** Newton and Flamsteed,” by the Rev. W. Whewell. 143 
“ Surely there is no want of kindly feeling in these expres- 
ees. FF). 
«« The wrathful temper of Flamsteed’s dealings with Newton and 
his friends is indeed so manifest, that it is quite marvellous the ne- 
cessity of making allowance for it should not have occurred to the 
Reviewer. Who, for example, can overlook it in the account which 
Flamsteed has given in his own Diary of his appearance before the 
Committee of the Royal Society on Oct. 19, 1711, and which the 
Reviewer has quoted at length? This Committee, it is to be ob- 
served, were the guardians of the national interest in the Greenwich 
observations, and were bound to see that Flamsteed made them ac- 
cessible and useful to the public. According to his own account 
he began by calling them ‘ the robbers of his property.’ In describing 
the altercation which ensued, he says, ‘I only desired him (Newton) 
to keep his temper, restrain his passion, and thanked him as often 
as he gave me ill names.’ And again, in another part of the con- 
versation: ‘I only desired him (as | had often done) to restrain his 
passion, keep his temper, &c.’ We hardly require the recollection 
of Sir Anthony Absolute to see here the demeanour of a very angry 
man; far too angry, certainly, to allow us to accept literally what 
he asserts, much less what he implies merely. I confess therefore I 
have great doubts whether, from the expression in the same account, 
‘he called me many hard names, puppy was the most innocent of 
them ;’ (p. 228.) we can confidently infer that the obnoxious term 
was used.” 
Perhaps we should express more exactly the impression conveyed 
by Flamsteed’s passionate and wrong-headed statements, if we were 
to say, that the term ‘puppy’ may very possibly have been in some 
way or other used by Newton (certainly Flamsteed’s self-compla- 
cency and self-will made it far from inapplicable), but that, if so, it 
is certain that it was the most and not the least angry word which 
was thus employed. If anything worse had been said, it is very clear 
that Flamsteed was not in a temper to omit recording it in his letters 
and journal. 
With regard to the accusation, of which it is attempted to make 
so much, respecting the packet containing that part of Flamsteed’s 
Catalogue which had, after much prevarication and many ex- 
cuses, been obtained from him, and placed in Newton’s hands sealed 
up, Mr. Whewell observes, p. 16, “‘that the case is very different 
from that which the Reviewer has collected, by confining himself to, 
and, what is more extraordinary, by adopting without modification, 
the indignant and querulous account given by Flamsteed. * * 
“ It must be recollected that any assumption on the part of Flam- 
steed, that he might deal with the observations made in his official 
capacity of Astronomer Royal, as if they were his private property, 
could not be allowed by the guardians of the institution ;—that New~ 
ton and the persons who acted with him, acted not as private persons, 
nor at the suggestion of their own caprice, but took measures for the 
publication, as the Visitors of the Observatory, bound by their duty 
to see the office made effective ;—that the sealed packet being thus 
national property, the seal was declared to have been broken by the 
Queen’s command,”—p. 16. 
