Newton's Revival of the Aether Hypothesis and the Explanation of Gravitational Attraction Author(s): Joan L.

Hawes Source: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 200212 Published by: The Royal Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530986 . Accessed: 23/04/2013 18:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

200

NEWTON'S REVIVAL OF THE AETHER HYPOTHESIS AND THE EXPLANATION OF GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION
By JOAN L. HAWES

in Physicsat Avery Hill Collegeof Education SeniorLecturer

uncovered much of interest in explanation of the format of the second That Newton intendedthat there should be a Englishedition of the Opticks. 'Part II' to the third book of the Opticks,seems now to be irrevocably proved, as also is the fact that the contents of this part were to include some of the electrostatic experiments of Hauksbee. It has previously been ProfessorGuerlac'scontention that these experimentsof Hauksbee'sformed a distinctpartin a revivalof Newton's belief in an aetherialmedium (2), and in this recent paper he further suggests that for more, 'persuasiveexperimental confirmation' of the aether hypothesis, Newton devised the 'two-thermometerexperiment'(3). I should like to suggest, and later in this paper to expound, that Newton's interest in Hauksbee's experiments,
which were mostly performed between the years I705-I712 (4), was related

IN his recent paper, 'Newton's Optical Aether' (I), ProfessorGuerlachas

to a general interest in electricalphenomena and a specific interest in the attractive and repulsive forces exerted between the smallest particles of matter. Initially, however, there are other points which deserve of further
consideration.

ProfessorGuerlacwrites, on page 47 of his above-mentionedpaper, as follows: Presumablyhe [Newton] planned to place the Queries at the end of the new 'Observations'. . . and plannedto include, besidesan accountof Hauksbee'sexperiments,an early experimentof his own, describedin his letter to Oldenburgin 1675, almost certainly(from its appropriateness at this point) the experimentshowing the attractiveand repulsiveproperties of a rubbed disc of glass. This 'Observation'is not written out, but the heading serves,at least approximately,to date this portion of the manuscript, for Newton writes: 'Above forty years ago I sent the following observationto Mr. Oldenburg & have now copied it from one of the Books of the Royal Society' . . . I think it worth mentioning that Newton's early experiment with the glass disc aroused some considerableinterest among the members of the Royal Society when his letter of 9 December 1675, was read. Indeed, such was

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20I

the interestaroused, that some of the members,'desired that it might be tried' (5). On I6 December,Newton's experimentwas tried without success. On 30 December, 'Therewas reada letterto Mr. OLDENBURG fromMr.NEWTON, datedat Cambridge 2Ist.December, 1675,in answer to what had been writtento him by Mr. OLDENBURG the concerning want of success of his experiment madewith a glassrubbed. ..' (6). This further letterof Newton'scontained for a successful directions outcometo the experiment, whichincluded adviceas to the type of material to be used and that the glassshouldbe rubbed,'till an hundred or hundred and fifty 'If be . and later counted .' he stir rub (7): may says, nothing yet, again with the cloth till sixty or eightymay be counted,and then rub or knock andrepeat thistill theelectric of the glassbe so virtue againwith yourfingers, excitedas to takeup the papers Newton'sexperi...' (8). On 13January ment was again tried and, on this occasion,met with success.Professor to the above in his paper,but I considerit Guerlac has himselfreferred show not to 'Newton believedat the time that this that, necessary only is a "subtilmatter" that there or "something of an experiment suggested in bodies,whichis rarefied aethereal nature" condensed friction an into by "aethereal wind"' (9), but thatNewton also believedthatthe experiment was representative on whichtherewas occasioned of an instance something of an electricvirtue.Indeed,one may furthersupposethat Newton conthatthis'electric virtue'wasan elastic sidered one, for he wrote: And as thiscondensed matter into an aethereal by rarefaction [subtil] wind (forby its easypenetrating andcirculating through glassI esteemit cause these odd and motions, aethereal) may by condensing againmay causeelectrical with its returning attraction to the glassto succeed in the so may the gravitating recondensed; placeof what is therecontinually attraction of the earthbe caused condensation of some by the continual . . . othersuchlike aethereal spirit (Io) andcondensation areusedin a contextlike and,when the termsrarefaction that above, they have 'elastic'connotations. However, Newton is more for in a preceding he writes: expliciton thissubject, paragraph First,it is to be supposed medium therein,thatthereis an aethereal muchof the sameconstitution with air,but farrarer, andmore subtler, strongly elastic. Of the existenceof this medium the motion of a
pendulum in a glassexhaustedof air almost as quickly as in the open air, is no inconsiderableargument. But it is not to be supposed, that this medium is one uniform matter, but compounded, partly of the main phlegmaticbody of aether,partlyof other variousaetherealspirits,much

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

202

thatairis compounded afterthe manner, of the phlegmatic body of air intermixed with variousvapoursand exhalations: for the electricand and gravitating seemto arguesuchvariety magneticeffluvia, principle,
(II).

the 'aethereal medium' Newtonbelieves to be anelastic one:he also Clearly, rise believesthat the electrostatic to an aetherial electric experiment gives effluvium. The passage interest because it mentions an just citedis alsoof particular a with which is both in vacuo and in the pendulum experiment supported the precursor to the experiment mentioned open air.This is, assuredly, by andreferred to by him as the 'two-thermometer Professor Guerlac, experithat the experiments of Hauksbee ment'. I maintain,therefore, and the without under his that, doubt, direction, Desaguliers performed experiment of his own efforts were, to Newton, merelymore sophisticated examples morethanfortyyearspreviously. executed There seems to be little doubt that Newton resurrected the aether in order to and I believe thatit attraction, explaingravitational hypothesis that he did so. In this, I am entirelywith Professor was with reluctance who wrotein his paper:'Newtontook moreseriously Guerlac [theaether] thanas a possible as an agencyto explainopticaleffects mechanical causeof Two now arise that must be answered. The firstis questions gravity'(I2). did Newton use the aether to obvious;why hypothesis explain gravitational in mechanistic terms? was the latterexplanation attraction in any Secondly, of connected with his interests the way intervening years?Perhapsone a third and add what were his main in those interests question ask, might Where are we to look for the answer to thelatterquery? intervening years? be his published The initialsourcewill naturally works. in 1713,contained The secondeditionof the Principia, a new published The final the Scholium of this Generale. treated of a essay, paragraph essay which Newton 'subtlespirit' suggestswould accountfor many natural as the cohesion of contiguous such and nearparticles; for the phenomena, and repulsion attraction of objectssituated electrical at a distance from an electrified associated with heat, body, and accountfor variousphenomena action(13). It is noticeable that thissubtlespiritis not light and muscular asa causeof gravity,but fromthe text it is clearthatwe aremeant specified for thevarietyof phenomena to deducethatif sucha spiritis ableto account attraction. It is known, mentioned,then it may also explaingravitational the form that final of the Scholium Generale contained however, only a of the modest quantity materialthat constituted its drafts.In interesting therewas no mentionof the experiments the ascent particular, concerning

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

203

tubesand betweenglassplates(whichfor the mostpart, of liquidsthrough andperformed it seems,weredevised andwerelaterincluded by Hauksbee, in Query3I of the secondEnglish editionof the Opticks (14),nor was there mentionof the material electrical attraction and concerning (andrepulsion) the 'electric it is have to the which, believed, spirit', might pointed qualification of the 'subtlespirit'as 'electricand elastic',in the edition of the
translated Principia by Motte (I5).

some of those very interesting Before discussing omissionsfrom the I shouldlike to pursue of the Scholium drafts further the matterof Generale, in the yearsthatlie betweenhis firstexposition Newton'sprincipal interests of an aetherhypothesis(about 1673) and his resurrection of the aether therewas the firstLatin Apartfrom the secondeditionof the Principia, in which editionof the Opticks, also contained new material. published 1706, In particular, I am thinkingof the additional Queries,whichbroughtthe Moreparticularly totalnumberto twenty-three. constill,it is the material tainedin the 23rd Query that is of interest,for here, for the first time, of the attractive andrepulsive Newton madepublichisaccount forceswhich of matter. Thelatter particles mayexistbetweenthe constituent Query,now Query31, began: of Bodies certainPowers,Virtues,or Have not the smallParticles act at a not only uponthe Raysof Light which distance, Forces, they by
for reflecting,refractingand inflecting them, but also upon one another

hypothesis for the explanation of gravity (about I7I5-176?).

a greatPartof the Phaenomena of Nature? for producing (I6)

One might argue that the 'Powers, Virtues,or Forces'about which Newton to an aether,and indeed, in I679 in a lettersent to writes, may be attributable he does explain the attractionsand repulsionsof the particlesof Boyle (17), matter by an aether hypothesis. But there is also evidence that in 1687, at Newton has rejectedthe aether the time of the first edition of the Principia, hypothesis in connexion with the explanation of such phenomena as the cohesion of larger bodies and particles,and many processesof a chemical naturewhich he describesin the above-mentionedQuery. The evidence for and a Conclusio,both of which the latter contention is containedin a Preface but were were intended for publicationin the 1687 edition of the Principia, as he the Newton material contained saw, (I8). Clearly, they by suppressed was inconsistentwith the mathematicalrigour of the Principia. forces, there is the Throughout Newton's writings on inter-particulate recurring theme that for contiguous and very near particles the force of attractionis exceedingly strong. It seems that Newton was very concerned

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

204

for thisparticular facetof particle to find an explanation since,as attraction; in air aether all he hadalways that the the its consisted postulated (and guises) he seemed whichrepelled one another, of elastic confounded particles by the factthatit waspossible to makebodies,suchas two polished piecesof glass, he ascribed the phenomenon to the pressure coherefirmly.Initially, of an the in when same occurred vacuo. situation however, aether, Later, especially of chemical suchas were throughhis explanations phenomena particularly of electiveattractions, involvedin the principle he cameto the conclusion forcebetweenparticles thatwherethe strongattractive thereensued ceased, a force. he of a weaker, variation theaether This, too, repulsive by explained in and the latter is the letter to Boyle. hypothesis, explanation given pressure and Conclusio As hasbeenstatedabove,in the suppressed which Preface were to have formedpartof the 1687editionof the Principia, thereis no in connexion mentionof an aether with manyof the phenomena whichare in the Boyle letter.It may therefore so explained be assumed, thatat some in the aether,at time betweenabout i680 and 1687,Newton lost interest of inter-particulate In the leastas faras his concepts forceswere concerned. two formerworks,Newton doesnot give any indication as to whatmight he doeswrite: accountfor the inter-particulate forces,but in the Conclusio 'Thus almostall the phenomena of naturewill dependon the forcesof if be it to possible provethatforcesof thiskinddo exist'(i9). particles, only In the Opticks of 1706,Newton againgaveno hintas to the explanation of inter-particulate of the firstparaforces,and indeed,the final sentence of read: 23 Query graph The Attractions of Gravity,Magnetism, and Electricity, reachto very and have been sensible so observed distances, by vulgarEyes,andthere be which others reach as hithertoescape to so small distances may
Observation(20).

unclarified. editionof However,in the secondEnglish leavingthe situation the Opticks anotherpart was addedto the lattersentence,which readas follows: electrical andperhaps Attraction even may reachto suchsmalldistances, withoutbeingexcitedby Friction (21). a causefor the existence It seems,therefore, thatNewton is now suggesting thatis, thatit is electrical in origin. forcebetweenparticles, of the attractive At thisstage,it is revealing to returnto a consideration of the drafts of the Scholium Generale to the 1713 editionof the Principia, as has been where, electrical stated,Newton wrote much concerning previously phenomena. In one of thesedrafts, the followingparagraph occurs:

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

205

viribus et Cometarum Quemadmodum SystemaSolis Planetarum in sic suis et motibus persevera[n]t, etiam agitatur partesejus gravitatis minora corporumsystemataviribus aliis agitari videntur et eorum Nam inter se diversimode moveri, et maxime vi electrica. particulae in se videntur vi et electrica mutuo praeditae corporum plurimorum particulae et quaemaximeelectrica etiam adparvas distantias frictione, absque agere emittunt sunt, spiritumquendamper frictionemad magnasdistantias nunc nunc nunc levia attrahunt et festucas fugant agitant quo corpora andCometsis putin motionby the As the Systemof the Sun,Planets in theirmotions,so alsothe smaller forcesof gravityandits parts persist in motion by otherforcesand their of to be set bodies seem systems in different be moved themselves to among ways,andespecially particles bodies seem to beendowed electric force. For the the ofverymany particles by atsmall each other distances evenwithout andto actupon withanelectricforce are a spirit those most emit and which friction, electric, friction, through which and are means of straws bodies now to greatdistances, by light in now diverse now and moved attracted, repelled ways. Thereseemsto be very little doubtthat it is to this draftof the Scholium to the 3Ist Generale that we must look for the sourceof the amendment above.But moreimportant here,is Newton'ssuggestion Query,asoutlined an force electric whichis effective over themselves thatthe particles possess smalldistances andis activewithoutthemediumof an electric for, spirit: the bodiesareexcitedby frictionand when electric latterspiritis only manifest areinvolved.Thereis alsoanother draftwhich,in the whengreater distances reiterates the above.The fourthproposition is contentof fourpropositions, andreads: of particular interest and withoutfrictionextendsonly to smalldistances That attraction at greaterdistancesparticlesrepel one another.By Experiment5.
Experiment6. On the solution of metals (23). Opticks(24). 'Experiment 5' is one of Hauksbee'sand 'Experiment6' has occurredon severaloccasionsin Newton's chemical expositions. It has been my intention, through most of the precedingpages, to show that Newton's interestsfor much of the time prior to the 1717 edition of the and certainlyfrom 1687, were largely concernedwith the particulate Opticks, natureof matter.At best, I think I have shown that in 1713, and contraryto ProfessorGuerlac'sopinion, the ' "certainmost subtlespirit",an electricand elasticspirit'(25), does not accountfor 'the short-rangeforcesacting between
diversimode (22).

in the secondEnglish areincluded editionof the Both of theseexperiments

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

206

the constituentparticlesof matter'(26). However, I would not disagreewith Professor Guerlac'sclaim that the experiments of Hauksbee on electrical attractionand repulsionmust have provided an addedstimulusto Newton's speculations. with the aetherhypothesisfor the explanaIf, then, Newton hasdispensed tion of inter-particulate forces, he must now be supposingthat these forces act at a distance, without the operation of an intervening medium; an opinion which he publicly held in I706 in relation to particles,and which since 1687, he held concerning gravitationalattraction,whether between particlesor larger masses. The Cartesianswere content to explain the gravitation of bodies by means of vortices in a mobile, dense aether,an hypothesiswhich Newton's containedin the second renderedobsolete. In the Scholium Generale Principia edition of the Principia,the first line reads: 'The hypothesis of vortices is pressed with many difficulties'(27). Newton then goes on to discuss the motion of the planets and he shows that these motions are mathematically incompatible with the Cartesian theory of vortices. He writes that the observed planetarymotions are describableby the laws of gravity, and he says, 'but though these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no meanshave at first derived the regularposition of the orbits themselvesfrom those laws' (28). From what follows, it is clearthat the readeris to understand that, for Newton, it is God of the orbits'. However, there who is responsiblefor 'the regularposition now occurs,aftera discussionof the role of the moon and gravity in producing the earth'stides, the famous 'hypothesesnon figo'. Following this, in apparent contradiction, Newton writes the enigmatic paragraph which treatsof the 'subtlespirit'.If it is not possibleto give a completeanswerto the question of why Newton included this final, and to my mind incongruous, in the GeneralScholium, at least one can suggest that there could paragraph be one of two contributoryfactors towards its resolution.Newton may at this stage have become convinced that an aetherialexplanationfor gravity was the correct one; in which case, one may ask, why did he not explicitly include gravity in his hypothesis?As I have previously shown, the 'subtle spirit' certainlydoes not reflect Newton's currentconcepts, in terms of the phenomena it purportsto explain. In fact, this 'subtle spirit'is outdated; it belongs to the era of the letter to Boyle. Even in that letter, however, Newton gives an aetherialexplanationfor gravity, thus: I SHALLset down one conjecturemore, which came into my mind now as I was writing this letter. It is about the causeof gravity. For this end I will supposethe aetherto consistof partsdifferingfrom one another

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

207

thatin theporesof bodiesthereis lessof in subtilty degrees; by indefinite in to the finer,thanin open spaces; the grosser and aether, proportion earth in is that the of the there much less the of body great consequently, in in to the than the of the finer, aether, air; regions proportion grosser in the airaffects aether the upperregionsof the andthatyet the grosser earth,and the fineraetherin the earththe lower regionsof the air, in thatfromthetop of theairto thesurface of theearth, sucha manner, and earth centre the the from surface of the to the aether is thereof, again and now in the finer finer. or air, Imagine anybodysuspended insensibly in the beingby the hypothesis grosser lying on the earth,andthe aether in of the are the than those which which arein body, upper parts pores, aether less to be its lowerparts,andthatthe grosser being apt lodgedin it will endeavour thoseporesthanthe fineraether to below, get out and below,whichcannotbe, withoutthe bodies give way to thefineraether
descendingto make room above for it to go out into (29).

may be the answer'.I believe that Newton's inclusionof the final paragraph was inherent in his need to refute allegations of of the ScholiumGenerale occultism, particularlywith respect to his theory of gravity. To his critics, the concept of forces which could act at a distancewithout the interposition of a materialor mechanicalagency was synonymous with a revival of the scholasticoccult qualities(30). In the 'Introduction' to his work, The Leibniz-ClarkeCorrespondence, H. G. Alexanderwrites as follows: . . . the dispute [between Newton and Leibniz, concerning the invention of the calculus] spread to other issues, of which the most prominentwas Leibniz'sattackon the Newtonian theory of gravity. He first made this criticism in print in the Theodicy,published in I7Io de la Foi avecla Raison,I9), where he accuses de la Conformitn (Discours Newton of reintroducingthe outmoded idea of action at a distance.He repeated the charge in a correspondence with the Dutch physician Hartsoeker,publishedin theJournalde Trevouxof 1712 and reprintedin In this letter Leibnizrefersto gravity as 'an occult theJournaldesSavants. would be a perpetualmiracleif planetswere to it that and says quality' move in circularorbits without some medium impelling them (3I).

in anaetherial for Or, if it wasnot thecasethatNewtonbelieved explanation a have been there must reason for him then to hint very compelling gravity, hisviewpointfromone of, 'I do not know at one: thatis, for him to change and thereforeI shall hazardno the reasonfor gravitational attraction, a subtlemedium butperhaps opinion',to one of, 'I do not know thereason,

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

208

by which a 'subtle spirit'was meant to explain gravity, would at the same time parry further criticism of 'action at a distance'and releasehim from continued controversy with Leibniz. However, if the latter was Newton's intent, it was one destined to fail: for, in the following year, in 1714, his (34). philosophy was again under attackin the ActaEruditorum The article in the Acta Eruditorum was, in fact, a review of the second which received a reply in the following year in the edition of the Principia, Transactions. The tenor of the review is clearly shown by the Philosophical taken from the latter: following passage

andurgedhim It is to thislatterletterthatCotesdrewNewton'sattention it As is not to leave unanswered my opinionthatthe (32). impliedabove, was Newton'sreply of the 1713editionof the Principia ultimate paragraph while non-committal about theactual a which, remaining (33); reply process

... the Editorsof the ActaEruditorum, (a) have told the World that Mr. Newtondeniesthat the causeof Gravityis Mechanical,and that if the Spirit or Agent by which ElectricalAttractionis performed,be not the Matter of Cartes, it is lessvaluablethanan Hypothesis,and Etheror Subtile be the Hylarchic Principle of Dr. Henry Moor: and Mr. perhaps may Leibniz (b) hath accused him of making Gravity a natural or essential Property of Bodies, and an occult Quality and Miracle(35). In the extractjust cited, it is only the part prior to the mention of Leibniz and this seems to refermore directlyto which alludesto the ActaEruditorum, the views of the Cartesiansthan to Leibniz himself. However, this passage would seem to indicate that Newton is being criticized for his lack of associationof the 'subtlespirit'with the denseaetherof Descartes;for his not describing gravity in mechanistic terms and for seeming to imply that gravity is a primary quality of matter and is capable of an 'occult' interpretation.

TransImmediately following the above passage in the Philosophical actions,there occurs a comparisonbetween the Newtonian and Leibnizian in occasioninga renewalof philosophieswhich, no doubt, was instrumental Leibniz'scriticismof the Newtonian philosophy. On this occasion,however, it was not Newton's sciencethat was underattack,but his theology. In 17I5, then, Leibnizvirtually reopened,if indeed it could be consideredclosed, the controversy with Newton which culminated in the Leibniz-Clarkecorrespondence:(36)for, ason the previousoccasionwhen it was Newton's mathematicsthat was underattack,a friendand mathematician,John Keill, effected Newton's defence, so on this occasionwhen it was Newton's theology that was similarly placed, a friend and theologian, Samuel Clarke, answered

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

209

Newton's aggressor.Although the exchange of lettersbetween Leibniz and Clarke began with theological questions, gradually other aspects of the Newtonian philosophy were brought into consideration. Leibniz again referredto gravity as an occult or mystical attributeof matter, as well as denying the existence of atoms and of a vacuum. The Leibniz-Clarkecorrespondenceended with the death of Leibniz in November, 1716, just about a year from the time when it had begun. During this period, I715 to 1716, ProfessorGuerlachas shown that Newton began to muster experimentalevidence in support of an aether hypothesis. It cannot be mere coincidence that Newton's thoughts turned towards an aether while the Leibniz-Clarkecorrespondencewas so vigorous. Indeed, in a previouspaper,ProfessorGuerlachas admittedthat criticismof Newton and Leibnizcertainlyplayed an importantrole in his more by the Cartesians favourabledispositiontowards the aether(37). I maintain,however, that as far as Newton's revival of the aether hypothesis for the explanation of gravity is concerned, these criticismsare of prime importance. I should now like to return to the two questions that I posed earlier; namely, why, in the second English edition of the Opticks,did Newton use the aether hypothesis to explain gravitational attraction in mechanistic terms, and was this explanationin any way connected with his prevailing interests, that is, in the particulatenature of matter? The answer to the second of these questionsdoes, of course, lie in the actualexplanationitself; that is, in Query 2I (38). Looking at the latter more closely, it is seen that in density, as in the although the aetheris still one which graduallyincreases this factor which is of it is not now letter, primary importance. Boyle of bodies through it by the force it Rather,the aethereffectsthe translation exertson those bodies when it expands:the expansion,however, is the result of the mutual repulsionof aether particles.Therefore, as well as including his firmly held belief that 'almost all the phenomena of naturewill depend on the forces of particles',Newton has also returnedto one of his earliest statements about the aether, that is, that the aether consists of particles which, 'tend to recedemutually from each other' (39). To one who believes forces explicable by means of an that Newton consideredinter-particulate aether or 'subtle spirit', the thought of a particulateaether must create problemsindeed; for it implies the action of an aetherwithin an aether.It is problems such as this, together with the fact that the mutual repulsion of particlesimplies action at a distancein no less certaina mannerthan mutual attraction,that encourage me in my view that, for Newton, an aetherial explanationof gravity was never a seriouscontenderwith God. Finally, then, to the reason for the mechanistic aspect of Newton's

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

210

attraction.To the Cartesians, and to Leibnizand explanationof gravitational his followers (for whom, apparently,the philosophy of Leibnizwas a creed) (40), the only true explanations of forces were those which followed mechanicallaws such as laws of impact or at least laws of force which were proportional to the surfacearea of the bodies on which the force acted. In Newton's explanationof gravity, it is seen that the largerthe surfaceareaof the gravitatingbody, the greater the force that would act on it because of the increasein the quantity of the surroundingaether. Clearly, then, in this respect, Newton's explanation of gravity should satisfy those of his critics who were mechanists.Here, it should be recalledthat if Newton had not intended a mechanicalexplanationof gravity, but one which only involved an aether, he could have used the explanation contained in the letter to Boyle. I maintain, therefore, that Newton, wearied by the seemingly endless controversy with Leibniz, which no doubt he thought would be continued by the followers of Leibniz even though the latter was dead, and similarly wearied by the recurring criticisms of the Cartesians,rendered his critics an explanation of gravitational attraction that would refute his supposed allegiance to the doctrine of action at a distance and absolve his theory of gravity from the stigma of occultism.
NOTES Roy. Soc. Lond. 22, 45-57 (I) H. Guerlac, 'Newton's Optical Aether', Notes & Records, (I967). (2) H. Guerlac,'FrancisHauksbee-experimentateur au profit de Newton', Arch.Int. Hist. Sci. i6, 113-I28 (1963). H. Guerlac,'Newton's Optical Aether', p. 48. (3) Phil. Trans.R. Soc. Abgd. 5 (1703-1712). (4) & Letters on Natural (5) I. B. Cohen, ed. IsaacNewton'sPapers Philosophy, Cambridge(I958), p. I90. (6) Ibid. p. 200. (8) (9) (Io) (ii) Ibid.Italicsadded. H. Guerlac,'Newton's Optical Aether', p. 55 (Io). on NaturalPhilosophy, I. B. Cohen, IsaacNewton'sPapers& Letters pp. i80-18I. Ibid.pp. 179-180. (I2) H. Guerlac,'Newton's Optical Aether', p. 45. Laterin his paper, on page 5I, Professor Guerlacquotes a portion of a letter from Desaguliersto Sir Hans Sloane (I73I) in support of this statement.It could be mentioned, too, that many Newtonians subscribedto this view. See, for example,J. T. Desaguliers'Physico-Mechanical Lectures, London (1717); Courseof Experimental Philosophy,2 Vols. London (1734); W. J. s'Gravesande,MathematicalElements sub-titled,'An Introduction ofNatural Philosophy, to Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy', trans.J. T. Desaguliers,2 Vols. London (I7201721); H. Pemberton, A view of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy,London (1728).

(7) Ibid.

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

211

Newtonianwas SamuelClarke the most anti-aether who in his annotated Perhaps 'But since is wrote: it editionof Rohault's now allowedthatGravity Physica (1729), doesnot depend connate andimmutable uponthe Air or Aether,but is an original Affectionof all matter,neithercan this explanation be admitted';S. Clarke, (1729),Vol. i, p. 66. is little doubtthatthis 'subtle There as the 'aethereal spirit'is of the samegenre (13) spirit' in Newton'sletterto the RoyalSociety(1675).Seealso,A. R. Hall and mentioned M. B. Hall, Unpublished Scientific Newton, Papers ofIsaac Cambridge (1962),p. 208. au profitde Newton',pp. 118-119. 'Francis Hauksbee-experimentateur (14) H. Guerlac, 'Newton'sOpticalAether', (15) H. Guerlac, p. 55 (4). It waspointedout by A. Koyreand and ElasticSpirit" I. B. Cohen in 'Newton's"Electric ', Isis, 51 (I960), that in Newton'sown copy of the secondeditionof the Principia the wordselectrici and in the marginafterthe word Spiritus. elastici appeared They alsowrote: 'Yet it is curious to observethatin the thirdandfinaleditionof the Principia, in published emendation does not appear.' Could it be that Newton con1726, this particular in thatcontext? sidered the qualification of no greatimportance from the FourthEdition,London(I93I), p. 375. This Reprinted (16) I. Newton, Opticks. andwill be referred to as Opticks. will be the editionusedthroughout letter to dated 28 was first Newton's in T. Birch, Boyle February (17) published I678/9, ed. The Works Robert in Boyle,London(I744), and is reprinted of theHonourable facsimilein I. B. Cohen, IsaacNewton's on Natural Papers& Letters Philosophy,
p. 250.

Rohault's System of Natural Philosophy,2nd ed. 2 Vols. trans J. Clarke, London

Newton, p. 302. Papers Scientific of Isaac (18) A. R. HallandM. B. Hall, Unpublished

(19) Ibid. p. 345.

(20) I. Newton, Opticks,pp. 375-376.

(21) Ibid. p. 376. (22) The University Library,Cambridge, MS. 3965 (12), 357-358. Sec also A. R. Hall and

M. B. Hall, Unpublished Newton, Scientific Papers of Isaac pp. 350-351andpp. 353354.

(23)

A. R. Hall and M. B. Hall, Unpublished Scientific Papers of IsaacNewton,p. 361. in thisdraft,therearetwelve'propositions'. It seemsto me thatthe first Altogether with particulate concerned four of theseare specifically matterand, as such, are from the divorced in the main,areconcerned which, remaining eight completely Thisdoesnot seemto be the opinionof eithertheHalls(see with the 'electric spirit'. on p. 2, wherehe writes: Lectures, Desaguliers' Physico-Mechanical kindof Attraction, Thereis another thatof Cohoesion; whichis called the namely, whichis verystrong Attraction whentheParts Electrical of Bodiestouch unexcited; of Bodiesareat anysensible one another, but decreases (whentheParts Distance) so asto becomealmost muchfaster thanGravity, insensible then.ThisAttraction madeon theDropof Oil of Oranges; is prov'dby theExperiments [seenote(24)] in Bodies,andtheElectrical Force Attraction ... The repelling from excited, appears madewith the largeGlass Tuberubb'd the Experiments with the Hand,which andthenrepells several firstattracts, (or indeedall)Bodies;...
above, p. 209), or H. Guerlac (see below, notes (25) and 26)). But see J. T.

(24) I Newton, Opticks,pp. 390-394 and p. 383.

'Newton'sOpticalAether', p. 53. (25) H. Guerlac,

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

212

(26) Ibid. For a more detailed discussionof the electricalattractionand repulsion between particles,see my 'Newton and the "ElectricalAttraction Unexcited" ', Ann. Sci. 24,
I2I-I30 (1968).

of NaturalPhilosophyand His Systemof the World, Principles (27) I. Newton, Mathematical translatedinto English by A. Motte in 1729. This edition, revised by F. Cajori, University of CaliforniaPress(1966), is the one used throughout and will be referred to as Principia, p. 543. p. 543. (28) I. Newton, Principia, p. 253. (29) I. B. Cohen, IsaacNewton'sPapers & Letterson NaturalPhilosophy, forces (30) In a less directway, there is evidence that Newton's hypothesisof interparticulate of attraction were also subject to similar charges. See J. Freind, 'Praelectiones London Lectures, Chymicae', ActaEruditorum, pp. 412-414 (I7I0) and his Chymical
(1729).

Manchester(1956), pp. ix-x. Correspondence, (31) H. G. Alexander, TheLeibniz-Clarke Sir Isaac Newton and Edleston, Cotes,London (i850), p. I53. Correspondence of Professor (32) J. See also: A. Koyre, Newtonian Studies,'Attraction, Newton and Cotes', London (1965), pp. 273-282; and H. G. Alexander, The Leibniz-ClarkeCorrespondence, pp. x-xi. In an article by A. Koyre and I. B. Cohen, 'Newton and the Lcibniz-ClarkeCorre(33) spondence',Arch.Jnt.Hist. Sci. 15, 63-126 (I962), they write: 'A portion of the conto the second edition of the Principia Generale was a direct response cluding Scholium to Leibniz's letter to Hartsoekerand was the first statement in print by Newton himself in defense of his own philosophy againstLeibniz.' They do not, however, specify to which 'portion' they refer.
(34) Acta Eruditorum,pp. 131-142 (I714).

(35) Phil. Trans.An account of the book entitled 'Commercium Epistolicum Collinii & aliorum, De Analysi promota; publishedby order of the Royal Society', 29, 173-224 (17I5). Notes (a) and (b) occur in the original, and referto the exact pages in the Acta Eruditorum, namely, pp. I4I-I42, and Leibniz'sletter to Hartsoeker,respectively. the lateLearned Mr. LEIBNITZ of Paperswhichpassedbetween (36) S. Clarke, A Collection and Dr. CLARKE in the years 1715 and 1716 relatingto the Principlesof Natural
Philosophy and Religion, London (I717).

(37) H. Guerlac, 'FrancisHauksbee-experimentateur au profit de Newton', p. 128.

(38) I. Newton, Opticks, pp. 350-352.

Scientific Papersof IsaacNewton, 'De Aere et (39) A. R. Hall and M. B. Hall, Unpublished
Aethere', p. 223.

(40) See Leibniz's letter to Conti; H. G. Alexander, The Leibniz-ClarkeCorrespondence,

pp. 185- i86.

This content downloaded from 128.42.202.150 on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:49:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions