hopes o f pcrfe&ing Telc-
fcopes. His invention certainly was very good 3 but,as far as
I could perceive by experience, the defeft o f the Matter ren
ders it as importable to execute, as the difficulty o f the Form
obftru&s the ufe o f the H yperbole o i M . D e s - C a r t e t : So that, in
my opinion,we rouft flick to our Spheric GJaffes,whom we are
already fo much obliged to,and that are yet capable o f great
er perfe&ion,as well by increafing the length o f Telcfcopes,as
by corre&ing the nature o f Glafi it felf. S o f a r H e .
To th is L e tte r i t to be referred th a t , w h ich is a lrea d y e x t a n t i n
N.5>6.p.6c8/. as being a n A n fw e r thereto*
148 LINUS’S LETTER
(2 1 7 ) N um b* n o .
PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSACTIONS.
Januar. 25. 16^.
_ The C O N T E N T S .
A Letter of Franc. Linus, animadverting on M r. Newtons theory of
Light and Colors',with an Anfwer thereunto. Extracts of two L e t
ters written by -Mr,Flatnflead,c/ii« Aflronomicalnature. Some Ob
servations and Experiments made by M r Lifter, touching the Ef-
forefcence of certain Mineral Globes»an oddfigured fris ; a Giotto*
petra tricufpis non-ferratajcerta/#Lapide$ Judaici^r kindfound
in England ‘the Electricalpower of Stones in relation to a Vegetable
Rcfin’jheFlower andSeed of Mufbroms',& the fpeedy vitrifying the
whole body of Antimony by Cawk.An Accompt offome Booksf.TraCts
containing i.Sttfpicions about fome Hidden (Qualities in the Air,with
an Appendix touching Celefiial Magnets and fome other particulars:
2. Animadverjions upon M r. Hobbs’* P R O B L E M A T A de VA-
CUQ.3.A Difcourfe of thcGaufe ofAttraction by SU C TIO N By the
Honourable R.Boyle, Efy.Fell.of the R.Society. II. K.jP.Claudii
Franc.Milliet deChales CURSUSfeu M U N D U S M A T H E M A -
TICUS,ikc.Ul.The S P H E R E of M.Manilius made anEnglifhPo-
em, with Annotations, and an Afironomical Appendix : By Edward
. Sherburn, JS/7.IV. AVON A,or a Tranfient View ofthe benefit of ma
king Rivers of this Kingdom Navigable',by R.S. V.An Effay tofa
cilitate the E D U C A T IO N of YOUTH, &c. by M, Lewis of Tot-
tenbatn.
A Letter ofthe Learn’d Franc. Linus, to a Friend of his in London,

animadverting upon Mr. Ifaac New ton1J Theory of Light and Co
lors, formerlyprinted in thefe Tracts.
Honoured Sir,
T TNdcrttanding, that things o f the nature I now write, are al-
a. ways wclcom unto yoft,from what hand foever they come,I
thought good,though unknown to you,togiveyou notice,That per-
nfing lately the Philofophieal TranfaCiions, to fee what I could find
therein,in order to a littleTreatife ofOpticks I have in handjl light
ed in page 3 07 5.upon a Letter o f Mr./p^c iV rw ^ Profettor ofMa-
thematicks in the University of Cambridge, wherein he fpeaks o f an
Ff Ex-
LINUS’S LETTER 149
(218)
Experiment hetryed,by letting the Sun-beams through a little hole
into a darkchatnber;which paffing through a glafs ,Prifm to the op-
pofite wall, exhibited there a Spefirttm o f divers colours, but in a
form much more long then broad: whereas according to the receiv
ed Laws o f Refrafiion, it fihould rather have appeared in a circular
form. Whereupon concei vinga defed in thofe ufual Laws o f Refra
ction, he frames his new Theory o f Light, giving to feveral rays,fe-
veral refrangibilities, without refped to their Angles o f Inci
dence, & c .
Truly,Sir,I doubt not o f what this learned Author here affirms;
and have my felf fometimes in like circumftances obferved the like
difference between the length and breadth o f this coloured Spe
ctrum ; but never found it fo when the sky was clear and free from
clouds,near the Sumbut then only appeared this difference o f length
and breadth, when the Sun either (hined through a white cloud, or
enlighcned fomefuch clouds near unto it. And then indeed it was no
marvel, the faid Spc&rtm fliould be longer then broad ; fincethe
cloud or clouds, fo enlightned, were in order to thofe colours like
to a great Sun,making a far greater Angle of Interfe&ion in the faid
hole,then the true rays o f the Sun do make; and therefore are able to
enlighten the whole length o f the Prifm,and not only forne fmall part
thereof,as we fee enlightned by the true Sun-beams coming through
the fame little hole. And this we behold alfo in the true Sun-beams,
when they enlighten the whole Prifin:for,although in a clear Heaven,
the rays of the 5un,paffing through the faid hole,never make a Spe-
tfrttm longer then broad,becaufe they then occupy but a fmall part
o f the Prifm 5 yet if the hole be fo much bigger as to enlighten the
whole Prifm, you fhall prefently fee the length o f thzSpetfrum
muclLexceedifs.brfadlh; which excefs will be always fo much the
greater,as the length o f the Prifm exceeds its breadth,From whence
I conclude, that the $pettr$m,this learned Author faw much longer
then broad, was not effected by the true Sun-beams, but by rays
proceeding from fome bright cloud,as is faidjand by confequence,
that the Theory o f Light grounded upon that Experiment cannot
fubfift. ,
What I have herefaid,needs no other confirmation than meer ex
perience,which any one may quickly try; neither have I only tryed
the fame upon this occafion,but near 30 years ago fhewed the fame,
together with divers other Experiments o f Light, to that worthy
Promoter o f Experimental Philofophy, Sr. Kenelm Digby, who
coming into thefe parts to take the Spaw-Watm,reforted oftentimes
to
NEWTON’S REPLY TO LINUS
------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------
( 219)
darkned Chamber, to fee thofe various Phenomena of Light
t0 divers Refra&ions and Reflexions, and took Notes upon
1h . which induftry if they alfo had ufed,who endeavour to expli-
thOTthe aforeffaid difference between the length and breadth of this
Ca^nr^d S p e t f r u m , by the received Laws ofRefraftion, would ne-
c° have taken fo impoftiblca task in hand.
ve reft i3?Honoured Sir,that it is far from my intent,that the tni-
n- ke here mentioned do any way derogate from that learned perfon:
Which truly might have happened to my felf, if at my firft tryal
thereof,the Sun had been in a white cloud,as it feems,it happened to
kim* Wherefore ceafing further to trouble you, I reft,
Yours to command, F r a n c is F i n n s .
6 Odtob.1674.
g jr A n A n f w e r to t h i s F e t t e r .
H E Letter you thought fit to write by way o f Animadverfi-
T on upon Mr. N e w t o n ' s new Theory of Light and Colors,
grounded upon an Experiment of letting the Sun-beams through a
little hole into a dark chamber, feems to need no other Anfwer but
this That you would be pleafed to look upon and confider the
Scheme in U r . N e w t o n ’s Anfwer to P . P a r d i e s in N u m L S ^ . o f t h e .
P h . F r a n f a d i o n s ând reft allured,that the Experiment,as it is repre
sented, was tryed in clear days, and the Prifin placed clofe to the
hole in the window,fo that the Light had no room to diverge,and the
colour’d Image made not parallel (as in that c o n ju r e ) but.tranf-
verfe to the axis of thePrifm,
Fonion, Decernb. 17 .16 7 4 .
LINUS’S SECOND LETTER 151
(4 9 9 )
A Letter of M r, Franc. Linus, written to the Pul?life? from Liege
the 25th of Febr.i 675. ft.n. being a Reply to the Letter printed
in Numb, n o .by way of Anfwer to a former Letter of the fame
M r. Linus, concerning Mr.Ifaac Newton’s Theory of Light and
Colours.
Honoured Sir,
N yours of Dec. 17.which I received about the end of J<w.you
I fay,I may reft aftiired, Firfl, that the Experiment was made in
clear days. Secondly, that the Prifm was placed clofe to the hole,
ft) that the light had no room to diverge: Add thirdly, that the I-
mage was not Parallel (as I con; eft ured ) but Tranfverfe to the
Axis of the Prifm. Truly, Sir, if thefe Affertions be admitted,
they do indeed direftly cut off what I Paid of Mr. Newtons being
deceived by a bright cloud. But if we compare them with Mr.
Newtons Relation of the Experiment in the Fbil,Tranf&tfions,N.
8° /».30 76. it will evidently appear, they cannot be admitted as
being direftly contrary to what is there delivered. For there he
tells us, the ends of the coloured Image, he faw' on the oppoftc
wall, near five times as long as broad, feetned to be Semicircular.
Now thefe Semicircular Ends are never feen in a clear day, as Ex
perience ftiews. From whence follows againft the firft Affertion,
That the Experiment was not made in a clear day.Neitber are thofe
Semicircular Ends ever feen, when the Prifin is placed clofe to
the Hole ; which contraditts the fecond Affertion. Neither are
they ever feen, when the Image is Tranfverfe to the length or Axis
o f the Prifm ; which direftly oppofes the third Affertion. But if
in any of thefe three Cafes, the Image be made fo much longer than
broad (as eafily it may,by turning the Prifm a little about its Ax
is) near five times as long as broad,than the one End thereof will run
out into a fharp Cone or Pyramis like the flame ofa Candle,and the
other into a Cone fomewhat more b lu n tb oth which are far from
feeming Semicircular : Whereas, if the Image be made not in a
clear day,but with a bright cloud,and the Prifm not placed clofe
to the Hole, but in a competent diftance from the fame (as you fee
it placed in the Scheme of the Experiment in iV.84.. p. 4 0 9 i j
then thefe Semicircular Ends always appear with the fides there
of ftraight lines juft as Mr. Newton there deferibes them. Neither
Tt t it
LINUS’S SECOND LETTER
I 52
C 5° I )
is the length of the Image Tranfverfe, but Parallel to the length of
the Pnfm. Out of all which evidently follows, that the Expe
riment was not made in a clear day ; nor with the Prifm clofe to
the Hole; nor yet with the Image Tranfverfe(as is now affirmed,)
b u t by a bright Cloud,and aParallel Image ( as I conjeflured ;)
and I hope you will alfo now fay, I had good reafon fo to conje
cture, fince it fo well agrees with the Relation. And Experience
will alfo {hew you, if you pleafe to make tryal, as it was made, in
a dark Chamber,and obferve thedifference betweenfueban Image
made by a bright Cloud, and another made by the immediate rayes
o f the Sun: For, the former you fhall always find Parallel, with
the Ends Semicircular; but the latter you (hall find TranfVerfe,
with the Ends Pyramidical, as aforefaid, whenfoever it appears fo
much longer than broad.
More might be faidout of the fame Relation, to fliew that the
Image was not Tranfverfe. For, if it bad been Tranfverfe, Mr.
N e w t o n , fo well skilled in Opticks, could not have been furprifed
(as he fays he was) to fee the length thereof fo much toexceed the
breadth; it being a thing fo obvious and eafic to be explicated by
the ordinary Rules of Refra&ion. That other place alfo , in the
next p a g e 307 7.(where he fay s,the Incident Refraflions were made
in the Experiment equal to the Emergent,) proves again that the
faid oblong Image was not Tranfverfe, but Parallel. For it is
impoffible, the Tranfverfe Image fhould be fo much longer than
broad, unlefs thofe two Refraflions be made very unequal, as both
th e c o m p u ta tio n a c c o r d in g t o the c o m m o n R u le s o f R e f r a f lio n ,
and Experience teftifie. Wherefore Mr. N e w t o n had no reafbn to
tax (inpag. 4 0 9 1.) P. Panties of Hallucination,for making mpage
4088. thofe two Refraflions very unequal: For, that learned
Optike very well faw, that in a clear day fo great an inequality
o f length and breadth could not be made, unlefs thofe two Refra
flions were alfo made very unequal. Thefe places, I fay, might be
added to the former, and further here explicated if need were; but
there being no need, I ceafe to detain you any longer herein.
NEWTON’S CONSIDERATIONS ON HIS REPLY 153
C 50° )
jMr.Ifaac Newtonv C o n s id e r a tio n s o n t h e f i r m e r R e p l y , to g e th e r

w i t h f u r t h e r D i r e E lio n s , h o w to m a k e t h e E x p e r im e n ts c o n t r o v e r t
t e d a r i g h t :W r i t t e n to t h e J B u h lifh e r f r o m Cambridge, No venib. r 5.’
S IR ,
\ A 7^ en ôu ^ ew ^ me Mr. L i n e ' s Pecond Letter, I remember
VV I told you., that I thought an anfwer in writing would be
infignificant, becaufethe difpute was noraboutany Ratiocination,
but my veracity in relating an Experiment, which he denies will
fucceed as it is deferibed inniy printed Letters: For this is to be
decided not by difeourfe, but new tryal of the Experitnent.Wftat
it is that impofes upon Mr. L i n e I cannot imagin', but Ifufpefthe
has not tryed the Experiment fince he acquainted himfelf with my
Theory, but depends upon his old notions taken up before he had
any hint given to obferve the figure of the coloured Image. I fliall
defire him therefore, before he returns any anfwer, to try it once
more for his fatisfaftion, and that according to this manner.
Let him take any Prifme, and hold it fo that its Axis may be
perpendicular to theSun’s rays, and in this pofture let it be placed
as clofc as may be to the hole through which the Sun Ihines into a
dark room, which hole may be about the bignefs of a Peafe, Then
let him turn the Prifm {lowly about its Axis, and he fliall fee the
colours move upon the oppofite wall firft towards that place to
which the Sun’s direft light would pafs, if the Prifm were taken
away, and then back again. When they are in the middle of thele
two contrary motions, that is,when they are neareft that place to
which the Sun’s direft ray tends, there let him flop 5 for then are
the rays equally refrafted on both fides the Prifm. In this pofture
of the Prifm let him obferve the figure of the colours, and he fliall
find it not round as he contends,but oblong,and fo much the more
oblong as the Angle of the Prifm, comprehended by the refrafting
plains, is bigger, and the wall, on which the colours are caft,more
diftant from the Prifm 5 the colours red, yellow, green, blew,pur
ple, fucceeding in order not from one fide of the figure to the o-
ther, as in M t . L i n e ' s con;efture,but from one end to the other; and
the length of the Figure being not parallel but tcanverfe to the
Axis of the Prifm, After this manner I ufed to try the Experi-
T11 2 menc
NEWTON’S CONSIDERATIONS ON HIS REPLY
154
C 502 )
ment: For I have try’d it often ; fometimes to obferve the circum-
ftaiiccsof it, fometimes in order to further Experiments,and fome-
tinies to fihow it to others, and in ail my tryals the fuccefs was the
fame* But whereas Mr. L i n e thinks,! tryed it in a cloudy day,and
placed the Prifm at a great diftance from the hole o f the window;
the Experiment will not fucceed well if the day be not clear, and
the Prifm placed clofe to the hole, or fo near at leaft, that all the
Sun’s light that comes from the hole may pafs through the Prifm
aifo, fo as to appear in a round form if intercepted by a paper im
mediately after it has pad the Prifm.
When Mr. L i n e has tryed this, I could wifib,he would proceed
a little further to try that which I call’d the E x f e r i m e n t u m C r u e ts ,
feeing Ciflmif-remember not) he denies that as well as the other.
For when he has tryed them (which by his denying them, I know
he has not done yet as they fhould be tryed)I prefume he will reft
fatisfied.
Three or four days after you gave me a fight o f M r . L i n e ' s fecond
Letter, I remember I thereupon fhow'd the firft of thefe two Expe
riments to thatGentleman whom you found with me,when yougave
me that vifit,and whilft ] was fttewing it to him, A . H . (a member of
the R . S o c i e t y ) came in and I fliewed it to him alfo.And you may re*
member,that R , H . two or three years agoe in a Letter read before
theR.SWetyand tranfmitted to me,gave teftirnony not only to the
Experiments queftioned by Mr.L/W,but to all thofefet down in
my firft Letter about Colours, as having tryed them himfelf; and
when you read Mr. L i n e ' s Letter at a meeting o f thefaid S o c i e t y
and was pleafed to do me the favour to propound the Experi
ment to be tryed in their prefence, R . H . fpake of it to them as
a thing not to be queftioned. But if it have not yet been tryed be
fore them, and any o f them, upon Mr. L i n e ' s confidence,doubt of
it, I promife when I fiiall have the happinefs to be at any more o f
their Aftemblies, upon the leaft: hint, to ihew ’em the trya! o f i t ;
and'! hope, I fliall not be troublefome, becaufe it may be tryed
(though not foperfeflly)even without darkning a room, or the
ex pence ofany more time than half a quarter of an hour; although,
if M e . L i n e perfift in his denyal o f i t , I could wifh it might be
tryed fooner there, than I fhall have an opportunity to be.amone
them.
NEWTON’S REPLY TO GASCOINES 155
C 503 )
An Extract of another Letter of Newton, mitten tothePit-

hlijber the 10th of January 167-6, relating to the fame Argu
ment.
Y Mr. G a f i o i n s Letter * one might fufpeft, that Mr.-

B L i n u s tryed the Experiment fome other way t h a n X
did; and therefore I fliallexped, till his friends
have tryed it according to my late Directions. In
which tryal it may poflibly be a further guidance written w* the Pu
re them,to acquaint them, that the Prifm cafts blither, v t e m b . 15*
from it feveral Images: O n e is,that O b io n ? one of ,6U 75* /lom
C o lo u r s w h i c h 1 mean ; and this is made by two having been aScho-
Refraftions only. A n o th e r there is; made by two h r o f M r . z » m , n o w
Refraftions and an intervening Reflexion ; and inhere Contained
this is R o u n d a n d C o lo u r le fs , if the Anglesof the tbefe words , to
Prifm be exatSHy equal; but if the Angles at the 'wlll<;h th r .X e w u n ,
Reflectmg bafe be not equal, it will be c o lo u r a , municated , Teems
and that fo much the more, by how much unequal- here to have reTpea;
ler the Angles are, but yet not much u n r o u n d , un-
lefs the angles be very unequal. A t h i r d Image and a g a in , an d cai-
there is, made by one Angle Reflexion, and this is [‘f r j f f f °nJ f pf { cr
always ro u n d , and to lo n r ltf s . The only danger is made difficulty to.fklw
in miftaking thef e c o n d for thef ir jl'. But they are il[ toap »»•» v h o tt-
diftinguifhable not only by the Length and Lively The
colorsof the f i r f t , but by it’s different Motion r*M dein g\t,< ir frew -
to o: For, vvhilft the Prifm is turned continually '/'A* W dtf ‘rf
the lame way about it's a x u , the f e c o n d and t h i r d for point o f E xpert-
raovefwiftly, and go always on the fame way till cm c> Newton
theydifappear; but the f i r j l moves flow, and d Z T ln h u f J e ^ f a n
grows continually flower till it be ftationary, and a n b tr e on th t 0-
then turns back again, and goes back fafter and fa- f j i j X h a u M
fter, till it vaniflxin the place where it began to m d i v i r f i t y o f p L -
appear. cing th e P r i f m , o r t h e
b i g n t f t o f t h e / f o i e , or
f o m e o th e r fi lc h c i r -
c u m / h t n c c , b e t h e c a u fe o f th e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w i x t t h e m , M r, Newron’r E xp erim en t
w i l l herdly f t a n d .
If without darkning their Room they hold the Prifm at their

window in the Sun’s open Lighr, in fuch a pofture that it’s a x is be
perpen.
156 NEWTON’S REPLY TO GASCOINES
C 504 )
perpendicular to the Sm-beams.and then turn it about its a x is ,they
cannot niifs of feting the f i r j l Image; which having found,they may
doubleup a paper once or twice, and make a round hole in the
middle of it about * or *of an inch broad, and hold the paper im
mediately before the Prifm, that the Sun may ffiine on the Prifm
through that hole ; and the Prifm being flay'd, and held fleddy in
that pofture which makes the Image Stationary ; if the Image then
fall diredtly on anoppofice wall, or on a ffieet o f paper placed ac
the wall, fuppofe 15 o r 20 foot from the Prifm, or further offjthey
will fee the Image in fuch an O b lo n g figure as I have defcribed.w ith
t h e f t s at one end, the V io let at the other, and a B levp ijh g r e e n in
the middle : And if they obfcure their Room, as much as they can,
by drawing curtains o r otherwife, it will make the Colours the
moreconfpicuous.
This dire&ion I have fet down, that no body, into whofe hands
aPrifm Ihall happen,may find difficulty or trouble in trying it.But
when M r. Linus's friends have tryed it thus, they may proceed to
repeat it in a dark Room with a le fs hole made in theirwindow fhur.
And then I ffiall defire,that they will fend you a full and clear de
scription, How they tryed it, expreffing the length, breadth and
angles o f the Prifm; its pofition to the Incident rays and to the
window ffiut; the bignefs o f the hole in the window ffiut through
which the Sun ffiined on the Prifm ; what fide o f the. Prifm the Sun
ffiin’d on ; and at what fide the light came out of it again ; the di-
ftanceof the Prifm from the oppofite paper or wall on which the
Refratfed light was caft perpendicularly ; and the length,breadth,
and figure of the fpace there illuminated by that light,and the fci-
tuation o f each colour within that figure. And, if they pleafe to
illuftrate their defcription with a Scheme or two, it will make the
bufinefs plainer. By this means, if there be any difference in our
way of experimenting, I ffiall be the b etter enabled to difcern i t ,
and give them not ice,where the failure is, and how to reftifie it. I
fhould be glad too, if they would favour me with a defcription o f
the Experiment,as it hath been hitherto tryed by tA r.U n u s , that I
may have an opportunity to confider, what there is in that which
makes againft me.
S o f a r M r. Newton; which was thought fit to make publick with
the reft,that fo the Curious every where, who have a mind to try
the Experiment, may find the fuller direftions for their tryal.
An
NEWTON’S ANSWER TO LINUS’S SECOND LETTER 157
(550
J particular Anfvoer of Mr. Ifaak Newton to Mr. Linus his Letter,

printed in Numb. 121. p-499- *hout an Experiment relating to the
New Dcftrinc of Light and Colours: This Jnfxver fentfom Cam*
bridge in a Letter to the Fublifher Febr. 29. 1675-.
Si?
Y readingMr, Linus's Letter when youfliew'd it to roe at Lon~
B don I retained only a general remembrance,that Mr. Linus de-
nv’d what I affirmed,and fo could lately fay nothing in particular to
it • but having the opportunity to read it again in Numb. T2.r, o f
the Tranfaffions, I perceive he would perfwade you, that the in
formation you gave him about the Experiment is as inconliftent
with my printed Letters as with experience; and therefore, left
any who have not read thofe Letters (hould take my ffience in this
point for an acknowledgment, I thought it not amifs, to fend you
fomething in anfwer to this alfo.
He
NEWTON’S ANSWER TO LINUS’S SECOND LETTER
i5 8
( 557 J
He tells you that^lFhereasyou afare him, Fir ft,that the Experiment
was made in clear days; fecondly,that the Prifrn vpas placed clofe to the
holefo that the light had no room to diverge-, and thirdly, that the Image
was not parallel but tranfverfe to the axis of the Prtfm: I f thefe Af-
fertionsbe compared with my Relation of the Experiment in the Phil.
Tranfaffion N , 80.p. 3076. it will evidently appear, they cannot be
admitted at being direffly contrary to what is there delivered. His
reafons are thefe:
Firft, that I Paid, the ends of the long Image feemed femicircular,
which, fai.es he, never happens in any of the three cafes above ■[aid. But
this is not to fet me at odds with my felf, but with the experiments
for it is there deferibed to happen in them all; and I Bill fay, it doth
happen in them. Let others try the Experiment, and judge.
Further hefaies,that the Prifrn isplaced at a dijlancefrom the hole
in the Scheme of the Experiment in N. 84. p 4091. B u r , whit if it
were Co there ? For, that is the Scheme of a demonjlration, not of the
experiment, and would have ferved for the demonftration, had the
diftance been put twenty times greater than it is. In the Schemes
o f the Experiment JSf.Sop. 308 6, and J\f. 82 .p. 5016. it isrepre-
fented clofe, and clofe enough in the Scheme, N .83, ^.4061: But
Mr.hinut thought fit to wink at thefe, and pitch upon the Scheme
o f a Demonftration, and fuch a Scheme too as hath no hole at all
reprefented in it. For, the Scheme f Numb. 84. p. 491 is th is ;
in which the rays are not fo far diftant from one a-

notherat G L , but that the bole, had I expreft it,
might have been put there, and yet have compre
hended them. But if we ihould put the hole at x ,
their decuflation , yet will it not be any thing to his o
purpofe 5 the difiance x G or x L being but about
half the breadth of a fide o f the Prifrn (j-A C ) tftt C *
which I conceive is not the twentieth part of
the diftance requifite in his conjefture.
f See Fig. 1. Thirdly,
NEWTON’S ANSWER TO LINUS’S SECOND LETTER____ I 59
C 558 )
3.He fays,that more might be [aid out of my relation tofhew,that the
Imxge veas not tranfvers, for i f it had been tranfvers, l could not have
been furprizedâs 1faid l wus)to fee the length thereof Jo much exceed
the breadthJt beinga thing fo obvious & eafie to be explicated by the or
dinary rules ofRefra ctio n .^ on the contrary, it may rather be Paid,
that if the linage bad been parallel , I could not.have beenfurpri-
zed to fee the length thereof fonvueh exceed the breadth, it being
a thing fo extreaiuly obvious as not to need any explication. For
who that had but common fenfe,and faw the whole Priftn or a good
part o f it illuminated, could not expeft the light (hould have the
fame long figure upon the wall that it had when it came out of the
prifm ? Mr. Linus therefore, while he would ftrengtben his argu
ment by reprefenting me well skilled inOptieks, does but over
throw it. But whereas he fayes, l could not have been furprized at the
length, had the Image been parallel, it being a thing fo obvious and eafy
to be explicated by the ordinary rules of refration'. Let any Man take
the Experiment intire as I have there delivered it,that is, with this
condition, that the refractions on bothjides the Prijm were equal, and
try if he can reconcile it with the ordinary rules of refradion. On
the contrary,he may find the impofiibility o f finch a reconciliation,
demonftrated in my Anfwer to E. Eardies Jtf. 84,^.4091.
In tbelafit place,he objefls.tbat my faying in i\Z.8o, p.ôyj,that
the incident refractions were in the Experiment equal to the emer
gent, proves again, that the long Image was parallel. And yet that
very faying is a fufficient argument, that I meant the contrary, be.
caufeit bt comes wholly impertinent,if apply’d to a parallelimage;
but in the o her cafe is a very neceflfary circumflance. What is ad
ded therefore o f E. Eardies,might have been fpared, efpecially
fmee that Learned Perfon under(tood my difeourfe to be meant
o f a tranfvers Image, and acquiefced in my Anfwers.
This in anfwer to Mr. Linus' s Letter: And now to takeaway
the like fufpicions from his Friends, if my declaration of my
meaning fatisfienor, I fliall notefotne further pafifages in my Let
ters, whereby they may fee, how I was to be underftood from the
beginning, as to the aforefaid three circumftances.
For the D ay; I exprefs every where that the Experiment was
tried in the Sun’s light,and in iVi So. ^.307 7, that the breadth of
the Image by meafure anfwered to the Su»s diameter: But becaufe
it is pretended, I was impofed upon, I would ask, what the Ex
periment as it is advanced to that which 1 called the Experimen-
( S59 )
turn Cruets, can have to do with a cloudy day ? For if the
fm m tum »Cr/*;/(wbidi is thatwhich i depend on) can have no
thing to do with a cloudy day,then is it to no purpofe to talk of a
cloudy day m the firft Experiment,which does but lead on to that
But if this fatisfie not, let theTranfaCfions N . S3, p . 4060 be con'
ruhed .- For. t e e I tell you, how*, applying a3/ J to the S '
the freight edges of the oblong Image became dim m er than they’
w0uld tavd b e e n m , h „ n be L e n s : A circumflance which cannot
happen inM r.L*/^ scafeof a bright Cloud
f o r th e P e f u k n c f , b e 1 teUyo u i^ 8 a. . 3 o , 6 that it
was placed « /fe s en tran ce into the Chamber,and inV a o 8 e r
bad to make a hole the flint,andl/i,„ p)ace the Prifi, ; ts ;r
n e x t page I Fay again, that the PnfmABC is to be fet c c f e by he
hole F of the window EG ; and accordingly reprefent ir rlnfi
the Figure. Alfo m / ^ 30 77 I tell you, that the di fiance of the
Im age from the bole or /w/wwas 22 foot • which is as mnrh 1 ,
f a y ,that the Prihn (fuppofc that fide of it next the hole! m s as
of the Window fitut 1 made u ! of 1’ ‘f t

yon exprefiy, that I placed the board c/efe behind the Prifi,, *
ttafepaflages are in my very firft Letter about Colours; ,„d’
therefore would imagine, that anv onpih^t „ a , and who
fiiould fomuch as fufpett,that I placed the Prifhi *1 f ^ Lerter
great a dtftance as Mr.L in n , fnppofa
confidering? but at
PPoies, but at any difonce
^ "0t atn>
worth
Laftly, fo r the P ofu ion o f t h e Im a g e , it is reore/FnrM r
to the axis of the Prifin in the figures N .Z o p ,£»✓ a t * anfvf rs
andiV.8 5 .p.goi 6 . Andinil?;8 8 .», 5 o9 3 °wher^/madiMW'^*’f0 6 r*
crofs Prifins, I tell you expreflv that rh* rm mac*e Uf e tvv°
of them at an angle of 4 5 degrees. The c a lc o ^ o T a S b j/13Sb0th
3077. arenot to be underftood without funnofino, hJ r 8° ‘ ^*
Nor are my notions about different RefrarLihih ^ a2 ecJo/?.
telligible: For in Mr. L in u s s fuppofition the rav sth ^™ ’^
two ends of the rmage,ate equally ref,afted.So for c o lo u rs a e r ^
according to my defcription, falls at one end n f t h * 1 0Uls»the,rft*t
U m at the other. which cannot happen bm in a tV '1? ^ ’ *?*Che
The fame politico is g|fo demonftrablefrom what I m Z ' a t T '
p . 3076, about turning the long Image into a round one" t y £
Dddd io 4 ,r y
NEWTON’S ANSWER TO LINUS’S SECOND LETTER 161
( 56° )
c o n t r a r y r e f r a d t 'i o n o f a fe c o n d P r ifm , fu r th e r e x p la i n e d in N»m.

83. p. 4 0 6 1 . F o r th is is n o t t o b e d o n e in M r . Lim a fu r m if e o f a
p a r a lle l I m a g e ,a n d t h e r e fo r e h a d M r . Linus c o n fid e r e d it , he c o u l d
n e v e r h a v e ru n i n t o thac fu r m ife .
T h i s t f u p p o f e is en o u g h to m a n ifeft th e th re e p a r t ic u la r s ; a n y
o n e o f w h ic h b e i n g e v id e n c e d ,is fu ffic ie n t t o t a k e a w a y th e f c r u p l e .
A n d t h e r e fo r e M r .Linus F r ie n d s n eed n o t fe a r b u t th a t th e f u r t h e r
d i r e & io n s I fe n t them la t e ly fo r t r y i n g th e E x p e r im e n t a re the fa m e
w i t h t h o le I h a v e f o l l o w ’ d fro m th e b e g i n n i n g ; n o r t r o u b l e them -
f e lv e s a b o u t a n y th in g b u t t o t r y th e E x p e r im e n t r ig h t . B ut y er,
b e c a u fe M r . Gafcoin has b een p le a fe d to in fin u ate h is f u f p ic io n th a t
I d o d i f f e r fr o m h im fe lf in th o fe d ir e & io n s , 1 Dial I not f c r u p l e h ere
t o r e d u c e th em i n t o p a r t ic u la r s , a n d fib tw w h e r e ea ch p a r t i c u la r
is t o b e fo u n d ,
1 . T h e n , h e is t o g e t a P rifm w ith an a n g le a b o u t 60 o r 6$ d e g r e e s ,
N. 80, p. 3 0 7 7 , and p. 3086. I f th e a n g le b e a b o u t 6 3 d e g r e e s ,
a s th a t wras w h ic h I m ad e u fe o f N. 8 0 . y . 3 0 7 7 , he w i l l fin d a ll
th in g s fu c c e e d e x a f t l y as I d e f e r ib e d them th e re . B u t i f i t b e b i g g e r
o r l t f s , as 3 0 , 4 0 , 5 0 , o r 7 0 d e g r e e s , th e R e fr a ft io n w i l l b e a c c o r d
i n g ly b i g g e r o r Ie fs , a n d c o n f e q u e n t ly th e Im age lo n g e r o r f h o r t e r .
I f h is P r if in b e p r e t t y n e a r ly e q u ila t e r a l ( fu c h as I f u p p o f e a r e ufu*
a lly f o l d in o t h e r p la c e s as w e ll as in England ) h e m ay m a k e u fe o f
t h e b i g g e f t a n g le . B u t he m n ft b e fu r e t o p la c e th e P r if m f o , th a t
th e R e fr a & io n b e m ade b y the t w o p la n es w h ic h c o m p r e h e n d th is
a n g le . I c o u l d a lm o ft f u f p e f t , b y c o n fid e r in g fo m e c ir c u m fta n c e s
in M r . Linus s L e t t e r , th at h is e r r o r w as in th is p o in t , h e e x p e f t i n g
th e Im age I h o u ld b e c o m e as lo n g b y a l i t t l e r e fr a d iio n as b y a g r e a t
o n e ; w h ic h y e t b e in g to o g r o f s an e r r o r t o b e f u f p e f le d o f any O -
p t i c i a n , I fa y n o th in g o f i t , b u t o n ly h in t th is to M r . Gafcoin, th a t
h e m ay e x a m in e a ll th in g s.
2 . H a v in g fu c h a P r ifm , h e mull: p la c e i t f o , th a t its A x i s b e p e r
p e n d ic u la r t o th e r a y s N * 8 4 ,^ . 4 0 9 1 ,/ / » . 1 8 , 1 9 . A litt le e rro r
in th is p o i n t m a k e s n o fe n fib le v a r ia t io n o f th e efFedh
3 . T h e P r if i n m u ll b e f o p la c e d , th a t th e R e f r a f t i o n s on b o t h fid es
b e e q u a l i\T. 8 0 , f . 3 0 7 7 : w h ic h h o w it w a s t o b e r e a d i ly d o n e b y
t u r n in g it a b o u t it s A x i s , a n d f la y in g i t w h e n y o u fee th e Image
reft b e t w e e n to o c o n t r a r y m o t io n s , as I e x p la in e d in m y l a t e D e -
f c r i p t i o n s , f o I h in te d b e f o r e j\ 7, 8 o .y . 3077,^/0. 34,3 5 , 3 6 . I f th e re
I h o u ld b e a l i t t l e e r r o r in th is p o in t a lf o , i t can d o n o h u r t.
4. The
162
--------- C s6x )
4, T h e D i a m e t e r o f t b e h o le I p u t - o f an in c h N . 8 o , p . 3 0 7 7 %
a n d p l a c e d th e P r if m c l o f e t o i t , e v e n f o c l o f e as t o b e c o n tig u o u s ^
J S l. 8 0 , p . 3 0 7 1 , li» . 4 , 5 * B u c k e t th e re n eed s n o c u r i o f i t y in th e fe
c ir c u m ila n c e s . T h e h o le m a y b e o f a n y o t h e r b ig n e fs ,a n d th e P r ifm
a t a d i f t a n c e fr o m th e h o l e , , p r o v i d e d th in g s b e f o o r d e r e d , th a t
th e lig h t a p p e a r o f a r o u n d f o r m , i f in t e r c e p t e d p e r p e n d i c u l a r l y a t
it s c o m in g o u t o f th e P r ifm . N o r n e e d s th e r e a n y c u r i o f i t y in th e day.
T h e c le a r e r i t is th e b e t t e r ; b u t i f it b e a l i t t l e c l o u d y , th a t c a n n o t
m u c h p r e j u d i c e t h e E x p e r im e n t , f o th e S u n d o b u t fliin e d i f t i n d l y
th r o u g h t h e c l o u d ,
T h e f e th in g s b e in g th u s o r d e r e d , i f th e r e f r a d e d lig h t f a ll p e r
p e n d i c u l a r l y o n a w a ll o r p a p e r at 2 0 f o o t o r m o r e f r o m th e P r ifm ,
i t w i l l a p p e a r in an o b lo n g fo r m , c r o f s t o th e a x is o f th e P r ifm ,r e d
a t o n e e n d ,a n d v io le t at th e o th e r s th e le n g th fiv e tim e s th e b r e a d t h
( m o r e o r le ft a c c o r d i n g t o th e q u a n t it y o f th e r e f r a d t i o n j th e fid e s ,
{ fr e ig h t lin es, p a r a lle l t o o n e a n o t h e r , a n d th e e n d s c o n f u f e d , b u t
y e t Teem ing fe m i- c ir c u la r .
I h o p e t h e r e f o r e , M r . L i m \ F r ie n d s w i l l n o t e n te r ta in them -
f e lv e s a n y fu r th e r a b o u t in c o n g r u o u s fu r n tife s , b u t t r y th e E x p e r i
m ent as M r . G a fcoin has p r o m i f e d . A n d th e n , fin ce M r . G a fcoin te lls
y o u , T h a t th e E x p e r im e n t b ein g o f i t f e l f extra o rd in a ry And fu r p r i
z i n g , a nd bejides u fh erin g in n e w P r in c ip le s in to O f tic k s ,q u ite con
trary to th e common a nd r e c e i v e d , i t w ill be h a rd to fe r fw a d e i t as a
tr u th , t i l l i t be m ade fo v ijib le to all as i t w ere afh a m e to deny it; i f he
e fie e tn it fo e x t r a o r d i n a r y , be m ay h a v e th e p r i v i l e d g o f m a k in g
i t f o v i f i b l e to a l l , th a t i t w i l l b e a l h a m e t o d e n y it. F o r , I d a re
f a y , a f t e r h is t e ftim o n y n o b o d y e lfe w i l l f c r u p l e it. A n d I m a k e n o
q u e f t i o n b u t he w i l l h i t o f i t , it b e i n g fo p la in a n d e a f y , th a t I am
v e r y m u c h a t a l o f s t o im a g in e w h a t w a y M r . L i m a t o o k t o m iTs,
D a t. C am bridge F e b . 2 9 . 1 6 7 / ,
LUCAS’S LETTER 163
C 692 )
F^.v.
A Letter from L i e g e concerning Mr. N e w t o n V Experiment

of the coloured S p e & r u m ; together with fome Exceptions
againjl his Theory of L ig h t and C o lo u r s .
H o n td S ir ,
R G afcoigne h a v in g r e c e iv e d y o u r o b l i g i n g L e t t e r o f
M J a n . 1 8 , w it h fr e fli d i r e f i i o n s from Mr. N e w t o n ;

w a n t i n g c o n v e n ie n c e t o m ak e th e E x p e r im e n t a c c o r d i n g to th e
but
f a i d i n f t r u f t io n s , h e has r e q u e u e d m e to f u p p l y h is w a n t. In
c o m p lia n c e w it h h is r e q u e f t I h ave m a d e m an y T r i a l s ; the
iflu e w h e r e o f I h e r e a c q u a in t y o u w it h : n e x t , w it h fom e e x
c e p t i o n s , g r o u n d e d o n E x p e r im e n t s , a g a in f t M r .iV o v / c w ’ s n e w
T h e o r y o f L i g h t and Colours.
T h e v e r t ic a l a n g le o f m y P rifm w a s 6 0 ^ c g jth e d ifta n c e o f th e
W a l l , w h e r e o n th e c o lo u r e d spettruma p p e a r e d ,fr o m th e Win-
d o w , a b o u t r 8 f o o t : T h e d ia m e te r o f the H o le in th e W in d o w *
ftiu ts in le n g th th e lin e a, w h i c h u p o n o c c a fio n s I c o n -
^ t r a i l e d t o h a lf th e Paid d ia m e t e r ; b u t ftill w ith e q u a l
fu c c e fs as t o th e m ain o f th e E x p e r im e n t .T h e refra<9 i-
o n s o n b o t h fid e s th e P rifm , w e re as n ea r as I c o u l d m a k e th em ,
e q u a l,
LUCAS’S LETTER
164
( 693 >
equal,and confequently about 48 ^ .4 0 ', rhe refradive power
o f Glafs being computed according to the K a t i e o f the S i x e s
2 to 3. Thediftance o f the Prifin from the holein the Shuts
wasabotit 2 inches: The Room darkned to that degree as to
equal the darkeft night, while the hole in the Shuts was co
vered.
Now as to t h e i(T u e o f m y Trials j I confiantly found the
length o f the coloured image (tranfverfe to the axis of the
prifm) confiderably greater than its breadth, as often as the
Experiment was madeon a dear day, but if a bright Cloud
were near the Sun , I found it fometimes exadly as Mr. L i n e
wrote you, namely broader rhan long, efpecially while the
Prifm was placed at a great diftance from the hole. Which
Experiment will nor, I conceive, be queftioned by Mr.IWw-
t o n , it being fo agreeable to the received laws of Refradions.
And indeed the Obfervations of thefe two Learned perfons, as
to this particular, areeafily reconcileable to each other , and
both to truth 5 Mr N e w t o n (as appears by his Letter of A W .
laft, wherein more fully he delivers his mind) contending only
for the length of the Image (tranfverfe to the axis of the Prifm)
in a very clear day 5 whereas Mr. L i n e only maintain’d the
excefs o f breadth, parallel to the fame axis, while the Sun is
in a bright cloud. Though as to what is further delivered by
M r . N e n v t 0H ( P h i l . T r 4n f a f f . N . So./>. 3077 5 and oppofed by
Mr. L i n e , N t 2 $ . p 501.) namely that the length of the co
loured Image was five times the diameter of its breadth; I
never yet have found the excefs above thrice the diameter, or at
moft 3L while the refradions on both fides the Prifm were
equal* So much as to the matter of fad.
Now as to Mr. N e w t o n s Theory of L i g h t a n d C o lo u r s ,1 con-
fefs, his neat Sett o f very ingenious and natural inferences,was
to me upon the firft perufal a ftrong conjedure in favour of his
new dodtrine; I having formerly obferv’d the like chain of
Inferences upon fearch into Natural truths. But fince feveral
experiments o f Refradions remain ftill untouch’d by him, I
conceived, a further fearch into them would be very proper
in order to a further difeovery of the truth o f his Afimion.
For, accordingly as they are found either agreeing with, or
difagreeing from, his new Theory,they muft needs much fireng-
then
( 694 )
then,or wholly overthrow the fame. The Experiments I pitch
ed upon for this purpofe, are as follow :
r. Having frequently obferved , that the form of Objefts
viewed in the Mierofcope for rather o f the Mierofcope it felf)
conftfts almoft in an indivifible point, I concluded , two very
fmall pieces o f Silk, the one fcarlet, the other violet colour,
placed near together, Ihould, according to Mr. JSieveton s Theo
ry, appear in the Mierofcope in a very different degree o f
clarity, in regard their unequal refrangibility muft caufc the
fcarlet rays or fpecies to over-reach the Retina t while placed
in the due focus o f the violet ones, and confequently muft oc-
cafion a fenfible confufion in the vifion o f the former, one and
the fame point o f the Scarlet objeft affefting feveral nerves in
the Retina. Yet upon frequent trials I have not been able to
perceive any inequality in this point.
2. The fecond Experiment I made in Water* I took a
brafs Ruler, and fattening thereunto feveral pieces o f Silk, red,
yellow, green, blew’and violet, I placed it at the bottom o f a
fquare vefTel of W ater: then I retired from the Veffel fo far as
not to be able to fee the aforefaid Ruler and coloured Silks
otherwifethan by help of the refratted Ray. Now, did Mr.
JSfewton’s doftrine hold, I conceiv’d, I fhould not fee all the
mentioned Colours in a ftreight line with the Ruler, in regard
the unequal refrangibility o f different Rays muft needs dif-
place fome more than others. Yet in effeft.upon many Trials, I
conftantly found them in as ftreight a line as the bare Ruler had
appeared in.
3. T o advance this Experiment, I adjoyned a fecond refra-
ftion to the former of the Water, by placing my Prifm fo as to
receive perpendicularly the refrafted Jpecies o f the Silk and
R u ler; whereby only the emergent /pedes fuffered a fccond
refraflion. But ft ill with equal fuccefs, as to their appearing in
afhaight line, to the eye placed behind the Prifiu.
4. T o thefe two Refratfions I further added a third, by
receiving the coloured fpecies obliquely upon the Prifm j where
by both incident and emergent Jpecies fuffered their refpeftive
refraftions. But ftill with the fame fuccefs as formerly, as to the
ftreight line they appeared in.
For
LUCAS’S LETTER
( )
For further aflurance in this Experiment M tr
on, occafioned from previous knowledge of
tioninaftreight line, might poffibly p r e j u d i c e r£ ^
of theeye(asfometimes I have obferved to haon Û^ a,ent
judgment the Eye pafleth upon the djfhnce o f O biSe >*? cfle
l e d into the room fome unconcerned perfons vvho/l • Ca*'
what the Experiment aimed at 5 and demanding w h e £ ° , l * m
Taw notrhe coloured Silks and Ruler i„ a crook°d , * 'r
anfwered in the negative. fhey
5. The next Experiment I made in nn^„ , .
lo u r s (as Mr. N e w to n terms them, JPrcp 5 ^ ’p.OUlKjfd
Having caft two coloured Images upon the vLw 7 ° ° lVs-
Scarlet colour of the one did fail in a ftremht Iin« / ,as *he
the Horizon) with the Violet o f the cite ? I £ ^pi? " .c | >°
on both through another Prifin, and found them ked UP-
a freight lin e p a r a lle l to th e H o r iz o n as ^ £ j ' ? pearin
done to the naked eye. Now according to m / *7d ? r " ,e ri7
fertion of different refrangibility in different ^> ton 3 Af-
ceive the Violet rayslhonld ruffe, a » re a ,t "fr 1 c°n-
Prifin at the eye, than the Scarlet o n L ^n d " r on in 'he
colours ffiould not appear in a ft,eight line p a ra fle L o th e ^
“ ^ A n o t h e r Experiment I made in order to fome further
difeovery of that furprizing P lto u m m * o f the coloured
Imaee. w hich occafioned Mr. J ffm tm ingenious Theory 0f
V l A nri rJnurs as alfo his excellent invention o f the re-
fle lfn s T<kft9* and »«/«■ ?'• H™ ” B 'hen fomettaes fuf-
" that not only the direft Sun-beams, but alfo other ex-
mneous light might poffibly influence the coloured Sf c0 rum
I hooed to difeover the truth of this fufpicion by means o f
the Sun-foots, made to appear in the coloured Image by placing
aTelefcopp behind the Prifin. But my endeavours proving
ineffeftual herein by reafon o f fome intervening difficulties I
thought at length o f a more feafible method in order to the
defigned difeovery, as in the following Experiment.
I fattened a very white Paper-circle (about an inch in dia
meter) upon my Window-fliuts; and beholding it through my
Prifin I found a Coloured image painted thereby upon my
Retina, anfwerable in almoft all refpefts to the former o f the
Y vv v Sun
C 696 )
Sun-beams upon the W all, efpecially when the Paper-circle
was indifferently well illuminated. This Image indeed appear
ed contrary to the former as to the fci tuation of Colours, that
is, the Scarlet appearing above, the Violet below , though but
faint. But this I was not furprized at, having obferv’d upon
differing the eye,that objeds are painted on the Retina after a
contrary pofture to what they appear to Sight. Having thus
rendred the Coloured image much more tradable than for
merly it was, I conceived good hopes of fome further dif-
covery in the point mentioned.
In purfuance then o f my former fufpicion, having fixed my
v Tab ir Pfifin in a fteady pofture, I caufed the paper C to be
Fig.5sid.' applied clofe up to the Paper-circle a b d : whereupon
the former Violet d, and Scarlet colour o f G vanished
into whitenefs. Next, 1 removed the mentioned Circle from
the Shuts,and placed it in the open window, fupported only by
theedge d: whereupon, to my aftoniflunenr, all the former C o
lours exchanged poftures in the Retina, the Scarlet now ap
pearing below , the Violet above; the intermediate Colours
fcarce difcernible. And here, on the by, ’tis very remarkable,
that, during this Obfervation, I dearly perceived both Blew-
and Scarlet-light to be transparent, J being able to difcern
feveral objeds through both , namely Steeples oppofit to my
window. Whence it follows, that thefe Colours do in great
part arife from the neighbouring light. Laftly, I placed the
Paper-circle anew, foas the one half b was fattened to the
Shuts, the other femicircle a being expofed to the open Air.
Whereupon the femicircle a became bordered with Violet
above, Scarlet below; but the other femicircle b quite con
trary. Hence I make the following Inferences.
FirjlyThat not only the Light refleded from the Paper-circle,
but alfo from the ambient Air, hath great influence upon the
Coloured image,efpecially as to the Violet and Scarlet colours.
Whence perchance it will not hereafter feem ftrange,that the
coloured Speftrumon the Wall is fo long, but only that the
breadvh is not greater. Secondly, Were there a more luminous
body behind the Sun, we fhould in all likelyhood have the co
lours o f the Sfettrum in a contrary fcituation to what they
appear in at prefent: Whence ('thirdly) it feems to follow/hat
the
LUCAS’S LETTER
( 697 )
- r idiarion and order of Colours, arifeth not fro*,
the present fclt*a ° " o f refrangibility ( as maintained by
anyintrinlecai ^ tin„ encand extrinfecal circumftant*s
For accordingly as the body be-
of neighbouring o j • ffiore Qr jefs illuminated than the
hind the Paper-ci feverai Colours changed their fcitu4.
no;- Thp nPKCExperiment was made in order to Mr. Newton,

a A* ■I hnfPrim ary Colours, as Prof.$. Having covered the
h° m S the Window-Amts with a thin flice o f Ivory, the tranf-
Holein th lo w . buc upon adding three, four
imtted lig PP beCan3e red. Whence it Items to follow, thac
Y d lo w w fio f light U not a primary colour, but a compound
°f Experiment was made in reference to Mr. Net*.

t J : r2 /^ w h ere fro m his own principles he renders a very
plaufible Reafon o f a furprizing Phenomenon, related by Mr.
Hooke* namely o f twoliquors the one Blew the other Red,
both feverally cranfparenr, yet both i f placed together, be-
rame ooake The reafon whereof, faith Mr. Newton, is , be-
caufe if one liquor tranfmitted only Red, the other only Blew,
no rays could pafs through both. ,
In reference then to this p oin t, 1 filled two finall Glafies
with flat p o lic e d bottoms, the one with Aquafortis, deeply
died Blew ; the other with Oyl o f Turpenttne, died Red 3 both
to that degree, as to reprefent all objefls through them refpo
liv e ly Blew or Red. Then placing the one upon the other , 1
was able to difeern feveral bodies through b o th : whereas ac
cording to Mr .Newtons Theory, no objea: fliould appear
through both L iqu ors; becaufe if one tranfmit only Red, the
other only Blew, no rays can pals through both.
Thefe Experimental Exceptions w ill not, I hope, be un
welcome to Mr.Newton* his only aim being the improvement
o f Natural knowledge's it is alfo of,
Sir,
T o u r b u m b le S e r v a n t ,
Anthony Lucas.
Tyyy 2 Poft-
NEWTON’S REPLY TO LUCAS 169
< <S>8 )
Poftfcript.
J Hft upon the clofe of the adjoyned Letter, l receivedfrom Mr.
Gafocme^yours o f May the fo u r th ; wherein you are pleafed
to favour us w ith an exa& account o f the famous Experiment o f
t he coloured Speftrum, lately exhibited before the Royal Society.
1 was much rejoyced to fee the Trials of that lllujlriom Company,
agreefo exa&ly with ours here, though in fomewhat ours difagree
from sÛr.Newton, as you will underjland by the imlofed impar
tial account from,
Sir, &c.
M r. Newton’/ Anfwer to the precedent Letter, fent to the

Publifher.
Sir,
He things oppofed by Mr.Line being upon Trials found
T true and granted m e; I begin with the new queftion
about the proportion of the length of the Image to its breadth.
T his I call a new one ; for, though Mr.Line in his laft Letter
fpakeagainft fo great a length as I aflign, yet, as it feems to
mcy it was not to grant any tranfverfe length Shorter than that
afligned by me, (for in his firft Letter he abfolutely denied
that there would be any fuch length but to lay the greater
emphafis upon his difcourfe whilft in defence o f common Op-
tiqueshewas difputing in general againft a tranfverfe Image:
And therefore in my Anfwer I did not prefcribe thejuft quan
tity o f the refrafling Angle with which I would have the
Experiment repeated: which would have been a necefiary
circumftance , had the difpute been about the
1'phn proportion of the length to the breadth,
a?a. p'.$oo. ’ * Yet I added * this Note, that the bigger the
angle o f the Prifm i s , the greater will be the
length in proportion to the breadth: not imagining but that
when he had found in any Prifm the length of the Image tranf
verfe to the axis, he would ealily thence conclude, that a Prifm
with a greater angle would make the Image longer, and con-
fequently that by ufing an angle great enough he might bring it
io equal or exceed the length affigned by me; as indeed he
3»ight s for, by taking an Angle o f 70 or 75 degrees, or a little
greater,
170 NEWTON’S REPLY TO LUCAS
( )
greater, he might have made the length not only five, but fix or
eight times the breadth and more. No wonder therefore that
found the Image fhorter than f d i d , feeing he tried
the Experiment with a lefs Angie.
The Angle indeed which I ufed was but about 63 degrees
12 minutes, and bis is fee down 60 degrees : the difference o f
which from mine,being but 3 degrees 12 minutes, is too little to
reconcile us, but yet it will bring us confiderably nearer to
gether. And if his Angle was not exatfly meafured , but the
round number o f 60 degrees fet down by guefs or by a lefs
accurate meafure (as I fufpetf by the conjectural meafureof
therefraftion o f his Prifm by the ratio o f thefigns 2 to 3 fee
downat the fame time, inftead of an Experimental one ) then
might it be two or three degrees lefs thao 60, if not ftiil Ief s:
and all this, i f itihouldbe fo, would take away the greateft
p a rto f the difference between us. &
But however it be, I am well allured, my own obfervation
was exaft enough. For I have repeated it divers times fince
the receipt o f Mr, Lucas’s Letter, and that without any con*
fiderable difference o f my Obfervations either from one ano
ther, or from what I wrote before. And that it might appear
experimentally, how the increafe o f the Angle increafes the
length o f the Image, and alfo that no body who has a mind to
try the Experiment exaftly, might be troubled to procure a
Prifm which has an angle juft o f the bignefs affigned b y me- 5
tried the Experiment with divers Angles, and have fet down
my Trials in the following Table; where the firft column ex
p r e s s the fix ADgles o f two Prifms which I ufed which
were meafured as exaGly as I could by applying them to the
angle of a S e d o r; and the fecond column exprefles in inches
the length o f the Image made by each o f tbofe Angles; its
breadth being two inches, its diftance from the Prifm 18 feee
and four inches, and the breadth o f the hole in the Window-
tout ~ o f an inch,
the jfngles of ' th e Lengths of
degr, min, the Image.
C 56 10 7i
I b e f ir f t P ? iJ m < 6 o 24
£63 26 I of
NEWTON’S REPLY TO LUCAS £71
( 700 )
t h e A n g le s o f t h e L e n g th s o f
d e g r. m in . th e Im a g e .
, S 5* 0
t h e f e c o n d P r i f i n . <62 12 IOg
C.63 48 io l
You may perceive, that the length of the Images inrefpeA

o f the angles that made them , are fomething greater in the fe
cond Prifin than in the firft; but that was becaufe the glafs, o f
which the fecond Prifin was made, had the greater refraftive
power.
The days in which I made thefe Trials were pretty clear,
but not fo clear as I defired, and therefore afterwards meeting
with a day as clear as I defired, I repeated the Experiment
with the fecond Prifin, and found the lengths of the Image
made by its feveral angles to be about ~ of an inch greater than
before, the meafures being thofe fet down in this Table.
the Angles of t h e L e n g t h s o f
degr. min. th e Im a g e,
( 5 4 o 71
the fecond P r i f m < 62 12 to {
h s 48 11
Thereafonof this difference I apprehend was, that in the

cleared days the light of the white skies, which dilutes and
renders invifible the fainted Colours at the ends of the Image, is
a little diminished in a clear day, and fo gives leave to the Co
lours to appear to a greater length; the Suns light at the fame
time becoming brisker, andfo ftrengthning the Colours and
making the faint ones at the two ends more confpicuous. For
I have obferved, that in days fomething cloudy , whilft the
Prifin has flood unmoved at the window,the Image would grow
a little longer or a little fliorter, accordingly as the Sun was
more or lefs obfeured by thin Clouds which paffed over i t ;
the Image being Aborted when the Cloud was brighteft and the
Suns light faintefl. Whence it is eafie to apprehend, that, if
the light o f the Clouds could be quite taken away, fo that the
Sun
NEWTON’S REPLY TO LUCAS
172
C 7° I )
Sun might appear furrotinded with darfcnefs, or i f the Suns
light were much ftronger chan it is , the colours would flill
appear to a greater length.
In all thefe Obfervat ions the breadth o f the Image was juft
two inches. But obferving, that the Tides o f the two Prifms, I
ufed.were notexaftly plain, but a little convex, (the convexity
being about To much as that o f a double Convex-glafs o f a
fixteen or eighteen foot Telefcope') I took a third Prifm, whofe
Tides were as much concave as thofe of the other were convex ;
and this made the breadth o f the Image to be two inches and a
third part o f an inch ; the angles of this P rifm , and the
le n g t h s o f the Image made by each o f thofe Angles being thofe
expreft in this Table.
The Anglet of the Prifm. i The Lengths of the

degr. Image in inches.
58 8-
59! 9
62 V IO t
In this cafe you fee, the concave figure o f the fidesof the
Prifm by making the rays diverge a little, caufes the breadth o f
the Image to be greater in proportion to its length than ic
would be otherwife. And this I thought fit to give you no-
tice of, that Mr.Lucas may examine,whether his Prifm have not
this fault. I f a Prifm may be had with Tides exaftly plain, it
may do well to try the Experiment with that; but its better,
if the fides be about To much convex as thofe o f mine are, be-
caufe the Image will thereby become much better defined.
For this convexity o f the fides does the fame effeft, as if you
fliould ufea Prifm with Tides exafily plain, and between it
and the bole in the Window-fiiut, place an Objeft-glafs of an
18 foot Telefcope, to make the round Image o f the Sun appear
diftinflly defined on the wall when the Prifm is taken away,
and consequently the long Image made by the Prifm to be much
morediftinftly defined (efpecially at its ftreight fides) than it
would be otherwife.
One thing more I Ihall add : That theutmoft length o f the
Image from the fainteft Red at one end to the fainteft Blew at
the
in
( 70 i )
the other, muCl be tneafured. For in my firft Letter about C o
lours, where I fet down the length to be five times the breadth,
I called that length the utmoft length o f the image 5 and I
meafured the utmoft length, becaufe I account all that length
to be caufed by the immediate light o f the Sun, feeing the Co
lours (as I noted above^) become vifible to the greateft length
in the cleareft days, that is, when the light o f the Sun tranf-
cends moft the light of the Clouds. Sometimes there will
happen to flioot out from both ends o f the Image a glaring
light a good way beyond thefe colours, but this is not to be
regarded, as not appertaining to the Image. I f the meafures
be taken right, the whole length will exceed the length o f the
ftreight fides by about the breadth of the Image.
By thefe things fet down thus circumdantially, I prefume
Mr. Lucas will be enabled to accord his tryals o f the Experi
ment with mine ; fo nearly, at lead, that there fhall not remain
any very confiderable difference between us. For, if fome lit
tle difference fltould Hill remain , that need not trouble ns any
further, feeing there may be many various circumftances which
may conduce to it 5 fuchas are not only the different figures
o f prifms, butalfo the different refra&ive power o f Glades,
the different diameters of the Sun at divers times of the year,
and the little errors that may happen inmeafuring lines and an
gles, or in placing the prifm at the window 5 though, for my
part, I took care to do thefe things as exaftly as I could.How-
ever Mr. Lucas may make fure to find the Image as long or lon
ger than I have fee down, if he rake a prifm whofe fides are not
hollow ground, but plain, or (which is better) a very little
convex, and whofe refrafting angle is as much greater than that
I ufed, as that he has hitherto rryed it with, is lefsj that is ,
whofe angle is about 66 or 67 degrees, or (if he w ill) a little
greater.
Concerning Mr. Lucas's other Experiments, I am much ob
liged to him that he would take thefe things fo far into confide-
ration, and be at fo much pains for examining them; and I
thank him fo much the more, becaufe he is the firft that has
fent me an experimental examination of them* By this I may
prefume he really defires to know what truth there is in thefe
matters. But yec it will conduce to his more fpeedy and full
fatif-
174 NEWTON’S REPLY TO LUCAS
C 7°3 )
fatisfaftion if he a little change the method which he has pro
pound ed,and inftead o f a multitude o f things try only the Ejc-
ferimentum Cattcu, For ic is not number o f Experiments, but
weight to be regarded ; and where one will d o , what need
many ?
Had I thought more requifite, I could have added more:
For before l wrote my firft Letter to you about Colours, I
had taken much pains in trying Experiments about them, and
written a Traftateonthatfubjeii , wherin I had fet down at
large the principal o f the Experiments I had trie d ; amorsgft
which there happened to be the principal o f thofe Experi
ments which Mr.Lucas has now fent me. And as for the Expe
riments fet down in my firfi: Letter to you, they were only fuch
as I thought convenient to feleft out o f that Tractate.
. But fuppofe thofe bad been my whole fio re, yet Mr. Lucas
flhould not have grounded his difcourfe upon a fuppofition o f
my want o f Experiments, till he had examined thofe few. For
if any o f thofe be demonftrative,they will need no afliflants,nor
leave room for further difputing about what they demonftrate.
The main thing he goes about to examine is, the different re-
frangibility of Light, And this I demonftrated by the Expc-
rimentnm Crucis. Now if this demonftration be good, there
needs no further examination o f the thing; if not good , the
fault of it is to be fhewn : for the only way to examine
a demonftrated propofition is, to examine the demon
ftration. Let that Experiment therefore be examined in
the firft place, and that which it proves be acknowledged, and
then if Mt-Lucas want my aftiftance to unfold the difficulties
which he fancies to be in the Experiments he has propounded,
hefliall freely have it ; for then I fuppofe a few words may
make them plain to him: whereas, fhould I be drawn from de-
mondrative Experiment to begin with thofe, it might create us
both the trouble of a long difpute, and by the multitude of
words, cloud rather than clear up the truth. For if it has al
ready coft us fo much trouble to agree upon the matter o f faft
in the firft and plained Experiment, and yet we are not fully
agreed; what an endlefs trouble might it create us, i f we ftiould
give our felves up to difpute upon every Argument that occurs,
and what would become o f Truth in fuch a tedious difpute?
Zzzz The
NEWTON’S REPLY TO LUCAS 175
C 7°4 )
The way therefore that I propound, being the fliorteft and
cleareft (not to fay,the only proper way,) I queftion not but
M rX # w *w ill be glad that!have recommended it, feeing he
profefTes, that it is the knowledge of truth that he Peeks after.
And therefore at prefent I fhall fay nothing in anfwer to his
Experimental difcourfe, but this in general; that it has pro
ceeded partly from fome mifunderftandingof what he writes
againft, and partly from want o f due caution in trying Expe
riments ; and that amongft his Experiments there is one,which
when duly tried, is,next to the Exfcrbientum Cruets, the mqft
confpicuous Experiment,I know, for proving the different re^
frangibility of Light, which he brings it to prove againft.
By the Eojl-fcript o f Mr. Lucas's Letter, one not acquainted
with what has pafTed, might think, that he quotes the Obferva-
cion o f the R.Society againft me $ whereas the relation of their
Ob fer vat ion, which youfcnt to Liege, contained nothing at all
about the juft proportion of the Length.of the Image to its
Breath according to the angleof the Prifn^norany thing more
(fo far as I can perceive by your laft) than what was pertinent
to the things then in difpute,w«i. that they found them fucceed
as I had affirmed. And therefore fince Mr. Lucas has found the
fame fuccefs, I fuppofe, that when he exprefied , that he much
rejoyced to fee the Trials of the R. Society agree fo cxaftly with
hi*) he meant only fo far as his agreed with mine.
Andbecaufe I am again upon this firft Experiment, I fltall
defire, that Mr, Lucas will repeat it with all the exaftnefsand
caution that may be, regard being had to the information abouc
k , fet down in this Letter ; and then I defire ro have the length
and breadth o f the Image with its diflame from the Prifin, fet
down exaflly in feet and inches, and parts o f an inch, that I
may have an opportunity to confider what relation its length
a-nd breadth have to the Suns diameter. For I know, that Mr.
JL«o«Obfervation cannot hold where the refratting angle o f the
Prifin is full 60 degrees, and the day is clear, and the full length
of theColours is meafured,and the breadth o f the Image anfwers
to the Sun’s diameter: And feeing I am well allured o f the truth
and exa&nefsofmy own Observations, I fhall be unwilling to
be diverted by any other Experiments, from having afairend
made o f this in the firft place. Sir, l amf a .
Poll:-
C 705 )
Foftfcript.
Bad like to have forgotten to advife, that the Experimentmn
| Crucls,and fitch others as (ball he madefor knowing the nature
of Colours, he made with Pri(ms which refraff f i much, as to
make the length o f the Image five timet its breadth , and rather
more thdnjefs; for, otherwfe Experiments v>iU not fucceed U
plainly tvith others as they have done with me,
NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS 177
1675.] ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 247
December 9. There was produced a manufcript of Mr. N e w t o n , touching

his theory of light and colours, containing partly an hypothefi's to explain the
properties of light difcourfed of by him in his former papers, partly the principal
phsenomena of the various colours exhibited by thin plates or bubbles, efteemed
by him to be of a more difficult confideration 5 yet to depend alfo on the laid
properties of light.
Of the hypothefis only the firft part was read, giving an account of refraction,
reflection, tranfparency, and opacity i the fecond part explaining colours being
referred to the next meeting.
The firft was as followsh:
“ Sir, TT . . .
“ I have fent you the papers I mentioned, by J ohn S t il e s . Upon reviewing
« them, I find fome things fo obfcure, as might have deferved a further explication
“ by fchemes > and fome other things, I gild's, will not be new to you, though al-
“ mod all was new to me when I wrote them. But as they are, 1 hope you will accept
«« of them, though not worth the ample thanks you fent, I remember, in lome
“ dilcourfe with Mr. H o o k e , 1 happened to fay, that I thought light was re-
“ fleCted, not by the parts of glafs, water, air, or other fenfible bodies ; but by
the fame confine or fupcrficies of the sethereai mediums, which refracts it, the
“ rays finding fome difficulty to get through it in palling out of the denier into
<c the rarer medium> and a greater difficulty in paffing out of the rarer into t e
“ denfer; and fo being either refraCted or reflected ^by that fuperficies, as t e
circumftances they happened to be in at their incidence make them ab,e or
“ unable to get through it. And, for confirmation of this, I faid further, that
“ I thought the reflection of light, at its tending out of glafs into air, would not
“ be diminifhed or weakened by drawing away the air in an air-pump, as it ought
«c to be, if they were the parts of air that reflected : and added, that 1 had not
** tried this experiment, but thought he was not unacquainted with notions of
“ this kind. To which he replied, that the nation was new, and he would the
“ firft opportunity try the experiment I propounded. But upon reviewing the
“ papers I fend you, I found it there fet down for tried ; which makes me recol-
«l left, that about the time I was writing thefe papers, 1 had occasionally
“ in an air-pump here at Chrift’s College, that I could not perceive the reflection
‘‘ of the infide of the glafs diminifhed in drawing out the air. This 1 thought
“ fit to m.-ntion, leaft my former forgetfulnefs, through having long laid ancle
“ my thoughts on thefe things, Ihould make me feem to have fet down for cet-
“ tain what 1 never tried.
h Repfter, vol. v. p. 65.
“ Sir,
178 NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS
24-8 THE HISTORY OF THE [ 1675.

“ Sir, I had formerly purpofed never to write any hypothefis of light and
“ colours, fearing it might be a means to engage me in vain difputes: but I hope
“ a declared refolution to anfwer nothing, that looks like a controverfy, unlefs
“ poffibly at my own time upon fome by-occafion, may defend me from that
“ fear. And therefore confidering, that fuch an hypothefis would much illuftrate
C{ the papers I promifed to fend you; and having a little time this laft week to
“ fpare, I have not fcrupled to defcribe one, fo far as I could on a fudden recol-
“ left my thoughts about it; not concerning myfelf, whether it fhall be thought
“ probable or improbable, fo it do but render the papers I fend you, and others
“ lent formerly, more intelligible. You may fee, by the fcratching and inter-
<c lining, it was done in hafte; and I have not had time to get it tranfcribed,
" which makes me fay I referve a liberty of adding i t ; and defire, that you would
tc return thofe and the other papers when you have done with them. I doubt
“ there is too much to be read at one time, but you will foon know how to
“ order that. At the end of the hypothefis you will fee a paragraph to be in-
*• ferted as is there direfted : I fhould have added another or two, but I had not
“ time, but fuch as it is, I hope you will accept it. Sir, I am, &c.
Is. N e w t o n .
it
An Hypothefis explaining the Properties of Light, difcourfed of in my fe
“ veral Papers.
“ Sir,
“ In my anfwer to Mr. H o o k e , you may remember, I had occafion to fay
cc fomething of hypothefes, where I gave a reafon, why all allowable hypothefes
a in their genuine conftitution fhould be conformable to my theories; and faid
c; of Mr. H o o k e ’s hypothefis, that I took the m o ft free and natural application,
it
of it to phenomena to be this 1 : that the agitated parts of bodies, according
it
to their feveral fizes, figure, and motions, do excite vibrations in the aether of
it
various depths or bigneffes, which being promifcuoufly propagated through that
tc
medium to our eyes, effeft in us a fenfation of light of a white colour; but,
tc
if by any means thofe of unequal bigneffes be feparated from one another, the
u larged: beget a fenfation of a red coiour ; the lead:, or fhorteft, of a deep
it
violet; and the intermediate ones, of intermediate colours: much after the
tc manner that bodies, according to their feveral fizes, fliapes, and motions, ex
tc cite vibrations in the air of various bigneffes, which, according to thofe big-
tt neffcs, make feveral tones in found, &c. I was glad to underftand, as I ap
tc prehend, from Mr. H ooke ’s difcoufe at my laft being at one of your afiem-
tc blies, that he had changed his former notion of all colours being compounded
t c of only two original ones, made by the two fides of an oblique pulfe; and
tc accommodated his hypothefis to this my fuggeftion of colours, like founds,
a being various, according to the various bignefs of the pulfes. For this I take
tc to be a more plaufible hypothefis than any other deferibed by former authors,
tc becaufe I fee not how the colours of thin tranfparent plates or fkins can be
ti handfomely explained, without having recourfe to aethercal pulfes : but yet I
1 T ranfatt. n° 88. p. 5088.
tc i;i.-
1675.] ROYAL SOCIETY OF L O N D O N . 249

“ like another hypothefis better, which I had occafion to hint fomething of in the
“ fame letter in thefe words k:
“ The hypothefis of light's being a body, had 1 propounded it, has a much greater
“ affinity with the objector's own hypothefis, than he feems to be aware o f ; the vibra-
“ lions of the tether being as ufeful and neceffary in this as in his. For, affuming the
“ rays of light to be fmall bodies emitted every way from fhining fubftances, thofe,
“ when they impinge on any refracting or reflecting Juperficies, muft as neceffiarily ex-
“ cite vibrations in the tether, as flones do in water when thrown into it. And, fup-
“ pofing thefe vibrations to be of feveral depths or thicknefjes, accordingly as they are
“ excited by the faid corpufcular rays of various fixes and velocities; of what ufe
“ they will befor explicating the manner of reflexion and refraction; the production of
“ heat by the fun-beams ; the emiffion of light from burning, putrifying, or other fitb •
“ fiances, whofe parts are vehemently agitated -, the phenomena of thin tranfparent
“ plates, and bubbles, and of all natural bodies •, the manner of vfim, and the dif-
“ ference of colours ; as alfo their harmony and difcord; IJhall leave to their conft-
“ deration, who may think it worth their endeavour to apply this hypothefis to the
“ folution of phenomena.
“ Were I to affume an hypothefis, it fhould be this, if propounded more ge-

“ nerally, fo as not to determine what light is, farther than that it is fomething
“ or other capable of exciting vibrations in the tether: for thus it will become
“ fo general and comprehenfive of other hypothefes, as to leave little room for
“ new ones to be invented. And therefore, becaufe I have obferved the heads
“ of fome great virtuofos to run much upon hypothefes, as if my difcourfes want-
“ ed an hypothefis to explain them by, and found,, that fome, when I could not
“ make them take my meaning, when I fpake of the nature of light and colours
“ abftra&edly, have readily apprehended it, when I illuftrated my difcourfe by
“ an hypothefis ; for this reafon I have here thought fit to fend you a defcrip*
“ tion of the circumftances of this hypothefis as much tending to the illuftration
“ of the papers 1 herewith fend you. And though I fhall not afliime either this or
“ any other hypothefis, not thinking it neceffary to concern myfelf, whether the
“ properties of light, difcovered by me, be explained by this, or Mr. H ooke ’s,
“ or any other hypothefis capable of explaining them; yet w'hile I am defcrib-
“ ing this, I fhall fometimes, to avoid circumlocution, and to reprefent it more
“ conveniently, fpeak of it, as if I affumed it, and propounded it to be believed.
" This I thought fit to exprefs, that no man may confound this with my other
“ difcourfes, or meafure the certainty of one by the other, of think me obliged
“ to anfwer objections againft tins feript: for I defire to decline being involved
“ in fuch troublefome and infignificant difputes.
“ But to proceed to the hypothefis: Firft, it is to be fuppofed therein, that

“ there is an tethereal medium much of the fame conftitution with air, but far
“ rarer, fubtler, and more ftrongly elaftic. Of the exiftence of this medium
“ the motion of a pendulum in a glafs exhaufted of air almoft as quickly as in
k Tranfaft. n° 88 . p. 5087 .
Voi, III, K k “ the
250 T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E [1675.
t! ,-he o p e n air, is n o i n c o n f i d e r a b l e a r g u m e n t . B u t it is n o t t o b e f u p p o f e d ,
“ t h a t this m e d i u m is. o n e u n i f o r m m a t t e r , b u t c o m p o u n d e d , p a r t l y o f t h e m a i n
“ p h l e g m a t i c b o d y o f te th e r , p a r t l y o f o t h e r v a r i o u s aethereal fp ir its , m u c h a fte r
“ t h e m a n n e r , t h a t a ir is c o m p o u n d e d o f t h e p h l e g m a t i c b o d y o f air i n t e r m i x e d
«> w i t h v a r i o u s v a p o u r s a n d e x h a l a t i o n s : f o r t h e eleC tric a n d m a g n e t i c e f f l u v i a ,
“ a n d G rav itatin g p rin c ip le , feem to a rg u e fuch v a r ie ty . P erh ap s the w h ole
“ f r a m e o f n a t u r e m a y b e n o t h i n g b u t v a r i o u s c o n t e x t u r e s o f f o m e c e r t a in aethe-
“ real fp ir its , o r v a p o u r s , c o n d e n l e d as it w e r e b y p r e c i p i t a t i o n , m u c h a fte r t h e
“ m a n n e r , t h a t v a p o u r s a re c o n d e n f e d i n t o w a te r , o r e x h a l a t io n s i n t o g r o f i e r f u b -
« f i a n c e s , t h o u g h n o t fo ea fily c o n d e n f i b l e ; and a fte r c o n d e n f a t i o n w r o u g h t i n t o
“ v a r i o u s f o r m s ; a t firft b y t h e i m m e d i a t e h a n d o f t h e C r e a t o r •, a n d e v e r fin ce
“ b y t h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e ; w h i c h , b y v i r t u e o f th e c o m m a n d , in c r e a fe a n d
“ m u l t i p l y , b e c a m e a c o m p l e t e i m i t a t o r o f t h e c o p i e s fet h er b y th e p r o t o p l a l l .
“ T h u s p e r h a p s m a y a ll t h i n g s b e o r i g i n a t e d f r o m aether.
« A t le a ft, t h e e l a f t i c e f f l u v i a f e e m t o in f t r u C l u s, t h a t th e r e is f o m e t h i n g o f
“ an sethereal n a t u r e c o n d e n f e d in b o d ie s . I h a v e f o m e t i m e s la id u p o n a t a b le
« a r o u n d p i e c e o f g l a f s a b o u t t w o in c h e s b r o a d fet in a b ra fs r i n g , fo t h a t t h e
«c g l a f s m i g h t b e a b o u t o n e e i g h t h o r o n e f i x t h o f an i n c h f r o m t h e t a b l e , a n d
“ t h e a ir b e t w e e n t h e m i n c l o f e d o n a ll fides b y t h e r i n g , after t h e m a n n e r as i f
“ I h a d w h e l m e d a little f ie v e u p o n t h e t a b l e ; a n d th e n r u b b i n g a p r e t t y w h i l e
«« th e g l a f s b r i f l d y w i t h f o m e r o u g h a n d r a k i n g f l u f f , t ill f o m e v e r y l ittle f r a g m e n t s
“ o f v e r y thin p a p e r , la id o n th e t a b le u n d e r t h e g l a f s , b e g a n t o b e a t t r a c t e d a n d
« m o v e n i m b l y t o a n d f r o •, a fte r I h a d d o n e r u b b i n g th e g l a f s , th e p a p e r s w o u l d
“ c o n t i n u e a p r e t t y w h i l e in v a r i o u s m o t i o n s ; f o m e t i m e s l e a p i n g u p t o t h e g l a f s
“ a n d r e f l i n g th e r e a w h i l e ; th e n l e a p i n g d o w n a n d r e f l i n g t h e r e ; t h e n l e a p i n g
“ u p , a n d p e r h a p s d o w n a n d u p a g a i n , a n d this f o m e t i m e s in lin e s f e e m i n g p e r -
“ p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e t a b l e ; f o m e t i m e s in o b l i q u e o n e s ; f o m e t i m e s a lfo t h e y w o u l d
« l e a p u p in o n e a r c h a n d d o w n in a n o t h e r , d i v e r s t i m e s t o g e t h e r , w i t h o u t
“ fe n f i b l y r e f l i n g b e t w e e n ; f o m e t i m e s f k i p in a b o w f r o m o n e p a r t o f th e g l a f s
“ t o a n o t h e r w i t h o u t t o u c h i n g t h e t a b l e , and f o m e t i m e s h a n g b y a c o r n e r , a n d
“ tu r n o ft e n a b o u t v e r y n i m b l y , as i f th e y h a d b e e n c a r rie d a b o u t in th e m i d f t
“ o f a w h i r l w i n d , and b e o t h e r w i f e v a r i o u f l y m o v e d , e v e r y p a p e r w i t h a d i v e r f e
“ m otio n . A n d u p o n A i d i n g m y f in g e r o n t h e u p p e r fid e o f t h e g l a f s , t h o u g h
“ n e it h e r th e g l a f s , n o r i n c l o f e d air b e l o w , w e r e m o v e d t h e r e b y , y e t w o u l d t h e
“ p a p e r s , as t h e y h u n g u n d e r th e g l a f s , r e c e i v e f o m e n e w m o t i o n , i n c l i n i n g th is
“ w a y o r t h a t w a y , a c c o r d i n g l y as I m o v e d m y f i n g e r . N o w , w h e n c e a ll th e fe
“ i r r e g u l a r m o t i o n s l h o u l d f p r i n g , 1 c a n n o t i m a g i n e , u n le fs f r o m f o m e k i n d o f
“ f'ubtil m a t t e r l y i n g c o n d e n f e d in t h e g l a f s , a n d rarefied b y r u b b i n g , as w a t e r is
“ rarefied in t o v a p o u r b y h e a t, a n d i n t h a t r a r e f a c t io n d if f u f e d t h r o u g h th e f p a c e
“ r o u n d th e g la f s t o a g r e a t d i f t a n c e , a n d m a d e t o m o v e a n d c i r c u l a t e v a r i o u f l y ,
“ a n d a c c o r d i n g l y t o a ct u a te th e p a p e r s till it r e tu r n i n t o t h e g l a f s a g a i n , a n d b e
“ r e c o n d e n f e d t h e re . A n d as this c o n d e n f e d m a t t e r b y ra r e fa ct io n i n t o an sethe-
“ real w i n d ( f o r b y its ea fy p e n e t r a t i n g a n d c i r c u l a t i n g t h r o u g h gla fs I efteem it
“ sethereal) m a y c a u fe the fe o d d m o t i o n s , a n d b y c o n d e n f i n g a g a i n m a y c a u fe
“ eleC lrica l a t t r a c t i o n w i t h its r e t u r n i n g t o t h e g l a f s t o f u c c e e d in t h e p l a c e o f
“ w h a t is th e re c o n t i n u a l l y r e c o n d e n f e d ; fo m a y th e g r a v i t a t i n g a t t r a c t i o n o f t h e
“ earth
1675.] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y OF L O N D O N . t 5x
“ earth be caufed by the continual condenfation of fome other fuch like tethereal
“ fpirit, not of the main body of phlegmatic tether, but of fomething very
“ thinly and fubtilly diffufed through it, perhaps of an unCtuous or gummy,
“ tenacious, and fpringy nature, and bearing much the fame relation to aether,
“ which the vital aereal fpirit, requifite for the confervation of flame and vital
“ motions, does to air. For, if fuch an tethereal fpirit may be condenfed in
“ fermenting or burning bodies, or otherwife coagulated in the pores of the earth
“ and water into fome kind of humid aCtive matter, for the continual ufes of
“ nature, adhering to the Tides of thofe pores, after the manner that vapours
“ condenfe on the Tides of a vefiel ; the vaft body of the earth, which may be
“ every where to the very center in perpetual working, may continually condenfe
“ fo much of this fpirit, as to caufe it from above to defcend with great celerity
“ for a fupply ; in which defcent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades
“ with force proportional to the fuperficies of all their parts it a£ts upon ; nature
“ making a circulation by the flow afcent of as much matter out of the bowels
“ of the earth in an aereal form, which, for a time, conftitutes the atmofphere";
“ but being continually buoyed up by the new air; exhalations and vapours rifling
“ underneath, at length (fome part of the vapours, which return in rain, excepted)
“ vanifhes again into the tethereal fpaces, and there perhaps in time relents, and is
“ attenuated into its firft principle: for nature is a perpetual worker, generating
“ fluids out of folids, and folids out of fluids, fixed things out of volatile, and
“ volatile out of fixed, fubtil out of grofs and grofs out of fubtil; fome things
“ to afcend, and make the upper terreftrial juices, rivers, and the atmofphere; and
“ by confequence, others to defcend for a requital to the former. And, as the
“ earth, fo perhaps may the fun imbibe this fpirit copioufly, to conferve his fliin-
“ ing, and keep the planets from receding further from him. And they, that
“ will, may alfo fuppofe, that this fpirit affords or carries with it thither the folary
“ fewel and material principle of light: and that the vaft tethereal fpaces between
us and the ftars are for a fufficient repofitory for this food of the fun and
“ planets. But this of the conftitution of tethereal natures by the by.
“ In the fccend place, it is to be fuppofed, that the tether is a vibrating medium

“ like air, only the vibrations far more fwift and minute; thofe of air, made by
“ a man’s ordinary voice, fucceeding one another at more than half a foot or a
“ foot diftance ; but thofe of tether at a lefs diftance than the hundred thoufandth
“ part of an inch. And, as in air the vibrations are fome larger than others
“ but yet all equally fwift (for in a ring of bells the found of every tone is heard
“ at two or three miles diftance, in the fame order that the bells are ftruck ;) fo,
“ I fuppofe, the aithereal vibrations differ in bignefs, but not in fwiftnefs. Now,
“ thefe vibrations, befide their ufe in reflexion and refraction, may be fuppofed
“ the chief means, by which the parts of fermenting or putrifying fubftances,
“ fluid liquors, or melted, burning, or other hot bodies, continue in motion, are
“ lhaken afunder like a lhip by waves, and diflipated into vapours, exhalations,
“ or fmoke, and light loofed or excited in thofe bodies, and confequently by
“ which a body becomes a burning coal, and fmoke, flame; and, I fuppofe,
“ flame is nothing but the particles of fmoke turned by the accefs of light and
“ heat to burning coals, little and innumerable.
K k 2 “ Thirdly,
252 THE HISTORY OF T H E [ 1675.

“ ‘Third’y , as th e air can p e r v a d e t h e b o r e s o f f m a ll g l a f s p i p e s , b u t y e t n o t fo
“ eafily as i f th e y w e r e w i d e r -, a n d t h e r e f o r e ( la n d s a t a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f r a r i t y
“ th a n in th e free a ereal fp a c e s , a n d at fo m u c h a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f r a r i t y as t h e
“ p i p e is f m a ll e r , as is k n o w n b y th e r i l i n g o f w a t e r in f u c h p i p e s t o a m u c h
“ g r e a t e r h i g h t th a n t h e f u r f a c e o f th e f t a g n a t i n g w a t e r , i n t o w h i c h t h e y are
“ d i p p e d * fo I f u p p o f e aether, t h o u g h it p e r v a d e s t h e p o r e s o f c r y f t a l , g l a f s ,
“ w a t e r , a n d o t h e r n a tu r a l b o d i e s , y e t it ( la n d s at a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f r a r i t y in
“ th o fe p o re s, than in th e free aethereal f p a c e s , a n d at fo m u c h a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f
“ r a r i t y , as th e p o re s o f th e b o d y a re f m a ll e r . W h e n c e it m a y b e , t h a t th e f p ir it
“ o f w i n e , fo r in ft a n ce , t h o u g h a l i g h t e r b o d y , y e t h a v i n g fu b tile r p a r t s , a n d
“ c o n f e q u e n t l y fm a lle r p o r e s , th a n w a t e r , is th e m o r e ( t r o n g l y refra ctin g liquor.
“ T h i s a lfo m a y b e th e p r i n c i p a l c a u f e o f t h e c o h e f i o n of t h e p a r ts o f fo lid s a n d
“ fluids, o f t h e fp r i n g i n e f s o f g l a f s , and b o d i e s , w h o f e p a r ts A id e n o t o n e u p o n
“ a n o t h e r in b e n d i n g , a n d o f t h e ( l a n d i n g o f th e m e r c u r y in th e T o r r i c e l l i a n
“ e x p e r i m e n t , fo i n e t i m e s t o th e t o p o f th e g l a f s , t h o u g h a m u c h g r e a t e r h i g h t
“ than t w e n t y - n i n e in c h e s . F o r t h e d e n fe r te th e r , w h i c h f u r r o u n d s th e fe b o d i e s ,
“ m u d c r o u d a n d prefs t h e ir p a r t s t o g e t h e r , m u c h a fte r th e m anner th a t air
“ f u r r o u n d i n g t w o m a r b le s prefles t h e m t o g e t h e r , i f th e r e be li t t l e o r n o a ir b e -
Y e a , a n d t h a t p u z z l i n g p r o b l e m ; By what means the mufcles are
** tw e e n t h e m .
“ contrasted and dilated to caufe animal motion, may receive greater light from hence
“ than from any means men have hitherto been thinking on. F o r , i f there b e a n y
“ p o w e r in m a n to c o n d e n f e a n d d i l a t e a t w i l l th e aether, t h a t p e r v a d e s t h e
“ m u f c le , t h a t c o n d e n l a t i o n o r d i l a t i o n m u d v a r y th e c o m p r e f i l o n o f t h e m u f c l e ,
“ m a d e b y th e a m b i e n t aether, a n d c a u fe it t o f w e l l o r ( h r i n k a c c o r d i n g l y . For
“ t h o u g h c o m m o n w a t e r w ill f c a r c e ( h r i n k b y c o m p r e f i i o n , a n d f w e l l b y r e l a x -
“ a tio n , y e t ( f o fa r as my o b f e r v a t i o n r e a c h e s ) f p i r i t o f w i n e a n d o il w ill ; a n d
“ M r . B o y l e ’s e x p e r i m e n t o f a t a d p o l e ( h r i n k i n g v e r y m u c h b y h a r d c o m p r e f -
“ f i n g th e w a t e r , in w h i c h it f w a m , is an a r g u m e n t , t h a t a n i m a l j u i c e s d o t h e
** f a m e . A n d as f o r t h e ir v a r i o u s p r e flio n b y t h e a m b i e n t aether, it is p l a i n ,
“ t h a t t h a t m u d be m o r e o r !efs a c c o r d i n g l y as th e re is m o r e o r lefs aether w i t h -
“ in, to fu fla in a n d c o u n t e r p o i f e th e p reffu re o f t h a t w i t h o u t . I f b o t h te th ers
“ w e r e e q u a l l y d e n fe , th e m u f c l e w o u l d be at l i b e r t y , as i f p r e fle d b y n e i t h e r :
“ i f there w e r e no rether w i t h i n , th e a m b i e n t w o u l d c o m p r e f s it w i t h th e w h o l e
“ fo r c e o f its f p r i n g . I f th e aether w i t h i n w ere t w i c e as m u c h d il a t e d as t h a t
“ w i t h o u t , fo as to h a v e b u t h a l f as m u c h f p r i n g i n e f s , th e a m b i e n t w o u l d h a v e
“ h a l f th e f o r c e o f its fp r i n g i n e f s c o u n t e r p o i f e d t h e r e b y , a n d e x e r c i f e b u t t h e
“ o t h e r h a l f u p o n th e m u f c l e ■, a n d fo in all o t h e r cafes t h e a m b i e n t c o m p r e f l e s
“ the m u f c l e b y th e e x c e fs o f th e f o r c e o f its f p r i n g i n e f s a b o v e t h a t o f th e f p r i n g -
“ inefs o f th e i n c l u d e d . T o v a r y th e c o m p r e f i i o n o f th e m u f c l e th erefore, and
“ fo to fw ell and (h rin k it, th e r e n eed s n o t h i n g b u t t o c h a n g e th e c o n f i d e n c e
“ o f the i n c l u d e d aether-, a n d a v e r y little c h a n g e m a y fu ffic e , i f t h e f p r i n g o f
“ aether be f u p p o f e d v e r y drong, as I t a k e it to be m any degrees d ro n g e r
“ t h a n th a t o f a ir.
“ N o w fo r th e c h a n g i n g th e c o n f i d e n c e o f th e a e t h e r ; f o m e m a y b e r e a d y to
“ g r a n t , t h a t th e fo u l m a y h a v e a n i m m e d i a t e p o w e r over the w h o l e te th er in
“ a n y p a r t o f th e b o d y , to f w e l l o r ( h r i n k i t a t w i l l : b u t th e n h o w d e p e n d s t h e
“ m u fcu la r
16 7 5 .] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y O F L O N D O N . 253
“ n u i f c u l a r m o t i o n o n the n e r v e s ? O thers therefore m ay be m ore apt to th in k

“ it d o n e b y f o m e c e r t a in te th erea l f p i r i t i n c l u d e d w i t h i n th e dura mater, w h i c h
“ th e fo u l m a y h a v e p o w e r to c o n t r a d l o r d i l a t e a t w i l l in a n y m u f c l e , a n d fo
“ c a u f e it to f l o w t h i t h e r t h r o u g h th e n e r v e s . B u t (till th e re is a d i f f i c u l t y , w h y
“ this f o r c e o f th e fo u l u p o n it d o e s n o t t a k e o f f t h e p o w e r o f its f p r i n g i n e f s ,
“ w h e r e b y it f h p u ld f u ft a in , m o r e o r lefs, th e f o r c e o f th e o u t w a r d aether. A
“ t h i r d f u p p o f i t i o n m a y b e, t h a t t h e fo u l has a p o w e r to i n fp ir e a n y m u f c l e w i t h
“ th is fp i r i t , b y i m p e l l i n g it t h i t h e r t h r o u g h t h e n e r v e s . B u t this t o o has its
“ d i f f i c u l t i e s , f o r it r e q u i r e s a f o r c i b l e i n t e n d i n g th e f p r i n g o f t h e t e th e r in t h e
“ m u fc le s, b y preffiure e x e r t e d from th e p a r t s o f th e bra in : a n d it i s .h a r d to
“ c o n c e i v e , h o w fo g r e a t f o r c e c a n b e e x e r c i f e d a m i d f t f o te n d e r m a t t e r as t h e
“ bra in is. A n d b e fid e s , w h y d o e s n o t th is tethereal f p ir it, b e i n g f u b til e n o u g h ,
“ a n d u r g e d w i t h fo g r e a t f o r c e , g o a w a y t h r o u g h t h e d u r a m a t e r a n d f k i n s o f
“ th e m u f c l e ; o r at l e a d f o m u c h o f th e o th e r t e th e r g o o u t t o m a k e w a y f o r
“ th is , w h i c h is c r o u d e d in ? T o t a k e a w a y th e fe d ifficu ltie s is a d i g r e f f i o n ; b u t
“ f e e i n g th e f u b je d l is a d e f e r v i n g o n e , I fh a l l n o t d i c k t o tell y o u h o w I t h i n k
“ it m a y b e d o n e .
“ F i r d t h e n , I f u p p o f e , th e re is f u c h a f p i r i t ; t h a t is, t h a t t h e a n i m a l fp ir its
“ a re n e i t h e r l i k e th e l i q u o r , v a p o u r , o r g a s o f fp ir it o f w i n e ; b u t o f an te th e r e a l
“ n a t u r e , f u b t i l e n o u g h to p e r v a d e t h e a n i m a l j u i c e s , as fr e e l y as th e e l e f t r i c , o r
“ perh aps m a g n e tic , efflu via d o g la fs. A n d to k n o w , h o w the c o a ts o f the
“ b r a i n , n e r v e s , a n d m u f c l e s , m a y b e c o m e a c o n v e n i e n t v e f i e l t o h o l d fo f u b t i l
“ a fp i r i t , y o u m a y c o n f i d e r , h o w l i q u o r s a n d fp ir its are d i f p o f e d to p e rv ad e or
“ n o t p e rv a d e th in gs on oth er acc o u n ts than th eir fu b tilty. W a t e r a n d oil p e r-
“ v a d e w o o d and d o n e , w h ic h q u ic k filv e r d o e s n o t ; and q u ic k filv e r m etals,
“ w h ic h w a ter a n d oil d o n o t : w a ter and acid f p ir it s p e r v a d e fa lt s , w h i c h oil
“ and fp irit o f w in e d o n o t ; and oil and fp irit o f w in e p e rv a d e fu lp h u r, w h ic h
“ w a t e r a n d a c id f p ir it s d o n o t . S o f o m e flu id s , as o il a n d w a t e r , t h o u g h t h e ir
“ p a r ts are in f r e e d o m e n o u g h to m ix w ith one another, yet b y fo m e fecret
“ p r i n c i p l e o f u n f o c ia b le n e f s t h e y k e e p a f u n d e r ; a n d f o m e , t h a t are f o c i a b l e , m a y
b e c o m e u n f o c i a b l e , b y a d d i n g a th i r d t h i n g t o o n e o f t h e m , as w a t e r t o f p ir it
“ o f w i n e , b y d i f l o l v i n g fait o f ta rtar in it. T h e l i k e u n f o c ia b le n e f s m a y b e in
“ sethereal n a tu r e s , as p e r h a p s b e t w e e n t h e aethers in t h e v o r t i c e s o f th e fun a n d
“ p l a n e t s ; a n d t h e r e a fo n , w h y air f l a n d s r a r e r in t h e b o x e s o f f m a ll g l a f s - p i p e s ,
“ a n d aether in t h e p o r e s o f b o d i e s , th a n e l f e w h e r e , m a y b e, n o t w a n t o f f u b -
“ t i l t y , b u t fo c i a b l e n e f s . A n d o n th i s g r o u n d , i f t h e sethereal v i t a l f p i r i t in a
“ m a n b e v e r y f o c i a b l e t o th e m a r r o w a n d j u i c e s , a n d u n f o c ia b le t o th e c o a t s o f
“ t h e b r a i n , n e r v e s , a n d m u f c le s , o r to any th in g lodged in th e p o re s o f t h o f e
“ c o a t s , it m a y b e c o n t a i n e d t h e r e b y , n o t w i t h f t a n d i n g its f u b t i l t y ; e f p e c i a l l y i f
“ w e f u p p o f e n o g r e a t v i o l e n c e d o n e t o it t o f q u e e z e it o u t ; a n d t h a t it m a y n o t
** b e a l t o g e t h e r fo f u b t i l as t h e m a i n b o d y o f te th e r , t h o u g h f u b t i l e n o u g h t o
“ p e r v a d e r e a d ily t h e a n i m a l j u i c e s , a n d t h a t , as a n y o f i t is f p e n t , it is c o n t i n u *
“ a l l y f u p p l i e d b y n e w fp ir it f r o m th e h e a r t.
“ I n t h e n e x t p l a c e , f o r k n o w i n g h o w th i s f p i r i t m a y b e u f e d f o r a n i m a l m o-
“ tio n , y o u m a y c o n fid e r, h o w fo m e th in g s u n fo c ia b le are m a d e fo ciab le b y the
“ m ed iatio n
a- 4 T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E { i 675.
u m ediation o f a th ird . W ater, w h ic h w ill n o t d iffolve c o p p e r, w ill d o it, if
th e c o p p e r b e m e l t e d w i t h f u l p h u r : a q u a f o r t i s , w h i c h w i l l n o t p e r v a d e g o l d ,
‘ ‘ w ill d o it b y a d d i t i o n o f a little fal a r m o n i a c , o r f p i r i t o f f a i t : le a d w i l l n o t
“ m i x in m e l t i n g w i t h c o p p e r , b u t i f a little tin o r a n t i m o n y b e a d d e d , th e y m i x
“ r e a d i l y , a n d p a r t a g a i n o f th e ir o w n a c c o r d , i f th e a n t i m o n y be w a f t e d b y
“ t h r o w i n g fa ltp e te r o r o t h e r w i f e : a n d fo l e a d m e l t e d w i t h f i l v e r q u i c k l y p e r-
“ v a d e s a n d liq u e fie s t h e f i l v e r in a m u c h lefs h e a t th a n is r e q u if it e to m e l t th e
“ f i l v e r a l o n e ; b u t , i f t h e y b e k e p t in t h e t e f t t ill t h a t little f u b f t a n c e , t h a t r e -
“ c o n c i l e d t h e m , b e w a f t e d o r a lt e r e d , t h e y p a r t a g a i n o f t h e ir o w n a c c o r d . A n d ,
“ in l i k e m a n n e r , t h e e t h e r e a l a n i m a l f p i r i t in a m a n m a y b e a m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n
c< th e c o m m o n te ther a n d t h e m u f c u l a r j u i c e s , t o m a k e t h e m m i x m o r e f r e e l y ,
“ a n d f o , b y f e n d i n g a l ittle o f th is f p ir it i n t o a n y m u f c l e , t h o u g h fo l ittle as t o
“ c a u fe n o le n fib le tenfion o f th e m u f c l e b y its o w n f o r c e s y e t , b y r e n d e r i n g th e
“ j u i c e s m o r e fo c i a b l e to th e c o m m o n e x t e r n a l aether, it m a y c a u f e t h a t aether t o
“ p e r v a d e t h e m u f c l e o f its o w n a c c o r d in a m o m e n t m o r e f r e e l y a n d c o p i o u f l y
“ th a n it w o u l d o t h e r w i f e d o , a n d to r e c e d e a g a i n as f r e e l y , f o fo o n as th i s m e d i -
“ a t o r o f fo c ia b le n e fs is r e t r a c e d . W h e n c e , a c c o r d in g to w h a t I faid a b o v e ,
“ w i l l p r o c e e d t h e f w e l l i n g o r f h r i n k i n g o f t h e m u f c l e , a n d c o n f e q u e n t l y t h e a n i-
“ m a l m o t i o n d e p e n d i n g th e re o n .
“ T h u s m a y t h e re fo re t h e f o u l , b y d e t e r m i n i n g th is aethereal a n i m a l f p i r i t o r
“ w i n d i n t o th is o r t h a t n e r v e , p e r h a p s w i t h as m u c h eafe as air is m o v e d in o p e n
“ f p a c e s , c a u f e a ll t h e m o t i o n s w e fee in a n i m a ls : f o r th e m a k i n g w h i c h m o t i o n s
“ f t r o n g , it is n o t n e c e ffa ry , t h a t w e f h o u l d f u p p o f e t h e te ther w i t h i n t h e m u f c l e
“ v e r y m u c h c o n d e n fe d o r rarified b y this m e a n s , b u t o n l y that its f p r i n g is fo
“ v e r y g r e a t , t h a t a li t t l e a lt e r a tio n o f its d e n f i t y fh a ll c a u f e a g r e a t a lt e r a tio n in
“ th e p r e f f u r e . A n d w h a t is faid o f m u f c u l a r m o t i o n , m a y b e a p p l i e d to t h e m o -
“ tio n o f th e h e a r t, o n l y w i t h th i s d i f f e r e n c e , t h a t t h e f p i r i t is n o t fen t t h i t h e r ,
“ as i n t o o t h e r m u f c le s , b u t c o n t i n u a l l y g e n e r a t e d t h e r e b y t h e f e r m e n t a t i o n o f
“ th e ju ic e s , w i t h w h i c h its ftefii is r e p l e n i l h e d , a n d as it is g e n e r a t e d , let o u t b y
“ ftarts in t o th e brain t h r o u g h f o m e c o n v e n i e n t d u d l u s t o perform thofe m otions
“ in o t h e r m u f c le s b y i m p r e f i i o n , w h i c h it d i d in th e h e a r t b y its g e n e r a t i o n .
“ F o r I fee n o t , w h y th e f e r m e n t in t h e h e a r t m a y n o t raife as fu b til a f p i r i t o u t
“ o f its j u i c e s , t o ca u fe th e fe m o t i o n s , as r u b b i n g d o e s o u t o f a g l a f s , to c a u fe
B oyle
fl e l e f t r i c a t t r a f l i o n , o r b u r n i n g o u t o f f e w e l, to p e n e tra te g l a f s , as M r .
“ has fhevvn, a n d c a lc in e b y c o r r o f i o n m e ta ls m e lte d therein .
“ H i t h e r t o I h a v e b een c o n t e m p l a t i n g t h e n a tu r e o f aether a n d set'hereal f u b -

“ fiances b y th e ir e f f e & s a n d ufes > a n d n o w I c o m e t o j o i n t h e r e w it h th e c o n f i -
“ deratio n o f l i g h t .
“ In the f o u r t h p l a c e t h e r e fo r e , I f u p p o f e l i g h t is n e ith e r aether, n o r its v i b r a t i n g

“ m o t i o n , b u t f o m e t h i n g o f a d iffe r e n t k i n d p r o p a g a t e d f r o m l u c i d b o d i e s . They,
“ th a t w i l l, m a y f u p p o f e it an a g g r e g a t e o f v a r i o u s p e r i p a t e t i c q u a l i t i e s . O thers
“ m a y f u p p o f e it m u l t i t u d e s o f u n i m a g i n a b l e fm aH a n d f w i f t c o r p u f c le s o f v a r i o u s
“ fix es, f p r i n g i n g f r o m f h i n i n g b o d ie s at g r e a t d ifta n c e s o n e a fte r a n o t h e r •, b u t
“ y e t w i t h o u t a n y fen lible i n t e r v a l c f t i m e , a n d c o n t i n u a l l y u rg e d fo rw ard b y a
“ p rin cip le
7
1675.] ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON; 255

cc p r i n c i p l e o f m o t i o n , w h i c h in t h e b e g i n n i n g a cc e le r a te s t h e m , till the r e fifte n c e
“ o f th e scthereal m e d i u m e q u a l t h e f o r c e o f t h a t p r i n c i p l e , m u c h a f t e r th e
“ m a n n e r t h a t b o d i e s let fall in w a t e r are a c c e le r a te d till t h e r e fifta n c e o f th e w a -
“ t e r e q u a ls th e f o r c e o f g r a v i t y . G o d , w h o g a v e a n im a ls f e l f - m o t i o n b e y o n d
“ o u r u n d e r f t a n d i n g , is, w i t h o u t d o u b t , a b l e t o i m p l a n t o t h e r p r i n c i p l e s o f m o *
“ tio n in b o d i e s , w h i c h w e m a y u n d e r d a n d as little. S o m e w o u l d r e a d ily g r a n t
“ th is m a y b e a fp ir itu a l o n e ; y e t a m e c h a n i c a l o n e m i g h t b e ( h e w n , d i d n o t I
“ t h i n k it b ette r t o pafs it b y . B u t t h e y , t h a t l i k e n o t th is , m a y lu p p o f e l i g h t
“ a n y o t h e r c o r p o r e a l e m a n a t i o n , o r a n y i m p u l l 'e o r m o t i o n o f a n y o t h e r m e d i u m
“ o r asthereal lp ir it d i f f u f e d t h r o u g h t h e m a in b o d y o f te th e r , o r w h a t e lle t h e y
“ c a n i m a g i n e p r o p e r f o r this p u r p o f e . T o a v o id d ifp u te , and m a k e th is h y p o -
“ thefis g e n e r a l , let e v e r y m a n h ere t a k e h is f a n c y : o n l y , w h a t e v e r l i g h t b e , I
“ f u p p o f e , it c o n f i d s o f r a y s d i f f e r i n g f r o m o n e a n o t h e r in c o n t i n g e n t c i r c u m -
tl d a n c e s , as b i g n e f s , f o r m , o r v i g o u r ; l i k e as th e fa n d s o n th e (h o r e , t h e w a v e s
“ o f t h e fea, t h e f a ce s o f m e n , a n d a ll o t h e r n a t u r a l t h i n g s o f th e f a m e k i n d
“ d i f f e r ; it b e i n g a l m o f t i m p o f l i b l e f o r a n y f o r t o f t h i n g s t o b e fo u n d w i t h o u t
“ fom e con tin gen t variety. A n d f u r t h e r , I w o u l d f u p p o f e i t d i v e r f e , f r o m the;
“ vibration s of t h e te th e r , b e c a u f e (b e fid e s , that w e r e it th e fe v i b r a t i o n s , it
“ o u g h t a l w a y s t o v e r g e c o p i o u f l y in c r o o k e d lin e s in t o t h e d a r k o r q u i e f c e n t
“ m e d i u m , d e f t r o y i n g all f h a d o w s ; a n d t o c o m p l y r e a d i l y w i t h a n y c r o o k e d p o r e s
“ o r p a f l a g e s , as f o u n d s d o , ) I fee n o t h o w a n y fu p e rfic ie s (a s t h e fide o f a g l a f s
“ p r i f m , o n w h i c h t h e r a y s w i t h i n are i n c i d e n t a t a n a n g l e o f a b o v e f o r t y d e -
“ grees) can be totally o p ak e. F o r t h e v i b r a t i o n s b e a t i n g a g a i n d the r e fra d t-
“ i n g c o n f i n e o f th e rar e r and d e n f e r aether m u f t n e e d s m a k e th a t plian t fu p e r-
d rie s u n d u la te , and thofe u n du lation s w ill d i r u p and p r o p a g a te vib ra tio n s bn
“ t h e o t h e r f id e . A n d f u r t h e r , h o w l i g h t , i n c i d e n t o n v e r y t h i n (k in s o r p la te s
“ o f a n y tran fparent b o d y , fh o u ld , fo r m a n y f u c c e f i i v e t h i c k n e f i e s o f th e p l a t e
“ in a r i t h m e t i c a l p r o g r e f i i o n , b e a l t e r n a t e l y refledted a n d t r a n f m i t t e d , as I fin d
“ it is, p u z z l e s m e as m u c h . F o r , t h o u g h t h e a r i t h m e t i c a l p r o g r e f ii o n o f t h o f e
“ t h i c k n e f i e s , w h i c h refledt a n d t r a n f m i t t h e r a y s a l t e r n a t e l y , a r g u e s , t h a t it d e -
“ p e n d s u p o n th e n u m b e r o f v i b r a t i o n s b e t w e e n th e t w o fu p e rfic ie s o f t h e p l a t e ,
“ w h e t h e r t h e r a y (h a ll b e r eflected o r t r a n f m i t t e d : y e t I c a n n o t fee, h o w t h e
“ n u m b e r f h o u l d v a r y t h e cafe , b e it g r e a t e r o r le fs , w h o l e o r b r o k e n , u n le f s
“ l i g h t b e f u p p o f e d f o m e t h i n g e lfe t h a n th e fe v i b r a t i o n s . S o m e th in g indeed
“ I c o u l d f a n c y t o w a r d s h e l p i n g t h e t w o l a f t d i f f i c u l t i e s , b u t n o t h i n g w h i c h I fee
“ not in efficien t.
“ F i f t h l y , i t is t o b e f u p p o f e d , t h a t l i g h t a n d aether m u t u a l l y adt u p o n o n e
“ a n o t h e r , aether in r e f r a d t i n g l i g h t , a n d l i g h t in w a r m i n g a e t h e r ; a n d t h a t t h e
“ d e n f e f t aether adts m o d f t r o n g l y . W h e n a ray therefore m o v e s th r o u g h tether
“ o f u n e v e n d en fit'y , I f u p p o f e it m o d p r e f i e d , u r g e d , o r adted u p o n b y t h e m e -
“ d i u m o n t h a t fid e t o w a r d s t h e d e n fe r aether, a n d r e c e iv e s a c o n t i n u a l im (.u lfe o r
“ p l y f r o m t h a t fid e t o r e c e d e t o w a r d s t h e r a r e r , a n d f o is a c c e l e r a t e d , i f it m o v e
“ th a t w a y , o r retarded, i f the c o n tra ry . O n th is g r o u n d , i f a r a y m o v e
“ o b l i q u e l y t h r o u g h f u c h an u n e v e n l y d e n f e m e d i u m ( t h a t i s , o b l i q u e l y to t h o f e
“ i m a g i n a r y f u p e r f i c i e s , w h i c h ru n t h r o u g h t h e e q u a l l y d e n f e p a r t s o f t h e m e -
“ d i u m , a n d m a y b e c a l l e d t h e r e f r a d t i n g fu p e rfic ie s ) it m u d b e i n c u r v e d , as it
“ is
256 TH E H I S T O R Y OF T H E |j 675,
“ is f o u n d t o b e , b y o b f e r v a t i o n in w a t e r *, w h o f e l o w e r p a r t s w e r e m a d e g r a d u -
“ a ll y m o r e f a it , a n d fo m o r e d e n fe t h a n t h e u p p e r . A n d th is m a y b e th e g r o u n d
“ o f a ll r e f r a c t i o n a n d r e f l e x i o n : f o r as t h e rar e r a i r w i t h i n a f m a l l g l a f s - p i p e ,
“ a n d t h e d e n f e r w i t h o u t , are n o t d i f t i n g u i f h e d b y a m e e r m a t h e m a t i c a l fu p e r -
“ ficie s, b u t h a v e a i r b e t w e e n t h e m , a t t h e o r i f i c e o f t h e p i p e , r u n n i n g t h r o u g h
“ a ll i n t e r m e d i a t e d e g r e e s o f d e n f i t y : fo I f u p p o f e t h e r e f r a c t i n g fu p e rfic ie s o f
“ te th e r , b e t w e e n u n e q u a l l y d e n fe m e d i u m s , t o b e n o t a m a t h e m a t i c a l o n e ; b u t
“ o f f o m e b r e a d t h , t h e aether t h e r e in , at th e o r ifice s b f t h e p o re s o l th e fo l i d b o d y ,
“ b e i n g o f all i n t e r m e d i a t e d e g r e e s o f d e n f i t y b e t w e e n th e rarer a n d d e n f e r aethe-
“ re a l m e d i u m s ; a n d t h e refraCtion I c o n c e i v e t o p r o c e e d f r o m t h e c o n t i n u a l
“ i n c u r v a t i o n o f t h e r a y a ll t h e w h i l e it is p a l l i n g t h e p h y f i c a l fu p e rfic ie s . Now,
“ i f t h e m o t i o n o f t h e r a y b e f u p p o f e d in th is p a f i a g e t o b e in c r e a fe d o r d i m i -
“ n i l h e d in a c e r ta in p r o p o r t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e o f t h e d e n f i t i e s o f th e
“ r e th e rea l m e d i u m s , a n d th e a d d i t i o n o r d e t r a c t i o n o f t h e m o t i o n b e r e c k o n e d
“ in t h e p e r p e n d i c u l a r f r o m t h e r e f r a f t i n g fu p e r f i c i e s , as it o u g h t t o b e , t h e fines
“ o f i n c i d e n c e a n d r e fra ctio n w i l l b e p r o p o r t i o n a l a c c o r d i n g t o w h a t D es C a r t e s
“ has d em o n ftrated .
“ T h e ray th erefo re, in p a fiin g o u t o f th e rarer m e d iu m in to th e denfer,

“ i n c lin e s c o n t i n u a l l y m o r e a n d m o r e t o w a r d s p a r a i l e l i f m w i t h t h e r e f r a c t i n g f u -
cc p e r f ic ie s •, a n d i f t h e d i f f e r i n g d e n fitie s o f t h e m e d i u m s b e n o t fo g r e a t , n o r th e
<c i n c i d e n c e o f t h e r a y fo o b l i q u e , as t o m a k e it p a r a l l e l t o t h a t fu p e rfic ie s b e f o r e
“ it g e t s t h r o u g h , th e n it g o e s t h r o u g h a n d is r e fra C te d ; b u t if, t h r o u g h t h e a f o r e -
*e faid c a u f e s , t h e r a y b e c o m e p a r a lle l t o t h a t fu p e rfic ie s b e f o r e i t c a n g e t t h r o u g h ,
“ th e n it mull: tu r n b a c k a n d b e reflected. T h u s , fo r inftan ce, m a y b e o b ferve d
“ in a t r i a n g u l a r g l a f s - p r i f m O E F , t h a t th e r a y s A »,
t h a t fe n d o u t o f th e g l a f s i n t o a ir , d o , b y i n c l i n i n g
“ t h e m m o r e a n d m o r e t o th e r e f r a C t i n g f u p e r f i c i e s , e m e r g e
“ m o r e a n d m o r e o b l i q u e l y till t h e y b e i n f in it e ly o b l i q u e ;
“ t h a t is, in a m a n n e r p a r a lle l t o t h e f u p e r f i c i e s , w h i c h h a p -
“ p e n s w h e n th e a n g le o f i n c i d e n c e is a b o u t f o r t y d e g r e e s ;
“ a n d t h e n , i f t h e y b e a little m o r e in c lin e d are all re fle c te d ,
“ as at A V x , b e c o m i n g , I f u p p o f e , p a r a lle l t o t h e fu p e rfic ie s b e f o r e t h e y c a n g e t
“ t h r o u g h it. E e t A B D C re p re s e n t t h e rar e r m e d i u m ; E F H G t h e d e n ie r ,
“ C D F E th e fp a c e b e t w e e n t h e m , o r re-
“ f r a C t i n g p h y f i c a l f u p e r f i c i e s , in w h i c h th e
** aether is o f a ll. i n t e r m e d i a t e d e g r e e s o f
“ d en fity, from th e rareft te th e r a t C D ,
“ to th e d e n f e l t , a t E F ; A m n L a r a y , C
p r 1^ y
“ A m its i n c i d e n t p a r t , m n its i n c u r v a t i o n g
b y th e r e f r a c t i n g fu p e rfic ie s , a n d n L its
‘ ‘ e m e r g e n t p a r t. N o w , i f th e r a y A m b e
fo m u c h i n c u r v e d as t o b e c o m e a t its
e m e r g e n c e n, as n e a r l y as m a y b e, p a r a l-
lei t o C D , it is p l a i n , t h a t i f t h a t r a y
«' h a d been i n c i d e n t a l ittle m o r e o b l i q u e l y , ^
> See Mr. H ooke’s Micrographia, where he fpeakj of the inflexion of rays.
“ it
16751 ROYAL SOCIETY OF.LONDON. 257

" it m u f t h a v e b e c o m e p a r a l l e l t o C D , b e f o r e it h a d a r r i v e d at E F , th e f u r t h e r
“ fid e o f th e r e f r a d i n g fu p e rfic ie s ; a n d fo c o u l d h a v e g o t n o nearer t o E F , b u t
“ m u f t h a v e tu r n e d b a c k b y f u r t h e r i n c u r v a t i o n , a n d b een r e f l e d e d , as it i s . r e -
“ p r e f e n t e d at A f* V * . A n d th e l i k e w o u l d h a v e h a p p e n e d , i f th e d e n f i t y
“ o f t h e te th er h a d f u r t h e r in c r e a fe d f r o m E F t o P Q j fo t h a t P Q J r i G m i g h t
“ b e a d e n fe r m e d i u m than E F H G w a s fu p p o f e d ; f o r th e n t h e r a y , in p a ff-
“ i n g f r o m m to n, b e i n g fo m u c h i n c u r v e d , as a t n to b e c o m e p a r a l l e l t o C D
“ or P it is i m p o f ii b l e i t f h o u l d e v e r g e t n e a rer to P Q , b u t m u f t at n b e -
‘c g i n b y f u r t h e r i n c u r v a t i o n to tu r n b a c k , a n d f o b e r e f l e d e d . A n d b ecaufe, i f
“ a r e f r a d e d r a y , as n L , b e m a d e i n c id e n t , t h e i n c i d e n t , A . m, l h a ll b e c o m e th e
“ r e f r a d e d ; and th e re fo re , i f th e r a y A V , a fte r it is a r r iv e d a t V , w h e r e I
“ f u p p o f e it p a r a lle l t o th e r e t r a d i n g fu p e rfic ie s , l h o u l d b e r e f l e d e d p e rp e n d ic u ^
“ l a r l y b a c k , it w o u l d r e t u r n b a c k in th e line o f i n c id e n c e Y ^ A . T herefo re
“ g o i n g f o r w a r d , it m u f t g o f o r w a r d in f u c h a n o t h e r lin e , V 7r A , b o t h cafes b e -
“ i n g a l i k e , a n d fo b e r e f l e d e d at an a n g l e , e q u a l t o t h a t o f in c id e n c e .
“ T h i s m a y b e th e c a u f e a n d m a n n e r o f r e f l e d i o n , w h e n l i g h t t e n d s f r o m th e
** r a r e r t o w a r d s th e d e n f e r aether : b u t t o k n o w , h o w it l h o u l d b e r e f l e d e d ,
“ w h e n it fta n d s f r o m th e d e n fe r t o w a r d s th e rarer, y o u a re f u r t h e r t o c o n f i d e r ,
“ h o w flu id s n ea r th e ir fu p e rficies are lefs p l i a n t a n d y i e l d i n g th a n in t h e i r m o r e
“ i n w a r d p a r t s ; a n d , i f f o r m e d in t o t h i n p la t e s , o r Ih e lls , t h e y b e c o m e m u c h
“ m o r e f t i f f a n d te n a cio u s t h a n o t h e r w i f e . T h u s , t h i n g s , w h i c h r e a d i l y fall in
“ w a t e r , i f le t fa ll u p o n a b u b b l e o f w a t e r , t h e y d o n o t e a f i l y b r e a k t h r o u g h i t ,
“ b u t a r c a p t t o Hide d o w n b y th e fides o f it, i f th e y b e n o t t o o b i g a n d h e a v y ;
“ S o , i f t w o w e l l p o l i l h e d c o n v e x g l a f i e s , g r o u n d o n v e r y l a r g e fp h e r e s , b e l a id
“ o n e u p o n a n o t h e r , t h e air b e t w e e n t h e m ea fily r e c e d e s , till t h e y a l m o f t t o u c h ;
“ b u t th e n b e g i n s to r e fill f o m u c h , t h a t t h e w e i g h t o f t h e u p p e r g l a f s is t o o
“ l i t t l e to b r i n g t h e m t o g e t h e r fo as to m a k e th e b l a c k , m e n t i o n e d in t h e o t h e r
“ p a p e r s I fen d y o u , a p p e a r in th e m i d f t o f th e r i n g s o f c o l o u r s : a n d , i f t h e
“ g l a f i e s b e p la in , t h o u g h n o b r o a d e r th a n a t w o - p e n c e , a m a n w i t h h is w h o l e
“ f t r e n g t h is n o t a b le t o prefs all th e air o u t f r o m b e t w e e n t h e m , f o as t o m a k e
“ them fu lly tou ch. Y o u m a y o b f e r v e a lfo , t h a t i n f e d s w i l l w a l k u p o n w a t e r
“ w i t h o u t w e t t i n g th e ir f e e t , a n d th e w a t e r b e a r i n g t h e m u p ; a lf o m o t e s f a l -
“ l i n g u p o n w a t e r w i l l o f t e n lie l o n g u p o n it w i t h o u t b e i n g w e t t e d : a n d f o ,
“ I f u p p o f e , aether in th e c o n f i n e o f t w o m e d i u m s is lefs pliant a n d y i e l d i n g
“ th a n in o t h e r p la c e s , a n d fo m u c h the lefs p l i a n t b y h o w m u c h t h e m e d i u m s
“ d i f f e r in d e n f i t y : f o t h a t in p a l l i n g o u t o f d e n f e r te th e r in t o r a re r, w h e n th e r e
“ r e m a i n s b u t a v e r y l i t t l e o f th e d e n fe r aether to b e p a f t t h r o u g h , a r a y fin d s
“ m o r e th a n o r d i n a r y d i f f i c u l t y t o g e t t h r o u g h ; and fo g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y , w h e r e th e
“ m e d i u m s are o f v e r y d i f f e r i n g d e n f i t y , as t o b e r e f l e d e d b y i n c u r v a t i o n , a fte r
“ t h e m a n n e r d e f c r i b e d a b o v e ; th e p a rts o f aether o n t h a t f id e , w h e r e t h e y are
“ lefs p l i a n t a n d y i e l d i n g , a d i n g u p o n th e r a y m u c h a fte r th e m a n n e r t h a t t h e y
“ w o u l d d o w e r e t h e y d e n fe r th e re th a n o n th e o th e r f i d e : fi r th e refifta n ce o f
“ th e m e d i u m o u g h t t o h a v e th e fa m e e f f e d o n th e r a y , f r o m w h a t c a u fe f o e v e r
“ it arifes. A n d th is , I fu p p o f e , m a y b e t h e c a u f e o f th e r e f l e d i o n o f q u i c k -
“ f i l v e r , a n d o t h e r m e t a llin e b o d ie s . I t m u f t a lfo c o n c u r to in creafe th e r e f l e d i v e
“ v i r t u e o f t h e f u p e r f i c i e s , w h e n r a y s te n d o u t o f th e rarer m e d i u m i n t o t h e
V ol. III. L 1 “ denfer:
18 8 NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS
258 THE HISTORY OF THE f 1675V

“ d e n f e r : a n d , i n t h a t c a f e t h e r e f o r e , t h e refled tio n h a v i n g a d o u b l e c a u l e , o u g h t
“ t o b e f t r o n g e r t h a n in t h e aether, as it is a p p a r e n t l y . B u t i n r e fr a d tio n , th is r i —
“ g i d t e n a c i t y o r u n p l i a b l e n e f s o f t h e f u p e r f ic ie s n e e d n o t b e c o n f i d e r e d , b e c a u fe
“ fo m u c h as t h e r a y is t h e r e b y b e n t in pattin g, t o t h e m o f t t e n a c i o u s a n d r i g i d
“ p a r t o f th e f u p e r f i c i e s , fo m u c h it is t h e r e b y u n b e n t a g a i n in p a t t i n g o n f r o m
“ t h e n c e t h r o u g h th e n e x t p a r ts g r a d u a l l y lefs t e n a c i o u s .
“ T h u s m a y r a y s b e r e f r a c t e d b y f o m e f u p e r f i c i e s , a n d refle c te d b y o t h e r s , b e
M th e m e d i u m t h e y t e n d i n t o , d e n f e r o r rarer. B u t it r e m a i n s 'f u r t h e r t o b e e x -
“ p l a i n e d , h o w r a y s a l i k e i n c i d e n t o n t h e f a m e fu p e rfic ie s ( f u p p o f e o f c r y f t a l , g l a f s ,
“ ■ o r w a t e r ) m a y b e a t t h e f a m e t i m e f o m e r e fra d te d , o t h e r s refledted. A n d for e x -
“ p l a i n i n g th is , I f u p p o f e , t h a t th e r a y s , w h e n t h e y i m p i n g e o n t h e r i g i d r efift-
“ i n g a e t h e r e a l f u p e r f i c i e s , a s t h e y are adted u p o n b y i t , fo t h e y rea dt u p o n , i t a n d
tf c a u f e v i b r a t i o n s in i t , as fto n e s t h r o w n i n t o w a t e r d o i n its f u r f a c e ; a n d t h a t
“ th e fe v i b r a t o n s a r e p r o p a g a t e d e v e r y w a y i n t o b o t h t h e rar e r a n d d e n f e r m e -
d i u m s - , as t h e v i b r a t i o n s o f a ir , w h i c h c a u f e f o u n d , are f r o m a f t r o k e , b u t y e t
w c o n t i n u e f t r o n g e f t w h e r e t h e y b e g a n , a n d a lt e r n a t e l y c o n t r a d t a n d d i l a t e t h e aether
“ in t h a t p h y f i c a l f u p e r fic ie s . F o r it is p l a i n b y t h e h e a t , w h i c h l i g h t p r o d u c e s ipr
C{ b o d i e s , t h a t i t is a b le to. p u t t h e i r p a r t s in m o t i o n , a n d m u c h m o r e t o h e a t a n d
tc p u t in m o t i o n th e m o r e te n d e r aether •, a n d it is m o r e p r o b a b l e , t h a t i t c o jm -
“ m u n ic a t e s m o t i o n t o t h e g r o f s p a r t s o f b o d i e s b y t h e m e d i a t i o n o f aether th a n
u i m m e d i a t e l y •, as f o r i n f t a n c e , in t h e i n w a r d p a r t s o f q u i c k f t l v e r , t i n , f i l v e r ,
u and other v e r y o p a k e bod ies, b y g e n e ia tin g vib ration s, th a t run th r o u g h th e m ,
“ t h a n b y f t r i k i n g th e o u t w a r d p a r ts o n l y , w i t h o u t e n t e r i n g t h e b o d y . T h e f b o c lc
“ o f e v e r y A n g l e r a y m a y g e n e r a t e m a n y t h o u f a n d v i b r a t i o n s , and b y f e n d i n g
“ t h e m all o v e r t h e b o d y , m o v e all th e p a r t s , a n d t h a t p e r h a p s w i t h m o r e m o -
“ d o n t h a n it c o u l d m o v e o n e A n g l e pa rt, b y an i m m e d i a t e f t r o k e ; f o r t h e v j -
“ b r a t i o n s , b y I h a k j n g . e a c h p a r t i c l e b a c k w a r d a n d f o r w a r d , m a y e v e r y time-
“ in c r e a fe its m o t i o n , as a r i n g e r d o e s a b e l l b y o f t e n p u l l i n g i t , a n d f o at. l e n g t h
“ m o v e t h e p a r t i c l e s t o a v e r y g r e a t d e g r e e o f a g i t a t i o n , w h i c h n e i t h e r th e A m p l e
“ f h o c k o f a r a y , n o r a n y o t h e r m o t i o n in tl>e t e t h e r , b e fid e s a v i b r a t i n g - o n e c o u l d
“ do. T h u s in a ir f h u t u p in- a v e f i e l , t h e m o t i o n o f it s p a r t s c a u f e d b y heat,.
how violent foever, is unable to move the bodies hung in.it, with either a trem-
“ bling or progreffive motion : but if air be put into a vibrating motion by beat-
“ ing a drum or two, it fhakes glafs-windows, the whole body o f a man, and
“ other maffy things, efpecially thofe o f a congruous tone : yea I have obferved it
“ manifeftly fhake under my feet a cellared free-ftone floor o f a large hall, fo as,
“ I believe, the immediate ftroke o f fiv&hundred drumfticks could not have done,.
“ unlefs perhaps quickly fucceeding one another at equal intervals o f time* iE the-
“ real vibrations are therefore the beft means by which fuch. a fubtile agent as
“ light can Ihake the grofs. particles, o f folid- bodies to heat them : and fo fup-
“ pofing that light, impinging on a refradtingor refledting aethereal fuperficies, puts
“ it into a vibrating motion, that phyfical fuperficies being by the perpetual ap-
^ pulfe of rays always kept in a vibrating motion, and the aether therein conti-
“ nually expanded and comprefled by turns; if a ray o f light impinge upon it,
“ while it is much comprefled, I fuppofe it is then too denfe and ftiff to let the ray
“ pafs
.16 7 5 .] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y O F L O N D O N . 259
“ p a fs t h r o u g h , a n d fo r e fle & s i t ; b u t t h e r a y s , t h a t i m p i n g e o n it a t o t h e r t i m e s ,
cc w h e n it is e ith e r e x p a n d e d b y th e i n t e r v a l o f t w o v i b r a t i o n s , o r n o t t o o m u c h
“ c o m p r e f i e d and c o n d e n f e d , g o t h r o u g h and are refradted.
“ T h e f e m a y b e t h e ca u fe s o f refradlions a n d r e fle tt io n s in all cafes 5 b u r , f o r

“ u n d e r f t a n d i n g h o w th e y c o m e t o b e fo r e g u l a r , it is fu r t h e r t o be c o n f i d e r e d ,
“ t h a t in a h e a p o f f a n d , a l t h o u g h th e fu r f a c e b e r u g g e d , y e t i f w a t e r b e p o u r e d
“ o n it t o fill its po res, t h e w a te r , fo foo n as its p o res are fille d , w ill e v e n l y o v e r -
“ fp r e a d t h e fu r f a c e , a n d fo m u c h th e m o r e e v e n l y , as th e fand is fin e r : f o , a l-
“ t h o u g h th e fu r fa c e o f all b o d ie s , e v e n th e m o f t p o li l h e d , b e r u g g e d , as I c o n -
“ c e i v e , y e t w h e r e th a t r u g g e d n e f s is n o t t o o g r o f s a n d co a rfe , th e r e fr a d t in g sethe-
real fu p e rfic ie s m a y e v e n l y o v e r f p r e a d it. In p o l i f h i n g g la f s o r m e t a l, it is n o t
t o b e i m a g i n e d , t h a t fa n d , p u t t y , o r o t h e r f r e t t i n g p o w d e r s , f h o u l d w e a r t h e
“ f u r f a c e fo r e g u l a r l y , as to m a k e th e f r o n t o f e v e r y p a r ticle e x a d t l y p la in , a n d
“ a ll th o fe p la in s l o o k th e fa m e w a y , as t h e y o u g h t to d o in w e l l p o lilh e d b o d ie s ,
“ w e r e reflection p e r f o r m e d b y th e ir p a rts : b u t t h a t th o fe f r e t t i n g p o w d e r s f h o u l d
“ w e a r th e b o d ie s firft t o a co a rfe r u g g e d n e f s , fu ch .a s is fen fible, a n d th e n to a finer
“ a n d finer r u g g e d n e f s , t ill it b e fo fine th a t th e aethereal fu p e rfic ie s e v e n l y o v e r -
“ fp r e a d s it, and fo m a k e s th e b o d y p u t o n th e a p p e a r a n c e o f a p o l i l h , is a v e r y n a -
M t u r a l a n d i n t e l l i g i b l e f u p p o f i t i o n . S o in flu id s , it is n o t w e l l to be c o n c e i v e d , th a t
“ t h e f u r fa c e s o f th e ir p a rts f h o u ld b e all p la in , and th e p la in s o f th e fu p e rfic ia l p a rts
“ a l w a y s k e p t l o o k i n g a ll th e fa m e w a y , n o t w i t h f t a n d i n g t h a t t h e y are in p e r p e tu a l
“ m o t i o n . A n d y e t w i t h o u t the fe t w o f u p p o f i t i o n s , t h e fu p e rfic ie s o f flu id s c o u l d
M n o t b e fo r e g u l a r l y r e f l e x i v e as t h e y are, w e r e the re fle x io n d o n e b y th e parts t h e m -
“ f e l v e s , a n d n o t b y an asthereal fu p e rfic ie s e v e n l y o v e r f p r e a d i n g th e fluid.
“ F u r t h e r , c o n c e r n i n g th e r e g u l a r m o t i o n o f l i g h t , it m i g h t b e f u f p e & e d , w h e -
“ t h e r t h e v a r i o u s v i b r a t i o n s o f the f lu id , t h r o u g h w h i c h it p a fle s , m a y n o t m u c h
“ d i f l u r b i t : b u t t h a t f u f p ic io n , I f u p p o f e , w i l l v a n i f h , b y c o n f i d e r i n g , t h a t
“ i f a t a n y t i m e t h e f o r e m o f t p a r t o f an o b l i q u e w a v e b e g i n t o tu r n it a w r y ,
“ t h e h i n d e r m o f t p a r t , b y a c o n t r a r y a f t i o n , mufi: fo o n fet it f t r a i g h t a g a i n .
“ L a f t l y , b e c a u f e w i t h o u t d o u b t t h e r e are, in e v e r y tr a n f p a r e n t b o d y , p o re s o f
“ v a r i o u s f i z e s , a n d I fa id , t h a t te ther ftands a t t h e g r e a t e f t ra r ity in th e fm a lle ft.
“ p o r e s - , h e n c e t h e te th er i n e v e r y p o r e f h o u l d b e o f , a d i f f e r i n g r a r i t y , arid fo
“ l i g h t b e refradted in its p a l f a g e o u t o f e v e r y p o re in t o th e n e x t , w h i c h w o u l d
“ c a u f e a g r e a t c o n f u f io n , a n d fp o il th e b o d y ’ s tr a n f p a r e n c y . B u t confid erin g that
“ t h e te th e r , in all d e n fe b o d i e s , is a g ita te d b y c o n t i n u a l v i b r a t i o n s , and the fe v i -
“ b r a t i o n s c a n n o t b e p e r f o r m e d w i t h o u t f o r c i n g th e p arts o f te ther f o r w a r d a n d
“ backw ard, f r o m o n e p o r e t o a n o t h e r , b y a k i n d o f t r e m o r , fo t h a t th e te th er,
“ which one moment is in a greater pore, is the next moment forced into a lefs ;
“ and on the contrary, this mull evenly fpread the tether into all the pores not
exceeding fome certain bignefs, fuppofe the breadth o f a vibration, and fo make
“ it of an even denfity throughout the tranfparent body, agreeable to the middle
“ fort o f pores. But where the pores exceed a certain bignefs, I fuppofe
“ the aether fuits its denfity to the bignefs of the pore, or to the medium within
i t ; and fo being of a diverfe denfity from the EEther that furrounds it, refraCts
L i z “ or
160 THE H ISTORY OF THE [iff;*

« o r reflects l i g h t in its f u p e r f i c i e s , a n d f o m a k e t h e b o d y , w h e r e m a n y f u c h in -
“ t e r ftic e s a r e , a p p e a r o p a k e . ”
S o m e o f th e m em bers ta k in g p a rticu la r n otice, a m o n g o th er th in g s , o f an

e x p e r i m e n t m e n t i o n e d in th is h y p o t h e f i s , d e f i r e d , t h a t it m i g h t b e t r i e d ; v i z .
t h a t h a v i n g l a i d u p o n a t a b l e a r o u n d p i e c e o f g l a f s , a b o u t t w o i n c h e s b r o a d , in a
b ra fs r i n g ; f o t h a t t h e g l a f s m i g h t b e o n e t h i r d p a r t o f an in c h f r o m t h e t a b l e i
a n d t h e n r u b b i n g t h e g l a f s b r i f k l y , t ill f o m e l i t t l e f r a g m e n t s o f p a p e r la id o n t h e
ta b le u n der th e gla fs b e g a n to b e a ttrad led , and m o v e n im b ly to a n d fro ; after
h e h a d d o n e r u b b i n g t h e g l a f s , t h e p a p e r s w o u l d c o n t i n u e a p r e t t y w h i l e in v a
rio u s m o tio n s , fo m e tim e s le a p in g u p to th e g la fs , and re ttin g there a w h ile, then
l e a p i n g d o w n , a n d r e t t i n g t h e re , a n d th e n l e a p i n g u p a n d d o w n a g a i n , a n d th i s
f o m e t i m e s in l in e s f e e m i n g p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e t a b l e , f o m e t i m e s in o b l i q u e
o n e s ; f o m e t i m e s a lf o l e a p i n g u p in o n e a r c h , a n d l e a p i n g d o w n in a n o t h e r d i v e r s
t i m e s t o g e t h e r , w i t h o u t f e n f i b l y r e t t i n g b e t w e e n ; f o m e t i m e s f k i p p i n g in a b o w
f r o m o n e p a r t o f t h e g l a f s t o a n o t h e r , w i t h o u t t o u c h i n g th e t a b l e , a n d f o m e t i m e s
h a n g i n g b y a c o r n e r , a n d t u r n i n g o f t e n a b o u t v e r y n i m b l y , as i f t h e y h a d b e e n
c a r r i e d a b o u t in t h e m i d d l e o f a w h i r l w i n d •, a n d b e i n g o t h e r w i f e v a r i o u f l y m o v e d ,
e v e r y p a p er w ith a differen t m o tio n . A n d u p o n A i d i n g his f i n g e r u p o n t h e u p
p e r fid e o f t h e g l a f s , t h o u g h n e it h e r t h e g l a f s n o r t h e i n c l o f e d air b e l o w w e r e m o v e d
t h e r e b y , y e t w o u l d t h e p a p e r s , as t h e y h u n g u n d e r t h e g l a f s , r e c e i v e f o m e n e w
m o t i o n , i n c l i n i n g th i s o r t h a t w a y , a c c o r d i n g as h e m o v e d h is f i n g e r .
T h i s e x p erim e n t M r . N ew ton p rop ofed to b e varied w ith a large r glafs p la ced

Farther f r o m t h e t a b l e , a n d to m a k e u fe o f b it s o f l e a f g o l d in f t e a d o f p a p e r s v
t h i n k i n g , t h a t th i s w o u l d f u c c e e d m u c h b e t t e r , f o as p e r h a p s to m a k e th e l e a f g o l d
r if e a n d f a ll in fp ir a l lin e s, o r w h i r l f o r a t i m e i n t h e a ir, w i t h o u t t o u c h i n g e i t h e r
th e ta b le o r glafs.
I t w a s o r d e r e d , t h a t th is e x p e r i m e n t f h o u l d b e t r i e d a t t h e n e x t m e e t i n g 5 a n d
M r . H ooke p r o m ife d to p rep are it f o r th a t m e e tin g ,
M r . O l d e n b u r g w a s d efired t o en q u ire b y letter o f M r . N e w t o n , w h e th e r

h e w o u l d c o n f e n t , t h a t a c o p y m i g h t b e t a k e n o f h is p a p e r s , f o r t h e b e t t e r c o n f i -
d eration o f t h e ir c o n t e n t s .
M r . O l d e n b u r g prefented fr o m M r . M a r t y n , th e p rin ter t o th e S o c ie t y ,

M r . W i l l u g h b y ’ s Qrnithologia, p r i n t e d a t L o n d o n , 1 6 7 6 , in f o l .
December 16. M r. N e w t o n ’s e x p e r i m e n t o f g l a f s r u b b e d t o c a u f e v a r i o u s m o
tio n s in b it s o f p a p e r u n d e r n e a t h , w a s t r i e d , b u t d i d n o t f u c c e e d in t h o f e c i r c u m -
f ta n c e s , w i t h w h i c h i t w a s t r i e d . T h i s tria l w a s m a d e u p o n t h e r e a d i n g o f a l e t t e r
o f his t o M r . O l d e n b u r g , d a t e d a t C a m b r i d g e , 1 4 t h D e c e m b e r , 1 6 7 5 “ , in
w h i c h h e g i v e s f o m e m o r e p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t io n s a b o u t t h a t e x p e r i m e n t .
T h e l e t t e r w a s as f o l l o w s :
" Letter-book, vol. vli. p, s8o.
The
“ T h e n o t i c e y o u g a v e m e o f th e R o y a l S o c i e t y ’ s i n t e n d i n g to fee th e e x p e r i -
“ m e n t o f g l a f s r u b b e d , t o c a u f e v a r i o u s m o t i o n s in b it s o f p a p e r u n d e r n e a t h ,
“ p u t m e u p o n r e c o l l e c t i n g m y f e l f a little f u r t h e r a b o u t i t ; a n d th e n r e m e m b r i n g ,
“ t h a t , i f o n e e d g e o f th e b rafs h o o p w a s laid d o w n w a r d , th e g l a f s w a s as n ea r
a g a i n t o t h e t a b l e as it w a s w h e n th e o t h e r e d g e w a s laid d o w n w a r d , a n d th a t
“ t h e p a p e r s p l a y e d b e l t w h e n th e g l a f s w a s n ea reft t o th e t a b l e •, 1 b e g a n t o f u f -
“ p e e l , t h a t 1 h a d fe t d o w n a g r e a t e r d i f t a n c e o f th e g l a f s f r o m th e t a b le th a n I
“ f h o u l d h a v e d o n e ; f o r in f e t t i n g d o w n t h a t e x p e r i m e n t , I t r u f t e d to t h e i d e a 1
“ h a d o f t h e b ig n e f s o f t h e h o o p , in w h i c h I m i g h t c a fily b e m i f t a k e n , h a v i n g
“ n o t feen it o f a l o n g t i m e . A n d th is f u f p ic i o n w a s in c r e a f e d b y t r y i n g t h e e x -
“ p e r i m e n t w i t h an o b j e d l g l a f s o f a te le fco p e , p l a c e d a b o u t th e th ir d p a r t o f an
“ i n c h f r o m t h e t a b l e ; f o r I c o u l d n o t fee t h e p a p e rs p l a y a n y t h i n g n ea r fo w e l l
“ as I h a d feen t h e m f o r m e r l y . W h e r e u p o n I l o o k e d f o r th e o l d h o o p w i t h its
“ g l a f s , a n d a t l e n g t h f o u n d th e h o o p , t h e g l a f s b e i n g g o n e ; b u t b y th e h o o p I
p e rc e iv e d , that, w hen on e e d g e w as tu rn ed d o w n , the g la fs w as a lm o ft the
“ th ir d p a r t o f an i n c h f r o m t h e t a b l e , a n d w h e n t h e o t h e r e d g e wras d o w n ,
“ w h i c h m a d e t h e p a p e r s p l a y f o w e l l , th e g l a f s w a s f c a r c e th e e i g h t h p a r t o f a n
“ i n c h f r o m th e ta b le . T h i s I t h o u g h t fit t o f i g n i f y t o y o u , t h a t , i f t h e e x p e -
“ r i m e n t f u c c e e d n o t w e l l a t t h e d i f t a n c e I fet d o w n , it m a y b e tr ie d a t a lefs
“ d i f t a n c e , a n d t h a t y o u m a y a lt e r m y p a p e r , a n d w r it e in it th e e i g h t h p a r t o f a n
“ i n c h i n f t e a d o f -J. o r ^ o f an i n c h . T h e b its o f p a p e r o u g h t to be v e r y l i t t l e ,
“ a n d o f t h i n p a p e r ; p e r h a p s li t t l e b it s o f t h e w i n g s o f a f l y , o r o t h e r l i g h t f u b -
“ fiances, m a y d o b e tte r t h a n p a p e r . S o m e o f t h e m o t i o n s , as t h a t o f h a n g i n g
“ b y a c o r n e r a n d t w i r l i n g a b o u t , a n d t h a t o f l e a p i n g f r o m o n e p a r t o f th e g l a f s
“ t o a n o t h e r , w i t h o u t t o u c h i n g t h e ta b l e , h a p p e n b u t f e l d o m ; b u t it m a d e m e t a k e
“ th e m o re n otice o f th e m .
“ P r a y p refent m y h u m b le fervice to M r . B o y l e , w h e n y o u fee h im ,, a n d t h a n k s

“ fo r the fa v o u r o f the c o n v erfe I had w ith h im at S p r in g . M y c o n c e i t o f tre-
“ p a n i n g th e c o m m o n aether, as h e w a s p le a fe d to e x p r e f s it, m a k e s m e begin.
“ t o h a v e th e b e t t e r t h o u g h t s o n t h a t he w a s p le a fe d t o e n te r ta in it w i t h a f m i l e .
“ I a m a p t t o t h i n k , t h a t w h e n h e h a s a fet o f e x p e r i m e n t s t o t r y in his a i r - p u m p ,
“ h e w i l l m a k e t h a t o n e , t o fee h o w t h e c o m p r e f l i o n o r r e l a x a t i o n o f a m u f c l e w i l l
“ f h r i n k o r ft,veil, f o f t e n o r h a r d e n , l e n g t h e n o r f h o r t e n it,
“ A s f o r r e g i f t r i n g th e t w o d i f e o u r f e s , y o u m a y d o i t ; o n l y I defire y o u w o u l d
“ f u f p e n d t i l l m y n e x t l e t t e r , in w h i c h I i n t e n d to fet d o w n f o m e t h i n g t o b e a l -
“ t e r e d , a n d f o m e t h i n g t o b e a d d e d in t h e h y p o t h e f i s . ”
I t w a s o rd ered , th a t M r . O ld en bu rg fh o u ld again w rite to M r . N e w t o n , and

a c q u a i n t h i m w i t h t h e w a n t o f f u c ce fs o f his e x p e r i m e n t , a n d defire h i m t o fe n d
h is o w n a p p a r a t u s , w i t h w h i c h h e h a d m a d e i t : as a lf o t o e n q u i r e , w h e t h e r h e
h a d f e c u r e d t h e p a p e r s b e i n g m o v e d f r o m t h e a i r , t h a t m i g h t f o m e w h e r e fteal in.
H e r e u p o n t h e fe q u e l o f his h y p o t h e f i s , t h e firft p a r t o f w h i c h w as read at the

p r e c e d in g m e e tin g s , w as read to the end.
2
“ Thus
162 THE HISTORY OF THE l i £ 75,

“ T h u s m u c h o f r e fr a c tio n , r e f le c tio n , tr a n fp a r e n c y , a n d o p a c i t y ; a n d n o w t o
“ e x p la in c o l o u r s ; I f u p p o f e , t h a t a s b o d ie s o f v a r io u s f iz e s , d e n f i t i e s , o r fe n fa -
“ t i o n s , d o b y p e r c u f lio n o r o t h e r aC tion e x c i t e fo u n d s o f v a r io u s t o n e s , a n d
e o n f e q u e n t ly v ib r a t io n s in t h e air o f v a r io u s b i g n e f s ; fo w h e n t h e r a y s o f
“ l i g h t , b y i m p i n g i n g o n t h e f t i f f r e fr a C tin g f u p e r fic ie s , e x c i t e v ib r a t io n s in t h e
“ a e th e r , t h o fe r a y s , w h a t e v e r th e y b e , as th e y h a p p e n t o d iffe r in m a g n i t u d e ,
“ f tr e n g th o r v i g o u r , e x c i t e v ib r a t io n s o f v a r io u s b ig n e f s ; t h e b i g g e f t , ftr o n g e flr,
*■ o r m o d p o t e n t r a y s , t h e la r g e f t v ib r a t io n s ; a n d o t h e r s fh o r te r , a c c o r d in g t o
“ th e ir b ig n e f s , f t r e n g t h , o r p o w e r : a n d th e r e fo r e t h e -e n d s o f t h e c a p illa m e n t a o f
t! t h e o p t i c n e r v e , w h i c h p a v e o r fa c e t h e r e tin a , b e i n g lu c h r e fr a c tin g f u p e r fi-
“ c i e s , w h e n t h e r a y s i m p i n g e u p o n t h e m , t h e y m u f t th e r e e x c i t e th e fe v ib r a -
t i o n s , w h i c h v ib r a t io n s ( l i k e t h o f e o f fo u n d in a t r u n k o r t r u m p e t ) w i l l r u n
a lo n g t h e a q u e o u s p o r e s o r c r y f ta llin e p it h o f t h e c a p illa m e n t a t h r o u g h t h e
“ o p t i c n e r v e s in t o t h e fe n fo r u m ( w h i c h l i g h t i t f e l f c a n n o t d o ) a n d t h e r e , I f u p -
“ p o f e , affeCt t h e fe n fe w i t h v a r i o u s c o l o u r s , a c c o r d in g t o t h e ir b ig n e f s a n d m i x -
“ t o r e ; t h e b i g g e f t w it h t h e f tr o n g e ft c o lo u r s , r e d s a n d y e l lo w s ; t h e le a ft w it h
“ th e w e a k e f l, b lu e s a n d v i o l e t s ; t h e m id d le w it h g r e e n , a n d a c o n fu fx o n o f
■“ a ll w it h w h i t e , m u c h a fte r t h e m a n n e r , t h a t in t h e fe n fe o f h e a r in g , n a tu r e
“ m a k e s u fe o f a er ea l v ib r a t io n s o f fe v e r a l b ig n e fie s t o g e n e r a t e f o u n d s o f d iv e r s
“ to n e s -; f o r t h e a n a lo g y o f n a tu r e is t o b e o b f e r v e d . A n d f u r th e r , a s t h e
“ h a r m o n y a n d d ifc o r d o f fo u n d s p r o c e e d f r o m t h e p r o p o r t io n s o f t h e a e r e a l v i -
“ b r a t io n s , f o m a y th e h a r m o n y o f f o m e c o l o u r s , a s o f g o l d e n a n d b l u e , a n d t h e
“ d ifc o r d o f o t h e r s , as o f re d a n d b lu e , p r o c e e d f r o m t h e p r o p o r t io n s o f th e a e th e -
** re a l. A n d p o f li b ly c o lo u r m a y b e d i f t i n g u i l h e d in t o it s p r in c ip a l d e g r e e s , r e d ,
•“ o r a n g e , y e l l o w , g r e e n , b lu e , i n d i g o , a n d d e e p v i o l e t , o n t h e fa m e g r o u n d ,
“ t h a t fo u n d w it h in a n e i g h t h is g r a d u a te d i n t o t o n e s . F o r , fo m e years p a ft, th e
“ p r ifm a c ic c o lo u r s b e i n g in a w e ll d a r k e n e d r o o m c a ft p e r p e n d ic u la r ly u p o n
a p a p e r a b o u t t w o a n d t w e n t y f o o t d if t a n t f r o m t h e p r if m , I d e fir e d a fr ie h d
“ t o d r a w w it h a p e n c il lin e s c r o f s t h e i m a g e , o r p illa r o f c o lo u r s , w h e r e e v e r y
“ o n e o f t h e fe v e n a fo r e n a m e d c o lo u r s w a s m o f t f u ll a n d b r ifk , a n d a lf o w h e r e h e
“ j u d g e d t h e tr u e ft c o n fin e s o f t h e m t o b e , w h i l f t I h e ld th e p a p e r f o , t h a t t h e fa id
i m a g e m i g h t fa ll w it h in a c e r ta in c o m p a fs m a r k e d o n it . A n d t h is I d i d , p a r t ly
ts b e c a u f e m y o w n e y e s a re n o t v e r y c r it ic a l in d i f t i n g u i f h i n g c o lo u r s , p a r t ly b e -
“ c a u fe a n o th e r , t o w h o m I h a d n o t c o m m u n ic a t e d m y t h o u g h t s a b o u t t h is m a t -
“ t e r , c o u ld h a v e n o t h in g b u t h is e y e s t o d e t e r m in e h is fa n c y in m a k i n g t h o f e
xi m ark s. T h i s o b fe r v a t io n w e r e p e a te d d iv e r s t im e s , b o th in th e fa m e a n d d i-
41 v e r s d a y s , t o fe e h o w th e m a r k s o n fe v e r a l p a p e r s w o u l d a g r e e ; an d c o m p a r in g
“ t h e o b fe r v a t io n s , t h o u g h t h e j u f t c o n f in e s o f th e c o lo u r s are h a rd t o b e a f tig n e d ,
“ b e c a u fe t h e y p a fs in to o n e a n o th e r b y in fe n fib le g r a d a t i o n ; y e t th e differences
<! o f t! e o b fe r v a t io n s w e r e b u t l it t le , e f p e c ia lly t o w a r d s th e re d e n d , a n d t a k i n g
“ m e a n s b e tw e e n t h o fe d iffe r e n c e s , t h a t w e r e , t h e l e n g t h o f th e i m a g e ( r e c k o n e d
“ n o t b y th e d ifta n c e o f t h e v e r g e s o f t h e fe m ic ir c u la r e n d s , b lit b y th e d ifta n c e o f
“ t h e c e n tr e s o f t lio f e f e m ic ir c le s , o r le n g t h o f t h e ftr a it fid e s a s it o u g h t t o b e )
“ w a s d i v id e d in a b o u t t h e fa m e p r o p o r tio n t h a t a f ir i n g is , b e tw e e n th e e n d a n d
u t h e m id d le , t o fo u n d t h e t o n e s in t h e - e ig h t h . Y o u w ill u n d e r fta n d m e b e l l
“ b y v i e w i n g th e a n n e x e d f ig u r e , in w h ic h A B a n d C D r e p r e fe n t th e f tr a it
fid e s , a b o u t te n in c h e s l o n g , A B C and B T D th e f e m ic ir c u la r e n d s , X a n d
“ Y
NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS *93
1 6 7 5 .] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y O F L O N D O N . 253
“ Y t h e c e n tr e s o f t h o f e f e m ic ir c le s , X Z th e l e n g t h o f a m u fic a l f ir i n g d o u b le t o
1
^ ------ "X
# *3 a £ .. ••••I
E $pa H & i1 ■p« 'T rr
\ $ 0 O
c D
“ X Y , an d d iv id e d b etw e en X and Y , fo as t o fo u n d t h e to n e s e x p r e f ie d a t th e
“ fid e ( t h a t is X H th e h a lf, X G an d G I th e th ir d p a r t, Y K th e fifth p a r r ,
“ Y M th e e i g h t h p a r t, a n d G E th e n in th p a r t o f X Y ) a n d th e in te r v a ls b e tw e e n
“ th e fe d iv if io n s e x p r e f s t h e fp a c e s w h ic h th e c o lo u r s w r itte n th e r e t o o k u p , e v e r y .
“ c o lo u r b e in g m o l t b r if k ly fp e c ific in t h e m id d le o f t h o fe fpaces-.
“ N o w fo r t h e c a u fe o f th e fe a n d fu c h lik e c o lo u r s m a d e b y r e fr a d lio n , the*

“ b ig g e f t o r f t r o n g e f t r a y s m u f t p e n e tr a te t h e r e fr a d tin g fu p e r fic ie s m o r e fr e e ly
“ a n d e a fily th a n t h e w e a k e r , a n d fo b e le fs tu r n e d a w r y - b y it , t h a t is , le fs r e -
“ fra d ted ; w h ic h is as m u c h as to fa y , t h e r a y s , w h ic h m a k e r e d , are le a ft r e fr a n -
“ g i b l e , t h o f e , w h ic h m a k e b lu e a n d v i o l e t , m o l l r e f r a n g ib le , a n d o th e r s o th e r w ife .
“ r e f r a n g ib le a c c o r d in g t o th e ir c o l o u r : w h e n c e , i f th e r a y s , w h ich ’ c o m e p r o m if -
“ c u o u f ly fr o m th e f u n , b e refrad ted b y a p r if m , as- in th e a fo r e fa id e x p e r im e n t ,
“ th e fe o f fe v e r a l fo r ts b e in g v a r io u fly r e fr a d te d , m u f t g o to fe v e r a l p la c e s o n a n
“ o p p o f it e p a p e r o r w a ll, a n d fo p a r te d , e x h ib it e v e r y o n e th e ir o w n c o lo u r s ,,
w h i c h t h e y c o u ld n o t d o w h ile b le n d e d t o g e t h e r . A n d , b e c a u fe r e fr a d lio n o n ly
“ fe v e r s t h e m , a n d c h a n g e s n o t th e b ig n e fs o r f tr e n g th o f t h e r a y , t h e n c e it is ,
“ t h a t a fte r t h e y are o n c e w e ll fe v e r e d ,, r e fr a d lio n c a n n o t m a k e a n y fu r th e r c h a n g e s
“ in th e ir c o l o u r ,
“ O n th is g r o u n d m a y a ll th e p h a e n o m e n a o f r e fr a d tio n s b e u n d e r f t o o d : b u t to-
“ e x p la in t h e c o lo u r s m a d e b y r e fie d tio n s, I m u f t fu r th e r f u p p o fe , t h a t , t h o u g h -
“ l i g h t b e u n im a g in a b ly fw ift, y e t th e a eth erea l v ib r a t io n s , e x c it e d b y a r a y , m o v e .
“ fa fte r th a n t h e ra y it fe lf , a n d fo o v e r t a k e a n d o u tr u n it o n e a fte r a n o th e r . A nd
“ t h is , I f u p p o f e , t h e y w ill t h in k an a llo w a b le f u p p o f it io n , w h o h a v e b e e n in -
“ d i n e d to fu fp e d t, t h a t th e fe v ib r a t io n s t h e m f e l v e s m i g h t b e l i g h t . B u t to m a k e
“ it t h e m o r e a llo w a b le , it is p o flib le l i g h t i t f e l f m a y n o t b e fo f w i f t , as fo m e a re
“ a p t t o t h in k ; f o r , n o t w it h f t a n d in g a n y a r g u m e n t , t h a t I k n o w y e t t o t h e c o n -
“ tr a r y , i t m a y b e a n h o u r o r t w o , i f n o t m o r e , in m o v i n g fr o m th e fu n t o u s .
“ T h i s c e le r it y o f t h e v ib r a t io n s th e r e fo r e f u p p o f e d , i f l i g h t b e in c id e n t o n a t h in
“ fltin o r p la te o f a n y tr a n fp a r e n t b o d y , th e w a v e s , e x c i t e d b y it s p a fia g e t h r o u g h
“ th e firft fu p e r fic ie s , o v e r t a k in g it o n e a fte r a n o th e r , t ill it a r r iv e a t th e fe c o n d
“ fu p e r fic ie s , w ill c a u fe it t o b e th e r e re fled te d o r r e fra d te d a c c o r d in g ly as th e c o n -
M d e n fe d o r e x p a n d e d p a r t o f th e w a v e o v e r t a k e s it th e r e . I f th e p la te b e o f f u c h
“ a t h ic k n e f s , th a t t h e c o n d e n fe d p a r t o f th e firft w a v e o v e r t a k e t h e ray a t th e fe
c o n d fu p e r fic ie s , it m u f t b e re fled te d t h e r e ; i f d o u b le t h a t t h ic k n e f s , t h a t t h e
fc‘ f o l l o w i n g rarified p a r t o f t h e w a v e , t h a t is,, t h e fp a c e b e t w e e n t h a t a n d th e n e x t-
“ w ave,
194
NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS
264 THE HISTORY OF THE [167*

“ w a v e , o v e r t a k e i t , th e r e i t m u d b e tr a n fm it te d •> i f t r ip le t h e t h ic k n e f s , t h a t t h e
<c c o n d e n f e d p a r t o f t h e fe c o n d w a v e o v e r t a k e i t , th e r e it m u f t b e r e f le it e d , a n d
“ fo w h e r e th e p la te is f i v e , f e v e n , o r n in e t i m e s t h a t t h ic k n e f s , i t m u f t b e reflected
“ b y r e a fo n o f t h e t h ir d , f o u r t h , o r fift h w a v e , o v e r t a k i n g it a t t h e fe c o n d fu p e r -
“ f ic i e s ; b u t w h e n it is f o u r , f i x , o r e i g h t t i m e s t h a t t h i c k n e f s , fo t h a t t h e ray
m a y b e o v e r t a k e n th e r e b y t h e d ila t e d in t e r v a l o f t h o f e w a v e s , i t (h a ll b e tranf-
“ milled, a n d fo o n •, t h e fe c o n d f u p e r fic ie s b e i n g m a d e a b le o r u n a b le t o r e fle c t
“ a c c o r d in g ly as i t is c o n d e n fe d o r e x p a n d e d b y t h e w a v e s . F o r in ft a n c e , le t
“ A H r e p r e fe n t th e fu p e r fic ie s o f a f p h e r ic a lly c o n v e x g la f s la id u p o n a p la in
“ g la f s A I R , a n d A I R Q J H 1 th e t h in p la n e - c o n c a v e p la t e o f a ir b e t w e e n t h e m ,
“ a n d B C , D E , F G , H I , & c . t h ic k n e l f e s o f t h a t p la t e , o r d ift a n c e s o f t h e
“ g la f fe s in t h e a r it h m e t ic a l p r o g r e f lio n o f t h e n u m b e r s x . 2 . 3 . 4 . & c . w h e r e o f
B C is t h e d if t a n c e , a t w h ic h t h e ra y is o v e r
<C
t a k e n b y th e m o f t c o n d e n fe d p a r t o f t h e fir ft
<< w a v e : I f a y , t h e r a y s in c id e n t a t B , F , K ,
a a n d O , o u g h t t o b e reflected a t C , G , L ,
u a n d P , a n d t h o f e in c id e n t a t D , H , M , a n d
<c Qj_ o u g h t t o b e tranfmitted a t E , I , N , a n d
it R ; a n d t h is , b e c a u fe t h e r a y B C a r r iv e s
it a t t h e f u p e r fic ie s A C , w h e n it is c o n d e n fe d ,
tt b y t h e fir ft w a v e t h a t o v e r t a k e s i t ; D E ,
«c w h e n r a r ified b y th e in te r v a l o f t h e fir ft a n d
it f e c o n d ; F G , w h e n c o n d e n fe d b y t h e fe
tt c o n d w a v e ; F I I , w h e n r a r ified b y t h e in
tt te r v a l o f t h e fe c o n d a n d th ir d 5 a n d fo o n >
“ fo r a n in d e te r m in a te n u m b e r o f f u c c e f l i o n s ; a n d a t A , t h e c e n t e r o r c o n ta fl: o f
“ t h e g la f f e s , t h e l i g h t m u f t b e tranfmitted, b e c a u fe th e r e t h e a sth e r e a l m e d iu m s
“ in b o th g la ffe s a re c o n t in u e d a s i f b u t o n e u n if o r m m e d iu m . W h e n c e , if th e
“ g la ffe s in t h is p o ftu r e b e l o o k e d u p o n , th e r e o u g h t t o a p p e a r a t A , th e c o n ta d t
“ o f th e g la f fe s , a b la c k f p o t , a n d a b o u t t h a t m a n y c o n c e n t r ic c ir c le s o f l i g h t a n d
“ d a r k n e fs , t h e fq u a r c s o f w h o f e fe m id ia m e te r s a re t o fe n fe a n d a r ith m e t ic a l p r o -
“ g r e ffio n . Y e t a ll t h e r a y s , w it h o u t e x c e p t i o n , o u g h t n o t t o b e t h u s r e fle £ te d o r
“ t r a n f m i t t e d : fo r f o m e t i m e s a ra y m a y b e o v e r t a k e n a t t h e fe c o n d f u p e r fic ie s ,
“ b y th e v ib r a t io n s r a ife d b y a n o th e r c o lla te r a l o r im m e d i a t e ly f u c c e e d in g ray y
“ w h ic h v ib r a t io n , b e in g as i l r o n g o r f tr o n g e r th a n it s o w n , m a y c a u fe it to b e
“ r e fle fb e d o r tr a n fm itte d w h e n its o w n v ib r a t io n a lo n e w o u l d d o t h e c o n tr a r y .
“ A n d h e n c e fo m e l i t t l e l i g h t w ill b e r e fle & e d fr o m t h e b la c k r i n g s , w h i c h m a k e s
“ th e m
1675.] ROYAL SOCIETY OF L O N D O N . 26-

“ them rather black than totally dark ; and fome tranfmitted at the lucid rings,
“ which makes the black rings, appearing on the other fide o f the glafies, not lb
“ black as they would otherwife be. And fo at the central black fpot, where the
<c glafies do not abfolutely touch, a little light will be reflected, which makes the
“ fpot darkeft in the middle, and only black at the verges. For thus I have ob-
‘ c ferved it to be, by tying very hard together two glafs prifms, which were ac-
“ cidentally (one o f them at leaft) a very little convex, and viewing by divers
“ lights this black fpot at their contaCt. If a white paper was placed at a little
“ diftance behind a candle, and the candle and paper viewed alternately by re-
“ fleCtion from the fpot, the verges o f the fpot, which looked by the light o f the
“ paper as black as the middle part, appeared by the ftronger light o f the candle
“ lucid enough, fo as to make the fpot feem lefs than before ; but the middle part
“ continued as abfolutely black In one cafe as in the other, fome fpecks and ftreaks
“ in it only excepted, where I fuppofe the glafies, through fome unevennefs in
*c the polifh, did not fully touch. T he fame I have obferved by viewing the fpot
by the like reflection o f the fun and clouds alternately.
“ But to return to the lucid and black rings, thofe rings ought always to ap-
“ pear after the manner deferibed, were light uniform. And after that manner,
“ when the two contiguous glafies A Q_and A R have been illuftrated, in a dark
“ room, by light o f any uniform colour made by a prifm, I have feen the lucid
“ circles appear to about twenty in number, with many dark ones between them,
“ the colour o f the lucid ones being that of the light, with which the glafies were
“ illuftrated. And if the glafies were held between the eye and prifmatic colours,
“ caft on a fiheet o f white-paper, or if any prifmatic colour was direCtly trajeCled
“ through the glafies to a fheet o f paper placed a little way behind, there would
“ appear fuch other rings o f colour and darknefs (in the firft cafe between the
l< glafies, in the fecond, on the paper) oppofitely correfponding to thofe, which
“ appeared by reflection : I mean, that, whereas by reflected light there appeared
“ a black fpot in the middle, and then a coloured circle; on the contrary, by tranf-
“ mitted light there appeared a coloured fpot in the middle, and then a black circle,
“ and fo o n ; the diameters of the coloured circles, made by rranfmifiion, equali-
“ ing the diameters of the black ones made by reflection.
“ Thus, I fay, the ring3 do and ought to appear when made by uniform lig h t;
“ but in compound light it is otherwife. For the rays, which exhibit red and
“ yellow, exciting, as I faid, larger pulfes in the aether than thofe, which make
“ blue and violet, and confequently m aking bigger circles in a certain propor-
“ tion, as I have manifeftly found they do, by illuminating the glafies fucceflively
“ by the aforefaid colours of prifm in a well darkened room, without changing
“ the pofition of my eye or of the glafies ; hence the circles, made by illuftracing
“ the glafies with white lighr, ought not to appear black and white by turns, as
“ the circles made by illuftrating the glafies ; for inftance, with red'light, appear
“ red and black ; but the colours, which compound the white light, muft difplay
“ themfelves by being reflected, the blue and violet nearer to the center than the
“ red and yellow, whereby evet~y lucid circle muft become violet in the inward
“ verge, red in the o u t w a r d , a n d of intermediate colours in the intermediate
V ol. III. M m “ parts,
*66 T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [1 6 7 5 .
parts, and be made broader than before, fpreading the colours both ways into
“ thofe fpaces, which I call the black rings, and which would here appear black,
“ were the red, yellow, blue, and violet, which make the verge of the rings, taken
“ out o f the incident white light, which illufbrates the glaffes, and the green only
“ left to make the lucid rings. Suppofe C B, G D , L F , P M , R N , S X , re-
« prefent quadrants of the circles made in a dark room by the very deepeft prif-
A Y C y Gl * L f Pf R S
** matic ra? alone; and Y (5, y 5,
“ * <J5, x ft, p v, <r £, the qua-
“ drants o f like circles made
“ alfo in a dark room, by the
<c very deepeft prifmatic violet ”
“ alone : and then, if the glaf- g
“ fes be illuminated by open
“ day light, in which all forts $
“ o f rays are blended, it is ma-
“ nifeft, that the firft lucid D
“ ring will be Y (i B C ; the fe- <$>
“ cond y S D G , the third, u
*c Acf> F L , the fourth M P,
“ the fifth p v N R, the fixth
“ <r £ X S , See. in all which
<fr the deepeft violet mult be
“ reflected at the inward edges
' reprefented by the pricked
“ lines, where it would be re-
“ flefted were it alone, and the deepeft red at the outward edges reprefented by
“ the black lines, where it would be refledted, were it alone; and all intermediate
“ colours at thofe places, in order, between thefe edges, at which they would be re-
“ fledted were they alone; each of them in a dark room, parted from all other
“ colours by the refradtion of a prifm. And becaufe the fquares o f the femidia-
“ meters o f the outward verges A C , A G , A L , See. as alfo o f A Y , A y, A a,
“ Sec. the femidiameters o f the inward are in arithmetical progrefiion of the num-
“ bersT, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, Sec. and the fquares o f the inward are to the fquares
“ o f the outward (A Y 9 to A O ’, A y 9 to A G 9, A A9 to A L», & c.) as 9 to 14,
“ (as I have found by meafuring them carefully and often, and comparing the
“ obfervations:) therefore the outward red verge o f the fecond ring, and inward
violet one o f the third, fhall border upon one another (as you may know by com-
“ putation, and fee them reprefented in the figure) and the like edges o f the third
“ and fourth rings fhall interfere, and thofe o f the fourth and fifth interfere more,
“ and fo on. Yea, the colours o f every ring mult fpread themfelves fomething
“ more both ways than is here reprefented, becaufe the quadrantal arcs here de-
“ feribed reprefent not the verges, but the middle of the rings made in a dark
“ room by the extreme violet and red ; the violet falling on both fides the pricked
“ arches, and red on both fides the black line arches. And hence it is, that
“ thefe rings or circuits o f colours fucceed one another continually, without any
2 “ inter-
197
, 675 .] ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 267
<( intervening black, and that the colours are pure only in the three or four firft
" rings, and then intervening and mixing more and more, dilute one another fo
“ much, that after eight or nine rings they are no more to be diftinguifhed, but
“ feem to conftitute an even whitenefs; whereas, when they were made in a dark
“ room by one of the prifmatic colours alone, I have, as I faid, feen above twenty
“ of them, and without doubt could have feen them to a greater number, had I
“ taken the pains to make the prifmatic colour more uncompounded. For by
“ unfolding thefe rings from one another, by certain refradtions exprefled in the
“ other ! papers I fend you, 1 have, even in day-light, difcovered them to above
“ an hundred ; and perhaps they would have appeared innumerable, had the light
“ or colour illuftrating the glades been abfolutely uncompounded, and the pupil
“ of my eye but a mathematical point •, fo that all the rays, which came from
“ the fame point of the glafs might have gone into my eye at the fame obliquity
*c to the glafs.
“ What has been hitherto faid of the rings, is to be underftood of their appear-
“ ance to an unmoved eye: but if you vary the pofition of the eye, the more
“ obliquely you look on the glafs, the larger the rings appear. And of this the
“ reafon may be, partly that an oblique ray is longer in palling through the
« firft fuperficies, and fo there is more time between the waving forward and back*
“ ward of that fuperficies, and confequently a larger wave generated, and partly,
“ that the wave in creeping along between the two fuperficies may be impeded and
“ retarded by the rigidnefs of thofe fuperficies, bounding it at either end, and fo
“ not overtake the ray fo foon as a wave, that moves perpendicularly crols.
“ The bignefs of the circles made by every colour, and at all obliquities of the
<e eye to the glaffes, and the thicknefs of the air, or intervals of the glafies,
where each circle is made, you will find exprefled in the other papers I fend
** you; where alfo I have more at large defcribed, how much thefe rings inter-
“ fere, or fpread into one another; what colours appear in every ring, where
“ they are mod lively, where and how much diluted by mixing with the colours of
“ other rings ; and how the contrary colours appear on the back fide of the glafies
“ by the tranfmitted light, the glafies tranfmitting light of one colour at the fame
“ place, where they refletf: that of another. Nor need I add any thing further of
“ the colours of other thinly plated mediums, as of water between the aforefaid
“ glafies, or formed into bubbles, and fo encompafled with air, or of glafs blown
“ into very thin bubbles at a lamp furnace, &c. the cafe being the fame in all thefe,
excepting that, where the thicknefs of the plate is not regular, the rings will not
“ be fo ; that in plates of denfer tranfparent bodies, the rings are made at a lefs
“ thicknefs of the plate (the vibrations, I fuppofe, being lborter in rarer aether than
“ in denfer) and that in a denfer plate, furrounded with a rarer body, the colours
“ are more vivid than in the rarer furrounded with the denfer; as, for inftance,
more vivid in a plate of glafs furrounded with air, than in a plate of air fur-
“ rounded with glafs; of which the reafon is, that the refledtion of the fecond fu-
“ perficies, which caufes the colours, is, as was faid above, ftronger in the for-
* Obf. 24.
M m 2 “ m er
I 98 NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS
T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E [1675.
“ mer cafe than in the latter : for which reafon alfo the colours are moft vivid,
“ when the difference of the denfity of the medium is greaceft.
“ Of the colours of natural bodies alfo I have (aid enough in thofe papers, fhew-
“ ing how the various fizes of the tranfparcnt particles, of which they confift, is
“ fufficient to produce them all, thofe particles refte&ing or tranfmitting this Or
“ that fort of rays, according to their thicknefs, like the aforefaid plates, as if they
“ were fragments thereof. For, I fuppofe, if a plate of an even thicknefs, and
“ consequently of an uniform colour, were broken into fragments of the fame thick-
“ nefs with the plate, a heap of thofe fragments would be a powder much of the
“ fame colour with the plates. And To, if the parts be of the thicknefs of che
“ water in the black fpot at the top of a bubble defcribed in the feventeenth of
“ the obfervations I fend you, 1 fuppofe the body muff be black. In the pro-
“ duftion of which blacknefs, I fuppofe, that the particles of that fiZe being dif-
“ pofed to reflect almoft no light outward, but to refradt it continually in its paf-
“ fage from every part to the next *, by this multitude of refractions, the rays
“ are kept fo long draggling to and fro within the body, till at Isft almoft all
“ impinge on the folid parts of the body, and fo are flopped and ftifled •, thofe
“ parts having no fufficient elafticity, or other difpofition to return nimbly enough
“ the fmart fhock of the ray back upon it.
" I fhould here conclude, but that there is another ftrange phenomenon of
“ colours, which may deferve to be taken notice of. Mr. H o o k e , you may re-
“ member, was fpeaking of an odd ftraying of light, caufed in itspaflage near the
“ edge of a razor, knife, or other opake body in a dark room •, the rays, which
“ pafs very near the edge, being thereby made to ftray at ail angles into the
“ /hadow of the knife.
tc Tothis Sir W i l l i a m P e t t y , then prefident, returned a very pertinent query,

“ Whether that ftraying was in curve lines ? and that made me, having heard
“ Mr. H ooke fome days before compare it to the ftraying of found into the qui-
“ efcent medium, fay, that I took it to be only a new kind of refraCfeien, caufed
“ perhaps by the external asther’s beginning to grow rarer a little before it
“ came at the opake body, than it was in free fpaces; the deafer ®ther Without
“ the body, and the rarer within it, being terminated not in a mathematical
“ fuperficies, but parting into one another through all intermediate degrees of
“ denfity: whence the rays, that pafs fo near the body, as to come within that
“ compafs, where the outward asther begins to grow rarer, mull be refraCbed by
“ the uneven denfenefs thereof, and blended inwards toward the rarer medium of
“ the body. To this Mr. H ooke was then pleafed to anfwer, that- though it
“ fhould lie but a new kind of refra&ion, yet it was a new one. What to make
“ of this unexpected reply, I knew n o t; having no other thoughts, but that a
“ new kind of refraCtion might be as noble an invention as any thing elfe about
“ light •, but it made me afterwards, I know not upon what occafton, happen to
w fay, among fome that were prefent to what paffed before, that-1 thought I had
“ feen the experiment before in fome Italian author. And the author is H o n o -
“ RATus F a b e r , in his dialogue De Lumine, who had it from G r i m a l d o ;
“ whom
1 6 7 5 .] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y O F L O N D O N . 269
“ whom I mention, becaufel am todefcribe fomething further out of him, which
*c you will apprehend by this figure : fuppofe the fun fhine through the little hole
“ H K into a dark room upon the paper P Q^, and with a wedge M N O intercept
“ all but a little of that beam, and you will fee
“ upon the paper fix rows of colours, R, S, T ,
“ V, X, Y, and beyond them a Very faint light
“ fpreading either way, fuch as rays broken, like
“ H N Z, muft make. The author delcribes it
“ more largely in divers fchemes. I have time
“ only to hint the fum of what he fays.
“ Now for the breaking of the ray H N Z , fup

CC pofe, in th'e next figure M N O be the folid
(( wedge, A B C the inward bound of the uniform
a rarer aether within, between which bounds the
c< aether runs through all the intermediate degrees;
(C
and it is manifeft, that, if a ray come between
tc B and N, it muft in its pafiage there bend from
tc the denfer medium towards C, and that fo much
(C
the more, by how much it comes nearer N. Fur
it
ther, for the three rows of colours V X Y, thofe
it
may perhaps proceed from the number of vibra
a tions (whether one, two, or three) which over
it
take the ray in its palfage from G, till it be about
tc the mid-way between G and H ; that is, at its
u neareft diftance to N, fo as to touch the circle
*c defcribed about N, with that diftance; by the
CC
laft of which vibrations, expanding or con
tracting the medium there, the ray is licenfed
<t
to recede again from N, and go on to make the
St
colours; or further bent about N, till the inter
it
val of the next wave overtake it, and give it li
CC berty to go from N, very nearly in the line it is
a then moving, fuppofe toward Z, to caufe the faint light fpoken of above, you
it
will underftand me a little better, by comparing this with what was faid of the
a colours of thin tranfparent plates, comparing the greateft diftance that the ray
it
goes fro m G B H towards N, to the thicknefs of one of thofe plates. Some
a thing too there is in D es C a r t e s ’s explication of the rainbow’s colours, which
tt would give further light in this. But I have no time left to infill further upon
it
particulars ; nor do I propound this without diffidence, having not made fuffici-
a ent obfcrvation about it.”
After reading this difcourfc, Mr. P I ooke faid, that the main of it was contained
in his Micrographia, which Mr. N e w t o n had only carried farcher in fome parti
culars.
The Society adjourned till December 30.

Decern-
2j o THE HISTORY OF THE [1675.

December 30. T h e r e w a s r e a d a l e t t e r t o M r . O l d e n b u r g f r o m M r . N e w
ton , d a te d at C a m b r i d g e 2 1 f t D e c e m b e r , 1 6 7 5 '■ > *n a n ^w e r t o w h a t h a d b e e n
w r it t e n t o h i m b y M r . O l d e n b u r g c o n c e r n i n g th e w a n t o f fu c c e f s o f h is e x p e
r i m e n t m a d e w i t h a g l a f s r u b b e d , & c . T h i s le tt e r w a s as f o l l o w s :
“ U p o n y o u r le tt e r I t o o k a n o t h e r g l a f s f o u r in c h e s b r o a d , a n d o n e f o u r t h o f
“ an i n c h t h i c k , o f f u c h g l a f s as te le fc o p e s are m a d e o f , a n d p l a c e d it a o n e f i x t h
“ p a r t o f an i n c h f r o m th e ta b l e . It w a s fe t in f u c h a p i e c e o f w o o d , as t h e o b -
“ j e tft -g la fie s o f te le fco p e s ufe t o b e fet in : a n d th e e x p e r i m e n t f u c c e e d e d w e l l .
“ A f t e r the r u b b i n g w a s f t i l l , a n d all w a s d i l l , t h e m o t i o n o f t h e p a p e r s w o u l d
“ con tin u e fom etim es w h ile I cou nted a h u n d re d , e v e ry paper le a p in g u p a b o u t
“ t w e n t y t i m e s m o r e o r lefs, a n d d o w n as o ft e n . I tr ie d i t a l f o w i t h t w o o t h e r g l a f i e s
“ t h a t b e l o n g to a t e le f c o p e , a n d it f u c c e e d e d w i t h b o t h ; a n d I m a k e n o q u e f t i o n
“ b u t a n y g l a f s w ill d o th a t , i f it b e e x c i t e d t o e l e f t r i c v i r t u e , as I t h i n k a n y m a y .
“ • I f y o u h a v e a m i n d t o a n y o f thefe g l a d e s , y o u m a y h a v e t h e m ; b u t I f u p -
“ p o f c , i f y o u c a n n o t m a k e it d o in o t h e r g l a f s , y o u w i l l fail in a n y I can fe n d
“ you. I a m a p t to f u f p e f t th e fa ilu r e w a s in t h e m a n n e r o f r u b b i n g ; f o r I h a v e
“ o b f e r v e d , t h a t th e r u b b i n g v a r i o u f l y , o r w i t h v a r i o u s t h i n g s , a lters th e c a fe . At
“ o n e t i m e I r u b b e d th e a fo re fa id g r e a t g l a f s w i t h a n a p k i n , t w i c e as m u c h as I
“ u fed to d o w i t h m y g o w n , a n d n o t h i n g w o u l d ftir ; a n d y e t p r e f e n t l y r u b b i n g
“ it w ith f o m e t h i n g elfe , th e m o t i o n s f o o n b e g a n . A f t e r t h e g l a f s has b e e n
“ m u c h r u b b e d t o o , th e m o t i o n s are n o t fo l a d i n g •, a n d th e n e x t d a y I f o u n d t h e
“ m o t i o n s fa in te r a n d d if f ic u lt e r t o e x c i t e th a n th e firft. I f the S o ciety h a v e a
“ m i n d to a t t e m p t it a n y m o r e , I c a n g i v e n o b e t t e r a d v i c e t h a n t h i s : t o t a k e a
“ n e w g la f s n o t y e t r u b b e d ( p e r h a p s o n e o f th e o l d o n es m a y d o w e l l e n o u g h a f t e r
“ it has la in ftill a w h i l e ) and let th is b e r u b b e d , n o t w i t h lin e n , n o r f o f t n a p p y
“ w o o l e n , b u t w i t h f l u f f , w h o f e th r e a d s m a y r a k e th e fu r f a c e o f t h e g l a f s , f u p -
u p o fe ta m e r i n e , o r th e l i k e , d o u b l e d u p in t h e h a n d , a n d th is w i t h a b r i f k m o -
“ tio n as m a y b e , till an h u n d r e d o r an h u n d r e d a n d fifty m a y b e c o u n t e d , t h e
“ g l a f s l y i n g all th e w h i l e o v e r th e p a p e r s . T h e n , i f n o t h i n g ftir , r u b t h e g l a f s
“ w i t h the f i n g e r e n d s h a l f a f c o r e o f t i m e s t o a n d f r o , o r k n o c k y o u r f i n g e r -
“ ends as o ft e n u p o n the g l a f s ; f o r th is r u b b i n g o r k n o c k in g w ith y o u r fin gers,
“ a fte r th e f o r m e r r u b b i n g , c o n d u c e s m o f t t o e x c i t e the papers. I f n o th in g ftir
“ yet, r u b a g a i n w i t h th e c lo t h till f i x t y o r e i g h t y m a y b e c o u n t e d , a n d th e n
“ rub o r k n o c k again w ith y o u r fingers, a n d rep eat th is t ill th e elecftric v i r t u e o f
“ th e g la fs b e fo fa r e x c i t e d as to t a k e u p th e p a p e r s , a n d th e n a v e r y little r u b b -
“ in g or k n o c k in g n o w and then w ill re v iv e th e m o tio n s, In d o i n g a ll t h is , l e t
“ th e r u b b i n g b e a lw a y s d o n e as n i m b l y as m a y b e ; a n d i f t h e m o t i o n b e c i r c u -
“ lars, l i k e t h a t o f g l a f s - g r i n d i n g , it m a y <!o b e t t e r . B u t i f y o u can not m a k e it
y e t fuC ceed, it im i f t b e let a lo n e till I h a v e f o m e o p p o r t u n i t y o f t r y i n g it b e -
“ fore y o u . A s fo r th e f u f p ic i o n o f th e p a p e rs b e i n g m o v e d b y t h e a ir , I a m fe-
“ cu re f r o m t h a t ; y e t in the o t h e r , o f d r a w i n g l e a f - g o l d t o a b o v e a f o o t d i f t a n c e ,
tc w h i c h I n e v e r w e n t a b o u t to t r y m y f e l f till t h e laft w e e k , I fu fp ed t t h e a ir m i g h t
“ raife th e g o l d , a n d th e n a f m a l l a t t r a t t i o n m i g h t d e t e r m i n e it t o w a r d s th e g l a f s ;
“ for I co u ld n o t m a k e it fu cceed .” 1
1 Letter-book, vol. vii. p. Z84.

It
16 7 4 .] R O YAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 271
I t was ord ered , th a t M r . N e w t o n ’s d ir e c t io n s in th i s le tt e r f h o u l d b e o b f e r v e d

in th e e x p e rim e n t to b e m a d e at th e n e x t m e e tin g o f th e S o c iety .
M r . O l d e n b u r g r e a d a le tt e r t o h i m f e l f f r o m M r . J o h n G a s c o i g n e , d a t e d
a t L i e g e , 1 5 t h D e c e m b e r , 1 6 7 5 " , a c q u a i n t i n g h i m w i t h th e d e a th o f M r . L i n u s
o f t h e e p i d e m i c a l d i fe a fe , w h i c h t h e n r a g e d t h r o u g h f o m a n y c o u n t r i e s , a n d w i t h
t h e r e f o l u t i o n o f M r . L i n u s ’s d i f c i p l e s , to t r y M r . N e w t o n ’s e x p e r i m e n t c o n c e r n
i n g l i g h t and c o l o u r s m o r e c le a r l y a n d c a r e f u l l y , a n d b e f o r e m o r e w i t n e f l e s , a c c o r d
i n g t o t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n t h e m b y M r . N e w t o n ’s la ft le tt e r : i n t i m a t i n g w i t h a l ,
t h a t i f t h e fa id e x p e r i m e n t b e m a d e b e f o r e t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y , a n d b e a t t e f t e d b y
t h e m t o f u c c e e d , as M r . N e w t o n a f f i r m e d , t h e y w o u l d reft fatisfied.
I t w as o rd ered , th a t w h en th e fun fh o u ld ferve , th e e x p e rim e n t fh o u ld be m a d e

b efo re the S o c ie ty .
M r. A u b r e y p r e fe n te d th e S o c i e t y w i t h his o b f e r v a t i o n s m a d e i n W i l t f f i i r e , w h i c h
b e i n g r e a d , h e w a s d e fir e d t o e n d e a v o u r t o p r o c u r e f o m e o f th e i r o n - o r e o f S e in
in t h a t c o u n t y , fa id t o b e f o r i c h , t h a t t h e f m i t h c o u l d m e l t it in his f o r g e : as a lf o
t o p r o c u r e f r o m E a f t o n - P e i r e s in M a l m e f b u r y h u n d r e d , f o m e o f t h e b l u e c l a y ,
f r e e f r o m f a n d , a n d a l m o f t o f t h e c o l o u r o f u l t r a m a r i n e •, w h i c h c l a y M r . D o ig h t
f u p p o f e d t o b e v e r y fit f o r p o r c e l a n e .
T h e S ociety ad jou rn ed till the 1 3 t h o f January follow in g .
January13. C a p t a i n H e n r y S h e e r e s , J ohn M a p l e t o f t , M . D . x, a n d
S ign o rF r a n c is c o T r a v a g i n i w e r e p r o p o f e d c a n d i d a t e s , t h e firft in t h e n a m e o f
S ir J oseph W il l ia m so n , th e fecond b y M r . H ooke, and th e th ird b y M r . O l
denburg.
M r. N e w t o n ’ s e x p e r i m e n t o f g l a f s r u b b e d , t o c a u f e v a r i o u s m o t i o n s in b it s
o f p a p e r u n d e r n e a t h , b e i n g m a d e a c c o r d i n g t o his m o r e p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t io n s , f u c -
ceeded v e r y w ell. T h e ru b b in g w as m ade b o th w ith a fcru b b in g bru fh , m ade o f
f h o r t h o g ’ s b r i f t le s , w i t h a k n i f e , t h e h a f t o f t h e k n i f e m a d e o f w h a l e b o n e , a n d
w i t h t h e n a il o f o n e ’ s f i n g e r . I t appeared , th a t t o u c h i n g m a n y parts at on ce
w i t h a h a r d a n d r o u g h b o d y , p r o d u c e d t h e effeCt ex p e C te d .
I t w as o rd ered , th a t M r . N ew to n fhould h a v e the th a n k s o f th e S o c ie ty , fo r

g i v i n g h i m f e l f t h e t r o u b l e o f i m p a r t i n g t o t h e m f u c h f u l l in ft ru C tio n s f o r m a k i n g
th e ex p erim en t.
M r . O l d en bu rg p r o d u c e d and read a L a t i n letter o f M r . F lam stea d to S ir

J onas M o o r e , d a t e d a t G r e e n w i c h , 2 4 t h D e c e m b e r , 1 6 7 5 r, c o n t a i n i n g a n a c
c o u n t o f h is o b f e r v a t i o n s m a d e o f t h e la t e e c l i p f e o f the m oon on t h e 2 1 ft D e
c e m b e r , p. m.
“ Letter-book, vol. vii. p. 282. y It is printed in the Philofoph. Tranfaft. vol. x. n°

* ProfelTor of phyfic at Grelham College. izi. p. 495.
It
2?2 T H E H I S T O R Y OF THH [xfyj .

It was ordered, that Mr. O ldenburg fhould be defired, according to the
motion made by Mr. F lamstead , to impart thefe obfervations to Signor C assi
n i at Paris, and to defire him to communicate to the Society his obfervations on
the fame eclipfe.
Mr. O ldenburg produced likewife Tome papers of Mr. A ubrey , containing

his obfervations of the county of Surry. But the time being elapfed, thefe papers
were referred to the next meeting.
January 20. Mr. A ubrey ’ s papers of obfervations on Surrey were read.
There was alfo read the beginning of Mr. N ewton’ s difcourfe, containing
fuch obfervations, as conduce to further difcoveries for completing his theory of
light and colours, efpecially as to the conftitution of natural bodies, on which
their colours or tranfparency depend : in which he defcribes firft the principal of
his obfervations, and then confiders and makes life of them.
A t this time there were read the firft fifteen of thofe obfervations as follow *:
“ I fuppofe you underfland, that all tranfparent fubftances (as glafs, water,
“ air, &c.) when made very thin by being blown into bubbles, or otherwife
“ formed into plates, do exhibit various colours, according to their various thin-
“ nefs, although at a greater thicknefs they appear very clear and colourlefs. In
“ my former difcourfe about the conftitution of light, I omitted thefe colours,
“ becaufe they feemed of a more difficult confideration, and were not neceflary for
“ the eftablilhing of the dodlrine, which I propounded ; but becaufe they may con-
“ duce to further difcoveries for compleating that theory, efpecially as to the
“ conftitution of the parts of natural bodies, on which their colours or tranfpa-
“ rency depend, I have now fent you an account of them. To render this dif-
“ courfe fhort and diftindt, I have firft defcribed the principal of my obfervations,
“ and then confidered and made ufe of them. The obfervations are thefe:
“ Obf. 1 . Compreffing two prifms hard together, that their fides (which by
“ chance were a very little convex) might fomewhere touch one another, I found
“ the place, in which they touched, to become a abfolutelv tranfparent, as if they
“ had been there one continued piece of glafs j for when the light fell fo ob-
“ liquely on the air, which in other places was between them, as to be all re*
“ fledted, in that place of contadt it feemed wholly tranfmitted; infomuch that
“ when looked upon, it appeared like a black or dark fpot, by reafon of no fen-
“ fible light was refledted from thence, as from other places and when looked
“ through, it feemed, as it were, a hole in that air, that was formed into a thin
z R eciter, vol. v, p. 89. “ fieftion from this fpot, not only the verges o f
* “ Note, that there is fome light reflefled from “ it became lucid, butdivers lucid veins, as Ipecks,
“ thofe parts o f this black fpot, where the glades, “ appeared in the midlt of the blacknefs: but yet
“ by reafon o f their convex, ty, and fome little un- “ fome parts of the fpot feemed ftill as black as
“ evennefs o f their furfaces, do not come to abfo- “ before, 'which parts I take to be thofe, where
" lute contaifl. For by viewing the fun, by re- “ the glades touched.
2 “ plate
I 67f ] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y OF L ON D O N . 273
<( plate by being comprefied between the glafies; and through this hole obje&s*
that were beyond, might be feen diftindtly, which could not at all be feen through
c( other parts of the glafies, where the air was interjacent. Although the glafies
U were a little convex, yet this tranfparent fpot was of a confiderable breadth,
cc which breadth feemed principally to proceed from the yielding inwards of the
(C
parts of the glafies by reafon of their mutual prefigure ; for by prefiing them very
cc hard together, it would become much broader than otherwise.
Obf. 2. When the plate of air, by turning the prifms about their common
cc axis became fo little inclined to the incident rays, that fome of them began to
cc be tranfmitted, there arofe in it many (len
cc der arcs of colours, which at firft were Fig. I.
(( fhaped almoft like the conchoid, as you fee
cc them here delineated. And by continuing
(C
the motion of the prifms, thefe arcs in- : -~...'•V.vV>vSS;s\\
cc creafed and bended more and more about OUt ^
cc the faid tranfparent fpot, till they were V v .W \V '
cc compleated into circles or rings incompafiing it; and afterwards continually

cc grew more and more contra&ed.
“ Thefe arcs, at their firft appearance, were of a violet and blue colour, and
cc between them were white arcs of circles, which prefently became a little tinged
cc in their inward Jimbs with red and yellow, and to their outward limbs the blue
cc was adjacent; fo that the order of thefe colours from the central dark fpot,
cc was at that time white, blue, violet, black, red, orange, yellow, white, blue,
cc violet, &c. but the yellow and red were much fainter than the blue and vio
cc let.
“ The motion of the prifms about their axis being continued, thefe colours
cc contradted more and more, fhrinking towards the whitenefs on either fide of
cc it, until they totally vanifhed into i t ; and then the circles in thofe parts ap
cc peared black, and white, without any other colours intermixed ; but by fur
cc ther moving the prifms about, the colours again emerged out of the whitenefs,
cc the violet and blue at its inward limb, and at its outward limb the red and yel
cc low ; fo that now their order from the central fpot was white, yellow, red,
cc black, violet, blue, white, yellow, red, &c. contrary to what it was before.
“ Obf. 3. When the rings or fome parts appeared only black and white, they
£C
were very diftincSt and well defined, and the blacknefs feemed as intenfe as thac
cc of the central fpot; alfo, in the borders of thefe rings, where the colours began
cc to emerge out of the whitenefs, they were pretty diltindt, which made them vi-
cc
fible to a very great multitude. I have fometimes numbered above thirty fuc-
cc cefiions (reckoning every black and white ring for one fuccefiion) and feen more
cc of them, which by reafon of their fmallnefs I could not number. But in other
cc pofitions of the prifms, at which the rings appeared of many colours, I could
cc not diftinguifh above eight or nine of them, and the exterior of thofe too
cc were confufed and dilute.
VOL. III. N n « In
274 T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [1-65-4.
“ In thefe two obfervations, to fee the rings diftind, and without any other colour
“ but black and white, I found it neceflary that I held my eye at a good diftance
“ from them. For by approaching nearer, although in the fame inclination of
“ my eye, yet there emerged a bluifh colour out of the white, which by dilating,
“ itfelf more and more into the black, rendered the circles lefs diftind, and lelt
“ the white a little tinged with red and yellow. I found alfo, that by looking
“ through a flic or oblong hole, which was narrower thanthe pupil o f my eye,
“ and held clofe to it parallel to the prifms, I could fee thecircles much diftinder
“ and vifible to a far greater number than otherwife.
“ Obf. 4. T o obferve more nicely the order o f the colours, which arofe out o f
“ the white circles, as the rays became lefs and lefs inclined to the plate o f a ir ; I
“ took two objed-glafies, the one a plane-convex for a fourteen foot telefcope,
“ and the other a large double convex for one of fifty f o o t ; and upon this lay-
ing the other with its plane fide downwards, I preflfed them flowly together,
“ to make the colours fuccefiively emerge in the middle o f the circles, and thea
“ flowly lifted the upper glafs from the lower, to make them fuccefiively vanilh
“ again in the fame place, where being o f a confiderable breadth, I could more
“ eafily difcern them. And by this means l obferved their fucceflion and quan-
“ tity to be as followeth.
** N ext to the pellucid central fpot made by the contad o f the glafles, fuc-
tc ceeded violet, blue, white, yellow, and red. The violet and blue were fo very
“ little in quantity, that I could not difcern them in the circles made by the
“ prifm s; but the yellow and red were pretty copious, and feemed about as much
“ in extent as the white, and four or five times more than the blue and violet.,
“ The next circuit or order o f colours immediately encompafling thefe was vio-
“ let, blue, green, yellow, and red. And thefe were all o f them copious and
“ vivid, excepting the green, which was very little in quantity, and feemed much
“ more faint and dilute than the other colours. O f the other four the violet
“ was leaft, and the blue lefs than the yellow or red. T he third circuit or order
“ was alfo purple, blue, green, yellow, and red, in which the purple feemed more
“ reddilh than the violet in the former circuit, and the green was much more
“ confpicuous, being as briflk and copious as any o f the other colours except the
“ yellow; but the red began to be a little faded, inclining very much to purple.
“ After thefe fucceeded green and red; the green was very copious and lively, in-
“ dining on the one fide to blue, and the other to yellow. But in this fourth
“ circuit there was neither violet, blue, nor yellow, and the red was very imper-
“ fed and dirty. Alfo the fucceeding colours became more and more im p ed ed
“ and dilute, till after three or four more revolutions they ended in perfed white-
“ nefs.
“ Obf. 5. T o determine the interval o f the glafles, or thicknefs o f the interja-

“ cent air, by which each colour was produced ; I mcafured the diameter of the
0 firft fix rings at the molt lucid part o f their orbits, and fquaring them 1 found
“ their fquares to be in arithmetical progrefiion of the odd numbers, 1. 3. 5. 7.
“ 9. 11. And fince one of the glafles was plane and the other fpherical, their
8 g intervals
1674.] ROYAL SOCIETY OF L O N D O N . 27,,

il intervals at thofe rings muft be in the fame progrefiion. I meafured alfo the
“ diameters of the dark or faint rings between the more lucid colours, and found
“ their fquares to be in arithmetical progrefiion, of the even numbers 2, 4, 6,
“ 8, 10, 12; and it being very nice and difficult to take theie meafures exactly,
“ I repeated them divers times, at divers parts of the glaffes, that by their agree-
“ ment I might be confirmed in them ; and the fame method I ufed in deter-
“ mining fome others of the following obfervations.
“ Obf. 6. The diameter of the firft ring, at the moft lucid part of its orbit,
“ was -W parts of an inch, and the diameter of the fphere, on which the double
“ convex objedt-glafs was ground, was an hundred and two foot, as I found by
“ meafuring it; and confequently the thicknefs of the air, or aereal interval of the
“ glaffes at that ring, was -ttttt of an inch. For as the diameter of the faid fphere
“ (an hundred and two foot, or twelve hundred and twenty-four inches) is to
“ the femidiameter of the ring -rV-o-j fo very nearly is that lemidiameter to T-t (ST,
“ the faid diftance of the glafies. Now, by the precedent obfervations, the
“ eleventh part of this diftance (-r-s-s-Wr) is the thicknefs of the air at that part
“ of the firft ring, where the yellow would be moft vivid, were it not mixed
“ with other colours in the white ; and this doubled gives the difference of its
“ thicknefs at the yellow in all the other rings, viz. 7^ TT) or, to ufe a round
“ number, the eighty thoufand part of an inch.
“ Obf. 7 . Thefe dimenfions were taken, when my eye was placed perpendict:^
“ larly over the glaffes, in or near the axis of the rings; but when I viewed
“ them obliquely, they became bigger, continually fwelling as I removed my eye
,efarther from their axis; and partly by meafuring the diameter of the fame
“ circle at feveral obliquities of my eye, partly by other means •, as alfo by mak-
“ ing ufe of the two prifms for very great obliquities, I found its diameter, and
confequently the thicknefs of the air at its perimeter in all thofe obliquities, to
“ be very nearly in the proportions exprefled in this table.
Incidence Refraction Diameter Thicknefs

on the air. into the air. of the ring. of the air.
gr* min. gr- min.

00 00 00 00 xo . 10
6 26 r 0 00 io-V • IOt-£
12 45 20 00 ioi . IO-t
18 49 30 00 i° 4 . 114
24 3° 40 00 Ht • l3
29 37 50 00 124. . 154
33 58 60 00 14 . 20
35 47 65 00 I 5 t • 23 r
37 19 70 00 16^ . ?.84
38 33 75 00 • 37
39 27 80 00 22y * 5 2v
40 00 85 00 29 . 84
40 11 90 00 35 . J22r
276 T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E [16 7*.
« In the two firft columns are expreffed the obliquities of the rays to the plate
“ of air; that is, their angles of incidence and refraftion. In the third column,
“ the diameter of any coloured ring of thofe obliquities is expreffed in parts, of
“ which ten conftitute that diameter, when the rays are perpendicular. And [in
“ the fourth column the thicknefs of the air at the circumference of that ring is
“ expreffed in parts, of which alfo ten conftitute that thicknefs, when the rays
*c are perpendicular.
“ Obf. 8. The dark fpot in the middle of the rings increafed alfo by that
“ obliquation of the eye, although almoft infenfibly. But, if inftead of the
“ objeCt-glaffes, theprifms were made ufe of, its increafe was more manifeft, when
“ viewed fo obliquely, that no colours appeared about it. It was leaft, when the
“ rays were incident moft obliquely on the interjacent air, and increafed more and
“ more, until the coloured rings appeared, and then decreafed again, but not fo
“ much as it increafed before. And hence it is evident, that the tranfparency
“ was not only at the abfolute contaCt of the glaffes, but alfo where they had fome
“ little interval. I have fometimes obferved the diameter of that fpot to be be-
“ tween half and two fifth parts of the diameter of the exterior circumference of
“ the red in the firft circuit or revolution of colours, when viewed almoft per-
“ pendicularly ; whereas, when viewed obliquely, it hath wholly vanifhed, and
“ become opake and white, like the other parts of the glafs. Whence it may
“ be collected, that the glaffes did then fcarcely, or not at all, touch one ano-
then, and that their interval of the perimeter of that fpot, when viewed per-
« pendicularly, was about a fifth or fixth part of their interval at the circum-
“ ference of the faid red.
“ Obf. 9 . By looking through the two contiguous objeCt-glaffes, I found, that

tc the interjacent air exhibited rings of colours, as well by tranfmitting light as
“ by reflecting it. The central fpot was now white, and from it the order of
“ the colours were yellowifh, red, black, violet, blue, white, yellow, red ;
“ violet, blue, green, yellow, red, &c. but thefe colours were very faint and
“ dilute, unlefs when the light was trajeCled very obliquely through the glaffes •,
“ for by that means they became pretty vivid, only the firft yellowifh red, like
“ the blue in the fourth obfervation, was fo little and faint as fcarcely to be dif-
“ cerned. Comparing the coloured rings made by reflection with thefe made by
“ tranfmiffion of the light, I found, that white was oppofite to black, red to blue,
“ yellow to violet, and green to a compound of red and violet •, that is, thofe
“ parts of the glafs were black when, looked through, which when looked upon
“ appeared white, and on the contrary, and fo thofe, which in one cafe exhibited
“ blue, did in the other cafe exhibit red ; and the like of the other colours.
“ Obf. 10. Wetting the objeCt-glafs a little at their edges, the water crept in
“ flowly between them, and the circles thereby became lefs, and the colours
“ more faint; infomuch that, as the water crept along, one half of them, at which
“ it firft arrived, would appear broken off from the other half, and contracted
“ into a lefs room. By meafuring them I found the proportion of their diameters
“ to the diameters of the like circles made by air, to be about feven to eight j
“ and
i$74.] ROYAL SOCI ETY OF L O N D O N . 277

“ and confequently the intervals of the glafles at like circles, caufed by thefe two
“ mediums, water and air, are as about three to four. Perhaps it may be a general
“ rule, that if any other medium, more or lefs denfe than water, be compreffed
“ between the glafles, their interval at the rings, caufed thereby, will be to their
“ interval, caufed by interjacent air, as the fines are, which meafure the refrac-
“ don made out of that medium into air.
“ Obf. 1 1 . When the water was between the glafles, if I prefled the upper
“ glafs varioufly at its edges to make the rings move nimbly from one place to
“ another, a little bright fpot would immediately follow the center of them,
“ which, upon creeping in of the ambient water into that place, would prefently
“ vanilh. Its appearance was fuch, as interjacent air would have caufed, and it
“ exhibited the fame colours •, but it was not air, for where any aereal bubbles
“ were in the water they would not vanifh. The reflection mult rather have been
“ caufed by a fubtiler medium, which could recede through the glafs at the
“ creeping in of the water.
“ Obf. 12. Thefe obfervations were made in the open air. But further, to
“ examine the effeCts of coloured light falling on the glafles, I darkened the
“ room, and viewed them by reflection of the colours of a prifm caft on a lheet
“ of white paper; and by this means the rings became diftinCter, and vifible to
“ a far greater number than in the open air,
“ I have feen more than twenty of them, whereas in the open air I could not
** difcern above eight or nine.
“ Obf. 13. Appointing an afliftant to move the prifm to and fro about its
“ axis, that all its colours might fuccefiively fall on the fame place of the paper,
“ and be reflected from the circles to my eye whilft I held it immoveable ; I
“ found the circles, which the red light made, to be manifeftly bigger than
“ thofe, which were made by the blue and violet; and it was very pleafant to fee
“ them gradually fwell or contract, accordingly as the colour of the light was
“ changed. The interval of the glafs at any of the rings, when they were made
“ by the utmofl red light, was to their interval at the fame ring, when made
“ by the utmofl violet, greater than three to two, and lefs than thirteen to eight.
“ By the moft of my obfervations it was as nine to fourteen. And this pro-
“ portion feemed very nearly the fame in all obliquities of my eye,, unlefs when
“ two prifms were made ufe of inftead of the objeCt-glafies : for then, at a
“ certain great obliquity, the rings made by the feveral colours feemed equal;
“ and, at a greater obliquity, thofe made by the violet would be greater than the
fame rings made by the red.
“ Obf. 14. While the prifm was turned about uniformly, the contraction or
lC dilatation of a ring made by all the feveral colours of the prifm fuccefljvely
reflected from the objeCt-glafles, was fwifteft in the red, floweft in the violet,
and in intermediate colours it had intermediate degrees of celerity. Comparing
the extent, which each colour obtained by this contraction or diW " I found,
“ that
B7 8 T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E [ i 6 71 .
“ t h a t th e b l u e w a s fe n fib ly m o r e e x t e n d e d th a n th e v i o l e t , t h e y e l l o w th a n t h e
« b lu e , a n d th e red than th e y e l l o w . A n d , to m a k e a j u f t e r e f f i m a t i o n o f t h e i r
“ p r o p o r t i o n s , I o b f e r v e d , t h a t th e e x t e n t o f th e red w a s a i m o ft d o u b l e to t h a t
«« o f the v i o l e t , and t h a t th e l i g h t w a s o f a m i d d l e c o l o u r b e t w e e n y e l l o w a n d
« g r e e n at t h a t i n t e r v a l o f th e g la fle s , w h i c h w a s an a r i t h m e t i c a l m e a n b e t w e e n
“ t h e t w o e x t r e m e s ; c o n t r a r y t o w h a t h a p p e n s in th e c o l o u r s m a d e b y t h e re -
“ f r a c tio n o f a p r i f m , w h e r e th e red is m o l l c o n t r a c t e d , t h e v i o l e t m o d e x p a n d e d ,
“ a n d in th e m i d f t o f th e m is th e c o n f i n e o f g r e e n a n d b lu e .
<’• Obf. 15. Thefe rings were not of various colours, like thofe in the open
“ air, but appeared all over of that prifmatic colour only, with which they were
“ illuminated : and, by projecting the prifmatic colours immediately upon the
“ glafles, I found, that the light, which fell on the dark fpaces, which were be-
“ tween the coloured rings, was tranfmitted through the glafles without any va-
riation of colour. For, on a white paper placed behind, it would paint rings
“ of the fame colour with thofe, which were reflected, and of the bignefs of their
“ intermediate fpaces. And from hence the origin of thefe rings is manifeft,
“ namely, that the aereal interval of the glafles, according to its various thick-
“ nefs, is difpofed in fome places to refleCt, and in others to tranfmit, the light
“ of any co lo u ran d , in the fame place to refleft one colour, where it tranfmits
“ another.
Thefe obfervations fo well pleafed the Society, that they ordered Mr. O l d e n
burg to defire Mr. N e w t o n to permit them to be publilhed, together with the
reft •, which, they prefumed, did correfpond with thofe, that had been now read
to them.
Befides, there was read a pafiage of Mr. N e w t o n ’s letter to Mr. O l d e n b u r o ,

of 21 December, 1675, Hating the difference between his hypothefis and that of
M r. H o o k e . Which paflage was as follows:
“ As for Mr. H o o k e ’s infinuation, that the fum of the hypothefis I fent you
“ had been delivered by him in his Micrography, I need not be much concerned
tc at the liberty he takes in that kind : yet, becaufe you think it may do well,
“ if I ftate the difference I take to be between them, I fhall do it as briefly as I
“ can, and that the rather, that I may avoid the favour of having done any
“ thing unjuftifiable or unhandfome towards Mr. H o o k e . But, for this end, I
“ mud firft (to fee what is his) call out what he has borrowed from D es C a r -
“ t e s , or others, viz. that there is an aethereal medium •, that light is the aCtion
“ of this medium; that this medium is lefs implicated in the parts of folid
“ bodies, and lb moves more freely in them, and tranfmits light more readily
“ through them, and that after fuch a manner, as to accelerate the rays in a cer-
“ tain proportion-, that refraction arifes from this acceleration, and has fines
“ proportional; that light is at firft uniform; that its colours are fome diftur-
“ bance or new modification of its rays by refraction or reflection j that the co-
“ lours of a prifm are made by means of the quiefcent medium, accelerating
“ fome motion of the rays on one fide, where red appears, and retarding it on
“ the
167 *.] ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 27

“ the other fide, where blue appears; and, that there are but thefe two original
“ colours, or colour-making modifications of light, which by their various de-
“ grees, or, as Mr. H ooke calls it, dilutings, produce all intermediate ones.
ci This rejected, the remainder of his hypothefis is, that he has changed D es
“ C a r t e s ’s prefling or progreflive motion of the medium to a vibrating one, the
“ rotation of the globuli to the obligation of pulfes, and the accelerating their
“ rotation on the one hand, and retarding it on the other, by the quiefcent me-
“ dium, to produce colours, to the like adiion of the medium on the two ends of
“ his pulfes for the fame end. And having thus far modified his by the Carte-
“ fian hypothefis, he has extended it further, to explicate the phtenomena of thin
“ plates, and added another explication of the colours of natural bodies, fluid
“ and folid.
“ This, I think, is in (hort the fum of his hypothefis ; and in all this I have
<£ nothing common with him, but the fuppofition, that tether is a fufcep-
“ tible medium of vibrations, of which fuppofition 1 make a very different ufe;
“ he fuppofing it a light itfelf, which I fuppofe it is not. This is as great a dif-
“ ference as is between him and D es C a r t e s . But befides this, the manner of
“ refradtion and refledtion, and the nature and production of colours in all cafes
“ (which takes up the body of my difcourfe) I explain very differently from
him ; and even in the colours of thin tranfparent fubftances, I explain every
“ thing after a way fo differing from him, that the experiments I ground my
“ difcourfe on, deftroy all he has faid about them •, and the two main experi-
“ ments, without which the manner of the production of thofe colours is not to
“ be found out, were not only unknown to him, when he wrote his Microgra-
“ phy, but even laft fpring, as 1 underftood, in mentioning them to him. This
“ therefore is the fum of what is common to us, that aether may vibrate; and
“ fo, if he thinks fit to ufe that notion of colours, arifing from the various big-
“ nefs of pulfes (without which his hypothefis will do nothing) bis will borrow
“ as much from my anfwer to his objections, as that I lend you does from his
“ Micrography.
“ But, it may be, he means, that I have made ufe of his obfervations, and of
“ fome I did ; as, that of the inflection of rays, for which I quoted him ; that
“ of opacity, arifing from the interftices of the parts of bodies, which I infiffc
“ not on ; and that of plated bodies exhibiting colours, a phenomenon, for the
“ notice of which I thank him. But he left me to find out and make fuch cx-
M periments about it, as might inform me of the manner of the production of thofe
“ colours, to ground an hypothefis on •, he having given no further infight to it
“ than this, that the colour depended on fome certain thicknefs of the plate;
“ though what that thicknefs was at every colour, he confeflfes in his Microgra-
“ phy, he had attempted in vain to learn-, and therefore, feeing I was left to
“ meafure it myfelf, I fuppofe he will allow me to make ufe of what I took
“ the pains to find out. And this I hope may vindicate me from what Mr.
“ H ooke has been pleafed to charge m e with.”
The reading of the reft of Mr. N e w t o n ’s difcourfe was referred to the next
meeting.
January
2 10 NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS
280 T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [1674.
January 27. Mr. O l d e n b u r g produced from his highnefs prince R u p e r t a
piece of marble, having feveral pitftures of boys and trees painted upon it in fuch
a manner, that all the out-lines of the pi&ures were exactly defined without any
flowing of the colours abroad, and the colours fixed by the fire, and afterwards
fo polilhed, that they would be permanent, and laft as long as the marble.
This was acknowledged by the members to be a very great improvement of

what had been done at Oxford by a certain ftone-cutter there; and that all, that
had been performed before in this art, was not comparable to this degree of im
provement.
Mr. H ooke re m a rk e d , th a t h e conceived, th a t there were b u t tw o colours in
this piece ; and th a t he had a m e th o d o f d o ing it w ith m oft colours, and to paint
w ith th e m u p o n m a r b le almoft as curioufly as w ith a pencil.
Mr. N e w t o n ’ s letter of January 25, 167-5- % in which he acknowledged the fa

vour of the Society in their kind acceptance of his late papers; and declared, that
he knew not how to deny any thing, which they defired fhould be done: but he
requefted, that the printing of his obfervations about colours might be fufpended
for a time, becaufe he had fome thoughts of writing fuch another fet of obferva
tions for determining the manner of the produdlion of colours by the prifm:
which obfervations, he faid, ought to precede thofe now in the Society’s poflfef-
fion, and would be moft proper to be joined with them.
There was alfo read a letter of Mr. P a s c a l l of Somerfetfhire to Mr. A u b r e y ,
dated 18 January, 1674, containing fome natural obfervations of that county,
viz. concerning the nature of the lead-mines in Mendip-Hills; a well refembling
the fulphur-well near the Spaw in Yorkfhire ; a fpring petrifying far more than
the dropping-well at Knarelborough in the north; the motion of fome under
ground waters in the parifhes of Z o l a n d e , formerly recovered from the fea, &c.
It was ordered, that the reading of Mr. N e w t o n ’ s obfervations about colours

be continued at the next meeting.
February 3. There was prefented from Dr. W a l l i s his edition of A r c h i
medes ’s Arenarius, with a new tranflation of his and notes, printed at Oxford,
in 1676.
T h e reading o f M r . N e w t o n ’s obfervations on colours was continued, viz .
hat part, wherein he explains by the fimpleft of colours the moft recompounded ;
s follows :
a
“ Obf. 16: The fquares of the diameters of thefe rings, made by prifmatic
“ colour, were in arithmetical progrefiion, as in the fifth obfervation. And the
“ diameter of the fixth circle, when made by the yellow, and viewed almoft
perpendicularly, was obout -V-s- parts of an inch, agreeable to the fixth obfer-
“ vation.
* There are no letters entered from the beginning o f the year 1671 till July 1677.
“ perpen-
NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS 2 11

i! Prece^cnt obfervations were made with a rarer thin medium terminated
<c by a denfer, fuch as was air or water comprefled betwixt two glades. In
“ thofe, that follow, are fet down the appearances of a denfer medium thinned
“ within a rarer; fuch as are plates of Mufcovy-glafs, bubbles of water, and
“ fome others thin fuftances terminated on all fides with air.
“ Obf. 17 . If a bubble be blown with water, firft made tenacious by diflolv-
“ ing a little foap in it, it is a common obfervation, that after a while it will
■
“ appear tinged with a great variety of colours. To defend thefe bubbles from
“ being agitated by the external air (whereby their colours are irregularly moved
“ one among another, To that no accurate obfervation can be made of them) as
“ foon as I had blown any of them, I covered it with a clear glafs, and by that
“ means its colours emerged in a very regular order, like fo many concentric
“ rings incompafiing the top of the bubble. And as the bubble grew thinner
<c by the continual fubflding of the water, thefe rings dilated (lowly, and over-
fpread the whole bubble, defcending in order to the bottom of it, where they
“ vanilhed fucceffively. In the mean while, after all the colours were emerged
“ at the top, there grew in the center of the rings a fmall, round, black fpot,
“ like that in the firft obfervation, which continually dilated itfelf, till it became
“ fometimes more than one half or three fourths of an inch in breadth, before the
“ bubble broke. At firft I thought there had been no light reflefted from the water
“ in that place; but obferving it more curioufly, I faw within it feveral fmaller,
“ round fpots, which appeared much blacker and darker than the reft, whereby
“ I knew, that there was fome reflection at the other places, which were not fo
“ dark as thofe fpots. And by further trial I found, that I could fee the images
“ (as of a candle or the fun) very faintly reflected, not only from the great black
“ fpot, but alfo from the little darker fpots, which were within it.
“ Befides the aforefaid coloured rings, there would often appear fmall fpots of
“ colours afcending and defcending up and down the fide of the bubble, by rea-
“ fonof fome inequalities in the fubfiding of the water ; and fometimes fmall black
“ fpots generated at the fides, would afcend up to the larger black fpot at the
“ top of the bubble, and unite with it.
“ Obf. 18. Becaufe the colours of thefe bubbles were more extended and
“ lively than thofe of air thinned between two glaftes, and fo more eafy to be
diftinguifiled, I (hall here give you a further defcription of their order, as they
“ were obferved in viewing them by reflexion of the (kies, when of a white
“ colour, whilft a black fubftance was placed behind the bubble: and they were
“ thefe; red, blue, red, blue; red, blue; red, green; red, yellow; green, blue,
“ purple; red, yellow, green, blue, violet; red, yellow, white, blue, black.
“ The three firft fucceflions of red and blue were very dilute and dirty, efpe-
“ dally the firft, where the red feemed in a manner to be white. Amongft thefe
“ there was fcarcely any other colour fenfible, only the blues (and principally the
“ fecond blue) inclined a little to green.
V O L. III. O o “ The
282 T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E
“ The fourth red was alfo dilute and dirty, but not fo much as the former
“ three: after that fucceeded little or no yellow, but a copious green, which at
“ firft was inclined a little to yellow, and then became a pretty brilk and good
“ willow green, and afterwards changed to a blueifh colour ; but there luccedcd
“ neither blue nor violet.
“ The fifth red at firft was very much inclined to purple, and afterwards be-
“ came more bright and brifk, but yet not very pure. This was fucceeded with
“ a very bright and intenfe yellow, which was but little in quantity, and foon
“ changed to green ; but that green was copious, and fomething more pure,
“ deep, and lively, than the former green. After that followed an excellent blue
“ of a bright fky colour ; and then a purple, which was lefs in quantity than the
“ blue, and much inclined to red.
“ The fixth red was at firft of a very fair and lively fcarlet, and foon after
“ of a brighter colour, being very pure and brilk, and the beft of all the reds.
“ Then, after a lively orange, fol owed an intenfe, bright, and copious yellow,
“ which was alfo the beft of all the yellows; and this changed, firft to a greenifh
“ yellow, and then to a greenifh blue; but the green between the yellow and
“ blue was very little and dilute, feeming rather a greenifh white than a green.
“ The blue, which fucceeded, became very good, and of a fair, bright, fky-colour;
“ but yet fomething inferior to the former blue: and the violet was intenfe and
“ deep, with little or no rednefs in it, and lefs in quantity than the blue.
tc In the laft red appeared a tinfture of fcarlet next the violet, which foon
“ changed to a brighter colour, inclining to an orange : and the yellow, which
“ followed, was at firft pretty good and lively, but afterwards it grew more and
“ more dilute, until by degrees it ended in perfedt whitenefs: and this whitenefs,
“ if the water was very tenacious and well tempered, would flowly fpread and
“ dilate itfelf over the greateft part of the bubble, continually growing paler at
“ the top, where at length it would crack, and thofe cracks, as they dilated;
“ would appear of a pretty good, but yet obfcure and dark, fky-colour; the
“ white between the blue fpots diminifhing, until it refembled the threads of an
“ irregular net-work, and foon after vanifhed and left all the upper part of the
“ bubble of the faid dark blue colour; and this colour, after the aforefaid man-
“ ner, dilated itfelf downwards, until fometimes it hath overfpread the whole
“ bubble. In the mean while, at the top, which was of a darker blue than the
“ bottom, and appeared alfo of many round blue fpots, fomething darker than
“ the reft, there would emerge one or more very black fpots, and within thofe,
“ other fpots of an intenfer blacknefs, which I mentioned in the former obferva-
“ tion; and thofe continually dilated themfelves until the bubble, broke.
“ If the water was not very tenacious, the black fpots would break forth in
“ the white, without any fenfible intervention of the blue: and fometimes they
“ would break forth within the precedent yellow, or red, or perhaps within
“ the blue of the fecond order, before the intermediate colours had time to dif-
“ play themfelves.

“ By this defcription you may perceive, how great an affinity thefe colours
“ have with thofe of air, defcribed in the fourth obfervation, although fet down
“ in a contrary order, by reafon that they begin to appear, when the bubble is
“ thickeft, and are moft conveniently reckoned from the loweft and thickeft part
“ of the bubble upwards.
11 Obf. 19. Viewing, at feveral oblique pofitions of my eye, the rings of
« colours emerging on the top of the bubble, I found, that they were ienfibly
“ dilated by increafing the obliquity, but yet not fo much by far, as thofe made
“ by thinned air in the feventh obfervation. For there they diftended fo much,
“ as, when viewed moft obliquely, to arrive at a part of the plate more than
“ twelve lines thicker than that where they appeared, when viewed perpendicu-
“ larly; whereas in this cafe the thicknefs of the water, at which they arrived
“ when viewed moft obliquely, was, to that thicknefs, which exhibited them by
“ perpendicular rays, fomething lefs than eight to five. By the beft of my ob
it fervations, it was between fifteen and fifteen and a half to ten, an increafe
“ about twenty-four times lefs than in the other cafe.
“ Sometimes the bubble would become of an uniform thicknefs all over, ex-
“ cept at the top of it near the black fpot, as I knew, becaufe it would exhibit
“ the fame appearance of colours in all pofitions of the eye ; and then the co-
“ lours, which were feen at its apparent circumference by the obliqueft rays,
“ would be different from thofe, that were feen in other places by rays lefs
“ oblique to it. And divers fpeCtators might fee the fame part of it of differing
“ colours, by viewing it at very differing obliquities. Now, obferving how
“ much the colours at the fame place of the bubble, or at divers places of equal
“ thicknefs, were varied by the feveral obliquities of the rays, by affiftance of
“ the fourth, fourteenth, fixteenth, and eighteenth obfervations, as they are
“ hereafter explained, I collected the thicknefs of the water, requifite to exhibit
“ any one the fame colour at feveral obliquities, to be very nearly in the propor-
“ portion expreffed in this table.
Incidence RefraCtion Thicknefs

on the water. into the water. of the water.
degr. min. degr. min.
00 00 00 00 10
15 00 11 11 104
30 00 22 1 104
45 CO 32 2
60 00 40 3° 13
75 00 46 25 I4 t
90 00 48 35 *5t
ct In the two firft columns are expreffed the obliquities of the rays to the
“ fuperficies of the water ; that is, their angles of incidence and refraction;
“ where, I fuppofe, that the lines, which meafure them, are in round numbers,
“ as three to four, though probably the diffolution of foap in the water may, a
“ little alter its refractive virtue. In the third column the thicknefs of the bubble,
O o 2 “ at
*8* T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E £1674.
«* at which any one colour is exhibited in thofe feveral obliquities, is expreft* in
«.* parts, of which ten conftitute that thicknefs, when the rays are perpendicular.
“ I have fometimes obferved of the colours, which arife on polilhed fteel by
“ heating it, or on bell metal and feme other metalline fubftances, when melted
“ and poured on the ground, where it may cool in the open air, that they have,
“ like thofe of water-bubbles, been a little changed by viewing them at divers
“ obliquities; and particularly, that a deep blue or violet, when viewed very
“ obliquely, hath been changed to a deep red. But the changes of thefe colours
“ are not fo fenfible as of thofe made by water; for the fcoria, or vitrified part
“ of the metal, which moil metals, when heated or melted, continually protrude
“ to their furface, where, by covering them in form of a thin glafiy lkin, it
“ caufes thefe colours, is much denfer than water, and I find, that the change
** made by the obliquation of the eye, is lead in colours of the denfeft thin fub-
“ fiances.
“ Obf. 20. As in the ninth obfervation, fo here, the bubble, by tranfmitted
'* light appeared of a contrary colour to that, which it exhibited by refledtiom
M Thus, when the bubbles, being looked on by the light of the clouds refiedted
from it, feemed red at its apparent circumference, if the clouds at the lame
** time, or very fudden!y, were viewed through it, the colour at its circumfe-
M rence would be blue. And, on the contrary, when by refiedted light it ap-
“ peared blue, it would appear red by tranfmitted light.
“ Obf. 2 i. By wetting, plates of Mufcovy-glafs, whofe thinnefs made the like

“ colours appear, the colours became more faint, efpecjally by wetting the plates
M on that fide oppofite the eye v but 1 could' not perceive any variation of their
“ fpecies. So that the thicknefs of a plate requifite to produce any colour, de-
“ pends only on the denfity of the plate, and not of the ambient medium,.
“ And hence, by the tenth and fixteenth.obfervations, may be known the thick-
“ nefs of bubbles of water or plates of Mufcovy-glafs, or of any other fubftan-
“ ces^ which they have at any colour produced by them.
“ Obf. 22, A thin tranfparent body, which is denfer than Its ambient me*
“ dium, exhibits more brifk and vivid colours than that, which is fo much
“ rarer; as- I have particularly obferved in air and glafs: for, blowing, glafs
“ very thin at a lamp furnace, thofe plates encompafied with air did exhibit co-
“ lours much more vivid than thofe of air made thin between two glafies,
“ Obf. 23. Comparing the quantity of light refiedted from the feveral rings,.
“ I found it was mod copious from the firft or inmofi, and in the exterior rings be-
“ came gradually lefs and lefs. Alfo the whitenefs of the firft ring was ftronger than
“ that refiedted from thofe parts of the thinned medium, which were without the
“ rings,, as I could manifeftly perceive by viewing at diftance the rings made by
“ the two objedt glafies; or by comparing two bubbles of water blown at diftant
“ times, In the firft of which the whitenefs appeared, which fucceeded the colours,
** and the whitenefs, which preceded them, in the other.
“ Obf.
167*.] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y O F L O N D O N . 285
“ Obf. 24. When the two objeft-glafies were laid upon one another, fo as to
“ make the rings of colours appear, though with my naked eye I could not
“ difcern above eight or nine of thofe rings, yet, by viewing them through a
“ prifm, I have feen a far greater multitude, infomuch, that I could number
“ more than forty, befides many others, that were fo very fmall and clofe toge-
ther, that I could not keep my eye fo fteady on them feverally as to number
“ them : but by their extent I have fometimes eftimated them to be more than
“ a hundred. And, I believe, the experiment may be improved to the difcovery
“ of far greater numbers; for they feem to be really unlimited, though vifible
“ only fo far as they can be feparated by the refra&ion, as I fliall hereafter
“ explain.
“ But it was but one fide of thefe rings, namely, that, towards which the re-
“ fraftion was made, which by that refradion was rendered diftind; and the
“ other fide became more confufed than to the naked eye, infomuch that there I
“ could not dikern above one or two, and fometimes none of thofe rings, of
“ which I could difcern eight or nine with my naked eye. And their fegments,
“ or arcs, which on the other fide appeared fo numerous, for the moft part ex-
“ ceeded not the third part of a circle. If the refradion was very great, or the
“ prifms very diftant from the objed-glafies, the middle part of thofe arcs be-
“ came alfo confufed, fo as to difappear and conftitute an even whitenefs, whilft
“ on either fide their ends, as alfo the whole arcs fartheft
“ from the center, became diftindcr than before, appearing Fig. II.
*- in the form you fee them here defigned.
“ The arcs, where they feemed diftindeft, were only white

“ and black fuccefiively, without any other colours in-
“ termixed. But in other places there appeared colours
“ whofe order was inverted by the refradion, in fuch man-
ct per, that, if I firft held the prifm very near the objed-
“ glafies, and then gradually removed it farther off towards
“ my eye, the colours of the fecond, third, fourth, and following rings fh’runk
“ towards the white, that emerged between them, until they wholly vanifhed into
“ it at the middle of the arcs, and afterwards emerged again in a contrary or-
“ der : but at the end of the arcs they retained their order unchanged.
“ I have fometimes fo laid one objed-glafs upon the other, that, to the naked
•* eye, they have all over feemed uniformly white, without the leaft appearance
“ of any of the coloured rings; and yet, by viewing them through a prifm, great
“ multitudes of thofe rings have difcovered themfelves. And, in like manner,
“ plates of Mufcovy glafs, and bubbles of glafs blown at a lamp furnace,
M which were not fo thin, as to exhibit any colours to the naked eye, have
“ through the prifm exhibited a great variety of them, ranged irregularly up
“ and down, in the form of waves. And fo bubbles of water, before they be-
“ gan to exhibit their colours to the naked eye of a by -0ancle r, have appeared,
“ through a prifm, girded about with many parallel and horizontal rings •, to pro-
“ duce whicheffed, it was neceffary to hold the prifm parallel, or very nearly pnral-
“ lei, to the horizon, and to difpofcit fo, that the rays might be refraded upwards.
“ Having
2l6 NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS
2 86 T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E [167*.
“ Having given my obfervations of thefe colours, before I make ufe of them

“ to unfold the caufes of the colours of natural bodies, it is convenient, that, by
“ the fimpleft of them, I firft explain the more compounded ; fuch as are the
“ fecond, third, fourth, ninth, twelfth, eighteenth, twentieth, and twenty-fourth.
“ And firft, to fhow how the colours in the fourth and eighteenth obfervations
“ are produced, let there be taken in any
“ right line the lengths Y Z, Y A, and
“ Y H , in proportion as four, nine, and
“ fourteen •, and between Z A and Z H
“ eleven mean proportionals, of which let 33
“ Z B be the fecond, Z C the third, Z D j!
“ the fifth, Z E the feventh, Z F the ninth, 37
“ and Z G the tenth. And at the points
“ A, B, C, D, E, F, G , H , let perpendi- 3s '
“ diculars A a, B |3, &c. be eredted, by 34
“ whofe intervals, the extent of the feveral 33 '
“ colours fet underneath againft them, is to
“ be reprefented. Then divide the line A « 3t '
“ in fuch proportion as the numbers 1 , 2, 3 > 30
“ 5, 6, 7 •, 9, 10, 11 , &c. fet at the point ^
“ of divifion denote. And through thofe ' / /
“ divifions from Y draw lines x I, 2 K, 3 L •, 26 y
“ 5 m, 6 », 7 0, &c. ®s
Now, if A 2 be fuppofed to reprefent the *j'_y

“ thicknefs of any thin tranfparent body, 22
“ at which the utmoft violet is moft copi- “
“ oufly reflected in the firft ring or feries of ,9
“ colours, then, by the thirteenth obferva- 18
“ tion, H K will reprefent its thicknefs, at 17
“ which the utmoft red is moft copioufly , s
“ refledted in the fame feries. Alfo, by the *4^
“ fifth and fixteenth obfervations, A 6, and 131
“ H », will denote the thicknefs at which
“ thofe extreme colours are moft copioufly
“ refledled in the fecond feries, and fo on.
“ And the thicknefs, at which any of the
“ intermediate colours are refledted moft
“ copioufly, will, according to the four-
“ teenth obfervation, be defined by the in-
________ _
to
c
rj
u
Ocd
“ te r m e d ia te
1674.] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y O F L O N D O N . 187
“ termediate parts of the lines 2 K, 6 », &c. againft which the names of thofe
“ colours are written below.
“ But farther, to define the latitude of thefe colours in each ring or feries, let
“ A 1 defign the leaft thicknefs, and A 3 the greateft thicknefs, at which the
“ extreme violet in the firft feries is reflefted ; and let H I and FI L defign the
“ like limit for the extreme red, and the intermediate colours be limited by the
“ intermediate parts of the lines, 1 I and 3 L ; againft which the names of thole
“ colours are written. And in the lecond feries, let thofe limits be the lines
“ 5 M and 7 O ; and fo o n : but yet with this caution, that the refleftions be
“ fuppofed ftrongeft at the intermediate fpaces, 2 K, 6 N, 10 R, &c. and to
“ decreafe gradually towards thefe limits, 1 I, 3 L ; 5 M, 7 O, &c. on either
“ fide, where you muft not conceive them to be precifely limited, but to decay
“ indefinitely. And whereas I have defigned the fame latitude to every feries, I
“ did it, becaufe, although the colours in the firft feries feem to be a little broader
“ than the reft, by reafon of a ftronger reflection there ; yet that inequality is fo
« infenfible as fcarcely to be determined by obfervation.
“ Now, according to this defcription, conceiving, that the rays, in which feve-
“ ral colours in here, are by turns reflefted at the fpace 1 K, 3 L , 3 M, O 7,
“ 9 P, R 11 , &c. and tranfmitted at the fpaces A FI I 1 , 3 L, M 5, 7 O,
“ P 9, &c. it is eafy to know what colour in the open air muft be exhibited
“ at any thicknefs of a tranfparent thin body. For, if a ruler be applied paral-
“ lei to A FJ, at that diftance from it by which the thicknefs of the body is
“ reprefented, the alternate fpaces 1 I, L 3, 5 M, O 7, &c. which it croffeth,
“ will denote the reflefted original colours, of which the colour exhibited in the
“ open air is compounded. Thus, if the conftitution of the green in the third
“ feries of colours be defired ; apply the ruler, as you fee, at n p a ?>, and by its
“ pafling through fome of the blue at w, and yellow at c, as well as through the
“ green p, you may conclude, that green, exhibited at that thicknefs of the
“ body, is principally conftituted of original green, but not without a mixture
“ of fome blue and yellow. By this means you may know, how the colours
“ from the center of the rings outwards ought to fucceed in order, as they were
“ defcribed in the fourth and eighteenth obfervations : for, if you move the ruler
“ gradually from A H through all diftances, having paft over the firft fpace,
“ which denotes little or no refleftion to be made by thinned fubftances, it will firft
“ arrive at 1 , the violet, and then very quickly at the blue and green, which, to-
“ gether with that violet compounded blue, and then at the yellow and red, by
“ whofe further addition, that blue is converted into whitenefs, which white-
“ nefs continues during the tranfit from I to 3 •, and after that, by the fucceflive
“ deficience of its component colours, turns firft to compound yellow, and then
“ to red, and laft of all the red ceafeth at L Then begin the colours of the fecond
“ feries, which fucceed in order between 5 and O, and are more lively than be-
“ fore, becaufe more expanded and fevered. And, for the fame reafon, inftead of
“ the former white, there intercedes between the blue and yellow a mixture of
“ orange, yellow, green, blue and indico, all which together ought to exhibit
“ a dilute an imperfeft; green. So the colours of the third feries all fucceed in
11 order
2l8 NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGPIT & COLOURS
2 88 T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E [i 67*.
“ order; firft the violet, which a little interferes with the red of the fecond or-
tc der, and is thereby inclined to a redilh purple; then the blue and green, which
“ are lefs mixed with other colours, and confequently more lively than before,
“ efpecially the green. Then follows the yellow, fome of which towards the
“ green is diftincl and good ; but that part of it towards the fucceeding red, as
“ alfo that red, is mixed with the violet and blue of the fourth feries, whereby va-
“ rious degrees of red, very much inclining to purple, are compounded. The
“ violet and blue, which lhould fucceed this red, being mixed with, and hidden
in it, there fucceeds a green ; and this at firft is much inclined to blue, but
“ foon becomes a good green ; the only unmixed and lively colour in this fourth
“ feries : for as it verges towards the yellow, it begins to interfere with the
“ colours of the fifth feries, by whofe mixture the fucceeding yellow and red are
“ very much diluted, and made dirty, efpecially the yellow, which being the
“ weaker colour, is fcarce able to fhew itfelf. After this the feveral feries inter-
“ fere more and more, and their colours become more and more intermixed, till
“ after three or four revolutions (in which the red and blue predominate by
“ turns) all forts of colours are in all places pretty equally blended, and com-
“ pound one even whitenefs.
“ And fince, by the fifteenth obfervation, the rays indued with one colour are
“ tranfmitted, where thofe of another colour are reflected, the reafon of the co-
“ lours made by the tranfmitted light, in the ninth and twentieth obfervations, is
“ alfo from hence evident.
“ If not only the order and fpecies of thefe colours, but alfo the precife thick*
“ nefs of the plate, or thin body, at which they are exhibited, be defired in parts
“ of an inch, that may be alfo performed by afliftance of the fixth or fixteenth'
“ obfervation. For, according to thole obfervations, the thicknefs of the thinned
“ air, which, between two glades, exhibited the orange or bright red of the
“ fixth order, was -r^-J-TT Parts of an inch. Now, fuppofe this thicknefs be
“ reprefented by G t , and the eleventh part of it, G h, will be about t 8-cW b- of
“ an inch. And fo G ft, G V, G S, G 0, will be T’S'SXrTSX TTWTfl TTTXnSXm
“ and t W o w -And this being known, it is eafy to determine what thicknefs
“ Of air is reprefented by G or any other diftance of the ruler from A H.
“ But further, fince, by the tenth obfervation, the thicknefs of air was to the
“ thicknefs of water, which between the fame glafies exhibited the fame colour,
“ as four to three •, and, by the twenty-firft obfervation, the colours of thin
“ bodies are not varied by varying the ambient medium ; the thicknefs of a
“ bubble of water exhibiting any colour will be three fourths of the thicknefs of
“ air producing the fame colour. And fo, according to the fame tenth and twenty-
“ firft obfervations, the thicknefs of a plate of glafs, whofe refraftion is meafured
“ by the proportion of the fines thirty-one to twenty, may be of the thicknefs
“ of air producing the fame colours: and the like of other mediums. On thefe
“ grounds I have compofed the following table ; wherein the thicknefs of air,
“ water, and glafs, at which each colour is moft intenfe and fpecific, is expreffed
“ in parts of an inch divided into ten hundred thoufand equal parts.
“ The
NEWTON’S SECOND PAPER ON LIGHT & COLOURS 2ig
167$.] ROYAL SOCIETY O F L O N D O N 4.

The thicknefs of
______ _______
>
M• 3 O
*1 r-t- ET
► t w*
f Black 2 I t or lefs.
Blue 2t 2 u
The colours of , White 5t 4 34
the firft order j Yellow 8 6 54
Orange 9 5t
[Red 10 74 f >4
'Violet 12 9 74
Indico 9t t 84
Blue * 4t 11 94
O f the fecond j Green 16 12 104
order s Yellow W 4 i3t ii?
Orange * 9t *44 I2 |.
Bright red 20 l5 13
.Scarlet 16 *34
‘Purple 23 i 7T H i
Indico 24 18 1 Si
Blue 2 5t r9 1 64
O f the third
^ Green 2 74 20|-
17i
order j Yellow 2 9i 22
19
Red 2 34 20
l_Bluilh red 334 25 2 It
rBluilh 36 27 234
J Green 37 4 284 244
Fourth order
) Yellowifh green 39 t 29 t 254
(.Red 44 33 28 4.
Fifth order CGreenifh blue | 5° 4 38 324

iR e d 1 574 43 . 37
CGreenilh blue 64 48 4 i4
Sixth order
£Red 7°T 53 454
Seventh order JGreenifh blue 774 58 5°

/..Red or White 84 63 544
“ Now, if this table be compared with the third fcheme, you will there iee
tl the conftitution of each colour, as to its ingredients, or the original colours,
“ of which it is compounded, and thence be enabled to judge of its intenlenefs
“ or imperfection, which may fuffice in explication of the fourth and eighteenth
Y ol. Ill, P p <■ obferva-
T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E [1 6 * 4 .
“ obfervaiions, unlefs it be further deftred to delineate the manner, how the
“ colours appear, when the two objeift-glafies are laid upon one another: to do
“ which let there be defcribed a large arc of a circle and a ftrait line, which
“ may touch that arc ; and parallel to that tangent feveral occult lines at fuch
“ diftances from it, as the numbers fet againft the feveral colours in the table
“ denote. For the arc and its tangent will reprefent the fuperficies of the
“ glafTes, terminating the interjacent air, and the places, where the occult lines
“ cut the arc, will fhow at what diftances from the center, or point of the con-
“ ta<ft, each colour is reflected.
“ There are alfo other tlfes for this table ; for by its affiftance the thicknefs
“ of the bubble, in the nineteenth obfervation, was determined by the colours,
“ which it exhibited. And fo the bignefs of the parts of natural bodies may be
“ conjedtured at by their colours, as (hall be hereafter lhown. Alfo, if two
“ or more very thin plates be laid one upon another, fo as to compofe one plate,
“ equalling them all in thicknefs, the refulting colour may be hereby determined.
“ For inftance, Mr. H o o k e , in his Micrographia, obferves, that a faint yellow
“ plate of Mufcovy glafs, laid upon a blue one, conftituted a very deep purple.
“ The yellow of the firft order is a faint one, and the thicknefs of the plate ex-
“ hibiting it, according to the table, is 5 to which a d d g 4-> the thicknefs ex-
“ hibiting blue of the fecond order, and the fum wiil be 14 which moft
nearly approaches 14 4 ? the thicknefs exhibiting the purple of the third
“ order.
“ To explain, in the next place, the circumftances of the fecond and third
“ obfervations, that is, how the colours (by turning the prifms about their com-
“ mon axis the contrary way to that exprefled in thofe obfervations) may be con-
“ verted into white and black rings, and afterwards into colours again i
“ inverted order; it muft be remembered, that thofe colours aredilated by o
“ quation of rays to the air, which intercedes the glafies ; and that, according
“ to the table in the fevenrh obfervation, their dilatation or refle&ion from the
“ common center is moft manifeft and fpeedy when they are obliqueft. Now,
e the rays of yellow being more refradted by the firft fuperficies of the faid air
“ than thofe of red, are thereby made more oblique to the fecond fuperficies,
“ at which they are reflected, to produce the coloured rings ; and confequently,
“ the yellow in each ring will be more dilated than the red ; and the excefs of
“ its dilatation will be fo much the greater, by how much the greater is the obli-
“ quity of the rays, until at laft it become of equal extent withthe red of
“ fame ring. And, for the fame reafon, the green, blue, and violet, will be
“ alfo fo much dilated by the ftill greater obliquity of their rays, as to become
“ all very nearly of equal extent with the red ; that is, equally diftant from the
“ center of the rings. And then all the colours of the fame feries muft be coinci-
“ dent, and by their mixture exhibit a white ring; and thefe white rings muft
“ have black or dark rings between them, becaufe they do not fpread and inter-
“ fere with one another as before; and, for that reafon alfo, they muft become
“ diftinfter, and vifible to far greater numbers. But yet the violet, being
“ obliqueft.

“ obliqueft, will be fomething more dilated in proportion than the other colours;
“ and fo very apt to appear at the exterior verges of the white.
“ Afterwards, by a greater obliquity of the rays, the violet and the blue be-
“ come fenfibiy more dilated than the red and yellow; and fo being further
“ removed from the center of the rings, the colours muft emerge out of the white
a in an order contrary to that which they had before, the violet and blue at the
“ exterior limbs, and the red and yellow at the interior. And the violet, by
“ reafon of the greateft obliquity of its rays, being, in proportion, moft of all
“ expanded, will fooneft appear at the exterior limb of each white ring, and
“ become more confpicuous than the reft. And the feveral feries of colours, by
“ their unfolding and Ipreading, will begin again to interfere, and thereby render
“ the rings lefs diftindt, and not vifible to fo great numbers.
“ If, inftead of the prifms, the objedt-glafies be made ufe of, the rings, which
“ they exhibit, become not white and diftindt by the obliquity of the eye, by
“ reafon, that the rays, in their paflage through that air, which interceded the
“ glafles, are very nearly parallel to themfelves, when firft incident on the glades;
“ and confequently, thofe indued with feveral colours are not inclined one more
“ than another to that air, as it happens in the prifms.
“ There is yet another circumftance of thefe experiments to be confidered;

“ and that is, why the black and white rings, which, when viewed at a diftance,
“ appear diftindt, fhould not only become confufed by viewing them near at
“ hand, but alfo yield a violet colour at both the edges of every white rin g :
“ and the reafon is, that the rays, which enter the eye at feveral parts of the
“ pupil, have feveral obliquities to the glafles, and thofe, which are moft oblique,
“ if confidered apart, would reprefent the rings bigger than thofe, which are the
leaft oblique. Whence the breadth of the perimeter of every white ring is ex-
“ panded outwards by the obliqueft rays, and inwards by the leaft oblique. And
“ this expanfion is fo much the greater, by how much the greater is the difference
“ of the obliquity; that is, by how much the pupil is wider, or the eye nearer
“ to the glafles : and the breadth of the violet muft be moft expanded, becaufe
“ the rays, apt to excite a fenfation of that colour, are moft oblique to the
“ fecond or further fuperficies of the thinned air, at which they are refledted;
“ and have alfo the greateft variation of obliquity, which makes that colour
“ fooneft emerge out of the edges of the white. And, as the breadth of every
“ ring is thus augmented, the dark intervals muft be diminifhed, until the neigh-
“ bouring rings become continuous, and are blended, the exterior firft, and
“ then thofe nearer the center; fo that they can no longer be diftinguifhed a-part,
“ but feem to conftitute an even and uniform whitenefs.
“ Amongft all the obfervations there is none accompanied with fo odd circum-
“ fiances as the twenty-fourth. Of thofe the'principal are, that in thin plates,
“ which, to the naked eye, feem of an even and uniform tranfparent whitenefs,
“ the refradtion of a prifm fhould make the rings of colours appear; whereas it
“ ufually makes obje&s to appear coloured only, where they are terminated with
l’ p 2 “ fhadows,
a9a THE HISTORY OF THE [. 674.

“ fhadows, or have parts unequally luminous •, and that it Ihould make thofe
“ rings exceedingly diftind and white, although it ufually renders thofe objeds
“ confufcd and coloured. The caufe of thefe things you will underftand by
“ conlidering, that all the rings of colours are really in the plate, when viewed
“ by the naked eye, although, by reafon of the great breadth of their circum-
“ ferences, they fo much interfere, and are blended together, that they feem to
“ conftitute an even whitenefs. But, when the rays pafs through the prifm to
“ the eye, the orbits of the feveral colours in every ring are refraded, fome more
“ than others, according to their degree of refrangibility; by which means the
“ colours on one fide of the ring become more unfolded and dilated, and on the
“ other fide more complicated and contraded. And where, by a due refrac-
“ tion, they are fo much contradied, that the feveral rings become narrower
“ than to interfere with one another, they muft appear diftind, and alfo white,
« if the confiituent colours be fo much contradied as to be wholly coinci-
“ dent: but on the other fide, where every ring is made broader by the further
“ unfolding its colours, it muft interfere more with other rings than before, and
“ fo become lefs diftindt.
“ To explain this a little further; fuppofe the concentric circles, A B and
“ C D, reprefent the red and violet of any order, which, together with the in
“ termediate colours, conftitute any one of thefe rings. Now, thefe being
“ viewed through a prifm, the violet circle, B C, will, by a greater refradtion, be
“ further tranflated from its place than the red, A D, and fo approach nearer
“ to it on that fide towards which the refradtions are made. For inftance, if
“ the red be tranflated to a d, the violet may be tranflated to b c> fo as to ap-
*« proach nearer to it at c than before; and, if the red be further tranflated to
a d, the violet may be fo much further tranflated to b c, as to convene with
“ it at c, and, if the red be yet further tranflated to u S, the violet may be ftill
“ fa much further tranflated to y, as to pafs beyond it at y, and convene with it
“ at e and /. And this being underftood, not only of the red and violet, but of
“ all the other intermediate colours; and alfo of every revolution of thofe co-
“ Jours, you will eafily perceive, how thefe of the fame revolution or order, by
“ their narrownefs at c d, and $ y, and their coincidence at c d, e and f , ought
“ to conftitute pretty diftind arcs of circles, efpecially at c dy or at e and / , and
“ that they will appear feveral at c d, at c d exhibit whitenefs by their coinci-
" dence, and again appear feveral at ? y, but yet in a contrary order to that
“ which they had before, and ftill retain beyond e and / . But, on the other
“ fide, at a b , a b, or a P>, thefe colours muft become much more confufed by
“ being dilated, and fpread fo as to interfere with thofe of other orders. And
‘‘ the fame confufion will happen at J y between e and f , if the refradion be
“ very
ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. %n

“ very great, or the prifm very diftant from the objed-glafles; in which cafe no
“ parts of the ring will be feen, fave only two little arcs at e and f, whofe diflance
“ from one another will be augmented by removing the prifm ftill further from
“ the objedt-glafles. And thele little arcs mult be diflindteft and whiteft at their
“ middle ; and attheir ends, where they grow confufed, they muft be coloured ;
“ and the colours at one end of every arc mud be in a contrary order to thole
“ at the other end, by reafon that they crofs in the intermediate white ; namely,
“ their ends, which verge towards S y, will be red, and yellow on that fide next
“ the center, and blue and violet on the other fide. But their other ends, which
“ verge from S y, will, on the contrary, be blue and vioiet on that fide towards
“ the center, and on the other fide red and yellow.
“ For confirmation of all this, I need alledge no more, than that it is mathe-
“ matically demonftrable from my former principles. But I fhall add, that they,
“ which pleafe to take the pains, may by the teftimony of their fenfes be afiured,
“ that thefe explications are not hypothetical, but infallibly true and genuine :
“ for in a dark room, by viewing thefe rings through a prifm, by refiedion of
“ the feveral prifmatic colours, which an afiiftant caufes to move to and fro
“ upon a wall or paper, from whence they are refleded, whilft the fpedator’s
“ eye, the prifm, and objed-glafils (as in the thirteenth obfervation) are placed
“ fteddy, the pofition of the circles, made fucceflively by the feveral colours,
“ will be found fuch, in refped of one another, as I have defcribed at a b e d , or
“ a b e d , or a |3 y S. And by the fame method the truth of the explications of
“ the other obfervations is to be examined.
“ By what hath been faid, the like phaenomena of water-bubbles and thin
“ plates of glafs may be underftood. But in fmall fragments of thofe plates,
“ there is this further obfervable, that, if they, lying flat upon a table,, be turned
“ about their center, whilft they are viewed through a prifm, fome of them ex-
“ hibit waves in one or two pofitions only; but the moil of them do in all pofi-
“ tions exhibit thofe waves, and that for the moft part appearing almoft all over
“ the glafs. The reafon is, that the fuperficies of fuch plates are not even, but
“ have many cavities and fwellings, which, how fhallow foever, do a little vary
“ the thicknefs of the plate 5 and by the feveral fides of thofe cavities there
“ muft be produced waves in feveral poftures of the prifm. Now, though it
“ be but fome very fmall and narrow parts of the glafs, by which thefe waves
“ for the moft part are caufed, yet they may feem to extend themfelves over the
“ whole glafs, becaufe from the narrowed of thofe parts there are colours of feveral
“ orders confufe'dly refledted, which by refraffion of the prifm are unfolded, and
“ difperfed to feveral places, fo as to conftitute fo many feveral waves as there
“ were divers orders of the colours promifeuoufly refleded from that part of the
“ glafs.
“ Thefe are the principal phaenomena of thin plates or bubbles, whofe expli-
<e cations depend on the properties of light, that I have heretofore delivered :
“ and thefe, you fee, do neceffarily follow from them, and agree with them even
“ to their very leaft circumftances; and not only fo, but do very much tend to
“ their
294. T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [ r 67| .
«< their proof. Thus, by the twenty-fourth obfervation, it appears, that the
“ rays of feveral colours, made, as well by thin plates or bubbles, as by the re-
« fractions of a prifm, have feveral degrees of refrangibility, whereby thofe of
“ each order, which, at their reflection from the plate or bubble, are intermixed
with thofe of other orders, are feparated from them by refradtion, and affoci-
« ated together, fo as to become vifible by themfelves, like arcs of circles. For,
“ if the rays were all alike refrangible, it is impoflible, that the whitenefs, which
« to the naked fenfe appears uniform, Ihould by refradtion have its parts tranf-
« pofed, and ranged into thofe black and white arcs.
“ It appears alfo, that the unequal refradtions of difform rays proceed not
“ from any contingent irregularities, fuch as are veins, an uneven polifh, or for-
« tuitous pofition of the pores of glals, unequal motions in the air or aether,
“ fpreading, breaking, or dividing the fame ray into many diverging parts, or
“ the like. For, admitting any fuch irregularities, it would be impoflible for
“ refradtions to render thofe rings fo very diftindt and well defined, as they do
« in the twenty-fourth obfervation. It is necefiary therefore, that every ray have
“ its proper and conftant degree of refrangibility connate with i t ; according to
“ which its refradtion is ever juftly and regularly performed, and that feveral
“ rays have feveral of thofe degrees.
“ And what is faid of their refrangibility may be underflood of their reflexi-
“ biiity •, that is, of their difpofitions to be reflected, forne at a greater, and others
“ at a lefs thicknefs of thin plates or bubbles, namely, that thofe difpofitions are
“ alfo connate with the rays, and immutable, as may appear by the thirteenth,
“ fourteenth, and fifteenth obfervations, compared with the fourth and eigh-
“ teenth.
“ By the precedent obfervations it appears alfo, that whitenefs is a diflimilar
“ ■mixture of all colours, and that light is a mixture of rays endowed with all
“ thofe colours. For, confidering the multitude of the rings of colours in the
“ third, twelfth, and twenty-fourth obfervations, it is manifeft, that, although
“ in the fourth and eighteenth obfervations there appear more than eight or nine
“ of thofe rings, yet there are really a far greater number, which fo much inter-
“ fere and mingle with one another, as, after thofe eight or nine revolutions, to
“ dilute one another wholly, and conftitute an even and fenfible uniform white-
“ nefs. And confequently, that whitenefs mult be allowed a mixture of all co-
tc lours, and the light, which conveys it to the eye, mult be a mixture of rays
“ endued with all thofe colours.
“ But further, by the twenty-fourth obfervation it appears, that there is a con
ftant relation between colours and refrangibility, the molt; refrangible rays being
violet, the leaft refrangible red, and thofe of intermediate colours having pro
portionally intermediate degrees of refrangibility. And, by the thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteenth obfervations, compared with the fourth or eighteenth,
there appears to be the fame conftant relation between colour and refrangi
bility ; the violet being on equal terms refledted at leaft thicknefs of anythin
1674.3 ROYAL SOCIETY OF L O N D O N . 295
“ plate or bubble; the red at greatefl thicknefs, and the intermediate colours at
“ intermediate thicknefies : whence it] follows, that the colorific difpofitions of
“ rays are alfo connate with them, and immutable ; and by confequence, that all
“ the productions and appearances of colours in the world are derived, not from
“ any ph'yfical change caufed in light by refradtion or refledlion, but only from
“ the various mixtures or feparations of rays, by virtue of their different refran-
“ gibility or reflexibility. And, in this refpedt it is, that the fcience of colours
“ becomes a fpeculation more proper for mathematicians than naturalifts.
This being read, occafion was taken to difcourfe of Mr. N e w to n ’ s theory

itfelf, and to debate, whether the rays of light, which, though alike incident in
the fame medium, yet exhibit different colours, may not reafonably be faid to
owe that exhibition of different colours to the feveral degrees of the velocity of
pulfes, rather than, as Mr. N ew ton thought, to the feveral connate degrees of
refrangibility in the rays themfelves ?
M r. H ooke w as o f opinion, th a t th e form er o f thefe ways was fufficient to give
a g o o d account o f th e diverfity o f colours.
February 10. Dr. M a p l e t o f t was eledted and admitted.
Capt. S h eer .e s , Mr. H all, and Signor T r a v a g in o were eledted.
Mr. B erchenshaw prefented himfelf to the Society, and fhewed them his
fcale of mufic, wherein were contained,
1 . A table of all confonant and diffonant intervals fuitable to mufical harmony,

which are pradlicable, and may be expreffed by the voice and other inftruments.'
To thefe refpedtive intervals apt and proper numbers were afligned, by which
their ratio’s and proportions were demonftrated.
2 . A fyflem of all the keys, by which the aforefaid intervals were completed ;
of which keys fome were natural; fome intended to the firft degree of acute-
nefs; fome remitted to the firfi degree of gravity; fome twice fpiffated; fome
twice afperated.
3 . In this fcale the magnitude, dimenfion, and proportion of the faid keys
were exa&ly demonftrated according to the proportional parts of a chord, the
chord being fuppofed thirty-fix inches long.
If it were demanded, whether there was any thing in this table and fyflem,
that was not to be found in the feales and writings of other muficians ? he
anfwered,1
1. That the intervals in this table were perfect and complete. There was not
one too many, nor one wanting, which might conduce to the making of
harmony.
2. That
39g T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [ 167 *.
2. That the founds or mufical numbers contained in this fyftem arofe out of
the unifon, and from one another, according to the reafon of figurate, not
fimple numbers, (as, he faid, he could demonftrate by numbers afligned to the
refpedtive intervals in the table) for that fo the reafon of the ftate of mufic
required.
3. That there are neither more or lefs keys in this fyftem, than would com
plete the aforefaid intervals.
4. That in this fcale all the tones are of the fame ratio, and that fo are all the
femitones, femiditones, ditones, and other intervals.
5 . That the true magnitude and dimenfion of every one of the faid keys are
demonftrated according to the proportional parts of a chord.
6. That the natural, genuine, and true reafon of the excellency and fullrtefs of
the harmony of three, four, five, fix, and feven parts, may clearly be difcerned
by the fyftem of feven parts.
He added, that many other things were to be found in this table and fcale, of
which little or no mention is made in the fcales and writings of either modern or
antient mufical authors; which, he faid, he intended to difcover, and to write of
them at large, as he fhould be enabled thereunto.
H e was exhorted to finilh this work, or at leaft to publifh this fyftem with an
explanation thereof,
After this was read the laft part of Mr. N ew ton ’ s oifervations, wherein he
confidered in nine propofitions, how the phaenomena of thin tranfparent plates
ftand related to thofe of all other natural bodies: of which bodies having before
mentioned, that they appear of divers colours, according as they are difpofed
to refledt m b it copioufly the rays indued with thefe colours, he now inquires
after their conftitutions.
Here, among many other confiderable things, he flrews, how the bignefs of
the component parts of natural bodies may be conje&ured by their colours : as
alfo, that the caufe of reflexion is not the impinging of light on the folid and
impervious parts of bodies, as was commonly fuppofed.
T h is laft p a rt was as follow s:
“ I am now com e to th e laft p a rt o f this defign •, w hich is, to confider, how

“ the p h e n o m e n a o f thin tran fp aren t plates ftand related to thofe o f all o th e r na-
“ tural bodies. O f thefe bodies I have already told you, th a t they appear o f di-
“ vers colours, accordingly as they are difpofed to refledt m oft copioufly the rays
u endued w ith thofe colours. B u t th eir co n ftitu tio n s, w hereby they refledt fom erays
2 “ more
1674 O ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 297
t£ more copioufly than others, remains to be inquired after. And this I fhall en-
“ deavour in the following propofitions.
“ Prop. 1 . Thofe fuperficies reflect the greateft quantity of light, which have
u the greateft refracting power ; that is, which interceeds mediums, that differ molt
11 in their refracting denfities; and in the confines of equally denfe mediums there
“ is no reflection.
“ The analogy between reflection and refraCtion will appear by confidering, that
“ when light pafieth obliquely out of one medium into another, which refraCts
“ from the perpendicular, the greater is the difference of their denfity, the lefs
“ obliquity is requifite to caufe a total reflection ; becaufe as the fines are, which
“ meafure the refraCtion, fo is the fine of incidence, at which the total reflection
“ begins, to the radius of the circle ; and confequently that incidence is leaft,
“ where there is the great difference of the fines. Thus in the pafiing of light out
“ of water into air, where the refraCtion is meafured by the ratio of the fines, 3 to
“ 4 , the total reflection begins, when the angle of the incidence is about forty-
“ eight degrees and thirty-five minutes. In paffing out of glafs into air, where
“ the refraCtion is meafured by the ratio of the fines 20 to 3 1, the total reflection
“ begins, when the angle of incidence is forty degrees and ten minutes : and fo,
“ in paffing out of cryftal, or more ftrongly refracting mediums, into air, there
“ is ftill a lefs obliquity requifite to caufe a total reflection. Superficies therefore,
“ which refraCt moft, do fooneft reflect all the light, which is incident on them,
“ and fo muft be allowed moft ftrongly reflective.
“ But the truth of this propofition will further appear, by obferving, that in
“ the fuperficies, interceeding any two of thofe mediums, air or water, or other
tc liquors, common glafs, cryftal, and metalline glafies, the reflection is ftronger
“ or weaker accordingly as the fuperficies hath a greater or lefs refraCting power.
<e Thus, when other mediums are contiguous to air, the reflection is ftronger
“ in the fuperficies of glafs than of water, ftill ftronger in the fuperficies of cryf-
<c tal, and ftrongeft in the fuperficies of metalline glafs. So, in the confine of
“ water and common glafs, the reflection is very weak, but yet ftronger than in
“ the confine of water and oil, or almoft any other two liquors, and ftill ftronger
“ in the confine of water and cryftal, or metalline glafs: accordingly as thofe
mediums differ more or lefs in denfity, fo in the confine of common glafs and
cryftal there is a weak reflection, and a ftronger reflection in the confine of
“ common and metalline glafs : but in the confine of two glafies of equal den-
,c fity, there is not any fenfible reflection, as was fhewn in the firft observation.
“ And the,fame may be underltood of the fuperficies of two cryftals or liquors,
“ or any other fubftances, in which no refraCtion is caufed: whence it comes to
“ pafs, that uniform mediums have no fenfible reflexion but in their external fu-
perficies, where they are adjacent to their mediums of a different denfity.
“ Prop. 2. The leaft parts of natural bodies are in fome meafure tranfparent;
“ and the opacities of thofe bodies arife from the multitude of reflections caufed
“ in their internal parts.
V o l , III. Q__q “ That
2 9g T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E [ 167*.
“ That this is fo, will eafily be granted by them, that have been converfant with
“ microfcopes: and it may be alfo tried by applying any fubftance to a hole, through
“ which the light is emitted into a dark room; for how opake foever thatfub.
“ ftance may feem in the open air, it will, by that means, appear very manifeftly
“ tranfparent, if it be of a fufficient thicknefs: only metalline bodies mull be ex-
“ empted, which, by reafon of their excefiive denfity feem to reflect almoft all the
“ light incident on their firft fuperlicies.
“ Prop. 3 . Between the parts of opake or coloured bodies are many interftices,
“ replenilhed with mediums of other denfities, as water between the tinging cor~
“ pufcles, wherewith any liquor is impregnated; air between the aqueous globules
“ that conJlitute clouds or mills; and for the moJt part fpaces void of both air
“ and water; but yet perhaps replenifhed with fome fubtiler medium between,
“ the parts of hard bodies.
“ The truth of this is evinced by the two precedent propofitions: for by the
“ fecond propofition there are many refleXions from the internal part of bodies,
“ which by the firft propofition would not happen, if the parts of thofe bodies
“ were continued without any fuch interftices between them, becaufe reflexions
“ are caufed only in fuperlicies, which interceed mediums of a different denfity.
“ But further, that this difcontinuity of parts is the principal caufe of the opa-
“ city of bodies, will appear by conftdering, that opake fubftances become tranf-
“ parent by filling their pores with any fubftance of equal, or almoft equal denfity
“ with their parts. Thus paper dipped in water or oil, the oculus mundi ftone
“ lteeped in water, linen-cloth oiled or varnilhed, and many other fubftances foaked
“ in fuch liquors, as will intimately pervade their little pores, become by that
“ means more tranfparent than otherwife. So, on the contrary, the moft tranC.
“ parent fubftances may, by feparating their parts, be rendered fufficiently opake;
“ as glafs, by being reduced to powder, or otherwife flawed, water by being form.
“ ed into many fmall bubbles, either alone in the form of froth, or by lhaking
“ it together with oil of turpentine, or fome other convenient liquor, with which
“ it will not incorporate, and horn by being fcraped.
“ To the increafe of the opacity of thefe bodies it conduces fomething, that by
* ‘ the twenty third obfervation, the refleXions of very thin tranfparent fubftances
are confiderably ftronger than thofe made by the fame fubftances of a greater
** thicknefs, And to the refleXion of folid bodies it may be further added, that
“ the interftices of their parts are void of air. For that for the moft part they
“ are fo, is reafonable to believe, confidering the ineptitude, which air hath to
“ pervade fmall cavities, as appears by the afcenfton of water in flender glafs.
“ pipes, paper, cloth, and other fuch like fubftances, whofe pores are found too
“ fmall to be replenilhed with air, and yet large enough to admit water; and by
“ the difficulty, wherewith air pervades the pores of a bladder, through which
“ water find ready palfage. And according to the eleventh obfervation, the ca-
“ vities thus void of air will caufe the fame kind of effeXs as to refleXion, which
“ thofe do, that are replenilhed with i t ; but yet fomething more manifeftly, be-
“ cauf«
167IO ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 299

“ caufe the medium in relation to refradlions is rareft, when moft empty of air»
“ as Mr. H ooke hath proved in his Micrographia; in which book he hath alfo
“ largely difcourfed of this and the precedent propofition, and delivered many
“ other very excellent things concerning the colours of thin plates, and other na-
“ tural bodies, which 1 have not fcrupled to make ufe of fo far as they were for
“ my purpofe.
« Prop. 4 . The parts of bodies and their interfiles mud not be lefs than
“ of fome definitive bignefs, to render them opake and coloured; for the opakeft
“ bodies, if their parts be fubtilly divided (as metals by being diffolved in acid
“ mendruums, &c.) become perfectly tranfparent. And you may alfo remem-
“ ber, that in the eighth obfervation there was no refle&ion at the fuperficies of
tx the objedl-glaffes, where they were very near one another, though they did not
“ abfolutely touch. And in the feventeenth obfervation, the reflection of the
“ water-bubble, where it became thinned, was almod infenfible, fo as to caufe the
“ apparitions of very black fpots.
“ On thefe grounds I conceive it is, that water, fait, glafs, dones, and fuch
“ like fubdances, are tranfparent •, for, upon divers confiderations, they feem to
“ be as porous as other bodies, but yet their pores and parts too fmall to caufe
“ any opacity.
“ Prop. 5 . The tranfparent parts of bodies, according to their feveral fizcs,
“ mud refieEl rays of one colour, and tranfmit thofe of another, on the fame
“ grounds, that thin plates or bubbles do refleCt or tranfmit thofe rays: and this
M I take to be the ground of all their colours.
“ For, if a thinned or plated body, which being of an even thicknefs appears

“ all over of one uniform colour, fhould be broken into fragments of the fame
“ thicknefs, with the plate, I fee no reafon, why a heap of thofe fragments fhould
“ not conditute a powder of the fame colour, y/hich the plate exhibited before it
“ was bi-oken. And the parts of all natural bodies, being like fo many fragments
“ of a plate, mud on the fame grounds exhibit the fame colours.
“ Now, that they do fo, will further appear by the affinity of their proper-
“ ties : as that the infufion of nephritic-wood, and many other fubdances reflect:
“ one colour, and tranfmit another, like thin bodies in the ninth and twentieth
“ obfervations. That the colours of filks, cloaths, and others fubdances, which
“ water or oil can intimately penetrate, become more faint and obfcure by being
“ emerged in thofe liquors, and recover their vigour again by being dried, much
“ after the manner declared of thin bodies, in the tenth and twenty fird obfer-
“ vations: and that fome of thofe coloured powders, which painters ufe, may have
“ their colours a little changed, by being very elaborately and finely ground.
“ Where I fee not, what can be judly pretended for thofe changes, befides the
“ breaking of their parts into lefs parts by that contrition, after the fame manner
that the colour of a plate is changed by varying its thicknefs. For which rea-
“ fon alfo it is, that many flowers, by being bruifed, become more tranfparent
Q_q 2 u than
3oo T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [ 1 67*.
than before, or, at lead, in fome degree or other, change their colours. Nor
“ is it much lefs to my purpofe, that, by mixing divers liquors, very odd and
remarkable productions and changes of colours may be effected, of which no
“ caufe can be more obvious and natural, than that the faline corpufcles of one
“ liquor do varioufly aCt upon, or unite with, the tinging corpufcles of another ;
“ fo as to make them fwell or fhrink (whereby not only their bulk, but their
“ denfity alfo may be changed) or to divide them into fmaller corpufcles, or make
“ many of them affociate into one clutter ; for we fee how apt thofe faline men-
“ ftruums are to penetrate and diffolve fubftances, to which they are applied ; and
“ fome of them to precipitate what others diffolve. In like manner, if we con-
“ fider the various phenomena of the atmofphere, we may obferve, that when
“ vapours are firft raifed, they hinder not the tranfparency of the air, being di-
“ vided into parts too fmall to caufe any reflection in their fuperficies : but when,
*' in order to compofe drops of rain, they began to coalefce and conftitute glo-
“ bules of all intermediate fizes; thofe globules, when they become of a conveni-
“ ent fize to refleCt fome colours, and tranfmit others, may conftitute clouds of
“ various colours, according to their fizes. And I fee not what can be rationally
cc conceived, in fo tranfparent a fubftance as water for the production of thefe
“ colours, befides the various fizes of its parcels, which feem to affeCt a globular
“ figure moft •, but yet perhaps not without fome inftability in the fmalleft of
“ them, by reafonthat thofe are moft eafily agitated by heat or any trembling mo-
“ tions in the air.
ce Prop. 6. The parts of bodies, on which their colours depend, aredenfer than
“ the medium, which pervades their interftices.
“ This will appear by confidering, that the colour of a body depends not only
“ on the rays, which are incident perpendicularly or its parts, but on thofe alfo,
“ which are incident at all other angles. And that, according to the feventh
obfefvation, a very little variation of obliquity will change the reflected colour,
“ where the thin body or fmall particle is rarer than the ambient medium, in
“ fomuch that fuch a fmall particle will, at diverfly oblique incidents, refleCt all
“ forts of colours, in fo great a variety, that the colour, refulting from them all
“ confufedly reflected from a heap of fuch particles, muft rather be.a white or
“ grey, than any other colour, or at belt it muft be but a very imperfeCt and
“ dirty colour; whereas, if the thin body or fmall particle be much denfer than
“ the ambient medium, the colours, according to the nineteenth obfervation, are
“ fo little changed by the variation of obliquity, that the rays, which are re-
“ fleCted leaft obliquely, may predominate over the reft fo much, as to caufe 3.
heap of fuch particles to appear very intenfly of their colour.
“ It conduces alfo fomething to this propofition, that, according to thetwenty-

“ fecond obfervation, the colours exhibited by the denfer thin body within the
“ rarer are more brilk than thofe exhibited by the rarer within the denfer.
“ Prop. 7 . The bignefs of the component parts of natural bodies may be

“ conjectured by their colours.
a “ For
t67*.] ROYAL SOCIETY OF L O N D O N . 301

“ For fince the parts of thefe bodies, by propofition 5. do molt probably ex-
“ hibit the fame colours with a plate of equal thicknefs, provided they have the
“ fame refraftive denfity; and fince their parts feem for the mod part to have
« much the fame denfity with water or glafs, as by many circumftances is obvious
« to. colled;: to determine the fizes of thefe parts, you need only have recourfe
“ to the. precedent tables, in which the thicknefs of water or glafs exhibiting any
colour is exprefied. Thus, if it be defired to know the diameter of a cor-
w pufcle, which being of equal denfity with glafs, lhall refled green of the third
** order; the number 174 lhows it to be about 174- parts of an inch.
T T 'i T 'o 'o S
“ The greateft difficulty is here to know, of what order the colour of any
« body is ; and for this end we muft have recourfe to the fourth and eighteenth.
“ obfervations, from whence may be colleded thefe particulars.
“ Scarlets, and other reds, oranges and yellows, if they be pure and intenfe, are
« mod probably of the fecond order. Thofe of the firft and third order alfo may
“ be-pretty good; only the orange and red of the third order have too great a
“ mixture of violet and blue.
“ There may be good greens of the fourth order, but the purefi are of the third :
“ and of this order the green of all vegetables feems to be, partly by reafon of
“ the intenlenefs of their colours, and partly becaufe when they wither, fome of
“ them turn to a greenifh yellow, and others to a more perfect yellow or orange,
“ or perhaps to red; pafling firft through all the aforefaid intermediate colours,
“ which changes feem to be effected by the exhaling of the moifture, which may
“ leave the tinging corpufcles more denfe, and fogiething augmented by the ac-
“ cretion of the oily and earthy part of that moifture. Now the green, without
“ doubt, is of the fame order with thofe colours, into which it changeth, becaufe
“ the changes are gradual* and thofe colours, though ufually not very pure, yet
“ for the moft part are top pure and lively to be of the fourth order.
<c Blues and purples may be either of the fecond or third order; but the beft are
** of the third. Thus the colour of violet feems to be of that order; becaufe
“ their fyrup, by acid liquors, turns red, and by urinous and alkalazite turns
“ green. For fince it is of the nature of acids to diffolve or attenuate, and of
** alcalis to precipitate or incrafiate, if the purple colour of the fyrup was of
“ the fecond order, an acid liquor by attenuating its tinging corpufcles would tinge
“ it to a red of the firft order, and an alcali, by incrafiating them, would change
“ it to a green of the fecond order; which red and green, efpecially the green,
“ feem too imperfeft to be the colours produced by thefe changes. But if the
“ faid. purple be fuppofed of the third order, its change to red of the fecond
“ and green of the third may, without any inconvenience, be allowed.
“ If there be found any body of a deeper and lefs reddifh purple than that of
*c violets, its colour molt probably is of the fecond order. But yet there being
**■ no body commonly known, whofe colour is conftantly more deep than theirs,
“ I have
s o2 T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [ 167$.
“ I have made ufe of their name to denote the deepeft and lead: reddilh purples,
“ fiich as manifeftly tranfcend their colour in purity.
“ The blue of the firft order, though very faint and little, may pofiibly be the
« colour of fome fubftances; and particularly the azure colour of the Ikies
“ feems, to be of this order. For all vapours, when they begin to condenfe and
“ coalefce into fmall parcels, become firft of that bignefs, whereby fuch-an azure
“ muft be refledted, before they can conftitute clouds of other colours. And fo
“ this being the firft colour, which vapours begin to refledt, it ought to be the
“ colour of the fineft and moft tranfparent Ikies, in which vapours are not ar*
“ rived to that grofinefs requifite to reflect other colours, as we find it is by ex*
“ perience.
“ Whitenefs, if it be intenfe, is either that in the firft 'order of colours, of
“ which fort perhaps is the colour of white lead ; or elfe it is a mixture of
“ thofe fucceeding the third or fourth order, fuch as is the colour of paper,
“ linen, and moft white fubftances. If corpufcles of various fizes, exhibiting the
“ colours of the fecond and third order, be mixed, they fhould rather conftitute
“ an imperfedt whitenefs or grey, of which I have already fpoken : but yet it feems
“ not impoffible for them to exhibit an intenfe whitenefs, if they be difpofed to
“ tranfmit all the light, which they refledt not, and do not retain and ftifle much
“ of it. For thus 1 told you, that froth at a diftance hath appeared very White,
“ and yet, near at hand, the feveral bubbles, of which it was conftituted, \vere
“ feen tinged all over with rings of colours of the four or five firft orders.
“ Laftly, for the produdtion of black, the corpufcles muft be lefs than any of
“ thofe, which exhibit colours? For at all greater fizes there is too much light re-
“ fledled to conftitute this colour. But if they be fuppofed a little lefs than is re-
“ quifite to refledt the blue of the firft order, they will, according to the fourth,
“ eight, feventeenth, and eighteenth obfervations, refledt fo very little light as
“ to appear intenfely black, and yet may perhaps varioufly refradt it to and fro
“ within themfelves fo long, until it happen to be ftifled and loft ; by which
« means they will appear black in all pofitions of the eye without any tranfpa-
« rency. And from hence may be underftood, why fire, and the more fubtil
“ diifolver, putrefadtion, turn fubftances to black •, why fmall quantities of black
« fubftances impart their colour very freely and intenfely to other fubftances, to
« which they are applied why glafs ground very elaborately, on a copper-plate,
“ till it be well polifhed, makes the fand, together with what is worn off from
“ the glafs, and copper, become very black •, why black fubftances do fooneft of
“ all others become hot and burn, which effedt may proceed, partly from the
multitude of refradtions in a little room, and partly from the eafy commo-
“ tion of fo very fmall corpufcles; and why blacks are ufually a little inclined to
“ a bluifli colour. For that they are fo, may be feen by illuminating white
“ paper by refledtion from black fubftances, which will ufually appear of a bluifli
“ white. And the reafon is, that black borders on the obfcure blue of the firft
“ order, defcribed in the eighteenth obfervation, whence the corpufcles of black
fubftances are moft apt tp refledt that colour.
“ In
1674.3 ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 3o3

“ In thefe defcriptions I have been the more particular, becaufe it is not impof-
“ fible, but that microfcopes may at length be improved to the difcovery of
“ corpufcles of bodies, on which their colours depend. For if thofe inftruments
“ could be. fo far improved, as with fufficient difti.nCtnefs to reprefent objeCts five
“ or fix hundred times bigger than at a foot diftance they appear to our naked eyes.
“ I fhould hope, that we might be able to difcover fome of the greateft of thofe
“ corpufcles. And by one, that would magnify three or four thoufand times, per-
“ haps they might all be difcovered but thofe, which produce blacknefs. In the
“ mean while, I fee nothing material, that rationally can be doubted of, except-
“ ing this pofition, that tranfparent corpufcles of the fame thicknefs and denfity
“ with a plate do exhibit the fame colour.. And this I would have underftood
“ not without fome latitude, as well becaufe thofe corpufcles may be of irregular
“ figures, and many rays mud be obliquely incident, and fo have a Ihorter way
“ through them than the length of their diameter; as becaufe the ftraitnefs of
“ ,the medium, pent in on all Tides, may a little alter its motions, or other qua-
“ Ilties, oh which the reflexion depends. But yet I cannot much fufpeCt the laflr,
“ becaufe I have obferved of fome fmall plates of Mufcovy-glafs, which were of
“ an even thicknefs, that through a microfcope they have appeared of the fame
“ colour at their edges and corners, where the included medium was terminated,
“ which they appeared of in other places. However, it would add much to our
“ fatisfadtion, if thofe corpufcles could be difcovered with microfcopes, which if
“ we lhall ever attain to, I fear it will be the utm'oft improvement of this fenfe ;
“ for.it feems impoflible to fee the more fecret and noble works of nature within
“ thofe corpufcles, by reafon of their tranfparency.
“ This may fuffice concerning the conftitution of natural bodies, on which their
“ colours depend. But for further underftandirig the nature of reflections, I
“ lhall add thefe two following propofitions.
“ Prop. 8. The caufe of the reflection is not the impinging of light on the
“ folid and impervious parts of bodies, as is commonly fuppofed.
“ This will appear by the following confiderations: firft, that in the pafiage of
“ light out of glafs into air, there is a reflection as ftrong or ftronger than in its
“ pafiage out of air into glafs, and by many degrees ftronger than in its pafiage
“ out of glafs into water. And it feems not probable, that air Ihould have more
“ reflecting parts than water or glafs. But if that fhould poflibly be fuppofed, it
“ will avail nothing; for the reflection is as ftrong, if not ftronger, when the air
u is drawn away from the glafs (fuppofe in the air-pump invented by Mr. B o y l e )
“ as when it is adjacent to it. Secondly, if light in its pafiage out of glafs into
“ air be incident more obliquely than at an angle of forty or forty-one degrees,
“ it is wholly rejicifed', if lefs obliquely, it is in great meafure tranfmitted. Now
“ it is not to be imagined, that light at one degree of obliquity fhould meet with
“ pores enough in the air to tranfmit the greater part of it, and at another degree
“ of obliquity meet with nothing but parts to refleCt it wholly; efpecially confi-
“ dering, that in its pafiage out of air into glafs, how oblique foever be its
“ incidence, it finds pores enough in the glafs to ttanfmit the greateft part of it.
234
3o4 T H E H I S T O R Y OF T H E [ i 6yh
« If any man fuppofe, that it is not reflected by the air, but by the utmoft fu-
ttperficial parts of the glafs, there is ftill the fame difficulty ; befides, that fucli
tca fuppofition is unintelligible; and will alfo appear to be falfe, by applying Wa-
“ ter behind fome part o f the glafs inftead of air. For fo in a convenient obli-
« quity of the rays, fuppofe of forty-five or forty-fix degrees, at which they are
“ all refletled, where the air is adjacent to the glafs, they fhallbein great meafure
tranfmitted, where the Water is adjacent to i t ; which argues, that their refledtion
“ or tranfmiffion depends on the conftitution of the air and water behind the
“ glafs, and not on the parts of the glafs.
“ Thirdly, if the colours made by a prifm, placed at the entrance of a beam

11 of light into a darkened room, be fucceflively caft on a fecond prifm placed
“ at a great diftance from the former, in fuch manner that they are all alike in*
cident upon it; the fecond prifm may be fo inclined to the incident rays, that
“ thofe, which are of a blue colour, fhall be all refledted by i t ; and yet thofe of a
“ red colour pretty copioufly tranfmitted. Now if the refledtion be caufed by
“ the parts of air or glafs, I would alk, why at the fame obliquity of incidence
“ the blue fhould wholly impinge on thofe parts fo as to be all refledled, and yet
“ the red find pores enough to be in great meafure tranfmitted. Fourthly,
“ where two glades touch one another, there is no fenfible refledtion, as was de-
“ dared in the firft obfervation ; and yet I fee no reafon, why the rays fhould not
“ impinge on the parts of glafs, when contiguous to another glafs, a smuch as
“ when contiguous to air. Fifthly, when the top of a water-bubble (in the fe-
“ venteenth obfervation) by the continual fubfiding and exhaling of the water
“ grew very thin, there was fuch a little and almoft infenfible quantity of light
“ refledted from it, that it appeared intenfely black ; whereas, round about that
black fpot, where the water was thicker, the refledtion was fo ftrong as to make
“ the water feem very white. Nor is it only at the leaft thicknefs of thin plates
“ or bubbles that there is no manifeft refledtion, but at many other thicknefies
“ continually greater and greater. For in the fifteenth obfervation, the rays of the
“ fame colour were by turns tranfmitted at one thicknefs, and refledted at another
“ thicknefs, for an intermediate number of fuccefiiqns. And yet in the fuperfi-
“ fidies of the third body, where it is of any one thicknefs, there are as many
“ parts for the rays to impinge on, as where it is of any other thicknefs.
“ Laftly, if refledtion were caufed by the parts of refledting bodies, it would

“ be impolfible for thin plates or bubbles, at the fame place to refledt the rays of
“ one colour, and tranfmit thofe of another, as they do accofding to the thirteenth
“ and fifteenth obfervations. For is is not to be imagined, that at one place the
“ rays, which, for inftance, exhibit a blue colour, fhould have the fortune to dafh
“ upon the parts, and thofe, which exhibit a red, to hit upon the pores of the
“ body ; and then at another place, where the body is either a little thicker, or a
“ little thinner, that on the contrary the blue fhould hit upon its pores, and the
“ red upon its parts.
<e Prop. 9. It is moft probable, that the rays, which impinge on the folid
“ parts of any body, are not refledted but ftifled and loft in that body.
“ This
i 6 y$.] R O Y A L S O C I E T Y OF L O N D O N . 305
This is confentaneous to the precedent propofition, and will further appear
“ by confidering, that if all the rays Ihould be reflected, which impinge on the in-
“ ternal parts of clearwater or cryftal, thofe fubftapces fhould rather have a cloudy
“ than fo very clear tranfparency.
“ And further, there would be no principle of the obfcurity or blacknefs, which
“ fome bodies have in all pofitions of the eye. For to produce this effedt, it is ne-
ceflary, that many rays be retained and loft in the body, and it feems not pro-
** bable, that any rays can be flopped and retained in it, which do not impinge on
“ its parts.”
236 OBSERVING THE MOON’S DISTANCE FROM STARS
OBSERVING THE MOON’S DISTANCE FROM STARS 237
[ H I ]
I. A true Copy o f a P aper found, in the H and

W riting o f Sir Ifaac Nevyton, among the
Papers of the late jDr. Halley, containing a
Defcriptton o f an Inftrument fo r obfeming
the Moon’s Diftance from the Fixt Stars at
Sea.
Read a t a N the annexed Scheme, S de
Meeting o f the
P-oyal Society,
October i8 ,
1741.
I
notes a Plate
*
o f
1f •
Brafs,
_
_
accurately
vided in the Lim b 23 J?, into-f De-
__f ^ - I
di
W ! * _
___
_
grees, -3- Minutes, and Minutes,
by a Diagonal Scale j and the - Degrees, and M i
nutes, and Minutes, counted for Degrees, Minutes,
and £ Minutes.
A B , is a Telefcope, three or four Feet long,
fixt on the Edge o f that Brafs Plate.
Gr, is a Speculum, fixt on the faid Brafs Plate per
pendicularly, as near as may be to the Objeft-glafs o f
the Telefcope, fo as to be inclined 4 s Degrees to the
Axis o f the Telefcope, and intercept half the Light
which would otherwise come through the Telefcope
to the Eye.
CSD, is a moveable Index, turning about the Centre
C, and, with its fiducial Edge, Chewing the Degrees,
Minutes, and £ Minutes, on the Lim b o f the Brafs
Plate P & j the Centre C, mull be over-againft the
Middle o f the Speculum G.
H , is another Speculum, parallel to the former,
when the fiducial Edge o f the Index falls On ood 00'
00'7 5 fo that the fame Star may then appear through
X the
OBSERVING THE MOON’S DISTANCE FROM STARS
C >5« 3
the Telefcope, in one and the fame Place, both by
the direct Rays and by the refiex’d on es; but if the
Index be turned, the Star (hall appear in tw o Places,
whofe Diftance is fhewed, on the Brafs Limb, by the
Index.
By this Inftrument, the Diftance o f the M oon from
any Fixt Star is thus obferved: V iew the Star through
the Perfpicil by the dired Light, and the M oon by
the Reffext (or on the contrary); and turn the Index
till the Star touch the Limb o f the M oon, and the
Index fhall (hew upon the Brafs Limb o f the Inftru
ment, the Diftance o f the Star from the Lim b o f the
M o o n } and though the Inftrument fhake, by the M o
tion o f your Ship at Sea, yet the M oon and Star w ill
move together, as if they did really touch one another
in the Heavens} fo that an Obfervation may be made
as exadly at Sea as at Land.
And by the fame Inftrument, may be obferved,
exa&ly, the Altitudes o f the Moon and Stars, by
bringing them to the Horizon ,• and thereby the Lati
tude, and Times o f Obfervations, may be determined
more exadly than by the W ays now in Ufe.
In the Tim e o f the Obfervation, if the Inftrument
move angularly about the Axis o f the Telefcope, the
Star w ill move in a Tangent o f the M oon’s Limb, or
o f the H orizon; but the Obfervation may notwith-
ftanding be made exadly, by noting when the Line,
deferibed by the Star, is a Tangent to the M oon’s
Limb, or to the Horizon.
T o make the Inftrument ufcful, the Telefcope ought
to take in a large A n gle: And to make the Obferva
tion true, let the Star touch the Moon’s Limb, not on
the'Outfide o f the Limb, but on the Infide.
II. The
III.
N ew ton on C hem istry, A tom ism ,
the H ith er, a n d H e a t
Newton’s
Chemical Papers
M a r ie B oas
J ^ L w to n ’s extraordinary achievements in physics have under

standably overshadowed his chemical work; it is fortunate that the
sale some years ago of his large collection of alchemical books and
notes forced a renewed consideration of his overt preoccupation
with alchemy, which in turn has led to the study of his place in
the history of chemistry.1 He has been found to have been a skilled,
original, and painstaking chemist with a wide and profound
influence.
A full understanding of Newton’s chemical thinking and of the
experimental basis of his conclusions will be reached only after a
careful analysis of his extant chemical notebooks, now in the Uni
versity Library, Cambridge. These have not been seriously studied
since they were summarized by the group who compiled the Cata
1 See Catalogue of the Newton Papers Sold by Order of the Viscount Lymington (London,
1936). The most recent appraisal is by R. J. Forbes, “Was Newton an Alchemist?”
Chymia 2, 27-36 (1949). The best general account is Douglas McKie, “Some Notes
on Newton’s Chemical Philosophy Written Upon the Occasion of the Tercentenary
of his Birth,” Philosophical Magazine [7] 33, 847-70 (1942).
241
242 MARIE BOAS
logue of the Portsmouth Collection in 1888.2 There are three notebooks

of considerable chemical interest containing chaotic records of ex
periments, proposed experiments, notes from books, recipes, topics
for possible investigation—a fascinating laboratory record. But, im
portant as these sources are for Newton’s chemical development,
they can safely be ignored in evaluating his chemical influence,
since 18th-century Newtonians read the published works, not the
manuscripts. Such Newtonian scientists were, as Mme. Metzger
showed in her brilliant Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique
(Paris, 1930), profoundly influenced by the chemical implications
of the theory of universal gravitation. More than that, they read
and absorbed those of Newton’s works that were wholly or partly
chemical in nature.
O f the papers reprinted here, the “Letter to Boyle,” dated 1678,
was first published in Thomas Birch’s “ Life of Boyle” prefixed to
the first edition, in 1744, of The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle,
which Birch edited. Though it can have had wide circulation only
after Newton’s death, it may have been known earlier, since Boyle
or his executors could easily have shown it to interested scientists.
Once printed, the letter was immediately reprinted in Bryan Rob
inson’s Sir Isaac Newton’s Account of the /Ether, with some additions by
way of an appendix.3 Inevitably of greater influence was the “De
natura acidorum,” written in 1692 and first published in 1710 in
the “Introduction” to volume II of the Lexicon Technicum of John
Harris, F.R.S.4 Harris is the authority for the date of composition;
he stated that he printed the paper with Newton’s permission and
that the translation into English had been read and approved by
Newton. The paper was subsequently printed, in a slightly differ
ent Latin version, in volume II of Newton’s Opuscula mathematica,
philosophica et philologica (Lausanne, 1744). This version, and that
2A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Papers Written by or Belonging to

Sir Isaac Newton (Cambridge, 1888). I have to thank the authorities of the Univer
sity Library, Cambridge, who kindly allowed me access to the chemical notebooks
mentioned.
3 Dublin, 1745. This reprints not only the “Letter,” but Queries 16-23 of the
Opticks. Robinson had already published in 1743 A Dissertation on the /Ether of Sir
Isaac Newton, based on the Opticks.
1 Cf. Douglas McKie: “ Tohn Harris and his Lexicon Technicum (1704),” Endeavour
4, 53-57 (1945).
NEWTON’S CHEMICAL PAPERS 243
later published by Samuel Horsley in Isaaci Newtoni Opera quae
exstant omnia (1782), confirm the statement by Harris that more
than one version of the paper was known to him; fragments, both
in Newton’s hand and in that of an amanuensis, are tucked into
one of Newton’s chemical notebooks.5 The paper on heat was first
published anonymously in the Philosophical Transactions for March-
April 1701, and is the source for Newton’s Law of Cooling. It is
essentially a chemical paper, not only because of its interesting use
of the melting points of mixtures of metals, but also because the
related problems of heat and fire were considered to be a part of
chemistry, rather than of physics, in the eighteenth century. There
are a number of references to both chemical experiment and
theory, particularly the nature of solubility and solution, in the
paper on optics printed in this volume on page 177. Finally, there
is one very important source for Newton’s chemistry not reprinted
here: the Queries, and more particularly the 31st Query, of the
Opticks.
Even a cursory glance at Newton’s chemical papers indicates
that his approach to chemical problems was not that of an
alchemist. His explanations are in the language and spirit of ex
perimental natural philosophy, quite different from the usually
cloudy and often mystic views of the alchemists whose works he
bought or borrowed so avidly, as he did all books that had any
pretensions to dealing with chemical theory or practice.6 His
library included scores of alchemical works; he read and was influ
enced by Van Helmont and his English follower George Starkey;
but equally he read and was influenced by such natural philoso
phers as Robert Boyle who despised all mysticism in science. Ac
tually Newton’s chemical approach was far nearer to Boyle’s than
to Van Helm ont’s. Many of Newton’s experiments on the colors
of chemical solutions appear to be extensions of Boyle’s experi
ments. And Newton always followed Boyle in treating chemistry
5 S. I. Vavilov, “Newton and the Atomic Theory,” in The Royal Society, Newton
Tercentenary Celebrations 15-19 July 1946 (Cambridge, 1947), 43-55, is in error in
believing that Harris mistranslated the Latin; the divergence is so great that he
can only have translated from another version.
6 For a list of books owned by Newton, see R. de Villamil, Newton: The Man
(London, n.d.).
244 MARIE BOAS
as a physical science, rather than as a mystic art, and in using

chemistry to suggest and confirm a molecular physics.
The “Letter to Boyle,” the “De natura acidorum,” and the 31st
Query of the Opticks have much in common, although the exposi
tion varies decidedly in works written over a period of more than
twenty years. Basically, all three are concerned with the problems
of chemical reactivity and the action of solvents as explicable in
terms of a particulate theory of matter, which assumes a theory of
universal attraction.
Underlying the whole of Newton’s chemical (and physical)
theory is the concept of matter as particulate. Almost all scientists
of the later 17th century agreed that matter was composed of small,
discrete particles, corpuscles, or atoms, and that the chemical and
physical properties of bodies could be accounted for by means of
the size, shape, and motion of the constituent particles. This is the
so-called mechanical philosophy which rejected all “occult forces”
such as sympathy, antipathy, congruity, incongruity, attraction,
and hostility, and instead explained all the properties of matter in
terms of the new science of dynamics.7 One kind of mechanical ex
planation was the Cartesian: Descartes and his followers believed
in an sether, a material substance composed of specially small, mo
bile particles which imparted motion and impulse to the naturally
inert and gross particles of ordinary matter. Boyle on the other
hand rejected even the sether, assuming random but constant mo
tion of all particles to explain impulse; even chemical reaction he
believed to be caused not by an sether nor by any attraction of one
particle toward another, but by the fact that the size and shape of
the particles of one substance happened to correspond to the size
and shape of the pores between the particles of another substance.
Newton’s addition to the mechanical philosophy was the as
sumption that particles moved mainly under the influence of what
he at first called sociability and later called attraction. Attraction
is, of course, the concept that made the Principia possible; the theory
of universal gravitation is that all bodies in the universe, large or
small, are mutually attracted to one another, and this theory New
ton extended to both the physical and the chemical worlds. In using
7 For a detailed account, see M. Boas, “The Establishment of the Mechanical
Philosophy,” Osiris, 10, 412-541 (1952).
a force like attraction Newton was, as Cartesian critics tirelessly in
sisted, something of a scientific reactionary, for the great prestige of
the mechanical philosophers had been based chiefly upon the de
termined banishing of all such “occult” forces. But Newton found
the concept uniquely useful, and made it as little occult as possible
by treating it from the mechanical point of view.
Newton’s ideas on the possible mechanism of attraction were never
definitely worked out. When he spoke of attraction he sometimes, as
in the “Letter to Boyle,” immediately explained it in terms of im
pulse by an aether—sometimes, but by no means always. The Prin-
cipia loftily and expressly avoided any explanation of the mechanism
of gravitational attraction except for a suggestion in the final scho
lium added only in the second edition. In other works, especially
in Queries 16-24 of the Opticks, Newton discussed ways in which
the aether might account for chemical and gravitational attraction,
but never did he offer a developed hypothesis. One is left with the
feeling that Newton preferred a mechanical explanation in terms
of an aether to the “action-at-a-distance” concept of pure attraction;
this indeed is what he wrote Bentley. His avoidance of any decision
in the Principia must have come chiefly from the absence of genuine
experimental evidence. In fact, Boyle had published experiments
that showed it unlikely that the aether as postulated by Descartes
could exist; and Newton had demolished the Cartesian aether and
its vortex action theoretically in the second book of the Principia.
Any satisfactory aether had to be so different from that of Descartes
as to be, essentially, experimentally undetectable, a most uncom
fortable position for an empiricist to maintain.8
There is one further aspect of Newton’s theory of matter that de
serves mention, an aspect contained in the random notes at the end
of the “De natura acidorum.” Here—and it is the only place where
he discussed the matter—Newton suggested that particles associate
to form aggregates “of the first composition,” that these associate
to form aggregates “of the second composition,” and so on. This
led to a method of differentiating between reaction and transmuta
tion. When gold reacts with mercury to form mercury amalgam
8 Boyle, The Spring and Weight of the Air, First Continuation, in Thomas Birch, The
Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle (second ed., London, 1772), III, 250 fF.; Rare
faction of the Air; Works, III, 495 fF.
246 MARIE BOAS
the gold is recoverable, so presumably the mercury particles pene

trated only to the particles of the “last” composition. But if mercury
could get between the particles of the first composition, then and
only then would gold be transmuted into some other substance.
This is an intriguing suggestion, but analogies with modern atomic
physics are not valid. The fact that this theory is not referred to in
the Opticks must mean that Newton found this concept (which in
cidentally is not entirely original with him, for the notion of aggre
gates of particles is to be found in the work of many early 17th-
century chemists writing on the nature of m atter—for example,
Sennert) not to be a useful enough hypothesis to be pursued; but it
did convince him that transmutation was too difficult to be
probable.
Unlike gravitational attraction, which was a universal force
varying only objectively with mass and distance, chemical attraction
was selective and varied subjectively with each pair of chemical
compounds. So complex was the action of this kind of attraction
that the addition of one chemical to another could alter the attrac
tion or sociability of the latter to a third compound. This Newton
pointed out as early as 1675 in one of the optical papers sent to the
Royal Society, a letter which incidentally indicates Newton’s current
chemical interest.
Almost always Newton’s discussion of sociability is a part of a
search for a general theory of solution. The solvents that most in
terested him were the common strong acids and he repeatedly
grappled with the difficult reactions between acids and metals. The
most interesting of these he thought were the reactions of acid mix
tures with gold and silver and he several times mentioned the specific
nature of the ability of aqua regia to dissolve gold but not silver,
and of aqua fortis to dissolve silver but not gold; this problem he
tried to resolve by combining attraction and the relative size of the
particles of acids and the pores between the particles of the metal
as criteria of solubility.9 His difficulties in this regard were not made
easier by the necessity of defining clearly what substances should be
classed as acids. In the mid 17th century there had been developed
. 9 See Thomas S. Kuhn, “Newton’s ‘31st Query’ and the Degradation of Gold,”
Isis 42, 296-298 (1951), and M. Boas and T. S. Kuhn, “ Newton and the Theory
of Chemical Solution,” Isis 43, 123-124 (1952).
a chemical theory based on the notion that all substances contained

either acids or alkalies, so that all chemical reactions could be
regarded as the combination of an acid and an alkali. Robert Boyle
repeatedly attacked this view, in works which now have only the
interest of controversy; but of lasting importance was his classifica
tion of acids and alkalies on the basis of their characteristic reactions:
thus all acids turned syrup of violets red, all alkalies turned syrup
of violets green, and some substances did neither.10 Eighteenth-cen
tury chemists very frequently accepted this useful empirical classifi
cation. Newton used these tests in his own work; but he preferred
to define acids theoretically, rather than empirically, as substances
“endued with a great Attractive Force; in which Force their Activity
consists.” This definition, in the “ De natura acidorum,” was still
assumed in the 31st Query of the Opticks; it was the chief explanation,
for Newton, of the great solvent activity habitually displayed by
acids. Another reaction involving acids which interested Newton,
and which he also discussed in the 31st Query, was the replace
ment of one metal by another in an acid solution. He went so far
as to list the six common metals in the order in which they would
displace one another from a solution of aqua fortis (strong nitric
acid). This is perhaps a forerunner of the tables of affinity so com
mon in the eighteenth century, by which chemists tried to predict
the course of a reaction.
Newton built no great chemical system comparable to his physical
system of the universe, but by combining a particulate theory
of matter with a profound experimental knowledge of chemistry he
helped push chemistry one step nearer its acceptance as a true
physical science. Newton is not less of a chemist because there is no
positive chemical discovery associated with his name. Boerhaave, the
great eighteenth-century physician and Newtonian chemist, more
than once underlined the importance of chemistry as a part of natural
philosophy with such remarks as, “Sir Isaac Newton gives us many
chymical Experiments of the Attraction of Bodies” and “Isaac
Newton . . . when he demonstrates by manifest effects the laws,
actions, and forces of bodies does so not otherwise than by chem
10 Reflections on the Hypothesis of Alkali and Acidum; Works, IV, 284-292; cf. H.
Metzger, Les doctrines chimiques en France (Paris, 1923), pp. 205-210. For Boyle’s
classification, see The Experimental History of Colours; Works, I, 744, 765-767.
248 MARIE BOAS
istry.” 11 Henry Pemberton, editor of the third edition of the Principia

and author of a widely read popularization of Newtonian physics,
in his chemical lectures, read at Gresham College about 1730, cited
Newton’s chemical achievements as laying the groundwork for
greater discoveries: “ Not only his general proofs, drawn from
chemical experiments, of some active principles existing in nature,
by which all natural effects are caused, but his more particular
thoughts, concerning the nature of acids, cannot be sufficiently
admired.” 12 Many more examples could be cited; and a modern
historian must agree that Newton’s approach to chemical problems
and his attem pt to interpret and analyze chemical reactivity are
very nearly as full of insight, as interesting, and as influential as the
18th-century chemists thought them to be. Or, as John Harris said
in the Lexicon Technicum, introducing the “ De natura acidorum,”
“The following Paper of Sir Isaac Newton’s is excellently well worth
the Philosophical Reader’s most serious and repeated Perusal; for
it containes in it the Reason of the Ways and Manner of all Chymical
Operations, and indeed of almost all the Physical Qualities, by which
N atural Bodies, by their small Particles, act one upon another.”
11 H. Boerhaave, A Method of Studying Physick (London, 1719), p. 101, and Sermo
academicus de chemia (Leyden, 1718).
12A Course of Chymistry . . . nowfirst publishedfrom the Author’s Manuscript by James
Wilson (London, 1771), pp. 13-14.
NEWTON’S LETTER TO BOYLE 249
T H E
W O R K S
O F T H E H O N O U R A B L E
R O B E R T BOTLE.
In F I V E VOLUMES.
To w h ic h is p refix ed
The L ife of the A U T H O R»

V O L U M E I.
L O N D O N ;
P r in te d for A . M 1 l l a r, o p p o fitc Catharine-Street> in th e Strand
M D C C X L IV .
250 NEWTON’S LETTER TO BOYLE
70 The L I F E o f the honourable R o b e r t B o y l e .
T he regard, which the great N e w t o n had for Mr. B o y le, will appear from a very curious
letter, which the former wrote to him, explaining his fentiments upon one of the mod
abftrufe points of philofophy, with refpedl to the aetherial medium, which in his O p tic s he
propofes as the mechanical caufe of gravitation. This letter having never before ieen the
light, will be proper to be inferted here.
“ Honoured Sir,
“ T H A V E fo long deferred to fend you my thoughts about the phyfical qualities we
« fpake of, that did I not elleem myfelf obliged by promife, I think I fhould be alhamed
to fend them at all. The truth is, my notions about things of this kind are fo indigefted,
that I am not well fatisfied my felf in them ; and what I am not fatisfied in, I can fcarce
“ elleem fit to be communicated to others; efpecially in natural philofophy, where there is
“ no end of fancying. But becaufe I am indebted to you, and yellerday met with a friend,
“ Mr. M a u ly v e r e r , who told me he was going to L o n d o n , and intended to give you the trou-
“ ble of a vifit, I could not forbear to take the opportunity of conveying tins to you by
“ him.
“ I t being only an explication of qualities, which you defire of me, I (hall fet down my
“ apprehenfions in the form of fuppofitions, as follows. And firft, I fupi>ofe, that there is
“ diffufed through all places an Ethereal fubftance, capable of contradlion and dilatation,
“ ftrongly elaftic, and, in a word, much like air in all refpefts, but far more fubtile.
“ 2. I suppose this aether pervades all grofs bodies, but yet fo as to Hand rarer in their
“ pores than in free fpaces, and fo much the rarer, as their pores are lefs. And this I fup-
“ pofe (with others) to be the caufe, why light incident on thofe bodies is refradled towards
“ the perpendicular; why two well polilhed metals cohere in a receiver exhaulled of air;
“ why 5 Hands fometimes up to the top of a glafs pipe, though much higher than 30 inches ;
“ and one of the main caufes, why the parts of all bodies cohere; alfo the caufe of filtration,
“ and of the riling of water in fmall glafs pipes above the furface of the llagnating water they
“ are dipped into: for I fufpeft the tether may (land rarer, not only in the infenfible pores of
“ bodies, but even in the very fenfible cavities of thofe pipes. And the fame principle may
“ caufe menllruums to pervade with violence the pores of the bodies they dilfolve, the fur-
“ rounding aether, as well as the atmofphcre, preding them together.
“ 3. I fuppofe the rarer aether within bodies, and the denfer without them, not to be ter-
“ minated in a mathematical fuperficies, but to grow gradually into one another; the ex-
“ ternal Ether beginning to grow rarer, and the internal to grow denfer, at fome little
“ dillance from the fuperficies of the body, and running through all intermediate degrees of
“ denfity in the intermediate fpaces: And this may be the caufe, why light, in Grimaldo'%
“ experiment, palling by the edge of a knife, or other opake body, is turned afide, and as
“ it were refrafted, and by that refraction makes feveral colours. Let A B C D be a denfe
“ body, whether opake, or tranfparent, E E G H the outfide
“ of the uniform tether, which is within it, IK L .M the infide
“ of the uniform aether, which is without i t ; and conceive the
“ aether, which is between E F G H and I K L M, to run
“ through all intermediate degrees of denfity between that of
“ the two uniform tethers on cither fide. This being fuppofed,
the rays of the fun SB, S K, which pafs by the edge of this
“ body between B and K, ought in their palfage through
“ the unequally denfe tether there, to receive a ply from
“ the denfer tether, which is on that fide towards K, and that
“ the more, by how much they pafs nearer to the body, and
“ thereby to be fcattered through the fpace P Q R S T , as by
“ experience they are found to be. Now the fpace between the limits E F G H and I K L M
“ I lnall call the fpace of the tether’s graduated rarity.
“ 4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I fuppofe the
“ tether between them to grow rarer than before, and the fpaces of its graduated rarity to
“ extend further from the fuperficies of the bodies to-
“ wards one another; and this, by reafon, that the Ether
“ cannot move and play up and down fo freely in the k! PI ;
“ ftrait palfage between the bodies, as it could before

“ they came fo near together. Thus, if the fpace of m 0! i
“ the Ether’s graduated rarity reach from the body •T . Kj
« n r ..................
“ A B C D F E only to the dillance G H L M R S , when
“ no other body is near it, yet may it reach farther, as A li e d
“ to IK , when another body N O P (âpproaches: and
“ as the other body approaches more and more, I fuppofe
“ the Ether between them will grow rarer and rarer. E V
S ’- •;R
'< Thefe
!The L I F E o f the honourable R o b e r t B o y l e . 71

“ T hese fuppolitions I have fo defcribed, as if I thought the fpaces o f graduated ae th er
“ had precife limits, as is expreffed at I K L M in the firft figure, and G M R S in the
“ fecond : for thus I thought I could better txprefs my feif. But really I do not think they
“ have fuch precife limits, but rather decay infenfibly, and, in fo decaying, extend to a much
“ greater diftance, than can eafily be believed, or need be fuppofed.
“ 5. Now from the fourth fuppofition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one
another, come fo near together, as to make the atther between them begin to rarefy, they
“ will begin to have a relu&ance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to
“ recede from one another: which reluftance and endeavour will encreafe, as they come
“ nearer together, becaufe thereby they caufe the interjacent atther to rarefy more and more.
“ But at length, when they come fo near together, that the excefs of preffure of the exter-
“ nal asther, which furrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied either, which is between
“ them, isfo great, as to overcome the reluiftance, which the bodies have from being brought
“ together; then will that excefs of preffure drive them with violence together, and make
“ them adhere ftrongly to one another, as was faid in the fecond fuppofition. For inftance,
“ in the fecond figure, when the bodies E D and N P are fo near together, that the fpaces
“ of the tether’s graduated rarity begin to reach to one another, and meet in the line IK ;
“ the tether between them will have fuffered much rarefaction, which rarefaction requires
“ much force, that is, much preffrngof the bodies together: and the endeavour, which the
“ tether between them has to return to its former natural ftate of condenfation, will caufe the
“ bodies to have an endeavour of receding from one another. But on the other hand, to
“ counterpoife this endeavour, there will not yet be any excefs of denfity of the tether, which
“ furrounds the bodies, above that of the tether, which is between them at the line IK. But
“ if the bodies come nearer together, fo as to make the tether in the mid-way-line IK grow
“ rarer than the furrounding asther, there will arife from the excefs of denfity of the fur-
“ rounding asther a compreffure of the bodies towards one another: which when by the
“ nearer approach of the bodies it becomes fo great, as to overcome the aforefaid endeavour
** the bodies have to recede from one another, they will then go towards one another, and
“ adhere together. And, on the contrary, if any power force them afunder to that dillance,
“ where the endeavour to recede begins to overcome the endeavour to accede, they will again
« leap from one another, Now hence I conceive it is chiefly, that a fly walks on water
“ without wetting her feet, and confequently without touching the water; that two polifiied
“ pieces of glafs are not without preffure brought to contadl, no, not though the one be plain,
“ the other a little convex; that the particles of dull cannot by preffing be made to cohere,
“ as they would do, if they did but fully touch ; that the particles of tinging fubftances and
« falts diffolved in water do not of their own accord concrete and fall to the bottom, but
“ diffufe themfelves all over the liquor, and expand flill more, if you add more liquor to
“ them. Alfo, that the particles of vapours, exhalations, and air, do Hand at a diftance from
“ one another, and endeavour to recede as far from one another, as the preffure of the in-
« cumbent atmofphere will let them: for I conceive the confuted mafs of vapours, air,- and
exhalations, which we call the atmofphere, to be nothing elfe but the particles of all forts
“ of bodies, of which the earth confifts, feparated from one another, and kept at a diftance,
“ by the faid principle.
“ F rom thefe principles the adtions of menftruums upon bodies may be thus explained.
“ Suppofe any tinging body, as cochineal, or logwood, be put into water; fo foon as the
“ water finks into its pores and wets on all fides any particle, which adheres to the body
“ only by the principle in the fecond fuppofition, it takes off, or at leaf!: much diminifhej
“ the efficacy of that principle to hold the particle to the body, becaufe it makes the tether
“ on all fides the particle to be of a more uniform denfity than before. And then the particle
«< being fhaken off, by any little motion, floats in the water, and with many fuch others makes
“ atin&ure; which tindture will be of fome liyely colour, if the particles be all of the
“ fame fize and denfity; otherwife of a dirty one. _ For the colours of all natural bodies
“ whatever feem to depend on nothing but the various fizes and denfities of their particles;
“ as I think you have feen defcribed by me more at large in another paper. If the particles
“ be very fmall (as are thofe of falts, vitriols, and gums) they are tranfparent; and as they
“ are fuppofed bigger and bigger, they put on thefe colours in order, black, white, yellow,
“ red ; violet, blue, pale green, yellow, orange, red; purple, blue, green, yellow, orange,
“ red, & c . as is difeerned by the colours, which appear at the feveral thicknefles of very thin
“ plates of tranfparent bodies. Whence, to know the caufes of the changes of colours,
“ which are often made by the mixtures of feveral liquors, it is to be confidered, how the
“ particles of any tinfture may have their fize or denfity altered by the infufion of another
“ liquor.
“ W hen any metal is put into common water, the water cannot enter into its pores, to aft
“ on it and diffolve it. Not that water confifts of too grofs parts for this purpofe, but be- y '
caufe it is unfociable to metal. For there is a certain fecret principle in nature, by which
“ liquors are fociable to fome things, and unfociable to others. Thus water will not mix
“ with oil, but readily with fpirit of wine, or with falts. It finks alfo into wood, which
“ quickfilver will not; but quickfilver finks into metals, which, as I faid, water will nor.
11 So aqua fortis diffolves D, not ©, aqua regis 0 , not J . But a liquor, which is of itfelf
“ unfociable
3
252 NEWTON’S LETTER TO BOYLE
72 The L I F E o f the honourable R o b e r t B o y l e .

“ unfociable to a bociy, may, by the mixture of a convenient mediator, be made fociable.
“ So molten lead, which alone will not mix with copper, or with regtilus of Mars, by the
«■ addition of tin is made to mix with either. And water, by the mediation of faline
“ fpirits, will mix with metal. Now when any metal is put in water impregnated with
“ fuch fpirits, as into aqua fords, aqua regis, fpirit of vitriol, or the like, the particles of
“ the fpirits, as they, in floating in the water, ftrike on the metal, will by their fociablenefs
«• enter into its pores, and gather round its outflde particles, and, by advantage of the con-
“ tinual tremor the particles of the metal are in, hitch themfelves in by degrees between
“ thofe particles and the body, and loofen them from it ; and the water entering into the
“ pores together with the faline fpirits, the particles of the metal will be thereby ftill more
“ loofed, fo as, by that motion the folution puts them into, to be eafily fliaken off, and
“ made to float in the water: the faline particles ftill encompafling the metallic
“ ones as a coat or fhell does a kernel, after the manner exprefled in the annexed
“ figure. In which figure I have made the particles round, though they may be
“ cubical, or of any other fhape.
“ If into a folution of metal thus made be poured a liquor, abounding with particles,
“ to which the former faline particles are more fociable than to the particles of the metal
“ (fuppofe with particles of fait of tartar) then fo foon as they ftrike on one another in the
“ liquor, the faline particles will adhere to thofe more firmly than to the metalline ones,
“ and by degrees be wrought off from thofe to enclofe thefe. Suppofe A a metalline particle,
“ endofed with faline ones of fpirit of nitre, E a particle of fait of tartar,
“ contiguous to two of the particles of fpirit of nitre b and c, and fuppofe
“ the particle E is impelled by any motion towards d, fo as to roll about the
“ particle c, till it touch the particle d, the particle b adhering more firmly to
“ E than to A, will be forced off from A. And by the fame means the particle
“ E, as it rolls about A , will tear off the reft of the faline particles from A, one
“ after another, till it has got them all, or almoft all, about itfelf. And when
“ the metallic particles are thus divefted of the nitrous ones, which, as a mediator between
«• them and the water, held them floating in it; the alcalizate ones crouding for the room the
“ metallic ones took up before, will prefs thefe towards one another, and make them come
•* more eafily together: fo that by the motion they continually have in the water, they fhall
“ be made to ftrike on one another, and then, by means of the principle in the fecond fup-
“ pofition, they will cohere and grow into clufters, and fall down by their weight to the bot-
“ tom, which is called precipitation.
“ I n the folution of metals, when a particle is loofing from the body, fo foon as it gets
“ to that diftance from it, where the principle of receding deferibed in the fourth and fifth
“ fuppofitions begins to overcome the principle of acceding, deferibed in the fccond fuppofi-
“ tion, the receding of the particle wilt be thereby accelerated ; fo that the particle (hall as
“ it were with violence leap from the body, and putting the liquor into a brifk agitation,
“ beget and promote that heat we often find to be caufed in folutions of metals. And if
“ any particle happen to leap off thus from the body, before it be furrounded with water,
“ or to leap off with that fmartnefs, as to get loofe from the water ; the water, by the prin-
“ ciple in the fourth and fifth fuppofitions, will be kept off from the particle, and ftand
*< round about it, like a fpherically hollow arch, not being able to come to a full contaft
“ with it any more. And feveral of thefe particles afterwards gathering into a duller, fo as
“ by the fame principle to ftand at a diftance from one another, without any water between
“ them, will compofe a bubble, Whence I fuppofe it is, that in brifk folutions there ufually
“ happens an ebullition.
“ T h is is one way of tranfmuting grofs compaft fubftances into aereal ones. Another
“ way is, by heat. For as fall as the motion of heat can (hake off the particles of water
“ from the furface of it, thofe particles, by the faid principle, will float up and down in the
“ air, at a diftance both from one another, and from the particles of air, and make that fub-
“ fiance we call vapour. Thus I fuppofe it is, when the particles of a body are very fmall
<( (as I fuppofe thofe of water are) fo that the aftion of heat alone may be fufficient to
“ lhake them afunder. But if the particles be much larger, they then require the greater
“ force of diffolving menftruums, to feparate them, unlefs by any means the particles can
“ be firft broken into fmaller ones. For the mod fixed bodies, even gold itfelf, fome have
“ faid will become volatile, only by breaking their parts fmaller. Thus may the volatility
“ and fixednefs of bodies depend on the different fizes of their parts.
“ A nd on the fame difference of fize may depend the more or lefs permanency of aereal
fubftances, in their Hate of rarefadlion. To underfland this, let us
“ fuppofe A B C D to be a large piece of any metal, E F G H the : A R ’«
“ limit of the interior uniform tether, and K a part of the metal at
: 1I F)
“ the fuperficies AB. If this part or particle K be fo little, that it
“ reaches not to the limit E F, it is plain, that the rcther at its centre !tr g !
“ mull be lefs rare, than if the particle were greater; for were it 1,D in *
“ greater, its centre would be further from the fuperficies A B, that a
“ is, in a place, where the xcher (by fuppofition) is rarer. The lefs the particleK therefore,
“ the denier the tether at its centre, bccaufe its centre comes nearer to the edgeA B, where
2 the
I he L I F E o f the honourable R o b e r t B o y l e , 73
•• tlie xther is denfer than within the limit E F G H . And if the particle were divided from
11 the body, and removed to a d[dance from it, where the aether is fill denfer, the aether
“ within it muft proportionally grow denfer. If you confider this, you may apprehend,
“ how by diminilhing the particle, the rarity of the' aether within it will be diminilhed, till
“ between the denfity of the atther without, and the denfity of the arther within it, there be
“ little difference; that is, till the caufe be almoft taken away, which fhould keep this and
“ other fuch particles at a diftance from one another. For that caufe, explained in the fourth
“ and fifth fuppofitions, was the excefs of denfity of the external aether above that of the
“ internal. This may be the reafon then, why the fmall particles of vapours eafily come to-
“ gether, and are reduced back into water, unlefs the heat, which keeps them in agitation, be
“ fo great as to difiipate them as fall as they come together: but the grolfer particles of ex-
“ halations raifed by fermentation keep their aerial form more obftinately, becaufe the aether
“ within them is rarer.
“ Nor does the fize only, but the denfity of the particles alfo, conduce to the permanency
“ of aerial fubflances. For the excefs of denfity of the asther without fuch particles above
“ that of the aether within them is ftill greater. Which has made me fometimes think,
“ that the true permanent air may be of a metallic original; the particles of no fubflances
“ being more denfe than thofe of metals. This, I think, is alfo favoured by experience, for I
“ remember I once read in the Philofophical Tranfaftions, how M. H u yg en s at P a r is found,
“ that the air made by diflolving fait of tartar would in two or three days time condenfe
“ and fall down again, but the air made by diflolving a metal continued without con-
“ denfing or relenting in the lead. If you confider then, how by the continual fermentations
“ made in the bowels of the earth there are aerial fubflances raifed out of all kinds of bodies,
“ all which together make the atmofphcre, and that of all thefe the metallic are the moft
“ permanent, you will not, perhaps, think it abfurd, that the moft permanent part of the
“ atmofphere, which is the true air, fhould be conftituted of thefe; efpecially fince they are
“ the heavieft of all other, and fo muft fubfide to the lower parts of the atmofphere, and
“ float upon the furface of the earth, and buoy up the lighter exhalation and vapours to float
“ in greateft plenty above them. Thus, I fay, it ought to be with the metallic exhalations
“ raifed in the bowels of the earth by tile ailion of acid menftruums, and thus it is with
“ the true permanent air; for this, as in reafon it ought to be efteemed the moft pon-
“ derous part of the atmofphere, becaufe the lowed, fo it betrays its ponderofity, by mak-
“ ing vapours afeend readily in it, by fuftaining mills and clouds of fnow, and by buoying
“ up grofs andponderous Iriioke. The air alfo is the moft grofs unaflive part of the at-
“ mofphere, affording living things no nourifhment, if deprived of the more tender exha-
“ lations and fpirits, that float in it : and what more unaflive and remote from nourilhment
“ than metallic bodies ?
“ I shall fet down one conjeflure more, which came into my mind now as I was writ*
“ ing this letter. It is about the caufe of gravity. For this end 1 will fuppofe aether to
“ confift of parts differing from one another in fubtilty by indefinite degrees: that in the
“ pores of bodies there is Iefs of the grolfer tether, in proportion to the finer, than in open
“ fpaces; and confequently, that in the great body of the earth there is much lefs of the
“ grolfer sther, in proportion to the finer, than in the regions of the air: and that yet the
“ grolfer tether in the air affefts the upper regions of the earth, and the finer tether in the
‘1earth the lower regions of the air, in fuch a manner, that from the top of the air to the
“ furface of the earth, and again from the furface of the earth to the centre thereof, the
“ tether is infenfibly finer and finer. Imagine now any body fufpended in the air, or lying
“ on the earth: and the aether being by the hypothefis grolfer in the pores, which are in the
“ upper parts of the body, than in thofe which are in its lower parts, and that grolfer aether
“ being lefs apt to be lodged in thofe pores, than the finer aether below, it will endeavour to
“ get out and give way to the finer aether below, which cannot be without the bodies
“ defending to make room above for it to go out into.
“ F rom this fuppofed gradual fubtilty of the parts of aether fome things above might
“ be further illuftrated, and made more intelligible ; but by what has been faid, you will
“ eafily difeern, whether in thefe conjeftures there be any degree of probability, which is all
“ I aim at. For my own part, I have fo little fancy to things of this nature, that, had not
“ your encouragement moved me to it, I Ihould never, I think, have thus far fet pen to
“ paper about them. What is amifs therefore, I hope, you will the more eafily pardon in
Cambridge, Feb. a8, 1678-9. “ Your moft humble fervant,
“ and honourer,
“ Isaac N swton.
T his letter of our incomparable N e w to n may perhaps receive fome illuftration from ano
ther which he wrote a few years before to Mr. O ld en b u rg , and was as follows.
• In the pofielfionof W illia m Jones, Efq.

Vol. V. t “ S I R,
254 NEWTON’S LETTER TO OLDENBURG
!The L I F E o f the honourable R o b e r t B o y l e .
“ SIR,
“ T R E C E I V E D both yours, and thank you for your care in difpofing thofe things be-
“ tween me and Mr. L in u s . I fuppofe his friends cannot blame you at all for printing his
“ firft letter, it being written, I believe, for that end, and they never complaining of the
« printing of that, but of the not printing that, which followed, which I take myfelf to
“ have been p e r a cc id en t the occafion of, by refufing to anfwer him. And though I think I
“ may tally fay, I was very little concerned about it, yet I mull look upon it as the refult of
« your kindnefs to me, that you was unwilling to print it without an anfwer.
“ As to the paper of Obfervations, which you move in the name of the Society to have
“ printed, I cannot but return them my hearty thanks for the kind acceptance they meet
“ with there, and know not how to deny any thing, which they defire fliould be done.
“ Only I think it will be bell to fufpend the printing of them for a while, becaufe I have
“ fome thoughts of writing fuch another fet of Obfervations for determining the manner of
“ the produiftions of colours by the prifm, which, if done at all, ought to precede that now
“ in your hands, and will do bell to be joined with it. But this I cannot do prefently, by
“ reafon of fome incumbrances lately put upon me by fome friends, and fome other bufinefs
“ of my own, which at prefent almoft take up my time and thoughts.
“ T he additions, that I intended, I think I mull, after putting you to fo long expedlations,
« difappoint you in j for it puzzles me how to conneft them with what I fent you ; and if I
“ had thofe papers, yet I doubt the things I intended will not come in fo freely as I thought
“ they might have done. I could fend them deferibed without dependance on thofe papers-,
“ but I fear I have already troubled your Society and yourfelf too much with my fcribbling,
“ and fo fuppofe it may do better to defer them till another feafon. I have therefore at
“ prefent only fent you two or three alterations, though not of fo great moment, that I need
“ have (laid you for them -, and they are thefe:
“ W h er e I fay, that th e f r a m e o f n a tu r e m ay be n o th in g b u t te th e r condenfed b y a f e r m e n t a l
“ p r in c ip le , inftead of thefe words write, that it may be nothing but various contextures of
“ fome certain attherial fpirits or vapours condenfed, as it were, by precipitation, much af-
“ ter the manner, that vapours are condenfed into water, or exhalations into groffer fub-
“ ltances, though not fo eafily condenfable ; and after condenfation wrought into various
“ forms, at firlt by the immediate hand of the Creator, and ever fince by the power of na-
“ ture, who, by virtue of the command, In c re a fe a n d m u ltip ly , became a complete imitator of
“ the copies fet her by the Protoplall. Thus perhaps may all things be originated from
“ tether, (jfc .
A l it t l e after, when I fay, the tetherial fpirit may be condenfed in fe r m e n t in g o r b u r n in g
“ bodies, o r o th e r w ife in fp iffa te d in th e p o re s o f th e e a r th to a te n d e r m a tte r , •w hich m a y be, a s i t
“ w e r e , th e fuccus nutritius o f th e e a r th , o r p r im a r y fu b jla n c e , o u t o f w h ic h th in g s g en e ra b le
“ g r o w : inllead of this you may write, that that fpirit may be condenfed in fermenting or
“ burning bodies, orotherwife coagulated in the pores of the earth and water into fome kind
“ of humid adtive matter, for the continual ufes of nature, adhering to the fides of thofe
“ pores after the manner, that vapours condenfe on the Tides of a veffel.
“ I n the fame paragraph there is, I think, a parenthefis, in which I mention volatile falt-
“ petre. Pray llrike out that parenthefis, left it Ihould give offence to fomebody.
“ Alfo where I relate the experiment of little papers made to move varioufiy with a glals
“ rubbed, I would have all that llruck out, which follows about trying the experiment with
“ leaf-gold.
“ S ir , 1 am interrupted by a vifit, and fo m ull in hade break off.
“ Yours
Jan. 25, 1675-6. “ Is, N ewton.”
B ut to return to Mr. B o y le, in the year 1680, he gave the world the following trafts, v i z .
i h e A e r i a l N o S i l u c a : o r fo m e n e w P h tm o m e n a , a n d a p r o c e fs o f a fa S t iti o u s fe lf-jl:in in g fu b fla n c e ■,
London, in 8vo. A n e w L a m p , printed in Mr. H o o k e 's B h ilo fo p h ic a l C o lla tio n s , No. II. p.
33. and D iv e r s E x p e r im e n ts a n d N o te s a b o u t th e p ro d u cib len efs o f c h e m ica l P r in c ip le s , fubjoined
to the fecond edition of his S c e p tic a l C h e m ijl, at O x fo r d 1680, in 8vo.
T he Royal Society, of which he had been fo long one of the greatelt ornaments, now
thought proper at their annual eledlion on St. A n d r e w ’s day, November 30, this year, to
choofe him for their prefident. But after a mature confideration he excufed himfelf from ac
cepting that pod, for rcafons, which fhew his extreme tendernefs and delicacy in all matters of
confidence, and were reprefented by him in the following letter to Mr. H o o ke.
“ P a l l- M a ll , Dec. 18, 1680.

SIR,
“ r p H O U G H fince I lad faw you, I met with a lawyer, who has been a member of fe-
“ veral parliaments, and found him of the fame opinion with my council in reference
“ to the obligation to take the ted and oaths you and I difeourfed o f ; yet not content with
“ this,
NEWTON: DE NATURA ACIDORUM 255
............................ - x p m jte r j
Lexicon Technicum :
Or, An U N I V E R S A L
Englifh DidionaryJ
O F
ARTS and SCIENCES:

e x p l a i n i n g '
Not only the T E R M S of A R T , but the I

A R T S Themfelves.
V O L . II
B Y
J O H N H A R R I S , D . D. Secretary to the
R oyal-Society , and Chaplain to the L o r d H ig h -
Chancellor o f G R E A T- B R I T A I N ,
L O N D O N :
Printed for D an. B ro w n , T im . G oodw in, J . W alth oe,

Joh. Nicholfon, B e n j. Tooke, D a n ; M id w in te r ,
M . A tk in s , m d T . l V a r d . M dccx.
256 NEWTON: DE NATURA ACIDORUM
I N T RODUCTION.
DE
N A T U R A A C I D O R U M .
I n N i w i o s . 1 692.
A
C id o ru m p a r tic u la f u n t A q u eis Craffiores, & fropterea m in u s V olatiles, a t Terrefiribus
m u lto fu b tilio res & fropterea m u lto m in u s fix te . V i m a g n a A tt r a B i v d pollent, & in
hac 1ti confifiit earum A B i v i t a s , q u a & Corpora difj'olvunt & O rgana Senfm im a g ita n t & f u n -
g u n t. M e d i a fu n t N a t u r a in ter A q u a m & Corpora, & U tra q u e a ttra b u n t. P er v i m f i a m a t -
t r a B i v a m congregant u r circum f a r t iculas corfo ru m fe u Lapideas fe u M etaU icas i i f q • u n d iq • a d -
h a r e n t a r B iffim e , u t ab iifd e m deinceps per D ijlilla tio n e m v e l Sub lim a tio n em v i x poffint fe p a r a ri,
A t t r a B a vero & undique co n g reg a ta , e le v a n t, d isju n g u n t & d ifc u tiu n t particulas corporum ab
in v ic e m , i d e f l corpora d iffo lv u n t; & per v im A ttr a B io n is q u a ru u n t in particulas com m ovent f l u i -
d u m & f ic calorem e x c ita n t, p a rticu fa fq ; nonnullas adeo d ifc u tiu n t tit in A e re m converta n t &
Jic B u lla s g en era n t. E t b a c ef t R a tio D iffolutiom s d r F erm entationis; A c id u m v e r b attrahendo
A q u a m a q u e ac T e rra m efpc'tt u t p a rtic u la d iffo lu ta prom pts m ifcea n tu r cum A q u a eique in n a ten t
a d m o d u m fa liu m . E t quern a d m o d u m Globus T e r r a per v i m G r a v ita t is attrahendo a q uam fo r tiu s
q u a m Corpora levio ra , efjicit u t levio ra afcendant in A q u a , d r fu g ia n t de T erra . Sic p a r tl-
c u la S a liu m attrahendo A q u a m f u g a n t f e m u tu o d r ab in v ic e m q u a m m a x im a recedendo, per
A q u a m to ta m expanduntur.
P a r tic u la S a ils A lk a li ex T e n e ts d r A d d is fim ilite r XJnitis confiant j f e d h a A c i d a v i
m a x im a A t t r a B i v d pollent u t per ig n em non fep a rentur d S a le j u tq \ M e t alia diffoluta p r a c i-
p ita n t a ttrahendo ab ipfis p a rticu la r A d d a s quibus d iffolvebantur.
S i p a r tic u la A c id a in m in o ri proportione cu m Terrefiribus j u n g a n tu r , h a tarn a rB e re tinentur d
T erre firib u s, u t ab its fu p p r im i ac occultari vid e a n tu r. N e q ; e n im fe n fu m j a m p u n g u n t neq ;
a ttr a b u n t a q u a m , fed corpora dulcia d r q u a c u m a q u a a g r e m ifc e n tu r, hoc e f l pinguia3compo-
m in t j u t f i t in M ercurio d u lc i, Su lp h u rs co m m u n i, L u n a Cornea & Cupro quod M e rc u riu s
S n b lim a tu s corrofit. f i b A d d i vero fic fupprefji v i a ttr a c tiv e f i t u t pinguia Corporibus props
U n iv e r fis a d h a re a n t d r fia m m a m fa c ile c o n c ip ia n t,fi modo A c id u m ca lefa B u m in v e n ia t alia Cor
pora in fu m o accenforum q u a fo r tiu s a ttra h a t q u a m propria. S e d d r A c id u m in S u lp h u rd s f u p -
preffum fo r tiu s attrahendo p a rticu la s a liorum Corporum ( fc ilic e t T err ear) q u a m proprias, F er-
m en ta tio n em len t a m d r N a tu r a le m ciet d r fo v e t u fq ; a d T u trcfaB ionem Com pofiti.
Q u a P u trefa B io f i t a e f l in eo quod A s id e F erm entationem diu fo v e n te s ta n d em in in te r flitia
m in im a & primae Compofitionis partes interjacentia fe fe infinuant, in tim e q ; its fa r tib u s U n i t a
m ix tio n e m N o v a m efficiunt non a m o v s n d a m nec cum priors com m utandam .
Cogitationes Varia: ejufdem.

F la m m a e fl F um us Candens •, differtque d F um o u t F errum rubens ab ig n ito f e d non rubente.
C alor e f l A g ita tio P a r tiu m quaqua v e r fu m .
N i h i l e fl abfojute quiefeens fe c u n d u m partes fu a s & idea fr ig id u m , p ra te r atomos, v a c u i f e i -
licet expertes.
T e n a a u g e tu r , A q u a in earn co n versd , & om nia in a q uam [ v i ignis ] reduci poffunt.
N i t r u m a b it dijlillatione m a g n a m p a rtem in S p ir itu m A c id u m , reliEla t e n d , quia A c id u m
N i t r i a ttr a h it T h le g m a ; & idcirco (im u l afeendunt conjlituuntq; S p ir itu m : a t N ip rtim Carbone
accenfum m a g n a m p a rtem a b it in S a l T a r ta r i, quia ignis eo modo applicatus partes A c id i &
T e r r a in fe fe im p in g it fo r tiu fq ; unit.
S p iritu s ardentes f u n t Olea cu m P h le g m a te per Ferm entationem U n ita .
T in flu r a C ochinella cum S p ir itu V in i f a t l a in a q u a m agnam molem im m iffa , p a r v a licet
dofi,totam a q u a m in fic it : S c. quia p a rticu la C ochinella m agis a ttra h u n tu r ab a q u a quam a f e m utuo.
'A q u a non habet m a g n u m v i m d iffo lven d i q u ia pauco A cido g audet. A c id u m enim d icim us
quod m u ltu m a ttr a h it & a ttra h itu r , v id e m u s nempe ea c u e in aqua fo lv u n tu r lente & fin e
E ffc r v e fc e n tia f o l v i , a t ubi e fl a ttr a fiio fo rtss f3 p articula m enflrui u n d iq ; a ttra h u n tu r d p a r-
tic u ld M e t a lii, v e l po tiu t p articula m etalli u n d iq ’, a ttra h itu r a particulss m e n flru i, ha illam a b ri-
p iu n t & c ircu m fiflu n t, hoc efl M e ta llu m corro d u n t: H a eadem p a rtic u la fenforio applicata eju t
partes eodem modo d iv s llu n t d uhrem q ; in fe r u n t ; d quo A c id a appellantury r e liB a (cilicet terra S u b -
t ili cut a d h a re b a n t ob majorem a ttra llio n e m a d liq u id u m lin g u a , & c .
In
NEWTON: ON THE NATURE OF ACIDS 257
I NT R O D U C T I O N .
In o m m S o la tiu m per M e n fir u u m p a rtic u la fio lv e n d a m a p s a ttr a h m tu r a fa rtib u s M e n fir u i
q u a m a f e mittuo- ■> *
I n om ni Ferm ent a! iane e fi A c id u m fupprejfum quod coagulat p racipitando.
O leum cu m n im is m a g n x m o lep b leg m a tis in tim e m ix tu m , f i t S a lin u m quidditm & f i c A cetu m
c o n ftiiu it, hie e tia m T a r ta r i fe u T e r r a a d m ifia habenda efi ratio.
M e rc u riu s a ttra b itu r i d e fi corroditur ab A c id ts 6 fic u t pondcre O bfiruEl 'tones to llit i t a v i a t-
tra llr ic e A c id a in fr in g it.
M e rcu riu s efi V olatilis & facile e le v a to r calorequia ejus p a rticu la ultima: Compofitionls Cunt
p a r v a Cr fa c ile fe p a ra n tu r feparataq-, f i f i f u g a n t ; u t f i t in particulis Faporis, fim d o ru m q ■rarefa-
uorttm.. J
A q u a c o m p r im non potefi q u ia ejus p a r tic u la ja m ja m fie ta n g u n t. F t f t fie tangerent p a rti-
c u la A eris ( n a m A e r comprimi potefi, quia ipfixs p a rtic u h nondum f e ta n g u n t ) A e r e v a d m t in
M a rm o r. S e q .e x Trop. 25. L ib . a. T rin e. Thilofopb.
A arum particulas'habet f e m utuo trahentes', m in im arum fium m a vocentur primx Compofi-
tionis, hartim fu m m a r u m f u m m a fecunda Compofitionis, & c . ^
P o tefi M e rcu riu s, potefi A q u a R e g ia ports perva d ere, q u i p articular ultima: Compofitionls
interjacent a t non alios.
S i pojfet M e n firu u m alios illos pervadere v e l ft a u ri partes prim s &fecunda: Compofitionis
pojfent fep a ra ri fie re t A u n im , v e l F lu id u m , v e lfa lte m m a g is m alleabile. S i A i S f a fermenteficere
pojfet in a liu d q u o d vis corpus pojfet transform ari. J J
F fic id ta s efi v e l [ o h m d efeftu s flu id ita tis , q u a f i t a e fi in p a rtiu m p a r v ita te & fep a ra b ilita te
( intellige partes u ltim a Compofitionis) v e l d efettu s lu b ricita tis fe u la v io r is partes u n iu s fu p r a alias
labiim p ed ien s. H u jm v ife id ita tis A e id u m f a p e caufa efi • fiape Sp irit us a liu s lubricus te r r a
ju n f f u s , u t oleum T e re b in th in a capiti fu o M o rtu o redditum f i t tenax. '
R a tio cur C h a rta Oleo in unEla T ra n fitu m Oleo non A q u a concedat efi q uia A q u a Oleo non m if-
cetur f e d fu g a tu r ab eo. J
C u m A c id a partes, minores fcilicet, a liq u id d ifo lv u n t, id fa c iu n t, quia partem rei fo lv e n d a in -
cludunt v n d iq ’, utpote M a jo rem q ttd l bet A c id i p a rtiu m ,
Some Thoughts about the N a t u r e o f A c i d s ;

B y S ir I s a a c N e w t o n .
T H E Particles o f Acids are o f a Size grolfer than thole o f Water, and therefore
lefs volatile; but much fmaller than thofe o f Earth, and therefore much lefs
fix’d than they. T h ey are endued with a great Attractive F o rce; in which Force
their A ftivity confifts; and thereby alfo th ey affedt and {Emulate theO rgan o f Tafte,
and diflolve fuch Bodies as they can come at. They are o f a middle Nature between
Water and Terreftrial Bodies, and attradt the Particles o f both.
By this Attradtive Force they get about the Particles o f Bodies, whether they be
ofH-metallick or {tony Nature, and adhere to them m od clofely on all fides; fo that
they can fcarce he feparated from them by Diftillation or Sublimation. When they
are attradled and gather’d together about the Particles of Bodies, they raife, disjoyn
and (hake them one from another; that is, they diflolve thofe Bodies.
By their Attradtive Force alfo, by which they rufh towards the Particles o f Bodies,
they move the Fluid, and excite H e a t; and they {hake afunder fome Particles, fo ,
much as to turn them into Air, and generate Bubbles: And this is the Rcafon o f D if- .
folution, and all violent Fermentation ; and in all Fermentation there is an Acid '
latent or &pprefs’d, which coagulates in Precipitation.
Acids alfo, by attradting Water as much as they do the Particles o f Bodies, occafion
that the diffolved Particles do readily mingle with Water, or fwim or float in it, af
ter the manner of Salts.
And as this Globe o f Earth, by the Force o f Gravity, attradting Water more
flrongly than it doth lighter Bodies, caufes thofe lighter Bodies to alcend in the Wa
ter, and to go upwards from the Earth : So the Particles of Salts, by attradling the
Water, do mutually avoid and recede from one another as far as they can, and fo
are diffufed throughout the w hole Water.
T h e Particles of S a l A l k a l i , do confift o f E a r th y and A c i d ifnited together,, after the
fame m anner: But thefe Acids have fo great an Attradtive Force, that they can’t be
feparated from the Salt by F ite ; they do alfo precipitate the Particles o f M etals
diflblv’d
258 NEWTON: ON THE NATURE OF ACIDS
I N T R O D U C T I 0 N .
diflolv’d in Menstrua, by attracting from them the Acid Particles, Which before had
diffolved them, and kept them fulpended in the Menfiruum.
If thefe Acid Particles be joyn’d with Earthy ones, in but a fmall Quantity, they
are fo clofely retain’d by them, as to be quite fupprefs’d and hidden as it were by
them ; fo that they neither ftimulate the Organ of Senfe, nor attract Water, but
compofe Bodies which are not Acid, i. e. Fat and Fufible Bodies, fuch as are Mercu
ries dulcis, Common Brimftone, Luna Cornea, and Coffer corroded by Mercury Sublimate.
From the Attractive Force in thefe Acid Particles thus fupprels’d, arifes that uni-
verfal Property of almoft all Fat Bodies, that they adhere or flick to others, and are
eafily inflammable, if the heated Acid Particles ipeet with other Particles of Bodies
in Fume, which the Acid attracts more ftrongly, than it doth the Particles to which
it is united. And thus the Acid that lies fupprefs’d in fulphureous Bodies, by more
ftrongly attracting the Particles of other Bodies (Earthy ones for Inftance) than its
own, promotes a gentle Fermentation, produces and cherilhes Natural Heat, and
carries it on fo far iometimes, as to the Putrefaction of the Compound : Which Pu
trefaction arifes hence, That the Acid Particles which have a long while kept up the
Fermentation, do at long run infmuate themfelves into the leaft Interftices that lie
between the Particles of the firfi Comfofition, and fo intimately uniting with thofe
very Particle® 3o produce a new Mixture or Compound, which cannot fallback
again into the fame Form.
Note, The Paper hitherto defcrib'd, fcents tohatie been a continued Difcottrfe 5
but w h at follows are fhort Minutes of Thoughts relating to th e fame Subjeff,
Nitre, in Diftillation, leaving its Earthy Part behind, turns moft of it into an Acid
Spirit; becaufe the Acid of the Nitre attracts the Phlegm, and therefore they afcend
together, and conftitute a Spirit. But Nitre, kindled with a Coal, turns chiefly
into a Salt of Tartar j becaufe the Fire applied this Way, drives the Acid and Earthy
r Parts towards, and makes them impinge on, and more ftrongly unite one with
another.
The Reafon why Water hath no great diffolving Force, is, becaufe there is but a
fmall Quantity of Acid in i t : For whatever doth ftrongly attract, and is ftrongly
attracted, may be call’d an Acid : And fuch things as are dilfolv’d in Water, we lee,
become fo, eafily, without any Effervefcence : But where the Attraction is ftrong,
and the Particles of the Menftruum are every where attracted by thofe of the Metal,
or rather, where the Particles of the Metal are every way attracted by thofe of the
Menftruum ; then the Particles of the Menftruum environ thofe of the Metal, tear
them to pieces, and diffolve it.
So when thefe Acid Particles are applied to the Tongue, or to any excoriated Part
of the Body, leaving the fubtile Earth in which they were before, they rulh into the
liquid of the Senfory, tear and disjoint its Parts, and caufe a painful Senfation.
Mercury is attracted, and therefore corroded by Acids; and as it opens Obftru-
Ctions by its great Weight j fo it breaks and obtunds the Power of Acids (in the Bo
dy) by its attractive Force.
All Bodies have Particles which do mutually attract one another : The Summs of
the leaft of which may be called Particles of the firfi Comfofition, and the Colle
ctions or Aggregates arifing from the, Primary Summs ,• or the Summs of thefe
Summs may be call’d Particles of the fiecond Comfofition, &c.
Mercury and Aqua Regis can pervade thofe Pores of Gold or T in , which lie be
tween the Particles of its la(l Comfofition ; but they can’t get any further into it;
for if any Menftruum could do that, or if the Particles of the firft, or perhaps of the
fecond Compofition of Gold could be feparated ; that Metal might *e made to
become a Fluid, or at leaft more foft. And if Gold could be brought once to fer
ment and putrefie, it might be turn’d into any other Body whatfoever.
And fo of T in, or any other Bodies; as common Nourifhment is turn’d into the
Bodies of Animals and Vegetables.
N. B. The fmall Difference which there is between this Tranfiation and the Latin above,
was its being taken from another Cofy a little different from this Latin Pafer. And hav
ing beenfafervified and affroved of by the IlluftrioMs Anther, I have not alter'd it fince.
NEWTON: SCALA GRADUUM CALORIS 259
( 8 2 4 )
VII. Scala grctduum Caloric

Calorum Vefcripticnes figna.
Alor aeris hyberni ubi aqua incipit gelu
C rigefcere. Innotefcit hie ealor accurate
locando Thermometrum in nive compreiTa
quo tempore gelu folvitur.
0 , 1, 2 , Calores aeris hyberni.
2 ,3 ,4 - Calores aeris verni & autumnalis.
4 ,5 ,6 - Calores aeris % ftivi.
6 Calor aeris meridiani circa menfem Ju-
lium.
12 z Calor maximus quem Thermometer ad con-
ta&Kra
26o NEWTON: SCALA GRADUUM CALORIS
( 825 )
ta<ftum corporis humani concipit. Idem
' circiter eft calor avis ova inc-ubantis.
14^ I Calor balnei props maximus quern quis nianu
imrnerfa 8c conftanter agitata diutius per-
ferre poteft. Idem fere eft calor fanguinis
recens effufi,
I7 I Calor balnei maximus quem quis manu immerfa
8c immobili manente diutius perferre poteft.
2 0 tt I 3 Calor balnei quo Cera innatans 8c liquefa&a
deferendo regilcit 8c diaphaneitatem
amittit.
24 2 Calor balnei quo cera innatans incalefcenao,
liquefcit 8c in continuo fluxu fine ebulliti-
one confervatur,
1 Calor mediocris inter calores quo cera liquefcit
28 T| 2 5
8c aqua ebullit.
1
34 2 X Calor quo aqua vehementer ebullit 8c miftura
duarum partium plumbi triurn partium ftanni
8c quinque'partium bifmuti defervendo rigef-
cit.incipit aqua ebullire >_alore partium 33 8c
calorem partium plufquam 34 i ebulliendo
vix concipit. Ferrum vero defervefcens
calore partium 35 vel 36 , ubi aqua calida
8c 37 ubi frigida in ipfum guttatim inddit,
definit ebullitionem excitare,
3
40 4 r 2 Calor minimus quo miftura unius partisPJumbi
quatuor partium Stanni 8c quinque partium
Bifmuti incalefcendo liquefcit, 8c in conti
nuo fluxu confervatur.
48 3
Calor minimus quo miftura squalium partium
ftanni 8c bifmuti liquefcit. H£c miftura
calore partium 47 defervendo coagulatur.
57 3 3
Calor quo miftura duarum partium ftanni 8c
unius partis bifmuti funditur, ut 8c miftura
trium partium ftanni 8c duarum plumbi fed
miftura quinq$ partium ftanni 8c duarum
Nnnnn 2 partium
NEWTON: SCALA GRADUUM GALORIS 261
(8 » 6 )
partium bifmuti hoc calore defervendo ri-
gefqit. Et idem facit miftura tequalium
! partium plumbi Sc bifmuti,
68 o0 Calor minimus quo miftura unius partis’ b it
muti Sc otto partium ftanni fimditur. Stan
num per fe funditur calore partium 72 8c
Dcfervendo rigcfcit calore partium 70.
8i 1 1
Calor quo bifmutum funditur ut 8c miftura
quatuor partium plumbi 8c unius partis
ftanni. Sed miftura quinque partium plum
bi 8c unius partis ftanni ubi fufa eft 8c de-
, fervet in hoc calore rigefcit.
96 ] Calor minimus quo plumbum funditur. Plum-
' bum incalefcendo funditur calore partium
96 vel 97 8c defervendo rigefcit calore par-
tium 95.
314 4 i Calor quo corpora ignita defervendo penitus
1 defiuunt in tenebris^potturnis^ lucere, 8c vi-
ciffim incalefcendo incipiunt iniifdem tene-
bris lucere fed luce tenuiftima qute fentiri
vix poffit. Hoc calore liquefcit miftura
aequalium partium Stanni 8c Reguli martis,
8c miftura feptem partium bifmuti 8c qua
tuor partium ejufdem Reguli defervendo
rigefcit.
136 Calor quo corpora ignita in tenebris nottilrnis
candent, in crepufculo vero neutiquam.
iHoc calore turn miftura duarum partium re
guli martis 8c unius partis Bifmuti turn etiam
miftura quincp, partium reguli martis 8c unius
partis Stanni defervendo rigefcit. Regu-
lus per fe rigefcit calore partium 146.
161 4 4 Calor quo corpora ignita in crepufculo pro-
xime ante or turn folis vel poft occafum ejus
manifefto candent in clara vero d i d luce
neutiquam, aut non nifi perobfcure.
Calor
GRADUUM c a l o r is
( S27 )
' ^ra Ufa S m ardente; Idem eft calor

f e m m tali ig<« 9uantum P0",1* canden'is'
S S L r,.,rvi culinaris qui ex hgau conftat
calor paid0 major eft nempe partium aoo
” , ,,0 Et ignis magm major adhuc eft
calor, .pwfertim ft follibus ccatnr.
In huius Tabula: colunma prima habentur gradu, caloris

ja proportion e ar™ m" ‘ tere fU nam ab infirno caloris
S u f u c S u n e ternfino caloris &. frigoris.iic ponendo
caforem externum corporis humani effe partium duodeam.
In fecunda co”umna habentur
metrica lie ut fecimdns gradesfit duP‘° . e x i -
item fecundo Sc quartus tertio, Sc primus lit ealer exter-
„ p o r i s h n m a n i fenfibus
hancTabulam quod calor aqua: bul£ ent' ^
ior ouam calor corporis human), 8c quod calor Itanm Ii
oueftentis fit fextuplo major 5c calor plumbi liquefcentis
Sftaplo major 8c cSor Reguli liquefcentis duodecimo ma-
jor 8c calor ordinarius ignis culinaris fexdecim vel feptetn-
decim vicibus major quam ca or idem corporis human i. ^
Conftruda fait h sc Tabula ope Thermometri 8c fern
candentis. Per Tbermometrum mvem menfuram calorum
omnium Ufq; ad calorem quo ftannum funditur & per fer-
rum calefattum inveni menfuram reli quorum Nam calor
quern ferrum calefa&um corporibus fngidis fibi contiguis
dato tempore communicat,hoc eft calor quern ferrum dato
tempore amittit eftut calor totus fern. Ideoq^fi tempora
refriêrii fumantur aequalia calores erunt in ratione geome-
trica&8c propterea per tabulam logarithmorum facile in-
veniri poffunt. '
Primum imtur per Thermometrum ex oleo lim con-
ftru&um inveni quod fi oleum ubi Thermometer in nive
liquefeente Jocabatur occupabat fpatium partim ioooo,
idem
NEWTON: SCALA GRADUUM CALORIS 263
. ( 8 2 8 )
clem oleum calore primi gradus feu corporis humani rare-

fadum occupabat fpatium 10256 8c calore aquae jamjam
ebullire incipientis fpatium 10705 8c calore aquae vehe-
menter ebullientis fpatium 10725 8c calore ftanni lique-
fadi de fervientis ubi incipit rigefcere 8C confiftentiam
amalgamentis induere fpatium 115168c ubi omnino ri-
gefcit fpatium 11496. Igitur oleurn rarefadum fuit ac
dilatatum in ratione 40 ad 39 per calorem corporis huma-
ni, in ratione 15 ad 14 per calorem aquae bullientis, in
ratione 15 ad 13 per calorem ftanni defervientis ubi inci
pit coagulari 8c rigefcere 8c in ratione 23 ad 20 per calorem
quo ftannutn deferviens omnio rigefcit. Rarefadio aeris
squali calore fuit decuplo major quam rarefadio olei, 8c
rarefadio oleiquali quindecim vicibuS major quam rare
fadio fpiritus vini. Et ex his inventis ponendo calores
olei ipfius rarefadioni proportionales 8c pro calore corporis
humani fcribendo partes 12 prodijt ealor aquae ubi incipit
ebullire partium 33 8c ubi vehementius ebullit partium 34 5
8c ealor ftanni ubi vel liquefeit vel deferviendo incipit ri*
gefeere 8c confiftentiam amalgamatis induere prodijt parti-
um 72, 8c ubi defervendo rigefcit 8c induratur partium 70.
His cognitis ut reliqua inveftigarem calefeci fbrrtfrn fatis
craffum donee fatis canderet 8c ex igne cum torcipe etiam
candente exemptumlocavi ftatimin loco frigido ubi ventus
conftanter fpirabat 8c huic imponendo particulas diverfo-
rum metallorum 8c aliorum Corporum liquabilium riotavi
tempora refrigerij donee particulae onmes amilfa fluiditate
rigefeerent 8c ealor Ferri tequaretur calori corporis humani.
Deinde ponendo quod exceffus calorum ferri 8c particula-
ruin rigefeentiqm fUpra calorem atmofphsers Thermome
tro inventum effent in progreffione geometrica ubi
tempora funt in progreffione Arithmetica, Calores pm-
nes innotiTcre< Ldcavi autem ferrum, non in aere tfan-
quillo fed in vento uniformiter fpirante ut aer a ferrocale-
fadus femper abriperetur a vento 8c aer frigidus in locum
ejus uniform} cum motu fuccederet. Sic enim aeris partes
sequales sequalibus temporibus calefadse ftlnt8c calorem con-
ceperunt calori ferri proportionalem. Ca-
264 NEWTON: SCALA GRADUUM CALORIS
( 8 29 )
Calores autem fic inventi eandem habuerunt rationem
inter fe cum caloribus per Thermometrum inventis 8c prop-
tereararefaftiones oleiipfius caloribus proportionals efle
rede affumpfimus.
NEWTON: A SCALE OF THE DEGREES OF HEAT 265
572 PH ILOSOPH ICAL TR AN SACTIO N S. [A N N O ] 701.
A Scale o f the D eg rees o f H e a t. N ° 270, p. 824. T r a n sla te d fro m the L a tin .
0 . . 0 . . T he heat of the air in winter, when the water begins to freeze;

and it is discovered exactly by placing the thermometer in com
pressed snow, when it begins to thaw.
0, 1,2 . .0 . . T h e heat o f the air in winter.
2,3,4 . . 0 . . T h e same in spring and autumn.
4,5,6 . . 0 . . T h e same in summer.
6 . . 0 . . Heat o f the air at noon about the month o f July.
12 . . 1 . . Greatest heat the thermometer received on the contact o f a
man’s body, as also that o f a bird hatching her eggs.
J4-V. • I t . . Almost the greatest heat o f a bath, which a man can bear by
moving his hand in it for some time ; also that o f blood newly
drawn.
17 . . H . . Greatest degree o f heat o f a bath, which a man can bear for
some time without stirring his hand in it.
266 NEWTON: A SCALE OF THE DEGREES OF HEAT
▼01,. X X Ilf] PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, 573
201 V . . 1 4 . . H e a t o f a b a th , b y w h ic h m e lte d w a x s w im m in g o n it b y c o o l in g
h a r d e n s an d lo s e s its tr a n sp a r e n c y .
24 .. 2 .. H e a t o f a b a th , b y w h ic h w a x s w im m in g o n i t is m e lte d b y g r o w
in g h o t , a n d k e p t in c o n t in u a l f u s io n w ith o u t e b u llit io n .
2 8 -r V . 2 4 . . M e a n h e a t b e tw e e n th a t b y w h ic h w a x m e lt s a n d w a te r b o ils .
34 . . 24-. . H e a t b y w h ic h w a te r h a s a s t r o n g e b u llit io n , a n d a m ix tu r e o f
tw o p a r ts o f le a d , th r e e o f t in , a n d fiv e o f b is m u t h , b y c o o l
in g h a r d e n s ; w a te r b e g in s to b o il w it h a d e g r e e o f h e a t o f
33 p a r ts, a n d b y b o ilin g s c a r c e ly a c q u ir e s a n y g r e a te r d e g r e e
th a n t h a t o f 3 4 |. ; b u t ir o n g r o w in g c o ld w ith t h e h e a t o f
3 5 o r 3 6 p a r ts, w h e n h o t w a te r , a n d 3 7 , w h e n c o ld w a te r is
d r o p p e d o n it, c e a s e s to c a u s e a n y e b u llit io n .
40t4t . . 2-fv. Least degree of heat by which a mixture of one part of lead,
four parts of tin, and five parts of bismuth, by growing hot
is melted and kept in continual fusion.
48 .. 3 .. L e a s t d e g r e e o f h e a t, b y w h ic h a m ix tu r e o f e q u a l p a rts o f t in
a n d b is m u th is m p lt e d ; th is m ix t u r e w ith t h e h e a t o f 4 7 p a r ts,
b y c o o l in g c o a g u la te s .
57 .. 3 4 - .. D e g r e e o f h e a t , b y w h ic h a m ix t u r e o f t w o p a rts o f tin a n d o n e
p a rt o f b is m u th is m e lte d , a s a ls o a m ix t u r e o f th r e e p a rts o f
tin a n d t w o o f le a d ; b u t a m ix tu r e o f fiv e p a rts o f tin a n d t w o
o f b is m u th , w ith t h is d e g r e e o f h e a t , b y c o o l in g h a r d e n s, a n d
in lik e m a n n e r a m ix tu r e o f e q u a l p a r ts o f lea d a n d b is m u th .
68 . . 34 -. . L e a s t d e g r e e o f h e a t , t h a t m e lt s a m ix tu r e o f o n e p a r t o f b is
m u t h a n d e i g h t p a rts o f t i n ; tin b y it s e l f is p u t in t o f u s io n
w ith t h e h e a t o f 72 p a r ts, a n d b y c o o lin g h a r d e n s w ith t h e
h e a t o f 70 p a rts.
81 . . . 3 £ . . D e g r e e o f h e a t t h a t m e lt s b is m u t h , a s a lso a m ix tu r e o f fo u r
p a rts o f le a d a n d o n e p a r t o f tin ; b u t a m ix tu r e o f fiv e p a r ts
o f le a d a n d o n e p a rt o f t in , w h e n , m e lte d , a n d c o o l i n g a g a in ,
it h a r d e n s w ith th is h e a t.
96 .,. 4 . . L e a s t d e g r e e o f h e a t t h a t m e lt s l e a d ; le a d , b y g r o w in g h o t , is
m e lt e d w it h th e h eat o f 96 or 97 p a rts, a n d c o o l in g it
h a r d e n s w it h Q5 p arts.
114 . . 44 -. . D e g r e e o f . h e a t, b y w h ic h ig n it e d b o d ie s in c o o lin g , q u it e c e a se
t o s h in e b y n ig h t , a n d a g a in , by g r o w in g h o t b e g in to s h in e
in t h e d a r k , b u t w it h a v e r y fa in t lig h t , w h ic h , is sc a r c e ly p er
c e p tib le •, in su c h a d e g r e e o f h e a t th e r e m e lt s a m ix tu r e o f e q u a l
p a rts o f tin a n d r e g u lu s m a r tis, a n d a m ix tu r e o f s e v e n p a rts o f
b is m u th a n d fo u r p a rts o f th e sa id r e g u lu s by c o o l i n g h a r d e n s .
0
NEWTON: A SCALE OF THE DEGREES OF HEAT 267
5 7 4 PH ILO SO PH ICAL TR AN SACTIO N S. [A N N O 1 7 0 1 .
136 .. 44-.. Degree of heat with which ignited bodies glow by night, but not
at all in the twilight, and with this degree of heat both a
mixture of two parts of regulus martis and one part of bis
muth, as also a mixture of five parts of the said regulus and
one part of tin, by cooling hardens; the regulus by itself
hardens with the heat of 146 parts.
l6 l . . 4-I-.. Degree of heat, by which ignited bodies manifestly glow in the
twilight immediately preceding the rising of the sun, or after
his setting, but not at all in a clear day, or but very faintly.
192 .. 5 . . Degree of heat of live coals in a small kitchen fire, made up of
bituminous pit-coals, and that burn without using bellows ; as
also, the heat of iron made as hot as it can be in such a fire ;
the degree of heat of a small kitchen fire, made of faggots is
somewhat greater, viz. 200 or 210 parts, and that of a large
fire is still greater, especially if blown with bellows.
In the first column of this table are the degrees of heat in arithmetical pro
portion, beginning with that which water has when it begins to freeze, being
as it were the lowest degree of heat, or the common boundary between heat
and cold ; and supposing that the external heat of the human body is 12 parts.
In the second column are set down the degrees of heat in geometrical propor
tion, so that the second degree is double the first, the third double the second,
and the fourth double the third ; and making the first degree the external heat
of the human body in its natural state. It appears by this table, that the heat
of boiling water is almost 3 times that of the human body, of melted tin 6
times, of melted lead 8 times, of melted regulus 12 times, and the heat of an
ordinary kitchen fire is 16 or 17 times greater than that of the human body.
This table was constructed by means of the thermometer and red-hot iron.
By the thermometer were found all the degrees of heat, down to that which
melted tin ; and by the hot iron were discovered all the other degrees; for the
heat which hot iron, in a determinate time, communicates to cold bodies near
it, that is, the heat which the iron loses in a certain time, is as the whole heat
of the iron; and therefore, if equal times of cooling be taken, the degrees of.
heat will be in geometrical proportion, and therefore easily found by the tables
of logarithms. First it was found by the thermometer with linseed oil, that if,
when it was placed in melted snow, the oil possessed the space of 1Q000 parts ;
then the same oil rarefied with the heat of the first degree, or that of a human
body, possessed the space of 10256 parts, with the heat of water just begin
ning to boil, the space of 10705 ; with that of water strongly boiling, the space
of 10725 parts ; with that of melted tin, beginning to cool, and to be of the
consistence of an amalgama, the space of 1 1 5 1 6 ; and when it is quite hardened
268 NEWTON: A SCALE OF THE DEGREES OF HEAT
V O L . X X X I.] PH ILOSO PH ICAL TR A N SA CTIO N S. 5 7 5
th e sp ace o f 11 4 9 6 ; t h e r e f o r e t h e r a r e fie d o il w a s t o t h e s a m e e x p a n d e d b y t h e
h e a t o f th e h u m a n b o d y , as 40 is to 30 ; b y t h a t o f b o i l in g w a t e r , a s 15 to 14 >
b y t h a t o f tin b e g in n in g t o c o o l , c o a g u l a t e , a n d h a r d e n , a s 15 to 13 ; and b y
t h e h e a t o f c o o l in g tin w h e n q u it e h a rd en ed , as 23 is t o 20 ; t h e r a r e f a c t io n o f
a ir b y a n e q u a l h e a t w a s 10 t im e s g r e a t e r th a n t h a t o f o il , a n d t h e r a r e f a c t io n
o f o il w a s 15 tim e s g r e a t e r th a n t h a t o f s p ir its o f w in e . F r o m t h e s e d a ta , p u t
t i n g t h e d e g r e e s o f t h e h e a t o f t h e o il p r o p o r t io n a l t o its r a r e f a c t io n , a n d t a k in g
12 p a r ts fo r t h e h e a t o f t h e h u m a n b o d y , w e t h e n h a v e th e d e g re e o f th e h eat
o f w a te r w h e n it b e g in s t o b o il, v i z . 33 p a r ts , a n d w hen it b o ils m ore veh e
m e n t ly 34; o f tin w h e n m e lt e d , o r w h e n it b e g in s in c o o l in g to h a rd e n , a n d
h a v e t h e c o n s is t e n c e o f a n a m a lg a m a , 71 p a r ts , a n d in c o o l i n g is q u it e h a r d ,
7 0 p a r ts .
H a v i n g d is c o v e r e d th e s e t h in g s ; in o r d e r t o i n v e s t ig a t e t h e r e s t , t h e r e w as
h e a t e d a p r e t t y t h i c k p ie c e o f ir o n r e d - h o t , w h ic h w a s ta k e n o u t o f t h e fir e
w it h a p a ir o f p in c e r s , w h ic h w e r e a ls o r e d - h o t , a n d la id in a c o ld p la c e , w h e r e
t h e w in d b le w c o n t in u a lly u p o n i t , a n d p u t t i n g o n it p a r t ic le s o f s e v e r a l m e t a ls ,
an d o th e r fu s ib le b o d ie s , t h e t im e o f it s c o o l i n g w a s m a r k e d , till a ll t h e p a r t i
c le s w e r e h a r d e n e d , a n d t h e h e a t o f t h e ir o n w as equal to th e h e a t o f th e
h u m a n b o d y ; th e n s u p p o s in g t h a t t h e e x c e s s o f t h e d e g r e e s o f t h e h e a t o f t h e
ir o n , a n d t h e p a r tic le s a b o v e t h e h e a t o f t h e a tm o sp h e re , fo u n d b y th e th e r
m o m e t e r , w e r e in g e o m e t r ic a l p r o g r e s s io n , w h e n t h e tim e s a re in a n a r it h m e
t ic a l p r o g r e s s io n , t h e s e v e r a l d e g r e e s o f h e a t w e r e d is c o v e r e d ; t h e ir o n w a s la id
n o t in a c a lm a ir , b u t in a w in d t h a t b le w u n if o r m l y u p o n i t , t h a t t h e a ir h e a t e d
b y t h e ir o n m ig h t b e a lw a y s c a r r ie d o f f b y t h e w in d , a n d t h e c o ld a ir s u c c e e d i t
a lt e r n a t e ly ; f o r t h u s e q u a l p a r ts o f a ir w e r e h e a t e d in e q u a l t im e s , a n d r e c e iv e d
a d e g r e e o f h e a t p r o p o r t io n a l to th e h e a t o f th e i r o n ; th e se v e ra l d e g re e s o f
h e a t t h u s f o u n d h a d t h e s a m e r a t io a m o n g t h e m s e lv e s w it h t h o s e f o u n d b y t h e
t h e r m o m e te r : an d th e re fo re t h e r a r e fa c t io n s o f t h e o il w e r e p r o p e r ly a s s u m e d
p r o p o r t io n a l t o its d e g r e e s o f h e a t .*
* A method if not more accurate, at least more expeditious than the above, o f measuring high
degrees o f heat, was invented some years ago by the late Mr. Wedgewood ; founded on the property
which argillaceous earth possesses, o f contracting its dimensions when placed in the fire. See Phil.
Trans. Vols. 72, 74 , and 7 6 .
IV.
N ew ton’s F our Letters to Bentley, an d
th e Boyle L ectures R elate d to T h e m
Bentley and Newton
P erry M il l e r
-^^-ichard Bentley was born in 1662 in a family of substantial

Yorkshire yeomen .1 He achieved fame (and left an impress on
British scholarship that still is felt) as a classical scholar of prodi
gious erudition, and also a certain infamy as the tempestuous Mas
ter of Trinity College, Cambridge, which he ruled from 1700 until
his death in 1742 with so tyrannical a hand that he excited repeated
insurrections of the Fellows. He was a massive philologist, who
found the supreme felicity of life in the emendation of a corrupted
text or in the exposure of a forgery. He made a sensation among
the learned in 1699 by demonstrating that a body of letters long
attributed to a Sicilian tyrant of the 6th century . . , named b c
Phalaris, was a fabrication made some five or ten centuries later.

These epistles had been publicly admired by gentlemen such as Sir
1See Bishop James Henry Monk, The Life of Richard Bentley, with an account of his
writings (London, 1830); R. C. Jebb, Bentley (New York and London, 1901 [1882]:
“English Men of Letters,” edited by John Morley); Rev. Alexander Dyce, ed.,
The Works of Richard Bentley (3 vols., London, 1836-1838). M aterial concerning
Bentley is also to be found in the standard literature on Newton; see, especially,
Edleston’s volume of Newton-Cotes correspondence and Brewster’s two-volume
biography of Newton.
271
272 PERRY MILLER
William Temple who believed that the writers of antiquity were

far superior to all moderns, including Shakespeare and Milton. By
showing the letters to be spurious, Bentley impeached both the
acumen and the taste of these “ancients.” The greatest classicist of
his time thus appeared a barbarous and ruthless modernist, and
so was furiously attacked in a squib called The Battle of the Books,
written by an erstwhile secretary of Sir William Temple, one
Jonathan Swift.
In 1691, Bentley, having taken his degree at St. John’s College,
was chaplain to Bishop Stillingfleet of Worcester, a leader of liberal
theologizing, who early said of Bentley that “had he but the gift
of humility, he would be the most extraordinary man in Europe.”
On December 30 died Robert Boyle, a great physicist and chemist,
a gentleman, and one who devoutly believed the new science to be
a bulwark against the “atheism” so widely affected during the Res
toration by the wits of the taverns and coffeehouses. He left funds
sufficient to yield £ 50 a year for endowing an annual lectureship
of eight discourses on the evidences of Christianity. There were
four trustees, one of whom was John Evelyn; another was Bishop
Tenison of Lincoln, who had encountered and appraised the chap
lain of his colleague in Worcester. The trustees took what seemed
a long chance, and nominated Bentley. He threw himself into the
challenge with the same energy he expended upon Greek m anu
scripts or in opposing dons.
The principal source of the atheism Bentley had to counteract
was Thomas Hobbes, who had been under fire from the pious and
the orthodox for forty years. Platonists like Ralph Cudworth had
belabored him with preexistent ideas, Richard Cumberland with
inherent moral law, and ecclesiastical authoritarians, most notably
Jo h n Dryden, with general abuse. But, so far, it seemed to the
guardians of Christianity that the tide of atheism had not been
checked; clearly a new method was required. Bentley was exactly
the man for the occasion, because he was one of the first to grasp
the importance of a book published in 1690 by John Locke, An Es
say Concerning Human Understanding; Bentley saw at once that there
after nobody in the age would give credence to the notion of an
innate idea. If his a Confutation of Atheism was really going to con
fute, it would need proofs. Bentley was the sort of bulldog who,
BENTLEY AND NEWTON 273
ordered to find proofs, would bring back dozens of them between
his jaws.
A mind that operated in this fashion would already have been
thinking that if theological propositions were now to rest their de
fense exclusively on demonstrations satisfactory to reason, the de
fender would have to know something about a book that Isaac
Newton of Trinity College had published in 1687, the Principia. So
far, it appeared, few if any were able to understand it, and many
said it was nonsense, but Bentley had to see for himself. However,
he was a linguist and a literary scholar, and needed help; in the
summer of 1691, before the lectureship was instituted, he had
asked a Scottish mathematician, John Craige, to tell him what
books he would need to master in order to qualify himself for fol
lowing the Principia. Craige sent back, as an essential minimum, a
bibliography so tremendous that even a Bentley was aghast; but
characteristically he began to look about for short cuts, and, taking
his courage in his hands, addressed Newton directly. From Trinity
College came a much shorter list, encouraging directions, and ap
parently full sympathy. “ At the first perusal of my Book,” said
Newton, “it’s enough if you understand the propositions with some
of the demonstrations which are easier than the rest.” He thought
Bentley should read the first sixty pages, then skip to the third book
and get the design of that; then he might at leisure go back to such
propositions as he had a desire to know. W ith the task thus cut
down to manageable proportions, Bentley rapidly comprehended
(so he thought) the whole design. When the call came, he was
ready. He devoted the first six of his Boyle Lectures to proving the
existence of God from such data as the faculties of the human soul
and the structure of the body, but he triumphantly expounded in
the last two (reprinted below) the new, difficult, and mathematically
irrefutable physics. His success was immense, and in the opinion
of many (including Bentley himself), A Confutation of Atheism so
routed the atheists that they did not dare any longer show their
faces openly, and so took refuge in the pretense of “deism.”
The two sermons are important in the history of Western thought
not only because they were the first popular attempt to lay open
the “sublime discoveries” of Newton, but because they set the
precedent for the entire Enlightenment. So far, neither the infidel
274 PERRY MILLER
nor the believer had been able to cope with the new wisdom;
Bentley seized the initiative, and gave believers the assurance (or
perhaps one should say the illusion) that the Newtonian physics,
by conclusively showing that the order of the universe could not
have been produced mechanically, was now the chief support of
faith. W hether employed by Christians or deists, Bentley’s tech
nique for deducing religious propositions out of the equations of
the Principia became an indispensable ingredient in the whole com
plex of 18th-century optimism.
But, for our purposes, the sermons are still more important be
cause, whatever their merits as expositions of the system, they
called forth from the great man himself four letters which are
major declarations in modern history of the method and of the
mentality of the scientist. While the manuscript was being printed,
Bentley found himself worried for fear he had not sufficiently dis
posed of the theory of Lucretius (from whom Hobbes derived) that
the cosmic system began with chance bumpings together of de
scending atoms, each endowed with an innate power of gravity.
He wrote to Newton for further clarification, so that he could make
last-minute changes in his proof. It took Newton four letters, from
December 10 to February 25, to set Bentley straight (in fact, we
may wonder whether Bentley fully got the point!), and Bentley
appreciated their importance. He carefully preserved them, so that
his executor could publish them in 1756. Dr. Johnson, observing
that the questions had caused Newton to think out further conse
quences of his principles than he had yet anticipated, said of them
about the finest thing that can be said, that they show “how even
the mind of Newton gains ground gradually upon darkness.”
The sermons show that Bentley had indeed perceived the gen
eral thesis, though the letters suggest that in the printed form
Bentley made it more precise than he had done in the pulpit. This
is the argument that, had gravity been the only force active at the
moment of creation, the planets of our system would have fallen
quickly into the sun. Hence must be assumed a specific interven
tion of force (only a divine force would do) which arrested the
descents at the appropriate places and sent the planets spinning on
their transverse orbits. Likewise, when one considers the spacing of
these orbits, no principle of science will determine the relations of
the distances except that “The Author of the system thought it
convenient.” Bentley seemed to Newton on the right track insofar
as he argued that the operations of gravity over empty spaces could
mean only that an “ agent” was constantly guiding the stars arid
planets according to certain laws. Assuredly, this agent must have
a volition, and must be “very well skilled in mechanics and geom
etry.” Bentley was eager to call the agent God; Newton had no
objection.
But evidently, either in the first draft of the sermons or in a letter,
Bentley said something which implied that gravity was in some
sense an inherent property of matter, implicit in the very substance,
a sort of “occult quality,” or a kind of eternal magnetism. The
vehemence with which Newton rejects any such opinion is strik
ing. Between the letters numbered II and III in this printing,
Bentley wrote back a worried answer: he was so fully aware that
in Newton’s system universal gravitation could never be solved
“ mechanically” that he was surprised to have Newton warn him
against the heresy. “If I used that word, it was only for brevity’s
sake.” Well, brevity to a philologist might be one thing, but another
to Newton. He wanted language exact, and certainly in the printed
version Bentley took care that not even for brevity’s sake should
there be any suggestion that gravity is synonymous with material
existence. Thus corrected, Bentley was able to conclude that mutual
gravitation can operate at a distance only because it is simulta,-
neously regulated by the “agent” and not by the system itself; here
then was what he and the age most wanted, “a new and invincible
argument for the being of God.” From this point the sailing was
clear, and Bentley goes ahead like a ship in full rig, to the joyous
conclusion that everything concerning this system and particularly
this globe, including the inclination of its axis and the irregular
distribution of land and ocean, has been appointed for the best by
a divine intelligence.
The letters show that Newton wanted to be helpful, and he was
eager that Bentley should not misrepresent him; yet they are not
prolix, they do not volunteer anything beyond replies to particular
questions, and the careful reader does not get the impression of an
outgoing enthusiasm Newton was human enough to be eager for
fame and almost pathologically jealous for his reputation; but he
PERRY MILLER
was shrewd enough to be able to utilize Bentley without being

in by him. For years after the Boyle Lectures, Bentley m ad!
taken irade w of his friendship with Newton, and took upon him-
a p u b lic paraae ------------------
se lf th e office o f urgin g a second e d itio n o f th"~ ..........
N e w to n at last consented in 1708 to illr, » ln n cipia. When
........... ....
College (in whom »Newton - « ddid have
i n confidence),
‘5l o t e . M to
In W nrp.
pre-
Trinitê gentley officiously acted as middleman- -and pock-
pare li*w fjtsi John Conduitt records that he was disgusted,
eted t ® Newton point-blank why he let Bentley “print his
and as e ^ en g entley obviously did not understand it. “ Why,”
Pr* nCtPiathe 101
replied inrriiv
u ^ Newton, “he was covetous, and I let him do it
to get the money. .
I the light of this revelation we may wonder what, back in
f 1693, Bentley made, if anything, of the extraordinary
e in the third letter, where Newton says that whether the
C a t who is the cause of gravity “be material or immaterial, I
h ve left to the consideration of my readers.” This hardly seems
the tone of one who has joined a crusade against materialistic
theism! But still more startling is the sentence that comes in the
next paragraph, where Newton shows Bentley that mathematically
aking he is entirely at sea in handling the concept of the in
finite and briefly informs him that, even though the mathematical
language may seem to common sense an impropriety of speech,
still “those things which men understand by improper and con
tradictious phrases may be sometimes really in nature without any
contradiction at all.” There is no suggestion in Bentley’s two ser
mons that he had even a dim sense of what Newton tried in this
passage to convey to him. For Bentley, the Newtonian system was
clear, rational, simple; it could be translated at once and through
out into declarative affirmations of natural theology. T hat was its
beauty and its utility. That there was any incongruity between the
process of the human mind and those of the universe would hence
forth be unthinkable. Newton had, Bentley was assured, linked
them indissolubly.
This conviction, as I have said, became the major premise of the
Age of Reason. Bentley’s tactics were taken over by Voltaire in
1738 when he conquered the mind of the Continent by popular
izing Newton. Actually, the assumption remained undisturbed_or
indeed strengthened—by that revolution in sensibility which we

call the Romantic movement. Even after the character of reason
had been radically transformed from Bentley’s solid prose to the
inward intuitions of the poet, the assumption that there is a per
fect “correspondence” between the structures of the psyche and
those of physics endured. Emerson summarized the Romantic op
timism by declaring that the laws of nature answer to those of
mind as image in the mirror. Only recently, and mainly in our own
distracted time, has science freed itself from the literary incubus
that Bentley fastened upon it. But we should find this worth medi
tating upon, that Newton explicitly warned him that what men
are apt to consider self-contradictory may, nevertheless, be the
rule in nature.
There is a mystery in these letters—the enigma that is Newton
himself. Nobody in 1692, nor for a century thereafter, noted that,
when Bentley confidently brought God into action as the diverter
of falling bodies into “this transverse and violent motion,” the
Creator became, in a sense, only a half-creator of the system. God’s
action was made once and once for all; it was that “ first impulse
impressed upon them, not only for five or six thousand years, but
many millions of millions.” But the gravitating motion, the descent
toward the sun, is continuous; despite his effort to make clear his
agreement with Newton, Bentley still calls it “a constant energy
infused into matter by the Author of all things.” Did Newton, in his
secret heart, have the wit, which no contemporary possessed, to see.
that such toying with the notion that gravity was a constant energy
infused into matter raised the question of whether the infusion really
had been made by the author of all things? Might this not be only
a gratuitious addition, made by a mind precommitted to the
thesis, by one incapable properly of dealing with the meaning of
the infinite? W hether Newton had read Pascal we do not know,
but assuredly Bentley never had!
If the letters mean anything, then, they mean that Newton was
not quite a Newtonian. He was holding something in reserve, not
giving himself entirely to his own discoveries, stupendous as he
realized them to be. As for ultimate causes, he knew how to say
that he did not know. O ur curiosity is aroused, but never shall be
satisfied, by the evasive ending of the first letter: Isaac Newton had
278 PERRY MILLER
still another argument to prove the existence of God, potentially

very strong, but because the principles on which it was grounded
were not yet widely enough received, “I think it more advisable to
let it sleep.” W hat were those principles? Perhaps he meant sim
ply the realm of optics into which he was now venturing, already
musing upon ideas he was to let see the light only in the form of
a question at the end of Query 31 in the 1717 edition of the Opticks,
when even then he was “not yet satisfied about it for want of ex
periments.” But we cannot help asking if in his subtle conscious
ness there was a sense of still more complex principles which would
need to wait still longer before becoming “better received.” And
were these withheld principles possibly just those dark and inexpli
cable discrepancies between the mind of the creature and the
methods of the creation which he could dare to contemplate, but
of which the Bentleys of this world never attain even a rudimen
tary awareness?
LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY 279
F O U R
LETTERS
F R O M
S ir I saac N e w t o n
t o
D o c t o r B e n t l e y .
C O N T A I N I N G
S o m e ARGUMENTS
I N
P r o o f ofaDEITY.
LONDON:
P rin te d fo r R . and J . D O D S L E Y , Pall-Mall,
M DCC LVI.
LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY
280
[ » }
L E T T E R S , &c.
L E T T E R I.
to the Reverend D r . R i c h a r d
B e n t l e y , a t the Bijhop o f
WorcefterV Houfe in Park-
ftreet, Weftminfter*
SIR,
H E N I wrote my Treatife about

W our Syftem, I had an Eye upon
fuch Principles as might work, with con-
fidering Men, for the Belief o f a Deity,
and nothing can rejoice me more than to
find it ufeful for that Purpofe. But if I
B have
LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY 28l
t 2]
have done the Public any Service this
way, it is due to nothing but Induftry and
patient Thought.
As to your firft Query, it feems to me

that i f the Matter o f our Sun and Planets,
and all the Matter o f the Univerfe, were
evenly fcattered throughout all the Hea
vens, and every Particle had an innate
Gravity towards all the reft, and the
whole Space, throughout which this Mat
ter was fcattered, was but finite j the
Matter on the outfide o f this Space would
by its Gravity tend towards all the Matter
on the infide, and by confequence fall
down into the middle o f the whole Space,
and there compofe one great fpherical
Mafs. But if the Matter was evenly dif-
pofed throughout an infinite Space, it
could never convene into one Mafs, but
fome o f it would convene into one Mafs
and fome into another, fo as to make an
infinite Number o f great Mafies, fcattered
at great Diftances from one to another
through-
282 LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY
[ 3 ]
throughout all that infinite Space. And
thus might the Sun and fixt Stars be
formed, fuppofing the Matter were o f a
lucid Nature. But how the Matter fhould
divide itfelf into two forts, and that Part
o f it, which is fit to compofe a fhining
Body, fhould fall down into one Mafs
and make a Sun, and the reft, which is
fit to compofe an opaque Body, fhould
coalefce, not into one great Body, like
the fhining Matter, but into many little
ones; or if the Sun at firft were an
opaque Body like the Planets, or the Pla
nets lucid Bodies like the Sun, how he
alone fhould be changed into a fhining
Body, whilft all they continue opaque, or
all they be changed into opaque ones,
whilft he remains unchanged, I do not
think explicable by meer natural Caufes,
but am forced to afcribe it to the Counfel
and Contrivance o f a voluntary Agent.
T h e fame Power, whether natural or

fupernatural, which placed the Sun in
B 2 the
LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY 28 3
l 4 J
the Center o f the fix primary Planets,
placed Saturn in the Center o f the Orbs
o f his five fecondary Planets, and J
‘ upiter
in the Center o f his four fecondary Planets,
and the Earth in the Center o f the Moon’s
Orb j and therefore had this Caufe been
a blind one, without Contrivance or D e-
fign, the Sun would have been a Body
o f the fame kind with Saturn, Jupiter, and
the Earth, that is, without Light and
Heat. W h y there is one Body in our
Syftem qualified to give Light and Heat
to all the reft, I know no Reafon, but
becaufe the Author of the Syftem thought
if convenient j and why there is but one
Body o f this kind I know no Reafon, but
becaufe one was fufficient to warm and
enlighten all the reft. For the Cartejian
Hypothefis o f Suns lofing their Light,
and then turning into Comets, and Co
mets into Planets, can have no Place in
m y Syftem, and is plainly erroneous j be
caufe it is certain that as often as they
appear to us, they defcend into the Syftem
of
[ 5 1
o f our Planets, lower than the O rb o f
'Jupiter, and lometimes lower than the
Orbs o f Venus and Mercury, and yet never
flay here, but always return from the Sun
with the fame Degrees o f Motion by
which they approached him.
T o your fecond Query, I anfwer, that

the Motions which the Planets now have
could not fpring from any natural Caufe
alone, but were imprefled by an intelli
gent Agent. For fince Comets defcend
into the Region o f our Planets, and here
move all manner o f ways, going fome-
times the fame w ay with the Planets,
fometimes the contrary way, and fome-
times in crofs ways, in Planes inclined to
the Plane o f the Ecliptick, and at all
kinds o f Angles, ’tis plain that there is
no natural Caufe which could determine
all the Planets, both primary and fe-
condary, to move the fame w ay and in
the fame Plane, without any confiderable
Variation : This muft have been the E f-
fe£t
E6 1
fecft o f Counfel. N or is there any natural
Caufe which could give the Planets thofe
juft Degrees o f Velocity;, in Proportion
to their Diftances from the Sun, and cither
central Bodies, which were requifite to
make them move in fuch concentrick,
Orbs about thofe Bodies. Had the Planets
been as fwift as Comets, in Proportion to
their Diftances from the Sun (as they
would have been, had their Motion been
caufed by their Gravity, whereby the
Matter, at the firft Formation o f the
Planets, might fall from the remoteft R e
gions towards the Sun) they would not
move in concentrick Orbs, but in fuch
eccentrick ones as the Comets move in.
W ere all the Planets as fwift as Mercury,
or as flow as Saturn or his Satellites; or
were their feveral Velocities otherwife
much greater or lefs than they are, as
diey might have been had they arofe from
any other Caufe than their Gravities; or
had the Diftances from the Centers a-
bout which they move, been greater or
lefs
t 7 1
Icfs than they are with the fame Velo
cities } or had the Quantity o f Matter in
the Sun, or in Saturn, Jupiter, and the
Earth, and by confequence their gravita
ting Power been greater or lefs than it is ;
the primary Planets could not have re
volved about the Sun, nor the fecondary
ones about Saturn, Jupiter, andthe Earth,
in concentrick Circles as they do, but
would have moved in Hyperbolas, or
Parabolas, or in Ellipfes very eccentrick.
T o make this Syftem therefore, with
all its Motions, required a Caufe which
underftood, and compared together, the
Quantities o f Matter in the feveral Bo
dies o f the Sun and Planets, and the
gravitating Powers refulting from thence ;
the feveral Diftances o f the primary
Planets from the Sun, and o f the fe
condary ones from Saturn, Jupiter, and
the Earth j and the Velocities with which
thefe Planets could revolve ahout thofe
Quantities o f Matter in the central Bo
dies ; and to compare and adjuft all thefe
Thing#
C8 ]
Things together, in fo great a Variety of
Bodies, argues that Caufe to be not blind
and fortuitous, but very well /killed in
Mechanicks and Geometry.
T o your third Query, I anfwer, that

it may be reprefented that the Sun may,
by heating thofe Planets moft which are
neareft to him, caufe them to be better
concodted, and more condenfed by that
Concodtion. But when I confider that
our Earth is much more heated in its
Bowels below the upper Cruft by fubter-
raneous Fermentations o f mineral Bodies
than by the Sun, I fee not w hy the in
terior Parts o f Jupiter and Saturn might
not be as much heated, concodted, and
coagulated by thofe Fermentations as our
Earth i s ; and therefore this various Den-
fity fhould hive fome other Caufe than
the various DiftanCes o f the Planets from
the Sun. And I am confirmed in this
Opinion by confidering, that the Planets
of J
‘ upiter and Saturn, as they are rarer
than
[ 9 ]
than the reft, fo they are vaftly greater,
and contain a far greater Quantity o f
Matter, and have many Satellites about
them j which Qualifications furely arofe
not from their being placed at fo great
a Diftance from the Sun, but were rather
the Caufe w hy the Creator placed them
at great Diftance, For by their gravi
tating Powers they difturb one another’s
Motions very fenfibly, as I find by fome
late Obfervations o f M r, Flamjleed, and
had they been placed much nearer to
the Sun and to one another, they would
by the fame Powers have caufed a con-
fiderable Difturbance in the whole Syf-
tem.
T o your fourth Query, I anfw'er, that

in the Hypothefis o f Vortices, the In
clination o f the Axis o f the Earth might,
in my Opinion, be afcribed to the Situa
tion o f the Earth’s Vortex before it was
abforbed by the neighbouring Vortices,
and the Earth turned from a Sun to a
C C om et;
V
t 10]
Com et; but this Inclination ought to dc-
creafe conftantly in Compliance with the
Motion o f the Earth’s 'Vortex, whofe
A xis is much lefs inclined to the Eclip-
tick, as appears by the Motion o f the
Moon carried about therein. I f the Sun
by his Rays could carry about the Pla
nets, yet I do not fee how he could
thereby effect their diurnal Motions.
Laftly, I fee nothing extraordinary in

the Inclination o f the Earth’s Axis for
proving a Deity, unlefs you will urge it
as a Contrivance for Winter and Sum
mer, and for making the Earth habita
ble towards the Poles j and that the
diurnal Rotations o f the Sun and Planets,
as they could hardly arife from any Caufe
purely mechanical, fo by being deter
mined all the fame way with the annual
and menftrual Motions, they feem to
make up that Harmony in the Syftem,
which, as I explaind above, was the
Effedt o f Choice rather than Chance.
There
[ » ]
There is yet another Argument for a
Deity, which I take to be a very ftrong
one, but till the Principles on which it
is grounded are better received, I think
it more advifable to let it lleep.
I am>
Tour fflojl humble Servantt
to command,
Cambridge,
D ecem bt i o , 1692.
IS . N E W T O N .
C 2 L E T -
f 13 ]
L E T T E R II.
For M r. B a t the Palace

e n t l e y ,
a t Worcefter.
S I R,
Agree with you, that if Matter evenly

I diffufed through a finite Space, not
fpherical, ihould fall into a folid Mafs,
this Mafs would affedt the Figure o f the
whole Space, provided it were not foft,
like the old Chaos, but fo hard and folid
from the Beginning, that the W eight o f
its protuberant Parts could not make it
yield to their Preflure, Y et by Earth
quakes loofening the Parts o f this Solid,
the Protuberances might fometimes fink a
little by their W eight, and thereby the
Mafs might, by Degrees, approach a
fpherical Figure.
The
l h !
T h e Reafon w hy Matter evenly feat-
tered through a finite Space would con
vene in the midft, you conceive the fame
with me j but that there fhould be a cen
tral Particle, fo accurately placed in the
middle, as to be always equally attracted
on all Sides, and thereby continue with
out Motion, feems to me a Suppofition
fully as hard as to make the fharpefl
Needle Hand upright on its Point upon a
Looking-Glafs. For if the very mathe
matical Center o f the central Particle bq
not accurately in the very mathematical
Center o f the attractive Power o f the
whole Mafs, the Particle will not be at
tracted equally on all Sides. And much
harder it is to fuppofe all the Particles in
an infinite Space fhould be fo accurately
poifed one among another, as to ftand
ftill in a perfedt Equilibrium. For I reckon
this as hard as to make not one Needle
only, but an infinite number o f them (fo
many as there arc Particles in an infinite
Space) Hand accurately poifed upon their
Points.
t 15 3
Points. Y et I grant it poffible, at leaft by
a divine P ow er; and if they were once to
be placed, I agree with you that they
would continue in that Pofture without
Motion for ever, unlefs put into new M o
tion by the fame Power. W hen there
fore I faid, that Matter evenly fpread
through all Space, would convene by its
Gravity into one or more great Mafles, I
underftand it o f Matter not refting in an
accurate Poife.
But you argue, in the next Paragraph

o f your Letter, that every Particle o f
Matter in an infinite Space, has an infi-r
nite Quantity o f Matter on all Sides, and
by confequence an infinite Attraction every
way, and therefore muft reft in Equili-
brio, becaufe all Infinites are equal. Y et
you fufpeft a Paralogifm in this Argu-»
m en t; and I conceive the Paralogifm lies
in the Pofition, that all Infinites are equal,
T h e generality o f Mankind confider
Infinites no other, ways than indefinitely .;
and
[ 16 ]
and in this Senfe, they fay all Infinites
are equal; tho’ they would fpeak more
truly i f they fhould fay, they are neither
equal nor unequal, nor have any cer
tain Difference or Proportion one to ano
ther. In this Senfe therefore, no Con-
clufions can be drawn from them, about
the Equality, Proportions, or Differences
o f Things, and they that attempt to do it
ufually fall into Paralogifms. So when
M en argue againfi: the infinite Divifibility
o f Magnitude, by faying, that if an Inch
may be divided into an infinite Number o f
Parts, the Sum of thofe Parts will be an
Inch ; and if a Foot may be divided into
an infinite Number o f Parts, the Sum o f
thofe Parts muft be a Foot, and therefore
fince all Infinites are equal, thofe Sums,
mufl be equal, that is, an Inch equal to
a Foot.
T h e Falfenefs o f the Conclufion fhews

an Error in the Premifes, and the Error
lies in the Pofition, that all Infinites are
equal.
[ l7 ]
equal. There is therefore another W ay
o f confidering Infinites ufed by Mathe
maticians, and that is, under certain de
finite Reftridtions and Limitations, where
by Infinites are determined to have cer
tain Differences or Proportions to one
another. Thus Dr. Wallis confiders them
in his Arithmetica Infinitorum, where
by the various Proportions o f infinite
Sums, he gathers the various Proporti
ons o f infinite M agnitudes: W hich way
o f arguing is generally allowed by M a
thematicians, and yet would not be good
were all Infinites equal. According to
the fame way of confidering Infinites, a
Mathematician would tell you, that tho’
there be an infinite Number o f infinite
little Parts in an Inch, yet there is twelve
times that Number o f fuch Parts in a
Foot, that is, the infinite Number o f
thofe Parts in a Foot is not equal to, but
twelve Tim es bigger than the infinite
Number o f them in an Inch. And fo
a Mathematician will tell you, that if a
D Body
[ IS ]
Body flood in Equilibrio between any two
equal and contrary attracting infinite
F orces; and i f to either o f thefe Forces
you add any new. finite attracting Force,
that new Force, how little foever, will
deflroy their Equilibrium, and put the
Body into the fame Motion into which
it would put it were thofe two contrary
equal Forces but finite, or even none at
all ; fo that in this Cafe the two equal
Infinites by the Addition o f a Finite to
either o f them, become unequal in our
ways o f R eckoning; and after thefe
ways We mufl reckon, if from the
Confiderations o f Infinites we would al
ways draw true Conclufions.
T o the lafl Part o f your Letter, I an-

fwer, Firfl, that if the Earth (without
the Moon) were placed any where with
its Center in the Orbis Magnus, and flood
flill there without any Gravitation or Pro
jection, and there at once were infufed
into it, both a gravitating Energy towards
the
[ 19 3
the Sun, and a tranfverfe Impulfe o f a
juft Quantity .moving it diredtly in a Tan
gent to the Orbis Magnus ; the Com
pounds o f this Attraction and Projection
would, according to my Notion, caufe a
circular Revolution o f the Earth about
the Sun. But the tranfverfe Impulfe
muft be a juft Quantity; for if it be too
big or too little, it will caufe the Earth
to move in fome other Line. Secondly,
I do not know* any Power in Nature
which would caufe this tranfverfe Motion
without the divine Arm . Blondel tells us
fomewhere in his Book o f Bombs, that
Plato affirms, that the Motion of the
Planets is fuch, as i f they had all
o f them been created by God in
fome Region very remote from our
Syftem, and let fall from thence to
wards the Sun, and fo foon as they arrived
at their feveral Orbs, their Motion o f
falling turned afide into a tranfverfe
one. And this is true, fuppofing the
gravitating Power o f the Sun was double
D 2 at
[ 20 ]
at that Moment o f Tim e in which they
all arrive at their feveral O rb s; but then
the divine Power is here required in a
double refpedt, namely, to turn the de-
fcending Motions o f the falling Planets
into a fide Motion, and at the fame time
to double the attractive Power o f the Sun.
So then Gravity may put the Planets into
Motion, but without the divine Power it
could never put them into fuch a circulating
Motion as they have about the Su n; and
therefore, for this, as well as other Reafons,
I am compelled to afcribe the Frame of
this Syflem to an intelligent Agent.
You fometimes fpeak o f Gravity as

elfential and inherent to Matter. Pray do
not afcribe that Notion to m e ; for the
Caufe o f Gravity is what I do not pretend
to know, and therefore would take more
Tim e to confider o f it.
I fear what I have faid o f Infinites, will

feem obfcure to you j but it is enough if
you
[ 21 ]
you underftand, that Infinites when con^
fidered abfolutely without any Reftridtion
or Limitation, are neither equal nor un
equal, nor have any certain Proportion one
to another, and therefore the Principle
that all Infinites are equal, is a precarious
one.
Sir, I am,
Tour mojl humble S ervan t\
Trinity College,
Jan. 17, 1692-3.
IS . N E W T O N .
L E T -
[ 23 1
L E T T E R III.
For M r. B entley , a t the Palace

a t Worcefter.
SIR,
Ecaufe you defire Speed, I will an-
B fwer your Letter with what Brevity
I can. In the fix Pofitions you lay down
in the Beginning o f your Letter, I agree
with you. Your afluming the Orbis Mag
nus 7000 Diameters o f the Earth wide,
implies the Sun’s horizontal Parallax to be
h alf a Minute. Flamfieed and CaJJini have
o f late obferved it to be about 10", and
thus the OrbisMagnus muft be 21,000, or
in a rounderNumber 20,000 Diameters o f
the Earth wide. Either Computation I
think
[ 24 ]
think will do well, and I think it not
worth while to alter your Numbers.
In the next Part o f your Letter you lay

dawn four other Portions, founded upon
the fix firft. T h e firft o f thefe four feems
very evident, fuppofing you take Attrac
tion fo generally as by it to underftand
any Force by which diftant Bodies endea
vour to come together without mechani
cal Impulfe. T h e fecond feems not fo
clear; for it may be faid, that there might
be other Syftems o f Worlds before the
prefent ones, and others before thofe, and
fo on to all pafl Eternity, and by confe-
quence, that Gravity may be co-eternal
to Matter, and'have the fame Effedt from
all Eternity as at prefent, unlefs you have
fomewhere proved that old Syftems can
not gradually pafs into new ones; or that
this Syftem had not its Original from the
exhaling Matter o f former decaying Syf
tems, but from a Chaos o f Matter evenly
difperfed
[ 25 3
difperfed throughout all Space j for fome-
thing o f this Kind, I think, you fay was
the Subject o f your fixth Sermon j and
the Growth o f new Syftems out o f old
ones, without the Mediation o f a divine
Power, feems to me apparently abfurd.
T h e laft Claufe o f the fecond Pofition

I like very well. It is inconceivable, that
inanimate brute Matter fhould, without
the Mediation o f fomething elfe, which is
not material, operate upon, and affedb
other Matter without mutual Contadt, as
it m ud be, if Gravitation in the Senfe o f
Epicurus, be elfential and inherent in itf
And this is one Reafon w hy I defired you
yvould not afcribe innate Gravity to me.
T hat Gravity fhould be innate, inherent
and elfential to Matter, Co that one Body
may adt upon another at a Diftance thro’
a Vacuum, without the Mediation o f any
thing elfe, by and through which their
Adtion and Force may be conveyed from
E one
[ 26 ]
one to another, is to me fo great an A b-

furdity, that I believe no Man who has in
philofophical Matters a competent Faculty
o f thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity
muft be caufed by an Agent adting con-
ftantly according to certain L a w s ; but
whether this Agent be material or imma
terial, I have left to the Confideration o f
m y Readers.
Your fourth Aflertion, that the W orld

could not be formed by innate Gravity
alone, you confirm by three Arguments.
But in your firft Argument you feem to
make a Petitio P rin cip ii; for whereas
many ancient Philofophers and others, as
well Theifts as Atheifts, have all allowed,
that there may be Worlds and Parcels o f
Matter innumerable or infinite, you deny
this, by reprefenting it as abfurd as that
there fliould be pofitively an infinite arith
metical Sum or Number, which is a Con
tradiction in Perminis; but you do not
prove
3°4 LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY
[ 27 3
prove it as abfurd. Neither do you prove,
that what Men mean by an infinite Sum
ot Number, is a Contradiction in N ature;
for a Contradiction in ’f e r minis implies no
more than an Impropriety o f Speech.
Thofe things which Men underftand by
improper and contradictious Phrafes, may
be fometimes really in Nature without any
Contradiction at a ll: a Silver Inkhorn, a
Paper Lanthorn, an Iron W hetftone, are
abfurd Phrafes, yet the Things fignified
thereby, are really in Nature. I f any
M an fhould fay, that a Number and a
Sum, to fpeak properly, is that which may
be numbered and fummed, but Things in
finite are numberlefs, or, as we ufually
fpeak, innumerable and fumlefs, or in-
fummable, and therefore ought not to be
called a Number or Sum, he will fpeak
properly enough, and your Argument
againfl him will, I fear, lofe its Force.
And yet if any Man fhall take the Words,
Number and Sum, in a larger Senfe, fo
E 2 as
[ 28 ]
as to underftand thereby Things, which

in the proper way o f fpeaking are num-
berlefs and fumlefs (as you feem to do
when you allow an infinite Number o f
Points in a Line) I could readily allow him
the Ufe of the contradictious Phrafes o f
innumerable Number, or fumlefs Sum,
without inferring from thence any Abfur-
dity in the T h in g he means by thofe
Phrafes. However, if by this, or any
other Argument, you have proved the
Finitenefs o f the Univerfe, it follows, that
all Matter would fall down from the Out-
fides, and convene in the Middle. Y et
the Matter in falling might concrete into
many round Mafles, like the Bodies o f
the Planets, and thefe by attracting one
another, might acquire an Obliquity o f
Defcent, by means o f which they might
fall, not upon the great central Body, but
upon the Side o f it, and fetch a Compafs
about, and then afcend again by the fame
Steps and Degrees o f Motion and Velocity
with
3°6 LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY
t 29 1
with which they defcended before, much
after the Manner that the Comets revolve
about the Sun j but a circular Motion in
concentrick Orbs about the Sun, they
could never acquire by Gravity alone.
And tho’ all the Matter were divided at

firft into feveral Syftems, and every Syf-
tem by a divine Power conftituted like
o u rs; yet would the Outfide Syftems de-
feend towards the M iddlemoftj fo that
this Frame o f Things could not always
fubfift without a divine Power to conferve
it, which is the fecond A rgum en t; and
to your third I fully aflent.
As for the Paflage o f Plato, there is no

common Place from whence all the Pla
nets being let fall, and defeending with
uniform and equal Gravities (as Galileo
fuppofes) would at their Arrival to their
feveral Orbs acquire their feveral Veloci
ties, with which they now revolve in
them.
t 30 ]
them* I f we fuppofe the Gravity o f all
the Planets towards the Sun to be o f fuch
a Quantity as it really is, and that the M o
tions o f the Planets are turned upwards,
every Planet will afeend to twice its
Height from the Sun. Saturn will af
eend till he be twice as high from the Sun
as he is at prefent, and no higher; Jup i
ter will afeend as high again as at prefent,
that is, a little above the Orb o f Saturn j
Mercury will afeend to twice his prefent
H eight, that is, to the Orb o f Venus j and
fb o f the reft j and then by falling down
again from the Places to which they af-
cended, they will arrive again at their fe-
veral Orbs with the fatne Velocities they
had at firft, and with which they now
irevolve.
But i f fo foon as their Motions by

which they revolve are turned upwards,
the gravitating Power o f the Sun, by
which their Afcent is perpetually retarded,
be
3 °8 LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY
C 31 ]
be diminished by one half, they will now
afcend perpetually, and all o f them at all
equal Diftances from the Sun will be
equally fwift. Mercury when he arrives
at the Orb o f Venus, will be as fwift as
Venus; and he and Venus, when they
arrive at the Orb o f the Earth, will be
as fwift as the Earth', and fo o f the reft. I f
they begin all o f them to afcend at once, and
afcend in the fameLine,they will conftant-
ly in afcending become nearer and nearer
together, and their Motions will conftantly
approach to an Equality, and become at
length ftower than any Motion affign-
able. Suppofe therefore, that they afcended
till they were almoft contiguous, and their
Motions inconfiderably little, and that all
their Motions were at the fame Moment
o f Tim e turned back again; or, which
comes almoft to the fame Thing, that they
were only deprived o f their Motions, and
let fall at that Tim e, they would all at
once arrive at their feveral Orbs, each
with
[ 32 1
with the Velocity it had at firft j and if
their Motions were then turned Side-r
ways, and at the fame Tim e the gravi-r
tating Power o f the Sun doubled, that it
might be ftrong enough to retain them in
their Orbs, they would revolve in them as
before their Afcent. But if the gravitate-
ing Power o f the Sun was not doubled,
they would go away from their Orbs into
the higheft Heavens in parabolical Lines,
T hefe Things follow from my Trine.
M ath. L ib . i. Prop. 33, 34, 36, 37.
I thank you very kindly for your de

signed Prefent, and reft
Tour mofl
humble Servant
to qommand,
Cambridge,
Feb. 25, 1692- 3,
IS . N E W T O N .
3 10 LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY
i 33 ]
L E T T E R I V.
To M r . Bentley, at the Palace

a t W o r c e fte r .
SIR,
H E Hypothecs o f deriving the

Frame o f the W orld by mechani
cal Principles from Matter evenly fpread
through the Heavens, being iriconfiftent
with m y Syflem, I had confidered it very
little before your Letters put me upon it,
and therefore trouble you with a Line
or two more about it, i f this comes not
too late, for your Ufe.
In m y former I reprefented that the

diurnal Rotations o f the Planets could not
be derived from Gravity, but required a
divine Arm to imprefs them. A nd tho’
F
LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY 3”
[ 34 ]
Gravity might give the Planets a Motion
o f Defcent towards the Sun, either diredtly
or with fome little Obliquity, yet the
tranfverfe Motions by which they revolve
in their feveral Orbs, required the divine
Arm to imprefs them according to the
Tangents o f their Orbs* I would now add,
that the Hypothecs o f Matter’s being at
firft evenly fpread through the Heavens,
is, in my Opinion, inconfiflent with the
Hypothecs o f innate Gravity, without a
fupernatural Power to reconcile them,
and therefore it infers a Deity. For if
there be innate Gravity, it is impoffible
now for the Matter o f the Earth and all
the Planets and Stars to fly up from them,
and become evenly fpread throughout all
the Heavens, without a fupernatural Power;
and certainly that which can never be
hereafter without a fupernatural Power,
could never be heretofore without the
fame Pow er.
You
3X2 LETTERS FROM NEWTON TO BENTLEY
I 35 1
You queried, whether Matter evenly
fpread throughout a finite Space, o f fome
other Figure than fpherical, would not in
falling down towards a central Body,
caufe that Body to be of the fame Figure
with the whole Space, and I anfweved,
yes. But in my Anfwer it is to be fup-
pofed that the Matter defeends dire&ly
downwards to that Body, and that that
Body has no diurnal Rotation.
This, Sir, is all I would add to m y
former Letters.
I am,
Tour m ojl humble
S erva n t,
Cambridge,
£eb . n , 1693.
IS . N E W T O N .
F I N I S .
BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATFIEISM (II) 313
A
Confutation of 8tf)etfm
FROM THE
O rigin and Lram e o f the W O R L D .
The Third and Lift P A RT.
S E R M O N ,
Preached at
S ' M a r y -le -B o w ,
D ECEM BER the 5th' 1 6 9 1 .
Being the Eighth of the Le<5lure Founded by
the Honourable (jt y B E R X W I L E , Efquire.
By R I C H A R D B E N T LET, M-A.
Chaplain to the Right Reverend Father in God,
EDWARD, Lord Biflhop of Worcefter.
L O N D O N ,
Printed for H . M o rtlo ck at the Phoenix in
St. P a u l's Church-yard. 1693.
3H BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (II)
• «&* «&» <-ar» *& > «A* « S j* «yft»

»evb cm ewacwacflbcvpc®s
s^-aâ^6fi£4& 25»:sscsa
R$. Barker, Rmo in Chriffco Patri

ac DnoDnoJohanni Archiep. Can-
tuar. a Sacris Domeft.
L A M B H IT H y
Maij 30. 1693.
BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (II) 315
(3 ) ~
A<5bs XIV. 11, &c .
T h a t y e f h o u ld tu rn fro m th efe v a n itie s u n to th e

liv in g G o d , who m a d e H e a v e n a n d E a r th
a n d th e S e a , a n d a l l th in g s t h a t a re th e re
in : Who in tim e s f a j i f u j f e r d a ll N a tio n s to
w a i f in th e ir ow n w ays. N e v e r tb e le fs , h e le f t
n o t h i m f e l f w ith o u t w i tn e f s , in th a t h e d i d
G o o d ' a n d g a v e u s R a in fro m H e a v e n , a n d
f r u i t f u l l S ea fo n s , f i l l i n g our h e a r ts w ith F o o d
a n d G la d n e fs .
W
Hen we firft enter’d upon this Topic,
the demonftration o f Gods Exi
gence from the Origin and Frame o f the
W orld, we offer’d to prove four Propor
tions.
1. That this prefent Syftem o f Heaven and
Earth cannot poffibly have fubfifted from all
Eternity.
2. That Matter confider’d generally, and
abffradly from any particular Form and Con
cretion, cannot poflibly have been eternal:
Or, if Matter could be fo 5 yet Motion can
not have coexifted with it eternally, as an in
herent property and effential attribute o f Mat
ter. Thefe two we have already eftablilhed
A 2 in
3i 6 BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (II)
A Confutation o f Atheifm from the

in the preceding Difcourfe ; we fhall now
fliew in the third place,
3. That, though we fhould allow the Athe-
ifts, that Matter and M otion may have been
from everlafting; yet if (as they now fuppofc)
there were once no Sun nor Starrs nor Earth
nor Planets 5 but the Particles, that now con-
ftitute. them, were diffufed in the mundane
Space in manner o f a Chaos without any con
cretion and coalition 5 thofe difperfed Particles
could never o f themfelves by any kind of N a
tural motion,whether call’d Fortuitous or Me
chanical, have conven’d into this prefent or any
other like Frame o f Heaven and Earth.
I And firft as to that ordinary Cant o f il
literate and puny Atheifts, the fortuitous or ca-
fu a l concourfe o f Atoms, that compendious and
eafy D ifpatchof the moft important and diffi
cult affair, the Formation o f a World 5 (befides
that in our next undertaking it will be refuted
all a lo n g ) I (hall now briefly difpatch it, from
Serm. V . what hath been formerly faid concerning the
P - 6 , 7.
true notions o f Fortune and Chance. Where
by it is evident, that in the Atheiftical Hvpo-
thefis o f the W orld’s production, Fortuitous
and Mechanical mufl be the felf-fame thing.
Becaufe Fortune is no real entity nor phyfical
effence, but a mere relative fignification, de
noting
O rigin and "Frame o f the W orld . 5

noting only this 5 That fuch a thing faid to
fall out by Fortune, was really effected by
material and neceffary Caufes; but the Per-
fon, with regard to whom it is called Fortui
tous, was ignorant o f thofe Caufes or their
tendencies, and did not defign nor forefee
fuch an effect. This is the only allowable and
genuine notion o f the word Fortune. But
thus to affirm, that the W orld was made for-
tu ito u jly , is as much as to fay, That before the
W orld was made, there was fome Intelligent
Agent or Spectator; who defigning to do
fomething elfe, or expecting that fomething
elfe would be done with the Materials o f the
W orld, there were fome occult and unknown
motions and tendencies in Matter, which me
chanically formed the W orld befide his defign
or expectation. N o w the Atheifts, we may
prefume, will be loth to affert a fortuitous
Formation in this proper fenfe and m eaning;
whereby they will make Underftanding to
be older than Heaven and Earth. Or if they
fhould fo affert it 3 yet, unlefs they will affirm
that the Intelligent Agent did difpofe and di
rect the inanimate Matter, (which is what we
would bring them to ) they muft Bill leave
their Atoms to their mechanical AffeCtions;
not able to make one ftep toward the pro
duction
318 BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (II)
6 A Confutation o f A theifin from the

dudtion o f a W orld beyond the neceffary
Laws o f Motion. It is plain then, th at Fortune,
as to the matter before us, is but a fynony-
mous word with Nature and Neceffity. It
remains that we examin the adequate mean-
serm. v. ing o f Chance 5 which properly fignides, That
p-I2,I3‘ all events called Cafua1, among inanimate Bo
dies, are mechanically and naturally produced
according to the determinate figures and tex
tures and motions o f thole B o d ie s $ with this
negation on ly , That th ofe inanimate Bodies
are not confcious o f their own operations,
nor contrive and calf about how to bring fuch
events to pals- So that thus to lay, that the
W orld was made cafually by the concourfc o f
Aroms, is no more than to affirm, that the
Atoms compofed the W orld mechanically
and fatally 5 only they were not fenfible o f
it, nor ftu d icd and confider’d about fo n o b le
an undertaking. For if Atoms fo rm ed the
W orld according to the elTential properties
o f Bulk, Figure and Motion, they formed it
mecbd7iically 5 and i f they formed it mecha
nically without perception and defign, they
form ed it cafually. So that this negation o f
Confcioufnefs being all that the notion o f
Chance can add to that o f Mechanifm 5 W e,
that do not difpnte this matter with the Athe-
ifts,
BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (II)
O rigin and Fram e o f the W orld, 7

ills, nor believe that A to m s ever adied b y
Counfel and Thought, may have leave to
conlider the Several names o f Fortune and
Chance and Nature and Mechanifm , as one and
the lame H y p o th ecs. Wherefore once for all
to overthrow all poffible Explications which
Arheifts have or may a/lign for the formation
o f the World, we will undertake to evince
this following Proportion:
II. That the Atoms or Particles which now
constitute Heaven and Earth, being once fe~
parate and diffufed in the Mundane Space,
like the fuppoSed Chaos, could never without
a G od by their M echanical affections have con
vened into this prefent Frame o f Things or
any other like it
W hich that we may perform with the
greater clearnefs and conviction 5 it will be
neceffary, in a difeourfe about the Formation
o f the W orld, to give you a brief account o f
fem e o f the m oll principal and fyilematical
Phenomena, that occurr in the World now
that it is formed.
( i ' ) The m ofl considerable Phenomenon
belonging to Terrestrial Bodies is the general
adtion o f Gravitation , whereby All known Bo
dies in the vicinity o f the Earth do tend and
preSs toward its Center 5 not only fuch as are
fenhbly
3 20 BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (II)
8 A Confutation o f A theifm from the

fenfibly and evidently Heavy, but even thofe
that are comparatively the Lighted, and even
in their proper place, and natural Elements,
( as they ufually fpeak) as Air gravitates even
in Air and Water in Water. This hath been
demonflrated and experimentally proved be
yond contradiction, by feveral ingenious Per-
Tons o f the prefent Age, but by none To per-
phyB(rfs fpicuoufly and copioufly and accurately, as
o ? P*by the Honourable Founder o f this LeCture
Hydro- in his incomparable Treatifes o f the Air and
E ra' Hydroftaticks.
(2 .) N o w this is the conftant Property o f
Gravitation $ That the weight o f all Bodies a-
round the Earth is ever proportional to the
Quantity of their M atter: As for inftance, a
Pound weight ( examin’d Hydroftatically) o f
all kinds o f Bodies, though o f the m olt dif
ferent forms and textures, doth always con
tain an equal quantity of folid Mafs or cor
poreal Subftance. This is the ancient DoCtrine
Lucret. 0 f the Epicurean Phyfiology, then and fince
1 ‘ u very probably indeed, but yet precarioufly af-
ferted: But it is lately demonflrated and put
beyond controverfy by that very excellent
and divine Theorifl Mr. Ifaac Newton, to whofe
Natur! moft admirable fagacity and induflry we fhall
Madusb. frequently be obliged in this and the follow-
5.prop.6. ing Difcourfe. I
O rigin and Vrame o f the W orld . 9

I will not entertain this Auditory with an
account o f the Demonftration ; but referring
the Curious to the Book it felf for full fatisfadti-
on, I {hall now proceed and build upon it as a
Truth folidly eflabliflhed, T h a t all B o d ies w eig h
a cco rd in g to th e ir M a tte r $ provided only that
the compared Bodies be at equal diftances from
the Center toward which they weigh. Becaufe
the further they are removed from the Center,
the lighter they are: decreafing gradually and
uniformly in weight, in a duplicate proportion
to the Increafe of the Diftance.
(3.) N o w fince Gravity is found proportio
nal to the Quantity o f Matter, there is a ma-
nifeft Neceflity o f admitting a V acuum , ano
ther principal Dodtrine o f the A to m ic a l Philo-
fophy. Becaufe if there were everywhere an
abfolute plenitude and denfity without any
empty pores and interfaces between the Parti
cles o f Bodies, then all Bodies o f equal dimen-
fions would contain an equal Quantity o f Mat
ter ; and confequently, as we have {hewed be
fore, would be equally ponderous: fo that
Gold, Copper, Stone, W ood, <?r. would have
all the fame fpecifick w eight; which Experi
ence allures us they have not: neither would
any o f them defeend in the Air, as we all fee
they do 5 becaufe, if all Space was Full, even
the Air would be as denfe and fpecifically as
B heavy
io A Confutation o f A theifm from the

heavy as they. If it be faid, that, though the
difference o f fpecifick Gravity may proceed
from variety o f Texture, the lighter Bodies
being o f a more loofe and porous com porti
on, and the heavier more denfe and com pact;
yet an sethereal fubtile Matter, which is in a
perpetual motion, may penetrate and pervade
the minuteft and inmoft Cavities o f the clofeft
Bodies, and adapting it fLIf to the figure o f e-
very Pore, may adequately fill th em ; and fo
prevent all Vacuity, without increaimg the
w eight: T o this we anfwer; That that fubtile
Matter it felf mud be o f the fame Sub dance
and Nature with all other Matter , and there
fore It alfo m ud weigh proportionally to its
Bulk; and as much o f it as at any time-is com
prehended within the Pores o f a particular Bo
dy mud gravitate jointly with that Body: fo
that if the Prefence o f this athereal Matter
made an abfolute Fullnefs, all Bodies o f equaL
dimenfions would be equally heavy: which
being refuted by experience, ic. neceffarily fol
lows, that there is a Vacuity ; and that (not-
withdanding fome little objections full o f ca
vil and fophidry) mere and fimple Extenfion
or Space hath a quite different nature and no
tion from real Body and impenetrable Sub
dance.
(4.) This
O rigin and Yram e d f t k W orld . 11

(4.) This therefore being eftablilhed ; in the
next place its o f great confequence to our pre-
fent enquiry, if we can make a computation,
H ow great is the whole Summ o f the Void fpa-
ces in our fyftem,and what proportion it bears
to the corporeal fubftance. By many and ac-
curate Trials it manifeftly appears, that Refined PwoSy
Gold, the m oll ponderous o f known Bodies,ofBodics*
(though even that mull be allowed to be po
rous too, being diflbluble in Mercury and Aqua
Regjs and other Chymical Liquors; and being
naturally a thing impoftible, that die Figures
and Sizes o f its conftituent Particles fhoula be
fo juftly adapted, as to touch one another in
every Point,) I fay, Gold is in fpecifick weight
to common Water as 19 to 1; and Water to
common Air as 850 to 1: fo that Gold is to
Air as i d 15 o to 1. Whence it clearly appears,
feeing Matter and Gravity are always commen-
ftirate, that (though we Ihould allow the tex
ture o f Gold to be intirely clofe without any
vacuity) the ordinary Air in which we live and
refpire is o f fo thin a compofition, that 16149
parts o f its dimenfions are mere emptinefs and
N o th in g ; and the remaining One only mate
rial and real fubftance. But if Gold it felf be
admitted, as it muft be, for a porous Concrete,
the proportion o f Void to Body in the texture
o f common Air will be fo much the greater.
B 2 And
12 A Confutation o f Atheifm from the

And thus it is in the lowed and denfeft region
o f the Air near the furface o f the Earth, where
the whole Mafs o f Air is in a date o f violent
eompreflion, the inferior being prefs’d and
condipated by the weight o f all the incum
bent. But, dnee the Air is now certainly known
Mr. £ o jie to confid o f eladick or fpringy Particles, that
ltld* have a continual tendency and endeavour to
expand and difplay themfelves; and the di-
menfions, to which they expand themfelves, to
be reciprocally as the Com predion 5 it follows,
that the higher you afeend in it, where it is lefs
and lefs com prefs’d by the fuperior Air, the
more and more it is rarefied. So that at the
hight o f a few miles from the furface o f the
Earth, it is computed to have fome million
parts of empty fpace in its texture for one o f
folid Matter. And at the hight o f one Terre-
Newton drial Semid. (not above 4000 miles) theÊther
N a t P r in - is o f that wonderfull tenuity, that by an ex-
cipk. a£t calculation, if a fmall Sphere o f com mon

P.J03. Air o f one Inch Diameter (already 16149 parts
N oth in g) fhould be further expanded to the
thinnefs o f that AEther, it would more than
take up the Vad Orb of Saturn , which is many
1 million million times bigger than the whole
Globe o f the Earth. And yet the higher you
afeend above that region, the Rarefaction dill
gradually increafes without dop or lim it; fo
that,
O rigin and Fram e o f the W orld . 13

that, in a word, the whole Concave o f the Fir
mament, except the San and Planets and their
Atmofpheres, may be confider’d as a mere
Void. Let us allow then, that all the Matter
o f the Syftem ofour Sun may be 50000 times
as much as the whole Mafs o f the Earth 5 and
we appeal to Aftronomy, if we are not liberal
enough and even prodigal in this concefaon.
And let us fuppofe further, that the whole Globe
o f the Earth is intirely folid and compa<5t with
out any void interfaces 5 notwithftandingwhat
hath been (hewed before, as to the texture o f
Gold it felf N o w though we have made fuch
ample allowances; we lhallfind, notwithftand-
ing, that the void Space o f our Syftem is im-
menfly bigger than all its corporeal Mafs. For,
to proceed upon our fuppofition, that all the
Matter within the Firmament is 50000 times
bigger than the folid Globe o f the Earth; if
we affume the Diameter o f the Orbit Magnus
(wherein the Earth moves about the Sun ) to
be only 7000 times as big as the Diameter o f
the Earth (though the lateft and moft accurate
Obfervations make it thrice 7 0 0 0 ) and the
Diameter o f the Firmament to be only 100000
times as long as the Diameter o f the Orbit Mag-
71116 (though it cannot poflibly be Iefs than that,
but may be vaftly and unfpeakably bigger) we
muft pronounce, after fuch large conceffions
on
A Confutation o f A tbeifm from the

on that fide and fuch great abatements on ours,
That the Summ o f Empty Spaces within the
Concave o f the Firmament is 6860 million
million million times bigger than All the Mat'
ter contain’d in it.
N ow from hence we are enabled to form a
right conception and imagination o f the fiip-
pofed C haos; and then we may proceed to
determin the controverfy with more certainty
and fatisfa&ion ; whether a World like the
Prefent could potfibly without a Divine Influ'
ence be formed in it or no ?
(1.) And f ir f t , becaufe every Fixt Star is flip'
pofed by Aftronomers to be o f the fame N a
ture with our Sun ; and each may very poffi-
bly have Planets about them, though by rea-
fon o f their vaft diftance they be invifible to
Us: we will alfume this reafonable fuppofition,
That the fame proportion o f Void Space to
Matter, which is-found in our Suns Region
within the Sphere o f the Fixt Starrs, may com
petently well hold in the whole Mundane Space.
1 am aware, that in this computation we mud
not afiign the whole Capacity o f that Sphere
for the Region o f our Sun ; but allow half o f
its Diameter for the Radii o f the feveral Regi
ons o f the next Fixt Starrs. So that diminifh-
ing our former number, as this laft confidera-
tion requires; we m ay fafely affirm from cer-
ta;n
O rigin an d Fram e o f the W orld. 15

tain and demonftrated Principles, That the
empty Space o f our Solar Region ( compre
hending half o f the Diameter o f the Firma
ment) is 8575 hundred thoufand million mil
lion times more ample than all the corporeal
fubftance in ir. Ana we may fairly fuppofe,
that the lame proportion may hold through
the whole Extent o f the LTniverfe.
(2.) And Secondly as to the (late or condition
o f Matter before the W orld was a-making,
which is compendioufly exprtrft by the word
C haos ; they muft fuppofe, that either All the
Matter o f our Syftem was e v e n ly or well-nigh
evenly difFufed through the Region o f the Sun,
this would reprefent a particular Chaos: or
All Matter univerfally fo fpread through the
whole Mundane Space; which would truly
exhibit a General C haos; no part o f the Uni
verfe being rarer or denfer than another.
W hich is agreeable to the ancient
Description of it, That * the Hea- £ X * * * C ? ~
veils a n d E a r th b a d ^ pi-
av one for 771, one texture
and Apoij.Riw-
conliitution: which could not be,
unlefs all the Mundane Matter
were un iform ly and evenly diffufed.
JTis indifferent to our Difpute, whether they
fuppofe it to have continued a long time or
very little in the Rate o f Diffusion. For if
there
16 A Confutation o f A tbeifm from the

there was but one (ingle Moment in all pall:
Eternity, when Matter was fo diffufed: we
lhall plainly and fully prove, that it could ne
ver have convened afterwards into the prefenc
Frame and Order o f Things.
(3.) It is evident from what we have newly
proved, that in the Suppofition o f fuch a Chaos
or fuch an even diffufion either o f the whole
Mundane Matter or that o f our Syftem (for it
matters not which they affume ) every (in
gle Particle would have a Sphere o f Void Space
around it 8575 hundred thoufand million mil
lion times bigger than the dimenfions o f that
Particle. Nay further, though the proportion
already appear fo immenfe ; yet every (ingle
Particle would really be furrounded with a
Void fphere Eight times as capacious as that
newly mention’d 5 its Diameter being com
pounded o f the Diameter o f the Proper fphere,
and the Semi-diameters o f the contiguous
Spheres o f the neighbouring Particles. From
whence it appears, that every Particle (fuppofing
them globular or not very oblong) would be
above Nine Million times their own length
from any other Particle. And moreover in the
whole Surface o f this Void fphere there can
only Twelve Particles be evenly placed (as the
Hypothecs requires; that is, at equal Diftances
from the Central one and each other. So that
if
1 ' 1 " 1 ---------- --------- ------- - - — --------- - -
Origin and Yrame o f the W orld. 17

if die Matter o f our Syftem or of the Univerfe
was equally difperfed, like the fuppofed C haos;
the refult and iftue would be, not only that
every Atom would be many Million times its
own length diftanc from any other: but if a-
ny One Ihould be moved Mechanically (with
out diredtion or attraction) to the limit o f that
diftance; ’tis above a hundred million milli
ons Odds to an unit, that it would not ftrike
upon any other Atom, but glide through an
empty interval without any contact.
(4.) T is true, that while I calculate thefe
Meafures, I fuppofe all the Particles o f Matter
to be at abfolute reft among themfelves, and
fttuated in an exadt and mathematical even-
n efs; neither o f which is likely to be allowed
by our Adverfaries , who not admitting the
former, but after ting the eternity o f M otion,
will confequently deny the latter alfo: becaufe
in the very moment, that Motion is admitted
in the Chaos, fuch an exadt evennefs cannot
poflibly be preferved. But this I do, not to
draw any argument againft them from the
Univerfal Reft or accurately equal diftiifion o f
Matter ; but only that I may better demon-
ftrate the great Rarity and Tenuity o f their
imaginary Chaos, and reduce it to computa
tion. W hich computation will hold with ex-
adtnefs enough, though we allow the Parti-
C cles
33« BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (II)
cles of the Chaos to be varioufly moved, and

to differ fomething in fize and figure and fitu-
ation. For if fome Particles fhould approach
nearer each other than in the former Propor
tion $ with refpect to fome other Particles they
would be as much remoter. So that notwith-
flanding a fmall diverfity o f their Pofitions and
Diflances, the whole Aggregate o f Matter, as
long as it retain’d the name and nature o f
Chaos, would retain well-nigh an uniform te
nuity o f Texture, and may be confider’d as
an homogeneous Fluid. As feveral Portions
o f the fame fort o f Water are reckon’d to be
o f the fame fpecifick gravity ; though it be
naturally impoflible that every Particle and
Pore o f it, confider’d Geometrically, fhould
have equal fizes and dimenfions.
W e have now reprefen ted the true fcheme
and condition o f the Chaos; how all the Par
ticles would be difunited; and what vaft inter
vals o f empty Space would lye between each.
To form a Syftem therefore,’tis neceffary that
thefe fquander’d Atoms fhould convene and
unite into great and compact Malles, like the
Bodies o f the Earthand Planets. W ithout fnch
a coalition the diffufed Chaos muff have con
tinued and reign’d to all eternity. But how
could Particles fo widely difperfed combine
into that clofenefs o f Texture ? Our Adverfa-
ries
O rigin and fra m e o f the W orld. 19
ries can have only thefe two ways o f account

ing for it. Either by the Common Motion o f
Matter, proceeding from external Impulfe and
Conflict (without attraction) by which every
Body moves uniformly in a direCt line accord
ing to the determination o f the impelling force.
For, they may fay, the Atoms o f the Chaos be
ing varioufly moved according to this catho
lic Law, muft needs knock and interfere ; by
which means fome that have convenient fi
gures for mutual coherence might chance to
flick together, and others might join to thofe,
and fo by degrees fuch huge Malles might be
formed, as afterwards became Suns and Pla
nets : or there might arife fome vertiginous
Motions or Whirlpools in the Matter o f the
C haos; whereby the Atoms might be thrufl
and crowded to the middle o f thofe Whirl
pools, and there conftipate one another into
great folid Globes, fuch as now appear in the
W o rld Or fec o n d ly by mutual Gravitation
or Attraction. For they may affert, that Mat
ter hath inherently and effentially fuch an-in-
trinfeck energy, whereby it inceflandy tends
to unite it felf to all other Matter: fo that f>
verai Particles placed in a Void fpace at any.dl
fiance whatfoever would without any external
impulfe fpontaneoufly convene and unite to
gether. And thus the Atoms o f the Chaos,
C 2 though
332 BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATFIEISM (II)

though never fo widely diffufed, might by this
innate property o f Attraction foon affemble
themfelves into great fphserical MafTes, and
conflitute Syflems like the prefent Heaven and
Earth. This is all that can be propofed by
Atheifls, as an efficient caufe o f a World. Fon
as to the Epicurean Theory, o f Atoms defcend-
ing down an infinite fpace by an inherent prin
ciple o f Gravitation, which tends not toward
other Matter, but toward a Vacitum or Nothing $
* Lucret. and verging from the Perpendicular * no body
meiocf' knows why nor when nor where ; ’tis fuch mifera-
certa.nec ble abfurd fluff, fo repugnant to it felf, and fo
certo, contrary to the known Phenomena o f Nature
(yet it contented fupine unthinking Atheifls
for a thoufand years together) that we will not
now honour it with a fpecjal refutation. But
what it hath com m on with the other Explica
tions, we will fully confute together with Them
in thefe three Propofitions.
(i.) That by Com m on Motion (w ithout
attraction) the diffever’d Particles o f the Chaos
could never make the W orld ; could never
convene into fuch great compact MafTes, as the
Planets now are; nor either acquire or conti
nue fuch Motions, as the Planets now have.
(2.) That fuch a mutual Gravitation or fpon-
taneous Attraction can neither be inherent and
eflential to Matter; nor ever fupervene to it,
unlefs
Origin and Tram e o f the W orld. 21

unlefs imprefs’d and infufed into it by a D i
vine Power.
(3.) That though we fhould allow fuch At
traction to be natural and eflential to all Mat
ter 5 yet the Atoms o f a Chaos could never fo
convene by it, as to form the prefent Syftem:
or if they could form it, it could neither ac
quire fuch Motions, nor continue permanent
in this ftate, without the Power and Provi
dence o f a Divine Being.
I. And firft, that by Common Motion the
Matter o f Chaos could never convene into
fuch Maflfes, as the Planets now are. Any man,
that confiders the fpacious void Intervals o f
the Chaos, how immenfe they are in propor
tion to the bulk o f the Atoms, will hardly in
duce himfelf to believe, that Particles fo wide
ly difleminated could ever throng and crowd
one another into a clofe and compact texture.
He will rather conclude, that thofe few that
fhould happen to clafh, might rebound after
the collifion 5 or if they cohered, yet by the
next conflict with other Atoms might oe fe-
parated again, and fo on in an eternal vicifli-
tude o f Faft and L oofe, without ever confo-
ciating into the huge condenfe Bodies o f Pla
nets ; fome o f whofe Particles upon this fup-
pofition muft have travell’d many millions of
Leagues through the gloom y regions o f Cha
os,

os, to place themfdves where they now are.
But then how rarely would there be any clalh-
ing at all ? how very rarely in comparifon to
the number o f Atoms ? The whole multitude
o f them, generally fpeaking, might freely move
and rove for ever with very little occurring or
interfering. Let us conceive two o f the neared:
Particles according to our former Calculation $
or rather let us try the fame proportions in a-
nother Example, that will come eafier to the
Imagination. Let us fuppofe two Ships, fit
ted with durable Timber and R igging, but
without Pilot or Mariners, to be placed in the
vad Atlantic 4 or the Pacifique Ocean, as far a-
funder as may be. H ow many thoufand years
might expire,before thofe folitary Vefiels Ihould
happen to drike one againd the other ? But let
us imagin the Space yet more ample, even the
whole face o f the Earth to be covered with
Sea, and the two Ships to be placed in the op-
pofite Poles: might not they now m ove long
enough without any danger o f dalbing ? And
yet Lfind, that the two neared Atoms in our
evenly diffufed Chaos have ten thoufand times
lefs proportion to the two Void circular Planes
around them, than our two Ships would have
to the whole Surface o f the Deluge. Let us
adume then another Deluge ten thoufand times
larger than Noah's. Is it not now utterly in
credible,
O rigin and 'Frame o f the W orld. 23
credible, chat our two Yeflels, placed there An

tipodes to each other, Ihould ever happen to
concur^ And yet let me add, that the Ships
would move in one and the fame Surface; and
confequently muft needs encounter, when they
either advance towards one another in direct
lines, or meet in the incerfcdfcion o f crofs o n e s ;
but the Atoms may not only fly flde-ways, but
over likewife and under each other: wh.ch
makes if many million times more improbable,
that they fliould interfere than the Ships, even in
the laft and unlikelieft inftance. But they may
fay, Though the Odds indeed be unfpeakable
that the Atoms do not convene in any fe: num
ber o f Trials, yet in an infinite Succeflion o f
them may not fuch a Combination poflibfy
happen ? But let them confider, that the im
probability o f Cafual Hits is never diminished
by repetition o f Trials; they are as unlikely to
fall out at the Thousandth as at the Firft. So
that in a matter o f mere Chance, when there
is To many Millions odds againft any aflign- serm . v.
able Experiment 5 'tis in vain to expebt it Ihould p>32*
ever fucceed, even in endlefs Duration.
But though we Ihould concede it to be lim
ply poflible, that the Matter o f Chaos might
convene into great Mafles, like Planets: yet it s
abfolutely impoflible, that thofe Mafles Ihould
a c q u ire fuch revolutions about the Sun. Let
us
A Confutation o f Atbeifm from the

us fuppofe any one of thofe Mafles to be the
Prefent Earth. N o w the annual Revolution o f
the Earth muft proceed (in this Hypothecs) ei
ther from the Summ and Refult o f the feveral
motions o f all the Particles that formed the
Earth, or from a new Impulfe from fome ex
ternal Matter, after it was formed. The former
is apparently abfurd, becaufe the Particles that
form'd the round Earth mud needs convene
from all points and quarters toward the mid
dle, and would generally tend toward its Cen
ter ; which would make the whole Compound
to reft in a Poife: or at lead that overplus o f
.Motion, which the Particles o f one Hemifphere
could have above the other, would be very
fmall and mconfiderable 5 too feeble and lan
guid to pro pell fo vad and ponderous a Body
with that prodigious velocity. And fecondly ,
’tis impoflible, tliat any external Matter (hould
impell that compound Mafs, after it was form
ed. 'Tis manifed, that nothing elfe could im
ped it, unlefs the JEthereal Matter be fuppofed
to be carried about the Sun like a Vortex or
Whirlpool, as a Vehicle to convey It and the
red of the Planets. But this is refuted from
what we have (hewn above, that thofe Spaces o f
the iEther may be reckon'd a mere Void, the
whole Quantity o f their Matter fcarce amount
ing to the weight o f a Grain. 'Tis refuted alfo
from
BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATFIEISM (II) 337
Origin and Fram e o f the W orld . 25

from Matter o f Fa<5t in the Motion o f Com ets;
■which, as often as they are vifible to Us, are in Newton
the Region o f our Planets 5 and there are ob-
ferved to move, fome in quite contrary cour-
fes toTheirs, and fome in crofs and oblique ones,
in Planes inclined to the Plane o f the Fclip-
tick in all kinds o f Angles: which firmly evin
ces, that the Regions o f the iEther are empty
and free, and neither refift nor aflift the Revo
lutions o f Planets. But moreover there could
not poflibly arife in the Chaos any V ortices or
W hirlpools at a l l ; either to form the Globes
o f the Planets, or to revolve them when form
ed. T is acknowledged by all, that inanimate
unaCtive Matter moves always in a {freight
Line, nor ever reflects in an Angle, nor bends
in a Circle (which is a continual reflexion) un-
lefs e ith e r by fome external Impulfe, that may
divert it from the direCt motion, or by an in-
trinfec Principle of Gravity or Attraction, that
may make it defcribe a curve line about the
attracting Body. But this latter Caufe is not
now fuppofed: and the former could never
beget Whirlpools in a Chaos o f fo great a Laxi
ty and Thinnefs. For ’tis matter o f certain ex
perience and univerfally allowed, that all Bo
dies moved circularly have a perpetual endea
vour to recede from the Center, and every m o
ment would fly out in right Lines, if they were
D not
26 A Confutation o f Atheifm fro m the

not violently reft rain’d and kept in by contigu
ous Matter. But there is no {uch reftraint in a
Chaos, no want of empty room there; no pof-
fibility of effedting one (ingle Revolution in
way o f a V ortex, which neceffarily requires ei
ther an abfolute Fulnefs o f Matter, or a pretty
clofe Conftipation and mutual Contact o f its
Particles.
And for the fame reafon ’tis evident, that the
Planets could not con tin u e their Revolutions a-
bout the Sun ; though they could poflibly ac
quire them. For to drive and carry the Planets
in fuch Orbs as they now defcribe, that ./Ethe
real Matter muft be compadt and denfe, as
denfe as the very Planets themfelves: other-
wife they would certainly fly out in Spiral
Lines to the very circumference o f the V ortex.
But we have often inculcated, that the wide
Tradts o f the iEther may be reputed as a mere
extended Void. So that there is nothing (in this
Hypothefis) that can retain and bind the Pla
nets in their Orbs for one Angle moment; but
they would immediately delert them and the
neighbourhood o f the Sun, and vanifh away in
Tangents to their feveral Circles into the Abyfs
o f Mundane Space.
II. Secondly we affirm, that mutual Gravi
tation or fpontaneous Attradfion cannot poffi-
bly be innate and effential to Matter. By At-
tradlion
O rigin and Yrame o f tbe W orld . 27

traCtion we do not here underftand what is im
properly, though vulgarly, called fo, in the ope
rations o f drawing,fucking, pumping, 4s?c.which
is really Pulfion and Trillion; and belongs to
that Common Motion, which we have already
Ihewn to be infufficient for the formation o f a
World. But we now mean (as we have ex
plain’d it before) fuch a power and quality,
whereby all parcels o f Matter would mutually
attract or mutually tend and prefs to all others;
fo that (for inftance) two diftan.t Atoms in v a
cuo would fpontaneoufly convene together
without the impulfe o f external Bodies. N ow
we fay, if our Atheifts fuppofe this power to be
inherent and effential to Matter; they over
throw their own H ypothecs: there could ne
ver be a Chaos at all upon thefe terms, but the
prefent form o f our Syftem muft have continu
ed from all Eternity ; againft their own Sup
position, and what we have proved in our Laft. serm.
For if they affirm, that there might be a Chaos w v m ,
notwithftanding innate Gravity; then let them
alfign any Period though never fo remote,
when the diffufed Matter might convene.
They muft confefs, that before that alfigned
Period Matter had exifted eternally, insepara
bly endued with this principle o f Attraction ;
and yet had never attracted nor convened be
fore, during that infinite duration : which is
D 2 fo

fo monftrous an abfurdity, as even They will
blu(h to be charged with. But fome perhaps
may imagin, that a former Syftem might be
diflolved and reduced to a Chaos, from which
the prefent Syftem might have its Origi
nal, as that Former had from another, and
fo o n : new Syftems having grown out o f old
ones in infinite Viciflitudes from all pad: eterni
ty. But we fay, that in the Supposition o f in
nate Gravity no Syflem at all could be diflol-
ved. For how is it pofiible, that the Matter o f
folid Maffes like Earth and Planets and Starrs
fhould fly up from their Centers againft its in
herent principle o f mutual Attraction, and dif-
fufe it felf in a Chaos ? This is abfurder than
the other: That only fuppofed innate Gravity
not to be exerted; This makes it to be defeated,
and to aCt contrary to its own Nature. So that
upon all accounts this eflential power of Gra
vitation or Attraction is irreconcilable with the
Atheift’s own DoCtrine o f a Chaos. And fe-
condly ’tis repugnant to Common Senfe and
Reafon. 'Tis utterly unconceivable, that inani
mate brute Matter (without the mediation o f
fome Immaterial Being) Ihould operate upon
and affeCt other Matter without mutual Con
tact 5 that diftant Bodies Ihould aCt upon each
other through a Vacuum without the interven
tion o f fomething elfe by and through which
Origin and 'Frame o f the W orld. 2?

the a<5tion may be conveyed from one to the
other. W e will not obfeure and perplex with
multitude o f words, what is fo clear and evi
dent by its own light, and muft needs be allow
ed by all, that have any competent ufe o f Think
ing, and are initiated into, I do not fay the My-
fteries, but the plaineft Principles o f Philofophy.
N o w mutual Gravitation or Attraction (in our
prefent acception o f the W ords) is the fame
thing with T h is ; ’tis an operation or vertue
or influence o f diftant Bodies upon each other
through an empty Interval, without any Efflu
via or Exhalations or other corporeal Medium
to convey and tranfmit it. This Power there
fore cannot be innate and eflential to Matter.
And if it be not eflential 5 it is confequently
mofl: manifeft (feeing it doth not depend upon
M otion or Reft or Figure or Pofition o f Parts,
which are all the ways that Matter can diver-
fifv it felf) that it could never fupervene to it,
unlefs imprefs’d and infufed into it by an im
material and divine Power.
W e have proved, that a Power o f mutual
Gravitation, without contact or impulfe, can
in no-wife be attributed to mere Matter: or if
it cou ld ; we (hall prefently (hew, that it would
be wholly unable to form the World out o f
Chaos. But by the way ; what if it be made
appear, that there is really fuch a Power o f
Gravity
A Confutation of Atheifm from the

Gravity perpetually acting in the conftitution
o f the prefent Syftem ? This would be a new
and invincible Argument for the Being o f G o d :
being a direCt and pofitive proof, that an im
material living Mind doth inform and actuate
the dead Matter, and fupport the Frame o f the
World. 1 will lay before you fome certain
P h e n o m e n a o f Nature; and leave it to your
confideration from what Principle they can
proceed. T is demonftrated, That the Sun,
Moon and all the Planets do reciprocally gra
vitate one toward another: that the Gravita
ting power o f each o f Thefe is exactly propor
tional to their Matter, and arifes from the Lve-
ral Gravitations or Attractions o f every indi
vidual Particle that compofe the whole Mafs:
that all Matter near the Surface o f the Earth,
for example, doth not only gravitate down
wards, but upwards alfo ana fide-ways and to
ward all imaginable Points; though the Ten
dency downwards be predominant and alone
difcernible, becaufe o f the Greatnefsand Near-
nefs o f the attracting Body, the Earth: that e-
very Particle o f the whole Syftem doth attract
and is attracted by all the reft, All operating
upon A ll: that this V n iv e r f a l A ttr a c tio n or G ra
v ita tio n is an inceftant, regular and uniform
Action by certain and eftablilhed Laws accord
ing to Quantity o f Matter and Longitude o f
Diftance:
Origin and Frame of the World.’ 31

Diftance: that it cannot be deftroycd nor im
pair’d nor augmented by any thing, neither by
Motion nor Reft, nor Situation nor Pofture,
nor alteration o f Form, nor diverfity o f Me
dium: that it is not a Magnetical Power, nor
the efftd o f a Vortical Motion; thofe com
mon attempts toward the Explication o f Gra
vity : Thefe things, I fay, are fully demonftra-
ted, as matters of Fad, by that very ingenious pm*. Na-
Author, whom we cited before. Now how is S i*
it poftible that thefe things Ihould be efEded
by any Material and Mechanical Agent ? We
have evinced* that mere Matter cannot operate
upon Matter without mutual Gontad. It re
mains then,that thefe Phenomena are produced
e ith e r by the intervention o f Air ot M t h t r or o-
ther fuch medium, that communicates the Im-
prulfe from one Body to another; qr by Efflu
via and Spirits that are emitted from the one,
and pervene to the other. W e can conceive
no other way o f performing them Mechani
cally. But what impulfe or agitation can be
propagated through the iEther from one Parti
cle entombed and wedged in the very Cen
ter o f the Earth to another in the Center o f S a
tu r n ? Yet even thofe two Particles do recipro
cally afted each other with the fame force and
Vigour* as they would do at the fame diftance
in any ocher Situation imaginable. And becaufe

the Impulfe from this Particle is not directed
to That only ; but to all the reft in the Uni-
verfe, to all quatters and regions, at once in
variably and inceftantly: to do this mechani
c a l^ the fame phyfical Point o f Matter muft
move all manner o f ways equally and corrftant-
ly in the fame inftant and moment; which is
flatly impoflible. But if this Particle cannot pro
pagate Motion; much lefs can it fend out Efflu
via to all points without intermiflion or varia
tion ; fuch multitudes o f Effluvia as to lay hold
on every Atom in the Univerfe without miffing
o f one. Nay every Angle Particle o f the very
Effluvia (feeing they alfo attract and gravitate)
muft in this Suppofition emit other fecondary
Effluvia all the World over; and thofe others
ftill emit more, and fo in infinitum. N ow if
thefe things be repugnant to human reafon ;
we have great reafon to affirm, That Univer-
fal Gravitation, a thing certainly exiftent in Na
ture, is above all Mechanifm and material Cau-
fes, and proceeds from a higher principle, a
Divine energy and impreffion.
III. Thirdly we affirm ; That, though we
fhould allow, that reciprocal Attra&ion is eflen-
tial to Matter 5 yet the Atoms o f a Chaos could
never fo convene by it, as to form the prefent
Syftcm ; or if they could form it, yet it could
neither acquire thefe Revolutions, nor fubfift
in
B EN TLEY : A C O N F U T A T IO N O F A TH EISM (II) 345
Origin and Frame of the World, 33

in the prefent condition, without the Confer-
vation and Providence of a Divine Being.
( i .) For firft, if the Matter o f the Univerfe, and
confequently the Space through which it's diffu-
fed, befuppofed to be Finite (and I think it might
be demonftrated to be fo 5 but that we have al
ready exceeded the juft meafures o f a Sermon)
then, ftnce every fingle Particle hath an innate
Gravitation toward all others, proportionated by
Matter and Diftance: it evidently appears, that
the outward Atoms o f the Chaos would necefla-
rily tend inwards and defcend from all quarters
toward the Middle o f the w hole Space (for in re-
fpe£t to every Atom there would lie through the
Middle the greateft quantity o f Matter and the
moft vigorous Attra&ion) and would there form
and conftitute one huge fphserical M afs; which
would be the only Body in the Univerfe. It is
plain therefore, that upon this Suppofition the
Matter o f the Chaos could never compofe fuch
divided and different Maffes, as the Starrs and
Planets o f the prefent World.
But allowing our Adverfaries, that The Pla
nets might be compofed: yet however they could
not poffibly acquire fuch Revolutions in Circu
lar Orbs, or (which is all one to our prefent pur-
pofe) in Ellipses very little Eccentric. For let them
aflign any place where the Planets were formed.
Was it nearer to the Sun, than the prefent diftan-
ces are ? But that is notoriouflyabfurd: for then
E they
34 A Confutation ofAtheifm from the

they muft have afcended from the place o f their
Formation, againft the effential property o f mu
tual Attraction. Or were each formed in the fame
Orbs, in which they now move ? But then they
muft have moved from the Point o f Reft, in an
horizontal Line without any inclination or de-
fcent. Now there is no natural Caufe, neither
Innate Gravity nor Impulfe o f external Matter*
that could beget fuch a Motion. For Gravity a-
lone muft have carried them downwards to the
Vicinity o f the Sun. And that the ambient AEther
is too liquid and empty, toimpellthem horizon
tally with that prodigious celerity, we have fufti-
ciently proved before. Or were they made in fome
higher regions o f the Heavens; and from thence
defcended by their eftential Gravity, till they all
arrived at their refpeCtive Orbs; each with its pre-
fent degree o f Velocity, acquired by th: fall? But
then why did they not continue their defcent, till
they were contiguous to the Sun 5 whither both
Mutual Attraction and Impetus carried them ?
What natural Agent could turn them afide,could
impell them fo ftrongly with a tranfverfe Side-
blow againft that tremendous Weight and Ra
pidity, when whole Worlds are a falling? But
though we Ihould fuppofe, that by fome crofs
attraction or other they might acquire an obli
quity o f defcent, fo as to mifs the body o f the
Sim, and to fall on one fide o f i t : then indeed
the force o f their Fall would carry them quite
beyond
Origin and Vrame of the World. 35

beyond i t ; and fo they might fetch a com-
pafs about it, and then return and afcend by
the fame fteps and degrees o f Motion and Ve
locity, with which they defcended before. Such
an eccentric Motion as this, muclf after the
manner that Comets revolve about the Sun, they
might poflibly acquire by their innate principle
o f Gravity : but circular Revolutions in concen
tric Orbs about the Sun or other central Body
could in no-wife be attain’d without the power
o f the Divine Arm. For the Cafe of the Plane
tary Motions is this. Let us conceive all the Pla
nets to be formed or conftituted with their Cen
ters in their feveralOrbs; and at once to be im-
prefs’d on them this Gravitating Energy toward
all other Matter, and a tranfverfe Impulfe o f a
juft quantity in each^ projecting them directly
in Tangents to thofe Orbs. The Compound
Motion, which arifes from this Gravitation and
Projection together, defcribes the prefent Revo
lutions o f the Primary Planets about the Sun, and
o f the Secondary about Thofe: the Gravity pro
hibiting, that they cannot recede from the Cen
ters of their Motions; and the tranfverfe Impulfe
with-holding,that they cannot approach to them.
N ow although Gravity could be innate(which we
have proved that it cannot be) yet certainly this
projected, this tranfverfe and violent Motion can
only be afcribed to theRight hand o f the m ofl h ig h
G od^C reator o f H e a v e n a n d E a r th .
E 2 But
348 B EN T LE Y : A C O N F U T A T IO N O F A TH E ISM (II)

But finally, though we grant, that thefe Circu
lar Revolutions could be naturally attained; or,
if they will, that this very individual World in
its prefent pofture and motion was actually form
ed out o f Chaos by Mechanical Caufes: yet it
requires a Divine Power and Providence to have
conferved it folong in the prefent Bate and con
dition. W e have (hewed, that there is a Tranf-
verfe Impulfe imprefs’d upon the Planets, which
retains them in their feveral Orbs, that they be
not drawn down by their gravitating Powers to
ward the Sun or other central Bodies. Gravity
we underftand to be a conftant Energy or Facul
ty (which God hath infufed into Matter) perpe
tually adting by certain Meafures and (naturally)
inviolable Laws $ I fay, a F a c u lty and Power: for
we cannot conceive that the A f t o f Gravitation
o f this prefent Moment can propagate it felf or
produce that o f the next. But ’tis otherwife as to
the Tranfverfe M otion; which (by reafon o f the
Inactivity o f Matter and its inability to change
its prefent State either o f Moving or Retting )
would from one fingle Impulfe continue for ever
equal and uniform, unlefs changed by the refi-
ftence o f occurring Bodies or by a Gravitating
Power; fo that the Planets, fince they move Ho
rizontally (whereby Gravity doth not afFedt their
fwiftnefs) and through the liquid and unrefifting
Spaces o f the Heavens ( where either no Bo
dies at all or inconfiderable ones do occur) may
pre-
Origin and Frame of the World’ 37

preferve the fame Velocity which the firft Ijnpulfe
impreft upon them, not only for five or fix thou-
fand years, but many Millions o f Millions. It
appears then, that if there was but One Vaft Sun
in the Univerfe, and all the reft were Planets, re
volving around him in Concentric Orbs, at con
venient Diftances: fuch a Syftem as that would
very long endure; could it but naturally have a
Principle o f Mutual Attraction, and be once actu
ally put into Circular Motions. But the Frame
o f the prefent World hath a quite different ftruc-
ture: here’s an innumerable multitude o f Fixt
Starrs or Suns 5 all o f which are demonftrated
( and fuppofed alfo by our Adverfaries) to have
Mutual Attraction: or if they have not ; even
N o t to have it is an equal Proof o f a Divine Be
ing, that hath fo arbitrarily indued Matter with
a Power o f Gravity not elfential to it, and hath
confined its aCtion to the Matter o f its own So
lar Syftem : I fay, all the Fixt Starrs have a prin
ciple o f mutual Gravitation; and yet they are
neither revolved about a common Center, nor
have any Tranfverfe Impulfe nor any thing elfe
to reftrain them from approaching toward each
other, as their Gravitating Powers incite them.
N ow what Natural Caufecan overcome Nature
it felf? What is it that holds and keeps them in
fixed Stations and Intervals againft an incefiant
and inherent Tendency to defert them ? Nothing
could hinder, but that the Outward Starrs with
their
38 A Confutation ofAtbeifm from the

their Syftems o f Planets mud necedarily have
defcended toward the middlemod Syftem o f the
Univerfe, whither all would be the mod drongly
attracted from all parts o f a Finite Space. It is
evident therefore that the prefent Frame o f Sun
and Fixt Starrs could not poflibiy fnbfid without
the Providence o f that almighty Deity, who f p a k e
pfa\. 148. th e w ord a n d they w ere m a d e , who c o m m a n d e d a n d
th ey w ere c rea te d ; who h a th m a d e th e m F a fi fo r
e v e r a n d e v e r , a n d h a th g i v e n th e m a L a w , w h ich
fh a ll n ot be broken.
(2.) And fecondly in the Suppofition o f an in
f in ite Chaos, ’tis hard indeed to determin, what
would follow in this imaginary Cafe from an in
nate Principle o f Gravity. But to haden .to a
conclusion* we will grant for the prefent, that the
diffiifed Matter might convene into an infinite
Number o f great Maffes at great didances from
one another, like the Starrs and Planets o f this
vifible part o f the World. But then it is impofli-
ble, that the Planets fhould naturally attain thefe
circular Revolutions, either by intrinfec Gravita
tion or the impulfe o f ambient Bodies. It is plain,
here is no difference as to this ; whether the
World be Infinite or Finite: fo that the fame Ar
guments that we have ufed before, may be equal
ly urged in this Suppofition. And though we
fhould concede, that thefe Revolutions might be
acquired, and that all were fettled and condiru-
ted in the prefent State and Podure o f Things 5
yet,
B EN T LE Y : A C O N F U T A T IO N O F A TH E ISM (II) 351
Origin and "Frame of the World. 39

yet,we fay,thecontinuance o f this Frame and Or-*
der for fo long a duration as the known ages o f
the World mult neceftarily infer the Exigence o f
God. For though the Univerfe was Infinite, the
Fixt Starrs could not be fixed, but would natural
ly convene together, and confound Syftem with
Syftem : for, all mutually attracting, every one
would move whither it was moil powerfully
drawn. This, they may fay, is indubitable in the
cafe o f a Finite World, where fome Syftems muft
needs be Outmoft, and therefore be drawn to
ward the Middle: but when Infinite Syftems fuc-
ceed one another through an Infinite Space, and
none is either inward or outward; may not all
the Syftems be fituatedin an accurate Poife; and,
becaufe equally attracted on all Tides, remain fix
ed and unmoved ? But to this we reply; That un-
lefs the very mathematical Center of Gravity o f
every Syftem be placed and fixed in the very ma
thematical Center o f the Attra&ive Power o f all
the reft 5 they cannot be evenly attracted on all
fides, but muft preponderate fome way or other.
N ow he that confiders,what a mathematical Cen
ter is, and that Quantity is infinitly divifible; will
never be perfuaded, that fuch an Univerfal Equi
librium arifing from the coincidence o f Infinite
Centers can naturally be acquired or maintain'd.
If they fay 5 that upon theSuppofition o f Infinite.
Matter, every Syftem would be infinitly, and
therefore equally attracted on all fides 5 and con-
fequently
352 B E N T LE Y : A C O N F U T A T IO N O F A TH EISM (II)
40 A Confutation ofAtheifm, & c.

fequently would reft in an exact Equilibrium, be
the Center of its Gravity in what Pofition foever:
This will overthrow their very Hypotheiis 5 at
this rate in an infmite Chaos nothing at ail could
be formed 5 no Particles could convene by mu
tual Attraction; for every one there rauft have
Infinite Matter around it, and therefore muft reft
for ever being evenly balanced between Infinite
Attractions. Even the Planets upon this principle
muft gravitate no more toward the Sun, than a-
ny other w ay: fo that they would not revolve
in curve Lines, but fly away in direct Tangents,
till they ftruck againft other Planets or Starrs in
fome remote regions o f the Infinite Space. An e-
qual Attraction on all fides o f all Matter is juft
equal to no Attraction at all: and by this means
all the Motion in the Univerfe muft proceed
from external Impulfe alone 5 which we have
proved before to be an incompetent Caufe for
the Formation o f a World.
And now, O thou almighty and eternal Crea
tor, h a v in g c o n fid e r d th e H e a v e n s th e w o r^ o f th y
pfai. 8. fin g e rs , th e M oon a n d th e S ta r r s w h ich th o u haft or
with all the company of Heaven we laud
d a in e d ,
and magnify thy glorious N am e, evermore
praifing thee and faying 3 Holy, Holy, Holy,
Lord God of Hofts, Heaven and Earth are full
o f thy G lory: Glory be to thee, O Lord moft
High-
F I N I S .
BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (III) 353
Confutation of $ttjetfm
FROM THE
Origin and Yrame of the WO K L D.
P A R T II.
SERMON Preached at
St.Martins in the Fields,

N O F E M IB E X the 7*- 1691.
Being the S e v e n th o f the Ledture Founded by
the Honourable (R 0 ,B E (R T B O T L E , Efquire.
By R I C H A R D B E N T LE T, M -A .
Chaplain to the Right Reverend Father in God,
E D W A R D , Lord Bilhop of W orcefter.
L O N D O N ,
Printed for H . Mortlock at the Phcenix in
St. P ad ’s Church-yard. 1693.
354 BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (III)
im prim atur.
Ra. Barker, R mo in Chrifto Patri
ac D noD no Jobami Archiep. Can-
taar. a Sacris Domeft.
LAM BH ITH \
Novemb. 10.
1 6 9 Z.
( 3)
A d s X IV . 1 1, 6 c.
That ye fhould turn from thefe vanities unto the
living God, who made Heaven and Earth
and the Sea, and all things that are there
in : Who in times \paft fufferd all Nations to
walk, in their own ways. Neverthelefs, he left
not himfelf without witnefs, in that he did
Good, and gave us Rain from Heaven, and
fmitfull Seafons, filling our hearts with Food
and Gladnefs.
Aving abundantly proved in our Laft Ex-
H erdtfe, T h at the Frame of the prefenC

World could neither be made nor prefer-
ved without the Pouter of G od; we (hall now con-
fider the ftru&ure and motions of our own Sy-
ftem , if any characters of Divine Wifdom and
Goodnefl may be difcoverable by us. And even
at the firft and general View it very evidently ap
pears to us (which is our F O U R T H and Laft
Propofition,) T h at the Order and Beauty of the
Syftematical Parts of the World, the DiTcernible
Ends and Final Caufes of them, the 70 or
Meliority above what was neceffary to be, do e-
vince by a reflex Argument, that it could not be
produced by Mechanifm or Chance, but by an
B 2 Intel-

Intelligent and Benign Agent, that by his excellent
Wifdom made the H eavens,
But before we engage in this Difquifition, we
mull offer one neceffary Caution; that we need
not nor do not confine and determin the purpo-
fes of God in creating all Mundane Bodies, mere
ly to Human Ends and Llfes. N o t that we be
lieve it laborious and painfull to Omnipotence to
create a World out of N othing; or more labori
ous to create a great World, than a fmall o n e :
fo as we might think it difagreeable to the Majefty
and Tranquillity of the Divine Nature to take
fo much pains for our fakes. N o r do we count
it any abfurdity, that fuch a vail and immenfe
llnivcrfe fhould be made for the foie ufe of fuch
mean and unworthy Creatures as the Children o f
Men. For if we confider the Dignity of an Intel
ligent Being, and put that in the fcales againfl:
brute inanimate Matter ; we may affirm, with
out over valuing Humane Nature, that the Soul
of one vertuous and religious Man is of greater
worth and excellency than the Sun and his Pla
nets and all the Starrs in the World. If therefore
it could appear, that all the Mundane Bodies are
fome way conducible to the fervice of Man ; if all
were as beneficial to us, as the Polar Starrs were
formerly for Navigation : as the Moon is for the
flowing and ebbing of Tides, by which an inefti-
mable
Origin and Frame of the World. 5

mable advantage accrues to the W orld; for her
officious Courtefy on dark Winter nights, efpeci-
ally to the more Northern Nations, who in a
continual Night it may be of a whole month are
fo pretty well accommodated by the Light of the
Moon reflected from frozen Snow, that they do
not much envy their Jntipodes a month's prefence
of the Sun: if all the Heavenly Bodies were thus
ferviceable to us, we fliould not be backward to
affign their ufefulnefs to Mankind, as the foie end
of their Creation. But we dare not undertake to
(hew, what advantage is brought to Us by thofe
innumerable Starrs in the Galaxy and other parts
of the Firmament, not difcernible by naked eyes*
and yet each many thoufand times bigger than
the whole body of the Earth : If you fay, they
beget in us a great Idea and Veneration of the
mighty Author and Governer of fuch ftupendious
Bodies, and excite and elevate our minds to his
adoration and praifej you fay very truly and well.
But would it not raiie in us a higher apprehen-
fion of the infinite Majefty and boundlefs Bene
ficence of God, to fuppofe chat thofe remote and
vaft Bodies were formed, not merely upon Our
account to be peept at through an Optick Glafs,
but for different ends and nobler purpofes ? And
yet who will deny, but that there are great multi
tudes of lucid Starrs even beyond the reach of the
b e ff
3 58 BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (III)
£ A Confutation ofAt hoifmfrom the

heft Telefcopes; and that every vifible Starr may
have opake Planets revolve about them , which
we cannot difcover ? Now if they were not crea
ted for Our fakes; it is certain and evident, that
they were not made for their own. For Matter
hath no life nor perception, is not confcious of
its own exiftence, nor capable of happinefs, nor
gives the Sacrifice of Praife and Worfhip to the
Author of its Being. It remains therefore, that
all Bodies were formed for the fake of Intelligent
M inds: and as the Earth was principally defigned
for the Being and Service and Contemplation of
Men ; why may not all other Planets be created
for the like Ufes, each for their own Inhabitants
which have Life and Underftanding ? If any man
will indulge himfelf in this Speculation, he need
not quarrel with revealed Religion upon fuch an
account. The Holy Scriptures do not forbid him
to fuppole as great a Multitude of Syftems and as
much inhabited, as he pleafes. ’Tis true ; there
is no mention in Mofes s Narrative of the Crea
tion, of any People in other Planets. But it plain
ly appears, that the Sacred Hiftorian doth only
treat of the Origins of Terreftrial Animals: he
hath given us no account of God’s creating the
Angels j and yet the fame Author in the enfuing
parts of the Pentateuch makes not unfrequent
mention of the Angels o f God. Neither need we
be
Origin and Vrame of tbeWorld. 7

be follicitous about the condition of thofe Plane
tary People, nor raife frivolous Difputes, how far
they may participate in the miferies of A d a m s Fall,
or in the benefits of Chrift’s Incarnation. As if,
becaufe they are fuppofed to be R ation al they muft
needs be concluded to be M en ? For what is
Man ? not a ^ ea fm a b le Animal merely, for that
is not an adequate and diftinguifhing Definition;
but a Rational Mind of fuch particular Faculties*
united to an Organical Body of fuch a certain
Structure and Form , in fuch peculiar Laws of
Connexion between the Operations and Affecti
ons of the Mind and the Motions of the Body ?.
N ow God Almighty by the inexhaufted fecundi
ty of his creative Power may have made innu
merable Orders and ClafTes of Rational M inds;
fome higher in natural perfections, others inferior
to Human Souls. But a Mind of fuperior or
meaner capacities than Human would conftitute
a different Species, though united to a Human
Body in the fame Laws of Connexion : and a
Mind of Human Capacities would make another
Species, if united to a different Body in different
Laws of Connexion: For this Sympathetical Uni
on of a Rational Soul with Matter, fo as to pro
duce a Vital communication between them, is an
arbitrary inftitution of the Divine Wifdom : there
is no reafon nor foundation in the feparate natures
g A Confutation of Atheifm from the

of either fubflance, why any Motion in the Body
fhould produce any Senfation at all in the Soul;
or why This motion fhould produce T h at parti
cular Senfation, rather than any other. God there
fore may have join’d Immaterial Souls, even of
the fame Clafs and Capacities in their feparate
State, to other kinds of Bodies and in other Laws
of Union j and from thofe different Laws of Uni
on there will arife quite different affections and
natures and fpecies of the compound Beings. So
that we ought not upon any account to conclude,
that if there be Rational Inhabitants in the Moon
o r M ars o r any unknown Planets of other Syflems,
they muff therefore have Human Nature, or be
involved in the Circumflances of Our World.
And thus much was neceffary to be here inculca
ted (which will obviate and preclude the m oll
coniiderable objections o f our Adverfaries) that
we do not determin the Final Caufes and Ufeful-
nefs of the Syflematical parts of the World, mere
ly as they have refpedt to the Exigencies or Con
veniences of Human Life.
Let us now turn our thoughts and imaginati
ons to the Frame of our Syflem, if there we m ay
trace any vifible footfleps of Divine Wifdom and
Beneficence. But we are all liable to many mi-
flakes by the prejudices of Childhood and Youth,
which few of us ever correct by a ferious fcru-
tiny

tiny in our riper years, and a Contemplation of
the Phenom ena of Nature in their Caules and Be
ginnings. What we have always feen to be done
in one conflant and uniform m anner; we are
apt to imagin there was but that one way of do
ing it, and it could not be otherwife. This is a
great error and impediment in a diiquiiition of
this nature : to remedy which, we ought to con-
fider every thing as not yet in Being ; and then
diligently examin, if it mull needs have been at
all, or what other ways it might have been as
poffibly as the prefent; and if we find a greater
Good and Utility in the prefent con/litution, than
would have accrued either from the total Priva
tion of it, or from other frames and ftrudhires
that might as poffibly have been as I t: we may
then reafonably conclude, that the prefent con-
Ilitution proceeded neither from rhe neceffity of
material Caufes nor the blind fhuffles of an ima
ginary Chance, but from an Intelligent and Good
Being, that formed it that particular way out o f
choice and delign. And efpecially if this Uleful-
nefs be confpicuous not in one or a few only,
but in a long train and feries of Things, this will
give us a firm and infallible aflurance, that we
have not pafs’d a wrong Judgment.
B I. Let
io A Confutation ofAtbeifn from the

I. Let us proceed therefore by this excellent
Rule in the contemplation of Our Syfiem. 'Tis
evident that all the Planets receive Heat and Light
from the body of the Sun. Our own Earth in
particular would be barren and defolate, a dead
dark lump of Clay, without the benign influence
of the Solar Raves; which without quefiion is
true of all the other Planets. It is good therefore,
that there fhould be a Sun to w?arm and cherifh
the Seeds of Plants, and excite them to Vegeta
tion ; to impart an uninterrupted Light to all
parts of his SyAem for the SubfiAence of Animals,
But how came the Sun to be Luminous ? not
from the neceflity of natural Caufes, or the con-
Aitution of the Heavens. All the Planets might
have moved about him in the fame Orbs and the
fame degrees of Velocity as now; and yet the
Sun might have been an opake and cold Body
like Them. For as the fix Primary Planets re
volve about H im , fo the Secondary ones are
moved about Them , the Moon about the Earth,
the Satellites about Ju piter, and others about S a
turn ; the one as regularly as the other, in the
fame Sefquialteral proportion of their Periodical
motions to their Orbs. So that, though we fup-
pofe the prefent ExiAence and Confervation of
the Syfiem, yet the Sun might have been a Body
without Light or Heat of the fame kind with the
Earth

Earth and Ju piter and Satu rn . But then what hor
rid darknefs and defolation muft have reign'd in
the World ? It had been unfit for the Divine pur-
poles in creating vegetable and fenfitive and ratio
nal Creatures. It was therefore the contrivance
and choice of a W ife and Good Being ; that the
Central Sun fhould be a Lucid Body, to com
municate warmth and light and life to the Planets
around him.
II. We have Hiewed in our Laft, that the con
centric Revolutions of the Planets about the Sun
proceed from a compound M otion; a Gravita
tion toward the Sun, which is a conftant Energy
infufed into Matter by the Author of all things,
and a projected tranfverfe Impulfe in Tangents
to their feveral Orbs, that was imprefs’d at firft
by the Divine Arm, and will carry them around
till the end of the World. But now admitting
that Gravity may be eflential to M atter; and that
a tranfverfe Impulfe might be acquired too by
Natural Caufes, yet to make all the Planets move
about the Sun in circular O rb s; there mult be
given to each a determinate Impulfe, thefe pre
lent particular degrees of Velocity which they now
have, in proportion to their Diftances from the
Sun and to the quantity of the Solar Matter. For
had the Velocities of the feveral Planets been
greater or leis than they are now, at the fame di-
B 2 fiances
12 A Confutation of Atheifm from the

pfTNa ^ ances fr°m die Sun ; or had their Distances
tur.Prin- from the Sun, or the quantity of the Sun’s Mat-
c,p' at ' ter and confequently his Attractive Power been

greater or lefs than they are now, with the fame
Velocities: they would not have revolved in con
centric Circles as they do, but have moved in
Hyperbola’s or Parabola’s or in Ellipfes very Ec
centric. The fame may be faid of the Velocities
of the Secondary Planets with refpeCt to their Di-
ftances from the Centers of Their Orbs, and to
the Quantities o f the Matter of thofe Central Bo
dies. Now that all thefe Diftances and Motions
and Quantities of Matter fhould be fo accurate
ly and harmonioufly adjuftecl in this great Varie
ty of our Syftem, is above the fortuitous Hits of
blind material Caufes, and m ud certainly flow
from that eternal Fountain of Wifdom, theCrea-
1 sni( d- tor of Heaven and Earth, who always a B s Geomc-
trk a lly , by juft and adequate numbers and weights
and meaiures. And let us examin it further by
our Critical R ule: Are the prefent Revolutions
in circular Orbs more beneficial, than the other
would be ? If the Planets had moved in thofe
Lines above named ; fometimes they would have
approached to the Sun as near as the Orb of M e r
cury , and fometimes have exorbitated beyond the
diftance of S a tu r n : and fome have quite left the
Sun without ever returning. Now the very con-
ftitution

ftitucionof a Planet would be corrupted and de-
ftroyed by fuch a change o f die Interval between
it and the Sun: no living thing could have en
dured fuch unsaleable excelfes of Heat and Cold :
all the Animals of our Earth muft inevitably have
perifhed, or rather never have been. So that as
fare as it is good, very good, that Human Nature Gen. i.
fhould exift; fo certain it is that the circular Re
volutions of the Earth (and Planets) rather than
thofe other Motions which might as poffibly have
been, do declare not only the Power of Cod, but
his W ifdom and G oodnefi
III. It is manifeft by our laft Difcourfe, that
the /Ethereal Spaces are perfectly fluid; they nei
ther aflift nor retard, neither guide nor divert the
Revolutions o f the Planets; which rowl through
thofe Regions as free and unrefifted, as if they
moved in a Vacuum. So that any of them might •
as poflibly have moved in oppoflte Courfes to
the prefent, and in Planes eroding the Plane of
the Ecclipric in any kind o f Angles. Now if the
Syftem had been fortuitoufly formed by the con
vening Matter of a C haos; how is it conceivable,
that all the Planets both Primary and Secondary,
fhould revolve the fame Way from the Weft to
the Eaft, and that in the fame Plane too without
any confiderable variation ? N o natural and ne-
celfary Cauft could fo deter min their morions j

and ’tis millions of millions odds to an unit in
fuch a C ad of a Chance. Such an apt and regu
lar Harmony, fuch an admirable Order and Beau
ty mud defervedly be afcribed to Divine Art and
ConduCt. Efpecially if we confider, that the
fmalled Planets are fituaud neared: the Sun and
each other; whereas Jupiter and S a tu rn , that are
vaflly greater than the red: and have many Satel
lites about them, are wifely removed to the ex
treme Regions of the Sydem, and placed at an
immenfe Didance one from the other. For even
now at this wide interval they are obferved in their
Conjunctions to didurb one anothers motions a
little by their gravitating Powers: but if fuch vail
Malles of Matter had been fituated much nearer
to the Sun or to each other (as they might as eafily
have been, for any mechanical or fortuitous A-
gent) they m ud necedarily have canfed a confi-
derable didurbance and diforder in the whole Sy-
dem.
IV. But let us confider the particular Situation
of our Earth and its didance from the Sun. It is
now placed fo conveniently, that Plants thrive
and flourifh in it, and Animals live: this is mat
ter of fad, and beyond all difpute. But how
came it to pafs at the beginning, that the Earth
moved in its prefent Orb ? We have inewed be
fore, that if Gravity and a Projected Motion be
fitly
Origin and frame of the World. 15

fitly proportion’d, any Planet would freely re
volve at any aftignable diftance within the Space
of the whole Syftem. Was it mere Chance then,
or Divine Counfel and Choice, that conftituted
the Earth in its prefent Situation? T o know this;
we will enquire, if this particular Diftance from
the Sun be better for our Earth and its Creatures,
than a greater or lefs would have been. We may
be mathematically certain, T hat the Heat of the
Sun is according to the denfity of the Sun-beams,
and is reciprocally proportional to the fquare of
the diftance from the Body of the Sun. Now by Kmtm
this Calculation, fuppofe the Earth fliould be re
moved and placed nearer to the Sun, and revolve
for inftance in the Orbit of M ercury ; there the
whole Ocean would even boil with extremity of
Heat, and be all exhaled into V apors; all Plants
and Animals would be fcorched and confumed in
that fiery Furnace. But fuppofe the Earth fliould
he carried to the great Diftance of S a tu r n ; there
the whole Globe would be one F rigid Z o n e , the
deepeft Seas under the very Equator would be
frozen to the bottom • there would be no Life,
no Germination; nor any thing that comes now
under our knowledge or fenfes. It was much bet
ter therefore, that the Earth fliould move where
it does, than in a much greater or lefs Interval
from the body of the Sun. And if you place it at
any

any other Diftance, either lefs or more chan S a
tu rn or M e rc u ry ; you will ft ill alter it for the worfe
proportionally to the Change. It was fituated
therefore where it is, by the Wifdom of fome vo-
luntary A gent; and not by the blind motions of
Fortune or Fate. If any one fhall think with him-
felf, How then can any thing live in M ercury and
Saturn in fuch intenfe degrees of Heat and Cold ?
Let him only confider, that the Matter of each
Planet may have a different denfity and texture
and form, which will difpofe and cjualifie it to be
a&ed on by greater or lefs degrees of Heat ac
cording to their feveral Situations; and that the
Laws of Vegetation and Life and Suftenance and
Propagation are the arbitrary pleafure of God,
and may vary in all Planets according to the Di
vine Appointment and the Exigencies of Things,
in manners incomprehenfible to our Imaginati
ons. 'T is enough for our purpofe, to difeern the
tokens of Wifdom in the placing of our Earth ; if
its prefent conftitution would be fpoifd and de-
ftroy’d , if we could not wear Flefh and Blood,
if we could not have Human Nature at thofe
different Diftances.
V. We have all learnt from the Do&rine of
the Sphere, that the Earth revolves with a double
motion. For while it is carried around the Sun in
the Orbis Magnus once a year, it perpetually wheels
about
Origin and Frame of the World. x7

about its own Axis once in a day and a night:
fi> that in 24 hours fpace it hath turn’d all the
parts of the Equino&ial to the rayes of the Sun.
Now the Ules of this vertiginous motion are very
conlpicuous; for this is it, that gives Day and
Night fuccelfively over the face of the whole
Earth, and makes it habitable all around : with
out this Diurnal Rotation one Hemifphere would
lye dead and torpid in perpetual Darknefs and
Froft, and the bell part of the Other would be
burnt up and depopulated by fo permanent a
Heat. It is better therefore, that the Earth fliould
move about its own Center, and make thefe ufe-
full Viciflitudes of Night and Day, than expofe
always the fame fide to the a&ion of the Sun.
But how came it to be fo moved ? not from any
necelfity of the Laws of Motion or the Syftem of
the Heavens. It might annually have compafied
the Sun, and yet never have once turned upon its
own Axis. This is matter of Fa<5t and Experiment
in the motion of the Moon $ which is carried a- '
bout the Earth in the very fame manner as the
Earth about the Sun, and yet always fhews the
fame face to Us, not once wheeling upon her own
Center. She indeed, notwithllanding this, turns
all her globe to the Sun by moving in her men-
llrual Orb, and enjoys Night and Day alternately,
one day of Hers being equal to about 14 Days
C and
37° BENTLEY: A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM (III)

and Nights of Ours. But fhould the Earth be
deprived of its Diurnal Motion 5 one half of it
could never fee the Day, but mull eternally be
condemned to Solitude and Darknefs. T hat the
Earth therefore revolves about its own Center, is
another eminent token of the Divine Wifdom
and Goodnefs.
VI. But let us compare the mutual proportion
of thefe Diurnal and Annual Revolutions j for
they are diftindt from one another, and have a
different degree of Velocity. The Earth rowls
once about its Axis in a natural d a y : in which
time all the parts of the Equator move fomething
more, than 3 of the Earths Diameters ; which
makes about 1100 in the fpace of a year. But
within the fame annual time the Center of the
Earth is carried above 5 o times as far once round
the Or his M agnus, whofe widenefs we now affume
to be 20000 Terreftrial Diameters. So that the
annual motion is more than 5 o times fwifter than
the Diurnal Rotation, though we meafure the lat
ter from the Equator, where the Celerity is the
«kCircu greace^ ' But K muff nee^s be acknowledged,
lorum vo- fince the Earth revolves not upon a material and
lutioni-
hus. rugged but a geometrical Plane, that their pro
portions may be varied in innumerable degrees;
any of which might have happen’d as probably
as the prefent. What was it then that prefcribed
this
Origin and Yrame of the World. 1 9

this particular Celerity to each Motion, this pro
portion and temperament between them both ?
Let us examin it by our former Rule : if there be
any M eliority in the prefent conftitution ; if any
confiderable Change would be for the worfe. We
will fuppofe then, that the Annual Motion is acce
lerated doubly; fo that a periodical Revolution
would be performed in 6 Months. Such a Change
would be pernicious; not only becaufe the Earth
could not move in a Circular Orb, which we have
confider’d before; but becaufe the Seafons being
then twice as fhort as they are now, the cold Win
ter would overtake us, before our Corn and Fruits
could poffibly be ripe. But {hall this Motion be
as much retarded, and the Seafons lengthen’d in
the fame proportion ? This too would be as fa
tal as the other: for in moll Countries the Earth
would be fo parched and effete by the drought of
the Summer, that it would afford ftill but one
Harveft, as it doth at the prefent: which then
would not be a fufficient (lore for the confumpti-
on of a double Year. But let us fuppofe, that the
D iu rn al Rotation is either confiderably fwifter or
flower. And firffc let it be retarded ; fo as to
make (for example) but 1 1 Circuits in a year:
then every day and night would be as long as
Fifteen are now, not fo fitly proportion’d neither
to the common affairs of Life, nor to the exigen-
C 2 cies
20 A Confutation ofAtbeifm from the

cies of Sleep and Suftenance in a confticucion of
Flefh and Blood. '* But let it then be accelerated 5
and wheel, a thoufand times about its Center,
while the Center defcribes one circle about the
Sun : then an Equinoctial day would confift but
of four Hours, which would be an inconvenient
Change to the inhabitants of the E arth ; fuch
hafty Nights as thofe would give very unwelcome
interruptions to our Labours and Journeys and
other Tranfadtions of the World. It is better
therefore, that the Diurnal and Annual Motions
fhould be fo proportion’d as they are. Let it
therefore be afcribed to the tranfcendent Wifdorn
and Benignity of that God, who hath made a ll things
Very good, and loVeth all things that he hath made.
VII. But let us confider not the Quantity and
Proportion only but the Mode alfo of this Diur
nal Motion. You mull conceive an imaginary
Plane, which pacing through the Centers of the
Sun and the Earth extends it felf on all tid e s as
far as the Firm am ent: this Plane is called the E-
cliptic; and in this the Center of the Earth is
perpetually carried without any deviation. But
then the Axis of the Earth, about which its Diur
nal Rotation is made, is not ere6t to this Plane of
the Ecliptick, but inclines toward it from the Per-
pendiculum in an Angle of 2 5 degrees and a half.
Now why is the Axis of the Earth in this parti
cular
Origin and Frame of the World’ 21

cular pofture, rather than any other ? did it hap
pen by Chance, or proceed from Defign ? T o
determin this queftion, let us lee, as we have done
before, if This be more beneficial to us, than any
other Gonftitution. We all know from the very
Elements of Aftronomy, that this inclined Polition
of the Axis, which keeps always the fame Directi
on and a conftant Parallelifm to it felf, is the foie
caule of thele gratefull and needfull Vicilfitudes of
the four Seafons of the Year, and the Variation in
length of Days. If we take away the Inclination ;
it would abfolutely undo thefe Northern N ations;
the Sun would never come nearer us, than he
doth now on the tenth of M arch or the twelfth of
September. But would we rather part with the T a -
rallehjm ? Let us fuppofe then that the Axis of the
Earth keeps always the fame inclination toward
the body of the Sun: this indeed would caufe a
variety of Days and Nights and Seafons on the
E arth; but then every particular Country would
have always the fame diverfity of Day and Night
and the lame conftitution of Seafon without any
alternation: fome would always have long Nights
and fhort D ays, others again perpetually long
Days and fhort N ig h ts: one Climate would be
fcorched and fwelter'd with everlafting Dog-days -
while an eternal D ecem ber blafted another. This
Purely is not quite fo good as the prefent Order
374 B E N T L E Y : A C O N F U T A T IO N O F A T H E IS M (III)

of Seafons. But fhall the Axis rather obferve n o
conftant inclination to any thing, but vary and
waver at uncertain times and places ? This would
be'a happy Conftitution indeed. There could
be no health, no life nor fubfiftence in fuch an
irregular Syftem ; by thole furprizing Nods of
the Pole we might be tolled backward or forward
from January to June, nay pollibly from th ejantt'
ary of Greenland to the June of Abejffmia. It is better1
therefore upon all accounts that the Axis fhould
be continued in its prefent pollure and dire&ion :
fo that This alfo is a lignal Chara&er of Divine
Wifdorn and Goodnefs.
But becaufe feveral have imagin'd, that this skue
pollure of the Axis is a m od unfortunate and per
nicious thing; that if the Poles had been. ere<5t to
the Plane of the Ecliptic, all mankind would have
enjoyed a very Paradife upon Earth ; a perpetual
Spring, an eternal Calm and Serenity, and the
Longevity of Metbufelah without pains or difea-
fes; we are obliged to confider it a little further.
And firft as to the UniVerfal and (perpetual Spring,
ris a mere Poetical Fancy, and (bating the equa
lity of Days and Nights, a thing of fmall valuej)
as to the other properties is naturally impodible,
being repugnant to the very form of the Globe.
For to thofe People that dwell under or near the
Êquator, this Spring would be a m od peftilent
and
B E N T L E Y : A C O N F U T A T IO N O F A T H E IS M (III) 375

and infupportable Summer; and as for thofe
Countries that are nearer the Poles, in which
number are our own and the m od confiderable
Nations of the World, a Perpetual Spring will not
do their bufinefs,; they mull have longer Days,
a nearer approach of the Sun, and a lefs Obliquity
of bis Rayes • they mull have a Summer and a
Harved-time too to ripen their Grain and Fruits
and Vines, or elfe they mull bid an eternal adieu
to the very bed of their fudenance. For it is plain*
that the Center of the Earth m ud move all along
in the Orbis M agnus \ whether we fuppofe a Perpe
tual ./Equinox, or an oblique Pofition of the Axis.
So that the whole Globe would continue in the fame
Didance from the Sun, and receive the fame quan
tity of Heat from him in a Year or any affignar
ble time, in either Hypothefis. Though the Axis
then had been perpendicular ; yet take the whole
Year about, and we fhould have had the fame
meafure of Heat, that we have now. So that here
lies the quedion 5 Whether is more beneficial, that
we fhould have the fame Yearly quantity of Heat
didributed equally every day, or fo difpofed as it
is, a greater fhare of it in Summer and in Winter
a.lefsJ It m ud needs be allowed, that we have no
Heat to (pare in Summer ; dis very well if it be
diffident for the maturation of Fruits. Now this
being granted : ’tis as certain and manifed, that
an

an even diftribution of the fameYcarly Heat would
never have brought thofe Fruits to maturity, as
this is a known and familiar experiment, T hat
fuch a quantity of Fewel all kindled at once will
caufe Water to boil, which being lighted gradu
ally and fucceflively will never be able to do it. It
is clear therefore, that in the conftitution of a Per
petual ./Equinox the beft part of the Globe would
be defolate and ufelefs: and as to that little that
could be inhabited, there is no reafon to expeCt,
that it would conftantly enjoy that admired Calm
and Serenity. If the aflertion were tru e; yet fome
perhaps may think, that fuch a Felicity, as would
make Navigation impolfible, is not much to be
envied. But ids altogether precarious, and has no
neceflary foundation neither upon Reafon nor Ex
perience. For the Winds and Rains and other af
fections of the Atmofpherc do not folely depend
(as that aflertion fuppofeth) upon the courfe of
the Sun; but partly and perhaps m od frequently
upon Steams and Exhalations from fubterraneous
Heat, upon the Pofitions of the Moon, the Situ
ations of Seas or Mountains or Lakes or Woods,
and many other unknown or uncertain Caufes.
So that, though the Courfe of the Sun fliould be
invariable, and never fwerve from the Equator j
yet the temperament of the Air would be muta
ble neverthelefs, according to the abfence or pre-
B E N T L E Y : A C O N F U T A T IO N O F A T H E IS M (III)

fence or various mixture of the other Caufes. T he
ancient Philofophers for many ages together una-
nimoufly taught, that the Torrid Zone was not
habitable. T he reafons that they went upon were
very fpecious and probable; till the experience
of thefe latter ages evinced them to be erroneous.
They argued from cceleftial Caufes only, the con-
ftant Vicinity of the Sun and the diredtnefs of his
Rayes; never fufpedting, that the Body of the
Earth had fo great an efficiency in the changes of
the A ir; and that then could be the coldeft and
rainieft feafon, the Winter of the Year, when the
Sun was the neareft o f all, and fleer’d diredtly
over mens heads. Which is warning fufficient to
have deterred any man from expecting fuch eter
nal Serenity and Halcyon-days from fo incompe
tent and partial a Caufe, as the conftant Courfe
of the Sun in the dEquinodtial Circle. What ge
neral condition and temperament of Air would
follow upon that Suppofition, we cannot poffibly
define ; for ’tis not caufed by certain and regular
Motions, nor fubjedt to Mathematical Calculati
ons. But if we may make a conjecture from the
prefent Conftitution; we jOhall hardly wifh for a
Perpetual ./Equinox to fave the charges of Weather-
glalfes: for ’tis very well known, that the Months
of M arch and September, the two Êquinoxes of
Our year, are the moft windy and tempeftuons,
D the
378
26 A Confutation of Atbeifm from the

the raoft unfettled and unequable of Seafons in
moft Countries of the World. N ow if this no
tion of an uniform Calm and Serenity be falfe or
precarious; then even the laft fuppofed advantage,
the conjlant Health and L on g evity of Men muft be
given up alfo, as a groundlefs conceit: for this (a c
c o r d in g to the Affertors themfelves) doth folely,
as an effeCt of Nature, depend upon the other.
Nay further, though we fhould allow them their
Perpetual Calm and Êquability of H eat; they
will never be able to prove, that therefore Men
would be fo vivacious as they would have us be
lieve. Nay perhaps the contrary may be inferred,
if we may argue from the prefent experience: For
the Inhabitants of the Torrid Zone, who fuffer
the lead: and fliorteft fecefles of the Sun, and are
within one ftep and degree of a Perpetual /Equi
nox, are not only fhorter lived (generally fpeak-
ing) than other Nations nearer the Poles; but in
ferior to them in Strength and Stature and Cou
rage, and in all the capacities of the Mind. It
appears therefore, that the gradual Viciffitudes of
Heat and Cold are fo far from fhortning the
thread of man s Life, or impairing his intellectual
Faculties ; that very probably they both prolong
the one in fome meafure and exalt and advance
the other. So that Hill we do profefs to adore
the Divine Wifdom and Goodnefs for this va
riety
Origin and Tdrame of the World. 27

riety of Seafons, for Seed-time and h arveji , and cold Gen-s-
and heat , and fununer and winter.
VIII. Come we now to confider the Atmof-
phere, and the exterior Frame and Face of the
Globe ; if we may find any tracks and footfteps
of Wifdom in the Conftitution of Them. I need
not now inform y o u , that the Air is a thin
fluid Body, endued with Elafticity or Springinefs,
and capable of Condenfation and Rarefaction,
Neither Can you be ignorant, that if the Air
fliould be much more expanded or condenfed theAir
than it naturally is, no Animals could live and
breath: it is probable alio, that the Vapors could
not be duly raifed and fupported in i t ; which at
once would deprive the Earth of all its ornament
and glory, of all its living Inhabitants and Vege
tables too. But Ais certainly known and demon-
ftrated, that the Condenfation and Expanfion of
any portion of the Air, is always proportional to
the weight and preflure incumbent upon i t : fo
that if the Atmofphere had been either much grea
ter or lefs than it is, as it might eafily have been,
it would have had in its lowed: region on the
Surface of the Earth a much greater denfity or
tenuity of texture j and confequently have been
unferviceable for Vegetation and Life. It mull
needs therefore be an Intelligent Being that could
fo juftly adapt it to thofe excellent purpofes. ’Tis
D 2 cotv

concluded by Aftronomers, that the Atmofphere
of the Moon hath no Clouds nor Rains, but a
perpetual and uniform ferenity : becaufe nothing
difcoverable in the Lunar Surface is ever cover
ed and abfconded by the interpofition of any
clouds or mills, but fuch as rife from our own
Globe. Now if the Atmofphere of Our Earth
had been of fuch a Conllitution ; there could no
thing, that now grows or breaths in it have been
formed or preferred ; Human Nature m ull have
been quite obliterated out of the Works of the Cre
ation. If our Air had not been a fpringy elafti-
cal Body, no Animal could have exercifed the
very fundion of Refpiration: and yet the ends
and ufes of Refpiration are not ferved by that
Springinefs, but by fome other unknown and fim
sccond“Vs Buâr Quality. For the Air, that in exhaufted Re-
Continua- ceivers of Air-pumps is exhaled from Minerals
p h yfico- and Flelh and Fruits and Liquors, is as true and
S S ’* genuine as to Elafticity and Denfity or Rarefadi-

aBout the ^ as w e re fp jre jn . a n c } y ec ( L js fa < 5 L iti0 US
Air is fo far from being fit to be breathed in, that

it kills Animals in a moment, even fooner than
the very abfenceof all Air, than a Vacuum it felf.
All which do inferr the mod admirable Provi
dence of the Author of Nature ; who foreknew
the necelfity of Rains and Dews to the prefent
ftrudure of Plants, and the ufes of Refpiration
to

to Animals 5 and therefore created thofe corre-
fpondent properties in the Atmofphere of the
Earth.
IX. In the next place let us confider the am
ple provifion of Waters, thofe inexhaufted Trea-
fures of the Ocean: and though fome have grudg- ciuodlate
ed the great lhare that it rakes of the Surface of ris
k j
difiinet
the Earth, yet we fhall propofe this too, as a con-
fpicuous mark and charadter of the Wifdom of
God. For that we may not now fay, that the
vaft A tlantick Ocean is really greater Riches and
of more worth to the World, than if it was chan
ged into a fifth C ontinent; and that the Dry
Land is as yet much too big for its Inhabitants j
and that before they fhall want Room by increa-
fing and multiplying, there may be new H eaven s
and a new E a rth : We dare venture to affirm, that
thefe copious Stores of Waters are no more than
necefiary for the prefent conflitution of our Globe.
For is not the whole Subftance of all Vegetables
mere modified Water ? and confequently of all
Animals too ; all which either feed upon Vegeta
bles or prey upon one another ? Is not an im-
menfe quantity of it continually exhaled by the
Sun, to fill the Atmofphere with Vapors and
Clouds, and feed the Plants of the Earth with the
balm of Dews and the fatnefs of Showrs ? It
feems incredible at firft hearing, that all the Blood
in

in our Bodies fhould circulate in a trice, in a ve
ry few minutes: but I believe it would be more
furprizing, if we knew the fhort and fwift periods
of the great Circulation of Water, that vital Blood
of the Earth which compofeth and nourifheth all
things. If we could but compute that prodigi
ous Mafs of it, that is daily thrown into the chan
nel of the Sea from all the Rivers of the World ;
we fhould then know and admire how much is
perpetually evaporated and call again upon the
Continents to fupply thofe innumerable Streams.
And indeed hence we may difcover not only the
lif e and TSleceJfity but the Caufe too of the vaft-
nels of the Ocean. I never yet heard of any
Nation, that complained they had too broad or
too deep or too many Rivers, or wifhed they
were either fmaller or fewer: they underftand
better than fo, how to value and efteem thofe
ineftimable gifts of Nature. Now fuppofing
that the multitude and largenefs of Rivers ought
to continue as great as now ; we can eafily prove,
that the extent of the Ocean could be no lefs than
it is. For it's evident and neccffary, if we follow
the moft fair and probable Hypothefis, that the
Origin of Fountains is from Vapors and Rain, that
the Receptacle of Waters, into which the mouths
of all thofe Rivers mult empty themfelves, ought
to have fo fpacious a Surface, that as much Water
may

may be continually brulhed offby the Winds and
exhaled by the Sun, as ( befides what falls again
in Showers upon its own Surface) is brought into
it by all the Rivers. Now the Surface of the O-
cean is juft fo wide and no wider: for if more
was evaporated than returns into it again, the Sea
would become left; if left was evaporated, it
would grow bigger. So that, becaufe fince the me
mory of all ages it hath continu’d at a ftand without
confiderable variation, and if it hath gain’d ground
upon one Country, hath loft as much in another;
it muft confequently be exactly proportioned to
the prefent conftitution of Rivers. How rafli there
fore and vain are thofe bufy Projeftors in Specu
lation, that imagin they could recover to the World
many new and noble Countries, in the m oil
happy and temperate Climates, without any da
mage to the old ones, could this fame Mafs of
the Ocean be lodged and circumfcribed in a much
deeper Channel and within narrower Shores !
For by how much they would diminifh the pre-
fent extent of the Sea, fo much they would im
pair the Fertility and Fountains and Rivers of the
Earth: becaufe the quantity of Vapors, that muft
be exhaled to fupply all thefe, would be leffened
proportionally to the bounds of the Ocean; for
the Vapors are not to be meafured from the bulk
of the Water but from the fpace of the Surface. So

....— ......... —u "
chat this alfo doth inferr the luperlative Wifdom
and Goodnefs of God, that he hath treafured up
the Waters in lo deep and fpacious a Storehoufe, the
4 place that he hath founded and appointed f o r them.
U e q u a q u a m n o b is d i v i n i t u s e jfe t r e a t a m
X. B
N a t u r a m r e r u m , t a n t a f l a t p r c e d it a c u lp a . out of Love Math the fea
P r i n c ip l e , q u a n t u m ceeli t e g i t im p e tu s in g e n s ,
In d e a v i d a m p a r t e m m on tes S y lv # q \ f e r a r u m tures and meen of our Earth;
P o ffe d e re , te n e n t' rupes, v a f t a q -, p a lu d e s ,
E t m a r e , q u o d l a t e t e r r a r u m d i j i i n e t e ra s . they do not like this rugged
Lucret l i b . y.
and irregular Surface, thefe
Precipices and Valleys and the gaping Channel of
the Ocean. This with them is Deformity, and
rather carries the face of a Ruin or a rude and
indigefted Lump of Atoms that cafually conve
ned fo, than a Work of Divine Artifice. They
would have the vaft Body o f a Planet to be as
elegant and round as a factitious Globe reprefents
it; to be every where fmooth and equable, and
as plain as the Elyjian Fields. Let us examin, what
weighty reafons they have to difparage the prefenc
conflitution of Nature in fo injurious a manner.
Why, if we fuppofe the Ocean to be dry, and
that we look down upon the empty Channel from
fome higher Region of the Air, how horrid and
ghaftly and unnatural would it look ? Now admit
ting this Suppofition; Let us fuppofe too that the
Soil of this dry Channel is covered with Grafs and
Trees in manner of the Continent, and then fee
what would follow. If a m an could be carried
afleep
Origin and Vrame of the World.

afteep and placed in the very middle of this dry
Ocean ; it muft be allowed, that he could not di-
ftinguifZi it from the inhabited Earth j for if the
bottom flhould be unequal with Shelves and Rocks
and Precipices and Gulfs; thefe being now appa-
rel'd with a vefture of Plants, would only refem-
ble the Mountains and Valleys that he was accuf-
tomed to before 5 but very probably he would
wake in a large and fmooth Plain: for though
the bottom of the Sea were gradually inclin'd and
doping from the Shore to the middle : yet the
additional Acclivity, above what a Level would
feem to have, would be imperceptible in fo fhort
a prolpeft as he could take of it. So that to
make this Man fenfible what a deep Cavity he
was placed in ; he muft be carried fo high in the
Air, till he could fee at one view the whole Breadth
of the Channel, and fo compare the depreftion
of the Middle with the elevation of the Banks.
But then a very fmall skill in Mathematicks is
enough to inftrud us, that before he could arrive
to thatdiftance from the Earth, all the inequality
of Surface would be loft to his View : the wide
Ocean would appear to him like an even and
uniform Plane (uniform as to its Level, though
not as to Light and Shade) though every Rock of
the Sea was as high as the Tico of Teneriff. But
though we fhould grant, that the dry Gulf of the
E Ocean
A Confutation ofAtheifm from the

Ocean would appear vaftly hollow and horrible
from the top of a high C loud: yet what a way
of reafoning is this from the freaks of Imagina
tion, and impoflible Suppositions ? Is the Sea ever
likely to be evaporated by the Sun, or to be
emptied with Buckets ? Why then muft we fancy
this impofiible drynefs; and then upon that ficti
tious account calumniate Nature, as deformed
and ruinous and unworthy of a Divine Author ?
Is there then any phylical deformity in the Fabric
of a Human Body; becaufe our Imagination can
ftrip it of its Mufcles and Skin, and Shew us the
Scragged and knotty Backbone, the gaping and
ghailly Jaws, and all the Sceleton underneath ?
We have Shewed before, that the Sea could not be
much narrower than it is, without a great lofs to
the World : and muft we now have an Ocean of
mere Flats and Shallows, to the utter ruin of N a
vigation j for fear our heads Should turn giddy
at the imagination of gaping Abyffes and unfa
thomable Gulfs ? But however the Sea-fhores at
leaft Should have been even and uniform, not
crooked and broken as they are into innumerable
Angles and Creeks and In-lets and Bays, without
Beauty or Order, which carry the Marks more
of Chance and Contufion, than of the production
of a wife Creator. This would be a fine bargain
indeed j to part with all our commodious Ports
and
Origin and frame of the World. 35

and Harbours, which the greater the In-let is, are
fo much the better, for the imaginary pleafure of
an open and {freight Shore without any retreat
or (belter from the W inds; which would make
the Sea of no ufe at all as to Navigation and
Commerce. But what apology can we make
for the horrid deformity of Rocks and Crags, of
naked and broken Cliffs, of long Ridges, of bar
ren Mountains; in the convenientell: Latitudes for
Habitation and Fertility, could thofe rude heaps
of Rubbifh and Ruins be removed out of the way ?
We have one general and fufficient anfwer for all
feeming defeats or diforders in the conflitution of
Land or Sea ; that we do not contend to have
the Earth pafs for a Paradife, or to make a very
Heaven of our Globe, we reckon it only as the
Land of our peregrination, and afpire after a better , Heb. n.
and a cceleftial Country. ’Tis enough, if it be fo

framed and conftituted, that by a carefull Con
templation of it we have great reafon to acknow
ledge and adore the Divine Wifdom and Benig
nity of its Author. But to wave this general Re
ply 5 let the Objedlors confider, that thefe fuppo-
fed irregularities m ud have neceffarily come to
pafs from the eftabliflf d Laws of Mechanifm and
the ordinary courfe of Nature. For fuppofing
the Exigence of Sea and Mountains ; if the Banks
of that Sea muft never be jagged and torn by the
E 2 impe-
3 88 B E N T L E Y : A C O N F U T A T IO N O F A T H E IS M (III)
A Confutation ofAtbeifm from the

impetuous affaults or the filent underminings of
W aves; if violent Rains and Tempefts mu ft not
wafh down the Earth and Gravel from the tops
of fome of thofe Mountains, and expofe their na
ked Ribbs to the face of the Sun ; if the Seeds of
fubterraneous Minerals muft not ferment, and
fometimes caufe Earthquakes and furious erupti
ons of Volcano s, and tumble down broken Rocks,
and lay them in confufion : then either all things
muft have been over-ruled miraculoufiy by the
immediate interpolition of God without any me
chanical Affections or fettled Laws of Nature, or
elfe the body of the Earth muft have been as fixed
as Gold or as hard as Adamant and wholly unfit
Gen. r. for Our habitation. So that if it was good in the
fight of God, that the prefent Plants and Animals,
and Human Souls united to Flefh and Blood
Ihould be upon this Earth under a fettled confti-
tution of Nature : thefe fuppofed Inconveniences,
as they were forefeen and permitted by the Author
of that Nature, as neceffary conlequences of
fiich a conftitution $ fo they cannot inferr the leaft
imperfection in his Wifdom and Goodnefs. And
to murmure at them is as unreafonable, as to
complain that he hath made us Men and not An
gels, that he hath placed us upon this Planet, and
not upon fome other in this or another Syftem
which may be thought better than Ours. Let them
alfo
Origin and "Frame of the World. 37

aifo confider, that: this objected Deformity is in
our Imaginations only, and not really in the
Things themfelves. There is no Univerfal Rea-
fon ( I mean fuch as is not confined to Human
Fancy, but will reach through the whole Intel
lectual Univerfe) that a Figure by us called Regu
lar, which hath equal Sides and Angles, is abfo-
lutely more beautifull than any irregular one.
All Pulchritude is relative; and all Bodies
are truly and phyfically beautifull under all pof-
fible Shapes and Proportions 5 that are good in
their Kind, that are fit for their proper ufes and
ends of their Natures. We ought not then to
believe, that the Banks of the Ocean are really
deformed, becaufe they have not the form of a
regular Bulwark ; nor that the Mountains are
mifliapen, becaufe they are not exadt Pyramids
or Cones $ nor that the Starrs are unskilfully pla
ced, becaufe they are not all fituated at uniform
diftances. Thefe are not Natural Irregularities,
but with refpedt to our Fancies o n ly ; nor are
they incommodious to the true Ufes of Life and
the Defigns of Man’s Being on the Earth. Let
them confider, that thefe Ranges of barren Moun
tains by condenfing the Vapors and producing
Rains and Fountains and Rivers, give the very
Plains and Valleys themfelves that Fertility they
boaft of. Let them confider, that thofe Hills
and
38 A Confutation of Atbeifm from the

and Mountains fiipply Us and the Stock of N a
ture with a great variety of excellent Plants. If
there were no inequalities in the Surface of the
Earth, nor in the Seafons of the Year j we fliould
lofe a confiderable fhare of the Vegetable King
dom : for all Plants will not grow in an uniform
Level and the fame temper of Soil, nor with the
fame degree of Heat. Let them confider, that
to thofe Hills and Mountains we are obliged for
all our Metals, and with them for all the con-
veniencies and comforts of Life. T o deprive
us of Metals is to make us mere Savages j to
change our Corn or Rice for the old Arcadian
D iet, our Houfes and Cities for Dens and
Caves, and our Cloathing for Skins of Beafts :
’tis to bereave us of all Arts and Sciences, of
Hiftoryand Letters, ,nay of Revealed Religion too
that ineftimable favour of Heaven, by making
the whole Gofpel a mere Tradition and old Ca
bala without certainty, without authority. Who
would part with thefe Solid and Subftantial Blef-
fings for the little fantaftical pleafantnefs of a
fmooth uniform Convexity and Rotundity of a
Globe ? And yet the misfortune of it is, that the
pleafantView of this imaginary Globe, as well as
the deformed Spectacle of the true one, is founded
upon impoffible Suppofitions. For this equal Con
vexity could never be feen and enjoyed by any
man

man living. T he Inhabitants of fuch an Earth
could have only the fhort profpeid of a little Cir
cular Plane about three Miles around them ; tho’
neither Woods nor Hedges nor artificial Banks
fhould intercept i t : which little too would ap
pear to have an Acclivity on all fides from the
Spectators; fo that every man would have the
Satisfaction of fancying himfclf the lowed, and
that he always dwelt and moved in a Bottom.
Nay, coniidering that in fuch a conditution of
the Earth they could have no means nor indru-
ments of Mathematical Knowledg; there is great
reafon to believe, that, the period of the final Did
folution might overtake them, ere they would have
known or had any Sufpicion that they walked up
on a round Ball. Mud we therefore, to make
this Convexity of the Earth difcernible to the Eye,
fuppofe a man to be lifted up a great hight in the
Air, that he may have a very fpacious Horizon
under one View? But then again, becaufe of the
didance, the convexity and gibboufnefs would
vanidi away ; he would only fee below him a
great circular Flat, as level to his thinking as the
face of the Moon. Are there then fuch ravifhing
Charms in a dull unvaried Flat, to make a fur-
ficient compenfation fo r the ch ief things o f the a n -Deut-ii
cient M ountains , and f o r the precious things o f the lafi-
ing H ills ? N ay we appeal to the fentence of Man
kind 5

kind 5 if a land of H ills and Valleys with an infinite
Variety of Scenes and Profpedis, befides the Profit
that accrues from it, have not more of Beauty too
and Pleafantnefs than a wide uniform Plain; which
if ever it may be faid to be very delightfull, is then
only, when "tis viewed from the top of a Hill. What
<vidc JEli'
an. roar.
were the T em fe otT h eJfaly , fo celebrated in ancient
Hift. lib. flory for their unparalielled pleafantnefs, but a Vale
III.
divided with a River Sc terminated with Hills ? Are
not all the defcriptions of Poets embellifh’d with
filch Ideas, when they would reprefent any places
of fuperlative Delight, and blisfull Seats of the Mu-
fes or the Nymphs, any facred habitations of Gods
orGoddefies? They will never admit that a wide
Flat can be pleafant, no not in the very Elyjian
Fields but thofe too
* V \ v g . f i i n . 6 . A t p a te r s ln c h ile s p c n itu s c o n v a l j e v i r e n t i . L„ 1
& ibid. I b c f u p c r a te j a g u L & ib. E t t u m u lu m c a f i t . m L llt be VUVei lltlCCl
with depreffed Valleys
and fwelling Afcents.
+ Flours worthy of Paradife, which not nice Art They cannot imagin
In Beds and curious Knots, but Nature boon
Powr’d forth profufe on Hill and Dale and Plain. even t Paradife to be a
Paradife Loji, lib. 4 .
place of Pleafure nor
I! For Earth hath this variety from Fleaven Heaven it felf to be
Of Pleafure fituate in Mill and Dale.
Ibid. lib. 6• IIHeaven without them.
Let this therefore be
another Argument of the Divine Wifdom Sc Good-
nefs, that the Surface of the Earth is not uniformly
Convex (as many think it would naturally have
been, if mechanically formed by a Chaos) but di-
ftinguifhed
Origin and Frame of the World. 4.1

ftinguifhed with Mountains and Valleys, and
furrowed from Pole to Pole with the Deep
Channel of the Sea ; and that becaufe of the
to it is better that it fhould be fo.
Give me leave to make one fhort Inference

from what has been faid, which (hall finifh this
prefenc Difcourfe, and with it our Task for the
Year. We have clearly difcovercd many Final
Caufcs and Characters of Wifdom and Contri
vance in the Frame of the inanimate World j as
well as in the Organical Fabrick of the Bodies of
Animals. Now from hence arifeth a new and
invincible Argument, that the prefent Frame of
the World hath not exifted from all Eternity.
For fuch an ufefulnefs of things or a fitnefs of
means to Ends, as neither proceeds from the ne-
ceflity of their Beings, nor can happen to them
by Chance, doth neceflarily inferr. that there
was an Intelligent Being, which was the Au^
thor and Contriver of that Ufefulnefs. We have
formerly demonftrated, that the Body of a Man, Serm. ?
which confifts of an incomprehenfible variety
of Parts all admirably fitted for their peculiar
Functions and the Confervation of the Whole,
could no more be formed fortuitouily; than the
jfFneis of Virgil or any other long Poem with good
Senfe and juft Meafures could be compofed by
F the
42 A Confutation of Atheifm, & c.

the Cafual Combinations of Letters. Now to
purfue this Comparifon; as it is utterly impoffi-
ble to be believed, that fuch a Poem may have
been eternal, tranfcribed from Copy to Copy
without any firft Author and Original: fo it is
equally incredible and impoifible, that the Fabrick
of Human Bodies, which hath fuch excellent and
Divine Artifice, and if I may fo fay, fuch good
Senfe and true Syntax and harmonious Meafures
in its Conftitution, fbould be propagated and
tranfcribed from Father to Son without a firft Pa
rent and Creator of it. An eternal ufefulnefs of
Things, an eternal Good Senfe, cannot poflibly
be conceived without an eternal Wifdom and Un-
derftanding. But that can be no other than that
eternal and omnipotent God j that by Wifdom hath
Prov. 3. founded the Earthy and by Underfunding hath efta-
blifbed the Heavens: T o whom be all Honour
and Glory and Praife and Adoration from hence
forth and for evermore- A M E N .
F I N I S .
V.
H alley a n d the P rin c ip ia
Halley and the P rin c ip ia
R obert E . S c h o f ie l d
JLhe association of Edmond Halley and Isaac Newton was long

and happy, both for them and for us. From 1684 until Newton’s
death, Halley seems to have participated in some way in every one
of the important developments of Newton’s career. In addition to
the major role that Halley played in the publication of the Principia,
we find his name associated with Newton’s in connection with the
Mint, the Opticks, the administration of the Royal Society, and
even Newton’s work on Biblical chronology. From Brewster, we
gather that Halley was involved in the effort to obtain for Newton
a position at the M int .1 Shortly after Newton began his work as
Warden, Halley also began a period of service at the Mint and,
from 1696, for two years was Deputy Comptroller of the Mint at
Chester, one of five branch mints set up to facilitate the recoinage
that took place during the reign of William III. Halley left that
position in 1698, when the branch mints were broken up, to sail
as M aster of H.M.S. Paramour Pink on a scientific expedition to
study the variation of magnetic declination in various parts of the
1 Sir David Brewster, Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac New
ton (Edinburgh, 1855), vol. 2 , pp. 190-192.
397
398 R O B E R T E. S C H O F IE L D
world. When Newton presented a copy of the Opticks to the Royal

Society in 1704, it was Halley who “was desired to peruse it and
give an abstract of it” to the Society .2 Newton was president of
the Royal Society from 1703 to his death in 1727. For eight years
of that presidency (1713-1721), Halley was one of the Secretaries
of the Royal Society and was editor and publisher of the Philosoph
ical Transactions from 1714 to 1719 (he had earlier been editor-pub
lisher of the Phil. Trans, from 1685 to 1692). He appears to have
been almost as jealous of Newton’s reputation as Newton himself,
and in 1727, shortly after Newton’s death, when an article ap
peared questioning Newton’s chronology, Halley even undertook
a partial defense of that, explaining and, in some measure, at
tempting to justify the method by which Newton had arrived at
the dates in question .3
The frequently told story of our debt to Halley for promoting
the publication of the Principia cannot better be epitomized than in
the statements Newton made in his Preface signed May 8, 1686:
In the publication of this work the most acute and universally learned
Mr. Edmund Halley not only assisted me in correcting the errors of the
press and preparing the geometrical figures, but it was through his so
licitations that it came to be published; for when he had obtained of
me my demonstrations of the figure of the celestial orbits, he continu
ally pressed me to communicate the same to the Royal Society, who after
wards, by their kind encouragement and entreaties, engaged me to
think of publishing them.4
From August 1684, when Halley visited Newton at Cambridge
and encouraged the work that resulted in the Principia, through the
period before the presentation of the first book to the Royal So
2 Quoted from the Journal book of the Royal Society, 16th February 1703/4,
by Isaac Weld, A History of the Royal Society (London, 1848), vol. 1, p. 375.
3Phil. Trans. 34, p. 205 (1727).
4 Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy ■. . , Cajori edi
tion of the English translation of Andrew Motte (Berkeley, California, 1947),
p. xviii. See also Brewster, Memoirs, vol. 1, pp. 296-299, 304-307; and the con
temporary and authoritative information supplied by the letter of June 29, 1686
from Halley to Newton, excerpt quoted by Brewster, vol. 1, pp. 446-447; and
printed in entirety by W. W. Rouse Ball, An Essay on Newton’s Principia (London,
1893), pp. 162-163; and by Stephen P. Rigaud, Historical Essay on the First Publi
cation of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia (Oxford, 1838), pp. 35-39.
H A L L E Y A N D T H E P R IN C IP IA 399
ciety, the discovery that the council of the Royal Society was
financially unable to pay for its publication, and Halley’s decision
to undertake the “business of looking after it, and printing it at his
own charge,” 5 Halley was almost as important in the publication
as was Newton himself. Moreover, not only did Halley pay for the
publication, correct the proofs, check the calculations, and work
with the printer; it was even necessary for him to persuade New
ton to submit a major portion of the work for publication .6 There
is considerable justification for the belief, frequently expressed, that
but for Halley the Principia would never have been published.
Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable that Halley
should have made the first public announcement of the publica
tion of the Principia. This announcement took the form of a book
review in the Philosophical Transactions. According to Ball, this was
the only real book review of the Principia to appear at the time,
since the other contemporary review, in the Acta Eruditorum for
June 1688 (pp. 305-315), is and purports to be little more than a
synopsis of the contents .7 T hat the publisher and, in a sense, edi
tor of the work should be the one to write a review of it may in-
5 T. Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London (London, 1756), vol. 4, p. 486.
The finances of the Royal Society appear to have been in serious danger owing
to their publication of Willughby’s De historia piscium. While there seems general
agreement that Halley was not ultimately a loser because of his undertaking, in
spite of the initial risk involved, there is some disagreement as to Halley’s ability,
at the time, to afford such a risk. Both Ball, Essay, pp. 67-68, and Rigaud, His
torical Essay, p. 36, seem to feel (in Rigaud’s words) that Halley undertook to
meet the expense of publishing the Principia “precisely at that period of his life
when he could least afford it.” Sir Henry Lyons, The Royal Society (Cambridge,
1944), p. 103, states that Halley was “in fairly comfortable circumstances when
he undertook to finance . . . the ‘Principia’.” Though it is not easy at this point to
resolve this difference, some support is given to the opinion of Rigaud and Ball
by the fact that a large portion of Halley’s income up to 1684 had been an allow
ance from his father. The death intestate of his father in 1684 instituted a long
litigation between Halley and his stepmother over Halley’s patrimony, which was
not settled until 1693.
6 Newton had taken offense at some claims to priority made by Hooke and sug
gested, in a letter to Halley, that the third book, “De Systemate Mundi,” be sup
pressed. This letter, quoted by Rigaud, p. 63, by Ball, pp. 158-159, and by Brew
ster, vol. 1, pp. 439-445, contains that familiar passage: “Philosophy is such an
impertinently litigious lady, that a man had as good be engaged in lawsuits, as
have to do with her. I found it so formerly, and now I am no sooner come near
her again, but she gives me warning.”
7 Ball, Essay, p. 68 .
deed seem odd. It is true, however, that next to Newton few other
persons were more capable of reviewing a book of that scope—and
certainly Halley is not the last reviewer to have an interest, per
sonal or financial, in the success of a book he reviews.8
It is not surprising that the publication of the Principia should
today be regarded as one of the most important events in the his
tory of science. For over two hundred fifty years the work has been
tested and, in that time, its real stature has scarcely been reduced.
What is perhaps surprising, and is certainly to their credit, is that
large numbers of Newton’s contemporaries, scientific and not,
recognized its importance. While the Principia was being written,
the Royal Society was kept informed of its progress and frequently
expressed its interest. Only the serious depletion of its treasury
prevented the Society from financing the publication. Because of
the printing laws of the period, a book could not be published
without a license and the first edition of the Principia bears the im
primatur of Samuel Pepys, as President of the Royal Society.9
From at least as early as a Star Chamber decree of 1637, the Eng
lish government had made a formal attem pt to control book
publishing by a licensing procedure. The Commonwealth adopted
its own technics of censorship, but after the Restoration the decree
of 1637 was renewed, in substance, by parliament in 1662 (13 and
14 Car. II, c. 33) and again in 1685 (1 Jac. II, c. 8, §15). In spite
of the zeal of some of its enforcers, this attempt at control was
never wholly effective; books were published and new printers es
tablished themselves without regard for the law. But Newton was
not the person nor the Principia the type of book to publish outside
the law. By provision of the act of 1685, the Principia could be li
censed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London,
the Chancellors or Vice-chancellors of Oxford or Cambridge, or
the representatives of any of these. Finally, though not listed in act
of 1662 or of 1685, the President, Council, and Fellows of the
8 Sherman B. Barnes, “The Editing of Early Learned Journals,” Osiris 1, 160
(1936), note 27, states: “There were instances of authors sending reviews of their
own books to editors. Leibniz publicized himself through the journals of the time.”
0Samuel Pepys, though best known to us as the author of a charming but in
discreet diary, was a highly efficient administrator, secretary to the admiralty,
and a dedicated president to the Royal Society for two years, December 1, 1684
to November 30, 1686.
H A L L E Y A N D T H E P R IN C IP IA 401
Royal Society could license it by the authority granted them in

their charters.101
Probably none of the persons legally competent to sign an im
prim atur was capable of reading and understanding the full sig
nificance of the Principia, but, under the circumstances, there is no
doubt that the proper authority for licensing it would be the Coun
cil and President of the Royal Society. The Philosophical Transactions
was regularly issued under the imprimatur of the President of the
Society and Halley, as publisher of the Phil. Trans., was acquainted
with the Royal Society printers, with editing and printing proced
ures, and with the licensing problems.
There is no indication that any other licensing authority was
considered, but we may reasonably ask what would have happened
had the Society failed to approve the publication of the Principia.
Scientific books were licensed and published through trade chan
nels throughout this period, the licensing being done on applica
tion of the publisher and usually because he stood responsible for
the contents of the book. But English booksellers were notoriously
reluctant to publish scientific books of a mathematical nature,11
and one may reasonably doubt that a trade bookseller would have
solicited a publishing license for the Principia. Neither Oxford nor
Cambridge was interested in books of this sort, and, in any event,
the problem of getting an im prim atur outside the Society might
well seem to present complications beyond even Halley’s enthus
iasm. In this sense, one can suggest that, without the approval of a
society of men most of whom were probably unable to read and
understand it, and the signature of a man who, able as he was in
many respects, certainly did not understand it, the publication of
the Principia might not have been possible.
10 For the provisions of the licensing acts, see, for example, The Term Catalogues,
1668-1709 A.D., ed. Edward Arber (London, 1903), vol. 1, pp. x ff; A Transcript of the
Registers of the Company of Stationers of London; 1554-1640, ed. Edward Arber (Lon
don, 1875), vol. 1, pp. xvi ff; or any standard work on English printing history, as
Henry R. Plomer, Short History of English Printing (New York, 1927). For the pro
visions of the charters of the Royal Society, see, for example, Lyons, Royal Society,
pp. 329-338.
11 See A. N. L. Munby, “The Distribution of the First Edition of Newton’s
Principia, ” Motes and Records of the Royal Society of London 10, 29-31, (1952) for a dis
cussion of this problem.
4°2 R O B E R T E. S C H O F IE L D
Indeed, one of the most striking things about the Principia is the
interest of nonscientists in a book that they could not read. Not
that every physical scientist could understand it either; then, as
today, there were probably many more scientists who claimed to
have read it than there were who actually had, but the book was
written in a style that the scientists, at least, were equipped to
understand. The Principia is an austere book, written in Latin and
using the geometrical methods of Apollonius which Newton made
obsolete with his invention of fluxions. It was, however, probably
less austere to its day than even the English translation is today,
for Latin was still the language of science in 1687 and the mathe
matical tools of geometry had been known to generations of scien
tists who had yet to learn the fluxions. Because of the substitution
of calculus for geometrical methods of analysis, scientists today are
almost in the position of the learned nonscientists of the late 17th
century and we can sympathize with men who, like Dr. Richard
Bentley, were told that they must read upwards of forty books,
mostly on geometry, for the “shortest and most proper method for
such an end” as to understand the P r in c ip ia Bentley, it is true,
wrote to Newton and got a shorter list of books, instructions that
for a “first perusal” it was “enough if you understand the Propo
sitions with some of the Demonstrations which are easier than the
rest,” 123 and, as we have seen in the previous section, some letters
of specific explanation. This was a course that most nonscientists
were not prepared to follow. John Locke wrote to Huygens to find
out the soundness of the mathematical demonstrations and, “being
told that he might depend upon their certainty; he took them for
granted, and carefully examined the Reasonings and Corollaries
drawn from them, became Master of all the Physics and was fully
convinc’d of all the great Discoveries contained in that Book.” 14
For most people, however, knowledge of what the Principia con
tained was acquired through popularizations and simplified ex
tracts from it. Newton, himself, had originally intended to write
12 Letter of John Craige to Bentley printed in Brewster, Memoirs, vol. 1, p. 340,

and appendix, pp. 460 IT.
13Ibid, p. 464.
11 Desaguliers, Course of Experimental Philosophy, 3rd ed. (London, 1763), vol. 1,
p. viii.
H A L L E Y A N D T H E P R IN C IP IA 4«3
the third book, “De Systemate Mundi,” in a popular style “ that it
might be read by the many,” but had changed his m ind.15 This
left a gap which was rapidly filled by numerous authors such as
Voltaire, Desaguliers, Pemberton, and others, who wrote books
specifically intended, as Pemberton says, “to convey to such, as are
not used to mathematical reasoning, some idea of the philosophy of
a person, who has acquired an universal reputation, and rendered
our nation famous for these speculations in the learned world.” 16
One of the most interesting of these popularizations was that
prepared by Halley for James II. The publication of the Principia
was considered so important that a special meeting was appointed
for the purpose of presenting a copy of it to the King.17 Halley ac
companied the presentation with a paper that contained an out
line of the book and gave a special explanation of the doctrine of
tides. This paper was printed separately and then later reprinted
in the Philosophical Transactions with the beginning and end omitted.
These omissions, not included in the section reproduced below,
read as follows:
To King James II. 1687

May it please Your most Excellent Majesty.
I could not have presumed to approach Your Majesties Royall pres
ence with a Book of this Nature, had I not been assured, that when the
weighty affaires of Your Government permit it; Your Majesty has fre
quently shown Yourself enclined to favour Mechanicall and Philosoph
ical! discoveries: And I may be bold to say, that if ever Book was
worthy the favourable acceptance of a Prince, this, wherein so many
and so great discoveries concerning the constitution of the Visible
World are made out, and put past dispute, must needs be gratefull to
Your Majestie; Being especially the labours of a worthy subject of your
own, and a member of the Royall Society founded by Your late Royall
,5Cajori edition of the Principia, p. 397. After Newton’s death, there was printed
The System of the World demonstrated in an easy and popular manner by the illustrious Sir
Isaac Newton which is included in the Cajori edition and which is described by
Rigaud, Historical Essay, p. 78, as a translation from the original Latin of the first
draft of what formed the third book.
10H. Pemberton, A View of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy (London, 1728), preface.
17Newton personally presented a copy of the second edition to Queen Anne in
1713.
Brother for the advancement of Naturall knowledge, and which now

flourishes under your Majesties most Gracious Protection.
But being sencible of the little leisure which care of the Publick leaves
to Princes, I believed it necessary to present with the Book a short Extract
of the matters contained, together with a Specimen thereof, in the
genuine Solution of the Cause of the Tides in the Ocean. A thing fre
quently attempted But till now without success. Whereby Your Majestie
may Judge of the rest of the Performances of the Author.
The body of the letter is reproduced infacsimile below.
If by reason of the difficulty of the matter there be anything herein
not sufficiently Explained, or if there be any materiall thing observable
in the Tides that I have omitted wherein Your Majestie shall desire to
be satisfied, I doubt not but if Your Majesty shall please to suffer me to
be admitted to the honour of Your Presence, I may be able to give such
an account thereof as may be to Your Majesties full content:
I am Great Sir, Your Majesties most Dutifull & obedient Subject
E dmond H a l l e y 18
Despite the courtly language, there is reason to doubt that

James did, or could, take an interest in the Principia. Far from hav
ing frequently shown himself “enclined to favour Mechanicall and
Philosophicall discoveries,” Jam es gave little evidence of being
interested in science. Although he had become a Fellow of the
Royal Society (as Duke of York) on the same occasion that his
brother Charles II had signed the Charter book as Patron, there
is no indication that he ever attended another meeting of the So
ciety or emulated Charles or his uncle, Prince Rupert, in perform
ing private experiments. One may reasonably suppose that it was
the expected lack of understanding, rather than any tribute to
interest, that prompted this choice of extract. The only technical
interest of James was the Navy, which most likely explains the
choice of tides as the subject of Halley’s discourse.
18 Quoted in E. F. MacPike, Correspondence and Papers of Edmond Halley (Oxford,

1932), p. 85. I have spelled out the abbreviations. In the Pepysian library, Mag
dalene College, Cambridge, one may find the diarist’s own copy of the first edition
of the Principia; bound with it is an example of the first printing of Halley’s letter,
described by A. N. L. Munby, op. cit., p. 33 (with a facsimile of one page of this
letter).
H A L L E Y ’S R E V IE W O F T H E P R IM C IP IA
405
O O
IF. Fhilofophicc N a tu ra l is F rin cipia M athem atical A u -

tore If. Newton Trin. Coll. Cantab. Soc . Mathe~
Jeos Profejfore Lucafiano, & Societatis R e g a lis
Sodali. 440. Londini. P ro jla t a p u d p lu res Bihl'to-
p olas.
r~|~~Tlis incomparable Author having at length been pre~

vailed upon to appear in publick, has in this Trea
dle given a moft notable inftance o f the extent o f the pow
ers o f the M in d ; and has at once fliewn w hat are the
Principles o f Natural Philofophy, and fo far derived from
them their canfequences, that he feems to have exhaufted
his Argum ent, and left little to be done by thofe that fhall
fuccced him. His great skill in the did and new Geome
try, helped by his own improvements o f the latter, ( I
mean his method o f infinite Series) has enabled him to
mafter thofe Problems, which for their difficulty would
have drill lain unrefolved, had one lels qualified than him-
lelf attempted them.
This Treatife is divided into three Books, whereof the
tw o firft are entituled de Motit Qorporum, the third de Sy-
Jlemate Mtmdi.
T h e firft begins w ith definitions o f the Terms made ule
of, and diftinguilhes Time, Space, Place and Motion into
abfolute and relative, real and apparent, Mathemati
cal and vulgar: fhew ing the neceffity o f fuch diftin-
flrion. T o thefe definitions are fubjoyned, the Law s of
M otion, with feveral Corollaries therefrom ; as concerning
the compofidon and refolution o f any dire£t force out of,
or into any oblique forces, ( whereby the powers of all
forts of Mechanical Engines are demonftrated:) the Law s
O 0 of
406 HALLEY’S REVIEW OF THE P R IN C IP IA
[> < > *]

o f the reflexion o f Bodies in Motion after their Collifion .•
and thelike,
Thefe neeeffary Prtcognita being delivered, our Author
proceeds to consider the Curves generated by the com-
pofition o f a direffc impreffed motion w ith a gravitation
or tendency towards a C e n ter: and having demonftrated
that in all cafes the Areas at the Center, defcribed by a re
volving Body, are proportional to the T im e s ; he [hews
how from the Curve defcribed, to find the L a w or Rule o f
the decreafe or increafe of theTendency or Centripetal for
ces [as he calls i t ) in differing diftances from the Center.
O f this there are feveral examples : as i f the Curve defcri
bed be a Circle palling through the Center o f tendency;
then the force or tendency towards that Center is in all
points as the fitt power or fquared-cube o f the diftance
therefrom reciprocally. I f in the proportional Spiral, re
ciprocally as the cube o f the diftance. I f in an Ellipfe
about the Center thereof directly as the diftance. I f in
any o f the Conick Se&ions about the Fonts thereof; then
he demonftrates that the VisCentripeta,or: tendency towards
that Focus, is in all places reciprocally as the fquare o f the
diftance therefrom; and that according to the Velocity o f
the imprefTed Motion, die C urve defcribed is an Hyper-
bolt; i f the Body moved be fw ift to a certain degree than
a Parabola', if flower an Ellipfe or Circle in one cafe.
From this fort o f tendency or gravitation it follows like-
w ife that the fquares o f the Tim es o f the periodical Revo
lutions are as the Cubes o f the Radii or tranfverfeAxes o f
the Ellipfes. All which being found to agree with the Phe
nomena o f the Celeftial Motions, as difeovered by the
great Sagacity and Diligence o f Kjpler, our Author ex
tends him felf upon the confequences o f this fort o f Vis
centripetal file w ing how to find the Conick Section which
a Bodie fhall deferibe when calt w ith any velocity in a
given L in e , fuppofing the quantity o f the laid force
k n o w n : and laying down feveral neat conftru&ions to de
termine
HALLEY’S REVIEW OF THE P R W C IP IA 40 7
Xml
termine the Orbs,either from the Focus given and tw d points
or T angents; or without it by five points or Tangents or
any number o f Points and Tangents making together five.
Then he fhews how from the Tim e given to find the Point
in a given Orb anfwering thereto; which he performs accu
rately in the Parabola,and by concife approximations comes
as near as he pleafes in the Ellipfe and Hyperbola: all
which are Problems o f the higheft concern in Aftronomy.
N ext he lays down the Rules o f the perpendicular defcent
o f Bodies towards the Center, particularly in the cafe
where the tendency thereto is reciprocally as the fquare o f
the diftance; and generally in all other cafes, fuppofing a
general quadrature o f Curve lines: upon which fuppofi-
on likewife he delivers a general method o f difeovering
the Orbs defcribed by a Body moving in fuch a tendency
towards a Center, increafing or decreafing in any given
relation to the diftance from the C en ter; and then with
great fubtilty he determines in all cafes the Motion o f the
Jpfides (or or the Points o f greateft diftance from the Cen
ter in all thefe Curves, in fuch Orbs as are nearly Circular.
Shewing the Jpfides fix t,if the tendency be reciprocally as
the fquare o f the diftance; direct in Motion in any Ratio
between the Square and the Cube and retrograde; i f un
der the Square : which Motion he determines exactly from
the Rule o f the increafe or decreafe o f the Vis Centrtpeta.
N ext the M otion o f bodies in given Surfaces is confider-
ed,as likewife the Ofeillatory Motion of Pcndules, where is
Jhewn how to make a Pendulum Vibrate always in equal
times, tho’ the center or point o f tendency be never fb n ear;
to which, the Demonftration o f M r. Hugens de Cycloide is
but a Corollary, And in another Propofition is ftiewn the
Velocity in each Point, and the time fpent in each part
o f the Arch defcribed by the Vibrating Body. After this
the Effects o f tw o or more Bodies, towards each o f which
there is a tendency, is confidered ; and his made out that
tw o Bodies, fb drawing or attracting each other, defcribe
O 0 2 about
408 HALLEY’S REVIEW OF THE P R IN C IP IA
[294]
about the common center o f G ravity, Curve Lines, like to
thole they feem to defcribe about one another. And o f
three Bodies, attracting each other, reciprocally as the
Square o f the diftance between their Centers, the various
C o n flu en ces are confidered and laid down, in feveral Co-
rollarys of great ufe in explicating the Phenomena, o f the
Moons Motions, the Flux and Reflux o f the Sea, the Pre-
ceflion o f the Equinoctial Points; and the like,
T h is done our Author with his ufual Acutenefs pro
ceeds to examine into the Caufes o f this Tendency or cen
tripetal Force, which from undoubted Arguments, is
fh ow n to be in all the great Bodies o f the Univerfe. Here
he finds that if a Sphere be compofed o f an infinity o f A -
toms, each o f which-have a Qonatus accedendi ad invicem,
which decreales in duplicate Proportion o f the Diftance
between th em ; then the whole Congeries fhall have the
like tendency. towards, its Center, decreafing, in Spaces
without it, in duplicate Proportion o f the Diftances from
the Center; and decreafing, within its Surface, as the di
ftance from the Center direCtly ; fo as to be greateft on
the Surface, and nothing at the Center : and tho’ this
might fuffice, yet to compleat the Argument, there is laid
down a Method to determine the forces o f Globes compo
fed of Particles whole Tendencies to each other do de-
creafe in any other Ratio o f the Diftances : W hich Specu
lation is carryed on likewife to other Bodies not Spherical,
whether finite or indeterminate. L aftly is propofed a
Method o f explaining the RefraCtions and Reflections o f
tranfparent Bodies from the fame Principles; and feveral
Problems folved o f the greateft Concern in the A rt o f D i-
optricks*
Hitherto our Author has confidered the EffeCts o f com
pound Motions in Mediis non refijlentibus, or wherein a
Body once in Motion would move equably in a direCt Line,
if not diverted by a fupervening Attraction or tendency
toward forae otlier Body. Here is demonftrated what
would
HALLEY’S REVIEW OF THE P R IN C IP IA 409
l V 5]
would be the confcquence o f a refiftence from a Medium,
either in the Ample or duplicate Ratio o f the Velocity, or
elfe between both; and tocom pleatthis Argument is laid
dow n a general Method o f determining the denfity o f the
Medium in all places, which, with a uniform Gravity ten
ding perpendicularly to the plain of the Horizon, fliall
make a Project move in any curve Line aligned ; which
is the 10th. Prop. Lib, II. Then the circular M otion o f
Bodies in refitting Media is determined, and ’ tis fhown
under w hat L aw s o f decreafe o f Denfity, the Circle will
become a proportional Spiral. N ext the denfity and com-
preflion o f Fluids is confidered, and the Doctrine o f Hy-
drofiaticks demonftrated; and here ’tis propofed to the
Contemplation of Natural Philolophers, whether the fur-
prizing Phenomena o f the Elafticity o f the A ir -and feme 0-
ther Fluids may not arife from their being compofed of
Particles which flie each o th e r; which being rather a
Phyfical than Mathematical Inquiry, our Author forbears
to Dilculs.
N ext the Oppofition o f the Medium and its Effects on
the Vibrations o f the Pendulum is confidered, which is
followed by an Inquiry into the Rules o f the Oppofition
to Bodies, as their Bulk, Shape, or Denfity may be vary-
e d : Here with great exaftnels is an Account given o f fe-
veral Experiments tried with Pendula,m order to verify the
aforegoing Speculation, and to determine the quantity
o f the Airs Oppofition to Bodies moving in it.
From hence is proceeded to the undulation o f Fluids,
the L aw s whereof are here laid down, and by them the
Motion and Propagation o f L ight and Sound are explai
ned. T h e laib Section o f this Book is concerning the Cir
cular M otion o f Fluids, wherein the Nature o f their Vor
tical Motions is confidered, and from thence the Carteftan
Docttrine o f the Vortices o f the Celeftial M atter carrying
w ith them the Planets about the Sun, is proved to be
altogether impoffible.
T he
4 io HALLEY’S REVIEW OF THE P R IM C IP IA
l 396 J
T h e III. and laffc Book is entituled de Syjlernate Mundi,
wherein the Demon Rrations o f the tw o former Book? are
applyed to the Explication o f the principal Phenomena, of
N a tu re: Here the verity o f the Hypothecs o f Kjepler is de-
monRrated ; and a full Refolution given to all the difficul
ties that occur in the Agronomical Science • they being no
thing elfe but the neceflary coniequences o f the SimyEarth,
Moony and Planets, having all o f them a gravitation or ten
dency towards their Centers proportionate to tlie Quan
tity o f M atter in each o f them, and w hole Fo-ce abates in
duplicate proportion o f the Diflance reciprocally. Here
likeWife are indifputably folved the Appearances o f the
Tides, or Flux and Reflux o f the Sea; and the Spheroidical
Figure o f the Earth and Jupiter determined, (from which
the preceffion o f the Equinoxes, or rotation o f the Earths
A xis is made out, ) together w ith the retroceflion o f the
Moons Nodes, the Quantity and inequalities o f whofe M o
tion are here exactly Rated a priore: La lily the Theory of
the M otion o f Comets is attempted w ith iuch fiiccefs,
that in an Example o f the great Com et winch appeared
in 168^, the M otion thereof is computed as exactly as w e
can pretend to give the places o f the primary Planets; and
a general Method is here laid down to Rate and determine
the Trajettoria o f Comets, by an eafy Geometrical Con-
Rru<Rion;upon fuppofition that thofeCurves are Para'idlick,
or fo near it that the Parabola may lerve without fenfible
Error ; tho’ it be more probable, faith our Author, that
tliefe Orbs are Elliptical, and that after long periods C o
mets may return again. But Rich Ellipfes are by Reafon
o f the immenle diRance o f the Foci, and fmallnels o f the
Latus Retturn, in the Parts near the Sun where Comets
appear, not eafily diRinguifhed from the Curve o f thef\i-
rabola : as is proved by the Example produced.
T h e whole Book is interfperfed w ith Lemma's o f Gene
ral ule in Geometry, and feveral new Methods applyed,
which
HALLEY’S REVIEW OF THE P R 1N C I P I A 41 I
[ *97 J
which are w ell worth the confidering; and it may be
juftly laid, that lo many and lo Valuable Philofophical
Truths, as are herein dilcovered and put paft D ifpute,
were never yet owing to the Capacity and Induftry o f any
oneM an.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T ;
Whereas the Publication o f ihefe Tran factions has for fome

Months loft paft been interrupted j The Reader is defired to
take notice that the care o f the Edition o f this Book o f Mr.
N ew ton having lain wholly upon the Publijher ( wherein he
conceives he hath been moreferviceable to the Commonwealth o f
Learning) and for fome other preffing reafons, they could not
be got ready in due tim e; but now they will again be continued
as formerly, and come out regularly, either o f three Jheets, or
five with a Quite, according as Materials Jball occur.
L O N D O N ,
Printed by J . Streater, and are to be fold by Sa*

niuel Smith at the Princes Arms in St. Paul's
Church-yard.
412 HALLEY: TRUE THEORY OF THE TIDES
C 44* )
II. The true Theory of the Tides, extraSled from
*hat admired Treatife of Mr. Ifaac Newton,
Intituled, Philofophise Naturalis Principia
M athem atics; being a Difcourfe prefented
with that Boof to the late King James, by
Mr. Edmund Halley.
T may, perhaps, feem ft range, that this Paper, being

I no other than a partile Account of a Book long fence
publifhed, and whereof a fuller E x t rail was given in
Numb. 187. of thefe Tranfallions, Jbould again appear
here \ but the Defires of feveral honourable Perfans, which
could not be withfiood, have obliged us to infert it here,
for the fake o f fetch, who being left knowing in Mathemati
cal Matters $ and therefore, not daring to adventure on
the Author himfelf, are notwithfeanding, very curious to
be informed of the Caufes of Things ; particularly of fo
general and extraordinary Phaznomena,^ are thofe of the
Tides. Now this Paper having been drawn upfor the late
King James’j V je, {in whofe Reign the Book waspublifhed)
and having given good Satisfaliion to thofe that got Copies
of it • it u hoped the Savans of the higher Form will in
dulge tu this liberty we take to gratifie their Inferiours in
point of Science j and not be offended, that we here in fill
more largely upon Mr. Newton’j Theory of the Tides,
which, how plain and eafie foever we find, is very little
underflood by the common Reader.
T h e foie Principle upon which this Author proceeds

to explain moft of the great and furprifing Appearances
ol Nature, is no other than that of Gravity, whereby in
the Earth all Bodies have a tendency towards its Centre;
X xx as
HALLEY: TRUE THEORY OF THE TIDES
413
C 44O
as is mod evident: and from undoubted Arguments its
proved, that there is fuch a Gravitation towards the
Centre o f the Sun, Moon, and all the Planets.
From this Principle, as a neceflary Confequence, fol
lows the Sphserical Figure o f the Earth and Sea, and of
all the other Cseleftial Bodies: and tho’ the tenacity
and firmnefs of the Solid Parts, fuppprt the Inequalities
o f the Land above the L evel, yet the Fluids, prefling
equally and eaflly yielding to each other, loon reftore
the /.’Equilibrium, if difturbed, and maintain the exadt
Figure o f the Globe.
Now this force of Defcent o f Bodies towards theCen*
ter, is not in all places alike, but is ftill Jefs and left, as
the diftance of the Center encreafes: and in this Book
it is demonftrated.that this Force decreafes as the Square
of the diftance increafes; that is, the weight o f Bodies
and the force o f their Fall is lefs, in parrs more remo
ved from the Center, in the proportion of the Squares
of the Diftance. So as for Example, a Ton weight on
the Surface o f the Earth> if it were railed to the
height of 4000 Miles, which I fuppofe the femidiami-
ter o f the Earth, would weigh but i of a Ton, or y
Hundred w e ig h t: if to ix o o o Miles, or 3 lemidiame-
ters from the Surface, that is 4 from the Center, it
would weigh but 1? part of the Weight on the Surface,
or a Hundred and Quarter: So that it would be as eafle
for the Strength of a Man at that height to carry a
Ton weight, as here on the Surface a 100 i. And in
the fame Proportion does the Velocities of the fall of
Bodies decreafe: For whereas on the Surface o f the
Earth all things fall 1 6 Foot in afecond, at one femidi-
ameter above this Fall is but 4 Foot; and at 3 femidia-
meters, or 4 from the Centre, it is but 1# of the Fall
at the Surface, or but one Foot in a fecond : And at
greater Diftances both Weight and Fall become very
imall,
4 14 H A L L E Y : T R U E T H E O R Y O F T H E T ID E S
(447 )
final), but yet at all given Diftances is ftill fbme thing,
tho’ the Effect become infenfible. At the distance of
the Moon (which I will fuppole 60 Semidiameters of
the Earth) 3600 Pounds weigh but one Pound, and
the fall o f Bodies is but Tjfs o f a Foot in a fecund, or
16 Foot inam inute; that is, a Body Co far o ff defcends
in a Minute no more than the fame at the Surface of the
Earth would do in a Second of Time.
As was fatd before, the fame force decreafing after
the fame manner is evidently found in the Sun, Moon,
and all the Planets; but more efpecially in the Sun,
whole Force is prodigious; becoming fenfible even in
the immenfe diftance o f Saturn: This gives room to
fufpeft, that the force of Gravity is in the Celeftial
Globes proportional to the quantity o f Matter in each
o f them ; And the Sun being at leaft ten Thoufand times
as big as the Earth, its Gravitation or attrading Force,
is found to be at leaft ten Thoufand times as much as
that of the Earth, atfting on Bodies at the fame diftances.
This Law o f the decreafe o f Gravity being demon-
ftratively proved, and put paft contradiction; the Au
thor with great Sagacity, inquires into the neceflary
Confluences o f this Suppofition; whereby he finds the
genuine Caufe o f the feveral Appearances in the Theo
ry of the Moon and Planets, and difcovers the hitherto
unknown Laws o f the Motion o f Comets, and o f the
Ebbing and Flowing o f the Sea. Each o f which are
Subje&s that have hitherto taken up much larger Vo
lumes; but Truth being uniform, and always the fame,
it is admirable to obferve how eafily we are enabled to
make out very abftrufe and difficult Matters, when once
true and genuine Principles are obtained .* And on the
other hand it may be wondred, that, notwithftanding
the great facility oftruth,and the perplexity and noncon-
fequenccs that always attend erroneousSuppofitions,thefe
X x x 2, great
HALLEY: TRUE THEORY OF THE TIDES 415
C 448 )
great Difcoveries lhould have efcaped the acute Dif»
quifitions o f the bed Philofbphical Heads o f all pad
Ages, and be referved to thefe our Times. But that
wonder will foon ceafe, if it be confidered how great
Improvements Geometry has received in our Memory,
and particularly from the profound Difcoveries of our
incomparable Author.
The Theory of the Motion of the primary Planets
is here (hewn to be nothing elfe, but the contemplation
of the Curve Lines which Bodies caft with a given Ve
locity , in a given Direction, and at the fame time
drawn towards the Sun by its gravitating Power, would
defcribe. O r, which is all one, that the Orbs of the
Planets are fuch Curve Lines as a Shot from a Gun de»
fcribesin the Air, being caft according to the direction
o f the Piece, but bent into a crooked Line by the fu-
pervening Tendency towards the Earths Centre: And
the Planets being fuppofed to be proje&ed with a given
Force, and at trailed towards the Sun, after the afore-
faid manner, are here proved to defcribe fuch Figures,
as anfwer pun&ually to all that the Induftry of this
and the laft Age has obferved in the Planetary Motions.
So that it appears, that there is no need o f folid Orbs
and Intelligences, as the Ancients imagined, nor yet o f
Vortices or Whirlpools of the Celeftial Matter, as Des
Cartes fuppofes; but the whole Affair is (imply and
mechanically performed, upon the foie Suppofition of
a Gravitation towards theSun j which cannot be denied.
The Motion of Comets is here fttewn to be compound
ed of the fame Elements, and not to differ from Pla
nets, but in their greater fwiftnefs, whereby overpow-
enng the Gravity that fhould hold them to the Sun, as
Ju 1 Planets» they flie off again, and diflance
themielves from the Sun and Earth, fo that they foon
are out of our fight. And the imperfeft Accounts and
Obfer-
( 4 S9 )
Obfervations Antiquity has left us, are not fufficient to
determine whether the fame Comet ever return again.
But this Author has fhewn how Geometrically to deter
mine the Orb o f a Comet from Obfervations, and to
find his diftance from the Earth and Sun, which was ne
ver before done.
The third thing here done is the Theory of the
Moon, all the Inequalities of whofe Motion are proved
to arife from the fame Principles, only here the efFeft of
two Centers operating on, or attracting a proje&ed Bo
dy comes to be confidered ; for the Moon, tho’ princi
pally attracted by the Earth, and moving round it, does,
together with the Earth, move round the Sun once a
Year, and is according as file is, nearer or farther from
the Sun, drawn by him more or lefs than the Center of
the Earth, about which file moves ,• whence arife feve-
ral Irregularities in her Motion, o f all which, the Author
in this Book, with no lefs Subtility than Induftry, has
given a full Account. And tho’ by reafon o f the great
Complication o f the Problem, he has not yet been able
to make it purely Geometrical, ?ris to be hoped, that in
fome farther Eflay he may furmount the difficulty: and
having perfected the Theory o f the Moon, the long
defired difeovery of the Longitude (which at Sea is on
ly practicable this way) may at length be brought to
light, to the great Honour of your Majefty and Advan
tage-of your Subjects.
All the furprizingPhenomena o f the Flux and Reflux
of the Sea, are in like manner fhewn to proceed from
the fame Principle ; which I defign more largely to infift
on, fince the Matter o f Fadfc is in this cafe much better
known to your Majefty than in the foregoing.
If the Earth were alone, that is to fay, not affeCted
by the Actions of the Sun and Moon, it is not to be
doubted, but the Ocean, being equally prefled by the
force
( 45'o )
force of Gravity towards the Center, would continue
in a perfe& ftagnation, always at the fame height, with
out ever Ebbing or Flowing ; but it being here demon-
ftrated, that the Sun and Moon have a like Principle
o f Gravitation towards their Centers, and that the
Earth is within the A & ivity o f their Attra&ions, it
will plainly follow, that the Equality of the preffure of
Gravity towards the Center will thereby bedifturbed ;
and tho’ the fmallnefsof thefe Forces, in refpeft of the
Gravitation towards the Earths Center, renders them al
together imperceptible by any Experiments we can de-
vife, yet the Ocean being fluid and yielding to the Ieaft
force, by its rifing (hews where it islefs preft, and where
it is more preft by its finking.
Now if we fuppofe the force of the Moons attraction
to decreafe as the Square o f the Diftance from its Center
increafes (as in the Earth and other Celeftial Bodies) we
(hall findjthat where the Moon is perpendicularly either
above or below the Horizon, either in Zenith or Nadir,
there the force of Gravity is m oftof all diminilhed, and
confequently that there the Ocean muftneceflarily fwell
b y the coming in of the Water from thofe parts where
the Prefliire is greatefl, viz. in thofe places where the
Moon is near the Horizon : but that this may be the
better underflood, I thought it needful to add the fol
lowing Figure, where M is the Moon, E the Earth, C
its Centre, and Z the place where the Moon is in the
Zenith, N where in the Nadir.
Now
C 451 )
Now by the Hypothefis it is evident, that the Water
in 2 , being nearer, is more drawn by the Moon, than
the Center of the Earth C, and that again more tha
the Water in N , wherefore the Water in £ has a ten
dency towards the Moon, contrary to that of Gravity,
being equal to the Excels of the Gravitation in £ , above
that in C : And in the other cafe, the Water in N, tend
ing lefs towards the Moon than the Center C, will be
lefs preUed,by as much as is the difference of the Gravi
tations towards the Moon in C and AT. This rightly un-
derltood, it follows plainly, that the Sea, which other-
wile would he Spherical, upon the PrelTure of the
Moon, mult form it lelf into a Spheroidal or Oval Fi
gure, whofe longelt Diameter is where the Moon is
Vertical, and fhortelt where Ihe is in the Horizon; and
that the Moon lhifting her Pofition as Ihe turns round
the Earth once a day, this Oval of Water Ihifts with
her, occafioning thereby the two Floods and Ebbs obfer-
vable in each Hours.
And this may fuffice as to the general Caufe of the .
T id e s; it remains now to Ihew how naturally this Mo
tion accounts for all the Particulars thathas beenobferv-
ed about them ; fo that there can be no room left to
doubt, but that this is the true caufe thereof.
The Spring Tides upon the new and full Moons, and
Neap Tides on the Quarters, are occafioned by the at
tractive Force of the Sun in the New and Full, confpir
ring with the Attraction o f the Moon, and producing
a Tide by their united Forces: Whereas in the Quar
ters, the Sun raifes the Water where the Moon deprefc
les ir, and the contrary; fo as the Tides are made on
ly by the difference of their Atrra&ions.That the force of
the Sun is no greater in this cafe,proceeds from the very
fmall Proportion the Semidiameter of the Earth bears to
the valtdiftance o f the Sun.
Tc
( 45* )
It is alfo oblerved, that catena parilm , the Aiqui-
no&ial Spring Tides in March and September, or near
them, are the Higheft, and the Neap Tides the Loweft;
which proceeds from the greater Agitation o f the Wa-,
ters, when the fluid Spharofd refolves about a great
Circle of the Earth, than wdien it turns about in a lefler
Circle ; it being plain, that if the Moon were Conftitu-
ted in the Pole and there flood,that the Spheroid would
have a fixt Pofition, and that it would be always high
Water under the Poles, and low Water every where un
der the A iquino& ialand therefore the nearer the Moon
approaches the Poles, the lefs is the agitation of the O -
cean, which is of all the greateft, when the Moon is
in the Asquinc&ial, or fartheft diflant from the Poles.
Whence the Sun and Moon, being either conjoyned or
oppofitein the Aiquinoftial, produce the greateft Spring
T id es; and the fublequent Neap Tides, being produced
by the Tropical Moon in the Quarters, are always the
lead Tides; whereas in Jane and December, the Spring
Tides are made by the Tropical Sun and Moon, and
therefore left vigorous; and the Neap Tides by the M -
quinofiial Moon, which therefore are the ftronger;
Hence it happens, that the difference between the Spring
and Neap Tides in thefe Months, is much left confider-
able than in March and September, And the reafon
why the very higheft Spring Tides are found to be ra
ther before the Vernal and after the Antumnal. Equino*,
viz. in February and Oftober, than precifely upon them,
is, becaufe the Sun is nearer the Earth in the Winter
Months, and fo comes to have a greater Effeft in pro
ducing the Tides.
Hitherto we have confidered fuch Affections o f the
Tides as are Univerfal,without relation to particular Ca-
mi Iwîat follows from the differing Latitudes o f places,
W)ll be eafily under flood by the following Figure.
Let
C 4?3 )
Let A p E P be the Earth covered over with very
deep Waters, C its Center, P, p, its Poles, A E the
AEquino&ial, F f the parallel of Latitude o f a place,
D d another Parallel at equal diftance on the other fide
o f the Asquinofrial, H h the two Points where the
Moon is vertical, and let K k be the great Circle, where-
in the Moon appears Horizontal- It is evident, that a
Spheroid defcribed upon H h ,and K k (hall nearly repre-
■ fent the Figure of the Sea, and C f , C D , C F , C d i hall

be the higbts of the Sea in the places /, D , F , d, in all
which it is High-water: and feeing that in twelve Hours
time, by the diurnal Rotation of the Earth, the point
F is transferred to f, and d to D : the hight of the Sea
C F will be that o f the High-water when the Moon is
prefent, and C f that o f the other High water, when
the Moon is under the E arth: which in the cafe of this
Figure is.lefs than the former C P. And in the oppo-
fite Parallel D d the contrary happens. The Riftng o f
the Water being always alternately greater and lefs in
each place, when it is produced by the Moon declining
fenfibly from the ALquino&ial; that being the greateft
o f the two High-waters in each diurnal Revolution o f
Y y y the
C 4*4 )
the Moon, wherein Che approaches nCareft either to the
Zenith or Nadir of the place: whence it is that the
Moon in the Northern Signs, in this part of the World,
makes the greateft Tides when above the Earth, and in
Southern Signs, when under the Earth; the Effecft be
ing always the greateft where the Moon is fartheft from
the Horizon, either above or below ir. And this alter
nate increale and decreafe of the Tides has been oblerv-
ed to hold true on the Coaft of England, at Briflol by
Capt. Sturmy, and at Plymouth by Mr. ColepreJJe.
But the Motions hitherto mentioned are fomewhat al
tered by the Libration of the Water, whereby, tho’
the Action of the Luminaries Ihould ceafe, the Flux
and Reflux of the Sea would for fome time continue :
This Confervation o f the imprefled Motion diminilhes
the differences that otherwife would be between two
confequent Tides, and is the reafon why the higheft
Spring Tides are not precifely on the new and full
Moons, nor the Neaps on the Quarters; but general
ly they are the third Tides after them, and fornetimes
later.
All thele things would regularly come to pals, if the
whole Earth were covered with Sea very deep; but by
reafon o f the (hoalnefs o f fome places, and the narrow-
nefs o f the Streights, by which the Tides are in many
cafes propagated, there arifes a great diverfity in the Efc
fedf, and not to be accounted for, without an exabt
Knowledge of all the Circumftances of the Places, as
of the Pofition of the Land, and the Breadth and Depth
o f the Channels by which the Tide flows ; for a very
flow and imperceptible Motion o f the whole Body o f
* m i wêre 'it is (for example) a Miles deep,
will luffice to raife its Surface 10 or i z Feet in a Tides
tim e ; whereas, if the lame quantity of Water were to
be conveyed upon a Channel o f 40 Fathoms deep, it
would
4 22 HALLEY: TRUE THEORY OF THE TIDES
( 457 )
would require a Very great Stream to efftcft it, in (o
large Inlets as are the Channel of England and the Ger
man Ocean; whence the Tide is found to fet ftrongeft
in thofe places where the Sea grows narroweft; the fame
quantity o f Water being to pafs through a fmaller Paf-
fage: This is moft evident in the Sfreights, between
Portland and Cape de Hague in Normandy, where the
Tide runs like a Sluce; and would be yet more between
Dover and Calis, if the Tide coming about the Ifland
from the North did not check it. And this force being
once imprefled upon the Water, continues to carry it
about the level o f the ordinary height in the Ocean,
particularly where the Water meets a direft Obflade, as
it is at St. Malo’s ; and where it enters into a long Chan
nel,which running far into the Land grows very (height
at its Extremity ; as it is in the Severn-Sea at Chepftow
and Briflol.
This (hoalnefs o f the Sea and the intercurrent Con
tinents are the reafon, that in the open Ocean the time
o f High-water is not at the Moons appulfe to the Meri
dian, but always fome Hours after it; as it is oblerved
upon all the Weft-Coaft of Europe and Africa, from Ire
land to the Cape o f Good-Hope: In all which a S. W.
Moon makes High-water, and the fame is reported to
be on the Weft fide o f America. But it would he end-
left to account all the particular Solutions, which are
eafie Corollaries o f this Hypothecs; as why the Lakes,
filch as the Cafpian Sea, and Mediterranian Seat, fiich as
the Black Sea, the Streights and Baltick/ have no fen-
fible Tides: For Lakes having no Communication with
the Ocean, can neither increafe nor d.mimfh theu Wa
ter, whereby to n(e and fa ll; and Seas trjar tom rL.ni-
cate by fiich narrow Tn'ets, and ur- of (o■ immenie an
Extent,cannot in a few H-ur^M me ereivcor em|*ry Wa
ter enough to raife or fink their $ur , v i h : g tnfi y.
Y y y z ! aftly,
( 4*0
Laflly, to demonftrate the excellency of this Dodfrine,
the Example of the Tides in the Port of Tttnkittg in C h i-
nay which are fo extraordinary, and differing from all.
others we have yet heard of, may fuflice. In this Port
there is but one Flood and Ebb in 14 Hours; and twice
in each Month, v i z . when the Moon is near the E q u i
noctial there is no Tide at all, but the Water is flagnant •.
but with the Moons declination there begins a Tide,
which is greateft when (lie is in the Tropical Signs: only
with this difference,that when the Moon is to the North*
ward of the Equinoctial, it Flows when Ihe is above the
Earth, and Ebbs when (lie is under, fo as to make
High-water at Moons-fetting, and Low-water at Moons*
rifing: But on the contrary, the Moon being to the
Southward, makes High-water at rifing and Low-water
at fetting; it Ebbing all the time {he is above the Hori
.
zon. As may be feen more at large in the P h ilo fo p h ic a l
T ra n fa tlio n , Num. 161.
The Caufe of this odd Appearance is propofed by
Air. Newton, to be from the concurrence of two Tides
the one propagated in fix Hours out of the great South*
Sea along the Coafl: of China • the other out o f the
IndianSea, from between the Iflands in twelve Hours,
along the Coaft of Malacca and Cambodia. The one of
thefe Tides, being produced in North-Latitude, is, as
has been faid, greater, when the Moon being to the
North of the Equator is above the Earth, and iefs when
{he is under the Earth. The other o f them, which is
propagated from the Indian-Sea, being raifed in South
Latitude, is greater when the Moon declining to the
South is above the Earth, and lefs when Ihe is under the
Earth: So that of thefe Tides alternately greater and
leffer, there comes always fucceflively two o f the great
er and two of the leffer together every d a y ; and the
High-water falls always between the times o f the arri-
424 HALLEY: TRUE THOERY OF THE TIDES
C 4*7 )
val o f the two greater Floods ; and the Low-water be
tween the arrival of the two lefler Floods, And the
Moon coming to the Aiquino&ial, and the alternate
Floods becoming equal, the Tide ceafes and the Water
Magnates : but when (he has paffed to the other fide o f
the Equator, thofe Floods which in the former Order
were the lead, now becoming the greateft, that that be
fore was the time o f High-water now becomes the Low-
water, and the Converfe. So that the whole appear
ance of thefe ftrange Tides, is without any forcing na
turally deduced from thefe Principles, and is a great Ar
gument of the certainty of the whole Theory.
V I.
T h e First B iography of N ew ton
Fontenelle and Newton
C h a r l e s C o u l s t o n G il l is p ie
JLhere is a certain piquancy in the chance that Sir Isaac Newton’s

first biographer should have been a Frenchman and a Cartesian.
So it happened, however, in consequence of Newton’s position as
associe etranger of the Academie Royale des Sciences. On the death of a
member, the custom of that body is to commemorate his life and
accomplishments in an essay composed by the permanent secre
tary. When Newton died in 1727, this post was occupied, as it had
been for thirty years, by Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle, who was
then at the height of the career that made him the intermediary
between the science of the 17th century and the ideology of the
Enlightenment. Immediately translated, his eloge became the first
biography to appear in England. This is the document that is here
reproduced, and, in order to place it in its historical context, it may
be well to enter into a little introductory detail on the ambiguity
of Newton’s early relations with his French colleagues, to indicate
the place of the eloge in Newtonian biography, and to point out
certain casts given to the exposition by Fontenelle’s inability to ac
cept, or perhaps to appreciate, Newton’s conception of what it is
that science explains.
427
428 CHARLES COULSTON GILLISPIE
One sometimes reads that Newton was the first foreigner elected
to the Academie des Sciences upon its reorganization in 1699, and th 6
inference is that by this gesture the French were magnanimously
recognizing the magnitude of his challenge to Descartes. Neithe1"
the fact nor the implication is correct. When the Academy begat1
operating under its new charter, it already included three foreigt1
members, Leibniz, Tschirnhaus, and Guglielmini, and it filled th 6
five additional vacancies authorized in the following order: H art'
soeker, the brothers Bernoulli, Roemer, and Newton .1 NoL
although Naturalis Philosophiae Principia Mathematica had been it1
print since 1687, was the Academy yet aware that this book posed
a fundamental challenge to the science known to its members, or
that they were bringing into their company the founder of classical
physical science, in the consciousness of which the world was to
live ever after. In choosing Newton eighth on the list, the Academy
thought itself to be electing simply a mathematician of extraor-
dinary geometrical skill, and the author of important experiments
(and a very questionable theory) bearing on the nature of light.
Professor Cohen has pointed out that it was through the Opticks,
not the Principia, that Newton exerted his influence on the imagi'
nation of his 18th-century admirers .2 The optical work attracted
attention from the outset, even before the Opticks itself was pub
lished in 1704. In the volumes that record the proceedings of the
Academy from 1666, the year of its foundation, to 1699, that of
Newton’s election, the only reference to him is a letter of 1672
from Huygens on the advantages of his reflecting telescope .3 In
1688 the Journal des Savants noticed the Principia in three para
graphs, describing the work as “une Mecanique la plus parfaite
qu’on puisse imaginer,” but pointing out (somewhat misleadingly)
that Newton himself says of his proofs “qu’il n’a pas considere
leurs principes en Physicien, mais en simple Geometre,” and urg
ing him to “nous donner une Physique aussi exacte qu’est la Me-
1See, a n te, p. 12; also, L e s m em b res et les correspondants de l ’A c a d e m ie royale des sciences
( 1 6 6 6 - 1 7 9 3 ) (Paris, 1931); and on the .reorganization, Alfred Maury, L ’A n c ie n n e
A c a d e m ie d es S cien ces (Paris, 1864), pp. 40-45.
2 I. B. Cohen, preface to Newton’s O p tic k s (New York, 1952).
3 M e m o ir e s de t ’A c a d e m ie R o y a le des Sciences d ep u is 1 6 6 6 j u s q u ’a 1 6 9 9 , vol. 10 (1730),
pp. 505-507. It should perhaps be explained that the volumes covering this period
were published through the efforts of Fontenelle long after the events.
FONTENELLE AND NEWTON 429
canique” by substituting “de vrais mouvemens en la place de ceux
qu’il a supposez.” 1 Thereafter, Newton was not again discussed in
the Journal until 1703, when a passing reference appears in an article
drawn from Jean Bernoulli’s Recherche de Catoptrique et Dioptrique of
1701. Newton is introduced casually and only in order to be dis
missed, but the turn of argument is interesting, for, although it
refers to an optical passage of the Principia, it too is all unwittingly
prophetic of the larger issues in the offing. To certain considera
tions on refrangibility which follow from the views of one Herigone
(and indeed of Descartes), the author objects that in a homogene
ous medium the relative obliquity of rays is meaningless except
with reference to a second medium, which cannot be supposed to
affect the path of the ray before ever it arrives,
a moins qu’avec le subtil M. Newton, {Princ. Math. Phil. Nat. pag. 231.) on
ne veiiille mettre dans le second milieu quelque vertu attractive qui
agisse sur les rayons lors qu’ils sont encore dans le premier milieu, &
qui les attire plus fortement les uns que les autres. C’est en effet par la
que M. Newton explique la nature de la reflexion, & de la refraction:
mais son explication est plus ingenieuse qu’elle n’est vraye; car il ne
nous apprend point ce que c’est que cette vertu attractive, ni d’ou elle
vient: il la suppose seulement. J ’avoiie que si on la Iui accorde, l’expli-
cation qu’il donne est forte elegante, & peut conten ter un Mathematicien.45
In fact, Newton had addressed himself mathematically to reality,

and not just abstractly to mathematics. And that he had under
taken a radical approach to the great question of how the world
is made was borne in on his French colleagues less by perusal of
the Principia, that intractable book, than by attending to the dis
cussions raised by philosophers who did perceive how deep the
4J o u r n a l des S a v a n ts 1 6 , 237-238 (1688). The survey of this important journal

for French reaction to Newton is greatly facilitated by the availability of Jacque
line de La Harpe, “Le Journal des Savants et l'Angleterre, 1702-1789,” U n iv e r
s ity o f C a lifo rn ia P u b lic a tio n s in M o d e rn P h ilo lo g y, XX (1937-1941), pp. 289-520, es
pecially pp. 319-323, 358-363. This meticulous and useful monograph is marred
only by a note that cites as the first treatment of the P r in c ip ia in the J o u r n a l an
e x tr a it of 1682.
5J o u r n a l des S a v a n ts 3 1 , 1002 (1703). I can find no discussion of the principle of
gravity before the review of the second edition of the P r in c ip ia { J o u r n a l des S a v a n ts,
June 1715, Pt. I, 667-674). Even here the principle of attraction is simply set off
against the theory of vortices in a literal and superficial fashion.
issues went: Malebranche, the final edition of whose Recherches de la

ve'rite appeared in 1712; Leibniz, who attacked the theory of
gravity in 1710 and the publication of whose ensuing correspond
ence with Clarke was the most important single event in bringing
home the problem; Roger Cotes and Newton himself, whose preface
and General Scholium to the second edition of the Principia in
1712 joined issue with continental philosophy.6 As everyone knows,
the acceptance of Newton’s principles in France had to await his
death—and Voltaire.7 But even the full awareness of Newton was
delayed until the period, after 1710 or thereabouts, when he had
long since withdrawn from the arena of science, if not of contro
versy.
Nor were his relations ever close with France. There were a
few letters from Fontenelle thanking Newton for copies of certain
books, and a few complaints by Newton of the credit allowed to
Leibniz on the invention of the calculus in the eloges of Leibniz and
L’FIopital.8There was some discussion in the Academy, mathemati-
6Although Malebranche (who admired the O p tic k s ) does not allude directly to
the P rin c ip ia , the discussion of gravity and the adaptation of Villemot’s theory of
spherical vortices were directed against Newton; see R echerche de la verite, ed. Fran-
cisque Bouillier, 2 vols. (Paris, 1880), Ph. Villernot, N o u v e a u system e, ou nouvelle e x
p lic a tio n du m ouvem ent des p la n e te s (Lyon, 1707), and, for a discussion of these works,
P. Mouy, L e D evelo p p e m en t de la p h y s iq u e carlesienne (Paris, 1934), pp. 271, 310-314.
In the opinion of the latest student of Fontenelle’s science, this last edition of
Malebranche was the point of departure of Fontenelle’s comprehensive and
thought-out opposition to Newton; see F. Gregoire, F ontenelle, une “p h ilo so p h ie ”
d esa b u see (Nancy, 1947), p. 130. A translation of the text of the Leibniz-Glarke
correspondence has just been republished in a critical edition, H. G. Alexander,
ed., T h e L e ib n iz - C la r k e C orrespondence (Manchester, 1956), with a most useful
analytical introduction. Though far from satisfactory, the most accessible edition
of the P rin c ip ia , containing the Cotes preface and the General Scholium, is that by
Florian Cajori, S ir Isa a c N e w to n ’s M a th e m a tic a l P rin c ip le s o f N a tu r a l P h ilo so p h y (Berk
eley, 1934), based on Andrew Motte’s translation of the 3rd edition (1729). A
facsimile reproduction of the first edition has recently been published by William
Dawson (London, 1955). Mention, too, must be made of the work which prints
(unfairly) selected documents in the S tr e it with Leibniz over the invention of the
calculus, from which controversy the larger argument emerged, C ornm ercium ep is-
to lic u m D . J o h a n n i s C o llin s et a lio ru m de a n a ly s i p ro m o ta (London, 1712) and of the
compilation which was very influential in bringing the whole issue before French
readers, P. des Maizeaux, R e c u e il de d iverses p ieces su r la p h ilo so p h ie . . . p a r M e ss ie u rs
L e ib n iz , C la rke, N e w to n , et a u tre s a u teu rs celebres (A m s te r d a m , 1 7 2 0 ) .
7Pierre Brunet, L ’In tro d u ctio n des theories de N e w to n en F rance (Paris, 1931).
8Fontenelle was pleased and touched by the kindly reference to his own work
cal rather than physical, of “forces centrales.” 9 In 1715 certain
optical experiments were demonstrated by Desaguliers in London
in the presence of the Chevalier de Bouville and other members of
the Academy. Many of them were verified in Paris by Pere Sebas-
tien in the presence of the Cardinal de Polignac, Varignon, and
Fontenelle.10 And it appears that the image of Newton which Fon-
tenelle develops in the eloge, compounded of admiration for his
talent and rejection of his principles, was not fully formed until the
fifteen years or so before Newton’s death. The eloge stands, then, at
the middle stage in that passage from incomprehension through re
jection to idealization that was the route by which Newton pene
trated and ultimately transformed scientific understanding in
France.
A persistent current of interest in Fontenelle himself runs through
the scholarly literature—persistent, but a little thin, for the one
point on which all his interpreters agree is that he cuts at best a
minor figure, if a witty one. Thus, Laborde-Milaa makes him the
philosophe who transformed Cartesianism into positivism ,11 while
Louis Maigron presents a comprehensive picture of the transfor
mation of Sainte-Beuve’s “bel esprit . . . au gout detestable” 12 into
the accoucheur of ideas who brought science to bed of the Enlighten
ment.13 Carre discovers in him a sort of preincarnation of Voltaire,
without the fire and passion that informed the life and work of
Voltaire .14 Cosentini, in turn, offers us Fontenelle as a lesser mas
ter of the art of philosophic dialogue ,15 and Shackleton gives us a
that the translator of the O p tic k s , one Coste, included in the preface and which
Fontenelle took as coming from Newton himself; see G. Bonno, “Deux lettres
inedites de Fontenelle a Newton,” M o d e rn L a n g u a g e N o te s 4 4 , 188-190 (1939);
David Brewster, M e m o ir s o f th e L ife , W ritin g s, a n d D isc o v e rie s o f S i r I s a a c N e w to n , 2
vols. (Edinburgh, 1855), II, 290-295, 494-500.
9The suggestion of Robert Shackleton that Fontenelle’s treatment of this ques
tion may be taken as the beginning of his systematic anti-Newtonianism is to be
treated with reserve. See Shackleton’s introduction to his edition of Fontenelle,
E n tr e tie n s s u r la p lu r a lite des m ondes (Oxford, 1955), pp. 20-28.
10J o u r n a l des S a v a n ts 6 7 , 546 (1720), in a review of the French translation of the
O p tic k s (Amsterdam, 1720).
11A. Laborde-Milaa, F o n te n elle (Paris, 1905).
12C. A. Sainte-Beuve, C a u serie s d u L u n d i (Paris, n. d.), Ill, 314-335.
13Louis Maigron, F o n ten elle, I ’h o m m e, I’oeuvre, l ’in fluence (Paris, 1906).
14J. R. Carre, L a P h ilo so p h ic de F ontenelle, ou la sourire de la raison (Paris, 1932).
15John W. Cosentini, F o n te n e lle ’s A r t o f D ia lo g u e (New York, 1952).
Fontenelle savant and dignifies the Entretiens, which made his repu
tation, with all the apparatus of an elaborate variorum edition .16
Gregoire, finally, finds that the career of the permanent secretary
of the Academy was a mask to philosophic disenchantment and
his commitment to science a role played but not believed by a
secret nihilist.17 This is not the place to choose between these Fon-
tenelles, or to add another to the list. But it may perhaps be per
missible to suggest that the sardonic manner, the tendency to
denigrate his own commitments, which give rise to such varying
interpretations may have been in part the expression of uneasy
consciousness that he remained an amateur, a science reporter and
not a savant. The Eloge of Malebranche includes a remark discon
certing to the intellectual historian. “On peut savoir,” writes Fonte
nelle, “l’histoire des pensees des hommes sans penser.” 18 And what
ever else he was, Fontenelle was a historian of ideas.
He was also a humanist of science, and his best efforts were de
voted to the men of science, to his colleagues. His eloges remain his
finest work .19 Here his distinctive qualities appear to best advan
tage: the personal dispassionateness, the respect for knowledge, the
real if not always discriminating comprehension of scientific ac
complishments, the faith he expressed (whether or not he felt it) in
the civilizing mission of science, the talent for lucid exposition if
not for profound discussion (he was never profound). He disliked
the term eloge since he conceived these essays not as eulogies, but
as historical sketches supplementing the account of the work of the
year which he prepared for each volume of the Histoire et memoires
10See above, note 9. Shackleton also prints the D ig re ssio n su r les anciens et les
m odernes in this useful volume.
17Gregoire, F o n te n elle ; see especially his summaries, pp. 270-271 and 465-466.
This work contains the best discussion of Fontenelle’s science, and of his attitude
to Newtonianism; see especially pp. 119-184.
18Fontenelle, O euvres, 8 vols. (Paris, 1790-1792), VI, 416.
ls First published in the current volumes of the H is to ir e de l’A c a d e m ic , they were
collected in volumes VI and VII of the edition of the O euvres cited in note 18, and
selections have been several times reprinted. An English translation of the early
eloges was published in 1717, under the title T h e L iv e s o f th e F rench, I ta lia n a n d G er
m a n P h ilo so p h e rs, which contains, too, a selection from “some of the most curious
Relations of Philosophical Matters,” in offering which the translator (John Cham-
berlayne) has “affected to join the U tile with the D u lc e , according to the Poet’s
Advice.”
de I’Acade'mie.20 The vein is ceremonial and impartial, elegant and
concise, objective and decently respectful—combinations achieved
more readily by the French mind and language than the English.
For a long time the eloge of Newton served as the cornerstone of
Newtonian biography, and not only in the sense that it was the
first. Though somewhat obscured by translation, the trail of Fon-
tenelle’s phrases can be followed through successive accounts of
Newton’s life well into the nineteenth century. Even the structure
of Fontenelle’s essay proved remarkably durable. Here appear the
essential features of posterity’s image of Newton. Here Newton and
Descartes are set over against each other as the prototypes of the
inductive and deductive philosophers, though of the many com
mentators who elaborated this comparison, none hit upon so happy
a thought as Fontenelle in balancing their merits. Here, too, occur,
among other things, the story of the youthful Newton’s inattention
to business and absorption in his studies; the description of how
mathematics came to him at a glance (only the nineteenth century
turned him also into a mechanical prodigy); the portrait of the
insatiable investigator, whose “accurate and importunate” manner
of research is an object lesson to all who would interrogate nature;
the account of his entry into public affairs to defend the university
from James II and of his later practical life at the M int and the
Royal Society; the attributing of his reluctance to publish his dis
coveries to his loathing for controversy; the tale of his solution of
Bernoulli’s problem at the end of a tiring day; and the delineation
of his outstanding personal characteristics—manners, modesty,
kindliness, generosity, and appearance (unfortunately Fontenelle
was misinformed about Newton’s appearance, and there were in
fact unhappy episodes in his life in which the qualities appropriate
to the role of selfless and retiring searcher into nature were hon
ored in the breach).
One crucial episode, featured in all later biographies, does not
appear in the eloge. In 1727, Fontenelle did not know of that most
famous meditation in the history of science, the train of thought
about the force retaining the moon in her orbit, which had come
to Newton as he sat at home in the garden in the plague year of
20 Francisque Bouillier, in the introduction to his edition of the E lo g e s (Paris,
1883), pp. xxiii ff.
1666 and had led him to his theory of gravitation. The first ac
count of this event was published in the preface to Henry Pem
berton’s View of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy (1728). In the article
on Newton printed in 1738 in the General Dictionary, Pemberton’s
information was incorporated into that found in the eloge, in the
first appearance of what became the standard narrative of New
ton’s personal history .21 The same article gave a rather more de
tailed and documented treatm ent of Newton’s thought than had
Fontenelle, and for this purpose the author published a selection
from the scientific papers and correspondence. In 1760, the Bio-
graphia Britannica printed an even larger selection.22 Neither of
these articles, however, altered the picture derived from Fontenelle
and Pemberton. Nor did the other accounts that appeared here
and there throughout the eighteenth century .23
The first work really to supersede Fontenelle was Sir David Brew-
21The G en era l D ic tio n a ry , 10 vols. (1734-1741), was the English translation and
adaptation of Bayle’s D ic tio n a ry , based on the latest Paris edition, and “interspersed
with several thousand lives never before published. The whole containing the his
tory of the most illustrious persons of all ages and nations, particularly those of
Great Britain and Ireland . . Newton’s life was one of the additions.
It will be noticed that the famous story of the apple does not appear in the
eloge. Neither is it mentioned in Pemberton. Fontenelle knew of it, from the bio
graphical information sent him by John Conduitt (see below, n. 30), who, how
ever, says only that “He first thought of his system of gravity . . . by observing an
apple fall from a tree,” and does not describe the train of thought to which it led.
Not knowing this, Fontenelle would not have seen the point, and it was left to
Voltaire to work this anecdote into the biographical corpus. For the authenticity
of the story, see Jean Pelseneer, “La Pomme de Newton,” C ie l et Terre (1937), 1-4,
and G. R. de Beer and Douglas McKie, “Newton’s Apple” and “Newton’s Apple
—an Addendum,” N o te s a n d R e c o rd s o f th e R o y a l S ociety 9 , 46-54, 333-335 (1951-
52). The authors omit only to point out that it was not until the article by Ben
jamin Martin (below, n. 23) that what Voltaire referred to as “fruits” were gen
erally identified as apples. The story of a single apple was apparently not canoni
cal until the 19th century.
22To the material from Fontenelle, Pemberton, and the scientific correspond
ence itself, this article added a few anecdotes drawn from Whiston’s reminis
cences, available only since 1749: M e m o ir s o f th e L i f e a n d W r itin g s o f M r . W illia m
W liis to n , 2 vols. (London, 1749). Flere appears for the first time the explanation
that in 1666 Newton supposed the discrepancy between the theoretical and the
observed positions of the moon, which caused him to set aside his work on gravity,
to be the consequence of the disturbing influence of the Cartesian vortex.
23For example, U n iv e r sa l M a g a z in e 3 , 289-300 (1748); Benjamin Martin, B io -
g r a p h ia P h ilo s o p h ic a (London, 1764), pp. 361-376; Paolo Frisi, E lo g io d e l C a v a liere
I. N e w to n (Milan, 1778).
/
ster’s Life of Sir Isaac Newton.2i Suggestions had been advanced by

Biot that Newton had suffered a period of mental derangement,
that, though he recovered his sanity, he never regained his scientific
powers, and that his religious writings were the products of intellec-
ual decay.25 These theories shocked Brewster into producing the
first full-length biography. It was a work of national and scientific
piety, which displayed Newton, in Brewster’s own phrase, as the
“high priest,” not to say the Sir Galahad, of science. The tendency,
well developed even before Brewster, to make Newton’s life an edi
fying object lesson, reached its nadir in an anonymous work
published in 1860, The Triumphs of Perseverance and Enterprise, “written
with the view to inspire the youthfhl reader with a glow of emulation,
and to induce him to toil and advance in the peaceful achievements
of science and benevolence, remembering the adage, ‘W hatever
man has done, man may do.’ ” This sort of thing produced a reac
tion, of course,26 and now the wheel has come full circle, turning
through disputes about Newton’s character and theories about his
mental processes, until J. W. N. Sullivan advances as the key to
his life the proposition that, the greatest of scientists, he thought
science unim portant,27 and Lord Keynes, with Bloomsbury perver
sity, describes him as the last of the magicians.28 It has, indeed,
been Newton’s fate that other people have always projected their
philosophies or theologies of science upon him in explanation of his
achievements. It is refreshing, therefore, to turn back to the plainer
24London, 1831. In 1855 appeared a second and enlarged edition, which
printed a few selections from Newton’s correspondence; see note 8, above.
25Biot wrote the article “Newton” (1821) in the Michaud B io g r a p h ic universelle,
vol. 30, pp. 367-404; see especially pp. 390-391, 402. A selection of Newton’s theo
logical writings has recently been published, Herbert MacLachlan, ed., S ir Isa a c
N e w to n ’s T h e o lo g ic a l M a n u s c r ip ts (Liverpool, 1950). In 1829 Henry (later Lord)
Brougham published what was essentially a translation of the Biot article, L ife o f
S ir Isa a c N e w to n (London, 1829), which appeared in the Library of Useful Knowl
edge series and appears to have been the immediate occasion of Brewster’s work.
For Biot’s criticism of the Brewster M e m o ir s (see preceding note), see J o u r n a l des
S a v a n ts , Oct. and Nov. 1855, 589-606, 662-677.
26See particularly Augustus de Morgan, E s s a y s on th e L i f e a n d W o rk o f N e w to n
(Chicago, 1914). The first of these essays appeared in T h e C a b in et P o rtra it G allery o f
B r itis h W o rth ies (London, 1846).
27Isa a c N e w to n (London, 1938).
28“Newton, the Man,” N e w to n Tercentenary C elebrations, 1 5 - 1 9 J u l y 1 9 4 6 , published
by The Royal Society (Cambridge, 1947), 27-34.
account of Fontenelle, embellished only with literary grace, where,

if the mystery of Newton’s genius is not dispelled, neither is it
deepened.29
Fontenelle drew his discussion of Newton’s scientific accomplish
ments from his own knowledge; for the biographical facts, however,
he relied entirely on notes sent him by John Conduitt, who had
married Newton’s niece.30 Unfortunately, Conduitt was most
dissatisfied with the use Fontenelle made of the information. “ I
fear,” wrote Conduitt of Fontenelle after the eloge was published,
“he had neither abilities nor inclination to do justice to that great
man, who has eclipsed the glory of their hero, Descartes.” 31 There
were no real grounds for these complaints, but Fontenelle had, in
fact, omitted several points included by Conduitt, among them a
num ber of derogatory remarks about Descartes’s hypotheses and
the statement that Newton originally undertook the study of
mathematics to discover whether there was anything in judicial
astrology. He ignored Conduitt’s request that he recall the passages
in his e'loges of l’Hopital and Leibniz which allowed Leibniz a portion
of the credit for developing the calculus. He passed lightly and tact
fully over Newton’s ventures into history, chronology, and divinity,
about which Conduitt had given him a considerable amount of in
formation. And though he compares England favorably to France
in regard to the respect which society accorded to men of science,
it is also clear from his reserve that he regarded the contemporary
apotheosis of Newton as excessive, and not only in contrast to the
neglect encountered by Descartes in his last years. To a tempera
ment like Fontenelle’s, apotheosis was a repellent process, no matter
whom it involved.
Fontenelle always remained faithful to the cosmology he had
29For a complete guide to the biographical literature, see G. J. Gray, A B ib lio g

(2nd ed., Cambridge, 1907), together with A
ra p h y . . . o f S i r Isa a c N e w to n D e s c rip
(New
tiv e C a ta lo g u e o f th e G race K . B a b s o n C o llectio n o f th e W o rk s o f S i r I s a a c N e w to n
York, 1950) and its S u p p le m e n t (Babson Institute, 1955), corrected in a few par
ticulars in the co m p te-re n d u by G. F. Shirras, A r c h iv e s in te rn a tio n a le s d ’h isto ire des
sciences 2 9 , 949-953 (1950). The most'comprehensive biography is that by Louis
T. More, I s a a c N e w to n (New York and London, 1934).
30These notes were published in Edmund Turnor, C ollections f o r the H isto r y o f th e
T o w n a n d S o k e o f G r a n th a m (London, 1806).
31D ic tio n a ry o f N a tio n a l B io g ra p h y , article “John Conduitt.”
learned and expounded as a young man. His last book, Theorie des
tourbillons cartesiens (1752), was also one of the last general defenses
of the system to see print. But though his life embraced almost the
full span of Cartesian science, he must not be regarded as the mori
bund champion of some fossilized doctrine. Cartesianism was a
living body of thought about nature. On the basis of the principles
laid down by Descartes, there developed a real physics—indeed too
real because too literal.32 Nor was Descartes exempt from the spirit
of criticism he enjoined. Already by 1700, there were several schools.
Malebranche had created a Catholic Cartesianism, to which was
opposed the skeptical Cartesianism represented by Fontenelle. Yet
it was from Malebranche that Fontenelle took the doctrine of
spherical vortices to oppose to the Newtonian theory of gravity.
The web of resistance to Newton was, in fact, complex. Some
strands ran parallel and others counter to each other. In the e'loge
there is apparent the influence, not just of Descartes and Male
branche, but of Huygens and of Leibniz. For Huygens, the true
physicist, the decisive objection was concrete. W hat was inadmissible
in Newtonianism was primarily the idea of a universal attraction
subsisting between all the particles of the world as an inherent
property of matter “parce qu’une telle hypothese nous eloignerait
fort des principes mathematiques ou mecaniques.” 33 But for Leibniz
and the general run of Cartesians the problem arose from differing
conceptions of what science does.34 In the Cartesian view, for all
its hostility to scholasticism, science moves through nature from
definition to explanation; in that of Leibniz it moves rather from
32See the excellent book by Paul Mouy, cited in note 6.

33Nor did Huygens think that Newton could have seriously meant that gravity
is an essential property of matter. See “Theorie de la pesanteur,” O euvres com pletes
de C h r is tia a n H u y g e n s (The Hague, 1944), XXI, 474; quoted too by Mouy, pp.
260-261, in his discussion of Huygens and Newton.
34This whole question has been treated by many writers, of course, and from
many points of view. For the Cartesian side, see (in addition to Mouy and
Gregoire, note 6), Francisque Bouillier, H isto ir e de la p h ilo so p h ic carte'sienne, 2 vols.
(Paris and Lyon, 1854). For the differences between Newton and Leibniz, see
Alexander, T h e L e ib n iz - C la r k e C orrespondence, with the editor’s introduction; Ernst
Cassirer, L e ib n iz ’ S y s te m in se in em w isse n c h a ftlic h e n G ru n d la g e n (Marburg, 1902), esp.
pp. 245-282; Josef Durdik, L e i b n i z u n d - N e w to n (Halle, 1869); F. S. C. Northrop,
“Leibniz’s Theory of Space,” J o u r n a l o f the H is to r y o f Id e a s 7, 422-446 (1946); and
an interesting unpublished doctoral dissertation in the library of Princeton Uni-
principles to values; and in that of Newtonians from descriptions

to abstract generalizations. Strictly speaking, therefore, Newtonian
science could never get outside itself, and might in a sense be said
to be a tautology, or at least to accomplish nothing of interest or
value.
More immediately, the theory of gravity was unacceptable to Car
tesians because of their commitment to a mechanistic universe. For
Leibniz, though a strict mechanist in practice, the planetary theory
was excluded rather by his commitment to a finalism unreconcilable
with Newton’s way of taking the phenomena as given, as the data of
thought. Disagreements were profound on the fundamental question
of space. Descartes having unified his science by identifying space
and matter, it remained for them to be properly distinguished:
unsuccessfully by Leibniz, who turned space from a substance into
a relation (that of simultaneous events), after which he sought to
unite his system metaphysically by the principle of preestablished
harmony; successfully by Newton’s bolder stroke of emptying space
to turn it into the physical expression of an abstract geometry (and
an attribute of God), after which he did unite his system around
the principle of gravity.35 Fontenelle, for his part, rejected the very
different providentialisms of Malebranche, of Leibniz—and of
Newton. But for Leibniz (seeing more deeply, showing more insight
into the rationalizing powers of the calculus), what was abhorrent
in Newtonianism was not its providentialism, but the exact contrary,
its tendency to lead in the direction already marked by Hobbes, a
self-sufficient materialism destructive of natural religion. One
important matter found Newtonians and Cartesians standing to
gether. Both rejected finalism in scientific explanation, and, in the
controversy over vis viva, both held as against Leibniz that the
versity, Nicholas Rescher, “Leibniz’ Cosmology: A Reinterpretation of the Phi

losophy of Leibniz in the Light of his Physical Theories” (1951). For Fontenelle’s
respect for Leibniz, see his Eloge de Leibniz, Oeuvres, VI, 450-505. The best guides
to Newton’s principles are Alexandre Koyre, “The Significance of the Newtonian
Synthesis,” Archives internationales d’histoire des sciences 29, 291-311 (1950), and F.
Rosenberger, I. Newton und seine physikalischen Prinzipien (Leipzig, 1895).
351 owe this way of seeing it to Koyre, “The Significance of the Newtonian
Synthesis.” On space as a divine attribute, see Alexander, Leibniz-Clarke Corre
spondence, pp. xiv, 47 (Clarke’s Fourth Reply to Leibniz).
quantity conserved in a dynamical situation is momentum and not

kinetic energy.36
On the whole, the confrontation of Newton with Leibniz was
philosophically more interesting and deeper; that of Newton with
Descartes was historically more influential and more obvious—
in some respects, indeed, this latter was the kind of opposition
which in mathematics is expressed by a change of sign from plus
to minus. But on specific points about the actual working of the
real world, the influences of Leibniz and Descartes came together
in the way reflected in the caveats and passing emphases in Fonte-
nelle’s eloge which imply his own disbelief that Newton’s was a
satisfactory picture of what happens.
For example, Newton’s adherents did not, like Fontenelle, de
scribe the Principia as resting equally on two leading theories, one
concerned with the force of attraction exerted by bodies, the other
with the resistance offered by fluid mediums to motion. Expositions
by Newtonians generally emphasized the former, the positive, con
structive side of Newton’s work, rather than the latter which,
though it is indeed the subject of much of Book II, served rather
the negative purpose of disproving the existence of Cartesian vor
tices.37 Further on, at the close of his discussion, Fontenelle com
plained in passing that Newton never makes clear what causes
gravity itself, wherein it consists, or how action at a distance is
mechanically possible. Now this was the crucial objection which
united all the opponents of Newton. To call gravity a force of at
traction was no clarification. Attraction had not even the elemen
tary merit of working properly. From time to time Newton’s
cosmos got out of order, and Providence had to step in to repair it.
Nor was the idea comprehensible, and in place of attraction
Fontenelle suggested the term “ impulse” as more appropriate. In
Cartesian mechanics, force was transmitted in good, concrete, di
36 There is a good account of this well-known issue in M artial Gueroult, Dy-

namique et metaphysique leibniziennes (Paris, 1934).
37 See, for example, Henry Pemberton, A View of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy
(London, 1728); Colin Maclaurin, Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discov
eries (London, 1748); Voltaire, Elemens de la philosophic de Newton (Amsterdam,,
1738). For a useful guide, see W. W. Rouse Ball, An Essay on Newton’s Principia
(London, 1893).
rect ways: by impact, by pressure, by the frictional drag of swirl

ing vortices of cosmic stuff, none the less real for being subtle,
which carried the planets around in their courses. (Fontenelle, it
will be noticed, included no discussion of the laws of motion or of
Newtonian mechanics.) To describe the fall of an apple or the mo
tion of the moon and the tides not as a definite push by something
against something else, but as the pull of an intangible force, itself
inexplicable, was to offer not an explanation, but, like the scho
lastics, a mystification, a word in place of a fact. And as gravity
seemed simply an occult force or a perpetual miracle, so the New
tonian idea of an empty space across which it flings its influence
seemed a reversion to the mysterious void that had only recently
been filled up by the Cartesian plenum. So nebulous was the whole
conception that, in the 1730’s, Fontenelle saw the theory of gravity
as a passing fancy, of some value perhaps for having posed certain
criticisms which inspired improvements in the system of vortices at
the hands of Privat de Molieres.
Fontenelle did admire the matchless mathematical virtuosity dis
played in the Principia. The trouble was not in the mathematics,
but that, taken as an explanation of the universe, the system failed
—or rather that it was no explanation at all since no cause could
be assigned for its central principle, the principle of attraction, and
since it substituted for a concrete, working, mechanical picture a
set of mathematical and geometrical abstractions. At issue, in fact,
was the question, as old as Aristotle, whether mathematics and
nature really fit. Newton (writes Fontenelle) as’est mis dans le
Vuide, a des forces mouvantes connues & Mechaniques il a substitue
une force inconnue & Metaphisique, une Attraction, dont on ne
peut prevoir les effets, mais que Ton suppose telle que certains
faits etablis la demandent, & qui par consequent satisfait toujours
precisement a tout. M. l’Abbe de Molieres lui reproche raeme
asses finement cette extreme precision, les principes Phisiques n ’en
ont pas tant, lorsqu’on vient a les appliquer aux Phenomenes.” 38
The trouble with Newton’s mathematical approach was that the fit
with phenomena is impossibly tight. It squeezes out reality, where
things rub against each other physically in a looser, a more com
38Histoire de I’Academie Royale des Sciences (1733), p. 94.

FONTENELLE AND NEWTON 4 4 I
prehensible meshing with ordinary experience, and where there is

always something left over from an explanation in case it is needed.
Much earlier, Fontenelle had remarked approvingly of Male-
branche’s numberless “petits tourbillons” that their being applicable
to the explanation of so many phenomena—light, heat, sound,
electricity, weight, whatnot—created a strong presumption in their
favor. “Voila un grand fonds de force pour tous les besoins de la
physique”—even those not yet foreseen.39 For Fontenelle, a theory
that comes out precisely even, so to say, simply circles (whether
through reality or not) right back to its starting place.
It may at first seem odd that the Cartesians, whose very defini
tion of m atter was mathematical, should have accused the New
tonians of excessive abstraction. But the penalty attached to over-
mathematicizing nature in the fashion of Descartes was precisely
that the process simultaneously coarsened and adulterated mathe
matics by confusing its province with that of mechanics and its
procedures with common sense. In retrospect, of course, it is ap
parent that the two arguments never really met, that the two sides
were talking about different things. The Newtonians—at least
when answering Cartesian critics—claimed only that Newton dis
covered a relation; the Cartesians accused him of not having found
a cause. To the Cartesian complaint that, the cause of attraction
being unexplained, the force of gravity was a figment of Newton’s
mind, an Aristotelian tendency, the Newtonians retorted that, ex
plicable or not, the relation subsisted in phenomena, and that it
was Descartes who had imagined, not a force to be sure, but a sub
stance and a motion to explain mechanically what no one could
yet understand, the ultimate cause that lies behind the laws of
nature, laws which themselves are to be taken only as descriptive
generalizations of appearances and not as causes, which derive (it
may be) from God whose ways it would be as impious as impos
sible to prescribe.40
Since Newton actually did not provide what Fontenelle required,
a system which accounted at once for the behavior and the cause
39 Fontenelle, “Eloge de Malebranche,” Oeuvres, VI, 422.
40 See the General Scholium to the Principia, 2nd ed. This, together with other
relevant passages from Newton’s writings, is printed as an appendix in Alexander,
Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, pp. 143-183.
of phenomena, which saw nature steadily and saw it whole, it is

not surprising that, like most Cartesians, he remained unconvinced.
There is, perhaps, a certain irony in the circumstance that New
ton’s theory, which countless intellectual historians have described
as responsible for the 18th-century picture of a soulless, determi
nistic world machine, should have been rejected at the time on the
ground that it was overly abstract and insufficiently mechanical
and that it called the hand of Providence into the workings of the
world. And on reflection, it may, after all, seem appropriate that
Newton’s first biographer was a Cartesian and a Frenchman. For,
if the English deified Newton, the French rationalized him. Belief
in the self-sufficiency of natural order, expressed by the materialist
philosophes who followed Fontenelle, must be attributed not to the
legacy of Newton, but to that of Descartes41—tempered less by
Newton than by Hobbes. The perfectly synchronized world ma
chine that is supposed to have sprung out of Newton’s brain to
place itself at the service of the Enlightenment was actually a
fairly uncertain mechanism until, well after the Enlightenment was
past its zenith, it was tidied up mathematically by Laplace—in
spired (it might be argued) by the Cartesian spirit which insists on
order and unity. And, on the other hand, the adoption of New-
tonianism and the challenge presented by its irregularities were
among the chief influences that carried the rational genius of
France to the leadership of the world of science in the late 18th
century.
The number of editions of the eloge published in London con
firms the admiration of the English public for Newton at the time
of his death. In addition to the Tonson edition reproduced here,
there were at least three others, two of which were different trans
lations. Even in Paris, Newton’s death appears to have aroused
considerable interest. The eloge of Newton was one of the few that
Fontenelle published separately, and besides that edition (1728),
there was also a single-sheet folio abrege of the same year.
41 See the stimulating book by Aram Vartanian, Diderot and Descartes (Princeton,
1953), where this point is argued with much force—perhaps with too much force,
seeing that Mr. Vartanian takes no account of the influence of the associationist
psychology on conceptions of scientific explanation from Locke and Condillac
through the taxonomists and chemists of the latter part of the century to the
ideologues.
The style of the original is graceful, urbane, and good-humored,

with here and there a hint of reserve. These qualities are largely
lost in the translation, which is frequently clumsy and nowhere
better than adequate. In the 18th century as now, “Etranger”
meant foreigner rather than stranger (see the last paragraph), and
there must have been a better expression for “Grandeur de la sur
face” than “M agnitude of the Superficies.” But the most curious
feature of the eloge appears also in the original, and that is that
Fontenelle should have concluded in good Victorian style by hold
ing up Leibniz and Newton to admiration as exemplars of thrift!
444 FONTENELLE: ELOGIUM OF NEWTON
ELOGIUM
O F
Sir I S A A C N E W T O N :
B Y
Monfieur F O N T E N E L L E ,
Perpetual Secretary o f the Royal

Academy o f Sciences at Paris.
L O N D O N :
Printed for J. T ons on in the S tra n d , and J. O sborn

and T . L o n g m a n in T a ter-n o jier R ow .
"m d c c XXVIII.
FONTENELLE: ELOGIUM OF NEWTON 445
[ 3 ]
THE
E L O GIDM
O F
Sir I S A A C N E W T O N ,
B Y
Monfieur FONTENELLE.
I R Ifaac Newton, who was bom at Woolftropein the

S county o f Lincoln, on Chriftmas day in the
year 1 6 4 1 , defended from the cider branch o f the
family of Sir John Newton Baronet. The Manor o f
Woolftrope had been in his Family near 100
years. The Newtons came thither from Weftby in
the fame County, but originally from Newton in Lan-
cafhire. Sir Ifaac’s Mother, whole maiden name was
Hannah Afcough, was likewife o f an ancient family j
fhe married again after his Father’s death.
When her Son was twelve years old fhe put him to
the Frec-fchool at Grantham; from whence fhe
A z removed
[ 4 ]
removed him fome years after, that he might be ac-
cuftomed betimes to look into his affairs, and to ma*
nage them himlelf. But {he found him lo carclefs of
fuch Bulinefs, and lb taken up with his books, that ftie
fent him again to Grantham, that he might be at li
berty to follow his inclinations*, which he farther in
dulged by going to Trinity college in Cambridge, where
he was admitted in 16 6 o, being then eighteen years
o f age.
In learning Mathematicks he did not ftudy Euclid,
who leemed to him too plain and too limple, and not
worthy of taking up his time; he underftood him al-
moft before he read him, and a caff of his eye upon the
contents of the Theorems was fufficient to make him
mailer o f them. He advanced at once to the Geome
try of Des Cartes, Kepler’s Opticks, &c. fo that we
may apply to him what Lucan {aid of the Nile, whole
head was not known by the Ancients,
A rcanum N a tu ra caput non prodidit ulli ,
N ec lim it populis parwum te , N i k , <videre. Lucan. 1 . x.
N a tu re conceals thy infant Stream w ith care3
N o r lets thee3 hut in M a jefiy appear.
It is certain that Sir Ifaac had made his great Dilcove-

ries in Geometry, and laid the foundation o f his two
famous pieces the Principia and the Opticks by the time
that he was twenty four years of age. If thole
Beings that are fuperior to Man have likewile a
progreffion in Knowledge, they fly whilft we
creep, and leap over thofe mediums by which we pro*
[ 5 ]
cced (lowly and. with difficulty from one Truth to ano
ther that has a relation to it.
Nicholas Mercator, who was born in Holftein, but
(pent molt of his time in England, publifhed in 1 6 6 8
his Logarithm otechnia, in which he gave the Quadra
ture o f the Hyperbola by an infinite Series. This
Was the firft appearance, in the learned world, of a Series
of this fort, drawn from the particular nature of the Curve,
and that in a manner very new and abftraCted. The
famous Dr. Barrow, then at Cambridge, where Mr.
Newton, who was about z 6 years of age, refided, re
collected that he had met with the fame thing in the
writings of that young gentleman,and there not confined to
the Hyperbola only, but extended by general forms to all
forts of Curves, even fuch as are mechanical, to their
quadratures, their rectifications and their centers of Gra
vity, to the folids formed by their rotations, and to the
fuperficies of thofe folids j fo that fuppofing their deter
minations to be poffible, the Series flopt at a certain
point, or at lead their fums were given by Bated
rules: But if the abfolute determinations were impofiible,
they could yet be infinitely approximated which is the
happiefl and mod refined method of fupplying the defects
of Human knowledge that Man’s imagination could poffi-
bly invent. To be mafler of fo fruitful and general a
Theory was a mine of gold to a Geometrician, but it
was a greater glory to have been the difcoverer of fo
fiirprizing and ingenious a Syftem. So that Sir Ifaac
finding by Mercator’s book that he was in the way to
it, ana that others might follow in his track, fhould
naturally have been forward to open his treafures, and
S fecurc
[6]
fecure the property, which confifted in making the dife
covery. But he contented himfelf with his treaiure
which he had found, without regarding the glory. He
himielf fays in a letter o f the Commercium epiflolicumy th a t
he thought M erca to r had entirely difcovcred the f e -
cret 3 or th a t others •would difcouer i t before he •was o f an
age to •write himfelf. H e without any concern fuffered
that to be taken from him, from which he might pro-
pofe to himielf abundance o f glory, and flatter himfelf
with the moil pleaiing expectations. He waited with
patience till he was o f a fit age to write, or to make
himfelf known to the world, though he was already
capable of the greatefl: things.
His martufeript upon Infinite feries was commu
nicated to none but Mr. Collins, and the Lord Broun-
kcr, both learned in that way. And even this had not
been done, but for Dr. Barrow, who would not iiiffer
him to indulge his modefty ib much as he dcfired.
This Manufeript was taken out o f the Author’s fludy
in the year 1 6 6 <jy entitled. The method w hich I form erly
fo u n d out , See. and fiippofing this form erly to mean no
more than three years, he muff then have difeovered
this admirable Theory of his feries when he was not
twenty four years of age ; but what is ftill more, this ma
nufeript contains both the difeovery and method o f
Fluxions, or thofe infinitely [m ail quantities , which have
occafioned fe> great a conteft between M. Leibnits and
him, or rather between Germany and England; of
which I have given an account in 1716, in * the
Elogium upon M. Leibnits; and tho’ it was in the
Elogium
* p. 109, 8cc.
FONTENELLE: ELOGIUM OF NEWTON
449
[ 7 ]
Elogium o f M. Leibnits, the impartiality of an Hifto-
rian was fo exa&ly kept that there now remains
nothing new to be laid of Sir Ifaac Newton. It was
there particularly observed th a t Sir Ifaac w a s undoubted
ly the Inventory th a t his glory w a s fecurey a n d th a t the only
quejlion w a s , w h eth er M . L eibnits d id take th is notion from
him. All England is convinced that he did take it from
him, tho’ the Royal Society have not declared Co in
their Determination, but only hinted it at moft. However
Sir Ifaac Newton was certainly the firft Difcoverer, and
that too by many years. M. Leibnits on the other fide
was the firft that published the Method, and if he did
take it from Sir Ifaac, he at leaft refembled Prometheus in
the fable, who ftole fire from the Gods to impart it
to Mankind.
In 1687 Sir Ifaac at length refolved to unveil
himfelf and fliew what he was, and accordingly the
Philofophia N atu ralis principia M ath em atica appeared in
the world. This book, in which the moft profound
Geometry ferves for a bafis to a new fyftem of Philo-
fophy, had not at firft all the reputation which it de-
ferved, and which it was afterwards to acquire. As it
is written with great learning, conceived in few
words, and the confequences often arife fo fiid-
denly from their principles, that the Reader is ob
liged himfelf to fupply the connedtion, it required
time for the Publick to become mafters o f it. Confi-
derable Geometricians could not underftand it with
out great application; and thofe o f a lower clafs un
dertook it not, ’till they were excited by the applaufe
o f the moft skillful, but at length when the book
1 was
FONTENELLE: ELOGIUM OF NEWTON
450
[ 8 ]
was fufficiently underdood, all tlicfe applaufes which
it fo (lowly acquired broke out on all (ides, and
uniced in a general admiration. Every body was (truck
with that Original (pirit that Ihines throughout the
whole work, that maderly genius which in the whole
compafs of the happied age was (hared only amonglt
three or four men picked out from all the mod learned
Nations.
There are two Theories which chiefly prevail in the
Princtpia , That of the Central power, and that of the
Refldance which mediums make to Motion, both al-
mod entirely new, and treated o f according to the
(ublime Geometry of the Author. We can never
touch upon either o f thefe fubjeds without having
Sir Ifaac before us, without repeating what he has (aid,
or following his track, and if we endeavour’d to diff
guife it, what skill could prevent Sir Ifaac Newton’s
appearing in it ?
The relation between the revolutions of the Heavenly
bodies and their didances from the common center of
thole revolutions, found out by Kepler, prevails
throughout the whole Celedial fydem. If we fup-
pofe, as it is neceflary, that a certain force hinders
thefe great bodies from purfuing, above an indant,
their natural motion in a dreight line from Wed to
Eafl, and continually draws them towards a center- it
follows, by Kepler’s rule, that this force, which will
be central or rather centripetal, will a d differently
upon the fame body according to its different didan
ces from that center, and this in the reciprocal propor
tion o f the (quares of thofe diftances; that is, for
indance,
[ 9 ]
inftance, if a body be at twice the diftance from
the center of its revolution, the action o f the central
force upon it will be four times weaker. It appears
that Sir Ifaac let out from hence when he entered up
on his phyficks o f the world in general: We
may likewife fiippofe or imagine that he firft con-
fidered the Moon, becaufe the Earth is the center of
her motion.
I f the Moon fliould lofe all her impulfe or inclina
tion to move from Weft to Eaft in a ftraight line, and
if nothing but the central power remained which for
ces her towards the center o f the Earth, fhe would
then only obey that power,only follow its diredions, and
move in a ftrait line towards that center. The velocity
o f her motion being known, Sir Ifaac demonftrates from
that motion that in the firft minute of her defeent fhe
would fall 15 Paris feet: her diftance from the Earth
is 60 femi-diameters of the Earth, therefore when the
Moon comes to the furface o f the Earth, the adion
o f the force which brought her thither will be en-
creafed as the fquarc or 60, that is, it would be
00 times ftronger; fo that the Moon in her laft
minute would fall 3600 times 15 feet.
Now if we fiippofe that the force which would have
aded upon the Moon is the fame which we call Gra
vity in terreftrial bodies, it will follow from the fyftem
o f Galileo that the Moon, which at the furface of
the Earth would have fallen 3 6 0 0 times 15 feet in a
minute, fhould likewife have fallen 15 feet in the firft
<?oth part, or in the firft fecond o f that minute. Now
B it
[ IO ]
it is known by all experiments, and they only can be
made at fmall diftances from the forface of the Earth, that
heavy bodies fall r 5 feet in the foil fecond o f their
fall: Therefore as to the velocity o f their fall they are
exatftly in the lame condition, as if having made the
lame revolution round the Earth that the Moon doth
and at the lame diftance, they Ihould happen to fall by
the mere force of their Gravity j and if they are in the
lame condition as the Moon, the Moon is in the
lame condition as they, and is only moved each in-
ffant towards the Earth by the fame Gravity. So exa£fc
an agreement o f effects, or rather this perfoSt identity
can proceed from nothing elfc but the caufes being the
lame.
It is true that in the fyftetn o f Galileo, which is
here followed, the Gravity is equal, and the central
force o f the Moon is not lb, even in the demonftra-
tion that has juft been given j but Gravity may well
not dilcover its inequality, or rather, it only appears
equal in all our experiments, becaule the greateft height
from which we can oblerve bodies falling is nothing
in companion of 1500 leagues, the diftance which
they all are from the center of the Earth. It is d o
monftrated that a Canon bullet fliot horizontally de
left bes, in the Hypothefrs o f equal Gravity, a para
bolic line, terminated at a certain point, where it
meets with the Earth, but if it was ihot from an height
considerable enough to make the inequality o f the
a&ion of its Gravity perceptible, inftead o f a Parabola
it would deferibe an Elliplis, o f which the center o f the
Earth
C n ]
Earth would be one o f the Foci, that is, it would
perform exadtly what the Moon doth.
I f the Moon hath Gravity like terreftrial bodies,
if fhe is moved towards the Earth by the fame
power, by which they arc moved; if, according to
Sir Ifaac’s expreftion, fhe gravitates towards the Earth,
the fame caufe adts upon all the reft of that wonderful
concourfe o f heavenly bodies ; for all nature is one
and the fame, there is every where the fame difpofition,
every where Ellipfes will be deferibed by bodies, whole
motions are diredted to a body placed in one o f their
Foci. The Satellites of Jupiter will gravitate towards Ju
piter, as the Moon gravitates towards the Earth; the
Satellites of Saturn towards Saturn, and all the Planets
together towards the Sun.
It is not known in what Gravity confifts. Sir Ifaac
Newton himfelf was ignorant o f it. If Gravity adts
only by impulfe, we may conceive that a block of mar
ble falling, may be pufhed towards the Earth, without
the Earth being in any manner pulhed towards it;
and in a word all the centers to which the motions
caufed by Gravity have relation, may be immoveable.
But if it a6b by Attradlion the Earth cannot draw
the block of marble, unlefs the block of marble like-
wife draw the Earth, why then fliould that attra&ive
power be in feme bodies rather than1 others ? Sir Ifeac
always fuppofes the adtion of Gravity in all bodies to
be reciprocal and in proportion only to their bulk;
and by that feems to determine Gravity to be really an
attradlion. He all along makes ufe o f this word to
B z exprefs
[ 12 ]
exprefs the aCtive power of bodies, a power indeed
unknown* and which he does not take upon him to ex
plain j but if it can likewife a6t by Impulfe, why fliouldnot
that clearer term have thepreference 2 for it muft be agreed
that it is by no means poffible to make ufe of them
both indifferently, fince they are fo oppofite. The
continual ufe o f the word Attraction fupported by
great authority, and perhaps too by the inclination
which Sir Ifaac is thought to have had for the thing itfelfi
atleaft makes the Reader familiar with a notion explod
ed by the Cartefians, and whofe condemnation had
been ratified by all the reft o f the Philofbphers; and
we muft now be upon our guard, left we imagine that
there is any reality in it, and fo expofe our felves to
the danger of believing that we comprehend it.
However all bodies according to Sir Ifaac gravitate
towards each other, or attract each other in proportion
to their Bulk : and when they revolve about a common
center, by which confecjuently they are attracted, and
which they attract, their attractive powers are in the
reciprocal proportion of their diftances from that cen
ter, and if all o f them together with their common
center revolve round another center common to them,
and to others, this will again produce new proportions,
which will become ftrangely complex. Thus each o f
the five Satellites of Saturn gravitate towards the other
four, and the other four gravitate towards it 5 all the
five gravitate towards Saturn, and Saturn towards them ;
all together gravitate towards the Sun, and the Sun a-
gain towards them. What an excellent Geometrician
muft
[ 13 ]
muft he have been to (eparate fuch a Chaos of relations j
the very undertaking (eems raflmefs ; and we cannot with
out aftoniihment conceive that from fo abftradted a
Theory, compofed of fo many (eparate Theories, all very
difficult to handle, fuch neceflary conclufions (liould ari(e,
and all conformable to the approved axioms of Aftro-
nomy.
Sometimes the(e conclufions even foretel events,
which the Aftronomers themfelves had not remarked.
It is afterted, and more efpecially in England, that when
Jupiter and Saturn are neared, which is at 165 millions
of leagues diftance, their motions have no longer the
fame regularity as in the reft of their courfe; and the
Syftem o f Sir Ifaac at once accounts for it, which
cannot be done by any other Syftem. Jupiter and Sa
turn attract each other with greater force, becaufe they
are nearer; and by this means the regularity of the reft
of their courfe is very (enfibly difordered; nay, they go
farther ftill, and determine the quantity and the bounds
of this irregularity.
The motion of the Moon is the leaft regular of any
of the Planets, the moft exa<ft tables are (ometimes
wrong, and ftie makes certain excurfions which could not
before be accounted for. Dr. Halley, whole profound
skill in machematicks has not hindered his being a
good Poet, (ays in the Latin verles prefixt to the Prin-
cifia,
Difctmus hinc tandem qua caufa argeptea phcehe
Pajjibus hand aquis g ra d itu r ; cur f m i t a nulli
Ha&enus Ajlranomo numerorum frena recufet.
That
[ Hi
That the M oon till then n ever fu h m itted to the bridle o f
calculations , nor vm s e v e r broke by any A jlro n o m er ;
but that at laft {he is fubdued in this new Syftem. All
the irregularities of her courfe are there {hewn to proceed
from a neceflity by which they are foretold. It is difficult
to imagine that a Syftem in which they take this form fliould
be no more than a lucky conje&ure j efpecially if we
consider this but as a fmall part of a Theory, which with
the fame fuccefs comprehends an infinite number o f o-
ther folutions. The ebbing and flowing of the Tyde fo
naturally {hews it felf to proceed from the operation of
the Moon upon the Sea, combined with that o f the
Sun, that the admiration which this phenomenon ufed
to raife in us feems to be leflened by it.
The fecond of thefe two great Theories, upon which
the Principia chiefly runs, is that of the Refiftance of
mediums to motion, which muft enter into the confide-
ration o f ail the chief phenomena o f Nature, fitch as
the motions o f the celeftiai bodies, of Light and
Sound. Sir Ilaac, according to his ulual method, lays
his foundations in the moll folid proofs of Geo
metry, he cohfiders all the caufes from which refiftance
can poffibly arife; the denfity of the medium, the
fwift motion of the body moved, the magnitude of its
fuperficies, and from thence he at laft draws conclufions
which deftroy all the Vortices of Des Cartes, and over
turn that immenfe celeftiai edifice, which we might
have thought immoveable. I f the Planets move round
the Sun in a certain medium whatever it be, in an
tetherial matter which fills up the whole, and which not-
withftanding
[ i5 ]
withftanding its being extreamly fiibtil, will yet caufe
refiftance as is demonftrated, whence comes it then
that the motions o f the Planets are not perpetually,
nay inftantly leffened ? but belides this, how can Comets
traverle thole Vortices freely every way, lometimes
with a tendency ablblutely oppolite to theirs, without
receiving any lenfible alteration in their motions, tho?
of never lb long a continuance ? whence comes it that
thele immenle torrents whirling round with almoft in
credible velocity, do not inftantly deftroy the particu
lar motion o f any body, which is but an atom in com-
parifon of them, and why do they not force it to fol
low their courle ? The Celeftial Bodies do then move
in a vaft vacuum, unlefi their exhalations and the rays of
Light which together form a thouland different mix
tures, fliould mingle a fmall quantity of matter with
the almoft infinite immaterial Ipaces. Thus Attraction
and Vacuum banilhed from Phylicks by Des Cartes,
and in all appearance for ever, are now brought back
again by Sir I lace Newton, armed with a power en
tirely new, o f which they were drought incapable, and
only perhaps a little dilguifed.
Tnefe two great men, whole Syftems are lb oppolite,
relembled each other in leveral refpeCts, they were both
Genius’s o f the firft rank, both bom with fuperior un-
derftandings, and fitted for the founding o f Empires
in Knowledge. Being excellent Geometricians, they
both law the necelfity of introducing Geometry into
Phylicks-, For both founded their Phylicks upon dip
coveries in Geometry, which may almoft be faid of
j none
C ] 1 6
none but themfelves. But one of them taking a bold
flight, thought, at once to reach the Fountain o f All
things, and by clear and fundamental ideas to make
himfelf mafter of the firft principles-, that he might
have nothing more left to do, but to defcend to
the phenomena o f Natures as to neceflary confe-
quences j the other more cautious, or rather more mo-
deft, began by taking hold of the known phenomena
to climb to unknown principles; refolved to admit
them only in fuch manner as they could be produced by a
chain of contequences. The former fets out from what he
clearly underftands, to find out the caufes of what he
fees; the latter fits out from what he fees, in order to
find out the caufe, whether it be clear or obfeure. The
felf-evident principles o f the one do not always lead
him to the caufes of the phenomena as they are; and
the phenomena do not always lead the other to prin
ciples fufficiently evident. The boundaries which ftop’d
two fuch men in their purfuits through different roads,
were not the boundaries o f Their Underftanding, but
of Human underftanding it felf.
While Sir Ifaac was compofing his great work, the
Princifiia, he had alfo another in hand, as much an ori
ginal and as new ; which, tho’ by the title it did not
teem fo genetal, is yet as extenfive by the manner in
which he has treated that particular fubjedt. This nvork
was his Opticks, or tr e a t ife o f L ig h t and Colours, which
firft appeared in the year 1704, after he had been ma
king the neceflary experiments for thirty years together.
It
[ 17 3
Ic is no (mail art to make experiments exa&ly. Every
matter of faCt which offers it felf to our confideration is
complicated with fb many others, which either compound
or modify it, that without abundance of skill they can
not be feparated; nay without an extraordinary fagaci-
ty, the different elements that enter into the compofi-
tion can hardly be guefled at. The fa£t therefore to be
confidered muff be refblved into the different ones
o f which it is compofed; and they themfelves are per
haps compofed o f others; fb that if we have not cho-
fen the right road, we may fometimes be engaged in
endlefs Labyrinths. The Principles and Elements of things
feem to have been conceal’d from us by Nature, with
as much care as the Caufes, and when we attain to the
■difcovery o f them, it is a fight entirely new and unex
pected.
What Sir Ifaac Newton aims at quite through his Op-
tick s, is the Anatomy of Light; this expreflion is not too
bold fince it is no more than the thing it felf By his
experiments, the fmallefl: ray of Light that is convey’d
into a dark room, and which cannot be fb fmall, but
that it is yet compounded of an infinite number of other
rays, is divided and difTe&ed in fuch manner, that the
.Elementary rays o f which it is compofed, are feparated
from each other, and difcover themfelves every one
tinged with its particular colour, which after this fepa-
ration can no more be altered. The firft total ray be
fore the difTe&ion, is white, and this whitenefs arofe
from all the particular colours of the Primitive rays.
The feparating thefe rays is fo difficult, that when Ma-
C riottc
[ 18 ]
riotte undertook it upon the firft news of Sir I fade's ex
periments, he mifearried in the attempt, even he who
had fuch a genius for experiments, and had been fo
fuccefiful on many other fubjeds.
N o primitive coloured rays could be feparated, un-
lefi they were fuch by their nature, that in palling
through the lame medium, or through the lame glals
prilm, they are refolded at different angles, and by
that means feparate when they are received at proper
diflances. This different Refrangibility of rays, red, yel
low, green, blue, purple, and all other colours infinite
in number, a property which was never before fufpe-
ded, and to which we could hardly be led by con-
jedure, is the fundamental dilcovery o f Sir Ilaac
Newton’s treadle. The different Refrangibility leads
us to the different Reflexibility. But there is fomething
m ore; for the rays which fall at the fame angle up
on a furface are refraded and refleded alternately, with
a kind of play only diflinguilhable to a quick eye, and
well affifted by the judgment of the Oblerver. The
only point, the firfl: idea of which does not entirely be
long to Sir Ifiac Newton, is, that the rays which pals
near the extremities of a body without touching it, do
fomewhat turn from a ftrait line, which is called Infle-
dion. But the whole together forms a body of Op-
ticks fo perfedly new, that we may henceforward look,
upon that fcience as almofl: wholly owing to this Author.
That he might not confine himfelf to thefe bare
(peculations, which are fometimes unjuftly ffcyled idle,
he gave us the defign of a Telefcope by refledion,
which
[ 19 1
which was not thoroughly put in execution ’till a long
time after. It has here been experienc’d that one of thefe
Telefcopes but z foot and a half long, had as good an
* effe£t as a tolerable common Telefcope of 8 or 9
feet, which is a very extraordinary advantage, and the
whole improvement of it will probabily be better known
hereafter.
One advantage of this book, equal perhaps to that
of the many new difcoveries with which it abounds, is
that it furnifties us with an excellent model of proceed
ing in Experimental Philofbphy. When we are for
prying into Nature, we ought to examine her like Sir
Ifaac, that is, in as accurate and importunate a man
ner. Things that almoffc hide themlelves from our en
quiries, as being o f too abftradted a nature, he knows
now to reduce to calculation, tho’ filch calculations
might elude the skill o f the belt Geometricians, without
that Dexterity which was peculiar to himfelf; and the
ufe which he makes of his Geometry, is as artful as
the Geometry it felf is fublime.
He did not finifli his Opticks , becaufe feveral neceffa-
ry experiments had been interrupted, and he could not
begin them again. The parts o f this building, which
he left unfiniflied, could by no means be carried on
but by as able hands as thofe of the firft Architect;
However he hath put fucli who are inclined to carry on
this work in a proper method, and even chalks out to
them a way to proceed from Opticks, to a compleat
body o f Phyficks, under the form of Doubts3 or Queries
C z pro-
* N. B. B y a c c u r a te t r y a ls m a d e h e r e , a r e fte ttin g Telefcope o f 2 f o o t a n d a h a l f , h a t h
l e e n f o u n d no w a y s in fe r io r to one o f th e c o m m o n f o r t , o f b e tw e e n 40 a n d 50 f o o t long.
8
C 20 ]
propofing a great many defigns which will help future
Philofophers, or which at lealt will make a curious hi-
flory of the Conjectures o f a great Philofopher.
Attraction is the governing principle in this fliorr
plan of Phyticks; that property which is called the H ard *
fiefs of bodies, is the mutual attraction of their parts,
which doles them together, and if they are o f fach a
figure as that whole lurfaces are capable of being every
where joined, without leaving any void {paces, the bo
dies are then perfectly hard. O f this kind there are
only certain fmall bodies, which are primitive and un
alterable, and which are the elements of all other bo
dies. Fermentations , or chimical E jfervefcences , whole
motion is lo violent, that they may lometimes be com
pared to llorms, are the effeCts of this powerful attra
ction,which aCts upon fmall bodies only at fmall diltances.
He conceives in general, that attraction is the aCtive
principle of every thing in Nature, and the caufe of
all motion. If a certain degree of motion that is once
given to any thing by the hand of God, did after
wards only dillribute it felf according to the laws of
Percuffion, it appears that it would continually de-
creafe in its motion by contrary Percuffions, without
ever being able to recover itfelf, and the Univerle
would very foon fall into fuch a date of red:, as
would prove the deftruCtion of the whole. The power
o f attraction, which always fab lifts and is not weakned
by being exerted, is a perpetual Ipring o f aCtion and
life. It may likewife happen that the effeCts of this
power may at length combine in fuch a manner, as
[ ai ]
that the Syftem of the Univerfe may be dilordered, and
require, according to Sir Ilaac’s expreflion, a hand to
repair it.
He declares very freely that he lays down this at
traction, only as a caule which he knows not, and
whole effeCts he only con fiders, compares and calculates;
and in order to avoid the reproach of reviving the Oc
cult qualities of the Schoolmen, he fays, that he elta-
blifhes none but fuch Qualities as are manifejl and very
vifible by their phenomena, but that the cattles of thefe
Qualities are indeed occult, and that he leaves it to other
Philolophers to learch into them; but are they not pro
perly cattles which the Schoolmen call occult q u a litie s ;
lince their effects are plainly feen ? befides, could Sir Ifaac
think that others would find out thefe O ccult caufes
which he could not dilcover ? with what hopes o f fuc-
cels can any other man learch after them ?
At the end of his O p ticks he put two treadles of
pure Geometry, one concerning the Quadrature o f Curves
and the other of the Enumeration o f L ines, which he ffcyles
of the th ird order 5 he hath lince left them out, becaufe the
fubjeCt was too different from that of the Opticks, and
they were printed feparatelyin 1711, with an A nalyfis hy
Infinite equations and the D ifferential method. It would be
only repetition to lay, that throughout all his works
there appears a refined fort of Geometry that is peculiar
to himfelf.
Being lo taken up with thefe fpeculations, he fhould
naturally feem to have had no inclination to Bufinefs,
and to have been incapable of it 5 but yet when the
7 pri-
[ 22 ]
privilcdges o f the Univerlity o f Cambridge, where he
had been Mathematical Profeflor from 1 by Dr.
Barrow’s refignation to h im , were attackt by King
J a m es II, in 1687. (in which year he publifhed the
Principia ) he was very zealous in alTerting them, and the
Univerlity named him one o f the Delegates to the High
CommiJJion court. He was likewile one of their Repre-
fentatives in the Convention-Parliament of 1688, and
late in it ’till it was diffolved.
In 1 6 9 6 the Earl of Hallifax, who was Chancellor
o f the Exchequer and a great patron to learned men*
(for the Englifli Nobility do not think it a point of ho
nour to flight them, but are frequently fuch themfelves)
obtained from King William the office of Warden of
the Mint for Sirllaac Newton; and in this employment
he was very ferviceable in the great re-coynage at
that time. Three years after he was made Mafter and
Worker, a place o f conliderable profit which he en
joyed ’till his death.
It may be thought that this place in the Mint was
fuitable to him only becaule he was an excellent Geo
metrician and had great skill in Phyficks; and indeed this
bufinels often requires very difficult Calculations, and a
great number of Chimical experiments, of his skilfulnefs
in which there are many proofs in his Table o f the Ef a y s o f
foreign Coins printed at the End of Dr. Arbuthnot’s book.
But his genius extended likewile to matters merely poli
tical, and in which there was no mixture of fpeculative
Sciences; for upon the calling of the Parliament in 1701,
he was again chofen Reprefentative for the Univerfity
[ * 3 3
o f Cambridge. After all, it is perhaps an error to look
upon the Sciences and Bufinefs as incompatible, efpecial-
ly to Men o f a certain turn. Political Affairs, when
well underflood, are naturally reduced to refined Cal
culations, and have fb near an affinity, that thofe who
are ufed to fublime (peculations comprehend them with
greater facility and more certainty, as foon as they are
acquainted with the fads and furniflied with proper ma
terials.
It was Sir Ifaac Newton’s peculiar happinefs, to en
joy the reward of his merit in his life-time, quite con
trary to Des Cartes, who did not receive any honours
’till after his death. The Engliih do not refped great
Genius’s the lefs for being born amongfl them 5 and fb
far are they from endeavouring to depreciate them by
malicious criticifins, fo far from approving the envy
which attacks them, that they all confpire to raife them •
and that great degree o f Liberty which occafions their
differences in the moft important points, does not hin
der them from uniting in this. They are all very fen-
fible how much the glory of the Underflanding fhould
be valued in a State, and whoever can procure it to their
Country becomes extremely dear to them. All the
learned Men of a Nation, which produces fo many,
placed Sir Ifaac at their head by a kind of unanimous
applaufe, they acknowledged him for their Chief and
their M ailer: not fo much as one oppofer durft appear, nay
they would not even have admitted of a moderate admirer.
His Philofophy hath been adopted throughout England,
it prevails in the Royal Society, and in all the excellent
per-
[ 2 4 ]
performances which have come from thence; as if it
had been already made facred by the refpebt of a long
feries of ages. In fliort He was reverenced to fo great a
degree that death could not procure him new honours,
and he himfelf faw his own Apotheajis. Tacitus who
has reproach’d the Romans with their extreme indifference
for the great men of their Nation, would certainly have
given the Englifh the quite contrary Chara&er. In
vain would the Romans have excufed themfelves by pre-
tending that great merit was no more than what was
common amongft them. Tacitus would have told them
that it never was fo, or that we fhould even endeavour
to make it fo by the honour we annex to it.
In 1703, Sir Ifaac Newton was chofen Prefident of the
Royal Society, and continued fo without any interruption
’till the time of his death, for the fpace of z 3 years; a lin
gular example, and one from which they could fear no ill
confluences hereafter. Queen Anne Knighted him in
1705, a title of honour which at leaf! ferves to ftlew
that his name had reached the Throne, to which the
moft celebrated names do not always arrive.
He was more known than ever in the court of the
late King. The Princefs of Wales, who is now Queen
of Great Britain, has Co excellent an underftanding and
Co much knowledge that fhe was capable of asking
queftions of fo great a Man, and could receive fatisfa-
&ory anfwers from none but himfelf She has often de
clared publickly that fire thought it an happinefs to live
in his time and to be acquainted with him. In how
many other Ages, in how many other Nations might
[ 25 ]
he have been placed without meeting with fuch another
Princefs l
He had compofed a treatife o f Ancient Chronology,
which he had no thoughts of publifhing, but that Prin
cefs, to whom he imparted fbme o f the chief points,
thought them fb new, and fo full o f art, that flie de-
fired a fummary of the whole Work, which flie never
would part with, and would be alone in poffeflion of.
She ftill keeps it amongft her choicefl treafures. How
ever there efcaped a copy of it. A curiofity excited by
fuch a particular piece of Sir Ifaac Newton could hardly
be hindered from employing the utmoft addrefs to come
at fb great a treafure, and in truth they muft have been
very fevere who would have condemned fuch a curioficy.
This Copy was brought into France, by the perfon
who was fo happy as to procure it, and the value which
he had for it hindered his being very careful of i t ; fo
that it was feen, tranflated, and at length printed.
The main defign of this Syftem of Chronology
o f Sir Ifaac, as appears by the extract we have of it,
is to find out by following with abundance of Sagacity
fbme o f the tracks, however faint they are, of the moffc
ancient Greek Aftronomy, what was the pofition of the
colure o f the Equinoxes with refpe£t to the fix’d flats, in
the time of Chiron the Centaur. As it is now known
that thefe Stars have a motion in longitude of one de
gree in 7 z years, if it is once known that in Chiron’s
time the Colure paffed through certain fixt Stars, it may
be known by taking their diftance from thofe, through
which it now paffes, how much time hath elapfed from
D Chiron
468 FONTENELLE: ELOGIUM OF NEWTON________________
fr fl
Chiron until our days. Chiron was one o f thole who
went along with the Argonauts in their famous expedi
tion *, this would therefore fix the Epocha of that expedi
tion, and confequently afterwards that of the Trojan War j
two great Events upon which all ancient Chronology de
pends. Sir Ifaac places them 5 00 years nearer the Chriftian
<dEra than they are ufually placed by other Chronologers.
This Syftem has been atcackt by two learned French
men ; who are blamed in England for not having ftaid
for the whole work, and with having been fo hafty in
their Criticilm. But is not this their earneftnels an ho
nour to Sir Ifaac? They leized as fbon as poflible the
glory o f having filch an adverlary; and they are like
to find others in his ftead: For the famous Dr. Halley,
chief Aftronomer to the King o f Great Britain, has al
ready written in the defence o f the Aftronomical part of
the Syftem j and his friendftiip for the great man deceafed,
as well as his great skill in this Science make him a for
midable adverlary. But after all the conteft is not de
termined 5 the publick, fuch I mean as are capable o f
judging o f it, and.who are but few in,number, have not
yet done.it, and tho’ it Ihould happen that the ftrougeft
arguments were on one fide, and only Sir Ifaac’s name
on the other, perhaps the World would remain feme
time in fufpcnce, and perhaps too with reafbn.
As foon as-the Academy o f Sciences, by their Regula
tion in 1 6 could chule foreigners into the number
of their affociates, they failed not to make Sir Ifaac
Newton one o f them. He all along held correfpondence
with them, by fending them whatever he publifhed.
This
f 27 ]
This was fome of his former works, which he either
cauled to be reprinted, or which he now firft puhlilhed.
But after he was employed in the Mint where he had
now been for fome time, he no more engaged himfelf
in any canfiderable new undertaking either in Mathe-
maticks or Philofophy. For tho’ his fclution of the fa
mous problem o f the TrajeSkari# proposed to the Englifh
by way o f challenge by M, Leibnits during his contefl:
with them, and which was. much fought after both
for the perplexity and difficulty of it, may be
reckon’d a confideraJble attempt, it was hardly more than
diverhon to Sirllaac Newton. He received this problem
at four of the clock in the afternoon, at his return from
the Mint very much fatigued, and never went to bed
hill he had mattered it.
After having been fo ferviceabie to all the learned part
o f Europe in Ipeculative Sciences, he devoted himfelf
entirely to the fervice of his country in affairs that were
more vilibly and dire&ly advantageous to it, a fenfible
pleaforc to every good fubje£t • but all his leifure time
he devoted to the curiolity of his Mind ; he thought no
kind of knowledge beneath his conlideration,. and he
knew how to improve himfelf by every thing. After
his death there were found among!! his papers feveral
writings, upon Antiquity, Hiftory, and even Divinity it
felfi which is fo widely different from thole Sciences,
for which he is fo much diftinguilhed. He never dif
fered a moment to pals unemployed, and he never Ipent
his time after a trifling manner, or with flight attention
to what he was about.
D 2, He
470 FONTENELLE: ELOGIUM OF NEW TON
[> 8 ]
He all along enjoyed a fettled and equal ftate of
health untill he was fourfcore years old j a very elTential
circumftance of the extraordinary happinefs which he
enjoyed. He then began to be afflicted With an In
continence of Urine, and yet the five years following
which preceded his death, he enjoyed long intervals o f
health, or was tolerably well by means of the regula
rity of his diet, or by taking that care of himlelf which
he had hitherto had no occafion for. He was then
forced to rely upon Mr. Conduit, who had married his
Neice, to manage his bufinels at the Mint-, which he
had not done but that he was very confident that he
repofed a trull that was of lo important and delicate a
nature, in good hands; and his opinion has been con
firmed fince his death by the choice of the King, who
has given that Employment to Mr. Conduit. Sir Ilaac
Newton did not undergo much pain till the laft twenty
days o f his life, when it was thought that he cer
tainly had the Stone in his bladder, and that he
could not recover. In thele fits o f pain, which were
fo violent that drops of fweat fell from his face, he
never cried our, nor exprefled the lead impatience; and
as loon as he had a moment’s eale, he ftniled, and Ipoke
with his ufual cheerfulnels. Till that time he had al
ways read and writ feveral hours every day. He
read the News Papers on Saturday morning the eigh
teenth of March, and talked a great while with the fa
mous phyfician Dr. Mead, and perfedlly enjoyed all his
fenles and his underfianding, but at night he entirely loft
all manner of fenfe, and never recovered it again; as if
FONTENELLE: ELOG IU M OF NEW TON 471
C 29 ]
the Faculties o f his Soul were fubjed only to be totally
extinguiftied,and not to be leffened by degrees. He died
on the Monday following the twentieth o f March* be
ing in his Eighth-fifth year.
His corps was laid in ftate in the Jerufalem Cham
ber, from whence perfons of the greateft quality and
fometimes crowned heads are carried to their grave. He
was buried in Weftminfter Abby, his pall being held
up by the Lord Chancellor, the Dukes of Montrofe
and Roxburgh, and by the Earls of Pembroke, Suftex
and Macclesfield. By thefe fix peers of England you
may eafily judge how many perfons o f diftindion at
tended his funeral. The Bilhop o f Rochefter (as. dean
o f Weflminfter) performed the forvice, attended by all
the Clergy belonging to the Abby, and the body was
interred juft at the entrance into the choire. We mult
look back to the Ancient Greeks if we would find out
examples of fo extraordinary a veneration for learning.
His family imitate the Grecians as near as poffible by
a monument which they intend to ered for him, and
which will coft a confiderable fum of money; and the
Dean and Chapter of Weftminfter have allowed it to be
put up in a place in the Abby, which hath often been
refufed to Nobility of the firft rank. Both his Coun
try and Family were as remarkable in exprefting their
grateful refped towards him ; as if by voluntary choice
he had made them his.
He was o f a middle ftature, fomewhat inclined to
he fat in the latter part of his life; he had a very lively
and piercing eye; his countenance was, pleafing and ve
nerable
472 FONTENELLE: ELOG IU M OF NEW TON
C 30 ]
ncrable at the fame time, cfpecially when he pulled off
his peruke and iliewed his white head of hair that was
very thick. He never made ufe of fpeftacles, and loft
but one tooth in all his life. His name is a fufficient ex:-
cufe for our giving ail account of thdfe minute circum-
ftances.
He was born‘with a very meek difpofidon, and an
inclination for quietnefs. He could rather have, chofen
to have remained in obfcurity, than to have the calm of
his life difturbed by thofe ftorms o f Literature, which
W it and Learning brings upon thole who let too great
a value upon themlelves. We find by one of his let
ters in the Conrmercittm EpifloUcnm, that his treadle o f Op-
ticks being ready for the prefs,. certain unlealonable ob
jections which happened to arife made him lay afide this
defign at that time. 1 upbraided my f e l f lays he, nvith my
imprudence , in lojing fu ch a re a lity a s (fu iet in order to
run a fter a Jhadonv. But this fliadow did not elcape
him in the conclufion; ic did not coft him his quiet
which he fo much valued, and it proved as much a
reality to him as that quiet it felf.
A meek difpolition naturally promifes modefty, and
it is affirmed that his was always prelerved without any
alteration, tho the whole world conlpired againft it.
He never talked of himfelf, or with contempt o f others,
and never gave any reafon even to the moft malicious
oblervers to fulpeCt him of the leaft notion of Vanity.
In truth he had little need o f the trouble and pains of
commending himlelfj but how many others are there
who would not have omitted that part, which men fo
willingly
FONTENELLE: ELOGIUM OF NEW TON 473
C3 T 1
willingly take upon themfelyes, and do not care to truft
with others ? How many great men who are universally
efteemed, have {poiled the concert o f their praife, by
mixing their own voices in it!
He had a natural plainnefs and affability, and al
ways put himfelf upon a level with every body. Ge
nius’s o f the firft rank never defpife thole who are be
neath them, whilft others contemn even what is above
them. He did not think himfelf difpenfed with, ei
ther by his merit, or reputation, from any o f the or
dinary duties o f life 5 he had no Singularity either na
tural or affe&ed, and when it was requifite he knew
how to be no more than one of the common rank.
Tho’ he was o f the Church o f England, he was not
for perfecting the Non-coilfbrmifts in order to bring
them over to it. He judged of men by their manners,
and the true Non-conformifls with him were the vi
cious and the wicked. N ot that he relied only on na
tural religion, for he was perfuaded o f Revelation; and
amongft .the various kind o f books which he had al
ways in his hands, he read none fo conftantly as the
Bible.
The plenty .which he enjoyed, both by his paternal
eftate, and by his Employments, being ftill increafed by
the wife Simplicity of his manner o f living, gave him op
portunities of doing good, which were noc negle&ed. He
did not think that giving by his laft Will, was indeed
giving; fo that he left no Will; and he ftript himfelf
whenever he performed any a£t o f generofity, either
to his Relations or to thofe whom he thought in want.
474 FONTENELLE: ELOG IU M OF NEW TON
[ 3* 1
And the good a&ions which he did in both capacities
were neither few nor inconfiderable. When decency re
quired him upon certain occafions to be expenfive and
make a (hew., he was magnificent with unconcern, and
after a very graceful manner. At other times all this
pomp, which feems confiderable to none but people of
a low genius, was laid afide, and the expence referv-
ed for more important occafions. It would really have
been a prodigy, for a mind ufed to refle&ion and as it
were fed with reafoning, to be at the fame time fond
of this vain magnificence.
He never married, and perhaps he never had leafure
to think o f it j being immerfed in profound and con
tinual ftudies during the prime o f his age, and after
wards engaged in an Employment of great importance,
and his intenfe application never fuffered him to be
fenfible of any void fpace in his life, or o f his having
occafion for domeftick fociety.
He left behind him about 31000 pounds Sterling.
M. Leibnitz, his rival, likewife died in good Circum-
ftances, tho’ not Co rich: But he left a confiderable fiim
of money which he had hoarded up. * Thefe two extra
ordinary examples, and both o f Strangers, feemed to
deferve our remembrance.
* V. L’Hift. 1716 . p. 1 1 *.
F r N I S.
A ppendix
References to Newton in Birch’s

H istory of the R oyal Society
Appendix
Comments on Birch’s H istory o f the R oyal Society
and an index to its references to N ew ton
R obert E. S c h o f ie l d
Thomas Birch, D.D. (1705-1766)1 was one of the many historian-

antiquarian Fellows of the Royal Society who were such a large part of
its membership in the first part of the 18th century. Largely self-edu
cated,2 he appears to have earned his living through his Whig connec
tions and by a prolific pen. He wrote histories and biographies in great
numbers, was a frequent pamphleteer, and assisted in the editing of
many other works, including the General Dictionary, Historical and Critical
(1734-1741) and the Gentleman’s Magazine.
His writing style was a pondorous one and excited unfavorable com
ment from such judges as Horace Walpole and Samuel Johnson. His
biographer in the D. N. B. mentions the “wearisome minuteness of de
tail” and the “dulness of style” apparent in his works. These character
istics, however, while they may be flaws in a literary sense, are prized
by many a historian who finds the works of Dr. Birch to be indispen
sable sources.
The historian of science has three major reasons for taking an interest
in Birch. For thirteen years (1752-1765) he discharged the duties of
1 Most of the material following is taken from The Dictionary of National Biography
(1920-21 printing; Oxford University Press, London), vol. II, pp. 530 ff.
2 The D.D. is honorary; he was created D.D. of the Marischal College, Aber
deen and of Lambeth in 1753.
477
478 APPENDIX
T H E
H I S T O R Y
OF THE
R O Y A L S O C I E T Y of L O N D O N
FOR I M P R O V I N G OF
N A T U R A L K N O W L E D G E ,
F R O M I T S F I R S T RISE.
1N WH I CH
The moft confiderable of thofe Papers communicated to the
S ociety , which have hitherto not been publifhed, are inferted in their
proper order,
AS A SUPPLEMENT TO
THE P H IL O S O P H IC A L TR A N SA C TIO N S.
By T H O M A S B IR C H , D .D .
Secretary to the R o y a l S o c i e t y .
VOL. I.
Takm intelligo P hilo so ph ia m N a t u r a l e m , qua nan abeat in fumos fpeculationumfubtilium

autfublimium, fed qua efficacittr eperetur ad fublevanda vita bumana incommoda, B a c o n d e
A u g m . Scient. L . ii. c. 2 .
L O N D O N :
Printed for A. M i l l a r in the Strand,
M D C C L Y I.
NEW TON INDEX TO BIRCH’S HISTORY 479
secretary of the Royal Society, and his work in that position was graced
by his passion for detail. In 1744, he edited the Works of the Honourable
Robert Boyle, an edition which is still useful to scholars who can obtain
it. Finally, in 1756-57, he published a history of the Royal Society.
Birch’s History of the Royal Society of London3 cannot properly be called
a history at all. In this respect it resembles its predecessor, Sprat’s His
tory of the Royal Society. But, like Sprat, Birch has provided us with the
material out of which histories can be written. Bishop Sprat wrote his
“history” before the Society really had much history to detail, but it is
in Sprat that we find the philosophy which lay behind the organization
of the Society and learn of the type of opposition it faced. Birch’s
“history” contains next to nothing by Birch, and no analyses of any
type, but, for the historian of science who does not have access to the
papers of the Royal Society, it provides a transcription of the minutes of
the Society and the council from its founding through December 1687,
and reprints numerous papers which were read before the Society but
never printed in its Transactions.
This period covers the most productive years of Newton’s scientific
career. The index below follows Newton in his relation with the Society
from the date of his election in 1671/2 down to the publication of the
Principia in 1687. All references, in parentheses, to publication of letters
in the Philosophical Transactions are given by Birch.
INDEX
VOLUMES I a n d II
Nothing by Newton; the only item about him is a proposal of Newton
for membership (last page, vol. II) made by the Bishop of Salisbury
(Seth Ward).
VOLUME III
Page 1. January 11, 1671/2. Newton elected Fellow of the Royal So
ciety. Discussion of Newton’s “improvement of telescopes by contract
ing them”; the telescope sent by Newton to the Society had been seen
by the King and others. A “description and scheme of it” sent by the
secretary to Huygens; Newton wrote a letter to Oldenburg (January 6,
1671/2) “altering and enlarging the description of his instrument.”
Pages 2-3. Text of the aforementioned letter of Newton (see also Phil.
Trans., No. 81, p. 4004).
3 See reproduction of title page to vol. I. Volume II was printed in the same year;
vols. I ll and IV were printed the following year, 1757.
480 APPENDIX
Page 3. The secretary ordered to write Newton acquainting him with

his election into the Society, thanking him for the communication of his
telescopes.
Page 4. January 18, 1671/2. Newton’s “new telescope was examined
and applauded.”
January 25, 1671/2. A “reflecting telescope of four feet long, of Mr.
Newton’s invention” produced; the “metalline concave was not duly
polished.” Ordered that the instrument “be perfected against the next
meeting.”
Robert Boyle having made a type of “opaque glass .. . to serve for re
flecting concaves,” ordered that Boyle be asked whether larger pieces
could be made “for the use of Mr. Newton’s telescopes.” A letter from
Newton to Oldenburg (Cambridge, January 18, 1671/2) read, in which
Newton discussed a way to prepare “metalline matter for reflecting con
caves,” and hinted at “a considerable philosophical discovery” which
he would send to the Society.
Page 5. Text of the aforementioned letter. Newton “thanked for his
respect to the Society,” and asked “to impart to them the intimated dis
covery, as soon as he conveniently could.”
Page 8. February 1, 1671/2. “The four foot telescope of Mr. Newton’s
invention was produced again, being improved since the last meeting.”
Recommended that Hooke “see it perfected as far as it was capable of
being.”
Page 9. February 8, 1671/2. Newton’s letter on light and colors (Cam
bridge, February 6, 1671/2) read. (Printed in Phil. Trans., No. 80,
p. 3075.) Newton to be thanked by the Society (reference to Oldenburg’s
letter to Newton) and asked for consent “to have it forthwith pub
lished,” to protect him “against the pretensions of others.” Ordered that
Newton’s communication “be entered into the register-book; and that
the bishop of Salisbury, Mr. Boyle, and Mr. Hooke be desired to peruse
and consider it, and bring in a report of it to the Society.”
Page 10. February 15,1671/2. Reading of Hooke’s “considerations upon
Mr. Newton’s discourse on light and colours.” Hooke thanked for
“ingenious reflections.” Ordered that Hooke’s paper be registered, and
a copy of it sent to Newton. Hooke’s paper not to be printed together
with Newton’s, “lest Mr. Newton should look upon it as a disrespect,
in printing so sudden a refutation of a discourse of his, which had met
with so much applause at the Society but a few days before.”
Pages 10-15. Text of Hooke’s criticism of Newton.
Page 15. February 15,1671/2. “Mons. Schroter presented for the reposi
tory a glass, which by a metallic body he had tinged red.” Hooke “put
NEW TON INDEX T O BIRCH’S HISTORY 481
in mind of the six foot tube of Mr. Newton’s invention, and of bringing
in a specimen of the effect of his own proposition.”
Page 15. February 22, 1671/2. Reading of Newton’s letter to Olden
burg (Cambridge, February 20, 1671/2) “promising an answer to Mr.
Hooke’s observations upon his new theory of light and colour.” Text of
Newton’s letter, which also refers to Huygens’ “several handsome and
ingenious remarks.”
Page 19. March 14, 1671/2. “Mr. Cock was ordered to make, for the
use of the Society, a telescope of Mr. Newton’s invention.”
Page 21. March 21, 1671/2. A letter of Hevelius, concerning a comet,
which he had observed in Andromeda, read; ordered that “notice
should be given of this phaenomenon” to persons in both universities for
observation, “and particularly to Dr. Wallis and Mr. Newton.”
A letter of Newton to Oldenburg (Cambridge, March 19, 1671/2)
read; letter said to contain “several particulars relating to his new tele
scope.” (Printed in Phil. Trans., No. 81, p. 4009.)
Page 30. March 28, 1672. A letter from Newton to Oldenburg (Cam
bridge, March 26, 1672) read, containing “some more particulars re
lating to his new telescope, especially the proportions of the apertures.”
(Printed in Phil. Trans., No. 82, p. 4032.)
Page 41. April 4,1672. A letter from Newton to Oldenburg (Cambridge,
March 30, 1672) communicated, answering difficulties raised by Auzout
and queries raised by Denys; a proposal by Newton to use “instead of
the little oval metal in that telescope, a crystal figured like a triangular
prism.” (Extract printed in Phil. Trans., No. 82, p. 4034.) Hooke ordered
to make “such a crystalline prism” and to “try the same.”
Page 43. April 18, 1672. Hooke “ready to make an experiment by a
prism” showing that it is possible “to destroy all colours by one prism,
which had appeared before through another.” There being no sun, the
experiment was deferred.
Among letters read, that of Pardies (April 9, 1672) contained “some
objections against Mr. Newton’s theory of light and colours.” (Printed
in Phil. Trans., No. 84, p. 4087.) Also a letter from Newton (Cambridge,
April 13, 1672), answering “the objections of the said jesuit.” (Printed,
Phil. Trans., No. 84, p. 4091.) Also another letter of Newton with same
date, “answering some experiments proposed by Sir Robert Moray for
the clearing of his theory of light and colours.” (Printed in Phil. Trans.,
No. 83, p. 4059.)
Page 47. April 24, 1672. Hooke made the experiments with prisms.
Page 49. May 8, 1672. A letter of Newton to Oldenburg read (Cam
bridge, May 4, 1672) with Newton’s “judgment of Mons. Cassegraine’s
482 APPENDIX
telescope, like that of Mr. James Gregory . .. with a hole in the midst of
the optic metal to transmit the light to an eye-glass placed behind it.”
(Printed in Phil. Trans., No. 83, p. 4057.)
Page 50. May 15, 1672. Hooke performed “experiments relating to Mr.
Newton’s theory of light and colours, which he was desired to bring in
writing to be registered.”
Page 50. May 22, 1672. Hooke made “more experiments with two
prisms, confirming what Mr. Newton had said in his discourse on light
and colours.” Hooke suggested that “these experiments were not cogent
to prove, that light consists of different substances or divers powders, as
it were.”
Page 52. June 12, 1672. Newton’s “answer to Mr. Hooke’s considera
tions upon his discourse on light and colours” produced; answer read in
part, and ordered “to be copied for the perusal of Dr. Wren and Mr.
Hooke.” (Printed in Phil. Trans., No. 88, p. 5084.)
Pages 52-54. June 19, 1672. Hooke’s “account of some experiments on
refractions and colours” read and registered. The text, as printed, deals
with an experiment “which seems at first much to confirm Mr. Newton’s
theory of colours and light; but yet I think it not an experimentuum
crucis, as I may possibly shew hereafter.” Hooke requested “to make
more experiments of the same nature, for a farther examination of Mr.
Newton’s doctrine of light and colours.”
Page 56. July 3, 1672. A letter of Huygens (Paris, July 1, 1672) read,
dealing with several topics, including “Mr. Newton’s reflecting telescope,
and applauding his new doctrine of light.”
Page 57. July 10, 1672. Society to “make a recess for some time,” but
the members “desired” to “meet on Fridays” to “discourse of philosoph
ical matters, and prosecute experiments . .. such, as might determine
the queries lately sent by Mr. Newton . . . which involve his theory of
light,” and such “as might improve Mr. Newton’s reflecting telescope.”
Page 58. October 30, 1672. Examination “of what had been done con
cerning the queries of Mr. Newton, to be determined by experiments,”
referred to next meeting. As to “trials . . . made for the improvement of
the reflecting telescope of Mr. Newton,” Hooke said he “had wanted a
mould of a sufficient bigness for a speculum, designed by him, of fifteen
inches diameter.”
Pages 79-82. March 26, 1673. Letter from Gregory to Collins (March
7, 1672/3), about telescopes, read. The text of the letter. Ordered that
the letter “be communicated to Mr. Newton.”
Page 83. April 9, 1673. A letter read from Huygens to Oldenburg
(Paris, January 14, 1672/3) containing “some considerations upon Mr.
Newton’s theory of light,” and Newton’s answer (Cambridge, April 3,

1673). (Part of Huygens’ letter printed in Phil. Trans., No. 96, p. 6086;
Newton’s letter printed in Phil. Trans., No. 97, p. 6108.)
Page 122. February 5, 1673/4. Hooke produced “a new kind of reflect
ing telescope of his own contrivance, differing from that of Mr. Newton.”
Page 178. January 28, 1674/5. Oldenburg said “that Mr. Newton had
intimated his being now in such circumstances, that he desired to be
excused from the weekly payments,” and the Council excused him.
Page 181. February 18, 1674/5. “Mr. Isaac Newton, James Hoare,
junior, Esq; were admitted.”
Pages 193-194. March 11, 1674/5. Hooke’s thoughts on the nature of
light: “That light is a vibrating or tremulous motion in the medium,
(which is thence called pellucid) produced from a like motion in the
luminous body, after the same manner as sound was then generally ex
plained by a tremulous motion of the medium conveying sound, pro
duced therein by a tremulous motion of the sounding body: and that,
as there are produced in sounds several harmonies by proportionate
vibrations, so there are produced in light several curious and pleasant
colours, by the proportionate and harmonious motions of vibrations
intermingled; and as those of the one are sensated by the ear, so those
of the other are by the eye.” Hooke desired to have “ready for the next
meeting, the apparatus necessary for the making Mr. Newton’s experi
ments formerly alledged by him, for evincing the truth of his new theory
of light and colours,” especially in reference to a letter from Francis
Linus (February 25, 1674/5) containing “assertions directly opposite to
those of Mr. Newton.” (Printed in Phil. Trans., No. 121, p. 499.)
Page 194. March 18, 1674/5. Hooke’s discourse “concerning the nature
and properties of light.”
Pages 216-217. April 15,1675. A letter from Leibniz (Paris, March 30,
1675) read, containing “remarks on several algebraical subjects relating
to Mr. James Gregory, Mr. Newton, and Mr. Collins, together with the
different sentiments of the Parisian astronomers concerning common
and telescopical sights.”
Page 232. November 18,1675. Oldenburg communicated Newton’s letter
(Cambridge, November 13, 1673) written in reply to a letter of Linus
to Oldenburg (February 25, 1674/5), concerning “an experiment relat
ing to Mr. Newton’s new theory of light and colours”; Newton “directs
his antagonist again very punctually, in what manner to try the experi
ment, to satisfy himself about his veracity in relating the same.” (Printed
in Phil. Trans., No. 121, pp. 499, 500.)
Newton offering to send to the Society “a discourse of his about
484 APPENDIX
colours,” Oldenburg “ordered to thank him for that offer, and to desire
him to send the said discourse as soon as he pleased.”
Pages 247-260. December 9, 1675. Newton’s manuscript, “touching his
theory of light and colours, containing partly an hypothesis to explain
the properties of light discoursed of by him in his former papers,” pro
duced. “Of the hypothesis only the first part was read, giving an account
of refraction, reflection, transparency, and opacity.” Newton’s letter
printed, followed by “an hypothesis explaining the properties of light,
discoursed of in my several papers.” Newton’s paper having contained
reference to an electrostatic experiment, some of the members “desired,
that it might be tried.” This experiment “Newton proposed to be varied
with a larger glass placed farther from the table.” Ordered “that this
experiment should be tried at the next meeting; and Mr. Hooke promised
to prepare it for that meeting.”
Newton to be asked by letter “whether he would consent, that a copy
might be taken of his papers, for the better consideration of their
contents.”
Pages 260-269. December 16, 1675. “Mr. Newton’s experiment of glass
rubbed to cause various motions in bits of paper underneath” tried
unsuccessfully, following the reading of Newton’s letter to Oldenburg
(December 14, 1675). Text of Newton’s letter. Ordered that Oldenburg
write to Newton to “acquaint him with the want of success of his ex
periment, and desire him to send his own apparatus, with which he had
made it.” Then “the sequel of his hypothesis, the first part of which was
read at the preceding meetings, was read to the end.” Text of the re
mainder of the hypothesis. After reading “this discourse,” Hooke said
“that the main of it was contained in his Micrographia, which Mr. New
ton had only carried farther in some particulars.”
Page 270. December 30, 1675. Newton’s letter to Oldenburg (December
21, 1675), “in answer to what had been written to him by Mr. Olden
burg concerning the want of success of his experiment made with a glass
rubbed,” read. Text of the letter. Ordered “that Mr. Newton’s direc
tions in this letter should be observed in the experiment to be made at
the next meeting of the Society.”
Page 271. December 30, 1675. “Mr. Oldenburg read a letter to himself
from Mr. John Gascoigne” (December 15, 1675) announcing the death
of Linus and stating “the resolution of Mr. Linus’s disciples, to try Mr.
Newton’s experiment concerning light and colours more clearly and
carefully. .. according to the directions given them by Mr. Newton’s
last letter: intimating withal, that if the said experiment be made before
the Royal Society, and be attested by them to succeed, as Mr. Newton
affirmed, they would rest satisfied.”
NEW TON INDEX TO BIRCH ’S HISTORY 485
Page 271. January 13, 1675/6. Newton’s “experiment of glass rubbed,

to cause various motions in bits of paper underneath,” succeeded. New
ton thanked for “the trouble of imparting . . . such full instructions for
making the experiment.”
Pages 272-278. January 20, 1675/6. The Society heard “the beginning
of Mr. Newton’s discourse, containing such observations, as conduce to
further discoveries for completing his theory of light and colours, espe
cially as to the constitution of natural bodies, on which their colours or
transparency depend.” Text of this part of the discourse.
Pages 278-279. Newton’s observations “pleased the Society,” and
Oldenburg ordered “to desire Mr. Newton to permit them to be
published.”
A portion was then read of Newton’s letter to Oldenburg (December
21, 1675), “stating the difference between his hypothesis and that of
Mr. Hooke.” Text of the relevant passage. The reading of “the rest of
Mr. Newton’s discourse” referred to the next meeting.
Page 280. January 27, 1675/6. Newton’s letter (January 25, 1675/6)
read, acknowledging “the favour of the Society in their kind acceptance
of his late papers.” A request that “the printing of his observations
about colours might be suspended for a time, because he had some
thoughts of writing such another set of observations for determining the
manner of the production of colours by the prism: which observations,
he said, ought to precede those now in the Society’s possession, and
would be most proper to be joined with them.” Ordered that the read
ing of Mr. Newton’s “observations about colours” be continued at the
next meeting.
Pages 280-295. February 3, 1675/6. The reading of Newton’s “observa
tions on colours” continued. Text of this portion.
Newton’s theory discussed, and a debate as to “whether the rays of
light, which, though alike incident in the same medium, yet exhibit dif
ferent colours, may not reasonably be said to owe that exhibition of dif
ferent colours to the several degrees of the velocity of pulses, rather than,
as Mr. Newton thought, to the several connate degrees of refrangibility
in the rays themselves.” Hooke’s opinion that “the former of these ways
was sufficient to give a good account of the diversity of colours.”
Pages 296-305. February 10, 1675/6. The “last part of Mr. Newton’s
observations, wherein he considered in nine propositions, how the phae-
nomena of thin transparent plates stand related to those of all other
natural bodies;” read. Among other things, Newton showed “how the
bigness of the component parts of natural bodies may be conjectured by
their colours.” Text of the last part of Newton’s discourse.
Page 309. March 2, 1675/6. The “sun and season being likely to serve
486 APPENDIX
for the making of Mr. Newton’s experiment called in question by Mr.

Linus,” it is proposed that “an apparatus might be prepared for that
purpose.” Hooke’s statement that he had the apparatus ready “to make
the experiment, when the Society should call for it.”
Pages 313-314. April 27, 1676. Newton’s experiment “tried before the
Society, according to Mr. Newton’s directions, and succeeded, as he all
along had asserted it would do.” The experiment described.
Page 318. June 8, 1676. A letter (May 27, 1676) from Lucas, the suc
cessor of Linus, “containing partly an account of the success of Mr.
Newton’s experiment there; partly some new objections against Mr.
Newton’s theory of light and colours.” The letter ordered to be copied
and a copy sent to Newton for his answer. (Letter printed in Phil. Trans.,
No. 128, p. 692.)
Page 319. June 15, 1676. A letter of Newton’s (June 13, 1676) read.
“Partly” an answer to Lucas’s letter {Phil. Trans., No. 128, p. 698) and
containing a “promise of a particular one; partly some communications
of an algebraical nature for Mons. Leibnitz, who by an express letter to
Mr. Oldenburg had desired them.” [This letter later became an impor
tant document in the controversy between Newton and Leibniz about
the discovery of the calculus.]
Page 369. January 2, 1677/8. A “common letter to be sent to all the
correspondents was read, and altered; and somewhat of return for en
couragement of the correspondence was ordered to be added.” Of thir
teen correspondents named, Newton is last in the list.
Page 512. December 4, 1679. A letter of Newton to Hooke (November
28, 1679) “produced and read,” with Newton’s “sentiments of Mons.
Mallemont’s new hypothesis of the heavens; and also suggesting an
experiment, whereby to try, whether the earth moves with a diurnal
motion or not, viz. by the falling of a body from a considerable hight,
which, he alledged, must fall to the eastward of the perpendicular, if the
earth moved.” Newton’s proposal “highly approved of by the Society.”
The experiment to be “tried as soon as could be with convenience.”
Page 516. December 11, 1679. Hooke’s answer to Newton’s letter read,
Hooke showing that the path described by a falling body “would not
be a spiral line, as Mr. Newton seemed to suppose, but an excentrical
elliptoid, supposing no resistance in the medium: but supposing a resist
ance, it would be an excentric ellipti-spiral, which, after many revolu
tions, would rest at last in the centre: that the fall of the heavy body
would not be directly east, as Mr. Newton supposed; but to the south
east, and more to the south than the east. It was desired, that what was
tryable in this experiment might be done with the first opportunity.”
Page 519. December 18, 1679. Hooke’s answer to Newton’s “former

letter” read; “as also another letter, which he had received from Mr.
Newton, containing his farther thoughts and examinations of what had
been propounded by Mr. Hooke.” Hooke’s account of “three trials of
the experiment propounded by Mr. Newton,” in each case of which the
ball was found to “fall to the south-east of the perpendicular point,
found by the same ball hanging perpendicular.” Since the experiment
had been made out of doors, “nothing of certainty could be concluded
from it.” A new trial to be made “within doors, where there would be
less motion of the air.”
VOLUME IV
Page 1. January 8, 1679/80. Hooke read “another letter of his to Mr.
Newton concerning some farther account of his theory of circular mo
tion and attraction; as also several observations and deductions from
that theory,” such as (1) “pendulum clocks must vary their velocity in
several climates,” (2) “this variation must also happen at different
hights in the same climate,” confirmed by an observation of Halley at
St. Helena, (3) thus “a pendulum was unfit for an universal standard
of measure.”
Page 2. Hooke “desired to make his trials as soon as possible of Mr.
Newton’s experiment concerning the earth’s diurnal motion.”
Page 4. January 21, 1679/80. “Dr. Croune proposing from Mr. Collins,
that the latter was ready to print two volumes of algebra, written by
Dr. Wallis, Mr. Baker, Mr. Newton, &c. provided the society would
engage to take off 60 copies,” it was ordered that the proposal be made
“in writing.”
Page 30. March 25, 1680. An “account of the experiments made on the
Tuesday before ... was brought in by Mr. Hooke, and read.” There had
been “made a regulus of equal parts of antimony and iron.” Part was
“melted with equal parts of tin,” which when polished “gave a strong
reflection . . . We conceive it may be very useful for making speculative
glasses for Mr. Newton’s experiment.”
Page 38. May 13, 1680. Hooke mentioned “a way of hardening an
amalgama of mercury and iron by a vegetable powder, which would
make it almost as hard as hardened steel. This, he conceived, would be
an excellent material for making specular planes for telescopes in Mr.
Newton’s way.”
Page 60. December 8, 1680. Ordered by the Council that “the secretary
send Mr. Newton an answer to his letter, that the Society give their con-
488 APPENDIX
sent for the Italian to dedicate his book, &c.” [The Italian in question
was Gasparini.] ,
Page 61. December 16, 1680. A letter from Newton to Hooke reat*
(Cambridge, December 3, 1680), in which an account was given “that
Dominico Gasparini, doctor of physic of Lucca in Italy, had lately
written a treatise of the method of administering the Cortex Peruvianas i*1
fevers. .. and that upon the fame of the Royal Society spread every
where abroad, he was ambitious to submit his discourse to so great ant*
authentic a judgment as that of the Society,” and hoped “the Society
would give him leave to dedicate his book to them.” Gasparini had rO'
quested another doctor “of his acquaintance in Italy to write to his cot'
respondent an Italian in London” to this effect. “The said Italian beinf?
gone from London to Cambridge before the arrival of the letters, on the
receit of them applied himself to Mr. Newton, who promised him, that
he would desire Mr. Hooke to acquaint the Society with Dr. Gasparini s
request. . . Mr. Hooke was desired to answer Mr. Newton’s letter*
which he did in one dated 18 Decemb. 1680, in which he took notice*
that the Society was pleased with the subject of Dr. Gasparini’s book-
As to “Dr. Gasparini’s dedication of his book to the Society, he needed
no leave, things of that nature being usually done without asking a
consent.”
In the above-mentioned letter, Newton included “thanks to Mr-
Hooke for the trials, which the latter had made of an experiment sug'
gested” by Newton “about falling bodies.”
Page 62. December 16, 1680. Trial of an experiment “for examining the
electricity of glass after Mr. Newton’s method, by rubbing one side of a
glass to make the other attract: But it was found, that though at first d
succeeded two or three times, yet afterwards, for what reason could not
be discovered, it did not succeed.”
Page 65. January 19, 1680/1. Reference to “undertaking of Mr. John
Adams to survey all England, by measuring, taking angles, and also the
latitudes of places; and in order to this running three several meridians
clear through England . . . Mr. Newton of Cambridge had promised to
assist him.”
Page 234. November 30, 1683. Following an obituary of Mr. John Col
lins (“born at Wood-Eaton near Oxford, on Saturday March 5, 1624/5
and died “in London, on Saturday November 10, 1683”), it is stated that
“about five and twenty years after his death, all his papers and most of
his books came into the hands of Mr. William Jones, F. R. S. amongst
which were found manuscripts upon mathematical subjects of Mr.
Briggs, Mr. Oughtred . . . Dr. Barrow, and Mr. Isaac Newton, with a
multitude of letters received from, and copies of letters sent to, many
learned persons, particularly Dr. Pell, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Barrow, Mr.
Newton, Mr. James Gregory, Mr. Flamstead, Mr. Thomas Baker . . .
Mons. Slusius, Mons. Leibnitz . . .
“From these papers it appeared, that Mr. Collins was so sollicitous in
his search after useful truths, so indefatigably industrious in prosecuting
these inquiries, and of so communicative a disposition, that he held a
constant correspondence for many years with all the eminent mathema
ticians of his time . . . It was from his papers chiefly, that the great
Newton’s claim to the invention of fluxions was established.”
Page 347. December 10, 1684. Halley’s report “that he had lately seen
Mr. Newton at Cambridge, who had shewed him a curious treatise, De
Motu; which, upon Mr. Halley’s desire, was, he said, promised to be sent
to the Society to be entered upon their register.”
Halley was “desired to put Mr. Newton in mind of his promise for
the securing his invention to himself till such time as he could be
at leisure to publish it.” “Mr. Paget was desired to join with Mr.
Halley.”
Page 370. February 25, 1684/5. A letter of Newton “to Mr. Aston, dated
at Cambridge, Feb. 23, 1684/5, mentioning, that the design of a philo
sophical meeting there had been pushed forward by Mr. Paget, when
he was last there; with whom himself had concurred, and engaged Dr.
More to be of the Society; and that others were spoken to, partly
by him, and partly by Mr. Charles Montagu.” According to Newton,
that “which chiefly dashed the business, was the want of persons will
ing to try experiments, he, whom we chiefly relied on, refusing to con
cern himself in that kind. And more what to add farther about this
business, I know not, but only this, that I should be very ready to con
cur with any persons for promoting such a design, so far as I can do it
without engaging the loss of my own time in those things.
“I thank you for entering in your register my notions about motion.
I designed them for you before now; but the examining several things
has taken a greater part of my time than I expected, and a great deal
of it to no purpose: and now I am to go into Lincolnshire for a month
or six weeks. Afterwards I intend to finish it as soon as I can
conveniently.”
Pages 479-480. April 28, 1686. “Dr. Vincent presented to the Society a
manuscript treatise intitled, Philosophice Naturalis principia mathematica,
and dedicated to the Society by Mr. Isaac Newton, wherein he gives a
mathematical demonstration of the Copernican hypothesis as proposed
by Kepler, and makes out all the phsenomena of the celestial motions
490 APPENDIX
by the only supposition of a gravitation towards the center of the sun

decreasing as the squares of the distances therefrom reciprocally.
“It was ordered, that a letter of thanks be written to Mr. Newton;
and that the printing of his book be referred to the consideration of the
council.”
Page 484. May 19, 1686. Ordered that “Mr. Newton’s Philosophice
naturalis principia mathematica be printed forthwith in quarto in a fair
letter; and that a letter be written to him to signify the Society’s resolu
tion, and to desire his opinion as to the print, volume, cuts, &c.” [In a
footnote, there is the text of Halley’s letter to Newton, dated May 22,
1686, informing Newton that his “incomparable treatise” had been
presented to the Royal Society who “were so very sensible of the great
honour you have done them by your dedication, that they immediately
ordered you their most hearty thanks, and that the council should be
summoned to consider about the printing thereof.” The Society “judg
ing, that so excellent a work ought not to have its publication any
longer delayed, resolved to print it at their own charge in a large quarto
of a fair letter; and that this their resolution should be signified to you
and your opinion thereon be desired, that so it might be gone about
with all speed. I am intrusted to look after the printing of it, and will
take care, that it shall be performed as well as possible. Only I would
first have your directions in what you shall think necessary for the em-
belishing thereof, and particularly whether you think it not better, that
the schemes should be inlarged, which is the opinion of some here: but
what you signify as your desire shall be punctually observed.” Remain
ing portion of the letter takes up Hooke’s “pretensions upon the inven
tion of the rule of decrease of gravity being reciprocally as the squares
of the distances from the center. He says you had the notion from him,
though he owns the demonstration of the curves generated thereby to
be wholly your own. How much of this is so, you know best; as likewise
what you have to do in this matter. Only Mr. Hooke seems to expect
you should make some mention of him in the preface, which it is possi
ble you may see reason to prefix.”]
Page 486. June 2, 1686. Ordered “that Mr. Newton’s book be printed,
and that Mr. Halley undertake the business of looking after it, and
printing it at his own charge; which he engaged to do.”
Page 491. June 30, 1686. Ordered, that “the president be desired
to license Mr. Newton’s book ... dedicated to the Society.”
Page 514. December 22, 1686. A letter of Wallis to Halley (Oxford, De
cember 14, 1686) read. Wallis’s letter deals with “the minutes of the
Philosophical Society at Oxford.” He had received “the two problems
of Mr. Newton.” Wallis found that Newton “hath considered the

measure of the air’s resistance to bodies moved in it; which is the thing
I suggested in one of my late letters, and thereby saves me the labour
of doing the same thing over again. For I should have proceeded upon
the same principle; that the resistance (caeteris paribus) is proportional
to the celerity (because in such proportion is the quantity of air to be
removed in equal times) nor do I know from what more likely principle
to take my measures therein. His computation from this principle I
have not yet had leisure to examine; but do presume, a person of his
accuracy hath not failed in his computation or reductions from it.”
Page 521. January 26, 1686/7. A letter from Wallis read, “concerning
the resistance of the medium to bodies projected through it, as likewise
to the fall of bodies.” Ordered, “that Mr. Newton be consulted, whether
he designed to treat of the opposition of the medium to bodies moving
in it in his treatise De Motu Corporum then in the press.”
Page 527. March 2, 1686/7. A letter of Newton’s read, “mentioning his
having sent up the second book of his mathematical philosophy.”
Page 528. March 9, 1686/7. A letter of Wallis to Halley (Oxford,
March 4, 1686/7) read, discussing the air’s resistance to the motion of
projectiles and Hooke’s “hypothesis of the mutability of the poles of the
earth.” This was the occasion for reading “a paragraph of Mr. Newton’s
mathematical philosophy [“Propos. 66 Cor. ult.”] concerning the direc
tion and position of the axis of a globe turning about itself, and shew
ing, that by the addition of some new matter on one side of a globe so
turning, it shall make the axis of the globe change its position, and re
volve about the point of the surface, where the new matter is added. It
was thought, that the same translation of the axis might be occasioned
in the globe of the earth by the blowing up of mountains by sub
terraneous fire.”
Page 529. April 6, 1687. The “third book of Mr. Newton’s treatise De
Systemate Mundi was produced and presented to the Society. It con
tained the whole system of celestial motions, as well of the secondary as
primary planets, with the theory of comets; which he illustrates by the
example of the great comet of 1680/1, proving that, which appeared in
the morning in the month of Nov. preceding, to have been the same
comet, that was observed in Dec. and Jan. in the evening.”
Index
P r epa r ed by A l l e n G . D ebus
(In this index, the numbers refer to the page-numbers of this work, not of the
original seventeenth- and eighteenth-century articles and books reproduced. The
index does not include the introductory essays written for this work, nor Fonten-
elle’s Eloge, pp. 444-473.)
Aberration, in telescope lenses, 141, 147 Aetherial spirit, 254; and frame of na
Acid spirit of the atmosphere, 70-71 ture, 180
Acids, 256 ff.; see also Water Air, irregularities of, 100 ff.; definition
Aereal substances, particle density re and properties, 253; generation from
lated to permanency, 252-253 acid action, 256 ff; can be com
Aether, motion of light particles through, pressed, 257; elasticity, 409; see also
50; undulation of light waves through, Boyle
99, 106; and the sensation of light, Air pump, used in optical experiments,
119 ff.; vibrations, 99, 106, 119, 122, 177; Boyle’s, 233
124, 143, 178, 181, 209, 337; irregu Aloes, tincture of, color not uniform,
larities, 100 f.; not light, 209; undu 125 f.
lations in Hooke’s hypothesis, 102, Angels of God, 358
108, 209; nature of, 143, 179, 180, Angle, refracting, 169
181, 250, 254, 322, 365; in solids, Animal motion, and aetherial conden
182, 250; and frame of nature, 254; sation, 182
see also Gravity, Heart, Light, Mus Animal spirits, aetherial nature of, 183
cular motion, Reflection, Refraction, Apertures, for lengths of reflecting tel
Soul, Violet color, Vortex escope, 69
Aetherial animal spirit, in man, 184 Apsides, motion of, 407
493
494 INDEX
Aqua regia, action on gold and tin, 257, Center, descent of bodies toward, 407
258 Centripetal force, law of, 406; cause of,
Arsenic, use in making mirror with 408
copper, 63 f. China, tides in Port of Tunking, 423
Astronomy, problems of, 407, 410 Clouds, effect on spectrum, 148-156;
Atheists, assumption on matter in space, effect on prism image, 171 f.
326 f. Colepresse, observations on tides at
Atmosphere, various phenomena of, 230; Plymouth, 421
Newton’s conception of, 251; neces Collision, bodies in motion after, 405 f.
sity for life, 379 ff.; see also Air Colors, simple, 47 ff., 54, 82, 89, 94 f.,
Atoms, fortuitous or casual concourse, 96, 112 f., 121 f., 140 f., 144 f., 166,
316; and God, 318-319; Epicurean 178, 192 f., 224; origin of, 53; pure
theory of attraction, 331; spontaneous rays of, 53, 120, 226, 230 ff., 251;
attraction in matter, 332, 338-343; transmutations of, 54; mixtures and
of a chaos, 332, 343-352; infinity of, com pounded, 54 f., 94 f., 121, 138,
408 140, 220; only two sorts of, 54, 122,
Attraction, among acid particles, 256 124, 136; cause in natural bodies, 56
ff.; of atoms, 331 fl; a disturbance of white light, 111;
Auzout, Newton answers, 70-71 not qualifications of light, 113; more
than two original, 125 ff.; nature of,
136; definition of, 140; number of,
Bell metal, unsuitability for mirror, 63 143 ff.; hypothesis not Newton’s pur
Berce, M. de, prefers Cassegrain’s tele pose, 144; from neighboring light,
scope to Newton’s, 72 ff. 167; order of, 168, 216 ff., 231; in
Black substances, likelihood of burning, glass surfaces and bubbles, 177, 187;
232 Newton’s eyes uncritical in, 192;
Blackness, definition, 111 prismatic, 192 f.; arcs of, 203; black
Blondel, reference to Plato, 297 and white rings, 203, 220 f.; arising
Blood, circulation of, 381 f. on polished steel, 214; causes in nat
Blue and red, the only primary colors, ural bodies, 216 ff.; Newton’s table
according to Hooke, 112 ff. of thickness of plate at which exhib
Boyle, tadpole experiment, 182; electri ited, 218 f.; a science for mathema
cal experiments, 184; Newton sends ticians, 225; relation to size of parts of
respects, 191; invention of air pump, bodies, 226, 230 ff.; see also Bubbles,
233; Newton’s letter to, 250-254; on Glass, Hooke, Hypothesis, Light,
the air, hydrostatics, 319 N atural bodies, Pardies, Refraction,
Bubbles, color of, 134; ring phenomena, Refrangibility, Ring phenomena,
211,213; succession of colors, 211 ff.; Whiteness
contrary colors produced in, 214; Comets, 410, 414-416
thickness of, 213-214, 220; see also Conic sections, 406; see also Hyperbola,
Light, Water Parabola
Controversies, Newton abjures, 178-179
Copper, color when dissolved, 120
Cambridge, Newton leaves during Corpuscles, sizes of, 231 f.; see also
plague, 52 Aether
Cartesian hypothesis, 99, 102, 106, 108, Corpuscular hypothesis of light, analogy
283; see also Descartes for, 179; see also Light, Water
Cassegrain, improvement of reflecting Corrosion of metals, 71
telescope, 72-75 Creation, of stars and planets, 282
INDEX 495
Curves, generation through impressed Eyes, Newton’s, uncritical in colors,

motion, 406 192
Descartes, telescopes of, 64; theory of Faber, experiments taken from Gri
light, 99, 106; theory of refraction, maldi, 198
114; discussion of spreading of light, Fat bodies, properties due to acid par
124; hyperbola of, 147; laws of inci ticles, 256, 258
dence and refraction, 186; explana Fermentation, 256 f.
tion of rainbow, 199; Hooke’s bor Finiteness of matter and space, 344
rowing from, 208 f.; vortices and Firmament, diameter of, 325
whirlpools, 415 Flame, definition, 181; glowing smoke,
Descent of bodies toward center, rules 256
of, 407; force of, 413 Fluids, circular motion and undulation
Diffusion of light, and spectrum, 100 of, 409
Digby, shown spectrum by Linus, 149 Fly, walking on water, 251
Dioptrics, problems in, 408
Doctrine, no hypothesis needed for Galileo, supposition on motion of plan
Newton’s, 121 ets, 306
Gascoigne, 155, 161, 163, 169
Earth (planet), motion due to God, 296 Geometricians, should study refraction
ff.; distance from sun necessary for of light, 102, 108
life as we know it, 366 ff.; rotation of, Geometry, Newton’s skill, 405; useful
370 ff.; inclination of axis, 372-379; lemmas in the Principia, 410; recent
not intended for paradise, 387; rea improvements, 415
sons not uniformly convex, 392 f.; Glass, effect on spectrum of unevenness,
spheroidal figure explained, 410 48; refractive power, 49, 173; colored,
Earth and transformed earth, reduction 56; refraction of light rays not caused
to water, 256 by irregularities, 100 f.; electrical ef
Earthy bodies, 256 ff. fects when rubbed, lflO, 190, 191,
Ecliptic, and axis of earth, 372-379 200, 201
Effluvia, electric and magnetic, 180; Glass pipe, rareness of air within, 186
and gravitation, 342 f. Glass window, effect on objects in room,
Electric and magnetic effluvia, 180 133
Electrical phenomena, 254; see also God, ability to implant motion, 185;
Boyle, Glass proof of existence, 345, 348 f.; maker
Engines, mechanical, 405 of the frame of world, 355; acts geo
Epicurean theory of atomic attraction, metrically, 364; see also Gravity,
331 Planets
Equinoxes, precession of, 408, 410 Gold, leaf, 56; mutual attraction of
Experiments, Newton requests results, particles, 257; conditions for change,
59 258; specific gravity, 323
Experimentum crucis on dispersion of Gravity, and the aether, 180 f.; cause of,
light, 50 f., 154; objection of Pardies 253, 298, 303; makes weight of bodies
to, 81, 88, 98, 105; Newton’s answer proportional to their matter, 319 f.; ,
to Pardies, 101 f., 107 f.; Pardies’ and God, 341; attributes and effects
final satisfaction with, 103, 109; of, 342; motion of bodies, 407 f.;
Hooke asks for, 111; importance of, in solar system, 410, 413, 414; prin
134 f.; conditions for, 159-162; sug ciple of, 412; law of decrease of, 414
gestion that Lucas perform, 174 ff.; Gregory, Optica Promota, 73, 75; telescope
type of prism to employ, 176 made by Reeve, 112
496 INDEX
Grimaldi, 97, 99, 104, 106, 198-199, difficulty if based on two prime colors,
250 143; mechanical, of color, 144; of
light, 179; of m atter in universe and
Halley, on true theory of tides, 412-424; deity, 311; of attraction of moon and
review of Principia, 405-411 sea, 418; covering tides, 422; see also
Heart, aether density and motion of, Doctrine
184 Hypothetical approach to Newton’s
Heat, production by sunbeams, 179; work, 135
and formation of vapors, 252; caused
by acid action, 252, 256 f.; due to Image (spectral), shape of, 158; pro
agitation of particles, 256; Newton’s portion of, 169; length of, 169, 170 ff.;
scale of degrees of, 259-268; see also see also Clouds, Solar image
Light Impulse, transverse, impressed on
Hooke, color experiments in the Micro- planets, 347
graphia, 56, 125; experiment on colors Incidence, unequal, 100; angle of, 149;
in liquids, 82, 85, 89, 91 f.; hypothesis see also Descartes
of undulations of light, 97, 99, 102, Inclination, of earth’s axis, 289 f.
104, 106, 108; pulse theory, 110-115; Indian sea, effect on tides in China, 423
answer to Newton on light and colors, Inductive method, statement on, 93
110-115; Lucas refers to, 168; New Infinities, not all equal, 294 ff.; treat
ton refers to, 177; drops belief all ment by Wallis of, 295; neither equal
colors composed of primaries, 178; nor unequal, 299
Newton’s answer, 178; experiment Infinity, difficulty to average man, 303 ff.
with straying of light, 198; alleges Inflection of rays, Newton’s use of
Newton’s discourse on light and colors Hooke’s work, 209
in Micrographia, 199; views on light Insects, walking on water, 187
and colors compared to Newton’s, Instrument (Newton’s), for observing
208 f.; Newton acknowledges use of moon’s distance from fixed stars, 236-
Micrographia, 229; see also Colors, 238
Descartes Intelligent minds, all bodies formed for,
Human body, heat of, 262, 267 358
Huygens, comment on Newton’s tele Interference. See Ring phenomena
scope, 65 f.; on Newton’s doctrine of Interstices of opaque bodies, void of air,
colors, 136-147; Newton replies, 137— 228
142, 143-146; final reply to Newton, Inverse-square law, 320
147; experiments on airs, 253; De
cycloide, 407 James II, 412
Hydrostatics, doctrine of, 409; see also Jupiter, four moons of, 52; distance from
Boyle sun, 287 fi; spheroidal figure ex
Hyperbola of Descartes, 147 plained, 410
Hypotheses, Newton’s objection to, 94,
96; Newton’s stand on, 99, 106; Kepler, laws of, 406; hypothesis of, 410
judgment of, 102, 108
Hypothesis, Newton’s, 79, 86 fi, 111, Lakes (and inland seas), inapplicability
177; Pardies excuses use of word, 98, of theory of tides, 422
105; Newton’s comment on use of, Life, speculations on other worlds, 359 fi
85, 92, 103, 109; Newton’s theory of Light, Newton’s theory of, 45, 75, 93,
light called, by Hooke, 114; desire by 95, 149, 151 ff., 164; corpuscular
inquirer, 116; contrast to theory, 118; theory of, 50, 57, 99 fi, 102, 106 fi,
INDEX 497
108, 114, 118 f., 121, 178 f., 181, 184, Newton’s third reply, 157-162; ex
188; experimentum crucis on disper periments of, 164, 169; Newton
sion, 50 f.; analogy with stone thrown thanks Oldenburg for help in ending
into water, 119, 188; and aether, 50, dispute, 254
111, 120, 179, 181, 184 ff., 192 f.; as Longitude, need of method for determi
a mixture, 51, 53, 55, 58, 79, 87, nation, 416
119, 121, 140, 224; refraction of, 51, Lucas, reply to Newton, 163-169; New
53 f., 93, 102, 108, 124, 174 f., 185 f.; ton explains mistakes in experimental
heterogeneous, 51, 140; Newton’s procedure of, 170; suggests more data
“doctrine” of, 53; homogeneous, 53, on prism employed, 172 ff.
140; diffusion of, 97, 104, 114, 119,
179, 189, 193 f., 409; Hooke’s pulse Mars, stellate regulus of, 63
theory of, 110-115; wave aspects of, Matter, not eternal, 315; and attrac
111, 114, 120, 121, 178, 179, 184, tion, 331-338
192, 193; considered as a body, 114; Maulyverer, Newton sends letter to
propagation of, 114, 184, 409; emis Boyle by, 250
sion of, 119, 179; Newton opposes Medium, density of, 409
wave theory, 121; mechanical expla Menstruums, action on bodies, 251
nation of, 129; of the sun, 140, 193; Mercury, action on gold and tin, 257,
Newton refutes Lucas on refrangibil- 258; action of acids on, 257, 258;
ity, 174 f.; motion of, 189, 409; swift volatility and easy rise of heat, 257
ness, 193; transmission of, 194; see also Metals, corrosion of, 71; action of acids
Aether, Bubbles, Colors, Descartes, on, 252
Hypothesis, Lucas, Reflection, Ring Micrographia, Hooke’s, 56, 112, 119, 125;
phenomena, Spectrum Newton footnotes, 186; difference be
Light rays, trajectory through prism, tween Newton’s views and Hooke’s,
50; not curved after refraction, 50, 208 f.; observations on Muscovy glass,
100; lost by reflection, 68; dispersed 220; Newton acknowledges indebted
through refraction, 101; properties ness, 229; see also Hooke
should be determined, 102, 108; Microscope, reflecting, 52, 112, 166;
phenomena of transparent plates and Hooke’s experiments on, 112; im
bubbles, 119; passing through same provement of, 128; use by Lucas to
medium, 141; and production of heat, test Newton’s theory, 165-166; im
188; and sensation of colors in optic provement may show corpuscles of
nerve, 192; vibrations in aether com bodies, 233
pared to sound, 192; straying com Mirror, metallic composition for reflect
pared with that of sound, 198; ing telescope, 63 f.
quantity reflected from rings, 214; Moon, 66; distance from fixed stars de
impinging on solid parts of a body termined, 238; to determine altitude,
not reflected but lost, 234 f. 238; motion of, 408; motion of nodes
Lignum nephriticum, 56, 85, 92; tinc of orbit, 410; distance of, 414; and
ture of, 120 planets, theory of, 414, 416; irregu
Linseed oil, rarefactions proportional to larities in motion, 416
degrees of heat, 264, 268 Moray, proposes optical experiments,
Linus, objections to Newton’s theory of 75-76
light and colors, 148-150; showed Motion, 122; of planets, causes, 284-
spectrum to Digby, 149; denies New 287, 298, 335; not eternal, 315; laws
ton’s results, 151 f.; second reply to of, 405; Newton’s definition, 405; im
Newton, 151 ff.; Newton replies, 153; pressed, velocity of, 406; celestial,
498 INDEX
Motion (Continued) Particles, of first and second composi

406; of bodies on surfaces, 407; in tions, 256, 258; of universe, and frame
nonresisting medium, 408; in resist of heaven and earth, 315 f.; relation
ing medium, 408 f.; impressed on sea to void, in atheists’ universe, 327
by luminaries, 421 Parts of bodies, less than some definite
Muscovy glass, determining thickness bigness, 229; denser than medium
of plates, 214 pervading their interstices, 230
Muscular motion and aetherial density, Pendulum, motion in a glass exhausted
182 ff. of air, 179; oscillatory motion, 407;
M utual attraction, of particles of a vibration in relation to resistance of
body, 258; of particles in a finite uni medium, 409
verse, 281, 291, 293; in an infinite Peripatetic qualities, 129
universe, 281, 293 Perpendicular descent of bodies toward
center, 407
N atural bodies, constitution for colors Petty, question on Hooke’s observation,
or transparency of, 202; transparency, 198
227 Place, Newton’s definition of, 405
Nature, as aetherial spirits or vapors, Plague, Newton leaves Cambridge dur
254 ing, 52
Nerves, and muscular motion, 183 Planets, motion in concentric orbits not
“Newton’s rings.” See Ring phenomena by gravity alone, 297, 306; around
Nitre, action when kindled with a coal, all fixed stars, 325; motion not from
256, 258; explanation of distillation, chance, 345; can only be ascribed to
256, 258 God, 347; circular motion without
God impossible, 350 ff.; receive heat
Observations, Newton requests suspen and light from sun, 361 fi; motions
sion, 210 attest power of God, 365; theory of
Oceans, spaciousness of, 384 motion of primary planets, 415; orbits
Oldenburg, visits Newton, 154; asked of, 415
not to print Newton’s observations on Plates, transparent, phenomena of, 179,
light and colors, 210; letter from 226
Newton, 253 f. Plato, on motion of planets, 297, 306
Opacity, 209, 227-228 Polishing of metallic mirrors, 70
Optic glasses, grinding of, 47 Precipitation, Newton’s explanation,
Optica Promota, by Gregory, 73, 75 252; of metals, 256 f.
Orbis magnus, 300 Principia, Newton’s desire to give proof
Organ, and light rays, 123 of a deity, 280; book review, 405-
411; division of, 405; a reason for in
Parabola, and reflecting telescope, 112; terruption in publishing Phil. Trans.,
difficulty of describing, 118 411; see also Geometry
Parabolic conoids, grinding of, 66 Prism, relation of thickness to spectrum,
Parabolic surface for reflection, 52 48-77; several images of, 155; dis
Pardies, objection to Newton’s theory, tance from hole, 158; position of, 160;
78-82, 86-89, 97 f.; Dissertation on the see also Colors, Experimentum crucis,
Motion of Undulation, 97, 105; satisfac Light, Star
tion with Newton’s explanation, 103; Prism experiments, 47-59, 75-78, 80 fi,
reference in answer to Linus, 150; 88, 124 fi, 138 fi, 144 fi, 152 fi, 163-
reference by Linus to, 152; by New 176; conditions for, 158-162
ton, 159; see also Colors, Experimen- Prismatic colors, Newton’s chart traced
tum crucis from spectrum, 192 fi
INDEX 499
Proportion of empty space to matter in Ring phenomena, 194 ff., 202 ff.; colors,
sun’s region, 326 197, 221 f.; black and white rings,
Pulse theory of light (Hooke’s), 110-115 203, 221; number of rings, 197, 207,
Pulses, differing, different effects on eye 215; thickness between glasses, 204;
from, 111 formed by transmitted and reflected
light, 206; dark central spot, 206; ef
Queries, in relation to Newton’s theory fect of wetting glass, 206 f.; observed
of light and colors, 93 f. in open air and in darkened room,
207; use of primary colors instead of
Rainbow, explanation, 55 f.; primary sunlight, 207 f.; contraction and dila
and secondary bows, 56; see also tion, 207 f.; squares of diameters,
Descartes 210 f.; distinctness of rings, 215; trans
Rays, definite refrangibilities and re mission and reflection, 218; see also
flexibilities, 224 Bubbles
Red and blue, the only primary colors, Royal Society, Lucas refers to, 169;
according to Hooke, 112 ff. Newton refers to Lucas’ citation, 175
Red color, and vibration of aether, 178
Reeve. See Reive Sal alkali, composition, 256 f.
Reflected light of Venus, analyzed by Salt particles, reason for solubility, 256 f.
prism, 76 Saturn, distance from sun, 287 f.
Reflection, law of, 51; from metallic Scriptures, Holy, 358
surfaces, 71; of light, causes, 177; Sea, flux and reflux of, 408, 414, 416;
cause and manner of, 186 f., 226, as a fluid spheroid, 419
233; colors made by, 193 f.; of very Series, infinite, 405
thin transparent substances, 228; see Sines, ratio of, 164
also Refraction Smoke. See Flame
Reflexibility of rays, 144 Solar image, decrease through pris
Refraction, law of, 49, 81, 88, 93, 95, matic experiments, 76 f.; length and
102, 108, 149, 152, 159; unequal, 93, shape, 79-81, 87-89
95, 124; effect on color, 94 f.; irreg Solar system, harmony attests Divinity,
ular or according to a law, 100; not 366; see also Gravity
explained by undulation of matter, Soul, power over aether in the body,
102, 108; ray of light split by, 111; 182 f.; influence in determining
Newton accused of neglecting experi aetherial animal spirit, 184; of vir
mentation, 116; and shape of spec tuous man, 356
trum, 159; and the aether, 186; and Sound, compared with color, 111; com
reflection, cause of, 188 f.; see also pared with light, 192; motion and
Colors, Glass, Light, Transparent propagation of, 409
bodies % Space, Newton’s definition of, 405
Refrangibility, inherent in different Spaw-waters, Digby visits c. 1645, 149
rays, 101; proportion in inclinations, Spectrum, oblong rather than circular,
137; of rays and color, 144; order of 48; shape, 149, 151-156, 167; di
colors, not caused by, 168; see also mensions, 164; influence of light and
Colors, Light air, 167; length of image, different
Reive, failure in telescope on Gregory’s results, 170; see also Clouds, Glass,
plans, 75; makes telescope for Greg Image, Prism, Prismatic colors, Sun
ory, 112 Speculum, advantage of parabolic, 65
Retina, 55; effect of colored rays (Lucas), Spherical shape, of speculum, 111; of
165; colored image of, 166 f.; vibra earth and sea, and celestial bodies,
tions due to light, 192 413
5°o INDEX
Spiritus ardentes, oils united with Tides, 412-424

phlegm from fermentation, 256 Time, Newton’s definition, 405
Star, light analyzed by prism, 76 Tin-glass (and bell metal), unsuitability
Stars, to determine altitude of, 238; for mirror, 63
creation of, 282; fixed, have same na Top (children’s), color-mixture experi
ture as the sun, 325; elevate man to ment, 131
praise of God, 357; beyond reach of Transmission and reflection, ring phe
telescopes, 357; may have planets, nomena, 218
357 Transmutation, gross compact sub
Stiles, John, Newton sends papers by, stances into aerial ones, 252; depend
177 ence on fermentation and putrefac
Sturmy, Capt., observations on tide at tion, 258; water into earth, 256
Bristol, 421 Transparent bodies, various colors, 202;
Sun, effect on spectrum, 149; on body, parts reflect rays of one color and
167; diameter of, 173; heat from, transmit another, 229; refractions and
179; and the aether, 181; luminosity reflections of, 408
attributed to God, 362 f.; gravitation Transparent spot, formation by slightly
toward, 415; effect on tides, 419; see convex prisms, 202 f.
also Earth, Planets, Vortex Torricellian experiment, standing of
Sunlight, mixed or combined colors, 94; mercury in, 182
synthesized by mixture of rays, 94 f.;
aggregate of homogeneal colors, 141 Undulations. See Aether, Fluids, Wave
Superficies, relation of reflection to re theory of light
fracting power, 227
Suppressed acid particles, action in fer
Vacuum, necessity of, 321
mentations, 257
Vegetables, from modified water, 381
System of heaven and earth, 315
Veins in glass, through which rays pass,
100
Tarnishing, of metallic surfaces, 70 f.
Telescope, limitations of, 51, 116, 141, Velocity, in relation to fall of bodies, 413
147; reflecting, 51 f., 61, 66 ff, 112, Venus, phases of, 52; reflected light,
117, 166; distinctness and magnifica analyzed by prism, 76
tion, 62, 145 f.; speculum for, 63 ff.; Violet color, and vibrations in the
refracting, 66 ff, 112, 117; Casse aether, 178
grain’s, 72 ff., 75; Hooke’s and New Vis centripeta, 406-408
ton’s experiments, 112; medium other Viscidity, explanation, 257
than air between lenses, 117; object Void spaces in the universe, 322
glass for, 172; see also Descartes, Vortex, aethereal matter around sun,
Huygens refuted, 335 ff
Tennis ball, trajectory compared with Vortices, of the sun and planets, 183;
light rays through prism, 50 rejected by Newton, 288 ff.; theory
Terms, in the Principia, 405 impossible, 409; see also Descartes
Theories, Newton speaks of “my
theories,” 118 Wallis, treatment of infinities, 295
Theory of light, Newton’s, 47, 75, 93, Water, action of particles of light con
95, 118, 133 fT., 153, 164 trasted with waves of, 119, 121, 179,
Thermometer, with linseed oil, 262, 188; solubility of substances in, 251;
267; Newton’s use of, 262 fi, 267 f. incompressibility, 257; small quantity
Thickness of air in ring phenomena, of acid, 258; necessity of, 381; circu
Newton’s table, 205 lation due to sun’s action, 382
INDEX 501
Water bubbles. See Bubbles 82, 89; Newton’s reply, 84, 91;
Wave theory of light, 110-115, 118-119, Hooke’s views, 111; whether a mix
120, 121, 178, 184, 192, 193 IF., 409 ture of all colors, 124,129; compound,
Weather, influence on spectrum, 171 128,131, 132 ff.; production from two
Wheel, for primary colors, 116 simple colors, 140, 144, 145, 147;
White color, explanation of, 178 a dissimilar mixture of all colors, 224
White light, Newton’s definition, 137; Wine, refraction in spirit of, 182
see also Colors
Whiteness, nature of, 55; Pardies’ views, Yellow, not a primary color, 168

Newton Papers Letter Nat Phil Cohen Ed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newton Papers Letter Nat Phil Cohen Ed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Newton Papers Letter Nat Phil Cohen Ed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

/

Containing Newton’s contributions to the Philosophical Transactions

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 58-5607

S tu d e n ts of intellectual history and the history of science need no

the “Age of Newton” ; the Optical Lectures, however interesting, were

Pratique des Hautes Etudes of the University of Paris (Sorbonne),

5. “ Mr. Isaac Newton’s Considerations upon part of

7. “A Serie’s of Quere’s propounded by Mr. Isaac

8. “A Second Letter of P. Pardies . . . to Mr. Newtons

9. Robert Hooke’s Critique of Newton’s Theory of

10. “An Extract of a Letter lately written by an ingen­

11. “An Extract of Mr. Isaac Newton’s Letter . .. con­

12. “A Letter of the Learn’d Franc. Linus . . . animad­

13. “A Letter of Mr. Franc. Linus . . . being a Reply to

14. “A particular Answer of Mr. Isaak Newton to Mr.

15. “ A Letter from Liege [by Anthony Lucas] concern­

16. Newton’s second paper on color and light, read at

17. “An Instrument for observing the Moon’s Distance

III. N ew ton on chemistry, atomism, the

1. Newton’s Chemical Papers, by Marie Boas 241

3. “ De N atura Acidorum” and “Some Thoughts

4. “Scala graduum Caloris” 259

V. H alley and the Principia

VI. T he first biography of Newton

Appendix: Comments on Birch’s History of the Royal Society

G eneral In tro d u ctio n

to concentrate their attention on the Principia, admittedly his mas­

Yet Newton’s hypothesis of the aether was not entirely satisfactory,

or the “fluid of heat” with Newton’s universal aether appear never

sity of California Press, containing the 18th-century translation of

The juxtaposition of the papers and letters of Newton in this

could be read by anyone who was interested. He had, furthermore,

These new Queries of 1706 rather correspond to Queries 25-31 in

The publication of the,present volume brings to the fore certain

scientific life of Newton’s day. Valuable as this collection will be—

Those who have learned physics from modern textbooks may

In the last place, I should take notice of a casual expression, which

ination, spelling, and general format. In a few instances, at the begin­

publication at Newton’s request. Much of the information contained

onstratedfrom the Advantage and Pleasure of a Religious Life, the Faculties of

The first Edition of this Translation was printed in Quarto, in

This possibly may be a reference to the edition by John Conduitt of

NOTE ON THE PRINTING OF BENTLEY’S SERMONS

Line Reading Part Variant Part Variant

JLhe original publication of the optical papers of Isaac Newton

by the mere bulk of the experimental compilation.1 Each scientist

indeed “celebrated.” Newton, when he repeated them for his own

ference in angle of incidence will normally produce an elongation

9 Ignace Gaston Pardies, S.J. (1636-1673), was born at Pan in Southern

11 The preceding reconstruction of Newton’s research follows the essentially

The reported shape leaves a puzzle illustrative of the nature of

widespread conviction among 17th-century opticians that they

18Birch, History of the Royal Society, vol. 3, pp. 41 & 54.

mitting to a change of mind) which has so consistently misled sub­

until, in 1722, James Hadley succeeded in grinding a parabolic

23 On Newton’s contributions to the development of telescopes see Louis Bell,

Subsequent history bore out the judgm ent expressed by Huygens

pendent” parts made light again corporeal. In the same letter

A Letter of Mr. Ifaac Newton, Profeffor of the Mathematic^ in the

E G . Its vertical Angle A C B may conveniently be about 60

10. “An Extract of a Letter lately written by an ingen

11. “An Extract of Mr. Isaac Newton’s Letter . .. con

12. “A Letter of the Learn’d Franc. Linus . . . animad

15. “ A Letter from Liege [by Anthony Lucas] concern

to concentrate their attention on the Principia, admittedly his mas

ination, spelling, and general format. In a few instances, at the begin

mitting to a change of mind) which has so consistently misled sub

Mr. H o o k e ’s confiderations upon Mr. N e w t o n ’s difcourfe on. light and co