<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:np="http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/ns/nonTEI" xml:id="NATP00028" type="transcription">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Mr Isaac Newtons Answer to some Considerations [of Robert Hooke] upon his doctrine of Light and Colors</title>
<title type="short">Reply to Robert Hooke</title>
<author xml:id="in"><persName key="nameid_1" sort="Newton, Isaac" ref="nameid_1" xml:base="http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/catalogue/xml/persNames.xml">Isaac Newton</persName></author>

</titleStmt>
<extent><hi rend="italic">c.</hi> <num n="word_count" value="8001">8,001</num> words</extent>

<publicationStmt>
<authority>Newton Project</authority>
<pubPlace>London</pubPlace>
<date>2007-03-17</date>
<publisher>Newton Project, University of Sussex</publisher>
<availability n="lic-text" status="restricted"><licence target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/"><p>This text is licensed under a <ref target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License</ref>.</p></licence></availability>
</publicationStmt>
<notesStmt>
<note type="metadataLine">18 November 1672, in English, <hi rend="italic">c.</hi> 7,999 words, 20 pp.</note>
<note n="pages">20 pp.</note>
<note n="language">
<p>in English</p>
</note>
<note n="related_texts">
<linkGrp n="document_relations" xml:base="http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/normalized/"><ptr type="is_responded_by" target="NATP00016">An Extract of a Letter lately written by an ingenious person from Paris [Christiaan Huygens] [<hi rend="italic">Philosophical Transactions</hi> 96 (21 July 1673)]</ptr><ptr type="is_response_to" target="NATP00005">Robert Hooke's Critique of Newton's Theory of Light and Colors (delivered 1672) [<hi rend="italic">History of the Royal Society</hi>, Vol. 3 (1757)]</ptr></linkGrp>
</note>
</notesStmt>
<sourceDesc><bibl type="simple" n="custodian_3" sortKey="zz-mr_isaac_newtons_answer_to_some_considerations_[of_robert_hooke]_upon_his_doctrine_of_light_and_colors,_philosophical_transactions_of_the_royal_society,_no._88_(18_november_1672),_pp._5084-5103." subtype="Printed">‘Mr Isaac Newtons Answer to some Considerations [of Robert Hooke] upon his doctrine of Light and Colors’,  <hi rend="italic">Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society</hi>, No. 88 (18 November 1672), pp. 5084-5103.</bibl>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<author><persName ref="nameid_1" xml:base="http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/catalogue/xml/persNames.xml"><forename>Isaac</forename> <surname>Newton</surname></persName></author>
<title>Mr Isaac Newtons Answer to some Considerations [of Robert Hooke] upon his doctrine of Light and Colors</title>
</analytic>
<monogr>
<title level="j">Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society</title>
<title level="j" type="short">Philosophical Transactions</title>
<imprint>
<pubPlace>London</pubPlace>
<date>18 November 1672</date>
<biblScope type="no">88</biblScope>
<biblScope type="pp">5084-5103</biblScope>
</imprint>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<creation>
<origDate when="1672-11-18">18 November 1672</origDate>
<origPlace>England</origPlace>
</creation>
<langUsage>
<language ident="eng">English</language>
</langUsage>
<handNotes>
<handNote xml:id="printer" scribe="print">Print</handNote>
</handNotes>
</profileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<classDecl><taxonomy><category><catDesc n="Science">Science</catDesc><category><catDesc n="Optics">Optics</catDesc><category><catDesc n="Correspondence">Correspondence</catDesc></category></category></category></taxonomy></classDecl>
</encodingDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change when="2001-01-01" type="metadata">Catalogue information compiled by Rob Iliffe, Peter Spargo &amp; John Young</change>
<change when="2003-02-04" status="released">Tagged transcription by <name xml:id="lc">Linda Cross</name></change>
<change when="2003-09-21">Checked against original by <name xml:id="rhiggitt">Rebekah Higgitt</name></change>
<change when="2007-03-01">Coding converted to modified TEI DTD and proofed by <name xml:id="mjh">Michael Hawkins</name></change>
<change when="2009-04-20">Updated to Newton V3.0 (TEI P5 Schema) by <name>Michael Hawkins</name></change>
<change when="2011-09-29" type="metadata">Catalogue exported to teiHeader by <name>Michael Hawkins</name></change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text>
<body>
<pb xml:id="p5084" n="5084"/><fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5084)</fw>
<div>
<head xml:id="hd1"><hi rend="italic">Mr</hi>. Isaac Newtons <hi rend="italic">Answer to some Considerations upon his Doctrine of</hi> Light <hi rend="italic">and</hi> Colors; <hi rend="italic">which Doctrine was printed in N</hi>umb. 80. <hi rend="italic">of these Tracts</hi>.</head>
<p rend="indent0" xml:id="par1"><hi rend="dropCap">S</hi><hi rend="italic">IR</hi>, I have already told you, that at the perusal of the considerations, you sent me, on my Letter concerning <hi rend="italic">Refrac<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l1"/>tions</hi> and <hi rend="italic">Colors</hi>, I found nothing, that, as I conceived, might not without difficulty be answer'd. And though I find the <hi rend="italic">Considerer</hi> somewhat more concern'd for an <hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</hi>, than I expected; yet I doubt not, but we have one common design; I mean, a sincere endeavour after knowledge, without valuing uncertain speculations for their subtleties, or despising cer<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l2"/>tainties for their plainness: And on confidence of this it is, that I make this return to his discourse.*<anchor xml:id="n007-01"/> <note target="#n007-01">* <hi rend="italic">Which</hi> Discourse <hi rend="italic">was thought needless to be here printed at length, because in the body of this Answer are to be met with the chief particulars, wherein the</hi> Answerer <hi rend="italic">was concern'd.</hi></note></p>
<p xml:id="par2"><anchor xml:id="n007-02"/> <note target="#n007-02">1.<hi rend="italic">Of the Practique part of Optiques.</hi></note>The <hi rend="italic">first</hi> thing that offers it self is less agreeable to me, and I begin with it because it is so. The consi<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l3"/>derer is pleased to reprehend me for laying aside the thoughts of im<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l4"/>proving Optiques by <hi rend="italic">Refractions</hi>. If he had obliged me by a private Letter on this occasion, I would have acquainted him with my successes on the Tryals I have made of that kind, which I shall now say have been less than I sometimes expected, and perhaps than he at present hopes for. But since he is pleased to take it for granted, that I have let this subject pass without due examination, I shall refer him to my former Letter,*<anchor xml:id="n007-03"/> <note target="#n007-03">* <hi rend="italic">Printed in</hi> Numb. 80. <hi rend="italic">of these Tracts.</hi></note> by which that conjecture will appear to be un-grounded. For, what I said there, was in respect of Telescopes of the ordinary constructi<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l5"/>on, signifying, that their improvement is not to be expected from the <hi rend="italic">well-figuring</hi> of Glasses, as Opticians have imagin'd; but I despaired not of their improvement by other constru<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l6"/>ctions; which made me cautious to insert nothing that might intimate the contrary. For, although successive refractions that are all made the same way, do necessarily more and more augment the errors of the first refraction; yet it seem'd not impossible for <hi rend="italic">contrary</hi> refractions so to correct each others inequalities, as to make their difference regular; and, if that <fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">could</fw><pb xml:id="p5085" n="5085"/><fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5085)</fw>could be conveniently effected, there would be no further dif<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l7"/>ficulty. Now to this end I examin'd what may be done not only by <hi rend="italic">Glasses alone</hi>, but more especially by a Complication of divers successive <hi rend="italic">Mediums</hi>, as by two or more Glasses or Cry<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l8"/>stals with Water or some other fluid between them; all which together may perform the office of <hi rend="italic">one Glass</hi>, especially of the <lb xml:id="l9"/>Object-glass, on whose construction the perfection of the in<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l10"/>strument chiefly depends. But what the results in Theory or by Tryals have been, I may possibly find a more proper occa<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l11"/>sion to declare.</p>
<p xml:id="par3">To the Assertion, that Rays are less true <hi rend="italic">reflected</hi> to a point by a <hi rend="italic">Concave</hi>, than <hi rend="italic">refracted</hi> by a Convex, I cannot assent; nor do I understand, that the <hi rend="italic">focus</hi> of the latter is less a line than that of the former. The truth of the contrary you will rather perceive by this following Table, computed for such a <hi rend="italic">Reflec<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l12"/>ting Concave</hi>, and <hi rend="italic">Refracting convex</hi>, on supposition that they have equal Apertures, and collect parallel rays at an equal di<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l13"/>stance from their <hi rend="italic">vertex</hi>; which distance being divided into 15000 parts, the Diameter of the Concave Sphere will be 60000 of those parts, and of the Convex, 10000; supposing the <hi rend="italic">Sines</hi> of Incidence and Refraction to be, in round num<lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l14"/>bers, as 2 to 3. And this Table shews, how much the exterior rays, at several Apertures, fall short of their principal <hi rend="italic">focus</hi>.</p>
<table>
<row>
<cell/>
<cell><hi rend="italic">The parts of the Axis intercepted between the</hi> vertex <hi rend="italic">and the rays</hi>.</cell>
<cell/>
<cell><hi rend="italic">The Error by</hi></cell>
<cell/>
</row>
<row>
<cell><hi rend="italic">The Diameter of the Aperture</hi>.</cell>
<cell><hi rend="italic">Reflected</hi>.</cell>
<cell><hi rend="italic">Refracted</hi>.</cell>
<cell><hi rend="italic">Reflexion</hi>.</cell>
<cell><hi rend="italic">Refraction</hi>.</cell>
</row>
<row>
<cell>2000</cell>
<cell>14991<formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mfrac><mn>2</mn><mn>3</mn></mfrac></math></formula></cell>
<tei:cell xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">14865</tei:cell>
<tei:cell xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">8<tei:formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mn>3</mn></mfrac></math></tei:formula></tei:cell>
<tei:cell xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">135.</tei:cell>
</row>
<tei:row xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<tei:cell>4000</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>14966</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>14449</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>33</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>551.</tei:cell>
</tei:row>
<tei:row xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<tei:cell>6000</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>14924</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>13699</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>76</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>1301.</tei:cell>
</tei:row>
<tei:row xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<tei:cell>8000</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>14865</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>12475</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>135</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>2525.</tei:cell>
</tei:row>
<tei:row xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<tei:cell>10000</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>14787</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>9472</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>213</tei:cell>
<tei:cell>5528.</tei:cell>
</tei:row>
</table>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par4">By this you may perceive, that the Errors of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Refracting convex</tei:hi> are so far from being <tei:hi rend="italic">less</tei:hi>, that they are more than six<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l15"/>teen times greater than the like errors of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Reflecting Concave</tei:hi>, especially in great Apertures; and that without respect to the Heterogeneous constitution of light. So that, however the contrary supposition might make the Author of these Animad<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l16"/>versions reject <tei:hi rend="italic">Reflections</tei:hi> as useless for the promoting of Op<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l17"/><tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">tiques</tei:fw><tei:fw type="sig" place="bottomCenter">K k k k k 2</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5086" n="5086"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5086)</tei:fw>tiques; yet I must for this as well as other considerations pre<tei:lb xml:id="l18"/>fer them in the Theory before <tei:hi rend="italic">Refractions</tei:hi>.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par5">Whether the <tei:hi rend="italic">Parabola</tei:hi> be more difficult to describe than the <tei:hi rend="italic">Hyperbola</tei:hi> or <tei:hi rend="italic">Ellipsis</tei:hi>, may be a <tei:hi rend="italic">Quære</tei:hi>: But I see no absolute necessity of endeavouring after any of their descriptions. For, if Metals can be ground truly Spherical, they will bear as great Apertures, as I believe men will be able to communicate an <tei:hi rend="italic">exact</tei:hi> polish to. And for Dioptrique Telescopes, I told you, that the difficulty consisted not in the Figure of the glass, but in the Difformity of Refractions: Which if it did not, I could tell you a better and more easie remedy than the use of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Conic Sections</tei:hi>.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par6"><tei:anchor xml:id="n009-01"/> <tei:note target="#n009-01">2. <tei:hi rend="italic">Of the Theorique part</tei:hi>.</tei:note> Thus much concerning the <tei:hi rend="italic">Practique</tei:hi> part of Optiques. I shall now take a view of the Considerations on my <tei:hi rend="italic">Theories</tei:hi>. And those consist in ascribing an <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>, which, as to the principal parts, is not against me; in Granting the greatest part of my discourse if explicated by that <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>; and in Denying some things, the truth of which would have appear'd by an experimental examination.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par7"><tei:anchor xml:id="n009-02"/> <tei:note target="#n009-02">3. <tei:hi rend="italic">Of an Hypothesis mistaken to be mine</tei:hi>.</tei:note>Of these Particulars I shall discourse in order. And first of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>, which is ascribed to me in these words: <tei:hi rend="italic">But grant his first supposition, that light is a body, and that as many colours or degrees as there may be, so many bodies there may be; all of which com<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l19"/>pounded together would make White</tei:hi>, &amp;c. This, it seems, is taken for my <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>. 'Tis true, that from my Theory I argue the <tei:hi rend="italic">Corporeity</tei:hi> of Light; but I do it without any absolute positive<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l20"/>ness, as the word <tei:hi rend="italic">perhaps</tei:hi> intimates; and make it at most but a very plausible <tei:hi rend="italic">consequence</tei:hi> of the Doctrine, and not a funda<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l21"/>mental <tei:hi rend="italic">Supposition</tei:hi>, nor so much as any part of it; which was wholly comprehended in the precedent Propositions. And I somewhat wonder, how the <tei:hi rend="italic">Objector</tei:hi> could imagine, that, when I had asserted the Theory with the greatest rigour, I should be so forgetful as afterwards to assert the fundamental suppo<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l22"/>sition it self with no more than a <tei:hi rend="italic">perhaps</tei:hi>. Had I intended any <tei:lb xml:id="l23"/>such <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>, I should somewhere have explain'd it. But I knew, that the <tei:hi rend="italic">Properties</tei:hi>, which I declar'd of <tei:hi rend="italic">Light</tei:hi>, were in <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">some</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5087" n="5087"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5087)</tei:fw> some measure capable of being explicated not only by that, but by many other Mechanical <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypotheses</tei:hi>. And therefore I <tei:lb xml:id="l24"/>chose to decline them all, and to speak of <tei:hi rend="italic">Light</tei:hi> in <tei:hi rend="italic">general</tei:hi> terms, considering it abstractly, as something or other propa<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l25"/>gated every way in streight lines from luminous bodies, with<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l26"/>out determining, what that Thing is; whether a confused Mixture of difform qualities, or Modes of bodies, or of <tei:choice><tei:sic>Bo<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l27"/>bies</tei:sic><tei:corr>Bodies</tei:corr></tei:choice> themselves, or of any Virtues, Powers, or Beings what<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l28"/>soever. And for the same reason I chose to speak of <tei:hi rend="italic">Colours</tei:hi> according to the information of our Senses, as if they were Qualities of Light <tei:hi rend="italic">without</tei:hi> us. Whereas by that <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi> I must have considered them rather as <tei:hi rend="italic">Modes</tei:hi> of Sensation, ex<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l29"/>cited in the mind by various motions, figures, or sizes of the corpuscles of Light, making various Mechanical impressions on the Organ of Sense; as I expressed it in that place, where I spake of the Corporeity of Light.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par8">But supposing I had propounded that <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>, I under<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l30"/>stand not, why the Objector should so much endeavour to op<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l31"/>pose it. For certainly it has a much greater affinity with his own <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>, than he seems to be aware of; the Vibrations of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Æther</tei:hi> being as useful and necessary in <tei:hi rend="italic">this</tei:hi>, as in <tei:hi rend="italic">his</tei:hi>. For, assuming the Rays of Light to be small bodies, emitted every way from Shining substances, those, when they impinge on any Refracting or Reflecting superficies, must as necessarily excite Vibrations in the <tei:hi rend="italic">æther</tei:hi>, as Stones do in water when thrown into it. And supposing these Vibrations to be of se<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l32"/>veral depths or thicknesses, accordingly as they are excited by the said corpuscular rays of various sizes and velocities; of what use they will be for explicating the manner of Reflection and Refraction, the production of Heat by the Sun-beams, the E<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l33"/>mission of Light from burning putrifying, or other substances, whose parts are vehemently agitated, the <tei:hi rend="italic">Phænomena</tei:hi> of thin <tei:lb xml:id="l34"/>transparent Plates and Bubles, and of all Natural bodies, the Manner of Vision, and the Difference of Colors, as also their Harmony and Discord; <tei:hi rend="italic">I</tei:hi> shall leave to their consideration, who may think it worth their endeavor to apply this <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi> to the solution of <tei:hi rend="italic">phænomena</tei:hi>.</tei:p>
<tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="catch" place="bottomRight">In</tei:fw><tei:pb xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="p5088" n="5088"/><tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="pag" place="topRight">(5088)</tei:fw>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par9"><tei:anchor xml:id="n011-01"/> <tei:note target="#n011-01">4. <tei:hi rend="italic">Of the Objector's</tei:hi> Hypothesis, <tei:hi rend="italic">and that the most free and genuine Constitution of that and all other Mechanical Hypotheses is comfortable to my Doctrine</tei:hi>.</tei:note>In the second place, I told you, that the Objectors <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>, as to the fundamental part of it, is not against me. That fundamental Supposition is; <tei:hi rend="italic">That the parts of bodies, when briskly agitated, do ex<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l35"/>cite Vibrations in the Æther, which are propagated every way from those bodies in streight lines, and cause a Sensation of Light by beating and dashing against the bottom of the Eye, something after the manner that Vibrations in the Air cause a Sensation of Sound by beating against the Organs of Hearing</tei:hi>. Now, the most free and natural Application of this <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi> to the Solution of <tei:hi rend="italic">phænomena</tei:hi> I take to be this: <tei:hi rend="italic">That</tei:hi> the agitated parts of bodies, according to their several sizes, figures, and mo<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l36"/>tions, do excite Vibrations in the <tei:hi rend="italic">æther</tei:hi> of various depths or bignesses, which being promiscuously propagated through that <tei:hi rend="italic">Medium</tei:hi> to our Eyes, effect in us a Sensation of Light of a <tei:hi rend="italic">White</tei:hi> colour; but if by any means those of unequal bignesses be se<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l37"/>parated from one another, the largest beget a Sensation of a <tei:hi rend="italic">Red</tei:hi> colour, the least or shortest, of a deep <tei:hi rend="italic">Violet</tei:hi>, and the in<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l38"/>termediat ones, of intermediat colors; much after the man<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l39"/>ner that bodies, according to their several sizes, shapes, and motions, excite vibrations in the Air of various bignesses, which, according to those bignesses, make several Tones in Sound: <tei:hi rend="italic">That</tei:hi> the largest Vibrations are best able to over<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l40"/>come the resistance of a Refracting superficies, and so break through it with least Refraction; whence the Vibrations of several bignesses, that is, the Rays of several Colors, which are blended together in Light, must be parted from one ano<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l41"/>ther by Refraction, and so cause the <tei:hi rend="italic">Phænomena</tei:hi> of <tei:hi rend="italic">Prismes</tei:hi> and other refracting substances: And <tei:hi rend="italic">that</tei:hi> it depends on the thick<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l42"/>ness of a thin transparent Plate or Buble, whether a Vibration shall be <tei:hi rend="italic">reflected</tei:hi> at its further superficies, or <tei:hi rend="italic">transmitted</tei:hi>; so that, <tei:lb xml:id="l43"/>according to the number of vibrations, interceding the two superficies, they may be reflected or transmitted for many suc<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l44"/>cessive thicknesses. And since the Vibrations which make <tei:hi rend="italic">Blew</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">Violet</tei:hi>, are supposed shorter than those which make <tei:hi rend="italic">Red</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">Yellow</tei:hi>, they must be reflected at a less thickness of the Plate: Which is sufficient to explicate all the ordinary <tei:hi rend="italic">phæno<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l45"/>mena</tei:hi> of those Plates or Bubles, and also of all natural bodies, <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">whose</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5089" n="5089"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5089)</tei:fw> whose parts are like so many fragments of such Plates.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par10">These seem to be the most plain, genuine and necessary conditions of this <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>: And they agree so justly with my Theory, that if the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> think fit to apply them, he need not, on that account, apprehend a divorce from it. But yet how he will defend it from other difficulties, I know not. For, to me, the Fundamental Supposition it self seems impos<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l46"/>sible; namely, That the <tei:hi rend="italic">Waves</tei:hi> or Vibrations of any Fluid, can, like the Rays of Light, be propagated in <tei:hi rend="italic">Streight</tei:hi> lines, without a continual and very extravagant spreading and bending every way into the quiescent Medium, where they are terminated by it. I mistake, if there be not both Experiment and De<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l47"/>monstration to the contrary. And as to the other two or three <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypotheses</tei:hi>, which he mentions, I had rather believe them sub<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l48"/>ject to the like difficulties, than suspect the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> should select the worst for his own.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par11">What I have said of this, may easily be applied to all other <tei:hi rend="italic">Mechanical Hypotheses</tei:hi>, in which Light is supposed to be caused by any Pression or Motion whatsoever, excited in the <tei:hi rend="italic">æther</tei:hi> by the agitated parts of Luminous bodies. For, it seems impossible, that any of those Motions or Pressions can be propagated in <tei:hi rend="italic">Streight</tei:hi> lines without the like spreading every way into the shadow'd Medium, on which they border. But yet, if any man can think it possible, he must at least allow, that those Mo<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l49"/>tions or Endeavors to motion, caused in the <tei:hi rend="italic">æther</tei:hi> by the seve<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l50"/>ral parts of any Lucid body that differ in size, figure, and agi<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l51"/>tation, must necessarily be unequal: Which is enough to de<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l52"/>nominate Light an Aggregat of <tei:hi rend="italic">difform</tei:hi> rays, according to any <tei:lb xml:id="l53"/>of those Hypotheses. And if those Original inequalities may suffice to difference the Rays in Colour and Refrangibility, I see no reason why they, that adhere to any of those <tei:hi rend="italic">hypotheses</tei:hi>, should seek for other Causes of these Effects, unless (to use the <tei:hi rend="italic">Objectors</tei:hi> argument) they will multiply entities without ne<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l54"/>cessity.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par12"><tei:anchor xml:id="n012-01"/> <tei:note place="other" target="#n012-01">5. <tei:hi rend="italic">Of the</tei:hi> Animadversor's <tei:hi rend="italic">Concessions, and their limitation to his Hypothesis</tei:hi>.</tei:note>The <tei:hi rend="italic">third</tei:hi> thing to be considered is, the Condition of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor's</tei:hi> Concessions, which is, that I would explicate my <tei:hi rend="italic">Theo<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l55"/>ries</tei:hi> by his <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>: And if I could <tei:lb xml:id="l56"/>comply with him in that point, <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">there</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5090" n="5090"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5090)</tei:fw> there would be little or no difference between Us. For he grants, that without any respect to a different Incidence of rays there are different Refractions; but he would have it ex<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l57"/>plicated, not by the different Refrangibility of several Rays, but by the Splitting and Rarefying of æthereal pulses. He grants my <tei:hi rend="italic">third, fourth</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">sixth</tei:hi> Propositions; the sense of which is, That Un-compounded Colors are unchangeable, and that Compounded ones are changeable only by resolving them into the colors, of which they are compounded; and that all the Changes, which can be wrought in Colours, are effected only by variously mixing or parting them: But he grants them on condition that I will explicate Colors by the two sides of a split pulse, and so make but two <tei:hi rend="italic">species</tei:hi> of them, accounting <tei:lb xml:id="l58"/>all other Colors in the world to be but various degrees and di<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l59"/>lutings of those two. And he further grants, that <tei:hi rend="italic">Whitenesse</tei:hi> is produced by the Convention of all Colors; but then I must al<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l60"/>low it to be not only by Mixture of those Colors, but by a far<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l61"/>ther Uniting of the parts of the Ray supposed to be formerly split.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par13">If I would proceed to examine these his Explications, I think it would be no difficult matter to shew, that they are not only <tei:hi rend="italic">insufficient</tei:hi>, but in some respects to me (at least) <tei:hi rend="italic">un-intelli<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l62"/>gible</tei:hi>. For, though it be easie to conceive, how <tei:hi rend="italic">M</tei:hi>otion may be dilated and spread, or how parallel motions may become di<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l63"/>verging; yet I understand not, by what artifice any <tei:hi rend="italic">Linear</tei:hi> motion can by a refracting superficies be <tei:hi rend="italic">infinitely</tei:hi> dilated and <tei:lb xml:id="l64"/>rarefied, so as to become <tei:hi rend="italic">Superficial</tei:hi>: Or, if that be supposed, yet I understand as little, why it should be split at so small an angle only, and not rather spread and dispersed through the whole angle of Refraction. And further, though I can easily imagine, how Unlike motions may cross one another; yet I cannot well conceive, how they should coalesce into one <tei:hi rend="italic">uniform</tei:hi> motion, and then part again, and recover their former Un<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l65"/>likeness; notwithstanding that I conjecture the ways, by which the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> may endeavour to explain it. So that the Di<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l66"/>rect, uniform and undisturbed Pulses should be split and di<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l67"/>sturbed by Refraction; and yet the Oblique and disturbed Pulses persist without splitting or further disturbance by fol<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l68"/>lowing Refractions, is (to me) as unintelligible. And there is <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">as</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5091" n="5091"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight"><tei:choice><tei:sic>(5089)</tei:sic><tei:corr>(5091)</tei:corr></tei:choice></tei:fw> as great a difficulty in the Number of Colours; as you will see hereafter.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par14"><tei:anchor xml:id="n014-01"/> <tei:note target="#n014-01">6. <tei:hi rend="italic">That is not necessary, to limit or explain my Doctrine by any</tei:hi> Hypothesis.</tei:note>But whatever be the advantages or disadvantages of this <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>, I hope I may be excused from ta<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l69"/>king it up, since I do not think it needful to explicate my Doctrine by any <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi> at all. For if <tei:hi rend="italic">Light</tei:hi> be consider'd abstractly without respect to any <tei:hi rend="italic">Hy<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l70"/>pothesis</tei:hi>, I can <tei:hi rend="italic">as</tei:hi> easily conceive, that the several parts of a shi<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l71"/>ning body may emit rays of differing colours and other quali<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l72"/>ties, of all which Light is constituted, <tei:hi rend="italic">as</tei:hi> that the several parts of a false or uneven string, or of uneavenly agitated water in a Brook or Cataract, or the several Pipes of an Organ inspi<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l73"/>red all at once, or all the variety of Sounding bodies in the world together, should produce sounds of several Tones, and propagate them through the Air confusedly intermixt. And, if there were any natural bodies that could <tei:hi rend="italic">reflect</tei:hi> sounds of one tone, and stifle or <tei:hi rend="italic">transmit</tei:hi> those of another; then, as the <tei:hi rend="italic">Echo</tei:hi> of a confused Aggregat of all Tones would be that particular Tone, which the Echoing body is disposed to reflect; so, since (even by the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor's</tei:hi> concessions) there are bodies apt to <tei:hi rend="italic">reflect</tei:hi> rays of one colour, and stifle or <tei:hi rend="italic">transmit</tei:hi> those of ano<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l74"/>ther; I can as easily conceive, that those bodies, when illumi<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l75"/>nated by a mixture of all colours, must appear of that colour only which they reflect.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par15">But when the <tei:hi rend="italic">Objector</tei:hi> would insinuate a difficulty in these things, by alluding to Sounds in the string of a <tei:hi rend="italic">M</tei:hi>usical instru<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l76"/>ment before percussion, or in the Air of an Organ Bellowes be<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l77"/>fore its arrival at the Pipes; I must confess, I understand it as little, as if one had spoken of Light in a piece of Wood before it be set on fire, or in the oyl of a Lamp before it ascend up the match to feed the flame.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par16"><tei:anchor xml:id="n014-02"/> <tei:note target="#n014-02">7. <tei:hi rend="italic">The difficulties of the</tei:hi> Animadversors <tei:hi rend="italic">discourse abstracted from</tei:hi> Hypotheses, <tei:hi rend="italic">and consider'd more generally</tei:hi>.</tei:note>You see therefore, how much it is besides the business in hand, to dispute about <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypotheses</tei:hi>. For which reason I shall now in the last place, proceed to abstract the difficulties in the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor's</tei:hi> discourse, and, without having regard to any <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothesis</tei:hi>, consider them in general terms. And they may be reduced to these 3 <tei:hi rend="italic">Quæres</tei:hi>:</tei:p>
<tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="catch" place="bottomRight">1. Whe-</tei:fw><tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="sig" place="bottomRight">L l l l l</tei:fw><tei:pb xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="p5092" n="5092"/><tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="pag" place="topRight">(5092)</tei:fw>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par17">1. Whether the unequal Refractions, made without respect to any inequality of incidence, be caused by the different Re<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l78"/>frangibility of several Rays; or by the splitting, breaking or dissipating the same Ray into diverging parts?</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par18">2. Whether there be more than two sorts of Colours?</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par19">3. Whether Whiteness be a mixture of all Colours?</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par20"><tei:anchor xml:id="n015-01"/> <tei:note target="#n015-01">8. <tei:hi rend="italic">That the Ray is not split, or any otherwise dilated</tei:hi>.</tei:note>The <tei:hi rend="italic">First</tei:hi> of these <tei:hi rend="italic">Quæres</tei:hi> you may find already determin'd by an Experiment in my former Let<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l79"/>ter; the design of which was to shew, That the length of the colour'd Image proceeded not from any unevenness in the Glass, or any other <tei:hi rend="italic">contingent</tei:hi> Irregularity in the Refractions. Amongst other Irregularities I know not, what is more obvi<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l80"/>ous to suspect, than a fortuitous dilating and spreading of Light after some such manner, as <tei:hi rend="italic">Des-Cartes</tei:hi> hath described in <tei:lb xml:id="l81"/>his Æthereal Refractions for explicating the <tei:hi rend="italic">Tayle</tei:hi> of a <tei:hi rend="italic">Comet</tei:hi>; or as the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> now supposes to be effected by the Splitting and Rarifying of his Æthereal pulses. And to pre<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l82"/>vent the suspicion of any such Irregularities, I told you, that I refracted the Light contrary ways with two Prismes succes<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l83"/>sively, to destroy thereby the <tei:hi rend="italic">Regular</tei:hi> effects of the <tei:hi rend="italic">first</tei:hi> Prisme by the <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi>, and to discover the <tei:hi rend="italic">Irregular</tei:hi> effects by augment<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l84"/>ing them with the iterated refractions. Now, amongst other Ir<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l85"/>regularities, if the <tei:hi rend="italic">first</tei:hi> Prisme had spread and dissipated every ray into an indefinit number of diverging parts, the <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi> should in like manner have spread and dissipated every one of those parts into a further indefinite number, whereby the I<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l86"/>mage would have been still more dilated, contrary to the e<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l87"/>vent. And this ought to have hapned, because those Linear diverging parts depend not on one another for the manner of their Refraction, but are every one of them as truly and com<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l88"/>pleatly Rays as <tei:choice><tei:sic>he</tei:sic><tei:corr>the</tei:corr></tei:choice> whole was before its Incidence; as may ap<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l89"/>pear by intercepting them severally.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par21">The reasonableness of this proceeding will perhaps better appear by acquainting you with this further circumstance. I sometimes placed the <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi> Prisme in a position Transverse to the <tei:hi rend="italic">first</tei:hi>, on design to try, if it would make the long Image be<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l90"/>come four-sqaure by refractions crossing those that had drawn the round Image into a long one. For, if amongst other Ir<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l91"/>regularities the Refraction of the <tei:hi rend="italic">first</tei:hi> Prisme, did by Splitting <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">dilate</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5093" n="5093"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5093)</tei:fw> dilate a Linear ray into a Superficial, the Cross refractions of that <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi> Prisme ought by further splitting to dilate and draw that Superficial ray into a Pyramidal solid. But, upon tryal, I found it otherwise; the Image bring as regularly Ob<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l92"/>long as before, and inclin'd to both the Prismes at an angle of 45. degrees.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par22">I tryed also all other Positions for the second Prisme, by tur<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l93"/>ning the Ends about its middle part; and in no case could ob<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l94"/>serve any such Irregularity. The Image was ever alike incli<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l95"/>ned to both Prismes, its Breadth answering to the Suns Dia<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l96"/>meter, and its length being greater or less accordingly as the Refractions more or less agreed, or contradicted one ano<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l97"/>ther.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par23">And by these Observations, since the Breadth of the Image was not augmented by the Cross refraction of the <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi> Prisme, that refraction must have been perform'd <tei:hi rend="italic">without</tei:hi> any splitting or dilating of the ray; and therefore at least the Light inci<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l98"/>dent on that Prisme must be granted an Aggregat of Rays <tei:hi rend="italic">un<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l99"/>equally refrangible</tei:hi> in my sense. And since the Image was e<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l100"/>qually inclin'd to both <tei:hi rend="italic">P</tei:hi>rismes, and consequently the Refra<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l101"/>ctions alike in both, it argues, that they were perform'd accor<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l102"/>ding to some <tei:hi rend="italic">Constant Law</tei:hi> without any irregularity.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par24"><tei:anchor xml:id="n016-01"/> <tei:note target="#n016-01">9. <tei:hi rend="italic">That there are more than two Original Colors</tei:hi>.</tei:note>To determine the <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi> Quæ<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l103"/>re, the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> referrs to an <tei:lb xml:id="l104"/>Experiment made with two <tei:hi rend="italic">Wedge-like boxes</tei:hi>, recited in the <tei:hi rend="italic">Micrography</tei:hi> of the Ingenious <tei:lb xml:id="l105"/>Mr. <tei:hi rend="italic">Hook</tei:hi> Observ. 10. pag. 73. the design of which was to produce <tei:hi rend="italic">all</tei:hi> Colours out of a mixture of <tei:hi rend="italic">two</tei:hi>. But there is, I conceive, a double defect in this instance. For, it appears not, that by this Experiment all colours can be produced out of two; and, if they could, yet the Inference would not fol<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l106"/>low.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par25">That <tei:hi rend="italic">all</tei:hi> Colours cannot by that Experiment be produced out of two, will appear by considering, that the Tincture of <tei:hi rend="italic">Aloes</tei:hi>, which afforded one of those Colours, was not all over of one uniform colour, but appear'd <tei:hi rend="italic">yellow</tei:hi> near the edge of the Box, and <tei:hi rend="italic">red</tei:hi> at other places where it was thicker: affording all variety of colours from a <tei:hi rend="italic">pale yellow</tei:hi> to a <tei:hi rend="italic">deep red</tei:hi> or Scarlet, according to the various thickness of the liquor. And so the <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">solution</tei:fw><tei:fw type="sig" place="bottomRight">L l l l l 2</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5094" n="5094"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight"><tei:choice><tei:sic>(5088)</tei:sic><tei:corr>(5094)</tei:corr></tei:choice></tei:fw> solution of <tei:hi rend="italic">Copper</tei:hi>, which afforded the other colour, was of various B<tei:hi rend="italic">lews</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">Indigo's</tei:hi>. So that instead of <tei:hi rend="italic">two</tei:hi> colours, here is a great variety made use of for the production of all o<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l107"/>thers. Thus, <tei:hi rend="italic">for instance</tei:hi>, to produce all sorts of <tei:hi rend="italic">Greens</tei:hi>, the se<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l108"/>veral degrees of <tei:hi rend="italic">Yellow</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">pale Blew</tei:hi> must be mixed; but to compound <tei:hi rend="italic">Purples</tei:hi>, the <tei:hi rend="italic">Scarlet</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">deep Blew</tei:hi> are to be the In<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l109"/>gredients.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par26">Now, if the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> contend, that all the <tei:hi rend="italic">Reds</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">Yel<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l110"/>lows</tei:hi> of the one Liquor, or <tei:hi rend="italic">Blews</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">Indigo's</tei:hi> of the other, are <tei:lb xml:id="l111"/>divers colours, that is a Begging of the Question: And I should as soon grant, that the two <tei:hi rend="italic">Thirds</tei:hi> or <tei:hi rend="italic">Sixths</tei:hi> in Musick are but several degrees of the same sound, and not divers sounds. Certainly it is much better to believe our Senses, in<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l112"/>forming us, that <tei:hi rend="italic">Red</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">yellow</tei:hi> are divers colours, and to make it a Philosophical <tei:hi rend="italic">Quære</tei:hi>, Why the same Liquor doth, accor<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l113"/>ding to its various thickness, appear of those divers colours, than to suppose them to be the same colour because exhibited by the same liquor? For, if that were a sufficient reason, then <tei:hi rend="italic">Blew</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">Yellow</tei:hi> must also be the same colour, since they are both exhibited by the same Tincture of <tei:hi rend="italic">Nephritick Wood</tei:hi>. But that they are <tei:hi rend="italic">divers</tei:hi> colours, you will more fully understand by the reason, which, in my Judgment, is this: The Tincture of <tei:hi rend="italic">Aloes</tei:hi> is qualified to transmit <tei:hi rend="italic">most easily</tei:hi> the rays indued with <tei:hi rend="italic">red, most difficultly</tei:hi> the rays indued with <tei:hi rend="italic">violet</tei:hi>, and with <tei:hi rend="italic">intermedi<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l114"/>at degrees of facility</tei:hi> the rays indued with <tei:hi rend="italic">intermediat</tei:hi> colours. So that where the liquor is very thin, it may suffice to intercept most of the <tei:hi rend="italic">violet</tei:hi>, and yet transmit most of the other colours; all which together must compound a middle Colour, that is, a <tei:hi rend="italic">faint yellow</tei:hi>. And where it is so much thicker as also to inter<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l115"/>cept most of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Blew</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi>, the remaining <tei:hi rend="italic">Green, Yellow</tei:hi>, and <tei:hi rend="italic">Red</tei:hi>, it must compound an <tei:hi rend="italic">Orenge</tei:hi>. And where the thick<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l116"/>ness is so great, that scarce any rays can pass through it be<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l117"/>sides those indued with <tei:hi rend="italic">Red</tei:hi>, must appear of that colour, and that so much the deeper and obscurer, by how the liquor is thicker. And the same may be understood of the various de<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l118"/>grees of <tei:hi rend="italic">Blew</tei:hi>, exhibited by the Solution of <tei:hi rend="italic">Copper</tei:hi>, by reason of its disposition to intecept <tei:hi rend="italic">Red</tei:hi> most easily, and transmit a <tei:hi rend="italic">deep Blew</tei:hi> or <tei:hi rend="italic">Indigo</tei:hi> Colour most freely.</tei:p>
<tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="catch" place="bottomRight">But</tei:fw><tei:pb xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="p5095" n="5095"/><tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="pag" place="topRight"><tei:choice><tei:sic>(5089)</tei:sic><tei:corr>(5095)</tei:corr></tei:choice></tei:fw>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par27">But, supposing that <tei:hi rend="italic">all</tei:hi> Colours might, according to this ex<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l119"/>periment, be produced out of <tei:hi rend="italic">two</tei:hi> by mixture; yet it follow<tei:hi rend="superscript">s</tei:hi> not, that those two are the only <tei:hi rend="italic">Original</tei:hi> colours, and that fo<tei:hi rend="superscript">r</tei:hi> a double reason. <tei:hi rend="italic">First</tei:hi>, because those two are not themselve<tei:hi rend="superscript">s</tei:hi> Original colours, but compounded of others; there being no liquor nor any other body in nature, whose colour in Day-light is wholly un-compounded. And <tei:hi rend="italic">then</tei:hi>, because, though those <tei:lb xml:id="l120"/>two were Original, and all others might be compounded of them, yet it follows not, that they cannot be otherwise produ<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l121"/>ced. For I said, that they had a double Origin, the same Co<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l122"/>lours to sense being in some cases compounded and in others un compounded; and sufficiently declar'd in my <tei:hi rend="italic">third</tei:hi> and <tei:hi rend="italic">fourth</tei:hi> Propositions, and in the Conclusion, by what Properties the one might be known and distinguish't from the other. But, because I suspect by some Circumstances, that the <tei:hi rend="italic">Distinction</tei:hi> might not be rightly apprehended, I shall once more declare it, and further explain it by Examples.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par28">That Colour is <tei:hi rend="italic">Primary</tei:hi> or <tei:hi rend="italic">Original</tei:hi>, which cannot by any <tei:lb xml:id="l123"/>Art be changed, and whose Rays are not <tei:hi rend="italic">alike</tei:hi> refrangible: And that <tei:hi rend="italic">Compounded</tei:hi>, which is changeable into other colours, and whose Rays are <tei:hi rend="italic">not alike</tei:hi> refrangible. <tei:hi rend="italic">For instance</tei:hi>, to know, whether the colour of any <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi> object be compoun<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l124"/>ded or not, view it through a Prisme, and if it appear <tei:hi rend="italic">confused</tei:hi>, and the edges tinged with <tei:hi rend="italic">Blew, Yellow</tei:hi>, or any variety of o<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l125"/>ther colours, then is that <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi> compounded of such colours as at its edges emerge out of it: But if it appear <tei:hi rend="italic">distinct</tei:hi>, and well defin'd, and entirely Green to the very edges, without any other colours emerging, it is of an Original and un-com<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l126"/>pounded Green. In like manner, if a refracted beam of light, being cast on a white wall, exhibit a <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi> colour, to know whether that be compounded, refract the beam with an in<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l127"/>terposed Prisme; and if you find any Difformity in the refra<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l128"/>ctions, and the <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi> be transform'd into <tei:hi rend="italic">Blew, Yellow</tei:hi>, or any variety of other colours, you may conclude, that it was com<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l129"/>pounded of those which emerge: But if the Refractions be uniform, and the <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi> persist without any change of colour, then it is Original and un compounded. And the reason why I call it so, is, because a <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi> indued with such properties can<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l130"/>not be produced by any mixing of other colours.</tei:p>
<tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="catch" place="bottomRight"><tei:hi rend="italic">N</tei:hi>ow</tei:fw><tei:pb xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="p5096" n="5096"/><tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="pag" place="topRight"><tei:choice><tei:sic>(5097)</tei:sic><tei:corr>(5096)</tei:corr></tei:choice></tei:fw>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par29">Now, if two <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi> Objects may to the naked eye appear of the same colour, and yet one of them <tei:choice><tei:sic>throngh</tei:sic><tei:corr>through</tei:corr></tei:choice> a prisme seem <tei:hi rend="italic">confused</tei:hi> and variegated with other colours at the edges, and the other <tei:hi rend="italic">distinct</tei:hi> and entirely Green; or, if there may be two Beams of Light, which falling on a white wall do to the na<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l131"/>ked eye exhibit the same <tei:hi rend="italic">Green</tei:hi> colour, and yet one of them, when transmitted through a Prisme, be uniformly and <tei:hi rend="italic">regu<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l132"/>larly</tei:hi> refracted, and retain its colour unchanged, and the other <tei:lb xml:id="l133"/>be <tei:hi rend="italic">irregularly</tei:hi> refracted and to divaricate into a multitude of other colours; I suppose, these two <tei:hi rend="italic">greens</tei:hi> will in both cases be <tei:lb xml:id="l134"/>granted of a different Origin and constitution. And if by mixing colours, a <tei:hi rend="italic">green</tei:hi> cannot be compounded with the pro<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l135"/>perties of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Unchangeable</tei:hi> Green, I think, I may call <tei:hi rend="italic">that</tei:hi> an <tei:hi rend="italic">Un-compounded</tei:hi> colour, especially since its rays are alike refran<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l136"/>gible, and uniform in all respects.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par30">The same rule is to be observ'd in examining, whether <tei:hi rend="italic">Red, <tei:lb xml:id="l137"/>Orenge, Yellow</tei:hi>, B<tei:hi rend="italic">lew</tei:hi>, or any other colour be compounded or not. And, by the way, since all <tei:hi rend="italic">White</tei:hi> objects through the <tei:lb xml:id="l138"/>Prisme appear confus'd and terminated with colours, <tei:hi rend="italic">Whiteness</tei:hi> must, according to this distinction, be ever compounded, and that the most of all colours, because it is the most confus'd and changed by Refractions.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par31">From hence I may take occasion to communicate a way for the improvement of <tei:hi rend="italic">Microscopes</tei:hi> by Refraction. The way is, by illuminating the Object in a darkned room with Light of any convenient colour not too much compounded: for by that means the Microscope will with distinctness bear a deeper Charge and larger Aperture, especially if its construction be such, as I may hereafter describe; for, the advantage in Or<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l139"/>dinary Microscopes will not be so sensible.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par32"><tei:anchor xml:id="n019-01"/> <tei:note target="#n019-01">10. <tei:hi rend="italic">That Whiteness is a mixture of all Colours</tei:hi>.</tei:note>There remains now the <tei:hi rend="italic">third</tei:hi> Quære to be consider'd, which is, Whether <tei:hi rend="italic">Whiteness</tei:hi> be an Uniform <tei:lb xml:id="l140"/>Colour, or a dissimilar Mixture of all colours? The Experiment which I brought to decide it, the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> thinks may be <tei:lb xml:id="l141"/>otherwise explain'd, and so concludes nothing. But he might easily have satisfied himself by trying, what would be the re<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l142"/>sult of a Mixture of all colours. And that very Experiment might have satisfied him, if he had pleased to examine it by <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">the</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5097" n="5097"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight"><tei:choice><tei:sic>(5096)</tei:sic><tei:corr>(5097)</tei:corr></tei:choice></tei:fw> the various circumstances. One circumstance I there decla<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l143"/>red, of which I see no notice taken; and it is, That if any co<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l144"/>lour at the <tei:hi rend="italic">Lens</tei:hi> be intercepted, the <tei:hi rend="italic">Whiteness</tei:hi> will be changed into the other colours: If all the colours but <tei:hi rend="italic">red</tei:hi> be intercep<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l145"/>ted, that Red alone in the concourse or crossing of the Rays will not constitute Whiteness, but continues as much Red as before; and so of the other colours. So that the business is not only to shew, how rays, which before the concourse exhi<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l146"/>bit colours, do in the concourse exhibit <tei:hi rend="italic">White</tei:hi>; but to shew, How in the same place, where the several sorts of rays apart exhibit several colours, a Confusion of all together make White. For instance, if red alone be first transmitted to the paper at the place of concourse, and then the other colours be let fall on that Red, the <tei:hi rend="italic">Question</tei:hi> will be, Whether they convert it in<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l147"/>to White, by mixing with it only, as Blew falling on Yellow light is suppos'd to compound Green; or, Whether there be some further change wrought in the colours by their mutual acting on one another, untill, like the contrary <tei:hi rend="italic">Peripatetic</tei:hi> quali<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l148"/>ties, they become assimilated. And he that shall explicate this last Case <tei:hi rend="italic">mechanically</tei:hi>, must conquer a double impossibility. He must <tei:hi rend="italic">first</tei:hi> shew, that many unlike motions in a Fluid can by clashing so act on one another, and change each other, as to become one Uniform motion; and <tei:hi rend="italic">then</tei:hi>, that an Uniform mo<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l149"/>tion can of itself, without any new unequal impressions, de<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l150"/>part into a great variety of motions regularly un-equal. And after this he must further tell me, Why all Objects appear not of the same colour, that is, why their colours in the Air, where the rays that convey them every way are confusedly mixt, do not assimilate one another and become Uniform be<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l151"/>fore they arrive at the Spectators eye?</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par33">But if there be yet any doubting, 'tis better to put the Event on further Circumstances of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Experiment</tei:hi>, than to acquiesce <tei:lb xml:id="l152"/>in the possibility of any <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothetical</tei:hi> Explication. As, for in<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l153"/>stance, by trying, What will be the apparition of these colours in a very quick Consecution of one another. And this may be easily perform'd by the rapid gyration of a Wheel with many Spoaks or coggs in its perimeter, whose Interstices and thick<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l154"/>nesses may be equal and of such a largeness, that, if the Wheel be interposed between the Prisme and the white concourse <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">of</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5098" n="5098"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight"><tei:choice><tei:sic>(5084)</tei:sic><tei:corr>(5098)</tei:corr></tei:choice></tei:fw> of the colours, one half of the Colours may be intercepted by a spoake or cogg, and the other half pass through an inter<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l155"/>stice. The Wheel being in this posture, you may first turn it slowly about, to see all the colours fall successively on the same place of the paper, held at their aforesaid concourse; and if you then accelerate its gyration, until the Consecution of those colours be so quick, that you cannot distinguish them severally, the resulting colour will be a Whiteness per<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l156"/>fectly like that, which an un-refracted beam of Light exhibits, when in like manner successively interrupted by the spoaks or coggs of that circulating Wheel. And that this <tei:hi rend="italic">Whiteness</tei:hi> is produced by a successive Intermixture of the Colours, with<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l157"/>out their being assimilated, or reduc'd to any Unifor<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l158"/>mity, is certainly beyond all doubt, unless things that exist not at the same time may notwithstanding act on one a<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l159"/>nother.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par34">There are yet other Circumstances, by which the Truth might have been decided; as by viewing the White concourse of the Colours through another Prisme plac'd close to the eye, by whose Refraction that whiteness may appear again trans<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l160"/>form'd into Colours: And then, to examine their Origin, if an Assistant intercept any of the colours at the <tei:hi rend="italic">Lens</tei:hi> before their arrival at the Whiteness, the same colours will vanish from a<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l161"/>mongst those, into which that Whiteness is converted by the <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi> Prisme. Now, if the rays which disappear be the same with those that are intercepted, then it must be acknowled<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l162"/>ged, that the <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi> Prisme makes no new colours in any rays, which were not in them <tei:hi rend="italic">before</tei:hi> their concourse at the paper. Which is a plain indication, that the rays of several colours re<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l163"/>main distinct from one another in the Whiteness, and that from their <tei:hi rend="italic">previous</tei:hi> dispositions are deriv'd the Colours of the <tei:hi rend="italic">second</tei:hi> Prisme. And, by the way, what is said of their Colors may be applied to their Refrangibility.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par35">The aforesaid <tei:hi rend="italic">Wheel</tei:hi> may be also here made use of; and, if its gyration be neither too quick nor too slow, the suc<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l164"/>cession of the colours may be discern'd through the Prisme, whilst to the naked eye of a Bystander they exhibit white<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l165"/>ness.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par36">There is something still remaining to be said of this Experi<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l166"/><tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">ment</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5099" n="5099"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5099)</tei:fw>ment. But this, I conceive, is enough to enforce it, and so to de<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l167"/>cide the controversy. How-ever, I shall now proceed to shew some other ways of producing <tei:hi rend="italic">Whiteness by mixtures</tei:hi>, since I perswade my self, that this Assertion above the rest appears Paradoxical, and is with most difficulty admitted. And because the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> desires an instance of it in Bodies of divers colours, I shall begin with that. But in order thereto it must be consider'd, that such colour'd Bodies reflect but some part of the Light incident on them; as is evident by the 13 <tei:hi rend="italic">Proposition:</tei:hi> And therefore the Light reflected from an Ag<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l168"/>gregat of them will be much weakned by the loss of many rays. Whence a perfect and <tei:hi rend="italic">intense</tei:hi> Whiteness is not to be expected, but rather a Colour between those of Light and Shadow, or such a Gray or Dirty colour as may be made by mixing White and Black together.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par37">And that such a Colour will result, may be collected from the colour of <tei:hi rend="italic">Dust</tei:hi> found in every corner of an house, which hath been observ'd to consist of many colour'd particles. There may be also produced the like Dirty colour by mixing several <tei:hi rend="italic">Painters colours</tei:hi> together. And the same may be effected by Painting a <tei:hi rend="italic">Top</tei:hi> (such as Boys play with) of divers colours. For, when it is made to circulate by whipping it, it will appear of such a dirty co<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l169"/>lour.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par38">Now, the Compounding of these colours is proper to my pur<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l170"/>pose, because they differ not from Whiteness in the <tei:hi rend="italic">Species</tei:hi> of co<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l171"/>lour, but only in <tei:hi rend="italic">degree</tei:hi> of Luminousness: which (did not the <tei:hi rend="italic">An<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l172"/>imadversor</tei:hi> concede it) I might thus evince. A beam of the Suns Light being transmitted into a darkned room, if you illuminate a sheet of White Paper by that Light, reflected from a body of a<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l173"/>ny colour, the paper wil always appear of the colour of that bo<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l174"/>dy, by whose reflected light it is illuminated. If it be a red bo<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l175"/>dy, the paper will be red; if a green body, it will be green; and so of the other colours. The reason is, that the fibers or threads, of which the paper consists, are all transparent and specular; and such substances are known to reflect colours without changing them. To know therefore, to what <tei:hi rend="italic">Species</tei:hi> of colour a <tei:hi rend="italic">Grey</tei:hi> belongs, place a<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l176"/>ny Gray body (suppose a Mixture of <tei:hi rend="italic">Painters colours</tei:hi>,) in the said Light, and the paper, being illuminated by its reflexion, shall appear White. And the same thing will happen, if it be illuminated by reflexion from a <tei:hi rend="italic">black</tei:hi> substance.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par39">These therefore are all of one <tei:hi rend="italic">Species</tei:hi>; but yet they seem distin<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l177"/>guisht not only by <tei:hi rend="italic">degrees</tei:hi> of Luminousness, but also by some other Inequalities, whereby they become more harsh or pleasant. And the distinction seems to be, that <tei:hi rend="italic">Greys</tei:hi> and perhaps <tei:hi rend="italic">Blacks</tei:hi> are made by an uneven defect of Light, consisting as it were of many little veins or streams, which differ either in Luminousness or in the Unequal di<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l178"/><tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">stribution</tei:fw><tei:fw type="sig" place="bottomCenter">M m m m m</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5100" n="5100"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5100)</tei:fw>stribution of diversly colour'd rays; such as ought to be caus'd by Reflexion from a Mixture of white and black, or of diversly co<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l179"/>lor'd corpuscles. But when such imperfectly mixt Light is by a <tei:hi rend="italic">se<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l180"/>cond</tei:hi> Reflexion from the paper more evenly and uniformly blended, <tei:lb xml:id="l181"/>it becomes more pleasant, and exhibits a <tei:hi rend="italic">faint</tei:hi> or shadow'd White<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l182"/>ness. And that such little irregularities as these may cause these dif<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l183"/>ferences, is not improbable, if we consider, how much variety may be caused in <tei:hi rend="italic">Sounds</tei:hi> of the same tone by irregular and uneven jar<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l184"/>rings. And besides, these differences are so little, that I have some<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l185"/>times doubted, whether they be any at all, when I have consider'd <tei:lb xml:id="l186"/>that a Black and White Body being plac'd together, the one in a strong light, and the other in a very faint light, so proporti<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l187"/>on'd that they might appear equally luminous; it has been dif<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l188"/>ficult to distinguish them, when view'd at distance, unless when the Black seem'd more blewish; and the White body in a light still fainter, hath, in comparison of the Black body, it self appear'd Black.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par40">This leads me to another way of <tei:hi rend="italic">Compounding Whiteness</tei:hi>; which <tei:lb xml:id="l189"/>is, That, if four or five Bodies of the more eminent colours, or a Paper painted all over, in several parts of it, with those several colours in a due proportion, be placed in the said Beam of Light; the Light, reflected from those Colours to another White paper, held at a convenient distance, shall make that paper appear White. If it be held too near the Colours, its parts will seem of those colours that are nearest them; but by removing it further, that all its parts may be equally illuminated by all the colours, they will be more and more diluted, until they become perfectly White. And you may further observe, that if any of the colours be intercepted, the Paper will no longer appear White, but of the other colours which are not intercepted. Now, that this <tei:hi rend="italic">Whiteness</tei:hi> is a Mixture of the severally colour'd rays, falling confusedly on the paper, I see no reason to doubt of; because, if the Light became Uniform and Similar before it fell confusedly on the paper, it must much more be Uniform, when at a greater distance it falls on the Spectators eye, and so the rays, which come from several colours, would in no qualities differ from one another, but all of them exhibit the same colour to the Specta<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l190"/>tor, contrary to what he sees.<tei:space dim="vertical" extent="1" unit="lines"/></tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par41">Not much unlike this Instance it is, That, if a polisht piece of Metal be so placed, that the colours appear in it as in a Looking-glass, and then the Metal be made rough, that by a confus'd reflex<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l191"/>ion those apparent colours may be blended together, they shall disappear, and by their mixture cause the Metall to look White.</tei:p>
<tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="catch" place="bottomRight">But</tei:fw><tei:pb xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="p5101" n="5101"/><tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="pag" place="topRight">(5101)</tei:fw>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par42">But further to enforce this <tei:hi rend="italic">Experiment</tei:hi>; if, instead ot the Paper, any White <tei:hi rend="italic">Froth</tei:hi>, consisting of small bubles, be illuminated by re<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l192"/>flexion from the aforesaid Colours, it shall to the naked eye seem White, and yet through a good Microscope the several Colours will appear distinct on the bubles, as if seen by reflexion from so many spherical surfaces. With my naked eye, being very near, I have al<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l193"/>so discern'd the several colours on each buble; and yet at a greater distance, where I could not distinguish them apart, the Froth hath appear'd entirely White. And at the same distance, when I look'd intently, I have seen the colours distinctly on each buble; and yet, by straining my eyes as if I would look at something far off beyond them, thereby to render the Vision confus'd, the Froth has appear'd <tei:lb xml:id="l194"/>without any other colour than Whiteness. And what is here said of Froths, may easily be understood of the Paper or Metal in the fore<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l195"/>going Experiments. For, their parts are specular bodies, like these Bubles: And perhaps with an excellent Microscope the Colours may be also seen intermixedly reflected from them.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par43">In proportioning the severally Colour'd bodies to produce these effects, there may be some niceness; and it will be more convenient, to make use of the colours of the Prisme, cast on a Wall, by whose reflexion the Paper, Metal, Froth, and other White substances may be illuminated. And I usually made my Tryals this way, because I could better exclude any scattering Light from mixing with the colours to dilate them.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par44">To this way of Compounding Whiteness may be referr'd that o<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l196"/>ther, by Mixing light after it hath been trajected through transpa<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l197"/>rently colour'd substances. <tei:hi rend="italic">For instance</tei:hi>, if no Light be admitted in<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l198"/>to a room but only through Colour'd glass, whose several parts are of several colours in a pretty equal proportion; all White things in the room shall appear White, if they be not held too near the Glass. And yet this light, with which they are illuminated, can<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l199"/>not possibly be uniform, because, if the Rays, which at their entrance are of divers colours, do in their progress through the room suffer any alteration to be reduced to an Uniformity; the Glass would not in the remotest parts of the room appear of the very same colour, which it doth when the Spectators eye is very near it: Nor would the rays, when transmitted into another dark room through a little hole in an opposite door or partition-wall, project on a Paper the <tei:hi rend="italic">Species</tei:hi> or representation of the glass in its proper colours.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par45">And, by the by, this seems a very fit and cogent Instance of some other parts of my <tei:hi rend="italic">Theory</tei:hi>, and particularly of the 13 <tei:hi rend="italic">Proposition</tei:hi>. For, in this room all natural Bodies whatever appear in their proper co<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l200"/>lours. And all the <tei:hi rend="italic">Phænomena</tei:hi> of colours in nature, made either by Refraction or without it, are here the same as in the Open Air. Now, the Light in this room being such a Dissimilar mixture, as <tei:fw type="catch" place="bottomRight">I</tei:fw><tei:fw type="sig" place="bottomCenter">M m m m m 2</tei:fw><tei:pb xml:id="p5102" n="5102"/><tei:fw type="pag" place="topRight">(5102)</tei:fw> I have described in my <tei:hi rend="italic">Theory</tei:hi>, the Causes of all these <tei:hi rend="italic">Phænomena</tei:hi> must be the same that I have there assign'd. And I see no reason to suspect, that the same <tei:hi rend="italic">Phænomena</tei:hi> should have other causes in the O<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l201"/>pen Air.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par46">The success of this Experiment may be easily conjectur'd by the ap<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l202"/>pearances of things in a Church or Chappel, whose windores are of colour'd glass; or in the Open Air, when it is illustrated with Clouds of various colours.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par47">There are yet other ways, by which I have produced <tei:hi rend="italic">Whiteness</tei:hi>; as <tei:hi rend="italic">by</tei:hi> casting several Colours from two or more Prismes upon the same place; <tei:hi rend="italic">by</tei:hi> Refracting a Beam of Light with two or three Prismes suc<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l203"/>cessively, to make the diverging colours converge again; <tei:hi rend="italic">by</tei:hi> Refle<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l204"/>cting one colour to another; and <tei:hi rend="italic">by</tei:hi> looking through a Prisme on an Object of many colours; and, (which is equivalent to the above men<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l205"/>tion'd way of mixing colours by concave <tei:hi rend="italic">Wedges</tei:hi> fill'd with colour'd <tei:lb xml:id="l206"/>liquors,) I have observ'd the shadows of a painted Glass-window to become White, where those of many colours have at a great distance interfered. But yet, for further satisfaction, the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> may try, if he please, the effects of four or five of such <tei:hi rend="italic">Wedges</tei:hi> filled with liquors of as many several colours.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par48">Besides all these, the Colours of <tei:hi rend="italic">Water-bubbles</tei:hi> and other thin pellu<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l207"/>cid substances afford several instances of Whiteness produced by their mixture; with <tei:hi rend="italic">one</tei:hi> of which I shall conclude this particular. Let some Water, in which a convenient quantity of Soap or wash ball is dissolv'd, be agitated into Froth, and, after that froth has stood a while without further agitation, till you see the bubbles, of which it consists, begin to break, there will appear a great variety of colours all over the top of every bubble, if you view them near at hand; but, if you view them at so great a distance that you cannot distinguish the colours one from another, the Froth will appear perfectly White.</tei:p>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par49"><tei:anchor xml:id="n025-01"/> <tei:note target="#n025-01">11. <tei:hi rend="italic">That the</tei:hi> Experimentum crucis <tei:hi rend="italic">is such</tei:hi>.</tei:note>Thus much concerning the design and substance of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor's</tei:hi> Considerations. There are yet some particulars to be taken notice of, be<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l208"/>fore I conclude; as the denyal of the <tei:hi rend="italic">Experimentum Crucis</tei:hi>. On <tei:hi rend="italic">this</tei:hi> I chose to lay the whole stress of my discourse; which therefore was the principal thing to have been objected against. But I cannot be convinced <tei:choice><tei:sic>ot</tei:sic><tei:corr>of</tei:corr></tei:choice> its insufficency by a bare denyal without assigning a Reason for it. I am apt to believe, it has been misunderstood; for otherwise it would have prevented the discourses about Rarifying and Splitting of rays; because the design of it is, to shew, that Rays of divers colours, consider'd a part, do at <tei:hi rend="italic">Equal</tei:hi> Incidences suffer <tei:hi rend="italic">Un<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l209"/>equal</tei:hi> Refractions, without being split, rarified, or any way di<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l210"/>lated.</tei:p>
<tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="catch" place="bottomRight">In</tei:fw><tei:pb xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="p5103" n="5103"/><tei:fw xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="pag" place="topRight">(5103)</tei:fw>
<tei:p xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:id="par50"><tei:anchor xml:id="n026-01"/> <tei:note target="#n026-01">12. <tei:hi rend="italic">Some particulars recommended to further consideration</tei:hi>.</tei:note>In the Considerations of my first and second Propostions, the <tei:hi rend="italic">Animadversor</tei:hi> hath rendered my Doctrine of <tei:hi rend="italic">Un-equal Refrangibility</tei:hi> very imperfect and maim<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l211"/>ed, by explicating it wholly by the Splitting of rays; whereas I chiefly intended it in those Refractions that are perform'd without that sup<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l212"/>pos'd Irregularity; such as the <tei:hi rend="italic">Experimentum Crucis</tei:hi> might have in<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l213"/>form'd him of. And, in general I find, that, whilst he hath endea<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l214"/>vour'd to explicate my Propositions <tei:hi rend="italic">Hypothetically</tei:hi>, the more material suggestions, by which I design'd to recommend them, have escap'd his consideration; such as are, the Unchangeableness of the degree of Refrangibility peculiar to any sort of rays; the strict Analogy be<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l215"/>tween the degrees of Refrangibility and Colours; the Distinction between compounded and un-compounded colours; the Unchangea<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l216"/>bleness of un-compounded colours; and the Assertion, that if any one of the Prismatique colours be wholly intercepted, that colour cannot be new produced out of the remaining Light by any further Refrac<tei:lb type="hyphenated" xml:id="l217"/>tion of Reflexion whatsoever. And of what strength and efficacy these Particulars are for enforcing the <tei:hi rend="italic">Theory</tei:hi>, I desire therefore may <tei:lb xml:id="l218"/>be now consider'd.</tei:p>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>