For the memory of the illustrious
Benjamin Franklin,
And desirous of reminding succeeding generations,
That he was born in Boston, A. D. MDCCVI,
Erected this
Obelisk
Over the graves of his parents.
MDCCCXXVII.
A silver plate was deposited under the corner-stone, with an inscription commemorative of the occasion; a part of which is as foUows: “This Monument was erected over th. Remains of the Parents of Benjamin Franklin by the Citizens of Boston, from Respect to the Private Character and Public Services of this Illustrious Patriot and Philosopher, and for the many Tokens of his affectionate Attachment to his native Town.”
(
7
Commonly called “cbap-books,” a term applied to popular story-books, which in former days used to be hawked about by chapmen, such as Tom Hickathrift, Jack the Giant Killer, &c. Burton’s Histories were of rather a better class, and comprised
The English Hero; or, Sir Francis Drake Revived; Admirable Curiosities, &c., &c.
(
8
This was written from recollection, and it is not surprising, that, after the lapse of fifty years, the author’s memory should have failed him in regard to a fact of small importance. The New England Courant was the fourth newspaper that appeared in America. The first number of the Boston News-Letter was published April 24th, 1704. This was the first newspaper in America. The Boston Gazette commenced December 21st, 1719; th. American Weekly Mercury, at Philadelphia, December 22nd, 1719; the New England Courant, August 21st, 1721. Dr. Franklin’s error of memory probably originated in the circumstance of his brother having been the printer of the Boston Gazette when it was first established. This was the second newspaper published in America.
(
9
The earlier numbers of the New England Courant were principally filled with original articles, in the form of essays, letters, and short paragraphs, written with considerable ability and wit, and touching with great freedom the vices and follies of the time. The weapon of satire was used with an unsparing hand. Neither the government nor the clergy escaped. Much caution was practised, however, in regard to individuals, and names were seldom intro. duced. There are some severe and humorous criticisms on the poets of the day, which may be classed with the best specimens of this kind of composition in the modern reviews. The humour sometimes degenerates into coarseness, and the phraseology is often harsh; but, bating these faults, the paper contains nothing which in later times would have been deemed reprehensible. James Franklin, the editor and printer, was imprisoned on the general charge of having published passages “boldly reflecting on his Majesty’s government and on the administration in this province, the ministry, churches, and college; anti that tend to fill the readers’ minds with vanity, to the diabonour of God and the disservice of good men.” He was sentenced by a vote of the Assembly, without any specification of these offensive passages, or any trial before a court of justice.
This was probably the first transaction, in the American Colonies, relating to the freedom of the press; and it is not less remarkable for the assumption of power on the part of the legislature, than for their disregard of the first prin ciples and established forms of law.
No change took place in the character of the paper, and six months afterwards, January, 1728, he was again arraigned upon a similar charge. The resentment of the ruling powers, stimulated by the clergy, bad been gaining heat during the whole time, and now pushed them to more arbitrary measures. They condescended, however, to specify a particular article, as affording the ground of their proceedings. This was an essay on Hypocrisy, in whith hypocrites of various descriptions were roughly handled, but no individual or class of men was mentioned. The most objectionable paragraphs in this essay are the following :—
“Religion is indeed the principal thing, but too much of It is worse than none at all. The world abounds with knaves and villains; but, of all knaves, the religious knave is the worst, and villanies acted under the cloak of religion the most execrable. Moral honesty, though it will not itself carry a man to heaven, yet I am sure there is no going thither without it.”
“But are there such men as these in thee, 0 New England? Heaven forbid there should be any; but, alas ! it is to be feared the number is not small. ‘Give me an honest man,’ say some, ‘for all a religious man;’ a distinction which, I confess, I never heard of before. The whole country suffers for the villanies of a few such wolves in sheep’s clothing, and we are all represented as a pack of knaves and hypocrites for their sakes.”
(
10
There are some errors in this account of Braddock’s defeat. A full description of that event may be seen in Washington’s Writings, vol. ii., p. 468.
(
11
This Dialogue is printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for February and March, 1758.
(
12
Dr. Franklin gives a further account of his election, in a letter to his son, Governor Franklin, from which the following is an extract :—
“London, 19th December, 1767.
“We have had an ugly affair at the Royal Society lately. One Dacosta, a Jew, who, as our clerk, was intrusted with collecting our moneys, has been so unfaithful as to embezzle near thirteen hundred pounds in four years. Being one of the Council this year, as well as the last, I have been employed all the last week in attending the inquiry into, and unravelling, his accounts, in order to come at a full knowledge of his frauds. His securities are bound in one thousand pounds to the Society, which they will pay, but we shall probably lose the rest. He had this year received twenty-six admission payments of twenty-five guineas each, which he did not bring to account.
“While attending to this affair, I had an opportunity of looking over the old council-books and journals of the Society, and, having a curiosity to see how I came in, of which I had never been informed, I looked back for the minutes relating to it. You must know, it is not usual to admit persons that have not requested to be admitted; and a recommendatory certificate in favour of the candidate, signed by at least three of the members, is by our rule to be presented to the Society, expressing that he is desirous of that honour, and is so and so qualified. As I never had asked, or expected the honour, I was, as I said before curious to see how the business was managed. I found that the certificate, worded very advantageously for me, was signed by Lord Macclesfield, then President, Lord Parker, and Lord Willoughby; that the election was by a unanimous vote; and, the honour being voluntarily conferred by the Society, unsolicited by me, it was thought wrong to demand or receive the usual fees or composition; so that my name was entered on the list with a vote of Council, that I was not to pay anything. And accordingly nothing has ever been demanded of me. Those who are admitted in the common way, pay five guineas admission fees, and two guineas and a half yearly contributions, or twenty-five guineas down, in lieu of it. In my case a substantial favour accompanied the honour.”
(
13
In a letter from Dr. Franklin to his wife, dated at Falmouth, the 17th of July, 1757, after giving her a similar account of his voyage, escape, and landing, he adds: “The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and, with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received. Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint; but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a lighthouse.”
(
14
Here close Dr. Franklin’s Memoirs, as written by himself. From several passages in his letters it would seem that it was his intention to continue them further, and perhaps to the end of his life; but public business for some time, and afterwards his declining health, prevented him from executing his purpose.
(
15
&nbs
p; Ralph obtained much celebrity as a political and historical writer. He also wrote poetry and plays, but with less success. He published “Night,” a poem; and another poem, called “Sawney.” In this latter he abused Swift, Pope. and Gay. In revenge, Pope introduced his name into the “Dunciad.”
“Silence, ye wolves, while Ralph to Cynthia howls,
And makes Night hideous; answer him, ye owls.”
He wrote a much approved work, entitled “Use and Abuse of Parliaments”; and also a “History of England during the reign of William the Third,” in two folio volumes. Alluding to this work, Fox pronounces the author a historian of great acuteness, as well as diligence, but who falls sometimes into the common error of judging by the event.” Ralph produced also many political pamphlets, and was employed by the ministry at different times to promote their aims with his pen. For these services he was pensioned.
(
16
A printing-house is called a chapel by the workmen.
(
17
He wrote two interesting papers on the art of swim ruing.
(
18
This plan does not exist in the manuscript Journal found among Dr. Franklin’s papers; which appears, by a note thereon, to be a “copy made at Reading in Pennsylvania, October 2nd, 1787.”—W. T. F.
(
19
Dr. Franklin, in a letter to Benjamin Vaughan, dated November 9th, 1779, gives a further account of this pamphlet in these words :—
“It was addressed to Mr. J. R., that is, James Ralph, then a youth of about my age, and my intimate friend afterwards a political writer and historian. The purport of it was to prove the doctrine of fate, from the supposed attributes of God; in some such manner as this. That in erecting and governing the world, as he was infinitely wise, he knew what would be best; infinitely good, he must be disposed, and infinitely powerful, he must be able to execute it. Consequently all is right.
“There were only a hundred copies printed, of which I gave a few to friends; and afterwards disliking the piece, as conceiving it might have an ill tendency, I burnt the rest, except one copy, the margin of which was filled with manuscript notes by Lyons, author of the Infallibility of Human Judgment, who was at that time another of my acquaintance in London. I was not nineteen years of age when it was written. In 1730, I wrote a piece on the other side of the question, which began with laying for its foundation this fact: ‘That almost all men, in all ages and countries, have at times made use of PRAYER.’ Thence I reasoned, that, if all things are ordained, prayer must among the rest be ordained. But, as prayer can procure no change in things that are ordained, praying must then be useless, and an absurdity. God would therefore not ordain praying, if everything else was ordained. But praying exists, therefore all other things are not ordained, &c. This pamphlet was never printed, and the manuscript has been long lost. The great uncertainty I found in metaphysical reasonings disgusted me, and I quitted that kind of reading and study for others more satisfactory.”
(
20
See Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion, published in his works.
Among Franklin’s papers I have found a curious manuscript in his handwriting, which contains a new version of the Lord’s Prayer. The condition and appearance of this manuscript prove it to have been an early performance, but its precise date is not known. The form in which it is, written is here preserved.
THE LORD’S PRAYER.
OLD VERSION.
1. Our Father which art in heaven,
2. Hallowed be Thy name.
3. Thy kingdom come,
4. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven,
5. Give us this day our daily bread.
6. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.
7. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
NEW VERSION. By B. FRANKLIN
1. Heavenly Father,
2. May all revere thee,
3. And become thy dutiful children and faithful subjects.
4. May thy laws be obeyed on earth as perfectly as they are in heaven.
5. Provide for us this day as thou hast hitherto daily done.
6. Forgive us our trepasses, and enable us to forgive those who offend us.
7. Keep us out of temptation, and deliver us from evil.
REASONS FOR THE CHANGE OF EXPRESSION.
OLD VERSION.—Our Father which art in Heaven.
NEW VERSION.—Heavenly Father is more concise, equally expressive, and better modern English.
OLD VERSION.—Hallowed be thy name. This seems to relate to an observance among the Jews not to pronounce the proper or peculiar name of God, they deeming it a profanation so to do. We have in our language no proper name for God; the word God being a common, or general name, expressing all chief objects of worship, true or false. The word hallowed is almost obsolete. People now have but an imperfect conception of the meaning of the petition. It is therefore proposed to change the expression into
NEW VERSION.—May all revere thee.
OLD VERSION.—Thy kingdom come. This petition seems suited to the then condition of the Jewish nation. Originally their state was a theocracy; God was their king. Dissatisfied with that kind of government, they desired a visible, earthly king, in the manner of the nations around them. They had such kings accordingly; but their happiness was not increased by the change, and they had reason to wish and pray for a return of the theocracy, or government of God. Christians in these times have other ideas, when they speak of the kingdom of God, such as are perhaps more adequately expressed by the
NEW VERSION.—Become thy dutiful children and faithful subjects.
OLD VERSION.—Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven; more explicitly,
NEW VERSION.—May thy laws be obeyed on earth as perfectly as they are in heaven.
OLD VERSION.—Give us this day our daily bread. Give us what is ours seems to put in a claim of right, and to contain too little of the grateful acknowledgment and sense of dependence that become creatures who live on the daily bounty of their Creator. Therefore it is changed to
NEW VERSION.—Provide for us this day, as thou hast hitherto daily done.
OLD VERSION.—Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors (Matthew). Forgive our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us (Luke). Offerings were due to God on many occasions by the Jewish law, which, when people could not pay, or had forgotten, as debtors are apt to do, it was proper to pray that those debts might be forgiven. Our Liturgy uses neither the debtors of Matthew, nor the indebted of Luke, but instead of them speaks of those that trespass against us. Perhaps the considering it as a Christian duty to forgive debtors was by the compilers thought an inconvenient idea in a trading nation. There seems, however, something presumptuous in this mode of expression, which has the air of proposing ourselves as an example of goodness fit for God to imitate. We hope you will at least be as good as we are; you see we forgive one another, and therefore we pray that you would forgive us. Some have considered it in another sense. Forgive us as we forgive others. That is, if we do not forgive others, we pray that thou wouldst not forgive us. But this, being a kind of conditional imprecation against ourselves, seems improper in such a prayer; and therefore it may be better to say humbly and modestly,
NEW VERSION.—Forgive us our trespasses, and enable us likewise to forgive those who offend us. This, instead of assuming that we have already in and of ourselves the grace of forgiveness, acknowledges our dependence on God, the Fountain of Mercy, for any share we may have of it, praying that he would communicate it to us.
OLD VERSION.—And lead us not into temptation. The Jews had a notion that God sometimes tempted, or directed, or permitted, the tempting of people. Thus it was said, he tempted Pharoah, directed Satan to tempt Job, and a false Prophet to tempt Ahab. Under this persuasion, it was natural for them to pray, that he would not put them to suc
h severe trials. We now suppose that temptation, so far as it is supernatural, comes from the Evil One only; and this petition continued conveys a suspicion, which, in our present conceptions, seems unworthy of God, therefore it might be altered to
NEW VERSION.—Keep us out of temptation.
(
21
Godfrey’s claims to this invention are fully explained and confirmed in Miller’s Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century, vol. i., pp. 468-480.
(
22
It was called the Pennsylvania Gazette. Franklin and Meredith began the paper with No. 40, September 25th, 1729.
A characteristic anecdote has been related of Franklin, illustrative of his independence as an editor. Soon after the establishment of his newspaper, he found occasion to remark with some degree of freedom on the public conduct of one or two persons of high standing in Philadelphia. This course was disapproved by some of his patrons, who sought an opportunity to convey to him their views on the subject, and what they represented to be the opinion of his friends. He listened patiently, and replied by requesting that they would favour him with their company at supper, and bring with them the other gentlemen, who had expressed dissatisfaction. The time arrived, and the guests assembled. He received them cordially, and listened again to their friendly reproofs of his editorial conduct. At length supper was announced; but, when the guests had seated themselves around the table, they were surprised to see nothing before them but two puddings, made of coarse meal, called sawdust puddings in the common phrase, and a stone pitcher filled with water. He helped them all, and then applied himself to his own plate, partaking freely of the repast, and urging his friends to do the same. They taxed their politeness to the utmost, but all in vain; their appetites refused obedience to the will. Perceiving their difficulty, Franklin at last arose and said, “My friends, any one who can subsist upon sawdust pudding and water, as I can, needs no man’s patronage.”