CHAPTER XIX.

_Permanence of Newton’s Reputation—Character of his Genius—His

Methods of Investigation similar to that used by Galileo—Error in

ascribing his Discoveries to the Use of the Methods recommended by

Lord Bacon—The Pretensions of the Baconian Philosophy examined—Sir

Isaac Newton’s social Character—His great Modesty—The Simplicity of

his Character—His religious and moral Character—His Hospitality and

Mode of Life—His Generosity and Charity—His Absence—His personal

Appearance—Statues and Pictures of him—Memorials and Recollections

of him._

Such were the last days of Sir Isaac Newton, and such the last laurels

which were shed over his grave. A century of discoveries has since his

day been added to science; but brilliant as these discoveries are,

they have not obliterated the minutest of his labours, and have served

only to brighten the halo which encircles his name. The achievements

of genius, like the source from which they spring, are indestructible.

Acts of legislation and deeds of war may confer a high celebrity, but

the reputation which they bring is only local and transient; and while

they are hailed by the nation which they benefit, they are reprobated

by the people whom they ruin or enslave. The labours of science, on

the contrary, bear along with them no counterpart of evil. They are

the liberal bequests of great minds to every individual of their race,

and wherever they are welcomed and honoured they become the solace of

private life, and the ornament and bulwark of the commonwealth.

The importance of Sir Isaac Newton’s discoveries has been sufficiently

exhibited in the preceding chapters: the peculiar character of his

genius, and the method which he pursued in his inquiries, can be

gathered only from the study of his works, and from the history of

his individual labours. Were we to judge of the qualities of his mind

from the early age at which he made his principal discoveries, and

from the rapidity of their succession, we should be led to ascribe to

him that quickness of penetration, and that exuberance of invention,

which is more characteristic of poetical than of philosophical genius.

But we must recollect that Newton was placed in the most favourable

circumstances for the development of his powers. The flower of his

youth and the vigour of his manhood were entirely devoted to science.

No injudicious guardian controlled his ruling passion, and no ungenial

studies or professional toils interrupted the continuity of his

pursuits. His discoveries were, therefore, the fruit of persevering and

unbroken study; and he himself declared, that whatever service he had

done to the public was not owing to any extraordinary sagacity, but

solely to industry and patient thought.

Initiated early into the abstractions of geometry, he was deeply imbued

with her cautious spirit; and if his acquisitions were not made with

the rapidity of intuition, they were at least firmly secured; and the

grasp which he took of his subject was proportional to the mental

labour which it had exhausted. Overlooking what was trivial, and

separating what was extraneous, he bore down with instinctive sagacity

on the prominences of his subject, and having thus grappled with its

difficulties, he never failed to intrench himself in its strongholds.

To the highest powers of invention Newton added, what so seldom

accompanies them, the talent of simplifying and communicating his

profoundest speculations.[125] In the economy of her distributions,

nature is seldom thus lavish of her intellectual gifts. The inspired

genius which creates is rarely conferred along with the matured

judgment which combines, and yet without the exertion of both the

fabric of human wisdom could never have been reared. Though a ray from

heaven kindled the vestal fire, yet an humble priesthood was required

to keep alive the flame.

The method of investigating truth by observation and experiment, so

successfully pursued in the Principia, has been ascribed by some

modern writers of great celebrity to Lord Bacon; and Sir Isaac Newton

is represented as having owed all his discoveries to the application

of the principles of that distinguished writer. One of the greatest

admirers of Lord Bacon has gone so far as to characterize him as a

man who has had no rival in the times which are past, and as likely

to have none in those which are to come. In a eulogy so overstrained

as this, we feel that the language of panegyric has passed into that

of idolatry; and we are desirous of weighing the force of arguments

which tend to depose Newton from the high-priesthood of nature, and to

unsettle the proud destinies of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.

That Bacon was a man of powerful genius, and endowed with varied

and profound talent,—the most skilful logician,—the most nervous

and eloquent writer of the age which he adorned, are points which

have been established by universal suffrage. The study of ancient

systems had early impressed him with the conviction that experiment

and observation were the only sure guides in physical inquiries; and,

ignorant though he was of the methods, the principles, and the details

of the mathematical sciences, his ambition prompted him to aim at the

construction of an artificial system by which the laws of nature might

be investigated, and which might direct the inquiries of philosophers

in every future age. The necessity of experimental research, and of

advancing gradually from the study of facts to the determination of

their cause, though the groundwork of Bacon’s method, is a doctrine

which was not only inculcated but successfully followed by preceding

philosophers. In a letter from Tycho Brahe to Kepler, this industrious

astronomer urges his pupil “to lay a solid foundation for his views

by actual observation, and then by ascending from these to strive to

reach the causes of things;” and it was no doubt under the influence of

this advice that Kepler submitted his wildest fancies to the test of

observation, and was conducted to his most splendid discoveries. The

reasonings of Copernicus, who preceded Bacon by more than a century,

were all founded upon the most legitimate induction. Dr. Gilbert had

exhibited in his treatise on the magnet[126] the most perfect specimen

of physical research. Leonardo da Vinci had described in the clearest

manner the proper method of philosophical investigation;[127] and

the whole scientific career of Galileo was one continued example of

the most sagacious application of observation and experiment to the

discovery of general laws. The names of Paracelsus, Van Helmont, and

Cardan have been ranged in opposition to this constellation of great

names, and while it is admitted that even they had thrown off the yoke

of the schools, and had succeeded in experimental research, their

credulity and their pretensions have been adduced as a proof that to

the “bulk of philosophers” the method of induction was unknown. The

fault of this argument consists in the conclusion being infinitely

more general than the fact. The errors of these men were not founded

on their ignorance, but on their presumption. They wanted the patience

of philosophy and not her methods. An excess of vanity, a waywardness

of fancy, and an insatiable appetite for that species of passing fame

which is derived from eccentricity of opinion, moulded the reasonings

and disfigured the writings of these ingenious men; and it can scarcely

admit of a doubt, that, had they lived in the present age, their

philosophical character would have received the same impress from the

peculiarity of their tempers and dispositions. This is an experiment,

however, which cannot now be made; but the history of modern science

supplies the defect, and the experience of every man furnishes a proof

that in the present age there are many philosophers of elevated talents

and inventive genius who are as impatient of experimental research as

Paracelsus, as fanciful as Cardan, and as presumptuous as Van Helmont.

Having thus shown that the distinguished philosophers who flourished

before Bacon were perfect masters both of the principles and practice

of inductive research, it becomes interesting to inquire whether or

not the philosophers who succeeded him acknowledged any obligation to

his system, or derived the slightest advantage from his precepts. If

Bacon constructed a method to which modern science owes its existence,

we shall find its cultivators grateful for the gift, and offering the

richest incense at the shrine of a benefactor whose generous labours

conducted them to immortality. No such testimonies, however, are to be

found. Nearly two hundred years have gone by, teeming with the richest

fruits of human genius, and no grateful disciple has appeared to

vindicate the rights of the alleged legislator of science. Even Newton,

who was born and educated after the publication of the Novum Organon,

never mentions the name of Bacon or his system, and the amiable and

indefatigable Boyle treated him with the same disrespectful silence.

When we are told, therefore, that Newton owed all his discoveries to

the method of Bacon, nothing more can be meant than that he proceeded

in that path of observation and experiment which had been so warmly

recommended in the Novum Organon; but it ought to have been added,

that the same method was practised by his predecessors,—that Newton

possessed no secret that was not used by Galileo and Copernicus,—and

that he would have enriched science with the same splendid discoveries

if the name and the writings of Bacon had never been heard of.

From this view of the subject we shall now proceed to examine the

Baconian process itself, and consider if it possesses any merit as an

artificial method of discovery, or if it is at all capable of being

employed, for this purpose, even in the humblest walks of scientific

inquiry.

The process of Lord Bacon was, we believe, never tried by any

philosopher but himself. As the subject of its application, he

selected that of heat. With his usual erudition, he collected all

the facts which science could supply,—he arranged them in tables,—he

cross-questioned them with all the subtlety of a pleader,—he combined

them with all the sagacity of a judge,—and he conjured with them by all

the magic of his exclusive processes. But, after all this display of

physical logic, nature thus interrogated was still silent. The oracle

which he had himself established refused to give its responses, and the

ministering priest was driven with discomfiture from his own shrine.

This example, in short, of the application of his system, will remain

to future ages as a memorable instance of the absurdity of attempting

to fetter discovery by any artificial rules.

Nothing even in mathematical science can be more certain than that a

collection of scientific facts are of themselves incapable of leading

to discovery, or to the determination of general laws, unless they

contain the predominating fact or relation in which the discovery

mainly resides. A vertical column of arch-stones possesses more

strength than the same materials arranged in an arch without the

key-stone. However nicely they are adjusted, and however nobly the arch

may spring, it never can possess either equilibrium or stability. In

this comparison all the facts are supposed to be necessary to the final

result; but, in the inductive method, it is impossible to ascertain the

relative importance of any facts, or even to determine if the facts

have any value at all, till the master-fact which constitutes the

discovery has crowned the zealous efforts of the aspiring philosopher.

The mind then returns to the dark and barren waste over which it has

been hovering; and by the guidance of this single torch it embraces,

under the comprehensive grasp of general principles, the multifarious

and insulated phenomena which had formerly neither value nor

connexion. Hence it must be obvious to the most superficial thinker,

that discovery consists either in the detection of some concealed

relation—some deep-seated affinity which baffles ordinary research,

or in the discovery of some simple fact which is connected by slender

ramifications with the subject to be investigated; but which, when once

detected, carries us back by its divergence to all the phenomena which

it embraces and explains.

In order to give additional support to these views, it would be

interesting to ascertain the general character of the process by

which a mind of acknowledged power actually proceeds in the path of

successful inquiry. The history of science does not furnish us with

much information on this head, and if it is to be found at all, it must

be gleaned from the biographies of eminent men. Whatever this process

may be in its details, if it has any, there cannot be the slightest

doubt that in its generalities at least it is the very reverse of the

method of induction. The impatience of genius spurns the restraints of

mechanical rules, and never will submit to the plodding drudgery of

inductive discipline. The discovery of a new fact unfits even a patient

mind for deliberate inquiry. Conscious of having added to science

what had escaped the sagacity of former ages, the ambitious spirit

invests its new acquisition with an importance which does not belong

to it. He imagines a thousand consequences to flow from his discovery:

he forms innumerable theories to explain it, and he exhausts his

fancy in trying all its possible relations to recognised difficulties

and unexplained facts. The reins, however, thus freely given to his

imagination, are speedily drawn up. His wildest conceptions are all

subjected to the rigid test of experiment, and he has thus been hurried

by the excursions of his own fancy into new and fertile paths, far

removed from ordinary observation. Here the peculiar character of his

own genius displays itself by the invention of methods of trying his

own speculations, and he is thus often led to new discoveries far more

important and general than that by which he began his inquiry. For a

confirmation of these views, we may refer to the History of Kepler’s

Discoveries; and if we do not recognise them to the same extent in the

labours of Newton, it is because he kept back his discoveries till

they were nearly perfected, and therefore withheld the successive steps

of his inquiries.

The social character of Sir Isaac Newton was such as might have been

expected from his intellectual attainments. He was modest, candid,

and affable, and without any of the eccentricities of genius, suiting

himself to every company, and speaking of himself and others in such

a manner that he was never even suspected of vanity. “But this,”

says Dr. Pemberton, “I immediately discovered in him, which at once

both surprised and charmed me. Neither his extreme great age nor his

universal reputation had rendered him stiff in opinion, or in any

degree elated. Of this I had occasion to have almost daily experience.

The remarks I continually sent him by letters on the Principia were

received with the utmost goodness. These were so far from being any

ways displeasing to him, that on the contrary it occasioned him to

speak many kind things of me to my friends, and to honour me with a

public testimony of his good opinion.”

The modesty of Sir Isaac Newton in reference to his great discoveries

was not founded on any indifference to the fame which they conferred,

or upon any erroneous judgment of their importance to science. The

whole of his life proves, that he knew his place as a philosopher,

and was determined to assert and vindicate his rights. His modesty

arose from the depth and extent of his knowledge, which showed him

what a small portion of nature he had been able to examine, and how

much remained to be explored in the same field in which he had himself

laboured. In the magnitude of the comparison he recognised his own

littleness; and a short time before his death he uttered this memorable

sentiment:—“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to

myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore,

and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a

prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all

undiscovered before me.” What a lesson to the vanity and presumption

of philosophers,—to those especially who have never even found the

smoother pebble or the prettier shell! What a preparation for the

latest inquiries, and the last views of the decaying spirit,—for those

inspired doctrines which alone can throw a light over the dark ocean of

undiscovered truth!

The native simplicity of Sir Isaac Newton’s mind is finely portrayed

in the affecting letter in which he acknowledges to Locke that he had

thought and spoken of him uncharitably; and the humility and candour in

which he asks forgiveness could have emanated only from a mind as noble

as it was pure.

In the religious and moral character of our author there is much to

admire and to imitate. While he exhibited in his life and writings an

ardent regard for the general interests of religion, he was at the same

time a firm believer in revelation. He was too deeply versed in the

Scriptures, and too much imbued with their spirit, to judge harshly of

other men who took different views of them from himself. He cherished

the great principles of religious toleration, and never scrupled to

express his abhorrence of persecution, even in its mildest form.

Immorality and impiety he never permitted to pass unreproved; and when

Dr. Halley[128] ventured to say any thing disrespectful to religion,

he invariably checked him, and said, “I have studied these things,—you

have not.”[129]

After Sir Isaac Newton took up his residence in London, he lived in

a very handsome style, and kept his carriage, with an establishment

of three male and three female servants. In his own house he was

hospitable and kind, and on proper occasions he gave splendid

entertainments, though without ostentation or vanity. His own diet was

frugal, and his dress was always simple; but on one occasion, when he

opposed the Honourable Mr. Annesley in 1705, as a candidate for the

university, he is said to have put on a suit of laced clothes.

His generosity and charity had no bounds, and he used to remark, that

they who gave away nothing till they died never gave at all. Though his

wealth had become considerable by a prudent economy, yet he had always

a contempt for money, and he spent a considerable part of his income

in relieving the poor, in assisting his relations, and in encouraging

ingenuity and learning. The sums which he gave to his relations at

different times were enormous;[130] and in 1724 he wrote a letter to

the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, offering to contribute 20_l._ per annum

to a provision for Mr. Maclaurin, provided he accepted the situation of

assistant to Mr. James Gregory, who was professor of mathematics in the

university.

The habits of deep meditation which Sir Isaac Newton had acquired,

though they did not show themselves in his intercourse with society,

exercised their full influence over his mind when in the midst of

his own family. Absorbed in thought he would often sit down on his

bedside after he rose, and remain there for hours without dressing

himself, occupied with some interesting investigation which had fixed

his attention. Owing to the same absence of mind, he neglected to take

the requisite quantity of nourishment, and it was therefore often

necessary to remind him of his meals.[131]

Sir Isaac Newton is supposed to have had little knowledge of the world,

and to have been very ignorant of the habits of society. This opinion

has, we think, been rashly deduced from a letter which he wrote in the

twenty-seventh year of his age to his young friend, Francis Aston,

Esq., who was about to set out on his travels. This letter is a highly

interesting production; and while it shows much knowledge of the human

heart, it throws a strong light upon the character and opinions of its

author.

In his personal appearance, Sir Isaac Newton was not above the

middle size, and in the latter part of his life was inclined to be

corpulent. According to Mr. Conduit “he had a very lively and piercing

eye, a comely and gracious aspect, with a fine head of hair as white

as silver, without any baldness, and when his peruke was off was a

venerable sight.” Bishop Atterbury asserts,[132] on the other hand,

that the lively and piercing eye did not belong to Sir Isaac during the

last twenty years of his life. “Indeed,” says he, “in the whole air

of his face and make there was nothing of that penetrating sagacity

which appears in his compositions. He had something rather languid in

his look and manner which did not raise any great expectation in those

who did not know him.” This opinion of Bishop Atterbury is confirmed

by an observation of Mr. Thomas Hearne,[133] who says “that Sir Isaac

was a man of no very promising aspect. He was a short, well-set man.

He was full of thought, and spoke very little in company, so that his

conversation was not agreeable. When he rode in his coach, one arm

would be out of his coach on one side and the other on the other.” Sir

Isaac never wore spectacles, and never “lost more than one tooth to the

day of his death.”

Besides the statue of Sir Isaac Newton executed by Roubiliac, there is

a bust of him by the same artist in the library of Trinity College,

Cambridge. Several good paintings of him are extant. Two of these are

in the hall of the Royal Society of London, and have, we believe, been

often engraved. Another, by Vanderbank, is in the apartments of the

Master’s lodge in Trinity College, and has been engraved by Vertue.

Another, by Valentine Ritts, is in the landing-place near the entrance

to Trinity College library; but the best, from which our engraving is

copied, was painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller, and is in the possession of

Lord Egremont at Petworth. In the university library there is preserved

a cast taken from his face after death.

Every memorial of so great a man as Sir Isaac Newton has been preserved

and cherished with peculiar veneration. His house at Woolsthorpe,

of which we have given an engraving, has been religiously protected

by Mr. Turnor of Stoke Rocheford, the proprietor. Dr. Stukeley, who

visited it in Sir Isaac’s lifetime, on the 13th October, 1721, gives

the following description of it in his letter to Dr. Mead, written in

1727: “’Tis built of stone as is the way of the country hereabouts, and

a reasonable good one. They led me up stairs and showed me Sir Isaac’s

study, where I suppose he studied when in the country in his younger

days, or perhaps when he visited his mother from the university. I

observed the shelves were of his own making, being pieces of deal

boxes which probably he sent his books and clothes down in on those

occasions. There were some years ago two or three hundred books in it

of his father-in-law, Mr. Smith, which Sir Isaac gave to Dr. Newton of

our town.”[134]

When the house was repaired in 1798, a tablet of white marble was

put up by Mr. Turnor in the room where Sir Isaac was born, with the

following inscription:

“Sir Isaac Newton, son of John Newton, Lord of the manor of

Woolsthorpe, was born in this room on the 25th December, 1642.”

Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night,

God said, “Let Newton be,” and all was light.

The following lines have been written upon the house:

Here Newton dawned, here lofty wisdom woke,

And to a wondering world divinely spoke.

If Tully glowed, when Phædrus’ steps he trode,

Or fancy formed Philosophy a god;

If sages still for Homer’s birth contend

The Sons of Science at this dome must bend.

All hail the shrine! All hail the natal day,

Cam boasts his noon,—This _Cot_ his morning ray.

The house is now occupied by a person of the name of John Wollerton. It

still contains the two dials made by Newton, but the styles of both are

wanting. The celebrated apple-tree, the fall of one of the apples of

which is said to have turned the attention of Newton to the subject of

gravity, was destroyed by wind about four years ago; but Mr. Turnor has

preserved it in the form of a chair.[135]

The chambers which Sir Isaac inhabited at Cambridge are known by

tradition. They are the apartments next to the great gate of Trinity

College, and it is believed that they then communicated by a staircase

with the observatory in the Great Tower,—an observatory which was

furnished by the contributions of Newton, Cotes, and others. His

telescope, represented in _fig. 3_, page 41, is preserved in the

library of the Royal Society of London, and his globe, his universal

ring-dial, quadrant, compass, and a reflecting telescope said to have

belonged to him, in the library of Trinity College. There is also in

the same collection a long and curled lock of his silver white hair.

The door of his bookcase is in the Museum of the Royal Society of

Edinburgh.

The manuscripts, letters, and other papers of Newton have been

preserved in different collections. His correspondence with Cotes

relative to the second edition of the Principia, and amounting to

between sixty and a hundred letters, a considerable portion of the

manuscript of that work, and two or three letters to Dr. Keill on

the Leibnitzian controversy, are preserved in the library of Trinity

College, Cambridge. Newton’s letters to Flamstead, about thirty-four

in number, are deposited in the library of Corpus Christi College,

Oxford.[136] Several letters of Newton, and, we believe, the original

specimen which he drew up of the Principia, exist among the papers

of Mr. William Jones (the father of Sir William Jones), which are

preserved at Shirburn Castle, in the library of Lord Macclesfield.

But the great mass of Newton’s papers came into the possession of the

Portsmouth family through his niece, Lady Lymington, and have been

safely preserved by that noble family. There is reason to believe that

they contain nothing which could be peculiarly interesting to science;

but as the correspondence of Newton with contemporary philosophers must

throw considerable light on his personal history, we trust that it will

ere long be given to the public.

APPENDIX.

No. I.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE FAMILY OF SIR ISAAC NEWTON.

In the year 1705, Sir Isaac gave into the Herald’s Office an elaborate

pedigree, stating upon oath _that he had reason to believe_ that John

Newton of Westby, in the county of Lincoln, was his great-grandfather’s

father, and that this was the same John Newton who was buried in

Basingthorpe church, on the 22d December, 1563. This John Newton had

four sons, John, Thomas, Richard, and William Newton of Gunnerly,

the last of whom was great-grandfather to Sir John Newton, Bart., of

Hather. Sir Isaac considered himself as descended from the eldest of

these, _he having, by tradition from his kindred ever since he can

remember, reckoned himself next of kin (among the Newtons) to Sir John

Newton’s family_.

The pedigree, founded upon these and other considerations, was

accompanied by a certificate from Sir John Newton, of Thorpe, Bart.,

who states that he had heard his father speak of Sir Isaac Newton _as

of his relation and kinsman_, and that _he himself believed that Sir

Isaac was descended from John Newton, son to John Newton of Westby, but

knoweth not in what particular manner_.

The pedigree of Sir Isaac, as entered at the Herald’s Office, does not

seem to have been satisfactory either to himself or to his successors,

as it could not be traced with certainty beyond his grandfather; and

it will be seen from the following interesting correspondence, that

upon making further researches, he had found some reason to believe

that he was of Scotch extraction.

_Extract of a Letter from the Reverend Dr. Reid of Glasgow to Dr.

Gregory of Edinburgh, dated 14th March, 1784._

“I send you on the other page an anecdote respecting Sir Isaac

Newton, which I do not remember whether I ever happened to mention

to you in conversation. If his descent be not clearly ascertained

(as I think it is not in the books I have seen), might it not be

worth while to inquire if evidence can be found to confirm the

account which he is said to have given of himself. Sheriff Cross

was very zealous about it when death put a stop to his inquiries.

“When I lived in old Aberdeen above twenty years ago, I happened

to be conversing over a pipe of tobacco with a gentleman of that

country, who had been lately at Edinburgh. He told me that he had

been often in company with Mr. Hepburn of Keith, with whom I had

the honour of some acquaintance. He said that, speaking of Sir

Isaac Newton, Mr. Hepburn mentioned an anecdote, which he had from

Mr. James Gregory, professor of mathematics at Edinburgh, which was

to this purpose:

“Mr. Gregory, being at London for some time after he resigned the

mathematical chair, was often with Sir Isaac Newton. One day Sir

Isaac said to him, ‘Gregory, I believe you don’t know that I am

connected with Scotland.’—‘Pray how, Sir Isaac?’ said Gregory. Sir

Isaac said he was told that his grandfather was a gentleman of East

Lothian; that he came to London with King James at his accession to

the crown of England, and there spent his fortune, as many more

did at that time, by which his son (Sir Isaac’s father) was reduced

to mean circumstances. To this Gregory bluntly replied, ‘Newton a

gentleman of East Lothian, I never heard of a gentleman of East

Lothian of that name.’ Upon this Sir Isaac said, ‘that being very

young when his father died, he had it only by tradition, and it

might be a mistake;’ and immediately turned the conversation to

another subject.

“I confess I suspected that the gentleman who was my author had

given some colouring to this story, and therefore I never mentioned

it for a good many years.

“After I removed to Glasgow, I came to be very intimately

acquainted with Mr. Cross, then sheriff of Lanark, and one day at

his own house mentioned this story, without naming my author, of

whom I expressed some diffidence.

“The sheriff immediately took it up as a matter worth being

inquired into. He said he was well acquainted with Mr. Hepburn

of Keith (who was then alive), and that he would write him to

know whether he ever heard Mr. Gregory say that he had such a

conversation with Sir Isaac Newton. He said he knew that Mr. Keith,

the ambassador, was also intimate with Mr. Gregory, and that he

would write him to the same purpose.

“Some time after, Mr. Cross told me that he had answers from both

the gentlemen above mentioned, and that both remembered to have

heard Mr. Gregory mention the conversation between him and Sir

Isaac Newton, to the purpose above narrated, and at the same time

acknowledged that they had made no further inquiry about the matter.

“Mr. Cross, however, continued the inquiry, and a short time before

his death told me that all he had learned was, that there is,

or was lately, a baronet’s family of the name of Newton in West

Lothian or Mid Lothian (I have forgot which): that there is a

tradition in that family that Sir Isaac Newton wrote a letter to

the old knight that then was (I think Sir John Newton of Newton was

his name), desiring to know what children, and particularly what

sons he had, their age, and what professions they intended: that

the old baronet never deigned to return an answer to this letter,

which his family was sorry for, as they thought Sir Isaac might

have intended to do something for them.”

Several years after this letter was written, a Mr. Barron, a relation

of Sir Isaac Newton, seems to have been making inquiries respecting the

family of his ancestor, and in consequence of this the late Professor

Robison applied to Dr. Reid, to obtain from him a more particular

account of the remarkable conversation between Sir Isaac and Mr.

James Gregory referred to in the preceding letter. In answer to this

request, Dr. Reid wrote the following letter, for which I was indebted

to John Robison, Esq. Sec. R. S. E., who found it among his father’s

manuscripts.

_Letter from Dr. Reid to Professor Robison respecting the Family of

Sir Isaac Newton._

“DEAR SIR,

“I am very glad to learn by yours of April 4, that a Mr. Barron, a

near relation of Sir Isaac Newton, is anxious to inquire into the

descent of that great man, as the family cannot trace it farther,

with any certainty, than his grandfather. I therefore, as you

desire, send you a precise account of all I know; and am glad to

have this opportunity, before I die, of putting this information in

hands that will make the proper use of it, if it shall be found of

any use.

“Several years before I left Aberdeen (which I did in 1764), Mr.

Douglas of Feckel, the father of Sylvester Douglas, now a barrister

at London, told me, that having been lately at Edinburgh, he

was often in company with Mr. Hepburn of Keith, a gentleman of

whom I had some acquaintance, by his lodging a night at my house

at New Machar, when he was in the rebel army in 1745. That Mr.

Hepburn told him that he had heard Mr. James Gregory, professor

of mathematics, Edinburgh, say, that being one day in familiar

conversation with Sir Isaac Newton at London, Sir Isaac said,

‘Gregory, I believe you don’t know that I am a Scotchman.’—‘Pray,

how is that?’ said Gregory. Sir Isaac said he was informed that

his grandfather (or great-grandfather) was a gentleman of East (or

West) Lothian: that he went to London with King James the I. at his

accession to the crown of England: and that he attended the court

in expectation, as many others did, until he spent his fortune, by

which means his family was reduced to low circumstances. At the

time this was told me Mr. Gregory was dead, otherwise I should have

had his own testimony, for he was my mother’s brother. I likewise

thought at that time that it had been certainly known that Sir

Isaac had been descended from an old English family, as I think

is said in his _eloge_ before the Academy of Sciences at Paris,

and therefore I never mentioned what I had heard for many years,

believing that there must be some mistake in it.

“Some years after I came to Glasgow, I mentioned (I believe for

the first time) what I had heard to have been said by Mr. Hepburn

to Mr. Cross, late sheriff of this county, whom you will remember.

Mr. Cross was moved by this account, and immediately said, ‘I know

Mr. Hepburn very well, and I know he was intimate with Mr. Gregory:

I shall write him this same night, to know whether he heard Mr.

Gregory say so or not.’ After some reflection, he added, ‘I know

that Mr. Keith, the ambassador, was also an intimate acquaintance

of Mr. Gregory, and as he is at present in Edinburgh, I shall

likewise write to him this night.’

“The next time I waited on Mr. Cross he told me that he had wrote

both to Mr. Hepburn and Mr. Keith, and had an answer from both, and

that both of them testified that they had several times heard Mr.

James Gregory say, that Sir Isaac Newton told him what is above

expressed, but that neither they nor Mr. Gregory, as far as they

knew, ever made any further inquiry into the matter. This appeared

very strange both to Mr. Cross and me, and he said he would

reproach them for their indifference, and would make inquiry as

soon as he was able.

“He lived but a short time after this, and in the last conversation

I had with him upon the subject, he said, that all he had yet

learned was, that there was a Sir John Newton of Newton in one of

the counties of Lothian (but I have forgot which), some of whose

children were yet alive: that they reported that their father, Sir

John, had a letter from Sir Isaac Newton, desiring to know the

state of his family, what children he had, particularly what sons,

and in what way they were. The old knight never returned an answer

to this letter, thinking probably that Sir Isaac was some upstart,

who wanted to claim a relation to his worshipful house. This

omission the children regretted, conceiving that Sir Isaac might

have had a view of doing something for their benefit.

“After this I mentioned occasionally in conversation what I knew,

hoping that these facts might lead to some more certain discovery,

but I found more coldness about the matter than I thought it

deserved. I wrote an account of it to Dr. Gregory, your colleague,

that he might impart it to any member of the Antiquarian Society

who he judged might have the curiosity to trace the matter further.

“In the year 1787, my colleague, Mr. Patrick Wilson, professor

of astronomy, having been in London, told me on his return that

he had met accidentally with a James Hutton, Esq. of Pimlico,

Westminster, a near relation of Sir Isaac Newton,[137] to whom he

mentioned what he had heard from me with respect to Sir Isaac’s

descent, and that I wished much to know something more decisive

on that subject. Mr. Hutton said, if I pleased to write to him

he would give me all the information he could give. I wrote him

accordingly, and had a very polite answer, dated at Bath, 25th

December, 1787, which is now before me. He says, ‘I shall be glad

when I return to London, if I can find in some old notes of my

mother any thing that may fix the certainty of Sir Isaac’s descent.

If he spoke so to Mr. James Gregory, it is most certain he spoke

truth. But Sir Isaac’s grandfather, not his great-grandfather, must

be the person who came from Scotland with King James I. If I find

any thing to the purpose, I will take care it shall reach you.’

“In consequence of this letter I expected another from Mr. Hutton

when he should return to London, but have never had any. Mr. Wilson

told me he was a very old man, and whether he be dead or alive I

know not.

“This is all I know of the matter, and for the facts above

mentioned I pledge my veracity. I am much obliged to you, dear sir,

for the kind expressions of your affection and esteem, which, I

assure you, are mutual on my part, and I sincerely sympathize with

you on your afflicting state of health, which makes you consider

yourself as out of the world, and despair of seeing me any more.

“I have been long out of the world by deafness and extreme old age.

I hope, however, if we should not meet again in this world, that we

shall meet and renew our acquaintance in another. In the mean time,

I am with great esteem, dear sir, yours affectionately,

“THO. REID.

“_Glasgow College_,

”_12th April, 1792_.”

This curious letter I published in the Ed. Phil. Journal for October 1,

1820. It excited the particular attention of the late George Chalmers,

Esq., who sent me an elaborate letter upon the subject; but as I was at

that time in the expectation of obtaining some important information

through other channels, this letter was not published. This hope,

however, has been disappointed. A careful search has been made through

the charter-chest of the Newtons of Newton in East Lothian, by Mr.

Richard Hay Newton, the representative of that family, but no document

whatever has been found that can throw the least light upon the matter.

It deserves to be remarked, however, that Sir Richard Newton, the

alleged correspondent of Sir Isaac, appears to have destroyed his

correspondence; for though the charter-chest contains the letters

of his predecessors for some generations, yet there is not a single

epistolary document either of his own or of his lady’s.

Hitherto the evidence of Sir Isaac’s Scottish descent has been derived

chiefly from his conversation with Mr. James Gregory; but I am enabled,

by the kindness of Mr. Robison, to corroborate this evidence by the

following information, derived, as will be seen, from the family of

the Newtons of Newton. Among various memoranda in the handwriting of

Professor Robison, who at one time proposed to write the life of Sir

Isaac, are the following:—

“1st, Lord Henderland informed me in a letter dated March, 1794,

that he had heard from his infancy that Sir Isaac considered himself

as descended from the family of Newton of Newton. This he heard

from his uncle Richard Newton of Newton (who was third son of Lord

William Hay of Newhall):” “He said that Sir Isaac wrote to Scotland

to learn whether any descendants of that family remained, and this

(it was thought) with the view to leave some of his fortune to the

family possessing the estate with the title of baronet. Mr. Newton,

not having this honour, and being a shy man, did not encourage the

correspondence, because he did not consider _himself_ as of kin to Sir

Isaac, &c.”

“2d, Information communicated to me by Hay Newton, Esq., of that ilk,

18th August, 1800.”

“The late Sir Richard Newton of Newton, Bart., chief of that name,

having no male children, settled the estate and barony of Newton in

East Lothian county upon his relation Richard Hay Newton, Esq., son

of Lord William Hay.”[138]—“It cannot be discovered how long the

family of Newton have been in possession of the barony, there being

no tradition concerning that circumstance further than that they came

originally from England at a very distant period, and settled on these

lands.”—“The celebrated Sir Isaac Newton was a distant relation of the

family, and corresponded with the last baronet, the above-mentioned Sir

Richard Newton.”

The preceding documents furnish the most complete evidence that the

conversation respecting Sir Isaac Newton’s family took place between

him and Mr. Gregory; and the testimony of Lord Henderland proves that

his own uncle, Richard Newton of Newton, the immediate successor of

Sir Richard Newton, with whom Sir Isaac corresponded, was perfectly

confident that such a correspondence took place.

All these circumstances prove that Sir Isaac Newton could not trace

his pedigree with any certainty beyond his grandfather, and that there

were two different traditions in his family,—one which referred his

descent to John Newton of Westby, and the other to a gentleman of East

Lothian who accompanied King James VI. to England. In the first of

these traditions he seems to have placed most confidence in 1705, when

he drew out his traditionary pedigree; but as the conversation with

Professor James Gregory respecting his Scotch extraction took place

_twenty years_ afterward, namely, between 1725 and 1727, it is probable

that he had discovered the incorrectness of his first opinions, or at

least was disposed to attach more importance to the other tradition

respecting his descent from a Scotch family.

In the letter addressed to me by the learned George Chalmers, Esq. I

find the following observations respecting the immediate relations of

Sir Isaac. “The Newtons of Woolsthorpe,” says he, “who were merely

yeomen farmers, were not by any means opulent. The son of Sir Isaac’s

father’s brother was a carpenter called John. He was afterward

appointed gamekeeper to Sir Isaac, as lord of the manor, and died at

the age of sixty in 1725. This John had a son, Robert, (John?) who was

Sir Isaac’s second cousin, and who became possessed of the whole land

estates at and near Woolsthorpe, which belonged to the great Newton, as

his heir-at-law.[139] Robert (John?) became a worthless and dissolute

person, who very soon wasted this ancient patrimony, and falling down

with a tobacco-pipe in his mouth when he was drunk, it broke in his

throat, and put an end to his life at the age of thirty years, in 1737.”

No. II.

LETTER FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON TO FRANCIS ASTON, ESQ., A YOUNG FRIEND

WHO WAS ON THE EVE OF SETTING OUT UPON HIS TRAVELS.

Mr. Aston was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1678. He held

the office of Secretary between 1681 and 1685; and he was the author

of some observations on certain unknown ancient characters, which were

published in the Philosophical Transactions for 1693.

This letter has been referred to in pages 270 and 303, and was written

when Newton was only twenty-six years of age. It is in every respect an

interesting document.

“_Trinity College, Cambridge,

May 18, 1669._

“SIR,

“Since in your letter you give mee so much liberty of spending

my judgement about what may be to your advantage in travelling,

I shall do it more freely than perhaps otherwise would have been

decent. First, then, I will lay down some general rules, most of

which, I believe, you have considered already; but if any of them

be new to you, they may excuse the rest; if none at all, yet is my

punishment more in writing than yours in reading.

“When you come into any fresh company, 1. Observe their humours. 2.

Suit your own carriage thereto, by which insinuation you will make

their converse more free and open. 3. Let your discours be more in

querys and doubtings than peremptory assertions or disputings, it

being the designe of travellers to learne, not to teach. Besides,

it will persuade your acquaintance that you have the greater

esteem of them, and soe make them more ready to communicate what

they know to you; whereas nothing sooner occasions disrespect and

quarrels than peremtorinesse. You will find little or no advantage

in seeming wiser or much more ignorant than your company. 4. Seldom

discommend any thing though never so bad, or doe it but moderately,

lest you bee unexpectedly forced to an unhansom retraction. It

is safer to commend any thing more than it deserves, than to

discommend a thing soe much as it deserves; for commendations meet

not soe often with oppositions, or, at least, are not usually soe

ill resented by men that think otherwise, as discommendations;

and you will insinuate into men’s favour by nothing sooner than

seeming to approve and commend what they like; but beware of doing

it by a comparison. 5. If you bee affronted, it is better, in

a forraine country, to pass it by in silence, and with a jest,

though with some dishonour, than to endeavour revenge; for, in the

first case, your credit’s ne’er the worse when you return into

England, or come into other company that have not heard of the

quarrell. But, in the second case, you may beare the marks of the

quarrell while you live, if you outlive it at all. But, if you

find yourself unavoidably engaged, ’tis best, I think, if you can

command your passion and language, to keep them pretty evenly at

some certain moderate pitch, not much hightning them to exasperate

your adversary, or provoke his friends, nor letting them grow

overmuch dejected to make him insult. In a word, if you can keep

reason above passion, that and watchfullnesse will be your best

defendants. To which purpose you may consider, that, though such

excuses as this,—He provok’t mee so much I could not forbear,—may

pass among friends, yet amongst strangers they are insignificant,

and only argue a traveller’s weaknesse.

“To these I may add some general heads for inquirys or

observations, such as at present I can think on. As, 1. To observe

the policys, wealth, and state-affairs of nations, so far as a

solitary traveller may conveniently doe. 2. Their impositions upon

all sorts of people, trades, or commoditys, that are remarkable.

3. Their laws and customs, how far they differ from ours. 4. Their

trades and arts wherein they excell or come short of us in England.

5. Such fortifications as you shall meet with, their fashion,

strength, and advantages for defence, and other such military

affairs as are considerable. 6. The power and respect belonging to

their degrees of nobility or magistracy. 7. It will not be time

mispent to make a catalogue of the names and excellencys of those

men that are most wise, learned, or esteemed in any nation. 8.

Observe the mechanisme and manner of guiding ships. 9. Observe the

products of nature in several places, especially in mines, with

the circumstances of mining and of extracting metals or minerals

out of their oare, and of refining them; and if you meet with any

transmutations out of their own species into another (as out of

iron into copper, out of any metall into quicksilver, out of one

salt into another, or into an insipid body, &c.), those, above all,

will be worth your noting, being the most luciferous, and many

times lucriferous experiments too, in philosophy. 10. The prices of

diet and other things. 11. And the staple commoditys of places.

“These generals (such as at present I could think of), if they

will serve for nothing else, yet they may assist you in drawing

up a modell to regulate your travells by. As for particulars,

these that follow are all that I can now think of, viz. Whether at

Schemnitium, in Hungary (where there are mines of gold, copper,

iron, vitrioll, antimony, &c.), they change iron into copper by

dissolving it in a vitriolate water, which they find in cavitys of

rocks in the mines, and then melting the slimy solution in a strong

fire, which in the cooling proves copper. The like is said to be

done in other places, which I cannot now remember; perhaps, too, it

may be done in Italy. For about twenty or thirty years agone there

was a certain vitrioll came from thence (called Roman vitrioll),

but of a nobler virtue than that which is now called by that name;

which vitrioll is not now to be gotten, because, perhaps, they

make a greater gain by some such trick as turning iron into copper

with it than by selling it. 2. Whether, in Hungary, Sclavonia,

Bohemia, near the town Eila, or at the mountains of Bohemia near

Silesia, there be rivers whose waters are impregnated with gold;

perhaps, the gold being dissolved by some corrosive waters like

_aqua regis_, and the solution carried along with the streame, that

runs through the mines. And whether the practice of laying mercury

in the rivers, till it be tinged with gold, and then straining the

mercury through leather, that the gold may stay behind, be a secret

yet, or openly practised. 3. There is newly contrived, in Holland,

a mill to grind glasses plane withall, and I think polishing them

too; perhaps it will be worth the while to see it. 4. There is in

Holland one —— Borry, who some years since was imprisoned by the

Pope, to have extorted from him secrets (as I am told) of great

worth, both as to medicine and profit, but he escaped into Holland,

where they have granted him a guard. I think he usually goes

clothed in green. Pray inquire what you can of him, and whether

his ingenuity be any profit to the Dutch. You may inform yourself

whether the Dutch have any tricks to keep their ships from being

all worm-eaten in their voyages to the Indies. Whether pendulum

clocks do any service in finding out the longitude, &c.

“I am very weary, and shall not stay to part with a long

compliment, only I wish you a good journey, and God be with you.

“IS. NEWTON.

“Pray let us hear from you in your travells. I have given your two

books to Dr. Arrowsmith.”

No. III.

“A REMARKABLE AND CURIOUS CONVERSATION BETWEEN SIR ISAAC NEWTON AND

MR. CONDUIT.”

“I was on Sunday night, the 7th of March, 1724–5, at Kensington

with Sir Isaac Newton, in his lodgings, just after he was come

out of a fit of the gout, which he had had in both his feet, for

the first time, in the eighty-third year of his age. He was

better after it, and his head clearer, and memory stronger than I

had known them for some time. He then repeated to me, by way of

discourse, very distinctly, though rather in answer to my queries

than in one continued narration, what he had often hinted to me

before, viz. that it was his conjecture (he would affirm nothing)

that there was a sort of revolution in the heavenly bodies; that

the vapours and light emitted by the sun, which had their sediment

as water and other matter, had gathered themselves by degrees into

a body, and attracted more matter from the planets, and at last

made a secondary planet (viz. one of those that go round another

planet) and then by gathering to them, and attracting more matter,

became a primary planet; and then by increasing still became a

comet, which after certain revolutions, by coming nearer and nearer

to the sun, had all its volatile parts condensed, and became a

matter fit to recruit and replenish the sun (which must waste by

the constant heat and light it emitted) as a fagot would this

fire if put into it (we were sitting by a wood fire), and that

that would probably be the effect of the comet of 1680, sooner or

later, for, by the observations made upon it, it appeared, before

it came near the sun, with a tail only two or three degrees long;

but by the heat it contracted in going so near the sun, it seemed

to have a tail of thirty or forty degrees when it went from it;

that he could not say when this comet would drop into the sun;

it might perhaps have five or six revolutions more first, but

whenever it did it would so much increase the heat of the sun

that this earth would be burnt, and no animals in it could live.

That he took the three phenomena seen by Hipparchus, Tycho Brahe,

and Kepler’s disciples to have been of this kind, for he could

not otherwise account for an extraordinary light as those were,

appearing all at once among the fixed stars (all which he took

to be suns enlightening other planets as our sun does ours) as

big as Mercury or Venus seems to us, and gradually diminishing

for sixteen months, and then sinking into nothing. He seemed to

doubt whether there were not intelligent beings superior to us

who superintended these revolutions of the heavenly bodies by the

direction of the Supreme Being. He appeared also to be very clearly

of opinion that the inhabitants of this world were of a short

date, and alleged as one reason for that opinion, that all arts,

as letters, ships, printing, needle, &c., were discovered within

the memory of history, which could not have happened if the world

had been eternal; and that there were visible marks of ruin upon it

which could not be effected by a flood only. When I asked him how

this earth could have been repeopled if ever it had undergone the

same fate it was threatened with hereafter by the comet of 1680, he

answered, that required the power of a Creator. He said he took all

the planets to be composed of the same matter with this earth, viz.

earth, water, stones, &c., but variously concocted. I asked him why

he would not publish his conjectures as conjectures, and instanced

that Kepler had communicated his; and though he had not gone near

so far as Kepler, yet Kepler’s guesses were so just and happy that

they had been proved and demonstrated by him. His answer was, ‘I

do not deal in conjectures.’ But upon my talking to him about the

four observations that had been made of the comet of 1680, at 574

years’ distance, and asking him the particular times, he opened

his _Principia_, which laid on the table, and showed me there the

particular periods, viz. 1st, the Julium Sidus, in the time of

Justinian, in 1106, in 1680.

And I, observing that he said there of that comet, ‘incidet in

corpus solis,’ and in the next paragraph adds, ‘stellæ fixæ refici

possunt,’ told him I thought he owned there what we had been

talking about, viz. that the comet would drop into the sun, and

that fixed stars were recruited and replenished by comets when

they dropped into them; and, consequently, that the sun would be

recruited too; and asked him why he would not own as freely what he

thought of the sun as well as what he thought of the fixed stars.

He said, ‘that concerned us more;’ and, laughing, added, ‘that he

had said enough for people to know his meaning.’”

The preceding paper, with the title prefixed to it, was first published

by Mr. Turnor in his _Collections, &c._ p. 172. It was found among the

Portsmouth manuscripts, in the handwriting of Mr. Conduit.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Marquis La Place.—See _Systême du Monde_, p. 336.

[2] Sir Isaac Newton told Mr. Conduit, that he had often heard his

mother say that when he was born he was so little that they might have

put him into a quart mug.

[3] In Leicestershire, and about three miles south-east of Woolsthorpe.

[4] “I remember once,” says Dr. Stukely, “when I was deputy to Dr.

Hailey, secretary at the Royal Society, Sir Isaac talked of these

kind of instruments. That he observed the chief inconvenience in

them was, that the hole through which the water is transmitted being

necessarily very small, was subject to be furred up by impurities in

the water, as those made with sand will wear bigger, which at length

causes an inequality in time.”—Stukely’s Letter to Dr. Mead.—Turnor’s

_Collections_, p. 177.

[5] Mr. Clark informed Dr. Stukely that the walls of the room in which

Sir Isaac lodged were covered with charcoal drawings of birds, beasts,

men, ships, and mathematical figures, all of which were very well

designed.

[6] “One of his uncles,” says M. Biot, “having one day found him under

a hedge with a book in his hand and entirely absorbed in meditation,

took it from him, and found that he was occupied in the solution of a

mathematical problem. Struck with finding so serious and so active a

disposition at so early an age, he urged his mother no longer to thwart

him, and to send him back to Grantham to continue his studies.” I have

omitted this anecdote in the text, as I cannot find it in Turner’s

Collections, from which M. Biot derived his details of Newton’s

infancy, nor in any other work.

[7] Pemberton’s _View of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy_. Pref.

[8] Peregregiæ vir indolis ac insignis peritiæ.—_Epist ad. Lect._

[9] See Newton’s Letter to the Abbé Conti, dated February 26, 1715–16,

in the _Additamenta Comm. Epistolici_.

[10] Newtoni _Opera_, tom. iv. p. 205, Letter to Oldenburg.

[11] M. Biot, in his Life of Newton, has stated that Newton was

preceded in the invention of the reflecting telescope by Gregory, _but

probably without knowing it_. It is quite certain, however, that Newton

was acquainted with Gregory’s invention, as appears from the following

avowal of it. “When I first applied myself to try the effects of

reflection, Mr. Gregory’s _Optica Promota_ (printed in the year 1663)

having fallen into my hands, where there is an instrument described

with a hole in the midst of the object-glass, to transmit the light to

an eye-glass placed behind it, I had thence an occasion of considering

that sort of construction, and found their disadvantages so great, that

I saw it necessary before I attempted any thing in the practice to

alter the design of them, and place the eye-glass at the side of the

tube rather than at the middle.”—_Letter to Oldenburg_, May 4th, 1672.

[12] Letter to Oldenburg, February 10, 1671.

[13] This gentleman was the author of a paper in the Philosophical

Transactions, entitled “Optical Assertions concerning the Rainbow.”

How such a paper could be published by so learned a body seems in the

present day utterly incomprehensible. The dials which Linus erected at

Liege, and which were the originals of those formerly in the Priory

Gardens in London, are noticed in the Philosophical Transactions for

1703. In one of them the hours were distinguished by touch.

[14] Newton speaks with singular positiveness on this subject. “For _I

know_,” says he, “that Mr. Lucas’s observations _cannot hold_ where

the refracting angle of the prism is full 60°, and the day is clear,

and the full length of the colours is measured, and the breadth of the

image answers to the sun’s diameter; and seeing I am well assured of

the truth and exactness of my own observations, I shall be unwilling

to be diverted by any other experiments from having a fair end made of

this in the first place.” On the supposition that his prism was one of

very low dispersive power, Mr. Lucas might, with perfect truth, have

used the very same language towards Newton.

[15] Letter to Oldenburg in 1672, containing his first reply to Huygens.

[16] In an experiment made by Newton, he had occasion to counteract the

refraction of a prism of _glass_ by another prism of _water_; and had

he completed the experiment, and studied the result of it, he could not

have failed to observe a quantity of uncorrected colour, which would

have led him to the discovery of the different dispersive powers of

bodies. But in order to increase the refractive power of the water,

he mixed with it a little sugar of lead, the high dispersive power of

which seems to have rendered the dispersive power of the water equal to

that of the glass, and thus to have corrected the uncompensated colour

of the glass prism.

[17] See the article OPTICS in the _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_, vol xv. p.

479, _note_.

[18] “This result was obtained,” as Newton says, “by an assistant

whose eyes were more critical than mine, and who, by right lines drawn

across the spectrum, noted the confines of the colours. And this

operation being divers times repeated both on the same and on several

papers, I found that the observations agreed well enough with one

another.”—OPTICS, Part II. Book III.

[19] Optics, Book ii. Prop. iv.

[20] In the same paragraph, when speaking of black bodies becoming hot,

and burning sooner than others, he says that their “effect may proceed

partly from the _multitude of refractions_ in a little room and partly

from the easy commotion of so very small corpuscles.”—Optics, Part iii.

Prop. vii. p. 235.

[21] See page 354.

[22] When Newton speaks of bodies losing their reflecting power from

their thinness he means the reflecting power of their second surfaces,

as is evident from the reason he assigns.—See Optics, Part iii. Prop.

xiii. p. 257.

[23] _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, No. 1. p. 108.

[24] See the _Phil. Trans._ 1829, Part I. p. 189.

[25] _Idem._

[26] _Phil. Trans._ 1819, p. 11.

[27] If this view of the matter be just, we should expect that

the specific gravity of the black would exceed that of the yellow

phosphorus.

[28] Since the two preceding chapters were written, I have had occasion

to confirm and extend the views which they contain by many new

experiments.

[29] _Physico-Mathesis de Lumine coloribus et iride aliisque annexis._

Bonon. 1665.

[30] This doctrine is thus announced. 1. That the same rays of light

falling upon the same point of an object will turn into all sorts of

colours by the various inclination of the object. 2. That colours begin

to appear when two pulses of light are blended so well and so near

together that the sense takes them for one.

[31] This effect is so great, that at the distance of _four_ inches

from the point of divergence, the angular inflexion of the _red_ rays

of the first fringe is 12′ 6″, while at the distance of about twenty

feet, it is only 3′ 55″.

[32] See the twenty-ninth query at the end of his Optics, where the

sides of a ray are compared with the poles of a magnet.

[33] The English edition was reprinted at London in 1714, 1721, and

1730, and the Latin one at London in 1706, 1719, 1721, 1728, at

Lausanne in 1740, and at Padua in 1773.

[34] When James I. went to Copenhagen in 1590, to conclude his marriage

with the Princess Anne of Denmark, he spent eight days under the roof

of Tycho at Uraniburg. As a token of his gratitude, he composed a set

of Latin verses in honour of the astronomer, and left him a magnificent

present at his departure. He gave him also his royal license for the

publication of his works in England, and accompanied it with the

following complimentary letter:—

“Nor am I acquainted with these things on the relation of others, or

from a mere perusal of your works, but I have seen them with my own

eyes, and heard them with my own ears, in your residence at Uraniburg,

during the various learned and agreeable conversations which I there

held with you, which even now affect my mind to such a degree, that it

is difficult to decide whether I recollect them with greater pleasure

or admiration.”

[35] The cube, the sphere, the tetrahedron, the octohedron, the

dodecahedron, and the icosahedron.

[36] Simon Marius, mathematician to the Marquis of Brandenburg, assures

us that he discovered the satellites of Jupiter in November, 1609.

[37] It is distinctly stated in the sentence of the Inquisition, that

Galileo’s enemies had charged him with having abjured his opinions in

1616, and affirmed that he had been punished by the Inquisition. In

order to refute these calumnies, Galileo applied to Cardinal Bellarmine

for a certificate to prove that he neither abjured his opinions nor

suffered any punishment for them; but that the doctrine of the motion

of the earth and the stability of the sun was only denounced to him

as contrary to Scripture, and as one which could not be defended or

maintained. Cardinal Bellarmine drew up such a certificate in his own

handwriting.

[38] _Theoricæ Medicearum planetarum ex causis physicis deductæ._ Flor.

1666, 4to.

[39] M. Delambre maintains that these views of Borelli are only those

of Kepler slightly modified. Newton and Huygens have attached to them

a greater value. The last of these philosophers remarks, “Refert

Plutarchus, fuisse jam olim qui putaret ideo manere lunam in orbe suo,

quod vis recedendi a terra, ob motum circularem, inhiberetur pari vi

gravitatis, qua ad terram accedere conaretur. Idemque ævo nostro, non

de luna tantum sed et planetis ceteris statuit Alphonsus Borellus,

ut nempe primariis eorum gravitas esset solem versus; lunis vero ad

terram, Jovem ac Saturnum quos comitantur.”—Huygen, _Cosmotheor_, lib.

ii.; _Opera_, t. ii. p. 720.

[40] _Hist. de l’Astronomie aux Dix-huitieme Siècle_, p. 9.

[41] “But for the duplicate proportion, I gathered it from Kepler’s

theorem about twenty years ago.”—Newton’s _Letter to Halley_, July 14,

1686.

[42] Whiston asserts that this cause was supposed by Newton to be

something analogous to the vortices of Descartes.—See Whiston’s

_Memoirs of himself_, p. 231.

[43] Waller’s _Life of Hooke_, p. 22.

[44] _Ibid._

[45] July 27, 1686, _Biog. Brit._ p. 2662.

[46] _Commercium Epistolicum_, No. 7.

[47] This Scholium is added to Prop. iv. lib. i. coroll. 6.

[48] In writing to Flamstead, Newton requests from him the long

diameters of the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, that he “_may see how

the sesquialteral proportion fills the heavens_.”

[49] Whiston’s _Memoirs of his own Life_.

[50] “Dr. Reid states, that James Gregory, Professor of Philosophy

at St. Andrew’s, printed a thesis at Edinburgh in 1690, containing

twenty-five positions, of which twenty-two were a compend of Newton’s

Principia.”

[51] Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes, vol. iii. p. 322. Cotes states in

his preface to the second edition of the Principia, that copies of the

first edition could only be obtained at an immense price.

[52] Preface to Desaguliers’s _Experimental Philosophy_. Dr.

Desaguliers states that he was told this anecdote several times by Sir

Isaac Newton himself.

[53] _The Life of John Locke_, p. 209–215, Lond. 1829.

[54] _Principia_, lib. i. prop. i.

[55] _Ib._ lib. i. prop. xi.

[56] “On peut regarder Fermat,” says Lagrange, “comme le premier

inventeur des nouveaux calculs;” and Laplace observes, “Il paraitque

Fermat le veritable inventeur du calcul differentiel, l’ait envisagé

comme un cas particulier de celui des differences,” &c.

[57] Art. _Mathematics_, in the _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_, volume xiii.

p. 365.

[58] These facts are mentioned in Newton’s letter to Oldenburgh,

October 24, 1676.

[59] Dr. Pemberton informs us that he had prevailed upon Sir Isaac to

publish this treatise during his lifetime, and that he had for this

purpose examined all the calculations and prepared part of the figures.

But as the latter part of the treatise had never been finished, Sir

Isaac was about to let him have other papers to supply what was

wanting, when his death put a stop to the plan.—Preface to Pemberton’s

_View of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy_.

[60] Isaci Newtoni Opera quæ extant omnia, vol. i. p. 388–519.

[61] “Acutissimis qui toto orbe florent Mathematicis.”

[62] Henry Oldenburg, whose name is so intimately associated with the

history of Newton’s discoveries, was born at Bremen, and was consul

from that town to London during the usurpation of Cromwell. Having

lost his office, and being compelled to seek the means of subsistence,

he became tutor to an English nobleman, whom he accompanied to Oxford

in 1656. During his residence in that city he became acquainted with

the philosophers who established the Royal Society, and upon the

death of William Crown, the first secretary, he was appointed in

1663, joint secretary along with Mr. Wilkins. He kept up an extensive

correspondence with the philosophers of all nations, and he was the

author of several papers in the Philosophical Transactions, and of some

works which have not acquired much celebrity. He died at Charlton, near

Greenwich, in August, 1677.

[63] These words in brackets are in the second edition, but not in the

first.

[64] As this passage is of essential importance in this controversy, we

shall give it in the original. “_Pro differentiis igitur Leibnitianis

D. Newtonus adhibet, semperque adhibuit, fluxiones_, quæ sunt quam

proxime ut fluentium augmenta, æqualibus temporis particulis quam

minimis genita; iisque tam in suis Principiis Naturæ Mathematicis, tum

in aliis postea editis, eleganter est usus; _quem admodum et Honoratus

Fabrius in sua Synopsi Geometrica, motuumque progressus Cavallerianæ

methodo substituit_.”

[65] Homine docto, sed novo, et parum perito rerum ante actarum

cognitare.

[66] Vanæ et injustæ vociferationes.

[67] Letter to Count Bothman in Des Maizeaux’s _Recueil de diverses

pieces_, tom. ii. p. 44, 45.

[68] See Des Maizeaux, tom. ii. p. 116.

[69] Written in November or December, 1715.

[70] This is the _Recensio Commercii Epistolici_, or review of it,

which was first published in the _Phil. Trans. 1715_.

[71] M. Biot remarks, that the animosity of Newton was not calmed

by the death of Leibnitz, for he had no sooner heard of it than he

caused to be printed two manuscript letters of Leibnitz, written in

the preceding year, accompanying them with a very bitter refutation

(en les accompagnant d’un refutation tres-amere). Who that reads this

sentence does not believe that the bitter refutation was written after

Leibnitz’s death? The animosity could not be shown by the simple

publication of the letters. It could reside only in the _bitterness_

of the refutation. The implied charge is untrue; the bitter refutation

was written before Leibnitz’s death, and consequently he showed no

animosity over the grave of his rival; and in our opinion none even

before his death.

[72] M. Biot states that Sir Isaac Newton _caused_ this edition of

the Commercium Epistolicum to be printed; that _Sir Isaac placed_ at

the head of it a partial abstract of the collection; and that this

abstract _appeared to have been written by himself_. These groundless

charges may be placed, without any refutation, beside the assertion of

Montucla, that Newton wrote the notes (les notes) on the Commercium

Epistolicum; and the equally incorrect statement of La Croix, that

Newton added to it notes (des notes), with his own hand. We should not

have noticed the charges of M. Biot, had he not adduced them as proofs

of Newton’s animosity to Leibnitz after his death. See Mr. Herschel’s

History of _Mathematics_ in the _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_, vol. xiii. p.

368, _note_.

[73] See Burnet’s _History of his own Times_, vol. i. p. 697. Lond.

1724.

[74] The other candidates were Sir Robert Sawyer and Mr. Finch, and the

votes stood thus.

Sir Robert Sawyer, 125

Mr. Newton, 122

Mr. Finch, 117

[75] This M. Colin was probably a young bachelor of arts whom Newton

seems afterward to have employed in some of his calculations. These

bachelors were distinguished by the title of Dominus, and it was usual

to translate this word and to call them _Sir_. In a letter from Newton

to Flamstead, dated Cambridge, June 29th, 1695, is the following

passage: “I want not your calculations, but your observations only,

for besides myself and my servant, Sir Collins (whom I can employ for

a little money, which I value not) tells me that he can calculate an

eclipse and work truly.”

[76] They are thus dated in Horsley’s edition of Newton’s Works, the

_fourth_ letter having an earlier date than the _third_.

[77] See _Newtoni Opera_, tom. iv. p. 480, and _Wallasii Opera_, 1693,

tom. ii. p. 391–396.

[78] _Optics_, part iv. obs. 13.

[79] For these letters I have been indebted to the kindness of Lord

Braybrooke.

[80] These three letters have been published by Lord Braybrooke in the

Life and Correspondence of Mr. Pepys.

[81] This anxiety will be understood from the fact that, by an order of

council dated January 28th, 1674–5, Mr. Newton was excused from making

the usual payments of one shilling per week, “on account of his low

circumstances, as he represented.”

[82] The system of Hobbes was at this time very prevalent. According to

Dr. Bentley, “the taverns and coffee-houses, nay, Westminster Hall and

the very churches, were full of it;” and he was convinced from personal

observation, that “not one English infidel in a hundred was other than

a Hobbist.”—Monk’s _Life of Bentley_, p. 31.

[83] The draft of this letter is endorsed “J. L. to I. Newton.”

[84] Dr. Gregory concludes his account of this manuscript, which he

has kindly permitted me to read, in the following words:—“I do not

know whether it is true, as stated by Huygens, ‘Newtonum incidisse in

Phrenitim;’ but I think every gentleman who examines this manuscript

will be of opinion that he must have thoroughly recovered from his

phrenitis before he wrote either the Commentary on the Opinions of

the Ancients, or the Sketch of his own Theological and Philosophical

Opinions which it contains.”

[85] This paragraph is as follows:—“Deum esse ens summe perfectum

concedunt omnes. Entis autem summe perfecti Idea est ut sit substantia,

una, simplex, indivisibilis, viva et vivifica, ubique semper necessario

existens, summe intelligens omnia, libere volens bona, voluntate

efficiens possibilia, effectibus nobilioribus similitudinem propriam

quantum fieri potest communicans, omnia in se continens tanquam eorum

principium et locus, omnia per presentiam substantialem cernens et

regens, et cum rebus omnibus, secundum leges accuratas ut naturæ totius

fundamentum et causa constanter co-operans, nisi ubi aliter agere bonum

est.”

[86] The following extract, characteristic of Flamstead’s manner, is

from a letter to Newton dated January 6, 1698–9.

“Upon hearing occasionally that you had sent a letter to Dr. Wallis

about the parallax of the fixed stars to be printed, and that you had

mentioned me therein with respect to the theory of the moon, I was

concerned to be publicly brought upon the state about what, perhaps,

will never be fitted for the public, and thereby the world _put into

an expectation of what perhaps they are never likely to have_. I do

not love to be printed upon every occasion, much less to be dunned

and teased by foreigners about mathematical things, or to be thought

_by your own people to be trifling_ away my time when I should be

about the king’s business.” On the first of the above passages in

italics Flamstead has the following memorandum:—“When Mr. Halley

boasts ’tis done, and given to him as a secret, tells the Society

so and foreigners.” In the second passage in italics, Mr. Flamstead

refers, in a note, to Mr. Colson’s letter to him, in which he seems

to have represented practical astronomy as trifling. Mr. Flamstead

adds, “Was Mr. Newton a trifler when he read mathematics for a salary

at Cambridge: surely, then, astronomy is of some good use, though

his place be more beneficial.” For these extracts from the original

manuscript in the collection of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, I have

been indebted to the kindness of Professor Rigaud of Oxford.

[87] See page 215, note.

[88] The candidates in 1701 were as follows:

Mr. Henry Boyle, afterward Lord Carleton, 180} Both of Trinity

Mr. Newton 161} College.

Mr. Hammond 64

[89] The banquet which was on this occasion given in the college

hall to the royal visiter seems to have cost about 1000_l._, and the

university was obliged to borrow 500_l._, to defray the expense of

it.—Monk’s _Life of Bentley_, p. 143, 144.

[90] The candidates in 1705 were as follows:

The Hon. Arthur Annesley 182

Hon. Dixie Windsor 170

Mr. Godolphin 162

Sir Isaac Newton 117

[91] Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xvii. p. 677, 716.

[92] Whiston’s “Longitude Discovered.” Lond 1738.

[93] This anecdote concerning the Chronological manuscript is not

correctly given in the Biographia Britannica, and in some of the other

lives of Newton. I have followed implicitly Newton’s own account of it

in the _Phil. Trans. 1725_, vol. xxxiii. No. 389, p. 315.

[94] M. Biot has supposed that this abstract was an imperfect edition

of Newton’s work on Chronology.

[95] Father Souciet was supposed by Halley and others to have been the

author of these observations, but there is no doubt that they were

written by M. Freret.

[96] It is stated in the _Biogr. Britannica_, Art. _Newton_, that the

copy of the French translation was not accompanied with the refutation.

Though the reverse of this is not distinctly stated by Sir Isaac

himself, yet it may be inferred from his observations.

[97] Vol. xxxiii. No. 389, p. 315.

[98] According to Whiston, Sir Isaac wrote out eighteen copies

of this chapter with his own hand, differing little from one

another.—_Whiston’s Life_, p. 39.

[99] This work is the first article in the fifth volume of Dr.

Hersley’s edition of Newton’s works. The next article in the volume is

entitled, “A Short Chronicle from a MS., the property of the Reverend

Dr. Ekins, Dean of Carlisle;” which is nothing more than the abstract

of the Chronology already printed in the same volume. We cannot even

conjecture the reasons for publishing it, especially as it is less

perfect than the abstract, two or three dates being wanting.

[100] See vol. xxxiv. p. 205, and vol. xxxv. p. 296.

[101] See an excellent view of this chronological controversy in an

able note by M. Daunou, attached to Biot’s Life of Newton in the _Biog.

Universelle_, tom. xxxi. p. 180.

[102] This letter is published without any date in the _Gentleman’s

Magazine_ for 1755, vol. xxv. p. 3. It bears internal evidence of being

genuine.

[103] His _Historical Account of two notable Corruptions of the

Scriptures_. 50 pp quarto.

[104] The editor supplied the beginning down to the 13th page, where he

mentions in a note that “_thus far is not Sir Isaac’s_.”

[105] M. Biot has well remarked that there is absolutely nothing in

the writings of Newton to justify, or even to authorize, the idea

that he was an Antitrinitarian. This passage is strangely omitted

in the English translation of Biot’s Life of Newton. We do not know

upon what authority Dr. Thomson states, in his History of the Royal

Society, that Newton “did not believe in the Trinity,” and that Dr.

Horsley considered Newton’s papers unfit for publication, because they

contained proofs of his hostility to that doctrine.

[106] Whiston’s _Memoirs of his own Life_, p. 178, 249, 250. Edit. 1753.

[107] Dr. Monk’s _Life of Bentley_, p. 31.

[108] Dated December 10th, 1692. This letter is endorsed, in Bentley’s

hand, “Mr. Newton’s answer to some queries sent by me after I had

preached my two last sermons.”—Monk’s _Life of Bentley_, p. 34, note.

[109] Dated Jan. 17th, 1692–3.

[110] “These things,” says he, “follow from my _Princip. Math._ lib. i.

prop. 33, 34, 35, 36.”

[111] Dated February 11th, 1693.

[112] The originals of these four letters to Bentley “were given by Dr.

Richard Bentley to Cumberland, his nephew, and executor, while a

student at Trinity College, and were printed by him in a separate

pamphlet in 1756. This publication was reviewed by Dr. Samuel Johnson

in the Literary Magazine, vol. i. p. 89. See Johnson’s Works, vol.

ii. p. 328. The original letters are preserved in Trinity College, to

which society they were given by Cumberland a short time before his

death.”—Monk’s _Life of Bentley_, p. 33, note.

[113] Mr. Herschel, in his Treatise on Light, § 553, has maintained

that Newton’s Doctrine of Reflection is accordant with the idea that

the attractive force extends beyond the repulsive or reflecting force.

In the query above referred to, Sir Isaac, in the most distinct

manner, places the sphere of the reflecting force without that of the

attractive one.

[114] In a tract annexed to his _Appeal to all that doubt or disbelieve

the truths of the Gospel_. See _Gent. Mag._ 1782, vol. iii. p. 227, 239.

It is stated in a letter of Mr. Law’s, quoted in this magazine, that

Charles I. was a diligent reader and admirer of Jacob Behmen; that

he sent a well-qualified person from England to Goerlitz, in Upper

Lusatia, to acquire the German language, and to collect every anecdote

he could meet with there relative to this great alchymist.

[115] In a letter to Dr. Halley, dated June 20th, 1686, Sir Isaac

refers to this paper, and observes, that it is only to be looked upon

as one of his guesses that he did not rely upon.

[116] See page 273.

[117] See _Newtoni Opera_, by Horsley, vol. iv. p. 375–382.

[118] Sir Isaac does not seem to have afterward described this

construction.

[119] See _Edinburgh Transactions_, vol. ix. p. 433, and the _Edinburgh

Journal of Science_, July, 1829, No. I. New Series, p. 108.

[120] Art. _Accidental Colours_ in the _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_.

[121] See _Phil. Trans._ 1722, vol. xxxiii. p. 57.

[122] This conversation, originally copied from Mr. Conduit’s

handwriting, is given in the Appendix, No. iii. p. 320.

[123] These were the three children of his half-brother Smith, the

three children of his half-sister Pilkington, and the two daughters of

his half-sister Barton, all of whom survived Sir Isaac. _New Anecdotes

of Sir Isaac Newton, by J. H., a Gentleman of his Mother’s Family._ See

_Annual Register_, 1776, vol. xix. p. 25 of Characters. The author of

this paper was James Hutton, Esq. of Pimlico.

[124] Turnor’s _Collections_, &c. p. 158. See APPENDIX, p. 316.

[125] This valuable faculty characterizes all his writings, whether

theological, chymical, or mathematical; but it is peculiarly displayed

in his treatise on Universal Arithmetic, and in his Optical Lectures.

[126] _De Magnete_, p. 42, 52, 169, and Pref. p. 30.

[127] The following passages from Leonardo da Vinci are very striking:

“Theory is the general, and practice the soldiers.

“Experiment is the interpreter of the artifices of nature. It never

deceives us; it is our judgment itself which sometimes deceives us,

because we expect from it effects which are contrary to experiment.

We must consult experiment by varying the circumstances till we have

deduced from it general laws; for it is it which furnishes true laws.

“In the study of the sciences which depend on mathematics, those who do

not consult nature, but authors, are not the children of nature; they

are only her grandchildren. Nature alone is the master of true genius.

“In treating any particular subject, I would first of all make some

experiments, because my design is first to refer to experiment, and

then to demonstrate why bodies are constrained to act in such a

manner. This is the method which we ought to follow in investigating

the phenomena of nature. It is very true that nature begins by

reasoning and ends with experiment; but it matters not, _we must take

the opposite course_; _as I have said, we must begin by experiment_,

and endeavour by its means to discover general principles.” Thus,

says Venturi, spoke Leonard a century before Bacon, and thus, we

add, did Leonard tell philosophers all that they required for the

proper investigation of general laws. See _Essai sur les œuvrages

physico-mathematiques de Leonard de Vinci_, par J. B. Venturi. Paris,

1799, p. 32, 33, &c. See also Carlo Amoretti’s _Memorie storiche su la

vita gli studi e le Opere de Lionardo da Vinci_. Milano, 1804.

[128] Mr. Hearne, in a memorandum dated April 4th, 1726, states, that

a great quarrel happened between Sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Halley. If

this is true, the difference is likely to have originated in Halley’s

impiety.

[129] Professor Rigaud of Oxford heard this anecdote from Dr. Maskelyne.

[130] “He was very kind to all the Ayscoughs. To one he gave 800_l._,

to another 200_l._, and to a third 100_l._, and many other sums; and

other engagements did he enter into also for them. He was the ready

assistant of all who were any way related to him,—to their children and

grandchildren.”—_Annual Register_, 1776, vol. xix. p. 25. Sir Isaac

gave some donations to the chapel and parish of Colsterworth. Hearne

says “that he promised to become a benefactor to the Royal Society, but

failed.”

[131] The following anecdote of Sir Isaac’s absence has been published,

but I cannot vouch for its authenticity. His intimate friend Dr.

Stukely, who had been deputy to Dr. Halley as secretary to the Royal

Society, was one day shown into Sir Isaac’s dining-room, where his

dinner had been for some time served up. Dr. Stukely waited for a

considerable time, and getting impatient, he removed the cover from a

chicken, which he ate, replacing the bones under the cover. In a short

time Sir Isaac entered the room, and after the usual compliments sat

down to his dinner, but on taking off the cover, and seeing nothing but

bones, he remarked, “How absent we philosophers are. I really thought

that I had not dined.”

[132] _Epistolary Correspondence_, vol. i. p. 180, sec. 77.

[133] MS. Memoranda in the Bodleian Library.

[134] Turnor’s _Collections_, p. 176.

[135] The anecdote of the falling apple is mentioned neither by Dr.

Stukely nor by Mr. Conduit, and as I have not been able to find any

authority for it whatever, I did not feel myself at liberty to use it.

[136] In the Monthly Review for August, 1829, p. 593, it is stated,

that the correspondence between Newton and Flamstead, from 1680 to

1698, exists in the Sloane collection of Manuscripts in the British

Museum. Professor Rigaud, however, has had the kindness to inquire

into the accuracy of this statement, and he has ascertained that these

letters are merely copies, which Dr. Birch had made from the originals

at Oxford.

[137] See page 288, note.

[138] This entail was executed in 1724, a year or two before Sir

Richard’s death.—D. B.

[139] See p. 291.

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a

predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not

changed.

Many abbreviations, and some sentences, did not end with periods.

Transcriber added missing periods only at the ends of sentences, and

did not attempt to resolve other inconsistencies.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unpaired

quotation marks retained.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.

In some letters, the salutations and dates were printed on the same

line, and the signatures sometimes were printed on the same lines as

the end of the body. In this eBook, the dates always appear above the

salutations and the signatures are on their own lines.

Superscripts were used only as abbreviations for names and words, not

in mathematical expressions, and have been printed as normal lower-case

letters in the Plain Text version of this eBook.

The Transcriber did not review the spelling of non-English words.

Second page (unnumbered), last line: “with whom they abide.” The word

shown here as “abide” was poorly printed and unclear.

At the bottom of the Title page, the date is “1833”; at the bottom of

the cover, the date is “1835”.

Page 66: “piece of plane glass” was printed that way.

Page 66: Transcriber added the comma in “and LR, LR the extreme red”.

Page 70: Transcriber added italics to “makes _orange_”.

Page 126: “on the 7th January, 1618” should be “1610”.

Page 306 referred to Newton’s telescope being shown in “fig. 1”, but

it actually is in “fig. 3” and is referenced that way in this eBook.

Page 321: The opening parenthesis before “viz. one of those that go

round another” has no matching closing parenthesis. Transcriber added a

closing parenthesis after “round another planet”, but that may not be

where it belongs.