Thick shells of Fishes, and in shaving of Wood, but I have also found that a piece of Deal, far thicker than one would easily imagine, being purposly interposed betwixt my Eye plac'd in a Room, and the clear Daylight, was not only somewhat Transparent, but (perhaps by reason of its Gummous nature) appear'd quite through of a lovely Red. And in the Darkned Room above mention'd, Bodies held against the hole at which the Light enter'd, appear'd far less Opacous then they would elsewhere have done, insomuch that I could easily and plainly see through the whole Thickness of my Hand, the Motions of a Body plac'd (at a very near distance indeed, but yet) beyond it. And even in Minerals, the Opacity is not always so great as many think, if the Body be made Thin, for White Marble though of a pretty Thickness, being within a Due distance plac'd betwixt the Eye and a Convenient Light, will Suffer the Motions of ones Finger to be well discern'd through it, and so will pieces, Thick enough, of many common Flints. But above all, that Instance is remarkable, that is afforded us by Muscovie glass, (which some call Selenites, others Lapis Specularis) for though plates of this Mineral, though but of a moderate Thickness, do often appear Opacous, yet if
one of these be Dextrously split into the thinnest Leaves 'tis made up of, it will yield such a number of them, as scarce any thing but Experience could have perswaded me, and these Leaves will afford the most Transparent sort of consistent Bodies, that, for ought I have observ'd, are yet known; and a single Leaf or Plate will be so far from being Opacous, that 'twill scarce be so much as Visible. And multitudes of Bodies there are, whose Fragments seem Opacous to the naked Eye, which yet, when I have included them in good Microscopes, appear'd Transparent; but, Pyrophilus, on the other side I am not yet sure that there are no Bodies, whose Minute Particles even in such a Microscope as that of mine, which I was lately mentioning, will not appear Diaphanous. For having consider'd Mercury Precipitated per se, the little Granules that made up the powder, look'd like little fragments of Coral beheld by the naked Eye at a Distance (for very Near at hand Coral will sometimes, especially if it be Good, shew some Transparency.) Filings likewise of Steel and Copper, though in an excellent Microscope, and a fair Day, they show'd like pretty Big Fragments of those Metalls, and had considerable Brightness on some of their Surfaces, yet I was not satisfi'd, that I perceiv'd
any Reflection from the Inner parts of any of the Filings. Nay, having look'd in my best Microscope upon the Red Calx of Lead, (commonly call'd Minium) neither I, nor any I shew'd it to, could discern it to be other than Opacous, though the Day were Clear, and the Object strongly Enlightned. And the deeply Red Colour of Vitriol appear'd in the same Microscope (notwithstanding the great Comminution effected by the Fire) but like Grossy beaten Brick. So that, Pyrophilus, I shall willingly resign you the care of making some further Enquiries into the Subject we have now been considering; for I confess, as I told you before, that I think that the Matter may need a further Scrutiny, nor would I be forward to Determine how far or in what cases the Transparency or Semi-diaphaniety of the Superficial Corpuscles of Bigger Bodies, may have an Interest in the Production of their Colours, especially because that even in divers White bodies, as Beaten Glass, Snow and Froth, where it seems manifest that the Superficial parts are singly Diaphanous, (being either Water, or Air, or Glass) we see not that such Variety of Colours are produc'd as usually are by the Refraction of Light, even in those Bodies, when by their Bigness, Shape, &c. they are conveniently
qualify'd to exhibit such Various and Lively Colours as those of the Rain-bow, and of Prismatical Glasses.
28. By what has been hitherto discours'd, Pyrophilus, we may be assisted to judge of that famous Controversie which was of Old disputed betwixt the Epicureans and other Atomists on the one side, and most other Philosophers on the other side. The former Denying Bodies to be Colour'd in the Dark, and the Latter making Colour to be an Inherent quality, as well as Figure, Hardness; Weight, or the like. For though this Controversie be Reviv'd, and hotly Agitated among the Moderns, yet I doubt whether it be not in great part a Nominal dispute, and therefore let us, according to the Doctrine formerly deliver'd, Distinguish the Acceptions of the word Colour, and say, that if it be taken in the Stricter Sense, the Epicureans seem to be in the Right, for if Colour be indeed, though not according to them, but Light Modify'd, how can we conceive that it can Subsist in the Dark, that is, where it must be suppos'd there is no Light; but on the other side, if Colour be consider'd as a certain Constant Disposition of the Superficial parts of the Object to Trouble the Light they Reflect after such and such a Determinate manner,
this Constant, and, if I may so speak, Modifying disposition persevering in the Object, whether it be Shin'd upon or no, there seems no just reason to deny, but that in this Sense, Bodies retain their Colour as well in the Night as Day; or, to Speak a little otherwise, it may be said, that Bodies are Potentially Colour'd in the Dark, and Actually in the Light. But of this Matter discoursing more fully elsewhere, as 'tis a difficulty that concerns Qualities in general, I shall forbear to insist on it here.
CHAP. IV
1. Of greater Moment in the Investigation of the Nature of Colours is the Controversie, Whether those of the Rain-bow, and those that are often seen in Clouds, before the Rising, or after the Setting of the Sun; and in a word, Whether those other Colours, that are wont to be call'd Emphatical, ought or ought not to be accounted True Colours. I need not tell you that the Negative is the Common Opinion, especially in the Schools, as may appear by that Vulgar distinction of Colours, whereby these under Consideration are term'd Apparent, by way of Opposition
to those that in the other Member of the Distinction are call'd True or Genuine. This question I say seems to me of Importance, upon this Account, that it being commonly Granted, (or however, easie enough to be Prov'd) that Emphatical Colours are Light it self Modify'd by Refractions chiefly, with a concurrence sometimes of Reflections, and perhaps some other Accidents depending on these two; if these Emphatical Colours be resolv'd to be Genuine, it will seem consequent, that Colours, or at least divers of them, are but Diversify'd Light, and not such Real and Inherent qualities as they are commonly thought to be.