RECEPTION OF THE UXDULATORY THEORY. 113 



were spoken of as a hypothesis, which is a mere work of fancy ; and 

 the critic added, " we cannot conclude onr review without entreating 

 the attention of the Royal Society, which has admitted of late so many 

 hasty and unsubstantial papers into its Transactions ;" which habit he 

 urged them to reform. The same aversion to the undulatory theory 

 appears soon after in another article by the same reviewer, on the sub- 

 ject of Wollaston's measures of the refraction of Iceland spar ; he says. 

 " We are much disappointed to find that so acute and ingenious an 

 experimentalist should have adopted the wild optical theory of vibra- 

 tions." The reviewer showed ignorance as well as prejudice in the 

 course of his remarks ; and Young drew up an answer, which was ably 

 written, but being published separately had little circulation. ~VTc can 

 hardly doubt that these Edinburgh reviews had their effect in confirm- 

 ing the general disposition to reject the undulatory theory. 



"VYe may add, however, that Young's mode of presenting his opinions 

 was not the most likely to win them favor; for his mathematical rea^ 

 sonings placed them out of the reach of popular readers, while the 

 want of symmetry and system in his symbolical calculations, deprived 

 them of attractiveness for the mathematician. He himself gave a 

 very just criticism of his own style of writing, in speaking on another 

 of his works : 3 " The mathematical reasoning, for want of mathemati- 

 cal symbols, was not understood, even by tolerable mathematicians. 

 From a dislike of the affectation of algebraical formality which he had 

 observed in some foreign authors, he was led into something like an 

 affectation of simplicity, which was equally inconvenient to a scientific 

 reader." 



Young appears to have been aware of his own deficiency in the 

 power of drawing public favor, or even notice, to his discoveries. In 

 1802, Davy writes to a friend, "Have you seen the theory of my 

 colleague, Dr. Youno-, on the undulations of an ethereal medium as 



O ' O' 



the cause of light ? It is not likely to be a popular hypothesis, after 

 what has been said by Newton concerning it. He would be very much 

 flattered if you could offer any observations upon it, ivhcther for or 

 (I'la'mst it." Young naturally felt confident in his power of refuting 

 objections, and wanted only the opportunity of a public combat. 



Dr. Brewster, who was, at this period, enriching optical knowledge 

 with so vast a train of new phenomena and laws, shared the general 

 aversion to the undulatory theory, which, indeed, he hardly overcame 



3 See Life of Youny, p. 54. 

 VOL. II. S. 



