<19r> < insertion from the bottom of f 20v >

|An Extract of Mr Newtons letter to M. Oldenb. concerning ye genuine method of determining the Truth of his Doctrine of Light and Colors.|

< text from f 19r resumes >

Stoake July 6t. 1672.


In {yor}{ye} inquiry wch in yors of June ye 25t you propound in these words: Whether a physicall point in a Glasse may not by the diversity of the pores & angles in it cause in the rays falling thereon such really different though seemingly equall refractions, that thence may proceed those severall distinct colours wch in my Doctrine are esteemed to proceed from the aggregate if the rays if light? I know not what to understand by really different though seemingly equall refractions. For if you meane those different refractions from whence I denominate Light unequally refrangible, their differences are so great that they are far from being seemingly equall. And I apprehend not what other differences you should meane (if there be any other) since there is so constant & strict an Analogy between these & the severall species of colours. However since you suppose those unequall refractions to proceed from the diversity of pores & angles in the Glass, they must be comprehended under the {illeg} contingent irregularities wch I have already disproved in my Answer to Mr Hook & P. Pardies. And further if colours were originated from refractions as is supposed in your inquiry, then all colours would be changeable by refractions, contrary to what I find by experience. From either of these two heads, your inquiry is determined negatively, wch if you think requisite I shall further explain hereafter.

|ph. Trans. N. 85. p. 4|5|004| || In the meane while give me leave to insinuate that I cannot think it effectuall for determining truth to examin the severall ways by wch Phænomena may be explained, unlesse where there can be a perfect enumeration of all those ways. You know the proper Method for inquiring after the properties of things is to dedu{illeg}|c|e them from Experiments. And I told you that the Theory wch I propounded was evinced to me, not by inferring tis thus because not otherwise, that is not by deducing it onely from a confutation of contrary suppositions, but by deriving it from Experiments concluding positively & directly. The way therefore to examin it is by considering whether the experiments wch I propound do prove those parts of the Theory to wch they are applyed, or by prosecuting other experiments wch the Theory may suggest for its examination. And this I would {illeg}|h|ave done in a due Method; the Laws of Refraction being throughly inquired into & determined before the nature of colours be taken into consideration. It may not be amiss to proceed according to the series of these Queries: The decision of wch I could wish to be stated, & the events attested \declared/ by those that <19v> may have the curiosity to examin them.

1. Whether rays that are alike incident on ye same Medium have unequall refractions, & how great are the inequalities of their refractions at any incidence?

2. What is ye law according to wch each ray is more or lesse refracted, whether it be yt the same ray is ever refracted {illeg}|a|ccording to the same ratio of the sines of incidence & refraction; & divers rays, according to divers ratios; Or that the refraction of each ray is greater or lesse without any certain rule? That is, whether each ray have a certain degree of refrangibility according to wch its refraction is performed, or is refracted without that regularity?

3. Whether rays wch are indued with particular degrees of refrangibility, when they are by any meanes separated, have particular colours constantly belonging to them: viz, the least refrangible, scarlet; the most refrangible, deep violet; the middle, Sea-green; & others, other colours? And on the contrary?

4. Whether the colour of any sort of rays apart may be changed by refraction?

5. Whether colours by coalescing do really change one another to produce a new colour, or produce it by mixing onely?

6. Whether a due mixture of rays, indued with all variety of colours, produces light perfectly like that of the Sun, & wch hath all the same properties & exhibits the same Phænomena?

|Symbol (45°_inclined_capital_F) in text| < insertion from lower down f 20v > Between the 6t & 8th Query you may insert this in ye 7th place

|Symbol (45°_inclined_capital_F) in text [| 7. Whether the component colours {illeg}|o|f{illeg} any mixture {illeg}be really changed or onely separated, when out of that mixture various colours are \again/ produced by refraction? |]|

< text from f 19v resumes >

8. Whether there be any other colours produced by refractions th{illeg}|e|n such, as ought to result from the colours belonging to the diversly refrangible rays by their being separated or mixed by that refraction?

To determin by experiments these & such like Queries wch involve the propounded Theory seemes the most proper & direct way to a conclusion. And therefore I could wish all objections were suspended, taken from Hypotheses or any other Heads then these two; Of showing the insufficiency of experiments to det{illeg}|e|rmin these Queries or prove any other parts or my Theory, by assigning the flaws & defects in my Conclusions drawn from them; Or of producing other Experiments wch directly contradict me, if any such may seem to occur. For if the Experiments, wch I urge be defective it cannot be difficult to show the defects, but if valid, then by proving the Theory they must render all other Objections insignificant & vaine invalid. |]|

In the margin of my Answer to Mr Hook I noted the contents of it in 12 Particulars, wch when I came to number them in the Copy I found 13, so that there is either a marginall note omitted, or else slip{illeg}|t| over without its number prefixt. If ye last hath happened, you may prefix its number & alter the numbers of those that follow. But if the first, I will supply the note when I returne to Cambridge where my papers are, because ther may possibly be occasion of referring to that discourse hereafter. Sr I am

Yor humble Servant

I. Newton


Yors dated June ye 20th I doubt I shall not receive till my returne to Cambridge. I desire you would suspend ye impression of P. Pardies {illeg}|s|econd Letter. If you write to me before July 14 pray direct your Letter to me at Mris Arundells House in Stoake Park in Northampton-shire. And assigne it to be left with the Post-Master of Towcester to be sent thither.


If you see Mr Collins pray acquaint him that there are three more books of Mr Kersies Algebra desired in Cambridg for wch he may at present subscribe my name.

Since the writing of this I received yor two letters dated June 20th & July ye 2d. I understand that John Stiles is ordered to call upon you for what you are pleased to promise me, otherwise I should have ordered {illeg} \another/ {illeg}|C|arrier have brought it hither; For the transmission of it from Cambridg hither will not be so suddein. I am much obliged to Monsr Hugens for what he hath wrote to you wch I should have answered now but for want of time & room



To Mr Henry Oldenburg Esqꝫ
at his house about the middle
of the old Pall-mail in


London \2/

|July 7|8|. 72.|

|Answ. july 9. acqesce in his answer to . Intend to print his set of Inqries, and to recommend ym at ye R. S. Desired to take off ye suspension of printing the 2d Let. of Pard. and to send me his answer to Hugens.|

© 2022 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC