A Budget of Paradoxes Volume II Part 25

REVIEW OF CYCLOPaeDIAS.

October 19, 1861. _The English Cyclopaedia._ Conducted by Charles Knight.[445] 22 vols.: viz., _Geography_, 4 vols.; _Biography_, 6 vols.; _Natural History_, 4 vols.; _Arts and Sciences_, 8 vols.

(Bradbury & Evans.)

_The Encyclopaedia Britannica: a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature._ Eighth Edition. 21 vols. and Index. (Black.)

The two editions above described are completed at the same time: and they stand at the head of the two great branches into which pantological undertakings are divided, as at once the largest and the best of their cla.s.ses.

When the works are brought together, the first thing that strikes the eye is the syllable of difference in the names. The word _Cyclopaedia_ is a bit of modern purism. Though [Greek: enkuklopaideia][446] is not absolutely Greek of Greece, we learn from both Pliny[447] and Quintilian[448] that the circle {281} of the sciences was so called by the Greeks, and Vitruvius[449] has thence naturalized _encyclium_ in Latin. Nevertheless we admit that the initial _en_ would have euphonized but badly with the word _Penny_: and the _English Cyclopaedia_ is the augmented, revised, and distributed edition of the _Penny Cyclopaedia_. It has indeed been said that Cyclopaedia should mean the education _of_ a circle, just as Cyropaedia is the education _of_ Cyrus. But this is easily upset by Aristotle's word [Greek: kuklophoria],[450] motion _in_ a circle, and by many other cases, for which see the lexicon.

The earliest printed Encyclopaedia of this kind was perhaps the famous "myrrour of the worlde," which Caxton[451] translated from the French and printed in 1480. The original Latin is of the thirteenth century, or earlier. This is a collection of very short treatises. In or shortly after 1496 appeared the _Margarita Philosophica_ of Gregory Reisch,[452] the same we must suppose, who was confessor to the Emperor Maximilian.[453] This is again a collection of treatises, of much more pretension: and the estimation formed of it is proved by the number of editions it went through. In 1531 appeared the little collection of _works_ of Ringelberg,[454] which is truly called an Encyclopaedia by {282} Morhof, though the thumbs and fingers of the two hands will meet over the length of its one volume. There are more small collections; but we pa.s.s on to the first work to which the name of _Encyclopaedia_ is given. This is a ponderous _Scientiarum Omnium Encyclopaedia_ of Alsted,[455] in four folio volumes, commonly bound in two: published in 1629 and again in 1649; the true parent of all the Encyclopaedias, or collections of treatises, or works in which that character predominates. The first great _dictionary_ may perhaps be taken to be Hofman's _Lexicon Universale_[456] (1677); but Chambers's[457] (so called) _Dictionary_ (1728) has a better claim. And we support our proposed nomenclature by observing that Alsted accidentally called his work _En_cyclopaedia, and Chambers simply Cyclopaedia.

We shall make one little extract from the _myrrour_, and one from Ringelberg. Caxton's author makes a singular remark for his time; and one well worthy of attention. The grammar rules of a language, he says, must have been invented by foreigners: "And whan any suche tonge was perfytely had and usyd amonge any people, than other people not used to the same tonge caused rulys to be made wherby they myght lerne the same tonge ...

and suche rulys be called the gramer of that tonge." Ringelberg says that if the right nostril bleed, the little finger of the right hand should be crooked, and squeezed with great force; and the same for the left.

{283}

We pa.s.s on to _the_ Encyclopedie,[458] commenced in 1751; the work which has, in many minds, connected the word _encyclopaedist_ with that of _infidel_. Readers of our day are surprised when they look into this work, and wonder what has become of all the irreligion. The truth is, that the work--though denounced _ab ovo_[459] on account of the character of its supporters--was neither adapted, nor intended, to excite any particular remark on the subject: no work of which D'Alembert[460] was co-editor would have been started on any such plan. For, first, he was a real _sceptic_: that is, doubtful, with a mind not made up. Next, he valued his quiet more than anything; and would as soon have gone to sleep over an hornet's nest as have contemplated a systematic attack upon either religion or government. As to Diderot[461]--of whose varied career of thought it is difficult to fix the character of any one moment, but who is very frequently taken among us for a pure atheist--we will quote one sentence from the article "_Encyclopedie_," which he wrote himself:--"Dans le moral, il n'y a que Dieu qui doit servir de modele a 1'homme; dans les art, que la nature."[462]

A great many readers in our country have but a very hazy idea of the difference between the political Encyclopaedia, as we may call it, and the _Encyclopedie Methodique_,[463] which we always take to be meant--whether rightly or not we cannot tell--when we hear of the "great French Encyclopaedia." This work, which takes much from its {284} predecessor, professing to correct it, was begun in 1792, and finished in 1832. There are 166 volumes of text, and 6439 plates, which are sometimes incorporated with the text, sometimes make about 40 more volumes. This is still the monster production of the kind; though probably the German Cyclopaedia of Ersch and Gruber,[464] which was begun in 1818, and is still in progress, will beat it in size. The great French work is a collection of dictionaries; it consists of Cyclopaedias of all the separate branches of knowledge. It is not a work, but a collection of works, one or another department is to be bought from time to time; but we never heard of a complete set for sale in one lot. As ships grow longer and longer, the question arises what limit there is to the length. One answer is, that it will never do to try such a length that the stern will be rotten before the prow is finished. This wholesome rule has not been attended to in the matter before us; the earlier parts of the great French work were antiquated before the whole were completed: something of the kind will happen to that of Ersch and Gruber.

The production of a great dictionary of either of the kinds is far from an easy task. There is one way of managing the _En_cyclopaedia which has been largely resorted to; indeed, we may say that no such work has been free from it. This plan is to throw all the attention upon the great treatises, and to resort to paste and scissors, or some process of equally easy character, for the smaller articles. However it may be done, it has been the rule that the Encyclopaedia of treatises should have its supplemental Dictionary of a very incomplete character. It is true that the treatises are intended to do a good deal; and that the Index, if it be good, knits the treatises and the dictionary into one whole of reference. Still there are two stools, and between them a great deal will fall to the ground. The dictionary portion of the _Britannica_ is not to be compared with its {285} treatises; the part called Miscellaneous and Lexicographical in the _Metropolitana_[465] is a great failure. The defect is incompleteness. The biographical portion, for example, of the Britannica is very defective: of many names of note in literature and science, which become known to the reader from the treatises, there is no account whatever in the dictionary.

So that the reader who has learnt the results of a life in astronomy, for example, must go to some other work to know when that life began and ended.

This defect has run through all the editions; it is in the casting of the work. The reader must learn to take the results at their true value, which is not small. He must accustom himself to regard the Britannica as a splendid body of treatises on all that can be called heads of knowledge, both greater and smaller; with help from the accompanying dictionary, but not of the most complete character. Practically, we believe, this defect cannot be avoided: two plans of essentially different structure cannot be a.s.sociated on the condition of each or either being allowed to abbreviate the other.

The defect of all others which it is most difficult to avoid is inequality of performance. Take any dictionary you please, of any kind which requires the a.s.sociation of a number of contributors, and this defect must result.

We do not merely mean that some will do their work better than others; this of course: we mean that there will be structural differences of execution, affecting the relative extent of the different parts of the whole, as well as every other point by which a work can be judged. A wise editor will not attempt any strong measures of correction: he will remember that if some portions be below the rest, which is a disadvantage, it follows that some portions must be above the rest, which is an advantage. The only practical level, if {286} level there must be, is that of mediocrity, if not of absolute worthlessness: any attempt to secure equality of strength will result in equality of weakness. Efficient development may be cut down into meager brevity, and in this way only can apparent equality of plan be secured throughout. It is far preferable to count upon differences of execution, and to proceed upon the acknowledged expectation that the prominent merits of the work will be settled by the accidental character of the contributors; it being held impossible that any editorial efforts can secure a uniform standard of goodness. Wherever the greatest power is found, it should be suffered to produce its natural effect. There are, indeed, critics who think that the merit of a book, like the strength of a chain, is that of its weakest part: but there are others who know that the parallel does not hold, and who will remember that the union of many writers must show exaggeration of the inequalities which almost always exist in the production of one person. The true plan is to foster all the good that can be got, and to give development in the directions in which most resources are found: a Cyclopaedia, like a plant, should grow towards the light.

The _Penny Cyclopaedia_ had its share of this kind of defect or excellence, according to the way in which the measure is taken. The circ.u.mstance is not so much noticed as might be expected, and this because many a person is in the habit of using such a dictionary chiefly with relation to one subject, his own; and more still want it for the pure dictionary purpose, which does not go much beyond the meaning of the word. But the person of full and varied reference feels the differences; and criticism makes capital of them. The Useful Knowledge Society was always odious to the organs of religious bigotry; and one of them, adverting to the fact that geography was treated with great ability, and most unusual fullness, in the _Penny Cyclopaedia_, announced it by making it the sole merit of {287} the work that, with sufficient addition, it would make a tolerably good gazetteer.

Some of our readers may still have hanging about them the feelings derived from this old repugnance of a cla.s.s to all that did not a.s.sociate direct doctrinal teaching of religion with every attempt to communicate knowledge.

I will take one more instance, by way of pointing out the extent to which stupidity can go. If there be an astronomical fact of the telescopic character which, next after Saturn's ring and Jupiter's satellites, was known to all the world, it was the existence of mult.i.tudes of double stars, treble stars, etc. A respectable quarterly of the theological cast, which in mercy we refrain from naming, was ignorant of this common knowledge,--imagined that the mention of such systems was a blunder of one of the writers in the _Penny Cyclopaedia_, and lashed the presumed ignorance of the statement in the following words, delivered in April, 1837:

"We have forgotten the name of that Sidrophel who lately discovered that the fixed stars were not single stars, but appear in the heavens like soles at Billingsgate, in pairs; while a second astronomer, under the influence of that compet.i.tion in trade which the political economists tell us is so advantageous to the public, professes to show us, through his superior telescope, that the apparently single stars are really three. Before such wondrous mandarins of science, how continually must _homunculi_ like ourselves keep in the background, lest we come between the wind and their n.o.bility."

Certainly these little men ought to have kept in the background; but they did not: and the growing reputation of the work which they a.s.sailed has chronicled them in literary history; grubs in amber.

This important matter of inequality, which has led us so far, is one to which the _Encyclopaedia_ is as subject as the _Cyclopaedia_; but it is not so easily recognized as a fault. {288} We receive the first book as mainly a collection of treatises: we know their authors, and we treat them as individuals. We see, for instance, the names of two leading writers on Optics, Brewster[466] and Herschel.[467] It would not at all surprise us if either of these writers should be found criticising the other by name, even though the very view opposed should be contained in the same _Encyclopaedia_ with the criticism. And in like manner, we should hold it no wonder if we found some third writer not comparable to either of those we have named. It is not so in the _Cyclopaedia_: here we do not know the author, except by inference from a list of which we never think while consulting the work. We do not dissent from this or that author: we blame the book.

The _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ is an old friend. Though it holds a proud place in our present literature, yet the time was when it stood by itself, more complete and more clear than anything which was to be found elsewhere.

There must be studious men alive in plenty who remember when they were studious boys, what a literary luxury it was to pa.s.s a few days in the house of a friend who had a copy of this work. The present edition is a worthy successor of those which went before. The last three editions, terminating in 1824, 1842, and 1861, seem to show that a lunar cycle cannot pa.s.s without an amended and augmented edition. Detailed criticism is out of the question; but we may notice the effective continuance of the plan of giving general historical dissertations on the progress of knowledge. Of some of these dissertations we have had to take separate notice; and all will be referred to in our ordinary treatment of current literature.[468]

The literary excellence of these two extensive undertakings is of the same high character. To many this will {289} need justification: they will not easily concede to the cheap and recent work a right to stand on the same shelf with the old and tried magazine, newly replenished with the best of everything. Those who are cognizant by use of the kind of material which fills the _Penny Cyclopaedia_ will need no further evidence: to others we shall quote a very remarkable and certainly very complete testimony. The _Cyclopaedia of the Physical Sciences_, published by Dr. Nichol[469] in 1857 (noticed by us, April 4), is one of the most original of our special dictionaries. The following is an extract from the editor's preface:

"When I a.s.sented to Mr. Griffin's proposal that I should edit such a Cyclopaedia, I had it in my mind that I might make the _scissors_ eminently effective. Alas! on narrowly examining our best Cyclopaedias, I found that the scissors had become blunted through too frequent and vigorous use. One great exception exists: viz., the _Penny Cyclopaedia_ of Charles Knight.[470] The cheapest and the least pretending, it is really the most philosophical of our _scientific_ dictionaries. It is not made up of a series of treatises, some good and many indifferent, but is a thorough _Dictionary_, well proportioned and generally written by the best men of the time. The more closely it is examined, the more deeply will our obligation be felt to the intelligence and conscientiousness of its projector and editor."

After Dr. Nichol's candid and amusing announcement of his scissorial purpose, it is but fair to state that nothing of the kind was ultimately carried into effect, even upon the work in which he found so much to praise. I quote this testimony because it is of a peculiar kind.

{290}

The success of the _Penny Magazine_ led Mr. Charles Knight in 1832 to propose to the Useful Knowledge Society a Cyclopaedia in weekly penny numbers. These two works stamp the name of the projector on the literature of our day in very legible characters. Eight volumes of 480 pages each were contemplated; and Mr. Long[471] and Mr. Knight were to take the joint management. The plan embraced a popular account of Art and Science, with very brief biographical and geographical information. The early numbers of the work had some of the _Penny Magazine_ character: no one can look at the pictures of the Abbot and Abbess in their robes without seeing this. By the time the second volume was completed, it was clearly seen that the plan was working out its own extension: a great development of design was submitted to, and Mr. Long became sole editor. Contributors could not be found to make articles of the requisite power in the a.s.signed s.p.a.ce. One of them told us that when he heard of the eight volumes, happening to want a shelf to be near at hand for containing the work as it went on, he ordered it to be made to hold twenty-five volumes easily. But the inexorable logic of facts beat him after all: for the complete work contained twenty-six volumes and two thick volumes of Supplement.

The penny issue was brought to an end by the state of the law, which required, in 1833, that the first and last page of everything sold separately should contain the name and address of the printer. The penny numbers contained this imprint on the fold of the outer leaf: and _qui tam_[472] informations were laid against the agents in various towns. {291} It became necessary to call in the stock; and the penny issue was abandoned. Monthly parts were subst.i.tuted, which varied in bulk, as the demands of the plan became more urgent, and in price from one sixpence to three. The second volume of Supplement appeared in 1846, and during the fourteen years of issue no one monthly part was ever behind its time. This result is mainly due to the peculiar qualities of Mr. Long, who unites the talents of the scholar and the editor in a degree which is altogether unusual. If any one should imagine that a mixed ma.s.s of contributors is a punctual piece of machinery, let him take to editing upon that hypothesis, and he shall see what he shall see and learn what he shall learn.

The _English_ contains about ten per cent more matter than the _Penny Cyclopaedia_ and its supplements; including the third supplementary volume of 1848, which we now mention for the first time. The literary work of the two editions cost within 500l. and 50,000l.: that of the two editions of the _Britannica_ cost 41,000l. But then it is to be remembered that the _Britannica_ had matter to begin upon, which had been paid for in the former editions. Roughly speaking, it is probable that the authorship of a page of the same size would have cost nearly the same in one as in the other.

The longest articles in the _Penny Cyclopaedia_ were "Rome" in 98 columns and "Yorkshire" in 86 columns. The only article which can be called a treatise is the Astronomer Royal's "Gravitation," founded on the method of Newton in the eleventh section, but carried to a much greater extent. In the _English Cyclopaedia_, the longest article of geography is "Asia," in 45 columns. In natural history the antelopes demand 36 columns. In biography, "Wellington" uses up 42 columns, and his great military opponent 41 columns. In the division of Arts and Sciences, which includes much of a social and commercial character, the length of articles often depends upon the state of the {292} times with regard to the subject. Our readers would not hit the longest article of this department in twenty guesses: it is "Deaf and Dumb" in 60 columns. As other specimens, we may cite Astronomy, 19; Banking, 36; Blind, 24; British Museum, 35; Cotton, 27; Drama, 26; Gravitation, 50; Libraries, 50; Painting, 34; Railways, 18; Sculpture, 36; Steam, etc., 37; Table, 40; Telegraph, 30; Welsh language and literature, 39; Wool, 21. These are the long articles of special subdivisions: the words under which the _En_cyclopaedia gives treatises are not so prominent.

As in Algebra, 10; Chemistry, 12; Geometry, 8; Logic, 14; Mathematics, 5; Music, 9. But the difference between the collection of treatises and the dictionary may be ill.u.s.trated thus: though "Mathematics" have only five columns, "Mathematics, recent terminology of," has eight: and this article we believe to be by Mr. Cayley,[473] who certainly ought to know his subject, being himself a large manufacturer of the new terms which he explains. Again, though "Music" _in genere_, as the schoolmen said, has only nine columns, "Temperament and Tuning," has eight, and "Chord" alone has two. And so on.

In a dictionary of this kind it is difficult to make a total clearance of _personality_: by which we mean that exhibition of peculiar opinion which is offensive to taste when it is shifted from the individual on the corporate book. The treatise of the known author may, as we have said, carry that author's controversies on its own shoulders: and even his crotchets, if we may use such a word. But {293} the dictionary should not put itself into antagonism with general feeling, nor even with the feelings of cla.s.ses. We refer particularly to the ordinary and editorial teaching of the article. If, indeed, the writer, being at issue with mankind, should confess the difference, and give abstract of his full grounds, the case is altered: the editor then, as it were, admits a correspondent to a statement of his own individual views. The dictionary portion of the Britannica is quite clear of any lapses on this point, so far as we know: the treatises and dissertations rest upon their authors. The Penny Cyclopaedia was all but clear: and great need was there that it should have been so. The Useful Knowledge Society, starting on the principle of perfect neutrality in politics and religion, was obliged to keep strict watch against the entrance of all attempt even to look over the hedge. There were two--we believe only two--instances of what we have called personality. The first was in the article "Bunyan." It is worth while to extract all that is said--in an article of thirty lines--about a writer who is all but universally held to be the greatest master of allegory that ever wrote:

"His works were collected in two volumes, folio, 1736-7: among them 'The Pilgrim's Progress' has attained the greatest notoriety. If a judgment is to be formed of the merits of a book by the number of times it has been reprinted, and the many languages into which it has been translated, no production in English literature is superior to this coa.r.s.e allegory. On a composition which has been extolled by Dr.

Johnson, and which in our own times has received a very high critical opinion in its favor [probably Southey], it is hazardous to venture a disapproval, and we, perhaps, speak the opinion of a small minority when we confess that to us it appears to be mean, jejune and wearisome."

--If the unfortunate critic who thus individualized himself had been a sedulous reader of Bunyan, his power over {294} English would not have been so _jejune_ as to have needed that fearful word. This little bit of criticism excited much amus.e.m.e.nt at the time of its publication: but it was so thoroughly exceptional and individual that it was seldom or never charged on the book. The second instance occurred in the article "Socinians." It had been arranged that the head-words of Christian sects should be intrusted to members of the sects themselves, on the understanding that the articles should simply set forth the accounts which the sects themselves give of their own doctrines. Thus the article on the Roman Church was written by Dr. Wiseman.[474] But the Unitarians were not allowed to come within the rule: as in other quarters, they were treated as the gypsies of Christianity. Under the head "Socinians"--a name repudiated by themselves--an opponent was allowed not merely to state their alleged doctrines in his own way, but to apply strong terms, such as "audacious unfairness," to some of their doings. The protests which were made against this invasion of the understanding produced, in due time, the article "Unitarians," written by one of that persuasion. We need not say that these errors have been amended in the English Cyclopaedia: and our chief purpose in mentioning them is to remark, that this is all we can find on the points in question against twenty-eight large volumes produced by an editor whose task was monthly, and whose issue was never delayed a single hour. How much was arrested before publication none but himself can say. We have not alluded to one or two remonstrances on questions of absolute fact, which are beside the present purpose.

Both kinds of encyclopaedic works have been fashioned upon predecessors, from the very earliest which had a predecessor to be founded upon; and the undertakings before us will be themselves the ancestors of a line of successors. Those who write in such collections should be {295} careful what they say, for no one can tell how long a mis-statement may live. On this point we will give the history of a pair of epithets. When the historian De Thou[475] died, and left the splendid library which was catalogued by Bouillaud[476] and the brothers Dupuis[477] (Bullialdus and Putea.n.u.s), there was a ma.n.u.script of De Thou's friend Vieta,[478] the _Harmonicon Coeleste_, of which it is on record, under Bouillaud's hand, that he himself lent it to Cosmo de' Medici,[479] to which must be added that M. Libri[480] found it in the Magliabecchi Library at Florence in our own day. Bouillaud, it seems, entirely forgot what he had done. Something, probably, that Peter Dupuis said to Bouillaud, while they were at work on the catalogue, remained on his memory, and was published by him in 1645, long after; to the effect that Dupuis lent the ma.n.u.script to Mersenne,[481]

from whom it was procured by some intending plagiarist, who would not give it back. This was repeated by Sherburne,[482] in 1675, who speaks of the work, which "being communicated to Mersennus was, by some perfidious acquaintance of that honest-minded person, surrept.i.tiously taken from him, and irrecoverably lost or suppressed, to the unspeakable detriment of the lettered world." Now let the {296} reader look through the dictionaries of the last century and the present, scientific or general, at the article, "Vieta," and he will be amused with the constant recurrence of "honest-minded" Mersenne, and his "surrept.i.tious" acquaintance. We cannot have seen less than thirty copies of these epithets.

REVIEW OF MACCLESFIELD LETTERS.

October 18, 1862. _Correspondence of Scientific Men of the Seventeenth Century, in the Collection of the Earl of Macclesfield._[483] 2 vols.

(Oxford, University Press.)

Though the t.i.tle-page of this collection bears the date 1841, it is only just completed by the publication of its Table of Contents and Index.

Without these, a work of the kind is useless for consultation, and cannot make its way. The reason of the delay will appear: its effect is well known to us. We have found inquirers into the history of science singularly ignorant of things which this collection might have taught them.

In the same year, 1841, the Historical Society of Science, which had but a brief existence, published a collection of letters, eighty-three in number, edited by Mr. Halliwell,[484] of English men of science, which dovetails with the one before us, and is for the most part of a prior date. The two should be bound up together. The smaller collection runs from 1562 to 1682; the larger, from 1606 to past 1700. We shall speak of the two as the Museum collection and the Macclesfield collection. And near them should be placed, in every scientific library, the valuable collection published, by Mr.

Edleston,[485] for Trinity College, in 1850.

{297}

The history of these letters runs back to famous John Collins, the attorney-general of the mathematics, as he has been called, who wrote to everybody, heard from everybody, and sent copies of everybody's letter to everybody else. He was in England what Mersenne[486] was in France: as early as 1671, E. Bernard[487] addresses him as "the very Mersennus and intelligence of this age." John Collins[488] was never more than accountant to the Excise Office, to which he was promoted from teaching writing and ciphering, at the Restoration: he died in 1682. We have had a man of the same office in our own day, the late Prof. Schumacher,[489] who made the little Danish Observatory of Altona the junction of all the lines by which astronomical information was conveyed from one country to another. When the collision took place between Denmark and the Duchies, the English Government, moved by the Astronomical Society, instructed its diplomatic agents to represent strongly to the Danish Government, when occasion should arise, the great importance of the Observatory of Altona to the astronomical communications of the whole world. But Schumacher had his own celebrated journal, the _Astronomische Nachrichten_, by which to work out part of his plan; private correspondence was his supplementary a.s.sistant.

Collins had only correspondence to rely on. Nothing is better known than that it was Collins's collection which furnished the materials put forward by the Committee of the Royal Society in 1712, as a defence of Newton against the partisans of Leibnitz. The noted _Commercium Epistolic.u.m_ is but the abbreviation of a t.i.tle which runs on with "D. Johannis Collins et aliorum ..."

The whole of this collection pa.s.sed into the hands of {298} William Jones,[490] the father of the Indian Judge of the same name, who died in 1749. Jones was originally a teacher, but was presented with a valuable sinecure by the interest of George, second Earl of Macclesfield, the mover of the bill for the change of style in Britain, who died President of the Royal Society. This change of style may perhaps be traced to the union of energies which were brought into concert by the accident of a common teacher: Lord Macclesfield and Lord Chesterfield,[491] the mover and the seconder, and Daval,[492] who drew the bill, were pupils of De Moivre.[493]

Jones, who was a respectable mathematician though not an inventor, collected the largest mathematical library of his day, and became possessor of the papers of Collins, which contained those of Oughtred[494] and others. Some of these papers pa.s.sed into the custody of the Royal Society: but the bulk was either bequeathed to, or purchased by, Lord Macclesfield; and thus they found their way to Shirburn Castle, where they still remain.

A little before 1836, this collection attracted the attention of a searching inquirer into points of mathematical history, the late Professor Rigaud,[495] who died in 1839. He examined the whole collection of letters, obtained Lord Macclesfield's consent to their publication, and induced the Oxford Press to bear the expense. It must be particularly remembered that there still remains at Shirburn Castle a {299} valuable ma.s.s of non-epistolary ma.n.u.scripts. So far as we can see, the best chance of a further examination and publication lies in public encouragement of the collection now before us: the Oxford Press might be induced to extend its operations if it were found that the results were really of interest to the literary and scientific world. Rigaud died before the work was completed, and the publication was actually made by one of his sons, S. Jordan Rigaud,[496] who died Bishop of Antigua. But this publication was little noticed, for the reasons given. The completion now published consists of a sufficient table of contents, of the briefest kind, by Professor De Morgan, and an excellent index by the Rev. John Rigaud.[497] The work is now fairly started on its career.

If we were charged to write a volume with the t.i.tle "Small things in their connection with great," we could not do better than choose the small part of this collection of letters as our basis. The names, as well as the contents, are both great and small: the great names, those which are known to every mathematician who has any infusion of the history of his pursuit, are Briggs,[498] Oughtred, Charles Cavendish,[499] Gascoigne,[500] Seth Ward,[501] Wallis,[502] {300} Hu[y]gens,[503] Collins,[504] William Petty,[505] Hooke,[506] Boyle,[507] Pell,[508] Oldenburg,[509]

Brancker,[510] Slusius,[511] Bert.i.t,[512] Bernard,[513] Borelli,[514]

Mouton,[515] Pardies,[516] Fermat,[517] Towneley,[518] Auzout,[519] {301} D. Gregory,[520] Halley,[521] Machin,[522] Montmort,[523] Cotes,[524]

Jones,[525] Saunderson,[526] Reyneau,[527] Brook Taylor,[528]