ABSTRACT
Desperate for sufficient recognition to end these disputes, Newton sent a "Hypothesis" concerning the nature of light to Oldenburg in December 1675, along with a series of "Observations" on the same matter. Once more, a problem with Hooke arose, this time explicitly couched in terms of intellectual property. Newton suggested that, in private conversation, Hooke had "accommodated his Hypothesis to [Newton's] suggestion of colours" but Hooke took umbrage and claimed that the theft was the other way round. Oldenburg passed this information back to Newton who countered by telling him to delete from the printed version of his "Hypothesis" a section in which Newton had named "Hooke" as being a co-discoverer of diffraction. He composed a vicious letter in which he painted Hooke as a philosophical magpie who had merely "modified" those parts of Descartes' work which he had not stolen. In turn, Hooke responded by showing the members of his newly formed "Philosophicall Clubb" exactly where from Hooke's Micrographia Newton had pilfered Hooke's own notion of the "aether." Three weeks later, Newton was still raging at Hooke and he thanked Oldenburg - whom he called his "representative" in London - for passing on the news of Hooke's "mistakes." Nevertheless, by the end of this letter, he had adopted a different line and now suggested that his problems with Hooke had resulted from a "misapprehension." Having attempted to cite Hooke and his friend Abraham Hill as witnesses to his own experiments, he now added that Oldenburg should "leave out WI I mention of [them], or at least put letters for their names: for I believe they had rather not be mentioned." Ten days later Hooke offered to "correspond [with Newton] about such matters by private letter," referring to Oldenburg's "sinister practices" in misrepresenting him. Finally, Newton acknowledged Hooke's offer of a private correspondence on the grounds that "what's done before many witnesses is seldome wlhout some further concern then that for truth, but what passes between friends in private usually deserves ye name of consultation rather then contest. ,,34
that these narratives were credible by attaching a name to the report so that it would have the requisite authority.
