The whole question was inquired into. Professor Robertson’s original report was brought out and sent to Dr David Brewster, who printed it in his Edinburgh Philosophical Journal for 1822, volume vi, page 314, in an article on the Hariot papers. In the meanwhile, in 1810, that portion of the Hariot papers that did not go to Oxford was presented to the British Museum by the Earl of Egremont. The division of the papers (on what principle it is difficult to guess) was unquestionably Dr Zach’s. The value is no doubt much depreciated by the separation. Under all these circumstances no one can wonder at the Oxford decision, or that the papers were deemed not worthy of publication. Yet under other circumstances it is almost certain that the two collections when worked together will yield valuable materials for the life of Hariot and the history and progress of English science, discovery, and invention. To Professor S. F. Rigaud is due the credit for the most part of working out the crooked and entangled history of the Zachean fiasco, which has apparently depreciated the real value of these papers. Professor Rigaud’s papers may be seen in the Royal Institution Journal, 1831, volume ii, pages 267-271, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, iii, 125, and in the Appx to Bradley’s Works. Now to pick up a few dropped stitches. Notices of Hariot by Camden, Aubrey, Hakewill, and others are omitted from press of matter. Gabriel Harvey in 1593, in his’ Pierces Supererogation,’ page 190, exclaims ‘and what profounde Mathematician like Digges, Hariot, or Dee esteemeth not the pregnant Mechanician?’ MrJ.O.Halliwell’s Collection of Letters referred to on page 174, though falling late under our eye, is most acceptable and thankfully used. Several letters of Sir William Lower are printed from the originals in the British Museum. And so is John Bulkley’s dedication to Hariot of his work on the Quadrature of the Circle, dated Kal. Martii, 1591, the original manuscript of which is in Sion College. There is also an interesting letter from Hariot to the Earl dated Sion June 13, 1619, respecting the doctrine of reflections as communicated to Warner and Hues for the use of the Earl. But the most important letter is the following on page 71 from Sir Thomas Aylesbury, one of Hariot’s executors, to the Earl of Northumberland, respecting some remuneration for the extra services of Warner in assisting him in passing Hariot’s ‘Artis Analyticæ Praxis’ through the press :
Rt. Ho. May it plese your löp. July 5, 1631.
I presumed heretofore to moue your löp on the behalf of Mr. W. for some consideration to be had of his extraordinary expense in attending the publication of Mr. H. book after the copy was finished. The same humble request I am induced to renew by reson of his present wants occasioned by that attendance.
For his literary labour and paines taken in forming the work and fitting it for the publik view, he looks for no other reward then your löps acceptance therof as an honest discharge of his duty. But his long attendance through vnexpected difficulties in seeking to get the book freely printed, and after that was vndertaken the friuolous delaies of the printers and slow preceding of the presse, wch no intreties of his or myne could remedy, drew him to a gretter expence then his meanes would here, including both your löps pencion and the arbitrary help of his frends. It is this extraordinary expense, wch he cannot recouer wch makes both him and me for him appele to your Löps goodnei and bounty for some tollerable mitigation thereof.
I purpose God willing to set forth other peeces of Mr. H. wherein by reson of my owne incombrances I must of necessitie desire the help of Mr. W. rather then of any other, whereto I find him redy enough because it tends to your löps service, and may the more freely trouble him, yf he receive some little encouragement from your löp towards the repairing of the detrement that lies still vpon him by his last imploiment. But for the future my intention it to haue the impression at my owne charge, and not depend on the curtesy of those mechaniks,making account that wch may seeme to be saued by the other way will not countervaile the trouble and tedious prolongation of the busines. But the copies being made perfect and faire written for the presse they shall be sufficiently bound to deliuer the books perfectly clen out of theire hands, and by this meanes the trouble and charge of attending the presse will be saued. Therfore my Lo. what you do now will be but for this once, and in such proportion as shall best like you to favour the humble motion of him who is
Allway most redy at your Löps commaund _ .
Endorsed in the handwriting of Warner,
Sr Th. A. letters about my busines.
[B. M. Birch, 4396, 87.]
Notwithstanding the plain initials T. A. Mr Halliwell erroneously attributes this letter to Torporley, who had been in his grave three months. The handwriting is not Torporley’s but Warner’s. The Earl died on the 5th of November following. T. A. unquestionably stands for Sir Thomas Aylesbury, who, as executor and good friend, had the matter in hand. Indeed Warner’s endorsement settles the question of authorship.
Six shillings and eight pence were paid for Hariot’s knell, and £4 were paid as his legacy to the parish for the poor, according to memoranda supplied by Mr Edwin Freshfleld from the Records of St Christopher’s. See Will, page 200.
Hariot had a lease from Raleigh of ‘Pinford grounds,’ at Sherburne, for fifty-eight years, but the King wanted it for Carr, so of course the title was found defective.
In conclusion, before laying down the pen with which has been exhumed and set up on a new pedestal one of England’s worthiest of her many forgotten Worthies, let the holder crave the indulgence of the reader for the illogical, wordy and mixed style of this essay. He is perfectly aware of these shortcomings, but puts in the plea that while groping in the past as if blindfolded he has been decoyed on step by step by the unexpected recovery of new materials after the others were in type, so that as often as he had finished his labor of love new facts have turned up which he had not the heart to reject. So he has incorporated them one after another as best he could. The results are more inartistic and crude than he could have wished, but he hesitates not on that account to invite lovers of and believers in the Truth of History to the banquet he has prepared.
A well-dined Reader is not likely, the writer thinks, to quarrel with his dessert because he has to pick out, with some little patience, the dainty meats of the nuts he has to arrange and crack for himself. Repetition, and perhaps some contradiction, are acknowledged. But meandering thoughts and ill-digested narratives, though tedious, are not criminal. When these new materials have dried in the noon-day sun for a year and a day, the writer then, or at the expiration of the Horatian period, may bring them back to his anvil to be re-hammered. May they then prove as true as they now seem new, is the wish of the admirer of Thomas Hariot, the first historian of Virginia, the friend of Sir Walter Raleigh, the companion of Henry Percy, and the Benefactor of Mankind.
THE WILL of THOMAS HARIOT
Recorded in the Archdeaconry Court of London