3846 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 Royal 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 supporter 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 represents 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:— 
“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.”’— 
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. 
