¹ For a taxonomy of the varieties of particulate theories that were advanced see Schagrin, M. L., ‘Early Observations and Calculations of Light Pressure’, Am. J. Phys., 1974, 42, 927–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See below for accounts of three different wave theories.

² Cantor, G. N., ‘The Reception of the Wave Theory of Light in Britain: A Case Study Illustrating the Role of Methodology in Scientific Debate’, Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1975, 6, 109–132.Google Scholar

³ Fox, R., ‘The Rise and Fall of Laplacian Physics’, Hist. Study. Phys. Sci., 1974, 4, 89–136.Google ScholarFrankel, E., ‘Corpusular Optics and the Wave Theory of Light: The Science and Politics of a Revolution in Physics’, Social Stud. Sci., 1976, 6, 141–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Latchford, K. A., ‘Thomas Young and the Evolution of the Interference Principle’, University of London (Imperial College) Ph.D. thesis, 1974.Google ScholarCantor, G. N., ‘The Changing Role of Young's Ether’, B.J.H.S., 1970, 5, 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Silliman, R. H., ‘Fresnel and the Emergence of Physics as a Discipline’, Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1974, 4, 137–62Google Scholar and ‘Augustin Jean Fresnel’, D.S.B., V, 165–71.Google Scholar See also Frankel, , op. cit. (3).Google Scholar

⁶ Morse, E. W., ‘Natural Philosophy, Hypotheses and Impiety: Sir David Brewster Confronts the Undulatory Theory of Light’, University of California (Berkeley) PhD thesis, 1972.Google Scholar See also Olson, R., Scottish Philosophy and British Physics 1750–1880, Princeton, 1975Google Scholar, especially pp. 177–88.

⁷ Priestley, J., The History and Present State of Electricity with Original Experiments, London, 1767, xiii.Google ScholarBiot, J.-B., Traite de Physiqué, 3 vols., Paris, 1816, III, 148–9.Google ScholarBrewster, D., ‘Report on the recent progress of optics’, Rep. Brit. Ass., 1832, 308–22, p. 321.Google Scholar

⁸ Euler, Leonhard (1707–1783).Google Scholar Most of Euler's writings are published in Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, 3 series, Berlin, Gottingen, Leipzig, Heidelberg, Zurich, 1911–. This will be cited as Opera Omnia.

⁹ Euler, L., Lettres a une Princesse d'Allemagne, Opera Omnia, 3rd series, volumes 11 & 12. Originally published 3 vols., St Petersburg, 1768–1772.Google Scholar Translated into English by Hunter, Henry as Letters of Euler to a German Princess, 2 vols., London, 1795. Vol. 1, letter 17.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., Letter 19.

¹¹ Ibid., Letter 20.

¹² Ibid., Letters 25–6. See also Euler, L., Nova Theoria Lucis et Colorum, Opera Omnia, 3rd series, Volume 5Google Scholar, Commentationes Opticae, Volume 1, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar Originally published in Euler, L., Opuscula Varii Argumenti, 1746, 1, 169–144Google Scholar, art 113.

¹³ Melviil, Thomas (1726–1753).Google Scholar For biographical information see Wilson, P., ‘Biographical Account of Alexander Wilson, M.D., late Professor of practical astronomy in Glasgow’, Edinb. J. Sci., 1829, 10, 1–17, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Melviil, T., ‘Observations on Light and Colours’, Essays and Observations, Physical and Literary, 1756, 2, 12–90.Google Scholar This was read to the Edinburgh Philosophical Society in 1752. p. 38.

¹⁵ Ibid.Newton, I., Opticks, 4th ed., London, 1730Google Scholar, reprinted London, 1952, Book I, part II, prop. X.

¹⁶ Priestley, J., The History and Present State of Discoveries Relating to Vision, Light and Colours, London, 1772, pp. 357–60.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Priestley, , op. cit. (7), xiii.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For some discussion of the limited acceptance of wave-theories in the eighteenth century see Badcock, A. W., ‘Physical Optics at the Royal Society 1660–1800’, B.J.H.S., 1962, 1, 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But both this and Schagrin, op. cit. (1), demonstrate the dominance of the paniculate theory in the eighteenth century.

¹⁹ Young, Thomas (1773–1829).Google Scholar Most of Young's writings are published in Peacock, G. and Leitch, J. (editors), Miscellaneous Works of the Late Thomas Young, 3 Volumes, London, 1855.Google Scholar This will be cited as Works. The best life of Young remains Peacock, G., Life of Thomas Young, London, 1855.Google Scholar

²⁰ Just to take examples from Young's first optical paper ‘Outlines of Experiments and Enquiries Respecting Sound and Light’, Phil. Trans., 1800, 106–50Google Scholar, Works 1, 64–98.Google Scholar On pp. 78, 80 & 81 he mentioned Euler's optical work with adverse criticisms.

²¹ Ibid., 78–83.

²² Ibid., 79.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid., 80.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Cantor, , op. cit. (4).Google Scholar

²⁷ Young, T., ‘On the Theory of Light and Colours’, Phil. Trans., 1802, 12–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Works, I, 140–69.Google Scholar This was his second Bakerian lecture delivered in November 1801.

²⁸ 1st hypothesis, Ibid., 142, 2nd, Ibid., 143, 3rd, Ibid., 144.

²⁹ Cantor, , op. cit. (4), 46–7.Google Scholar

³⁰ Young, , Works, op. cit. (27), 147.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. Young presumably had in mind query 21 of Newton, 's Opticks, op. cit. (15).Google Scholar For a discussion of this part of Newton's work and its context see Heimann, P. M. ‘Ether and Imponderables’ in Cantor, G. N. and Hodge, M.J. S. (eds), Conceptions of Ether, Cambridge, 1981, pp. 61–84Google Scholar, especially pp. 64–7. See also pp. 19–24 of the editors' introduction.

³² Young, , Works, op. cit. (27), 147–8.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid., 155.

³⁴ Ibid., 155–6.

³⁵ Young, , Works, op. cit. (20), 78–83.Google Scholar

³⁶ Young, T., Dr Young's reply to the Animadversions of the Edinburgh Reviewers, on some papers published in the Philosophical Transactions, London, 1804Google Scholar, Works, I, 192–215, p. 202.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Latchford, , op. cit. (4), especially pp. 130–3 & 169–70.Google Scholar

³⁸ Young, , Works, op. cit. (20), 83–5.Google Scholar He referred to this passage from Works, op. cit. (27), 157Google Scholar where he enunciated the principle of interference.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 158–166. For a discussion of Young's work on inflection, see Latchford, , op. cit. (4), p. 180–5.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Young, T., ‘An Account of some cases of the Production of Colours not hitherto described’, Phil. Trans., 1802, 387–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Works, I, 170–78.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., 170.

⁴³ Ibid. Presumably he was referring to Young, , op. cit. (27).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Young, , Works, op. cit. (41), 171–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid., 174–5.

⁴⁶ Young's inability to maintain his aether did not go unnoticed. See [Brougham, H.], ‘The Bakerian Lecture. Experiments and Calculations relative to Physical Optics’, Edinb. Rev., 1804, 5, 97–103, p. 102–3.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Young, T., ‘Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics’, Phil. Trans., 1804, 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Works, I, 179–91, p. 188.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Young, T., A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts, 2 vols., London, 1807.Google Scholar The papers were reprinted at the end of volume II.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 11, 618.

⁵⁰ On Newtonian orthodoxy see Cantor, , op. cit. (2).Google Scholar On Laplacian orthodoxy see Fox, , op. cit. (3)Google Scholar and Frankel, , op. cit. (3) especially pp. 143–4.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Fresnel, Augustin Jean (1788–1827).Google Scholar Most of Fresnel's writings are published in de Senarmont, H., Verdet, E. and Fresnel, L. (editors), Oeuvres Complètes D'Augustin Fresnel, 3 volumes, Paris, 1866–1870Google Scholar, reprinted New York, 1965. This will be cited as Oeuvres.

⁵² Fresnel, A. J. to Fresnel, L.. 5 07 1814Google Scholar, Oeuvres, II, 820–4.Google Scholar

⁵³ See Frankel, , op. cit. (3), 157–8Google Scholar on Fresnel's general lack of knowledge on optical subjects at this time.

⁵⁴ See Ibid. 145–54.

⁵⁵ For detailed discussion of this work see Ibid., 159–62 and Silliman, , Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., op. cit. (5)Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Fresnel, A. J., ‘Mémoire sur la Diffraction de la Lumière’, Mém. Acad. Sci., 1821–1822 [published 1826], 5, 339–475Google Scholar, Oeuvres, I, 247–382.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ For an account of the award of the prize and of the publication see Fox, , op. cit. (3), 112–4Google Scholar and the notes contained therein.

⁵⁸ Fresnel, , Oeuvres, op. cit. (56), 278–80.Google Scholar I have been unable to trace the reference to Berthollet and Malus. But see Crosland, M., The Society of Arcueil, London, 1967, p. 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid., 287–8.

⁶⁰ Poisson, Siméon-Denis (1781–1840).Google Scholar See Fox, , op. cit. (3), 113–4Google Scholar for Poisson's possible rôle as a judge of Fresnel's paper.

⁶¹ Arago, Dominique François Jean (1786–1853).Google Scholar Most of Arago's papers were collected in Barral, J. A. (editor), euvres Complétes de François Arago, 17 volumes, Paris, 1854–1862.Google Scholar This will be cited as Oeuvres.

⁶² Arago, D. F. J., ‘Rapport fait par M. Arago à l'Académie des Sciences, au nom de la Commission qui avait été chargée d'examiner les Mémoirs envoyés au concours pour le prix de le diffraction’, Ann. Chim. Phys., 1819, 11, 5–30Google Scholar, Fresnel, , Oeuvres, I, 229–37.Google Scholar This is Arago's report on Fresnel's paper for the prize commission of which he was a member. On p. 236 he reports Poisson's prediction and his own experimental verification.

⁶³ Fresnel, A. J. and Arago, D. F. J., ‘Mémoire sur l'Action que les rayons de lumière polarisée exercent les uns sur les autres’, Ann. Chim. Phys., 1819, 10, 288–306Google Scholar, Fresnel, , Oeuvres, I, 509–22, p. 521.Google Scholar Dans les mêmes circonstances où deux rayons de lumière ordinaire paraissent mutuellement se détruire, deux rayons polarisés en sens contraires n'exercent l'un sur l'autre aucune action appréciable. Fresnel's and Arago's emphasis.

⁶⁴ Fresnel, A.J., ‘Second Mémoire sur la Double Refraction’, (written 1822), Mém. Acad. Sci., 1827, 7, 45–176Google Scholar, Oeuvres, II, 479–596.Google Scholar Translated into English (by Hobson, A. W.) as ‘Memoir on Double Refraction’, Taylor's Scientific Memoirs, 1852, 5, 238–333, p. 244.Google Scholar Fresnel had privately speculated on the possibility of the existence of transverse light waves as early as 1816. See ‘Mémoire sur l'influence de la polarization’, Oeuvres, I, 387–409Google Scholar, p. 394n. Young had also privately proposed in 1817 that light had a ‘minute’ transverse component which would account for polarisation. See Young, to Arago, , 12 01 1817Google Scholar, Works, I, 380–4Google Scholar, where he further commented that ‘in a physical sense, it [the transverse component] is almost an evanescent quantity, although not in a mathematical one’. Young published this suggestion in his article ‘Chromatics’ in Supplement to the fourth, fifth and sixth editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 6 volumes, Edinburgh, 1824, volume III, 141–63Google Scholar, Works, I, 279–342, p. 332–3.Google Scholar This was written in September 1817 (Works, I, 279).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Fresnel, , Sci. Mem., op. cit. (64), 243–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., 249.

⁶⁷ Ibid.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 243.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 258.

⁷¹ Ibid., 261.

⁷² Ibid., 262. I have altered the translation of the final sentence.

⁷³ This essay appeared in the supplement to the French translation of Thomson, Thomas, A System of Chemistry, 5th edition, 4 volumes, London, 1817Google Scholar: Système de Chimie, 5 volumes, Paris, 1818–1822.Google ScholarFresnel, 's essay was ‘De la Lumière’, Oeuvres, II, 3–146.Google Scholar This was translated into English (by Thomas Young; see footnote to Fresnel, , Sci. Mem., op. cit. (64), 264)Google Scholar as ‘Elementary view of the Undulatory Theory of Light’, Quart.J. Sci., 1827, 23, 127–141, 441–54Google Scholar; 24, 113–35, 431–48; 1828, 25, 198–215; 26, 168–91, 389–407; 1829, 27, 159–65.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 1829, 27, 161.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 162.

⁷⁶ Young, T. ‘Theoretical Investigations Intended to Illustrate the Phenomena of Polarisation’, Supplement to the … Encyclopaedia Britamica, op. cit. (64) VI, 8603Google Scholar, Works, I, 412–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid., 415. Young's emphasis.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 416–7.

⁷⁹ See Morrell, J. and Thackray, A., Gentlemen of Science, Oxford, 1981Google Scholar, especially pp. 466–72.

⁸⁰ Cauchy, A. L., Noveaux Exercises de Mathématiques (Mémoire sur la Dispersion de la Lumière), Prauge, 1835.Google Scholar See also Valson, C.-A., Le Vie et les Travaux du Baron Cauchy, Paris, 1868Google Scholar, reprinted Paris, 1970, pp. 147–51.

⁸¹ Wilson, D. B., ‘George Gabriel Stokes on Stellar Aberration and the Luminiferous Ether’, B.J.H.S., 1972, 6, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸² See Lloyd, H., ‘On the Phenomena presented by Light in its passage along the Axes of Biaxial Crystals’, Phil. Mag., 1833, 111, 2, 112–20, 207–10Google Scholar, where he reports Hamilton's prediction and his own experimental verification of conical refraction. Hamilton made this prediction by considering mathematically how a ray of light obeying Fresnel's equations would behave on entering various crystals. For details see Graves, R. P., Life of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, 3 volumes, Dublin, 1882–1889, vol. I, 623–38Google Scholar, and Hankins, T. L., Sir William Rowan Hamilton, Baltimore, 1980, chapter 6.Google Scholar

⁸³ Brewster, D., ‘Observations on the Absorption of Specific Rays, in reference to the Undulatory Theory of Light’, Philosophical Magazine, 1833, III, 2, 360–3.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ibid., 361, Brewster's emphasis. Brewster was specifically referring to some of John F. W. Herschel's ambiguous attitudes towards the wave theory in his ‘Light’, Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, 1828, 2, 341–586.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ [Brewster, D.], ‘Cours de Philosophie Positive. Par M. Auguste Comte’, Edinb. Rev., 1838, 67, 271–308, p. 306.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Brewster, , op. cit. (83), 361.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ For an extreme statement of this position see Powell, B., ‘Remarks on Mr. Barton's reply, respecting the Inflection of Light’, Phil. Mag., 1833, III, 3, 412–7.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Brewster, D., A Treatise on Optics, London, 1831.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Morrell, & Thackray, , op. cit. (79), 469.Google Scholar