7 6+ 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



and, he adds, in reference to the undu- 

 latory theory, that, " up to the present 

 time, it serves in all cases." In order 

 that this theory, now so perfect, should 

 he adopted, it had, of course, to be first 

 propounded. The conception of an 

 ethereal medium to explain the phe- 

 nomena of light was suggested by Huy- 

 ghens and Euler, but they did not ex- 

 perimentally demonstrate it, and their 

 authority was overborne by that of 

 Newton, who maintained the emission or 

 corpuscular theory. The true founder 

 of the undulatory hypothesis of light 

 was Dr. Thomas Young, Professor of 

 Natural Philosophy in the Koyal Insti- 

 tution of Great Britain, and whom 

 Prof. Tyndall regards as the greatest 

 physicist who has appeared since New- 

 ton. Dr. Young is thus estimated by 

 the German Helmholtz : " His was one 

 of the most profound minds that the 

 world has ever seen; but he had the 

 misfortune to be in advance of his age. 

 He excited the wonder of his contem- 

 poraries, who, however, were unable 

 to follow him to the heights at which 

 his daring intellect was accustomed to 

 soar. His most important ideas lay, 

 therefore, buried and forgotten in the 

 folios of the Royal Society, until a new 

 generation gradually and painfully 

 made the same discoveries, and proved 

 the exactness of his assertions, and the 

 truth of his demonstrations." 



Now, in this case, there was no 

 monkey in the question, and no capital 

 of public prejudice that could be made 

 available in the discussion, to repress 

 obnoxious opinions. The hypothesis 

 was certainly innocent enough, and its 

 truth or falsehood was a matter of sim- 

 ple determination by experiment. Dr. 

 Young made the experiments which es- 

 tablished it the Royal Society recog- 

 nized the value of the experiments, 

 and, in 1801, assigned to their author 

 the distinguished honor of delivering 

 the Bakerian lecture, in which his ex- 

 periments were described, and their con- 

 clusions demonstrated. Yet, with the 

 Royal Society to back him, and with 



his views capable of proof before all 

 men, Dr. Young was crushed, and that 

 by outside influences appealing to the 

 public, on the ground that his hypothe- 

 sis was spurious science mere wild ab- 

 surdity of the imagination. 



We ask attention to the similarity of 

 the present ground of attack upon Dar- 

 win, and the ground of attack upon Dr. 

 Young three-quarters of a century ago. 

 Dr. Smith prefaces his strictures upon 

 Darwinism with the following declara- 

 tion : " It is a very common attempt 

 nowadays for scientists to transcend the 

 limits of their legitimate studies, and, 

 in doing this, they run into speculations 

 apparently the most unphilosophical, 

 wild, and absurd; quitting the true 

 basis of inductive philosophy, and 

 building up the most curious theories 

 on little else than assertion." 



Henry Brougham, afterward Lord- 

 Chancellor of England, writing in the 

 second number of the Edinburgh Re- 

 view concerning Young's Bakerian lect- 

 ure, said : " We have of late observed 

 in the physical world a most unac- 

 countable predilection for vague hy- 

 potheses daily gaining ground ; and we 

 are mortified to see that the Royal So- 

 ciety, forgetful of those improvements 

 in science to which it owes its origin, 

 and neglecting the precepts of its most 

 illustrious members, is now, by the pub- 

 lication of such papers, giving the 

 countenance of its highest authority to 

 dangerous relaxations in the principles 

 of physical logic. We wish to raise 

 our feeble voice against innovations 

 that can have no other effect than to 

 check the progress of science, and re- 

 new all those wild phantoms of the 

 imagination which Bacon and Newton 

 put to flight from her temple. . . . 

 Has the Royal Society degraded its 

 publications into bulletins of new and 

 fashionable theories for the ladies of 

 the Royal Institution ? Prohpudor! 1 

 Let the professor continue to amuse his 

 audience with an endless variety of 



For shame ! 



