2i2 Prof. De Morgan's Accoimt of the Sj^eciilatioiis 



and was published in 1750. Kant, as appears by Professor 

 Struve's statement, took his knowledge of it from the liam- 

 hurgisclie Freie Uriheilc of 1751, and wrote on the same sub- 

 ject in his Allgcmeine 'Saturgeschichte tmd Thcorie des Him- 

 mels, Leipzig, 1755, 8vo. As far as I can see from Professor 

 Struve's description of Kant's views, there is not in them any 

 extension of Wright's, except in two points, which I shall 

 notice in the proper place. 



Wriglu's work consists of nine letters to a friend, and in its 

 speculations is both astronomical and theological; the latter 

 term including not merely expression of devotional feeling, 

 but much actual conjecture on what astronomy may teach in 

 relation to the future state of mankind. Omitting this, I shall 

 proceed to register the purely astronomical doctrines of the 

 treatise, so far as they seem peculiar to Wright. 



I make one long extract from the seventh letter, which might 

 have been shortened, and the English of it made more clear 

 and more correct, with no loss to Wright's memory. But as 

 this passage is very important as evidence, and is unquestion- 

 ably, out of the whole book, that which most nearly contains 

 the pith and marrow of the system, 1 have tliought it best to 

 extract the whole of it. 



In the preface it is stated that the chief design is "an At- 

 tempt towards solving the Pha;nomena of the Via Lactea, and 

 in consequence of that Solution, the framing of a regular and 

 rational Theory of the known Universe, before unattempted 

 by any." It is "... . entirely upon a new Plan, and the Begin- 

 ning, as it were, of a new Science, before unattempted in any 

 Language, the Author having dug all his Ideas from the 



Mines of Nature " And further, " How the Author has 



succeeded in this Point, is a Question of no great Conse- 

 quence ; he has certainly done his best; another, no Doubt, 

 will do better, and a third perhaps, by some more rational 

 Hypothesis, may perfect this Theor}', and reduce the Wiiole 

 to infallible Demonstration :...." 



The claim which Wright makes to originality will easily be 

 admitted ; and his priority must remain uncontested until it 

 can be impugned upon evidence. At present, neither Arago 

 nor Struve have met with anytliing of the same kind anterior 

 to Wright. 



In the first letter Wright gives the opinions of preceding 

 authors. He states that his own system was first planned in 

 1734. I need not describe his very imperfect enumeration of 

 his predecessors. In 1732, Robert Wright, whom I ought to 

 mention to prevent his being confounded with the subject of 

 this notice, published his Newtonian lunar tables for the navy. 



