Page:A Short History of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (1909).djvu/11

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
By Edward J. Nolan, M.D.

As for the Corruptions and Moths of History, which are Epitomes, the use of them deserveth to be banished as all men of sound judgment have confessed.–Bacon, "Advancement of Learning."

ALTHOUGH at the beginning of the nineteenth century Philadelphia was acknowledged to be the center of scientific, if not of literary culture in America, there were not many societies in the city devoted to scientific research. The American Philosophical Society had, indeed, established for itself an honorable position in the learned world, but membership was scarcely aspired to by those who had no right in any sense to consider themselves philosophers. The "Botanical Society, held at Philadelphia," had been founded in 1806, the name being changed the following year to the "Philadelphia Linnæan Society." It had a brief and uneventful existence and is at present remembered from the publication of an essay by Benjamin Smith Barton, entitled "Discourse on some Principal Desiderata in Natural History."

There were but few who cared anything about the natural sciences, and these had to contend with many difficulties. Neither cabinets to awaken curiosity nor libraries to satisfy it were in existence. There were two or three collections of minerals belonging to gentlemen who had brought them from Europe, but they were not accessible to the public.

A few young men in the city were, however, interested in the study of nature. They were all engaged during the day in making a living, and they must have found that occasional gossip in places of resort available to those of their social condition would not help them much in the search for exact knowledge.

After one of these accidental meetings early in 1812, John Speakman suggested to his friend Jacob Gilliams that if their associates could come together at stated times where they would be free from interruption and could compare notes as to what they supposed they knew, they would secure more pleasure and profit than by desultory talk. Gilliams agreed with him, and before they