The Compendium Physicae

An Introduction by Theodore Hornberger

CHARLES Morton’s Compendium Physicae, here printed for the first time, is the text-book in science which was used by Harvard College students during most of the forty years between 1687 and 1728. As Mr. Morison has shown,1 it was probably compiled by Morton about 1680, brought with him from England in 1686, and adopted at Harvard in time to have visible effects upon the Commencement theses of 1687. A fairly safe presumption is that it was not entirely superseded until 1728, when Isaac Greenwood became the first Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy.

Greenwood’s approach to scientific studies, considerably different from Morton’s, was acquired in London under the tutelage of such teachers as John Theophilus Desaguliers, one of the first popularizers of Sir Isaac Newton’s discoveries and theories. The new technique may be observed in Greenwood’s prospectus, An Experimental Course on Mechanical Philosophy (Boston, 1726), and in the use at Harvard, after 1728, of Thomas Hollis’s gift of a “fine Apparatus for Experimental Philosophy.” That gift, which followed the foundation of the professorship, included “machines for experiments of falling bodies, of the centre of gravity, and of centrifugal forces,” “very nice balances,” siphons, “tubes for the Torricellian experiment,” a “large, double-barrelled Air-Pump,” mirrors (“concave, convex, cylindric”), lenses, prisms, and “the whole apparatus for the Newtonian theory of light and colors.”2

The arrival of this apparatus is a landmark in the history of the teaching of science in America. Yet Morton’s Compendium, as he who reads it will discover, pointed out the importance of experimental methods, described many of them, and gave Harvard students at least a glimpse of the so-called “New Science” when that amazing expansion of the European mind had attracted the attention of but few university men.

Mr. Morison, in his foreword, has told of Morton’s eventful life; his Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century contains the only study made heretofore of the significance and most important origins of the Compendium. There remain but two tasks: to describe the manuscripts which have, after two centuries, come to seem worth printing as a revelation of colonial intellectual life and the transfer of ideas from Europe to America; and to make some additional comment upon the potpourri of ancient and modern ideas which this book presents to the reader interested in the history of science and learning.

The original syllabus which Morton is believed to have prepared for his lectures, and which he must have deposited in the library or some other place convenient for student copyists, can not now be located. It is possible that it may some day be found, but very likely it was destroyed (along with the Hollis apparatus and most of the college library) when Harvard Hall burned in 1764.

Any hope for its eventual discovery rests upon Morton’s will, which assigned to Harvard College the sum of fifty pounds, but gave to his executor the power to dispose of “all his philosophical writings, sermon notes, pamphlets, mathematical instruments and other rarities.” In 1859 William B. Sprague stated that two of Morton’s manuscripts were still preserved: one, with a Latin title, in the library of the, with the title in English, at Bowdoin College.3 The Antiquarian Society now possesses two transcriptions of the Compendium; but that with a Latin title lacks many of the diagrams and otherwise shows evidence of being a copy, although the copyist and the date are unknown. Bowdoin College has no record of ever having owned any Morton papers, though Sprague’s statement is repeated in the notice of Morton in the Dictionary of American Biography. The Massachusetts Historical Society, however, has a transcription by Jeremy Gridley which was presented to it in 1817 by Professor Parker Cleaveland of Bowdoin. It seems likely that Gridley’s copy is the Bowdoin manuscript which Sprague had heard about.

It is possible, moreover, that there are in existence other transcriptions than those listed below, although my own search has been supplemented by investigations of Mr. Morison and of Arthur O. Norton, who has recently published the result of his twenty-year hunt for seventeenth-century Harvard text-books.4 Thus far there are thirteen known copies of Morton’s manuscript. They are listed here in chronological order.5

1680

Bodleian MS., Bodleian Library. (6) 292 pages, with synopses at the end of each chapter. It lacks, however, the mnemonic verses which are in the fuller American transcriptions, and is obviously a copy of an earlier manuscript than that used at Harvard. It was perhaps made by Bartholomew Beale, son of Mary Beale, a popular portrait painter.6 It is dated at the end: “Finitum. 29 Martij 1680.”

1688

Partridge MS., Yale University Library. 58-page extract. It was made by William Partridge (H. C. 1689), who dated it: “11:9:[1687] Incepimus: Iterum Incepimus 18:12:1688 … Compendium hoc Physicum W. P. fuit finitum 13.2.1688.”

1697

Greenleaf MS., Massachusetts Historical Society. 39 pages of synopses, 1-page index, and 96 pages of text and diagrams. This is the text used as the basis for this printed edition. It was made by Daniel Greenleaf (H. C. 1699) and is dated by this inscription: “Transcriptum et Finitum. Octob: 3. Anno. 1697. Per me D: G:”

1697

Eells MS., Tale University Library. 173 pages (pages 135–138 lacking), with diagrams, and with synopses at the ends of chapters. It was made by Nathanael Eells (H. C. 1699), who dated it: “Ended October 28th In The year 1697.”

1700?

American Antiquarian Society MS. 113 pages, incomplete (last half of Chapter 30 and all of Chapter 31 lacking), with some diagrams, blank spaces left for others, and a few synopses at the ends of earlier chapters. Its transcriber is unknown.

1701

Curwin MS., Massachusetts Historical Society. 52-page condensation. It was made by George Curwin (H. C. 1701) and carries the date “2^do Martii 1700[/I].”

1707

Webb MS., Massachusetts Historical Society, 110 pages, with diagrams, and with a few synopses at the ends of chapters. It was made by John Webb (H. C. 1708), who states: “Transcriptum per me Johannem Webb, Tricessimo Die Julii Anno Christi Millesimo Septingentissimo Septimo.” Webb’s title-page, printed below, carries the date 1687, indicating that he worked from a manuscript copy made in that year and now lost.

1708

Ayer MS., Harvard University Archives. 172 pages, with some diagrams. It was made by Obadiah Ayer (H. C. 1710): “Transcriptum per me Obadiah Ayer Anno 1708.”

1710?

Blake MS., Boston Public Library. 161 pages, with diagrams. It is said to be in the handwriting of James Blake (H. C. 1769), but it was perhaps made by Samuel Blake (H. C. 1711), in which case it may date from 1709 or 1710. The library catalogue card gives the date 1713; the dates 1721 and 1768 are on the flyleaf.

1713?

Brown MS., Massachusetts Historical Society. 95 pages, followed by a 1-page index; much abbreviated. It was made by John Brown (H. C. 1714), as appears from his autograph at the end. There is no date anywhere in the manuscript.

1714

Ward MS., Harvard University Archives. 113 pages, with a few diagrams. It was made by Robert Ward (H. C. 1719), who dated it: “Finitum … Calendis Octob: Anno Salutis Milesimo septigentesimo decimo quarto.”

1715

Rogers MS., American Antiquarian Society. 172 pages, with diagrams, to which are appended 3 pages of “Rules to be observed in making an almanack,” 6 pages extracted from John Wallis’s article on tides in No. 16 of the Philosophical Transactions, 6 pages of “astronomical definitions,” and 2 pages of mathematical problems. It was made by Nathaniel Rogers (H. C. 1717): “Began April the 18th 1715.” “Finished August 29 1715 Per Nathaniel Rogers.”

1721

Gridley MS., Massachusetts Historical Society. 198 pages, with blank spaces for diagrams. It was made by Jeremy Gridley (H. C. 1725). The title page has the date “Anno Domini Millesimo Septingentesimo Decimo Nono.” At the end of his transcript Gridley has written: “Scriptum per me Jeremiam Gridley Anno D 1721 Laus Deo.” The autograph of Mather Byles (1707–1788) appears on the title page.

The text which is here followed is that made by Daniel Greenleaf, corrected by collation with the Eells MS., the Webb MS., and, on occasional passages, with the two manuscripts at the Antiquarian Society. The Bodleian MS. has been used in a few instances. Brackets indicate either omissions by Greenleaf or the correction of scribal errors which obscure the sense. In either case the principle has been to preserve Greenleaf’s reading except for obvious and bothersome mistakes where both Eells and Webb agree upon a variant. The spelling is Greenleaf’s, as are the capitals and punctuation in all but a very few places where slight changes have been made for the sake of clarity. His paragraphing has not been regularly followed. Superior letters have been brought down to the line and the words spelled out. The diagrams are those made by Greenleaf.

The notions in Morton’s Compendium flow to it from the past through many devious channels. In some cases Morton has culled more or less brand-new ideas from such contemporary sources as the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions. More frequently his concepts must be referred back to the science and philosophy (never sharply distinct) of the Middle Ages, or even of remote antiquity. Usually, to be sure, they have been modified by some of the hot debates of the seventeenth century, a period of great intellectual conflict, but in a very real sense the Compendium is a microcosm of men’s speculation about the external world from the time of Empedocles down to the eve of Newton’s Principia—a span of well over two thousand years.

It is not surprising, therefore, that both the ultimate and the intermediate origins of Morton’s information and theory are often uncertain, and that any study of provenience is bound to be fragmentary and uneven. I wish to suggest, however, in addition to Mr. Morison’s comments, three general points of inquiry which have proved fruitful in reaching some understanding of the intellectual climate of Morton’s book. Brief consideration of the more specific sources is offered in the footnotes.

It soon becomes evident that the Compendium is dominated by Aristotelian science. By virtue of centuries of pre-eminence in university studies, Aristotle clearly shapes the larger scheme of Morton’s book, which follows roughly the traditional order in which the Schoolmen arranged the Aristotelian corpus.7 Morton’s second and third chapters simplify, systematize, modify, and yet are ultimately dependent upon the Organon and the Physica, the books of Aristotle which treat of logic and of the general part of physics, and which long formed the introduction to Aristotelian studies. Chapter IV takes on new meaning when it is thought of as a distant echo of the De Caelo. Chapters VI–XI reflect the De Generatione et Corruptione; Chapters XII–XVI are in large part similar to the Meteorologica, whose authenticity, now a matter of scholarly dispute, was not questioned in the Schools. For the remainder of Morton’s book Aristotle’s biological treatises are exceedingly useful, although not so closely related, those in point including the De Anima, whence come many of the definitions and divisions from Chapters XIX–XXX, the Parva Naturalia, and some of the treatises connected with the Historia Animalium. Even the Metaphysica has occasional paragraphs that have tangential relationship to terminology and distinctions employed by Morton. There can be no doubt that Morton was thoroughly grounded in his Aristotle as studied and interpreted by the Schoolmen. What commentaries he knew best remains one of the problems to be solved by some specially qualified scholar.

Morton’s Compendium is also closely related to the sixteenth-and seventeenth-century revolt against Aristotle, as exemplified particularly by René Descartes. For reasons which will appear, Morton’s ideas are not Cartesian in the degree to which they are Aristotelian, yet his book supports the belief of recent scholarship that Descartes was for a time more important in English thought than the much-honored Francis Bacon.8 There is some reason to believe that Morton knew at first hand the Principia Philosophiae, perhaps even the De Homine and Les Passions de l’Âme;9 there is better reason to think that he was familiar with some famous Cartesian text-books. Mr. Morison has shown that there were others who, like Morton, tried to reconcile the new knowledge with the old. His description of Adrian Heereboord’s Parallelismus Aristoteliscae et Cartesianae (1643) and Meletemata Philosophica (1654) indicates a type of transitional text-book long popular at Harvard.10 Closer in spirit to Morton were later disciples of Descartes: Jean Baptiste du Hamel, Jacques Rohault, and Antoine Legrand. Du Hamel was the author of Philosophia Vetus et Nova ad Usum Scholae Accomodata (4 vols., Paris, 1678); Rohault, of a Traité de Physique (Paris, 1671) which was many times revised, translated into Latin and English, and served as a popular text-book well into the eighteenth century. Legrand lived for many years in England, and wrote a number of books organizing the Cartesian ideas into Aristotelian order. Of these the most famous was Institutio Philosophiae, Secundum Principia R. Descartes, Novo Methodo Adornala et Explicata ad Usum Iuventutis Academicae (London, 1672). Later translated by Richard Blome as An Entire Body of Philosophy According to the Principles of Renate Des Cartes (London, 1694), this book was probably known to Morton. It follows the Aristotelian order very much as does the Compendium; it includes a number of diagrams strikingly like Morton’s; it makes many of the Scholastic divisions in language almost exactly the same as Morton’s; and it even uses (though infrequently) the device of mnemonic verses which is such an integral part of Morton’s method. Many of Legrand’s verses come from Lucretius or Ovid, but he is sometimes original, as in this brief summary of the universe:

Mind, Measure, Rest, and Motion,

With Figure, and Position,

To Matter join’d, the Causes be

Of all what here below we see.11

Morton and Legrand (or perhaps Legrand’s translator) clearly belong to the same school of poetry. Indeed, it is hard to escape the conviction that Morton owed his method, and a good deal of his matter, either to Legrant or to some contemporary extremely like him.

The Compendium reflects far more than superficially the stage of English thought represented by Robert Boyle and the early years of the Royal Society. Boyle is not only cited more frequently than any other contemporary writer, but portions of his work also provide much of the matter for several of the chapters.12 Morton’s extensive acquaintance with Boyle’s writings accounts for his tendency to shy away from Cartesianism, even though he does not go the length of accepting atomism or corpuscularianism, which Boyle, with certain theological reservations, embraced, in company with Pierre Gassendi and others.13 Moreover, other members of the Royal Society than Boyle provide much grist for Morton’s mill, John Wallis, Robert Hooke, and Henry Power being particularly in point, as will appear from the notes. From the present-day point of view, these connections are most creditable to Morton, since they constitute his strongest claim to “modernity.” Because of them, he ordinarily rejects Descartes, even where Legrand had most enthusiastically accepted him. And there are enough such connections to justify placing Morton, despite all his faults of omission and over-simplification, at approximately the Boylean stage in the development of modern thought.

It is helpful, in short, to think of Morton’s work as formed by three modes of thought, each of which has been of inestimable value to the intellectual life of the western world. It owes much to the Aristotelians, a good deal to the Cartesians, and most, perhaps, to the much-honored leaders of the Royal Society, who, outlawing theology and politics in their discussions, set out to realize Bacon’s dream of the advancement of learning and the conquest of nature.

Boyle, Morton’s chief scientific master, had said long before the date of the composition of the Compendium that men who sought to write complete systems of natural philosophy had to face the alternative “either idly to repeat what has already [been] … written by others on the same subjects; or else to say any thing on them rather than nothing, lest they should appear not to have said something to every part of the theme, which they had taken upon themselves to write of.” By the very nature of things, Morton’s was an impossible task. But he undertook it, we may be sure, in the spirit of Boyle, who had gone on to say that “such a work may be useful, partly, for the instructing of youth in schools and academies; and partly, that men may have, from time to time, an inventory of what hath been already discovered; whereby the needless labour of seeking after known things may be prevented, and the progress of mankind, as to knowledge, might the better appear.”14 In the pursuit of at least the first part of such an intention, Charles Morton brought to the American colonies some measure of the scientific spirit and some tincture of the scientific mind.

1. There are notices of Morton in the Dictionary of National Biography, the Dictionary of American Biography, and Arnold G. Matthews, Calamy Revised. The earliest biography is in Edmund Calamy’s “Account of Ministers Ejected” in his Abridgment of Mr. Baxter’s History of his Life and Times (London, 1702; 2d ed., 1713). This is supplemented by Calamy’s Continuation of the Account of the Ministers Ejected (London, 1727), and by Matthews’ Calamy Revised (Oxford, 1934). No corpus of Morton letters has survived; but his MS. notebook, with records of ministers’ meetings in Cornwall and New England, and a few letters are in the Massachusetts Historical Society. I have profited greatly by a MS. dissertation on Morton by Mr. Wilbur J. Bender, who wrote the notice in the Dictionary of American Biography.

2. John and John A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, iii. 218. Walter Wilson, the biographer of Defoe, has the best account of the Morton family (Memoirs of the Life and Times of Daniel Defoe, 1830 ed., i. 24 n). He says that the family originated in Nottinghamshire, and was the same as that of Cardinal Morton and Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham. It appears to have had no connection with the Morton family of Yorkshire, who came early to Plymouth Colony.

3. The aged Lawrence Chaderton was master of Emmanuel in his time, and Thomas Hooker a fellow. Among Morton’s contemporaries as undergraduates were William Blackstone and Isaac Johnson, the founders of Boston, and Nathaniel Rogers and Samuel Whiting, the future ministers of Rowley and Lynn respectively; as well as Bastwick, the Puritan pamphleteer, and Samuel Clarke the martyrologist.

4. George C. Boase, Collectanea Cornubiensia, p. 1402.

5. The date of the marriage given by Venn, following Sir John MacLean, Parochial and Family History of the Deanery of Trigg Minor (i. 461), is May 11, 1616. It seems probable that the right date is 1626, and that the Mortons’ first child was born nine months, not ten years and nine months, after their marriage. Nor is it likely that Morton would have resigned his fellowship at Emmanuel, immediately after taking his first degree, in order to marry.

6. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, iii. 217; Dictionary of National Biography, xxxix. 149.

7. For a succinct Harvard pedigree, see my Founding of Harvard College, p. 104.

8. “I appoint my loveing frend Mr Moreton our minister of St Saviours aforesaid for one [of the overseers], and to him in token of my love I give three pounds and my paire of silver hafted knyves” (will of John Harvard’s mother, 1635, in Henry F. Waters, Genealogical Gleanings in England, I. 125). “I give and bequeath unto Mr Nichollas Morton Minister and Preacher in the parishe of Saint Saviors in Southwarke the some of Forty shillinges in recompence of a Sermon which I desire he should preach at my funerall, for the better Comforte edifyinge and instruccion of such my freinds and neighboures and other people as there shalbe assembled” (will of John’s brother Thomas, 1636, id., p. 128).

9. John became rector of Auton-Gifford, Devon, and Nicholas followed his oldest brother to Wadham College, Oxford, and into the ministry.

10. His will, dated 1640, is in Waters, Genealogical Gleanings, ii. 782–783.

11. Nicholas Morton in his will appoints his “living father in law Mr. Thomas Kestle of Plenderie” his executor; but MacLean (Deanery of Trigg Minor, i. 461) has Thomas Kestell buried in 1626, and succeeded as lord of the manor of Pendavy by his son John Kestell, Charles Morton’s uncle.

12. So Morton wrote to Increase Mather in 1685. Richard Frothingham, History of Charles-town, p. 195.

13. Sir Charles E. Mallet, History of the University of Oxford, ii. 382–390; Montagu Burrows, Register of the Visitors of the University of Oxford (Camden Society), Introduction, passim.

14. Frothingham, Charlestown, p. 195. Samuel Mather, elder brother of Increase, did not obtain an Oxford degree, as Cotton Mather relates; but the records of Magdalen College show that he was a chaplain there, c 1650–1653.

15. Quoted by Mallet, History of Oxford, II. 383.

16. Burrows, Register, p. 569.

17. Robert B. Gardiner, Registers of Wadham College, Part I, p. 180.

18. Id. His age is wrongly given in the records as nineteen.

19. MS. in British Museum by John Wallis. It is quoted in F. A. Dixey, The Early Connexion of the Royal Society with Wadham College and the University of Oxford, a pamphlet from which I have obtained most of the following data about this scientific group. Cf. Thomas Sprat, History of the Royal Society (1667); Irvine Masson, “The Genesis of the Royal Society,” Nature, cxiii. 197–198; Dorothy Stimson, “Dr. Wilkins and the Royal Society,” Journal of Modern History, iii. 539–563. Dean Stimson, in a paper on “Puritanism and the New Science” read before the History of Science Society in 1934, showed that almost all members of this group were of Puritan training or antecedents. That made it easy for them to obtain professorial chairs and other appointments in the reformed Oxford.

20. Joseph Wells, Wadham College, p. 75.

21. Andrew Clark, Life and Times of Anthony Wood, i. 265.

22. 4 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, viii. 541–542.

23. Printed, with notes by George Lyman Kittredge, in our Publications, xiv. 142–186.

24. Volume x (1676), pp. 293–296.

25. Nonconformist’s Memorial, i. 347; see also Matthews, Calamy Revised, pp. 356–357.

26. Calamy also states that Morton was converted to Puritanism at Oxford. It is unlikely that he would have come to Oxford in 1648, or taken up residence in a Hall already noted for Puritanism, if he had not already come around to that point of view. His father, describing himself in his will as “minister of God’s Word” rather than “rector,” showed himself at least a moderate Puritan; but his Cornish grandparents may well have been Church-and-King men.

27. Wells, Wadham College, pp. 78–79.

28. John Evelyn, Diary (Bohn ed., 1889), i. 305–308.

29. Matthews, Calamy Revised, p. 356, quoting Lambeth Palace Library MSS.

30. Complete Parochial History of Cornwall, i. 67; MacLean, Deanery of Trigg Minor, i. 53.

31. Calamy, Nonconformist’s Memorial, i. 348.

32. Matthews, Calamy Revised, p. 356.

33. Herbert McLachlan, English Education under the Test Acts, p. 76. This is the best work on the dissenting academies. See also Irene Parker, Dissenting Academies in England, pp. 45–63. There were two academies at Newington Green. The first was kept by Theophilus Gale, ejected fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, later a benefactor of the Harvard College Library.

34. Luke Tyerman, Life and Times of the Rev. Samuel Wesley, p. 74.

35. A Letter from a Country Divine to His Friend in London, Concerning the Education of the Dissenters, in their Private Academies (London, 1703), pp. 7–8.

36. A Defence of a Letter concerning the Education of Dissenters in their Private Academies (1704), pp. 44, 51. Other references to Morton and his academy will be found in the same tract, pp. 4, 14, 27, 43, 44, 48 (pupils going to hear Bunyan preach, and Morton commending him), 53.

37. Continuation, i. 211 where a list of Morton’s published pamphlets and manuscript treatises is given. Calamy reprints Morton’s MS. “Advice to Candidates for the Ministry” on pp. 198–210. It is full of wit and common sense: “Let your Discourses be mostly Practical, both as to the Subjects, and Manner of Handling. ’Tis but a Crack, for young Divines to be much medling with Controversies. Wrangling Divinity will but put your Spirits out of the comely Christian Frame….”

38. Defoe, “More Short Ways with the Dissenters” (1704), as reprinted in his Collection of Writings (1703–1705), ii. 276. Samuel Palmer, Vindication of the Learning of the Dissenters (1705), pp. 53–54, and Joshua Toulmin, Historical View of the State of the Protestant Dissenters (1814), p. 233, say that the system of Politics called Eutaxia, modelled on More’s Utopia, was “equal, if not superior, to any printed composition of that kind.” No copy of it is now known to exist.

39. Tyerman, Life of Samuel Wesley, pp. 71–72.

40. Toulmin, Historical View of the Dissenters, p. 234.

41. McLachlan, English Education under the Test Acts, pp. 2, 76; text in Calamy, Continuation, i. 177. This was not one of the Test Oaths. It had been instituted in the fourteenth century to force the seceding scholars at Stamford to return to England. Dean Peacock, in his Observations on the Statutes of the University of Cambridge (1841), remarked that it had been consistently violated from the time of its imposition to his own day.

42. Samuel Wesley, Defence of a Letter, p. 53; Tyerman, Life of Samuel Wesley, p. 67.

43. Printed in Calamy, Continuation, i. 177–197.

44. McLachlan, English Education under the Test Acts, p. 65. Other academies were founded by Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist societies in the following century. The most famous of these was Warrington Academy, “The Athens of the North,” where Priestley taught. See John F. Fulton, “The Warrington Academy and its Influence upon Medicine and Science,” Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine (Johns Hopkins University), I. 50–80.

45. Prince MSS., Mass. Hist. Soc.; printed in Frothingham, Charlestown, p. 195.

46. Edward Randolph, in a letter dated July 28, to the Lords of Trade (Hutchinson Papers, Prince Society, ii. 287), and in another, dated August 2, to Archbishop Sancroft (N. E. Hist. Gen. Register, xxxvii. 271), says that Morton arrived “about 2 months agoe.” Samuel Sewall first mentions Morton when Morton was giving the weekly lecture in Cambridge meeting on July 21 (Diary, 1. 144–145).

47. John Dunton, Letters from New England (Prince Society), p. 296. Both here and in his Life and Errors (1818 ed., i. 123), Dunton makes an elaborate and complimentary characterization of Morton. Dunton certainly knew Morton, who asked Increase Mather to be kind to the young bookseller, and who had taught Dunton’s uncle, the Reverend Obadiah Marriott. But Dunton’s characterizations are so frequently lifted from other books, as Chester N. Greenough has shown (our Publications, xiv. 212–257; xxi. 232–251), that I have not seen fit to quote him further.

48. Henry Horsey to his brother in New England, Prince MSS., Mass. Hist. Soc.; printed in William I. Budington, History of the First Church, Charlestown, p. 221; extract from Penhallow’s autobiography in 2 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., i. 161.

49. Hutchinson Papers, ii. 287, 293.

50. Sewall, Diary, i. 155. The issue was that Morton had already been ordained in England and so refused to be ordained again, insisting on being merely “installed.” He set a precedent since followed in New England Congregational churches.

51. Budington, First Church, Charlestown, pp. 103, 106–113.

52. Sewall, Diary, i. 446–447.

53. Sewall, Diary, i. 349.

54. John G. Palfrey, History of New England (1890 ed.), iii. 549; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, Am. and W. I., 1689–1692, p. 165.

55. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, Am. and W. I., 1685–1688, pp. 470–471.

56. Frothingham, Charlestown, pp. 221–223.

57. Horsey’s letter in Budington, First Church, Charlestown, p. 221.

58. So says John Dunton, 2 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., I. 115–116.

59. 2 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., i. 162; 4 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., viii. 111–112.

60. Our Publications, xv. cxlix, xliii n, cl.

61. Id.; p 345.

62. The record book, which after Morton’s death belonged to the Rogers family of Ipswich, is now in the Massachusetts Historical Society. It is printed in I Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., xvii. 254–280. Cotton Mather printed some of the conclusions arrived at by the Association as Thirty Important Cases (Boston, 1699), and reprinted it as Book V of the Magnolia Christi Americana (1702).

63. George L. Kittredge, Witchcraft in Old and New England, p. 336.

64. Id., p. 335

65. See Edward Wyllys Taylor, “Some Medical Aspects of Witchcraft,” in Problems of Personality (the nearest to a rational explanation of the frenzy that we have), and Charles W. Upham, Salem Witchcraft, 11. 112.

66. Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., VIII. 368; Magnolia (1853 ed.), 11. 457, 463, 465.

67. George L. Burr, Editor, Narratives of the Witchcraft Cases, p. 97.

68. I Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., XVII. 268.

69. Id.

70. See Thomas J. Holmes’s able and detailed discussion of Increase Mather’s Cases of Conscience and its influence in his Increase Mather, A Bibliography of His Works, I. 117–138.

71. 1 Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, xvii. 271; Magnolia, Book v.

72. Preface to Increase Mather, An Essay for the Recording of Illustrious Providences (Boston, 1684).

73. Our Publications, xv. xlvii, cl.

74. Diary, I. 468.

75. Id., I. 471.

76. I Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, viii. 76.

77. Thomas B. Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, pp. 687–688. Mrs. Morton, of whom nothing seems to have been known except her first name, Joan, had died in 1693, and his nephew Nicholas died soon after graduating from Harvard. No children are mentioned in the will.

78. Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 236–251.

79. Josiah Quincy, History of Harvard University, II. 482–483.

80. Annals of the American Pulpit, I. 218.

81. “1 Harvard Text-Books and Reference Books of the Seventeenth Century,” our Publications, xxviii. 361–438.

82. In collecting this information I have been aided by the courtesy of the officials of all the libraries mentioned, together with those of the Henry E. Huntington Library. I particularly wish to acknowledge the kindnesses of Mr. Stewart Mitchell of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Mr. Robert W. G. Vail of the American Antiquarian Society, and Mr. Gerald G. Wilder, Librarian of Bowdoin College. Photostats of the Bodleian MS. have been made available through the co-operation of Bodley’s Librarian and the Harvard College Library; photostats of the Greenleaf, Eells, and Webb MSS. have been purchased for the General Library of the University of Michigan through a grant from the faculty research fund.

83. The MS. carries the inscription “Ex Libris Β Beale” and the date 1683 in handwriting somewhat like that of the transcription. For the Beales, see Horace Walpole, Anecdotes of Painting in England (1849 ed.), ii. 537–545. There is little certainty, however, about this identification.

84. William D. Ross, Aristotle; William D. Ross, Editor, The Works of Aristotle, translated into English. The Scholastic use of Aristotle’s scientific works is to be observed in numerous commentaries. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, wrote commentaries on every book here mentioned except the Historia Animalium.

85. Sterling P. Lamprecht, “The Role of Descartes in Seventeenth-Century England,” Studies in the History of Ideas (edited by the Department of Philosophy of Columbia University), III. 180–240.

86. Cf. (except for the De Homine) Elizabeth S. Haldane and George R. T. Ross, Editors, The Philosophical Works of Descartes (translated into English). Part IV of the Principia Philosophiae, most important for comparison with Morton, is barely outlined; for it and for the De Homine it is necessary to consult the originals.

87. Morison, Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 233–234. Other such text-books, to which Morton’s is vastly superior, include Daniel Widdowes, Natural Philosophy (2d ed., 1631), John Johnstone, An History of the Wonderful Things of Nature; Set Forth in Ten Severall Classes (1657), and Thirteen Books of Natural Philosophy by D. Sennert, translated by Nicholas Culpeper and others (1661).

88. Richard Blome, Entire Body of Philosophy, p. 106.

89. Cf., below, Chapters 2, 6–8, 12, 15, 17–20, 23.

90. See Morison, Founding of Harvard College, pp. 250–251. There are two eighteenth-century editions of Boyle’s works, one in five volumes in 1744, the other in six volumes in 1772. An indispensable guide is John F. Fulton, “A Bibliography of The Honourable Robert Boyle,” Oxford Bibliographical Society Proceedings and Papers, iii. 1–172, 339–365.

91. Certain Physiological Essays (London, 1661); in Works (1772 ed.), i. 300.

92. The Massachusetts Historical Society owns two transcriptions of Morton’s “Treatise of Logick,” another of his manuscript text-books which was used for a time at Harvard. One was made by Timothy Lindall (H. C. 1695); the other, by Daniel Greenleaf, as extracted by Jabez Fitch, is in the same notebook as his copy of the Compendium. The nature of Morton’s logic appears from later references; see especially below, p. 10, note 2.

93. This and the following chapter are based ultimately upon Aristotle’s Physica. The divisions, however, are typically Scholastic, and one can see the same method and terminology in other text-books. Compare, for example, Antoine Legrand’s Institutio Philosophic (London, 1672), Pt. iv, ch. i. In Richard Blome’s translation is the information that: “Natural Philosophy … or Physiology, is the Science of Natural Bodies, and their Various Affections…. And those are called Natural Things, or Bodies, which are endued with Nature, or that are compounded of Matter and Form…. Natural Things are considered two manner of ways in Physiology, either Generally or Specially.” Entire Body of Philosophy, p. 93.

94. The specific references to Aristotle in this chapter are to distinctions made in the Categoriae, the Physica, and De Generatione et Corruptione. Morton, following Scholastic precedent, is more systematic than Aristotle will be found to be.

95. See John, xi, and Mark, x: 46–52.

96. Morton assumes that his readers, with the background of his text-book on logic, are familiar with the basis of all Scholastic dialectic—Aristotle’s ten predicaments: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and affection. These are named in the Categoriae, ch. iv, and again in the Topica, Bk. 1, ch. ix.

97. Robert Boyle, in The Origine of Formes and Qualities (Oxford, 1666), summarizes much of the anti-Aristotelian thinking on the concepts of form, matter, motion, etc. This book Morton knew well. Compare, however, Descartes, Principia Philosophiae, Pt. 11.

98. Morton’s discussion of matter appears to depend in part upon Boyle’s Some Physico-Theological Considerations about the Possibility of the Resurrection (London, 1675). The simile of the soft wax which may be molded into any desired form is developed there in terms very like those used by Morton.

99. This, as Mr. Morison has shown, was a principle of ancient natural philosophy which Morton was especially loath to give up. See Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century, p. 241.

100. Morton’s distinctions here should be compared with those in the Physica. His six species of motion are exactly correspondent to those in the Categoriae, ch. xiv.

101. William Petty, in his Discourse Concerning the Use of Duplicate Proportion (London, 1674), attempted to re-define such concepts as place, time, and motion. See a convenient review of the work in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 108 (November 23, 1674). Morton seems to be indebted to Petty not only for materials in this chapter, but also for portions of Chapters 2 and 6.

102. The chief of the “Corpuscularian Phylosophers” was Pierre Gassendi, but Descartes and Boyle were sometimes, and with reason, counted among the corpuscularians or atomists. See under corpuscle and related words in the New English Dictionary, and, for a brief discussion of the importance of the atomist hypothesis, Morison, Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century, p. 250.

103. Morton’s references to Descartes suggest either direct knowledge of the Principia Philosophiae or acquaintance with such a text-book as Legrand’s. Legrand covers the same ground in Pt. iv, chs. xi–xxv, with ch. xii, which discusses place, chs. xiv and xv, dealing with local motion, and ch. xxiv, which treats of time, being especially in point.

104. Boyle’s definition of time as “duration measured” is thought by Mr. Morison to have come from either The Excellency of Theology (London, 1674) or The Great Effects of Even Languid and Unheeded Motion (London, 1685). The words also occur in Some Considerations about the Reconcileableness of Reason and Religion (London, 1675), by “T. E., a Layman,” a tract to which Boyle’s Possibilities of the Resurrection was appended. See Boyle, Works (1744 ed.), 111. 525.

105. The organization here suggests Aristotle’s De Caelo and De Mundo, but the information is almost wholly from more modern sources. It is doubtful if Morton knew at first hand all the scientific writers whom he cites: Ptolemy, Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, Gassendi, Tycho Brahe, and John Wilkins. Most of them are mentioned in Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. v, chs. viii–xi, where there may also be seen three diagrams very similar to those in Morton. Such information and diagrams were common in other text-books and popular treatises of the period, although they were originally taken from such books as the De Revolutionibus. See, for a study of the provenience of these materials, Francis R. Johnson and Sanford V. Larkey, “Thomas Digges, the Copernican System, and the Idea of the Infinity of the Universe in 1576,” Huntington Library Bulletin, No. 5, pp. 69–117. Morton diverges sharply from Legrand by omitting all mention of the Cartesian vortices.

106. The “Platonic Year,” really not Platonic at all, was a favorite notion of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The references in the New English Dictionary give an interesting brief history.

107. This is an admirable illustration of the bookishness of Morton’s science. He points out that there is an arithmetical progression in the velocity of falling bodies, but he ignores the familiar and useful fact that that velocity is in definite proportion to the distance and the time of the fall (s = ½gt²).

108. Robert Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy was first printed at Oxford in 1621. It is comparable at many points with Morton’s notions on physiology and related subjects, and even on astronomy, as is suggested in some of the notes below.

109. John Beale (1603–1683?) was elected to the Royal Society in 1662–63, at a time when that body was much interested in making a history of the weather. On September 2, 1663, for instance, John Wilkins suggested that from constant observations it might be possible to prognosticate changes, and Sir Kenelm Digby remarked that Dr. John Dee, by such observations for a seven-year period, “acquired such a prognosticating skill of weather, that he was, on that account, accounted a witch.” Thomas Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London (London, 1760), 1. 300. A week later Mr. Oldenburg “mentioned, that Mr. Beal was willing to engage in the observation of the weather, and in registering the changes thereof; and that he hoped to set the same at work in other parts of the country.” Id., 1. 302. The foremost investigator in this matter was, however, Robert Hooke, whose “Method for Making a History of the Weather” was printed in Thomas Sprat’s History of the Royal Society of London (pp. 173–179) and, in part, in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 24 (April 8, 1667).

110. Morton may have had in mind Anthony Griffin’s An Astrological Judgment touching Theft (London, 1665).

111. John Gadbury (1627–1704) was a notorious and immensely popular astrologer, one of the most colorful charlatans of Morton’s time.

112. See Esther, iii: 7.

113. Thomas Gataker (1577?–1654), a Puritan divine, became involved in a controversy about astrology when he published for the Westminster Assembly his annotations on Jeremiah x: 2: “Learn not the way of the heathen and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the heathen are dismayed at them.” In his Vindication of the Annotations (London, 1653), Gataker defended himself against the famous William Lillie; in A Discours Apologetical (London, 1654), he leveled a postscript at Gadbury.

114. Sir Christopher Heydon (d 1623) was the author of a learned Defence of Judicial Astrologie (London, 1603). Why Morton cites him in the same breath with Thomas Gataker is not clear.

115. Morton’s information on stars and planets probably comes from some text-book. Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. v, ch. xxiii, agrees with Morton that there are 48 constellations, 6 degrees of magnitude, and 1022 most visible stars. But Morton’s table of periodical motions differs radically from the figures given by Legrand, as does his estimate of the circumference of the earth.

116. This allusion appears to be to the Mercator projection, but it may be to some other of the many new projections which were used by experimentally minded map-makers in the seventeenth century. See Arthur R. Hinks, Map Projections (2d ed., Cambridge, 1921), p. 148.

117. Legrand (“History of Nature,” p. 81) gives Willebrod Snell’s figure of 24,600 miles. Boyle, in The Usefulness of Experimental Natural Philosophy (London, 1663), says that the common account makes the circuit of the globe to be 22,600 Italian miles, which the “more accurate” Gassendus has amended to 26,255 of the same measure. See Boyle, Works (1772 ed.), 11. 20. Burton, in his long “Digression of Air” in the Anatomy of Melancholy, gives 21,500 miles as the circumference; 7,000 miles as the diameter.

118. The discussion of the light of the moon is paralleled in Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. v, ch. xx, where it is attributed to Galileo. There is some possibility that Morton knew Galileo’s writings, either directly or through the English translations in Thomas Salusbury’s Mathematical Collections (London, 1661).

119. The description of the elements goes back to Aristotle’s De Generatione et Corruptione and Meteorologica, while gravity and levity are treated in the De Caelo. The same matters are considered by Descartes in Principia Philosophiae, Pt. iv. This chapter is most closely related, however, to Boyle’s famous book, The Sceptical Chymist (London, 1661), where Morton may well have found his information on the chemical theories of Descartes, the “Chymists,” and “Gassendus and other Atomists.” A number of points seem to suggest some knowledge of Boyle’s “History of Fluidity,” in Certain Physiological Essays (London, 1661). There, for instance, are to be found a discussion of the nature of fluids and the experiment, which Morton mentions on another occasion, of the two flat polished marbles.

120. The word electrical is here used in an obsolete sense; as Mr. Morison has noted, Morton in Chapter 10 uses elatery instead of electricity. See under these words in the New English Dictionary.

121. In this chapter again the chief influences are Aristotle and Boyle, with the De Generatione et Corruptione and Meteorologica on the one hand, The Sceptical Chymist on the other.

122. This allusion suggests some knowledge of Boyle’s experiments with combustion, described in The Relation betwixt Flame and the Air (London, 1672).

123. Compare pp. 155–157, below.

124. As Mr. Morison has noted, Morton here reveals his familiarity with the work of Harvey, Malpighi, and Leeuwenhoek.

125. Although there are hints of the De Generatione et Corruptione in Morton’s treatment of the air, he is more largely indebted to Boyle’s The Spring and Weight of the Air (Oxford, 1660). There one may find some discussion of the height of the atmosphere, the use of the word restitutive to describe elasticity, and the analogy of wool; consideration of air-pump experiments and of what happens in rarefaction (not accepted by Morton, who will not give up “nature abhors a vacuum”); some treatment of the weight of the air; and a description of Pascal’s investigation of the effects of altitude on barometric pressure. Indeed, this whole chapter is saturated with Boyle’s ideas, even though Morton retains the ancient division of the air into three regions, of which the upper and lower were thought to be hotter than the middle. Boyle had refuted this Aristotelian concept in “An Examen of Antiperistasis,” a portion of The Experimental History of Cold (London, 1665).

126. Here Morton’s memory seems to have been in error; at least the editor has not discovered the relation referred to in the Philosophical Transactions. From the first, however, the Royal Society was much interested in the famous peak of Teneriffe, proposing experiments to be tried there, collecting accounts of it, and inquiring what time of year was best for climbing it. See Birch, History of the Royal Society, 1. 8–10, 18, 397. One account was printed in Thomas Sprat’s History of the Royal Society, and another in Robert Hooke’s Lectiones Cutlerianae (London, 1679), the latter being a book used by Morton for certain points in Chapters 13 and 21. In both cases, however, the details are in some respects different from those given by Morton.

127. Morton’s reference is to Henry Power’s Experimental Philosophy (London, 1664), a book which he refers to again in Chapter 31. To Power (1623–1668), Morton probably owed more than appears from these references; see, for a description of the book, Thomas Cowles, “Dr. Henry Power, Disciple of Sir Thomas Browne,” Isis, xx. 344–366.

128. Morton’s remarks on water form the most interesting and most “modern” section of his book. His superiority to Legrand, for instance, is marked, and his very considerable power of combining his theory with practicalities, especially evident.

129. Morton’s hydrodynamics reflect vaguely the investigations of Torricelli. See A. Wolf, A History of Science, Technology, and Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, pp. 222–223.

130. The diagram of the Archimedean screw for raising water probably comes from a famous description of the water-works at Augsburg in Germany, printed originally in Girolamo Cardan, De Subtilitate (Nuremberg, 1550). See Wolf, History of Science, pp. 524–534, where is also described and illustrated the water engine at London Bridge, mentioned by Morton just above.

131. Speculation on why the sea is salt is of course an ancient pastime, and may be observed as far back as the Meteorologica. But Morton’s comments appear to be related to contemporary discussion. He could have obtained his information from a review of some of Boyle’s tracts which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 97 (October 6, 1673). Some phrases, however, suggest that he knew a letter by Martin Lister which appeared in the same periodical, No. 156 (Feb. 20, 1683/4), in which case the Compendium must have been added to later than 1680. Or Morton may have known Boyle’s Tracts Consisting of Observations about the Saltness of the Sea (London, 1674).

132. A description of the salt springs and of salt-making at Nantwich in Cheshire appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 53 (November 15, 1669).

133. The discussion of tides makes perhaps the most extended use of a single source which Morton allowed himself. Although he says that “these times are taken out of Galleleus,” it is clear, as Mr. Morison has said, that Morton has carefully studied John Wallis’s essay “exhibiting his Hypothesis about the Flux and Reflux of the Sea,” which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 16 (August 6, 1666). There Wallis summarized Galileo’s theories, agreed with them in general, and then suggested a theory to account for phenomena left unexplained by his predecessor. Nearly one third of this chapter will be found to derive from Wallis’s essay, whence come also the figure on p. 65 and the first figure on p. 67. Furthermore, as the text indicates, Morton made a synopsis of Wallis’s article, with further diagrams, which was inserted as an appendix to the Compendium. It is to be found at the end of the Rogers MS., but it was evidently an integral part of the original, since it is mentioned twice in all the American transcriptions. Morton’s skill as a teacher is well exemplified in his use of Wallis; he condenses, simplifies, and everywhere makes the material more concrete by the use of homely illustration.

134. Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella was the most celebrated writer on agriculture of the ancient world. A Roman, he composed, some time in the first century A.D., his De Re Rustica in twelve books. Morton’s reference is probably to this work, but to what part of it the editor has not discovered. The De Re Rustica, first published at Venice in 1472, is known in many later editions.

135. One such proposal, which attracted wide attention, and in which Robert Boyle was interested, was that of Captain Robert Fitzgerald. He described his process with extreme caution—lest he reveal its secrets—in Salt Water Sweetned (London, 1683), a book which was in its tenth edition by 1685. However, a method of distillation of sea water was described in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 67 (January 16, 1670/1), fifteen years earlier.

136. The ancients’ definition of earth comes from the De Generatione et Corruptione. The remainder of Morton’s discussion is largely Cartesian, and should be compared with the Principia Philosophiae, Pt. iv. There are hints of the same ideas, too, in Boyle’s writings, especially the Essays of Effluviums (London, 1673) and An Essay of the Great Effects of Even Languid and Unheeded Motion (London, 1685). Legrand (Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. vi, ch. x) covers the problems of magnetic and electrical attraction in very similar terms.

137. There is little evidence that Morton knew at first hand the work of William Gilbert of Colchester (1540–1603), whose De Magnete was published at London in 1600. This reference shows, however, that Morton was familiar with some of Gilbert’s ideas, acquired, perhaps, through some secondary source.

138. Most of the definitions and divisions in this section are based ultimately upon Aristotle, both the De Generatione et Corruptione and the Meteorologica contributing something. The discussion of temperament, essentially medieval in outlook, leads to the ancient medical works in the Hippocratic Collection as well as to Galen, and touches one of the most tangled problems in medical history.

139. Livinus Lemnius (1505–1568) was author of De Habitu et Constitutione Corporis (Antwerp, 1561). As Mr. Morison notes, a later edition of this book was in the library of John Harvard.

140. Both the Meteorologica and the De Mundo underlie Morton’s comment on fiery meteors. Aristotle’s notions have been modified markedly, however, by the seventeenth-century enthusiasm for nitre as an explanation for all kinds of atmospheric phenomena. This may be observed in Descartes, Principia Philosophiae, Pt. iv, in Boyle’s Essays of Effluviums, and in a long-forgotten book by William Clark, The Natural History of Nitre (London, 1670), where Morton’s explanation of thunder and lightning is paralleled rather closely. See also under nitre and kindred words in the New English Dictionary.

141. Mr. Morison has indicated the background of Morton’s error here; see also under nostoc in the New English Dictionary. Star-shoot was one of the early subjects of investigation by the Royal Society. See a letter from Henry Oldenburg to Boyle, November 10, 1664, in Boyle’s Works (1772 ed.), vi. 174.

142. Morton’s explanations of comets show a rather curious use of sources. A great deal of his information comes from two books, neither of which can really be regarded as an impressive authority. Robert Hooke’s Cometa, a part of Lectures and Collections (London, 1678), consists of rather disorganized remarks, from which Morton apparently culled much, including, perhaps, the figure on page 90. Hooke’s book was included in his Lectiones Cutlerianae (London, 1679), which has recently been reprinted by R. T. Gunther in Early Science in Oxford, viii These are the Gresham College lectures to which Morton refers. The second source, John Spencer’s A Discourse Concerning Prodigies (Cambridge, 1663), has about three pages out of one hundred on Morton’s point, but more comes from those three pages than is suggested by the citations. See, for example, the note on page 92, below.

143. See the first number of that journal, March 6, 1664/5.

144. Cf. Spencer, A Discourse Concerning Prodigies (p. 15): “… Tycho measur’d in the tayle or train of the Comet, An. 1577 ninety six semidiamiters of the earth; and some astronomers found in the beard of that which shone An. 1618. the extent of 382,700 German miles.”

145. The information on winds follows Aristotle’s Meteorologica and De Mundo, and Morton does not accept Descartes’ variant explanation of earthquakes. Boxing the compass was a familiar text-book exercise; see, for example, the popular manual by Joseph Moxon, A Tutor to Astronomie and Geographic, first published in London in 1659. The explanation of trade winds and monsoons, a matter which interested Francis Bacon among others, is strikingly paralleled in a letter by Dr. George Garden which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 175 (September, 1685).

146. Here again the Meteorologica and the De Mundo are basic, even though Morton makes much of nitre and nitrosulphurious particles, as in Chapter 12. Mr. Morison has noted that the discussion of ice owes much to Boyle’s Experimental History of Cold.

147. The “circumforaneous water drinker” is mentioned by Boyle in his Experimental History of Colours (London, 1663; Works, 1772 ed., 1. 772). Boyle says that the tricks of “those mountebanks that are commonly called water-drinkers” had been exposed “in a little pamphlet printed divers years ago in English.” The editor has been unable to identify this pamphlet, but Morton obviously got his rather full information from some other source than Boyle. The trick is described, with somewhat differing details, in Sports and Pastimes: or, Sport for the City, and Pastime for the Country; with a Touch of Hocus Pocus, or Legerdemain. Fitted for the Delight and Recreation of Youth by J. M. Amat. Ant. (London, 1676).

148. Mr. Morison has shown that this is the latest event mentioned in the Compendium, and the best evidence for the conclusion that Morton composed his book about 1680. As has been suggested, however, certain allusions hint at additions or revisions as late, perhaps, as 1685.

149. Although haloes, parhelia, and paraselenae, as well as rainbows, are treated in the Meteorologica, they were particularly interesting to the seventeenth century. Boyle touches upon them in the Experimental History of Colours, which Morton cites; Descartes’ considerable investigation of this branch of optics is echoed in Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. vi, ch. xx, where may be found diagrams quite similar to the figures on the next page. Discussions of the same phenomena, somewhat unlike Morton’s, may be found in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 13 (June 4, 1666), and No. 60 (June 20, 1670).

150. Legrand’s treatment of stone (Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. vi, ch. ix) suggests that he and Morton drew upon similar Scholastic sources, but there are traces in this chapter of both Descartes and Boyle.

151. See Historia Naturalis, Bk. xxxvii, ch. lx. It is rather surprising that this is Morton’s only mention of Pliny the Elder, whose famous book is comparable at many points with the Compendium.

152. Boyle’s The Origin and Virtue of Gems (London, 1672), is again referred to in Chapter 20.

153. Morton may allude to Petty’s A Dialogue of Diamonds rather than to the Discourse of Duplicate Proportion. See The Petty Papers, edited by the Marquis of Lansdowne (London, 1927), 11. 263.

154. This information is of special interest because Morton’s only contribution to the Philosophical Transactions (No. 113, April 26, 1675) was “The Improvement of Cornwall by Sea-sand, communicated by an Intelligent Gentleman well acquainted in those parts to Dr. Dan. Cox.”

155. Perhaps because of his Cornish connections, Morton shared to an unusual degree in the widespread interest of his time in mines and mining. Boyle wrote some articles of inquiry touching mines, printed in the Philosophical Transactions (No. 19, November 19, 1666), which seem to be condensed in Morton’s judgment on how to find “where the mine is.” Other interesting parallels in the same journal are to be found in No. 5 (July 3, 1665), where adits and their use are described; No. 69 (March 25, 1671), in which there is a long account, with diagrams, of Cornish tin mines; and No. 137 (February 10, 1677/8), where Dr. Christopher Merret discusses the Godolphin Ball or mine in Cornwall, Cornish diamonds, “mundick,” and other aspects of tin-working.

156. The proverb quoted by Morton may be found in almost any book on Cornwall. See, for instance, Gilbert Davies, The Parochial History of Cornwall, i. 152; S. P. B. Mais, The Cornish Riviera (3d ed., London, 1934), p. 19. Thomas Bushell’s proposal was but one of many projects for Hingston Down, and but one of many schemes by that energetic mining man. Mr. Morison has indicated the recent study by J. W. Gough, The Superlative Prodigall, A Life of Thomas Bushell (London, 1932). But Bushell’s bellows were not new in principle; they and other of the methods noticed by Morton may be studied in Georgius Agricola, De Re Metallica (Basel, 1556), a famous book translated, with notes, by Herbert Clark Hoover and Lou Henry Hoover (London, 1912). The Hoovers have many suggestions for a reader of Morton; they describe, for instance, the vast literature on Hannibal’s supposed use of vinegar to split the rocks of the Alps. It is worth noting, too, that bellows were actually used at St. Agnes in Cornwall in 1696, before Morton’s death. See The Victoria History of the County of Cornwall, i. 546.

157. For the value of gold and its place in English coinage, see A. E. Feaveryear, The Found Sterling, pp.71–90.

158. Morton here repeats a popular, and probably erroneous, story about the death of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, in 1612. See the articles in the Dictionary of National Biography on Henry, William Butler (1535–1618), the royal physician, and Sir Theodore Turquet de Mayerne (1573–1655). There is also a pamphlet by Sir Norman Moore, On the Illness and Death of Henry Prince of Wales, which demonstrates that the prince died of typhoid fever.

159. This story probably refers to Sir Francis Godolphin, who some time in the sixteenth century imported a Dutch mining expert to show him how to improve mining methods in the famous Godolphin Ball. See The Victoria History of the County of Cornwall, 1. 548.

160. Morton means here the American Indians. The first instance of “American” meaning a “native or citizen of the United States, or the earlier British colonies included in these” is, according to the Dictionary of American English, in the introduction to Cotton Mather’s Magnolia (1702).

161. From this point on through Chapter 30, Aristotle’s De Anima shapes the general outline of the discussion. Evidently, however, Morton was familiar with the anatomical and physiological notions of his own time, as they were summarized in medical books designed for the general public. Comparison with Legrand and with the “Digression of Anatomy” in Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy shows how much Morton’s knowledge of the nutritive process, procreation, and the processes of sensation was common property.

162. Walter Charleton (1619–1707) was author of Natural History of Nutrition (London, 1659).

163. William Cole (1635–1716) published his De Secretione Animali at Oxford in 1674.

164. Jean Fernel (1497–1558) was a prolific medical writer, whose works were long popular throughout Europe. Where he relates this story the editor has not discovered.

165. Morton’s acquaintance with Harvey may have been directly through the De Motu Cordis et Sanguinis, or through some intermediate source. See the note on p. 193, below.

166. Morton’s knowledge of Sanctorius’ De Statica Medicina (Venice, 1614) may easily have been through Boyle’s almost identical mention of insensible perspiration in The Spring and Weight of the Air. See Boyle, Works (1772 ed.), 1. 105; for Sanctorius (1561–1636), see Wolf, History of Science in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, pp. 433–435.

167. The backgrounds of this chapter include Theophrastus’ De Natura et Causis Plantarum and Aristotle’s De Plantis. It is obvious, however, that the science of plant morphology was in its infancy in the seventeenth century, and Morton was none too well informed of the ideas of the Neoterics (i.e., Moderns). Burton, by the way, uses Neoterics in this same sense in the Anatomy of Melancholy.

168. Morton’s comments on procreation owe something to Robert Hooke’s Lampas (London, 1677), and something to William Harvey’s pioneer work in embryology, Exercitationes de Generatione Animalium (London, 1651). From Hooke’s book, a part of the same Gresham College lectures used for the chapter on comets, comes some of the knowledge of microscopical investigations of maiden-hair, male-fern, and other plants, as well as the speculation about the grass that grew after the Great Fire of London. See Gunther, Early Science in Oxford, viii. 198–206. The account of the hen’s egg is, as Mr. Morison has shown, a condensation of Harvey’s book. Note that Morton knows there is discussion regarding the sexuality of plants, a fact not fully established until the eighteenth century, and that he does not believe in spontaneous generation, though he makes no mention of the experiments of Francesco Redi.

169. This chapter, together with portions of Chapters 26, 28, and 30, hinges upon one of the central points in Cartesian discussion: the distinction between man and the animals. See, for a convenient summary, Albert G. A. Balz, “Cartesian Doctrine and the Animal Soul: An Incident in the Formation of the Modern Philosophical Tradition,” Studies in the History of Ideas, 111. 115–177. Although Aristotle’s De Anima has some relation to the ideas here, it would seem likely that Morton had read such contemporary books as Thomas Willis’ De Anima Brutorum (London, 1672) and Antoine Legrand’s Dissertatio de Carentia Sensus et Cognitionis in Brutis (London, 1675). Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy, Pt. 1, is again a convenient place to observe the background of the ideas presented from this point on through Chapter 30.

170. Despite the influence of the De Anima and the De Sensu et Sensibili, this chapter is dominated by contemporary discussion. Most important, as Mr. Morison has indicated, is Isaac Newton’s letter in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 80 (February 19, 1671/2), a famous theory of vision which was followed by a long series of attacks and defenses in the same journal. Morton’s definition of light follows Newton’s, as does his description of white light (see the Philosophical Transactions, No. 88, November 18, 1672). Many things, moreover, suggest Boyle’s Experimental History of Colours, twice cited by Morton. The description of the anatomy of the eye is paralleled in Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. viii, ch. xvi, where there is a somewhat similar diagram.

171. This brief rejection of the belief in the evil eye has considerable interest because of Morton’s quiescent part in the Salem witchcraft proceedings of 1692. Thomas Brattle wrote that some of the Salem justices undertook to explain the cure of afflicted persons by the touch of their supposed tormentors on the basis of Cartesian philosophy and the doctrine of effluvia: “… and the account they give of it is this; that by this touch, the venemous and malignant particles, that were ejected from the eye, do, by this means, return to the body whence they came, and so leave the afflicted persons pure and whole.” Narratives of the Witchcraft Cases, George L. Burr, Editor, p. 171. Neither Brattle nor Morton held this opinion, nor did Increase Mather, who wrote that “the notion of Fascination by the Eye is unphilosophical.” Increase Mather, Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men (Boston, 1693 [1692]), p. 42.

172. Aristotle’s brief treatise De Audibilibus supplements the De Anima and the De Sensu as the background for Morton’s acoustics. This chapter, too, is closely related, although not perhaps indebted, to Francis Bacon’s extensive experiments and discussions of sound in the Sylva Sylvarum, Centuries ii and iii.

173. The reference is to Boyle’s Spring and Weight of the Air, to which, as Mr. Morison has said, Morton owes much in this chapter.

174. As Mr. Morison has noted, Morton’s whole chapter owes much to Sir Samuel Morland (1625–1695), An Account of the Speaking Trumpet (London, 1672). This study, which was also printed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 79, includes a discussion of the nature of sound. As Mr. Morison recalls in his foreword, Samuel Wesley was particularly shocked because some of his schoolmates at Morton’s academy shouted insults through a speaking trumpet at the local Anglican clergyman. In 1678, by the way, Increase Mather appears to have been interested in Morland’s speaking trumpet. See Kenneth B. Murdock, Increase Mather, p. 147.

175. This music room was presumably at Mamhead, the Ball mansion near Exeter, but the editor has been unable to discover any other description of it.

176. A long description of the whispering place at Gloucester was read before the Royal Society on November 5, 1662. See Birch, History of the Royal Society, 1. 120–123.

177. Morton’s introduction to music is not very helpful, for he appears to be in error both in his description of concord and in his scale of musical notes. See, for a convenient view of the musical knowledge upon which Morton could draw, Thomas Morley, A Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke (London, 1597), pp. 2, 70–71, etc. Although Morton mentions the monochord, he appears to be ignorant of the discovery that strings vibrate in segments, communicated by John Wallis in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 134 (April 23, 1677).

178. In this chapter, once more the background is Aristotelian, the De Anima and the De Sensu being in point. But with the older ideas Morton combines some seventeenth-century physiology. For comparison, see Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. viii, chs. xii–xiv, and Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy.

179. With the addition of Aristotle’s De Memoria et Reminiscentia, the comments on the “interior senses” follow much the same sources as were suggested for the preceding chapter. There is a trace, however, of the Cartesian discussion mentioned in connection with Chapter 22.

180. As Morton indicates, the “Popish Schoolmen” were his chief predecessors in discussing the object, seat, acts, and passions of the sensitive appetite. Here are echoes, for instance, of Thomas Aquinas’s “Treatise on Man,” Q. lxxvi–lxxxi, and his “Treatise on Human Acts,” Pt. 11. See The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (22 vols., London, 1911–1925). Descartes covered the same material, under a classification somewhat varying from Morton’s, in Les Passions de l’Âme.

181. Two of Aristotle’s biological treatises, De Incessu Animalium and De Motu Animalium will be found to have some bearing on this section. Morton’s physiology of the nervous system is derived, however, from Descartes’ De Homine, perhaps through some such intermediary as Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. viii, ch. vi. See Charles Singer, A Short History of Medicine, pp. 127–129. The mechanistic implications, here quite evident, were more fully developed by Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, whose De Motu Animalium (Rome, 1680–1681) may possibly have been known by Morton. The discussion of the souls of brutes continues the question raised before in Chapters 22 and 26.

182. Morton, perhaps influenced by his teacher, John Wilkins, had more than ordinary interest in the conquest of the air. See Morton’s “Enquiry into the Physical and Literal Sense of that Scripture Jeremiah viii, 7,” in the Harleian Miscellany (2nd ed., London, 1744), 11. 558–567; and cf. Marjorie Nicolson, “A World in the Moon,” Smith College Studies in Modern Languages, xvii. No. 2. Morton was proposing the hypothesis that swallows and storks and their kind wintered in the moon.

183. In the Ward MS., used by Mr. Morison, this statement is attributed to “Hevel.” In the other American transcriptions it is clearly “Slegelius,” and may perhaps refer to Paulus Marquart Slegel, author of Disputatio de Haemorrhagia (Jena, 1640), listed in the British Museum catalogue. In the Bodleian MS., however, “Spigelius” is inserted as a correction. The reference is probably to De Humani Corporis Fabrica (Venice, 1627) by Adrian van den Spieghel (1578–1625), a Flemish anatomist.

184. In his remarks on the pulse Morton deals with what has been called “the crucial point in Harvey’s argument,” and “a most important question ever since.” See William Harvey, Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus (Tercentennial Edition, with an English translation and annotations by Chauncy D. Leake, Springfield, Ill., and Baltimore, Md., 1928), pp. 75–76 n. Apparently Morton does not draw directly either from Harvey or from Harvey’s most important follower, Richard Lower (Tractatus de Corde, London, 1669). See Harvey’s treatise in Leake’s edition, pp. 73–76, and Lower’s treatise, prefaced by an introduction and translation by K. J. Franklin, in R. T. Gunther, Early Science in Oxford, ix. sigs. G¹–G². Harvey supposes, for the sake of his argument, that the left ventricle holds one half ounce (four drams), three drams, or, as he says, even one dram. Lower says, perhaps through information from other sources, that Harvey estimated two ounces. On this vital point in the computation Harvey is indefinite, since it does not matter to his argument. Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. viii, ch. vii, estimates that there are 64 pulses per minute, 3,840 per hour; that there is one dram of blood in the left ventricle; and that the weight of the whole mass of blood is “scarcely above 10 Pounds.” Hence he arrives at the estimate that all the blood circulates through the heart three times each hour. Lower estimates six times, Morton thirteen.

185. Many of the notions here go back to some of the brief treatises in Aristotle’s Parva Naturalia: namely, De Somno et Vigilia, De Somnis, and De Divinatione per Somnum. Legrand, Institutio Philosophiae, Pt. viii, ch. xx, reveals close verbal correspondences; for example: “Waking is the free Exercise of the Senses, depending on the uninterrupted influence of Spirits into the Organs.”

186. This chapter, somewhat remotely related to the Historia Animalium, echoes the Cartesian discussion of the animal soul touched upon previously in Chapters 22, 26, and 28.

187. Morton’s “reactionary” logic is discussed at some length in Perry Miller, The New England Mind (pp. 121–123). A glance at Mr. Miller’s index will reveal, moreover, his considerable use of the Compendium Physicae in the synthesis of seventeenth-century New England thought which he has made.

188. The creation, duration, and end of the world, old problems all, were peculiarly the concern of seventeenth-century thinkers. Scientists, literary men, and theologians were alike anxious to defend theistic first causes against the “modern Epicureans,” by whom were meant Gassendi and Thomas Hobbes; while even Sir Isaac Newton gave of his enthusiasm to the interpretation of the apocalyptic writings. The full story of the innumerable attacks upon the elusive Epicureans, i.e., materialists, is still to be written. Some hints may be gained from J. M. Robertson, A Short History of Freethought Ancient and Modern (2nd ed., London, 1906), 11. 60–125; G. D. Hadzits, Lucretius and His Influence, pp. 284–317; and L. I. Bredvold, “Dryden, Hobbes, and the Royal Society,” Modern Philology, xxv. 417–438. For an introduction to the enormous literature on the duration and end of the world, see the articles on Chiliasm, Eschatology, and the Millennium in any good encyclopaedia.

189. In addition to comment on the matter in his Experimental Philosophy, Power wrote a manuscript “Essay on the World’s Duration,” now in the British Museum. See the article on Power in the Dictionary of National Biography, and compare with the note on p. 51, above.

190. From the Rogers MS.

191. Giovanni Battista Baliano (d 1666) was an Italian physician and mathematician.

192. The reference is to Giovanni Battista Riccioli, Almagestum Novum (Bologna, 1651).

193. Johann Hevel, Selenographia sive Lunae Descriptio (Danzig, 1647). The information here, however, is in Wallis’s article.