2. Now since we are wont to esteem the Echoes and other Sounds of Bodies, to be True Sounds, all their Odours to be True Odours, and (to be short) since we judge other Sensible Qualities to be True ones, because they are the proper Objects of some or other of our Senses, I see not why Emphatical Colours, being the proper and peculiar Objects of the Organ of Sight, and capable to Affect it as Truly and as Powerfully as other Colours, should be reputed but Imaginary ones.
And if we have (which perchance you'l allow) formerly evinc'd Colour, (when
the word is taken in its more Proper sense) to be but Modify'd Light, there will be small Reason to deny these to be true Colours, which more manifestly than others disclose themselves to be produc'd by Diversifications of the Light.
3. There is indeed taken notice of a Difference betwixt these Apparent colours, and those that are wont to be esteem'd Genuine, as to the Duration, which has induc'd some Learned Men to call the former rather Evanid than Fantastical. But as the Ingenious Gassendus does somewhere Judiciously observe, if this way of Arguing were Good, the Greeness of a Leaf ought to pass for Apparent, because, soon Fading into a Yellow, it Scarce lasts at all, in comparison of the Greeness of an Emerauld. I shall add, that if the Sun-beams be in a convenient manner trajected through a Glass-prism, and thrown upon some well-shaded Object within a Room, the Rain-bow thereby Painted on the Surface of the Body that Terminates the Beams, may oftentimes last longer than Some Colours I have produc'd in certain Bodies, which would justly, and without scruple be accounted Genuine Colours, and yet suddenly Degenerate, and lose their Nature.
4. A greater Disparity betwixt Emphatical
Colours, and others, may perhaps be taken from this, that Genuine Colours seem to be produc'd in Opacous Bodies by Reflection, but Apparent ones in Diaphanous Bodies, and principally by Refraction, I say Principally rather than Solely, because in some cases Reflection also may concurr, but still this seems not to conclude these Latter Colours not to be True ones. Nor must what has been newly said of the Differences of True and Apparent Colours, be interpreted in too Unlimited a Sense, and therefore it may perhaps somewhat Assist you, both to Reflect upon the two fore-going Objections, and to judge of some other Passages which you'l meet with in this Tract, if I take this Occasion to observe to you, that if Water be Agitated into Froth, it exhibits you know a White colour, which soon after it Loses upon the Resolution of the Bubbles into Air and Water, now in this case either the Whiteness of the Froth is a True Colour or not, if it be, then True Colours, supposing the Water pure and free from Mixtures of any thing Tenacious, may be as Short-liv'd as those of the Rain-bow; also the Matter, wherein the Whiteness did Reside, may in a few moments perfectly Lose all foot-steps or remains of it. And
besides, even Diaphanous Bodies may be capable of exhibiting True Colours by Reflection, for that Whiteness is so produc'd, we shall anon make it probable. But if on the other side it be said, that the Whiteness of Froth is an Emphatical Colour, then it must no longer be said, that Fantastical Colours require a certain Position of the Luminary and the Eye, and must be Vary'd or Destroy'd by the Change thereof, since Froth appears White, whether the Sun be Rising or Setting, or in the Meridian, or any where between it and the Horizon, and from what (Neighbouring) place soever the Beholders Eye looks upon it. And since by making a Liquor Tenacious enough, yet without Destroying its Transparency, or Staining it with any Colour, you may give the Little Films, whereof the Bubbles consist, such a Texture, as may make the Froth last very many Hours, if not some Days, or even Weeks, it will render it somewhat Improper to assign Duration for the Distinguishing Character to Discriminate Genuine from Fantastical Colours. For such Froth may much outlast the Undoubtedly true Colours of some of Nature's Productions, as in that Gaudy Plant not undeservedly call'd the Mervail of Peru, the Flowers do often Fade, the
same Day they are Blown; And I have often seen a Virginian Flower, which usually Withers within the compass of a Day; and I am credibly Inform'd, that not far from hence a curious Herborist has a Plant, whose Flowers perish in about an Hour. But if the Whiteness of Water turn'd into Froth must therefore be reputed Emphatical, because it appears not that the Nature of the Body is Alter'd, but only that the Disposition of its Parts in reference to the Incident Light is Chang'd, why may not the Whiteness be accounted Emphatical too, which I shall shew anon to be Producible, barely by such another change in Black Horn? and yet this so easily acquir'd Whiteness seems to be as truly its Colour as the Blackness was before, and at least is more Permanent than the Greenness of Leaves, the Redness of Roses, and, in short, than the Genuine Colours of the most part of Nature's Productions. It may indeed be further Objected, that according as the Sun or other Luminous Body changes place, these Emphatical Colours alter or vanish. But not to repeat what I have just now said, I shall add, that if a piece of Cloath in a Drapers Shop (in such the Light being seldome Primary) be variously Folded, it will appear of differing
Colours, as the Parts happen to be more Illuminated or more Shaded, and if you stretch it Flat, it will commonly exhibit some one Uniform Colour, and yet these are not wont to be reputed Emphatical, so that the Difference seems to be chiefly this, that in the Case of the Rain-bow, and the like, the Position of the Luminary Varies the Colour, and in the Cloath I have been mentioning, the Position of the Object does it. Nor am I forward to allow that in all Cases the Apparition of Emphatical Colours requires a Determinate position of the Eye, for if Men will have the Whiteness of Froth Emphatical, you know what we have already Inferr'd from thence. Besides, the Sun-beams trajected through a Triangular Glass, after the manner lately mention'd, will, upon the Body that Terminates them, Paint a Rain-bow, that may be seen whether the Eye be plac'd on the Right Hand of it or the Left, or Above or Beneath it, or Before or Behind it; and though there may appear some Little Variation in the Colours of the Rain-bow, beheld from Differing parts of the Room, yet such a Diversity may be also observ'd by an Attentive Eye in Real Colours, look'd upon under the like Circumstances, Nor will it follow,
that because there remains no Footsteps of the Colour upon the Object, when the Prism is Remov'd, that therefore the Colour was not Real, since the Light was truly Modify'd by the Refraction and Reflection it Suffer'd in its Trajection through the Prism; and the Object in our case serv'd for a Specular Body, to Reflect that Colour to the Eye. And that you may not be Startled, Pyrophilus, that I should Venture to say, that a Rough and Coiour'd Object may serve for a Speculum to Reflect the Artificial Rain-bow I have been mentioning, consider what usually happens in Darkned Rooms, where a Wall, or other Body conveniently Situated within, may so Reflect the Colours of Bodies, without the Room, that they may very clearly be Discern'd and Distinguish'd, and yet 'tis taken for granted, that the Colours seen in a Darkned Room, though they leave no Traces of themselves upon the Wall or Body that Receives them, are the True Colours of the External Objects, together with which the Colours of the Images are Mov'd or do Rest. And the Errour is not in the Eye, whose Office is only to perceive the Appearances of things, and which does Truly so, but in the Judging or Estimative faculty, which Mistakingly