I30 



NA TURK 



[December 3, 1908 



An Annotated Copy of Newton's " Principia." 



On April 2 of this year (vol. Ixxvii., p. 510) I con- 

 tributed to your columns a short account of an interesting 

 copy of the original edition of the abo%'e work, which I 

 had purchased in Sydney from among a collection of old 

 books that had remained packed up in cases for about 

 140 years, and had formed part of an English estate in 

 Chancery. The most interesting feature of the book con- 

 sists of several pages of manuscript corrections for a 

 second edition, and numerous amendments of the mathe- 

 matical diagrams throughout the book, which, according 

 to a further note forming portion of the manuscript pages, 

 were in the handwriting of Sir Isaac Newton himself. 



The note in question referred to a manuscript work on 

 " Optics," by Sir Isaac Newton, said to be deposited in 

 the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, as affording 

 an opportunity for coinparison of the handwriting. I 

 stated, further, in the letter referred to, that I h.-jd had 

 the first two pages of the notes photographed, and had 

 forwarded them to the librarian of Trinity College for 

 the purpose of making such a comparison. Si.x months 

 have now elapsed, and my inquiry has been followed by 

 developments, some of which must afford interest to 

 mathematical and astronomical students. 



Within a few weeks of my communication with the 

 librarian of Trinity College, that gentleman wrote 10 

 me to say that the manuscript volume of Newton's 

 " Optics " was, as stated in the note referred to, lying 

 in that library, but that it was in the handwriting of 

 Dr. Roger Cotes, who had edited and supervised the 

 printing of the second edition of the " Principia." Ho 

 thought that the supposition that tile handwriting in the 

 notes was that of Newton was based on the belief 

 that the manuscript " Optics " was in Newton's hand- 

 writing. 



So the matter was left, when you forwarded to me a 

 long and learned letter which had been sent to you by 

 Dr. J. Bosscha, of Haarlem, in which (after reviewing 

 my account of the volume and the manuscript notes) the 

 following proposition is put forward and supported : — 



" The copy now in the possession of Mr. Bruce Smith 

 was indeed once owned by Newton. This illustrious author 

 put it into the hands of 'his trusted suitor,' Nicolas Fatio 

 de Duillier, who intended to publish the second edition 

 of the ' Principia.' " 



ihe letter in which this conclusion is made and sup- 

 ported is too long for quotation, but it enters into great 

 detail with regard to the handwriting, expressing the 

 opinion that the notes are written partly in Sir Isaac 

 Newton's hand, and partly in that of Fatio. 



\ careful reference to the book shows that there arc 

 two distinct sets of corrections — one set being carefully 

 noted and collected in the five blank pages at the begin- 

 ning and end of the volume, the other set consisting of 

 corrections in the margin of the te.xt itself, and in the 

 <liagrams to which that text refers. The two sets of 

 corrections certainly seem to have emanated from dilTerent 

 minds, for those notes in the margins and diagrams are 

 not referred to in the five pages of corrections, and those 

 included in the five blank pages of the volume are not 

 carried out in the text, suggesting, as Dr. Bosscha has 

 conjectured, that one set had been prepared by one person, 

 and the other by another. This fact is very suggestive 

 of the double authorship of the notes, and of the authen- 

 ticity of the volume, remembering that Dr. Bosscha has 

 never seen the book, and depends upon historical records 

 for his knowledge of the notes. 



.According to Dr. Bosscha, these corrections were well 

 known, and formed the subject of correspondence between 

 Fatio and Huygens, or Huyghens (the celebrated Dutch 

 natural philosopher), in 1691, and Mr. Bosscha adds that 

 Sir Isaac Newton adopted some of Fatio's corrections and 

 rejected others, adding some more of his own. 



These facts, sufficiently interesting by reason of Sir 

 Isaac Newton's eminence and the epoch-making character 

 of his work, seem to fit well with the character of the 

 alterations in the volume in my possession, which, as I 

 have said. Dr. Bosscha, of Haarlem, conld never have 

 seen. Bruce Smith. 



Parliament House, Melbourne. 



NO. 2040, VOL. 79] 



The Semidiurnal Barometric Oscillation. 



With reference to the note in Nature of November 12 

 (p. 47) upon the semi-diurnal pressure variation, it seems 

 to me that the temperature variation is far more likely to 

 be the result of the pressure variation than its cause. 

 At all events, the pressure variation, however it may be 

 produced, must of necessity lead to a temperature varia- 

 tion, but the converse of this proposition is by no means 

 certain. It seems to be admitted that the atmosphere, as 

 a whole, has a natural period of oscillation not differing 

 greatly from twelve hours, and, that being so, a very 

 trifling force with the same period will suffice to produce 

 Ihe observed phenomena. Is it possible that the earth 

 may encounter sutTicicnt resistance to motion in its orbit 

 to provide this force? If we could assume the oethcr to 

 act as a perfect fluid, we should have increased pressure 

 at the front and back, using the term with regard to the 

 direction of the orbital motion, and decreased pressure over 

 the intermediate great circle. The direct pressure due to 

 the resistance would have maxima at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., 

 whereas the barometric maxima occur about 10 a.m. and 

 10 p.m., but I do not think this is a serious objection. 



W. H. Dines. 



Watlington, Oxon, November 23. 



The Fauna of the Magellan Region. 



In the very interesting review of the " Ergebnisse den 

 Hamburger Magalhaensischen Sammelreise, 1892-3," in 

 Nature of November ig (p. 82), the reviewer refers to 

 " an interesting fresh discovery ... of numerous brood 

 pouches (ectodcrnilc invaginations of the body wall) in 

 Condylactis georgiana," an Antarctic actinian. I have not 

 a copy of the report to hand, but, if I remember correctly. 

 Carlgreri here gives no figures of these " brood 

 chambers," but describes them as of similar character to 

 those he figured in a preliminary note on the occurrence 

 of breeding chambers in actinians published in 1893, of 

 specimens taken by the Vega expedition in Arctic seas. 



Here he shows that each invagination, although at first 

 affecting the ectoderm only, may be enlarged by the 

 gradual growth of the embryo so as to involve all three 

 layers of the body wall — ectoderm, mesoglcea, and endo- 

 dcrm. Since then I have described three other species 

 from the Southern Cross and the Discovery Antarctic col- 

 lections having " brood chambers " as distinct sacs pro- 

 jecting into the gastric cavity, formed by the invagination 

 of all three layers of the body wall. 



Joseph A. Clubb. 



Free Public Museums, Liverpool, November 23. 



A Disclaimer. 



In Nature of November 26 Mr. Soddy asserts, first, 

 that his name as co-editor of Ion was made use of with- 

 out his consent; secondly, that his first intimation of the 

 appearance and of the contents of the journal was obtained 

 from the advertisement in Nature of November 12. These 

 assertions contradict the actual facts of the case. 



It is true that Mr. Soddy did not see the cover before 

 publication ; but that Mr. Soddy had not authorised the 

 use of his name as co-editor does not tally with the fact 

 that he made no objection to the wording of certain 

 circulars sent him some time ago, the receipt of which 

 he acknowledged in a letter of September 15. On these 

 circulars he was expressly termed one of the editors. In 

 a correspondence ranging over two months before the 

 publication of Ion, Mr. .Soddy wrote not a word against 

 the wording of these circulars. Moreover, in his letter of 

 September 25 he expressly desires that I should spare him 

 as much of the editorial work as possible, as his time was 

 limited. I thought I .should be granting his request by 

 not submitting to him the personal reports of prominent 

 men of science, which, moreover, I, in my capacity as 

 editor, should have included. I may take this opportunity 

 of adding that Mr. Soddy never had any manner of par- 

 ticipation in the journal. It will be evident that his 

 secession will offer no hindrance to the continuance of the 

 journal. Chas. H. Walter 



16 Heathfield Gardens, Turnham Green, 

 London, W., December i. 



