John Wallis Autobiography

John Wallis' autobiography is held in the British Museum. What we have given below is slightly edited. We have modernised some of the spelling and, where possible, given names in a modern spelling. An interesting article which gives a lot of information about the autobiography is Christoph J Scriba's paper 'The Autobiography of John Wallis, F.R.S.', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 25 (1) (1970), 17-46.

John Wallis Autobiography

For the Reverend and Learned, Thomas Smith, Dr in Divinity, late Fellow of Magdalen College in Oxford.

Sir

In compliance with what you have oft desired of me: I send you these Memorials of my Life.

My Father was John Wallis; a grave and Reverend Divine: Son of Robert and Ellen Wallis, of Finedon (or, as it is usually pronounced, Fyendon) in the County of Northampton: Born in January 1567, and there baptised the 18th of that Month. He was educated in Trinity College in Cambridge: where he took the Degrees of Batchelor and Master of Arts: and (about the same time) entered into Holy Orders; in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Toward the end of Queen Elizabeth's Reign; he was made Minister of Ashford; a great Market Town in Kent. Where he continued the remainder of his Life, in great esteem and reputation; not only in that Town and Parish, but with the Clergy, Gentry and Nobility round about.

He was a Pious, Prudent, Learned and Orthodox Divine; an eminent and Diligent Preacher; and with his prudent carriage, kept that great Town in very good Order; and promoted Piety to a great Degree.

Beside his constant preaching twice on the Lords-day, and other occasional Sermons, and his Catechising and Otherwise, Instructing the younger Sort; he did (with some of the most eminent Neighbour-Ministers) maintain a Week-day Lecture, on Saturday, Their Market-day. Which was much frequented (beside a numerous auditory of others) by very many of the Neighbour Ministers, the Justices of the Peace, and others of the Gentry. Who (after Sermon) did use to dine at an Ordinary, and there confer (as there was occasion) about such affairs as might concern the welfare and good Government of that town and the parts adjacent, wherein they were respectively concerned.

He died at Ashford, November 30. and was there buried December 3, 1622 much lamented; and left behind him a good memory, which is not yet extinguished.

My Mother was Joanna, Daughter of Henry and Sarah Chapman, then of Godmersham in the County of Kent; who afterward removed to Ashford; and lived (both of them) with my father and mother, during my fathers life; and with my mother, afterwards, to a great age and with great esteem, which Sarah was Daughter and Heiress of Drew Sanders, an eminent Merchant in London.

My Mother was born in March, and baptised March 15, 1581. She was married to my Father (after the death of his former Wife) March 12, 1612, by whom he had (beside myself) two Daughters (Sarah and Ellen) who were elder than I; and two Sons (Henry and William) who were younger than I.

I was born at Ashford (as I find among other of my Fathers Memorials) November 23, 1616, and baptised December 1 then following.

My Father dying while I was a child; I was beholden to the Piety, Care and Kindness of my Mother for my Education. Who, after my Father's death continued a Widow, for the good of her Children, (though otherwise, she had fair opportunities of marrying well, if she had been so disposed) she continued for the most part (after my Father's death) to live in Ashford, in a house which she there purchased after my Father's death; but sometimes with one or other of her two daughters then married, and, at last, with my brother Henry who was then a Linen-Draper in Ashford; where she died, September 26, 1643, leaving her children all surviving and in good circumstances, and the youngest of us about 21 years of age.

In the year 1625 (the first year of King Charles the first) there happened a great Plague at London, and many other places of the Kingdom, and (particularly) at Ashford, which caused many of the Inhabitants to remove thence to Neighbour Parishes for safety.

I had, till then, been educated at Ashford; in learning English and somewhat of Latin. But, upon this occasion, was sent to School to Tenterden (another great Market-Town in Kent;) where, at a place called Ley-green (within that Parish) lived with Mr Finch, a worthy Gentleman, of a good Estate; who having divers children of his own, entertained a School-Master in his Family, Mr James Movat, a Scotchman, who was a very good School-Master, and kept a private school for the Instruction of the Children of that Gentleman, and of divers others who lodged in the Neighbourhood.

His School I continued for divers years; and was by him well grounded in the Technical part of Grammar; so as to understand the Rules, and the grounds and reasons of such Rules; with the use of them in such Authors as are usually read in Grammar Schools. For it was always my affectation even from a child, in all pieces of Learning or Knowledge, not merely to learn by rote, which is soon forgotten, but to know the grounds or reasons of what I learn; to inform my Judgement, as well as furnish my Memory; and thereby, make a better Impression on both.

In the year 1630, that Gentleman's eldest Son being designed for the University (and the others, otherwise) that School broke up. I might then perhaps have gone to the University, as well as some who did; (being not inferior to them in Learning,) but I was thought too young.

My School-Master (who had a great kindness for me) soon after, travailed as Tutor to another Gentleman; and would have had me travailed with him, (into France, Italy, and other places;) but my Mother was loth to send me abroad.

At Christmas 1630, I was sent to School to Mr Martin Holbeach, at Felsted in Essex; who was reputed (as indeed he was) a very good School-Master. He there taught a Free-School, of the Foundation of the Earl of Warwick, whose seat at Leez was within that Parish. At this School, though in a Country Village, he had at that time above an hundred or six score Scholars; most of them Strangers, sent thither from other places, upon reputation of the School; from whence many good Scholars were sent yearly to the University.

Mr Holbech was very kind to me: and used to say, I came to him the best grounded of any Scholar that he received from another School.

I continued his Scholar for two years; and was by that time pretty well acquainted with the Latin and Greek tongues, having read divers Authors therein (such as at Schools are wont to be read) and was pretty accurate in the Grammars of both; and in such other Learning as is commonly taught in such Schools; and as well qualified for the University as most that come thither. I had been used in both the Schools, to speak Latin; which made that Language pretty familiar to me; which I found to be of great advantage afterward.

I learnt there somewhat of Hebrew also. So much at least, as to be able (with my Grammar and Dictionary) to proceed further without a Teacher: which I did afterwards prosecute to a good Degree of accuracy, as to the Grammar of it; (for this I was wont to be very careful of, in all Languages that I meddled with;) and in a few years, had read over all the Hebrew Bible, and much of it more than once.

And I was there taught somewhat of Logic; as a preparation to a further Study of it in the University.

While I continued a Scholar there, at Christmas 1631, (a season of the year when Boys use to have a vacancy from School,) I was, for about a fortnight, at home with my Mother at Ashford. I there found that a younger Brother of mine (in Order to a Trade) had for about 3 months, been learning (as they called it) to Write and Cipher, or Cast account (and he was a good proficient for that time.) When I had been there a few days; I was inquisitive to know what it was, they so called. And (to satisfy my curiosity) my Brother did (during the Remainder of my stay there before I returned to School) shew me what he had been Learning in those 3 months. Which was (beside the writing a fair hand) the Practical part of Common Arithmetic in Numeration, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division, The Rule of Three (Direct and Inverse,) the Rule of Fellowship (with and without, Time,) the Rule of False-Position, Rules of Practise and Reduction of Coins and some other little things. Which when he had shewed me by steps, in the same method that he had learned them: and I had wrought over all the Examples which he before had done in his book; I found no difficulty to understand it and I was very well pleased with it: and thought it ten days or a fortnight well spent. This was my first insight into Mathematics; and all the Teaching I had.

This suiting my humour so well; I did thenceforth prosecute it, (at School and in the University) not as a formal Study, but as a pleasing Diversion, at spare hours; as books of Arithmetic, or others Mathematics fell occasionally in my way. For I had none to direct me, what books to read, or what to seek, or in what method to proceed. For Mathematics, (at that time, with us) were scarce looked upon as Academical studies, but rather Mechanical; as the business of Traders, Merchants, Seamen, Carpenters, Surveyors of Lands, or the like; and perhaps some Almanac-makers in London. And amongst more than Two hundred Students (at that time) in our College, I do not know of any Two (perhaps not any) who had more of Mathematics than I, (if so much) which was then but little; and but very few, in that whole University. For the Study of Mathematics was at that time more cultivated in London than in the Universities. At this time also I learned the rudiments of music and of the French tongue.

About Christmas 1632, I was sent to the University of Cambridge; and was there admitted in Emanuel College, under the Tuition of Mr Anthony Burgess; a pious, learned and able Scholar, a good Disputant, a good Tutor, an eminent Preacher, a sound and Orthodox Divine; and (after he had left the College) I was under the Tuition of Mr Thomas Horton, and lastly of Mr Benjamin Wichcote; all able Scholars, and Eminent Divines. Mr Burgess was afterwards Minister of Sutton-Coldfield in Warwickshire; Dr Horton was afterwards Master of Queens College in Cambridge, and Dr Wichcote Provost of Kings College there; and all of them in their time, eminent Preachers in London.

When I was come to the University; I found it was no disadvantage to have stayed a year or more at School longer than perhaps I needed to have done. I found that, beside the improvement of what skill I had in Latin, Greek and Hebrew Languages (which I pursued with diligence) and other Philologic studies, my first business was to be the study of Logic.

In this, I soon became Master of a Syllogism, as to its true Structure, and the Reason of its Consequences, however Cryptically proposed: so as not only easily to be imposed on by Fallacies or false Syllogisms, when I was to Answer or Defend: and to manage an Argument with good Advantage, when I was to Argue or Oppose; and to Distinguish ambiguous Words or Sentences, as there was occasion; and was able to hold pace with those who were some years my Seniors; and had obtained the reputation of a good Disputant. And indeed I had the good hap all along (both at School and in the University) to be reputed (if not equal) not much inferior, to those of the best of my rank.

From Logic, I proceeded to Ethics, Physics and Metaphysics (consulting the schoolmen on such points) according to the Methods of Philosophy, then in fashion in that University.

And I took into it the Speculative part of Physic and Anatomy; as parts of Natural Philosophy; And as Dr Glisson (then Public Professor of Physic in that University) hath since told me, I was the first of his Sons, who (in a public Disputation) maintained the Circulation of the Blood (which was then a new Doctrine) though I had no Design of Practising Physic. And I had then imbibed the Principles of what they now call the New Philosophy.

For I made no Scruple of diverting (from the common road of Studies then in fashion) to any part of useful Learning. Presuming, that Knowledge is no Burthen; and, if of any part thereof I should afterwards have no occasion to make use, it would at least do me no hurt; And, what of it I might or might not have occasion for, I could not then foresee.

On the same account, I diverted also to Astronomy and Geography (as parts of Natural Philosophy) and to other parts of Mathematics; though, at that time, they were scarce looked upon, with us, as Academical Studies then in fashion.

As to Divinity, (on which I had an eye from the first,) I had the happiness of a strict and Religious Education, all along from a Child. Whereby I was not only preserved from vicious Courses, and acquainted with Religious Exercises; but was early instructed in the Principles of Religion, and Catechetical Divinity, and the frequent Reading of Scripture, and other good Books, and diligent attendance on Sermons. (And whatever other Studies I followed, I was careful not to neglect this.) And became timely acquainted with Systematic and Polemic Theology. And had the repute of a good Proficient therein.

Soon after my admittance into Emanuel College, I was chosen into the Foundation, as Scholar of the House. And so continued during my stay in that College. But I was not in capacity of being Fellow there, by reason of a Proviso in the College Statutes; not permitting more than one Fellow, of one and the same County, at the same time. So that, there being already a Fellow of the County of Kent, (Mr Wellar) who continued there, until long after I had left the College, there was no room for me (being of the same County) to be Fellow there. Otherwise I was well esteemed and well beloved in the College, and had certainly been chosen Fellow if I had been in a capacity for it: and loth they were that I should go away.

And, (as I afterwards understood) Dr Holdsworth then Master of the College (who had a kindness for me) had been consulting with them about founding a new Fellowship on my account rather than I should leave them. But, the times becoming troublesome, left no room for such thoughts. I was afterwards Fellow of Queens College in Cambridge for a short time, but soon quitted it upon my Marriage, on March 4, 1644/5.

In Hilary Term 1636/7, I took the Degree of Batchelor of Arts; and in 1640, the degree of Master of Arts, and then left Emanuel College; and the same year I entered into Holy Orders, ordained by Bishop Curll, then Bishop of Winchester.

I then lived a Chaplain for about a year, in the house of Sir Richard Darley, (an ancient worthy Knight,) at Buttercramb in Yorkshire; and then, for two years more, with the Lady Vere, (the Widow of the Lord Horatio Vere,) partly in London, and partly at Castle Hedingham in Essex, ancient Seat of the Earls of Oxford.

In the year 1644, I was one of the Secretaries to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. Not from the first sitting of that Assembly; but some time after, and thenceforth during their Sitting. Wherein I do own myself to have received much advantage by the Conversation and the learned Debates of so many Grave, Reverend and Learned Divines, on all points of Divinity, when they were compiling the Confession of Faith, and the Larger and lesser Catechism.

The Occasion of that Assembly, was this; the Parliament which then was, (or the prevailing part of them,) were engaged in a War with the King: Occasioned, Partly, from divers innovations in Ceremonies and Super-Conformity, introduced and strictly urged within ten or twelve years then last past, tending (as was apprehended) to a nearer compliance with Popery; of which, divers of the Bishops then in power were presumed the Authors and Fomenters; together with the imposing of Bishops (then in power long disused) and the Common-Prayer Book on the Scots, which much enraged that Nation. Partly by several encroachments on Liberty and Property (as was apprehended) by several Methods practised for raising of Money on the Subject, without the consent of Parliament, with other Grievances, of which there were great Complaints, and the long intermission of Parliaments. Partly, by divers Severities of the Star-Chamber and High-Commission Court, (against persons otherwise Conformable) for not complying therein. The Issue of which War, proved very different from what was said to be at first intended. As is usual in such cases; the power of the sword frequently passing from hand to hand, and those who begin a War, not being able to foresee where it will end.

The Parliament thus engaged, had (amongst other things) a great displeasure against the Order of Bishops; (or rather, not so much against the Order, as the Men, and against the Order for their sakes;) and had resolved upon the Abolition of Episcopacy as it then stood; before they were agreed what to put instead of it.

And did then convene this Assembly, to consult of some other Form to be suggested to the Parliament, to be by them set up, if they liked it; or, so far as they should like it.

The Divines of this Assembly were, for the Generality of them, Conformable, Episcopal Men; and had generally the reputation of Pious, Orthodox and Religious Protestants; and (excepting the seven Independents, or, as they were called, Dissenting Brethren,) I do not know of any Non-Conformist among them (as to the legal Conformity then required,) many of them were professedly Episcopal; and (I think) all of them so far Episcopal as to account a well-regulated Episcopacy to be at least allowable, if not desirable, and advisable; yet so as they thought the present Constitution capable of Reformation for the better.

When I name the Divines of this Assembly, I do not include the Scotch Commissioners; who though they were permitted to be present there, and did interpose in the Debates as they saw occasion; yet were no Members of that Assembly, nor did Vote with them; but acted separately, in the behalf of the Church of Scotland, and were zealous enough for the Scotch Presbytery; but could never prevail with the Assembly to declare for it.

On the other hand, the Independents were against all united Church Government of more than one single Congregation; holding that each single Congregation, voluntarily agreeing to make themselves a Church, and choose their own Officers, were of themselves Independent, and not accountable to any other Ecclesiastical Government; but only to the Civil Magistrate, as to the Public Peace. Admitting indeed, that Messengers from several Churches might meet to consult in Common, as there might be occasion; but without any Authoritative Jurisdiction.

Against these, the rest of the Assembly was Unanimous (and the Scotch Commissioners with them,) that it was lawful by the word of God, for divers particular Congregations (beside the inspection of their own Pastor, and other Officers) to be united under the same Common Government. And such Communities to be further subordinate to Provincial and National Assemblies, (which is equally consistent with Episcopal and Presbyterian Principles.) But, whether with or without a Bishop or Standing President over such Assemblies, was not determined or debated by them.

When any such Point chanced to be suggested, the Common Answer was; that this Point was not before them; but was precluded by the Ordinance by which they sat; which did first Declare the Abolition of Episcopacy (not refer it to their Deliberation;) and they only to suggest to the Parliament, somewhat in the room of that so Abolished.

And this is a true Account of that Assembly as to this Point. (And when as they were called Presbyterians; it was not in the Sense of Anti-Episcopal, but Anti-Independents) which I have the more largely insisted on, because there are not many now living, who can give a better account of that Assembly than I can.

To this may be objected, their agreement to the Covenant, (which was before I was amongst them.) But this, if rightly understood, makes nothing against what I have said.

The Covenant as it came from Scotland, and was sent from the Parliament to the Assembly, seemed directly against all Episcopacy, and for setting up the Scottish Presbytery just as among them. But the Assembly could not be brought to assent to it in those terms. Being so worded as, to Preserve the Government of the Church of Scotland; and, to Reform that of England; and so to Reduce it to the nearest Uniformity. But, before the Assembly could agree to it; it was thus mollified, to Preserve that of Scotland (not absolutely, but) against the common Enemy; and to Reform that of England (not, so as it is in Scotland but) according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches; And to endeavour the nearest Uniformity (which might be as well by Reforming that of Scotland, as that of England, or of both.) And whereas the Covenant, as first brought to them, was against Popery, Prelacy, Heresy, Schism, Profaneness, etc. They would by no means be persuaded to admit the word Prelacy, as thus standing absolute. For though they thought the English Episcopacy, as it then stood, capable of Reformation, for the better in divers things; yet to Engage indefinitely against all Prelacy, they would not agree.

After many days debate on this Point (as I understood from those who were then present) some of the Parliament (who then pressed it) suggested this Expedient; that by Prelacy, they did not understand all manner of Episcopacy or Superiority, but only the present Episcopacy, as it now stood in England, consisting of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and their several Courts, and subordinate Officers, etc. And that if any considerable alteration were made in any part of this whole frame, it was an Abolition of the present Prelacy, and as much as was here intended in these words; and that no more was intended but a Reformation of the present Episcopacy in England. And in pursuance of this, it was agreed to be Expressed with this Interpretation, Prelacy; that is, Church-Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy. And, with this Interpretation at length it passed. And the Scotch Commissioners, in behalf of their Church, agreed to those Amendments.

I know some have been apt to put another sense upon that Interpretation, but this was the true intendment of the Assembly, and upon this occasion.

During my attendance on the Assembly; I was a Minister in London; first in Fanchurch Street; and afterwards in Ironmonger Lane; where I so continued till my Remove to Oxford.

About the beginning of our Civil Wars, in the year 1642. a Chaplain of Sir William Waller, (one evening as we were sitting down to supper at the Lady Vere's in London, with whom I then dwelt,) shewed me an intercepted Letter written in Cipher. He shewed it me as a Curiosity (and it was indeed the first thing I had ever seen written in Cipher.) And asked me between jest and earnest, whether I could make any thing of it. And he was surprised when I said (upon the first view) perhaps I might, if it proved no more but a new Alphabet.

It was about ten a clock when we rose from Supper. I then withdrew to my chamber to consider of it. And by the number of different Characters therein, (not above 22 or 23:) I judged that it could not be more than a new Alphabet, and in about 2 hours time (before I went to bed) I had deciphered it; and I sent a Copy of it (so deciphered) the next morning to him from whom I had it. And this was my first attempt at Deciphering.

This unexpected success, on an easy Cipher, was then looked upon as a great matter; and I was some while after pressed to attempt one of another Nature; which was a Letter of Mr Secretary Windebank, then in France, to his Son in England, in a Cipher hard enough, and not unbecoming a Secretary of State. It was in Numeral Figures, extending in number to seven hundred, with many other Characters intermixed. But not so hard as many that I have since met with. I was backward at first to attempt it, and after I had spent some time upon it, threw it by as desperate: but, after some months, resumed it again, and had the good hap to master it.

Being encouraged by this success, beyond expectation; I afterwards ventured on many others (some of more, some of less difficulty) and scarce missed of any, that I undertook, for many years, during our civil Wars, and afterwards. But of late years, the French Methods of Cipher are grown so intricate beyond what it was wont to be, that I have failed of many; though I did have mastered divers of them. Of such deciphered Letters, there be copies of divers remaining in the Archives of the Bodleian Library in Oxford; and many more in my own Custody, and with the Secretaries of State.

On March 4, 1644/5, I married Susanna daughter of John and Rachel Glyde of Northiam in Sussex; born there about the end of January 1621/2 and baptised February 3 following, by whom I have (beside other children who died young) a Son and two Daughters now surviving; John born December 26,1650, Anne born June 4, 1656, and Elizabeth born September 23, 1658.

My Son John, sometime at Trinity College in Oxford, afterwards) of the inner Temple London, Barrister at Law, February 1, 1681/2 married Elizabeth daughter of John and Mary Harris of Soundels by Nettlebed in the County of Oxford; and afterward Heiress to her Brother Taverner Harris, to a fair estate, at Soundels, she died August 8, 1693, leaving three children now surviving, John, Mary and Elizabeth.

My daughter Anne married December 23, 1675, to John Blencow, son of Thomas and Mary Blencow of an ancient family at Marston St Laurence in Northamptonshire, then Barrister at Law, now one of the Barons of the Exchequer, by whom she hath seven children, all now surviving, John, Mary, Anne, Thomas, William, Elizabeth and Susanna.

My Daughter Elizabeth, married February 21, 1681/2, to William Benson Son of George and Mary Benson of Towcester in Northamptonshire, and is now a Widow. He died November 5, 1691, leaving no child surviving.

My Wife died at Oxford March 17, 1686/7, after we had been married more than 42 years.

About the year 1645, while I lived in London (at a time, when, by our Civil Wars, Academical Studies were much interrupted in both our Universities) beside the Conversation of divers eminent Divines, as to matters Theological; I had the opportunity of being acquainted with divers worthy Persons, inquisitive into Natural Philosophy, and other parts of Human Learning; and particularly of what hath been called the New Philosophy or Experimental Philosophy.

We did by agreement, divers of us, meet weekly in London on a certain day, to treat and discourse of such affairs. Of which number were Dr John Wilkins (afterward Bishop of Chester), Dr Jonathan Goddard, Dr George Ent, Dr Glisson, Dr Merret, (Drs in Physic,) Mr Samuel Foster then Professor of Astronomy at Gresham College, Mr Theodore Haak (a German of the Palatinate and then Resident in London, who, I think, gave the first occasion, and first suggested those meetings) and many others.

These meetings we held sometimes at Dr Goddards lodgings in Woodstreet (or some convenient place near) on occasion of this his keeping an Operator in his house, for grinding Glasses for Telescopes and Microscopes; and sometime at a convenient place in Cheapside; sometime at Gresham College or some place near adjoining.

Our business was (precluding matters of Theology and State Affairs) to discourse and consider of Philosophical Enquiries, and such as related thereunto; as Physic, Anatomy, Geometry, Astronomy, Navigation, Statics, Magnetics, Chemics, Mechanics, and Natural Experiments; with the State of these Studies, as then cultivated, at home and abroad. We there discoursed of the Circulation of the Blood, the Valves in the Veins, the Venae Lacteae, the Lymphatick vessels, the Copernican Hypothesis, the Nature of Comets, and New Stars, the Satellites of Jupiter, the Oval Shape (as it then appeared) of Saturn, the spots in the Sun, and its Turning on its own Axis, the Inequalities and Selenography of the Moon, the several Phases of Venus and Mercury, the Improvement of Telescopes, and grinding of Glasses for that purpose, the Weight of Air, the Possibility or Impossibility of Vacuities, and Natures Abhorrence thereof; the Torricellian Experiment in Quick-silver, the Descent of heavy Bodies, and the degrees of Acceleration therein; and divers other things of like nature. Some of which were then but New Discoveries, and others not so generally known and embraced, as now they are; with other things appertaining to what hath been called The New Philosophy; which, from the times of Galileo at Florence, and Sir Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam) in England, hath been much cultivated in Italy, France, Germany, and other Parts abroad, as well as with us in England.

About the year 1648, 1649, some of our company being removed to Oxford (first Dr Wilkins, then I, and soon after Dr Goddard) our company divided. Those in London continued to meet there as before (and we with them, when we had occasion to be there) and those of us at Oxford; with Dr Ward (since Bishop of Salisbury) Dr Ralph Bathurst (now President of Trinity College in Oxford) Dr Petty (since Sir William Petty) Dr Willis (then an eminent Physician in Oxford) and divers others, continued such meetings in Oxford; and brought those Studies into fashion there; meeting first at Dr Petties Lodgings, (in an Apothecaries house) because of the convenience of inspecting Drugs, and the like, as there was occasion; and after his remove to Ireland (though not so constantly) at the Lodgings of Dr Wilkins, then Warden of Wadham College, and after his removal to Trinity College in Cambridge, at the Lodgings of the Honourable Mr Robert Boyle, then resident for divers years in Oxford.

Those meetings in London continued, and (after the King's Return in 1660) were increased with the accession of divers worthy and Honourable Persons; and were afterwards incorporated by the name of the Royal Society, etc. and so continue to this day.

In the year 1649 I removed to Oxford, being then Public Professor of Geometry, of the Foundation of Sir Henry Savile, and Mathematics which had before been a pleasing Diversion, was now to be my serious Study. And (herein as in other Studies) I made it my business to examine things to the bottom; and reduce effects to their first principles and original causes. Thereby the better to understand the true ground of what hath been delivered to us from the Ancients, and to make further improvements of it. What proficiency I made therein, I leave to the Judgement of those who have thought it worth their while to peruse what I have published therein from time to time; and the favourable opinion of those skilled therein, at home and abroad.

In the year 1653 I was persuaded to publish a Grammar of the English Tongue; chiefly to gratify strangers, who were willing to learn it: (because of many desirable things published in our Language) but complained of its difficulty for want of a Grammar, suited to the propriety and true Genius of the Language.

To this I prefixed a Treatise of Speech (de Loquela) wherein I have Philosophically considered the Formation of all Sounds used in Articulate Speech, (as well of our own, as of any other Language that I know) by what Organs, and in what Position each sound was formed; with the nice distinctions of each, (which in some letters of the same Organ, is very subtle) So that, by such Organs, in such Position, the Breath issuing from the Lungs, will form such Sounds, whether the Person do or do not hear himself speak. Which was, I think, a new attempt, not before undertaken by any (that I knew of) before that time. For though it were observed, that some letters were Labials, some Dentals, some Palatines, and some Gutturals; and some Grammarians have in some measure few shewed a different Formation in some few of the same Organ; yet it is but of very few they have so done; and very imperfectly; none (that I know of) had before attempted it, as to all; whatever may have been done since in pursuance of what I had then taught.

In pursuance of this, I thought it very possible to teach a Deaf person to speak, by directing him, so to apply the Organs of Speech, as the sound of each letter required, (which children learn by imitation and manifold attempts, rather than by art) and in the year 1660 being importuned by some friends of his, I undertook so to teach Mr Daniel Whalley of Northampton, who had been Deaf and Dumb from a Child. I began the work in 1661, and in little more than a years time, I had taught him to pronounce distinctly any words, so as I directed him (even the most difficult of the Polish Language, which a Polish Lord then in Oxford could propose to him, by way of trial, of those five or six select hard words, which they use to propose to others, as not to be pronounced by any but themselves) and in good measure to understand a Language and express his own in writing; and he had in that time read over to me distinctly (the whole or greater part of) the English Bible; and did pretty well understand (at least) the Historical part of it.

In the year 1662, I did the like for Mr Alexander Popham (Son of the Lady Wharton, by her former husband Admiral Popham) with like success. On whom Dr William Holder had before attempted it, but gave it over.

I know that both of these (who I think are yet living) were apt to forget (after their parting from me) much of that nicety (which before they had) in the distinct pronouncing some Letters, (which they would recover, when I had occasionally been with them to set them right) wanting the help of their Ear to direct their speaking as that of the Eye directs the hand in writing. For which reason a man who writes a good hand, would soon forget so to do, if grown blind. And therefore, one who thus learns to speak, will (for the continuance and improvement of it) need somebody continually with him, who may prompt him, when he mistakes.

I have, since that time (upon the same account) taught divers Persons (and some of them very considerable) to speak plain and distinctly, who did before hesitate and stutter very much; and others, to pronounce such words or letters, as before they thought impossible for them to do: by teaching them how to rectify such mistakes in the formation, as by some natural impediment, or acquired Custom, they had been subject to.

About February 1657/8 (upon the death of Dr Gerard Langbain, Provost of Queen's College in Oxford, a very worthy person) I was chosen Custos Archivorum in this University; to keep and to inspect their Records, Charters, and other Muniments. And was thereby engaged in the Study of our Charters, Rights, and Privileges: which I did with great diligence. And in pursuance thereof, I was concerned from time to time in defending their just Rights and Privileges, in such Law-Suits, as did arise, of the University with the City of Oxford, the Stationers of London, and others. Wherein I found that some little knowledge, which I had before acquired, by occasional inspection (amongst other Studies) into our Books of Law, was of great use unto me; and of which I was hereby engaged into a further Study, especially as to those Cases, wherein the University was concerned. And I think it will be acknowledged, that I have therein done the University considerable services. I am sure it hath been my endeavour so to do, when I have been employed by them.

It hath been my Lot to live in a time, wherein have been many and great Changes and Alterations. It hath been my endeavour all along, to act by moderate Principles, between the Extremities on either hand, in a moderate compliance with the Powers in being, in those places, where it hath been my Lot to live, without the fierce and violent animosities usual in such Cases, against all, that did not act just as I did, knowing that there were many worthy Persons engaged on either side. And willing whatever side was upmost, to promote (as I was able) any good design for the true Interest of Religion, of Learning, and the public good; and ready to do good Offices, as there was Opportunity; and, if things could not be just, as I could wish, to make the best of what is: and hereby, (through God's gracious Providence) have been able to live easy, and useful, though not Great.

Thus in Compliance with your repeated desires, I have given you a short account of divers passages of my life, until I have now come to more than four-score years of age. How well I have acquitted myself in each, is for others rather to say, than for

Your friend and servant

Oxford January 29, 1696/7.

John Wallis.

Last Updated March 2026