Chapter 29

Letter from General Washington to the Writer of these Memoirs.

Mount Vernon, Sep. 7th. 1788.Sir,At the same time I announce to you the receipt of your obliging letter of the 28th of last month, which covered an ingenious essay on Heraldry, I have to acknowledge my obligations for the sentiments your partiality has been indulgent enough to form of me, and my thanks for the terms in which your urbanity has been pleased to express them.Imperfectly acquainted with the subject, as I profess myself to be; and persuaded of your skill, as I am; it is far from my design to intimate an opinion, that Heraldry, Coat-Armour, &c, might not be rendered conducive to public and private uses, with us,—or, that they can have any tendencyunfriendly to the purest spirit of Republicanism: on the contrary, a different conclusion is deducible from the practice of Congress and the States; all of which have established some kind ofArmorial Devices, to authenticate their official instruments. But, sir, you must be sensible, that political sentiments are very various among the people in the several states; and that a formidable opposition to what appears to be the prevailing sense of the Union, is but just declining into peaceable acquiescence. While, therefore, the minds of a certain portion of the community (possibly from turbulent or sinister views) are, or affect to be, haunted with the veryspectre of innovation;—while they are indefatigably striving to make the credulity of the less-informed part of the citizens subservient to their schemes, in believing that the proposed General Government is pregnant with the seeds of Discrimination, Oligarchy and Despotism;—while they are clamourously endeavouring to propagate an idea, that those whom they wish, invidiously, to designate by the name of the “well-born,” are meditating in the first instance to distinguish themselves from their compatriots, and to wrest the dearest privileges from the bulk of the people; and while the apprehensions ofsome, who have demonstrated themselves the sincere, but too jealous, friends of Liberty, are feelingly alive to the effects of the actual Revolution and too much inclined to coincide with the prejudices above described,—it might not perhaps be advisable to stir any question that would tend to reanimate the dying embers of faction, or blow the dormantspark of jealousy into an inextinguishable flame. I need not say, that the deplorable consequences would be the same, allowing there should be no real foundation for jealousy: (in the judgment of sober reason,) as if there were demonstrable, even palpable, causes for it.I make these observations with the greater freedom, because I have once been a witness to what I conceived to have been a most unreasonable prejudice, against an innocent institution: I mean, the Society of the Cincinnati. I was conscious that my own proceedings on that subject were immaculate. I was also convinced, that the members,—actuated by motives of sensibility, charity and patriotism,—were doing a laudable thing, in erecting that memorial of their common services, sufferings and friendships;—and I had not the most remote suspicion, that our conduct therein would have been unprofitable, or unpleasing to our countrymen. Yet have we been virulently traduced, as to our designs: and I have not even escaped being represented as short-sighted, in not foreseeing the consequences,—or wanting in patriotism, for not discouraging an establishment, calculated to create distinctions in society and subvert the principles of a republican government. Indeed, thephantomseems now to be pretty well laid; except on certain occasions,—when it is conjured up, by designing men, to work their own purposes upon terrified immaginations:—You will recollect there have not been wanting, in the late political discussions, those who were hardy enough to assert, that the proposed General Government was the wicked and traitorous fabrication of the Cincinnati!At this moment of general agitation and earnest solicitude, I should not be surprised to hear a violent outcry raised, by those who are hostile to the New Constitution, that the proposition contained in your paper had verified their suspicions, and proved the design of establishing unjustifiable discriminations. Did I believe that to be the case, I should not hesitate to give it my hearty disapprobation. But I proceed on other grounds:—Although I make not the clamour of credulous, disappointed, or unreasonable men, the criterion of Truth; yet, I think, their clamour might have an ungracious influence at the present critical juncture: and, in my judgment, some respect should not only be paid to prevalent opinions,—but even some sacrifices might innocently be made to well meant prejudices, in a populargovernment. Nor could we hope the evil impression would be sufficiently removed, should your Account, and Illustrations, be found adequate to produce conviction on candid and unprejudiced minds.For myself, I can readily acquit you of having any design of facilitating the setting up an “Order of Nobility:”—I do not doubt the rectitude of your intentions. But, under the existing circumstances, I would willingly decline the honour you have intended me, by your politeInscription; if there should be any danger of giving serious pretext (however ill-founded in reality) for producing or confirming jealousy and dissention, in a single instance; when harmony and accommodation are most essentially requisite to our public prosperity,—perhaps, to our national existence.My remarks, you will please to observe, go only to the expediency, not to the merits of the proposition: what may be necessary and proper hereafter, I hold myself incompetent to decide; as I am but a private citizen. You may, however, rest satisfied, that your composition is calculated to give favourable impressions of the science, candour and ingenuity, with which you have handled the subject; and that, in all personal considerations, I remain with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,Go. Washington.Wm. Barton, Esq.

Mount Vernon, Sep. 7th. 1788.

Sir,

At the same time I announce to you the receipt of your obliging letter of the 28th of last month, which covered an ingenious essay on Heraldry, I have to acknowledge my obligations for the sentiments your partiality has been indulgent enough to form of me, and my thanks for the terms in which your urbanity has been pleased to express them.

Imperfectly acquainted with the subject, as I profess myself to be; and persuaded of your skill, as I am; it is far from my design to intimate an opinion, that Heraldry, Coat-Armour, &c, might not be rendered conducive to public and private uses, with us,—or, that they can have any tendencyunfriendly to the purest spirit of Republicanism: on the contrary, a different conclusion is deducible from the practice of Congress and the States; all of which have established some kind ofArmorial Devices, to authenticate their official instruments. But, sir, you must be sensible, that political sentiments are very various among the people in the several states; and that a formidable opposition to what appears to be the prevailing sense of the Union, is but just declining into peaceable acquiescence. While, therefore, the minds of a certain portion of the community (possibly from turbulent or sinister views) are, or affect to be, haunted with the veryspectre of innovation;—while they are indefatigably striving to make the credulity of the less-informed part of the citizens subservient to their schemes, in believing that the proposed General Government is pregnant with the seeds of Discrimination, Oligarchy and Despotism;—while they are clamourously endeavouring to propagate an idea, that those whom they wish, invidiously, to designate by the name of the “well-born,” are meditating in the first instance to distinguish themselves from their compatriots, and to wrest the dearest privileges from the bulk of the people; and while the apprehensions ofsome, who have demonstrated themselves the sincere, but too jealous, friends of Liberty, are feelingly alive to the effects of the actual Revolution and too much inclined to coincide with the prejudices above described,—it might not perhaps be advisable to stir any question that would tend to reanimate the dying embers of faction, or blow the dormantspark of jealousy into an inextinguishable flame. I need not say, that the deplorable consequences would be the same, allowing there should be no real foundation for jealousy: (in the judgment of sober reason,) as if there were demonstrable, even palpable, causes for it.

I make these observations with the greater freedom, because I have once been a witness to what I conceived to have been a most unreasonable prejudice, against an innocent institution: I mean, the Society of the Cincinnati. I was conscious that my own proceedings on that subject were immaculate. I was also convinced, that the members,—actuated by motives of sensibility, charity and patriotism,—were doing a laudable thing, in erecting that memorial of their common services, sufferings and friendships;—and I had not the most remote suspicion, that our conduct therein would have been unprofitable, or unpleasing to our countrymen. Yet have we been virulently traduced, as to our designs: and I have not even escaped being represented as short-sighted, in not foreseeing the consequences,—or wanting in patriotism, for not discouraging an establishment, calculated to create distinctions in society and subvert the principles of a republican government. Indeed, thephantomseems now to be pretty well laid; except on certain occasions,—when it is conjured up, by designing men, to work their own purposes upon terrified immaginations:—You will recollect there have not been wanting, in the late political discussions, those who were hardy enough to assert, that the proposed General Government was the wicked and traitorous fabrication of the Cincinnati!

At this moment of general agitation and earnest solicitude, I should not be surprised to hear a violent outcry raised, by those who are hostile to the New Constitution, that the proposition contained in your paper had verified their suspicions, and proved the design of establishing unjustifiable discriminations. Did I believe that to be the case, I should not hesitate to give it my hearty disapprobation. But I proceed on other grounds:—Although I make not the clamour of credulous, disappointed, or unreasonable men, the criterion of Truth; yet, I think, their clamour might have an ungracious influence at the present critical juncture: and, in my judgment, some respect should not only be paid to prevalent opinions,—but even some sacrifices might innocently be made to well meant prejudices, in a populargovernment. Nor could we hope the evil impression would be sufficiently removed, should your Account, and Illustrations, be found adequate to produce conviction on candid and unprejudiced minds.

For myself, I can readily acquit you of having any design of facilitating the setting up an “Order of Nobility:”—I do not doubt the rectitude of your intentions. But, under the existing circumstances, I would willingly decline the honour you have intended me, by your politeInscription; if there should be any danger of giving serious pretext (however ill-founded in reality) for producing or confirming jealousy and dissention, in a single instance; when harmony and accommodation are most essentially requisite to our public prosperity,—perhaps, to our national existence.

My remarks, you will please to observe, go only to the expediency, not to the merits of the proposition: what may be necessary and proper hereafter, I hold myself incompetent to decide; as I am but a private citizen. You may, however, rest satisfied, that your composition is calculated to give favourable impressions of the science, candour and ingenuity, with which you have handled the subject; and that, in all personal considerations, I remain with great esteem, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,

Go. Washington.

Wm. Barton, Esq.

–—

Dr. Benjamin Rush.

The foregoing Memoirs were entirely completed and prepared for the press, before the decease of this Professor occurred; as is mentioned in the preface.

Benjamin Rush was born in the county of Philadelphia, on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1745, O.S. Having graduated in the Arts at Princeton College, in the autumn of the year 1760, and afterwards studied medicine under the direction of the late John Redman, M. D. of Philadelphia, he completed his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; where he received the degree of Doctor in Medicine, in the spring of 1768. Returning to Philadelphia in the summer of 1769, he was, on the31st of July, in that year, appointed Professor of Chemistry, in the College of Philadelphia; that chair having been supplied for some time before, by the late John Morgan, M. D. F. R. S. &c. About twenty years after this appointment (viz. in 1789), he succeeded Dr. Morgan in the Professorship of the Theory and Practice of Physic, in the same College: and in the year 1791, on the union of that College with the University of Pennsylvania, he was chosen Professor of the Institutes and Practice of Physick, &c. in the conjoint institution.

At divers times, and on various occasions, his talents were employed in affairs of political concern. Besides having held, atdifferentdifferentperiods, several other public stations, he was appointed a member of Congress for Pennsylvania, on the 20th of July, 1776: when he, together with some of his colleagues, appointed at the same time, subscribed the Declaration of American Independence; which great national act had received the sanction of congress, and been generally signed by the members, sixteen days before.

He died of a typhus fever, in Philadelphia, on the 19th day of April, 1813; being then advanced a few months beyond the sixty-seventh year of his age.

At the time of his decease, Dr. Rush was Professor of the Institutes of Medicine, of the Theory and Practice of Physic, and of Clinical Medicine, in the University of Pennsylvania: to which chair, vacated by his death, Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton, Professor of Materia Medica, Natural History and Botany, in the same institution, was elected in the month of July, 1813.

FINIS.

A1. The reader will find a very learned and interesting dissertation on the astronomy of these and other nations of antiquity, in Lalande’sAstronomie, liv. ii. W. B.

A2. Our orator might well pass on, without noticing more particularly the fabulous annals of the Chaldeans. They assigned to the reigns of their ten dynasties, 432 thousand years: and Lalande observes, that this number, 432, augmented by two or by four noughts, frequently occurs in antiquity. This prodigious number of years expresses, according to the notions of the inhabitants of India, the duration of the life of a symbolical cow: in the first age, this cow, serving as a vehicle for innocence and virtue, advances with a firm step upon the earth, supported by her four feet; in the second, or silver age, she becomes somewhat enfeebled, and walks on only three feet; during the brazen, or third age, she is reduced to the necessity of walking on two; finally, during the iron age, she drags herself along; and, after having lost, successively, all her legs, she recovers them in the succeeding period, all of them being reproduced in the same order.The Bramins thus make up their fabulous chronological account of the age of the world; viz.The duration of the first age,1,728,000yearsThe second1,296,000do.The third864,000do.The fourth will continue432,000do.Making the total duration of the world4,320,000years.Mr. Lalande remarks, that these four ages have a relation to the numbers 4, 3, 2, 1, which seem to announce some other thing than an historical division. Therefore, to give this fabulous duration of the world some semblance of truth. Mr. Bailly[A2a]rejects, in the first place, the fourth age, of which, at present, (that is, when Lalande wrote,) only 4887 years have passed: the residue of this duration could not be considered by Bailly as any thing more than a reverie: and as for the three first ages, he takes the years for days; in order to shew, that, in reality, they reckoned by days, before they computed by solar years. By these means, Bailly has reduced the pretensions of the people of India to 12,000 years; and he identifies this calculation for the Indians with that of the Persians, who give, likewise, 12,000 years for the duration of the world. The accordance thus produced in the two chronologies, seemed to Bailly to strengthen the authenticity of the recital; and makes it appear, that these notions prevailed alike among the Egyptians and the Chinese.Such are the data, such the calculations, and such the reasoning of Mr. Bailly, on this subject.But, although Mr. Lalande has noticed the retrograde series of the progressive numbers (1,) 2, 3, 4, in the Asiatic account of the age of the world, a kind of mysterious constitution of the amount of the years, in the several ages which make up the entire sum of its duration, seems to have escaped the observation of that acute philosopher; and probably the same circumstance passed also unnoticed by Mr. Bailly: it may be considered as a species of chronologicalabracadabra, engendered in the prolific brain of some eastern philosopher: the following is the circumstance here meant. It will be perceived, in the first place, that the arrangement of the numerical figures, in making up the years allotted to the fourth age of the world, is apparently artificial, and therefore, probably, altogether arbitrary. It will then be seen, that the number of years in the third age is double the amount of those in the fourth; that those in the second is made up by adding together the years in the fourth and third ages; and, that those in the first age are constituted by an addition of the number of years in the fourth and second ages. This being the fact, it does not seem to bear out Mr. Bailly, in his hypothesis, and the calculations founded on it. W. B.

The Bramins thus make up their fabulous chronological account of the age of the world; viz.

Mr. Lalande remarks, that these four ages have a relation to the numbers 4, 3, 2, 1, which seem to announce some other thing than an historical division. Therefore, to give this fabulous duration of the world some semblance of truth. Mr. Bailly[A2a]rejects, in the first place, the fourth age, of which, at present, (that is, when Lalande wrote,) only 4887 years have passed: the residue of this duration could not be considered by Bailly as any thing more than a reverie: and as for the three first ages, he takes the years for days; in order to shew, that, in reality, they reckoned by days, before they computed by solar years. By these means, Bailly has reduced the pretensions of the people of India to 12,000 years; and he identifies this calculation for the Indians with that of the Persians, who give, likewise, 12,000 years for the duration of the world. The accordance thus produced in the two chronologies, seemed to Bailly to strengthen the authenticity of the recital; and makes it appear, that these notions prevailed alike among the Egyptians and the Chinese.

Such are the data, such the calculations, and such the reasoning of Mr. Bailly, on this subject.

But, although Mr. Lalande has noticed the retrograde series of the progressive numbers (1,) 2, 3, 4, in the Asiatic account of the age of the world, a kind of mysterious constitution of the amount of the years, in the several ages which make up the entire sum of its duration, seems to have escaped the observation of that acute philosopher; and probably the same circumstance passed also unnoticed by Mr. Bailly: it may be considered as a species of chronologicalabracadabra, engendered in the prolific brain of some eastern philosopher: the following is the circumstance here meant. It will be perceived, in the first place, that the arrangement of the numerical figures, in making up the years allotted to the fourth age of the world, is apparently artificial, and therefore, probably, altogether arbitrary. It will then be seen, that the number of years in the third age is double the amount of those in the fourth; that those in the second is made up by adding together the years in the fourth and third ages; and, that those in the first age are constituted by an addition of the number of years in the fourth and second ages. This being the fact, it does not seem to bear out Mr. Bailly, in his hypothesis, and the calculations founded on it. W. B.

A2a. Mr. Bailly was the author of aHistory of Ancient and modern Astronomy. HisEssay on the Theory of Jupiter’s Satellites, which is said to be a valuable treatise, was published in the year 1766. Both works are in the French language, and were printed in France.

A3. Lalande observes that Mr. Bailly has gone back, in his astronomical researches, to the first traditions of an antedeluvian people, among whom there remained scarcely any traces of such knowledge; and that he has presented us, in his work, with ingenious conjectures and probabilities; or, more properly, appearances of truth, (“vraisemblables,”) written with many charms of extensive information. But, according to Mr. Lalande himself, all the ancient astronomy down to the time of Chiron, which was about fourteen centuries before the Christian era, may with probability be reduced to the examining of the rising of some stars at different times of the year, and the phases of the moon; since, long after that period, as this great astronomer remarks, the Chaldeans and Egyptians yet knew nothing of either the duration or the inequalities of the planetary movements. W. B.

A4. See the preceding note.

A5. Some of the constellations appear to have been named, even before the time of Moses, who was born 1571 years before Christ: but, probably, most of them received their names about the time of the Argonautic expedition, which took place in the year 1263, B. CHesiod and Homer who were co-temporaries, or, at least, flourished nearly at the same time, that is to say, about nine centuries before the Christian era, mention several of the constellations; and, among the rest, the Bear and the Hyades: and it is noticed by Mr. Lalande, that La Condamine says the Indians on the river Amazons gave to the seven stars in the Hyades, the name of the Bull’s-head, as we do; and that Father Lasitau tells us, the Iroquois called that assemblage of stars to which we give the name of the Bear, by the same name; and named the polar star “the star that does not move.”These are interesting facts. There is not the least resemblance, whatever, in the two constellations which have been mentioned, to the animals whose names they bear. Is it not, then, a matter of great curiosity, as well as one which may prove important in its result, to enquire, why two great tribes of uncivilized men, (supposed, by some, to be aborigines,) in the northern and southern sections of the western hemisphere, should apply the same denominations to two assemblages of stars, by which those constellations were known to Hesiod and Homer, if not earlier, and at least twenty-five hundred years before? W. B.

Hesiod and Homer who were co-temporaries, or, at least, flourished nearly at the same time, that is to say, about nine centuries before the Christian era, mention several of the constellations; and, among the rest, the Bear and the Hyades: and it is noticed by Mr. Lalande, that La Condamine says the Indians on the river Amazons gave to the seven stars in the Hyades, the name of the Bull’s-head, as we do; and that Father Lasitau tells us, the Iroquois called that assemblage of stars to which we give the name of the Bear, by the same name; and named the polar star “the star that does not move.”

These are interesting facts. There is not the least resemblance, whatever, in the two constellations which have been mentioned, to the animals whose names they bear. Is it not, then, a matter of great curiosity, as well as one which may prove important in its result, to enquire, why two great tribes of uncivilized men, (supposed, by some, to be aborigines,) in the northern and southern sections of the western hemisphere, should apply the same denominations to two assemblages of stars, by which those constellations were known to Hesiod and Homer, if not earlier, and at least twenty-five hundred years before? W. B.

A6. Hipparchus (of Nicæa, in Bithynia,) was a very celebrated mathematician and astronomer of antiquity. Mr. Lalande styles him the most laborious and most intelligent astronomer of antiquity, of whom we have any record; and asserts, that the true astronomy which has come down to us, originated with him. He divided the heavens into forty-eight (some say forty-nine) constellations, and assigned names to the stars. He is also said to have determined latitude and longitude and to have computed the latter from the Canaries; and he is supposed to be the first who, after Thales, calculated eclipses with some degree of accuracy: but he makes no mention of comets. Hipparchus died one hundred and twenty five years before the Christian era. W. B.

A7. Friar Bacon is said to have been almost the only astronomer of his age; he informs us that there were then but four persons in Europe who had made any considerable proficiency in the mathematics.

A8. Regiomontanus was born in the year 1436, at Kœnigsberg, a town of Franconia, subject to the house of Saxe-Weimar. His real name was John Müller: but he assumed the name of Regiomontanus from that of the place of his nativity, which signifiesRegius Mons.This astronomer, who was greatly celebrated in his time, was the first, according to Lalande, who calculated good Almanacks; which he had composed for thirty successive years; viz. from 1476 to 1506. In these (which were all published at Nuremberg in 1474, two years before his death,) he announced the daily longitudes of the planets, their latitudes, their aspects, and foretold all the eclipses of the sun and moon; and these ephemerides were received with uncommon interest by all nations. After noticing these, Lalande mentions the ephemerides which are published annually at Bologna, Vienna, Berlin, and Milan; but he pronounces theNautical Almanack, of London, to be the most perfect ephemeris that was ever published. Regiomontanus compiled several other works, which greatly promoted his reputation, He died in 1476, at the age of forty years. W. B.

This astronomer, who was greatly celebrated in his time, was the first, according to Lalande, who calculated good Almanacks; which he had composed for thirty successive years; viz. from 1476 to 1506. In these (which were all published at Nuremberg in 1474, two years before his death,) he announced the daily longitudes of the planets, their latitudes, their aspects, and foretold all the eclipses of the sun and moon; and these ephemerides were received with uncommon interest by all nations. After noticing these, Lalande mentions the ephemerides which are published annually at Bologna, Vienna, Berlin, and Milan; but he pronounces theNautical Almanack, of London, to be the most perfect ephemeris that was ever published. Regiomontanus compiled several other works, which greatly promoted his reputation, He died in 1476, at the age of forty years. W. B.

A9. See some interesting particulars respecting this great man in Lord Buchan’s account of the Tomb of Copernicus, and in the note thereto, inserted in the Appendix. W. B.

A10. Tycho-Brahé, as Lalande remarks, was the first who, by the accuracy and the number of his observations, prepared the way for the renewal of astronomy. The theories, the tables, and the discoveries of Kepler, are founded on his observations; and Lalande thinks, that their names, after those of Hipparchus and Copernicus, ought to be transmitted with immortal honour to posterity.Tycho was born in the year 1546, at Knudsturp in Scania in Denmark, of a noble family, which subsisted also in Sweden under the name of Brahé, and to which the marshal count Lœwendahl was allied. He died in 1601, at the age of fifty-five years.Frederick II, king of Denmark, gave to Tycho the little island of Huen, called in LatinVenusin, towards the Sound, and about ten leagues, northward, from Copenhagen: where that prince erected for him a castle, named Uraniberg, and an observatory attached to it, completely furnished with the best instruments. Yet only fifty-one years after the death of Tycho, Mr. Huet, whose curiosity led him to visit a place so celebrated could find no vestige of the observatory. One solitary old man, who yet retained some recollection of it, told him that the tempestuous winds to which they were subject along the Sound, had demolished it. Even the name of Tycho was then unknown in that savage island, as Mr. Lalande indignantly styles it: and Mr. Picard, who was sent by the French academy, in 1671, to ascertain the exact situation of the observatory, was obliged to have the earth dug away, in order to discover its foundation. W. B.

Tycho was born in the year 1546, at Knudsturp in Scania in Denmark, of a noble family, which subsisted also in Sweden under the name of Brahé, and to which the marshal count Lœwendahl was allied. He died in 1601, at the age of fifty-five years.

Frederick II, king of Denmark, gave to Tycho the little island of Huen, called in LatinVenusin, towards the Sound, and about ten leagues, northward, from Copenhagen: where that prince erected for him a castle, named Uraniberg, and an observatory attached to it, completely furnished with the best instruments. Yet only fifty-one years after the death of Tycho, Mr. Huet, whose curiosity led him to visit a place so celebrated could find no vestige of the observatory. One solitary old man, who yet retained some recollection of it, told him that the tempestuous winds to which they were subject along the Sound, had demolished it. Even the name of Tycho was then unknown in that savage island, as Mr. Lalande indignantly styles it: and Mr. Picard, who was sent by the French academy, in 1671, to ascertain the exact situation of the observatory, was obliged to have the earth dug away, in order to discover its foundation. W. B.

A11. “Certain it is,” says the learned and pious Dr. Samuel Clarke (in his Discourse on theEvidences of Nat. and Rev. Religion,) “and this is a great deal to say, that the generality, even of the meanest and most vulgar and ignorant people,” (among Christians,) “have truer and worthier notions of God, more just and right apprehensions concerning his attributes and perfections, deeper sense of the difference of good and evil, a greater regard to moral obligations and to the plain and more necessary duties of life, and a more firm and universal expectation of a future state of rewards and punishments, than, in any heathen country, any considerable number of men were found to have had.”In like manner, Archdeacon Paley (in hisView of the Evidences of Christianity) observes:—“Christianity, in every country in which it is professed, has obtained a sensible, although not a complete influence, upon the public judgment of morals. And this is very important. For without the occasional correction which public opinion receives, by referring to some fixed standard of morality, no man can foretell into what extravagances it might wander.” “From the first general notification of Christianity to the present day,” says the same ingenious writer, “there have been in every age many millions, whose names were never heard of, made better by it, not only in their conduct, but in their dispositions; and happier, not so much in their external circumstances, as in that which isinter præcordia, in that which alone deserves the name of happiness, the tranquillity and consolation of their thoughts. It has been since its commencement, the author of happiness and virtue to millions and millions of the human race.” He then asks: “Who is there, that would not wish his son to be a Christian?” W. B.

In like manner, Archdeacon Paley (in hisView of the Evidences of Christianity) observes:—“Christianity, in every country in which it is professed, has obtained a sensible, although not a complete influence, upon the public judgment of morals. And this is very important. For without the occasional correction which public opinion receives, by referring to some fixed standard of morality, no man can foretell into what extravagances it might wander.” “From the first general notification of Christianity to the present day,” says the same ingenious writer, “there have been in every age many millions, whose names were never heard of, made better by it, not only in their conduct, but in their dispositions; and happier, not so much in their external circumstances, as in that which isinter præcordia, in that which alone deserves the name of happiness, the tranquillity and consolation of their thoughts. It has been since its commencement, the author of happiness and virtue to millions and millions of the human race.” He then asks: “Who is there, that would not wish his son to be a Christian?” W. B.

A12. Some of the commentators inform us, that Mahomet taught that the earth is supported by the tip of the horn of a prodigious ox, who stands on a huge white stone; and that it is the little and almost unavoidable motions of this ox which produce earthquakes.

A13. Pythagoras, who was one of the most celebrated among the Greek philosophers, in the knowledge and study of the heavens, was born about 540 years before the Christian era. It is believed that he was the first who made mention of the obliquity of the ecliptic, and of the angle which this circle makes with the equator; although Pliny attributes this discovery to Anaximander, whose birth was seventy years earlier. Among the remarkable things which Pythagoras taught his disciples, was the doctrine that fire, or heat, occupied the centre of the world; it is supposed he meant to say, that the sun is placed in the centre of the planetery system, and that the earth revolves around him, like the other planets. He also maintained each star to be a world; and that these worlds were distributed in an ethereal space of infinite extent. W. B.

A14. Thales, who died about five centuries and an half before the Christian era, in the ninety-sixth year of his age,[A14a]first taught the Greeks the cause of eclipses, He knew the spherical form of the earth; he distinguished the zones of the earth by the mean of the tropicks and the polar circles; and he treated of an oblique circle or zodiac, of a meridian which intersects all these circles in extending north and south, and of the magnitude of the apparent diameter of the sun.Herodotus, Cicero, and Pliny, assert, as is noticed by Mr. Lalande, that Thales had predicted, to the Ionians a total eclipse of the sun, which took place during the war between the Lydians and the Medes, But the manner in which Herodotus (who lived about one century, only, after the time of Thales) speaks of this prediction, is so vague, that one finds some difficulty in believing that it was fact, If it were true, says Lalande, that Thales had actually foretold an eclipse of the sun, it could be no otherwise, than by means of the general period of eighteen years, of which he would have acquired a knowledge from the Egyptians or the Chaldeans: for the period had not yet arrived, when eclipses could be prognosticated by an exact calculation of the motion of the moon. W. B.

Herodotus, Cicero, and Pliny, assert, as is noticed by Mr. Lalande, that Thales had predicted, to the Ionians a total eclipse of the sun, which took place during the war between the Lydians and the Medes, But the manner in which Herodotus (who lived about one century, only, after the time of Thales) speaks of this prediction, is so vague, that one finds some difficulty in believing that it was fact, If it were true, says Lalande, that Thales had actually foretold an eclipse of the sun, it could be no otherwise, than by means of the general period of eighteen years, of which he would have acquired a knowledge from the Egyptians or the Chaldeans: for the period had not yet arrived, when eclipses could be prognosticated by an exact calculation of the motion of the moon. W. B.

A14a. But, according to Dufresnoy, he was born in the first year of the 35th Olympiad, and died the first year of the 52d, those periods corresponding, respectively, with the years 640 and 572, B. C.: and if so, he lived only sixty-eight years.

A15. Alhazen was one of the greatest of the Arabian astronomers. He went, about the year 1100, to Spain, where many of his nation had established themselves in the eighth century, and carried thither their knowledge of astronomy; yet, from the year 800 down to about 1300, science remained shrowded with the darkest ignorance, throughout Europe.Mr. Lalande observes, that the theory of Refractions is an important one, in astronomy; although it was considered of little consequence until the time of Alhazen. W. B.

Mr. Lalande observes, that the theory of Refractions is an important one, in astronomy; although it was considered of little consequence until the time of Alhazen. W. B.

A16. Aristotle, as though he had been of the race of the Ottomans, thought he could not reign except he first killed all his brethren. Insomuch as he never nameth or mentioneth an ancient author or opinion, but to confute or reprove.Bacon. Advancement.

A17. Timocharis of Alexandria endeavoured, with Aristillus, a philosopher of the same school, to determine the places of the different stars in the heavens, and to trace the course of the planets. Dr. Lempriere places him 294 years before Christ; and the Abbé Barthelemy has inserted his name in the list of illustrious men, who flourished in the fourth century before the Christian era: he probably lived some time after the commencement of that century. W. B.

A18. By its peculiar situation it will continue to do so for a long time.

A19. According to Lalande, Kepler was as celebrated in astronomy by the consequences he drew from the observations of Tycho Brahé, as the latter was for the immense mass of materials which he had prepared for him: and the Abbé Delaporte (in hisVoyageur François) represents him as precursor of Descartes in opticks, of Newton in physicks, and as a law-giver (“legislateur”) in astronomy.John Kepler, for this was the name of that famous mathematician, was born at Wiel, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in the year 1571; and the Abbé Delaporte says, his family was illustrious. He died at Ratisbon, in 1630. W. B.

John Kepler, for this was the name of that famous mathematician, was born at Wiel, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in the year 1571; and the Abbé Delaporte says, his family was illustrious. He died at Ratisbon, in 1630. W. B.

A20. The true invention of the telescope cannot be carried back to an earlier date than the beginning of the seventeenth century. Johannes Baptista Porta, a Neapolitan, in hisNatural Magic, which was published in the year 1589, says, “Si utramque (lentem concavam et convexam) recté componere noveris, et longinqua et proxima majora et clara videbis:”and he is said to have made a telescope, accordingly, about the year 1594. But Porta is represented as having made this discovery such as it was, by accident; and, as not well understanding the proper use of his own invention.According to Baron Bielfeld,[A20a]however, telescopes were first constructed a long time after, in Holland; some say, by John Lippersheim, a spectacle-maker at Middelbourg in Zealand; others, by James Metius, brother to the celebrated professor Adrian Metius, of Franeker. Although the invention of this instrument, of indispensable use in astronomy, is sometimes attributed to the great Galileo, he has himself acknowledged, in his treatise, entitledNuncius Siderius, that he took the hint from a report of a German having invented an instrument, by means of which, and with the assistance of certain glasses, distant objects might be distinguished as clearly as those that were near. This is precisely what Porta had mentioned in his book, in 1589; and therefore, if Galileo had not referred to a German, he might be supposed to have had in his view the Neapolitan’s conception of a telescope, announced long before such an instrument was properly constructed.Whatever may have been the merit of Porta’s discovery, or the pretensions of Lippersheim, the spectacle-maker, and Metius, Peter Borel (in his treatiseDe vero Telescopii Inventore) is of the opinion that Zachariah Johnson, who, like Lippersheim, was a spectacle-maker, and in the same city, made this discovery by chance, about the year 1500; that Lippersheim imitated him, after making numerous experiments; and that he instructed Metius. There are others, who have been considered as having had some sort of claim to this important invention; among whom were a Mr. Digges, of England, and a M. Hardy, of France, both towards the commencement of the seventeenth century.It is certain, however, that Galileo in Italy, (who died in 1642, aged seventy-eight years,) and, according to Bielfeld, Simon Marius in Germany, were the first that applied the telescope to the contemplation of celestial objects. W. B.

According to Baron Bielfeld,[A20a]however, telescopes were first constructed a long time after, in Holland; some say, by John Lippersheim, a spectacle-maker at Middelbourg in Zealand; others, by James Metius, brother to the celebrated professor Adrian Metius, of Franeker. Although the invention of this instrument, of indispensable use in astronomy, is sometimes attributed to the great Galileo, he has himself acknowledged, in his treatise, entitledNuncius Siderius, that he took the hint from a report of a German having invented an instrument, by means of which, and with the assistance of certain glasses, distant objects might be distinguished as clearly as those that were near. This is precisely what Porta had mentioned in his book, in 1589; and therefore, if Galileo had not referred to a German, he might be supposed to have had in his view the Neapolitan’s conception of a telescope, announced long before such an instrument was properly constructed.

Whatever may have been the merit of Porta’s discovery, or the pretensions of Lippersheim, the spectacle-maker, and Metius, Peter Borel (in his treatiseDe vero Telescopii Inventore) is of the opinion that Zachariah Johnson, who, like Lippersheim, was a spectacle-maker, and in the same city, made this discovery by chance, about the year 1500; that Lippersheim imitated him, after making numerous experiments; and that he instructed Metius. There are others, who have been considered as having had some sort of claim to this important invention; among whom were a Mr. Digges, of England, and a M. Hardy, of France, both towards the commencement of the seventeenth century.

It is certain, however, that Galileo in Italy, (who died in 1642, aged seventy-eight years,) and, according to Bielfeld, Simon Marius in Germany, were the first that applied the telescope to the contemplation of celestial objects. W. B.

A20a.Elem. of Univ. Erud.b. i. ch. 49.

A21. In treating of the astronomy of the Greeks, Lalande contents himself with barely introducing the name of Aristotle, among their philosophers; seeming to consider him as one who had done very little for astronomical science. This philosopher (who died in the sixty-third year of his age, and only 322 years B. C.) among his other doctrines, not only maintained the eternity of the world; but, that Providence did not extend itself to sublunary beings: and as to the immortality of the soul, it is uncertain whether he believed it or not. Bayle calls his logic and his natural philosophy, “the weakest of his works:” and says, further; “It will be an everlasting subject of wonder to persons who know what philosophy is, to find that Aristotle’s authority was so much respected in the schools, for several ages, that, when a disputant quoted a passage from this philosopher, he who maintained the thesis durst not say,Transeat; but must either deny the passage or explain it in his own way.” W. B.

A22. This discovery was made on the 8th of January, 1610. It was, as Mr. Vince observes, a very important one in its consequences; as it furnished a ready method of finding the longitude of places, by means of their eclipses. W. B.

A23. Although both Geography and Navigation have been wonderfully improved by the important discoveries made by the moderns in astronomy, they have nevertheless, derived the most essential aid from the application of the Compass to their purposes.The invention of this instrument, which is of indispensible utility, is almost universally ascribed to Flavio Gioia, a native of Amalfi in the kingdom of Naples. He is called, by some writers, Flavio de Melfi, (by which is meant, Flavio of Amalfi, this town being the place of his nativity;) and his invention of the Compass is placed in the year 1302. But it is affirmed by others, that Paulus Venetus brought the Compass first into Italy from China, in the year1260.1260.The Chinese Compass, however, whatever may be its antiquity, appears to have been a very imperfect instrument, compared with the modern Mariner’s Compass; and, more especially, with the Azimuth Compass, as improved by Dr. Knight and Mr. Smeaton. The Chinese Compass, now used, is represented as being nothing more than a magnetic needle kept floating, by means of a piece of cork, on the surface of water, in a white china ware vessel, divided at bottom into twenty-four points.It is worthy of observation, that the French have laid claim to the invention of the Compass, upon no better foundation than the circumstance of afleur de lysbeing always placed at the north point of the chard; although it is known, that Gioia decorated the north end of the needle with that flower in compliment to his own sovereign, who bore it in his arms, as being descended from the royal house of France. “It hath been often,” says Dr. Robertson,[A23a]“the fate of those illustrious benefactors of mankind, who have enriched science and improved the arts by their inventions, to derive more reputation than benefit from the happy efforts of their genius. But,” continues this eminent historian, “the lot of Gioia has been still more cruel; through the inattention or ignorance of contemporary historians, he has been defrauded even of the fame to which he had such a just title. We receive from them no information with respect to his profession, his character, the precise time when he made this important discovery, and the accidents and enquiries which led to it: the knowledge of this event, though productive of greater effects than any recorded in the annals of the human race, is transmitted to us without any of those circumstances which can gratify the curiosity that it naturally awakens.” W. B.

The invention of this instrument, which is of indispensible utility, is almost universally ascribed to Flavio Gioia, a native of Amalfi in the kingdom of Naples. He is called, by some writers, Flavio de Melfi, (by which is meant, Flavio of Amalfi, this town being the place of his nativity;) and his invention of the Compass is placed in the year 1302. But it is affirmed by others, that Paulus Venetus brought the Compass first into Italy from China, in the year1260.1260.The Chinese Compass, however, whatever may be its antiquity, appears to have been a very imperfect instrument, compared with the modern Mariner’s Compass; and, more especially, with the Azimuth Compass, as improved by Dr. Knight and Mr. Smeaton. The Chinese Compass, now used, is represented as being nothing more than a magnetic needle kept floating, by means of a piece of cork, on the surface of water, in a white china ware vessel, divided at bottom into twenty-four points.

It is worthy of observation, that the French have laid claim to the invention of the Compass, upon no better foundation than the circumstance of afleur de lysbeing always placed at the north point of the chard; although it is known, that Gioia decorated the north end of the needle with that flower in compliment to his own sovereign, who bore it in his arms, as being descended from the royal house of France. “It hath been often,” says Dr. Robertson,[A23a]“the fate of those illustrious benefactors of mankind, who have enriched science and improved the arts by their inventions, to derive more reputation than benefit from the happy efforts of their genius. But,” continues this eminent historian, “the lot of Gioia has been still more cruel; through the inattention or ignorance of contemporary historians, he has been defrauded even of the fame to which he had such a just title. We receive from them no information with respect to his profession, his character, the precise time when he made this important discovery, and the accidents and enquiries which led to it: the knowledge of this event, though productive of greater effects than any recorded in the annals of the human race, is transmitted to us without any of those circumstances which can gratify the curiosity that it naturally awakens.” W. B.

A23a. Hist. of America, vol. i, b. i.

A24. Galileo Galilei was a strenuous defender of the system of Copernicus; for which he was condemned by the inquisition, in the year 1635, under Pope Urban VIII. This extraordinary man was a native of Florence, and born in 1564. He died in 1642, aged seventy-eight years.W. B.

W. B.

A25. It has been since ascertained that Saturn has seven satellites, as is more particularly mentioned in the subsequent note. W. B.

A26. It was about six years after the delivery of this oration, (viz. on the 13th of March, 1781,) that Herschel discovered the Georgium Sidus. And nearly eight years and an half after this first discovery, he made two others: on the 28th of August, 1789, he was enabled to ascertain, by means of his telescope of forty feet focal length, that Saturn has a sixth satellite; and, on the 17th of September following, he found that he has a seventh. The same celebrated astronomer has since made several important discoveries. Thus, under the liberal patronage of his sovereign, has the great Herschel succeeded, by his extraordinary skill and industry in the making of very largespecula, in constructing telescopes, which, in the words of the learned Mr. Vince, “have opened new views of the heavens, and penetrated into the depths of the universe; unfolding scenes which excite no less our wonder than our admiration.”Many important discoveries (some of which are noticed in the foregoing pages of these memoirs) have been made by othereminent astronomerseminent astronomers, since the date of Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration; some of them, indeed, since his decease; among which are the discoveries of three new planets. W. B.

Many important discoveries (some of which are noticed in the foregoing pages of these memoirs) have been made by othereminent astronomerseminent astronomers, since the date of Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration; some of them, indeed, since his decease; among which are the discoveries of three new planets. W. B.

A27. The celebrated Huygens, who, in his Latin works, is styledHugenius. W. B.

A28. Among the many eminent astronomers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, mentioned by Mr. Lalande, in hisAstronomie, with interesting particulars concerning most of them, the only notice he there takes of his ingenious countryman, who endeavoured to establish the theory of Vortices which he had projected, is in these words:“Descartes (René,) né en Touraine en 1596, mort à Stockholm en 1650. Sa vie a été écrite fort au long par Baillet, à Paris, 1691, in 4o.”W. B.

A29. The philosophy of Aristotle retained terms so very obscure, that it seems the Devil himself did not understand, or at least could not explain them; otherwise we can hardly suppose, that, when the good patriarch of Venice had summoned his attendance for this very purpose, he would have been so rude as to put him off with an answer not only unintelligible but inarticulate. SeeBayle, in Art. Barbaro.

A30. Alluding to the experiments made in France, for determining the velocity of light; which, though unsuccessful, discovered a noble philosophical spirit.

A31. This prodigious velocity of light can be no argument against its materiality, as will appear from the following considerations. The greatest velocity which we can communicate to any body, is that of a cannon-ball, impelled by gun-powder; this may be at the rate of about 20 miles in a minute of time. The planet Saturn moves about 360 miles in a minute, that is 18 times swifter than a cannon-ball; and the comet of 1680, in its perihelion, moved near 56.66 times swifter than Saturn, or 990.5 times swifter than a cannon-ball. Now these are material bodies, moving with very various, and all of them exceedingly great velocities; and no reason appears why the last mentioned velocity should be the utmost limit, beyond which nature cannot proceed; or that some other body may not move 7 or 8 hundred times swifter than a comet, as light is found to do.That the different refrangibility of the rays of light, on which their colours depend, arises from their different velocities, seems so natural a conjecture, that it has perhaps occurred to every one who has thought on this subject. To this there are three principal objections. The first is, that, according to this hypothesis, when the satellites of Jupiter are eclipsed, their colour ought to change, first to a green and then to a blue, before their light becomes extinct; which is contrary to experience. But this objection appears to me of no weight; for we do not lose sight of the satellite because there is no light coming from thence to the eye, but because there is not light enough to render it visible. Therefore at the time a satellite disappears, there is still light of all colours arriving at the eye: and though the blue light should predominate on account of its slower progress, yet the red may predominate on another account; for along the edge of Jupiter’s shadow, as it passes over the satellite, a greater proportion of red light, than of blue, will be thrown by the refraction of Jupiter’s atmosphere. The second objection is, that since the velocity of the earth in its orbit, causes an aberration of about 20 seconds in the place of a star, if the different colours of light depended on different velocities, the aberration of blue light ought proportionably to exceed that of red light, which would give such an oblong form to a fixed star as might be discovered with a good telescope. This objection is of no more force than the former. The effect ought indeed to follow, but not in a sensible quantity; for at the altitude of 70 degrees, the apparent place of a fixed star is likewise removed 20 seconds by refraction, and the very same separation of the rays must take place; yet this I think is not discoverable with the best telescope. Perhaps by uniting these two equal causes, which may be readily done, and thereby doubling the effect, it may become sensible.The third objection arises from that curious discovery of Dollond, by which we are enabled so greatly to improve refracting telescopes. And this objection I shall for the present leave in its full force; as well against the above hypothesis, as against every other which I have seen for the same purpose.

That the different refrangibility of the rays of light, on which their colours depend, arises from their different velocities, seems so natural a conjecture, that it has perhaps occurred to every one who has thought on this subject. To this there are three principal objections. The first is, that, according to this hypothesis, when the satellites of Jupiter are eclipsed, their colour ought to change, first to a green and then to a blue, before their light becomes extinct; which is contrary to experience. But this objection appears to me of no weight; for we do not lose sight of the satellite because there is no light coming from thence to the eye, but because there is not light enough to render it visible. Therefore at the time a satellite disappears, there is still light of all colours arriving at the eye: and though the blue light should predominate on account of its slower progress, yet the red may predominate on another account; for along the edge of Jupiter’s shadow, as it passes over the satellite, a greater proportion of red light, than of blue, will be thrown by the refraction of Jupiter’s atmosphere. The second objection is, that since the velocity of the earth in its orbit, causes an aberration of about 20 seconds in the place of a star, if the different colours of light depended on different velocities, the aberration of blue light ought proportionably to exceed that of red light, which would give such an oblong form to a fixed star as might be discovered with a good telescope. This objection is of no more force than the former. The effect ought indeed to follow, but not in a sensible quantity; for at the altitude of 70 degrees, the apparent place of a fixed star is likewise removed 20 seconds by refraction, and the very same separation of the rays must take place; yet this I think is not discoverable with the best telescope. Perhaps by uniting these two equal causes, which may be readily done, and thereby doubling the effect, it may become sensible.

The third objection arises from that curious discovery of Dollond, by which we are enabled so greatly to improve refracting telescopes. And this objection I shall for the present leave in its full force; as well against the above hypothesis, as against every other which I have seen for the same purpose.

A32. Mars appears to be surrounded by a very great and dense atmosphere.

A33. Dr. Herschel discovered, in the year 1789, (fourteen years after the delivery of this Oration,) two other satellites of Saturn. These are the innermost of his (now) seven secondary planets.W. B.

A33. Dr. Herschel discovered, in the year 1789, (fourteen years after the delivery of this Oration,) two other satellites of Saturn. These are the innermost of his (now) seven secondary planets.

W. B.

A34. In 745, Virgilus, bishop of Saltzburg, having publicly asserted in some of his sermons, that there were antipodes, he was charged with heresy, by Boniface, bishop of Mentz, and cited to appear before the Pope, who recommended the hearing of the cause to Utilo, King of Bohemia, and at the same time wrote to him in favour of Boniface. The event was, the bishop of Saltzburg lost his cause, and was condemned for heresy.

A35. It has been shewn, in a preceding note, how much the means of communicating between distant regions, separated by seas, ware facilitated by the discovery and use of the Compass: but those means have been still further and very greatly improved, since the introduction of the use of the Quadrant at sea, especially that called Hadley’s Quadrant.The true inventor of the reflecting Quadrant was Dr. Robert Hook, a very ingenious English mathematician and philosopher, who died in the year 1702, at the age of sixty-seven years. This instrument, now commonly styled Hadley’s, was afterwards rendered much more complete than Dr. Hook’s invention had made it, by Sir Isaac Newton: but our modern artists, more skilful than those of former times, as Mr. Lalande has observed, have profited of the ideas of the great Newton himself, on the subject; and among the later improvers of the Sea Quadrant, or Octant, is Mr. Hadley, whose name the instrument usually bears.It would, however, be doing an act of injustice to the memory of an American who possessed an extraordinary genius, to omit, in the course of these memoirs, some notice of his merits in relation to this matter. Mr. Thomas Godfrey, a native of Pennsylvania, is said to have turned his attention to this subject, so early as the year 1730; and in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London, No. 435, will be found, an “Account of Mr. Thomas Godfrey’s Improvement of Davis’s Quadrant transferred to the Mariner’s Bow,” drawn up by James Logan, Esq. formerly of Philadelphia, a gentleman of extensive learning, and a very eminent mathematician, Mr. Godfrey is stated to have “sent the instrument (which he had constructed) to be tried at sea by an acquaintance of his, an ingenious navigator, in a voyage to Jamaica, who shewed it to a captain of a ship there, just going for England; by which means, it came to the knowledge of Mr. Hadley, though perhaps without his beingtoldtoldthe name of the real inventor.” [SeeThe American Magazine, for July 1758.] In a letter, dated at Philadelphia the 25th of May, 1732, Mr. Logan, who very ably as well as meritoriously patronized Godfrey, communicated to the celebrated Dr. Edmund Halley a detailed account and description of theimprovedSea-Quadrant constructed by that ingenious citizen of America, of which his patron confidently believed him to be the original inventor. On the 28th of June, 1734, a further account of Godfrey’s invention was drawn up by Mr. Logan, and subscribed with his name; which, it is presumed, was also communicated to the Royal Society: and on the 9th of November, in the same year, Mr. Godfrey transmitted an account of it, draughted and signed by himself, to the same learned body. The whole of these interesting letters, with some accompanying observations on the subject, are published in the valuableMagazinejust referred to, and in the one for the succeeding month.In the Transactions of the Royal Society, for the months of October, November and December, 1731, No. 421, is contained a Proposal, by Dr. Edmund Halley, for finding the longitude at sea, within a degree or twenty leagues, &c. In the conclusion of this paper, Dr, Halley, in speaking of John Hadley, Esq. VP.R.S, (“to whom,” as he observes, “we are highly obliged for his having perfected and brought into common use the reflecting telescope,”) says—He “has been pleased to communicatehismost ingenious instrument for taking the anglesby reflection,” (referring, here, to the Philos. Trans. No. 420;) “it is more than probable that the same may be applied to taking anglesat sea, with the desired accuracy.”In Mr. Logan’s account of Mr. Godfrey’s invention, dated June 28, 1734, he says: “Tis now four years since Thomas Godfrey hit on this improvement; for, his account of it, laid before the (Royal) Society last winter, in which he mentioned two years, was wrote in 1732; and in the same year, 1730, after he was satisfied in this, he applied himself to think of the other, viz.the reflecting instrument, by speculums for a help in the case of longitude, though ’tis also useful in taking altitudes: and one of these, as has been abundantly proved by the maker, and those who had it with them, was taken to sea and there used in observing the latitudes the winter of that year, and brought back again to Philadelphia before the end of February 1730–1, and was in my keeping some months immediately after.”In Mr, Logan’s prior letter to Dr. Halley (dated May 25, 1732,) he says, that about eighteen months before, Godfrey told him, “he had for some time before been thinking of an instrument for taking the distances of stars by reflecting speculums, which he believed might be of service “at sea;” and that, soon after, Godfrey shewed him an instrument, which he had procured to be made, for the purpose. Thus, the time to which Mr. Logan refers Godfrey’s communication of his improvement to him, would make its date to be about the month of November, 1730.In the Rev. Mr. Vince’s great work, entitled,A Complete System of Astronomy, (and contained in “A Treatise on Practical Astronomy,” at the end of the second volume of that work,) is an entire chapter on “Hadley’s Quadrant;” giving a particular description of the instrument, with rules for the computations from the observations and illustrations of them by examples. In this Treatise, the author says, that the instrument took its name from the “inventor,” John Hadley, Esq. and observes, that not only the science of navigation is greatly indebted, to this “incomparable instrument,” but such are its various uses in astronomy, that it may not improperly be called “a portable observatory.” Mr. Vince further observes, that in the year 1742, about ten years after Mr. Hadley’s invention (for so he styles it) was published, a paper in Sir Issac Newton’s own hand-writing was found among Dr. Halley’s papers, after the Doctor’s death, containing a figure and description of an instrument (referring toPhilos. Transactions, No. 465,) not much different in its principle from this of Hadley. He adds, that as Dr. Halley was alive when Mr. Hadley’s instrument was shewn to the Royal Society, and he took no notice of this paper of Sir Isaac Newton, it is probable he did not know there was such an one. In another part of his work (under the head ofThe History of Astronomy, vol. ii. p. 280.) Mr. Vince asserts, that the first person who formed the idea of making a Quadrant to take angles by reflection, was Robert Hook; and he was born in 1635. On the whole, however, the learned author draws this conclusion:—“Both Sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Hadley therefore seem entitled to this invention.”Mr. Lalande, speaking of this instrument, says:“Le“LeQuartier de Reflexion, exécuté en 1731 par Hadley, a donné un moyen facile de mesurer les distances sur mer, à une minute pris, aussi bien determiner le lieu de la Lune en mer.”See hisAstronomie, vol. iii. p. 654.From these facts, and a careful examination of the papers themselves, here quoted and referred to, the scientific reader will be enabled to decide upon the true merits of the controversy that has so long subsisted, concerning the respective claims of Godfrey and of Hadley, to the invention of the instrument that bears the name of the latter.Before this subject is dismissed, however, it will not be deemed improper to add, that the late Dr. John Ewing communicated to the Am. Philosophical Society an account of an Improvement in the construction of (what he terms) “Godfrey’s double reflecting Quadrant,” which he had discovered in the spring or summer of the year 1767: this will be found in the first volume of the Society’s Transactions. In the conclusion of this communication, Dr. Ewing says:—“This improvement of an instrument, which was first invented and constructed by Mr. Godfrey of this city, and which I do not hesitate to call the most useful of all astronomical instruments that the world ever knew, I hope will make it still more serviceable to mankind.”This communication to the Society by Dr. Ewing, was made in the year 1770. In one concerning the comet of that year, and made by Dr. Rittenhouse about the same time, the instrument to which Dr. Ewing’s improvement applies, is called Hadley’s Quadrant: but perhaps Dr. Rittenhouse so named it, in conformity to common usage.

The true inventor of the reflecting Quadrant was Dr. Robert Hook, a very ingenious English mathematician and philosopher, who died in the year 1702, at the age of sixty-seven years. This instrument, now commonly styled Hadley’s, was afterwards rendered much more complete than Dr. Hook’s invention had made it, by Sir Isaac Newton: but our modern artists, more skilful than those of former times, as Mr. Lalande has observed, have profited of the ideas of the great Newton himself, on the subject; and among the later improvers of the Sea Quadrant, or Octant, is Mr. Hadley, whose name the instrument usually bears.

It would, however, be doing an act of injustice to the memory of an American who possessed an extraordinary genius, to omit, in the course of these memoirs, some notice of his merits in relation to this matter. Mr. Thomas Godfrey, a native of Pennsylvania, is said to have turned his attention to this subject, so early as the year 1730; and in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London, No. 435, will be found, an “Account of Mr. Thomas Godfrey’s Improvement of Davis’s Quadrant transferred to the Mariner’s Bow,” drawn up by James Logan, Esq. formerly of Philadelphia, a gentleman of extensive learning, and a very eminent mathematician, Mr. Godfrey is stated to have “sent the instrument (which he had constructed) to be tried at sea by an acquaintance of his, an ingenious navigator, in a voyage to Jamaica, who shewed it to a captain of a ship there, just going for England; by which means, it came to the knowledge of Mr. Hadley, though perhaps without his beingtoldtoldthe name of the real inventor.” [SeeThe American Magazine, for July 1758.] In a letter, dated at Philadelphia the 25th of May, 1732, Mr. Logan, who very ably as well as meritoriously patronized Godfrey, communicated to the celebrated Dr. Edmund Halley a detailed account and description of theimprovedSea-Quadrant constructed by that ingenious citizen of America, of which his patron confidently believed him to be the original inventor. On the 28th of June, 1734, a further account of Godfrey’s invention was drawn up by Mr. Logan, and subscribed with his name; which, it is presumed, was also communicated to the Royal Society: and on the 9th of November, in the same year, Mr. Godfrey transmitted an account of it, draughted and signed by himself, to the same learned body. The whole of these interesting letters, with some accompanying observations on the subject, are published in the valuableMagazinejust referred to, and in the one for the succeeding month.

In the Transactions of the Royal Society, for the months of October, November and December, 1731, No. 421, is contained a Proposal, by Dr. Edmund Halley, for finding the longitude at sea, within a degree or twenty leagues, &c. In the conclusion of this paper, Dr, Halley, in speaking of John Hadley, Esq. VP.R.S, (“to whom,” as he observes, “we are highly obliged for his having perfected and brought into common use the reflecting telescope,”) says—He “has been pleased to communicatehismost ingenious instrument for taking the anglesby reflection,” (referring, here, to the Philos. Trans. No. 420;) “it is more than probable that the same may be applied to taking anglesat sea, with the desired accuracy.”

In Mr. Logan’s account of Mr. Godfrey’s invention, dated June 28, 1734, he says: “Tis now four years since Thomas Godfrey hit on this improvement; for, his account of it, laid before the (Royal) Society last winter, in which he mentioned two years, was wrote in 1732; and in the same year, 1730, after he was satisfied in this, he applied himself to think of the other, viz.the reflecting instrument, by speculums for a help in the case of longitude, though ’tis also useful in taking altitudes: and one of these, as has been abundantly proved by the maker, and those who had it with them, was taken to sea and there used in observing the latitudes the winter of that year, and brought back again to Philadelphia before the end of February 1730–1, and was in my keeping some months immediately after.”

In Mr, Logan’s prior letter to Dr. Halley (dated May 25, 1732,) he says, that about eighteen months before, Godfrey told him, “he had for some time before been thinking of an instrument for taking the distances of stars by reflecting speculums, which he believed might be of service “at sea;” and that, soon after, Godfrey shewed him an instrument, which he had procured to be made, for the purpose. Thus, the time to which Mr. Logan refers Godfrey’s communication of his improvement to him, would make its date to be about the month of November, 1730.

In the Rev. Mr. Vince’s great work, entitled,A Complete System of Astronomy, (and contained in “A Treatise on Practical Astronomy,” at the end of the second volume of that work,) is an entire chapter on “Hadley’s Quadrant;” giving a particular description of the instrument, with rules for the computations from the observations and illustrations of them by examples. In this Treatise, the author says, that the instrument took its name from the “inventor,” John Hadley, Esq. and observes, that not only the science of navigation is greatly indebted, to this “incomparable instrument,” but such are its various uses in astronomy, that it may not improperly be called “a portable observatory.” Mr. Vince further observes, that in the year 1742, about ten years after Mr. Hadley’s invention (for so he styles it) was published, a paper in Sir Issac Newton’s own hand-writing was found among Dr. Halley’s papers, after the Doctor’s death, containing a figure and description of an instrument (referring toPhilos. Transactions, No. 465,) not much different in its principle from this of Hadley. He adds, that as Dr. Halley was alive when Mr. Hadley’s instrument was shewn to the Royal Society, and he took no notice of this paper of Sir Isaac Newton, it is probable he did not know there was such an one. In another part of his work (under the head ofThe History of Astronomy, vol. ii. p. 280.) Mr. Vince asserts, that the first person who formed the idea of making a Quadrant to take angles by reflection, was Robert Hook; and he was born in 1635. On the whole, however, the learned author draws this conclusion:—“Both Sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Hadley therefore seem entitled to this invention.”

Mr. Lalande, speaking of this instrument, says:“Le“LeQuartier de Reflexion, exécuté en 1731 par Hadley, a donné un moyen facile de mesurer les distances sur mer, à une minute pris, aussi bien determiner le lieu de la Lune en mer.”See hisAstronomie, vol. iii. p. 654.

From these facts, and a careful examination of the papers themselves, here quoted and referred to, the scientific reader will be enabled to decide upon the true merits of the controversy that has so long subsisted, concerning the respective claims of Godfrey and of Hadley, to the invention of the instrument that bears the name of the latter.

Before this subject is dismissed, however, it will not be deemed improper to add, that the late Dr. John Ewing communicated to the Am. Philosophical Society an account of an Improvement in the construction of (what he terms) “Godfrey’s double reflecting Quadrant,” which he had discovered in the spring or summer of the year 1767: this will be found in the first volume of the Society’s Transactions. In the conclusion of this communication, Dr. Ewing says:—“This improvement of an instrument, which was first invented and constructed by Mr. Godfrey of this city, and which I do not hesitate to call the most useful of all astronomical instruments that the world ever knew, I hope will make it still more serviceable to mankind.”

This communication to the Society by Dr. Ewing, was made in the year 1770. In one concerning the comet of that year, and made by Dr. Rittenhouse about the same time, the instrument to which Dr. Ewing’s improvement applies, is called Hadley’s Quadrant: but perhaps Dr. Rittenhouse so named it, in conformity to common usage.

Back to Index Next