574 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LIII. No. 1382 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 



NEWTON'S CORPUSCULAR THEORY OF LIGHT 



To THE Editor of SciEifCE: For more than 

 half a century various text-books on physics 

 and other publications dealing with the phe- 

 nomena of light, contain assertions to the ef- 

 fect that ITewton's corpuscular theory of light 

 received a knock-out blow when it was demon- 

 trated that light required a longer time to pass 

 through water than through air. 



Quoting, for example, from the last (11th) 

 edition of the Encyclopffidia Britannica, Vol. 

 XVI., page 618, we read: 



In the earlier part of the 19th century, the 

 corpuscular theory broke down under the weight 

 of experimental evidence, and it received the final 

 blow when J. B. L. Foucault proved by direct 

 experiment that the velocity of light in water is 

 not greater than that in air, as it should be 

 according to formula (1), but less than it, as is 

 required by the wave theory. 



The object of this note is to show that the 

 observed data are just as favorable for New- 

 ton's theory as they are for the wave theory of 

 light. 



Compared with Newton's corpuscle, the hy- 

 drogen unit of chemistry must evidently be 

 regarded as a very large mass. 



In passing between the molecular masses 

 (H„0) of which the water is composed, the 

 path of the corpuscle would be much longer 

 than the path in air between the widely sepa- 

 rated !N"„, 0„ H„0 and other masses. Conse- 

 quently, if the ratio of the actual length of 

 the path in water to the actual length of the 

 path in air is greater than the ratio of the 

 velocity in water to the velocity in air, the 

 time required for the corpuscle to pass through 

 the water with the greater velocity, will be 

 longer than that required to pass through the 

 air. 



j. m. schaebeele 



Ann Aebob, 

 May 31, 1921 



GERMAN SURTAXES ON SCIENTIFIC PUBLI- 

 CATIONS 



To THE Editor of Science: I read with in- 

 terest the letter of M. "W. Senstius in Science 



for April 8, 1921, in which he stated that a 

 publisher in Leipzig had informed him that 

 he had " abolished aU foreign surtaxes on 

 journals published by his firm," and that the 

 publisher stated further that it was a " matter 

 of regret to him that he is not (yet?) at 

 liberty, owing to the binding regulations of the 

 Borsenverein, to do the same with his own 

 books." 



I at once wrote to the publisher, "Wilhelm 

 Englemann, stating that I had read Mr. Sen- 

 stius's letter in ScmxcE, and inquired whether 

 the journal — -Botanische Jahrbuclier — was in- 

 cluded in his list of exempt publications, and 

 what the subscription rate of the periodical 

 would be to us. I give below a close English 

 translation of Mr. Engelmann's reply under 

 date of May 2, 1921 : 



I 



In answer to your very valued letter of April 12, 

 1921, may I reply that Mr. Senstius in his article 

 in Science of April 8 emphasizes that aU the 

 journals which appeared from my press after 

 January 1, 19S1, would be supplied without the 

 exchange tax {Valuta Aufschlag) ! 



On all journals and sets (Sammelwerke) ap- 

 pearing before the end of 1920 there is a pub- 

 lisher's additional charge (surtax, Verleger- 

 teuerungszuschlag) of 200 per cent, plus, at the 

 time only, 100 per cent, exchange tax exempt! 

 In accordance with the enclosed circular this pub- 

 lisher's surtax was increased from May 1, 1921, 

 to 300 per cent, of which you will please take 

 note! 



With reference to Series I., Botan. Jahrbucher, 

 this 300 per cent, is charged, plus the Valuta ad- 

 ditional ! 



On the back of Engelmann's letter were 

 two notices rubber-stamped, the first stating 

 that his firm would supply all periodicals is- 

 sued after January 1, 1921, without the Valuta 

 charged, but the second rubber-stamped notice 

 stated that on account of the unusually strin- 

 gent conditions, there would be added a 300 

 per cent, publishers' excess charge on all of 

 his publications which appeared previous to 

 the close of 1920, as stated in the letter just 

 quoted. The enclosed circular, to which his 



