Benjamin Franklin: An American Life

by Walter Isaacson

  60. The most detailed work on the origins of the maxims is Robert Newcombe, “The Sources of Benjamin Franklin’s Sayings of Poor Richard,” Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, 1957. See also Papers 1:281–82; Van Doren 112–13; Wright 54; Frances Barbour, A Concordance to the Sayings in Franklin’s Poor Richard (Detroit: Gale Research, 1974). Franklin’s greatest reliance is on Jonathan Swift, James Howell’s Proverbs (1659), and Thomas Fuller’s Gnomologia (1732).

  61. Philomath (BF), “Talents Requisite in an Almanac Writer,” Pa. Gazette, Oct. 20, 1737. “Philomath” was a term used for almanac writers.

  62. Poor Richard Improved, 1758.

  63. Autobiography 107; Wright 55; Van Doren 197; D. H. Lawrence, “Benjamin Franklin,” 14; BF to William Strahan, June 2, 1750; Poor Richard’s, 1743.

  Chapter 5

  1. Poor Richard’s, 1744; “Appeal for the Hospital,” Pa. Gazette, Aug. 8, 1751; Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835; New York: Doubleday, 1969), 513; “Inside Main Street USA,” New York Times, Aug. 27, 1995; John Van Horne, “Collective Benevolence for the Common Good,” in Lemay Reappraising, 432. The two books that most influenced Franklin to form associations for the public good were Daniel Defoe’s An Essay upon Projects (1697) and Cotton Mather’s Bonifacius: Essays to do Good (1710).

  2. Autobiography 90–91, 82; Faÿ 149; “The Library Company of Philadelphia,” www.librarycompany.org ; Morgan Franklin, 56. The list of first books is in PMHB 300 (1906): 300.

  3. “Brave Men at Fires,” Pa. Gazette, Dec. 1, 1733; Autobiography 115; “On Protection of Towns from Fire,” Pa. Gazette, Feb. 4, 1735; notice in Pa. Gazette, Jan. 27, 1743; Van Doren 130; Brands 135–37; Hawke 53.

  4. Autobiography 115; Brands 214.

  5. Faÿ 137; Pa Gazette, Dec. 30, 1730; Clark 44; Pennsylvania Grand Lodge Web site, www.pagrandlodge.org ; Julius Sachse, Benjamin Franklin’s Account with the Lodge of Masons (Kila, Mont.: Kessinger, 1997).

  6. Van Doren 134; Faÿ 180; Brands 152–54; BF to Joseph and Abiah Franklin, Apr. 13, 1738; Pa. Gazette, Feb. 7 (dated Feb. 15), 1738.

  7. Autobiography 111; “Dialogue Between Two Presbyterians,” Pa. Gazette, Apr. 10, 1735; “Observations on the Proceedings against Mr. Hemphill,” July 1735, Papers 2:37; BF, “A Letter to a Friend in the Country,” Sept. 1735, Papers 2:65; Jonathan Dickinson, “A Vindication of the Reverend Commission of the Synod,” Sept. 1735, and “Remarks Upon the Defense of Rev. Hemphill’s Observations,” Nov. 1735; “A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observations,” Oct. 1735. The pieces by Franklin, along with annotations about the affair and Dickinson’s presumed authorship of the essays attributed to him, are in Papers 2:27–91. Franklin’s fascinating battle over Hemphill has been recounted in many good historical studies, from which this section draws: Bryan LeBeau, “Franklin and the Presbyterians,” Early American Review (summer 1996), earlyamerica.com/review/summer/franklin/; Merton Christensen, “Franklin on the Hemphill Trial: Deism versus Presbyterian Orthodoxy,” William and Mary Quarterly (July 1953): 422–40; William Barker, “The Hemphill Case, Benjamin Franklin and Subscription to the Westminster Confession,” American Presbyterians 69 (winter 1991); Aldridge Nature, 86–98; Buxbaum 93–104.

  8. Campbell 97; Barbara Oberg and Harry Stout, eds., Benjamin Franklin, Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 119; Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Edwards (New York: Scribner’s, 1920), introduction; Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” delivered at Enfield, Conn., July 8, 1741, douglass.speech.nwu.edu/edwa_a45.htm ; Jack Hitt, “The Great Divide: It’s Not Left and Right. It’s Meritocrats and Valuecrats,” New York Times Magazine, Dec. 31, 2000, 14.

  9. Pa. Gazette, Nov. 15, 1739, May 22, 1740, June 12, 1740; Autobiography 116–20; Buxbaum 93–142; Brands 138–48; Hawke 57. Buxbaum presents an exhaustive analysis of all the items Franklin printed on Whitefield.

  10. Frank Lambert, “Subscribing for Profits and Piety,” William and Mary Quarterly (July 1993): 529–48; Harry Stout, “George Whitefield and Benjamin Franklin,” Massachusetts Historical Society 103 (1992):9–23; David Morgan, “A Most Unlikely Friendship,” The Historian 47 (1985): 208–18; Autobiography 118.

  11. “Obadiah Plainman,” Pa. Gazette, May 15, 29, 1740, Lib. of Am. 275–83, 1528; American Weekly Mercury, May 22, 1740. The editors of the Yale Papers do not include the Obadiah Plainman letters as Franklin’s. But Leo Lemay convincingly argues that he wrote them, and he included them in the Library of America collection. Likewise, it seems possible that Franklin, as was his wont, stoked the controversy by writing the opposing letters from “Tom Trueman.”

  12. “Letter to a Friend in the Country” and “Statement of Editorial Policy,” Pa. Gazette, July 24, 1740; Autobiography 118.

  13. “Obituary of Andrew Hamilton,” Pa. Gazette, Aug. 6, 1741; “Half-Hour’s Conversation with a Friend,” Pa. Gazette, Nov. 16, 1733.

  14. Sappenfield 86–93; Autobiography 113–14.

  15. C. William Miller, Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia Printing: A Descriptive Bibliography (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1984), 32; James Green, Benjamin Franklin as Publisher and Bookseller, in Lemay Reappraising, 101. Green was a distinguished curator at the Library Company, and his notes on exhibitions of Franklin’s books are useful.

  16. Walter Isaacson, “Info Highwayman,” Civilization (Mar. 1995): 48; Autobiography 114.

  17. Sappenfield 93–105; Pa. Gazette, Nov. 13, Dec. 11, 1740; American Weekly Mercury, Nov. 20, 27, Dec. 4, 18, 1740; Papers, vol. 2; Frank Mott, A History of American Magazines (New York: Appleton, 1930), 1:8–27.

  18. BF to Abiah Franklin, Oct. 16, 1747, Apr. 12, 1750; Lopez Private, 70–79; Autobiography 109; BF to William Strahan, June 2, 1750, Jan. 31, 1757; Clark 62, 139; Mrs. E. D. Gillespie (daughter of Sally Franklin Bache), A Book of Remembrance (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1901), cited in Clark 17; Silence Dogood #5, New England Courant, May 28, 1722; DF to Margaret Strahan, Dec. 24, 1751; “A Petition of the Left Hand,” 1785, in Lib. of Am. 1115 and Papers CD 43:u611.

  In addition to half-seriously trying to fix Sally up with Strahan’s son Billy, Franklin hoped his son, William, would marry Polly Stevenson, the daughter of his London landlady; that his grandson William Temple Franklin would marry the son of his Paris lady friend Mme. Brillon; and that Sally’s son Benjamin Bache would marry Polly Stevenson’s daughter. A harsher assessment of Franklin’s treatment of Sally and the education he provided her can be found in an essay by Larry Tise, “Liberty and the Rights of Women,” in the collection he edited, Benjamin Franklin and Women (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000), 37–49.

  19. Lopez Private, 34; Poor Richard’s, 1735. “Reply to a Piece of Advice,” Pa. Gazette, Mar, 4, 1735, praises marriage and children. The Yale editors of Franklin Papers tentatively attribute it to him, partly because it is signed “A.A.,” initials he often used. Papers 2:21.

  20. “Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress,” also known as “Old Mistress Apologue,” June 25, 1745. A description of its publishing history is in Papers 3:27–31, and in the introduction to Larry Tise, Benjamin Franklin and Women.

  21. “Speech of Polly Baker,” General Advertiser, Apr. 15, 1747; Sappenfield 64. Franklin revealed his authorship in about 1778 at a dinner with the Abbé Raynal in Paris, where the authenticity of the famous speech was being debated. Franklin told the group, “I am going to set you straight. When I was young and printed a newspaper, it sometimes happened, when I was short of material to fill my sheet, that I amused myself by making up stories, and that of Polly Baker is one of the number.” Papers 3:121–22.

  22. “A Proposal for Promoting Useful Knowledge,” May 14, 1743, Papers 2:378; The Beginnings of the APS (Philadelphia: APS Proceedings, 1944), 277–89; Edward C. Carter III, One Grand Pursuit (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993); American Philosophical Society, www.amphilsoc.org.

  Franklin had a love for writing very detailed charters, r
ules, and procedures for organizations. Among the groups he did this for were the Junto, Masonic lodge, fire company, police patrol, American Philosophical Society, Pennsylvania militia, Academy, postal service, and society for the abolition of slavery. This penchant also helped him draw up the Albany plan for union, the discipline regulations for the colonial army, and the first proposed articles of confederation.

  23. Autobiography 121–23; “Plain Truth,” Nov. 17, 1747; “Form of Association,” Nov. 24, 1747; Papers 3:187, with historical notes. See chapter 4 for the issue of whether William was 16 or perhaps a bit older.

  24. Autobiography 123; Richard Peters to Thomas Penn, Nov. 29, 1747, Papers 3:214; Penn to Peters, Mar. 30, June 9, 1748, Papers 3:186; “The Necessity of Self Defense,” Pa. Gazette, Dec. 29, 1747 (in Lib. of Am. but not Yale papers); Brands 179–88; Wright 77–81; Hawke 75–80.

  25. Wright 52; Van Doren 122; Autobiography 120, 92; “Articles of Agreement with David Hall,” Jan. 1, 1748; Brands 188, 380; Clark 62; BF to Abiah Franklin, Apr. 12, 1750; BF to Cadwallader Colden, Sept. 29, 1748; Poor Richard’s, 1744.

  The year he retired, Franklin wrote and published an essay called “Advice to a Young Tradesman, Written by an Old One,” in which he restated much of the philosophy of Poor Richard and the Autobiography: “The way to wealth, if you desire it, is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, Industry and Frugality; i.e., waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both.” Papers 3:304.

  26. Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Random House, 1991), 77, 85–86, 199. I tend to disagree with Wood’s thesis to the extent that he portrays Franklin as a man of aristocratic aspirations whose leather-apron image was mainly affected after his social ambitions were dashed. The evidence in favor of giving more weight than Wood does to the view of Franklin as a proud member of the middle class is, I hope, detailed throughout this book. Even during the period right after his retirement, which Wood says was the prime period of his “aristocratic” aspirations, Franklin’s politics remained rather populist and his civic endeavors had a common touch. Nevertheless, Wood provides an interesting assessment that merits consideration as a counterpoint to the approach taken by other historians. And because Wood contends that Franklin’s aristocratic attitude was manifest primarily during the period from 1748 to the late 1760s (plus when he advocated at the Constitutional Convention that officeholders serve without pay), his thesis can be given weight without entirely rejecting the view that for most of his life Franklin was, as he claimed, a proud part of “we, the middling people.” Wood also uses a somewhat broader definition of aristocracy than others do; he includes in it not only titled nobility and hereditary classes but also wealthy commoners who hold themselves out to be gentlemen. Wood’s thesis reminds us, correctly I think, that one of Franklin’s goals, beginning with his creation of the lending library, was to help members of the middling class take on some of the qualities of the enlightened gentry. (It should also be noted that the classical definition of aristocracy denoted a system of rule by the best, rather than a hereditary class system of social hierarchy and titles based on birth, which is what the term came to mean in England by Franklin’s time.)

  27. Wayne Craven, “The British and American Portraits of Benjamin Franklin,” in Lemay Reappraising, 249; Charles Sellers, Benjamin Franklin in Portraiture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962); Poor Richard’s, 1748.

  Chapter 6

  1. Dudley Herschbach, “Dr. Franklin’s Scientific Amusements,” Harvard Magazine (Nov. 1995): 36, and in the Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences(Oct. 1994): 23. Herschbach, the Baird Professor of Science at Harvard, won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1958.

  The most important academic studies on Franklin’s science were done by the eminent scientific historian Harvard’s I. Bernard Cohen. These include Benjamin Franklin’s Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990); Science and the Founding Fathers (New York: Norton, 1995), and Franklin and Newton (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956). Also useful are Charles Tanford, Ben Franklin Stilled the Waves (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1989); Nathan Goodman, ed., The Ingenious Dr. Franklin (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1931), which is a collection of Franklin’s scientific letters and essays; J. L. Heilbron, “Franklin as an Enlightened Natural Philosopher,” and Heinz Otto Sibum, “The Bookkeeper of Nature,” in Lemay Reappraising.

  2. “Magic Squares,” BF to Peter Collinson, 1750; BF to PS, Sept. 20, 1761; Cohen 159–71; Brands 630. Cohen dates the heat experiments of Franklin and Breintnall from 1729 to 1737 based on letters and Junto notes, and traces the theories back to Newton and Boyle, accounts of which Franklin had read.

  3. “An Account of the New Invented Pennsylvania Fire-Places,” 1744, Papers 2:419–46 (with historical notes by the paper’s editors); Autobiography 128; Lemay Reappraising, 201–3; letter to the Boston Evening Post, Sept. 8, 1746, first rediscovered and noted in Lemay Internet Doc for 1746; Brands 167; Samuel Edgerton Jr., “The Franklin Stove,” in Cohen 199–211. Edgerton, an art historian at the University of Pennsylvania, shows that the stove was not as practical or popular as other historians assume.

  4. BF to John Franklin, Dec. 8, 1752; “Origin of Northeast Storms,” BF to Jared Eliot, Feb. 13, 1750; BF to Jared Eliot, July 16, 1747; BF to Alexander Small, May 12, 1760; John Cox, The Storm Watchers (New York: Wiley, 2002), 5–7.

  5. Cohen 40–65; BF to Collinson, Mar. 28, 1747; Autobiography 164; Bowen 47–49. Cohen provides detailed evidence on the dates of Dr. Spencer’s lectures, their content, Collinson’s gift, and the errors Franklin made in later recalling the chronology.

  6. BF to Collinson, May 25, July 28, 1747, Apr. 29, 1749; Cohen 22–26;I. Bernard Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 303; Clark 71. J. L. Heilbrun and Heinz Otto Sibum, in Lemay’s Reappraising, 196–242, emphasize the “bookkeeping” nature of Franklin’s theories.

  7. BF to Collinson, Apr. 29, 1749, Feb. 4, 1750; Brands 199; Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon (New York: Holt, 1997), 294.

  8. BF to John Lining, Mar. 18, 1755; BF to Collinson, Mar. 2, 1750; BF to John Winthrop, July 2, 1768; Hawke 86–88; Cohen 121; Van Doren 156–70; Brands 198–202. Andrew White, “History of Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom,” www.human-nature.com/reason/white/chap11.html. Among those, in addition to Newton, who had already noted the similarities between electrical sparks and lightning were Francis Hauksbee, Samuel Wall, John Freke, Johann Heinrich Winkler, and Franklin’s antagonist the Abbé Nollet; see Clark 79–80. None, however, had proposed serious experiments to assess the hypothesis.

  9. BF to John Mitchell, Apr. 29, 1749.

  10. BF to Collinson, July 29, Mar. 2, 1750.

  11. The Gentleman’s Magazine, Jan., May 1750; Experiments and Observations on Electricity, Made at Philadelphia in America, by Mr. Benjamin Franklin (London: 1750, 1756, and subsequent editions); Abbé Guillaume Mazéas to Stephen Hales, May 20, 1752, Papers 4:315 and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society(1751–52); Autobiography 165–67; Clark 3–5, 83; Cohen 70–72.

  12. “The Kite Experiment,” Pa. Gazette, Oct. 19, 1752; Papers 4:360–65 has a footnote explaining historical issues; Pa. Gazette, Aug. 27, Oct. 19, 1752; Cohen 68–77; Joseph Priestley, The History and Present State of Electricity (1767), www.ushistory.org/franklin/kite/index.htm ; Hawke 103–6.

  13. Cohen 66–109; Van Doren 164; Tom Tucker, Bolt of Fate (New York: Public Affairs, 2003). Tucker charges that “It’s possible that…Franklin dreamed up his own kite claim” and that it was all a “hoax” akin to his literary ones. His book does not address the detailed evidence I. Bernard Cohen cites on this question and is, I think, unpersuasive. Franklin’s kite description is in no ways similar to his literary hoaxes, and if untrue would have been an outright lie rather than a hoax. Tucker also makes the odd allegation that Franklin’s description of his sentry box experiment was a death threat to the president of London’s Royal Societ
y. He also charges that Franklin may have been lying when he publicly reported in 1752 that two lightning rods had been erected on public buildings in Philadelphia that summer (a report that was published in the Royal Society’s journal and would, it seems, have been challenged at the time if it were false). The comprehensive analysis by Cohen, a professor of the history of science who is the foremost authority on Franklin’s electricity work, addresses fully and more convincingly the issues surrounding Franklin’s sentry box, kite, and lightning rods. Other articles about whether Franklin flew the kite that summer include Abbott L. Rotch, “Did Franklin Fly His Electrical Kite before He Invented the Lighting Rod?” American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, 1907; Alexander McAdie, “The Date of Franklin’s Kite Experiment,” American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, 1925.

  14. Cohen 66–109; Van Doren 165–70. Van Doren says that the possibility that Franklin fabricated or embellished his kite experiment would be “quite out of keeping with his record in science, in which he elsewhere appears always truthful and unpretending.”

  15. BF to Collinson, Sept. 1753; BF to DF, June 10, 1758; Dudley Herschbach, “Ben Franklin’s Scientific Amusements,” Harvard Magazine (Nov. 1995): 44; BF to Cadwallader Colden, Apr. 12, 1753; BF to Royal Society, May 29, 1754.

  16. BF to Collinson, July 29, 1750; Van Doren 171; J. J.Thompson, Recollections and Reflections (London: Bell, 1939), 252; BF to Cadwallader Colden, Oct. 11, 1750; Turgot epigram, 1781: Eripuit cœlo fulmen, sceptrumque tyrannis.

  Chapter 7

  1. “On the Need for an Academy,” Pa. Gazette, Aug. 24, 1749; “Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania,” Oct. 1749; BF to Cadwallader Colden, Nov. 1749; Constitutions of the Publick Academy, Nov. 13, 1749; Autobiography 121, 129–31; Van Doren 193; University of Pennsylvania history, www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/genlhistory/brief.html. (The school was originally called the Academy of Philadelphia, then the College of Philadelphia, then in 1779 it was taken over by the state and became the University of the State of Pennsylvania, and finally in 1791 it was named the University of Pennsylvania.)