text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/465

 own—was said by an epigrammatist to be intended to prove that ‘through all infinity, there was nothing so great as the master of Trinity.’ Whewell, rightly or wrongly, supposed the argument to have a certain theological significance. In a literary sense it is probably his best work. He wrote it with unusual care, and consulted literary friends, especially Sir James Stephen, in deference to whose advice he cancelled some seventy pages as too ‘metaphysical.’ The lively treatment of an old topic excited a sharp controversy. He was attacked by his old adversary, Brewster. The ablest hostile review, according to Todhunter, was that by [q. v.] in the ‘Oxford Essays’ for 1855. An account of many others is given by Todhunter (, i. 184–210), who adds many interesting details.

Whewell's later writings ranged over a wide field, including remodelled versions of his ‘inductive sciences;’ prefaces to the posthumous works of his old friend Jones, who died in 1855; a controversy with Mill upon logic; a translation of the Platonic dialogues; and lectures upon political economy. He produced, however, no original work of importance.

On 18 Dec. 1855 Mrs. Whewell died after long suffering. Whewell printed privately some elegiacs (given in Appendix to ), which, if they did not prove him to be a poet, showed very touchingly the strength of his affections. He returned to his work, having in November 1855 been again appointed vice-chancellor for the ensuing year. He gave some offence by rehanging all the pictures in the Fitzwilliam museum upon his own authority. The improvement was admitted, but the regulations for the management of the museum were altered for the future. In the winter of 1856–7 he visited Rome, and came back in much better health and spirits. On 1 July 1858 he married Everina Frances, widow of Sir Gilbert Affleck, fifth baronet (1804–1854), and daughter of Francis Ellis of Bath; since her husband's death she had lived at Trumpington with her brother, [q. v.], Whewell's friend. The second marriage was thoroughly happy.

Whewell's last attendance at the British Association was at the meeting at Cambridge in 1862. He took at this time much interest in the American civil war, and was pleased to find that he agreed with his old adversary, J. S. Mill, in sympathising with the northern states.

Whewell had become a rich man through his marriages and the income of his office. He devoted a large sum to new buildings, which were to supply funds for a chair of international law and scholarships on the same subject. He had spoken of the plan in 1849 when he had acquired for 7,000l. the freehold of some houses opposite the great gate of Trinity College. He proposed to erect a new building for students of Trinity, the rents of which should be devoted to the proposed endowment. After various proposals to the college, which was at first asked to pay for the building, he resolved to carry out the plan without help, and the new hostel was finished at his own expense in 1860 and immediately occupied. By the end of 1865 he had bought more land, upon which a new hostel was erected, between the old one and Sidney Street. It was not completed till 1868, after his death; but he had left sufficient directions by his will for carrying out the plans. The value of the endowment was estimated at nearly 100,000l. It supports a professor and eight scholars, receiving between them 1,100l. a year. The first professor (elected in 1869) was the present Sir William Harcourt. The professor has, under Whewell's will, to give twelve lectures annually, and to make it his aim to contribute towards the extinction of war. Mrs. Whewell had given 500l. for a scholarship at Trinity, and left about 10,000l. to be applied according to her husband's directions for the benefit of the college. The income was devoted to the augmentation of small livings.

Whewell's later years were again saddened by the death of his second wife (who continued to be called Lady Affleck) on 1 April 1865. He was especially soothed by the affectionate attentions of his two nieces, Janet and Kate Marshall, who had become Mrs. Stair Douglas and Mrs. Sumner Gibson in 1858. Mrs. Stair Douglas was now a widow, and passed the winter of 1865–6 with him at Trinity Lodge. On 24 Feb. 1866 both ladies went out for a drive to the Gog Magog hills, and Whewell joined them on horseback. He was both a bold and a careless rider, and an old injury from falls in riding hindered his control of his horse. It bolted with him, and he was thrown heavily. He was brought back in the carriage to Trinity, where it soon appeared that the injury had caused paralysis. He died on 6 March 1866. When he was dying the curtains were opened at his request that he might take a last look at the great court of Trinity, familiar to him for nearly fifty-four years. He was buried in the antechapel of the college.

The following portraits of Whewell are all in Trinity College Lodge: a three-quarter


text:
Page:Eskimo Life.djvu/210

168 Egede also remarks that women regard it as a great honour and happiness to become the concubine of an angekok—that is, 'one of their prophets and learned men.' 'Many husbands even regard this with favour, and will sometimes pay the angekoks to lie with their wives, especially if they themselves have no children by them.'

The Eskimo women, then, are allowed far greater freedom in this respect than women of Germanic stock. The reason probably is that whereas inheritance, and the continuance of the race and name, have been matters of supreme importance to the Teutons, the Eskimos have had little or no property to transmit from father to son, while for them the great consideration is simply that children shall be born.

With reference to the above-mentioned game, however, Dalager declares that it is of very rare occurrence, 'and that it is to be observed that a married woman who has duly become the mother of a family never takes part in it.'

On the other hand, he teils us that widows and divorced wives are not so particular. While it is very seldom that 'a young girl has a child, one sees older women bearing just as many children as if they were living in wedlock. If they are reproved for this, even by their own countrymen, they will often answer that their conduct does not proceed

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Page:Eskimo Life.djvu/210


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/466

 length in oil by S. Laurence, about 1850; a full-length in oil of Whewell under thirty, painter unknown; a small oil painting by Mr. Carpenter; a chalk drawing of Whewell, and one of his second wife, by A. M. Solomée. In the college hall is a small portrait in oil of Whewell as a young man by Lonsdale. In the college is a marble bust, by G. H. Bailey, bequeathed by Whewell to the college. In the antechapel is a marble statue, by T. Woolner, erected by the college after Whewell's death, with a Latin inscription by William Hepworth Thompson [q. v.], his successor.

Whewell was a man of splendid physical development. A Cambridge legend told of a prize-fighter who had exclaimed, ‘What a man was lost when they made you a parson!’ His face showed power rather than delicacy, and a massive brow gave special dignity to his appearance. His masculine vigour implied certain unattractive qualities. His friend Hare felt it a duty to remonstrate with him upon his ‘vehemence’ and impatience, and held up as examples the sweetness of William Wilberforce, Bishop Otter, and Manning. Whewell received the advice good-temperedly, and admitted that in so ‘eminent a station’ as the mastership he was especially bound not to be ‘overbearing’ (, pp. 209, 235, 285–92). He did not, however, quite admit the facts alleged in proof. He loved an argument, and his position as a great man in a small circle tended to make argument onesided. He was popular as a tutor; but for some time he provoked a good deal of hostility as master. In early days he had little chance of acquiring social refinement; and, though he was anxious to be hospitable, his sense of the dignity of his position led to a formality which made the drawing-room of the lodge anything but a place of easy sociability. In later years age and sorrow made him conspicuously milder, and the object not only of the pride but of the warm affection of the university. Though rough at times, he was from the first magnanimous; he never cherished resentment and admitted defeat frankly, and received the opinions of young and insignificant persons with remarkable courtesy. Few men, too, have had more friends or retained their friendships more carefully. He had many controversies, but no personal quarrels. His domestic life was perfect, and he always respected and attracted women.

Whewell's influence in Cambridge was for many years of great importance. In particular he did more than any one to introduce some interest in philosophy (see Professor Sidgwick's article in Mind for April 1876, quoted by, pp. 411–12). Though a conservative as to the constitution of the colleges, he was aware of many of the weak points of the Cambridge system, and tried to widen the course and raise the aims of the teachers. He tried, as he said, to introduce an ‘anti-Lockean philosophy’ (, p. 248). His success was limited by the character of his own mind. His books upon the ‘Inductive Sciences’ made a mark; but one result was the impulse, in the opposite direction, which he gave to J. S. Mill (for Mill's acknowledgment of the help derived from Whewell see Logic, preface, and Autobiography, p. 223). During Whewell's mastership Mill, rather than Whewell, was the accepted guide at Cambridge. The famous remark of Sydney Smith—‘science is his forte and omniscience his foible’—made (, i. 410) to Samuel Rogers at a breakfast-party, may partly explain this. Whewell began as a man of science. Todhunter, a very competent judge, testifies to the ‘accuracy and fidelity’ of the first edition of his ‘History’ (, i. 103). In later editions he left many errors, partly because his many occupations made the work of correction irksome, but also because ‘he had wandered from science to philosophy,’ and did not keep up with the later progress of discovery. The book necessarily became belated in many parts. Whewell meanwhile scarcely became a philosopher. He had studied Kant, and accepts Kant's theory of space and time. For later German developments he had nothing but contempt, and his friend Hare and others could never induce him even to take an interest in Coleridge. In his controversies with Mill he seems to have the advantage in some points from his greater familiarity with science and from his knowledge of Kant, whom Mill disregarded. But his constructive theory represents the old-fashioned form of ‘intuitionism,’ against which Mill carried on a successful warfare. His theory about ‘ideas’ and ‘facts’ is scarcely coherent, and certainly did not obtain acceptance. His theology is of the variety represented by Paley and the Bridgewater ‘Treatises;’ and, though a man of very strong and sincere religious sentiment, he did not succeed in speaking to his generation. He seems to have stood aside, as a good old-fashioned churchman, from the religious controversies of the time. He was more directly interested in ethical speculations; and his writings became text-books at Cambridge, and were naturally studied by young men reading for Trinity fellowships. They are per-


text:
Page:Eskimo Life.djvu/211

Rh from mere wantonness, but from a natural longing to bear children, which leads them to seduce many a worthy man.'

On the east coast, too, the morality of married people seems to leave a good deal to be desired, according to our ideas. I have mentioned, for instance, that the men often exchange wives; but the exchange is strictly a personal matter, and the husband will usually resent any unfaithfulness on the wife's part to the man to whom he has lent her, he himself, however, claiming full liberty. While living in their winter houses they often play a wife-exchanging or lamp-extinguishing game, like that above mentioned; but in this the unmarried also take part. Holm tells us that 'a good host always has the lamps put out at night when there are guests in the house.'

So far as I know, this game is no longer practised on the west coast. Married Christian Greenlanders, however, do not seem to have any overweening respect for the seventh commandment, and irregularities of conduct are far from uncommon.

The morals above described seem to us very bad on the whole; but it does not follow that the Eskimos share this feeling. We should beware how we fix ourselves at one point of view, and unsparingly condemn ideas and practices which the experience of many generations has developæd among another

title: Page:Eskimo Life.djvu/211


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/467

 fectly fair in intention, but it must be admitted that they are ponderous, and represent a line of thought which has not found favour with later writers. The most curious characteristic is the prominence given to positive law in the deduction of moral principles. A severe criticism by Mill of the ethical writings appeared in the ‘Westminster Review’ for October 1852, and is reprinted in Mill's ‘Dissertations,’ ii. 450–508.

Whewell was rather a critic than an original investigator in science. Upon one subject, however, he seems to have done really good work. Professor Darwin, who has kindly given his opinion, states that Whewell ‘will always rank among the great investigators of the theory of tides. His memoirs fill about 350 quarto pages, generally giving only the result of laborious computations. His most important work was the construction of a map showing the march of the tide-wave round the earth. The data were voluminous and necessarily imperfect. No one has repeated the enormous task of preparing such a chart; and, though it could be only an approximation, it fairly embodies all that is yet known on the point. The data for the seas round the British islands were comparatively plentiful, and Whewell spent enormous labour in constructing a “local cotidal chart,” which probably needs only slight amendments to make it perfectly correct. It has never been reconstructed. Whewell carefully considered the tides at various English ports, and was a pioneer in formulating satisfactory methods of prediction from large masses of observation. He was the first to bestow much attention upon the diurnal inequality of the tides which are conspicuous in most parts of the world. Whewell took such tides to be exceptional, though it is now known that the simplicity of the North Atlantic tides is the true exception. The modern method of treating the tide as composed of a number of constituent waves is of especial value in regard to this problem. Though Whewell's data were scanty and his methods have become obsolete, his treatment of the question was of great service at the time. He endeavoured to form a local diurnal cotidal chart for the British islands, but concluded that the facts could not be presented in this form. His conclusion may be correct, although the errors in his data and the imperfection of his method made his failure inevitable. The problem is now more feasible; but sufficient data are still wanting, and the attempt has not been renewed. Whewell also considered the rise and fall of water during a single tidal oscillation, and gave formulæ for predicting the height of water at any moment from a knowledge of the height and time of high and low water. He received much help from professional computers supplied by the admiralty; but his personal work, considering that he had the whole direction of the computations, must have been very heavy. His success showed a splendid perseverance, which is the more remarkable when we take into account his contemporaneous work upon many other matters.’

The first volume of Todhunter's ‘life’ is in great part devoted to an elaborate account of Whewell's writings, and contains full and minute bibliographical details of the complicated changes due to the frequent remodelling the books in successive editions.

Whewell's works are: 1. ‘Boadicea’ (Cambridge prize poem), 1814. 2. ‘An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics,’ 1819, 1 vol. 8vo. A ‘syllabus’ of this treatise appeared in 1821. Later editions appeared in 1824 (almost a new work), 1828, 1833, 1836, 1841 (‘entirely rewritten’), and 1847. A part supposing more mathematical knowledge was omitted in 1833 and published separately as ‘Analytical Statics.’ The work was translated into German in 1841. 3. ‘A Treatise on Dynamics,’ 1823, 8vo, substantially a second volume of the ‘Mechanics’ of 1819. This was replaced by three volumes: (i.) ‘An Introduction to Dynamics,’ &c., an addition intended for students with little mathematical knowledge; (ii.) ‘On the Free Motion of Points … the first part of a Treatise on Dynamics,’ 1832, 8vo, called a ‘second edition’ of the first part of the ‘Dynamics’ (new edition in 1836); and (iii.) ‘On the Motion of Points constrained … and on the Motion of a Rigid Body,’ 1834, 8vo, called ‘second part’ of a new edition of the ‘Dynamics.’ 4. ‘Essay on Mineralogical Classification and Nomenclature,’ 1828, 8vo. 5. ‘Account of Experiments made at Dolcoath Mine …,’ 1828, 16 pp. 8vo (privately printed) 6. ‘Essay on Chemical Elements and Nomenclature,’ 1829, 8vo. 7. ‘Architectural Notes on German Churches, with Remarks on the Origin of Gothic Architecture,’ 1830, 1 vol. 8vo. An enlarged edition, with ‘notes during an architectural tour in Picardy and Normandy,’ appeared in 1835, and a third, with ‘notes on the churches of the Rhine by M. F. de Lassaulx …,’ in 1842 (first edition anonymous). 8. ‘The First Principles of Mechanics, with Historical and Practical Illustrations,’ 1832, 1 vol. 8vo, ‘superseded’ by part of the ‘History of the Inductive Sciences.’ 9. ‘Astronomy and General Physics considered with reference


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/468

 to Natural Theology,’ 1833, 1 vol. 8vo (‘Bridgewater Treatise’), six editions to 1864. 10. ‘Remarks on some Parts of Mr. Thirlwall's Letter on the Admission of Dissenters to Academical Degrees,’ 1834, 8vo. 11. ‘Additional Remarks on some Parts of Mr. Thirlwall's Two Letters,’ &c., 1834, 8vo. 12. ‘Thoughts on the Study of Mathematics as a part of a Liberal Education,’ 1835, 8vo (reprinted in ‘Principles of English University Education’). 13. ‘Newton and Flamsteed …,’ 1836, 19 pp. 8vo (two editions). 14. ‘The Mechanical Euclid, containing the Elements of Mechanics and Hydrostatics demonstrated after the Manner of the Elements of Geometry …,’ 1837, 1 vol. 12mo; later editions in 1837, 1838, 1843, and 1849, with various changes. 15. ‘On the Foundations of Morals,’ 1837, 1 vol. 8vo; 2nd edit. 1839 (four university sermons of November 1837). 16. ‘Letter to Charles Babbage, esq. …,’ 1837, 7 pp. 8vo (defence of ‘Bridgewater Treatise’). 17. ‘On the Principles of English University Education,’ 1837, sm. 8vo. 18. ‘History of the Inductive Sciences from the Earliest to the Present Time,’ 1837, 3 vols. 8vo; 2nd edit., enlarged, in 1847; 3rd, in three small octavo volumes, with additions (also printed in octavo to be bound with second edition), 1857. Whewell replied to some criticisms in the ‘Edinburgh Review’ by a short printed letter, dated 28 Oct. 1837, and in the ‘Medical Gazette’ of 30 Dec. 1837 defended his treatment of Sir Charles Bell and Mayo. 19. ‘The Doctrine of Limits, with its Applications …,’ 1838, 1 vol. 8vo. 20. ‘The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, founded upon their History,’ 1840, 2 vols. 8vo. A second, enlarged edition, appeared in 1847. This was afterwards divided into three books, in small octavo, to range with the third edition of the ‘History’: (i.) ‘History of Scientific Ideas,’ 1858; (ii.) ‘Novum Organon Renovatum,’ 1858; (iii.) ‘Philosophy of Discovery,’ 1860. The last contains considerable additions to the corresponding part of the original book, and includes answers to Herschel (previously printed privately), Lewes, and J. S. Mill. 21. ‘Mechanics of Engineering,’ 1841, 1 vol. 8vo (a sequel to the treatise on mechanics). 22. ‘Two Introductory Lectures to two Courses of Lectures on Moral Philosophy, delivered in 1840 and 1841,’ 1841, 1 vol. 8vo. 23. ‘Indications of the Creator,’ 1845, 1 vol. sm. 8vo; 2nd edit. 1846 (extracts from previous works, with prefaces, in answer to the ‘Vestiges of Creation’). 24. ‘Of a Liberal Education in General, and with particular reference to the Leading Studies in the University of Cambridge,’ 1845, 1 vol. 8vo; to a second edition, 1850, was added a ‘part ii.’ (on recent changes), and in 1852 was published ‘part iii.’ (on the ‘revised statutes’). 25. ‘Elements of Morality, including Polity,’ 1845, 2 vols. 8vo; 2nd edit. 1848, 2 vols. sm. 8vo; 4th, 1864, 1 vol. 8vo. 26. ‘Lectures on Systematic Morality, delivered in Lent Term, 1846,’ 1846, 1 vol. 8vo. 27. ‘Conic Sections, their Principal Properties proved geometrically,’ 1846 (1 vol. 8vo), 1849, 1855. 28. ‘Newton's Principia,’ bk. i. §§ i. ii. iii.; in the original Latin, with explanatory notes and references, 1846, 1 vol. 8vo. 29. ‘Sermons preached in the Chapel of Trinity College, Cambridge,’ 1847, 1 vol. 8vo (twenty-two sermons). 30. ‘Verse Translations from the German …,’ 1847, 1 vol. 8vo (anonymous; includes Bürger's ‘Lenore’ and Schiller's ‘Song of the Bell.’ The translation from Bürger was republished, with another of uncertain authorship, in 1858 as ‘Two Translations,’ &c.). 31. ‘Sunday Thoughts, and other Verses,’ 1847, 1 vol. 8vo (privately printed and anonymous; includes the ‘Isle of the Sirens,’ some passages in Carlyle's ‘Chartism,’ put into hexameters and privately printed in 1840). 32. ‘English Hexameter Translations from Schiller, Goethe, Homer, Callinus, and Meleager,’ 1847, 1 vol. 8vo. Whewell edited this volume, to which Sir J. W. Herschel, J. C. Hare, J. G. Lockhart, and E. C. Hawtrey contributed. It contains Whewell's translation of ‘Hermann and Dorothea’ (also privately printed in 1839) and some other pieces. For full details and references to various magazine articles by Whewell upon English hexameters and reviews of Longfellow's ‘Evangeline’ and Clough's ‘Bothie,’ see Todhunter, i. 283–301. Miss Wentworth's ‘Life and Letters of Niebuhr,’ 1852, vol. iii., includes some English hexameters by Whewell. 33. ‘Of Induction, with special reference to Mr. J. S. Mill's System of Logic,’ 1849, 8vo; reprinted in ‘Philosophy of Discovery.’ 34. ‘Inaugural Lecture, 26 Nov. 1851: the general Bearing of the Great Exhibition on the progress of Art and Science,’ 1851, 16 pp. 8vo; also in a volume with other lectures. 35. ‘A Letter to the Author of “Prolegomena Logica”’ [H. L. Mansel], 1852, 8vo; reproduced in ‘Philosophy of Discovery,’ chap. xxviii. 36. ‘Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England,’ 1852, i vol. 8vo; 2nd edit., with additional lectures (1862, sm. 8vo), including an answer to remarks by Mark Pattison in ‘Essays and Reviews.’ 37. ‘Of the Plurality of Worlds: an Essay,’ 1853, 1 vol. 8vo; other editions, in small octavo, in 1854,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu/469

 1855, 1859, all anonymous. 38. ‘A Dialogue on the Plurality of Worlds, being a Supplement to the Essay,’ 1854, 1 vol. sm. 8vo; added to second and later editions of the ‘Essay.’ 39. ‘On the Material Aids of Education,’ 1854, 39 pp. 8vo (inaugural lecture at ‘Educational Exhibition,’ 1859). 40. ‘On the Influence of the History of Science upon Intellectual Education,’ included in a volume of lectures on education at the Royal Institution in 1854. 41. ‘Elegiacs’ (on the death of his wife), 31 quarto pp. (privately printed; added to Mrs. Stair Douglas's ‘Life’). 42. ‘Platonic Dialogues for English Readers,’ 1859–61, 3 vols. sm. 8vo (a condensed translation, which embodies some of his lectures on moral philosophy). 43. ‘Six Lectures on Political Economy, delivered … in Michaelmas Term, 1861,’ 1862, 8vo (privately printed. The lectures were given at the request of the prince consort before the Prince of Wales).

Besides the above works, Whewell contributed part ii. of the treatise upon electricity in the ‘Encyclopædia Metropolitana’ (1826), a ‘reproduction’ of a memoir by Poisson (see, i. 35). He also wrote for the same an essay called ‘Archimedes—Greek Mathematics,’ which was republished in a volume upon ‘Greek and Roman Philosophy and Science’ in 1853. He edited Mackintosh's ‘Dissertation’ on ethics in 1835 with a preface, often reprinted; Butler's ‘Three Sermons on Human Nature and Dissertation on Virtue’ in 1848, and Butler's ‘Six Sermons on Moral Subjects’ in 1849; Sanderson's ‘Prælectiones Decem’ in 1851; Grotius’ ‘De Jure Belli et Pacis’ in 1853. He contributed a paper upon ‘Barrow and his Academical Times’ to the ninth volume of the Cambridge edition of Barrow in 1859, and a preface to Barrow's ‘Mathematical Works’ (1860). In 1859 he wrote a ‘prefatory notice’ to the ‘Literary Remains’ of Richard Jones. In 1850 he published an anonymous translation of Auerbach's ‘Professor's Wife.’ He also printed for private circulation papers upon various questions of university and college reform.

Among contributions to periodicals are reviews of Lyell's ‘Principles of Geology’ in the ‘British Critic’ (No. 17), of Jones's work upon ‘Rent’ in the ‘British Critic’ (No. 19), of Herschel's ‘Preliminary Discourses’ in the ‘Quarterly Review’ (No. 90), of the second volume of Lyell's ‘Principles’ in the ‘Quarterly Review’ (No. 93), and of Mrs. Somerville's ‘Connexion of the Physical Sciences’ in the ‘Quarterly’ (No. 101), Ruskin's ‘Seven Lamps of Architecture’ in ‘Fraser’ for February 1850, the new edition of Bacon's ‘Works’ in the ‘Edinburgh’ for October 1857, and ‘Comte and Positivism’ in ‘Macmillan's Magazine’ for March 1866. His ‘presidential addresses’ to the Geological Society in 1838 and 1839 are published in their ‘Proceedings,’ and the address to the British Association in the ‘Report’ for 1841.

He published a few separate sermons, and others, still in manuscript, are noticed in Todhunter, chap. xvii. In chap. xviii. Todhunter gives an account, with extracts, of some ‘notes on books’ and other manuscripts. In chap. xix. he publishes some early poems, and in chap. xx. parts of a story of a journey to the earth by an inhabitant of the moon, written after the ‘Plurality of Worlds.’ Whewell contributed a number of memoirs to various scientific journals. The ‘Catalogue of Scientific Papers’ gives sixty-four, besides the papers upon tides. An account of these is given in Todhunter, chap. xvi. Some papers in which he applied mathematical symbols to a criticism of Ricardo's ‘Political Economy’ are in the ‘Cambridge Philosophical Transactions,’ iii. 191, iv. 155, x. 125.

[The task of writing Whewell's life was unfortunately divided. In 1876 appeared William Whewell: an Account of his Writings, with Selections from his Literary and Scientific Correspondence, by Isaac Todhunter [q. v.], 2 vols. 8vo; and in 1881 the Life and Selections from the Correspondence of William Whewell by Mrs. Stair Douglas, 1 vol. 8vo. Earlier notices are in Macmillan's Magazine for April 1866 by William George Clark [q. v.], in the Proceedings of the Royal Society (vol. xvi.), by Sir J. W. Herschel, and in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (vol. vi.), by Sir D. Brewster. A few references are in De Morgan's Budget of Paradoxes, pp. 415–17; in Sir H. Holland's Recollections of Past Life (1872), p. 270; and in Airy's Autobiography (1896), pp. 117–19, and elsewhere. The present master of Trinity (Dr. H. Montagu Butler) has kindly given information.]


text:
Page:Eskimo Life.djvu/212

170 people, however much they may conflict with our own. There may be underlying reasons which do not at once meet the eye, and which place the whole matter in a very different light.

The conceptions of good and evil in this world are exceedingly divergent. As an example, let me cite the case of the Eskimo girl who, when Niels Egede spoke to her of love of God and her neighbour, said to him: 'I have given proof of love for my neighbour. Once an old woman who was ill, but could not die, offered to pay me if I would lead her to the top of the steep cliff from which our people have always thrown themselves when they are tired of living; but I, having ever loved my neighbours, led her thither without payment, and cast her over the cliff.' Egede told her that this was ill done, and that she had killed a fellow-creature. 'She said no; but that she was filled with pity for her, and cried after she had fallen over.' Are we to call this a good or an evil deed?

Another time, when Egede was explaining how God punishes wicked people, an Eskimo remarked that in that respect he was like God, for he had killed three old women who were witches.

The same divergence of judgment makes itself felt with regard to the seventh commandment. To the Eskimo the other exhortation to increase and

title: Page:Eskimo Life.djvu/212


text:
Thompson v. Boisselier

District of Missouri. MCNAB & HARLAN MANUF'G Co. and another

v.

SAME. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United

States for the Southern District of New York.

EATON and others

v.

SAME.1 Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United

States for the Southern District of New York.

March 30, 1885.

Edmund Wetmore and G. G. Frelinghuysen, for Thompson, Trustee, etc., and others.

L. Deane, for appellees in Missouri cases, and appellants in New York cases.

BLATCHFORD, J.

title: Thompson v. Boisselier


text: Talk:Thompson v. Boisselier

title: Talk:Thompson v. Boisselier


text:
Thompson v. Boisselier/Opinion of the Court

These are four suits in equity. The first one was brought in February, 1877, in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Missouri, by Charles F. Blake, as trustee of William S.C.arr and Frederick H. Bartholomew, against Elizabeth E. Boisselier and John C. Kupferle, for the infringement of reissued letters patent, No. 978, granted to William S.C.arr, June 12, 1860, for 'improvements in water-closets,' the original patent having been granted to him August 5, 1856, and, as reissued, extended, July 23, 1870, for seven years from August 5, 1870. The second suit was brought in February, 1879, in the same court, by Charles F. Blake, as trustee of Sarah Bartholomew, against the same defendants, for the infringement of letters patent, No. 21,734, granted to Frederick H. Bartholomew, October 12, 1858, for an 'improved water-closet,' and extended, October 2, 1872, for seven years from October 12, 1872. The third and fourth suits were brought in July, 1879, in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, by Charles F. Blake, as trustee, etc., and William S.C.arr and Sarah M. Bartholomew-one against the McNab & Harlan Manufacturing Company and John Harlan, and the other against John Eaton and others-each for the infringement of the said Carr patent, as reissued and extended, and of the said Bartholomew patent, as extended. In each of the two suits in Missouri a decree was made in May, 1880, adjudging that the patent sued on was not good and valid in law, and dismissing the bill. In each of the two suits in New York, a decision was made in February, 1881, (19 Blatchf. C. C. 73, S.C.. 7 Fed. Rep. 821,) adjudging that the two patents were good and valid in law, and that the third claim of the Carr reissue, and the first claim of the Bartholomew patent, had been infringed, and awarding an account of profits and damages; and in January, 1882, a final decree was made in one suit for $1,200 damages and $118.74 costs, and in the other for $415 damages and $101.24 costs. The plaintiffs in interest in each of the Missouri suits, and the defendants in each of the New York suits, have appealed to this court. The questions are the same in all of the suits and arise on the same proofs.

The third claim of the Carr reissue is the only claim of that patent which is alleged to have been infringed. So much of the specification of that reissue as relates to that claim is as follows:

'Fig. 1 is an elevation of my closet as in place for use; Fig. 2 is a plan of the cock and part of the plan of said closet; and Fig. 3 is a vertical section of my cock made use of in letting the water into and shutting the same off from said closet. SIMILAR MARKS OF REFERENCE INDICATE The same parts in all the figures. the nature of my said invention consists in a peculiar construction of cock, which is opened by the motion of the seat of the water-closet, and allows but little water to run into the pan of the closet until the weight is removed from the seat, when the cock, gradually closing of itself, allows the water to run for a limited and regulated time, sufficient to wash out the basin. * *  * In the drawing, a is the trunk on the upper

end of the soil-pipe, b, fitted with the pan, r, on the shaft or spindle, q, and c is the basin setting on to the trunk, a. These parts, thus far, are to be of any usual or desired character; d is a pipe supplying water from any suitable head, and said pipe is attached to the coupling 1, that screws on to the body, e, of the cock, and f is a pipe and coupling passing water (when admitted as hereafter detailed) to the basin, c, where it is to be fitted with the deflector, as usual. The cock, e, that supplies water to the basin, is constructed with a stem, h, passing nearly or quite air-tight through the leather washer, 4, beneath the cap, n, and the lower end of said stem, h, is formed with a vale, g, and with a cylindrical part, 3, fitting water-tight, or nearly so; the opening of the washer, 2, between the coupling, 1, of the pipe, d, and cock, e, and the sides of this cylinder, 3, are formed with notches, or a groove, x. It will now be seen, that, if the stem, h, be pressed down by the weight of the person acting on the seat, u, rod, v, and lever, p, or by any other suitable means, the valve, g, will be forced away from the washer, 2, and allow a dash of water to pass through the notch, x, sufficient to fill up the parts of the cock, and then that the cylinder, 3, descending and filling the opening in the washer, 2, will prevent, or nearly so, the passage of any more water into the closet; i is a spring around the stem, h, which acts in aid of the pressure of the water on the valve, g, to close the same, as soon as the force which opened the said valve is removed, but, if the alone was used, the concussion would be so great as to tend to break the parts, besides which sufficient water would not be supplied to the water-closet to cleanse the same. I, therefore, make use of the following means, which cause said valve, g, to close slowly and in a regulated amount of time, thereby allowing the desired quantity of water to dash past the washer, 2, at the time the notches or openings, x, are moving past the same. The upper part of the cock, e, is formed as a cylinder, k, in which is a disk, l, attached to the stem, h, and a cup-leather, m, above the same; n is a cap of the cylinder, k, which is formed with a short tube, 8, passing up through a hollow projection, O, from the side of the trunk, a, and secured thereto by a nut, 6. At the time the valve, g, is pressed down, as before stated, the water dashes momentarily on to the cock and fills the same, passing the cup-leather, m, and filling the cylinder, k, and, upon the pressure on the stem, h, being removed, the cup-leather expands by the slight rise of the stem, and would retain the valve, g, open were the cylinder, k, water-tight, and, therefore, the closing of said valve will be regulated according to the extent of leakage provided in said chamber, k, and for this purpose the leakage at the washer, 4, around the stem, h, may in some cases be sufficient; but I propose to use a screw, 9, entered through the cap, n, with a head next the washer, 4, and part of one side of the screw filed away, so as to adjust the amount of leakage and regulate the time during which the water will run into the closet. * *  * I am also aware that a given amount of water leakage has been used to prevent a sudden motion in cocks, balances, meters, and a variety of other instruments; therefore, I do not claim the same, but I am not aware that a cup-leather has ever before been so fitted and applied with a valve as to allow the water to pass the said cup-leather freely in the chamber in which it moves, and then act, when the power is relieved from the valve, upon the water in said chamber and gradually allow the valve to close.'

The third claim of the Carr reissue is as follows: 'Third. I claim, in a valve for water-closets, a cup-leather for controlling the motion of said valve in closing gradually, substantially as specified, said cup-leather moving freely in one direction, and closing against the containing cylinder in the other direction, and the leakage of water in said cylinder allowing the movement of said cup-leather as set forth.'

In the Carr apparatus, the valve is combined with a containing cylinder and a cup-leather, in such manner that the valve is caused to close slowly, because the action of the cup-leather as a tight packing prevents the passage of water while the valve is closing, and the valve can open rapidly, because, as it opens, the cup-leather does not act as a packing, but permits the passage of water outside of it. In the containing cylinder there is a piston which has on it centrally a cup-leather, and is provided with a small aperture, which permits the gradual escape of water from it. When the cylinder is filled with water, the valve is held to its seat by a spiral spring. When the valve-stem is depressed, the valve opens rapidly, because the cup-leather permits the water to pass freely outside of it. When the force which depressed the alve-stem is removed, the spring acts to shut the valve, but it shuts slowly, because the cup-leather acts as a tight packing, being forced outward against the inner wall of the cylinder by the pressure of the water. Therefore, the water escapes slowly from the cylinder through the small aperture, and the valve cannot move faster, in shutting, than it is allowed to move by the escape of the water through the small aperture.

The apparatus alleged to infringe the two patents is the same in all of the suits. It has a brass casting, and is thus described by the plaintiff's expert: 'This brass casting of the defendants has at its lower part a cavity whose walls partially bound the variable chamber. This cavity is a cup-shaped piece of brass screwed to the bottom of the casting. A cylindrical brass plunger enters this cavity, and the upper end of it is formed into a valve. This brass plunger is packed to the top of the cavity by a cup-leather, which is secured between the upper part of the brass cup and an internal flange on the brass casting. The stem of the plunger and valve is surrounded by a coiled brass spring, which always tends to lift the plunger and shut the valve. The plunger has, also, a small nick or groove cut in its periphery, and extending from the top to the bottom of the plunger. When this contrivance is ready for operation, all parts of the cavity in the brass casting, including the variable chamber, are filled with water, and the valve is held on its seat by the spiral spring, the plunger then being in its highest position. When it is desired to open the valve, force is applied to depress the valve-stem; this force compresses the spring, depresses the plunger, and opens the valve quickly, owing to the fact that the water can escape rapidly from the variable chamber, such rapid escape being due to the operation of the cup-leather, which now ceases to hug the plunger and acts as a valve, permitting the water to escape freely from the variable chamber. When the force which was applied to depress the stem and open the valve is removed, then the spring strives to shut the valve and elevate the plunger, and as soon as it commences to elevate the plunger the pressure of water causes the cup-leather to hug the plunger tightly, so that it ceases to act as a valve, and becomes a tight packing. As soon as this occurs water can only enter the chamber through the small groove in the periphery of the plunger, and the valve can shut no faster than this small flow of water permits it to shut.'

It is shown by the evidence that cup-leathers had been used in the central valves of the plungers of pumps, the cup-leather contracting on the down-stroke and allowing the water to pass by, and spreading out on the up-stroke and raising the water; and that it was not new to employ a variable chamber to effect, by the gradual escape of water from it, the slow and gradual closing of a valve.

In George Hulme's English patent No. 8,971, of November, 1841, is shown a device for 'keeping a valve a open for any required length of time for the supply of water to the basins of water-closets generally.' The specification says: 'To regulate the length of time that the valve, F, may be kept open for the flow of water from the reservoir to the basin of the closet, after the pan or valve has closed, the barrel, A, A, is furnished with the openings, N, N, communicating from the under to the upper side of the bucket, D, and fitted with a cock, O. Now, by turning the cock, O, in such a position that the water-way through the cock, O, will be diminished, more time will be required for the bucket to displace the contents of the barrel, and vice versa.' The bucket, D, does not have a cup-leather, but has a central valve, E, to allow the water to pass.

The defendants have substantially the Hulme construction, using a cup-leather centrally, instead of the Hulme central valve. A central valve being old, and a cup-leather being old, and a central valve and cup-leather combined being old, and a plunger with a central valve and a means of regulating the escape of the water from above it being old, and the device for the escape of the water, used by the defendants, being the same as in Hulme, it must be held that, for the purpose of securing the free passage of water in one direction, and preventing its escape in the other direction, otherwise than gradually, the defendants have used nothing which they did not have a right to use, and have not appropriated any patentable invention which Carr had a right to cover, as against the defendant's structure, by the third claim of his reissue. If Carr had made the defendants' form of structure, when he made his own, he would not, in view of the state of the art, have made anything having patentable novelty in it; and, therefore, what he has claimed in claim 3 of his reissue, has no patentable feature which the defendants' form of structure infringes. The action of the cup-leather in Carr's structure and in the defendants', to admit the free passage of the water while the valve is moving in one direction, and to prevent such passage while the valve is moving in the other direction, is due to the flexibility of the leather, and to the pressure of the water on its different sides alternately, and to its position with reference to the wall of the chamber, and is the same as in the old central valve of a pump-plunger, which was furnished with a cup-leather. The effect resulting from allowing the water, which cannot return through the passage by which it entered, to escape by a small orifice and gradually, and thus cause a gradual movement in a valve attached to the central stem, is due to the small orifice. All that Carr did, if anything, was to add his form of orifice to the valve and cup-leather of the pump-plunger. But the idea of having openings extending from one side to the other of a bucket, and thus regulating the closing of a water-valve by the slow escape of the water from the upper side of the bucket, through such openings, was fully exhibited in the apparatus of Hulme.

Claim 3 of Carr's reissue speaks of the cup-leather as 'moving freely in one direction and closing against the containing cylinder in the other direction.' This action existed in the cup-leather of the old pump-plunger. The claim also says, 'the leakage of water in said cylinder allowing the movement of said cup-leather, as set forth.' This means that the greater or less extent of the leakage allows a faster or slower movement of the cup-leather, and a faster or slower closing of the valve. The claim involves, therefore, as an element in it, the means of leakage set forth. It says that the use of the cup-leather is 'for controlling the motion of said valve in closing gradually, substantially as specified.' But it is the gradual escape of the water through the small orifice which controls the motion of the valve. The cup-leather does not control such motion. The only action of the cup-leather is the same which it had in the old pump-plunger: to hold up a column of water and act as a packing to prevent the return passage of the water. In this condition of things it would seem that the only point of invention, if it could be dignified by that name, was the special means of leakage shown by Carr, of having a screw through the cap, with part of the screw filed away; and which is not used by the defendants, who use the same means of leakage as Hulme did.

The provision of the constitution (article 1, § 8, subd. 8) is that congress shall have power 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.' The beneficiary must be an inventor and he must have made a discovery. The statute has always carried out this idea. Under the act of July 4, 1836, (5 St. 119, § 6,) in force when these patents were granted, the patentee was required to be a person who had 'discovered or invented' a 'new and useful art machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,' or a 'new and useful improvement in any art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.' In the act of July 8, 1870, (16 St. 201, § 24,) the patentee was required to be a person who had 'invented or discovered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;' and that language is reproduced in section 4886 of the Revised Statutes. So, it is not enough that a thing shall be new, in the sense that in the shape or form in which it is produced it shall not have been before known, and that it shall be useful, but it must, under the constitution and the statute, amount to an invention or discovery.

To refer only to some more recent cases, adjudged since these suits were decided below, this principle was applied in Vinton v. Hamilton, 104 U.S. 485, where, a cupola-furnace being old, and a cinder-notch being old, and the use of a cinder-notch to draw off cinders from a blast-furnace being old, and the cinder-notch, in drawing off the cinder from a cupola-furnace, performing the same function as in the blast-furnace, it was held that the application of the cinder-notch to the cupola-furnace would occur to any practical man, and that there was nothing patentable in such application.

In Hall v. Macneale, 107 U.S. 90; bolt, in a safe, with a screw-thread on it, having existed before, and also a solid conical bolt, it was held to be no invention to add the screw-thread to the solid conical bolt.

In Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192, 200; S.C.. 2 SUP. CT. REP. 225, it was said, that it is not the object of the patent laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures; and this doctrine was applied in Slawson v. Grand St. R. Co. 107 U.S. 649; S.C.. 2 SUP. CT. REP. 663; in King v. Gallun, 109 U.S. 99; S.C.. 3 SUP. CT. REP. 85; in Double-pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Manuf'g Co. 109 U.S. 117; S.C.. 3 SUP. CT. REP. 105; in Estey v. Burdett, 109 U.S. 633; S.C.. 3 SUP. CT. REP. 531; in Bussey v. Excelsior Manuf'g Co. 110 U.S. 131; S.C.. CT. REP. 38; in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Locomotive, etc., Truck Co. 110 U.S. 490; S.C.. 4 SUP. CT. REP. 220; in Phillips v. City of Detroit, 111 U.S. 604; S.C.. 4 SUP. CT. REP. 580; in Morris v. McMillin, 112 U.S. 244; S.C.. 5 SUP. CT. REP. 218; and in Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manuf'g Co. 113 U.S. 59; S.C.. 5 SUP. CT. REP. 717.

In the case last cited the thing claimed was new, in the sense that it had not been anticipated by any previous invention, and it was shown to have superior utility, yet it was held not to be such an improvement as was entitled to be regarded, in the patent law, as an invention. The claim was 'A stamp, the body of which is made of paper or other material, and having a removable slip of metal or other material, displaying thereon a serial mumber, or other specific identifying mark, corresponding with a similar mark upon the stub, and so attached that the removal of such slip must mutilate or destroy the stamp.' He part designed to become the stamp.' The part designed to become separated therefrom, and displaying a serial number, was well known; and so was the constituent part of the stamp proper designed to be permanently attached to a barrel. The third element, namely, a constituent part of the stamp proper displaying the same identifying serial number as the stub, which part, after the stamp proper had been affixed to the barrel, bore such relation to the permanent part, that it could be removed therefrom so as to retain its own integrity, but to mutilate, and thereby cancel, the stamp, by its removal, was not new, so far as the contents of such constituent part were identical with those on the stub. But the question turned on that feature of the third element whereby a removable part of the stamp proper, the contents of which identified the stamp with the stub after the stamp had been attached, could be so removed as to retain its own integrity, but mutilate, and thereby cancel, the stamp, by its removal. This was held not to be a patentable invention; and 'not to spring from that intuitive faculty of the mind put forth in the search for new results, or new methods, creating what had not before existed, or bringing to light what lay hidden from vision;' but to be only 'the display of the expected skill of the calling,' and involving 'only the exercise of the ordinary faculties of reasoning upon the materials supplied by a special knowledge, and the faculty of manipulation which results from its habitual and intelligent practice;' and to be 'in no sense the creative work of that inventive faculty which it is the purpose of the constitution and patent laws to encourage and reward.'

On these principles claim 3 of the Carr reissue must, in view of the state of the art, either be held not to involve a patentable invention, or, if it does, not to have been infringed.

The specification of the Bartholomew patent says: 'The nature of my invention consists in providing for water-closets a cistern, or drip, or leak-chamber, arranged upon the top of, or over the trunk of a closet, and placing a supply-cock within or above said drip-box or cistern, so that any waste, or leak, or drip from the cock shall be conducted into the trunk, so as to insure the keeping of the floor dry. * *  * Fig. 1 is a prospective view of a pancloset, showing my drip-box arranged upon the top plate of the closet, and the cock for supplying water to the same secured to the closet within the drip-box. * *  * The general form of the closet is such as is in common use. Upon the cover, R, I cast a box, inclosure, or cistern, E, about one inch high, (more or less,) and broad enough to admit of placing the 'A' cock (I use a valve cock) within the cistern, and (where it is practicable) so as also to receive the drip that may escape from the joint at the arm of the basin, called the 'putty-joint.' I screw the cock into the cover of the closet, and make a hole within the drip-box, or in the bottom of the cock, to admit the leak to fall into the trunk, P, and not onto the floor.' The first claim of the patent, which is the only one alleged to have been infringed, reads thus: 'First. I claim the use of a drip-box or leak-chamber, arranged above the closet, and below and around the supply-cock, substantially as described.'

The defendants' structure has a trunk, and a supply cock, and a drip-box arranged below and around the supply cock, but the drip-box is cast on the side of the trunk, near the top, but below it, and not on top of it. The drip goes into the drip-box, and thence into the trunk and the soil-pipe. The following devices are shown to have been old: A drip-cup or drip-box; a pipe to convey away drippings, in machinery, from a drip-box arranged in connection with a cock; a drip-cup applied to the valve of a water-closet, the leakage from the valve falling into a saucer, and thence finding its way, through a hole, into the inside of the trunk; a valve on the floor at the foot of the trunk; a valve attached to the trunk and below its top; a valve above its top; a valve with a drip-pan conducting the drip into the soil-pipe at the foot of the trunk; a valve on top of the trunk, and a provision, by means of a hollow arm, to conduct the drip into the trunk. In view of this state of the art, the claim must be limited, as defined by its language and that of the specification, to a drip-box 'arranged upon the top of or over the trunk' 'arranged upon the top-plate,'-cast 'upon the cover'-'arranged above the closet.' The limitation imposed by the patentee must be presumed to have been made with good reason, and, even if there was anything patentable in the claim as it reads, it cannot, in view of the state of the art, be extended to cover any structure ex ept one which has a drip-box arranged above or on top of the closet, and therefore, has not been infringed.

From these considerations it results that the decrees in the Missouri suits must be affirmed; and those in the New York suits must be reversed, with directions to dismiss the bills, with costs.


text: Talk:Thompson v. Boisselier/Opinion of the Court


text: Murphy v. Ramsey Pratt

title: Murphy v. Ramsey Pratt


text: Talk:Murphy v. Ramsey Pratt

title: Talk:Murphy v. Ramsey Pratt