HISTORY OF PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY.
423
instruction in the elements of the science, nor even a companion to co-operate with him in his studies. But these disadvantages did not effectuallydepress his ardour. He resolved to cultivate the science alone, by theaid of such books as his limited means could from time to time supplyhim with. About the year 1636, he at length had the good fortune toobtain the acquaintance of Crabtree, who had already been engaged insimilar pursuits. The two young friends corresponded together for severalyears on astronomical subjects, occasionally communicating with SamuelFoster of London , who was subsequently Professor of Astronomy inGresham College *. In a letter dated October 3, 1040, Horrocks statedto his friend that he intended soon paying him a visit, but he wished pre-viously to bring to a conclusion his Dissertation on the transit of Venus.On the 12th of December following, he expressed in another letter hisregret that the inconstant state of his affairs, and the daily performance ofduties of a harassing nature, prevented him so long from enjoying thegratification of a personal interview with his friend. At length, on the19th of the same mouth, he wrote to say that if nothing unusual shouldprevent him (nisi quid prater insolitum impediat), he would be at Brough-ton on the 4th of January. Alas! his expectations were not destined tobe realised. Dr. Wallis found on the back of this letter a statement inCrabtree’s own handwriting to the effect that his dear friend Horrocksdied very suddenly on the morning of the 3rd of January, being the veryday previous to that on which he intended to visit him. Crabtree survivedhis friend only a very short time. Dr. Wallis, in 1672, was unable toobtain any authentic particulars respecting his death. The general beliefwas, that he had perished in the civil wars which soon afterwards brokeout.
Amid the angry din of political commotion, the name of Horrocks wascompletely forgotten, until at length, after the lapse of twenty years, themanuscript of his “ Venus in Sole Visa” having been shown to severalmembers of the Royal Society , which had just been instituted, a generalfeeling of admiration was excited by its perusal, and a strong desire wasexpressed that it should be published. Huyghens , who happened to bethen in London , was so much struck with the genius of the youthfulauthor of the Dissertatiorrthat he caused a copy of it to be taken, and trans-mitted it to Hevelius , who published it at Dantzic in 1662, along with hisown “ Mercurius in Sole Visus.” It does not redound to the credit ofEngland, that this exquisite relic of one of her most gifted sons shouldhave been allowed first to see the light in a foreign landf. Nor canit assuredly be urged, in extenuation of her indifference, that its author,
* It appears from Ward’s “ Lives of (he Professors of Gresham College, ” that SamuelFoster completed his education at Emmanuel College , Cambridge, so that in all probabilityhe was a fellow student of Horrocks.
f In fact it has never since been published anywhere else. Delambre expresses hisastonishment at not finding it in the work edited by Wallis. A short postscript to thepreface, however, serves to explain the omission. It is stated therein that Flamsteedpurposed soon publishing a new and more correct edition of the tract “ Venus in SoleVisa,” from a manuscript in the author’s own handwriting. It is well known that Flam-steed never fulfilled the expectation thus held out respecting him. In the list of MSS.of Flamsteed’s, preserved in the Iloyal Observatory of Greenwich, and inserted at thebeginning of Baily’s “ Life of Flamsteed,” there is mention of a copy of Horrocks’
“ Venus in Sole Visa,” which, in all probability, is the very copy alluded .to by Wallis.If such be the case, it would be only paying a just tribute to the memory of the author topublish it. Delambre states that the work of Hevelius , in which it originally appeared,is now excessively rare,