Notes and Queries, Number 57, November 30, 1850 | Page 5

to
London; and some other Simpson as great as Thomas (though less
favourably looked upon by fortune in furnishing stimulus and
opportunity) might have migrated from London to Oldham. Or, again,
some Lancashire weaver might have adventured to London (a very
common case with country artisans after the expiration of
apprenticeship); and, there having acquired a taste for mathematics, as
well as improvement in his mechanical skill, have returned into the

country, and diffused the knowledge and the tastes he took home with
him amongst his fellows. The very name betokens Jeremiah Ainsworth
to have been of a Lancashire family.
But was Ainsworth really the earliest mathematician of his district? Or,
was he merely the first that made any figure in print as a correspondent
of the mathematical periodicals of that day? This question is worthy of
MR. WILKINSON's further inquiry; and probably some light may be
thrown upon it by a careful examination of the original Ladies' and
Gentleman's Diaries of the period. In the reprints of these works, only
the names, real or assumed, of those whose contributions were actually
printed, are inserted--not the list of all correspondents.
Now one would be led to suppose that the study of mathematics was
peculiarly suited to the daily mode of life and occupation of these men.
Their employment was monotonous; their life sedentary; and their
minds were left perfectly free from any contemplative purpose they
might choose. Algebraic investigation required writing: but the
weaver's hands being engaged he could not write. A diagram, on the
contrary, might lie before him, and be carefully studied, whilst his
hands and feet may be performing their functions with an accuracy
almost instinctive. Nay more: an exceedingly complicated diagram
which has grown up gradually as the result of investigations
successively {437} made, may be carried in the memory and become
the subject of successful peripatetic contemplation. On this point a
decided experimental opinion is here expressed: but were further
instances asked for, they may be found in Stewart, Monge, and Chasles,
all of whom possessed this power in an eminent degree. Indeed,
without it, all attempts to study the geometry of space (even the very
elements of descriptive geometry, to say nothing of the more recondite
investigations of the science) would be entirely unproductive. It is,
moreover, a power capable of being acquired by men of average
intellect without extreme difficulty; and that even to the extent of
"mentally seeing" the constituent parts of figures which have never
been exhibited to the eye either by drawings or models.
That such men, if once imbued with a love for geometry, and having

once got over the drudgery of elementary acquisition, should be
favourably situated for its cultivation, follows as a matter of course.
The great difficulty lay in finding sufficient stimulus for their ambition,
good models for their imitation, and adequate facilities for publishing
the results at which they had arrived. The admirable history of the
contents of their scanty libraries, given by MR. WILKINSON, leaves
nothing more to be said on that head; except, perhaps, that he attributes
rather more to the influences of Emerson's writings than I am able to
do.[2] As regards their facilities for publication, these were few, the
periods of publication being rarely shorter than annual; and amongst so
many competitors, the space which could be allotted to each (even to
"the best men") was extremely limited. Yet, contracted as the means of
publication were, the spirit of emulation did something; from the belief
that _insertion was an admitted test of superiority_, it was as much an
object of ambition amongst these men to solve the "prize question" as it
was by philosophers of higher social standing to gain the "prize"
conferred by the _Académie des Sciences_, or any other continental
society under the wing of Royalty, at the same period. The prize (half a
dozen or a dozen copies of the work itself) was not less an object of
triumph, than a Copley or a Royal medal is in our own time amongst
the philosophers of the Royal Society.
These men, from similarity of employment and inevitable contiguity of
position, were brought into intercourse almost of necessity, and the
formation of a little society (such as the "Oldham") the natural
result--the older and more experienced men taking the lead in it. At the
same time, there can be little doubt that the Spitalfields Society was the
pattern after which it was formed; and there can be as little doubt that
one or more of its founders had resided in London, and "wrought" in
the metropolitan workshops. Could the records of the "Mathematical
Society of London" (now in the archives of the Royal Astronomical
Society) be carefully examined, some light might be thrown upon this
question. A list of members attending every