Tu homo artis has traho hosti mufa
Homo has vt artis O trahit hos mufa
Homo hasta vtris oh, os trahit mufa
vitus oho trahit mifas
rutis oho, trahis mutis
Humo astra hosti oho, fum Charitas.
If the pertingent Reader still craves more evidence of the extent of
Hariot’s friendships, and the universality of his acquirements, let him
read the following pithy, quaint, and beautiful tribute paid to him by
blind Old Homer’s Chapman in 1616. It is found in the Preface to the
Reader in the first complete edition of Homer’sworks translated by
George Chapman, London [1616], fo.
No coference had with any one liuing in al the noueltiet I prefume I
haue found. Only fome one or two places I haue fhewed to my worthy and
moft learned friend, M. Harriots, for his cenfure how much mine owne
weighed: whofe iudgement and knowledge in all kinds, I know to be
incomparable, and bottomlefle ; yea, to be admired as much, as his moft
blameles life, and the right facred expence of his time, is to be
honoured and reuerenced. Which affirmation of his cleare vnmatchednefle
in all manner of learning; I make in contempt of that naftie objection
often thruft vpon me ; that he that will iudge, muft know more then he
of whom he iudgeth ; for fo a man fhould know neither God nor himfelf.
Another right learned, honeft, and entirely loued friend of mine, M.
Robert Hews, I muft needs put into my confest conference touching
Homer, though very little more than that I had with M. Harriots. Which
two, I proteft, are all, and preferred to all.
It remains to say two words more about Baron Zach’s’ discovery’ of the
Hariot papers at Petworth in 1784. This remarkable story has been told
many times, in many books, and in many languages. It has found its way
into many modern dictionaries and grave encyclopædias, but it always
appears with an unsatisfactory and suspicious flavor. Dr Zach’s
‘discovery’ is found cropping up all over the continent, and everywhere
is made paramount to Hariot’s papers, while Oxford is blamed for not
giving the young German his dues!
It seems that Dr Zach, a young man, was in England with Count Bruhl,
who had married the dowager Lady Egremont. He thus had easy access to
the old Percy Library at Petworth, in Sussex, where was stored, as we
have seen by Hariot’s will, the black trunk containing his mathematical
writings as bequeathed to the 9th Earl of Northumberland. In 1785 Dr
Zach announced with a truly scholastic flourish in Bode’s Berlin
Ephemeris for 1788 his remarkable ‘discovery’ of the papers of Thomas
Hariot previously known as an eminent Algebraist or Mathematician, but
now elevated to the rank also of a first-class English Astronomer. The
next year, 1786, is celebrated in the annals of English science from
the circumstance of Oxford’s having accepted a proposition from Dr Zach
to publish his account of Hariot and his writings. The Royal Academy of
Brussels in 1788 printed in its Memoirs Dr Zach’s paper on the planet
Uranus, with a long note relative to the discovery at Petworth.
The Berlin paper immediately upon publication was translated into
English and extensively circulated in this country, conducing, it is
suspected, more to the renown of Dr Zach than to that of Hariot. In
1793 Bode’s Jahrbuch gave from the pen of Dr Zach an account of the
Comets of 1607 and 1618, with Hariot’s Observations thereon. But these
observations were given with so many errors and misreadings, as shown
by Professor Rigaud, that they were soon pronounced worthless, to the
discredit of Hariot rather than of his eminent editor. But matters came
to a crisis in 1794, nine years after the grand flourish of the first
announcement at Berlin. Dr Zach sent to Oxford for publication his
abstract of certain of the scientific papers, and the Earl of Egremont
intrusted to the University Dr Zach’s selection of the original papers.
Zach’s abstracts were merely sufficient to identify himself with the
works of Hariot, but he had performed no real editorial labours, and
had not ‘pen’d the doctrine’ contained in them. Here were years of
useful work to be done which the University dreamed not of, so the
whole matter was referred to Professors Robertson and Powell, who both
reported adversely in 1798, or before. In 1799 all the Hariot papers
were returned to Petworth.
In the mean time the full translation of Dr Zach’s account of his
‘discovery,’ with some curious additions, found its way into Dr
Hutton’s Dictionary of Mathematics, under Hariot, 1796, 2 volumes in
quarto. This publication gave an air of solemn record and history to
the transactions, insomuch that Oxford began to be blamed for
withholding from the press Dr Zach’s great work. Oxford preserved a
becoming silence. In 1803 Dr Zach published at Gotha in his Monatliche
Correspondenz a fragment of that remarkable letter from the Earl of
Northumberland to Hariot (which letter we have shown to be Lower’s, see
p. 120). This publication, together with the reprint of the original
Berlin paper by Zach in the second edition of Hutton’s Dictionary in
1815 without alteration, seemed to bring the matter to a point. Oxford
was obliged to rise and explain.
The whole question was inquired into. Professor Robertson’s original
report was brought out and sent to Dr David Brewster, who printed it in
his Edinburgh Philosophical Journal for 1822, volume vi, page 314, in
an article on the Hariot papers. In the meanwhile, in 1810, that
portion of the Hariot papers that did not go to Oxford was presented to
the British Museum by the Earl of Egremont. The division of the papers
(on what principle it is difficult to guess) was unquestionably Dr
Zach’s. The value is no doubt much depreciated by the separation. Under
all these circumstances no one can wonder at the Oxford decision, or
that the papers were deemed not worthy of publication. Yet under other
circumstances it is almost certain that the two collections when worked
together will yield valuable materials for the life of Hariot and the
history and progress of English science, discovery, and invention. To
Professor S. F. Rigaud is due the credit for the most part of working
out the crooked and entangled history of the Zachean fiasco, which has
apparently depreciated the real value of these papers. Professor
Rigaud’s papers may be seen in the Royal Institution Journal, 1831,
volume ii, pages 267-271, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, iii,
125, and in the Appx to Bradley’s Works. Now to pick up a few dropped
stitches. Notices of Hariot by Camden, Aubrey, Hakewill, and others are
omitted from press of matter. Gabriel Harvey in 1593, in his’ Pierces
Supererogation,’ page 190, exclaims ‘and what profounde Mathematician
like Digges, Hariot, or Dee esteemeth not the pregnant Mechanician?’
MrJ.O.Halliwell’s Collection of Letters referred to on page 174, though
falling late under our eye, is most acceptable and thankfully used.
Several letters of Sir William Lower are printed from the originals in
the British Museum. And so is John Bulkley’s dedication to Hariot of
his work on the Quadrature of the Circle, dated Kal. Martii, 1591, the
original manuscript of which is in Sion College. There is also an
interesting letter from Hariot to the Earl dated Sion June 13, 1619,
respecting the doctrine of reflections as communicated to Warner and
Hues for the use of the Earl. But the most important letter is the
following on page 71 from Sir Thomas Aylesbury, one of Hariot’s
executors, to the Earl of Northumberland, respecting some remuneration
for the extra services of Warner in assisting him in passing Hariot’s
‘Artis Analyticæ Praxis’ through the press :
Rt. Ho. May it plese your löp. July 5, 1631.
I presumed heretofore to moue your löp on the behalf of Mr. W. for some
consideration to be had of his extraordinary expense in attending the
publication of Mr. H. book after the copy was finished. The same humble
request I am induced to renew by reson of his present wants occasioned
by that attendance.
For his literary labour and paines taken in forming the work and
fitting it for the publik view, he looks for no other reward then your
löps acceptance therof as an honest discharge of his duty. But his long
attendance through vnexpected difficulties in seeking to get the book
freely printed, and after that was vndertaken the friuolous delaies of
the printers and slow preceding of the presse, wch no intreties of his
or myne could remedy, drew him to a gretter expence then his meanes
would here, including both your löps pencion and the arbitrary help of
his frends. It is this extraordinary expense, wch he cannot recouer wch
makes both him and me for him appele to your Löps goodnei and bounty
for some tollerable mitigation thereof.
I purpose God willing to set forth other peeces of Mr. H. wherein by
reson of my owne incombrances I must of necessitie desire the help of
Mr. W. rather then of any other, whereto I find him redy enough because
it tends to your löps service, and may the more freely trouble him, yf
he receive some little encouragement from your löp towards the
repairing of the detrement that lies still vpon him by his last
imploiment. But for the future my intention it to haue the impression
at my owne charge, and not depend on the curtesy of those
mechaniks,making account that wch may seeme to be saued by the other
way will not countervaile the trouble and tedious prolongation of the
busines. But the copies being made perfect and faire written for the
presse they shall be sufficiently bound to deliuer the books perfectly
clen out of theire hands, and by this meanes the trouble and charge of
attending the presse will be saued. Therfore my Lo. what you do now
will be but for this once, and in such proportion as shall best like
you to favour the humble motion of him who is
Allway most redy at your Löps commaund _ .
_Endorsed in the handwriting of Warner,_
Sr Th. A. letters about my busines.
[B. M. Birch, 4396, 87.]
Notwithstanding the plain initials T. A. Mr Halliwell erroneously
attributes this letter to Torporley, who had been in his grave three
months. The handwriting is not Torporley’s but Warner’s. The Earl died
on the 5th of November following. T. A. unquestionably stands for Sir
Thomas Aylesbury, who, as executor and good friend, had the matter in
hand. Indeed Warner’s endorsement settles the question of authorship.
Six shillings and eight pence were paid for Hariot’s knell, and £4 were
paid as his legacy to the parish for the poor, according to memoranda
supplied by Mr Edwin Freshfleld from the Records of St Christopher’s.
See Will, page 200.
Hariot had a lease from Raleigh of ‘Pinford grounds,’ at Sherburne, for
fifty-eight years, but the King wanted it for Carr, so of course the
title was found defective.
In conclusion, before laying down the pen with which has been exhumed
and set up on a new pedestal one of England’s worthiest of her many
forgotten Worthies, let the holder crave the indulgence of the reader
for the illogical, wordy and mixed style of this essay. He is perfectly
aware of these shortcomings, but puts in the plea that while groping in
the past as if blindfolded he has been decoyed on step by step by the
unexpected recovery of new materials after the others were in type, so
that as often as he had finished his labor of love new facts have
turned up which he had not the heart to reject. So he has incorporated
them one after another as best he could. The results are more
inartistic and crude than he could have wished, but he hesitates not on
that account to invite lovers of and believers in the Truth of History
to the banquet he has prepared.
A well-dined Reader is not likely, the writer thinks, to quarrel with
his dessert because he has to pick out, with some little patience, the
dainty meats of the nuts he has to arrange and crack for himself.
Repetition, and perhaps some contradiction, are acknowledged. But
meandering thoughts and ill-digested narratives, though tedious, are
not criminal. When these new materials have dried in the noon-day sun
for a year and a day, the writer then, or at the expiration of the
Horatian period, may bring them back to his anvil to be re-hammered.
May they then prove as true as they now seem new, is the wish of the
admirer of Thomas Hariot, the first historian of Virginia, the friend
of Sir Walter Raleigh, the companion of Henry Percy, and the Benefactor
of Mankind.