346 THOMAS YOUNG. 



out example in scientific discussion. The public usually 

 keeps on its guard when such violent language is ad 

 dressed to it, but in this instance they adopted at the first 

 onset the opinions of the journalist in which we cannot 

 fairly accuse them of inconsiderateness. The journalist, 

 in fact, was not one of those unfledged critics whose mis 

 sion is not justified by any previous study of the subject. 

 Several good papers, received by the Eoyal Society, had 

 attested his mathematical knowledge, and had assigned 

 him a distinguished place among the physicists to whom 

 optical science was indebted : the profession of the bar in 

 London had acknowledged him one of its shining lumi 

 naries ; the Whig section of the House of Commons saw 



succession in time. It would be easy to extend such remarks ; but it 

 will probably be seen, with sufficient evidence for our present purpose, 

 that neither in profession nor in fact, can Newton s name be appealed 

 to as at all an exclusive suppoi ter of the material hypothesis of light; 

 even if in other passages he had not distinctly referred to that of un 

 dulations. And of these references a large number are quoted from 

 different portions of his writings, by Dr. Young, in the paper above 

 cited. In some of these, while he admits the readiness with which the 

 idea of waves i - epresents the phenomena, he yet dwells on certain ap 

 parent objections which seemed to invalidate that idea. 



Upon the whole it appears that the name of Newton can in no way 

 be legitimately claimed as a partisan of either theory. Indeed, it is 

 surprising that any claim of the kind could have been set up as re 

 gards the emission theory after his own distinct avowal: 



&quot; Tis true that from theory I argue the corporeity of light; but I do 

 it without any absolute positiveness, as the word perhaps intimates ; 

 and make it at most but a very plausible consequence of the doctrine, 

 and not a fundamental supposition, nor so much as any part of it.&quot; 

 Phil. Trans, vol. x. 1675, p. 5086. 



While in respect to either hypothesis it is sufficiently evident to 

 those acquainted with his writings that he never systematically upheld 

 either the one or the other; but from, time to time, as each particular 

 investigation seemed to require, he adopted the one or the other prin 

 ciple just as it seemed to give the more ready explanation of the point 

 before him. Translator. 



