112 



this problem of Aristotle, as he produces it; and still 

 more, where he met with this obscure solution of it, 

 which he imputes to that andent philosopher. Aristotle's 

 only enquiry is, * why the sun, in transmitting his 

 beams through a square puncture, does not form a 

 rectilineal figure ?' And M. de Montucla, instead of 

 this, makes him substitute quite another question re. 

 specting the sun in a partial eclipse : why his rays,, in 

 passing through such a puncture, should produce a 

 figure exactly resembling that part of his disk, which 

 remains yet unobscured ? But of all this there is not 

 one word in Aristotle. M. de Montucla aft rwards 

 affirms, that this question, the proper solution of which 

 had till then been despaired of by naturalists, reduced 

 them all to the necessily of saying with Aristotle, 

 c< that light naturally threw itself into a round form, or 

 assumed the resemblance of the luminous body, as soon 

 as ever it had surmounted the obstacle which put it un- 

 der constraint/* Now this again is what Aristotle says 

 nothing at all of. He gives tw r o solutions of his own 

 problem; the first of which is certainly the foundation, 

 if not the entire substance of what M. de Montucla 

 calls the discovery of Marolle. To enable the reader 

 to decide whether 1 have wronged M. de Montucla, I 

 present him with a literal translation of a passage of 

 Aristotle's, containing in it his fmt solution of this 

 problem. i; Why is it that the sun, in passing through 

 a square puncture forms itself into an oib-icular, and 

 not into a rectilineal figure, as when it shines through 

 a grate ? Is it not because the efllux of its rays, through 

 the puncture, converges it into a cone, whoso base is 

 the luminous circle?" This may serve to confirm what 

 I have formerly ventured to assert, that we but seldom 

 do justice enough to the ancients, either through our 

 entire neglect of them, or from uot rightly under* 

 standing them. 



