Sir,--I cannot gather from your "Notes" that scientific archæology is
included in your plan, nor yet, on the other hand, any indications of
its exclusion. Science, however, and especially mathematical science,
has its archæology; and many doubtful points of great importance are
amongst the "vexed questions" that can only be cleared up by
_documentary evidence_. That evidence is more likely to be found mixed
up amongst the masses of papers belonging to systematic collectors than
amongst the papers of mere mathematicians--amongst men who never destroy
a paper because they have no present use for it, or because the subject
does not come within the range of their researches, than amongst men who
value nothing but a "new theorem" or "an improved solution."
As a general rule I have always habituated myself to preserve every
scrap of paper of any remote (and indeed recent) period, that had the
appearance of being written by a literary man, whether I {133} knew the
hand, or understood the circumstance to which it referred, or not. Such
papers, whether we understand them or not, have a _possible value_ to
others; and indeed, as my collections have always been at the service of
my friends, very few indeed have been left in my hands, and those,
probably, of no material value.
I wish this system were generally adopted. Papers, occasionally of great
historical importance, and very often of archæological interest, would
thus be preserved, and, what is more, _used_, as they would thus
generally find their way into the right hands.
There are, I fancy, few classes of papers that would be so little likely
to interest archæologists in general, as those relating to mathematics;
and yet such are not unlikely to fall in their way, often and largely,
if they would take the trouble to secure them. I will give an example or
two, indicating the kind of papers which are desiderata to the
mathematical historian.
1. A letter from Dr. Robert Simson, the editor of Euclid and the
restorer of the Porisms, to John Nourse of the Strand, is missing from
an otherwise unbroken series, extending from 1 Jan. 1751 to near the
close of Simson's life. The missing letter, as is gathered from a
subsequent one, is Feb. 5. 1753. A mere letter of business from an
author to his publisher might not be thought of much interest; but it
need not be _here_ enforced how much of consistency and clearness is
often conferred upon a series of circumstances by matter which such a
letter might contain. This letter, too, contains a problem, the nature
of which it would be interesting to know. It would seem that the letter
passed into the hands of Dodson, editor of the _Mathematical
Repository_; but what became of Dodson's papers I could never discover.
The uses, however, to which such an unpromising series of letters have
been rendered subservient may be seen in the _Philosophical Magazine_,
under the title of "Geometry and Geometers," Nos. ii. iii. and iv. The
letters themselves are in the hands of Mr. Maynard, Earl's Court,
Leicester Square.
2. Thomas Simpson (a name venerated by every geometer) was one of the
scientific men consulted by the committee appointed to decide upon the
plans for Blackfriars Bridge, in 1759 and 1760.
"It is probable," says Dr. Hutton, in his Life of Simpson,
prefixed to the _Select Exercises_, 1792, "that this reference
to him gave occasion to his turning his thoughts more seriously
to this subject, so as to form the design of composing a regular
treatise upon it: for his family have often informed me that he
laboured hard upon this work for some time before his death, and
was very anxious to have completed it, frequently remarking to
them that this work, when published, would procure him more
credit than any of his former publications. But he lived not to
put the finishing hand to it. Whatever he wrote upon this
subject probably fell, together with all his other remaining
papers, into the hands of Major Henry Watson, of the Engineers,
in the service of the India Company, being in all a large chest
full of papers. This gentleman had been a pupil of Mr.
Simpson's, and had lodged in his house. After Mr. Simpson's
death Mr. Watson prevailed upon the widow to let him have the
papers, promising either to give her a sum of money for them, or
else to print and publish them for her benefit. But nothing of
the kind was ever done; this gentleman always declaring, when
urged on this point by myself and others, that no use could be
made of any of the papers, owing to the very imperfect state in
which he said they were left. _And yet he persisted in his
refusal to give them up again._"
In 1780 Colonel Watson was recalled to India, and took out with him one
of the most remarkable English mathematicians of that day, Reuben
Burrow. This gentleman had been assistant to Dr. Maskelyne at the Royal
Observatory; and to his care was, in fact, committed the celebrated
Schehallien experiments and observations. He died in India, and, I
believe, all his papers which reached England, as well as several of his
letters, are in my possession. This, however, is no further of
consequence in the present matter, than to give authority to a remark I
am about to quote from one of his letters to his most intimate friend,
Isaac Dalby. In this he says:--"Colonel Watson has out here a work of
Simpson's on bridges, very _complete_ and _original_."
It was no doubt by his dread of the sleepless watch of Hutton, that so
unscrupulous a person as Colonel Watson is proved to be, was deterred
from publishing Simpson's work as his own.
The desideratum here is, of course, to find what became of Colonel
Watson's papers; and then to ascertain whether this and what other
writings of Simpson's are amongst them. A _really good_ work on the
mathematical theory of bridges, if such is ever to exist, has yet to be
published. It is, at the same time, very likely that his great
originality, and his wonderful sagacity in all his investigations, would
not fail him in this; and possibly a better work on the subject was
composed ninety years ago than has yet seen the light--involving,
perhaps, the germs of a totally new and more effective method of
investigation.
I have, I fear, already trespassed too far upon your space for a single
letter; and will, therefore, defer my notice of a few other desiderata
till a future day.