Cadwallader Colden (12 page)

During the decade Colden remained peripheral to the major events of the ongoing war, and he participated infrequently in the deliberations and declarations of the provincial Council. It was a time during which hours of leisure could be dedicated to his persistent reflections on topics of medicine, the history of the Five Nations, the laws of physics and optics, and botany.

In 1751, Colden published in
Gentlemen's Magazine
an article on the value of pokeweed (
Phytolacca
, probably
P. decandra
) as a cure for cancer.
³⁸
Colden indicated that the successful use of pokeweed had been reported by Doctor Samuel Johnson of Stratford, Connecticut. Colden, however, wrote that there was no rational basis for its efficacy and that he had no knowledge of a certain cure. Colden provided a botanical description of the plant and described how the corrosive juice of the plant was applied to the cancerous growth or ulcer. A year later Colden wrote Franklin, “No doubt you have seen the Cure of Cancer by the Poke weed published in the Gent
^ms
Magazine I have lately had a confirmation of this by a Cancer last year cured in a Womans breast I have no doubt it will generally make a perfect cure of a genuine Cancer from many Accounts.”
³⁹
It is interesting that pokeweed nitrogen is currently used to provoke B lymphocyte proliferation in culture, suggesting an immunologic influence.

The same year, Colden wrote the New York printer James Parker suggesting the publication of a cure for hydrophobia caused by the bite of a dog. Colden referred to a report in newspapers in England by Doctor Mead. Mead reported that the therapy never failed if was applied after the bite and before the manifestations
of hydrophobia (rabies) began. Treatment consisted of blood- letting and the use of medicine extracted from moss.
⁴⁰
In 1753, Colden's letter to Doctor John Fothergill of London, “Concerning the Throat–Distemper” was published in the London
Medical Observations and Inquiries.
⁴¹

Interest in Colden's
History of the Five Indian Nations
rapidly waned. Whereas all 500 copies of the first edition printed by William Bradford in New York were sold,
⁴²
the 1747 London edition was less successful. The publisher, Thomas Osborne, initially was encouraging. A year after the publication, he wrote Colden, “The Book was received in the World with the greatest Reputation; But I find in most Books after there has been a Run of about two or three hundred, that it drops off but slowly, which is the Case of this, for I have Actually by me near 500 Books.”
⁴³
Within two years of writing that letter, Osborne sold the remainder of the edition and his rights in it to another publisher.

In June 1751, Osborne indicated to Colden, “S
^r
I have Receiv'd the favour of both yours & Should have Answer'd the first before but that was upon so melancholy a Subject that I deferr'd writing as you will find hereafter Its True that I did inform you that the Indian History was well receiv'd but for what Reason I cannot tell the Sale of it fell off before I sold one Quarter and the Impression and the Demand has been So very Smal ever Since That I was Glad to dispose of them at any Rate and what I had remaining upon my hands, I sold for Twelve Pence a Book, so that I am a Loser by that undertaking at least Thirty pounds Therefore I cannot give Encouragement to continue it on I shall be proud of Serving you with any Thing that I have but am determined for the future to Trade for nothing but ready money by which means I can afford to Sell cheaper than another.”
⁴⁴

In 1750, another second Edition was printed for John Whiston, at Mr. Boyle's Head, and Lockyer Davis at Lord Beacon's Head, both in Fleet-street, and John Ward opposite the Royal
Exchange. In 1755, a third Edition was printed for Lockyer Davis, J. Wren in Salisbury-court, and J. Ward in Cornhill, opposite the Royal-Exchange.
⁴⁵

Much of Colden's leisure time was consumed by his defense of his 1745 forty-eight page publication on action in matter and gravitation. In 1750, he wrote to Dr. Betts in London indicating that he had received little response to the notions expressed in the work, which suggested that it was regarded to be of little importance. Colden went on in that letter to affirm that, nevertheless, he had not been dissuaded from continuing his reflections. These included the application of his principles to the motion of the planets and the regulation of their course in their orbits. Colden, with a modicum of reserve, pointed out that he had provided an argument that Newton's theory of planetary motion was imperfect. Colden's hubris found expression in his assessment of his contributions. “I am fully persuaded that they will at last prevail & tho they may not suite the present taste of learning they will some how or other be embraced perhaps when the author is dead & forgot.”
⁴⁶

Peter Collinson would arrange for the 1751 publication of a revised and enlarged (215-page) English edition under a new title,
The Principles of Action in Matter, the Gravitation of Bodies and the Motion of the Planets, explained from those Principles.
Abstracts appeared in
Monthly Review, Gentlemen's Magazine
, and
London Magazine.
⁴⁷
In the work, Colden pointed out that Newton had not defined the cause of gravitation or the cause of motion of the planets. Colden stated, “In this tract, the author presumes to think, that he has discovered the cause of this apparent attraction, and from which all the phenomena in gravitation evidently follow, as necessary consequences: and that he has likewise discovered an error, which has slipped from the sagacious Sir Isaac, by his not knowing the cause of this apparent attraction.”
⁴⁸
This would result in a continuance of adverse criticism during subsequent periods of consideration.

Perhaps the most devastating comments were those made
by Professor Euler of Berlin that were forwarded to Colden by Collinson.
⁴⁹
Leonhard Euler was considered to be the preeminent mathematician of the eighteenth century and one of the greatest of all mathematicians. He has been honored with commemorative stamps by the Soviet Union and the German Republic, both venues of his work. Euler wrote: “The Book contains many Ingenious Reflections upon that Subject for a Man that has not entirely devoted Himself to a Study of it…. This shows but little knowledge of the principles of Motion & entirely disqualifies the author from Establishing the True Forces requisite to the Motion of the Planets…. Besides his explication on the Elasticity of the Ether is so ill imagined, that it is absolutely contrary to the first principles of Hydrostaticks. What an absurdity it is….” A year later, Colden wrote to Franklin, “M
^r
Collinson sent me some remarks made on it by Professor Euler of Berlin. He writes much like a Pedant highly conceited of himself.”
⁵⁰

Abraham Gotthelf Kastner, professor of mathematics at Leipzig, who translated the 1751 edition into German, was also critical of the work and indicated that Colden was deficient in mathematical understanding.
⁵¹
Kastner condescendingly added, “It would be something remarkable, if we could obtain from America, the solution of difficulties in physics, which have seemed insurmountable to the greatest geniuses of Europe, & if that, what was incomprehensible to a Newton should now be cleared up, by a countryman from the New World.”
⁵²

The criticism emanating from authorities failed to dissuade Colden. On November 19, 1754, Colden sent Collinson a revised copy of the
Principles
with the accompanying message: “I have been more at leisure these twelve months passed than I have been for several years before I have taken this Opportunity to re-examine the Principles of Action in matter if I could not free them from just objections with a view to abandon those Principles…. After the greatest attention & care I am Capable I still remain persuaded
of the truth of them & that they may be of use in every part of Physics.”
⁵³

Colden amended the work, adding the observations of astronomers and also Newton's observations on light and colors. Colden suggested that his contribution might be of assistance in resolving the problem of astronomically measuring longitude at sea, for which a grand prize had recently been announced. Colden placed himself in the company of Descartes, who supplanted the authority of Aristotle and Newton, who affected Descartes similarly.
⁵⁴

The last person to comment on Colden's work was Doctor John Bevis, who was a contributor of articles on astronomy and meteorology to
Gentleman's Magazine
and who responded to Collinson's solicitation. In 1755, Bevis stated that Colden's principles were in opposition to the established laws of mechanics and that Colden incorrectly separated self-motion from direction.
⁵⁵

Ultimately, the manuscript of the revision was sent, in 1763, by Colden to Doctor Robert Whytt, professor of physiology and pathology at Edinburgh. He wrote Colden that if publication were not achieved, the manuscript would be submitted as a present and “that on the cover, mention should be made of these papers having been written by you, & made a present of, to y
^e
University of Edin
^r
where you had your first Education; as you imagine that they may contain the true principles of Physics and one day become usefull.”
⁵⁶
Colden agreed and asked Whytt if it “will not be assuming too much to myself” to make the transfer.
⁵⁷

During the decade between 1749 and 1758, the prolific correspondence between Colden and Franklin continued, and over two dozen letters passed between them. Colden wrote Franklin concerning the “Proposals relating to the Education of Youth in Pensylvania,” which he assumed were written by Franklin. Colden suggested that the rector or principal overseer of the education should have a salary, which was dependent on fees from the scholars. He was particularly pleased that agriculture had been
included as one of the sciences and thought that the college should be distant from the distractions of city life. Colden did not think that Latin and Greek should be required, and indicated that the English language, both prose and poetry, should be stressed.
⁵⁸

In 1750, Franklin sent Colden observations and experiments on electricity and a new hypothesis on the cause and effects of lightning.
⁵⁹
Colden praised Franklin's experiments, but indicated that he was unable to formulate a cause for electricity, which he ascribed to “most subtile elastic fluid.”
⁶⁰
In response to Franklin's jocular comment that “I am much in the
Dark
about
Light
,”
⁶¹
Colden provided Franklin with an explanation of his own theory.
⁶²
In October 1752, Colden wrote Franklin that he read in the newspapers about the account of the “Electrical Kite.”
⁶³
A year later, Franklin informed Colden that he had altered his theory regarding lightning; the clouds are “electrified negatively & the Earth positively…But as to the Methods propos'd for
Practice
, to guard against the Mischiefs of Lightning, they remain the same.”
⁶⁴

David Colden, Cadwallader's youngest son, developed an interest in the subject of electricity. He conducted his own experiments and, in 1753, he dispatched a long and detailed letter to Abbé Nollet in response to Nollet's letters to Franklin. Nollet was a French priest who became the first professor of experimental physics at the University of Paris. Nollet had offered arguments opposing Franklin's theory of electricity, and David's correspondence was an attempt to reconcile the differences.
⁶⁵
In 1757, while Franklin was in England, Cadwallader Colden wrote that he was pleased to have received a copy of Franklin's experiments on electricity. Colden confessed his personal ignorance and stated, “In the time I have been allowed amidst perpetual avocations to think on your experiments they seem to me to lead more directly to the cause than any set of experiments which I have seen.”
⁶⁶

The Colden-Franklin correspondence of 1753 and 1754 contains a disagreement about the phenomenon of water spouts.
Franklin was of the opinion that water spouts were the result of an ascending of the sea water due to whirlwinds. Colden initially wrote Franklin that, from his own observations, he concluded that Franklin's explanation was false. The creation of the spout, according to Colden could not have been the result of sucking water from the sea. Rather, Colden suggested that the spout was caused by the violent stream of wind that created a hollow on the surface of the water and raised the water in a circular uneven ring around the hollow.
⁶⁷
Colden later wrote Franklin, “I long to see your explication of Water spouts but I must tell you beforehand that it will not be easy for you to convince me that the principle phenomena were not occasioned by a stream of Wind issuing with great force. My eyes & ears both concurring to give me this sentiment.”
⁶⁸
Franklin was unmoved by Colden's objection and the subject was disputed by members of the Royal Society. Eventually the secretary recorded, “It seems yet undetermined which of the two opinions is best supported.”
⁶⁹
Colden later proved to be correct.

Botany remained the one realm in which Cadwallader Colden generated no argument, no significant disagreement, no polarization, and maintained a position of high regard. At the beginning of the decade in question, in February 1749, Colden wrote Linnaeus that political commitments of the previous three years precluded his “Botanical amusements.”
⁷⁰
Peter Kalm, who had been appointed by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science to travel to America to gather plants and seeds and make observations of the region, arrived in Philadelphia, subsequently visited Coldengham, and later requested a biography from Colden to be included in a proposed
Biographia Botanicorum.
⁷¹