DAVID GREGORY, 1661–1708
‘Tycho Brahe was also one who used the sword, not to cut into
flesh and bone, but to build up a plainer way among all the stars
of heaven.’—HANS ANDERSEN.
David Gregorie was the third son of his father and name-father, the
Laird of Kinairdy. He was born in a house without the port in the Upper
Kirkgate of Aberdeen, where the tradition of his birth lingered, and was
indeed cherished many a year after the boy had grown to manhood, and had
left his grey birthplace for the richer lands of the South.
The boy’s mother was, it may be remembered, Jean Walker, one of the
Orchiston family, and the child was taught from his babyhood loyalty to
the Stuarts and a passionate adherence to the episcopal form of church
government and teaching, which he carried with him to the grave.
His education he began at the Grammar School, of which Robert Skene was
the rector, and afterwards he studied either at Marischal College or
King’s College. It was at the University of Edinburgh, however, where
his uncle had had such a brilliant if short career, that he took his
degree as Master of Arts in 1683. He was even as a student a man whose
life was commented upon. People talked of his studiousness, of his
joyful temper, and still more of his friendship with Dr Archibald
Pitcairne, whose time was coming to make the tongues of Edinburgh wag.
They really were wonderful friends. Pitcairne studied everything from
sheer love of learning. He was educated in turn for the church, the law,
and for medicine, and besides this he made a great excursion into the
higher mathematics at the instigation of his friend. David Gregorie, on
the other hand, was a pure mathematician, all else in his studies giving
way to his love for his dear ‘Celestial Physicks.’ From his uncle,
James, he had inherited a great number of mathematical manuscripts, and
this inheritance was regarded by him with the deepest veneration. Some
day he would edit all these papers, but meantime many happy hours were
spent by these two friends going over the manuscripts. For David
Gregorie there was moreover much to delight in, in every fresh discovery
that came from the hands of Sir Isaac Newton. Soon he was as ardent an
admirer of the philosopher as ever his uncle had been. If he were made a
professor, Gregorie thought, he would admit none of the Cartesian
fallacies, and already his appointment to the Chair of Mathematics was
being discussed. At the age of twenty-two, then, and actually before
David Gregorie had got his A.M. degree, he was appointed to this Chair
in the Edinburgh University, an office which had not been filled up
since his uncle’s death. Lectures had been given by a student called
John Young, but he was only acting as mathematical tutor, filling the
place temporarily, whereas when Gregory was appointed it was as
professor, with a salary of £1000 (Scots).
In December he gave his inaugural address in Latin, on an Analysis of
Geometrical Progress. The lecture has been lost, but a volume of notes
of his usual course of teaching is preserved in the University Library,
and its range is very large. As has already been said, what chiefly
distinguished David Gregorie was his appreciation of Newton’s ideas. It
was his object to bring down the _Principia_ to the average level of
mathematical minds, and both he and his brother James, who held the
corresponding chair at St Andrews, were teaching Newton’s philosophy
before it was taught at Cambridge. ‘It was not long,’ says Whiston,
‘before I with immense pains, but no assistance, set myself with the
utmost zeal to the study of Sir Isaac Newton’s wonderful discoveries in
his _Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica_, one or two of which
lectures I had heard him read in the publick schools, though I
understood them not at all at that time, being indeed greatly excited
thereto by a paper of Dr Gregory’s when he was professor in Scotland;
wherein he had given the most prodigious commendations to that work, as
not only right in all things, but in a manner the effect of a plainly
divine genius, and had already caused several of his scholars to keep
acts, as we call them, upon several branches of the Newtonian
Philosophy, while we at Cambridge, poor wretches, were ignominiously
studying the fictitious hypothesis of the Cartesian.’
Voltaire wrote of Sir Isaac Newton, that when he died he had not more
than twenty followers in his own country; and, even making allowance for
the unfriendly eyes with which the Frenchman regarded his
contemporaries, there was probably some truth in the statement. Whiston
was professor of mathematics at Cambridge, and writing from that
University, where of all places in the world Newton’s doctrines should
have been earliest taught, it is curious that he should have to
acknowledge that he got his inspiration from Scotland.
In 1684 Professor Gregorie produced his first work, which was entitled
_Exercitatio Geometrica de Dimensione Figurarum, sive Specimen Methodi
Generalis [dimetiendi] Quasvis Figuras_. In it he makes much reference
to the speculations of his uncle, to whom he was at least partially
indebted for his materials, and there is little, if any, original work.
The book was not widely read, but it was said to have given ‘a public
proof of his competency to discharge the duties of the important office
to which he had been appointed.’
David Gregorie was appointed in 1683 in the reign of Charles II., but
during his six years in the professoriate many changes had come about.
William and Mary were on the throne, and not unnaturally it was
considered necessary by the new Government that steps should be taken to
ascertain the political opinion of those men to whom was entrusted the
instruction of the youth of the land.
* * * * *
At Edinburgh,
July iv., MDCXC.
‘The Rolls of Parliament called Act for Visitation of Universities,
Colledges & Schoolls.
‘Our Soveraigne Lord and Lady, the King and Queen’s Majesties and the
three Estates of Parliament considering how necessarie it is for the
advancement of Religion and Learning and for the good of the Church and
peace of the Kingdom that the universities, colledges, and schoolls be
provided and served with pious, able and qualified professors,
principalls, regents, masters, and others bearing office therein well
affected to their Majesties and the established government of Church and
State. Therefore their Majesties with advyce of the said three Estates
of Parliament, doe statute, ordaine, and enact, that from this time
forth, no Professors, Principalls, Regents, Masters, or others bearing
office in any university, colledge, or schooll within this Kingdome be
either admitted or allowed to continue in the exercise of their saids
functions but such as doe acknowledge and profess, and shall subscryve
to the confession of faith ratified and approven by this present
Parliament, and alsoe sweare and subscryve the oath of allegiance to
their Majesties; And withall shall be found to bee of a pious, loyal and
peaceable conversation, and of good and sufficient literature and
abilities for their rexive Imployments, and submitting to the government
of the Church now settled by Law, and albeit it be their Majesties
undoubted right and prerogative to name visitors and cause visite the
forsaid universities, colledges and schoolls, yet at this tyme their
Majesties are pleased to nominate and appoint with advyce and consent
forsaid the persons under named, viz., The Duke of Hamilton, Earle of
Argyle et alii To meet and visite all universities, colledges and
schoolls within this Kingdom, and to take tryall of the present
Professors, Principalls, Regents, Masters and others bearing office
therein according to the qualifications and rules above mentioned, and
such as shall be found to be erroneous, scandalous, negligent,
insufficient, or disaffected to their Majestie’s Government, or who
shall not subscryve the Confession of faith, sweare and subscryve the
oath of allegiance and submitt to the government of the Church now
settled by Law to purge out and remove. As alsoe to consider the
foundations of the saids Universities colledges and schoolls, with the
rents and revenues thereof, and how the same have been administred and
manadged and to sett down such rules and methods for the good
manadgement thereof for hereafter. As likewise for ordering the saids
universities, colledges and schoolls, and the professions and manner of
teaching therein and all things else relateng thereto as they shall
thinke most meet and convenient according to the foundations thereof,
and consistent with the present established government of Church and
State. And to the effect that these presents may be more surely execute.
Their Majesties with advyce forsaid, doe farther Impower the forsaids
persons visitors or their quorum to appoint Committees of such numbers
of their own members as they shall thinke fitt to visite the severall
Universities and Colledges within this Kingdom, with the Schoolls within
the bounds to be designed to them, and that according to such
instructions and injunctions as they shall thinke fitt to give them; And
to the effect that upon report made be the said Committee to the
aforsaid visitors or their quorum they may proceede and conclude
thereupon as they shall see cause; And their Majesties appoints the
forsaids visitors to meet at Edinburgh upon the twenty third day of July
instant for the first dyet of their meeting with power to them to
adjourne and appoint their own meetings to such dayes and places as for
thereafter they shall judge convenient; And this Commission to endure ay
and while their Majesties recall and discharge the same.’
* * * * *
This large commission therefore which was appointed to deal with the
universities and schools in Scotland, met in Edinburgh in the Common
Hall under the presidency of the Lord Provost in July 1690.
The Principal, Alexander Monro, was tried first, and a sentence of
deprivation was passed upon him, as also upon Dr Strachan, Professor of
Divinity. When Gregorie’s turn came, he like those who had gone before
was accused by men of whose names he was kept in ignorance, whose
statements he could but feel were libellous, malicious and false. The
lay portion of the commission were inclined to favour him, and when they
enquired into his conduct as a teacher, he was able to present an
admirable report of his public lessons for three years. At the same time
he would not subscribe to the Confession of Faith, and so it came about
that when he recommenced his lectures in the ensuing month of December,
he did not know whether he was to continue in the possession of his
chair, neither were Dr Archibald Pitcairne nor Lord Tarbat, his constant
supporters in all this time of trial, able absolutely to reassure him on
the point. John Hill Burton, in his chapter on the ecclesiastical
settlements says that ‘Dr Gregorie, the only truly great man among the
Episcopalian professors, was wisely spared.’ But for him the suspense
and anxiety were very tedious, and he was glad when a prospect opened
out before him of quitting the university in which he had been subjected
to so much annoyance.
The opening occurred through the resignation of Dr Bernard, Savilian
Professor of Astronomy in the University of Oxford, to whose chair Dr
Gregorie thought he might aspire. It was of the first importance that he
should receive the support of Sir Isaac Newton in his application, so he
went at once to London to be introduced to him. Sir Isaac was much
pleased with him, and wrote him a testimonial, dated London, July 1691.
* * * * *
‘Being desired by Mr David Gregorie, Mathematics Professor of the
Colledge in Edinburgh to testifie my knowledge of him, and having known
him by his printed Mathematical performances, and by discoursing with
travellers from Scotland, and of late by conversing with him, I do
account him one of the most able and judicious Mathematicians of his age
now living. He is very well skilled in analysis and geometry, both new
and old. He has been conversant in the best writers about astronomy, and
understands that science very well. He is not only acquainted with
books, but his invention in Mathematical things is also good. He has
performed his duty at Edinburgh with credit, as I hear, and advanced the
Mathematicks. He is reputed the greatest Mathematician in Scotland, and
that deservedly, so far as my knowledge reaches, for I esteem him an
ornament to his country, and upon these accounts do recommend him to the
duties of the Astronomy Professor into the place in Oxford now
vacant.—_sic subscribitur_.
IS. NEWTON, _Math. Prof., Cantab._’
* * * * *
Nor did Sir Isaac’s kindness end here, for he wrote a letter to
Flamsteed, the Astronomer Royal, asking for his influence in the
appointment. Flamsteed responded with great kindness, only mentioning
the fact that if his old friend Mr Caswell insisted on standing for the
vacant chair, he would be obliged to support him. In the end of his
letter, Sir Isaac, while mentioning his anxiety to have Flamsteed’s
observations on Jupiter and Saturn for the next twelve or fifteen years,
adds: ‘If you and I live not long enough, Mr Gregorie and Mr Halley are
young men,’ thus indicating that he thought them fit to carry on his
work.
Edmund Halley, who was the other candidate for the professorship of
astronomy, had from a scientific point of view stronger claims to the
appointment. To him the world is indebted for the publication of
Newton’s _Principia_, which Halley undertook at his own expense, seeing
that the Royal Society made difficulties about the money, and that
Newton himself was too poor, and possibly too much engrossed in his
study, to take the burden of it on his own shoulders. But Halley was an
infidel, and this disqualified him in the eyes of the patrons of the
chair. Sir Henry Savile had left his professorships open to candidates
of any Christian Nation ‘if they were of good report and correct
demeanour, eminently skilled in mathematics, possessed of at least a
moderate knowledge of the Greek language, and if they had attained the
age of twenty-six years.’ He had left the election in the hands of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the
University, the Bishop of London, the Principal Secretary of State, the
two Chief Justices, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer and the Dean of
Arches. With an electorate composed of such men, Edmund Halley, holding
the views which he acknowledged at that time, had no chance of election.
Whiston in his _Memoir_ says that ‘Bishop Stillingfleet was desired to
recommend him at court, but hearing that he was a sceptick, and a
banterer of religion, he scrupled to be concerned, till his chaplain Mr
Bentley should talk with him about it, which he did. But Mr Halley was
so sincere in his infidelity, that he would not so much as pretend to
believe the Christian religion, though he thereby was likely to lose a
professorship.’
David Gregorie then (or Gregory, as he now began to call himself), with
the support of Sir Isaac Newton, and because of Halley’s religious
views, was appointed professor.
He had entered at Balliol, was incorporated A.M. on the 6th of February
1692, took the degree of M.D., and was subsequently admitted to the
chair.
In the previous year he had been made a Fellow of the Royal Society, and
it was not long before he began to contribute to their volumes. He sent
in a beautiful solution of the Florentine problem, which Viviani had
sent as a challenge to British Mathematicians. His work was masterly,
and delighted geometers, and in Oxford he found time to write much more
than he had in Scotland, where teaching had always had to come first. He
next wrote a defence of his uncle against the Abbé Gallois, who accused
him of plagiarising from Roberval, and then followed his work on the
properties of the Catenaria or the curve made by a chain fixed at both
ends. In the course of this he was the first to observe that, by
inverting this curve, the legitimate form of an arch is arrived at.
In 1695 David Gregory married Elizabeth, a daughter of Mr Oliphant of
Langton. His marriage is commemorated in a Latin ode written by his
friend Anthony Alsop, a student of Christ Church, and published in his
works.
Shortly after his marriage he brought out his great book, _Catoptricae
et Dioptricae Sphericae Elementa_, which turns out for the comfort of
the ignorant to be a great work on looking-glasses and lenses.
The book came as a revelation to many men in that day, for in it Gregory
tried to simplify his subject, and to make it clear to the many instead
of to the few. He was rewarded with praise, and his book was promised
immortality. How changed are things in the present day, when to none of
our writers will criticism promise celebrity exceeding at the outside
two generations. _Keill_ blossomed out into poetry: ‘It will last as
long as the sun and moon endure,’ and it is just possible that it may—in
the Bodleian Library!—only that was not what Keill meant.[2]
Footnote 2:
John Keill, 1671–1721, was born in Edinburgh. Was Professor of
Astronomy at Oxford and an active member of the Royal Society. He died
of a ‘violent fever’ at Oxford on Thursday, August 31st 1721, a few
days after entertaining ‘the Vice Chancellor and other academic
dignitaries at his house in Holywell Street with wine and punch.’ He
is buried in St Mary’s Church.
Comparatively unnoticed at the time was a suggestion made in this book
about mirrors and lenses with regard to following Nature in the
construction of a telescope. It was almost certainly Pitcairne who had
explained to Gregory the strange mechanism of the human eye, and how in
Nature objects before they fall on the retina pass through both the
vitreous humour and the crystalline lens. Gregory pointed out that
Nature does nothing in vain, and suggested that, in imitation of Nature,
the object glasses of telescopes might be composed of media of different
density, and that an instrument made on this principle would probably
produce much clearer vision than any then in use. After Dollond had
brought out his beautiful achromatic glasses the meaning of Gregory’s
suggestion became clear, but it is a curious fact that neither James
Gregorie, who invented the reflecting telescope, nor David Gregory, who
suggested the achromatic telescope, should ever have seen the practical
result of their imaginations.
Life in Oxford for Gregory turned out, as is often the case, to be
rather different from his anticipations. He had looked forward to years
of studious peace; but the reality, while it answered his expectation in
giving him much time for study, had surrounded him with men prepared to
be unfriendly towards him. ‘The Scotchman’ received much contumely in
Oxford, possibly more than would otherwise have been the case, because
he was so well known to the outside world. Some of Hearne’s Collections
have the full flavour of the sort of annoyance to which he must have
been subjected, an annoyance none the less irritating to Gregory because
the facts so generally disagreed with the views expressed about him.
Compare the two following passages, which are evidently meant to
describe the same circumstance.
‘In 1702, David Gregory produced at Oxford his most important treatise,
_Astronomiae Physicae et Geometricae Elementa_. In this were included
several propositions communicated by Newton, being results which their
author had not obtained at the time of the publication of the first
edition of the _Principia_, but was anxious to bring before the public
at once without waiting for the second edition of his own work.’ * * *
‘It may here likewise be observed that men well skilled in Mathematics
scruple not to say that David Gregory has stole most of his astronomy
from Isaac Newton, whom he has mentioned with some little acknowledgment
but not so often as he should have done, which, as ‘tis said, has put
Sir Isaac on a new edition of his _Principia_.’
How different these two stories are it is easy to see, and although Sir
Isaac never expressed the sentiments assigned to him by Hearne, nor, it
is likely enough, would Gregory ever have this charge made directly to
him, yet it is impossible but that the Savilian professor occasionally
felt the sting of such mischief-making.
Gregory’s great ally was Dr Charlett, the Master of University College,
but besides him, he numbered amongst his friends, Halley, who obtained
the Savilian Chair of Geometry, Dr Hudson, Dr Smalridge, Dr Wallis and
Dr Aldrich, between each of whom and Gregory, Hearne seemed determined
to make bad feeling. As was quite natural, these men, working along the
same lines, had often to use each other’s materials, but Hearne always
represented Gregory as pirating the results of their labour without
acknowledgment. The statement of his indebtedness, only given once, was
petulantly regarded as insufficient, and even inverted commas did not
mollify his wrath. In fact, Gregory committed the only sin which Dickens
says is unpardonable—he was successful—and the commoner men in Oxford,
who could not regard anything Scottish without disapprobation, would not
forgive him. When Hearne took exception to ‘the Scotchman’s Greek’ he
was on safe ground and no one regretted this more than did Professor
Gregory himself, who was held up for ridicule by Hearne because ‘men
took him for an oracle.’ When he commenced the publication of his
edition of the ancient mathematicians, he arranged with Dr Hudson that,
while he himself would be responsible for the mathematics, Hudson should
see to the correctness of the Greek. In this series too, Gregory and
Halley undertook an edition of the Conics of Apollonius, but it was not
completed till after Gregory’s death.
If Gregory was not universally appreciated at Oxford, at the court he
was in great favour, probably through the influence of Bishop Burnet,
who had been at college with his uncle. He was appointed mathematical
preceptor to the Princess Anne’s son, the young Duke of Gloucester, and
here again, if we are to believe Hearne, the choice of the court was
received with universal disapprobation.
His honours, however, were only enjoyed in anticipation, for the boy
died before his duties as tutor had commenced.
Gregory was now busy trying to compass some reformations in the Oxford
curriculum. He drew up a new scheme for an under-graduate’s course of
study, which was sent by Dr Charlett for Mr Pepys’ approval. ‘I send you
enclosed a scheme of David Gregory’s not yet in any other hand, with a
desire that you would, with the freedom of a man of honour and a
scholar, examine, correct, alter and improve it, as may make the design
most beneficial to youth (especially of the Nobility and Gentry) and
redound most to the honour of the University and our Professors and the
promotion of learning.’
Gregory’s plan was that the teaching should be given in English, which
was certainly a sensible proposal, that the undergraduates should study
some Euclid, trigonometry, algebra, mechanics, catoptrics, and
dioptrics, astronomy, the theory of the planets and navigation. ‘The
teacher,’ he said, ‘should be always ready to gratify the request of
those who desire his instruction. If possible, the students should have
a printed book on the subject; if not, the lecturer will take care
timeously to give those of the class proper notes to be written by them.
And lastly, if any students were found hungering and thirsting, they
were to be given regular demonstrations of the operations of integers,
or fractions, vulgar or decimal—when they pleased.’ As to the proper
numbers for a class, Gregory said they should be not less than ten and
not more than twenty. The course here touched on was described very
fully in the paper sent to Mr Pepys, and Mr Pepys’ answer is rather
refreshing.
‘REVEREND SIR, ... As little qualified as I truly am, for offering aught
upon a scheme digested with the thoughtfulness and skill of its learned
author, legible in every line of it, the terms nevertheless wherein you
require my opinion and advice concerning it, joined with the dignity of
its subject and quality of the persons for whom it is calculated, are so
forcible, that I cannot omit observing to you my missing two things....
First—_Music_—a science peculiarly productive of a pleasure that no
state of life, public or private, secular or sacred, no difference of
age or season, no temper of mind, or condition of health exempt from
present anguish, nor, lastly, distinction of quality, render either
improper, untimely, or unentertaining.[3] My other want is what possibly
may be thought of less weight; but what nevertheless holds no lower a
place with me on this occasion (whether for ornament, delight, solid
use, or ease of carriage both at home and abroad), than any other
quality a gentleman can bear about him, though none less thought on, or
(which is more) of less difficulty in the attaining ... I mean
Perspective: not barely as falling within the explication of vision, or
serving only to the laying down of objects of sight, but with the
improvement of it, to the enabling our honourable student gracefully to
finish and embellish the same, with its just heightenings and
shadowings, as far as expressible in black and white; thereby when in
foreign travels to know how by his own skill to entertain himself in
taking the appearances of all he meets with, as remarkable, whether of
palaces or of other fabrics, ruins, fortifications, ports, moles, or
other public views.’
Footnote 3:
Mr Pepys, who, as we know from his Diary as well as from Evelyn, was
skilled in music, had thus an opportunity of expressing his views on
that subject.
Mr Pepys was slightly distressed at the suggestion that English should
take the place of Latin as the language in which teaching was given, not
because he did not think it necessary, but he was afraid lest the honour
of the university should be affected by such a change. Whether these
proposals were carried into effect then is uncertain, but the Savilian
professor came into closer connection with Mr Pepys during the few years
that elapsed before his death, being especially upon one occasion, made
the bearer of tender thanks from the university to Mr Pepys, who had
commissioned Sir Godfrey Kneller to paint Dr Wallis’ portrait for the
university. The drawing was done in Dr Gregory’s house, where the
reverend old man was happy and at his ease, and the picture of him is
pleasant. In the list of the persons to whom rings and mourning were
presented on the occasion of Mr Pepys’ death and funeral, Dr Gregory, Dr
Wallis and Dr Charlett, are all inserted as recipients of the most
expensive rings. Others who received tokens of regard, though not such
costly ones, were Sir Cloudesly Shovel, and Sir George Rooke; Mr William
Penn was honoured with a 20s. ring.
In 1704 Sir Isaac Newton became President of the Royal Society, amidst
general content. Prince George of Denmark was interested in astronomy,
and only wanted to be shewn how he could most wisely help this science
forward; and now thought Sir Isaac, if the prince gave the money, there
was no reason why Flamsteed’s laborious and accurate observations of the
heavens should not be published, for the help of him and all like him,
who were studying what Gregory calls ‘the Celestial Physicks.’ He
approached the Astronomer Royal, and after considerable difficulty,
persuaded him to draw up an estimate of his observations, which was
shewn to the prince. Prince George’s decision was made very rapidly, for
though he was far from brilliant, (as Charles the Second wittily said,
‘I have tried Prince George sober and I have tried him drunk; and drunk
or sober there is nothing in him’), he had at least one great merit,
that he recognised his own limitations. Feeling that the papers before
him conveyed absolutely nothing to his uninstructed mind, he appointed
some members of the Royal Society to act as referees and see that the
publication of Flamsteed’s _Catalogue of the Constellations_ was carried
out correctly. As referees he nominated Sir Isaac, Dr Gregory, Sir
Christopher Wren, Dr Arbuthnot, and the Hon. F. Robarts. Their work
proved very laborious: Flamsteed was a delicate, irritable man, and
Greenwich in these old coach days was a long way from London; but the
referees had made up their minds to carry the business through, and, as
the dispensers of the prince’s bounty, and protectors of public
interest, they drew up articles binding themselves as well as Flamsteed
and the printer to perform their relative obligations. So slow and
fretful however was the course of this joint effort, that neither the
princely benefactor nor Gregory, whom he had appointed a referee, lived
to see the work completed.
Gregory had, in 1702, dedicated his _Book on the Elements of Astronomy_,
to the prince, drawing a comparison while he did it between Prince
George of Denmark, the patron of science, and that King of Denmark who
had so wisely given to the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, the
wonderful observatory of Uraniborg—the city of the heavens.
The Preface of this book begins quaintly with a delicious run of mixed
metaphors—‘My Design in publishing this Book, was, that the Celestial
Physicks, which the most sagacious Kepler had got the scent of, but the
Prince of Geometers, Sir Isaac Newton, brought to such a pitch as
surprises all the World, might by my Care and Pains in illustrating
them, become easier to such as are desirous of being acquainted with
Philosophy and Astronomy.’ In this book there is a most curious mixture
of history, imagination, ideas of Newton’s, which the philosopher had
communicated to him, and observations. It was of course, as was usual at
that time, written in Latin, but Edmund Stone translated it into English
in 1726, and this was the book which Samuel Johnson read with so much
acceptance in some of his dull days in the Island of Coll. Gregory
imagined the stars as they would appear to the inhabitants of the
satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, and gave to his book that
inexpressible charm of individuality, so often present in the Gregories’
writings, which makes them draw portraits of themselves as they write
their books. In this treatise he elucidated the principles of astronomy
with all the wonderful improvements made in his day, and Newton himself
considered it a masterly explanation in defence of his philosophy.
Every now and then Gregory would go to spend some weeks with his friend
at Cambridge. On one of these visits it was that Sir Isaac had occasion
to express his views upon the superstitions of the day. He passed a
house opposite St John’s College, which was supposed to be haunted, and
round the doors was collected a crowd not only of undergraduates but of
Fellows, and some of them Fellows of Trinity. Noticing that some of the
rabble were carrying arms, his anger burst out. ‘Oh, ye fools,’ he said,
‘will ye never have any wit? Know ye not that all such things are mere
cheats and impostures? Fie! fie! Go home, for shame.’
When Gregory arrived at Cambridge he was always full of messages for Sir
Isaac, and when he left, equally so with messages from him. In this way
he saw a good deal of all the important mathematicians and astronomers
then living in Great Britain, and very likely it added to his already
considerable reputation. In 1705 he was elected an Honorary Fellow of
the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and on the 4th of October
he took his seat at the Board. This was no doubt an honour obtained for
him by his friend Pitcairne, who was then examiner, but Gregory could
not spend much time away from England.
When the negotiations for the Union between Scotland and England began,
Gregory was appointed along with Paterson, the founder of the Bank of
England, to decide what equivalent was to be paid to Scotland for
bearing her share of the debt of England, which was of course afterwards
to be considered as the debt of Great Britain. Amongst the many thorny
questions which emerged in the course of the deliberations about the
Union, there was none about which so many difficulties arose. Sir John
Clerk of Penicuik, who had so much to do with the affairs of Scotland at
that time, wrote his views upon the criticisms of the general public on
this matter.
‘Amongst all the articles of the Treaty of Union,’ he says, ‘there has
been none more talked of and less understood than the 15th, concerning
the Rise, Nature and Management of the Equivalents.
‘Upon this subject those who desired to be thought very wise, of deep
understanding, and Great reach of Thought, did vent themselves with a
certain Air, as if they pitied the Credulity and Ignorance of the
Contrivors, and so had Recourse to the ordinary Refuge of dull People,
who think they show their wit by laughing at what they do not
understand.’
Of such commentators Gregory no doubt had his share, and the question
was one which was of necessity unintelligible to the ordinary mind, but
those who were in authority were absolutely satisfied with the manner in
which the work was done. It was a long task, and involved many journeys,
including one to Scotland, to set things on a proper working basis. Of
this prospect he writes to Dr Charlett, the Master of University
College.
* * * * *
‘LONDON, _20 June, 1707_.
REVEREND SIR,—The occasion of giving you this present trouble is to
recommend to your civility My Lord Deskford and his Governour. He is son
to the Earle of Seafield, Lord Chancellor of Scotland. He is to stay two
or three months at Oxford. He has been regularly educated at the
University, and has past some time beyond sea. You will find him a sober
and grave young Nobleman. You may depend upon it, that he is what you
and I wish all such as him in Church affairs and all thereunto
belonging. I know I need say no more.
‘Though Dr Arbuthnot gott a promise of the N.T. from the Queen, He has
not yet gott the book it self. It was forgotten to be laid out before
the Queen went to Windsore.
‘Before I see you again, I am like to be sent by My Lord Treasurer into
Scotland, to see that the Mint there be regulated upon the same foot
with that of the Tower, as to the Standart of the Silver and Gold, the
Pieces of Moneys, the Weights, the Rateing and Standarding, and the
formes and manner of keeping the Books of the Mint, and I have been
somewhat taken up with seeing and informing myself of everything of this
nature in the Tower. I shall, I hope return before Michaelmass; but if I
should be 2 or 3 weeks after the beginning of the Term, I hope you will
excuse it, and every body concern’d.
‘As for what you propose to be done with the Mulctes, I am very clear
for it, Sir Henry Savile’s and Dr Wallis’s Armes will be very proper.
‘I hope to have an occasion to write to you again before I part. I am
with all respect and esteem,
‘Reverend Sir,
‘Your most oblidged and most humble servant,
‘D. GREGORY.’
* * * * *
When the Union really came, it was very unpopular in Scotland and rather
unpopular in England. Dr Arbuthnot published in Edinburgh a pamphlet
with the title _A sermon preached to the people at the Mercat Cross of
Edinburgh; on the subject of the Union_. In it he forcibly argued
against the foolish prejudice of his own country. He pointed out the
intimate conjunction between Pride, Poverty and Idleness (’this is a
worse union a great deal than that which we are to discourse of at
present’). ‘Better is he that laboureth,’ he said in concluding, ‘and
aboundeth in all things than he that boasteth himself, and wanteth
bread.’ The populace, however, was by no means in the humour to be
cajoled by any man’s wit, and even Dr Arbuthnot, who, according to
Samuel Johnson, was the greatest writer of Queen Anne’s reign, found
himself unable to create anything but ungraciousness.
Dr Arbuthnot was a very constant friend towards Gregory, and the day was
fast drawing near when the professor should truly require his help.
Symptoms of serious illness appeared in 1708, and Dr Gregory was advised
to try the effect of the waters at Bath. He felt himself that his
journey would be in vain, and often tried to prepare his wife for his
being taken from her very suddenly. There was much to disturb the
quietness of his mind, his children were ill in London, and he was full
of anxiety for them and yet unable to go to them. After a wretched time
at Bath, it was decided that he should return to London, but at
Maidenhead he became so ill, that he could not be moved. Dr Arbuthnot,
who was sent for from Windsor, found him sinking, and on the 10th of
October 1708 he died.
The news was sent to Oxford by this kind physician in a letter to Dr
Charlett, Gregory’s best friend.
* * * * *
‘MAIDENHEAD, GREYHOUND INN,
Tues. 3½ afternoon,
_Oct. 10, 1708_.
‘DEAR SIR,—This gives you the bad news of the death of our dear friend,
Dr Gregory, who dy’d about one a clock this afternoon, in this Inn on
his way to London from Bath. He sent to me last night to Windsor; I
found him in a resolution to go forward to London this morning, from
which I happily disswaded [him] finding him in a dying condition. He has
a child his only daughter dead at London of the small pox, of which
neither he nor his wife knew anything off, for I would not tell them;
the rest of his family lye sick of the same disease, so you may easily
guess what a disconsolate condition his poor widow must find herself in.
She would be glad to see you to advyce about his burying. My present
thought and advyce is to bury him at Oxford, where he is known, amongst
those who will shew a great deal of respect to his memory, and it is
allmost the same distance from this place as London. Mrs Gregory begs
the favour to see you here if possible, being one of his most intimate
friends, whom he allwayes confided in. I am in great grief and shall
stay here as long as I can in hopes of seeing you. If I am not here you
will find his brother-in-law, Dr Oliphant.
‘I am, Dear Sir,
‘Your most humble servant,
‘JO. ARBUTHNOTT.’
* * * * *
Dr Smalridge also wrote to him.
* * * * *
‘_Oct. 16th 1708._
‘REVEREND SIR,—You had sooner heard from me, but that my thoughts of
late have been very much discompos’d by Severall Melancholy Objects. On
Friday y^e last week I lost a dear child, of whom I was extremely fond,
and all that knew Him excused me for being so. I find all y^e Philosophy
I have, little enough to make me easie on this sad Occasion. The Images
do at present return thick upon Me, but I hope in a little time to find
y^m less afflictive. My wound would have been sooner heal’d had it not
been kept open by the Occasions I have had to give Others y^t comfort
which I have wanted myself. On Tuesday I went with Mrs Arbuthnot towards
Brentford to meet Dr Gregory and his Wife who were expected that day
from Maidenhead. My errand was to inform y^m of the death of their Girl,
of whom they were extremely fond, they left Her well when they went to
y^e Bath, and she died on Friday was sennight. We met not y^e coach We
expected, and when We returned, We found a letter was sent from Mrs
Gregory to her brother Dr Oliphant begging y^t he would come down to
Maidenhead to y^e Dr, who was very ill. She came to Town on Thursday
Night a very disconsolate Widow. The Doctor died on Tuesday-morning and
was buried on Wednesday-Night at Maidenhead. A messenger was despatched
to Hambledon to fetch you to Him, if you had been there. Mr Lesley came
from y^e Bath with Him and assisted Him in his sickness, and in
extremis. Dr Arbuthnot from Windsor came to Him. It seems He always told
his Wife that He should be but short-lived, and of late has often
desir’d Her to be prepared for his being taken from Her very quickly.
When his last Suit of Cloaths was made, He said He should not live to
wear them out. When He went out of Town, He did not expect to come home
again alive; and when He left y^e Bath to return He thought He should
not be able to reach y^e town. I am told that He has left his Family in
very good Circumstances. I am afraid his tender con[cern] for y^m was
prejudicial to his Health. He was an affectionate Husband, a tender
Father, an excellent Scholar, a man of great Experience and Prudence, of
good temper, of sober and religious principles, and One whom those who
had the happiness to be acquainted with Him will much miss. I visited
y^e Widow Yesterday, who bears her Affliction with as much patience and
resignation as can be expected. I hope her Husband’s Friends will do
what they can to make her loss less insupportable.
‘I am, Sir
‘Your H. Servant
‘G. S.’
* * * * *
On her return to Oxford Mrs Gregory put up a monument to her husband’s
memory in the nave of St Mary’s Church. After Professor Gregory’s death,
Colin Maclaurin published of Gregory’s work _A Treatise on Practical
Geometry_. The first edition was sold out within a few years, and a
second was called for, as this book was in its day used as a text-book
in all the Scottish Universities.
Professor Gregory has been accused of spending too little of his time in
the observatory, and he was undoubtedly greater as a mathematician than
as an astronomer. It was as a pure mathematician that he held the high
place which was his in the eighteenth century.