The Historiography of ‘Georgian’ Optics

Brewster must surely be turning in his grave to find himself discussed in a book on English optics.

E.g., Peacock (1855), Wood (1954), and Steffens (1977).

This orientation can be found in Powell (1834). Whewell (1837), Dingle (1948: 37), Pav (1964) and Ronchi (1970: 210–29).

Knight G. , An attempt to demonstrate, that all the phaenomena in nature may be explained by two simple active principles, attraction and repulsion (London, 1754); Higgins B. , A philosophical essay concerning light (London, 1776); Elliott J. , Philosophical observations on the senses of vision and hearing (London, 1780); Bennet A. , “A new suspension of the magnetic needle, etc.”, Philosophical transactions, lxxxii (1792), 81–98; Rohault J. , Rohault's system of natural philosophy, illustrated with Dr Samuel Clarke's notes taken mostly out of Sir Isaac Newton's philosophy (2nd ed., London, 1729); Regnault N. , Philosophical conversations: Or, a new system of physics, by way of dialogue (London, 1731); van Musschenbroek P. , Elements of natural philosophy (London, 1744); Le Cat C. N. , A physical essay on the senses (London, 1750); Winkler J. H. , Elements of natural philosophy delineated (2nd ed., London, 1757).

Wesley J. , A survey of the wisdom of God in the creation: Or, a compendium of natural philosophy (3rd ed., London, 1777), iv, 10–20.

Leslie P. D. , A philosophical inquiry into the cause of animal heat (London, 1778); Adams G. , Lectures on natural and experimental philosophy, considered in its present stale of improvement (2nd ed., London, 1799); Walker A. , A system of familiar philosophy: In twelve lectures: Being the course usually read by Mr. A. Walker (London, 1802).

For example, Spearman R. Bate J. , eds, The philosophical and theological works of the late truly learned John Hutchinson Esq. (London, 1748–49); Jones W. , Physiological disquisitions; or, discourses on the natural philosophy of the elements (London, 1781); Pike S. , Philosophia sacra; or, the principles of natural philosophy, extracted from divine revelation (London, 1753). See also Collier (1934).

Green R. , The principles of natural philosophy, in which is shewn the insufficiency of the present systems, to give us a just account of that science: And the necessity there is of some new principles, in order to furnish us with a true and real knowledge of nature (Cambridge, 1712); Jordan G. W. , The observations of Newton concerning the inflections of light; accompanied by other observations differing from his; and appearing to lead to a change of his theory of light and colours (London, 1799); Hutton J. , Dissertations on different subjects in natural philosophy (Edinburgh, 1792), and A dissertation upon the philosophy of light, heat and fire (Edinburgh, 1794).

For example, Levene (1967: 74), Ronchi (1970: 240), Steffens (1977: 135) and Wood (1954: 157).

Winter R. , “A method of finding the specific gravity of light from analogy; and the undulatory theory defended by an experiment on inflected light”, Nicholson's journal, xix (1808), 143–6; Nicholson W. , “Light”, The British encyclopedia, or a dictionary of arts and sciences; comprising an accurate and popular view of the present improved state of human knowledge (London, 1809), n.p.; [ Brewster D. ], “Optics”, Edinburgh encyclopaedia, xv (1822), 460–662; Ure A. , “On light”, Philosophical magazine, lvii (1821), 409–18, and lviii (1821), 13–21 (also Ure's A dictionary of chemistry (London, 1821), n.p.); Coddington H. , An elementary treatise on optics (Cambridge, 1823).

Barlow P. , “Light”, A new mathematical and philosophical dictionary (London, 1814).

Levene (1969: 74), for example, claims that Brougham was “ill-informed and largely unqualified to criticize”, while Steffens (1977) charges Brougham with incompetence (133), biliousness (130) and with being “the kind of disciple any master would have been happy to forego” (172).

See, for example, European magazine, xlvii (1805), 130, and Annals of philosophy, i (1801), 41–43.

Steffens (1977: 35–41) employs Robert Smith's A compleat system of opticks (Cambridge, 1738) to exemplify these three assumptions. However, contrary to Steffens's contention that Smith considered force intrinsic to matter. Smith (pp. 90–91) did not commit himself as to whether the power of matter to refract light is due to “a real attraction, or whether it be an impulse upon light caused by the spring or elastick power of a subtil fluid which pervades the medium …; be this as you please”. See also Steffens (p. 157), Schofield (1970: 32) and Heimann McGuire (1971).

See, for example, McEvoy J. G. McGuire J. E. , “God and nature: Priestley's way of rational dissent”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, vi (1975), 325–404.

Robinson B. , A dissertation on the aether of Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1743), 68–93.

Steffens produces the erroneous impression that Descartes's ether and Newton's were identical.

For example, Martin Benjamin , who is discussed in the second period, obtained his data from a much earlier work: Nieuwentijdt B. , The religious philosopher: Or, the right use of contemplating the works of the Creator. Designed for the conviction of atheists and infidels (1st English ed., London, 1718–19). Hutton James (Dissertation, 271–4), another major contributor to the debate, does not fit easily into Schagrin's scheme.

For example, Worrall claims that the lack of detail in Young's description indicates that he did not perform the two slit experiment. However, in comparison with other experiments described in Young's A course of lectures on natural philosophy and the mechanical arts (London, 1807), as opposed to his earlier research papers, the description of this experiment is by no means atypical.

I have repeated the two slit experiment, which third year school-children perform, with simple apparatus and found no difficulty in producing distinct fringes. Many of the experimental problems envisaged by Worrall are without foundation. For example, he claims that “we know that if the difference of the paths from the two edges of the source to either of the slits is greater than about λ/4 the fringes will not in general be observable!” (p. 154). However, I experienced no difficulty in obtaining fringes with a 1.5mm source one metre distant from the slits; i.e., with a path difference one order of magnitude greater than that posited by Worrall.

Young T. , “An account of some cases of the production of colours not hitherto described”. Philosophical transactions, xcii (1802), 391.

Cf. Feyerabend P. K. , Against method (London, 1975), 174.

See Morse (1972), Olson (1975) and Cantor (1975).

See, for example, Harvey (1957) and Potter R. , “A reply to the remarks of professors Airy and Hamilton on the paper on the interference of light after passing through a prism of glass”, Philosophical magazine, ii (1833), 276–81.

Brougham H. to Horner F. , 25 July 1803: Horner MSS (London School of Economics), ii, 17.

See also Brooke J. H. , “Natural theology and the plurality of worlds: Observations on the Brewster-Whewell debate”, Annals of science, xxxiv (1977), 221–86.

Adams , Lectures (ref. 6), ii, 138.

Ibid., 140; Reid T. , Inquiry into the human mind (Edinburgh, 1764), ch. vi, sect. 1.

Nieuwentijdt , Religious philosopher (ref. 18), 489.

Whewell W. , “View of the modern theory of light”, Whewell Mss (Trinity College, Cambridge), R.18.173.

McGuire J. E. Rattansi P. M. , “Newton and the pipes of Pan”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxi (1966), 108–43; Adams , Lectures (ref. 6), ii, 390–1; Dutens L. , An inquiry into the origin of the discoveries attributed to the moderns (London, 1769), 139–47. I am grateful to Paul Wood for drawing my attention to the last item.

Burke E. , A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful (London, 1757); Reynolds J. , Seven discourses delivered in the Royal Academy by the president (London, 1779). See also Hippie (1957).

Badcock A. W. (1962), “Physical optics at the Royal Society”, British journal for the history of science, i, 99–116.

Brush S. G. (1970), “The wave theory of heat: A forgotten stage in the transition from caloric theory to thermodynamics”, ibid., v, 145–67.

Cantor G. N. (1970), “The changing role of Young's ether”, ibid., v, 44–62.

Cantor G. N. (1971), “Henry Brougham and the Scottish methodological tradition”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, ii, 69–89.

Cantor G. N. (1975), “The reception of the wave theory of light in Britain: A case study illustrating the role of methodology in scientific debate”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, vi, 109–32.

Collier K. B. (1934), Cosmogonies of our fathers: Some theories of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. New York.

Daniels N. (1974), Thomas Reid's Inquiry: The geometry of visibles and the case for realism. New York.

Dingle H. (1948), “Physics in the eighteenth century”, Natural philosophy through the eighteenth century and allied topics, ed. Ferguson A. London.

Greene D. J. (1953), “Smart, Berkeley, the scientists and the poets: A note on eighteenth century anti-Newtonianism”, Journal of the history of ideas, xiv, 327–52.

Hargreave D. (1969), “A new look at the Young-Brougham controversy”, unpublished.

Hargreave D. (1973), “Thomas Young's theory of color vision: Its roots, development, and acceptance by the British scientific community” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin).

Harvey E. N. (1957), A history of luminescence from the earliest times until 1900. Philadelphia.

Heimann P. M. (1973), “‘Nature is a perpetual worker’: Newton's aether and eighteenth-century natural philosophy”, Ambix, xx, 1–25.

Heimann P. M. (1974), “Conversion of forces and the conservation of energy”, Centaurus, xviii, 147–61.

Heimann P. M. McGuire J. E. (1971), “Newtonian forces and Lockean powers: Concepts of matter in eighteenth century thought”. Historical studies in the physical sciences, iii, 233–306.

Hipple W. J. (1957), The beautiful, the sublime and the picturesque in eighteenth-century British aesthetic theory. Carbondale, Illinois.

Latchford K. A. (1975), “Thomas Young's work on optics” (Ph.D. dissertation, London University).

Levene J. R. (1967), “Thomas Young, 1773–1829”, Early nineteenth century European scientists, ed. Olby R. C. , 67–93. Oxford.

Lovell D. J. (1968), “Herschel's dilemma in the interpretation of thermal radiation”, Isis, lix, 46–60.

Mccormmach R. (1968), “John Michell and Henry Cavendish: Weighing the stars”, British journal for the history of science, iv, 126–55.

Millburn J. R. (1976), Benjamin Martin: Author, instrument-maker and “country showman”. Leiden.

Morse E. W. (1972), “Natural philosophy, hypotheses and impiety: Sir David Brewster confronts the undulatory theory of light” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley).

Nicolson M. H. (1946), Newton demands the muse: Newton's “Opticks” and the eighteenth century poets. Princeton, N.J..

Olson R. (1975), Scottish philosophy and British physics 1750–1880: A study in the foundations of the Victorian scientific style. Princeton, N.J..

Pastore N. (1971), Selective history of theories of visual perception: 1750–1950. London.

Pav P. A. (1964), “Eighteenth century optics: The age of unenlightenment” (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University).

Peacock G. (1855), The life of Thomas Young, M.D., F.R.S. London.

Powell B. (1834), An historical view of the progress of the physical and mathematical sciences. London.

Priestley J. (1772), The history and present state of discoveries relating to vision, light, and colours. London.

Ronchi V. (1970), The nature of light. An historical survey. London.

Schagrin M. L. (1974), “Early observations and calculations on light pressure”, American journal of physics, xlii, 927–40.

Schofield R. E. (1970), Mechanism and materialism. British natural philosophy in an age of reason. Princeton, N.J..

Skard S. (1946), “The use of color in literature. A survey of research”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, xc, 163–249.

Spacks P. M. (1967), The poetry of vision. Cambridge, Mass.

Steffens H. J. (1977), The development of Newtonian optics in England. New York..

Thackray A. (1970), Atoms and powers: An essay on Newtonian matter-theory and the development of chemistry. Cambridge, Mass.

Turner G. L'E. (1969), “A history of optical instruments. A brief survey of sources and modern studies”. History of science, viii, 53–93.

Whewell W. (1837), History of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present time. London.

Wilson D. B. (1968), “The reception of the wave theory of light by Cambridge physicists (1820–1850): A case study in the nineteenth century mechanical philosophy” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University).

Wilson D. B. (1974), “Herschel and Whewell's version of Newtonianism”, Journal of the history of ideas, xxxv, 79–97.

Wood A. (1954), Thomas Young, natural philosopher, 1773–1829. Cambridge.

Worrall J. (1976), “Thomas Young and the ‘refutation’ of Newtonian optics: A case-study in the interaction of philosophy of science and history of science”, Method and appraisal in the physical sciences: The critical background to modern science, 1800–1905, ed. Howson C. , 107–79. Cambridge.