[1] From a photograph, with figures, to show the relative size of the tube aperture. [2] Weld’s _History of the Royal Society_, vol. ii. p. 188. [3] Dr. Whewell (_Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 266) well observes, that Boyle and Pascal are to hydrostatics what Galileo is to mechanics, and Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton are to astronomy. [4] The Rev. Mr. Turnor recollects that Mr. Jones, the tutor, mentioned, in one of his lectures on optics, that the reflecting telescope belonging to Newton was then lodged in the observatory over the gateway; and Mr. Turnor thinks that he once saw it, with a finder affixed to it. [5] The story of the dog “Diamond” having caused the burning of certain papers is laid in London, and in Newton’s later years. In the notes to Maude’s _Wenleysdale_, a person then living (1780) relates, that Sir Isaac being called out of his study to a contiguous room, a little dog, called Diamond, the constant but incurious attendant of his master’s researches, happened to be left among the papers, and by a fatality not to be retrieved, as it was in the latter part of Sir Isaac’s days, threw down a lighted candle, which consumed the almost finished labour of some years. Sir Isaac returning too late but to behold the dreadful wreck, rebuked the author of it with an exclamation (_ad sidera palmas_), “O Diamond! Diamond! thou little knowest the mischief done!” without adding a single stripe. M. Biot gives this fiction as a true story, which happened some years after the publication of the _Principia_; and he characterises the accident as having deprived the sciences forever of the fruit of so much of Newton’s labours.--Brewster’s _Life_, vol. ii. p. 139, note. Dr. Newton remarks, that Sir Isaac never had any communion with dogs or cats; and Sir David Brewster adds, that the view which M. Biot has taken of the idle story of the dog Diamond, charged with fire-raising among Newton’s manuscripts, and of the influence of this accident upon the mind of their author, is utterly incomprehensible. The fiction, however, was turned to account in giving colour to M. Biot’s misrepresentation. [6] Bohn’s edition.