Letters from an American Botanist: The Correspondences of Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg (1753–1815) 3515107967, 9783515107969

Citation preview

Matthias Schönhofer

Letters from an American Botanist The Correspondences of Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg (1753–1815) Geschichte Franz Steiner Verlag

Beiträge zur Europäischen Überseegeschichte – 101

Matthias Schönhofer Letters from an American Botanist

beiträge zur europäischen überseegeschichte vormals: Beiträge zur Kolonial- und Überseegeschichte

Im Auftrag der Forschungsstiftung für vergleichende europäische Überseegeschichte herausgegeben von Markus A. Denzel, Hermann Joseph Hiery und Eberhard Schmitt Band 101

Matthias Schönhofer

Letters from an American Botanist The Correspondences of Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg (1753–1815)

Franz Steiner Verlag

Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der Gesellschaft für Überseegeschichte (e.V.) und des DFG-Projektes Atlantische Korrespondenzen: Genese und Transformation deutsch-amerikanischer Netzwerke 1740–1870

Umschlagabbildung: Rev. Gotthilf Henry Ernest Muhlenberg by Jacob Eichholtz, 1811, Object number 1984, The Phillips Museum of Art, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA, USA Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2014 Druck: Offsetdruck Bokor, Bad Tölz Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-10796-9 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-10802-7 (E-Book)

Für Eva

TABLE OF CONTENTS I

Introduction

11

II

List of Abbreviations

15

III 1. 2. 3. 4.

Networks and History Network Theory Basics Applications – Rosenthal et al., Gould and Bearman A Critique Aims and Methodology – The Plurality of Mühlenberg’s Network

16 17 25 31 34

IV 1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

A Prelude – Mühlenberg’s Correspondences from 1771 to 1784 The Lutheran Context Studies at the Francke Foundations (1763–1770) The Pennsylvania Field Pious Trade in Halle Medicines I (before 1770) Pious Trade in Halle Medicines II (after 1770) Halle’s Private Intermediaries The Family Context Family Life prior to the War of Independence Brothers–in–Law A Band of Brothers The only Son Conflict with Kunze In the Wake of the War The Scientific Context – the Respublica Litteraria The Handmaiden of Medicine American Botanical Fellows Carl Linnaeus and America Mühlenberg and Linnaeus American Botany in the Early National Period (1775–1815) The Challenges of Independence

45 45 48 53 57 61 63 70 71 77 81 86 89 93 98 102 104 108 111 115 116

V 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Letters from an American Botanist Confederate Botany (Phase 1, 1784–1790) A Franconian Physician at Lancaster – Schöpf The Prince of Erlangen Science – Schreber Commercium Litterarium with Schreber and Schöpf The Hinterlands of Botanical Science Franklin College and Botany Old Trade along New Channels

122 122 126 128 131 138 140 148

8

Table of Contents

1.7 Family and Friends 1.8 Network Analysis: Phase 1

152 154

2 Transatlantic Botany (Phase 2, 1790–1797) 2.1 The Philosopher of Kingsessing – William Bartram 2.2 More Gardeners and Seedsmen – the Marshalls and William Hamilton 2.3 Mühlenberg’s Antagonist – Benjamin Smith Barton 2.4 Networks and Network Strategies 2.5 A Swabian in Lancaster – Autenrieth 2.6 Spinning the Web at the American Periphery 2.7 Moravians Botanists – Kramsch and Kampman 2.8 Cutler and the Gap in the North 2.9 Mitchill, New York and Agriculture 2.10 Erlangen falls behind 2.11 Hoffmann goes to Göttingen 2.12 Palm in Erlangen 2.13 Johann Hedwig’s Cryptogamia 2.14 James Edward Smith – Linneaus’ English Heir 2.15 Changes at the Orphanage 2.16 Yellow Fever and American Medicine 2.17 Network Analysis: Phase 2

158 165 171 174 178 183 186 188 192 196 198 201 204 208 211 215 221 228

3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

233 236 243 254 256 262 264

4 4.1 4.2 4.3

A Network in Transition (Phase 3, 1797–1802) The Failures of Smith, Schreber and Hoffmann The Cryptogamic Circle I Postbox Halle Moravians on the Move Dormant America Network Analysis: Phase 3

Network Strategies (Phase 4, 1802–1805) The South Europeans in the American Wilderness I – Lyon and Pursh Europeans in the American Wilderness II – Kin, Enslin and van der Schott 4.4 Europeans in the American Wilderness III – Rafinesque 4.5 The Cryptogamic Circle II 4.6 The Herbarium of André Michaux 4.7 Old Europe – Smith, Turner, Hoffmann, Schrader and Schreber 4.8 Network Strategies and Publications 4.9 The Halle Network 4.10 Changes in the Family 4.11 Network Analysis: Phase 4

266 273 280 287 292 297 301 306 312 323 327 329

Table of Contents

9

5 An American Network (Phase 5, 1805–1811) 5.1 The Troubles of Erlangen and Halle 5.2 Nulla Salus Bello – Pacem te poscimus 5.3 France, England and Sweden 5.4 North and South – Peck, Elliott, Dunbar, Moore and Logan 5.5 Moravians in the South 5.6 The West – Müller and the Planthunters 5.7 The Aftermath of the great Expeditions 5.8 The Failure of American Botany 5.9 Family Matters 5.10 Network Analysis: Phase 5

332 335 340 345 355 372 377 383 390 399 401

6. 6.1 6.2 6.3

403 411 418

6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

Towards Botanical Independence (Phase 6, 1811–1815) Philadelphia and Western Pennsylvania The patient and successful cultivator – Collins The Southern Constellation – Oemler, Dörry, Logan, Elliott and Baldwin The Last of the Moravian Contacts – Schweinitz Friends and Fraud in New York City The North and the West – Cutler, Peck, Bigelow, Rich and Moore The End of an Era Ars longa, vita brevis Network Analysis: Phase 6

425 441 446 453 460 467 469

VI Conclusion

472

VII Appendices 1. Appendix A – Flow Charts 2. Appendix B – Tables 3. Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences 4. Appendix D – Exchange Charts 5. Appendix E – Networks 6. Appendix F – Network Documentation

483 486 494 535 550 554 565

VIII Bibliography

569

IX Register of Persons

585

X Register of Places

598

I INTRODUCTION This study attempts to resconstruct the correspondence network of the Lutheran pastor Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg (1753–1815), the so–called “American Linnaeus.” Today, Mühlenberg is particularly remembered for his contributions to the establishment of a national scientific infrastructure in the wake of American Independence. From 1771 to 1815, he exchanged letters and specimens with European and American botanists, plant collectors and seed traders, but he also wrote to merchants, family members, fellow Lutheran pastors and ordinary citizens. For the present study, 109 direct contacts1 of Mühlenberg could be identified from this period, exchanging a total of 998 letters with him. This number is composed of 693 actual and dated letters, and 297 reconstructed letters, which must be presumed lost or destroyed. Eight additional letters from or to Mühlenberg were undated. Reconstructed letters were identified through references found in the actual source corpus of 693 letters and Mühlenberg’s botanical diaries in the archives of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. In total, a data loss rate of approximately 29,76 % must be assumed,2 which could partially be amended through Mühlenberg’s diaries. These contained a plethora of crucial information on the development of individual correspondences, the dimensions of his botanical exchanges and personal remarks on most of his contacts and were for the first time systematically read and analyzed in the context of this study. In general, however, historical research has so far eluded Mühlenberg’s network, as a large portion of the letters were scattered across a number of American and European archives. By far the largest collections of Mühlenberg letters are found today at the Lutheran Theological Seminary Mt. Airy, in the archives of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the American Philosophical Society and the Academy of Natural Sciences, which are all located in Philadelphia, PA.3 Minor holdings, individual letters and other manuscript material could be located at the Library Company of Philadelphia, the Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections, Ohio University, Ath1

2

3

This number is split up between 107 individual persons and two institutions, counted as individual actors of his network. There was one anonymous letter. For 21 of these 109 confirmed correspondents, no letters have survived, which reduces the core corpus to 693 letters from 88 correspondents. As the reconstructed 297 letters presumably contained even more references to lost letters, this rate must even be assumed slightly higher. The earliest actual letter dates from December 4th 1771, and was written by Mühlenberg to his father Melchior Mühlenberg. The last letter was written by the widow of Mühlenberg’s cousin Carl Daniel Heinrich Bensen (1761–1805), Sophie Bensen, half a year after Mühlenberg’s death in May 1815. Sophie Bensen to Mühlenberg, 09/02/1815, APS Film 1097. See bibliography of manuscript materials in the appendix for further details. In fact, the letters accomodated at Mt. Airy archives are available on microfilm in the A.P.S. reading (Mss.Film 1097), under which label they will also be cited.

12

Introduction

ens, OH, the Archives of the Gray Herbarium, Cambridge, MA and the William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Further material could be located at Harvard University Archives, Cambridge, MA, the Rare Books and Manuscripts division of the Boston Public Library, Boston, MA, Franklin&Marshall College Archives in Lancaster, PA, the Hunt Botanical Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, the Library of Congress, Washington D. C, the Trexler Library of Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA and the William L. Clements Library, Ann Arbor, MI. One Mühlenberg letter is in the private possession of Daniel Weinstock M. D. of Geneva, NY, which has been generously made available to the author by the owner.4 In Europe, the archives of the Francke Foundations at Halle, Germany, the University Archives of the Friedrich-Alexander Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany, and the Linnean Society of London hold the greatest number of documents in the collections of Mühlenberg’s correspondents Sebastian Andreas Fabricius (1716–1790), Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg (†1797), Joseph Friedrich Nebe (1737–1812), Johann Christian Daniel Edler von Schreber (1739– 1810) and James Edward Smith (1759–1828). Further material is accommodated at the Museum für Naturkunde, Alexander von Humboldt Universität Berlin, in the archives of the Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg and in the historical image and manuscript collections of the Museum der Naturkunde, Alexander von Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. Apart from these manuscript sources, Mühlenberg’s letters have not been edited to date with the exception of William Darlington’s Reliquiae Baldwiniae (1843), containing the complete correspondence between Mühlenberg and William Baldwin (1779–1819), and the edition of Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s letters by Kurt Aland (vols. 1–4) and Hermann Wellenreuther (vol. 5).5 This also reflects the general state of historical literature on Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg. Compared to the historical literature on the Mühlenberg family, and especially in comparison to past and current research on Henry Melchior Mühlenberg (1711– 1787), Frederick Augustus Conrad (1750–1801) and John Peter Gabriel (1764– 1807), who found a biographer with Henry Augustus Mühlenberg (1823–1854) as early as 1849, Henry, the botanist in the family, has largely been skipped. Apart from a small number of eulogies and entries in biographical dictionaries published between Mühlenberg’s death in 1815 and the American Civil War, it was only with J. M. Maisch’s speech “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg als Botaniker (1886)” and William J. Youman’s biographical sketch in “Pioneers of Science in America” (1896) that the historization and documentation of Mühlenberg’s scientific activities began for real. In the 1920s and 1930s, Herbert H. Beck and A. S. Hitchcock unearthed more biographical information on Mühlenberg and his herbarium, al4 5

To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. The original letters and manuscripts of the Darlington edition are accomodated at Mertz Library, New York Botanical Garden, NY. In the course of the present study on Mühlenberg’s correspondences, which was part of a larger DFG-financed science project entitled Atlantische Korrespondenzen: Genese und Transformation deutsch-amerikanischer Netzwerke 1740–1870, the author also composed an online edition of 100 Mühlenberg’s letters, which will be available from January 2012.

Introduction

13

though both men only examined a small portion of the letters used in the present study and made no use of the A.P.S. diaries at all. Mühlenberg’s herbarium, which is today housed at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, was subjected to a thorough examination by Shiu–Ying Hu and E. D. Merril in 1949. Paul A. W. Wallace’s work on the Muhlenberg family (1950) also contained a brief chapter on his botanical activities, which formed the basis of C. Earle Smith’s biographical sketch in 1962. Finally, Wolf-Dieter Müller-Jahncke’s article from 1977 has a special focus on Mühlenberg’s relations with German-speaking botanists, while James Mears traced “Some Sources of the Herbarium of Henry Muhlenberg” in the following year. In none of these articles, however, the extensive correspondence network was ever addressed as a whole, and the author hopes to have filled the gap and therefore to provide a sound basis for further historical and scientific research.6 The following study has been conceived as an ego-network approach to the correspondences of Henry Mühlenberg. For this reason, chapter III contains an introduction to the basics of network theory, their general applicability in historical contexts and their actual application used in this study. Chapter IV covers Mühlenberg’s biography from his birth to the visit of Johann David Schöpf in late 1783, after which he became an independent transatlantic correspondent and networker. This chapter aims to place him in three individual contexts: within his family, within Pietism in general and the Halle Pietists in detail, and finally within the scientific context of the American Republic of Letters. Chapter V contains the main body of the present study. Here, Mühlenberg’s network will be discussed in six individual subchapters that correspond to consecutive phases in his web of correspondence. Chapter VI contains the conclusion to the study, which has been formatted according to Chicago format. In order to keep reference information about the 697 surviving letters short, Mühlenberg’s name was generally omitted. A regular letter from Mühlenberg (to Zaccheus Collins, for instance) will therefore only be cited as: “To Collins, 07/14/1812, ANSP Coll. 129.” In turn, a letter to Mühlenberg (from William Baldwin here) will simply be cited as: “From Baldwin, 05/26/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 62.” All other letters are referenced in full. I would like to give my kindest regards and thanks to the many archivists and fellow historians who have listened patiently to my ideas during presentations and visits to archives in the USA and Europe, and have generally helped greatly with comments, remarks and criticism. My special thanks go to my Doktorvater Prof. Dr Mark Häberlein at the University of Bamberg, who offered corrections, advice and directions where it was necessary, but also let me trustfully follow and develop my own ideas. Without this kind mixture of general trust and detailed criticism, it would have been impossible to sustain a high level of motivation for almost four years and 6

In 1978, James Mears stated that “[b]efore any source of specimens of the Muhlenberg Herbarium can be complete, Muhlenberg’s botanical manuscripts must be transcribed and associated with the collections.” Mears, “Some Sources,” 155. A list in the archives of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, there is actually a preliminary list entitled “Botanical Correspondences of G. Henry Muhlenberg located by 22 September 1981,” which suggests that Mears or one of his colleagues actually started to compile material on Mühlenberg. The list comprises letters from 1781 to 1815.

14

Introduction

to finish the dissertation in the present form. Prof. Häberlein was also a member of the DFG research project Atlantische Korrespondenzen: Genese und Transformation deutsch-amerikanischer Netzwerke 1740–1870, whose other members, Prof. Dr Hermann Wellenreuther, Prof. Dr Claudia Schnurmann, Christina Urbanek M.A., Anna Groeben and Sarah Lentz, I would like to thank for the many inspirations and thoughts on historical network studies, delicious food and great company during our workshops. Prof. Dr. Gabriele Lingelbach (University of Kiel) was the second corrector of my dissertation and I kindly thank her for the maximum of professional advice and support she was able to give me in a minimum of time. The Gesellschaft für Überseegeschichte e.V. (GÜSG) has awarded the honor of the Martin Behaim Award to my dissertation, which included the publication of the present text in the Franz Steiner Publishing House (Stuttgart). There, Harald Schmitt was a constant source of tips and support in handling the final edition of my dissertation. Just like Mühlenberg’s own botanical studies, this study would hardly have been possible without a proper network of indefatigable proofreaders, name compilers and friends: Dr Toban Szuts (Harvard University, MA), Allen Flint (Ohio University, OH), Wendy Withers-Bassingthwaite (Governors State University, IL), Georg Schafferer M.A., Ms Nina Tschöpp, Marco Eckerlein M.A. and Daniel Glaser (all University of Bamberg, Germany), whose help was essential for the final edition and register of the present text. Ms Ulrica Hansson B.A. (University of Sussex, UK) and Dr Mats J. Hansson (Ersta Sköndal University College, Sweden) have gracefully helped me understand and translate some Swedish-language source passages by Olof Swartz. The indurad GmbH (Aachen, Germany) was so kind as to provide the workforce of research assistant Dominik Giesen (University of Konstanz, Germany) as further support for compiling the registers of persons and places. Finally, my wife Eva has read the entire manuscript, found more spelling errors than I ever thought possible and offered moral support and understanding whenever 18th century script became all too hard to understand. This book is for her.

II LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AFst ANSP APS BPL Clements Lib FMC HSP HUB HUH Hunt LibComp LoC LSoL MCollege NCHGS OUAr UAE UAH–W UoV Weinstock YUL

Archiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen, Halle, Germany Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA Boston Public Library – Rare Books and Manuscripts, Boston, MA University of Michigan, William L. Clements Library, Ann Arbor, MI Archives and Special Collections Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Museum der Naturkunde der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Historische Bild und Schriftgutsammlungen, Germany Harvard University Herbaria, Archives Gray Herbarium, Cambridge, MA Hunt Institute of Botanical Documentation, Pittsburg, PA Library Company of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington D. C. Linnean Society of London, London, UK Muhlenberg College, Trexler Library, Allentown, PA Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society, Easton, PA Ohio University, Mahn Center for Archives and Special Coll., Athens, OH Archiv der Friedrich–Alexander Universität Erlangen, Germany Archiv der Martin–Luther Universität Halle–Wittenberg, Germany University of Virginia, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, Charlottesville, VA Private Property of Daniel Weinstock M. D., Geneva, NY Yale University Libraries – Manuscripts and Archives, New Haven, CT

III NETWORKS AND HISTORY The development of social network studies into a scientific paradigm largely took place after World War II, though important groundwork had already been done by the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The names of Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), Georg Simmel (1858–1918) and the sociometric school of Jacob Moreno (1889–1974) are most often invoked in this context.1 Network studies’ first boom came in the 1940s and 1950s with the rise of British anthropology and its new focus on urban environments and the rules governing human sociability. At that time, some of the most basic concepts of network studies still in use today, such as “centrality”, “multiplexity”, “transitivity” and “structural equivalence,”2 were first conceived and applied. Scholars like Albert Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955) and the “Manchester School of Anthropology” of Max Gluckman (1911–1975), Elizabeth Bott and John A. Barnes (b. in 1918) pioneered this new field of study and set the frame for all subsequent developments. The 1960s and 1970s saw further elaborations in theory and methodology and the firm establishment of social network studies within the scientific landscape with the founding of the International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA) and specialized journals.3 During the 1960s, the network paradigm was first accepted into American sociology as an independent research perspective, the basis for which had been laid earlier by the translation of Simmel’s work into English after World War II.4 Stephen Berkowitz and Barry Wellman have described this paradigmatic shift as “a broadly based scholarly movement away from the Aristotelian-Linnean tradition of analysing things in terms of the intrinsic characteristics of their individual parts.”5 1

2 3

4 5

“Theoretical ‘precursors’ of network analysis have often been invoked in passing – especially Durkheim and Simmel – but network analysis, itself a constellation of diverse methodological strategies, has been systematically grounded in the conceptual frameworks they elaborated. In addition, there has been a notable absence in this literature of any sustained consideration of the potential usefulness of network analysis for historical investigation.” Emirbayer, “Problems of Agency,” 1412. For Simmel, Moreno et al. see also Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 11f; Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 6–21; Marsden and Lin, Social Structure, 9; and Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 28. Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 11–13; Wellman, “Structural analysis,” 21; and Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 52. “Since the seminal works of Barnes (1954) and Bott (1971) sociological studies utilizing network analysis have appeared with increasing frequency; a veritable explosion of such work has taken place over the last 15 years, particularly with the founding of two specialized journals Social Networks and Connections, in the late 1970s.” Emirbayer, “Problems of Agency,” 1411; Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 12. Actually, Connections was first published as the INSNA’s internal newsletter. Marsden and Lin, Social Structure, 9. Berkowitz and Wellman, “Introduction,” 1; Wellman, “Structural Analysis,” 22. According to Berkowitz and Wellman, this encompasses nearly all fields of scientific study, including physics, quantum physics, biology and linguistics. Berkowitz and Wellman, “Intro-

Network Theory Basics

17

In American sociology and historiography, network concepts first came into broad use in the field of “Community studies.”6 Here, they helped to replace the “Community-lost-theory,” which contended that social changes set off by nineteenth century industrialization had atomized communities and led to a complete loss of social cohesion. Network scholars successfully challenged this view and were able to prove that socially cohesive forces had merely changed, rather than disappeared altogether. The “new” communities had to be looked for in more extensive geographic contexts – they were “liberated” as new forms and patterns of connectivity appeared.7 With the publication of Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust’s seminal “Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications“ in 1994, which provides an extensive overview of the discipline’s potential and scope, network studies reached a new level of sophistication, while the book itself has since become the “Bible of network analysis“. 1. NETWORK THEORY BASICS At its most fundamental level, network studies differentiate between actors within a system and the kinds of ties linking them, and it is the latter that are emphasized in the analysis.8 Network studies “analyse the ordered arrangements of relations that are contingent upon exchange among members of social systems. They map these structures, describe their patterns (often using a set of tools derived from mathematical graph theory), and seek to uncover the effects of these patterns on the behavior of the individual members of these structures – whether people, groups or organizations.”9 Individual attributes10 assigned to actors, or classifications such as

6

7 8

9 10

duction,” 4. Emirbayer and Goodwin agree to this view: “From this historical vantage point, contemporary network analysis can be viewed as part of a second crucial watershed period in American sociology, one in which empirical research is now directing its attention back again to the systemic level, this time assisted by the development of quantitative techniques and methods of a highly sophisticated nature.” Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1417. “The network approach has been of special importance in the study of the urban community, in large part because it is well suited to test the implications of theories of social change which suggested that industrialization and bureaucratization were to create a mass society marked by the atomization of individuals and the withering away of informal relations of friendship, neighboring, and helping to support.” Marsden and Lin, Social Structure, 14. See also Bender, Social Change, especially chapter 4: “Social Networks and the Experience of Community;” Wellman and Wetherell, “Historical Communities;” Wellmann, “Studying Personal Communities;” 62f. and Russo, Families and Communities, passim. Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 21. “It is a comprehensive paradigmatic way of taking social structure seriously by studying directly how patterns of ties allocate resources in a social system. Thus, its strength lies in its integrated application of theoretical concepts, ways of collecting and analyzing data, and a growing, cumulating body of substantive findings.” Wellman, “Structural Analysis,” 20, 30. See also Orser, Race and Practice, 119; Wasserman and Faust, Analysis, 4. Berkowitz and Wellman, “Introduction,” 3. Individual attributes of actors are not fully discarded, though. In other ways, they can be fruit-

18

Networks and History

age, sex, income, class-affiliation etc. are deemphasized in favor of looking at the actual connections between actors, which sometimes contradict any a-priori categorizations11 and promise to yield more realistic and reliable models of social structure. This is what Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin have termed the anticategorical imperative, which “rejects all attempts to explain human behavior or social processes solely in terms of the categorical attributes of actors, whether individual or collective.”12 In the course of its development, the network paradigm has been applied to all kinds of networks between people, groups of people, companies, organizations, NGOs and nations. Therefore, the term actor is commonly employed as a neutral agent to refer to all of these, whereas the term relation is used in reference to the sum of all ties that connect actors in a network.13 A tie between two actors is referred to as a dyad,14 and is the most commonly used unit of analysis in network approaches in which measurements are taken. Furthermore, there are triads (between three actors) and larger subgroups, which can be singled out as units of analysis according to the respective aims, interests and intentions of a particular research project at hand.15 Clusters and Cliques, two closely resembling but different forms of subgroups, will be of most interest in the study of Mühlenberg’s botanical network. While a clique is defined strictly as “a set fully combined with network data in order to enrich the analysis. In network studies, individual non-structural attributes are referred to as “compositional attributes.” Faust and Wasserman write that “(...) attributes of the actors may also be included. Measurements on actors will be referred to as network composition. Complex network data sets may contain information about the characteristis of the actors (such as the gender of people in a group, or the GNP of nations in the world), as well as structural variables.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 21, 29. 11 “One problem is that the categorical attributes of individuals are not powerful predictors of subsequent action – at least in this period. Both historians and sociologists, wedded to the traditional categories of class, status, and party as the units of analysis, have failed to identify the tangible bases of action which are, in historical context, often independent of the strata or class memberships of individuals.” Bearman, Relations, 8. For a network criticism of Pierre Bourdieu’s social categories see Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 51f. 12 Emirbayer and Goodwin,”Problems of Agency,” 1412. 13 “The collection of ties of a specific kind among members of a group is called a relation.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 19. 14 “Dyadic analyses focus on the properties of pairwise relationships, such as whether ties are reciprocated or not, or whether specific types of multiple relationships tend to occur together.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 18. In Alexander Pyrges’ analysis of the Ebenezer network from 1732–1828, a dyadic relationship is merely one of four types of “mutually engaging and multi-directional” relationships under scrutiny. The three other types consist of “enclosings,” “forwarders” or “switchers,” and letters transported by migrants. Pyrges, “Ebenezer Network,” 59. 15 Groups, however, are not to be confused with cliques among actors. Whereas groups can be identified on the basis of distinguishing features, a clique is defined as a minimum set of three actors with a maximum number of links in between them. Faust and Wasserman explain that “[o]ne must be able to argue by theoretical, empirical, or conceptual criteria that the actors in the group belong together in a more or less bounded set. Indeed, once one decides to gather data on a group, a more concrete meaning of the term is necessary. A group, then consists of a finite set of actors who for conceptual, theoretical, or empirical reasons are treated as a finite set of individuals on which network measurements are made.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 18f.

Network Theory Basics

19

of completely interconnected nodes”16 with the minimum of three nodes, clusters can be identified more loosely on the basis of common traits, qualities or properties. This use of the term has to be distinguished from the method of “hierarchical clustering,” a data analysis approach applied in blockmodelling techniques, which “groups entities into subsets, so that entities within a subset are relatively similar to each other.”17 In this study, however, the term cluster will be used in a more general sense,18 to refer to subgroups that show particularly tight interconnectedness within specific geographical boundaries – mostly within cities.19 The discussion of subgroups has become a major aspect of social network analysis, as it helps to identify centers of heightened cohesion, collaboration and action and therefore to uncover the internal dynamics of a social system.20 This dissection of networks into smaller units corresponds to the different levels of analysis to which network studies are typically applied.21 The ultimate goal will be to reintegrate all these individual levels into a single organic panorama that allows for deductions, generalizations and projections of how actors in a specific network are going to act and how the network as a whole is going to evolve. The anticategorical imperative brings the ties connecting actors to the center of attention. Most of the methodological refinements of the past 40 years of network research have exclusively dealt with ties, or, more precisely, with ways to refine our understanding and application of them. Consequently, ties have been described and differentiated in increasingly subtle and detailed ways, in order to interpret any complex arrangement of relations that might appear in a network. For instance, we speak of directional or non-directional, valued or weighted ties when a tie between two actors is not simply dichotomous (existent/non-existent) but takes on specific “quality.” A directional tie stands for an asymmetric or non-reciprocal relationship, such as trade among nations or choices of friendship among children.22 In a graphic representation of a network, non-reciprocal ties are represented through arcs, poinDegenne and Forse, Introducing, 80; “A clique in a graph is a maximal complete subgraph of three or more nodes. It consists of a subset of nodes, all of which are adjacent to each other, and there are no other nodes that are also adjacent to all of the members of the clique.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 254; See also Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 43. 17 Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 381. For an example of how clusters can be applied, see the discussion of Rosenthal’s study below on pages 18f. 18 Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 19. 19 This study’s focus will be on the “Republic of letters” and how Mühlenberg participated in it. The social organization of scholars in early modern Europe and the young American republic was a decidedly urban phenomenon, which implies that much of its developments originated from these “clusters of science.” See below on pages 98f. 20 A study on the Chicago-based Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant conducted by Roethlisberger and Dickinson in 1939 found that the existence of cliques and subgroups among workers had immense impact on the factory’s productivity. Ever since, it has become “essential to study networks and identify subgrous from the standpoint of cohesion for a proper understanding of a social system.” Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 79. 21 “Social networks can be studied at several levels: the actor, pair or dyad, triple or triad, subgroup, and the group as a whole.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 97. 22 “The import/export of goods between nations is an example of a directional relation. Clearly goods go from one nation to another; one nation is the source and the other is the destination of 16

20

Networks and History

ting from one actor to another. This construct will be helpful to depict flows of information within Mühlenberg’s botanical network. “Valued” or “weighted,” on the other hand, are synonymous adjectives ascribed to ties that “take on a range of values, indicating the strength, intensity, or frequency of the ties between each pair of actors.”23 In a correspondence network, however, we observe that some contacts exchange a smaller number of letters with each other while others confide much more personal information to one trusted correspondent than they would to any other. All of these network-relevant data would be lost in a dichotomous representation or discussion of the network. Therefore, the idea of valued ties is particularly helpful in order to come up with a viable graphic reflection of the various personal relationships Mühlenberg had with his correspondents. A variation of the same theme is Mark Granovetter’s often quoted concept of the “strength of weak ties,” which can serve as a working model for the development of Mühlenberg’s network and the dynamics of information exchange. Granovetter defines strong ties as a “combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie,”24 and argues that if actor A in a triad has strong ties to actor B and actor C, it is highly unlikely that B and C have not established contact as well.25 Due to this we understand that networks have a natural tendency towards fragmentation and strongly interconnected subgroups, while information flow between subgroups is primarily channelled through weak ties. In Granovetter’s words, “this means that whatever is to be diffused can reach a larger number of people, and traverse greater social distance (...), when passed through weak ties rather than strong.”26 In order to substantiate his observations, Granovetter used examples from “diffusion studies,” which concentrate on such issues as the spread of diseases, technological innovations and the importance of weak ties on the job market.27 Therefore, it will be an important step in our analysis to distinguish strong and weak ties in Mühlenberg’s network and to assess their impact on the development of his correspondence and the information flow within it.28 the goods.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 121. See also Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 40; and Breiger, “Analysis,” 507. 23 Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 44. For other examples of weighted ties, see Degenne and Forse, Introducing Social Networks, 79–82, or the discussion of Rosenthal et al., “Social Movements,” below on pages 18f. Signed graphs, however, indicate the specific quality of a relationship, such as “A loves/hates B” or “C is in war/allied with D,” depending on the scenario. Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 136. 24 By implication, this definition of a strong tie also makes it impossible for any actor to maintain an indefinitely large number of strong ties, thus preventing the possible emergence of “a network of strong ties.” Granovetter, “Strength,“ 1361. See also Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 109f. 25 This is Granovetter’s Forbidden Triad. Granovetter, “Strength,” 1363. 26 Granovetter, “Strength,” 1364–66. 27 Granovetter, “Strength,” 1367–68. For further discussion see “Weak ties in egocentric networks” in Granovetter, “Strength,” 1369f.; and Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 44f. 28 “In Europe, Lefebvre (1989), in his classic work, described the spread of a wave of rural panic in 1789 through weak ties (travelers, messengers, family, friends) between villages. (...) Likewise, Gould (1991, 1993, 1995) described how weak ties among Parisian neighborhoods

Network Theory Basics

21

Network study’s signature focus on ties and relations, however, has not resulted in a complete abandonment of social categories. In fact, much of the explanatory power of network approaches lies in their ability to incorporate social categorizations and describe how they play out in network projections of social formations and action. As Christopher Ansell and John Padgett have pointed out in their 1993 study on the Medici network: “We do not argue (...) that social attributes and groups are irrelevant to party formation; merely that their role needs to be understood within a deeper relational context. There is no simple mapping of groups or spatial dimensions onto parties; social attributes and group interests are ‘merely’ cognitive categories, which party mobilization, networks, and action crosscut.”29 Therefore, social markers such as class, group interests etc. must not be seen as in opposition to, but rather as an expression of network structure. Barry Wellman has observed that “people belong to networks as well as to categories. Structural analysts believe that categorical memberships reflect underlying structural relationships, that is, patterned differences in the kinds of resources with which they are linked. They do not treat social class, for example, as a set of statuses occupied by members of a population, but as a summary label for economic relations of power and dependency.”30 Analogous to this correlation of social categories and network structure, individual behavior31 must also be seen as a function of the actor’s relational embeddedness. Ultimately, this means that the social composition of Mühlenberg’s correspondence network must be taken into account.32 Ties and relations are distinct features of network terminology and theory. While this focus remains fundamental, network studies differ greatly in their methodological design and conception of the network under scrutiny. The most fundamental distinction is the one between whole-network analysis and ego-centered network analysis.33 In the latter case, a network is presented from the perspective of helped in the mobilization for the Paris Commune of 1871.” Barkey and van Rossem, “Networks of Contention,” 1349. 29 Padgett and Ansell, “Robust Action,” 1274. 30 Wellman, “Structural analysis,” 32. 31 “Zu den theoretischen Annahmen der Netzwerkanalyse gehört, daß Netzwerke und die Beziehungsmuster, die sich ergeben, wie auch der Typ der Beziehungen, maßgeblich die Handlungsspielräume von Menschen bestimmen, und daß diese interaktiven Prozesse für das Verhalten eine größere Rolle spielen als soziale Attribute wie Schicht oder Einkommen.” Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 56. See also Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 4. 32 With respect to social diversity, Rainer Diaz-Bone suggests to identify “status groups” within the ranks of the alteri, based on their socioeconomic potential. He warns that the degree of social diversity directly correlates with the total dimensions of the network, which can lead to data distortion. “Die Verwendung der Netzwerkgröße als Maß für die Spannweite der Ausprägungen im Netzwerk ist nur dann sinnvoll, wenn begründet werden kann, daß sich die alteri unähnlich sind. Dann ist die Netzwerkgröße ein Maß für Range im Sinne der Diversität (…) der alteri (…) und es kann angenommen werden, daß eine Größenzunahme [des Netzwerks] die Variation der Merkmalsausprägungen erhöht.” Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 57, 60. 33 Network analysts also differentiate between one-mode and two-mode networks. “One-mode networks, the predominate type of network, study just a single set of actors, while two-mode networks focus on two sets of actors, or one set of actors and one set of events.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 35–42. For instance, a two-mode network set in the early modern scien-

22

Networks and History

one single focal actor, ego, whose personal ties and social embeddedness define the boundaries of the network. Ego’s ties to other actors – called alteri – and the ties these alteri maintain among each other constitute its social tissue.34 Typically, personal network studies are survey-based and conducted to study social support and family networks.35 Barry Wellman has observed that “[r]ather than showing the universe as it is perceived by an outside observer, [personal networks] provide Ptolemaic views of networks as they may be perceived by the individuals at their centers.”36 The main advantage of ego-centered network approaches lies, therefore, in the reduction of the often forbidding complexity and size that make whole-network approaches so unwieldy. Heuristically, they offer a micro-perspective on people’s connectedness and allow us to identify relations that typically occur within specific kinds of networks. Elizabeth Bott is usually credited with the invention of the concept of ego-networks in her 1957 study Family and Social Network. Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. In what has become a classic of network literature, Bott compares the personal networks of 20 London-based couples and shows that there is a close correlation between family structure and householdrole segregation.37 In this study, a lesser degree of overlapping in the personal networks of couples was found to correlate directly with a stricter segregation of household roles. Additionally, Bott contends that higher levels of interconnectedness among personal network alteri result in a heightened importance and observance of social norms, which, in the case of her 20 London couples, was typically expressed through local or “quarter”-patriotism. To describe this network property, Bott employed the terms “close-knit” and “loose-knit” communities, which have

34

35 36

37

tific community could be conceived as consisting of individual scientists and contemporary scientific communities. For alternative methodological categorizations of networks see also Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 46–48; and Breiger, “Analysis,” 507–509. Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 42f. 53f.; Lipp, “Räumliche Muster”, 53; Depending on the theoretical framework, the alteri’s contacts to other alteri – actors ego is not linked to in any way – may also figure in an ego-network. See Granovetter, “Strength,” 1370. Granovetter follows here A. L. Epstein’s distinction between “effective” and “extended” networks. Granovetter, “Strength,” 1369, 1372. “Untersucht wird dabei zum Beispiel, wie groß die Wahlfreiheit der Personen eigentlich ist und wie stark ihre Freundschaftsnetze auf sozialer und kultureller Homologie aufbauen.” Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 53. See also Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 42f. 53f. “These egocentric network studies have documented the pervasiveness and importance of connectivity, thereby rebutting mass society contentions that recent large-scale social transformations have produced isolation and alienation. Numerous scholars have described how networks link individuals through strong and weak ties, situate them in larger social systems, and affect the flows of resources to and from them.” Wellman, “Structural analysis,” 27. “Die klassische und oft gegengeprüfte Untersuchung von Elizabeth Bott demonstriert am Beispiel von Londoner Familien, daß zwischen der Struktur des Familiennetzwerks und der Geschlechterrollendifferenzierung in einer Familie ein enger Zusammenhang besteht. (…) Wie auch eine ganze Reihe von Panelstudien zu Botts Thesen zeigten, fiel im Hinblick auf den Grad der Rollensegregation die Struktur des Familiennetzes auffällig stärker ins Gewicht als harte Faktoren wie Beruf, Ausbildung, Mobilität oder Wohngebiet.” Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 55. For Bott, see also Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 46.

Network Theory Basics

23

subsequently been replaced by the term network density.38 Ever since, density has come to be strongly associated with group pressure, social norms and control.39 In conclusion, whole-network approaches seek to detect network structures within larger social groups, in order to detect flows of information, coalitions and potential lines of conflict. Inevitably, the network’s boundaries have to be defined in a way that neither includes redundant parts nor excludes essential ones, both of which would compromise the results in a negative way. Ego-networks, on the other hand, construct networks from the point of view of one focal actor and focus on its internal dynamics to make abstract claims about people in similar kinds of networks or compare it to similar kinds of personal networks.40 Since the 1940s, a variety of different measurements, descriptive and interpretative tools have been developed41 to discuss the overall constellation, quality and quantity of relations governing a network. It is the careful application of these that gives texture to networks and significance to their systematic study and description. Although there is a basic set of interpretative tools that are commonly applied to virtually all network approaches, their choice is in part predetermined by the initial choice of network perspective.42 Apart from the size of the network, which refers to the sheer number43 of all alteri named by ego (n-1) at a given time, density, centrality, betweenness and multiplexity are all important measurements to describe the specific features of an early modern correspondence network. Density (Delta Δ) indicates the proportion of actually existing ties of one particular type of relation to all potential ones. For example, a network featuring ten Bott, Family and Social, 10, 63f., 73f. Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 57. For a slightly different use of the term “actor-centered” in connection to network studies see Lothar Krempel and Carola Lipp’s discussion of the 1848/49 petition movement in the Baden-Württembergian town of Esslingen, “Petitions and the Social Context of Political Mobilization in the Revolution of 1848/49: A Microhistorical Actor-centered Network Analysis.” Their approach focuses on overlapping memberships in local political factions and efforts to account for the spread of the petition movement during the revolutionary events of 1848/49. Krempel and Lipp largely base their argumentation on visualizations of the Esslingen network and a correlation model of the citizens’ social standing to their degree of exposure to other activists. Krempel and Lipp, “Petitions,” passim. 41 “Many of the key structural measures and notions of social network analysis grew out of keen insights of researchers seeking to describe empirical phenomena and are motivated by central concepts in social theory. In addition, methods have been developed to test specific hypotheses about network structural properties arising in the course of substantive research and model testing.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 4. 42 Methods and concepts come not only associated with specific perspectives, but also pertain to different levels of analysis. Properties and measures such as Prominence, Centrality and Prestige are all structural variables of individual actors, while measures and methods like Connectedness, Density and Diameter are qualifications about the entire network. Wasserman and Faust, Analysis, 25. For another discussion of network measurements in personal networks see chapter 2.6 “Maße zur Beschreibung der Struktur von ego-zentrierten Netzwerken” in Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 56. 43 Rainer Diaz-Bone introduces Burt’s Range concept as an alternative way to capture the correlation of network size and its degree of internal socioeconomic variety. Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 57. 38 39 40

24

Networks and History

potential ties and another six ties actually linking a number of actors has a density of 0.6. Network density is routinely correlated with interpretations of social control, observance of norms, mobilization and information flow.44 Centrality as a measurement used to identify actors “that are extensively involved in relationships with other actors”45 was first described and employed in the 1940s46 and has since become one of the most widely used and modified network measurements. Katherine Faust and Stanley Wasserman distinguish actor centrality, degree centrality, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality, all of which differ slightly in their definition and interpretation of centrality.47 Generally speaking, “sociological and economic concepts such as access and control over resources, and brokerage of information, are well suited to measurement. These concepts naturally yield a definition of centrality since the difference between the source and the receiver is less important than just participating in many interactions. Assuming that one is studying a relevant relation (such as communication), those actors with the best access, most control, or who are the most active brokers, will be the most central in the network.”48 Following this assumption, central actors will be viewed as information multipliers and bridges between otherwise unconnected nodes or parts of the network. This role of central actors will also be referred to as betweenness and can be interpreted in terms of communication control and power.49 In this respect, actors with a high degree of betweenness are considered to occupy a strategic position in Mühlenberg’s network, allowing them to control flows of information and resources.50 It is neces44 “Densely knit networks, for example, could mobilize resources more rapidly than networks in which resources would flow to some members through longer chains.” Wellmann, “Studying Personal Communities,” 63. See also Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 101; Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 21; Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 58. 45 Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 173. 46 “The definition of centrality was first developed by Bavelas (1948, 1950). The idea was applied in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s in laboratory experiments on communication networks (rather than from observed, naturally occurring networks, directed by Bavelas (...).” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 173. 47 For an elaborate discussion see Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 173–193; Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 59; and Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1419–21. 48 Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 174. 49 “Interactions between two nonadjacent actors might depend on the other actors in the set of actors, especially the actors who lie on the paths between the two. These ‘other actors’ potentially have some control over the interactions between the two nonadjacent actors.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 188. Pyrges calls these positions “switchers.” “Switchers are nodes whose power stems from the connecting, mediating, channeling or supervising of communcation rather than from the control of scarce resources.” Pyrges, “Ebenezer Network,” 59. 50 Carola Lipp and Lothar Krempel’ study of the 1848 petitions movement, betweennes turned out to be a far more decisive measure to gauge the network’s dynamics. Whereas the most central actors showed very poor connections to the periphery, actors with a high degree of inbetweenness provided cohesion and peripheral integration, which turned out to be crucial for mobilization. “Personen, die Positionen in der Mitte des Organisationsnetzes einnahmen, gehörten zwar zentralen Organisationen an, besaßen aber in vielen Fällen wenige Verbindungen in die Außenbereiche des Netzes, da sie Kontakt nur mit ihnen nahestehenden Personen pflegten. Sie übten damit geringe Effekte auf die Gesamtbewegung aus und trugen eher zur Schließung des Netzes bei, statt es zu öffnen. Umgekehrt erwiesen sich Personen, die gleichzeitig Verbindungen zum

Applications

25

sary to add, however, that both centrality and betweenness must be treated with caution in a personal network, as the focal person will naturally appear “central” due to the underlying methodological setup. Experience shows that people in networks tend to be linked through various channels, such as kinship, friendship, professional association, common interests or memberships. This fact has been conceptualized as multiplexity, which indicates the simultaneous existence of different kinds of relations within the same set of actors, and represents a measurement for network cohesion and integration.51 In Mühlenberg’s case, correspondents may appear as relatives, as partners in trade with Halle medicines and books, as professional colleagues or friends, and sometimes in more than one of these contexts. Hunter Dupree has pointed out the republic of letters’ tendency to combine various kinds of relations into one network: “The overlapping membership in the eighteenth century made possible the combining of cultivators, practitioners, and researchers into one society. At the same time each of these members were also connected with other groups, a profession, a church, a political club, a social class, or a family. This multiple mapping of an individual into many templates has often misled observers, because the concept of a single relationship as the one that defines identity to the exclusion of all others is a fallacy.”52 Consequently, a careful distinction of Mühlenberg’s and his correspondents’ various and mutual affiliations will be of high importance in this study. 2. APPLICATIONS – ROSENTHAL ET AL., GOULD AND BEARMAN In 1985, Naomi Rosenthal, Meryl Fintgrud, Michele Ethier, Roberta Karant and David McDonald collaborated on a network analysis of “organizational affiliations of 19th century women reform leaders in New York State as a case study of relations among social movements.”53 Their study demonstrates how central measurements of network analysis, e.g. centrality, clusters and strong/weak ties can be applied to arrive at a thorough and original structural analysis of historical social movements. Its specific strength lies in the comparison of the authors’ findings with standard historiographical narratives, which exemplifies how network approaches can enrich historical investigation. In the following, their study and two other historical network studies by Roger V. Gould and Peter S. Bearman will be summarized and discussed, in order to flesh out the theoretical context provided in the preceding

Zentrum und zu Gruppierungen hatte, die sich in den Randzonen des Netzes bewegten, für die politische Mobilisierung als sehr bedeutsam. Als Dazwischenstehende sorgten sie für die Verbreitung von Ideen in die Außenbezirke des Netzes und integrierten die sozial marginal gelagerten Gruppen.” Krempel and Lipp, “Petitions,” 60. 51 Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 59; Breiger, “Analysis,” 508; Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 21; Granovetter, “Strength,” 1361. 52 Dupree, “National Patterns,” 23. 53 “We argue here that social movements usually appear within the context of, and depend on the existence of, other social movements.” Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1022f.

26

Networks and History

subchapter. This will also help to make clear the enormous theoretic flexibility and applicability of the Network paradigm. In a first step, Rosenthal et al. compiled a list of 202 women residing and working in New York State between 1820 to 1914 for at least ten years, all of whom were active in social reform movements.54 Based on this first list, three further ones were generated that featured (1) a total of 1,015 organizations the women participated in, (2) respective memberships in these organizations, and (3), most importantly, all pairs of any two of these 1,015 organizations having at least one woman activist in common, constituting a dyad. As it turned out, only 10,393 of all 514,605 potential dyads in this network actually existed.55 Somewhat arbitrarily, as they admitted themselves, Rosenthal et al. “labeled ties of one and two as weak, three as moderate, and four or more as strong”56, thereby adding a weighting of ties on which the main part of their interpretation relies.57 The vast majority of these dyads had only one member in common (94.3 %), 4.2 % were linked by two, 1.0 % by three and only 0.7 % had four or more mutual memberships.58 The network they come up with clearly demonstrates the interconnectedness of the various social movements in New York state, membership patterns and the three most important organizations in New York State, the WRA [Woman’s Rights Association], the NWSA [National Women Suffrage Association] and the NAWSA [National American Women Suffrage Association].59 Furthermore, Rosenthal et al. contended that the “pure number of ties that one organization has with others is not enough to indicate its influence or the degree to which that organization might or 54

Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1027. Rosenthal et al. relied on biographical dictionaries of and on the period while imposing several restrictions on the material that finally brought the number down to 202 women. 55 Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1030: “The matrix, then, consists of a tally of links between dyads. Looking, for example, at the dyad created by the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] and the Socialist party, we see three links (a tie of three) because three women belonged to both organizations.” 56 Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1031. Similarly, Barkey and van Rossem define strong ties as the product of friendship and frequency of contact, which could also lead to socioeconomic advantages, whereas mere acquaintance was defined as a weak tie. Barkey and van Rossem, “Networks of Contention,” 1362. 57 Therefore, this is a “weighted analysis,” as ties in this network do not simply constitute an affiliation between any two organizations but are also qualified in terms their strength or weakness. 58 Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1032. 59 “Centrality analysis identifies the most central nodes in the network. (...) This technique allows for a focused analysis on the most important individual organizations in the network, the most important links among organizations, the most important groups of organizations, and the overall density or looseness in the network. (...) The centrality scores for the top three organizations are relatively high. (...) These are the Woman’s Rights Conventions (with 253 links to 154 organizations), the NWSA (209 links to 114 organizations), and the NAWSA (329 links to 232 organizations) (...) The centrality of these three groups in the network confirms historical contentions that, at least nationally, suffrage and women’s rights organizations dominated the 100 years of reform activity in which women were involved.” Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1030–36.

Applications

27

might not be central in the network or be in a position to exert leverage in it.”60 Drawing on the distinction between weak and strong ties, they seek to empirically measure individual organizations’ potential community outreach based on network data. This approach, however, is the direct opposite of an analysis relying on the organizations’ essential attributes, such as membership numbers or financial resources. For instance, whereas the WCTU [Woman’s Christian Temperance Union] and the NWSA were roughly equal as far as number of active members (24 out of 202 in both cases), number of weak ties (WCTU: 142, NWSA 95) and moderate ties (three in both cases) were concerned, the NWSA was found to be connected through 16 strong ties to third parties, which gave it a much higher centrality than the WCTU, despite its larger number of weak ties.61 Next, Rosenthal et al. went on to identify clusters and areas of heightened collaboration among organizations, thereby disclosing the “skeleton, so to speak, of the network.”62 For this purpose, they excluded the top three organizations on their list, as these, in their view, primarily functioned as “umbrella groups” that “served as links between diverse organizations and provided a means for unifying groups.”63 By doing so and by limiting the tie strength to four, they finally came up with an elite group of 36 groups linked to each other through at least four common members and among which five distinct clusters emerged. Furthermore, each cluster’s most central organizations were identified by “peak analysis”, in order to “locate those organizations that functioned as bridges between clusters (because they belonged to more than one cluster).”64 Finally, a periodization of the network into three chronologically successive parts was established, each distinguished by individual network shapes and contents.65 Although the study of Rosenthal et al. has been criticized for its lack of explanatory value with regard to the very distinctions it establishes,66 it provides an excellent framework for the study of American women 60 61 62 63

64 65 66

Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1032. Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1032. Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1037. Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1036. “Yet the very density of this network masks any distinct groupings that might exist. We suspected this as because of the “bridging function” played by the three most central organizations and the large number of weak ties among groups. We wanted to see if it were possible to demonstrate underlying groupings and hubs of activity if the influence of these highly central organizations was removed and only strong interlocks were considered. Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1037. Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1037. Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1042f. “Rosenthal et al.’s delineation of these three periods of women’s reform activity by means of relations analysis surely ranks as a significant and worthy contribution. But its limitations are also considerable: the study provides little systematic explanations as to precisely why these changes occured from one historical period to the next, settling instead for a succession of static ‘map configurations’ or relational “snapshots” of network patterns. The individual and social actions that led from one structural configuration of reform activity to the next are left unanalyzed, as are the developments in social structure and cultural and political discourse that underlay and motivated them. At best, Rosenthal et al. treat these various developments in their analysis as exogenous variables.” Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1426. Although Emirbayer and Goodwin’s objection makes sense within their own line of arguments, it

28

Networks and History

reform activism in the 19th century and a reliable model for examining large-scale social developments. In their own words, they “have shown that network analysis can be successfully applied to historical data, that it can both amplify and correct historical propositions about structural links, and that empirical work of this kind leads to a better theoretical understanding of social movements.”67 In his 1996 essay “Patron-Client Ties, State Centralization, and the Whiskey Rebellion,” Roger V. Gould has approached the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania from a network perspective. Specifically, his argument focuses on a splinter group of elite landholders whose persistent participation in the infamous uprising constituted a puzzling anomaly that could never be resolved within standard historical narratives.68 Initially, a large portion of the local elites had sided with small agrarian protesters against new taxes on liquors and helped to give organizational shape to the movement. Later, most of this landed elite came to be coopted into the ranks of the new federal tax bureaucracy. For reasons hitherto unexplained, a tiny fraction of this local elite actually remained with the resistance movement and galvanized public discontent into a mob of some 5,000 armed farmers and liquor-producers, which prompted President Washington to dispatch 15,000 federal troops to quell the rebellion in early August of 1794. Gould acknowledges that patronage ties and the lure of official careers were useful instruments in the hands of state centralizers to undermine local networks and loyalties. He criticizes, however, that historiography has so far treated these ties merely as an “invention” of the state builders, completely ignoring the fact that these structures largely conflated with those of rebellious landholders. In Gould’s scenario, individual landholders’ decisions to continue or discontinue their support for the insurgents can best be explained by looking at the changing configuration of social ties during the months preceding the uprising. Gould contends that rebellious elites “occupied structurally disadvantaged positions (...) in the network of patronage relations that linked many of the region’s prominent officeholders (including has to be admitted that Rosenthal et al. never claim to explain the changes and structures unveiled in their study and clearly see their work as a starting point for further research rather than an end in itself: “Network analysis provides a fresh look at activity previously described by historians. Where the two agree, our faith in the validity of the conclusions increases. In those areas where our findings diverge from those of historians, our analysis points out directions for further research, new hypotheses, and new historical syntheses that incorporate the structural configurations created by overlapping affiliations.” Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1045. 67 Rosenthal, “Social Movements,” 1050. For another synopsis of this study see Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 61f. 68 Gould first dismisses a number of traditional explanations that include “Scots-Irish traditions of animosity towards tax collectors,” economic consequences of the new taxes on distilled spirits after 1791 or political ambitions of the elites. He argues that hatred of taxes was too general a phenomenon to account for the uprisings in western Pennsylvania in 1794, citing the War of Independence as another instance of conflict over taxation. Additionally, the whiskey tax of 1791 had had little impact on producers as it was passed on to consumers, with whiskey prices rising by 25% in a period when prices for other grain products fell by 20%. Finally, political ambitions as a motive must be confined to the earliest phase following the passage of the law until 1793, according to Gould. Gould, “Whiskey Rebellion,” 408–12.

Applications

29

the newly appointed tax inspector and all the other federal officials in the area) to one another.” These “structurally disadvantaged positions” could take on two forms. In the most extreme form, revolutionary elites found themselves completely cut off from the new patron-client system, while others found their position weakened through the emergence of an alternative network for their clients, which deprived them of their local monopoly on public support. Bringing together data from tax records, official records of postcolonial Pennsylvania and surety bonds, Gould seeks to reconstruct this newly emerging client-patron network, for which surety bonds proved to be especially helpful. After 1789, it had become compulsory for potential office-holders in Pennsylvania to present to the Supreme Executive Council one or several persons willing to sign a surety bond on the applicant’s behalf. As these bonds represented an enormous financial risk, it was common practice within the established elite to post sureties on behalf of each other, whereas political outsiders had to rely on other outsiders for support. As Gould further elaborates, it was predominantly this practice that created an “unconnected elite,” which faced the highest risk of being completely cut off from political influence once federal efforts to collect the whiskey tax were underway.69 With regard to previous class-based interpretations of the Whiskey rebellion, Gould argues that “standard dimensions of social categorization (class, gender, race, nationality) are best seen as contingent outcomes rather than autonomous or primordial bases of difference.”70 Similarly, he contended in his 1993 essay “Trade cohesion, class unity, and urban insurrection: artisanal activism in the Paris Commune” that the mobilization of insurgents during the Parisian commune of 1871 was not rooted in artisanal organizations, but rather in Parisian neighborhoods. Basing his argument on trial dossiers and official records on the insurgents, his approach on the subject provides a fresh explanation of cross-trade participation during the insurgency. Also, it replaces previous interpretations, which had taken this social phenomenon for a sign of an early class-consciousness cutting across older systems of allegiance and identity formation.71 In a related manner, Peter S. Bearman starts his 1993 study on the transformations of gentry social relations in Norfolk, England between 1540 and 1640, with the acknowledgment that “[t]he solution to understanding elite social action cannot be further subclassification from received categories. Categorical models alone rarely partition people in a way that conforms with observed action, because individual activity in the world is organized through and motivated not by categorical affiliations but by the structure of tangible social relations in which persons are 69 70 71

Gould, “Whiskey Rebellion,” 412–17. For another discussion see Orser, Race and Practice, 122f. Gould, “Whiskey Rebellion,” 403. Gould, “Paris Commune,” passim. “Gould concludes thim this that “cross-neighborhood solidarity” was a significant feature of the Parisian insurrection. (...) [He] thus shows that structural analysis needs to take into account not only individual-level variables such as those that are employed in the McAdam studies, but also the complex influences of multiplex or overlapping networks of social ties.” Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1421. For other discussions see Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 59; and Barkey and van Rossem, “Networks of Contention,” 1348.

30

Networks and History

embedded. To make sense of action, we have to make sense of the complex clusters of social relations surrounding individuals, which often drive them to act at crosspurposes.”72 Based on the observation that participation in the English civil war often cut across established class boundaries,73 the study relies on blockmodelling74 to identify and describe historical actor groups according to their structural position and embeddedness. Blockmodelling techniques operate on the idea that actors with a similar configuration of ties are structurally equivalent and therefore entertain similar sets of ambitions and interests.75 Bearman establishes his “equivalency classes” through an examination of shifting landholding patterns and the changing importance and distribution of kinship ties76 and concludes that “[r]evisionist historiography has failed to offer a consistent theory of action, because the fact of connectivity alone does not provide an operational mechanism for aggregating individuals into equivalency classes. The provision of such an operational mechanism is the strength of the broader accounts of the civil war developed by sociologists. These accounts which recognize that a class of individuals acting in pursuit of similar interests must, at the same time, share something in common. What they share is a position, however, rather than an attribute.”77 This commonality, Bearman argues, soon found expression in abstract rhetorics, which both propelled social change and allowed for the formation of new interest–based alliances that transcended the local scene and eventually set the stage for the civil war.78 With the notable exception of religious beliefs, Bearman denies that either centralizing state powers or any other social category can exclusively be claimed as the driving force of elite action and mobilization. Instead, the combined effects of shifting social patterns in local contexts explain best both factionalization and individual motives in the civil war.79 Blockmodelling techniques have also been successfully employed in other historical network studies,80 of which John Padgett and Christopher K. Ansell’s account of “Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434” stands out as pro72 Bearman, Relations, 10. 73 Bearman, Relations, 9. 74 According to Degenne and Forse, blockmodelling techniques were first developed by ethnologists to describe kinship patterns. “Equivalence is a cognitive operation that the sociologist performs to describe relations and social roles; the issue is how to actually construct them from the data. Most roles take on meaning in the context of daily living, e.g. father/son, employer/ employee and shopkeeper/client. This is because of the institutionalized definition these roles enjoy. But other roles are fuzzier. ‘Boss’ and ‘expert’ mean very different things depending on the context.” Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 83, 93. See also Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 394–97. 75 Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 88. 76 “The structure of local landholding led to the crystallization, into parties and factions, of networks of elite alliance and opposition which would in time come to be defined in terms of abstract rhetoric.” Bearman, Relations, 46. 77 Bearman, Relations, 12. 78 Bearman, Relations, 175–77. 79 For criticism of Bearman’s approach see below on pages 24f., or Orser, Race and Practice, 120f. and Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1439. 80 For more historical network studies and theoretical discussion not explained in full detail here, please refer to Burton and White, “Regional Comparisons;” McAdam, “Freedom Summer;”

A Critique

31

bably the most often quoted historical network study so far. Padgett and Ansell show that by employing a “focused marriage strategy” and by taking advantage of “structural holes,” the Medicis showed a great deal of network awareness and were thus able to turn the political developments in their favor.81 Similarly, Karen Barkey and Ronan von Rossem have examined rural “Networks of Contention” in the seventeenth century Ottoman empire. In their article, they “argue that actors that are in similar positions, facing similar environments, will display similar behavior. Villages that are positioned similarly in the overall intervillage network should show similar patterns of behavior.”82 3. A CRITIQUE Network studies have frequently been criticized for their predominant focus on structural patterns to explain human agency. In fact, Berkowitz and Wellman admit that “the commonly heard objections to structuralism apply to network theory as well.”83 In their joint 1994 essay “Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency,” Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin have subjected historical network studies to a “theoretically informed assessment and critique”84 and it is primarily their work that I am condensing here to briefly summarize the use of network concepts in the present study on Mühlenberg’s transatlantic correspondences. Within the corpus of network literature, Emirbayer and Goodwin have identified three types of approaches that have conceptualized “the relationships among culture, agency, and social structure (...) in varying degrees of theoretical sophistication.” These, in turn, have “led to varying degrees of difficulty in elaborating satisfactory explanations of historical processes.”85 Generally speaking, the three approaches – labeled structuralist determinism, structuralist instrumentalism and structuralist constructionism – can be distinguished through their respective ways of incorporating and integrating context data into their network perspective. Thus, Emirbayer and Goodwin’s critical essay is helpful to avoid some of the pitfalls associated with research that seeks to integrate structural and cultural contexts into a stringent and source-informed line of historical arguments.

Häberlein, Brüder;” Krempel and Lipp, “Petitions;” and Wellman and Wetherell, “Historical communities.” 81 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1433. For additional, more extensive discussions of “Robust Action” see; Orser, Race and Practice, 120–21; and Lipp, “Räumliche Muster,” 57f. 82 Barkey and van Rossem, “Networks of Contention,” 1350. See also Orser, Race and Practice, 120–21. 83 Berkowitz and Wellman, “Introduction,” 4. Rainer Diaz-Bone briefly discusses the structuralist basis of network studies with regard to the development from Ferdinand de Saussure (1857– 1913) to Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009) and Barry Wellman’s (b. 194) criticism of formalism. Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 22. 84 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1412. 85 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1428.

32

Networks and History

Emirbayer and Goodwin categorize those studies under structuralist determinism, which “[neglect] altogether the potential causal role of actors’ beliefs, values, and normative commitments – or, more generally, of the significance of cultural and political discourses in history.”86 As an example of this, they cite Rosenthal’s study on nineteenth-century women reform, criticizing its almost complete lack of “systematic explanations as to precisely why these changes occurred from one historical period to the next, settling instead for a succession of static ‘map configurations’ or relational ‘snapshots’ of network patterns. The individual and social actions that led from one structural configuration of reform activity to the next are left unanalysed, as are the developments in social structure and cultural and political discourse that underlay and motivated them. At best, Rosenthal et al. treat these various developments in their analysis as exogenous variables.”87 With regard to Mühlenberg’s network, this calls attention both to contemporary standards of scientific communication and exchange in the so-called Republic of Letters and to internal developments and discourses in the science of botany at the turn of the 18th and 19th century. Studies filed under Structuralist Instrumentalism, however, take personal motivations of historical actors more seriously than structural determinism, although they ultimately “conceptualize their activity in narrowly utility-maximizing and instrumental forms.”88 In a discussion of Robert Gould’s study of the Paris Commune of 1871, for instance, Emirbayer and Goodwin claim that “[Gould] never provides a plausible causal account as to why Parisians would have risked their lives for the Commune in the first place. (...) Gould’s assumptions about the purely instrumental foundations of political mobilization – whether class- or status-based – in the present stage of his research prevent him from analysing such cultural and normative influences in a fully satisfactory manner.”89 “In a more complete historical explanation,” they argue, “Gould would have to direct far more attention than he does to the specifically cultural bases of (cross-) neighborhood solidarity and their influence upon individuals’ projects of action.”90 This directs our focus to the question of potential motivations on the part of Mühlenberg and his correspondents in continuing their mutual botanical exchanges over a long period of time, which often 86 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1425. 87 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1426. “[Structural Determinism] (...) ‘ruthlessly abstracts’ the formal or ‘objective’ dimensions of social relations from their cultural and intersubjective contexts so as to be able to represent and analyze such relations with sophisticated technical tools; in the process, however, it drains such relations of their active, subjective dimension and their cultural contents and meanings.” Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1427. 88 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1425. 89 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1429. 90 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1429. In the same vein, they criticize Peter Bearman’s study for “its tacit instrumentalism – that is, its tendency to devote almost all of its analytical attention to uncovering the ‘structural preconditions’ for this elective affinity, rather than to also exploring the independent causal significance of these discursive frameworks themselves. (...) Indeed, Bearman seems to attribute little more than purely material interests (in money, status, and power) to the historical actors at the center of his account.” Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1439.

A Critique

33

entailed great financial risks. I have tried to conceptualize these inner motivations in Exchange Charts, which depict the chronological flow of botanicals and scientific information within individual exchanges.91 Finally, in the approach which they term Structuralist Constructionism, the two authors see “the most successful of all in conceptualizing human agency and the potentially transformative impact of cultural idioms and normative commitments on social action.”92 As an example, they cite Doug McAdam’s 1986 essay “Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer,” wherein the author sought to explain patterns of participation in the Civil Rights movement. Based on the observation that most of those, who finally participated in the Freedom Summer Project,93 had already taken part in similar events or organizations before, McAdam states that “structural availability” eclipses “attitudinal affinity” as an explanation for participation.94 Though attitudinal affinity is a necessary prerequisite, he makes the much more important second point that participants slowly began to “grow more comfortable with the role of activists” during their earlier involvement in previous organizations. This implies a theory of identity conversion, “that takes seriously the formation of motivations and identities without sacrificing at all the moment of ‘structural location.’”95 Emirbayer and Goodwin’s essay raises important points for a fruitful application of network theory to Mühlenberg’s correspondences. Most importantly, their reassessment of Rosenthal’s, Gould’s and Bearman’s different approaches shows that historical network studies need to integrate contemporary social and political circumstances, types of social relations and discourses into their interpretation of social structure.

91 92

See Appendix D, page 535f. Nevertheless, the two remain skeptical even about this model: “However, even this perspective falls short in understanding the full complexities of the theoretical interconnections among culture, agency, and social structure. It too pays insufficient attention to the structuring influences of cultural and political discourses upon historical actors.” Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1424. 93 The Freedom Summer Project was launched in June 1964 by the activits of the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in order to raise the number of registered voters among African Americans in the state of Mississippi. The ten-week event was met with heavy resistance by local groups of the KuKlux-Clan and culminated in the deaths of three SNCC and COFO activists in an ambush by clansmen on June 21st 1964. See Sally Belfrage, Freedom Summer, passim. 94 Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1431. McAdam admits, however, that this holds mainly true for high-risk/-cost activism. McAdam, “Recruitment,” 73. Emirbayer and Goodwin add that both Gould’s Paris Commune and Bear’s English Civil War also belong to this group of high-risk/- cost activism. Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1431. 95 “Unlike many other network analysts, McAdam recognizes that actors can undergo far-reaching processes of identity formation in the course of their involvements in extraordinary affairs. Such an insight is especially important to bear in mind when analyzing their participation in “high-risk/cost” activities such as Freedom Summer – or, for that matter, in any major social or political movement.” Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1432.

34

Networks and History

4. AIMS AND METHODOLOGY – THE PLURALITY OF MÜHLENBERG’S NETWORK The so-called Republic of Letters, the transconfessional and intercultural network of scientific collaboration in the early modern period, constituted the primary sphere of communication, in which Mühlenberg’s correspondences between 1771 and 1815 must be situated and analyzed. As Mühlenberg became active as an independent botanical correspondent after the war for American independence in 1784, the present network analysis will be confined to the years between 1784 to 1815. The years from 1771, from when the first known Mühlenberg letter dates, and late 1784, however, will be treated in the “Prelude”-chapters IV.1 through IV.3.96 Following Emirbayer and Goodwin’s suggestions and critique, chapters V.1 through V.6 aim to make the Republic’s communication standards, implicit norms and structure an integral part of its network-analytic approach from 1784 to 1815.97 In order to achieve a sound evaluation of Mühlenberg’s role as networker, scientific organizer and founding figure of botanical sciences in America during these 31 years, the focus will be put on the ebbs and flows of individual correspondences, the identification of exchange patterns, the flow of resources and the rise of collaborative clusters of scientists between Mühlenberg as the focal actor and his alteri, respectively among the alteri themselves. Thus, it is sought to unearth the “subnets of the system” (Daniel Roche), which practically equal “centers of heightened cohesion and collaboration.”98 On the one hand, Roche’s observation suggests that Mühlenberg’s network must be seen as one of these subnets of contemporary scientific exchange itself. On the other hand, it also suggests that even the network of one individual consisted of several subnets – both in space and time. As will be shown, the distinction between the European and the American wing of Mühlenberg’s net96 Only 50 out of a total of 990 known Mühlenberg letters were written from 1771 to 1784, 36 of which alone were exchanged with Mühlenberg’s father Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg. 97 “Examples of cultural or discursive structures that need to be analyzed internally (as well as in their interplay with network structures) include the civic rights discourse of Freedom Summer, and the socialism and republican patriotism of the Paris Commune. (...) We propose that these cultural formations are significant because they both constrain and enable historical actors, in much the same way as do network structures themselves. (...) Cultural structures constrain actors, to begin with, by blocking our certain possibilities for action, as, for example, by rendering it inconceivable for the oligarchs of 15th century Florence to have pursued marriage ties with nonpatrician new men, even when it might have been materially advantageous for them to do so. Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1438. See also Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 35; Berkowitz and Wellman, “Introduction,” 6; Lipp, Struktur, 56; Barkey, Contentions, 1376f. For the history, norms and communication structures of the Republic of Letters, see below on page 98f. 98 Kempe, “Anglo-Swiss,” 75. For subnets in the case of Christoph Jacob Trew (1695–1769), see also Schnalke, “Vernetzen,” 172, and Wellman, Structural Analysis, 45: “Given asymmetric ties and bounded network clusters, resources do not flow evenly or randomly in a structure. The density of clusters, the tightness of boundaries between them, and the patterns of ties within and between clusters all structure resource flows. Because of their structural locations, members of a social system differ greatly in their access to these resources. Indeed, unequal access to scarce resources may lead to greater asymmetry in ties.”

Aims and Methodology

35

work is crucial to any deeper understanding of its dynamics. Apart from this transatlantic separation, the European and the American webs were also composed of local centers of collaboration or botanical interest – predominantly cities like Erlangen, London, Göttingen, Paris, Philadelphia, Boston and New York, with their scientific infrastructure. In a geographical sense, these distinctions will inform the present study. More important, however, is the temporal aspect. Speaking of “Mühlenberg’s network” ignores the fact that there were actually many “Mühlenberg networks” from 1784 to 1815, each of which was defined by a unique social composition, Mühlenberg’s evolving botanical interests, a growing and shrinking range of possible botanical, professional, kinship or economic contacts, personal developments, and other, secondary circumstances. Therefore, the present study engages in separate discussions of six consecutive network configurations, which were primarily identified by the author through their individual social composition. Chapters 3.1 through 3.6, which represent the main body of the text, concur with six individual network configurations between 1784 and 1815. Flow Chart A99 gives a graphical impresson of the fact that Mühlenberg corresponded with different sets of synchronously active contacts 1784 to 1815.100 These six individual phases are: Phase 1 1784 – about 1790 Phase 2 1790 – about 1797 Phase 3 1797 – about 1802 Phase 4 1802 – about 1805 Phase 5 1805 – about 1811 Phase 6 1811 – about 1815 These phases lasted for an average of five to six years and were defined by a relative stability of their social composition, while they were separated by six brief periods of change, characterized by the entry of entirely new correspondents, the deaths of old correspondents, or temporary communication-breakdowns with singular contacts. Some of these contacts were discontinued for good, while others were only resumed at a later point. These periods of gradual change will be routinely described and analyzed in the introductory notes V.1 to V.6 in the form of brief narrative accounts of internal developments and external historical circumstances. It is important to point out, however, that this periodization has been developed independently of external historical periodizations, although contemporary developments and events – such as war – induced communication problems during the French Revolutionary Wars – often influenced the course of Mühlenberg’s network decisively. 99 Appendix A, Flow Chart A, 483. 100 See Appendix A, 483–485. From 1771 to 1784, Mühlenberg merely appears as a sporadic correspondent of relatives, professional colleagues and friends. As this study’s focus lies on his principal role as scientific organizer and botanical correspondent, Mühlenberg’s youth, education, family relations and first 13 years of tentative correspondences will be treated in Chapter IV“A Prelude – Mühlenberg’s Network from 1771 to 1784.”

36

Networks and History

Some more methodological remarks are necessary to render my analytical approach clearer. These subdivisions are merely a heuristical help to understand the course and social dynamics of Mühlenberg’s network better. Some of the events, developments and facts I will cite in order to support my approach of “consecutive phases” were certainly felt by Mühlenberg himself, but it is very unlikely that he would have spoken of individual “phases” in his network himself. Therefore, their establishment is a historical projection from a network-driven perspective that allows to organize a massive amount of data, accumulated over 31 years letter-writing, into meaningful subsets of letters, correspondents, and illustrative charts and graphs. It must further be admitted, however, that truly clear-cut separations between any two of these network phases are hardly ever feasible, primarily because individual correspondences often tend to continue over these artificial thresholds.101 These “blurry edges” entail the rather sticky problem of deciding where to draw the line and which letters will fall into what chapter. This step, however, is of essential importance in order to provide a sound basis for a number of statistical breakdowns in individual chapters. Specifically Appendix B contains tables, for which definite lines of separation are essential to avoid data confusion and logical inconsistencies.102 In order to overcome this problem, I have decided to take the first letter of a completely new correspondent in a new phase as the threshold in any of these six transitional phases, which generally separate periods of stability and are roughly dated 1784, 1790, 1797, 1802, 1805 and 1811. These were the years when the Mühlenberg network was significantly re-shaped, and it is in fact one preliminary result of the present study that early modern communication networks seem to have undergone phases of renewal after certain periods of time. In the first footnote of chapters V.1 through V.6, these first letters of one new correspondent will be cited as “cornerstone-letters” – their dates will practically separate the present from the preceding phase.103 Consequently, chapters V.1 through V.6 all work on the basis of mini-corpora of letters, which were isolated from the main corpus of 998 letters 101 In a similar vein, Alain Degenne and Michel Forse have observed that “[a]s a rule, the best of personal network studies only capture a very rough structural picture of volume, frequency, multiplexity or density, and the statistical gain is a structural loss. For better results, structural analysis needs to operate on total networks. (...) The two basic judgements concern the best population breakdown and which relations to study. As with personal networks, partitioning will always be somewhat arbitrary. No network has ‘natural’ frontiers; researches impose them. (...). Because partitions are always somewhat arbitrary, we must ever bear in mind that there is always something tentative about network analysis data.” Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 22. 102 See tables e, g, i, k, m, n, Appendix B, 488f. 103 The following seven letters have been picked as “cornerstone-letters” and represent the first instance of correspondence in a new phase of Mühlenberg’s network. A note by Henry to his father, dated December 04, 1771, AFSt M.4 C18, stands both as the the earliest surviving letter from his hand and the first letter treated in chapter 2, “A Prelude.” The other six are: From Fabricius, 01/20/1784, APS Film 1097; To Humphrey Marshall, 01/18/1790, HSP Soc. Coll.; From Nebe, 06/06/1797, [reconstructed]; From Brickell, 01/21/1802, [reconstructed]; To Nebe, 10/25/1805, AFSt M.4 D6; To Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15. For reconstructed letters mentioned here, see Appendix C, 500, 520, .

Aims and Methodology

37

located as of August 2011.104 In contrast to this method, Hächler, Stuber and Lienhart have used Albrecht von Haller’s (1708-1777) biography, itinerary and changing abodes as the primary structuring element in their edition of Haller’s correspondences.105 Mühlenberg’s permanent immobility as Lancaster’s Lutheran pastor from 1780 to 1815 rules out this possibility for the present study. Alexander Pyrges has introduced a similar method of network periodization in his analysis of the “Ebenezer network” from 1732 to 1828. The main difference, however, is Pyrges’ primarily quantitative approach.106 Whereas Appendix A and Appendix B primarily feature graphic and statistical data on the macro-development of Mühlenberg’s network, Appendix C and Appendix D contain micro-level information on individual correspondences. Appendix C features lists of the entire corpus of Mühlenberg’s surviving and reconstructed letters in alphabetical order of contacts. The development, temporary discontinuations and final endings of individual correspondences can here be seen at a glance.107 The charts in Appendix D illustrate the chronological developments of specific botanical exchanges, through which the economic nature of individual contacts will be analyzed.108 Whereas the left column of the charts provides archival information on the respective letters from which information was retrieved, the right column features the actual exchange chart of botanicals, pieces of information or other items mentioned in these letters.109 This helps to carry the idea of “transfer of knowledge” a step further, which is a traditionally defining feature of the republic of letters in 104 This number is composed of 693 surviving letters and an additional 297 letters, which were reconstructed from information in the core corpus of 693 letters. Eight surviving letters were undated. For a graphic representation of surviving and reconstructed letters, see table a, Appendix B, 486. See also lists of correspondences, Appendix C, 494–534. 105 Hächler, Stuber and Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 65f. 106 Pyrges primarily focuses on the intensity of contacts in individual phases, represented by active nodes in the network. Also, Pyrges’ essay does not have a focal actor, including data from 300 individuals at 60 different places. See Pyrges, “Ebenezer Network,” 58; 66. For more on network visualization, see Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 11; 70; 76; Breiger “Analysis,” 508; Hächler et al., “Exploration,” 348–50; Petersen, New World Botany, 210. See also Lipp, Struktur, 61f.: “Wie dieses Beispiel zeigt, liegt die Stärke der Netzwerkanalyse in der Visualisierung, die intuitiv anspricht und Verflechtungen sichtbar macht (…). Oder wie Barry Wellman es formuliert: ‘A basic strength of the whole network approach is, that it permits simultaneous views of the social system as a whole and of the parts that make up the system.’ Komprimierung ohne Informationsverlust ist die Stärke des Konzepts.” See also Faust and Wasserman: “The visual representation of data that a graph or sociogram offers often allows researches to uncover patterns that migh otherwise go undetected.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 94. 107 In several cases, apparent “pauses” are due to a scarcity or lack of surviving letters, archival collections or other historical evidence rather than an actual temporary or final discontinuation. For a precise delineation of individual correspondences, confer to the respective passages in the main text. See also Appendix C, 494f. 108 See Appendix D, 535f. 109 To note, no distinction has been made between exchanges that actually took place and merely projected transfers, or even only desired items. The goal is to develop a “supply and demand”-perspective on the mutual expectations in an individual barter and thus to approach an answer as to what exactly made two exchange partners in a specific situation interesting to each other.

38

Networks and History

historiography. Specifically in the given botanical context, this makes sense, as herbaria – collections of identified and described specimens – were and still continue to be seen as the places where original botanical knowledge was stored. In the context of this study, “knowledge” and its transfer will therefore predominantly be treated as a set of material and immaterial commodities pertaining to Mühlenberg’s specific field of interest, botany, rather than in a philosophical, psychological or psychosocial sense.110 In the charts in Appendix D, there are eleven different categories of transferred goods. Most commonly, Mühlenberg provided [plants], [seeds], [minerals] or [specimens] to his European correspondents, who generally returned their plant identifications [plant ident.], [books] or their [own works] to Lancaster. In nearly all of Mühlenberg’s American correspondence, we find this pattern reversed.111 The item [own works] is especially interesting, as these tended to be botanical publications containing plant information on specimens Mühlenberg had originally submitted to the respective author. Other than that, [info] refers to general information on other botanists, publication plans, political news and, in rare cases, even gossip on the republic of letters. Whenever [post] is listed in an exchange chart, a correspondent forwarded or received letters for his counterpart, which, in times of unsafe and mostly improvised postal ways, was a valuable service and a commodity of exchange in itself. The tag [opportunity] refers to occasional opportunities to sell books, medicals or seeds, usually granted through access to one’s own correspondence network. Finally, [equipment] represents extremely rare occasions when valuable scientific instruments were part of an exchange. The following passage from a letter by Mühlenberg to the English botanist James Edward Smith (1759–1828) illustrates the procedure. According to my Promise, Mühlenberg began in December 1794, I beg leave to send you a third Fascicle of dried Plants found near Lancaster this Year, the second went last Spring with the Pigon consistin of Lichens, (...) [The] third Paquet is numbered from no. 351–474. I begin with Grasses, my favorite and add such Plants as are amongst my Adversaria. Further down in the letter, Mühlenberg thanked Smith for his plant identifications, which had been sent in response to an earlier package of plants.112 In the respective exchange chart, this passage would add a [specimen] tag to the “Mühlenberg to Smith” column and a [plant ident.] tag to the “Smith to Mühlenberg” column. This practical approach to the practice of scientific exchange is rooted in a dynamic understanding of “science” itself as a cultural practice of exchange and collaboration rather than as a solitary activity of isolated individuals.113 This also cor110 For an introduction to different concepts of knowledge and the “Plurality of Knowledges,” see Burke, Knowledge, 13f; 81f. 111 Compare, for instance, Mühlenberg’s exchange patterns with Baldwin and with Schreber. See Appendix D, 535f., 545f. 112 Your instructive Observations on the Plants no. 1–15, 18–28, 46–76 (exc. 61. 63) gave me so much Satisfaction and Pleasure that I wait with real Impatience for a Continuation of your Remarks and Nomenclature of the rest. To Smith, 12/10/1794, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 113 See, for instance, Rigby, “Seaborne,” 99: “In David Philip Miller’s essay in Visions of Empire, Miller questions the familiar ‘great man’ interpretation of history by reading Banks as only the visible tip of botanical science’s iceberg, the other nine tenths of which is formed by the nurse-

Aims and Methodology

39

responds to a recent change of perspective in the historiography of sciences, which tends to approach its object in terms of a multi-layered, collaborative process, and integrates contemporary social, political and scientific discourses to explain the dynamics, shapes and floating outcomes of knowledge production.114 Peter Burke has been the champion of this new take on the socio-historical conditions of knowledge, which ties in well with some of the main insights of network theory.115 As will be shown, late 18th century botany mainly focused on Carl Linnaeus’ (1707– 1778) 24th “cryptogamic” class in the sexual system, which brought more and more cryptogamists into Mühlenberg’s network around the turn of the century. In turn, the increasingly difficult conditions for trade and mail transport on account of continued warfare in Europe and on the Atlantic after 1805 were one of the main factors in the gradual Americanization of Mühlenberg’s network from 1800 to 1815. Finally, Appendix E holds six network drawings generated with UciNet© network visualization software that reflect the individual social compositions in phases one through six. These will be discussed, using proper network terminology, in the concluding subchapters of chapters V.1 through V.6.116 At this point, however, it must be stated clearly that the approach outlined above, which mainly crystallizes in the separation of six network phases, uses network theory as a heuristical guideline rather than as a method of “social computation,” as it is mainly understood in the modern social sciences. The reasons for this self-limitation are based in the very limitations of the source materials used in this study themselves. The German historian Verena Kücking has recently pointed out that the typical limits of written sources and the data gaps one encounters in almost any type of historical tradition necessarily render any network analysis in a strictly sociological sense practically inapplicable in historical contexts.117 In the present study, four major problems rymen, surgeons, gardeners, plant collectors, missionaries, ships’ captains, and traders who play equally important parts in plant transportation.” Ultee writes: “An isolated scholar was all the more dependent on letters to remain in contact with the Republic, for journals and books gave him only partial information. Through letters he might touch the Republic in its very essence.” Ultee, “Republic,” 104. See also Hächler, Stuber and Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 3; Kempe, “Anglo-Swiss,” 73–75; Goldgar, Impolite Learning, 4; Hagner, “Ansichten,” 13; Herren, “Erweiterung,” 197; Schnalke, “Sammeln,” 171; Kempe, “Anglo-Swiss,” 73. 114 See Burke, Knowledge, 11f.; Hagner, “Ansichten,” 1423f.; Hächler, Stuber and Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 13; Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” 1438. See specifically Peter Bearman’s approach in Relations into Rhetorics which focuses on discursive liguistic developments that have ushered in a reification of social discourses in popular mobilization and institutionalization. Bearman, Relations, 12. 115 See first chapter in Burke, Knowledge; and Hächler, Stuber and Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 13. See also Emirbauer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,”1443: “The fundamental point that we wish to make (...) is that network analysis errs seriously in ignoring the conceptual insights shared by all of these various theories, in particular the notion that agency and structure interpenetrate with one another in all individual units (as well as complexes) of empirical action, and that all historical processes are structured at least in part by cultural and political discourses, as well as by networks of social interaction.” 116 See below on pages 122f., 158f., 233f., 266f., 332f. and 403f. 117 “In den letzten Jahren hat die Analyse und Darstellung von Netzwerken ein zunehmendes Interesse auch unter Historikern und Historikerinnen erfahren. Während zeitgenössische empiri-

40

Networks and History

were met in the reconstruction of Mühlenberg’s network which must be carefully taken into account in the construction and discussion of the network drawings. First, through a close reading of the surviving 693 dated, eight undated letters, Mühlenberg’s diaries and his notebooks, 297 letters could be reconstructed which must be presumed lost today.118 This equals a data loss rate of 29,76 %, which must actually be assumed even higher, considering the potential information in these 297 letters themselves.119 Also, the preservation rate is highly unequal and ranges from 100 % (see Mühlenberg’s correspondence with William Baldwin) down to 0 % preservation (see Frederick Kampmann).120 Another problem showed in the fact that an unquantifiable part of contemporary scientific communication was conducted orally in Roche’s “local clusters of collaboration,” which corresponds to the well-known fact that the republic of letters was an essentially urban phenomenon. In the exemplary case of Johann Christian Daniel Edler von Schreber (1739–1810) and Johann David Schöpf (1752–1800), who both lived and worked in the duchy of Ansbach-Bayreuth, but also in many other cases, a significant amount of oral communication must be assumed which went completely unrecorded.121 Thirdly, the language of the letters is frequently too vague and opaque to derive truly reliable network information from them. A simple and very common phrase like Mr. Le Conte says this is not Pinus scrotina Michaux122 in a letter from Zaccheus Collins (1764–1831) to Mühlenberg in 1812 can be interpreted in multiple ways. Although it suggests that John Eaton LeConte (1784–1860) and Collins met, the verb “say” was also often used in Mühlenberg’s correspondences to make a quote from someone else’s scientific publications. In any event, in order to avoid confusion, data for the network drawings was only gathered from passages with clear references to visits or other contacts. Your friend Mr. Bartram, whom I visited last week, Collins wrote to Mühlenberg in the same letter, reciprocated in warm

sche Wissenschaften, wie die Soziologie und Ethnologie, Netzwerke nahezu ausschließlich anhand von eigens erhobenen Daten analysieren, steht die historische Netzwerkforschung hier vor einem fachspezifischen Problem: Die zur Verfügung stehenden Daten sind in der Regel sehr lückenhaft und bei den wenigsten Themen ist es möglich, Zeitzeugen zu befragen oder auf Befragungsdaten zurückzugreifen. Darüber hinaus beschäftigen sich Historiker und Historikerinnen in der Regel mit Zeitspannen, so dass auch die Komponente chronologischer Dynamik von Netzwerken ein zentrales Anliegen ist.” Kücking, “Historische Netzwerkforschung,” (see online references). 118 The total number of Mühlenberg’s actual and reconstructed letters is 998. Of these, 693 have been preserved, 297 were reconstructed and eight were undated. See also Appendix C, 494f. 119 297 letters out of 998 = 29,76 %. For reconstructed letters, see especially the lists of correspondences in Appendix C, 494-534. 120 See Appendix E, 495, 513. 121 See also Barkey, Contentions, 1357: “Systematic data about social relations in historical societies is scarce. In particular, little or no systematic records exist that allows us to reconstruct the intravillage as well as the intervillage social structures. Birth and marriage records, even when available, only shed light on one small aspect of the social structure and the networks within and between villages. Court records, on the other hand, can provide information on a broader range of activities and relations, conflictual as well as cooperative ones.” 122 From Collins, 09/24/1812, HSP Coll. 443.

Aims and Methodology

41

terms your expressions of esteem and remembrance. 123 This is sound evidence for a personal contact between Collins and Bartram. The problem of vague language, however, also extends to entries in older biographical dictionaries and articles that often feature lists of contacts of Mühlenberg, or of one of his correspondents, or brief allusions to botanical exchanges. In the cases where these could not be proven wrong,124 they need to be considered network information, too. In a similar vein, I do not consider the forms of address and the rhetoric of the letters a particularily reliable source of information on the state and development of individual correspondences. This is mostly due to the changes in literary style and taste in contemporary letter-writing, which became gradually detached from former, highly stylized forms of epistolary exchange and began to include less formal ways of addressing a potential correspondent.125 Reinhard Nickisch’s study on style 123 From Collins, 09/24/1812, HSP Coll. 443. See also Hächler, Stuber and Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 93. 124 A certain “F. Moore” was proposed by C. Early Smith Jr. as a Mühlenberg correspondent in 1954. This claim has already been refuted by Mears. See Smith, “Pioneer,” 443; Mears, “Herbarium,” 169. According to Youman, John Linnaeus Edward W. Shecut (1770–1836), was also a Mühlenberg correspondent. In fact, Shecut is only mentioned in a couple of letters in 1812. In January of that year, Mühlenberg wrote to Stephen Elliott that [b]y a Letter of D[octor] Baldwin I see you have some valuable Botanists in Charles Town Noyzette, Shecut Author of a Flora Caroliniana! not finished and Maywood. Is there no Possibility of getting a Copy of this Flora (…)? To Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. A month later, Elliott answered from Savannah: Of our Botanists in Charleston I am afraid I must give an unfavorable account. D: Shecut is no Botanist and undertook to compile a work which he termed Flora Caroliniensis the first number contained an Introduction to Botany, in which he borrowed so much from D: Barton that the D[octor]? not very civilly threatens him with a prosecution. From Elliott, 02/14/1812, HSP Coll. 443. This terminated Mühlenberg’s interest in Shecut, no direct contact was ever established. See Youman, “Muhlenberg, 60. For more on Shecut, see also: Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 13; Greene, American Science, 112; Petersen, New World Botany, 341; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 628. According to Renate Wilson, Albrecht von Haller († 1777) was a Mühlenberg correspondent, too, which is impossible, as von Haller died years before Mühlenberg became an active botanical networker in 1784. See Wilson, “Second Generation,” 236. The same is true for Greene’s claim that André Michaux (1746–1802) exchanged letters with him, when it was actually his son Francois André Michaux (1770–1855) that corresponded with him. Greene, American Science, 255. In another case, Maisch, Youman and Ewan and Ewan contend that Mühlenberg corresponded with William Aiton (1731–1793) of Kew Gardens. In fact, Mühlenberg tried to contact Aiton in 1792, but the respective letter did not reach Aiton before his death in spring 1793. See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for 12/07/1792; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 571; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 34; Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 69. Furthermore, no evidence of contact with August Johann Georg Karl Batsch (1761–1802) could be found in Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries, contrary to the claims of Schiedt, “First President,” 512; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 34; Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 69; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 3. Maisch and Youman have also named the botanist Johann J. J. Dillenius (1687–1747), who died 11 years before Mühlenberg’s birth. See Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 34; Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 69. Finally, no evidence of sustained contact could be found in the cases of James Dickson (1738–1822), Lewis Weston Dillwyn (1778–1855) and Albrecht Willhelm Roth (1757–1834). See Mears, “Herbarium,” 170. 125 Nickisch, Stilprinzipien, 161f.; 205; Kempe, “Anglo-Swiss,” 74. This trend also concurred with contemporary developments in literature, which saw the rise of epistolary novels such as Samuel Richardson’s (1689–1761) Pamela (1740). Based on a turn towards a less stylized and more

42

Networks and History

principles in German letters of the 17th and 18th century names Benjamin Neukirch (1665–1729), Johann Christoph Stockhausen (1725–1784), Johann Wilhelm Schauberts (1720–1751) and Christian Fürchtegott Gellert (1715–1769) as the main champions of these developments. Specifically Gellerts Briefe, nebst einer Praktischen Abhandlung von dem guten Geschmack in Briefen (1751) summarized and boosted this change of taste, which favored “natural emotions” and dismissed the “Kanzleystil” (“chancellory” or “formal” style) as too artificial and stiff to reflect a writer’s inner emotions and intentions. This change becomes especially explicit in a direct comparison between Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg and his son Henry. Whereas Mühlenberg senior continued to emphasize the importance of the knowledge of formal letters styles,126 his son’s letters show a much more individual and less stylized approach to his choice of language and form.127 Typically, letters of introduction in Mühlenberg’s correspondences, through which either he or his opponent sought to establish contact, were filled with polite introductions, namedropping of common friends or – in the case of a previous personal acquaintance – with memories of the time spent together.128 A critical reading of Mühlenberg’s letters with a focus on these literary topoi would certainly confirm that he was aware of styles and writing-techniques, but would ultimately reveal little or nothing about

individual language in letters, the genre’s success must be seen in its promise to give the audience a much more intimate look into the minds of the novels’ protagonists. Müller, Brief, 155. 126 See the following passage: Indeßen legte ich der Committee die Documenta, Power of Attorney [Vollmacht], Rechnungen, Bande [Schuldscheine], Quitungen und alles übrige zu dem Hochgr[ä]fl[ichen] S[olms-] R[ödelheimischen] Legat gehörige vor, und sie saßen lange genug und hatten hinlängliche Zeit und Gelegenheit alles durch zu sehen. Ob die Herren /:H[err] Lew[is] Weiss aus genommen:/ den stilum curiae [Kanzleistil] in den deutschen Documenten verstunden, oder nicht verstehen wolten, das weiß ich nicht. Mühlenberg senior to J. C. Kunze, 02/01/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 725). 127 This becomes obvious in an early letter to Schreber: Mit meiner botanischen Schwäche und meiner überall sichtbaren Eilfertigkeit die ich bei der Menge meiner übrigen Geschäfte nicht wohl vermeiden kann, und meine Amerikanische Schreibart ohne die geringste Formalität, bitte ich besonders zu übersehen. To Schreber, 06/16/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 128 The so-called “talk among absentees” (“Gespräch unter Abwesenden”) was one of the most common stylistic devices of contemporary epistolary theory and also appears frequently in Mühlenberg’s letters. See the following passage from a letter by Schöpf, whom Mühlenberg had met in late 1784: “Ihre schriftliche Unterhaltung wird uns daher auch in Zukunft so angenehm als interessant sein u[nd] bleiben.” From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. A similar passage is contained in his first letter to his first correspondent at Halle, Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg († 1797): “Ich erinnere mich nie ohne besondere Vergnügen der Zeit da ich unter Ihrer Leitung mich in Halle den Wißenschaften widmete, und eine Rechnung von Ihrer Hand dat[iert] Jun. 20. 1790 erneuerte Ihr Andenken so lebhaft in meinem Gemüth, daß ich mir so gleich vornahm, bei erster Gelegenheit mich Ihrer vorigen Freundschaft zu empfehlen, (…).” To Stoppelberg, 03/14/1791, AFSt M.4 D3. Generally, the individual letter was perceived both as a “mirror of the soul” of the author and a physical representation of his body. See Mauelshagen, Netzwerke, 133: “Frühneuzeitliche Gelehrtenbriefe sind voll von Beschreibungen des memorialen Aktes der imaginären Vergegenwärtigung des anderen, der aus solchen Gemeinplätzen gelebte Realität machte” See also Müller, Briefe, 138–140; 150; Barner, “Freundschaft,” 34; Steinke, Brief, 42f.

Aims and Methodology

43

the development of individual contacts, which can be followed more precisely in the “Exchange Charts,” Appendix D.129 Finally, there is the problem of temporarily resting contact activity, when a contact was interrupted by long breaks of no letters, although passages from other letters suggest that Mühlenberg was actually still expecting a response from these “sleeping” contacts. This is also a source-based problem, as in most of these cases, the information available today simply does not suffice to decide whether Mühlenberg considered the tie “dead” or whether his attention was only directed towards other, more promising contacts at the time. A case in point is the contact with Johann David Schöpf (1752–1800), which began in 1784 with Schöpf’s visit to Lancaster and was effectively discontinued in 1791, when his professional career prevented him from maintaining his correspondence with Mühlenberg until 1800, when he died unexpectedly at 48 years of age. Until then, Mühlenberg was actually expecting the contact to continue at some point. As the network drawings are constructed from his ego-perspective, the Schöpf-contact must therefore remain present until 1800, even though not a single instance of direct contact between the two men in Lancaster and Erlangen could be found from 1790 to 1800. Consequently, only the death of a correspondent ended a contact for real, both in Mühlenberg’s perception and in the network drawings in Appendix E.130 In rare cases, however, he was aware that a contact had come to an end even before, as was the case with Constantine Samuel Rafinesque (1783–1840). In this case, Mühlenberg showed extreme reluctance to conduct the botanical exchange from the start and was thoroughly relieved when Rafinesque left the United States in 1804 for Europe. Therefore, their communication was only active briefly from April 1803 to August 1805, when he submitted a final letter from Palermo to which Mühlenberg never answered.131 In order to integrate this highly segregated data base into cohesive and interpretable UciNet©-network visualizations, four types of ties have been used, whose graphical appearance reflect the reliability of the underlying data. The skeleton of the six network drawings is composed of the core corpus of 693 letters, the 297 reconstructed letters and those of Mühlenberg’s contacts among each other, as far as they could be located. Ties based on this material are the most reliable and the only quantifiable source of network information. Therefore, they will be valued according to the number of letters in a specific contact during any given network phase, which will help to keep track of the development of individual contact intensities over time. Ties of this sort in Appendix E will be represented by solid and valued lines. Secondly, Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries contained a plethora of information on individual contacts, which are certainly accurate, but most often not very precise. A passage like Collins’ note on his visit to Bartram’s garden, quoted above, cannot be ignored, but it cannot be quantified either. In cases like this, a basic connection between two individuals was assumed that is represented by a tie 129 See Appendix D, 535f. 130 Consequently, the Schöpf-contact is also represented until 1800 in Flow Chart A, Appendix A, 483. The Flow Charts and the Network Visualizations are generally based on the same source material to avoid inconsistencies. 131 See Flow Chart A, Appendix A, 483 and respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, 528.

44

Networks and History

of a dashed line of value one. Thirdly, a dashed-dotted line of value one was used to represent ties that are based on vague information in secondary literature references,132 while dotted lines of value one represent “sleeping” contacts in the phases where no contact information both for a continuation or, in fact, a discontinuation, could be found. Furthermore, correspondents located in the United States are represented by triangular nodes, those in European countries by circular nodes.133 Correspondents that share the same place of residence also share the same node color, in order to illustrate the local clusters of collaboration. The sources used in the composition of these six networks are noted in Appendix F.134 With the exception of Network Phase 6, tie strengths in all network drawings generally correspond to the actual number of letters exchanged.135

132 Specifically older research literature has a lot of references on individual relationships, where the author omitted proper source references or where the wording is simply too vague to be entered into the network matrix. In those cases, where supportive information for ties like these could be found in other sources or other articles, these ties were integrated as solid grey lines of value one. For a list of persons wrongly cited as Mühlenberg’s correspondents, see above on page 41, note 124. 133 Please note that the primary distinction has not been drawn according to the nationality of individual correspondents, but with regard to their location, in order to reflect the respective growth of Mühlenberg’s European and American networks of correspondence and their changing relationship to each other. 134 See Appendix F, Network Documentation, 554f. 135 In Network Phase 6, the high number of letters exchanged with William Baldwin (93 letters), Zaccheus Collins (83) and Stephen Elliott (36) render a graphical representation of a 1:1 ratio impossible. For this reason, the highest tie strength has been preset to 31, which equals one third of Baldwin’s letters. See Appendix E, Network F: Phase 6, 552.

IV A PRELUDE – MÜHLENBERG’S CORRESPONDENCES FROM 1771 TO 17841 Long before Mühlenberg began to weave his own web of correspondences in the mid-1780s, he had grown into an intricate network of family members and fellow Lutheran pastors, working in the Pennsylvania field and at the Halle orphanage. During his various sojourns at Philadelphia in the 1770s, he must also have begun to take notice of the local scientific community, whose undisputed center Philadelphia was at the time. Since mid–18th century, the American branch of the “Republic of letters” had begun to organize itself under the tutelage of Benjamin Franklin, who was also the first American to be accepted by European scientists as one of their peers.2 It is in these three contexts - Mühlenberg’s Lutheran-Pietist background, his family connections in Pennsylvania, and the nascent American scientific community – that I want to present him, in order to provide the background for a network-theory driven analysis of his correspondences after 1784. During the fall of 1783, Mühlenberg housed a traveling German naturalist, Johann David Schöpf, who crossed through Lancaster in late November. To Mühlenberg, the visit opened the doors to the European theater of science. By far the bigger portion of his letters3 were written in the years between Schöpf’s visit and 1815, and bear witness to the fact that his scientific interests should soon claim a considerable amount of his time and energies.4 It is tempting to conceive him only as a botanist, and quite easy to forget that he was at the same time a father to eight children and a professional Lutheran minister by vocation. Therefore, this chapter’s aim is to situate Mühlenberg in a context of actual and potential channels of communication in between 1770 to 1783, focusing on his professional and familial ties, and his place within the Republic of Letters, especially within the development of its American offshoot in the course of the 18th century. 1 THE LUTHERAN CONTEXT It was during Mühlenberg’s stay at the Halle Orphanage from 1763 to 1770 that the young student of the Lateinschule sent his first letters across the Atlantic to let his 1 2 3 4

All data in this chapter is based on letters sent or received between Mühlenberg’s letters to his father H. M. Mühlenberg, 12/04/1771, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 575), and 01/02/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 924). For his originial research on electricity, Franklin was awarded with the Royal Society’s Copley Medal in 1753. Greene, American Science, 37. Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virgina, however, was seen much more critical by European scientists. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 255, 322. See table a, Appendix B, on page 486. See table b, Appendix B, on page 486.

46

A Prelude

parents know about his progress in learning.5 Unfortunately, not a single line of his hand from this period has survived. The fact, however, that it was possible to submit letters to his native Pennsylvania with relative ease must have given him his first taste of the global network through which the Orphanage staff coordinated their missionary efforts, raised money to support the Francke Foundations, and sent Bibles, books and medicines to all corners of the world. The later success and expansion of the initially humble Francke Foundations at Glaucha near Halle would have been unthinkable without August Herman Francke’s (1663–1727) talent to make connections to dignitaries and people in key positions. Carl Hildebrand von Canstein (1667–1719) and Gneomar Dubislav von Natzmer (1654–1739) were his most effective political agents, while Francke himself managed to secure the crown’s benevolence time and again by clever political maneuvers.6 Another link to minor and major courts and regional commercial networks were well-connected women from the higher and lesser nobility, as Renate Wilson has argued. These fundatrixes not only offered social and financial support7 for Francke’s enterprises, but also came to be a vital part of the network via marriage policies and resulting family connections.8 Thus, only a few years after the Foundations’ establishment in 1698, a network had evolved which “spanned continents and oceans and survived its founder by many decades.”9 In Europe, Francke’s most important single contact during this early phase, Heinrich Wilhelm Ludolf (1655–1712), managed to secure the Halle Pietists stable links with the courts of Russia, England and Denmark,10 thus functioning as dooropener to most prestigious fields of influence and evangelicalisation. By 1706, again mainly through Ludolf’s support, Francke’s emissaries were firmly established in Russia,11 London and India. Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg (1682–1719) and 5

6 7

8 9 10

11

Meine 2 Söhne in den gesegneten Anstalten haben geschrieben und auch durch Hn: Br: Helmuth mündlich bitten laßen, daß sie nun gern die studia academica anfangen mögten, wenn Sr: Hochw: Herr Dir: und Consistorial= Rath Dero hoch=väterl: Genehmhaltung dazu zu geben geruhen würden. H. M. Mühlenberg to G. A. Francke and F. M. Ziegenhagen, 04/15/1769, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 463). In the kingdom of Prussia of King Frederick I (1657–1713), Francke responded to the monarch’s need for field clergy, thus securing longterm state support for his Foundations. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 500f. Financial aid mostly came in the form of direct, personalized support for missionary candidates, whose passage, supply of clothing and medications were paid for. Other forms of support consisted in collections organized by these Fundatrixes, or bequests to be transferred to the missions. Renate Wilson quotes the case of Willhelmine Sophie von Münchhausen née Wangenheim (no data available) to illustrate this practice. Wilson, Pious Traders, 36. Most prominently, Martin Brecht highlights the case of Sophie Luise von Mecklenburg (1685– 1735), who clung to her Lutheran faith after her marriage to Frederick I., which opened new doors to Francke. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 499. See also Wilson, Pious Traders, 33. Müller-Bahlke, “Communication,” 139. Ludolf managed to make most of these connections because of his position as secretary to King George of Denmark, the latter husband of Queen Anne. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 511, 514–517. Renate Wilson has argued that “establishing and maintaining this link was possible by a constellation of political and religious trends.” Wilson, Pious Traders, 2. In the case of Russia, contacts could soon be extended to include the Russian court and the

The Lutheran Context

47

Heinrich Plütschau (1676–1752) began proselytizing in the Danish colonies in the name of king Frederick IV of Denmark (1671–1730),12 while Anton Wilhelm Böhme13 (1673–1722) figured as Francke’s first link to London’s Court Chapel, the center of English pietism, before Friedrich Michael Ziegenhagen (1694–1776) came to occupy the position from 1722 to 1776.14 Thomas Müller-Bahlke has described the stunning case of the fraudulent “Pastor Schultz,” which illustrates the dimensions and efficiency the Halle network had already attained by the 1730s. When Schultz was traveling in southern Germany under the false guise of a Halle representative to collect donations for the mission in North America,15 Francke and Ziegenhagen quickly activated their contacts in the region to get hold of him. Through their joint efforts and with the help of their local correspondents, they finally managed to make the case publicly known, have Schultz arrested and his false credentials and collections confiscated.16 Francke’s original intention in setting up his network had been to achieve independence from state and church interference, a goal which must be seen in the wider context of European Reformation. In the beginning of the Protestant movement, various unconnected groups and individuals saw themselves confronted with a system of deep-rooted familial ties, trade privileges conferred along confessional lines and the challenge of Catholic counter-reformation. In order to resist and survive, mutual support across territories and nations needed to be established.17 Even the so-called “Republic of Letters,” the early modern communication system of scientists and natural philosophers, was essentially an outgrowth of religious persecution and joint efforts to re-establish contacts within a new, confessional Europe. Mutual moral support and offers to take shelter from persecution, however, would scarcely have sufficed to sustain the movement for long, if not a system of financial support had come into place as well. The Francke Foundations yield an exceptional example for this. After Francke’s ideas of Christian charity, epitomized by the Orphanage, had acquired credit and respectability in Pietist-Lutheran circles, he began to make use of his contacts to raise the necessary funds for the cause. Donations were a first step, but trade in books and medicines promised both to augment financial resources and to be an

12 13 14 15 16 17

immediate surroundings of the Czar himself. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 519. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 527. Boehme’s predecessor J. W. Mecken had denied further service to the crown in consequence of the king’s attendance to Anglican masses. It was again Ludolf who acted as the pivotal agent to replace Mecken with Boehme. Brunner, Halle Pietists, 51; Splitter, Pastors, 14. “In Ziegenhagen, Halle not only had a close friend and correspondent, but someone who filled the office for fifty-four years.” Brunner, Halle Pietists, 57; Brecht, “Pietismus,” 521. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 32. Müller-Bahlke, “Communication,” 143. Wilson, Pious Traders, 25f. Apart from this rather utilitarian interpretation of Pietist networks, D. F. Durnbaugh has pointed out that exchange and the continuation of contact with likeminded Christians on a global scale was characteristic of pietist thought. Durnbaugh, “Communcation,” 34. For brief sketches of similar pietist networks, see Durnbaugh, “Communcation,” 35f.

48

A Prelude

effective means to spread their ideas of charity and reform.18 By mid-century, innerEuropean19 and transatlantic commerce with products from the Medikamentenexpedition and Halle’s Bible printing press had developed into a major business.20 Francke and his successors relied on a widely ramified network of sales agents, intermediaries and accredited pharmacies, apothecaries and physicians to market their products. In North America, the Mühlenberg-family and John Christopher Kunze (1744–1807) acted on behalf of Halle in this business.21 Apart from this developing trade, Halle’s network also served to handle all financial transactions associated with the trade itself and external financial occurrences such as bequests and legacies. Additionally, it gave the Halle Pietists access to potential investors and served them as security for low-interest credit, given to a cause which promised to be both a safe investment and a good Christian deed.22 Halle’s network not only served material purposes, but was also a working communication system that allowed every single pastor and associate of Francke’s to participate in the worldwide progress of God’s word and the Christian mission. Halle publications such as the Halle’sche Korrespondenz (1707), the Merkwürdige Nachricht aus Ost-Indien (1708), the later Halle’schen Berichte and the Merkwürdige Nachrichten von einigen evangelischen Gemeinden, sonderlich in Pennsylvanien,23 which combined mission reports from India and North America, played a crucial role in this transatlantic news exchange. According to common Christian belief, the Kingdom of God would come again once the gospel was heard in every far corner of the earth,24 and the desire to stay in touch with recent developments created the need for centralized, communal platforms that everyone could easily access and subscribe to. Thomas Müller-Bahlke has called this a “minor masterpiece” of “contemporary public relations.” 25 1.1 Studies at the Francke Foundations (1763–1770) The ten-year-old Henry Mühlenberg and his two older brothers Johann Peter Gabriel and Frederick Augustus Conrad embarked for Europe on April 27, 1763 aboard 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

Müller-Bahlke, “Communication,” 144; Wilson, “Second Generation,” 255; Wilson, Pious Traders, 29; Brunner, Halle Pietists, 129. Apart from German territories, Russia soon came to be one of the most profitable markets for Halle medicines, bibles and diverse pedagogical materials to support evangelisation and charity modelled after the Halle Orphanage. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 518f. Brunner points out that “Francke was his own bookseller and publisher and had the financial backing and official influence of Canstein, who insisted that Bibles and New Testaments be available at the cheapest possible prices. Halle was far more of a model to the great nineteenth-century Bible societies in Britain and North America than the SPCK.” Brunner, Halle Pietists, 135. In 1765, net profits reached 34,000 Rth. Wilson, Pious Traders, 93. Wilson, Pious Traders, 31. Wilson, Pious Traders, 30. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 527. Wellenreuther, “Atlantische Welt,” 15. Müller-Bahlke, “Communication,” 140.

The Lutheran Context

49

the ship of “Captain Budden” to begin a seven-year course of studies at the Francke Foundations, where their father had also lived and studied theology.26 On June 15, 1763, the three brothers were introduced to court preacher Friedrich Michael Ziegenhagen (1694–1776) in London by a certain “Chirurgus Meyer,” whom Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg had selected as travel guide for his sons. In a letter to Gotthilf August Francke (1696–1769), Ziegenhagen acknowledged that he had only come to see Peter and Frederick, as the youngest son Henry had (…) wrestled with the boy of a skipper and came out of it with a black eye. This is why I have not seen the same.27 Continuing via Amsterdam and the ancestral Mühlenberg family hometown of Einbeck, where the company briefly lost track of Henry, who only managed to proceed with the help of a stranger carrying him on his back all the way to Einbeck,28 the party arrived at the Orphanage in early fall of 1763. While Peter was immediately admitted to the Lateinschule on September 2, 1763,29 Frederick and Henry had to wait until December 3 of the following year for their admission.30 As far as the contents and subjects of his education at Halle are concerned, Mühlenberg rarely ever alluded or commented on them in his later writings, which leaves us with what is generally known about the contemporary Halle curriculum. In addition to his major subject theology, he underwent intense schooling in Hebrew, Latin, Ancient Greek and French,31 which was supplemented by courses in 26

27

28 29 30 31

Until then, the Mühlenberg sons had received their basic schooling at their Trappe homestead and later at Philadelphia. Muhlenberg-Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 147. According to J. Bennet Nolan, this Captain Budden was one of Philadelphia’s best known and most trusted captains to undertake the transatlantic crossing. Nolan, Smith Family, 55. Beck, however, claims that the name of the ship was Captain Budden. Beck, “Muhlenberg, Botanist“, 99. Ziegenhagen wrote that Mühlenberg had (…) mit einem Schiffer Jungen geschlagen und ein blaues Auge bekommen, und folglich habe ich selbigen gar nicht gesehen. Later in the same letter, he also wrote: Am 15 aber fand sich ein Chirurgus Nahmens Meyer (...) der sich meist im Jahr in Pensylvanien aufgehalten, sonst aber zu Einbeck wohnhaft ist, bey mir ein mit dem ältesten Sohn des Herrn Mühlenbergs. (...) Ehe und bevor ich selbiges erörterte, zeigte H Meyer an, daß Er nicht allein den ältesten Sohn, sondern auch die 2 folgend, also 3 Söhne des H[errn] M[ühlenberg] mit sich von Philadelphia herausgebracht. Johan Peter (16 Jahr) Frederick August 12 Jahr und Heinrich... 10 Jahre alt. Frage: Wo sollen diese Kinder hin? R[esponsio] alle 3 nach Halle, und werden der Disposition, Direction und Verordnung zu Hochw. des Herrn D. Franckens gäntzlich übergeben. Ziegenhagen to Francke, 06/29/1763, AFSt/M 1 D 8 : 14. Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 59; Muhlenberg-Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 148. Matrikel der Lateinischen Schule, Mühlenberg, Jo. Peter Gabr. 02.09.1763 AFSt/S L 4 255 – 9141. Matrikel der Lateinischen Schule, Muhlenberg, Frid. Aug. Conrad 03.12.1764 AFSt/S L 4 293 – 9329; Muhlenberg, Henry Heinr. Ernst 03.12.1764 AFSt/S L 4 293 – 9330. See also Wilson, Pious Traders, 23. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 59. In his later letters, Mühlenberg frequently complained about his lack of proficiency in French, which kept him from reading French botanical publications: Should You be so fortunate as to receive the Continuation of Michaux, you will add very much to the Obligations I owe you already by letting me have a Sight of them. Pray is the promised Translation published? The French Language I only understand imperfectly and I purpose to wait for a Translation. To Collins, 03/19/1812, ANSP Coll. 129.

50

A Prelude

history, geography, mathematics and music. Periodically, botany also appeared in the curriculum of the Halle Lateinschule during the 18th century,32 but for lack of any direct statement by Mühlenberg, we must assume that he never attended any courses in the favorite science of his older days. The only two statements about his education at Halle from his own hand do not mention botanical studies, but rather imply that his interest in plants only developed at a more mature age.33 Renate Wilson has contended that the elder Mühlenberg’s second thought about sending his sons to Halle was to provide one of them the oppportunity for medical training, which Peter was supposed to receive in the original scheme.34 When he refused to follow his father’s wish, no successor for this arrangement seems to have been picked.35 In any case, neither Frederick nor Henry seem to have excelled in their subsequent studies at Halle.36 32

33

34

35 36

“Als eigene Lehranstalt wurde die Lateinschule im September 1697 eingerichtet. Hier sollten befähigte Knaben auf das Universitätsstudium vorbereitet werden. (…) Der Lehrplan der Lateinischen Schule legte den Schwerpunkt auf die Vermittlung der alten Fremdsprachen Latein, Griechisch und Hebräisch. Außerdem wurde Geschichte, Geographie, Mathematik, Musik und Botanik unterrichtet, wie Francke 1701 berichtete. Das ganze 18. Jahrhundert hindurch blieben dies die wesentlichen Unterrichtsfächer trotz kleinerer Veränderungen. So wurde schon bald Physik in den Lehrplan aufgenommen, Anatomie und Malen traten zeitweise hinzu, während der Botanikunterricht phasenweise wieder ausgesetzt wurde,” Müller-Bahlke, Lateinschule, 40f. In 1733, the Halle physician Friedrich Hoffmann (1660–1742) praised the local conditions for science: “Denn es fehlet ihnen weder an genugsamen Vorrathe der kostbarsten Instrumenten, so zur Erforschung der Natur und Kräften der Elementen (…) noch an auserlesenen Naturalien, welche von allen, die sie sehen, admiriret werden. Hiernechst findet man auch daselbst schöne Gelegenheit in der Anatomie durch Secirung der Thiere, in der Materia Medica, und in der Botanic zu profitiren,” Müller-Bahlke, “Naturwissenschaft,” 367. See also Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 10; Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 74f; Roeber, “Helmuth,” 82. When Mühlenberg was accepted into the Berlin Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde in 1799, he was asked to give a short CV for the society, which briefly mentions Halle: Weil Sie es ausdrücklich verlangen, daß ein jedes Glied der Gesellschaft etwas gewißes von seinem Leben melden soll, so merke ich folgendes an. Ihr Freund, Henry Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg ist in Pensilvanien d. 17. Nov. 1753 gebohren. Sein Vater war der durch die Pensilvanische Nachricht bekannte D. Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg. Von 1763–1770 war er in Halle und studierte Theologie. Im Sept. 1770 wurde er von dem Lutherischen Ministerio zum Prediger ordiniert. Nachdem er von 1771 bis 1777 mehrentheils in Philadelphia als Prediger gestanden mußte er mit der Hälfte seiner Gemeinsglieder Philadelphia verlaßen, das von den Engländern besetzt worden. Von seinen Büchern entfernt und in der Stille des Landlebens fing er an sich in der Natur umzusehen, und ohne Buch und Lehrer die Natur zu studieren. Er wurde bekanter mit ihr und gewann sie alle Tage lieber. To GNF, 10/02/1799, HUB GNF S, Mühlenberg H. E. See also Wilson, “Second Generation,” 238. Wilson quotes from a letter of Mühlenberg to Inspektor Schulenburg dating from March 1759, in which the two men discuss some details on the planned studies at the Foundations. Wilson, Pious Traders, 121. In a letter to Francke, dated June 29, 1763, Ziegenhagen also mentions an apparent disposition of the oldest Mühlenberg son to become a surgeon. Ziegenhagen to Francke, 06/29/1763, AFSt/M 1 D 8 : 14. Instead, Peter soon began an apprenticeship with a merchant Niemeyer at Lübeck. Aland argues that sending Peter off to Lübeck was their father’s original intention plan rather than an alternative to Halle. Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 8. Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 10; Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 69. Muhlenberg-Richards, however, claims that “[a]t Halle he showed such marked proficiency in his studies, and such dilligence in

The Lutheran Context

51

Not much is known about Henry’s social relations and friendships at the Orphanage, either.37 Apparently, he made friends with an “Accise-Einnehmer Garliep,” to whom he submitted one of his first letters after his departure from Halle in 1770,38 detailing the circumstances of their voyage back to North America and his first experiences as a pastor in the Pennsylvania field. In a later letter to Sebastian Andreas Fabricius (1716–1790) from 1775, Georg Christian Knapp (1753–1825), the son of the former Orphanage-principal Dr Johann Georg Knapp39 (1705–1771), is named as one of his closest friends.40 Another vague trace of Mühlenberg’s personal relations from 1763 to 1779 comes from a letter to Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg († 1797), Mühlenberg’s second permanent correspondent after Fabricius. From him, he received 1795 greetings by the old gardener Schönberg, with whom both Henry and Frederick obviously shared a friendship.41 Above all, however, Inspektor Fabricius appears as the most cherished and respected contact during these seven years. For the three young Mühlenbergs, Fabricius came to be their substitute father, which echoes throughout their subsequent letters until Fabricius’ death in 1790.42 Fabricius had already been a close friend of their father’s, and their friendship was probably the basis for the relationship with his sons.43 Equally tight bonds must be assumed to Justus Henry Christian Helmuth (1745–1825) and John Frederick Schmidt (1746–1812), Henry’s future colleagues in Pennsylvania: The 23rd of July 1768 – This day I was obliged to leave Halle, and take leave of all my benefactors, and friends, (...), Schmidt noted in his diary much later, (...). I was accompanied out of Halle, for a few miles, by Mr. Inspector Fabricius, Peter Muhlenberg, and Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg. The evening was fine

37 38 39 40 41 42

43

their preparation, that he attained the head of his class.” Muhlenberg-Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 148. Wallace reports an episode of Henry harrassing a younger schoolboy in the presence of schoolmates and teachers. The incidence is recorded in a letter by Knapp. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 76f. To Accise Einnehmer Garliep, Halle, 04/05/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. Knapp took over when Gotthilf August Francke died in 1769, but died himself only two years later. 2. An des sel. Hr. D. Knapps Herren Sohn, meinen ehemaligen guten Freund, die ihm schuldigen 4 r. ohne zu forschen wie. Der Herr segne ihn überschwänglich! To Fabricius, 01/03/1775, AFSt/M 4 C 17 : 26. Empfehlen Sie mich bey Gelegenheit besonders Ihrem 2n Herrn Bruder bestens, den auch der alte Gärtner Schoenberg grüßen läßt. From Stoppelberg, 05/15/1795, APS Film 1097. Meine Brüder sind noch beide in öffentlichen Ämtern und sind für die teutsche Nation in diesem Lande eine gute Stütze. Wir denken bei jeder Zusammenkunft noch mit vieler Rührung an die väterliche Liebe die Sie zu uns getragen, und mir insondernheit ist der Name Fabricius unvergeslich und theuer, so wie ich Gott stets überhaupt danke daß er mich in den gesegneten Anstalten des Waisenhauses hat auferzogen werden laßen. To Fabricius, 11/01/1785, AFSt/M 4 D 20. See H. M. Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 03/31/1773, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 604): Mein Hochgeehrt und hochgeschätzter Herr, Bruder, Gönner und vieljäriger Woltäter, ja Vater wolte ich sagen, wenn wir nicht fast von einerlei Alter wären! Weil ich in einen Jüngern Jaren eine starcke EinbildungsKrafft, die man sonst Imagination nante, besaß, so kan mich Dero Werteste Person noch lebhafft vorstellen, vermöge der von Gott verliehenen Gelegenheit Dieselben im Winter 1742 (…) von Person kennen zu lernen.

52

A Prelude

and I rode on praising the goodness of God, to Barbury.44 Half a year before they finally left Halle, Henry and Frederick finished their studies. For the remaining time, Henry enrolled at the University of Halle on October 10, 1769 as a student of theology.45 Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg had agreed to this short-time enrollment on the single condition that the two brothers would not be allowed to move into town during their studies.46 On May 4, 1770, they started their journey from Halle across Germany via Aschersleben, Wolfenbüttel, Lüneburg to Altona,47 where the party probably met with Jacob Gysbert van der Smissen (1746–1829) of the van der Smissen & Söhne Company, a long-standing Halle contact and agent in their transatlantic communications. Unfortunately, the letter from van der Smissen to Fabricius, in which the incident is recorded, does not clearly reveal whether the meeting took place or not.48 In Altona, they embarked for London to meet with Ziegenhagen’s assistant Friedrich Willhelm Pasche49 (1728–1792) in Kensington, who had already arranged for their passage back to Pennsylvania. On June 26, 1770, Pasche informed Fabricius in a short letter that the three had arrived safely at Kensington a few days earlier and that Ziegenhagen had plans to employ them during their short stay before they would continue their travels.50 After a month with Pasche, the three finally left 44 45 46

47

48 49 50

Nolan, Smith Family, 51. UAH-W, Matrikel 1767–1781. See also Müller-Jahncke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1323. Meine 2 Söhne in den gesegneten Anstalten haben geschrieben und auch durch Hn: Br: Helmuth mündlich bitten laßen, daß sie nun gern die studia academica anfangen mögten, wenn Sr: Hochw: Herr Dir: und Consistorial= Rath Dero hoch=väterl: Genehmhaltung dazu zu geben geruhen würden. Ich überlaße es gäntzlich der höhern und beßern Einsicht Hochwürdigster Väter, nur mit demüthigstem Vorbehalt, daß sie nicht in die Stadt ziehen, sondern in den Anstalten bleiben mögten. Ich und mein Weib wollen hertzlich gern alles bezahlen, welches wir desto beßer können, wenn wir aus der Barrenhiller Sache nach und nach entwickelt werden. H. M. Mühlenberg to G. A. Francke und F. M. Ziegenhagen, 04/15/1769, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 463). The details of this journey are outlined in a statement from Kunze’s hand, in which he reported back to Halle all costs accrued until their arrival at Kensington on June 21, 1770. The full itinerary took included Könnern, Aschersleben, Halberstadt, Wernigerode, a brief detour to Einbeck, Wolfenbüttel, Braunschweig, Gamsen, Uelzen, Lüneburg, Hamburg, Harburg, Altona, Altona and per Haxney-coach to Kensington. Verrechnung der Reisekosten von Johann Christoph Kunzens und der zweyen Söhne des Herrn Pastor Mühlenbergs von Philadelphia Reise von Halle bis London angetreten d. 4. Mai 1770 und durch Gottes Gnade vollendet d. 21. Jun ebend. Jahres. AFSt/M 4 A 8 : 8a. Jacob Gysbert van der Smissen to Fabricius, 05/16/1770, AFSt/M 4 A 8 : 17. Pasche was Ziegenhagen’s associate and a lecturer at the local chapel. It was him who informed the elder Mühlenberg about Ziegenhagen’s death in 1776. Brunner, Halle Pietists, 86, 196, 197. As it turned out, neither of them felt ready to answer Ziegenhagen’s wish on account of fatigue in the wake of the passage to London. Daß der liebe H. Kunze mit den beyden jungen H. Mühlenberg am 21sten hujus abends um 5, endlich Gottlob! wohlbehalten hier angekommen sind, hat der ältere H. Mühlenberg mit lezter Post an E[uer] Hochwürden vorläufig berichtet. Der theure Herr Hofprediger (...) wünschen, daß Sie ihnen, während ihres hiesigen Aufenthaltes, einige nüzliche Dienste thun könnten, Sie finden Sich aber wegen anhaltender großer Entkräftung nicht im Stande, solchen Wunsch zu erfüllen. Ihre Bagage wird morgen oder übermorgen vom Schiff und Customhouse losgemacht und herausgebracht werden können. Aber die Pensilvanische und unsre Continuations-Liste sind noch nicht hier. (...) Pasche to Fabricius,

The Lutheran Context

53

for Philadelphia aboard the “Duchess of Gordon” with Captain Winn on July 24, and after a brief delay at Deptford, they finally left European waters on the morning of July 28, 1770.51 It was Mühlenberg’s only and last visit to the Old World. 1.2 The Pennsylvania Field During the period between the close of the Seven Years’ War and the beginning of the American Revolution, the ranks of both Reformed coetus and Lutheran ministerium were crucially reinforced by a fresh wave of “young, able and committed pastors,”52 amidst whom were Henry, Frederick and Kunze, who disembarked on American soil on September 27, 1770.53 Almost instantly upon arrival, the two young Mühlenbergs were invited to preach a Thanksgiving sermon at Philadelphia’s newly built Zion’s church under the critical eyes of their father.54 Quite contrary to the two brothers’ apparently low motivation during their Halle studies, Henry seems to have left a lasting impression on his father and colleagues.55 After this first test, they were admitted to oral exams, which they passed, and received their ordination in early October of 1770.56 At first, Henry was sent out to serve congregations at

51 52

53 54 55 56

06/26/1770, AFSt/M 4 A 8 : 8a. In a letter to Vetter Bense at Einbeck, Mühlenberg indeed indicates that the passage to London was a rather unpleasant experience: Wir kamen ohne einig Hinderniß von Einbeck nach Clausthal u. nach Wernigerode, von wo wir auch bis auf Hamburg mit vieler Liebe befördert worden. O wie viele Freunde u. Gönner haben wir da gefunden! (…) Von Hamburg nach London war freylich nicht sehr angenehm, aber auch darinnen erkennen wir die Hand Gottes (…). To Vetter Bense, 04/03/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. Pasche to Fabricius, 07/24/1770, AFSt/M 4 A 8 and Pasche to Fabricius, 07/27/1770, AFSt/M 1 D 11 : 13. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 341. In a letter to an unidentified “Accise Einnehmer Garliep“ at Halle, Mühlenberg makes the same observation: Gleich nach unserer Ordination wurden wir zu einigen verlassenen Gemeinen ausgesandt, einige 60–80 Meilen von der Stadt Philadelphia, endlich auf diesen Tag haben wir gleiche Beschäftigungen gehabt, weil wir meist die jüngsten sind u. vielleicht noch mehr ertragen können als andere die schon viel von ihren Kräften im Werk des Herrn verzehret haben. To Accise Einnehmer Garliep, Halle, 04/05/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. To Vetter Bense, 04/03/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. To Accise Einnehmer Garliep, Halle, 04/05/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. See also Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 77. See the following passage from Schmidt’s diary: The learning of this young Mr. Muhlenberg considering his age and the length of his stay at Halle, not quite seven years, is remarkable. Nolan, Smith Family, 62. Mühlenberg gives contradictory information on behalf the exact date of his ordination. Im Sept. 1770 wurde er von dem Lutherischen Ministerio zum Prediger ordiniert. To GNF, 10/02/1799, HUB GNF S, Mühlenberg H. E. Henry and his older brother Frederick obviously passed their exam during the 1770 synod, as indicated in a letter to Vetter Bense at Einbeck: Gleich darauf gingen wir mit auf ein General Synode od[er] Versammlung der hiesig H[erren] Prediger wo wir auch beyde nach gehörigen Examine zum Predigtamt ordiniert u, in das Ministerium aufgenommen worden. Möchten wir doch allezeit unseren Beruf würdig wandeln. To Vetter Bense, 04/03/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. In a letter of the same date to Vetter Eicke at Clausthal, however, Mühlenberg dates the event in October: Der andere Bruder wurde mit mir 1770 im Oct[ober] öffentl. von den Ministerien examiniert u. darauf zum Predigtamt ordiniert. To Vetter Eicke, 04/03/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. In his letter to Accise Einnehmer Garliep, Halle, 04/05/1773,

54

A Prelude

Barrenhill, Cohansey, Frankfurt and Pikestown for the following four years,57 before he attained his first fixed position as Adjunctus (helper) to his father, and later as third pastor, at Philadelphia’s ever growing Lutheran congregation.58 In the ensuing decade, he would primarily move and act within the Pennsylvanian branch of Halle’s network. North America had been brought to August Herman Francke’s attention by Philip Jacob Spener (1635–1705), who had himself taken notice of German immigrants to America from the Palatinate when Anton Wilhelm Böhme began to include descriptions of their fate in his reports from London.59 Before, Böhme had also translated Francke’s Fußstapffen into English under the title Pietas Hallensis, which came to the attention of the Congregationalist preacher and later president of Yale Cotton Mather (1663–1728) at Boston. With him, Francke subsequently engaged in a correspondence that lasted from 1711 to 1726.60 It was Halle’s first permanent link to the British colonies in the New World, although there were no attempts to take care of the Lutheran fold during the elder Francke’s lifetime, despite its significantly growing numbers after 1709.61 Only after the fate of the Salzburg refugees came to public notice in 1733, his son Gotthilf August (1696-1769) seriously began to consider a new transatlantic field of mission. After failed attempts to establish David Weisiger62 at the Salzburg community at Ebenezer, it finally fell to the

57

58

59

60 61 62

AFSt/M 4 C 17, Mühlenberg confirms October as the correct date. According to Glatfelter and G. H. G., they were both ordained October 25, 1770. Glatfelter, Pastors I, 93, 94; Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad;” Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 78. Dieser Mangel der Arbeiter ist die Ursache daß ich und mein Bruder eher von privat Studiis haben ablassen und an den öffentlichen Arbeiten teilnehmen müssen als sonst unser Wunsch war. Er stehet neu in Neu-York nicht ohne Beifall und Segen. Ich bediente eine Zeitlang die Filiale in Barrenhill, Cohenzy, Frankfurt und Pikestown und half meinem Vater in seinen wöchentlich Geschäfte, dann wurde ich Adiunctus meines Vater in Philadelphia und Raritan bis ich d. 6ten Jun. 1774 den ruf eines dritten Predigers hier völlig annahm. To Fabricius, 01/03/1775, AFSt/M 4 C 17 : 26. According to a letter to the Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, Mühlenberg had accepted the position as third pastor at Philadelphia and was frequently commissioned to tend to temporarily vacant congregations until well into 1777: Nachdem er von 1771 bis 1777 mehrentheils in Philadelphia als Prediger gestanden mußte er mit der Hälfte seiner Gemeinsglieder Philadelphia verlaßen, das von den Engländern besetzt worden. To GNF, 10/02/1799, HUB GNF S, Mühlenberg H. E. In his letter to his friend Garliep at Halle in 1773, Mühlenberg writes that he was covering an average of 100 to 170 miles per month on horseback in Phladelphia’s hinterland, serving in 385 baptisms, 221 burials and 1,777 communicants for Philadelphia in 1772 alone. To Accise Einnehmer Garliep, Halle, 04/05/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. Boehme himself took care of some 53 Palatinates emigrating via London under the guidance of Joshua Kochertal in 1708. In consequence of Boehme’s support and a small donation by Queen Anne to help the refugees, the following year saw 800 emigrants. At the end of this first German mass-migration to America, roughly 10–14,000 Palatinates took the route via London. Fourty years after the events, Germans in North America still testified to Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg how much they had valued Boehme’s support. Brunner, Halle Pietists, 58, 63–66. Brecht, “Pietismus,” 524–526; Roeber, “Pietismus,” 683. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 3. Müller-Bahlke, “Communication,” 145.

The Lutheran Context

55

former Orphanage teacher Johann Martin Boltzius (1703–1765) to give order and stability to the refugees’ church organization in the south of England’s American colonies.63 Alexander Pyrges has highlighted and analyzed the functional differentiation of communication in the Ebenezer network from 1732–1828. While Halle’s London contacts coordinated the actual transatlantic transfer based on their first hand experiences with the Navigation Acts and corollary regulations, Halle and Augsburg provided the marketing necessary to raise moneys in donations.64 On the American side, Charleston emerged as the Ebenezer network’s “postal center” and Halle’s primary point of contact in their North American trade and philanthropic mission until well into the 1760s.65 In Pennsylvania, the main area of German immigration during the 18th century, patterns of organized Lutheran church life first became visible after 1717, when Anthony Jacob Henkel (1668–1728), a native of Nassau, arrived in Pennsylvania and settled at Falckner’s Swamp.66 Henkel acted independently of European church authorities when he organized Pennsylvania’s first Lutheran congregation at New Hanover, and soon extended his activities to Providence, Goshenhoppen, Germantown and Philadelphia, as Glatfelter assumes.67 After his death in 1728, German immigrants again depended largely on occasional services by Swedish pastors and the two John Casper Stoevers, father (1685–1739) and son (1707–1779), for their spiritual needs. In 1733, the united congregations of Philadelphia, New Hanover and Providence finally sent Christian Schultz and two laymen on a mission to Europe to support and present the urgency of their cause.68 By then, and mostly as a consequence of the lack of support from German state authorities for emigrants, the Royal Chapel at London under Boehme and Ziegenhagen gradually became the main communication agent for Germans abroad to their native countries.69 Especially after Boltzius’s success, Ziegenhagen began to establish ties with Lutherans in New York. It was through this channel that another desperate call for a minister by their Pennsylvania brethren was transmitted to him. Ziegenhagen and others forwarded this call to Gotthilf August Francke at Halle, with whom he stood in correspondence ever since his student days at Jena.70 Nevertheless, it took Halle several more years before the imminent threat of Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf’s (1700–1760) plan to establish Moravian mission settle-

63

64 65 66 67 68 69 70

In England, the case of the Salzburg emigrants had come to the notice of James Oglethorpe (1696–1785) through Ziegenhagen, who stood in correspondence with Samuel Urlsperger at Augsburg. Brunner, Halle Pietists, 165. See also Roeber, “Pietismus,” 684; Müller-Bahlke, “Communication,” 146. Interestingly, Boltzius and the physician Ernst Thilo were obviously also the first ones to include natural observations and plants in their reports back to Halle. Wilson, “Second Generation,” 236. Pyrges, “Ebenezer Network,” 61–63. Pyrges, “Ebenezer Network,” 64. New Hanover. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 19. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 21. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 32. Brunner, Halle Pietists, 67. Brunner, Halle Pietists, 68; Glatfelter, Pastors II, 32.

56

A Prelude

ments in North America made Pennsylvania a top priority on their agenda.71 Shortly after his 30th birthday, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg accepted Francke’s call to Pennsylvania and went to London, where he should stay nine weeks with Ziegenhagen to learn English and prepare for his new task.72 Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s success in establishing a working church order in Pennsylvania can be seen as a masterpiece of organizational intelligence and demonstration of high awareness of the importance of networking. Upon the founding of the Lutheran ministerium in 1748, he not only managed to bring together all properly ordained ministers into one administrative central body, but also effectively curbed all other itinerant, independent and self-appointed Lutheran pastors’ claims to a legitimate practice in Pennsylvania by excluding them from this very body.73 On the personal side, his marriage with Anna Maria Weiser (1727–1802), the daughter of Indian interpreter and eminent Pennsylvanian political figure Conrad Weiser (1696–1760) in 1745, opened him doors to the political establishment, which set an example for the next generations of Lutheran pastors to learn from.74 On the other side of the Atlantic, Mühlenberg’s reliable and exhaustive correspondence soon corroborated Halle’s trust in their new emissary and secured the fledgling new churches the necessary funding to unfold and expand its activities. Thus, after 1742 Pennsylvania slowly grew into the global Halle network through which growing amounts of Halle medicines and books found their way to the emerging Pietist project in Pennsylvania.75 In return, Francke and Ziegenhagen long claimed complete control over Mühlenberg’s colonial network.76 71 72

73 74

75

76

Splitter, Pastors, 18. Ziegenhagen undoubtedly occupied a key position in Halle’s missionary network. From 1722 to 1776 literally every new missionary to North America and East India passed through London, which invested enormous influence in the court chaplain. Brunner writes that “the siginificance of the Lutheran ministers in London for the development of the infant German Lutheran Church in America has been underestimated. If, as has been suggested, Pietism was the dominant influence in the early years of the American Lutheran Church, then the contributions of ministers like Boehme and Ziegenhagen deserve greater appreciation. They became the key contact point of Lutherans in America and provided important pastoral care through their procurement of Bibles and devotional books, their written spiritual counsel and admonition, and their preparation of clergy en route to the new world.” Brunner, Halle Pietists, 68. See also Baglyos, “American Muhlenbergs,” 46. Splitter, Pastors, People, Politics, 19; Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 47f. “Johann Dietrich Heinzelmann, one of Mühlenberg’s vicars, married into the Weiser family three years after his arrival in 1751; he died in 1756. Johann Helferich Schaum, who had come in 1747, married into the well-off Pickele family of Raritan, but his wife soon died. Justus Heinrich Christian Helmuth, a man of driving ambition and much talent who would succeed Mühlenberg as head of the Lutheran ministerium in the 1780s, married one of the Keppele daughters fourteen months after arriving in 1769. This marriage in particular ensured that the second generation of Halle clergy had a continued link to the tight web of Pennsylvania German and Dutch trading interests.” Wilson, Pious traders, 134. Müller-Bahlke, “Communication,” 149. “Trade in books and medicines and the resulting network of transatlantic correspondence was an indispensable medium through which the Halle Pietists transmitted financial support to their North American diaspora and reinforced its evangelical mission.” Wilson, “Second Generation,” 255. Francke and Ziegenhagen “held central positions in the ecclesiastical domain[;] they cared for

The Lutheran Context

57

1.3 Pious Trade in Halle Medicines I (before 1770) During the 1760s, Halle’s main focus in its North American trade gradually shifted from Ebenezer, Georgia, to Pennsylvania, where Mühlenberg and the ministerium worked hard to replicate not only Halle’s institutions and infrastructure, but also set up an equivalent internal communication system through which news, letters, medicines, books and materials circulated freely.77 This system not only enhanced domestic demand, as Halle products became available to an ever-growing number of potential consumers in Lutheran congregations, but also allowed the Orphanage agents to find access to local trade networks and even nourished inter-confessional trade, especially in medicines.78 It is difficult to pin down the exact number of Lutherans in the Pennsylvania field upon Henry Mühlenberg’s arrival in 1770. In 1773, Mühlenberg wrote to his Vetter Bense at Einbeck that among this raw lot, God has also hid His own here and there, whose solace will be His word. There are 26 regularly ordained Lutheran pastors in this country, and especially Philadelphia has a strong and thriving community, with many that let their light shine!79 Glatfelter’s catalogue of Lutheran pastors lists a total of 63 regularly ordained Lutheran pastors,80 with whom Mühlenberg could legimitately have communicated,

77

78 79

80

a network of mission projects around the world [and] they felt themselves responsible for each field of missionary labor.” Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 49. This complies with Alexander Pyrges’ periodization of the Ebenezer network, which basically ceased to exist during the 1770s. Pyrges, “Ebenezer Network,” 66; See also Wilson, “Second Generation,” 233. By 1720, the Halle Orphanage had an equal system at their disposal, which connected both distributors and consumers of medicines and books in Germany, central Europe and Russia and England. The same channels were used to purchase basic materials for the medical recipes, most of which had been composed by Christian Friedrich Richter (1676– 1711), his brother Christian Sigismund Richter (1676–1739) and later by David Samuel Madai (1709–1780). Wilson, Pious Traders, 69f., 78, 87, 92. Wilson, Pious Traders, 4, 155. Unter dieses rohen u[nd] wilden Haufens hat auch Gott hie u[nd] da die Seinigen verborgen, deren Trost sein Wort ist, wie deren auch 26 rechtmässige lutherische Prediger in hiesigen Lande seyn u[nd] insbesondere in Philadelphia eine grosse u[nd] stark blühende Gemeine ist, davon viele ihr Licht leuchten lassen. To Vetter Bense, 04/03/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. These are: John George Bager (1725–1791); Peter Bentz (1791–1802); Nehemiah Bonham (1765–1846); Jacob van Buskirk (1739–1800); William Carpenter (1762–1833); John Casper Dill (1758–1824); George Frederick Ellissen (died ca. 1798); John Michael Enderlein (1726– 1800); John Frederick Ernst (1748–1805); Christian Espich (1766–1844); Jacob Frank (gave up licence around 1778); Theophilus Emanuel Frantz (ca. 1753; died after 1782); John Andrew Friderichs (ca. 1712; died after 1786); Frederick William Geissenhainer (1771–1838); John Siegfried Gerock (1724–1788); Jacob Goering (1755–1807); William Anton Graaf (1727– 1809); Philip Jacob Grotz (died ca. 1809); John Christopher Hartwick (1714–1796); Justus Henry Christian Helmuth (1745–1825); Benjamin Henkel (1765–1792); Paul Henkel (1754– 1825); Frederick William Jasinsky (died 1815); John Andrew Krug (1732–1796); John Christopher Kunze (1744–1807); John Daniel Kurtz (1764–1856); John Nicholas Kurtz (1720– 1794); John William Kurtz (1732–1799); Frederick William Lange (Long) (died ca. 1812); John Daniel Lehman (1754–1810); John Christian Leps (died after 1787); Anthony Ulrich Luetge (1754–1796); John Samuel Mau (1752; died ca. 1830); Frederick Valentine Melsheimer (1749–1814); August Frederick Meyer (1766–1832); Henry Moeller (1750–1829); Frederick Augustus Conrad Mühlenberg (1750–1801); Henry Melchior Mühlenberg (1711–1787); John

58

A Prelude

based on common professional standing. At the same time, however, the existence of contemporary interconfessional dialogue among Lutherans and Reformed clergy is a well–known fact today. Regular communication among the majority of Lutheran pastors largely took place during annual meetings of the ministerium, while personal correspondence usually remained confined to a few colleagues. Trade in medicines linked suppliers, distributors and consumers in a transatlantic business. According to Renate Wilson, about 14 % of the 250 ministers listed in Glatfelter’s work had some medical training and access to medications, and therefore took part in this exchange throughout the 18th century.81 When Henry, Frederick and Kunze returned to Pennsylvania in 1770, products from the Medikamentenexpedition had already become a household name82 both in the Old and the New World, and served Lutheran pastors as an important additional source of income to augment their often meagre ministerial stipends.83 In the 1770s, Halle’s Pennsylvania market niche gained in importance for the mother institution, as conditions and opportunities for safe investment in Europe deteriorated and the economic and spiritual development of the Foundations showed first signs of stagnation.84 The decades after August Herman Francke’s death in 1769 therefore saw a complete overhaul of Halle’s transatlantic trading channels to North America.85 Wherever Halle was active in missionary and commercial activities, trade in medicines, Bibles, books, tracts and other products relied on a system of trusted intermediaries, brokers and traders that provided for the safe and quick transportation of commodities, and the professional handling of all associated business, such as insurances, financial transactions and customs regulations.86 Surely, neither transatlantic trade itself nor this manner of organization was an original Halle

81 82

83 84 85 86

Peter Gabriel Mühlenberg (1746–1807); George Henry Pfeiffer (1747–1827); John Frederick Ries (died 1791); Frederick Augustus Rudolphus Benedictus Ritz (died 1811); Conrad Roeller (died 1795); John F. Ruthrauff (1764–1837); Frederick David Schaeffer (1760–1836); John Helferich Schaum (1721–1778); John Frederick Schmidt (1746–1812); John George Schmucker (1771–1854); John Daniel Schroeter (died after 1817); Christopher Emanuel Schultze (1740– 1809); John Schwarbach (1719–1800); Adolph Spindler (1743–1828); John Stauch (1762– 1845); John Michael Steck (1755–1830); John Casper Stoever, the younger (1707–1779); Christian Streit (1749–1812); John Lewis Voigt (1731–1802); John Frederick Weinland (1744– 1807); George Joseph Wichterman (died after 1817); John Guenther Wiegandt (Weagant) (ca. 1762–1835); Charles Frederick Wildbahn (1733–1804); John Conrad Yeager (Jaeger) (1768– 1832); John David Young (Jung). The list does neither include pastors not approved by the ministerium and Halle, like Adam Henry Meyer, Balthasar Meyer or Peter Mischler, nor pastors deemed unfit for the service on account of sickness, debts etc. like John George Butler. Glatfelter, Pastors I, passim. Wilson, Pious Traders, 122–126. Medications from the Orphanage are one of the earliest known cases of active branding to enhance brand recognition and consumer loyalty. Concoctions like Essentia dulcis came with an enclosed product sheet and a uniform packaging and design, which was also supposed to prevent brand piracy. Wilson, Pious Traders, 71. Wilson, Pious Traders, 4. Wilson, Pious Traders, 143, 156. Wilson, Pious Traders, 131. “Both domestic and foreign trade operated through associated apothecaries and commercial houses as well as private agents, university professors, Pietist clergy, and Lutheran missionaries

The Lutheran Context

59

invention,87 but the elder Francke and his successors had been particularly ingenious in implementing and sustaining a system that included both their Lutheran brethren as recipients and intermediaries, and private intermediaries, such as book traders, professional trading agents and other merchants.88 The latter usually resided in key locations, especially commercial centers like Frankfurt, Leipzig and London, or in seaports like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hamburg or Altona, all of which were located on transatlantic sailing routes.89 When regular trade with Pennsylvania started in the 1750s, Halle’s first constant North American correspondents primarily charged with financial affairs were Peter Brunnholtz90 († 1757) and John Diedrich Matthias Heintzelman91 (1726– 1756), whose responsibilities soon comprised every aspect of the commerce from trade matters in medicines and books to the stewardship of legacies and bequests.92 Their respective deaths in 1756 and 1757 left Halle temporarily devoid of able American contact persons sufficiently familiar with the routines and workings of their business. At about the same time, new conflicts in Europe flared up and soon erupted into a war, which should last seven years in Europe was well as in North America. As a consequence, transatlantic commerce came to a near halt during these years, and it was probably this first experience of a long period without any support or advice from Europe that gave the elder Mühlenberg the idea to send his sons to Halle to expose them to training, knowledge and learning which would support their cause in times of interrupted contact. Impediments caused by war and armed conflict on both sides of the Atlantic remained a central theme in the development of the Halle trade and frequently appear in Henry Mühlenberg’s correspondences with European and American contacts.93

87

88

89 90 91 92 93

in the Baltic territories, Russia, and India.” Wilson, Pious Traders, 71. See also Müller-Bahlke, “Communication,” 145. See for instance Rosalind Beiler’s essay on the transatlantic trade between Caspar Wistar and Georg Friedrich Hölzer. Beiler holds that “[l]inking the two men were trustworthy brokers, who used their own connections to carry out the partner’s transactions. Thus the particular dangers of trade between continental Europe and the British colonies directly shaped transatlantic commercial channels and required a high degree of reciprocity and trust for success.” Beiler, “Caspar Wistar,” 172. In the case of Caspar Wistar, Rosalind Beiler speaks of “a constantly changing group of agents with connections to other transatlantic networks (...). The fluid nature of the brokers carrying out his trade added a final set of risks to Wistar’s transatlantic networks.” Beiler, “Caspar Wistar,” 172. Wilson, Pious Traders, 78. Brunnholtz was the first properly ordained Lutheran minister sent by Halle after the elder Mühlenberg. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 23. Wilson, Pious Traders, 78, 141. Wilson, Pious Traders, 141. Complaints and notices about war and its costs can be found throughout the roughly 40 years of Mühlenberg’s surviving correspondences, which saw the American War of Independence, the European coalition wars in the wake of the French Revolution, the Quasi War of 1798– 1800, the Barbary War of 1801–1805, Napoleon’s Continental System and the War of 1812: In 1792, Mühlenberg wrote to Schreber: Wenn doch durch den unglücklichen Krieg in Europa unser Briefwechsel nicht unterbrochen wird! Von Holland und nach Holland gehen fast immer Schiffe und Briefe können schnell gehen. Wir haben in den hintern Gegend auch einen kleinen

60

A Prelude

In the wake of the Seven Years’ War, Halle found its transatlantic network severely eroded, and without a financial trustee on the other side of the Atlantic, trade picked up again only at a very moderate pace. On August 12, 1766, Gotthilf August Francke even informed Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg that large revenues from their North American trade were not to be expected and for that reason, no “special person” would be necessary to take care of business correspondence. In case that such a person would be needed in the future, Francke added that he considered Mühlenberg’s own son Peter no adequate choice for such a responsible position.94 Presumably, Francke wrote this in response to an earlier suggestion by Mühlenberg himself. During the following years, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg and his son-inlaw Christopher Emanuel Schultze (1740–1809), who had married his daughter Eva Elizabeth in 1765,95 took care of financial matters, e.g. the handling of John Frederick Handschuh’s bequest after his death in 1764.96 In the spring of 1769, a letter from the elder Mühlenberg to Pasche in London states that Schultze was by now fully responsible for all cases of transatlantic financial stewardship.97 Apparently, Mühlenberg was already considering ways how to relieve his burden to some degree,98 and the fact that Schultze badly needed relief also confirms Renate Wilson’s assertion that Halle’s niche in Pennsylvania’s medical and print market grew in importance around 1770.99

94

95 96 97

98

99

Krieg mit den Indiandern oder einem Theil derselben. To Schreber, 09/20/1792, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. [O]bs 2. Was den Arzney= und Bücherhandel betrifft; so ist davon nicht so viel Profit zu erwarten, daß eine besondere Person um desselben willen unterhalten werden und für die Anstalt viel übrig bleiben könte. Am wenigsten würde das eine Sache für den Sohn des H. P: Mühlenbergs seyn, zu dem man auch nach seinem bisherigen Betragen das Vertrauen nicht faßen könnte; wie denn überhaupt zu besorgen ist, daß dabey entweder hiesige Anstalten, oder die dortige Cassa nicht ohne Schaden bleiben dürfte. G. A. Francke to H. M. Mühlenberg, 08/12/1766, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz III, (letter 380). Glatfelter, Pastors I, 125. For Handschuh’s bequest, see especially H. M. Mühlenberg to F. W. Pasche, 11/07/1767, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz III, (letter 413). Dahero nahm die noch übrige 20 £ sterl. von der Arzeney, nemlich an hiesiger Curr: 30 £ und den Wechsel von 100 £ sterl. der an Curr[ency] pr[o] Qentum] 165 £ trug, und 14 £ 17 sh[illing] 4 d. [pence] aus der alten Brunnh[olz] und Handsch[uh] Bücher Cassa welche H. Pfr: Schultz in Verwaltung hat, nahm, sage ich, die 209 £ 17 sh: 4 d. Curr: und legte von dem Meinigen so viel zu, als die äuserste Noth erfoderte, und die bey gelegte Rechnung zeiget; H. M. Mühlenberg to G. A. Francke and F. M. Ziegenhagen, 04/15/1769, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 463). One of the elder Mühlenberg’s ideas was to install Helmuth at Philadelphia, whom he considered most apt to aid Schultze: H[err] Helmuth wäre meines geringen Erachtens noch der einzige Mann, der sich wegen seines lebhaften Temperaments, Stimme und übrigen Gaben für den zweyten Prediger und Seelsorger in Philadelphia schicken möchte; alsdenn wäre aber der großen Gemeine in Lancaster übel gerathen, und sie würden ihn gewiß nicht mit guten Willen loslaßen. Ich wüßte aber nicht, wie H[err] Pfarr[er] Schultz nur allein die Zeit und Kräfte erfordernde Correspondence bestreiten könnte! H. M. Mühlenberg to F. W. Pasche, 08/12/1769, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 479). Wilson, Pious Traders, 143, 156.

The Lutheran Context

61

1.4. Pious Trade in Halle Medicines II (after 1770) The deaths of Gotthilf August Francke (1769) and his successor Dr Johann Georg Knapp (1771) brought Gottlieb Anastasius Freylinghausen (1719–1785) to the chief position of the Foundations. With him, Halle’s perspective on its Pennsylvania daughter churches changed from an intimate collaboration100 to a much cooler form of assistance in administrative issues, ushering in an emancipation process that ultimately led to a gradual demise of their transatlantic relations.101 This began with a major donation of 13,000 Guilders by Willhelm Carl Ludwig Graf von Solms-Rödelheim (1699–1778), which created the necessity to give the financial side of the Halle trade much stricter regimentation than before. Mühlenberg was first informed about the donation by Knapp in October 1769.102 In response to these news, he immediatetely suggested to Knapp and Ziegenhagen that a written Declaration of Trust has to be brought forward to determine the purpose or to which ends the donation will be bequeathed or passed on, and what the interest shall be used for (…) furthermore, the Salvo Titulo Directorium shall here in Pennsylvania, and most fittingly in Philadelphia, for handling the correspondence, find two agents or commissioners or attorneys. These must be members of the united Ministerio and shall be invested with a written power of attorney on how to act and what to do and to refrain from in the name of the Directorii. This power of attorney to the local agents must only be valid for a certain time and confined to ‘during pleasure of the Directorium,’ so that the Directorium may install and remove the local agents as they see fit, so as to firmly hold the reins.103 Mühlenberg’s original plan had envisioned a board of four mandatarii (commissioners), including himself, John Lewis

100 Both with Francke and Knapp, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg had entertained close, in Francke’s case even friendly ties. Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 2–4. 101 Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 5–6. 102 Wohlehrwürdiger, In Christo herzlich geliebter Bruder, Mit Beziehung auf das beygehende allgemeine Schreiben berichte hierdurch, als die wichtige Probe des Göttlichen Beystandes in Absicht auf die Pensilvanische Gemeinen, darauf ich in jenem gezielet, daß der regierende Herr Graf von Solms=Rödelheim durch den alten H. Superint. Meier in Nördlingen melden lassen, wie er willens sey, 13 000. Gulden, welche er den Pensilvan. Gemeinen im Testamente zugedacht, noch bey seinem Leben aus zu zahlen. J. G. Knapp to H. M. Mühlenberg, 10/02/1769, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 482). For more on the Solms-Rödelsheim Legat, see letters 488 and 489 in the same volume. 103 (…) eine schrifftliche Declaration of Trust zu geben und zu bestimmen für welchen Zweck, oder wozu das Legat legirt oder vermacht, und wo zu die Interessen angewand werden sollen (…) [und] [d]as gantze S[alvo] T[itulo] Directorium geruhete hier in Pennsylvania und wol am schicklichsten in Philadelphia wegen der Correspond: 2 Agenten, oder Commissarien, oder Attorneys zu wählen, und zwar vom Vereinigten Ministerio, und ihnen eine schrifftliche Vollmacht, power of Attorney zu geben, was, und wie sie im Namen des Directorii agiren, thun und laßen sollen. Die Vollmacht an die hiesige Agenten muß aber nur auf gewiße Zeit bestimmet auf during Pleasure of the Directorium eingeschrencket werden, damit das Directorium die hiesigen Agenten nach Befinden und Belieben ab= und ansetzen könne, und das Hefft in der Hand behalte. H. M. Mühlenberg to J. G. Knapp und F. M. Ziegenhagen, 06/08/1770, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 577).

62

A Prelude

Voigt (1731–1802), Kunze and Helmuth.104 When Halle finally agreed to invest only him with a power of attorney,105 Mühlenberg first accepted, but never ceased to repeat his earlier wish for more mandatarii. Apart from his two sons-in-law Schultze and Kunze, it was now Helmuth whom Mühlenberg recommended most persistently for this position. While Schultze and Kunze qualified on the grounds of their marriages to Mühlenberg’s daughters,106 Helmuth had married into the wealthy Keppele family, whose trade connections to Europe,107 primarily in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, turned out to be crucial reinforcements of the Halle network.108 Mühlenberg was well aware of that.109 Additionally, the Keppeles maintained strong ties to the Mühlenbergs, as the family patriarch Johann Heinrich Keppele was the godfather to Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s firstborn son Johann Peter Gabriel, and also the sponsor of Henry’s sojourn at Halle.110 Keppele soon conducted all business with Halle through his son-in-law Helmuth and his own son Henry, who had received his professional training in trade in London in the 1760s.111 Despite Helmuth’s ideal posi104 H. M. Mühlenberg to F. W. Pasche, 02/18/1772, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 482). 105 The original power of attorney was issued by the principal of the Orphanage Knapp and confirmed by his successor Freylinghausen in January of 1772. H. M. Mühlenberg to F. W. Pasche, 02/18/1772, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 482, n8). 106 Schultze was married to Eva Elizabeth Mühlenberg on September 23, 1766. Kunze was married to Margaretta Henrietta on July 23, 1771. Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 16f.; Glatfelter, Pastors I, 74. 107 As Renate Wilson has observed, “Keppele and his family have not yet found an American biographer, and his trading interests are less familiar to the colonial historian than is his role as a trustee of Saint Michael’s in Philadelphia and his support of the German society.” Wilson, Pious Traders, 147n. 108 Wilson, Pious Traders, 143. 109 To Pasche, he explained in February 1772: Noch folgende Anmerckungen: 1) Die Ursach warum den Hn. Helmuth zum Mit-Attorney wünschte, enthält folgende Gründe: Er ist hoffentlich ein guter Freund von unsern hochw. Vätern, Freunden, und Gönnern in Halle und London, geschickt zur Correspond[ence], ist so zu sagen ansäßig wegen der Familien Connexion etc. 2) H. Schultze, der nun schon einmahl vom wohl-seligen Hn. Director Knapp zum Mit-Attorney bestimmt, ist sparsam, geschickt in Rechnung zu führen, und hat auch etwas Connexion wegen meiner Familie, dürfte es auch wohl empfindlich nehmen, wenn ihm das MandatarienAmt wieder entnommen, und er supersedirt würde. 3) H. Kuntze lernet auch nach und nach die Rechenkunst und das benöthigte Englisch verstehen, ist in Loco, und wird correspondiren, wenn er stat meiner einen stärckern Mitarbeiter und mehr Zeit kriegt. Diese 4 Mandatarien wären wohl unmaßgeblich nicht zu viel, zumahl ich bald abgehe. H. M. Mühlenberg to F. W. Pasche, 02/18/1772, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 482). 110 Richards also claims that his second name came from Keppele. Muhlenberg-Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 148. In a letter to Kunze, H. M. Mühlenberg called Keppele his “old venerable friend.” Mein Costa [lat. Rippe = Ehefrau] hatte mich verrathen und ohne meinen Willen bei einem alten venerablen Freunde [Johann Heinrich Keppele] eine Frage gethan. H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, 11/26/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 772). See also Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 95f. 111 Wilson, Pious Traders, 147n. Helmuth was also active in the distribution of Halle books and medicines and later made use of his business contacts to support his own son’s commercial ambitions. Roeber, “Helmuth,” 86.

The Lutheran Context

63

tion and although Mühlenberg supported him until war broke out in April 1775,112 Halle never agreed to issue another power of attorney. Although Helmuth seems to have largely controlled the distribution of Halle medicine in the early 1770s,113 it was only after the war that Helmuth and his lifelong friend Johann Friedrich Schmidt finally attained the position as official commissioners.114 1.5. Halle’s Private Intermediaries With regard to private intermediaries in Halle’s network, two pivotal European agents appear throughout in Mühlenberg’s correspondence from 1783 to 1815. At Frankfurt, the firm of Johann Jacob Carl, who was later joined by Johann C. Hermann to form Carl & Hermann, and the Altona-based van der Smissen & Sons company, a family enterprise of Brabant Mennonites, who had emigrated to Altona during the early 18th century,115 connected the Orphanage with Dutch and German seaports where goods were finally prepared for customs controls, insurance and further transport. Hinrich II van der Smissen’s (1704–1789) freight shipping company, which he ran together with his nephew Jakob Gysbert (1746–1829) and his son Hinrich Gilbert III (1742–1814),116 started its services for Halle during the winter of 1764, 112 One of the last times that Mühlenberg pushed Helmuth’s cause before communication came to a near stop during the War of Independence was in a letter to Pasche, 03/29/1775, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 656): Allenfalls möchte es auch dienlich seyn, wenn Hochwürdige Herrn Directores und Trustees für gut erachten und geruhen wolten, den unpartheyischen, verständigen und treuen Mitbruder H. P. Helmuth zum Mit-Mandatario oder Attorney zu Constituiren, weil er Einsicht und Geschicklichkeit in solchen Sachen hat, und auch ein getreues Herz gegen Hochwürdige Väter in Halle und Kensington hat. Andere die gar nichts im Vermögen haben, und keine Oeconomi sind, wolte ichs nicht anvertrauet wünschen. Es ist ja wol nicht nöthig, daß die Mandatarii just alle in Philadelphia wohnen müßten. 113 Well into the War of Independence, H. M. Mühlenberg refers to himself as well as the mandatarius of Halle and keeps abreast of financial flows and shipping opportunities. See, for instance, H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, 24/11/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 718). 114 “H. M. Mühlenberg in Pennsylvania and the new codirectors in Halle seem to have agreed to let some of the Halle trade be handled through another enterprising minister, J. H. C. Helmuth, who used local merchants, including his father-in-law J. H. (Henry) Keppele, as his network of distribution.” Wilson, Pious Traders, 143. 115 “Smissen, van der. Aus Brabant stammende Mennonitenfamilie. Nach der Emigration zunächst in Friedrichstadt, dann in Glückstadt ansässig, beide Städte seinerzeit neu gegründet. 1682 siedelte Gysbert II van der Smissen nach Altona über. (…) Die Söhne Hinrichs waren Hinrich II van der Smissen (gestorben 1789) und Gysbert III van der Smissen (gestorben 1793). Der erstere, dreimal vermählt, war ein strenger und ernster Kaufmann. (…).” Würzer, Spazziergänger, 199. See also Münte, Van der Smissen, 1f. 116 Jakob Gysbert was Hinrich’s younger brother Gysbert III van der Smissen’s (1717–1793) son. Both Jakob Gysbert and Gilbert were made full associates in 1781. Münte, Van der Smissen, 13–17. Hinrich van der Smissen’s second son, Herman van der Smissen (1787–1814), apparently worked as a physician at Hamburg. Franckesche Stiftungen, Grüne Kartei (see online references in bibliography).

64

A Prelude

when Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg received a packet from Jakob Gysbert which he was supposed to forward to Boltzius at Ebenezer. Both to the elder Mühlenberg and Boltzius, van der Smissen was a complete stranger at the time,117 although Jakob Gysbert had stood in long correspondence with Moravians in Germany and abroad, and entertained international correspondence with learned men, philosophers and politicians.118 The van der Smissens were at the peak of their commercial success at the time,119 and Jakob Gysbert’s initiative in 1764 was probably a clever maneuver to capitalize on the communication vaccuum left by the preceding seven years of warfare. Their name is not mentioned again until 1770, however, when Jakob Gysbert was involved in the travel preparations for the two Mühlenberg brothers and Kunze from Halle to Pennsylvania.120 At latest in 1773, a steady partnership seems to have evolved, as Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg reported to Freylinghausen und Ziegenhagen that the old fried Myn Heere van der Smissen has promised to ship the goods to England.121 The bulk of the van der Smissen business correspondence, however, falls into the last two decades of the 18th century. For Jakob Gysbert, who was primarily charged with the responsibility for the contacts with Halle during that period, 34 letters122 from his own hand and five letters addressed to him have survived at the Halle Missionsarchiv.123 The local computer 117 Mitwochs den 14 Nov:. . . Besagter Herr Stoy brachte mir einen erbaulich = angenehmen Brief mit, von einem mir sonst unbekant gewesenen Herrn Jacob Gysber van d[er] Smissen datirt Rotterdam d 28 Junii 1764. begleitet mit einem Paquet etlich erbaulicher Piecen an Sr: W. Ew: H. Pastor Boltzius zu befördern nach Eben Ezer. Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to G. A. Francke and F. M. Ziegenhagen, 11/12/1764, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz III, (letter 312, note 50). Boltzius answers Mühlenberg with regard to this letter in a later letter: Den langen gar erbaulichen Brief von dem mir gantz unbekanten Herrn Jakob Gysbert van der Smissen (dessen Amt oder äuserl. Umstände ich gern wissen möchte) gedencke ich Gfeliebts] G[ott] heute oder morgen zu beantworten und den Brief über London an ihn zu addressiren. J. M. Boltzius to Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, 01/29/1765, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz III, (letter 319). 118 Münte, Van der Smissen, 19. 119 This lasted rouhly from 1740 to 1800. Münte, Van der Smissen, 89. 120 On April 24, 1770, Jakob Gysbert van der Smissen wrote to Fabricius in answer of an earlier letter, wherein Fabricus had informed him that Kunze would go to join the mission efforts at Pennsylvania. Jacob Gysbert van der Smissen to Fabricius, 04/24/1770, AFSt/M 4 A 8 : 19. In the following letter, van der Smissen acknowledged to Fabricus details of their temporary accommodation at Altona in June of 1770, before Kunze, Henry and Frederick Mühlenberg proceeded to London and Pasche at Kensinton. Apparently, van der Smissen was also expecting to meet them. Jacob Gysbert van der Smissen to Fabricius, 05/16/1770, AFSt/M 4 A 8 : 17. 121 [D]er alte Freund Myn Heere van der Smissen versprochen [hat], die Waare nach Engelland zu befördern. H. M. Mühlenberg to G. A. Freylinghausen und F. M. Ziegenhagen, 03/01/1773, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 603). 122 Most of the van der Smissen correspondence stored at Halle, however, consists of invoices, signed trade agreements and shipping lists. Franckesche Stiftungen, Grüne Kartei (see online references in bibliography). 123 Out of these 39 letters, two were written in the early 1770s, 17 were written during the 1780s, eleven during the 1790s, and eight after 1800. One letter is undated. The letters between the early 1770s and the 1780s seem to be lost. In the 80s, the names Fabricius and Stoppelberg appear as van der Smissen’s main correspondents, in the 90s and after 1800 Stoppelberg and Nebe. Franckesche Stiftungen, Grüne Kartei.

The Lutheran Context

65

database lists Mühlenberg’s correspondents Fabricius, Stoppelberg and Joseph Friedrich Nebe (1737–1812) as the main recipients of these letters, which is further proof that the van der Smissen & Sons company’s focus in their business with Halle was put indeed on the trade with North America. Jakob Gysbert had been apprenticed at the “Kontor Heering” in Rotterdam between 1759–1764,124 where he might have established contact with the local branch of the Keppele family, as most subsequent Pennsylvania shipments via Altona were forwarded to or by Carl Heinrich Keppele at Amsterdam.125 In 1764, Jakob Gysbert returned to his native Altona and became a full business associate of his father in 1781.126 From Hinrich Gilbert III. van der Smissen there are 17 letters at the Halle Missionsarchiv, all of which date from the 1780s and 1790s, except for one from 1815.127 After the turn of the century, a series of personal tragedies and unfortunate political circumstances ushered in the fall of the house of van der Smissen. The blockade of the river Elbe in 1803, Napoleon’s Continental System and the seizure of some of their ships by the British Navy in 1807 were merely the prelude to a disastrous stroke, which Jakob Gysbert suffered in 1808 and from which he never fully recovered. During this critical period, the third generation and Jakob’s cousin Gilbert took over business matters. From 1811 to 1815, Gilbert stood in correspondence with Georg Christian Knapp at the Orphanage.128 The van der Smissen biographer Heinz Münte has pointed out that the third generation never matched their fathers’ and grandfathers’ organizational adroitness and cleverness. Their major failure, Münte continues, was to ignore the necessity to extend their business operations from pure shipping services to trade in goods and commodities, which ultimately led to the company’s demise and liquidation in 1824.129 In any case, during the second half of the 18th century and the first two decades of the 19th century, the van der Smissens at Altona clearly appear as Halle’s single most important independent North American intermediary. 124 Franckesche Stiftungen, Grüne Kartei (see online references in bibliography). According to Münte, the van der Smissens’ main operational areas were Germany, Holland, England, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy and North America. At London, contracted partners took care of their local business. At Amsterdam, the houses of Hendrik van Hecht (1780), Breitenfeld & Gregori (1790) Hope & Co (1800) appear as their main contacts. Münte, Van der Smissen, 91f. 125 Die Fracht bis Altona, die Assecuranz bis Amsterdam und die Altonaer Spesen werden von den H[erren] v[an] d[er] Smissen mir angerechnet, und von hier aus vergütet. (…) Die Fracht von Altona bis Amsterdam, und die Assecuranz von dort nach Philadelphia wird H[err] Keppele besorgen und Ihnen anrechnen. (…) 3. Kisten Bücher No 1 à 3. von Ihnen empfangen und auf dero Ordre an Herrn Carl Heinrich Keppele in Amsterdam abgeladen in das Schiff: de 4. Gebroeders Schiffer Steffen Agger Ackermann (…). From Fabricius, 01/20/1784, APS Film 1097. See also Wilson, Pious Traders, 147 and Fabricius to Helmuth, 12/24/1784, AFSt/M C 20 : 31. 126 Franckesche Stiftungen, Grüne Kartei (see online references in bibliography). 127 Out of these 17 letters, Heinrich van der Smissen wrote six during the 1780s to Fabricius, Johann Ludwig Schultze, Stoppelberg and Georg Christian Knapp, nine during the 1790s primarily to Stoppelberg, and only one in 1815. There is one letter with him as adressee from 1795. Franckesche Stiftungen, Grüne Kartei. 128 Münte, Van der Smissen, 107. 129 Trade in dry goods or exotic fruits always remained a purely private enterprise throughout the company’s existence from 1682 to 1824. Münte, Van der Smissen, 90, 115.

66

A Prelude

At Frankfurt, the Orphanage Factor and booktrader130 Johann Jacob Carl (no data available) emerged as Mühlenberg’s and Halle’s second most important contact in the late 1770s. While business with the van der Smissen company was restricted to the forwarding of mail and packages, and direct contact with them was very rare,131 Carl was decidedly more active in North American affairs and corresponded regularly with Henry Mühlenberg, his father Heinrich Melchior and Johann Christoph Kunze.132 The earliest sign of Carl’s affiliation with Halle can be found for 1774,133 although he does not appear on a regular basis until three years later. In 1777, Freylinghausen handled a bequest to the Orphanage from a Herr Brenner in Basel through the mediation of Carl, who had taken care of the money flow from there to Halle.134 One year later, Johann Christoph Kunze wrote to his father-in-law Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, that he had shipped all that was here to Franckfurt to the Factor of the Halle Orphanage (Johann Jakob Carl).135 After this date, Carl appears more and more frequently in Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s letters until 1785, although he was particularly active in Halle’s North American trade in the wake of the War of Independence, from 1783 to 1785.136 Transatlantic letters to 130 In 1784, Mühlenberg writes to Carl under the address: A Monsieur Jean Jacob Carl, Marchand des Livres a Frankfurt sur la Mayn. Avec une Caiße. H. M. Mühlenberg to Carl, 05/28/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 948). 131 There are only occasional references to letters received or sent by the Van der Smissens. In 1783, Johann Christopher Kunze wrote to his father in law Mühlenberg: Aber, Gottlob, es setzet sich mancher wakerer Mann mit Ernst wieder diese Teufels=Erfindungen und Herr [Jacob Gysbert] Van der Smissen von Altona schreibt mir, daß es mehr lebendige Knechte Gottes als jemals gibt. Von diesem letztern lege hier ein Schrei[ben] bei, das Sie ohne Zweifel bei einer müßigen Stunde mit Vergnügen durch lesen werden. Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 12/05/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 921). 132 These three appear as Carl’s correspondents in Aland’s edition of the Mühlenberg letters. 133 The biographical register at the Orphanage simply states: “Johann Jakob Carl; Juniorfaktor des Waisenhauses; 1774 Frankfurt am Main.” Franckesche Stiftungen, Grüne Kartei (see online references in bibliography). 134 G. A. Freylinghausen to Carl, 06/17/1777, AFSt/M 3 A 4 : 36. 135 [A]lles, was hier war, gesandt und nach Franckfurt an den Factor des Hallischen Waisenhauses (Johann Jakob Carl) addressirt. Kunze to Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, 11/30/1778, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 719). “Der Factor war Johann Jacob Carl, Buchhändler des Halleschen Waisenhauses und Postverwalter in Frankfurt am Main; war für Mühlenbergs Sendungen immer die erste Anlaufstelle; leitete dann die Post nach Halle weiter,” Kunze to Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, 11/30/1778, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 719, n3). 136 Carl appears in Aland’s edition of H. M. Mühlenberg’s letters in: Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to G. A. Freylinghausen and J. L. Schultze, 10/21/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 767); H. M. Mühlenberg to G. A. Freylinghausen and J. L. Schultze, 11/27 and 12/25/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 773); H. M. Mühlenberg to G. A. Freylinghausen, 09/06/1780, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 798); H. M. Mühlenberg to Johann August Urlsperger, G. A. Freylinghausen und Friedrich Wilhelm Pasche, 07/04/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 902); H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, 10/07/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 913); H. M. Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 05/29/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 949); From H. M. Mühlenberg, 07/29/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 961); H. M. Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 02/10/1785, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 981); Fabricius to H. M. Mühlenberg,

The Lutheran Context

67

Frankfurt were usually carried by Neuländer or other travelers, whose itinerary included Frankfurt on the Main.137 In contrast to the van der Smissens, Carl apparently used his North American correspondents to combine his duties as Faktor to Halle with his own private transatlantic trading interests. In his letters, he thanked Henry repeatedly for the collection of moneys owed to him by his own business contacts in the Lancaster area, although the letters do not reveal details on the nature of these activities.138 In return, Carl offered his services not only in financial transactions such as payments to Halle, bequests and legacies,139 which was part of his role as Orphanage Faktor, but also acted as Mühlenberg’s “postbox” for some of his later contacts with botanists and scientists. In September 1792, Carl acknowledged to Mühlenberg that I have immediately submitted the letters and packages. Professor Hoffmann is now in Goettingen. The continuation for you and Professor Haendel will follow with the new orders next spring. We would certainly appreciate more of your orders and business until then.140 Thus, Mühlenberg and Carl used their mutual contacts, which had resulted

137

138

139

140

03/19/1785, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 988); H. M. Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 05/28/1785, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 997). See, for instance, the cases of the Neuländer Merkle and Simon Keppeler. Your former letters with the invoices were already packed up in my box, which could not easily be opened again. So your two letters together with my journal go with Paul Merkle to Franckfurt in the box addressed to M[aste]r [Johann Jacob] Carl for shipment to M[aste]r Fabr[ius] in Halle. To Mühlenberg, 07/29/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 961). For Keppeler see H. M. Mühlenberg to Johann August Urlsperger, G. A. Freylinghausen und Friedrich Wilhelm Pasche, 07/04/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 902). Für die gütige (…) Eintreibung der Forderung bei Mr Schaffner bin ich sehr verbunden, und bin auch mit den 40 [Laub?]Thalern die Sie erhalten haben zufriende, ob sie gleich nach hiesigem Geld nur 96 Gulden machen. Was der Advocat noch weiter bekommen kann gönne ich ihm gerne, es wäre auch billig gewesen daß Mr. Schaffner mehr bezahlt hätte, da er mir die 100 Gulden schon über 12 Jahr schuldig ist. From Carl, 08/26/1786, APS Film 1097. Six years later Carl wrote again: Für die gütige Eincaßierung der Gelder danken wir verbindlichst und verlangen von Herrn Lahn keine Interessen. (…). From Carl, 10/09/1792, APS Film 1097. The name Shaffner probably refers to one of the three Caspar Shaffners. See Häberlein, Pluralism, 24n, 25, 27, 29–31, 49, 47–48, 210–211. N.S. da ich weiß daß H[err] Carl in Frankfurt Factor des hallischen Waisenhauses ist oder war so bitte ich gehorsamst beikommende Rechnung wo möglich mit ihm zu berichtigen. Ich habe sehr viele Bücher von ihm empfangen und bezahlt, hatte auch 1791 neue verschrieb, die er aber nie geschickt weil sie schon bezahlt waren. Ich habe seitdem die verlangt Bücher anderswo her bekomen und finde mich genöthigt das rückständig Geld zu fordern. Er hat auch, wie er mir ehemals meldete, Geld von einer Vollmacht von einem names Musg eingenommen das an mich solte bezahlt werden, auch von diesem habe ich nichts gesehen. Es wäre mit ungemein lieb wenn alles ans Waisenhaus für mich bezahlt würde. Verzeihen sie mir die Mühe, die ich Ihnen dadurch verursache. From Herman, 06/24/1787, APS Film 1097; From Carl, 10/09/1792, APS Film 1097; To Stoppelberg, 12/22/1794, AFSt/M 4 D 3 : 25. On the Musg legacy, see also the letters from Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg, 07/21/1795, APS Film 1097; To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4; From Nebe, 02/27/1801, AFSt/M 4 D 5. [D]ie Briefe und Packete habe [ich] sogleich richtig bestellt H[err] Prof[essor] Hoffmann ist jetzt in Goettingen. Die Continuation für Sie und Herrn Prof[essor] Haendel folgen nebst den neuen Bestellungen nächstes Frühjahr. Solten Sie biß dahin mehrere Bestellungen machen wol-

68

A Prelude

from their affiliations with the Orphanage, to conduct private business based on mutual favors and obligations. This “double trade,” which ran parallel to official trade with Halle – and probably remained unknown to Fabricius and the Orphanage staff – had already been in place during the time of Mühlenberg’s father Heinrich Melchior. A letter to Carl, whom the former had asked to forward a box with manuscripts and oeconomischen Journalen to Halle, shows this clearly: If I or any of my children may do you a favor in return, I would appreciate it.141 During the first half of the 1780s, Carl took a partner for his business, the book trader Johann Christian (or: Christoph) Hermann (no data available).142 With regard to this partnership, Renate Wilson quotes from an Addendum of Fabricius, concerning a 1784 book order written in November 1784: It is becoming apparent that Mr Herman at Frankfurt, who runs a business jointly with Mr Carl, seeks to get the book trade with America in his hands, and who has inserted an advertisement to this end in the newspapers. One may wish that we, on our side, may also let it be known through the papers that the book trade of the Halle Orphanage is also ready to serve bibliophiles not only with its own publishing house, but also with all the books printed in Germany and Holland in various languages and on diverse sciences at the lowest rates and as advantageous as just any other bookstore… The same advertisement shall be repeated after some time and may also be inserted in other newspapers, such as the New York Paper.143 How determined Hermann’s attempt to enter the lucrative book trade really was, is illustrated by a letter from his hand to Henry Mühlenberg in 1788, wherein he asked him for a favor in return for help in handling several legacies and private financial transactions during the preceding years. I do not take any money for it, Hermann let Mühlenberg know, as we would prefer special trade privileges if the United States could grant us those. This could consist in a partial exemption from import customs on our books. This would not only be beneficial for us, but also for all German erudites and bibliophiles over there. This is only an ephemeral idea of ours, but we do believe it may be realized. You have the best opportunity for this endeavor, as we can see from the newest power of attorneys that your brother has become the Vice President. I would like to len, würde es uns sehr angenehm seyn (…). From Carl, 10/09/1792, APS Film 1097. Georg Franz Hoffmann (1761–1821) and Johann Willhelm Hendel (1740–1798). 141 Könten ich oder meine Kinder einigen Gegendienst erweisen, solte mirs sehr lieb seyn. H. M. Mühlenberg to Carl, 05/28/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 948). 142 Biographical or personal information on Herman is very limited. In 1788, he signed a letter to Mühlenberg with Joh. Chr. Herman – hence the name. From Herman, 07/23/1788, APS Film 1097. 143 Da man bemerkt, dass Herr Herman zu Frankfurt, welcher mit unserem Faktor Herrn Carl in Compagnie stehet, den Buchhandel nach America an sich zu ziehen gesucht, und deswegen ein avertissement in die Zeitungen einrücken lassen, so wünschte man, dass auch unsererseits in den Zeitungen bekannt gemacht werde, dass die Buchhandlung des halleschen Waisenhauses nicht nur mit ihrem eigenen Verlage sondern auch mit allen in Deutschland und Holland in allerley Sprachen und Wissenschaften gedruckten Büchern um die billigsten Preyse und so vorteilhaft als irgend eine Buchhandlung den Liebhabern zu dienen bereit sey…Welchselbes avertissement denn auch nach einiger Zeit wiederholt und auch in andere als etwa die Neuyorker Zeitung einzurücken wäre. Wilson, “Second Generation,” 251.

The Lutheran Context

69

know his thoughts on this subject. However, books are completely tax free in most countries anyway, even in the Prussian ones, where the regular custom dues on all other commodities tends to be very high, and this mine request, which shall only have effect for our business alone, will hardly have any impact on the American custom tax revenues.144 This example also illustrates how mutual favors and obligations that arose from the “double trade” could be used to secure trade privileges or to avoid tariff regulations and customs controls.145 From 1784 to 1803,146 Hermann and Carl were mostly referred to as partners, and as Hermann was also in touch with Schreber and Schöpf,147 the few sources referring to them suggest that their partnership might best be interpreted as a strategic alliance to combine resources in their North American book trade. Another pillar of their joint business consisted in the handling of bequests and legacies, which they transferred to the United States, often against great resistance by German authorities.148 With regard to the division of 144 Geld dafür verlange ich nicht sondern eine besondere Handlungs Vergünstigung wäre uns lieber wenn die Amerikanischen Staaten uns damit begnadigten. Dieser könnte darin bestehen, daß alle Bücher die wir hinein sendeten Zollfrey wo nicht ganz doch guten Theils eingingen. Dis wäre nicht nur Nutzen für uns sondern auch für jeden deutschen Gelehrten u[nd] andere Bücher Liebhaber dort. Von uns ist dis nur ein flüchtiger Einfall, doch glauben daß er realisirt werden könnte. Sie haben die beste Gelegenheit dazu, da wie wir aus den neuesten Vollmachten ersehen Ihr Herr Bruder Vice Präsident ist. Ich wünschte sehr zu erfahren was derselbe darüber dächte. Bücher sind ja ohnehin in den meisten Staaten ganz frey, sogar in den preußischen wo doch sonst der Zoll auf andere Waar sehr hoch ist, u[nd] dieses meine Gesuch, welches sich auch nur auf uns allein erstrecken soll, sehr weniges Einfluß auf die Amerikanische Zolleinnahmen haben kann. From Herman, 07/23/1788, APS Film 1097. In the same letter, Herman also asked Mühlenberg for a recommendation to find new trading partners: Können Sie mir in Philadelphia ein gutes deutsches Handelshaus dem ich künftig meine kleinen Comissionen übertragen kann zuweisen so verbinden Sie sich mir sehr, ich bin oft in Verlegenheit darüber. 145 Wilson, Pious Traders, 89. 146 Ich hatte mir schon voriges Jahr im November die Freiheit genommen an Sie zu schreiben, Ihren lieben Brief zu agnosciren und einen neuen Bücher und Arzenei Zettel Ihrer gütigen Vorsorge anzuempfehlen. Er ging durch Frankfurt und war an die Herrn Carl und Herman addreßirt. Ich habe noch keine Antwort bekommen höre aber duch H[er]rn D. Helmut daß Bücher und Arzeneien unterwegens sein. To Fabricius, 11/24/1786, AFSt/M 4 D 20. In October 1792, Carl writes: Da mein Associe Herr Herman verreiset ist, so will ich dero (…) vom 23. may h[uius] a[nno] nur kurz zu beantworten, weil sich die Gelegenheit mir dazu erbietet. From Carl, 10/09/1792, APS Film 1097. Their joint business was last mentioned in 1803 in a letter from Mühlenberg to Nebe: Mein letzter Brief an Sie enthielt auch eine Order an Hrn Carl und Herman in Frankfurt die von ihnen anerkante Schuld von 1273 tl. 18 kr. an Sie für mich zu bezahlen. To Nebe, 07/21/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. Johann C. Herman does not appear at all in Aland’s edition of H. M. Mühlenberg’s letters. 147 Herman is Schreber’s and Schöpf’s intermediary of choice during the second half of the 1780s: Ihr Frankfurter Correspondent H[err] Herman wird uns immer der sicherste Man bleiben, um Ihnen etwas schickken zu können, und dieses soll fleißig geschehen. From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. Five months later, Schöpf confirmed: H[err] Herman besorgt ihre Briefe von Frankfurt aus ruhig an uns; und dieser wird auch wohl der sicherste Mittelsmann für unser Corresp[ondenz] bleiben, da wir selbten zu weit von und zu wenig in Verbindung mit Seestädten sind. Beßerer Ordnung halber, fange ich an Ihre Briefe teilweise zu beantworten. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. 148 Financial risks in the business with legacies was very high, as it demanded high initial invest-

70

A Prelude

labor between the two men in their business, very little can be said.149 After 1803, neither Hermann nor Carl were mentioned anymore in Mühlenberg’s letters. 2. THE FAMILY CONTEXT While the overall importance of family ties has been mentioned in passing in the preceding chapter, a closer look at the immediate family surroundings of Henry Mühlenberg between 1770 to 1783, and the quality of relationships with individual family members is necessary.150 When the family was reunited in 1770, a period of relatively harmonious domestic life ensued, during which Peter Mühlenberg continued his pastorate in Virginia and his brothers Henry and Frederick took their first independent steps in the Pennsylvania field. Although this took place against the background of rising tensions between the American colonies and the mother country England, it was only when open war broke out in April 1775 that relations within the Mühlenberg family underwent great changes. Most significantly, Peter and Frederick abandoned their careers as Lutheran pastors to enter politics and the military, which left Henry with the heavy burden to remain the only son to live up to his father’s expectations. Several years after this grave disappointment for the elder Mühlenberg, another crisis strained internal family relations. Following a heavily contested election in Philadelphia’s Lutheran congregation in 1779, the friendship between Henry Mühlenberg and Johann Christopher Kunze soured, which eventually caused Henry to exchange pastorates with Helmuth at Lancaster. With ments, first-class reliable contacts, and often even failed to produce revenues, as the following excerpt from a letter of Herman to Mühlenberg makes clear: Neuerlich hat uns einer Namens Fischer Schulmeister in [?] den [Vorschlag?] gemacht, als übernehmen wir alle Vollmachten aus Amerika in Europa u[nd] setz dieses in dortige öffentliche Zeitung, dis alles ist gegen unseren Willen u[nd] Wißen geschehen. Die Folgen davon haben sich schon gezeigt, da wir aus Gegenden wo wir keine Connexion hin haben, Vollmachten bekommen haben, ob wir nun gleich gegen [?], so kann uns dies doch in [eine?] unangenehme Lage versetzen, wenn wir nemlich Unkosten auf dergleichen Vollmachten haben u[nd] am Ende nichts darauf eingeht wovon wir uns erholen können, (…). From Hermann, 07/23/1788, APS Film 1097. 149 Sporadic source passages suggest that Herman traveled more frequently than Carl, journeying back and forth between the two great German Book Fair cities of Frankfurt/Main and Leipzig. At times, Carl also took personal care of shipments to the Orphanage. Herr Herman wird Ihnen in einer Rolle 17. Carolin zugestellt haben, wovon nachstehendes errechnet wird. Carl to Fabricius, 04/17/1788, AFSt/M 3 C 9 : 39. In August of 1800, Carl wrote to Fabricius: Hochwürdiger Herr Pastor! Die durch Herrn Herman erhaltenen Österr: Coupons habe ich gleich nach Pfingsten eincassiert bin auch bei allen meinen Freunden gewesen die mir sonst zu Gefallen Anweisungen auf Leipzig geben, um wieder eine zu bekommen. Carl to Fabricius, 08/17/1800, AFSt/M 4 D 5 :74. 150 This subchapter is an attempt to extend Paul Baglyos’ and Paul Wallace’s views and narratives of the development of internal relations in the Mühlenberg family during the 1770s to early 1780s. Based on their essays, the following chapter seeks to broaden their prespectives by the inclusion of sources material unavailable to the two, and by taking into view some of the family’s in-laws, which have not seen any in-depth attention neither by Baglyos nor Wallace. See Paul Baglyos, “The Muhlenbergs Become Americans” (2005) and the “Family Chapter (xix)” in Paul Wallace’s The Muhlenbergs of Pennsylvania (1950).

The Family Context

71

his move to Pennsylvania’s second largest town in 1780, a gradual process of emancipation from his family set in, although family contacts continued to dominate in his correspondences until his father’s death in 1787.151 Due to the general scarcity of direct remarks or comments on personal relations among family members, much of the following subchapter on the inner circle of the Mühlenberg family must remain necessarily sketchy or rely on indirect evidence. 2.1 Family Life prior to the War of Independence On their way from Halle to London in 1770, Henry and Frederick had decided to pay another farewell visit to their relatives at Einbeck. One of Henry’s earliest letters, submitted to his cousin Eicke on April 3, 1773, contains an account of the current state of family affairs. Our beloved parents, he begins, are still alive thanks to God, but relatively weak and of ailing condition, as it comes with old age.152 Of all his family contacts, his father naturally came first, which reflected his multiplex role of spiritual advisor, professional colleague, business partner in the Halle trade (especially with medicines) and father to Mühlenberg and his two brothers and four sisters. Four of Anna Maria Mühlenberg (née Weiser)153 and Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s children had died in infancy, while their surviving seven children, John Peter Gabriel (1746–1807), Eva Elizabeth (1748–1808), Frederick Augustus Conrad (1750–1801), Margaretha Henriette “Peggy” (1751–1831), Gotthilf Henry Ernst (1753–1815), Maria Katharina “Polly” (1755–1812) and Maria Salome “Sally” (1766–1827) were largely raised by their mother, as Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg freely admitted in a letter written in 1783 to his son-in-law Christopher Emanuel Schultze and his daughter Eva Elisabeth: I have been in similar conditions (…) had 4 sons and 4 daughters, could only seldom be at home, and whenever so, with continuous business around me.154 This changed after Henry’s and Frederick’s ordination in 1770. 151 See table c, Appendix B, 487. 152 Unsere geliebtesten Eltern sind Gott sey dank noch am leben, aber wie es das Alter mit sich bringt ziemlichermassen schwach u[nd] kränklich. Von 11 Kindern leben noch 7, nemlich die 6 ältesten u. eines von den jüngsten. 3 Söhne u. 4 Töchter, die älteste Tochter Elisabeth ist an den lutherischen Pfarrer H. Schultzen verheirathet u. hat 2 Kinder gezeugt, davon eines von 7 Monaten noch lebt. Die andere ist auch an einen Prediger der hiesigen Gemeine H. Christoph Kunze verheirathet der mit uns die Reise aus Deutschland nach America gethan hat, die beyden jüngsten sind noch unverheirathet. To Vetter Eicke, 04/03/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. 153 The two married on April 22, 1745. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “ Mühlenberg, Henry Melchior;” Glatfelter, Pastors I, 95. 154 H. M. Mühlenberg to Christoph Emanuel und Eva Elisabeth Schultze, 04/01/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 887). Wallace points out that their father was not even present when the three boys took leave of their mother in 1763. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 58. With regard to his stillborn children, Mühlenberg mentioned only one of his dead children in a letter to the Schultzes: Johan Enoch Samuel Mühlenberg (1758–1764): Einen Knaben, Samuel, nam der Herr zu rechter Zeit in seine unmittelbare Versorgung, die übrigen 3 [Söhne] bürdete ich denen Hochw[ürdigen] Vätern und Gönnern in Europa zur Erziehung auf. H. M. Mühlenberg to Christoph Emanuel und Eva Elisabeth Schultze, 04/01/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Kor-

72

A Prelude

While Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s participation in the earliest upbringing and education of his children had been minimal, his later influence as advisor and counsellor must not be underestimated. During Henry’s itinerant ministry from 1770 to 1774, when he was supplying various New Jersey congregations, the letters exchanged between the father and his youngest son show an earnest and dedicated newcomer, more than eager to live up to his father’s example in his pastoral duties. In October 1771, Henry’s first chance to acquire pastoral experiences came when he was chosen to fill in at the New Germantown congregation for his brother Peter, who had recently accepted a call to Virginia.155 His reports back to his father resemble minute protocols of every step he took, listing sermons, personal visits, travels to remote congregations, edifying talks with neighbors and various other instances, often described in painstaking detail.156 Besides the practical motives to consult his father for professional advice, this detailed written documentation must also be seen a typical Pietist strategy of selfinspection and soul-searching, which found expression in diaries, letters and tracts.157 Very few passages in Henry Mühlenberg’s letters, however, refer to anything else than current obligations, private issues or personal thoughts.158 In direct comparison with his brother Frederick, who simultaneously gathered firsthand pastoral experiences and reported back to his father in similar diaries and letters,159 both father-son relationships carry strong professional overtones from 1770 to 1775, which indicates that the elder Mühlenberg made little distinction between his role as senior colleague and as father to his two sons. With the ex-

155 156 157 158 159

respondenz V, (letter 887). Richards, however, names only two dead infants: John Charles Mühlenberg (November 1760), Catharine Salome Mühlenberg (April 1764). Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 66. See also Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 9. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 12/04/1771, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 575). To H. M. Mühlenberg, 12/04/1771, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 575). See also letters 576 and 578 and Diarium of Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg, Januar 1774, AFSt/M 4 C 18 : 11. Müller-Bahlke, “Communcation,” 142. Paul Baglyos writes that “[m]any of the entries that follow, spanning the years 1770–1774, read as if they were lifted from the pages of his father’s own journals.” Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 53. See, for instance, the following passage from January 1772: [Den] 3 Jenner blieb ich zu Hause um zu studiren und meine eigene Geschäfte abzuwarten. [den]. 4ten Jenner gleichfals. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/06/1772, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 576). In December 1771, Frederick wrote to his father: Da ich Hoffnung habe die nächste Woche Gelegenheit nach Philad[elphia] zu bekommen, auch meine Geschäfte in etwas nachgelaßen haben, so halte mich verpflichtet Ihnen einen kurzen Auszug aus meinem Tagebuch zuzusenden. Im verfloßenen Kirchenjahr sind in meinen 3 Gemeinen etwa 130 Kinder und 2 Erwachsene getauft worden, etliche 40 sind confirmirt, und nur 9 begraben worden (…)Mittwochs d. 2.ten Dec. ritten wir 4 Meilen weiter nach Manheim, woselbst ich über Rom. 1.16 redete. Es wurde die große Kraft des Evangelii vorgestellt dabey gesehen 1. auf den Haupt Inhalt deßelben, 2. Auf die Kraft. 3. Bey wem sich diese Kraft äußere.. F. A. C. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg, 12/31/1771, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 599). See also Aland, letters 562 and 574, which describe Frederick Mühlenberg’s journey from Shaefferstown to Shomokin. For Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg reports to Halle about his 1774/75 journey to Georgia, see H. M. Mühlenberg to S. A. Fabricius, 10/24/1778, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 715).

The Family Context

73

ception of Frederick Mühlenberg’s first two letters to his parents, which reveal minute details of his journey from Shaefferstown to Shonokin, virtually no references to issues unrelated to his professional duties could be found.160 Both brothers routinely address their father as Most dearest Papa or Most tenderly loved Papa161, generally signing their individual letters by stressing their humble obedience and loyalty: I am Your most obedient son H. M. Junior and Your son Friedrich August Mühlenberg, obedient into the death.162 Despite several references to letters received from their father during the early phase of Frederick and Henry Mühlenberg’s pastorates,163 none of these letters have survived, which leaves us to speculate about his reactions to his sons’ reports. Nevertheless, during this initial phase of their pastoral careers, which had been ushered in by the sermons the two brothers had to deliver almost immediately after their arrival from Halle, their father’s authority was undisputed and it remained the single most important influence until well after war broke out in 1775.164 In Henry Mühlenberg’s case, this influence even intensified after 1774, when he was elected third pastor to Philadelphia’s congregation and became his father’s immediate colleague.

160 In 1775, Mühlenberg described to Fabricius their immediate immersion in their profession after their return, which left little time for privacy and demanded full attention to their duties: Dieser Mangel der Arbeiter ist die Ursache daß ich und mein Bruder eher von privat Studiis haben ablassen und an den öffentlichen Arbeiten teilnehmen müssen als sonst unser Wunsch war. Er stehet neu in Neu-York nicht ohne Beifall und Segen. Ich bediente eine Zeitlang die Filiale in Barrenhill, Cohenzy, Frankfurt und Pikestown und half meinem Vater in seinen wöchentlich Geschäfte, dann wurde ich Adiunctus meines Vater in Philadelphia und Raritan bis ich d. 6ten Jun. 1774 den ruf eines dritten Predigers hier völlig annahm. Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 01/05/1775, AFSt/M 4 C 17 : 26. 161 Geliebtester Papa or Zärtlich geliebtester Papa. In three letters, Frederick Mühlenberg addressed his parents by Vielgeliebte Eltern. See Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (for all, see letters 526, 626, 631). 162 Ich bin Dero gehors[amer] Sohn H. M. J[u]n[ior], respecticely: Ihr bis in d[en] Tod gehorsamster Sohn Friedrich] A[ugust] Mühlenberg.See F. A. C. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg and Anna Maria, 04/09/1774, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 626); To H. M. Mühlenberg, 02/22/1772, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 578). 163 In 1774, Frederick acknowledged to his father from New York: Ihr angenehmes Schreiben durch Miss Shaefer haben wir gestern abend erhalten. Es war uns ein Vergnügen wieder einmal von Philad. zu hören, und munterte uns zum Lobe Gottes auf da wir hörten daß Papa unter den vielen Geschäften noch erträglich] wäre. F. A. C. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg and Anna Maria, 04/09/1774, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 626). From 1770 to 1774, after which date Frederick Mühlenberg accepted his first permanent call to New York (1773–1776) while Henry Mühlenberg was elected third pastor at Philadelphia (1774– 1779), there are five letters each from both brothers to their father. See Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letters 575, 576, 578, 624, 655 for Henry and 562, 574, 599, 626, 631 for Frederick). 164 His third son Peter was already working independently of his father at the Beckford parish, Shenandoah Valley, Virginia. Before, he had also been working as his assistant at Bedminster and New Germantown. Glatfelter, Pastors I, 97; Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.”

74

A Prelude

Henry Mühlenberg’s personal relationships with his two older brothers Frederick and Peter differed greatly for several reasons. To begin with, Henry had shared much less time and common experiences at the Halle Orphanage with his oldest brother, as Peter soon had been sent to Lübeck after their arrival, to start an apprenticeship with a Lübeck-based merchant named Niemeyer.165 No letters exchanged between Peter and Henry have been preserved, and in the remaining family correspondences and Henry’s other letters there is little to indicate that they ever maintained a regular correspondence. At the same time, the two younger Mühlenberg brothers seem to have been much closer, as their father had expressly destined them for higher education at Halle, while the practical course of education chosen for Peter was due to their father’s fear that the oldest son should otherwise go wild.166 This observation fits well with Peter’s later bent for the military which showed first at Lübeck, where he voluntarily signed up with British garrison troops under a certain Captain Fiser167 and was soon dispatched to North America. Naturally, neither his father nor Francke nor Farbricius were particularly happy with his headstrong behavior.168 In a letter to Fabricius from 1766, Peter even asked the old man in a somewhat overbearing tone not to give in to “futile anger” about his decision.169 Back in Pennsylvania, his father had him discharged from the troops immediately and sent him to a private school to finish his education.170 The few instances that Henry mentions Peter from 1770 to 1775 indicate a friendly relationship171 as well as obvious differences in temper and education. Peter had continued his education with the Swedish-Lutheran Provost Carl Magnus Wrangel (1727–1786) in February 1769, and when his ancient language proficiency was still insufficient two years later, he took recourse to his brother Henry: We 165 Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 8f.; Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 52. 166 Original: ins Wilde gerathen. Quoted after Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 8f. In a letter to Ziegenhagen, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg had made the following arrangement: If the Reverend Fathers observe the slightest evidence of that kind of thing, I humbly beg you to put in some place where there are disciplined soldiers, under the name of Peter Weise, before he causes any more trouble and scandal. There he can obey the sound of the drum if he will not follow the Spirit of God. Quoted after Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 57. 167 Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 8f.; Nolan, Smith Family, 60. Genzmer contends that this was the 60th (Royal American) Regiment of Foot. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.” In Wallace, “Captain Fiser” becomes “Captain Fisker”. According to Henry A. Muhlenberg, author of the first biography on Peter Mühlenberg in 1849, Peter Mühlenberg’s first engagement with the military came in 1764. Following an insult by one of his tutors, which he answered “by a blow,” he fled from school immediately to join a regiment of dragoons. Muhlenberg, Peter Muhlenberg, 28. 168 Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 8f. 169 Original: vergeblicher Eiffer. J. P. G. Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 06/14/1766, AFSt/M 4 B 6 : 19. 170 Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 8f.; Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 70f. 171 In April of 1771, Henry acknowledges to his father that he expects to meet Peter soon, which he is looking forward to with joy: Papa werden wol mit H. Leib geredet haben, es wäre nicht rathsam daß er nun käme, ehe denn Peter zurükkomt, und wir wissen ob ich bleibe. Sollte dis geschehen, so gereicht es dem Peter zum großen Vortheil, mir zum Vergnügen und Leib zum Nutzen wenn er herüber komt, denn der Bubi den Peter hat taugt nichts ist ein Lügner, Flucher, und Verführer, so wol der Sally als der Schwarze. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 12/04/1771, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 575).

The Family Context

75

study together as much as possible, the latter wrote to his father, but find ourselves often separated by petty things. I believe that Peter would learn more in Greek, but he considers Latin more necessary and useful. In Latin, we are making some progress, only the beginning is hard. I have started with [reading] comprehension lessons, which are going well, but talking will surely be difficult, as he does not yet really know the rules and priciples.172 The relationship was similar to his brother Frederick’s relationship to Peter at the time. On March 17, 1771, Frederick documented a pleasant visit to Peter at New Germantown in his diary, which gives the only real insight into the relationship: Today I had to travel over a number of steep and stony hills with my horse, which was pretty tired. But by evening I found myself safe and sound in New Germantown, New Jersey, at John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg’s, having travelled nearly 40 miles. We spent a pleasant evening together. 18th. With my brother I visited a number of friends and old acquaintances. The visit continued until March 28, when Frederick noted that he [p] reached at Germantown, and in the afternoon took leave of my sister, Hannah. Peter accompanied me several miles (...).173 According to his first biographer Henry A. Muhlenberg, Peter finally came to terms with the prospect of a clerical career, as the diaries he kept after his decampment to Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley in late 1771 show him honestly engaged in his new duties.174 Only after his return from England in 1774, where he had been ordained a second time by a bishop of the Church of England in accordance with contemporary Virginia statutes, this began to change slowly. The Mühlenberg family correspondence of the 1770s bears witness to a gradual estrangement of their oldest son and brother: Of Henry I received news only yesterday that he is well, Frederick acknowledged to his father in May of 1774. He has promised to come here one more time before his move to Philadelphia to accept his yoke, if he only honors his word. Of Peter, I hear and see no more.175 A letter by Henry Mühlenberg to his cousin Eicke in 1774 suggests that the great distance of 220 English miles may have been another reason for this growing alienation.176 It does not come as a surprise, then, that Peter was the first of the Mühlenberg sons to shrug off his 172 Wir studiren zu sammen so viel als möglich, wir werden aber oft durch Gemein=Sachen getrennet. Peter würde glaube ich im Griechischen zu nehmen aber er hält das Lateinische für nöthiger und nützlicher. Im Lateinischen gehts so ziemlich, nur der Anfang ist schwer, ich habe es meist auf das verstehen angefangen, dis geht ziemlich, aber das Reden wird schwer, da er die Regeln und principia noch nicht recht weiß. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/06/1772, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 576). 173 Early, “Diary of Frederick August Conrad Muhlenberg,” 136. 174 Muhlenberg, Peter Muhlenberg, 34f. 175 Von Henr[y] habe erst gestern Nachricht erhalten daß er wohl sey. Er hat versprochen noch einmal hirher zu kommen ehe er nach Philad[elphia] zieht und sich in das Joch begibt, wenn er nur Wort hält. Von Peter höre und sehe ich nichts mehr. F. A. C. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg and Anna Maria, 05/25/1774, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 631). 176 To his cousin Eicke at Clausthal, Henry acknowledges with regard to bis oldest brother: Peter als der älteste hat sich gleich nach unserer Ankunft verehlicht u. ist seit kurzem als Teutsch u. Englischer Prediger nach einer starken Gemeine berufen die etwa 220 Engl. Meilen von hier in der Provinz Virginien liegt wo er noch immer arbeitet. To Vetter Eicke, 04/03/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17.

76

A Prelude

father’s influence when he accepted his election to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1774.177 After delivering his last sermon in January 1776, he finally renounced his Lutheran past completely, spectacularly disrobing his clerical gown to reveal a military uniform underneath.178 I am a Clergyman, it is true. But I am also a Member of Society as well, he explained in a letter to his brother Frederick. [S]hall I then sit still and enjoy myself at Home when the best Blood of the Continent is spilling? Heaven forbid it!179 Long before this dramatic event, signs in the Mühlenberg family correspondence show that Peter had begun to leave his family’s orbit. His final abandonment of the ministry was only the first in a series of disruptions within the family. Henry’s relationship with Frederick seems to have been much more intimate and brotherly in comparison. Not only had the two spent much more time together at the Orphanage, but their close proximity in age may also have been an important factor for their more regular contact180 both in person and by mail.181 An entry in Henry’s hand in Frederick’s friendship book from October 21, 1770, written just four days prior to their joint ordination, quotes an excerpt from Christian Fürchtegott Gellert’s (1715–1769) instructive poem Der Christ, which highlights Christian ideals of friendship and the nature of man.182 By contrast, there is no entry in Peter’s hand in this book, which Frederick kept from roughly 1770 to 1780. More instances of Henry’s and Frederick’s tight brotherly bonds can be found during the period of their early pastorates. After Frederick had married Catharine Schaefer (no data available)183 on October 15, 1771, he named his first-born son after his younger Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.” Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.” Quoted after Glatfelter, Pastors II, 388. Peter was four years Frederick’s major, seven years in Henry’s case. There are six letters from Frederick to Henry still extant, with two exceptions all written during the 1780s. The dates of the letters are: May 23, 1779, October 11, 1780, February 20, 1782, May 15, 1782, June 28, 1784, August 23, 1799. All in collection APS Film 1097. 182 Der Christ, ist der ein Freund der blöden Schüchternheit, Die vor den Menschen flieht und die Gesellschaft scheut? Nein, Freund, er wird mit Lust und ruhigem Gewissen Das Glück, ein Mensch zu seyn, des Umgangs Glück, geniessen. Gott schuf ihn nicht zur Quaal. Lad ihn zu Freuden ein; Er scherzt mit seinem Witz, lacht heitrer bey dem Wein, Freut sich des Saytenspiels; und Lieb in deinen Blicken, Und Freud auf deiner Stirn, wird seine Seel entzücken. Dieß, daß er Freude schmeckt und mäßig sie genießt, Ist selbst der Wohlthat Dank, den er gott schuldig ist; Und heut erquickt er sich, um Morgen seine Pflichten, Als Bürger und als Christ, gestärkter zu entrichten. Viele solche Freunde wünsche ich dir und mir. Leb wohl, und liebe mich Henr. Muhlenberg junior D[en] 21st October 1770. Friedship Book of F.A.C. Muhlenberg, LoC – Muhlenberg Family Collection 1752–1847. 183 The daughter of Philadelphia sugar-refiner Frederick Schaefer. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” On behalf of his own wedding, Frederick noted in his diary: [September 1771] 18th Stopped with Miss Catharine Schaeffer to secure her consent to marry me. This I secured several days later. (...) [October] 15th To-day at 2 p. M. papa came back from Jersey. This evening Mr. Kunze married me and Catharine Schaffer. The Lord guide and direct us both in this new relation, so that we may increase unto all good things, so that the good wishes uttered to-day on our behalf may be fulfilled. Early, “Diary of Frederick August Conrad Muhlenberg VI,” 350. 177 178 179 180 181

The Family Context

77

brother Henry,184 and when Frederick fell ill in early 1774, Henry immediately went to New York to support him.185 2.2 Brothers-in-Law Frederick and Henry most probably met Christopher Emanuel Schultze for the first time in 1763 or 1764 at the Halle Orphanage, where Schultze was teaching before he finally went to Pennsylvania in 1765. Schultze’s career after his arrival in Philadelphia was an almost instant success, as his first sermon delivered in the New World greatly pleased both church-goers and his future father-in-law Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, who noted in his diary: His orderly, edifying delivery, pleasant voice and person, or sanctified gifts of grace, delighted the entire church council, and met with universal approval.186 Within a year, he was accepted into the Lutheran Ministerium of Pennsylvania and married Eva Elizabeth Mühlenberg on September 23, 1766, with whom he fathered nine children.187 In 1771, the elder Mühlenberg sent his son Frederick to support Schultze,188 in order to help him supply the nine individual satellite congregations of Tulpehocken.189 Therefore, Frederick’s diaries at the time are a document of his frequent travels between congregations. Unfortunately, they reveal very little of Schultze himself.190 Also, the extensive 184 Henry records this in a letter to his cousin Eicke in 1773: Der andere Bruder wurde mit mir 1770 im Oct. öffentl. von den Ministerien examiniert u. darauf zum Predigtamt ordiniert. Seit dieser Zeit predigt er in 5 Gemeinen wo er gleichfalls vielen Eingang u. Liebe bey den Leuten findet. Er wohnet etwa 70 Meilen von uns hat sich auch unter der Zeit verheiratet u. einen Sohn namens Gotthilf Heinrich gezeugt. Dies ist die Ursach, daß er an izo nicht mitschreibt, da er wegen der Entfernung nicht weiß wann gute Gelegenheit ist, er lässt sich aber vielmals empfehlen u. denkt oft mit Vergnügen an unsere Besuch in Einbeck u. Clausthal. To Vetter Eicke, 04/03/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. Frederick and Catharine had three sons and four daughters. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” 185 Jan. 1 früh um 5 Uhr setzte ich mit einem New Yorker Man aus Bedminster ab, um meinen todkranken Bruder in N[ew] Y[ork] zu besuch, welches wir auch nach einer sehr beschwerlich Reise abends erreicht. Fand mein Bruder im sehr schlecht Umständ dem Leibe nach. Abends kamen noch Älteste ins Haus und hielt um eine Predigt an für morgen. Diarium of Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg, Januar 1774, FASt/M 4 C 18 : 11. See also F. A. C. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg and Anna Maria, 04/09/1774, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 626): Heute nachmittag nehme ich eine Reise zum Henry vor, und werde schwerlich vor Samstag zu hause seyn. Wenn d[er] Henry nur zu Hause ist!, Frederick wrote to his father in April of 1774. 186 Quoted after Glatfelter, Pastors I, 125. 187 Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 16f. 188 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” John W. Early has pointed out, however, that Frederick was not an assistant to Schultze in the usual sense, in that Frederick understood his appointment there as part of his personal support to his father’s missionary efforts rather than an official call to Schultze. His German wording of the actual circumstances has obviously been misleading to former historians, as Early suggests. Early, “Diary of Frederick August Conrad Muhlenberg VI,” 354. 189 Tulpehocken Christ, Tulpehocken Reed’s. Atholheo, Heidelberg, Little Tulpehocken, Northkill, Warwick, Womelsdorf and Summer Hill Glatfelter, Pastors I, 125. 190 Frederick was present on November 29, 1771, when the elders and deacons signed Schultze’s

78

A Prelude

correspondence191 between Henry Mühlenberg and Schultze did not start on a regular basis until after Henry found himself firmly established at Lancaster in 1780. The few instances in which Schultze is mentioned by Henry prior to 1782 are hardly sufficient to make any qualified statements on the previous nature of their personal relationship.192 Henry’s relationship with his other brother-in-law John Christopher Kunze is much better documented by contrast, mostly due to a professional rivalry which seems to have begun in the late 1770s. As will be shown, the roots of their later falling-out may be found in their similarities rather than differences of character, interests and ambitions. Among the second generation of Halle Pietists in North America, Renate Wilson has placed the two “at the core of the commercial and intellectual heritage of Halle” and has called them “the nucleus of a German-American network in the natural sciences of the time.”193 Letters from the second half of the 1770s suggest that it was this joint scholarly disposition, along with mutual professional envy, which eventually pitted the native-born, naturally bilingual German-American Mühlenberg son against his brother-in-law Kunze, who struggled all his life to come to terms with English as a second language.194 Until they became colleagues in Philadelphia in 1774, however, there are no indicators of any conflict, and contacts between the two seem to have been limited to synods or family meetings. Five years earlier, when both Frederick and Henry were just about to finish their studies in 1769, Kunze had started working as a teacher at the Orphanage’s branch at Greiz, some 100 km south of Halle.195 Whether they met before or only after Kunze had decided to go to Pennsylvania cannot be ascertained, but they definitely embarked together on their voyage.196 While Henry and Frederick Mühlenberg were dispatched to supply at vacant congregations across New Jersey, the much more experienced Kunze was immediately accepted as third pastor in Philadelphia. Knapp and Ziegenhagen had recommended the young and able Kunze to Mühlenberg, who reported back to the two that Kunze had been accepted.197 Despite his feeble voice, Kunze confirmed this

191 192

193 194 195 196 197

call to Tulpehocken in the schoolhouse. Early, “Diary of Frederick August Conrad Muhlenberg I,” 137. From May 1782 to April 1807, two years before Schultze’s death in 1809, Henry Mühlenberg sent 35 letters to Schultze. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 526f. In 1773, Henry mentioned to Accise Einnehmer Garliep at Halle: H. Schulze ist iezo auf eine Zeitlang ins Land etwa 70 M. von der Stadt gezogen wo er 8 Meilen von meinem Bruder Fried. wohnt. Von seinen beyden Töchtern lebt nur die eine ohngefehr 6 Monate alt. Er ist noch sehr munter hat aber auch überaus viel zu thun. Er läßt sich vielmahls empfehlen. To Accise Einnehmer Garliep, Halle, 04/05/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. Wilson, “Second Generation,” 236. Glatfelter, Pastors I, 74f. Franckesche Stiftungen, Grüne Kartei (see online references in bibliography). See above on page 53f. He wrote: [N]ach Ew. Hochw[ürden] Beschreibung finde den H[err] P[astor] Kunze als einen Begnadige begabt gelehrt= und erfarnen Theologum: Ich verkündigte der Gemeine den Character dieses Missionarii, ließ ihn in der Zions und Michaelis Kirche predigen, stellete ihn dem versammelten Kirchen=Rath, oder der Corporation vor, zeigte ihnen die Credentialien nemlich den Beruf von Hochwürdigsten Vätern und Testimonium Ordinationis; (…) Er wurde von allen

The Family Context

79

initial impression during the following year; this probably encouraged him to ask for the hand of Mühlenberg’s daughter Margaretta Henrietta. The father’s initial doubts notwithstanding,198 they were married on July 23, 1771 in Philadelphia.199 Two years later, Henry wrote to his friend Garliep at Halle that Mr Kunze stands here in Philadelphia and has married my sister, he is very diligent and very much liked by the whole community, as they live together in the utmost harmony.200 Whatever seeds for potential internal conflict were sown during the first half of the 1770s, family life and connections still appear to have been peaceful, calm and intimate at the time. Additionally, all Mühlenberg sons and sons-in-law remained connected through the common bond of trade in Halle medicines. In a list compiled by Renate Wilson, showing “Halle Pietist or Lutheran Ministerium clergy distributing or ordering Halle medicines in the middle colonies, 1742–1820,” members of the Mühlenberg family emerge as the nucleus of this trade in the last third of the 18th and the first decade of the 19th century: Schultze (active in the medicine trade from 1765–1805), Peter Mühlenberg201 (1770–1776), Frederick Mühlenberg (1770–1776), Henry Mühlenberg (1770–1805) and Kunze (1770–1807).202 All of them acted individually in this field, sending orders for drugs and books to Halle and mostly paying for them by promissory notes or via Halle’s commissioners Helmuth and Schmidt in Philadelphia. In two cases, however, Halle medicine was ex-

198

199 200 201

202

Gliedern der Corporation nach dem Beruf als dritter Prediger mit Handschlag, Bewillkommung und Segens=Wunsch angenommen, und solches alles in unser Corporations Protocoll einverleibet. H. M. Mühlenberg to J. G. Knapp and F. M. Ziegenhagen, 12/10/1770, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 522). 2) Mein H. College Kunze ist fleißig und beschäftig an den Seelen zu arbeiten, lernet nach und nach die hiesigen Umstände einsehen, besuchet die Krancken und Gesunden gern, die seines Amts begehren, hält die wöchentlichen Bet= und Erbauungs=Stunden für mich, die ich sonst wechselsweise mit Hn. Collega Sch[ul]z[e] versehen mußte (...) H. P. Kunze hat auf eine christliche Weise um meine zweyte Tochter Margaretha Henrietta angehalten, und wolte sich gern in diesem Monath Julii mit ihr trauen laßen. Ich habe zwar vielerley Bedencklichkeiten und Besorgniße darüber, muß es aber der Direction Gottes mit Gebet empfehlen. H. M. Mühlenberg to F. W. Pasche, 07/05/1771, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 561). Glatfelter, Pastors I, 74. H[err] Kunze stehet hier in Philad[elphia] u[nd] hat sich mit meiner Schwester verehelicht, er ist sehr fleißig u[nd] beliebt bey der ganzen Gemeine, leben auch in der grössesten Eintracht zusammen. To Accise Einnehmer Garliep, Halle, 04/05/1773, AFSt/M 4 C 17. There are very few indications of Peter’s involvement in the Halle medical trade in North America. In early 1772, when Henry substituted Peter at New Germantown, he helped himself to some of his brother’s medical supplies to distribute to the needy: Heute als am 6ten Jenner studierte ich. Nachmittags besuchte ich den kranken Nachbar, der vermuthlich bald in die Ewigkeit eingehen wird. Ich nahm einige Hallische Arzenei aus meines Bruders Apotheke mit, weil die Leute überaus arm sind. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/06/1772, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 576). The complete list of pastors active during the period discussed here also includes Friedrich Schultz (1759–1780), Willhelm Anton Graf (1760–1805), Karl Wildbahn (1762–1802), Andreas Krug (1764–1796), Johann Ludwig Voigt (1764–1800) and, naturally, the two Halle mandatarii in Philadelphia, Johann Friedrich Schmitt (1770–1812) and Justus Heinrich Christian Helmuth (1770–1820), who were exclusively responsible for payments and the financial handling of the Halle trade. Wilson, Pious traders, 126.

80

A Prelude

changed within the family. Between 1783 to 1807, Henry supplied Schultze at Tulpehocken with pharmaceutical substances on a regular basis,203 and also his own father on various occasions: My medicines from Halle have arrived and I wish to hear from you, which ones would be most agreeable to you now. It will be my pleasure to serve you with them, but I kindly ask you to forget about any payment, Henry Mühlenberg wrote to his parents in January 1787.204 First instances of this exchange, which must rather be interpreted as a favor than as an actual form of trade, appear in 1780, after his move to Lancaster. In Schultze’s case, however, there are no indications that their commerce in medicines predates 1783. References to his sisters and his mother remain scarce throughout the family correspondence. Henry’s other brothers-in-law Francis Swaine (1754–1820) and Matthias Reichard (1758–1830),205 do not appear to have played a greater role within the family. Swaine had married Maria Katharina secretly sometime in 1775206 and was promoted to the rank of major under the command of Peter Mühlenberg in 1776. Only a year later, he was discharged for neglecting his duties and later tried his luck in several trades. In 1800, Swaine eventually attained the position of protonothary of the Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County.207 Henry Mühlenberg was neither informed nor present when his sister Sally was married to Matthias Reichard on August 5, 1782. A week later, he learned about the wedding in a letter from his brother Frederick: However, there is actually one more thing you may not know: Sally is married now. Here I would love to see your face now. But it is like that, and has the full approval of father and mother. The husband is the young widower Mathäus Reichard, who is a good and honest lad with his own house, effects, cattle and plantation. They were married by our father last Wednesday.208 References to his mother in Henry’s correspondence are usually limited to 203 In 1782, Henry wrote to Schultze: Hierdurch übersende ich Ihnen 2 doses für erwachsenen Personen, die schon eingeteilt sind, 1 Pülverchen alle 8 Stunden. Auch eine Unze tart. vitriol. und Muskelpsalm? Es kostet zusammen 7/6. D. Neuman hat alles praipariert. To Schultze, 11/01/1783, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. For a documentation of the continued exchange until 1807, see letters to Schultze with dates 10/14/1788, 12/06/1791, 01/15/1794, 07/16/1795, 08/14/1801, 12/06/1803 and 04/03/1807, all APS Coll. Mss.B.M891 and Mühlenberg’s letter to Schultze, 04/17/1798, APS Film 1097. 204 Meine Arzenei von Halle ist angekommen, und ich wünsche von Ihnen zu hören, welche vor andern jetzt angenehm wären, ich will sehr gern damit dienen, aber ich bitte gar sehr an keinerlei Bezalung zu denken. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/08/1787, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 1032). Three weeks later, H. M. Mühlenberg responded: Das liebreiche Anerbieten etwas von der H[alleschen] Arzenei mit zu theilen, ist dankwürdig, aber fast vergeblich an uns 2 alten gebrechlichen Gefäßen zu verschwenden. Wenn etwa ein paar Gläsgen von der Miltz Ess[enz] und ein Päkgen Magen Pulver übrig seyn solten, so bäte die Mama [Anna Maria Mühlenberg] um selbige, bey bequemer Gelegenheit ohne Eil. From H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/31/1787, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 1035). 205 Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 65, 66; Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 90. 206 H. M. Mühlenberg to F. W. Pasche, 03/29/1775, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 656). Even Richards does not provide an exact date. Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 65f. 207 H. M. Mühlenberg to Schultze, 03/07/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 683n). Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 138. 208 Aber doch noch eins das du vielleicht nicht weißt, die Sally ist verheirathet. Hier möchte ich

The Family Context

81

greetings, farewells and occasional remarks on the state of her frail health and continuing epileptic seizures.209 On July 26, 1774, Henry was married to Mary Catharine Hall (1756–1844), daughter of Philip Hall, a trustee of St. Michael’s congregation in Philadelphia and merchant by profession.210 The couple had eight children from 1776 to 1795.211 2.3 A Band of Brothers When war broke out in April 1775, members of the Mühlenberg family reacted very differently, which affected relations between Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg and his sons significantly. While the Lutheran patriarch, his wife and his son Frederick moved to the hinterland of Philadelphia,212 Henry at first continued to serve the Philadelphia congregation until the imminent threat of a British invasion in 1777 forced him to leave the city as well. To Peter, who had already been promoted to chairman of the Committee of Public Safety for Dunmore County, the hostilities were a welcome opportunity to enter the military career which he had obviously been dreaming of for quite some time.213 In January 1776, he preached his final

209

210 211

212

213

geschwind dein Gesicht sehen. Aber es ist so, u[nd] mit völliger Bewillig[ung] des Vaters u[nd] Mutters, u[nd] zwar an d[en] jungen Wittwer Math[äus] Reichard, der ein braver ehr[licher] Bursche ist, auch eigen haus, hausrath Vieh [etc. etc.] u[nd] Plantasche hat. Letzten Mittwoch copulirte der Vater dieselben. From Frederick A. C. Mühlenberg, 05/15/1782, APS Film 1097. See, for instance, the letter from H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/17/1781, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 820): Dein Wertes vom 12ten Februar: empfiengen wir am 23sten ejus[dem]. Wir danken hertzlich für Dein kindlich bezeugtes Mitleiden wegen der Mutter Zufall [Unfall], für den guten Willen persönlich zu Hülfe zukommen, und für die ermuntern[de] Hofnung, als ob durch den Auswurf der vielen Wunden, die Natur von den Mutter Convulsionen befreiet werden möchte. Es ist tröstlich, wenn der von Gott in die Natur gepflantzte und durch die Salbung verbeßerte Liebes=Affect zwischen Eltern und Kindern, besonders in Nothfällen sich äusert; aber persönlich beizuspringen, wenn wegen der tiefen Wege und Waßer, kaum ein Nachbar zum andern kommen k[ö]nte, sich in Lebens=Gefar ohne hinreichende Gründe zu wagen und eine Gemeine ohne überwiegende Noth allein zu laßen, wäre mein[e]s Erachtens übers Ziel gewesen, nach den Collisions Pflichten. Wallace contends that Peter’s entry into the British garisson troops at Lübeck was a major reason for the deterioration of his mother’s health. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 68. Margretha Henrietta Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg and Anna Maria, 11/05/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 698n). Muhlenberg-Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 15; Galtfelter, Pastors I, 94. Mary Catharine Muhlenberg (1776–1813); Susanna Elizabeth Muhlenberg (1779–1831); Henry Augustus Philip Muhlenberg (1782–1844); John Philip Emanuel Muhlenberg (1784– 1825); George Peter Samuel Muhlenberg (1786–1827); Mary Henrietta Muhlenberg (1789– 1850); Philippa Elizabeth Muhlenberg (1791–1823); Frederick Augustus Hall Muhlenberg (1795–1867). Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 154f. Within a week after the declaration of independence, the family patriarch fled to his newly acquired estates at Providence, PA. Frederick, who had left New York in 1775, joined his father with his family shortly afterwards. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 115; Glatfelter, Pastors II, 392, 395; Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.” According to Wal-

82

A Prelude

sermon, which ended on a dramatic note and deliberately offended his family and fellow Lutherans. In general, the Lutheran clergy in Pennsylvania at first thought of itself as outsiders of the hostilities, especially as the crucial distinction between loyalists and patriots was seen as one lying outside of the Kirchenreich.214 Among Pietists, worldly strife and conflict were viewed as purely political issues and closer contact with politics was to be avoided. Consequently, the superiors in Halle urged their Pennsylvanian brethren to keep aloof of current conflicts.215 With the passing of the rigorous test law by the Continental Congress in June 1777, and its even stricter follow-up in April 1778, which demanded all Americans to renounce their allegiance to the British crown and affirm their patriotic loyalty to the revolutionary cause, air became thin for neutrals.216 As Charles Glatfelter has put it, German sects on the whole had “no scruples taking oaths, but breaking them.”217 As a consequence, Lutherans remained silent until taking the oath could not be delayed any longer, and on May 27, 1778, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg finally signed.218 Peter’s earlier disregard for the principle of neutrality, however, had met with fierce disapproval and resentment in his family. Frederick was the first to openly criticize him in 1775 for his involvement in the Virginia House of Burgesses, although both he and his father are known to have shared secret sympathies for the revolutionary cause.219 Nevertheless, Peter’s farewell sermon caused Frederick to reproach his older brother for his needless self-love and ambition, a desire to appear the big man. The concluding lines of his letter, however, indicate that Frederick’s anger was little more than a lip service to his father’s ideals. The “crisis of his own vocation,” as Paul A. Wallace has called it, had already begun to irritate him seriously and would finally cause him to follow Peter’s example, being deeply dissatisfied with what he could achieve for his naitve country as a Lutheran clergyman.220 Finally, after having taken refuge with his father at Trappe, whom he temporarily supported in his ministerial duties at Oley Hill, New Goshenhoppen and

214

215 216 217 218 219 220

lace, Patrick Henry’s (1736–1799) famous “Liberty or Death” speech was a main factor in this decision. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 113–116. The term Kirchenreich appears frequently in Henry’s correspondences with family members and in his Halle correspondence. Its most common usage is to introduce passages which exclusively deal with the progress of missionary efforts in Pennsylvania. See, for instance, Henry’s letter to Fabricius in 1786: Was sonst das Kirchenreich hier betrifft so ist noch alles in Status quo. Mein Vater ist alt und schwach, hilft uns aber noch durch Fürbitte und guten Rath. To Fabricius, 11/24/1786, AFSt/M 4 D 20. Wilson, Pious Traders, 147f.; Glatfelter, Pastors II, 377. Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 51. Fogleman has pointed out that in earlier research, German immigrants were generally thought to have been politically passive prior to the war. Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 126f. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 347. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 358f. Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 56. The exact dates of the three brothers’ and remaining family members’ signatures could not be determined. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad;” Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 109. Helmuth in Philadelphia had also publicly voiced his support for the Revolution as early as 1775. Häberlein, Practice of Pluralism, 183. Quoted after Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 120. See also Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 54.

The Family Context

83

Reading,221 Frederick made this step on March 2, 1779, when he was elected to take Edward Biddle’s (1738–1779)222 place in the Continental Congress. In a letter to Frederick, written in April of the following year, the father tried to appeal to his consciousness, reminding him that he was already his second son to leave the valley and rather experience poverty and wrath.223 Peter had begun his military career in a local Committee of Safety, but was soon promoted to lead the 8th Virginia Regiment, which largely consisted of Germans from the Shenandoah Valley.224 His first engagement with British troops took place during the Battle of Sullivan’s Island in June 1776. After being promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the Continental Army on February 2, 1777, he saw combat action at Brandywine (September 11, 1777) and Germantown (October 4, 1777). Following the winter encampment at Valley Forge, George Washington dispatched him to Virginia, where he was to take command, before the Baron von Steuben (1730–1794) took over, who immediately made him his deputy commander.225 Despite the chaotic political situation and differing attitudes within the Mühlenberg family, the flow of information never ceased, as family members at Trappe nearly always managed to keep abreast of the latest developments and especially of Peter’s whereabouts. In July 1777, for instance, they were informed by Francis Swaine that Peter was currently in the region and might even come for a visit.226 221 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” 222 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” 223 Es hat mich etwas traurig gemacht und treibet mich desto mehr zum bußfertigem Gebet und Fürbitte, daß 2 meiner zärtlich geliebten Zweige nicht dicht und schwer genug gewesen im Thal zu bleiben und lieber mit dem unartigen Bundes=Volke Armuth und Schmach zu leiden, als sich durch Nebel mit zur Atmosphere auf ziehen zu laßen, von wannen sie nach dem Lauf der Natur tropfen Weise wieder herunter fallen werden, wenn Gottes Barmhertzigkeit nicht etwas außerordentliches geschehen laßen solte. H. M. Mühlenberg to F. A. C. Mühlenberg, 04/03/1780, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 788). See also the following letter by the elder Mühlenberg to Peter, written a year before Frederick’s decision: Mein Geliebter ich will hiemit Abschied nemen, weil ich nicht weiß, was in Gottes allerweisestem Vorsehens=Rath beschloßen, ob wir einander in dieser Gnaden=Zeit, oder dereinst am großen Welt=Gerichte wieder sehen werden! (…) Solte Gottes besondere gnädige Vorsehung dein Leben in dieser Gefar erhalten und deine Gebeine bewaren und Euch Philad[elphia] erreichen laßen so muß wol unter andern Gottes gnädige Absicht mit seyn, daß so viel nur immer möglich, Du deine Liebes= und Schutz=Hand zu aller erst nach deinen nächsten Bluts=Verwandten, deiner armen Schwester Schwager etc. aus streckest. This is Margaretha Henrietta Kunze and Johann Christopher Kunze. H. M. Mühlenberg to J. P.G. Mühlenberg, 05/14/1778, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 705). 224 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.” According to Glatfelter, the Continental Congress originally opted for the creation of one German batallion, consisting of four companies in Pennsylvania and four in Maryland. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 361. 225 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel;” Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 128f. Henry’s father-in-law Philip Hall served briefly as militia officer in 1776, but was forced to leave the military due to his poor health. He finally took refuge with the elder Mühlenberg at New Hanover before returning to Philadelphia after the British had left the city again in 1778. Margretha Henrietta Kunze to Heinrich Melchior and Anna Maria Mühlenberg , 11/05/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 698). 226 Abends spät, da alles schon zu Bette und ich allein noch auf war, kam Major [Francis] Swaine.

84

A Prelude

Provided the visit really took place, it was one of the rare occasions when Henry came to see his brother during these years.227 Generally, there is little if no evidence of direct contact either in person or in letters between the oldest and the youngest Mühlenberg son during the war.228 Whatever news Henry had about Peter’s fate, he received either from his father or from Frederick.229 Throughout the war, Peter Mühlenberg’s main connection to his family seems to have been his brother Frederick, especially after the latter entered the political arena in early 1779.230 In the winter of 1777–78, Frederick paid several visits to his older brother at Valley Forge,231 and it may be assumed that Peter gave his brother the necessary encouragement for his decision to enter a political career. Apparently, the elder Mühlenberg had some premonition about what was coming, as a letter to Henry written on February 2, 1779, suggests: I had some hopes that Friedr[ich August Conrad Mühlenberg] may deny himself and serve some place over the Schuylkill, where the congregations have nice parishes of some 50 acres. My hopes have disappeared, however, as he has now embarked on a new subterranean voyage, just like Niclas Klimm.232 Shortly after these lines were sent, Frederick accepted his first election to the Continental Congress. On November 12, 1779, his term

227 228

229

230 231 232

[Er] war an dem Tage bei 60 Meilen her geritten, hatte einen Trup von 5000 Man bei Welcy’s oder Correls Ferry gelaßen auf dem Marsch nach Philad[elphia] und sagte, das der Brigad[egeneral Johann] Peter [Gabriel Mühlenberg] auch auf den Wege nach Philad[elphia] wäre, und Ordre gegeben, daß Friedr[ich] sein Pferd, welches er bisher in der Fütterung gehabt, hinunter schicken solte. H. M. Mühlenberg to C. E. Schultze, 07/30/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 690). Henry had decamped to his father’s home in April 1777. H. M. Mühlenberg to C. E. Schultze, 04/15/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 686). Aland has pointed out that Peter was generally not a particularly avid correspondent. “Das gilt vor allem für Peter, für den aus unserem Berichtszeitraum kein einziger Brief erhalten ist. Aber er ist offensichtlich kein großer Briefschreiber gewesen, selbst die Familie klagt darüber, daß von ihm keine Nachricht käme,” Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 11. Vom Peter weiß ich weiter nichts als daß er vor kurzem seine Familie besucht hat, itzo aber wohl wider in Richmond ist, Frederick let Henry know in October of 1780. Er muß, da er commanding officer of the state ist, so lange dort bleiben bis alle die Truppen abgesandt sind. From Frederick A. C. Mühlenberg, 10/11/1780, APS Film 1097. See also the letters from Frederick A. C. to Mühlenberg, dated 05/23/1779 and 05/15/1782, both in APS Film 1097. Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 6. Muhlenberg-Richards, “Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg,” 55. Muhlenberg-Richards does not provide any proof for this claim. Ich hatte einige Hofnung, Friedr[ich August Conrad Mühlenberg] möchte sich verleugnen und über der Schulkiel dienen, wo die Gemeinen ein schön Pfarr Plätzgen von 50 Akern haben. Weil er aber wie der Niclas Klimm, eine neue unterirrdische Reise auf ein Jar angetreten, so ist meine Hofnung verschwunden. From H. M. Mühlenberg, 02/02/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 727). Two years later, the father had severe doubts whether his advice had any more bearing on his son’s decisions: Mit weltlichen Ämtern, mit Stores und Shops, mit Geldborgen und Plätze kaufen etc. etc. laß dich nicht ein in den jetzigen Zeiten, wenn mein Rath noch etwas bei Dir gilt, es sind wächserne Flügel welche in der Hitze schmeltzen, und denn ist der Fall und Versinken unvermeidlich und die Reue zu spät. (…) Dis sind meine Gedanken, hertzl[ich] gel[iebter] Sohn. Nimst Du sie übel, so kan ichs nicht helfen aber doch bedauern. H. M. Mühlenberg to F. A. C. Mühlenberg, 08/13/1781, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 832).

The Family Context

85

was renewed for another year until October 1780, after which he would remain ineligible for three years.233 To the father, these were extremely troubling news and further proof that his two sons, especially Frederick, whose future was uncertain in late 1780, had made the wrong decisions.234 Contrary to his father’s advice, Frederick Mühlenberg chose to pursue his political ambitions235 before he started several joint business at Trappe and Philadelphia. A letter from Schultze to Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg implies that Frederick’s plans to engage in business even predated his political ambitions.236 Apparently, he sought to obtain credit for these enterprises only from family members like his father, his brother Henry, his brother-in-law Kunze and the close family friend Henry Keppele.237 The Mühlenberg & Wegmann company, his second joint company Mühlenberg & Lawersweiler, and a store at Trappe,238 however, all turned out to be failures and left him highly indebted.239 He finally settled down at 233 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad;” Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 55. 234 Der arme [Johann] Pet[er Gabriel Mühlenberg] und Fr[iedrich] liegen mir schwer im Gemüte! Ach wie nichtig, ach wie flüchtig ist das Kriegesglüke: wie sich eine Kugel drehet etc. Wenn der stärkere den Schwächern über windet, so nimt er ihm seinen Harnisch und teilet den Raub aus. Wenn Freiheit gemisbraucht und in Frechheit verwandelt wird, so folgt Sclaverei drauf. Fr[riedrich August Conrad] Scene ist nächst am Ende. Was nun? Kaufmanschafft [ist] in diesen Zeiten nicht so ergiebig, daß ein Mann sich selber mit Weib und Kindern davon nären, kleiden, Hausrente, Taxen, Militz Fines [Abgaben] etc. etc. abtragen könte. Ich flehe zu Gott, daß Er mich und die Meinigen um seiner Barmhertzigkeit und um seines Namens willen, nicht wolle zum Exempel seiner Strafgerechtigkeit aufstellen, sondern Gnade vor Recht ergehen laßen. Die große Welt lonet ihre Bedienten am Ende gemeiniglich sehr übel. Es hat viel zu bedeuten, wenn m[an] aus der Linie oder Element weichet und sich den Feinden exponirt. From H. M. Mühlenberg, 09/29/1780, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 804). See also Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 55. 235 After his tenure had ended, he became a member of the General Assembly from 1780 to 1783, after which he served on the Council of Censors as its president from 1783 to 1784. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad;” Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 249. 236 Solte es möglich seyn, teu[e]rst[er] H[err] V[ater], daß H[err] Bruder Friedrich [August Conrad Mühlenberg] sein Amt aufgeben und ein Kaufman werden wolte? Ich hoffe, dieselben geben ihren Willen nicht dazu. Die Hand an den Pflug zu legen und ab zu ziehen, ist von ewigen Folgen. Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 30/11/1778, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 719). 237 Frederick’s business enterprises have not been investigated in detail and are mostly dealt with in passing in most articles and reference works. References to the creditors I have listed here can be found in the following letters: From Frederick A. C., 02/20/1782, APS Film 1097; from H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/07/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 872); F. A. C. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg, 10/21/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 915); Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 11/24/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 874). In the latter one, Schultze reports to H. M. Mühlenberg that [d]ie Umstände mit Herrn Friedrich Mühlenberg sind jetzt dringend. £ 300 braucht er, und es ist jetzt nirgends Geld zu bekommen. 238 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” 239 Quod ad Fridericum A[ugustum] attinet, vereor illi ut damnum capiat, [As far as Frederick is concerned, I fear that he will be hurt], the afflicted father wrote to Henry in 1783. Er hat zu

86

A Prelude

Trappe in 1783 to devote more time to his store. At this point, his father had apparently given up all hopes that either of his two sons would return to the ministry. If only [Johann Peter] Gabr[iel Mühlenberg] and Fr[ie]d[rich August Conrad Mühlenberg] had stayed in their profession and had not given in to the lures of the so called big wide world!240 he wrote embittered to Henry on March 23, 1782. What was left of old Mühlenberg’s hope that Frederick would return to the ministry probably vanished in late 1783, when Christian Rabenhorst died at Ebenezer, Georgia, and Frederick declined to accept the vacant position.241 Instead, the General Assembly of Pennsylvania made him Registar of Wills and Recorder of Deeds when Montgomery County was laid out in 1784.242 By now, Mühlenberg’s youngest son Henry was the only one still following his father’s footsteps. 2.4 The only Son After the grave disappointment243 of his two oldest sons’ obstinacy and indulgence in worldly affairs, the elder Mühlenberg had to rely on Henry to continue the family tradition in the Lutheran church. By the way, my dearly loved son, he wrote to Henry at Lancaster in April 1780, it is a true pleasure for me to see that God’s provision has put you back into the right element, that you have a big congregation to cater to, already 60 young parishioners in class, and grown-ups and married couples to take care of!244 The following lines bespeak his fears that even Henry might turn his back on the ministry and devote himself to other pursuits: If you put all your heart in this, it will bring you infinitely more blessings and mercy than all the still

240

241 242 243 244

Anfange des vorigen Jares von H[errn Johann Christoph] K[unze] 3 cent[um] lib[ras] geborgt, welche H[err] K[unze] wieder fodert, weil er einen Platz im Schwam [Falkner Swamp = New Hanover] gekaufft, (…) Zum Shophalten hat er nicht Zeit, kan auch seine zalreiche Familie nicht damit durchbringen, welche gewont sind aus dem Gantzen zu schneiden, und er muß mitmachen wie es bei der Gentry und ihrem lükern [lockeren] Leben jetzt Mode ist, und großen Muth durch den Einfluß materieller Geister in Gesellschaften unterhält. Kurtz, der Fall gehet stuffenweise und der Sturtz erfolgt zu letzt. Ich habe es an väterlichen Ermanungen nicht ermangeln laßen, (…). From H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/07/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 872). Wären doch [Johann Peter] Gabr[iel Mühlenberg] und Fr[ie]d[rich August Conrad Mühlenberg] in ihrem Beruf geblieben und hätten sich nicht in die so genante große Welt verleiten laßen! From H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/27/1782, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 855). Muhlenberg-Richards, “Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg,” 57; Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 55. Muhlenberg-Richards, “Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg,”57; Glatfelter, Pastors II, 421. According to Aland, Peter Mühlenberg also declined an offer to resume his ministerial duties after the war. Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 11. The immense stress and disappointment is testified by a nightmare recorded in Mühlenberg’s diary, following Peter’s and Frederick’s decisions. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 396. Übrigens, hertzlich geliebter Sohn ist mirs eine hertzliche Freude, daß Gottes gnädige Vorsehung Dich wieder ins rechte Element versetzet, daß Du eine große Gemeine zu versehen, schon 60 junge Leute im Unterricht, und Erwachsene und Verheirathete Abends zu weiden hast! From H. M. Mühlenberg, 04/03/1780, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 787).

The Family Context

87

concealed variants or to continue research in Linnaeus‘ herbal sciences.245 These parental fears do not necessarily suggest that he disapproved of science in general. In fact, his involvement in Halle’s medical trade and the arrangement he had made for Peter at the Halle Orphanage suggest that he principally valued medical science and knowledge, and there were also scientists among his correspondents at times.246 Thomas Müller-Bahlke has noted that Pietism had long been considered hostile to progress in the natural sciences, although the idea of discovering God’s divinity through the inspection of nature was even present in Johann Arndt’s (1555–1621) tract Von wahrem Christentum,247 one of the most popular books in Pietist circles.248 After the defeat of the American troops at the battle of Brandywine, Philadelphia remained occupied by British troops from September 1777 to June 1778.249 During these months, Henry sought refuge with his father and his brother Frederick at New Hanover.250 There he made use of his time by searching the surroundings for medicinal herbs and plants to substitute for the Halle medicinces, which were temporarily due to the disruption of trade routes.251 John Nicolaus Kurtz had assumed the presidency of the Lutheran Ministerium in 1772, but it was essentially the “Patriarch of the Lutheran Church” who took charge of the affairs of the church one more time during these critical years.252 Almost immediately after the outbreak of hostilities, the warfare imposed severe restrictions on both domestic and transatlantic communications. Keeping up contact soon proved extremely difficult. In 1775 and 1780, no meetings of the Ministerium could be held253 and correspondence 245 Wenn Du Dich darin verzerest, das wird Dir unendlich mehr Segen und Gnaden=Lohn zu wege bringen, als alle noch verborgene Varianten oder Linaei Kräuter Wißenschafft aus zu forschen. From H. M. Mühlenberg, 04/03/1780, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 787). 246 Wilson, “Second Generation,” 244; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 7. 247 Johann Arndt, Von wahrem Christentum, 4 Bände, Frankfurt/Main 1605–1610. For Arndt and his influence on Pietism, see Brecht, “Aufkommen,” 130–142. 248 Müller-Bahlke argues that Arndt took recourse to the works Raymond of Sabunde († 1436), a medieval precursor of natural theology. Müller-Bahlke, “Naturwissenschaft”, 361. 249 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 348; Wellenreuther, Chaos, 212. 250 Obviously, there were tendencies to bring the family together in one secure spot. In July 1777, H. M. Mühlenberg reported to Schultze that Peter und Sw[aine] halten sehr an, ich solte mit der Mama und Selly [Maria Salome Mühlenberg] zu der Hanna [Anna Barbara Mühlenberg] und Polly kommen, weil beide Mansleute mit zur Armee müßen. Wo nicht, so wolte Swaine seine Frau gern zu uns bringen, und dann wird die Hanna auch nicht allein zurück bleiben wollen; und was können die 2 Weibs=Leute bei uns für Aufname und Sicherheit erwarten? Pensylvania wird ohne Zweifel dismal der Tummelplatz des Krieges werden und unerhörte Grausamkeiten erfaren. H. M. Mühlenberg to C. E. Schultze , 03/07/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 683). 251 Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 149; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 7; Beck, “Muhlenberg, Botanist,” 99; Müller-Jahncke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1323. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 400. 252 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 369. 253 Also, there were no Coetus sessions for the Reformed Church in 1778 and 1780. From 1776 to 1779, the Ministerium met at Philadelphia, Lancaster, New Hanover and York. Meetings were held in the months of May (1777), June (1781, 1782, 1783) October (1776, 1778, 1779). Glatfelter, Pastors II, 362, 369.

88

A Prelude

with Halle almost ceased.254 Not only in internal church affairs did the elder Mühlenberg temporarily take the lead again, but also as a political spokesman for German Lutherans in Pennsylvania, once the conflict with England gained momentum. When the Continental Congress encountered resistance to its wartime measures in June 1775, letters were issued to representatives of all denominations, exhorting them to call their fellow believers to order. Casper Weyberg for the Reformed and the elder Mühlenberg for the Lutherans side were chosen for this task.255 Nevertheless, due to his and his wife’s deteriorating health, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg began to delegate more and more important decisions256 and finally withdrew completely from active participation in the Lutheran Ministerium in 1781. The generational change and the transfer of responsibility within the Ministerium also echoed in the correspondence between father and son from 1779 to 1787, when Henry Mühlenberg assumed the ministry in Lancaster and began to work independently of his father. After seeking his father’s advice with regard to some details of this position, the answer he received from Providence in July 1779 basically urged him to make his own decisions from now on: I should have answered much earlier to your most welcome letter dated 6th of October of the present year, if haste and opportunity had been mine. On behalf of the important occupational issue in Lancaster, I can give you no advice (…) As you have the right age, and as I may accordingly say as the parents in Joh: 9,21 He is old enough, go and ask him himself, let him speak for himself.257A chart of the development of their correspondence from 1779 to 1785 also suggests that his father’s influence gradually waned after his move to Lancaster. During the early 1780s, however, he seemed to fulfill

254 See for instance the following letter from Mühlenberg to Kunze, written in November 1777. Waare, Arzenei oder dergl[eichen] zu wagen, ist in der jetzigen Zeit annoch zu mißlich. Die meisten der 12 Expectanten sind im jetzigen Zeitpunkt beklemt und bedürfftig und möchten wol nach dem Gefül sagen: ein Vogel in der Hand ist gewißer als 5 draußen. Ich bin annoch Mandatarius wegen des S[olms-] R[ödelheimischen] Fundi, stehe so zu sagen mit Furcht und Zittern verbunden unter denen S[alvo] T[itulo] Herren Directoren und Dero Succcessoren für das Capital, welches sie wieder fodern und auf beßere oder stärkere Versicherung verlegen können, vermöge des Documents und Instruction. H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, 24/11/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 718). In December of 1779, Mühlenberg even adressed Benjamin Franklin, then ambassador at Paris, to have his letters submitted safely to Halle. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 369, 370. For Henry Mühlenberg, there is not a single instance of a transatlantic letter in between 1775 to 1784. See Mühlenberg’s letter to Fabricius, 01/03/1775, AFSt/M 4 C 17 : 26 and the letter from Fabricius dated 01/20/1784, APS Film 1097. 255 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 362. For more instances of government contact of H. M. Mühlenberg during the second half of the 1770s, see Glatfelter, Pastors II, 364. 256 During the synod meeting of 1778, when the constitution of the Lutheran church was discussed, the elder Mühlenberg charged his son-in-law Kunze with this task. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 373, 438. 257 Dein wertes vom 6 Octobr[is] a[nni] c[urrentis] hätte ehr beantworten sollen, wenn Eil und Gelegenheit vorhanden gewesen wären. Was die wichtige Berufs=Sache mit L[ancaster] anbetrifft, darin kan ich nichts rathen, (…) Weil du dein Alter hast und ich füglich sagen kan wie jene Eltern Joh: 9,21 Er ist alt genug: fraget ihn, laßet ihn selbst für sich reden. From H. M. Mühlenberg, 10/25/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 768).

The Family Context

89

his father’s wish to have at least one son who would continue what he had achieved since 1742.258 2.5 The Conflict with Kunze Henry Mühlenberg’s move to Lancaster had in part been triggered by a discord with his brother-in-law John Christoph Kunze over Henry’s conduct during the British occupation of Philadelphia. When the danger of a British invasion became imminent in the wake of the Delaware blockade in March 1777, the Mühlenbergs tried to find a middle ground between family safety and the continuation of Lutheran worship in the city. On Sunday evening, two days since, [Gotthilf] H[einrich Ernst] M[ühlen]b[erg] and M[aste]r [Jacob] Kiemle, a church warden from Philadelphia came to us. He had just held service at Barrenhill. They brought some news that an express from Delaware Cape had arrived yesterday with the message that war and transport ships could be seen near the entrance of the Delaware, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg informed Schultze in a short note on April 15, 1777.259 He[i]nr[ich] M[ühlen]b[erg] is not prone to stay in Philadelphia if a raid should take place. Mr Kunze wants to stay and his wife Margr[etha Henrietta] as well.260 When British troops finally paraded in the city on September 26 before crowds of cheering loyalists, the remaining Philadelphians were watching the spectacle from behind closed windows, as Kunze probably did.261 The British admiralty lost no time making the city its own. Private houses were used to quarter troops,262 church buildings and

258 Was meine eigene Amts=Führung betrifft, so kan ich nicht viel aufweisen. Der große Haufe bleibet wie er war, überzeugt ohne merkliche Beßerung. Nun und dann tröstet mich Gott durch merkwürdige Exempel, sonderlich von kranken und sterbenden Christen, daß ich weiß unsere Arbeit ist doch nicht gantz vergeblich, Henry reported dutifully from Lancaster in winter of 1782. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 12/14/1782, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 870). 259 Vorgestern am Sontag Abend kam [Gotthilf] H[einrich Ernst] M[ühlen]b[erg] nebst M[aste]r [Jacob] Kiemle einen Vorsteher von Philad[elphia] bei uns an. Er hatte Gottes=Dienst auf Barrenhill gehalten. Sie brachten Nachricht, daß gestern ein Express von Delaware Cape arrivirt mit der Botschafft, daß Krieges= und Transport Schiffe nahe beim Eingange der Delaw[are] zu sehen. H. M. Mühlenberg to C. E. Schultze, 04/15/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 686). 260 He[i]nr[ich] M[ühlen]b[erg] gedenckt nicht zu bleiben in Ph[iladelphia] wenn ein Überfall geschehen solte. H[err] K[un]tz[e] will bleiben und seine Margr[etha Henrietta] auch. Originally, H. M. Mühlenberg had plans to join Kunze in case of occupation: Einer solte wol bei der Hand bleiben, wenns nicht gar zu grausam hergehet. Ich habe mich erboten der eine zu seyn, denn sie können mir zum äusersten nicht mehr thun als den Leib tödten, wenns die göttliche Vorsehung zuläßt, und dann ists kein Verlust, weil ich ohne dem Candidatus Mortis [Todeskandidat] bin. All in H. M. Mühlenberg to C. E. Schultze, 04/15/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 686). 261 Wellenreuther, Chaos, 304; Glatfelter, Pastors II, 400. 262 Apparently, the house of Henry’s father-in-law Philip Hall was one of the many private homes where officers were quartered. Margretha Henrietta Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg and Anna Maria Mühlenberg, 11/05/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 698n).

90

A Prelude

parsonages occupied263 and all contact with Philadelphia’s hinterland cut off.264 Throughout the occupation, he managed to maintain a minimal Lutheran presence in the city and kept the Mühlenbergs at New Hanover informed about recent developments. It was during these nine months of occupation that the relationship between Kunze and Henry deteriorated to a point at which it nearly split Philadelphia’s Lutheran congregation in half. In one of the notes that Kunze managed to send to New Hanover, a first trace of tensions between him and his younger colleague Henry Mühlenberg can be detected: It is a gloomy thing that I am alone, that I have corpses on a daily basis and see myself almost incapable of doing anything out of harm and sorrow. I do hope, however, that my colleague will soon come back again, he let his father-in-law know some 40 days after the occupation had begun.265 A letter to his brother Johann Carl Kunze in Germany, written three years after the events, actually confirms the assumption that Kunze accused Henry Mühlenberg of absconding in the face of danger and of leaving his father’s work to the mercy of the British: My father-inlaw found himself compelled to go into the countryside (…) When the British took over this town, I was here all alone to take care of the congregation. Had I gone into the countryside, just as my colleague Mühlenberg junior, so I would have been guilty of letting our beautiful Zions church be made into a hospital, and maybe even the Michael church along with it.266 Although Henry returned immediately after the end of the occupation on June 18, 1778, his absence had clearly opened a rift between the two old Halle friends.267 In March of the following year, the growing animosities erupted into an open fight over the succession of Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg as Rektor to 263 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 387. 264 Da mir vor kurtzen ein Vorwurf gemacht wurde von einem hohen Officir, daß ich Briefwechsel mit R[ebellen] unterhielte, ob ich wol noch keine Zeile an jemand geschrieben habe, so will ich auch jetzt lieber nichts [reelles?] hin zu fügen, sondern mich nur mit meinem Hause meiner lieben Schwiegereltern Gebet empfelen, und Sie meines kindlich liebenden Andenckens versichern, Kunze added to a letter of his wife in November 1777. Margretha Henrietta Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg and Anna Maria Mühlenberg, 11/05/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 698). Correspondence never stopped completely, but letters were routinely opened and read by the British occupants. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 370. 265 Etwas Betrübtes ists mir jetzt, daß ich allein bin, täglich Leichen habe (…) und durch Harm und Wemut fast außer Stand gesetzt bin, etwas zu tun. Ich hoffe doch, mein Herr Collega wird bald wieder kommen. Margretha Henrietta Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg and Anna Maria Mühlenberg, 11/05/1777, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 698). 266 Mein Herr Schwiegervater war genöthight, sich ins Land zu wenden (...). Als die Britten diese Stadt besetzten, war ich ganz allein an der Gemeine. Hätte ich ins Land gehen wollen, wie mein Kollege Mühlenberg jun. so wüde ich die Schuld davon getragen haben, daß unsre schöne Zionskirche zum Hospital gemacht ward und die Michaeliskirche wäre vielleicht auch dazu gemacht worden. Prof. Kunze to Johann Carl Kunze, 11/23/1782, AFSt/M 4 C 20 : 5. 267 “At home, both Henry Ernest and Frederick were very restless. Henry was back at Philadelphia, working uder the brilligant, over-sensitie, hypochondriacal Kunze. Henry found the situtation trying. It was becoming apparent that he, like his brother Peter, was working up to an explosion.” Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 174. Maisch claims that the exact date of Henry’s final departure from Philadelphia was September 22. Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 7.

The Family Context

91

Philadelphia’s St. Michael and Zion’s congregations. Offended by the elder Mühlenberg’s continuing absence from Philadelphia, the church council elected Kunze in a heated session, thereby indirectly accusing Mühlenberg father and son of bailing out and disobeying the rules of St. Michael and Zion’s charter. After Henry was informed of Kunze’s election, he wrote to his father: I know that you tend to ignore petty things like this, but it does hurt us that you may be judged without having a word in your defense. There are abysses of ambition, where you cannot tolerate anyone next you you or above you.268 Henry’s main objection to Kunze’s election focussed on a motion by David Schäffer, who had proposed to postpone the settlement of the issue until Mühlenberg himself would arrive.269 Nevertheless, Henry Mühlenberg’s feeling of disappointment over Kunze’s election is all too apparent in the letter, especially in the concluding passage, in which he states that he would stay with his decision to move to New Hanover, also known as Falkner’s Swamp.270 In a lengthy letter from April 2, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg finally expressed his opinion on the threatening split of the Philadelphia congregation. It is not a novelty for me, being in this place for 36 years now, to receive ingratitude instead of thankfulness. But it is a soul-worrying thing to me to see blazing fires of conflict breaking up in the midst of the congregation by such deliberate and hostile acts. These fires cannot be put out in many years and inflicts unspeakable wounds to the souls! he wrote angrily about the seemingly perennial objections from Halle officials over the years.271 Obviously, the newly retired minister had few doubts that the flight from Philadelphia was the actual reason for the church council’s preference of Kunze over his own son.272 268 Ich weiß Sie sind über solche Kleinigkeit weg dergleichen zu achten, aber es thut uns wehe, daß Sie unverhört verurteilt werden. *Es sind Tiefen des Ehrgeizes, da man niemand neben sich auch nicht über sich leiden kan. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/23/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 735). In a similar fashion, Henry Mühlenberg’s election as third pastor to Philadelphia in 1774 caused fierce internal strife in the local congregation. Henry Mühlenberg, his brother Frederick and Helmuth ran for the position. Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 11; Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 91, 179. 269 To H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/27/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 740). 270 To H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/23/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 735). In his official address to the congregation, Henry Mühlenberg said that he had hoped to live and die with them. Quoted after Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 181. 271 Es ist mir seit 36 Jaren her nichts Neues mehr, Stank für Dank zu bekommen, nur dauerts mich von Grund der Seelen, daß durch solche vorsetzliche feindselige Handlungen in den Gemeinen ein Streit=Feuer entzündet wird, das in vielen Jaren nicht füglich gelöschet werden kan, und unaussprechlichen Seelen=Schaden verursachet! H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, Mühlenberg and the Corporation of Michael and Zion’s at Philadelphia, 04/02/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 742). 272 Es sind ja in den Krieges=Unruhen viele wakere Familien, ja selbst verschiedene Glieder von der Corporation aus der Stadt ins Land gezogen, um der feindlichen Rache zu entgehen. Man hat sie ja wegen ihres Wegziehens nicht von ihren vorigen Ämtern und Diensten abgesetzt, noch ihren Namen zum Andenken als Deserteurs ins Protocoll gesetzt. H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, Mühlenberg and the Corporation of Michael and Zion’s at Philadelphia, 04/02/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 742). Actually, his argumentation would have been easy to defy, as the vast majority of Philadelphia’s population had stayed in the city. Wellenreuther, Chaos, 304.

92

A Prelude

Whether or not it was Kunze’s real intention to advance to the position in Philadelphia and succeed his father-in-law cannot be decided with certainty.273 In any case, there are clear signs that Henry Mühlenberg had imagined his own future in his father’s former place.274 The fact that he was not even considered a proper candidate for the position must have hurt him deeply. The church council had the final word, and there was no way around Kunze for the time being.275 In early May of 1779, the latter reported to his father-in-law: On the following Sunday, my brotherin-law and colleague retired, revealed his reasons, adding among other things that the name Mühlenberg had been mocked and that there was word on the street that Mr Senior Mühlenberg supposedly seeks to oust his own son-in-law. And that there were other things on his chest as well ––– this caused a general uproar in all who were around. On the following day, the corporation held a meeting and about 30 men pushed their way in to raise a complaint. The first one as Mister Wolper, who said: The issue with the office of the Rector was in order and he would not object to that: It was only that Mister Mühlenberg must not leave.276 In the end, the only solution was to give Helmuth’s Lancaster congregation to Henry and to order Helmuth to Philadelphia instead. Apparently, both Helmuth and Kunze were highly satisfied with this arrangement.277 In the Lancaster congregation, Helmuth’s call to 273 After his election, Kunze appeared surprised in his letters to H. M. Mühlenberg and repeatedly mentioned his unease about the situation. See Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letters 741, 748). 274 This becomes apparent in a later letter from H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, prior to the latter’s plans to decamp to New York in 1785: Sie werden auch hoffentlich die Vereinigung mit dem hiesigen Rev[erendo] Ministerio und die Correspondence mit Halle etc: nicht auf heben. f: Solte aber das Geringete davon transpiriren oder mit unter laufen, als ob Sie deswegen mit von Philad[elphia] weg wolten: “weil Friedr[ich August Conrad] M[ühlen]b[erg] vor verschiedenen Jaren etwas unfreundliches wieder Sie in der Versamlung abgelesen, oder daß Sie durch Ihr Wegziehen dem [Gotthilf] Heinr[ich Ernst] M[ühlen]b[erg] Raum zu seiner Zurükkunfft machen wolten, so sehe ich schon mit Wehmut voraus, daß solcher gestalt die gantze Sache verdorben, die Gemeine wieder in bittere Parteien zerrißen, zerrüttet und ein unheilbarer Schade fürs Gantze und deßen Teile entstehen würde. Welches Gott in Gnaden verhüte! H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze 06/01/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 926). 275 See also Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Henry Melchior;” Wilson, “Second Generation,” 248. 276 [A]m Sontage drauf dankte mein Herr Schwager und Collega ab, und sagte seine Ursachen, fürte auch unter andern an, daß der Mühlenbergische Name beschimpfft wäre und daß ein Gerede herumgienge, als suchte Herr Sen[ior] Mühlenberg seinen Schwiegerson zu verdrängen. Auch habe er noch viel andere Sachen auf dem Hertzen ––– Der Aufrur, der darüber entstand, war allgemein. Am Tage darauf war die Corporation zusammen, und es drangen etwa 30 Männer ein um sich zu beschweren. Der erste war M[iste]r Wolpert, der sagte: die Sache mit dem Rectoramt sey gantz recht und er habe gar nichts dagegen: allein Herr Mühlenberg jun[io]r solte nicht fort. Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 05/05/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 748). 277 Weil ich einen Brief vom H[errn] Pf[a]rr[er Justus Heinrich Christian] Helmuth in Händen habe, darinnen er mir schreibt, daß, weil es längst sein Wunsch gewesen, mit mir näher vereinigt zu werden, er einen Ruf an H[errn] Pf[a]rr[er] Mühlenberg jun[ior] Statt nicht ausschlagen würde. So wäre die Gemeine versorgt. Komt aber H[err] Helmuth nicht hieher, welches der Fall seyn wird, wenn einer oder ander, der im Sinn ist, Rector würde; so weis ich auf keinen zu fallen, der H[err]n Pf[a]rr[er] Mühlenberg jun[io]rs Stelle besetzen könte, und von welchen

The Family Context

93

Philadelphia caused fierce resistance among the laymen, the most prominent spokesman of whom was the merchant Ludwig Lauman (†1797).278 His protest against giving Helmuth’s place to the Henry Mühlenberg foreshadowed a complicated and quarrelsome relationship between the two men which would last until Lauman’s death seventeen years later. 2.6 In the Wake of War Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s influence over his three sons gradually waned as the crisis with England intensified. Eventually Peter and Frederick Mühlenberg would swap the pulpit for a military uniform and the delegate’s desk for good. By the end of the 1770s, the nearly 70-year-old Lutheran patriarch remarked in resignation to his son-in-law Schultze: On behalf of my sons, they have received the noblest education in the blessed orphanage schools, where there is no lack in healthy teachings and exemplary comportment. (…) Just as much as my weakness allows, I have admonished them orally and verbally, which is, however, not sufficient, when children come of age and when fatherly advice is only valid as long as it ties in with their own ideas. Remarkably, he did not specify which of his sons he was exactly talking about, which implies that he may have even included his youngest son Henry. It was my advice: Do not want to be Icarus! But as I was stuck to be Daedalus and, deprived of all bodily means, could only give wings of wax to my children, my advice has only little impact.279 The news that Henry Melchior Mühlenberg would receive from Henry during the years of his retirement at Providence must have been soothing and troubling at the same time to the old man. Undoubtedly, Henry took his duties seriously, but interlaced with news on sermons and services to the Lancaster congregation, however, his father also found hints at another pastime which should soon claim great amounts of time: Myself, I have been noticeably healthy and attribute this, next to God, to my continuing motion, which I keep up on a weekly basis for recreation and to make progress with my knowledge of nature. Very often I conduct botanical and mineralogical studies, pay visits to folks from the country or indulge in special meditations, and I cannot explain to you how it lifts my spirits when I walk about alone in seclusion, imagine my Lord under free skies and say thanks to him to remember me in Christ.280 In subseich warscheinlich glauben könte, daß er die Stimmen bekäme. Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 05/05/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 748). 278 Häberlein, Practice of Pluralism, 185. 279 Was meine Söhne betrifft, so haben sie ihre vornemste Erziehung in den gesegneten Waisen=Anstalten gehabt, wo es an gesunder Lehre und vorleuchtenden Wandel nicht felet. (…) So viel meine Schwachheit erlaubt, habe ich sie mündlich und schrifftlich ermanet, welches aber nicht weit reichet, wenn Kinder majorenn [volljährig] sind, und des Vaters Rath nur insoweit gilt, als er mit ihrem Gutdünken über ein stimmet. Es war mein Rath ne quaeratis esse Icari. Da ich aber als ein Daedalus gefangen und von leiblichen Mitteln entblößet, meinen Kindern nur wachserne Flügel geben kan, so findet mein Rath nur wenigen Eindruk (...). H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, 11/01/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 769). 280 Ich selbst bin merklich gesund gewesen und ich schreibe es, nächst Gott, noch immer einer

94

A Prelude

quent letters, his father refrained from reproaching him for his intensified interest in botany. Most probably, the elder Mühlenberg also subscribed to the idea that the search for God’s order in nature was in itself a form of prayer, which was basic to the understanding of early modern sciences. Also, he probably understood the necessity to grant this liberty to his youngest son, if he did not want to lose him too for the Lutheran-Pietist cause in the newly-founded republic. Meanwhile, Henry Mühlenberg’s relations with his brother Peter had definitely cooled off during the war. In a time when family contacts made up nearly all of his correspondences, the lack of any correspondence with him is significant. As a matter of fact, hints at other instances of contact between the two for this period – either personally or indirectly – are also rare in the family correspondence, which suggests that the two tried to avoid each other. As the Gentleman who carries this does not wish to be incumbred with many Packets, Peter wrote to his father in March 1784, I shall write but this Letter and beg you will communicate it to my Brother F[riedrich August Conrad Mühlenberg] and other friends.281 Strangely, Henry was left out in this and in many other of his communications concerning the Mühlenberg family. It is a matter of speculation whether their quite contrary tempers or Henry’s conduct during the war were predominantly responsible for this development. In any case, Henry’s absence from Philadelphia during the occupation may have been subsequently interpreted as a sign of cowardice by Peter, who took part in the famous Battle of Yorktown on October 10, 1781, which effectively ended the war.282 On September 30, 1783, three weeks after the Treaty of Paris had been signed, Peter was promoted to the rank of Major General283 and afterwards frequently appeared as Der General in Henry Mühlenberg’s letters and those of other Mühlenberg family members: With the General, whom I have fully disbursed, I have exchanged some quite harsh letters284, he wrote to Schultze in 1798.285 By the mid1790s, the situation seems to have improved a bit,286 although references to his ol-

281 282 283 284 285

286

fortgesetzten Motion zu, die ich wöchentlich zur Erholung und zur Vermehrung meiner Naturkentnis mir mache. Öfters treibe ich dabei Botanic und Mineralogie, besuche Landleute oder hänge besondern Meditationen nach, und ich kann Ihnen nicht genug beschreiben, wie mein Gemüth erhoben wird wenn ich so in der Einsamkeit umher walle, unter dem freien Himmel mir meinen allgegenwärtigen Schöpfer vorstelle und ihm danke daß er meiner in Christo gedenket. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 02/07/1785, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 980). J. P.G. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/16/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 935). According to Genzmer, Peter led one of the two brigades which stormed the British redoubts at Yorktown. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.” In fact, Genzmer states that Peter was “a hero only second to Washington” in his native Pennsylvania. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.” Neither this nor any other letter of Peter Mühlenberg’s hand to his brother Henry have survived. Mit dem General den ich voll ausbezahlt, habe ich ziemlich scharfe Briefe gewechselt. To Schultze, 03/26/1798, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. Probably the first appearance of Peter’s moniker Der General appears in the letter by H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, 01/01/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 923). [V]on des Generals Reise hatte ich nichts weiter gehört, weder er noch Friedrich hatten mir

The Family Context

95

der brother remained scarce immediately after the war and only appeared in his correspondence with Fabricius, the three brothers’ friend at the Halle Orphanage: My brothers are both still in public offices and good pillars for the German nation in this country. Whenever we meet, we still remember quite vividly the fatherly love that you have given to us.287 Considering the brevity of these remarks, the lack of any other proof of contact between the two, and Henry’s insistence to refer to his brother exclusively by his military rank der General, it is very likely that he tried to convey the picture of a harmonious relationship to Fabricius, which obviously did not correspond to the real circumstances anymore. After 1784, Peter paid a visit to his new estates in Ohio and Kentucky, which he had received as bounty for his military service during the Revolution.288 Again, this came to Henry’s knowledge only through the mediation of Frederick. In his letters to his brother, Frederick appears greatly impressed by their older brother’s achievements, although a plan to follow him to Kentucky was never realized.289 Instead, Frederick continued in his office as Registrar of Wills and Recorder of Deeds for Montgomery County and Justice of Peace in the same district.290 Three years later he was elected President of the Ratification Convention for the new federal Constitution, and later went on to become the first Speaker of the House of Representatives.291 In this prominent position in Philadelphia, then the capital of the United States, he was a welcome help to Henry Mühlenberg in the handling of his growing European and American correspondences. Since Congress is met again, Mr. Muhlenberg, my Brother, offers to be the Mediator of our Letters and promises to forward them quick and safe. I shall embrace every Opportunity to shew how much I value your Correspondence, he wrote to Manasseh Cutler at Ipswich, Massachusetts, on November 12, 1792.292 After Henry Mühlenberg and Helmuth had switched pastoral positions in early 1780, Kunze’s and Helmuth’s collaboration soon began to re-invigorate both the

287

288 289

290 291 292

etwas davon geschrieb. Ich hoffe er [Peter] wird in den mit mir abgeredet 5 Wochen wieder zurückkommen, und guten Bericht abstatten. To Schultze, 07/16/1795, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. Meine Brüder sind noch beide in öffentlichen Ämtern und sind für die teutsche Nation in diesem Lande eine gute Stütze. Wir denken bei jeder Zusammenkunft noch mit vieler Rührung an die väterliche Liebe die Sie zu uns getragen. To Fabricius, 11/01/1785, AFSt/M 4 D 20. See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Fabricius dated 11/24/1786 and 06/18/1787, both in AFSt/M 4 D 20. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel.” Peter hat selbst schon über 30,000 Acker land das ihm zu komt, als officir, u[nd] das er erhält als Agent für andere, Frederick informed Henry in June of 1784, [e]r hat aber noch mehr nahe bey Louisville angekauft, welches er das paradiß nant. (…) Kurz sein Glück ist gemacht, u[nd] die Beschreib[ung] von der Güte, Länge u[nd] Vortheile des Landes die er macht ist so daß ich mich fest entschlossen habe nächstes Frühjahr a. D. auch dahin zu gehen. Er geht diesen Herbst. In einem Jahr darauf hole ich meine Familie nach, u[nd] dan gute Nacht Pensilv[anien] unglück[liches] Pensilv[anien] das so sehr durch partheyn zurück ist _ gute Nacht politicks Partheyen teufeley u[nd] Schelmerey.. From Frederick A. C. Mühlenberg, 06/28/1784, APS Film 1097. Muhlenberg-Richards, “Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg,” 57; Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” To Cutler, 11/12/1792, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers.

96

A Prelude

Lutheran congreation and intellectual life in Philadelphia. For a brief period, they were co-editors of the German newspaper Gemeinnuetzige Philadelphische Correspondenz, and Kunze was awarded a masters degree in 1780, and a doctoral degree in 1783, both from the University of Pennsylvania.293 In 1784, he began considering a move to New York, which he discussed with his father-in-law, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg. The fact that the wounds suffered in the conflict with Henry Mühlenberg had not yet healed becomes apparent in these letters.294 In return, the elder Mühlenberg advised him not to let anyone know that his conflict with Henry Mühlenberg was the reason295 for this move, and eventually he agreed to it. Kunze moved to New York in the following year, where he helped organize the Ministerium within the state and worked for the promotion of higher education for the local German community.296 Kunze’s penchant for research in astronomy and orientalism297 began to show in 1780, when he was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society. In Lancaster, at some remote distance from Philadelphia and other centers of scientific activity, it took Henry many hours of solitary studies and five more years before he was admitted to the same society. It may be supposed that Kunze’s earlier membership prompted Henry Mühlenberg to undertake several attempts to be accepted into the A.P.S. during the early 1780s. There aren’t any news in town right now, Kunze began one of his letters to the elder Mühlenberg in November 1783. The politicians are divided by disquietudes and disputes. The actual character of the men that are now big and important I saw today 8 days since, when new members of the Philosophical Society were to be elected. There were 20 up for election and 4 were finally admitted. All was full of contradiction. Mr President [Samuel] Huntington, Mr Master of Finances Robert Morris, (…), Mr Professor Gamble, Mr Pastor Mühlenberg of Lancaster were

293 Glatfelter, Pastors I, 75; Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 246. 294 Vor einigen Tagen habe einen Beruf nach Neujork erhalten, ob ich wol, als ich da war, geflißentlich blos auf andere Subiecta wies. Ich gestehe, daß ich große Neigung füle, dahin zu gehen und da dem Herrn zu dienen. Was sagt aber mein lieber alter Vater dazu? Noch ist es hier ein Geheimnis. Meine Hauptgründe sind (…) 4) Viel glauben, daß ich Herrn [Gotthilf] Heinrich [Ernst] Mühlenberg von hier vertrieben, der jetzt wieder zurük gerufen werden kann. Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/02/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 925). Wallace adds that Kunze was finally demoralized by the never-ending vendettas and intrigues in the wake of Henry Mühlenberg’s departure from Philadelphia. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 261. 295 Solte aber das Geringete davon transpiriren oder mit unter laufen, als ob Sie deswegen mit von Philad[elphia] weg wolten: “weil Friedr[ich August Conrad] M[ühlen]b[erg] vor verschiedenen Jaren etwas unfreundliches wieder Sie in der Versamlung abgelesen, oder daß Sie durch Ihr Wegziehen dem [Gotthilf] Heinr[ich Ernst] M[ühlen]b[erg] Raum zu seiner Zurükkunfft machen wolten, so sehe ich schon mit Wehmut voraus, daß solcher gestalt die gantze Sache verdorben (…). H. M. Mühlenberg to Kunze, 01/06/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 926). 296 Glatfelter, Pastors I, 75. 297 Wilson, “Second Generation,” 253.

The Family Context

97

among the nominees and were all discarded.298 Remarkably, it was only after Kunze had gone to New York that Mühlenberg was finally admitted to the A.P.S. in 1785.299 In New York, Kunze soon began to weave a web of transatlantic correspondence, whose approximate dimensions can only be vaguely surmised from one of his last letters to his father-in-law in 1787.300 In comparison to Mühlenberg’s postwar correspondence with his other brother-in-law Schultze, however, it becomes clear that the relations between Kunze and Mühlenberg never fully recovered. The three letters they exchanged with each other in the years 1787, 1801 and 1803301 compare rather unfavorably to the 35 letters between Mühlenberg and Schultze between 1782 and the latter’s death in 1807.302 Kunze’s removal also paved the way for the establishment of John Frederick Schmidt as Helmuth’s adjunct pastor at Philadelphia, who was equally inclined towards mathematics.303 The two close friends would act as Halle’s commissioners throughout Mühlenberg’s pastorate at Lancaster and until Schmidt’s death in 1812.304 298 Von Neuigkeiten hören wir jetzt nichts in der Stadt. (…) Unter den Herren Politicis herrschen lauter Gärungen und Streitigkeiten. Ein rechtes Bild von Charakter der jetzigen grosen Herren unter uns sahe ich heute vor 8 Tagen, da in der Philosophischen Gesellschafft die Wal für neue Mitglieder war. Auf 20 waren zur Wal ernannt und 4 wurden erwelt. Alles war voller Wiederspruch. Herr Präsident [Samuel] Huntington, Herr Finanzen meister Robert Morris, (…) Herr Professor Gamble, Herr Pastor [Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst] Mühlenberg von Lancaster waren unter den ernannten und alle verworfen. Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 11/24/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 874). In the following year, Kunze was elected Secretary to the Society: N[ach] S[chrift] Eben jetzo komme ich aus der philosophischen Gesellschafft [The American Philosophical Society], allwo mir abermal ein neues Amt auferlegt und ich zu einem der Secretairs der Gesellschaft gewelt worden. Die Englischen erzeigen mir alle ersinnliche Hochachtung und wenn ich Philadelphia verlaße, geschicht es gewis nicht aus Durst nach mehrerer Ehre. Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/02/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 925). See also Wilson, “Second Generation,” 236. 299 Glatfelter, Pastors I, 94. See also Wilson, Pious Traders, 149. 300 [V]or Kurtzem bekam ich Brief von dem berühmten Dr. [John] Erskin[e] in Edinburg, der unaussprechlich darüber klaget: so auch mein Bruder [Johann Carl Kunze], von dem ehegestern Briefe hatte. Dr: [Gabriel Christoph Benjamin] Mosche, Senior in Frankfurt läßt sich Ihnen recht innigst empfelen. g) Aus Schweden habe auf mein weitläufftig Schreiben von 1784 keine Antwort erhalten. Von H[errn Friedrich Wilhelm] Pasche und aus Halle habe noch keine Briefe, so lange ich in Neuyork bin. h) Unter Dr: Erskin[e]s mir gesandten Tractaetl[ein] findet sich die Predigt des evangelischen Superintendenten Föh [Johann Georg Fock] in Wien, die er bei der Taufe eines Juden gehalten, und in der Vorrede wird von den Juden gemeldet, daß er aus Ostindien nach Europa gekommen sey, in der Absicht, sich irgendwo bei den Christen unterrichten zu laßen. Kunze to H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/10/1787, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 1033). 301 From Kunze, 05/19/1787, YUL Schwab Coll.; From Kunze, 11/21/1801, YUL Schwab Coll.; From Kunze, 05/12/1803, YUL Schwab Coll.. Two more letters were written in 1787 and 1799, which have not survived. Even these rare occasions were necessitated by external circumstances rather than by a mutual desire to enter into contact. The letter from 1787 is a comment on the founding of Franklin College. In 1801 and 1803, the two correspond on the reglementation of Frederick Augustus Conrad’s legacy, who died in 1801. 302 Schultze became president of the Lutheran Ministerium in 1781. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 369. 303 Wilson, Pious Traders, 149, 152. 304 Nolan writes that “[t]he two boys who had left the seminary at Halle eighteen years before to

98

A Prelude

3 THE SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT – THE RESPUBLICA LITTERARIA Some of the most defining characteristics of Englightenment thought were its stress on progress, rational deduction and a philosophical reappraisal of how man thought of himself. It was in this context that many of the sciences we know today took shape and developed in the community of like-minded individuals, students, scientists and scholars, who began to see themselves as a Respublica litteraria. The older roots, however, of this “fictitious community without territory, fixed geographical or social boundaries, with ideals and moral codes in lieu of a legal system, with idols instead of a government”305 can be found in historical developments of the early modern period, such as the invention of book printing, the enhancement of international traffic infrastructures, the globalization of trade, and the religious upheavals and subsequent persecutions of the 16th and 17th century. Especially the latter were a decisive factor in the genesis of modern scientific communication, as intellectual elites were often forced to seek refuge abroad and to continue their mutual contacts via correspondence.306 The term Respublica litteraria comes from the context of humanist thought and first appeared in the writings of the Erasmus of Rotterdam307 (1466/1469–1536) at the turn of the 15th to 16th century. As a selfdefinition of the contemporary scientific community, it was broadly accepted around 1680, when lexicons and encyclopedias began to list its connotations. At about the same time, vernacular languages began to gradually replace Latin as the lingua franca of the scientific community and national equivalents of the term – Gelehrtenrepublik, République des Lettres, Republic of Letters – came into fashion.308 The members of the Republic of Letters shared a set of norms and codes of conduct, which were only spelled out explicitly in times of conflict or disagreeembark for a new world were again united.” Nolan, Smith Family, 72. 305 Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 119. [my translation] See also Bots and Waquet, République, 23; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 385. 306 This represents only a small fraction of the factors which laid the foundation for the Republic of Letters. For full accounts, see Bots and Waquet, République, passim; Daston, “Reality,” 370–373; Herren, “Erweiterung,” 201–203; Barner, “Freundschaft,” 41f. 307 Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam was also one the first learned men to champion cooperation among scholars while critisizing solitary studies. Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, s.v. “Gelehrtenrepublik,” 308 Barner, “Freundschaft,” 34; Bots and Waquet, République, 12f., 20. According to Gierl, the term lost its scientific connotations altogether during the 19th century and came to be associated solely with fiction literature. Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, s.v. “Gelehrtenrepublik.” Just like the original term Respublica litteraria, vernacular equivalents could take on a whole range of meanings from the community of scholars to the implication of a kind of “bodyless” knowledge. Barner states that it is nearly impossible to grasp the full connotative and lexicographical dimensions of the term in their entirety. Bots and Waquet, République, 13, 17. Although Latin was replaced by vernacular languages as the Republic of Letter’s de facto medium of exchange, proficiency in latin remained a distinctive feature of scientific life throughout the 19th century. In the words of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860): Man soll nicht vergessen, daß jeder Mensch, der kein Latein versteht, zum Volke gehört, auch wenn er ein noch so großer Virtuose auf der Elektrisiermaschine ist und das Radikal der Flußspathsäure im Tiegel vorzeigen könnte. Quoted after Jaenicke, “Naturwissenschaften,” 630.

The Scientific Context

99

ment.309 In consequence of the dispersal of scholars all across Europe in the wake of religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, universality, cosmopolitism, transconfessionalism and social equality irrespective of traditional categories of rank emerged as its main pillars, which symbolized and warranted its members’ independence of despotic and oppressive governments, and national boundaries.310 On the individual level, this essentially liberal framework found its expression in an egalitarian ideal of learned friendship or amicitia eruditorum,311 and it was within this context that the traffic of ideas between scholars could really take place. Reciprocity of exchanged goods was the basic principle of this special type of friendship, which consequently cannot be interpreted solely on the basis of contemporary discourses of friendship, but must also be envisioned as an economic, purposeful type of relation, organized around the principle of do ut des.312 The amicitia eruditorum was modelled on contemporary notions of sociability and personal friendship, which placed huge importance on personal acquaintance, mutual confidence as a basis of trust, and the corroboration of this confidence by continued confirmation and cultivation of the relationship.313 Trust in another person also depended on particular and proven traits of character of an individual, such as honesty, personal piety or benevolence.314 As personal acquaintance between early modern scholars was rather the exception than the rule, alternative ways to generate and perpetuate trust had to be established. Franz Mauelshagen has conceptualized these alternatives as “pragmatic inversion.”315 In his view, a learned friendship was not the result of long-standing personal contacts in the past, but rather a moral obligation to recompense your correspondent in appropriate ways in the future after the initial contact was made.316 This way, the amicitia eruditorum represents a special kind of 309 Goldgar, Impolite Learning, 2f.; Daston, “Reality,” passim. 310 Bots and Waquet, République, 24f.; Daston, «Reality,» 370 ; Kempe, «Connection,» 72 ; Goldgar, Impolite Learning, 3. 311 Kempe, «Connection,” 72; Barner, “Freundschaft,” passim. 312 Hächler, Stuber, Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 19. This comes very close to Alain Degenne’s and Michel Forse’s remarks on friendship in network studies, which takes for granted, however, a personal acquaintance of the two persons involved, which was not always the case for the amicitia eruditorum. They argue that “[i]n qualitative studies, respondents stress certain essential traits when asked to define friendship. It is egalitarian and therefore rules out authority or hierarchy but not influence. It is reciprocal, with expectations of some sort of two-way flow. It is contracted freely and rejects constraint or coercion. There is but little leeway on these definitions, and we would add that, in industrialized societies, we prefer something ‘uninstitutional’ about our friendships. (...) Ethnologist have long known that friendship means very different things from one society to the next.” Degenne and Forse, Introducing, 30. 313 Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 124, 134f.; Barner, “Freundschaft,” 32. 314 For more on the situational context of friendship and the “Cult of Friendship” in the age of enlightenment, see Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 125f. and Barner, “Freundschaft,” 23. 315 Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 148. [my translation] 316 Mauelshagen explains: “Wie ich […] zu schildern versucht habe, stand das Networking unter einer Art Zeitdruck, der die metaphorische Generierung von Substituten für persönliche Kenntnis aufrecht erhalten werden konnte. Auch die dort angedeuteten Praktiken schneller Freundschaftserklärungen, die im Licht des Fide, sed cui vide als leichtfertig erscheinen müssen, können als pragmatische Lösung des Zeitproblems gedeutet werden. In dieser Form des Networking wurden freundschaftliche nicht mehr an die vorgängige, langwierige und problematische

100

A Prelude

social relationship, which was subject to the specific conditions within the geographically dispersed Republic of Letters. Anne Goldgar has consequently termed it a “community of obligations,”317 in which the mutual fulfilment of these obligations was viewed as a measure of the reciprocity of exchange.318 These mutual promises and obligations were supplemented by the concept of fama, which roughly corresponds with the social standing or reputation of an individual scholar, and which was conveyed via recommendations, citations or direct references in letters. Apart from the necessary level of education and the peregrinatio academica,319 the scholarly European tour to establish contacts, fama was the key that granted access to the scientific community.320 Its significance becomes even clearer in instances of conflict or scientific disputes, which arose often, and not seldom ended in life-long enmities or even duels.321 This “currency of the Republic of Letters”322 was especially valuable to those members who lacked the financial means or time to travel extensively for personal visits to European centers of learning. As will be shown, Mühlenberg relied heavily on fama to extend his correspondence, as his spatially fixed position as Lutheran pastor after 1780 clearly limited

317

318 319 320 321

322

Feststellung von Tugendhaftigkeit gebunden, sondern umgekehrt: Wer sich auf eine Beziehung im Namen der Freundschaft einließ, signalisierte die Bereitschaft zur nachfolgenden Einhaltung der damit verbundenen Tugendpflichten. >Freundschaft< war insofern (noch) kein Faktum, sondern die symbolische Erklärung einer Bereitschaft,” Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 148. In a similar context, Wilfried Barner speaks of a “useful friendship,” Hubert Steinke in a similar fashion of a “useful letter.” Barner, “Freundschaft,” 31; Steinke, Brief, passim. “The scholarly community was a community of obligation: mutual assistance between members was a constant theme, and the phrase ‘honor me with your commissions’ echoes continually through the correspondence of the period. (...) The practical function of such a system is apparent. Almost any scholar doing specialized work was bound to need materials he could not find at home. (...) However, the network of obligation in the Republic of Letters, once entered, could at least in theory make available ways of solving all (his) difficulties.” Goldgar, Impolite Learning, 13. Hächler, Stuber and Lienhart quote an instance of Albrecht von Haller’s (1708–1777) breaking off with a correspondent, who had failed to forward Haller’s packages and thus violated the code of conduct. Hächler, Stuber, Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 59f. For the concept of peregrenatio academica, see for instance Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 127; Bröer, “Diskurs, “ 108; Ammermann, “Gelehrten-Briefe,” 82f; Barner, “Freundschaft,” 41. “Ein Ersatz für persönliche Kenntnis bestand im gesellschaftlichen Ansehen einer Person. Dies war natürlich kein Spezifikum der Gelehrtenkultur. Die Rolle der Fama war hier jedoch besonders ausgeprägt,” Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 132. Kempe quotes the dispute between physician John Woodward (1665–1728) and Richard Mead (1673–1754) over the smallpox-virus, which ended in a sword-duel outside Gresham College in London. When Mead finally urged the disarmed Woodward, who was lying on the floor, to yield and say “Take your life!,” Woodward famously answered “Anything but your physic!” For Albrecht von Haller’s dispute with Casimir Christoph Schmidel (1716–1792), see Steinke, Brief, 25f. Franz Mauelshagen has raised awareness to the fact that fama must be seen within established rules of honor and personal integrity: “Die mit der Fama verbundenen Zuschreibungen entstammten Diskurszusammenhängen, die häufig als >GerüchtGerede< oder >Geschrey< bezeichnet und aus engräumigen Kommunikationsgemeinschaften auf das raumgreifende >Territorium< der Gelehrtenrepublik übertragen wurden,” Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 132. Daston, “Reality,” 382.

The Scientific Context

101

his range of mobility to the immediate surroundings of Lancaster and Philadelphia. Additionally, fama not only supplemented trust in long-distance friendships among learned men, but actually depended heavily on the judgement of distant colleague, as they were thought to be entirely ignorant of local scholarly rivalries for fame and lucrative positions and therefore presumably impartial, Lorraine Daston has convincingly argued in her study of the “Meritocracy,” as she has called the Republic of Letters.323 As both the Latin term Respublica Litteraria and its vernacular equivalents suggest, the social space of the Republic of Letters mainly constituted itself through correspondences.324 As focal points of scientific activity, journals and learned societies, such as the Royal Society of London and its Transactions were of secondary importance well into the 19th century.325 Daniel Roche has characterized this community as a “sociabilité epistolaire,”326 which is supported by the fact that editions of scientific correspondence were published as early as the 16th century, which allowed a wider public to partake in the traffic within a learned friendship.327 The library catalogue of the Leipzig-based Mencke family, owners of a local publishing house, features an impressive number of 190 editions as early as 1727, while Heinrich Willhelm Läwatz’ Handbuch für Bücherfreunde und Bibliothekare counts 1,100 in 1789, covering more than 200 years from the early 16th to the late 18th century.328 In most cases, however, correspondence underwent a rigid editing process before it was published. Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859) alone exchanged an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 letters with 2,740 known correspondents,329 in the case of Albrecht von Haller (1708–1777) the corpus consists of roughly 12,000 letters with 1,200 correspondents. The 5,150 letters exchanged with 700 correspondents of Johann Jakob Schleuchzer (1672–1733) and the 4,800 with 700 correspondents of Christoph Jacob Trew (1695–1769) are still impressive, too.330 323 Daston, “Reality,” passim. 324 For more on the constitutive elements of early modern science, see especially Michael Hagner’s collection of essays Ansichten der Wissenschaftsgeschichte (2001). 325 For a long time, articles in scientific journals were actually printed in the form of letters addressed to the secretary of the society. Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, s.v. “Gelehrtenrepublik;” Kempe, “Connection,” 74. Mühlenberg’s “Index Florae Lancastriensis,” which was published in the 3rd volume of the Transactions of the American Society in 1793, begins with the introduction: Dedicated to the Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, by the Author, and concludes with the words: I have the honour to remain, with great respect, Gentlemen, Your most Obedient Humble Servant, Henry Muhlenberg. Muhlenberg, “Index,” 157f. For more on the changing relationship between letters and scholarly articles, see Hächler, Stuber, Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 16f.; Bröer, “Diskurs,” 119; Daston, “Reality,” 371; Ammermann, “Gelehrten-Briefe,” 83f., Herren, “Erweiterung,” 202; Ultee, “Republic of Letters” 97. 326 Quoted after Kempe, “Connection,”75. 327 Hächler, Stuber, Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 13 328 Ammermann, “Gelehrten-Briefe,” 81. Albrecht von Haller started to collect his letters systematically when he was only 15 years of age. Hächler, Stuber, Lienhart, Hallers Netz, 49. See also Barner, “Freundschaft,” 28 and Steinke, Brief, 7. 329 Only about 12,400 letters from Humboldt and roughly 1,300 sent to him have actually survived. Schwarz, “Korrespondenz,” 194f. 330 Kempe, “Connection,” 73.

102

A Prelude

Characteristically, the contents of scientific correspondence remained relatively stable before and after the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. Reflections on current research alternated with news and sometimes even with gossip from the Republic of Letters, reviews of the latest books, personal information on health and family affairs, and finally comments on the realia331 which accompanied the letters.332 In Mühlenberg’s case, these realia usually comprised plant specimens, seeds, roots, leaves and sketches. In rare cases, this exchange could include zoological specimens, substances like petroluem or other curiosities. With regard to contents, his letters range from brief notes on his personal state of affairs without any botanical references to long lists of botanical phrases and nomenclatures almost completely devoid of any personal remarks or information. 3.1 The Handmaiden of Medicine Botany, as practiced by Mühlenberg in the late 18th century, had evolved since antiquity in the shadow of medicine and had long been considered its “handmaiden,” before it began to emerge as a field of research of its own during the 16th century.333 The development of modern sciences from Nicolaus Copernicus’ (1473–1543) literal “revolution”334 in astronomy to the late 17th century “Scientific Revolution” was one of the most defining features of the early modern period. It was in this context that modern disciplines like geography, paleology, botany and physics acquired their own social spaces, disciplinary identity and organisational shape, outside the scholastic-universitarian infrastructure which had developed during the late Middle Ages.335 The pursuit of natural philosophy and natural history336 gradually attained a new social dimension in this new environment, while classical authorities, which 331 The term realia subsumes all objects which accompanied letters and formed a major part of scientific correspondences. Depending on the individual interests and intellectual orientation of the scientist, Realia could consist of plant specimens, animal skins, rocks and stones, types of soil, bird feathers, oil, and basically anything deemed fit to arouse a correspondent’s interest. Klemun, “Pflanzentransfer,” 218. 332 Kempe, “Connection,” 74. 333 Morton defines the Italian publication of Galen’s (129–216) medical writings in 1483 as the threshold between medieval and early modern botany. Morton, History, 82. Ilse Jahn has pointed out that the separation of the spheres of the plant and animal kingdoms is one of the most striking features that distinguishes early modern botany from interest in plant live during epochs. Jahn, “Fragestellungen,” 235. 334 The term “scientific revolution,” which is commonly used to describe the changes in the sciences during the early modern period, took its name after Nicolaus Copernicus’ groundbreaking De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543), in which Copernicus offered an alternative model to Ptolemäus geocentric system. 335 Rossi, Geburt, 13f. 336 The two terms are frequently used synonymously, although they refer to strictly seperated spheres in the early modern order of sciences. The study of natural philosophy required a thorough mathematical background, as it dealt with astronomy, physics and chemistry. Natural history, on the other hand, covered the so-called “earth sciences,” which loosely corresponded to the modern sciences of botany, geography, paleography etc. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 80.

The Scientific Context

103

formed the basis of medieval scholastic thought, were replaced by the direct observations of nature and the correct application of a whole armamentarium of scientific methods and theories.337 Botany prior to Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) had already developed its own body of methods and several subdisciplines. Following various new editions of ancient botanical and medicinal treatises338 in late 15th century Italy, a renewed interest in Epicurism and in the growing influx of exotic plants and fruits339 from the New World set in. The Frenchman Jean Ruel (1474–1537) laid the foundations of early modern botany with his De Natura Stirpium (1536). In plant systematics, the German Valerius Cordus (1515–1544), who was the first to devise a logical system of plant description, and the Italian Andrea Cesalpino (1519–1603) were still held in high esteem by Linnaeus and his contemporaries for their pioneering work.340 The invention of the microscope around 1600 allowed for new developments and discoveries in plant morphology and plant anatomy; Nehemia Grew (1641–1712) and Marcello Malpighi (1628–1684) made notable progress in these fields,341 while John Ray (1623–1705) published the first natural classification system of plants in 1686.342 The dichotomy of natural versus artificial systems of plant classification remained the most heavily disputed issue throughout 18th century botany. Linnaeus’ famous system, as laid out first in his Systema naturae (1735), emphasized the relevance of reproductive organs of plants over other features and thus qualifies as an artifical system. The purpose of natural systems, on the other hand, consisted in the systemic integration of all possibly discernible plant characteristics without any prior preference or choice. As this naturally led to highly complicated and clumsy classificatory systems, Linnaeus’ user-friendly and highly flexible system soon turned out to be the system of choice of most 18th century botanists.343 The last great breakthrough before Linnaeus put botany on an entirely new footing came with

337 338 339

340

341 342 343

This distinction, however, only applies after the publication of Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620) and the mathematization of western science. Morton, History, 165. For the discontinuity between medieval and early modern sciences in general, see Rossi, Geburt, 17–19. Galen and Theoprast (371–287 b.c.), whom Linnaeus himself called the “Father of Botany,” were the most important classical authors on plant sciences. Morton, History, 33f., 43, 58–69, 82. One consequence of the Portuguese and Spanish exploration tours along the African coast and later to the American contintents was the introduction of corn, potatoes and sweet potatoes, beans, sunflowers, egg plants and tomatoes. Most of these were introduced via Italian ports. Morton, History, 118f. “Historically Cesalpino was the first who tried to define the principles on which a comprehensive natural classification of plants could be constructed, and the first to publish a classification which, however imperfectly, reflected real relationships with the plant kingdom.” Morton, History, 126f., 137. Grew and Malpighi popularised the technical term “cell,” which had before been introduced by Robert Hooke’s Micrographica in 1665. They were also the first ones to use the term “parenchyma” to denote the structural tissue of a plant. Morton, History, 177f ., 187. Morton, History, 264f. In 1799, English physician and botanist Robert John Thornton (1768–1837) listed as many as

104

A Prelude

Isaac Newton’s (1643–1727) groundbreaking Opticks (1704), on the basis of which the alleged claim for a link between light and plant nourishment could be proven for the first time.344 It was only after Linnaeus that original research in botany began to infuse and influence other sciences.345 With him, it became one of the main fields of interest and research in 18th century Europe and in the British colonies in North America.346 3.2 American Botanical Fellows When the Peace of Paris of 1783 finally allowed Mühlenberg to engage in learned friendships with men like Johann David Schöpf (1752–1800), Johann Christian Daniel Edler von Schreber (1739–1810) and James Edward Smith (1759–1808), American botany could already look back on a long tradition of collaboration and transatlantic plant and seed exchange between European scholars and colonial naturalists. As one might expect, the natural riches of the South American continent and the West Indian islands had been the first to attract the colonial powers’ attention.347 It was not before the 17th century, however, that interest turned to North America. In 1635, the first work on North American Botany was published by the French physican Jacques Phillipe Cornut (1606–1651), John Josselyn’s (1638–1675) New England Rarities discovered followed in 1672.348 A most systematic and sustained interest in the natural resources of England’s colonies began only with the establishment of the Royal Society of London in late November 1660.349 With this new body of learned men, research in North American botany would remain a primarily British enterprise until the War of Independence more than a century later.350 By April 1775, when the “shot heard around the world” was fired on Lexington Green, the Royal Society could claim 53 North American correspondents on its membership lists, which ranked as “colonial fellows” relatively low in the society’s

344 345 346 347 348 349 350

252 rivalling systems of plant classification. Schiebinger, “Geschlechterpolitik,” 110. See also Heller, “Binominal Nomenclature,” passim. Morton, History, 234. For more on pre-Linnean botany, see chapters five and six in Morton’s History of Botanical Science. Morton, History, 234; Schiebinger, “Geschlechterpolitik,” 107. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 13; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 1. Two years later, Josselyn published his equally acclaimed An Account of a Trip to New England. Brendel, “Historical Sketch,” 754f.; Petersen, New World Botany, 196. Petersen, New World Botany, 187f. This is also reflected in Joseph Ewan’s periodization of North American botany from 1555 to the 1950s, whose eight individual epochs are “characterized by persons or movements that have influenced its development.” These epochs are 1555–1647: Thievet-Josselyn Epoch; 1678–1730: Sloane Epoch; 1730–1791: Bartram Epoch; 1797–1815: Barton Epoch; 1816– 1820: Eaton-Nuttall Epoch; 1821–1861: Torrey and Gray Epoch; 1862–1913: Graduate Laboratory Epoch; 1916–Continuing: Foundation or Government-sponsored Epoch. Ewan, “Early History,” 27. C. Earle Smith has called pre-war botany “[a]n era of exploration sponsored by Europe.” Smith, “Century of Botany,” 3.

The Scientific Context

105

hierarchy.351 This “intercolonial network of scientific communication”352 had developed since the end of the 17th century and brought together men like John Bartram, Cadwallader Colden, Peter Collinson, John Clayton, John Bannister and Mark Catesby into a “delightful brotherhood,”353 whose common goal was to explore and make available North America’s natural resources to the mother country. John Bannister (1650–1692) and John Clayton (1657–1724) were probably the first English colonists to function as correspondents for the society. Bannister had come to Virginia as an Anglican missionary, and soon entered into correspondence with the British naturalist John Ray, sending back plant information, specimens and descriptions.354 John Clayton had migrated to Virginia with his father in 1715, from where he sent botanical specimens to the Dutch botanist Jan Frederick Gronovius (1686– 1762) at Leiden, which was a center of botanical studies in Europe at the time.355 Another part of Clayton’s material went to a London-based Quaker merchant whose tight web of commercial ties with the New World and keen eye for botanical developments in Europe made him the first true English champion of North American botany. Peter Collinson (1694–1768), admitted to the Royal Society in 1728, stood in correspondence with the likes of John Clayton, James Logan (1674– 1751),356 Mark Catesby (1679–1749),357 John Mitchell (1680–1772),358 Cadwalla351 “But comparatively few colonial correspondents were elected to the Royal Society primarily because of noteworthy contributions to scientific knowledge. They were not the less valued, however, for the Royal Society cherished them as trustworthy purveyors of scientific data from little know regions of the world (...).” Stearns, “Fellows,” 209. See also Keeney, Botanizers, 25; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 15f. 352 Stearns, Science, 535. 353 Savage, America, 55. 354 Bannister was killed during an exploration tour up the Roanoke river. Smith, “Century of Botany,” 3; Ewan, “Early History,” 30; Greene, American Science, 254. 355 Linnaeus finished his studies with Herman Boerhave (1668–1738) at Leiden in 1738–39. Heller, “Nomenclature,” 35. For more on John Clayton and his collaboration with Gronovius for the latter’s Flora Virginica, see Petersen, New World Botany, 212f.; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 29; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 3; Ewan, “Early History,” 31; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 10. 356 James Logan, a Quaker immigrant to Pennsylvania, quickly rose to prominence and attained a high political status after his immigration in 1699. In 1722 he attained the position of mayor of Philadelphia, later that of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and acting governor of Pennsylvania. See Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 22. 357 Mark Catesby’s interest in North American flora and fauna was sparked by a visit to Virginia in 1713, where his sister had settled. The plants and specimens he brought back from there for some of his botanically-interested friends eventually came to the attention of Henry Compton, then bishop of London, and other dignitaries, who soon tried to convince him to write a natural history of the colony. After the publication of his Natural History of Florida, Jamaica and the Bahamas (1731–43), Catesby was admitted to the Royal Society in 1733. Along with Clayton and Bartram, Catesby was surely the dominating figure in the botanical exploration of North America around 1750. Peterson concludes that “Catesby’s works, underwritten by Collinson, and Clayton’s Flora, compiled and bankrolled by Gronovius, were seminal sources for the subsequent century of botanizing in America.” Petersen, New World Botany, 218. See also Savage, America, 49f.; Brendel, “Historical Sketch,” 754f.; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 3; Ewan, “Early History,” 32; Petersen, New World Botany, 206, 212f. 358 John Mitchell settled at the small town of Urbanna on the Rappahannock river around 1700,

106

A Prelude

der Colden (1688–1776),359 and, most prominently, John Bartram (1699–1777).360 With Bartram alone, Collinson maintained a correspondence which covered nearly 30 years and must be seen as the single most important learned friendship between two men whose primary interests were the flora of Britain’s Atlantic colonies.361 Commenting on Collinson’s use of economic ties to North America for his botanical interests, Hunter Dupree has observed that “[t]he correspondence necessary to keep merchandise flowing could easily be adapted to messages of intellectual import; hence, (...) Peter Collinson joined in one network the mercantile and scientific information flow.”362 John Bartram, too, had at his disposal a large network of both continental and transatlantic correspondents, which included the secretary of the Royal Society Hans Sloane (1660–1753), the German botanist Johann Jacob Dillenius (1687– 1747), the most prominent botanist of his time, Carl Linnaeus, and the aforementioned Jan Frederik Gronovius and Mark Catesby, just to name a few.363 The fact that the same individuals turn up in several of these correspondences illustrates the density which characterized this intercolonial network. Raymond Phineas Stearns has noted that “[t]he eighteenth-century world seems relatively small. Almost all the important men knew each other,”364 while John Clayton’s statement that he depended mostly on Peter Collinson in London for news about other American botanists365 suggests that colonial Americans held their transatlantic ties in higher esteem than those among themselves. Nevertheless, John Bartram’s botanical correspondence included both colonial and European correspondents, although he is remembered more for his diligence as a traveler, collector and organizer rather than for his work in theoretical botany.366

359

360 361 362 363 364 365 366

where he started his medical practice and spent considerable amounts of time on the description of plants. The botanical and medical treatises he left behind were long held in high esteem by American physicians, especially Mitchell’s account of a yellow fever epidemic in 1737. This was a major source of knowledge for Benjamin Rush during the 1793 yellow fever epidemic at Philadelphia. Petersen, New World Botany, 255. Cadwallader Colden migrated to Pennsylvania in 1710 to start his medical practice there. After moving to New York, Colden acted as governor several times during the 1760s and became a signer of the Declaration of Independence in the year of his death. Savage, America, 59; Petersen, New World Botany, 250; Fernald, “Early Botanists”, 63. Keeney, Botanizers, 26. For more on Collinson and his collaboration with John Bartram, see Savage, America, 56; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 3; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 18; Petersen, New World Botany, 255. Dupree, “National Patterns,” 23. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 24; Petersen, New World Botany, 230f; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 11. Stearns, Science, 533. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 28. Johann David Schöpf, a later correspondent of Mühlenberg, observed in his Reise durch einige der mittleren und südlichen vereinigten nordamerikanischen Staaten (1788), that Bartram was “more a collector than a student.” Quoted after Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 26. Summarizing Bartram’s contribution and status in North American Botany, Hindle continues that “ [Bartram] contributed to the general advance of knowledge but in the American scene he was more important for the stimulus he provided to the development of an intellectual community and for

The Scientific Context

107

Bartram was an original founding member of the American Philosophical Society in 1743 and the founder of the first botanical garden in North America,367 which earned him the title “Father of American Botany,” while that of the “American Linnaeus” should remain reserved for Mühlenberg after his death in 1815. Joseph Ewan has even identified a “Bartram epoch” in American botany,368 which “was characterized by the revival of a lively traffic in seeds and plants from America to England (and on to the Continent) which continued until John’s death in 1777.” In the case of Bartram, Ewan has stressed the importance of practical cooperation with, and the dependence on England, which contrasts sharply with Mühlenberg’s more theoretical bent and his later efforts to overcome the dependence on Europe. Both is implied in the epithet “Linnaeus of our country.”369 Of all botanists working in the North American field during the colonial period, Bartram is the only one of indirect relevance to Mühlenberg’s network, as his two sons William (1739–1823) and John (1743–1812) entered into a correspondence with him during the early 1790s. As for the institutional side of colonial natural research, not much progress was made prior to Independence. When Bartram joined the American Philosophical Society in 1743, it had just made the transition from an intimate circle of Benjamin Franklin’s friends, the famous Junto, to a debating club open to natural philosophers, scholars and colonial elites.370 Modelled on the Royal Society of London, America’s first scientific society would remain a rather insignificant offshoot of Franklin’s diverse interests and projects until after the French and Indian War. Against the background of a renewed economic interest in agricultural production after 1763371 and of rising tensions with the mother country England, which for the first time added a sense of patriotism to the motives for pursuing natural sciences in America, it was only with the transit of the planet Venus in 1769 and the subsequent publication of the society’s Transactions that its actitivies came to the notice of European scholars.372 Shortly before this watershed, the later revolutionary politician Charles Thomson (1729–1824) had defined new objectives for the recently re-founded society, which echoed both the utilitarian Zeitgeist of the period and the

367 368 369 370 371

372

focusing the attention of the Europeans upon those close to him.” Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 27. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 21, 26; Ewan, “Early History,” 33; Savage, America, 56. Ewan, “Early History,” 27. For more on William Baldwin’s letter with the well-known “American Linnaeus” passage, see Conclsion, 446f. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 121f.; Lewis, “Democracy,” 673. Ostrander, Republic, 47–50, 56, 61f.; Lewis, “Gathering,” 67. In 1764, the Molasses Act of 1733 was about to expire. The united efforts to prevent the act from being renewed led to the establishment of America’s first agricultural society at New York in 1764. In the same year, however, the British parliament replaced the Molasses Act with the Sugar Act. After this decision, relations with England began to deteriorate. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 106f. See also Petersen, New World Botany, 247f. During the 1760’s, the APS was still better known in Europe by the name of “Franklin’s Society.” Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 138. See also Dupree, “National Patterns,” 23; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 123f., 333.

108

A Prelude

quest for economic independence: Knowledge is of little use, Thomson wrote, when confined to mere Speculation; But when Speculative Truths are reduced to Practice, when Theories, grounded upon experiments, are applied to common Purposes of life, and when, by these Agriculture is improved, Trade enlarged, and the Arts of Living made more easy and comfortable, and of Course, the Increase and Happiness of Mankind promoted, Knowledge then becomes really useful.373 The other leading champion of the A.P..S.. during the years between the wars was the physician and co-founder of the Philadelphia Hospital, Thomas Bond (1712–1784),374 who tried to rekindle interest in the society in reaction to the creation of a short-lived Medical Society and in competition with the American Society for Promoting Usefull Knowledge. The rivalry between these societies was partially based on a completely different social composition of their memberships, with the A.P.S. being primarily dominated by politicians associated with the proprietary party in Pennsylvania politics and professionals, and the American Society by patriotic representatives of the liberal wing of the Quakers.375 The two societies finally overcame their differences facing the Townshend Acts of 1767 and merged in the same year to become the modern American Philosophical Society.376 After 1770, strict financial regimentations were first added to the society’s rules,377 but despite these renewed efforts, it was only after the War that the A.P.S. gained in importance again. 3.3 Carl Linnaeus and America In northern Europe, botanical interest in the New World was also on the rise during the 18th century. Just like Collinson in England, Carl Linnaeus in Sweden went to great lengths to establish ties and friendships with botanically interested members of the colonial elite like Cadwallader Colden, Alexander Garden (1730–1791), and John Bannister. Their transatlantic collaboration is still preserved in the many genera Linnaeus named for his American correspondents, such as Coldenia, Gardenia and Banisteria.378 The son of a Lutheran pastor who had decided to pursue botanical studies early in his life rather than entering the ministry,379 not only laid the modern foundations of botanical nomenclature with his Species Plantarum, published in Mühlenberg’s year of birth in 1753, but also included about. 2,000 descriptions of American plants in this work.380 The specimens for these were sent to him by his colonial correspondents and his colleague Pehr Kalm (1716–1779), who was traveling and botanizing in New Jersey, Eastern Pennsylvania, New York and Ca373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380

Quoted after Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 125. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 138. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 128, 131. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 137. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 140. Savage, Discovering America, 59; Petersen, New World Botany, 250. Morton, Botanical Science, 259f; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 9f. Posthumous editions continued the list of American plants. Greene, American Science, 262.

The Scientific Context

109

nada from 1748 to 1751.381 During this time, Kalm also became acquainted with John Bartram and other North American contacts of Linnaeus. Not surprisingly, on his return trip via London, Kalm paid a brief visit to Peter Collinson, who also corresponded with Linnaeus.382 By the time of Kalm’s American expedition, Linnaeus had earned some international reputation for a classificatory system which he had originally published in 1735 under the title Systema naturae.383 This artificial system of 24 classes within the plant kingdom, which were defined according to differences in 26 reproductive organs of the flowering parts of plants,384 provided 18th century botany with a system that would prove especially persistent among North American botanists. The Linnean system finally attained a special status with Linnaeus’ second botanical innovation, a new system of binominals, whose theoretical roots dated back at least to Gaspar Bauhin’s Pinax of 1623. It has been assumed that Linnaeus’ attention was possibly first directed to binominals by some of his students.385 While his classificatory system was almost universally adopted for its enormous scope and depth, binominals introduced a flexibilty to the system which was of unrivalled usefulness in the systematic integration of the never-ceasing flow of botanical discoveries from all over the planet.386 Prior to the use of binominals,387 Aristotelian polynomal phrase names, which could run several lines in a letter, were used to describe plants. Classification followed the principle per genus et differentiam, which dictated that genera be defined through comparable features of all plants, such as stem, flower parts, leaves etc, while the internal order was based on the plants’ differences in these very features. Unfortunately, this technique produced clumsy analytical names, which were hard to memorize and slowed down botanical correspondence and exchange considerably.388 Additionally, the system only worked as long as the total number of plants remained relatively stable, but was doomed to collapse whenever large numbers of new plants with hitherto unknown features that proved to be inconsistent with the foundation of former classes had to be integrated.389 Consequently, attempts to integrate these new species entailed a complete and cumbersome re-designation of 381 Kalm’s original assignment had been to find and provide Mulberry trees, on which silkworms could be bred to found a silk industry in Sweden. Brendel, “Historical Sketch,” 754f.; Ewan, “Early History,” 35; Müller-Wille, “Walnuts,” 40; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 12; Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1324. 382 Savage, America, 60–62; Petersen, New World Botany, 232. 383 Jahn, “Fragestellungen,” 237. 384 Petersen, New World Botany, 222f. Jahn, “Fragestellungen,” 237. 385 Petersen, New World Botany, 232; Morton and Heller point out that Bauhin is usually credited with the original concept of binominals, while Linnaeus put the system on a new theoretical foundation. Heller, “Binominal Nomenclature,” 34; Morton, History, 144. For his Systema Naturae (1735), Linnaeus drew on the work of French naturalist Sébastien Vaillant (1669–1722). Jahn, “Fragestellungen,” 236. 386 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 12; Harvey-Gibson, Outlines, 56; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 20. 387 Heller, “Nomenclature,” 33. 388 Morton, History, 274f. 389 Heller, “Nomenclature,” 34; Wagenitz, Anfänge, 7.

110

A Prelude

plants to new or other taxa with the danger of confusion and loss of knowledge. With Linnaeus’ binominals, which consisted of a generic and a trivial name and followed rigid rules for the creation of both,390 plants could be identified, moved and re-designated much more economically and safely than before.391 The system did not replace botanical phrases altogether, however, when it came to the description of new plants or animals not yet integrated into Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae. In John Heller’s words, binominals provided “not indeed a complete description of the species concerned, but an elegant definition – elegant in the sense that it used a minimum number of words, just sufficient to distinguish a given species unambiguously from all others included within the same genus.”392 Indeed, much of Mühlenberg’s botanical correspondence consists of long lists of botanical phrases, the accuracy of which reveals a level of botanical sophistication which must have been and still is surprising for an amateur.393 Both of Linnaeus’ innovations provided solutions to contemporary botany’s most urgent issues. The system’s accuracy and comprehensiveness delighted professional botanists,394 while its accessibility invited amateur botanists like Bannister, Colden, Catesby and later Mühlenberg to join the global efforts to take stock of nature’s riches.395 This does not mean, however, that professional botanists could easily be replaced. What amateurs, untrained plant hunters or botanical enthusiasts could contribute were specimens and descriptions, but the final integration of new species into Linnaeus’s system demanded both analytical and bibliographical skill and thus was outside their grasp.396 Peter Collinson in London, for instance, declared that he had “no time” to understand the system and rejected it largely on this basis. Further professionalization and specialization397 among botanical scholars were another consequence of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae. In fact, the express pur390 391 392 393

394 395

396

397

Heller, “Nomenclature,” 50. Heller, “Nomenclature,” 34, 49; Wagenitz, Anfänge, 7. Heller, “Nomenclature,” 34. Wagenitz, Anfänge, 7. Mühlenberg demonstrated extreme swiftness and adroitness in adapting the logics of the system. In his first letter to Schreber from November 1785, he claimed that it had only been in late fall of the same year that he received his first book in Linneian botany. To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Already in his Naturtagebuch fürs Jahr 1786 gehalten zu Lancaster in Pensilvanien (APS 580 M89n), which covers the period from January 11 1786 to the end of June of the same year, Mühlenberg wrote out long botanical phrases and descriptions that betray an impressive botanical knowledge. With the exception of France, where the system was never fully accepted. Harvey-Gibson, Outlines, 56 “The simplicity of the system made it especially popular in the late eighteenth and early ninetheenth century with the many amateur botanists whose dilligence and enthusiasm contributed much to the advance of floral knowledge.” Morton, History, 269. See also Jahn, “Fragestellungen,” 239; and Petersen, New World Botany, 223. Harvey-Gibson has even called the system “delightfully simple.” Harvey-Gibson, Outlines, 54. “After Linnaeus the act of naming had the effect of tying the local biological assemblages (that is, the specimens) to a global system of nomenclature. This complicated operation, involving both analytical and bibliographical skill, could not take place at the meeting; it required a stable, well-protected location for regular work.” Dupree, “National Patterns,” 25. Harvey-Gibson, Outlines, 56.

The Scientific Context

111

pose of Mühlenberg’s correspondence with Old World authorities like Schreber or Olof Swartz (1760–1818) in Stockholm was the comparison of specimens with those in European herbaria and their correct systematization according to Linnean parameters. This was the botanical know-how that American botanists continued to import and to depend on until mid-19th century, and to which Mühlenberg contributed chiefly by establishing his own herbarium.398 When he became active as a botanical correspondent after 1783, however, Linnaeus’ system had already come to be heavily disputed, as its shortcomings became more and more apparent399 and botanical research developed a viable alternative with the widely-accepted natural system of Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu (1748–1836).400 “Linnaeus closes a chapter, he does not open one;” R. J. Harvey-Gibson has summarized Linnaeus’ scientific impact. “[H]e writes the epilogue, not the prologue (…) The chief service that he rendered to botany was to furnish his successors with a solid jumping-off place whence they might spring across the stream on to the further shore.”401 Mühlenberg, however, never made that jump and remained an almost staunch Linnean throughout his life. 3.4 Mühlenberg and Linnaeus With regard to the beginnings of Mühlenberg’s botanical interests, one reference in a letter, written in January 1811 to William Baldwin (1779–1819), indicates that he first went on a botanizing tour during the first years of his ministry in the Pennsylvania field in the early 1770s. Sir, will you forgive me, if I, as a stranger, intrude upon your studies, and beg your acquaintance? Mühlenberg addressed Baldwin. Doctor Hiester, the present physician of the Lazaretto, informs me that you are a great Lover of Botany. I have been the same for near forty years.402 Accordingly, 398 Wilson, “Second Generation,” 245; Greene, American Science, 262; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 6. When Manasseh Cutler (1742–1823) published his Account of some of the Vegetable productions, naturally growing in this part of America, botanically arranged in 1785, he worked on the Linnean system, but included no binominals. Ewan, “Early History,” 36. Asa Gray (1810–1888) can be called the first truly American taxonomist with an international reputation. Pennel, “Botanical Collectors,” 38. 399 Being fully aware of the limits in an artifical system, Linnaeus proposed a natural system in 1738. Jahn, “Fragestellungen,” 237; Petersen, New World Botany, 223; Schiebinger, “Geschlechterpolitik,” 111. The death blow to Linnaeus’ natural system finally came with James Cook’s (1728–1779) botanical discoveries in the 1770s, as plants from the southern hemisphere proved to be practically incompatible with descriptive standards for plants from the northern hemisphere. Even before, scholars like Johann Jacob Dillenius and Albrecht von Haller had opposed the system. Petersen, New World Botany, 222, 266. 400 De Jussieu based his system on embryonic characteristics of plants, and published it first in 1789. Harvey-Gibson, Outlines, 56; Greene, American Science, 5. 401 Harvey-Gibson, Outlines, 56; Morton, History, 274f. 402 To Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15. “Muhlenberg’s interest in and study of botany (according to his letter of January, 1811, in which he says that he has been a great friend of botany for near forty years) began when he was eighteen or nineteen years old, and seems to be coupled with the period of his life when he preached in Philadelphia, Barren Hill, and in the

112

A Prelude

Mühlenberg began his career as plant hunter as early as 1771–72. Mühlenberg’s scientific interest in botany, however, did not develop until his sojourn at Providence, Montgomery County, where the threat of a British invasion of Philadelphia in the summer of 1777 forced him to flee with his family.403 To a letter to the Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde Berlin (Society of Friends of Natural Resarch) from 1799, Mühlenberg attached a brief third-person curriculum vitae, detailing the related events: After he had stood as a pastor mostly in Philadelphia from 1771 to 1777, he had to leave Philadelphia with half of his congregation, as the city was occupied by the British. In remote distance from his books and in the quiet of country life, he began to browse around nature, and to study it without books or teacher. He became more acquainted with her and learned to love her more each day. In 1780 he found himself tired of city life and came to Lancaster, where he lives and works as pastor and natural researcher to this day.404 This ties in well with a few lines written on the inside of the back cover of his botanical notebook,405 where he states that the plant observations for his Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis (1813) date back to 1778. A passage from a letter to William Peck in 1810 also confirms the late 1770s as the beginning of his botanical activities.406 This new interest in plants was obviously spawned by the war-induced

403

404

405 406

churches on the Raritan as his father’s assistant. His work was probably intensified and organized into scientific form as the result of the leisure which followed his flight into Montgomery County.” Beck, “Mühlenberg, Botanist,” 102. Muhlenberg-Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 149–151; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 7, 10; Beck, “Mühlenberg, Botanist,” 99; Müller-Jahncke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1323. Smith, “Pioneer,” 444; Wilson, Pious Traders, 189. Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 59f.; Humphrey, Makers, 185–186. Some of these authors claim that Mühlenberg roamed the Providence area in the disguise of a Native American or “Indian” or fled Philadelphia in this disguise. The issue is unresolved, no hints could be found in Mühlenberg’s letters or other writings on behalf of this. See also Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 149. Nachdem er von 1771 bis 1777 mehrentheils in Philadelphia als Prediger gestanden mußte er mit der Hälfte seiner Gemeinsglieder Philadelphia verlaßen, das von den Engländern besetzt worden. Von seinen Büchern entfernt und in der Stille des Landlebens fing er an sich in der Natur umzusehen, und ohne Buch und Lehrer die Natur zu studieren. Er wurde bekanter mit ihr und gewann sie alle Tage lieber. 1780 kam er, des Stadtlebens müde, nach Lancaster wo er bis jetzt als Prediger und Naturforscher lebt. To GNF, 10/02/1799, HUB GNF S, Mühlenberg H. E. This very short CV was meant to be included in his future publications for the GNF. APS 580 M89bo vol. III. Being above 30 years engaged in Study of that lovely Science I wish to get information and if possible Specimens from other American States. To Peck, 01/10/1810, APS Coll. 509 L56. Also, on November 20, 1778 he noted in his diary: Wie werde ich nun am besten in der Kräuterkunde fortkommen. Es ist Winter und wenig zu tun. Im Winter muss ich bemerken, welche Pflanzen ihr Laub behalten, denn die Bäume usw. gehören auch in mein Fach, welche Kräuter wohl blühen möchten. (…) Gegen Frühjahr muss ich ausgehen und eine Chronologie halten von den Bäumen, wie sie ausschlagen, von den Blumen, wie sie nach und nach hervorkommen. (…) Ich muss hauptsächlich auf die Blüte und Frucht merken, manch’ andere Umstände sind auch, doch nicht ganz so viel nötig.(…) I. Blüte. Die Zeit – Ort wo sie an der Pflanze steht – Ob und wieviel Stamina – Der Same auf denselben – Wie die Stamina stehen, einzeln oder verbunden – Ob und wieviel Pistilla – Ihre Gestalt – Ob und wie Corolla da sein – Farbe – Gestalt – Ob und wie Calix da sei? (...) Könnte ich dann ein Herbarium machen ganz oder zum Teil, wo wäre es desto besser. Ein guter Freund, der Kenntnisse und Neigung dazu hat, wäre überaus

The Scientific Context

113

shortage of Halle medicines, which he tried to bypass with his own medical experiments.407 For these, however, a more detailed knowledge of plants was necessary, but the continuing non-importation prevented him from obtaining the books he needed for this end. The name of Linnaeus does not appear in writings until his first letter to Schreber in 1785: It has been a warm wish of mine for quite some time, to become finally acquainted with a real Botanist, whom I could ask for advice and elucidation of my doubts. (…) It was only a few weeks ago that I received Linneai terminos, and now I learn in one hour what cost me weeks of studies before.408 As it has been suggested above, just like the majority of contemporary American naturalists, Mühlenberg never made the transistion to a more progressive system of nomenclature. Above all, Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) never wavered in his support for the Linnean system, as all classificatory schemes, both natural and artifical, appeared equally arbitrary to him. Linnaeus’ Systema naturae, on the other hand, had the advantage of being a widely accepted standard, and Jefferson’s emphasis on this point reflects the young republic’s need to organize the hodgepodge of measures, currencies and authorities, which impeded interstate trade and communication.409 Benjamin Smith Barton (1766–1815) also followed Jefferson, going so far as to deny the sheer possibility of any actually natural system. In the appendix to his 1803 textbook on botany, Barton described 17 different nomenclatory systems, but curiously failed to include the currently dominating one of Antoine de Jussieu.410 Change came slowly to American science and never fully arrived in Mühlenberg’s botanical world. It remained for the Portuguese botanist José Correia da Serra (1750–1823) to adapt some of Mühlenberg’s botanical work to de Jussieu’s system after his death, and when the English botanist Thomas Nuttal (1785–1859) published his groundbreaking Genera of North American plants in the same year, he found himself pressed to publish it in Linnean code for fear that Americans would not accept it in de Jussieu’s system.411

407

408

409 410 411

behilflich (Mr. Young drei Meilen von hier). Quoted after Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 16. Richards, quite singularly, claims that his botanical education began at Halle. Muhlenberg-Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 151. Richard Mears conflates his return to Philadelphia with the beginnings of his botanical interests. Mears, “Herbarium,” 155. Mühlenberg’s botanical notebooks show him compiling a domestic medicine chest. Wilson, Pious Traders, 190. In a letter to Schreber from 1788, Mühlenberg confirms rather vaguely his long-standing interest in the medicinal uses of plants: Ich habe nicht wenige, da ich schon lange ein Werkchen entworfen von dem Nutzen der Americanisch Pflanzen. To Schreber, 06/16/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Es war schon lange mein warmer Wunsch, mit einem ächten Botanico bekannt zu werden, bei dem ich Aufklärung meiner Zweifel suchen und mich raths erholen könte. (…) Erst seit etlichen Wochen habe ich Linnaei terminos bekommen, nun lerne ich in einer Stunde was mit sonst manche Woche Untersuchung kostete. To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Beck, however, asserts that Mühlenberg was already working with Linnean theory at Halle, but does not provide proof for his claim. Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 42. Greene, American Science, 33, 258. Greene, American Science, 258. Greene, American Science, 269. Müller-Jahncke asserts that Samuel L. Mitchill (1764-1831)

114

A Prelude

This obstinacy on the part of American naturalists must predominantly be attributed to the rather special conditions of the young United States, which entailed a necessity to codify communication standards in science and commerce.412 You have graciously permitted me to reveal to you my wishes with respect to minerals and plants, Mühlenberg adressed Schreber in one of his first letters. I seek to become more acquainted with local plants and minerals and to learn their useful application. For this reason, I would appreciate to receive types of soil, stone and minerals as exactly determined after Linnaeus or Walter, namely margel, gypsum, half metals and such ores that you may not recognize at first sight. Of seeds such that are useful in economy, Avena elatior, Festuca elatior, Mopecurus, Antoxanthum, Aira aquatica. I have already set up a garden for grasses and try the local ones. What joy it would be to me to be able to serve my fatherland with the introduction of useful plants.413 As one might expect, it was predominantly in the promotion of agriculture and exploitation of natural resources that this utilitarian orientation showed on the national level. Hindle, however, has stressed that these played out less in the introduction of new seeds and crops, but rather through innovations in grafting, crop rotation, fertilizers or new agricultural machinery. This was what Manasseh Cutler (1742-1823) had in mind when he compiled his Observations of the propriety of applying Botanical knowledge to Agriculture, feeding cattle, &c in 1785.414 Interestingly, this utilitarian spirit also dominated Lutheran Pietist attitudes towards science and progress, as Thomas Müller-Bahlke has shown. August Hermann Francke relied on contacts with scientists and natural researchers to introduce innovations and new ideas to his Foundations that he considered beneficial to his reform goals. The Orphanage’s water-supply system, which even comprised faucets in many rooms on all floors, and quick adaptions of the latest innovations in printing technology are only two examples of Francke’s efforts to improve the efficiency and general standard of living. Correspondingly, the interest in mechanical toys, chess-machines and other fancy technical gadgets, which are equally characteristic of the 18th century, met with complete indifference at Halle.415

412 413

414 415

was the prime mover behind the adaptation fo Mühlenberg’s work into de Jussieu’s system. Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1327. Greene, American Science, 33; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 355. The emphasis on useful knowledge was not restricted to America, though. In Bacon’s words, truth and utility always came as an inseperable couple. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 190. Sie haben mir gütigst erlaubt, Ihnen meine Wünsche in Absicht von Mineralien und Pflanzen zu entdecken. Ich suche die hiesigen kennen und nützlich anwenden zu lernen, daher mir von Mineralien am liebsten wäre genau nach Linnaeus oder Walter benante Erden, Steine und Gebürgsarten namentlich Margel, Gyps, halb Metalle und solche Ertzen die man nicht beim ersten Anblick erkennen würde. Von Samen solche die in der Öconomie nützlich sind, Avena elatior, Festuca elatior, Mopecurus, Antoxanthum, Aira aquatica. Ich habe schon einen Gräser Garten angelegt und probiere die hiesigen. Wie würde ich mich freuen wenn ich meinem Vaterland durch Einführung nützlicher Gewächse dienen könnte! To Schreber, 11/24/1786, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 356. See also Ostrander, Republic, 53. Müller-Bahlke, “Naturwissenschaft,” passim. Correspondingly, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg showed little sympathy the more experimental pursuits of the APS: Our American philosophers are now very busy trying to bring balloons and flying machines to perfection, he noted

The Scientific Context

115

3.5 American Botany in the Early National Period (1775–1815) As early modern science was an almost exclusively urban phenomenon, war, occupations, blockades and destructions of American cities dealt severe blows to the infrastructure of the American Republic of Letters. In Philadelphia, the College of Physicians was used as barracks for British regulars in the winter of 1777 to 1778, King’s College in New York suffered the same fate from 1776 to 1783. Even the Continental Army and its allies showed no hesitation to make temporary requisitions of educational institutions for the quartering of troops. From 1776 to 1782, the College of Rhode Island was first occupied by American troops, then by their French allies.416 Additionally, war-time scarcities in basic commodities like ink, paper or font-types for printing-presses rendered the mere idea of publishing scientific journals ridiculous, while the few scientific societies existing at the time postponed most meetings until after the war’s end.417 Even more destructive than the loss of buildings, however, turned out to be the brain drain, which ensued after scientists, scholars and the educational elite answered the general call to arms in 1775. America’s foremost contemporary astronomer David Rittenhouse (1732– 1796), for example, first served as an engineer to the Pennsylvania Committee of Safety, then as vice-president to the Council of Safety, and helped draft Pennsylvania’s state constitution of 1776.418 Completely unrelated to the war, the deaths of the pioneering American botanists John Clayton (1774), Cadwallader Colden (1776) and John Bartram (1777) were heavy losses to the scientific community. Apart from physical destructions, the war also provided a few positive stimuli to American science. Not surprisingly, most progress during the hostilities was made in surveying, mapping and geographical knowledge, as military strategies heavily depended on exact knowledge of battlegrounds and their surrounding terrains. David Bushnell’s (1742–1824) famous submarine, Thomas Paine’s (1737– 1809) plans for a launcher of incendiary arrows, and Sion Seabury’s (1720–1801) “rolling earthworks” fall into the same category.419 The post-war migration to America of a handful of British scientists and organizers like Samuel Vaughan, the Quaker architect and city planner William Thornton (1759–1828), or Walter Minto

416

417 418 419

somewhat caustically in his diary. Quoted after Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 263. See also Roeber, “Pietismus,” 693. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 219, 229, 231. Wallace holds that one of the few things that Mühlenberg managed to sneak out of Philadelphia was a copy of Linnaeus’ Philosophica botanica. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 145. With regard to destruction in close proximity to Mühlenberg properties in the backcountry, Paul Baglyos has written that “The church bulding on Barren Hill was alternately occupied by the British and the Americans, its doors, windows, floors, and pews were destroyed, it was used as a battery and stable for horses, and it was filled...with manure and limbs of dead men and animals.” Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 53. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 232 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 230. Hindle adds that the college of William and Mary at Williamsburgh expelled all loyalists from its faculty as a consequence of the war. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 231. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 243.

116

A Prelude

(1753–1796), a Scottish mathematician, was a welcome help, but eventually nothing more than a start.420 On the whole, the little institutional and organizational progress that had been made since the French and Indian War lay in ruins in the autumn of 1783. American science would have to start over again from zero. 3.6 The Challenges of Independence Despite the sorry state of affairs immediately after the War, American scholars and politicians initially shared an overwhelming optimism that the young nation would soon flourish and its natural riches only needed to be harvested. It was Thomas Bond, who once again set the tone with a speech delivered to his fellows at the A.P.S.: A vast Country, yet unexplored, and which is supposed to abound with the greatest and richest Magazines of natural Productions, and only require their Doors to be unfolded to make it the Envy of the World, a blessing to its Inhabitants, and a common Conveniency to the Universe.421 Clearly, this feeling of a common national destiny and initial jubilations after the Treaty of Paris had engendered high hopes that science, trade and public life would soon progress and secure the nation’s independence.422 This conviction was not only a product of national ambition or of a simple will to persevere. Its political dimension was to deliver proof that American democratic institutions were in fact superior to those of monarchical states, and that America would eventually claim the moral high ground over Europe and especially over England.423 Specifically the writings of the Comte du Buffon (1707–1788) were to serve American naturalists as a proof of Europe’s presumably “wrong” perception of the New World. In his multi-volume Histoire Naturelle (1771–1774), Buffon had propagated the theory of the natural inferiority and degeneration of the American continent, which was based on the contemporary notion that the transatlantic world had evolved much later than Europe, and that climatic differences had a direct effect on 420 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 330. Hindle also mentions French officers, whose affinities to natural studies provided some opportunities for scientific exchange, and the Hessian officer Friedrich Adam Julius von Wangenheim (1747–1800), whose work on American trees Beschreibung einiger Nord-amerikanischer Holz- und Buscharten, mit Anwendung auf teutsche Forsten (1781) remained a dendrological standard well into the 19th century. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 226f.; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 11. Bond’s speech echoed the words of Dr David Ramsay (1749–1815) in a speech on account of the second anniversary of the Declaration of Independence: A large volume of the Book of Nature, yet unread, is open before us, and invites our attentive perusal. (...) The face of our country, intersected by rivers, or covered by woods and swamps, give[s] ample scope for the improvement of mechanicks, mathematics, and natural philosophy. Quoted after Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 250. 421 Quoted after Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 302. 422 Greene, American Science, 6; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 248, 252. With David Rittenhouse’s orrery, American scientists also had a precedent, which was thought to foreshadow future American superiority in sciences and learning. The same year that Rittenhouse completed his orrery, Harvard college bought a similar apparatus from England, which eventually turned out to be inferior in accuracy to Rittenhouse’s model. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 170f. 423 Greene, American Science, 7.

The Scientific Context

117

the development of the flora and fauna. In the case of North America, this effect was supposed to be decidedly detrimental on human beings, animals and plants. This unsubstantiated claim nagged American naturalists and spawned a number of responses, the most prominent of which was contained in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), wherein he tried to debunk Buffon’s theory by pointing out the existence of the American Mastodon, a prehistoric mammoth-like animal.424 The dispute over Buffon’s theories therefore marks the beginning of post-war American scientists’ efforts for emancipation from European discourse on nature. The way to this goal, however, eventually turned out decidedly longer than Jefferson, Franklin and others had originally anticipated. When the initial optimism subsided and gave way to more realistic, sober appraisals of the situation, it dawned on Americans that they were indeed facing a gigantic task in building up a new society, economy and frame of government. For the sector of science and education, John C. Greene has succinctly summarized the difficult situation which was characterized by “[a] few physician-naturalists burdened with the practice and teaching of medicine; a handful of clergymen with scientific interests; an occasional merchant, planter, or nurseryman; an assortment of wandering naturalists from Europe.”425 Gilman Ostrander has characterized this motley intellectual elite as “the collegiate aristocracy,” highlighting the fact that college education was still confined to only one out of a thousand Americans.426 In fact, the few colleges that had been founded during the colonial period still followed their original purpose to educate the colonial ministry of various denominations.427 As a consequence, seven new colleges with a broader curriculum were established during the confederate period, one of which was Franklin College at Lancaster, whose first president Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg became in 1787.428 At the same time, printing presses began to roll again, and along with textbooks like Jedediah Morse’s (1761–1826) American Geography (1789) and Noah Webster’s three-volume Grammatical Institute of the English Language (1783/84/85), 90 new journals and newspapers were put into circulation.429 In the cities, scientific life returned slowly after the final retreat of British troops from New York on November 25, 1783. Along with Boston and, above all, Philadelphia, the city on the Hudson river formed a scientific triangle, which was to become the base of America’s institutional development during the 19th century.430 Philadelphia, the first capital of the United States and the undisputed center of cultural, commercial and political activity for at least the remainder of the 18th century, 424 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 12, 322–324; Greene, American Science, 29. Ewan, “Barton Influence,” 29. James A. Mease (1771–1846), later a correspondent of Mühlenberg, was another scientist who refuted Buffon’s theory. Greene, American Science, 10. 425 Greene, American Science, 253; See also Stearns, British Colonies, 534 and Wilson, “Second Generation,” 238. 426 Ostrander, Republic, 3, 5. 427 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 84. 428 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 256. 429 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 256. 430 Baatz, “Scientific Periodicals,” 223; Ewan, “Barton Influence,” 28; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 137f.

118

A Prelude

took the lead in scientific developments again.431 Building on a comparably rich tradition of science and especially botanic investigation,432 the city on the Schuylkill could claim the country’s oldest and most important scientific society with the A.P.S., the Library Company, the Pennsylvania Hospital, the recently renamed University of the State of Pennsylvania, the newly established College of Physicians of Philadelphia (1787), Charles W. Peale’s (1741–1827) museum (1786) and a number of privately owned botanical gardens and seed stores.433 Most of these institutions were products of Benjamin Franklin’s direct initiative or at least collaboration, and when he returned from peace negotiations in France in 1785, one of his first concerns was the reinvigoration of regular A.P.S. meetings, whose president he had become in 1769. The brief British occupation of 1777–78 had left visible scars on the society’s collections and premises, as the roof of the A.P.S. observatory, from where Philadelphians first heard the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence, had been destroyed and fallen into disrepair and a large amount of books had been purloined from the library.434 With the aid of David Rittenhouse, who succeeded Franklin as president in 1790, and with the help of a large donation and an extra credit out of Franklin’s own pocket, Philosophical Hall could be rebuilt and finally reinaugurated in November 1789.435 In addition to the A.P.S.’s activities, several private endeavours of Philadelphians improved the city’s institutional infrastructure and helped it secure a top place in the young nation’s scientific landscape. Charles Wilson Peale’s artistic talents as a portrait painter had brought him to the state capital in 1776, where he soon embarked on a military and political career before returning to his original profession after the war. A returning Hessian officer presented a giant animal bone to him in 1784, which would turn out to be the relic of a mastodon and the central piece of Peale’s famous natural history museum, which he opened in 1786.436 The botanical gardens in Philadelphia’s vicinity, most prominently John Bartram’s garden, established on the west bank of the Schuylkill in 1730, added another element to eastern Pennsylvania’s contemporary scientific landscape. Bartram had died in 1777, but his two sons John and William Bartram took over their father’s business, which consisted in the selling of seeds and plants.437 Humphry Marshall (1722–1801), a cousin of their father and author of Arbustum Americanum: The American Grove

431 Smith, “Century of Botany,” 5; Baatz, “Scientific Periodicals,” 224f; Pennel, “Collectors,” 39; Petersen, New World Botany, 335. 432 “In noting the persons who have collected the plants of this territory one is impressed both by the number of them and the historical conitnuity of their labors. No other part of the New World can show such a record.” Pennel, “Collectors,” 38. 433 Greene, American Science, 37, 48; Baatz, “Scientific Periodicals,” 224f. 434 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 232; Greene, American Science, 40f. 435 Greene, American Science, 40f. Also, the second volume of the APS Transactions was published in 1786. Only six installments of the Transactions were published during Mühlenberg’s life-time: 1769, 1786, 1793, 1799, 1802 and 1809. A new series was started in 1818. Mühlenberg contributed to editions III (1793) and IV (1799). Greene, American Science, 23, 46. 436 Greene, American Science, 52f. 437 Greene, American Science, 48.

The Scientific Context

119

(1785),438 had entered the seed business encouraged by the Bartrams’ success and established his own web of botanical correspondence with European scholars like Joseph Banks or John Lettsome (1744–1815).439 William Hamilton’s (1749–1813) Woodlands, some 1.2 miles up the river from Bartram’s Garden, and David Landreth’s (1752–1836) seed-house complete this list.440 With all of these nurserymen, some of whom also had botanical skills, Mühlenberg would engage in correspondence and occasional visits in the 1790s. Although the greater New England area could claim the best and most dense educational infrastructure with the colleges of Yale, Harvard and Brown, it was only with the establishment of John Adams’ (1735–1826) American Society of Arts and Sciences that Boston rose to prominence in the early republic’s scientific world.441 In France, Adams had frequently been addressed by curious politicians and scholars about the state of Philadelphia’s institutions, which apparently heckled the proud New Englander. Upon his return in the summer of 1779, he teamed up with the eminent revolutionary politicians James Bowdoin (1726–1790) and John Hancock (1737–1793) to chart the new society in the following year. It proved to be the cornerstone of a “set of interlocking institutions,”442 which developed especially in the first decades of the 19th century: the Massachusetts Historical Society (1791–present), the American Antiquarian Society (1812–present), and the rather ephemeral Linnean Society of New England (1814–1822).443 During the first 30 years of American independence, the A.A.S. and A.P.S. remained the only two American societies whose influence was not confined to their immediate regional context.444 In comparison, “science along the Hudson”445 took a somewhat different course. While economic power in Philadelphia and Boston largely remained in the hands of colonial commercial elites after the War, New York, with its large loyalist population, experienced profound social changes after 1783. Surprisingly, these developments had a predonminantly positive effect on the city’s commercial might and boosted it to an unprecedented dominance of all east coast trade by 1815.446 Political feuds and the traditionally factious nature of the local elite, however, prevented the city from keeping pace with scientific developments in Philadelphia and Boston, despite the tireless efforts of Samuel L. Mitchill (1764–1831), David Hosack (1769–1835) and Mühlenberg’s brother-in-law Johann Christopher Kunze, who had arrived as a minister to New York’s Lutheran Trinity congregation in 1784 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446

Ewan, “Early History,” 4, 34. Greene, American Science, 50. Greene, American Science, 50f. Baatz, “Scientific Periodicals,” 225f.; Greene, American Science, 60f.; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 263. Greene, American Science, 63. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 263; Greene, American Science, 63. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 272. Greene, American Science, 91. By 1815, even merchants from Philadelphia and Boston unloaded portions of their goods and commodities at New York harbor. Baatz, “Scientific Periodicals,” 227f.

120

A Prelude

and had begun to teach oriental languages at Columbia College.447 Both Mitchill and Hosack later maintained brief correspondences with Mühlenberg.448 Other notable institutions were the New York Society for Promoting usefull knowledge (1784),449 Hosack’s Elgin Botanical Garden and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which merged with Columbia College in 1814.450 Notwithstanding these individual efforts and widespread optimism, America was still largely a “British colony” with regard to science and literature, as Samuel Miller (1769–1850) observed in his Brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century, published in two volumes in 1803.451 The country’s striking lack of “instrument makers, libraries, museums, herbaria, publications, and patronage” still could not be overlooked or compensated.452 Philosophia does not here, as in England, walk abroad in silver slippers, Thomas Jefferson once observed at the time. [T]he physicians (...) are chained down by the drudgery of their professions, so as to be precluded from exploring our woods and mountains.453 Even more detrimental than this lack of proper funding for research and scientific activities, however, turned out to be the unsafe nature of communication between the three scientific centers. In the words of Simon Baatz, “[t]he scientific community in the United States was by no means unified or even cohesive; it consisted of a series of local communities varying greatly in size and strength and often at odds with each other.”454 For the time being, the reestablishment of connections with British botanists, who were the primary sponsors and champions of North American botany until 1775, was of decidedly greater priority to scientists in the newly independent nation. The common cosmopolitan bond of the Republic of Letters provided the code in which British and American naturalists resumed their contact. Joseph Banks, for instance, congratulated Benjamin Franklin on the return of peace, which in whatever form she is worshiped, bad peace or good peace never fails to prove herself the Faithful nurse of science.455 The quote already suggests that relations between the Royal Society of London and its Philadelphia sister society had been little affected by the war. There were some exceptions, such as U.S.-diplomat Arthur Lee’s (1740–1792) angry resignation from his membership in the Royal Society. The wartime charter of the A.P.S. had unmistakably stipulated that contacts with other learned societies were to be upheld at any cost,456 but in practice it took Benjamin 447 Greene, American Science, 91; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 274 448 Other notable New York scholars and scientists of included Robert R. Livingston (1746–1813) and DeWitt Clinton (1769–1828), later Archibald Bruce (1777–1818), John Griscom (1774– 1852) and John Scudder (1793–1855). Greene, American Science, 91f. 449 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 274. 450 Greene, American Science, 94 451 Quoted after Greene, American Science, 7; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 254. 452 Greene, American Science, 11. 453 Quoted after Greene, American Science, 11. 454 The situation only improved after the initial publication of Benjamin Silliman’s (1779–1864) American Journal of Science and Arts in 1818, which “brought coherence and a unified sense of purpose to the urban centers of science.” Baatz, “Scientific Periodicals,” 223. 455 Quoted after Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 329. 456 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 220f.

The Scientific Context

121

Franklin’s excellent French connections to maintain at least some pre-war communications via Paris.457 Therefore, despite Britain’s mostly friendly reactions to American offers of renewed correspondence, the loss of direct personal contacts simply proved too great ever to be restored to pre-war levels.458 For American science, this led to an almost grotesque situation. While the post-war political agenda dictated that independence be maintained and secured mainly through research and its practical application in agricultural production, the know-how and organizational skills still needed to be imported from Europe. In fact, the American educational and scientific community yearned for that goal in 1783, and it was within this context that Mühlenberg started his own botanical activities.

457 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 220, 306. 458 America’s former ally France, however, showed renewed interest in New World botanical riches. In 1785, Louis XIV dispatched André Michaux (1746–1802) to America, who established a botanical garden near Charleston. His son Francois André (1770–1855) exchanged a single, rather inconsequential letter with Mühlenberg in 1811: From F. A. Michaux, 11/27/1811, HSP Coll. 443.

V. LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN BOTANIST 1 CONFEDERATE BOTANY (PHASE 1: JANUARY 1784 TO DECEMBER 1789)1 Following the internal quarrels within the Philadelphia Lutheran congregation, Henry Mühlenberg finally accepted the call to Lancaster in early 1780, ending his last sermon at Zion’s Church with a self-justification, which some parishioners might have found hard to swallow. During this time, I have learned, he addressed his listeners, that on account of the number of church members and because of the size of this new church, my office among you is not only cumbersome, but also highly detrimental to health.2 Whatever sense of defeat or humiliation he may have felt on the trip 60 miles westward from Philadelphia to Pennsylvania’s largest inland-town of the time, was probably subdued by the dual promise of the quiet of nature, which he had been yearning for so long,3 and of a stable income to redress his war-time debts probably helped him to come to terms with the loss of his prestigious position in Philadelphia.4 After a brief detour via Tulpehocken, where he 1 2

3

4

All data in this chapter is based on letters sent or received between Fabricius’ letters to Mühlenberg, 01/20/1784, APS Film 1097, and 12/14/1789, AFSt/M 4 D 2. See Flow Chart A, Appendix A, 483. This is recorded in his father‘s diary, who copied it from a note his son had sent him earlier: In dieser Zeit habe ich gar bald erfaren, he addressed his listeners, daß wegen Menge der Gemeinsglieder und wegen Größe dieser neuen Kirche das Amt unter euch nicht nur beschwerlich, sondern auch der Gesundheit höchst nachteilig sey. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 04/27/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 746n). Already in 1772, Henry had acknowledged to his father that with the ending of his charge at New Germantown, he had [d]urch Gottes Gnade (...) also wieder aus dem Geräusche der Stadt zur Stille des Landlebens gekommen. Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg senior, 02/22/1772, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 578). The same motif emerges again in Henry‘s letter to the Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde Berlin from 1799, wherein he describes his arrival at Lancaster thus: Von seinen Büchern entfernt und in der Stille des Landlebens fing er an sich in der Natur umzusehen, und ohne Buch und Lehrer die Natur zu studieren. Er wurde bekanter mit ihr und gewann sie alle Tage lieber. 1780 kam er, des Stadtlebens müde, nach Lancaster wo er bis jetzt als Prediger und Naturforscher lebt. (…) Übrigens hat er ein feistes Gesicht und ein ofnes Herz. H. M. To GNF, 10/02/1799, HUB GNF S, Mühlenberg H. E. Ich bin, blos wegen des Hauses hier, etwas, und meine Frau [Maria Catharina Mühlenberg] stark für Lancaster geneigt. Aber die Schwürigkeiten sind groß. Meine Gemeine liegt mir sehr am Hertzen. Meine Reise würde in den Anfang des Winters fallen – aber hier sind auch welche /:neml[ich] Schwürigkeiten:/. Ein neu Haus nur mit 2 Stuben auf einem Flor [Etage] kostet £ 5000. Wir kriegen nach Bezalung unsrer Schulden kaum £ 500. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 10/06/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 763). The main reason for Henry’s akward financial situation was the runaway inflation, which hampered interstate commerce significantly during the war years. Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 59; Häberlein, Practice, 212.

Confederate Botany

123

temporarily left his wife and children in the custody of his brother-in-law Christopher Emanuel Schultze, the Mühlenbergs arrived at their new home5 in early March 1780, and were met with a warm welcome. In general, I have received a welcome full of love, while my belongings have suffered much, but the damage is bearable, Henry Mühlenberg reported back to his father in late March. There is one thing that gives me hope for the future: The laymen seem to be honest, eager and devotional to listen to God’s word (…) I have also found the traces of an antecessor faithful to spiritual matters, and I am confident that I can continue what has been begone with good use for all.6 The initial protest of Lancaster’s lay leaders Ludwig Lauman and Michael Hübele against Helmuth’s replacement seemed to subside,7 and Mühlenberg had good reason to look forward to his new charge, in which he would continue for 35 years. The town of Lancaster, laid out in 1729 as the seat of the county of the same name and incorporated in 1742, is a prime example of the enormous growth of Greater Pennsylvania’s German population along the Great Wagon Road during the wave of immigration from 1717 to 1775.8 Despite its heterogeneous religious and ethnic composition, Lancaster long retained the character of a German town, with strong ties back to the old country in central Europe and access to a system of communications which linked the dispersed settlements across the Pennsylvanian backcountry. According to Häberlein, internal village discourse in Germany, transatlantic discourse and the backcountry of Pennsylvania represented three forums within one greater social space in which information exchange, property transactions, money flows and organizational matters between Pennsylvania Germans were debated, negotiated and finalized.9 This information infrastructure, already quite extensive and elaborate when Henry Mühlenberg began his pastoral duties at Lancaster, had gradually developed in lieu of European-style village communication. Kinship, personal acquaintances and religious affiliation defined these “channels of information,” which were supplemented by the publications of Christopher Saur (1695– 1753) and other printers who published materials like almanacs and newspapers 5 6

7 8

9

The Lancaster parsonage at 33 North Duke Street was built by a Melchior Snider in 1748 and sold to the trustees of Trinity Lutheran church in 1773. In 1853, it was sold again and has remained in private possession ever since. Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 44. Ich bin überhaupt mit vieler Liebe auf genommen worden, meine Sachen haben zwar sehr gelitten, doch ist der Schaden noch zu ertragen. Eins gibt mir eine gute Hofnung für die Zukunfft: Der Kirchenrath scheint ehrbar, bei dem Gehör des Wortes Gottes fleißig und andächtig zu seyn (…) Ich habe auch viele Spuren eines in geistlichen Sachen treuen Antecessoris gefunden, und habe die Hofnung, daß ich mit Nutz das Angefangene fortsetzen kann. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/27/1780, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 786). By this Antecessoris, Mühlenberg referred to his predecessor at Lancaster, Justus Heinrich Christian Helmuth. Häberlein, Practice, 87, 186. There are three main phases of German immigration to Pennsylvania: 1683–1709, 1709–1714 and 1717–1775. Almost 80% of all Germans settled in Penn’s colony. According to Carl Bridebaugh, Greater Pennsylvania comprises Philadelphia, southeastern Pennsylvania, parts of New Jersey and North Carolina. Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 4, 8, 12. Prior to 1729, the region had commonly been referred to as “Conestoga settlement.” Häberlein, Practice, 53, 68. Häberlein, “Group Interaction,” 157; See also Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 12.

124

Letters from an American Botanist

including the Pennsylvanische Berichte or Henry Miller’s Staatsbote.10 As a consequence, Pennsylvania’s German-speaking population remained a relatively harmonized and tight-knit community until the end of the 18th century. Reversely, contact with English-speaking authorities was mostly entrusted to elite intermediaries such as “schoolmasters, ministers, traders and shopkeepers.”11 Clearly, the local clergy occupied a central position in the town’s daily life. Lancaster’s Lutheran congregation was first organized in the early 1730s by Caspar Stoever (1707–1779), under whose tutelage the first church building was erected in 1738. During the 1760s, the rising tide of immigrants necessitated a complete rebuilding of Holy Trinity Church, whose steeple nevertheless remained unfinished until Mühlenberg’s time. In 1742, the newly incorporated town counted about 1,500 inhabitants, whose number rose by another 1,000 until the mid-1760s, and reached 3,773 at the time of the first national census in 1790.12 An average of 1,300 communicants must be assumed for the pastorate of Henry Mühlenberg’s predecessor Helmuth from 1769 to 1780, and a slightly higher number for Mühlenberg’s tenure from 1783 to 1815. As the center of one of the core areas of Pennsylvania’s Lutheran Church, Lancaster hosted several Ministerium and synod meetings between 1783 and 1793, which convened annually around Trinity Sunday in May or June.13 Parish life in the 1780s was governed by the first written constitution of 1767, and the Kirchen-Agende der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Vereinigten Gemeinen in Nord-America, which included common standards for “regular worship, baptism, communion, marriage, confirmation, and burial of the dead.”14 Mühlenberg’s letters to his father routinely contained passages that reflect his own work in the Pennsylvania field.15 Häberlein, “Group Interaction,” 157f., 167; Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 12, 74f. Aaron Spencer Fogleman has observed that staying in touch with this network was vital to one’s individual economic success and establishment, as suggested by the negative example of indentured servants, who in many cases found themselves outside the community and thus opportunity to participate. Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 74f. 11 Häberlein, “Group Interaction,” 167. Jaenicke stresses that the clergy in rural areas retained a quasi-monopoly on education well into the 19th century, which explains theological curricula featuring courses in applied sciences and practical agricultural knowledge. Jaenicke, “Naturwissenschaften,” 631. 12 Glatfelter, Pastors I, 316f.; Long, “Influence,” 130. 13 Along with Philadelphia; Montgomery, Northampton, Lehigh, Berks, Lebanon, and York. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 140, 438. 14 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 439, 447. 15 See, for instance, the following passage from a letter written in 1781: Was mein Amt betrifft, so fehlet es nicht an Arbeit. Ich habe seither 75 junge Leute bei Tage, und 11 Erwachsene bei Nachts unterrichtet, und werde sie g[eliebts] G[ott] auf den Charfreitag confirmiren. Die andere Arbeit geht fort, und ob ich gleich der allgemeinen Klage mit beistimmen muß, daß der Krieg die Leute [ver]dirbt, so werde ich doch nicht selten durch schöne Exempel e[rmunte]rt von Teutschen und Englischen, aus welchen ich sehe, daß Gott mit seinem Worte noch kräfftig arbeitet. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 04/02/1781, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 702). The figures for 1784 are even more impressive: Mühlenberg reports 179 baptisms, 72 confirmations, 48 burials and 627 communicants for this year alone. Häberlein, Practice, 189. See also Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 44. 10

Confederate Botany

125

In contrast to the regular internal strife that had characterised most incumbent ministers’ relations with laymen all the way through 1780, Mühlenberg’s ministry brought a hitherto unknown stability to the congregation. However, a continuous quarrel with Ludwig Lauman until his death in 1797 and financial difficulties which arose from the completion of the church steeple after 1785 show that discord was not entirely absent.16 The traditionally cordial relations with ministers of the Reformed Church had survived the war largely intact, and Henry Mühlenberg’s lifelong personal friendship with his colleague Johann Willhelm Hendel (1740–1798) exemplifies the peaceful coexistence and collaboration of the two denominations.17 Hendel and Mühlenberg also joined hands in taking care of German prisoners of war during the Revolution and later collaborated in Lancaster’s most important inter-denominational enterprise, the establishment of Franklin College in 1787.18 Henry Mühlenberg dutifully informed his father at Providence about all these developments and his professional progress.19 In one of these letters, written in January 1784, he acknowledged the surprise visit of two travelers in late November of the preceding year, which had obviously left an impression on him: November 28, 29 I was visited by 2 learned natural researchers, who were travelling at the behest of his Empereror’s Majesty of the Holy Roman Empire. I had to show them specimens from the kingdoms of stones and plants, those were merry hours to me. We agreed to correspond by letters with diligence. It was a pleasure for me to see all the names confirmed that I had been attributing to stones and herbs until now sine viva voce [= without confirmation by a live voice]. The names were Professor Marter20 and Dr Schöpf, who have both left an indelible impression on me on account of their extensive knowledge and friendly characters.21 16 The steeple was finally completed in 1795 after ten years of construction, whereas the debts remained unpaid for another 13 years and finally forced Mühlenberg and the trustees to apply for a state lottery. Long, “Influence,” 134; Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 45; Häberlein, Practice, 188, 212f. 17 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 472; Wilson, Pious Traders, 101. The basis for this “Practice of Pluralism”was the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, respectively the Westfalian Peace Treaty of 1648, which signed into law the mutual legal acknowledgment of Catholic, Reformed and Lutheran churches within the realm of the Holy Roman Empire. Häberlein, Practice, 3. In 1782, Mühlenberg wrote to his father Heinrich Melchior: Letzten Sontag hat der Reform[ierte] H[err] Pf[a]rr[er] Hendel hier seine Anzugs Predigt, und ich hielte Communion in einer benachbarten Land Gemeine, wo viele alte Leute wohnen, die nicht hieher in die Kirche kommen können. Herr Hendel ist ein Mann über den ich mich sehr freue, gelehrt, gesprächig, und was das Beste ist, redlich für die Sache Christi, so, daß ich mir zum voraus viele Segen und eine Gnaden Periode in Lancaster verspreche. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 12/14/1782, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 870). 18 Häberlein, Practice, 185. 19 For the period covered by this chapter (January 1784 to December 1789), the total correspondence between Henry and his father counted twelve surviving letters and one reconstructed letter. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, page 517f. 20 According to Brendel, a Viennese botanical expedition under a Prof. Marter and his assistant Dr Stupicz met Schöpf during an earlier part of his travels and decided to join up for a while. Brendel, “Historical Sketch,” 758. 21 Nov[ember] 28, 29 hatte ich Besuch von 2 Gelehrten Naturforschern, welche reisen auf hohen Befehl S[eine]r Kaiserlichen Majestaet im [Heiligen] Römischen Reich. Ich muste ihnen meine

126

Letters from an American Botanist

1.1 A Franconian Physician at Lancaster The re-establishment of the traditionally strong ties between European – especially British – and American botanists had many beginnings, one of which was the Bayreuth physician Johann David Schöpf’s visit to Lancaster in late 1783.22 To me, the nicest thing in Lancaster was the very agreeable acquaintance, which I had the pleasure to make, with the pastor of the local community (and nowadays Principal of the new institute of higher learning there), Mr Heinrich Mühlenberg, Schöpf wrote in the first volume of his American travel report in 1788. Through his own diligence, this formidable man has accumulated immense knowledge in natural history, and is indefatigable in researching the animals, plants and minerals of the area he lives in. I have reason to regret to make his acquaintance so late and for only such a short amount of time: However, I should appreciate it even more, and my memories of him will be even dearer to me, as he is the only true lover of natural history among the native American-born residents that I could find and get to know (…) His beginning collections on domestic minerals is still rather small, but still the more remarkable, as you will nowhere find a better one.23 Only four months before, Schöpf had been relieved of his duties as field physician to the Ansbach-Bayreuth mercenary troops and received an official permission from margrave Christian Friedrich Carl Alexander (1736–1806) to travel through North America and to explore the natural riches of the newly founded nation. Born as the son of Kommerzinspektor Johann Martin Schöpf und Katharina Elisabebeth née Müller in the upper Franconian town of Wunsiedel in 1752, Schöpf attended grammar school in Hof from 1767 to 1770 and briefly took lessons at Johann Christoph Fritsch’s surgery school before matriculating at the University of Erlangen, where Heinrich Friedrich Delius (1720–1791) und Johann Christian Daniel Edler von Schreber (1739–1810) were among his teachers.24 After three years

22 23

24

Naturalien aus dem Stein= und Pflanzen Reich weisen, und es waren mir sehr vergnügte Stunden. Wir versprachen fleißig zu correspondiren. Es war mir erfreulich alle die Namen bestätigt zu sehen, die ich Steinen und Kräutern bisher sine viva voce beigelegt hatte. Sie heißen Profess[or] Marter und Dr Schöpf, und beide werden mir wegen ihrer ausgebreiteten Erkentniß und Freundschaffts vollen Character unvergeßlich bleiben. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/02/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 924). For post-war relations, see above on page 104f., and Petersen, New World Botany, 275f. Das anzüglichste für mich in Lancaster, war die sehr angenehme Bekanntschaft, welche ich mit dem Prediger der hiesigen Gemeinde, (und nunmehrigem Principal der neuen hohen Schule daselbst,) Herrn Heinrich Mühlenberg, zu machen das Vergnügen hatte. Dieser vortreffliche Mann hat durch eigenen Fleiß sich beträchtliche Kenntnisse in der Naturgeschichte erworben, und ist unermüdet in der Untersuchung der Tiere, Pflanzen und Mineralien seiner Gegend. Dass seine Bekanntschaft mir so späte und nur auf kurze Zeit zu Teil wurde, habe ich Ursache zu bedauern: sie musste mir aber um so schätzbarer, und sein Andenken wird mir um so werter sein, da unter den eingeborenen Amerikanern er der einzige war, den ich als Liebhaber der Naturkunde kenn lernte und erfragen konnte (...) Seine angefangene Sammlung von inländischen Mineralien ist zwar noch klein, aber um nichts desto weniger merkwürdig, da man nirgends eine bessere antrifft. Schöpf, Reise, 19f. See also Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1324; Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 49; Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 164. Armin Geus dates Mühlenberg’s entry at Halle on October 6, 1770, his immatriculation number

Confederate Botany

127

at Erlangen, Schöpf embarked on his peregrinatio academica, which took him to Berlin, Vienna, northern Italy and Switzerland. At the last stop, he paid a brief visit to his student friend Hans Kaspar Hirzel (1751–1817)25 at Zürich and managed to add one of the most respected scientists of the day, Albrecht von Haller (1708– 1777), to the list of his contacts.26 Back in Erlangen in 1776, he finished his dissertation De mutatione medicamentorum in corpore humano praecipue a fluidis, with Schreber as respondent in his disputatio, and obtained his first job as a physician and teacher at a local orphanage. Unfortunately for him, a swelling of the uveal tissue of his right eyeball (a staphyloma) necessitated the surgical removal of the entire eye, which left him with a glass eye but obviously did not disqualify him from becoming an army surgeon thereafter.27 Undoubtedly, Schöpf never considered his job at the orphanage more than a temporary engagement before he would move on to more distant shores. Originally, East India with its flora, fauna and culture appeared a particularly promising field for him, when he was quite unexpectedly commissioned on February 1, 1777 to accompany the 1,285 troops, which margrave Christian Friedrich Carl Alexander had assigned to Britain’s military envoy William Faucitt (1728–1804).28 The War for Independence had been raging for nearly two years, when Schöpf and his regiment left Bayreuth on March 7, 1777 disembarking at Staten Island in early June. Following the battling troops in the coming months, Schöpf worked at military hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia, Long Island and in Rhode Island under General John Burgoyne (1722–1792), later at Newport, Connanicut Island and Windmill Hill under various commands, apparently taking part in the Battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778. In late October 1779, his regiment was quartered in New York City for two years before being dispatched to the Battle of Yorktown in late 1781.29 Up to this point, his military duties had limited his opportunities for botanical excursions to the region between Newport to the north and Yorktown to being 43. Geus, Schöpf, 86. See also Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 45; Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 158. A “Johann Christoph Frisch,” practising surgery at Hof in the 1750s, could not be identified. 25 The Swiss-born Hirzel had studied medicine at Vienna, but went to Erlangen for his doctorate in 1772. After his return to his native town of Zürich, he became a member of the Great Council in 1780. Geus, Schöpf, 87. Hirzel’s correspondence with Schöpf is preserved at the Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Familienarchiv Hirzel. The 30 letters between the two represent the largest single group of Schöpf letters found to this day. There is no central archival collection for Schöpf. Geus, Schöpf, 161. 26 Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1324; Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 46; Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 158. Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 60. 27 Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 45; Geus, Schöpf, 88. 28 The contract between Britain and the principality of Ansbach-Bayreuth stipulated that the prince would receive 45,000 crowns, each mercenary 30 crowns in return for their services. The plan included a further 1,068 troops by 1782. In the summer of 1783, only 1,183 men returned to Franconia. Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 43f.; Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 158; Geus, Schöpf, 95. Chadwick contends that total losses numbered to 461, while 1,644 troops returned in May 1783. Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 160. 29 Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 45; Geus, Schöpf, 95; Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 159f.; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 17. According to Geus, Schöpf was accepted into the New York Freemason lodge “210” during his two-year sojourn at the city. Geus, Schöpf, 106.

128

Letters from an American Botanist

the south. The reports and articles he sent back home testify that he considered this pursuit much more than just a private fancy.30 In the remaining two years of the war after Yorktown, Schöpf continued his services at military hospitals in New York City, already collecting specimens and making plans for his projected tour, which would take him across Pennsylvania, the Ohio country, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina to Florida and the Bahamas and provided him with abundant material and observations for several publications after his return to Erlangen. And I am tempted to flatter myself that I have earned myself enough high merits in America through this minor work as would be sufficient to even earn myself pardon for having helped war to wage war against the country, he wrote both in earnest and jokingly to Mühlenberg in his first letter in 1786.31 On July 22, 1783 Schöpf left New York City westward bound and, after several detours,32 arrived at Lancaster on the evening of November 28, where he stayed one night and one day.33 1.2 The Prince of Erlangen Science – Schreber Half a year after his visit, Schöpf left North America from New Providence aboard the ship “Hero” which sailed on June 7, 1784. He reached London in mid-summer, where he seized the chance to tour Southern England along with Dr James Nooth (1743–1814), and finally returned to Erlangen in late 1784. Despite instantly assuming the triple duties of court physician, second state physician, and medical inspector of the principality’s military forces,34 Schöpf lost little time sending a string of letters to his new American contacts in the spring of 1785. Apparently, Mühlenberg was the only addressee to answer later that year: I almost believed that I had fallen into oblivion with my American friends and acquaintances; Schöpf replied to Mühlenberg’s note in early 1786. Your much appreciated writing of past November [1785] came to my great pleasure and even more so as it came from a man, whose diligence and enthusiasm for the natural history of his fatherland has so many merits and is the more agreeable to me for this very reason. If I have not told you al30 See, for instance, “Über Klima, Witterung, Lebensart etc. in Nordamerika” published in two parts in the 7th and 8th instalments (both 1781) of Johann Georg Meusel’s (1743–1820) Historische Litteratur, or four letters published in the 7th volume (1785) of August Ludwig Schlötzer’s (1735–1809) Stats-Anzeigen under the title “Aus Amerika an einen Freiherren in Franken,” pages 3–54. For a complete list of Schöpf’s publications, see Geus, Schöpf, 122f. See also Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 44; and Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 160. 31 Und ich möchte mir beynahe schmeicheln, daß ich mir durch diese kleine Arbeit, so viel Verdienst um Amerika erworben, als nöthig wäre mir Verzeyhung zu erwerben dafür daß ich es mit habe bekriegen helfen. From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. 32 His first tour, which he undertook with an unidentified English traveler named “Hairs,” first took him into New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, deeper into Ohio and Kentucky, than back to New York City. Lancaster was on his way when he embarked on the second leg of his travels, which led him to Virginia, North and South Carolina, Florida and the Bahamas. Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 162. 33 Geus, Schöpf, 96; Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 48, 50. 34 Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 52; Geus, Schöpf, 97; Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 162, 165.

Confederate Botany

129

ready so I may repeat it here that you are the only one among your fellow countrymen, who has, in every respect, earned himself my special regard and admiration during my long stay and journeys. This is also what I could tell and have told with all truth to the Court Councillor Mr Schreber. Your written conversation will be and remain in the future most agreeable and interesting to us.35 In the person of Schöpf’s former teacher Schreber in Erlangen, Mühlenberg had attracted the attention of one of the most renowned men of science in the Holy Roman Empire at the time, who would exert a decisive influence on Mühlenberg’s botanical interests, correspondence, publications and scientific development. Schreber had started his career in Erlangen a decade and a half before the two established contact. The original purpose of the university’s founding in 1743 had been to provide the principality of Brandenburg-Bayreuth with trained administrative personnel – public officials, civil servants and doctors. It was organized along the four original faculties of theology, law, philosophy and medicine; nevetheless, it was only after the unification of the two principalities of Ansbach and Bayreuth in 1757 and the succession of Christian Friedrich Carl Alexander to the throne in 1769 that the necessary funds became available for the university’s sustained institutional growth and internal development.36 The minister Friedrich Carl Freiherr von Seckendorf subjected the institution to far-reaching reforms, which corresponded with the Prince’s enlightened idea of politics37 and entailed the creation of new teaching positions. These new career opportunities attracted aspiring scientists like Johann Christian Daniel Edler von Schreber. In 1769 Schreber received a call from 35

36

37

Beynahe glaubte ich schon, daß ich allen meinen Amerikanischen Freunden und Bekannten vergeßen sey; Ihr werthes Schreiben vom vorigen November [1785] war mit daher äußerst angenehm und muste es um so mehr seyn da es von einem Manne kam, deßen Eifer und Begeisterung für die Natur Geschichte seines Vaterlandes so vieles Verdienstliches hat, und mir um deswillen vorzüglich schätzbar ist. Wenn ich es Ihnen nicht schon gesagt hat, so wiederhohle ich es hier, daß von allen Ihren mir während meines langen Aufenthalts u[nd] Reise bekannt gewordenen Landsleuten, sie der einzige sind, der in jener Rücksicht meine besondere Achtung und Bewunderung angezogen. Dieses ist es auch, was ich H. Hofrath Schreber mit Wahrheit sagen konnte u[nd] gesagt habe. Ihre schriftliche Unterhaltung wird uns daher auf die Zukunft so angenehm als interessant seyn u[nd] bleiben. From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. Neither Schöpf’s initial letter from March 1785, nor Mühlenberg’s letter from November 1785 have been preserved. See respective list of correspondence, Appendix C, on page 528. and Schreber‘s first letter from March 1785: Es geschieht auf Veranlassung des Herrn Hofmedikus Dr. Schöpf, dass ich mir die Freyheit nehme, Gegenwärtiges an E[ue]r Hochwürden abzusenden, ob ich gleich vielleicht nicht die Ehre habe, deroselben bekannt zu seyn (…). From Schreber, 03/05/1785, HSP Coll. 443. Schieber, Erlangen, 65, 68f. Wittern, “Geschichte,” 315; The name of the modern “Friedrich-Alexander Universität” goes back to its “second founder,” Christian Friedrich Carl Alexander. Engelhardt, Erlangen, 55. For the unification of the two principalities in 1757 and the underlying Hohernzollern house-laws, see Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 43 and the “Bayreuth”-chapter in Störkel, Markgraf. These reforms covered the systematic encouragement of technological advancements in agricultural sciences and production along with the establishment of a court bank (1780), the ban of torture in forensic sciences, and the introduction of the lightning bolt. Bischoff, “Erlangen,” 59; Störkel, Markgraf, passim; Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 43. Engelhardt does not give any biographical details about Friedrich Carl Freiherr von Seckendorf.

130

Letters from an American Botanist

von Seckendorf, which he accepted; he assumed his professonial duties in August 1770.38 The Prince of Erlangen Sciences, as Schreber soon began to style himself,39 had graduated from the University of Halle in 1759 with his first botanical paper, a Lithographia Hallensis. Three years later, Schreber finished his dissertation De Theses medicae at the University of Uppsala as one of Linnaeus’ last students, thereafter accepting a temporary position as scientific instructor at the Bützow Pädagogikum.40 When he joined the medical faculty at Erlangen, then run by Jakob Friedrich Isenflamm (1726–1793) and Heinrich Friedrich Delius (1720–1791) in August 1770, Schreber’s almost encyclopaedic knowledge of virtually every branch of contemporary science helped to broaden the academic curricula significantly, and soon he lectured on botany, pharmacy, chemistry, physiology, dietetics, and cameralism.41 By early 1785, when his former student Schöpf brought him the news of a new potential correspondent in the New World, Schreber had already become a noted specialist on grasses and mammals,42 and the two subjects remained at the core of their botanical exchange. In his first letter in March 1785, Schreber clearly explained what he expected from Mühlenberg: Would you please be so kind as to collect the plants of your immediate surroundings and possibly of other American regions, and to ship to me both dried specimens and seeds of the same; here, we will conduct our inquiries about these and let you know about our discoveries.43 Mühlenberg’s response in November 1785 almost perfectly confirms the conventions of a learned friendship in the Age of Enlightenment: Dearest Mr Count Counsillor of highest honors and most noble birth. I verily thank you for your most gracious writing. Dr Schöpf, who has acquainted me further with your amicable character during his stay here with me, has also been my friend in recommending your most appreciated correspondence to me. Your name was all but unknown to me, I had known it from various publications, and would also have cherished it without any chance for correspondence. Now, it is of double value to me, and I will make good use of the offered friendship, if you continue in granting the same to me.44 This was the beginning of 38 39 40 41 42 43

44

Engelhardt, Erlangen, 55–58; Wittern, “Geschichte,” 324. This quote has been preserved in the documents of Heinrich Friedrich Delius. See Wittern, “Geschichte,” 324. Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1324; Kötter, Poll and Schug, Verzeichnis 2, 173; Bosl‘s Bayerische Biographie, , s.v. “Schreber, J.C.D. von,” Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Schreber, J.D.E. von,” Engelhardt, Erlangen, 58; Wittern, “Geschichte,” 324; Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Schreber, J.D.E. von,”Bosl‘s Bayerische Biographie, , s.v. “Schreber, J.C.D. von,” Jaenicke, “Naturwissenschaften,” 635; Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Schreber, J.D.E. von,”Bosl‘s Bayerische Biographie, , s.v. “Schreber, J.C.D. von,” Haben Sie die Gütigkeit die Gewächse Ihrer benachbarten und auch wo möglich anderer amerikanischen Gegenden, aufsuchen und mir davon so wohl trocken Exemplare, als auch Saamen zukommen zu lassen; wir wollen hier Untersuchungen darüber anstellen und Ihnen unsere Entdeckungen mittheilen. From Schreber, 03/05/1785, HSP Coll. 443. Hochedelgeborener Herr Insonders hochzuehrender Herr Hofrath. Für Ihre gütige Zuschrift danke ich Ihnen recht sehr. Herr Doktor Schöpf, der mir Ihren verehrungswürdigen Charakter bei seinem Hiersein näher bekannt gemacht hat, ist auch darin mein Freund gewesen, dass er

Confederate Botany

131

Mühlenberg’s first botanical correspondence and commercium litterarium with one of Europe’s leading scientists. 1.3 Commercium Litterarium with Schreber and Schöpf The social bond that connected the gentleman scientists of the republic of letters was reflected in the literary tropes, clichés and stylized forms of address in their mutual letters, all of which are suitable for an analysis of contemporary codes of conduct and politeness, but rarely offer insights into the actual character of a particular relationship. This “learned friendship” or commercium litterarium was the context in which a botanical partnership existed and developed. In the case of Mühlenberg’s two Erlangen-based correspondents Schreber and Schöpf, the contents of their first letters convey a very clear message. For Schreber, the establishment of the tie meant access to hitherto untapped sources of entirely new botanical specimens for his herbarium and publications.45 On Mühlenberg’s side, it meant the end of solitary studies and anxieties about unsound determination of plants, which apparently continued to trouble him until he met Schöpf in late 1783.46 The mutual enthusiasm that exudes from the letters between Mühlenberg, Schreber and Schöpf continued until the end of the 1780s and was partially based on the virtual monopoly Mühlenberg enjoyed with regard to plant specimens from North America: Finally, I have to concede Schöpf wrote in 1786, that I may expect nothing from nowhere but only from Lancaster, as I have met with no other patriotic natural researcher but yourself, my dearest friend.47 For Schreber too, Mühlenberg was the only North American contact during that time, and it was only in the 1790s that

45

46

47

mir Ihren so schätzbaren Briefwechsel empfahl. Ihr Name war mir gar nicht fremd, ich hatte ihn aus Schriften kennen gelernt, und würde ihn auch ohne Briefwechsel geschätzt haben, jetzt ist er mir doppelt schätzbar, und ich werde mir die angebotene Freundschaft wohl zu nutzen machen, wenn Sie mir dieselbe ferner gönnen wollen. To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. [U]nd die Sämereien und Pflanzen womit sie mich beehrt haben, sind mir nicht bloß als selten und mir zum Teil noch unbekannt gewesene Erzeugnisse eines entfernten Weltteils, sondern auch um derowillen, weil ich sie als Unterpfand der Ihren Gewogenheit gegen mich betrachten darf, sehr schätzbar. From Schreber, 04/04/1786, HSP Coll. 443. Es war schon lange mein warmer Wunsch, mit einem ächten Botanico bekannt zu werden, Mühlenberg informed Schreber in his first letter, bei dem ich Aufklärung meiner Zweifel suchen und mich raths erholen könte. Bei der Art wie ich die Botanic erlernen muste, ohne irgend einen lebendigen Führer, und nur wenige Bücher zu haben, in einem neuen, wenigstens nur halb durchsuchten, Lande kann es freilich an Zweifeln und auch wohl an Fehlern nicht mangeln. Erst seit etlichen Wochen habe ich Linnaei terminos bekommen, nun lerne ich in einer Stunde was mit sonst manche Woche Untersuchung kostete. To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. This also defies Beck’s claim that Mühlenberg was already a notable botanist upon his arrival at Lancaster. Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 48. Endlich aber muß ich im Voraus bekennen, daß ich nirgend her, als von Lancaster, etwas erwarten darf, denn ich habe außer Ihnen, werthester Freund, keinen andren patriotischen Naturforscher angetroffen. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll.

132

Letters from an American Botanist

Mühlenberg began to extend his European network beyond Erlangen and Halle.48 Until then, their contact intensified and Mühlenberg eventually began to consider them as one person, although Schreber was most often the “official” recipient.49 The contents of their letters during the 1780s convey the impression of a balanced relationship, from which both sides equally benefited.50 Traffic in books, seeds, dried and live plants, tea, bacon, chocolate, wine, natural curiosities and anything that seemed to be of interest to the investigative mind, was a defining feature of scientific correspondences. It is in this respect that their “economic” nature becomes apparent, as expressed best in the Latin term commercium litterarium. The procurement and shipping of seeds, plants and animals often constituted a considerable financial burden, while their subsequent identification and naming was a timeconsuming and difficult activity. In short, both in transatlantic and in continental European scientific exchange, a certain measure of reciprocity needed to be respected in order to make it a worthwhile activity for all participants.51 Although reciprocity was an important ideal of the Republic of Letters, from a modern perspective, it is almost impossible to judge what contemporaries may have required as the appropriate equivalent for a packet of dried plants, a tin case of seeds, or a shipment of botanical books.52 Therefore, Franz Mauelshagen has suggested that this “trade in scientific goods” should not be treated in terms of economic rationality or abstract market rules, but within the dynamics of individual social webs and networks.53 In this sense, tracing the ebb and flow of botanical exchanges in graphic form promises to reveal more about the actual character of a specific learned friendship, whose contours and development often remain obscure in mere content analysis. In Schreber’s case, seeds, botanical and zoological specimens were expected from Mühlenberg in return for their identification and classification according to the Linnean system.54 This basic pattern continues through all stages of their relationship and implies both a significant transfer of botanical knowledge from Schreber to Mühlenberg, and an equivalent stream of new specimens and seeds in the opposite direction. The hortus botanicus at Erlangen was the place where the seeds of this new learned friendship first blossomed. Ever since the 16th century, a medicinal 48 49

See chapter V.2 Transatlantic Botany, 158f. [F]ür Hrn. Hofrath Schreber legte ich bei Romans History of Florida u. Jeffersons Notes on Virginia die manches artige enthalten. Ohne Zweifel wird er Sie Ihnen auch communicieren. Überhaupt sehe ich Sie beide als eine Person an. To Schöpf, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Mühlenberg also frequently exhorted Schreber and Schöpf to forward his letters to the respective other: Um Zusieglung und Beförderung des Briefes an Hrn. D. Schöpf bitte gehorsamst. To Schreber, 11/24/1786, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schreber, 08/08/1789, APS Film 1097; and respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 525, 528. 50 See respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 545f. 51 Barner, “Freundschaft,” 38f. 52 This, of course, does not consider the cases of professional seedsmen or booktraders, for which the countervalue of their gods was a matter of price lists rather than individual negotiating. 53 Mauelshagen, “Netzwerke,” 141f. 54 In the exchange charts between Schreber and Mühlenberg, these are signified by the tags [seeds], [specimens] and [determination].

Confederate Botany

133

garden and a theatrum anatomicum were necessary to meet the standards of the new science, which placed greater value on actual, personal observation rather than on traditional learning. Accordingly, the Erlangen garden was established within three years of the university’s founding, but it was only after Schreber’s arrival in 1770 that Seckendorff provided the means to hire professional staff for its maintenance and the purchase of more land close to one of the city gates, the Nürnberger Tor, on July 17, 1771. Two years later, Schreber was promoted director of the botanical garden,55 and almost simultaneously took charge of the university’s cabinet of natural curiosities, which had just recently been expanded by a generous bequest. Until 1779, the cabinet exclusively contained minerals, while Schöpf’s dried plants, mounted birds and Mühlenberg’s contributions during the 1780s seem to have been the first additions from the plant and animal kingdoms.56 Schöpf and Mühlenberg had a similar arrangement with regard to minerals and medical plants, both of which Schöpf received in abundance for his Beytraege zur mineralogischen Kenntniß des oestlichen Theils von Nordamerika und seiner Gebuerge (Erlangen 1787; Contributions to the mineralogical knowledge of the eastern Part of North America and her mountains) and his Materia Medica Americae Septentrionalis of the same year. Especially in the latter case, Mühlenberg contributed specimens and temporarily acted as sales agent for Schöpf,57 as becomes apparent in a letter written in 1791 to Manasseh Cutler (1742–1823), one of Mühlenberg’s first American botanical correspondents.58 In this letter, Mühlenberg also mentioned the “free use” that Schöpf made of his contributions, which Renate Wilson has Wittern, “Geschichte,” 323f.; Engelhardt, Erlangen, 57, 140f.; Kötter, Poll and Schug, Verzeichnis 2, 173. During the first winter, Schreber could even rent a separately heated room, where the newly acquired plants and seeds could be overwintered. Engelhardt, Erlangen, 140f. 56 The growth of the Erlangen cabinet was mostly due to the gradual transferral of the entire Bayreuth collection until 1804. Until then, a major donation by an unidentified miner named “von Bothar” necessitated an extra room to house the 47 cupboards of natural specimens, minerals and butterflies. Engelhardt, Erlangen, 132f., 136–37. Ob es möglich sei, zu einem Paar lebendiger Oppossums ohne Aufwendung allzu übertriebener Kosten zu gelangen, Schreber asked Mühlenberg in 1786. Mühlenberg did his best to compile an answer: Vom Thierreich habe ich gar nichts vollständiges, da mir fast alle Hülfsmittel fehlen, am wenisten kann ich systematisch gehen. Hier gebe ich Ihnen das magere Register der vierfüßigen: aber nur nach ihren hiesigen Benennungen. From Schreber, 10/05/1786, HSP Coll. 443; To Schreber, 11/24/1786, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. See also Schreber‘s introduction to the second volume of his Beschreibung der Gräser (1800): Die Gattung, von welcher dieses wegen seiner Schönheit und des besondern abweichenden Baues seiner Befruchtungstheile überaus merkwürdige Gras die ansehnlichere Art ist, erhielt von mir als ich die Genera plantarum des verewigten Linné neu herausgab, ihren Namen nach meinem verehrungswürdigen Freunde, dem Herrn Dr. Heinrich Mühlenberg, erstem evangelischen Prediger zu Lancaster in Pensylvaniens (…). Quoted after Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 39. 57 In Schöpf’s exchange chart, this is signified by the tag [opportunity], which represents the availability of business opportunities through one correspondent. 58 I gave my Memorandum Book to a Friend of mine D[octor] Schoepf who travelled thro our States for the same Purpose. He has made a free Use of them in a Work he published 1787 in Germany Materia medica Americae Septentrionalis. I beg you will accept of that Work. The Editor sent me 60 Exemplars for Sale at 5/ our Currency, but I can sell few of them and I give myself the Pleasure to present them to botanical Friends. Your Observations on that Work 55

134

Letters from an American Botanist

called more fittingly “literary piracy.”59 In truth, Schöpf not only copied liberally from Mühlenberg without proper acknowledgements, but also included original information from works by Catesby, Colden, Clayton and Reinhold Forster.60 The final result of Schöpf’s work, 170 Latin pages of plant descriptions with accompanying lines on their medical purposes, has nevertheless been hailed as America’s first true pharmacopeia.61 Obviously, Schöpf targeted a market niche with this compendium, and Mühlenberg’s new assignment in their botanical exchange was to help him find and address an American audience.62 It is not surprising that Schreber soon came up with a similar plan.63 Schöpf’s other preoccupation after his return to Er-

59 60 61

62

63

would be very pleasing to me. To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. See also Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 19. Wilson, “Second Generation,” 243. Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 49. Chadwick commented on Schöpf’s Materia Medica, stating that it was primarily Schöpf’s reorganization of previously known material into Linnean code that made the work a notable step ahead in American botany. Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 163. See also Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 49; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 20; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 227, 307; Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1325; Wilson, “Second Generation”, 246; Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 62. For other publications of Schöpf about his experiences in America, see Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 164; Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 43, 48. Hindle adds that Schöpf’s Beytraege zur mineralogischen Kenntniß des oestlichen Theils von Nordamerika und seiner Gebuerge, published in Erlangen in 1787, “opened the field of systematic study in North American Geography.” Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 307. Die Absicht dieses Werks ist nicht bloß, die Wißbegierde Europäischer Gelehrten zu befriedigen, Schöpf remarked in autumn 1786, den sonst würd ich haben manches sonst schon bekante u. in Linnés u[nd] andrer Mater[ia] Medicus [sic!] aufgenommen Arzneymittel müßen weglaßen. Man wollte etwas ganzes, u[nd] brauchbares für Amerika liefern, und in dieser Absicht mußt der Verleger mehrere Kosten aufwenden. Er hoft und wünscht nun einen guten Absatz mit diesem Buch nach Amerika machen zu können. Dazu soll ich Ihre Hilfe u[nd] Beistand für ihn erbitten. Mein Vorschlag dazu wäre eine zu eröffnende Subskription. Es müste wohl nicht gut seyn, wenn auf den verschiedenen Universitaeten, von Neu England bis Virginia, unter Profeßoren u. Studenten der Arzneywißenschaft u. andre Praktizis nicht wenistens 100 oder mehr Exemplaria sollten könen untergebracht werden, zumal wenn dieses Buch etwa von einigen angesehenen Aerzten oder gar von Ihrer Philos. Gesellschaft Billigung und Empfehlung erhielte. Es würde dem hiesigen Verleger, der auf Amerikanischen Absatz rechnet, u. deswillen eine größere Anzahl Exemplaria aufleget, als sonst nöthig und ihm vortheilhaft wäre, große Schaden bringen, wenn diese Absicht nicht erreichet, oder vielleicht gar, durch einen Nachdrukk vereitelt würde. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. Other passages reveal that Schöpf and his publisher Johann Jakob Palm, later himself in correspondence with Mühlenberg, depended heavily on his help: In diesen erwähnten Paqueten werden Sie außerdem meine Mat. Medica Americana bereits gefunden haben. (…) Sorgen Sie nur, wann es seyn kan, zum Lasten des Verlegers, welcher sich auf starken Amerikanischen Ansatz bey der Uebernahme dieses Werkes Hofnung machte, dafür daß diese M[ateria] M[edica] Amer[icana] unter ihren Landsleuten bekant werde. From Schöpf, 03/07/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. See also Schöpf’s letters to Mühlenberg dated 05/02/1787 and 11/17/1788. Both in HSP Soc. Coll. Da, wie es scheint, Ökonomie, und die Grundsäule deroselben, Kenntnis der Naturprodukte immer mehr Lieblingsstudia in Amerika werden: so ist mir eingefallen, ob nicht von Euretwegen aus die so nützliche und notwendige Pflanzenkunde, dort durch Veranstaltung guter Kupferstiche aller und jeder in Nordamerika einheimischen Gewächsarten, nach Art der Flora Danica, befördert werden könnte? Wie mir H[er]r D[octor] Schöpf sagt, so dürfte ein solches

Confederate Botany

135

langen was of a somewhat different nature. During his travels from 1783 to 1785, he had developed a special interest in turtles, and in the following years he pressed Mühlenberg hard to send him descriptions, shells or – if possible – live animals.64 Again, Mühlenberg found it hard to comply with this request,65 but upon Schöpf’s continued insistence he finally came up with a four-page letter containing detailed descriptions of 14 local species of turtles.66 Mühlenberg also benefited from these arrangements in several ways, particularly from the exchange with Schreber. From him, Mühlenberg primarily received plant identifications in Linnean code67 and general information on the contemporary state of botany, which focussed his attention on particular species in the plant kingdom and introduced him to the pragmatics of contemporary botanical exchange. At the beginning of their correspondence, Mühlenberg had little idea of how to prepare plants for transatlantic shipment, or how to organize the exchange of specimens without the risk of loss. The fact that the shipped herbs actually contained something new is dear to me, although I now begin to feel my touchy mistake in not having numbered the plants, which would now give me the certainty which plant is which,68 he acknowledged in his second letter to the Erlangen scientist.

64

65

66

67 68

Werk in Europa mit geringen Kosten unternommen und geliefert werden können, als in Amerika noch zur Zeit möglich sein möchte. (…) Ich wäre erbötig, diesen Plan auszuführen, wenn man nur auf 2–300 Subscribenten in Amerika rechnen könnte. From Schreber, 10/05/1786, HSP Coll. 443. Mühlenberg soon responded to Schreber‘s wish: Ich habe den Vorschlag wegen einer Flora Americana mit Kupferstichen verschiedenen guten Freunden communicirt, sie billigen ihn sehr und wünschen zu hören wie hoch der Preis von 10 oder 100 Stücken käme? To Schreber, 06/16/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Ueberhaupt intereßirt mich alles, was Schildkroeten betrifft, he let Mühlenberg know in 1788. Es wird mir daher jede Nachricht außerordentlich schäzbar seyn, welche Sie mir von Ihren Amerikanischen Land u[nd] Sumpfschildkröten gütigst geben oder verschaffen können, und mit größter Dankbarkeit werde ich alle Unkosten ersezzen, wenn es möglich wäre gute Exemplare von getrockneten oder auch in Spirit bewahrten solche Thiere zu erhalten. From Schöpf, 03/07/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. Von Schildkröten kann ich Ihnen nichts vollständiges melden. Ich habe schon manche angesprochen eine oder die anderen zu präservieren aber Sie wißen wie es geht, man wird angelächelt und vergeßen. Auf meines Excursionen erinnere ich mich 4 gesehen zu haben. Die größte ist Snapping Turtle im Waßer, sie ist ein delicat Eßen, (…). To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. In einer meiner vorigen Briefe habe ich sie bereits um Nachrichten der Ihren, oder in Ihrer Gegenden lebenden Schildkröten, und um gütige Besorgung einiger Exemplaria derselben gebeten. Ich wiederhole gegenwärtig diese Bitte. Schöpf to Mühlenberg, 11/17/1788, HSP Society Collection. See also Schöpf’s letter to Mühlenberg dated 06/23/1789, HSP Soc. Coll. The list of 14 turtles is contained in Mühlenberg’s letter to Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III. See also Schöpf‘s letter dated 06/16/1791, APS Film 1097, and a letter by Schöpf to his friend Hirzel at Basel in 1788: Ein Gegenstand auf welchen ich dermalen meine Aufmerksamkeit richte, sind Schildkröten. Nun verlange ich von Dir zu erfahren ob irgendwo in der Schweiz Schildkröten vorkommen? Quoted after Geus, Schöpf, 100. See respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 545f. Daß in den übersanten Kräutern etwas neues war ist mir lieb ob ich gleich jetzt meinen Fehler empfindlich merke daß ich die Pflanzen nicht nummeriert habe um jetzt gewis zu sein welches die neuen Pflanzen sind. To Schreber, 11/24/1786, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

136

Letters from an American Botanist

Schreber had acquainted him with this method,69 and from then on, numbered specimens in his letters corresponded to entries in his botanical diaries,70 which allowed him to identify the plants in his own herbarium. Mühlenberg’s knowledge on order in herbaria thus mostly came from Erlangen.71 Additionally, both Schöpf and Schreber added a significant number of botanical books to his library72 and taught him how to prepare specimens for secure shipping.73 On the whole, the two German scientists gradually equipped him with the necessary know-how, specimens and knowledge to assemble a herbarium. This was to serve as the foundation of Mühlenberg’s outstanding position in U.S. botany in the following decades. Initially, however, Mühlenberg depended completely on Schreber’s bibliographical and botanical skills for the identification of his specimens. This is especially striking with regard to his first printed essay, the Index Flora Lancastriensis, which appeared in the third volume A.P.S. Transactions in 1793. Eight years before, he had 69

70 71

72

73

This becomes evident in a letter to Schöpf, where Mühlenberg suggests the same procudure for minerals: Ich würde alles numeriren und den Ort bemerken und Sie würden so gütig sein (wie es der Hr. Hofrath Schreber in botanisch Sach gethan) und mir den Namen (…) dazu melden. To Schöpf, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. These diaries are a crude mixture of plant lists, day-to-day agendas, correspondence lists and general remarks on his contacts. All of these are preserved now at the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. This had been Schreber‘s idea as well: Sie wünschen ein Hilfsmittel zu sicherer Kenntnis der Gräser zu erhalten. Dazu möchte Ihnen wohl eine Sammlung gut eingelegter und richtig benannter europäischer Gräser nützlich sein, welche wenigstens verhütet, dass Sie nicht amerikanische Gräser mühsam und doch zu vielen vergebens unter den bloß europäischen suchen dürfen. From Schreber, 04/04/1786, HSP Coll. 443. For more on the importance of Mühlenberg’s herbarium, see Conclusion, 472f. Gegenwärtig erhalten E[ue]r Hochwürden nebst einem Briefe von dem Herrn D[octor] Schöpf, ein Exemplar von Gronovii Flora Virginica, welches er gütig aufzunehmen und bey dero botanischen Beschäftigungen gefällig zu gebrauchen bittet. Wenn mir bekannt wäre was für botanische Bücher dieselben schon besitzen, so würde ich eins und dies andre Ihnen fehlende haben hininzufügen können, welches ich also auf ein anders mal versparen muss. From Schreber, 03/05/1785, HSP Coll. 443. Schöpf wrote in 1786: Um Ihre Bibliothek, mit den schicklichsten u. brauchbarsten Naturhistorischen Büchern zu versehen, werde ich ehester Tages mit H. Hofrath Schreber conferirn, den welche ich persönlich sehen werde. Dann will ich H. Herman in Frankf. das Verzeichnis solcher Bücher zuschikken, um sie Ihnen nach u. nach verschaffen zu können. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. See also the frequency of the tags [books] and [own works] in the exchange charts of Schöpf and Schreber to Mühlenberg. See the respective exchange charts, Appendix D, on pages 544f. and 545f. Unterdeßen bitte ich im Namen des Verfaßers, daß Sie uns gefälligst mit den Lichen Ihrer Gegend versehen mögten. (…) [E]s ist weiter nichts nöthig, als daß sie alles was das Ansehen von Lichen hat von Baumstämmen, Rinden, Steinen oder Erde abschälen, abschlagen oder mit ein Stükke Rinde abschneiden u. in Schachteln zwischen etwas Moos oder Papier verwahren laßen. From Schöpf, 03/07/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. Many of the techniques mentioned in Mühlenberg’s correspondences were rather recent developments at the time. Especially for the transport of Chinese plants and specimens to England, the staff of Kew Gardens had come up with an arsenal of preserving methods, such as “air-tight bottles, preserved in beeswax or sugar, dried in papers, tubers and trees packed dormant in peat.” The most frequent problems of plant transport until the invention of the “Wardian case” in the 1820s were protection from ship-pets, salt spray, and the logistics of fresh water supply. Rigby, “Plant Transportation,” 84, 87f., 97.

Confederate Botany

137

submitted an earlier version that had remained unpublished.74 Its supplement, delivered to the A.P.S. on February 18, 1791, included no less than 1,100 species in 454 genera, and Mühlenberg did not conceal who was responsible for this new accuracy and dimension of his work: Whenever I could not find any name in Linnaeus’ system the accompanying note to the Chemical Committee of the A.P.S. read, so I took the same from other freshly printed publications, or from Dr Schreber’s letters, with whom I maintain a correspondence. If I did not succeed in finding a name in this manner, I found myself pressed to give one myself and add NS [Nova Species] to it, until better information from able botanists would arrive.75 From Schöpf, on the other hand, he could only expect help in the case of zoological or mineralogical specimens,76 as his botanical faculties were obviously far inferior to those of the former Linnaeus student Schreber: A full study of all plants of North America, I would certainly not be able to create, Schöpf had to concede. But I have given my study and register of the plants growing around New York (within the perimeter that I was able to cover during the war) to Court Councillor Mr Schreber, who will have the kindness to review it and to make more precise determinations.77 In any case, Mühlenberg’s initial interest in minerals78 and animals subsided once Schöpf ceased to take an active part in this correspondence after 1791.79 A by-product of Schreber’s and Schöpf’s identifications was the propagation of Mühlenberg’s name within the scientific community in Europe in the form of dedi74 75

76 77

78 79

Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 20. Wenn ich keinen Namen in Linné’s System fand, so entnahm ich denselben anderen kürzlich gedruckten Werken, oder Dr. Schreber’s Briefen, mit welchem ich eine Correspondenz unterhalte. Wenn ich in dieser Weise keinen Namen fand, so war ich genöthigt, selbst einen solchen zu geben und N[ova] S[pecies] hinzuzufügen, bis bessere Information von fähigeren Botanikern kommt. Quoted after Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 21. The [determinations] tags in the Schöpf-Mühlenberg exchange all refer either to Schöpf‘s Testudines or his Mineralogische Beyträge (1787). Eine floram von Nord-Amerika zu geben, würde ich nicht im Stande seyn, aber meine Beschreibung u[nd] Verzeichniß der um New York [so weit während des Kriegs mir zu gehen erlaubt war] wachsenden Pflanzen, habe ich H. Hofrath Schreber übergeben, welcher die Güte haben wird, solche zu revidieren u[nd] genauer zu bestimmen. From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. Schöpf repeated this several times: Ich muß zwar selber gestehen, es sind solche nicht so schön als ich wünschte, Sie ihnen geben zu können – es ist aber mein Herbarium, welches ich bey meiner vor 10 Jahren erfolgten Abreise nach Amerika zurückgelaßen, mancherley Unfälle während meiner Abwesenheit ausgesezt gewesen – und seit meiner Zurückkunft hindern mich die zerstreuenden Geschäfte meines Amtes, alles wieder zu ergänzen, (…).. Indem ich Ihnen aber diese troknen Pflanzen zusende, hatte ich auch nicht die Absicht solche als eine Zierde für Ihr Herbarium zu bestimmen, sonder blos die Neigung daß Sie Ihnen zur Vergleichung gegen andere u. daher leichteren Kenntniß derselben etwas beitragen möchten. From Schöpf, 03/31/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. Um Ihre Zweifel über die Ihnen Noth machenden Pflanzen los zu werden, so haben Sie nur die Güte und schikken uns solche. Vielleicht gehet es Ihnen wie mir ich habe mich über verschiedene Pflanzen geängstigt und sie in Linné Tag u. Nacht gesucht, und am Ende waren sie doch nicht drin. From Schöpf, 05/02/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. Nebst der Botanic studiere ich auch in der Mineralogie und habe schon eine ziemliche Samlung von hiesigen Erden, Steinen und Erzten. Wenn ich Ihnen mit Proben dienen kann, werde ich es mit warer Freude thun. To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. See respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 544.

138

Letters from an American Botanist

cations. In his Historia Testudinum, Schöpf depicted a hitherto unknown species of a bog turtle, which he named Clemmys Muhlenbergii, acknowledging his obligations to my most admirable friend, Mr Heinrich Mühlenberg, who dedicates his glorious diligence and leisure hours to the natural history of the united North American states.80 Schreber, in turn, informed Mühlenberg in August 1789 that he had named a new genus of Poacea grasses after him: You also receive at the same time the 1st part of my edition of Genera Plantarum and the rest of the parts of the Amoenitatibus. In the latter you may find a Muhlenbergia, a new Genus, first discovered by yourself, as a consequence of which it must bear your name with all justification.81 Additionally, Schreber had secured Mühlenberg’s election to the Imperial Society of Scientists (Leopoldina) in 1789 and sent the diploma to Lancaster in August of the same year.82 Within five years, Mühlenberg had managed to establish himself at the core of one of central Europe’s major botanical circles. 1.4 The Hinterlands of Botanical Science Compared to Mühlenberg’s increasingly close contacts with Schreber and Schöpf from 1784 to 1790, surprisingly little activity in his own American neighborhood can be detected during the same period. In Philadelphia, the American Philosophical Society did its best to re-establish connections with European scientists, thereby 80

81

82

An meinem verehrungswürdigen Freunde, Herrn Heinrich Mühlenberg, welcher mit ruhmvollen Fleisse der Naturgeschichte der vereinigten nordamerikanischen Staaten seine Erholungsstunden widmet. Schöpf’s other contributors were the Herren Pennant, Hermann, Tozetti, Vosmaer, Thunberg, Retzius. See Schöpf, Naturgeschichte, preface (unpaginated) and MüllerJancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1325. Auch erhalten dieselben zugleich den 1. Th[eil] meiner Ausg[abe] der Gen[era] pl[antarum] und den Rest der Theile von den Amoenitatibus. In jenen werden Sie eine Muhlenbergia finden, eine neues Genus das E[ue]r Hochw[ürden] zuerst entdeckt, und dem also Ihr Name mit allem Recht gebühret. From Schreber, 08/08/1789, APS Film 1097. Apparently, Mühlenberg was thrilled to see his name on a genus, and Schreber added two years later: Ich freue mich unendlich, daß es Ihnen nicht unangenehm gewesen ist, Ihren Namen einem Gewächs beygelegt zu sehen, das zwar nicht prächtig in die Augen fällt, aber doch seine eigene Schönheit hat, und, weil es in N[ord]America häufig wächst und bey uns leicht gezogen werden kan, desto öfter es der Verdienste des verehrungswürdigen Naturforschers, nach dessen Namen es genannt ist, erinnert. Die Muhlenbergia erecta ist, meinem Bedenken nach, eine unstritige Species dieses generis; denn die scheinbare zwote gluma der unteren Blüten ist wegen ihres Abstandes von der eigentlich, eher eine bractea zu nennen. From Schreber, 07/22/1791, HSP Coll. 443. Die Philygram des H[er]rn Präsidenten der kaiserl[ichen] Akad[emie] der Naturforscher bitte ich gelegentlich zu vertheilen, und ein Exemplar an den Herrn Prof[essor] D[octor] Rush nach Philadelphia zu befördern. Ich wünschte daß es Ihnen gefällig seyn möchte, dis alte ehrwürdige Institut mit Ihrem Beytritt zu beehren, und dann und wann etwas zu den Actis, sollte es auch nur ein kleiner Aufsatz seyn, beyzutragen. Gleichen Wunsch sage ich auch in Absicht des Herrn Prof. Rush, den ich sehr schäze. From Schreber, 08/19/1789, HSP Coll. 443. At the time of Mühlenberg’s election, Schreber’s colleague Heinrich Friedrich Delius (1720–1791) was the society’s president. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Delius.” Neither in Butterfield’s edition of Rush’s letters, nor in Schreber’s bequest at the Universitätsarchiv Erlangen, there are any indicators that Rush in any way ever reacted to his election to the Imperial Society.

Confederate Botany

139

retaining its transnational, cosmopolitan character in the face of a domestic political climate that was increasingly nationalistic and at odds with Europe.83 In January 1785, Mühlenberg had been granted membership in the A.P.S., along with the pioneering chemist Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) and the later U.S. President James Madison (1751–1836). Neither his letters of the period nor the entries in his botanical diaries, however, suggest any greater subsequent involvement with American botany and botanists, although his Flora Lancastriensis of the same year documented his great interest in the domestic flora.84 It is a remarkable feature of this first phase of Mühlenberg’s correspondence network that he was not yet engaged in regular contact with Philadelphia’s leading botanists, scientists, seedsmen and gardeners. Although his acceptance into the A.P.S. makes it seem virtually impossible that he did not, at some point, shake hands with the likes of John and William Bartram, Humphrey Marshall,85 William Hamilton or Benjamin Smith Barton, the respective sources reveal quite clearly that Mühlenberg did not connect with them, or any other American scientists for that matter, on a regular basis until around or immediately after 1790.86 On the one hand, this observation ties in with the earlier agreement that American botanists and scientists generally tended to favor ties with the more “professional” European sciences over those with their immediate American colleagues.87 When Mühlenberg acknowledged to Schreber in his first letter in 1785 that it had always been his warm wish of mine for quite some time, to become acquainted with a real Botanist, he implied that he considered none of his potential American contacts at this point as a “real botanist,” with whom I could ask for advice and elucidation of my doubts.88 In addition, scientific life in urban centers like Philadelphia 83 Green confirms, however, that the A.P.S. indeed never let these factions infuse internal politics. Neither was it pro-French nor decidedly anti-British. Among its foreign members, there were 21 Frenchmen, eight Germans, three Swedes, three Russians, three Italians, two Spaniards, one Austrian, one Dutch, and 27 British scientists. Greene, American Science, 7. 84 Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 36. 85 In Marshall’s case, there are at least some indices suggesting closer contact between the two. Marshall, who had been accepted to the A.P.S. in 1786 in consequence of the publication of his Arbustrum Americanum, had obviously come to the attention of Schreber and Schöpf, who used Mühlenberg to forward letters back and forth: Für Marshalls Brief bin ich Ihnen verbunden, Schöpf acknowledged in May of 1787. Wenn er nur überall etwas genauer die Standorte seiner Gewächse bestimmt, und nicht so viele neue willkührliche Beynamen gegeben hätte. Wahrscheinlich hat er das meiste aus Millers Gard. Dict. entlehnet. Von der Franklinia u[nd] Xanthorhiza wünscht H. Hofrath Schreber Samen oder Pflanzen zu erhalten. Vielleicht wäre auch einige blühend Specimina durch Mr. Marshal zu bekomen? From Schöpf, 05/02/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. 86 See following chapter V.2 “Transatlantic Botany (1790–1797).” 87 See above on page 104f. 88 Es war schon lange mein warmer Wunsch, mit einem ächten Botanico bekannt zu werden, bei dem ich Aufklärung meiner Zweifel suchen und mich raths erholen könte. (…) Bei der Art wie ich die Botanic erlernen muste, ohne irgend einen lebendigen Führer, und nur wenige Bücher zu haben, in einem neuen, wenigstens nur halb durchsuchten, Lande kann es freilich an Zweifeln und auch wohl an Fehlern nicht mangeln. To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

140

Letters from an American Botanist

was largely centered on personal, oral contact, which is poorly documented. As will be shown, the small volume of correspondence with his Philadelphia colleagues in the years after 1790 was mostly due to Mühlenberg’s routine professional travels to the city, which rendered letters practically unnecessary. 1.5 Franklin College and Botany If conditions for scientific endeavors were still rather discouraging in the emerging American triangle of science, opportunities for intellectual exchange in Lancaster were practically nonexistent. Apart from occasional travelers and professional colleagues like the Reformed minister Hendel, Mühlenberg rarely ever met other representatives of the “Collegiate Aristocracy” in his new hometown. Botanical discourses with neighbors and friends were presumably reduced to practical aspects.89 In 1787 the chartering of a new college for the German population promised to stimulate the local intellectual atmosphere. While the history of Franklin College90 has been told in greater detail elsewhere;91 the focus here is on the aspects of Mühlenberg’s networking on behalf of the college, and on the influence of his scientific and botanical interests on the curriculum.92 It is important to note that Mühlenberg’s interpretation of the term “science” (Wissenschaft) comprised any subject to be taught at a college or university, which becomes obvious in a letter to Fabricius in December 1789: My duty is to teach those having passed all courses in sciences and especially in theology.93 The college’s original purpose was to meet the persistent demand for trained clergy, doctors and legislators for the German-speaking population. The initial composition of the faculty which started teaching at the old Brewery House on

89

90 91 92 93

As a matter of fact, Mühlenberg’s early diaries abound with observations on conservations with neighbors like Ross, Gottschall, Gundacker and others: In Ross’s Wiese – die Gegend unvergleichlich – unter anderem: (…) 10. mir zum ersten mal bemerkte Blume (…) 2. August mein excursion an der Canestoga im Ross’s Platz herum. Botanisches Tagebuch APS 580M89 bo, [unpaginated]. The two cited passages can be found among the entries for May 1784 and August 1786. APS 580M89 actually comprises two diaries, the first running from April 10, 1784 through November 23, 1784, the second from June 21, 1786 through November 12, 1786. See also the following passage from 1785: 21. April [1785]: Auf Gottschall’s Platz ist ein Baum mit essbarer Frucht, den er Maulbeere nennt (…) May 31. Nachmittags eine excursion nach Krugs u[nd] Gross Berg. See Naturbuch für 1785 580 M89c, (also: [A. Calendar. Florae] G. Henry Muhlenberg). Since 1853: Franklin & Marshall College. Most recently Bee and Schuyler, Franklin and Marshall College. See also Dubbs, History. According to Mike Leary, archivist of Franklin & Marshall College, the earliest surviving curriculum dates from 1848. Also, minutes of trustee-meetings were only taken on a regular basis after 1818. Dubbs, History, 90. My thanks go to Mike Leary for this piece of information. Meine Pflicht ist solche die durch alle Claßen durch sind in der Wißenschaft sonderlich in der Theologie zu unterricht[en]. To Fabricius, 12/14/1789, AFSt/M 4 D 2. In the following, I am using the term “science” (and its derivative forms) strictly in the modern, popular sense of the body of natural sciences botany, geography, physics etc. Exceptions are indicated individually.

Confederate Botany

141

Mifflin Street in July 1787, reflected that demand.94 Frederick Valentin Melsheimer (1749–1814), a Lutheran minister Mühlenberg met in 1779,95 taught Latin, Greek and German, while William Reichenbach (1749–1821) taught courses in mathematics, and Joseph Hutchins, Lancaster’s Episcopalian rector, gave lectures in English and Belles Lettres.96 Take advantage of this opportunity!, Mühlenberg warned his fellow Lancastrians in his inaugural address on June 6. To miss it would be black ingratitude against God and any benefactor of the Germans.97 Mühlenberg had good reason to repeat his exhortations several times in his address. A similar attempt by his brother-in-law John Christopher Kunze to establish a theological seminar in Philadelphia had been discontinued during the upheavals of the Revolution. Instead, Kunze became Professor of philology, Greek and Latin at the University of Pennsylvania in 1780, and together with Schmidt and Helmuth continued to hatch plans for an alternative feeder school to the German academy.98 The three Philadelphia ministers also formed the core of the so-called “German party,” which continued to defend the cause of native German speakers into the first years of the 19th century and eventually became bitter enemies to the rival “English party” around Peter and Frederick Mühlenberg.99 In this context, Franklin College was not merely one of seven new colleges established in the U.S. during the confederate period; it also provided German Lutherans with an opportunity to take a stance in the new republic. To Schmidt, Goering and especially Helmuth, the Lutheran Church was to function as a moral beacon to the new social order, and nothing vexed them more than the gradual privatization of “Protestant benevolence,” which Helmuth regarded as one of the worst effects of American democratization.100 The legacy of Halle pietism and of the two Franckes’ original intentions at Glaucha is clearly reflected in this position. Consequently, Lutherans came to envision themselves as the moral guardians of the new democratic state and liberty as “God’s gift,” which needed to be defended even against threats from within.101 The rhetoric surrounding the establishment of Franklin College answered to this new nationalistic facet of German-American Lutheran doctrine: The entire country, in which the upbringing is handled, feels its blessings, Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 45. Ostrander, Republic, 56; Dubbs, History, 3–5, 30. Ich bin eben jetzt von der Conferentz zurük gekommen. Es waren 9 Glieder nebst dem Braunschweiger Feldprediger [Friedrich Valentin Melsheimer] zugegen, und es ist alles in Ordnung zugegangen. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 06/10/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 768). 96 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 505; Roeber, “Helmuth,” 87; Dubbs, History, 63f. For Hutchins, Dubbs does not provide dates of birth and death. 97 Gebraucht diese Gelegenheit! Schwarzer Undank wäre es gegen Gott und gegen Wohlwünscher der Deutschen sie versäumen. Mühlenberg, Eine Rede, 13. 98 Roeber, “Helmuth,” 83, 87; Dubbs, History, 8f.; Aland, Korrespondenz IV, 12; Glatfelter, Pastors II, 495. When Kunze left Philadelphia in 1784, Helmuth took over his position. 99 Jacob Goering (1755–1807) was also part of this group. Roeber, “Helmuth,” 90f., Glatfelter, Pastors II, 45. Peter Mühlenberg was also chosen to serve on the board of trustees. Baglyos, “Muhlenbergs,” 58; Dubbs, History, 18, 22, 26. 100 Roeber, “Helmuth,” 77; Baglyos, “Lutherans,” 62. 101 Baglyos, “ Lutherans,” 58, 63. 94 95

142

Letters from an American Botanist

which is why there is no greater service to be rendered to a society but a good upbringing of its own offspring, Mühlenberg, who had just been elected principal of the new College, explained in his inaugural address.102 Serving on the board of trustees of Dickinson College since its chartering in 1783,103 he had not only the necessary learning and experience for this position, but also first-hand organizational knowledge for such an undertaking and, most importantly, connections to Pennsylvania’s educational elite. A small number of Mühlenberg’s letters from the 1780s deal explicitly with Franklin College.104 Apart from the “prime movers” of the new college in Lancaster, Caspar Weyberg (1734–1790), Johann Willhelm Hendel, Helmuth and Mühlenberg,105 Benjamin Rush appears as one of the driving forces behind Franklin College.106 Lancaster owes much to Dr. Rush, and the university will always find in him an active supporter, Helmuth wrote to Mühlenberg only months before the opening ceremony, and in the same letter he spelled out in detail what was expected from him: You or Pastor Hendel must undertake to preach a sermon in German. This sermon must earnestly and effectively impress upon the people of Lancaster the importance of higher education. N[ota] B[ene] But it must under no circumstances be more than twenty-five [minutes] in length.107 In other letters, Mühlenberg and Helmuth continued to discuss the details of the opening ceremony, 108 and ex102 Das ganze Land, in dem die Auferziehung gehandhabt wird, empfindet den Segen, daher man dem gemeinen Wesen keine größre Wohlthat erweisen kann, als durch eine gute Auferziehung der seinigen. Mühlenberg, Eine Rede, 10; Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 153. 103 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 496; Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 153. 104 Out of a total of 58 preserved letters that fall into the first phase (see table e, Appendix B, 488), only five deal exclusively with Franklin College: From Helmuth, 03/19/1787, FMC Gen. Autog. Coll.; To Helmuth, 03/27/1787, APS Film 1097; To Helmuth, 05/14/1787, APS Film 1097; From Kunze, 05/19/1787, YUL Schwab Papers; From Rush, 02/15/1788, FMC Gen. Autog. Coll. 105 Weyberg could already claim experience as trustee to Queen’s College after 1770, and to the University of Pennsylvania from 1779 on. Glatfelter, Pastors I, 162. See also Glatfelter, Pastors II, 500; Dubbs, History, 15. Häberlein has looked into the confessional background of Franklin College, which he calls the most important “interdenominational enterprise” of the period. Häberlein, Practice, 233. 106 Rush was the only representative of Philadelphia’s scientific establishment with whom Mühlenberg had regular contact during the years from 1784 to 1790. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 524. The only letter preserved from this correspondence, however, does not mention anything related to the A.P.S., or the development of science in Philadelphia. See letter from Rush, 02/15/1788, FMC Gen. Autog. Coll. For Rush’s views on Germans in Pennsylvania, see Glatfelter, Pastors II, 424f. 107 The letter is signed by the projected trustees of Franklin College: Casparus Weiberg, Tho[ma] s McKean, P[eter] Muhlenberg, Dan[iel] Hiester, Jr., Jos[eph] Hiester, Philip Wager, W[illia] m Sheaff, Benj[amin] Rush, Heinrich Helmuth. From Helmuth, 03/19/1787, FMC Gen. Autog. Coll. Interestingly, Dubbs claims that Rush and Mühlenberg had not yet established personal contact, despite their mutual membership in the A.P.S. This supports the idea that Mühlenberg did not have strong personal ties to Philadelphia’s learned community prior to 1790. Dubbs, History, 48. 108 Was soll der Principal (ein garstiger schottländischer Name!) und der Vice principal lehren?

Confederate Botany

143

changed their views on the political circumstances of the new college: The British are too friendly, Mühlenberg confided to Helmuth. As I see things, with their charter they merely wanted to cast a wall of blue smoke in front of the Germans’ eyes. They have also included some things fit to be used to the damage of the Germans, whenever it crosses their minds. I particularly dislike the paragraph that says that the charter may be revoked by an act of the assembly. Just as though the idea would then occur to them, once we have neatly organized all things.109 Unresolved issues regarding the projected curriculum also prompted Mühlenberg to submit one of his rare letters to Kunze,110 who had already moved to New York at the time. The initial lines of this letter are worth quoting in full, as they illustrate how the two men tried to pit their relationship on a new footing again after their falling-out nearly seven years earlier: My most cherished brother in law and brother in office, Kunze began formally. You will certainly take back your earlier judgement, that I supposedly stand in need of the same excuse as you for neglecting to correspond, once you see the date of the present letter with my last. The old ones, I think, are not as close at hand. The most cherished writing of the 7th I have received, but the repetitions extend the time, as Mr Lehmann was unable to submit it to me with the same opportunity. (…) However, I remember our old standing with each other, when I learned about your story.111 Despite these rather stiff opening lines, Kunze included some personal remarks on his own and his family’s wellbeing, and subsequently provided Mühlenberg with a veritable essay, rather than a letter, full of suggestions on the subjects to be taught.112 Interestingly, Kunze suggested the inclusion of courses on natural history, which is also the first indicator that scientific contents were actually considered a worthwhile addition to the curri-

In der Einweihungs Ordnung ist mir auch viel dunkel, Mühlenberg asked Helmuth in March 1787. To Helmuth, 03/27/1787, APS Film 1097. Sie hatten ohne Zweifel meine Paar Zeilen noch nicht empfangen, als Sie Ihr letztes schrieben, Helmuth answered in May. Ich meldete Ihnen H[er]rn P[farrer] Hendel und meine Meinung, es wäre beßer wenn unsre hiesigen Sänger alles über sich nähmen, nur müßen die übrigen Noten von den Solo‘s p. heraufgeschickt werden. To Helmuth, 05/14/1787, APS Film 1097. 109 Die Engländer sind zu freundschaftlich. So ichs einsehe haben sie durch den Freibrief den Teutschen nur einen blauen Dunst vor die Augen machen wollen, und Sachen hineingebracht die man sehr zum Schaden der Teutschen misbrauchen kann wenns ihnen einmahl einfällt. Die Clausel gefällt mir gar nicht, daß das Charter durch eine Acte der Assembly kann auch gehoben werden. Wie wenns den Herren beifiele so bald wir die Sachen hübsch eingerichtet haben? To Helmuth, 03/27/1787, APS Film 1097. 110 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 514. 111 Hochgeschätzter Herr Schwager und Amtsbruder. Daß ich gleicher Entschuldigung, wie Sie, wegen Nachlässigkeit in Briefwechsel bedürfen sollte, darinnen werden Sie nun wol Ihr Urteil zurück nehmen, wenn Sie das Datum dieses Briefes mit meinen leztn vergleichen. Die alten, denke ich, sind nicht so nahe bei der Hand. Das mir höchstschäzbare Schreiben vom 7. dieses habe erhalten, aber das Repetieren macht mir die Zeit lange, denn Mr. Lehmann konnte es mit dieser Gelegenheit nicht senden. (…) Ich habe mich unsers alten Umgangs erinnert, da ich Ihre Geschicht kennen lernte. From Kunze, 05/19/1787, YUL Schwab Papers. 112 Kunze was a professor at Columbia College from 1784 to 1787 and 1792 to 1799. Glatfelter, Pastors I, 75.

144

Letters from an American Botanist

culum at Franklin College. 113 Indeed, Mühlenberg’s inaugural address, held only a month later, seems to echo Kunze’s emphasis on natural history.114 The inclusion of Frederick Valentin Melsheimer among the original faculty provides another hint in this direction. Dubbs asserts that “[t]hough there was no titular professor of Natural Sciences in Franklin College, the presence in the faculty of such men as Muhlenberg and Melsheimer might have afforded to students in this department opportunities for advanced study which could hardly have been found elsewhere in America.”115 Originally hired to teach Latin, Greek and German, Melsheimer soon engaged in mineralogical and entomological studies and began an intensive correspondence with August Willhelm Knoch (1742–1818) at Braunschweig.116 Apparently, Knoch was Melsheimer’s only international correspondent to help him with the classification of Pennsylvania’s insects, as Melsheimer acknowledged himself in the preface to his Catalogue of Insects of Pennsylvania in 1806.117 With Melsheimer, Mühlenberg finally had a like-minded colleague in Lancaster, with whom he could converse on scientific subjects: In mineralogy or physical geography, Professor Melsheimer is now working assiduously, he wrote to Schöpf in November of 1788. And he has also a work at hand which appears very promising to me. He intends to have it printed in Germany. Other than him, I have no further assistant.118 Considering this qualification, Melsheimer could have been 113 Was doch ohne Zweifel aus Ihrem Plane nicht wegbleiben dürfte, ist 1 Englische Rede u[nd] dichtkunst 2 deutsche Rede u[nd] Dichtkunst 3, das lesen von höheren lateinischen Classikern, personischen u[nd] 4. partischen 5. ingleichen griechischen personischen u[nd] 6. partischen, 7. reine Mathematik u[nd] 8. applicierte 9. Grundsäze der Natur {Grund}lere u[nd] 10. Experimentalphysisk 11. Logik 12 Metaphysik 13. Moral 14. Geographie 15. Chronologie. From Kunze, 05/19/1787, YUL Schwab Papers. In a later passage in the same letter, Kunze specifies who should take care of these course in the basics of Naturlehre: Ein Englischer: Professor der natürlichen Philosophie. Dieser arme Mann mus sichs gefallen lassen 1. Naturlere 2. die reine Mathematik 3. die applicirte Mathematik 4. die Englische Rede u[nd] dichtkunst zu treiben. 114 Die solt ihr aufziehen in der Zucht und Vermahnung des Herrn, ihr solt ihre zeitliche und ewige Wohlfart angelegentlich besorgen, sie weise, gottesfürchtig, menschenfreundlich und dadurch Gott und Menschen wert zu machen suchen, ihr solt sie Selbst= und Welt=Kentniß lehren, und ihnen das Buch der Natur und Schrift öfnen, ihr solt sie auf dieser Bahn mit weiser Abwechslung der Güte und des Ernstes fortführen und erhalten. Mühlenberg, Eine Rede, 12. 115 Dubbs, History, 62. 116 Hagen, “Melsheimer Family,” 192. 117 In the classification of my Collection I have followed the System of Fabricius; although I wish it to be known, that I am much indebted for the Arrangement relative to Classification to the Instructions of Professor Knoch in Brunswick, in Germany, with whom I have corresponded for many years. In the Catalogue his Suggestions will be found marked with the Letter K. Melsheimer, A Catalogue of Insects, v. Apart from the correspondence with Knoch, only three additional letters from or to Melsheimer could be found: His letter of resignation in May 1789, a letter by a “Leonhardt Lenndict,” dated June 8, 1790, and a letter to John Hubley, Esquire, of Lancaster, dated June 16, 1790. (Originals deposited at Archives and Special Collections Franklin & Marshall College, RG 01 SG 4, Faculty Franklin College, Melsheimer Correspondence.) 118 In der Mineralogie od[er] physischen Geographie arbeitet jetzt Professor Melsheimer fleißig. [U]nd er hat ein Werk in der Hand von dem ich mir viel verspreche. Er gedenkts in Deutschland drucken zu laßen. Sonst hab ich kein[en] Gehülfen. To Schöpf, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass

Confederate Botany

145

an excellent science instructor, and a handwritten list of students reveals that he actually taught geography119 during the winter of 1788–89.120 In May 1789, Melsheimer was forced to discontinue teaching at Franklin College as the trustees were unable to pay his salary, and the new school came close to closing.121 A new pastoral call brought him to Hanover, where he entertained a sporadic if rather inconsequential correspondence with Mühlenberg. Apparently they kept each other informed about their respective progress in botany and entomology.122 After his death in 1814, the American naturalist Thomas Say (1787–1834) declared Melsheimer to be

119

120

121

122

Schreber. Schöpf answered enthusiastically half a year later: H. Melsheimers Werk über die physische Geographie von Amerika, sehe ich mit Vergnügen entgegen; wenn er es will in Deutschland drukken laßen, so findet sich vielleicht in unserer Gegenden Verleger dazu[nd] From Schöpf, 06/23/1789, HSP Soc. Coll. It should be pointed out that Melsheimer’s understanding of geography as a science certainly differed greatly from the modern definition of the term. The period from ca. 1790 to 1810 is commonly referred to as the formative period of geography/geology, when Abraham Gottlob Werner (1750–1817) at the mining academy of Freiberg (Saxony) argued in his Kurze Klassifikation und Beschreibung der verschiedenen Gebürgsarten (Dresden 1787) “that geologists should divide up the rocks of the earth’s surface into ‘formations’ – groups of rocks formed at particular times – rather than into mineralogical units. This seemingly innocuous change brought about very important consequences. Beforehand, the study of the earth had either taken the form of mineralogy – the study of the mineral substances comprising the earth – or of cosmogony, the postulation of a sequence of events by which the supposedly original spherical, fluid, chaotic globe had reached its present state.” Laudan, “History of Geology,” 317. Considering that Melsheimer’s prime interest was mineralogy at the time, it is very likely that he was unfamiliar with Werner’s theories. Namen der Schüler die vom 17t Octob: 1788 bis 17t Jan: 1789 den Unterricht in der College genoßen haben. FMC Melsheimer Correspondence. Apart from geography, his repertoire included Griechisch, Lateinisch, Historia, Briefeschreiben, while deutsch lesen, schreiben, rechnen were reserved to the schooling of first-graders The list also reveals that three sons of the Mühlenberg family, Heinrich, Friedrich and another Heinrich, took courses with Melsheimer during the winter of 1788–89. Although there are no further specifications on their respective identities, it is very likely that these are Henry’s own son Henry Augustus Philip Muhlenberg (1782–1844), who was taught elementary lessons in deutsch, lesen, schreiben, rechnen, and Frederick Augustus Conrad’s sons Henry William Muhlenberg (1772–1805), and his other son Frederick Muhlenberg (born after 1781), who both took courses in lateinisch, historia, geographie, Briefeschreiben, Rechnen und Schreiben. See also Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 31, 38, 154f.; Dubbs, History, 71. In his letter of resignation to an anonymous addressee, Melsheimer stated: Wohlgebohrner Herr! Ich nehme mir die Freyheit, Ihnen zu melden, daß meine häuslichen Umstände es für mich nothwendig machen, meine Stelle als Lehrer am Franklinischen Collegio aufzugeben. Da mir die gegenwärtige Lage der Sachen zu wohlbekannt ist: so bleibt mir kein anderes Mittel übrig: so sehr es auch wieder meine Neigung streitet. Melsheimer to Anonymous, 05/26/1789, FMC Melsheimer Correspondence. For the financial problems of the college, which were mostly due to unpaid subscriptions, see also Dubbs, History, 87f. In September 1794, Mühlenberg noted in his botanical diary: Sept. 5: “Hr. Melsheimer meldet mir dass Prof. Knoch aus 240 Käfern die er hinaus geschickt 2 neue Genera u[nd] etl. 80 NS. bemerkt (…). See Flora Lancastriensis 580 M89f. Melsheimer is last mentioned two years prior to his death in a letter to Peck in Boston: Our greatest Entomologist in Pensylvania is I think the Revd Valentine Melsheimer at Hannover. He has published a Catalogue of the Coteoptera of his Collection. If you wish to see it, you are exceedingly wellcome to my Copy, and

146

Letters from an American Botanist

the “Father of American Entomology,” and the preface to his 1806 Catalogue of Insects of Pennsylvania shows that Mühlenberg himself was highly aware of his accomplishments: I hereby offer to the Friends of Natural History a Catalogue of Insects, in the Collection of which I have spent my Hours of Recreation for some years past. To the best of my Knowledge I have but few Predecessors in the United States in this Undertaking.123 It was during the difficult first two years of Franklin College that Schöpf and Schreber also communicated their ideas about education in general to Mühlenberg. Schreber, who had obviously learned about the college from a newspaper, wrote to Lancaster in May 1788: With the most lively joy I have learned from public papers about the erection of an institute, which owes its existence to the glorious endeavors of you, most cherished friend. It will certainly be of infinite use for the further growth of sciences.124 Schöpf was even more outspoken in expecting Mühlenberg to become a propagator of science in his new position of a college principal: By now there should also be more opportunity to kindle more interest in natural history in America, he observed in November 1788. And above all, you may also enjoy the great and meritorious pleasure to contribute the most to such an desirable purpose, if you only can and want to consider some education in natural history in your Collegium Franklini.125 Schöpf’s suggestion is merely one in a series of similar statements by which both Erlangen scientists tried to influence Mühlenberg and expand their own network by exhorting Mühlenberg to extend his own one towards the South. Specifically a Mr. Walter, a Gentleman from South Carolina was of particular interest to them.126 Schreber and Schöpf essentially saw Mühlenberg as their

123

124

125

126

indeed to anything I have in the way of natural History (…). To Peck, 05/19/1812, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. Melsheimer, A Catalogue of Insects, iii. According to Hagen, Melsheimer’s catalogue contained 1363 species of beetles, 460 of which were named by Knoch. Hagen, “Melsheimer Family,” 191; See also Schiedt, “First President,” 511. Hagen also gives a full quote of Melsheimer’s obituary note in the Hanover Gazette: Friedrich Valentin Melsheimer, minister of the Evangelic-Lutheran Church in Hanover, died June 30, 1814, in consequence of a lung disease 0f 30 years duration, 64 years, 10 months and 7 days old. He was born Sept. 25, 1749, at Negenborn, in the dukedom of Brunswick. His father, Joachim Sebastian Melsheimer, was superintendent of forestry to the duke. F. V. Melsheimer was sent in 1756 to school in Holzminden; in 1769 he went to the university in Helmstaedt. He received, 1776, the appointment as chaplain to a regiment, which he accompanied to America, and arrived July 1st in Quebec. In 1779 he came to Bethlehem, Pa., and married June 3, Mary Agnes Man, by whom he had 11 children. From August 19, 1789, he was minister at Hanover, Pa. Hagen, “Melsheimer Family,” 191. Mit der lebhaftesten Freude habe ich aus den öffentlichen Blättern die Errichtung eines Instituts ersehen, welches hauptsächlich E[ue]r Hochwürden ruhmvoller Bemühungen seyne Entstehung zu danken hat, und gewiß für die Ausbreitung der Wißenschaften von unendlichen Nuzen seyn wird. From Schreber, 05/05/1788, HSP Coll. 443. Allmählich wird sich doch auch mehrere Neigung für Natur Geschäfte in Amerika anfachen laßen. Und Sie, können noch überdies das große u[nd] verdienstliche Vergnügen haben, das meiste zu einer so wünschenswerthen Absicht beizutragen, wenn Sie bey Ihren Colleg[ium] Franklini auf einige Unterricht in der Naturgeschichte Bedacht nehmen könnten u[nd] wollten. From Schöpf, 11/17/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. Haben Sie noch keine schriftliche Bekantschaft mit Mr. Walter, einem Gentleman in South Ca-

Confederate Botany

147

“instrument” for stimulating botanical and mineralogical researches in America: Exhort your fellow travelling countrymen to send you specimens of stones and ores from all parts of your country and from the mountains, along with the correct documentation of the places of discovery, Schöpf suggested cordially in July 1788.127 It comes as little surprise that the two Erlangen scientists tried to exert the same influence on Franklin College as well. An excerpt from one of Mühlenberg’s botanical diaries seems to confirm that he had taken Schöpf’s and Schreber’s cue to put more emphasis on teaching science. What is to be the fate of our college? he noted on August 6, 1789. 2. Instruction should not merely consist in teaching languages, but should include (1) Christianity – a thorough and complete knowledge of the subject. Here is a difficulty: the denominational differences. (2) History, Geography, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, (3) Ordinary reading, writing and ciphering should be a requirement. Writing letters. (...) 6. I prefer to teach Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Geography, History, Botany, Mineralogy or Dogmatics. Where? In one of the rooms of the college or privately?128 Obviously, Mühlenberg considered the idea of teaching himself for a while, as this would have made it possible to include scientific contents and promised to relieve the dire financial situation. From J. H. Dubbs, one of the earliest historians to write on Franklin College, comes another reference to the college from Mühlenberg’s diary of April 1810, which supports the idea that Mühlenberg actually taught courses after Melsheimer’s departure.129 Nevertheless, the fact that Mühlenberg never mentioned any botanical or mineralogical courses given by him in any of his letters from 1787 to 1815, and the text of the original charter, which stipulated that trustees of the college could not be members of the faculty at the same time,130 makes this claim rather implausible. Despite the circumstantial evidence cited above it cannot be ascertained whether any natural history courses were taught during Mühlenberg’s tenure as principal from 1787 to 1815. Melsheimer’s geography lessons may have been a humble beginning, but the dim financial situation of the school and the low enrollment in subsequent years crushed whatever hopes there might have been for expanding education in this direction. One year before Melsheimer, Joseph Hutchins left the school, and it took some 60 more years before the first baccalaureate in science

127

128 129 130

rolina, nicht gar weit hinter Charleston, gemacht? Haben sie doch die Güte, u[nd] schreiben Sie ihm ietz, und sehen Sie, ob er uns etwa mit etwas von neuen Pflanzen, unsere Unternehmung vervollkommenhelfen kann. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. Earlier the same year, Schöpf acknowledged in a similar vein: Ich weis aber freylich auch wohl, daß es in Amerika dermalen noch schwer fält, irgend etwas von andern Arten her zu bekommen, wenn man nicht selber gehet es zu holen; Ihr Amt verschafft Ihnen aber doch mehre Freunde u[nd] Aufmerksamkeit, als jemand anders zu hoffen hat. From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. Muntern Sie Ihre reisenden Landsleute dazu auf, daß sie Ihnen von allen Theilen des Landes u[nd] der Gebirge Proben von Steinen u[nd] Erzarten einschikken, mit richtiger Bestimung der Fundorte. From Schöpf, 03/07/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. Müller-Jahncke also points out, that Schreber had suggested in 1786 to use special copper plates in the teaching of natural history at elementary schools. Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1325. Quoted after Dubbs, History, 95f. Dubbs, History, 99. Dubbs, History, 16.

148

Letters from an American Botanist

would be awarded in 1850.131 Lancaster has seen the erection of one German school in 1787, Helmuth wrote in a contribution to the Halle missionary reports in 1789. It was discontinued during the present year, however, as there was no sufficient number of children, as the locals do have no taste for such things.132 Schöpf and Schreber, too, were aware of the failure, and they correctly attributed it to the little regard revolutionary and post-revolutionary America had for higher education.133 Apparently, Mühlenberg’s earlier warnings about “black ingratitude” had been of little avail and he had to acknowledge that his country was not yet ready for his scientific and educational efforts. Only eight months after the opening ceremony, Benjamin Rush admitted to Mühlenberg that he lamented the languor that has infected our trustees in this city and that he nevertheless put great hopes in the public spirit of our country.134 It was this public spirit that Mühlenberg would try to awake in his fellow American botanists in future years. 1.6 Old Trade along New Channels In Europe, the establishment of Franklin College had also come to the notice of Halle, but the detachment with which Fabricius commented on it in December 1787 raises doubt that anyone there actually spent much thought on their Pennsylvanian brethren’s educational efforts. So they do now also have a Franklin College in Lancaster. It seems as if the Americans wanted to excel in languages and sciences, he remarked dryly. It especially pleases me that this college is called a German school of higher learning and that you will have the most influence in this. God may also make this institute a worthy contribution to the sciences and to God’s kingdom.135 131 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 508f.; Dubbs, History, 75. 132 In Lancaster wurde im Jahr 1787 ein Deutsches Gymnasium errichtet. [E]s ging aber in diesem Jahr schon wieder ein, weil es an einer gehörigen Anzahl an Kindern fehlte, indem die Landleute an dergleichen Dingen keinen Geschmack haben. Helmuth, “Untitled,” 133 Die noch zur Zeit geringe Fortschritte Ihrer Lehranstalten zu Lancaster, erklären sich freylich aus der Geringschätzung welche unsre Landsleute in Amerika für Wißenschaften überhaupt haben. From Schöpf, 06/23/1789, HSP Soc. Coll. This also complies with Kindle’s observation that the seven new colleges founded during the confederate period only shared a general concern for science in their curricula. Generally, the revolutionary period had brought about only little stimuli for education in general. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 256; Häberlein, “Entstehung,” 166. According to Keeney, botany was only accepted into the national curriculum after 1820. Manasseh Cutler was one of the first to openly criticize the lack of scientific education in the United States. Keeney, Botanizers, 51; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 313. 134 I lament the languor that has infected our trustees in this city. I have tried in vain to bring about a meeting in order to collect our certificates and draw an interest on them. The present turbulent era is unfavorable to all peacable enterprises. Nothing now fills the mind but subjects that agitate the passions. Let us not despair. As soon as our new government is established, the public spirit of our country will be forced to feed upon undertakings that have science or humanity for their objects. From Rush, 02/15/1788, FMC Gen. Autog. Coll. 135 So haben Sie denn auch in Lancaster ein Franklin-Colledge. Es scheint, daß sich die americaner hervor thun wollen in Sprache und Wissenschaften. Es gefällt mir insondernheit, daß dieses Colledge eine deutsche hohe Schule heißet und Sie hoffentlich dabey den meisten Einfluß haben

Confederate Botany

149

It was all that Fabricius ever commented on the college, while the trade in books and medicine took was the most prominent issue in his brief correspondence with Mühlenberg from 1783 to 1790.136 Until around 1790, almost all commercial activity between the mother institution and Pennsylvania was conducted through a commercial triangle consisting of Fabricius in Halle, Friedrich Willhelm Pasche in London, and Helmuth and Schmidt in Philadelphia. Although the years immediately after 1783 were characterized by relative peace and stability in transatlantic trade, the exclusion of the U.S. from the British “Empire of goods,” the subsequent trade restrictions, and the blockade of New Orleans by Spain in 1784–85 slowed the development of American trade significantly.137 This also affected the distribution of Essentia dulcis (sweet essence), Magenpulver (stomach powder), and other Halle products. The death of Friedrich Michael Ziegenhagen in 1776 and the outbreak of hostilities in North America appeared to cut the life-line between Halle and Pennsylvania, as the London court preacher had functioned as a permanent relay in the international Pietist network for more than 50 years. New arrangements needed to be made quickly, and in May 1776 Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg learned from a letter from Pasche that the latter had been commissioned to take Ziegenhagen’s place in London,138 while Fabricius would be their new addressee in Halle.139 If Fabricius’ assumption of responsibility for Pennsylvania affairs meant good news to the father, his son Henry was equally eager to enter into a regular correspondence with his fatherly friend from his days at the Orphanage. He had contacted Fabricius for the first time in 1775,140 but it was only after the war that their correspondence werden. Gott lasse dem auch dieses Institut zur Förderung der Wissenschaften und des Reichs Gottes gereichen. From Fabricius, 12/01/1787, APS Film 1097. 136 Mühlenberg and Fabricius exchanged nine letters until the latter’s death in 1790. Their first letter, however, dates from 1775 and appears unconnected to their later correspondence both by time and contents. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 508. 137 Häberlein, “Entstehung,” 153. 138 Ich bleibe bei der Hof Capelle nur Vorleser, werde aber dabei mich der Pennsylvanischen Gemeinen ferner hin, wie bisher annemen, wie ich auch die Besorgung der Ostindischen Missions=Angelegenheiten durch Auftrag von dem sei. Hn: Hofprediger auf mir habe. Pasche to Mühlenberg senior, 05/06/1776, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 674). Pasche had started his career at London as Lector in 1761 and was in charge of liturgy after the Common Book of Prayer. Ibid, (letter 674 n14). 139 Nun aber ist mir leider die Tür über L[ondon] verriegelt; Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg wrote to Fabricius in 1778. [U]nd ob gleich S[alvo] T[itulo] H[err] P[asche], mein Wertgeschätzter Gönner in einem Schreiben vom 6ten Maii 1776 /: welches erst im Mertz 1777 zu Philad[elphia] anlangte:/ tröstlich zu erkennen gaben, daß der verewigte und nie zu vergeßende Vater [Friedrich Michael] Z[iegenhagen] Ihnen die Fortsetzung der mühsamen Correspondence aufgetragen etc. wodurch mein sinkender Geist, wegen des mir allerempfindlichsten Abschieds einiger maßen unterstützt wurde. H. M. Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 10/24/1778, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 715). 140 During his father’s absence, Henry Mühlennberg addressed Fabricius apparently without parental permission in order to continue the flow of books and medicine: Ich neme mir die Freiheit an Er. Hochedelgeb. zu schreiben, und da ich beständig in dero Person einen Gönner und Wohltäter verehret habe, mich bei dieser Gelegenheit dero ferneren Wolgewogenheit zu empfehlen; und ich thue es um desto williger, weil meine Eltern jetzt in Georgien sind, und wegen

150

Letters from an American Botanist

became more steady. Once the pre-war accounts were settled,141 Henry Mühlenberg again began to place new orders for himself and the Lancaster merchant Ludwig Laumann, who had already gained some experience in the trade.142 Also, Fabricius’ circular letter of January 1784 mentioned a first order of New Testaments in octavo format by Laumann and Mühlenberg,143 but it was only after 1787 that the two men began to order books in larger quantities. However, this is surprising, because the two Lancastrians placed their orders fully aware of the currently unfavourable conditions on the book market, which were mostly due to the still unregulated nature of the financial sector in the young republic.144 In the meantime, Helmuth had taken over complete responsibility for Halle’s Pensylvanische Casse (= Halle’s monetary funds in Pennsylvania) in Philadelphia, the arrangements had already been made prior to the war.145 Five years after his move from Lancaster to Philadelphia in 1780, he was joined by his old friend John Frederick Schmidt, who had served the Germantown congregation until then.146 der noch nicht ganz entschiedenen Zwistigkeiten, wol kaum vor dem nächsten May zurück kommen werden, daher wol wenig vor den hiesigen Umständen nach Halle sonst mögte berichtet werden. (…)Dismal, hochzuehrender Herr Inspector, habe ich eben die Absicht, wenn ich beiliegenden Bücherzettel mitschicke und Sie gehorsamst ersuche zu sorgen, daß ich sie, so bald als die Non-Importation hier aufhört, erlange. To Fabricius, 01/03/1775, AFSt/M 4 C 17 : 26. 141 In late 1783, Fabricius sent over the books which had already been ordered in 1775: In No. 1. 2. 3. sind die alten schon 1775 verschriebenen und gebundenen Bücher enthalten. Neu sind in den Kästen No. 3 die aufs neue von H[errn] Past[or] Helmuth und H[errn] Past[or] Mühlenberg jun. verschrieben Arzneyen befindlich. From Fabricius, 01/20/1784, APS Film 1097. 142 Unsere Herren Prediger in den Städten Philadelph[ia] Lancaster und Yorktown, hätten die beste Gelegenheit und Buchhändler bei der Hand, um Bücher und Arzenei abzusetzen. Wie denn mein Sohn Gotthilf Heinrich und Herr Ludwig Lauman in Lancaster gewillet sind einen Anfang damit zu machen, wie der beigelegte Catalogus zu verstehen gibt. Sie meinen die Assecurance würde nicht hoch kommen in Friedens=Zeit, und wenn die Kiste hier in Philadelphia ankä[me] so würde auch eine Ordre mit erfolgen an Wen sie den Werth dafür bezalen müsten. Sie sind beiderseits so vermögend, daß sie den Werth bezalen können, wie, und wohin es angewiesen wird. H[err] Lauman etc. in Lancaster haben schon in vorigen Zeiten mit Büchern von Halle gehandelt und sich mit mäßigen Profit begnügen laßen. H. M. Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 05/22/1783, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 896). 143 H[err] Past[or] Mühlenberg und H[err] Laumann haben beyde eine große Anzahl Testamente groben Drucks in 8vo verschrieben. Diese werden nur für Alte verlangt. Das ordinaire Testament groben Drucks, das in den Schulen gebraucht wird, ist in 12mo. Ich habe von diesen geschickt, und nur 2 Ex[em]pl[are] von jenem beygelegt, damit Sie den Unterschied sehen können. From Fabricius, 01/20/1784, APS Film 1097. 144 Bücher überhaupt sind jetzt ein todter Artikel, Hr. Lauman hat sie noch fast alle auf der Hand. Mit der Bezahlung hats auch Schwürigkeit, weil die hiesigen H[er]rn Mandatari noch auf entscheidende Antwort von Halle warten, wie viel ein Louis d’or thaler sein soll, und ob das Geld im Lande bleiben werde. To Fabricius, 06/18/1787, AFSt/M 4 D 20. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Fabricius, 11/01/1785, AFSt/M 4 D 20. 145 See above page 510f., and Wilson, Pious Traders, 141. 146 There is only one letter Mühlenberg and Schmidt exchanged during the first phase from 1784 to 1790. In total there are nine letters (six preserved/three reconstrued). See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 31. In 1772 Schmidt had married Anna Barbara Schauwecker (1749–1793), with whom he had eleven children. Galtfelter, Pastors I, 119.

Confederate Botany

151

The two men not only shared a close friendship, but Helmuth’s access to and knowledge of business connections combined ideally with Schmidt’s mathematical bent147 to master their common task as Halle’s mandatarii. Apart from their other duties as clergymen, complicated legal issues, the requirements of book-keeping, the progress of international commerce and currency exchange rates would subsequently dominate their professional lives. In a letter to Stoppelberg in 1794, Helmuth explained that he generally left the book-keeping to Schmidt.148 Both men belonged to Halle’s inner circle in North America and repeatedly took over other responsible positions in the Lutheran Church there.149 Their collaboration spanned almost three decades until Schmidt’s death in 1812; during this time they coordinated and remained in control of all transatlantic financial flows between Halle and North America. Although Mühlenberg’s correspondences with the Orphanage, Schöpf and Schreber were completely unrelated by way of content, they intersected in the person of Johann Chris. Hermann, a book trader from Frankfurt and old contact of the Orphanage staff. As it turned out, Hermann could provide for a safe passage of letters and packages, which would eventually develop into a great advantage for Mühlenberg.150 With his access to the established Pietist network, which connected Lancaster, Philadelphia, London and Halle, he could rely on a safe infrastructure for his first botanical exchanges. This set him apart from other contacts Schöpf had made during his North America travels, and helped to stabilize their relationship during its first years. Mr Hermann will redirect your letters from Frankfurt on to us without problems; the same will also remain the safest middlesman for our correspondence, as we, ourselves, are too far from coastal cities and too little in touch with them, Schöpf answered in the following year.151 Schreber, who had been a student at the University of Halle before he went to study with Linné, even knew Fabricius himself, although he tended to prefer the Frankfurt connection: Inspector Fabricius has been my patron since 1748, and I will, in accordance with your desire, kindly ask him to include a small letter to you most cherished friend. I do not dare to send 147 For an unspecified period, Schmidt provided mathematical calculations for virtually all astronomical almanacs produced at Philadelphia. Glatfelter, Pastors I, 57, 120. 148 [W]ie sehr bin ich Ihnen nicht verbunden, daß Sie mir die Arbeit der Rechnungsführung abgenommen haben; es ist so ganz und gar keine Sache, die meinem flüchtigen Geiste angemeßen ist. H[err] Schmidt ist der Mann dazu und ich arbeite gern für Ihn auf eine andre Art, die mir behaglicher ist. Helmuth to Stoppelberg, 05/07/1794, AFSt/M 4 D 3 : 30. Renate Wilson has called Schmidt Helmuth’s “co-assignee.” Wilson, Pious Traders, 152. 149 Schmidt served as president of the Ministerium from 1791–92, 1801–1803 and in 1811; Helmuth served in the same position 1786–1787, 1795–1797, and 1804–1806. Galtfelter, Pastors I, 57f., 119f. 150 Gönnen Sie mir ferner Ihren Briefwechsel, so addressiren Sie Ihre Briefe vielleicht am besten an Hrn. Johan Chris. Herrman Bücherhändler in Frankfurt, oder auch an das Waisenhaus in Halle, wo Inspector Fabricius meine Correspondent ist. Von beiden Plätzen wird jeder Brief bald und sicher ankommen. To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 151 H. Hermann besorgt ihre Briefe von Frankfurt aus ruhig an uns; und dieser wird auch wohl der sicherste Mittelsmann für unser Corresp[ondenz] bleiben, da wir selbten zu weit von und zu wenig in Verbindung mit Seestädten sind. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. See also his letter to Mühlenberg, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll.

152

Letters from an American Botanist

more via Halle, as it is sufficiently known that the customs visitations are extremely sharp and strict in the royal Prussian countries.152 In strict compliance with the company policy not to engage in trade on its own, the house of Van der Smissen in Altona stayed outside of these arrangements. Not a single letter or package from Mühlenberg to one of his European correspondents ever went via Altona.153 1.7 Family and Friends Mühlenberg’s correspondence network had mainly consisted of family members and close relatives throughout the 1770s and early 1780s.154 The beginnings of his Erlangen correspondence in 1784 decisively changed this pattern, as his non-family correspondence grew explosively afterwards. Letters exchanged with people outside the circle of relatives for the first time outnumbered those exchanged with kin in 1787. This was also the year of his father’s death, with whom he had maintained a particularly close relationship.155 In his letters to the elder Mühlenberg at Providence, household news continued to be mixed with accounts of his professional duties, routinely detailing individual cases of conversion, numbers of communicants, burials, baptisms and the subjects of his sermons.156 In return, his father sent good advice in a friendly rather than a commanding tone, which reflects the change in their father-son relationship since the 1770s.157 Generally, Henry Mühlenberg’s letters to his father mirror his concern for his parents’ well-being as well as his continued trust in and reliance on his father, although he did not refrain from incorporating information about his scientific interests of which he knew his father would probably disapprove.158 Along with Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s withdrawal from the Lutheran Ministerium in 1781, he had also ceased to participate in the medicine trade,159 and the little medicine he and his wife still needed at Provi-

152 Der Herr Inspektor Fabricius ist seit 1748 mein Gönner, und ich werde nach dero Verlangen ihn zuweilen um den Einschluß eines Briefchens an E[ue]r Hochwürden ersuchen. Etwas mehreres über Halle zu senden, getraue ich mich, wegen der in den Königl[ich] Preuß[ischen] Ländern bekanntlich scharfen Visitation, nicht. From Schreber, 04/04/1786, HSP Coll. 443. 153 For the van der Smissens, see above on pages 63f. 154 See above chapter IV.2 “The Family Context” and table a, Appendix B, on page 486. 155 Henry Mühlenberg exchanged 50 letters with his father until the latter’s death in 1787. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 517. 156 See, for instance: Dis alles melde ich Ihnen ganz offenherzig damit Sie meine Methode prüf, sie tadeln und verbessern wo sie es nöthig hat, oder sie billigen, wenn sie denken ich soll darin fortfahren. Ich werde Ihre Erfahrung und guten Rath mir jederzeit zu nutze machen. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 02/07/1785, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 980). 157 For the gradual emancipation of the three Muhlenberg sons from their father, see above chapter IV.2 “The Family Context”. 158 Außer der Theologie und Philosophie studire ich gelegentlich die Natur=Lehre zur Erholung und stehe jetzt in starken Briefwechsel mit Hofrath Schreber in Erlangen, der mir mit Büchern und Proben von Mineralien sehr behülflich ist. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/08/1787, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 1032). 159 Lehmann and Savacool, “Healing,” 60f. Wilson, Pious Traders, 145, 168.

Confederate Botany

153

dence was occasionally provided by his son Henry.160 During the last years of his father’s life, he was the only son to maintain a regular correspondence with his parents.161 Henry Mühlenberg had little contact with his brothers Frederick and Peter during his first years at Lancaster, occasional personal visits excepted.162 In June 1784 Frederick sent a brief recapitulation of our circumstances until now, in order to more or less fill up the rather big gap that has opened by now.163 He informed Henry about his and Peter’s recent plan to move to the Louisville area, where Peter had received land claims in reward for his military services. Frederick, too, wanted to buy land and retire from Pennsylvania politics for good, but instead, the two brothers became even deeper involved in state and national politics.164 After several re-elections and an apparent change of heart on Frederick’s part, the two Mühlenbergs finally sided with Thomas Jefferson, for whom Peter voted as presidential elector both in 1796 and in the heavily contested election of 1801.165 The small number of letters exchanged with Frederick and the complete lack of correspondence with Peter suggests that Henry’s view of their lives and political careers was largely informed by his own political position, which bordered on indifference. One of the rare occasions on which he commented on current political affairs was Jefferson’s election in 1800. In this brief statement to Joseph Friedrich Nebe (1737– 1812) at Halle, Mühlenberg showed great insight into the political situation of his country while denying all interest in it at the same time.166 160 Das liebreiche Anerbieten etwas von der H[alleschen] Arzenei mit zu theilen, ist dankwürdig, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg responded to an earlier offer by his son. [A]ber fast vergeblich an uns 2 alten gebrechlichen Gefäßen zu verschwenden, Wenn etwa ein paar Gläsgen von der Miltz Ess[enz] und ein Päkgen Magen Pulver übrig seyn solten, so bäte die Mama um selbige, bey bequemer Gelegenheit ohne Eil. From H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/31/1787, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 1035). See also Henry Mühlenberg’s letters to H. M. Mühlenberg, 04/24/1784 and 01/08/1787, both in Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letters 956, 1032). 161 Aland’s edition of Mühlenberg lists two letters by John Peter Gabriel, and only one letter by Frederick Augustus Conrad for the years from 1784 to 1787. See J. P. G. Mühlenberg‘s letters to H. M. Mühlenberg, 10/20/1784 and 02/17/1787, and and F. A. C. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg, 08/13/1784, all in Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letters 967, 965, 1036). 162 To H. M. Mühlenberg, 04/02/1785, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 990). 163 E]ine kleine Recapitulation von unseren bisherigen Umstand (…), um dadurch die ziem[lich] groß geworden Lücke wieder einigermaaßen aufzufüllen. From Frederick A. C. Mühlenberg, 06/28/1784, APS Film 1097. 164 Although Wallace claims that they both shared ideas about a strong central government, it was only Frederick who ran on the Federalist ticket, while Peter initially joined the anti-Federalist cause. This can probably be explained by the moderating influence Benjamin Franklin obviously exerted on him. Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 274–76; Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel;” Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad;” From Helmuth, 03/19/1787, FMC Gen. Autog. Coll. 165 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel;” Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad.” 166 Die Umstände unsres Landes sind noch noch dem alten Fuß. Wegen der bevorstehenden Wahl eines Präsidenten herrscht etwas Unruhe, da zwei Partheien sind davon eine auf die Englische Seite hielt, die andere völlig neutral sein möchte. Letzter wünscht Jefferson zum Presidenten. (…) Man will behaupten Jefferson sei ein Deist, daher ahndet man große Gefahr für die Kirche

154

Letters from an American Botanist

While the only exchange of letters with his brother-in-law Kunze occurred on occasion of the inauguration of Franklin College, Henry Mühlenberg engaged in a regular and close correspondence with Christoph Emanuel Schultze at Tulpehocken. Considering the regularity of their exchange, which covered nearly 25 years until Schultze’s death in 1807,167 and the intimate tone and style of the messages, one gets the impression that Schultze assumed the position of the older brother Mühlenberg did not find either in Frederick or Peter. Hoping to see the both of you soon, he wrote to the Schultzes at Tulpehocken two years after his move to Lancaster, I postpone to fully open my heart here and make a full stop here with the best wishes to my sister.168 Additionally, Henry Mühlenberg continued to provide him with Halle medicines169 and temporarily housed Schultze’s sons Christoph Emanuel (1774–1824) and Johann Andreas Melchior (1775–1852) from around 1784 to 1787.170 This arrangement originally proposed by the elder Mühlenberg to Schultze in June 1784, was finalized about a year later.171 In the preceding years Henry Mühlenberg had already boarded and schooled Johann Daniel Kurtz (1764–1856), a son of the veteran Lutheran minister Johann Nicholas Kurtz (1720–1794).172 1.8 Network Analysis: Phase 1 The visualization of Mühlenberg’s network during its formative years from 1784 to 1790 shows 21 nodes, one of which is Mühlenberg, 13 of which were in direct contact with him during these years, seven of which were indirect alteri-contacts.173 With the latter, he only connected during one of the later identified phases of his Christi. Ich kenne ihn nur als einen sehr toleranten dabei ehrlichen Mann. Übrigens laße ich mich mit Wahlen nie ein (…). Polemisieren war nie meine Sache, ich predige das Evangelium und suche es zu beleben. Das Reich der Wahl überlaße ich ihr selbst. From Nebe, 09/23/1800, AfSt M4 D 50. 167 There are 35 letters from this correspondence, which makes Schultze the second most important family-internal contact of Mühlenberg after his father, with whom he exchanged a total of 50 letters. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 526. 168 In Hofnung, Sie beide bald zu sehen, verschiebe ich, mein volles Herz auszuleeren und verharre nebst Gruß an meine Schwester von mir. To Schultze, 05/22/1782, APS Film 371. 169 Hochgeschätzter H[er]r Schwager, Ob ich Sie gleich persönlich erwarte so will ich doch diese gute Gelegenheit nicht versäumen Ihnen durch Mr. Gesell den Uberrest der Arznei zu schicken. 661. See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Schultze dated 10/14/1787, 10/17/1789, 04/03/1787, all in APS Mss.B.M891. 170 H. M. Mühlenberg first proposed this to his son-in-law Schultze in a letter written on June 18, 1784. In January 1787, a letter from the same to his Henry reveals that the boys had already returned. See H. M. Mühlenberg to Schultze, 06/18/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 953); and H. M. Mühlenberg‘s letter to his son Henry Mühlenberg, 01/31/1787, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 1035). Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 21f. 171 Unser lieber Herr Past[or] Schultze sagte mir auf seiner letzten Retour von Philad[elphia] Du hättest Ihm versprochen seine 2 Söhne He[i]nrich und Andr[eas] zu boarden und in Unterricht zu nemen, welches mir innigst Vergnügen verursachte. From H. M. Mühlenberg, 07/22/1785, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 1000). 172 Glatfelter, Pastors I, 76f. 173 See Appendix E: Network Phase 1, page 550.

Confederate Botany

155

network. Only two local clusters of heightened collaboration could be identified for the present phase – Erlangen (blue circles) and Philadelphia (grey triangles).174 Five distinct types of ties can be identified: Kinship (Henry Mühlenberg’s father, his brother Frederick, his brothers-in-law Kunze and Schultze), profession (Henry Mühlenberg’s father, his two brothers-in-law Kunze and Schultze, Helmuth, Schmidt, and Fabricius), economic ties175 (Fabricius, Helmuth, Schmidt, Schultze, Carl&Hermann, Schöpf and Schreber), scientific contacts (Schöpf, Schreber) and other176 (Rush). Table f in Appendix B shows, however, that a clear correlation between multiplexity and strength of individual contacts cannot be established, as Mühlenberg’s three strongest contacts during this phase, with his father (13 letters), Schreber (14) and Schöpf (12) do not belong to the same category of ties.177 At the same time, the visualization illustrates three defining features of Mühlenberg’s networking from 1784 to 1790: the overall importance of the Halle network, the fact that his professional and botanical networks did not yet overlap,178 and the later impact of Schreber’s network, which is not reflected in the sources themselves. The visualization also highlights the strength and density of Halle’s Pietist network of trade and missionary exchange in the 1780s, which would provide the backbone of Mühlenberg’s own transatlantic communications for most of the coming 30 years. The tight interconnectedness between Henry Mühlenberg, his father Heinrich Melchior, Fabricius in Halle, Helmuth and Schmidt in Philadelphia, and Kunze and Schultze as further major participants in the pharmaceutical trade, allow one to speak of an “American clique,” 179 the first in Mühlenberg’s networking, 174 Mühlenberg’s brother-in-law John Christopher Kunze, whose node-symbol labels him as a resident of Philadelphia, actually moved to New York in 1785. Whenever direct correspondents changed places during a phase, it was tried to identify where they stayed for the longest time, which was then reflected in the node signal in case the respective city was actually a local cluster. When this was impossible to determine, no specific place was given. There are minor exceptions to this rule, which are explained individually in the text. Schöpf, for instance, was not a permanent resident of Erlangen from 1784 to 1790, but Mühlenberg’s insistence to address Schöpf and Schreber als eine Person (see above on page 121, note 49) and Schöpfs frequent visits to Schreber suggest that the two be treated as a local cluster. Um Zusieglung und Beförderung des Briefes an Hrn. D. Schöpf bitte gehorsamst. To Schreber, 11/24/1786, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 175 “Economic” in this context refers to trade in Halle products, in Schreber’s and Schöpf’s case Mühlenberg’s temporary aid to find subscribers to their works in natural history. See above on page 134, footnote 63. 176 This comprises all remaining arbitrary and random contacts, which do not fall into one of the other categories or appear inconsequential with regard to the development of Mühlenberg’s network. 177 See table f, Appendix B, 488. 178 With the exception of Fabricius, who also shared a tie with Schreber. 179 I am using the word clique here in the sense as outlined in chapter 1, on page 18f. See also Faust and Wasserman: “One must be able to argue by theoretical, empirical, or conceptual criteria that he actors in the group belong together in a more or less bounded set. Indeed, once one decides to gather data on a group, a more concrete meaning of the term is necessary. A group, then consists of a finite set of actors who for conceptual, theoretical, or empirical reasons are treated as a finite set of individuals on which network measurements are made.” Faust and Wasserman, Analysis, 20.

156

Letters from an American Botanist

bound together by common interests, kinship ties and common vocation. While the idea of a correlation between multiplexity and strength of contact has already been proven problematic above, with regard to the entirety of the network, it becomes obvious here that this principle might actually apply within individual subsystems – subnets – of one network, which were themselves governed by specific factors. In turn, this observation supports the premise of the present network approach, to identify separate network configurations rather than discussing “the network” as a whole. The existence of this transatlantic Lutheran clique also indicates that Henry Mühlenberg was not yet a central figure in Halle’s transatlantic pharmaceutical trade, which was mainly conducted by Helmuth and Fabricius at the time, although he took part in it as one of its major clients. Finally, the importance of Schöpf’s visit and his subsequent contact with Schreber becomes clearly visible in the number of the latter’s alteri contacts, with whom Mühlenberg came into contact at a later point in time. Acharius, Hoffmann, Hedwig, Smith, Swartz and Willdenow were already found to be in contact with Schreber from 1784 to 1790. Schreber’s importance is also heightened by the fact that the botanical network and the professional/Lutheran network were practically unconnected. Although the Halle network was to prove crucial in terms of transportation and as a sales channel to Mühlenberg, it is clear that it would have been hardly helpful in establishing contacts beyond the sphere of the Orphanage’s imminent trade and missionary interests. Most notably, with Johan Hedwig and Olof Swartz, Schreber already corresponded with two of Europe’s high-profile authorities on cryptogamia, Linnaeus’ 24th class in the sexual system, which was to form one of Mühlenberg’s core interests in the future. James Edward Smith, the owner of Linnaeus’ original herbarium, also makes a very early appearance via Schreber’s extensive botanical network. It is not in all of these six cases, however, that a clear influence or help by Schreber in setting up these correspondences could be identified. The same is true for many following cases of earlier contact between active and future correspondents. With regard to the significant gaps in the source material on network information,180 the inclusion of these alteri therefore helps illuminate later correspondences, whose beginnings and circumstances were hard or impossible to determine to this point. In the present case, this is specifically true for Johann Hedwig from Leipzig, one of Mühlenberg’s most important new European contacts after 1790. Apart from their respective network value, Schreber and Schöpf were Mühlenberg’s most important contacts from 1784 to 1790.181 It is not a lack of books but rather a lack of time to study them, he explained to Schreber soon after their exchange had begun. I also lack a living person to tell me in 3 minutes what would take me years to find out alone. Unfortunately, I have never had a teacher.

180 See above on page 39f. 181 Ihre Adversaria botanica zu sehen, würde uns das größte Vergnügen verursachen und zur Vervollkommnung der florae americana wichtige Dienste leisten – Laßen Sie ja Ihren Eifer und Ihre Liebe für die Botanik nicht erkalten – und halten sie sich versichert daß wir mit Vergnügen Ihnen alle Hülfe darin leisten werden.From Schöpf, 03/31/1787, HSP Soc. Coll.

Confederate Botany

157

Dear Mr Court Councillor, please do not get tired of helping me.182 With Schreber’s help, the botanical books he sent, new specimens and plant identifications, Mühlenberg laid the cornerstone for the later extension of his correspondence network on both sides of the Atlantic.

182 Es fehlt mir nicht so wohl an Büchern als an Zeit sie wohl durchzustudieren, und an einer lebendigen Person die in 3 Minuten oft sagt was mir Jahre wegnimmt. Leider habe ich nie einen Lehrer gehabt. Werden Sie bester H[er]r Hofrath nicht müde mir zu helfen. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber (1921).

158

Letters from an American Botanist

2 TRANSATLANTIC BOTANY (PHASE 2: JANUARY 1790 TO MAY 1797)1 The years from 1789 to 1791 were not only turbulent years in European and American political history, but also coincided with decisive changes in the composition of Mühlenberg’s network. With the outbreak of the French Revolution in July 1789, Europe once again entered the road to strife and warfare, which would pose a serious threat to transatlantic trade and traffic of ideas in the years to come. Consequently, only the first phase of Mühlenberg’s correspondences from 1784 to about 1790 can be described in terms of relative domestic and European political stability. After 1790, warfare, associated delays, lost packages of specimens and general complaints about the worsening conditions for scientific communication became a major theme in Mühlenberg’s letters. If only this unfortunate war in Europe will not interrupt our correspondence!, he expressed his hopes to Schreber in 1792.2 Not surprisingly, the steady upward curve that had described the development of his correspondences until 1790 now took a downward turn for the first time.3 Although the number of letters per capita dropped, the number of Mühlenberg’s correspondents grew quickly after 1790 – on both sides of the Atlantic. It is actually the most defining feature of his network from roughly 1790 to about 1797 that he extended his existing European web of botanical contacts and began to establish his American web. While the European nations began to prepare for war against revolutionary France, the United States were just about to finalize their inner political order, which resulted in the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights of 1789. In lieu of the previous loose confederation of independent states, which had impeded the development of a nation fit to defend independence on a global level, more authority was to be centralized in common, democratically elected institutions and political bodies, as critics feared. While Alexander Hamilton’s4 (1755/57–1804) Federalists embraced the idea of a commercially-oriented national state, a system of federal taxes and a national bank to shoulder public debt, Thomas Jefferson’s supporters shared the vision and essentially subsistence-oriented economy of small entrepreneurs.5 Although Mühlenberg always acted and wrote with reserve on political matters, it appears from a few later passages in some letters that he favored Jeffer1 2 3 4

5

All data in this chapter is based on letters sent or received between Mühlenberg’s letters to Humphrey Marshall, 01/18/1790, HSP Soc. Coll., and to Schreber, 05/09/1797, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. See Flow Chart B, Appendix A, 483. Wenn doch durch den unglücklichen Krieg in Europa unser Briefwechsel nicht unterbrochen wird! To Schreber, 09/20/1792, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. See table a, Appendix B, on page 486. For Frederick Augustus Conrad Mühlenberg’s involvement in the settlement of Alexander Hamilton’s infamous Maria Reynolds-affair, see for instance Chernov, Hamilton, 496f. On December 15, 1792, Mühlenberg led a three-men delegation to Hamilton’s house, confronting the then Secretary of State with accusations of misbecoming demeanour. See also Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 282. Häberlein, “Entstehung,” 171f, 174.

Transatlantic Botany

159

son’s agrarian vision. In February 1806, he wrote to James Logan (1753–1821) that he heard [w]ith infinite Satisfaction (...) that the Gentleman I so long respected, Mr. Jefferson, the Friend of the People and Sciences is indefatigable in preserving national Prosperity and Dignity, and enlarging the Boundaries of Science, especially natural History. When you return this way, we will have an Opportunity to speak more and fully on this Topick. 6 Clearly, not only Jefferson’s political vision, but also his scientific interests had won him Mühlenberg’s respect, which is surprising given Jefferson’s contemporary reputation as an alleged deist. Nevertheless, Mühlenberg held him in high esteem, and there is little doubt that Mühlenberg, if pressed, would have taken a clear stance for Jeffersonian democracy.7 Only weeks after the new Constitution had been adopted, Henry’s father died in his Providence home on October 7, 1787, where he had stayed with his wife after his inofficial resignation from the head of the Lutheran Ministerium in 1781. After his father’s death, kinship correspondence never ever again rose to the importance and dimensions of the 1770s and 1780s. Instead, contacts with scientists, plant-hunters, seedsmen and botanical enthusiasts clearly began to dominate in his network from 1790 on. This trend becomes especially obvious in the last five years of his life.8 Ultimately, this development also reflects his gradual progress towards greater independence from his father’s influence, which had begun in the mid-1770s and had now come to a sudden conclusion. In the fewer and fewer letters the two exchanged after 1780,9 Henry was finally even confident enough to mention his botanical interests quite clearly, despite his father’s misgivings.10 The next blow came in early 1790 with the death of Mühlenberg’s long-standing Halle contact Sebastian Andreas Fabricius on January 10. Considering the intimate relationship the two had formed during his student years at the Halle Orphanage, he not only lost a reliable correspondent, but also a friend and supporter, whose sympathy none of his subsequent Halle contacts could match.11 At the same time, Fabricius’ death disrupted transatlantic Pietist correspondences and medicine trade, 6 7

8 9 10

11

To Logan, 02/14/1806, HSP Logan Papers. On September 23, 1800, Mühlenberg sent a clear statement on behalf of Jefferson’s alleged deism to his Halle-correspondent Joseph Friedrich Nebe (1737-1812): Die Umstände unsres Landes sind noch noch dem alten Fuß. Wegen der bevorstehenden Wahl eines Präsidenten herrscht etwas Unruhe, da zwei Partheien sind davon einen auf die Englische Seite hielt, die andere völlig neutral sein möchte. Letzter wünscht Jefferson zum Presidenten. Es ist wahrscheinlich daß diese die meist Summen auftreiben wird. Man will behaupten Jefferson sei ein Deist, daher ahndet man große Gefahr für die Kirche Christi. Ich kenne ihn nur als einen sehr toleranten dabei ehrlichen Mann. Übrigens laße ich mich mit Wahlen nie ein und glaube jener Rath Act. 19, 30. 31 sei für uns Prediger noch imer schicklich. Polemisieren war nie meine Sache, ich predige das Evangelium und suche es zu beleben. Das Reich der Wahl überlaße ich ihr selbst. To Nebe, 09/23/1800, AfSt M4 D 50. See table b, Appendix B, on page 486. See table d, Appendix B, on page 487. Außer der Theologie und Philosophie studire ich gelegentlich die Natur=Lehre zur Erholung, und stehe jetzt in starken Briefwechsel mit Hofrath Schreber in Erlangen, der mir mit Büchern und Proben von Mineralien sehr behülflich ist. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 01/08/1787, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 1032). For the development of their relationship, see above pages 51f.

160

Letters from an American Botanist

and revealed several irregularities in book keeping and payment regulations, which had obviously been out of the old man’s depth. Mühlenberg was informed about this by Fabricius’ successor Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg (†1797) in August 1791.12 The transition from Fabricius to Stoppelberg was not an easy one for both sides, and Stoppelberg later even called these first years of their contact from 1791 to 1793 a “period of uncertainty.”13 Although medicine and book orders skyrocketed during this period, it was also the beginning of the end of regular trade relations of Pennsylvania Lutherans with Halle. Finally, with the death of Friedrich Willhelm Pasche in London in 1792, long-established trading lines also had to be replaced by private enterprises. At Erlangen, the wars were still but a distant thunder when Prince Friedrich Karl Alexander of Brandenburg-Bayreuth (1736–1806), to whom both Schreber and Schöpf directly responded, signed a secret contract with Prussia in early January 1791. For a life annuity of 300,000 fl., Friedrich Karl abdicated in favor of King Friedrich Willhelm II (1744–1797), who immediately dispatched Karl August von Hardenberg (1750–1822) to assume control of his new possessions in the south.14 To Schöpf, this had far-reaching consequences. For the past six years, he had been acting as court physician, second state physician and medicinal inspector of the principality’s military forces. The Prince’s hasty flight to England with his mistress Lady Elizabeth Craven (1750–1828) threatened to derail his hitherto brilliant career. Luckily, he found a place in Hardenberg’s scheme to reorganize the principality’s administration, which allowed him to become court councillor of the Ansbach Collegium Medicum in 1791, and first president of the united medical colleges of Ansbach and Bayreuth in 1797.15 While his previous position as court physician had left him sufficient time and space for his studies in natural history and accompanying correspondence, his new task forced him to bring his focus back on medical issues.16 It was in late 1791 that Mühlenberg received what was to be the last 12

13 14 15 16

Es ist ein Fehler, der jetzt erst recht merkbar wird, daß man den sel[igen] Fabr[icius] bey der von Jahr zu Jahr zunehmenden und in der letzten Zeit so sichtbaren Schwäche des Alters ohne Unterstützung gelassen, da er wohl mehrmals sich einen Gehülfen gewünscht, dem er alles sagen und mit ihm gemeinschaftlich die Angelegenheiten besorgen könte. Es wäre besonders nach dem Tod des sel. D. Freylingh. das richtig gewesen, da H. D. Schulze unser jetziger Director vorher gar nichts von den Sachen gewußt u. welcher bey den andren weitläufig Arbeiten sich nicht darum bekümern können. Jetzt empfinde ich die Folgen davon vorzüglich. From Stoppelberg, 08/10/1791, AFSt M.4 D3. Traces of Fabricius miscalculations and mistakes were repeatedly mentioned by Stoppelberg. Three years later he wrote Bey den letzten Büchern waren auch die bisher gefehleten Michaelis Supplem[ente] die von er Buchhand[lung] beygeschaffet sind, da die Prenumeration darauf schon solange berichtiget ist, und sie durch eigens ein Versehen des seel[igen] Insp[ector] Fabricius müssen verlohren gegangen seyn. From Stoppelberg, 10/07/1794, APS Film 1097. Fabricius was 73 years old at the time of his death. See also Wilson, Pious Traders, 152. Der Extract von Ihrem Conto aus der Periode der Ungewisheit, den ich hier beyschließe, wird wie ich hoffe alles klar machen (…). From Stoppelberg, 09/21/1793, APS Film 1097. Neigebaur, Leopoldino, 148; Glas, Palm, 11; Bischoff, “Erlangen,” 59, 60; Schieber, Erlangen, 73; Engelhardt, Erlangen, 75; Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 53. Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 162; Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 52f. Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 52f.

Transatlantic Botany

161

letter from his Franconian friend. Schöpf did not include any notes on recent political developments or changes in his personal life.17 It must have dawned on Mühlenberg that his much treasured “first” correspondent had either lost interest in him or now lacked the time to continue the contact. Confirmation of his doubts only came in 1794 through a letter by Schreber.18 Thus, Schöpf remained a passive part of Mühlenberg’s network, and it was probably only his death in 1800 that prevented the two men from resuming their correspondence at a later point.19 Despite the loss of the three key correspondents Fabricius, Schöpf and his father Heinrich Melchior between 1787 and 1790, Mühlenberg’s network grew rapidly on both sides of the Atlantic from 1790 to 1797. At Erlangen, the young and promising physician Georg Franz Hoffmann (1761–1821) began to exchange letters with Mühlenberg after a conflict with his professor Schreber, which caused him to move to Göttingen in 1791. From there he contacted Mühlenberg the same year, which gave the Lancaster botanist a welcome alternative to the increasingly tedious Schreber. At Leipzig, the pre-eminent bryologist Johann Hedwig (1730–1799), by then called the “Linnaeus of Mosses,” came to Mühlenberg’s attention and agreed to enter into correspondence with him in the early 1790s. About the same time, James Edward Smith (1759–1828), founder of London’s Linnean Society and owner of Linnaeus’ herbarium, accepted Mühlenberg’s offer to exchange letters and specimens. Naturally, the European network extensions increased his workload considerably besides his pastoral duties. Mühlenberg, however, soon felt the benefits. The extension of his circle of correspondents not only increased his chances to expect an answer at all, but also allowed for a new quality in his botanical queries. Consequently, Schreber and Schöpf gradually lost their quasi-monopoly on the botanical information Mühlenberg was interested in. As will be shown, it was in the 1790s that Mühlenberg for the first time came into the position to negotiate and “raise” the price for his original specimens, whenever he felt neglected, treated unfairly, or when he was simply bored with his correspondents’ apparent slowness. On the American side, changes were imminent, too, around 1790. Mühlenberg finally established regular contacts with Philadelphia’s best known botanists, horticulturalists and seedsmen, such as the two “Quaker botanists” William (1739–1823) and John Bartram (1743–1812), Benjamin Smith Barton (1766–1815), who had 17

18

19

From Schöpf, 06/16/1791, APS Film 1097. It is possible, though, that Schöpf was still unaware of the secret contract with Prussia in June of 1791. The respective literature does not state clearly when the news were broken to the public. In 1790, Schöpf had moved to Triestorf near Ansbach, where he married Louise Magda Hänlein on January 11, 1791. Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 53; Geus, Schöpf, 103. Geus adds that Schöpf undertook a final voyage to Utrecht, Den Haag, Leyden, Haarlem, Amsterdam and Köln in 1792 to collect turtoise shells for his research. Geus, Schöpf, 104. Schöpf hat izo als Präsident des Collegii medci und praktischer Arzt viele Geschäfte, fährt aber im Stillen fort, sich der Naturwissensch[aft] zu widmen und seine Schildkröten heraus zu geben. Ihr Andenken an ihn wird ihm sehr lieb zu vernehmen sein. From Schreber, 11/23/1795, HSP Coll. 443. Mühlenberg mentioned Schöpf to other correspondents several times in different contexts from around 1790 to 1800, but never provided details on the actual state of their currently pausing correspondence.

162

Letters from an American Botanist

recently returned from a European tour, Humphrey (1722–1801) and Moses Marshall (1758–1813), and William Hamilton, another gardener in Philadelphia’s vicinity. New contacts were not confined to the city or Pennsylvania, though. With Samuel Latham Mitchill (1764–1831), Mühlenberg had his first contact in New York, while Manasseh Cutler (1742–1823), the founder of Marietta College and one of the principal agents of the Ohio Company, provided him with news and botanical specimens from what was then the Western frontier for some time. Samuel Kramsch (1756–1824) and Frederick Kampman (1746–1832), two Moravian missionaries whose duties often brought them to botanically interesting regions, were two other new American correspondents in Mühlenberg’s American network after 1790. In a letter to Schreber, written in September 1792, Mühlenberg gave himself a brief overview of his current American network and recent trends in American science which is worth quoting in full: Generally, herbal science now finds a lot more enthusiasts in America than in previous years. In New England there is Cutler, in New York Mitchill, in Pennsylvania the Bartrams, the Marshalls, Barton, in Virginia Greenway (who has a good work Flora Virginica continens descriptionem 300 plantarum English and Latin in manuscript and also offered it to local printers) in North Carolina Kramsch, in South Carolina Michaux. I correspond with most of them and hope you will let persuade yourself to set up small florulas of your regions, so that finally something more complete about North America may be published.20 This new configuration in Mühlenberg’s network was thoroughly established by 1793 and remained stable until around 1797. Additionally, his correspondence not only grew in numbers, but also became more diversified in a confessional sense. While during the first phase his network had remained exclusively Lutheran, in 1797 Mühlenberg could count Moravians, Quakers and members of other denominations with whom he exchanged letters, specimens, plant identifications and books. This echoed Mühlenberg’s own “Practice of Pluralism” (Häberlein) in Lan20

Überhaupt findet die Kräuterkunde jetzt mehr Liebhaber in America als in vorigen Jahren. In Neu England ist Cutler, in Neuyork Mitchill, in Pennsylvanien die Bartrams, die Marshalls, Barton, in Virginien Greenway (der ein gut Werk Flora Virginica continens descriptionem 300 plantarum Englisch und Latein im M[anu]s[krip]t liegen und dem hiesigen Druckern offeriert hat) in Nord Carolina Kramsch in Süd Carolina Mechoux [Michaux]. Ich correspondiere mit den meisten und hoffe Sie werden sich überreden laßen kleine florulas ihrer Gegenden aufzusetzen, damit endlich etwas mehr vollständiges von Nord Amerika herauskomt. To Schreber, 09/20/1792, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. See also the following passages from letters by Mühlenberg to Manasseh Cutler and James E. Smith: Pardon an Enthusiasm for a Science which has given me so many pleasant Hours, Let Mechoux [Michaux] describe South Carolina and Georgia, Kramsch North Carolina, Greenway Virginy and Maryland, Barton Jersey, Delaware and the lower Parts of Pensylvania, Bartram, Marshall Mühlenberg their Neighbourhood, Mitchill New York, and you with the northern Botanists your States, how much could be done! (...) I have wrote to pretty near all the mentioned Gentlemen on this Head, and hope to receive their Concurrence. To Smith, he had confessed earlier the same year: I have some valuable Correspondents in this Country, D[octor] Cutler in New England, Mitchill in New York, Barton, Bartram and Marshall in Pensilvania, M[iste]r Kramsch in North Carolina. In Germany I have D[octor] Schreber in Erlangen, and D[octor] Hofman in Göttingen. See Mühlenberg’s letters to Cutler, 11/12/1792, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers; and Smith, 06/05/1793, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc.

Transatlantic Botany

163

caster, as it is also testified by his friendship with his Reformed colleague Johann Willhelm Hendel. Presumably, it was also the Republic of Letters’ central dogma of transconfessionality that provided a base for his contacts with scientists of other confessions, although Mühlenberg never expressly mentioned these ideals. Consequently, the growth of Mühlenberg’s correspondences on both sides of the Atlantic is the signature feature for the years from 1790 to 1797. But where did this impetus come from, and why did it not begin earlier? At first sight, it only seems to be a question of time before Mühlenberg would have begun to extend his correspondence in order to tap other sources of botanical knowledge. In fact, in a diary passage written in mid-October 1791, he expressly addressed this question and concluded that he should pay visits to local botanical gardens much more often and regularly than in previous years and to extend his correspondences to American and European contacts.21 But why did Mühlenberg wait so long to establish contact with the likes of Bartram, Marshall and Hamilton and other Americans? Seven years of clumsy, costly, and delayed correspondence with Schreber and Schöpf went by before the biggest project of his later years – to enhance collaboration among American botanists for the sake of a joint Flora Americana – finally emerged for the first time in his writings. As will be shown, Schreber and Schöpf became decisive factors in this process. At the same time, a kind of “patriotism” or “dedication” to make his scientific interests useful to his newly independent nation also began to show for the first time in his letters after 1790. This is highly surprising in view of his demonstrative “Lutheran” indifference and even hostility to political affairs during the previous years. In contrast to his two elder brothers Frederick and Peter, he constantly tried to steer clear of any involvement in politics, patriotism and warfare.22 It was not him, however, but Schreber and Schöpf, who introduced the theme of patriotism as a motivation for scientific research in his correspondences. With me, you and all American patriots will admire the wealth of your mother country, which has not yet been explored satisfactorily; Schöpf once summarized his ambitions for his Materia medica, continuing: yes, you will even find that you may be completely independent of Europe and almost of the entire world with regard to the necessary medical plants you have in store.23 In the following letter Schöpf even assumed: Of your patriotism I may be completely convinced, as you will certainly collect both oral and written 21

22

23

Wie kann ich meine botanisch Kentniße erweitern u[nd] auch für meine Familie nützlich mach, 1) d[urc]h Besuch von hiesig botanisch Gärt Marshall, Hamilton, Cummins, Gray, Grosch, Fischer 2) d[urch]h Bestellung von herbariis, Fischer, Kurz, u[nd] andre Kramsch, Cutler _ Schreber (...) 4. d[urc]h ein mehr ausgebreitete Correspondenz, Schreber, Cutler, Kramsch, Michaux, in England Aiton, Curtis Schottland Stokes _ Deutschland noch Hedwig, Hofman. See Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry for 10/18/1791. Although Mühlenberg was rather outspoken about his political ideas in his letters to Americans, he concealed it for long in his letters to Halle. Übrigens laße ich mich mit Wahlen nie ein, he reassured Johann Friedrich Nebe as late as 1800. Polemisieren war nie meine Sache, ich predige das Evangelium und suche es zu beleben. Das Reich der Wahl überlaße ich ihr selbst. To Nebe, 09/23/1800, AfSt M4 D 50. Mit mir werden Sie und alle Amerikanische Patrioten den bisher nicht sattsam erkannten Reichtum ihres Vaterlandes bewundern, ja, Sie werden finden, daß Sie von Seiten eines erfor-

164

Letters from an American Botanist

information about medical plants and that you will endeavor to report as much as possible about it.24 To Schreber, Mühlenberg had written earlier on a much more modest note: How happy it would make me if I could serve my country by introducing useful plants to it!,25 while Schöpf advised him to promote the collection of specimens among his countrymen.26 In a later letter, Schöpf also exhorted Mühlenberg to contact a certain Mr. Walter, a Gentleman from South Carolina, for the sake of their correspondence and ultimately for American science.27 Quite obviously, Schreber and Schöpf actually influenced Mühlenberg with their overtly “patriotic” suggestions to extend his network for the sake of botanical collaboration among Americans. Although they never clearly revealed their own motivations for doing so, it seems fairly obvious that they could only profit from any extension in Mühlenberg’s network – hence the respective passages in their letters. Also, this would help them find subscribers for their botanical projects and procure specimens even from remote places. Considering the high regard Mühlenberg had for his two Erlangen friends with respect to their suggestions for Franklin College and their help in botanical affairs, it seems safe to say that they were decisive agents in this process, which eventually turned him into a life-long champion of domestic collaboration and American botanical “independence” from European science. Consequently, when Mühlenberg submitted his Index Florae Lancastriensis28, which was essentially the fruit of his collaboration with Schreber and Schöpf, he read a note to his fellow members at the American Philosophical Socienty. I repeat my former wish that some of my learned countrymen would join in botanical researches, and send in their Floras, for perusal or publication, to your Society, so

24 25 26 27

28

derlichen Arzneyvorrats ganz von Europa sowohl, als beynahe der ganz übrige Welt, independent seyn könen. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. Von Ihrem Patriotismus darf ich überzeugt seyn, daß Sie ebenfalls alle mündliche oder schriftliche Nach-richten von Arzney Pflanzen zu sameln und so viel möglich zu berichtigen bemühet seyn werden. From Schöpf, 03/31/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. Wie würde ich ich freuen wenn ich meinem Vaterland durch Einführung nützlicher Gewächse dienen könnte! To Schreber, 11/24/1786, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Muntern Sie Ihre reisenden Landsleute dazu auf, daß sie Ihnen von allen Theilen des Landes u[nd] der Gebirge Proben von Steinen u[nd] Erzarten einschikken, mit richtiger Bestimung der Fundorte. From Schöpf, 03/07/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. Haben Sie noch keine schriftliche Bekantschaft mit Mr. Walter, einem Gentleman in South Carolina, nicht gar weit hinter Charleston, gemacht (…) Suchen Sie doch, einen oder den anderen Mann, in Kentucky zu bewegen, daß er Ihre Pflanzen, oder wenigstens Samen von solchen Sachen schikke, die man dort etwa besond[ers?] findet. (…),” Es wäre wohl gut, wenn Sie unter einige von Ihren Lancastrischer Jugend, Liebe zu Pflanzen? Naturhistorie verbreiten könnten; Sie würden Ihnen im Aufsuchen der entfernteren Pflanzen behülflüch seyn können, u[nd] endlich einmal ihre Vaterland halber nüzlich werden. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. Mühlenberg actually tried to contact this Mr. Walter, although to no big success: Walter in Carolina von dem sie mir so viel gutes geschrieben, ist kürzlich gestorben ehe ich eine Correspondenz mit ihm anfangen konnte, he wrote in his return letter to Schöpf. To Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III. Full title: Index Florae Lancastriensis, published in 1793 in the third installment of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 157–184.

Transatlantic Botany

165

that by gathering the Floras of the different States, we may have a general Flora of the United-States, drawn from good and certain observations.29 2.1 The Philosopher of Kingsessing30 – William Bartram In the 1790s, American botany was still far from the standards of continental Europe and England, although contemporary American botanical publications show the great progress achieved during the first years after independence. Humphrey Marshall’s Arbustrum Americanum and Thomas Walter’s Flora Caroliniana, published in 1785 and 1788, had made a promising start.31 Eventually, it was William Bartram’s Travels, published in 1791, which would draw world-wide attention to the flora of North America and made its author a scientific celebrity in a short period of time.32 It is but lately that AMERICA has become an independent country, and that she has taken her station as such among the Empires of the Globe, a contemporary advertisement for Bartram’s Travels proclaimed. She has already distinguished herself in Arms and from that important Aera we may doubtless expect important discoveries in the Arts and Sciences.33 Mühlenberg, too, was no longer a nobody to the scientific establishment in Europe and America. Both Schöpf and Schreber had honored his efforts in dedicating natural specimens to him,34 and in 1793 he finally managed to have his Lancaster Flora printed in the Transactions of the A.P.S.,35 both of which events elevated his fame in the botanical world. Within six years, he had made the transition from an obscure Lutheran clergyman working in Pennsylvania’s hinterland to one of the most promising figures in American science. With a growing herbarium and an increasing knowledge base about networking and botany, it was only a matter of a few years after 1790 before American scientists would start to contact him for help and assistance in their own queries.

Quoted after Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 311. See also Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 64; Greene, American Science, 51f. 30 Mühlenberg calls Bartram by this title in his letter to Bartram, 03/19/1795, HSP Gratz Coll. 31 Humphrey Marshall, Arbustrum americanum: the American grove: or, An alphabetical catalogue of forest trees and shrubs, natives of the American United States, arranged according to the Linnæan system, Philadelphia 1785; Thomas Walter, Flora caroliniana secundum systema vegetabilium perillustris Linnæi digesta, London 1788. According to Ewan and Ewan, Marshall’s book was a shelf-warmer during its first years on the market. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 600. 32 Ewan, “Early History,” 4f., 35. Petersen adds that Bartram had already published his Catalogue of American trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants, advertising for sale such as were grown in the Bartram Garden in 1783. Petersen, New World Botany, 308. Hallock and Hoffmann state that “Bartram’s training at a young age connected him to a thriving network of scientists that reached across the Atlantic and tied him to leading figures of the American Enlightenment.” Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 1. 33 Quoted after Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 290. 34 Schöpf named a turtle Clemmys Muhlenbergii, while Schöpf named a Poacea-Grass after his Lancaster correspondent. 35 Muhlenberg, “Index,” 157–184. 29

166

Letters from an American Botanist

On the American side of the Atlantic, William Bartram was one of the first to enter into regular correspondence with him. The son of America’s foremost gardener John Bartram (1699–1777), William not only disposed over knowledge on thousands of plants from his earliest childhood, but had also grown up with famous visitors such as Cadwallader Colden, Alexander Garden, John Mitchill, Benjamin Franklin, James Logan, and Pehr Kalm. In contrast to Mühlenberg, who started from scratch in 1784, he had thus inherited a long list of national and international scientific contacts from his father, most of whom were Quakers and formed a “delightful brotherhood,” which dominated North American Botany until Independence.36 The center of this network was their garden, located some two and a half miles south of Philadelphia’s city center. We crossed the Schuylkill, at what is called the lower ferry, over the floating bridge, to Gray’s tavern, Manasseh Cutler noted in his diary upon his visit to the Garden in 1787, and, in about two miles, came to Mr. Bartram’s seat. (...) Mr. Bartram lives in an ancient Fabric, built with stone, and very large, which was the seat of his father. His house is on an eminence fronting to the Schuylkill, and his garden is on the declivity of the hill between his house and the river. (...) Dr. Clarkson was the only person he knew, who introduced me to him, and informed him that I wished to converse with him on botanical subjects, and, as I lived in one of the Northern States, would probably inform him of trees and plants which he had not yet in his collection.37 With Bartram, Mühlenberg connected to the oldest school of botany and plant sciences in North America, which was a Quaker school in essence. William Penn’s “Holy Experiment” had brought thousands of Quakers from England to Pennsylvania, following a land grant and charter he had received for a royal debt to his father. George Fox (1624–1691) and Penn were the principal agents in the exodus to the New World, which turned Quakerism into a denomination in diaspora and brought about a challenge to maintain its community character on a global level.38 To redress this need, North American Quakers copied the English system of Quaker institutions and structures, thereby turning themselves into a “transoceanic community” (Frederick Tolles) that soon became an “everyday reality” to its members.39 Within their primary areas of settlement in greater Pennsylvania, Quakers connected through a system of monthly, quarterly and yearly meetings within specific regional contexts. The Quaker-typical “traveling ministry” linked individual settle-

36 McLean, “Bartram,” 10, 19; Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 2; Petersen, New World Botany, 238f. For a graphical representation of John Bartram’s correspondence network, see Ewan, “Early History”, 26; See also Petersen, New World Botany, 227f. William Bartram also named a species of trees “Franklinia” after Benjamin Franklin. Fernald, “Early Botanists”, 64. 37 Cutler and Cutler, Correspondence I, 273–274 38 Tolles, Quakers, 9f.; Barbour and Frost, Quakers, 73f; 76. 39 Tolles does not mention the possibility of previous transatlantic networks during the Spanish colonial period, but adds that the Quaker network was indeed the first of its kind and that no other religious group had stronger transatlantic ties at mid-18th century. After 1685, correspondence with English Quakers via Philadelphia had become a thoroughly organized and safe enterprise. Tolles, Quakers, vii–x; Barbour and Frost, Quakers, 77.

Transatlantic Botany

167

ments, provided for the flow of news and letters, and coordinated the development and functioning of this highly complex network of financial and moral support.40 The rising tensions with the mother country after the French and Indian War caused some conflict within the community, as traditional, conservative Quakers constantly repeated the old credo to refrain from political participation and elections, while a progressive group of Quaker politicians favored direct involvement, often mixed with economic interests.41 Central theological dogmas of the Quaker belief promoted isolation from the surrounding society, as taking oaths or the use of violence were deemed incompatible with God’s will. Trade and commercial interests, however, which had evolved along with the unfolding of this transatlantic network, eventually prompted some Quaker merchants to take an active stance against Britain’s rigid customs policies and the Stamp Act in March of 1765. While the Meeting of Sufferings continued to issue warnings not to get involved with the riots, the Coercive Acts of 1774 finally caused Quakers like Joseph Galloway (1731–1803) to participate in the Continental congress and others like Nathanael Greene (1742–1786) to enter the military.42 Generally, most Quaker families experienced the same fate the war had brought to members of other denominations.43 With growing intensity and length of the conflict, differing loyalties often divided families, friends and relatives. For most Quakers, this resulted in isolation from politics and trade in the post-war period. It took years of sustained work and activity in trade to make amends for this. 44 The Bartrams were left practically untouched by the war, although they, too, had suffered an unexpected loss. John Bartram had died on September 22, 1777, leaving his estate and garden to his fifth-born son John.45 With their father, the Bart40

41 42

43 44 45

Barbour and Frost, Quakers, 3f., 17, 77; See also Häberlein, Practice, 134–36. Tolles explains: “If the circulating ministry can be called the bloodstream of the transatlantic Society of Friends, perhaps its bony structure can, without forcing the metaphor, be identified with the system of Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings, to whose creation and articulation George Fox devoted so much attention.” Tolles, Quakers, 29. Wellenreuther, Glaube, 402, 407. Barbour and Frost add that there was also the so-called “Quaker-Blues”-regiment, which had been established in the wake of the second Continental Congress’ decision to levy state-armies for the sake of national defense. Barbour and Frost, Quakers, 139–141. Wellenreuther points out that the Quaker’s Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia in 1774 coincided with the first Continental Congress. Wellenreuther, Glaube, 412. For a brief discussion of the war’s impact on American Lutherans and the Mühlenberg family in particular, see above on pages 81f. Barbour and Frost, Quakers, 164; Wellenreuther, Glaube, 420. With William’s younger brother John (1743–1812) Mühlenberg never exchanged letters, although he appears frequently in William’s or Henry’s letters. In June 1792, John made personal acquaintance with each other, when John delivered a letter of his older brother to Lancaster. William and Henry never met in person. I received thy favour of 22nd June 1792 inclosing a List for seeds which I immediately delivered to my Brother John Bartram who has the disposal of them. (...) This will come to thee by Favour of my Brother John Bartram who with his Daughters comes to Lancaster on a visit to W[illia]m Wright at Conestoga. From William Bartram, 09/08/1792, HSP Coll. 443. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to William Bartram, 12/10/1792, HSP Coll. 36.

168

Letters from an American Botanist

ram brothers lost their teacher, advisor and organizer of their seed trade. Botany was a family business, and the two brothers had received a thorough introduction to it through numerous excursions, lessons in their garden and a basic education in Linnaeus’ sexual system of plant identification. Especially William demonstrated early on his great craftsmanship in botanical drawings in the 1750s, which prompted one of his father’s English contacts, John Fothergill (1712–1780), to sponsor a great southern tour, which took him through North Carolina, Florida and Louisiana in the 1770s.46 After additional studies at the Philadelphia Academy from 1752 to 1755 and an apprenticeship with a merchant, William opened a shop in North Carolina, which went out of business in 1763. After a number of similar enterprises, he finally returned to the family seat in 1767. Without any clear idea what to do with his life, he spent another five years there, while his two brothers had already become successful pharmacists.47 An offer from John Fothergill to go on a botanical tour to the south in search for specimens and botanical information finally gave William’s life a decisive turn. In late summer of 1772 he accepted despite Fothergill’s moderate payment and left Philadelphia for North Carolina on March 20, 1773. While all collected specimens went to Fothergill in London as a part of the deal, William’s notes and observations during the trip were his own, although it would take him until 1791 to turn them into his famous Travels.48 Several events after his return to Philadelphia in January 1777 prevented him from finishing work on the book earlier. After his father’s death and the British occupation of the city until spring 1778, the entire family was needed to keep the business running. Shortly after the Peace of Paris in 1783, the family could put into print a new catalogue and William found more leisure to devote time to his book. After its publication in 1791, his Travels became an instant classic, a “mix of romantic prose and scientific accuracy” (Elizabeth McLean) which even influenced English romantic poets Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834) and William Wordsworth (1770–1850) with its natural imagery and flowery language.49 Mühlenberg enthusiastically referred to the book on several occasions in his letters and diaries until his death. The publication of the Travels made Bartram one of the most admired American botanists of the early 1790s, and invitations to correspond with Americans and Europeans arrived in growing numbers at his house. Mühlenberg obviously had plans to contact him as early as 1786, probably upon Bartram’s introduction to the A.P.S., as some notes in Mühlenberg’s diary in late December of 1786 reveal.50 A 46 47 48 49 50

Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 2f., 19, 118. Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 19, 52; McLean, “Bartram,” 19; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 64f. McLean, “Bartram,” 20; Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 52; Savage, America, 67; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 226f.; Petersen, New World Botany, 268. Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 6, 118; McLean, “Bartram,” 10, 20; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 308; Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 6; See Naturtagebuch APS 580 M89n entry for December 20, 1786. A passage from one of Schöpf’s letters to Mühlenberg also shows that the Bayreuth physician met William Bartram at his seed-shop: 9. Softshell‘d Turtle, oder Greenfin. _ Ein getrocknetes Exemplar davon hatte Bartram der Sohn, 1783, in seiner Gartenhandl[ung] an der Dekke hengen. Wenn er es uns doch haben ließe, im Fall keine

Transatlantic Botany

169

proof for such a visit, however, cannot be found until 1792, when Mühlenberg thanked Bartram in the first letter of their correspondence: I likewise send you as a Testimony of my great Regard for the Friendship you were pleased to show me at my last visit a little valuable Work Flora Germanica, which I think contains many new Observations. (...) How happy would I think myself if I lived something nearer to you and could have the Pleasure of your Company! Many Questions I would propose to you in Respect to Botany in particular of the Southern States. Will you give me Leave to propose some in Letter now and then?51 This is also the most accurate date available for the beginning of their contact, supported by another entry in his diary Fortsetzung meines Journals written in April 1792.52 William Bartram mostly refrained from traveling after 1777 and was forced to stop completely in 1786 when an accident left him partially paralyzed.53 Their list of correspondences is higly fragmented at first sight, with eight out of eleven letters written from 1792 to 1795, the remaining three written in the years 1809 and 1810.54 Margin notes in one of Mühlenberg’s later botanical diaries suggest, however, that contact between the two was maintained primarily by Mühlenberg’s occasional visits to the gardens of Philadelphia-based seedsmen.55 This summons again the problem that “learned friendships” in local contexts were primarily oral and are consequently hard to reconstruct for lack of written sources. The little that can be said about their relationship is mostly derived from an analysis of their exchange of botanical information. Clearly, Bartram’s Travels was of high interest for Mühlenberg, who was constantly worried that the many new species described in the work might never be accurately associated with their true discoverer: I shall be extremely obliged to you for any Information on those Plants or any others you think undescribed in your Travels. You as the first Finder ought to have credit for the finding and none of your Names should be changed in a later

andere aus dem Ohio zu haben wäre. For this letter by Schöpf, a four-paged, anonymous letter fragment dated June 16,1791 from APS Film 1097 was combined with a two-paged fragment from HSP Coll. 443, which was signed by Schöpf’s hand and roughly dated “1791.” Both identification and reconstruction were made based on similarities of scripture and contents of both fragments. A middle part, connecting both fragments, appears to be missing. See Schöpf to Mühlenberg, 06/16/1791, APS Film 1097; and Schöpf to Mühlenberg, 1791, HSP Coll. 443. 51 To William Bartram, 06/22/1792, APS Film 628. Bartram responded three months later: Since it is our lot dear friend, now to be placed at such a distance from each other that we can’t personally associate I now with confidence avail myself of the permission thou gavest me of a free correspondence by Letter. From William Bartram, 09/08/1792, HSP Coll. 443. 52 Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for July 7, 1799. Beck also claims that Mühlenberg stood in correspondence with William’s father John Bartram during his Philadelphia years in the 1770s, but fails to provide source proof for this. Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 50. 53 Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 4. Cahill, Hallock and Hoffmann also confirm 1792 as the approximate date of the beginning of their contact. Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 158; Cahill, “Correspondence,” 382. 54 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 497f. 55 See, for instance, the following passage: Ich war bei (...) Bartram April 1792 Nov. 10 1803 Apr u. Sept 1804 Jun u[nd] Nov 1805 Oct 1806. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, margin notes next to entry dated July 21, 1799.

170

Letters from an American Botanist

work, he wrote to Bartram as late as January 1810.56 Consequently, nearly all of their letters dealt with William’s or his father’s notes, for which William provided the respective specimens from their garden, and for which Mühlenberg returned the correct Linnean names.57 I answer to thy inquiries concerning the Plants in my Fathers Appendix in the first place, Bartram wrote in 1792. I beg leave to refer the 10 Amoen[itates] Acad[emica] and if it can in the least degree tend to illucidate the subject I freely offer my conjecture & observations as follows. (...) Here the specifical name seems wrongly applied I am convinced my Father meant the Throatwort m. (...).58 Mühlenberg’s answer came a month later: Your kind Answer to my Enquiries concerning the Plants in your Fathers Appendix agrees exceeding much with my coniectures I had, and gives me the more Satisfaction.59 This way, the two collaborated for years on the many non-descripts of Bartram’s Travels. It is interesting to see that Mühlenberg had already arrived at a level of botanic learning which Bartram, despite his life-long experience with plants, could not match. I confess my ignorance in Botany, particularly the Cryptogamia of Linne I have very little knowledge in the Ferns, Mosses & Alga, he wrote humbly to Mühlenberg November 1792.60 This also matches Manasseh Cutler’s impression of William Bartram’s botanical faculties. Upon his visit in 1788, he found him a practical botanist, though he seemed to understand little of the theory. (...) There is no situation in which plants or trees are found but that they may be propagated here in one that is similar. But every thing is very badly arranged, for they are neither placed ornamentally nor botanically, but seem to be jumbled together in the A.P.S..61 Mühlenberg was clearly the more competent botanist of the two, and some passages even reveal that the few years of correspondence with Schreber and Schöpf had 56 From William Bartram, 09/06/1810, HSP Coll. 443. 57 See respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 536. According to Cahill, Bartram collected most of the specimens he sent to Mühlenberg in the marshes around his Schuylkill home. Most of Mühlenberg’s queries came on behalf of specimens William’s father John had contributed to Thomas Short’s Medicina Britannica in 1751. Cahill, “Correspondence,” 385, 388. 58 From William Bartram, 11/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. 59 To William Bartram, 12/10/1792, HSP Coll. 36. 60 From William Bartram, 11/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. Bartram repeated this excuse for his “utter ignorance” several times: But worthy Friend this is only my opinion. I do not mean to advise. It is my disposition to speak my sentiment freely & without reserve for the sake of information and I would rather expose my ignorance in order to gain knowledge than quietly remain so. From Bartram, 09/08/1792, HSP Coll. 443. Two months later, Bartram added: My ingenious friend I am now sensible it is time to apologize for plaguing thee with so many trivial queries. Permit me to plead for excuse thy generous permission of writing freely on the subject of Botany Nat. History! If I have exceeded the bounds of Philosophical liberty & descention please to ascribe it to my restless desire of knowledge & edification. Take full satisfaction in turn and write to me freely & without restraint and if I am not so full & explicit in my answers, please to ascribe it to my ignorance & inexperience in letters & science. From William Bartram, 11/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. 61 Cutler, Correspondence I, 273–274. Cahill adds with regard to Bartram’s understanding of Linnaeus’ nomenclature that “though he shared this pursuit in part, his own interest combined botany with horticulture, drawing, business and philosophical edification in a way that did not allow the Linnean project to assume predominance in it.” Cahill, “Correspondence,” 383.

Transatlantic Botany

171

obviously put him in a superior position, both with regard to his herbarium and his botanical knowledge. I feel with you the many Difficulties we are under to come to a Certainty in Respect of many Plants, he consoled Bartram in mid-December 1792. [A]nd it gives me some sort of Satisfaction that your plantae adversariae are or have been mine. However by assisting one another we may do more. If I have cleard up a single Doubt of yours it shall be great Satisfaction to me. By comparing Notes we will go on cleverly.62 Mühlenberg had now become the botanical teacher and Bartram the student, which perfectly mirrors Mühlenberg’s relationship with Schreber.63 2.2 More Gardeners and Seedsmen – the Marshalls and William Hamilton Two minor figures in Mühlenberg’s evolving regional network emerged around 1790 with Humphrey Marshall (1723–1801), who was a cousin of John Bartram’s, and his nephew, Moses Marshall (1758–1813). According to a letter to Schöpf written in October 1790, Mühlenberg must have made their acquaintance sometime in summer of the same year.64 The Marshall garden was located at Chester, some ten 62 To William Bartram, 12/10/1792, HSP Coll. 36. Some more of the progress Mühlenberg had made in the second half of the 1780s becomes obvious in the following passage: You complain that you are a stranger in the Cryptogamia Class. I had the same Complaint, but am getting acquainted with these humble and lovely Inhabitants of the vegetable Kingdom. They enliven my Winter Excursions when all the Rest of their companions are asleep, and they have this peculiar Prerogative that if you give them a little Water they will revive even after hundred Years. In my first setting out I thought them to be innumerable, but I find they can easy be counted. Ibid. 63 With regard to William Bartram’s scientific proficiencies and botanical drawings, Gaudio points out that he “often emphasized the visual peculiarities of his subject matter at the expense of taxonomical clarity.” For his collaboration with Barton, however, he relied on Linnaeus’ sexual system. Gaudio, “Elements,” 427. McLean points out that William began to emancipate himself from his own father John early on, as he introduced ornithology to his studies, which his father had never himself taken any interest in. For an entire generation after him, William became the mentor, with a huge influence on botanists like Thomas Nuttal, Frederick Pursh, John Lyon and Alexander Wilson. McLean, “Bartram,” 19, 22. Cahill argues that Bartram’s correspondence with Mühlenberg show him as an “an astute field and garden botanist with a strong philosophical interest in nature,” although he lacked Mühlenberg’s methodical interest and never began to compile a Herbarium in the style Mühlenberg had done for the past seven or eight years with the help of Schreber. Cahill, “Correspondence,” 381, 385. Judging from the tone and contents of their letters, Cahill also adds that their “social relationship that bears many hallmarks of a genteel culture of natural history carried on through correspondence in the eighteenth century.” Cahill, “Correspondence,” 382. See also the following passage: I feel myself very happy in such friendly Intercourse and botanical Excursion and shall do what lies in my Power to make them agreeable to others. May I ever expect to see you at my House? To William Bartram, 09/13/1792, HSP Coll. 36. 64 Jetzt bin ich mit den 2 Marshalls bekannt geworden Humphrey und Moses, Mühlenberg reported back to Schöpf in 1790. Beide sind würdige Männer und sie haben einen herrlichen Garten der sonderlich reich in Stauden ist. Sie nähren sich reichlich mit dem Verkauf derselb nach England, Moses M[arshall] war kürzlich bis nach Pitsburg und von dort zu Lande nach Carolina. To Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III; Petersen, New World Botany, 256.

172

Letters from an American Botanist

miles south of Philadelphia, which allowed the Bartram and Marshall families to pay regular visits to each other. Some of these visits are mentioned in William Bartram’s letters. I showed [a specimen] to our friend Marshall Jun[ior], he wrote to Mühlenberg in late 1792. He said he thought that he had seen its like somewhere but he could not tell where he thought on Sushquehannah.65 Six years before William’s final version of his Travels was ready for the press, Humphrey had published his Arbustum Americanum: The American Grove, the first truly systematic botanical book in the United States.66 Just like Bartrams’ Travels, Mühlenberg admired the work and cited it frequently in his own diaries, letters and other writings. As in the case of Bartram, the Arbustum attracted the attention of numerous American and European correspondents like Joseph Banks, John C. Lettsome and Samuel Kramsch (1756–1824), a Moravian missionary and botanist, who would also become a correspondent of Mühlenberg a little later.67 Most of Humphrey Marshall’s botanical correspondence with Europeans concerned orders and shipments for botanical specimens.68 His nephew Moses, who had taken his medical courses with the doctors William Shippen Jr. (1736–1808) and Benjamin Rush (1745–1813) at Philadelphia, finally joined him in the seed business.69 Apparently, the two Marshalls were only of minor importance to Mühlenberg, probably because Bartram could render the same services to him with regard to Pennsylvania plants, and Mühlenberg became increasingly interested in the flora of other American regions anyway. Your Arbustum has been translated and reprinted in Germany, he reported to Chester in January of 1790. I have wrote for several Exemplars, and expect them this Year.70 Nevertheless, a thorough exchange on unknown plants in the Arbustum, comparable to the one he engaged in with Bartram on the basis of the Travels, never ensued. Mühlenberg only exchanged four letters with the two men,71 65 From William Bartram, 11/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. See also Madsen, “Hamilton,” 20; Greene, American Science, 50; Petersen, New World Botany, 227f. 66 Humphrey Marshall, Arbustum Americanum: The American Grove or an Alphabetical Catalogue of Forest Trees and Shrubs, Natives of the American United States, Philadelphia 1785. Petersen, New World Botany, 256. 67 At the archives of the University of Michigan, there are three letters Kramsch sent to Marshall: Kramsch to Marshall, 07/02/1788; Kramsch to Marshall, 07/25/1789; Kramsch to Marshall, 02/20/1790, Clements Library, Marshall Papers. In his February 1788 letter, Kramsch directly referenced Marshall’s Arbustrum as the reason for his writing: Dear Sir, I take the Liberty, though not personally acquainted, but highly esteemed by your excellent botanical workd styled Arbustrum Americanum, or American Grove.Kramsch to Marshall, 07/02/1788, Clements Library, Marshall Papers. 68 Greene, American Science, 50; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 225; Petersen, New World Botany, 314; Kelly, Medical Botanists, 75. 69 Greene, American Science, 50; Kelly, Medical Botanists, 75. In one of Mühlenberg‘s earliest botanical diaries we find a brief description of Moses‘ character: D[oktor] Moses Marshall ist ein Mann der viel herum reißt und botanisirt _ Seine Absicht ist Stauden zu samlen wo d[urc]h er Geld lösen kann_ (...) Genera kent er gut weil er viel geseh hat u. von andern gern lernt er ist auch nicht zurück haltend. See Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry undated, on first page [unpaginated]. 70 To Humphrey Marshall, 01/18/1790, HSP Soc. Coll. 71 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 515.

Transatlantic Botany

173

and although he confirmed his interest in a continuation of the correspondence,72 it appears that their contact was confined to personal visits for the bigger part. Again, Mühlenberg’s margin notes in his Fortsetzung meines Journals reveal the dates of his visits.73 Mühlenberg’s relations with William Hamilton (1749–1813), the other Philadelphia gardener mentioned in these margin notes, also support the idea of the predominantly oral character of his local and regional network. Hamilton was the heir to a significant amount of land, situated between Philadelphia and Lancaster, on which he had planted his “Woodlands” garden in the late 1780s in the contemporary English natural garden style.74 Located some two miles up the Schuylkill river from the Bartrams’ estate, Jefferson called it “the only rival which I have known in America to what may be seen in England.”75 Apparently, Hamilton and Mühlenberg never exchanged a single letter, but Mühlenberg’s visits were just as frequent as those to the Bartrams and the Marshalls: Mr. Hamilton is indefatigable in collecting the living American Plants, he informed Eddy Brickell (1749–1809) in 1804, and generously lets me have the Sight of them when I visit him at his Woodlands.76 Although Hamilton’s Woodlands was by far the closest of the three gardens to the city of Philadelphia, it was only years after his first visits with William Bartram and Humphrey Marshall that he paid a visit to his properties: Erste Bekanntschaft mit W[illiam] Hamilton Nov. 21 1795, he entered on July 27, 1807 into his botanical notebook.77 Indirectly, this entry also supports one of the main arguments of this As I know that your Nephew [Moses Marshall] has studied Physick, I make bold to send him the late Edition of Linnaei materia medica, and hope the Present will be not unacceptable. I have a great many botanical writings and shall be happy if I can serve you or him in botanical Researches through a Loan of them. Pray remember my best Respects to him, and tell him how gladly I would embrace an Opportunity of a Correspondence, which certainly would be an Advantage to our botanical Studies. To Moses Marshall, 04/09/1792, HSP Soc. Coll. Moses Marshall responded: West Bradford, April 13, 1792. Reverend Sir: I have just received yours of the ninth instant, and am much pleased to hear of the arrival of the Genera Plantarum. I am very sensible of the honor done me, through your request, by Dr. Schreber, and think myself but too undeserving. I shall be pleased in your calling on your intended journey, and hope you will consider my uncle’s house as a welcome stage. I am, with all due respect, Your much obliged friend, Moses Marshall. Quoted after Kelly, Medical Botanists, 79. 73 Ich war bei Ham[ilton] Nov. 19. 1802 Apr 20. 1802 May 29. 1801 Apr. 9 1799 May 10. 1800 April 1796 (...) Marshall u[nd] Bartram April 1792 Nov. 10 1803 Apr u. Sept 1804 Jun u[nd] Nov 1805 Oct 1806. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for July 21, 1799. 74 Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 173; Hamilton’s Scottish-American grandfather Andrew Hamilton (1676–1741) had made a fortune working as an attorney for the Penn family, his uncle James (1710–1793) came to be the first governor of the Province of Pennsylvania. From his grandfather he inherited the lands in 1742. Madsen, “Hamilton,” 15, 19; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 276. 75 On July 4, 1788, some 17,000 picnickers flocked to Hamilton’s garden to celebrate the earlier ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Madsen, “Hamilton,” 18, 20. 76 To Brickell, 03/01/1804, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1801–1806]. Hamilton, however, did correspond with Bartram and Marshall. Madsen, “Hamilton,” 20; Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 173. 77 Botany, A notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for July 27, 1807. There is still no doubt, however, that Mühlenberg would have planned to make this visit a lot earlier. In mid-october 72

174

Letters from an American Botanist

chapter, namely Mühlenberg’s astonishing delay in establishing contact with botanists in his immediate surroundings rather than with Europeans like Schöpf and Schreber. Geographical proximity, so it seems, was a less important factor in the growth of Mühlenberg’s network than the acquisition of theoretical and systematic knowledge at that time. 2.3 Mühlenberg’s Antagonist – Benjamin Smith Barton In late 1789, when Mühlenberg was just about to establish contact with Philadelphia’s botanists and gardeners, the 23-year-old Benjamin Smith Barton (1766–1815) found himself on a ship from Europe, where he had studied medicine and just completed a peregrinatio academica of the continent. The young man returned to his native country with a career in natural sciences in mind, although he had failed to pick up a diploma at the universities of Edinburgh and Göttingen, and was forced to leave the Old World without a proper scientific degree.78 This rather shameful return passage was just the first part of a troubled American career as a physician and naturalist. In Edinburgh, where he had attended the popular medical courses of doctors John Hunter and John C. Lettsome, the undoubtedly gifted student was accused of embezzling money from the Royal Medical Society’s treasury, apparently to invest it in the London stock market. With the money gone and Barton unable to refund the society, university officials eventually denied him his diploma, after which he returned via Göttingen and Lisbon. Not only was his reputation seriously blemished, but he also returned with considerable debts, which would haunt him throughout his professional career.79 Quantitatively, Barton was hardly present in Mühlenberg’s network from 1790 to 1815, as only a small amount of letters at irregular intervals were actually exchanged, all of them rather insignificant in content.80 Yet, Barton soon became an unavoidable and rather irksome figure for Mühlenberg, as he made clever use of his own network to tap the flow of information in Mühlenberg’s correspondence. Additionally, Barton had a habit of publishing other scientists’ results as his own, but was in turn overly protective of his own research. Both traits of character were an extreme irritation to Mühlenberg, who was to become a champion of free exchange of ideas among American scientists for the common growth of knowledge and learning. With D[octor] Barton I correspond but seldom, except when he puts some queries to me, he wrote to William D. Peck (1763–1822) in Boston in 1812, looking back on more than 20 years of relations with the Philadelphia doctor. I could never 1791, he noted in another diary: Wie kann ich meine botanisch Kentniße erweitern u. auch für meine Familie nützlich mach 1) d[urc]h Besuch von hiesig botanisch Gärt Marshall, Hamilton, Cummins, Gray, Grosch, Fischer (…). See Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry undated, unpaginated, around mid-october 1791. 78 According to Ewan and Ewan, Barton disembarked at Wilmington on September 23, 1789. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 135. Graustein, “Barton,” 433. 79 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 98. 80 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 497.

Transatlantic Botany

175

persuade him to let me see his Herbarium although he has seen mine twice. His principle seems to be “it is more blessed to receive than to give.”81 Barton was born in Lancaster in 1766 to the local Anglican minister Thomas Barton (1730–1780) and his wife Esther (no data available), the sister of the astronomer and mathematician David Rittenhouse (1732–1796). Rittenhouse became president of the A.P.S. after Benjamin Franklin’s death in 1790, which facilitated young Barton’s access to the scientific establishment of the city. This way, he could also continue his passion for nature, which was already visible in the young boy, who routinely strolled through the woods and plains of Conestoga Valley with his father.82 It is not impossible that Barton met Lancaster’s new Lutheran minister after 1780, although Barton went to York academy from 1780 to 1782, accepted a position as medical apprentice with Dr Shippen in 1783, and finally took courses with Dr Rush at Philadelphia.83 After a westward excursion with his uncle Rittenhouse in 1785, he made plans to study medicine in Edinburgh, where all of his teachers had taken their degrees.84 With a letter of recommendation from his mentor Benjamin Rush he left Philadelphia to start his medical lectures with Hunter, Lettsome and William Cullen (1710–1790) on June 23, 1786. Barton soon began to take an active part in the university’s social life, becoming member and president of several student societies, most notably the “Society instituted here for the encouragement of the study of Natural History among students,” founded by James Edward Smith (1759–1828), another of Mühlenberg’s future European correspondents.85 His original plans to pass the final exams for his diploma in September 1788 were shattered after the embezzlement was discovered, for which he was not only publicly ostracized but also divested of all the offices he held in the societies at the time. With the vain hope of procuring another diploma from the universities of Göttingen or Lisbon, he finally started on a European tour, knowing full well that news would travel faster than his ship and that Rush would be disappointed with his behaviour.86 After his arrival at Wilmington, Barton first moved in with his brother William and tried to establish his own medical practice in order to apply for the position of attending physician at Philadelphia’s almshouse, then the city’s only establishment for taking care of poor and the “rabble” of society. A diploma of membership he had 81 To Peck, 05/19/1812, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 82 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 13, 406, 713; Petersen, New World Botany, 342; Graustein, “Barton,” 424; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 169. As a loyalist, Thomas Barton’s pastorate at Lancaster practically ended with the proclamation of Independence in July 1776. Only four years later he died at New York. For more circumstances of his life, see Glatfelter, Pastors II, 352f.; Häberlein, Practice, 117, 182. 83 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 60–64, 571. 84 Norwood counts 112 Americans who graduated from Edinburgh in 1800. Norwood, “Medical, “ 435. 85 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 80f. Barton also took courses in geology with John Playfair (1748– 1819), in medicine with Joseph Black (1728–1799), in chemistry, botany and mineralogy with John Walker (1731–1803). Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 79, 85, 95f. Apart from Smith’s Society, he became a member of the “Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,” the “Speculative Society” and the Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 96f. 86 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 98, 101, 109; Graustein, “Barton,” 424, 432f.

176

Letters from an American Botanist

received from Lisbon’s Natural History Society served him as a temporary surrogate of graduate honors, although it did not impress Benjamin Rush, who lost no opportunity to vent his bitter disappointment about his former student in public.87 It is probably during this problematic period in Barton’s life that his stunning adroitness in socializing and usage of his contacts to achieve a goal, even when he had all odds against himself, surfaced for the first time. With the help of Shippen, who was then a rival of Rush, Barton secured for himself the position of professor for natural history and botany at the University of Pennsylvania and reactivated his American and European contacts. These included William Bartram, with whom he shared a close friendship since his teenage years, William Hamilton and Thomas Pennant (1726–1798), an English naturalist he had met, like many others, during his European travels.88 With a rather unusual request in 1796, Barton also managed to get into contact with Christoph Daniel Ebeling (1741–1817), with whom Mühlenberg also corresponded loosely at the time. Dear Sir, I have not heard from you for some time. Barton addressed Ebeling. However, from what the Reverend D[octo]r Muhlenberg has told me, I have hopes of hearing from you, and from M[iste]r Zimmerman, very soon. My object in writing to you, at present, is to request that you would endeavour to procure for me, from some one of the German or other universities, the degree of Medicinae Doctor. Perhaps., Professors Zimmerman and Fabricius can assist in this business. (...) Hoping that you will attend to this business, as soon as possible, and in the most delicate manner.89 Ebeling, then in dire need of a Philadelphia correspondent,90 lost no time to contact his friend Johann Christian Fabricius (1743–1807) at the university of Kiel, where he could finally secure Barton the diploma which he had been denied in Edinburgh and Göttingen.91 In return for this favor, Barton continued to correspond with both Germans, sending both books and specimens to Fabricius, and general information on the United States to Ebeling, who made use of it in his historical works.92 With regard to Mühlenberg’s corres87

Having your own established medical practice was a necessary precondition for teaching at the university. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 140, 144; Surprisingly, it was another of Mühlenberg’s future correspondents, the Portuguese botanist José Francisco Correia da Serra (1750–1823), who had awarded him with the diploma for his Natural History Society, which Barton produced in lieu of an actual diploma. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 273f. 88 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 274f.; Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 158. Along with Shippen, his uncle David Rittenhouse and the Reverends White and Andrews supported Barton’s claim against Rush. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 206. 89 Quoted after Graustein, “Barton,” 433. In 1961, Jeanette Graustein wrote her essay, Barton’s letter was still supposed to be a draft he never sent. Ewan and Ewan, however, confirm that this was actually the way that Barton managed to secure the necessary diploma. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 161f. 90 In September 1795, Ebeling had confided to Fabricius that from America I have still many letters but am very unfortunate with Philadelphians. Although there is no proof, Barton might have heard about this and simply took a chance. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 161. 91 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 162. 92 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 373, 383. In 1804, Barton also thanked Ebeling for a contribution to his Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal. For the following highly interesting communication the Editor is indebted to his good and learned friend, Professor C. D. Ebeling, of Ham-

Transatlantic Botany

177

pondence with Ebeling, little more than a diary entry can be quoted for the years from 1790 to 1797. A letter from Ebeling, he noted in 1796, who asks me to subscribe to his magazine for 3 ducats the printed sheet. If it contains natural history and botany, I would certainly like to do so, and may even contribute pieces on North American natural history.93 Apart from this, nothing more is known about their brief exchange from 1798 to 1802.94 Whether or not the fraud became publicly known at the time, Mühlenberg had already begun to suspect by the early 1790s that Barton knew how to obtain knowledge circulating in other correspondence networks and that his Philadelphia colleague appeared to have few scruples to make use of it for his own ends. Doctor Barton has still very little practical experience and his ambition is more the honor of being a botanist. Takes advantages of other people’s sweat and is afraid of me as his most threatening competitor, for I could also write something. I must not tell him too much, as he will not give me no credit, just like Dr Schöpf.95 Just a few pages later in the same diary, another entry on Barton shows that Mühlenberg had found his worst expectations confirmed. Scolding Barton for taking advantage of other people’s sweat, he vowed to keep scientific information from now on closer to his chest.96 Early on in their careers as scientists, the two had begun to view each other as opponents, and this perception would influence Mühlenberg’s own “network

93

94 95

96

burgh. The date of the Professor’s letter is October 9, 1804, but ut was not received before the month of July, last. It is believed, however, that not a little of the information thus communicated, will be found new and acceptable to our readers. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 477. [E]in Brief v[on] Ebeling, der anhält an seinem Magazin theil zu nehmen 3 Duc[aten] den gedruckt Bog[en]. [W]enn es Naturhistoria u[nd] Botanic wäre so wolt ich gern u[nd] Zusätze Beiträge zur Nordamerik[anischen] Naturhistoria. Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for April 4, 1796. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 506. D[octor] Barton hat noch wenig praxis, hält zurück, ist mehr für die Ehre ein botanicus zu sein. [M]acht sich fremd[en] Schweis zu Nutze, und fürchtet sich vor mir als seinem gefährlichst Nebenbuhler weil ich auch wohl schreib[en] könte. Ich darf ihm nicht zu viel sag[en] weil er mein Nahm[en] durchaus verschweigt, etwa wie D[octor] Schöpf. Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, title page. With regard to Schöpf, Mühlenberg was equally disappointed after not being mentioned as one of the main contributors to Schöpf’s Materia Medica. Aus einem Extract eines Briefes den Collin von Thunberg erhalt sehe ich daß Barton sein Florula Pensilvanica schon hinaus geschickt. Sie wird ungemein gerühmt weg der Berichtigung der Generum u[nd] Speciorum u[nd] weg der Indianer Nahmen und er wird als der einzige Americ[aner] angesehen. Mein Index ist im Nov[ember] 1790 nach Philadelphia gegang u[nd] in seiner Hand gewesen ob er ihn nicht so wie meine Specimen fleissig gebraucht, das ist eine große Frage. Ich werde von nun an äusserst zurückhaltend mit ihm sein u[nd] weder Herbarium noch Monogr[aphia] zeig bis ich weiter höre. Seine Warnung nichts hinauszuschick werd mir jetzo einleuchtend u[nd] er sucht von Freund Schweis zu leb. See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for November 2, 1792. A year prior to this entry, Mühlenberg had obviously asked Barton whether he had taken notice of his Index. Barton denied: Your last copy of the Flora Lancastriensis I have never seen; but I presume, it is safe amongst the papers of the Society. This day, the 3rd volume was to have been put to press. From Barton, 11/15/1791, HSP Coll. 443. The persons mentioned here are Reveverend Nicolas Collins (1746–1831), Swedish-Lutheran minister, served at Philadelphia’s Old Swede’s church from 1771 to 1831, and Carl-Peter Thunberg (1743–1828), Swedish Naturalist and student of Linnaeus.

178

Letters from an American Botanist

strategies” in the future significantly. In retrospect, Barton’s often-cited reluctance to share observations and specimens appears directly opposed to Mühlenberg’s credo that American science could only improve through open and disinterested collaboration.97 2.4 Networks and Network Policies How much Mühlenberg actually came to distrust Barton becomes apparent in a series of quotes from his diaries across the years. These entries usually contain observations by Mühlenberg on how, where, and through which contact Barton had managed to get hold of some of his original botanical knowledge. Rafinesque and Barton stand in frequent contact, he noted in 1804 on one of his later correspondents, Constantine-Samuel Rafinesque-Schmaltz (1783–1840). This means that my knowledge will be used by others and I will consequently completely detach me and excuse myself with the mass of work so I have not collected in vain. 98 In 1811, he even named some of the correspondents that he suspected to hand on information to Barton.99 Mühlenberg, however, was by no means the only scientist, collector or seedsman whom Barton had offended with his “irritable and cholerick nature.”100 The aforementioned conflict with Benjamin Rush was just the first in a series of shattered relationships and open animosities with colleagues, friends and relatives both at home and abroad.101 Charles Wilson Peale (1741–1827), André Michaux (1746–1802), James McBride (1784–1817) and his long-time friend William Bartram were among those who, at various points, showed their irritation with Barton’s very liberal interpretation of moral standards in scientific practice.102 In Bartram’s 97 This disqualifies Ewan and Ewan’s claim that Barton and Mühlenberg were at relative ease with each other until around 1801, when their “different attitude towards literature” brought on their falling-out with each other. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 572. 98 Rafinesque u[nd] Barton conferiren sehr oft, [und] dad[urc]h werd[en] meine Kentnisse von andern benutzt ich werde mich also besser lieber völlig losmach[en] und mich mit der Menge meiner Arbeit entschuldigen damit ich nicht umsonst gesamlet habe. Mein Index steht ihm zu Dienst so weit er publicirt ist. Wenn ich schicke so schicke ich ohne Namen durchaus kein Name der nicht im Index steht sondern N[ova] S[pecies]. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for January 6, 1804. 99 Barton läßt jetzt einen Catalogum von N[ord] Am[erikanischen] Pflanzen mit English Beschreibung drucken und sucht mir also zuvorzukomm. Er mag es nur thun. Je mehr je lieber. (...) [D]urch Enslin, Lyon u[nd] andre hat Barton meine Nomenclatur so wie durch meine zu große Offenherzigkeit Er treibt ein wahres Monopolium. See Botany, A notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry for January, 1811. 100 Graustein, “Barton,” 428. 101 For the conflict with Rush, see especially the chapter “Benjamin Rush and the Long-drawn Battle Lines” in Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 204f.; See also Graustein, “Barton,” 434. According to Ewan and Ewan, Rush even applied for a position at New York’s Columbia university when he found the situation with Barton at Philadelphia insufferable. In his Commonplace book and correspondence with John Redman Coxe (1722–1808), Barton’s name appears more often than any other name. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 215, 226–231. 102 Graustein explains that, in order to please Thomas Jefferson, Barton published a genus “Jeffer-

Transatlantic Botany

179

case, it was the famous ornithologist Alexander Wilson (1766–1811), who first recognized Barton’s fraud and protested against it in September 1804.103 Despite his contributions to various branches of science, Barton was an outsider to most of his contemporaries and obviously cared very little to change this. To Mühlenberg, these unsettling traits of Barton’s character became even more troubling during the following years, as he found him time and again “invading” his own correspondence network. In some cases, Barton would suddenly appear in an older Mühlenberg correspondence, in other cases Mühlenberg found out that a new contact had already been writing to Barton for some time. In any event, it must have seemed as though Barton’s literal omnipresence continually pervaded his own efforts to continue his researches. The example of Barton’s and William Bartram’s collaboration will help to clarify this fact. As a young boy, Barton had already spent a lot of time in Bartram’s garden in the early 1780s. After his return from Europe in 1789, it was his persistent pressure on his old friend that brought Bartram to finish his Travels. Bartram, in turn, later collaborated with Barton on his Elements of Botany, to which he contributed all botanical illustrations and let Barton make frequent use of his garden to illustrate its contents to his students.104 Mühlenberg was well aware of their collaboration, sometimes adding slightly ironic inquiries after Barton’s plans to his letsonia,” for whose discovery all honors were actually André Michaux’. From James McBride, Barton used research results in his own publications without giving credit to McBride. Graustein, “Barton,” 428–430. Hindle suggests there was even a “generational contrast” between Bartram and Barton, while Hallock and Hoffmann mention “dubious moments” in their relationship. Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 308; Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 9. 103 I had indeed expected from the exertions of D[octo]r Barton as compleat an Account of the Natural History of this part of the world would admit. I have been miserably disappointed and you will pardon me when I say that his omitting entirely the least reference to your researches in Botany and Natural History and seeming so solicitous to let us know of his own productions bespeak a narrowness of mind and self consequence and is an ungratefull and unpardonable omission. Quoted after Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 209. Actually, Barton did mention Bartram in the preface to the cited work, although he wisely skipped specifications on Bartram’s contributions. I have in this column sometimes made use of the scientific names of my ingenious and good friend Mr. William Bartram, a gentleman who has contributed much to our knowledge of the natural productions of North America. Barton, Fragments, 1 104 For Barton’s help with Bartram’s Travels, see Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 5; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 64f., 103f., 406–408, 713; Cahill, “Correspondence,” 385; Greene, American Science, 256. For Barton’s use of Bartram’s garden, called “The Seminary of American vegetables” for lack of a proper university botanical garden see Graustein, “Barton,” 425; Greene, American Science, 49. On Bartram’s and Barton’s relationship, Ewan and Ewan observe: “Bartram’s generosity rested on his nature and on his friendship for the eager, intelligent, younger man. Some have insisted that Bartram’s role in providing facts for Barton’s teaching and writing bordered on exploitation: that petal-thin line between just recognition and piracy. (...) It became difficult to distinguish what had been Barton’s own observations from those of Bartram or his other correspondents. In later years, especially for European readers, when he left of the names of Americans who had contributed information, be became in the United States a target of growing criticism and antagonism passed from one person to another. In some measure it was quite just, but the idea that Barton was a “closet” naturalist was unfounded. Like his European colleagues, he usually cited only published records.” Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 67.

180

Letters from an American Botanist

ters: How does our friend Doctor Barton do? he addressed Bartram in October 1792. He will find it a very difficult task to write a complete Flora Pennsylvanica, at this time; and I wish I could persuade him to take only his neighbourhood. Delaware, Schuylkill, the near parts of the Jerseys, will take a number of years to have all their plants well and satisfactorily described.105 In his return letter, Bartram actually admitted that he, too, thought Barton’s botanical plans were unfeasible.106 Nevertheless, only a month later Barton announced to Bartram that he was actually planning a work on the entire United States rather than on Pennsylvania alone, for which he asked for assistance from him or other American botanists.107 This, however, was only one of Barton’s plans that earned him the reputation of a notorious busy-body, who promised much, but hardly ever delivered.108 Apart from Rush, Ebeling and Bartram, Barton stood in contact with eight other future or current correspondents of Mühlenberg from 1790 to 1797, five of whom were Americans.109 With the Moravian missionary John Heckewelder (1743–1823), 105 To William Bartram, 10/15/1792, Darlington, Memorials, 470f. 106 Our friend Doct[or] Barton came to see me the other Day & brought me the Book he was so kind to let me have the loan of (Swartz’s Botanical Observations) (...) I have had no conversation with our Friend on the subject of Flor[a] Pennsylvania but as thee well observes think he had better prescribe to himself narrower limits or protract his publication. From William Bartram, 11/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. 107 I think, I have already told you that all the time I can spare from the duties of my profession I intend to devote to the study of natural history. I aim an extensive work on the natural history of the United States. As I am young, I may hope to live to accomplish it. I am sensible, however, that I stand in need of assistance. Barton to Bartram, 12/23/1792, Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 171. 108 Jeanette Graustein has noted that “Barton publicly announced from time to time ambitious projects, which might have been important building blocks in American natural science – a natural history of Pennsylvania, a flora of the central Atlantic states. He started printing Flora of Virginia and Elements of Zoology, but these proposals remained only promises, or rested in early stages. (...) A scholarly product of moderate dimensions, such as a local flora, which Muhlenberg thought a more reasonable undertaking, did not engage Barton’s interest.” Graustein, “Barton,” 427. See also Mears, “Herbarium,” 159; Greene, American Science, 257; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 309; Ewan and Ewan write: “Barton’s letters show his ambition and plans – plans and promises he desperately hoped to keep, but so often failed. They show a breadth of interest in all the natural world, a pride in, and love of country. His handwriting deteriorating from the clear penmanship of his youth to become almost illegible with hurry, discouragement and gout, he wrote voluminously to family, far-flung correspondents in America, and to European savants, pressing questions, asking for specimens, and promising to return favors.” Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 302. In comparison, Mühlenberg let Barton know in September 1790: A true Flora of a Country is not the work of one Man, but Hands must be joined and I prefer Description of a particular Place where the same Plant can easily be found and compared to former Descriptions. To William Bartram, 09/13/1792, HSP Coll. 36. 109 I primarily focus here on contacts Mühlenberg and Barton had in common. A manuscript list of Barton’s correspondents after 1789 in his own hand can be found at the A.P.S. Archives, Philadelphia. This list includes Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu (1748–1836), Bernarde Germain Etienne de la Ville-sur-Illon, Comte de Lacépède (1765–1825), Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), Charles Francis Brisseau de Mirbel (1776–1854), Louis Valentin (1758–1829), Louis Nicholas Vauquelin (1763–1829), Gottheld Fischer von Waldheim (1771–1853), Willhelm Gottfired Tilesius (1769–1857), Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff (1774–1852), Johann Abraham Albers (1772–

Transatlantic Botany

181

Barton shared a common interest in Indian languages, medicine and history. Their early correspondence from 1793 to 1797 documents the kind of information Heckewelder provided to Barton, which allowed the latter to publish his New Views of the origin of the tribes and nations of America in 1797.110 Barton’s original intention in opening a correspondence with Heckewelder had obviously been to get hold of a copy of Samuel Kramsch’s (1756–1824) Index Nazarethana. Instead, Heckewelder became his constant correspondent, whereas with Kramsch he only exchanged one single letter.111 Reverend Manasseh Cutler (1742–1823) had paid a visit to Barton in 1789, shortly after the latter’s return to Philadelphia. Cutler had already become a member of the A.P.S. in 1785 and was touring the mid-Atlantic states at the time to find support for his Ohio Company, which made a business out of the settling of the Northwest Territory. The brief correspondence that ensued gave Barton another opportunity to inquire after Indian mounds and relics in the Ohio territory.112 A quite similar background connected Barton to the Philadelphia doctor and antiquarian James D. Mease (1771–1846), who paid a visit to him some six years later, but did not find Barton at home. Instead, the doctor responded to Mease’s visit in a note on the subject of Locust trees. Since Mease had set up his medical practice in Philadelphia in 1792 and became a member of the A.P.S. in 1802, it is highly probable that this was a singular letter in an otherwise oral contact.113 With the Boston native William Dandridge Peck (1763–1822), however, Barton exchanged four letters from January 1794 to March 1796, followed by two additional ones in 1809 and 1813.114 The two men mostly corresponded on Peck’s botanical studies, which Peck conducted alone at Kittery, Maine. Later, Peck became a student of Barton, which naturally intensified their contact. The eighth “shared” correspondent of Barton was Dr James Greenway (1703–1794) from Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The two scientists mainly discussed remedies for fevers, especially after 1793, when the yellow fever epidemic hit Philadelphia massively. Barton also tried to find subscribers for Greenway’s Flora Virginica, but to no avail.115 Two Europeans complete this overview of Barton’s and Mühlenberg’s intersecting correspondences from 1790 to 1797.116 During his studies in Edinburgh, Bar1821), Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840) APS in 1798, Eberhard August Willhelm von Zimmermann (1743–1815), John Hernholt (1764–1836), Anders Sparrmann (1748–1820), William Roscoe (1753–1831), Richard Anthony Salisbury (1761–1829), John Mason Good (1764–1827). Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 403. 110 HSP Benjamin Smith Barton Papers Box 1/4: Correspondence 1778–1815, pp. 102–104; Mss.B.B284d Violetta Delafield-Benjamin Smith Barton Collection 1783–1817; Before Heckewelder, Barton had also tried to contact Rev. Charles Gotthold Reichel (1751–1825), at Nazareth, PA. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 177, 181, 235–242, 280. 111 See APS Mss.B.B284d Violetta Delafield-Benjamin Smith Barton Collection 1783–1817; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 280; Mears, “Herbarium,” 164; Pennel, “Schweinitz,” 1–8. 112 For their correspondence, see especially the HSP Benjamin Smith Barton Papers Box 1/4: Correspondence 1778–1815, and Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 121f. 113 Barton to Mease, 08/06/1795, APS Film 628. 114 Peck to Barton, 10/06/1794; Barton Peck, 01/27/1796; Peck to Barton, 03/12/1796; Peck to Barton, 09/23/1809; Barton to Peck, 01/24/1813, all in APS Mss. B. B284d. 115 See Wyatt, “Greenway,” 215. 116 Barton’s contact to the third European, Ebeling at Göttingen, has already been dealt with above

182

Letters from an American Botanist

ton had already become a member of James Edward Smith’s (1759–1828) Natural History Society, although it is unclear whether the two ever met in person. Back in Philadelphia, Barton used the connection to ask for specimens from Smith’s vast collections. To his surprise, Smith sent dried specimens from New South Wales, but had to decline Barton’s request to contribute to the A.P.S. Proceedings for lack of time.117 There is no indication that their contact was continued after this. Barton met another Mühlenberg contact, the Swabian doctor Johann Hermann Ferdinand Autenrieth (1772–1835), during the latter’s brief stay in Philadelphia and Lancaster. After one and a half years, most of which were spent in Lancaster, where Autenrieth made friends with Mühlenberg, the family returned to Europe, and Autenrieth tried to maintain contact with Barton. My dear Sir. I have permission to write to you. I don’t know if it was only a expression of your genteelity or one of consequence, my warmest wishes would be gratified if I could have a correspondent of your talents and knowledge in America. Barton had entrusted Autenrieth with a package for Ebeling in Hamburg, which Autenrieth dutifully delivered in the vain hope to maintain contact with Barton this way. Let me know by our friend Mr. Muhlenberg if a longer letter from me will be accepted by you. Be so kind and make my compliments to Dr. Rush and Mr. Bartram. To the former I send here the treatise of Mr. Michaelis, whom he desired, when I spoke to him the first time in Philadelphia. I would be happy, if my North american friends would not forget me.118 Apparently, Barton did not respond. In any case, Mühlenberg was warned. Despite Barton’s rough start after his return from Europe, he had soon found the means and supporters to re-establish himself in Philadelphia’s scientific community, while his correspondence network could soon rival those of most other scientists in the United States. Three circumstances in particular accelerated his social rise and gave Barton a clear advantage over his Lancaster colleague. First, Barton had studied medicine at one of Europe’s most prestigious universities, in Edinburgh, and a subsequent, if short, tour of the continent had given him the chance to make the acquaintance of men like Joseph Banks, Thomas Pennant (1726–1798) and James Edward Smith.119 Mühlenberg’s studies at the Halle Orphanage gave him access to Halle’s Pietist network, but in scientific circles he was a nobody upon his return in 1770. Secondly, Barton had chosen Philadelphia as his permanent abode, which gave him the chance to participate permanently in A.P.S. meetings, public lectures and other social activities on a regular basis, while Mühlenberg rarely, if ever, had enough time to make use of the city’s scientific infrastructure. Especially with his uncle David Rittenhouse presiin another context. See above on page 175. 117 Smith to Barton, 05/27/1796, BPL Coll. G. 51.7.5 118 Autenrieth to Barton, 10/17/1796, APS Mss.B.B284d. 119 Most of his British correspondents were personal acquaintances of his. Pennant was excited to finally have “literary friend in N[orth] America,” as he wrote to Barton on October 17, 1790. Nevertheless, when Barton failed to send specimens in return, the pen-friendship soured and was eventually discontinued by Pennant. See Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 326. See also 103, 330–353 in the same work; In 1788, Barton also met Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) in Paris. Graustein, “Barton,” 424.

Transatlantic Botany

183

ding over the A.P.S. from 1789 to 1796, Barton had a wide choice of potential contacts at his disposal, comprising the society’s foreign and corresponding members.120 Thirdly, his position as professor for botany and practical instructor at the almshouse, and later at the Pennsylvania hospital, made him the personal mentor of the country’s next generation of medical practitioners, botanists and scientists. Mühlenberg’s later correspondents William Baldwin, William D. Peck and Jacob Bigelow had all attended Barton’s medical courses and continued to correspond with their old teacher.121 Barton’s nephew, William Paul Crillon Barton (1786– 1856) later observed that his uncle’s medical graduates “were scattered annually, through different sections of the United Staes [and that] many of them cherished the love for botanick pursuits which they had imbibed [at the University] – they became botanists. And thus have the exertions of the Professor been seen and felt, beyond the precincts of the University.”122 2.5 A Swabian in Lancaster – Autenrieth In October 1794, Lancaster’s social and academic life was temporarily enlivened by the arrival of a rather unlikely new immigrant from southwestern Germany. The aforementioned Johann Hermann Ferdinand Autenrieth, whose contact with Benjamin Smith Barton was cut short by the latter’s erratic behaviour, came to town and stayed until March of 1795.123 Autenrieth had everything he needed to become a close friend of Mühlenberg during his short stay, notably a sound education in natural sciences and in medicine. He had received his earliest schooling from his own father Jakob Friedrich Autenrieth, who had taken him on his first educational trip to Italy when he was 13 years of age. After their return, the young boy began to study at the Hohe Karlsschule of Stuttgart, where his father had attained a comfortable position as teacher of cameralism, agriculture and technology in 1777.124 Having 120 After 1800, correspondence with members of London’s Royal Society grew exponentially, so it was agreed that the A.P.S. would hire their own agent at London who was to be entrusted with the speedy transmission of all their packages and shippings. William Vaughan, the brother of A.P.S.-secretary John Vaughan, was finally chosen for the position. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 295, 329, 357. 121 Tickets to his courses were sold individually and each applicant had to undergo a full two year round of courses in order to be admitted to final exams. David Hosack rented a room in Benjamin Rush’s home during most of his studies at Philadelphia. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 189, 193. See also Graustein, “Barton,” 425; Mears, “Some Sources,” 159; Greene, American Science, 49, 257; Petersen even claims that Barton’s contributions to American botany as a teacher eclipse his actual scientific contributions by far. Petersen, New World Botany, 342. 122 Quoted after Ewan, “Barton’s Influence,” 29. For an incomplete list of students contributing specimens to Barton’s herbarium see Ewan, “Barton’s Influence,” 31f. In the same essay, Ewan counts 126 medical pupils as potential Barton contacts. Ewan, “Barton’s Influence,” 28; See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 789. 123 Stübler, Autenrieth, 32–34. 124 Stübler, Autenrieth, 10–17; Autenrieth, Hofrat, 12f. At the Karlsschule, he also became a close friend of Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), the French naturalist and zoologist. Stübler, Autenrieth, 17.

184

Letters from an American Botanist

finished both his studies and his dissertation in 1792, he embarked on another tour of Italy to see the schools and universities of Genoa, Livorno, Pisa and Pescia. However, before he could continue his peregrinatio academica in the direction of Göttingen and Edinburgh, his father decided to leave the duchy in consequence of a conflict with Duke Karl Eugen of Württemberg (1728–1793). On June 18, 1794, he boarded the ship “Sophie von Sachsen” at Hamburg and disembarked with his father and his brother August in Baltimore on September 1 of the same year.125 Immediately after their arrival, he contracted yellow fever, recovered quickly and finally came to Lancaster where he opened a small medial practice.126 Apparently, Autenrieth lost little time before making the acquaintance of Mühlenberg. Just a few days after his arrival there, Mühlenberg acknowledged to Benjamin Rush that I had the Pleasure to receive your kind Letter by D[octor] Autenrieth, who is a very valuable Acquisition to our Country, if he remains here. Though young he has seen and read much and is indefatigable in searching for usefull knowledge. In Botany he is very well versed, likewise in Zoology and Mineralogy. He intends to stay with us at Lancaster.127 Apart from a single line in a letter from Ferdinand to his father a few days later, Empfehlen Sie mich D[octo]r Mühlenberg,128 there is no further documentation of the kind of relationship the two men had, or the scientific discussions they may have engaged in during these five months. The little that is known about Autenrieth’s scientific activities during his stay comes from his father’s letters.129 Shortly before their return trip in 1795, Autenrieth paid a visit to Bartram’s garden,130 for which Mühlenberg wrote him a letter of recommendation, and then left for a brief exploration tour of New Jersey. In his father’s last letter to

125 Their mother stayed at home for the time being and was supposed to return once the three men had established their professional lives. Stübler, Autenrieth, 20f., 30–32; Hesselberg, Psychiatrie, 3. 126 In wenigen Tagen gehen wir über Carlisle und Lancaster, his father wrote back to his wife on September 5th 1794. [W]ie man uns sagt, durch vortrefflich angebautes, beinahe ganz von Deutschen bewohntes Land nach Philadelphia. Quoted after Autenrieth, Hofrat, 63. According to Bernd Friedrich Autenrieth, his book Ein Hofrat reist nach Amerika. Briefe und Berichte Jakob Friedrich Autenrieths und seiner Familie von 1794/95 contains all documents relevant to the travels of the family. Autenrieth, Hofrat, 9. 127 To Rush, 10/03/1794, LibComp Benjamin Rush letters. 128 Autenrieth to Jakob Friedrich Autenrieth, 10/09/1794, quoted after Autenrieth, Hofrat, 79. 129 Ferdinand hat auf dem Schiffe Fische gezeichnet und anatomiert und wird sich manche Naturseltenheit sammeln. August sieht nichts als Feldgurken, Waldungen, Vieh pp., Jakob Friedrich Autenrieth to his wife, 09/05/1794, quoted after Autenrieth, Hofrat, 63. 130 The full letter reads: Dear Sir, I beg Leave to introduce to you Doctor Autenried, lately from Germany, who is a valuable Friend of mine. He has travelled thro Hungary, Germany, Italy and other Parts of Europe and intends to settle with his Father and Mother in this Country. After reading your Travels and hearing so much from your Friends, amongst whom I class myself in particular, of your knowledge in natural History, your Affability. He cannot leave those Parts without having seen the Philosopher of Kingsessing. The doctor has had an excellent Education, and seems born for the Propagation of natural History. If he returns which I hope may be soon, we will have an excellent Assistant in botanical Researches. To William Bartram, 03/19/1795, HSP Gratz Coll.

Transatlantic Botany

185

his wife from May 1795, the dimensions of his collections of natural specimens are briefly mentioned.131 After Autenrieth’s return, he and Mühlenberg began to exchange notes, letters and specimens, although the exact nature of their correspondence cannot be described in detail, as most of it has apparently been lost.132 In any case, Autenrieth valued his North American contacs highly and in summer 1795, he paid a visit to Schreber in Erlangen, offering him access to his network: If you, my most noble Sir, will only use me as an intermediary in order to receive interesting news from North America, to which end my relations in the same parts do qualify me, so I would consider a sign that your most noble benevolence against me will continue for some more time.133 Apparently, Schreber was not interested and never answered, just like Barton and William Baldwin refused or forgot to reply in November 1795.134 Although Autenrieth’s last extant letter to Mühlenberg does not reveal any intention to discontinue the correspondence,135 the demands of his professional life, which soon 131 Aber wir habe einen ganzen Tag nötig, um die Naturalien, Bücher und andere auf der Reise gesammlete Dinge aus den schlechte Kistgen, worin sie auf dem Schiffe lagen, in einen 2. Coffre zu packen, den wir von hier nach Amerika nahmen. Autenrieth, Hofrat, 102; Jakob Friedrich Autenrieth to his wife, 05/29/1795, quoted after Autenrieth, Hofrat, 128. 132 Only two letters could be recovered. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 494. 133 Wenn mich E[uer] Hochwohlgebohren aber auch nur als Mittelsperson gebrauchen wollten, um interessantere Nachrichten aus Nordamerika zu erhalten, wozu mich vielleicht meine Bekanntschaften daselbst tauglich machen, so würde ich es mir ein Zeichen sein, daß das Wohlwollen E[uer] Hochwohlgeboren gegen mich doch noch einigermaßen fortdauere. Autenrieth to Schreber, 09/09/1795, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. In the same letter Autenrieth asked Schreber to return him some botanical drawings, which he had left with him upon his visit to Erlangen some months prior. 134 Da ich Euer Hochwohlgebohren schon öfters einige Bitte vortrug, noch nie aber eine Antwort erhielt, so zweifle ich ob Sie meine Briefe erhielten, ich bediene mich daher des gegenwärtigen Mittels um wenigstens zu erfahren, ob diesen bei diesen Kriegszeiten auf Erlangen kommen können (…) Von D[octo]r Mühlenberg aus Pennsylvanien habe ich einen Brief und darin eine Empfehl an E[uer] Hochwohlgeb. erhalten. Autenrieth to Schreber, 09/22/1796, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. To Bartram, Autenrieth wrote: I would be defficient of my duty, if I did not thank for the day, I spent at your country seat with so much pleasure; you will scarcely remember the young foreigner; whom you did receive so kindly upon a recommendation of Dr. Mühlenberg, but I can never forget a friend like you. (...) I thank to hear by Dr Mühlenberg from time to time, that you are healthy and allways with success employed in fresh discoveries. Autenrieth to Bartram, 11/09/1795, quoted after Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 180. 135 Autenrieth actually concluded with clear directions for Mühlenberg on how to continue more conveniently: Noch ersuche ich Sie, in Ihrem nächsten Briefe mir doch zu schreiben, ob die Adresse, unter der ich diesen Brief nach Philadelphia schicke immer noch hinlänglich und die richtige ist. Diesen gegenwärtigen Brief besorgt in Hamburg Herr Johannes Schubak (ohne weiteren Zusatz) ich bin überzeugt dass ich jeden Brief von Ihnen ganz sicher durch diesen Canal erhalten würde. Ein Paket wird hin und her am gesichersten besorgt durch Heinrich von der Smissen und Söhne in Altona, und dann unter diesem Umschlag noch unter der Adresse An den Professor Autenrieth in Tübingen abzugeben in Stuttgart bey Herrn Kauffmann Liehring Leben Sie glücklich und wohl und lange Jahre zum Nutzen Ihres Vaterlandes und erhalten Sie Ihre schäzbare Freundschaft ihrem Freunde Ferdinand Autenrieth. From Autenrieth, 05/03/1800, HSP Soc. Coll.

186

Letters from an American Botanist

led him to favor practical medicine over botanical reflections, probably let the two men drift apart. In October 1795, Autenrieth opened his own practice in Stuttgart before he moved to Tübingen, where he devoted the remainder of his life to hospital reforms and psychiatry research.136 Consequently, by far the most of Autenrieth’s subsequent correspondences were directed to physicians rather than botanists. There is no indication that his correspondence with Mühlenberg was continued after 1800.137 2.6 Spinning the Web at the American Periphery Besides his new contacts in America’s undisputed center of scientific activity in Philadelphia, Mühlenberg’s growing fame and botanical collections slowly began to attract the attention of botanical enthusiasts all over the new nation in the 1790s. Samuel Latham Mitchill (1764–1831) and Reverend Manasseh Cutler (1742–1823) were the first American men of science outside Philadelphia to exchange thoughts with him. With them, Mühlenberg also undertook first steps towards the creation of a national web of scientists, which became one of his dearest projects in the future. The dimensions of this “national plan” can probably best be seen in his correspondences with Samuel Kramsch (1756–1824) and Friedrich Kampmann (1746–1832), two Moravian missionaries who provided him with specimens and observations. It was a common goal – a national Flora of his native country – which caused him to engage in commerce with radical Pietists, which “would have been ‘anathema’ to an earlier generation of Halle missionaries,” to quote Renate Wilson.138 Theological dispute and missionary competition between the Halle and Herrnhut strands of Pietism were a constant theme in both European and North American religious history of the 18th century, and Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s famous 1742 encounter with Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700–1760) set the tone for the two churches’ troublesome relations in the New World. In 1722, Zinzendorf had called into being this new brand of Pietist thought. Thirteen years later, settlements in British North America were first envisioned by the Count, in order to continue a phase of expansion, which had been ushered in around 1727.139 Featuring both a highly emotionalized theology of internal, subjective piety with strong ecumenical tendencies and an elaborate support structure for worldwide mission and communications, the “Unitas Fratrum” soon came to be perceived as a major threat by most of their confessional competitors. In 1742, however, Moravian lead-

136 In 1797, he became professor of anatomy, physiology, surgery and midwifery at the University of Tübingen, later the same year medical advisor for the southern regions of Württemberg, and in 1801 he was elected university principal for the first time. Hesselberg, Psychiatrie, 1, 4; Stübler, Autenrieth, 10–13. 137 Stübler, Autenrieth, 10–11. After 1800, Autenrieth is not mentioned in any of Mühlenberg’s later letters. 138 Wilson, “Second Generation”, 245. 139 Sommer, “Freedom,” 222; Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 101.

Transatlantic Botany

187

ers were forced to recognize that their ambitious plans for a global ecumenical union of all Christian denominations had failed.140 The historian Paul Peucker has identified a worldwide, tightly-knit Moravian missionary network on five continents at the time, which actually exceeded those of the English Quakers, Halle Pietists or other Protestant churches with regard to its organizational sophistication.141 In Pennsylvania, which constituted the Moravians’ main colonization area in North America, existing networks even shaped the development of settlement structures, which qualifies Moravian migration to America probably more than any other as a true “network-migration.”142 Internal Moravian church organization was strictly organized from top-to-bottom. Well educated clergymen at the top wielded power from Herrnhut, Herrnhaag and Marienborn to move and send out common church members on a global scale. Members were grouped into distinct “choirs,” based on differences in age, sex and marital status. A precondition for this extremely centralized and hierarchical structure was a comparably high ratio of clergy to lay members (20 %), which was never matched by any other religious group in 18th century North America.143 To be sure, all of the eight Moravians Mühlenberg would establish contact with until 1815 were part of this educated functional elite.144 140 Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 108f., 119; Häberlein, Practice, 244; Durnbaugh, “Moravians,” 56. Roeber points out it was only after Zinzendorf had been ousted by Mühlenberg from Philadelphia’s St. Michael’s congregation that he decided to found the half-isolated community of Bethlehem, North Carolina. After Zinzendorf’s death in 1760, and the conclusion of the French and Indian War in 1763, after which the Church of England was increasingly perceived as a threat, the founder’s ecumenical orientation was further compromised and watered down. Roeber, “Pietismus,”683, 687. Durnbaugh associates the Moravians’ explicit ecumenical orientation with a special definition of “space,” which allowed them to find “true Christians” in all denominations. “For Pietism it was taken for granted that they stood in contact with likeminded persons (Gleichgesinnten) in other villages and cities, in other territories, and in other nations;… they corresponded with one another, they commented to each other works of trustworthy, that is to say, in their view, pious authors; they exchanged or sent each other edifying literature.” Durnbaugh, “Communication,” 34. For a detailed discussion of theological differences between Lutheran and Moravian Pietism, see Wellenreuther, “Pietismus,” 171. 141 Peucker, “Network,” 9. Aaron Spencer Fogleman has demonstrated that Moravians could rely on support and vacancy in a successive chain of outpost communities on their way to designated positions in the global mission efforts. These stations could be found all the way to their individual final destinations. Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 114–116. Peucker has described and analyzed the example of one of these intermediate stations, the so-called Heerendijk community, close to Ijsselstein in the Netherlands. Moravians passing through were provided with advice and support, married couples with marital counselling and lessons in community morals. Peucker, “Network,” 13. Fogleman also stresses the Moravians’ focus on education. Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 108. 142 Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 116. 143 For instance, in 1775 roughly 80,000 Lutherans and Reformed church members were served by a about 90 ministers. Fogleman, Hopeful Journeys, 108–116. 144 This comprises, in chronological order of their appearance in Mühlenberg’s network: Samuel Kramsch, Frederick Kampmann, Christian Friedrich Denke (1775–1838), Jakob van Vleck (1751–1831), Gustavus Dallmann (no data available), John G. E. Heckewelder (1743–1823), Elizabeth Gambold (1747–1811/12) and Lewis David von Schweinitz (1770–1834).

188

Letters from an American Botanist

Long before Mühlenberg made first “botanical” contact with Kramsch and Kampmann around 1790, Lancaster’s local Moravian congregation familiarized him with Zinzendorf’s legacy in North America.145 The town was indeed historic ground for the relations of the two denominations, as Laurentius Thorstensson Nyberg, a Swedish-born Lutheran pastor active in Lancaster, had openly begun to subscribe to Zinzendorf’s ecumenical ideals, and his followers had founded St. Andrew’s Moravian Church in 1746.146 Under the watchful eyes of Lancaster’s Lutheran and Reformed ministers, the new Moravian congregation was quickly adopted into the unfolding transatlantic communication system and network, which was constantly upheld and extended by traveling ministers and a regular postal service between Lancaster and Bethlehem after 1754.147 With the outbreak of war in 1775, American Moravians experienced a total communication breakdown with authorities and leaders in Germany.148 It was this experience which led them to embrace Lancaster’s pluralistic religious culture in the wake of the war. Thus, Mühlenberg’s pastorate from 1780 to 1815 coincided with an opening of the Moravian community and their participation in interdenominational community efforts such as the German Society and Franklin College.149 Therefore, Mühlenberg’s personal experiences with Moravians differed greatly from his father’s struggles with Zinzendorf and his followers. It was this change in atmosphere that prepared the ground for his botanical exchanges with Kramsch, Kampman and other Brethren in the following years. Nevertheless, it is necessary to note that Mühlenberg never mentioned any of his Moravian contacts to any of his Lutheran colleagues in his letters to Halle. 2.7 Moravian Botanists: Kramsch and Kampman Radical Pietism and the inquiry of scientific facts in nature make for a rather odd couple at first sight, as Max Militzer (1894–1971), former head botanist of Sax145 In 1775, Lancaster was one out of 16 so-called town and country congregations, all of which were located in Pennsylvania. With Bethlehem, Nazareth, Lititz and Hope, the Moravian church had four principal settlements in North America. Weinlick, “Moravians,” 2. 146 The episode has gone down in Pennsylvania’s religious history as the “Lancaster Schism.” See especially Häberlein, Practice, 52f., 62–65, 98f. 147 Häberlein, Practice, 98, 102f. For another example of the communicational embedding of a Moravian community, see Gilbert’s essay on Bethlehem, especially Gilbert, “Bethlehem,” 19f. 148 Apart from the negative theological implications of open rebellion against civil authority, American Moravians had little reason for revolution after their doctrine had been found “differing in no essential article of faith from that of the Church of England” by an Act of Parliament in 1749, which guaranteed them religious freedom in British North America. Gilbert, “Bethlehem,” 27; Weinlick, “Moravians,” 1f. See also Sommer’s discussion on different concepts of Moravian, community-oriented “spiritual freedom” and American “individual freedom.” Sommer, “Freedom,” 221. 149 Häberlein, Practice, 244. Weinlick points out, however, that “[a]larmed by the new spirit of freedom in America after the war, church leaders in Germany strengthened overseas, centralized control, thereby seriously denying to Moravians on this side of the Atlantic the opportunity of fully participating in the growth of a new nation.” Weinlick, “Moravians,” 1f.

Transatlantic Botany

189

ony’s Oberlausitz region, once observed: “It would not be without charm to investigate the reasons of why a presumably strictly theological institute such as the Brethren could be capable of such great achievements in the field of natural sciences.”150 The answer to Militzer’s question can be found in the Moravian emphasis on global missionary and ecumenical efforts. The Herrnhut orphanage, built in 1738 and modelled after Francke’s orphanage, was not only supposed to be a philanthropic enterprise, but primarily functioned as a school for future missionaries. Right from the beginning, the school featured a botanical garden as part of its educational facilities, but it was only with Friedrich Adam Scholler (1718–1790), the principal of the Barby seminar, that natural history education became a fixture in the Moravian curriculum.151 In the preface to his Flora Barbiensis of 1774, Scholler explained the particular advantages of scientific and botanical knowledge for missionaries.152 On the road, missionaries were supposed to maintain themselves by their own proficiency, knowledge or craftsmanship, while at home they were supposed to help cover or reduce permanent costs and communal expenses for medical treatments, traveling, land purchases, maintenance of buildings and correspondence.153 Thus, Herrnhut’s self-sufficient missionaries became one of the strongest pillars in the financial structure of the Moravian mission. Apart from Barby, the Moravian seminarium at Niesky was noted for its ethnographical and scientific collections, which were primarily used in the education of missionaries.154 In North America, a Moravian missionary named Christian Reuter was apparently the first to study the local flora and to send reports back to Germany, al-

150 “Es wäre nicht ohne Reiz, einmal nachzuforschen, warum ein im Grunde doch rein theologisches Institut wie die Brüdergemeinde derartige Leistungen auf dem Gebiet der Naturwissenschaften zuwege gebracht hat,” My translation, after Becker, “Pflege,” 17; Becker adds: “Uns interessiert ja zunächst, wie es kommt, dass zu einer Zeit, wo die religiösen Belange die Menschen dieser Gemeinschaft so völlig in Anspruch nahmen, die Naturwissenschaften trotzdem eine solche, weit über das gelegentliche Privatinteresse hinausgehende, systematische Pflege gefunden haben,” Becker, “Pflege,” 19. 151 Becker, “Pflege,” 19–21. 152 [Der] Hauptzweck [der Missionare] dabei sei allerdings, möglichst viele Menschen zur wahren christlichen Erkenntnis zu bringen. Doch könnten sie dabei auch zugleich die herrlichen Werke des Schöpfers, wo sie ihnen begegneten, bewundern, sowie Pflanzen und andere Naturkörper zu ökonomischen und medizinischen Zwecken verwenden. Und dies würden sie umso erfolgreicher tun, mit je beseren naturwissenschaftlichen Kenntnissen sie ausgerüstet sind. Quoted after Becker, “Pflege,” 22 (Latin translation by Becker). 153 Vogt, “Wirtschaftsethik,” 158–160. Renate Wilson defines medical services as part of Moravian community obligations. Wilson, Pious Traders, 112. Becker adds that long before Scholler organized Moravian natural history education, missionaries like Gottfried Hänsel (1749–1814) and Martin Brodersen (1718–1813) sent back specimens and observations from Tranquebar via merchant ships pertaining to the Dutch East India Company. Becker, “Pflege,” 33. From 1756 to 1758, a cabinet of natural history was established at Barby, which soon contained various objects from Northern Europe, Surinam, Greenland, Egypt, Labrador and Pennslvania. Augustin, “Barby,” 2. 154 After 1796, famous botanist and clergyman Johann Baptist von Albertini (1769–1831) taught at Niesky. Becker, “Pflege,” 25.

190

Letters from an American Botanist

though Pennel claims that Samuel Kramsch was the Brethren’s botanical pioneer in the New World.155 Kramsch and Frederick Kampmann are notable not only because they were among the first to add a transconfessional quality to Mühlenberg’s web of correspondences, but also because none of their letters to or from Mühlenberg has survived.156 Consequently, our knowledge of the contents, intentions and development of their letter exchanges is reduced to a few lines in letters by other correspondents and Mühlenberg’s botanical diaries. In these, Mühlenberg noted in April 1791 the reception of a letter by Kramsch accompanied by 143 herbs, which is also the earliest mention of Kramsch.157 It remains unclear how the contact with Kramsch was first established, although Kramsch’s Flora Nazarena, supposedly published around 1790,158 may have come to Mühlenberg’s notice beforehand and caused him to establish contact. Biographical data on both men is very scarce, basically limited to a few occurrences in essays and to the so-called Herrnhut Dienerblätter.159 Kramsch was born in Rudelstadt, Silesia, in 1756 to Johann Gottlob Kramsch (†1765), a Lutheran minister who died when Kramsch was only nine years old. After seven years at an orphanage in Gnadenberg, he began an apprenticeship with an apothecary at Gnadenfrei in 1772 and was finally called to Bethlehem, PA, where he arrived on November 11, 1783. There he taught at the local boys’ school for a few years before he was ordained a Diaconus in 1786 and sent to Nazareth, Pennsylvania, in 1787, to Salem, North Carolina, in 1788, and finally to Hope, New Jersey, in 1792.160 Apparently, it was only around 1791 or 1792 that the two men actually corresponded, as Mühlenberg acknowledged to Schreber in 1797 that [o]f Mr Kramsch in North Carolina I have not heard anything in a long time,161 and in 155 Becker cites a botanical list by Reuter, compiled in the area of Betharaba, to support his claim. Becker, “Pflege,” 26; Pennel, “Collectors,” 40. 156 See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 513 and 514. Unfortunately, a visit to the Moravian Archives at Bethlehem, PA, where most of the correspondences are located, was not possible during this study. 157 Brief von Kramsch datiert 14.3.1791 mit einem Paket von 143 Kräutern. See Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry for April 18, 1791. In the fall of 1792, Mühlenberg still appeared to be satisfied with his new correspondent: N[ota] b[ene] Ich bin zu schreibselig u[nd] solt mir wenig u[nd] gute Corresp[ondenten] aussucht, abbrech wo ich nichts lern kann. Kramsch, Bartram Cutler gut. See Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry for December 7, 1792. 158 See Mears, “ Herbarium,” 164; Pennel, “Schweinitz,” 2. Neither on WorldCat nor in any of the online catalogues of the Library of Congress, any trace of a Flora by Kramsch’s hand could be found. 159 According to Paul Peucker, current head archivist of the Moravian Archives, PA, the Dienerblätter were compiled by the staff of Moravian Archives at Herrnhut in the former GDR. They feature no narratives, but basic biographical data of selected Moravian dignitaries and missionaries. 160 Dienerblatt “Kramsch, Samuel Gottlieb,” See also Mears, “Herbarium,” 164; Pennel, “Schweinitz,” 2; Greene, American Science, 255; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 600. 161 [V]on H[er]rn Kramsch aus Carolina habe ich in langer Zeit nichts gehört. To Schreber, 05/09/1797, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Green confirms that “Kramsch botanized in the vicinity of Salem, N.C.,” but does not mention Hope, New Jersey. Greene, American Science, 255.

Transatlantic Botany

191

1801, he confirmed in his diary that Kramsch has died. What a pity for all his knowledge.162 It was only in 1808, about 18 years after their initial contact, that Mühlenberg and Kramsch took up their correspondence again.163 From a letter by Kramsch to Barton we learn that one of the last services Mühlenberg had rendered to Kramsch during their brief correspondence was to connect him with Schreber at Erlangen.164 Christian Friedrich Kampmann was born in Schwingelsen, Alsace, on September 29, 1745 and came to Herrnhut with his parents when he was three years old. In Saxony, he was educated at Niesky, to which he added medical studies at Barby after 1765. This makes him, along with Lewis David von Schweinitz (1780–1834), the only Mühlenberg correspondent to take lessons at the two European centers of Moravian scientific studies. In 1797, Kampmann was dispatched to Hope, New Jersey, in order to answer the local need for a physician, where he stayed with his wife until 1808.165 The first entry on him dates from early fall 1795.166 It is very likely that Kramsch, who was also staying in Hope at the same time, told Kampmann about Mühlenberg. As in the case with Kramsch, the brevity of remarks and the scarcity of references on Kampmann make it hard to qualify the nature of their relationship or botanical exchanges. After 1797, no more references on either Kampmann or Kramsch can be found in the letters and diaries, which suggests that their joint work at Hope took too much time for an extended correspondence on botanical affairs. Instead, three other Moravians were to fill the gap after 1797: Christian Friedrich Denke (1775–1838), Jacob vanVleck (1751–1831), and, if only indirectly, John G. E. Heckewelder (1743–1823).

162 Kramsch ist abgestorb[en]. Schade für seine Kennt[nisse]. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for January 27, 1801. 163 In December 1808, Mühlenberg notes in his diary: Dec. 8 ein Brief von H[er]rn Kramsch, der wieder botanisierte und für mich eine Sammlung fertig hat die er aber noch nicht hat überschicken können. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for December 5, 1808. 164 Several plants I was not able at all to determine, Kramsch informed Barton on December 27, 1793, especially as I have no learned friend hereabouts, with whom I could communicate. I have sent several collections of dried plants to Professor Schreber of Erlangen in Germany who is about publishing a new Edition of Linnaeus Species Plantarum. He answered me several times & was surprised at so many new species still discovered in North America. I was glad to learn in your letter your intention of publishing a work on the naturel history of the United States. This is what I was wishing for as long as lived in this country, but did never see the least pamphlet of this kind except Humphrey Marshalls American Grove. Indeed it is a great & difficult labours, which only your talents will be able to perform with the help of literary assistances, which however must be of another nature than that of mine. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 600. Barton’s answer was written on June 22, 1794. 165 Dienerblatt “Kampmann, Christian Friedrich.” Brief references to Kampmann are also to be found at Wilson, Pious Traders, 114–115; and Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 822. 166 H[er]r Kampmann von Hope schickt mir ein Brief dat[iert] Sept[ember] 18 1795 u[nd] mit demselb[en] folg[ten] Pflanzen. See Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry for October 19, 1795.

192

Letters from an American Botanist

2.8 Cutler and the Gap in the North Manasseh Cutler (1742–1823), another one of Mühlenberg’s short-lived botanical contacts in the early 1790s, had more than one career. After graduating from Yale in 1765, he worked as a teacher and became an entrepreneur before he finally decided in favor of a career as Congregationalist minister at Ipswich, Massachusetts. Despite his many vocations, he took a private interest in astronomy, meteorology, medicine and botany and picked up a law degree from his Alma mater Yale in 1789.167 After the War for Independence, during which Cutler served as a military chaplain, he became interested in the settlement of the West, which led him to collaborate with General Rufus Putnam (1738–1824), Benjamin Tupper (1738–1792), and Samuel Holden Parsons (1737–1789) to form the Ohio Company of Associates. In 1787, the company bought 1,500,000 acres of land between the Muskingum and Ohio River.168 During the following years, Cutler was extremely busy handling all of these obligations at the same time. The fact that he engaged in a botanical correspondence with Mühlenberg in the first place surprises to begin with. Dear Sir, with inexpressible Satisfaction I received your kind Answer to my first Letter, an overjoyed Mühlenberg wrote to the director of the Ohio Company in April 1791, and think myself very happy that you have accepted the offered botanical Correspondence. Whatever lies in my Power to make it usefull and pleasing to both I shall certainly endeavour to do, and as some Vessels sail from Massachusets to Philadelphia we will have a good Opportunity to continue our Correspondence.169 Apparently, Mühlenberg had already addressed Cutler at some point in 1790 for a correspondence170 after his Account of Some of the Vegetable Productions, Naturally Growing in This Part of America (Boston 1785) had aroused his interest.171 Along with Marshall’s and Bartram’s botanical books, Cutler’s Account was one of the earliest American works on the local flora, and it put its author and Boston’s growing scientific community on the map of scientific America. In 1780, Cutler had helped found the American Society of Arts and Sciences in Boston; he became an A.P.S. member four years later and was a well-known figure at the time of Mühlenberg’s first letter.172 167 Cutler and Cutler, Correspondence I, 6f; Greene, American Science, 61; Sprague, Annals, 180f. 168 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 315; In the same year, Cutler was also one of the key actors in the final drafting of the Northwest Ordinance, which determined terms and rules for the settlement of the Northwest Territory. Cutler, Correspondence I, 119f., 179f. See also Häberlein, “Entstehung,” 150. 169 To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 170 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 503f. 171 This becomes obvious in the opening lines of Mühlenberg’s second letter to Cutler: Your Publication, tho you call it premature, has been of great Use and I have been pleased very much with it. Every Beginning will be imperfect in particular in a new Country, and I have read no botanical Work without finding some Mistakes, even Linnaei Works, done with so much Assiduity, are full of them. To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 172 Greene, American Science, 64; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 303; Ewan calls Cutler’s work the “first serious study of New England plants.” It was based on the Linnean system, but contained no binominals. Ewan, “Early History”, 36. Cutler already disposed of a great web of contacts,

Transatlantic Botany

193

In the wake of the founding of the Ohio Company, Cutler embarked on a number of travels to cities on the east coast, where he hoped to find sponsors, shareholders and political support for the risky enterprise. This brought him to Philadelphia several times, where he met the city’s scientific elite, including Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Smith Barton, John Vaughan and Benjamin Franklin.173 In 1788, Cutler even traveled all the way to Lancaster and left a description of the town in his diary.174 Mühlenberg, however, was not mentioned by Cutler, which suggests that he was still unaware of him at this point in time. Meanwhile, he did engage in correspondences with Barton and Bartram. The latter proposed an exchange of New England specimens for those from the southern parts,175 whereas he promised to Barton to send information on antient works at Muskingum and the natives of this country, obviously in response to his ethnographic interests.176 Mühlenberg, however, soon heard of their contact and transmitted to Cutler his actual appreciation of Barton with delicate subtlety.177 With regard to their future exchange, Mühlenberg was quite outspoken in his first letter to Cutler.178 You see, Sir, there is a great Difference in our Plants, and it would be worth while to compare them closer. I will make a Beginning and put a both in the United States and Europe. In Scotland he had a contact with botanist and Edinburgh professor of Botany Jonathan Stokes (1755–1831). With the same, Mühlenberg also planned to get into contact around 1790, as can be seen in his diary: Wie kann ich meine botanisch Kentniße erweitern u. auch für meine Familie nützlich mach(…) 4. dh ein mehr ausgebreitete Correspondenz, Schreber, Cutler, Kramsch, Michaux, in England Aiton, Curtis Schottland Stokes (…). See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry around mid-October 1791. To Cutler he wrote four years later, obviously without having realized this: D[octor] Stokes is a Gentleman I esteem very much since I read the Arrangement of British Plants, if you send to him some of our dubious Plants numbered he could be of great Service to distinguish the Non descripts. To Cutler, 03/17/1794, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. For other correspondents of Cutler, see Greene, American Science, 61, 255; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 314. 173 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 579; Cutler, Correspondence I, 228, 257, 265f.; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 314; Greene, American Science, 38f. 174 Cutler and Cutler, Correspondence I, 428–429. 175 In his diary Cutler noted in mid-July 1787: [Bartram] appeared fond of exchanging a number of his trees and plants for those which are peculiar to the Northern States. We proposed a correspondence, by which we could more minutely describe the productions peculiar to the Southern and Northern States. Quoted after Cutler and Cutler, Correspondence I, 273–274. 176 Cutler to Barton, 08/31/1792, APS Coll. 506.73. In a letter from September 1792, Barton also included a reference to Mühlenberg: Our common friend, Dr. Muhlenburg, of Lancaster, often inquires after you. He is a most worthy man. Barton to Cutler, 09/22/1792, Cutler and Cutler, Correspondence II, 287. Cutler responded in November of the same year: Please to present my most respectful compliments to our good friend Mr. Muhlenburgh when you see or write him, I hope to embrace ye first oppy. To write to him myself. Cutler to Barton, 11/19/1792, quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 580. 177 As the Doctor has seen my Manuscripts and Herbarium, I suppose it may be superfluous for me to publish any Thing except some Supplements I was able to make this Year, and a Calendarium Florae which I gathered from regular Observations in the Years 1780 untill 1791. To Cutler, 11/08/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 178 While the first letter of their correspondence has not survived, Mühlenberg repeated his expectations of Cutler in his second letter quite clearly. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 503f.

194

Letters from an American Botanist

few numbered in the Materia medica in particular of such that are a little doubtfull to me. If you will be pleased to give your Opinion on them I shall be very thankfull and always do the same in Return. So by comparing our Adversaria we will go on brisker.179 This was followed by the same pattern of exchange that could be observed in the cases of Marshall, Bartram and others: Cutler sent New England specimens and plants to the curious Mühlenberg, who in return sent his “opinion” as to their correct place in Linnaeus’ system. In his diary, Cutler noted in early September 1791: Preparing specimens of plants and Catalogue of animals. Sent specimens to Dr. Muhlenberg.180 In a letter to William D. Peck in Boston, Mühlenberg observed much later that [Cutler] sent me a Number of Grasses which I still preserve as an Ornament in my Herbarium, some were new to me and I would wish to have better Specimens.181 In his answers and opinions sent back to Cutler, Schreber’s influence and consistent help, which had helped to shape Mühlenberg’s botanical skills over the years, are clearly visible: I return to your above mentioned Collection which I have since looked through very often. I have not found Reason to alter my Opinion in Respect to any of the Names, exc. Num. 71 Schreber names Poa nervosa instead of nutans n. 34 Aira adorata Num. 9–12 are new Species. N. 1 he calls heterophyllum.182 A few passages in Mühlenberg’s letters suggest, though, that he was himself far more interested in this particular correspondence than Cutler, to whom the Lancaster botanist probably seemed little more than just another contact. It was in particular Cutler’s northern location which rendered his communications so valuable. Will you pardon me if I repeat my former wish to get through your kind Assistance of New England Grasses as many as can be found in particular of Grasses which grow near the Sea Shore. (...) Will you let me have a Sight of some of your Country? I would be infinitely obliged to you for any of them. They take very little Roome if the Exemplar is put up in a duodecimo leaf it is large enough. You see how much I depend on the Friendship of D[octor] Cutler.183 This introduces a theme to Mühlenberg’s letters which would echo throughout the next quarter century of his letters and notes: the sheer impossibility of finding a stable contact in one of the northern states of the Union. Being above 30 years engaged in Study of that lovely Science, he would confess to Peck in 1810, I wish to get information and if possible Specimens from other American States. From the Southward I have very near all what could be found in Georgia the Carolinas, Tenesse Virginia to Pennsylania, but to confess the Truth beyond the Hudson River all is Terra incognita for me, a few Grasses excepted which I owe to the Favour of my former Correspondent Doctor 179 To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. Mühlenberg repeated this several times: Heartily I wish to be favoured with more dried Specimens of your Flora, to see the Difference of our States and Flora’s, and I will with Pleasure forward such to you that I think are not in your State. By comparing our Hebaria we would both go on in our Researches brisker. To Cutler, 11/08/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 180 Quoted after Cutler and Cutler, Correspondence I, 467. 181 To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll. 182 To Cutler, 11/12/1792, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 183 To Cutler, 11/12/1792, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers.

Transatlantic Botany

195

Cutler.184 Stephen Elliott (1771–1830), with whom Mühlenberg began to correspond around 1808, voiced the same complaint a year later: Besides excepting with yourself all my attempts at correspondence with our northern literati have failed. I find all willing enough to receive but few will take the trouble to make returns.185 Apparently, after only a few letters had been exchanged until 1794, their correspondence was abandoned without any prior warning. Let me have the Pleasure of seeing a Letter from you very soon,186 Mühlenberg concluded his last letter, but a note to Peck written 15 years later confirms that Cutler failed to respond. Is Doctor Cutler still alive?, he asked Peck, who was living close to Cutler at the time. In the year 1790 I had the Pleasure to correspond with him on Botany (...) Our Correspondence has unluckily dropt (...).187 An entry in Mühlenberg’s diary from 1801 also suggests that their immediate contact had been cut off while he was still following Cutler’s moves: Cutler does not remain faithful to botany, he remarked on January 27, only two months prior to his former correspondent’s first term as Congressman.188 Cutler’s two consecutive terms were only another step in his quite remarkable public career, which may well have taken up the time necessary for the botanical exchanges with Mühlenberg. Soon after I received your answer to mine w[hic]h accompanied the Specimens, I wrote you, but my letter must have miscaried, an obviously distressed Cutler confessed in the only letter to Mühlenberg that still exists. Should have wrote you frequently since that time, but have been prevented by an unavoidable attention to the concerns of the Ohio Company of w[hic] h I have been so unfortunate as to be one of the Directors. This business detained me four months last year at Philad[elphia] & New York. After my return, [the last Summer & the present Winter] I have [been] wholly occupied in bringing this unpleasant business to a close w[hic]h is more nearly accomplished. For the last 12 months I have scarcely read a page in any botanical Author, or examined a single plant. In the Spring I hope to be able to renew any attention to botanical pursuits, & to forward you, by the first vessel that sails from Salem to Philad[elphi]a, a number of Specimens.189 In 1812, Mühlenberg made a final attempt to re-establish contact, but to no avail.190

184 He continued: His Description of Massachusset Plants and some verbal Accounts of travelling Botanists have made me very anxious to learn more of the Flora N. Angliae. Will you my dear Sir receive my offer kindly, to open a friendly correspondence and make an Exchange of Plants? I will send you from our Parts whatever you may want in you State, Specimens Seeds of Accounts, perhaps 1 Centuria at once, and you will do the same with your Plants. We will begin with new or dubious Plants and very soon the Exchange may be finished. To Peck, 01/10/1810, APS Coll. 509 L56. 185 From Elliott, 10/01/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 186 To Cutler, 03/17/1794, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 187 To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll. 188 Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for January 27, 1801. 189 From Cutler, 02/27/1793, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. Cutler made the same complaint in a much earlier note to Barton. Cutler to Barton, 08/31/1792, APS Coll. 506.73 190 See below on page 454.

196

Letters from an American Botanist

2.9 Mitchill, New York and Agriculture For a brief period in the early 1790s, Mühlenberg actually managed for the first time to bring together correspondents from all three American cities which emerged as the “scientific triangle” of the early national period – Philadelphia, Boston and New York. Samuel Latham Mitchill (1764–1831), a gentleman so mild in his manner and so ardent in his researches, in the words of Boston’s Manasseh Cutler,191 was one of the leading figures in New York’s scientific establishment from 1790 to his death more than 40 years later. Born to Quaker parents in Queen’s county, Long Island, he received his first education from his uncle Latham Mitchill before he went to Europe in 1783 to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. It was also his uncle who paid the high tuition fees.192 In 1786, Mitchill graduated and immediately left for his native country, which makes it unlikely that he met Benjamin Smith Barton, who was about to begin his studies at Edinburgh at the time. After his return, Mitchill continued to study at Columbia College, obtaining a Master’s degree in law while starting a double career as scientific researcher and author in the late 1780s. In 1792 he was promoted to the position of professor of chemistry, natural history and agriculture at Columbia College, after a series of scientific articles had earned him his membership in the A.P.S. the year before, and with this also the necessary reputation to attain this position.193 In 1795, Mitchill founded the “Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, Manufacture and the Useful Arts” in collaboration with Robert Livingston (1746–1813) and Simeon de Witt (1756–1834). Two years later, the first geological survey ever to be conducted in the U.S. was published in his Medical repository journal, which would remain in circulation until 1809.194 Chemistry, rather than geography, was Mitchill ‘s favorite science, and when Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) emigrated to the United States in 1794, Mitchill was among the first to greet the British scientist. With him, he soon began a discussion on Lavoisier’s anti-Phlogiston theories, of which he became the first champion

191 Quoted after Greene, American Science, 255. 192 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 85–87; Greene, American Science, 94; Pascalis, Eulogy, 6–8; Francis, Reminiscences, 5. 193 Mitchill’s full title was “Professor of Natural History, Chemistry, Agriculture, and other Arts Depending thereon” Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 315; Smith, “Mitchill,” 559; Mitchil, Memorable Events, 1f.; Pascalis, Eulogy, 10; Francis mentions Chief Justice of New York Robert Yates (1730–1801) as Mitchill’s most influential law instructor. Francis, Reminiscences, 6. Mitchill’s first article was entitled “Geological Remarks on the maritime parts of the State of NY.” Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 315. 194 Greene, American Science, 96. Cyclopædia of American literature, s.v. “Mitchill, S. L.” According to Constantine Samuel Rafinesque-Schmaltz (1783–1840), with whom Mühlenberg corresponded in the early 19th century, Mitchill’s journal was probably the most important and widely-read in the young republic. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 87, 466–75.

Transatlantic Botany

197

in America.195 Edgar Fahs Smith has consequently called Mitchill the “Father of American Chemistry.”196 Mühlenberg’s correspondence with Mitchill seems to have begun sometime in the early 1790s. There are no sources or biographical data to support a more precise dating. The only two letters still extant today date from 1796 and 1811,197 neither of which appears to be an isolated instance of contact, as style, contents and lines of address bespeak a thorough familiarity rather than efforts to rekindle an interrupted earlier correspondence: Sir, Mr. Whitlow from New York called on me with some Specimens of his new Flax or Hemp, Mühlenberg began his 1811 letter to Mitchill rather briskly. At the same time, references to the New York doctor in Mühlenberg’s diaries and in his letters from 1796 to 1811 are so scarce and mostly so vague that a seamless continuation of their contact cannot be readily assumed either. Doctor Mitchill lives on Long Island and has the same Opportunity. If you apply to any of these gentlemen, your wish can be fulfilled,198 Mühlenberg informed the British botanist Dawson Turner (1775–1858) in 1803, and jotted down in his diary five years later: How about my American correspondences at this moment (…) New York Hosack Geissenhagen, Mitchill, nothing worth to be mentioned.199 Mitchill, therefore, can probably best described as a “sporadic correspondent,” who formed a more or less permanent part of his network, but remained inactive in the background. A look at the individual scientific orientations of both men actually hints at a potential explanation of this situation. “Although he was a general oracle in botany,” Felix Pascalis wrote in his Eulogy of the Life and Character of the Hon[orable] Samuel Lathan Mitchill, “yet the science was to him but a graceful exercise of memory and an elegant relaxation from severer studies.”200 Hall confirms that Mitchill was much less interested in pure nomenclatural botany,201 and a look at Mitchill ‘s letter from 1796 shows that botany was indeed not the subject of their correspondence. I shall now prosecute the inquiry a little further, and go into some practical details relative to this sort of manure,202 he wrote in response to Mühlenberg’s earlier letters. Agriculture and the practical side of botany were obviously the 195 Smith, “Mitchill,” 559f.; Pascalis, Eulogy, 10; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 313–318; Hall, A Scientist, 1–4; Francis, Reminiscences, 7 196 “Many of his papers were promptly translated. His correspondence from all parts of the civilized world on this topic became voluminous. Quite frequently does one encounter lines such as these: ‘Prof. Reich of Erlangen writes that several of Mitchill ‘s pieces on pestilential fluids have been translated into German.” Smith, “Mitchill,” 563. For Mitchill’s standing in New York’s scientific community, see Greene, American Science, 91. 197 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 516. 198 To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. 199 Wie stehts jetzt mit meinen Americanisch[en] Correspondencen (…) New York Hosack Geissenhagen, Mitchill nichts nennenswertes. Botany, A notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry around mid-November 1808. 200 Pascalis, Eulogy, 15; 201 Hall adds, however, that Mitchill published a catalogue of all works relative to American botany in 1813. In his chapter on Mitchill’s botanical work, Mühlenberg is not even mentioned. Hall, A Scientist, 96. 202 From Mitchill, 10/24/1796, HSP Coll. 443.

198

Letters from an American Botanist

main topics in their letters, which must be seen both in the context of Mühlenberg’s own scientific motivations and the developing market for agricultural literature in the U.S. during the 1790s.203 2.10 Erlangen falls behind While Mühlenberg was expanding his network among American practitioners of botany and other sciences, his original botanical contacts at Erlangen deteriorated more and more. Schreber was increasingly busy with administrative affairs and other projects, while his learned friendship with Schöpf had begun to worsen long before it was completely abandoned after 1791. Mühlenberg was still upset about the omission of his name in Schöpf’s Materia Medica and complained about this in his diaries: Schöpf still wants to publish [his] floram Americanam. For this reason I have to be careful, even with information on turtles, and must not issue any more news before I know that he will give me credit (…).204 To be sure, the author of these lines was no longer the credulous, naive newcomer to the field of science he had been in the 1780s. Increasingly exposed not only to the ideals but also to the realities of the Republic of Letters, Mühlenberg now began to realize that more than reliance on the reciprocity of individual exchanges was required to obtain the results he was after. From 1790 onward, he would keep balance accounts of his correspondences in his diaries, accurately taking down the “botanical debts” of each of his contacts. What answers may I expect from Germany?, the first of these entries in December 1792 reads. Palm; Schreber; Schöpf; Hoffman, Carl, Stoppelberg, Fresenius. Apart from them, the American Botanists Kramsch, Cutler, Greenway, Bar-

203 Wilson, “Second Generation”, 247. 204 Schöpf will noch immer floram Americanam herausgeb[en]. Ich muß daher vorsichtig sein auch bei Schildkröten keine besond[eren] Nachrichten mehr bis ich sehe ob er mir Credit gibt (…). Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry for April 4, 1792. For more on Schöpf’s Historia Testudines see also Glas, Palm, 90. Another letter from Mühlenberg to Schöpf tells the story of yet another misunderstanding. Apparently, he had found his native country grossly misrepresented in Schöpf‘s Reisebeschreibung, and wrote in response: Ihre Reisebeschreibung hat mich vergnügt, doch bedaure ich sehr daß Sie nicht im Sommer sondern gerade zur todten Zeit durch Lancaster County gereist sind. Unsre hiesigen Bauern sind keine gemächliche sondern thätige Bauern und verbinden das beste der deutschen und Englischen Oconomie mit einander, ich weiß sie hätte in und auch York County ein Ausnahme gemacht. Uberhaupt hat sich das Land noch dem Kriege od. nach Ihrer Durchreise ungemein verändert und gebeßert. Die vielen öconomisch Gesellschaften die hin und her errichtet worden und der fast allgemein eingeführt Kleebau aber die Umstände sehr verändert. Solten Sie noch einmahl durch die Staat reisen Sie würden es viel anders finden. Solbst die neue deutsche Generation ist verändert und gewinnt viel. Ich habe manchmal gedacht wenn ein Amerikaner durch das so geliebte Deutschland reiset und seine Gedanken und Bemerkungen so gleich aufschriebe, was würde da herauskommen. Wenn er z.B. einen alten würdigen Mann der die halbe Welt kennt einen unbärtigen Grafen u. d. gl. den Rock wenigstens die Hand küssen siehet, wenn er eine Reihe von Compliment sieht die nichts bedeut, das und viel dergleich würde er albern oder toll nennen. Ländlich, sittlich ein jeder nach seinem Geschmacke. To Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III.

Transatlantic Botany

199

ton, Bartram, Mitchill, Aiton, and Smith of England owe me an answer.205 Schreber, however, had specific excuses for the delays in sending promised specimens, letters and, most importantly, plant identifications. In 1787, some three years into their correspondence, Schreber was elected vice rector of Erlangen University for the third time after 1779 and 1783. In a letter to Mühlenberg, Schreber later cited this burden as the reason why he was unable to continue sending specimens for a while.206 The office of vice rector at the University of Erlangen subsumed all administrative auhority of university affairs, including the the position of chairman of the university senate, which made the incumbent the official executor of the will of the Rektor magnificentissimus, a honorary position naturally reserved to the territorial lord. At first, the office rotated semi-annually among all faculties; after 1804 it was made annual.207 In 1787 Schreber’s term as vice rector had already caused many of his packages to Lancaster to be postponed to a later time,208 and when he announced his reelection in July 1791, he explicitly named his obligations as an excuse for the recent delays.209 However, even when his term in office as Rektor eventually ended, Schreber found little time to resume his correspondence with Mühlenberg. Heinrich Friedrich Delius (1720– 1791) had died in October, and Schreber succeeded him as first Professor of Medi205 Was habe ich für Antwort von deutschl[and] zu erwarten? Palm; Schreber; Schöpf; Hoffman, Carl, Stoppelberg, Fresenius. Außerdem sind mir Am[erikanische] Bot[aniker] Antwort schuldig Kramsch, Cutler, Greenway, Barton, Bartram, Mitchill, Aiton, Smith von England. Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry for December 7, 1792. Palm, Fresenius, Greenway, Aiton and Smith have not yet been discussed. 206 Das Prorektorat, welches ich in dem jetzt zu Ende gehenden halben Jahr zu verwalten hatte, gab mit so viel zu tun, dass ich in unserer Gegend kein Samen für Sie sammeln konnte; eine Person welche ich sonst dazu gebrauchte, ward durch die Ruhr lange unbrauchbar gemacht, und ein andrer Mann, der nebst mir D[oktor] Schöpf den nämlichen Auftrag machte, hat so viel ich weiß nicht gesammelt. From Schreber, 05/17/1787, HSP Coll. 443. Engelhardt, Erlangen (Register), 6–8; Engelhardt, Erlangen 2, 173; Kötter, Poll and Schug, Verzeichnis I, 328. Glaßer, Personalbibliographien, 77. Earlier, Schreber had announced: Ich muss auf dem nächsten Freitag das Prorektorat unserer Universität bis zum 4ten November übernahmen, und verschieden dazu zu machende Zubereitungen haben mir alle diejenige Zeit vollends hinweg genommen, die mir von den übrigen Geschäften übrig blieb. From Schreber, 05/01/1787, HSP Coll. 443. 207 Engelhardt, Erlangen, 198. 208 Zugleich aber bedaure ich und bitte sehr um Vergebung, daß ich nicht sogleich mit den Namen derer Gräser und übrigen Gewächse, die schon bekannt sind, aufwarten, und Ihnen hierdurch meine Dankbarkeit sowohl als Dienstbegierde bezeigen kann. Ich muß auf dem nächsten Freytag das Prorectorat unserer Universität bis zum 4ten November übernehmen, und verschiedene dazu zu machende Zubereitungen haben mir alle diejenige Zeit vollends hinweg genommen, die mir von den übrigen Geschäften übrig blieb. From Schreber, 05/01/1787, HSP Coll. 443. See also Schreber’s letters to to Mühlenberg dated 05/17/1787 and 10/08/1787, all in HSP Coll. 443. 209 Ich bin izt auf unserer Universität Prorector, und dieses Amt, welches bis zum 4ten November währet, ist mit so vielen heterogenen Geschäften und Zerstreuungen verbunden, daß ich wenig mein eigener Herr bin. Ich habe daher noch nicht das Vergnügen haben können, alle mir gütigst zugesandten Gewächse durchzugehen und die Nomenclatur derselben zu machen, welche ich daher auch noch nicht senden kan. From Schreber, 07/22/1791, HSP Coll. 443.

200

Letters from an American Botanist

cine, which brought about even more responsibilities. Additionally, Delius had been president of the German Academy of Natural Researchers Leopoldina, located in Erlangen at the time. This position needed to be filled, too.210 Schreber had good reason to be proud of this new honour conferred on him,211 but he soon found himself buried in administrative work, which he confided with obvious contrition to his friend in Lancaster: The inescapable rise in business associated with this position have hindered me from completing the register for your last two packages of plants (…).212 Nevertheless, his own failure to honor his promises to Mühlenberg did not prevent Schreber to ask him to exhort his fellow countrymen to contribute to collecting for the Leopoldina.213 Mühlenberg himself had been awarded membership in the academy.214 There is no direct response to Schreber’s request in any of Mühlenberg’s subsequent letters. Unlike Schöpf, who had been forced to abandon his studies of natural history as a result of his professional reorientation, Schreber continued to write, but direct responses to Mühlenberg’s interests became rare. Instead, the Erlangen publisher 210 Delius had presided over the society from 1788 to 1791. The University of Erlangen was its center from 1785 to 1818, providing five presidents from its faculty, Schreber and Delius included. Engelhardt, Erlangen (Register), 8, 63; Jaenicke, “Naturwissenschaften,” 635; Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Delius,” 211 E[ue]r Hochwürden habe ich die Ehre zu melden, dass ich nach dem im Oktober v[origen] J[ahres] plötzlich erfolgten Ableben des sel[igen] H[errn] von Delius zum Präsidenten der Kaiserlich Akademien der Naturforscher erwählet worden bin. (...). From Schreber, 05/30/1792, HSP Coll. 443. Not only had he been elected nearly unanimously with 14 out of 15 votes, but Prince Friedrich Karl Alexander had agreed without delay to his election to the most prestigious and traditional scientific office in the Holy Roman Empire. The Academia Naturae Curiosorum had been founded in the free imperial city of Schweinfurt on January 1, 1652, and was made an imperial academy in 1687 by Emperor Leopold I (1640–1705), renaming it Sacri Romani Imperii Academia Caesareo-Leopoldina Naturae Curiosorum. With the imperial confirmation of its charter came a series of privileges, such as an exemption from official censorship, and official protection for the society’s copyrights for its publications, making the office of president one of the central places of contemporary scientific Germany. 212 Die bei Überwachen dieser Stelle unvermeidlich gewesenen gehäufteren Geschäfte haben mich gehindert, das Verzeichnis der beiden letzten Pflanzensendungen (…) zu Stande zu bringen (…). From Schreber, 05/30/1792, HSP Coll. 443. 213 Und darf ich nicht zugleich die Bitte hinzufügen (…) auch andre Liebhaber und Kenner der Naturgeschichte und Arzneikunde in den vereinigten Staaten, die aus Deutschland herstammen und noch einige Liebe für das Mutterland haben, zur Teilnehmung an den Bemühungen der ältesten Akademie von Deutschland, zum allgemeinen Besten, so tätig Teil zu nehmen, als es in den ältesten Zeiten der Akademie vor nun mehren hundert Jahr und mehr Jahren, ein Cleyer, Jager, Rumpf u[nd] a[ndere] in Ostindien taten? Es würde mir ein unbeschreibliches Vergnügen sein, wenn durch dero Bemühungen ein Zweig der Akademie in Amerika sich verbreiten wollte! From Schreber, 05/31/1794, HSP Coll. 443. The individuals mentioned here are Andreas Cleyer (about 1634–about 1697), Herbert Jaeger (no data available), and Georg Eberhard Rumpf (about 1637–about 1706). 214 He was admitted as No 934, den 3. Juli [1791] Dr. Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg, cogn[omen] Hierothus IV, evangelischer Pastor zu Lancaster im Staat Pennsylvanien in Nordamerika, erster Curator der Franklinischen Akademie daselbst. Neigebaur, Leopoldino, 238. Schöpf had also been made a member in May 1789, his cognomen being “Americus II.” Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 53; Geus, Schöpf, 102.

Transatlantic Botany

201

Johann Jacob Palm (1750–1826) first contacted Mühlenberg in the summer of 1796, excusing both men for their continued negligence of him.215 The death of the Erlangen faculty member Jacob Friedrich Isenflamm (1726–1793) in 1793 extended Schreber’s workload even further, for which he apologized to Mühlenberg in September 1796, confessing his determination to continue with him at the same time.216 Whether or not he honored his promise, it made Mühlenberg again fully aware of the fact that he still depended heavily on help from Erlangen, as his own herbarium was still far from being in a useful state for a serious botanist. Cryptogamia and grasses still mean a lot of effort for me to deal with, he had confided in his last letter to Schöpf in 1790. Generally, an American Botanicus, who finds himself in far distances from botanical gardens and education by experienced men, still meets with more difficulties than a European Botanicus would.217 By that time, it had already dawned on him that he would have to solicit help from other Europeans, if Schreber and Schöpf found themselves unable to answer his needs. Unexpected help came in the person of Georg Franz Hoffmann (1761–1821), a former assistant of Schreber at Erlangen. 2.11 Hoffmann goes to Göttingen I am attaching Mr Hofmann’s description of the willow. Mr Hofmann is a young man with good botanical knowledge and much adroitness in drawing,218 Schreber 215 Herr Ge[ehrter?] Hofr[ath] von Schreber hat leyder so viele Amts- und gelehrte Arbeiten, daß er nur sehr langsam an denen in meinem Verlag angefangenen Naturhist[orischen] Werken fortarbeiten kann. Das M[anu]s[cri]pt[um] zu Schoepfs Flora Americana hat er seit 1791 in Händen und dürfte solche nur zum Druk befördern, ebenso Swartz Icones Plantar. incogn. India quid wovon alle 200 Zeichnungen vorräthig liegen, aber leyder erste 6. gesochen und ausgegeben sind. Der gute Mann übernimmt aus Menschengefälligkeit zu viel für eigen Besorgung und läßt also alles liegen. From Palm, 08/15/1796, APS Film 1097. 216 Leider aber muss ich bedauern, dass mich seit dem Ableben meines lieben Collegen Isenflamer, die Menge und der Drang der Officialarbeiten in dem Bestreben Ihnen nützlich zu sein sehr zurückgesetzt haben. Ich schäme mich, dass ich in der Beantwortung Ihrer Zuschriften, in den Äußerung meiner Meinungen bei Ihren Zweifeln, und in der Bestimmung der letzten von Ihnen erhaltenen Gewächse so habe zurückbleiben müssen, ohne es ändern zu können. Jetzt habe ich nun herzlich erwünschtere Aussichten; die Zahl meiner Herren Mitarbeiter mehret sich und ich darf also auch mehrere Muse rechnen. Wenn Sie also künftig sich meines Dienstes in Erforschung der Gewächse Ihres Landes wieder werden bedienen wollen, so wird Sie weniger Ursach haben mit mir unzufrieden zu sein. From Schreber, 09/16/1796, HSP Coll. 443. Autenrieth, who had tried in vain to attract Schreber‘s attention as intermediator with North America must have confirmed Mühlenberg‘s expectations of what to expect from Schreber: Auch Ihre Freunde in Deutschland leben noch alle, wenn auch gleich einige, wie Schreber undankbar genug sind, keinem Menschen zu antworten, Autenrieth wrote from Tübingen in June of 1797. From Autenrieth, 06/26/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. 217 Cryptogama und Gräser machen mir noch immer viel Mühe wie überhaupt ein Americanischer Botanicus, fern von botanischen Gärten und dem Unterricht erfarener Männer, mehr Schwürigkeit findet als der Europäische. To Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III. 218 Ich füge des H[er]rn Hofmanns, eines jungen Mannes der gute botanische Kenntnis und viel Geschicklichkeit im Zeichnen hat, Beschr[eibung] der Weide bei. Schreber continued: Er wird

202

Letters from an American Botanist

wrote to Mühlenberg in May 1787. It was probably the first time that he learned about the 26-year-old Hoffmann, who was just about to finish his habilitation at Erlangen and would be promoted to the position of extraordinary professor of pharmacology shortly later.219 Hoffmann, a native of Marktbreit am Main, had received his first courses in botany from his uncle Johann Adam Hoffmann (1707–1781) before he concentrated on the subject during his studies with Schreber from 1780 to 1787.220 In 1792 he accepted a call by the University of Göttingen, and just shortly before he moved there, he contacted Mühlenberg in late 1791.221 With Hoffmann in Göttingen, Mühlenberg connected to old pietist and family traditions. Not only had the university originally been modelled after Francke’s educational ideals embodied by the educational complexes at Glaucha near Halle, but his own father, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, had been one of the first students there in March 1735.222 Telling Mühlenberg about the recent developments of his young career in November 1792, Hoffmann also freely admitted that he had left on bad terms.223 It is not easy to maintain a close personal connection with Mr Professor Schreber in Erlangen on account of his character. For this reason, I am very content with the improvement and change of my personal situation.224 Clearly, Hoffmann and Schreber had taken a serious disliking of each other, although the real reasons for their conflict remain unclear behind sarcastic allusions, diatribes and warnings to Mühlenberg not to correspond with the respective dieses Werk fortsetzen, und wenn Ew. Hochehrwürden die Gütigkeit haben wollen, mich mit trockenen Exemplaren der Weide Ihrer Gegend von beiderlei Sexii, zu versehen, so will ich besorgen dass recht schöne Vorstellungen davon mit hinein kommen sollen, falls Ihnen dieses angenehm ist. From Schreber, 05/01/1787, HSP Coll. 443. 219 According to Engelhardt, Hoffmann was promoted extraordinary professor in 1790, rather than in 1789, as Glas suggests. Engelhardt, Erlangen, 59; Glas, Palm, 90; Engelhardt, Erlangen (Register), 11; See also Wagenitz, “Anfänge,” 15. 220 Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Ärzte aller Zeiten und Völker, s.v. “Hoffmann, G.F,” Engelhardt, Erlangen, 65. 221 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 512. The actual date of Hoffmann’s first letter cannot be established. A passage from Hoffmann‘s second letter from November 20, 1792, proves that Hoffmann actually contacted Mühlenberg: Noch ehe ich weiter schreibe muss ich Ihnen von meiner Ortsveränderung benachrichtigen. Ehehin stand ich als Prof. Medicinae in Erlangen, woher Sie meinen ersten Brief durch den Buchhändler Palm erhalten haben. From Hoffmann, 11/20/1792, HSP Coll. 443. See also Glas, Palm, 90. 222 Wilson, Pious Traders, 24. “The close connection between the University of Göttingen and American cultural life begins with Mühlenberg, who was one of ist first matriculants in March 1735.” Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mühlenberg, Henry Melchior,” 223 Noch ehe ich weiter schreibe muss ich Ihnen von meiner Ortsveränderung benachrichtigen. Ehehin stand ich als Prof[essor] Medicinae in Erlangen, woher Sie meinen ersten Brief durch den Buchhändler Palm erhalten haben. In der Zeit starb Fr[ei]h[er]r Murray (…) zu Göttingen, und die Wahl als Nachfolger desselben fiel auf mich, so dass ich mich nun schon ¾ Jahr in Göttingen als Professor der Med[icin] und Botanik befinde. From Hoffmann, 11/20/1792, HSP Coll. 443. Johann Andreas Murray (1740–1791), a Swedish botanist of Scottish descent, studied with Linnaeus and accepted a call to Göttingen in 1760. 224 Mit H[er]rn Prof[essor] Schreber in Erlangen lässt sich wegen seines Characters nicht gut in der Nähe bekannt sein, so dass ich mit der Verbesserung und Veränderung meiner Lage schon in der Rücksicht zufrieden bin. From Hoffmann, 01/05/1794, HSP Coll. 443.

Transatlantic Botany

203

other.225 For Mühlenberg, however, this was a fortunate situation. With two botanists competing for his attention, it would have been easy to demand a much quicker and more extensive handling of his specimens. Instead, Mühlenberg appeared insecure about what to make of the situation. In his diary he noted in April 1792: Hofman has sent me 26 specimens of Cryptogamia, all of which are too small. I will also send him some but only those I cannot determine. Nine of every genus, but I really should not get involved with him as he does not seem to be on good terms with Schreber.226 In March of the following year, he received a letter from Hoffmann, which he obviously registered as an exhilarating diversion from Schreber’s apparent indolence. He resolved to send him what he had originally collected for Schreber, which illustrates his discontent with the Erlangen scientist at the time.227 A margin note on the same page, written some months later, shows that he could feel fully confirmed in this decision: Hofmann, Palm and Carl have answered my letters. Schreber and Schöpf have not yet.228 The botanical exchange that ensued with Hoffmann basically copied the pattern of Mühlenberg’s earlier exchange with Schreber.229 He would send new or non-descript specimens to Göttingen, while Hoffmann applied his excellent skills and her225 Die kryptogamischen sollen hernach auch an die Reihe kommen, Schreber acknowledged in May 1792, und vielleicht werde ich Ihnen davon mehrere, als der Herr Professor Hoffman, dem das Glück gefehlt hat nach Göttingen an Murrays Stelle befördert zu werden, liefern können. It is unclear whether Schreber tried here to convince Mühlenberg, at least for the moment, that Hoffmann was in fact not yet installed at Göttingen, or whether he was actually still ignorant of Hoffmann’s call. From this period, there are no letters between Schreber and Hoffmann to elucidate the matter. Hoffmann, in turn, warned Mühlenberg indirectly not to send specimens via Schreber: Wie ich höre so hat Hofr[ath] Schreber erst kürzlich über Hamburg eine Liste und zwei amerikanische Eichsamen von Ihnen erhalten. Ist etwas für mich dabei? So glaube ich aber kaum es zu erhalten da wir in kein weiter Verbündnis miteinander stehen und Schrebers Character nichts weniger als mitteilend ist. See Schreber to Mühlenberg, 05/30/1792, and Hoffmann to Mühlenberg, 01/05/1794, both in HSP Coll. 443. 226 Hofman hat mir 25 Cryptog[amia] aber zu kleine Ex[emplare] geschickt ich werde ihm auch überschick[en] aber solche die ich nicht ausmach[en] kann. Von Jeder Art 9, doch solte ich mich nicht mit ihm einlassen weil er nicht scheint mit Schreber eins zu sein. He continued: Wenn er mir so. Bücher schikt, wäre mirs liebe _ Nur Lichenes? (...) Ich will an Hofman 25 Lichenes schick und zwar lauter solche die ich noch nicht an Schreber geschickt _ doch auch perforetis. (...) ich kann ihm auch meld welche ich schon habe damit er mir nicht Dubletten schickt (…). See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for April 14, 1792. 227 16. [März 1793] habe ich Antwort von Hofman auf meinen erst Brief bekome. Er hat gleich geantwortet. Brief dat[iert] Nov[ember] 20. 1792 und ich werde mich weiter mit ihm einlassen und ihm gleich nach Ostern einen Pack von Cryptog[amia] zurecht machen. Ich will schicken was ich noch nicht an Schreber geschickt oder was mir derselbe noch nicht bestimmt hat. Es ist immer beßer ich lege die Hälfte des Exemplars zurück, damit ich in meiner Sache gewiß bin, ich solte auch keine Exemplare nehmen als wo ich datum dazu gesetzt, damt ich es wieder find kann. Auch andre plantas adversar[ias] will ich ihm von nun an schick, da Schreber schon genug hat u[nd] er doch wohl nur für Schöpfens Werk davon Gebrauch macht. See Flora Lancastriensis. APS 580 M89f, entry for March 16, 1793. 228 Hofman Palm u[nd] Carl haben mir geantwortet. Schreber u[nd] Schöpf noch nicht. Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for March 16, 1793. 229 See respective exchange charts, Appendix D, on pages 541, 545. See also Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326.

204

Letters from an American Botanist

barium to provide him with the correct Linnean names and nomenclatural specifications. I am ready for everything, Hoffmann assured him in his second letter. You may wish for a buyer, contact with learned men or book traders and I will execute your order at once. Now for your Cryptogamia. Above all I must ask you for more and larger specimens in future sendings. Some of them cannot be determined (…) with absolute certainty, while others, which I would like to use and to make known as new specimens communicated to me by you, I wish to own it in a state as perfect as possible. This is also true for all other plants (…). In return, everything from our garden and our collections will be at your disposal. And now for the names of your small Cryptogamia, along with the numbers, just as they fall into my hands.230 For a while, Hoffmann actually seemed a perfect substitute for Schreber and Schöpf and with his help, Mühlenberg managed to continue with his own herbarium and botanical diaries. 2.12 Palm in Erlangen Schreber and Schöpf had already forfeited most of their scientific credit and good standing with Mühlenberg, but Erlangen was still a scientific hub of imperial Germany. Therefore, giving up all contact was hardly an option for Mühlenberg, however distressing Schöpf’s and Schreber’s behavior might have appeared to him. In the early 1790s, a new Erlangen-based correspondent came to the fore in the person of the book trader Johann Jakob Palm (1750–1826). Palm had already been collaborating intensely with Schreber on the publication of several scientific works in previous years and was in constant need of fresh botanical literature – especially after Schreber found less and less time to write himself. Palm came from a family with a medical background, and his father’s connections secured him an apprenticeship with a book trader “Erhard” at Stuttgart, followed by a six-year internship with a book trader “Brönner” at Frankfurt. When it was time to start his own shop, the University of Erlangen promised good business, so Palm established his trade there sometime around the year 1780.231 The business grew rapidly in the following 230 Ich bin zu allem bereit. Sie mögen nun einer Käufer, oder Bekanntschaften mit Gelehrten, oder Buchhändlern wünschen und werde Ihren Auftrag auf das pünktlichste besorgen. Nun zu Ihren Kryptogamen. Vor allen Dingen muss ich in der Folge um größere und mehrere Exemplare bitten. Manche lassen sich (…) nicht sicher erkennen, und andre die ich gerne benutzen und als neue von Ihnen mir mitgeteilte Arten bekannt machen musste, möchte ich so vollkommen als möglich besitzen. Dieses gilt auch von allen anderen Pflanzen, (…). Es steht Ihnen dafür aus unserem Garten, und unseren eigenen Sammlung alles zu Diensten. Es folgen hier einf[ach] wieder so wie nur die Nummern in die Hände fallen, Namen zu ihren kleinen Kryptogamen. From Hoffmann, 11/20/1792, HSP Coll. 443. See also Hoffmann‘s letter to Mühlenberg, 01/05/1794, HSP Coll. 443: Von Ihren übersandten Moose erhalten Sie überall die Bestimmung soweit ich solche zu geben imstand bin. At the end of his life, Hoffmann’s herbarium consisted of more than 9,000 species, some 8,000 of which were flowering plants. Balandin names P. S. Pallas, Ch. F. Stephan, or J. M. F. Adams as Hoffmann’s major contributors, but makes no mention of Mühlenberg. Balandin, “Herbarium Linnaeum,” 329. 231 Glas, Palm, 10. The first proof of Palm’s presence at Erlangen is a document granting him the

Transatlantic Botany

205

years, especially after he married favourably and was to inherit a sizeable fortune in the future. By the time of his first letter to Mühlenberg in 1791, he had already acquired a regional reputation,232 and his impressive catalogue of publications, compiled by Christine Glas in 1988, features the names of several of Mühlenberg’s correspondents: Schöpf, Schreber, Hoffmann, Olof Swartz (1760–1818),233 Christian Hendrik Persoon (1761–1836),234 Georg Friedrich Seiler (1733–1807)235 and Carl Daniel Heinrich Bensen (1761–1805), a cousin of Mühlenberg.236 The motivation for the correspondence between Palm and Mühlenberg was not botanical, but rather economic in nature. Palm’s experience in the book trade led Mühlenberg to think that he could scan the German market for botanical literature much easier than before. Correspondingly, books were still the most precious commodity of exchange for Mühlenberg after specimens, as he still felt that there was a lot left to learn for him. Consequently, the few letters they exchanged mostly dealt with book deals and payment details.237 Palm, in turn, was hoping to find new markets for his books in America. 238 Most probably, Schreber and Schöpf had given status of Universitätsbürger in 1780. Palm argues, however, that access to the status was limited to highly trusted citizens, and since 1770 connected to a number of strict preconditions, which suggests that Palm actually arrived a lot earlier than 1780. Glas, Palm, 17. 232 In Erlangen existiren zwo Buchhandlungen, die aber durch ihre starke Büchervorräthe, durch ihre Thätigkeit und Connexionen von mehr Belang sind, als bisweilen ein halbes Dutzend zusammen genommen. Man kennt sie unter den Namen: die Waltherische und Palmische. Despite this being an advertisement, Glas gives the statement some credit. Glas, Palm, 22. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 521f. For Palm’s inheritance of the Schleich’s bookshop see Glas, Palm, 11. 233 For Mühlenberg’s correspondence with Swartz see below on pages 350f. 234 For Mühlenberg’s correspondence with Persoon see below on page 251f. 235 Erlangen University faculty member and Lutheran theologian Georg Friedrich Seiler was not an actual correspondent of Mühlenberg, as the following passages reveal. In 1785, Schreber informed him that Seiler intended to send him several of his own books. Unser zweyter Prof. Theologiae, Hr. D. Seiler macht sich um die theologische Litteratur durch viele ungleiche Schriften, sonderlich solche die beym Erziehungswesen gebraucht werden können und auch wirklich bey uns in Teutschland sehr häufig gebraucht werden, verdient. Er wünscht auch Ihren Landsleuten, die sich der teutschen Sprache bedienen, hierdurch nützlich zu werden, und hat mir versprochen; von den vornehmsten derselben mir ein Exemplar für Ew. Hochehrwürden zu zustellen, damit Sie solche prüfen, und wenn Sie sie zweckmäßig finden, weiter empfehlen mögen. From Schreber, 03/05/1785, HSP Coll. 443. Later the same year, Mühlenberg answered: H[er]r D. Seiler, an den ich meine gehorsamste Empfehlung zu machen bitte, ist mir durch seine Schriften sehr bekannt. Ich habe viele davon, und schätz sie hoch. To Fabricius, 11/01/1785, AFSt/M 4 D 20. The two men exchanged a few books via Palm and Schreber, but never made contact themselves. For biographical data on Seiler, especially with regard to his life at Erlangen, see Engelhardt, Erlangen, 58–60, 89; and Engelhardt, Erlangen (Register), 16. 236 Glas, Palm, 114f. 237 See, for instance, the following passage from Palm’s first letter. Außer den ordinierten Büchern habe ich noch einige zur weiteren gütigen Bekanntmachung beygelegt, worunter ein botanisches Taschenbuch von Herrn Professor Hofmann, von dem ich viele Empfehlungen machen soll und auch ein Päkchen Pflanzen mitfolgt, gewiß vielen Beyfall werden erhalten wird. From Palm, 07/27/1791, APS Film 1097. 238 Sollten Sie mir nicht Bekanntschaft mit einem braven und soliden Buchhändler entweder in Amerika oder in Spanien für meinen Verlag machen können, [illegible] ein Catalogus in der

206

Letters from an American Botanist

him the idea to contact Mühlenberg for this reason, although there is no direct quote to support this.239 In general, the Palm correspondence is surprisingly small and shows long gaps in time, quite similar to Mühlenberg’s contact with Benjamin Smith Barton.240 According to the Palm biographer and bibliographer Christine Glas, Palm was not a particularly passionate letter-writer anyway, which explains this rather “holey” list of letters.241 Also, some business between them was conducted indirectly via Schreber, while the three actually extant letters from Palm appear to be mere balance accounts of recent booksales rather than proper letters. A contemporary entry from Mühlenberg’s diary shows, however, that he was not altogether satisfied with Palm. He does not trade honestly, and I can only order books that he publishes and no others, except for those he has on sale, he noted in April 1792. Glas confirms that this was common business practice with Palm, who preferred to pay even his authors in books from his own printing press rather than in money or royalties.242 Much to Mühlenberg’s surprise, one of his own relatives from Einbeck, his cousin Karl Daniel Heinrich Bensen (1761–1805), was another business partner of Palm’s book trade. The two men had corresponded sporadically during the late 1780s, prior to Bensen’s move to Erlangen.243 In 1794, Bensen came from Göttingen to establish himself as a law instructor at the University of Erlangen and soon began to augment his salary by collaborating with Palm.244 Bensen had also been a student of Francke’s Latin school from 1775 to 1778, then went on to study theology, history and philosophy at Göttingen (1778–1781), worked for a while as a substitute teacher, and finally became a law student at Erlangen (1791–1793).245 Kiste sich findet? Sie würden mich durch diese Gefälligkeit sehr verbinden. From Palm, 07/27/1791, APS Film 1097. 239 See, for instance, Schöpf’s Materia Medica, which he had compiled using a notebook by Mühlenberg, and which was published by Palm in 1787. 240 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 497 and 521f. 241 “[Palms] Autoren gehörten zum Großteil der Universität Erlangen an. Sie waren dadurch fast ständig zu erreichen, wenn es um Terminabsprachen und Beseitigung der verschiedensten Probleme ging. Palm konnte sich damit umfangreiche und zeitraubende Briefwechsel sparen, was eine ungeheure Arbeitserleichterung bedeutete,” Glas, Palm, 22. 242 [Er] handelt nicht ehrlich, und ich kann nur solche Bücher veschreib[en] die er verlegt u[nd] keine andren es sei denn Verkaufsbücher. Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for April 14, 1792. Glas, Palm, 114f. 243 Es war in den Jahren 87 oder 88 als ich Ihren letzten Brief aus Lancaster erhielt, Bensen wrote in 1796. Ich war damals noch Lehrer auf dem Pädagogium in Halle. Seit der Zeit hat es mir an Gelegenheit gefählt den so glücklich mit Ihnen angefangenen Briefwechsel wieder fortzusetzen. Freund Palm ist der Erste der mir wieder einen Weg zu Ihnen eröfnet. From Bensen, 08/14/1796, APS Film 1097. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 498. 244 Ich ergrif also die Gelegenheit, die sich mir darbot, zwey Freyherren von der Stadt, die bis dahin meine Schüler gewesen waren, unter sehr guten Bedingungen auf Academien als Hofmeister, zu begleiten. Ich wählet zuerst Erlangen. Blieb hier zwey Jahr, und studierte mit ihnen erstlich die Rechte. Ging darauf nach Göttingen, von da ich Ostern 1794 hirher zurück kam und als Doctor der Rechte promovirte.Seit der Zeit lese ich theils juristische theils cameralistische Kollegien, und, wie ich mir schmeicheln darf, nicht ohne Beyfall, weil mein Auditarium immer sehr gut besucht ist. From Bensen, 08/14/1796, APS Film 1097. 245 Kötter, Poll and Schug, Verzeichnis I, 46.; Engelhardt, Erlangen, 80; Glas, Palm, 83.

Transatlantic Botany

207

Together with Palm he began to publish the Neue Archiv für Gelehrte, Buchhändler und Antiquare in 1795, which contained reviews, subscription lists and book lists on latest development in the book trade.246 Bensen’s first letter to Mühlenberg from Erlangen contained a detailed narration of his own biography until 1796 and general family news. My old father is still alive, but he does not live anymore in the house where you first made his acquaintance, but with my oldest brother, he informed his cousin in Lancaster, which also suggests that the two had met in 1763 or in 1770, when young Mühlenberg traveled to Einbeck and Clausthal to meet his relatives.247 In the 1790s and later, Mühlenberg and Bensen would collaborate on a number of transatlantic inheritance transactions. Although Schreber lost in importance to Mühlenberg after the emergence of all these new correspondents and especially Hoffmann at Göttingen, Schreber’s network continued to influence the development of Mühlenberg’s network. Apart from Olof Swartz, Johann Hedwig and Karl Ludwig Willdenow, future correspondents of Mühlenberg, with whom Schreber already stood in contact from 1783 to 1790,248 Heinrich Adolph Schrader (1767–1836) and Christian Schkuhr (1741–1811) were added to this list in the 1790s. Schreber’s correspondence with Schkuhr seems to have been a teacher-student relationship which resembled the early botanical exchange between Mühlenberg and Schreber. The few letters still extant in Erlangen suggest that Schkuhr provided specimens for Schreber from his many travels, asking for their identification in return.249 Schrader had a different reason to contact the Erlangen scientist. Working mostly in the fields of cryptogamics respectively mosses, he needed an intermediary to contact Swartz in Stockholm, who was then one of the best-known authorities in this field.250 Schreber was obviously intrigued by the package of cryptogamic specimens Schrader had sent him, and the request led to a longer exchange of thoughts. A passage from a letter in 1796 illustrates how dense the network that Mühlenberg had tapped was to become, and that Schrader was already in contact with Johann Hedwig (1730–1799).251

246 Glas, Palm, 39, 43. 247 Mein alter Vater lebt immer noch aber er wohnt nicht mehr in dem Hause wo Sie ihn haben kennen lernen sondern bey meinem ältesten Bruder. From Bensen, 08/14/1796, APS Film 1097. 248 See Appendix E: Network Phase 1, page 550. 249 See Schkuhr’s letters to Schreber dated 10/20/1793 and 03/11/1797, both in UAE Briefnachlass Schreber; two more letters were undated. For the Schkuhr-Mühlenberg contact from about 1800 to 1811, see on pages 313f. 250 Schrader to Schreber, 09/28/1793, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 251 Herrn Prof[essor] Hoffmann Hohlagn. ligulatum ist nichts anders, als eine kleine Varietät des Hohl. sphaerica. Auch Herr Prof[essor] Hedwig, dem Herr Persoon einige Exemplare zugeschickt hatte, ist derselben Meinung. Das Hypn. pulmosum, wo von ich nun vorläufig ein kleines Exemplar beylegen kann, weil ich bessere diesen Sommer für E[ue]r Hochwohlgeb[oren] einlegen werde, hat Herr Prof. Hoffmann nirgends in Deutschland gefunden, auch von keinem deutschen Botaniker erhalten, aber es war aufgeführt, weil er glaubt daß es sich vielleicht noch finden würde! Ich war so glücklich dasselbe vor 1 1/2 Jahren auf dem Harz zu beobachten. Es scheint indeß zu den seltenen deutschen Moosen zu gehören, denn mir ist es in keiner anderen Gegend weiter vorgekommen. Schrader to Schreber, 03/29/1796, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

208

Letters from an American Botanist

Hedwig, in turn, had received a package with a microscope from Schreber at a much earlier point in time.252 Most likely, it was also through Schreber that Hedwig received news of Mühlenberg’s special interest in Linnaeus’ famous 24th class, the Cryptogamia.253 Swartz, Schreber, Schkuhr and Schrader had all been working in cryptogamics for quite a while, and specimens from this class became a standard botanical commodity in Mühlenberg’s exchanges in the 1790s. Cryptogamia and grasses still mean a lot of effort for me to deal with,254 he had confessed in 1790 to Schöpf. Especially Johann Hedwig was to turn out extremely knowledgeable and helpful in this field, as he was was considered the undisputed authority on cryptogamia during the final two decades of the 18th century. 2.13 Johannes Hedwig’s Cryptogamia Despite his pioneering and important groundwork in the botanical subfield of bryology, which is primarily concerned with the study of mosses and worts, biographical data on Hedwig is very limited. Born in Kronstadt, the modern Romanian town of Brasov, on October 8, 9 or 10 in 1730, he received basic schooling in Bratislava and Zittau. There he also began his medical studies in 1752, which he financed by odd jobs in the botanical garden. Seven years later he received his doctoral degree and, after a brief sojourn in his hometown Kronstadt, he went to Chemnitz to start his career as a physician.255 There is no definite date for the beginning of Hedwig’s and Mühlenberg’s botanical correspondence. Mühlenberg first planned to contact him around 1790,256 but it is only in 1796 that a link between the two can be established with certainty. Considering that Hedwig had already been a regular and close contact of Schreber for about 30 years at the time, and that Mühlenberg thanked Hedwig for his contributions to his Supplementum Indicis Florae Lancastriensis in late August 1796, it seems improbable that their contact only started as late as spring 1796.257 Sometime in the early 1760s, Hedwig contacted Johann Christian Daniel Edler von Schreber, who had just graduated in Uppsala, Sweden, and was about to begin his professional career in Bützow, which is located today in Mecklenburg-Vorpom252 Frahm, “Hedwig,” 4; Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 433. 253 Surprisingly, there are no letters from Hedwig to Schreber at the University Archives Erlangen, although the intimacy of their friendship is confirmed in almost every account of their contact. For a brief introduction to Linnaeus’ contributions and achievements in botanical nomenclature, see above on page 108f. 254 To Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III. 255 Frahm, “Hedwig,” 1–4; Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 431–433; Deleuze, Hedwig, 52f; 256 Ich will noch diesen Herbst an Aiton schreib (…). In Deutschland blieb Schreber, Hofmann und noch Hedwig, in Holland kenn ich keinen. Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for December 3, 1792. 257 See Muhlenberg, “Supplementum,” 242. Additionally, Hedwig‘s letter from February 1796 already mentions a “second package of plants“: Was N[ummer] 4. betrifft sind Sie in den Anm[erkungen] über die 2te Sendung N. 7. haben Sie recht, daß es Dik. t. 85 s. 18 ist. From Johann Hedwig, 02/08/1796, HSP Soc. Coll.

Transatlantic Botany

209

mern. Instead of the botanical literature he had asked for, Schreber sent him a microscope, which Hedwig would use during nearly 20 years of solitary studies to make some groundbreaking discoveries in bryology. In 1778, finally, he began to make his observations public,258 which almost over night earned him the title “Linnaeus of Mosses,” a prize of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, and the opportunity to continue his scientific career in Leipzig. In 1789, at the age of 59, he became professor of botany at the University of Leipzig.259 Mosses and worts were his favorite field of study, and his observations formed the basis of his fama. Both plant groups belonged to Linnaeus’ 24th class, whose reproductive organs the Swedish naturalist had not been able to detect by naked eye. Consequently, he had lumped them together with all others that could not be classified according to his sexual system of nomenclature. Schreber’s microscope and 20 years of research allowed Hedwig to discover not only plant sexuality in mosses and worts, but also enabled him to make further distinctions within the class.260 Naturally, the brief botanical correspondence between Hedwig and Mühlenberg focused specifically on cryptogamia. For the seeds and herbs you have sent me in the most affectionate manner I send you my best regards, Hedwig thanked Mühlenberg in one of his last letters prior to his death in 1799. What you have sent me of the first, I will sow and of whatever comes up and grows of these, I will send you notice. (…) Of the Cryptogamics I can tell you the following in all haste (…) Of the mosses taken from the first package, I now attach the enlarged register.261 Six years after Hedwig’s untimely death in 1799, Mühlenberg confessed to Smith in 258 Full title: “Vorläufige Anzeige meiner Beobachtungen von den wahren Geschlechtstheilen der Moose und ihrer Fortpflanzung durch Saamen,” Hedwig published it again in his Sammlungen seiner zerstreuten Abhandlungen und Beobachtungen über botanisch-ökonomische Gegenstände Vol. 1, edited by Johannes Hedwig, 1–25. Leipzig: Siegfried Friedrich Crusius, 1793. 259 Deleuze, Hedwig, 56–62, 74; Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 431; Frahm, “Hedwig,” 5f. 260 Frahm, “Hedwig,” 9; Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 433; Deleuze, Hedwig, 75–77; Morton, History, 287f.; Schiedt, “First President,” 514. In 1910, Hedwig’s posthumous publication of Species Muscorum Frondosorum (Leipzig 1801) was declared to be the starting point for bryophyte nomenclature, making his herbarium a type herbarium. Only American botanists disagreed and confirmed Linnaeus’ 1753 Species Plantarum for this purpose. Frahm, “Hedwig,” 9; Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 431; Price, Catalogue, 10. In his eulogy on Hedwig, Deleuze summarized Hedwig‘s contributions in the following manner: “Zwar wird denjenigen Männern Berühmtheit weit schneller zu Theil, die grosse Naturerscheinungen mahlen, sie durch glänzende Lehrgebäude entwickeln, und durch kühne Gedanken den weiten Umkreis der Wesen umfassen. (…) Wer hingegen mit einem Theil des Naturwissens sich beschäftigt, und durch eine bestimmte Erörterung dessen, was er erscheinen, oder hervor kommen sieht, Irrthümer zerstreut, und Stoff für die Kenntniß des Ganzen liefert, der erlangt zwar weit später seinen Namen, aber sein Ruf wächst mit den Jahren, und sein Zeugniß gilt bei allen denen, die allgemeinen Lehrgebäude aufstellen wollen,” Deleuze, Hedwig, 51. 261 Für die mir geneigtest mitgeschickten Samen und Kräuter sag ich Ihnen den verbindlichsten Dank. Was Sie mir von den ersteren schicken, werde ich aussähen und von dies was aufgegangen ist und geblüht hat, zur Berichtigung Nachricht geben. (…) Von den Cryptog[amischen] sag ich in der Geschwindigkeit folgendes (…) Von den Laubmoosen der ersten Sendung, lege ich hier nun das vergroesserte Verzeichnis bei. Johann Hedwig to Mühlenberg, 08/06/1798, HSP Coll. 443. See also: Nachstehend werden Sie das Verzeichnis Ihrer, auch nun durch gelauffen {Sen} vorletzten Sendung finden. Das Ausführliche erwartet Sie nach Michaelis wo ich mich

210

Letters from an American Botanist

London: The Cryptogamia Class still gives me a great deal of Trouble as I know hardly of any American Botanist who can assist me in the Class. My Friend J[ohannes] Hedwig died too soon for me and the Fungi which are innumerable can hardly be sent to Europe.262 This again followed the familiar pattern of exchange, as Mühlenberg procured specimens he knew were either undescribed or undiscovered, while Hedwig returned plant specifications in his variation of the Linnean code, which Mühlenberg would then note on the cards holding his specimens to be filed in his herbarium.263 In order to facilitate Mühlenberg’s work, Hedwig even provided him with a microscope, just like Schreber had done for him decades earlier.264 For many reasons, it is difficult to assess the scope of Hedwig’s own botanical correspondence network. First of all, Hedwig seems to have been one of the rare scientists during the early modern period to actually correspond to the stereotype of a “seclusive naturalist,” which modern history of science has tried to overcome for years. After 20 years of solitary studies, the publication of his discoveries in 1778 made him one of the best known contemporary scientists and popular botanical correspondent in Europe in a short period of time, which certainly distorts the view of his networking in retrospect. Additionally, Hedwig’s bequest and most of his letters have not survived, which reduces the chances of reconstructing his correspondence to accidental finds in the collections of former correspondents. So far, Olof Swartz in Sweden, Schreber in Erlangen, the Leipzig botanist Christian Friedrich Schwägrichen (1775–1853), who was another later correspondent of Mühlenberg, and the Swiss politician and publisher Paul Usteri (1768–1831) are cited as correspondents in the literature on Hedwig, who has not yet found a modern biographer.265 Apart from Usteri, all of them were correspondents of Mühlenberg as well. A letter from Schrader to Schreber suggests that the German-Dutch botanist Christian Hendrik Persoon (1761–1836) was also one of his botanical contacts.266 With Persoon, however, Mühlenberg would not establish contact after around gantz der Laubmoose, die ich von Ihrer Gütigkeit erhielt, zum Behuf meiner Species widmen werde. From Johann Hedwig, 08/27/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. 262 To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. See also a similar letter to Dawson Turner: Mosses I have gathered pretty generally. I send the most of them to John Hedwig my good and faithful Friend. He promised me the names of each, but unfortunately died before he could fulfill his promise. His Species Muscorum were sent for me but were lost, so I am yet unable to say how exact his Figures and Descriptions are. As far as I can judge from his Letters he more than once made 2 species where I could see but one and I fear the work has lost by his Death. To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. 263 See respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 540f. 264 From Johann Hedwig, 02/08/1796, HSP Soc. Coll. 265 Price, Catalogue, 8; Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 431; Frahm, “Hedwig,” 9; Deleuze, Hedwig, 56. The central online catalogue for manuscript holdings in Germany, “Kalliope,” lists only three entries for Johann Hedwig: Hedwig to Stoppelberg, undated, Francke Foundations Halle; Hedwig to Johann Christian Rosenmüller, 09/04/1792, Art Collection Veste Coburg; Hedwig to Unknown, 07/19/1792, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München. (See online references in bibliography). 266 Herrn Prof[essor] Hoffmann Hohlagn. ligulatum ist nichts anders, als eine kleine Varietät des Hohl. sphaerica. Auch Herr Prof[essor] Hedwig, dem Herr Persoon einige Exemplare zuge-

Transatlantic Botany

211

1800.267 Considering the enormous scientific value of Hedwig’s observations, it is very unlikely that his influence on Mühlenberg’s network was limited to the names cited above. 2.14 James E. Smith – Linnaeus’ English heir In reaction to Schreber’s negligence, Mühlenberg also contacted James Edward Smith (1759–1828), the owner of the original Linneaen herbarium and founder of London’s Linneaen Society. Smith was probably Mühlenberg’s most prominent contemporary botanical contact in all of his networking. Very early in his life, the son of a rich Norwich wooltrader received excellent teaching from a private tutor, including lessons in Latin, French and Italian, in all of which he was fluent before his teenage years. In 1781, the 22-year-old moved to Edinburgh to study medicine and botany with John Hope, the later teacher of Benjamin Smith Barton.268 It was here that he founded a natural history society in 1782, the “Society instituted here for the encouragement of the study of Natural History among students.” Meetings with scientific presentations were held every Friday from four in the afternoon to nine at night, and the society counted eminent future botanists like Jonathan Stokes, William Thomson, Richard Anthony Marksham, Thomas Hardy and the Swiss Jean Stockar among its founding members.269 Finding himself more and more disenchanted with medicine, and at the same time more and more enthralled by its “handmaiden” botany, he moved to London in the fall of 1783 with a letter of recommendation to Sir Joseph Banks in his pocket.270 This voyage to London brought him closer to botany, in many senses. Not only did he continue his studies along these lines, but he was also admitted to the ranks of Britain’s leading botanists, with Joseph Banks being his most prominent personal friend. During an invitation for breakfast at Banks’ home, the two men were confronted with the news that Carl Linnaeus’ son Carl Linnaeus the Younger (1741– 1783) had died, and that his own and his father’s botanical collections, correspondences and herbaria were now for sale. When Banks declined to buy them, Smith hurried to his father to convince him of the importance of this deal. He not only managed to get the funding, but he was also allowed to embark on a peregrinatio academica on the continent, while Linnaeus’ collections were stored safely for him at a house in London’s Great Marlborough Street.271 Meanwhile, his travels brought him to Leyden, where he received a doctorate degree, and then via Paris, Versailles,

267 268 269 270 271

schickt hatte, ist derselben Meinung. Schrader to Schreber, 03/29/1796, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. For their correspondence, see below on page 251. Walker, Smith, 1, 4; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 83 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 80–83; Allen, “Smith,” 485; Walker, Smith, 5. In 1802, the society counted a respectable number of 249 members. Allen, “Smith,” 484. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 83; Walker, Smith, 5. At Edinburgh, Francis Buchanan and William Younge kept the society running. Allen, “Smith,” 489. Walker, Smith, 7; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 83. Petersen claims that the herbarium was sold to Smith in 1778, when the elder Linnaeus died. Petersen, New World Botany, 276.

212

Letters from an American Botanist

Marseille and Aix-en-Provence to Italy, where he briefly stayed in Genoa, Pisa and Siena. On his return trip, he visited the tomb of Albrecht von Haller in Bern, and finally arrived back in London in February 1788 with a visitor’s book full of addresses of new “botanical friends” and potential correspondents.272 Just two months later, on April 8, 1788, he founded the Linnean Society of London with Linnaeus’ collections as the society’s basic capital and men like Banks, Goodenough and Marsham as members.273 While traveling on the continent, Smith had already begun to spin his own web of contacts, but it was only after he settled down in London in 1788 that he engaged in steady correspondences. Many of the men he met between Venice and Paris were instantly made members of the Linnean Society, which brought himself fame, international honors and several memberships in other scientific organizations.274 Smith was extremely quick in building up a reputation in science, for which a rather rare combination of talent and the extraordinary financial resources of his father were responsible. For this reason, Mühlenberg was in need of a middle-man to establish contact with Smith, despite his own growing fame. Additionally, relations between the young republic and England were still strained, which placed a lot of reconciliatory work on the shoulders of American physicians and scientists who had studied at Edinburgh, London or other places.275 It comes as no surprise then, that Mühlenberg asked Benjamin Rush to open the channel of communication for him. Enclosed you see a Letter to a Gentleman in England with whom I eagerly wish to get acquainted, he wrote to the Philadelphia doctor in November 1792. I find him described by D[octor] Stokes in Witherings Arrangement as the learned candid and ingenious Possessor of Linne Herbarium Library and Manuscripts, but no Place of Abode is mentioned.276 Apparently, Rush was unaware of Smith’s address as well, but finally advised Mühlenberg to send the letter via John C. Lettsome at London, whom Rush obviously asked to forward it.277 Mühlenberg first wrote a letter to Smith in late 1792, citing his Love of Botany and irresistible Desire to know the Plants of my native Country as the reason for his 272 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 83; Walker, Smith, 11, 15–17. Walker names in particular: Pierre Marie Auguste Broussonet (1761–1807), Charles Louis L’Héritier de Brutelle (1746–1800), Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748–1836), Clelia Durazzo Grimaldi (1760–1830), Adam Afzelius (1750–1837) and Carl Peter Thunberg (1743–1828). Walker, Smith, 18. 273 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 84; Walker, Smith, 18. 274 Allen, “Smith,” 488f.; Walker, Smith, 17–18; Smith was made an A.P.S. member in 1796. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 360; Petersen, New World Botany, 276. 275 For a short overview on the re-establishment of ties between American and English scientists, see above on page 115f. See also Greene, American Science, 8–11. 276 He continued: He has published Plantarum icones hactenus inedit. Londini 1789. 1790. with the Title Jacob. Edw. Smith M. D. You, my dear Sir, know or can hear from him, I dont doubt. You would oblige me very much if you could inform me where he lives, and forward the enclosed Letter by the Post to any of your Correspondents or to the Doctor himself, so that he might receive it safe and soon. To Rush, 11/26/1792, LibComp Benjamin Rush letters. 277 Mühlenberg’s letter of introduction to Smith carries the following address-lines: James Edward Smith M.D./to the particular care of Dr. Lettsom/Physician/London. To Smith, 12/01/1792, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc.

Transatlantic Botany

213

wish to correspond with him.278 Mühlenberg’s offer coincided with a general rise of transatlantic correspondents on Smith’s part, and for other members of his Edinburgh based natural history society. D. E. Allen has associated this trend with the outbreak of war with France.279 Dear Sir, Smith responded graciously. I have seldom received more pleasure from a letter than yours of Dec[ember] 1 last afforded me; never did I receive one so gratifying. I will not say to my vanity, but to better feelings. You cannot be more enthusiastically fond of botany than I am. (...) To botany I owe friendships and connexions I else could have had no chance of forming; (…) One part of your letter only gives me pain my dear Sir that where you express a doubt (however slight) lest I should not attend to it as it deserves. Allow me to say I am too covetous of your correspondence to turn it over to any body else.280 Despite these words, Smith’s view on American botany must be called rather sceptical at the time.281 Still, their correspondence is one of the most extensive, balanced and best preserved within this study. A total of 34 letters between Mühlenberg and Smith were exchanged from 1792 to 1813, almost half of them from 1792 to 1797, which makes the present phase in Mühlenberg’s network the most active and intense of their entire contact.282 With regard to the nature of their botanical exchange, Mühlenberg explained frankly what he expected and what he was willing to give in return: The “learned candid and ingenious Possessor of the Herbarium, Library and Manuscripts of the 2 Linnaei,” he quoted from a work by Stokes, could be my Oracle if his Time and Multiplicity of his Labours would permit him to assist me. I would send all the Plantas adversarias & Nondescriptas in good Order, numbered and beg of him to favour me with his Judgement, which of the Plants are allready described and by 278 Honoured and dear Sir,Pardon a stranger that intrudes upon your Studies. An enthusiastical Love of Botany and irresistible Desire to know the Plants of my native Country stimulate me to do it. Since a Number of Years I have endeavoured to explore the regnum vegetabile Americae Septentrionalis in particular of Pensilvania media. Partly I have been successfull and have gathered pretty near all the Plants of my Neighbourhood being upwards of 1200 in less then 10 Square Miles. To Smith, 12/01/1792, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 279 Most of these new correspondents around 1793 came from the British West Indies. Allen, “Smith,” 490. 280 From Smith, 03/06/1793, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 281 On occasion of the Linnean Society’s inauguration ceremony in 1788, Smith had mentioned American botany only in passing, but claimed in his speech that John Bartram was actually an Englishman. In Smith’s letters with Mühlenberg, however, none of this scepticism can be found. According to Ewan and Ewan, Benjamin Smith Collections for Materia Medica (1798) was dedicated to Smith with the express purpose to convince the London botanist that true “lovers of Botany” could also be found in America. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 84. 282 Smith’s letters, which can be found at the Linnean Society Archives at London, have even seen a partial edition done by his wife, briefly after Smith’s death. This edition, however, must be used with caution, as Walker points out: “She edited the memoirs of her husband and preserved most of his letters intact. Unfortunately, like many a widow before her and since, she destroyed passages in the letters and almost certainly entire letters, either because they were too personal or they represented her beloved husband in an unfavourable light. Fortunately a large quantity of letters remained, and from them it is possible to gain much insight into this remarkable man (...).” Walker, Smith, 55.

214

Letters from an American Botanist

what Name, and which are not described. Perhaps it would not be disagreeable to him, to have even some of the described Plants in his noble Herbarium, N[ova] S[pecies] certainly would be pleasing. So every Doubt would be cleared up and the Adversaria Americana be lessened.283 In fact, it was not primarily Smith’s botanical skills that intrigued the Lancaster botanist, but Linnaeus’ herbarium, especially Pehr Kalm’s North American specimen contributions, which made it so valuable to him.284 Smith accepted without delay, and the following exchange again mirrored Mühlenberg’s exchange with Schreber, as he delivered specimens, which made the London-based herbarium even more accurate and valuable, while Smith returned the correct names: I flatter myself Sir you will soon put in execution your intentions, and make me as useful as you can. You may depend on my utmost care and accuracy in comparing and examining your specimens, and I will honestly tell you my sentiments, with all my doubts when I have any, by no means hurrying over the business much less pretending to know more than I really do.285 There are some more indicators that Mühlenberg’s wish to establish contact with Smith were actually directly aimed to fill the gap which Schreber’s growing negligence had left in his network. In his first letter to Smith, Mühlenberg explained that [s]ome of my Doubts have been cleared up by my worthy Friend D[octor] Schreber, the Editor of the 8 Edit. Genera Plantarum, but very many remain.286 One year later, when his discontent with Schreber grew, Mühlenberg even asked Smith to help him control the validity of one of Schreber’s promises to him. [Schreber] sent last Fall a Box with natural Curiosities for me to M[iste]r White Bookseller in London, he explained to Smith, but I have never heard, whether M[iste]r White has 283 He continued: This, Sir, is the Reason of my troubling You, and may I hope to receive a favourable Answer? If my Offer is not disagreeable to you, pray do me the Honour and let me know to what Place I should send the dried Specimens and my future Letters, and be pleased to inform me, whether you want any particular Pennsylvanian Plant or Seed. Any Commands that way will punctually and with Pleasure be obeyed. To Smith, 12/01/1792, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 284 Walker points out that “[t]he importance of the Linnean collections then and now consists in their value for ascertaining the precise application of the scientific names for plants and animals published in Linnaeus’ works. The diagnoses and descriptions were so concise that, although they served to distinguish the species known to Linnaeus, they were inadequate when applied to the many species merely described verbally. Here there was a need to examine the material which Linnaeus himself had used.” Walker, Smith, 9. 285 Smith continued: The Linnean herbarium contains all the plants of Kalm, the original specimens from which Linn. described those plants in his Sp[ecies] Plant[aru]m I know also by certain marks all the original specimens of all his descriptions in different works – there can be no fallacy. In the latter part of life he sometimes mistook a plant, and put it into his herbarium wrong named, but in the former case we don’t even trust to his opinion, for the characters and descriptions were made from the very objects before us. The best way will be for you to send as distinct and compleat dried specimens as possible, with flowers and fruits, especially of new of uncertain genera, all numbered, that I may have only to mention each No. with my remarks. I shall indeed be [extremely?] thankful for wild specimens of any [new?] plants, to add to young Linnaeus’s herbarium, which is very fine and rich, but not in North American plants, though well furnished with East and West Indian, Peruvian and Madagascar and Cape plants. I have lately been working at Ferns. From Smith, 03/06/1793, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 547. 286 To Smith, 12/01/1792, APS Linnean Society.

Transatlantic Botany

215

forwarded it to Philadelphia or not, and fear it is lost. Should you be able to hear any Thing of it or to give him further Directions to forward the Box to Philadelphia, I will be under great Obligations to you for your Kindness.287 Smith’s answer was negative, and probably confirmed Mühlenberg’s worst expectations about his Erlangen contact.288 Another year later, Mühlenberg finally admitted to Smith: The unhappy Trouble[s] in the old Countrie have broke[n] up all my Correspondence with my German Friends. O may I find a new and constant Correspondent in your Person.289 Smith actually turned out to be a highly reliable and worthwile contact for some time, just like Hoffmann and Hedwig. With the help of this trio and within a few years, Mühlenberg succeeded in finishing his second publication for the A.P.S. Transactions, which he handed in on August 29, 1796. With great satisfaction, Mühlenberg wrote in its introduction, which was a supplement of his earlier Lancaster catalogue, I acknowledge the assistance I had from some of my friends, in making this supplement, in particular from D[octo]r James Edward Smith, the learned, the candid, and ingenious possessor of the Herbarium of the two Linnæi; from D[octo]r Hoffman, in Göttingen, and from D[octo]r Hedwig in Leipzig, both well known by their excellent works on Lichens and Mosses.290 As with Schreber and Schöpf, however, the time and help they could extend to Mühlenberg was limited. Hedwig died in 1799 and Hoffmann moved to Moscow 1805, while Smith’s frail health and other reasons began to affect their correspondence negatively after 1797. This is especially obvious in their list of correspondences which shows that nearly half of their letters were already exchanged during the first five years of their correspondence from 1792 to 1797.291 After this year, the annual rate dropped considerably, although their contact was never abandoned completely. 2.15 Changes at the Orphanage In the wake of Fabricius’ death in early 1790, a number of irregularities in his handling of Halle’s overseas trade were revealed, and his successor Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg292 struggled hard to come to terms with his predecessor’s erratic book

287 To Smith, 06/05/1793, APS Linnean Society. 288 M[iste]r White says he never received any box from Prof[essor] Schreber for you (...). From Smith, 05/07/1794, HSP Coll. 443. 289 To Smith, 06/12/1794, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1793–1795]. 290 Muhlenberg, “Supplementum,” 242. Maisch refers to the same article by the date of its public reading at the A.P.S., which was on September 16, 1796. The supplement contained 44 new genera, 62 species, and nine hitherto unknown types of grasses. Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 24f. 291 From a total of 34 letter over a period of 21 years, 16 were written from 1792–1796. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 529f. 292 There is generally very little biographical information available on Stoppelberg. The Bio-bibliographische Register (formerly: Grüne Kartei) at the Francke Foundations simply states: “Sterbedatum: Februar 1797; Sterbeort: Halle; Geschlecht: M Biographie: Um 1795 Inspektor

216

Letters from an American Botanist

keeping.293 A special commission from Berlin was to take care of the irregularities along with Stoppelberg, who also found an unpaid book order for a yearly supply of medicines by Mühlenberg among Fabricius’ mess of documents. To clear this up, he addressed Mühlenberg in early 1790 and received an answer in March 1791, in which Mühlenberg picked up the thread of their former acquaintance again.294 The fact that he introduced himself as an old friend certainly added a much more intimate note to the correspondence, probably in order to help build mutual trust. Stoppelberg responded in a similar vein in October: It is a great pleasure for me to renew our former mutual acquaintance after so many years by writing to you. I will take the position of Mr Fabricius, as good as I am capable of, and I will be at your service in all your orders.295 In comparison with his fatherly friend Fabricius, however, there is no evidence that the two men were very close during Mühlenberg’s time in Halle. The beginnings of their contact roughly coincided with the inception of a slow deterioration in the relations between Halle Pietists and their Pennsylvanian brethren. This trend, which eventually caused the two groups to grow more and more indepedent of each other, first became evident in the dwindling influence of Halle over key positions in the Pennsylvanian branch of its network. Between 1783 and der Lateinischen Schule und seit 1790 Inspektor der Cansteinschen Bibelanstalt in Halle,” (See online references in bibliography). 293 To Mühlenberg‘s brother-in-law Kunze, he complained in November 1790 that he had im April die Aufsicht über die Bibelanstalt neb[en] meiner lat[einischen] Schul Inspitienz übernehmen [müssen], auch die Correspondenz. Nun finde ich alles durcheinander und kann mit Rangierung der Briefe noch nicht fertig werden, (...). Stoppelberg to Johann Christoph Kunze, 11/03/1790, AFSt/M 4 D2:5. 294 Hochgeehrtester Herr Inspector, Wertgeschätzter Gönner, Ich erinnere mich nie ohne besondere Vergnügen der Zeit da ich unter Ihrer Leitung mich in Halle den Wißenschaften widmete, und eine Rechnung von Ihrer Hand dat[iert] Jun[i] 20. 1790 erneuerte Ihr Andenken so lebhaft in meinem Gemüth, daß ich mir so gleich vornahm, bei erster Gelegenheit mich Ihrer vorigen Freundschaft zu empfehlen, um desto mehr da ich nach dem Abschied meines alten Gönners des sel[igen] Insp[ectors] Fabricius niemand auf dem Waisenhause so genau kenne, daß ich ihn mit meinen Briefen beschweren möchte. Erlauben Sie mir daher, alter Lehrer und Freund, daß ich mich an Sie wenden und öfters an Sie schreiben darf, besonders wenn ich Bücher und Arzneien, wie gewöhnlich, vom Waisenhause verschreibe. To Stoppelberg, 03/14/1791, AFSt M.4 D3. Mühlenberg’s use of the word Wißenschaften needs to be explained here. In his own German-English dictionary, compiled and published by Mühlenberg and Franklin Academy teacher B. J. Shipper, the term Wissenschaft has the following entry: Wissenschaft, knowledge, science; ich habe keine Wissenschaft von der Sache – I am not acquainted with the business, I have no notice, knowledge of, I am ignorant of the matter; (...) ein Mann von vieler Wissenschaft – a man of great learning. Mühlenberg and Schipper, Dictionary II, unpaginated. This suggests a much more encompassing contemporary meaning of the term “sciences,” extending its modern definition by “everyday knowledge” or “general learning,” which could be attained either by experience or at a college or university. 295 Es ist mir überaus angenehm, nach so langen Jahren die ehemalige Bekantschaft schriftlich zu erneuern, und ganz in die Stelle des Herrn Fabricius zu treten, soviel als ob mir möglich seyn wird, in allen Aufträgen gefällige Dienste zu leisten. From Stoppelberg, 08/10/1791, AFSt M.4 D3. To Mühlenberg he also complained about Fabricius in the same letter: [T]appe ich im Finstern und wühle in unordentlichen Papieren die mir nicht völliges Licht geben, bis ich durch öftere Briefe alles werde aufklären können.

Transatlantic Botany

217

1793, the offices of secretary and president of the Ministerium circulated practically exclusively among Halle Pietists like Mühlenberg, Schmidt, Schultze and Helmuth. Only in 1788, however, Frederick Valentin Melsheimer, then one of the teachers at Franklin College and a contact of Mühlenberg, was the first non-Hallensian to be elected to the office of secretary.296 This trend was to continue in the following years, and after the arrival of Frederick Weinland in 1786, who was the last Halle missionary ever to go to America, Halle’s influence on Pennsylvanian Lutheranism waned.297 Additionally, while the Halle Orphanage encountered mounting problems during the French Revolutionary Wars, American Lutherans entered a phase of relative economic and political stability.298 The medicine trade continued, however, and the two men soon confirmed to stick with established routines and practices. Mühlenberg expected the annual sending of the medicines in his prescription until he would personally submit changes in the order to Stoppelberg.299 Payments were still made directly to Schmidt and Helmuth at Philadelphia, although promissory notes also continued to be in use.300 The only change came with the death of Friedrich Willhelm Pasche in 1792, who 296 The Ministerium met annually in May or June, close to Trinity Sunday. Both president and secretary were elected on this occasion for one year. Glatfelter, Pastors II, 438f. For Melsheimer and his involvement at Franklin College, see above on page 140f. 297 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 449. 298 See, for instance, the following passage from a letter by Stoppelberg: Unser Waisenhaus nimmt sehr ab, [u]nd der ehemalige [Auftrag?] verändert sich von Zeit zu Zeit durch immer neue äussere Veranlassungen, die nur Gott alein wenden und ändern kann, wenn er es für gut findet, dieses Werk fernerhin als sein Werk zu legitimiren. Sein Jubilaum ist nahe und fast scheint es mit selbigem seine Periode zu schließen, wenigstens doch eine große Veränderung erfahren zu müssen. From Stoppelberg, 09/21/1793, APS Film 1097. In 1796, Stoppelberg added: Wegen des fortdauernden Krieges leiden wir hier an vielen Bedürfnissen große Theuerung, und besonders die Armuth der geringsten Classe wird für sie drückend weil manche Fabrik Arbeiten, wobey sie sonst verdienten nicht recht gehen und wenig Erwerb ist [sic!]. Wir schmeicheln uns zwar mit einem baldigen allgemeinen Frieden, aber England spannt die Saiten zu hoch und Frankreich will auch in der größten Noth nicht nachgeben. From Stoppelberg, 02/09/1796, APS Film 1097. Wilson, Pious Traders, 154. Wilson also quotes Helmuth’s and Schmidt’s willingness to part from one quarter of the annual income generated by the Streit legacy in order to support the Halle motherhouse. Ibid. 299 Ich erwarte daß die einmahl verschriebenen Arzneien jährlich ohne neue Verschreibung hereingeschickt werden, Mühlenberg wrote, doch bitte ich um eine geringe Veränderung. Anstatt der 20 Loth liquor anadym. bitte 20 Quentch Essentia dulcis zu schicken, und was noch an 100 rt. nach abgezogenem Rabat selbst mit pilul. c. obstruct. hinzuzu thun, damit die Summe gerade wird. Von Büchern werde ich dimahl nicht verschreiben als nur die Fortsetzung vom Prediger Journal dessen ich die 23 Theile habe, und jährlich die Continuation verlange. To Stoppelberg, 05/03/1792, AFSt/M 4 D3. 300 Mühlenberg clearly preferred direct payments over costly promissory notes to the two mandatarii, as several passages in his letters to Stoppelberg show. So bald ich einmahl gewiß bin wie viel ich zu bezahlen habe werde ich alles mit Vergnügen abtragen. Sehr bequem wäre es wenn in Amsterdam oder in London jemand, auf den man sich verlaßen könnte, bestimmt würde das Geld in natura oder einem Wechsel in Empfang zu nehmen, damit Remißen ohne überhäufte Beschwerden und schneller gemacht werden könnte. Die H[er]rn Mandatorien haben die Händer zu voll von andrer Arbeit als daß ich sie damit beschweren möchte. Freilich wären sie für uns am bequemsten. To Stoppelberg, 03/14/1791, AFSt M.4 D3.

218

Letters from an American Botanist

had long occupied the position of a trusted agent in transatlantic money transfers via Kensington, England. Obviously Stoppelberg had been suspecting for some time that this arrangement would not last for much longer. For this reason, he also suggested to redirect all financial transfers via Amsterdam, where he recommended Karsteboom&Companie for this purpose, which was owned by a relative of Justus Henry Helmuth.301 The fact that Stoppelberg preferred a company with kinship ties to one of his American correspondents illustrates the overall importance of direct or indirect personal acquaintance for all networking activities in this period. It was this selective choice of contacts that had allowed August Hermann Francke and his successors to stay in control of their network. In turn, with the transfer of Pasche’s responsibilities to a private enterprise like Karsteboom, Stoppelberg practically conceded that Halle could no longer sustain its world-wide web autonomously in the 1790s. Stoppelberg’s correspondence differed from the one with Fabricius in another aspect. While orders for botanical works and references to his botanical interests remained scarce in Mühlenberg’s letters from 1783 to 1790, statements about his contacts and exchanges with scientists became much more frequent during Stoppelberg’s time. As soon as Bartsch’ s fungi is available again I kindly ask you to get hold of the work for me (…). For I have found a new activity in my leisure time with botany, and I have already composed a Flora of roundabout 11–1200 local plants, which I would like to extend even further. To this end, I would need good illustrations of the 24 classes of Linnaeus, which is why I have put works by Hedwig and Bartsch on the list.302 Stoppelberg’s additional services were not restricted to the purchase of rare books. For the first time, one of Mühlenberg’s Halle correspondents took an active part in the extension of his botanical correspondence. In one case, Mühlenberg tried to get Stoppelberg’s help to contact Philip Kaspar Junghans (1738–1797), who had come to Halle in 1788 to assume the directorship of the botanical garden.303 Stoppelberg acted promptly and soon reported back that Jun301 Wegen der Zahlungen die hirher geschehen, muß ich noch bemerken daß es mir gleichviel sey, ob sie über London oder Amsterdam geschehen. Indessen wird A[manuensis] Pasche, der es bisher besorgt hat, alt und schwächlich, und es scheint ihm zu beschwerlich zu seyn, deshalb wollte ich vorschlagen es durch H[err] Karsteboom & Comp[anie] zu Amsterdam zu thun. Ich bin mit diesem Hause bekannt, in der Comp[anie] ist H[err] Keppelin ein Vetter von H[err] D[octor] Helmuth, der sich erboten hat, alle Aufträge sehr willig zu machen, auch die Briefe immer richtig zu bestellen. From Stoppelberg, 08/10/1791, AFSt M.4 D3. 302 So bald Bartsch fungi wieder zu haben sind bitte ich sehr das Werk für mich zu besorgen (…). Ich habe mich nemlich zu meiner Erholung in Nebenstunden auf die Botanic gelegt und habe auch eine hiesige Flora von etwa 11–1200 Pflanzen aufgesetzt die ich gern mehr ausbilden mögte, da wünsche ich gute Abbildungen von der 24 Classe Linnaei, deswegen habe ich Hedwig und Bartsch verschrieben. To Stoppelberg, 12/22/1794, AFSt/M 4 D 3 : 25. For another large book order, see Mühlenberg’s letter to Stoppelberg, 02/28/1797, AFSt/M 4 D4. 303 In etlichen Journalen habe ich von einem Profeßor in Halle H[er]rn Junghans gelesen. Wie mögen seine Abbildungen seyn? Vielleicht könte ich demselben mit noch nicht abgebildeten und unterschriebenen Americanischen Pflanzen dienen, vielleicht könten wir einander gemeinschaftlich dienen, ich (…) mit Pflanzen, er mit mit Kupferstichen oder Abdrücken. Wäre es Ihnen nicht zu beschwerlich so wolte ich Sie gehorsamst ersucht haben, mit ihm bei Gelegenheit

Transatlantic Botany

219

ghans had accepted the offer and was now expecting seeds from Mühlenberg.304 Just a short while later, Friedrich Adolph Richter (1748–1797), a professor for pharmacology at Halle University and the Orphanage, approached Stoppelberg with a similar request.305 Although both Richter and Junghans both died shortly later and a real exchange never ensued, these examples show that Mühlenberg now felt a lot more secure to mention his botanical interests even to his Halle correspondents.306 There were specific reasons why Mühlenberg found his new correspondent at the Orphanage willing to invest so much extra time in the extension of his botanical correspondence network. After all, the express purpose of Halle’s network had always been to support the missionary and philanthropic efforts by trade in books and medicine. To be sure, the transport of letters and packages in the network remained time-consuming and costly and if Mühlenberg could not have offered something in exchange, Stoppelberg would not have been ready to invest that much time and money for him. To note, Fabricius’ help had always been restricted to the forwarding of scientific correspondence. The background for this change was the rising importance of the American medical market to Halle in the last decade of the 18th century and Mühlenberg’s prominent position in it. Under the reign of Friedrich II of Prussia (1712–1786), the Francke Foundations had enjoyed trading privileges, including a partial tax exemption which had protected the trade in times of failing sales that were due to war or other circumstances. Four years after the monarch’s death, the privileges were discontinued and a much more limited “secret licence” was issued instead.307 At the same time, a number of new regulations on the medical

304

305

306

307

davon reden. To Stoppelberg, 12/22/1794, AFSt/M 4 D 3 : 25. See also Das gelehrte Teutschland, s.v. “Junghans, P. K,” [Junghans] ist zum Tausch willig, he wrote back in July 1795, und jede neue Pflanze die auch im Linnaeus befindlich ist, wird ihm so angenehm seyn als neue eingelegte getrocknete Pflanzen. Jetzt erbittet er sich Saamen von nachstehenden Gattungen von Baumarten, von jedem nur einige Körner um ihr fortkommen im hiesigen botanischen Garten zu versuchen. From Stoppelberg, 07/21/1795, APS Film 1097. Im Julio habe ich des Herrn Prof[essor] Junghans Bitte um Sämerey gemeldet und seine Offerte seine Pflanzen Abdrücke einzutauschen, Stoppelberg wrote. Vielleicht ist Ihre Antwort jetzt unterweges. Nun habe ich eine ähnliche Bitte von unserem H[errn] Prof. Richter. From Stoppelberg, 02/09/1796, APS Film 1097. There is no indication that Richter or Junghans ever sent anything to Mühlenberg, although he did send a pack of seeds to Halle. Endlich hats die Gelegenheit erlaubt eine Parthie Samen zu samlen die ich in ein Kästchen H.I.S. eingepackt habe, und an die Herren van der Smissen zur gütigen Besorgung addreßiren. (…)Bei kommender Zettel enthält die Nahmen mit etlichen Anmerkungen. H[e]rr[en] D[octor] Richter und Profeßor Junghans werden sich davon theilen wie sie es für gut befinden. Wegen dem Zoll muß ich einen Preis darauf setzen ich nehme 2 Spanische Thaler. Sie belieben aber keine Rücksicht darauf zu nehmen, denn ich diene Freunden in solchen Fällen mit Vergnügen umsonst. Wollen sie mit Gewalt etwas dagegen thun, so mögen sie etwas botanisches dagegen schicken, das würde ich als pretium adfectionis ansehen. Ein ander Jahr kann ich mehr schicken. To Stoppelberg, 10/27/1796, AFSt M.4 D3. A letter by Smissen to Stoppelberg confirms that the package was really submitted: Von Herrn Hinrich Mühlenberg in Lancaster, haben wir über Philadelphia empfangen, und heute mit der fahrenden Post an Ihnen übersandt: 1 Kistel Sämereien, (…). Jakob Gysbert van der Smissen to Stoppelberg, 04/28/1797, AFSt/M 4 D 4. See also Wilson, “Second Generation”, 246. Wilson, Pious Traders, 93f. This “secret licence” was itself discontinued under the reign of

220

Letters from an American Botanist

market in Prussia put heavy pressure on Halle, and a slow change of public preferences for medical treatments caused profits to decline dramatically from 34,000 Rth in 1765 to a mere 7,000 Rth in 1799.308 In this situation, the still largely unregulated and underdeveloped American market promised an uncomplicated alternative to continue the trade.309 The heightened importance of Halle’s American business is also reflected in the composition of the archival holdings on Mühlenberg’s first two correspondents. While the entire Fabricius correspondence with Mühlenberg and the documents on America represent a mere fraction of Fabricius’s manuscripts, 78 out of 84 letters to or from Stoppelberg stored in the Halle Missionsarchiv were written on behalf of American affairs.310 In this context, Mühlenberg became Halle’s best customer, North American representative and salesman at the same time. Renate Wilson has pointed out in her studies on the Halle medical trade that it was around 1790 that Mühlenberg started to order medicines in much higher quantities than ever before.311 On the one hand, this was due to the delayed arrival of the most recent medical trends and standards in the United States, which made the somewhat outdated Halle medicines still a much coveted commodity. Thus, for “Halle’s best-informed client in North America” (Wilson), essentia dulcis and other medications continued to be a relatively secure source of income, with a potential market of 3,700 customers in the Lancaster area during the 1790s.312 Roughly 200 ministers in the Pennsylvania area also counted among potential customers for Mühlenberg, among whom was also his own brother in law Schultze at Tulpehocken.313 In the book trade, Mühlenberg had also found new clients: I take the liberty to make changes to the medical order again, and to add some books for a friend of mine.314 Apart from the Lancaster merchant Ludwig Lauman, who had already been Frederick William IV of Prussia (1795–1861). Ibid. 308 Wilson, Pious Traders, 93f. Wilson concludes: “By the end of the century, medical and pharmaceutical reform had joined hands with state control, at least in the continental market.” Ibid. 309 “North America became one of the redoubts of the proprietary medicine trade and its imitations. (...) In this market, we revisit some of the earlier characteristics of the trade in Halle medications, including a network of favored providers and the use of the pharmaceuticals as instruments of financial exchange in underdeveloped capital markets.” Wilson, Pious Traders, 96. 310 At the Archives of the Francke Foundations there are 283 letters from or to Fabricius located as of June 23, 2009. The six letters to or from Stoppelberg not relevant to America are: Promemoria by Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg to the Orphanage-Direktorium, 11/12/1790, AFSt/M 4 D 2 ; J. L. Hennicke to Sebastian Andreas Fabricius oder Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg, 11/07/1790, AFSt/M 4 D 2; Johann Christian Joachim Silber to Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg, 10/25/1790, AFSt/M 4 D 2 ; Kleinwort & Möller an Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg, 10/12/1796, AFSt/M 4 D 3; D. Haderig to Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg, 09/17/1796, AFSt/M 4 D 3; located as of June 23, 2009. I thank head archivist Dr Jürgen Gröschl for this information. 311 Wilson, “Second Generation”, 240; Wilson, Pious Traders, 194–199. 312 Wilson, Pious Traders, 199. Table 7.1 and 7.2 in Wilson’s Pious Traders chart Mühlenberg’s medical imports from 1791 to 1801. Wilson, Pious Traders, 191. 313 Wilson, Pious Traders, 199. 314 Ich nehme mir die Freiheit den Arznei Zettel wieder etwas zu ändern, und aufs neue einige Bücher für einen Freund zu verschreiben. To Stoppelberg, 01/15/1794, AFSt M.4 D3.

Transatlantic Botany

221

an active client in the 1780s, the Philadelphia-based book trading company of Godefrey Backer&Company,315 and Frederick Augustus Conrad Mühlenberg’s son-inlaw Jacob Sperry (1773–1830)316 could rely on his intermediation services. Herr Inspector Stoppelberg, Sir, Sperry addressed Stoppelberg in May 1796. We take the liberty in Consequence of the introduction of our particular Friend the Rev[erend] D[octo]r Henry Muhlenberg to inclose you an order for sundry Bibles & which if agreeable to you to ship on the usual terms, the D[octo]r received them, you will be so kind to put up for us the quantity according to the inclosed Note received of him. We would wish them sent as soon as possible to our Friends Mess Kleinwort & Moller Hamburg requesting our said Friends to make Insurance to the full Am[oun] t including all expences (...).317 In any case, it was a favourable deal for both sides. Halle had a reliable customer in Mühlenberg, on whose networking they could rely to tap new markets, while Mühlenberg had another correspondence agent in central Europe and continued to prescribe Halle medicines to augment his stipends. 2.16 Yellow Fever and American Medicine During the 1790s, itinerant preachers, camp meetings and a rekindled interest in religion were the first signs of heightened religious activity, which quickly grew into a series of events and movements after 1800 that would later be described as the “Second Great Awakening.” In 1792, a new constitution for the Lutheran Church in America was adopted that invested more power in lay members. Meanwhile, the old problem of too few ministers that were facing too much labor had still not been completely solved.318 Surprisingly little, if anything at all, of these developments can be found in Mühlenberg’s letters to his colleagues in the Pennsylvania field, namely Helmuth, Schmidt and Schultze. Annual Ministerium meetings and other opportunites to talk in person were sufficient to discuss these developments, while another topic claimed far more space: The yellow fever epidemics. The summer of 1793 had been exceptionally dry and humid, providing excellent breeding condi315 In 1792, Backer had placed an order for books with Stoppelberg, who submitted the package to the company of Van der Smissen & Söhne at Altona, another package to Karsteboom at Amsterdam, from where the packages were shipped to Philadelphia. From Stoppelberg, 10/29/1792, AFSt M 4 D3. The book chests to Backer at Philadelphia also usually contained the medicines for Mühlenberg, which were to be forwarded to Lancaster as a part of the deal. An den Herrn D. Mühlenberg habe ein Kästch[en] mit Medicin beypacken lassen, welches nebst dem angeschloßenen Briefe und Büchern an ihn senden zu lassen oder auch nur an H[errn] D. Helmuth abzugeben bitte, der es weiter befördern wird. Die Kosten der Fracht wird H. Doctor ersetzen, wie sonst geschehen ist. Stoppelberg to Godfrey Backer, 09/20/1793, AFSt M 4 D3. 316 Wilson, Pious Traders, 155; Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 37. 317 Sperry to Stoppelberg, 05/18/1796, AFSt M 4 D 3. Apparently, Helmuth tried to use his contacts in favor of his own son, too, who had opened the company of Gamble & Helmuth at the same time. In his letter to Stoppelberg he vouches for his son to allow him take root in the business with the help of his Halle connections. Gamble & Helmuth to Stoppelberg, 09/14/1796, AFSt M 4 D 3. 318 Glatfelter, Pastors II, 451f., 481f.

222

Letters from an American Botanist

tions for flies and mosquitoes, when a ship with presumably infected West Indian slaves from Santo Domingo arrived in Philadelphia harbor. In early August, the first Philadelphians living along the docks and harbor facilities fell sick and died within days, causing an unprecedented exodus from the city. Although they could neither explain nor cure the epidemic at first, most of the city’s physicians Benjamin Rush, Adam Kuhn, John Redman (1722–1808), Benjamin Smith Barton and others remained with the sick.319 That your City is again afflicted with the yellow Fever is painful to hear, Mühlenberg wrote to Rush in early 1794. Blessed be God that it may be overcome with good Care and Medicine!320 He also informed Helmuth and Schmidt, who also remained in Philadelphia during the disease, that his Lancaster congregation was more than willing to help their fellow Lutherans.321 The development of the epidemic and the help and support from Lancaster’s322 Lutheran congregation, and 319 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 206f., 210, 217, 283. For Benjamin Smith Barton, the outbreak of the epidemic actually had the positive by-effect to appease his creditors for a while. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 147. 320 He continued: Our intermittent still remains, some complain of violent Pains in all the Limbs, some of Cough all of extreme weakness. Evacuations the most of our Doctors use. Would Calomet and Jelapp be beter than Ipecacuanha or Tartar emetic? And would you allow bleeding in our Intermittents? To Rush, 10/03/1794, LibComp Benjamin Rush letters. In an earlier letter Mühlenberg had already thanked Rush for the medical services extended to his own father-inlaw during the disease: Very much against my Inclination I was hindred by a Multiplicity of Business to wait upon You when I a few Days ago was at Philadelphia to see my Friends. And I now take this first Opportunity to fulfill Part of my Duty to thank you most sincerely for your particular Friendship towards my beloved Father in Law Philip Hall in his dreadful Sickness. If you could have been cured I dont doubt your knowledge and Friendship would have saved his Life. But alas! it was above the Power of Medicine. To Rush, 12/09/1793, LibComp Benjamin Rush letters. 321 Als ich letzten Mittwoch Abend an Sie schrieb, und einen Brief von meiner Gemeine an Ihre Gemeine nebst einem Beitrag von 100 Thalern für die Armen, der Gemeine einschloß, hatte ich keinen Augenblick Zeit Ihnen etwas näheres zu melden. Jetzt hohle ich nach. Letzten Sontag nach der Predigt machte ich in meiner Gemeine den Vorschlag obs nicht brüderlich und billig wäre unsere Schwestergemeine zu Hülf zu kommen und sie in der jetzt bedenklich[en] Lage zu trösten und unser Mitleid zu bezeugen, wer so dächte soll Montags zu mir kommen und ein Scherflein mitbringen, ich würde meinen Kirchenrath bitten was am Donnerstag darauf als Allmosen fiele zu eben dem Entzweck anzuwenden. To Helmuth & Schmidt, 10/05/1793, APS Film 1097. See also Mühlenberg‘s letter to Helmuth & Schmidt, 10/24/1793, APS Film 1097. In November 1793 the disease finally abated, and Mühlenberg addressed Helmuth relieved: Mit der größten Freude habe ich endlich die frohe Nachricht daß der Herr sich über Philadelphia erbarmt, und die geschäftliche Krankheit gestillt. Wir hatten letzten Donnerstag eine allgemeine Fast und Bettag in unsrer Stadt und flehten zum Herrn für einen gnädigen Segen und für Wegnahme des pestilenzialischen Fiebers, den Nachmittag [kon?]ten wir schon für den schönen Regen danken, und nun haben wir auch zum andern gegründete Hofnung daß Gott Sie insondernheit und unsren lieben Bruder Hrn Pastor Schmidt am Leben erhalt ist mir besonderes Grund zu seinem Lobe. To Helmuth & Schmidt, 11/04/1793, APS Film 1097. 322 There are several passages showing that Lancaster was initially spared by the epidemics in the 1790s. In October 1793, Mühlenberg wrote to Schultze at Tulpehocken about his return from a trip to Germantown. Als ich heim kam fand ich sie auf meinem Plätzch[en] weil die furchtsamen Lancastrer keine Philadelphier in der Stadt leid wollen der nicht 8 od[er] 10 Tage Reinin-

Transatlantic Botany

223

further questions concerning money transfers for the Halle trade were the basic contents of the few Mühlenberg letters to Helmuth and Schmidt during this period.323 This focus on diseases, medicine and cures requires a brief look at the medical practice of Mühlenberg. Apart from the agricultural uses of plants, their medical applications and faculties were an important facet of Mühlenberg’s botanical interest, as many of his letters and diaries show.324 A letter from his father even suggests that he undertook chemical experiments to reproduce Halle medications as early as 1779.325 Once his correspondence with Erlangen was established, medically useful plants were one of Mühlenberg’s greatest fields of interest, and it was Mühlenerg’s own notebook which had allowed Schöpf to publish his Materia Medica Americana without acknowledging Mühlenberg’s part in it.326 Thus, when Mühlenberg started his correspondence with Manasseh Cutler, he announced that [o]f the oeconomical and medgung ausgestand. (…) Bei dem pestilenzialisch Fieber in Philadelphia ist das noch Gottes Wohlthat daß sie nur in Philadelphia fängt und bisher noch keines das {gestorben} im Lande gestorben sonst jemand angesteckt hat. Ich zweifle nicht daß sch alles mit dem letzt Sarg verändern wird. To Schultze, 10/16/1793, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. Only a year later, the situation had changed for the worse. Our Neighbourhood has been sickly for some Time with an intermittent and nervous Fever, the former is accompanied with great Pains much like Rheumatism. Fever and Flux have carried oft last Month 16 People in the Lutheran and reformed Congregation, which is an enormous Sum to us. We blame the whet Season. To Rush, 09/08/1794, LibComp Benjamin Rush letters. 323 There are five letters for this period, with only one dated prior to the outbreak of the disease in August 1793. The mandatarii correspondence appears to have been restricted to Helmuth, as no letters from or to Schmidt could be found. See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 510. 324 Botanisches Tagebuch APS 580M89 bo, entry for May 6, 1784. Maisch quotes a similar passage from an entry dated 1785 in a non-specified botanical diary: Ich muss mir ferner bei Apothekern und andern Mühe geben, die hiesigen Officinalia, sowohl nach ihrer Kraft als nach ihren trivial Namen zu erfahren. Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 17. 325 Ich bin auch bisher unpäßlich gewesen wegen Unordnung im Magen geschwolner Füße etc., he let his son know. Dein durch Friedrich mir gesandtes Magen Pulver thut mir gute Dienste. Es hat die Farbe und Geschmak wie das Hallische. Was solte wol eine Dosis kosten? wenn die Ingredientien zu kriegen, und der Preiß nicht allzu hoch käme, möchte es hier im Lande heilsam seyn. Als ein unvergleichliches Mittel gegen die Geburtsschmerzen zu lindern wurde mir die Wurzel der Collisonia angegeben. Man nimt so viel als 2 daumengroß hackts klein und kochts, u[nd] lässt die Brühe trinken sobald sich die Geburtsschmerzen melden. H. M. Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, 02/02/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 727). Wilson mentions medicinal recipes in Mühlenberg’s diaries from 1777. Wilson, “Second Generation“, 239. 326 To Schreber he wrote in 1785: Dürfte ich Sie auch um etliche Sämerien bitten, so wären es Futtergewächse namentlich Avena elatior und andre die Sie am besten können [sic!]. Von officinal Kräutern insondernheit Rheum palmatum. To Fabricius, 11/01/1785, AFSt/M 4 D 20. Schöpf commented on their exchange of medical plants in 1788: Ich fahre noch immer fort, alle Nachrichten über den medizinischen Nutzen von solchen Pflanzen zu samlen, welche in Amerika vorkomen. Wenn Sie das nemlich thun, und mir Ihre Nachträge einmal gütigst mittheilen wollen, so können wir etwa englische Supplemente nachliefern und so viel in uns ist, dazu beitragen, daß America auch einmal, in Absicht auf seinen Arzneyschatz, independent werde, welches es ganz füglich seyn kan. From Schöpf, 03/07/1788, HSP Soc. Coll.

224

Letters from an American Botanist

ical Uses to which our Productions may be applied I have collected Materials enough, and I make it my particular Business.327 Although Mühlenberg mentions his medical practice with local plants and Halle medicines frequently in his correspondence, passages that give some insights into how the medicines were actually applied, combined and integrated into a general concept of medical treatment, are very rare. In his book on the Mühlenberg family, Paul A. Wallace has described an episode from September 1784 when Christoph E. Schultze had fallen sick and Mühlenberg apparently prescribed no medicine at all, but proposed “silence and closed windows.” His father disagreed strongly with this “ill-guided German fashion,” claiming that [t]he best doctors say a mouthful of fresh air does a patient more good than a spoonful of medicine.328 Another interesting passage is contained in a letter that discusses his mother’s epileptic seizures, which had begun in 1766 and became especially violent in 1781 after she severely burned herself in an accident with boiling water in the kitchen.329 Some time after this incident, he wrote to his father: I had for quite some time been eager to hear from you and from mother, for my last piece of news was only that she was getting well again. I can easily image what confusion there must have been on account of the accident and the number of advice givers. The potatoes or “groundberries” are good, but only in minor inflamations. In more severe inflamations, however, emollentia, demulcentia [pain breakers] and digestive [laxatives] must be used and Dr Morgan’s advice was along these lines.330 327 To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. In the Cutler correspondence, references to potential medical applications were especially frequent. As much as possible I gather whatever I can hear of the Use of our Plants, oeconomical or medical, and commit it to writing. If the medical Use of Plants comes well recommended from different Quarters, and agrees with the Habit of the Plant I either try it in Person or recommend it to some of my Friends. To Cutler, 11/08/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. See also Mühlenberg to Cutler, 03/17/1794, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers, and Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 18. 328 Quoted after Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 262. In a letter that seems to be related to that event, H. M. Mühlenberg acknowledges to his son Peter: Du thatest sehr weislich G[eliebter] S[ohn] daß Du eine Veränderung verordnetest, nemlich die Stube, worin H[err Christoph Emanuel] Schultze lag, mit Lemonie [Zitrone] Safft zu erfrischen und stuffen Weise frische Lufft hinein zu laßen –. Ich war nicht vermögend so gleich an H[errn] P[astor Justus Heinrich Christian] Helmuth wegen des schwartzen Pulvers zu schreiben, weil der Vetter Conrad [Weiser] fort ritte, sandte aber Deinen Brief an Fr[iedrich August Conrad] M[ühlen]b[erg] welcher mit einem andern Manne an H[errn] Helmuth geschrieben. Vielleicht hat [Gotthilf] H[einrich Ernst] M[ühlen]b[erg] A[rtium] M[agister] noch von dem schwartzen Pulver, wenn etwa bei H[errn] Helmuth nichts wäre. H. M. Mühlenberg to J. P.G. Mühlenberg, 10/20/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 967). 329 The doctors Abel Morgan and Thomas Heimberger rushed out to their Providence home. Lehmann and Savacool, “Ministry,” 59, 61. 330 Ich war schon längst begierig gewesen von Ihnen und der Mutter was zu hören, denn [meine] letzte Nachricht war nur, daß sie sich etwas beßerte. Ich [kan mir] leicht einbilden, was für eine Verwirrung wegen des plötzlichen Zufalls [Unfalls] und wegen der Menge der Rathgeber gewesen. Die Potatoes oder Grundberen sind sonst gut, aber nur in leichten Bränden, in schweren Bränden aber müßen Emollientia, demulcentia [mildernde, lindernde Mittel] und Digestiva [Abführmittel] gebraucht werden und dahin gieng der Rath des Dr: Morgans. Mühlenberg to H. M. Mühlenberg, 04/02/1781, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 823). His mother

Transatlantic Botany

225

Most of these passages refer to accidents, snake bites, chronic diseases like gout, or pain associated with pregnancy. With regard to yellow fever, however, it is not entirely clear whether any of Mühlenberg’s Halle medicines were actually applied to patients suffering from the disease. It is known that the most common remedies against yellow fever at the time were bleeding, jalap, and mercury, the latter being a preferred treatment by Benjamin Rush during the epidemic of 1793.331 Our entire family is in good health, and our town, too, has remained so, although the common fever has been haunting the region around Lancaster. It has already claimed some lives, as it leaves you in great sickness, whereas hardly anyone dies during the outbreak itself. Stomach powder combined with essential amara and essetia dulcis have proven to be very effective, Mühlenberg wrote to Schultze in 1804.332 Lehmann and Savacool have pointed out that there was no specific disease-treatment correlation during Mühlenberg’s time, and that “healing [was] more than treatment of specific diseases.”333 In order to learn more about Mühlenberg’s medical practice, therefore, it seems appropriate to discuss it in terms of three separate contexts – the medical practice of his father, Lutheran and Halle medical traditions, and the contemporary conditions of professional medical education and practice in the early years of the American republic. In many respects, the pivotal figure in Mühlenberg’s life was his father, who controlled his three adolescent sons’ individual developments at least until the War of Independence. Medical practice was an integral part of any Lutheran minister’s work in 18th century Pennsylvania, and their father’s ideas about treatments and medicine were probably just as important to Peter, Frederick and Henry Mühlenberg as his theological lessons. Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg gathered his first medical experiences in the Orphanage’s hospital at Halle, where he worked as a caretaker and assistant to doctors in the late 1730s.334 Ritter, who has examined Mühlenberg’s medical practice based on entries in his diaries, points out that he

331 332

333

334

Anna Maria Mühlenberg died on August 23, 1802, surviving her husband by 15 years. Lehmann and Savacool, “Ministry,” 63. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 213. Jalap is Ipomoe purga, the root and resin of which were used for medication ever since the 17th century. Wir sind in unsrer Familie alle gesund, auch unsre Stadt ist erträglich gesund obgleich die ganze Gegend um Lancaster mit dem gewöhnlichen Fieber heimgesucht ist. Es hat schon mehrere hingerissen weil es so ungemein Schwachheit hinterläßt, im Anfall selbst sterben wenige. Magenpulver und hintennach essentia amara mit ess[entia] dulci[s] verbunden haben vortreffliche Dienste gethan. To Schultze, 10/06/1804, APS Film 1097. Lehmann and Savacool, “Ministry,” 51. Especially essentia dulcis, the Medikamentenexpedition’s most popular product throughout the 18th century, appeared frequently as a one-for-all medicine in Mühlenberg’s letters, which supports the argument of a low disease-treatment correlations. Peggy sagt mir daß Fr[au] Schulzin Mangel am Gehör spürt. Der Balsam thut oft mit ess[entia] dulcis verbund vortreffliche Dienste. Ein Hausmittel habe ich gehört daß auch merklich gut sein soll, nemlich Hauswurzelsaft in ein Gläsch gethan, dis mit und in Brod geback, davon etliche Tropf in das Ohr getröpfelt. Außer dem Balsam schick ich 3 Gläser Corallentinctur. To Schultze, 07/31/1795, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. Youman also includes a brief passage on Mühlenberg’s medical practice. Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 68. Lehmann and Savacool, “Ministry,” 51; Ritter, “Medicine,” 184–186; Lindberg, “Lutheran Tradition,” 187.

226

Letters from an American Botanist

took a great interest in the medical records of individual patients under his care, which was still uncommon at the time. The underlying idea of his concept of diseases was the notion that body and soul were an inseparable unit. A sinful life would inevitably produce bodily diseases in this view, and it was only the soul’s recovery and the patient’s return to a moral way of life through prayers which could eventually restore physical health.335 This also explains the contemporary indifference to standardized treatments for specific diseases. Medication, however, was an essential part of the healing process, which could not be successful with prayer alone. “Effective medicine was the miracle of God’s love experienced in live,” according to Lehmann and Savacool’s definition of this medical attitude, which attributed a place in God’s plan to the natural agents in plants, concoctions and ointments, and could conveniently be combined with the spiritual background. Once in Pennsylvania, Mühlenberg found trade in and the practice of medicine not only an efficient way to get into contact with people, to win their trust and generate some extra income. It was also an extension of his pastoral work to protect people from charlatans and quacks.336 Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg’s ideas about health, disease and cures were heavily informed by his Pietist background and the Lutheran tradition. Martin Luther’s doctrine of bodily diseases gave both God and the afflicted persons active roles in the healing process, as God was held to be the ultimate ruler over salvation, health, disease and death, while men were obliged to take care of themselves in order to avoid mischief in the first place. Sickness, in this view, was not seen as divine punishment, which would have rendered both doctors and medicines senseless. Instead, it was considered a task that the afflicted person had to struggle with in order to regain their spiritual equilibrium and find a way to salvation. To Luther, medically active agents in plants were really divine agents, comparable in their effect to prayers, although their applicability was confined to the special purpose of healing a body that had fallen from grace. Therefore, Luther championed a close collaboration between pastors and doctors: the first was supposed to work preemptively for spiritual and physical health, the second to become active in cases of individual failure. Faith and medicine were thus inseparably intertwined.337 The Francke Foundations were to become the Pietist center for medicine after the construction of the hospital in 1707. Also, the medical faculty had close connections to the local sick wards, where Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg worked. Finally, the pharmacy, where Christian Friedrich Richter and Johann Juncker (1679–1759) developed new pharmaceuticals, was still in use in the 1790s.338 In the 1790s, America’s medical market and educational opportunities for physicians were still largely unregulated and underdeveloped. Important groundwork, 335 336 337 338

Lehmann and Savacool, “Ministry,” 54; Ritter, “Medicine,” 182, 188. Lehmann and Savacool, “Ministry,” 54; Ritter, “Medicine,” 182. Lindberg, “Lutheran Tradition,” 174–176, 178f.; Wilson, Pious Traders, 52, 63. Lindberg, “Lutheran Tradition,” 185f.; Lehmann and Savacool, “Ministry,” 52f.; Lindberg writes: “Pietists such as Francke and Richter saw God at work in nature and medicine as the stimulant restoring natural bodily functions. Once again, pastor and physician could be partners in God’s activity in the world.” Lindberg, “Lutheran Tradition,” 186.

Transatlantic Botany

227

however, had been laid in the 1760s when smallpox inoculation was first introduced to New England in 1752, of which Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg took notice at the time.339 In 1760, examinations by experienced physicians were made mandatory by the city of New York in order to be licenced as a doctor and to establish a practice within city limits. The date roughly coincides with the gradual transition from a loosely organized “colonial practice” to the development of a “professional boundary” not to be crossed by amateurs.340 After John Morgan and William Shippen had founded the first medical faculty in the New World at the College of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in 1765, the War for Independence finally necessitated the establishment of medical schools in Boston and New York, which were accompanied by the codification of local statutes for the apprenticeship of physicians.341 The plan was to develop an American system to be modelled on the English and Scottish systems of medical education, cut out to the specific conditions in the United States. At the end of the 18th century, 32 American colleges had charters to teach medicine or to offer theoretical courses to supplement apprenticeships, which was still considered the best way into the profession.342 Although Henry Mühlenberg maintained cordial relations with doctors like Benjamin Rush and corresponded with Barton and Autenrieth, it is uncertain whether their individual preferences of contemporary medical schools ever influenced him in his application of Halle medicines. Although theoretical discussions on medical plants and their potential uses were a constant theme in his letters, no other contemporary medical agents such as laudanum or poppy-seed juice were ever discussed. Johann David Schöpf has been described as a “mechanical rationalist” by Geus, who based his characterization on Schöpf’s Baconian dissertation Medicamentorum mutatione in corpore humano praecipue a fluidis. Schöpf founded his research on the notion that the body was working like a machine, the rules of which must be known in order to fight diseases, which he understood to be malfunctions of the system.343 The contrast to Halle’s medical heritage, which Mühlenberg observed, could not have been greater. Benjamin Smith Barton came from the same rational school of medical thought as Schöpf, prescribing acetate of lead, opium and sugar, and championing smallpox vaccination in the Philadelphia area. His rivalry with Benjamin Rush found a new arena with the establishment of the Philadelphia Medical Society, presided by Rush after 1789. The deist Barton and the pious Rush not only differed in their religious views but also in their medical practice, especially during the first yellow fever epidemic in 1793.344 Nothing of these discussions is reflected in Mühlenberg’s letters to Rush, Barton, Schöpf or anyone else. The range of subjects in his correspondence with doctors was almost exclusively confined to botanical matters, still considered to be the “handmaiden of medicine.” Mühlenberg took little, if no notice, of developments in medical theory or practice 339 340 341 342 343 344

Wilson, Pious Traders, 100; Lehmann and Savacool, “Ministry,” 57. Wilson, Pious Traders, 4; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 110; See also Stübler, Autenrieth, 32 Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 288f; Norwood, Medical, 435; Hindle, Pursuit of Science, 300; Norwood, Medical, 433–435. Geus, Schöpf, 93f.; Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 47f. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 149, 156f., 206, 226.

228

Letters from an American Botanist

and his only remarks on doctors are casual observations. I had the Pleasure to receive your letter, and the dried specimens, by D[octo]r Perlee, he informed William Baldwin in 1811, for instance. The Doctor pleases me much, and I wish him much success. In Lancaster we have at least a dozen of physicians, good and bad; and if it were not for the neighboring country, they would not make a living. I recommended Harrisburg, – where lately the chief physician has died, and very often diseases prevail.345 The same was true for the medical knowledge of native Americans. Mühlenberg was thoroughly intrigued by Janaceto, Peruvian Bark and other traditional medical plants used by American natives,346 although he apparently never showed any interest in their original context or the rituals involved in their application. From one of my old correspondents, the Rev[erend] M[iste]r Denke, amongst the Indians in Fairfield, Canada, I have received a promise of all Canada plants not to be found in our parts; and a full account of Indian medical plants, with which he is well acquainted. I anticipate much pleasure and use in this renewed correspondence, he informed Baldwin in August 1811.347 Especially Moravians like Denke could provide him with Indian medical plants from their missionary efforts among them. 2.17 Network Analysis: Phase 2 Undoubtedly, Mühlenberg’s network grew bigger, more complex and much more diverse in a short period of time around the year 1790.348 While it used to be dominated by Lutheran, professional and kinship contacts until his father’s death in 1787, Quakers like Mitchill and the Bartrams, Moravians like Kramsch and Kampmann, Anglicans like Benjamin Smith Barton, and Unitarians like Smith in London now became a part of Mühlenberg’s evolving system of botanical exchanges both in Europe and the United States. This also added a multi-confessional quality to it. Also, the years from 1790 to 1797 were the last period in which Mühlenberg’s scientific and non-scientific correspondences were in a relative equilibrium, as scientific exchange began to replace trade in medicals and professional exchange as the primary reason for most of the letters received and sent.349 A corresponding change can be observed in the proportion of kinship correspondences after the death of his father in 1787, after which date Mühlenberg’s brother-in-law, medicine customer, friend and colleague Christopher Emanuel Schultze at Tulpehocken became the only relative to exchange a significant number of letters with him on a regular ba-

345 To Baldwin, 02/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 23. 346 Schöpf observed the practical knowledge of Native American medicine, but criticized the lack of system and order. Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 165. See also Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 19, and Wilson, “Second Generation”, 239; 347 To Baldwin, 08/20/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 42. 348 See Appendix E: Network Phase 2, page 550. 349 See table b, Appendix B, 486.

Transatlantic Botany

229

sis.350 Contact with Mühlenberg’s other brother-in-law Kunze in New York, however, was very scarce,351 while neither his brother Peter nor Frederick appear to have played significant roles during this time.352 All in all, kinship contact became more or less restricted to family gatherings, the few letters with his cousin Bensen at Erlangen excepted.353 A similar downward tendency can be observed in Mühlenberg’s professional contacts both with the Orphanage and within North America. From 1784 to 1790, eight out of 13 correspondents had been Lutherans or were connected to the Halle trade as private mediators, such as Carl&Hermann at Frankfurt.354 From 1790 to 350 Mühlenberg and Schultze exchanged eleven letters during Phase 2. See table g, Appendix B, 489. Apart from providing Halle medicines to Schultze, Mühlenberg’s letters mostly touch on developments within the Lutheran Church and private matters, and appear completely separate from the rest of his correspondence. Apparently, Mühlenberg took care of Schultze’s son Henry for a while in the early to mid-1790s. Vielleicht ist auch ein Besuch wegen Ihrem Henrich nöthig, wenigstens väterliche Vermahnungen. Ich habe ihm viel zugesprochen, das Reden und Schreiben beßer zu lernen, und des Abends mehr daheim zu bleib, weil H[er]r Guntacker sich über ihn beklagt, aber wenn Sie es selbst thun und ihm alle nocturnas deambulationes und unnöthige Ausgaben verbinden so dringts mehr durch. Redlich Freunde von uns beklagen seine Unvorsichtigkeit und es könten die traurigst Folgen davon entstehen. Verzeih Sie daß ich so offenherzig bin und Ihnen es melde. Er hat zu viel Taschengeld. Mühlenberg to Schultze, 01/30/1794, APS Mühl.Fam. Mss.B.M891. 351 Von H[er]r Kunze habe ich zwar in der ganzen Zeit und überhaupt seit 2 Jahren keine Zeile gehalt, aber ich höre von andern daß er und seine Familie mitten in der Gefahr unverletzt geblieben. Mühlenberg to Schultze, 11/28/1798, APS Mühl.Fam. Mss.B.M891. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 514. 352 There are two reconstructed letters for Frederick, and none for Peter. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 516. Die beyden Herren Muhlenberge sind wieder Glieder des Congresses, der jüngere Herr, D[octor] Muhlenberg in Lancaster bleibt noch immer das, wozu Ihn Gott berufen hatte; Er hat letzten Sontag eine zweymalige, gesegnet Gastpredigt bei uns gehalten, Helmuth informed Stoppelberg about the Mühlenberg family in 1794. Helmuth to Stoppelberg, 05/07/1794, AFSt/M 4 D 3. Frederick Mühlenberg was elected to Congress four consecutive times from 1789 to 1797 and took care of Henry’s incoming correspondence for a while, which he forwarded from Philadelphia to Lancaster. See the following passages:. Since Congress is met again, M[iste]r Muhlenberg, my Brother, offers to be the Mediator of our Letters and promises to forward them quick and safe. To Cutler, 11/12/1792, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. Any Letter to me can be addressed to my Brother Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Esq[ire] Member of Congress at Philadelphia, who will forward it safe to Lancaster, where I live. To Smith, 12/01/1792, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. Frederick Mühlenberg was “elected as a Pro-Administration candidate to the First Congress, reelected as an Anti-Administration candidate to the Second and Third Congresses, and elected as a Republican to the Fourth Congress (March 4, 1789–March 3, 1797); Speaker of the House of Representatives (First and Third Congresses);” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress:, entry for Muhlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad, (1750–1801), (see online references in bibliography). 353 See, for instance, the following passage: Doch ich hoffe Sie vor der Zeit persönlich zu sehen und deswegen mit Ihnen zu reden. Den Tag nach der Synodal Versammlung, soll eine Familien Conferenz auf der Trappe gehalt werden, wobei die Gegenwart aller meine Geschwister u[nd] Schwäger nöthing sein wird. Mühlenberg to Schultze, 04/03/1793, APS Mühl.Fam. Mss.B.M891. 354 See table e, Appendix B, 488. Only Schreber, Schöpf and Rush were non-professional contacts.

230

Letters from an American Botanist

1797, only Stoppelberg, Helmuth and Schmidt, Schultze, Carl&Hermann and Melsheimer can be called “professional contacts” among 25 other correspondents, although these six accounted for 45 out of a total of 137 letters during this period.355 Trade in Halle medicines picked up markably after 1790, but this did not lead to a more frequent correspondence with Stoppelberg. Within Pennsylvania, however, Mühlenberg continued to take part in professional communications through meetings and visits. The most important reason for these developments were the rising expenditures both in time and money for his botanical interests, which left less time for other efforts. Especially Hoffmann in Göttingen, Hedwig in Leipzig and Smith in London, who were supposed to compensate for Schreber’s and Schöpf’s failure to contribute further to his herbarium, turned out to be very time-consuming new transatlantic contacts.356 All of these developments are clearly visible in the visualization of Mühlenberg’s network during the period from 1790 to 1797. It has 49 nodes, one of which represents Mühlenberg, 30 of which represent individuals that directly corresponded with Mühlenberg, while the remaining 18 stand for temporarily inactive or future correspondents. Specifically Johann Hedwig and James Edward Smith were to be of pivotal importance in the future. Hedwig indirectly connected Mühlenberg to his own son Romanus Hedwig, Christian F. Schwägrichen and Kurt Sprengel, and also provided an indirect link to the Swede Olof Swartz, who was already a contact of Schreber at the time. Swartz was also a highly active correspondent of Smith, who was of less scientific importance to Mühlenberg than the cryptogamist Hedwig, but his ownership of the Linnean herbarium and his high reputation in the republic of letters provoked a stream of 16 letters in only five years from 1792 to 1797 and provided a link to the Berlin-based botanist Karl Ludwig Willdenow, who was to be of crucial importance for Mühlenberg’s first and only botanical publications in Europe in 1801 and 1802. In network terms, this is a first clue that increased density in local clusters was not a factor in the growth of correspondence systems in the Republic of Letters. Instead, it must be assumed that networks grew along strong ties – both Smith and Schreber ranked high in the number of letters exchanged with Mühlenberg.357 Mühlenberg’s brother Frederick, too, is not counted anymore among his professional contacts, as he had started his political career during the war. 355 Helmuth and Schmidt, who collaborated at Philadelphia, the Bartram brothers and companies like Carl&Hermann at Frankfurt were counted as one individual correspondent in table g, Appendix B, 12. 356 With Smith he exchanged 16 letters, with Hoffmann eight. See table g, Appendix B, 489. 357 1. Stoppelberg (26 letters); 2. James E. Smith (16 letters); 3. Christopher E. Schultze (twelve letters); 4. Johann C. D. E. Von Schreber (eleven letters) 5. Manasseh Cutler (nine letters). See table g, Appendix B, 489. Total distribution of Mühlenberg’s in- and outbound correspondences for Phase 2 (1790–1797). For strong ties like the ones to Smith and Schreber, I suggest the term “major correspondent”, which Mühlenberg himself applied with regard to those contacts, which he apparently regarded as particularly rewarding. In 1812, Olof Swartz and Erik Acharius (1757–1819) were particularly valuable to Mühlenberg: Swarz benennt was er kennt aus meinen Sendungen, vieles ist ihm neue, beschreibt die neuen Moose schickt was noch nicht angek Gräser p. aber keine Fucos u[nd] Conserv[ae] 3) Acharius benennt alles ungemein ac-

Transatlantic Botany

231

Schreber, too, still appears as one of the hubs of the network, although his diminished importance is clearly visible in the comparably thin tie connecting him, Mühlenberg and his own alteri. In short, Mühlenberg’s network after 1790 held a lot more regenerative potential than before, when he depended more or less on the whims of Schreber and Schöpf and their responses to his queries. In this sense, it was only during the years from 1790 to 1797 that Mühlenberg became a truly independent networker, whose list of contacts allowed to compensate for the loss of individual contacts as there were already others waiting in the background. This principle of “successive contacts” becomes most obvious in the years from 1797 to 1801, when the death of Hedwig provoked Sprengel, Schwägrichen and others to ask for an exchange in cryptogamic plant material with Lancaster. Although Mühlenberg was naturally unaware of this fortunate configuration, he was soon to feel its consequences, as more and more botanists began to actively contact him first after 1797.358 Another network factor which frequently appears in the letters was Benjamin Smith Barton, who shared no less than eight direct contacts with Mühlenberg and also corresponded directly with James D. Mease and William D. Peck, who would only join the network much later.359 The ring of correspondents around him is the best illustration of the apparent intrusiveness of Barton’s networking activities. Although the two men were connected only fleetingly, it was this indirect presence that became a decisive network factor in the form of “network strategies” which Mühlenberg devised to control the flow of information. His ties to the Orphanage, however, where Stoppelberg had taken over from Fabricius, remained strong and stable as before. In fact, the weak tie between Johan Hedwig and Stoppelberg is probably one of the most important of the entire network, as it represents the first connection between Mühlenberg and Hedwig, who chose to establish contact via the Orphanage. On the American side, the rise in contact numbers after 1790 becomes most obvious in the number of Philadelphia-based contacts (grey up-triangles), which rose from four in 1790 to ten in 1797. With Samuel Mitchill and David Hosack, a new local cluster (New York, green up-triangles) began to emerge in the 1790s. As usual, there were some proposed or planned contacts in the years from 1790 to 1797, which were never fully realized. Between 1790 and 1797, Mühlenberg contacted William Aiton (1731– 1793) at Kew Gardens, Barton’s correspondent Dr James Greenway, the Scottish botanist Jonathan Stokes (1755–1831), and was contacted by French botanist Thiebaud Arsène de Berneaud (1777–1850) in 1796.360 Just like Richter and Junghans, curat (…) Beide verdienen als Haupt corresp[ondenten] angeseh[en] zu werd[en] See Botany, a notebook (APS 580 M89bo vol. III), entry for September 16, 1812 358 See table j, Appendix B, 490. 359 These were: Autenrieth, the Bartrams, J. E. Smith, Mease, Cutler, Greenway, Kramsch, Peck, Rush and Ebeling. 360 For Aiton and Greenway: Was habe ich für Antwort von deutschl. zu erwarten? – Palm; Schreber; Schöpf; Hoffman, Carl, Stoppelberg, Fresenius. Außerdem sind mir Am. Bot. Antwort schuldig – Kramsch, Cutler, Greenway, Barton, Bartram, Mitchill – Aiton Smith von England. In Flora Lancastriensis. Botanisches Tagebuch von 1790 APS 580 M89f, entry for December 7, 1792. For Greenway, see also Greene, American Science, 255; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 210,

232

Letters from an American Botanist

Aiton and Greenway died soon, while Mühlenberg never managed to contact Stokes and never responded to de Berneaud’s request.361

217; Wyatt, “Greenway,” 210f. The first reference to Stokes can be found in 1791: Wie kann ich meine botanisch Kentniße erweitern u. auch für meine Familie nützlich mach (…) 4. dh ein mehr ausgebreitete Correspondenz, Schreber, Cutler, Kramsch, Michaux, in England Aiton, Curtis Schottland Stokes, Deutschland noch Hedwig, Hofman. In: Flora Lancastriensis. Botanisches Tagebuch von 1790 APS 580 M89f, entry for mid-October 1791. A passage from a later letter to Cutler in 1794, and the lack of any reference to Stokes in all subsequent letters suggests that Mühlenberg never actually made contact with Stokes. D[octor] Stokes is a Gentleman I esteem very much since I read the Arrangement of British Plants, if you send to him some of our dubious Plants numbered he could be of great Service to distinguish the Non descripts. Mühlenberg to Cutler, 03/17/1794, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. For Thiebaud Arsène de Berneaud, see de Berneaud to Mühlenberg, 03/01/1796, HSP Coll. 443. 361 Berneaud’s letter in full reads: Sir, Having heard from my friend Dr. Seybert that you persued the study of Botany and was making a collection of plants, I seize the opportunity of the Doctor’s returning into his native land to send you a few plants from the south of France, which I now inhabit, although they come to you from an unknown hand I hope they will be acceptable. I have chosen the scarcest or most remarkable, should there be any left for which you might have a particular desire, if you will but point them out to me I’ll do myself the pleasure to forward them to you. I shall think myself happy to open that way a botanical intercourse between you and me; the distant climates we mutually inhabit are so very different that the productions of nature in each must be equally new and interesting to us both. Any communications from you will much oblige me, I’ll answer them punctually. Meanwhile believe me respectfully yours, Thibaud. Please to direct to D. Thibaud to the care of John Cuxson Esq. N. 11 Harcourt Buildings Temple London. de Berneaud to Mühlenberg, 03/01/1796, HSP Coll. 443.

A Network in Transition

233

3. A NETWORK IN TRANSITION (PHASE 3: JUNE 1797 TO JANUARY 1802)1 The years from 1797 to early 1802 were probably the most decisive period for Mühlenberg’s networking and botanical efforts, as they saw the gradual transformation of a network oriented towards Europe into one with a clear focus on America. In the past, Europeans had been pivotal for Mühlenberg’s botanical productivity, as Schreber and Schöpf assisted decisively in his 1793 Index Flora Lancastriensis, while Hedwig, Hoffmann and Smith gave the same kind of support to his Supplementum, published in the A.P.S. Transactions of 1799.2 This first noticeable transformation of Mühlenberg’s network had occured around 1790, mostly in consequence of his growing disappointments with Schreber and Schöpf, and plans to establish contact with fellow American botanists. Since then, war had broken out in the wake of the French Revolution in Europe in 1792. Towards the end of the century, America too found itself entangled in a series of skirmishes with the so-called Barbary states in the Mediterranean, and in an undeclared war with France, the socalled “Quasi-War.”3 [T]urbulent Times, Dangers of the Sea, Sickness or some other unforeseen Accident has deprived me of the great Pleasure of hearing and learning from You,4 Mühlenberg wrote to James Edward Smith in 1798. Conditions for transatlantic communications were clearly deteriorating, but Mühlenberg obviously preferred other explanations for the worsening transatlantic correspondences. While relations with Schöpf were practically dormant since the early 1790s,5 Mühlenberg’s other Erlangen contacts continued to languish as well, as the declining frequency of contact with Schreber, Bensen, and Palm after 1797 clearly illustrates.6 Autenrieth, recently returned to Europe, briefly established contact with Schreber in 1796 in order to offer his help as a middleman in Schreber’s communications with American correspondents.7 Schreber’s refusal to answer8 can either be 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8

All data in this chapter is based on letters sent or received between Mühlenberg’s letter to Nebe, 06/06/1797, and John Frederick Schmidt’s letter to Mühlenberg, 01/09/1802, APS Film 1097. For Nebe’s letter, see list of correspondence with Schmidt, Appendix C, on page 510. See also Flow Chart C, Appendix A, 484. Henrico Muhlenberg, Supplementum Indicis Florae Lancastriensis, in: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge Vol. IV, Philadelphia 1799 (Reprint New York 1966), 235–242. For the effects of these events on American science and trade, see Greene, American Science, 44f.; Seavoy, Economic, 88; See also Neigebaur, Leopoldino, 23. To Smith, 06/28/1798, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. Actually, Schöpf was promoted president of the medical college in Ansbach and chief inspector of the court pharmacy in 1797. Chadwick, “Schoepf,” 162. See below on page 236f. Wenn mich E[uer] Hochwohlgebohren aber auch nur als Mittelsperson gebrauchen wollten, um interessantere Nachrichten aus Nordamerika zu erhalten, Autenrieth wrote, wozu mich vielleicht meine Bekanntschaften daselbst tauglich machen, so würde ich es mir ein Zeichen sein, daß das Wohlwollen E[uer] Hochwohlgebohren gegen mich doch noch einigermaßen fortdauere. Autenrieth to Schreber, 09/09/1795, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.There are three letters from Autenrieth to Schreber at Erlangen University archives. Schreber‘s ignorance becomes evident in Autenrieth‘s third letter to him: Da ich Euer Hoch-

234

Letters from an American Botanist

interpreted as a lack of interest in Autenrieth himself, or as a loss of interest in transatlantic botanical exchange in general. In any case, after several failed attempts to arouse Schreber’s interest, Autenrieth wrote to Benjamin S. Barton in Philadelphia with the same intention and the same result: Let me know by our friend M[iste]r Muhlenberg if a longer letter from me will be accepted by you.9 Barton never answered, and after Autenrieth was installed as professor of anatomy, psychology, surgery and midwifery at the University of Tübingen in 1797, his interest in America began to decline and finally ceased after two final inconsequential letters to Lancaster.10 The situation with Ebeling was no different. Our correspondence has come to falter on account of my altered situation. In August 1800 I lost my best friend with whom I had been living in the best manner for some 30 years in the closest connection of family and office, the Göttingen bibliophile explained in what was to be his last letter to Mühlenberg in 1802.11 Indeed, three years before he had accepted a post at the Hamburg public library, which demanded his full attention and eventually caused him to break off his contact with Mühlenberg.12 Just as in the case of Schöpf, Mühlenberg slowly began to realize that nothing more was to be expected from Ebeling, and as late as 1815 there is evidence in a letter to George Ticknor (1791–1871) that this contact was effectively discontinued

9

10 11

12

wohlgebohren schon öfters einige Bitte vortrug, noch nie aber eine Antwort erhielt, so zweifle ich ob Sie meine Briefe erhielten, ich bediene mich daher des gegenwärtigen Mittels um wenigstens zu erfahren, ob diesen bei diesen Kriegszeiten auf Erlangen kommen können (…) Von Dr. Mühlenberg aus Pennsylvanien habe ich einen Brief und darin eine Empfehl an Ew. Hochwohlgeb. erhalten. Autenrieth to Schreber, 09/22/1796, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. He continued: Be so kind and make my compliments to Dr. Rush and Mr. Bartram. To the former I send here the treatise of Mr. Michaelis, whom he desired, when I spoke to him the first time in Philadelphia. I would be happy, if my North american friends would not forget me. Autenrieth to Barton, 10/17/1796, APS Mss. B. B284d. Hesselberg, Psychiatrie, 4; Stübler, Autenrieth, 37. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 494f. Unser Briefwechsel ist durch meine sehr veränderte Lage, ins Stocken gerathen. Ich verlohr im August 1800 meinen besten Freund, mit dem ich 30 Jahr in der engsten Familien und Amtsverbindung auf das [Beste?] gelebt hatte. He continued: Ich mußte nun mit einer großen Bibliothek von 16000 Büchern umziehen, eine eigne Haushaltung von der ich nichts verstand, anfangen und das zur Zeit der schadhaftest Theurung, wo allein die Minister das volle Drittel aller meiner Einkünfte wegnehmen. Doch Gottes Güte hat auch das überwinden helfen. Jezt habe ich mich gut eingerichtet, auch erhalten wir Professoren jezt 300 P[fund] Zulage, also in allem an 900 P[fund]. Die Bibliotheksaufsicht wird besonders bezahlt, aber wegen der großen Unordnung worin dieser herrliche Schatz ist, gibt es dabei ungenehme Arbeit. Zudem da jezt im Flügel angebaut wird und wir fast ein Drittel der Bibliothek, das ist 35–40000 Bände umsetzen müssen. Das ist aber eine mir liebe Arbeit, wobei ich auch Bewegung habe. (...) [illegible] und sende Ihnen die Geschichte Pensylvaniens so weit sie heraus ist, worüber ich mir Ihr strenges Urtheil und wenn es Ihre Zeit irgend erlaubt Ihre gütigen Zusätze und Verbesserungen ausbitte. From Ebeling, 03/16/1802, APS Film 1097. Tiemann, “Ebeling,” 361; Doll, “History,”476. Doll points out that Ebeling’s personal circumstances and the effects of the Napoleonic wars caused a delay of thirteen years in the publication of the seventh volume of Ebeling’s Amerikanische Bibliothek. Doll, “History,”476. For a reappraisal of research done on Ebeling and the sources available today, see Overhoff, “Ebeling,” passim.

A Network in Transition

235

after 1802.13 Autenrieth and Ebeling, however, never played truly central roles in Mühlenberg’s networking and botanical efforts. Hoffmann and Smith, however, were central figures from the start, and the development of their individual correspondences with Mühlenberg was much more important. After a promising start, Mühlenberg also found the two men at London and Göttingen too distracted by other business to continue their correspondence with him as before. Johann Hedwig, his other important contact in the 1790s, died in 1799. At an earlier stage, these developments would have been a fatal blow to any transatlantic network, but Mühlenberg had already acquired a reputation of his own in European science. This caused another circle of former Hedwig correspondents, admirers and colleagues to seek his correspondence. Common interests in a specific subbranch of botanical research, in cryptogamics, now became a factor in the development of his correspondence. In addition, Mühlenberg began to play a much more active networking role, pulling the strings to facilitate collaboration between like-minded entomologists like Friedrich Valentin Melsheimer and Jacob Sturm (1771–1848), and between business contacts like Christian Jacob Hütter (no data available), a Germanspeaking printer at Lancaster, and Nebe, his new correspondent at the Halle Orphanage. Gottlieb Friedrich Stoppelberg died in 1797 and was quickly replaced by Joseph Friedrich Nebe (1737–1812), who was to be the last representative of Halle to become engaged in overseas trade with America. In Lancaster, Ludwig Lauman also died in 1797, which brought an end to the bitter personal conflicts with Mühlenberg, which had begun almost as soon as he began his ministry in 1780.14 Apparently, their mutual enmity showed in Mühlenberg’s funeral sermon for Lauman, which was perceived as “stiff” and “not enough touching” by some of the guests and attendees.15 Around the same time, Christian Jacob Hütter came to Lancaster to start a book trading business, for which Mühlenberg soon acted as an agent with Halle. Although trade with the Orphanage continued, conditions were worsening perceptibly.16 Considering the increasing obstacles that transatlantic trade and exchange had to overcome, one would expect that Mühlenberg redirected his attention to his native country, especially after the promising beginning that had been made some years before. Surprisingly, almost no domestic botanical exchange was discovered for the present phase, with the exception of a small group of Moravian bota-

13 14 15 16

Professor Ebeling and Doctor Flügge were formerly my Correspondent [sic!]. To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. There are two letters for this correspondence during the present phase. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 506. Häberlein, Practice, 213. Mühlenberg Journal, A.P.S. Mss.B.M892, entry for March 24, 1797. Ob Sie für das übrige Geld Bücher und Arzenei sollten hereinkomm lassen? Mühlenberg asked his brother-in-law Schultze in March1798, whom he continued to provide with medicines. Ich habe ziemlich Erfahrung und wolt wenig kommen lassen, weil Zoll und Insurance viel zu hoch sind. Keine Bücher würde ich vorschreib als nur Bibeln und Testamente, und ein mehr Arzenei als 1 Jahr abgesetzt werden können, sonst verlieren Sie durchs verrauch und veralten zu viel. Zoll komt auf 18 p Cent, Insurance und Fracht sind merklich hoch. To Schultze, 03/26/1798, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891.

236

Letters from an American Botanist

nists, who were to take the places that Kramsch and Kampman had occupied in the early 1790s. 3.1 The failure of Smith, Schreber and Hoffmann If relations with Mühlenberg’s European contacts had already been on the wane at the end of the preceding period, the years after 1797 became even more frustrating, as a diary entry in early January 1801 shows: My botanical correspondences are: 1, Smith would be the most useful, but is too negligent in responding, 2, Schreber is completely negligent and only seeks to enlarge his own herbarii, 3, Hoffman has forced me to break up with him as he starts too many things but never finishes anyhing. To make matters worse, the only positive exception, Johann Hedwig, died in early 1799, leaving a big hole in his network. 4. Hedwig senior died before his time; he concluded dryly.17 The obvious frustration visible in these lines was the essence of years of increasing neglect from his European correspondents, during which frequency of contact with Smith dropped from 16 letters to five, from twelve to one with Schreber (!), and from six to one with Hoffmann.18 To Mühlenberg, the reasons were not warfare, unsafe transatlantic transport or other external reasons. Rather, he blamed his three former principal European correspondents directly, chiding them for their alleged laziness and ignorance. In his letters, he worded these experiences more diplomatically.19 A look at the development of these three correspondences will show, however, that Mühlenberg was probably right in his suspicions. The reasons for the failures of Smith, Schreber and Hoffmann were definitely more personal than structural. Smith’s gradually deteriorating health, his work on the monumental Flora Britannica, which took shape in the 1790s, and his move to Norwich in 1796 deprived the owner of Linnaeus’ herbarium of opportunities for extended transatlantic correspondences. The move to his native town had been occasioned by his wife Pleasance, who was also a native of Norwich. Once established there, Smith adopted a rigid work schedule and drastically reduced his correspondence in general with the aim to devote more time to original research.20 Harbingers of this had begun to Meine bot[anischen] Corresp[ondenzen] sind: 1, Smith wäre am nützlichst[en], antwortet aber zu nachläss[ig]. 2, Schreber ist völlig nachlässig und sucht nur Vermehrung seines Herbarii 3, Hoffman hat mich genöthiget mit ihm abzubrech[en] weil er zu vielerlei unternimmt u[nd] nichts recht vollendet. 4. Hedwig der alte starb mir zu früh. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 11/29/1799. 18 See table e and g, Appendix B, on pages 488 and 489. 19 It seems an Age to me since I had the Pleasure of a Letter from You. A promise you were pleased to make in your last Letter which was dated June 14, 1796 let me hope to see a continuation of your friendly Correspondence and your Observations on the Lancastrian Plants, but alas the turbulent Times, Dangers of the Sea, Sickness or some other unforeseen Accident has deprived me of the great Pleasure of hearing and learning from You. To Smith, 06/28/1798, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 20 “Replying to his numerous correspondents, often too many for his liking, took too much time and energy, better employed in original work. He kept up a faithful correspondence with the officers of the Linnean Society: numerous letters from Sir Thomas Cullum, doctor and botanist 17

A Network in Transition

237

appear in his letters to Mühlenberg two years earlier. All the winter I was so ill I could not study at all – my lungs were affected. (...), he acknowledged in June 1795. My health thank God is restored. I have been some time in town to read my usual botanies, & attend to unavoidable business, but am now going to Norwich to see my mother & family (...). All this I hope will keep you from censuring me if I have been apparently very negligent of you.21 Three years later, Smith had already relocated to his native town, and the few letters sent from there began to resemble the excuses Mühlenberg was already used to receiving from Schreber: I acknowledge myself, my dear Sir, to be a very unworthy correspondent to you, but I will not take up your time with all the excuses I could reasonably make. The principal is that I spend every moment I can upon my Flora Britannica, a work that I want very much to complete & have long promised, & I had made a resolution that nothing should put me aside from it, but your claim I neither could nor would deny.22 Even Smith’s admission to the A.P.S in 179623 did apparently not change this, although he eventually turned out to be Mühlenberg’s most reliable European contact24 and later continued to send short lists of plant identifications. For the time being however, in late 1801, nothing could obscure the fact that Smith’s interest in Mühlenberg had dropped over the past years. In his correspondence with Schreber, the second person on the list in his diary, Mühlenberg had already made this experience much earlier.25 In late summer 1796, the Erlangen scientist promised to redirect his attention to his transatlantic correspondence,26 but very little came of it for Mühlenberg. Actually, the letter that contained Schreber’s remorseful announcement was to be the last one sent to Lancaster until January 1801, when he again acknowledged humbly that Reverend Mühlenberg, Mr Sturm has reported to me in his last letter that you (…) have not received a single letter from me in many years. This piece of news is terrible to hear for me, as all my endeavours to be at your Reverend’s service and disposal have been in vain, all is lost!27 Therefore, Schreber refused personal guilt and blamed an

21

22

23 24

25 26 27

in Suffolk, Goodenough, Lambert, Alexander M’Leay, Secretary of the Linnean Society, and others exist in the Society’s archives.” Walker, Smith, 27. Smith continued: I faithfully assure you I have not willfully omitted to write to you. When I return in the autumn I am going to remove 2 ½ miles from town; the town does not agree with my health, & I hope also to have more time. I will send you my address hereafter. From Smith, 06/03/1795, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 12/03/1798, HSP Coll. 443. In 1799, Smith wrote: I promised to write you last post, but family anxieties owing to the dangerous illness of 2 dear relations, & my own indisposition also at that time prevented me. I shall now for some months have much business on my hands, but when I possibly can find time I will send you remarks on your Lichens. From Smith, 02/01/1799, HSP Coll. 443. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 84. Although the frequency of their contact never again attained the level of the years from 1790 to 1797, it remained at a stable five to seven letters per phase until 1810. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 529 and tables i, k, m, n, Appendix B, on page 490, 491, and 492. See above on pages 198f. From Schreber, 09/16/1796, HSP Coll. 443. E[ue]r Hochwürden haben, wie mir Herr Sturm aus Ihrer letzten Zuschrift an ihn meldet, (…)

238

Letters from an American Botanist

alleged loss of letters during the war for his failing correspondence. Compared to other Mühlenberg correspondences from the Erlangen/Nuremberg area during the same period, however, this excuse held hardly any water for Mühlenberg, especially as these other correspondents were acquaintances of Schreber, too. The examples of Palm and Bensen are very illustrative in this context. In terms of quantity, Mühlenberg’s relations with the two men appear hardly different from his contact to Schreber at the time, amounting to a meagre four letters out of a total of 60 European letters from 1797 to early 1802.28 In the case of the Nurembergbased engraver and scientist Jacob Sturm, however, eight letters could be identifed, which includes six reconstructed ones.29 In total, 13 letters sent from the Erlangen/ Nuremberg area from 1797 to 1802 could be found, only one of which came from Schreber’s hand. This circumstance and the complicated nature of the various businesses between Mühlenberg, Bensen, Palm and Sturm contradicted Schreber’s excuse, and must have suggested to Mühlenberg that he used warfare as a pretext to justify his negligence. Erlangen and Nuremberg, to be sure, were severely affected by the approach of French troops in 1796, despite the imperial city’s affiliation with Prussia and resulting neutrality.30 Bensen’s and Sturm’s letters included frequent complaints about wartime shortages, destructions and communication problems, all of which might have been reason enough to limit their contact with Mühlenberg.31 Consequently, their individual motivations to overcome these problems were obviously higher than Schreber’s motivation at the time. In fact, sending mail to Lancaster was troublesome, but far from impossible. seit mehreren Jahren keinen Brief von mir erhalten. Diese Nachricht ist mir schrecklich, so ist denn mein Bestreben, E[ue]r Hochwürden dienstlich und gefällig zu sein, vergebens gewesen, alles ist verloren! From Schreber, 01/28/1801, HSP Coll. 443. Whether or not Schreber actually submitted a letter cannot be discerned with certainty, although passages in contemporary letters pinpoint that he actually did so. Mühlenberg‘s cousin Bensen, for instance, wrote in 1801: Meine beiden Briefe im v[origen] J[ahr] scheinen aber nach Ihren Äusserungen nicht erhalten zu haben, so wenig wie den von Presid[ent] Schreber der zugleich eine blechern Kapsel mit Sämereien an Sie abgeschickt und auf alle Ihre Fragen, wie er sagt, geantwortet hat. From Bensen, 05/28/1801, APS Film 1097. See also a similar passage in a letter by Sturm to Mühlenberg, 01/31/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 28 See table i, Appendix B, on page 490. 29 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 531. 30 Karl August von Hardenberg (1750–1822) had negotiated a separate peace treaty with France at Basel. Bischoff, “Erlangen,” 62; Schieber, Erlangen, 74. 31 For instance, Bensen wrote in 1801: Wir haben durch den Krieg erstaunlich viel gelitten, und besonders dieser Winter war für uns schedlich. In der Nähe unsrer Stadt sind mehrere Gefechte angfallen, und troz der Neutralität waren wir doch Gefahr ausgeplündert zu werden. Alle Preise der Dinge sind jetzt auch um das 3 fache als sonst theuer. Sie können also leicht denken wie viel dazu gehört, um mit einer Familie als ein ehrlicher Mensch durch zu kommen und wie schwer es werden muß, Geistesarbeiten anzunehmen. Alle Geschäfte sterben, alles sehnt sich nach dem Frieden und erhalten wir ihn nicht bald, so ist es leicht möglich, daß ein neuer allgemeiner Krieg ausbricht, der sich mit dem völligen Untergang von Europa endiget. Alles ist daher in banger Erwartung, und wenn unsre Grossen dis nicht ganz beherzigen und von ihrer Eroberungssucht ablassen, so möchten sie wohl am Ende am meisten dafür büssen. From Bensen, 05/28/1801, APS Film 1097.

A Network in Transition

239

Mühlenberg’s cousin Bensen, who accounted for three letters from Erlangen, was primarily engaged in their joint efforts to negotiate and organize the transfer of inherited moneys, which entailed complicated and time-consuming legal issues with German and American authorities. Bensen surely possessed both the necessary legal know–how, which earned him a full professorship of philosophy and cameralism in 1797, and the needed kinship ties, which typically formed the basis of mutual trust in the transfer and handling of inheritances.32 With Palm, Mühlenberg continued to trade in books, although he increasingly adopted the role of an intermediary rather than that of a client. Possibly in response to an earlier request,33 he linked Palm with Christian Jacob Hütter at an undefined point in time after 1797. Hütter was also introduced to Nebe, who was probably hoping for a new field of commerce for Halle, which had once again been organized by Mühlenberg, who was by then Halle’s central figure in its overseas trade. Some years since, I have started a local trade with German books (…), Hütter explained to Nebe in June 1799. During the same, I have often had demand for the bibles of your printing house. I only always lacked a register of the various types and their prices, until the same was finally provided to me through the local Doctor Mühlenberg (…).34 Apparently, Mühlenberg wanted to leave all of the trade in Halle Bibles to Hütter,35 confirming to Nebe that Mr Hütter is now a local printer, a very enterprising man, who pushes further with the book trade than any other German book trader before him.36 By 1800, Hütter began to receive books from Palm, Nebe and the aforementioned Sturm, who also maintained close ties with Schreber and Palm in Erlangen. In 32 33 34

35

36

Engelhardt, Erlangen, 80; Glas, Palm, 83; Kötter, Poll and Schug, Verzeichnis I, 46. Sollten Sie mir nicht Bekanntschaft mit einem braven und soliden Buchhändler entweder in Amerika oder in Spanien für meinen Verlag machen können, (…) Sie würden mich durch diese Gefälligkeit sehr verbinden. From Palm, 07/27/1791, APS Film 1097. Ich habe hiesigen Orte seit mehreren Jahren einen hochdeutschen Buchhandel (…) angefangen, während welchem ich öfters Nachfrage nach deren in Ihrem Verlag herauskommenden Bibeln gehabt habe es fehlte mir immer an einem Verzeichnis der verschiedenen Sorten und deren Preise, bis mir nun d[er] hiesige Doctor Mühlenberg damit begünstiget hat (...). Hütter to Nebe, 06/24/1799, AFSt/M 4 D4:21. H[err] Mühlenberg der sonst Bibeln von Ihnen verschrieb hat mir dieses nur gänzl[ich] überlaßen, und in Absicht der Zahlung werden Sie mir denselben Accord zugestehen den H[err] Mühlenberg mit Ihnen hatte; in Absicht des Rabatts hoffe ich aber daß Sie etwas mehreres thun werden, denn die Bücher kommen doch sehr hoch bis hirher, besonders bei dem hohen Assecuranz premium: und ich werde alle Jahre ansehnliche Parthien zu verschreiben im Stande seyn, (...). Hütter to Nebe, 06/24/1799, AFSt/M 4 D4:21. Ich habe hiesigen Orte seit mehreren Jahren einen hochdeutschen Buchhandel (…) angefangen, während welchem ich öfters Nachfrage nach deren in Ihrem Verlag herauskommenden Bibeln gehabt habe es fehlte mir immer an einem Verzeichnis der verschiedenen Sorten und deren Preise, bis mir nunDieser H[er]r Hütter ist jetzt ein hiesiger Drucker, ein sehr unternehmender Mann, der den Bücherhandel weitertreibt als vor ihm irgend ein deutscher Buchhändler.d[er] hiesige Doctor Mühlenberg damit begünstiget hat (...). Ob er dabei gewinnen oder verlieren wird muß die Zeit lehren. Wie ich höre liegt sein Hauptvermögen bei seinem Bruder Ludw. Hutter in Utrecht, denn er komt von Holland, obgleich sein Vater ein Sachse war und unter Graf Brühl im 7 jährigen Krieg ein Commisariat verwaltete. To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5.

240

Letters from an American Botanist

turn, Mühlenberg began to place his orders with Hütter, who primarily provided him with theological literature. An entry in Hütter’s business ledger of July 18, 1800 lists works by Nicolaus Friedrich Herbst (1705–1772) and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn’s (1752–1827) Einleitung ins alte Testament (Leipzig, 1787) in Mühlenberg’s credit account. An earlier entry in the same ledger, dated January 12, 180037 lists a number of chemical works, such as Johann Kunkel von Löwenstern’s (1630–1703) Collegium physico-chymicum experimentale (Hamburg and Leipzig, 1716) and Johann Gottfried Jugel’s (1707–1786) Sehr rare und wahrhafte chemische experimentirte Kunst-Stücke (Lepizig, 1789), along with 18 copies of works by Johann David Schöpf. As Mühlenberg had little or no interest in chemistry,38 it is reasonable to assume that these were recommendations of Mühlenberg to Hütter for sale. This list also comprised works by his new correspondent Jacob Sturm. To Mr book trader Hütter I have written on account of the debit of my Flora in America, Sturm announced in 1801, and I kindly ask you in the most humble fashion, to make a claim for the same, next to the second attachment, which the book trader Palm from Erlangen has communicated.39 All of these new business ties were mediated by Mühlenberg, despite unfavorable conditions in Germany and in the Erlangen/Nuremberg area. Besides connecting Sturm with Hütter, Mühlenberg’s contact with the Nuremberg illustrator and entomologist40 had no long-term effects on his work or networking – primarily because both men were actively engaged in different fields of natural enquiry. Early on in his career, Sturm had been recruited by Schreber and Wolfgang Franz Panzer (1755–1829) to illustrate their botanical and zoological publications, which eventually led him to develop his own scientific interests and to engage in entomological studies during the 1790s.41 No precise date of beginning of this brief contact could be established, but it is very likely that Sturm first heard of the Lancaster clergyman from Schreber in the early 1790s, contacting Mühlenberg around 1797 via Nebe in the hope of procuring new insects for his growing 37

I am indebted to Prof. Dr Hermann Wellenreuther for providing me copies of Hütter’s general merchandise ledgers from the archives of the Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society, Easton, PA. See entries for 01/12/1800 and 07/18/1800 in NCHGS, M 554 Ledgers. 38 Mühlenberg’s only “chemical” contact was Samuel Latham Mitchill. See above on page 182f. 39 An H[er]rn Buchhändler Hütter habe ich wegen dem Debit meiner Flora in Amerika geschrieben und ersuche Sie ergebenst, solchen, nebst der zweiten Anlage, so wie H[er]r Buchhändler Palm in Erlangen übergeben hat, gefälligst ablangen zu lassen. From Sturm, 01/31/1801, HSP Coll. 443. By “ablangen”, Sturm meant to collect the sum on his behalf. For another instance of Sturm’s strong ties to Schreber, see From Sturm, 05/07/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 40 Most of the archival collections and the bequest of Jacob Sturm were lost during an Allied air raid on Nuremberg on January 2, 1945, which makes reconstruction of his correspondence network nearly impossible. The surviving correspondences are confined to a list of 45 correspondents from 1806 through 1843, to be found at the archives of the Naturhistorische Gesellschaft Nürnberg, which Sturm himself helped found in 1801. 41 Glaßer, Personalbibliographien, 77; Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Sturm, J.” Bosl’s Bayerische Biographie, s.v. “Sturm;” Palm actually planned to publish Sturm’s work on the German Flora, but nothing came of it. Sturm finally published privately. Glas, Palm, 91. See also Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326.

A Network in Transition

241

collections.42 In late September 1799, Mühlenberg noted in his diary: Another letter by Mr Sturm from Nuremberg with flora and fauna, he himself asks for insects (…) Sturm deserves that I do him the favor and I will send insects.43 Although Mühlenberg kept his promise by sending two packages to Sturm,44 the contact was only of minor interest to him.45 Instead, he connected Sturm to the other entomologist in his circle of correspondents, his old colleague Melsheimer.46 Although their exchange was basically confined to the years around 1800 and inconsequential in terms of Mühlenberg’s botanical interests, it illustrates that new contacts from the Erlangen/ Nuremberg region were not impossible to mazke.47 The situation with Hoffmann, Mühlenberg’s promising new contact at Göttingen and rival to Schreber, was quite similar to Schreber. Six letters were sent back and forth from 1791 to 1795, followed by six years of silence during which no evidence of contact could be found in any of Mühlenberg’s letters or diaries. In fact, Hoffmann was hardly mentioned in letters to and from Mühlenberg anymore,48 and Sie erhalten auch ein kl[eines] Päckchen von H[errn] Backer, so aus Nürnberg von H[errn] Sturm abgesandt worden. From Nebe, 09/29/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. 43 Von H[er]r Sturm aus Nürnberg abermahl[en] einen Brief mit flora u[nd] fauna, er hält um Insect an (...) Sturm verdient daß ich ihm den Gefallen thue u[nd] Insect[en] schicke. He continued: Ich denke 1) ich solt eine klein Bottel mir Whisky nehmen u. darin (...) Käfer 2, eine Schachtel hab mit Papperdeckel belegt, Sassafras Öhl getränkt und sie da aufsteck od. Kork 3. den Grund mit Arsenic bestreuen und sie so bald als mögl. an die Herrn v. d. Smissen zu beförd. schick u an das Handels[illegible] Herzogenrath in Nürnberg für Jac. Sturm Graveur am Wöhrderthörlein. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 09/30/1799. 44 Sturm wrote: Den 22ten April laufenden Jahres erhielt ich Ihr verehrungswürdiges Schreiben vom 16ten Oct. 1799 nebst einem Kästchen mit Insekten. From Sturm, 05/07/1800, HSP Coll. 443. Again, in the following year: Den 14ten Jan. hatte die unvermutete Freude Ihren schätzbaren Brief nebst dem Kästchen mit Insecten, vom 20ten Oct. 1800 datiert richt zu erhalten. Die Insecten haben auch diesmal die Reise glücklich überstanden. From Sturm, 01/31/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 45 Mit der Entomologie habe ich mich seit etlichen Jahren fast gar nicht einlassen können, so gern ich meinen wackern Freund Herrn Sturm befriedigen möchte. Meine Zeit ist zu kurz, und es sind mir eben deswegen schon verschiedene Sendungen verdorben ehe ich sie abschicken konte. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 46 This actually happened in response to a direct request by Sturm as early as 1797. In meinem zweiten Schreiben an Ew. Wohlgeboren vom 20ten August 1797 fügte ich eine Beilage an den Hrn. Pastor Melsheimer, welchem Sie mich gütigst empfehlen wollten, bei. Gewiss werden Sie ihm solche zugestellt haben, aber ich habe noch keine Antwort erhalten. Ich ersuche Sie daher nochmals ergebenst mich diesem Manne, und wen Sie noch, nah und fern, kennen, der sich mit Entomologie interessiert, gütigst zu empfehlen. Verzeihen Sie meine große Zudringlichkeit. Enthusiasmus für meine Lieblingswissenschaft macht mich fast unverschämt. From Sturm, 05/07/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 47 To Mühlenberg, this must have rendered Schreber’s excuses in 1801 even more absurd, especially as everyone who managed to send one, two or more letters – Bensen, Palm, and Sturm – was a close contact of Schreber, and would not have been there if it were not for his and Johann David Schöpf’s mediation after 1784. The latter, however, was far from re-establishing his dormant contact with Lancaster, after being promoted to president of the united medical colleges of Ansbach and Bayreuth in 1797. Chadwick, “Schoepf,”162. 48 From 1795 to 1801, there are only two minor references to Hoffmann: Da Herr Prof. Hofmann von hier nach Göttingen versetzt worden, so ist Dillen‘s neue Ausgabe seitdem unterblieben bis 42

242

Letters from an American Botanist

it was only in 1801 that he took up the thread again. Unfortunately for Mühlenberg he did not include specimens, but yet another excuse, stating that he had lost the previous numbers and could not continue his part of their commercium litterarium at this point. Nevertheless, Hoffmann had no scruples asking Mühlenberg to continue his botanical packages.49 It is hard to determine to what degree Mühlenberg actually subscribed to the implicit ideals of the Republic of Letters, such as reciprocity of exchange.50 But his reactions and comments to his other contacts on Hoffmann’s behavior reveal that he began to consider this particular correspondence out of balance and not worthy of further continuation. Two years after the entry in his diary, in which he had complained that Hoffmann had actually forced him to break up,51 Mühlenberg confessed to Dawson Turner that Doctor Hoffman at Gottingen has received from me whatever I could get in Pennsylvania, but he is too slow for me in his Descriptions, and begins too many works at one time.52 At least in the case of Johann Hedwig, the prominent bryologist from Leipzig, there was no reason for complaints. Although no precise date for the beginning of their contact could be established, it is certain that their botanical exchange began for real as late as 1796, when Hedwig addressed a note to Stoppelberg at Halle, asking for information about Mühlenberg’s current circumstances.53 Indeed, the four letters still extant date from the years 1796 to 1799.54 The year in which Hedwig began to return lists of identifications for the cryptogamic specimens Mühlenberg sent to him, his only daughter died at the age of 16, a blow from which he never recovered. Hedwig had been widowed for the first time in 1776 and married his second wife Klara Benedikta Sulzberger in 1777, who took care of the children from his first marriage and gave birth to six more children. Five of them did not

beßere Zeiten kommen. Palm to Mühlenberg, 08/15/1796, A.P.S. 1097; See also R.A. Hedwig to Mühlenberg, 10/28/1799, HSP Soc. Coll. 49 Meinen herzlichsten Dank erhalten Sie für alles mir zugeteilte. Aber unglücklicherweise sind von vielen dieser die Nummern verloren und ich kann also darüber keine Auskünfte geben. Indessen bitte ich Ihnen mit Ihrer mir so lehrreichen Sendung von Pflanzen und kryptogamischen Gewächsen fortzufahren, er ich dies alles genauer wie bisher geschehen konnte untersuchen und bestimmen werde. From Hoffmann, 01/09/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 50 See above on page 99f. Mühlenberg himself never made any explicit statements on the republic of letters in his writings or correspondences. 51 3, Hoffman hat mich genöthiget mit ihm abzubrech weil er zu vielerlei unternimmt u[nd] nichts recht vollendet. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/27/1801. 52 To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. 53 The full letter reads: Wohlgebohrner Herr Inspector Hochzuehrender Herr. Verzeihen Sie mir die Freiheit die ich mir nehme, Ihnen mit einer Frage um den Herrn D. Muhlenberg in Lancaster zu erkundigen. Ich habe damals nebst dem Microskop noch einen Brief an ihn geschickt, und bin noch ohne alle Antwort. Dieses ist mir so ungewöhnlich, daß ich fast in Sorge um diesen mir so theuren und schäzbaren Mann bin, ob er auch wohl noch leben mögte. Wollen E[ue] r Wohlgebohren nicht die Gütigkeit haben mir mit ein paar Zeilen wissend zu machen, ob und was Sie für eine Nachricht von ihm haben? Sie würden mich Ihnen dadurch ungemein verbinden, da ich mit vollkommener Hochachtung bin E[ue]r Wohlgebohren ganz ergebenster Diener D. Hedwig Leipzig d[en] 16. Sept. 1796. Hedwig to Stoppelberg, 09/16/1796, AFSt/M 4 D3. 54 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 511.

A Network in Transition

243

survive infancy, the sixth being his only daughter.55 The ailing Hedwig died two years after her on February 18, 1799, from what appears to have been a fit of typhoid fever.56 Mühlenberg learned of Hedwig’s death in late 1799. As it turned out, Hedwig’s large circle of correspondents had already taken notice of him as one of Hedwig’s key correspondents on North American cryptogamia. Only months after his death, a series of young European correspondents picked up the thread where it had been left by the Leipzig bryologist. 3.2 The Cryptogamic Circle I The diary entry of January 1801 quoted above, containing Mühlenberg’s summary of his European correspondences to this point, did not end with Johann Hedwig. Added to the brief and rather scathing remarks about the disappointing contributions of Smith, Schreber and Hoffmann were the names of four scientists, all of whom were connected to Hedwig in one way or another. They joined Mühlenberg’s circle of correspondents in quick succession, albeit independently of each other, from 1797 to 1802.57 Each of these five individuals – Romanus Adolph Hedwig (1772–1806), Christian Friedrich Schwägrichen (1775–1838), Carl Ludwig Willdenow (1765–1812), Kurt Polycarp Joachim Sprengel (1766–1833) and Christiaan Hendrik Persoon (1761–1836) – had maintained different kinds of ties with old 55

Heltmann, “Hedwig,” 78f., 84; Deleuze, Hedwig, 59. In 1797, Goethe paid a visit to Hedwig. Frahm, “Hedwig,” 6. 56 Heltmann, “Hedwig,” 84. In 1910, Hedwig’s posthumous publication Species Muscorum Frondosum (Leipzig, 1801) was internationally adopted as the official point of departure of the nomenclature on mosses, making his herbarium a type herbarium. American botanists, however, refused to follow suit, adopting Linnaeus’ 1753 publication Species Plantarum as such. Frahm, “Hedwig,” 9; Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 431; Price, Catalogue, 10. With regard to his scientific contributions, Hedwig‘s first biographer Deleuze wrote: “Zwar wird denjenigen Männern Berühmtheit weit schneller zu Theil, die grosse Naturerscheinungen mahlen, sie durch glänzende Lehrgebäude entwickeln, und durch kühne Gedanken den weiten Umkreis der Wesen umfassen. (…) Wer hingegen mit einem Theil des Naturwissens sich beschäftigt, und durch eine bestimmte Erörterung dessen, was er erscheinen, oder hervor kommen sieht, Irrthümer zerstreut, und Stoff für die Kenntniß des Ganzen liefert, der erlangt zwar weit später seinen Namen, aber sein Ruf wächst mit den Jahren, und sein Zeugniß gilt bei allen denen, die allgemeinen Lehrgebäude aufstellen wollen,” Deleuze, Hedwig, 51. 57 A passage from Mühlenberg’s diary mentions almost all of them in one of Mühlenberg’s lists: 5. Hedwig der junge, muß mir erst antwort damit ich ihn näher kennen lerne, er könte mir sehr nützlich [sein] 6. Schwägrichen, gerade so, kann weniger helf (…) 7. Willdenow bisher nach meinem Sinn, wenn er so fortfährt, mein Mann. Er ermüdet nicht (...) 8. Sprengel willig, brauchbar für Sämereien, ihn werde ich aus zukünfthig Antwort beßer beurtheil könn. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/27/1801. The name of Persoon is inexplicably absent in this passage. Technically, one letter by Christian Schkuhr (1741–1811) also falls into Phase 3 (1797–1802) of Mühlenberg’s network, but only by a narrow margin of a couple of months. Mühlenberg obviously addressed one letter to Schkuhr at some point in 1801. As this only refers to a reconstructed letter, Schkuhr’s contact to Mühlenberg will only be treated in the following chapter. See below on page 313, respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 524f., and table i, Appendix B, on page 490.

244

Letters from an American Botanist

Hedwig and with each other, but they shared one decisive trait which ultimately directed their attention towards Mühlenberg. Just like Hedwig, they focused on cryptogamics, in which the Leipzig-based bryologist had made so much progress over the past 20 years. As it has already been pointed out above, research in this field constituted one of the main interests in late 18th century botany. In this respect, the growth of Mühlenberg’s network in Europe must be equally attributed to network dynamics and current botanical trends. In America, Mühlenberg was practically without a rival in this field. The Cryptogamia Class still gives me a great deal of Trouble, he confided to James Edward Smith in 1805, as I know hardly of any American Botanist who can assist me in this class. My Friend J[ohan] Hedwig died too soon for me and the Fungi which are innumerable can hardly be sent to Europe.58 Unaware of Hedwig’s death in February 1799, Mühlenberg had addressed another letter to him on July 15, 1799, which was forwarded via the Orphanage.59 To Mühlenberg’s surprise, he found his last letter answered in late October 1799 by Hedwig’s son Romanus Adolph. Apparently, Mühlenberg had included another diatribe against Hoffmann in his letter, and Hedwig junior seized the opportunity to lure Mühlenberg with the promise that he would be a better correspondent than Hoffmann.60 Knowledge of Romanus Adolph’s short life and scientific career is restricted to a few entries in contemporary biographical dictionaries and rare references in articles about his father.61 Analysis of the botanical exchange which ensued after his unexpected answer to Mühlenberg shows, however, that he actually succeeded to step in his father’s footsteps for a while until his untimely death in 1806.62 From Lancaster came cryptogamic specimens, mostly mosses, while Hedwig returned their identifications. Still, Mühlenberg was not thoroughly convinced of his new contact, especially as other options were available.63 58 To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 59 Ihr sehr angenehmes vom April 99. habe ich richtig erhalten, nachdem ich etliche Tage vorher an Sie geschrieben und ein Paquet für die Herrn Prof. Sprengel und Hedwig beigeschlossen. Daß lezterer schon gestorben war habe ich zu meinem großen Leidwesen gesehen. To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4. 60 Sollten SIE daher, HOCHZUVEREHRENDER HERR, die Güte haben, und durch Fortsetzung eines Theils IHRER Gewogenheit und Freundschaft, welche mein tüchtiger Vater genoss meine Arbeiten durch Ihre unterstützenden Beitraege zu begräftigen, und zu beglücken, so würde ich mit groesserer Treue, und Genauigkeit dieselbe erwiedern als Hofmann, ueber den IHR Brief wohl mit Recht, wie mancher andere, klagt. In the same letter, Romanus Adolph also included a verbal attack on Schreber. Unsere teutschen Botanicker klagen sehr darueber dass er sich von allen alles schicken laesst, und er weder benutzt, noch zu zurück schickt. From Romanus A. Hedwig, 10/28/1799, HSP Soc. Coll. 61 Das gelehrte Teutschland, s.v. “Hedwig, J,” Lexikon deutschsprachiger Bryologen, s.v. “Hedwig,” 62 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 511. 63 Mühlenberg confessed his doubts about young Hedwig to his correspondent Nebe at the Orphanage in 1800: An den jungen H[er]rn D[octor] Hedwig habe ich schon geschrieben. Ich weiß nicht, wie ich mit ihm daran bin. Bald nach des sel[igen] Hedwigs Tode schrieb ein junger Doctor aus Leipzig Schwägrichen an mich, schickte mir den Inhalt eines Hedwigsch Werks über die Moose und meldete daß er bestimt sei das Werk herauszugeben und Supplemente zu

A Network in Transition

245

As it turned out, Romanus Adolph Hedwig had teamed up with Christian Friedrich Schwägrichen to continue his father’s work.64 Just two years before, Schwägrichen had finished his medical studies with his dissertation Topographiae botanicae et entomologicae Lipsiensis specimen. Coming from a merchant family, transatlantic and international business had always been an important aspect of Schwägrichen’s adult life, which he quickly adapted to his own needs when he contacted Mühlenberg in 1799.65 No letters from this correspondence have survived, but its traces can be followed in other sources until four months prior to Mühlenberg’s death in 1815.66 Until 1806, Schwägrichen and Romanus A. Hedwig collaborated on the elder Hedwig’s work on mosses, and Mühlenberg continued to contribute. I have since sent a great number of specimens to (...) Romanus Hedwig and his Editor D[octor] Schwagrichen, because I heartily wish our mosses fully described, he reported to Dawson Turner.67 In 1801, the work actually yielded scientific results, when Hedwig’s Species Muscorum Frondosum was published posthumously in Leipzig.68 Both Romanus Adolph and Schwägrichen, however, were not Mühlenberg’s first choice when he heard of old Hedwig’s death.69 On October 2, 1799, just a few weeks before Romanus Adolph sat down to write to Lancaster, Mühlenberg had already submitted a letter to Carl Ludwig Willdenow at Berlin.70 In Berlin, Willdenow received this and a second letter in early spring of 1800 and answered immediately. Willdenow had actually tried to establish contact with Mühlenberg twice in 1797 and 1798. I was very depressed, he admitted, by not seeing even one line from you, as I surely expected to see an answer to one of my letters. You could not make me a more pleasant surprise as you have with your most valuable letter dated the 2nd October and 3rd December of last year.71 Whereas the

64

65 66 67 68 69

70

71

machen, bat um mehrere Moose. Ich schickte ihm etliche 60. Nun schreibt der Sohn, er werde die Supplemente machen. Wer mag der eigentliche Herausgeber sein? To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. Heute komt ein Paquet von Schwägrich, Mühlenberg noted on July 28th 1801. [D]araus ich sehe daß R. Hedwig und er die Muscos (…) gemeinschaftlich bearbeit, letzter die Stiche u[nd] er die Beschreibung macht. Ich werde desweg wohl ein gemeinschaftlich Paquet schick können. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 07/28/1801. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Schwägrichen, C. D,” See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 528. To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. Lexikon deutschsprachiger Bryologen, s.v. “Hedwig,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Hedwig, J,” Heute bekomme ich die traurige Nachricht im April 99 datiert dass mein Freunde Hedwig im 68 Jahr im Anfang des 99 Jahres gestorb! Er ruhe sanft – Jetzt wird vielleicht das viele übersandt unbekannt bleib – und ich muss mich so gleich an einen anderen namentl[ich] Willdenow wend[en]. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 07/30/1799. Mühlenberg‘s first two letters to Willdenow are mentioned in Willdenow‘s response, dated 04/18/1800, HSP Coll. 443: Ich erhielt an einem Tage Ihre schätzbare Zuschrift vom 2t Oktober und 3 Dezember des vorigen Jahres. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 533. Ich war sehr niedergeschlagen auch nicht eine Zeile von Ihnen zu erblicken, weil ich doch sicher darauf rechnete auf einen meiner Briefe Antwort zu sehen. Sie konnten mich daher nicht angenehmer überraschen, als dies mal geschehen ist. Ich erhielt an einem Tage Ihre schätzbare

246

Letters from an American Botanist

first letter seems to have miscarried, Mühlenberg noted the reception of the second in his diary on September 24, 1799, in which Willdenow had enclosed a diploma of membership in the Berlin Society of Friends of Natural History.72 It was to this letter that Mühlenberg responded to in early October, opening yet another exchange in cryptogamic specimens, which he once again hoped to be better and more effective than those with his previous correspondents. As a consequence, the specimens he planned to submit to Willdenow were those which Smith and Schreber had not yet come around to describe for him.73 In Willdenow, Mühlenberg had one of the most important taxonomists of the time at his disposal, who was also a close friend of Alexander von Humboldt, with whom he had become acquainted in Halle in 1788.74 The following year, he finished his dissertation and returned to Berlin to take over his father’s pharmacy Unter den Linden, where he stayed until 1798. Already in the year before, Willdenow had accepted an offer to re-edit Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum, in recognition of which he was offered a professorship of natural history at the local Collegium Medico-Chirurgicum.75 It was during this crucial period of his career, which forced him to refocus on basic botanical research and theories and consequentially to extend his contacts, that Mühlenberg became a part of Willdenow’s “new” web. Willdenow opened their exchange with a diploma of membership to the Berlin Society of Friends of Natural History, which Mühlenberg answered with an extensive packet of 100 specimens.76 Just like many times before, specimens crossed the Atlantic from America to Europe, were received and redirected by van der Smissen in Hamburg and Nebe in Halle to Berlin. Willdenow returned the correct names of

72

73 74 75

76

Zuschrift vom 2t[en] Oktober und 3 Dezember des vorigen Jahres. From Willdenow, 04/18/1800, HSP Coll. 443. Sept 24. Heute einen Brief von Fresenius aus Schlitz mit Beilag empfang schon im Sept. u. Oct. 98 datirt, nebst einem Diploma von der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Westfalens und dato einen von Wildenow nebst einem Diploma der Naturforschenden Freunde in Berlin letzter werde ich so bald als möglich beantwort, und an Willdenow weitläuftig schreib, ihm auch mit Vegnüg alle neue Pflanz schik die ich nicht im System find. Vors erste durch aus kein als wo ich ungewiß bin. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 09/24/1799. 1, Alle die wo ich gewiß bin daß sie noch nicht im Syst steh[en], and 2, Alle mir ungewiße, von Smith u[nd] Schreber noch nicht bestimmte. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 09/24/1799. Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Willdenow, C.L.” For Willdenow’s botanical exchange with Paul Usteri (1768–1831) and Humboldt in the 1790s, see especially Vogel, “Willdenow,” 247–266. Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Willdenow. C. L,” Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 18; Müller–Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326; Hu and Merril, “Publications“, 3; Smith, “Pioneer“, 444; Hein, “Willdenow,” 468. The new edition of Linnaeus’ work was published in nine volumes until 1810. Ibid. Einen neuen Correspondenten habe ich an H[er]rn Profeßor Willdenow in Berlin erhalten, Mühlenberg informed Nebe, der mir ein Diploma von den naturforschenden Freunden in Berlin zu schickte und um Pflanzen zur Berichtigung seiner Edition der Species Linn. anhielt. Ich habe ihm zur Probe etliche 100 geschickt. Solte er etwas ein Paquet an mich über Halle schikken wollen, so bitte gehorsamst es in meinen Arznei Kasten mit einpacken und befördern zu laßen. Kräuterkunde und die dabei nöthigen Excursionen sind meine Erholungen. To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5.

A Network in Transition

247

the specimens, which included both mosses and grasses in this case.77 Several passages from the correspondence suggest, however, that a simple teacher-student relationship, which had defined Mühlenberg’s exchange with Schreber, can no longer be assumed in this exchange. Mühlenberg’s refined knowledge and even reputation as a botanist appears very clearly in Willdenow’s willingness to accept Mühlenberg’s doubts about his plant identifications.78 After roughly 16 years of correspondence with botanical authorities in Europe, Mühlenberg had acquired enough knowledge and fama of his own to challenge the views of his new correspondents for the first time. Especially the increase of his fama, the “currency of the republic of letters,” is evident from the growing number of botanists seeking contact with Mühlenberg after about 1797. Before, it had been primarily up to him to find and contact new, promising botanical correspondents for exchange and identification of unknown specimens.79 Apart from the specimens Mühlenberg provided for Willdenow’s continuing re-edition of Linnaeus’ Species, the Berlin-based botanist profited from his American contact in another way. After Willdenow’s said diploma of the Berlin Society of Friends of Natural History,80 Mühlenberg accepted the offer to submit a paper on various species of trees in Lancaster’s vicinity along with his response. This resulted in Mühlenberg’s third and fourth publication in a scientific journal and the first ones in Europe, which were entitled Brief observations on some species of the genera of Juglans, Fraxinus, and Quercus growing in the vicinity of Lancaster, America (published in 1801), and On the willows of North America (1803).81 The Die überschickten Gräser habe ich alle auf das Genaueste geprüft und lege Ihnen hier das Resultat meiner Untersuchungen bei, mit der Bitte mir die, wo Sie anderer Meinung sind, es gütigst anzuzeigen. Nur durch wechselseitige Mitteilung der Zweifel und Beobachtungen lässt sich die Wahrheit erfahren und ich bin so wenig eigensinnig in diesem Punkte, dass ich gerne bessere Lehre annehme und es auch aufrichtig gestehe, wenn ich geirrt habe. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. See also Hitchcock, “Grasses,” 27; Cahill, “Correspondence,” 391. Cahill remarks on their correspondence: “Their [the letters’] botanical content is a collaborative invention, handled in plain style, using abbreviations, fragments, allusions, with the specimens carefully numbered so that their pared, cryptic, abbreviated remarks can be read as a practical conversation. This was common practice in botanical correspondence.” Ibid. 78 [W]ie leicht lässt sich bei trockenen Pflanzen, wenn man nicht mehr als ein Specimen hat, irren, Willdenow conceded in January of 1801. Wer kann von einer getrockneten Pflanze noch mit Gewissheit sagen, (…) ob die abstrahierten Merkmale alle sich halten? Es war mir daher die Anzeige Ihrer Zweifel sehr angenehm. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 79 Table j, Appendix B, on page 490 shows a steep rise of Mühlenberg’s passive contacts for the years 1797 to 1802. In the case of 40 of Mühlenberg’s correspondents, the direction of the initial contact could be established. Throughout the 31 years of his Lancaster correspondence, Mühlenberg actively contacted 14 correspondents and was contacted 26 times. 80 Maisch quotes the exact wording of the diploma: Da wir nun schon öffentliche und PrivatZeugnisse von des Herrrn Mühlenberg, berühmten Botanisten und Prediger zu Lancaster in Pensilvanien, wichtigen Kenntnissen in der Naturgeschichte sowohl, als von Dessen vorzüglichen Verdiensten des Herzens, vor Uns haben, und wir mit Zuversicht von dem Karakter eines so edel denkenden Mannes Uns viel wesentliche Vorhtiel, in Beförderung der Kenntnis der Natur, und der mehrern Aufnahme Unserer Gesellschaft, verprechen können. Quoted after Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 37. 81 Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg. “Kurze Bemerkungen über die in der Gegend von Lancaster in 77

248

Letters from an American Botanist

painstaking research preceding the publication of these two articles is reflected in Mühlenberg’s correspondences from 1784 to 1799. A brief summary highlights the experience he had acquired by the end of the century, and the way he used his correspondence to conduct systematic research in a field of American botany which had been only superficially described so far. His interest in trees began in the early days of his correspondence with Schreber and Schöpf, who had also directed his attention to the current authorities in the field: Linnaeus’ works and Friedrich Adam Julius von Wangenheim’s (1749–1800) Description of some species of trees that grow in North America, published in Göttingen in 1781.82 Schöpf called the latter work quite useful,83 and after Mühlenberg had checked it for himself, he remarked to Schreber in 1788 that Wangenheim hat bei Bäumen und Stauden ziemlich vorgearbeitet, aber sehr viel ist noch übrig.84 From 1790 to 1797, when Mühlenberg established his first regular contacts with American botanists and gardeners, the theme echoes through his exchanges with William Bartram and Manasseh Cutler. To the first he wrote in 1792 that I see you name many different Species of Quercus, Juglans (...) in your Travels, would it not be possible to get a Leaf of the different Sorts e.g. of Quercus, hemisphaerica, (...)?,85 and to Cutler he observed later the same year that [t]he different Sorts of Quercus, Juglans, Fraxinus are poorly described by Linnaeus. Marshall has cleared up some of my Doubts but not all.86 Cutler confirmed his impression: I fully agree with you that the different sorts of Quercus, Juglans, Fraxinus & are poorly described by Linn[aeus].87 After this reassurance, Mühlenberg felt secure enough to begin systematic research on these genera in his neighborhood. One last time he inquired with James Edward Smith in London in 1796 whether his impression on the poor descriptions made by Linnaeus was accurate: Am I wrong when I say that our Trees are very superficially described? At least it seems so to me in Quercus,

America wachsenden Arten der Gattungen: Juglans, Fraxinus und Quercus, Mit Anmerkungen vom Herrn Professor C. L. Willdenow,” In: Der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, Neue Schriften 3 (1801), 387–402. Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg. “Über die Nordamerikanischen Weiden. Mit Anmerkungen des Herrn Prof. Willdenow,” In: Der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, Neue Schriften 4 (1803), 233–242. 82 The full title in German is: Beschreibung einiger Arten von Bäumen die in Nordamerika wachsen, mit Bezug auf ihren Gebrauch in den deutschen Wäldern, nach den Beobachtungen in den nordamerikanischen Provinzen von 1778–1783. Schöpf mentioned Wangenheim‘s work several times to Mühlenberg. 83 1) Das bey Ihnen oder in Amerika gedruckte botanische Werk sollte ich fast glauben sey ein Auszug und Uebersezzung, des kleinen Werkchens welches der heßsche Jäger von Wangenheim, noch während des Krieges herausgegeben hat! Es heisst: Beschreibung einiger Nordamerik. Holz u. Buscharten, mit Anwendung auf deutsche Forsten. Götting. 1787 und ist für seine Absicht recht brauchbar. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. 84 To Schreber, 06/16/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 85 To William Bartram, 06/22/1792, APS Film 628. See also the letter from William Bartram to Mühlenberg, 09/08/1792, HSP Coll. 443 and Mühlenber’s response to William Bartram, 12/10/1792, HSP Coll. 36. 86 To Cutler, 11/12/1792, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 87 From Cutler, 02/27/1793, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers.

A Network in Transition

249

Juglans, Salix, Fraxinus.88 Smith confirmed this observation, and three years later the paper with almost exactly the same title made its way to Willdenow, also known as the “father of German dendrology,” who freely added his comments where he saw fit.89 To publish this piece in the organ of the Berlin Society of Friends of Natural History was a clever move for both sides. Founded in 1773 by Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm Martini (1729–1778), the society saw a quick rise in the numbers of members, which was due to Willdenow’s recruiting activities.90 After the publication of the two articles, dendrological references became rare in Mühlenberg’s correspondence. His contribution, however, is still visible today in the oak species Quercus Muhlenbergii. Kurt Polycarp Joachim Sprengel was another new member of Mühlenberg’s cryptogamic circle. Sprengel is willing, may be useful for seeds, I will be able to judge him better from future answers,91 he noted on him in 1801. Other than young Hedwig and Schwägrichen, however, Mühlenberg’s first contact with Sprengel preceded Johann Hedwig’s death, but it was still more or less prompted by the Leipzig bryologist in 1797. Knowing about Mühlenberg’s failed attempt to establish ties with Richter and Junghans in Halle,92 Hedwig informed him that his own contact Sprengel had taken over Junghans’ post.93 Sprengel, however, had already approached Nebe to open up a channel to Lancaster. Professor Sprengel, who is now in charge of the botanical garden, Nebe informed Mühlenberg, has mailed the attached register of seeds, which he wishes to attain through your benevolence. He offers to either pay for them or to reimburse you with counter presents with botanical letters.94 Mühlenberg reacted promptly: Botany is a science I pursue during leisure hours for my recreation, he explained in his first letter to Nebe. I sometimes send seeds or dried herbs to lovers of the science, and it will be a pleasure for me to send some of these to Professor Sprengel. What I ask for in return is instruction about those I do not know, or information in imprints or copper engravings. This is why I started with the late Junghans and I would have loved to send him plants for

88 To Smith, 10/18/1796, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 89 Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Willdenow, C. L,” 90 Götz, Gesellschaft, 1f. (see online references); Vogel, “Willdenow,” 248; In 1801, Willdenow wrote to Lancaster: P. S. Hamilton habe ich zum Mitglied der Gesell. naturf. Freunde vorgeschlagen und werde Ihnen nächstens dessen Diplom überschicken. So werde Sie von mir auch den 3ten Teil der neuen Schriften dieser Gesellschaft erhalten, der viel Botanisches enthält. Er wird auf Ostern fertig. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 91 Sprengel willig, brauchbar für Sämereien, ihn werde ich aus zukünfthig Antwort beßer beurtheil[en] könn[en]. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/27/1801. 92 See above on page 218. 93 H[err] D[octor] Junghans (…) ist nun todt und H[err] D[octor] Sprengel hat seine Stelle am bot[anischen] Garten eingenommen. From Johann Hedwig, 08/27/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. See also the letter from Johann Hedwig, 11/25/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. 94 H[err] Prof[essor] Sprengel, der nun den botanisch Garten in der Aufsicht hat, hat ein beykomm[en]des Verzeichnis von Sämereyen, die er durch Ihre Güte zu haben wünscht, zugeschikt. Er erbietet sich, sie entweder zu bezahlen, oder durch Gegenpraesente mit botanische Briefe zu vergleichen? From Nebe, 09/29/1797, AFSt M.4 D4.

250

Letters from an American Botanist

his imprints, so that our plants, which remain unknown for the bigger part, may become better known.95 Just shortly before, Sprengel was entrusted with the University botanical garden in Halle, where he had joined the faculty in 1787. After finishing his theological studies at Greifswald in 1784, he enrolled for medical courses at the Unversity of Halle in 1785, where he also made friends with Willdenow.96 After his medical dissertation in 1787 he worked as a professor of phorensics and history of medicine at the University of Halle, which forced him to give up his own practice in 1795. His father was the brother of the famous botanist Christian Conrad Sprengel (1750– 1816), who had come up with the pollination theory in 1793.97 Clearly, this background helped Sprengel to build his own circle of correspondents, which included the later Mühlenberg correspondents Olof Swartz and Erik Acharius (1757–1819), all of whom also corresponded with Schreber in Erlangen.98 Schreber was also the one who introduced Sprengel to the reliability of Halle’s communication network. Consequently, Sprengel first addressed Nebe to get into contact with Lancaster. In fact, Mühlenberg was just one node among many in Sprengel’s extended web of correspondences, which he wove for the express purpose of procuring rare plants for the botanical garden, which had just been put among his responsibilities.99 Although Sprengel is remembered more for his achievements in the history of science than for cryptogamic research, their exchange included the subject of mosses,100 which Sprengel used to challenge Hedwig’s views, about which he remained scepBotanic ist eine Wissenschaft die ich in Nebenstunden zur Erhohlung treibe. Sämereien verschicke ich manchmal an Liebhaber, auch getrocknete Kräuter und ich werde mir ein Vergnügen daraus machen dergleich[en] an H[er]r D[octor] Sprengel zu schicken. Was ich dagegen verlange ist Belehrung über solche die ich nicht kenne, oder Mittheilung von Abdrücken und Kupferstichen. Deswegen fing ich mit dem sel[igen] Junghans an und würde ihm gern Pflanzen zu seinen Abdrücken geschickt haben, damit unsre zum Theil noch sehr unbekannte Pflanzen bekanter werden. To Nebe, 11/24/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. He continued: In dem 3ten Band der philosophical Transactions at Philadelphia steht ein Index Flora Lancastriensis den ich aufgesetzt. Von allen genannten Pflanzen könnte ich Samen und Exemplare schicken wenn Hrn. D. Sprengel damit gedient ist. Von H[er]rn. Junghans Abdrücken habe ich seiner Güte zu danken Figur 1–XXXVII. Die übrigen fehlen mir, und ich wünsche sehr alle zu haben. 96 Harvey-Gibson, Outlines, 60; Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 11–18, 37–40; Koch, “Sprengel,” 462; Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Sprengel, K. J. P,” Overlease, “Darlington,” 88; Morton, History, 287f.; Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326. 97 Konrad Sprengel, Das entdeckte Geheimnis der Natur im Bau und in der Befruchtung der Blumen, Berlin 1793. 98 Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 27–29. 99 This also becomes evident in Sprengel‘s own work Der botanische Garten der Universität Halle im Jahre 1799, printed and published in Halle in 1800: Dieser Zweck unserer Anlage kann nur durch einen ausgebreiteten Tauschhandel befördert werden. Der Verfasser fand beim Antritt seines Amtes, dass dieser Handel und der damit verbundene Briefwechsel fast ganz vernachlässigt worden war. Er suchte sich daher zahlreiche Verbindungen in Deutschland und dem Auslande zu verschaffen, durch deren Hülfe es ihm gelungen ist, so viel seltene Gewächse zusammen zu bringen, als in sehr wenigen Gärten Europens vorhanden seyn können. Sprengel, Garten, xviii. See also Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 45. 100 Zuvörderst danke ich Ihnen aufs verbindlichste für die übersandten kryptogamischen, die ich auf den beiliegenden Zetteln zu bestimmen gesucht habe, und ersuche Sie, wo möglich, von den 95

A Network in Transition

251

tical throughout his life.101 Apparently, this did not diminish their mutual sympathies. For Doctor Sprengel I will collect quite a variety of seeds this year, he informed Nebe, and the same for our mutual friend Doctor Hedwig in Leipzig.102 The last person to join Mühlenberg’s cryptogamic circle in the years from 1797 to 1802, though he was not mentioned in his diary notes in January of 1801, was Christiaan Hendrik Persoon, whom C. E. Hugo has called the “invisible botanist” in 1966, due to the scarcity of biographical facts known about him.103 In this case, Hedwig did not directly initiate their contact, but it was through him that Mühlenberg first heard about this talented new cryptogamist. There is one very industrious and lively man from the Cape [of Good Hope] (…), currently studying at Göttingen and whose name is Persoon, who has spent some time with [cryptogams]; it is only that he starts too many other things at the same time, Hedwig wrote in 1797.104 One year later, his verdict sounded a lot more favourable: Persoon’s work about fungi will probably be finished by Michaelmas; I already have the coppers [printings]. This young man has made these objects his primary business, so there is a lot of good things to expect from him. Once he is ready, you will be notified.105 Persoon was of Dutch and German parentage, born at the Cape of Good Hope in 1761, from where he departed in 1775 to begin a course of medical studies, which would finally unterstrichenen neuen Arten mit noch mehr Exemplare zukommen zu lassen. (...). From Sprengel, 11/20/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 101 Joseph Gärtner adds a brief discussion on Hedwig’s scientific heritage to the foreword of his translation of his first biography by Joseph Deleuze, which highlights Sprengel’s contribution to the cryptogamic discourse. “Herr Deleuze geht sehr leicht über die in dieser Rücksicht sehr wichtigen Versuche des Engländers Meese (…) weg, und sezt den Grund, warum bei Aussäung der Röschen des Polytrichum wirkliche Pflanzen desselben hervor gekommen sind, wie schon Hedwig selbst that, in das Anhängen von reifen Saamen, die von den Kapsel auf die Röschen gefallen wären. Aber die neuern Versuche Sprengel‘s benehmen dieser Rettung fast alle Würkung. Denn er fand, daß die Röschen des Polytrichum commune, der Bartramia fontana, des Mnium palustre, (…) ausgesät, in unzähligen Fällen, und, wie sich bei einem solchen Beobachter voraussezen läßt, mit aller angewandten Reinigung von etwa aus den Kapseln gefallenen anhängenden Saamen, Wurzeln ausschlugen und neue Pflänzchen gaben. Dadurch erhalten nun auch die bekannten Hallerischen Versuche neue Aufmerksamkeit, und es wird fast der ganze Werth der männlichen Blumen Hedwig‘s umgestossen. Aehnliche Bemerkungen hat nach der Versicherung des Herrn Sprengels der treffliche Roth bei dem Hypnum squarosum und Bryum argenteum auf zufällige Art gemacht,” Deleuze, Hedwig, iv–v. Gärtner refers here to Sprengel‘s Anleitung zur Kenntnis der Gewächse, published first in 1804 at Halle, and the botanist Albrecht Willhelm Roth (1757–1834). See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 548. 102 Für H[er]rn D[octor] Sprengel werde ich dis Jahr allerlei Samen samlen, auch für unsern gemeinschafltichen Freund H[er]rn D[octor] Hedwig in Leipzig. To Nebe, 04/19/1798, AFSt M.4 D4. 103 Hugo, “Persoon,” 14. 104 Besonders hat ein junger fleissiger sehr lebhafter Mann vom Cap (…) der gerade à Göttingen studiert u[nd] Persoon heißt, sich seit einiger Zeit sehr damit abgegeben: allein er fängt zu viel ander[es] dabei an. From Johann Hedwig, 08/27/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. 105 Persoons Werk über die Pilze wird vermutlich zu Michaelis fertig werden; die Kupfer habe ich schon. Dieser junge Mann hat diese Gegenstände hauptsächl[ich] Geschäfte gemacht, daher sich viel gutes von ihm hoffen lässt. Sobald er fertig ist, sollen Sie Nachricht haben. From Johann Hedwig, 08/06/1798, HSP Coll. 443.

252

Letters from an American Botanist

bring him to Göttingen via Halle and Leiden.106 The year before his first letter to Mühlenberg, Persoon had earned his medical doctorate and already collaborated closely with Hoffmann, who also directed his attention to the Lancaster minister.107 At that time, Persoon had been living in Göttingen for a decade and was already a well-known cryptogamist and an expert in mycology, the study of fungi.108 Only three years after their tie was established, Persoon relocated to Paris, which delayed the continuation of their botanic exchange significantly. Romanus Adolph Hedwig, Schwägrichen, Willdenow, Sprengel and Persoon formed a “cryptogamic circle” within Mühlenberg’s network, both as they were heavily intertwined among each other and all had their primary research interests in cryptogamic research. In one way or the other, they also had individual ties with Johann Hedwig, the undisputed German-speaking authority on cryptogamics in the last two decades of the 18th century. These ties, however, differed greatly from individual to individal, although the degree of professional specialization in botany by 1800 was sufficient to create a special bond between cryptogamists. This becomes obvious in the high density within this “cluster of interest,” as I want to term this subsection of Mühlenberg’s network here. Sprengel was a close friend of Willdenow’s since their student days at Halle,109 and both corresponded with Schreber on a regular basis.110 Sprengel’s account of the state of the Halle botanical garden, published in 1800, lists Hedwig, Hoffmann, Schreber, Willdenow and Mühlenberg among his 31 correspondents.111 Willdenow, in turn, denied any connection with 106 Hugo, “Persoon,” 16; Petersen, “Persoon,” 695f.; Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 10. 107 Der H[err] Professor Hoffmann hatte die Gefälligkeit mir einige von E[ue]r Hochwürd[en] empfangenen Pflanzen zu zeigen, Persoon acknowledged in 1800, was mir das größte Vergnügen gewährte. Dass darauf bey mir, als einem riesigen Verehrer der Kräuterkunde der natürliche Wunsch nach amerikanischen Gewächsen entstand ist, hoffe ich verzeylich. Auch was mir Ihr Name in anderer Hinsicht respectabel geworden, dass ich nicht das Vergnügen zu haben wünschte, E[ue]r Hochwürden meine Hochachtung schriftlich darzubringen. From Persoon, 04/30/1800, HSP Soc. Coll. 108 Petersen calls him the “Prince of Mycologists.” See Petersen, “Persoon,” 695f.; Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 10; Hugo, “Persoon,” 14. 109 Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 18. In 1801, we find the two friends caught in a quarrel: Sprengel ist wieder eigensinnig und seine Garten taugt nicht viel. Wir sind Universitätsfreunde, aber dennoch ist der ehrliche Sprengel auf mich böse, und zwar deshalb weil ich ihm schrieb, dass einige Pflanzen, die er für neu hielt schon beim Linné beschrieben wurden. Ich kenne ihn genau, er wird sich schon wieder melden und gut werden. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 110 Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 18, 27. At the Erlangen university archives, six letters from Sprengel’s hand can be found in the papers of Schreber. Three of these are undated, the remaining three are dated January 1, 1800, June 12, 1804, and September 18, 1806. In the case of Willdenow, eight letters have survived, dating from 1787 to 1794. UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. In 1801, Schreber and Willdenow were at odds, too: Ob viele von Ihren nordamerikanischen Samen bei Professor Schreber und Prof Sprengel aufgegangen sind, weiß ich nicht. Dieser ist nicht mitteilend. Er verlangt Sachen von mir, aber gibt derweil keine Antwort und schreibt nichts dagegen, deßhalb ist eine kleine [Streit?] zwischen uns entstanden. Ubrigens aber ist er ausnehmend artig gegen mich. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443.. 111 Sprengel declared: Ungeachtet er in den ersten Jahren seiner Amtsführung nicht im Stande war, seinen Correspondenten eben so viel Saamen wieder zu senden, als sie ihm geschickt hatten, so

A Network in Transition

253

Romanus Adolph Hedwig and Schwägrichen, but appeared well informed and critical about their work.112 Persoon entered the network via Hoffmann in Göttingen and James Edward Smith in London, with whom he corresponded from 1794 to 1802, and again for a short period in 1810.113 Finally, Mühlenberg’s contact with Hedwig was also a spin-off of his earlier contact with Schreber in Erlangen, as Hedwig and Schreber corresponded frequently after the latter had presented a microscope to Hedwig.114 Working in the same subbranch of botany meant entering a special area of botanical discourse, defined by its own terminology and working techniques. Hedwig’s present to Mühlenberg, which was also a microscope, was an expression of the specific technical requirements that this field of botany entailed. In this respect, Hedwig acted as a door opener for Mühlenberg, equipping him with contacts, technology and the required knowledge. Therefore, Hedwig must be seen as one of Mühlenberg’s most important European contacts with regard to the network’s development, second only to Schreber and Schöpf at Erlangen. The difference was, however, that Mühlenberg had by now developed much more specific and professional botanical interests since the 1780s. Mühlenberg’s interest in cryptogamics dated back to 1785,115 but only came into full bloom after 1790, when he became aware that Linnaeus’ 24th class had been as much neglected by Linnaeus as the Quercus, Juglans and Fraxinus genera. Consequently, he began to promote the theme in his American correspondences. The Cryptogamia Cl[ass] are a wide Field, which has been very little cultivated, he wrote to Manasseh Cutler in 1791.

112

113 114

115

sieht er sich doch jetzt endlich im Stande, ihre Gefälligkeit einigermassen zu erwiedern. (…). Unter seinen bisherigen Correspondenten, denen der botanische Garten manche Bereicherung verdankt, nennt der Verfasser mit Dankbarkeit folgende: Sprengel, Garten, xviii. Additionally, there was at least one packet Mühlenberg sent to Hedwig with Sprengel as co-addressee. To Nebe he acknowledged in October 1799: Ihr sehr angenehmes vom April 99. habe ich richtig erhalten, nachdem ich etliche Tage vorher an Sie geschrieben und ein Paquet für die Herrn Prof. Sprengel und Hedwig beigeschlossen. Daß lezterer schon gestorben war habe ich zu meinem großen Leidwesen gesehen. To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4. Ihre Kryptogamen habe ich zwar untersucht, aber ich schicke Ihnen noch nicht das Verzeichnis, weil ich die neuen Arten nicht benennen will. Hedwigs Species muscorum hat H[err] Schwägrichen der seine Professor erhalten hat herausgeben wollen, aber ich verspreche mir nicht viel von ihm, denn da er hier war kannte er wenige Pflanzen. Der junge Hedwig hat das Herbarium des Vaters und der könnte in dieser Geschicht besser die Herausgabe besorgen, aber die Verlagshandlung hat zu ihm nicht das Zutrauen. Sonst waren aber Schwägrichen und der junge Hedwig nicht Freunde, ich stehe mit beiden in keiner Verbindung. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. For the development of their correspondence, see Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 11f. On Willdenow, Hedwig observed critically in 1792 to Schreber: Was Willdenow gethan haben mag in seiner Anleitung zur Gewächskenntnis, die nunmehr heraus is, weiß ich nicht, weil ich sie noch nicht gesehen habe. Ich trau ihm aber so gar viel eben nicht zu, theils weil es ihm an den Grundvorkenntnissen fehlt, theils weil er auch zu rasch ist und nicht aus den rechten Quellen der Natur schöpft. Hedwig to Schreber, 10/29/1792, quoted after Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 438. The term is mentioned for the first time in a letter by Mühlenberg to Schreber in 1785: Es fehlen mir sonderlich Schriften von Gräsern und noch mehr von cryptogamis. Von Gräsern habe ich erst kürzlich 2 Stücke von Ihrem vortrefflichen Werk in fol. illuminiert erhalten, und etliche Gräser gewis kennen lernen (…). To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

254

Letters from an American Botanist

Did you number the Specimens you sent to Europe, and hear the Opinion of the botanical Gentlemen?116 3.3 Postbox Halle When Stoppelberg died in 1797, Joseph Friedrich Nebe (1737–1812) took over Halle’s American business which by now contributed a significant portion of the foundation’s net profits. This demanded a man with a sound knowledge of the trade, and Nebe was well suited for the position, as he had already been asked to take over Fabricius’ job in 1790, but quickly resigned again at the time.117 Other than in 1790, when Fabricius had left a mess of papers, letters and books, Nebe now found all accounts in good order, which facilitated a smooth transition. Also, he and Mühlenberg had made the personal acquaintance of each other in the 1760s.118 Both sides agreed to continue business as usual, which meant that Nebe was to send the ordered amount of medicines year by year until Mühlenberg sent changes to the list.119 Mühlenberg’s first letter to Nebe also contained a detailed account of his orders from 1793 to 1797, which reflects both a rise in orders and a steep increase of expenses for medicines, books and other items from 103 Taler in 1793 to 325 Taler in 1797.120 If expenses were on the rise through the 1790s, increasingly elaborate customs procedures and America’s first naval wars made matters even worse in the last years of the century. Generally, the trade is becoming more and more cumbersome, Mühlenberg complained to Nebe in 1799, and the extra expenses rise to heights that makes you fear for ordering excessively. To raise the prices for the Halle medicines is hardly an option, as the customers are used to the old prices.121 116 To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 117 This becomes apparent in a letter from Stoppelberg to Johann Christoph Kunze in 1790. Herr Pastor Nebe ward zwar im Oct[o]b[e]r a. p. dem seel. Fabr. substituiert, er fand aber dabey nicht sein Fach und resignierte wieder im März, da ich dann im April die Aufsicht über die Bibelanstalt neb meiner lat. Schul Inspitienz übernehmen muss, auch die Correspondenz zu besorgen habe. Nun finde ich alles durcheinander und kann mit Rangierung der Briefe noch nicht fertig werden, (...). Stoppelberg to Johann Christoph Kunze, 11/03/1790, AFSt/M 4 D2:5. 118 Daß es dem Allmächtigen gefallen, Mühlenberg wrote in his first letter, verschiedene meine Freunde und namentlich meinen ehemaligen Lehrer und vieljährigen Freund den wackren Stoppelberg weg zu nehmen war mir eine traurige Nachricht. Trost ist mir daß ein Mann an seine Stelle gekommen den ich persönlich zu kennen das Vergnügen hatte. To Nebe, 11/24/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. 119 Wegen der Arzneien erinnere ich, daß ich sie alle Jahr nach dem Zettel verlange den ich zuletzt schicke, sollte ich keinen neuen schicken so bleibt es beim alten. To Nebe, 11/24/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. 120 The actual progression was: 1793: 103 Taler; 1794: 281 Taler; 306 Taler in 1795; 169 Taler in 1796; and finally 325 Taler in 1797. To Nebe, 11/24/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. 121 Uberhaupt wird der Handel immer schwüriger und die Unkosten steigen so hoch, daß man sich fürchten muß viel zu verschreiben. Den Preis der Hallischen Arzneien hier zu erhöhen fält schwer da die Leute an den ehemaligen gewohnt sind. To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Nebe, 09/01/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. This complies with Renate Wilson’s observations on a rise of costs after 1794. Wilson, “Second Generation“, 241f.

A Network in Transition

255

Moreover, Mühlenberg’s business with Lancaster’s new printer Hütter, whom he had recommended to Nebe and to several other German correspondents for the trade in books, took a turn for the worse. Hütter was obviously incapable of leading a book store and paying his debts, and Nebe in particular complained frequently about unpaid bills. In part, the responsibility was certainly Mühlenberg’s, as he had repeated his recommendation of Hütter several times before making first-hand experiences with Hütter’s crude and risky business methods. On behalf of Mr Hütter, I have given you my opinion quite candidly. He is certainly big in the book trade. All of his fortune is said to be with his brother in Utrecht. He undertakes a lot and he even has ventured to do a Floram America Septentrionalis with copper printings, and as I can see from the catalogue, has announced the same under my name. For this, I have given him no permission.122 About a year later, he openly advised Nebe not to continue business with Hütter.123 Nebe confirmed that he would break off business contact with him altogether once the debts were settled.124 Although the affair dragged on for several years and brought about a rather awkward beginning of the Nebe-Mühlenberg relationship, it apparently did not affect their subsequent mutual trust. Mutual trust and a stable connection to Halle, however, were of undiminished importance to Mühlenberg. More than ever, Halle’s global network was the principal asset in his correspondences with European botanical authorities, and Nebe was soon informed what Mühlenberg expected from him. Especially on behalf of our future correspondence I kindly ask for the patience that Mr Stoppelberg was forced to have with me, for I often needed him as an intermediary between me and my other friends.125 In the 1780s, Schreber had been the first among a number of Europeans to rely on Fabricius, Stoppelberg, Nebe and the Halle associates van der Smissen in Altona, and Carl&Hermann in Frankfurt on the Main. From 1797 to 1802, Halle became Mühlenberg’s European “postbox,” as all of his cryptogamic friends relied on Nebe as their mediator of choice.126 Thus, all members of 122 Wegen H[er]rn Hütter habe ich Ihnen meine Meinung offenherzig geschrieben. Er treibt den Buchhandel sehr im Großen. Sein Vermögen soll in Utrecht bei seinem Bruder liegen. Er unternimmt viel und hat so gar eine Floram America Septentrionalis in Kupferstichen unternommen, und wie ich aus Catalogis sehe mit meinem Nahmen angekündigt. Dazu habe ich ihm keine Erlaubnis gegeben. To Nebe, 09/23/1800, AfSt M4 D 50. 123 Wegen H[er]rn Hütter weiß ich nichts bestimmtes zu schreiben. Sie werden es wohl für das sicherste ansehen ihm nichts mehr als unter anderen Bedingungen zu übermachen. To Nebe, 09/01/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. 124 Ich wünsche nur, daß es mit H[errn] Hutter seine Zahlung auch so gut gehen wird. Ich werde mich? in der Folge nicht mehr mit ihm einlassen, wenn er nur erste alles bezahlt hätte. To Nebe, 03/30/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. 125 Mühlenberg was already fully aware that Hütter‘s activities represent a threat to Halle and, by this way, to his own networking. Based on the background of Halle’s steady decline, which had become apparent for some time, Mühlenberg obviously tried to be as forthcoming to his new correspondent as possible, so as not to endanger his own position: Wegen unsrer zukünftigen Correspondenz insonderheit bitte ich um die Geduld die H[er]r Stoppelberg manchmal mit mir haben mußte, da ich ihn als Mittelsperson zwischen meinen übrigen Freunden und mir öfters brauchte. Dazu habe ich ihm keine Erlaubnis gegeben. To Nebe, 09/23/1800, AfSt M4 D 50. 126 See, for instance, the following typical passage from a letter by Nebe: H[err] Prof[essor]

256

Letters from an American Botanist

Mühlenberg’s cryptogamic circle at one time or another sent their letters via Nebe, who in turn often forwarded these via Helmuth or Frederick Augustus Conrad to Mühlenberg.127 Mühlenberg’s connection to Helmuth and Schmidt in Philadelphia was not affected by the changes at the Orphanage, as he continued to pay his debts to the two Halle commissioners. In 1797, Helmuth obviously delegated the handling of their correspondence to Schmidt.128 3.4 Moravians on the Move Mühlenberg’s account of the current state of his correspondences from January 1801 ended with a few notes on his American contacts: 1. Denke magnificent, indefatigable, he began the list. 2. Hamilton an avid collector, jealous 3, Cutler does not stay true to botany, 4, Kramsch has died off, what a pity for his knowledge 5. Barton jealous, retaining (…) 6 William Bartram communicative, good 7. Dallman promising.129 At first sight, the impression of the entry does not comply with the statistics for the years from 1797 to 1802, according to which active correspondence with Americans dropped from 15 contacts from 1790 to 1797 to six from 1797 to 1802, the respective number of letters falling from 57 to 52.130 Apparently, Mühlenberg’s native country and its slowly unfolding scientific community continued to be secondary in importance to him, all disappointments with Europe notwithstanding. This impression is only corrected after a look at the distribution of these 52 AmeriSprengel sendet hierbey auch 1. Päckchen Sämereyen; so wie auch von H[errn] D[oktor] Schwaegrichen aus Leipzig (…) Lezter schikt Ihnen auch beikommendes (…), um es wen möglich in die Amerikanischen Zeitung setzen zu lassen. Sie sehen daraus, daß nun endlich das längst ersehnte Hedwig‘sche Werk de speciarum muscorum h[in]aus kommen wird und das eben nicht der junge Hedwig sond[ern] H[err] D[oktor] Schwaegrichen h[er]ausgibt (…) H[err] D[oktor] Willdenow aus Berlin hat nichts an Sie geschickt. From Nebe, 02/27/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. See also Mühlenberg‘s letter to Nebe, 01/12/1803, AFSt M.4 D5.. 127 Im Vorbei gehen melde ich nur wie Briefe an mich anfänglich kommen. Sie können, wenn sie klein sind, gerade an mich addreßirt werden, sind sie größer oder enthalten sie Einschluß so werden sie beßer an meinen Bruder mit der Uberschrift addreßirt To M[iste]r Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg at Philadelphia, oder auch an H[er]rn D[octor] Helmuth, beide würde die Briefe von Philadelphia aus an mich weiter mit Gelegenheit befördern. Die Post bei uns ist theuer und Lancaster liegt 66 Meilen weiter als Philadelphia. Der letzte Brief kostete 1 Piaster. To Nebe, 11/24/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. 128 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 510. 129 1, Denke vortrefflich, unermüdet, 2, Hamilton ein eifriger Samler, eifersüchtig 3, Cutler bleibt der Botanic nicht treu 4, Kramsch ist abgestorb[en], schade für seine Kennt[nisse] 5. Barton eifersüchtig, zurückhaltend (...) 6. W[illiam] Bartram communicativ, brav 7. Dallman vielversprechend. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/27/1801. 130 See tables g and i, Appendix B, on page 489 and 490. As a general rule, Mühlenberg correspondents like Justus Henry Helmuth and Johann Friedrich Schmitt, or Humphrey Marshall and his nephew Moses, were treated as “collective correspondents” rather than individual contacts. This is due to the fact, that these pairs tended to live and work in the same place, were often addressed as one person in their letters or generally shared the contents of their letters with their respective other. All of these exceptions are individually marked and explained where this rule applies in the counting of correspondents.

A Network in Transition

257

can letters. Significantly, 27 alone were exchanged with the first person on the list cited above, the magnificent and indefatigable Moravian Christian Friedrich Denke (1775–1838), making him Mühlenberg’s first American-born correspondent to receive and to send the majority of letters during a certain phase.131 Additionally, six more letters were exchanged with Jacob van Vleck (1751–1831), another Moravian working in close collaboration with Denke. With Gustavus Dallman, the seventh person on Mühlenberg’s list, and John G. E. Heckewelder (1743–1823), two more Moravians were present, if only fleetingly, in Mühlenberg’s American web. After Kramsch and Kampman had laid a humble base for transconfessional botanical friendship in the early 1790s, Denke, van Vleck, Heckewelder and Dallman took up the thread, which resulted in a major if temporary Moravian presence in Mühlenberg’s network for a short amount of time after 1797. Contact with Kramsch and Kampman had been confined to a brief period in the early 1790s and basically lay idle until Kampman’s move to Hope, New Jersey, in 1797.132 Kramsch had already gone there five years earlier, which apparently prevented him from continuing his botanical contacts with Mühlenberg, but not from passing on his knowledge to his fellow Brethren Denke and van Vleck. As with Kampman, there are no clear indicators of how communication between this new Moravian–Lutheran botanical triangle Denke, van Vleck and Mühlenberg started, as the earliest letters from their respective correspondences are missing. Most probably, the two men knew about Mühlenberg from Kramsch. A look at the biographies of Kramsch, Denke and van Vleck suggests personal encounters prior to 1792. From 1785 on, Denke was permanently located at Nazareth, where he began to teach at the local boys’ school, while van Vleck labored some nine miles to the north in neighboring Bethlehem, where he had taken over stewardship of the Pennsylvania girls’ school in 1790. Kramsch, in turn, was a frequent traveler in the late 1780s and early 1790s, and his itinerary included the two Moravian settlements situated some 60 miles north of Philadelphia.133 Above everything, I have to say, van Vleck confessed to Mühlenberg about his botanical education, that my love and inclination towards botany are great, but my proficiencies are still very weak. I mainly lack three bridges for a stimulation of the same, which is time, the required books (…) and an avid and easily accessible botanical friend, whom I once had in my beloved Kramsch. With him I had once collected a register of plants around Bethlehem and Nazareth.134 Denke, in turn, had 131 From 1784 to 1790, Mühlenberg exchanged 14 letters with Schreber alone, Schöpf twelve, Mühlenberg’s father Heinrich Melchior 13 letters, followed by his brother-in-law C. E. Schultze with four letters. From 1790 to 1797, James E. Smith maintained the largest correspondence with Mühlenberg with 16 letters, then Schreber with twelve, Mühlenberg’s brother-in-law Schultze being the first American with eleven letters, William and John Bartram respectively Manasseh Cutler being second American correspondents with eight letters each. See tables e and g, Appendix B, on page 488 and 489. 132 Dienerblatt “Kampman,” Wilson, Pious Traders, 114–115; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 822. 133 Dienerblatt “Kramsch,” Dienerblatt “van Vleck,” Dienerblatt “Denke,” Mears, “Herbarium,” 164; Pennel, “Schweinitz,” 2. 134 Überhaupt muss ich sagen dass meine Liebe u[nd] Eignung zur Botanik groß, aber meine Kenntnisse noch sehr schwach u[nd] wenig sind. Zu deren Ermunterung es mir hauptsächl[ich]

258

Letters from an American Botanist

collaborated even more intensely with Kramsch, whose Index Flora Nazarensis he supplemented in 1797.135 Both were well prepared to take over Kramsch’s and Kampman’s position. In the Moravian community, scientific research was regarded as a communitarian enterprise which demanded high flexibility of those Brethren gifted enough to pursue it, if a benefit for the community was to be achieved. In this regard, they were probably closer to Mühlenberg’s ideals than any of his other American or European correspondents. Signs of intense Moravian collaboration echoe through all of the letters Mühlenberg exchanged with Brethren, especially among Denke and van Vleck, separated only by nine miles between Bethlehem and Nazareth.136 Besides mutual visits, both men even seemed to coordinate their individual exchanges with Lancaster at times, as several letters suggest.137 John Heckewelder, however, contributed largely by sending home specimens and flowers from his journeys during these years. Much less is known about Dallman, although a passage in Mühlenberg’s diary suggest that he met Denke at some point.138 With an astonishing 27 letters in merely 18 months,139 Mühlenberg’s correspondence with Christian Friedrich Denke was by far the most intense one in his an 3 Brüken fehlt, näml[ich] an Zeit, an den nötigen Büchern (…) und an einem leicht zu erreichenden eifrigen botanischen Freund, wie ich ehedem an meinem l[ieben] Kramsch hatte. Mit ihm hatte ich einst zieml[iche]s Register von Pflanzen um Beth[lehe]m u[nd] Nazar[eth] gesammelt. From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. Van Vleck continued: [A]ber leider ist mir dieses seit Jahr u. Tagen abhanden gekommen, u. noch nicht wieder gefunden worden. Was ich seitdem aufgeschrieben ist etwas weniger. 135 Mears, “Herbarium,” 164; Pennel, “Schweinitz,” 2. See also Denke‘s letter to Mühlenberg, 11/01/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d.. 136 In August 1798, Denke reported: Da ich von He[rrn] Pf[arrer] v[an] Vleck, bey dem ich kürz[lich] einen sehr angenehmen botanischen besuch abstattete erfahren, daß Ihnen mit einem Indianischen buchstabirbuch gedient wäre, u[nd] ich eins übrig habe, so bitte herz[lich] es anzunehmen. From Denke, 08/19/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 137 Ich hatte zu gleicher Zeit einen offenen Brief von H[errn] D[enke] an Sie erhalten, um denselben weiter zu befördern. Sie werden denselben in dem mitfolgenden Paketchen finden, van Vleck wrote in 1798. Some time later, Denke added on some plants: Wenigstens sind sie H[errn] Vleck u[nd] mir unbekant, unsre beschreibung etwa die folgende. From van Vleck, 06/25/1798, HSP Coll. 443; From Denke, 06/07/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. In another letter, David Zeisberger (1717–1818) also appears to take part in the Moravian botanical discourse. Zeisberger hat es auch bemerkt, da er sagt: Den Samen bringt sie wahrscheinl[ich] an der Wurzel hervor, wovon man im August eine Menge kleiner Körngen findet, die aber sehr leicht abfallen. Daß diese Species Flores imbierbes hat, dünkt mich nach dem Exemplar, welches ich noch bei mir habe, auch zieml[ich] gewiss, da ich mit dem Vergrößerungs Glase keine Spuren vom Gegentheil bemerkt habe. From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. This passage, however, is the only time Zeisberger appears in a botanical context in van Vleck’s letters to Mühlenberg. From Denke, 06/07/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 138 H[er]r Dallman ist noch ganz jung, aber stark in Gräsern und Cryptogamien, ohne Zweifel ist er sehr brauchbar u[nd] Denke muß viel von ihm gelernt haben. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 11/11/1799. 139 Denke addressed his first letter during Phase 3 (1797–1802) to Mühlenberg on June 7, 1798, his last one on November 30, 1798. During these 18 months, Mühlenberg wrote eight letters, Denke nineteen. No letters from Mühlenberg to Denke have been preserved. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, page 504.

A Network in Transition

259

network to date. During the one and a half years from June 1798 to November 1799, the native of Bethlehem claimed a large portion of Mühlenberg’s attention, whose passion for botany now gradually began to turn into a fulltime occupation. Born in 1775 in Bethlehem to Jeremias (†1795) and Sara Denke, née Tester, the ten-yearold was brought to Nazareth in 1785, where he received his elementary schooling, which also included first botanical lessons, presumably with Kramsch. In 1789, he became a teacher at the local boys’ school, where he would stay until 1800.140 Denke’s exchange with Mühlenberg began in the first half of 1798 and basically consisted in each of them working their way through the other’s local plant index – much in the way that Mühlenberg had proposed as a model for botanical collaboration in the U.S.141 Denke’s knowledge soon proved to be far inferior to Mühlenberg’s, his own botanical publications notwithstanding. Especially with regard to grasses, one of Mühlenberg’s favourite topics since he had begun to take an interest in botany, Denke could obviously learn a lot.142 At that time, Mühlenberg was already engaged in cryptogamic discussions with his European contacts; he only started to correspond with Denke on the subject after a sound basis in grasses had been laid.143 Denke was also lacking knowledge in basic botanical techniques, for he thanked Mühlenberg in July 1798 for the information on how you keep your herbarium144 and in December of the same year for the information and instruction how to structure a monograph and a [botanical] diary.145 After seven letters and five months of intense contact, Denke also paid a brief visit to Lancaster, which is

140 Biographical notes upon botanists, s.v. “Denke,” Barnhart, “Sketches,” 37; Dienerblatt “Denke,” 141 Dennoch kan ich nicht unterlassen, Ihnen diesesmal schon, in einem zu dem Behufe vorfertigten portab[len] Herbar[ium] einige Pflanzen, zuzusenden, die ich entweder nicht kenne, u[nd] mir in diesem Fall ihre gütige Hülfleistung ausbitte; oder nicht in ihrem Ind[ex] fl[ora] Lanc[astriensis] finde. Würden Sie so gütig seyn – doch ich fordre zu viel – u[nd] ein gleiches thun, von solchen Pflanzen die Sie nicht in meinem Ind[ex] f[lora] N[azarensis] finden mir zusenden, so würde es mir sehr lieb u[nd] schäzbar seyn. From Denke, 06/07/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 142 Bey dem Empfang des erstern, erhielt ich auch das Herbarium, mit 25 Pflanzen zurück, für die Ihnen sehr verpflichtet bin. Ganz besonders verwunderte mich der Anblick so vieler Gräser, so daß ich mich entschließen könte, mich etwas mehr mehr mit Ihnen bekannt zu machen; u[nd] ich will Sie herz[lich] bitten, mir von Zeit zu Zeit mehrere zu senden, nach welchen ich hiesige Gräser prüfen könnte, denn dieses ist eine schöne Erleichterung für einen Anfänger. From Denke, 07/23/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. Some time later, Denke confessed: Nun empfangen Sie, theuerst geehrter Freund, die 7t. Sendung. Ich habe zuerst Gräser, u. dann einige mir dubiose Pflanzen genommen. In Gräsern bin ich ganz schwach u. bin Ihnen tausendmal den aufrichtigsten Danck schuldig für die Liebe die sie mir dabey beweisen, denn ich getraue mich noch nicht ein Gras zu bestimmen. From Denke, 10/12/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 143 Da ich gedenke bald Moose zu senden, so wollte zuvörderst erfragen, ob wir da unsre Zahl schon hoch ist, nicht wieder bei N. 1 für Moose anfangen sollen? From Denke, 11/30/1799, HSP Coll. 443. 144 (…) für die Nachricht wie sie Ihr Herb[arium] halten. From Denke, 07/23/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 145 (…)für Ihre Nachrichten, u[nd] Anweisung wie eine Monogr[aphia] u[nd] Tagebuch einzurichten. From Denke, 12/30/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d.

260

Letters from an American Botanist

a sign of their high mutual appreciation at this early stage of their contact.146 Much later, books were also sent from Lancaster to Nazareth, as Mühlenberg had expressly demanded a list of the books at Denke’s disposal.147 Mühlenberg’s exchange with van Vleck did not differ greatly, as the Moravian confessed early on that his proficiencies were still weak and that he primarily lacked sufficient time, books and a teacher like Kramsch to make faster progress in botany.148 The six letters with van Vleck make this contact definitely subordinate to Denke’s 27 letter correspondence, even though the close collaboration between the two Moravians allowed van Vleck to follow what Mühlenberg and his colleague at Nazareth were discussing. Just like Denke, van Vleck was a native-born American, born in New York in 1751 to the merchant Henry van Vleck (†1785) and his wife Jane (†1784), née Cargill. Two years after his birth, he was sent to Nazareth, where he received his primary education and stayed until May 1772, when he went to Europe to attend the seminarium in Barby. After his return in 1779, he lived and worked in Bethlehem for the better part of the next decade before paying a final visit to Herrnhut in Saxony in 1789 and returning to North America for good in 1790.149 Books150 and plant identifications again lay at the heart of his brief exchange with Mühlenberg, although van Vleck, unlike Denke, routinely included corrections of Mühlenberg’s notes when he saw fit.151 Despite his Barby education, he could not compete with Mühlenberg’s profound botanical knowledge. As far as the mosses, I have never even dared to go,152 he admitted once with regard to cryptogamia. In any case, neither of the two Moravians would probably have been of such great interest to Mühlenberg without the help of John G. E. Heckewelder.153 Several 146 Theuer u[nd] werth ist mir noch, das Andencken, an jene vergnügte Stunden, die ich die Ehre hatte in Ihrer u[nd] Ihrer lieben Familie Mitte zu verbringen, wie sehr wünschte ich, sie oft wiederhohlen zu könen. From Denke, 11/01/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 147 From Denke, 06/07/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. Some time later, Denke acknowledged: Doch zu gleicher Zeit bitte ich herz[lich] mir es zu verzeihen wenn ich Ihnen auferlegen wollte, Hedwg. Mosse wenn es einmahl herausgekommen, u[nd] Sie es für sich verschreiben werden, doch auch ein Exempl[ar] für mich zu besorgen. Ihre Gedancken über dieses u. jenes botanische Werck waren mir höchst wichtig. From Denke, 07/23/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 540. 148 From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. 149 Becker, “Pflege,” 19–21; Dienerblatt “van Vleck;” Baker’s biographical dictionary of musicians, 4th ed., “s.v. van Vleck.” 150 Könnten Sie mir durch ihre Correspondenz eines von den in Ihrem Schreiben erwähnten, zur Untersuchung nützlichsten Werk verschaffen, so würden Sie mich Ihnen sehr verbinden, u. ich wollte gern mit meiner Wenigkeit dienen wie ich kann. Hätte ich nur die wenigste Species Plantarum! Ich weiß aber nicht welche die beste u. neue Edition ist. Ihre Auskunft hierüber würde mich in Stand setzen dieselben selber zu verschreiben. Was halten Sie von Marshalls American Grove? From van Vleck, 02/10/1798, HSP Coll. 443. 151 Zu der Polygala Grandiflora / Walteri werde ich aber doch noch ein ? setzen, denn dass carina cristata ist, bin ich gewiss, u[nd] zu dem caule herbacco kann ich auch noch nicht völlig consentieren. From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. 152 Bis an die Moose habe ich mich gar nicht gewagt. From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 548. 153 According to Wallace, Heckewelder covered more than 36,000 miles from 1754 to 1814. Wal-

A Network in Transition

261

references to him in Denke’s and van Vleck’s letters reveal that it was primarily to him that they owed the plant material they could trade for identifications with Mühlenberg.154 Born in Bedford, England, in 1743 to German parents, David (†1760) and Christina Heckewälder (no data available), Heckewelder emigrated to the New World with his family in 1754. After receiving his basic schooling at Christiansbrunn and Bethlehem, Heckewelder made contact with native-born Americans for the first time in 1762, an experience that turned him into a life-long missionary traveler and a collaborator of David Zeisberger (1721–1808).155 Heckewelder acquired a sound knowledge of Indian plant medicine, as he often found himself forced to eat whatever could be found along the way. Paul Wallace has aptly called him a “botanical scientist by circumstances rather than calling,” although his education comprised college training in England and Pennsylvania.156 In the 1790s, he also became one of the many correspondents of Benjamin Smith Barton, with whom he mainly maintained ornithological discussion and finally sent a scientific report to the A.P.S at Philadelphia.157 In 1792, the Moravian church had been granted a stretch of land in compensation for their war-time losses, located north of Lake Erie in upper Canada. From 1797 to 1801, when he finally settled at the Gnadenhütten settlement on the Muskingum river in central Ohio, Heckewelder moved frequently between Fairfield, Muskingum and Bethlehem, and it was primarily from these travels that Denke and van Vleck received their finest materials for exchange.158 During one of these journeys, Heckewelder also paid a visit to Mühlenberg in late November of 1799, which Mühlenberg recorded in his diary.159 Apart from this visit, there was no direct contact or letter exchange between the two men. lace, “Heckewelder’s Indians,” 496. 154 Diese 8te Sendung besteht in Pflanzen die H[err] Hekewelder von Canada u[nd] Muskingham mitgebracht hat (…). From Denke, 12/23/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. In another passage he wrote: [D]as Sweet Scented Grass will H[err] Hekewelder Ihnen verschaffen (…). From van Vleck, 02/10/1798, HSP Coll. 443. See also, for instance, the letter from Denke, 01/09/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d; from van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443; from van Vleck, 09/12/1797, HSP Coll. 443; from Denke, 12/30/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d.. 155 Dienerblatt “Heckewelder.” 156 Wallace, “Heckewelder’s Indians,” 496. Wallace reports an episode from Heckewelder’s travel east of the Cayaga river around 1792, when one of his companions was bitten by a snake. Heckewelder successfully dressed the wound with a concoction of gunpowder, tobacco and rotten leaves. Wallace, “Heckewelder’s Indians,” 501. 157 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 717. Wallace, “Heckewelder’s Indians,” 497. 158 Wallace, Travels, 334, 389; Dienerblatt “Heckewelder.” There is also a chance that Heckewelder met Cutler, or stood in brief contact with him, when the Ohio Company tried to establish friendly ties with the Muskingum Indians in order to facilitate their local activities. For this purpose, General Rufus Putnam (1738–1824) addressed a letter to Heckewelder: Be assured, Sir, that the directors of the Ohio Company entertain the most friendly disposition toward the natives, and nothing could give them greater satisfaction than to see a friendly correspondence established between the company and their Indian neighbors; such a correspondence as would be a mutual benefit to each other; and there are some circumstances which I conceive are in our favor. Quoted after Cutler and Cutler, Correspondence I, 354. 159 Nov. 29 Angenehmer Besuch von Hr. Heckewelder. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 11/29/1799.

262

Letters from an American Botanist

Thus, Denke became Mühlenberg’s most important and intense Moravian contact between 1797 and 1802, although their correspondence lasted only for 18 months.160 In 1800, Heckewelder accompanied Denke to his new missionary field in the Fairfield settlement in upper Canada. Although there had been signs that Denke was increasingly busy with his missionary work in his later letters, he never mentioned Canada to Mühlenberg. 161 It was only in 1811 that the two men re-established their contact again for a brief period.162 Meanwhile, contact with van Vleck continued sporadically, while yet another Moravian botanist made his first appearance in Mühlenberg’s network. November 11. An agreeable conversation with Gustav von Dallman (Moravian) who goes to Salem in Carolina and is an able botanist,163 Mühlenberg noted in his diary two weeks before Heckewelder was to call on him. To Denke, he acknowledged shortly later Dallman’s visit and that he was hoping Denke would soon turn out a good assistant to him.164 This single visit had apparently sufficed for Mühlenberg to notice a special talent in Dallman, which set him apart from Kramsch, Kampman, Denke, van Vleck and Heckewelder.165 Regular contact started in 1804, and after two more years, Mühlenberg was throroughly convinced that Dallmann would be of greater help in cryptogamics than any of his other local correspondents before.166 3.5 Dormant America During the years around the turn of the century, Mühlenberg’s American network was clearly dominated by his Moravian contacts. While his network had seen great 160 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, page 504f. Dienerblatt “Denke,” Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 811. 161 O! wie viel Materia fänd ich nicht, mich noch lange mit Ihnen zu unterhalten, allein Berufsgeschäfte rufen mich ab. From Denke, 05/24/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 162 In 1810, Mühlenberg submitted a letter to Denke, whose answer confirms that there was no contact whatsoever between the two men from November 1799 to October 1810: Durch Ihr Gel[iebtes] für mich sehr schäzbares Schreiben, wurde das botanische Feuer, gleichsam wieder aufs neue angefacht u[nd] angeblasen, welches nun 11 Jahre lang, ganz erstickt, kaum mehr unter der Asche glimmte. From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. Until then, Mühlenberg mentioned Denke only once in a letter to John Vaughan in 1807. To Vaughan, 04/09/1807, APS. Arch. Box 5. 163 Nov[ember] 11. ein angenehmes Gespräch mit Gustav v[on] Dallman (Herrnhuter) der nach Salem in Carolina geht u[nd] ein geschickter Botaniker ist. Siehe Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 11/11/1799. 164 Eine ganz besondere Freude habe ich dass gegenwärtig ein junger Herr Gustav von Dalmann ein Botaniker auf seiner Reise nach Salem in Carolina bei mir ist. Er wird Sie wol besuchen, u[nd] ich hoffe wir haben an Ihm, einen treuen Gehülfen bekommen From Denke, 09/28/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 165 H[er]r Dahlman ist noch ganz jung, aber stark in Gräsern und Cryptogamien ohne Zweifel ist er sehr brauchbar. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 11/11/1799. 166 Dallman ist ein vorsichtiger Correspondent für mich u[nd] kann mir mehr helfen als irgend einer der hiesig[igen] Corresp[ondenten] weil er Cryptog[amia] u[nd] Gramina versteht. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/02/1806.

A Network in Transition

263

extensions on the American side in the early 1790s, rising from seven correspondents from 1784 to 1790 to 15 from 1790 to 1797, this number temporarily dropped to six from 1797 to 1802. Two of these six were Denke and van Vleck, the remaining four being Helmuth and Schmidt (five letters), his brother Frederick (2), his brother-in-law Christopher E. Schultze (10) and his other brother-in-law John C. Kunze (2).167 Contacts with the Bartrams, Marshalls, Rush, and other Philadelphia residents were, of course, continued as often as Mühlenberg could afford the time to pay a visit, although no letters were exchanged. The same was true for Mitchill and Cutler, with whom Mühlenberg had corresponded briefly in the early 1790s. Political ambitions stood in the way of a continuation of these contacts, as both men were elected to Congress in April 1800.168 Mitchill, however, continued to work as a scientist, publishing the first issue of his American Medical Repository journal in 1797.169 The same was true for Benjamin Smith Barton, the defining American botanist from 1797 to 1815 according to Joseph Ewan.170 Indeed, the ten years after 1797 were the most productive period in Barton’s botanical efforts, as most of the 1,674 specimens which his herbarium held at the time of his death in 1815 were collected after 1797.171 In total, the names of 29 American correspondents and collectors appear on the sheets of his herbarium, most of whom were former students and some of whom also corresponded with Mühlenberg.172 These days I received a letter by Doctor Barton, Denke informed Mühlenberg in August 1799. He asks me for communication and correspondence and promises to send commodity for commodity – he also has some plants being painted.173 One year later, Denke forwarded a letter from Heckewelder to Barton; the two men had already started a correspondence on Indian languages and birds in the early 1790s.174 Barton made liberal use of David Zeisberger’s manuscripts and Heckewelder’s letters in the composition of his New Views of the origin of the tribes and nations of America, published in 1797 in Philadelphia.175 Once again it became clear to Mühlenberg that Barton’s growing web of contacts threatened to penetrate his own. Obviously in an attempt to gather 167 See table i, Appendix B, on page 490. 168 Mitchil, Memorable Events, 2; Francis, Reminiscences, 12. 169 Greene notes on behalf of Mitchill’s publication: “Thus did Mitchill and his colleagues seek to promote the cause of science, and particularly of American science, but their approach was scholarly, their audience limited, and their reward uncertain.” Greene, “American Science,” 19. See also Pascalis, Eulogy, 18. 170 This refers to Ewan’s periodization of American botany. Ewan, “Early History,” 27f., 37. 171 Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 20f. 172 Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 21; See also Barnhart, “Sketches,” 35. 173 Dieser Tage erhielt [ich] einen Brief von D[octo]r Barton. [E]r bittet um Mittheilung und Correspondenz u[nd] verspricht Waare gegen Waare zu liefern – auch lässt er einige Pflanzen hier mahlen. From Denke, 08/10/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 174 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 246–248, 717. Several letters from this correspondence can be found at the A.P.S. Archives Philadelphia, Scientists Collection 1563–1973, Mss.509.L56. 175 Benjamin Smith Barton, New Views of the origin of the tribes and nations of America, Philadelphia 1797. Barton thanked Heckewelder explicitly for his contributions to his research on the Lenni-Lennápes’ language: “All the words under the head of Lenni-Lennápe, or Delawares, are taken from Zeisberger’s Essay, already mentioned, or were communicated to me by my indus-

264

Letters from an American Botanist

information on his rival’s newest work and network, Mühlenberg sent a query to van Vleck, to which the latter responded probably just as negatively as Mühlenberg had been hoping for.176 Indian languages were actually too far off Mühlenberg’s range of interests to assume genuine curiosity about Barton’s work. Rather, it was an attempt to gather intelligence on Barton’s book and his cross-networking, which once again tapped his own sources. 3.6 Network Analysis: Phase 3 In the previous chapter, it has been stated that Mühlenberg became an independent networker in the years after 1790, based on the observation that his 30 direct contacts already linked him indirectly to 18 individuals which he would only be connected with at a later point in time. This “regenerative” or “future” potential even grew in the years from 1797 to 1802, as 24 out of its 48 nodes alone represent future correspondents or pausing contacts. This number becomes especially significant with regard to the distribution of European and American contacts in his web. It has already been mentioned above that Mühlenberg’s domestic correspondence with the Moravian Christian F. Denke in 1798 and 1799 counted 27 letters and exceeded any other single correspondence to this point, making it the first time in more than a decade of networking that he exchanged more letters with an American-based contact than with a European one. Although this might seem a rather random sign of the quick growth of Mühlenberg’s American web after 1801, the network analysis actually supports the idea of the present phase as a “transitional period” towards an Americanization of the web which was to follow after 1801: out of the 24 of Mühlenberg’s current indirect contacts, 16 were located in the United States and only eight in Europe.177 Although it took several more years before Americans finally represented the majority of his correspondents in the second half of the first trious and amiable friend Mr. JohnHeckewelder, of Bethlehem. Both of these gentlemen have adopted the German spelling.” Barton, New Views, ix. 176 Sie befragen mich um das Urteil unserer Kenner der Ind[iander] Sprachen über D[octor] Barton’s neues Werk, van Vleck wrote in response to a query in an earlier letter from Lancaster. Außer H[errn] Hekewelder, der aber verreist ist, weiß ich derweilen niemand in der Nähe, als den alten H[errn] Gruber, der mit Ind. Sprachen bekannt ist. Letzterer hat wohl D[octor] Bartons Werk nicht gesehen. Ersterer, der sehr favorable von D[octor] B[arton] sentiert, hat mir gleichwohl gesagt, dass er wenig Satisfaction darin gefunden /doch dies unter uns/ Ich habe es mit Geduld gelesen, aber bin nicht überzeugt worden. From van Vleck, 06/25/1798, HSP Coll. 443. 177 See Appendix E: Network Phase 3, page 551. The sixteen American-based correspondents are: Gustavus Dallmann, Correa de Serra, David Hosack, James D. Mease, William Hamilton, William D. Peck, Frederick Kampmann, Samuel L. Mitchill, Manasseh Cutler, the Bartrams, Benjamin S. Barton, Benjamin Rush, the Marshalls, Samuel Kramsch, F. D. Melsheimer; William Dunbar. In Europe, these were Heinrich A. Schrader, Dawson Turner, Erik Acharius, Olof Swartz, Johann L. Schulze, Carl&Hermann, Johann D. Schöpf and Palisot de Beauvois. Correa de Serra, however, still resided in Europe at the time, which is why is marked with a circular node.

A Network in Transition

265

decade of the 19th century, this proves that the roots of this tendency are actually to be found in the last years of the 18th century. One potential reason why this change happened so tardily despite the high number of potential and resting American contacts is also clearly visible in the network visualization. While Europeans like Schkuhr, Schrader, Sprengel, Acharius, Smith, Swartz and Hedwig, who are predominantly represented on the right hand side of the network, appear thoroughly interconnected and in communication with each other, much fewer interconnections could be found in the case of American naturalists and Mühlenberg correspondents. In fact, while the left “American” side of the network resembles a star with Mühlenberg at the center, the right, predominantly “European” side comes much closer to what one would imagine as a true web of contacts. Significantly, Benjamin S. Barton, whose node can be found at the bottom in the middle, is the only exception on the American side. Provided that this drawing delivers an approximation of the accurate state of scientific interconnectedness in late 18th century America, this configuration might explain why Barton came to be such an important figure in some of the biggest scientific projects of the Jefferson era – most notably, the Lewis&Clark expedition – despite his lack of scientific integrity and obvious ineptidude to finish projects, Barton commanded a complex network which made it easy for him to collect American specimens from afar, connect to new correspondents in key positions, and to gather information about his fellow botanists. Apparently, neither Mühlenberg nor any other American scientist was a match to Barton in this respect at the time. Of Mühlenberg’s European correspondents, the importance of Hedwig and James E. Smith is also clearly visible, as they both function as “gates” due to their high number of alteri contacts with future correspondents. In the case of Smith, the network also explains why Mühlenberg gradually lost in importance after a promising correspondence from 1790 to 1797: Smith’s high number of alternative American contacts, most notably with Barton, Rush and Hosack, provided him with enough opportunities to obtain what he needed. His primary focus on his Flora Britannica at the time, however, was certainly the more important reason for this growing neglect. Hedwig, however, disposed over contacts with other cryptogamists like Persoon, Swartz and Schwägrichen, all of whom contacted Mühlenberg soon after his death in 1799. Sprengel also occupied a prominent position in the network, which was certainly due to his extensive web of correspondences, which left comparably little time for the exchange with Mühlenberg. In fact, Sprengel had more correspondents than any other cryptogamic contact: Hedwig, Hoffmann, Schreber, Willdenow, Swartz, Acharius and Nebe at the Orphanage. Also, Sprengel was a neighbor to the Halle Orphanage, where he could always gather the latest news on his Lancaster contact and find safe opportunities for transport through Nebe. Halle (yellow circles) is the fourth local cluster introduced to his study.

266

Letters from an American Botanist

4 NETWORK STRATEGIES (PHASE 4: JANUARY 1802 TO AUGUST 1805)1 By 1800, Mühlenberg had acquired the reputation of a dependable contact, which becomes apparent both in the number of correspondents seeking contact with him after 1797 and the publication of two botanical articles in Willdenow’s Berlin-based scholarly journal in 1801 and 1803.2 His coming-of-age as a respected and sought-after botanist on both sides of the Atlantic must also be seen in the context of an unprecedented boom in transatlantic botany, which set in with the turn of the century. An increasing number of scientific publications were one sign of this first real “boom phase” in American botany,3 the commercialization of interest in American flora and fauna was another. The latter becomes most evident in the rising number of European seedsmen, nurserymen and botanical travelers who began to search the American wilderness on behalf of customers and enthusiasts of natural history in Europe, especially in England, France and the German estates.4 The appearance of botanical adventurers such as Matthias Kin († around 1825), John Lyon (1765–1814), Aloysius Enslin († 1810), Joseph van der Schott (1770–1812), Constantine Samuel Rafinesque (1783–1840), and Frederick Traugott Pursh (1774– 1820) in Mühlenberg’s web of contacts around and after 1800 is directly related to these developments. To most of these men, plant hunting primarily promised a lucrative livelihood, while others, like Pursh and Rafinesque, also had scientific interests as they traveled down the Appalachians southward or embarked on botanizing trips to the western regions. Their appearance is also an indicator that Mühlenberg actively began to seek ways of procuring specimens from regions where he had no botanical correspondent yet. Science in early 19th-century America also received an important stimulus from the election of Thomas Jefferson (1743–1824), during whose presidency both the Louisiana purchase (1803) and the subsequent exploration of the newly acquired and uncharted territory beyond the Mississippi was completed.5 Among 1 2 3

4 5

All data in this chapter is based on letters sent or received between the letter from Brickell to Mühlenberg, 01/21/1802, and Mühlenberg’s letter to Barton, 08/29/1805, APS Mss. B. B284d. See Flow Chart D, Appendix A, 551. See table j, Appendix B, on page 490. Mühlenberg published two articles in Willdenow‘s Der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin Neue Schriften, volumes 3 and 4, in 1801 and 1803. In 1803, Benjamin Smith Barton published the first American botanical textbook, Elements of Botany, which Joseph Ewan has described as “a philosophic rambling discourse filled with quotations gleaned from [Barton’s] extensive library.” The year after, Barton also put his Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal into circulation, a rival publication to New York’s Medical Repository, which Samuel Latham Mitchill had started in 1797. Ewan, “Early History,” 37. See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 466–75; Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 18f.; Graustein, “Barton,” 425. For this trend, see especially Boewe, “Rafinesque,” passim. See also Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 5; Petersen, New World Botany, 325; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 4; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 5; Boewe, “Rafinesque,” 50.

Network Strategies

267

America’s scientific elite, Jefferson was almost universally popular, independent of individual political views. As early as 1781, the future president had shown a keen interest in American science with his treatise Notes on the State of Virginia, which followed his presidency of Philadelphia’s American Philosophical Society from 1797 to 1815.6 Mühlenberg, too, was uncommonly enthusiastic and outspoken in his praise of the Virginia politician.7 In October 1802, he sat down to answer one of the few letters from Schreber at the time, in which he provided the Erlangen scientists with a brief summary of the new spirit in American botany, as he perceived it from his Lancaster home: Until recently, herbal science have found but few followers, but now, more and more are considering it. Barton, Brickel, Hamilton, Bartram, Denke and many others are indefatigable. Our former avid collector Mr Kramsch has given up on it. Marshall, the collector of the Arbustri, is dead.8 From Lancaster, Mühlenberg kept continuously abreast of the changes and developments in Philadelphia and other centers of scientific activity in America. In the case of the Lewis&Clark expedition, he actually never had to read or write a single letter to gather information. Two events in the recent past had made the issue of western exploration a top priority in Washington. In 1793, the Englishman Alexander Mackenzie (1764– 1820) had led a successful expedition to the Pacific for his employer, the North West Company, which posed a threat to U.S. fur trade in the north. On the political stage, the threat became imminent with the treaty of Ildefonso in 1800, in which Spain returned full control over the so-called Louisiana territory to France. Trade in New Orleans and on the Mississippi was supposed to serve as a lifeline between the northern and southern regions along the western frontier, and the French presence in the region was viewed with suspicion. Both problems were resolved peacefully in 1803, when U.S. representatives in Paris sought to achieve free trade agreements along with a partial land purchase, but were surprised with the offer to buy the entire territory instantly.9 Immediately after the news of the unexpected and unauthorized purchase reached Washington, plans were laid out to chart the newly acquired land and make its natural riches and resources accessible. Naturally, Philadelphia, 6

7

8

9

Jefferson’s library, which was later to form the nucleus of the modern Library of Congress, soon comprised the largest collection of Linnean books in the country. Greene, American Science, 33–35. In his Notes, Jefferson also tried to refute the Count de Buffon’s (1707–1788) claims that the New World’s flora and fauna were inferior to Europe. Greene, American Science, 10, 29. See also Häberlein, “Entstehung,” 184; Seavoy, Economic, 88f. With infinite Satisfaction I daily hear, he wrote to George Logan (1753–1821) in February 1806, that the Gentleman I so long respected, M[iste]r Jefferson, the Friend of the People and Sciences is indefatigable in preserving national Prosperity and Dignity, and enlarging the Boundaries of Science, especially natural History. To Logan, 02/14/1806, HSP Logan Papers. Bisher ist unter uns die Kräuterkunde sehr wenig studirt worden, seit etlichen Jahren denken mehrere darauf. Barton, Brickel, Hamilton, Bartram, Denke und etliche andre sind unermüdet. Unser ehemahliger fleißiger Samler Herr Krampsch hat es aufgegeb[en]. Marshall der Samler der Arbustri ist todt. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. France needed the money to back up its army, which had just begun its conquering tour across Europe. Seavoy, Economic, 88f.; Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 19; Petersen, New World Botany, 291f.

268

Letters from an American Botanist

which was still the country’s capital of science and research, was to play a major part in this scheme. Meriwether Lewis, who had distinguished himself as private secretary to Jefferson, was to lead the expedition with his former military companion William Clark (1770–1838). In May 1803, Lewis went to Philadelphia to undergo a brief scientific and practical training. Some of Mühlenberg’s contacts were employed as his tutors10 and a minor part of Lewis’ training literally took place in front of Mühlenberg’s door. Benjamin Rush was responsible for the medical part of Lewis’ six-week crash course, Benjamin Smith Barton acquainted him with basic botanizing techniques and knowledge, while the astronomer Robert Patterson (1743–1824), who was himself not a correspondent of Mühlenberg, tutored him in navigation and map making.11 In late May 1803, Lewis made a trip to Lancaster to take extra lessons with Patterson’s own teacher, Andrew Ellicott (1754–1820), who had moved there two years earlier. A native of neighboring Bucks county, he had seized the opportunity to go back to his home state when his service as federal surveyor of the Florida boundary earned him an offer by Jefferson to become Surveyor General of the United States. Turning down this offer, he accepted another one by Pennsylvania’s governor Thomas McKean (1734–1817) to become Secretary of the Land Office, a post that required him to move to Lancaster, Pennsylvania’s state capital at the time.12 From here, Ellicott continued to maintain correspondences with members of the highest echelons of U.S. society, including Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804), James Madison (1751–1836) and president Jefferson. Naturally, he was also present when Alexander von Humboldt came to Washington in June 1804.13 M[iste]r Ellicot, a Gentleman I esteem very much for his great Knowledge in Astronomy and his excellent heart, informs me the real Bullgrape is foliis parvis utrinque laevibus,14 Mühlenberg remarked to his new correspondent Dr John Brickell (1749– 1809) just three months prior to Lewis’ arrival in Lancaster in May 1803. For the time being, casual door-to-door conversations with Ellicott were as close as he got to the planning of the Lewis&Clark expedition, and it was only after 1806 that Mühlenberg actively engaged in the discussions on their discoveries and how they should be handled. As it turned out, the organization of the scientific work with the data collected by Lewis&Clark on their trip was a much greater task for American botanical science than the preparations had been. Eventually, when European botanists also be10 Moulton, Herbarium, 2; Petersen, New World Botany, 294, 342; McLean, “Bartram,” 21. 11 Petersen, New World Botany, 294. 12 Lancaster was Pennsylvania’s capital from 1799 to 1812. Cortlandt-Mathews, Ellicott, 199– 206. 13 Cortlandt-Mathews, Ellicott, 207. Ellicott even wrote a letter of introduction for Humboldt, which was addressed to vice-president Aaron Burr (1756–1836): Dear Sir, I beg leave to introduce to your acquaintance and civilities the bearer, the Baron De Humboldt: – He is now on his return to Europe from an interesting tour thro south American. – You will find him a gentleman of information, science, and real worth. – Your attention to him will confer a particular favour on your real friend and H[um]bl[e] Serv[an]t And[re]w Ellicott. Quoted after Cortlandt-Mathews, Ellicott, 214. Ellicott remained at Lancaster until 1811. Ibid 214–18. 14 To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists.

Network Strategies

269

gan to compete for the specimens and data, the hitherto rather shy American efforts to become independent of European science began to crystallize in protests against these encroachments. Especially after 1806, when political tensions between England and the U.S. began to rise as the British navy continued its impressment policies and forced American sailors into British service, botanical discussions in Mühlenberg’s network began to transcend their scientific context and took on political undertones. One of Mühlenberg’s new contacts, Frederick Pursh, came to play a major part in this struggle for America’s botanical independence, as he managed to expose and exploit the inefficiency of the contemporary scientific infrastructure in America for his own ends. As early as 1799, this well-educated botanist from the botanical garden at Dresden had followed the lure of undiscovered botanical riches in the vast and unexplored American hinterlands, like so many Europeans did around the turn of the century. Probably the most prominent representative of European sciences to visit the U.S. in this period was Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859), who was received by Jefferson in Washington and Monticello on his return trip from South America. In June 1804, Humboldt also paid a visit to Lancaster, where he dined with some of the town’s notables, among whom was Mühlenberg.15 With Willdenow, who was a close friend of Humboldt since their student days in Berlin in the late 1780s and continuously corresponded with Humboldt during his travels after 1799, the two men had a common contact.16 My dear most worthy friend, Humboldt addressed Mühlenberg a few days after his departure. I take advantage of this last moment before my departure tomorrow so as to tell you my most heartfelt gratitude for the indescribable kindness with which you have treated me and my friends at Lancaster.17 The German explorer also promised to bring some of Mühlenberg’s specimens to Paris, where they were supposed to be checked against specimens in the herbarium of the recently deceased André Michaux (1746–1802).18 This is highly significant, as it was the first sign of a new trendency in Mühlenberg’s networking, which aimed at the flora of the southern American states. French botanists were the driving force of botanical exploration in these parts until then.

15 16

17

18

Petersen, New World Botany, 284f.; Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 312; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 35; Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 69; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 22. Hein, “Willdenow,” 468f.; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 17. On April 20, 1799, Humboldt wrote to Willdenow from Aranjuez in Spain: Ich schlage eben einen Kiste mit 400 Pflanzen für Dich zu, und wenn Du sie durchgehst, so wirst Du Dich überzeugen, daß kaum ein Tag vergangen ist, an dem nicht in Wäldern, Wiesen und am Meeresufer Dein Andenken mir lebendig gewesen ist. Quoted after Hein, “Willdenow,” 469. Mein theurer Verehrungswerther Freund. Ich benuze diesen lezten Augenblik vor unsrer morgenden Abreise um Ihnen nochmals meinen herzlichsten Dank für die unbeschreibliche Güte zu sagen mit welcher Sie mich u[nd] meine Freunde in Lancaster behandelt haben. From Humboldt, 06/27/1804, APS Film 1097. Humboldt habe ich meine Moose mitgegeben, auch die Porella – etliche Numeri fehlen (…) die schick ich ihm (…) Nun will ich noch H[er]rn Humbold all meine Gräser zur Vergleich der Michauxisch Spec[imens] mitgeb (vielleicht auch Lichens – u[nd] kleine Cryptog[aminae]). See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/11/1804.

270

Letters from an American Botanist

Between 1786 and 1796, André Michaux and his son François André (1770– 1855) had been living in a small botanical garden established near Charleston, from where they took seeds and specimens back to France to compose the highly influential Flora Boreali-Americana, published in 1803. For the first decade of the 19th century, this first comprehensive flora of North America became the defining European work on all of American botany, while its inherent, though not exclusive focus on the flora of the Carolinas and Georgia sparked new interest in these sections of the United States.19 However, Mühlenberg interest in the South even preceded Michaux’ publication. Just months prior to the publication of the Flora, Mühlenberg had already begun to extend his network southward to procure local plants, while his contacts with plant hunters like Lyon and Kin served the same purpose. When Mühlenberg finally received a copy of Michaux’ Flora, it had the surprising effect to transform his distrust and dissatisfaction with European botanists into a conviction that transatlantic botanical exchange was no longer the high road to gathering knowledge on the botanical riches of his native country. In fact, its effects on the development of Mühlenberg’s network were stronger than those of any other publication or botanical trend at the time. One reason were the contemporary developments in European botanical theory, which first surface in Michaux’ work and began to worry Mühlenberg. This new Description of our American Plants, he wrote to Brickell in 1804, Michaux flora boreali Americana, I had for a few Weeks from William Hamilton Esq[uire] and had only Time to overlook it cursorily. If I counted exactly it contains the short Description of 1733 American Plants amongst them are 189 gramina and planta calamariae. It certainly doth not contain all our Plants, however it is a very valuable Work especially for Plants in the Southern and back States. He changes the generical Name often without Reason and still oftener the trivial Names of Plants sufficiently known and described.20 Mühlenberg expressly rejected the theoretical underpinnings of Michaux’ Flora, which subscribed to Antoine Laurent de Jussieu’s (1748–1836) new and natural system of classification. While de Jussieu’s system met with growing acceptance as a real progress in botanical science among European scientists, Americans continued to prefer Linnaeus. At the time, his sexual system provided the backbone of the fragile American botanical infrastructure, and Americans were simply not ready to discard it for another system that was both harder to handle and would therefore only extend their European dependence. For Mühlenberg, the publication of Michaux’ Flora was the moment when he began to push for more collaboration among American botanists. This promotion of more collaboration was one reaction of Mühlenberg, the inclusion of more correspondents from the southern states yet another. The united Labours of our American Botanists will be necessary to have a general Flora, Mühlenberg concluded his letter to John Brickell, one of his first correspondents to provide him with southern plants for his herbarium. Gustavus Dallman, a young Moravian located in Salem, North Carolina, also fits into this southern trend, as he 19 20

Graustein, “Barton,” 425; Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 19. To Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72.

Network Strategies

271

took the place of Denke and van Vleck and began to provide local specimens in 1804. These two contacts set the pattern of Mühlenberg’s domestic botanical exchanges until the publication of his own Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis in 1813.21 In fact, the research and preparations for the Plantarum can clearly be defined as a reaction to Michaux’ publication and the apparent threat of de Jussieu’s new botanical system. Nevertheless, even if Mühlenberg rejected the theoretical underpinnings of Michaux, access to his herbarium at Paris was of vital importance if he wanted to avoid unintentional plagiarism or mistakes in his own future publications. For this reason, Mühlenberg asked Humboldt for the favor to take his specimens to Paris. Siginificantly, it was also at this time that Mühlenberg first tried to find contacts in the French capital. Two new correspondents after 1802, Palisot de Beauvois (1752– 1820), a Frenchman who had lived in Philadelphia at times from 1791 to 1797, and the aforementioned Christiaan Hendrik Persoon (1761–1836) promised easy access to André Michaux’ herbarium, which remained in the possession of the Paris Académie des Sciences after his death. Persoon had actually tried to establish contact with Mühlenberg for the first time in 1800, but it was only after his relocation from Göttingen to Paris in 1803 that communication started on a regular basis.22 Beauvois sent his first letter to Mühlenberg in October of 1802.23 One would expect Mühlenberg’s botanical network to grow quickly under such favorable circumstances and heightened European interest. Surprisingly, this was not the case with regard to the number of Mühlenberg’s letters. With 117 during the present phase (1802 to 1805) against 112 during the preceding phase (1797 to 1802), their number remained relatively stable, while the size of European and American correspondences approached an almost perfect balance of 60 letters to Europe and 57 circulating within the United States.24 The network did grow, however, considering the number of contacts. On the American side, the number of correspondents rose from merely six contacts between 1797 and 1802 to 15 between 1802 to 1806, while it rose from 17 to 21 during the same period in Europe.25 With the number of letters remaining stable and the total number of correspondents rising from 23 to 36, the average number of letters per capita declined from ~ 4.87 (1797 to 1802) to ~ 3.25 from 1802 to 1806,26 which indicates a phase of re-orientation and widespread interest rather than a clear focus on one region or subject. Especially on the European side, this trend becomes evident in the numbers of exchanges with some of his most intense former contacts. Full title: Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis, Huc Usque Cognitarum Indigenarum et Circurum: Or, A Catalogue of the Hitherto known Native and Naturalized Plants of North America, Arranged According to the Sexual System of Linnaeus. Lancaster 1813. 22 For Persoon, see Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 389; Hugo, “Persoon,” 14f.; Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 11f. For Beauvois, see Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 312; Brendel, “Historical Sketch,” 759; Petersen, New World Botany, 344. 23 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 498. 24 See tables i and k, Appendix B, on page 490 and 491. 25 See tables i and k, Appendix B, on page 490 and 491. 26 Phase 3: 112 letters divided by 23 correspondents; Phase 4: 117 divided by 36.

21

272

Letters from an American Botanist

During Phase 3 from 1797 to 1802, Mühlenberg had corresponded with several core contacts such as Willdenow, James E. Smith and Romanus Hedwig, exchanging an average of five to six letters with these. During Phase 4 from 1802 to 1805, we find only one botanical correspondent with whom he exchanged as many as five letters.27 With the rest of his cryptogamic circle and its two new members Heinrich Adolf Schrader (1767–1838) in Göttingen and Christian Schkuhr (1741–1811) in Leipzig, only two or three letters were exchanged in the years after 1802. Schreber, too, was no exception.28 Observation: 1) Never expect too much, Mühlenberg noted in a somewhat sullen mood in his diary in 1802. Only a few are enthusiastic for the propagation of science but more for their own advantage.29 The passage evokes the central dilemma he found himself in: being a devoted advocate of free scientific collaboration and exchange all his life, Mühlenberg finally recognized that competition was also a facet of scientific practice and that networking always entailed the danger of information spill. Preparing a publication therefore meant walking a thin line between trust and caution. Realizing this, Mühlenberg devised his own network strategies, which helped him navigate his own network more securely. A strict limitation of letters was a first step to deal with this problem. Scientific trends and his thoughts on the course of American botany were not the only factors to shape the network after the turn of the century. With the deaths of Johann David Schöpf, his brother Frederick Augustus Conrad and Humphrey Marshall, Mühlenberg also lost three correspondents within little more than a year. Schöpf, who had been a “resting contact” since 1791, died on September 10, 1800, after being diagnosed with an unknown throat disease in the preceding year. Schreber took over the remaining editions of his Historia Testudines, the only project to which Schöpf had been able to devote some time during the 1790s.30 My old friend’s Mr Schöpf departure was very hard on me and hurt me a lot, Mühlenberg confessed in a letter to Schreber. The scientific world has lost a lot in him, and we Americans will also feel his loss, as he has made much headway for us.31 Just a few weeks after he learned of Schöpf’s death, his brother Frederick died. After his relocation to 27

This is again James E. Smith. Nebe, with whom Mühlenberg exchanged 16 letters during Phase 4 from 1802 to 1805, is not counted as a botanical contact. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 529. 28 See table k, Appendix B, on page 491. 29 Obs[ervation]: 1) Hoffe nie zu viel. [W]enige sind enthusiastisch für die Ausbreit[ung] der Wißenschaft sond[ern] mehr für ihr[en] Vortheil. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 12/31/1802. 30 Müller-Jancke, “Schoepf,” 56; Geus, Schöpf, 105, 115f. On Schöpf‘s death, Schreber wrote: Der Tod unseres Kollegen und Freundes Schöpf habe ich Ihnen letzthin gemeldet. Er muss schrecklich anzusehen gewesen sein. Da Sie ihn persönlich kannten und liebten, so lege ich einen Aufsatz seines medizinischen Beistandes bei, welcher über die letzten Leiden des würdigen Mannes und die Ursache seines Todes einiges Licht verbreitet. Sein Werk über die Schildkröten wird jetzt fortgesetzt, es sind noch von dem Verf. selbst Beschreibungen und Zeichnungen verschiedener Arten da, und die neuen, welche mir Händen kommen werden, will ich in einem Supplemente nachtragen. From Schreber, 01/28/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 31 Meines vieljährigen Freundes des Herrn Schöpf hart scheinender Abschied that mir sehr weh. Die gelehrte Welt hat viel an ihm verloren, auch wir Americaner werden seinen Verlust fühlen, da er für uns vorgearbeitet hat. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

Network Strategies

273

Lancaster, Frederick had worked as receiver general of the Pennsylvania Land Office from 1800 to 1801. His death on June 4, 1801 caused some unexpected changes in Henry’s relationship with his older brother Peter and also entailed additional work for him and his brother-in-law Schultze, who helped to sort out Frederick’s affairs.32 In November of the same year, Humphry Marshall, the author of the Arbustrum Americanum (1785), died at his home in Chester, PA. Mühlenberg had routinely paid visits to him and his nephew Moses, who continued the garden until his own death in 1813.33 4.1 The South In the summer of 1785, André Michaux (1746–1802) and his son François André (1770–1850) crossed the Atlantic on a special botanical mission for the French king Louis XIV (1754–1793). The two men selected Charleston as the site of a botanical garden, from where they embarked on numerous field trips to the American backcountry, which were documented and summarized in two works. Their Histoire des chênes de l’Amerique septentrionale (1801) and specifically the two-volumed Flora Boreali-Americana (1803) reanimated botanical interest in the South, on which nothing had been published anymore since the much earlier works of Frederik Gronovius (1690–1760), John Clayton (1694–1773) and Thomas Walter (1720– 1789). In the following decade, plants, seeds and specimens from Georgia, the Carolinas and Virginia became a much sought-after botanical commodity in the Old and New World, which lured both plant collectors and botanists to the region. Mühlenberg shared this interest, but as he was practically immobile for professional reasons, all he could do was to find correspondents in the region. Apart from occasional botanical travelers to the South, he found three men to provide him with local specimens: James D. Mease (1771–1846), the Moravian missionary Gustavus Dallman in Salem, North Carolina, and the Savannah-based retired physician Dr John Brickell. To be sure, it was no passing botanical fancy that Mühlenberg was following here. He had already begun working on his own Flora America Septentrio32

33

Hochgeschätzter Herr Schwager der plötzliche Abschied unsres Friedrichs hat in seiner Familie eine große Veränderung hervorgebracht. Gott weiß wie es in seiner Haushaltung zugegangen. So viel sehe ich daß es jetzt schlecht aussieht. Die Witwe wird von hier gleich wegzieh, und bis Montag wird von ihr öffentliche Vendue gemacht und alles verkauft. Seine Creditoren sind eingeladen sich zu melden, was herauskomt wird die Zeit lehren. Mündlich mehr davon. Ich erwarte wenig oder gar nichts. In Erwartung daß ich Sie etwa persönlich sehen werde will ich keine näheren Umstände melden. To Schultze, 06/19/1801, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. See also Mühlenberg‘s letter to Schultze, 08/14/1801, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891, and Kunze‘s letter to Mühlenberg, 11/21/1801, YUL Schwab Coll. Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg (1749–1833), a cousin with whom he maintained a brief correspondence from 1804 to 1807, informed him of some rumors on Frederick‘s death: Das Ihr H[err] Bruder Friedrich Sprecher im Congress war habe in einige mahl in der Hamburger Zeitung ersehen auch ein mahl das Er von seine Schwager Schäffner meugelmördischer weise gestochen wäre und musste zu meinem leidtwesen nun schon den todt erfahren. From Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg, 05/02/1807, APS Film 1097. Overlease, “Darlington,” 84; Ewan, “Pursh,” 603.

274

Letters from an American Botanist

nalis, in which he aimed for full national coverage. Southern plants had now become as important to him as those growing around Lancaster. On January 21, 1802, Mühlenberg addressed a letter to John Brickell at Savannah in order to open a correspondence.34 No letter or diary entry reveals who or what made him choose the retired physician as a contact, but Brickell accepted, and a rather one-sided exchange ensued until the latter’s death in 1809. Brickell was of Irish descent, born around 1749 in Louth County, from where he emigrated to North America in 1770, the same year that Mühlenberg returned from Halle. The circumstances of his early years in his adopted country are unknown, but he obviously disposed of the necessary financial means to attend medical school at King’s College, New York, from 1774 to 1776. After his graduation, he established himself as a practicing physician in Savannah.35 I have practised physic for above 20 years and have occassionally drawn medicinal aid from the botanical productions of this country, Brickell responded to Mühlenberg’s first letter in February 1802. Altho[ugh] restrained by the terror of serpents, the violent heats and sudden rains in Summer, I have occassionally devoted some leisure time to examining this part of creation in which the Divine Being has mixed so much beauty and utility.36 In his diary, Mühlenberg noted the reception of Brickell’s answer and that he attached a copy of his Index Flora Lancastriensis as a gift.37 Brickell soon proved the ideal botanical correspondent for Mühlenberg, as his medical studies had given him the knowledge required to identify plants that were actually useful or interesting to him, while his retirement gave Brickell enough leisure time to botanize. By sending him a copy of his Flora, Mühlenberg responded directly to a query by Brickell, who was apparently unfamiliar with the rituals and rules of botanical exchanges. [A]s I mean to have the pleasure, he had explained in February 1802, of sending plants, seeds and specimens to you occassionally, it may be perhaps well (...) that you may point out those you wish for, and that I may not trouble you with such as you already have.38 Mühlenberg’s plan was to work their way jointly through earlier works on the southern flora, Michaux’ latest included. Especially the Englishman Thomas Walter’s (1720–1789) Flora Caroliniana of 1788 was to be of pivotal importance in their early correspondence, as Mühlenberg asked for specific entries in Walter’s work, which he considered either improperly identified, falsely described or altogether undescribed.39 Those specimens which the two men agreed to be interesting were sent to Lancaster, where they were exam34 35 36 37

To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. Dictionary of American medical biography, s.v. “Brickell, John;” Mears, “Herbarium,” 160. From Brickell, 02/22/1802, HSP Coll. 443. 17. [März] heute einen mir lieb Brief von D[octor] John Brickell bekomm der febr[uar] 28 abging (…) Er gibt mir die Namen der generum um Savanna, ich antwort ihm d[en] 18. [März] u[nd] schicke ihm meinen Index fl[ora] Lanc[astriensis], (…) melde ihm was ich noch nicht geseh u[nd] wünsche (…). See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/17/1802. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 500f. 38 From Brickell, 02/22/1802, HSP Coll. 443. 39 See for instance the following passage: I repeat my wish to be informed by your Kindness what the different Anonymi of Walter are? He has many, and they ought to have names. (...) You, my dear Doctor are the Man. It is very likely that some of his Anonymi are named allready if not

Network Strategies

275

ined and incorporated into Mühlenberg’s herbarium.40 Michaux’ Histoire des chênes was also on their list of books. Michaux has figured a few Oaks from the southern States, Mühlenberg explained, which I have not seen (...). Could you get me a Specimen of each? Likewise of sinuata and villosa Walter, which I do not know. You see I can not leave off to desire after your botanical Riches. Have Patience with me, I do not want all at once. A single Specimen will be a valuable Present, and perhaps you can find some times this and then another. O do give me an Opportunity to serve you in any Manner. Cryptogamia are likewise my Favourites, we have a great Number of them. Have you any new Mosses or Lichens? Walter has but little “plerumque intacta remanent” is his Expression. Do you, dear Sir, give them a Touch and bring them to Light.41 In return for Brickell’s specimens, Mühlenberg sent his observations to Savannah, sometimes even books from his own library for Brickell’s further education. In April 1804, Mühlenberg packed a microscope for him.42 On the whole, Brickell’s endeavors were a retirement pastime and it is doubtful whether he would have engaged in the study of botany again had he not been contacted by Mühlenberg. I would beg Specimens from you, the latter confessed in January 1806 after 16 letters in four years of correspondence, but really I am ashamed owing you already so many Obligations which I do not know how to return.43 Their contact continued until shortly prior to Brickell’s death in December 1809,44 and although Brickell’s contributions were far from insignificant, there were more valuable southern correspondents for Mühlenberg. I now correspond with 2 Gentlemen who both are excellent experts in herbs. Both live closer to you than to me, he wrote to Salomon Henkel (1777–1847), a fellow Lutheran minister, in March 1805. These are Doctor John Brickel in Savannah and Mr Dallman in Salem, North Caroline (…). They have sent me some beautiful news about their regions.45 The Moravian missionary Gustavus Dallman had by Linné at least by Schreber, e.g. 309 Anonymos is certainly Liatris. To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. 40 The specimens you were pleased to send were as much as I can judge. For every Specimen I return you my best Thanks, they are a valuable Acquisition to my Herbarium. To Brickell, 04/26/1804, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. For Brickell’s contributions to Mühlenberg’s herbarium, see Mears, “Herbarium,” 160. 41 To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. Plerumque intacta remanent = The bigger part remains untouched. 42 Among the books were Schöpf’s Materia Medica and Historia Testudines, as well as Hoffmann’s Deutschlands Flora. See Mühlenberg’s letters to Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72; 04/26/1804, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll; 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. I will wrap you in the Front a small Lens, which agrees with my Eyes pretty well and has done me some Service. To Brickell, 04/26/1804, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. 43 To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. 44 The final letter of their correspondence dates from December 30, 1807. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 501. 45 Ich correspondiere jetzt mit 2 Herren die vortreffliche Kräuterkenner sind und Ihnen näher wohnen als mir, [n]emlich Doctor John Brickel in Savanna und H[er]r Dallman in Salem North Carolina. (…) Sie haben mir manche schöne Nachricht von ihren Gegenden gegeben. To Solomon Henkel, 03/08/1805, UoV Henkel Collection. For more on Henkel, see the entries in

276

Letters from an American Botanist

already contacted Mühlenberg in September 1799 and promised to become helpful at some point, especially in cryptogamia.46 As Denke had gone to Fairfield, Canada, and van Vleck was inactive at the time,47 Dallman, who worked and lived in Salem, North Carolina, was a welcome new Moravian contact for Mühlenberg. As biographical information on him is very limited,48 his whereabouts between his first meeting with Mühlenberg in 1799 and the actual beginning of their correspondence in late 1804 remain uncertain.49 The only event that seems related to the establishment of their contact was the move of the former Mühlenberg correspondent Samuel Kramsch to Salem in 1802.50 Although there is no evidence to prove a direct link between Kramsch’s move and the establishment of Mühlenberg’s contact with Dallman, the remarks on Dallman’s initial visit to Lancaster in 1799 and other passages from their correspondence suggest that Kramsch may have encouraged Dallman to seek contact with his Lancaster acquaintance.51 Also, Dallman took up the thread of Kramsch’s aborted correspondence with Schreber in Erlangen and kept Kramsch continuously informed of Mühlenberg’s messages. With great anxiety I am awaiting the answer by Mr Schreber, as I have sent close to 300 species last year, including 100 grasses and plantas calamanas. (…) Mr Kramsch, to whom I forward your letters for his lecture, begs to be recommended to your friendly memory.52 Mühlenberg’s exchange with Dallman, however, was brief and basically conthe bibliography by Arndt et al, The first century of German Language Printing II, listed on page 1207. 46 Eine ganz besondere Freude habe ich dass gegenwärtig ein junger Herr Gustav von Dalmann ein Botaniker auf seiner Reise nach Salem in Carolina bei mir ist. Er wird Sie wol besuchen, u[nd] ich hoffe wir haben an Ihm, einen treuen Gehülfen bekommen. From Denke, 09/28/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 47 Wallace, Travels, 373; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 246, 811; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 37; Dienerblatt “Denke.” 48 Out of the seven Moravians active in Mühlenberg’s network from 1792 to 1815, only for Dallman and Elizabeth Gambold (1747–1811/12) no Dienerblatt has been composed. A letter from Olof Swartz (1760–1818) suggests that Dallman was Swedish. Mr. G. Dalman is arrived to Sweden, and I have seen him. From Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 49 The first letter from their correspondence dates from November 7, 1804. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 504. 50 Dienerblatt “Kramsch.” Contact with Kramsch had ceased around 1792, there are no indicators of direct contact after this year. 51 Den Vorteil Walter Flora zu Rath ziehen zu können habe ich Ihnen zu verdanken, da mir H[err] Kramsch das von Ihnen eigenhändig apportierte Exemplar so wie seine übrigen Bücher zum freien Gebrauch überlassen hat. From Dallman, 05/15/1805, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letter from Denke to Mühlenberg, 11/30/1799, HSP Coll. 443; and Dienerblatt “Kramsch,” 52 Mit Verlangen sehe ich einer Antwort von H[errn] Schreber entgegen da ich ihm voriges Jahr an die 300 Species und darunter 100 Gräser u[nd] plantas calamanas zugeschickt habe. (…) Herrn Kramsch dem ich Ihre Briefe jederzeit zum durchlesen mitteile, bittet sich bestens bei Ihnen zum freundschaftlichen Andenken zu empfehlen. From Dallman, 04/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. No Dallman letters could be found in the Schreber bequest at the Universitätsarchiv Erlangen, Germany. With regard to the Schreber-Dallman correspondence, see also Dallman‘s letter to Mühlenberg, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443: Wegen Schrebers Antwort auf Herrn Kramsch Sendung kann ich berichten, daß sie richtig eingegangen ist. Ich habe aber nur den Anfang davon zu sehen bekommen. Nach so langer Zeit u[nd] peregrinaligen Ortsveränderung sind

Network Strategies

277

fined to a period of aproximately 13 months in 1804 and 1805, which echoes the development of the correspondences with his previous Moravian contacts Denke, Kramsch and van Vleck.53 In the eleven letters of their correspondence, Mühlenberg initially tried to establish an exchange fashioned after Brickell’s example, which meant working jointly on the basis of Walter’s, Michaux’ and other works on the southern flora. Unfortunately, Dallman’s library was hardly equipped for this method of joint botanical labour.54 Only Walter’s Flora Carolinia was available at Salem, but Dallman doubted its applicability to the local flora, which apparently differed much from what Walter had described.55 An addendum to Walter by a Botanist from Salem, provided that he would have access to all the required (...) insights, would be a very meagre work, the Moravian missionary concluded dryly in February 1805.56 As only a minor part of their correspondence from this year has survived,57 an indepth analysis of their subsequent exchange is hardly possible. The four letters still extant today, which all stem from Dallman’s hand, mostly consist of excruciatingly

53 54

55

56 57

dem Herrn Kramsch nicht alle Papiere gleich zur Hand. (…) Herr Kramsch lässt auch fragen was es für eine Bewandtnis mit den Americanischen philosophical transactions hat u[nd] wie man dieselben bekommen könnte. (…) Herr Kramsch bittet seine beste Empfehlung an Sie auszurichten. See also the letter from Dallman to Mühlenberg, 04/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443: Wegen der Nomenclatur die Herr Kramsch von der ersten Schiffung an Herrn Schreber erhalten, habe mit ihm geredet. Ich weiß nicht ob von meiner Seite ein Irrtum dabei obwaltet. Herr Kramsch hat mir alles was er von seinen Schreberischen Correspondenz hat zusammen bringen könn, mitgeschickt zum Glück kann ich Ihnen die Meinung des Herrn Schrebers über die von Ihnen angekommen Nummern aus einem Briefe desselben mitteilen. See also From Dallman, 12/24/1805, HSP Coll. 443. See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 504f, 514, 532f. Von Willdenows und Michaux Werke ist mir nie etwas zu Gesichte gekommen, Dallman admitted in April 1805, adding a month later: Den Vorteil Walter Flora zu Rath ziehen zu können habe ich Ihnen zu verdanken, da mir H[err] Kramsch das von Ihnen eigenhändig apportierte Exemplar so wie seine übrigen Bücher zum freien Gebrauch überlassen hat. See the letters from Dallman to Mühlenberg, 04/12/1805 and 05/15/1805, HSP Coll. 443. Ueberhaupt mag in Carolina manches wachsen, Salem könnte aber in botanischer Rücksicht ebensowol zu Virginien gerechnet werden. Stellen sie sich mageres dürftiges [trockenes?] Land ohne Wiesengrund, u[nd] wo es überhaupt keinen ebenen flach Land und doch auch keine Berge gibt, vor. {Er} ein Land, das Pensylvanien oder auch unsre Nachbarn {a} jenseits der Berge wie sie sagen, nicht geschenkt haben möchten, so werden sie bald merken, daß Walters Pflanzen die sich wol in ebenen sollen [ebensolchen?] Seis u[nd] Judigo Gegenden am Santee Fluß befinden mögen, sich wol schwerlich hirher gerne {ein Wort} verirren werden. From Dallman, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letter from Dallman, 04/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443: In meinem vorigen Briefe tat ich eine Äußerung, dass unser Salemer Gegend in botanischer Hinsicht am füglichsten zu Virginien / nicht zu den südlichen Staaten gerechnet werden könnte. Meine Meinung war dabei nicht dass unsere Salemer Flora die ganze Virginische enthält, sondern dass man sie als einen Teil derselben ansehen könnte, da mal 10 Pflanzen in Claytons flora zu finden sind, gegen eine die ich im Walter antreffe. Es würde daher eine Ergänzung Walters von einem Salemer Botanico, gesetzt daß er auch alle nöthigen (…) Einsichten hätte, sehr mager ausfallen. From Dallman, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. Only four out of eleven letters have survived. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 504.

278

Letters from an American Botanist

long and numbered lists of botanical specimens and occasional remarks on actual packages of plants. Just like in the case of Brickell, Dallman’s specific gain of their botanical exchange is hard to determine. You offer to be helpful in obtaining the botanical treasures of your region. I would indeed have a lot to wish for in this,58 Dallman remarked in April 1805. Another passage implies that packages were sent only under exceptional circumstances, and that Dallman primarily provided descriptions rather than specimens.59 This impression is also supported by the findings of James Mears, who could identify only very few “Dallman specimens” in Mühlenberg’s herbarium.60 Their contact broke off rather abruptly after a final letter composed by Dallman on Christmas eve in 1805. A journal entry by Mühlenberg, dated January 2, 1806, listed Dallman among those he still expected a letter from, which apparently never arrived.61 The final piece of information on Dallman comes from a letter by the Swede Olof Swartz (1760–1818) from 1811: M[iste]r G[ustavus] Dalman is arrived to Sweden, and I have seen him. His particular business makes him not very communicative; and for the rest has he met with that misfortune to fall into the hands of some Privateer, in his return from N[orth] America, by which accident he lost the greatest part of his Collection.62 In the intervening five years, Dallman was not mentioned in any of Mühlenberg’s Moravian or other correspondences – not even to or by his later Moravian contacts themselves. Dallman and Brickell were Mühlenberg’s only two correspondents who permanently lived and worked in the South. Mühlenberg could also recruit the Philadelphia physician James D. Mease (1771–1864) to bring back specimens from his southern travels. Mease was a native of Philadelphia, where he had entered the Sie erbieten sich mir zu den botanischen Schätzen Ihrer Gegend gefälligst behilflich zu sein. Da hätte ich viel zu wünschen. From Dallman, 04/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. He continued: Ich besitze aus Pennsylvanien kein einziges Specimen. Bei meiner Durchreise war mir noch alles zu fremd und der Winter rückte mit starken Schritten heran. Könnten Sie mir zu einem Exemplar von Archis spectabilis, u. Eimbritat, Leontice thalictroides, Panae quinquefolium erhalten, so würde ich es mit vielem Dank erkennen, und dann wünschte ich von Gräsern u[nd] Cryptog[amia] wo sie ein Exemplar erübrigen können gern etwas. Damit sie wissen was mir alles selbst will ich das Verzeichnis der hiesigen so gut ich’s habe, hersetzen. See also the letter from Dallman to Mühlenberg, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443: Gar sehr leid tut mirs dass Sie meinen vorletzten ausführlichen Brief nicht erhalten haben. Ich hoffte aus ihrer Antwort manche wichtige Belehrung zu erben. Es war auch eine Einlage von Carex sipamosa[?] u[nd] andere Gräsern darin. 59 Mit vielem Dank habe ich das Exemplar Ihres werten Schreibens am 15ten Juny anzuerkennen, so wie auch des Packets mit Kräutern die Sie mir zu meinem nicht geringen Vergnügen mitgeteilt haben. Ich habe auf eine Gelegenheit gewartet, dass ich ihnen getrocknete specimina zuschicken könnte, da alle Beschreibung doch etwas unvollständiges bleibt. From Dallman, 12/24/1805, HSP Coll. 443. 60 Mears, “Herbarium,” 161. See also Müller-Jahncke, “Linnaeus Americanus,”1325. 61 Es sind mir Briefe schuldig (…) 13. Dallman.(…) Obs. Dallman ist ein vorsichtiger Correspondent für mich u kann mir mehr helfen als irgend einer der hiesig[igen] Corresp[ondenten] weil er Cryptog [nd] Gramina versteht. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/02/1806. 62 From Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 58

Network Strategies

279

University at the age of 13, graduating with a medical degree in 1792.63 After distinguishing himself during the 1793 yellow fever epidemic, Mease started his physician career at the health office of Philadelphia harbor, where he stayed until 1797. In 1802, he was elected to the American Philosophical Society, which was probably his motivation to provide Mühlenberg with specimens at the time. As Mease has not yet found a modern biographer, several details of his life, including the cause and exact destinations of his many travels, cannot be established with certainty. Circumstantial evidence suggests, however, that a rich inheritance and a fortunate marriage allowed him to retire early and pursue a gentleman’s existence among Philadelphia’s social and intellectual elite. Numerous active memberships in societies such as the Company for the Improvement of the Wine, the local Agricultural Society, and the Philadelphia Athæneum, and antiquarian and historical publications after 1802 also support the idea that Mease traveled primarily out of curiosity rather than necessity.64 Doctor Mease was so kind as to send me all the Plants he had collected on Simon’s Island, Mühlenberg informed Brickell in February 1803. I looked over them and returned such as I had already by your Kindness and M[iste]r Enslin.65 Mease, who had acquired a reputation as America’s leading authority on rabies, was a collector rather than a botanist. In 1806, Mühlenberg again wrote to Brickell that D[octor] Mease will be in a short time a valuable Botanist. Two years later, however, he confided to his diary: Mease is of no big use.66 In Mühlenberg’s Catalogue of the Hitherto known Native and Naturalized Plants of North America (1813), Mease was listed among the contributors from Georgia, although two other letters reveal that he submitted specimens to Lancaster from other places as well.67 In Philadelphia, he became a preferred source of information when Mühlenberg came to visit, while their correspondence only comprised a few notes and letters.68 Professional Mease dedicated his doctoral thesis to Benjamin Rush. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mease;” Mears, “Herbarium,” 165; Campbell, Hibernian, 460. 64 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Mease;” Mears, “Herbarium,” 165; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 451f.; Campbell, Hibernian, 460. Best known today among his publications is his Picture of Philadelphia, published by B. & T. Kite, Philadelphia 1811. 65 To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. “Simon’s Island” is known today as one of the four “Golden Isles of Georgia,” which form a natural barrier along Atlantic coast of the state. 66 Mease nützt nicht viel. To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll; Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for November 16, 1808 [margin notes]. 67 The line on Mease simply runs: MD Philadelphia, Georgia. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. Mease appears in two other letters, which show him sending specimens from Ballstown, Indiana, in 1812, and from another unidentified place in 1813. Soon after I received two Packets of Plants gathered in N York State, one from D. Mease gathered at Ballstown, of Mosses not one new (…).To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. D[octor] Mease sent me an imperfect Specimen which I take for A purpurascens L. To Collins, 01/13/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 68 References to letter contact with Mease are rare. To Zaccheus Collins, Mühlenberg acknowledged on April 6, 1812: D[octor] Mease informs me that a good Botanist has arrived from Portugal at Philaldelphia Mr Correa de Serra. I would be very glad to get nearer acquainted with him and wish to See him either at Lancaster or in Philadelphia. To Collins, 04/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. See also To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. Mühlenberg’s botan63

280

Letters from an American Botanist

plant collectors and explorers like the aforementioned M[ister] Enslin and others were by far more practical for Mühlenberg’s interest in southern flora than Mease could ever have been. 4.2 Europeans in the American Wilderness I – Lyon and Pursh Collecting seeds, plant specimens and animal skins had been a way to make money since the early days of interest in the American flora and fauna. It was only towards the end of the 18th century, however, that collecting became a major transatlantic business that could support more than just some occasional botanical travelers. There were three types of travelers in Mühlenberg’s network: First, men like Aloyius Enslin and Joseph van der Schott, who roamed the forests in the service of European nobility. Second, men like Frederick Pursh and Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, who botanized with scientific intentions and were mostly sponsored by European or even American botanists. Finally, plant hunters like John Lyon and Matthias Kin worked as freelance agents for seed stores or for their own business. In this section and in the following two, these men will be introduced in chronological order of their appearance in Mühlenberg’s network. Their common interests were to profit from the contemporary interest in New World botany, make a comfortable living and, if possible, inscribe their own name into the annals of botany. Among their most reliable and regular customers were collectors and gardeners, who often functioned as their trade agents for transatlantic transport as well. William Hamilton’s Woodland garden69 was such a sanctuary for botanists and collectors alike. Consequently, it also fullfilled this function for two European botanical travelers who came to the U.S. independently of each other in the late 1790s. The Scotsman John Lyon worked at Hamilton’s garden from about 1799 to September 1803, to be replaced by the German Frederick Traugott Pursh, who remained at Hamilton’s place until 1805. As Hamilton was still one of the most cherished contacts of Mühlenberg’s, who took advantage of every opportunity to pay a visit to him, Mühlenberg became acquainted with both Lyon and Pursh in the course of time. Hamilton was one of Mühlenberg’s most reliable and preferred Philadelphia botanists, as can be seen in many passages of his letters from 1800 to 1806.70 Hamilton had employed other gardeners before, but it appears that Lyon and Pursh were

69 70

ical diary also features Mease’s Philadelphia address on the inside of the cardboard cover: 192 Chesnut Street D[octor] James Mease so D[octor] Barton. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 515. Hamilton was part of the Philadelphia scene, with which Mühlenberg had established regular contact around 1790. The two hardly corresponded, but Mühlenberg used every chance to see Hamilton at his garden. M[iste]r Hamilton is indefatigable in collecting the living American Plants and generously lets me have the Sight of them when I visit him at his Woodlands, he wrote to Brickell in 1804, adding two years later: Twice I was last Year at Philadelphia, where I had the Pleasure to see M[iste]r William Hamilton’s botanical Garden. It does Honour to him though it still wants a great Number of your Georgia Plants. See Mühlenberg’s letter to Brickell, 03/01/1804, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1801–1806]; and 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56.

Network Strategies

281

extraordinarily successful in bringing the Woodlands into full bloom all year round. In 1809, a visitor noted some 5,000 to 6,000 species from such diverse regions of the world as South America, the Cape of Good Hope, Japan, the West Indies and Australia’s Botany Bay.71 It took some botanical expertise to handle such a vast variety of exotic plants, flowers, shrubs and trees, and Lyon was up to the task. Lyon’s diaries, which he kept during his botanizing tours in the mid-Atlantic and southern states from 1799 to 1814, do not only show him as an able botanist, but are also one of the main sources on the daily life of professional plant hunters in early 19th century America.72 The circumstances of his arrival in America are disputed and partially unknown, as the date of his first visit to the U.S. vary from 1796 to 1800.73 Harshberger has suggested a certain William Lyon (no data available) of Gillogie, Forfardshire in Scotland as Lyon’s alleged father, while Ewan and Ewan have suggested that Lyon might have arrived as an indentured servant in his early 30s.74 The first secure proof of his sojourn in the United States, however, is his employment with William Hamilton in 1799, where he stayed until September 1803, to be replaced by Pursh, and took up work there again when the latter left in 1805.75 There is also no certain date of Mühlenberg’s and Lyon’s first encounter, although it must either have been on occasion of one of Mühlenberg’s visits to the Woodlands after 1799, or during one of the botanizing trips that brought Lyon to Lancaster.76 Apart from being directly responsible for the planning and maintenance of the garden, Hamilton sent Lyon on field trips, particularly to the South, where he botanized and from where he brought back seeds and live plants to extend Hamilton’s collections.77 There were two main routes southward for Lyon, one leading via Lancaster, Hanover (both PA), and Frederick (MD) to Winchester (VA), the second one following the coastline via Christiana (NJ), Baltimore (MD), Fredericksburg (VA) down to Halifax (NC). While the coastal tour occasionally brought him to Humphry and Moses Marshall’s garden, Lyon preferred the first one, as it was in better shape.78 In his diary, one or two visits to Lancaster are recorded per year, starting on September 7, 1802, although no explicit mention of Mühlenberg is Madsen, “Hamilton,” 20; Greene, American Science, 50. Since the installation of Hamilton’s garden in the 1780s, the Woodlands had seen several gardeners. The first was apparently a certain “George Hilton”, followed by “M[iste]r. Conrod” and “John McArran.” Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 6f. 72 According to Ewan and Ewan, the diaries of other plant collectors such as Matthias Kin, Aloysius Enslin and others have not been found to date. They are supposed to contain detailed information on his sales channels, circles of customers, and practical botanizing skills. Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 5. 73 Harshberger, Botanists, 133; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 6f., 12; Ewan, Barton, 481; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 39. 74 Harshberger, Botanists, 133; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 6f., 12; Ewan, Barton, 481; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 39. 75 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 12; Greene, American Science, 50; Harshberger, Botanists, 133. 76 Ewan and Ewan state that Hamilton’s garden came into full bloom under Lyon’s care, which apparently did not go unnoticed by Mühlenberg. Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 7. On their first meeting, see also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 503. 77 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 5; Madsen, “Hamilton,” 20; Petersen, New World Botany, 349f. 78 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 16. 71

282

Letters from an American Botanist

made until October 1807, when he recorded the following: 7th Remained at Lancaster. [Visited Muhlenberg, and from him] got some Specimens and seeds.79 At an unspecified point in time before February 1803, when Lyon was still working for Hamilton, Mühlenberg began to place plant orders with him. In this month, he informed Brickell that [t]he Grasses and plantea calamariae have been my Favourites long ago. Both M[iste]r Lyons and M[iste]r Kinn have promised me to look very close for everything of that sort, but I am afraid they will rather look after [missing] and high flowering Plants and overlook the humble Grasses.80 It was only after Lyon was dismissed from Hamilton’s services in September 1803 and decided to continue as a freelance plant collector that he became truly interesting to Mühlenberg. Lyon’s favorite hunting grounds in the southern Alleghenies and Appalachians, Tennessee, Florida, the Carolinas, Georgia, and the Cherokee country were a perfect match for Mühlenberg’s new interest in these regions. [Lyon] has made a noble Collection of Southern Plants and deserves all Praise, he reported to Brickell enthusiastically in the spring of 1804. With him I saw a Number of dried Specimens and he did, what hardly any of my travelling Friends have done, he let me have some of the Specimens. I think I counted near 200 Plants which we have not in our Parts. (...) However he intends to make another jour[ney] and then he promises to look out for more.81 With regard to the nature of their exchange, neither Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries, nor Lyon’s diaries give any details on what Mühlenberg exchanged for the plants that Lyon may have brought to Lancaster. The only relevant diary entry by Lyon from October 7, 1807 indicates that at a later point in their exchange, Mühlenberg did not pay in cash, but offered seeds, specimens and possibly his botanical expertise in exchange for the “orders” he placed with Lyon. According to Lyon’s diaries, the Scotsman was well acquainted with the Linnean system and even kept a copy of Michaux’s 1803 Flora constantly by his side.82 In any event, Mühlenberg’s herbarium and knowledge were certainly a great help to determine the exact botanical and commercial value of his discoveries. Only five letters between the two men could be reconstructed,83 and it is highly probable that their contact was predominantly oral, as Mühlenberg usually waited for Lyon’s return to Lancaster and there was little need for theoretical botanical discussion during the intervals. Despite their close collaboration, Mühlenberg never appears to have been a major customer of Lyon, whose principal partners were the nurserymen David Landrath (1752–1836) in Philadelphia and Joachim Conrad Loddiges (1738–1826) in London. Landrath’s seedhouse in Philadelphia was the first of its kind in the U.S. at the time of its establishment in the mid–1780s, and Lyons had struck a deal with Landrath that the latter would receive and store all seeds until they were packed for 79

Annotation by Ewan and Ewan. The original entry obviously comes without Mühlenberg’s name. Other dates of visits were October 1804, October 1807, and August 1808. Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 13, 15, 37. 80 To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. 81 To Brickell, 04/26/1804, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. 82 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 9. 83 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 515.

Network Strategies

283

domestic sale or sent abroad to Europe.84 In England, Lyon advertised his seeds in the Botanical Magazine, sold them at auctions, via contract partners, or directly to nurserymen like the Hackney-based Loddiges company.85 In fact, the Loddiges were the biggest distributor of American botanical materials during the first decade of the 19th century, and their import business was based on a long tradition of transatlantic connections.86 Mühlenberg was not excluded from their activities, as he recorded in his diary in September 1805 the reception of a letter containing a request for live plants.87 No more entries on the firm could be found. In the case of David Landrath, several entries88 indicate that Mühlenberg may have paid visits to the seed store in Philadelphia or received seeds from Lyon, who was lodging there several times after 1812. Although the records on Mühlenberg’s and Lyon’s botanical exchange are too scarce to determine the nature of their relationship, Lyon’s botanical diaries suggest that the real gain for both men was not financial or botanical, but with regard to their individual networks. Lyon knew Barton, Marshall and other Philadelphia botanists, but it were his southern contacts that match Mühlenberg’s contemporary network there to a surprising degree. On May 10, 1803, Lyon first mentioned John Brickell, to whom he paid a visit two weeks later: Also specimens of Michaux’s Schisandria coccinea first discovered by D[octo]r John Brickell near Savannah which he called by the name of Stellandria glabra and describes thus in his notes. Another two weeks later, the two men embarked on a joint excursion to the Creek Nation.89 In September 1807, Lyon met another earlier Mühlenberg contact, Samuel Kramsch, who had just come down from Hope, New Jersey: 13th Got on to [Winston] Salem 39 miles. (...) 14th Remained at [Winston] Salem. Collected some seeds, Specimens etc[etera] in company of M[iste]r Kramsh.90 Unfortunately, Lyon’s diary does not reveal his motivation for contacting Brickell and Kramsch, but the fact that MühlenEwan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 8f.; 51; Greene, American Science, 51. Whenever he came to Philadelphia, Lyon also had a habit to take his lodging with Landrath, as his diary reveals: Dec[embe] r 22nd. Paid M[iste]r D[avid] Landrath for one years board due this day – $156.– Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 51. 85 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 6–9; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 413. 86 Ewan and Ewan have calculated that 94 trees and shrubs were introduced into English gardens during the first decade of the 19th century, 19 of which alone by Lyon. From 1811 to 1820 the total number rose to 374, 44 of which were introduced by the Loddiges, twelve by Lyon. They also state that Lyon might first have met Hamilton at the Loddiges business when he was in England during the revolution. Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 6–7. 87 Sept[ember] 5. 1805 Ein Brief von Conrad Loddiges u[nd] Son, Nursery and Seedsmen at Hackney near London 1) hält für lebendige Pflanzen an u[nd] mehrentheils solche die hier nicht wachsen für Sämereien von neuen Pflanzen. 2) ein Catalog von 1804 komt mit in dem mehrere Pflanzen steh die ich nicht kenne. 3) meldet daß meine Abhandlung de falicibus gedruckt ist verlangt besonders diese 4) Ich werde Sämereien schick u für Specimina anhalt von Vacc. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry September 5, 1805. 88 Smith, “Pioneer,” 450. 89 8th Set off from Savannah on an excursion to the Creek Nation etc. accompanied some miles on the road by Dr Brickell, got on to Ebenezer 25 miles. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 22. The last entry with Brickell dates from 1804. Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 12; Ewan, “Pursh,” 604. 90 Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 36. 84

284

Letters from an American Botanist

berg knew them first suggests that he may have made Lyon aware of their existence. On the other hand, two future Mühlenberg contacts made their first appearance in Lyon’s diary apparently before they began to send seeds, specimens and letters to Lancaster. With regard to the Savannah-based botanist and banker Stephen Elliott (1771–1830), Lyon noted in early January 1803: 10th got on to Savannah. (...) Got acquainted with Stephen Elliott Esq[uire] of Silk Hope near Savannah an intelligent Naturalist who pays considerable attention to Botany from whom I obtained much usefull information.91 It was only in 1807 that Mühlenberg connected with Elliott himself. Around the same time, Lyon also visited the Moravian missionary Anna Rosina Gambold (1762–1821) at the Moravian School for Cherokees on the Conasauga river in northern Georgia.92 In neither case, however, is it entirely clear whether Lyon ever mentioned these individuals during one of his brief stops at Lancaster until 1806, when he went to England. By the end of 1805, Lyon had collected a sizable amount of seeds, plants, shrubs, specimens and other botanical materials to plan a trip to London, where he meant to sell everything at an auction at Parson’s Green near Fulham.93 To James Edward Smith, Mühlenberg explained in 1805: M[iste]r Lyons who has travelled through our Southern States and has been long Gardener in M[iste]r William Hamiltons excellent botanical Garden near Philadelphia, intends next Fall to go to England and settle near London. He is an excellent Botanist and well acqainted with M[iste]r Lee. He would certainly be a safe Hand to take any Packet along and see it forwarded to Norwich.94 After a second brief employment at Hamilton’s garden in late 1805, Lyon left the United States and arrived in London in March 1806 with the greatest collection of American trees and shrubs ever brought to England by an individual.95 As [a] gentleman through whose industry and skill more new and rare American plants have lately been introduced into Europe than through any other channel whatever,96 he was described in 1814 by another European gardener, Pursh, who had come to the United States in 1799, and took his position at Hamilton’s garden in September 1803. Frederick Traugott Pursh, who wrote these lines in his seminal and controversial Flora America Septentrionalis (1814), was born in Gossenhain, Saxony, some 100 miles east of Halle and 30 miles north of Dresden in 1774. Details of his early life are practically unknown until he found employment at the Dresden botanical garden through the court gardener Johann Heinrich Seidel (1744–1815). Seidel and chamberlain Joseph Friedrich Freiherr von Racknitz (1744–1818) soon began to patronize the gifted young man, giving him excellent training in the garden’s facil91 Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 19. Elliott also dedicated a short tribute to Lyon in the introduction to his two-volume Sketch of the Botany of South–Carolina and Georgia (1821). Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 11; 92 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10, 34. 93 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 9. 94 To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 95 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 7, 9, 13; Harshberger, Botanists, 133; Greene, American Science, 50; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 39. 96 Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 11.

Network Strategies

285

ities and guiding his interest to exotic plants, particularly of the North American flora.97 Joseph Ewan has called Pursh the “best qualified foreigner in the U.S. after [André] Michaux,” which also reflects the high regard his contemporaries had for his botanical learning.98 When he left for Baltimore in January 1799,99 Pursh had already gained some scientific reputation in Germany, and Mühlenberg’s correspondent Sprengel, working and writing in neighbouring Halle, was obviously aware of Pursh’s plans. Professor Sprengel reports to me (…) that he had given the book to a gardener named Bursch to bring it to me. He came to me with the letter, stayed with me for a few days, but the book itself I have not yet gotten hold of.100 Mühlenberg informed Nebe in 1800. The passage obviously describes the first encounter between the two men sometime in 1799, which Pursh also recorded in his Flora fifteen years later.101 After this surprise visit to Lancaster, Pursh proceeded to Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York, where he found work as a landscape architect and gardener before he accepted the position as Lyon’s successor in Hamilton’s garden in September 1803.102 With regard to Pursh’s intermediary jobs in Baltimore and other cities, Joseph Ewan has found no proof of his presence in the city and has suggested that he may have worked for Humphrey Marshall until the latter’s death in November 1801, and proceeded to Hamilton thereafter.103 This scenario raises the question whether Mühlenberg helped Pursh into these positions, but as there are no indications of contact between 1799 and 1803, it was apparently only after 1803 that their contact became regular. Also, Mühlenberg learned about Pursh’s job at Hamilton’s from Hamilton himself, which supports the idea that they there was no real contact with Pursh before 1803.104 There is no doubt, however, that Pursh worked for Hamilton from 1803 to 1805, supervising the garden and procuring new and exotic plants from unexplored 97

Ewan, “Pursh,” 601f; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 40; Brendel, “Historical Sketch,” 762; McVaugh, “Pursh,” 24; Harshberger wrongfully cites Siberia as Pursh’s birthplace. Barnhart, “Sketches,” 40. 98 Ewan, Barton, 501; Boewe, “Rafinesque,” 50. 99 Pursh, Flora, v; Harshberger, Botanists, 113; McVaugh, “Pursh,” 24; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 501; Ewan, “Pursh,” 602. 100 H[er]r Prof[essor] Sprengel meldet mir (…), er hatte [das Buch] einem Gärtner Bursch für mich mitgegeben. Er kam mit dem Briefe zu mir, hielt sich etliche Tage bei mir auf, das Buch selbst habe ich aber noch nicht erhalten können. To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. 101 My first object, after my arrival in America, was to form an acquaintance with all those interested in the study of Botany. Among these I had the pleasure to account one of the earliest, and ever after the most valuable, the Rev[erend] D[octo]r Mühlenberg of Lancaster, in Pennsylvania, a gentleman whose industry and zeal for the science can only be surpassed by the accuracy and acuteness of his observations; Pursh, Flora, vi. See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 501. 102 The exact circumstances of his time at Baltimore and New York are unknown. Ewan, “Pursh,” 602; See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 501; McVaugh, “Pursh,” 24; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 40; Pursh, Flora, v. 103 Ewan, “Pursh,” 602f. 104 I have been to see M[iste]r Hamilton. He tells me M[iste]r Bursh will become his gardener next September, Mühlenberg wrote to Rafinesque, another European traveling in the U.S. at the beginning of the 19th century. From Rafinesque, 07/10/1803, HSP Coll. 443.

286

Letters from an American Botanist

parts of the United States and elsewhere.105 Pursh was delighted both with Hamilton’s botanical collections, which he found particularly [rich] in rare and new American species,106 and with the chance to connect with American and foreign botanists, who routinely came to see Hamilton and his garden. Benjamin Smith Barton, William Bartram and other Philadelphians were regulars at the Woodlands, and it was one of Mühlenberg’s visits there which turned their brief acquaintance into a botanical exchange.107 Just as in the cases of most other European gardeners, collectors and travelers discussed in this section, contact with Pursh was primarily oral, which limits information on the development of their relationship to occasional margin notes and passages in letters and diaries. From this scarce information, however, a rough chronology of their contact can be established which suggests that Pursh paid several visits to Mühlenberg during his employment with Hamilton until 1805. This contact only developed into an actual correspondence when Pursh began to work and travel for Benjamin Smith Barton after 1806, and for David Hosack (1769–1835) in New York in 1808. Shiu-Ying Hu and E. D. Merril, who critically examined Mühlenberg’s herbarium for unrecorded and incorrectly recorded binominals in 1949, have come to the conclusion that “in most cases Pursh had seen actual specimens named by Muhlenberg, and when he came to prepare his manuscript, that he merely appropriated the new species as his own, in view of the fact that Muhlenberg had never published descriptions.”108 In his flora, Pursh also praised his friend in Lancaster for the accuracy and acuteness of his observations,109 which suggests that Mühlenberg primarily provided specifications through his herbarium and library. There are some passages that indicate that Mühlenberg actually received specimens to be determined, while he returned specimens to Pursh only after 1808, when Pursh was already in New York. The only letter from Pursh to Mühlenberg still extant also dates from 1809.110 Since New Year I received first a Packet of Jersey Plants by M[iste]r Pursh formerly Gardener with M[iste]r Hamilton now with D[octor] Hosak at N[ew] York,111 Mühlenberg informed Stephen Elliott in November 1809. To sum up, from 1803 to 1805, their contact was primarily oral, basically paralleling Mühlenberg’s contact with Hamilton, while from 1806 to 1815 the two men communicated via

105 Stetson, “Hamilton,” 31; Ewan, “Pursh,” 603; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 501–503; Harshberger, Botanists, 113; Pennel, “Collectors,” 43. See also the relevant passages in Pursh’s flora, Pursh, Flora, vii–viii. Peterson gives 1799 as the date of Pursh’s employment with Hamilton. Petersen, New World Botany, 304. 106 Pursh, Flora, viii. 107 Ewan, “Pursh,” 604; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 501; Harshberger, Botanists, 116; 108 The manuscript was Pursh’s future Flora America Septentrionalis. Hu and Merril suggest that Pursh included Mühlenberg specimens in his work without giving due credit. Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 28. See also Cahill, “Correspondence,” 381. 109 Pursh, Flora, vi. 110 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 523. Ewan also agrees that Mühlenberg received seeds in great numbers from Pursh during his time in New York. Ewan, “Pursh,” 614; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 27. 111 To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers.

Network Strategies

287

letters and the exchange of plant packages.112 By 1803, Mühlenberg was certainly not suspecting that Pursh would include some of his specifications in his later Flora America Septentrionalis, which also included original information from other American botanists as well as on the Lewis&Clark specimens.113 The Pursh episode was to develop into American botany’s first case of large-scale scientific piracy and caused Hu and Merril in 1949 to conclude that “Pursh’s ethics were not of a very high order.”114 4.3 Europeans in the American Wilderness II Kin, Enslin and van der Schott Other than Lyon and Pursh, in whose cases no patron, contract partner or commissioner is known to have arranged and paid for their passage and subsequent travels, Matthias Kin († 1825), Aloysius Enslin († 1810) and Joseph van der Schott (†1812) originally came in the service of European monarchs who sought access to American natural resources for the benefit of their own dominions. According to John Harshberger, Kin was sent to the U.S. by an unidentified German patron with an interest in American flora sometime in the late 18th century. Kin selected Germantown as the home base for his frequent travels.115 Known as the “Indian Plant Hunter,” he routinely dressed up as an Indian to facilitate his journeys across territories inhabited by native Americans. James Mears has described Kin as “a curious botanist at Philadelphia,” Francis Pennel as “a picturesque German immigrant who traveled extensively and shipped plants and seeds from Philadelphia to Europe,” and in the words of an unidentified contemporary, Kin was “a remarkable specimen of humanity, full 6 feet tall, broad shouldered, with enormous bones and little flesh, and as one said, a ‘literal’ picture of death.”116 When Kin was traveling in the Alleghenies and further to the South,117 the wealthy banker, botanical enthusiast and cofounder of Germantown Academy, Melchior Meng (1725–1812), took care of his finances and profited from whatever Kin brought back to Germantown.118 112 For more on their relationship during Phase 5 (1805–1811), see below on page 390f. 113 Madsen, “Hamilton,” 20; Greene, American Science, 11; Ewan, “Pursh,” 601; McVaugh, “Pursh,” 24. 114 Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 28. 115 Harshberger, Botanists, 184; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 38. 116 Mears, “Herbarium,” 164; Pennel, “Botanical Collectors,” 48; Harshberger, Botanists, 184; Hotchkin, Germantown, 35f. 117 Elliot, Sketch, xiv; Barnhart, however, contended that Kin collected both east and west of the Mississippi, while Harshberger identified the Alleghenies as Kin’s exclusive hunting ground. Neither claim is supported by any relevant passage or diary entry. 118 On their relationship, S. F. Hotchkin has observed that “Melchior Meng had ‘ a very fine garden,’ and shared with Kurtz his friendship for Kin and his seeds. The immense Linden tree that stood in front of his place was certainly planted by him, as possibly were many others of the large trees which stood there. ‘ Meng’s garden was much larger than Kurtz’s, and while the latter paid the most attention to shrubs and plants, the former boasted of his very fine lot of trees, which at that time, was inferior to very few collections in the country.’ Melchior Meng

288

Letters from an American Botanist

The exact date of Kin’s first arrival in America remains unknown, just as in the case of Lyon, but it was in consequence of one of his trips back to the old continent around 1800–1801 that he met Hoffmann in Göttingen, who took advantage of the opportunity to forward a letter to Mühlenberg: From some place a certain Mathias Kin comes through this town, he wrote in January 1801, who deals with American seed trade and appears to be an honest and upright man. I have bought various seeds for the garden from him. I take advantage of this opportunity, as he assures me to return via Hamburg to America, to send a few lines to you.119 Nine months later, Mühlenberg acknowledged the receipt of Hoffmann’s letter and also mentioned Kin for the first time in Lancaster.120 From then on, Kin appeared as a frequent visitor and casual correspondent in Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries. M[iste]r Lyons and M[iste]r Kinn are both my Friends, he informed Brickell in 1803. [T]he former knows more of the System, the latter is a practical Collector of Plants though he spells exceedingly bad. He seems to me an indefatigable very honest Man. Both make their living by Botany, with me Botany is Recreation.121 Given his orthographical limitations, Kin remained a plant provider rather than an actual botanical correspondent. To Brickell and others, Mühlenberg frequently mentioned the reception of botanical materials by Kin, but never any accompanying letters, as he routinely did with other contacts. M[iste]r Kin sent me his whole Herbarium containing 827 Plants for Inspection and Nomenclature (...),122 Stephen Elliott was informed in 1809, and to Zaccheus Collins (1764–1831), Mühlenberg acknowledged in 1812 that [i]t seems my Friend M[atthias] Kin is still alive and collecting Plants. He sent me a small Packet quite lately with several Plants dried or rather mouldy.123 Another sign of the apparent irrelevance or inexistence of Kin’s accompanying notes is that, despite his own sizable web of contacts and customers both in Europe and in North America, nothing of his own hand appears to have survived.124 Acdied on October 13, 1812, in the eighty-seventh year of his age.” Hotchkin, Germantown, 110. See also Barnhart, “Sketches,” 38; Harshberger, Botanists, 184. 119 Ganz von ungefähr kommt hier ein gewisser Mathias Kin hier durch, der sich mit amerikanischen Samenhandel befasst und ein redlicher braver Mann zu sein scheint, von dem ich auch verschiedene Sämereien für Garten erkauft habe. Ich benutze diese Gelegenheit, da er mich versichert grade über Hamburg wieder nach Amerika zu reisen nun an Ihnen doch ein paar Zeilen zu senden. From Hoffmann, 01/09/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 120 Oct[ober] 1. War M[iste]r. Kin bei mir, er war in Deutschland, Paris, Strasburg, Wien, Göttingen, Berlin hat viele Sämereien und auch die Oilnut hinausgenommen diese ist aber schon bekannt. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 10/01/1801. See also the letter from Hoffmann to Mühlenberg, 03/04/1802, HSP Coll. 443: Ich hoffe dass Sie mein kleines Paket durch den Samenhändler Math[ias] Kin bestens empfangen haben. 121 To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. For Kin’s bad spelling skills, see also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 07/02/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 122 To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. 123 To Collins, 08/26/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. 124 Five letters by Mühlenberg to Kin could be reconstructed for 1814. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 513. In one of his botanical diaries, Mühlenberg also noted Kin’s Germantown address: Matthias Kin 29 N Second Str[eet]. Coverpage of Botany, a notebook 580 M89bo vol. III.

Network Strategies

289

cording to Mühlenberg’s first diary entry on Kin, Germany, Paris, Strasburg, Wien, Göttingen, Berlin125 were the stations of Kin’s 1800–1801 trip to Europe, and Willdenow was among the contacts Kin had made there.126 Only five letters from Mühlenberg to Kin could be reconstructed for the year 1814. Of all botanical collectors entering Mühlenberg’s network of contacts between 1800–1802, Kin has left the most fleeting traces, even though his deliveries to Lancaster continued reliably, if hardly noticeable, until Mühlenberg’s death in 1815. Two other European botanical travelers made their first appearance in Lancaster in March 1803. Aloysius Enslin and Joseph van der Schott proved not only valuable contacts for getting seeds from distant places, but also provided Mühlenberg with first-hand information on some of his European “cryptogamic friends.” Mr VanScott and Enslin have paid a visit to me, Mühlenberg noted in his diary on March 26. The first was travelling for the emperor, the second for the Count of Liechtenstein on behalf of forest affairs. Both are botanists and I expect especially much from the first. In 4 week they will return, then I will get to know them better. I give them seeds I have on stock. The first has also recently travelled a lot with Schwägrichen, he is full of praise for him. He thinks little of Romanus Hedwig, though. Willdenow is a botanist who works only from his desk. Hoffmann is a great expert in grasses. Enslin collects minerals, insects, seeds, VanScott seeds of trees and economically useful plants (…) VanScott was also in England, why should I not correspond with him?127 Enslin and van der Schott were sent to America by Prince Alois Josef I (1759–1805) of Lichtenstein, whose frail health had ended his military career in the mid-1790s. Focusing on the development of his territory instead, the Prince began to form an interest in technical and scientific issues, particularly in agriculture. Sending the two former university gardeners to the New World was part of his enlightened reform policies to improve agricultural productivity.128 Bio125 Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 10/01/1801. 126 H[err] Kin hat herzlich viel Sachen für den Garten geschikt, aber leider immer wieder dasselbe, so daß wir seine Sendungen wegen des theuren Preißes nicht gut brauchen können. From Willdenow, 05/04/1804, HSP Coll. 443. For Kin’s contact with Willdenow, see also Mears, “Herbarium,” 164; Harshberger, Botanists, 184; Elliot, Sketch, xiv. “Kin had a wide acquaintance, and it is strange that more is not known of him. I feel sure that by a study of the letters of contemporary botanists, one would be enabled to do as much for him as Dr William Darlington did for Dr William Baldwin. Letters from G. Henry E. Muhlenberg, pastor of Trinity Church, Lancaster, to Zacceus Collins, of Philadelphia, both well known botanists, show them as intimates of Kin.” Hotchkin, Germantown, 35. 127 Herr VanScott u[nd] Enslin besucht[en] mich. [D]ieser reiset für den Kaiser jener für den Grafen Liechtenstein für Forstsach[en]. [B]eide sind Botanici und ich erwarte sonderlich von dem erst[en] viel. [I]n 4 Woch[en] werd[en] sie wieder hier sein, dann werde ich sie näher kenn[en] lernen. Ich geb[e] ihnen vorräthig Sämereien. Erste ist auch d[es] letzteren mit Schwägrich[en] viel gereißt er lobt ihn sehr. [W]enig hält er auf R[omanus] Hedwig. Willdenow sei Stuben botanicus. Hoff[mann] sehr grosser Graskenner. Enslin samlet Mineralien Insecten, Sämereien, VanScott Samen von Bäumen, u[nd] öconomisch[e] Gewächse (...) VanScott war auch in England, solte ich nicht correspondir[en]? See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/26/1803. 128 Wanger, Fürsten, 115; Mears cites an unidentified and unspecified “report,” according to which van der Schott was dispatched personally by Napoleon Bonaparte. Mears, “Herbarium,” 168.

290

Letters from an American Botanist

graphical information on Enslin’s and van der Schott’s early lives is reduced to the fact that both were employed as gardeners in Vienna. Enslin worked at the royal garden of Schönbrunn castle, van der Schott at the University’s botanical garden, in which position he was first mentioned in 1794.129 Only weeks after their first encounter and a short orientation tour to the North, the two Austrians returned to Lancaster, where they undertook several botanical excursions with Mühlenberg in the town’s vicinity.130 After this sojourn, the two men’s traces become blurred, as they apparently parted ways to increase their geographical coverage of the American flora. Their travels in the services of the Prince of Lichtenstein have not found any scholarly attention, which leaves us with the sketchy information found in Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries. Apparently, van der Schott initially went northward, while Enslin, after being recommended to visit John Brickell at Savannah as a worthwhile destination of his travels, went to the Carolinas in early 1804. This was the beginning of a series of travels which would eventually take Enslin as far as Florida to the South and St. Louis to the West.131 In November 1804, he returned to Lancaster from Savannah, where he had spent the summer in the company of Mühlenberg’s correspondent. M[ister] Enslen (...) is [steady?] & industrious and I have shown him here to examine the generic & specific characters of plants and animals in which he has improved much, Brickell answered Mühlenberg’s letter of recommendation for Enslin in late 1804.132 After his return to Lancaster, he started a botanical tour across the Ohio river down the Mississippi to St. Louis, which he reached in July 1805. On August 16, 1805, Mühlenberg noted in his diary: Enslin writes me from St. Louis July 14 a) every129 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 356, 481; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10 (note 29); Mears, “Herbarium,” 162; Elliot, Sketch I, xiii; Nuttall, Genera I, 164; Greene, American Science, 12. Traces of Enslin’s collections can be found at the Hofmuseum and the Naturhistorisches Museum, both at Vienna, Austria. Barnhart, “Sketches,” 38; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10 (note 29); Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 356. See also Mears, “Herbarium,” 162. For van der Schott, see Neilreich, “Geschichte,” 47. Kotschy says that van der Schott stepped down as royal gardener as early as 1800. Kotschy, “Beitrag,” 111. 130 M[iste]r. Aloysius Enslen a (...) young Gentleman was sent from Europe to collect Minerals Seeds and other [missing]ties in America, and after having been to the Northward and in Pensylvania intends to go to the Southward. I have spoken to him in several Excursions we made of my good and indefatigable Doctor Brickel at Savanna, and now he insists upon a Letter of Introduction. I see that I begin to give you Trouble. However it cannot be avoided. A Light shall not be hidden under a Bushel it shall shine for others. If you can give him any Advice where he can find any of your botanical Riches he will gratefully acknowledge Favours done. He has promised me some Share of Specimens especially of Grasses, for which I long exceedingly. May he find you in good Health! To Brickell, 03/01/1804, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1801–1806]. Van der Schott’s participation in these spring excursions becomes obvious in a letter by Rafinesque to Mühlenberg dated May 23, 1805: [I] would be quite happy to have the same pleasure as Mr. Vanderschott to look over your herbarium & go to botanize in your Company & hope to have some Day or another such a satisfaction. From Rafinesque, 05/23/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 131 To Brickell, 03/01/1804, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1801–1806]. See also Elliot, Sketch I, xiii. 132 Brickell even named a genus for Enslin: He once brought for examination a plant which looked like a scirpus: it proved to be a new genus, which to encourage the industry of our young friend, I have named Enslenia scirpoides. From Brickell, 11/20/1804, HSP Coll. 443.

Network Strategies

291

thing he has found at the banks of the Ohio has been lost on the Mississippi.133 Two weeks later, he observed in a letter to Barton: My Georgia Seeds from Enslin miscarried. M[iste]r Enslin is now I suppose amongst the Osage Indians (...).134 What Mühlenberg returned for Enslin’s packages cannot be identified precisely, as Enslin’s letters have been lost, and Mühlenberg never mentioned any return packages or letters. In any case, Enslin was apparently an extremely generous and unsuspecting character, as he liberally allowed Pursh to examine his collections after his return to Philadelphia in 1806.135 To Brickell, Mühlenberg wrote in September 1806: M[iste]r Enslin has staid this Summer in Philadelphia and had little Opportunity of discovering new Plants.136 While Enslin was traveling southward and westward, van der Schott went back to Europe in 1804, but returned later the same year to get married.137 In Mühlenberg’s letters he reappeared again in Reading as late as January 1805, when he included greetings on van der Schott’s behalf in a letter to his son Henry Augustus Philip Mühlenberg (1782–1844), who had gone to Reading for his first professional position as Lutheran pastor in 1802.138 After his marriage, van der Schott obviously embarked on travels again, which brought him north of the Ohio river.139 In September 1806, he finally settled at Reading. M[iste]r Vanderschott the former Companion of M[iste]r Enslin lives at Reading an excellent Botanist and great Naturalist. I hope we shall retain him in this Country, though he intends settling at Marietta beyond the Ohio, a noble Place for a Botanist.140 Despite this high praise and Mühlenberg’s earlier intention to start a correspondence with van der Schott rather 133 Enslin schreibt mir von St. Louis Jul[y] 14. a) alles was er an der Ohio gefund[en] ist auf dem Missis[ippi] verlohren gegangen. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 08/16/1805. 134 To Barton, 08/29/1805, APS Mss. B. B284d. 135 While I was thus engaged in describing and figuring those new acquisitions to the American Flora, Pursh acknowledged in his Flora of 1814: [A]nother opportunity offered to augment my resources. M[iste]r Aloysius Enslen, who had been sent to America by Prince Lichtenstein of Austria, as a collector of new and interesting subjects of natural history, returned to Philadelphia from his extensive travels through the Western Territories and Southern States. This gentleman, with whom I had previously been on terms of intimated friendship, was now in possession of an extremely valuable collection of living and dried plants, to which I had unrestrained access. To his liberality I am indebted for many new and scarce specimens, which filled up a desideratum in my collection, particularly in the plants of Lower Louisiana and Georgia. Pursh, Flora, xii. See also Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10; Harshberger, Botanists, 116; Nuttall, Genera I, 164; Elliot, Sketch I, xiii. 136 To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. 137 Smith, “Pioneer,” 443. 138 Alle grüssen dich bestens. H[er]rn Reichert und Familie D. Otto und bei Gelegenheit auch H[er]r Van der Schott grüße von mir. To Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 01/15/1805, MCollege – Penn. German Coll. 139 In August 1805, Enslin gave Mühlenberg to understand from St Louis that van der Schott had not yet returned from an unspecified place. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 08/16/1805. A later letter to Barton shows that he had crossed the Ohio to the North. [W]hat M[iste]r Vanderschott has discovered in his Travels beyond the Ohio I have not heard. To Barton, 08/29/1805, APS Mss. B. B284d. 140 To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. See also Smith, “Pioneer,” 443

292

Letters from an American Botanist

than with Enslin, far fewer traces of an exchange of letters could be found in this case. A brief and undated letter by van der Schott contained a Register of seeds which I wish to obtain through the most gracious help of the honourable Pastor Mr Mühlenberg,141 which is actually the only proof of direct contact between the two from 1804 to 1806. Mühlenberg presumably called on van der Schott whenever he payed a visit to his son Augustus Philip at Reading, but the diaries in which he usually noted instances of this sort do not support this. Sometime after 1806, van der Schott relocated to Philadelphia, then to Pittsburgh, and collaborated off and on with a new Mühlenberg correspondent, the Harmony Society’s physician Johann Christopher Müller (1779–1845). According to C. Earle Smith, van der Schott was busy as a physician both in Reading and Pittsburgh and found little time anymore to devote to botany.142 4.4 Europeans in the American Wilderness III – Rafinesque I received Saturday evening your friendly answer to my first letter, am quite pleased to see that you are willing to continue a Botanical Correspondence with me & will on my part do anything to return all the useful Information I expect from you.143 These lines marked the beginning of Mühlenberg’s brief but intense botanical contact with Constantine Samuel Rafinesque (1783–1840), a self-taught European naturalist and explorer, in May 1803. In the coming three months, the two men were to exchange 15 letters, which makes Mühlenberg’s correspondence with him the most intense within the United States during the present phase treated in this chapter.144 If there is often a shortage of biographical information on Mühlenberg’s contacts, especially the European explorers and plant collectors discussed in this and the preceding three sections, Rafinesque is an exception. One reason for the abundant literature on him may be his eccentric character, which has led many writers to describe him alternatively as “vain, eccentric and ambitious to the last degree,” a “brilliant but eccentric” botanist, the “most versatile and most tragic American naturalist,” or simply as “the mad botanist.”145 The other reason was his enormous scientific productivity and output, which ran up to an astonishing 450 titles by the time of his death.146 Born in Constantinople to a French merchant named François Georges A. Rafinesque (1750–1793) and a German mother named Magdalena Schmaltz (1767–1831), Rafinesque spent his early years at the Bosporus, in Sicily 141 From van der Schott, undated, entitled: Verzeichnis der Samen welche ich durch die gütige Besorgung des Ehrwürdigen Herrn Pfarrer Mühlenberg zu erhalten wünsche. HSP Coll. 443. 142 Smith, “ Pioneer,” 443. For Müller in Pittsburgh, see below on page 377f. 143 From Rafinesque, 05/09/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 144 In August 1805, a final letter by Rafinesque to Mühlenberg raises the number to 16. Most of their correspondence, however, took place from about April 1803 to late August of the same year. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 523; and table a, Appendix B, on page 486. 145 In this order: Harshberger, Botanists, 144f.; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 41; Betts, “Rafinesque,” 368; Boewe, “Rafinesque,” 49. 146 141 of which were on botanical subjects. Harshberger, Botanists, 144f.

Network Strategies

293

and Marseille. In 1793, the 10-year-old and his mother had to flee the threat of the French Revolution to Leghorn in Tuscany, while his father was traveling abroad. It was in Italy that private tutors first kindled his interest in “Histoire Naturelle” by taking him along on their botanizing trips in the region. Rafinesque extended these private lessons by becoming a “voracious reader” and passionate autodidact, teaching himself not only the basics of botanical and other sciences, but also basic proficiency in no fewer than 50 languages, as he claimed in his autobiography. In 1800, he returned to Marseille, where he also engaged in ichthyology und ornithology.147 “From such a boyhood emerged the man who never faltered in his belief that he could understand and master all that was known and unknown,” was Leonard Warren’s conclusion on Rafinesque’s solitary early education.148 Warren’s statement on his character also provides the proper background for understanding the course of Rafinesque’s three-year sojourn in the U.S., during which his rather awkward social skills often put him at odds with American botanists. In 1802, Rafinesque’s mother decided that he and his brother Antoine Auguste (no data available) should try their luck in Philadelphia, where a former business partner of their deceased father, John D. Clifford, offered them work in his counting house.149 Rafinesque’s own father had died in the Quaker city during an ill-timed stopover in the middle of the yellow fever epidemic of 1793. The memory of this incident drove Rafinesque out of the city in panic in 1803 when the disease broke out again.150 His first station was his friend and fellow botanical enthusiast Colonel Thomas Forster of Germantown, whom he had befriended shortly after his arrival. Forster had already acquainted him with some members of the Pennsylvanian botanical community, especially with Humphrey Marshall, but it was only in the spring of 1803 that Rafinesque resolved to resign his clerkship altogether and embark on a career as a botanical collector and explorer.151 The main part of his travels was completed in 1804, when Rafinesque had traveled around Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, meeting president Jefferson and quickly extending his own network of contacts.152 During this jour147 Barnhart, “Sketches,” 41; Harshberger, Botanists, 144f.; Warren, Rafinesque, 6; Greene, American Science, 123; Betts, “Rafinesque,” 368; Boewe, “Rafinesque,” 50; Warren, Rafinesque, 9; Rafinesque, Précis, 32f. 148 Warren, Rafinesque, 9. 149 Rafinesque’s brother Antoine Auguste went to New York. Boewe, “Rafinesque,” 51; Warren, Rafinesque, 11, 14; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 41; Rafinesque, Précis, 34; Harshberger, Botanists, 144f.; Greene, American Science, 123. Rafinesque dates their arrival on April 18, 1802 at the port of Philadelphia. Rafinesque, Précis, 7, 35. For John Clifford and the Clifford family in Philadelphia, see also Doerflinger, A vigorous Spirit, 14f., 47, 222. 150 Rafinesque, Précis, 7, 35. 151 Warren, Rafinesque, 14–16; Betts, «Rafinesque,» 368. 152 In his autobiography, Rafinesque boasted: Je fis la connaissance de tous les Botanistes, Naturalistes, et Amateurs Américains de cette époque, Barton, Muhlenberg, Marshall, Pursh, Logan, Shultze, Kin, Peale, Gaissen[heiner], Van-Vleck, Mease, Hamilton, Bartram, Adlum, Craawford &c ainsi que des Voyageurs Michaux, Turin, Vandershoot &c. J’entrais aussi en correspondance avec Mitchill de Newyork, Cutler de Massachusets & Brickell de Georgie. Rafinesque, Précis, 35. See also Warren, Rafinesque, 16; Betts, “Rafinesque,” 368. With regard to the contacts Rafinesque made during his travels, see Rafinesque, Précis, 36; Warren, Rafin-

294

Letters from an American Botanist

ney, he almost instantly met with fierce distrust and resistance by almost all Americans he met. One reason was his thinly veiled conviction that, in the words of Leonard Warren, “Americans were deficient in their ability to classify [plants] properly and that his mission was to edify the natives.” This view is also reflected in his autobiography, where he expressed his sadness that the apparent disbelief of superficial scientists in his discoveries and nomenclatural innovations was the signature mark of all his travels.153 Rafinesque also understood himself as a representative of the vanguard French school of botany, especially of de Jussieu’s natural system, which had not yet found any followers among American botanists.154 Consequently, Rafinesque often repeated the theme of the alleged natural inferiority of the New World, which had already been adopted earlier by the Frenchman de Buffon and the refuted by Jefferson. To add insult to injury, Rafinesque’s publications were replete with spelling errors and logical inconsistencies, while his often rude and harsh atheism alienated most of America’s botanical community, among whose ranks figured many clergymen, like Manasseh Cutler and Mühlenberg.155 Of all these problematic character traits of Rafinesque Mühlenberg was probably unaware when he agreed to enter into correspondence in early 1803. Rafinesque’s letter of introduction has been lost, but Mühlenberg noted its contents in his diary on May 11, 1803, which gives an idea of the kind of exchange Rafinesque desired. C[harles] S[amuel] Raffinesque sends me 54 plants, all of which I have to return to him, however (…) He desires the names of all of these that are not yet in my index and says it would not be a lot of work. Of course it is a loss of time and a loss of even more should I ever give him the full descriptions.156 Subsequently, Rafinesque’s single aim was to convince Mühlenberg to send him undescribed specimens from the Lancaster area for a new catalogue, which was to fill the blanks in Michaux’s 1803 work.157 Mühlenberg, however, decided not to send

153 154 155 156

157

esque, 17: “Rafinesque seemed to know everyone. He had many important friends and contacts, and armed with a letter of introduction from the senator from Pennsylvania, he met Secretary of State James Madison and President Jefferson (...).” For his correspondence with Jefferson, see Betts, “Rafinesque,” 387f. Warren, Rafinesque, 13; Rafinesque, Précis, 35. Warren, Rafinesque, 26; Rafinesque, Précis, 37; Humphrey, Makers, 204–07. Warren, Rafinesque, 13, 19, 26, 28. In 1841, Asa Gray even wrote a protest note against Rafinesque, practically trying to erase him from the history of American botany. See Boewe‘s introduction to Rafinesque, Précis, 9. C[harles] S[amuel] Raffinesque schickt mir 54 Pflanzen, die ich aber wieder zurückschick[en] muß (…) Er wünscht die Nahmen aller solcher die noch nicht in meinem Index steht u[nd] meint es wäre nicht viel Mühe. [J]a es ist Zeitverlust u[nd] noch mehr wenn ich ihm die voll Beschreib[ng] geb[en] sollte. Mühlenberg continued: 3) Er will einen descriptive Catalogue von all Pflanzen, die um Philadelphia von der See bis an die Susquehanna u[nd] von Neu york und den blauen Berg bis an die Chesapeak herausgeh[en], mein Index hat ihm schon gute Dienste gethan. Mein Rath ist nur vors erste zu send[en] und das zu beschreib[en] was er selbst sieht, keine Compilations sond eigen Ausarbeit[ungen]. Es wird ihn sonst reuen. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 05/11/1803. Nein, diese behalte ich für mich. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 05/11/1803. For Rafinesque‘s aim to supplement Michaux, see Mühlenberg‘s letter to Barton, 08/29/1805, APS Mss. B. B284d: From M[iste]r Rafinesque I received a Letter mentioning that

Network Strategies

295

these, which upset Rafinesque: I am sorry to find you fancy to have no time enough to extract for me the names of all the Plants you have observed near Lancaster since the publication of your Index & Suppl[ement]. I am still hoping you wont deny me such a favor and as I see you tell me you would willingly assist any young Botanist who would undertake the Description of the Pensyl[vanian] plants I must tell you I might be such one if I shall stay long enough in this country.158 Just as though he had sensed Mühlenberg’s distrust, he added: I am ready to give you in it all the credit for them. Reluctantly, Mühlenberg finally began to send plants, specimens and plant identifications, which Rafinesque accepted, but most often returned with his commentaries and generally stayed true to his conviction about the utter incompetence of American botanists.159 Their exchange chart160 shows that Rafinesque actually honored his promise to send specimens to Lancaster in return for Mühlenberg’s presumably undescribed specimens, while Mühlenberg often simply procrastinated his answers and packages, which worked until Rafinesque announced a visit to Lancaster.161 An entry in Mühlenberg’s botanical diary dated October 20, 1803 illustrates his distrust in Rafinesque’s honesty prior to this meeting. Observation: When I instruct him about the remainder 1) I must not let the herbarium out of my hands 2) Only tell the name that stands in my index, but (…) not say anything about Willdenow 3) Retain the remarks that I could make, otherwise my observation will be printed under his own name. On the margin he added: Rafinesque copies Persoon and copies those that I mark with a + I hope that he will not describe all of these as found, just like Swarz Musco, where he copies everything that I know to be domestic.162 Although Rafinesque frequently thanked Mühlenberg for specimens he intends publishing this Year a Supplement of about 700 Plants omitted in Michaux as a Prodomus I suppose to his Flora Americana. He desires all my Descriptions of such Plants which are not in Michaux, good Specimens with some more et cetera’s. 158 From Rafinesque, 05/09/1803, HSP Coll. 443. For Rafinesque’s interest in cryptogamia, see also Warren, Rafinesque, 24. See also the letters from Rafinesque dated 05/23/1803, 06/30/1803 and 07/10/1803, all in HSP Coll. 443: You have not answered as I wish to my queries on florkea. [H]as not Willdenow given any specific name to it, is the flower white, to which other genera does it come near? 159 I shall begin by making some remarks upon your names, he started a letter in June 1803. From Rafinesque, 06/30/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 160 See respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 543. 161 I understand now the Reason why you cannot send me the Description &c, Rafinesque wrote in August 1803 in his characteristically broken English. (...) I shall also prevail myself of your permission to ask you more Specimens of the plants I had not seen before. I have also in mind to go & spend a week in Lancaster in the Course of October next in which time I will as far as I can copy myself the names of your Specimens & whatever else I should have asked you to transcribe for me. From Rafinesque, 08/04/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 162 Obs[ervation] Wenn ich ihm das übrige weise 1) Muß ich das herbarium nicht aus der Hand lassen 2) Nur den Nahmen sag[en] der in meinem Index steht, aber (...) von Willdenow bestimmt verschweig[en] 3) die Anmerkung die ich mach[en] könt zurückhalt[en], sonst wird meine Beobachtung unter s[einem] Nahmen gedruckt. Rafinesque copiert Persoon u[nd] schreibt die ab die ich mit einem + bemerkte ich hoffe nicht daß er diese alle als vorgefund[en] beschreib[en] wird, so auch Swarz Muscos wo er alles abschreibt was ich als einheimisch

296

Letters from an American Botanist

sent to him, Mühlenberg hardly ever included anything truly significant in these packages. In early 1804, Rafinesque left for an extended series of travels and essentially aborted their brief contact, which up to this point had amounted to little else than a series of misunderstandings and mutual distrust.163 Apart from Mühlenberg’s growing suspicions about the scientific integrity of many of his botanical fellows, there were also scientific objections to Rafinesque’s style of working, which echoed the traditional feud between field botanists and sedentary botanists. While the first group, contemporarily called “splitters,” often tended to make new species and genera out of unknown plants, sedentary botanists, called “lumpers,” mostly disagreed with what they perceived to be wrong and unnecessary additions to the Linnean system. The problem was not only one of equipment, as field botanists had to do without herbaria and a library at their disposal, but also the higher commercial value of an alleged botanical novelty as opposed to scientific accuracy, which pitched field and sedentary botanists against each other.164 Have you seen what M[iste]r Raffinesque Schmalz had printed in the New York Medical Repository, Mühlenberg wrote to Stephen Elliot in 1809. He makes a wonderful Change and Havoc amongst our Plants and will do much Harm if he keeps his Promise. I knew him personally and find a great Number of my Plants which I gave him superficially described without mentioning a Word from whence he had them. Very often he makes a new Genus where hardly a Species can be made, and where his Specimen was quite imperfect. There is a medium in every Thing, in Botany the Festina lente is very necessary.165 In Rafinesque’s case, it was also his affiliation with French botany that he could not tolerate. Samuel Latham Mitchill, the editor of the New York Medical Repository and former Mühlenberg correspondent, was the only American with whom Rafinesque remained in contact after his hasty departure for Europe in the fall of 1805. After his application for the Lewis&Clark expedition had been turned down by Jefferson, and as he was kept waiting for an invitation to join the Dunbar&Hunter expedition to the Red River region in 1805, Rafinesque impulsively accepted a random offer for a business collaboration from Europe and sailed to Leghorn. He brought some 10,000 specimens with him, which would form the basis of his future publications on American flora and fauna.166 In a final letter to Mühlenberg from Leghorn dated August 8, 1805, Rafinesque confirmed his wish to continue the contact, which, however, did not happen.167 Instead, Rafinesque made a fortune in trade in Sicily, kenne. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 10/20/1803. For Rafinesque’s trip to Lancaster, see also Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 314. 163 For the course of his travels, see Rafinesque, Précis, 38–41. 164 Warren, Rafinesque, 24, 27f.; Boewe, “Rafinesque,” 48; Petersen, New World Botany, 346 165 To Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Warren, Rafinesque, 19. 166 Petersen, New World Botany, 346; Warren, Rafinesque, 18, 33f.; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 260, 370; Betts, “Rafinesque,” 368. 167 I have had the pleasure to write you somewhat fully from Leighorn where I made but a short stay, and I am now happily fixed in this palace from whince I profit of an Oportunity for Baltimore to write you again & beg you will now & then do me the same favor. This Country affords me a vast field for Botanical inquiries, & I will not be unoccupied in it, it is a portion of Europe

Network Strategies

297

corresponded with several European botanists, such as James Edward Smith, and only returned to the U.S. in November 1815, after Mühlenberg’s death. He corresponded and closely collaborated with the former Mühlenberg correspondent Zaccheus Collins (1764–1831) and was naturalized in 1824.168 Mühlenberg, however, would hardly have approved of such a collaboration. One of his last remarks on Rafinesque, in a letter to Brickell in January 1806, could not have been more explicit a warning: Who will begin a Flora of Georgia so well prepared and who will give it so comprehensive as my Friend D[octo]r Brickel? Dont let foreigners like M[iste]r Rafinesque carry off our imperfect dried Specimen[s]. How imperfect are many of Linnaeus’s and Willdenow’s Descriptions!169 4.5 The Cryptogamic Circle II From Europe I have received no Letters lately of any Consequence, Mühlenberg confided to Brickell in September 1806. [O]ne excepted from D[octor] Smith to whom I sent some plantas adversarias from Pennsylvania.170 By the time these lines were written, Mühlenberg’s lamentations about the negligence of his European correspondents had long become a familiar theme in his letters and diaries, in which he was, of course, much more candid about his discontent and misgivings. Schreber, Hoffmann and Smith had all disappointed him in the last decade of the 18th century, and a new cluster of interest had come into existence in the wake of Johann Hedwig’s death in 1799. This contained the promise of new and quick botanical exchange, especially in cryptogamics.171 Willdenow, Romanus Adolph Hedwig, Schwägrichen, Sprengel and Persoon all shared an interest in the 24th class of Linnaeus’ sexual system, which resulted in a total number of 15 letters they sent to or received from Mühlenberg between 1797 and 1802. From 1802 to Mühlenberg’s bitter lines to Brickell in September 1806, however, the total number dropped to eight letters, four of which were written by Mühlenberg to Europe, while the last one sent to him from members of this circle dated from May 1804.172 These develso little explored that there is immensity to do yet. (...) I am to request you will not forget me at the distance we are now, but on contrary write me often sending y[ou]r letters plants & to [your?] son or friend M[ister] Sperry in Philadelphia with order to direct them under blank cover to any one of the ports & houses hereunder mentioned (...). From Rafinesque, 08/08/1805, HSP Coll. 443. 168 For Rafinesque’s works and fate on Sicily until 1815, see Boewe, “Rafinesque,” 51; Warren, Rafinesque, 26, 35–45, 68, 95, 106f., 180; Rafinesque, Précis, 42–47, 50. For Rafinesque’s return to the U.S. and subsequent work at Transylvania University, Lexington, KY, see Overlease, “Darlington,” 88; Betts, “Rafinesque,” 368–371; Warren, Rafinesque, 20, 95, 106f.; Greene, American Science, 123; Humphrey, Makers, 204–07; Harshberger, Botanists, 144f.; Boewe, “Rafinesque,” 51f.; Rafinesque, Précis, 53–59. 169 To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. See also Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 26. 170 To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. Mühlenberg refers here to Smith’s letter dated 02/17/1806, HSP Coll. 443. 171 See above on page 243f., chapter “The Cryptogamic Circle I.” 172 See table i and k, Appendix B, on pages 490, 491. The last letter prior to the remarks to Brickel

298

Letters from an American Botanist

opments coincided with Mühlenberg’s growing frustrations about Europe and especially about his cryptogamic contacts. Willdenow was the author of the May 1804 letter, and not even this one brought what Mühlenberg was expecting. After receiving Mühlenberg’s contributions to his Schriften der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, the Berlin-based dendrologist duly expressed his gratitude in the foreword to the article on North American willows,173 but apparently lost all interest afterwards and cut off contact with Mühlenberg for nearly a year. In May 1804, Willdenow finally apologized, refering to a series of unexpected turns his career had taken, which Mühlenberg had been completely unaware of up to this point.174 In 1801, Willdenow had been elected a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences and then accepted the directorship of the botanical garden of the Collegium Medico-Chirurgicum, while continuing his professorship of natural history at the same time.175 Additionally, work on the editions of Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum continued, whose main editor he remained until 1830.176 The chart of their botanical exchange documents the changes in their relationship, as only one instance of actual exchange could be found after 1801.177 was the one from Willdenow, 05/04/1804, HSP Coll. 443. See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 511, 522f., 528, 530, 533. 173 Die Beschreibung der nordamerikanischen Weiden von Herrn Prediger Mühlenberg, ist ein schätzbarer Beitrag zur nähern Kenntnis dieser Gattung, da von den nordamerikanischen Arten nur eine durch den Herrn von Wangenheim, und eine andere durch Herrn Aiton bekannt geworden ist. Was Clayton, Gronovus und Walter über die Arten dieser Gattung angemerkt haben, ist zu kurz und unbestimmt. Ich füge nur zu dieser Abhandlung die Diagnosen der Arten und die Abbildungen der Blätter hinzu, damit sie gehörig von den bekannten können unterschieden werden. Mühlenberg, Nordamerikanischen Weiden, 233. 174 Wenn Sie von mir in dem langen Zeitraume eines Jahres keine Zeile gesehen haben, so waren nicht Mangel des Eifers und der Freundschaft die mich davon zurückhielten an Sie zu schreiben, sondern lediglich [vielerlei?] Geschäften, die mich drükt und die mir so wenig Zeit erlaubte, daß ich bis dahin nur so viel zu meinem Vergnügen habe verbinden können als dringen nothwendig war. Ihre Mooße habe ich großtentheils durchgearbeitet, nun sind noch einige zweifelhafte übrig, die ich aus Zeitmangel zu vergleichen nicht im Stande war. Die anderen Pflanzen habe ich alle durchgesehen, nur kann ich in dießem Augenblik meine gemachten Bemerkungen nicht finden. From Willdenow, 05/04/1804, HSP Coll. 443. 175 Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Willdenow, C. L,” Hein, “Willdenow,” 468; Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326. Willdenow explained: Seit ich die botanische Profeßur mithin jezo 3 Profeßuren habe, und den Vormittag von 7 bis 12 Uhr Vorlesungen halten muß, eine Menge von Examinibus, Gutachten und andere ganz heterogene Arbeiten habe, ist mein Augenmerk beßonders auf die Verschönerung des Gartens gerichtet gewesen. Um nicht von den Geschäften nieder gedrükt zu werden und meinem Körper eine Erholung zu geben, gehe ich 2 Tage in der Woche des Nachmittags nach dem eine halbe Stunde vor meiner Wohnung entfernten Garten. From Willdenow, 05/04/1804, HSP Coll. 443. 176 Hitchcock, “Grasses,” 27; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 3; Smith, “Pioneer,” 444; Cahill, “Correspondence,” 391. 177 In his letter dated May 14, 1809, Willdenow included books in his package. Hier übersende ich Ihnen den vor dem Kriege heraus gekommenen Teil des Sp[ecies] pl[antarum] und die eben erschienene Enumeratio horti, und wünsche, dass Ihnen beide nicht unlieb sein mögen. From Willdenow, 05/14/1809, HSP Coll. 443. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 549.

Network Strategies

299

Willdenow constantly repeated his wish to continue the exchange as before,178 but deteriorating conditions of transatlantic mail transport after 1806 practically suffocated all further efforts. External circumstances have interrupted a correspondence that has been very dear to me for quite some time, Willdenow explained in his last extant letter, dated May 14, 1809. Now I hear that all navigation with North America is open again and I will instantly try to write to you.179 A passage from a letter to James Edward Smith suggests that Mühlenberg had other reasons to be discontented with him. M[iste]r Willdenow has been of great Assistance to me, he wrote to Smith in March 1805. [B]ut I very often feel inclined to doubt whether he has hit the Linnean Plant.180 Whether this was merely an attempt to regain Smith’s exclusive attention, knowing that Willdenow was already a “dead contact,” or whether Mühlenberg expressed genuine dissatisfaction is hard to decide. In any event, the chart of their correspondence shows merely three letters after 1805. In none of them, the inclusion of specimens, lists of plant determinations, or any other sign of a regular botanical exchange is explicitly mentioned.181 Willdenow has not honored his promise and does not deserve that I send him any more, was Mühlenberg’s final verdict in 1808. It have probably already sent him too much.182 In Leipzig, Romanus Adolf Hedwig and Schwägrichen continued to collaborate, following the footsteps of Romanus Adolf’s deceased father Johann Hedwig. Despite initial uncertainties about this cooperation, Mühlenberg soon found the two men trustworthy enough to send mosses.183 No letters from Hedwig and Schwägrichen to Mühlenberg have survived for the years after 1802. For May 1803, one letter could be reconstructed which Schwägrichen submitted to Lancaster via Nebe and apparently ended the contact.184 As its contents are not known, we are left with biographical facts to surmise what Schwägrichen might have written to Mühlenberg. In 1801, Hedwig was promoted to the position of professor of botany at the University of Leipzig, and in the following year, Schwägrichen was entrusted with 178 Haben Sie die Güte mir wieder Cryptogaea und andere Pflanzen so bald als möglich zu zu senden, die Bestimmung derßelben soll so gleich erfolgen und Sie werden nicht wieder über mich zu klagen Ursache haben. From Willdenow, 05/04/1804, HSP Coll. 443. See also Willdenow‘s letter, 05/14/1809, HSP Coll. 443: Zu gleich bitte ich Sie ergebenst, mir in diesem Herbste wieder einen guten Vorrat von Sämereien zu übersenden, und zwar solche die in der Enumeratio fehlen. 179 Äußere Verhältniße haben lange einen mir überaus schätzbaren Briefwechsel unterbrochen. Jetzo höre daß die Schiffahrt mit Nordamerika wieder offen ist und ich mache gleich den Versuch an Sie zu schreiben. From Willdenow, 05/14/1809, HSP Coll. 443. He continued: Mitten unter den Stürmen, die überall auf uns losgingen habe ich mich aufrecht zu verhalten und alles was meine Wissenschaft in Gefahr bringen kann zu retten gesucht. 180 To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 181 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, 533f. 182 Willdenow hat sein Versprechen ungemein schlecht gehalten und verdient nicht daß ich ihm mehr schicke. [E]s ist wohl beinahe zu viel geschickt. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 02/13/1808. 183 I have since sent a great number of specimens to his son Romanus Hedwig and his Editor D[octor] Schwagrichen, because I heartily wish our mosses fully described. To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. 184 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, 528.

300

Letters from an American Botanist

the management of the Leipzig University botanical garden and the chair of natural history.185 In 1804, more unsettling news reached Mühlenberg by the hand of Willdenow, who had already written on behalf of the two Leipzig botanists some time before:186 Hedwig works avidly on the mosses, but Schwägrichen seems to be giving up the subject as a whole. He is now an industrious mineralogist.187 This was actually inaccurate, as Schwägrichen had merely adopted mineralogy and topography as secondary disciplines. Mühlenberg, however, was unaware of this. Due to a lack of first-hand information about Hedwig and Schwägrichen, this information sealed the end of their correspondence, as only two more references to both men can be found in the following years. In 1805, a new correspondent from Wittenberg, Christian Schkuhr (1741–1811), wrote to Mühlenberg that he thought very little of Hedwig.188 The following year, Hedwig junior was dead. The last instance of contact with Schwägrichen dates from 1815, when Mühlenberg sent him specimens and a copy of his catalogue published two years before. At this point, however, he no longer expected an answer anymore.189 In Halle, some 35 miles northeast of Leipzig, Sprengel lived in a little house on the premises of the botanical garden which he had been supervising since 1796. From there, the botanical exchange with Mühlenberg took a promising start in September 1803.190 One of Sprengel’s return packages had been carried by Frederick Pursh in 1800, and several of Mühlenberg’s letters to Nebe testify to the efforts both men made to continue their cryptogamic exchange.191 Nebe also kept him informed 185 Das gelehrte Teutschland, s.v. “Hedwig, J,” and s.v. “Schwägrichen, C. F,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Schrader H. A,” 186 At the beginning of their contact, Willdenow had already uttered his doubts about young Hedwig‘s qualifications for the task: Der junge Hedwig hat das Herbarium des Vaters und der könnte in dieser Geschicht besser die Herausgabe besorgen, aber die Verlagshandlung hat zu ihm nicht das Zutrauen. Sonst waren aber Schwägrichen und der junge Hedwig nicht Freunde, ich stehe mit beiden in keiner Verbindung. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 187 Hedwig arbeitet fleißig an den Mooßen, aber Schwagrichen scheint das Fach ganz aufgeben zu wollen. Er ist jezo eifriger Mineraloge. From Willdenow, 05/04/1804, HSP Coll. 443. 188 Die Hedwigschen Laubmoose habe ich zwar noch nicht alle untersucht, glaube aber auch einige Unrichtigkeiten bemerkt zu haben; (…) wobei ich aber auch glaube, dass Herr Hedw[ig] jun[ior] seinen sel[igen] Vater in genauer Bestimmung gewiss nicht übertreffen wird! From Schkuhr, 07/02/1805, HSP Coll. 443. 189 I have written Letters to M[iste]r. Palisot Beauvois and Persoon in Paris, Professors Schrader and Sprengel and Schwägrichen in Germany. To each I send a Catalogue and as many dubious Specimens as will fill the Pages. Perhaps an Answer will be returned, although I have commonly been disappointed in receiving an Answer. To Collins, 01/30/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Rohde’s letter to Mühlenberg, 04/24/1815, Hunt - Gen. Aut. Coll. and respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 546. 190 Sprengel acknowledged that [i]hren ersten Brief nebst Beilagen dat[iert] vom 5ten Okt[ober] vorigen Jahres erhielt ich am 24ten des Dec[ember] desselben Jahres und war mir dies das angenehmste Weihnachtsgeschenk, so ich hätte erhalten können. (…) Dürfte ich wohl hoffen im März oder April von Ihnen Samen zu erhalten? Mit wahrer Wollust habe ich die seltenen Pflanzen studiert und sie eingetragen: sie waren doch fest draufgepackt sehr gut erhalten. From Sprengel, 09/20/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 191 H[er]r Prof[essor] Sprengels Paquet war mir sehr angenehm. Weil bald ein hiesiger Freund nach Deutschland reiset, werde ich die Gelegenheit haben weiter etwas zu schick, und ihm

Network Strategies

301

about his Halle neighbor and the status of his packages.192 Consequently, Sprengel put Mühlenberg’s name among those he thanked for submitting specimens for his Anleitung zur Kenntniss der Gewächse, published in Halle from 1802 to 1804.193 Sprengel, in fact, proved to be the only exception to the rule that a very active initial phase of transatlantic botanical exchange was to end abruptly after a few letters. Presumably, this happened when the Europeans had achieved their goals. Mühlenberg had made this experience with Schreber, Hoffmann, Smith and most of his cryptogamic contacts. One reason why the contact with Sprengel remained comparably stable may have been his close proximity to Nebe, who still forwarded most of Mühlenberg’s European correspondences.194 The dates of the final letters with both men roughly coincide, with the exception of Mühlenberg’s last letter to Sprengel in early 1815, which he gave George Ticknor (1791–1871) to carry to Europe.195 4.6 The Herbarium of André Michaux Persoon, the fifth and last member of Mühlenberg’s cryptogamic circle, had moved to Paris in 1803. It was the year after André Michaux, who had published two works on American trees and botany, died during a botanizing trip on the island of Madagascar. With the publication of his Histoire (1801) and the posthumous Flora (1803), his herbarium in Paris, which contained all the North American specimens collected during his sojourn in South Carolina,196 assumed a significance to American botany that came close to the importance of Pehr Kalm’s specimens in Linweitläufiger zu schreiben. To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. See also Nebe’s letters to Mühlenberg dated 02/27/1801, 10/04/1802, 01/12/1803 and 11/21/1804, all in AFSt M.4 D5. 192 H[err] Prof[essor] Sprengel empfiehlt sich; (…) Leider ist nichts fertig (…) Ihnen etwas zu schicken; er will es aber über Hamburg nächstens thun. Die an ihn geschickt[en] Kräuter-Sämereyen hat er erhalten. From Nebe, 05/16/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. 193 Sprengel dedicated the third volume to Erik Acharius, Paul Kitaibel, Mühlenberg, Johann Peter Rottler, Heinrich Adolf Schrader, Schreber, Olof Swartz and Willdenow. Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 49; Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Sprengel, K. J. A,” Willdenow also corresponded with Sprengel and casually informed Mühlenberg about a recent quarrel between the two in 1801: Ob viele von Ihren nordamerikanischen Samen bei Professor Schreber und Prof Sprengel aufgegangen sind, weiß ich nicht. Dieser ist nicht mitteilend. Er verlangt Sachen von mir, aber gibt derweil keine Antwort und schreibt nichts dagegen, deshalb ist eine kleine [Streiterei?] zwischen uns entstanden. (…). Sprengel ist wieder eigens ein [alter?] Gärtner (…). Wir sind [zwar?] Freunde, aber dennoch ist der ehrliche Sprengel auf mich böse, und zwar deshalb weil ich ihm schrieb, dass einige Pflanzen, die er für neu hielt schon beim [unreadable] beschrieben wurden. Ich kenne ihn genau, er wird sich schon wieder melden und gut werden. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 194 See for instance: Sollten Herr Profeßor Sprengel, dem ich mich empfehlen bitte, oder Herr Profeßor Hedwig aus Leipzig oder Herr Schkuhr aus Wittenberg etwas für mich zur weiteren Beförderung an Sie schicken, so bitte ich ganz gehorsamst die Liebe und Mühe für mich zu haben. To Nebe, 11/21/1804, AFSt M.4 D5. 195 Nebe’s final letter is dated October 12, 1809, Sprengel’s letter dates from November 20 of the same year. See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 520 and 530. 196 Michaux actually shipwrecked on his return trip in 1797 and lost the bigger part of his collection. Savage, Michaux, 70f.

302

Letters from an American Botanist

naeus’ herbarium in London. With regard to Mühlenberg’s efforts to discuss the southern flora with Brickell and Dallman after 1802, a correspondent in the French capital promised to be as important as James E. Smith had once been. Eventually, direct comparisons with type specimens were the safest way to determine the real nature of a specimen already described, and to identify actually new ones. With this in mind, Mühlenberg had handed mosses to Humboldt during his visit to Lancaster in June 1804, which Humboldt was to transfer to Paris for comparison. His disappointment about the failure of this deal, which showed in a letter to Schreber in 1806, illustrates the importance Michaux’ herbarium had to him.197 Consequently, Persoon’s move to Paris raised his network value to Mühlenberg significantly. Another Frenchman, Palisot de Beauvois (1752–1820), who had returned to Paris in 1798 after eleven years of exile after the French Revolution, also offered his correspondence at about the same time. To Mühlenberg, the reopening of trading channels with France after the armed conflict which is known today as the “Quasi-War,” and the unexpected availability of Parisian contacts must have appeared a happy coincidence. Ambroise Marie François Joseph Palisot, Baron de Beauvois, was a personal acquaintance of Mühlenberg, as he had intermittently lived in Philadelphia from 1791 to 1798. There is no evidence of direct contact during these years, but Beauvois was offered membership in the A.P.S. in 1792 and quickly established himself in the town’s scientific community. Their letters also vaguely suggest that they knew each other well before their correspondence. Reverend Doctor, Palisot began his first letter in 1802. [S]ince my return in my country I was in the intention of writing to you and asking the favour of your correspondence, but my own business in so bad an order after the revolution and 12 years of absence, as well as the war which interrupted all communications abroad have been the obstacles with the accomplishment of my dearest Sir.198 To be sure, Mühlenberg’s correspondence with the Frenchman was not based in any interest in French botany, as he remained a staunch disciple of Linnaeus all his life. In 1796, he had even ignored an attempt by another Frenchman, Thiebaud Arsène de Berneaud (1777–1850), to get in touch with him. It was the same de Berneaud who wrote Beauvois’ eulogy upon his death in 1820.199 Beauvois, who has been called the “unfortunate botanist” on account of the many calamities that marred his life and career, makes for a rather strange figure in American botany.200 Born to a noble family in Arras, he was sent to the Collège Harcourt in Paris for law studies, where he graduated and received his admission to 197 Ich hatte H[er]rn Baron v[on] Humboldt 160 Specimina der hiesig Graminum und plantar[um] calam[ariarum] mitgegeb um sie in Paris mit Michauxs herbario zu vergleichen, habe aber nie irgend eine Antwort erhalten. To Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. See also Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/11/1804. This entry also suggests that Mühlenberg did not expect a continuation of the Humboldt-contact after 1806, which is why Humboldt is not present in the networks from 1806 to 1815. 198 From Beauvois, 10/08/1802, HSP Coll. 443. 199 Hommes et destins, s.v. “Beauvois P. De.” 200 Merrill, “Beauvois,” 899–901.

Network Strategies

303

the bar in 1772. Nursing scientific interests since his early youth, Beauvois became a corresponding member of the French Académie des Sciences in 1781 and left France five years later on an expedition to the Gulf of Guinea. The expedition soon proved a disaster, when a fever epidemic killed 250 of its 300 participants. Beauvois, who showed symptoms of the fever, was sent to his uncle on the island of Saint-Dominique, where he recovered and could even continue his botanical studies. During the slave uprising in August 1791, which marked the beginning of the Haitian struggle for independence from France, most of his African collections were destroyed and he sought refuge in Philadelphia.201 His main interest at the time was cryptogamic research, and from both Saint-Domingue and Philadelphia he routinely submitted specimens to Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748–1836) in Paris, whose natural system of classification was about to replace Linnaeus’ artificial system in Europe at the time. It was particularly his affiliation with de Jussieuan botany which made him an outsider among Philadelphia’s botanists. Nevertheless, Beauvois had a communicative and friendly appearance, and soon after his arrival he connected with the likes of Wistar, Jefferson and Charles Wilson Peale. On September 20, 1792, he was admitted to the A.P.S.202 Just a short time before, Beauvois had received news that his name was on the list of émigrés, which equalled the death penalty upon going back to France and delayed his return to his native country until 1798. After teaching French, dancing, the flute and taking odd jobs at Peale’s museum to make ends meet, the acquaintance of the French diplomatic envoy Pierre Auguste Adet (1763–1834), who was himself a chemical scientist, provided Beauvois with temporary financial support to undertake botanical trips across the United States. E. D. Merril has identified four distinct periods of Beauvois’ residence in the city, during which he took part in the regular A.P.S. meetings on February 3, 1792, April 18 and August 15 in 1794, in 1796 on March 18, and in 1797, his last full year before his departure to France, on January 27, February 10 and 17, March 3, and finally on April 7.203 In early 1798, he learned about his friends’ successful efforts to erase his name from the death list and was bound for Bordeaux on July 17, 1798. His botanical materials went on another ship via Halifax, which shipwrecked and once again deprived him of nearly all of his collections. Therefore, resuming a correspondence with his Philadelphia friends was of vital importance to him for the continuation of his botanical career. Benjamin Smith Barton and Mühlenberg were among the first he contacted in the spring of 1802.204 201 Today, the region covered in Beauvois’ Flore d’Oware et Benin (1804) roughly corresponds to the territories of the modern states of Togo and Benin. See also Merrill, “Beauvois,” 901f.; Brendel, “Historical Sketch,” 759; Hommes et destins, s.v. “Beauvois P. de.” 202 Merrill, “Beauvois,” 899–902; Hommes et destins, s.v. “Beauvois P. de.” 203 In 1793, Beauvois had actually once returned to Saint-Domingue. On the return trip, the ship was searched by the British, who confiscated all his belongings. Merrill, “Beauvois,” 904f. See also Hommes et destins, s.v. “Beauvois P. De;” Petersen, New World Botany, 344; de Berneaud, Éloge, 33; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 312. Merrill points out that, despite his long residence in the city, only few of Beauvois’ letters at the A.P.S. archives have survived. His botanical collections are housed at the Jardin Botanique of Geneva. Merrill, «Beauvois,» 905, 907. 204 Merrill, «Beauvois,» 899, 906, 910; de Berneaud, Éloge, 49; Hommes et destins, s.v. “Beauvois

304

Letters from an American Botanist

Mühlenberg’s other Parisian contact, Christian Hendrik Persoon, had left Göttingen for unknown reasons in 1803 and reappeared only three years later, when a letter from his hand reached Lancaster along with another one written by Beauvois.205 Despite the publication of Persoon’s groundbreaking Synopsis Methodica Fungorum in 1801, which earned him the title “Linnaeus of Fungi,” he lived in dire poverty in Paris, as meagre annuities from the Dutch government were his only source of income for some time.206 It was only through Beauvois and Hoffmann in Göttingen that Mühlenberg was able to stay informed about Persoon’s fate from 1803 to 1806. Sir I did receive Juillet the 16th your letter with the dates of January the 14 of this year. The same day I sent to M[onsieur] Persoon the packet for him,207 Beauvois informed him in October 1803. The passage is also the only proof that the two men were actually in contact in Paris. The following year, Hoffmann stated without revealing the source of this information that Persoon was also in Paris, working in cryptogamics.208 Persoon’s silence from 1803 to 1806 fits a pattern, as Mühlenberg was not the only one to be cut off from him after his move to Paris. James Edward Smith, for instance, with whom Persoon had been corresponding frequently since 1795, did not see a single letter from 1802 to 1810.209 The most obvious explanations of Persoon’s long silence after 1803 were his new French surroundings, into which he never fully integrated, his monetary problems, his frail health, and last but not least the work on his seminal Synopsis Plantarum, which was published in Tübingen in several instalments from 1805 on.210 Another explanation, however, comes from a passage in a letter by Beauvois, with whom communication suddenly ceased for four years in 1803, followed by a brief period of contact of only one year. In June 1807, Beauvois wrote to him, blaming the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars in 1803 for the long interruption. 211 P. De,” Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 312. 205 Mühlenberg noted the reception of the two letters in his diary: 22. habe ich alte Brief schon im Sept. 1803 geschr[ieben] von Beauvois u[nd] Persoon erhalt[en] die belehrend sind u[nd] die ich beantwort[en] muß See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/22/1806. 206 The work also stands as the internationally accepted starting point in the nomenclature of certain kinds of mosses and fungi. Persoon has also been called the “Father of systematic Mycology.” A mycological periodical first published in Holland in 1959 was named “Persoonia” in his honor. Codd and Gunn, Exploration, 279. See also Hugo, “Persoon,” 14f.; Isely, Botanists, 124. 207 From Beauvois, 10/22/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 208 Freund Persoon lebt gegenwärtig noch immer in Paris als Gelehrter für sich und treibt die Cryptogamie, vorzüglich Fungologie, fortwährend mit Eifer. From Hoffmann, 04/08/1804, HSP Coll. 443. 209 Persoon’s letters to Smith until 1802 are dated December 22, 1795, June 20, 1796, December 20, 1798, July 27, 1799, June 19, 1800, April 7, 1802, and November 3, 1802. Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 11–17. Glas mentions that Palm tried to get Persoon to write a commentary on sponges in 1804. Glas, Palm, 94. 210 Isely, Botanists, 124. 211 [L]es circonstances de la guerre sont sans doute la cause du retard qu’epreuve notre correspondence. From Beauvois, 06/23/1807, HSP Coll. 443. From 1802 to 1805 (Phase 4), only two letters could be reconstructed for Persoon. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 522f.

Network Strategies

305

Apparently, Persoon had gone to the wrong place at the wrong time, as even better integrated persons like Beauvois found it increasingly difficult to continue their professional correspondences and duties during wartime. With Beauvois, however, the brief exchange from 1802 to 1803 laid the pattern for the period after 1806, when Mühlenberg’s contacts with Beauvois and Persoon attained some regularity.212 In a diary entry in May 1805, Mühlenberg explicitly mentioned that he expected Beauvois to be his bridge to Michaux’ herbarium.213 Nevertheless, their contact should take a different direction. Since Beauvois’ early days as a correspondent of the Académie des Sciences, he had shown a particular interest in cryptogamic research, especially in mosses. In an article entitled First Memoir of observations on the plants denominated cryptogamic, published in the same volume of the A.P.S. Transactions that also contained Mühlenberg’s Flora Lancastriensis, he renounced the theoretic assumptions on cryptogamia by such authorities as Johan Jacob Dillen (1687–1747), Linnaeus and even Mühlenberg’s former correspondent Johann Hedwig. Beauvois declared that he would remain satisfied with the observation of Bernard de Jussieu, and considered himself authorized to conclude, that the opinion which results from my observations is preferable to all the former systems, not excepting that of M[iste]r Hedwig, which is two [sic!] inconsistent to be admitted.214 Beauvois was well aware of Mühlenberg’s earlier contact with Hedwig and therefore began to offer his services in re-determining mosses according to his own system: I saw in Hedwig’s works many species described after individuals from you. In my opinion they are not very exactly described, because I have great difficulty to find them out. My individuals differ very much,215 he observed in 1802, asking Mühlenberg for a good, complete Echantillion of each species in flower. In return, Beauvois offered copies of his own works, whatever French specimens Mühlenberg sought for to add to his herbarium, and his plant specifications. Mühlenberg actually submitted a package of mosses, for which Beauvois duly returned a list of observations and another list of mosses which he desired to have.216 Whether Beauvois actually consulted Michaux’s her212 See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 498, 522. 213 Beauvois möchte der geschicktest sein Michauxs herb[ario] zu f[inden]. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/01/1805, note at the bottom of the page. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc.: Is there no Gentleman in London who could undertake to compare some of our Plants with Claytons or Gronoviis Herbarium which is, if I understood you right, in London? I have asked the same Question from some of my Correspondents at Paris respecting the Herbarium of Michaux, who I fear has neglected to keep the received name of Linné too often. By changing the Names too often we will have a Chaos in the Science. 214 Beauvois, «Memoir,» 204, 213. On Beauvois’ particular hostility to the system of Hedwig, de Berneaud observed in his eulogy: «Palisot de Beauvois leur reconnait, avec Linné, pour organes fécondans les urnes portées sur le pédicule que Hedwig et ses partisans déclarent être les organes fermelles.» de Berneaud, Éloge, 59. See also de Berneaud, Éloge, 9, 72. 215 From Beauvois, 10/08/1802, HSP Coll. 443. 216 I will give my observations on mosses you sent to me (...) I take the liberty of finding a list of Mosses, I wish to have a quantity, and in good state to be observed. As soon as the work upon Mosses will be printed, I shall send you a Copy, asking as a favour that you give me your opinion (...). From Beauvois, 10/22/1803, HSP Coll. 443.

306

Letters from an American Botanist

barium or simply relied on his own collections and books does not become evident in his letters. Mühlenberg, however, was satisfied with him and resolved to send him more in June 1806.217 4.7 Old Europe – Smith, Turner, Hoffmann, Schrader and Schreber While Mühlenberg’s cryptogamic circle turned out to be disappointing after 1802, his older contacts Smith in London and Hoffmann in Göttingen were recovering during the same period. In the case of Smith, Mühlenberg had not received a letter from Norwich in three years, when a colleague and friend of Smith contacted Mühlenberg from Yarmouth in December 1802. 19. February 1803 I received a letter from Dawson Turner Esquire from Yarmouth Norfolk England, Mühlenberg noted in his diary. He is a special friend of Doctor Smith and apparently lives near him. He desires on December 13 1802 1) Fucos, as he has written about them – Dr Cutler would be the right man for this! Or Mitchell 2. Lichens and Muscos 3. Any cryptogam (…) This Mr Turner I accept for my correspondenct with great pleasure. He does not have to send me anything but nomenclatures, as he has access to [Smith’s] herbarium. He also corresponds with Schreber and Roth. Smith was sick during the entire past summer and he will finish his flora Britanica until next summer, for which he uses Hedwig’s System funga.218 Turner was a native of Yarmouth, where he was born in 1775 to the banker James Turner and his wife Elizabeth. Originally schooled as an economist and banker at Pembroke College, Cambridge, his father’s early death in 1794 forced him to join the Yarmouth Bank in 1796. The inheritance, however, allowed him to continue his fancy for botany, which had supposedly begun during his early education with Reverend Robert Forby (1759– 1825). In 1797, Turner became a fellow of Smith’s Linnean society, to which he contributed papers on algae, lichens and mosses, quickly acquiring the reputation of a first-rate cryptogamic botanist. In 1802, he confirmed this reputation through his Synopsis of British Fungi, in which he also expressed his admiration of Linnaeus.219 217 Beauvois gefällt mir in Nomenclatur beßer weil er (…) nicht so flüchtig ist. Ich werde ihm alle noch nicht geschickt[en] schick[en]. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/22/1806. 218 19. [February 1803] bekam ich einen Brief von Dawson Turner Esq[ire] Yarmouth Norfolk Engl[and]. [E]r ist ein besond[erer] Freund von D[octor] Smith u[nd] wohl nahe bei ihm. Er begehrt dec[ember] 13. 1802 1, fucos darüber er geschrieb[en] – da wäre D[octor] Cutler der Mann! od[er] Mitchill 2. Lichenes u[nd] Muscos 3. any cryptog[amia] (...) diesen Hern Turner nehme ich mit vielen Vergnüg[en] zum Correspondent[en] an. [E]r braucht mir nichts zu schick[en] als Nomenclatur, da er Gelegenh[eit] hat das Herbar[ium] zu seh[en]. Er corresp[ondiert] mit Schreber u[nd] Roth. Smith war d[en] gantz[en] letzt[en] Sommer krank, u[nd] wird bis nächst[en] Sommer seine flor[a] Brit[tanica] endig[en] er recipirt da Hedwigs System funga. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 02/19/1803. 219 Lawley, Turner, 1f.; Anonymous, “Turner,” 82. On Linnaeus, he wrote: “Linnaeus himself, our great master, did not perfectly understand the Fuci; a circumstance by no means extraordinary, nor mentioned here with a view to detract in the least from his well-deserved reputation, but rather as a caution to those who, accustomed to look up to him with the veneration he is entitled to, consider him equally great in every department of botany.” Turner, Synopsis, ix.

Network Strategies

307

Just two days after the reception of Turner’s letter, Mühlenberg accepted the invitation for a correspondence,220 but to his surprise it was Smith who answered him in March 1804. Thus, my dear Sir, Smith explained, I have given you what I can make out respecting your Asters & Violars (...) & Hedysarums, w[i]th 3 genera my friend Dawson Turner told me you particularly wished me to write about. Accept the above till I can do more. I could tell you a long tale of illness, weak lungs & a most severe erysipelas which was near blinding me.221 Smith thus re-opened their correspondence after five years of silence, much to Mühlenberg’s delight. The Possessor of the Herbarium and M[anuscripts] of both Linnes is the only Gentleman to whom I can apply for a full satisfaction. Without a Comparison with the Herbarium all will be in the Dark. Again, the paramount importance of herbaria to original botanical research emerges in these lines to Smith: Is there no Gentleman in London who could undertake to compare some of our Plants with Claytons or Gronoviis Herbarium which is, if I understood you right, in London? I have asked the same Question from some of my Correspondents at Paris respecting the Herbarium of Michaux, who I fear has neglected to keep the received name of Linnaeus too often. By changing the Names too often we will have a Chaos in the Science.222 After this letter, botanical exchange between Norwich and Lancaster picked up again and remained relatively stable until at least 1807, which makes Smith Mühlenberg’s most intense European contact until 1810.223 In 1809, Mühlenberg counted 840 plants which he had sent to Smith for identification, still awaiting more lists and specifications.224 220 Your Notice of Dr. Smith’s Recovery gave me infinite pleasure. He is a gentleman I am exceedingly indebted to. He has compared 234 Plants for me with the Herbarium Linnaei. (...) Since that time I have received no letter, but only Reports of pulmonary complaints and some Fears of losing the good, candid and excellent Doctor Smith. I felt for my friendly correspondent, and knowing that every leisure Hour would be spent in finishing his Flora Britannica, I never would intrude upon him. I hope and long to see this Flora Britannica when finished. To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. 221 From Smith, 03/06/1804, HSP Coll. 443. 222 To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. Smith answered only vaguely to Mühlenberg’s proposal: The Linnean herbarium has a great number of original specimens of Clayton, sent & marked by Gronovius, so that between the 2 collections I presume all their plants can be settled. Perhaps I may get S[i]r Jos[ep]h Banks, or one of his librarians, to consult Gronovius’s specimens for such of your queries as I cannot answer; if not, they must wait till I go to London. I have not yet Michaux’ Flora Boreali Americana in my possession, so that I know very little of it. French books are very different to procure at present. From Smith, 05/31/1805, HSP Coll. 443. 223 For letters containing lists of plant identifications by Smith and Turner, see From Smith, 03/06/1804, HSP Coll. 443.; See also the letters from Smith dated 05/31/1805, 11/19/1805, 02/17/1806, 03/18/1807 and 12/22/1807, all in HSP Coll. 443. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 547. From 1802 to 1805, their correspondence ran up to five letters, from 1805 to 1810, it ran up to seven. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 529; and tables k and m, Appendix B, on page 491 and 492. 224 Doctor James E. Smith has about 840 Plants from Lancaster Pens. which I sent to him to compare with the Linnaean Herbarium, but I had no Opportunity to send any to Paris or London, being hindred by the Uncertainty of Navigation. To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll.

308

Letters from an American Botanist

Mühlenberg’s new contact with Dawson Turner, however, apparently ended as soon as it had begun.225 Is my new Correspondent Dawson Turner Esquire still alive? I never since his first Letter received another (...),226 Mühlenberg enquired with Smith in March 1805. M[iste]r Turner is alive & well, Smith responded. (...) He will always be glad of any of your cryptogamous plants, others (except British) he cares little about.227 Although no signs of direct contact after 1803 could be found, Turner became real driving force in the identification of Lancaster specimens, which Smith freely admitted: I sent your Mosses N[umbers] 475 to 501 to M[iste]r Dawson Turner (...) for him to examine them & compare them with specimens.228 Three years into their renewed contact, Smith revealed the actual reason of Turner’s collaboration: I find it impossible to write to you so often as I wish. Thank you for yours of July 15 last, with mosses. I really have not any time at present for such objects so I sent them to M[iste]r Turner, whom I can trust even better than myself. His eyes are young, his mind ardent, & he is perpetually conversant with mosses, Lichens & Sea plants, not having his attention distracted as mine is by universal botany. Too vast a study at this time of day! His remarks on your mosses are as follows (...).229 At the time, Smith was busy with his 36-volume English Botany, whose final volume appeared in 1813, featuring many contributions by Turner.230 The work on this epochal and comprehensive work actually provided the basis of their collaboration, which included, at intervals, Turner checking Mühlenberg’s specimens in London. Without Turner by his side, Smith would neither have renewed nor sustained contact with Mühlenberg. With Hoffmann in Göttingen, however, nothing changed after the latter’s inconsequential letter of January 9, 1801. Their once thriving contact had already begun to fade away after 1795, and in 1801, Mühlenberg was ready to give up on Hoffmann altogether.231 Hoffmann, however, was not ready for this and soon promised again in March 1802 to pay more attention to Mühlenberg’s wishes,232 while 225 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 532. 226 He continued: (...) or could I hear whether he wished to have any of our Plants besides the Conservae which are with us but very few as we live at a great Distance from Rivers and the Sea Shore. Respecting Botany something has been done for America. Michaux has done a great Deal for the Southern and Western Parts. His Description of their Arbores and Fratices is pretty general, of Grasses not so general, if I remember right he has described of Grasses and plant. calam. about 190, we have very near. To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 227 From Smith, 05/31/1805, HSP Coll. 443. 228 From Smith, 11/19/1805, HSP Coll. 443. See also From Smith, 05/31/1805, HSP Coll. 443.: I have, along with M[iste]r. D. Turner, studied some of your Musci formerly sent, & our remarks are just ready to send you, but really my constant writing when at home is so much, that even a letter of any length becomes a burden. I shall return home early in October, & will then send you some botanical news, however small. (...)M[iste]r Turner is alive & well, at present travelling in Wales. He will always be glad of any of your cryptogamous plants, others (except British) he cares little about. 229 From Smith, 03/18/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 230 Lawley, Turner, 1. 231 Hoffman hat mich genöthiget mit ihm abzubrech[en] weil er zu vielerlei unternimmt u[nd] nichts recht vollendet. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/27/1801. 232 Ich weiß nicht ob Sie meine Briefe und Bestimmungen kryptogamischer Gewächse alle richtig

Network Strategies

309

the following letter, written in April 1804, informed Mühlenberg of a new chapter in Hoffmann’s career. At the behest of the Russian Czar Alexander I Pawlowitsch Romanow (1777–1825) Hoffmann was offered a lucrative position as manager of Moscow’s botanical garden, which he accepted instantly. Von Moskau aus sollen Sie Briefe erhalten233 were the concluding lines of his final letter to Mühlenberg. After April 1804, no more evidence of contact between the two could be found, and the few references to Hoffmann in Mühlenberg’s subsequent correspondence suggest that their contact was not the only one which Hoffmann discontinued for good after his move to Moscow.234 Hoffmann’s successor at the botanical garden was a long-time resident of Göttingen and former student of the Georgia Augusta, Heinrich Adolf Schrader (1767–1836). Born at Alfeld near Hildesheim, Schrader made a steady career after coming to Göttingen as a student in 1789, graduating in 1793 with a masters degree, and two years later as doctor of medicine. After working briefly as medical advisor to the court of Hildesheim, Schrader returned to Göttingen for a position as private lecturer. In autumn 1802, the medical faculty offered him both a position for life and the directorship of the botanical garden, even though Hoffmann was still there.235 Apparently, Hoffmann’s promotion was actually a forced substitution, which casts a shadow on Hoffmann’s past management of the garden. One biographor has even evoked Hoffmann’s alleged “other inclinations interfering with his official duties,” without giving further details, however.236 Schrader first appeared in Mühlenberg’s empfangen haben. Aber es soll von nun an mehr Lebhaftigkeit und Ordnung in dieser Korrespondenz gebracht werden und ich will mich bemühen, so viel an mir ist Ihre botanischen Wünsche auf das angedeylichste zu erfüllen. In order to lure Mühlenberg back into their correspondence, Hoffmann also included a diploma by his newly established Phytographic Society. From Hoffmann, 03/04/1802, HSP Coll. 443. 233 From Hoffmann, 04/08/1804, HSP Coll. 443. For Hoffmann in Moscow, see also Greß, “Goethe,” 261; Wagenitz, “Hoffmann,” 70. 234 Herr Professor Hofmann ist voriges Jahr von Göttingen ab nach Russland u. nach Moskau gegangen, da ihm in Göttingen der bot. Garten abgenommen war; was nun ferner sein Arbeiten sind, weiß ich nicht. From Schkuhr, 07/02/1805, HSP Coll. 443. Ob Herr Profeßor Hoffmann, der in Moskau im vorigen Jahren glücklich angekommen ist, seine Flora und Lichenes noch weiter dorten fortsetzen wird, ist zu erwarten da er (…) den botan[ischen] Garten erschaffen und einrichten muß, womit er viel zu thun haben wird. In seinem ersten Briefe macht er den Wunsch bald wieder nach Deutschland zukommen; ob er nun noch so gestimmt ist, weiß ich nicht, weil ich seitdem keinen Brief mehr von ihm erhielte. From Palm, 08/08/1805, APS Film 1097. Daß H[err] Prof[essor] Hoffmann schon seit langer Zeit in Moskau angestellt ist, wissen Sie schon. From Persoon, 10/24/1809, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 235 Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 34; Wagenitz, Anfänge, 15; Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326; Anonymous, “Reliquiae Schraderianae,” 353–56; Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Schrader, H. A,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Schrader H. A,” 236 “In seinem Verhältnisse als academischer Lehrer trat er zuerst neben Hoffmann auf, einem durch schätzbare Arbeiten bekannten geistvollen Botaniker, dessen anderweitige Neigungen aber auf seine amtliche Thätigkeit einen störenden Einfluss ausübten,” Anonymous,”Reliquiae Schraderianae,” 356. Schrader himself wrote in an anonymously published essay on the botanical garden in 1809: “Als dem H[err]n Prof. Schrader im Herbste 1802 die Direction des Gartens übertragen wurde, fand er ihn, obgleich seit der Murrayischen Verwaltung um ein Beträchtliches erweitert, doch nicht in der Beschaffenheit, welche dem damahligen Zustande der

310

Letters from an American Botanist

correspondence in 1801, when Hoffmann and Jakob Sturm individually made him aware of Schrader’s botanical journal, which was discontinued when he took over the botanical garden.237 Schrader had also corresponded briefly with Schreber in Erlangen in 1793 and 1796. It is only in 1805 that signs of an actual contact with Lancaster can be found, which was already going on for several years at this point.238 Due to the high loss rate of Schrader’s letters,239 of which merely one that dates from 1808 has survived, only circumstantial evidence provides a rough idea of what their botanical contact consisted in. Schrader’s motivation closely resembled Kurt Joachim Sprengel’s attempt to augment the collections of the Halle botanical garden through an extended web of contacts. For this reaons, his primary concern was to renew the correspondence and exchange of seeds and plants, which had fallen into negligence,240 Schrader explained in a third-person review of his contributions to the botanical garden in 1809, to which he added a list of 27 providers of seeds and plants. From Mühlenberg’s correspondents Willdenow, Sprengel and Schwägrichen, Schrader noted the reception of 90, 55 and 15 seeds, while 38 individual Wissenschaft, sowohl in Hinsicht der Einrichtung, als auch der Zahl der vorhandenen Gewächse, angemessen war. (…),” Schrader, Beschreibung, 361. “Der botanische Garten zu Göttingen, welcher unter Schrader’s Vorgänger Hoffmann in Verfall gerathen war, wurde durch ihn bedeutend gehoben (…),”Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Schrader H. A,” 237 See the letter from Hoffmann to Mühlenberg, 01/09/1801, HSP Coll. 443: Das Journal von einem gewissen Schrader hört auf. Sturm lauded Schrader for his journal and regretted the discontinuation of its publication: Seit 1799 besitzen wir ein neues Journal für die Botanik, welches Hr. Medizinalrat Schrader in Göttingen hinausgibt; es sind davon bereits zwei Bände mit einen Kupfern erschienen. Was dieses Journal vorzüglich empfiehlt ist, dass so viel als möglich daraus gesehen wird, dass jeder Jahrgang die vollständige Literatur des verflossenen enthält, und gleichsam als Repetorium desselben angesehen werden kann. Sollten Sie es noch nicht kennen, so werde ich mir eine besondere Ehre daraus machen, es Ihnen bei nächster Gelegenheit mitteilen zu können. From Sturm, 01/31/1801, HSP Coll. 443. For Schrader’s Journal der Botanik, published from 1799 to 1803, see Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 34. 238 Das Paket von H[er]rn Medicinal Rath Schrader in Göttingen per Schiff Johann Andr. ist richtig eingetroffen und sogleich per stehender Post weiter befördert worden. From Vogel, 07/31/1805, APS Film 1097. See also Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326. 239 Schrader and Mühlenberg have six confirmed contacts from 1805 to January 1815. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 525. 240 Sein vorzügliches Bestreben war deshalb vorerst, die bisher etwas vernachlässigte Correspondenz in Hinsicht auf den Samen= und Pflanzentausch aufs neue anzuknüpfen. Schrader, Beschreibung, 361. See also Anonymous, “Reliquiae Schraderianae,” 356: “…ausgebreitete Correspondenz zu führen, durch welche er mit allen bedeutenden Botaniker und botanischen Instituten in Verbindung trat, und sich von allen Seiten Hülfsmittel und Notizen zu verschaffen wusste, aber auch gern wieder allen denen diente und behülflich war, die sich an ihn wandten. So konnte der botanische Garten, der unter Hoffmann‘s Leitung sehr herabgekommen war, durch ihn, (…) einen Grad von Vollkommenheit erreichen, der diesen Garten zu einem der ersten derartigen Institute Deutschland‘s, ja Europa‘s, erhob, ausgezeichnet nicht allein durch die Menge der kultivirten Gewächse, sondern auch durch die Sicherheit der Bestimmungen, (…). Die Pflanzen waren nach dem Linnéischen System geordnet, doch war auch eine Anlage nach natürlichem System vorhanden,” See also Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Schrader H. A,” Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326.

Network Strategies

311

seeds had reached him [v]on Pensylvanien (Dr. Mühlenberg) by 1809.241 Mühlenberg’s gain in the exchange is harder to identify. Schrader was an excellent cryptogamic botanist, whose Systematische Sammlung cryptogamischer Gewächse (1796/97) had primarily earned him the call to Göttingen.242 A few passages in Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries show that Schrader mostly returned plant specifications for Mühlenberg’s packages. Schrader most busy sending, but has fallen far behind in nomenclatures, he complained in February 1808, while Schrader answered in September of the same year that of the submitted plants I can give you certain determinations of some, which have been made after Michaux’ herbarium in Paris.243 This passage, and a later remark to Stephen Elliott in 1812, confirms that most of the specimens sent to Göttingen for identification were grasses and cryptogamics.244 A single instance in 1805 also implies that Schrader at least once sent a package with plants or specimens to Mühlenberg himself.245 Grasses were one of Mühlenberg’s original botanical fields of interest, and it was Schreber who had turned him onto the subject.246 In 1802, not much of the once thriving contact remained, despite Schreber’s repeated assertions to continue the exchange.247 Mühlenberg answered only hesitantly to Schreber’s proposals in October 1802, and time should prove him right. With the exception of a few books on cryptogamics, nothing came off Schreber’s promises. A few days ago I received through Mr Palm an agreeable present from you, Mühlenberg politely acknowledged to Schreber in March 1806. Funk’s cryptogamic plant magazine 1, 2. 5. and along with these the news that you intend to write to me via New York. I will be pining for this writing and will be even more happy when I finally receive only a mere fraction of the still undetermined plants.248 The patience speaking from these 241 Schrader’s impressive list also features contacts in Paris, Montpellier, South America and Italy. Schrader, Beschreibung, 363f. 242 For Schrader‘s scientific achievements, see Wagenitz, Anfänge, 15; Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Schrader H. A,” Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 34; Anonymous, “Reliquiae Schraderianae,” 356. For his works, see Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Schrader H. A,” Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 34. 243 Schrader schickt fleißig aber in Nomenclatur weit zurück. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 02/13/1808. Von den (…) überschickt[en] Pfl[anzen] kann ich von einigen genaue Bestimmung mitteilen, die nach Michaux’s Herb[arium] in Paris gemacht sind. From Schrader, 09/19/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 244 I have sent to Schrader very near all our Mosses and Lichens, to Persoon all our smaller Fungi which can be sent. To Elliott, 12/01/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. 245 From Vogel, 07/31/1805, APS Film 1097. 246 See above on page 131f. 247 E[ue]r Wohlgeb[oren] machen mir in beiden Briefen die angenehme Hofnung, daß ich nun bald eine nähere Bestimmung der ehemals übersanten hiesigen Gewächse haben soll. Das würde mir eine große Freude sein. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. In 1801, Schreber had already reaffirmed his willingness to send specimens and plant identifications: Ich werde zu einiger Ersetzung des Verlorenen von nun an anfangen nur Verzeichnisse der von E[uer] Hochwürden Güte erhaltenen Gewächse anzufertigen und die in den Zuschriften enthaltenen Fragen zu beantworten. From Schreber, 01/28/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 248 Vor wenig Tagen empfing ich durch H[er]rn Palm ein angenehm Geschenk von Ihnen, Funks cryptogamische Gewächse Heft 1, 2. 5. und zugleich die Nachricht daß sie über Neuyork an mich zu schreiben gedächten. Ich werde mit Sehnsucht auf dis Schreiben warten und mich um

312

Letters from an American Botanist

lines contrasts sharply with contemporary diary entries on Schreber and most of his correspondents, both European and American. Observation: I act unwise when I communicate my letters from Europe from the hands of Willdenow, Schreber, Hedwig etc to others, he noted on the diary margin on April 1, 1803. I must keep it more to myself, even Hamilton does not make good use of them and says they are his own. One reveals it to the other as his own invention. I better keep silent and only take notes for my own use. Schreber, Willdenow do use me in this way, also Hedwig, Hofmann and Schwägrichen. When I want to publish, everything is already known. If Willdenow and Schreber send me nomenclatures, I will accept them with gratitude without sending counter remarks.249 4.8 Network Strategies and Publications It has been mentioned above that the first years of the 19th century saw an unprecedented boom in American botany that lured Europeans into the American hinterlands and spawned a series of influential publications on both sides of the Atlantic. In Mühlenberg’s network, however, these developments are hardly visible. The number of letters from 1802 to 1805 remained relatively stable compared to the period from 1797 to 1802, and to Benjamin Smith Barton, Mühlenberg even “confessed” in 1805 that he had not been particularly busy in botanical affairs during that year.250 There are signs that suggest, however, that scientific developments neither passed him by unnoticed, nor that he ignored them. Instead, Mühlenberg took deliberate measures to keep information closer to his chest, to practice caution even with botanical friends, and thus tried to control the circulation of information to a certain degree. Long before, Mühlenberg had become aware of the potentially negative aspects of his own networking and recognized that his support for free exchange of information could backfire, especially when he was not given the due credit in publications using his specimens. It is only after 1800, however, that a number of developments made the problem really urgent. Specifically Benjamin Smith Barton represented a problem in Mühlenberg’s eyes, as he continued to

desto mehr freuen wenn ich die längst versprochen[en] der noch unbestimmten übersandten Pflanzen auch nur zum Theil erhalte. To Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 545. 249 Obs[ervation]: Ich handle unweislich meine Briefe aus Europa z[u] H[änden] von Willdenow Schreber Hedwig [etc.] andren zu communciren, ich muß es auch mehr für mich behalten, selbst Hamilton macht kein guten Gebrauch davon und eignet es sich zu. Einer theilt es dem andren als seine Erfindung mit. Beßer schweige ich, u[nd] annotire es mir nur zum Gebrauch. Schreber, Willdenow braucht mich auf eben die Art, auch wohl Hedwig, Hofman und Schwägrichen. Wenn ich publiciren will ist alles schon bekannt. Mach[en] mir Willd[enow] u[nd] Schreber [etc.] Nomenclatur so nehme ich sie mit dank an, ohne Gegenanmerkung zu mach[en]. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 04/01/1803. 250 I have done very little this year for Botany, perhaps 2 new Sonchi 1 for 2 Species of Prenanthes and a Glycine may be added to my Index. To Barton, 08/29/1805, APS Mss. B. B284d. See tables i and k, Appendix B, on page 490 and 491.

Network Strategies

313

practice science in his typical clandestine, reclusive way, while maintaining a network of his own, which Mühlenberg had often found intrusive in the past. Secondly, with the increasing presence of highly mobile plant hunters in the American backcountries, interconnectedness among local botanists rose significantly, which drove up the rate of information flow, as more news and letters traveled with ever more explorers.251 To Mühlenberg, this meant easier access to specimens from unexplored regions, but also less control over botanical specimens and information once they had left his home. The decisive reason for this new caution, however, were plans to publish his own catalogue of North American plants, which emerged clearly in letters and diaries for the first time around 1800. This project, which Mühlenberg only finished in 1813, demanded a new style of networking, which at times collided sharply with his often repeated conviction to collaborate freely and do [a]way with Arcanum and Nostrum in Science. 252 After all, it was a necessary defensive measure that caused him to apply these “network strategies” more strictly than ever before. Barton’s often demonstrated ignorance of ethical standards in scientific exchange was what he dreaded most, but other examples had shown him that the whims or ill will of individual persons were not the only reason for unwanted information spill. The example of another new European contact, Christian Schkuhr (1741–1811), was a perfect warning for him how fast information could get lost or out of control in scientific networks. Schkuhr was a graduate of Wittenberg University, where he began to work in the position of Universitätsmechanicus at an unknown time during the 1760s or 1770s.253 His peregrinatio academica had brought him into contact with many of Europe’s finest scientists, through whom he could procure most of the specimens necessary for his publications. Grasses were his biggest interest, and much to Mühlenberg’s surprise, the first volume of Schkuhr’s work on sedges in 1801 contained original plant material he had sent to Europe earlier.254 Schkuhr’s name does not appear in Mühlenberg’s letters or diaries prior to 1802, which makes it impossible that he consciously sent him specimens via other European contacts. At the same time, Schkuhr’s work featured a list of his contributors, on which Mühlen251 This can also be related to the sudden rise in Mühlenberg’s American contacts after 1800. See table l, Appendix B, on page 491. 252 M[iste]r Green has done what his Friend D[octor] Romain Beck has done last December. After sending the Nomenclature and offering every Assistance and begging further Communications _ no Answer is returned. The letter was sent to him postpaid Sept[ember] 19. Perhaps he is absent, but in general N[ew]York Correspondents if they belong to the learned Class are not apt to answer a Letter upon Science. Away with Arcanum and Nostrum in Science! To Collins, 10/18/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 253 Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 3; Schkuhr, Handbuch, iii. The Universitätsmechanicus was responsible for the construction and maintenance of diverse types of machinery and devices used in contemporary scientific research. 254 Christian Schkuhr. Beschreibung und Abbildung der theils bekannten, theils noch nicht beschriebenen Arten von Riedgräsern nach eigenen Beobachtungen und vergrößerter Darstellung der kleinsten Theile. Wittenberg 1801. See for instance “Carex stipata. Mühlenb. in litt.”, “Carex trichocarpa. Mühlenb. in litt. Hab. in Pensylvania” and the “Alphabetical Register of sedges by various Authors.” Schkuhr, Beschreibung, 12, 47, 87–92. In total, 17 specimens in Schkuhr’s work carry Mühlenberg’s botanical tag “Mühl.”

314

Letters from an American Botanist

berg’s name is absent, but Doctor Hedwig in Leipzig, Doctor Persoon in Göttingen, Professor Schrader in Göttingen, Professor Sprengel in Halle, Professor Willdenow in Berlin are among his contacts.255 As it turned out, it was Willdenow who had leaked the specimens to Schkuhr. Unfortunately, the first letters of Schkuhr’s and Mühlenberg’s correspondence, which must have begun at some point in 1801 are lost today. In March 1802, Schkuhr sent a second or third letter, thanking Mühlenberg for a package of American plants and explaining that Willdenow had hitherto provided his Lancaster specimens.256 Later the same year, Mühlenberg received the book as a present from Halle.257 Although specimens and information had been passed on without Mühlenberg’s knowledge, Schkuhr’s publication included correct reference information in the form of the botanical tag “Muhl,” which made their use legitimate. From then on, Mühlenberg continued to answer Schkuhr’s requests, which were usually rewarded by Schkuhr with publications containing the specifications.258 M[iste]r Schkuhr at Wittenberg, who published an excellent 255 In this list, which is entitled “Seinen Gönnern und Freunden,” Schkuhr mentioned the names of 18 correspondents. Schkuhr, Beschreibung, i–ii. A review of Schkuhr’s work on sedges from 1804 also stresses that his contacts’ collections were the main source of his observations. “Nach dem Titel sollten zwar nur deutsche Kryptogamisten hier erwartet werden; aber um das Ganze zu überstehn und um Irrthümer zu vermeiden, mussten doch auch ausländische, wenigstens einige aus jeder Gattung, aufgenommen werden. (…) Der V[er]f[asser] hat aus mehreren reichen Sammlungen seiner Freunde seltene ausländische Farrenkräuter erhalten, und sie sehr richtig beschrieben und treu abgebildet,” Anonymous, “Review Schkuhr,” 412f. 256 E[euer] W[ürden] haben mir durch die Übersendung verschiedener amerikanischer Pflanzen, und besonders der Riedgräser ein besonderes Vergnügen gemacht, da ich von letzteren zwar schon verschiedene abgebildet hatte, die ich vom Prof[essor] Willd[enow] hierzu erhielt, aber nach gemachter Abbildung wieder zurück schicken mussten, dass ich in Natur nicht einmal ausreissen konnte, was ich abgebildet hatte. From Schkuhr, 03/17/1802, HSP Coll. 443. In 1804, Schkuhr made similar experiences with Willdenow as Mühlenberg: Noch muss ich bemerken, dass ich an ausländischen Moosen und anderen Kryptogam eben so arm, als an Filices bin, weil ich bisher immer nur nach den inländische getrachtet. Zu den Filices habe ich auch Hofr[ath] Willd[enow] um Beiträge gebeten, habe aber nicht einmal eine Antwort darauf erhalten, wozu ihm vielleicht seine Sys[tema] pl[antarum] keine Zeit lassen. From Schkuhr, 02/12/1804, HSP Coll. 443. 257 Das schöne Werk des Herrn Schkuhr habe ich vor eltichen Tagen zum Geschenk aus Halle erhalten. Noch habe ich es nicht genau ansehen können, aber ich meine manche unsrer hiesigen zu vermißen, und werde deswegen nicht aufhören mich nach der Werk zu sehnen, durch welches ich gewiß mehr Befriedigung verlangen werde. Unser Americanische Pflanzen die ich täglich vor Augen habe, die wünsche ich für gewiß zu kennen. Darum freue ich mich auf das Schöpfsche Werk zum voraus, wenn es auch nur Bruchstück gibt. Hr. Michaux hat, wie ich höre, ein ähnliches Werk versprochen, auch dis wird mir angenehm sein. Ich weiß aus eigner Erfahrung, daß noch sehr viel übrig bleibt wenn man auch viele Jahre mit genauen Fleiß eine Gegend durchsucht hat. Wie viel findet der Naturforscher selbst noch in dem so oft durchsuchten Deutschland und England! To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 258 This becomes apparent in a letter by Schkuhr in July 1805: Übrigens werde ich die Ihren Beobachtungen so viel als möglich benutzen und bei meinen Arbeiten besonders zu Rate ziehen, wenn Sie mich ferner damit beehren und mir Ihre Gegenstände dieser Klasse mitteilen wollen. Ich werde Ihnen auch jederzeit meine ferneren Arbeite davon mit Vergnügen übersenden, und mir ebenfalls Ihre Bemerkungen darüber ausblicken. From Schkuhr, 07/02/1805, HSP Coll. 443. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 524f.

Network Strategies

315

Handbuch, and Treatise on Carices with Figures, has begun the Cryptogamia in 4to, he explained to Brickell in 1806. His Figures are noble and he will figure all our Filices not yet figured. I have sent him such as grow in Pennsylvania.259 Schkuhr died in 1811, by which time Mühlenberg had sent him 50 individual species of carex sedges alone and had received Schkuhr’s recent publication on at least three different occasions.260 A letter and a package for me has arrived with a vessel from Hamburg – which of my friends might have thought of me, Willdenow, Schkuhr Schrader or Sprengel? Mühlenberg noted in his diary in September 1807. Later, he added on the margin: The indefatigable Schkuhr.261 Seemingly without interruption, their exchange continued harmoniously until Schkuhr died at the age of 70 in 1811. While Willdenow’s gift of Mühlenberg’s specimens to Schkuhr had no serious consequences due to the latter’s proper handling of third party scientific information, it is a case in point how quickly non-descript specimens and Nova Species could be claimed by anyone if they had not been identified and published before. Within the United States, the activities of plant hunters strengthened ties among American botanists. Kin, Enslin, Lyon and other explorers functioned as communicators between Mühlenberg, his correspondents and other American botanists, often carrying letters, packages or books to remote regions and cities. Places like Savannah and Charleston, hitherto unconnected to the unfolding scientific discourse between Philadelphia, New York and Boston, appeared on the map with their movements. Especially in the southern regions, instances of direct contact between Mühlenberg’s correspondents abound after 1800. Brickell met Lyon, Lyon traveled with Kin, Mease wrote to Brickell and Brickell named a specimen after Enslin, to whom he had been introduced by Mühlenberg.262 With Dallmann Mühlenberg also 259 To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. 260 How happy I would think myself if I could look with you over my Herbarium of European and N[orth] American Carices. Whenever You find a dubious one pray let me have a Sight of it. I have about 50 N[orth] American Species. Of these Schkuhr had about 40, the Rest I had no Opportunity to send. To Collins, 07/14/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. See respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 543f. 261 Mit einem Hamburger Schiff ist ein Brief und Paquet für mich gekomm[en] – Welcher Freund hat an mich gedacht, Willdenow, Schkuhr Schrader od[er] Sprengel?, [D]er unermüdete Schkur. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/22/1807. See also entry for 02/13/1808. 262 See the following passages: Pardon my dear Sir if I am overwarm in intreating you for every Grass of calamarious Plant not mentioned in my Index. Both M[iste]r Lyons and M[iste]r Kinn have promised me to look very close for everything of that sort, but I am afraid they will rather look after [missing] and high flowering Plants and overlook the humble Grasses. To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. See also To Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72: The Pensylvania and N[orth] England Grasses I have nearly all, but a great Number from the Southern States are wanting. Our botanical Travellers dont care for such small Plants. Mr. Kin brought only one, how many Mr. Lyons will bring I dont know. Oh that my Friend, my good Doctor Brickel would favour me with a Sight of the Georgia Grasses! This is very often my wish. See also the following passage: He once brought for examination a plant which looked like a scirpus: it proved to be a new genus, which to encourage the industry of our young friend, I have named Enslenia scirpoides. (...)I take so much pleasure in the idea of serving you that I send some seeds & whose names I forgot to mark [sic!] – I sent you a newspaper yesterday. From Brickell, 11/20/1804, HSP Coll. 443. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Brickell, 02/07/1803,

316

Letters from an American Botanist

discussed specimens brought back by Lyon and submitted to him by Brickell, although there is no evidence of direct contact between Dallmann, Lyon and Brickell.263 Although Mühlenberg had by now begun to exercise caution in all of his correspondences, it was particularly Benjamin Smith Barton whom he met with extreme distrust. Mühlenberg’s relationship with the Philadelphia doctor had been on bad terms since Barton’s return to the U.S. in 1789,264 but it was Barton’s alleged or real intrusiveness that Mühlenberg came to perceive as the real threat. A comparison of a passage from a letter to Dawson Turner in London on February 21, 1803 and a diary entry written just three weeks later exemplifies how huge the difference had become between Mühlenberg’s outward communication and his private thoughts on Barton: I have seen a number of them dried with Doctor Benjamin Smith Barton at Philadelphia, he wrote to Turner, but I am afraid he will not part with any. He is a very valuable Friend of mine and a great Lover of Botany, but rather jealous of the European Botanists who publish everything they can get and leave nothing to be done to the American Author. So he saith, whether justly I do not know.265 In his diary, however, he noted: A Letter by William Hamilton, already written on March 10 (…) 3. On account of the Linnean Society in Philadelphia. Neither Hamilton nor Bartram are members!! I will also not become a member. Barton is trying to find correspondents (…) Barton secretely and timidly inquires if I write Flora Americana, says I have not travelled very far. Of his 2400 plants collected in Virginia he has no duplicates. The poor man is jealous and unknowing at the same time.266 This HSP Dreer Scientists. Mühlenberg introduced Enslin to Brickell in his letter to Brickell, 03/01/1804, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1801–1806]. For Lyon’s contacts with Brickell, see Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10. For Brickell and Enslin, see Dictionary of American medical biography, s.v. “Brickell, John;” Mears, “Herbarium,” 160; For Brickell and Mease, see Mühlenberg’s letter to Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists: Doctor Mease wrote to you no Doubt concerning Vitis. He wrote to me likewise. See also his letter to Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers.. 263 From Dallman, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. 264 Ewan and Ewan, however, have suggested a rather neutral relationship between the two men. They base this claim on the differences in their scientific schooling and interests. Ewan, Barton, 573. 265 To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. Barton most probably said something in this way, but the passage nevertheless seems to echo more Mühlenberg’s current state of mind on Europe than what his “very valuable Friend” thought. For a similar statement by Barton, see his letter to Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III.: Barton ein junger Doctor ist in Philadelphia Professor der Botanic und Naturhistorie, er verspricht eine floram americanam nach Art der Flora Rossica. Ob ers ausführen kann wird die Zeit lehren. Er meint es sei für Amerika eine Schande daß wir nicht selbst solche Sachen schreiben und hälts für sehr unweislich daß wir rare Pflanzen mit Sämereien nach Europa schicken weil sich Europäische Gelehrte den Ruhm allein zu eigen mächten. Er hat mich würklich bona fide gewarnt. Nicht wahr das ist Amerikanischer Patriotismus. 266 Brief von Will[iam] Hamilton aber schon Mart[ius] 10 gesch[rieben] (…) 3. weg[en] der Linnaien Society in Phil[adelphia]. [W]eder Hamilton noch Bartram sind Glieder!! ich werde auch keines. Barton sucht Corresp[ondenten] (…) Barton frägt heimlich u[nd] ängst[lich] ob ich nicht Flora Americana schreibe, meint ich wäre ja nicht weit gereist. [V]on seinen 2400 in Virg[inien] gesamlet[en] Pflanzen hat er keine Duplicate. [D]er arme Mann ist sehr eifersüch-

Network Strategies

317

shortlived American Linnean Society, which Mühlenberg mentioned here, was the most recent of Barton’s attempts to promote scientific life in Philadelphia. In the past years, he had already succeeded in extending his herbarium significantly, mostly with the help of former students, but also with contributions by botanical travelers like Enslin or Kin. Francis Pennel has identified specimens from 29 persons in Barton’s herbarium. Among them, there were many contacts that Barton shared with Mühlenberg.267 Lyon and Pursh, of course, were Barton’s successive employees from 1799 to 1806, who contributed large portions to his collections during their travels, about which Mühlenberg was informed.268 Rafinesque’s contact with Barton was no secret either, as Rafinesque himself had informed Mühlenberg about his positive impression of Barton’s character, which only alarmed Mühlenberg and intensified his distrust of Rafinesque.269 Nor were Mühlenberg’s traveling and southern contacts Enslin, Kin and Brickell secure from Barton’s influence. In the case of Enslin, Mühlenberg had received information that he was presumably sick, wanted to return to Germany and shared all he knew with Barton. About Brickell, he was unsure

tig, und dabei noch unwissend. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 04/11/1803. 267 For the American Linnean Society, see Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 296. “Indeed, the ten years after 1797 were the most productive in Barton’s botanical efforts, inasmuch as the major part of the 1,674 specimens, which his herbarium help upon his death in 1815, was collected after 1797.” Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 20; For list see page 21. Barnhart gives a different list of 16 correspondents present in Barton’s botanical collections. Barnhart, “Sketches,” 35. 268 Mühlenberg was aware of that: Lyon hat ihm geschickt Andromeda coricea, nitida, (...). See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 04/11/1803. Ewan, Barton, 481. According to McVaugh, 1,150 specimens were collected by Pursh for Barton. McVaugh, “Pursh,” 24. In his Flora of 1813, Pursh described his relationship with Barton briefly: “I was enabled, by the kind assistance of this gentleman, to take a more extensive range for my botanical excursions, which during my stay at the Woodlands had been confirmed within a comparatively small compass, the necessary attention to the duties of that establishment not permitting me to devote more time to them.” Pursh, Flora, viii. See also Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 21; Harshberger, Botanists, 113; Pursh, Flora, ix; Isely, Botanists, 136. 269 Rafinesque wrote: Doct[or] Barton to whom I am well acquainted is pretty communicative in news & conversation but very little otherwise & he is always so busy that I never could get him to show me his whole herbarium or go along to botanize. I have little hope to get any description or important observation from him. From Rafinesque, 06/04/1803, HSP Coll. 443. In January 1804, Mühlenberg noted on their contact: Rafinesque u[nd] Barton conferiren sehr oft u[nd] dad[urc]h wird meine Kentnisse von andern benutzt. [I]ch werde mich also besser lieber völlig losmach, und mich mit der Menge meiner Arbeit entschuldigen, damit ich nicht umsonst gesamlet habe, Mein Index steht ihm zu Dienst so weit er publicirt ist. Wenn ich schicke so schicke ich ohne Namen, durchaus kein Name der nicht im Index steht, sondern N[ova] S[pecies]. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/06/1804. Barton and Rafinesque also shared an interest in Indian languages they conversed about. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 260.

318

Letters from an American Botanist

at first,270 but by 1806, he knew for sure that the two were corresponding, too.271 In Kin’s case, no direct evidence of communication with Barton could be found, but as Kin’s main place of business was Germantown, which is located almost in walking distance from Philadelphia, it is virtually impossible that the two never met. Even Mühlenberg’s new Parisian contacts Beauvois and Persoon were in contact with the Philadelphia doctor. Mühlenberg and Barton were also the first persons Beauvois contacted in 1802, and to Persoon, Barton proposed in 1803: Sir, I learn with much satisfaction, that you are engaged in the publication of a new edition of the Species Plantarum. I am very anxious to know when any part is to be published. It is in my power to send you many specimens of North American plants, some of which are now imperfectly described.272 William Bartram, who was a long-time collaborator of Barton, and Heinrich Adolf Schrader, who later appears on the member list of Barton’s Linnean Society, complete the list of their joint contacts.273 With the possible exception of Persoon, whose contact with Barton was never truly established, Mühlenberg’s diaries and letters show him well informed about Barton’s networking and potential “leaks.” Considering their mutual misgivings, it is surprising to see that Barton granted Mühlenberg a look at his herbarium in 1805. Mühlenberg’s letter to Barton in the same year, which represents one of the rare instances of direct letter contact between the two men, nevertheless betrays the subtle tensions between them.274

270 Von Enslin meldet [Kin] daß er nach Deutschland zurück will, ob ich gleich von andern höre er sei krank an einer Auszehr[ung] und man zweifle an seinem Aufkommen. Er theilt alles mit an D[octor] Barton. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/31/1807. Mühlenberg also wrote to Brickell that D[octor] Barton had likewise a fine Specimen of Polypodium ceteraccinum Michaux. Was is from you likewise? To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. Enslin covered North Carolina and the southern states for Barton, Kin focused on Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 21. 271 With Doctor Barton I saw the Cypercus articulatus sent by you to him. It gave me great Pleasure to see it. How great would the Pleasure be to have it in my Herbarium. But Doctor Barton is not in the Habit to grant more then a quick look on a Specimen, and this only to a Special Friend. I will rather apply to the original Donor, who acknowledges the old Maxim, beatus es dare quam accipere. To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. 272 Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 389. 273 Bartram contributed drawings for Barton’s textbook Elements of Botany. After this, Bartram found his health so impaired that he could not continue with Barton, who instead hired Jean Francois Turpin (1775–1840) for his future illustrations. Hallock/Hoffmann, Bartram, 158; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 414; Gaudio, “Elements,” 426. For Schrader, see Anonymous, “Reliquiae Schraderianae,” 356. 274 Mühlenberg wrote: From Mr. Rafinesque I received a Letter mentioning that he intends publishing this Year a Supplement of about 700 Plants omitted in Michaux as a Prodomus I suppose to his Flora Americana. He desires all my Descriptions of such Plants which are not in Michaux, good Specimens with some more et cetera’s. If he doth, we will have a Deal of work to clear away the Rubbish cast upon the American Flora. He mentions that he gave you a Flora of Delaware and Columbia District to publish in your botanical Magazine containing 700 and (I forgot the Number exactly say, 1200 different Plants, and that I was to have a Copy, which Copy I should do him the Favour to _ _ _ Pray what is this Flora? To Barton, 08/29/1805, APS Mss. B. B284d. Mühlenberg also included a list of plant identifications in this letter.

Network Strategies

319

Mühlenberg’s distrust of Barton, his frustrations about the sloth of his European and American contacts, and finally his interest in the herbaria of Michaux and other writers on America275 all merged in one central interest, which began to crystallize in the years following the publication of Michaux’s American flora. I have a M[anuscript] of an uberior descriptio plantarum Lancastriensium, he informed Smith in 1805, which I emend [from?] Year to Year and do not intend to [include?] any Plant [sic!] which does not grow here spontaneously. Whether it ever will be published I do not know, the Description is made for my own Pleasure and Satisfaction.276 There are signs, however, that Mühlenberg began to collect specimens and plant specifications for the express purpose of an entirely new publication immediately after handing the Supplementum to his Flora Lancastriensis over to the publisher in 1797.277 But even in an otherwise candid letter to Smith in 1805, he cam275 See Mühlenberg’s letter to Smith from 1805: Is there no Gentleman in London who could undertake to compare some of our Plants with Claytons or Gronoviis Herbarium which is, if I understood you right, in London? I have asked the same Question from some of my Correspondents at Paris respecting the Herbarium of Michaux, who I fear has neglected to keep the received name of Linné too often. By changing the Names too often we will have a Chaos in the Science. To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. At the time of Mühlenberg’s letter, the herbaria of John Clayton (1694–1773), Jan Frederik Gronovius (1686–1762), Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) and André Michaux (1746–1802) contained the vast majority of botanical knowledge on North America. 276 He continued: I want nothing to fill up except the Linnean or any other proper Name if the Plant is new. The Cryptogamia Class still gives me a great deal of Trouble as I know hardly of any American Botanist who can assist me in the Class. To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. To Schreber, he acknowledged the following year: Zu meiner Erholung habe ich unsre Lancaster Pflanzen alle weitläufig beschrieben auf die Art wie Thunberg oder Withering die Japanisch und Englisch Pflanzen. Das MS hat den Titel Inscriptionis uberior plantarum Lancastriensium vielleicht ändre ich ihn zu Pennsylvaniae mediae, weil nur äußerst wenige Pflanzen in dem mittleren Pennsylvanien wachsen die nicht hier bei Lancaster oder doch wenigstens an der Sushquehanna sind. Ob ich dis Werk je in Druck gebe weiß ich nicht, vielleicht wäre ein Ausgang von bisher unbeschriebenen Pflanzen beßer. Eine Agrosta graphia b. Americana od. doch Pennsylvanica ist oft von mir verlangt worden und die würde ich wohl am meisten liefern könen, wenn ich nur in den trivial Nahmen mich beruhigen könte. To Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 277 The Supplementum was finally published in the fourth volume of the A.P.S. Transactions in 1799. The first reference to what later became his Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis (1813) can be found in a letter to Nebe in 1800: Wegen H[er]rn Hütter habe ich Ihnen meine Meinung offenherzig geschrieben. Er treibt den Buchhandel sehr im Großen. Sein Vermögen soll in Utrecht bei seinem Bruder liegen. Er unternimmt viel und hat so gar eine Floram America Septentrionalis in Kupferstichen unternommen, und wie ich aus Catalogis sehe mit meinem Nahmen angekündigt. Dazu habe ich ihm keine Erlaubnis gegeben. To Nebe, 09/23/1800, AfSt M4 D 50. Romanus Hedwig wrote on his plan in the same year: Was IHRE Flora Americ[anis] Septentr[ionalis] betrifft so habe ich H[errn] Graeff IHREN Wunsch mitgetheilt, er schreibt darüber folgendes: das in Hamburg die erste Ankündigung davon erschienen sey in welcher SIE ausdrücklich mit Nahmen genennt die Bearbeitung des Werks versprochen haetten: das mag wohl eine Verwechslung seyn. Bis ietzt sey noch kein exemplar in teutschen Handel gekommen und er werde seine annonze aendern, sobald er ein exemplar, welches er mir mitzutheilen verspricht erhaelt: – moechten doch bald IHRE Berichtigungen und Verbesserungen und Zusaetze zu IHREM eigenen Flor[a] Lancastriensis bald es erlauben, das Werk zum Druck zu befoerdern: wir würden bei einem Mann, der mit Sceptischer Genauigkeit und Wahrheitsliebe

320

Letters from an American Botanist

ouflaged his real intentions, writing about a supposed descriptio plantarum Lancastriensium when the scope of his collections had already far exceeded the immediate surroundings of Lancaster by then. This was probably an answer to Barton’s curiosity about his Flora Americana, of which Hamilton had informed him in 1803.278 To Brickell, Mühlenberg had already acknowledged in 1804 that I retain my old System to describe nothing but what I see alive in my Neighbourhood. If anything else, I would wish to describe in a small Volume our American Grasses and plantas calamaria. The Pensylvania and N[orth] England Grasses I have nearly all, but a great Number from the Southern States are wanting.279 The scope of the work he finally published in 1813, the Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis, encompassed indeed all of North America, and included a list of 28 American botanical contributors. With ten out of these 28, contact began between 1802 to 1806; contact with an additional eight between 1806 and 1815. Clearly, this supports the idea that Mühlenberg actively started the work on this project only after 1802.280 While his relations with American botanists and collectors became more important and more problematic at the same time, a number of problems arose in his transatlantic exchanges, which eventually turned out to be more severe than delays and transport problems could ever have been. One of these problems becomes strikingly evident in Mühlenberg’s 1813 list of contributors, which he headed with the phrase: I add with Gratitude, the Names of my American Friends and Correspondents, who have generously assisted me by communicating Specimens or Seeds. Mühlenberg consciously referred to his “American contributors” rather than to “European botanists,” although the list also included the names of Europeans like Dallmann, Kin, Enslin and Pursh.281 What he wanted to express with this was his growing dissatisfaction with European botanical works on North America that were entirely based on dried specimens. Both Michaux’ 1803 Flora and earlier European works on American botany almost exclusively relied on these or on fresh plants that had been grown in Europe’s botanical gardens under entirely different conditions of climate and soil. To Mühlenberg, descriptions from bad specimens were just as risky to cause confusion in science as bigotry, fraud and overambition combined. Oh that you may find Time and Health to go on with your Description of the genera and Species of Georgia, he remarked to Brickell in 1806. Michaux (whose Flora I have at last received) has left a great Number undescribed. What Willdenow will sein Werk bildet die Beschreibungen vollkommen, und die Nutzungen für die Wissenschaft von grosser Bedeutung seyn. From Romanus A. Hedwig, 12/13/1800, HSP Soc. Coll. 278 Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 04/11/1803. 279 To Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72. 280 The names in Mühlenberg’s catalogue, in chronological order: 1790 to 1797: Baldwin, Barton, Bartram, Cutler, Kampman, Hamilton, Kramsch, Mitchill. 1797 to 1802: Denke, van Vleck. 1802 to 1805: Brickell, Dallmann, Enslin, Kin, Lyon, Mease, Muhlenberg P[hilip] E[manuel] (1784–1825), Pursh, Rafinesque, van der Schott. 1805 to 1811: [Peter] Billy (no data available), [Caspar Wistar] Eddy (1761–1818), [Stephen] Elliott (1771–1830), [Elizabeth Rosina] Gambold (1741–1811/12), [Bernard] M’Mahon (1775–1816), [Johann Christopher] Müller (1779–1845). 1811 to 1815: Collins, Henry Moore (not data available). Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. 281 Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors.

Network Strategies

321

do, Time will show, but I am certain a Description from the living Plant will be the best.282 In Mühlenberg’s letters, this new conviction becomes apparent in the years after the publication of Michaux’ Flora in 1803. A second problem, which also concerned the quality of the plant specifications, came with the gradual substitution of Linnean artifical nomenclature by the natural system of de Jussieu in Europe. It was characteristic of American botany in the early national period that Jefferson, Barton and Mühlenberg almost unanimously stayed loyal to Linnaeus, when botanists in the Old World had already taken a new direction. Mühlenberg’s reactions to Michaux show that American antagonism against the innovations of French botany was not primarily rooted in criticism of the theory itself, but in the need to defend the order that had been so painstakingly established since political independence was achieved. Michaux (...) has neglected to keep the received names of Linnaeus too often. By changing the Names too often we will have a Chaos in the Science, he observed to Smith in 1805. To Barton, he wrote in the same year: [Michaux] has described a great Number of our Grasses with new Names. It will take close Study to be certain which Plants he meant.283 Similar passages abound from 1803 to 1806, which also betray a deep fear that a new nomenclatural system would prolong dependence on Europe even more.284 Taking the worsening mail conditions after 1803 into consideration, this was a dreary outlook. Mühlenberg kept himself well informed about European political developments and the concomitant threats to their interests.285 The transatlantic passage had always been a problem, as salt water spray and unstable, quickly changing climatic conditions often destroyed large portions of the botanical materials, especially if they were not 282 To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. In a preceding letter, he had also urged him not to let foreigners like M[iste]r Rafinesque carry off our imperfect dried Specimen[s]. How imperfect are many of Linnaeus’s and Willdenow’s Descriptions! To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. For the problem of dried specimens, see also Mühlenberg‘s letters to William Bartram, 03/19/1795, HSP Gratz Coll. and to Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber: Von den Cryptogamia habe ich die Numern nicht mehr auch die Specimina die ich vorher zurück gelegt wurden endlich weggethan weil sie zu viel Raum aufnahmen und veralteten. 283 To Smith, 03/21/1805, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc; To Barton, 08/29/1805, APS Mss. B. B284d. 284 This new Description of our American Plants: Michaux flora boreali Americana, I had for a few Weeks from William Hamilton Esq. and had only Time to overlook it cursorily. (...) He changes the generical Name often without Reason and still oftener the trivial Names of Plants sufficiently known and described. The united Labours of our American Botanists will be necessary to have a general Flora. To Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72. See also the letters to Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber; and from Müller, 09/22/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 285 Welche Veränderungen der nun ausgebrochne Krieg zwischen England und Frankreich auch in unserem Verkehr mit Deutschland machen werde, wird die Zeit lehren. [I]ch fürchte wir Amerikaner werden mancher Plackerei ausgesetzt sein ob wir wohl, wie gewöhnlich neutral bleiben. To Nebe, 07/21/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. See also Nebe‘s letter to Mühlenberg, 11/21/1804, AFSt M.4 D5: Die so sehr über Hamburg gehende Schiffart erschwert die Europäische Correspondenz. Alles was von Deutschland komt wird verteuert und viele kleinere Paquete gehen verlohren. Viel von der Art was ich von hier abgeschickt habe muß nicht angekommen sein und ich werde wohl einhalten müssen, weniger schicken und weniger bis die Schiffart wieder offen ist.

322

Letters from an American Botanist

properly packed.286 But even if they were, a quick and undisturbed passage was necessary for their safe arrival at their European destinations, which became increasingly difficult after the beginning of the Napoleonic wars. For a long time, transatlantic botanical exchange had been the best way for Mühlenberg to contribute to the growth of botanical knowledge on America, but the rise of de Jussieu’s natural system, the delays and costs of transatlantic botanical exchange now seriously began to raise his doubts whether the efforts still matched the results. In the end, a desire for scientific accuracy rather than patriotism287 became the real motive behind Mühlenberg’s exhortations for American botanists to collaborate. This went hand in hand with a changing attitude towards his European correspondence, which becomes clearly evident in his mistrust of Rafinesque. From M[iste]r Rafinesque I received a Letter, he wrote to Barton in 1805, mentioning that he intends publishing this Year a Supplement of about 700 Plants omitted in Michaux as a Prodomus I suppose to his Flora Americana. He desires all my Descriptions of such Plants which are not in Michaux, good Specimens with some more et cetera’s. If he doth, we will have a Deal of work to clear away the Rubbish cast upon the American Flora.288 The fact that Benjamin Smith Barton, of all his correspondents, was the recipient of these lines, illustrates the central dilemma that Mühlenberg found himself in. While he was propagating domestic collaboration in America on the one hand, his diaries betray his worries about his colleagues and their alleged thirst for fame rather than for scientific progress on the other. It was probably for this reason that he dedicated a new genus to Barton in 1801. Generally, this was considered an acknowledgement of a botanist’s merits and standing in the scientific community. Mühlenberg, however, did not choose a genus of impressive trees, a marvelous botanical novelty, or anything that Barton would have considered representative of himself. What Mühlenberg picked in Barton’s honor was an unspectacular, small-flowered genus of Gentianaceae, whose visible parts are among the first to wither and die at the end of the growing season.289 286 Klemun, “Pflanzentransfer,” 218. 287 There are, however, passages in Mühlenberg’s contemporary European letters that seem to betray a genuine awareness and pride of America’s freedom as opposed to European oppression. In a taunting passage to Schreber, Mühlenberg mixes contemporary political rhetoric with botanical information. Überhaupt ist es mir bei meiner so sehr eingeschränkten Zeit nicht so viel um ausländische Gewächse zu thun, wenn sie nicht einen besonderen Nutzen in der Medizin oder Öconomie haben. Eine einzige hiesige Pflanze gewiß zu kennen ist mit mehr angelegen als hundert ausländische, die überlaße ich gern ihren Landsleuten. Ich werde mit den übersanten eine abermahlige Probe mach, und hoffe beßer Glück zu haben, wenigstens mit solchen die unsre freie Luft vertragen. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 288 To Barton, 08/29/1805, APS Mss. B. B284d. 289 Barnhart, “Sketches,” 36; Green writes: “Ironically and with a kind of poetic justice, it turned out that Muhlenberg, whose generous assistance Barton had never reciprocated, had named a small-flowered genus of the gentian family in honor of Barton many years earlier. It is by this genus, rather than the handsomer one proposed by Pursh and Nuttall, that Barton is commemorated in modern botanical nomenclature.” Greene, American Science, 261. Ewan and Ewan write on the same subject: “On the genus Bartoni” was read before the American Philosophical Society by William P. C. Barton, and referred on December 13, 1815 for approval to a committee composed of William Barton, Collins, and Correa de Serra. There having been no action, on

Network Strategies

323

4.9 The Halle Network Contact with the Halle Orphanage remained the backbone of Mühlenberg’s networking, especially in times of deteriorating transport conditions. While contact frequency and intensity with all his other European contacts were subject to fluctuations and changes over time, the correspondence with Halle remained stable and at a high level throughout the period from 1784 to 1809.290 The pattern of trade with the Orphanage continued practically unchanged after 1801, as every letter to and from Nebe carried information on the reception of packages, changes in the annual orders and ways to settle debts. With the beginning of the Coalition Wars in the wake of the French Revolution and the subsequent pressure on Halle’s European sales, America continued to grow in importance, just as Nebe continued to forward letters for Mühlenberg. Packages containing specimens and plants, letters by friends and books directly ordered by Mühlenberg were regular contents of the boxes of packed medicines that Nebe sent to Lancaster.291

March 1, 1816 the committee was requested to report at the next meeting. On March 15, the committee approved publication, but before it could go to the printer the committee learned that Muhlenberg had given the name to an insignificant small-flowered, yellowish gentian, Bartonia tenella, the specimen and description of which he had sent to Germany, and which was published by Willdenow in 1801, and which appeared in Muhlenberg’s Catalogus of 1813. This later Bartonia of Pursh and Nuttall [1812] was in fact a member of the earlier genus Mentzelia of Linnaeus [1753]. Barton, however, died secure in the pride that his name would be preserved in botanical literature by a strikingly beautiful plant.” Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 838. Mühlenberg, however, had plans to name a genus in Barton’s honor already in 1791: You have, you inform me, in your books a plant which you have honoured with my name. Would it be impertinent to request of you to let me know to what class and order this namesake of mine belongs? What is he like? I shall thank you to let me know thus much of a friend, of whose manners and history I am altogether ignorant. From Barton, 11/15/1791, HSP Coll. 443. 290 From 1784 to 1790, correspondence with Fabricius ran up to eight letters, from 1790 to 1797, correspondence with Stoppelberg counted 25 letters, the first phase of contact with Nebe from 1797 to 1802 saw 15, the second phase from 1802 to 1805 saw 16, and the last one from 1805 to 1811 saw another six letters. Thus, from 1790 to 1806, correspondence with Mühlenberg’s Orphanage contact continously counted the most letters. See tables e, g, i, k and m, Appendix B, pages 488, 489, 490, 491 and 492. The contact began on a regular basis in 1784 and ended in 1809. Nebe‘s final letter dated October 12, 1809, AFSt M.4 D6. 291 See Nebe‘s letter to Mühlenberg, 10/04/1802, AFSt M.4 D5.: Für alle Ihre gehabte Mühe danke ich Ihnen recht sehr. Daß Willdenow Species und Hedwig’s Werk nicht mit kamen bedaure ich, von Herrn Profeßor Schwägrichen habe ich bisher weder einen Brief noch das Werk selbst empfangen. Ich habe im Jul wieder durch einen reisenden jungen Kaufmann Herrn Oemler geschrieben und eine Parthie Moose geschickt, aus diesen Briefe wird er schon gesehen, daß hier nichts angekomen war. Es ist in vorigen December ein Schiff von Hamburg nach Philadelphia abgesegelt aber verlohren gegangen, es hieß die Delaware Captain Dumphy, mit diesem hatte ich mehrere Briefe erwartet. Das Paquet von H[er]r Profeßor C[hristian] Sprengel war mir recht willkommen, ich will bald an ihn deswegen schreiben und ihm das verlangt gern schicken. (…)Hrn Prof. Sprengel mache ich die verlangt Kräuter zurecht, sie sind würklich schon eingepackt, auch etwas für H[er]rn Schkuhr in Wittenberg (…). See also To Nebe, 03/30/1801, AFSt M.4 D5; To Nebe, 01/12/1803, AFSt M.4 D5; To Nebe, 02/10/1804, AFSt M 4 D5.

324

Letters from an American Botanist

The printer Christian Jacob Hütter, however, was a dark stain in this relationship. Mühlenberg had recommended him as an able and hard-working book printer, but Hütter still kept both Mühlenberg and Nebe in the dark about his debts, whereabouts and plans for repayment. As it turned out in 1803, Hütter had left Lancaster head over heels and communicated with his creditors exclusively via his brother-inlaw from a secret place in the backcountry.292 What you are writing to me on behalf of Mr Hütter has deeply saddened me, Nebe explained in March 1804. He owes 1001 rth 13 gl 10d tot he Orphanage and I could not have given him new credit, had I only known earlier what you write to me in your letter of July 21st.293 In 1805, Hütter suddenly placed advertisements concerning the imminent settlement of his debts in local newspapers, much to the delight of Nebe and Palm in Erlangen.294 Palm was the second of Mühlenberg’s correspondents to engage in business with Hütter on his recommendation. Although the Hütter affair caused financial damage to everyone involved, neither in Palm’s nor in Nebe’s case did it affect the transatlantic contact negatively.295 Eventually, Mühlenberg took care of the paperwork for 292 Den ersten Brief für H[er]rn Hütter konnte ich ihm selbst einhändigen, den zweiten übergab ich seinem Schwager der seinen verborgenen Aufenthalt weiß, denn leider hat er sich von Lancaster entfernt und sein zurückgebliebenes Vermögen ist für Schulden verkauft worden. Noch weiß man nicht wo er sich aufhält. Er hat immer gesagt seine Mutter und Bruder in Utrecht würden die Hallische Schuld richtig machen. Ich wünsche es von Herzen. Mit den Hallischen Büchern und Arzneien hat er ehe er wegging manche seiner Schuldner befriedigt. Es wäre wohl rathsam daß Sie sich in Utrecht bei seinen Freunden erkundigten besonders da von einigen geglaubt wird er sei mit seiner Familie nach Holland gereißt. Es würde auch rathsam sein eine Rechnung gegen ihn auszufertigen und die Manditarien des Waisenhauses in Philadelphia zu bevollmächtigen die Schuld gerichtlich einzucassiren, wenn er hier zu Lande gefunden werden kann. Hütter ist sonst ein geschickter Kopf, und weiß sich auf allerlei Art zu helfen. Das letztemahl verdarb ihn ein Ostreichischer Doctor Aichmiller der mit ihm Französischen Brandwein aus gemeinem Kornbrandwein machen wolte. To Nebe, 02/10/1804, AFSt M 4 D5. See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Nebe, 10/17/1803, 07/21/1803, 11/21/1804, all in AFSt M.4 D5. 293 Was Sie mir von H[err] Hutter und den Umständen schreiben, hat mich sehr betrübt; [E]r ist ans Waisenhaus 1001 rth. 13 gl 10 d. schuldig, und ich hätte ihm keine neuen Credit werden gegeben, wenn ich das, was Sie mir in ihrem Schreiben vom 21ten Jul[ius] a[nno] p[resente] gemeldet eher gewusst hätte. From Nebe, 04/24/1804, AFSt M.4 D5. Nebe continued: Die hiesige Buchhandlung und Medic. Expedition war auch willig, ihm Credit zu geben, also wagte ich? es auch von seiten der Bibelanstalt. Was E[ue]r HochWürden in dieser Sache thun können, das werden Sie gewis aus Liebe zu den Anstalten thun, um das Waisenhaus? zu erhalten. 294 Herr Hütter hat kürzlich in unsre hiesigen Zeitungen setzen lassen ohne zu melden wo er sich aufhält, er würde alle seine Schulden ehrlich bezahlen und es sei nicht seine Schuld daß sie nicht schon alle bezahlt wären. Es solle jedermann seine Rechnung einbringen und zu dem Postmeister Huber in Bethlehem schicken, der sie weiter befördern würde. Von ganzem Herzen wünsche ich daß er Wort halten möge! Die Rechnung des Waisenhauses hat er gewiß bekommen, ich habe ihn auch durch seine Freunde aufs allerdringendste ermahnen laßen dem Waisenhause nicht Unrecht zu thun. To Nebe, 03/18/1805, AFSt M.4 D6. See also the letters from Nebe, 04/08/1805, AFSt M.4 D6; and 07/05/1805, APS Film 1097. 295 Palm‘s and Hütter‘s commercial ties appear first in a letter by Bensen from 1801: Auch H[err] Palm mit der gehorsamsten Bitte: den dortigen Buchhändler H[errn] Hunter ob er die an ihn geschickte Kiste erhalten hätte? und mir zu schreiben ob man den Mannern weiter trauen und ihnen Credit geben könne. From Bensen, 05/28/1801, APS Film 1097. In 1805, Palm dedicated nearly half a sheet to Hütter: Wenn Sie mir auszukundschaften und zu

Network Strategies

325

both men to track Hütter down and have him prosecuted. In March 1806, he could report to Nebe that Hütter was now working as a newspaperman at Easton, PA. By July 1807, the former Lancaster printer and book trader had settled half of his debts, and no more references to him could be found in Mühlenberg’s subsequent correspondence with Nebe or other contacts.296 Part of the medicines that Mühlenberg received from Halle were redirected to Tulpehocken, where his brother-in-law and most persistent family contact Christopher Emanuel Schultze lived with his sister Eve Elizabeth. This business relationship continued uninterruptedly from the early 1780s to Schultze’s death in 1809.297 Helmuth and Schmidt continued their services as financial trustees to the Waisenhaus, receiving payments from Mühlenberg and others and coordinating the transatlantic flow of money back to Halle. An unexpected crisis emerged in the relationship between Mühlenberg, Schmidt and Helmuth, however, when internal developments in the Lutheran church pitched Mühlenberg’s oldest brother Johann Peter Gabriel against his two Philadelphia colleagues. Especially Helmuth had early on begun to criticize what he perceived as a gradual “privatization of Protestant benevolence” (Roeber) in America during the 1790s. To Helmuth, Mühlenberg’s two brothers Frederick Augustus and Johann Peter Gabriel epitomized the growing influence of the state on what were in his view exclusive church matters, especially education. In them, he found the fiercest opposition and critics of his positions.298 melden belieben wollen so Hutter jezt sich aufhält und zu zahlen vermögend ist, so kann ich ja noch den Versuch wagen, ihn zur Zahlung meiner Forderung durch einen Advokaten zu vermögen; in diesem Falle müßte ich freylich gehorsamst bitten, mir einen braven Mann von einem Advokaten anzugeben, oder die Sache an Sie selbst senden zu dürfen, damit Sie es einem übergeben. Aber solt ich alsdann auch die ganze Forderung oder nur auf den alten [Stand?] von 180 fl. antragen? Da er die lezten Bücher nicht mehr erhalten hat, so wird er solche auch nicht bezahlen, und die älteren sind versteigert worden. Er hat doch also gleich Anfangs meine Beträge gegen mich geschikt, daß er mir angab, Schaeffers fungi wären zerrieben und unverkäuflich, und hat solches doch an Ihren Freund Hamilton verkauft. Da dieser nur das Buch an Hutter bezahlt haben wird, so wird er mir solches nicht noch einmal bezahlen. From Palm, 08/08/1805, APS Film 1097. 296 To Nebe, 10/25/1805, AFSt M.4 D6; to Nebe, 03/14/1806, AFSt M.4 D6; from Nebe, 07/24/1807, AFSt M.4 D6. 297 There are merely three letters from Schultze from 1802 to 1805. From 1790 to 1797 (Phase 2), and from 1797 to 1802 (Phase 3), Schultze had always figured among Mühlenberg’s most active American contacts and also as his most active kinship contact. Owing to difficulties in getting mail to Tulpehocken, most of their correspondence seems to have been replaced by personal meetings. Weil die Gelegenheiten nach Tulpehocken so gar selten sind, und sich jetzt eine nach Reading anbietet ergreife ich sie, Ihnen einen Auszug eines Briefes von Deutschland mitzutheilen, und Sie und Ihren Herren Sohn zu gleicher Zeit zu unsrer bevorstehenden Spezial Conferenz einzuladen. Diese wird am letzten Mittwoch im October in Lancaster gehalten werden. Sehr werde ich mich freuen sie beide hier zu sehen da ich so lange das Vergnügen nicht hatte sie zu sehen. To Schultze, 09/18/1804, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 526. 298 Roeber, “Helmuth,” 77, 90f. Helmuth also faced accusations of irregularities in his handling of the Halle business and criticism for his two sons’ business activities. Roeber, “Helmuth,” 94– 96. For the fight between Lutherans and the growing influence of the state, see especially Nolt, Foreigners, 91–95.

326

Letters from an American Botanist

An important aspect of this drawn-out quarrel was the discussion on the use of English or German as the language of choice within the Lutheran church. Schmidt, Helmuth and Jacob Göring (1755–1807) were heading the “German Party,” whereas Peter Mühlenberg headed the opposing “English Party,” which also caused great irritations in Peter’s personal relationship with Schmidt.299 In Mühlenberg’s letters of the period, he appeared undecided on the matter, while he clearly recognized the necessity of accepting English at least as a second language.300 In 1805, the matter was finally decided in favor of the German party,301 and legend has it that Mühlenberg officially retained a neutral stance on the subject, while clandestinely writing tracts and leaflets for the English party. Allegedly, Mühlenberg confessed this in tears before Helmuth and Schmidt.302 In a long and detailed letter to Helmuth on July 25, 1805, Mühlenberg addressed these allegations and other issues concerning his involvement in the English-German debate, suggesting the free use of English outside the Ministerium whenever it was necessary.303 There are no direct state299 “There is somehow in all the correspondence of Pastor Schmidt an undercurrent, not of hostility certainly, but of vexation with the Muhlenbergs, and the fact that the General headed the English party did not diminish this irritation.” Nolan, Smith Family, 74, 84. See also Roeber, “Helmuth,” 93. 300 To Nebe, he acknowledged in 1803: Unsre Seestädte und zum Theil auch Landstädte dringen auf Englische Predigten neben den deutschen, weil die aufwachsende Jugend wenig oft gar kein Deutsch versteht und sich verläuft wenn sie in den Kirchen nichts begreifen kann. Auch viele geboren Englische finden Geschmack an unserer Evangelisch Lehre und wollen sich gern an unsre Gemeinen anschlissen wenn wir auch in ihrer Sprach reden. Warum sollten wir gegen das Englische sein, da es so nothwendig wird und solchen weit ausgebreitet Segen stift kann? Studieren junge Leute hier zu Lande so wäre mein Rath immer, daß sie beide Sprachen deutsch und englisch gründlich lernen und in beiden Vorträge halten. To Nebe, 07/21/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. See also Mühlenberg’s letters to his son Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 07/11/1803, 01/15/1805, all in MCollege – Penn. German Coll.; 176; Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 45. 301 Nolan, Smith Family, 85. Du wirst gehört haben daß die fürs Englische stimmend Partheien in Philad[elphia] durch 6 Stimmen es verlohren hab. Was noch daraus wird werd wir seh. To Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 01/15/1805, MCollege – Penn. German Coll. 302 Schmidt’s biographer J. Bennet Nolan has adopted Smith’s and Helmuth’s interpretation of these events, depicting both men as the champions of true Lutheranism: “Dr. Ernestus Muhlenberg acknowledged to Dr. Helmuth with tears in his eyes that he regretted and should ever regret what he had done in this affair, that he had seen to plainly it was injurious to Lutheranism that the alterations and innovations made by those English Lutherans were already so many that only a few more were wanted and they should no longer be called a Lutheran congregation.” Nolan, Smith Family, 86. 303 Bei offentlichen Versamlungen der Synode und des Ministerii soll wie bisher die deutsche Sprache fortgeführt und die herrschende seyn. Außer der Versammlung richten sich die Glieder nach den Umständen. Diese müssen, auch entscheiden ob während der Versammlung eine andre neben der deutschen Sprache erlaubt werden kann. (…) Wenn unsre Lehren bei unsren Kindern und Nachkommen soll erhalten werden, so müssen wir Prediger als Wächter dahin sehen daß sie Unterricht in einer verständlichen Sprache bekommen. So lange es möglich ist bleibe ich bei der Sprache die ich am besten verstehe und am meisten fühle der deutschen, da lebe ich und prediche am liebsten, und suche sie auch namentlich meinen Kindern und meinen Gemeinegliedern beizubringen, verstehen sie mich nicht hinreichend oder gar nicht so brauche ich die Sprache gemischt od[er] ganz die sie verstehen. (…). Some time later, Mühlenberg explained: Er soll mit einer besonderen Miene gefragt worden (seyn): wer hat ihnen diese Schrift

Network Strategies

327

ments of Mühlenberg about the imminent effects of these events on his relationships with Helmuth and Schmidt. In the case of Schmidt, however, a passage from a contemporary letter implies some lasting damage. Why [Peter Muhlenberg] is so opposed to me I do not know, Schmidt reported to his own son Frederick on July 30, 1805. Both of the M[ühlenber]gs have been in Philadelphia at the time of the Synod meeting, they passed my house, but did not look at it and did not speak to me.304 4.10 Changes in the Family This passage about Henry and Peter Mühlenberg jointly walking the streets of Philadelphia also suggests changes in the relations within the Mühlenberg family following the death of Frederick Augustus Conrad on June 4, 1801.305 The 1770s had seen the three brothers go different ways, as Peter and Frederick started their military and political careers, while only Henry continued in the ministry. Contact with Frederick had continued with low intensity during the 1780s and 90s, while direct contact with Peter probably remained a rare event in the context of family gatherings. It is only after 1801 that Henry began to mention his oldest brother, der General, in more than the occasional, superficial reference to his military and political careers. In the letter that reported the death of Frederick to Schultze at Tulpehocken, Mühlenberg also announced a visit of Peter to Lancaster. Much later, he also wrote about details on Peter’s state of health and career even to new and hardly known correspondents. My Brother Frederick Augustus is dead, Dawson Turner could read in his first letter from Mühlenberg. My other Brother General Muhlenberg is Collector of the Port of Philadelphia.306 Their new relationship also found expression (der philad[elphischen] Gegenparthie) eingehändigt? R[e]sp[onsio] Herr Mühlenberg [qu[aestio:]?] welche. R[e]sp[onsio] D[octor] M[ühlenberg] und abermals was hat ihnen der gegeb[en]? R[e]sp[onsio] D[octor] M[ühlenberg] die Glossen dazu und die Folgen davon kann ich mir vorstellen. Nun die ganze Geschichte. (…) Ich kam herunter um in den Wagen zu steigen und fand an der unteren Stube des Wirtshauses H[er]rn Gräf, H[er]rn Becker und H[er]rn Pf[arrer] Ernst im tiefen Gespräche. H[er]r Gräf wollte mir einige Schriften geben um sie dem Ministerio vorzulegen. Ich weiß den Inhalt nicht nur eine sagt er sei ein Verzeichnis solcher die Englisch verlangt. Ich sagte ihm daß ich so eben nach Philadelphia wolle nur heim zu reisen und sie also nicht vorlegen könnte, er solle sie irgend einem Prediger geben, hier ist Herr Ernst der kann sie vorlegen und dann ihn in Philadelphia wieder einhändigen. Als ich Herren Ernst darüber zu [missing] setzte, meinte er, er habe sie auf meine Empfehlung erhalten und das habe er so angesehen als hätte er sie von mir. Ob ers Ihnen, wie er versprochen, gemeldet weiß ich nicht. Wie leicht kann misverständnis entstehen wenn nicht jedes Wort auf die Wage gelegt wird. To Helmuth, 07/25/1805, APS Film 1097. 304 Schmidt obviously referred here to Peter and Henry Mühlenberg. Quoted after Nolan, Smith Family, 87. 305 For the development of their contact during the 1770s and 1780s, see above on pages 48f., 70f. For the 1790s, no specific contact between the two could be found, while Henry and Frederick constantly kept in touch until the latter’s death. 306 To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. See also Mühlenberg‘s letter to Schultze, 06/19/1801, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891: Meine Kinder sind von Baltimore noch nicht zurück, ich erwarte sie Sontag, so auch die Herrn Swaine, Sperry und vielleicht meinen Bruder der General. Dieser hat

328

Letters from an American Botanist

in Peter’s presence at Henry’s table when Humboldt came to Lancaster in June 1804 and in their joint support for Jefferson in the contested election of 1800.307 Additionally, Peter’s new position as toll collector at Gray’s Ferry, south of Philadelphia, allowed him to find a job for Mühlenberg’s son-in-law John Musser (1774– 1813), who had married his daughter Mary Catharine Mühlenberg (1776–1843) on May 11, 1802.308 The General has given his holy promise to organize a little office position for John Musser (…). Remind him of this and push him to do it. Your tender sister is worth that you speak for her, Mühlenberg exhorted his son Henry Augustus in November 1802.309 Through Peter’s mediation, Musser was hired as Inspector of the Customs at the port of Philadelphia, where he was in an excellent position to help Mühlenberg with the reception of packages and letters.310 The reconciliation with his brother Peter was only one aspect of Mühlenberg’s increasing attention to family affairs after 1802. Mühlenberg had sent his third child and first-born son Henry Augustus Philip Mühlenberg (1782–1844) to Kunze in New York, where he studied theology before returning to Lancaster in 1802. The same year, the young Mühlenberg was admitted to the Ministerium and received a call from Reading’s Trinity Church congregation, which he answered in April 1803, staying there until 1827.311 The four letters exchanged with his father in Lancaster

307

308 309 310

311

redlich officielle Nachricht daß er das versprochen Amt erhalten wird. To Schultze, 12/06/1803, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891: Daß der General wieder krank geworden an seiner gewöhnliche Engbrüstigkeit werden Sie gehört haben. To Schultze, 10/06/1804, APS Film 1097: Von unsren Freunden in Philadelphia und Neuyork höre ich daß sie alle gesund sind. Meine Tochter ist den letzte Tag Sept[ember] mit einer Tochter niedergekommen. Der General ist mit seiner Familie wohl. To Schultze, 12/17/1806, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891: Mein Bruder, der General, hat an mich geschrieben daß der Landmeßer ihm die Abtheilung des Landes in Scioto zugeschickt und er nun bereit sei die Deeds an uns zu machen. Es soll nur jemand in Philadelphia bestellt werden der den Deed macht. Ich benuze diesen lezten Augenblik (…) um Ihnen nochmals meinen herzlichsten Dank für die unbeschreibliche Güte zu sagen mit welcher Sie mich (…) behandelt haben. (…) Wir haben gestern einen herrlichen Mittag mit Ihrem Herrn Bruder den (…) General zugebracht. (…) Ihr dankbarster Humboldt. From Humboldt, 06/27/1804, APS Film 1097. Roeber, “Helmuth,” 93, 96. Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 5–7; Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 284. Muhlenberg–Richards, Descendants, 154. Der General hat mir heilig versproch[en] dem J[ohn] M[usser] ein Nebenämtchen zu verschaffen (…). Erinnere ihn daran und dring auf ihn. Deine zärtliche Schwester ists wert daß du für sie sprichst. To Schultze, 11/13/1802, MCollege – Penn. German Coll. My son in Law is at Philadelphia an Inspector of the Customs and well known to all the Captains coming from Savanna. Address it you please to his Care – Care of Mr. John Musser n. 146 Racestreet, Philadelphia. To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. See also the following letters: to Peck, 01/10/1810, APS Coll. 509 L56; to Barton, 11/01/1810, APS Mss. B. B284d; to Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15; to Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. The recipient, August Gotthild Oemler, is falsely cited as “Omer” in Mole, the APS online finding device. From Baldwin, 11/01/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 50; to Collins, 03/19/1812, ANSP Coll. 129; from Baldwin, 03/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 70. Unter uns ist kein merkwürdige Veränderung vorgefallen. Mein ältester Sohn Heinrich den ich selbst 4 Jahr unterrichtet und auf 3 Jahr zu Hrn D. Kurze gethan ist sei Dec[ember] heim gekommen. Die Gemeine in Reading hat ihn zum Prediger berufen und er predigt dort im Segen deutsch und Englisch nachdem er auf der letzt Synodal Versamlung zu Baltimore nominiert und

Network Strategies

329

between November 1802 and March 1805 show that family correspondences were on the rise again. Until 1802, his brother-in-law Schultze at Tulpehocken had been his only regular family contact from since 1782, occasional letters by Bensen in Erlangen, his brother Frederick and brother-in-law Kunze in New York excepted.312 The letters to Henry August at Reading were filled with paternal advice and occasional requests for samples from the local flora. To Mühlenberg’s dismay, his oldest son took little interest in his favorite science.313 His second-born son John Philip Emanuel Mühlenberg (1784–1825), however, had just begun to follow his older brother’s steps in New York city, from where he maintained a regular correspondence with Lancaster.314 It was not until 1811, however, that Philip began to send specimens from there.315 4.11 Network Analysis: Phase 4 In the network analysis section in the preceding chapter, the regenerative potential of Mühlenberg’s network has helped to identify a hidden American tendency, as 16 out of his 24 indirect contacts were located in the United States. This tendency continued unbroken after 1802 and contrasts sharply with the fact that European contacts and letters still slightly outnumbered American-based correspondences

312 313

314

315

mit einem vollen Gestattungsschreiben versehen worden alle actus ministerialis zu verwalten To Nebe, 07/21/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. See also the letter from Kunze, 05/12/1803, YUL Schwab Coll.; Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 154f.; Anonymous, “Biographical Memoir,” 73f. Nolan writes that Henry August was originally to be sent to Philadelphia: “The plan had been so timed that at the completion of young Parson Muhlenberg’s studies at New York, all was ready and the attempt to fix him at Philadelphia was to be made without delay (…).” Nolan, Smith Family, 85. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 526f., and tables c, e, g, i and k, Appendix B, pages 487, 488, 489, 490 and 491. Von diesem hätte ich gern ein Specimen vom Blatt und der Blume, auch womoglich vom Samen. H[er]r Reichert kent ihn. Bitte ich in meinem Nahmen dafür zu sorgen, daß ichs bekomm. Dir selbst will ichs nicht auftrag weil du so wenig Neigung zu der Botanic hattest. From Frederick A. C., 05/23/1779, APS Film 1097. Out of the six letters exchanged with Philip, only one has survived. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 518. Philip erfährt jetzt das Sprichwort multa tulit fecitque puer, aber ich glaube er wird in wenig Jahren ein Mann. Er ist ein Herzensguter Junge und ein vortrefflicher Bruder. To Schultze, 11/13/1802, MCollege – Penn. German Coll. Seit dem ist unsre Susanne heim gekommen. Alles in Philadelphia ist wohl. Auch von Philip habe ich endlich einen Brief erhalten er entschuldigt sein nichtschreib mit seinen zu überhäuft Geschäft. Es scheint er muß entschlossen dran bleib. To Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 01/15/1805, MCollege – Penn. German Coll. Von Philadelphia hören wir mündlich dass alles wohl ist, von dem weiter entfernt Philip hören wir höchstens dass er fleißig an H[er]rn Sperry schreibt, ich hab kürzlich wieder an ihn geschrieben. To Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 11/16/1808, APS Film 371. Since my last, I have received a fine collection of New York plants, by my son who was there; and some maritime plants from Dr. S. L. Mitchell, – and have a promise of more. To Baldwin, 10/11/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 47. The other Packet was from my Son at New York, who commonly goes to the Jersies to collect for me. To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers.

330

Letters from an American Botanist

from 1802 to 1805: There were 21 active European correspondents over 15 American ones, and 60 “European” letters over only 57 “American” letters. In the network visualization, however, there is a total 65 nodes, one of which represents Mühlenberg, 36 represent his active correspondents, while there were 28 indirect contacts.316 Ot of these 28 indirect contacts, which comprise both resting and future contacts, 23 were located in the United States, and only five in Europe.317 Additionally, one of these five, the Portuguese botanist José Correa de Serra, to whom Mühlenberg was contacted via James E. Smith (lower left corner), would eventually come to the United States in 1813 and become part of his American web, if only briefly. In short, the regenerative potential had become clearly “American,” years before Mühlenberg’s web actually turned American after 1805. This tendency also becomes apparent in the five strongest contacts from 1802 to 1805, of whom Constantine Samuel Rafinesque-Schmalz, John Brickell and Gustavus Dallmann were located in America, while Mühlenberg’s strongest European contacts were again Nebe at the Orphanage and James E. Smith. With both men, he had already been in contact for many years, which shows that the regenerative potential of Europe was exhausted by now. In fact, not even newer contacts, like Schwägrichen or Schkuhr, were able to match the frequency of contact in Mühlenberg’s American correspondences anymore. Nevertheless, although botanical exchange with Europe was on the wane in the years after the turn of the century, Mühlenberg still maintained fairly stable relations to some key figures, which kept him connected to some of the sinews of scientific activity in the Old World. Specifically the ties to James E. Smith, Christian H. Persoon, Johann C. D. E. von Schreber, Georg F. Hoffmann and Heinrich A. Schrader, all of which are to be found on the left hand side of the visualization, lay between him and future correspondents Swartz and Acharius. These two were basically the last two Europeans to join his network after 1811 and to offer significant scientific help to him, especially in cryptogamics. This subbranch of botany had brought forth a cluster of interest in Mühlenberg’s web around 1800, the so-called cryptogamic circle, which was highly prominent in Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries, but hardly identifable in the drawing of the network. In fact, Romanus A. Hedwig, Christian F. Schwägrichen, Carl L. Willdenow, Kurt Sprengel and Christiaan H. Persoon were all thoroughly interconnected and still interested in American botany, but with the exception of Sprengel, they were all disappointments to 316 See Appendix E: Network Phase 4, page 551. For reasons of clarity and accesability, the nodes of the following individuals have not been included in the network drawing for Phase 4: Göckl & Lehr, Solomon Henkel, Knapp, Loddiges; Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg; Vogel, Alexander von Humboldt. None of them had any impact on Mühlenberg’s botanical studies or the course of his network. Similar choices were made for the vizualizations of Phases 5 and 6. 317 The 23 American-based indirect contacts were: Elizabeth Merry, Joseph van der Schott, Elizabeth Gambold, Stephen Elliott, John Lyon, Matthias Kin, David Hosack, Jacob vanVleck, Christian F. Denke, William D. Peck, F. D. Melsheimer, Frederick Kampmann, Samuel Kramsch, Samuel L. Mitchill, Manasseh Cutler, Moses Marshall, the Bartrams, Benjamin Rush, William Dunbar, F. D. Pursh, August G. Oemler, William Baldwin, Bernhard M’Mahon. The European-based indirect contacts were José Correa de Serra, Romanus A. Hedwig, Erik Acharius, Olof Swartz, Carl&Hermann.

Network Strategies

331

Mühlenberg from 1802 to 1805. The drawing suggests two possible explanations for this: compared to Willdenow, Persoon and Schwägrichen, Sprengel seems not to be as firmly established as the others in the network.318 Romanus A. Hedwig, however, was only a minor figure anyway and died to soon to have a profound impact. Secondly, Sprengel lived close to Nebe, which facilitated their exchange.319 The fact that Sprengel, the strongest remaining contact from the Cryptogamic Circle, had himself the poorest connections to other members of this exclusive circle, also supports the idea that the European correspondences had clearly passed the peak by 1805. The American wing of Mühlenberg’s web, however, conveys the exact opposite impression in this drawing, as men like John Lyon, John Brickell (right bottom corner), Samuel Kramsch, C. F. Denke and Benjamin S. Barton appear better interconnected than all of his American-based contacts during the preceding phase of the network. Although this might again be attributed to the relatively poor preservation of archival sources in cases like those of Matthias Kin or A. G. Oemler, this development might also be an accurate representation of the effects that the commercialization of interest in American botany, the subsequent presence of European plant hunters320 in the United States, and Mühlenberg’s own heightened attention to his American contacts had on the course of his network. After all, it was in the years following the publication of André Michaux’ Flora in de Jussieuan code in 1802 that Mühlenberg began to collect information for his own comprehensive work on American botany, to champion the idea of American collaboration, and to invest more efforts in his neighboring contacts. More specifically, the South was of great interest to Mühlenberg, which is easy to see in the three new contacts James D. Mease, the Moravian missionary Dallman in Salem, North Carolina, and the Savannah-based retired physician Brickell. The most important southern correspondent of the future, the navy physician William Baldwin, also makes his first appearance in this phase of the network as a correspondent of Benjamin S. Barton. Once again, the number of correspondents the two men shared and were to share had risen from 11 during Phase 3 to 19 during the present phase. While Mühlenberg would not have noticed the slightly higher degree of interconnectedness among his American correspondents, he was surely aware of Barton’s activities. His “network strategies” and the frequent diary entries on how to curb the unwanted flow of information were a result of this.

318 This observation, however, is restricted to Sprengel’s interconnection among Mühlenberg alteri. 319 As illustrated by the yellow circles. See, for instance, the following passage: H[err] Prof[essor] Sprengel empfiehlt sich; (…) Leider ist nichts fertig (…) Ihnen etwas zu schicken; er will es aber über Hamburg nächstens thun. Die an ihn geschickt[en] Kräuter-Sämereyen hat er erhalten (…). From Nebe, 05/16/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. 320 According to one of the tenets of the present network drawings, planthunters with European (or unspecified) nationalities active in the United States were represented as “American-based” rather than European contacts. For this reason, men like Kin, Enslin and van der Schott have up-triangle nodes.

332

Letters from an American Botanist

5 AN AMERICAN NETWORK (PHASE 5: OCTOBER 1805 – JANUARY 1811)1 War posed an almost constant threat to transatlantic and continental European communication since the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789. While news and complaints about approaching troops, local skirmishes and raids had been a recurring theme in Mühlenberg’s incoming letters before,2 it was only after 1806 that Napoleon’s Continental System and its consequences seriously disturbed and obstructed traveling, trade and mail transport both in Europe and in America.3 In the most restless warfare I am composing an answer to you, Schkuhr noted in a letter from Wittenberg in May 1807, and hereby send to you the 4th sequel of my work on ferns. (…) May God steer the hearts of the regents towards a general peace very soon and put a halt the great pressures that Germany is currently under.4 From nearby Halle, Nebe wrote that our orphanage has also suffered much through quarterings and contributions,5 while Smith in London regretted that he found himself hindered by the Times to send any Thing in Return except a Letter.6 In Europe’s northernmost corner, Mühlenberg’s new Swedish correspondent Olof Swartz (1760–1818) complained about the thunderrolling of Bellona. Willdenow in Berlin commented that external circumstances have for long interrupted a correspondence that is very dear to me, Persoon in Paris blamed the sad circumstance of the war for delays, and Sprengel in Leipzig was frustrated about the sea blockade.7 By 1 2

3

4

5 6 7

All data in this chapter is based on letters sent or received between Mühlenberg’s letter to Nebe, 10/25/1805, AFSt M.4 D6, and Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 01/02/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. See Flow Chart F, Appendix A, 485. See, for instance, the letter from Herman to Mühlenberg, 06/24/1787, APS Film 1097: In Holland u[nd] den k[öniglichen] Niederlanden sieht es sehr trüb aus, der Himmel bewahre, daß andere Mächte sich nicht hereinmischen, es könnte dann wohl auch das noch nicht hineingezogen gewordene America hineingezogen werden! Paquet and Wallot have pointed out that the immediate overall effects of European warfare between 1793 and 1807 on the American economy were positive at first. American neutrality created a loophole for the re-exportation of exotic commodities from American ports to Europe. During this period, total exports from Pennsylvania alone rose from $ 3,504,496 to $ 12,055,128 in 1807. At the same time, however, prices for ships, crews and equipment rose, too, which also inhibited the industrialization processes. Paquet and Wallot, “Conséquences,” 123–127; 132. In großen Kriegsunruhen beantworte ich Ihnen dieses und sende Ihnen hiermit mein 4tes Heft der Farnkräuter. (...) Gott woll[e] doch die Herzen der Regenten zu einem baldigen allgemeinen Frieden vereinigen und den großen Drangsalen Deutschlands ein erwünschtes Ende machen. From Schkuhr, 05/26/1807, HSP Coll. 443. Unser Waisenhaus hat auch besonders viel gelitten, durch Einquartierung und Contribution. From Nebe, 07/24/1807, AFSt M.4 D6. Smith continued: May the Storm soon blow over and leave us in Peace an Tranquility. Nulla salus bello pacem te poscimus omnes. From Smith, 12/22/1807, HSP Coll. 443. Full quote: It is however pity that the printing is at present suspended on acc[oun]t of the thunderrolling of Bellona. Nulla Salus Bello – pacem te poscimus; but when is that moment to be expected. From Swartz, 03/30/1808, HSP Coll. 443. Full quote: Äußere Verhältniße haben lange einen mir überaus schätzbaren Briefwechsel unterbrochen. Jetzo höre daß die Schiffahrt mit Nordamerika wieder offen ist und ich mache gleich den Versuch an Sie zu schreiben. Mitten

An American Network

333

1811, even American correspondents started to complain: Our foreign intercourses are so much impeded, Mühlenberg’s new correspondent Stephen Elliott from South Carolina acknowledged, that it has become extremely difficult to procure any production from the continent of Europe even through the medium of England.8 The worsening conditions in transatlantic trade and transport were to have a decisive impact on the development of Mühlenberg’s correspondence after 1805. By 1811, he had received more than twice as many American letters than European ones, making these six years the first period of his network’s development with a clear orientation towards botanists from Philadelphia, Charleston and Pittsburgh rather than from Erlangen, London, Berlin or Paris.9 The warfare in Europe and its destabilizing effects combined with earlier developments and experiences which had taught Mühlenberg to be suspicious about scientific help from the Old World. Specifically de Jussieu’s innovations in natural nomenclature were viewed as a threat to American “botanical independence” – not only by Mühlenberg. Also, the warfare frequently delayed sendings and packages which made the survival of precious specimens during the transatlantic passage even more improbable than ever before. Moreover, war with Great Britain seemed imminent as the British Navy intensified impressment policies and continued to operate in American territorial waters. After 1805, the combined effects of these circumstances prepared the ground for a profound change in transatlantic scientific relations. Botanical and other exchange with Europe, which had been the only systematic approach to American flora and fauna for over a century, slowly began to lose its appeal and – more importantly – its scientific justification to American science.

8

9

unter den Stürmen, die überall auf uns losgingen habe ich mich aufrecht zu verhalten und alles was meine Wissenschaft in Gefahr bringen kann zu retten gesucht [sic!]. From Willdenow, 05/14/1809, HSP Coll. 443. Full quote: Ich habe das Vergnügen gehabt, E[uer] Hochehrwürden mehrmalen von hier zu schreiben; auch Ihnen zu gleicher Zeit meine hierausgegebenen Schriften zuzusenden, aber leider auf alles dieses niemalen Antwort bekommen: was wohl den traurigen Kriegsumständen, aber keineswegens, wie ich hoffe, einer geänderten FreundschaftsGesinnung zuzuschreiben sey; denn der Neid und Verläumdungsdemon, der mich fast uberal verfolgt hat, wird auch wohl nicht bis zu Ihnen gedrungen seyn. (...) Übrigens leidet in Europa die Buchhandlung, wie alle Gewerbe, sehr durch den Krieg und alles ist sehr theuer (...). From Persoon, 10/24/1809, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. Full quote: Ihr letzter Brief, mein teuerster Freund, vom 7ten Oktober 1806 kam im folgenden Januar 1807 hier an. Eher konnte ich ihn nicht beantworten, wegen der leidigen Seesperre; aber jetzt erbieten sich die Hamburger, Briefe nach Amerika zu besorgen. Ich eile also, die erste Gelegenheit zu benutzen, wo ich mich mit Ihnen unterhalten kann. From Sprengel, 11/20/1809, HSP Coll. 443. From Elliott, 05/05/1811, HSP Coll. 443. Mühlenberg only once directly commented on Jefferson‘s non-importation policies: Das liebe Embargo besucht auch uns wie die Influenza und bleibt so lange, daß man sich vorsehen muß wenn man Brodt genug auftreiben soll. Die Verschwendung hat hin und wieder so überhand genommen daß eine solche Züchtigung nöthig wird, damit wir haushalten lernen. Am Ende ist Embargo das einzige Mittel Frieden zu behalten, und das Land verliert viel weniger dabei als durch Krieg oder durch Seeräuberei. Wie müssen uns also darin geben und uns in die Zeit schicken wenn sie auch böse ist. To John Philip E. Mühlenberg, 04/04/1808, APS Film 1097. See table l, Appendix B, on page 491.

334

Letters from an American Botanist

This became evident in a gradual turn of American botanists to the natural products of their own land, which had long remained in the shadow of their supposedly superior European counterparts.10 Proud of the advantages which our own country will afford, the agricultural reformer and politician George Logan (1753– 1821) had declared in 1803, and which our own labor will procure, let us disdain to be the servile imitators of other nations, or to adopt foreign manners inconsistent with our republican form of government.11 Bernard M’Mahon’s (1775–1816) American Gardener’s Calendar, the first practical guide to American horticulture, was written in the same spirit: Is it because [American plants] are indigenous that we should reject them?, M’Mahon asked in the introduction to the first edition in 1806. What can be more beautiful than our Lobelias, Asclepias, Orchis, and Asters? In Europe plants are not rejected because they are indigenous; and yet here, we cultivate many foreign trifles, and neglect the profusion of beauties so bountifully bestowed upon us by the hand of nature.12 At the same time that these lines were written, Mühlenberg himself labored to finish his own Catalogue of the Hitherto known Native and Naturalized Plants of North America. Correspondingly, it was to be his first publication with a national rather than a local scope. Besides these external circumstances, the deaths and moves of some correspondents were again a major factor in the development of Mühlenberg’s network in the years around 1805. Hoffmann, who had accepted a position at the botanical garden in Moscow, departed from Göttingen in 1805, leaving both his chair at the university and his correspondence with Mühlenberg to his successor Heinrich Adolf Schrader.13 In Leipzig, Romanus Adolf Hedwig died on July 1, 1806, just seven years after his father Johann Hedwig, the famous cryptogamist.14 Until then, Romanus Adolf and Christian Friedrich Schwägrichen had collaborated to carry on the elder Hedwig’s research. As it turned out, it was Schwägrichen alone who struggled to meet the deadlines of proposed books and associated duties. While there had been only two letters between the two men before 1805, there were no more after 10 11 12

13 14

The French scientist Georges Louis Marie Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707–1788), was the main proponent of this theory. For Jefferson’s and Benjamin Smith Barton’s refutes, see above on page 117f., 294f. Quoted after Tolles, Logan, 212n. Mühlenberg and Logan founded a small and apparently shortlived agricultural society in Lancaster. Tolles, “Agrarian Democrat,” 275. Quoted after Hatch, “McMahon,” (see online references). This patriotic tendency combined with utilitarian, common sense arguments and also showed in other sections of M’Mahon’s work: The neglect in these respects is, no doubt, to be attributed to various causes, among the most prominent of which, is the necessity of having reference for information on those subjects, to works published in foreign countries, and adapted to climates, by no means according with ours, either in the temperature or course of the seasons, and in numerous instances, differing materially in modes of culture, from those rendered necessary here, by the peculiarities of our climates, soils and situations. M’Mahon, Calendar, iii. M’Mahon also planned to induce an association of the science of Botany with practical horticulture, without which the latter can never be so advantageously conducted. M’Mahon, Calendar, v. Glas, Palm, 90; Wagenitz, “Hoffmann,” 70; Just shortly before he left Göttingen, he was visited by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832), with whom he conversed on cryptogamia. Greß, “Goethe,” 259–61. Das gelehrte Teutschland, s.v. “Hedwig, J,” Deleuze, Hedwig, 71.

An American Network

335

young Hedwig’s death in 1806. One year before Romanus Adolf, Mühlenberg’s own cousin and longtime Erlangen contact Carl Daniel Heinrich Bensen died in Würzburg. Our friend Bensen has not stayed long in Würzburg, he was informed by Johann Jacob Palm in August 1805. He died in February of this year. The faculty had him opened and there was an ulceration in the liver and stones in the bladder.15 With regard to his own health, Mühlenberg began to show first symptoms of old age and worsening chronic rheumatism at the time but still appeared generally healthy throughout the period from 1805 to 1807.16 No evidence could be found for Mühlenberg’s alleged apoplectic fit and the resulting temporary loss of memory, speech and writing faculties, which he supposedly suffered sometime in 1806 according to earlier biographical notes and articles on him.17 5.1 The Troubles of Erlangen and Halle Mühlenberg began to feel the impact of Napoleon’s recent ravagings in Europe in his own correspondence after late in 1806. In September, French troops reached the outskirts of Erlangen and eventually occupied the city, which had been spared the same fate in 1796 due to Prussian neutrality and protection. One month after the fall of Erlangen, general Pierre Antoine Dupont de l’Étang (1765–1840) closed in on Halle with his army and conquered the city after meeting with minor resistance at the Pasendorf bridge on October 17, 1806.18 In both cases, long occupations ensued which eventually dealt a deadly blow to Mühlenberg’s correspondence with his two former bridgeheads to the European Republic of Letters. This is the first joy I have again since this unfortunatey 17th of October, Sprengel wrote from Halle to Schreber in 1807 in acknowledgement of an earlier packUnser Freund Bensen ist leider nicht lange in Würzburg gewesen. Er starb im Februar dieses Jahres. Die Fakultät ließ ihn öffnen und da fand sich ein Geschwür in der Leber und Steine in der Harnblase. From Palm, 08/08/1805, APS Film 1097. In Würzburg, Bensen had just accepted a new position as professor for cameralistics. Kötter, Poll and Schug, Verzeichnis I, 46; Glas, Palm, 83. See also From Schreber, 02/16/1807, HUH Aut. Coll.: [D]ass der H[er]r Pr[ofessor] Bensen schon vor geraumer Zeit in Würzburg mit Tode abgegangen ist, wird Ihnen schon längst bekannt sein. 16 See the following note from April 1806 to his son Augustus: Weil M[iste]r Michael Hof durch Reading geht kann ich (…) melden dass wir alle wohl sind. To Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 04/18/1806, APS Film 371. In April 1807, he confided to his brother-in-law Schultze: Wir hatten einen harten Winter und ich bin mit Rheumatism auch im Kopf viel heimgesucht worden. Meine gute redliche Schwiegermutter ist am 13t[en] des letzt Monats sanft und selig entschlaf. Wir vermissen sie überall. Von Ihrer Gesundheit haben wir öfters durch Ihren Herrn Sohn gehört. To Schultze, 04/03/1807, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. 17 See Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 68f.; Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 46; 101f. There are 49 surviving letters from the years 1805, 1806 and 1807. Neither the contents of these nor their distribution over time suggest any serious sickness or other impediment to Mühlenberg’s letter writing. 18 Napoleon himself stayed in Halle two days after the conquest of the city. Schieber, Erlangen, 74; Kaiser, Völker, Sprengel, 56. For contemporary developments in Halle’s medical trade, see Wilson, Pious Traders, 94f. 15

336

Letters from an American Botanist

age. On that day the French took our city by storm, the university was blasted, all the moneys seized and since then we have had nothing but distress and misery.19 Nebe’s report from mid-1807 on the same events detailed their effects on the Orphanage: In ¾ years we have experienced many things here, and the misery still has no end, although peace has been declared with Russia and Prussia.20 The occupation by Napoleonic troops was just the last in a series of incidents which ushered in the demise of the Halle Orphanage. By the end of the 18th century, the Francke Foundations found themselves under severe pressure. Revenues from the sales of books and medicines were dwindling in consequence of the loss of trading privileges and changing public tastes during the 1790s. In addition, the Orphanage and its schools were clinging to outdated pedagogical concepts which resulted in declining numbers of new students by 1800. In 1807, Napoleonic Denmark prohibited the sale of medicines outside apothecaries’ shops and pharmacies, which seriously impeded the sale of Halle medicine in the lucrative northern markets. After the death of Johann Ludwig Schulze (1734– 1799), Mühlenberg’s childhood friend Georg Christian Knapp (1753–1825) and August Hermann Niemeyer (1754–1828) were appointed joint directors and partly succeeded in the restoration of royal interest and support for the Foundations after the turn of the century. This temporary financial improvement, however, ended with the Prussian defeat against Napoleon’s army in October 1806. Niemeyer, who was abducted to France in 1807, managed to establish diplomatic ties with the shortlived kingdom of Westphalia, thus securing the temporary political survival of Francke’s institutions.21 In the middle of all this turmoil, Nebe tried to sustain his ties to his Pietist brethren in Pennsylvania and succeeded until 1809. Nebe’s last letter to Mühlenberg, written on October 12 of the same year, was preceded by an unusually long period of silence of 27 months, which was the longest period ever to intervene in their correspondence since its beginning in 1797. Additionally, the years from 1806 to 1811 saw the lowest number of letters ever exchanged between the two men.22 No more signs of contact can be detected after 1809, while a letter from Sprengel to Mühlenberg from November of the same year contains the final mentioning of Nebe before his death in 1812.23 Notwithstanding Mühlenberg’s later intentions to Das ist die erste Freude, die ich seit dem unglücklichen 17ten Oct[ober] wieder habe. An jenem Tage wurde unsre Stadt von den Franzosen mit stürmender Hand eingenommen, die Universität gesprengt, die Kasse in Beschlag genommen u[nd] seitdem haben wir nichts als Noth und Kummer gehabt. Sprengel to Schreber, undated [around 1807], UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 20 Wir (…) haben hier in ¾ Jahren vieles erfahren, und die Noth hat noch immer kein Ende, obgleich der geschlossene Friede mit Russland und Preußen declarirt ist. From Nebe, 07/24/1807, AFSt M.4 D6. 21 Obst, Francke, 103–106. It was only after Napoleon’s first defeat in 1814 that financial support for the Orphanage was re-established. Obst, Francke, 106. 22 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 520. From 1797 to 1802, 15 letters were exchanged between Nebe and Mühlenberg, 16 from 1802 to 1805, and merely six from 1805 to 1811. See tables i, k, m Appendix B, on pages 490, 491, 492. 23 Wie es übrigens jetzt in Deutschland aussieht, werden Sie wohl aus öffentliche[n] Blättern ersehen haben. Wir gehören zum Königr[eich] Westfalen. Die Universität Halle ist ganz gesun19

An American Network

337

re-establish ties with Halle once peace would return, his own death in May 1815 prevented him from doing so; the effective end of contact with the Halle medical trade must therefore be assumed to have happened during the fall of 1809. The four existing and two reconstructed letters exchanged with Nebe from March 1806 to November 1809 indicate that both the medical and the book trade continued on a more or less regular basis long into this turbulent period.24 Apparently, Nebe even found the time and means to procure botanical texts for Mühlenberg, who continued to order books by Willdenow, Michaux, Persoon, Schkuhr and Erik Acharius (1757–1819) even after 1806.25 Nebe’s last package to Lancaster was submitted in early 1807, which was detained in the harbor of Altona until September 1809 for lack of transport options.26 The gradual shutdown of secure transatlantic transport lines is also reflected in the fact that the van der Smissen & Söhne company at Altona, which had been a longstanding and reliable business partner of the Francke Foundations since the 1760s,27 went out of business. Until 1808, when the owner Jacob Gysbert suffered a severe stroke and was forced to hand over control to inexperienced relatives of his, the van der Smissen company was a regular mediator of nearly all postal traffic between Nebe and Mühlenberg.28 The demise of

24

25

26

27 28

ken und wird sich schwerlich wieder erholen. Past[or] Nebe lebt noch. From Sprengel, 11/20/1809, HSP Coll. 443. Die von Ihnen für mich gütigst besorgte Arzenei ist glücklich obwohl spät angekommen. Sie war mir um desto angenehmer weil gerade um die Zeit die traurige Nachricht von dem ausgebrochenen Krieg ankam, die mich mit dem innigsten Mitleiden für Halle erfüllt hat. Noch haben wir nur einseitige Nachrichten und ich wünsche von Herzen daß Ihre Gegend viel weniger gelitten als in unsren Zeitungen stand. Besonders wünsche ich daß die mir unvergeßlichen Anstalten des Waisenhauses durch göttliche Vorsehung beschützt worden. Bei allen noch so wunderlich scheinenden Zufallen hat der Herr seine Hand, vielleicht bedurfte Norddeutschland auch einmahl einer göttlichen Heimsuchung, damit Noth beßer aufs Wort merken und beten lehrte. To Nebe, 03/14/1806, AFSt M.4 D6. In March 1806, Mühlenberg ordered: 3 Willdenow Species plantar. Fortsetzung 2 ungebunden (…) 1 Michaux flora boreali Americ. 1 Persoon fungi novi Paris 1803 1 Schkuhr Carices. One year later, he renewed only his order of Willdenow’s work, apparently having received the other two works, and adding a treatise on Lichen by Acharius to the list: 3 Willdenovii Species plant. Fortsetzung nur 1 gebunden – halb fr. 1 Prediger Journal Fortsetzung1 Acharii methodus Lichenum halb franz. This, however, was the last book order by Mühlenberg. See the letters to Nebe dated 03/14/1806 and 01/21/1807, both in AFSt M.4 D6. Die Kiste mit Medicin und Büchern, welches Sie den 21t[en] Jan[uar] 1807 bestellt hat seit dem Julius deßelben Jahres in Altona gelegen, und auf ein Amerikanisches Schiff gewartet; allein der unselige Krieg hat den Abgang bisher aufgehalten, so daß die Kisten erste am Ende Sept[ember] dieses Jahres (…) nach Philadelphia an H[errn] Godfrey Haga daselbst zur weiter Beförderung hat abgeschikt. (…) Ales das macht der leidige Krieg und die Erlösung alter Sachen, die man bezahlen muß. From Nebe, 10/12/1809, AFSt M.4 D6. See above on page 63f. Münte, Van der Smissen, 17f.; 21. See for instance the letter from Nebe, 04/24/1804, AFSt M.4 D5: Ich werde Ihnen ein Duplicat, wenn ich erste an die H[erren] v[an] d[er] Smissen die Assecuranz und Fracht-Kosten Rechnung erhalten, alles berechne. und Ihnen anzeig [ungelesen] wie viel Sie an den H. Pastor Schmidt zu Philadelphia zu bezahlen haben. Ihre vorjährige Rechnung von 241 rl. 10 gl. 5 g werden Sie nun wohl schon an den H. Pastor Schmidt bezahlt haben; ich habe davon noch keine Nachricht. In 1815, Mühlenberg tried to contact the company again: I beg leave to send you the letters for Europe and recommend them to your care.

338

Letters from an American Botanist

their business in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars also left a big gap in the Halle transatlantic network, which in turn restricted Mühlenberg’s options to contact his German correspondents after 1808.29 Although he now disposed of a large number of contacts outside of Halle, Nebe had still been functioned as a “postbox” in his dealings with Schrader, Willdenow, Schkuhr and others for far too long to be easily replaced. In Erlangen, the situation did not look any better. Since 1791, the margravate of Ansbach-Bayreuth, to which Erlangen belonged, was a Prussian dominion. The new political affiliation had been fortunate in 1796 but turned out disastrous during the third War of Coalition after 1805, when Austria, Great Britain, Russia and Sweden joined forces against imperial France. In September 1806, French troops began a four-year occupation under Napoleon’s prefect Philippe-Marcellin Camille de Tournon-Simiane (1778–1833) who governed the margravate from Bayreuth. Tournon-Simiane put little pressure on the University of Erlangen, whose independence remained untouched, although he introduced sharp controls of all inbound and outbound postal traffic.30 Schreber, however, devoted very little space to political developments in his letters and preferred to speak rather obscurely of dreary days and altered circumstances in the hope of continuing their exchange as before.31 Despite the military occupation, Schreber probably felt secure with this plan as the University had just tapped new sources of financial support for its natural curiosities cabinet and the botanical garden around 1805. Both institutions had since been enlarged and overhauled to meet modern scientific standards.32 In March 1806, Mühlenberg addressed a letter to Schreber which was to be his last. Almost stoically, he repeated his good wishes and his goodwill to continue the exchange with Schreber, who first instilled in [him] a first favourable disposition towards grasses.33 Mühlenberg’s continuing efforts to keep the tie alive despite all past disShould you go to Hamburg first the House of Henry van der Smissen Son or Professor Ebeling and Doctor Flügge were formerly my Correspondent [sic!]. To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. See also the letter from Nebe, 04/08/1805, AFSt M.4 D6. 29 See table l, Appendix B, on page 491. 30 The French occupation of the duchy officially began with the conquest of Ansbach on January 23, 1806. On November 17, 1806, a public ovation was held in Erlangen in honor of Emperor Napoleon. Neigebaur, Leopoldino, 148; Schieber, Erlangen, 74f.; Bischoff, “Erlangen,” 62; Engelhardt, Erlangen, 85f. 31 Ich bin Ihnen für beides ausnehmend verpflichtet, und würde schon izo mit der letzteren aufwarten können, wenn die vielen trüben Tage, die wir in den verflossenen Monaten bis izo gehabt haben, mir es gestattet hätten, sie zu vollenden. (…)Mein Brief nach Neuyork, dessen für das Reich Gottes merkwürdige Veranlassung ich ein andermal erzählen werde, ist wegen veränderter Umstände nicht abgegangen, doch werde ich nächstens mit einer Gelegenheit an den theuren Herrn D[octor] Kunze schreiben. From Schreber, 02/16/1807, HUH Aut. Coll. 32 Engelhardt, Erlangen, 137; 140f. 33 Wenige rechte Kenner der Gräser sind zu finden, die mit dem guten Willen auch die nöthige Zeit haben mir behilflich zu sein. Ich wage es wieder mich an den zu wenden, der mir die erste Neigung für Gräser einprägte und mir durch Nomenclatur und schöne Specimina zur gewißen Kentnis derselb behilflich war. Sehen Sie ein frische Samlung von hiesigen Gräsern, die mir noch ungewiß sind oder die ich doch, so viel ich mich erinnern kann, noch nicht an sie ge-

An American Network

339

appointments run counter to the many negative diary entries on Schreber, which often ended in a resolve never to write to him again. Apparently, his diary observations do reveal much about the state of his feelings towards individual correspondents, but it must not be taken for granted that Mühlenberg stuck with earlier resolves whenever the faintest chance remained that a botanical contact might still turn out to be useful to him in the future. After all, what he was after in the first place were reliable scientific results – not harmonious relationships with botanists. Schreber’s answer reached Lancaster on July 7, 1807, and it was once again filled with excuses for further delays in returning plant determinations. At the same, Schreber asked for a huge number of specimens from him.34 The letter also confirmed his growing suspicions about the drawbacks of transatlantic botanical exchange, as Schreber complained about the poor quality of some previously sent specimens which he asked to be replaced by new ones.35 Again, Mühlenberg resolved in his diary to discontinue the exchange with Schreber,36 who died on December 10, 1810. This left Johann Jacob Palm as Mühlenberg’s only Franconian contact still alive, although their correspondence had been inactive since Palm’s last letter in August 1805. His book trading and publishing business suffered greatly from the French occupation and came to a virtual standstill from 1806 to 1810. In fact, the publishing house’s output was permanently reduced to re-editions of older titles at the time.37 Even Schreber found it impossible to have a new work printed,

34

35

36 37

schickt. Es sind etwa 78. Sind diese schon bekant, und von anderen beschrieben? Mit welchen Namen besonders in Michaux? Oder sind sie N[ova] S[pecies]? Wie könten sie in dem Fall genant werden? Vermuthlich werden viele in Schöpfii flora einen Nahmen bekomen haben. Mehrere haben sie etwa durch Hrn Kramsch oder Dallman oder andre Freund erhalten. To Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Hochwürdiger und hochgelehrter Herr hochzuverehrender Herr Doctor! den 7. November v[origen] J[ahres] hatte ich die Freude, ein gütiges Schreiben von E[uer] Hochwürden nebst einem Packet Gräser u[nd] a[nderer] Gewächse, deren Nomenclatur Sie verlangen, zu erhalten. Ich bin Ihnen für beides ausnehmend verpflichtet, und würde schon izo mit der letzteren aufwarten können, wenn die vielen trüben Tage, die wir in den verflossenen Monaten bis izo gehabt haben, mir es gestattet hätten, sie zu vollenden. Da ich aber eben vernehme, dass ein Schiff in Hamburg im Begriffe ist nach Philadelphia abzugehen, so sende ich einstweilen diesen Brief voraus, welchem die Namen, so bald als mir möglich sein wird, folgen sollen. From Schreber, 02/16/1807, HUH Aut. Coll. Ich habe teils durch euer Hochwürden Güte, theils durch die Mitteilung anderer Freunde eine ziemlich Partie nordamerikanischer Gewächse zusammengebracht, nur sind die Exemplare nicht immer so beschaffen, dass sie die Bestimmung erleichtern. (…) Inzwischen würde ich wohl auch manche Ihrer einzelnen Exemplare zu bestimmen vermögen, wenn Sie die Güte hätten von den Exemplaren, [ wovon 1–2 Spiculas abnehmen kann ] ohne daß es [ xxx ] wird, z[um] B[eispiel] von den Graminibus paniculatis, mir diese unter Nummern zu schicken, nur dass ja dadurch kein Exemplar unscheinbar gemacht werde! From Schreber, 02/16/1807, HUH Aut. Coll. Willdenow hat sein Versprechen ungemein schlecht gehalten und verdient nicht daß ich ihm mehr schicke. [E]s ist wohl beinahe zu viel geschickt. So Smith u[nd] Schreber. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 02/13/1808. Glas, Palm, 59. According to Glas, 568 individual titles were published by Palm from 1780 to 1826, 19,8 % of which were devoted to scientific subjects, 25,3 % to theology, 21,5 % to jurisprudence, 15,9 % to pedagogy and 17,5 % to other subjects. Glas, Palm, 58–60.

340

Letters from an American Botanist

as he confessed in his last letter to Mühlenberg.38 A major reason for the political pressure mounting on Palm after 1806 was the fate of his nephew Johann Philip Palm (1766–1806), who secretly published an anti-Napoleonic pamphlet entitled Deutschland in seiner tiefen Erniedrigung (“Germany in her deep humiliation”) in 1806. Johann Philip Palm was caught, tried and executed at Braunau on August 25, 1806, while his uncle’s publishing business was put under heavy surveillance by French authorities for the remainder of the occupation.39 On June 29, 1807, Mühlenberg noted the dispatch of one last letter to Palm at Erlangen, which is also the last mentioning of Palm both in Mühlenberg’s diaries and subsequent correspondence.40 By 1810, when French troops left Erlangen, Schreber was dead, Palm was almost ruined and Erlangen had lost almost all significance to Mühlenberg. 5.2 Nulla Salus Bello – Pacem te poscimus41 Since the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars, Europe had hardly seen a day of peace, and the German countries became the main theatre of war after 1803. In consequence, it was the central European part of Mühlenberg’s correspondence network that suffered most from the pressure on continental and transatlantic trade and traffic. Following Napoleon’s Berlin Decree on November 21, 1806, which prohibited all allied trade with the British isles, the British responded a year later with the Orders in Council, which banned all trade with French ports. On the American side, President Jefferson and secretary of state James Madison preferred to stay neutral which crystallized in the Non-Importation Act of 1806 and the Embargo Act of late 1807. These two acts legally prohibited the importation of British goods through American ports and denied all ships under American jurisdiction clearance to operate in foreign waters.42 Within this confusing system of mutual trade restrictions, submitting letters often became a game of sheer luck. The few letters in Mühlenberg’s correspondence with Persoon, Beauvois and Smith after 1806, however, proves the existence of certain loopholes in the system. If the recipient lived near a seaport, enjoyed diplomatic support or was located far from the front lines, there were still ways to continue sending packages, notes and letters. None of these preconditions, however, applied in the cases of Mühlenberg’s German contacts Sprengel, Schkuhr, Schrader, Schwägrichen and Willdenow. All of them had previously entrusted most 38 39 40 41

42

H[er]r Palm hat noch von dem sel[igen] Professor den Verlag übernommen; als ich aber zur Herausgabe schreiten wollte, we[i]gerte er sich sie zu übernehmen. Einen anderen Verleger habe ich noch nicht gefunden. From Schreber, 02/16/1807, HUH Aut. Coll. Glas, Palm, 11; Schieber, Erlangen, 75. It was only in 1810 that the number of new titles published by Palm rose to 26 again. Glas, Palm, 11. Jun[ius] 29. 1807 (…) Mein letzter Brief an Willdenow u[nd] Palm geht jetzt erst mit Little William nach Tönning. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/29/1807. Nulla salus bello – pacem te poscimus! = Nothing good there is in war, it is peace we demand from you! Quote taken from Publius Vergilius Maro “Virgil’s” (70 BC–19 BC) epic poem Aeneid. From Swartz, 03/30/1808, HSP Coll. 443. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Smith, 05/19/1808, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. Saalfeld, “Kontinentalsperre,” 125f.; Kaplan, “Napoleonic Wars, “ 203f.

An American Network

341

of their packages and letters to Nebe at the Orphanage. With this lifeline gone and no real alternative at hand, Mühlenberg’s contact with them was doomed to lay idle during these years.43 Sprengel, who lived and worked close to Nebe in Halle, also experienced the imminent impact of the war very early on. The University of Halle was shut down in 1806 by French occupation forces and some of its facilities were turned into lazarettos and military barracks. Curiously, the botanical garden was exempt from these restrictions, which allowed Sprengel to continue his work unmolested and to participate in the re-organization and re-opening of the University two years later as the central educational institution of the newly established kingdom of Westphalia.44 Until the arrival of the French army in October 1806, their correspondence had continued unimpeded. In late 1805 and early 1806, Sprengel sent two letters to Lancaster, whose reception Mühlenberg noted in his diary in April and July 1806, adding his resolve to answer soon as Sprengel’s second package contained his long desired personal copy of Michaux’ 1803 Flora.45 Mühlenberg’s letter from October 1806 was the last one to reach Sprengel without problems while it took Sprengel two years to get his answer on the way. In 1809, the year that also saw the end of contact with Nebe, Sprengel explained to Mühlenberg that your last letter, my dearest friend, dated the 7th October 1806 arrived here the following January 1807. I could not send an earlier response on account of the miserable naval blockade, but now the Hamburg contacts offer to take care of letters to America.46 Despite this 43

From 1805 to 1811, Mühlenberg continued to correspond irregularly with seven central European correspondents: Nebe, Schkuhr, Schrader, Willdenow, Sprengel, Palm, Schreber and his cousin Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg (1749–1833) in Einbeck. After 1811, this number dropped to four, most of which only appear through reconstructed letters presumably lost on the way to their destination: Sprengel, Schrader, Schwägrichen and Carl Daniel Heinrich Bensen’s (1761– 1805) widow Sophie Bensen (no data available). See tables m, n, Appendix B, on page 492. 44 Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 42, 56; Sprengel’s contributions to the University of Halle also earned him an honorary doctorate from the University of Halle in 1808. Koch, “Sprengel,” 463. 45 Ein Brief von Kurt Sprengel im Nov[ember] datiert, mit seiner Abhandl[ungen] von cryptog[ischen] Gewächs[en]. Sie ist andren Bot[anikern] u[nd] mir nur mit falsch Vornamen (Johan) gewidmet u[nd] enthält beträchtliche Bemerkunge auch Microscop[ische] Kupferstiche. Er führt verschiedene Filices aus N[ord]A[merika] an, aber nur unter meinem Nahmen. Es komt mir vorer muß sie bald unter die andren gethan hab ohne zu bemerk daß er sie von mir hat. Ich werde ihm antwort u[nd] ihm Specimina verspr[echen] wenn er mir zuvor meldet was ich ihm schon geschickt od[er] was ihm im Michaux fehlt. Von Lichenes u[nd] Moosen und filices wünsche ich besonders seine Meinung weil er darin sehr stark ist. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entries for 04/02/1806 and 07/21/1806. 46 Die von Ihnen für mich gütigst besorgte Arzenei ist glücklich obwohl spät angekommen. Sie war mir um desto angenehmer weil gerade um die Zeit die traurige Nachricht von dem ausgebrochenen Krieg ankam, die mich mit dem innigsten Mitleiden für Halle erfüllt hat. Noch haben wir nur einseitige Nachrichten und ich wünsche von [i]hr letzter Brief, mein teuerster Freund, vom 7ten Oktober 1806 kam im folgenden Januar 1807 hier an. Eher konnte ich ihn nicht beantworten, wegen der leidigen Seesperre; aber jetzt erbieten sich die Hamburger, Briefe nach Amerika zu besorgen.erzen daß Ihre Gegend viel weniger gelitten als in unsren Zeitungen stand. Wie es übrigens jetzt in Deutschland aussieht, werden Sie wohl aus öffentliche Blättern ersehen haben. Wir gehören zum Königr. Westfalen. Die Universität Halle ist ganz gesunken und wird sich schwerlich wieder erholen. From Sprengel, 11/20/1809, HSP Coll. 443.

342

Letters from an American Botanist

potential new option via Hamburg this was the last time that Sprengel managed to send cryptogamic plant identifications. In January 1815, Mühlenberg wondered in his diary whether he should ask Benjamin Smith Barton, who was planning an extended trip to Europe, to carry a letter to Halle.47 Between 1809 and January 1815, however, no evidence of further contact with Sprengel could be found. The development of Mühlenberg’s contact with Sprengel closely resembled his contact with Schkuhr in nearby Leipzig. Until 1807, correspondence with him had continued steadily, and in 1806, Mühlenberg even suggested to John Brickell in Savannah to open a private exchange with Schkuhr.48 The last letter between Schkuhr and Mühlenberg, however, dated from May 1807, wherein Schkuhr complained about the damage his botanical garden had taken during the war.49 After this letter, only one additional instance of direct contact could be found in December 1810, when Mühlenberg noted the reception of a package.50 Seven months later, Schkuhr died in Leipzig. Mühlenberg’s other Leipzig-based correspondent, Christian Friedrich Schwägrichen, kept up the work he had begun with Romanus Adolph Hedwig after the latter’s death in 1806, but apparently found no time to spare for the earlier botanical exchange with Mühlenberg. From Schkuhr’s last letter in 1807 Mühlenberg learned that Romanus Hedwig had died and that Schwägrichen had taken over his place – along with his work on the Species Muscorum.51 Schwägrichen apparently exchanged letters with Mühlenberg after 1803, and a brief passage from a letter to William Baldwin (1779–1819) composed just twelve days prior to Mühlenberg’s death in May 1815 supports the idea that their contact had ceased long ago.52 b) (...) Benj[amin Smith] Barton will im Marz nach Europa England Frankreich, Deutschland könte u[nd] solte ich Briefe mit geben? da er nicht gern communicirt möcht es für mich wenig helfen aber Briefe an Sprengel. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/04/1815. 48 M[iste]r Schkuhr at Wittenberg, who published an excellent Handbuch, and Treatise on Carices with Figures, has began the Cryptogamia in 4to. His Figures are noble and he will Figure all our Filices not yet figured. I have sent him such as grow in Pennsylvania. Could you send him the new Georgia Filices? (...) If you will spare some for him and have no other Opportunity, I will forward them in your Name. He is very gratefull and promises to send a Copy of his work. To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. 49 [I]n großen Kriegsunruhen beantworte ich Ihnen dieses, und sende Ihnen hiermit mein 4tes Heft der Farnkräuter. Seit ½ Jahre haben wir hier viele Einquartierung und Durchmärsche, wobei ich auch nebst meinem botanischen Garten viel gelitten habe, und Gott weiß, was wir dieses Jahr noch ersehen. In this unusually long and detailed four-page letter, Schkuhr included another list of plant identifications and a set of glass lenses for Mühlenberg. From Schkuhr, 05/26/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 50 Schkuhr, Willd u[nd] Schrader hab auch geantwortet. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/12/1810. In Willdenow’s case, see his letter to Mühlenberg, 05/14/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 51 From Schkuhr, 05/26/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 52 Mess[ieu]rs Schwaegrichen & Floerke were engaged to finish the Mosses and Lichens. The former has written the supplementa on Hedwig, – and he has generally my specimens, sent long ago to him. Floerke is well known to me; – a good Lichenographer. To Baldwin, 05/11/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 171. On occasion of Benjamin Smith Barton‘s projected European tour in 1815, Mühlenberg briefly considered recontacting Schwägrichen through Barton: Wenn 47

An American Network

343

From Willdenow, by whom Mühlenberg felt wronged after his two contributions to the Schriften of the Berlin Society of Friends of Natural History, he had received no further news since May 1804. In July 1807, Mühlenberg sent another letter to Berlin, where his former close contact still worked at the Collegium Medico-Chirurgicum. To Smith, he observed in May 1808 that [u]nluckily, M[iste]r Willdenow has not written to me for some time and I remain in Doubt with a number of Plants I sent to him.53 Further passages of similar contents show that Mühlenberg intented to wait for an answer by Willdenow.54 Two more letters arrived in Lancaster until 1812, when Willdenow died. The first contained a formal excuse for the interruption of the contact, which he also blamed on external circumstances, adding a promise for betterment, a long list of desired plants, and the latest edition of his Species Plantarum.55 Both this work and Willdenow’s Enumeratio Plantarum, published in 1809, contained large numbers of plants from the area around Lancaster, which reflected his impressive herbarium of 20,000 specimens.56 Mühlenberg only learned about the actual importance of his contributions to Willdenow’s works through a letter from Sprengel in 1809.57 In 1810, Willdenow accepted a call to the botanical chair of the newly founded University of Berlin. His final letter was submitted from Paris in 1811 where he consulted Michaux’ herbarium. Unfortunately,

53 54

55

56 57

Barton od[er] Ticknor nach Deutsch[land] gehen so wäre es gut bei Persoon, Schrader, Willd[enow] Schwägr[ichen] nach mein Nam[en] nachzusuchen u[nd] nach d[en] Namen zu fragen die sie nicht bestimmt haben (...) See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/21/1815. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 528. Mühlenberg continued: He only added my Name when he had not seen the Plant before. To Smith, 05/19/1808, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. To John Brickell, Mühlenberg had already observed in 1806 that [w]hat Willdenow will do, Time will show. To Dunbar he wrote after sending his 1807 letter that [a] great number of the new ones I sent to Willdenow the Editor of the last species Plantarum but he had finished one half of the classes before he received my specimens. So we will have to wait untill he prints his supplements. To Dunbar, 07/05/1808, Rowland, Papers of William Dunbar, 198. In 1809, Stephen Elliott was informed that [o]f Willdenow I can hear and see nothing, and do not know, whether he has published anything after the Polygamia. To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. Äußere Verhältniße haben lange einen mir überaus schätzbaren Briefwechsel unterbrochen. Jetzo höre daß die Schiffahrt mit Nordamerika wieder offen ist und ich mache gleich den Versuch an Sie zu schreiben. (…) Ich will hier alles nennen was mir besonders lieb sein wird und lege dabei Michaux flora zum Grunde. (…) Meine 3te Bitte würden trockene Pflanzen und vorzüglich Cryptogamen, Laubmoose, Lebermoose gg. betreffen, die mir sehr wünschenswert sein werden. (…) Sie sollen gleich nach deren Ankunft über alles Auskunft erhalten, was ich jetzo mehr als je im Stande bin, da ich mehrere Geschäfte die mich von der Botanik entfernen abgegeben habe, und allein dem Studio lebe. From Willdenow, 05/14/1809, HSP Coll. 443. Hein, “Willdenow,” 468; Hitchcock, “Grasses,” 27; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 3; Smith, “Botanical Pioneer,” 444; Cahill, “Correspondence,” 391; Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1326. Willdenow hat den Berliner Garten außerordentlich gehoben: seine enumeratio plantarum horti beroliense enthält eine Menge Pflanzen, die Sie entdeckt haben. Sie haben also dafür gesorgt, dass Ihr Andenken in der Wissenschaft dankbar erhalten werden wird. From Sprengel, 11/20/1809, HSP Coll. 443.

344

Letters from an American Botanist

Mühlenberg did not take notes on the letter’s contents in his diary.58 One year after his return from Paris he died in Berlin.59 Contact with Schrader in Göttingen, the last of Mühlenberg’s former “cryptogamic circle” in Germany, continued slightly longer than those with Willdenow and the others. No serious interruptions on account of the war seem to have occurred until September 1808, when Schrader had to admit that the only chance for him to submit this particular letter was by way of diplomatic contacts.60 After this, a period of silence ensued until December 1810, when Mühlenberg noted angrily that he did not expect any more letters from Göttingen.61 In the meantime, Schrader had become professor of medicine in 1809, and two years later he accepted the directorship of the medical and economical garden.62 In December 1810, Mühlenberg noted the reception of a letter from Schrader, which came to be the last one from Göttingen.63 In 1815, Mühlenberg asked the young Hispanist George Ticknor (1791– 1871) from Boston to carry a copy of his 1813 catalogue to Schrader and other old correspondents.64 From 1810 to 1815, Mühlenberg occasionally mentioned Schrader in his letters to several American friends and correspondents, although he never specified the current status of their contact or a possible continuation of correspondence at a later point.65

58 59 60

61 62 63 64

65

Willdenow sent a Letter to me from Paris where he has been during the last Winter to gather Supplements for his Species. Probably we will see Michaux better explained in those Supplements. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Willdenow,” Hein, “Willdenow,” 468. Da der Consul d[er] Vereinig[ten] Staaten soeben (…) bekannt machen lässt, dass er ein Schiff nach Amerika abgehen lassen wird; so benutze ich diese Gelegenheit, um mich bei Ihnen zu erkundigen, ob Sie das den 15. Sept[ember] 1807 an Sie durch Herrn Vogel abgeschickte Pakket erhalten haben. Da ich vergeblich diesen Sommer einem Packete oder Briefe von Ihnen entgegen gesehen habe, so bin ich wegen der richtigen Ankunft derselben etwas besorgt; From Schrader, 09/19/1808, HSP Coll. 443. Obs[ervation] Swarz antwortet doch am geschwindesten Schreber, Schkuhr, Schrader Willdenow hab aber die Zeit u[nd] auch Gelegenheit gehabt u[nd] da komt nichts. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/12/1810. Anonymous, “Reliquiae Schraderianae,” 354; Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie, s.v. “Schrader, H. A,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, “s.v. Schrader H. A,” Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 34; Wagenitz, “Schrader,” 78. Schkuhr, Willd[enow] u[nd] Schrader hab auch geantwortet. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/12/1810. In Germany Schrader at Gottingen, Curt Sprengel at Halle, Schwägrichen at Leipzig are my old Correspondents and will be glad to hear from America. At Paris Doctor Persoon and Palisot de Beauvois are my Correspondents. To each of those I enclose my Catalogue of N[orth] American Plants hitherto known and some Specimens chiefly not yet in my Catalogue for their Opinion. I beg you will deliver them yourself or send them with a safe Opportunity. To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. I have sent to Schrader very near all our Mosses and Lichens, to Persoon all our smaller Fungi which can be sent. To Elliott, 12/01/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Schrader and Persoon perhaps are the greatest Botanists in Germany for Cryptogamia, Both have many American Cryptogamia from me, Schrader of Musci and Lichenes, Persoon of Fungi. Of Fucus and Conserva I have sent but very little. To Collins, 02/01/1813, ANSP Coll. 129.

An American Network

345

5.3 France, England and Sweden While Mühlenberg’s German correspondences suffered from the war and its devastating impact on transport and communication, letter exchanges with countries on the European periphery remained relatively stable during the same period. This becomes most obvious in a graphic depiction of the ratio between contacts at the European periphery and those in central Europe: table o in Appendix B shows a clear dominance of central-European contacts until 1811, when contacts in Paris, England and Sweden for the first time outnumbered German ones.66 As it turned out, Beauvois and Persoon in Paris, Smith and Turner in England, and Mühlenberg’s new Swedish correspondents Olof Swartz (1760–1818) in Stockholm and Erik Acharius (1757–1819) in Vadstena, rose in importance in Mühlenberg’s otherwise shrinking Old World network. In Paris, where Michaux’ American herbarium held the promise of botanical treasures for Mühlenberg’s own publication plans, Persoon and Beauvois were eager to maintain their ties with America: On the 22nd I have received old letters, dated September 1803, from Beauvois and Persoon. They are instructive and I have to answer them, Mühlenberg noted in June 1806. I will send mosses and cryptogams to both of them.67 After repeated proposals for a botanical exchange with Mühlenberg, it was only from 1806 to 1809 that Persoon finally found the time and means to submit three letters in a row to Lancaster. Tragically, now it was Mühlenberg who could not get a letter through to Persoon until 1810.68 Persoon’s letter from September 1803, which was presumably written briefly after his move to Paris, is lost today. The first surviving letter from Paris dates from January 1806 and shows him poorly integrated into the scientific, social and economic life of the French capital, which confirms later biographical reports of dire financial and social problems.69 Never66 See table o, Appendix B, page 493. The ratio of letters exchanged with central European correspondents vs. peripherical contacts, however, still remained slightly in favor of the first group with 26 over 22 in a total of 48 letters submitted or received from Europe from 1805 to 1811 (Phase 5). See table m, Appendix B, page 492. 67 Den 22. habe ich alte Brief[e] schon im Sept[ember] 1803 geschr[ieben] von Beauvois u[nd] Persoon erhalt[en] die belehrend sind u[nd] die ich beantwort[en] muß. Ich werde an beide Moose u[nd] andre Cryptog[amia] schick[en]. He continued: Persoon hält um Moose Lichenes u[nd] Gräser an Beauv um alle Crypt Lycop March. Lichen u[nd] gewisse Moos[e] Persoon will[l] Standort (...) Beauvois gefallt mir in Nomenclatur beßer weil er (…) nicht so flüchtig ist. ich werde ihm alle noch nicht geschickt schick[en]. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/22/1806. 68 See above on page 301f. and respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 522f. In his third letter after 1806, Persoon acknowledged: Ich habe das Vergnügen gehabt, E[ue]r Hochehrwürden mehrmalen von hier zu schreiben; auch Ihnen zu gleicher Zeit meine hierausgegebenen Schriften zuzusenden, aber leider auf alles dieses niemalen Antwort bekommen: was wohl den traurigen Kriegsumständen, aber keineswegens, wie ich hoffe, einer geänderten Freundschafts-Gesinnung zuzuschreiben sey; From Persoon, 10/24/1809, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 69 To Mühlenberg, he explained: Von Ihnen aber, wertester H[err] Doktor, erwarte ich Beiträge von neuen oder seltenen Pflanzen (cum differentia specifica 5. gereria et loco natali) zum letzteren Werk, welches ich zum teil jetzt wünsche nicht unternommen zu haben, denn ich finde hier

346

Letters from an American Botanist

theless, this letter was the first one in a nearly uninterrupted series of nine letters over the next nine years to which Mühlenberg responded in a series of five letters after October 1810.70 While Mühlenberg was unaware of the future course of the contact in 1806, he must have been excited by Persoon’s promise to seek access to Michaux’ herbarium. What is more, Persoon also expressed his scepticism about the theoretical underpinnings of Michaux’ 1803 Flora and even urged Mühlenberg to write a negative review which he promised to see to press.71 Persoon repeatedly asked for mosses, lichen and filices specimens.72 Finally, in January 1810, Mühlenberg submitted a package which reached Paris only in early January 1812 for unknown resons.73 Mühlenberg’s diaries do not reveal whether he actually submitted

70 71

72

73

die gewünschte Aufmunterung nicht. Der Franzose hat nicht die deutsche Biederkeit, dagegen ist er neidisch und verläumderisch. Die Botaniker haben hier so gar keine Harmonie zusammen, und misgönnt einer dem anderen eine neue Entdeckung in einer Wissenschaft, die doch zum Glück der Menschen, zum wenigsten zum Trost und Aufheiterung in der Kränkung eigentlich anzusehen sei; doch wie ist nicht von jeher die edelsten Bedürfnisse der Menschen, zum Beisp[iel] selbst in der Religion, durch niedrige Leidenschaften getrübt worden! From Persoon, 01/21/1806, HSP Coll. 443. Persoon’s main problem was that, on account of the war, he did not receive the promised annuities from the Dutch government. To his family he confessed in 1810: I am a fellow of various learned societies and a Doctor of Philosophy. But although these things bring honour and satisfaction, they produce few earnings, so that, did I not receive from Amsterdam (...) the wherewithal for my keep, I should not be able to live here very comfortably. Quoted after Hugo, “Persoon,” 14. This also resembles the correspondence pattern with Persoon’s neighbor Palisot de Beauvois. See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 498 and 522. Michaux’s Herbarium wird hier im Jardin des Plantes aufbewahrt. Es wird mir daher nicht schwer fallen, die mir zur Vergleichung übersandten (und unnummerierten) Pflanzen nach Michaux zu bestimmen: dies zur Antwort auf Ihre Anfrage. Allein die Amerikanische H[erren] Botaniker werden wohl nicht ganz mit dieser Flora Amer[icae] Bor[ealis] von M[ichaux] zufrieden sein; denn sie mag wohl mehr als ein Prodromus anzusehen sein u[nd] außerdem ist sie von H[errn] Prof[essror] Richard, ziemlich flüchtig nach einzeln Zetteln von dem s[eligen] Michaux, und zum Teil mangelhaften Exemplaren verfertigt. Ein so guter Botaniker H[err] Richard übrigens sein mag. Schicken Sie mir doch einen weitläufige Recension über dies Machwerk, die ich dann in ein deutsches bot[anischen] Journal werde einrichten lassen. From Persoon, 01/21/1806, HSP Coll. 443. Persoon repeated this suggestion in 1807, as Mühlenberg apparently showed no reaction: Mit vielem Verlangen sehe ich einer Antwort von Ihnen entgegen. Teilen Sie mir doch ins Detail Ihre Meinung über Michaux’ Flora mit, wovon M. Prof. Richard der hauptsächliche Verfasser ist. Sind Sie sonst mit Michaux’s Eichen Werk zufrieden? From Persoon, 12/16/1807, HSP Coll. 443. Zur sicheren Entscheidung dieses Zweifels überschicken Sie mir gefälligst ein Exemplar von der Bartonia, so wie überhaupt solche Pflanzen, über deren Benennung nach Michaux Sie ungewiss sind. (…) Alles das wurde mir zu meinem großen Werke über die cryptogamischen Gewächse sehr wichtig sein. From Persoon, 12/16/1807, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letters from Persoon, 01/21/1806, HSP Coll. 443, and 10/24/1809, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. Es gewährte mir ein großes Vergnügen endlich von Ihnen eine Antwort zu bekommen. Allein Ihr freundschaftliches und wissenschaftlich sehr interessantes Schreiben vom 10. Januar 1810 erhielt ich erst vor etlichen Tagen. Was die Ursache dafür außerordentlichen Verzögerung, da man sonst von Amerika höchstens in 2 Monathen Briefe bekommen kann, seyn mag, kann ich mir nicht erklären. From Persoon, 01/30/1812, HSP Coll. 443.

An American Network

347

any letters to Persoon from 1806 to 1810 or whether any of these might have miscarried or got lost on the way.74 Mühlenberg’s other Parisian contact Palisot de Beauvois, whom he knew from his years in exile in Philadelphia during the 1790s, was apparently free of any serious disruptions. Only once in June 1807, Beauvois blamed the war for delays and missing packages,75 although he seemed capable of finding ways to smuggle letters to Mühlenberg. After a brief but intense period of contact from October 1802 to October 1803, during which four letters were exchanged, the contact suddenly broke off until a further letter reached Lancaster in 1807. It was through William Dandridge Peck of Boston, who would join Mühlenberg’s circle of American correspondents shortly afterwards, that Beauvois managed to send this first letter after 1803. For his second, dating from September 1810, he had the luck to meet Rembrandt Peale (1778–1860) during the latter’s stay in Paris from 1809 to 1810. His father, Charles Willson Peale (1741–1827), had employed Beauvois sporadically in the 1790s.76 In both letters, Peale confirmed the reception of mosses by Mühlenberg, which were specifically sent to be compared with Michaux’ specimens. In return, Beauvois sent his own works, which contained discussions of Mühlenberg’s specimens.77 Beauvois asks for mosses and gramina, Mühlenberg noted in his diary in January 1811. I should offer all I can to him, including grasses.78 Unfortunately, 74

To Peck in Boston, Mühlenberg acknowledged in January 1810 the submission of letters to his correspondents in Paris and to James E. Smith in Norwich. Due to the close temporal proximity to the letter received in January 1812, it is impossible to decide whether these were individual submissions or not. Given Mühlenberg’s resolve to be more cautious about feeding information into his web, I doubt that Mühlenberg submitted two individual letters to Persoon in 1810. The passage reads: I have written to several of my Friends there especially M[iste]r Beauvois and Persoon to do it for me but have not received a full answer. D[octor] James E. Smith does the same for me with Linnaeus’s Herbarium, but Correspondence is much interrupted by the unlucky wars. Nulla salus bello pacem te poscimus omnes. To Peck, 01/10/1810, APS Coll. 509 L56. From 1803 to 1810, however, there are no further references to letters sent by Mühlenberg to Persoon. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 522. 75 From Beauvois, 06/23/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 76 Je profite de l’occassion de M[onsieur] Peck professeur d’histoire naturelle à Boston pour vous adresser cette lettre (...). From Beauvois, 06/23/1807, HSP Coll. 443. I take the opportunity of M[ister] Rembrand Peale who is on his departure for Philadelphia to write to you and give you my thanks for the mosses you sent with the letter dated the Februari 1st 1808. From Beauvois, 09/14/1810, HSP Coll. 443. 77 J’ai eu l’honneur au vous accusant la reception de quelques Mousses que vous avez eu la bonté de m’envoyer, de vous faire passer 1e. la permiere Cahier de ma flora d’Oware et du Benin qui en contient aujourd’hui dix Cahiers. 2e. plusieurs Mousses que j’avais recoltées dans 4rtos epais et qui ne faisaient pas partis de celles que j’ai recu de vous. Je vous priais en même temps de m’envoyer en plus grand quantité celles que vous m’avez fait passer. From Beauvois, 06/23/1807, HSP Coll. 443. If it is possible I shall be very happy of receiving all american species. You may send them, Sir, with the cryptogamias you say in your last you have collected for me, by this way of your ambassador or chargé d’afffaire in Paris. It is the only way to receive safely what you please to send. If there is in France any plants or other objects of natural history you may desire, pray Sir, notice me them and I shall take the greatest pleasure to send them to you. From Beauvois, 09/14/1810, HSP Coll. 443. 78 Beauvois hält an um Moose u[nd] Gramina, ich solte bei ihm mögl[ichst] von alles anbiet[en]

348

Letters from an American Botanist

the two letters that Beauvois received from Lancaster in 1808 and 1810 could not be detected, which leaves the question as to how they were transported unanswered. During the same time, no letters reached Persoon, although he addressed Mühlenberg repeatedly from 1806 to 1810. In addition to the letters exchanged with Beauvois and Persoon, Mühlenberg hosted another prominent Paris botanist in his Lancaster home in June 1808. François André Michaux (1770–1855), the son of André Michaux, would have been a most important contact for someone who sought access to the Michaux herbarium as eagerly as Mühlenberg. Since the death of Michaux’ father in 1802, he had been busy to sort out the legacy and organize the publication of some unfinished works in Paris. In 1805, he published his Mémoire sur la naturalisation des arbres forestiers de l’Amérique septentrionale, which once again took up the theme of the cultivation of economically interesting New World trees and plants. A subsequent, government-sponsored voyage to North America from 1805 to 1808 was supposed to promote research in this field. It was in the context of this trip that Michaux contacted Mühlenberg shortly before his return to France in 1808. Until his arrival in the Philadelphia area, Mühlenberg followed Michaux’ plans and travels around Charleston primarily through American correspondents.79 In June and July 1808, Michaux called twice on Mühlenberg to botanize with him around Lancaster,80 which he recorded in his diary.81 In June 1811, Michaux sent a single letter to Mühlenberg but made no mentioning of any contact in the meantime. For lack of further evidence, it must be assumed that their contact was actually confined to Michaux’ 1808 visit and his letter in 1811.

79

80

81

auch für Gräser (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/01/1811. Just briefly later, Mühlenberg added: Beauvois verdient daß ich bald an ihn schreibe. Vielleicht durch Peale 1) ihm danken für sein Werk ... (…) 3) ihm solche Moose schicken die er von mir noch nicht erhalten (…) 4) ihn bitten bei Humbold u[nd] Bonpland um die Ansicht meiner mitgegeben Gräser anzuhalten u[nd] sie nach d[en] Nummern zu vergleich[en]. Botany, a notebook See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1811. 18 den 2t[en] Brief von Lyon. Michaux ist nach Carolina u[nd] soll sich 3 Jahr[e] in America aufhalt[en], he acknowledged in his diary in March 1807. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/18/1807. On June 22, 1807, he recorded the visit of William Hamilton, who had met Michaux and doubted his competence as a botanist. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/22/1807. 1. Juni [abends Besuch von Michaux] (…) Juli 7 soll ich einen Gang mit Michaux nehmen besonders weg. Juglans (…) Viel Belehrung und Vergnügen habe ich aus diesem Besuch erhalten er geht d[en] 8t. von hier über Marshalls nach Philadelphia. Er erzählt dass sich die wahre Ceder in Asia völlig verloren hat aber jetzt in England und Frankreich häufig zu find sind. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/01/1808. Michaux 1) verlangt ein Gill Samen von Pyrus botryassaium 2) sagt er habe an D[oktor] Barton seines Vaters Anmerk[ungen] von d[er] Geogr[aphie] der Pflanzen mitgetheilt 3. Jussieu verlangt sehr meine Flora zu seh u[nd] andre 4. Raffinesque hat an Hosack Engravings von Moose u[nd] fungi geschickt 5. Barton hat ihm nichts von s[einem] Herbario gewiesen 6. Richard ist herrlicher Mann 7. Jeff[erson] hat die Mss. u[nd] Herbarium v[on] Michaux 8. Er räth meine Flora Lateinisch zu lassen 9. Ich werde die Gramina u[nd] Cryptog[amia] zu recht machen auch wohl plantas dubias mit Mich[auxs] Herb[arium] zu vergleichen. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/01/1808.

An American Network

349

While keeping up the flow of letters to and from Paris was difficult but not impossible, Mühlenberg’s recently revived correspondence with James E. Smith and Dawson Turner in Norwich and Yarmouth entered into its most fertile and rewarding phase since 1797.82 Smith submitted three letters until December 1807, all of which contained long lists of plant identifications prepared by Turner.83 By May 1808, when the Continental System, the British Orders in Council and American trade restrictions were in full effect, Mühlenberg acknowledged difficulties in sending packages84 but shortly afterwards confirmed to Smith that their channel of communication was still working and was actually safer than all his other ones.85 Doctor James E. Smith has about 840 Plants from Lancaster Pens[ylvania] which I sent to him to compare with the Linnaean Herbarium, he informed Peck in 1809, but I had no Opportunity to send any to Paris or London, being hindred by the Uncertainty of Navigation.86 With the outbreak of war in 1812 this changed almost over night. It seems an Age to me since I had any Letter from You or of any of my former 82 Smith and Mühlenberg had first established contact in 1792, exchanging 16 letters until 1797, five from 1797 to 1802, five from 1802 to 1805, and seven from 1805 to 1811. See tables g, i, k, Appendix B, 489, 490, 491. 83 Your very acceptable Letter dated Dec[ember] 22. 1807 came safe to my Hands and has added much to the Obligations I owe you already, Mühlenberg wrote in May 1808. Unluckily I am hindered by the Times to send any Thing in Return except a Letter. May the Storm soon blow over and leave us in Peace an Tranquility. Nulla salus bello pacem te poscimus omnes. To Smith, 05/19/1808, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. See also Smith’s letters dated, 02/17/1806, 03/18/1807 and 12/22/1807, all in HSP Coll. 443. For the style and pattern of their exchange, see Smith’s letter to Mühlenberg, 03/18/1807, HSP Coll. 443: My dear Sir, I find it impossible to write to you so often as I wish. (...) These are all that Mr. Turner has made any remarks on but he complains loudly of the very miserable specim[en]s in general. (...) I can add no more at present, but in about two months I expect to send a box of books to a friend at New York, & will write again then & send you some mosses. (...)I have not yet got Michaux’s work, & very lately Vahl’s Enumeratio, so that I have not been able to look for any of your plants there. 84 He continued: Whenever Navigation opens I shall do my best. The pleasure to send more Specimens of our Gynandria and such dubious Plants as were sent imperfect. (...) I send this to New York for the Packet and will wait untill Navigation is clear, before I send a bulky Packet, with a heartfelt Gratitude for all your Goodness and instructive Letters. To Smith, 05/19/1808, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 85 Your acceptable Letter dated Sept[ember]2, 1809 arrived safe a few Days ago and gave me great Pleasure. It is the only one besides one from Professor Olav Swarz from Stockholm which I have received from my numerous European Correspondents. Indeed all Correspondence seems to be stopt for us. My last letter to you was dated May 20, 1808 in Answer to your Letter of Dec[ember] 1807. Whether it has arrived you do not mention. To Smith, 11/08/1809, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 86 To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll. In December 1810, however, Mühlenberg was still so convinced of the reliability of his contact with England that he urged Stephen Elliott from Savannah to open a private correspondence with Turner in Yarmouth. I suppose the Conservae ought to be put for some Time in Water before Examination and even then they will not show as well as a Moss or Lichen. If you send them to England Mr. Dawson Turner in Yarmouth I suppose would be fittest to examine them. To Elliott, 12/17/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 02/01/1811, HUH Elliott Papers.: If you choose to write to Mr. Turner who is an excellent Character and understands Fucus and Conserva better than perhaps any other Botanist his Direction is: Dawson Turner Esq. Yarmouth Norfolk Co. England.

350

Letters from an American Botanist

botanical Correspondents, a dismayed Mühlenberg wrote to Smith in late December 1813. Botany has suffered much as almost every Science by the unhappy Interruption of mutual Communications. Nulla Salus bello, pacem te proscimus omnes.87 It was the final letter by Mühlenberg to reach Smith. In addition to the growing problems in submitting letters, the years between 1805 and 1811 also saw the lowest number of entries of new European correspondents since Mühlenberg’s first transatlantic letter to Fabricius in 1784.88 The only new direct contact that he managed to establish during this period was in the country of Linnaeus. Olof Swartz (1760–1818) was Sweden’s most prominent and versatile botanist at the time.89 Even by contemporary standards, Swartz was an extremely ambitious and almost obsessive scientific letter writer whose contacts included many of Mühlenberg’s prior and future correspondents such as Schrader, Sprengel and Schreber in Erlangen. With the latter, Swartz had been in permanent contact since 1789.90 This fact makes it rather surprising to see that Mühlenberg and Swartz did not establish contact at an earlier point in time. There are several external circumstances that explain this situation.91 These circumstances were linked to Swartz’ biography and work as a cryptogamic botanist after 1791. Born into a “middle station”92 family in Norköpping, eastern Sweden, Swartz went to Uppsala in 1778 to study with Linnaeus. He arrived

87 88 89 90

91

92

See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers; and to Baldwin, 01/20/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 156. To Smith, 12/28/1813, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. See table p, Appendix B, on page 493. This is a contemporary view by Sprengel in his obituary for Swartz in 1818. Sprengel, Memoir, 18. Swartz regularly corresponded with Mühlenberg’s contacts Sprengel in Halle, Schrader in Göttingen, Sturm in Nuremberg and, most notably, Schreber in Erlangen. There are fourteen letters from July 1789 to December 1813 in Swartz’ hand, deposited in the Schreber bequest at the University Archives Erlangen (Schreber Nachlass VI MS 1923). Actually, Mühlenberg probably first read about Swartz in a letter from Palm dating from 1791, while it was Schreber who had first connected Swartz and Palm. The latter published several works by Swartz in Germany in the following years. Desgleichen sind von dem [sehr?] schönen Werk, das ich von Herrn D[oktor] Swarz in Schweden durch die gütige Besorgung unseres (…) Herrn Hofrath Schreber erste kürzlich verleget habe 2. Exempl[are] in der Kiste befindlich, welches ebenfalls dortig Abnehmer finden wird. From Palm, 07/27/1791, APS Film 1097. See also Glas, Palm, 114f. Sprengel wrote in his obituary on his qualities as a correspondent: “The liberality of this excellent man, free from all jealousy or envy, is celebrated by every one who had any dealings with him in a literary way: with the same benevolence, he transmitted to his friends the rarest plants, as well as the most excellent remarks written by himself.” Sprengel, Memoir, 24; Galloway, “Acharius,” 150. According to information kindly given in July 2008 by Ann-Charlotte Knochenhauer, archivist at the National Library of Sweden, Stockholm, no letters from Mühlenberg’s hand to Swartz could be located in his bequest. This becomes obvious also through the tone of Swartz’s response letter dated January 2, 1807: Dear Sir. Your letter of the 25th Oct[ober] 1805 has afforded me an infinite pleasure; I am only sorry, that it has not been in my power to answer you sooner, as I final [sic!] now (more than a twelfmonth later) have received your most desirable sendings. From Swartz, 01/02/1807, HSP Coll. 443. Sprengel, Memoir, 17.

An American Network

351

just months prior to the latter’s death and finished his studies with his son, Carl Linnaeus the younger (1741–1783). Upon completion of his dissertation in 1783, Swartz embarked on a peregrinatio academica, which took him to the West Indies, South America, Jamaica and Philadelphia, where he met Manasseh Cutler.93 Taking a detour via London, where he added the names of Joseph Banks, James E. Smith and other notables of British botany to his address book, Swartz finally returned to Stockholm in 1789. Most important for the present study, however, are Swartz’ subsequent correspondences with James E. Smith from 1791 to 1813, with Dawson Turner from 1802 to 1818, and with another Swedish botanist, Erik Acharius (1757–1819), from 1792 to 1815. The latter joined Mühlenberg’s web of contacts after 1811.94 In 1791, Swartz became a full-time professor and director of Stockholm’s famous botanical garden, the Hortus Bergianus, and soon acquired a reputation as a resourceful cryptogamic researcher. This was also the reason for most of his correspondence with the two Englishmen and with Acharius at Vadstena.95 Until 1801, these two channels of correspondence remained separate, presumably without Smith nor Turner nor Acharius knowing much of each others’ activities. Acharius is remembered today as “Linnaeus’ last student,” as the great Swedish botanist had presided the cathedra for the last time in his life during Acharius’ defensio in 1776. As the son of a customs officer in Gävle, situated on the Baltic coast of central Sweden, Acharius was called a “botanical prodigy” early in his life and was already dreaming of a scientific career. At a very young age, he was invited to join expeditions to Mexico, Peru and Chile and worked as a botanical illustrator for the Swedish Royal Academy afterwards. In 1789, however, he accepted a relatively quiet position as district doctor in rural Vadstena.96 He lived there for the rest of his life with his family, working on a revolution in cryptogamic research which would shake its subbranch “Lichenology” in 1803.97 Swartz closely followed his friend’s progress since 1792 and provided him with the necessary plant materials and specimens for which Acharius often had no other source, due to his remote position in Vadstena.98 By the turn of the century, Swartz began to realize the actual dimensions and significance of Acharius’ work on lichens and suggested to Turner a close 93 94 95 96 97

98

Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 375; Sprengel, Memoir, 17–19. There is no indication that Swartz and Mühlenberg met or even took notice of each other during Swartz’s 1783–1786 voyage. Swartz’ personal ties with Smith must have been specifically tight and intimate, as Smith submitted original specimens from Linnaeus’ herbarium to Swartz at several occasions. Galloway, “English lichenology,” 152. Swartz had first emerged as a cryptogamist with his 1781 dissertation which was entitled Methodus Muscorum Illustrata. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 375; Sprengel, Memoir, 19–23. In 1795, Acharius was promoted to chief physician of the new Vadstena Kurhuset (hospital). Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 110–12; Galloway, “Evolution,” 120. Karnefelt has even dubbed Acharius as the “Father of Lichenology.” Until Acharius’ Lichenographiae Svecicae prodromus (1799) and Methodus qua omnes detectos lichenum (1803), lichen were treated as a collective genus, due to the lack of appropriate descriptive criteria. Their establishment is Acharius’ lasting contribution to cryptogamic research. Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 116f.; Galloway, “Acharius,” 149. From 1792 to 1815, the two men exchanged 360 letters. Galloway, “Evolution,” 120; Galloway, “English lichenology,” 152; 149.

352

Letters from an American Botanist

collaboration between him, Turner, Smith and Acharius in 1801. The aim was to promote Acharius’ discoveries and innovations as an extension of the Linnean system in England. At the time, Smith and Turner were the country’s leading experts in cryptogamics and they were hardly excited when they first learned of the nature of Acharius’ lichenographical approach.99 Nevertheless, a circle of scientific collaboration emerged between Stockholm, Vadstena, Yarmouth and Norwich, which resembled Mühlenberg’s cryptogamic circle but actually represented the cutting edge of contemporary botanical research.100 Apart from Smith and Turner, Acharius also corresponded with Mühlenberg’s cryptogamic contacts Persoon and Schrader.101 In the end, Acharius’ basic system was quickly adopted and needed to be extended in order to cover lichen specimens from foreign regions. Given Mühlenberg’s recently reinvigorated cryptogamic exchange with Turner and Smith, it seems logical to assume that one of the two Englishmen suggested to Swartz or Acharius to enter into contact with the Lancaster botanist in order to procure lichens from there.102 The exact circumstances of the beginning of Mühlen99 Galloway, “Swartz,” 120f.; 149; 163f. Smith was very reluctant at first. In a letter dated April 24, 1804, he informed Acharius: Neither dare I change names so freely as you have done. I must keep in view those Laws of Linnaeus which are sanctioned by experience and founded in justice. Quoted after Galloway, “English lichenology,” 165. Turner soon began applying the system, still nursing second thoughts about it: Our botanical nomenclature is already so extensive and intricate as to be perplexing to all, even to those most conversant with the subject, and to deter many from joining us in the prosecution of the science; yet considerations of this nature must not be allowed to be carried too far. Every branch of human knowledge requires in proportion to its development an extension of its technical terms, without which its progress would effectually be checked. Had this been denied, the discoveries of Linnaeus or of Hedwig themselves had been nipped in the bud. Quoted after Galloway, “English lichenology,” 165. 100 Galloway has unearthed and described the intense collaboration and interconnections between Smith, Turner, Acharius and Swartz after 1802. See Galloway, “English lichenology,” 150f. The traces of this cluster correspondence can be found in various archives and libraries in Sweden and England. At the University Library of Uppsala, there are three letters by James E. Smith (dated 1801–1806) to Acharius, three by Turner (all 1806). In the case of Olof Swartz, there are three letters by Smith (1800–1813) at the Gustav von Brinkmann Collection, Trolle Ljungby Castle, Bäckaskog, nine further letters by Smith at the Royal Academy of Sciences (1791–1809) and 18 from Dawson Turner (1801–1816). The Linnean Society Archives at London hold eight letters from Acharius to Smith (1799–1813) and ten from Swartz to Smith (1795–1816). Five letters from Acharius to Dawson Turner (1804–1813) and 21 from Swartz to Turner are today located at Trinity College Archives, Cambridge, UK. Galloway, “English lichenology,” 150; 167. In 1801, Acharius was also elected a member of the Linnean Society of London. Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 116. 101 Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 118f.; Especially Schrader in Göttingen was helpful in seeing the final edition of Acharius’ Lichenographia Universalis (1810) to the press. Galloway, “English lichenology,” 171. 102 For the development of Mühlenberg’s relationship with Smith and Turner after 1802, see above on page 306f. During the work on this study, it was impossible to procure copies of the letters between Smith, Turner, Acharius and Swartz as cited by Galloway in note 90 above, in order to support this claim. In Mühlenberg’s diaries, however, Swartz does not appear prior to January 2, 1806, when Mühlenberg remarked in a margin note: Es sind mir Briefe schuldig 1. R. Hedwig – sonst genau 2. Schrader 2 3. Willdenow (...) 4. Swartz 5. Smith langsam Nov. 19 6. Beauvois 7. Persoon (…) 8. Hoffman 9. Schreber 10 Turner langsam 11. Schkuhr gut Jul 1805 12 Brik-

An American Network

353

berg’s contact with Sweden remain obscure, although it appears that Mühlenberg mainly served as a supplier of specimens. With his reliable services in procuring North American specimens, Acharius could continue his groundbreaking research in lichenology. This also ties in with Swartz’ fresh interest in North America, who briefly stood in correspondence with Benjamin Smith Barton in 1805 and was made an A.P.S. member in 1806.103 Consequently, the botanical exchange between Swartz and Mühlenberg focused on lichen specimens and followed the established method of numerous previous European correspondences: Mühlenberg provided unknown specimens which Swartz would determine and return named and scientifically described for Mühlenberg’s herbarium. At times, Swartz also included cryptogamic specimens of the moss and other orders himself.104 In Philadelphia, Nils Collin (1746–1831), the Swedish-born pastor of Old Swedes’ Church and head of the local Swedish Lutheran congregation, often functioned as their middleman.105 Acharius is not mentioned as the chief recipient of Mühlenberg’s specimens until 1808, when a pattern emerged that resembled the division of labor between Smith and Turner: Swartz received specimens from Lancaster, forwarded them to Acharius, who returned scientific information, which Mühlenberg would receive by the hand of Swartz.106 kell Jan 5 13. Dallman 14 Sprengel. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/02/1806 [margin notes]. 103 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 375. 104 In the first surviving letter from this correspondence, Swartz summarized their deal in the following passage: I long with utmost desire for the parcel of your Lichens (...) Can you regale me with any of them? But pardon my greediness. Nay new and non descript moss or lichens would be equally welcome. If I can serve you in any way in return, you may depend upon it. What I have of grasses or mosses I will try to send you in the course of the summer. From Swartz, 01/02/1807, HSP Coll. 443. In his diary, Mühlenberg often noted his packages to Swartz: Jun. 29. 1807 (…) (…, nächste Seite) Heute habe ich für Olof Swartz zurecht gemacht: (Liste 1–8, …). Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/29/1807. This continued until 1811: In this I acknowledged the receipt of the parcel in 8vo covered with green wachscloth and addressed to Mr. Cranchel in Gottenburg, by which most agreable present you have highly obliged me. I am rather ashamed that the present opportunity does not permit me to send you anything but an explanation of those Cryptogamiste, which I lately received from you. From Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 105 I hope also, that my good friend, Doc[tor] Collin will take care of anything for me; If the consul. Mr. Soderström should be at Philadelphia, I am sure, he will also do me the favor of forwarding. From Swartz, 01/02/1807, HSP Coll. 443. Collins also collaborated with Benjamin Smith Barton, often giving support to Barton’s efforts to establish secure transatlantic correspondences, specifically to Swedish contacts. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 299: “Collin was a source of advice to Barton on foreign correspondents, and how letters might safely be transmitted.” 106 This becomes obvious first in a letter by Swartz to Mühlenberg in March 1808, although Swartz’ and Acharius’ arrangement presumably predated this letter: If I am happy to receive your last sendings, I will not procrastinate the first possible moment of giving you my opinion and that of my worthy friend Acharius about the contents. From Swartz, 03/30/1808, HSP Coll. 443. In a similar fashion, Mühlenberg described the arrangement to Stephen Elliott in 1811: My friend Olof Swarz has not yet returned me a full Answer on the Mosses and Lichens I sent to him. He sent the Lichens to Acharius for Inspection, who no Doubt will describe them in Supplements to his Lichenographia. Swarz himself is now apublishing a Muscologia in which

354

Letters from an American Botanist

Mutual trust, a necessary precondition for any scientific exchange at the time, was obviously quickly substituted by Mühlenberg’s good reputation with Smith, Turner and other mutual correspondents.107 A massive disturbance of the Swartz-Mühlenberg correspondence, however, came with the decision of Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden (1778–1837) to join the third alliance against Napoleon in 1805 which eventually brought war to the northern kingdom. In the wake of the Peace of Tilsit with Napoleonic France in 1807, the kingdom’s former ally Russia invaded the Finnish parts of Sweden, while Denmark declared war shortly thereafter.108 I am indeed sorry it has not been at all in my power to dispatch any thing for America the last year as we have been and are actually in a still worse situation now for communicating with the world, Swartz explained in March 1808.109 All wartime disturbances notwithstanding, Mühlenberg’s

he intends to be very general. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. In Mühlenberg’s later letters to Baldwin from 1811, Swartz and Acharius often appear as an inseparable team: They are both extremely well versed in Cryptogamia. To Baldwin, 08/20/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 42. Apart from Mühlenberg, Archibald Menzies (1754–1842) provided North American lichen specimens to Acharius, which he had collected during his scientific voyages in the 1790s. Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 119. 107 This becomes especially obvious in the one cherished contact of Johann Hedwig and son, which both Mühlenberg and Swartz had shared until the two Hedwigs’ deaths in 1799, respectively in 1806. My formerly amicable relation with my ever deplored friends, the Hedwigs, father and son, has made me tolerably well acquainted with all the objects described by them. Also, Swartz revealed his skepticism about de Jussieuan botany, as he found it in Michaux and Beauvois, obviously pushing at an open door with Mühlenberg: Palisot Beauvois is in Paris, placed at the nat[ional] Institut with 3000 Livres a year from the Emperor! He has published a prodroma de Aetheogamie, by which he intends to turn the Hedwigian System topsy turvy. I hope he will not prosper. He pretends [illegible] !! He has communicated me several things very civilly, and publishes now his splendid work, the Flora d’Oware & de Benin. All quotes in Swartz’ letter to Mühlenberg, 01/02/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 108 Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 115. 109 He continued: I could not find an opportunity safe enough to forward any parcel for you acct. as I constantly wished. The present circumstances puts it also out of question, as the country itself is become!! the Theatre of War. Which will be our fates the Allmighty knows. At present our condition is lamentable.(...) It is however pity that the printing is at present suspended on acc[oun]t of the thundering of Bellona. Nulla Salus Bello – pacem te poscimus; but when is that moment to be expected. From Swartz, 03/30/1808, HSP Coll. 443. To Turner, Acharius wrote in 1808: The war, in which our country is involved deprives us from every communication with other countries; we are however not quite isles. Quoted after Galloway, “English lichenology,” 171. To Schreber, Swartz wrote in 1810 that [d]er gute Mühlenberg aus Pensylvanien hatte eine Sendung Cryptogamen seit 3 Jahre für mich bestimt und fortgemacht. Leider ist doch dieses Sehnlich verlangte Geschenk ausgeblieben. Ich bedaure es über alle maasen. Swartz to Schreber, 05/12/1810, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

An American Network

355

new correspondence remained comparably stable until 1815.110 After 1811, Mühlenberg even managed to establish a direct link to Acharius in Vadstena.111 5.4 North and South – Peck, Elliott, Dunbar, Moore and Logan The worsening conditions for transatlantic mail transport after 1806 not only led to a gradual decline of Mühlenberg’s correspondences with central European contacts, which were followed by those on the periphery. It also led to a sudden growth of his American web of contacts.112 This Americanization was not only a response to the constant wars in Europe, but also a reflection of the developing national self-image of the United States in the wake of the Louisiana purchase, the Lewis&Clark expedition and other efforts to chart the “new” West. Practically overnight, the United States more than doubled their territory in 1803, which initiated a reassessment of the national self-image and provided new challenges for researchers, explorers, travelers and scientists. In Mühlenberg’s case, this change of perspective is evident in the scope of his next botanical publication and in the range of his American correspondents. His Catalogue of the Hitherto known Native and Naturalized Plants of North America was the first in his list of publications which did not focus exclusively on plants from his Lancaster neighborhood.113 This broader vision corresponded to an enlarged circle of correspondents from all parts of the country, which rendered the status accounts in his diaries longer and longer. What is the state of my American correspondeces?, he noted in November 1808, adding a list of 13 expec110 In 1809 and 1810, at the height of the war in Sweden and Finland, Mühlenberg obviously managed to successfully send two letters to Acharius, who acknowledged their reception in May 1811: In the month of __ last I wrote you an short answer on your both kind letters of the 13th Nov[ember] 1809 and 22 Febr[uary] 1810. From Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443. In 1810, Mühlenberg also praised Swartz for his promptness in responding and promising new packages of specimens. Obs[ervation] Swarz antwortet doch am geschwindesten Schreber, Schkuhr, Schrader Willdenow hab aber die Zeit u[nd] auch Gelegenheit gehabt u[nd] da komt nichts. Vermuthlich ist mein Brief von Nov. 13 erst mit ein Frühjähriges Schiff abgegangen. Er verspricht mir Samlung von intereßanten Gewächsen. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/12/1810. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 531f. 111 See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 494. 112 From 1802 to 1805, Mühlenberg exchanged 60 letters with European contacts and 57 with American contacts. From 1805 to 1811, a total of 50 letters were sent to or received from European locations against 103 circulating with the United States. Compare tables m and n, Appendix B, 492. 113 Actually, Mühlenberg‘s 1803 contribution to Willdenow‘s Neue Schriften der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde Berlin was also entitled “Über die Nordamerikanischen Weiden,” but was merely an add-on of his earlier “Kurze Bemerkungen über die in der Gegend von Lancaster wachsenden Arten der Gattungen Juglans, Faxinus und Quercus“ in the same organ (1801). The introductory note of “Über die Nordamerikanischen Weiden“ of 1803 also leaves no doubt that the article‘s focus was again local, despite its generic title: Ich fahre fort, meine Bemerkungen über einige der hiesigen Bäume mitzutheilen, die bisher noch nicht genau untersucht worden, und wähle die Gattung Salix, von welcher wir um Lancaster viele Arten haben, die wild wachsen. Mühlenberg, “Weiden,” 233.

356

Letters from an American Botanist

ted responses from his fellow countrymen.114 Point 12 of this list deserves particular attention, as it testifies to Mühlenberg’s eagerness to close gaps in his American web in order to come up with a more comprehensive botanical account of the country: New England, nothing from Cutler for many years, he noted. 12. Especially the northern parts hold a lot of work, and I have to get the address of Mr Peck through somebody or start with Cutler anew. It was only in 1811 that he succeeded: in William Dandridge Peck (1763–1822) he found his first New England contact in many years. The regions north of New York continued to be a white spot on the map of Mühlenberg’s American contacts since Manasseh Cutler had terminated their correspondence on account of his business responsibilities and political career in 1800.115 Despite individual efforts and a comparatively elaborate local school system in the Boston area, the city still lagged far behind Philadelphia and even New York City with regard to its scientific infrastructure and output. This is also reflected in the low number of botanical works on the region, which Mühlenberg was keenly aware of and determined to address through a local correspondent.116 Therefore, more than any other American correspondent, William D. Peck was a strategic choice rather than one based on previous familiarity, learned friendship or a common interest in theoretical botanical discussions. In this case, it was the region that interested Mühlenberg, not primarily the individual. In addition, Peck was an entomologist rather than a full-fledged botanist.117 Peck grew up in Lancaster, MA, and on the family farm near Kittery, Maine as the son of a naval architect. After obtaining a 114 Wie stehts jetzt mit meinen Americanisch[en] Correspondencen? 1) in Georgien – Brickell nicht viel wert tenax 2) in S Carolina Elliot vortreflich, aber ich bekomme keine Antw[ort] langsam matt werdend 3) in Teneßee Moore – gut 4) in Natchez Dunbar – nützlich 5) in N[orth] Carol[ina] Kramsch – so so – Cherokee Fr[au] Gambold nützl[ich] sehr 6. in Virginien Ott und andre – nicht viel, bessert sich, Billy gut 7) in Pittsburg und [missing] VanderSchott u[nd] Müller letzterer gut 8. Philad[elphia] Enslin nützt Hamilton, MacMahon, Mease, Lyons – Bartram, Barton nicht viel, auch Bursh nichts, Kin etwas, viel 9. New York, Hosack, Geissenhagen, Mitchill nichts nennenswertes 10. Connecticut, nichts 11. N[eu] England, Cutler seit vielen Jahren nichts 12. Grade in der nördlichen Gegend wäre am meist zu thun, und ich muß die Addreße von Peck durch jemand bekommen oder wieder mit Cutler anfangen. 13. VanVleck, Kampman, machmal etwas, besonders durch Denke. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for November 16, 1808 [margin notes]. 115 See also subchapter “Cutler and the Gap in the North,” above on page 192f. How much Mühlenberg valued Cutler and his strategic position in the Northeast can also be seen in the following single quote: Will you pardon me if I repeat my former wish to get through your kind Assistance of New England Grasses as many as can be found in particular of Grasses which grow near the Sea Shore. (...) You see how much I depend on the Friendship of D[octor] Cutler. To Cutler, 11/12/1792, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. See also Cutler’s response, 02/27/1793, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. 116 Also, compare the following entry in Mühlenberg‘s diary: 16. meine Gräser durchgesehen, ich habe noch verschiedene von Cutler die nicht in das Herbar[ium] eingetragen auch nicht genau beschrieben sind. Uberhaupt ist N[eu] England noch zu wenig untersucht und ich solte einen guten Corresp[ondent] nahe an der See etwa in Boston haben. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for November 16, 1808. 117 Sorensen calls Peck the “founding father of American zoology” and the “first American-born entomologist of note.” Sorensen, “Peck,” 230.

An American Network

357

Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard College in 1782, he entered into a commercial apprenticeship in a Boston-based compting house and sometime between 1785 and 1790, he moved back to his family in Kittery, where he helped his father and pursued his own entomological studies.118 Life and work on his father’s farm provided Peck with countless day-to-day observations, most of which were related to the hardships and unsolved problems of contemporary agriculture. By 1790, he had developed a through scientific interest in vermin, pests and other crop-damaging influences on farming. In 1793, the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture, a brainchild of Mühlenberg’s former correspondent Manasseh Cutler, organized a competition for the “most satisfactory account of the natural history of the canker-worm.” Peck won the competition, which earned him a prize money of $ 50 and his first scientific merits on the national level. In 1797, Peck won the same prize again with a work on the slugworm, and in March 1805, he was offered the newly founded professorship for natural history at Harvard University. Peck’s reluctant acceptance of this position ended nearly 20 years of seclusion at Kittery119 as he was almost immediately sent to Europe for three years in order to catch up with the latest achievements of European science and establish indispensable contacts for his new task. These contacts included Joseph Banks, the British entomologist William Kirby (1750–1850), the French entomologist Pierre André Latreille (1762–1833), the German botanist Franz Karl Mertens (1764–1831), and, most importantly, Mühlenberg’s correspondents James Edward Smith and Olof Swartz.120 Since 1799, Peck also loosely corresponded with Benjamin Smith Barton in Philadelphia, sending contributions for one of Barton’s works, for which Barton, however, never gave him credit.121

118 Legend has it that young Peck found a torn copy of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae in a shipwreck near his Maine home, after which he took a liking to natural sciences. Biographical Dictionary of American Science, s.v. “Peck, W. D.” Sorensen, “Peck,” 229; Anonymous, “Peck Obituary,” 161n; 162f.; 167f. 119 Greene, American Science, 70; Sorensen, “Peck,” 230; Sorensen, Brethren, 6; Anonymous, “Peck Obituary,” 165. 120 Greene, American Science, 82; Anonymous, “Peck Obituary,” 165; Biographical Dictionary of American Science, s.v. “Peck, W. D.” Sorensen, “Peck,” 230. Peck must also have met Palisot de Beauvois in Paris, as becomes obvious in the following passage: Je profite de l’occassion de M[onsieur] Peck professeur d’histoire naturelle à Boston pour vous adresser cette lettre, en vous annoncant que sous peur je vous ferais passer les 10 livraison ou cahiers de ma flora et peutetre onze plus. From Beauvois, 06/23/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 121 Barton used original Peck material in his “Some Account of an American Species of Dipus or Jerboa” in: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society IV (1799): 114–124. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 463. In 1809, two and a half years before Peck first answered Mühlenberg’s attempts to get into contact with him, he wrote to Barton on October 23, 1809: Dear Sir, M[iste] r Jacob Bigelow who will have the pleasure to present you this, has requested me to give him a line to You. He goes to Philad[elphi]a as a Medical Student, & is desirous to avail himself of the great advantages which Your excellent establishments offer him. So entirely have I been occupied since my return from Europe, that I have had no time to devote to Correspondence &c the debt which I have long been under to You presses me the more, because I am at present unable to pay it. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 463.

358

Letters from an American Botanist

Mühlenberg was aware of Peck’s contact with Barton at the time of his first letters to Boston and cleverly used Barton’s name as a reference.122 Since a long Time I have suppressed, Mühlenberg began in February 1809, for Fear of intruding on your Studies, an earnest wish I had, to open a Correspondence with you on our favourite Science Botany, which has been my particular Delight upwards of thirty Years. Hearing that you are returned from Europe and now settled at Cambridge as Professor of Botany I take the Liberty of introducing myself to your Acquaintance, and begging your Friendship.123 The exchange he proposed was again similar to previous ones with southern correspondents like Brickell.124 Although Mühlenberg included additional information on his own publications, referred to Manasseh Cutler as a former local contact of his,125 and wrote him a second time in January 1810, Peck did not respond until April 1812, which he excused by a state of “general exhaustion” and a severe lack of time.126 In the South, Mühlenberg’s efforts to extend his web had been more successful in the meantime. In October 1811, a new correspondent from Savannah, the botanist and banker Stephen Elliott, wrote to Mühlenberg about his own efforts to establish a channel to the North: Besides excepting with yourself all my attempts at correspondence with our northern literati have failed. I find all willing enough to receive but few will take the trouble to make returns. But how few men of Sciences are like Dr. Muhlenberg. To you I have always been a debtor.127 122 Doctor Barton our mutual Friend informs me several years ago that you had discovered a Diapensia on a Mountain. To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll. 123 To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll. 124 My particular wish in opening a correspondence with you is to offer an Exchange of American Plants to you. We in Pensylvania have perhaps many Plants wanted in your State and so we miss a Number of N[ew] England Plants. With the greatest Pleasure I will send to you whatever you may desire in Specimens or Seeds as soon as you inform me where I shall address them to. From Philadelphia to Boston there is no Difficulty, the Name of a Merchant in Boston would secure any Packet. So, if you address any Packet for me to John Musser n. 146 Racestreet, he will send it safe to me.(..) We in Pensylvania have perhaps many Plants wanted in your State and so we miss a Number of N[ew] England Plants. To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll. 125 I dont know whether you have ever seen my Index florae Lancastriensis and the Supplement printed in our Transactions of the Philosophical Society at Philadelphia. Since that Time I could have added a Number of other Plants. I have them all described in a M[anuscript] which I name uberior descriptio plantarum Lancastrienium, whether this Description will ever be printed depends upon Circumstances. (...) Is Doctor Cutler still alive? In the year 1790 I had the Pleasure to correspond with him on Botany. He sent me a Number of Grasses which I still preserve as an Ornament in my Herbarium, some were new to me and I would wish to have better Specimens. P.S. Is not printed Catalogue of N[orth] England Plants to be had? I should be very happy to see one at least of the Plants not mentioned in Michaux or Linnaeus. D. Cutler’s work is the only one I have. To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll. 126 Peck answered: This it the third time I have begun to write you but have always been prevented from finishing a letter to you, partly by the constant pressure of my affairs, & partly by my being unable to make a visit to Dr. Cutler to obtain from him such information as you desire. I regret it most sincerely & beg you will forgive my involuntary neglect. (...) I must, in the first place, guard you against disappointment by requesting you not to expect too much from me. From Peck, 04/17/1812, HSP Coll. 443. 127 From Elliott, 10/01/1811, HSP Coll. 443.

An American Network

359

Contact with Stephen Elliott began in August 1808, after the latter paid a surprise visit to Lancaster and Mühlenberg agreed to a botanical exchange which he hoped would supplement the findings and packages by Brickell from Charleston. Elliott was the first of Mühlenberg’s highly intensive contacts which would dominate his correspondences from 1811 to his death in May 1815.128 Elliott was the son of an affluent merchant family from Beaufort, SC, who had graduated from Yale in 1791 and served on the legislature of his home state from 1793 to 1800, when he retired and took care of a plantation near Savannah. Until his re-election to the legislature in 1808, Elliott acquired a sound knowledge of botany mainly through autodidactic studies, but also through occasional contacts with botanists such as the visit to Mühlenberg in August 1808.129 Today I had a visitor, Stephen Elliott Esquire from Beaufort – a quite formidable man, lover of mineralogy and botany, the respective entry in Mühlenberg’s diary reads.130 John Lyon, the traveling botanist, had likewise made the acquaintance of Elliott in January 1803, which is the only known link between Elliott and Mühlenberg prior to his visit to Lancaster.131 Immediately after his return to South Carolina in early September 1808, Elliott composed a first letter to Lancaster. While this letter is lost today, an almost uninterrupted correspondence began with Mühlenberg’s response from November 9, 1808, which was followed by 51 further letters until April 1815. Mühlenberg’s response mainly concerned details of their exchange.132 Their arrangement – Elliott was to provide specimens from the 128 With Elliott alone, Mühlenberg exchanged 21 letters (18 existing, three reconstructed) from 1808 to January 1811. From 1811 to 1815 (Phase 6), Mühlenberg exchanged 36 letters with Elliott, 83 letters with Zaccheus Collins from Philadelphia, and 93 letters with William Baldwin from Wilmington (Delaware) and various spots on the Georgia coast. See respective tables m and n, Appendix B, on page 492. 129 Petersen, New World Botany, 341; Greene, American Science, 112f; Overlease, “Darlington,” 85; Hooker, Botany, 275f. In an undated letter to William Jackson Hooker (1785–1865), Elliott explained the difficulties he found himself in doing botany in the South, and his dire need for assistance and botanical contacts: No one in Europe can, probably, appreciate the difficulty of the task in which I have engaged. The want of books, the want of opportunities for examining living collections or good herbaria, the want of coadjutors, have all served to render my task arduous, and to multiply its imperfections. Hooker, Botany, 276. 130 Heute besuchte mich Stephen Elliot Esq[uire] aus Beaufort – ein herrlicher Mann Liebhaber der Mineralogie und Botanik. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/18/1808. 131 Lyon noted in his diary on January 10, 1803: 10th got on to Savannah. (...) Got acquainted with Stephen Elliott Esq[uire] of Silk Hope near Savannah an intelligent Naturalist who pays considerable attention to Botany from whom I obtained much usefull information. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 19. See also Greene, American Science, 112f. Another possible intermediator between Mühlenberg and Elliott might have been John Brickell, whom Elliott seemed to know from occasional visits. Based on the information available to me now, however, it is impossible to say whether their contact predated Elliott’s and Mühlenberg’s. In February 1809, Elliott wrote: I examined it with D. Brickell. From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 132 It will be of great Service if You continue the Numbers in your future Communications, we can refer to them easily. (...) A Number of Plants I did not venture to examine closer being unique it may be done at a future Day, whenever you are pleased to send fresh Specimens. Will it not be easier to take from your Herbarium a Plant, mark it with a Number, put down the Number

360

Letters from an American Botanist

South, Mühlenberg returned plant identifications from his comprehensive herbarium collections – mainly circulated aournd the contemporary botanical literature on the South by Michaux, Walter and others.133 Your correspondence is too interesting and useful to me that in the walks of Botany it will constitute my greatest pleasure. Shall endeavour from time to time to send all the plants which I can discover in this country and shall never hesitate to offer tho always with diffidence whatever observation may occur to me on such plants as we may mutually communicate, Elliott promised in February 1809.134 As a first step, he sent Mühlenberg his entire herbarium collected from 1800 to 1808 for identification, which formed the basis of their subsequent exchange and must have constituted a most significant addition to Mühlenberg’s own herbarium.135 Although Elliott referred to Mühlenberg as a botanical authority and thanked him for having revived my almost dormant attachment to that Science,136 his own experiences were too profound for a teacher-student relationship.137 The high rate of exchange between the two men was made in your Journal and when I receive the Plant numbered I can return the Answer in a Letter Numb. 1 is ______ We run too much Risk to loose a Number of the Plants and the Sea might take Part of our Herbarium. To Elliott, 11/09/1808, HUH Elliott Papers. 133 I took for myself some Duplicates and here and there a Fragment to examine closer whenever I have Leisure. Michaux seems to me to have examined your Parts closer then ours. Walter has gained likewise with me after seeing many of his Plants. To Elliott, 11/09/1808, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 01/05/1809, HUH Elliott Papers.: Neither Walter nor Michaux have described any Cryptogama worth mentioning. Your Beginning from I–II shows that Carolina is not destitute of curious Plants. If you wish to see what we have you are exceedingly wellcome to any Thing we have here. The Mosses of our State are very near all figured in Dillenius and Hedwig, therefore well known, the Lichenes are less known and deserve close Attention. In February 1809, however, it turned out that Elliott owned neither Michaux nor Walter: As I have neither Michaux nor Walter with me, I can only add at present such doubts or information as have suggested themselves to me on the perusal of you letter. The Rottboellia before I saw Michaux I was accustomed to consider the R. Compresion W. The Scirpus macrosta. I supposed to be the Marit. From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 134 From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 135 Permit me again to return you [with?] best thanks for the trouble you have taken with my herbarium. To have much a number of plants (upwards of 700) named from such authority will make me tread more firmly on our plains. It will assist my investigation of other plants and give correctness and pleasure to my inquiries. From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 136 The advantages your Correspondence affords me has revived my almost dormant attachment to that Science. I have devoted to it more attention during the present year than I have done for many preceding and I have been qualified by the acquisition of some new plants and a knowledge of many of our doubtful ones. If I can continue my assiduity for another year I may then send you a catalogue of the plants known to me in the two Southern States. From Elliott, 10/21/1809, HSP Coll 443. 137 This becomes especially evident in Mühlenberg’s repeated statement that he expected Doubts and Contra Observations along with specimens from Elliott: Anxiously I shall wait for your Centuria prima and whenever it arrives I will give you candid observations. It is only by such Observations that Science gains, and in the present State of Botany we ought to join Hands. For the same Reason I still expect your Doubts and Contra Observations upon whatever I have written to you on your Specimens. To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. For the further course of their exchange until 1811 see the following letters: To Elliott, 11/24/1809, HUH Elliott Papers; From Elliott, 02/25/1810, HSP Coll. 443; To Elliott, 03/30/1810, HUH Elliott Pa-

An American Network

361

possible by plant hunters like John Lyon, who kept going back and forth between the South and the mid-Atlantic states. In Philadelphia and Charleston, Mühlenberg’s son-in-law John Musser and an unidentified merchant usually forwarded the packages to their final destinations, representing the links within a reliable transportation system that remained intact until Musser’s death in 1813.138 Almost as important as Elliott but not as longlasting was Mühlenberg’s correspondence with William Dunbar of Natchez, Mississippi. The “intellectual giant of the Mississippi Delta” (K. Bettersworth) was one of those western explorers whose contributions and fame were later nearly eclipsed by the exploits of the Lewis&Clark expedition.139 Seven letters from 1806 to 1809 were carried between Lancaster and Natchez, which was Mühlenberg’s westernmost place of contact to date.140 Although born into an affluent family of lower nobility in Morayshire, Scotland, which usually guarantted the exact documentation of dates and circumstances of one’s birth, there is some dispute on the exact date of Dunbar’s birth.141 Following an early fascination with natural studies, he received an excellent education by private tutors and in several outstanding educational institutions across the country. On March 30, 1767, he graduated with a master of arts degree in mathematics and astronomy from King’s College in Aberdeen.142 Two years later, his father died and left all titles and properties to his older brother Alexander (1742–1791), a sum of ₤500 sterling excepted. Consequentially, Dunbar decided to emigrate to North America in March 1771, where he first made a living as a fur hunter and business associate to the John Ross Company of Pittsburgh (PA).143 Two years later he pers; From Elliott, 06/29/1810, HSP Coll. 443; and to Elliott, 08/27/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. Mühlenberg also proposed again one of his earliest favorite plant types for exchange to Elliott: Grasses are my particular Favourites. Pray send as many more as you can find especially of Walters. Carices we have near 50 with us. You have some without Doubt new to us, others are dubious untill more and better Specimens are to be had. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 01/05/1809, HUH Elliott Papers.. 138 If You will please to mention a Merchant in Charleston or Savanna to whom I could address a Pacquet for you, perhaps our Correspondence and Intercourse would be more quick and safe. Any Pacquet for me addressed to John Musser n. 146 Racestreet Philadelphia without Doubt will be forwarded to me with Care. To Elliott, 01/05/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. Lyon appears frequently as their standard messenger: M[iste]r Lyons is I suppose now in your Parts and I expect much from his good botanical Lookout, and his Industry. From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letter to Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. 139 DeRosier, Dunbar, 2; 165. DeRosier has also pointed out Dunbar’s decisive contributions to establishing cotton as the future signature crop of the Southwest. DeRosier, Dunbar, 213. 140 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 505f. 141 DeRosier mentions the years 1750 and 1751 as his approximate date of birth, Rowland and Ewan suggest 1749. Rowland, Dunbar, 9; DeRosier, Dunbar, 15; Ewan, “Louisiana,” 2291n. Bailyn, however, only says that Dunbar was 22 years of age in 1771. Bailyn, Voyagers, 489. Dunbar‘s father was Sir Archibald Dunbar (1693–1769). DeRosier, Dunbar, 15; Rowland, Dunbar, 7–9; Rogers, Documents, 2. 142 Again, Dunbar’s biographers deliver conflicting accounts of his school and college career: DeRosier names King’s College at Aberdeen, Rowland Glasgow and London, where he studied mathematics and astronomy. DeRosier, Dunbar, 18; Rowland, Dunbar, 9. See also Hudgins, “Dunbar,” 333. 143 DeRosier, Dunbar, 24–27; Rowland, Dunbar, 9; Rogers, Documents, 2; Ewan, “Barton’s Influ-

362

Letters from an American Botanist

moved to Baton Rouge where he had bought land and set up his first plantation with Jamaican slaves. What started as a successful timber and indigo enterprise came to an abrupt end during the Revolution when American troops destroyed Dunbar’s farm on account of his loyalist leanings, causing him to flee via Pittsburgh, Louisville and Georgia to the Manchac – Baton Rouge – Natchez area in 1780.144 Dunbar spent the remainder of his life in this region, showing excellent skills in farming and in ingratiating himself with the local Spanish elite under governor Manuel Luis Gayoso (1747–1799) in New Orleans. Political contacts, which he often acquired through his surveying and translating services in Spanish, English and French, and through financial success in the indigo, cotton, sugar and tobacco trades enabled him to make more and more land purchases in the Natchez region, where he owned about 5,000 acres of land by 1788. In 1792, he finally moved his family nine miles north to the new center of his Natchez properties, where he had just finished building the so-called “Forest Plantation.”145 In 1784, he had married Dana Clark, whose help allowed him to pursue his scientific interests. Mainly through her expert stewardship of the plantation in the following years, Dunbar could devote more and more time to traveling, research and experimenting. All of these activities were aimed at improving agricultural techniques and work routines on Forest Plantation.146 Dunbar made his debut in American sciences as a complete nobody in 1797 when President Washington commissioned Mühlenberg’s later neighbor Andrew Ellicott (1754–1820) to settle the conflict about the exact borderline between Florida and the Spanish territories according to the Treaty of San Lorenzo from 1795. Dunbar’s college education, his practical experiences as a surveyor and his comprehensive geographical knowledge of the Southwest made him the ideal aide to Ellicott. After being naturalized in 1797, Dunbar helped fixing the 31st parallel line until 1799, which ended the diplomatic tensions with Spain. Ellicott, in turn, carried the news of Dunbar’s stunning scientific skills back to Philadelphia where Thomas Jefferson later included him in his plans for Western exploration. In 1801, Ellicott settled in Lancaster, which is probably when Mühlenberg first heard of the Natchez scientist.147 Also, Dunbar was made an A.P.S. member on the suggestion of Jefferson, who presided over the society at the time.148 An intensive correspondence enence,” 30. 144 Rowland, Dunbar, 9. 145 DeRosier, Dunbar, 30f.; 42; 49; 52–55.; Rowland, Dunbar, 10f.; Ewan, “Louisiana,” 2291n; Bailyn, Voyagers, 489. 146 DeRosier, Dunbar, 49; 52f.; 208; Rowland, Dunbar, 10; Bailyn, Voyagers, 490. 147 For Ellicott’s relations with Mühlenberg, see above on page 252f. Again, DeRosier and Rowland disagree on the year of Dunbar’s naturalization. DeRosier, Dunbar, 216; Rowland, Dunbar, 11. DeRosier, Dunbar, 2; 47; 66; 69–74; 77. Ellicott wrote in his diary about Dunbar: Dunbar’s extensive scientific attainments, added to a singular facility in making calculations, would have reduced my labor to a mere amusement, if he had continued. Quoted after Rowland, Dunbar, 11. 148 From 1803 to 1810, Dunbar handed in 15 individual contributions to the A.P.S. Transactions, according to DeRosier. DeRosier, Dunbar, 75–77; 82. Rowland counts twelve. Rowland, Dunbar, 11. See also Hudgins, “Dunbar,” 331.

An American Network

363

sued with several A.P.S. members such as John Vaughan, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Smith Barton and Jefferson himself, who finally managed to convince Dunbar to lead an expedition into the southern part of the newly acquired Louisiana territory in 1804.149 Along with the chemical scientist George Hunter, Dunbar embarked on a three-month tour with a team of 15 men, following the Red River, the Black River and the Ouashita River to the Hot Springs in Arkansas, from where they returned specimens and chemical water analyses to Washington and Philadelphia.150 Mühlenberg sent a first letter accompanied by a package of grass seeds to Natchez in February 1806, to which Dunbar reacted positively in April, promising to answer Mühlenberg’s request for dried specimens and admitting to his poor skills in botany.151 I have not been unsuccesful as a planter, Dunbar explained, [and] can now command as much leisure as I please; Botany therefore, among other favorite objects, is one of those I should wish to cultivate, but the progress in the practical part must be slow without an instructor.152 Despite these shortcomings in Mühlenberg’s favorite science, Dunbar promised to be an important contact on account of his geographic location in the far Southwest. Philosophical vedette at the distance of one thousand miles, and on the verge of the terra incognita of our continent, is precious to us here, Jefferson summed up Dunbar’s value to American science in 149 Besides these three, Dunbar corresponded constantly with the astronomer Sir William Herschel (1738–1822), John Bartram, Alexander Wilson (1766–1813) and “Britain’s finest instrument makers,” according to DeRosier. DeRosier, Dunbar, 81f.; Rogers, Documents, 2. Barton, however, had a special connection with Dunbar. His student Frederick Seip (no data available) was a former neighbor of Dunbar and returned to the Natchez area in 1800. After him, Garrett Elliott Pendergrast (no data available), another Dunbar acquaintance, took his medical degree with Barton in 1803. In his letters, Mühlenberg never commented on Dunbar’s contact to Barton, which he most probably never knew about. Ewan, “Barton’s Influence,” 30. See also Hudgins, “Dunbar,” 333. 150 The expedition lasted 103 days and received government support of $12,000. In 1806, Jefferson asked Dunbar to lead a second expedition, which he refused on account of his frail health. In total, Jefferson sponsored four expeditions, which were directly related to the Louisiana purchase. Apart from Dunbar&Hunter and Lewis&Clark, Thomas Freeman and Peter Custis spearheaded the second expedition for which Dunbar felt unfit. In 1806–07, U.S. Army captain Zebulon Pike (1779–1813) led a final expedition across the Great Plains into the Rocky Mountains. For details of the first Dunbar-Hunter expedition, see Hudgins, “Dunbar,” 331; 336f.; Rogers, Documents, 1; DeRosier, Dunbar, 123f.; 137f.; 154–156; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 304. 151 It becomes obvious from Dunbar’s response that Mühlenberg’s letter must have been the first one in this contact: I have received with particular gratification your much esteemed letter of the 24th feb: with the grass seed in excellent order, which I have no doubt will be here a valuable acquisition. It will give me great pleasure to contribute in any manner to your wishes in respect to our grasses or any of our vegetables; but I must tell you before hand that I am but a poor Botanist; I am /it is true/ acquainted by reading with the Linnean Systemae, but this conveys merely a theoretic not a practical knowledge. Great part of my life has been employed in that species of active agriculture which was nacessary to procure Subsistence for myself & family, & my evenings only could be dedicated to study. From Dunbar, 04/15/1806, HSP Coll. 443. 152 Dunbar continued: [B]ecause by the aid of books one can only proceed with faulty to the class & order, beyond those, doubts and difficulties will arise upon every new object which presents itself. From Dunbar, 04/15/1806, HSP Coll. 443.

364

Letters from an American Botanist

general.153 Today an answer from William Dunbar, along with many grass seeds, I will answer him and not stamp the letter upon his request, Mühlenberg noted in June 1806.154 Naturally, seeds and plants were particularly interesting to him.155 Unfortunately, the Dunbar expedition had been conducted in a season unfavorable for botanical researches, as Dunbar himself had acknowledged to Jefferson. Consequently, most of the botanical specimens he brought with him soon withered away or were in a rather bad condition.156 As a botanist, Dunbar was no match for Mühlenberg, which shows clearly in the three surviving letters to Mühlenberg and the diary he kept during the Red River expedition in the fall of 1804. Both the diary and the letters focus on practical agricultural knowledge on plants and crops but use very little of the technical botanical terminology that defined Mühlenberg’s other botanical correspondences at the time.157 Generally, the reading of Dunbar’s letters and diary suggests that he dis153 Vedette = celebrity, star; here: authority. From a letter to Dunbar by Jefferson, dated January 12, 1801. Quoted after Rowland, Dunbar, 112. 154 Heute Antwort von Will[iam] Dunbar erhalten mit etlichen Grassamen, ich werde antwort[en] u[nd] auf s[ein] Verlangen den Brief nicht frankiren. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/17/1806. In Mühlenberg’s second letter, he repeated what he exactly expected from Dunbar: If you would be pleased to forward any of your dubious Plants in dried specimens to me I would try my best to examine them and return the Linneaen name if known according to the numbers you affix to them. I have sent my dubious plants in the same manner to England, Germany, France and Sweden, and by comparing the answers with my own observations have come to some certainty and have saved a good Deal of Trouble. To Dunbar, 07/05/1808, Rowland, Papers of William Dunbar, 198. 155 To the list of vegetables, Dunbar wrote in a letter dated about 1807, I have subjoined a short acc[oun]t of the medical properties, which are pretended to belong to the hot Waters of the hot Springs, and which was drawn up for the use & at the request of a few of my friends here. I beg you will inform me of the errors I have committed in either the matter or manner of sketching my botanical list; I hope you will indulge me so far as to consider me in the light of a Pupil and correct me with freedom wherever you see Cause. From Dunbar, [undated], HSP Coll. 443. Mühlenberg answered in July 1808, referring to Michaux: The evergreen perennial grass from Washita, n.1. is a fine Melica which I named speciosa. in Michaux’s Flora it is name glabra. (...) You formerly sent me a grass num 3 Washita winter grass perennial, the seeds of which have vegetated and it proved to be the Uniola gracilis (?) Michaux. It has stood our latest winter. (...) You ask my opinion on the composition of such a catalogue [of Washita plants]. The most common way and perhaps most usefull is to divide them according to the Linnean sysxtem in classes and orders... To Dunbar, 07/05/1808, Rowland, Papers of William Dunbar, 198. Apart from botanical information, Mühlenberg also included seeds in his letters to Dunbar. I have an opportunity to Day of sending a few seeds by M[iste]r. Henry Moore a Merchant from Knoxville who promises to forward them from Tennessee or perhaps to deliver them himself. To Dunbar, 07/05/1808, Rowland, Papers of William Dunbar, 198. 156 On the botanical part of his journey, Dunbar observed to Jefferson in an undated letter after the expedition that the season [was] unfavorable for botanical researches, had we been better qualified in the practical part of that Science: it is believed never the less that something new has been found, particularly a species of mountain dwarf cabbage, which partakes of the nature of the Cabbage & raddish & is very agreeable to the taste, the root is White and taste like horse raddish but much milder. Quoted after Rowland, Dunbar, 142; 154. 157 In his first letter, there is only one strictly botanical passage: Linnaeus, I believe, admits that the Salix is sometimes Tetrandious and Pentantrious. From Dunbar, 04/15/1806, HSP Coll. 443.

An American Network

365

posed of basic proficiencies in nearly every branch of science and a sound judgement of soil and climate.158 A fire in Dunbar’s cotton magazine and other urgent preoccupations in late 1806 ushered in a quick end of their contact.159 By early 1808, Dunbar began to show symptoms of a fatal disease, which also became apparent in his increasing neglect to answer the letters sent to him. Nevertheless, as late as November 1808, Mühlenberg noted in his diary: 4) in Natchez Dunbar – useful.160 In May 1809, he mailed one last letter and package to Lancaster. In October 1810, he died on Forest Plantation.161 The four and a half years of contact with Dunbar from February 1806 to October 1810 were decidedly not sufficient to develop a botanical exchange that could provide Mühlenberg with specimens of adequate quality and quantity for his catalogue of North American plants. Consequently, Dunbar’s name is not among the list of contributors in 1813. Instead, a former neighbor of Mühlenberg, Moore, (Henry) from Tenessee and Natchez, as the catalogue entry reads, filled this gap.162 Henry Moore (no data available), a Lancaster-born merchant who had established himself in Knoxville, TN, routinely traveled between Natchez, Tenessee and Lancaster, where his brother John (no data available) was his partner in an unspecified business. Apparently, Mühlenberg’s contact with Moore oiginally started around 1808 in order to transport seeds and letters safely to Dunbar163 and developed into a

158 159

160 161

162 163

The respective passages in Dunbar’s diary betray a more utilitarian interest in plants than a rock-solid botanical knowledge of the Linnean code: “The Bois de fleche, dogwood, being the cornus, or cornelian tree of the Botanists, so called probably from the fine cornelian colour of its ripe berry, is one of the most elegant ornaments of the Early Spring, it consists of two varieties, one furnishes a flower of a yellowish green, inclining to white, but the flower of the other is of the most resplendent white, and the tree seldom exceeding 50 feet in height.” DeRosier, Dunbar, 79. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 505f. See also DeRosier, Dunbar, 80, 113–115. Dear Sir Since I had the pleasure of receiving your esteemed letter of the 1st of July last, I have suffered a good deal of trouble and embarassment in consequence of a loss by fire. My Cotton Magazine full of Cotton, Corn store, cotton presses, implements of husbandry all were consumed by fire; the dwelling house with its contents was almost the only building which escaped, the loss was not short of 20 thousand dollars. (...) My profession as a Planter engrosses much time, my favorite amusement has been Astronomy and I am unfortunately an Invalid being often confined, so that I have not given to Botany the time it merits [sic!]. From Dunbar, 05/13/1807, HSP Coll. 443. See also DeRosier, Dunbar, 195. 4) in Natchez Dunbar – nützlich. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for November 16, 1808 [margin notes]. May 12th wrote Doc[tor] Muhlenberg with botanical list & some specimens. Quoted after Rowland, Dunbar, 363. For the development of Dunbar’s unidentified terminal disease and death, see DeRosier, Dunbar, 164; 201; Rowland, Dunbar, 12. Forest Plantation burned to the ground in 1852, destroying much of Dunbar’s original documents. DeRosier, Dunbar, 53. See for both Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. I have an opportunity to Day of sending a few seeds by M[iste]r Henry Moore a Merchant from Knoxville who promises to forward them from Tennessee or perhaps to deliver them himself. To Dunbar, 07/05/1808, Rowland, Papers of William Dunbar, 198. Prior to this first notice, there are two instances in Mühlenberg’s letters of a neighbor called “Moore,” who might not be identical with the Moore brothers, however. Van Vleck wrote to Mühlenberg in January 1798: Haben Sie denn von Hofmans German Flora mehrere Jahrgänge? Ich habe nur den von 1791.

366

Letters from an American Botanist

proper exchange of seeds by November of the same year.164 Should you, in your travels come to the Natchez, Mühlenberg informed William Baldwin in November 1811, there is a M[iste]r Henry Moore, a native of Lancaster, who, in company with his brother, is in trade, – but likewise attends to Botany, and every branch of natural history: – a most valuable man, who, in his travels, has made many valuable discoveries.165 Henry’s brother John seems to have taken care of the family’s garden in Lancaster, which Mühlenberg frequently visited after 1807.166 He never recorded what he returned to the two brothers for their contributions. In 1813, he was given Dem M[iste]r Moore von Lancaster gab ich, so viel ich mich erinnere, einen Teil von einem Specimen einer Pflanze die Hekewelder von Muskingum brachte, die wir zu Frasera caroliniansie gemacht. Sie haben dieselben wohl gesehen? From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. To John Vaughan at Philadelphia, Mühlenberg wrote in April 1807 on behalf of seeds received from Meriwether Lewis: I have sown the few seeds received from M[iste]r Lewis after dividing what could be spared amongst my Friends. M[iste]r Moore informs me that M[iste]r Hamilton and M[iste]r McMahon have received many more. I hope they will take great Care of them, after they came so far. To Vaughan, 04/09/1807, APS. Arch. Box 5. 164 In November 1808, Mühlenberg first noted in his diary: 3) in Teneßee Moore – gut. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes]. Moore von Tenessee wird nicht vor April hier erwartet, da er noch daheim ist u[nd] erst die Missisippi hinuter u[nd] dann über N[ew] Orleans u[nd] Philadelphia geht. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/23/1809 [margin notes]. Occasionally, Mühlenberg’s diary entries also contained vague undated references to letters by Moore: Briefe von H[enry] Moore enthalten Bespr[echung] von N[ew] Orleans, Natchez, an den Missisippi. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/26/1810. To Stephen Elliott, Mühlenberg wrote in July 1811: Besides those I had the Pleasure to see 2 Collections one made by M[iste]rs Gambold in Cherokee, the other by M[iste]r Henry Moore in Tenesse, Natchez and on the red River. M[iste]r Moore is indefatigable and will enrich the Southern Flora very much, Some of the Specimens were imperfect, but we have seed and may expect to see living Plants. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. A year later, Mühlenberg added: 1) I have seen a Collection of Natchez Plants from M[iste]r Henry Moore, among them were Hopea tinctoria, yellow (...). To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. 165 To Baldwin, 11/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 51. In March 1807, Moore also offered Mühlenberg the opportunity to obtain plants and seeds through his two sons at Knoxville. M[iste]r Moore erzählt mir seine Söhne wären jetzt in Knoxville u[nd] sind willig irgend etwas rares von dortigen Gewächsen mitzubringen. Eine weiße Lilie soll dort sein 200 Blum[en]. Das ist wohl zu viel. Ich könnte alle möglichen Grassamen u[nd] nützliche[n] Gewächse (…) Mess[ieurs] George and Henry Moore Merchants, Care of M[iste]r Parke Knoxville. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/10/1807. This, however, is the only reference to this proposed deal. For a certain “F. Moore,” which C. Earle Smith has identified as the alleged brother of Henry Moore, see Smith, “Pioneer,” 443; and Mears, “Herbarium,” 169. 166 11. May 1807 Bursh und der junge Bartram sind gemeinschaftl[ich] auf einer botanischen Reise gewesen. Will bald nach Europa (…) [War] bei M[iste]r John Moore, der sich mit Eifer auf Botanice legt. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 05/11/1807. See also the entries for July 20, 1807; October 7, 1807; July 4, 1808; and February 8, 1809 in Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III. A passage from a letter to Zaccheus Collins in April 1815 also suggests that Mühlenberg used John Moore’s and other neighbors’ gardens as a source for plants which he had failed to cultivate himself: Our Philadelphia Elliott has written several times and I am very willing to serve him whenever I can. Unluckily M[iste]r Moore has cut down his Elaeagnus in his Garden and the Garden of the deceased M[iste]r Grosh who was

An American Network

367

a free copy of the catalogue but their contact seems to have come to an end afterwards.167 Apart from Mühlenberg’s correpondence with John Brickell in Savannah, which continued until Brickell’s death in December 1809,168 the Lancaster clergyman also corresponded with the Washington-based senator and agrarian reformer George Logan (1753–1821) and his old friend William Bartram on one of his major concerns after 1803, the southern flora. Since their correspondence in the early 1790s, Mühlenberg and Bartram had kept on paying visits to each other, but the renewed relevance of Bartram’s Travels in the wake of Michaux’ 1803 Flora, which also had a strong focus on the flora of the southern states, made it necessary to return to written exchanges. After reading the Travels in the fall of 1809, Mühlenberg approached Bartram in a letter with a general request to compare its botanical contents with the works of Michaux and Walter, which he was using as references in his other southern correspondences as well.169 When Bartram was too slow to respond, the first Cultivator of the Elaeagnus from Siberia is about 6 Miles from Lancaster. Whenever I can get Slips of it I will try to forward some Plants. To Collins, 04/07/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. 167 Ich thue heute auf die Post ein Ex[emplar] von meinem Catalogo an Stephen Elliot, Christoph Müller in Harmony u[nd] Thom[as] Jefferson u[nd] gebe eins an J[ohn] M[oore] für seinen BruderHenry Moore. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/12/1813. J[ohn] Moore wird Nov[ember] 21 hier erwartet u[nd] ich muß mit ihm red[en] (...) 3) nach H[enry] M[oore] seiner Samlung, was aus ihm geworden, und daß ich so viel wegen Baltimore noch wissen möchte. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/14/1814. 1815 Jan[uar] 21. J[ohn] Moore ist wieder hier, hat sein Versprechen nicht gehalten ich kann mich also nicht auf ihn verlassen Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/21/1815. Mears confirms that Mühlenberg’s herbarium contains a significant number of specimens collected by Henry Moore. See Mears, “Herbarium,” 166. 168 Until then, seven more letters, primarily written in 1806 and 1807, were exchanged between the two men, the last being written in early November 1809. In the fall of 1808, Mühlenberg had already noted in his diary: Wie stehts jetzt mit meinen Americanisch Correspondencen 1) in Georgien – Brickell nicht viel wert (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for November 16, 1808 [margin notes]. By June 1809, the contact was practically dead, as becomes apparent in a passage from Mühlenberg to Elliott: I dont remember whether I mentioned to you a very pretty Gnaphalium of which D. Brickell sent me once a bad Specimen, (...) In a long Time I had no Letter from the Doctor. I hope he is well. For Botany he is very likely too old and cannot bear the Fatigues of an Excursion, however he has done a great Deal in his Time and I in particular am much indebted to him for good Observations, and a Number of fine Specimens. Pray remember me to him very affectionately. To Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Mühlenberg‘s letter to Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. In December 1809, another entry in Mühlenberg‘s diary reveals that Brickell was already terminally ill: [E] inen Brief dat[iert] Nov[ember] 2 von D[octor] Brickel er war krank gewesen und darf weg[en] Sonnenstich wenig mehr bot[anisisern] Er schickt 2 Samen durch M[iste]r Jackson. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/01/1809. 169 For references to continued oral contact between Mühlenberg and Bartram until 1809, see Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, several entries in September 1809; To Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers; and To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. In 1810, Mühlenberg wrote: A letter I sent you lately, if come to Hand, will show how many Questions I have to propose to you, which you only can answer to my Satisfaction. They arose chiefly on reading again your Travels, which I do allways with Pleasure. I will repeat those Queries, and anticipate the Pleasure I will have when I shall be so happy as to receive your Answer and if

368

Letters from an American Botanist

Mühlenberg even urged Stephen Elliott to do the comparison. Elliott, however, did not own a copy of the work.170 Finally, in September 1810, Bartram submitted the desired information to his Lancaster friend, after which their contact became predominantly oral again.171 In the case of George Logan, merely two letters were exchanged in 1806 and 1812,172 but this hardly reflects the importance of Logan to Mühlenberg. More than any other of Mühlenberg’s correspondents, it was George Logan who combined the practical sides and applications of botany with an idealistic focus on the local products of the United States. Thomas Jefferson once called him the best farmer in Pennsylvania both in theory and practice.173 On the one hand, this corresponded both to the “patriotic turn” in Mühlenberg’s botanical outlook and correspondences after 1800, which reflected American efforts to develop a national self-image: I seldom send a foreign Plant, as I think we will find work enough with our own, he explained to Stephen Elliott in 1810.174 On the other hand, Logan was also a welcome correspondent to discuss the practical applicability of botanical theory. Generally, discussions of this type were limited to selected correspondents. Until 1796, Schreber, Manasseh Cutler and Samuel Latham Mitchill were the only persons with whom Mühlenberg had exchanged thoughts on practical issues, while they were hardly covered at all from 1796 to 1809.175 Apparently, it was only in his possible even the least Specimen of the plant. What is according to Michaux, Walter or Willdenow, or is still undescribed in botanical Works? (...) I shall be extremely obliged to you for any Information on those Plants of any others you think undescribed in your Travels. You as the first Finder ought to have credit for the finding and none of your Names should be changed in a later work. To William Bartram, 01/29/1810, HSP Coll. 36. 170 In January 1810, Mühlenberg put forth the following query to Elliot: This winter I have read again William Bartrams Travels, a work which generally pleases me very much, as I esteem Friend William in particular. He is indeed an excellent good Man. A Number of Plants struck me as not yet received in the System either by Walter, Michaux or Willdenow. You are on the Spot and are best able to decide, what is new or allready described. If you have the Travels, I would be much obliged to you for your Opinion. To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. Elliott was sympathetic, but declined: Your inquiries respecting Bartrams plants I cannot (...) answer. I have not a copy of his travels, nor is there one in Beaufort. From Elliott, 02/25/1810, HSP Coll. 443. 171 I am much gratified at your receiving any pleasure or amusement from perusing my Journal of Travels. In answer to your Queries with respect to some plants I mentioned on that [Journey?] Fraxinus excelsior is F. americana Hort. Kew[ensi]s (our great White Ash). I called it so from its magnitude (...). From William Bartram, 09/06/1810, HSP Coll. 443. During his southern travels, Bartram had also made the acquaintance of William Dunbar. Ewan, “Louisiana,” 2777. 172 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 514. 173 Quoted after Tolles, “Agricultural,” 589. 174 To Elliott, 07/02/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 175 In his letters to Schreber, Mühlenberg often specifically asked for “economical plants” and knowledge on them. Dürfthe ich Sie auch um etliche Sämerien bitten, so wären es Futtergewächse namentlich Avena elatior und andre die Sie am besten können [sic!]. Von officinal Kräutern insondernheit Rheum palmatum. 476. See also 478; and 483. In America, Manassah Cutler was the first to discuss practical matters with Mühlenberg from 1791 on: Of the oeconomical and medical Uses to which our Productions may be applied I have collected Materials enough, and I make it my particular Business. To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler

An American Network

369

correspondence with farmers like Dunbar and Elliott that the topic re-emerged: I wish to have every American Grass alive and continue my Experiments for Agriculture. Only a few seeds of each will do, he wrote to Elliott in 1809 for instance.176 His relations with George Logan reveal, however, that he never abandoned the practical side of botany altogether, even when his correspondence with European cryptogamists took by far the greatest amount of his time. Logan was both of the same age as Mühlenberg and a fellow Pennsylvanian. His father William and grandfather James Logan had acquired a reputation as experimental farmers and inventors at their family homestead at Stenton, Pennsylvania, where Logan was born in 1753. He received his basic education in England, completed a merchant apprenticeship in America and finally graduated from the University of Edinburgh with a medical degree in 1779. After 1783, he led a farmer’s life on the family farm in Stenton, where he devoted most of his time to the development of farming techniques, crop rotation and general management issues.177 The 1780s saw rapid progress in agricultural reform in the United States, which took England as its role model, where the pressures and changes of early industrialization had ushered in modern farming techniques such as heightened attention to animal husbandry, the use of new machinery and innovations in farm management and agricultural financing.178 Logan was one of the driving forces behind the founding of the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture (P.S.P.A.) in 1785, which sought to introduce those reforms to Pennsylvania and the United States in general. As the Philadelphia Society was too elitist in its social composition to have the desired impact on local farmers, Logan founded the Philadelphia County Society for the Promotion of Agriculture and Domestic Manufacture in 1785. Using his own properties at Stenton as a model farm, Logan experimented to find the ideal crop rotation for Pennsylvanian soil and climate and dedicated much time to methods of preserving and replenishing the fertility of the soil.179 From 1785 to 1789, he also served in the Pennsylvania State House of representatives and adopted a strong anti-Federalist point of view in the 1790s. This stance was the reason for the refusal of one of his papers by the predominantly federalist P.S.P.A. and earned him the attention of Thomas Jefferson, who began to pay occasional visits to Stenton farm in 1793.180 From 1795 to 1796 and in 1799 Logan served again as a state representative and moved from Philadelphia to Lancaster, which became the seat of the Pennsylvania legislature in 1799. Mühlenberg and Logan quickly developed an intimate friendship, which Logan’s wife Deborah Norris Logan described in detail in her Papers. See also 555; and 553. With Mitchill, Mühlenberg went as far as conversing about the different kinds of fertilizers and dung. The powder of Gypsium does wonders in the interior part of our Country, for I know not whether I should be extravagant if I told you, that the proper use of it doubled the Productions of the Land. From Mitchill, 10/24/1796, HSP Coll. 443. 176 To Elliott, 01/05/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. 177 Tolles, «Agricultural,» 589; Tolles, «Agrarian Democrat,» 261. 178 Tolles, “Agricultural,” 590. 179 Logan is also noted for the introduction of the Merino sheep to Pennsylvania. Tolles, “Agricultural,” 592–94. Tolles, “Agrarian Democrat,” 262. 180 Tolles, “Agricultural,” 595f.; Tolles, “Agrarian Democrat,” 272.

370

Letters from an American Botanist

1849 memoir on her husband: At Lancaster, where the Assembly then sat, he (Dr Logan) formed many acquaintances and some friendships which were then, and afterwards, productive of much pleasure to him, and among them I must place in the foremost rank his friendship with the venerable Henry Muhlenberg, who to a disposition fraught with humanity and benevolence to his fellow-men added the interest of a knowledge of literature and science, and in whom he found a fellow-labourer in whatever promised to promote the public good.181 On March 25, 1800, the Lancaster Intelligencer & Weekly Advertiser proclaimed the foundation of the Lancaster County Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, Manufactures and the Usefull Arts, whose prime movers were Mühlenberg and Logan. The main object of the society, according to its statutes, was to render our country happy, prosperous and truly independent. In fact, it made use of a rhetoric that closely resembled what Mühlenberg began to include in his own letters at the time: Let Pennsylvania not only exhibit flourishing enclosures and harvests, but the comfortable houses of industrious artisans and manufacturers… Proud of the advantages which our own country will afford, and which our own labor will procure, let us disdain to be the servile imitators of other nations, or to adopt foreign manners inconsistent with our republican form of government.182 The passage reflects Mühlenberg’s discussions with Logan and his brother Frederick, who was the first president of the society. In this sense, the emergence of a “botanical nationalism”183 in Mühlenberg’s contemporary correspondence can hardly be called a coincidence. The further history of the society is practically unknown, as its first president Frederick Augustus Conrad Mühlenberg died a year after its foundation and neither the Lancaster newspapers nor Mühlenberg’s letters apparently mentioned it anymore after March 1800.184 In 1801, Logan left Lancaster for Washington, where he served as United States Senator for the Democratic-Republicans until 1807. It was in this context that Mühlenberg contacted his old friend again. Should I not write to Doctor Logan, he pondered in his diary on January 29, 1806, 1) if he could not find me a man to send me Mississippi grasses 2) a specimen of cotton tree 3. Maybe Jefferson has such. Two weeks later he added on the margin: It has happened on February 14.185 There are no signs of further contact in the meantime, and Mühlenberg’s polite lines of introduction suggest that contacting Logan in Washington was 181 Logan, Memoir, 98. Mühlenberg’s letter to Logan from 1812 also contains some additional lines by Logan’s wife, also addressing the subject of their friendship in Lancaster: Letter from the Rev[eren]d Henry Muhlenberg. An excellent Botanist and most agreeable and deserving man with whom my beloved husband contracted an intimate Friendship in the time he was in the Legislature at Lancaster. To Logan, 06/25/1812, HSP Logan Papers. See also Tolles, Logan, 207; 211; Tolles, “Agrarian Democrat,” 275. 182 Quoted from Tolles, Logan, 212. See also Worner, Society, 145f. 183 I borrow this from Tolles’ description of George Logan as an “agrarian nationalist.” See Tolles, “Agrarian Democrat,” 275. 184 Worner, Society, 146. In fact, there is no trace of the society in any of Mühlenberg letters. 185 Sollt ich nicht D[oktor] Logan schreib[en], 1) ob er mir nicht einen H[er]rn ausmachen kann der mir Miss[issippi] Gräser schick[en] kann 2) ein Spec[imen] von Cotton Tree 3. Vielleicht hat Jefferson solche (...). [I]st gescheh[en] Febr[uar] 14. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 01/29/1806 [margin notes].

An American Network

371

indeed exceptional for him.186 Mühlenberg asked Logan to use his own web of contacts to procure specimens from the southern portions of the country. You are now at the Seat of collected wisdom and enabled to get Information from every Part of the United States (...), he began his request. Certainly we have a Number of such in the southern States which are unknown to us in Pennsylvania and would be worth cultivating. Could you not persuade some of your Friend to collect and spare a few of such Seeds?187 There is only one more, seemingly unrelated letter from Mühlenberg to Logan, dated June 15, 1812. In this, Mühlenberg vaguely thanked Logan for the reception of Specimens of the Agrostis but leaves open when, how or by whom these were brought to Lancaster.188 Logan was not mentioned on Mühlenberg’s list of contributors to his 1813 Catalogue, which suggests that he considered his assistance in botanical matters negligeable. Eventually, Mühlenberg himself managed to find a correspondent in the region, who would contribute much more to his plant catalogue than Logan. This was Billy, Peter from Virginia, as the brief line in the 1813 work reads. Mühlenberg apparently owed this brief but valuable correspondence to his colleague Dr John Ott (no data available), who was living in Georgetown, Columbia, not far from Logan.189 Ott had been mentioned in minor instances in Mühlenberg’s letters before,190 but it was only in 1808, perhaps as a consequence of Logan’s neglect to respond, that a minor botanical exchange with Ott began. 6. In Virginia Ott and others – not much, [but] improving, Billy good, Mühlenberg noted on the state of his American correspondences in November 1808.191 In September 1809, he sent a letter to Ott which betrays an intimate mutual acquaintance that had probably developed in years of joint synodal meetings. It also acknowledged the receipt of a package of plants, for 186 Dearest Sir Will you pardon me, if I disturb you a little? I know how much you are engaged in great Matters, perhaps a short Relaxation will do no Harm. To Logan, 02/14/1806, HSP Logan Papers. 187 In the closing lines, Mühlenberg again reminded Logan of the time they had spent together in Lancaster. When you return to your Family, I beg you will not forget that Lancaster is a Place where you have many Friends, who would be happy to see you. My whole Family remembers the Time with great Pleasure when Doctor Logan came to spend an Hour with us. To Logan, 02/14/1806, HSP Logan Papers. 188 I thank you for the Specimens of the Agrostis. As far as they go I see no Difference at all between the two. Perhaps when in Flower they may differ. The real Agrostis Stolonifera of Linne is little known, what Botanists call Stolonifera both of Germany and England is distinct from Linne’s Plant. I take our Plant for the Agrostis decumbens Haller and Gaudin [bot. Phrase] Willdenow Spec. 1, 369. To Logan, 06/25/1812, HSP Logan Papers. 189 Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. The full address-line of Mühlenberg’s letter to Ott in September 1809 reads: Doctor John Ott at Georgetown Columbia D. franco. To Ott, 09/25/1809, LoC Mühl. Fam. Coll. 190 In March 1787, Helmuth had informed him from Philadelphia that M[iste]r Ott sends you the music for the several pieces, so that your Lancaster singers may rehearse them properly. (...) Please provide lodgings for my singers – they are four in number, and M[iste]r Ott will be one of them. From Helmuth, 03/19/1787, FMC Gen. Autog. Coll. Fourteen years later, Mühlenberg‘s cousin Bensen reported from Erlangen that H[err] Ott hat den ersten [Brief] wahrscheinlich in Hamburg abgegeben, da ihn selbst habe ich noch nicht gesehen. Den zweiten erhielt ich durch den H[errn] Pastor Nebe aus Halle. From Bensen, 05/28/1801, APS Film 1097. 191 Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes].

372

Letters from an American Botanist

which he asked Ott to give my most hearfelt thanks to the kind Mr Billy and Pickford in my name and if they ever ask for something from our region, please let me know.192 This is the only instance that this otherwise unknown “Pickford” is mentioned, while Peter Billy (no data available), about whom nothing else is known, continues to reappear in Mühlenberg’s diaries.193 Their exchange ended in late 1810, when Billy first moved to New York City and then to France.194 On March 18, 1811, Mühlenberg noted again that Peter Billy has left some days prior to the arrival of my letter to him and must surely have taken some of our plants to France.195 Whatever specimens Billy had submitted to Mühlenberg until then was obviously enough to secure him a place in Mühlenberg’s 1813 catalogue. Ott, however, does not seem to have contributed to botanical studies, but in 1814, he briefly helped Mühlenberg to forward and receive letters with his new correspondent William Baldwin (1779–1819) in St. Mary’s, Georgia. 5.5 Moravians in the South After Mühlenberg’s contact with Gustavus Dallman had ended at some point after 1805,196 he did not correspond with any other Moravian botanical contact in the following two years. In 1807, Mühlenberg’s former Moravian contacts Samuel 192 Von Ihrer Krankheit und von dem seligen Abschied Ihres wackern Herrn Vaters hatte ich schon längst mit Leidwesen gehört. Für Ihren guten Vater war gewiß die Stunde seiner Auflösung erwünscht denn viel hatte er erleiden müssen ehe er überwinden konnte. Sein Andenken wird bei mir unvergeßlich seyn. Er war ein ehrlicher Mann, und sein Segen wird auf seinen Kindern ruhen. (…) Für das herrliche Paquet von Pflanzen sage ich Ihnen und den übrigen Herren die Beiträge geliefert haben den aller verbindlichsten dank. Es hat mich überaus erfreuet und meine Wünsche viel befriedigt. Es fehlen mir manche Pflanzen die Clayton in der vortrefflichen Flora Virginica beschrieben. Manche derselben fand ich in der dismaligen Samlung und wenn Sie eben so gütig fortfahren, so hoffe ich sie am Ende alle zu haben. Die Gegend um Columbia ist besonders reich an raren Pflanzen. Ich bedaure nur daß die Pflanzen nicht numerirt waren. To Ott, 09/25/1809, LoC Mühl. Fam. Coll. 193 M[iste]r Billy schickt mir eine Samlung von Pflanzen u[nd] Sämereien numerirt die ich untersuch[en] soll. Es ist wenig neues darin. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 05/02/1810. 194 P[eter] Billy schreibt an mich aus N[ew] York. Dort hat er mir neue Robinia glutinosa u[nd] Mimosa arborre aus Georgia gesehen. Vielleicht geht er im Frühjahr nach Frankreich. [E]r bietet seine Hilfe in N[ew] York an. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/26/1810. Shortly later, Mühlenberg added: 6. Virg. ich vermiße Billy. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1810. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 500. 195 Peter Billy ist etliche Tage vor Ankunft meines Briefes an ihn abgesegelt und wird vermutlich manches von unseren Gewächsen mit nach Frankreich genommen haben. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 03/18/1811. The inside cover of one of Mühlenberg’s Botany, a notebook also features a brief note on Billy: Peter Billy Seedsman Alexandria Virg[inia] – nun N[ew] York u[nd] Frankr[eich]. See APS 580 M89bo vol. III, inside of front cover, middle part. For brief passages on Billy, see also Mears, “Herbarium,” 160; Smith, “Pioneer,” 443. 196 See above on page 275f.

An American Network

373

Kramsch, Frederick Kampmann and Jacob van Vleck almost simultaneously offered the continuation of their respective exchanges, which had all ended abruptly in the late 1790s.197 At the same time, Anna Rosina Gambold (1762–1821, née Kleist or Kliest) began to provide specimens from what was Mühlenberg’s hitherto most southern location of botanical exchange in Cherokee country, northern Georgia. Gambold’s presence in Mühlenberg’s web can only be traced through his diaries, as not a single letter from her hand has been preserved. In July 1807, she was first mentioned as the collector and sender of a package of plants to Lancaster. After this, there are four more instances of her name until 1811.198 In the list of contributors to his 1813 Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis, he also gave her credit for specimens from Cherokee, but falsely cited her name as Elizabeth Gambold. This misnomer actually suggests that Gambold was a mere collector and never submitted letters or notes along with her packages. These were routinely sent to Lancaster via van Vleck in Nazareth, who in turn forwarded Mühlenberg’s plant identifications to Gambold via Moravian communcation channles.199 Neither Mühlenberg’s diaries nor his correspondence reveal when he first heard of the botanical talents of Frau Gambold, as he referred to her, nor who suggested to establish a botanical exchange between them. Gambold was a native of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where she was born to Daniel Kliest (†1792) and Anna Felicitas Schuster (†1765) in 1762. From 1766 to 1777, she received her basic schooling at 197 The continuation of these correspondences after 1807 is based only on reconstructions from the Mühlenberg diaries, as not a single one of the letters exchanged with Mühlenberg’s Moravian contacts after 1805 has survived. In the case of Samuel Kramsch, one letter could be reconstructed for the year 1807, in Kampmann’s case there are two letters (1808 and 1810), and with regard to Jacob van Vleck, four letters (two in 1807, two in 1809) could be reconstructed for the present phase (1805–1811). See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 513, 514, 532. 198 Jul[i] 17. [1807] an D[oktor] Brickell gesch[rieben] ich gebet für Gynandria und Diadelphia Samen, ihm allerlei Nachricht gegeb[en], dergl[eichen] an H[e]rn Van Vleck u[nd] ihm Denke’s u[nd] Fr[au] Gambold Pflanzen zurück geschickt (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/17/1807. In December 1807, Mühlenberg acknowledged: Dec[ember] 3 1807. Heute kam ein Brief von H[er]r van Vleck (…) und ein Paquet von Cherokee durch Fr[au] Gambold gesamlet (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/03/1807. In 1808, he noted on her: 5) in N[orth] Carol[ina] Kramsch – so so – Cherokee Fr[au] Gambold nützl[ich] sehr. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes]. A year later, there is a vague reference to her activities in a letter to Elliott: From the Cherokee Country I likewise got a clever Parcel, and so from Columbia US several hundred! To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. The last mentioning of her name is in a letter to Elliott again in July 1811: Besides those I had the Pleasure to see 2 Collections one made by Mrs Gambold in Cherokee, the other by Mr. Henry Moore in Tenesse, Natchez and on the red River. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. 199 See Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. A diary entry from December 1807 suggests that it was Jacob van Vleck in Bethlehem, who obviously forwarded whatever Gambold collected: Dec[ember] 3 1807. Heute kam ein Brief von H[er]r van Vleck (…) und ein Paquet von Cherokee durch Fr[au] Gambold gesamlet (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/03/1807. McKinley also suggests that the two never directly corresponded and mentions the incorrect naming in Mühlenberg’s catalogue. For both, see McKinley, “Gambold,” 60.

374

Letters from an American Botanist

the local girls’ school at Bethlehem, where she became an arts teacher in 1788.200 Nearly all of Mühlenberg’s former Moravian contacts had traveled through or even spent some time in Bethlehem, which makes it most likely that Gambold heard Mühlenberg’s name first from Kampmann, Kramsch, Denke or van Vleck and that their exchange was also arranged by one of them.201 In May 1805, she married John Gambold (1760–1827) with whom she went to Springplace, Georgia, in October of the same year to set up an Indian school for the Cherokees.202 On July 16, 1807, just one day prior to the first note of Anna Rosina’s name in Mühlenberg’s diary, John Lyon, the plant hunter and occasional Mühlenberg correspondent, paid a visit to the Gambolds. After the visit, he penned a brief sketch of her character: Mrs Gambold I find is a very intelligent woman, and a good botanist, she was Miss Kleist and many years principal teacher at the celebrated Femal Semanary [sic!] at Bethlehem in Pennsylvania before she married M[iste]r G[ambold].203 Gambold gathered the specimens she sent to Lancaster either in the vicinity of the Consauga river or picked them directly from the various gardens she had under her care. Mühlenberg seems to have been among the first to receive specimens from her. At a later point, Mühlenberg’s future Moravian correspondent Lewis David de Schweinitz might also have been among the recipients, as Daniel McKinley has suggested.204 With regard to her theoretical skills in botany, little material has sur200 McKinley, “Gambold,” 67f.; 71. 201 From 1780 on, Kampmann lived in Hope, New Jersey, and often traveled to Bethlehem to tend to the sick. Kramsch was there from 1783 to 1787, while van Vleck lived in Bethlehem during most of the 1780s and served as inspector to the local girls’ boarding school from 1790 to 1802. McKinley also speaks of an oil painting of van Vleck at the Moravian Archives Bethlehem, painted by Gambold in 1795 on occasion of van Vleck’s birthday. When Gambold left for her missionary duties in Georgia in 1805, Christian F. Denke noted: Dear sister A. R. Kliest has become a pilgrim. Quoted after McKinley, “Gambold,” 76. See also Dienerblatt “Kampmann;” Dienerblatt “Kramsch;” Dienerblatt “van Vleck;” McKinley, “Gambold,” 68. 202 A school was not part of the original plan for the long-planned Moravian settlement project at Springplace. Only when the Cherokee demanded a school and threatened to make the Gambolds leave, a school was set up and Anna Rosina began to teach. McKinley, “Gambold,” 76– 80. With regard to Gambold’s husband John, not much is known. Becker mentions a certain “Gambold” as a botanical teacher at the Moravian seminary in Niesky. A kinship relation to John Gambold, however, could not be established. According to Becker, Anna Rosina’s husband John (1760–1827) was also active as a botanist in Niesky himself. Becker, “Pflege,” 25; 43. 203 The entry begins thus: 16th Got on to the residence of the Revd. John Gambold the Moravian Missionary for the Cherokee Nation. 18 miles much rain with thunder to day. Went along with Mr Gambold and the other Missionary to visit Vane whose residence is within half a mile. He is when sober a very intelligent gentele man, but when intoxicated a truly mad and dangerous animal. In these mad frolicks I am informed he has killed several men. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 34. 204 McKinley also mentions John Torrey (1796–1873) as one of her potential later contacts. On her gardens, Rev. Henry Steinhauer noted in a diary letter dated May 6, 1818: On my expressing a wish to see some of the botanical productions of the country, Sister Gambold sent me last Autumn [1817] between twelfe and fourteen hundred specimens of dried plants, besides near a hundred packets of seeds, several minerals, specimens of all the Indian manufactures of cane, &c. and a number of other curiosities; apologizing for the not having done more, as the season

An American Network

375

vived with the exception of a list of her library and an article published in the March 1819 edition of Silliman’s American Journal of Science and Arts. This article was entitled “A list of Plants found in the neighborhood of Connasarga River (Cherokee Country) where Springplace is situated; made by Mrs. Gambold, at the request of the Rev[erend] Elias Cornelius.” At the bottom of the title page, an asterisk footnote says: Copied partly from manuscripts of the late D[octo]r Muhlenberg, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania,205 which obviously refers to Mühlenberg’s plant identifications.206 In total, Gambold sent 108 new specimens to Mühlenberg, 83 of which were published in Mühlenberg’s 1813 Plantarum while the remaining 25 went into his Descriptio uberior plantarum graminum et plantarum Calamarium Americae Septentrionalis Indigenarum et Cicurum, which was posthumously published in 1817.207 The latter work was prepared by the Portuguese botanist José Correa de Serra (1750–1822), who also became a Mühlenberg contact after 1813 and paid a visit to the Gambolds in 1815.208 This visit and the fact that Mühlenberg’s Descriptio uberior also contained specimens by Gambold suggest that he continued to receive specimens from her beyond the year 1811, although their last recorded instance of contact can be found in a letter to Elliott as early as 1811.209 Gambold was not the only person to revive Mühlenberg’s domestic botanical correspondence with Moravians after 1807. Our formerly most avid collector Mr Kramsch has given up, Mühlenberg informed Schreber in 1802 after eleven years without any contact with Kramsch.210 The same year, Kramsch was ordered to go to Salem, NC, where he took over the directorship of the local girls’ school until November 1805, when he was dismissed on account of complaints about his management style. Kramsch left Salem in September of the following year but returned in 1807 and eventually opened an “odds-and-ends”-store. Apparently, this left him was unfavourable; Quoted after McKinley, “Gambold,” 62. McKinley also stresses that Anna Rosina early on became an active participant in the Moravian communication channels, corresponding with John Heckewelder in 1802 and Bishop George Henry Loskiel (1740–1814), whom she also accompanied as a secretary and diarist during a tour to the Muskingum in the same year. McKinley assumes that John Torrey (1796–1873) and Mühlenberg’s later Moravian correspondent Lewis David de Schweinitz (1780–1834) received botanicals from her. Apparently, some of the botanicals she sent to Steinhauer were later obtained by Manasseh Cutler. McKinley, “Gambold,” 61f.; 65f.; 72f. 205 Quoted after McKinley, “Gambold,” 60. 206 McKinley, “Gambold,” 65. 207 McKinley, “Gambold,” 60. 208 McKinley, “Gambold,” 63; 83. 209 To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. In the December 1817 edition of the American Monthly Magazine & Critical Review, Mühlenberg’s former correspondent Rafinesque observed in an article entitled “Survey of the progress and actual state of natural sciences in the United States” on the exchange between Gambold and Mühlenberg: Many ladies begin to show a taste for useful pursuits; they attend botanical and chemical lectures; but none have, as yet distinguished themselves. The only one that deserves mention, is Mrs. Gambold who sent plants to the Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg from the Cherokee country; others are satisfied by feeling a lively interest in the pursuits and success of their relatives. Quoted after McKinley, “Gambold,” 61. 210 Unser ehemahliger fleißiger Samler Herr Krampsch hat es aufgegeb[en]. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

376

Letters from an American Botanist

with more time on his hands for his botanical interests, and on December 8, 1807, Mühlenberg noted somewhat surprisedly in his diary that that Kramsch had notified him to be active again and even to send him a plant collection soon.211 His excitement over this unexpected renewal of his correspondence with Kramsch soon subsided again. In November 1808, he noted rather disillusioned 5) in N[orth] Carol[ina] Kramsch – so so (…) and in a letter to August Gotthold Oemler he observed in August 1811 that he had written twice to Kramsch but had never received an answer.212 In Pennsylvania, a chance to renew the exchange with Kampmann came when the latter moved from Hope, NJ, to Bethlehem in Pennsylvania in late 1808. Mühlenberg was informed about this by a visitor in September 1808 who also promised to try to coax Kampmann back into correspondence.213 Today I have composed a letter to Kampmann to open our correspondence again, but it will only go by next week, Mühlenberg noted in his diary on November 18, 1808. On the margin, he added some time later: Kampmann does not answer, seems to take little interest in correspondence.214 By April 1809, however, the exchange was finally renewed, although Mühlenberg appeared dissatisfied with it.215 Contact with Jacob van Vleck in Nazareth, on the other hand, seems to have been re-opened primarily in consequence of van Vleck’s mediating services between Gambold and Mühlenberg. In 1802, he had moved from Bethlehem to Nazareth, where he was appointed director of the boys’ school in April of the same year.216 Mühlenberg’s diary entries mention four instances of contact with van Vleck from July 1807 to December 1809217 and 211 [E]in Brief von H[er]rn Kramsch der wieder botanisierte und für mich eine Sammlung fertig hat die er aber noch nicht hat überschicken können. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/08/1807. Dienerblatt “Kramsch,” Tursi, “Salem Academy,” 58f. 212 Kramsch an den ich gleich nach Ihrem Besuch zweimahl geschrieb[en] hat mir nicht geantwortet. Vermuthlich hat er sonst zu viel zu thun ohnehin sind die Gelegenheit[en] etwas hin und her zu schicken höchst selten. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes]. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. The recipient, August Gotthild Oemler, is falsely cited as “Omer” in Mole, the APS online finding device. 213 28. [September 1808] war D[oktor] Freitag hier, Kampman ist nach Bethlehem gezog privatisiert u[nd] botanisiert. Fr[eitag] verspricht mir ihn zur Corresp[ondenz] aufzumuntern. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/28/1808. Note: Dr Freitag could not be identified. 214 Heute habe ich einen Brief an Kampman geschrieb[en] um unsre Korrespondenz wieder zu eröfnen, er wird aber erst nechste Woche abgehen. Margin entry: Kampman antwortet nicht, es ist ihm also an Correspondenz wenig gelegen. Both in Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808. 215 Obs[ervatio] Kampman ist wie Brickell tenax u[nd] ich solte ihm für seine Pflanzen die er benennt nur danken u[nd] höchsten wo er? frägt meine Meinung sagen, alte Leute lehren gern, u[nd] wünschen keine Belehrung, wenigstens ists ein seltner Fall, sein letzter Brief scheint voll von Erkenntlichkeit u[nd] Wünschen für Belehrung. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 04/05/1809 [margin note]. In February 1810, Kampmann sent a description of various plants. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 02/01/1810. Kampmann stayed in Bethlehem until his death in 1832. Dienerblatt “Kampman,” 216 Dienerblatt “Jacob van Vleck,” 217 Jul[i] 17. an D[oktor] Brickell gesch[rieben] ich gebet für Gynandria und Diadelphia Samen,

An American Network

377

three more instances of contact from December 1813 to August 1814.218 Both Kampmann and van Vleck were on Mühlenberg’s list of contributors to his 1813 Plantarum catalogue.219 5.6 The West – Müller and the Planthunters After 1803, Mühlenberg’s major concern was to enlarge his herbarium with specimens from the South and to tap botanical sources in the hitherto nearly uncovered northern regions of the United States. Basically all of his American networking in the decade preceding the publication of his Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis in 1813 aimed at covering the territory of the United States as comprehensively as possible. Apparently, Mühlenberg developed this national botanical perspective at some point between his last article on a local topic to Willdenow in Berlin in 1799 and the publication of Michaux’ American Flora four years later. George Logan’s “agrarian nationalism,” to which Mühlenberg was exposed during the latter’s residece at Lancaster, was surely the main influence in this respect. Anti-European and specifically anti-French sentiments, which were running high in the years following the so-called Quasi War with France, were surely a factor too.220 After all, Mühlenberg remained much too devoted to free scientific exchange to let nationalistic feelings interfere with his botanical interests. His main interest was to cover the territorial expansion of the United States botanically, although most of the people on the list of contributors to his 1813 catalogue were located along an axis running from North to South. Besides the Natchez resident and explorer William Dunbar, there was only one man on the list who may be considered a resident of the ‘West’: Müller, (Christopher) M[edical] D[octor] From Harmony, West Pennsylvania.221 After the North Carolinian Stephen Elliott, Johann Christopher Müller (1779– 1845) was Mühlenberg’s second largest correspondent regarding the sheer numbers

218 219 220

221

ihm allerlei Nachricht gegeb[en], dergl[eigen] an H[e]rn Van Vleck u[nd] ihm Denke’s u[nd] Fr[au] Gambold Pflanzen zurück geschickt (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/17/1807. 28. [September 1808] war D[oktor] Freitag hier, Kampman ist nach Bethlehem gezog privatisiert u[nd] botanisiert. Fr[eitag] verspricht mir ihn zur Corresp[ondenz] aufzumuntern (...) mit ihm schicke ich an VanVleck meine 5–11. von Gräsern zurück es waren lauter bekannte. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/28/1808. Dec[ember] 3 1807. Heute kam ein Brief von H[er]r van Vleck (…) und ein Paquet von Cherokee durch Fr[au] Gambold gesamlet (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/03/1807. On December 5, 1809, Mühlenberg acknowledges the reception of 49 plants by van Vleck. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/05/1809. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 532. Kampmann, (Frederick) M[edical] D[octor] from Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. A side concern was certainly to reclaim some ground that had just previously been lost to de Jussieuan botany, as featured in Michaux’ work, whose natural system of classification opposed Linnaeus’ artificial code of nomenclature. This threatened to overthrow the order American botanists were still working on and not yet ready to discard. Naturally, Mühlenberg’s catalogue was to be Linnean. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors.

378

Letters from an American Botanist

of letters exchanged in the years from 1805 to 1811. A total of 29 letters was sent back and forth between Lancaster and the first homestead of Georg Rapp’s (1757– 1847) Harmony Society in Butler County, PA, some 40 miles north of Pittsburgh.222 Müller was born in 1777 or 1778 in Heimerdingen near Stuttgart in southwestern Germany, but grew up in Grossglattbach. After an apprenticeship as a barber, he became a follower of the charismatic mystic Rapp, in whose millennial and chiliastic sectarian society he served as a physician, botanist and musical composer until April 1832.223 Rapp had been gathering a flock of followers in southwestern Germany in the 1790s, criticizing the established church for its university-trained pastors, and the practice of the sacraments of confirmation, communion and child baptism. In the spring of 1803, the Rappists’ growing dissatisfaction and the outlook of imminent war prompted Rapp to lead his new church to America. By then, Müller was already a close advisor to Rapp and boarded the ship “Canton” with the first wave of disciples in Amsterdam to sail for America. In October 1803, the group reached Baltimore, from where they immediately transferred to Lancaster. Until 1804, 329 Rappists followed.224 Lancaster was of crucial importance to Rapp as the Pennsylvania Land office had been transferred to the city along with the legislature in 1799. Indeed, the importance of friendly contacts in the new surroundings is very evident in Rapp’s and other Harmonists’ letters until 1814.225 Rapp’s first letter from Lancaster to his followers at home did not mention Mühlenberg in person, but it is practically impossible that Mühlenberg was unaware of the group’s brief sojourn in Lancaster.226 His close friend Andrew Ellicott headed the Pennsylvania land office at the time, while his own brother Peter, then president of the German Society, was one of Rapp’s earliest and most avid supporters.227 It was particularly through Peter’s help that the Harmonists managed to acquire a piece of land in Butler county in western Pennsylvania, where a fraction of the original group founded the Harmony Society in February 1805. By the end of 1806, the society had overcome initial difficulties and was busy trying to establish a postal station to improve its links to Pittsburgh and 222 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 519f. Auer, Harmonisten, 71f. 223 Fritz, Verzeichnis, 42; Overlease, “Darlington,” 86. Arndt’s edition of Harmony-related documents includes Rapp’s first surviving letter to Müller, wherein Rapp chides him for having gone astray and urges him to return to the community. Arndt, Separatists, 312. 224 Auer, Harmonisten, 1; 51; 56; 59; 69f.; Fritz, Verzeichnis, 42. Arndt, Harmony, 1f. 225 To his nephew Jacob Neff, George Rapp wrote in 1806: [Ü]brigens nehme es doch nicht hart, daß wir dich beschwehren, wir haben dich zimmlich eigen, und viel vertrauen zu dir, und weist selber wie nöthig wir einen Freund bey Lancaster haben, davor wir Gott danckbar seyn (…). Quoted after Arndt, Harmony, 215. On behalf of a letter by Jacob Dengler to the same Neff, Arndt comments: “The seventeen day long trip which Dengler describes in this letter was from Strassburg, Pennsylvania, near Lancaster, to Harmonie, and the letter shows that the Lancaster area was one in which the Harmony society not only had friends but also very bitter and disillusioned former members who considered Rapp a swindler and a fraud.” Arndt, Harmony, 229. Also, Jacob Stahl served as an agent to the Harmonists in Lancaster. Arndt, Harmony, 345. In 1814, the Harmonists moved to New Economy, Indiana. 226 Arndt, Harmony, 1f. 227 For Ellicott in Lancaster, see above on page 268f. Arndt, Harmony, 712.

An American Network

379

Philadelphia. The plans even included a vineyard.228 Obviously, the comfortable situation finally allowed Müller to establish some contacts for the sake of his medical practice. On August 29, 1807, Mühlenberg noted the reception of a letter by Johann Christopher Müller from Harmony, who is a doctor and lover of botany. He asks for seeds.229 This short entry suggests that the two men had not become acquainted personally during the Harmonists’ sojourn in Lancaster. A second and third letter followed in late September and early December, both of which show that Müller was a beginner in botany and that their exchange would focus on practical issues, specifically on medically and economically interesting plants.230 This also reflected his role within Rapp’s society. Müller was the society’s only physician, whose constant problem was the Harmonists’ remote location, which made the purchase of medicines difficult and thus forced him to rely on the medical properties of local herbs.231 Numerous documents in Arndt’s editions of Harmony manuscripts testify to his efforts to obtain medicines, books, knowledge about plants and even a human skeleton for anatomical studies from various persons and sources.232 Among Müller’s first activities was the 228 Arndt, Harmony, 195; 203; 213; 249; Auer, Harmonisten, 71f.; 83; Williams, Harmony, 50; 53. The same year also saw the introduction of celibacy to Harmony and a long drawn-out legal battle over alleged riots, during which Müller was also indicted. Arndt comments: “Most puzzling of all is the charge against Christopher Müller, the physician, certainly not a man given to violence.” Arndt, Harmony, 221. See also Arndt, Harmony, 270f.; Williams, Harmony, 56. William’s account of the interior development of the Harmony Society from 1805 to 1814 hardly qualifies as a critical historical analysis, but still yields crucial insights into its daily life and customs. In this sense, it will also be used in this study. For a depiction of William’s personal motivation in writing this first comprehensive history of the Harmonists, see his foreword in volume I. 229 J[ohann] C[hristopher] Müller aus Harmony, der Doctor u[nd] Liebhaber der Botanic ist. [E] r verlangt Samen. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/29/1807. 230 Both letters are only recorded in Mühlenberg‘s diary: [E]inen 2t Brief von D[oktor] Müller aus Harmony 1) Er hatt keine botanische Schrift er wünscht Systema vegetabile Schöpf materia medica ein Buch von Vieh Arzney _ * ob Hoffm[ann] Fl[ora] Germ[aniae] 2 Bekanntschaft mit dem Linnaeisch System _ ich könte ihm eine kurze Nachricht von den 24 Claßen geb[en] 3. Sämereien sand Conium maculatum. 4. Ich solte ihm wohl 50 od[er] mehr von unseren besten Kräutern getrocknet schicken, damit er sieht wie man sie einlegt aus jeder Claße etwa 2. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/22/1807. [E]in Brief von D. Müller aus Harmony, der nach Drosera freiß mit mehr Samen u[nd] Systema veg[etaria] verlangt – er will nächst Jahr für mich senden und hat Order gegeb[en] für das übersante hier zu bezahlen. [F]ragt auch nach Vergrösserungs Gläser bis 6 D[ollars] (...). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/05/1807. 231 By 1809, the situation had obviously improved. In this year, a first annual balance account of incomes and expenses was produced for the society, which featured Müller with individual expenses of $264.25 in third position, after Mich[ael] Rukenbrodt with $962.90 for leather and utensils and Georg Schmid with $713.74 for iron and steel. In turn, Müller generated the sixth highest income with $152.20. Again, Rukenbrodt headed the list with $1,123.23 of individual income. Arndt, Harmony, 354. 232 To Andrew Rappe from Canton in Stark County, Ohio, Müller wrote as of August 14, 1812: Könnten Sie mir eine pflanze von der Glycrrhiza Glabia diesen herbst Schicken so würden Sie mich herzlich verbinden; Arndt, Harmony, 548. To Frederick Rapp, Müller wrote: In my Catalogue of medicines I gave You along, I omitted two articles, 6 or 8 lb of Oil of Vitriol and half

380

Letters from an American Botanist

establishment of a botanical garden on the shores of the Conoquessing, which was supplemented by an additional pleasure garden, the so-called “Labyrinth.”233 It was primarily in these efforts that Müller sought Mühlenberg’s help and advice. Unfortunately, the first four letters of their contact have not survived, while the remaining eight all come from Müller’s hand and only reflect one side of their correspondence.234 His requests and queries to Mühlenberg almost exclusively had a medical context: The Anemone thalictroides Epigea repens, a typical passage started, appear very useful to me (…) I will have a look at what Schoepf says about it.235 In return, Müller sent potentially undescribed specimens to Lancaster, which Mühlenberg would identify, return and use for his own publication plans.236 Among a pount of Oil of sweet Almonds, which you please to add to it. (...) I stand in great need of a Skeleton, I had had occasion for last when Aigners, Masons wife dislocated her foot – I would like as well to borrow one for one Year if it could be got, when I would give it back with the Interest of one hundred Dollars. Arndt, Harmony, 624. Conrad Zentler, Philadelphia’s most important book trader of German-American books at the time, submitted a list of books he had picked to Müller’s taste. The list included the following botanical titles: D. Johann Georg Gmelins Reise durch Sibirien, von dem Jahr 1733 bis 1743, 4 Bde., Göttingen 1751–1752. Langstedt, Fr. L. Allgemeines Botanisches Repertorium, zum gemeinnützigen Gebrauch für jeden Kenner und Liebhaber dieser intereßanten Wißenschaft. There were also works on optics, astronomy, arithmetics, hydrostatics and geography. Arndt, Harmony, 830. There is also an untranscribed list entitled “Anweisungen wie die in der Arzneikiste enthaltenden Midicinen anzuwenden,” bearing no clear reference to Müller. Arndt, Harmony, 909. In 1808, he also tried to contact McMahon in Philadelphia: Ich habe dieses Frühjahr in Gesellschaft mit H[errn] van der Schot an H[errn] McMahon in Phil[adelphia] um welches nebst verschiedener Samen geschrieben, habe aber kein Gen. pl. und nur wenige Samen erhalten. From Müller, 05/09/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 233 Arndt, Harmony, 455. John Melish, who paid a visit to the society in 1812, gave a description of the premises: From the Labyrinth we went to the Botanic Garden, which is well stored with valuable plants and herbs; and the two doctors pored over them more than an hour. We afterwards went to the doctor’s house, where he showed us an elegant collection of plants, all natives of Harmony, which he had carefully arranged agreeable to the Linnaean system. Quoted after Arndt, Harmony, 457. 234 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 519f. 235 Die Anemone thalictroides Epigea repens, a typical passage started, scheinen mir besonders brauchbar zu sein. (…) Ich sehe allemal gleich nach was Schoepf sagt. From Müller, 05/09/1808, HSP Coll. 443. Müller referred here to Johann David Schöpf’s Materia Medica, which Mühlenberg had decisively contributed to and submitted to Müller as a present. Queries for cures to rattlesnake bites were specifically sought for: Die Hypoxis erecta versuchte ich zuerst bei einem Rasselschlangenbiss, sie leistete mir gar nichts, was man mir von ihr versprochen. From Müller, 09/22/1808, HSP Coll. 443. Für den Schlangenbiss brauchte ich allererst die Hypoxis creeta nach Ihrer Vorschrift, wo ich noch nicht wusste wie sie heißt. Indessen ward sie mir sehr recomandiert, allein sie leistete mir durchweg keinen Dienst, außer beim Vieh. From Müller, 09/30/1808, HSP Coll. 443. Hier folgt das Verzeichnis der Pflanzen, so ich zur Prüfung überschicke. (…). Diejenigen so ich mit # bezeichnet, sind nur besonders merkwürdige, ich möchte sie also genau nach dem System[?] kennen, und auch wissen, ob sie etwa nicht mit Nutzen in der Medizin angewendet werden könnten. From Müller, 09/22/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 236 Ich sende Ihnen hierbei ein Verzeichnis der Pflanzen welche ich im Monat März u[nd] April eingelegt habe, ich bin gesonnen solches alle Monate zu tun, wenn es Ihnen angenehm sein wird. Ich gab mir alle Mühe um so viel wie Sie im ersten Monat zu bekommen, allein ich

An American Network

381

Mühlenberg’s American correspondents, Müller was the only one who actually described their tie as a “teacher-student” relationship.237 In Joseph van der Schott, Mühlenberg’s old correspondent and friend, Müller also had a local supporter to aid him in the complicated first steps of plant identification and botanical exchange.238 Mühlenberg’s and Müller’s exchange, however, continued practically uninterrupted until spring 1814, when the society moved to Indiana. In comparison, traveling seedsmen and planthunters like Matthias Kin, John Lyon and Aloysius Enslin appear to have contributed relatively little botanically relevant material from western regions. From 1807 to 1809, Kin was by far Mühlenberg’s most avid and farthest traveling contact, which is documented in numerous diary passages and two letters from 1809.239 Only in one instance, however, an enbrachte kaum die Hälfte zuwege. From Müller, 05/09/1808, HSP Coll. 443. Ich würde meine botanische Dubia sogleich mit dem Wagen geschickt haben, wenn es mir anders möglich gewesen wäre. Allein alle meiner Specimina waren außer Ordnung, manche verdorben und hatte ich 2 Tage nötig sie zu renovieren und in die Ordnung zu bringen. Mit der nächsten Gelegenheit nach Pittsburgh werde ich die verlangten Dubia mit Anmerkungen dem Postwagen übergeben. Dass Sie einen Katalog von unserer Flora anfertigen, freut mich recht sehr, vermutlich werden Sie ihn nach der Linneischen systematischen Ordnung einrichten. From Müller, 09/22/1808, HSP Coll. 443. See also letters from Elliott, 10/21/1809, HSP Coll 443; and from Müller, 06/10/1810, HSP Coll. 443. 237 Schließend, grüße Sie recht herzl[ich] und bin dero bekannter lernbegieriger Schüler Christoph Müller. Müller‘s limitations as a botanist notwithstanding, he quickly understood the rules of scientific exchange and fama and thus proposed in September 1808 to name a plant for George Rapp: Könnte es sich nicht gelegentlich schicken, dass wir eine Pflanzen mit dem Namen Rappia Harmonia oder auch nur mit letzterem belegten? Both in Müller’s letter to Mühlenberg, 09/30/1808, HSP Coll. 443.. 238 In the case of Müller, only vague information exists as to the course of his medical education and potential previous letter exchanges on medicine and botany. His letters to Mühlenberg convey the impression that Müller had a sound practical knowledge of healing and cures, but little experience in learned correspondence with scientists or doctors. Van der Schott’s and Müller’s collaboration continued until van der Schott’s death in 1812 and is documented in various passages and letters. Unfortunately, no passage explains whether Mühlenberg initiated this collaboration or encouraged the two men to work together. The first notice comes from Mühlenberg‘s diary: 7) in Pittsburg (...) VanderSchott u[nd] Müller letzterer gut. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes]. In May 1808, Müller wrote to Mühlenberg: Unser Freund H. van der Schott hat Zelienople verlassen und wohnt nun in Pittsburg in Partnerschip [sic!] mit H[errn] Caesseman (…). Sie wollen daselbst einen Drogistenshop verrichten, und sich besonders auch die Chemie sagen. Sie werden ohne Zweifel nächstens einen Besuch von einem oder dem anderen erhalten. From Müller, 05/09/1808, HSP Coll. 443. See also From Müller, 12/28/1808, HSP Coll. 443: Auch H[errn] Van der Schotts Familie war dieses Spätjahr sehr kränklich. So viel ich von anderen höre, wird er nicht in Pittsburgh bleiben. 239 Kin verspricht mir diesen Sommer viel zu samlen, und er verdients daß ich ihn daher belohne weil er würklich arm u[nd] gutherzig ist, sonderlich wenn er auch lebend Pflanze verschafft See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/10/1807. 11. May 1807 (…) 11. war Kin auf ein kurz Besuch bei mir – er hat mir Stauden (…) gesamlet, geht jetzt zurück nach Phil[adelphia] wohnt 1 Meile von Philad[elphia] (…) auf dem Weg nach Germantown, seine Pflanzen schickt er an Wendland in Herrnhausen und nach Halle – verspricht mir Trillia u[nd] Carex (…) See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 05/11/1807. 31. [Dec. 1807] schickt mir Kin in 2 Paquet fürchterlich dicht eingepackt 2 Paquete von Pflanzen die von

382

Letters from an American Botanist

try on the Germantown planthunter vaguely referred to a potential interest in western specimens.240 The well-known and often criticized tendency of planthunters to come up with supposedly “new” genera and subdivisions seems to have been an answer to the constantly growing desire for botanical novelties. Kin and Lyon are seed traders and create a new species when there is only a variety, Mühlenberg noted in June 1808.241 Lyon, in turn, had just come back from his latest sales tour to England in April 1807 and continued his collecting and trading tours to the South until his next visit to England in December 1811. During these years, he paid visits to Samuel Kramsch in Salem, Anna Rosina Gambold in Cherokee country and Stephen Elliott on his farm near Savannah. On October 7, 1807, Lyon came to Lancaster again. After trading seeds and specimens with Mühlenberg, Lyon returned only once in November 1809, after which he proceeded to New York City and from there to England.242 In 1810, Mühlenberg suggested to Benjamin Smith Barton that a keinem Belang sind und meldet daß er vor 2 Monat mit einem Bauer Neiss ohnweit Lancaster eine starke Parthie getrockneter Pflanzen geschickt, die ich aber nicht erhalten. (…) Ich werde Kins Pflanzen als das letzte Geschenk in diesem Jahre hersetz obs gleich 1/4 Dollar gekostet hat. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/31/1807. 10. Kin u[nd] Lyon machen als Samenhändler viel Species wo nur Varr[ietäten] sind. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/01/1808. Oct[ober] 2 kam ein kleines Paquet von Kin (...) Er hat 2 Bücher von Specim[ina] für sich gemacht die er mir zur Durchsicht heraufschicken will wenn ich sie verlang[en]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/02/1808. Kin will geg[en] das Ende vom May nach der Susquehanna u[nd] dann anrufen. Er verlangt ich soll von Populus trepida für ihn einleg, damit er Wurzel schlage. Ich habe so gleich etliche geschickt (...)Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 04/05/1809. 240 In November 1809, Kin obviously tried to coax Mühlenberg into trading “the new gooseberry by Lewis” for specimens from new genera he had just returned with. Auch Kin schreibt Nov[ember] 6 daß er von einer Reise zu Fuß über 800 Mal zurück gekommen. Er hat wenigstens über 25 neue Gattungen mitgebracht zu welchen ich willkommen bin. Im Frühjahr will er sie herauf besorgen. Er verlangt die neue Stachelbeere von Lewis. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/06/1809. Considering the high market value of specimens from unexplored western regions, this reluctance is somewhat surprising at first sight. On the other hand, travels beyond the frontier were much more difficult and dangerous than within the relatively well-charted coastal strip between Pennsylvania and Georgia. 241 Kin u[nd] Lyon machen als Samenhändler viel Species wo nur Var[ietäten] sind. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/01/1808. See also a later letter to Stephen Elliott: M[ister] Kin has returned safe to our Parts, he is a curious but I think very honest and industrious Man, who has done much for Botany. I have seen his large Herbarium more then once and have corrected his Names to the best of my Knowledge but he cannot remember a Name well and spells so unaccountably bad that I am uncertain whether I would know his again. He is apt to raise the Variety to a different Species which is a common thing with Seeds and Nursery men. To Elliott, 07/02/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Hotchkin, Germantown, 35. 242 Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10, 13, 37. In his diary, he noted on behalf of Mühlenberg: 7th Remained at Lancaster. [Visited Muhlenberg, and from him] got some Specimens and seeds (...). Lyon returned in August 1808 and in July 1809: 1st. Got on to Lancaster 42 miles. In the morning a white frost. Day clear and pleasant. 2nd Remained in Lancaster. Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 37; 46; 49. On behalf of Elliott, Lyon wrote: 26th Went down to the residence of Stephen Elliott Esqr on Ogechee. 14 miles from Savannah, on a visit. Weather blustry and cold. 27th Remained at Mr Elliotts, engaged in getting plants of Chamaerops Hystrix etc. a hard frost producing ice. 28th Remained at Mr Elliotts, went along with him to Ogechee ferry and collected plants of 4

An American Network

383

plant, originally discovered by Lyon, be named after him.243 In fact, Enslin was the only planthunter and Mühlenberg contact that had a plan to collect further in the western territories. In March 1807, a letter from Lyon reached Mühlenberg, telling him that Michaux was off to Carolina and was supposed to stay for three years, while Enslin was on his way to Georgia and from there on to the Mississippi.244 There is no evidence that Mühlenberg ever received anything from the western frontier by Enslin, who died a short time later in 1810. In any event, Mühlenberg had just begun to become interested in the West and the Lewis&Clark specimens. 5.7 The Aftermath of the great Expeditions Obtaining fresh botanical materials from the North, South and West for his catalogue was Mühlenberg’s major concern at the time, but it did not stop here. Some of the training of Meriwether Lewis, who was to embark on a western tour of exploration, had been conducted virtually in front of Mühlenberg’s front door in May 1804.245 Since then, he had closely followed the fate of the Lewis&Clark corps of discovery, and whatever news, gossip or other talk reached Lancaster was carefully noted in his diaries. At the time, the Lewis&Clark specimens had already become the most coveted objects of scientific research for botanists on both sides of the Atlantic. Beyond their actual scientific value, they also symbolized a new era both in politics and science, as they were the visible embodiments of one of the core beliefs of enlightenment thought: the belief in progress. In a geographical sense, this progress was completed on November 7, 1805, when Lewis noted in his journal the famous words Ocian in view! O! the joy!, upon the first sighting of the Pacific ocean. In a scientific sense, the zoological and botanical samples needed to be analyzed and further processed before progress in this area could be proclaimed, too. As it turned out, American science was not yet up to the task. Incompetence, tardiness, internal rivalry and the individual failure of such central figures as Benjamin Smith Barton combined to make the scientific processing of the data yet another species of Hypericum, Andromeda ferruginea, Monniera Sp. Liatris tomentosa Mich. Laurus melissaefolia, Hypoxis sp., Chamaerops serrulata etc. Weather clear and pleasant.” 29th Remained at Mr. Elliott. Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,”44. For his second tour to England, which he started on December 12, 1811, see Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 49. 243 M[iste]r Lyon has great Merit in American Botany, and if it is the Plant without Name, certainly his Name might be kept. I sent it to D[octor] Smith as Lyonia and had the Plant from D[octor] Brickell and Enslin before I saw it at M[iste]r Hamiltons and M[iste]r Lyons. To Barton, 11/01/1810, APS Mss. B. B284d. 244 18 [März]: den 2t[en] Brief von Lyon [erhalten]. Michaux ist nach Carolina u[nd] soll sich 3 Jahr in America aufhalt[en]: Enslin ist nach Georgien von dort will er an den Mississippi. He continued: Burch [Pursh] geht wieder auf einen Excursion u[nd] hält alles heimlich. Lyons schickt mir d[en] Catalog von dem was er in England verkauft hat, wenig neues darunter. Er will Bäume u Staud Gewächse von hier im Herbst und verspricht Grassamen zu send[en]. Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/18/1807. See also Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10n; Elliot, Sketch I, xiii; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10. 245 To Baldwin, 05/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 32.

384

Letters from an American Botanist

achievement for European sciences rather than the founding monument of American botany and zoology. Mühlenberg, who was probably alarmed by his long experiences with European correspondence, sensed the danger of failure early on: Pray have you specimens of any of Lewis’ plants? he asked William Baldwin (1779– 1819) in 1811. I have tried every method to get a sight of them, – but in vain. My friends at Philadelphia have denied me the pleasure of seeing them in flower. I would wish to add them to my catalogue, without any description: leaving that to the compilers of Lewis’s work. I am afraid the description will be made in England, and Lewis’ work will come too late. Perhaps you can get the specimens from M[iste] r M’Mahon, or D[octo]r Barton.246 It was a futile endeavor. From 1804 to 1806, the expedition led by Lewis and Clark had explored and charted a stretch of land that spanned more than 6,000 miles across the modern states of Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. In the spring of 1805, they had already amassed enough samples to begin sending them back to Philadelphia, where 200 plants were finally counted and stored, 80 of which would turn out to be entirely new to science.247 Mühlenberg’s old friend William Hamilton and the Philadelphia gardener Bernard M’Mahon (1775–1816) had been handpicked by Jefferson to grow the seeds under strict secrecy, although some seeds seem to have circulated in other ways: I have sown the few seeds received from M[iste]r Lewis after dividing what could be spared amongst my Friends, Mühlenberg informed John Vaughan (1756– 1841), the A.P.S. secretary and chief librarian, in April 1807. M[iste]r Moore informs me that M[iste]r Hamilton and M[iste]r McMahon have received many more. I hope they will take great Care of them, after they came so far.248 The fact that 246 To Baldwin, 05/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 32. For the competition among American and European scientists, see also Greene, American Science, 11; Ewan, “Pursh,” 605; 624. 247 The first specimens were returned on April 7, 1805. Pelczar, “Plants;” Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 501; 542. According to Petersen, the first packages contained 108 specimens, the later ones, which Lewis returned personally, contained another 178 new ones. Petersen, New World Botany, 295–97; 302. 248 To Vaughan, 04/09/1807, APS. Arch. Box 5. A later letter to Stephen Elliot from 1809 makes clear that Mühlenberg only received six seeds from Lewis: D[octor] Barton speaks rather too hard of Lewis’s Discoveries. I have received from M[iste]r Lewis only 6 different Seeds and they are all valuable Plants. I will not publish anything about them untill his work has been published. To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. Vaughan, too, counts among Mühlenberg’s primarily oral Philadelphia contacts: With M[iste]r Vaughan I am personally acquainted. To Dunbar, 07/05/1808, Rowland, Papers of William Dunbar, 198. Both Hamilton and M’Mahon were close friends of Jefferson, who even considered Hamilton’s Woodlands garden “the only rival” to English garden. Ewan, “Pursh,” 605; Stetson, “Hamilton,” 31; Madsen, “Hamilton,” 19. The exact identity of M[iste]r Moore is not entirely clear. Apparently, he was a native of Lancaster, who frequently traveled to Philadelphia and Natchez, Mississippi, bringing back botanical specimens for Mühlenberg. To William Baldwin, Mühlenberg explained in 1811: Should you, in your travels, come to the Natchez, there is a M[iste]r Henry Moore, a native of Lancaster, who, in company with his brother, is in trade, – but likewise attends to Botany, and every branch of natural history: – a most valuable man, who, in his travels, has made many valuable discoveries. To Baldwin, 11/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 51. Generally, Bernard M’Mahon’s name is quoted in many different variants throughout Mühlenberg’s letters, mod-

An American Network

385

Lewis had obviously distributed original specimens to friends and acquaintances against Jefferson’s explicit orders might be interpreted as the first sign of the failures and blunders that were to come.249 Mühlenberg’s acquaintance with Hamilton dated back to 1795, and their mutual visits had continued on a regular basis since then. Hamilton had gradually become Mühlenberg’s prime source of information on Benjamin Smith Barton and scientific life in Philadelphia.250 Nevertheless, one of the diary entries Mühlenberg routinely composed after seeing Hamilton sums up the mutual suspicions and envies that characterized local scientific life at this crucial time and apparently did not stop before friends: Today William Hamilton tells me the [American] Philosophical Society has entrusted him with the last [seeds?] that Captain Lewis has brought with him in order to sow them and to make a description of them. Not many have really sprung up out ot the first, he expects more to come up, lots had already been sprouting before he had left for his home. He has concealed everything, so that Doctor Barton and others may not discover it. He takes notes on every remark I make. So I have to be careful with what I say and not tell everything I know or that I will find during my imminent journey to Philadelphia.251 A visit to Hamilton’s garden two weeks later confirmed that he could not entirely trust his old friend: His Lewis’ plants were closed and were not shown to me, although he was all aware of my wish. This I will take ad notam. I was not to see them during his absence! he

ern biographical literature and even in his own writings. For this study, I have decided to use the original Irish “M’Mahon” that he also seemed to prefer in his own publications and letters. 249 Apart from Mühlenberg, the nurseryman and seedstore owner David Landreth (1752–1836) is also known to have received seeds of the Osage Orange tree. Landreth was a native of Brunswick on the Tweed in Northern England, from where he had migrated to Canada in 1781, then to Philadelphia in 1786. There he established a seedstore, which is still in business today. Harshberger, Botanists, 91; Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 364. Mühlenberg’s future correspondent André Thouin also received seeds from Jefferson himself. Pelczar, “Plants.” In his Flora Americana (1814), Frederick Pursh also acknowledged to have personally received specimens from Lewis, who was then Governor of Upper Louisiana: A small but highly interesting collection of dried plants was put into my hands by this gentleman, in order to describe and figure those I thought new, for the purpose of inserting them in the account of his Travels, which he was then engaged in preparing for the press. Pursh, Flora, x. See also Moulton, Herbarium, 3. According to Pursh, Bernard M’Mahon also directly received specimens from Lewis’ hand. Pursh, Flora, xii. 250 For initial contact with Hamilton and the Philadelphia gardeners and botanists, see chapter V.2, 158f. 251 Heute sagt mir W[illiam] Hamilton die philosoph[ische] Societät habe ihm die erste u[nd] die letzten [Samen?] die C[aptain] Lewis geschickt u[nd] mitgebracht anvertraut um sie zu säen und eine Beschreibung davon zu machen, von den ersten sind nicht viel aufgegangen, er erwartet daß sie noch aufgehen, von den letzten haben viele gekeimt ehe er (…) heim ging. Er habe alles verborgen, damit nicht etwa D[oktor] Barton u[nd] andre dahinter kommen. Er schreibt jede Anmerkung auf die ich mache. Ich muß daher mit meinen Anmerkungen vorsichtig sein u[nd] nicht alles sagen was ich weiß oder bei meiner bevorstehenden Reise nach Philadelphia finde. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/25/1807.

386

Letters from an American Botanist

noted with dismay on August 8.252 During the same visit, however, he also called on M’Mahon, whose reception was a lot friendlier.253 Bernard M‘Mahon was a native of Ireland, whose biography is practically unknown until his emigration to America as a 21-year-old in 1796. He arrived in Philadelphia with the first wave of young European botanists and planthunters which also brought Matthias Kin, Aloysius Enslin, Joseph van der Schott and others to America. Unlike these men, however, M’Mahon did not appear in Mühlenberg’s letters or diaries until August 1807, when he apparently called on M’Mahon without prior notice.254 After the death of Mühlenberg’s former correspondent and friend Humphrey Marshall in 1801, M’Mahon quickly filled the void left by Marshall in the local seed and nursery business, opening his first seedstore in 1802. When the revenues from this enterprise stabilized, he began taking botanical courses with Benjamin Smith Barton, befriended Thomas Jefferson and finally published his American Gardener’s Calendar in 1806, which quickly became a standard work and Jefferson’s own “horticultural Bible.”255 On December 26, 1806, M’Mahon proposed in a letter to Jefferson that he be commissioned as the cultivator of the precious Lewis&Clark seeds, portions of which had already been handed over to him by Lewis himself.256 Along with Hamilton, M’Mahon received exclusive cul252 Seine Lewish Pflanzen waren verschlossen und wurden mir nicht gewiesen, ob er wohl meinen Wunsch gewusst. Dies werde ich mir ad notam nehmen. Ich soll sie nicht in seiner Abwesenheit seh[en]! See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/08/1807. Two weeks later, Hamilton called on him again in Lancaster, and Mühlenberg strangely did not practice more caution in handing out specimens: 22. Aug[ust] Noch ist Hamilton hier, er ist für alles mitzunehmen und schickt einen Last nach dem anderen weg, es wird sich weisen, ob er auch wieder gibt u[nd] die verlangten Pflanzen u[nd] Sämereien schickt. [Nachtrag] Er hat sie nicht geschickt, ein ander Jahr muss ich sparsamer sein. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/22/1807. 253 Bei M[iste]r McMahon fand ich freundschaftliche Aufnahme – Er ist mir ein wacker fleißiger Botanist (…). mir ad notam nehmen. Ich soll sie nicht in seiner Abwesenheit seh[en]! Lewis wird nächstes Jahr wieder in Philad[elphia] u[nd] vielleicht bei meinem Bruder sein da hätte ich gute Gelegenheit mit ihm bekannt zu werden. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/22/1807. 254 Hatch, “McMahon,” (see online references). Harshberger, Botanists, 117; Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 366; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 40. 255 M’Mahon’s American Gardener’s Calendar was highly successful and ran into eleven editions until 1857. The 648 pages calendar was the first to adapt the common structure and contents of similar English works onto American conditions, providing Americans with month-by-month instructions for planting, soil preparation and other related techniques to increase fertility and expected harvest. Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 363; Hatch, “McMahon,” (see online references). The work also reflected the new American focus on the indigenous flora and fauna: Is it because they are indigenous that we should reject them? What can be more beautiful than our Lobelias, Asclepias, Orchis, and Asters? In Europe plants are not rejected because they are indigenous; and yet here, we cultivate many foreign trifles, and neglect the profusion of beauties so bountifully bestowed upon us by the hand of nature. Quoted after Hatch, “McMahon,” (see online references). See also Hatch, “McMahon,” in online references; See also Harshberger, Botanists, 117; Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 366; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 40; Madsen, “Hamilton,” 19. 256 Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 366; Hatch, “McMahon,” (see online references); Petersen, New World Botany, 295–97. M’Mahon declared to Jefferson that Lewis had handed over all the material for fear they should make their way into the hands of any Botanist, either in America or Europe,

An American Network

387

tivation rights under the restriction not to publish or show them to anyone. This was the reason why Hamilton had refused to show Mühlenberg the Lewish Pflanzen in August 1807, while it is unclear whether M’Mahon’s friendly reception also comprised access to classified information or plant material. In any case, both Hamilton and M’Mahon appeared on Mühlenberg’s 1813 catalogue list of contributors, although a diary entry from January 1812 makes it seem unlikely that either man ever sent him Lewis&Clark material.257 In 1808, M’Mahon bought 20 acres of land north of Philadelphia and founded Upsal garden, named for the Swedish city and Linnaeus’ permanent residence.258 Starting in August 1807, Mühlenberg paid several visits to M’Mahon’s garden and seedstore on Second Street, and after June 1809 he went to Upsal, each time noting the progress of the Lewis&Clark seeds.259 Although it is certain that some sort of exchange existed among the two from approximately 1807 to May 1815, the lack of documentation makes any quantitative or qualitative analysis impossible.260

who might rob M[iste]r Lewis of the right to first describe and name his own discoveries, in his intended publication; and indeed I had strong reasons to believe the opportunity was coveted by – which made me still more careful of his plants. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 544. 257 In this short entry, Mühlenberg listed all contributors with places of origin of the specimens sent to him. For Hamilton, he simply noted Garden, for M’Mahon he wrote Jersey Beach, which suggests that neither of the two at any time provided Mühlenberg with critical material from the West. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/01/1812. 258 The first Lewis&Clark seeds were successfully grown in M’Mahon’s garden in April 1807. Until 1816, Jefferson and M’Mahon exchanged 37 letters, through which M’Mahon kept him posted on the progress in his garden. Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 364–367; Hatch, “McMahon,” (see online references); Harshberger, Botanists, 117; Greene, American Science, 51. 259 See for instance Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, several entries for September 1807 and in April 1809. After 1809, however, Mühlenberg’s visits to M’Mahon and others were primarily recorded in his letters to Stephen Elliott: At the same Time I had the Pleasure to see M[iste]r Hamiltons Garden, M[iste]r Bartram’s M[iste]r Enslin’s and M[iste]r McMahons. To Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. M[iste]r McMahons goes on very briskly with his botanical Garden and much may be expected from his great Industry. He has given me the same Information respecting M[iste]r Lewis’s Work. M[iste]r Pursh, mentioned above, undertook the Description of the Plants and I think finished it with the Drawings; To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. In June I was at Philadelphia. (...) I had the Pleasure to see the (...) the botanick Garden of M[iste]r McMahon who is a going on very briskly. He has Lewis’s Plants in great Perfection, but chiefly yet without Blossom. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 12/17/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 260 M’Mahon appeared on the list of contributors in Mühlenberg’s catalogue in 1813. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. Due to the lack of letters both in Hamilton’s and M’Mahon’s case, it is practically impossible to give detailed accounts of what their botanical exchange might have consisted in. With regard to M’Mahon, only one letter could be reconstructed in May/June 1814. The only substantial hint at the nature of their exchange consists in a diary entry from December 1807: Könnte ich nicht an Mahon alle Asteres die ich habe vielleicht ohne Nahmen schicken? und ihn bitten seine zu schicken die er hat, damit er sieht und ich sehe was für ein Unterschied ist, so könte es mit Solidago u[nd] andern weitläufigen Generibus geschehen. Wir wolten die Numeros merk u[nd] hernach darüber c[on]f[erien]. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/05/1807. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 516.

388

Letters from an American Botanist

While M’Mahon and Hamilton were supposed to raise seedlings and plants, Jefferson had personally charged the officers of the A.P.S. with the subsequent publication of all material and information on the Lewis&Clark expedition, William Dunbar’s Red River expedition of 1804 and the Freeman&Custis expedition of 1805. With this decision, Mühlenberg’s longstanding colleague and occasional “network antagonist” Benjamin Smith Barton found himself once again at the heart of scientific developments. Barton had already contributed to the botanical crash course of Meriwether Lewis in 1804 and had managed to install his former student Peter Custis (1781–1842) as one of the leaders of the Freeman&Custis expedition. Of course, he was among the first to have a look at the specimens in April 1805.261 To Mühlenberg, this turned out to be a distressing situation in several ways. Not only that Barton continued with his habitual reluctance to let anyone see his collections;262 it soon became clear that Barton procrastinated his work on the Lewis&Clark specimens and consequently tried to play down their value, which Mühlenberg found obviously absurd: Barton writes with utter contempt that Lewis’ plants do not contain anything important and he does not know the plants, so that is certainly said too much by him, Mühlenberg wrote in June 1806, adding: All I am having is worth the efforts!263 Indeed, Barton turned out to be the weakest point in 261 Barton also received several letters from Peter Custis from this expedition, only two of which could be located until today. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 304; 542; Ewan, “Barton’s Influence,” 31; Moulton, Herbarium, 3. Upon his return to Philadelphia in 1807, Lewis first contacted Barton, but finding him incapable of seeing him on account of a disease, he contacted Barton’s assistant Pursh. Also, after Lewis’ death in October 1809, Clark exclusively wanted Barton to continue with the work on the specimens. Moulton, Herbarium, 3; Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 369f. 262 With Doctor Barton I saw the Cypercus articulatus sent by you to him. It gave me great Pleasure to see it. How great would the Pleasure be to have it in my Herbarium. But Doctor Barton is not in the Habit to grant more then a quick look on a Specimen, and this ony to a Special Friend. I will rather apply to the original Donor, who acknowledges the old Maxim, beatus es dare quam accipere. To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. D[octor] Barton arbeitet jetzt an einer flora der mittleren Staaten NYork, Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia. Er ist ein unermüdlicher Samler durch andre und hat ein sehr großes Herbarium welches er aber keinem Menschen zeigt. To Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. In November 1810, following another visit to Barton, Mühlenberg again suggested an exchange, but to no avail. Much room is left, he wrote to Barton, I beg Leave to mention more N[orth]American Plants [of?] which a Specimen is still wanting in my Herbarium. If you give me [note?] of these wanting in your Herbarium we perhaps can make a use[ful?] Exchange. To Barton, 11/01/1810, APS Mss. B. B284d. No direct answer to this request could be found by Barton’s hand. 263 Von Lewis Pflanzen schreibt Barton äusserst verächtlich es sei gar nichts bedeutendes dabei u[nd] er kenne keine Pflanzen das ist doch wirklich zu viel gesagt. [A]lles was ich habe ist der Mühe werth. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/01/1808. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers.: D[octor] Barton speaks rather too hard of Lewis’s Discoveries. I have received from M[iste]r Lewis only 6 different Seeds and they are all valuable Plants. I will not publish anything about them untill his work has been published. One year later, after Lewis was already dead, he further explained: M[iste]r Wilson informs me that the work of the unfortunate M[iste]r Lewis is going on. M[iste]r Clarke assists with great Care. We may expect a valuable Acquisition to natural History and to Botany in particular notwithstanding the rigid Censure of Doctor Barton. To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. Some months later, Mühlenberg added: Our botanical Friends here are still

An American Network

389

Jefferson’s plan for the scientific analysis of the first western explorations. Especially his notorious tendency to begin more projects than he could ever finish while stubbornly refusing to delegate work to others was the main obstacle in the processing of the data collected by the various expeditions.264 Judging from the diary entries on Barton’s efforts to blame his own procrastination and failure on the supposedly poor quality of the specimens, Mühlenberg probably sensed early on that Barton was hardly the right man for the task. In 1811, after five years of vain efforts to take a look at the plants or specimens, their relationship reached a nadir, as it is documented in a diary entry dated July 13, 1811 and worth citing in full: In the papers a lover of botany makes a lot of ballyhoo praising doctor Barton. 1) His work is supposedly translated at the behest of a princess 2) he is supposedly the Linnaeus of America 3) he condescends to write a botanical work for women in 12 and with illustrations (…). The ironic tone reveals that to Mühlenberg, this was unbearable, as he knew well about Barton’s actual failure in the task Jefferson had entrusted him with. He added: 4) enough praise for the dear doctor who neither knows a lot about cryptogams nor grasses, only collects a lot but sees little with his own eyes, which essentially makes him a compilator 5) The more he has in print, the more he gives himself away. Bartram and Lyons have helped him a lot and I myself have contributed my share through Lyons and Enslin and before them through William Hamilton that Barton can now be proud of himself.265 The fact that an anonymous newspaper article by an obscure Lover of Botany represented such a nuisance to Mühlenberg clearly illustrates the way he put contributions in relation to Barton’s contributions in theoretical botany, especially in cryptogamics. This is the only identified instance of the epithet Linnaeus of our Country, which was posthumously bestowed on him by William Baldwin, in all of Mühlenberg’s letters, diaries or other manuscripts.266 For sure, just as much as he would never have claimed this title for himself, he was also sure that Barton did not alive. D[octor] Barton was lately with me. He is now apublishing the first Volume of his Flora from Monandria-Octandria, Grasses excepted which he leaves untouched. By what I have seen in MS it will be a good work some Rubbish excepted which he takes from old Books out of Date. He sent a young Gentleman on his own Expence to the North- and Westward to collect Plants who is not yet returned. Much is expected from him. I believe an Excursion through the Jersies would give by far more. To Elliott, 08/27/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 264 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 305; 543; Ewan, “Pursh,” 606. 265 [I]n der Zeitung macht ein Lover of Botany großen Lärm zum Lobe D[oktor] Bartons. 1) sein groß Werk wird übersetzt auf Befehl einer Prinzessin 2) er sei der Linnaeus von Amerika 3) er lasse sich herab ein botanisch Werk für das Frauenzimmer in 12 zu schreib[en] mit Figuren (…). 4) Weirauch genug für den lieb[en] Doctor der weder in Gräser noch Cryptog[amia] etwas weiß u[nd] zwar viel samlet aber wenig mit eigen Aug[en] sieht sondern im Grunde Compilator ist 5. Je mehr er druck[en] läßt desto mehr verräth er sich. Bartram u[nd] Lyons haben ihm viel geholfen u[nd] ich habe das meine in Person u[nd] d[urc]h Lyons u[nd] Enslin so wie ehemals durch W[illiam] Hamilton reichlich beigetrag[en] daß er auf Stolz geh[en] kann. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/13/1811. To John Brickell, Mühlenberg had already mentioned that Barton knew nothing of cryptogamic research. D[octor] Barton is hard at Work to finish his Flora Pensylvanica but intends saying little or nothing on Grasses and Cryptogamia. To Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72. 266 See above on page 450.

390

Letters from an American Botanist

deserve it. In any case, others were busy to claim the Lewis&Clark fame for themselves. 5.8 The Failure of American Botany America’s scientific infrastructure was badly equipped to deal efficiently with the outcome of Jefferson’s expeditions. In a state of isolation, this would probably have caused long delays, frustrations and the loss of crucial data. Within the context of tightly woven transatlantic connections, collaborations and an ongoing dependence on Europe, however, this first chapter of the story of western expansion was to end unfavorably for American science. At the time, Stephen Elliott was Mühlenberg’s favorite correspondent to discuss recent developments. It was from him that Mühlenberg first learned about the real scope of Barton’s failure and the growing importance of Frederick Pursh, whom Elliott did not even know as he referred to him as a German named Bush or Brusch in his letter.267 To Mühlenberg, however, Pursh was certainly no stranger, although he appeared strangely ignorant of Pursh’s involvement in the subject of the Lewis&Clark expedition. From 1803 to 1808, Pursh and Mühlenberg had been on good terms with each other and in frequent personal contact, calling on each other while Pursh was employed first with William Hamilton, then with Benjamin Smith Barton in Philadelphia.268 This contact only resulted in a correspondence after Pursh quit his gardening job with Barton in 1808 and left for New York to work for David Hosack (1769–1835).269 The only surviving letter from Pursh’s hand to Mühlenberg, dated January 12, 1809, provides no details of his previous work for Barton, although he acknowledged that he had been “under Barton’s influence” and even admitted the theft of several plants from

267 Elliott had himself received the news he relayed to Mühlenberg from the Philadelphia-based ornithologist and writer Alexander Wilson (1766–1813). Elliott wrote: With regard to Gov[ernor] Lewis’ work I understood from D[octo]r Barton that in consequence of a dispute between Gov[ernor] L[ewis] and himself the work was suspended and no person could be engaged to conduct the Scientific part of it. D[octor] B[arton] complained much of ill usage and seemed pa[rticularly?] (…) displeased with McMahon. Since I returned home I heard from Wilson the Ornithologist a very different story. W[ilson] says the Botanical part is progressing under the care of a German named Bush or Brusch and is nearly completed and that the whole work will probably be ready for the press in the course of this winter. McMahon could probably give you the best information on the Subject. From Elliott, 10/21/1809, HSP Coll 443. 268 Ewan suggests that Pursh left Barton primarily because he thought that Barton was incapable of ever finishing the work on the Lewis&Clark specimens, which is also the supposed reason why he took them with him. See Ewan, “Pursh,” 608. From another perspective, Barton sacked Pursh and replaced him with Thomas Nuttall (1786–1859), because he thought Pursh increasingly unreliable due to his supposed alcoholism. In a letter to his brother, Barton issued a brief warning on Pursh’s ways: I think you need not be ashamed to admit him to your table, but when you give him toddy, pray, I beseach, you, let the proportion of water be very great. Drinking is his greatest failing (and God knows it is a big one) (...). Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 507. See also Greene, American Science, 260. 269 See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 523.

An American Network

391

Barton’s garden.270 Pursh also enclosed 55 unspecified specimens which he had actually collected for the Philadelphia doctor and suggested a botanical exchange, to which Mühlenberg remarked on the margin: Mosses I will send instantly (70 [specimen]) 3) the yearning to see him and to look through the herbarium that I have (…) 6) His collections with Doctor Barton are a hidden treasure.271 It is important to note that Mühlenberg obviously did not yet know that this hidden treasure was no longer in Barton’s possession at that time. In fact, hardly anyone was aware of this fact until the publication of Pursh’s Flora Americana in 1814, in which Lewis&Clark specimens were published for the first time.272 Pursh’s sojourn in the United States and his consecutive gardening jobs for William Hamilton (1803–1805),273 Benjamin Smith Barton (1806–1808),274 Bernard M’Mahon (1807)275 and David Hosack (1809–1810)276 in New York City provided him with a 270 [D]ie Art in welcher ich meine Reisen machte, brachte mich zu der Notwendigkeit die Exemplare von Zeit zu Zeit an den Dr. Barton abzuschicken, unter deßen Einfluß ich war; folglich kamen Sie aus meinem Garden [sic!]; demohngeachtet einige wenige von den mehr interessanten habe ich zurück gehalten; welche, wenn ich selbst Ihnen besuchen komme, ich Ihnen vorlegen werde. From Pursh, 01/12/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 271 Moose will ich sogleich schick[en] (70) 3) Sehnsucht ihn zu seh[en] u[nd] mit ihm das Herb[arium] durchzunehmen das ich habe (...) 6) Seine Sammlung[en] bei D[oktor] B[arton] sind ein vergrabener Schatz. From Pursh, 01/12/1809, HSP Coll. 443. The plants had been collected on a trip Pursh had undertaken for Barton from 1806 to 1808. Pennel, “Botanical Collectors,” 43. For the exchange between Pursh and Mühlenberg, see also Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 27. 272 Many of the plant identifications therein, however, had not been made by Pursh himself. Madsen, “Hamilton,” 20; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 7; Pennel, “Botanical Collectors,” 43. 273 Pursh’s activities in the United States from 1799 to 1811 have been covered several times and need not be re-narrated here in detail. For Pursh’s relation to William Hamilton, see Harshberger, Botanists, 113; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 544; Ewan, “Pursh,” 605; Stetson, “Hamilton,” 31; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 7. 274 For Pursh’s relation with Benjamin Smith Barton, see Ewan, “Pursh,” 606; Harshberger, Botanists, 113; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 506f.; 613; Pennel, “Botanical Collectors,” 26; 43; Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 22f. Smith, “Century of Botany”, 7; Ewan, “Barton’s Influence,” 29; Petersen, New World Botany, 304; Greene, American Science, 260; Pursh, Flora, ix. Pennel writes on the Barton-Pursh collaboration: “The internal evidence of the Barton Herbarium assures us that Pursh was the systematist responsible for the careful naming of the collection and leads us to suspect that Barton, the professor, took only a moderate interest in strictly systematic botany and was depending upon his able helper to carry out the large plan portrayed in a statement given out in June, 1807.” Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 24. Pursh himself wrote on Barton in his Flora (1814): I was enabled, by the kind assistance of this gentleman, to take a more extensive range for my botanical excursions, which during my stay at the Woodlands had been confirmed within a comparatively small compass, the necessary attention to the duties of that establishment not permitting me to devote more time to them. Pursh, Flora, viii. 275 Pursh briefly stayed with Bernard M’Mahon in the winter of 1807/08, as Barton held back his pay on account of his heavy drinking and Pursh quickly needed a new way to make money. The time coincided with M’Mahon’s second season of cultivating the Lewis&Clark seeds in his garden. This he entrusted in part to the extremely able and resourceful Pursh. See Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 367; Ewan, “Pursh,” 608; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 508; 514. 276 For Pursh’s engagement with David Hosack, see Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 25; Ewan, “Pursh,” 612f.; Petersen, New World Botany, 305; Pursh and Hosack met first in 1807 when Pursh paid a visit to the city during one of his travels for Barton. The two took an instant liking of each

392

Letters from an American Botanist

range of contacts and especially specimens, which he finally took back to England in 1811.277 In London, Pursh was instantly adopted into the highest botanical circles and even counted Joseph Banks among his friends and sponsors. Aylmer Bourke Lambert (1761–1842) equipped him with work space in his own laboratory and gave crucial advice for the final edition of Pursh’s Flora Americæ Septentrionalis, which replaced Michaux’ 1803 Flora due to its more modern and decidedly western orientation.278 Gary Moulton has commented on the irony that “the hoped-for Botany (...) came to be published in England while the United States and Great Britain were at war, by a German who had barely been west of the Alleghenies.”279 Since his flight to England, Pursh has often been treated as the “ultimate traitor” in American historiography.280 Presumably, most of his former American contemporaries would have agreed, and Mühlenberg was no exception. After all, Pursh’s behavior represented the worst instance of Mühlenberg’s lifelong experiences that Europeans always received the laurels for what Americans had been laboring for. By April 1812, he had learned about Pursh’s theft of the specimens, but he still retained his sympathy for his old friend at first, hoping that Pursh would merely try to raise attention to the American specimens and then return with more support.281 After learning that he actually planned to publish on the other and Hosack called Pursh a very industrious and skillful botanist. Quoted after Ewan, “Pursh,” 613. 277 Before his final departure for England, Pursh undertook a trip to the West Indies and returned via Boston, where he paid a visit to William D. Peck, whom Mühlenberg had been trying hard to contact in the preceding years. See Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 25; Harshberger, Botanists, 116; Ewan, “Pursh,” 614f. Pursh is also known for including much of the material by Aloysius Enslin into his Flora. See Pursh, Flora, xii; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10; Harshberger, Botanists, 116; Nuttall, Genera I, 164; Elliot, Sketch I, xiii. See also Pelczar, “Plants.” 278 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 517; Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 25; Ewan, “Pursh,” 601; 616; Madsen, “Hamilton,” 20; McVaugh, “Pursh,” 24; Moulton, Herbarium, 4; Hooker, Botany, 273; Pelczar, “Plants.” Apart from his own specimens and those in Lambert’s herbarium, Pursh named the herbaria of Clayton, Plukenet, Catesby, Walter and Peter Simon Pallas (1741–1811) as his major sources. Pursh, Flora, xvi. He also expressed his particular indebtedness to James E. Smith’s works: I have been guided by the hints given by the learned Dr. J. E. Smith, in his excellent “Introduction to Botany.” The classes Dodecandria and Polyadelphia are entirely omitted, and their genera inserted in their proper places in the other classes. Pursh, Flora, xxii. 279 Moulton, Herbarium, 4. 280 See especially Petersen, New World Botany, 305. See also Ewan, “Pursh,” 617; Greene, American Science, 11. Hu and Merril have suspected that “in most cases Pursh had seen actual specimens named by Muhlenberg, and when he came to prepare his manuscript that he merely appropriated the new species as his own, in view of the fact that Muhlenberg had never published descriptions. (…) [M]ost botanists follow the ethical rule of accepting and publishing the name of the originator of a new one, crediting the species to him. However, there is much evidence that Pursh’s ethics were not of a very high order.” Hu and Merril, “Publications”, 28. Moulton is less decided on the issue, pointing out, however, that Pursh never officially asked for a permission to take the specimens to England and never officially returned them after using them for his Flora. Moulton, Herbarium, 4. 281 This becomes obvious in two letters to Zaccheus Collins in Philadelphia from April and August 1812: Perhaps M[iste]r Pursh who went last Fall to England and took a very good Collection along has made them more known in Europe. Four months later, he added Have you heard anything of M[iste]r Lyons, who went last Fall to England with a great Collection of living

An American Network

393

Lewis&Clark specimens himself, Mühlenberg drew a bitter conclusion on him: M[iste]r Pursh is also a printing at Londona Prodromus flor[ae] Americanae, he informed Stephen Elliott in October 1812. John Bull is fat and pays well, they intend to make the best of their Collections. Let it then be so. I find it extremely difficult to get even a small Catalogue printed. 282 Pursh’s work was clearly considered as a defeat within the American scientific community, although its merits were recognized after the conclusion of the War of 1812 in the Treaty of Ghent in December 1814. In the same year, the American journalist Paul Allen (1775–1826) published a two-volume History of the Expedition under the Command of Captain Lewis and Clark, which could not make up for what Barton had failed to write but partially restored self-confidence in the scientific circles of America.283 Pursh’s career, in turn, was boosted by the success of his work. He first spent several years on other botanical publications before embarking on a tour of exploration to Canada’s Red River Valley for Thomas Douglas, 5th Earl of Selkirk (1771–1820), who planned to colonize the land. When the expedition failed, Pursh spent much time on Anticosti Island with the plan of composing a work on the Canadian flora. He died unexpectedly on July 11, 1820 at the Montreal home of his friend and nurseryman Robert Cleghorn (1778–1841).284 Pursh, however, was not the only “leak.” The young English botanist and zoologist Thomas Nuttall (1786–1859) replaced Pursh in Barton’s services in 1810 and was instantly sent on a botanical tour to the Great Lakes region.285 Mühlenberg, however, took little notice of him at the time.286 In 1811, John Bradbury (1768– Plants? When he and Mr Pursh return from the old Countries I expect a good deal of Information. See Mühlenberg’s letters to Collins, 04/20/1812 and 08/26/1812, both in ANSP Coll. 129. 282 He continued: However my Trouble is richly paid by the Pleasure I find in Pursuit of the Science and the Friendship of my valuable Correspondents. I expect daily a Visit from D[octor] Eddy and M[iste]r LeConte who are now on their Travels through Pensylvania. To Elliott, 10/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Ewan quotes Samuel Latham Mitchill: Pursh is now engaged in diffusing the fruit of his discoveries in London, to the Europeans. Quoted after Ewan, “Pursh,” 618. Mühlenberg here referred to his own catalogue Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis, Lancaster 1813. 283 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 545; Pelczar, “Plants.” Mühlenberg’s later correspondent, the Portuguese botanist José Correa de Serra, was one of the driving forces to continue the work with what was left in America. In 1810, Barton’s chronically frail health deteriorated even further and made Jefferson ask Correa to recover what was left in specimens and Lewis’ documents from Barton’s growing piles of papers in his office, which he did along with Barton’s wife Mary. After Barton’s death in 1815, these specimens were transferred to the newly established national herbarium of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 866; 871; Pelczar, “Plants.” 284 Ewan, “Pursh,” 619–21; Moulton, Herbarium, 4. Pelczar and Ewan disagree on the date of the re-purchase of the Lewis&Clark specimens: Pelczar gives 1856 as the year, Ewan 1842. The A.P.S. specimens of the expedition were transferred to the ANSP, where they are stored in the Lambert-herbarium today. 23 specimens described in Pursh’s book are still missing as of 2011. Pelczar, “Plants;” Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 546f; Smith, “Botanical Pioneer,” 443. 285 Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 25; Greene, American Science, 260; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 548; To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers; Pelczar, “Plants.” 286 In fact, Nuttall is never mentioned explicitly in Mühlenberg’s letters. Only once, in a letter to Stephen Elliott, his travels for Barton are implicitly mentioned. D[octor] Barton was lately

394

Letters from an American Botanist

1823) joined Nuttall on the so-called Astor expedition, named for its main sponsor John Jacob Astor (1763–1848), which sought to find the mouth of the Columbia river. The Scotsman Bradbury had come to the United States in 1809 and instantly relocated to the city of St. Louis on Thomas Jefferson’s personal recommendation. As in the case of Lewis and Clark in 1804, the expedition started from there, and both Nuttall and Bradbury seized the opportunity to send back plants and specimens to England. Nuttall sent his to the Liverpool botanical garden, Bradbury to the English historian and botanist William Roscoe (1753–1831). In both cases, their packages were instantly forwarded to Pursh in London, extending the scope of Pursh’s Flora considerably.287 In the summer of 1813, Mühlenberg first learned of Mister Broadberry’s presence and used his American correspondence to collect information on Bradbury’s plans and whereabouts.288 In September 1813, Zaccheus Collins informed Mühlenberg that Bradbury was collecting for a person or association in England and that the inevitable Benjamin Smith Barton was supposedly a close contact of his.289 Alarmed by this, Mühlenberg tried to contact Bradbury, but failed to establish contact before he returned to England in 1815.290 Though Nuttall and with me. (...) He sent a young Gentleman on his own Expence to the North- and Westward to collect Plants who is not yet returned. Much is expected from him. I believe an Excursion through the Jersies would give by far more. To Elliott, 08/27/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 287 Pelczar, “Plants;” Ewan, Barton, 548–51; Pursh, Flora, xvii. 288 It was primarily Zaccheus Collins in Philadelphia whom Mühlenberg contacted on behalf of Bradbury’s whereabouts and plans. Despite his earlier disappointment over Pursh’s publication plans, Mühlenberg appears vaguely optimistic about Bradbury’s travels in the West. Mühlenberg was first informed about Bradbury by Charles Whitlow (1776–1829) in New York, who would pay frequent visits to Mühlenberg after 1811. Since my last I got some interesting Information from N[ew] York. M[iste]r Whitlow who intends shortly to come to Philadelphia by the way of the famous Quakerbridge told my Son, that he had made a great Collection of Genesee Sea Plants and that a M[iste]r Broadberry had arrived from an Excursion Of 1800 Miles on and near the Missouri and had brought an excellent Collection of Minerals and Plants to N[ew] York. M[iste]r Whitlow invites me to come and see, which unluckily I am unable to do. Is there no Possibility to get some of such Missouri Plants or Seeds? They probably may go to other Countries or get spoilt and are then lost. To Stephen Elliott, Mühlenberg reported the same in late August 1813: Since my last I have heard that a Man Broadberry returned to N[ew] York from a great Excursion on the Missouri (above 1800 Miles they say) with an excellent Collection of Minerals and Plants. How true my Information is I do not know. When the western Parts of N[orth] America are once explored what a large Flora will we then have! See Mühlenberg’s letters to Collins, 07/26/1813 and 08/27/1813, both in ANSP Coll. 129; and to Elliott, 08/25/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. 289 I did not forget to enquire about the M[iste]r Broadbury you spoke of, and the result at length was that he was collecting for some person or association in England that M[iste]r Whitlow who was lately here said part of the collection was in his house. M[iste]r B[arton] is said to be a close one. Whitlow tell M[iste]r M’M that he has sold the half of patent right for $ 12000. From Collins, 09/07/1813, HSP Coll. 443. 290 In fact, to the last moment, Mühlenberg failed to learn even the correct spelling of Bradbury’s name. M[iste]r Broadberry has not answered a Letter I addressed to him. To Collins, 09/11/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. Of M[iste]r Bradberry I can hear nothing nor of M[iste]r Whitlow. To Collins, 05/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Would there be any Possibility to hear from M[iste]r Bradberry (or what is his proper Name?) the great Western Traveller and Botanist? To Collins, 12/02/1814, ANSP Coll. 129.

An American Network

395

Bradbury were major contributors to Pursh’s work and central figures in the transatlantic competition for the Lewis&Clark specimens, they were only marginal figures in Mühlenberg’s network. Elizabeth Merry († 1824), however, the wife of Britain’s third ambassador to the United States, Anthony Merry (1756–1835), played a much more important role for the Lancaster botanist. His contact with Merry is a particularly striking example of Mühlenberg’s troubled relations with his European correspondents in the first decade of the 19th century. During her brief sojourn in the United States, the two maintained a minor botanical exchange, which Mühlenberg originally meant to continue after Merry returned to England in June 1807. When this did not happen, the change in Mühlenberg’s attitude towards her was drastic. In 1806, he called her my Flora Britannica291, but when she failed to reciprocate her “botanical debts” to him, his verdict came close to a “scientific death sentence”: Mrs Merry has also not stood by her word and should have a plant named after her, Merry fallax, he recorded angrily in his diary on February 13, 1808.292 Merry not only took back to England a huge number of plants Mühlenberg had sent her, but also some of Lewis’, which she could obviously obtain through her husband’s diplomatic contacts. In contrast to this rather ugly ending of their contact, the beginning had actually been very promising. Elizabeth Merry stayed in the U.S. with her husband Anthony from fall 1803 to summer 1806.293 Once arrived in Washington, the couple became quickly known for their mundane lifestyle, which, as they were hoping, would open doors to the new capital’s social life. In fact, it only caused irritations on the American side at first. Despite initial problems and the increasingly tense relations with England, the Merrys managed to impress their American hosts with the notable exception of President Thomas Jefferson.294 The President publicly pitied ambassador Merry for 291 To Vaughan, 04/09/1807, APS. Arch. Box 5. See also Ewan, “Pursh,” 605; Ewan, Barton, 577. 292 Mrs Merry ist auch nicht bei ihrem Wort gestanden u[nd] solte eine Pflanze nach ihrem Nahmen haben, Merry fallax [fallax = fraudulent, deceptive]. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 02/13/1808. 293 From 1791 to 1812, England dispatched six ambassadors to the United States, Anthony Merry being the third, serving in between the fall of 1803 and the summer of 1806. Previously, his diplomatic career had brought him to Majorca, Madrid, Copenhagen and finally to Paris in 1801, where he had met Elizabeth Leathes, née Death, the widow of John Leathes, Esqu[ire] of Herringsfleet Hall in Suffolk. Only days after their wedding on January 12, 1803, Merry received a note that he was to succeed Sir Robert Liston as His Britannic Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States. On September 28, the couple sailed from Portsmouth. Lester, Merry, 2–13; 16. Elizabeth Death was born as the daughter of a shepherd. With regard to other details of her life prior to their marriage, Lester observes: “[A] lthough her pedigree cannot be determined with certainty, the lady was known to many as a charming hostess and a good conversationalist, with a scholarly interest in botany.” Lester, Merry, 10n. 294 Lester, Merry, 13; 18–21; In May 1803, when the war broke out between France and England, the British navy began its operations in American waters and impressment policies, which finally became one of the main causes of the renewed warfare in 1812. Lester, Merry, 25; 27. With Jefferson, Merry ran into problems from day one of his service. Lester summarizes that “[i]t was the punctilious Merry’s misfortune to encounter a president who not only eschewed

396

Letters from an American Botanist

being unluckily associated with a virago of a wife, while Vice President Aaron Burr praised her for being tall, fair, pleasantly plump, with grace, dignity, sprightfulness and intelligence. Among the couple’s frequent guests was one of Mühlenberg’s contacts, Manasseh Cutler, who reported having entered instantly into the most agreeable conversation with this remarkable fine woman, and learned that she was a botanist, too.295 It is her earnest wish to preserve American plants, and to be informed about our vegetable productions.296 A chance to learn more about American plants came with the couple’s introduction into the social circles of Philadelphia, where they went for medical treatment in the spring and summer of 1804 and returned frequently afterwards.297 Mrs. Merry made a tour of Philadelphia’s gardens, William Hamilton’s included.298 Her contacts with the city’s scientific notables also brought her to Lancaster in June 1804, elaborate ceremony by preference and design but was also contemptuous of professional diplomacy.” Lester, Merry, 29. See also Lester, Merry, 23; 28. 295 All quoted after Lester, Merry, 22f. On Cutler’s perception of Elizabeth Merry, Lester remarks: “Cutler’s good opinion of Mrs. Merry increased, especially when he learned that, like himself, she was an enthusiastic botanist and was interested in collecting specimens of American plants. Mrs. Merry presented Cutler with botanical books and also her picture just before she returned to England and promised to send the clergyman seeds from the botanical garden of Cambridge University.” Lester, Merry, 22n. Cutler’s diary observations on Mrs. Merry, which Lester mostly refers to in his work on Anthony Merry, are actually worth citing in full: M[iste]r Merry is a well-informed, genteel man, extremely easy and social. But I was especially pleased with his lady, who is a remarkably fine woman. It happened that I was seated by her. She entered instantly into the most agreeable conversation, which continued during the visit, while the other gentlemen were conversing with each other. She was just as easy and social as if we had been long acquainted, and continued so as long as we tarried, which was about a couple of hours. Cutler and Cutler, Cutler II, 164. On March 2, 1804, he noted: Mar. 2. Saturday. Walked 15 miles. Dined at M[iste]r Merry’s, by Mrs. Merry’s invitation. She came twice to invite me. Presented me with Darwin. House sat till ten o’clock. Cutler and Cutler, Cutler II, 285. See also Lester, Merry, 79. 296 The full passage reads: I have lately been frequently at the British Ambassador’s, and have found Mrs. Merry a very accomplished and agreeable lady. She is quite a botanist and understanding that I had attended to that science, she has solicited an acquaintance. They spent the summer in Philadelphia, where Mrs. Merry was sick, and did not recover her health, so as to be able to come on to this city, until the first of January. Immediately on their arrival Mrs. Merry informed the Swedish Counsel-General, M[iste]r Soderstrom, (...) of her earnest wish to be acquainted with me, as a botanist, but she was immediately taken sick with a fever, in consequence of a violent cold she caught on her journey. (...) At the invitation of M[iste]r Merry I have dined there frequently. Lately she has been able to attend to botanical matters. She has a fine collection of books, and a large number of specimens. She appears to understand the science very well, and is a perfect enthusiast in her favorite pursuit. It is her earnest wish to preserve American plants, and to be informed about our vegetable productions. Cutler and Cutler, Cutler II, 189f. 297 Lester, Merry, 46; 80f. 298 Ewan, “Pursh,” 604. Elizabeth Merry’s socializing with American botanists can also be seen as part or an extension of her husband’s social obligations. Lester writes: “In carrying out his duties as observer, reporter, and agent, Merry depended on contracts with American officials; conversations with private citizens and visitors to the United States; limited travel in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; and social intercourse.” Lester, Merry, 78.

An American Network

397

when Alexander von Humboldt was present to dine with Andrew Ellicott, Mühlenberg and others.299 The visit probably marks the beginning of their acquaintance, as Merry first appeared in Mühlenberg’s diary in mid-June 1804, when he noted a first package, presumably filled with botanicals, to her.300 Merry’s visits, both alone and with her husband, continued until October 1806301 when they had to leave the country again.302 A diary entry from July 1806 shows that Mühlenberg actually planned to ask Merry to help him find new correspondents in London, to procure a copy of Gronovius’ Flora and to bring new specimens to Smith, Turner and another British botanist, James Dickson (1732–1822).303 Manasseh Cutler made a similar arrangement with her in May 1806,304 and in April 1807, Mühlenberg received news that a 299 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 17; 22; 444–46. On the occasion of a similar visit by the Merrys to Lancaster in late August and September 1804, Benjamin Smith Barton received a letter by his brother William Barton (1754–1817). The letter is dated September 17, 1804: Dear Brother, This letter will be resented to you by Augustus Forster, Esq. Secretary of the British Legation to our Government. He has been in Lancaster about six weeks, in company with the Minister (M[iste]r Merry) and his Lady; and during their residence here, we have enjoyed much of their valuable society. The Minister himself is a man of abilities and great worth. Mrs. Merry is truly a charming woman. She possesses an highly cultivated mind, and a correct taste in the fine arts, blended with polished and agreeable manners. She is, besides, an Enthusiast in Botany and a great admirer of your Botanical work; with a copy of which (I understood her to say) you have been good enough to present her... M[iste]r And Mrs Merry... propose setting out, on Thursday next, from hence to Washington, by the Western route... Uniting with all my family in love to sister Mary, yourself and children, I am, dear Brother, Affectly yours W. Barton. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 22. 300 Im Anhang verschiedene Listen mit geschickten Dingen, eben auch an Mrs Elis[abeth] Merry (v.a. für den September). See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/11/1804. 301 Madam Merry könnte mir Specim von Aster, Solidago, Vaccinium [schicken]. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry 09/14/1805. 24. heute eine Parthie Sämereien von Elisabeth Merry empfang u[nd] von H[er]r Jefferson Zea Mays praecox hamils das in 40 Tag zeitig wird aus Italien – gleich den 16. gesäet, geht gut auf. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/24/1806. Mrs Merry the Spouse of the British Ambassador is with Mr Merry now at Lancaster, she is enthusiastically fond of Botany and collects everything for England. To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. M[iste]r Merrry u[nd] Mrs Merry war hier. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 10/02/1806. 302 Anthony Merry left on December 6, 1806, his wife followed only in June 1807 on account of her frail health. Lester, Merry, 115–19. Mühlenberg, however, noted her departure as of May 8, 1807: Mrs Merry ist d[en] 8. Mai von New York nach Hallifax abgesegelt. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/21/1807. 303 Wenn Mrs Merry kommt werde ich 1) sie nochmals bitt[en] einen Corresp[ondenten] in London auszumach[en] d[er] Gronovi[i] fl[ora] vergleich kann, od[er] lieber Advers[aria] mitgeb[en] 2) id[em] solche die einen Wechsel von Pflanz[en] betreff[en] woll[en] Gräs[er] u[nd] Cryptog[amien] (...) 4. Ich werde sie bitten für Smith Lichenes mitzunehmen für Dickson, od[er] Turner Muscos pp (...). See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for July 1806. “Dickson” that Mühlenberg is writing about here is most probably the British mycologist James Dickson (1738–1822). This is the only reference to Dickson in all of the sources used in this study. There are no other indicators that the two actually corresponded at any time. 304 Cutler and Cutler, Cutler II, 280. In his diary, Cutler noted a short time later: June 26 [1806] Received a letter and box containing Withering’s Botany, seeds, and Mrs Merry’s picture, from M[iste]r Merry, by a vessel to Newburyport. Cutler and Cutler, Cutler II, 335.

398

Letters from an American Botanist

contact of her from Cambridge had agreed to meet his wishes.305 In late spring 1807, she finally sailed to England. There is no evidence of letters exchanged between them during her stay in America, although Mühlenberg noted the reception of several plant packages and all her visits.306 After Merry’s departure, however, no letter was ever received by Mühlenberg, which does not prove, however, that she actually never sent one.307 To his Norwich correspondent James E. Smith, he sent a diplomatically worded complaint about her: O do continue to give me your Observations on the Rest of the Asters and Solidagines. I would do anything in Return by finding Seeds of American Plants. Mrs Merry promised to persuade some Botanist to do it, but it seems no one could be persuaded.308 Two years later, Mühlenberg learned from an unknown source that Meriwether Lewis had given seeds and specimens to Merry, which she had taken to England. This only confirmed his worries that the specimens were to be used for the glory of British botany alone and were lost to American science.309 There are no biographical circumstances to explain Elizabeth Merry’s apparent failure to honor her promises to Mühlenberg.310

305 28. April 1807 1) Mrs Merry hat einen Brief bekommen darin der Vice (…) von Cambridge College (…) verspricht meine Bitte zu erfüllen – jener ist wohl Davy. Sek121. This contact was most probably the British chemist Humphry Davy (1778–1829). See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Vaughan, 04/09/1807, APS. Arch. Box 5.: Perhaps my Flora Britannica Mrs. Merry is now at Philadelphia; & so, remember my best Respects to her and my sincere wishes for a safe and pleasant Voyage to England. 306 This is also the reason why Elizabeth Merry is not noted in the list of correspondences, Appendix C, although it is nearly impossible to imagine that the packages went unaccompanied by correspondence or explaining notes. 307 Mrs Merry ist auch nicht bei ihrem Wort gestanden, Mühlenberg concluded nevertheless in February 1808. [Sie] solte eine Pflanze nach ihrem Nahmen haben: Merry fallax. (...). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 02/13/1808. 308 To Smith, 11/08/1809, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 309 Mühlenberg wrote this in one of his rare letters to Benjamin Smith Barton in Philadelphia, probably to remind him of the loss of specimens and the necessity to hurry on with the work on the Lewis&Clark specimens. M[iste]r Lewis was too good to give (...) many Seeds to Mrs Merry, we shall see them figured and named (...) before his Travels are published in some one of the British b[otanical] Magazines. To Barton, 11/01/1810, APS Mss. B. B284d. See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 544. 4. Mrs Merry hat viel von den mitgebrachten Sämereien empfangen, die sind nach England gegangen. To Baldwin, 04/23/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 27. 310 In 1809, Anthony Merry retired from active service, moving into Herringfleet Hall with his wife, the country estate of her deceased husband in western Suffolk county. Virtually nothing from the personal papers of both Anthony and Elizabeth Merry has survived, which makes it impossible to decide what purpose the specimens Captain Lewis had presumably entrusted to Mrs. Merry might have served or where they ultimately went. The only personal sources on Anthony Merry can be found in the official correspondences of the British Foreign Office. Lester, Merry, 2; 121–23. Mühlenberg considered Elizabeth Merry a “dead” contact.

An American Network

399

5.9 Family Matters In the wake of his brother Frederick’s death in 1801, Mühlenberg’s family had begun to claim some of the time which he had almost exclusively spent on his professional duties and on botany during the previous years. As a result, Mühlenberg’s personal relationship with his surviving brother Peter improved, especially as Peter also helped him secure a job at the Philadelphia customs office for his son-in-law Musser.311 With his own sons Henry Augustus Philip (from here on: Henry) and John Philip Emanuel (Philip) gone to Reading and New York City, two more kin correspondents were added to his American web of contacts. Temporarily, this raised the number of his kinship correspondences between 1802 to 1809,312 before the Mühlenberg family suffered three more losses. In short succession, his brotherin-law Johann Christoper Kunze died in New York on July 24, 1807, his brother Peter in Philadelphia on October 1, 1807, and one and a half years later, on March 9, 1809, his other brother-in-law, Schultze in Tulpehocken, deceased. While Peter’s health had been impaired during the last years of his life,313 there were apparently no warnings prior to Kunze’s and Schultze’s deaths, who died in the 63rd and 69th year of their lives.314 This left his sons Henry and Philip as Mühlenberg’s sole kin 311 Musser served as Mühlenberg’s Philadelphia “postbox” throughout the years 1805 to 1811. See the following excerpts from Mühlenberg’s correspondences: My son in Law is at Philadelphia an Inspector of the Customs and well known to all the Captains coming from Savanna. Address it you please to his Care. To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. What ever you send can be sent to Philadelphia by Vessel addressed to John Musser n. 146 Racestreet Phil. who is one of the Inspectors of the Custom House and well acquainted with all the trading Captains. To Peck, 01/10/1810, APS Coll. 509 L56. I propose to send whatever I have, to Philadelphia, to John Musser, No. 140 Race street, – who is an Inspector of the Custom House, and will find many opportunities to Wilmington. If you are pleased to direct your packets to him, he will forward them with care to me, by the mail coach, or other opportunity. To Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15. Von Savanna aus gehen glaube ich immer Schiffe hin und her. Irgendetwas von Ihnen für mich addreßiren Sie an meinen Tochterman John Musser n. 146 Race Street Philadelphia. Er ist als Inspector at the Custom House mit allen Captains gut bekannt. To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. My Son In Law John Musser n 146 Racestreet will look for a good Opportunity if you deliver it to him. He is well acquainted with our Lancaster People, or the Stage will receive and deliver it, if a Letter of Advice is written by the Mail. To Collins, 03/19/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. 312 Table c, Appendix B, on page 487 illustrates the relative rise in importance of family correspondences between 1802 and 1809. Following years of gradual demise, which reached its low with zero kinship correspondences in 1798, their ratio from 1802–1805 rises again to 5,13 % (nine out of 57 American letters), and to 15,45 % from 1806 to 1811 (15 out of 103 letters). With the death of Mühlenberg’s brother-in-law Christopher Emanuel Schultze in 1809, the ratio plummets again to 3,13 % (one out of 313) from 1811 to 1815. 313 See for instance Mülenberg‘s letter to Schultze, 12/06/1803, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891: Daß der General wieder krank geworden an seiner gewöhnliche Engbrüstigkeit werden Sie gehört haben. 314 Peter is last mentioned in a letter to Schultze in 1806: Mein Bruder, der General, hat an mich geschrieben daß der Landmeßer ihm die Abtheilung des Landes in Scioto zugeschickt und er nun bereit sei die Deeds an uns zu machen. Es soll nur jemand in Philadelphia bestellt werden der den Deed macht. Es ist am besten wir säumen nicht, ich habe deswegen meinen Tochterman bestellt daß er meinen Deed soll verfertigen lassen. Peter appears last in October 1807 in a

400

Letters from an American Botanist

correspondents, who accounted for ten of the total 15 family letters exchanged from 1805 to 1811. In 1806, Henry’s first wife Mary Elizabeth Hiester died at the age of 22, but this event is not mentioned in any of the six letters between father and son from April 1806 to July 1809. In April 1808, Mühlenberg informed his other son Philip in New York that Henry was to marry again soon.315 This wedding actually took place when Henry married the sister of his deceased wife, Rebecca (1781–1841).316 One year after the wedding, in July 1809, Mühlenberg mailed the last surviving letter to his son in Reading.317 Considering that Henry continued in the ministry at Reading’s Trinity Church until June 1829 and started his political career only then, there is no obvious reason why the contact should have ended here.318 In the meantime, Mühlenberg’s fourth child and second son Philip, who was still in New York City, had formed a partnership with a certain “Schmidt” and married Susan Ann Craig (no data available).319 Although the period between April 1808 and mid-1809 saw a total of four letters between father and son, Philip was not as avid a letterwriter as his own father.320 By 1811, he was firmly established in New York and occasionally sent plants and specimens he had collected during travels in New Jersey.321 letter by Schmidt to Mühlenberg: Von Herrn Past[or] Schulze habe noch keine Antwort bekommen. See Mühlenberg’s letter to Schultze, 12/17/1806, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891, and the one from Schmidt, 10/22/1807, APS Film 1097. Mühlenberg’s letter to Schultze, 04/03/1807, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891 is the last one in their correspondence, which counts a total of 39 letters. Three letters were sent from Mühlenberg to Schultze from 1806 to 1807. The last letter from Kunze to Mühlenberg had already been submitted on May 12, 1803. See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 514, 526f. 315 Dein Brief vom ersten dieses ist richtig angekommen und hat uns sehr erfreut. Wir leben ganz vergnügt zusammen weil unsre Susan und also die Hälfte unsrer Kinder daheim ist. Es ist wahrscheinlich daß sie bald wieder heim ziehen wird, weil unser verwitweter Sohn auf meinen Rath wohl seinen Stand ändern wird. Es soll aber verborgen gehalten werden und wir selbst haben noch keine formelle Nachricht darüber. Gott gebe Glück und Segen dazu, und längere Dauer. Es wird wohl im Juli geschehen. To John Philip E. Mühlenberg, 04/04/1808, APS Film 1097. 316 Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 56. 317 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 518. 318 In 1829, he was elected to the 21st Congress, later also to the 22nd through 25th Congress with changing party affiliations. He also served as ambassador to Austria from 1838 to 1840 and died in Reading on August 11, 1844. Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 56; Anonymous, “Biographical Memoir,” 74; 77. 319 Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 61. 320 Von Philadelphia hören wir mündlich dass alles wohl ist, von dem weiter entfernt Philip hören wir höchstens dass er fleißig an H[er]rn Sperry schreibt, ich hab kürzlich wieder an ihn geschrieben. To Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 11/16/1808, APS Film 371. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 518. The contact was actually so limited that there had hardly been an occasion for Mühlenberg to get to know his son’s wife Susan Ann Craig better before their marriage. What he knew in 1809 was based on a report by his sister, as he writes to his own wife, who was staying in Reading at the time: [A]uch von NYork habe ich Briefe: Meine Schwester urtheilt sehr günstig von Philips Frau, dass Sie eine brave und gute Gehülfin sei. To Mary Catherine Mühlenberg, 08/22/1809, APS Film 371. 321 Since my last, I have received a fine collection of New York plants, by my son who was there; and some maritime plants from Dr. S. L. Mitchell, – and have a promise of more. To Baldwin, 10/11/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 47. The other Packet was from my Son at New York, who

An American Network

401

5.10 Network Analysis: Phase 5 In the visualization of Mühlenberg’s network for Phase 5 from 1805 to 1811, we see 71 nodes, one of which represents Mühlenberg, 43 stand for direct correspondents, the remaining 27 being representations of indirect contacts.322 This chapter is entitled “An American Network,” as the number of American-based correspondents was not only higher than that of their European counterparts for the first time, but also exceeded it by more than double of active contacts.323 In the previous network analyses, there were already clear signs of this development, which was continued into the present one: with 18 Americans among the 27 indirect contacts, the regenerative potential for the final phase of the network from 1811 to 1815 also exceeded the European potential by factor two.324 Taking the contemporary situation for transatlantic mail transport into account, which was defined by Napoleon’s Continental System, the wars in central Europe and especially the impressment policies of the British navy against U.S. ships, it seems doubtful that Mühlenberg’s European network might have returned to its old state, had Mühlenberg lived after 1815. Most probably, he would then have only focussed on a few select European contacts that he thought particularly helpful.

commonly goes to the Jersies to collect for me. To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Philip, however, was not the only one to provide Mühlenberg with New York and New Jersey specimens at the time. Frederick William Gaissenhainer (1771–1838), who succeeded Johann Christopher Kunze in 1808, appears in Mühlenberg’s diary after November 1808. Neither this entry nor the following one give any clear evidence that Gaissenhainer ever actually forwarded anything to Mühlenberg: 9. New York: Hosack, Geissenhayn[er], Mitchill nichts. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes]. In February 1809, he planned to ask his son Philip to forward a request for plants to Gaissenhainer. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 02/01/1809. In 1810, Mühlenberg noted: 11. N[ew] York, Geissenhagen, am Ende. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1810. The last entry on his behalf dates from December 29, 1814, when Gaissenhainer called on Mühlenberg: H[er]r Geissenhagen hier, er hat sein Land in Center Co[unty] dort haben sie viel Steinkol, viel Salzquell, viel Sugar Maple. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/29/1814. The case resembles Mühlenberg’s correspondence with David Hosack (1769–1835). The records on Gaissenhainer’s ministry at St. Matthews Lutheran Church and later St. Paul’s Church in New York are stored at the New York Historical Society archives in five volumes. According to librarian Tammy Kiter, the NYHS does not hold any correspondence between Gaissenhainer and other individuals. 322 See Appendix E: Network Phase 5, page 552. For reasons of clarity and accesibility, the nodes of the following individuals have not been included in the network drawing for Phase 5: J. H. F. Autenrieth, Mühlenberg’s children, D. Johannes Flügge, Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg, Isaac Kerr, Mary C. Mühlenberg, Dr John Ott, Solomon Henkel. 323 There were 14 active correspondents in Europe and 29 active correspondents in the USA. 324 In Europe, there were: Elizabeth Merry, C. S. Rafinesque-Schmalz, Jakob Sturm, C. F. Schwägrichen, C. D. Ebeling, J. H. F. Autenrieth, G. F. Hoffmann, Dawson Turner, Erik Acharius In America: Isaac Cleaver, Obadiah Rich, Joseph van der Schott, Elizabeth Gambold, José Correa de Serra, David Hosack, C. F. Denke, James Mease, William Hamilton, F. V. Melsheimer, Samuel L. Mitchill, Manasseh Cutler, Moses Marshall, Zaccheus Collins, John C. Kunze, Benjamin Rush, William Baldwin, Bernard M’Mahon.

402

Letters from an American Botanist

This strategy of a net with smaller dimensions and fewer but high-intensive contacts can be seen in the upper left corner of the present network drawing, which shows Olof Swartz, James E. Smith and Christian H. Persoon as Mühlenberg’s principal European correspondents at the time. Stockholm, Norwich and Paris were the three men’s respective places of residence, where mail transport was still largely undisturbed by the constant warfare in the central portions of the continents. In turn, this can also be interpreted as a reflection of the general geographic tendency towards the European periphery, which has already been described above. It is impossible to decide, however, whether this development was rather a result of the current warfare or actually a facet of Mühlenberg’s network strategies to make the flow of information safer. On a more abstract level, however, it can be observed that most of the ties surrounding his European correspondents can only be depicted as dashed, dashed-dotted or even dotted lines, which illustrates that in most of these cases, actual interconnections among Europeans or links to their American colleagues must be assumed, but very few letters or other quantifiable evidence for their existence could be found. Although this is surely due to an insufficient preservation of sources, it also sheds some light on the shattered state of intra-European scientific communications at the time. With regard to the American part of the web, Mühlenberg’s new efforts to gather botanical knowledge from far-off regions become apparent in his two most intensive American contacts at the time. Both Stephen Elliott (in the center, slightly to the right of Mühlenberg) from South Carolina and J. C. Müller (bottom of page) from Harmony in western Pennsylvania epitomize these ambitions to extend his network to hitherto uncovered regions in order to allow for a more comprehensive coverage of the flora of North America. This trend also corresponds with the growing importance of New York as a hub of commercial, social and scientific activity in the United States. With his own son John Philip Emanuel Mühlenberg, Samuel L. Mitchill and Caspar Wistar Eddy, Mühlenberg now had three contacts in the city on the Hudson, whose contemporary importance to Mühlenberg, however, did not yet correspond to the city’s later significance.325 In the upper right corner of the drawing, the web surrounding Benjamin S. Barton now shows 22 contacts he shared with Mühlenberg. Two of these were not yet in contact with Mühlenberg, but would become his two major correspondents from 1811 to 1815: with William Baldwin, he exchanged 93 letters during this period; with Zaccheus Collins 83. It was from these two correspondents that he was to receive both valuable botanical specimens for his collections and intelligence on Barton’s networking.

325 With David Hosack, Mühlenberg was only linked indirectly at the time via Smith and Pursh.

Towards Botanical Independence

403

6 TOWARDS BOTANICAL INDEPENDENCE (PHASE 6: JANUARY 1811 TO MAY 1815)1 From late 1810 to early 1812, Mühlenberg’s network gradually changed one last time to take its final shape at the time of his death on May 23, 1815. Principally, the last five years of Mühlenberg’s networking are strongly contrasted and must be discussed from various angles simultaneously. The starkest contrast surely consists in the proportion of American to European correspondences. Out of a total of 350 letters, only 37 can be attributed to European correspondents, whereas 313 circulated within the United States – the network had now truly become American. Also, in August 1813, Mühlenberg’s Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis catalogue was finally seen to print, which put an end to more than a decade of botanizing, plant identifying and writing for this exclusive end. In the preface, Mühlenberg thanked 28 American collectors who were working in five distinct geographic regions of the USA: the first being Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, second the South, third the North, fourth the West and fifth the city and state of New York. Consequently, the following discussion of Mühlenberg’s domestic correspondences and completion of the catalogue is organized according to its underlying geographic structure. The publication date of the Plantarum in the fall of 1813 is also significant, inasmuch as Mühlenberg planned to augment and extend the work in the coming years, which showed in his networking in 1814 and early 1815. A third crucial contrast within his American network consisted between a small number of high-intensive contacts and a large number of low-intensive contacts, with whom only one to five letters were exchanged at most.2 Among the high-intensive contacts, however, a cluster of mutual botanical exchange and contact emerged which was to dwarf all earlier temporary and local clusters in Mühlenberg’s network. With Stephen Elliott and his two new correspondents William Baldwin (1779–1819) and Zaccheus Collins (1764–1831), he exchanged 216 letters, which represent 61,71 % of his total correspondences and 69,01 % of his American correspondences during the present phase. Apart from these stunning numbers, the Mühlenberg-Baldwin-Elliott-Collins cluster was interconnected and collaborated intensely, which probably came nearest to what Mühlenberg had always imagined.3 1 2 3

All data in this chapter is based on letters sent or received between Mühlenberg’s letter to Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15, and the last letter ever sent to Mühlenberg, written by Sophie Bensen, 09/02/1815, APS Film 1097. See Flow Chart G, Appendix A, 553. George Logan, James D. Mease and Bernard M’Mahon, for instance, can be counted among these. See table n, Appendix B, on page 492. This rather special collaboration between the four becomes evident in several letters from 1811 to 1814. Mühlenberg first introduced Elliott and Baldwin: Since my last I have found a new very valuable Correspondent Doctor William Baldwin M[edical] D[octor] in Wilmington Delaware, he informed Elliott in July 1811. He is an excellent Man and I beg to introduce him to you as such. He has sent me from Time to Time N. 1–436 Delaware Plants, some of them are not in Pensylvania. Mrs Baldwin is a Lover of Entomology and collects what is remarkable in that Line. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. See also the following passages: Since my last Letter to you of March 13. I had the Pleasure to receive a small Packet of Cryptogamia Plants chiefly Mosses from our mutual Friend D Baldwin, brought from Savanna by M[ister]

404

Letters from an American Botanist

Both this cluster and the disporportionate number of American correspondences, however, were just as much a product of Mühlenberg’s sustained efforts as of contemporary political circumstances. Specifically with regard to Europe, the situation was worse than ever: The Cryptogamia I have not yet received, he acknowledged to Stephen Elliott in February 1811, nor any Answer to a Number of Letters I wrote to Europe last Spring. I fear our Intercourse will be long stopped, and we must do as well as we can. Perhaps we can help ourselves, if only Naturalists would join.4 This was indeed a very sober interpretation of current developments. Although war with England was only declared in June 1812, the previous years had already brought pressure and restrictions to free trade and intercourse.5 While American Lutherans interpreted this new war as God’s just punishment for the gradual secularization of American politics and culture since independence, American scientists plainly

4 5

Kin. To Elliott, 04/08/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. The Evening I sent my Letter away a Letter from our mutual Friend D[octor] Baldwin arrived advising me that he had sent a Packet for me. To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. You mention that our mutual friend, Elliot, is at Charleston; pray, in what office? To Baldwin, 04/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 77. With our mutual Friend D[octor] Baldwin I had better Luck. To Elliott, 07/20/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. From our mutual excellent friend, Elliott, I had a letter, lately. To Baldwin, 11/18/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 113. The last letter I had from our mutual friend, M[iste]r Elliot, was dated November 8. I expect to hear from him by every mail. To Baldwin, 02/12/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 125. Your letter and Packet arrived here safe by our mutual Friend Mr Collins and I hasten to acknowledge the great Pleasure I received thereby. Mr Collins is my only steady Botanical Friend in the middle Parts of Northamerica who keeps up a good Correspondence and follows but a few other Correspondents of former Times. Besides my old Friend yourself, Baldwin and a new Friend D[octor] Bigelow from Boston I have none steady enough they loose Patience. Haec in transitu. To Elliott, 07/13/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. Our mutual Friend M[iste]r Collins is an excellent Correspondent and favours me with (...). To Elliott, 11/15/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. Also, Collins, Baldwin and Elliott are often mentioned in the same context: Quite lately D[octor] Baldwin was at Philadelphia and I was surely disappointed that he had immediatly to return to St. Marys in Georgia without coming to Lancaster. He is a second Elliot or Collins, entirely for the Science and excellent in every Respect. To Collins, 11/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. M[iste]r Elliot has not favored me with an answer to my last letter. Indeed, my former correspondents, – if I except my indefatigable D[octo]r Baldwin, and friend Collins, – seem to have forgotten me; and I am reckoned amongst the dead. To Baldwin, 07/04/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 140. Obs[ervatio] Baldwin der unermüdet corr[espondiert] wie Collins, Elliot gut, aber zu langsam. Eddy, Whitlow nichts taugend so M‘Mahon u[nd] Lyon viel zu langsam. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 05/26/1814. To Elliott, 02/01/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. From 1803 to 1812, more than 6,000 American mariners were pressed into British service, which posed a serious challenge to the national sovereignty. After the introduction of Napoleon’s Continental System in 1806, America and most European states reacted with their own counter-programmes in the next six years. In April 1812, finally, a 90-days embargo was put into practice, which made transatlantic transport costs climb by 20 % and provoked England to undo the Orders in Council on June 18, 1812. News of this event, however, reached America too late and war was declared on June 20, 1812. Most Pennsylvania representatives voted in favor of the war, which was also the reason for a mass exodus of British botanists such as John Bradbury and Thomas Nuttall. Baglyos, “American Lutherans,” 59; Hickey, War 1812, 7–9; 11f.; 16. See also Lester, Merry, 25–27; 48; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 421.

Towards Botanical Independence

405

viewed it as a serious obstruction of their transatlantic exchange. In the end, it was to be the beginning of an independent scientific culture in America. Mühlenberg’s catalogue was a small but decisive part of this puzzle. My Catalogue is now printed, except the Preface, he finally reported to Stephen Elliott in August 1813. I am sorry that D[octor] Baldwin and several other Plants came too late to be inserted. I will have a pretty clever Supplement to add when I have Leisure to examine my imperfect Specimens and several Packets I had since from other Parts. My Correspondents I hope will inform me where I have been wrong.6 Mühlenberg obviously never considered the work complete and planned to supplement it as soon as possible by incoming specimens from new correspondents, specifically Baldwin and Collins. The 1813 version, however, was already impressive. It contained 3,670 specimens from 853 genera, and although Smith dismissed it as little more than an annotated plant list, it also brought progress in comparison to Michaux’ 1803 Flora, as it featured a wider variety of cryptogams and phanerogams.7 I add with Gratitude the Names of my American Friends and Correspondents, Mühlenberg wrote in his preface, who have generously assisted me by communicating Specimens or Seeds.8 There were 16 in and around Philadelphia,9 seven in the 6

7 8 9

To Elliott, 08/25/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. The various editorial steps of Mühlenberg’s Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis can be followed via the following three passages from 1809, 1811 and 1813: I finished my Catalogue of the phanerogamick Plants of N[orth] America, but it is not printed yet, because I wish to correct the Sheets myself and we have no Printer at Lancaster able to undertake the printing. Nothing will be lost, the Manuscript is ready and by waiting a little a Number of Plants can be added. I am sure amongst your Plants a great many are new and could be added if we could venture to analyze perhaps the unique Specimen. Some of our States are hardly half examined. From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443. I have a M[anuscript] ready several years, containing in two fascicles – I a Catalogue of the hitherto known Phanerogamous Plants of N. America, in columns containing the Linnean and Englisch Names, Calyx, Corolla, Fruit, Habitat, and time of flowering. II The Cryptogamous Plants. I daily add to it, and think it might be useful. To Baldwin, 01/18/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 19. My Catalogue has lain two years with the printer, W[illiam] Hamilton; and after all my spurring, is printed to Monadelphia. He will only print 400 copies, for fear of losing too much. If you have any Information, or specimens, in the preceding classes, they would still be very acceaptable. To Baldwin, 04/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 77. This also defies Beck’s earlier claim that Mühlenberg started compiling his catalogue as late as in 1809. See Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 51. See also Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 7. Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 31; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 7; Smith, “Botanical Pioneer,” 445; Greene, American Science, 263. Phanerogams = seed-producing plants, as opposed to cryptogamia, which reproduce by spores. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. Barton, (Benjamin) Professor at Philadelphia. Bartram, (William ) Botanist. Collins, (Zaccheus) Philadelphia. Denke, (Christian) Rev[eren]d Nazareth and Canada. Hamilton, (William) Esq. From his Botanical Garden, deceased. Kampman, (Frederick) M[edical] D[octor] from Pennsylvania and Jersey. Mease, (James) M[edical] D[octor] Philadelphia, Georgia. Pursh, (Frederick) from Jersey. Müller, (Christopher) M[edical] D[octor] from Harmony, West Pennsylvania. Van der Schott, (Joseph) travelling Botanist, deceased. Enslin, (Aloysius) travelling Botanist, deceased. Schmalz, (Rafinesque) from Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Van Vleck, (Jacob) Rev[eren]d from Pennsylvania. Lyon, (John) Nursery and Seedsman, and Collector. M’Mahon, (Bernhard) from his Botanical Garden. Kin, (Matthias) Nursery-Man, and Collector. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors.

406

Letters from an American Botanist

southern parts10 and three from New York.11 The North and the West, however, remained largely unknown to Mühlenberg. Despite later successes in finding local contacts there, he could only list one correspondent for each of these two regions in 1813.12 The completion of the catalogue was not the only botanical goal he had been pursuing. Until the last months of his life, Mühlenberg eagerly continued his search for Lewis&Clark specimens, whose loss he considered a great defeat to American botany, which his catalogue or other American publications were supposed to mitigate. In 1814, Pursh finally published his Flora Americae Septentrionalis, in whose preface Pursh wordily thanked his American friends, specifically Mühlenberg.13 In reaction to this publication, Mühlenberg again intensified his efforts to gather information on Lewis’ collections, specifically from Collins, Benjamin Smith Barton’s nephew William Paul Crillon Barton and even from Thomas Jefferson, the original instigator of the expedition.14 In mid-December 1814, Mühlenberg summed up what he knew on the Lewis&Clark affair in a long diary entry one more time, which was filled with anger and accusations against basically everyone who had participated and failed: M’Mahon was mainly responsible for growing the seeds, he recorded. He had them for himself and sold them. The [American Philosophical] SoBaldwin, (William) M[edical] D[octor] from Delaware and Georgia. Billy, (Peter) from Virginia. Brickell, (John) M[edical] D[octor] from Georgia, deceased. Dallman, (Gustavus) North Carolina. Elliott, (Stephen) Esqu[ire] from Carolina and Georgia. Gambold, (Elizabeth) Mrs. from Cherokee. Kramsch, (Samuel) Rev[eren]d North Carolina. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. 11 Eddy, (Caspar Wistar) M[edical] D[octor] New York. Mitchell, (S[amuel] L[atham]) Professor, New York. Muhlenberg, (P[hilip] E[manuel]) New York and Jersey. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. 12 Moore, (Henry) from Tenessee and Natchez. Cutler, (Menasse) D[octor] D[ivinity] Massachusetts. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. 13 My first object, after my arrival in America, was to form an acquaintacnce with all those interested int he study of Botany. Among these I had the pleasure to account one of the earliest, and ever after the most valuable, the Rev[erend] D[octo]r Mühlenberg of Lancaster, in Pennsylvania, a gentleman whose industry and zeal for the science can only be surpassed by the accuracy and acuteness of his observations; I only regret, that his extensive and interesting materials towards a Flora of the United States, in which he has been engaged for a number of years, should not before this have been communicated to the public. Pursh, Flora, vi; See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 501. 14 See Mühlenberg’s letter to Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129: D[octor] W[illiam] Barton thinks he can get any of M[iste]r Lewis’s Plants from M[iste]r McMahon, and promises to try. Perhaps he can persuade his Oncle [sic!] to spare a few Fuci and Conserves from his superabundant Collection. It would give me much Pleasure to have at least a few Specimens from the Hands of my old botanical Friend who has been very sparing of adding anything to my Collection and whose Name I wish to add whenever I can give a second Edition of my Catalogue. It gives me infinite Pleasure to look over the Names of my contributing Friends with whom I make Excursions in Spirit and share their Troubles and Pleasures although I am obliged to remain at Home, as invalid. Whenever anything arrives from Smith, Turner, Aiton, Pursh, Michaux, Swarz, Acharius or Willdenows Supplements I will be glad to see it. For Jefferson, see Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/01/1814: Soll ich mich weg[en] Lewis’s Pflanzen an Jefferson Barton Clark od[er] Brad[bury] wenden? See also the letter from Jefferson to Muhlenberg, 03/16/1814, Looney, Jefferson Papers VII, 244. 10

Towards Botanical Independence

407

ciety should at least insist on having specimine. 6. Barton is doing nothing. Pursh makes known what has been entrusted to him. Purshia fallax and Bartonia fallax should not be forgotten. 7. Hamilton has spoiled much with his contributions.15 The entry reads as though he had given up all hope for a recovery of the valuable collections in the near future. It was the last time that Mühlenberg commented extensively on the Lewis&Clark specimens in his diary. More than during any other transitional phase between two consecutive configurations of Mühlenberg’s network, deaths of individual correspondents were a decisive factor. Some of them were already old men, like Christian Daniel Edler von Schreber or John Brickell, while others, such as William Hamilton, belonged to Mühlenberg’s own generation. In fact, the relatively high number of nine deaths from 1810 to 1813 shows that Mühlenberg had become an old man himself, a senior botanist and Lutheran pastor. In fact, to most of his new correspondents he could have passed for their father or even grandfather. The Hispanist George Ticknor (1791–1871) was the the youngest among them with merely 24 years at the time of Mühlenberg’s death. Schreber, however, was definitely the oldest with more than 70 years. The last four years of his life, he struggled with poor health and restrictions on science and trade brought by war and occupation, most of which were lifted in 1810, when Erlangen and the duchy of Bayreuth became part of the new kingdom of Bavaria.16 Mühlenberg first learned about Schreber’s death in May 1811 from a letter by Swartz.17 Although Schreber had been Mühlenberg’s first German contact, The whole entry reads: Dec[ember] 12, 1814 Obs[ervatio] 1) Lewis hat sein Herbar der philos[opical] Soc[iety] anvertraut. 1808 dort Pursh u[nd] ein franz[ösischer] Bot[aniker] urtheilten sehr vortheilhaft Barton verachtet es. 2) nachher hat es Lewis weg genomm[en], damals solte Barton es beschreib[en].3. Wo es hingekomm? wer ausser Pursh Nachricht hinterlassen? ob irgendein Register davon gegeb[en] u[nd] in den Archiven liegt? 4) Mrs Merry hat viel von dem mitgebracht Sämereien empfang[en], die sind nach England gegang[en]. 5. M‘Mahon war der Hauptman der die Sämerein hat anzieh[en] soll. [D]er hatt sie für sich u[nd] verkauft sie. [D]ie Societät solt wenigst[ens] darauf dring[en] Specimine zu hab[en]. 6. Barton thut nichts. Pursh macht bekant was ihm anvertraut war. Purshia fallax wie Bartonia fallax solte nicht vergessen werden. 7. Hamilton hat viel d[urc]h seinen Beitrag verdorben u[nd] seine Erben sind schuld heraus zu geb[en] was noch übrig geblieb ist (…) sein[e] M[anuscripte] solt[en] nicht verlohr geh[en] Durch Jefferson könt ich wohl ersehen 1) Wo die Specien geblieben 2) Und Clark könnte viel zur Erleuterung thun, besonders für Indianer od[er] trivial Nahmen. 8. Ich habe das Herb[arium] nie gesehen, Barton sprach zu verachtlich davon u[nd] als ich darnach seh[en] wollt war es weg. [D]ie Societ[ät] solte darauf seh[en]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/12/1814. 16 Most of Schreber’s scientific collections, whose estimated worth was 12,786 fl. 51 kr. at the time, were sold to Munich after his death. His major work on mammals saw new editions and supplements until 1847. Engelhardt, Erlangen, 137; Glaßer, Personalbibliographien, 77; Schieber, Erlangen, 75; Bischoff, “Erlangen,” 64; Glas, Palm, 11; Jaenicke, “Naturwissenschaften,” 635. Schreber’s successor was Friedrich von Wendt (1738–1818). Neigebaur, Leopoldino, 149. 17 I am very sorry to tell you, and perhaps have you already received the sorrowful news of the decease of our esteemed friend the venerable v[on] Schreber at Erlangen. From Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443. Schreber ist auch gestorben, glücklich genug Zeuge der verwüstung seiner gegend nicht zu werden. From Swartz, 12/16/1813, HSP Coll. 443. See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 377. 15

408

Letters from an American Botanist

it was Willdenow’s death on July 10, 1812 that he found more damaging for American botany. Whether Willdenow has finished his works? he noted in his diary. To us, his death is very sad with respect to botany.18 In the case of Christian Schkuhr, who died a year before Willdenow on July 17, 1811, the sad news reached him again through a letter from Swartz.19 In the USA, the two former fellow travelers Joseph van der Schott and Aloysius Enslin, died in short succession in late 1810 and mid-1812. Both of them were listed in his 1813 catalogue among his American Friends and Correspondents, for which Enslin had apparently sent more material than van der Schott. Since 1806, Enslin was a resident of Philadelphia, where he cultivated a garden which Mühlenberg often visited during his trips to the city.20 In December 1810, he reported to Elliott that M[iste]r Enslin is allmost gone and past Recovery at a Consumption, to which he eventually succumbed.21 When van der Schott died at Pittsburgh in late 1812, Mühlenberg tried for several months to obtain his botanical library and herbarium from his widow, but did not succeed.22 Just months after van der Schott’s Ob Willdenow seine Werk geendet? Uns ist sein Tod in Rücksicht der Botanic schade. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/15/1812. See also the letter from Swartz, 12/16/1813, HSP Coll. 443: Vielleicht wissen Sie dass Unser gut Willdenow ist, leider, nicht mehr im leben! Er starb 10 Jul[i] 1812. zu Berlin, Zu unbeschreiblichen Verlust für eine Wissenschafft, dessen wahrer Stützpfeiler er war! Schreber ist auch gestorben, glücklich genug Zeuge der Verwüstung seiner gegend nicht zu werden. Another Mühlenberg correspondent, Kurt Sprengel, was supposed to succeed Willdenow, but refused the offer. Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 63. 19 By a Letter from Olof Swarz dated Dec[ember] 1814 I see that my Friend Schkuhr is dead as well as Willdenow. Turner has edited 40 Plants or Fascicles. (I dont know which) of Fucus, an admirable work! To Collins, 05/28/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 20 The last such visit is mentioned in June 1809: At the same Time I had the Pleasure to see M[iste]r Hamiltons Garden, M[iste]r Bartram’s M[iste]r Enlin’s and M[iste]r McMahons. (...) M[iste]r Enslin cultivates a Number of Georgia Plants, some were new to me: an Urtica, a Rubus between hispidus and procumbens, Verbascum Claytoni floribus odoratis. To Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. 21 To Elliott, 12/17/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10n.; Elliot, Sketch I, xiii; Greene, American Science, 12; Nuttall also mentioned him in his 1818 work The Genera of North American Plants: “242. *Enslenia. [Footnote]: In memory of the late M[iste]r. Aloysius Enslen, an assiduous and practical botanist, patronised in his researches in the United States by Prince Lichtenstein of Austria, and to whom M[iste]r. Pursh was frequently indebted for many of the rarer plants of the Southern States.” Nuttall, Genera I, 164. For Enslin’s contributions to Mühlenberg, see also Mears, “Herbarium,” 161. 22 See the following diary entries and letters: Oct[ober] 31. I had a Letter to inform me that a very valuable Botanist, who travelled on Account of Prince Litgenstein in Austria, M[iste]r Van der Schott died at Pittsburgh, he left fine Collections and a Widow, who wishes to sell his Books and Collections. To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. [Nov[ember] 18. 1812] An C[hristoph] Müller in Harmony geschrieb[en], ihm gedankt, ihm gerath[en] sich an Bossi weg terrainis zu wend[en], an VanderSchotts Erben, für Vaccinia u[nd] andre Specimina dubia angehalt[en]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/18/1812. I wrote to the widow of M[iste]r Van der Schott and advised her to have a Catalogue made of his Books and Collections or send them to me with a limited Price and I promised her that I would try my best to recommend and sell the same. Hitherto I have received no Answer, probably the Specimens will loose some of their Value, the Books I suppose are chiefly German and Latin. To Elliott, 18

Towards Botanical Independence

409

death, Mühlenberg’s old friend William Hamilton died, who had been his source of information on scientific life in Philadelphia for a long time. At least for the last seven years, Hamilton had constantly been suffering from various diseases which he mainly sought to cure by traveling. His garden, which was Mühlenberg’s favorite botanical spot in the country for a long time, soon overgrew and became practically useless to science.23 In the South, Mühlenberg suffered a particularly painful loss. M[iste]r Oemler at Savanna informed me, he wrote to Elliott in January 1810, of the Death of our mutual Friend D[octor] Brickell, for which I am very sorry. Now I have but one botanical Friend in the Southern States and my Esteem for him is naturally doubled.24 Of course, this was the recipient of the letter, Elliott. Fortunately for Mühlenberg, he found an adequate substitute for Brickell with August Gotthold Oemler (1774–1852) after a short while.25 While Mühlenberg’s American scientific correspondences had been growing steadily since the turn of the century, his professional and family contacts had for long been on the wane. This was especially true for Helmuth and Schmidt at Phila01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. Vor etlichen Tagen erhielte ich einen Brief von Doct[or] Cleaver in Phila[delphia], worin er mich ersuchte, das Genera Plantarum von Madam Van der Schot für ihn zu kaufen, da aber Mrs. Van der Schot vermutlich in Lancaster sich aufhalten wird, so würden Sie mich und Doct. Cleaver sehr verbinden, wenn Sie es für ihn kauften, und ihm überschickten. (...) Sollte irgend etwas seyn das der Menschheit besonders nützlich ist, und Sie bestätigt gefunden haben in diesem oder jenem Fall. Sind Sie so gütig es mir mitzutheilen. Vieles bin ich Doct[or] Cleaver schuldig. From Müller, 03/28/1814, HSP Coll. 443. 23 The course and development of his slow death are documented in Mühlenberg’s correspondences: M[iste]r Hamilton is gone to Boston for his Health which is very precarious. The Publick would loose extremely if he was called to the long Home. To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. Our Friend W[illiam] Hamilton has been to the Northward near Niagara to recover his Health, but has returned much worse, having had a Stroke of the Palsy on his right Side. There are bit little Hopes of his Recovery. To Elliott, 08/27/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. M[iste] r Hamilton very near [consumption] without much Hope, and his botanical Garden hastening to Ruin. To Elliott, 12/17/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. In June I was at Philadelphia. I did not see M[iste]r Hamilton who is almost gone, nor W[illiam] Bartram nor Doctor Barton, (...). To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. M[iste]r Hamilton is still alive, his Garden paralyzed. To Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Willdenow named the genus Hamiltonia after him. Ewan, “Pursh,” 605; Stetson, “Hamilton,” 33. 24 Mühlenberg refers to Elliott, the recipient of the letter. To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 25 In his later Sketch of the Botany of South Carolina and Georgia, Stephen Elliott named a genus for Brickell: “I have named it in commemoration of D[octo]r John Brickell, of Savannah, who at one period of his life paid much attention to the botany of this country, and made known to D[octo]r Muhlenberg, Fraser and others, many of its undescribed plants.” Elliott, Sketch, unpaginated. Robinson has unearthed an obituary on Brickell, published on December 23, 1809 in the “Died, on Friday evening instant, doctor JOHN BRICKELL, aged sixty years. D[octo]r Brickell was a native of the county of Lowth (Ireland) and had been forty years in America, thirty of which he spent in Georgia. He was an exellent classical scholar, an ingenious naturalist, and a sincere patriot, having evinced a fervent attachment to the honor and welfare of the United States. In a country peculiarly favorable to botanical researches, D[octo]r B. (as this was among his favorite studies) had distinguished himself by unwearied application, and the many communication he received from the learned of various climes proved him to have been successful in his pursuit.” Robinson, “Brickell,” 228.

410

Letters from an American Botanist

delphia, the two close friends and Halle commissioners who had been acting as financial agents in the import of medicines since the early 1770s. From 1805 to 1811, there were only three letters between the two men and Mühlenberg, Schmidt letters dated October 22, 1807 being the final one. Contact with Nebe in Halle had practically ended in October 1809, which shows that trade in Halle medicines and the system of financial transactions via Philadelaphia continued at least until 1810.26 Only Schmidt’s death in 1812 and Helmuth’s retirement shortly thereafter brought this arrangement to an end and would not be re-established until Mühlenberg’s death.27 The family correspondences had also been practically cut off after the deaths of his brother Peter and brother-in-law Christoph Emanuel Schultze in 1807 and 1809. The most urgent family issue in the years after 1810 was his fourth-born son Frederick Augustus Hall Mühlenberg’s (1795–1867) medical apprenticeship with Benjamin Rush. This was also the exclusive subject of a renewed but brief correspondence between Rush and Mühlenberg in 1811 and 1812.28 On April 19, 1813, however, Rush unexpectedly died of Typhoid fever, after which Zaccheus Collins took care of Mühlenberg’s son Augustus until another place to continue his studies was found for him. In April 1814, William Baldwin sent his congratulations upon Augustus’ graduation from the same almshouse where Benjamin Smith Barton had also spent the early years of his career in Philadelphia.29 26

27

28

29

Die vorjährige Arzenei ist zur rechten Zeit an H[er]rn Pastor Schmidt gezahlet worden, nemlich 225 rt. 6 gl. in L’dor oder 168 Dollars 93 ¾ Cent. Die disjährigen soll auch pünktlich bezahlt werden. Hoffentlich wird auch M[iste]r Hutter seine Rechnung berichtigen weil er sich jetzt dem Ansehen nach erholt hat und in guten Umständen steht. To Nebe, 01/21/1807, AFSt M.4 D6. Sie werden so gütig seyn, und diese Sume von 421 rl. 2 gl. 4 d. an den H[errn] Past[or] Schmidt zu Philadelphia bezahlen. From Nebe, 10/12/1809, AFSt M.4 D6. According to Nolan, Helmuth collapsed upon hearing the news of Schmidt’s death, exclaiming: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan. Very pleasant hast thou been unto me; thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Nolan, Smith Family, 73. Mühlenberg’s last surviving professional letters exchanged with a Lutheran colleague of his was dated April 9, 1812 and written by Paul Henkel (1754–1822). See his letter, 04/09/1812, Baur, Letters of Paul Henkel, 8. See also and Glatfelter, Pastors II, 442. Some time before November, I expect to be at Philadelphia, to introduce my youngest son to D[octo]r Rush, and the other Professors, as he intends to study medicine with D[octo]r Rush. To Baldwin, 09/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 45. We have considered with due attention, your Proposals for taking our Son Augustus under your Tuition and accept of them with Gratitude. He shall attend four winters vi[ndelicet] 1811, 1812, 1813 and 1814 upon the medical Lectures and upon the Practice of the Pennsylvania Hospital and the private Practice of his Preceptor. To Rush, 06/02/1811, LibComp Benjamin Rush letters. I am happy to hear, that my Son Augustus attends to the Duties of your Shop, and I will urge him to spend some Time daily in it, without any Regard to Rotation. You have no Doubt Books sufficient to engage the Attention of your Students, or they may be had from the different public Libraries. I sincerely hope that he will do Honour to his Preceptor as well as to his Parents by his Attention to Business and Books. He will return to Philadelaphia after a little Recreation and a few botanical Excursions. To Rush, 08/31/1812, LibComp Benjamin Rush letters. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 524. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 232. See also the letter from Baldwin, 05/15/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 80: By the same mail that brought your letter, I had the melancholy intelligence of the death of D[octo]r Rush. The loss of such a man is not easily repaired. And Willdenow, too, is

Towards Botanical Independence

411

6.1 Philadelphia and Western Pennsylvania By far the most of Mühlenberg’s contributors to his 1813 catalogue were permanently or temporarily located in Philadelphia, which can be seen both as a legacy of the city’s fading fame as the young nation’s scientific capital and of Mühlenberg’s former scientific focus on the local fauna. By 1810, New York was ready to outstrip Philadelphia as America’s center of commerce, social life and science. The founding of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) in 1812, which contained the first national herbarium of the United States, could only slow down the speed of these changes, but not reverse the entire process.30 16 out of the 28 American Friends and Correspondents Mühlenberg mentioned in his list of contributors were either natives or residents of Philadelphia, had been dwelling there at intervals, lived in the vicinity or elsewhere in the state of Pennsylvania.31 Some of them had already died at the time of the catalogue’s publication, others had just recently joined the network, some had contributed more specimens and seeds than others, some were resting contacts, some were still actively corresponding with Mühlenberg. There was one thing most of them had in common, however: they had joined the network after 1803 and Mühlenberg’s resolve to write his own comprehensive work on North American botany. One mentioning in the list is rather conspicuous: Barton, (Benjamin) Professor at Philadelphia. Against the background of Mühlenberg’s permanent misgivings about his colleague’s unwillingness to share and collaborate, his inclusion is definitely irritating. Especially during the five years from 1806 to 1811, Barton had proven to be incapable of handling the precious Lewis&Clark specimens properly, which prompted Mühlenberg to seek access to the seeds himself. Apart from Barton’s scientific disorganization and chaotic hand-

30 31

gone! For his son, see his letter to Collins, 10/19/1813, ANSP Coll. 129.: My other Son Augustus now returns to Philadelphia to attend another Course of Lectures. He will deliver you this Letter and will be attentive to forward anything you have for me by safe opportunities. Will you assist him occassionally with your good Advice and friendly Protection? He is a good Child to his Parents, and as fas as I know attentive to his Studies. Perhaps at a future Day he may find an open Place as student at the Almshouse of Hospital, as my good and inestimable friend the deceased D[octor] Rush had let me hope. See also the letter from Baldwin, 04/30/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 134: I congratulate your son, Frederick, on his obtaining a medical degree. Pray inform him that he has my best wishes, and that it will afford me much pleasure to cultivate an acquaintance with him. Sorensen, Brethren, 5; Warren, Rafinesque, 13; Greene, American Science, 57. These 16 were: Barton, (Benjamin) Professor at Philadelphia; Bartram, (William ) Botanist; Collins, (Zaccheus) Philadelphia; Denke, (Christian) Rev[eren]d Nazareth and Canada; Hamilton, (William) Esq[uire] from his Botanical Garden, deceased; Kampman, (Frederick) M[edical]D[octor] from Pennsylvania and Jersey; Mease, (James) M[edical] D[octor] Philadelphia, Georgia; Pursh, (Frederick) from Jersey; Müller, (Christopher) M[edical] D[octor] from Harmony, West Pennsylvania; Van der Schott, (Joseph) travelling Botanist, deceased; Enslin, (Aloysius) travelling Botanist, deceased; Schmalz, (Rafinesque) from Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania; Van Vleck, (Jacob) Rev[eren]d from Pennsylvania; Lyon, (John) Nursery and Seedsman, and Collector; M’Mahon, (Bernhard) from his Botanical Garden; Kin, (Matthias) Nursery-Man, and Collector. See Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors.

412

Letters from an American Botanist

ling of highly important botanical projects, his failing health and frequent feuds were the main responsible factors for his failure. Especially with Mühlenberg’s occasional correspondent and close friend Benjamin Rush, Barton shared a deep mutual antipathy since his dishonorable discharge from the University of Edinburgh in 1789.32 Following their falling-out over Barton’s embezzlement, which had seriously damaged Rush’s reputation as a patron and sponsor of young scientific talents, Barton had used every opportunity to distance himself from his old teacher. Criticism of Rush’s bleeding techniques during the yellow fever epidemics, his own deist views against Rush’s staunch beliefs, and their constant battle over influence and fama were the main lines of their conflict, which finally culminated in 1810.33 With Sincere wishes for your health and happiness, Rush closed a rather cynical letter to Barton in January 1810, and that you may long, very long, continue to employ your talents, zeal and industry in promoting Science in our country, I am your early friend. Benjamin Rush.34 Three years later, Rush died on April 19, 1813, and Barton succeeded him in the highly coveted position of “Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medicine” at the University of Pennsylvania.35 D[octo]r Barton, you know, is now in the place of the excellent deceased Benjamin Rush, Mühlenberg observed sceptically a few months later to William Baldwin. Whether his new situation will hurt his Botanical pursuits, time will show.36 A chronic gout, which had first shown in 1802, and other ailments further complicated the ability of Barton to handle several projects simultaneously. After 1810, he finally found himself forced to abandon most of them.37 See the chapter “Benjamin Rush and the long-drawn Battle Lines” in Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 203f. 33 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 204–06; 229; 222; 225. According to Ewan and Ewan, their mutual animosity emerges most clearly in Rush’s letters to John Redman Coxe (1773–1864) and his commonplace books, wherein Barton’s name appears more often than any other name. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 231. 34 Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 225. 35 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 232; 601; 779. 36 To Baldwin, 11/18/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 113. See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 601. 37 In 1809, Barton had already discontinued his Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal, while the work on his Flora Virginica was already heavily delayed in 1810. In the same year, he began a new work entitled Ladies’ Flora, which would never be published as well. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 200f., 607, 625. To judge John Davis (1761–1847) at Boston, Barton explained himself regretfully: I regret that I so seldom hear from you. Perhaps I am myself to blame, as I am a very irregular correspondent. My professional engagements do not permit me to be very regular or punctual in my epistolary intercourse with friends. And it is no uncommon thing for me to begin to write a letter, which I am prevented from finishing by an attack of gout, or sickness of some other kind. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 607. See also Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 25. A biographical sketch by Barton’s nephew William Paul Crillon Barton (1786– 1856) also gives a clear impression of the influence of Barton’s health on his professional work and ambitions: With a vehement, nervous temperament, full of exuberant ambition, yet ever in poor health and so loaded with professional duties as to find little time for his beloved natural science, it is small wonder if the elder Barton’s botanical achievements were limited. Quoted after Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 18. In fact, Barton’s employments of Pursh, Lyon and Nuttall, whom he sent across the country in lieu of himself, testify to his constantly poor health and 32

Towards Botanical Independence

413

Mühlenberg’s personal relationship with Barton reached the nadir in July 1813 on occasion of a mysterious newspaper laudation for Barton.38 Already half a year before, he had written to Stephen Elliott about his suspicions that Barton secretly sabotaged and delayed the printing of his book with the help of his brother William Hamilton.39 In fact, Mühlenberg never ceased to complain about Barton in his letters,40 and despite some personal meetings and talks at Lancaster and Philadelphia, no definite proof of any concrete botanical exchange between them could be found.41 Also, when Barton finally managed to finish at least one project with his Flora Virginica, Mühlenberg was furious when he found out that Barton apparently complete dependence on contract gardeners and collectors to fill and organize his herbarium. See Ewan, “Barton Influence,” 29; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 516; Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 25f. 38 See above on page 369. 39 My Catalogue goes very slow, the five first Classes to the Umbellatae are printed from Nov[ember] 1811 untill now, and all my begging and driving is of non Use. D[octor] Barton’s Brother is the Corrector of Hamilton the Printer and I almost suspect that may be the Reason of the Slowness.(...) I am very much obliged to you for communicating the Names and Numbers of the Plants figured in Abbots Insects. I have seen them but only with hald a Look at D[octor] Bartons, he did not seem willing to let me have a Copy of the Names and Numbers, however I put down from the 104, about 50 which I could remember without the Number. To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. To William Baldwin, he wrote on the same subject in June 1813: My Catalogue is now in the Gynandria, – going on very slow. Whenever it is finished, certainly I will send you a copy. You will find much to add; but a beginning must be made. D[octo]r B[arton] will have an opportunity to criticize. If only the science gains, I am satisfied. I hope to see your other packet soon, and will hasten to write again. To Baldwin, 06/01/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 85. 40 Especially throughout 1813, when Mühlenberg suspected Barton to sabotage the publication of his catalogue, complaints about him abound in his letters: D[octor] Barton hardly ever answers and when a Letter comes it contains nothing but Queries. To Elliott, 02/01/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. From American Correspondents I can say more, my Correspondence has been brisk but the Product for my Herbarium rather little. Once I was to Philadelphia but had little Time. D[octor] Barton in his Expressions had abdicated all Botany and threatened to send all his Collections to England for Sale and sell every botanical Book! It is in vain he will not get clear – naturam furca expellas cet. (...) With D[octor] Barton I saw Plukenets works. See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Elliott, 07/29/1811; 01/05/1812; 06/22/1812; 05/17/1813; 08/25/1813; all in HUH Elliott Papers; To Peck, 05/19/1812, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc; To Collins, 01/09/1813; 08/27/1813; 09/11/1813; all in ANSP Coll. 129. Mühlenberg’s last complaint about Barton was included in a letter to Stephen Elliott in December 1813: I have seen some at a Distance with D[octor] Barton from the Northward, which were excellent and of great Consequence. The Doctor could never be persuaded to allow a nearer Look, and this Spring he told me, they were motheaten not worth seeing or sent to Europe. To Elliott, 12/06/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. 41 Graustein suggests along with Ewan and Ewan that Barton paid frequent visits to Lancaster to see his family, despite his chronically weak constitution. In 1810, Barton embarked for a rare expedition tour to Virginia for his Flora Virginica project, which also brought him to Lancaster in July of the same year. This seems to be the closest date of potential direct contact between the two men and Mühlenberg’s accusations of Barton to Stephen Elliott in January 1813. Graustein, “Barton,” 430; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 24, 56, 278, 617, 623. Ewan and Ewan also point out that around 1812 visitors to Barton began to take notice of his increasing reluctance to observe basic standards of civility or let see his collections. In 1813, however, Barton let Mühlenberg have a look at a copy of Plukenet’s works. This is the only instance of actual exchange between the two men at that time. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 357, 627. See also Mühlen-

414

Letters from an American Botanist

intended to sell the copies exclusively in England.42 This context of their relationship makes it seem rather improbable that Barton did ever actually provide Mühlenberg with specimens. His mentioning as a donor in the catalogue is actually the only trace of this botanical exchange. In any case, Barton’s contributions were most likely only few. In spring 1814, his health was already in such a bad state that he undertook a trip to England for a potential cure, which Mühlenberg hoped he would also use for American science.43 Barton sailed in April 1815 and died shortly after his return on December 19, 1815, in New York city of tuberculosis. The planthunter John Lyon and the gardener Bernard M’Mahon, two other Philadelphia protagonists of the Lewis&Clark affair of the past five years, also appeared on Mühlenberg’s list. I expect to make some valuable additions to my Herbarium from M[iste]r Lyons’s and M’Mahon’s gardens, he informed William Baldwin in September 1811.44 Just as before, contact with both men after 1811 consisted primarily in mutual visits, but also in ocassional letters, none of which could be located.45 In spring 1812, Lyon once again left Philadelphia for a sales tour of his

berg’s letter to Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers.: With D[octor] Barton I saw Plukenets works. 42 Once I was to Philadelphia but had little Time. D[octor] Barton in his Expressions had abdicated all Botany and threatened to send all his Collections to England for Sale and sell every botanical Book! It is in vain he will not get clear (...). See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Elliott, 01/05/1812; 10/05/1812, both in HUH Elliott Papers; To Baldwin, 04/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 77; and the letter from Baldwin, 05/15/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 80. 43 Probably our D[octo]r B[enjamin] S[mith] Barton goes next March, and intends to return in November, from Germany, France, and England, – with the riches of the old world, and all the information he can collect. To Baldwin, 01/20/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 156. See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 813; 824. 44 To Baldwin, 09/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 45. Especially from this point on, M’Mahon and Lyon were often mentioned in a breath in Mühlenberg’s letters: When you see M[iste]r McMahon and M[iste]r Lyon pray try to persuade them to communicate such Plants as they find wanting in this Catalogue. To Collins, 10/12/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. How sorry I am that I cannot come this Fall to Philadelphia as M[iste]rs Muhlenberg is gone to N[ew] York. I wish to see you very much, also M[iste]r McMahon and Lyon. To Collins, 09/11/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. How glad should I be to accompany it, with something having plates on Fucus & Conserva worth your while. I early noticed your wishes to obtain such, and have constantly been on the look out. Mess[ieurs] M’Mahon & Lyon are well acquainted with your desire about certain specimens and I trust they will take pleasure in sending them. From Collins, 10/26/1813, HSP Soc. Coll. 45 See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 515, 516. The visits by Lyon and M’Mahon until 1812 are documented in Mühlenberg’s letters and Lyon’s diaries. In July 1811, Mühlenberg wrote to Stephen Elliott: In June I was at Philadelphia. I did not see M[iste]r Hamilton who is almost gone, nor W[illiam] Bartram nor Doctor Barton, but I had the Pleasure to see the Collection of M[iste]r Lyons, indeed an excellent one (...) the botanick Garden of M[iste]r McMahon who is a going on very briskly. He has Lewis’s Plants in great Perfection, but chiefly yet without Blossom. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. One year later, he remarked again: Journey to Philadelphia. (...) Mc Mahon’s botanical Garden a real Acquisition to our Country. To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. For Lyon’s visits to Mühlenberg, Cherookee county and Winston Salem, see Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10, 13; Peterson, New World Botany, 357f.

Towards Botanical Independence

415

botanicals in England, which ended all contact with him for about a year.46 After his return in 1813, Mühlenberg tried to contact his two friends, but did not succeed until May 1814 in Lyon’s case, respectively until August of the same year in M’Mahon’s case.47 Although he had his doubts about the two gardeners’ characters and ethics,48 Lyon’s collections of southern plants were obviously too valuable to give 46 Mühlenberg first acknowledged Lyons’ departure in June 1812 to Elliott. To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. In August 1812, he asked Collins: Have you heard anything of M[iste]r Lyons, who went last Fall to England with a great Collection of living Plants? When he and M[iste]r Pursh return from the old Countries I expect a good deal of Information. To Collins, 08/26/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. First news of Lyon’s imminent return emerge by January 1813: If M[iste]r Lyon left England lately, he will perhaps be able to give a certain Account of Willdenows Death and whether he published the whole of the Cryptogamia. Our travelling Nursery Men have an excellent Opportunity to clear up many Doubts in our Flora. Of M[iste]r Lyon I expect much in that way, and so of M[iste]r Pursh, whose Catalogue I would be very glad to see. I will write to M[iste]r Lyon very soon. Probably he is again with M[iste]r. Landrath. To Collins, 01/09/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. For Lyon’s second England journey, see also Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10. 47 M[iste]r Lyon I hear is lately returned to this Country. He could give a good Deal of Information on many of our new especially Southern Plants which he exported to England, some are allready in Donns Catalogue. I hope to see him next May or hear from him by Letter although he is very shy. To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. From M[iste]r Lyon I have received no answer whatever. He may give us much Information. To Collins, 02/01/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. M[iste]r Lyon has not returned any Answer. Do you know whether he had left anything of his former Collection in this Country or whether he took all along and has to begin again to collect? Has he seen or brought M[iste]r Pursh [illegible]? I would write to him often, but am afraid he will get none of my letters by Mail, as he lives too far from Town. To Collins, 02/12/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. See also To Collins, 02/25/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. In March 1813, Lyon called on Collins at Philadelphia. From Collins, 03/02/1813, HSP Coll. 443. Since my last letter, I have been at Philadelphia; /..) M[iste]r Lyon [is] now returned: his nursery is excellent, and very rich in Southern plants. (...)To Baldwin, 05/17/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 82. Returning from W[illiam] B[artram]’s I stopped at M[iste]r Lyon’s whom I saw & who promises to remembering you in the way you desire. From Collins, 11/18/1813, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letters from Collins, 07/04/1814, HSP Coll. 443; and to Collins, 07/19/1814, ANSP Coll. 129; and Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 15. With regard to M’Mahon, Mühlenberg had to show more patience until August 1814: M[iste]r McMahon I wished to see exceedingly, but I have been surely disappointed (...). To Collins, 05/15/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. Since my last letter, I have been at Philadelphia; (...) M[iste]r M’Mahon I did not see. To Baldwin, 05/17/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 82. Part of the seeds I have put in the garden, already; and I will not forget to transmit whatever I get to M[iste]r. M’Mahon. He deserves encouragement; and will be of great use to our country, in the Botanical way. To Baldwin, 07/06/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 97. I thank you for your Trouble at M[iste]r McMahons House. I am afraid I shall not have the Pleasure to see his Hortus Upsalansis, and must be satisfied to remain at Lancaster untill another Paradisus is opened. To Collins, 06/07/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Finally, in August 1814, Mühlenberg wrote to Collins: I have lately been to M[iste]r Mahon. He does not seem fond of talking about Lewis’s plants. He has a bed of Agrostis stolomifera from seeds sent by Thouin. It was not in flower. M[iste]r. M’M[ahon] thinks it different from our A[grostis] stolomif[era] your decumbens but I saw nothing it then stateto found a specific distinction upon. From Collins, 08/11/1814, HSP Coll. 443. 48 In March 1811, he noted on Lyon: Obs[ervatio] Lyons hat sich geg[en] Elliot sehr undankbar erwiesen, ihm wenig od[er] nichts mitgetheilt, u[nd] sein Character ist Eulenmässig, dabei ein überharter Tory. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in March 1811. On

416

Letters from an American Botanist

in to such doubts. In the case of M’Mahon, not much information could be collected on the nature of their supposed exchange.49 Lyon died on September 13, 1814 near Ashville, NC, during one of his southern excursions. The loss of our industrious Friend M[iste]r Lyons I feel sincerely, Mühlenberg lamented to Collins in October. He has left no Family, and many of his Observations are lost to the Publick.50 M’Mahon died on September 16, 1816. With James Mease, William Bartram and Matthias Kin, three more Philadelphians were on Mühlenberg’s list, though none of them seems to have been a major contributor. Mease appeared first in 1803, when he submitted plants and specimens collected at Simon’s Island off the Georgia coast to Lancaster. In 1808, a diary entry suggests that Mease’s contribution to Mühlenberg’s herbarium and his 1813 catalogue were few but important.51 William Bartram had recently been contacted by

49

50

51

M‘Mahon he wrote in May 1814: Collins meldet von einer Pflanze bei M‘Mahon die aus Kentuke ... mit ... übereinst[immen] soll[en] u[nd] ich möchte gern sehen. McMahon vergißt daß er mich mehr braucht als ich ihn. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 05/29/1814. M[iste]r Lyon [Lyons] has a noble Collection chiefly of Southern Plants. To Elliott, 12/17/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. M[iste]r Lyon I hear is lately returned to this Country. He could give a good Deal of Information on many of our new especially Southern Plants which he exported to England, some are allready in Donns Catalogue. To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. Since my last letter, I have been at Philadelphia; but I had constant rain, and but little opportunity to see my friends, or any garden. D[octo]r Barton is well. M[iste]r Lyon now returned: his nursery is excellent, and very rich in Southern plants. To Baldwin, 05/17/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 82. On the botanical specimens received from M’Mahon, Mühlenberg only once simply noted their origin: Jersey Beach. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in early January 1812. Naturally, the Lewis&Clark specimens continued to be Mühlenberg’s prime object in his dealings with Lyon and M’Mahon, although he never managed to receive anything from them. To Collins he observed as late as September 1814: D[octor] W[illiam] Barton thinks he can get any of M[iste]r Lewis’s Plants from M[iste]r McMahon, and promises to try. Perhaps he can persuade his Oncle [sic!] to spare a few Fuci and Conserves from his superabundant Collection. It would give me much Pleasure to have at least a few Specimens from the Hands of my old botanical Friend who has been very sparing of adding anything to my Collection and whose Name I wish to add whenever I can give a second Edition of my Catalogue. It gives me infinite Pleasure to look over the Names of my contributing Friends with whom I make Excursions in Spirit and share their Troubles and Pleasures although I am obliged to remain at Home, as invalid. Whenever anything arrives from Smith, Turner, Aiton, Pursh, Michaux, Swarz, Acharius or Willdenows Supplements I will be glad to see it. To Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. See also the letters to Collins, 12/02/1814; 12/05/1814, both in ANSP Coll. 129. He continued: A few Days ago I had made a Memorandum for him at his expected Return and now he is gone forever! I expected to get amongst others Rosa Japonica, Angelica lucida, Hypericum frondosum, Aster paludosus, Gladiolus carolinianus, Heliinias angustifolia, of which I had a Promise and had laid by several seeds and Roots for him on his Return! To Collins, 10/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Elliott he explained in the same month: M[iste]r. Lyons who had called at Lancaster and gone to Tenessee has gone forever, and departed of a bilions Fever at Ashville deserved well of Botany and his Loss will be felt. I am sorry that I am disabled to see his Collection left at Philadelphia in the Hands of M[iste]r Landreth. To Elliott, 10/10/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. Lyon’s last diary entry on September 6, 1814: Felt better but week [sic!]. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 15. See also Peterson, New World Botany, 357f. Nahmen solcher die mir Pflanzen zu meinem Herb[arium] geliefert (…) Mease Simons Islands

Towards Botanical Independence

417

Mühlenberg on behalf of his Travels, which contained many supposedly original plant descriptions. After 1810, when Bartram finally provided the desired information, no further botanical exchange can be detected.52 According to James Mears, only two specimens by William Bartram could be identified in Mühlenberg’s herbarium.53 Matthias Kin, the Germantown Nursery-Man and Collector, as Mühlenberg described him in the catalogue, was slightly more active and continued his botanical exchange with Mühlenberg after the publication of the catalogue.54 – N[ew] York. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in early January 1812. The impression that Mease was a minor contributor is also supported by another diary entry, which noted that Mease nützt nicht viel. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes]. On the inside of the cover of one of his Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, Mühlenberg noted Mease’s Philadelphia address: 192 Chesnut Street D James Mease so D[octor] Barton. See also Mears, “Herbarium,” 165; Elliot, Dictionary, 174. 52 Instead, Mühlenberg continued to inquire with Zaccheus Collins whether he could not coax Bartram into a further botanical reappraisal of his work: Before I am done with the Lachesis I must add that I read the Volume with great Plasure, sometimes a Question arose with me, why is this work admired and read with so much Pleasure, and why is our Friend Bartram in his travels less admired by some of his Readers? Bartram is to me a very valuable Traveller and I partake of all his Trouble and Pleasure. With a few Additions and Explanations his work will remain exceedingly valuable to an American Naturalist. I have entreated my southern Correspondents D. Baldwin and M[iste]r. Elliot to give the necessary Additions and Explanations – could you not persuade the good William Bartram to do it himself and write them down. A few sheets put in one of our Magazines or Transactions would do the whole. See also the letters from Collins, 11/18/1813, HSP Coll. 443; and to Collins, 11/22/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 53 Mears, “Herbarium,” 159. 54 Perhaps I can persuade him to send better Specimens, he spells bad, and changes his Names very often, but is an indefatigable Collector. To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Kin is still alive, he insists that all his Vaccinia are really distinct Species and is rather dissatisfied that I doubt of it. He complains bitterly that he is robbed whenever he makes Excursions to any distant Place, however he intends another Journey to the Southwards. I wish great Success to him as he is poor and industrious. To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. I had the living Root from Mathias Kin without a name. To Collins, 11/22/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. M[iste]r Kin has likewise returned to Philadelphia and speaks of many new Discoveries. He is more willing to communicate then my former Correspondent Mill. To Collins, 08/26/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Probably I will include a Letter to you for M[iste]r Kin who is seldom known but by Friends. Will you pardon me for giving you the Trouble to see it forwarded. To Collins, 12/02/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. I beg leave to send you an inclosed Letter for M[iste]r. Kin in which I thank him for his Specimens and living Plants I do not know where he lives. Have you seen his Herbarium. It is valuable. To Collins, 12/05/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. In January 1813, Mühlenberg noted in his diary: 1) Brief von Kin, mit 2 Blättern 1. Populus aniculata ist heteroph. W 2. Popolus Lanatus, scheint mir die junge trepida (...) Inhalt des Briefes: (...) 3. Er verlangt neue Pfl[anzen] von mir, will nächsten Sommer eine Reise wieder thun. Elliot hat ihm 500 Gräser [gewiesen?]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/01/1813. In November 1814, he added: Von Kin erhalten zur Nomenclatur u[nd] lebendig, gleich gepflanzt. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/20/1814. Despite Kin’s orthographic shortcomings, three letters could be reconstructed for their contact. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 513. Mühlenberg’s letter to Collins, dated August 26, 1814, contains the only reference to this former Correspondent Mill throughout his correspondences and letters.

418

Letters from an American Botanist

Johann Christopher Müller, Mühlenberg’s second most intensive American contact in western Pennsylvania from 1806 to 1811, also continued to play a decisive role prior and after the publication. The five surviving letters from Müller and numerous diary entries between April 1811 and March 1814 contain information on several exchanges of seeds, roots and botanical knowledge in both directions, most of which were linked to Müller’s medical interests.55 Less than one year after their last contact, Mühlenberg received intelligence which he correctly interpreted as the end of their exchange: In the papers I see that Rapp and most of the Harmonists have moved to the Wabash he noted. The land is fertile but the region is unhealthy (…) Most probably our correspondence has come to an end now, if Müller does not write and tell me which new things he finds there.56 In the end, it was not the Harmonists’ move to Indiana which ended their contact, but Mühlenberg’s own death in May 1815. The move to Posey County, Indiana, had been prompted by inconclusive plans to expand the present settlement during the previous years. The difficult and long search for new land was probably the reason why Müller failed to respond again after spring 1814, when the Society began for real to prepare the sale, purchase and organization of new and old properties.57 Müller was among the first to move to Indiana and help establish New Economy.58 6.2 The patient and successful cultivator – Collins Mühlenberg’s main local correspondent during the last three years of his life and the last Philadelphian to be featured on his 1813 list was Collins, (Zaccheus) Philadelphia.59 In a diary entry in November 1814, Mühlenberg actually referred to 55

56

57 58

59

Wollen Sir mir gefälligst noch einmal meine dubia berichtigen, so werden Sie mich sehr verbinden. Mein botanischer Garten wird dieses Jahr aufs neue verlegt, deswegen ich Ihnen diesmal kein Kistchen davon schicke wie versprochen war, es war ein Teil davon der Überschwemmung ausgesetzt. In this letter, Müller also details his latest achievements in the medical application of plants sent by Mühlenberg. From Müller, 04/06/1811, HSP Coll. 443. In November 1812, Mühlenberg recorded in his diary: Nov[ember] 14, 12 ist endlich das Kästch von C[ristian] Müller gekomen, es ist in allerlei Moos gepackt, welches näher muß untersucht wird, u[nd] enthält wie Oct[ober] 24 gemeldet word[en] allerlei, das ich aber erst Nov[ember] 16 verpflanzen kann. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/14/1812. See also the letters from Müller, 09/10/1811; 08/02/1813 and 03/28/1814, all in HSP Coll. 443, except for the letter from Müller, 02/06/1813, APS Film 1097. Aus der Zeitung sehe ich daß Rapp mit den Harmonisten größtenth[eils] an die Wabash gezogen [ist]. Das Land ist gut aber die Gegend ungesund (...) Vermuthl[ich] ist uns[ere] Korresp[ondenz] jetzt am Ende; wenn Müller nicht schreibet u[nd] mir etwa meldet was er dort neues findet. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/21/1815. Auer, Harmonisten, 95–98; 955; Williams, Harmony, 60; Arndt, Indiana Decade I, 42, 69f., 78, 132. Arndt, Indiana Decade I, 320. Müller remained a member in the Harmony until the so-called Count of Leon schism in 1832. In 1820, he began to correspond with Mühlenberg’s former Philadelphia correspondent Isaac Cleaver. Arndt, Harmony, 195; 450; Arndt, Indiana Decade II, 128. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors.

Towards Botanical Independence

419

Collins as his Haupt Correspondent, which illustrates that he actively differentiated between his various correspondents’ qualities, reliability and intensity of contact.60 A total of 83 letters was exchanged between March 1812 and May 1815, the last of which was also the last botanical letter ever written by Mühlenberg.61 Zaccheus Collins, who was one of Philadelphia’s most prominent citizens, philanthropists and scientifically educated men at the time of their contact, has still not found a modern biographer. Born in 1764 into a Philadelphia Quaker family, he can be called the last example of those Pennsylvanian botanists, who had made transatlantic botany basically a “Quaker science” during the 18th century.62 The patient and successful cultivator of that science, in the words of William Paul Crillon Barton (1786–1856),63 had been a busy figure in the city’s scientific scene, but surprisingly does not make his appearance in Mühlenberg’s botanical correspondences until March 1812.64 On March 19 of that year, Mühlenberg wrote Collins a letter whose content suggests that the beginning of their exchange was in fact of recent date.65 Collins was to be Mühlenberg’s second high-intensive American contact after Stephen Elliott, with whom he had already exchanged 21 letters from 1808 to 1811.66 At first, the exchange with Collins was limited to discussions on recent botanical publications, their availability in Philadelphia and general chit-chat about scientific 12 [November 1814] Abends von Collins einen vortreffl[ichen] Brief mit mehr[eren] Specimen, er hat (…) viele von meinen bestätigt daß ich gewisser geworden bin, etliche neue hin zu gethan die ich in Persoon eintragen will. Er bleibt der Haupt Correspondent. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/11/1814. 61 This letter was dated May 19, 1815, three days prior to Mühlenberg’s death. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 501f. 62 According to Barnhart, Collins was one of the “best known botanists” at the time. Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 23. All of the biographical information used here was collected from references in secondary literature on other Mühlenberg correspondents. See Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 23; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 416; Stuckey, “Auction,” 445; McKinley, “Gambold,” 66; Mears, “Herbarium,” 161. 63 Barton wrote this in the dedication to Collins in his Compendium Florae Philadelphicae, Philadelphia 1818. Quoted after Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 23. From William Paul Crillon Barton, Mühlenberg also received one letter in February 1815, in which Barton suggested a botanical exchange and included 137 specimens. A letter to Collins from September 1814 suggests that this was originally Mühlenberg’s idea, who was still hoping to convince Benjamin Smith Barton to share his collections: Perhaps [WPC Barton] can persuade his Oncle to spare a few Fuci and Conserves from his superabundant Collection. It would give me much Pleasure to have at least a few Specimens from the Hands of my old botanical Friend who has been very sparing of adding anything to my Collection and whose Name I wish to add whenever I can give a second Edition of my Catalogue. To Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Harshberger, Botanists, 159; Ewan, “Louisiana,” 2292n; Mears, “Herbarium,”159; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 26; 29; 141; 205; 808; Pleadwell, “Barton,” 267–85. 64 To Collins, 03/19/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. 65 Mühlenberg begins by writing: Dear Sir, Nothing could have been more wellcome to me, than your friendly Letter and your Promise that I shall have an early Sight of Willdenow’s Filices which have arrived for you at Norfolk. To Collins, 03/19/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. In any case, this first letter is the first instance of their contact, as neither Mühlenberg’s other letters nor his diaries mention Collins prior to March 19, 1812. 66 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 507. 60

420

Letters from an American Botanist

life in the city. It was only about half a year into their correspondence in June 1812 that a regular botanical exchange was arranged. I will inclose some (...) Specimens for you, although you have very near all we have, Mühlenberg proposed to Collins. The easiest way for the future will be that you send me numbered any of your adversaria and I will send you my Opinion on every Number faithfully. Whatever you have may go with the Stage or by M[iste]r Musser.67 The ensuing exchange basically followed the known pattern from other American correspondences, as Mühlenberg provided plant identifications and the respective correspondent plant material. This time, however, the deal differed in two main points: first, due to the close proximity of Lancaster and Philadelphia and the relatively safe transport conditions, the two men were able to exchange a large number of botanical books, treatises and other publications, which reflected both the dimensions of their botanical collections and the increasing availability of this type of literature in Philadelphia’s public libraries.68 The second and more important difference, however, was the kind of specimens exchanged between the two, which reflects another change of interest in Mühlenberg’s botanical efforts. Unluckily, I live at a great Distance from the Sea Shore, he had first written to Stephen Elliott in January 1809. [M]y Herbarium contains hardly anything of the numerous American Fuci, Ulvae Conservae. How happy would I feel if you can let me partake of your Sea-Plants!69 It was to be the last turn in Mühlenberg’s constantly developing botanical outlook and interests. In the beginning, from about 1785 into the 1790s, he had mainly been discussing grasses and sedges with Schreber, Schöpf and other early correspondents. This was followed by his “cryptogamic” phase in the late

67 To Collins, 06/15/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. Mister Musser was John Musser, Mühlenberg’s sonin-law, who was working as a customs inspector in Philadelphia harbor and routinely traveled to Lancaster. For Musser’s role in Mühlenberg’s networking, see above on page 377, note 312. Again, on the inside cover of his botanical diary, Mühlenberg noted Collins’ address along with those of many others: Zaccheus Collins 11 Street. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, inside front cover. 68 Books had been a part of Mühlenberg’s botanical exchanges from the beginning, but remained an exceptional commodity, as both the books themselves and transport costs drove up costs considerably. Mühlenberg started borrowing books from Collins right away, but only began himself to offer his library to Collins after November 1813: See for instance Mühlenberg’s letter to Collins, 12/28/1812, ANSP Coll. 129: [You] had received the second and last Volume of Willdenow’s cryptogamia! (...) If you have received the Continuation and after you have satiated yourself, will you let me have the Sight of the work only for a very short Time (...) Perhaps you can add to the many Obligations I owe you already, the Sight of the 2 and 3 Volume of the new Hortus Kewensis or the last Transactions of the Linnean (British) Society, which according to your last letter were now in the Public Library. In September 1814, Mühlenberg confirmed: When ever you wish to see Hoffmans Plantae Lichenosae you are exceedingly wellcome. Any Book in my Library is at your Service. To Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 537f. For public libraries in Philadelphia and Benjamin Franklin’s influence, see for instance Wolf, Franklin, passim. See also the letter from Müller, 08/02/1813, HSP Coll. 443. 69 To Elliott, 01/05/1809, HUH Elliott Papers.

Towards Botanical Independence

421

1790s, which resulted in correspondences with a group of European botanists, the “cryptogamic circle.”70 Mühlenberg’s heightened interest in the two genera of marine algae Fucus and Conservae also explains in part the development of his network from 1811 to 1815. His three main American correspondents during this period – William Baldwin at Boston with 93 letters, Stephen Elliott at Savannah with 36 letters and Collins at Philadelphia with 83 letters – all lived close to the seashore. Along with his efforts to close the gap in the north, which received only little attention from other botanists during Mühlenberg’s life, this was the second time that geostrategic decisions lay at the heart of his active networking. From start to finish, Fuci and Conservae informed the exchange of books and specimens with Collins, and it was particularly in these two genera that he made the contributions which earned him a place in Mühlenberg’s catalogue, which published 18 only months after the presumable beginning of their contact.71 The focus on these two cryptogamic genera also helps describe the character of their relationship. Collins was no beginner in botany although he certainly knew considerably less about cryptogamia or sea-plants than Mühlenberg. The advantages I have derived from an inspection of these plates, Collins informed Mühlenberg in July 1812 about a package of books from Lancaster, as well as from the too fleeting opportunity of your personal and frank communcation, are considerable, and assure me that if I lived near you, or enjoyed more frequently the pleasure of your company, I should by this time have been a sort of botanist.72 This statement underlines both Mühlenberg’s expert status as America’s first cryptogamist and the fact that their relationship resembled a teacher-student 70 For the “Cryptogamic Circle,” see above on pages 243f. and 297f. 71 This becomes obvious in Mühlenberg’s first surviving letter to Collins: I am now finishing a second Fascicle of a Catalogue of N[orth] America Plants hitherto known. Willdenow will be of great Assistance. Only one order will be very incomplete, the Fuci and partly Conserva of Conserves I have beside Dillenii Historia Muscorum several good Books but Specimens are wanting. Of Fucus I have not a single Book with Figures to compare my Specimens with. Dont you know any Lover of Botany who has Stackhouse Nereis Britannica or Gmelin Historia fucorum cum figures or a similar Book, I would Thank you extremely if you could get such a book for a very short time. Perhaps they might be found in one of the publick Libraries, but I do not know their Rules and expect their Books never leave the City. If I knew for certain that I would find such a Book in the City I would rather come down on Purpose. To Collins, 03/19/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. The theme, however, re-emerges frequently during their 83-letters correspondence: Are not American fuci described in the Transactions of the Linnean Society? Every little helps. (...) How often have I wished to be at the Sea Shore or a River with Saltwater only for one Day! To Collins, 02/01/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. Any Information you can give me on the Fuci and Conserva you sent to me will be very interesting to me. To Collins, 10/12/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. The Fuci have been my Delight, the Conserva and some other cryptog have been a forbidden XXX for me as I have suffered much in my Eyesight during my Sickness probably such Plants will be dangerous for me a long time. To Collins, 05/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. See also the letters from Collins, 07/07/1812, HSP Coll. 443; To Collins, 11/22/1813, ANSP Coll. 129; To Elliott, 08/25/1813, HUH Elliott Papers; To Collins, 04/07/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. According to Stuckey, Collins’ herbarium at the time of its sale after his death also revealed a dominating interest in cryptogamics. Stuckey, “Auction,” 445. 72 From Collins, 07/07/1812, HSP Coll. 443. This also ties in with Collins’ “desultory” self-perception as a botanist, as quoted by Stuckey. Stuckey, “Auction,” 445.

422

Letters from an American Botanist

relation. Mühlenberg, in turn, frequently expressed his deep satisfaction about Collins’ reliability.73 Another novel feature of their correspondence was the regular character of their letter contact and personal visits. Until 1811, Mühlenberg’s dealings with Philadelphia-based botanists had been more or less restricted to mutual visits and occasional letters. In the case of Collins, however, letters routinely announced future visits or mentioned past visits which further intensified their exchange.74 This way, their relationship also acquired a personal dimension which has remained largely undocumented. The density and character of the information transported in their letters is also significant for understanding their relationship. Although Mühlenberg continued to apply his network strategies, which were aimed at giving him better control of information flows, the correspondence with Collins not only consisted in considerably longer letters than before, but also contained extensive accounts of their respective networks, biographical information on their correspondents and recent developments in the scientific community. In this respect, Collins’ letters resemble Mühlenberg’s correspondences with William Baldwin and Stephen Elliott; taken together, these three contacts accounted for 212 of the total of 313 letters circulating within the U.S. from 1811 to 1815.75 What appears to be a surprising deviation from Mühlenberg’s own standards of “network security” at first sight, can also be interpreted as a new strategy in the wake of the Lewis&Clark affair. Mühlenberg now shared information more freely, but only with a three hand-picked and especially trustworthy correspondents. This way, he was obviously hoping to establish communication channels which promised to combine both a maximum of reliability and a maximum degree of access to botanically relevant information. There are, how-

In his diary, he noted on September 25, 1812: Collins ist mit meinen Specimina sehr wohl zu frieden u[nd] dankbar, er geht nach Virg[inien] kommt aber nicht über Lancaster, er ist ein herrl[icher] Corresp[ondent]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/25/1812. M[iste]r Zaccheus Collins continues to be an excellent Correspondent, much like our mutual Friend D[octor] Baldwin. To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. My correspondence with M[iste]r Collins was brisk: He is as very valuable correspondent. To Baldwin, 04/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 77. M[iste]r Z[accheus] Collins at Philadelphia still is an indefatigable Correspondent. To Elliott, 07/20/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. Your letter and Packet arrived here safe by our mutual Friend M[iste]r Collins and I hasten to acknowledge the great Pleasure I received thereby. M[iste]r Collins is my only steady Botanical Friend in the middle Parts of Northamerica who keeps up a good Correspondence and follows but a few other Correspondents of former Times. Besides my old Friend yourself, Baldwin and a new Friend D[octor] Bigelow from Boston I have none steady enough they loose Patience. Haec in transitu. To Elliott, 07/13/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. 74 I anticipate great Pleasure when I come to Philadelphia To see You and other Friends. To Collins, 04/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. I arrived safe at Lancaster and remember with great Pleasure the Satisfaction I found at Philadelphia in your Company (...). To Collins, 06/15/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. These kept me pretty well engaged with a Number of Plants I had gathered on the same Visit in the Jersies, at McMahons botanic Garden and from the Herbarium of an excellent Naturalist M[iste]r Zaccheus Collins at Philadelphia. To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. 75 See table n, Appendix B, on page 492. 73

Towards Botanical Independence

423

ever, no quotes that clearly support this hypothesis of a deliberate change in his network strategies.76 John Musser, Mühlenberg’s son-in-law, also played a significant role in the contact with Collins and, more generally, in Mühlenberg’s network at the time. No less than 36 letters from February 1803 to May 181477 mention Musser as their carrier. When Musser died in March 1814, Mühlenberg chose Collins as his new “mailbox” at Philadelphia, on whom he still depended for much of his domestic and remaining transatlantic correspondences.78 Naturally, this raised Collins’ network value to Mühlenberg even further and also offered Collins a chance to extend his own botanical knowledge and his web of contacts.79 This might have contributed to the fact that Collins’ network at the time of his death in 1831 still comprised eight 76

In fact, Mühlenberg’s diaries rather oppose the idea that he began to water down or alter his careful handling of information at some point in between 1811 to 1815. For instance, on January 1, 1814, he noted in his diary: Mit meinen Correspondent[en] werde ich die Regel genau beobachten gerade so zu antwort[en] wie sie u[nd] mich nicht übereilen – da ohnehin Corr[espondenz] kostspielig ist. Es sind mir jetzt noch Briefe schuldig 1 Elliot 4 Bigelow 3 Müller Beck VanVleck 2 Baldwin. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in early January 1814. 77 In chronological order: To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock; From Rafinesque, 05/09/1803, HSP Coll. 443; From Rafinesque, 07/21/1803, HSP Coll. 443; To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56; To Elliott, 01/05/1809, HUH Elliott Papers; To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll; From Elliott, 10/21/1809, HSP Coll 443; To Barton, 11/01/1810, APS Mss. B. B284d; To Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15; From Baldwin, 03/30/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 24; From Baldwin, 05/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 30; To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. The recipient, August Gotthild Oemler, is falsely cited as “Omer” in Mole, the APS online finding device; From Baldwin, 11/01/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 50; From Baldwin, 01/28/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 57; To Collins, 03/19/1812 and 04/06/1812, both in ANSP Coll. 129.; From Collins, 04/10/1812, HSP Coll. 443; To Vaughan, 05/10/1812, APS. Arch. Box 5; From Elliott, 06/07/1812, HSP Coll. 443; To Collins, 06/15/1812, ANSP Coll. 129; From Baldwin, 09/19/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 64; From Collins, 10/21/1812, HSP Coll. 443; From Collins, 01/25/1813, HSP Coll. 443.; From Collins, 03/02/1813, HSP Coll. 443; From Baldwin, 06/05/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 87; From Collins, 06/13/1813, HSP Coll. 443; To Baldwin, 06/22/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 92; From Collins, 07/22/1813, HSP Coll. 443; From Baldwin, 07/29/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 99; To Baldwin, 08/24/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 104; To Elliott, 08/25/1813, HUH Elliott Papers; To Collins, 09/25/1813, ANSP Coll. 129; From Collins, 10/15/1813, HSP Coll. 443.; To Collins, 11/05/1813, ANSP Coll. 129; From Collins, 11/30/1813, HSP Coll. 443.; To Elliott, 05/09/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. 78 This becomes apparent in two letters from William Baldwin and to Stephen Elliott: I sympathize with you all in the loss of M[iste]r Musser, – with whom I had the pleasure to be acquainted. From Baldwin, 04/01/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 132. If you have an Opportunity to send anything new, you will do me a great Favour. My Son in Law Musser departed last March at Philadelphia and I now have no Correspondent left to forward or to receive any Packet except my excellent Friend Zaccheus Collins at Philadelphia opposite Christ Church who is able and wiling to assist me. To Elliott, 05/09/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. 79 It is also quite characteristic of his singular trust in Collins, which appears to defy Mühlenberg’s earlier caution to share information without control, that he invited him to open and peruse the contents of all incoming packages. May I venture to intrude a little on your Goodness and have a Packet for me from M[iste]r Elliott or D[octor] Baldwin addressed to you at Philadelphia. Open the Packet as you please, look close and add your Observations and forward

424

Letters from an American Botanist

of Mühlenberg’s former correspondents.80 In addition, Mühlenberg also actively recommended Collins as a botanical correspondent.81 Your Promise to see Lancaster in June next has given me great Joy, he closed his last letter to Collins, dated May 19, 1815. I long to see you and beg you to hasten in coming. Should you bring Dillwyn along we might look again in Company. Apart from Barton, M’Mahon, Lyon, Mease, Bartram, Kin, Müller and Collins, Mühlenberg also maintained brief correspondences with other Pennsylvanians: Isaac Cleaver (1785–1822), John Jackson (1748–1821), William Darlington (1782– 1836) and a certain M[ister] Shull of Marcus Hook.82 None of them, however, can be found on the list of contributors in Mühlenberg’s catalogue. September 29, 1812 an old quaker named John Jackson from Chester County near Chatham paid a visit to me, an entry in his diary reads. He is an old friend of the late Humphrey Marshalls and now collects carices and other grasses, promises me much through Joel Lightner whose sister lives out there. 83 Two months later, Mühlenberg acknowledged to Stephen Elliott the reception of a packet of carices from Jackson, which seems to have remained their only contact.84 Cleaver, a Philadelphia-based physician and prospective botanist, paid a surprise visit to Mühlenberg in August 1813. Almost a year later, he mailed a package of Fuci and Conservae to Lancaster, which, however, also seems to have been the first and only such instance.85 In both them by Staymakers Stage. I know I make you Trouble but since Musser is gone I have no particular Friend except yourself. To Collins, 03/13/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. 80 This appears so from an anoymous, posthumous article on Collins’ herbarium, which was featured in Benjamin Silliman’s American Journal of Science and Arts in 1833. Collins’ principal correspondents were, “as we are informed by one of his friends,” the anonymous author vaguely acknowledges: D[octo]r Bigelow Boston, D[octo]r Beck of Albany, (...) M[iste]r Eddy of New York, M[iste]r Schweinitz, M[iste]r LeConte of Savanna, D[octo]r Boykin of Milledgeville, D[octo]r Baldwin, M[iste]r Rafinesque. The list also features M[iste]r Nuttall, D[octo] r Torrey, Rev[erend] H[enry] Steinhauer of Bethlehem, M[iste]r Elliott of Charleston, D[octo] r McBride as Collins’ principal correspondents. Anonymous, “Collins,” 399. According to Stuckey, Collins correspondend with a total of 55 individuals. Stuckey, “Auction,” 445. See also McKinley, “Gambold,” 66; Mears, “Herbarium,” 161; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 416; Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 23; 81 See for instance Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers.: D[octor] Bigelow is an excellent Correspondent and full of Vigour. I recommend him to your Notice as also my excellent Friend Collins. I know no Pensylvania Botanist equal to him. 82 From Baldwin, 09/23/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 47. 83 Sept[ember] 29, 1812 besuchte mich ein alter Quäker John Jackson Chester Co[unty] near Chatham. [E]r ist alter Fr[eund] des gest[orbenen] Humphrey Marshalls, samlet jetzt Carices u[nd] andre Gräser, verspricht mir viel d[urc]h Joel Lightner dessen Schwester drauss[en] wohnt. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/29/1812. 84 Nov[ember] 2 I received a Packet of Grasses especially Carices from a new and very intelligent Correspondent in Chester Co[unty] John Jackson (...). To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Mühlenberg also noted Jackson’s address in his botanical diary John Jackson Chester – near Chatham. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, inside front cover. See also Mears, “Herbarium,” 164; Harshberger, Botanists, 408. 85 Cleaver is first mentioned in a letter to Collins in August 1813: A few Days ago Doctor Cleaver of your City called at my House on his Return from Harmony to Philadelphia. I expect much from him, he travels often and has found so much Pleasure in botanical Investigations, that I

Towards Botanical Independence

425

cases, the packages do not seem to have answered Mühlenberg’s high expectations. Darlington, however, was no actual botanical correspondent, as Mühlenberg only addressed him once on behalf of some information on Schreber’s Genera Plantarum that Darlington was in need of.86 Shull, finally, was a customs inspector at Marcus Hook, located halfway between Philadelphia and Wilmington. Quite lately I had a visit from a M[iste]r Shull, who now lives at Marcus Hook, Mühlenberg wrote Baldwin in September 1811. He has an excellent botanical Eye and promises to send me a number of Marcus Hook plants (...).87 According to James Mears, Shull actually sent a small number of specimens to Lancaster.88 6.3 The Southern Constellation – Oemler, Dörry, Logan, Elliott and Baldwin Next to Philadelphia and the state of Pennsylvania, most contributors to Mühlenberg’s catalogue were located in the southern states of Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. The reading of William Bartram’s Travels and the publication of Michaux’ Flora had instilled a deep interest in these regions in Mühlenberg, and for the past decade he had been laboring to extend his network in this direction. In 1813, he listed seven botanical contributors from the South, two of which had only joined the network after 1811.89 To one of them, the navy physician William Balddo not doubt he will add a great Deal to American Botany. To Collins, 08/27/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. In July 1814, Cleaver sent a letter and a package of specimens: Should any conferva or fuci come within my notice I shall not fail to remember the desire your expressed to receive them. I fear however my knowledge of the Cryptogamia is too limited to be of much service to you even in the humble department of collecting. I hope to be in Lancaster by the first of September. From Cleaver, 07/21/1814, HSP Coll. 443. Cleaver was last mentioned in October 1814 in a letter to Stephen Elliott: Besides M[iste]r Collins I have found several new Correspondents who have favoured me with valuable Communications and Specimens. D[octor] Isaac Cleaver at Philadelphia has sent me N. 1–23, N. 1–21, N 1–100 from the Jersies and the Seashore. To Elliott, 10/10/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. No more traces of contact after this date could be located. See also Mears, “Herbarium,” 161; Mears, “Herbarium,” 161; Overlease, “Darlington,” 89. On the inside cover of Mühlenberg’s botanical diary, he noted his address: D[octor] Isaac Cleaver Phil Second St[reet] n[umber] 286. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, inside front cover. 86 See the entry in Mühlenberg’s diary from May 1814: 4) Pierce u[nd] Darlington wünschen die Genera plant v[on] Schreber in einem pocket f[ormat?] abzudrucken (...) 27) An Darlington geschr [ieben] daß ich (…) selbst nicht die Ed[ition] besorgen kann. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 05/26/1814. There are no more references to Darlington in Mühlenberg’s letters or diaries. See also Overlease, “Darlington,” 85. 87 To Baldwin, 09/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 45. 88 Baldwin answered: I am not acquainted with M[iste]r Shull of Marcus Hook. His “blue-flowering water plant” I have heard of, as I have no doubt it is the same that was sent to me some time ago. (...) The cane in D[octo]r Tilton’s garden, is from Carolina, and has never flowered. From Baldwin, 09/23/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 47. See also To Baldwin, 10/11/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 49: Have you had any opportunity to see M[iste]r Shull, at Marcus Hook? Mears has confirmed the existence of specimens by Shull in Mühlenberg’s herbarium. Mears, “Herbarium,” 169. 89 These were: Brickell, (John) M[edical] D[octor] from Georgia, deceased; Elliott, (Stephen)

426

Letters from an American Botanist

win, Mühlenberg remarked in one of his last letters in May 1815 that he considered this group of correspondents a southern constellation, which he expected to make rapid and significant progress in botanical research on the region in the future.90 The numbers of letters exchanged are indeed impressive and even outnumber those for his home region around Philadelphia. With Baldwin alone, who mainly wrote from St. Mary’s, Georgia, Mühlenberg exchanged a total of 93 letters from January 1811 to May 1815, which accounts for 29.71 % of his American correspondences from 1811 to 1815 and even 14.18 % of his total American correspondences from 1771 to 1815.91 With Stephen Elliott at Savannah he exchanged further 36 letters during the same period, which makes the South the best covered region in his catalogue as far as intensity of contact is concerned. Besides Elliott and Baldwin, however, there were also a few smaller southern correspondents who also made minor contributions to his research. August Gotthold Oemler was such a contact, which Mühlenberg had apparently made via John Brickell. Although biographical information on Oemler is very limited, an entry in the Dictionary of American Biography states that he was born in “Hettstedt, Germany, son of a Lutheran pastor, a direct descendant of Nicholas Oemler, who married Martin Luther’s sister,” and that he worked as “a pharmacist, botanist, and entomologist.”92 Until 1806, there was only indirect contact between the two men via Brickell,93 who was then a neighbor of Oemler. In December 1809, it was Oemler who communicated the news of Brickell’s death to Mühlenberg, suggesting to take his place at the same time.94 It took Oemler until August 1811 to finally send a package of Fucis and Conservae from Savannah, which was followed Esqu[ire] from Carolina and Georgia; Gambold, (Elizabeth) M[iste]rs. from Cherokee; Dallman, (Gustavus) North Carolina; Kramsch, (Samuel) Rev[eren]d North Carolina. The two new contacts were Baldwin, (William) M[edical] D[octor] from Delaware and Georgia; Billy, (Peter) from Virginia. Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. 90 Indeed, an American new Edition of Walter, with Synonyms, would be a great acquisition; and who can give such explanations better than the new Southern Constellation? To Baldwin, 05/11/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 171. 91 From 1771 to 1815, a total of 656 letters could be located or identified for Mühlenberg’s American correspondences, 313 of which were exchanged alone from 1811 to 1815. See table a, Appendix B, on page 486. 92 Mears, “Herbarium,” 166; Mears, “Herbarium,” 160; Elliot, Sketch, xv. 93 Oemler appears first in a letter by Mühlenberg to Nebe in October 1802: Ich habe im Jul[i] wieder [an Herrn Profeßor Schwägrichen] durch einen reisenden jungen Kaufmann Herrn Oemler geschrieben und eine Parthie Moose geschickt, aus diesen Briefe wird er schon gesehen, daß hier nichts angekomen war. To Nebe, 10/04/1802, AFSt M.4 D5. In January 1806, Oemler first appears in association with Brickell: Could you send [M[iste]r Schkuhr at Wittenberg] the new Georgia Filices? M[iste]r Oemler a Friend to Science, could be of Assistance. If you will spare some for him and have no other Opportunity, I will forward them in your Name. He is very gratefull and promises to send a Copy of his work. To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. On the same day, he noted in his diary: Jan[uar] 23. habe ich einen Brief von J[ohn] Brickell erhalten (…) 6. Gruß von Oemler. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 02/34/1806. 94 D[oktor] John Brickell starb d[en] 22 dec[ember 1809]:, Mühlenberg noted in early January 1810. [S]ein Tod macht mir August Gotthold Oemler bekannt in einem Brief dat[iert] Dec[ember] 27 u[nd] bietet sich an botanische Aufträge zu erfüll[en] er wünscht Linne‘s

Towards Botanical Independence

427

by sporadic packages of seeds until November 1814.95 Apart from Oemler, Mühlenberg also maintained a brief correspondence with the pharmacist Henry Dörry (no data available) from Baltimore at the time. Dörry paid a visit to Mühlenberg in late September 1812, during which they traded medicines and agreed on a botanical correspondence, which abruptly ended after three letters and two packages.96 The last of the minor southern contacts was the Congressman and agrarian reformer George Logan, to whom Mühlenberg addressed a letter in June 1812, thanking him

95

96

Syst[ema Naturae] zu erhalten. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/02/1810. In August 1811, Mühlenberg also adressed a single letter to Oemler: Das Hauptanliegen im Brief war und ist noch, daß Sie die Güte haben wollen m[ir] zu Fucis und Conservis Ihrer Gegend zu verhelfen. (…) Solten Sie je wieder eine Reise nach Pensilvanien machen, o dann vergessen Sie nicht Ihre eigene Samlung mitzubringen, damit sie auch von andern gesehen werden kann.(…) Von Savanna aus gehen glaube ich immer Schiffe hin und her. Irgendetwas von Ihnen für mich addreßiren Sie an meinen Tochterman John Musser n. 146 Race Street Philadelphia. Er ist als Inspector at the Custom House mit allen Captains gut bekannt. (…) Haben Sie irgend einen Auftrag an mich, er wird mit Vergnügen erfüllt werden. To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. I also had two Letters since that Time from M[iste]r Oemler with Seeds which have with 2 Exceptions vegetated and probably will flower this Year. To Elliott, 07/20/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. M[iste]r Oemler’s Plants, which you have mentioned to me as flourishing in your garden, are, I believe, all exotics. Cleome pentaphylla, however, might be taken for a native, – as it is found growing spontaneously about the suburbs of Savannah, and is likewise in this place. From Baldwin, 09/15/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 108. When you have an opportunity to see M[iste]r Oemler’s collection of Algae, I wish you to look again, and examine his numbers. Perhaps you may discover some native. I think I have seen some of them, since I sent his collection back. (...) M[iste]r Oemler is an excellent hand, himself. Of his specimens, I would desire your opinion on Fucus. (...) M[iste]r Oemler is a friend whom I esteem very much. He will be of service to you, to send my Elliottia, and Collinsonia (...).To Baldwin, 11/28/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 150. Six more letters could be reconstructed but not located for this correspondence. See list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 521. See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Baldwin, 10/11/1811, and 04/20/1813, both in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 49, 77; To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. 22. Sept[ember 1812] besuchte mich ein geschickter Apoth[eker] von Baltimore Henry Dörry der seit mehr[eren] Jahren von Göttingen gekomm u[nd] Freund [von] Blumenbach Hoffmann u[nd] Schrader ist. (…)Dörry sagt mir es sei ihm eine Wurzel von der Ohio zugeschickt word für Columbo (...) ist Frasera. (...) Er sagt von einem merkwürdig Kraut bei Baltimore geg[en] die White Swalling Er hat botanisch Kenntnisse u[nd] will mir allerlei zuschick[en] (...). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/22/1812.. On the margin, Mühlenberg added in December of the same year: *Dörry ist kein eifriger Corresp[ondent], and then, again some time later: Oct[ober] ein Brief an mich Oct[ober] 18 war mit einem Packet beig[epackt] kam erst Dec[ember] 29 daher er gut sein mag. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated margin entry, about end of September 1812. In July 1813, he noted again: Jul[i] 20. [1813] Dörry beantw[ortet] meinen Brief, hat Moose noch nicht aufgefunden, hat Gräser gesendet, will meinen Catalog, geht (…) an die obere Susquehanna, frägt nach Michaux wo er zu hab[en]* Mein Rath wäre alle dubia zu schicken die ich ihm mit Vergnügen bestimmen will. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/20/1813. This is also the last appearance of Dörry in Mühlenberg’s diaries. He is never mentioned in Mühlenberg’s other correspondences. On the inside cover of his diary, he noted his address: Henry Dörry Apothec[ary] and Druggist Market Street. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III.

428

Letters from an American Botanist

for the reception of Specimens of the Agrostis.97 Neither Logan nor Oemler or Dörry were listed among Mühlenberg’s southern contributors in the 1813 catalogue. Baldwin and Stephen Elliott, on the other hand, certainly earned their place on the list. Their combined letter exchange with Mühlenberg from 1811 to 1815 represents 41.21 % of Mühlenberg’s American correspondence in these years, and 36.86 % of his total correspondence during the same period.98 The botanical exchange with Elliott had suffered after his re-election to the legislature of South Carolina in 1808,99 but Elliott remained a key contributor, which mitigated Mühlenberg’s dissatisfaction with his delayed answers time and again. Especially after Brickell’s death in late 1809, Mühlenberg was left with but one botanical Friend in the Southern States,100 which raised Elliott’s network value considerably. Until January 1811, when Mühlenberg began a botanical exchange with Baldwin who moved to Georgia in May 1812, Elliott was practically unrivalled both as a bridgehead to potential new contacts and as a source of botanical materials from the region. If Elliott’s political duties had not intervened, Mühlenberg would probably have made even more siginificant contributions to Elliott’s own herbarium. Instead, Elliott’s responsibilities in the South Carolina legislature101 and the outbreak of the war with BritI thank you for the Specimens of the Agrostis. As far as they go I see no Difference at all between the two. To Logan, 06/25/1812, HSP Logan Papers. It has already been observed that Logan’s botanical contributions to Mühlenberg were negligeable. For details of Logan’s political career at the time of his second peace mission to England in 1810 and afterwards, see Tolles, “Agrarian Democrat,” 260f., 276f. 98 From 1811 to 1815, Mühlenberg’s American correspondences totalled at 313 letters, while his total correspondences during the same period ran up to 350 letters. With Elliott, Mühlenberg exchanged 36 letters, with Baldwin 93. See table n, Appendix B, on page 492. This also concurs with Mears’ observation that Elliott and Baldwin were the main contributors to Mühlenberg’s herbarium both before and after 1813. Mears, “Herbarium,” 161. 99 I remained at home but 3 or 4 days I had not leisure to pursue my botanical enquiries, I was obliged to proceed to Columbia S[outh] C[arolina] & attend the meeting of our Legislature. From Elliott, 01/10/1810, HSP Coll. 443. In his diary, Mühlenberg noted at the same time: 2) in S[outh] Carolina Elliot vortreflich, aber ich bekomme keine Antw[ort] langsam matt werdend. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes]. Probably for this reason, Elliott sent one long letter with answers to Mühlenberg’s botanical queries, excusing himself that [h]owever I hasten to give my Opinion on them in Expectation of your Indulgence and your Amendments. To Elliott, 01/02/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Petersen, New World Botany, 341; Greene, American Science, 112f; Biographical Dictionary of American Science, s.v. Elliott, St.” 100 Some Time after those Letters M[iste]r Oemler at Savanna informed me of the Death of our mutual Friend D[octor] Brickell, for which I am very sorry. Now I have but one botanical Friend in the Southern States and my Esteem for him is naturally doubled, oh may he live long, have good Health and may he favour me very often with friendly Letters. (...) M[iste]r Oemler made the Observation in his Letter, Stephen Elliot was still left worth more then two Brickells. Yes, my dear Sir, this is Consolation. To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 101 In May 1811, Elliott explained: When I mention that I have been obliged to make 4 journeys into Georgia and one to Charleston since the new year, and that in the last six months I have scarcely been six weeks at home you will readily suppose that my studies have been much interrupted, and I scarcely wonder that I have not sooner acknowledged the receipt of your last package. (...) I have brought this letter to Georgia with me with an intention to lengthen it, but business has much interferred with me. And as I expect to write again soon I will close this and 97

Towards Botanical Independence

429

ain in 1812 made the exchange tedious, slow and even frustrating to Mühlenberg. From my Friends Elliott and Baldwin I have received no letter since my last, but expect some every Day, he complained to Collins in August 1812. O the unhappy war! It destroys our friendly Communications even in America.102 To Elliott himself, Mühlenberg even suggested the use of the expensive mail service so as to make their exchange at least temporarily more secure.103 Nevertheless, until President Madison’s declaration of war against Great Britain in June 1812, occasional packages were sent back and forth, and both sides were amply rewarded for the long delays by the sheer quality of the specimens.104 In April 1813, however, Elliott embarked upon a new career in banking, which caused him to move to Charleston.105 At first, this delighted Mühlenberg as it promised send it on. (...) In my next package I will enclose a list of Willdenows plants of N[orth] A[merica] which I have not yet in my herbarium. You will find it very large and it will show you that you cannot be easily at a loss in making up packages for me. From Elliott, 05/05/1811, HSP Coll. 443. When I look at the Dates of our last Letters, our Correspondence has been rather slow (...) Of Cryptogamia I wish to see whatever you can spare and have not sent already. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. As I have passed the greater part of this spring in Georgia your letters have not reached me as easily as they ought to have done. Yours of the 13. March I did not receive until the 20. April. I trust I need not explain you how much I regretted to hear of your indisposition, how truly and how ardently I wish you the compleat and long continued enjoyment of your health. From Elliott, 05/02/1812, HSP Coll. 443. 102 To Collins, 08/22/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. Whenever you go to Georgia again, pray inform my of the Time and whether I shall address to Savanna the Letters I write to you. Ars longa vita brevis is the old and true saying and I sincerely wish our Correspondence may be uninterrupted. (...)Since war is declared between the U[nited] S[tates] and Great Britain I am afra[id of sen?]ding of Packets will be unsafe, o let not our Land-Correspondence be [interrupted?]. I shall do my best to send whatever I can do. To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. See also the letters from Elliott, 02/14/1812 and 08/12/1812, in HSP Coll. 443; Mühlenberg’s letters to Elliott, 10/05/1812 and 12/01/1812, in HUH Elliott Papers; And the letter to Collins, 01/09/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 103 I regret extremely that our mutual Exchange of dried Specimens becomes so precarious and we dare hardly venture to continue it. My sincere wish is that we may soon have a good and nonourable Peace. In the mean Time we may continue our Correspondence on Shore by the Mail. To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. 104 Some Time after I received the Packet I had an Opportunity for Philadelphia and I made up January 16. a small Bundle for you containing 50 Lichens amongst them a few from Europe which I have not found in America but I suppose they may be found. Of all I know the Name for certain as they were examined by Schreber. To Elliott, 02/01/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. I am happy that your Packet and Letter dated Nov, 1811 have arrived at last April 4, 1812. (...) [R] eceive my best Thanks for the many and rare Specimens you sent. (...) As an Opportunity offered for Philadelphia I made up immediately a Packet for you in Return (...). To Elliott, 04/08/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. My dear Sir a few days ago I put on board of the American Capt[ain] Beckins bound from Savanna to Philadelphia a small package for you. (...) Cryptogamia from 134 – 148 Many of these plants I have named where I was doubtful of old names. Of the Mosses some I probably sent you before. Such repetition you must excuse. From Elliott, 06/07/1812, HSP Coll. 443. I had the Pleasure to receive your last Packet by M[iste]r Merkel on a Visit in Philadelphia together with 2 Bundles of Cryptogamous Plants from Doctors Baldwin and Boyken from Milledgeville in Georgia. To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. See Hickey, War 1812, 14f. 105 Our Legislature at its last Session created of its Funds an Institution in the nature of a Bank and

430

Letters from an American Botanist

easier access to André Michaux’ former botanizing grounds.106 In the end, the move ushered in the decline of their botanical exchange. After May 1813, Elliott sent only four more letters to Lancaster and submitted merely two more packages of plants,107 and Mühlenberg soon started complaining to him and to others. I have written a letter to Elliot and will now wait whether he answer. If he does not, I will break up, he noted in his diary in November 1813,108 adding two months later: Nota Bene Elliot’s diligence in botany has cooled off, he is very slow in answering letters, which makes him break up with him or proceed just as slowly in return. He seems to have everythings. His last letter was dated October 30 1813.109 Unbeknownst to Loan Office united, Elliott explained in April 1813, and placed me at the head of it. This will oblige me while the appointment continues to reside in Charleston and I have been compelled to devote this Spring to the arrangement of my private business, and to those occupations which a change of life and residence will necessarily furnish. In a fortnight I expect to be settled in Charleston and to be able to anew my favorite studies. From Elliott, 04/20/1813, HSP Coll. 443. I have not yet heard from M[iste]r Elliott. He has been elected President of a Bank, in Charleston. From Baldwin, 05/15/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 80. My Friend M[iste]r Elliot is engaged in banking Business. To Collins, 09/11/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. I was extremely happy in receiving your last Letter dated August 1. and would have answered it immediately, but was hindred by constant Business and Company. To Elliott, 08/25/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. See also the letters to Baldwin, 04/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 77; To Elliott, 05/17/1813, HUH Elliott Papers; To Collins, 05/15/1813, ANSP Coll. 129; To Elliott, 07/20/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Petersen, New World Botany, 341; Greene, American Science, 112f; Biographical Dictionary of American Science, s.v. Elliott, St.” 106 See, for instance, Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 12/06/1813, HUH Elliott Papers: You are now at Charleston in a fine Situation for Plants near a botanical Garden and the Ruins of Michaux’s Nursery. 107 These letters were dated August 1, 1813; October 30, 1813; April 7, 1814; and October 30, 1814. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 507f. Mühlenberg acknowledged the reception of these two final packages in his letters to Elliott, 07/13/1814, HUH Elliott Papers.; and To Elliott, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers. 108 [I]ch habe einen Brief an Elliot geschrieben und werde nun warten ob er antwortet. Thut ers nicht so breche ich ab. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/13/1813. 109 N[ota]b[ene] Elliot is[t] so in seinem Eifer für Bot[anik] erkaltet er beantwortet Briefe so langsam, daß ich mit ihm abbrech[en] od[er] gerade so langsam mit ihm verfahren werden. Er scheint wohl alles zu haben! Sein letzter Brief Oct[ober] 30 [1813]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in early January 1814. After April 1813, Mühlenberg frequently repeated his complaints about Elliott’s non-botanical activities both to Elliott himself and other correspondents: That you are every Day engaged in a Multiplicity of Business I can easily conceive, but a little Relaxation will be necessary and I know by Experience that no Unbending of sitting Business is better then an Excursion for Subjects of natural History. Your Situation at Charleston is excellent especially for Algae and I long to hear what you have discovered. To Elliott, 11/07/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. Of my Friends Elliot and Baldwin I had nothing lately. To Collins, 12/08/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. I have not heard from M[iste]r Elliot, since I wrote last, and suppose he must be very busy. From Baldwin, 06/17/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae,136. M[iste]r Elliot has not favored me with an answer to my last letter. Indeed, my former correspondents, – if I except my indefatigable D[octo]r Baldwin, and friend Collins, – seem to have forgotten me; and I am reckoned amongst the dead. To Baldwin, 07/04/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 140. From Elliot and Baldwin I have nothing lately. To Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. M[iste]r Elliott has tried to assist me; but we must have more assistance. Have you heard anything, lately, of this our valuable friend? My last letter to him,

Towards Botanical Independence

431

Mühlenberg, this would remain the final letter he received from Elliott. Despite these negative tendencies, he never gave up hope completely that he might return.110 Mühlenberg apparently reciprocated Elliott’s packages with plant identifications and specimens he sent to Savannah and Charleston. From a remembrance of his extensive and profound knowledge of the science of BOTANY, Elliott acknowledged in the dedication of his Sketch of the Botany of South Carolina and Georgia published in 1816, and of his unwearied efforts to improve the Flora of North America; from a high respect for his many virtues, his liberal temper and exemplary character; and for the personal advantages derived from years of uninterrupted correspondence, this VOLUME is inscribed to the memory of the late Rev[erend] HENRY MUHLENBERG of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.111 Mühlenberg’s support of this endeavor, both moral and botanical, can be traced from October 1810 onward, when Elliott first informed him about his plans.112 I am very much pleased that you was July 13, since that I had no answer to some queries on the Charleston Botanic Garden (...). To Baldwin, 10/04/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 145. See also the letters to Elliott, 05/09/1814, HUH Elliott Papers; To Collins, 10/06/1814 and 10/18/1814, in ANSP Coll. 129; From Elliott, 10/30/1814, HSP Coll. 443; To Baldwin, 01/20/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 156; See also Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/17/1814: N[ota]b[ene] Wenn Elliot nun gar nicht mehr seine Advers[aria] bestimen will so ists ein Zeich[en] daß er für sich selbst zurück legt, und ich muß a) keine mehr bestimmen als die gewiß im Catalogo steh[en] b) solche die nicht dort steh[en] nie bestimm[en] u[nd] überh[aupt] offen, seine gegeben Nahmen wie er ist, (...) Er hätte am Ende die Ehre davon u[nd] ich die Mühe 110 Wenn Elliot nicht schreibt, muß ich doch wohl einmahl schreib[en] u[nd] die Corresp[ondenz] erneuern. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 03/23/1815. See also To Collins, 01/30/1815, ANSP Coll. 129: M[iste]r Elliott has not written since Nov[ember] probably he is too much engaged eigher in writing his Flora carol[iniana] as in making Calculations in Bank business. In 1813, Elliott also founded the Charleston Literary and Philosophical Society, whose president he became in 1814. This might also have cost him precious time to continue his correspondence with Mühlenberg as before. Mears, “Herbarium,” 161; Petersen, New World Botany, 341; Greene, American Science, 112f. 111 Elliott, Sketch, see dedication, unpaginated. Ewan’s 1971 facsimile edition of the original published in 1816 also contains another reference to Mühlenberg: “With the late D[octo]r Muhlenberg of Lancaster, Penn[sylvania],he was accustomed for many years to compare and collate the plants of Carolina and Pennsylvania. And derived from this correspondence much instruction when his attention first directed to Botanical pursuits.” Elliott, Sketch, v. 112 I have found the number of plants increasing so much, that I have been tempted at last seriously to undertake a description of the natives of our two Southern States. I have adopted your plan and described them completely as far at least as I am able from the root to the seed. I found that without such an analysis accurate knowledge could not be acquired. I foresee that years of labor, of perseverance and of unremitted attention will be necessary to complete such an undertaking but I (...) have for some years been gradually becoming acquainted with the subject and collecting materials, tho never really[?] seriously until within the last twelvemonths, and with regard to the trouble I can truly say “labor ipse voluptas”. Your correspondence will give me advantages which none of our former botanists have enjoyed and I shall not scruple consult you in all cases of doubt and difficulty. Continuing still to send you all of my new and rare plants. From Elliott, 10/13/1810, HSP Coll. 443. Permit me again to repeat my thanks to you for your valuable instructive correspondence. It is to me a source of great pleasure and accurate information – and form my best Lectures on Botany. From Elliott, 01/10/1810, HSP Coll. 443.

432

Letters from an American Botanist

have undertaken to write a Flora of Carolina and Georgia, Mühlenberg responded in December of the same year. Do it my dear Sir, you will do a very good and necessary Work. Walter and Michaux have done and left much to do. Their Descriptions are too short and many Plants were not seen by them.113 In October 1811, this projected new southern Flora was still far from complete,114 and Mühlenberg’s last letters to Elliott suggest that this enterprise was the only thing that kept him sending specimens and information, while Elliott was hardly communicating anymore from Charleston after April 1813.115 The first volume of Elliott’s two-volume catalogue was finally published in 1816.116 None of Mühlenberg’s previous exchanges compares to the one with William Baldwin, whose correspondence of 93 letters in slightly more than four years puts him at he top of the list of Mühlenberg’s most avid and intense contacts in 44 years as an active correspondent. Quite lately D[octor] Baldwin was at Philadelphia, Mühlenberg observed to Zaccheus Collins in November 1812. [A]nd I was surely disappointed that he had immediatly to return to St. Marys in Georgia without coming to Lancaster. He is a second Elliot or Collins, entirely for the Science and excel113 Mühlenberg went on to issue much valuable advice in this and subsequent letters. Perhaps the best Method would be to begin the full Description in Spring and describe the Plants as they flower. Leave one Page for every Plant and go on untill one Volume is finished then make an Index to the Volume and begin another. To this Description add by Degrees the Seeds. Root, Use and Soil. From these Volumes the Plants are brought into a System with great Ease, and much Labour will be saved.(...) Your Garden should contain the dubious Plants, to have them near and get the Habit of them which is of great Service. Indeed our American Plants ought more to be cultivated then foreign Plants, the Latter agree too little with our Climate and are soon lost, our native Plants stand longer and as for Beauty are certainly not inferior to the foreign. What a noble Sight would our Asters, Solidagines, Galardieae, Helianthi, Rudbeckiae, our Lobeliae, Tradescantiae and others be. If among them a Foreigner appears let it be solitary, lest the Americans are driven from their Home. To Elliott, 12/17/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 114 I shall send with it a memorandum of the plants wanting in my herbarium. As fas as I could ascertain (excepting some of our Southern plants which I hope to procure myself) you will perhaps be surprised at the magnitude of my wants for my catalogue exceed 700 species. And if I could see your catalogie many hundred would probably be added. From Elliott, 10/01/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 115 Nine out of 13 letters written from July 1813 to April 1815 were written by Mühlenberg. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 507f. Mühlenberg’s high esteem for Elliott’s plan is visible in these two passages: Probably I may get Time to give a second Edition [of Mühlenberg’s 1813 catalogue] or leave it to some other Friend. Nothing would be more pleasing to me then to see your Catalogue of Georgia and Caroline Plants soon finished. You will have a good Assistant in our excellet Friend D[octor] Baldwin. I am sorry that a Number of his Specimens are imperfect. Have you not discovered the true Allionia? To Elliott, 11/15/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. The first Question will be, when we may see your Catalogue of a Flora Caroliniana and Georgica? I long to see it. M[iste]r Pursh has published his Flora. He has seen Walters Herbarium with the Frazers, also Clayton’s and many others in England. Without Doubt we shall see it soon in the Bookstore here and you will be able to explain many dubious Plants and new Plants omitted by Walter and Pursh. Figures are given to more then 25 Plants. You will oblige me very much by giving me your Names. To Elliott, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers. 116 Petersen, New World Botany, 341; Elliot, Dictionary, 85; Greene, American Science, 112f.

Towards Botanical Independence

433

lent in every Respect.117 This was written after nearly two years of exchange with Baldwin, whom Mühlenberg had first contacted in January 1811 to check on some Delaware plants originally published in a book by his former short-time contact C. S. Rafinesque. A chance visit by the doctor Isaac Hiester on January 4, 1811 obviously gave Mühlenberg the idea to contact Baldwin, who was an enthusiastischer Liebhaber der Botanic in Hiester’s account and presently lived and worked in Wilmington, Delaware.118 Sir, he addressed Baldwin politely on January 7. Will you forgive me, if I, as a stranger, intrude upon your studies, and beg your acquaintance?119 Baldwin was delighted and began to provide Mühlenberg with specimens from the vicinity of Wilmington in February 1811.120 By the end of the year, however, Baldwin moved to Georgia for health reasons, which decisively changed the nature of their botanical exchange. Baldwin now became a highly valuable southern contact of whom Mühlenberg began to expect as much as he expected from Elliott: I do not remember whether you have Walter’s Flora Caroliniana. It is an excellent book, and would deserve a new editor. You, or M[iste]r Elliot, would make a valu117 To Collins, 11/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. See also a diary entry from May 26, 1814: Obs[ervatio] Baldwin der unermüdet corr[espondiert] wie Collins Elliot gut, aber zu langsam. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 05/26/1814. 118 4. Jan[uar] Besuch von D[octor] Hiester. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/04/1811. Some days later, Mühlenberg noted: a) in der Bibliothek der Linneian Society sind Samlung von ausländischen Gewächsen, von Amerikanisch nichts als eine Samlung von Delaware, die vermuthlich von D[oktor] Baldwin aus Wilmington herkomt. Dieser ist ein enthusiastischer Liebhaber der Botanic und ich solte wohl Bekantschaft mit ihm such[en]. (...) da D[octor] Baldwin mir wohl zu Delaware Pflanzen helfen könte die Rafinesque gefund[en] so will ich an ihn schreib[en] in der Nomenclatur oft N[ova] S[pecies] brauch die Pflanzen die ich verlange sind. 1) die von Rafinesque gefunden, Smilax Lanc[astriensis]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry for January 1811. With Hiester, Mühlenberg also entertained a brief botanical exchange. On July 27, 1813, he noted in his diary: [A]n D[oktor] Hiester geschrieben und für Reading Pflanzen angehalten. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/27/1813. In September 1813, he wrote to Baldwin: Our mutual friend, D[octo]r Isaac Hiester, continues to send me plants of Reading. Hitherto, of 279 specimens, only one was new to me, – Polygonum cilinode Mx. Perhaps we will have better luck in future. To Baldwin, 09/06/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 106. This entry, however, represents the last appearance of Hiester in Mühlenberg’s correspondences or diaries. See also Mears, “Herbarium,” 163f. 119 He continued: Doctor Hiester, the present physician of the Lazaretto, informs me that you are a great friend of Botany. I have been the same for near forty years; and have collected, of American Plants in particular, whatever I could get. The State of Delaware, alone, amongst all others, has contributed nothing to my Herbarium; and I am certain it contains many new and curious plants. This, a former acquaintance of mine, M[iste]r Rafinesque, has informed me of; and M[iste]r William Hamilton, of the Woodlands, confirms this information. Perhaps you have seen my Index Florae Lancastriensis (...) Choose among the plants there mentioned, you are welcome to any. To Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15. 120 See Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 02/01/1811, HUH Elliott Papers: One new Correspondent I gained Doctor Baldwin in Wilmington Delaware St[ate] who promises farily to send me the new Plants of Delaware which are numerous. I have made the Beginning in sending Grasses and Cryptogamia. He is a Pupil of D[octor] Barton but laments that in those 2 Classes he received no Information at all. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers, and the respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 535f.

434

Letters from an American Botanist

able present to the public, by giving a new edition, with supplements and emendations.121 William Baldwin was born in 1779 into a Quaker family of Newlin, Chester county, in southeastern Pennsylvania. After receiving basic schooling at home, he attended medical courses at the University of Pennsylvania from 1802 to 1803 and accepted a position as surgeon on a merchant ship bound for Canton, China, in 1805. After returning to Philadelphia in the following year, he acquired a medical degree in 1807 with Benjamin Smith Barton and started a medical practice in Wilmington later the same year.122 From there, Baldwin responded to Mühlenberg only a week after the first letter from Lancaster. Judge then, my dear sir, of the happiness you have conferred upon me, by soliciting my correspondence; (...) I hope I shall be able to send you some of the plants you have mentioned, as discovered and named by M[iste]r Rafinesque; and perhaps some others that escaped his notice.123 This was the beginning of Mühlenberg’s most intensive botanical contact, which added about a third of the specimens to his herbarium until his death.124 Just as in the cases of John Brickell and Stephen Elliott, Baldwin had not been active in botanical research when Mühlenberg contacted him, which naturally made him the “student” in their ensuing exchange.125 Other than with Elliott and Brickell, Mühlenberg also 121 To Baldwin, 11/18/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 113. 122 Harshberger, Botanists, 120; Stuckey, “Auction,” 446; Biographical Dictionary of American Science, s.v. Baldwin, W;” Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 47; Kelly, Medical Botanists, 104; Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 20; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 803; Petersen, New World Botany, 365; 370f.; Overlease, “Darlington,” 85. At Wilmington, he was married to Hannah M. Webster (no data available) Harshberger, Botanists, 121. 123 Baldwin continued: This indefatigable Botanist has, perhaps, independent of his new discoveries, unneccessarily changed some of the Linnean names. (...) I shall furnish you with a number of plants that are to me doubtful; but which may nevertheless be described. From Baldwin, 01/14/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 17. 124 According to Mears’s systematic analysis of the origin of Mühlenberg’s specimens, it contained approximately 4,500 individual specimens at the time of Mühlenberg’s death, featuring a phanerogamous part counting 3,000 and a cryptogamous part counting 1,500 labels. Mears, “Herbarium,” 156; 158. 125 This does not mean that Baldwin was an absolute beginner in the field of botany, as his longtime friend Moses Marshall had alo taught him the basics of botany. During his first studies at the University of Pennsylvania in 1802–3, he also became a close friend of William Darlington (1782–1863), who should later distinguish himself both in botany and politics. Harshberger, Botanists, 119f.; Kelly, Medical Botanists, 104; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 803; Overlease, “Darlington,” 85. About his teacher Benjamin Smith Barton, Baldwin once wrote: To [Barton’s] polite and friendly instruction I owed that taste for the study of nature from which I anticipate the most rational and lasting pleasures of my life. It is his happy attribute to fascinate his pupils with the sciences he so ably teaches. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 196. Still, this did not prevent him from criticizing his former teacher to Mühlenberg in January 1811 about his neglect of teaching in grasses and cryptogamics: When I attended the Botanical Lectures of Professor Barton, in the year 1806, I derived but little information respecting these two vast and important families of plants; (...). I have never yet been able to avail myself of all the aid necessary to prosecute the Science of Botany to advantage. But, viewing you in the light of a Preceptor, with the advantage of your correspondence, I shall renew my studies with redoubled ardor. From Baldwin, 01/14/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 17. See also the following letter from Baldwin, 07/16/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 39: I have openend a book according

Towards Botanical Independence

435

sent a small number of grasses and cryptogamic specimens to Baldwin, who instantly began to set up his own herbarium and to send back the plants that Mühlenberg needed for his check on Rafinesque.126 In May 1811, Baldwin even paid a visit to Lancaster,127 after which Mühlenberg acknowledged to Oemler: My new correspondent Doctor Baldwin is very industrious and has submitted 500 plants until now.128 In the fall of 1811, Baldwin’s chronic frail health made him and his wife family conceive the plan to move southward, of which he informed Mühlenberg in September.129 Mühlenberg instantly seized the opportunity to draw Baldwin’s attention to his own new botanical interests: When at sea, you will have an opportunity to see many marine plants, and species of Fucus and Conservae: pray gather whatever to your plan, in which I can, with the utmost facility, enter my descriptions, and notes, of any plant I meet with, under its proper class; and find it of great importance, as it will render me familiar with botanical language. See also Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 611; Stuckey, “Auction,” 459; Overlease, “Darlington,” 85; McLean, “Bartram,” 23. 126 In the very first letter, Mühlenberg suggested the following to Baldwin: Perhaps you have seen my Index Florae Lancastriensis (...) Choose among the plants there mentioned, you are welcome to any. To Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15. In the second letter, he wrote: I make a beginning to send you Grasses, numbered – of each genus one species, to get the habitat. They are chiefly American; but a few exotics I had to add, where the genus was wanting with us. To Baldwin, 01/18/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 19. I enclose in my letter 25 Cryptogamia, comprising the different Genera of Mosses, according to the system of Hedwig, – now generally received. To Baldwin, 02/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 23. See also the letters from Baldwin, 03/30/1811, to Baldwin, 04/23/1811, and from Baldwin, 05/03/1811, all in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 24, 27, 29. For Mühlenberg’s hope to get hold of the Lewis&Clark specimens through the mediation of Baldwin, see his letter to Baldwin, 05/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 32. 127 The following list was delivered by myself to D[octo]r Muhlenberg, in Philadelphia, on the 11th June. I add it, with his remarks for the sake of convenient reference. I enjoyed in the company of this venerable, enlightened and benevolent man, the sweetest intellectual pleasure. – Had a short but interesting excursion with him on the morning of the 12th toward Germantown. From Baldwin, 05/27/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 34n. 128 To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. See also the letter from Baldwin, 09/23/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 47: I am extremely glad to have added to your Herbarium; and be assure, my dear sir, I feel myself abundantly compensated for my packets, be the friendly manner in which you so promptly condescended to give me the information I require. 129 Mein neuer Correspondent H[er]r D[oktor] Baldwin ist sehr fleissig und hat bis jetz 500 Numern von Pflanzen geschickt. He continued: But I must now, also, inform you with regret, that our correspondence is likely to be interrupted, at least for a time. My health having become extremely delicate, and having hardly recovered from the pulmonary attack I had, last winter, I dread the consequence of remaining in a climate so cold, the ensuing inclement season; and am therefore preparing to spend the winter at the southward. My intention is to sail from Philadelphia for Charleston, about the first of November. Whether I shall remain in Charleston, or go further south, I have not yet determine. But my friend, wherever I go – should I be favoured with health, I will attend to our favorite pursuits, and share with you the result of all my discoveries. From Baldwin, 09/23/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 47. See also the letter from Baldwin, 11/01/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 50; Stuckey, “Auction,” 446; Kelly, Medical Botanists, 104; Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 20; Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 47; Biographical Dictionary of American Science, “Baldwin, W.”

436

Letters from an American Botanist

you can get.130 In December, he received a first letter from Baldwin, which was followed by four more from Charleston, Savannah and the Creek Agency on Flint River, GA, before his correspondent finally established himself in the town of St. Mary’s in the far southeastern corner of Georgia.131 When Baldwin sent his first letter from there to Mühlenberg in September 1812, war had already been declared on England. Canada and the waterways around Florida and Georgia were the two principal theaters of war in the campaign of 1812, and with the seafight between the U.S.S. Constitution and the H.M.S. Guerriere on August 19, 1812, the hostilities had already seen their first climax. Baldwin, too, entered the navy in the summer of 1812 and served as a surgeon until 1816.132 Paradoxically, this time the war and Baldwin’s work aboard a warship at first affected their correspondence positively, as it gave him access to a major seaport and military personnel, all of which he put to use to convey letters safely to Lancaster. Baldwin thus encountered considerably fewer problems in mail transport than Elliott from Savannah, which also accounts for the higher number of letters in their contact.133 130 The whole passage reads: In one respect I shall be very sorry for your departure, – because I shall lose, at least for some time, your instructive and pleasing correspondence; indeed, the only one that was regular and uninterrupted since its beginning. But your love of Science, and excellent eye for Botany, and natural history in general, promise so much for a future day, that you go with my best wishes for a safe voyage, and a happy return. May I expect that, even at a distance, you will remember a friend who is obliged to stay in these parts? When at sea... To Baldwin, 11/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 51. 131 From Charleston, Baldwin first wrote on December 6, 1811: I am happy to inform you, that I have already found my health improved, and am able to take much active exercise. From Baldwin, 12/06/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 53. From the Creek Agency, Baldwin wrote: As I have found it impracticable to transmit to you any specimens, I will endeavour to make amends for this deficiency, by giving you a catalogue of those plants which have fallen under my observation (...). From Baldwin, 04/20/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 58. See also Baldwin’s letter, 05/26/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 62: I have just come on, in haste, from the Creek Agency, and am on my way to St. Mary’s, where I shall probably spend the summer, – having accepted an appointment, there, in the surgical department. To Elliott he wrote in June 1812: From Doctor Baldwin I expect much. He is indefatigable. If he only keeps his Health and returns in Safety. To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 29. 132 In 1812, the United States Navy and admiralty disposed of 17 ships and first battle experiences from the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800) and the First Barbary War (1801–1805). Hickey, War 1812, 28–31. For additional information on Baldwin’s tour of duty in the navy, see Stuckey, “Auction,” 446; Harshberger, Botanists, 121; Kelly, Medical Botanists, 104; Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 20; Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 495. 133 64 of the total 93 letters from the Baldwin correspondence were sent over the distance between Georgia and Pennsylvania. From January 1811 through July 1813, Mühlenberg’s son-in-law Musser was the principal agent to forward their correspondence in both directions. I propose to send whatever I have, to Philadelphia, to John Musser, No. 140 Race street, – who is an Inspector of the Custom House, and will find many opportunities to Wilmington. If you are pleased to direct your packets to him, he will forward them with care to me, by the mail coach, or other opportunity. To Baldwin, 01/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 15. See also the letters from Baldwin, 05/07/1811, 11/01/1811, 01/28/1812, 09/19/1812, 06/05/1813, and the letters to Baldwin, 06/22/1813, and 08/24/1813, all in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 30, 50, 57, 64, 87, 92, 104. After April 1814, when Musser was dead, a certain Dr David Ott (no data available) at George-

Towards Botanical Independence

437

Despite one package of plants submitted in the spring of 1812, regular botanical exchange between them only started in October of the same year.134 It is significant that Baldwin, who could rely on military and political networks of mail transport, was a lot more successful than Mühlenberg in submitting actual packages of plants. Especially between the summer of 1811 and the spring of 1813, Mühlenberg’s part of the exchange was almost entirely confined to letters and plant identifications.135 Baldwin, however, primarily focused on Mühlenberg’s new cryptogamic interest in Fucus and Conserva136 and floral calendars, which documented town, near Washington, replaced him. I mentioned in a former letter, D[octo]r David Ott, of Georgetown, near the seat of Congress, as willing to take charge of packets. To Baldwin, 04/15/1814. I have this moment sent off a packet for you, containing 39 specimens, via Washington city, to the care of D[octo]r Ott. From Baldwin, 07/15/1814. I do not doubt D[octo]r Ott will forward it in due time. From Baldwin, 08/02/1814, all three in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 133, 142, 143. Baldwin often used military persons going to Washington to convey his letters to Ott: Having just ascertained that M[iste]r Benjamin Trevett, late of the U. S. army, sets out tomorrow (...) send you a small packet, directed to the care of D[octo]r Ott; hoping that it will not share the fate of the former one. From Baldwin, 02/13/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 160. For Balwin’s use of political channels of communication prior to Ott, see also his letters to Mühlenberg, 07/29/1813, 02/26/1814, 03/26/1814, all in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 99, 127, 131. Ott is last mentioned in March 1815. See Baldwin’s letter to Mühlenberg, 03/16/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 162. 134 In April 1812, Baldwin had obviously managed to submit something from the Creek Agency on Flint River: Quite lately I have received a valuable collection of Carolina and Georgia Plants from my excellent Friends Stephen Elliot and D[octor] Baldwin who is now on a Journey for his Health in the Southern States. To Collins, 04/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 04/08/1812, HUH Elliott Papers: Since my last Letter to you of March 13. I had the Pleasure to receive a small Packet of Cryptogamia Plants chiefly Mosses from our mutual Friend D[octor] Baldwin, brought from Savanna by M[ister] Kin. See also the letter from Baldwin, 05/26/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 62, and from Mühlenberg to Elliott, 10/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. For Baldwin’s first package from St. Mary’s, see his letter to Mühlenberg, 10/31/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 67: With this, I send you M[iste]r Oemler’s Algae, – which he is very choice of; and which he expected, when I left Savanna, would be delivered by me. I also send you a few drawings of Georgia and Florida plants, for your inspection, – some of which, I hope, will prove new and interesing. 135 From May 1811 to June 1813, which almost matches the period between Baldwin’s decision to move and his final establishment at St. Mary’s, Mühlenberg did not send any specimens or other material accompanying his letters. The first chance to do so came again in April 1813: P[ost]S[criptum] I enclose a new genus, of Willdenow, from Carolina, – a water Moss – Axolla Caroliniana. Have you ever seen it? To Baldwin, 06/01/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 85. See specifially the respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 495. 136 I send you a very few Algae, – not having had an opportunity to collect them. From Baldwin, 03/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 70. M[iste]r Zaccheus Collins continues to be an excellent Correspondent, much like our mutual Friend D[octor] Baldwin. If you write to him remember my best Respects. I only wait to hear whether he has arrived at St. Marys, and then I will write a long Letter full of Enquiries. He is in an excellent Situation to collect the many Species of Fucus and Conserva unknown with us. To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. I add the names of the Cryptogamia, enclosed in the letter, as far as they occur to me at first sight; defering some more observations for a future letter. To Baldwin, 06/22/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 92. See also the letters from Collins, 07/07/1812, HSP Coll. 443; from Baldwin, 07/15/1814, and to Baldwin, 04/27/1815, both in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 142, 168.

438

Letters from an American Botanist

the time of first growth, flowering and withering of plants in the local flora. I very often look over your Calendarium, Mühlenberg informed Baldwin in November 1813, and wish exceedingly to see it continued, that we may compare the time of flowering in the different States. A new correspondent, at Boston, D[octo]r Jacob Bigelow, has promised to do the same, at that place.137 Floral calendars were not a novel idea, but it was only with William Baldwin that they became a standard item in Mühlenberg’s botanical exchanges. In fact, Mühlenberg began to compose his own calendars for the Lancaster region as early as 1780, which he continued for 35 years until his death.138 Schreber received excerpts of these in 1785,139 Müller sent Mühlenberg a few sheets after 1808,140 while Stephen Elliott declared in February 1810 that he never kept a calendarium and even refused Mühlenberg’s wish for an exchange along these lines.141 Between March 1813 and May 1815, observations on the development of the local flora, which allowed Mühlenberg to make conjectures on climatic differences, accompanied nearly all of Baldwin’s letters.142 Until the spring of 1813, the war with England had relatively little impact on their correspondence. Canada and the Great Lakes were the main theater of war, but the British naval blockade of the entire Atlantic coast between Charleston and Spanish Florida since December 1812 now began to show in their contact, as more and more American ships were forced to remain in harbor.143 I had Letters from D[octor] Baldwin and M[iste]r Elliot. The former sent some Specimen[s] for me to N[ew]york by Schooner Capt[ain] McCobb and Schooner Spartan Capt[ain] Chase addressed to D[octor] Mitchell but I fear all will be lost in this troublesome 137 To Baldwin, 11/18/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 113. 138 This emerges from a letter to Elliott in January of 1810: In general it was a late Year. Harvest or the flowering of Tilia generally falls on the 6 of July. I have kept a Calendarium in general for 30 Years but find no material Change of our Climate except that it seems to me less settled, and more changeable. To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 139 Ein Calendarium von den Pflanzen wie ich sie in diesem Jahr zuerst habe blühen gesehen, habe ich mit beigelegt, damit Sie wißen, welche Samen ich Ihnen selbst verschaffen kann. To Schreber, 11/01/1785, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. See also the letters from Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll., and from Schreber, 10/05/1786, HSP Coll. 443. 140 From Müller, 08/08/1808, HSP Coll. 443; From Müller, 06/10/1810, HSP Coll. 443. 141 To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. For Mühlenberg’s request, see the letter from Elliott, 02/25/1810, HSP Coll. 443. 142 It is now a gay and delightful season, in this department. In my next, I shall commence a Calendarium Florae for this season. Along with it, I keep a register of the weather, the prevailing diseases & c. From Baldwin, 04/09/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 75. See also the letters from Baldwin, 05/15/1813, to Baldwin, 06/01/1813, from Baldwin, 06/11/1813, from Baldwin, 06/19/1813, to Baldwin, 06/29/1813, to Baldwin, 11/18/1813, to Baldwin, 07/13/1813, to Baldwin, 11/18/1813, from Baldwin, 04/01/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 80, 85, 88, 91, 94, 98, 113, 132, and the letter to Elliott, 07/20/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. The last entry dates from April 1815: It has not been in my power to make out a Calendarium of the Mosses... To Baldwin, 04/12/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 164. By reading your Calendarium, I am often in spirit with you, and admire the riches of your present abode. To Baldwin, 07/06/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 97. 143 Hickey, War, 1812, 35–42; 48. Ever since the Battle of Burnt Corn on July 27, 1813, the Creek Nation had entered the war. Hickey, War, 44f.

Towards Botanical Independence

439

war.144 Until mid-1814, the British offensive in the Chesapeake-Baltimore-Washington area and the attack on Fort Henry145 required Baldwin to focus entirely on his medical duties. Since I wrote my letter of the 15th of July, I have found it impossible to pay much attention to Botany. I have had many sick to attend to; and alarms from the enemy have necessarily prevented me from making any important excursions, off the seaboard.146 Even after this date, Mühlenberg did not receive specimens from Baldwin between July 1814 and April 1815, although occasional letters actually reached Lancaster.147 Since Navigation will be free I expect to see some Letters from my old Friends M[iste]r Elliott who has not written since November, and from D[octor] Baldwin who was too much engaged to write lately.148 On April 27, 1815, Baldwin submitted one final package of specimens to Mühlenberg after more than two years of restriced contact. After the war, Baldwin returned to Savannah and continued to collaborate with Zaccheus Collins, Stephen Elliott and William Darlington in botanical affairs.149 It is not a coincidence that Baldwin allied with former Mühlenberg correspondents in his botanical pursuits. This southern constellation was mainly a result of Baldwin’s move to St. Mary’s, while Mühlenberg had made active efforts to establish connections among his contacts in the southern regions. Should you come to Beaufort, in South Carolina, Mühlenberg informed Baldwin in November 1811, there is that excellent Botanist and Entomologist, Stephen Elliott, Esq[uire]. He is, like yourself, indefatigable, has seen and examined a great many Plants, Minerals and Insects, is communicative, and just the gentleman we look for. I intend, in my 144 To Collins, 05/15/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 145 Hickey, War 1812, 63. For their slow correspondence between May 1813 and September 1814, see the letters to Baldwin, 05/17/1813, 04/15/1814, both in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 82; 132, and the letter to Collins, 06/07/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 146 From Baldwin, 09/17/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 144. Since my letter of the 17th of September, my time has been so wholly engrossed in attending upon the sick, that Botany was out of the question. Just at the commencement of the sickly season, my Mate quit the servce, – and left me, not only to prescribe, but to put up medicines, for more than 40 patients, daily. From Baldwin, 11/11/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 147. From Elliot and Baldwin I have nothing lately. To Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Of my valuable Friends Elliott and Baldwin I have seen nothing of late. To Collins, 09/28/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. My Friends Elliott, Baldwin, Bigelow are in Debt to me though not long and I expect to hear soon from them. To Collins, 12/05/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 147 See respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 535 and respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 495. 148 To Collins, 03/13/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. Baldwin has been hindred by the turbulent Times at Savanna but he is now free and I expect every Day to hear from him. To Collins, 04/07/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. Hitherto no Answer has arrived and I am anxious to hear from you and my former indefatigable Correspondent our mutual Friend D[octor] Baldwin. You have had very turbulent Times to the Southward and I can easily conceive how little time was left for other Business. I have felt your uneasy Situation and congratulate you on the Peace and the Prospect of better Times. To Elliott, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers. 149 Harshberger, Botanists, 121; Stuckey, “Auction,” 446f. In 1817, Baldwin was appointed botanist of a government-sponsored mission to South America. Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 20. He died in Franklin, MO, in 1819 during a similar mission. Harshberger, Botanists, 124.

440

Letters from an American Botanist

very next letter, to mention your name to him, as a most valuable correspondent.150 In January 1811, Baldwin paid a visit to Elliott, which would grow into a major botanical correspondence by September 1812.151 Already in April 1811, Mühlenberg had tried to connect Baldwin to August Gotthold Oemler, apart from Elliott his only southern contact at the time,152 and in May 1812, he tried to bring his new contact William D. Peck into the southern constellation.153 Even though not all of his efforts resulted in actual correspondences, Mühlenberg certainly had some influence on the development of the southern botanical scene and helped to bring about a closer collaboration of local botanists than the region had ever seen before. Especially Stephen Elliott, whom Mühlenberg had bascially re-activated for the science, appears to have been closely connected to almost every other botanist working in the region.154 150 He continued: Should you see him personally, I am convinced you would be entirely pleased with one another. I expect every day a promised packet from him; and then I will inform him of your voyage to the southward. Perhaps he is now at the seat of the Legislature, Columbia, S[outh] C[arolina]. To Baldwin, 11/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 51. 151 [I] spent some time with M[iste]r Elliott, at his plantation on the great Ogechee. From Baldwin, 01/28/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 57. Elliott was also enthusiastic about their first meeting: I came to Georgia in the first week in January and had the pleasure of meeting D[octo]r Baldwin in Savannah. He afterwards passed a few days with me at Ogechee. I was truly pleased with him. He is an indefatigable Botanist and will add much to our present knowledge of American plants. He has gone on to the Indian Territory and will pass the spring in a country which has been as yet but little explored. I shall expect very anxiously his return to the Sea Coast. I wish your letter had arrived while he was here that I might have consulted him on the plants you mention. From Elliott, 02/14/1812, HSP Coll. 443. In September 1812, Baldwin informed Mühlenberg: I correspond with our excellent friend, M[iste]r Elliot: but regret exceedingly that I shall disappoint his exceptations, as well as yours. From Baldwin, 09/19/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 64. For the further development of this contact, see also the letters from Elliott, 05/02/1812, 12/26/1812, both in HSP Coll. 443. To Baldwin, 11/09/1812, from Baldwin, 03/20/1813, to Baldwin, 04/20/1813, from Baldwin, 11/11/1814, all in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 68, 70, 77, 147. To Elliott, 12/06/1813, 05/09/1814, both in HUH Elliott Papers. 152 A gentleman from Savannah, M[iste]r Oemler, wished to call on you, on his return from Philadelphia to Savannah by land. He is a valuable correspondent. Has he ever called? To Baldwin, 04/23/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 27. M[iste]r Oemler called on me yesterday, and started for Baltimore this morning. I was highly pleased with him, and made arrangements for corresponding. From Baldwin, 05/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 30. Have you heard from M[iste]r Oemler, since his return to Savannah? From Baldwin, 07/16/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 39. Our mutual Friend Oemler informed me of a Collection of Conserves he brought from Germany. To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. M[iste]r Oemler, at Savannah, has not yet answered my letter, written to him some time in May. To Baldwin, 08/20/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 42. 153 I have several very good Correspondents who are also good Entomologists, he wrote to Peck in May 1812. You are perhaps acquainted with them already. Stephen Elliott Esq[ire] at Beaufort in South Carolina, D[octor] William Baldwin at Wilmington State of Delaware now on his Travels to the Southern States and to the Creek Nation, both would be extremely happy in a Correspondence with you, and never fail to answer. To Peck, 05/19/1812, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 154 Mühlenberg was permanently informed about Elliott’s networking: With M[ister] Le Conte of Rice Borough I have formed this winter an acquaintance which I shall endeavour to cultivate. He is an ingenious, acute and intelligent Botanist and has paid much attention to many families

Towards Botanical Independence

441

6.4 The Last of the Moravian Contacts – Schweinitz The presence of six Moravian botanical contributors on Mühlenberg’s list in 1813 is hardly surprising with regard to his own liberal views on interconfessional collaboration and Lancaster’s long tradition of religious plurality.155 The so-called “Lancaster schism” of 1745 had defined the relations between Lutherans and Moravians in Pennsylvania for a generation.156 By 1780, however, when Henry Mühlenberg accepted the call to Lancaster, the Moravians had already become a part of the town’s religious life and routinely participated in cross-denominational activities and common projects such as Franklin College or the local Bible Society.157 In this sense, Mühlenberg’s botanical exchanges with Gambold, Kramsch, Dallman, Denke, Kampmann and van Vleck must be seen as a facet of his own Practice of Pluralism (Häberlein), whose subtle competitiveness also reflects the essentially competitive nature of scientific exchange in the Republic of Letters.158 In none of

155

156 157

158

of our plants. From Elliott, 02/14/1812, HSP Coll. 443. Your old acquaintance M[ister] Kin paid Georgia a visit the last winter and although he would scarcely allow me to shew him any civilities he has been sending me many things from the Northward. From Elliott, 08/12/1812, HSP Coll. 443. Doctor Bigelow at Boston continues his Correspondence which is very valuable to me. To Elliott, 12/06/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers. Your letter and Packet arrived here safe by our mutual Friend M[iste]r Collins and I hasten to acknowledge the great Pleasure I received thereby. To Elliott, 07/13/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. For Elliott’s subsequent connections, see also Elliott, Sketch, vi; vii. Lancaster’s multiconfessional tradition dates back to the 1730s. Häberlein, Pluralism, 239. For Mühlenberg quotes on religious diversity and collaboration, see note 158. In this context, Mühlenberg’s criticism of the alleged intolerance in the Methodist and Swedenborgian denominations is also significant. Häberlein, Pluralism, 237f. Häberlein, Pluralism, 62–65, 98, 102–05. Häberlein, Pluralism, 244. For Franklin College see also Mühlenberg‘s letter to Fabricius, 06/18/1787, AFSt/M 4 D 20: Es sind 5 Lehrer bestimmt 2 Lutherische, 1 Reformirter, 1 Hernhuter 1 Englischer, die Sprachen und Wißenschaft treiben sollen. Fabricius commented on this: Es ist billig, daß unter so verschiedenen Gesinntheit, ohne Religions-gleichgültigkeit, christliche Duldung und Verträglichkeit herrscht, wobey die Wahrheit am meisten gewinnet, und erfreulich ist es, daß sich bey Ihnen und in allen übrigen Gegenden doch aller Orts Erweckte finden, die gern selig werden wollen. From Fabricius, 12/01/1787, APS Film 1097. An example of practiced cross-denominational charity can be found in the following passage of a letter from Mühlenberg to Helmuth in November 1793: Es ist ein 100 Thaler Bill weil ich gerade kein anders habe, den Überschuß belieben Sie aufzuheben bis ich selbst komme und meine Hallische rechnung abtrage, die verfallen ist. So wird das ganze unsrer Gemeinbrief neue ₤ 100. ausmachen. Die Austheilung dieser 63 thaler 57 wird Ihnen gänzlich überlaßen, nur hat einer und der andre verlangt und es ist auch wohl billig daß aller Unterschied der Religion wegfallen möge und Sie es an Elende wie Sie dieselben find austheilen, so wären 200 thaler für die Gemeine allein, und das übrige ohne Unterschied nach Ihrem Gut befind. To Helmuth & Schmidt, 11/04/1793, APS Film 1097. Häberlein contends that religious plurality in Lancaster was never regarded as an ideal, but rather defined by competition and the imminent danger of potential chaos, which also limited the number of interfaith and interethnic marriages. Häberlein, Pluralism, 244. Despite Mühlenberg’s liberal views on religious diversity and tolerance, this competitive spirit also shows at times in his letters to his father. See for instance Mühlenberg‘s letter to his father, 04/24/1784,

442

Letters from an American Botanist

the 64 letters which Mühlenberg exchanged with Moravian botanists and plant collectors from 1797 to 1815, differences in doctrine or theology were ever discussed, while general religious topics were only marginally present.159 Denke, (Christian) Rev[eren]d Nazareth and Canada and Kampman, (Frederick) M[edical] D[octor] from Pennsylvania and Jersey and Van Vleck, (Jacob) Rev[eren]d from Pennsylvania160 were his local correspondents, whereas Gambold, (Elizabeth) Mrs. from Cherokee and Kramsch, (Samuel) Rev[eren]d North Carolina and Dallman, (Gustavus) North Carolina provided specimens from the South.161 As Dallman had been absent from Mühlenberg’s network since 1805, he must have sent the material for which he was listed in the catalogue during the brief period of their contact between 1803 and 1805.162 Anna Rosina Gambold continued to send packages at least until 1811, when Mühlenberg reported to Elliott that he had the Pleasure to see 2 Collections one made by Ms Gambold in Cherokee, the other by M[iste]r Henry Moore in Tenesse.163 According to Daniel McKinley, 83 of GamAland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 956): Ich habe am Charfreitag 66 Verheiratete und ledige Personen confirmirt, nicht ohne merklichen Einfluß auf meine Gemeine, unter ihnen waren 2 geborne Hernhuter 1 geborner Neu Engländer und Presbyterianer und eine Tochter von Val[entin] Hofman, der eine Schwester der Frau Schaeferin hat, er selbst ist ein Separatist oder gar nichts, sie hatte zu den Hernhutern gehalten. See also the following passage: Was ich sonst treibe? werden Sie vielleicht wissen wollen. Ich lese jetzt meine neue Bücher durch, die ich von Halle und Frankfurt bekommen habe. Es sieht wunderbar in Teutschland aus. Alles schreibt von Toleranz, und es ist recht gut, wenn die Ketzermacherei einmal aufhört und mehr brüderliche Liebe stattfindet, mehr Tragen der Schwachen ohne selbst schwach zu werden oder das anvertraute Pfund zu vergraben. Aber es dünkt mich, daß die neuen Toleranzprediger sehr beißig sein, und Gnade Gott den so genanten Orthodoxen wenn jene Meister werden solten. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 02/07/1785, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 980). 159 See also respective list of correspondences with van Vleck, Appendix C, on page 532f. 160 Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. 161 Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. John Heckewelder was Mühlenberg’s only Moravian contact not to appear on his list of contributors, Lewis David von Schweinitz excepted, who only appeared in his network after 1813. Heckewelder nevertheless remained at the periphery of Mühlenberg’s network, keeping in touch with him via numerous visits to Lancaster. See the following letter passage and diary entries: M[iste]r Heckewelder informs me that they have 2 in the western Parts, one they use for Pipe stems, the other is larger the Leaves grow at the Knots as in a verticillus. To Elliott, 02/01/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. Weil H[er]r Heckewelder ein langes Herb[arium] mit nach Hause nach Bethlehem nimt kann ich für H[err] Kampman Quercus u[nd] Salices mitsend[en]. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1811. N[ota]b[ene] Es sind viele Indianer Namen von Pflanzen in Lewis Travels es könte bei Heckewelder nachgefragt werden ob solche Namen auch bei unseren Namen bekant sind – es scheinen mir welche bekant zu seyn – (...) da solche Namen mit der Zeit {ein Wort} unbekant werden sollten sie in Transactions aufbehalt werden. (...). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/01/1814. See also Wallace, Travels, 389f. 162 See above on page 275f. 163 To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers. There are two more entries prior to this date: In his diary, Mühlenberg noted in October 1810: 3. Cherok. Fr[au] Gambold fleissig im schick[en]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/18/1810. To Elliott, he had already written in February 1811: Since my last I have received from Ohio State and from Cherokee Country a Number of Seeds which make me wish for Spring that I may get them in the Ground. To Elliott, 02/01/1811, HUH Elliott Papers.

Towards Botanical Independence

443

bold’s specimens were used in Mühlenberg’s 1813 catalogue, while additional 25 were published in the posthumously published Descriptio uberior plantarum.164 Therefore, it remains uncertain whether Gambold continued to send packages after 1813 or whether the editor of the Descriptio uberior plantarum, José Correa de Serra took along specimens originally collected for Mühlenberg during this visit to the Gambolds in the summer of 1815.165 Samuel Kramsch was the only Moravian contact in the South with whom an actual correspondence existed after 1811, as he continued to run his odds-and-ends store in Salem, North Carolina. Nevertheless, the specimens he supposedly sent to Mühlenberg were most probably collected during their earlier contact in the mid-1790s.166 There were three other Moravian contacs that resided closer to Mühlenberg in Pennsylvania. His contact to Frederick Kampmann continued to disappoint Mühlenberg. Although three letters could be reconstructed from summer 1811 to January 1813 and Kampmann is credited for plant material to Mühlenberg’s catalogue,167 no more hints at further plant packages are mentioned after they had resumed their correspondence in 1808.168 This fact makes it most likely that the specimens used in Mühlenberg’s catalogue had already been sent as early as 1795 during Kampmann’s sojourn at Hope, New Jersey. In the case of Christian Friedrich Denke, Mühlenberg’s first high-intensity American contact in 1798–1799, older material was supplemented by new specimes from Denke in 1811. For a decade, correspondence with Denke was resting, and Mühlenberg was patiently following the career of his former contact from afar.169 In August of 1811, he finally addressed a letter to Denke and enclosed André Michaux’ work on North-American and Canadian oaks, which was apparently his main motivation for re-establishing contact. This also ties in with his other correspondences which often focused on Michaux’ botanical works as well.170 After eleven years without contact, Denke was excited about Mühlenberg’s letter and promised to botanize in the spring of 1812 and to submit at 164 McKinley, “Gambold,” 60. 165 McKinley, “Gambold,” 63; 83; 86. 166 This also ties in with Mühlenberg’s brief observation on the state of his correspondence with Kramsch in 1811 to Oemler: Kramsch an den ich gleich nach Ihrem Besuch zweimahl geschrieb[en] hat mir nicht geantwortet. Vermuthlich hat er sonst zu viel zu thun ohnehin sind die Gelegenheit etwas hin und her zu schicken höchst selten. To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. 167 Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. 168 Briefe seit n[eu] J[ahr] gesch[rieben] (…) 21 Kampman Jun[i] 19. u[nd] Jul[i] 11 Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1811 [margin notes]. On January 21, 1813, Mühlenberg simply noted: Brief von Kampman. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/21/1813. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 513. 169 To Vaughan at Philadelphia, Mühlenberg wrote in April 1807: Whenever you write to M[iste]r Michaux, pray inform him, how much I wish to be in his Company or to see him at Lancaster. (...) Does M[iste]r Michaux know that we have an excellent Botanist in Canada, the Rev[eren] d M[iste]r Denke near Thames River or Fairfield? He is a Missionary of the Moravians amongst the Indians. To Vaughan, 04/09/1807, APS. Arch. Box 5. 170 This becomes obvious from Denke‘s response letter: Michaux Register der Canadischen Pflanzen – ist mir werth – ich lese es täg[lich] durch – u[nd] werde sehn wie viel ich vergleichen kan – er scheint doch nur hauptsäch[lich] Lower Canada bereist zu haben. From Denke,

444

Letters from an American Botanist

least one letter per month afterwards.171 His promise, however, was only good for one package of cryptogamous plants in the summer of 1812,172 after which no more clues of further contact could be found. On Jacob van Vleck, the third Pennsylvania-based Moravian contact, Mühlenberg noted with dismay in his diary in April 1815: Nothing is known about Denke, about van Vleck only that he [van Vleck] wants to return for quite some time. 173 In the meantime, van Vleck had continued to function as a link between Mühlenberg and his Brethren in the South. In May 1811, he and his family moved from Bethlehem to Lititz and then to Salem in September 1812.174 From there, van Vleck sent at least three letters to Mühlenberg in 1813 and 1814, but it was only with regard to a new potential contact with the Moravian botanist Louis David von Schweinitz that van Vleck became truly valuable again to the Lancaster pastor: M[iste]r Schweiniz in North Salem has sent to me a Catalogue of Salem Fungi (...), he is a great Acquisition to us, Mühlenberg wrote to Stephen Elliott in July 1814. [Schweiniz] is amongst the Moravians and Assistant to the Rev[eren]d M[iste]r VanVleck.175 In fact, Mühlenberg had first heard about this apparently brilliant young mycologist in December 1813 through a letter from van Vleck.176 Mühlenberg instantly 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. Mühlenberg does not give more details to determine the exact edition of Michaux’ work. 171 Der 30te Sept[ember] a[nno] c[urrente] wurde mir zu einem recht apart grossem u[nd] wie mit festl[ichen] Freud[en[ erfüllten Tage gemacht, da ich ganz unerwartet IH[er]r mir so Gel[iebtes] Schreiben a[nno] d[omini] 14. Aug[ust] a[nno] c[urrente] in Empfang nahm, wofür ich Ihnen hiermit den besten Dank abstatte. Durch Ihr Gel[iebtes] für mich sehr schäzbares Schreiben, wurde das botanische Feuer, gleichsam wieder aufs neue angefacht u[nd] angeblasen, welches nun 11 Jahre lang, ganz erstickt, kaum mehr unter der Asche glimmte. In diesem Zeitraume hing mein favorit, so zu sagen, am Nagel, u[nd] veraltete so, daß das Gedächtnis, wie ein Sieb geworden, u. das meiste wo einst alles, hat fassen lassen. From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. See also the letter to Baldwin, 08/20/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 42: From one of my old correspondents, the Rev[eren]d M[iste]r Denke, amongst the Indians in Fairfield, Canada, I have received a promise of all Canada plants not to be found in our parts; and a full account of Indian medical plants, with which he is well acquainted. I anticipate much pleasure and use in this renewed correspondence. There is other proof that Denke did not correspond with any botanist until 1811. In the same year, Benjamin Smith Barton was returned a book, which Denke had borrowed eleven years earlier. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 811. 172 June 26 [1812] – received a large Packet of cryptogamous Plants from Canada by the Rev[eren] d M[iste]r Denke. To Elliott, 10/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. 173 Von Denke nichts bekant als daß [van Vleck] schon lange zurück [zu sein] wünschte. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in April 1815. This concurs with Mears, “Herbarium,” 161f. 174 Dienerblatt “van Vleck.” A worried passage from a letter by Denke to Mühlenberg in October 1811 highlights van Vleck’s importance to Moravian botanical circles at the time of his move: Ja hätte ich, das in Nazarethhall zurückgelassene Cryptogamische Herbarium wie würd mir das nicht helfen, u. in kurzer Zeit in status quo, wie es ehemals war, sezen. Ich befürchte, seitdem H[err] J[acob] Vleck von da fort ist, wird es nicht mehr recht wahrgenommen werden. From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 175 To Elliott, 07/13/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. 176 Brief von Van Vleck Salem Dec[ember] 3 dank sehr für mein Catalog fragt nach Ludolfia wo sieh beschr[ieben] ist. Sein College Ludwig David von Schweinitz ist Mycologe, hat in Gesellsch[aft] mit Albertini geschrie[ben] samlet auch hier, findet viele Ahnlichkeit, doch auch

Towards Botanical Independence

445

forwarded this information to Baldwin in Georgia in order to integrate Schweinitz into the southern constellation.177 Schweinitz is remembered today as the founding father of American mycology.178 Born in Bethlehem in 1780 to a family of Moravian dignitaries, young Schweinitz moved to nearby Nazareth in 1787 where he underwent basic schooling under Samuel Kramsch until 1798, when the family moved to Germany. At the Lusatian seminaries of Niesky and Barby, the centers of higher schooling and natural research in the Moravian church, the gifted Schweinitz became an assistant to Johann Baptist von Albertini (1769–1831). With him he was given the chance to freely extend his earlier botanical experiences and collaborated on his first mycological publication, the Conspectus Fungorum in Lusatiae superioris Niskiensi crescentium. E methode Persooniano (Leipzig 1805). Shortly after the publication, he left Niesky on account of ongoing quarrels with Albertini, proceeded to Gnaden in 1807 and Gnadau, Silesia in 1808, where he stayed until 1812.179 During the same year, Schweinitz was appointed “Administrator of the Church Estates in North Carolina” and was married to Louiza Amelia Le Doux. After his marriage, he obtained a doctoral degree from the University of Kiel in Germany and returned to the United States via Denmark and Sweden. C. Earle Smith has called Schweinitz one of the most gifted botanists in early 19th century America. In fact, Schweinitz was probably the first and only American-born scientist who could match Mühlenberg’s profound knowledge in cryptogamics at the time.180 In Salem, van Vleck and Schweinitz teamed up both in their botanizing activities and in their individual botanical exchanges, as Schweinitz never corresponded with Mühlenberg directly. The few times that he was mentioned in Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries show that they planned to establish direct contact as well, which only happened two weeks before Mühlenberg’s death: [Van Vleck’s] companion, neues: ich soll ihm um Catalog bitte u[nd] Specimen die nicht im Catalog steh[en] (…) diesen Brief sogleich beantw[orten]. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/17/1813. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Collins, 06/07/1814, ANSP Coll. 129.: Lately I received a Letter from my Friend Rev[eren]d Van Vleck with an enclosed Catalogue of Salem Fungi by M[iste]r Sweiniz (...). In return, Mühlenberg sent a copy of his catalogue: Ludwig David von Schweinitz. Salem 2 Exempl[are] 1 für ihn u[nd] für Kramsch. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/04/1814, on left margin. See also the letter to Baldwin, 04/12/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 164. 177 It is only today that I hear of an excellent Mycologist, in North Carolina, who is a teacher among the Moravians, at Salem, – and has written upon Fungi, in Germany. His address is Rev[eren]d L[ewis] David de Schweinitz, at Salem, North Carolina. Pray mention it to our mutual friend, M[iste]r Elliott, who is nearer than we, and would find great assistance in making a complete Catalogus of Carolina Fungi. It is a very wide field. To Baldwin, 12/17/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 118. 178 Benedict attributes this reputation to Schweinitz’ large mycological herbarium of 1,200 specimens and groundbreaking mycological publications. Benedict, “Mycologist,” 13. See also Becker, “Pflege,” 26. 179 Harshberger, Botanists, 127–129; Pennel, “Schweinitz,” 2; Benedict, “Mycologist,”13; Hooker, Botany, 279; Becker, “Pflege,” 25f. Augustin falsely dates Schweinitz’ sojourn at Barby from 1791 to 1796. See Augustin, “Barby,” 14; Mears, “Herbarium,” 164. 180 Smith, “Century of Botany,” 6; Pennel, “Schweinitz,” 3; Harshberger, Botanists, 129.

446

Letters from an American Botanist

Von Schweinitz, has sent [me] 58 cryptogamous plants, Mühlenberg informed Baldwin in May 1815. [C]hiefly Fungi, with his own names, named in a work printed in Germany. Some are new to me; – and others known to me, but hitherto not named in my Catalogue. He will be an excellent correspondent, for cryptogamous plants.181 In fact, those 58 cryptgamous specimes were all that he ever received from Schweinitz directly.182 The Moravian went on to become America’s finest mycologist in the first half of the 19th century and would certainly have been a key correspondent, had Mühlenberg lived longer. At the time of Schweinitz’ death in 1832, his herbarium contained 23,000 specimens from more than 100 international contributors. A handwritten list of these by Schweinitz himself features the names of several former Mühlenberg correspondents, including William Baldwin, William Paul Barton, Jacob Bigelow, Zaccheus Collins, José Correa de Serra, Christian Friedrich Denke, Stephen Elliott, Anna Rosina Gambold, Matthias Kin, Samuel Kramsch, Johann Christopher Müller, Christian Henrik Persoon, Heinrich Adolf Schrader, Christian Friedrich Schwägrichen, and Kurt Sprengel.183 Their contact, however, was too brief to attribute this high congruity to a direct influence by Mühlenberg. In any case, there is no doubt that Schweinitz profited from Mühlenberg’s efforts to re-invigorate botanical interest in the South and from the collaboration with men such as William Baldwin and Stephen Elliot, whom Mühlenberg had won back for botany in the first place. 6.5 Friends and Fraud in New York City Mühlenberg’s contacts in the city of New York, the emerging center of commerce and science, were still limited in 1811, although his 1813 catalogue listed three local contributors: Eddy, (Caspar Wistar) M[edical] D[octor] New York; and Mitchell, (S[amuel] L[atham]) Professor, New York; and his own son Muhlenberg, (P[hilip] E[manuel]) New York and Jersey.184 With 21 letters from 1811 to 1815, Mühlenberg’s correspondence with New York-based botanists and other contacts accounted for merely 6.71 % of his total American correspondences during this 181 To Baldwin, 05/11/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 171. To Collins, he observed just four days prior to his death: The Rev[eren]d[eren]d Van Vleck has not yet returned from Bethlehem, I intend to send a Packet to M[iste]r Schweinitz, from whom I expect to hear more. To Collins, 05/19/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Collins, 05/03/1815, ANSP Coll. 129: The kind M[iste]r Van Vleck from N[orth]Carolina is now at Bethlehem. He has brought a Number of Plants and Cryptogama from M[iste]r Schweinitz. Some are new which were added at the Margin of my Persoon. 182 Overlease, “Darlington,” 85; Hu and Merril, “Publications”, 32; Becker, “Pflege,” 45. Schallert contends that Denke assisted Schweinitz at Salem, which is impossible due to Denke’s sojourn at Canada at this time. Schallert, “Schweinitz,” 9. 183 Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 20–35. For Schweinitz‘ subsequent career, see also Mears, “Herbarium,” 158; 168; Schallert, “Schweinitz,” 8; Pennel, “Schweinitz,” 1–4; 7f.; Harshberger, Botanists, 132; Stuckey, “Steinhauer,”10; Becker, “Pflege,” 26; Smith, “Century of Botany“, 6; Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 20–35. 184 Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors.

Towards Botanical Independence

447

period.185 Our N[ew] York Gentlemen are very slow in acknowledging and answering Letters, he confided to Elliott in October 1814, adding slightly later to Collins that [i]n general, N[ew]York Correspondents, if they belong to the learned Class, are not apt to answer a Letter upon Science. Away with Arcanum and Nostrum in Science!186 Clearly, New York was not a favorite place for botanical contacts in Mühlenberg network, but its close proximity to sea plants, especially Fuci and Conserva, and its geostrategically fortunate position that promised easy access to the North and the Great Lakes region, rendered the city indispensable in his networking plans. Of greatest importantace to him, however, were the specimens he received from there. Samuel Latham Mitchill had been Mühlenberg’s first scientific contact in the city on the Hudson in the early 1790s and had remained a “sporadic correspondent” ever since.187 Apart from one more instance of direct letter contact in October, the two men had not actively written each other until late 1811.188 At that time, Mühlenberg received a fine collection of New York plants from Mitchill, which he answered in December and an additional package of plants in June 1813.189 This year also marked the end of Mitchill’s political career, which was probably also the reason why he continued to provide Mühlenberg with occasional packages of seeds and specimens until November 1814.190 Mühlenberg’s second New York-based correspondent, his second-born son John Philip Emanuel Mühlenberg, had moved to the 185 With Caspar Wistar Eddy, Mühlenberg exchanged six letters. In the case of his son Philip Emanuel Mühlenberg, one letter could be located. The other five were Samuel Latham Mitchill (3 letters), David Hosack (1 letter), Jacob Green (6 letters) and Theodoric Romeyn Beck (4 letters). See also respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C 498, 512. 186 To Elliott, 10/10/1814, HUH Elliott Papers; To Collins, 10/18/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 187 Between 1796 and 1811, there is no further evidence of direct contact. 188 To Mitchill, 12/02/1811, HSP Gratz Coll. For the years between 1811 to 1815, two more letters could be reconstructed. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 516. 189 Since my last, I have received a fine collection of New York plants, by my son who was there; and some maritime plants from D[octo]r S[amuel] L[atham] Mitchell, – and have a promise of more. To Baldwin, 10/11/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 49. Mühlenberg answered in December 1811: To Mitchill, 12/02/1811, HSP Gratz Coll. About his return package, he informed Baldwin in June 1813: I am happy to inform you, that one of your packets addressed to D[octo] r Mitchill, containing numbers 806–923, has arrived here on the same day with your letter dated May 15. The other packet I expect every day, – as it has arrived also at Philadelphia. D[octo]r Mitchill gave each to my son, of the house of Muhlenberg & Schmidt, merchants at New York. They are very willing to forward any packet to me, if the intercourse remains open. Receive my grateful thanks for your kindness. To Baldwin, 06/01/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 85. 190 Hall, A Scientist, 13. Mitchill‘s packages are only documented in Mühlenberg‘s diary: [Januar 1814] komt erst ein Brief von Mitchill dat[iert] Nov[ember] 8 mit Samen von einer Pfl[anze] Sapeo gegen Schlangen u[nd] Hundebiß aus Yucatan von D[oktor] Kraft aus Havanna. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in early January 1814. Nov[ember] 20 In der Zeit ein Brief von Sam[uel] Mitchill Esq[uire] a) schickt Spec[imen] von Fiorer Grass (...) c) meldet daß er die N[ew]Yorker Fische untersucht u[nd] ein M[anuscript] beschrieb[en] hat er habe Species 154 mit Var[ietäten] d) Er habe 3 Species in Europa unbekant beschr[ieben] in the Medical Repository neml[ich] Blackfish, Sheepshead, Allwise im Holstich (...) ich werde antwort u[nd] ihn ermuntern 22. [November] an Mitchill geschrieb

448

Letters from an American Botanist

city at the age of about 20 around 1804 or 1805. Along with the merchant Peter Schmidt (1780–1831), who had married Mühlenberg’s daughter Susanna Elizabeth (1779–1838),191 Philip had set up a business in the city and routinely sent New Jersey and New York plants and botanical books to Lancaster after 1811. M[iste]r Schmidt brought me a Number of N[ew]York marine Plants, Mühlenberg informed Collins in September 1814, to which my Son Philip has also added several.192 Due to the scarcity of Mühlenberg’s diary entries on both men, the exact dimensions of Philip’s contributions cannot be identified or quantified with certainty. The last New Yorker on Mühlenberg’s list was Caspar Wistar Eddy (1790– 1828), a nephew and student both of Mitchill and of the physician and botanist David Hosack (1769–1835).193 Mühlenberg had first sought a correspondence with u[nd] an Schmidt eingeschlossen. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/20/1814. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Collins, 01/04/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. 191 Richards does not date their wedding. See Muhlenberg-Richards, Descendants, 55 192 To Collins, 09/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. For John Philip Emanuel Mühlenberg’s and Peter Schmidt’s business association, see the letters to Baldwin, 05/17/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 82; and to Collins, 05/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Philip is first credited with submitting plants in November 1811 in a letter to Baldwin: Since my last, I have received a fine collection of New York plants, by my son who was there; and some maritime plants from D[octo]r S[amuel] L[atham] Mitchell, and have a promise of more. To Baldwin, 10/11/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 49. See also: The other Packet was from my Son at New York, who commonly goes to the Jersies to collect for me. To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Baldwin, 06/01/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 85; and to Collins, 10/19/1813, 10/29/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. On Peter Schmidt’s contributions, Mühlenberg usually only commented in his diaries. In September 1812, he noted: Jul[i] 13. Mein Philip und Peter schickt mir eine kleinere Sendung von N[ew]York Pflanzen, adding two months later: 29. Sept[ember] [1812] durch Schmidt. See respective entries in Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III. The longest entry on Schmidt dates from December 1814: Weil Schmidt ein fleissiger Samler ist so will ich bei nächster Gelegenheit an ihn u[nd] Philip folgende Frage thun 1) Nehmen aller Fische die auf dem N[ew] York Markt zu kaufen sind mit dem Unterschied bemerkt 1) Ob sie in der River zu finden 2 Od[er] von der See gebracht worden. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/01/1814. A letter from Persoon in January 1815 shows that Mühlenberg obviously put great hopes in Philip: Der litterarische Theil Ihres schätzbaren Schreibens, betreffend die americanischen Botaniker und derselben Arbeiten, [erfreute?] mich richtig. Ich hatte in America eine so große Anzahl keineswegen vermuthet, und es war für mich ein unerwartetes Vergnügen darunter auch Ihren mündigen Sohn zu sehen, der Ihren Fußstapfen folgt, und den Europäischen Botanikern eine Hofnung bleibt, wen der Briefwechsel mit demselben Ihnen jetzt zu beschwerlich seyn sollte. Haben Sie die Güte mich ihm bestens zu empfehlen und für mich um seine Freundschaft und um seinen Briefwechsel zu ersuchen und ihm zu sagen, daß es mir stets angenehm seyn würde ihm aus Europa einige wissenschaftliche und andre Dienste zu erzeigen. Durch sein Bemühen und durch seinen Eifer läßt sich für die Botanik vieles hoffen, zumal da er mit dem Studium einer Pflanzenfamilie (mit den Wasser Algen) angefangen hat, womit man selbst in Europa noch nicht ins reine ist Verbinden muste er mich durch die gefällige Mittheilung einiger Arten derselben oder anderer Kryptogamien. From Persoon, 01/18/1815, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. Only one letter could be reconstructed for Mühlenberg’s contact with his son Philip from 1811 to 1815. Apparently, most packages went unaccompanied by letters or were delivered in person. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 518. 193 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 630; Greene, American Science, 96. In April 1815, Mühlenberg received his membership certificate for the New York Historical Society from David Hosack. See

Towards Botanical Independence

449

him in a letter written in 1809, to which Eddy only responded in November 1811, after he had graduated from the College of Physicians and Surgeons: D[octor] Muhlenberg will, I trust, excuse the delay I have been guilty of, in not attending long ere this to his request for maritime plants, as also those that are found in this vicinity, Wistar politely apologized, attaching a first collection of plants to his letter.194 Five more letters went back and forth in the next year, in which Mühlenberg usually included information on botanists and botanical publications, which Eddy planned to use for a dictionary on botany.195 In May 1812, Eddy first mentioned problems of coordinating his professional duties and his botanical correspondence with Mühlenberg, which effectively limited their active contact to the year 1812196 Eddy’s visit to Lancaster in October 1812197 was the last direct contact between the two men. In June 1814, Mühlenberg complained to Collins that my botanical Friends at New York Eddy, Whitlow and others let me wait very long and remember me of the old

the letter from David Hosack, 04/21/1815, APS Film 1097. It is the only certain incidence of direct contact between the two, although Hosack was known to Mühlenberg at least since 1794, when James E. Smith had Hosack deliver a letter to Mühlenberg on occasion of his return from England: I send this packet by a very ingenious young gentleman, D[octor] Hosack of New York, who has been studying here, & has attended some courses of my Lectures. From Smith, 01/06/1794, HSP Coll. 443. All subsequent notes and passages on Hosack do not support the assumption of letter contact or botanical exchange. See the letters from Smith, 06/03/1795 and from Rafinesque, 08/04/1803, both HSP Coll. 443; and to Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. For more on Hosack’s career, his founding of Elgin’s Garden and teaching of Caspar Wistar Eddy, see Ewan, “Early History,” 38; Greene, American Science, 91; 96–101; Sherk, “Hosack,” passim. 194 Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 630. He continued: It is scarcely two months since I left my residence at the New York Hospital where since May 1809 I have been confined as the House Surgeon & House Physician respectively. During my abode there my attention was necessarily directed to administer relief to the sick & unfortunate which wholly prevented me from the smallest attention to Botany unless in some short side on business I chanced to find something with which I was not familiar. (...) I hope the number of plants sent you, “tho” small will be acceptable (...). I intend to enlarge as circumstances will admit. Owing to the want of Willd[enow] Sp[ecies] Pl[antarum] & Persoon’s synopsis, connected with a futile memory, I fear I have been incorrect in the nomenclature of many of them & for which I will thank you to transmit your corrections. From Eddy, 11/04/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 195 See especially the letter from C. W. Eddy, 01/14/1812, HSP Coll. 443.. Mühlenberg noted Eddy’s address on the inside cover of his botanical diary: Casp[ar] Wistar Eddy 220 William Street N[ew]York. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III., inside front cover. 196 My apology must be that my time is divided at present between practice of physic and preparations for a course of Lectures to commence on the 14th of this month. From Eddy, 05/02/1812, HSP Coll. 443. In September 1812, Mühlenberg was also warned by his son Philip in a cryptical note, saying that he should not expect too much from a future correspondence with Eddy and Whitlow. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/29/1812. 197 D[octo]r Eddy instead of taking Lancaster in his way here came direct, and is returned. M[iste] r Le Conte came ab[ou]t the same time, and after staying two days went on to Georgia to satisfy his land, he said, against Indian depredations. They both regretted that circumstances forbade them seeing you at Lancaster. From Collins, 10/15/1812, HSP Coll. 443. See also Mühlenberg’s letters to Collins, 09/27/1812, ANSP Coll. 129, and to Cutler, 03/17/1794, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers.

450

Letters from an American Botanist

Proverb: blessed is who expects nothing for he shall not be disappointed.198 Nevertheless, according to James Mears’ examination of the Mühlenberg herbarium in 1978, Eddy’s specimens claim a prominent position in it and were a valuable contribution to Mühlenberg’s catalogue.199 Taken together, Mitchill, Eddy and his son Philip only represent half of the letters sent to or received from New York City during this period.200 Most of the remaining 11 letters were exchanged with Jacob Green (1790–1841), Theodoric Romay Beck (1791–1855) and Charles Whitlow (1776–1829) on behalf of an alleged fraud which once again confirmed to Mühlenberg the necessity of heightened caution in his networking and network strategies: in December 1811, the New York seedsman Charles Whitlow paid a visit to Lancaster, after which the two men agreed to a botanical exchange.201 Whitlow was of Scottish orgin and had studied botany at the University of Edinburgh after an earlier employment as horticulturalist. In 1796, he emigrated to the U.S. where he acquired a reputation as an expert seedsman by 1803.202 Apparently, their planned exchange never reached the level that Mühlenberg was hoping for and in September 1813, Mühlenberg complained to Collins that M[iste]r Witlow is a Man of many words but gives and does little. His Patent will be of little Advantage to the Publick.203 Contrary to this assessment and his own repeated vows not to be too trusting with unknown or tardy contacts, Mühlenberg obviously forgot all caution when Whitlow came to Lancaster again in December 1813.

198 To Collins, 06/20/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 199 Mears, “Herbarium,” 161. 200 Out of 21 New York letters from 1811 to 1815, these three correspondents account for ten letters. See table n, Appendix B, on page 492. 201 Mühlenberg first informed Mitchill at New York about this visit: M[iste]r Whitlow from New York called on me with some Specimens of his new Flax or Hemp. In a long Conversation I find him an interesting Man full of sound botanical knowledge. You are the better judge how exceedingly valuable his Discovery may be to our Country especially to the State of New York where the Plant is native and will grow in the greatest Perfection. Your love of Science and all Improvement will be sufficient to encourage M[iste]r Whitlow without my Recommendation. I sincerely hope he will succeed in his Memorial to Congress. To Mitchill, 12/02/1811, HSP Gratz Coll. See also his letter to Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers.. 202 Whitlow, Discoveries, 42–45. 203 He continued: My Urtica procera is twice as large and valuable as his Urtica. How will he get People in this Country to mow and perpare a burning Nettle? To Collins, 09/11/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. According to Mears, Whitlow did send seeds from the Genesee river region in the Pennsylvania/New York border region. Mears, “Herbarium,” 169. In his New Medical Discoveries, published in New York in 1829, Whitlow also took reference to Mühlenberg in his own defense of Indian medicines and the Linnean system. Whitlow wrote: “I told [D[octo]r Tillary] that D[octo]r Muhlenberg informed me that the remedies were generally made known to the world by Linnæus, and his pupils, and published in his “Materia Medica” and “Philosophia Botanica,” and “Amœnitates Academicæ,” which contain his observations and aphorisms. Whitlow, Discoveries, 46. In Green’s Address, Whitlow is also mentioned as the principal discoverer of a large portion a the plants included. Green, Address, passim. On the inside cover of his botanical diary, Mühlenberg noted: Charles Whitlow N[ew]York Seedsman. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III., inside front cover.

Towards Botanical Independence

451

Whitlow brought along a large herbarium of 400 specimens to be examined by Mühlenberg. As it turned out much later, the plant collection actually belonged to Whitlow’s New York colleagues Theodoric Romayn Beck and Jacob Green.204 Beck was a native of Schenectady, New York, and had studied with Hosack and worked at the College of Physicians and Surgeons. He also knew Mitchill from his membership in the New York Society for the Promotion of Useful Arts. Green was a native of Philadelphia and a lawyer-turned-botanist.205 Neither Green nor Beck reacted to Mühlenberg’s efforts to establish contact,206 but made liberal use of his plant identifications without giving him credit. The name of M[iste]r J[acob] Green of Albany is well known to me by a Herbarium M[iste]r Whitlow let me see, Mühlenberg furiously reported to Collins. It was chiefly collected by J[acob] Green, D[octor] Romaine Beck in different Volumes, I added the numbers (...) and the Names, and sent them to D[octor] Beck in a Letter but never received an answer. I shall never forget it, it was a laborious work done Dec[ember] 29, 1813, (...). My Eyes suffered extremely and a long dangerous Sickness was the Consequence. I mention this Anecdote to give an Example how easy it is to write or publish a Book and have the Honour of being the Author, and how hard to collect compose examine digest and finish a classical Book.207 This was certainly the gravest case of plagiarism that 204 M[iste]r Whitlow passed through here with the Intention to go immediately to England from whence he intends to return as quick as possible with M[iste]r Pursh. He let me peruse his Herbarium, in which he had about 420 Specimens. I doubt whether all are native about 12 were not in my Herbarium. He gave me much Information and by him I learn that we have many valuable Botanists in the State of N[ew]York. To one of them D[octor] Romain Beck at Albany I have written a Letter wishing a nearer Acquaintance. By M[iste]r Whitlow I sent my Catalogue to him as also to D[octor] Smith, Sir Joseph Banks and the Linnean Society in England. To Collins, 01/10/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. By [M[iste]r Whitlow] I have begun a correspondence with D[octo]r Romayne Beck, at Albany, – who, in company with others, is indefatigabe in exploring the Flora near the lakes. By the old settlements of the French, many European plants are entirely naturalized. To Baldwin, 01/14/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 122. Just shortly after this visit, contact with Whitlow ceased. See also the letters to Collins, 05/06/1814 and 06/20/1814, both in ANSP Coll. 129. 205 For Beck, see Overlease, “Darlington,” 84; Dictionary of American medical biography, s.v. “Beck, T. R;” Cortlandt-Mathews, Ellicott, 236. For Green, see Chamberlain, Universities, 338; Mears, “Herbarium,” 164. 206 I had written to D[octor] Romaine Beck last December when I sent him the Names of 418 Plants and my Desiderata of N[ew]York Plants, but never an Answer came, Mühlenberg reported to Collins September 1814. To Collins, 09/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. M[iste]r Green has done what his Friend D[octor] Romain Beck has done last December. After sending the Nomenclature and offering every Assistance and begging further Communications, no Answer is returned. To Collins, 10/18/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 207 He continued: In our present Time we can hardly do more than collect. (...) M[iste]r Greens Book I wish to see. To Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. See also his letter to Collins, 09/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129: I was extremely happy to hear and receive from you several Plants and the Oration and Catalogue from M[iste]r J[acob] Green of Albany. Will you allow me a little Time to read the Catalogue with a little more Attention. I see that he has read my Catalogue and what I had written when I perused his and M[iste]r Greens Specimens although he is not accustomed to add Muhl to new named Plants never mentioned before my Cataloge [sic!]. (...) I would be willing to give him my candid Remarks, as I have done the same with D[octor] Bigelow and others, but Suum cuique is an old and just Rule. See also Mühlenberg’s

452

Letters from an American Botanist

Mühlenberg was ever exposed to. With my correspondents I will certainly observe the rule to respond just like them and not to be too hasty, for correspondence is rather expensive anyway, he jotted down in his diary only five days after the letter to Collins.208 Despite this grave violation of the Republic of Letters’ moral standards, Mühlenberg still appeared willing to collaborate with Beck and Green, to whom he submitted a further letter in September 1814.209 This time, Green finally responded, apologizing for the inappropriate documentation of sources in his Address on the Botany of the United States (1814) by citing the confusion that ensued from an exchange with his friend Caspar Wistar Eddy.210 You observed that many Gramina are still wanting in my catalogue & Cryptogamia especially Fuci, he again explained in a later letter dated March 14, 1815. I could have wished that a Catalogue of the New York plants had fallen into more able & experienced hands. I am but a young lover of Flora & my acquaintance with her is very limited. The omissions you mention must therefore be attributed to want of knowledge.211 In the wake of Green’s justification, a brief botanical exchange ensued from October 1814 to May 1815, but on the whole, it was rather disappointing to Mühlenberg.212

208

209

210

211

212

letter to Elliott, 10/10/1814, HUH Elliott Papers.: M[iste]r Collins communicated a new Catalogue of indigenous Plants of the State of N[ew] York made by Jacob Green A[rtium] M[agister] A Number of new Plants are mentioned. Several (between 4–500 Plants) were sent to me for my Opinion, my Opinion has been exactly copied without adding my Name to the new Plants, how far M[iste]r Green has hit the other Names. I can not yet judge. Mit meinen Correspond[enten] werde ich die Regel genau beobacht[en] gerade so zu antwort[en] wie sie u[nd] mich nicht zu übereil[en], da ohnehin Corr[espondenz] kostspielig ist. He continued: Es sind mir jetzt Brief[e] schuldig: Elliot, 1 Collins, 4 Bigelow, Beck, Van Vleck, 2 Baldwin. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/04/1814. I have written for M[iste]r Green at Albany perhaps I may find better luck then last winter in writing to D[octor] Romaine Beck. Genesee and the northern Lakes open a wide Field for Botany. To Collins, 09/28/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/19/1814: [I]ch schick mit der Post ein Brief an Jacob Green A[rtium] M[agister] in Alb[any] u[nd] halte für Specimen u[nd] Pflanzen an die ich in s[einem] Catal[og] nicht gewiß kennen. verspreche desgleich zu thun. See Fortsetzung meines Journals APS 580 M89fo, entry for 10/18/1814: Green, freundschaftlich geschr[ieben] gegen Arcanum (…). To Collins, Mühlenberg relayed Green’s excuse: M[iste]r Green has answered also and has sent some dried Specimens of dubious Plants to N[ew] York which I expect every Day. He had a Number of the Names from D[octor] Eddy, this made the Confusion in the Names. To Collins, 12/02/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Another passage from a letter to Collins also implies a strong collaboration between New York botanists: What a Pity that M[iste]r Green had so little Assistance from his numerous Assistants LeConte, Pursh, Eddy and others. To Collins, 11/03/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Green continued: If you have any specimens of Gramina or Cryptogamia which grow in this state & can spare them you will much oblige me by sending them. & if you are acquainted with any other plants indigenous with us & not mentioned in our list you will confer a great favour by transmitting their names as it is proposed to publish an appendix to our catalogue. From Green, 03/14/1815, HSP Coll. 443. M[iste]r Green and D[octor] Romain Beck had sent 214 N[ew]York Plants hardly any new. To Collins, 01/04/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. A large Packet from D[octors] Beck and Green has arrived in 2 Volumes in Foliis containing (like a Mouse in a Load of Straw as our Germans say) 219 Plants sent before. Very little for us. Not one of my Desiderata! To Collins, 01/30/1815,

Towards Botanical Independence

453

6.6 The North and the West – Cutler, Peck, Bigelow, Rich and Moore The 28 names in Mühlenberg’s Flora Americae Septentrionalis in 1813 illustrate both the success and the failure of his endeavors to find contributors in specific spots of the United States. While Mühlenberg achieved a wide coverage of Pennsylvania and the South, his correspondent Cutler, (Menasse) D[octor] D[ivinity], Massachusetts was Mühlenberg’s only contributor from New England – a fact that had been bothering him for many years.213 I am sorry that my Massachusetts correspondents hardly ever answer a letter, he wrote to William Baldwin in September 1811, and that nothing can be got[ten] from them.214 The situation only improved in the last four years of Mühlenberg’s life, which came too late for his catalogue. In May 1815, his network included four active correspondents from the Boston area, exchanging 22 letters with him, which account for merely 7.03 % of his American correspondences from 1811 to 1815.215 Even these moderate numbers were only achieved through hard and constant work. Since February 1809, Mühlenberg had twice tried to establish contact with Professor William Dandridge Peck in Boston, who also knew Cutler. When Peck did not react to his letters, he turned to Cutler again in January and March 1811, also without success.216 Finally, in the spring of 1812, he received a letter from Peck.

ANSP Coll. 129. P[ost]S[criptum] M[iste]r Schmidt will take the Herbarium of D[octor] Romaine Beck and M[iste]r Green to N[ew]York – If you and he have Time to look over it you will find what the thought worth sending and comparing. A few of Lancaster Plants I added. To Collins, 05/03/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. For Beck’s contributions to Mühlenberg’s herbarium, see also Mears, “Herbarium,”160. 213 Mühlenberg, Plantarum, list of contributors. For Mühlenberg’s vain struggle to find correspondents in the North, see above on page 178f. 214 To Baldwin, 09/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 45. See also the letter from Baldwin, 08/27/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 44: I have received no specimens from Kent, – but presume there are some in store for me. From Boston, I fear it will be difficult to obtain them: But, whatever I obtain, from any quarter, shall be shared with you. I am happy to hear that your correspondence ist extended far and wide, both in the old and new world; and I have no doubt but a grateful posterity will amply reward you for the result of those labors, which you seem inclined, at present to withhold from the public. 215 To Manasseh Cutler Mühlenberg sent two letters in January and March 1811. With Jacob Bigelow 13 letters could be located or reconstructed. The other two correspondents were Obadiah Rich (5 letters) and William Dandrige Peck (2 letters). 216 Jan[uar 1811] 10. reg[en] den ganzen Tag N[ord]O[sten] ich schreib ein Brief an Manasseh Cutler u[nd] melde ihm meine Bitte für Pflanzen von White Mount[ain] (…) frage nach Peck melde ich daß 2 mahl gesch[rieben] u[nd] keine Antwort erhalt. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1811. The fact that Cutler did not respond in 1811 is probably what Mühlenberg complained about to Baldwin in September of the same year. This is also the reason why Mühlenberg must have received the Cutler-specimens used in his catalogue during their brief exchange from 1791 to 1794. See also respective exchange chart, Appendix D, on page 539. In November 1813, Mühlenberg sent his catalogue to Cutler, which is the last notice of contact between them: 2 Catalogos auf die Post für Will[iam] D[andridge] Peck u[nd] Menasse Cutler Massach inwendig die Anmerk[und] “Any Specimen of Plants not mentioned in this Catal[ogue] esp[ecially ] of Fucus Conserva or other crypt[ogamia] will be very ac-

454

Letters from an American Botanist

This is the third time I have begun to write you, Peck explained, but have always been prevented from finishing a letter to you, partly by the constant pressure of my affairs, & partly by my being unable to make a visit to D[octo]r Cutler to obtain from him such information as you desire.217 Presumably, Peck’s new willingness was rooted in his heightened attention to botanical affairs, which represented a turn in his predominantly entomological scientific orientation until then. Although he had abandoned the correspondence with his teacher and mentor Benjamin Smith Barton in 1809 on account of a turn of interest towards zoology, the botanical garden project at Harvard University, where Peck was employed since 1805 as professor of natural history, demanded more work after 1810.218 Peck warned Mühlenberg from the beginning not to expect too much of him, adding that zoology and entomology were his favorite subjects and enclosing 19 specimens for Mühlenberg’s herbarium.219 Nevertheless, Mühlenberg was thrilled and explained his plans: How many Plants may be in N[ew] England which are not to be found in Michaux. I really think it is too much for one man to find all the Plants of one State, especially the cryptogamous Plants which are so small and so numerous. We should try to get a Catalogue of every State and collect those in one general Catalogue.220 Peck’s letter from April 1812 remained the only one in this correspondence, con-

ceptable to the author. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/01/1813. See also the letter to Collins, 11/05/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 217 From Peck, 04/17/1812, HSP Coll. 443. 218 In 1818, Peck published a catalogue of plants from this garden. See Greene, American Science, 83. Peck’s last letter to Barton was dated October 23, 1809. Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 590. See also Sorensen, “Peck,” 230. 219 I am obliged to attend to the immense field of Zoölogy also, I can proceed but slowly. I do not write you this tedious account for the sake of speaking of myself, which is by no means agreeable to me; but to let you know something of your new correspondent with whom nobody is so well acquainted as myself. From Peck, 04/17/1812, HSP Coll. 443. See also the following passage: Brief von John Vaughan, der meldet daß er ein klein[es] Packet für mich von Prof[essor] Peck erhalt[en], ich antw[orte] sogleich u[nd] gebe Erlaubnis daß M[iste]r Correa das Packet d[urc]hsucht u[nd] bitte daß er seine Namen dazu schreib[e] (...) Secrecy u[nd] Jalousy thun grosse Schad! Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 05/10/1812. You inform me that you have a Packet for me from Professor Peck. This is a very pleasing Information as I have long wished and looked for a Correspondence with the Professor. To Vaughan, 05/10/1812, APS. Arch. Box 5. 220 He continued: I have made one for Lancaster this is printed in the Transactions of the philosophical Society at Philadelphia. Another Catalogue of all hitherto known phanerogamous Plants of N[orth] America I have in M[anuscript] and am daily adding and filing, the second Part the cryptogamous Plants is not quite done, as a great Number of Fuci & Conservae and Fungi are wanting in my Herbarium. O do persuade D[octor] Cutler to give me the second Edition of his memoir soon, that we may see what peculiar Plants you have unknown in our Parts when D[octor] Baldwin returns from the Southward I expect we will have a very general Catalogue of Southern Plants. To Peck, 05/19/1812, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers: 5. At last an Answer from Professor Peck in Massachusets he sent Plants from the Wh[ite] Mountains in N[ew] Hampshire, Empetrum nigrum, Diapensia lapponica, Andromeda caeratea a procumbent Salix, Azalia lapponica.

Towards Botanical Independence

455

firming information about Peck’s presumably low reliability which Mühlenberg had received earlier both from Baldwin and Collins.221 There was another contact with a Boston-based scholar that also remained rather inconsequential. Mühlenberg informed Peck in May 1812 that [i]n the Beginning of this Year I received a Letter from M[iste]r O[badiah] Rich of Boston who had then lately returned from Europe with a most excellent Library of botanical and other Books on natural History. He proposed a Correspondence, which I accepted very eagerly and immediately in a Letter. This was never answered, I wrote again with the same ill success.222 Rich (1777–1850) was indeed a rather unlikely botanical correspondent, as his primary occupation were books and bibliographies with a special focus on South America. In 1809, he had moved to Georgetown near Boston, from where he wrote to Mühlenberg in or around December 1811.223 Mühlenberg responded in January and again in April 1812, but he was kept waiting again until the summer of 1813 for further news.224 In August 1813, Rich finally responded and explained that he needed assistance in a synopsis of North American plants, a work which Mühlenberg and his correspondents had actually been discussing for many years.225 Naturally, both Mühlenberg and Collins, to whom he com221 I received a letter, a few days ago, from D[octo]r Shattuck of Boston, who, in reply to my inquiries respecting Prof[essor] Peck, informed me that he was not to be relied upon as a correspondent, and that he has had no account, lately, of his promised publication of the American Genera & c. From Baldwin, 08/02/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 41. You say your northern correspondents are cold. Promise but do nothing. I would fain ask (and hope you will not think me too inquisitive) whether M[ister] Peck even answered the letter which D[octo]r Mease informed me you had addressed to him. Because to a particular friend of M[ister] P[eck] who was here last summer, expressing my surprise and regret at the omission, he also was surprised, observed some accident or mistake must have occured and added, that he could on his return examine into the circumstances. I do not personally know M[ister] P[eck]. From Collins, 04/10/1812, HSP Coll. 443. 222 Mühlenberg continued: Do you know M[iste]r O[badiah] Rich personally, and may be still be in your Parts? You see how much I desire for a northern Correspondence. Should you see or write D[octor] Cutler pray remember my best Respects to him. To Peck, 05/19/1812, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. See also his letter to Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers: Quite lately, indeed only since New Year I have a warm Offer of Correspondence with a Gentleman from Boston O[badiah] Rich who was some Years ago at Paris an intimate Friend of Beauvois and Persoon and lately returned from Spain with a most valuable botanical Library. He is very warm for Botany and natural History in general. 223 Greene, American Science, 73; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 592. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 523f. 224 Sir In the Beginning of this Year I had the Pleasure to receive a Letter from You and to hear of your safe Return to Boston. (...) Since that long Time I have been anxiously waiting for an Answer whether you accept of my Services and what I could send from our Parts to please You. To Rich, 04/16/1812, BPL Coll Ms. Am. 1096 (1). To Collins, Mühlenberg acknowledged in April 1812: To M[iste]r O Rich I have quite lately written to enquire whether a Correspondence can be opened. If no answer comes why then I must give all Hopes up of a northern Correspondence and content myself with what we have. To Collins, 04/20/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. For further attempts to contact Rich until August 1813, see the letters to Collins, 11/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129, and from Collins, 06/13/1813, HSP Coll. 443. 225 M[iste]r O[badiah] Rich sent to me a Proofsheet of a small Book he is a publishing a Synops[is] Generum flor[ae] America Septentr[ionalis] it is to contain about 600 genera. He wants

456

Letters from an American Botanist

municated Rich’s ambitious plans, were sceptical that a Boston bibliophile, who apparently knew only little about the shortage of botanical literature on the north, would be the right person to accomplish that task.226 Apparently, the contact was discontinued after August 1813 as no more hints towards further exchange could be detected in Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries. In the end, there was only one Bostonian with whom Mühlenberg managed to stay in contact for a longer period of time. His correspondence with Jacob Bigelow (1787–1879), the son of a country parson from eastern Massachussetts, was by far the most intensive of all his contacts from the New England region, which includes Cutler.227 In Peck, Cutler and Mühlenberg shared a common contact, which obviously prepared the ground for Bigelow’s first letter to Mühlenberg in October 1813. This letter contained a simple request and was formulated in a rather unpretentious manner.228 Mühlenberg accepted the offer for a correspondence which delighted Bigelow: I received with sincere joy your very obliging letter of the 2d. I shall be eager to avail myself of a correspondence which promises me so much advantage & instruction. I have been engaged during the past season, in delivering a course of lectures on botany in this town, in conjunction with Professor Peck of Cambridge.229 There is no evidence, however, that Peck had any direct influence on Bigelow’s decision. Bigelow had passed his boyhood on a New England farm in eastern Massachusetts, which initially limited his access to education and schooling. Nothing seems to be known about influences and the course of his later education, which evetually Assistance and wrote to him to wait a little Time then he might have my Catalogue. To Collins, 08/27/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. In his diary, he added: 17. [August 1813] Brief von O[badiah] Rich Georgetown mit einem Probebog[en] einer Synopsis v[on] N[ord] Am[erikanischen] Pflanzen. So gleich beantw[ortet], Nachricht von m[einem] Catalog[o]. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/17/1813. 226 I cannot perceive what end M[iste]r R[ich] proposes to himself by the publication you mention. He will require much aid. From Collins, 09/07/1813, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letter from Baldwin, 08/02/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 143.: I do not doubt D[octo]r Ott will forward it in due time. I have mentioned it to a friend of mine, O[badiah] Rich, at Georgetown, who has published a Synopsis of American (or rather N[orth] A[merican]) Genera, and sent me a copy. It is rather a copy of Persoon’s Genera (Americana); and, although he has added the Genera mentioned in my catalogue, will remain imperfect until more is done. 227 Jacob Bigelow’s correspondence with Mühlenberg counted 13 letters in 20 months from October 1813 to April 1815. In the Cutler correspondence, nine letters were exchanged in 44 months from mid-1790 to March 1794. See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 499f. and 503. 228 In fact, nothing in Bigelow’s opening lines suggests that he was actually asking a complete stranger for a favour and correspondence: Sir, in the course of my botanical observations during the last season I have been led to remark several plants whose specific character I could not find satisfactorily described in any works I possess. This leads me to a belief that some of them at least are new. I take the liberty to request your opinion concerning them to confirm or undeceive me. From Bigelow, 10/01/1813, HSP Coll. 443. 229 From Bigelow, 11/10/1813, HSP Coll. 443. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Collins, 11/22/1813, ANSP Coll. 129: Doctor Bigelow has sent me a second Letter and I am very well pleased with him. He reads botanical Lectures at Boston in Company with Professor Peck, has but a few Fucus and Conserves but will collect.

Towards Botanical Independence

457

allowed him to graduate from Harvard in 1806. After gradution, he briefly gave medical courses before he studied medicine in courses by Benjamin Rush, Caspar Wistar and Benjamin Smith Barton at the University of Pennsylvania in 1810.230 In the following year, Bigelow returned to Boston to start a medical practice to which were added the aforementioned botanical lectures with Peck in 1812.231 As his lines of introduction suggest, it was primarily in this context that he sought Mühlenberg’s advice. What Mühlenberg expected from Bigelow is hardly surprising: M[iste]r Bigelow is in a fine situition for the submersed algae, he explained to Collins in November 1813, adding in a further letter four days later: Doctor Bigelow has sent me a second Letter and I am very well pleased with him. He (...) has but a few Fucus and Conserves but will collect.232 Obviously, Mühlenberg identified specimens for his new correspondent in the belief that Bigelow would use them exclusively for his botanical lectures.233 The publication of Bigelow’s groundbreaking Florula Bos230 Kelly, Medical Botanists, 120; Fernald, “Early Botanists,” 67; Biographical Dictionary of American Science, s.v. “Bigelow, J.” Bailey, “Bigelow,” 217; Overlease, “Darlington,” 84. 231 Kelly, Medical Botanists, 120; Biographical Dictionary of American Science, s.v. “Bigelow, J.” Bailey, “Bigelow,” 218; Mears, “Herbarium,” 160; Ewan, Barton, 198, 802; Fernald, “Early Botanists,” 68. 232 From Collins, 11/18/1813, HSP Coll. 443; To Collins, 11/22/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. I shall be much gratified by a of your Catalogus P. A. & will send you any specimen in my power to procure. I have no Fuci or Conferva of consequence but will attend to collecting them. From Bigelow, 11/10/1813, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letter from Bigelow, 11/23/1813, HSP Coll. 443: I send you one No 112 which I supposed to be jupicai of Michaux. Grasses, of these I formerly sent You a few by M[iste]r Correa. 233 As there is only one letter from Mühlenberg’s hand in the six surviving letters from this correspondence, it is nearly impossible to determine at what specific time Mühlenberg learned that Bigelow actually planned to publish. Mühlenberg first wrote about the work in this letter to Bigelow, 06/30/1814, UoM Clements Lib. Marshall Papers. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 499f. Compare the following passages from Bigelow’s letters, which illustrate the course of their botanical exchange until June 1814: In the course of my botanical observations during the last season I have been led to remark several plants whose specific character I could not find satisfactorily described in any works I possess. This leads me to a belief that some of them at least are new. I take the liberty to request your opinion concerning them to confirm or undeceive me. From Bigelow, 10/01/1813, HSP Coll. 443. This course I propose annually to repeat. My collection of plants of this country is yet in its infancy, but I hope that future researches may render it more complete. I am much obliged by your kind answers to the doubts expressed in my letter. I have many inquiries to make of you, but will wait for an opportunity to send you my doubtful specimens. In the mean time will you have the goodness to answer the following queries. From Bigelow, 11/10/1813, HSP Coll. 443. I am much indebted for your obliging answers to my (...) inquiries. As I have many more to make, I will take your catalogue for my guide. From Bigelow, 11/23/1813, HSP Coll. 443. I am under great obligations for your very attention & kind letter of Dec[ember] 27. The information respecting the specimens has given me great satisfaction. (...) I enclose you several more specimens. At this season I have no place to botanize but the hay mons. You will find among them some duplicates of old ones which I have sent to be more certain. When you send their names pray be so good as to give me also the characters of the following which are not in my books. From Bigelow, 01/17/1814, HSP Coll. 443. D[octor] Bigelow waits anxiously for the names of the Specimens he gave to the Care of M[iste]r Correa. For that Reason I wish to see them soon. I am sorry that they are in no regular Order and you shall have Trouble to arrange them. When

458

Letters from an American Botanist

toniensis. A Collection of Plants of Boston and its Environs234 in early 1814 therefore came as a complete surprise to Mühlenberg, especially as he found many of his own plant identifications published in this work. Bigelow’s Florula was actually the first local flora in the United States to be compiled and printed entirely without European participation.235 Not even Mühlenberg’s own Flora Lancastriensis of 1793 could claim that distinction, as most botanical information contained in that work had come from Schreber and Schöpf. There is a certain irony in the fact that Mühlenberg had thus unwittingly contributed to a major achievement in American botany which would mark the first true step towards “Botanical Independence.” Mühlenberg, however, felt betrayed. Especially after he learned about the New York fraud, he tended to view Bigelow in the same light as Jacob Green and Theodoric Romeyn Beck: [Mister Green] is not accustomed to add Muhl to new named Plants never mentioned before [in] my Catalog, he confided angrily to Collins in September 1814. You will find that he has not seldom the same Plant under 2 Names, as XXX and XXX. I would be willing to give him my candid Remarks, as I have done the same with D[octor] Bigelow and others, but Suum cuique is an old and just Rule.236 Unfortunately, this letter with Mühlenberg’s candid remarks to Bigelow, in which he obviously chided him for his misdemeanor, could not be located. In any case, Mühlenberg’s initial anger was only aroused by Bigelow’s neglect to inform him properly about the purpose of their exchange, as Bigelow had indeed given him due credit in the acknowledgements. In fact, Bigelow’s Florula contained the names of 21 botanists and correspondents and even the specimens were mostly named correctly, like Gladiola Aurea Muhl., Scirpus Acutus Muhl. or Spartina Cynosuroides Muhl.237 Mühlenberg’s only direct comment on the Florula to Bigelow suggestst that he quickly made his peace with it, considering its merits and its high

you arrange them let me have the Pleasure to see you name added. To Collins, 01/10/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. You do not mention the Receipt of my former Pacquet which was sent by Land. From Boston I received several Specimens and Queries by D[octor] Jacob Bigelow whom I recommend as an excellent Botanist and Correspondent. To Elliott, 05/09/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. After June 1814, however, Bigelow only once submitted specimens in November of 1814. Bigelow, 11/14/1814, HSP Coll. 443. 234 The full title is: Florula Bostoniensis. A Collection of Plants of Boston and its Environs with their Generic and Specific Characters, Synonyms, Descriptions, Places of Growth, and Time of Flowering, and Occasional Remarks. Boston: Cumming and Hilliard 1814. 235 Smith, “Century of Botany,” 13; Bailey, “Bigelow,” 218; Hooker, Botany, 275; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 13; Petersen, New World Botany, 371; Greene, American Science, 271; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 13; Kelly, Medical Botanists, 120. As Bigelow pointed out himself, it was also special in its applicability, written in English and containing many practical uses for the plants desribed. Bigelow, Florula, v. 236 To Collins, 09/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 237 Bigelow, Florula, iv; 6; 13; 16; passim. See also Mears, “Herbarium,” 160; Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 62.

Towards Botanical Independence

459

quality.238 Despite some problems239 in mail transport after June 1814, their exchange continued largely uninterrupted at least until April 1814. D[octor] Bigelow is an excellent Correspondent and full of Vigour, Mühlenberg praised him in a letter to Elliott just shortly prior to his death. I recommend him to your Notice as also my excellent Friend Collins. I know no Pensylvania Botanist equal to him.240 In the West, Mühlenberg’s only reliable contributor remained Moore, (Henry) from Tenessee and Natchez, who showed him a collection of his plants which he had brought to Lancaster for his brother John in June 1812.241 Presumably, it was from this collection that Mühlenberg bought specimens from the Natchez region. What is surprising in this context, however, is the omission of William Dunbar from the catalogue. Dunbar, whom Mühlenberg had described as a useful contributor in 1808,242 had sent packages to Mühlenberg as late as October 1810, one and half years prior to his death. Obviously, the Moore connection to Natchez, which began at about the time of Dunbar’s last package to Lancaster proved more reliable, and Henry Moore turned out to be a far better botanist than Dunbar.

238 In reading over your Florula I could [find?] nothing which I think should be changed except Rosa caroliniana L. Linnaeus had our Plant in the Garden of Upsal without a Name but thought it different from his caroliniana, which is our common one caroliniana. To Bigelow, 06/30/1814, UoM Clements Lib. Marshall Papers. This is supported by another serene passage on it to Stephen Elliott in October 1814: D[octor] Bigelow from Boston has published a Flora Bostoniensis, he had sent me his dubious Plants and continues to send them. The work deserves to be read amongst our Plants he has Cakile edentula, Iris gracilis. To Elliott, 10/10/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. 239 I had nothing quite lately of Mess[ieurs] Elliot and D[octor] Baldwin, no D[octor] Bigelow since he sent me his Florula. To Collins, 06/20/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Besides my old Friend yourself, Baldwin and a new Friend D[octor] Bigelow from Boston I have none steady enough they loose Patience. Haec in transitu. To Elliott, 07/13/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. D[octor] Bigelow has not yet answered my last Letter, in which I invited him to come and to call at New York, Philadelphia and Lancaster. Whatever I have will be at his Service. To Collins, 08/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Of M[iste]r Bigelow I have heard nothing since, nor of M[iste]r Green nor of my Southern Friends Eliott and Baldwin. To Collins, 10/29/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. My Friends Elliott, Baldwin, Bigelow are in Debt to me though not long and I expect to hear soon from them. To Collins, 12/05/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. One reason was also the founding of the Linnean Society of New England, which happened in December 1814 in Bigelow’s house. Greene, American Science, 74. 240 To Elliott, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers. Bigelow is remembered today for his contributions to Boston’s Mount Auburn Cemetery, “America’s first Garden Cemetery,” and in the genus “Bigelovia,” named for Bigelow by Alphonse Pyramus de Candolle 1778–1841). See Bailey, “Bigelow,” 222; Humphrey, Makers, 30. 241 1) I have seen a Collection of Natchez Plants from Mr. Henry Moore, among them were Hopea tinctoria, yellow Dye Illicum floridanum Stinking Bush, Hydrophyllum pumilum (...). To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. 242 4) in Natchez Dunbar – nützlich. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808 [margin notes].

460

Letters from an American Botanist

6.7 The End of an Era In the last years of Mühlenberg’s networking, the war with England and his botanical focus on the United States virtually terminated his contacts to European botanists. My Correspondence with Europe is now allmost at an End; he wrote to Obadiah Rich in Boston in April 1812. Prof[essor] O[lof] Swartz at Stockholm is the only constant Correspondent. O for Peace! Nulla fatus bello, pacem te poscimus omne.243 He shared this fate with other American scientists: My correspondence with my most valued correspondents on the continent of Europe has, in a great measure, ceased, Benjamin Smith Barton admitted in a letter from 1814 to the Hamburg-based zoologist Johann Albert Heinrich Reimarus (1729–1814), adding: In many instances, indeed, I know not whether they still live.244 Within Europe, conditions were hardly better: The political circumstances with France have also had a sad impact on the letter exchange with my friends [in France], Mühlenberg could read in a letter from Olof Swartz in Dezember 1813.245 In January 1815, peace was declared between the United States and England, although this did not become publicly known in America until some weeks later. In the same month, Mühlenberg seized a rare opportunity to re-invigorate his European correspondences with the help of a young traveler, the Hispanist and literary critic George Ticknor (1791–1871).246 On January 14, 1815, Mühlenberg sent Ticknor a bundle of letters to be delivered to European correspondents. Apparently, he was not fully aware of Ticknor’s future itinerary: I beg leave to send you the letters for Europe and recommend them to your care, Mühlenberg explained. Should you go to Hamburg first the House of Henry van der Smissen [&] Son or Prof[essor] Ebeling and Doctor Flügge were formerly my Correspondent[s]. At Bremen Doctors Rohde and Roth are excellent Men. Should your Travels lead you to Sweden Prof[essor] Olof Swarz at Stockholm and Agardth at Lund and Prof[essor] Acharius are excellent Men. In Germany Schrader at Gottingen, Curt Sprengel at Halle, Schwägrichen at Leipzig are my old Correspondents and will be glad to hear from America. At Paris Doctor Persoon and Palisot de Beauvois are my Correspondents. The passage represents a list of Mühlenberg’s most cherished European contacts with whom he sought to get back into contact at some point in the future: To each of those I enclose my Catalogue of 243 To Rich, 04/16/1812, BPL Coll Ms. Am. 1096 (1). 244 Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 383. 245 Die politischen Verhältnisse mit Frankreich haben auch traurige einflussen auf d[en] Briefwechsel mit meinen dasigen freunden gehabt. Swartz continued: Hoffentlich lebt Persoon noch daselbst. Er ist doch sehr krank gewesen. Blos aus England habe Ich zuweilen einigen interessante nachrichten empfangen. From Swartz, 12/16/1813, HSP Coll. 443. 246 Apparently, Ticknor first called on Mühlenberg on January 10, 1815, after Bigelow had directed his attention to his Lancaster correspondent. In his diary, he noted: 10. [January 1815] klein[es] Paquet von Bigelow dat[iert] Dec[ember] 21 durch George Ticknor Esq[uire] von Boston a Gentleman of Litterary life and distinguished classical Scholar der nach Frankr[eich] u[nd] Deutschl[and] will. [E]r will irgend etwas mitnehmen u[nd] verlangt Recom[mendation] nach Götting[en] u[nd] Halle. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1815.

Towards Botanical Independence

461

N[orth] American Plants hitherto known and some Specimens chiefly not yet in my Catalogue for their Opinion. I beg you will deliver them yourself or send them with a safe Opportunity.247 With 37 out of a total of 350 letters from January 1811 to May 1815, European correspondences in Mühlenberg’s network accounted for merely 10.57 %, which was by far the lowest proportion in any of the six identified network phases since he had begun to correspond with Europeans on a regular basis in 1784.248 14 of these 37 letters were sent to or received from France, which makes Paris the hub of his European network during the final years of his life.249 Specifically his contact with Christian Hendrik Persoon was as rewarding as never before, although Persoon still found himself in dire financial problems.250 Both his potential access to Michaux’ herbarium and his botanical proficiency were the reasons why Mühlenberg invested extra efforts in this correspondence, which resulted in ten letters within four years. Schrader and Persoon perhaps are the greatest Botanists in Germany for Cryptogamia, he explained to Collins in February 1814. Both have many American Cryptogamia from me, Schrader of Musci and Lichenes, Persoon of Fungi. Of Fucus and Conserva I have sent but very little.251 After March 1813, Persoon could finally begin to communicate information collected from Michaux’ herbarium to Lancaster,252 but a suggested exchange of specimens relevant to these collections, and a 247 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. That Mühlenberg definitely sought to re-establish his contact and botanical exchange with Europe becomes obvious in a later letter to Collins from April 1815: With M[iste]r Ticknor a Number of Fuci and Conserva, Musci, Gramina and Plantae umbellatae were sent, I hope to hear of their safe Passage and if an Answer comes or any interesting News from my former Correspondents you shall participate in my Joy. To Collins, 04/07/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. 248 From 1784 to 1790 (Phase 1), his European correspondences represented 59,15 % of his network. 1790 to 1797 (Phase 2): 58,39 %; 1797 to 1802 (Phase 3): 53,57 %; 1802 to 1805 (Phase 4): 51,28 %; 1805 to 1811 (Phase 5): 32,68 %; 1811 to 1815 (Phase 6): 10,57 %. See also table l, Appendix B, page 492. 249 With Persoon, Mühlenberg exchanged ten letters (5 existing and 5 reconstructed), with Palisot de Beauvois three (2+1), and with Francoix A. Michaux one letter (0+1). See table n, Appendix B, on page 492. 250 To his family in South Africa, Persoon explained in 1810: I am a fellow of various learned societies and a Doctor of Philosophy. But although these things bring honour and satisfaction, they produce few earnings, so that, did I not receive from Amsterdam (...) the wherewithal for my keep, I should not be able to live here very comfortably. Eight years ago I left Germany and am now living in Paris in order to perfect myself in the sciences and especially to learn the French language well. Quoted after Hugo, “Persoon,” 14. 251 To Collins, 02/01/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Elliott, 12/01/1812, HUH Elliott Papers: I have sent to Schrader very near all our Mosses and Lichens, to Persoon all our smaller Fungi which can be sent. 252 In January 1812, Persoon was still encountering problems in obtaining access to the herbarium: Es war mir unmöglich in [einigen?] paar Tagen Michauxs Herbarium, das auf dem hiesigen Museo aufbewahret wird, durchzugehen, und Ihre Anfragen betreffend einige Pflanzen zu verifizieren, weil H[err] Consul Warden mir sagte, dass jetzt gerade ein amerikanische Schiff bereit sei abzusehen, und ich wünschte diese Gelegenheit an Sie schicken zu können zu benutzen: ich verspare es daher für ein andermal. From Persoon, 01/30/1812, HSP Coll. 443. In March 1813, Persoon had obviously convinced professor Richard to grant him access. From Persoon,

462

Letters from an American Botanist

sale of his own herbarium in America were delayed until early 1815. Between March 1813 and January 1815, Mühlenberg found no channel for a safe mail transport to Paris, and the sale and exchange, which he had long been hoping for, never happened. 253 Persoon, however, was not the only possibility to access André Michaux’ collections in Paris. Mühlenberg received a letter from François André Michaux in the fall of 1811, which, under more favorable circumstances, might have initiated a new correspondence. Since his father’s death, François André had twice been traveling in North America from 1802 to 1804 and from 1806 to 1808, and he continued his research for a work on American trees, whose ultimate aim was to aid in the reforestation of France.254 In late June 1802, Michaux called on Mühlenberg at Lancaster, but this visit did obviously not result in a correspondence.255 After 1809, Michaux became a major intermediary of scientific exchange between France and America, where the occasional Mühlenberg correspondent and A.P.S.-secretary John Vaughan was his most important contact.256 The product of these efforts was his Histoire des arbres forestiers de l’Amerique septentrionale, published in three volumes from 1810 to 1813. Michaux sent 33 copies to Vaughan, who was to distribute them among Michaux’ American friends,257 Mühlenberg being one of them. He addressed his thanks to Paris via Vaughan, which prompted Michaux to write the letter June 1811. This is the only known instance of direct letter contact between the two men.258 Through Palisot de Beauvois, Mühlenberg’s last Parisian contact, 03/28/1812, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letters from Persoon dated 01/18/1815, in Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll; and 02/02/1815, in HSP Soc. Coll. 253 From Persoon, 03/28/1812, HSP Coll. 443. See also respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, 522f., and the letter to Collins, 02/25/1813, ANSP Coll. 129: Since that Time I have received neither Letters nor any Plant. The Times are so altered that I dare not attempt to send any plants to him, should I hear of any Traveller who goes to France I would send a Parcel to him or rather to the Museum where any Botanist may see and use it pro bono publico. Persoon offers His whole Collections for Sale. 254 Petersen, New World Botany, 336; Savage, Michaux, 197–201; 209–213. 255 Savage writes: “At Lancaster, a neat town of 5,000 inhabitants, situated in the heart of an extremely fertile farming region, so dominantly settled by Germans that only German speech was heard in the streets, Michaux stopped off to make the acquaintance of an amateur botanist of considerable note, Dr Henry Muhlenberg, the local Lutheran pastor, but better known for his contributions to the botanical knowledge of that part of Pennsylvania.” Savage, Michaux, 217. During these travels, from 1802 to 1804 and 1806 to 1808, Michaux met basically all of Mühlenberg’s American contacts, specifically at Philadelphia. Savage does not detail the development of these individual correspondences, however. See Savage, Michaux, 209–216. 256 Savage, Michaux, 294–300. 257 Savage, Michaux, 301; Petersen, New World Botany, 308. 258 See the letter from F. A. Michaux, 11/27/1811, HSP Coll. 443: I observed that in your letter to M[ister] J[ohn] Vaughan you say that the descriptions of oaks will be on no use for the persons who possess the work of my father. In fact relating to the botanical part I have nothing to add, but respecting the uses all was to be done, I hope you will be satisfy in that respect. Michaux added: All our Botanists are expecting your Flora Lancastriensis and M[ister] DeJussieu desired particularly of me to engage you to have it published as soon as possible. The new edition of his Genera has not yet appeared as a soon as it will be I shall send it to you immed[iate]ly. Also, in a letter to William Bartram dated March 12, 1810, Michaux had declared: I am very

Towards Botanical Independence

463

he received two more letters of inconsequential contents in late 1811 and May 1812.259 His last letter to Beauvois was sent in early 1815, through George Ticknor.260 With the French botanist André Thouin (1747–1824), a correspondent of Jefferson, Mühlenberg planned to establish contact, but never actually did.261 The correspondence with Mühlenberg’s Swedish contacts Olof Swartz and Erik Acharius was almost as intense as his Parisian correspondence and comprised nine letters from 1811 to 1814. Mühlenberg, however, apparently saw more botanical potential in the North of Europe than in France: I have desired [Swartz and Acharius] to send to me whatever they can spare of Fucus and Conserva, he wrote to Baldwin in August 1811. They are both extremely well versed in Cryptogamia.262 The only major change in Mühlenberg’s correspondence with Swartz and Acharius, in which the latter provided cryptogamic identifications, which Swartz communicated to Lancaster, was that Acharius now directly wrote to Mühlenberg as well.

anxious to know how he will meet in America; and in particular, your opinion respecting it. Also of M[ister] Hamilton, and D[octo]r Muhlenberg. Quoted after Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 228. Even Michaux’ correspondence with Vaughan rested from early 1812 to June 1814 due to the war. Savage, Michaux, 309. 259 To his last letter, Beauvois continued to send his own works as before: En yous envoyant il y a quelque temps la suite de mon flora et quelque plants de mon voyage en afrique, je vous ai prié de m’addresser une collection complette des Gramineis de votre pais. From Beauvois, 05/12/1812, HSP Coll. 443. 260 See Mühlenberg’s letter to Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815].. In the meantime, Mühlenberg had still been trying to maintain his link to Beauvois: If M[ister] Correa returns by the way of Lancaster I shall be extremely glad to see him, and if I could then persuade him to take Charge of my Catalogue with a few Specimens to Mess[ieurs] Persoon and Beauvois or a few Seeds for Thouin I would be much pleased. To Collins, 10/29/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 261 Pelczar, “Plants;” Ewan, “M’Mahon,” 367. For Mühlenberg’s plans to contact him, see, for instance, his letter to Collins, 09/11/1813, ANSP Coll. 129: That our good M[ister] Correa is a going to Europe without my seeing him again I am very sorry for. I had expected and looked for him every Day, had prepared so many Adversaria in which I want Assistance even thought to trouble him with something for D[octor] Smith, Thouin or Persoon. See also the letter to Collins, 10/29/1814, ANSP Coll. 129: If M[ister] Correa returns by the way of Lancaster I shall be extremely glad to see him, and if I could then persuade him to take Charge of my Catalogue with a few Specimens to Mess[ieurs] Persoon and Beauvois or a few Seeds for Thouin I would be much pleased. For more biographical information on Thouin’s biography and American contacts, see Strien-Chardonneau, “Thouin,” 67–81; Spary, Utopia, 49–61; 67–74; and Silvestre, Thouin, 4–14; 21; 25. For his friendship with Michaux, see Savage, Michaux, 11; 203. Spary writes: “Thouin appears as the center of a network of botanical correspondence which stretched around the world, emcompassing all the major botanical institutions in Europe, and invovlved a vast range of individuals from ambassadors, ministers, and foreign rulers to peasants and subgardeners.” Spary, Utopia, 61. 262 To Baldwin, 08/20/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 42. See also the following diary entry from October 1812: N[ota]b[ene] Wenn keine Gelegenheit recta nach Sweden ist, könt ich (...) über England Briefe schick[dn] d[urc]h Herrn Söderstrom, solte der nach Schweden geh[en], solte ich alles was ich von Cryptog[amia] habe an Swarz u[nd] Acharius übermach[en]. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/15/1812. See also Smith, “Botanical Pioneer,” 444; Greene, American Science, 255.

464

Letters from an American Botanist

The four letters from his hand, all dated in April and May 1812,263 were all composed in Latin and contained little information beyond long lists of botanical discussions and cryptogamic information. The mosses I have examined with assiduity, and reported some corrections about the former ones to you, Swartz informed him in May 1812. Following my wish, Acharius has done the same, as can be seen from his papers. You should now be able to compose a pretty complete Flora Cryptogamea of your region.264 Since the beginning of Sweden’s engagement in the Napoleonic wars in 1805, foreign commucations had always been risky, which Swartz and Acharius often repeated in their letters.265 Consequently, no letters went between Stockholm and Lancaster for 19 months after May 1812. In December 1813, Swartz managed to send a final message: I sincerely regret that the external conditions do not really support scientific endeavors, especially the broken-down communication is painful. From poor Germany I could not receive any news lately.266 After the reception of this letter, Mühlenberg apparently tried to establish a new channel of communcation to the young botanist and mathematician Carl Adolph Agardh (1785–1859) at the University of Lund in southern Sweden. In October 1814, Mühlenberg received an answer from Aghard to which no reply in the final seven months of Mühlenberg’s life could be located.267 263 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 494. One letter was undated, although internal evidence suggests that it was also written at some point in 1812. 264 Die Moose habe ich fleisig untersucht, und einige Berichtigungen über die vorgehenden mitgetheilt. Mein Verlangen zufolge hat auch Acharius so gethan, wie aus seine papieren erhellt. Sie werden jetzt im Stande seyn, eine ziemlich complette Flora Cryptogamea Ihrer Gegend zu schreiben. From Swartz, 05/12/1812, HSP Coll. 443. See also the letter from Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443, which contains a list of 122 plant identifications. 265 To Turner, Acharius observed in 1808: The war, in which our country is involved deprives us from every communication with other countries; we are however not quite isles. Quoted after Galloway, “Acharius,” 171. On May 20, 1811, Swartz answered an old letter from Benjamin Smith Barton, dating from July 29, 1805: Dear Sir, An Opportunity just offering affords me the pleasure of writing a few lines to you in order to remind you of an obliged friend. The illfated state of my Country, even in respect to the intercepted communcation with the rest of the world during some years past has made every scientifical pursuit very precarious. The prospect however being actually something more favorable, we have some hope to regain our strangth both in moral and physical respect. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 375–77. 266 Ich bedaure herzlich daß die Leitumstände, wissenschaftliche bemühungen so wenig begunstigen, besonders ist die abgebrochene Communication sehr schmerzend. Aus dem armen deutschland habe ich seit letztes jahre keine Nachrichten erhalten können. He continued: (…) Prof[essor] Acharius, der sich Ihnen bestens empfielt, hat eines Synopis Lichenum drucken lassen, die beynahe fertig ist, in vol. 9vo. und ein par [illegible] mehrere Arten als der Lichenographia universalis einfält. From Swartz, 12/16/1813, HSP Coll. 443. Already in March 1812, Mühlenberg was dissatisfied with Swartz rate of response: I have sent some of them to M[ister] Swarz, some likewise to Turner and expect their answers soon, but find both are slow in answering. To Elliott, 03/13/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. See also respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 531f. 267 See the letter to Collins, 10/29/1814, ANSP Coll. 129: Since my last I had the Pleasure to receive two Letters from Europe probably by the Adams arrived at N[ew] York. (...) The other Letter was from Prof[essor]essor Agardh at Lund to whom the Swedish Consul Soderstrom had

Towards Botanical Independence

465

The most dramatic effects of the war, however, can be seen in Mühlenberg’s English and German contacts. In the 1780s and 1790s, the two countries were home to Mühlenberg’s most important and most supportive contacts, whose help had been of pivotal importance for the foundation for his herbarium and the organization of his botanical studies. In December 1813, Mühlenberg addressed a last letter to his friend James Edward Smith in England and it is revealing that he did not try to contact him and Turner again via George Ticknor in January 1815.268 With regard to his German correspondence, virtually no signs of further continuation could be detected from 1811 to January 1815. Schrader at Gottingen, Curt Sprengel at Halle, Schwägrichen at Leipzig, he explained to George Ticknor, were his old Correspondents and will be glad to hear from America.269 In fact, Schwägrichen had last written to him in May 1803, Sprengel’s final letter dated from November 1809, and Schrader’s last one from 1810.270 Mühlenberg also mentioned the House of Henry van der Smissen Son or Prof[essor] Ebeling and Doctor Flügge (...) [a]t Bremen Doctors Rohde and Roth.271 The Altona trading house van der Smissen was a longstanding agent of Mühlenberg’s dealings with the Francke Foundations and had suffered major damage in its business during the Napoleonic Wars. Until January 1815, the company was merely an “indirect” contact as it stayed in the background and never corresponded directly with Mühlenberg.272 With Ebeling, Mühlenberg had briefly exchanged letters from 1797 to 1802, while Johannes Flügge (1775–1816), Michael Rohde (1782–1812) and Albrecht Willhelm Roth (1757–1834) were short-time correspondents with whom no botanical or any other exchange ever took place. Flügge, who was living and working in Hamburg, had first written to Mühlenberg in 1810. Mühlenberg sent last December a Parcel of Seeds and Mosses from me, at the same Time with a Parcel to Ol[of] Swarz. Swarz has not answered, Agardh has. He wished to receive Algae in particular and has sent 70 Algae or more to Gothenburg to be forwarded to me. This is a tantalizing Time to see at a Distance what we can not get! In his letter to Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815], Mühlenberg does not mention any other letter to him. See also Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 115–125; 128; Later, Agardh became a correspondent of Kurt Sprengel. Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 78f. 268 In his letter to Ticknor, in which Mühlenberg detailed his hopes to get back into contact with many of his European pen friends, neither England, Smith nor Turner are never mentioned. To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. Im December 1813, Mühlenberg also received the last news about his two old correspondents Turner and Smith: Turner hat 10 Hefte seines historia Fucorum vollendet was ein vortreffliches unternehmen ist. Eben falls auch das für England classische werk – Englisch botany zur ende gebracht seyn. Danach gibt er Wissen über Turners Arbeiten an Collins und Baldwin weiter. From Swartz, 12/16/1813, HSP Coll. 443. 269 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. 270 See respective lists of correspondences, Appendix C, on pages 525, 528 and 530. 271 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. 272 See above on page 63f. The van der Smissen company being an “indirect contact” in this context refers to the fact that there was no direct letter contact between them and Mühlenberg, as the tie between them consisted in a pure business relationship. This is not to be confused with the epithet “indirect contact” elsewhere in this study, which refers to the fact that some contacts were indirectly linked to Mühlenberg via active correspondents (alteri) before the tie to Mühlenberg was established.

466

Letters from an American Botanist

planned to answer immediately but apparently never did so until January 1815.273 In the case of Roth, no definite clue of a correspondence could be found except for Mühlenberg’s 1815 letter via Ticknor.274 To Rohde, Mühlenberg addressed a single letter in April 1815 in which he accepted the offer of botanical exchange: Neither Humbold nor Bonpland, he remarked, have ever answered me nor satisfied my curiosity. I have reason to complain about the same in Schreber, person, Willdenow, who have all let me wait for their works but have almost all died while finishing them. Indeed, at the time of this writing, Rohde was already dead for nearly two years.275 273 Mühlenberg noted the reception of Flügge’s first letter on the inside-cover of his botanical diary: D[octor] Johannes Flügge – seit Jul[i] 2 1810. In the same diary, he noted on September 2, 1810: Flügge 1) Ich will ihm hiesige Sämereien schicken doch könte er die meißt leichter von Willd[enow] Sprengel u[nd] Schrader erhalten die sie so wie Schreber schon erhalten. 2) ich will d[en] Anfang mit einigen noch nicht geschickt machen Viola Hedysara 3. Wünsche Willd[enowii] enumer[atio] zu sehen damit ich weis was draussen schon ist 4) bitte ihn meine Sendung an übr[ige] Corresp[enten] u[nd] besorg[en], damit sie sicher u[nd] bei Gelegenheit gehe (...) 5) (…) 6) Er soll mittheil[en] pp durch ihn soll gehen 1) an Sprengel tr[ockene] Pflanzen Cryptog[amia] 2) an Willd[enow] tr[ockene] Pflanzen Cryptog[amia] u[nd] andere sond[erbare] Gräser die Moose die er nicht hat, od[er] vielleicht alle die im Herb[arium] sind etwa 50 Gräser 50 Pflanzen in groß 80. sonderl[ich] Carices. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, inside front cover and entry for 09/02/1810. Just four months later, he added: Briefe seit n[eu] J[ahr] gesch[rieben] 1) Elliot d[en] 2ten, 2) Baldwin d[en] 7, 3. Cutler d[en] 10, 4) Beauvois [den]14 (…) erhalten ohne noch Antw[ort] Sprengel, Schrader, Willdenow, Rohde, Flügge Persoon. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1811 [margin notes]. From May to September1800, Flügge also corresponded briefly with Schreber at Erlangen. A letter dated May 31, 1800 contains some basic autobiographical information on Flügge: Die Nachrichten, die E[ue]r Hochwohlgebohren über mein bis jetzt geführtes Leben verlangen, eile ich Ihnen kürzlich mit zutheilen. Ich ward im Jahre 1775 den 22ten Julius zu Hamburg geboren. Mein Vater, Archidiaconus an der St. Michaelis Kirche daselbst, verwandte mit meiner Mutter, einer geborenen Müller, alle mögliche Sorgfalt auf meine Erziehung. Eingenommen gegen die Unterrichtsweise auf unseren öffentlichen Schulen, hielt er mir und meinen Geschwistern Privatlehrer, in deren Auswahl es ihm mehr und weniger glückte und deren Besoldung ihn nicht unbeträchtliche Summen kostete. Die Wahl unserer künftigen Bestimmung überließ er uns selsbt; der Wunsch, den er gelegentlich äußerte, daß es ihm lieb seyn würde, wenn einer seiner Söhne sich der Arzneykunde widmen wolle, ließ mich dieses Fach ergreifen. Ich theilte ihm früh meinen Entschluß mit, den er gerne vernahm, und mich der Zusage aller möglichen Unterstützung versicherte. Er machte mich auch besonders darauf aufmerksam, wie notwendig es für den zukünftigen Arzt sey, das Studium der alten Sprachen eifrig zu betreiben, und fing jetzt selbst an, mich in der lateinischen zu unterrichten. (…) Das Studium der griechischen Sprache und der Universal– sowohl als Literatur=historie, setzte ich unter der Anleitung des H[errn] Prof[essor] Ebeling fort. Flügge to Schreber, 05/31/1800, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. 274 Roth is only mentioned once in a letter by Schreber in May 1794: Unvermutet erhalte ich Gelegenheit nach E[uer] Hochwürden Befinden mich zu erkundigen, und Sie von meiner Verehrung zu versichern, da mein schätzbarer Freund, der Herr D[oktor] Roth zu Vegesack bei Bremen, der Verfasser des schönen Tentamen Flora germanica, mir meldet, der Herr Capitän Hußmann, von Vegesack, sei im Begriffe, von da nach Baltimore in Maryland abzusegeln, (…). From Schreber, 05/31/1794, HSP Coll. 443. 275 Rohde died on May 28, 1812. The full introduction to Mühlenberg‘s response reads: Noch in dem Kriege zwischen America und England hatte ich das Vergnügen einen schätzbaren Brief

Towards Botanical Independence

467

6.8 Ars longa, vita brevis276 The letter to Rohde, written on April 24, 1815, was the last Mühlenberg submitted to Europe. He died a month later, in the evening hours of May 23, after a severe stroke he had suffered in the morning of the same day. Mühlenberg’s health had been precarious nearly all his life, but it was only in the years after 1814 that he seemed seriously afflicted by frequent attacks of gout, pulmonary problems and heavy headaches. The first signs of a chronically frail health can be found in the letters dating from Mühlenberg’s mid-20s to mid-30s.277 This period was followed by one of relatively stable health until around 1807. We have had a hard winter and I have been plagued by rheumatism and pain in my head, he reported to his brotherin-law Schultze in April 1807.278 This is the first hint at worsening rheumatic afflictions, which reached a first climax in 1810 and prevented Mühlenberg from bota-

von Ihnen zu erhalt. Nun erst darf ich es wagen ihn zu erkennen und Ihnen zu danken. Daß Sie eine Sammlung von etlichen Gräser die hier wachsen bei H[er]rn Bonpland gesehen die ich ihm so wie eine Sammlung von Moosen mitgegeb damit ich die Nomenclatur erhielt, ist mir lieb. Weder v[on] Humbold noch Bonpland, he remarked, hab[en] je geantwortet noch meine Neugierde befriedigt. Ich habe Ursach eben das von H[er]rn Schreber, Persoon, Willdenow zu klagen die mich auf ihre heraus zu gebend[en] Werke getröstet aber zum theil darüber gestorb[en] sind. To Rohde, 04/24/1815, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. On the inside cover of his botanical diary Mühlenberg again noted the address: M[ister] Rohde Med[iziner] u[nd] Chir[urg] Doctor Bremen addr[esse] an Michael Löhning Pratt u[nd] Kinzing Phil[adelphia]. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, inside front cover. 276 To Rohde, 04/24/1815; Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. 277 The earliest notice of his pulmonary ailments comes from a letter of his father in Febuary 1779: Dein letzt[es] Geliebtes vom 15 Jan[uar] a[nni] c[urrentis] machte mir etwas Besorgniß wegen deines Anfals von der Pleuresy und Geschwulst im Halse. Habe aber seit dem von Friedrich [August Conrad Mühlenberg] und [Francis] Sw[aine] vernommen, daß es vorüber sey. Gott sey Dank! To H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/27/1780, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz IV, (letter 786). To this he answered a month later: Ich kan meinen Husten nicht los werden, und ich merke meine Brust bedarf vieler Erholung. To H. M. Mühlenberg, 03/27/1779, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 740). See also the letters to Helmuth, 05/23/1791, APS Film 1097; and to Schultze, 01/15/1794, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891: Ich habe mich von meiner letzten Krankheit mehrentheils erholt. Was es eigentlich war weiß ich nicht. Es waren Symptomata von Rheumatismus, und fast mehr von paralysti brachii. Noch jetzt kann ich den Arm im oberst Gelenk nicht wohl bewegen doch habe ich keine Schmerzen mehr und werde alle Tage stärker. Mit gottes Hülfe hoffe ich in etlich Tag oder Woch ganz hergestellt zu sein. 278 Wir hatten einen harten Winter und ich bin mit Rheumatism[us] auch im Kopf viel heimgesucht worden. To Schultze, 04/03/1807, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891.

468

Letters from an American Botanist

nizing during most of that year.279 The year 1811 brought some temporary relief280 before his various ailments and chronic diseases returned in early 1812281 to usher in a gradual demise until May 1815. On January 10, 1814, Mühlenberg informed Zaccheus Collins that [s]ince New Year I find some Fault in my Eyes and great Difficulty in writing. Else I would have written a long Letter, Pray excuse the Scrawl.282 About two weeks later, he suffered a first apoplectic stroke which left him temporarily paralyzed and interrupted his correspondence until early April.283 Mühlenberg survived this stroke and even partially recovered, about which he wrote a letter to William Baldwin on April 15: After a long silence, I begin to feel some strength to try what I can do, to thank you personally for your letters and communications. I send you a list of the numbers, although I am not able to say much: Indeed, many were fragments by the carriage.284 In the last year of his life, 279 Whether it is Winter when all Excursions are forbidden to me on Account of Rheumatism, or another Cause I look then for Desiderata. To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. That you had but few well Days this Spring gives me Trouble and I sincerely wish you may have good Health since Excepting an old rheumatic Complaint which hinders me from making great Excursions I am well. To Elliott, 07/02/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. After a sore Spell of Rheumatism I hasten to acknowledge the Receipt of your kind Letter dated June 29, 1810, for which I return you my sincere Thanks. To Elliott, 08/27/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. All the last Summer and Autumn I have been afflicted with Rheumatism in the Heel which hindres me much from making long Excursions and my usual Exercise. To Elliott, 12/17/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 280 Ich habe seit Ihrem Besuch eine erträgliche Gesundheit genossen, doch fallen mir Excursionen im heissen Wetter schwer. Uberhaupt hatten wir im Anfang des Julii und grade jetz wieder fast unerträglich Hitze. To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. 281 Very soon after I had written my last Letter to you, I was laid up by a dangerous Inflammation of the Breast and Lungs from which I am now a recovering. This may be an Excuse if I answer your last Letter dated in February and which arrived here only March 11 rather short. (...) Sorry I am that my Eyes and Strength will not permit me to add more. To Elliott, 03/13/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. 282 To Collins, 01/10/1814, ANSP Coll. 129.. 283 In a letter to Stephen Elliott in May 1814, Mühlenberg himself dates his stroke to January 20: Your very acceptable Letter of the 18th of April last arrived safe at Lancaster the only one since Oct[ober] 30. Our mutual Friend D[octor] W[illiam] Baldwin has informed you, how severely I have been visited by an Apoplexy since January 20 when it was impossible to write and even to read. By the Blessing of God my Health is a recovering. D[octor] Baldwin continued his Letters and sent me by divers Letters several Specimens, whatever were Cryptogama. To Elliott, 05/09/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. Mühlenberg’s last letter was written on January 23, however, which places the date in the last week of January 1813. See the letter to Collins, 01/23/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Greene, American Science, 266 284 To Baldwin, 04/15/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 133. Since his stroke, Baldwin had sent him eight letters. See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 495f. See also his letter to Collins, 04/25/1814, ANSP Coll. 129: After a long Silence I venture to drop a few Lines to renew our pleasing Intercourse and to inform you, that my Health increases. (...) I had a few Letters during my Sickness from D[octor] Bigelow and D[octor] Baldwin which I tried to answer by my Daughter the last I endeavoured to answer myself, however with great Difficulty. Have Compassion on an Invalid, who is anxious to receive much Information but can give very little. See also the letters to Collins, 05/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129 and from Elliott, 04/07/1814, HSP Coll. 443: A letter which I received this afternoon from D[octo]r Baldwin gave me the first information I have received of your later illness. I cannot postpone the affection of my sincere regret at this great misfortune nor delay a moment to assure you of the deep interest I take in

Towards Botanical Independence

469

Mühlenberg continued his botanical exchanges with Collins, Baldwin and Elliott, although the stroke had left his health permanently impaired. I begin to loose too much of my Eyesight to compare fine Objects and want Assistance in Cryptogamiae, he admitted to Collins in August 1814.285 His condition improved only slightly until a month prior to his death, when he informed Elliott that [m]y Health is something better then last Year, writing and speaking rather difficult, reading not difficult, adding in a letter to Rohde: Unfortunately, my strength begins to fade and after a severe apoplectic fit which I have suffered in the winter of 1814, writing has become very exhausting to me.286 The second, lethal stroke came in the dawn of May 23. The events of the day are briefly described in a letter by his son Frederick August to William Baldwin. Early in the morning of the 23rd of May, he felt symptoms of an approaching paroxysm: he complained of a difficulty of hearing and seeing, which was soon followed by a paralysis of the tongue: he soon after became comatose, and remained in that state until in the evening of the same day, at 8 o’clock, when he suddently expired in a convulsive state.287 6.9 Network Analysis: Phase 6 The visualization of Network Phase 6 entails a couple of problems in terms of quantity of the web during these years. With a total of 80 nodes, which represent Mühlenberg, 55 direct contacts and 24 indirect or resting contacts,288 and a maximum amount of 80 to 90 letters in individual correspondences like those with Zaccheus your welfare. I hope the prospects of returning health have been realised. Many persons after similar attacks have enjoyed years of tolerable care and your comfort and action habits give your friends great reasons to hope for your entire recovery. (...) ‘Dii tibe dent annos’ has been my constant wish and that be the wish of every American Botanist you have perhaps lived long enough for your own reputation but not for our benefit. Every day I feel and on every opportunity I express my personal obligations to you. We should look in vain on this continent at least for your Succesor, for one, who to your profound knowledge should unite your liberal and communicative temper, who would acquire knowledge for its true and best purposes and would distribute it, like you, to all who required it. 285 To Collins, 08/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. See also the letters to Collins, 11/23/1814 and 12/05/1814, both in ANSP Coll. 129: Last Winter has convinced me that I begin to be emeritus and my Eyes will not allow long and close looking. 286 [L]eider fangen meine Kräfte an abzunehmen durch einen starken Anfall von Apoplexie den ich 1814 im Winter erlitten und der mir das Schreib[en] beschwerlich macht. To Elliott, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers; To Rohde, 04/24/1815, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. 287 F. A. Mühlenberg to Baldwin, 09/19/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 181. According to Beck, Mühlenberg died in his son’s arms, which is not supported by this passage. Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 47 288 In Europe, there were eleven: C. S. Rafinesque-Schmalz; J. H. F. Autenrieth, Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg, Joseph Friedrich Nebe, Jacob Sturm, Georg Franz Hoffmann, Johann Jakob Palm, Dawson Turner, Karl Ludwig Willdenow, J. C. D. E. von Schreber, Alexander von Humbold. In America, there were 13: Joseph van der Schott, Elizabeth Gambold, Solomon Henkel, Heinrich Augustus Philip Mühlenberg, William Hamilton, F. V. Melsheimer, Moses Marshall, The Bartrams, B. S. Barton, Helmuth and Schmidt, John Eatton LeConte, Lewis David von Schweinitz and Samuel Boykin.

470

Letters from an American Botanist

Collins and William Baldwin, the configuration of Mühlenberg’s network between 1811 to 1815 is difficult to depict in a graphically informative way.289 For this reason, the maximum tie strength has been set to 31 for the present drawing, which corresponds to a third of Baldwin’s 93 letters and still allows to depict the approximate relations between high- and low-intensive correspondences during this period. An additional 15 nodes, which represent contacts of minor importance at the time, have been eliminated from the drawing altogether in order to further facilitate orientation.290 The resulting network is still one of highest complexity that, taken as a whole, primarily documents the unparalleled dominance of American contacts in Mühlenberg’s web. Europeans like Palisot de Beauvois (upper left corner), C. H. Persoon and J. E. Smith (center, above Mühlenberg), C. F. Schwägrichen and G. F. Hoffmann (upper right corner) still were interconnected among each other, but hardly appear in key positions with regard to transatlantic botanical exchange.291 Clearly, the center of activity had finally moved to the United States, which is also visible in the growing number of Philadelphia-based (11) and New York-based (7) correspondents. For this reason, a closer look at the American web is necessary. This second network,292 however, has been modified, too, in order to reduce complexity. From the 38 direct American correspondents and 13 indirect American contacts, which make for 51 nodes (without Mühlenberg), further eleven nodes representing U.S. contacts of minor importance for his domestic botanical activities between 1811 and 1815 have been excluded, which leaves 37 nodes in the final drawing.293 This network is a striking illustration of the actual reason for Mühlenberg’s great impact on American botany: his three most intense contacts at the time – William Baldwin, Zaccheus Collins and Stephen Elliott (in order of intensity) – were themselves the most intensely interconnected botanists in the web, which allowed his botanical legacy to live on long after his death, both in the form original botanical work done by him and in the form of networks he had helped to come into existence. Specifically Baldwin and Elliott had hardly been active in botany before and were highly active scientific networkers at the time of Mühlenberg’s death. It is 289 See Appendix E: Network Phase 6, page 552. 290 These are: Sophie Bensen; J. F. Autenrieth, Gustavus Dallmann, D. Johannes Flügge, Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg, Isaac Hiester, F. V. Melsheimer, Paul Henkel, Michael Rohde, Solomon Henkel, Jacob van der Smissen, Christoph D. Ebeling, John Bradbury, Albrecht Willhelm Roth and Karl Ludwig Willdenow. In Europe, there were eleven: C. S. Rafinesque-Schmalz; J. H. F. Autenrieth, Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg, Joseph Friedrich Nebe, Jacob Sturm, Georg Franz Hoffmann, Johann Jakob Palm, Dawson Turner, Karl Ludwig Willdenow, J. C. D. E. von Schreber, Alexander von Humbold. In America, there were 13: Joseph van der Schott, Elizabeth Gambold, Solomon Henkel, Heinrich Augustus Philip Mühlenberg, William Hamilton, F. V. Melsheimer, Moses Marshall, The Bartrams, B. S. Barton, Helmuth and Schmidt, John Eatton LeConte, Lewis David von Schweinitz and Samuel Boykin. 291 Hoffmann, of course, had moved to Moscow in 1804 and only appears as a “resting” contact since then. 292 See Appendix E: Network Phase 6 (American side), page 553. 293 Apart from the American contacts erased for the first drawing of Network Phase 6, the eleven nodes representing Thomas Jefferson, William Darlington, Henry August Philip Mühlenberg, John Jackson, George Ticknor, Henry Dörry, Jacob Green, Helmuth and Schmidt, Peter Billy, Joh Bradbury and George Logan have also been removed.

Towards Botanical Independence

471

important to note in this context, however, that Barton, whose node is to be found slightly above the tie linking Baldwin and Mühlenberg, was the only one to dispose of more ties than Baldwin, Elliott and Collins, who were all, in turn, also connected to Barton. It comes as no surprise then that most of the existant information about Barton’s erratic behavior used in the present subchapters was found in the 213 letters that comprise the correspondences with Baldwin, Collins and Elliott. Although the high proportion of information in these correspondences is hardly surprising with regard to their sheer quantity, this still suggests that Mühlenberg voluntarily spread this type of information to make his three favorite contacts sufficiently aware of the apparent danger that Barton represented to his and their own botanical efforts. On the other hand, the network also illustrates the idea of Mühlenberg as a careful multiplier of the botanical knowledge and as an avid collector of fresh information which would end up in his extensive catalogue in 1813. With the publication of this work he finished his most productive period of botanical activities, which had begun almost a decade earlier after the publication of André Michaux’ Flora Boreali-Americana in 1803. Although Mühlenberg was certainly aware of what he had achieved in terms of scientific progress for American botany, it is very unlikely that he recognized the long-term effects of the network and the network strategies. Specifically Elliott and Collins profited for the rest of their careers from what Mühlenberg had taught them and functioned themselves as information multipliers in their native country. Had Baldwin lived longer than 1819, the aftereffects of Mühlenberg’s American networking from roughly 1802 to 1815 would certainly have been even greater. An approximation of these effects, however, can only be achieved in a network analysis of Elliott’s and Collins’ respective botanical activities and scientific correspondences until their respective deaths in 1830 and 1831.

VI CONCLUSION The general aim of the present ego-network study was to reconstruct the correspondence network of Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg by describing its internal dynamics and its development from a network theory-driven perspective. More specifically, the main aim was to identify major factors, actors and circumstances that shaped his network over time. As the vast majority of Mühlenberg’s letters from 1771 to 1815 were written in the years after 1783, when the War of Independence ended and the acquaintance of the Franconian phyisician Johann David Schöpf brought Mühlenberg his first chance for steady transatlantic botanical exchange, the focus was laid on the 31 years between 1784 and 1815. Following the basic tenet of network theory, which holds that the “social embeddedness” of individual actors enables and defines the range of action of the respective actor, six consecutive network phases from 1784 to 1815 could be isolated. Each of these six network configurations provided Mühlenberg with a stable and unique cast of contacts for four to six years, and the frame within which he conducted his professional and scientific activities. These individual configurations were found to be separated by naturally occurring “transitional phases,” during which the network underwent significant changes in its social composition, the types of ties and the positioning of actors to Mühlenberg and to each other. Typically, these transitional phases were triggered by the deaths of former contacts, biographical factors in the lives of some individuals, external circumstances such as war and tense diplomatic relations, and the entry of new correspondents.1 Therefore, one of the results of the present study is the basic observation that Mühlenberg’s network renewed itself roughly every five years, which can also be assumed for the networks of other representatives of the Republic of Letters. In fact, for every scientist in the early modern period and beyond, it is necessary to assume the presence of “networks” rather than the presence of one single “master network” to describe their activities. Of course, these six phases, which correspond to chapters 3.1 through 3.6, are heuristic projections that were made on the basis of historical information gathered from a corpus of source materials comprising Mühlenberg’s letters and diaries, letters by his contacts among each other, contemporary botanical publications as well as articles and recent historical literature. While the changes in the composition of his network certainly registered with Mühlenberg, it is very unlikely that the idea of consecutive network phases defined by these changes would have crossed his mind. It is an artificial heuristic approach that allows for the quantification of internal developments of the network, as each phase was assigned a definitive beginning- and an end date, which defined the limits of mini corpora of letters. From these, in 1

For graphical illustrations of this main point of my argumentation and the structure of the study, see the consecutive Flow Charts in Appendix A, 483–485.

Conclusion

473

turn, statistical data and charts could be derived to illustrate the changing configurations in the web. This allowed for the juxtaposition of actors and groups of actors according to their individual attributes such as place of origin, place of residence or type of relationship. After all, it is this technique of making several “snapshots” of the network at various points in time that creates meaning in an otherwise amorphous continuum of correspondents and data. On the level of individual relationships within and across these network configurations, the focus was put on patterns of botanical exchange and the description of internal developments in Mühlenberg’s learned friendships with European and American botanists. As it has been shown, this amicitia eruditorum represented a specific type of relationship that was defined by implicit rules of conduct and the general context of the Republic of Letters and its ideals.2 Following the propositions of Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin about network studies in historical contexts, it has been tried to make these contemporary rules and ideals an integrated part of the present ego network analysis. Specifically in the description of individual relationships, this approach has found its limits in the oral character of many relationships in Mühlenberg’s network, and the data loss rate of 29.76 % in all of his correspondences from 1771 to 1815.3 In some cases, these “blind spots” and the missing data have compromised the description of individual relationships, while Mühlenberg’s diaries, which have for the first time been examined in detail, contained a wealth of information on most of his correspondents that partially compensated for these losses. On the whole, the application of network theory as a heuristic perspective has allowed for several conclusions both on the network level and on the level of Mühlenberg’s biography. On the “macro-level”, this combination of cutting up the correspondences into consecutive phases with the description of individual contacts has resulted in a refined periodization of the network with regard to its composition and orientation. Kinship contacts, for instance, were shown to be of highest importance in Mühlenberg’s web until his father’s death in 1787, but were then quickly superceded by other types of contacts, predominantly with botanists.4 Furthermore, it has also helped to trace the ratio of American- and European-based correspondences through the various stages of the network, which provided the context for the discussion of the beginning “Americanization” around the turn of the century. In fact, this process actually began in the late 1790s, as the French Revolutionary Wars complicated the easy transatlantic transport of specimens, and Mühlenberg only began to voluntarily enforce these tendencies after 1803 for the sake of his own national flora. For this reason, a general division could be established between a predominantly European orientation in his networking prior to about 1800 and a strong bias towards America afterwards. This also corresponds loosely to the development of his botanical interests, which focused on grasses and sedges first until about 1790 and then moved on to cryptogamics until 1802, for which he needed the assistance of Hed2 3 4

For amicitia eruditorum, see above on page 90. See Emirbayer and Goodwin, “Problems of Agency,” passim. For a discussion of the sources used in this study, see above on page 33. See table b, Appendix B, 486.

474

Conclusion

wig and his cryptogamic circle. During the first decade of the 19th century, Mühlenberg abandoned his work on certain genera and developed a more general interest on the American flora, which reflected his plans to compile a work with a national orientation. After the publication of his 1813 catalogue however, a heightened interest in Fuci and Conservae could again be detected. Further macro-level deductions could also be made on contemporary “network awareness,” the code of conduct of early modern scientists, and the applicability of “progress” and “transfer of know ledge” as categories in the historiography of sciences. Mühlenberg’s “network awareness,” which he shared with his contemporaries, shows best in his network strategies. Although the idea of consecutive network configurations is an artificial reconstruction and, in fact, the term “network” is never once actually mentioned in the letters, diary passages or elsewhere in the source materials, Mühlenberg would certainly have subscribed to the idea that his correspondences were a “dynamic whole,” whose composition and inner mechanisms had great bearing on the course and outcome of his own botanical ambitions and works. This “network awareness” becomes apparent in the numerous statements on the current state of his correspondences, but is even more striking in the network strategies he devised to prevent the unauthorized or illegitimate use of his or others’ original scientific work. Typically, the respective passages in his diaries were introduced by observations on new collaborations and exchanges between his own correspondents, on potentially or actually illegitimate use of information in botanical publications. Frequently, these passages were concluded by his repeated resolve to limit the amount of information or the number of letters exchanged with certain, identified “critical” correspondents in the future. The most notorious of these “critical correspondents” was certainly the Philadelphia-based professor Benjamin Smith Barton, whose networking frequently intersected with Mühlenberg’s own and therefore posed a permanent threat. Furthermore, Mühlenberg’s reaction to Barton’s frequent violations of the implicit code of conduct for the Republic of Letters suggests that norms, such as accuracy in the documentation of scientific sources, transparency, transconfessionality, transnationality and the “reciprocity of exchange,” were not primarily supposed to be guidelines for individual contacts. In this case, he could easily have complained to Barton directly. Instead, I argue that the norms of the Republic of Letters came primarily into place for the protection of individual actors from the negative effects of the networks themselves and against other, larger networks.5 Conversely, crucial information and data could obviously get out of hand easily even in small networks, and the implicit norm of candor and honesty in handling the original work of others 5

Rainer Diaz-Bone also defines norms as an effect of networks. Diaz-Bone, Ego-zentrierte, 25. See also the following passage by Wellman: “Ties between two persons are usually asymmetric in the amount and kinds of resources that flow from one to the other. (...) There is rarely a strict one-to-one correspondence between what two persons give to one another (...). Although rarely symmetric, ties are usually reciprocated in a generalized way. For example, not only do clients send resources to patrons, but patrons usually send such resources as goods, information, and protection to clients. Further, the power of patrons is partly based on their ties with clients, as the ties themselves are a scarce resource.” Wellman, “Structural analysis,” 40.

Conclusion

475

directly aimed at overcoming this problem. Transconfessionality and transnationality, however, can also be interpreted in the sense of a protection of individuals against possible anonymous attacks and slander coming from larger and therefore “stronger” networks. Apart from this practical reason, they were also fed by the contemporary enlightened discourses on tolerance. In this sense, these norms functioned as the unwritten “constitution” of the Republic, defined by a community that knew about the risks and shortcomings of the very medium that allowed them to keep permanently in touch both at national and international level. Although Mühlenberg proved a quick learner and began to adapt to these dangerous and almost uncontrollable dynamics during the 1790s, it can be assumed that many of his contemporaries underestimated them. With regard to the idea of “progress” in the historiography of sciences, this means that the frequent disputes and arguments among scientists in the early modern period were just as often actual disputes over scientific contents as they were disputes about conflicting networking styles or mistakes that were, in some cases, original effects of information loss in intricate networks rather than voluntary theft of intellectual property. Consequently, adroitness and proficiency in this area were just as important for a career or the successful implementation of new theorems in mainstream science as were talent and learning. With regard to the biographical results of this study, it is therefore important to note Mühlenberg’s initial disadvantages in nearly all of these aspects, as he had neither studied natural history, nor was he familiar with the delicate details of proper networking techniques. Also, in contrast to men like his Philadelphia-based colleague Barton, Johann David Schöpf and the New Yorker Jacob Green, all of whom allegedly copied from him without giving due credit, Mühlenberg did not make a living through science. Therefore, the unauthorized use of botanical information was certainly much less tempting to him as it was to others, whose position, income and Fama often directly depended on fresh research and the pressure to inscribe their names in the annals of botany. Specifically in the United States, where the availability of scientific patronage was not as common as in Europe, this was often an incentive for plagiarism and theft of intellectual property until mid-century. Finally, the accurate documentation of sources and honesty in scientific affairs were also necessary to protect science itself from the negative effects of networks, which Mühlenberg also recognized early on. Any unauthorized or clandestine use of third-party botanical information could lead to chaos in nomenclature, as multiple authors could publish identical specimens under different names. When Mühlenberg browsed older works like Bartram’s Travels for unidentified original plant discoveries made by the authors, part of his motivation was to give them due credit for their original discoveries. The other half was to avoid confusion generated by the combination of inaccurate documentation and uncontrollable networks. Naturally, this observation also has consequences for the “transfer of knowledge” as a category of research in historical studies. While this concept has been criticized before for its linearity and limited power to explain the dynamics inherent in any

476

Conclusion

process of cultural exchange,6 it has become sufficiently clear in the example of Mühlenberg’s network that the exchanges therein were predominantly linear only on the level of individual dyads, that is, in one-to-one situations: Mühlenberg sent specimens on which Schreber returned information. On the level of the whole web, however, it has been shown that information could easily become anonymous again in terms of origin and original purpose once it was written down and released. A good example is Schöpf’s use of Mühlenberg’s collected information for his Materia Medica.7 What was hailed as the first systematic European work on American medical plants at the time, printed in Europe and imported into the United States, was actually the result of transatlantic exchange processes that were invisible to the public eye. In fact, it was more American than European with regard to the actual sources of the knowledge that Schöpf was merely the compiler of. In sum, the “network factor” played out on many levels and was definitely the main agent in the development of Mühlenberg’s web of correspondences both in Europe and in the United States. Apart from this, there is no set of easily defined individual “network factors” or “agents of change” that were active at any time throughout the network’s development from 1784 to 1815. Rather, we have seen that external factors and Mühlenberg’s internal motivations combined dynamically at different points during this period and influenced each other in manifold and complex ways. “Patriotism” as a motivation for botanical research, for instance, first emerged in the letters by Schöpf and Schreber, while it became tangible in Mühlenberg’s own letters during the 1790s in consequence of his frustrations about his European correspondents. By 1800, Mühlenberg had teamed up with George Logan to establish the short-lived Lancaster County Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, Manufactures and the Usefull Arts, for which the two men came up with a program that echoed contemporary nationalist rhetoric.8 Some time later, the publication of Michaux’ Flora in 1803, the rise of de Jussieuan botany and Mühlenberg’s misgivings about the drawbacks in transatlantic botanical exchange, which often compromised the accuracy of plant identifications, led him to focus on America instead. Clearly, to cite “patriotism” as the sole reason for the Americanization of the web hardly makes for a satisfactory explanation. Quite the same is true for Mühlenberg’s personal botanical interests, which were both a result and a factor of the network, as the description of his contacts with Johann Hedwig and the cryptogamists and the so-called “Southern Constellation” has shown. His ambition to find contacts in the South and in the North, especially in Boston, testify to his initiative to extend the web in specific directions or to specific places. At the same time, the individual network analyses have shown that success in these intentional extensions hugely depended on the previous existence of secondary contacts. Around 1790, for instance, Schreber exerted huge influence on Mühlenberg, both as he steered his interest to grasses and cryptogamia, and as he indirectly connected him to four future correspondents, including the cryptoga6 7 8

See, for instance, Wellenreuther, “Atlantische Welt,” 9–13. See above on page 133f. See above on pages 196f., 370f.

Conclusion

477

mist Johann Hedwig.9 When Hedwig died in 1799, the secondary contacts around him allowed for a cluster of interest, the cryptogamic circle, to come into existence, which eventually facilitated Mühlenberg to continue with his work in this direction. Although it is exaggerated to state that his interests were completely determined by the range of his correspondences, it is adequate to say that his botanical ambitions found their end where his network ended. His lifelong vain ambitions to find steady and reliable correspondents in Boston, or just in any place north of New York, illustrate this clearly.10 Although Mühlenberg ultimately failed to bring together his American colleagues into a cohesive American botanical community, and despite the fact that his 1813 catalogue only contained parts of what he had originally planned to cover, Mühlenberg’s achievements for American botany must not be underestimated. His long-standing privileged access to the Halle network, his natural talents for observation and the systematics of the Linnean system, his accuracy and self-inspection made him a modern botanist at the turn of the 19th century, who knew how to make proper use of the instruments of scientific research at hand. The remnants of his network, specifically the strong ties to William Baldwin, Zaccheus Collins and Stephen Elliott during the last four years of his life, eventually became a part of the new American scientific infrastructure in the 19th century. “As much as could be asked of the period from 1790 to 1830 was the establishment of local stations and the gradual emergence of a few centers that would form the bases for a plural-centered national network,” is Anderson H. Dupree’s conclusion on this period of “colonial” botany in America, whose end Joseph Ewan synchronizes with the deaths of Joseph Banks and Frederick T. Pursh in 1820.11 In fact, during Mühlenberg’s lifetime, popular interest in botany had grown exponentially in the United States, so that the public lectures at the newly established Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia routinely drew large audiences by 1810. While botanical contents became a standard component in American curricula in the antebellum period, John Torrey, Asa Gray and others continued to build on the basis of Mühlenberg’s period. What was a “series of local communities varying greatly in size and strength and often at odds with each other” (Baatz) eventually had become a strongly interconnected community by around 1850.12 9 10

11 12

See Appendix E: Network Phase 1, page 550. See, for instance, the chapters “Cutler and the Gap in the North”, “ North and South – Peck, Elliott, Dunbar, Moore and Logan”, and finally “ The North and the West – Cutler, Peck, Bigelow, Rich and Moore”. For personal motives in networks, see also Wellmann: “Structural analysts contend that accounting for individual motives is a job better left to psychologists. They suggest that sociologists should explain behavior by analyzing the social distribution of possibilities: the unequal availability of resources – such as information, wealth, and influence – and the structures through which people may gain access to them. They study the processes through which resources are garnered or mobilized – such as exchange, dependency, competition, and coalition – and the social systems that develop out of these processes.” Wellmann, “Structural Analysis,” 33 Dupree, “National Patterns”, 31; Ewan, “Pursh,” 623. Keeney, The Botanizers, 27, 38–45; Smith, “Century of Botany,” 17; Warren, Rafinesque, 24; Baatz, “Scientific Periodicals”, 224: “The scientific community in the United States was by no

478

Conclusion

Mühlenberg was not, however, the botanical visionary that Baldwin’s epithet “Linnaeus of our Country”13 implies, as his contributions were primarily limited to taxonomic, descriptive botany. More fittingly, he could be called the “father of American cryptogamic research” for his pioneer interest in Linnaeus’ 24th class in his native country, had this branch of botany not soon been discarded and replaced after his death.14 Also, the scientific half-life of his few botanical publications, including his 1813 catalogue Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis, was also limited. The reason was again primarily rooted in his almost stubborn insistence on Linnean code, which also informed the posthumously published Descriptio uberior plantarum graminum et plantarum Calamarium Americae Septentrionalis Indigenarum et Cicurum. In 1817, one year after its publication by S. W. Conrad in Philadelphia, Samuel L. Mitchill suggested that it be translated into the de Jussieuan code, in order to save its contents.15 The task was finally completed by the Portuguese botanist José Correa de Serra (1750–1823), with whom Mühlenberg had feverishly but vainly tried to establish a steady correspondence since the latter’s arrival in America in 1812.16 means unified or even cohesive; it consisted of a series of local communities varying greatly in size and strength and often at odds with each other.” 13 William Baldwin to Frederick Augustus Hall Mühlenberg, 06/28/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 177. 14 In fact, Mühlenberg’s pioneering interest in sedges, grasses, mosses and cryptogamia in general is most often cited when it comes to judgements about his botanical achievements. See Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 571; Hitchcock, “Grasses,” 27; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 34; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 33. See also Lawrence, “Significance,” 162: “Taxonomy is a descriptive facet of botany. Its literature of highest current importance is all of that published from about 1750 onwards. Herbarium specimens prepared from the 17th century onwards serve as today’s tangible record of the plants described in that literature.” 15 Smith, “Botanical Pioneer,” 445; Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1327; Youman, “Muhlenberg,” 66; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 8, 11f. Mühlenberg’s other contemporary publication was his two-volume German-English and English-German dictionary, which he published in 1812 in collaboration with Benjamin J. Schipper. No references to this publications could be found in the letters used for this study. See Muhlenberg-Richards, “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg,” 154. 16 See respective list of correspondences, Appendix C, on page 528f. Zaccheus Collins was Mühlenberg’s primary source of information on Correa de Serra during his time in the U.S.: D. Mease informs me that a good Botanist has arrived from Portugal at Philaldelphia Mr Correa de Serra. I would be very glad to get nearer acquainted with him and wish to See him either at Lancaster or in Philadelphia. To Collins, 04/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. Later passages show that the contact was never really realized: I am sorry that Mr. Correa can not be persuaded to give his Opinion on the Conserves and Fuci a little plainer. Of what Use is a hidden Treasure? If they are not known to him even that would be some satisfaction to me if I knew it for certain, as he certainly knows a great many European ones. If the Intercourse was open I should long ago have sent not only those but a great many more to my Friends in Europe. To Collins, 06/03/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. Finally, Mühlenberg entreated Collins to ask Correa directly about his botanical achievements in America, which Collins was to report back to Lancaster: Should Mr. Correa come to Philadelphia do not let him leave us without hearing what he has found of our American Fuci and Conserves. Even your Collection is extremely rich in Comparison with all our Northern and Southern Botanists have gathered. To Collins, 11/03/1814, ANSP Coll. 129.

Conclusion

479

De Serra, who was already a famous botanist at the time of his arrival, had a background in diplomacy and was personally acquainted with the likes of Joseph Banks, de Jussieu, Humboldt and James E. Smith.17 In Philadelphia, he became a regular guest at A.P.S. meetings, began to botanize and travel extensively in the United States and met Mühlenberg at Lancaster several times, whose company he seemed to enjoy, but whose insistence on Linnaeus he found obviously outdated and even irksome.18 His adaptation of Mühlenberg’s Descriptio uberior, which was published in 1822 under the title Reduction of all the genera of plants contained in the Catalogus Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis, was the first American botanical publication in the modern natural system of de Jussieu.19 Even James E. Smith lauded this adaptation in his Grammar of Botany.20 A more lasting legacy of Mühlenberg was his herbarium, however, which ultimately counted about 3,000 phanerogamic specimens and roughly 1,500 cryptogamic specimens and continued to be used by men like Asa Gray until 30 years after Mühlenberg’s death.21 In conFor de Serra’s life prior to his sojourn in America, see Harshberger, Botanists, 154; Barnhart, “Schweinitz,” 23; Davis, “Abbé Correa,” 91–95. 18 Davis, “Abbé Correa,” 90, 97–101; Petersen, New World Botany, 370f.; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 120, 612, 867: “Correa visited Muhlenberg in Lancaster a number of times, and found him relaxed, free, and eager to discuss the problems of classification even though Muhlenberg continued to publish in the old system.” 19 Davis, «Abbé Correa,» 114; Müller-Jancke, “Linnaeus Americanus,” 1327; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 870; Harshberger, Botanists, 406; Warren, Rafinesque, 23f.; Greene, American Science, 26. 20 A reduction of all the Genera in Muhlenberg’s Catalogue of North American Plants to their proper places in Jussieu’s arrangement, has been added at the suggestion of Dr. Mitchill, thus increasing the value to the American botanist. (...) The English reader is here, for the first time, presented with a full explanation of the System of Jussieu. Smith, Grammar, v, xi. 21 Phanerogamic = seed-bearing plants. Christian H. Persoon, Mühlenberg’s long-standing Paris-based correspondent was actually the first one to take an interest in the purchase of his herbarium: Hatten Sie etwa Lust Ihre Pflanzen-Sammlung zu verkaufen und für welchen Preiß? From Persoon, 01/18/1815, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. After, Barton’s nephew William Paul Crillon Barton was the first to make use of it for his Compendium in 1818, which he acknowledged in the preface: All the plants described in this Flora, with the exception of about twenty have been personally collected by the Author – and in all cases of doubt or difficulty, recourse has been had to the Herbarium of the late Dr. Muhlenberg, in the American Philosophical Society, whereby all that certainty has been attained which a source so authentic could produce. (...) It is a matter of no little satisfaction that mention as the property of the American Philosophical Society, this valuable and authentic Herbarium consisting of Dr. Muhlenbergs entire collection of American plants. The well-known circumspection and patience of that botanist, and the length of time in which the herbarium was arranged, add greatly to its value as authority. It is due to those concerned, to remark, that at a period when this herbarium was eagerly sought after, not only by persons in distant states, but by foreigners, it was proffered by the son of Dr. Muhlenberg, whose property it became, to Mr. Collins, for the American Philosophical Society, at a price considerably less than might otherwise have been obtained for it; Barton, Compendium, preface. In 1840, Moses Ashley Curtis (1808–1872) informed his fellow botanist Elias Durand (1794–1873): did not succeed in getting sight of Muhlenberg’s Herbarium though I called several times at the Philosophical Rooms. At the Gray Herbarium Archives in Boston, there is a handwritten note by Asa Gray, written in November 1840 upon examining specimens from the genera Kuhnia, Cacalia and Vernonia in Mühlenberg’s herbarium. Curtis to Durand, 17

480

Conclusion

trast, Barton’s herbarium contained only a third of Mühlenberg’s specimens and was also extremely limited with regard to the geographical origin of its specimens.22 While the herbarium is generally considered to be Mühlenberg’s chief contribution to American botany today, it is striking that his contemporaries focused more on personal traits of character and his role in domestic scientific communications in their eulogies and dedications: William Paul Crillon Barton was one of the first in his 1818 Florae Philadelphicae Prodromus to call Mühlenberg one of the oldest, the strongest pillars of that extensive fabric (...) of botanick science in America, furthermore stressing Mühlenberg’s patience and industry in correcting the errours and confusion of botany, and his readiness to assist the young botanist, and to banish from his sight, obstacles which in his own progress he himself had perseveringly overcome, it seems extraordinary that few, if any, of the large number that have profited by his labours (...) should have acknowledged the extent of his assistance.23 03/17/1840, APS Film 628; Asa Gray Papers, Manuscripts #6. For the various stations of the Mühlenberg herbarium until it finally came into the possession of the ANSP, see Hitchcock, “Grasses,” 28; Stuckey, “Auction,” 444; Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 50; Smith, “Botanical Pioneer,” 446; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 5; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 32; Smith, “Botanical Pioneer,” 448. 22 Both herbaria were sold and resold several times until they reached their final abode at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, where they are still accommodated today. Mears “Some Sources,” 155f.; Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 49f.; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 570; For Mühlenberg’s herbarium, see also Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 29; Pennel, “Botanical Collectors,” 42; Maisch, Mühlenberg als Botaniker, 13; and Smith, “Century of Botany,” 9: “Muhlenberg often brought together all his specimens of a species in a loose fold of paper, or again laid several half sheets of loose specimens representing different species into a single fold. If there were a tag sheet affixed to the stem by a slit, this was left. Sometimes a loose slip was laid in the sheet, probably directly on top of the specimen to which it referred.” William Bartram, for instance, never owned a herbarium, while the respective records by John Lyon are only fragmentary. Cahill, “Correspondence,” 381; Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 11; Ewan, “Pursh,” 600; Stuckey, “Auction,” 443. For information on the Lewis&Clark herbarium, see Moulton, Herbarium, 7; Pelczar, “Plants.” Smith, “Century of Botany,” 10. For the general relevance of herbaria and “type specimens,” see Mears, “Some Sources,” 156; Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 32; and Ewan, “Pursh,” 599: “The type specimen is a point of reference to which succeeding taxonomists may turn to check the accuracy of their postulates. What began as a field specimen, which later acquired a label and was mounted and filled in a collection, assumes the role of a standard, just as chemically pure reagents serve the chemist (...).” See also Warren, Rafinesque, 20: “The need for American collections was soon recognized and in part remedied by such men as John Torrey and Asa Gray, spurred on by growing nationalistic feeling.” 23 The pious, the learned Muhlenberg is no more! With him has fallen one of the oldest, the strongest pillars of that extensive fabric his exertions contributed so largely to raise the edifice of botanick science in America. His merits, though chiefly confined to nomenclatural botany, were of the highest order. In giving information he was conscientious as truth itself, and his patience and industry in correcting the errours and confusion of botany, have scarce been parallel. Ever ready to assist the young botanist, and to banish from his sight, obstacles which in his own progress he himself had perseveringly overcome, it seems extraordinary that few, if any, of the large number that have profited by his labours.... should have acknowledged the extent of his assistance! ... Dr Muhlenberg enjoyed the correspondence of some of the first European botanists of the age, ... Schreber, ... Smith,... Willdenow &c. Quoted after Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 809. According to Wallace, F.A. Michaux used a similar introduction: His merits, though

Conclusion

481

Stephen Elliott, too, has briefly acknowledged Mühlenberg’s profound knowledge of the science of BOTANY before lauding his unweared efforts to improve the Flora of North America and many virtues, his liberal temper and exemplary character.24 William Baldwin had set the tone in a letter to Mühlenberg’s own son Frederick Augustus Hall Mühlenberg in June 1816, when he pointed to his unbounded liberality of sentiment which he uniformly manifested towards his contemporaries; and which ought ever to distinguish the genuine Christian philosopher, and Naturalist, from the narrow-minded despot in science who would exalt all his own fame at the expense of those around him.25 Generally, the name “Mühlenberg” kept its distinctive ring in American botany at least until the 1830s, when a large number of his former American contacts died in a short period of time.26 In the eulogy for Samuel L. Mitchill († 1831), the name “Mühlenberg” was mentioned one last time among the greatest representatives of a past period in the history of botany, before it fell into oblivion for about half a century.27 George Ticknor was Mühlenberg’s chiefly confined to nomenclatural botany, were of the highest order. In giving information he was conscientous as truth itself, and his patience and industry in correcting the errors and confusion of botany have scarce a parallel. Quoted after Wallace, Muhlenbergs, 312 24 From a remembrance of his extensive and profound knowledge of the science of BOTANY, and of his unweared efforts to improve the Flora of North America; from a high respect for his many virtues, his liberal temper and exemplary character; and for the personal advantages derived from years of uninterrupted correspondence, this VOLUME is inscribed to the memory of the late Rev. HENRY MUHLENBERG of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Elliott, A Sketch, preface. See also p. 408 above and Hu and Merril, “Publications,” 36. 25 Many lovers of botany, throughout the United States do honor to his memory by walking in his footsteps. He was not only worthy of imitation, for that most active zeal and industry which characterized him the Linnaeus of our Country, but also for that unbounded liberality of sentiment which he uniformly manifested towards his contemporaries; and which ought ever to distinguish the genuine Christian philosopher, and Naturalist, from the narrow-minded despot in science who would exalt all his own fame at the expense of those around him. However, we must deplore the loss of such a character, it is consoling to reflect that he has left a name behind which will be transmitted along with those of Linnaeus, Willdenow, and others, to the end of time. William Baldwin to Frederick Augustus Hall Mühlenberg, 06/28/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 177. 26 These were: Stephen Elliott († 1830), Jacob van Vleck († 1831), Samuel Latham Mitchill († 1831), Lewis David von Schweinitz († 1834), David Hosack († 1835). According to Long, the name “Muhlenberg” even became a highly popular Christian name in the Lancaster area immediately after his death. Long, “Influence,” 135f. 27 Besides, the works of Mitchill now belong to the domain of history; and his biographer will doubtless do ample justice to the details of a life of public services; and to the pre-eminent mind which entitled its possessor to rank in the American constellation of worthies, with a Franklin, a Jefferson, a Ramsay, a Rittenhouse, a Muhlenberg and a Rush. (...) Of Natural History, Mitchill was the patriarch; and every branch of it had captivated his taste and his genius. And it is singular to reflect how much this province of learning has been the theme of such votaries as have been an honor to their country and their ear: without more naming Pythagoras, Theoprastes, and Aristotle, among the Grecians, and Pliny among the Romans, – what industry and eloquence can vie with those of the indefatigable, the gifted Buffon; what labors are more worthy of admiration than those of Linnaeus; what lights of reason and talent were Haller, Jussieu, Broussonet, Foster, Spearman, and Robert Smith, how splendid in intellect were Barton, Muhlenberg, and Mitchill! Pascalis, Eulogy, 10, 14.

482

Conclusion

longest surviving direct personal acquaintance to carry on personal memories of him until his death in 1871. According to Herbert H. Beck, the last virtual “vital sign” of Henry Mühlenberg and his botanical activities was an Agave americana or “century plant,” which Mühlenberg had apparently planted in 1808 and which reportedly blossomed exactly 100 years later on the corner of East Chestnut and North Lime in Lancaster.28

28 Beck, “Muhlenberg,” 49.

VII APPENDICES 1. APPENDIX A: FLOW CHARTS

Flow Chart A Phase 1 through Phase 6: Color-coded lines represent continuous flow of correspondences between Mühlenberg and selected contacts from 1783 to 1815.

Flow Chart B Phase 1 to Phase 2: Color-coded lines represent continuous flow of correspondences between Mühlenberg and respective contact. (Source: Mühlenberg-database).

484

Appendices

Flow Chart C Phase 2 to Phase 3: Color-coded lines represent continuous flow of correspondences between Mühlenberg and respective contact.

Flow Chart D Phase 3 to Phase 4: Color-coded lines represent continuous flow of correspondences between Mühlenberg and respective contact.

Appendix A – Flow Charts

485

Flow Chart E Phase 4 to Phase 5: Color-coded lines represent continuous flow of correspondences between Mühlenberg and respective contact.

Flow Chart F Phase 5 to Phase 6: Color-coded lines represent continuous flow of correspondences between Mühlenberg and respective contact.

486

Appendices

2. APPENDIX B: TABLES

Table a. Total development of Mühlenberg’s correspondences from 1771 to 1815. Grey line represents surviving letters. Black line represents surviving and reconstructed letters.

Table b. Total distribution of non-scientific vs. scientific letters in Mühlenberg’s correspondences from 1771 to 1815. On the distinction between „non-scientific“ vs. “scientific”: Letters from and to correspondents like Schreber contain little else but lists of specimens, botanical nomenclature and other information relevant to natural research. All of these letters were classified “scientific.” In contrast, letters to family members and professional colleagues of Mühlenberg rarely, if ever, contain references to botany or other scientific endeavors. The few exceptions to this rule were categorized individually and are not included in this Table b.

Appendix B – Tables

487

Table c. Total distribution of family vs. non-family letters in Mühlenberg’s correspondences from 1771 to 1815.

Table d. Development of correspondence between Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg (1711-1787) and his son Henry Mühlenberg (1753-1814) from 1771 to 1815. Their contact appears most intense during Henry’s dispute with his brother-in-law Kunze and his subsequent move to Lancaster in 1780.

488

Appendices

Table e. Total distribution of Mühlenberg‘s in- and outbound correspondences for Phase 1 (17841790). Numbers in brackets (4 + 1) refer to preserved vs. reconstructed letters. Black = European; Grey = American correspondents.

Table f. Correlation test of multiplexity and strength of contacts. No correlation found.

Appendix B – Tables

489

Table g. Total distribution of Mühlenberg‘s in- and outbound correspondences for Phase 2 (1790 1797). Numbers in brackets (4 + 1) refer to preserved vs. reconstructed letters. Black = European; Grey = American correspondents.

Table h. Total numbers of Mühlenberg‘s correspondents Phase 1 through Phase 6. (1784-1815).

490

Appendices

Table i. Total distribution of Mühlenberg‘s in- and outbound correspondences for Phase 3 (17971802). Numbers in brackets (4 + 1) refer to preserved vs. reconstructed letters. Black = European; Grey = American correspondents.

Table j. Total distribution of Mühlenberg‘s active and passive contacting events. (1784-1815).

Appendix B – Tables

491

Table k. Total distribution of Mühlenberg‘s in- and outbound correspondences for Phase 4 (1802 1805). Numbers in brackets (4 + 1) refer to preserved vs. reconstructed letters. Black = European; Grey = American correspondents.

Table l. Relation of European vs. American contacts. (1784-1815)

492

Appendices

Table m. Total distribution of Mühlenberg‘s in- and outbound correspondences for Phase 5 (1805 1811). Numbers in brackets (4 + 1) refer to preserved vs. reconstructed letters. Black = European; Grey = American correspondents..

Table n. Total distribution of Mühlenberg‘s in- and outbound correspondences for Phase 6 (1811 1815). Numbers in brackets (4 + 1) refer to preserved vs. reconstructed letters. Black = European; Grey = American correspondents.

Appendix B – Tables

493

Table o. Central-European vs. European-peripherial contacts. (1784-1815).

Table p. New correspondents per Phase. (1784 – 1815). Black = European; Grey = American correspondents.

494

Appendices

3. APPENDIX C: LISTS OF CORRESPONDENCES Acharius, Erik (1757–1819) 04/08/1812 04/30/1812 05/06/1812 About 1812 January 1815



Acharius to Mühlenberg Acharius to Mühlenberg Acharius to Mühlenberg Acharius to Mühlenberg1 Mühlenberg to Acharius [reconstructed]2 Agardh, Carl Adolf (1785–1859)

December 1813 October 1814

Mühlenberg to Agardh Agardh to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]3 [reconstructed]4

Aiton, William (1731–1793) About 1792



Mühlenberg to Aiton

[reconstructed]5

American Philosophical Society and John Vaughan (1756–1841)6 11/17/1790 04/09/1807 01/21/1811 05/10/1812



Mühlenberg to APS Mühlenberg to Vaughan Mühlenberg to Vaughan Mühlenberg to Vaughan

Autenrieth, Johann Hermann Ferdinand (1772–1835) About mid-1795 1 2 3 4

5 6 7

Autenrieth to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]7

From Acharius, [undated], HSP Coll. 443. To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. To Collins, 10/18/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Oct[ober] 11 kommt ein Brief von C[arl] A[dolph] Agardh Professor of Botany by the University of Lund in Sweden. 1) er erkent den Empfang von sehr angenehmen Samen u[nd] einer Samlung von Musci die ich ihm geschickt. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/11/1814. Was habe ich für Antwort von Deutschl[and] zu erwarten? (…) Aiton, Smith von England. See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for 12/0 7/1792. John Vaughan served the American Philosophical Society in various functions after 1789. I therefore combine Mühlenberg’s correspondence with Vaughan with his APS correspondence. 28. Nov[ember] habe ich ein Paquet von Autenrieth (Ferdin[and]) erhalte. (…). Geantw[ortet]

495

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

January 1796 08/25/1796 01/24/1797 03/01/1797 06/26/1797 05/03/1800



Mühlenberg to Autenrieth Mühlenberg to Autenrieth Mühlenberg to Autenrieth Mühlenberg to Autenrieth Autenrieth to Mühlenberg Autenrieth to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]8 [reconstructed]9 [reconstructed]10 [reconstructed]11

Baldwin, William (1779–1819) 01/07/1811 01/14/1811 01/18/1811 02/19/1811 02/22/1811 03/30/1811 04/08/1811 04/22/1811 04/23/1811 04/30/1811 05/03/1811 05/07/1811 05/22/1811 05/27/1811 06/25/1811 07/02/1811 07/07/1811 07/08/1811 07/16/1811 07/27/1811 08/02/1811 08/20/1811 08/27/1811 09/04/1811 09/23/1811 10/11/1811 11/01/1811 11/04/1811 12/06/1811 12/23/1811 8 9 10 11



Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg

im Januar. See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for 11/28/1795. Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for 11/28/1795. From Autenrieth, 06/26/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. From Autenrieth, 06/26/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. From Autenrieth, 06/26/1797, HSP Soc. Coll.

496 01/28/1812 04/20/1812 05/26/1812 06/18/1812 09/19/1812 10/31/1812 11/09/1812 03/20/1813 03/31/1813 04/09/1813 04/20/1813 05/15/1813 05/17/1813 06/01/1813 06/05/1813 06/11/1813 06/19/1813 06/22/1813 06/26/1813 06/29/1813 07/06/1813 07/13/1813 07/29/1813 08/07/1813 08/24/1813 09/06/1813 09/15/1813 11/18/1813 12/09/1813 12/17/1813 12/25/1813 01/07/1814 01/14/1814 01/14/1814 01/22/1814 01/29/1814 02/03/1814 02/12/1814 02/19/1814 02/26/1814 03/19/1814 03/26/1814 04/01/1814 04/15/1814 04/30/1814

Appendices



Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Mühlenberg to Baldwin Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

05/25/1814 06/17/1814 07/04/1814 07/15/1814 08/02/1814 09/17/1814 10/04/1814 11/11/1814 11/28/1814 01/03/1815 01/20/1815 02/13/1815 03/16/1815 04/12/1815 04/27/1815 05/07/1815 05/11/1815 05/30/1815



Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Baldwin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Baldwin Baldwin to Mühlenberg Barton, Benjamin Smith (1766–1815)

10/14/1791 11/15/1791 02/23/1794 08/29/1805 11/01/1810



Mühlenberg to Barton Barton to Mühlenberg Barton to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Barton Mühlenberg to Barton

[reconstructed]12

Barton, William Paul Crillon (1786–1856) 02/26/1815



Barton, William to Mühlenberg

Bartram, William (1739–1823) and John(1743–1812) 06/22/1792 09/08/1792 09/13/1792 09/29/1792 10/15/1792 11/29/1792 12/10/1792



Mühlenberg to Bartram, William Bartram, William to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Bartram, William Bartram, William to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Bartram, William Bartram, William to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Bartram, William

12 From Barton, 11/15/1791, HSP Coll. 443.

497

498

Appendices

03/19/1795 About late 1809 01/29/1810 09/06/1810



Mühlenberg to Bartram, William Mühlenberg to Bartram, William [reconstructed]13 Mühlenberg to Bartram, William Bartram, William to Mühlenberg Beauvois, Palisot de (1752–1820)

10/08/1802 01/14/1803 02/01/1803 10/22/1803 06/23/1807 02/01/1808 About 1809/1810 09/14/1810 11/17/1811 05/12/1812 About 1815

Beauvois to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Beauvois Beauvois to Mühlenberg Beauvois to Mühlenberg Beauvois to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Beauvois Mühlenberg to Beauvois Beauvois to Mühlenberg Beauvois to Mühlenberg Beauvois to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Beauvois



[reconstructed]14 [reconstructed]15



[reconstructed]16 [reconstructed]17



[reconstructed]18

Beck, Theodoric Romeyn (1791–1855) 12/29/1813 Early 1814 March/April 1814 03/03/1815

Mühlenberg to Beck Beck to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Beck Beck to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]19 [reconstructed]20 [reconstructed]21

Bensen, Carl Daniel Heinrich (1761–1805) About 1787/88 08/14/1796 08/30/1800 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Mühlenberg to Bensen, CDH Bensen, CDH to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Bensen, CDH

To William Bartram, 01/29/1810, HSP Coll. 36. From Beauvois, 10/22/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Beauvois, 09/14/1810, HSP Coll. 443. From Beauvois, 09/14/1810, HSP Coll. 443. To Peck, 01/10/1810, APS Coll. 509 L56. To Collins, 01/30/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 01/10/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 01/04/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 04/07/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. From Bensen, 08/14/1796, APS Film 1097. From Bensen, 05/28/1801, APS Film 1097.

[reconstructed]22 [reconstructed]23

499

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

09/17/1800 05/28/1801 09/14/1802 About 1804



Mühlenberg to Bensen, CDH Bensen, CDH to Mühlenberg Bensen, CDH to Mühlenberg Bensen, CDH to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]24 [reconstructed]25

Bensen, Sophie (no data available) 09/02/1815



Bensen, Sophie to Mühlenberg de Berneaud, Arsène Thiébaut (1777–1850)

03/01/1796



de Berneaud to Mühlenberg26 Bigelow, Jacob (1787–1879)

10/01/1813 11/02/1813 11/10/1813 11/23/1813 01/17/1814 March/April 1814 May 1814 06/30/1814 August 1814 11/14/1814 January 1815 February 1815 March/April 1815

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33



Bigelow to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Bigelow Bigelow to Mühlenberg Bigelow to Mühlenberg Bigelow to Mühlenberg Bigelow to Mühlenberg Bigelow to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Bigelow Bigelow to Mühlenberg Bigelow to Mühlenberg Bigelow to Mühlenberg Bigelow to Mühlenberg Bigelow to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]27

[reconstructed]28 [reconstructed]29 [reconstructed]30 [reconstructed]31 [reconstructed]32 [reconstructed]33

From Bensen, 05/28/1801, APS Film 1097. To Schultze, 09/18/1804, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. From de Berneaud, 03/01/1796, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 11/05/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. Dated through Bigelow’s letter to Mühlenberg, 11/10/1813, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 04/25/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 06/07/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 08/26/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 01/30/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 03/13/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 04/07/1815, ANSP Coll. 129.

500

Appendices

Billy, Peter (no data available) About October 1810 Early 1811

Billy to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Billy

[reconstructed]34 [reconstructed]35

Bradbury, John (1769–1823) Fall 1813



Mühlenberg to Bradbury [reconstructed]36 Brickell, John (1749–1809)

01/21/1802 02/22/1802 03/18/1802 06/16/1802 07/23/1802 02/07/1803 09/04/1803 10/14/1803 About 1804 02/14/1804 03/01/1804 04/26/1804 11/20/1804 01/05/1806 01/23/1806 08/08/1806 09/10/1806 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45



Mühlenberg to Brickell Brickell toMühlenberg Mühlenberg to Brickell Brickell to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Brickell Mühlenberg to Brickell Mühlenberg to Brickell Brickell to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Brickell Mühlenberg to Brickell Mühlenberg to Brickell Mühlenberg to Brickell Brickell to Mühlenberg Brickell to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Brickell Brickell to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Brickell

[reconstructed]37 [reconstructed]38 [reconstructed]39 [reconstructed]40 [reconstructed]41 [reconstructed]42 [reconstructed]43

[reconstructed]44 [reconstructed]45

P[eter] Billy schreibt an mich aus N[ew] York. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/26/1810. Peter Billy ist etliche Tage vor Ankunft meines Briefes an ihn abgesegelt und wird vermutlich manches von unseren Gewächsen mit nach Frankreich genommen haben. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 03/18/1811. To Collins, 09/11/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. From Brickell, 02/22/1802, HSP Coll. 443. From Brickell, 11/20/1804, HSP Coll. 443. To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. From Brickell, 11/20/1804, HSP Coll. 443. To Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72. To Brickell, 03/01/1804, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1801–1806]. See also Mühlenberg to Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll.

501

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

11/18/1807 12/30/1807 11/02/1809



Mühlenberg to Brickell Brickell to Mühlenberg Brickell to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]46 [reconstructed]47

Carl & Hermann48 08/26/1786 06/24/1787 October 1787 07/23/1788 10/08/1788 06/14/1789 10/09/1792



Carl, Johann Jacob to Mühlenberg Hermann, Joh. Chr. to Mühlenberg Carl, Johann Jacob to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]49 Hermann, Joh. Chr. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Carl, Johann Jacob [reconstructed]50 Hermann, Joh. Chr. to Mühlenberg Carl, Johann Jacob to Mühlenberg Cleaver, Isaac (1785–1822)

07/21/1814 After July 1814

Cleaver to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Cleaver



[reconstructed]51

Collins, Zaccheus (1764–1831) 03/19/1812 04/06/1812 04/10/1812 04/20/1812 06/15/1812 07/07/1812 07/14/1812 08/22/1812 08/26/1812 09/09/1812 09/24/1812 09/27/1812 46 47 48 49 50 51



Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins

From Brickell, 12/30/1807, HSP Coll. 443. einen Brief dat[iert] Nov[ember] 2 von D[oktor] Brickel er war krank gewesen und darf weg[en] Sonnenstich wenig mehr bot[anisieren]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/01/1809. Johann Jacob Carl and Johann Christ[oph] Hermann were partners in trade since the early 1780s. Therefore, their individual correspondences with Mühlenberg are treated as one. From Hermann, 07/23/1788, APS Film 1097. From Hermann, 06/14/1789, APS Film 1097. To Collins, 08/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129.

502 10/15/1812 10/21/1812 11/06/1812 12/28/1812 01/09/1813 01/13/1813 01/18/1813 01/25/1813 02/01/1813 02/12/1813 02/25/1813 03/02/1813 03/16/1813 05/15/1813 06/03/1813 06/13/1813 07/17/1813 07/22/1813 07/26/1813 08/23/1813 08/27/1813 09/07/1813 09/11/1813 09/21/1813 09/25/1813 10/12/1813 10/15/1813 10/19/1813 10/26/1813 10/26/1813 11/05/1813 11/18/1813 11/22/1813 11/30/1813 12/08/1813 12/10/1813 12/13/1813 12/22/1813 01/10/1814 01/23/1814 04/25/1814 05/06/1814 05/28/1814 06/07/1814 06/20/1814

Appendices



Collins to Mühlenberg Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

07/04/1814 07/12/1814 07/19/1814 08/11/1814 08/15/1814 08/26/1814 09/01/1814 09/15/1814 09/28/1814 10/06/1814 10/18/1814 10/20/1814 10/29/1814 10/29/1814 11/03/1814 11/14/1814 11/23/1814 11/30/1814 12/02/1814 12/05/1814 01/04/1815 01/30/1815 03/13/1815 04/07/1815 05/03/1815 05/19/1815



Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Collins to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Mühlenberg to Collins Cutler, Manasseh (1742–1823)

About mid-1790 About end 1790 04/11/1791 08/10/1791 11/08/1791 About 1792 11/12/1792 02/27/1793 03/17/1794 01/10/1811 52 53 54 55 56

Mühlenberg to Cutler Cutler to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Cutler Cutler to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Cutler Cutler to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Cutler Cutler to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Cutler Mühlenberg to Cutler

[reconstructed]52 [reconstructed]53 [reconstructed]54 [reconstructed]55

[reconstructed]56

To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. To Cutler, 11/08/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. From Cutler, 02/27/1793, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1811 [margin notes].

503

504

Appendices

03/23/1811



Mühlenberg to Cutler



[reconstructed]57

Dallmann, Gustavus (no data available) About 1804 11/07/1804 About 1805 01/18/1805 02/12/1805 03/01/1805 04/02/1805 04/12/1805 05/15/1805 06/25/1805 12/24/1805



Dallmann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Dallmann Dallmann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Dallmann Dallmann to Mühlenberg Dallmann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Dallmann Dallmann to Mühlenberg Dallmann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Dallmann Dallmann to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]58 [reconstructed]59 [reconstructed]60 [reconstructed]61 [reconstructed]62 [reconstructed]63 [reconstructed]64

Darlington, William (1782–1836) 06/25/1805



Mühlenberg to Darlington

[reconstructed]65

Denke, Christian Friedrich (1775–1838) [undated] [undated] [undated] 05/29/1798 06/07/1798 June 1798 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70



Mühlenberg to Denke Mühlenberg to Denke Mühlenberg to Denke Mühlenberg to Denke Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg70



[reconstructed]66 [reconstructed]67 [reconstructed]68 [reconstructed]69

To Collins, 04/20/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. From Dallman, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. From Dallman, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. From Dallman, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. From Dallman, 02/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. From Dallman, 04/12/1805, HSP Coll. 443. From Dallman, 05/15/1805, HSP Coll. 443. From Dallman, 12/24/1805, HSP Coll. 443. An Darlington geschr[ieben] daß ich Schrebers Genera sehr aber (…) nicht die Ed[ition] besorgen kann. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, [entry May 27, 1814]. From Denke, 01/09/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 01/31/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 08/10/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 06/07/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. This letter appears originally undated. Denke wrote: Ich hoffe Sie werden meinen Brief nebst Paquet den ich unterm 7ten huj[us] schrieb, richtig erhalten haben. In Denke’s entire correspondence with Mühlenberg, there is only one letter dated on the 7th of any month, which is a

505

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

06/18/1798 06/28/1798 07/23/1798 08/19/1798 10/20/1798 11/01/1798 12/10/1798 12/18/1798 12/23/1798 12/30/1798 01/09/1799 01/31/1799 02/04/1799 02/20/1799 05/11/1799 05/24/1799 07/01/1799 08/10/1799 08/27/1799 09/17/1799 09/28/1799 10/17/1799 11/20/1799 11/30/1799 08/14/1811 10/04/1811 06/26/1812



Denke to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Denke Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Denke Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Denke Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Denke Mühlenberg to Denke Denke to Mühlenberg Denke to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Denke Mühlenberg to Denke Denke to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Denke Denke to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Denke



[reconstructed]71



[reconstructed]72



[reconstructed]73



[reconstructed]74



[reconstructed]75 [reconstructed]76



[reconstructed]77



[reconstructed]78

Dunbar, William (1749–1810) 02/24/1806 04/15/1806 05/13/1807

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79



Mühlenberg to Dunbar Dunbar to Mühlenberg Dunbar to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]79

letter dated 06/07/1798. Consequently, this undated letter must be placed between Denke’s letter’s dated 06/18/1798 and 06/07/1798, to which he obviously refers as his last one. See APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 07/23/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 12/30/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 05/24/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 09/28/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 11/30/1799, HSP Coll. 443. From Denke, 11/30/1799, HSP Coll. 443. From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. To Elliott, 10/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. From Dunbar, 04/15/1806, HSP Coll. 443.

506

Appendices

06/01/1807 About 1807 07/05/1808 05/12/1809



Mühlenberg to Dunbar [reconstructed]80 Dunbar to Mühlenberg81 Mühlenberg to Dunbar Mühlenberg to Dunbar [reconstructed]82 Dörry, Henry (no data availabla)

10/18/1812 1812 Spring 1813



Dörry to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Dörry Dörry to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]83 [reconstructed]84 [reconstructed]85

Ebeling, Christoph Daniel (1741–1817) 06/05/1797 08/24/1797 03/06/1798 03/16/1802 January 1815



Ebeling to Mühlenberg Ebeling to Mühlenberg Ebeling to Mühlenberg Ebeling to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Ebeling

[reconstructed]86

[reconstructed]87

Eddy, Caspar Wistar (1761–1828) About 1809 11/04/1811 01/14/1812 01/20/1812 03/20/1812 80 81 82 83

84

85 86 87 88 89 90



Mühlenberg to Eddy Eddy to Mühlenberg Eddy to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Eddy Mühlenberg to Eddy

[reconstructed]88 [reconstructed]89 [reconstructed]90

From Dunbar, 05/13/1807, HSP Coll. 443. From Dunbar, [undated], HSP Coll. 443. Dunbar-Rowland, Dunbar, 363. Margin notes in September 1814: *Dörry ist kein eifriger Corresp[ondent] (…). Some time later, Mühlenberg added further lines: Oct[ober] ein Brief an mich Oct[ober] 18 war mit einem Packet beig[epackt] kam erst Dec[ember] 29 daher er gut sein mag. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, multiple margin notes next to several entries in September 1814. Jul[i] 20. [1813] Dörry beantw[ortet] meine Brief, hat Moose noch nicht aufgefunden, hat Gräser gesendet, will meinen Catalog, geht (…) an die obere Susquehanna, frägt nach Michaux wo er zu hab[en]* Mein Rath wäre alle dubia zu schicken die ich ihm mit Vergnügen bestimmen will. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/20/1813. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/20/1813. From Ebeling, 08/24/1797, APS Film 1097. To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. From Eddy, 11/04/1811, HSP Coll. 443. From Eddy, 05/02/1812, HSP Coll. 443. From Eddy, 05/02/1812, HSP Coll. 443.

507

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

04/25/1812 05/02/1812



Mühlenberg to Eddy Eddy to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]91

Elliott, Stephen (1771–1830) About September 1808 11/09/1808 01/05/1809 02/15/1809 06/16/1809 09/12/1809 10/21/1809 11/08/1809 11/24/1809 12/06/1809 01/10/1810 01/31/1810 02/25/1810 03/30/1810 06/29/1810 07/02/1810 08/27/1810 10/13/1810 11/05/1810 12/17/1810 01/02/1811 01/14/1811 02/01/1811 05/05/1811 05/18/1811 07/29/1811 10/01/1811 11/04/1811 01/05/1812 02/14/1812 03/13/1812 04/08/1812 05/02/1812 06/07/1812 91 92 93 94 95



Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott ot Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Elliott to Mühlenberg

To Collins, 05/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Elliott, 11/09/1808, HUH Elliott Papers. To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. To Elliott, 12/17/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. From Ebeling, 03/16/1802, APS Film 1097.

[reconstructed]92

[reconstructed]93

[reconstructed]94

[reconstructed]95

508 06/22/1812 08/12/1812 10/05/1812 10/12/1812 11/11/1812 12/01/1812 12/26/1812 01/14/1813 04/20/1813 05/17/1813 07/20/1813 08/01/1813 08/25/1813 10/30/1813 11/07/1813 12/06/1813 04/07/1814 05/09/1814 07/13/1814 10/10/1814 10/30/1814 11/15/1814 04/10/1815

Appendices





Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott Elliott to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Elliott Mühlenberg to Elliott

[reconstructed]96

Enslin, Aloysius († 1810) 07/14/1805 08/08/1806



Enslin to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]97 Enslin to Mühlenb. and J.Brickell [reconstructed]98 Fabricius, Sebastian Andreas (1716–1790)

01/05/1775 01/20/1784 07/01/1785 96 97 98 99



Mühlenberg to Fabricius Fabricius to [Mühlenberg et al.]99 Fabricius to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]100

To Baldwin, 01/14/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 122. To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. Sek161 To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. On APS Film 1097, this letter appears to be written by Fabricius and submitted to Mühlenberg, although there is no envelope, address-line, or any other indicator that Mühlenberg was the sole addressee. Additionally, Mühlenberg and others are generally referred to in the third person throughout the letter, which makes it more plausible that this was a circular letter addressing everyone concerned in the Halle trade. 100 Mühlenberg to Fabricius, 11/01/1785, AFSt/M 4 D: 20.

509

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

11/01/1785 11/24/1786 06/18/1787 07/14/1787 12/01/1787 12/14/1789



Mühlenberg to Fabricius Mühlenberg to Fabricius Mühlenberg to Fabricius101 Fabricius to Mühlenberg Fabricius to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Fabricius

[reconstructed]102

Flügge, Johannes (1775–1816) 07/02/1810 January 1815



Flügge to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Flügge



[reconstructed]103 [reconstructed]104

Fresenius, Friedrich Anton (1745–1814/15) 04/09/1794



Fresenius to Mühlenberg105

Freylinghausen, Gottlieb Anastasius (1719–1785) und Ziegenhagen, Friedrich Michael (1694–1776) 03/01/1775



Mühlenberg et al. to Ziegenhagen and Freylinghausen

Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde Berlin 10/02/1799



Mühlenberg to GNF Green, Jacob (1790–1841)

09/19/1814 November 1814 December 1814 January 1815



Mühlenberg to Green Green to Mühlenberg Green to Mühlenberg Green to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]106 [reconstructed]107 [reconstructed]108 [reconstructed]109

101 In Fabricius to Mühlenberg, 12/02/1787, APS Film 1097, Fabricius wrongly refers to this letter with the date June 28, 1787. 102 From Fabricius, 12/02/1787, APS Film 1097. 103 See inside of frontcover 580 M89bo vol. III. 104 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. 105 From Fresenius, 04/09/1794, HSP Coll. 443. 106 To Collins, 10/18/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 107 To Collins, 12/02/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 108 To Collins, 01/04/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. 109 To Collins, 01/30/1815, ANSP Coll. 129.

510 03/14/1815 Early 1815

Appendices



Green to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Green



[reconstructed]110

Greenway, James (1703–1794) About 1792 About May 1794

Mühlenberg to Greenway Greenway to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]111 [reconstructed]112

Hamilton, William (1749–1813) 03/10/1803



Hamilton to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]113

Helmuth, Justus H. Philip (1745–1825) and Schmidt, John Frederick (1746–1812) 03/19/1787 03/24/1787 03/27/1787 About April 1787 05/14/1787 05/23/1791 10/02/1793 10/05/1793 10/24/1793 11/04/1793 11/30/1797 07/17/1799 07/16/1800 About 10/28/1801 01/09/1802 07/25/1805 09/21/1806 10/20/1806 10/22/1807

Helmuth to Mühlenberg Schmidt, J. F. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Helmuth Helmuth to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]114 Mühlenberg to Helmuth Mühlenberg to Helmuth Mühlenberg to Helmuth [reconstructed]115 Mühlenberg to Helmuth (and Schmidt, J. F.) Mühlenberg to Helmuth (and Schmidt, J. F.) Mühlenberg to Helmuth Schmidt, J. F. to Mühlenberg Schmidt, J. F. to Mühlenberg Schmidt, J. F. to Mühlenberg Schmidt, J. F. to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]116 Schmidt, J. F. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Helmuth Mühlenberg to Schmidt J. F. [reconstructed]117 Mühlenberg to Schmidt J. F. [reconstructed]118 Schmidt, J. F. to Mühlenberg

110 From Green, 03/14/1815, HSP Coll. 443. 111 Flora Lancastriensis, APS 580 M89f, entry for 12/07/1792. 112 Flora Lancastriensis, APS 580 M89f, entry for 05/31/1794. 113 Brief von Will[iam] Hamilton aber schon Mart. 10 gesch[rieben]. APS 580 M89fo, entry for 04/11/1803. 114 To Helmuth, 05/14/1787, APS Film 1097. 115 To Helmuth & Schmidt, 10/05/1793, APS Film 1097. 116 To Nebe, 10/28/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. 117 From Schmidt, 10/22/1807, APS Film 1097. 118 From Schmidt, 10/22/1807, APS Film 1097.

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

511

Henkel, Paul (1754–1822) 04/09/1812



Henkel, Paul to Mühlenberg Henkel, Solomon (no data available)

03/08/1805 05/05/1806 12/14/1807



Mühlenberg to Henkel, Solomon Mühlenberg to Henkel, Solomon Mühlenberg to Henkel, Solomon Hedwig, Johann (1730–1799)

About 1794 10/09/1795 02/08/1796 04/18/1797 06/01/1797 08/27/1797 11/25/1797 08/06/1798 About April 1799 07/15/1799

Hedwig, Johann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Hedwig, Johann Hedwig, Johann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Hedwig, Johann Mühlenberg to Hedwig, Johann Hedwig, Johann to Mühlenberg Hedwig, Johann to Mühlenberg Hedwig, Johann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Hedwig/Sprengel Mühlenberg to Hedwig, Johann

[reconstructed]119 [reconstructed]120 [reconstructed]121 [reconstructed]122

[reconstructed]123 [reconstructed]124

Hedwig, Romanus Adolf (1772–1806) 10/28/1799 About 1799/1800 12/13/1800 08/01/1802

Hedwig R. A. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Hedwig, R. A. Hedwig R. A. to Mühlenberg Hedwig R. A. to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]125

Hiester, Isaac (no data available) 07/27/1813



Mühlenberg to Hiester



[reconstructed]126

119 From Johann Hedwig, 02/08/1796, HSP Soc. Coll. 120 From Johann Hedwig, 02/08/1796, HSP Soc. Coll. 121 From Johann Hedwig, 11/25/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. 122 From Johann Hedwig, 08/27/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. 123 To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4. 124 From Romanus A. Hedwig, 10/28/1799, HSP Soc. Coll. 125 To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. 126 27.*an D[oktor] Hiester geschrieben und für Reading Pflanzen angehalten. See Botany, a

512

Appendices

Hoffmann, Georg Franz (1761–1821) About end of 1791 05/03/1792 11/20/1792 04/22/1793 01/05/1794 11/25/1795 01/09/1801 03/04/1802 04/08/1804

Hoffmann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Hoffmann Hoffmann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Hoffmann Hoffmann to Mühlenberg Hoffmann to Mühlenberg Hoffmann to Mühlenberg Hoffmann to Mühlenberg Hoffmann to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]127 [reconstructed]128 [reconstructed]129

Hosack, David (1769–1835) 04/21/1815



Hosack to Mühlenberg

Humboldt, Friedrich Willhelm Heinrich Alexander von (1769–1859) About July 1804 06/27/1804

Mühlenberg to Humboldt Humboldt to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]130

Jackson, John (1748–1821) 11/11/1812



Jackson to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]131

Jefferson, Thomas (1743–1826) About October 1813 03/16/1814

Mühlenberg to Jefferson Jefferson to Mühlenberg133

[reconstructed]132

notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/27/1813. 127 From Hoffmann, 11/20/1792, HSP Coll. 443. 128 From Hoffmann, 11/20/1792, HSP Coll. 443. 129 From Hoffmann, 01/05/1794, HSP Coll. 443. 130 From Humboldt, 06/27/1804, APS Film 1097. 131 To Elliott, 11/11/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. 132 Ich thue heute auf die Post ein Ex[emplar] von meinem Catalogo an Stephen Elliot, Christoph Müller in Harmony u[nd] Thom[as] Jefferson. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 10/12/1813. 133 From Jefferson, 03/16/1814, Looney, Jefferson Papers VII, 244.

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

513

Junghans, Philip Kaspar (1738–1797) and Richter, Friedrich Adolf (1748–1797) About October 1796

Mühlenberg to Junghans, Richter [reconstructed]134 Kampmann, Frederick (1746–1832)

09/18/1795 11/16/1808 February 1810 06/19/1811 07/19/1811 Januar 1813



Kampmann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Kampmann Kampmann to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Kampmann Mühlenberg to Kampmann Kampmann to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]135 [reconstructed]136 [reconstructed]137 [reconstructed]138 [reconstructed]139 [reconstructed]140

Kin, Matthias († about 1825) Early 1809 11/06/1809 Early 1813 Early 1814 Early 1814



Kin to Mühlenberg Kin to Mühlenberg Kin to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Kin Mühlenberg to Kin



[reconstructed]141 [reconstructed]142 [reconstructed]143 [reconstructed]144 [reconstructed]145

Knapp, Georg Christian (1753–1825) About October 1803

Knapp to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]146

134 To Stoppelberg, 10/27/1796, AFSt M.4 D3. 135 H[er]r Kampmann von Hope schickt mir ein Brief dat. Sept. 18 1795 u[nd] mit demselb[en] folg[en] Pflanzen. See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for 10/19/1795. 136 Heute habe ich einen Brief an Kampman geschrieb[en] um unsre Korrespondenz wieder zu eröfnen, er wird aber erst nechste Woche abgehen. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/16/1808. 137 1. Febr[uar] schickt Kampmann eine Beschreibung von Pflanzen. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 02/01/1810. 138 Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1811 [margin notes]. 139 Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/10/1811 [margin notes]. 140 Brief von Kampman. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/21/1813. 141 Kin schreibt daß Lyons alles in Partnership mit Barton habe u[nd] daß sein dach halte (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 04/05/1809. 142 Auch Kin schreibt Nov[ember] 6 daß er von einer Reise zu Fuß über 800 Mal zurück gekommen (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in early November 1809. 143 1) Brief von Kin, mit 2 Blättern (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 01/01/1813. 144 To Collins, 12/02/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 145 To Collins, 12/05/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 146 To Nebe, 10/17/1803, AFSt M.4 D5.

514

Appendices

Kramsch, Samuel (1764–1824) 03/14/1791 About November 1807 mid-1811 mid-1811

Kramsch to Mühlenberg Kramsch to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Kramsch Mühlenberg to Kramsch



[reconstructed]147 [reconstructed]148 [reconstructed]149 [reconstructed]150

Kunze, Johann Christopher (1744–1807) 05/07/1787 05/19/1787 About 1796 About August 1799 11/21/1801 05/12/1803

Mühlenberg to Kunze, J. C. Kunze, J. C. to Mühlenberg Kunze, J. C. to Mühlenberg Kunze, J. C. to Mühlenberg Kunze, J. C. to Mühlenberg Kunze, J. C. to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]151 [reconstructed]152 [reconstructed]153

Kunze, Margaretha Henrietta (1751–1831) [undated]



Mühlenberg to Kunze, Margaretha H.



Loddiges, Joachim Conrad (1738–1826) and Loddiges, George (1786–1846) Summer 1805



Loddiges to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]154 Logan, George (1753–1821)

02/14/1806 06/25/1812



Mühlenberg to Logan Mühlenberg to Logan

147 Brief von Kramsch datiert 14.3.1791 mit einem Paket von 143 Kräutern. See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for 04/18/1791. 148 Dec[ember] 8 ein Brief von H[er]rn Kramsch. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/08/1807. 149 To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. The recipient, August Gotthild Oemler, is falsely cited as “Omer” in Mole, the APS online finding device. 150 To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17. 151 From Kunze, 05/19/1787, YUL Schwab Coll. 152 To Schultze, 11/28/1798, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. 153 From Frederick A. C. Mühlenberg, 08/23/1799, APS Film 1097. 154 Sept[ember] 5. 1805 Ein Brief von Conrad Loddiges u[nd] Son, Nursery and Seedsmen at Hackney near London. Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89fo, entry for 09/05/1805.

515

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

Lyon, John (1765–1814) Late 1806 Early 1807 March 1813 11/30/1813 May 1814



Lyon to Mühlenberg Lyon to Mühlenberg Lyon to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Lyon Mühlenberg to Lyon



[reconstructed]155 [reconstructed]156 [reconstructed]157 [reconstructed]158 [reconstructed]159

Marshall, Humphrey (1722–1801) and Marshall, Moses (1758–1813) Winter 1789/90 01/18/1790 04/09/1792 04/13/1792



Marshall, H. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Marshall, H. Mühlenberg to Marshall, M. Marshall, M. to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]160

Mease, James D. (1771–1864) Early 1803 Early 1812



Mease to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mease



[reconstructed]161 [reconstructed]162

Melsheimer, Valentin Frederick (1749–1814) 10/26/1790 December 1792 October 1794

Mühlenberg to Melsheimer Melsheimer to Mühlenberg Melsheimer to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]163 [reconstructed]164 [reconstructed]165

155 18 den 2t[en] Brief von Lyon (…). See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/18/1807. 156 18 den 2t[en] Brief von Lyon (…). See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89fo, entry for 03/18/1807. 157 To Collins, 03/16/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 158 To Collins, 12/13/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 159 To Collins, 06/07/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 160 To Humphrey Marshall, 01/18/1790, HSP Soc. Coll. 161 To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. 162 From Collins, 04/10/1812, HSP Coll. 443. 163 To Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III. 164 Herr Melsheimer schickt mir im Anfang des Dec[ember] 1792 auf mein dringend Anhalt folgende Pflanze mehrteils Cryptogam die auf d[en] Pidgeon Hills wachsen also wenig von hier verschieden. See Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, undated entry for December 1792. 165 Flora Lancastriensis APS 580 M89f, entry for 10/18/1794.

516

Appendices

Michaux, Francois André (1770–1855) 06/27/1811



Michaux to Mühlenberg Mitchill, Samuel Latham (1764–1831)

06/06/1796 10/24/1796 12/02/1811 About 1811 Fall 1814



Mühlenberg to Mitchill Mitchill to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mitchill Mitchill to Mühlenberg Mitchill to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]166 [reconstructed]167 [reconstructed]168

M’Mahon, Bernard (1775–1816) May/June 1814 Mühlenberg to M’Mahon



[reconstructed]169

Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad (1750–1801) 05/23/1779 10/11/1780 02/20/1782 05/15/1782 Spring 1784 06/28/1784 About 1794/1795 About mid 1795 12/08/1799 08/23/1799

Mühlenberg, F. A. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, F. A. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, F. A. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, F. A. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, F. A. Mühlenberg, F. A. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, F. A. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, F. A. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, F. A. Mühlenberg, F. A. to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]170 [reconstructed]171 [reconstructed]172 [reconstructed]173

Mühlenberg, Georg Heinrich (1749–1833) October 1804



Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, G. H. [reconstructed]174

166 From Mitchell, 10/24/1796, HSP Coll. 443. 167 To Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. 168 To Collins, 11/23/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 169 To Collins, 06/07/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 170 From Frederick A. C. Mühlenberg, 06/28/1784, APS Film 1097. 171 To Schultze, 01/19/1795, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. 172 To Schultze, 07/31/1795, APS Coll. Mss.B.M891. 173 From Frederick A. C. Mühlenberg, 08/23/1799, APS Film 1097. 174 From Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg, 05/02/1807, APS Film 1097.

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

About 1805 05/02/1807



517

Mühlenberg, G. H. to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]175 Mühlenberg, G. H. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior (1711–1787)

12/04/1771 01/06/1772 02/22/1772 01/01/1774 04/01/1774 01/07/1779 01/09/1779 02/02/1779 03/23/1779 03/27/1779 04/02/1779 04/27/1779 10/06/1779 10/25/1779 11/08/1779 03/03/1780 03/27/1780 04/03/1780 07/06/1780 07/11/1780 09/24/1780 09/29/1780 10/30/1780 01/03/1781 01/11/1781 03/17/1781 04/02/1781 04/27/1781 01/19/1782 03/27/1782 07/15/1782 12/14/1782 01/07/1783 06/11/1783 11/18/1783 01/02/1784



Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg et al. Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, H.M. to Mühlenberg (and Schulze) Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior

175 From Georg Heinrich Mühlenberg, 05/02/1807, APS Film 1097.

518 01/15/1784 04/24/1784 06/26/1784 07/29/1784 02/07/1785 03/23/1785 04/02/1785 07/22/1785 01/10/1786 06/19/1786 10/16/1786 01/08/1787 01/31/1787 02/19/1787

Appendices



Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, H.M. [reconstructed]176 Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, H.M. [reconstructed]177 Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior

Mühlenberg, Henry Augustus Philip (1782–1844) 11/13/1802 07/11/1803 01/15/1805 03/26/1805 04/18/1806 10/20/1808 10/25/1808 11/16/1808 06/06/1809 07/03/1809



Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Henry

Mühlenberg, John Philip Emanuel (1784–1825) About 1805 04/01/1808 04/04/1808 Fall 1808 Summer 1809



Mühlenberg, Philip to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]178 Mühlenberg, Philip to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]179 Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Philip Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Philip [reconstructed]180 Mühlenberg, Philip to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]181

176 From Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, 05/02/1807, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, Letter# 727. 177 From Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, 05/02/1807, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, Letter# 1035. 178 To Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 01/15/1805, MCollege – Penn. German Coll. 179 To John Philip E. Mühlenberg, 04/04/1808, APS Film 1097. 180 To Henry Augustus Mühlenberg, 11/16/1808, APS Film 371. 181 To Mary Catherine Mühlenberg, 08/22/1809, APS Film 371.

519

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Philip [reconstructed]182

About July 1813

Mühlenberg, Maria Katharina (1755–1812) [undated]



Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, Maria Katharina Mühlenberg, Mary Catherine (1756–1844)

08/22/1809



Mühlenberg to Mühlenberg, M.C. (and children) Müller, Johann Christopher (1779–1845)

About August 1807 About September 1807 About November 1807 Early 1808 05/09/1808 06/20/1808 About mid-1808 08/08/1808 09/22/1808 09/30/1808 10/20/1808 Early December 1808 12/28/1808 09/05/1809 04/10/1809 06/06/1809 10/24/1809



Müller to Mühlenberg Müller to Mühlenberg Müller to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Müller Müller to Mühlenberg Müller to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Müller Müller to Mühlenberg Müller to Mühlenberg Müller to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Müller Müller to Mühlenberg Müller to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Müller Mühlenberg to Müller Mühlenberg to Müller Müller to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]183 [reconstructed]184 [reconstructed]185 [reconstructed]186 [reconstructed]187 [reconstructed]188

[reconstructed]189 [reconstructed]190 [reconstructed]191 [reconstructed]192 [reconstructed]193

182 To Collins, 07/26/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 183 Ein Brief von J[ohann] C[hristopher] Müller aus Harmony, der Doctor u[nd] Liebhaber der Botanic ist (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/29/1807. 184 einen 2t[en] Brief von D[oktor] Müller aus Harmony. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 09/22/1807. 185 In der Nacht u[nd] heute Schnee und Reg[en] aus O[sten] ein Brief von D[oktor] Müller aus Harmony. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/05/1807. 186 From Müller, 05/09/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 187 From Müller, 08/08/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 188 From Müller, 09/22/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 189 From Müller, 12/28/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 190 From Müller, 12/28/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 191 From Müller, 10/24/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 192 From Müller, 10/24/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 193 From Müller, 10/24/1809, HSP Coll. 443.

520 06/10/1810 07/06/1810 March 1811 04/06/1811 09/10/1811 Summer 1811 11/18/1812 02/06/1813 03/16/1813 08/02/1813 11/02/1813 03/28/1814

Appendices



Müller to Mühlenberg Müller to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Müller Müller to Mühlenberg Müller to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Müller Mühlenberg to Müller Müller to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Müller Müller to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Müller Müller to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]194



[reconstructed]195 [reconstructed]196



[reconstructed]197



[reconstructed]198

Nebe, Joseph Friedrich (1737–1812) 06/06/1797 09/29/1797 11/24/1797 04/19/1798 07/11/1798 03/26/1799 12/04/1799 07/16/1799 10/21/1799 11/26/1799 08/04/1800 09/23/1800 02/27/1801 09/01/1801 10/28/1801 03/30/1802 10/04/1802 08/11/1802 01/12/1803 05/16/1803



Nebe to Mühlenberg Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]199



[reconstructed]200



[reconstructed]201

194 From Müller, 04/06/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 195 From Müller, 09/10/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 196 An C[hristopher] Müller in Harmony geschrieb[en] (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/18/1812. 197 From Müller, 08/02/1813, HSP Coll. 443. 198 Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 11/01/1813. 199 To Nebe, 11/24/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. 200 To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4. See also Mühlenberg’s letter to Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4. 201 To Nebe, 07/21/1803, AFSt M.4 D5.

521

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

07/21/1803 July 1803 10/17/1803 02/10/1804 04/24/1804 09/18/1804 11/21/1804 03/18/1805 04/08/1805 07/05/1805 10/25/1805 03/14/1806 05/07/1806 06/10/1806 01/21/1807 07/24/1807 10/12/1809



Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Nebe to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Nebe Nebe to Mühlenberg Nebe to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]202



[reconstructed]203 [reconstructed]204

Oemler, August Gotthold (no data available) 12/27/1809 05/02/1811 08/21/1811 1812/1813 1812/1813 Before June 1813 June to July 1813 June to July 1813

Oemler to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Oemler Mühlenberg to Oemler Mühlenberg to Oemler Mühlenberg to Oemler Oemler to Mühlenberg Oemler to Mühlenberg Oemler to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]205 [reconstructed]206



[reconstructed]207 [reconstructed]208 [reconstructed]209 [reconstructed]210 [reconstructed]211

Palm, Johann Jacob (1750–1826) About April 1791 07/27/1791

Palm, J.J. to Mühlenberg Palm, J.J. to Mühlenberg

202 To Nebe, 10/17/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. 203 To Nebe, 10/25/1805, AFSt M.4 D6. 204 To Nebe, 03/14/1806, AFSt M.4 D6. 205 To Elliott, 01/31/1810, HUH Elliott Papers. 206 To Baldwin, 08/20/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 42. 207 To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. 208 To Elliott, 01/14/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. 209 To Baldwin, 06/01/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 85. 210 To Elliott, 07/20/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. 211 To Elliott, 07/20/1813, HUH Elliott Papers. 212 From Palm, 07/27/1791, APS Film 1097.

[reconstructed]212

522 08/15/1796 About 1800 12/20/1804 04/22/1805 08/08/1805 06/29/1807

Appendices



Palm, J.J. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Palm, J.J. Mühlenberg to Palm, J.J. Mühlenberg to Palm, J.J. Palm, J.J. to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Palm, J. J.

[reconstructed]213 [reconstructed]214 [reconstructed]215 [reconstructed]216

Peck, William Dandridge (1763–1822) 02/07/1809 01/10/1810 04/17/1812 05/19/1812



Mühlenberg to Peck Mühlenberg to Peck Peck to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Peck Persoon, Christian Hendrik (1761–1836)

04/30/1800 About 1802 September 1803 01/21/1806 12/16/1807 10/24/1809 10/01/1810 01/30/1812 03/28/1812 About April 1812 About January 1813 07/15/1814

Persoon to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Persoon Persoon to Mühlenberg Persoon to Mühlenberg Persoon to Mühlenberg Persoon to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Persoon Persoon to Mühlenberg Persoon to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Persoon Mühlenberg to Persoon Persoon to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]217 [reconstructed]218



[reconstructed]219



[reconstructed]220 [reconstructed]221

213 From Collins, 06/13/1813, HSP Coll. 443. 214 This letter is double-dated: Third and 20th of December 1804. See Palm to Mühlenberg, 08/08/1805, APS Film 1097. 215 From Palm, 08/08/1805, APS Film 1097. 216 Jun[i] 29. 1807 (…) Mein letzter Brief an Willdenow u[nd] Palm geht jetzt erst mit Little William nach Tönning. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/29/1807. 217 From Ebeling, 03/16/1802, APS Film 1097. 218 22. habe ich alte Brief schon im Sept[ember] 1803 geschr[ieben] von Beauvois u[nd] Persoon erhalt[en] die belehrend sind u[nd] die ich beantwort muß. See APS 580 M89fo, entry for 06/22/1806. The letter by Beauvois is most probably the one dated October 22, 1803. See above on page 22. 219 From Persoon, 01/30/1812, HSP Coll. 443. 220 To Collins, 04/20/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Mühlenberg to Collins, 06/15/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. 221 To Collins, 02/25/1813, ANSP Coll. 129.

523

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

About January 1815 Mühlenberg to Persoon 01/18/1815 Persoon to Mühlenberg 02/02/1815 Persoon to Mühlenberg 15/02/1815 Persoon to Mühlenberg About May 1815 Mühlenberg to Persoon

[reconstructed]222 [reconstructed]223 [reconstructed]224

Pursh, Frederick Traugott (1774–1820) About fall 1808 01/12/1809 About 1809 About fall 1813

Mühlenberg to Pursh Pursh to Mühlenberg Pursh to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Pursh



[reconstructed]225 [reconstructed]226 [reconstructed]227

Rafinesque-Schmalz, Constantine-Samuel (1774–1820) About April 1803 05/09/1803 05/16/1803 05/23/1803 06/04/1803 06/30/1803 June 1803 06/21/1803 About mid-1803 07/10/1803 07/12/1803 07/21/1803 08/04/1803 08/19/1803 08/25/1803 08/08/1805

Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Rafinesque Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Rafinesque Mühlenberg to Rafinesque Mühlenberg to Rafinesque Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Rafinesque Rafinesque to Mühlenberg Rafinesque to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]228 [reconstructed]229

[reconstructed]230 [reconstructed]231 [reconstructed]232

[reconstructed]233

222 To Collins, 01/30/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. 223 To Baldwin, 05/11/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 171. 224 To Collins, 05/19/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. 225 From Pursh, 01/12/1809, HSP Coll. 443. 226 To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. See also Pursh to Mühlenberg, 01/12/1809, HSP Coll. 443.. 227 To Collins, 01/23/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 228 From Rafinesque, 05/09/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 229 From Rafinesque, 05/23/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 230 From Rafinesque, 07/10/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 231 From Rafinesque, 06/30/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 232 From Rafinesque, 05/09/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 233 From Rafinesque, 08/25/1803, HSP Coll. 443.

524

Appendices

Rich, Obadiah (1777–1850) About December 1811 01/03/1812 04/16/1812 August 1813 08/17/1813

Rich to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Rich Mühlenberg to Rich Rich to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Rich



[reconstructed]234 [reconstructed]235



[reconstructed]236 [reconstructed]237

Rohde, Michael (1782–1812) Fall 1810 24/04/1815



Rohde to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Rohde



[reconstructed]238

Roth, Albrecht Willhelm (1757–1834) January 1815



Mühlenberg to Roth



[reconstructed]239

Rush, Benjamin (1745–1813) 25/06/1787 15/02/1788 09/04/1792 26/11/1792 09/12/1793 08/09/1794 03/10/1794 02/06/1811 31/08/1812



Mühlenberg to Rush Rush to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Rush Mühlenberg to Rush Mühlenberg to Rush Mühlenberg to Rush Mühlenberg to Rush Mühlenberg to Rush Mühlenberg to Rush

234 To Rich, 04/16/1812, BPL Coll Ms. Am. 1096 (1). See also Peck to Mühlenberg, 05/19/1812, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 235 To Rich, 04/16/1812, BPL Coll Ms. Am. 1096 (1). See also Peck to Mühlenberg, 05/19/1812, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 236 To Collins, 08/27/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/17/1813. 237 17. Brief von O[badiah] Rich Georgetown mit einem Probebog[en] einer Synopsis v[on] N[ord] Am[erikanischen] Pflanzen. so gleich beantw[ortet](…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 08/17/1813. 238 Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, 01/10/1811 [margin notes]. 239 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815].

525

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

Schkuhr, Christian (1741–1811) About 1801 03/17/1802 06/28/1803 02/12/1804 07/02/1805 01/28/1806 10/17/1806 Spring 1807 05/26/1807 About 1810



Mühlenberg to Schkuhr Schkuhr to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schkuhr Schkuhr to Mühlenberg Schkuhr to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schkuhr Mühlenberg to Schkuhr Schkuhr to Mühlenberg Schkuhr to Mühlenberg Schkuhr to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]240



[reconstructed]241



[reconstructed]242 [reconstructed]243 [reconstructed]244



[reconstructed]245

van der Schott, Joseph († 1812) [undated]



van der Schott to Mühlenberg

van der Smissen & Son (Trading Company at Altona, Germany) January 1815



Mühlenberg to Henry v.d Smissen [reconstructed]246 Schrader, Heinrich Adolf (1767–1836)

About July 1805 About 1806 09/15/1807 09/19/1808 About 1810 January 1815

Schrader to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schrader Schrader to Mühlenberg Schrader to Mühlenberg Schrader to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schrader



[reconstructed]247 [reconstructed]248 [reconstructed]249



[reconstructed]250 [reconstructed]251

240 From Schkuhr, 03/17/1802, HSP Coll. 443. 241 From Schkuhr, 02/12/1804, HSP Coll. 443. 242 From Schkuhr, 05/26/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 243 From Schkuhr, 05/26/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 244 Schkuhr to Mühlenberg, 05/26/1807, HSP Coll. 443. 245 Schkuhr, Willd[enow] u[nd] Schrader hab auch geantwortet (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/12/1810. 246 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. 247 From Vogel, 07/31/1805, APS Film 1097. 248 From Schrader, 09/19/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 249 From Schrader, 09/19/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 250 Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/12/1810. 251 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815].

526

Appendices

von Schreber, Johann Christian Daniel Edler (1739–1810) 03/05/1785 11/01/1785 04/04/1786 10/05/1786 11/24/1786 05/01/1787 05/17/1787 10/08/1787 11/16/1787 05/05/1788 06/16/1788 11/18/1788 08/08/1789 08/19/1789 10/26/1790 11/08/1790 07/22/1791 05/30/1792 09/20/1792 05/07/1794 05/31/1794 10/28/1794 11/23/1795 About August 1796 09/16/1796 05/09/1797 01/28/1801 04/09/1802 10/04/1802 03/18/1806 02/16/1807

Schreber to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schreber Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schreber Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schreber Mühlenberg to Schreber Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schreber Mühlenberg to Schreber Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schreber Mühlenberg to Schreber Schreber to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schreber Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schreber Schreber to Mühlenberg Schreber to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schreber Mühlenberg to Schreber Schreber to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]252 [reconstructed]253

[reconstructed]254 [reconstructed]255

[reconstructed]256

Schultze, Christopher Emanuel (1740–1809) [undated] 05/16/1782



Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel

252 From Schreber, 07/22/1791, HSP Coll. 443. See also Palm to Mühlenberg, 07/27/1791, APS Film 1097. 253 From Palm, 07/27/1791, APS Film 1097. 254 From Schreber, 11/23/1795, HSP Coll. 443. 255 From Palm, 08/15/1796, APS Film 1097. 256 To Schreber, 10/04/1802, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

05/22/1782 11/01/1783 01/10/1785 10/14/1788 10/17/1789 12/11/1789 08/22/1791 12/06/1791 01/13/1793 04/03/1793 10/16/1793 01/15/1794 01/30/1794 10/24/1794 01/19/1795 07/16/1795 07/31/1795 12/31/1796 03/26/1798 04/17/1798 11/28/1798 01/03/1799 04/23/1799 03/08/1800 06/19/1801 08/14/1801 09/22/1801 12/06/1803 09/18/1804 10/06/1804 08/08/1806 12/17/1806 04/03/1807



Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg et al. Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Mühlenberg to Schultze, Emanuel Schultze, Elizabeth (1748–1808)

04/22/1773 09/23/1774



Mühlenberg to Schultze, Elizabeth Mühlenberg to Schultze, Elizabeth Schulze, Johann Ludwig (1748–1808)

06/24/1788



Mühlenberg to Schulze, Johann L.

527

528

Appendices

Schwägrichen, Christian Friedrich (1775–1853) About mid-1799 Schwägrichen to Mühlenberg July 1802 Mühlenberg to Schwägrichen May 1803 Schwägrichen to Mühlenberg January 1815 Mühlenberg to Schwägrichen

[reconstructed]257 [reconstructed]258 [reconstructed]259 [reconstructed]260

Schöpf, Johann David (1752–1800) March 1785 November 1785 04/03/1786 09/01/1786 November 1786 03/31/1787 05/02/1787 06/24/1788 03/07/1788 11/17/1788 11/18/1788 06/23/1789 before October 1790 10/26/1790 06/16/1791

Schöpf to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schöpf Schöpf to Mühlenberg Schöpf to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schöpf Schöpf to Mühlenberg Schöpf to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schöpf Schöpf to Mühlenberg Schöpf to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schöpf265 Schöpf to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Schöpf Mühlenberg to Schöpf Schöpf to Mühlenberg267



[reconstructed]261 [reconstructed]262



[reconstructed]263



[reconstructed]264



[reconstructed]266

de Serra, José Correa (1750–1822) Sept. to Nov. 1812

Mühlenberg to de Serra

[reconstructed]268

257 To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. 258 To Nebe, 10/04/1802, AFSt M.4 D5. 259 To Nebe, 05/16/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. 260 To Collins, 01/30/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. 261 From Schreber, 03/05/1785, HSP Coll. 443. 262 From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. 263 From Schöpf, 05/02/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. 264 From Schöpf, 11/17/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. 265 At the University Archives Erlangen, this letter is falsely filed as a letter to J.C.D. von Schreber. 266 From Schöpf, 06/16/1791, APS Film 1097. 267 For this letter by Schöpf, a four-paged, anonymous letter fragment dated June 16, 1791 on APS Film 1097 was combined with a two-page fragment from HSP Coll. 443, which was signed by Schöpf’s hand and roughly dated “1791.” Both identification and reconstruction are based on similarities of scripture and contents in both fragments. A middle part, originally connecting both parts of the letter, appears to be missing. See Schöpf to Mühlenberg, 06/16/1791, APS Film 1097; Schöpf to Mühlenberg, 1791, HSP Coll. 443. 268 To Collins, 11/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. See also Mühlenberg to Collins, 01/09/1813, ANSP

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

Nov. to Dec. 1812

de Serra to Mühlenberg

529 [reconstructed]269

Smith, James Edward (1759–1828) 12/01/1792 03/06/1793 03/09/1793 06/05/1793 11/22/1793 05/07/1794 06/01/1794 06/12/1794 07/14/1794 07/30/1794 12/10/1794 06/03/1795 11/04/1795 01/20/1796 06/14/1796 10/18/1796 11/23/1797 06/28/1798 12/04/1798 02/01/1799 03/26/1799 03/06/1804 04/26/1804 03/21/1805 05/31/1805 11/19/1805 02/17/1806 07/15/1806 03/18/1807 12/22/1807 05/19/1808



Mühlenberg to Smith Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Smith Mühlenberg to Smith Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Smith Mühlenberg to Smith Mühlenberg to Smith Mühlenberg to Smith Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Smith Mühlenberg to Smith Mühlenberg to Smith Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Smith Smith to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Smith Mühlenberg to Smith Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Smith Smith to Mühlenberg Smith to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Smith

Coll. 129. 269 To Collins, 01/09/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. 270 From Smith, 06/03/1795, HSP Coll. 443. 271 From Smith, 11/04/1795, HSP Coll. 443. 272 From Smith, 06/14/1796, HSP Coll. 443. 273 To Smith, 06/28/1798, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 274 From Smith, 11/19/1805, HSP Coll. 443. 275 From Smith, 03/18/1807, HSP Coll. 443.



[reconstructed]270 [reconstructed]271



[reconstructed]272



[reconstructed]273



[reconstructed]274



[reconstructed]275

530 09/02/1809 11/08/1809 12/28/1813

Appendices



Smith to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Smith Mühlenberg to Smith



[reconstructed]276

Sprengel, Kurt Polycarp Joachim (1766–1833) [undated] 07/01/1797 About October 1802 10/05/1802 09/29/1803 November 1805 Early 1806 10/07/1806 11/20/1809 January 1815

Sprengel to Mühlenberg Sprengel to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Sprengel Mühlenberg to Sprengel Sprengel to Mühlenberg Sprengel to Mühlenberg Sprengel to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Sprengel Sprengel to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Sprengel



[reconstructed]277



[reconstructed]278 [reconstructed]279



[reconstructed]280 [reconstructed]281 [reconstructed]282



[reconstructed]283

Stoppelberg, Gottlieb Friedrich († 1797) About 1790 03/14/1791 08/10/1791 05/03/1792 09/18/1792 10/29/1792 01/24/1793 04/23/1793 09/21/1793 01/15/1794 05/30/1794 08/14/1794 10/07/1794



Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg [reconstructed]284 Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg [reconstructed]285 Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg, Lauman and Backer Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg

276 To Smith, 11/08/1809, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. 277 To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. 278 To Nebe, 01/12/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. 279 From Sprengel, 09/20/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 280 Ein Brief von Kurt Sprengel im Nov[ember] datiert (…). See APS 580 M89fo, entry for 04/02/1806. 281 APS 580 M89fo [entry July 21, 1806]. 282 From Sprengel, 11/20/1809, HSP Coll. 443. See also Mühlenberg to Nebe, 01/21/1807, AFSt M.4 D6.. 283 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. 284 To Stoppelberg, 03/14/1791, AFSt M.4 D3. 285 To Stoppelberg, 04/23/1793, AFSt M.4 D3.

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

12/22/1794 03/12/1795 04/28/1795 05/15/1795 06/11/1795 07/21/1795 09/22/1795 02/09/1796 08/24/1796 10/27/1796 11/17/1796 02/28/1797 03/01/1797



Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Stoppelberg to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg Mühlenberg to Stoppelberg

531

[reconstructed]286 [reconstructed]287

[reconstructed]288

Sturm, Jakob (1771–1848) About 1797 08/20/1797 02/15/1799 10/04/1799 10/16/1799 05/07/1800 10/20/1800 01/31/1801 02/06/1802 02/26/1803



Sturm to Mühlenberg Sturm to Mühlenberg Sturm to Mühlenberg Sturm to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Sturm Sturm to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Sturm Sturm to Mühlenberg Sturm to Mühlenberg Sturm to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]289 [reconstructed]290 [reconstructed]291 [reconstructed]292 [reconstructed]293



[reconstructed]294



[reconstructed]295

Swartz, Olof Peter (1760–1818) 10/25/1805 01/02/1807



Mühlenberg to Swartz Swartz to Mühlenberg



[reconstructed]296

286 From Stoppelberg, 09/22/1795, AFSt M.4 D3. 287 From Stoppelberg, 09/22/1795, AFSt M.4 D3. 288 From Stoppelberg, 02/09/1796, APS Film 1097. 289 From Sturm, 05/07/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 290 From Nebe, 09/29/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. See also Sturm to Mühlenberg, 05/07/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 291 From Sturm, 05/07/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 292 From Sturm, 01/31/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 293 From Sturm, 05/07/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 294 From Sturm, 01/31/1801, HSP Coll. 443. 295 From Sturm, 02/26/1803, HSP Coll. 443. 296 From Swartz, 01/02/1807, HSP Coll. 443.

532 07/14/1807 03/30/1808 11/13/1809 02/22/1810 1810 05/20/1811 05/12/1812 12/16/1813 January 1815

Appendices



Mühlenberg to Swartz Swartz to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Swartz Mühlenberg to Swartz Swartz an Mühlenberg Swartz to Mühlenberg Swartz to Mühlenberg Swartz to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Swartz



[reconstructed]297



[reconstructed]298 [reconstructed]299 [reconstructed]300



[reconstructed]301

Ticknor, George (1791–1871) 01/14/1815

Mühlenberg to Ticknor Turner, Dawson (1775–1858)

12/13/1802 02/21/1803



Turner to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Turner



[reconstructed]302

van Vleck, Jacob (1751–1831) About 1797 12/09/1797 01/18/1798 01/22/1798 02/10/1798 06/25/1798 1804 07/17/1807 December 1807



Mühlenberg to van Vleck van Vleck to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to van Vleck van Vleck to Mühlenberg van Vleck to Mühlenberg van Vleck to Mühlenberg van Vleck to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to van Vleck van Vleck to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]303 [reconstructed]304

[reconstructed]305 [reconstructed]306 [reconstructed]307

297 From Swartz, 03/30/1808, HSP Coll. 443. 298 From Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 299 From Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 300 From Swartz, 05/20/1811, HSP Coll. 443. 301 To Ticknor, 01/14/1815, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1812–1815]. 302 To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. 303 From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. 304 From van Vleck, 02/10/1798, HSP Coll. 443. 305 From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. 306 [A]n H[er]rn Van Vleck [geschrieben] u[nd] ihm Denke’s u[nd] Fr[au] Gambold Pflanzen zurück geschickt (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 07/17/1807. 307 Heute kam ein Brief von H[er]r van Vleck (…). See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/03/1807.

Appendix C – Lists of Correspondences

November 1809 December 1809 12/03/1813 May 1814 August 1814



Mühlenberg to van Vleck van Vleck to Mühlenberg van Vleck to Mühlenberg van Vleck to Mühlenberg van Vleck to Mühlenberg

533 [reconstructed]308 [reconstructed]309 [reconstructed]310 [reconstructed]311 [reconstructed]312

Vogel, Charles T. (no data available) 07/31/1805



Vogel to Mühlenberg Willdenow, Karl Ludwig (1765–1812)

About 1797 About 1798 10/02/1799 12/03/1799 18/04/1800 05/24/1800 01/10/1801 01/31/1801 05/04/1804 About July 1807 05/14/1809 About 1811

Willdenow to Mühlenberg Willdenow to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Willdenow Mühlenberg to Willdenow Willdenow to Mühlenberg Willdenow to Mühlenberg Willdenow to Mühlenberg Willdenow to Mühlenberg Willdenow to Mühlenberg Mühlenberg to Willdenow Willdenow to Mühlenberg Willdenow to Mühlenberg

[reconstructed]313 [reconstructed]314 [reconstructed]315 [reconstructed]316

[reconstructed]317 [reconstructed]318

308 [I]ch habe im Nov[ember] an VanVleck (…) deswegen geschrieb[en]. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, undated entry in early February 1810. 309 Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/05/1809. 310 Brief von Van Vleck Salem Dec[ember] 3 dank sehr für mein Catalog fragt nach Ludolfia wo sieh beschr[ieben] ist. See Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 12/17/1813. 311 To Collins, 06/07/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 312 To Collins, 08/26/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. 313 From Willdenow, 04/18/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 314 From Willdenow, 04/18/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 315 From Willdenow, 04/18/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 316 From Willdenow, 04/18/1800, HSP Coll. 443. 317 Jun[i] 29. 1807 (…) Mein letzter Brief an Willdenow u[nd] Palm geht jetzt erst mit Little William nach Tönning. Botany, a notebook APS 580 M89bo vol. III, entry for 06/29/1807. 318 To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers.

534

Appendices

Anonymous Letters and unidentified Correspondents:

[undated]



Anonymous Mühlenberg to Anonymous319

07/18/1809



“Children” [unspecified] Mühlenberg to his children

04/05/1773



Garliep [unidentified] Mühlenberg to Garliep

04/16/1805 04/26/1805



Göckl & Lehr [unidentified] Göckl and Lehr to Mühlenberg Göckl and Lehr to Mühlenberg

09/20/1787



Herr P. [unidentified] Mühlenberg to Herr P.

10/16/1809



Kerr, Isaac [unidentified] Kerr to Mühlenberg

09/25/1809



Ott, John [unidentified] Mühlenberg to Ott

[undated]



Schulze, Henry [unidentified] Mühlenberg to Schulze

04/03/1773



Vetter Bense [unidentified] Mühlenberg to Vetter Bense

04/03/1773



Vetter Eicke [unidentified] Mühlenberg to Vetter Eicke

319 To Anonymous, [undated], APS Film 1097.

535

Appendix D – Exchange Charts

4. APPENDIX D: EXCHANGE CHARTS BALDWIN, WILLIAM (1779–1819) Mühlenberg to Baldwin From Baldwin, 01/14/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 17. To Baldwin, 01/18/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 19. To Baldwin, 02/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 23. To Baldwin, 04/08/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 25. To Baldwin, 04/23/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 27. From Baldwin, 05/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 30. From Baldwin, 05/27/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 34. To Baldwin, 04/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 77. To Baldwin, 06/01/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 85. To Baldwin, 06/22/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 92. To Baldwin, 07/13/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 98. To Baldwin, 09/06/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 106. To Baldwin, 11/18/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 113. To Baldwin, 01/14/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 122. To Baldwin, 03/16/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 162.

[info] [plant ident.] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [plant ident.] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [specimens] [plant ident.] [info] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [info] [plant ident.] [plant ident.]

Baldwin to Mühlenberg From Baldwin, 01/14/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 17. To Baldwin, 02/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 23. From Baldwin, 04/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 26. From Baldwin, 05/03/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 29. From Baldwin, 05/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 30. From Baldwin, 06/25/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 36. To Baldwin, 07/08/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 38. From Baldwin, 07/16/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 39. To Baldwin, 08/20/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 42. To Baldwin, 09/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 45. From Baldwin, 11/01/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 50. To Baldwin, 11/04/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 51. From Baldwin, 12/06/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 53. From Baldwin, 12/23/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 55. To Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. From Baldwin, 01/28/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 57.

[specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [info] [own works] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [info] [post] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [info] [info] [info] [specimens]

536

Appendices

To Elliott, 04/08/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. From Baldwin, 04/20/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 58. From Baldwin, 05/26/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 62. To Elliott, 10/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. From Baldwin, 10/31/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 67. To Baldwin, 11/09/1812, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 68. From Baldwin, 03/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 70. From Baldwin, 03/31/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 73. From Baldwin, 04/09/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 75. To Collins, 05/15/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. From Baldwin, 06/05/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 87. From Baldwin, 06/11/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 88. From Baldwin, 06/19/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 91. To Baldwin, 06/29/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 94. To Baldwin, 07/06/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 97. To Baldwin, 07/13/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 98. To Collins, 07/17/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Baldwin, 09/06/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 106. From Baldwin, 09/15/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 108. To Baldwin, 21/25/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 119. From Baldwin, 01/14/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 121. To Baldwin, 01/14/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 122. To Baldwin, 01/22/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 124. From Baldwin, 07/15/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 142. To Baldwin, 11/28/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 150. To Collins, 12/02/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Baldwin, 03/16/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 162. To Baldwin, 04/12/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 164. To Baldwin, 04/27/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 168.

[specimens] [info] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [seeds] [specimens] [specimens] [post] [specimens] [info] [seeds] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [info] [info] [post] [info] [specimens]

BARTRAM, WILLIAM (1739–1823) Mühlenberg to Bartram To William Bartram, 06/22/1792, APS Film 628. [opportunity] [books] To William Bartram, 09/13/1792, HSP Coll. 36. [books] From William Bartram, 09/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. [seeds] To William Bartram, 10/15/1792, Darlington, Memorials, 470f. [plant ident.] [seeds] From William Bartram, 11/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. [specimens] [books] To William Bartram, 12/10/1792, HSP Coll. 36. [specimens]

Appendix D – Exchange Charts

537

Bartram to Mühlenberg From William Bartram, 09/08/1792, HSP Coll. 443. [specimens] To William Bartram, 09/13/1792, HSP Coll. 36. [specimens] From William Bartram, 09/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. [specimens] [seeds] To William Bartram, 10/15/1792, Darlington, Memorials, 470f. [plants] From William Bartram, 11/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. [specimens] To William Bartram, 12/10/1792, HSP Coll. 36. [books] To William Bartram, 01/29/1810, HSP Coll. 36. [books] BRICKELL, JOHN (1749–1809) Mühlenberg to Brickell To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. [plant ident.] To Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72. [plant ident.] [books] [info] To Brickell, 03/01/1804, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1801–1806]. [info] To Brickell, 04/26/1804, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. [plant ident.] [books] [equipment] From Brickell, 11/20/1804, HSP Coll. 443. [plant ident.] To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. [books] Brickell to Mühlenberg From Brickell, 02/22/1802, HSP Coll. 443. To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. To Brickell, 02/14/1804, BPL Coll. Ms.Ch.A.8.72. To Brickell, 04/26/1804, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. From Brickell, 11/20/1804, HSP Coll. 443. From Brickell, 12/30/1807, HSP Coll. 443.



[plants] [seeds] [plants] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [plants] [plants] [seeds]

COLLINS, ZACCHEUS (1764–1831) Mühlenberg to Collins To Collins, 04/20/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 06/15/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. From Collins, 07/07/1812, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 07/14/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 08/22/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 09/09/1812, ANSP Coll. 129.





[plant ident.] [specimens] [specimens] [plant ident.] [books] [info] [books] [specimens]

538

Appendices

From Collins, 09/24/1812, HSP Coll. 443. From Collins, 10/21/1812, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 02/01/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 02/25/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 05/15/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 06/03/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 07/17/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 07/26/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. From Collins, 08/23/1813, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 08/27/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. From Collins, 09/07/1813, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 10/12/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 10/19/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 10/26/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. From Collins, 10/26/1813, HSP Soc. Coll. To Collins, 11/22/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. From Collins, 11/30/1813, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 12/08/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 12/13/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 12/22/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 07/12/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 09/28/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 11/23/1814, ANSP Coll. 129.



[plant ident.] [specimens] [plant ident.] [books] [plant ident.] [info] [books] [plant ident.] [specimens] [plant ident.] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [books] [specimens] [specimens] [books] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [books] [specimens] [specimens] [books] [plant ident.] [books] [books] [books] [specimens] [plant ident.] [books] [books] [books]

Collins to Mühlenberg To Collins, 03/19/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 04/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 04/20/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. From Collins, 07/07/1812, HSP Coll. 443 To Collins, 07/14/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 08/22/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 08/26/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 09/09/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. From Collins, 09/24/1812, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 09/27/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Elliott, 10/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. From Collins, 10/15/1812, HSP Coll. 443. From Collins, 10/21/1812, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 11/06/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 12/28/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 01/09/1813, ANSP Coll. 129.

[books] [books] [books] [specimens] [specimens] [books] [books] [books] [books] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [info] [books] [info] [books]

539

Appendix D – Exchange Charts

To Collins, 01/13/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] From Collins, 01/25/1813, HSP Coll. 443. [books] [info] To Collins, 02/01/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [books] [specimens] To Collins, 02/12/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [info] To Collins, 02/25/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [books] [info] To Collins, 07/26/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] [books] To Collins, 08/27/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] From Collins, 09/07/1813, HSP Coll. 443. [info] To Collins, 09/11/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] [seeds] From Collins, 09/21/1813, HSP Coll. 443. [specimens] To Collins, 09/25/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] [plant ident.] [books] [post] To Collins, 10/12/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [plant ident.] [info] To Collins, 10/19/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] To Collins, 10/26/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] [plant ident.]320 To Collins, 08/26/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. [books] [post] To Collins, 09/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] [books] [specimens] To Collins, 09/28/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. [books] To Collins, 10/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. [post] To Collins, 11/14/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. [specimens] To Collins, 12/05/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. [post] To Collins, 01/04/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. [books] To Collins, 03/13/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. [info] [post] To Elliott, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers. [post] From Baldwin, 05/07/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 170. [post] To Collins, 05/19/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. [post] CUTLER, MANASSEH (1742–1823) Mühlenberg to Cutler To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. To Cutler, 11/08/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. To Cutler, 03/17/1794, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. To Collins, 11/05/1813, ANSP Coll. 129.

[books] [plant ident.] [specimens] [own works]

Cutler to Mühlenberg To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers.

[specimens]

320 Due to its enormous length and repetetive character, the exchange chart with Collins has been abreviated for the sake of readability.

540

Appendices

To Cutler, 11/08/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. To Cutler, 11/12/1792, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. To Cutler, 03/17/1794, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers.

[specimens] [specimens] [specimens]

DENKE, CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH (1775–1838) Mühlenberg to Denke From Denke, 06/07/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, [June 1798], APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 06/18/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From van Vleck, 06/25/1798, HSP Coll. 443. From Denke, 07/23/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 10/12/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 12/30/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 01/09/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 02/20/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 09/28/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 11/30/1799, HSP Coll. 443. From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d.

[plant ident.] [plants] [plant ident.] [books] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [books] [info] [plant ident.] [info] [info] [plant ident.] [specimens] [plants] [specimens] [info] [plant ident.] [plant ident.]

Denke to Mühlenberg From Denke, 06/07/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, [June 1798], APS Mss.B.M89.d. From van Vleck, 06/25/1798, HSP Coll. 443. From Denke, 08/19/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 10/12/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 01/31/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Denke, 11/30/1799, HSP Coll. 443. From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. To Elliott, 10/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers.

[plant ident.] [plants] [specimens] [plants] [specimens] [plants] [plants] [specimens] [seeds] [plants]

HEDWIG, JOHANN (1730–1799) Mühlenberg to Hedwig From Johann Hedwig, 02/08/1796, HSP Soc. Coll. To Stoppelberg, 10/27/1796, AFSt M.4 D3. From Johann Hedwig, 08/27/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. From Johann Hedwig, 08/06/1798, HSP Coll. 443.



[specimens] [plants] [specimens] [seeds] [specimens] [seeds]

541

Appendix D – Exchange Charts

Hedwig to Mühlenberg From Johann Hedwig, 02/08/1796, HSP Soc. Coll. From Johnn Hedwig, 08/27/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. From Johann Hedwig, 11/25/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. From Johann Hedwig, 08/06/1798, HSP Coll. 443. From Romanus A. Hedwig, 10/28/1799, HSP Soc. Coll. To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4.

[plant ident.] [specimens] [microscope] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [seeds]

HEDWIG, ROMANUS ADOLPH (1772–1806) Hedwig, R.A. to Mühlenberg From Romanus A. Hedwig, 10/28/1799, HSP Soc. Coll. From Romanus A. Hedwig, 12/13/1800, HSP Soc. Coll. From Romanus A. Hedwig, 08/01/1802, HSP Soc. Coll. To Cutler, 04/11/1791, OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers.

[books] [own works] [specimens] [plant ident.] [own works] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.]

Mühlenberg to Hedwig, R.A. From Romanus A. Hedwig, 12/13/1800, HSP Soc. Coll. From Romanus A. Hedwig, 08/01/1802, HSP Soc. Coll.

[specimens] [specimens]

HOFFMANN, GEORG FRANZ (1761–1821) Mühlenberg to Hoffmann From Hoffmann, 11/20/1792, HSP Coll. 443. From Hoffmann, 01/05/1794, HSP Coll. 443. From Hoffmann, 01/09/1801, HSP Coll. 443.



[specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [plants]

Hoffmann to Mühlenberg From Palm, 07/27/1791, APS Film 1097. From Hoffmann, 11/20/1792, HSP Coll. 443. From Hoffmann, 01/05/1794, HSP Coll. 443.



[seeds] [seeds][info] [books] [plant ident.] [plant ident.]

542

Appendices

From Hoffmann, 01/09/1801, HSP Coll. 443. From Hoffmann, 03/04/1802, HSP Coll. 443. From Hoffmann, 04/08/1804, HSP Coll. 443.



[specimens] [specimens] [opportunity] [books]

KAMPMANN, FREDERICK (1746–1832) Kampmann to Mühlenberg APS 580 M89f [entry October 19, 1795]. APS 580 M89bo vol. III [entry Februar 1, 1810].



[specimens] [info]

KRAMSCH, SAMUEL (1764–1824) Mühlenberg to Kramsch From Barton, 11/15/1791, HSP Coll. 443.



[books]

Kramsch to Mühlenberg APS 580 M89f [entry April 18, 1791].





[specimens]

PERSOON, CHRISTIAN HENDRIK (1761–1836) Persoon to Mühlenberg From Persoon, 04/30/1800, HSP Soc. Coll. From Beauvois, 10/22/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Persoon, 01/21/1806, HSP Coll. 443. From Persoon, 12/16/1807, HSP Coll. 443. From Persoon, 03/28/1812, HSP Coll. 443. To Collins, 05/19/1815, ANSP Coll. 129.



[specimens] [own works] [plant ident.] [books] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [plant ident.]

Mühlenberg to Persoon From Persoon, 01/21/1806, HSP Coll. 443. From Persoon, 12/16/1807, HSP Coll. 443. From Persoon, 10/24/1809, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. From Persoon, 01/30/1812, HSP Coll. 443. From Persoon, 03/28/1812, HSP Coll. 443. To Elliott, 12/01/1812, HUH Elliott Papers.



[own works] [own works] [specimens] [own works] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [specimens]

543

Appendix D – Exchange Charts

To Collins, 02/01/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 05/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. From Persoon, 07/15/1814, HSP Soc. Coll. To Collins, 10/18/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 10/29/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. From Persoon, 01/18/1815, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. From Persoon, 02/02/1815, HSP Soc. Coll.



[specimens] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [info] [own works] [specimens] [own works] [books] [specimens] [info] [specimens]

RAFINESQUE, CONSTANTINE SAMUEL (1783–1840) Mühlenberg to Rafinesque From Rafinesque, 05/09/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 05/23/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 06/04/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 06/30/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 07/10/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 07/12/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 07/21/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 08/04/1803, HSP Coll. 443.



[plant ident.] [plants] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [specimens] [determination] [plant ident.] [plants] [plants]

Rafinesque to Mühlenberg From Rafinesque, 05/09/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 06/04/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 06/30/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 07/12/1803, HSP Coll. 443. From Rafinesque, 07/21/1803, HSP Coll. 443.



[specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [plants] [specimens] [plants]

SCHKUHR, CHRISTIAN (1741–1811) Mühlenberg to Schkuhr From Schkuhr, 03/17/1802, HSP Coll. 443. To Nebe, 10/04/1802, AFSt M.4 D5. From Schkuhr, 02/12/1804, HSP Coll. 443. From Schkuhr, 07/02/1805, HSP Coll. 443. From Schkuhr, 05/26/1807, HSP Coll. 443.



[plants] [seeds] [unident.. package, probably seeds] [specimens] [specimens] [plants]

544

Appendices

Schkur to Mühlenberg From Schkuhr, 03/17/1802, HSP Coll. 443. From Schkuhr, 02/12/1804, HSP Coll. 443. From Schkuhr, 05/26/1807, HSP Coll. 443.



[own works] [own works] [books] [own works] [plant ident.]

SCHÖPF, JOHANN DAVID (1752–1801) Mühlenberg to Schöpf From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. From Denke, 09/28/1799, APS Mss.B.M89.d. From Schöpf, 03/31/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. From Schöpf, 05/02/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. From Schöpf, 03/07/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. From Schöpf, 11/17/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. To Schöpf, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schöpf, 06/23/1789, HSP Soc. Coll. To Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III.

[minerals] [books] [seeds] [info] [opportunity] [info] [specimens] [books] [info] [specimens] [opportunity] [opportunity] [specimens] [books] [opportunity] [specimens] [books] [info] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens]

Schöpf to Mühlenberg From Schöpf, 04/03/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. From Schreber, 04/04/1786, HSP Coll. 443. From Schöpf, 09/01/1786, HSP Soc. Coll. From Schöpf, 03/31/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. From Schöpf, 05/02/1787, HSP Soc. Coll. From Schöpf, 03/07/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. From Schöpf, 11/17/1788, HSP Soc. Coll. To Schöpf, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schöpf, 06/23/1789, HSP Soc. Coll.

[minerals] [books] [minerals] [info] [books] [plant ident.] [own works] [specimens] [minerals] [books] [books] [specimens] [own works] [info] [minerals] [plant ident.] [specimens] [plant ident.] [info] [books] [info] [plant ident.]

Appendix D – Exchange Charts

From Schreber, 08/08/1789, APS Film 1097. To Schöpf, 10/26/1790, HUBerlin Schoepf III. From Schöpf, 06/16/1791, APS Film 1097.



545 [plant ident.] [books] [specimens] [own works] [plant ident.]

VON SCHREBER, JOHANN CHRISTIAN DANIEL EDLER (1739–1810) Mühlenberg to Schreber From Schreber, 03/05/1785, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 04/04/1786, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 10/05/1786, HSP Coll. 443. To Schreber, 11/24/1786, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schreber, 05/01/1787, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 10/08/1787, HSP Coll. 443. To Schreber, 06/16/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schreber, 08/19/1789, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 07/22/1791, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 05/30/1792, HSP Coll. 443. To Schreber, 09/20/1792, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schreber, 05/31/1794, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 11/23/1795, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 09/16/1796, HSP Coll. 443. To Schreber, 05/09/1797, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schreber, 01/28/1801, HSP Coll. 443. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. To Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schreber, 02/16/1807, HUH Aut. Coll.

[specimens] [seed [specimens] [seeds] [info] [specimens] [seeds] [info] [seeds] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [own works] [seeds] [books] [specimens] [post] [specimens] [books] [info] [opportunity] [specimens] [books] [opportunity] [specimens] [seeds] [specimens] [books] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [seeds] [specimens] [seeds] [specimens] [info] [specimens] [specimens] [seeds] [specimens] [specimens]

Schreber to Mühlenberg From Schreber, 03/05/1785, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 04/04/1786, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 10/05/1786, HSP Coll. 443.



[plant ident.] [books] [specimens] [books] [seeds] [books]

546

Appendices

To Schreber, 11/24/1786, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schreber, 05/17/1787, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 05/01/1787, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 10/08/1787, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 11/16/1787, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 05/05/1788, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 08/08/1789, APS Film 1097. From Schreber, 08/19/1789, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 07/22/1791, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 05/30/1792, HSP Coll. 443. To Smith, 12/01/1792, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. From Schreber, 05/31/1794, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 11/23/1795, HSP Coll. 443. From Schreber, 09/16/1796, HSP Coll. 443. To Schreber, 05/09/1797, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. From Schreber, 01/28/1801, HSP Coll. 443. To Schreber, 11/18/1788, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. To Schreber, 03/18/1806, UAE Briefnachlass Schreber.

[own works] [specimens] [minerals] [plant ident.] [books] [seeds] [plant ident.] [books] [books] [info] [books] [plant ident.] [books] [specimens] [plant ident.] [books] [info] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [books] [plant ident.] [specimens] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [seeds] [plant ident.] [books]

SCHWÄGRICHEN, CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH (1775–1838) Schwägrichen to Mühlenberg To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. To Nebe, 02/27/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. To Nebe, 10/28/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. To Nebe, 05/16/1803, AFSt M.4 D5.



[info] [seeds] [books] [plant ident.] [plants]

Mühlenberg to Schwägrichen To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. To Nebe, 02/27/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. To Nebe, 10/04/1802, AFSt M.4 D5. To Rohde, 04/24/1815, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll.

[specimens] [opportunity] [specimens] [specimens] [books]

Appendix D – Exchange Charts

SMITH, JAMES EDWARD (1759–1828) Mühlenberg to Smith From Smith, 03/09/1793, HSP Coll. 443. To Smith, 06/05/1793, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. To Smith, 11/22/1793, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. To Smith, 12/10/1794, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. From Denke, 06/18/1798, APS Mss.B.M89.d. To Smith, 12/10/1794, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. From Smith, 06/03/1795, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 11/04/1795, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 06/14/1796, HSP Coll. 443. To Smith, 10/18/1796, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. From Smith, 02/01/1799, HSP Coll. 443. To Smith, 03/26/1799, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. From Smith, 05/31/1805, HSP Coll. 443. To Peck, 02/07/1809, HUH Aut. Coll. To Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers. To Collins, 01/09/1813, ANSP Coll. 129. To Collins, 10/19/1813, ANSP Coll. 129.

[specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [specimens] [plants] [specimens] [seeds] [plants] [seeds] [plants] [plants] [plants] [plants] [plants] [plants] [plants] [specimens] [specimens]

Smith to Mühlenberg To Smith, 12/01/1792, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. From Smith, 03/09/1793, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 05/07/1794, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 01/06/1794, HSP Coll. 443. To Smith, 12/10/1794, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. From Smith, 06/03/1795, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 06/14/1796, HSP Coll. 443. To Smith, 10/18/1796, APS Film 6 Linn. Soc. From Smith, 02/01/1799, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 03/06/1804, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 11/19/1805, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 02/17/1806, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 03/18/1807, HSP Coll. 443. From Smith, 12/22/1807, HSP Coll. 443.

[plant ident.] [books] [plant ident.] [info] [own books] [books] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [own books] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [plant ident.]

547

548

Appendices

SPRENGEL, KURT JOACHIM POLYCARP (1766–1833) Sprengel to Mühlenberg To Nebe, 11/24/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4. To Nebe, 02/27/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. To Nebe, 03/30/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. From Sprengel, 09/20/1803, HSP Coll. 443. To Nebe, 01/21/1807, AFSt M.4 D6. From Sprengel, 11/20/1809, HSP Coll. 443. To Elliott, 08/27/1810, HUH Elliott Papers.

[seeds] [plants] [plant ident.] [seeds] [seeds] [seeds] [seeds] [books] [plant ident.] [seeds] [specimens]

Mühlenberg to Sprengel To Nebe, 07/01/1797, AFSt M.4 D4. To Nebe, 04/19/1798, AFSt M.4 D4. To Nebe, 10/04/1802, AFSt M.4 D5. From Sprengel, 09/20/1803, HSP Coll. 443. To Nebe, 01/21/1807, AFSt M.4 D6. From Sprengel, 11/20/1809, HSP Coll. 443.

[seeds] [seeds] [plants] [plants] [seeds] [specimens] [seeds] [specimens]

VAN VLECK, JACOB (1751–1838) Van Vleck to Mühlenberg From van Vleck, 09/12/1797, HSP Coll. 443. From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. From van Vleck, 02/10/1798, HSP Coll. 443. From van Vleck, 06/25/1798, HSP Coll. 443. To Baldwin, 10/04/1814, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 145. To Collins, 10/06/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. To Elliott, 10/10/1814, HUH Elliott Papers.

[specimens] [specimens] [books] [info] [info] [info] [specimens] [plants]

Mühlenberg to van Vleck From van Vleck, 09/12/1797, HSP Coll. 443. From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443. From van Vleck, 02/10/1798, HSP Coll. 443. From van Vleck, 06/25/1798, HSP Coll. 443.



[plant ident.] [info] [plant ident.] [plant ident.] [books]

549

Appendix D – Exchange Charts

WILLDENOW, CARL LUDWIG (1765–1812) Willdenow to Mühlenberg To Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg, 06/26/1784, AFSt M.4 D20. [plant ident.] [books] From Willdenow, 05/24/1800, HSP Coll. 443. [plant ident.] [plants] From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. [plant ident.] [books] [specimens] From Willdenow, 01/31/1801, HSP Coll. 443. [books] [plants] [seeds] To Nebe, 10/28/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. [books] From Willdenow, 05/14/1809, HSP Coll. 443. [books] Mühlenberg to Willdenow From Willdenow, 04/18/1800, HSP Coll. 443. From Willdenow, 05/24/1800, HSP Coll. 443. To Nebe, 08/04/1800, AFSt M.4 D5. From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443.



[plants] [seeds] [own works] [plants] [specimens] [plants] [specimens] [plants] [seeds]

550

Appendices

5. APPENDIX E: NETWORKS

Network A: Phase 1 – 1784 to 1790.

Network B: Phase 2 – 1790 to 1797.

Appendix E – Networks

Network C: Phase 3 – 1797 to 1802

Network D: Phase 4 – 1802 to 1805.

551

552

Appendices

Network E: Phase 5 – 1805 to 1811.

Network F: Phase 6 – 1811 to 1815.

Appendix E – Networks

Network G: Phase 6 – 1811 to 1815 (American side).

553

554

Appendices

6. NETWORK DOCUMENTATION The following lists contain complete documentations of all information and data used in the composition of the network diagrams in Appendix E with the exception of Mühlenberg’s direct ties. Reference information for these can be found above in Appendix C, pages 18 through 52, and below, in the bibliographies of printed and manuscript sources. Please note that no reference information is generally given for ties represented by dotted lines.1

Network Phase 1: Ties of Sebastian A. Fabricus: With H. M. Mühlenberg: From H. M. Mühlenberg, 07/29/1784, Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V, (letter 961); AFSt/M 4 C. With J. H. P. Helmuth: APS Film 1097; AFSt/M 4 C; AFSt/M 4 D. With J. F. Schmidt: AFSt/M 4 C. With C. F. Kunze: AFSt/M 4 A; AFSt/M 4 C; AFSt/M 4 D. With C. E. Schultze: APS Film 1097; AFSt/M 4 C. Ties of J. C. D. E. von Schreber: With S. A. Fabricius: HSP Coll. 443. With G. F. Hoffmann: HSP Coll. 443. With K. L. Willdenow: UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. With O. Swartz: UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. With J. Hedwig: Frahm, “Hedwig,” 4. Ties of Johann D. Schöpf: With B. Rush: HSP Soc. Coll.; HUBerlin Schoepf III. Ties of Carl&Hermann: With S. A. Fabricius: AFSt/M 3 C; AFSt/M 1 H. Ties of Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg: With Carl&Hermann: AFSt/M 4 C. With J. C. Kunze: Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V. With F. A. C. Mühlenberg: Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V. With J. H. P. Helmuth: Aland, Mühlenberg Korrespondenz V. Ties of Benjamin Rush: With F. A. C. Mühlenberg: HSP Gratz Collection; HSP Soc. Misc. Coll.

1

For the four different types of ties used in the diagrams, see chapter“Aims and Methodology – The Plurality of Mühlenberg’s network”, 34f.

Appendix F – Network Documentation

555

Ties of Olof Swartz: With E. Acharius: Galloway, “Swartz,” 120. With J. E. Smith: Galloway, “Swartz,” 150. Network Phase 2: Ties of Gottlieb F. Stoppelberg: With Helmuth and Schmidt: AFSt/M 4 D 3; AFSt/M 4 D 4. With J. C. Kunze: AFSt/M 4 D 3. Ties of J. C. D. E. von Schreber: With H. A. Schrader: UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. With J. H. F. Autenrieth: UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. With C. L. Willdenow: UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. With Christian Schkuhr: UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. With Samuel Kramsch: Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 600. Ties of Johann J. Palm: With G. F. Hoffmann: APS Film 1097; HSP Coll. 443; APS Film 1097. Ties of J. H. F. Autenrieth: LibComp Benjamin Rush letters; HSP Soc. Coll. HSP Gratz Coll. Ties of James E. Smith: With David Hosack: HSP Coll. 443. With G. F. Hoffmann: LSoL J. E. Smith Papers. With C. H. Persoon: LSoL J. E. Smith Papers; Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 11. With H. A. Schrader: LSoL J. E. Smith Papers. With Olof Swartz: LSoL J. E. Smith Papers. With C. L. Willdenow: LSoL J. E. Smith Papers. With José Correa de Serra: APS B C81.1; Davis, “Abbé Correa,” 93. Ties of Johan Hedwig: With J. C. D. E. von Schreber: Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 431; Frahm, “Hedwig,” 4; Deleuze, Hedwig, 56. With O. Swartz: Price, Catalogue, 8; UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. With C. L. Willdenow: Wagenitz, “Hedwig,” 435. With H. A. Schrader: UAE Briefnachlass Schreber. Ties of Benjamin S. Barton: With William Bartram: APS Mss.B.B28.w, Box 1; APS Mss. B. B284d. With J. E. Smith: BPL Coll. G. 51.7.5. With J. D. Mease: APS Film 628. With M. Cutler: APS Coll. 506.73 Am4mc; APS Mss. B. B284d. With J. Greenway: HUH Personal Inventories; APS Mss. B. B284d. With Samuel Kramsch: APS Mss. B. B284d; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 600. With W. D. Peck: APS Mss. B. B284d. With B. Rush: APS Mss. B. B284d. With J. E. Smith: BPL Coll. G. 51.7.5. With J. H. F. Autenrieth:

556

Appendices

APS Mss. B. B284d. With C. D. Ebeling: Graustein, “Barton,” 433. With M. Cutler: APS Coll. 506.73 Am4mc; Cutler, Correspondence II, 287. Ties of William an John Bartram: With B. S. Barton: To William Bartram, 06/22/1792, APS Film 628. With H. Marshall: From William Bartram, 11/29/1792, HSP Coll. 443. With M. Cutler: Cutler, Correspondence I, 273–274. Ties of Humphrey and Moses Marshall: With Samuel Kramsch: UoM Clements Lib. Marshall Papers. With W. Hamilton: HSP Dreer Collection. Ties of Benjamin Rush: With J. E. Smith: To Rush, 11/26/1792, LibComp Benjamin Rush letters. Ties of Manasseh Cutler: With William D. Peck: OUAr Manasseh Cutler Papers. Ties of Olof Swartz: Sprengel, Memoir, 24; Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 119; Galloway, “Swartz,” 120.

Network Phase 3: Ties of Kurt Sprengel: Sprengel, Garten, xviii; Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 18, 27; From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of C. D. Ebeling: With F. A. C. Mühlenberg: From Autenrieth, 06/26/1797, HSP Soc. Coll.; From Ebeling, 03/16/1802, APS Film 1097. Ties of Johan Hedwig: With C. F. Schwägrichen: Frahm, “Hedwig,” 9. With J. F. Nebe: From Autenrieth, 06/26/1797, HSP Soc. Coll. With C. H. Persoon: From Johann Hedwig, 08/06/1798, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Josef F. Nebe: With Helmuth and Schmidt: From Autenrieth, 06/26/1797, HSP Soc. Coll.; to Nebe, 03/30/1801, AFSt M.4 D5; from Nebe, 05/16/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. With Carl&Hermann: To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4; From Nebe, 02/27/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. With K. Sprengel: To Nebe, 10/21/1799, AFSt M.4 D4. With J. C.

Appendix F – Network Documentation

557

Kunze: To Nebe, 03/30/1801, AFSt M.4 D5. From Nebe, 05/16/1803, AFSt M.4 D5. With C. L. Willdenow: From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of James E. Smith: With J. C. de Serra: Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 120; Davis, “Abbé Correa,” 93. With C. H. Persoon: Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 11f. With D. Turner: To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. Ties of Carl L. Willdenow: From Willdenow, 04/18/1800, HSP Coll. 443; From Willdenow, 01/10/1801, HSP Coll. 443; From Schkuhr, 03/17/1802, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of C. H. Persoon: From Persoon, 04/30/1800, HSP Soc. Coll.; From Ebeling, 03/16/1802, APS Film 1097. Ties of J. H. F. Autenrieth: From Autenrieth, 06/26/1797 and 05/03/1800, both in HSP Soc. Coll.; Ties of Jakob Sturm: From Sturm, 01/31/1801, HSP Coll. 443; From Schreber, 01/28/1801, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of G. F. Hoffmann: From Hoffmann, 01/09/1801 and 03/04/1802, both in HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Christian Schkuhr: Schkuhr, Beschreibung, i, ii. Ties of Jacob van Vleck: From van Vleck, 01/22/1798, HSP Coll. 443; From Denke, 06/07/1798 and 06/18/1798, both in APS Mss.B.M89.d; From van Vleck, 06/25/1798, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of C. F. Denke: From Denke, 07/23/1798, 05/24/1799, 08/19/1798, 01/31/1799, 08/10/1799, all in APS Mss.B.M89.d; From Denke, 11/30/1799, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Benjamin S. Barton: Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 477; Ewan, “Barton Influence,” 30. Ties of Olof Swartz: Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 119; Galloway, “Swartz,” 121, 150, 167

558

Appendices

Ties of Erik Acharius: Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 119; Galloway, “Acharius,” 167, 174. Ties of Humphrey and Moses Marshall: With W. Hamilton: HSP Dreer Collection

Network Phase 4: Ties of Christian Schkuhr: Schkuhr, Beschreibung, i, ii; From Schkuhr, 02/12/1804, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Heinrich A. Schrader: Schrader, Beschreibung, 363f. Ties of C. F. Schwägrichen: To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock. Ties of Palisot de Beauvois: From Beauvois, 10/22/1803, HSP Coll. 443; From Persoon, 01/21/1806, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of J. C. D. E. von Schreber: From Sturm, 02/26/1803; from Dallman, 02/12/1805 and 04/12/1805, all in HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Kurt Sprengel: Kaiser and Völker, ”Kurt Sprengel“ 18, 27; Sprengel, Garten, xviii; To Nebe, 10/25/1805, AFSt M.4 D6. Ties of Joseph F. Nebe: From Nebe, 05/16/1803 and 04/24/1804, both in AFSt M.4 D5. Ties of James E. Smith: With C. H. Persoon: Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 16f.; With D. Turner: To Turner, 02/21/1803, Weinstock; From Smith, 03/06/1804 and 11/19/1805, both in HSP Coll. 443. With J. C. de Serra: Davis, “Abbé Correa,” 93. Ties of C. L. Willdenow: Hein, “Willdenow,”468; From Willdenow, 05/04/1804, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of G. F. Hoffmann: From Hoffmann, 04/08/1804, HSP Coll. 443.

Appendix F – Network Documentation

559

Ties of Johann J. Palm: Glas, Palm, 94; From Palm, 08/08/1805, APS Film 1097. Ties of Aloysius Enslin: To Brickell, 09/10/1806, HSP Gratz Coll. Ties of Constantine S. Rafinesque-Schmalz: From Rafinesque, 06/30/1803, 05/23/1803, 05/09/1803, 06/04/1803, all in HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Benjamin S. Barton: With C. F. Denke: Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 248, 606. With C. H. Persoon: Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 389. With W. Dunbar: Ewan, “Barton Influence,” 30. With W. Baldwin: From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d; To Baldwin, 01/18/1811, and from Baldwin, 05/07/1811, both in Darlington, Baldwiniae, 30. See also Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 21; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 35. Ties of Gustavus Dallmann: From Dallman, 02/12/1805, 04/12/1805, 05/15/1805, all in HSP Coll. 443. Ties of John Brickell: With J. D. Mease: To Brickell, 02/07/1803, HSP Dreer Scientists. With A. Enslin: To Brickell, 03/01/1804, APS Misc. Man Coll. [1801–1806]; from Brickell, 11/20/1804, HSP Coll. 443; to Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. With J. Lyon: To Brickell, 04/26/1804, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. With B. S. Barton: To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. With A. G. Oemler: To Brickell, 01/23/1806, APS Coll. 509 L56. Ties of Manasseh Cutler: With O. Swartz: Cutler, Correspondence II, 112, 117, 305–07. With S. L. Mitchell: Cutler, Correspondence II, 104. With E. Merry: Cutler, Correspondence II, 163, 185, 189, 280. With J. Lyon: Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 10. With S. Elliott: Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 12, 19f. With J. Brickell: Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 12, 22; Ewan, “Pursh,” 604. With S. Kramsch: Ewan and Ewan, “Lyon,” 36. Ties of Matthias Kin: Hotchkin, Germantown, 35; Mears, “Herbarium,” 164; Harshberger, Botanists, 184; Elliot and Ewan, Sketch, xiv. Ties of Olof Swartz: Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 119; Galloway, “Swartz,” 121, 150.

560

Appendices

Ties of Erik Acharius: Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 119; Galloway, “Acharius,” 167, 174.

Network Phase 5: Ties of Olof Swartz: Sprengel, Memoir, 24; Galloway, “Swartz,” 120; Galloway, “Acharius,” 150; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 375; From Swartz, 01/02/1807, 03/30/1808, 05/12/1812, all in HSP Coll. 443. Ties of C. H. Persoon: From Johann Hedwig, 08/06/1798, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of James E. Smith: Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 17; from Smith, 03/18/1807, HSP Coll. 443; Davis, “Abbé Correa,” 93. Ties of Palisot de Beauvois: From Beauvois, 06/23/1807 and 09/14/1810, both in HSP Coll. 443; to Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Ties of Christian Schkuhr: Schkuhr, Beschreibung, i, ii. Ties of H. A. Schrader: Schrader, Beschreibung, 363f. Ties of Kurt Sprengel: Kaiser and Völker, ”Kurt Sprengel,“ 18, 27; Sprengel, Garten, xviii; from Nebe, 07/24/1807, AFSt M.4 D6. Ties of C. L. Willdenow: Hein, “Willdenow,” 468. Ties of Stephen Elliott: From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443; to Elliott, 01/31/1810 and 06/16/1809, both in HUH Elliott Papers. Ties of Johann C. Müller: From Müller, 05/09/1808, 09/30/1808, 09/10/1811, all in HSP Coll. 443.

Appendix F – Network Documentation

561

Ties of William Dunbar: Dunbar-Rowland, Dunbar, 321; DeRosier, Dunbar, 82; from Dunbar, 05/13/1807, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of William D. Peck: Cutler, Correspondence II, 324; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 463; from Baldwin, 07/16/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 39. Ties of Benjamin S. Barton: Ewan, “Barton Influence,” 30; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 186, 585, 589; from Baldwin, 05/07/1811 and 05/22/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 30, 31; from Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 21; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 35. Ties of William and John Bartram: Hallock and Hoffmann, Bartram, 226; to Elliott, 06/16/1809, HUH Elliott Papers; from William Bartram, 09/06/1810, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of John Brickell: From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443; To Elliott, 03/30/1810, HUH Elliott Papers; from Elliott, 05/05/1811, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Frederick T. Pursh: To Elliott, 11/08/1809, HUH Elliott Papers; to Collins, 04/20/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. Ties of Aloysius Enslin: From Pursh, 01/12/1809, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Jacob van Vleck: From Denke, 10/04/1811, APS Mss.B.M89.d. Ties of John Lyon: From Elliott, 02/15/1809, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Caspar W. Eddy: From Eddy, 11/04/1811, HSP Coll. 443; to Collins, 04/20/1812, ANSP Coll. 129; to Mitchell, 12/02/1811, HSP Gratz Coll; to Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Ties of A. G. Oemler: From Baldwin, 05/07/1811, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 30; To Elliott, 07/29/1811, HUH Elliott Papers; To Oemler, 08/21/1811, APS 509 L56.17.

562

Appendices

Ties of Manasseh Cutler: Cutler, Correspondence II, 311–314 Ties of Erik Acharius: Karnefelt, “Acharius,” 119; Galloway, “Acharius,” 167, 174.

Network Phase 6: Ties of C. H. Persoon: From Persoon, 01/30/1812, 03/28/1812, HSP Coll. 443; to Collins, 02/25/1813, 10/18/1814, ANSP Coll. 129; to Elliott, 06/22/1812, 10/10/1814, HUH Elliott Papers; from Persoon, 02/02/1815, HSP Soc. Coll.; From Persoon, 01/18/1815, Hunt – Gen. Aut. Coll. Ties of Kurt Sprengel: Sprengel, Garten, xviii; Kaiser and Völker, Sprengel, 27. Ties of Olof Swartz: To Collins, 09/27/1812, ANSP Coll. 129; From Swartz, 05/12/1812, HSP Coll. 443; To Collins, 09/11/1813, ANSP Coll. 129; From Swartz, 12/16/1813, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of James E. Smith: Ransbottom, “Persoon,” 17; Davis, “Abbé Correa,” 93. Ties of Heinrich A. Schrader: Schrader, Beschreibung, 363f. Ties of Francois A. Michaux: Savage, Michaux, 294, 298–305. Ties of Caspar W. Eddy: To Elliott, 01/05/1812, 10/05/1812, 01/14/1813, all in HUH Elliott Papers; from Eddy, 05/02/1812, HSP Coll. 443; To Collins, 12/02/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Ties of William Baldwin: To Elliott, 06/22/1812, HUH Elliott Papers; from Elliott, 12/26/1812, HSP Coll. 443; from Baldwin, 03/20/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 70; from Baldwin, 06/05/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 87; to Baldwin, 01/20/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 156; to Collins, 01/30/1815, ANSP Coll. 129; From Baldwin, 09/15/1813, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 108; To Baldwin, 04/12/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 164;

Appendix F – Network Documentation

563

Ties of Isaac Clever: From Müller, 08/02/1813, HSP Coll. 443; to Collins, 08/27/1813, ANSP Coll. 129; from Schkuhr, 02/12/1804, HSP Coll. 443; to Collins, 08/15/1814, ANSP Coll. 129. Ties of Obadiah Rich: To Elliott, 01/05/1812, HUH Elliott Papers. Ties of William D. Peck: From Peck, 04/17/1812, HSP Coll. 443; to Vaughan, 05/10/1812, APS. Arch. Box 5; from Bigelow, 11/10/1813, HSP Coll. 443; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 590 Ties of Jacob van Vleck: To Collins, 06/07/1814, ANSP Coll. 129; to Baldwin, 05/11/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 171; to Elliott, 10/10/1814, HUH Elliott Papers. Ties of Christian F. Denke: To Collins, 04/20/1812, ANSP Coll. 129. Ties of Zaccheus Collins: From Collins, 04/10/1812, 03/02/1813, 09/24/1812, 09/21/1813, 01/25/1813, 08/11/1814, all in HSP Coll. 443; to Collins, 11/22/1813, 12/13/1813, 09/01/1814, 06/07/1814, 10/06/1814, all in ANSP Coll. 129; Stuckey, «Auction,» 445; McKinley, “Gambold,” 66; Ties of A. G. Oemler: To Elliott, 01/05/1812, 11/11/1812, 07/20/1813, all in HUH Elliott Papers. Ties of John Vaughan: From F. A. Michaux, 11/27/1811, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of Jacob Bigelow: To Collins, 01/23/1814, ANSP Coll. 129; Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 802; Ties of Stephen Elliott: From Elliott, 02/14/1812, 06/07/1812, 08/12/1812, HSP Coll. 443; from Collins, 11/18/1813, HSP Coll. 443; to Elliott, 04/08/1812, 06/22/1812, 10/05/1812, 12/01/1812, 07/20/1813, 12/06/1813, 11/15/1814, 04/10/1815, HUH Elliott Papers; from Baldwin, 09/19/1812, 03/20/1813, 06/11/1813, 07/06/1813, 07/29/1813, 02/12/1814, 04/01/1814, 06/17/1814, 11/11/1814, 01/20/1815, Darlington, Baldwiniae, 64, 70, 88, 97, 99, 125, 132, 136, 147, 156; to Collins, 11/22/1813, ANSP Coll. 129.

564

Appendices

Ties of Jacob Green: To Collins, 01/04/1815, ANSP Coll. 129; from Green, 03/14/1815, HSP Coll. 443. Ties of William P. C. Barton: Pennel, “Botanical Collectors,” 45; to Collins, 09/01/1814, ANSP Coll. 129; to Collins, 01/04/1815, ANSP Coll. 129. Ties of Benjamin S. Barton: Ewan and Ewan, Barton, 825; Pennel, “Elder Barton,” 21; Barnhart, “Sketches,” 35; Ties of Erik Acharius: Karnefelt, ”Acharius,“ 119; Galloway, “Swartz,” 121,150;

VIII BIBLIOGRAPHY Manuscript sources Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia (ANSP)

Collins, Zaccheus, 1764–1831. Correspondence, 1805–1827 (Collection 129). Personal Inventories A. Green.

American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (APS)

Agricultural Journal 1786–1804; also: Sammlung von Beiträgen zur Kenntnis der Natur (580 M89a). American Philosophical Society Archives 1743–1984, (Box 5). Autograph Letters of Naturalists, 1744–1894 (Mss.Film 628). Botanisches Tagebuch (APS 580M89 bo). Botany, A Notebook (APS 580 M89bo vol. III). Christian Frederick Denke 1775–1838, Letters 1798–1811 to Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst (Henry) Muhlenberg (Mss.B.M89.d). Flora Lancastriensis. Botanisches Tagebuch von 1790 (APS 580 M89f). Fortsetzung meines Journals (APS 580 M89fo). Henry Augustus Philip Papers, 1805–1847 (Mss.Film 371). Henry Muhlenberg correspondence, 1779–1815 (Mss.Film.1097). Henry Muhlenberg journals, 1777–1815 (Mss.B.M892). John Bartram correspondence, 1735–1775 (Mss.B.B28.w). José Francisco Correia da Serra papers, 1772–1827 (B C81.1). Linnean Society of London Correspondence of American Scientists, 1738–1865 (Mss. H.S. Film.6). Miscellaneous Manuscript Collection,1793–1795. Miscellaneous Manuscript Collection, 1801–1806. Miscellaneous Manuscript Collection, 1812–1815. Muhlenberg Family Papers, 1769–1866 (Mss.B.M891). Naturbuch für 1785; also: A. Calendar. Florae G. Henry Muhlenberg (APS 580 M89c). Naturtagebuch fürs Jahr 1786 gehalten zu Lancaster in Pensilvanien (580 M89n). Scientists Collection, 1563–1973 (509 L56.17). Violetta Delafield–Benjamin Smith Barton Collection, 1783–1817 (Mss. B. B284d).

Archiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen, Halle (AFSt)

Matrikel der Lateinschule, AFSt/S L 4 (see also online–references). Missionsarchiv AFSt/M.1 D. Missionsarchiv AFSt/M.4 A; B; C; D. Missionsarchiv AFSt/M 3 C.

Archiv der Friedrich–Alexander Universität Erlangen (UAE) 1918–24, Briefnachlass Schreber.

Archiv der Martin–Luther Universität Halle–Wittenberg (UAH–W) Matrikel 1767 – 1781.

566

Bibliography

Archives and Special Collections Franklin & Marshall College (FMC) Melsheimer Correspondence (RG 01 SG 4 Faculty Franklin College). General Autograph Collection.

Boston Public Library – Rare Books and Manuscripts (BPL) Collection G. 51.7.5. Collection Ms.Ch.A.8.72. Collection Ms. Am. 1096 (1).

Harvard University Herbaria, Archives of the Gray Herbarium, Boston, HUH Stephen Elliot (1771–1830) Papers. Autograph Collection. Personal Inventories.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP)

Bartram Family Papers. 1684–1841 (Coll. 36). Benjamin Smith Barton Papers, 1766–1815. Box 1/4: Correspondence 1778–1815 (Coll. 34). Dreer Collection – Autographs of scientists and explorers, 1492–1921 (Coll. 175). Gratz, Simon Collection. 1343–1928. Mss. Case 7 Box 24. (Coll. 250A). Henry Ernest Muhlenberg papers, 1781–1816 (Coll. 443). Logan family papers, 1639–1964 (Coll. 0379). Society Collection.

Hunt Institute of Botanical Documentation, Pittsburg (Hunt) General Autograph Collection.

Library Company of Philadelphia, Philadelphia (LibComp) Benjamin Rush letters.

Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington D. C. (LoC) Muhlenberg Family Collection 1752–1847 (mm 79004939).

Linnean Society of London, London (LSoL) James Edward Smith Papers.

Muhlenberg College, Trexler Library, Allentown, PA (MCollege) Pennsylvania German Collection.

Museum der Naturkunde der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Historische Bild und Schriftgutsammlungen (HUB) Bestand GNF: S, Mühlenberg, H.E. Bestand Zool. Mus.:SI, Nachl. Schoepf III.

Northampton County Historical and Genealogical Society, Easton, PA (NCHGS)

M 554 Ledgers. Merchant [unknown] Wholesale ledger of general merchandise, 1792–1797; books and stationary, 1798–1817.

Ohio University, Mahn Center for Archives and Special Collections (OUAr) Manasseh Cutler Papers and Manuscripts 1776–1822 (Mss. 9).

Private Property of Daniel Weinstock M. D., New York, Geneva (Weinstock)

Bibliography

567

G. H. E. Mühlenberg to Dawson Turner, 02/21/1803, ALS.

University of Michigan, William L. Clements Library (Clements Lib) Humphry & Moses Marshall Papers (1721–1863).

University of Virginia, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, (UoV) Papers of Solomon Henkel [manuscript] 1801–1846. MSS (Coll. 8653–d Box 1).

Yale University Libraries – Manuscripts and Archives (YUL) Schwab Collection 1767–1925 (MS 434).

Printed Sources Aland, Kurt, ed. Die Korrespondenz Heinrich Melchior Mühlenbergs aus der Anfangszeit des deutschen Luthertums in Nordamerika. 4 vols. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1986–97. Aland, Kurz and Hermann Wellenreuther, eds. Die Korrespondenz Heinrich Melchior Mühlenbergs aus der Anfangszeit des deutschen Luthertums in Nordamerika. Vol. 5, 1777–1787, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2002. Anonymous. ”Reliquiae Schraderianae.“ Linnaea. Journal für die Botanik in ihrem ganzen Umfange 12 (1838): 353–359. Arndt, Karl John Richard et al., eds. The first century of German language printing in the United States of America. A bibliography based on the studies of Oswald Seidensticker and Wilbur H. Oda. 2 vols. Göttingen: Niedersächsische Staats– und Universitätsbibliothek, 1989. Autenrieth, Bernd Friedrich, ed. Ein Hofrat reist nach Amerika. Briefe und Berichte Jakob Friedrich Autenrieths und seiner Familie von 1794/95. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988. Barton, Benjamin Smith. Fragments of the natural history of Pennsylvania. Part first. Philadelphia: Way & Groff, 1799. ———. New Views of the origin of the tribes and nations of America. Philadelphia: John Bioren, 1797. Barton, William Paul Crillon. Compendium Floræ Philadelphicæ: Containing a Description of the Indigenous and Naturalized Plants Found within a Circuit of Ten Miles Around Philadelphia. Vol. 1/2, Philadelphia: M. Carey and Son, 1818. Baur, Richard H., ed. Letters of Paul Henkel. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Historical Institute, 2003. Beauvois, Palisot de. “First Memoir of observations on the plants denominated cryptogamic.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge 3 (1793): 202–213. Beran, Jiri., ed. Die Briefe Iganz Borns an D.G. und J. Ch. D. Schreber. Prague: Ústř. Archív Českoslov. Akad. Věd, 1971. Berneaud, Arsenne Thiébaut de. Éloge Historique de A. M. F. J. Palisot de Beauvois, Membre de l’Institut de France. Paris: d’Hautel, 1821. Bigelow, Jacob. Florula Bostoniensis. A Collection of Plants of Boston and tis Environs with their Generic and Specific Characters, Synonyms, Descriptions, Places of Growth, and Time of Flowering, and Occasional Remarks. Boston: Cumming and Hilliard, 1814. Butterfield, Lyman H., ed. Letters of Benjamin Rush. 2 vols. Princeton, NJ : Princeton Univ. Pr., 1951. Cutler, William Parker and Julia Perkins Cutler, eds. Life Journals and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler, LL. D. by his Grandchildren. 2 vols. Cincinnatti, OH: Robert Clark and Co, 1888. Reprint Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1987.

568

Bibliography

Darlington, William, ed. Memorials of John Bartram and Humphry Marshall. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston, 1849. Reprint New York: Hafner, 1967. ———. Reliquiae Baldwinianae. Selections from the correspondence of the late William Baldwin with occasional notes and a short biographical memoir. Philadelphia : Kimber and Sharpless, 1843. Reprint New York: Hafner, 1969. Deleuze, Joseph P. Uber das Leben und die Werke Gärtners und Hedwig’s aus den französischen Annalen des Museums der Naturgeschichte übersetzt. Translated by Joseph Gärtner. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1805 Doerflinger, Thomas M. A Vigorous Spirit of Enterprise. Merchants and Economic Development in Revolutionary Philadelphia. Williamsburg, VA: University of North Carolina Press, 1986. Early, J. W., ed. “Diary of Frederick August Conrad Muhlenberg. Commenced October 25, 1770, to wit, the important day of my ORDINATION to be an Assistant (zum Collaborator an sen.) to the Senior of the United Evangelical Lutheran Congregations in Pennsylvania.” The Lutheran Church Review XXIV (1905): pt. I 127–137; pt. II 388–390; pt. III 562–571; pt. IV 682–694; V (1906): pt. 5 134–148; pt. VI 345–356; pt VII 535–544. Elliott, Stephen. A Sketch of the Botany of South–Carolina and Georgia. Vol. 1/2, Charleston: Schenck, 1821. Edited by Joseph Ewan, New York: Hafner, 1971. Gambold, Anna Rosina. “A list of Plants found in the neighborhood of Connasarga River (Cherokee Country) where Springplace is situated; made by Mrs. Gambold, at the request of the Rev. Elias Cornelius.” Silliman’s American Journal of Science and Arts (March 1819): 245–51. Green, Jacob. An Address on the Botany of the United States, Delivered before the Society for the Promotion of Useful Arts, at the Capitol, in the City of Albany, on the 9th Day of February 1814 to which is added a Catalogue of Plants indigenous to the State of New York. Albany: Websters&Skinners, 1814. Hedwig, Johannes. “Vorläufige Anzeige meiner Beobachtungen von den wahren Geschlechtstheilen der Moose und ihrer Fortpflanzung durch Saamen.” In Sammlungen seiner zerstreuten Abhandlungen und Beobachtungen über botanisch–ökonomische Gegenstände Vol. 1, edited by Johannes Hedwig, 1–25. Leipzig: Siegfried Friedrich Crusius, 1793. Helmuth, Justus Heinrich Philip. “Untitled article, dated October, 8 1789.” Neuere Geschichte der Evangelischen Missions=Anstalten zu Bekehrung der Heiden in Ostindien. Vol 4, Halle: Verlag der Waisenhaus=Buchhandlung, 1796. Logan, Frances A., ed. Memoir of Dr. George Logan, of Stenton, by his widow Deborah Norris Logan, with selections from his correspondence, edited by their great–grand–daughter Frances A. Logan, with an introduction by Charles J. Stillé. Philadelphia: the Historical society of Pennsylvania, 1899. Looney, J. Jefferson, ed. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Retirement Series. 7 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004–2011. Mease, James D. The picture of Philadelphia: giving an account of its origin, increase and improvements in arts, sciences, manufactures, commerce and revenue; with a compendious view of its societies, literary, benevolent, patriotic & religious; its police, the public buildings, the prison and penetentiary system, institutions monied and civil, museum. Philadelphia: B. & T. Kite, 1811. Melsheimer, Frederick V. A Catalogue of Insects of Pennsylvania. Hanover, York County: W. D. Lepper, 1806. Mitchill, Samuel L. Some of the Memorable Events and Occurences in the Life of Samuel L. Mitchill of New York from 1786 to 1821. New York: s. n., 1821 M’Mahon, Bernard. The American Gardener’s Calendar. Adapted to the Climates of the United States. Philadelphia: B. Graves, 1806. Moulton, Gary E., ed. Herbarium of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. The Journals of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999. Mühlenberg, Dr. Henry and B. J. Schipper. English–German and German–English Dictionary, with a German Grammar and Principles of Pronouciation for both Languages. 2 vols. Lancaster: William Hamilton, 1812.

Bibliography

569

Mühlenberg, Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst. Eine Rede Gehalten den 6ten Juny 1787. bey der Einweihung von der Deutschen hohen Schule oder Franklin Collegium in Lancaster, von Gotthilf Hen. Mühlenberg, Principal des Collegiums und Pastor der Heil. Dreieinigkeits Kirche daselbst. Auf Verlangen der Trustees zum Druck befördert. Lancaster: Gedruckt von Albrecht und Lahn, 1788. ———. “Kurze Bemerkungen über die in der Gegend von Lancaster in America wachsenden Arten der Gattungen: Juglans, Fraxinus und Quercus. Mit Anmerkungen vom Herrn Professor C. L. Willdenow.” Der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin neue Schriften 3 (1801): 387–402. ———. “Über die Nordamerikanischen Weiden. Mit Anmerkungen des Herrn Prof. Willdenow.” Der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin neue Schriften 4 (1803): 233–42. Muhlenberg, Henrico. “Index Florae Lancastriensis.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge Vol. III, Philadelphia: Robert Aitken & Son, 1793: 157–84. ———. “Supplementum Indicis Florae Lancastriensis.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge Vol. IV, Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1799: 235–42. ———. Descriptio uberior plantarum graminum et plantarum Calamarium Americae Septentrionalis Indigenarum et Cicurum. Philadelphia: Solomon W. Conrad, 1817. Muhlenberg, Henry. Plantarum Americae Septentrionalis, Huc Usque Cognitarum Indigenarum et Circurum: Or, A Catalogue of the Hitherto known Native and Naturalized Plants of North America, Arranged According to the Sexual System of Linnaeus. Lancaster: William Hamilton, 1813. Nuttall, Thomas. An account of two new genera of plants, and of a species of Tillaea and Limosella, recently discovered on the banks of the Delaware, in the vicinity of Philadelphia. Vol. 1, Philadelphia: The Society, 1817. Pascalis, Felix. Eulogy of the Life and Character of the Hon. Samuel Lathan Mitchill, M. D. Delivered at the Request of the New–York Coty and County Medical Society (...). New York: American Argus Press, 1831 Pursh, Frederick. Flora Americæ Septentrionalis; or a Systematic Arrangement and Description of The Plants of North America. 2 vols. London: White, Cochrane and Co. 1814. Rafinesque, C. S. New flora and botany of North America, or: A supplemental flora, additional to all the botanical works on North America and the United States: containing 1000 new or revised species. Philadelphia: [s.n.], 1836. ———. Précis ou Abrégé des Voyages, Travaux, et Recherches de C. S. Rafinesque (1833). Edited by Charles Boewe, George Reynaud and Beverly Seaton. Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: North–Holland Publishing Company, 1987. Rogers, Bruce, ed. Documents Relating to The Purchase & Exploration of Louisiana. Boston, New York: Houghton & Mifflin & Co. 1904. Reprint Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Pub., 2007. Rowland, Eron, ed. Life, letters, and papers of William Dunbar of Elgin, Morayshire, Scotland, and Natchez, Mississippi. Pioneer scientist of the southern United States. Jackson, Miss. : Press of the Mississippi Historical Society, 1930. Schkuhr, Christian. Beschreibung und Abbildung der theils bekannten, theils noch nicht beschriebenen Arten von Riedgräsern nach eigenen Beobachtungen und vergrößerter Darstellung der kleinsten Theile. Wittenberg: [s. n.], 1801. ———. Botanisches Handbuch der mehresten theils in Deutschland wild wachsenden, theils ausländischen in Deutschland unter freyem Himmel ausdauernden Gewächse. Erster Theil. Wittenberg: [s. n.], 1791. Schöpf, Johann David. “Aus NordAmerika.” Schlözers Stats=Anzeigen 7 (1785): 3–54. ———. Naturgeschichte der Schildkröten mit Abbildungen erläutert. Vol. 1. Erlangen: Palm, 1792. ———. Reise durch einige der mittleren und südlichen vereinigten nordamerikanischen Staaten nach Ost:Florida und den Bahama:Inseln unternommen in den Jahren 1783 und 1784. 2 vols. Erlangen: Palm, 1788.

570

Bibliography

Schrader, Heinrich Adolf “Beschreibung über den neuesten Zustand des botanischen Gartens Göttingen.” Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen (1809): 361–74 Smith, James E. A Grammar of Botany, illustrative of Artificial, As Well as Natural Classification with an Explanation of Jussieu’s System To which is added, a Reduction of all the Genera Contained in the Catalogue of North American Plants, to the Natural Families of the French Professor by the late Henry Muhlenberg D.D. New York: Seaman, 1822. Smith, Pleasance, ed. Memoir and Correspondence of The Late Sir James Edward Smith, M.D. 2. vols. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman, 1832. Sprengel, Kurt P. J. “Art. II. – Memoir of the Life and Writings of Olaus Swartz, M.D., Professor of Botany at Upsal, Knight of the Orders of Vasa, and of the Polar Star, Member of the Acad. Cæsar. Nat. Cur., &c.” The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal VIII/15 (January 1823): 17–24. ———. Der botanische Garten der Universität zu Halle im Jahre 1799. Halle: C. A. Kümmel, 1800. Steinke, Hubert, ed. Der nützliche Brief. Die Korrespondenz zwischen Albrecht von Haller und Christoph Jakob Trew 1733–1763. Basel: Schwabe, 1999. Turner, Dawson. Synopsis of The British Fuci. 2 vols. London: White and T. Longman and O. Rees, 1802. Wagenitz, Gerhard, ed. “’Es scheint, als verrücke die Botanik in Mannheim allen […] den Kopf.’ Johannes Hedwig und die Botanik seiner Zeit im Spiegel hier erstmalig edierter und annotierter Briefe der Jahre 1790–1792.” Acta Historica Leopoldina 46 (2006): 431–45. Whitlaw, Charles. Whitlaw’s New Medical Discoveries, with A Defence of the Linnæn Doctrine, and a Translation of his Vegetable Materia Medica, which now first appears in an English Dress. Vol. 1. London: s. n., 1829. Würzer, Heinrich. Ein Spazziergänger in Altona 1801–1804. Edited by Hans Werner Engels. Hamburg: Robert Wohlleben Verlag, 1997.

Reference Works Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 56 Vols. Leipzig: Duncker & Hublot, 1875–1912. American National Biography, 24 Vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Baker Theodore. Baker’s biographical dictionary of musicians. New York: G. Schirmer, 1940 (4th edition). Barnhart, John Hendley.Biographical notes upon botanists. Boston: G.K. Hall, 1965. Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums in Österreich, 60 Vols. Wien: Hof– u. Staatsdruckerei, 1856–1891. Bosl, Karl. Bosl’s Bayerische Biographie. 8000 Persönlichkeiten aus 15. Jahrhunderten. Regensburg: Pustet Verlag, 1983. Burrage, Walter L. and Howard A. Kelly. Dictionary of American medical biography. Lives of eminent Physicians of the United States and Canada, from the earliest times. New York, London: D. Appleton & Company, 1928. Deutsche Biographische Enzyklopädie. 13. Vols. München: K. G. Saur Verlag, 1995–2003 (1st edition). Dictionary of American Biography. 20 Vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928–36. Duyckinck, Evert A and George L Duyckinck. Cyclopædia of American literature, embracing personal and critical notices of authors, and selections from their writings, from the earliest period to the present day, Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1875. Eggers, Jens and Jan–Peter Frahm. Lexikon deutschsprachiger Bryologen. Printed by the authors, 2001 (2nd edition). Elliott, Clark A. Biographical Dictionary of American Science. The Seventeenth through the Nineteenth Centuries. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press 1979. Fischer, Isidor. Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Ärzte aller Zeiten und Völker. 5 Vols. Berlin ; Wien : Urban & Schwarzenberg, 1929–1934 (2nd edition).

Bibliography

571

Hamberger, Georg Christoph and Johann Georg Meusel. Das gelehrte Teutschland oder Lexikon der jetztlebenden teutschen Schriftsteller. 25 Vols. Lemgo: Meyer, 1796–1831 (5th edition). Jaeger, Friedrich. Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. 10 Vols. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2005–09. Hartkopf, Werner. Die Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ihre Mitglieder und Preisträger 1700–1990. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992. Académie des sciences d’outre–mer: Hommes et destins: dictionnaire biographique d’outre–mer. 11. Vols, Paris: Académie des sciences d’outre–mer, 1975–2011 (2nd volume, Paris, 1977).

Secondary Works Allen, D. E. “James Edward Smith and the Natural History Society of Edinburgh.” Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 8 (1978): 483–93. Ammermann, Monika. “Gelehrten–Briefe des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts.” In Gelehrte Bücher vom Humanismus bis zur Gegenwart, edited by Bernhard Fabian and Paul Raabe, 81–96. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983. Anonymous. Dienerblatt of Christian Friedrich Denke, Samuel Gottlieb Kramsch, Christian Friedrich Kampmann, Johann Gottlieb Ernst (John) Heckewaelder, Jacob van Vleck, Louis David von Schweinitz. Universitätsarchiv der Evangelischen Brüder–Unität, Herrnhut (Unpublished). ———.”Biographical Memoir of Henry A. Muhlenberg.” The United States Democratic Review 79 (January 1845): 67–78. ———. “Dawson Turner.” The Atheaneum (July 17, 1858): 82–3. ———. “The Herbarium of the late Zaccheus Collins of Philadelphia.” The American Journal of Science and Arts XXIII/2 (1833): 398–99. ———. “Obituary notice of Professor Peck.” Collections of the Mass Hist Society X (2nd series) (1823): 161–70. ———. “Review of Christian Schkuhr’s Botanisches Handbuch.” Allgemeine Literatur–Zeitung 4/332 (1804): 412f. Ansell, Christopher and John Padgett. “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici: 1400–1434.” American Journal of Sociology 98 (1993): 1259–319. Arndt, Karl J. George Rapp’s Separatists 1700–1803. The German Prelude to Rapp’s American Harmony Society. A Documentary History. Worcester: Harmony Society Press, 1980. ———. (ed.). Harmony on the Connoquenessing 1803–1815. George Rapp’s first American Harmony. A Documentary History. Worcester: Harmonty Society Press, 1980. Auer, Gerhard Josef. Die utopische Gemeinschaft der Harmonisten: Ihr Einfluss auf das Amerikaerlebnis und das Werk Nikolaus Lenaus. Ph.D.Diss., University of Illinois, 1982. Augustin, Stefan. “>Die vielen Sachen von Cooks Reisen aus der Südsee< Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte einer frühen ethnographischen Sammlung der Evangelischen Brüder–Unität.” Unitas Fratrum 31 (1992): 27–48. ———. “Das Naturalienkabinett in Barby – Anfänge des naturkundlichen und völkerkundlichen Sammelns in der Evangelischen Brüder–Unität.” Unitas Fratrum 55 (2005): 1–16. Baatz, Simon. “’Squinting at Silliman.’ Scientific Periodicals in the Early American Republic, 1810–1833.” Isis 82 (1991): 223–44. Baglyos, Paul A. “American Lutherans at the Dawn of the Republic in.” Lutheran Quarterly 193 (1999): 51–74. ———. “The Muhlenbergs Become Americans.” Lutheran Quarterly 19 (2005): 43–62. Bailey, L. H. Jr. “Some North American Botanists. VIII. Jacob Bigelow.” Botanical Gazette VIII,5 (1883): 217–22. Bailyn, Bernard. Voyagers to the West. Emigration from Britain to America on the Eve of the Revolution. London: L.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd., 1986. Balandin, Sergej A. et al. “Herbarium Linnaeum. The Linnean Collection of the Herbarium of Moscow State University.” Kew Bulletin 59/2 (2004): 329–30.

572

Bibliography

Barbour, Hugh and William J. Frost. The Quakers. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988. Barkey, Karen, and Ronan Van Rossem. “Networks of Contention: Villages and Regional Structure in the Seventeenth–Century Ottoman Empire.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1997): 1345–382. Barner, Wilfried. “Gelehrte Freundschaft im 18. Jahrhundert. Zu ihren traditionellen Voraussetzungen.” In Frauenfreundschaft – Männerfreundschaft. Literarische Diskurse im 18. Jahrhundert, edited by Wolfram Mauser and Barbara Becker–Cantarino, 23–45. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1991. Barnhart, John Hendley. “Brief Sketches of some Collectors of Specimens in the Barton Hebarium” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 9 (1926): 35–42. ———. “The Botanical Correspondents of Schweinitz.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 16 (1934): 19–37. Bearman, Peter S. Relations into rhetorics : local elite social structure in Norfolk, England, 1540– 1640. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1993. Beck, Herbert H. “Henry E. Muhlenberg, Botanist.” Historical Papers and addresses of the Lancaster County Historical Society 32/7–8 (1928): 99–107. ———. “Henry E. Muhlenberg.” Castanea. The Journal of the Southern Appalachian Botanical Club Vol. 3/4 (April 1938): 41–53. Becker, Ludwig, “Die Pflege der Naturwissenschaften in der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine.” Unitas Fratrum 55 (2005): 17–51. Bee, Jane A. and Martin Schuyler. Franklin & Marshall College. Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia, 2004. Beiler, Rosalind J. “From the Rhine to the Delaware Valley: The Eighteenth–Century Transatlantic Trading Channels of Caspar Wistar.” In In Search of Peace and Prosperity. New German settlements in eighteenth–century Europe and America, edited by Hermann Wellenreuther, 172– 90. University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. Belfrage, Sally. Freedom Summer. New York: Viking Press, 1965. Bender, Thomas. Community and Social Change in America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1978. Benedict, Don M. “Lewis David von Schweinitz, the Mycologist.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 16 (1934): 12–14. Berkowitz, S. D., and Barry Wellman. “Introduction: Studying social structures.” In Social Structures: a network approach, edited by S. D. Berkowitz and Barry Wellmann, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Betts, Edwin M. “The Correspondence Between Constantine Samuel Rafinesque And Thomas Jefferson.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 86/1 (1942): 368–80. Bischoff, Johannes. “Erlangen 1790 bis 1818. Studien zu einer Zeit steten Wandels und zum Ende der ‘Französischen Kolonie’.” In Erlangen. Von der Strumpfer– zur Siemens–Stadt, edited by Jürgen Sandweg, 59–127. Erlangen: Palm & Enke, 1982. Boewe, Charles. “Rafinesque among the Field Naturalists.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 54 (1988): 48–58. Boorman, Scott A. and Harrison White. “Social Structure from Multiple Networks: II Role Structures.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (1976): 1384–446. Bots, Hans und Francoise Waquet. La République des Lettres. Paris: Belin, 1997. Bott, Elizabeth. Family and Social Network. Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. New York: Free Press, 1971. Brecht, Martin. “August Hermann Francke und der Hallische Pietismus.” In Geschichte des Pietismus 1. Der Pietismus vom siebzehnten bis zum frühen achtzehnten Jahrhundert, edited by Martin Brecht et al., 440–540. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. ———. “Das Aufkommen der neuen Frömmigkeitsbewegung in Deutschland.” In Geschichte des Pietismus 1. Der Pietismus vom siebzehnten bis zum frühen achtzehnten Jahrhundert, edited by Martin Brecht et al., 113–204. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Breiger, Ronald L. “The Analysis of Social Networks.” In Handbook of Data Analysis, edited by Melissa Hardy and Alan Bryman, 505–26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.

Bibliography

573

Brendel, Fernand. “Historical Sketch of the Science of Botany in North America from 1635 to 1840.” The American naturalist, v.13, no.12 (1879): 754–71 Bröer, Ralf. “Grenzüberschreitender wissenschaftlicher Diskurs im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit. Der gelehrte Brief im 17. Jahrhundert.” In Das europäische Gesundheitssystem. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in historischer Perspektive, edited by Wolfgang U. Eckart and Robert Jütte, 107–22, Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1994. Brunner, Daniel L. Halle Pietists in England: Anthony William Boehm and the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1993. Burke, Peter. A Social History of Knowledge. From Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000. Burton, Michael L. and Douglas R. White. “Regional Comparisons, Replications, and Historical Network Analysis.” Behavior Science Research 25 (1991): 55–78. Cahill, William. “The Bartram–Muhlenberg Correspondence (1792–1810).” In William Bartram. The Search for Nature’s Design, edited by Thomas Hallock and Nancy Hoffmann, 381–425. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2010. Campbell, John. History of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick and of the Hibernian Society for the Relief of Emigrants from Ireland. Philadelphia: The Hibernian Society, 1892. Chadwick, James Read. “Dr. Johann Schoepf, Surgeon of the Anspach–Bayreuth Troops in America, 1777–1784.” Medical Library and Historical Journal 3 (1905): 157–65. Chamberlain, Joshua L. Universities and Their Sons. History, Influence and Characteristics of American Universities with Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Alumni and Recipients of Honorary Degrees. Vol. II. Boston: R. Herndon Company 1899. Chernov, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Codd, L.W. and Mary Gunn. Botanical Exploration of Southern Africa. An illustrated history of early botanical literature on the Cape flora. Biographical accounts of the leading plant collectors and their activities in southern Africa from the days of the East India Company until modern times. Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1981. Cruickshank, Helen Gere. John and William Bartram’s America. Selections from the Writings of the Early Naturalists. New York: Devin–Adair Co., 1961. Daston, Lorraine. “The Ideal and Reality of the Republic of Letters in the Enlightenment.” Science in Context 4 (1991): 367–86. Davis, Richard Beale. “The Abbé Correa in American, 1820–1820. The Contributors of the Diplomat and Natural Philosopher to the Foundations of our National Life. Correspondence with Jefferson and Other Members of the American Philosophical Society and with other Prominent Americans.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 45/2 (1955): 87–197. Degenne, Alain and Michel Forse. Introducing Social Networks. London: SAGE Publications, 1999. DeRosier, Arthur. William Dunbar. Scientific Pioneer of the old Southwest. Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press, 2007. Diaz–Bone, Rainer. Ego–zentrierte Netzwerkanalyse und familiale Beziehungssysteme. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts–Verlag, 1997. Doll, Eugene Edgar. “American History As Interpreted By German Historians From 1770 to 1815.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 38/5 (1948): 421–527. Dubbs, J. H. History of Franklin and Marshall College : Franklin College, 1787–1853; Marshall College, 1836–1853; Franklin and Marshall College, 1853–1903. Lancaster: Franklin and Marshall College Alumni Association, 1903 Dupree, A. Hunter. “National Patterns of Learned Societies.” In The Pursuit of Knowledge in the Early American Republic. American Scientific and Learned Societies from Colonial Times to the Civil War, edited by Alexandra Oleson and Sanborn Connor Brown, 21–32. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1977. Durnbaugh, Donald F. “Brethren and Moravians in Colonial America.” Unitas Fratrum 25 (1989): 51–68. ———. “Communication Networks as One Aspect of Pietist Definition: The Example of Radical Pietist Connections between Colonial North America and Europe.” In Pietism in Germany and

574

Bibliography

North America 1680–1820, edited by Jonathan Strom, Hartmut Lehmann and James Van Horn Melton, 33–51. Farnham, England ; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, 2009. Emirbayer, Mustafa and Jeff Goodwin. “Network analysis, culture, and the problems of agency.” American Journal of Sociology 99 (1994): 1411–454. Engelhardt, Johann Georg Veit. Die Universität Erlangen von 1743–1843. Erlangen: Universität Erlangen, 1843. Reprint Erlangen: Universitätsverbund Erlangen–Nürnberg, 1991. ———. Die Universität Erlangen von 1743–1843. Inhaltsverzeichnis und Register, Erlangen: Universität Erlangen, 1843. Reprint Erlangen: Universitätsverbund Erlangen–Nürnberg, 1991. Ewan, Joseph and Nesta Dunn Ewan. Benjamin Smith Barton. Naturalist and Physician in Jeffersonian America. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Press, 2007. ———. “John Lyon, Nurseryman and Plant Hunter and his Journal, 1799–1814.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society (New Series) 53/2 (1963): 5–68. Ewan, Joseph. “Benjamin Smith Barton’s Influence on Trans–Allegheny Natural History.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 54 (1988): 28–36. ———. “Bernard M’Mahon (c. 1775–1816), Pioneer Philadelphia Nurseryman, and his American Gardener’s Calendar.” Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 3 (1960): 363–80. Ewan, Joseph. “Early History.” In A Short History of Botany in the United States, edited by Joseph Ewan et al., 1–37. New York and London: Hafner Publishing Co., 1969. ———. “Frederick Pursh, 1774–1820, and his Botanical Associates.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96/5 (1952): 599–628. ———. “Notes on Louisiana and Botanists, 1718–1975.” SIDA. Contributions to Botany 21 (2005): 2275–296. Faust, Katherine and Stanley Wasserman. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. “Some early Botanists of the Philadelphia Area.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 86/1 (1942): 63–71 Fogleman, Aaron S. “Moravian immigration and Settlement in British North America, 1734–1775.” Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society 29 (1996): 23–58. ———. Hopeful journeys: German immigration, settlement, and political culture in colonial America, 1717–1775. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996. Frahm, Jan–Peter, “The life and work of Johannes Hedwig.” Nova Hedwigia 70/1–2 (2000): 1–13. Francis, John W. Reminiscences of Samuel Latham Mitchill, M.D., LL. D. New York: J. F. Trow, Printer, 1859. Fritz, Eberhard. Separatistinnen und Separatisten in Württemberg und in angrenzenden Territorien. Ein biographisches Verzeichnis. Stuttgart: Verein für Familien– und Wappenkunde in Württemberg und Baden e.V., 2005. Galloway, D. J. “Erik Acharius, Olof Swartz and the evolution of generic concepts in lichenology.” In History in the Service of Semantics. Papers from the Conference to celebrate the Centenary of the British Museum (Natural History) 13 – 16 April, 1981, edited by Alwyne Wheeler and James H. Price, 119–29. London: Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1981. ———. “Erik Acharius and his influence on English lichenology.” Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Botany Series 18 (1988/89): 149–94. Gaudio, Michael. “The Elements of Botanical Art. William Bartram, Benjamin Smith Bartram, and the Scientific Imagination.” In William Bartram. The Search for Nature’s Design, edited by Thomas Hallock and Nancy Hoffmann, 426–39. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2010. Geissler, Patricia. “The Hedwig Herbarium and its importance for the nomenclature of mosses.” Nova Hedwigia 70/1–2 (2000): 15–23. Geus, Armin. Johann David Schoepf: Leben und Werk (1752 – 1800). Ansbach: Historischer Verein, 1967. Gilbert, Daniel R. “Bethlehem and the American Revolution. An Overview.” Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society 23/1 (1977): 17–41.

Bibliography

575

Glas, Christine. Johann Jacob Palm (1750–1826). Ein Erlanger Verleger und Buchhändler. Mit einer Verlagsbibliographie von 1780 bis 1826. Ph.D. Diss., University of Erlangen–Nürnberg, 1988. Glaßer, Ludwig. Personalbibliographien der Professoren der Medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Erlangen von 1743–1792. Ph.D. Diss., University of Erlangen–Nürnberg, 1967. Glatfelter, Charles H. Pastors and People. German Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the Pennsylvania Field, 1717–1793. 2 Vols. Breinigsville, PA: Publications of the Pennsylvania German Society, 1979–1981. Goldgar, Anne. Impolite learning. Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1995. Gould, Roger V. “Patron–Client Ties, State Centralization, and the Whiskey Rebellion.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1996): 400–29. ———. “Trade cohesion, class unity, and urban insurrection: artisinal activism in the Paris Commune.” American Journal of Sociology 98 (1993): 721–54. Granovetter, Mark S. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78/6 (1973): 1360–380. Graustein, Jeanette. “The Eminent Benjamin Smith Barton.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 85/4 (1961): 423–38. Gray, Asa. “Some North American Botanists. IV. John Eatton LeConte.” Botanical Gazette VIII,4 (1883): 197– 200. Greene, John C. American Science in the Age of Jefferson. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1984. Greß, Siegfried. “Goethe und Marktbreit.” In Jahrbuch für den Landkreis Kitzingen, edited by J. H. Röll, 259–61. Dettelbach: J. H. Röll Verlag, 2010. Groff, H. K. “Franklin and Marshall College Herbarium at Lancaster, Pennsylvania.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 23 (1945): 47–49. Häberlein, Mark. “Communication and Group Interaction Among German migrants to Colonial Pennsylvania. The Case of Baden–Durlach.” In In Search of Peace and Prosperity. New German settlements in eighteenth–century Europe and America, edited by Hermann Wellenreuther, 157–71. University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. ———. “Entstehung und Konsolidierung der amerikanischen Republik (1763–1800).” In Kleine Geschichte der USA, edited by Mark Häberlein, Philip Gassert and Michael Wala, 103–69. Stuttgart: Reclam Verlag, 2008. ———. “Schweizer Pastoren in Nordamerika im 18. Jahrhundert. Wanderungsmotive, Karrieremuster und Akkulturationsprozesse.” Jahrbuch für Europäische Überseegeschichte 3 (2003): 9–31. ———. Brüder, Freunde und Betrüger. Soziale Beziehungen, Normen und Konflikte in der Augsburger Kaufmannschaft um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1998. ———. The practice of pluralism: congregational life and religious diversity in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1730–1820. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. Hächler, Stefan and Martin Stuber and Luc Lienhard. Hallers Netz. Ein europäischer Gelehrtenbriefwechsel zur Zeit der Aufklärung. Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2005. Hächler, Stefan, Lothar Krempel, Marion Maria Ruisinger and Martin Stuber. “Exploration von Netzwerken durch Visualisierung. Die Korrespondenznetze von Banks, Haller, Heister, Linné, Rousseau, Trew und der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern.” In Wissen im Netz. Botanik und Pflanzentransfer in europäischen Korrespondenznetzen des 18. Jahrhunderts, edited by Regina Dauser et al, 347–74. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008. Hagen, H. A. “The Melsheimer Family and the Melsheimer Family Collection.” The Canadian Entomologist 16 (1884): 191–97. Hagner, Michael. Ansichten der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. In Ansichten der Wissenschaftsgeschichte, edited by Michael Hagner, 7–42. Frankfurt a. Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 2001. Hall, Courtney Robert. A Scientist in the Early Republic. Samuel Latham Mitchill 1764–1831. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934.

576

Bibliography

Harshberger, John W. The Botanists of Philadelphia and Their Work. Philadelphia: Press of T. C. Davis & Son, 1899. Harvey–Gibson, R. J. Outlines of the History of Botany. London: A&C. Black, Ltd., 1919. Hein, Wolfgang–Hagen. “Alexander von Humboldt und Carl Ludwig Willdenow.” Pharmazeutische Zeitung 19 (1959): 467–72. Heller, John L. “The early history of binominal nomenclature.” Huntia 1 (1964): 33–70. Heltmann, Heinz. “Johann Hedwig (1730–1799), ein bedeutender Arzt und Botaniker aus Siebenbürgen.” Orvostorténeti kozlemények 178–181 (2002): 121–30. Herren, Madeleine. “’Die Erweiterung des Wissens beruht vorzugsweise auf dem Kontakt mit der Außenwelt.’ Wissenschaftliche Netzwerke aus historischer Perspektive.” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 49/3 (2001): 197–207. Hesselberg, Anne Karin. Die Psychiatrie J. H. F. Autenrieths (1772–1835). Ph.D. Diss., University of Tübingen, 1981. Hickey, Donald R. The War of 1812. A Short History. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995. Hindle, Brooke. The Pursuit of Science in Revolutionary America 1735–1789. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1956. Hitchcock, A. S. “The Grasses of the Muhlenberg Herbarium.” Bartonia 14 (1932): 27–52. Hooker, William Jackson. “On the Botany of America.” American Journal of Science and Arts 9 (1825): 275–76. Hotchkin, S. F. Ancient and modern Germantown, Mount Airy and Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia: P. W. Ziegler & Co. 1889. Hu, Shiu–Ying and E. D. Merril. “Work and Publications of Henry Muhlenberg, with Special Attention to Unrecorded or Incorrectly Recorded Binominals.” Bartonia. Journal of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 25 (1949): 1–67. Hudgins, Mary. “William Dunbar, History Maker.” Arkansas Historical Quarterly 1 (1942): 331–41. Hugo, C. E. “Christiaan Hendrik Persoon. His grave now restored.” The Journal of the Botanical Society of South Africa 52 (1966): 12–16. Humphrey, Harry Baker. Makers of North American Botany. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1961. Isely, Duane. One Hundred and One Botanists. Ames: Iowa State University Press 1994. Jaenicke, Walther.”Naturwissenschaften und Naturwissenschaftler in Erlangen 1743–1993.” In 250 Jahre Friedrich–Alexander–Universität Erlangen–Nürnberg, edited by Henning Kössler, 629– 83. Erlangen: Universitätsverbund Erlangen–Nürnberg, 1993. Jahn, Ilse. “Biologische Fragestellungen in der Epoche der Aufklärung (18. Jhdt.).” In Geschichte der Biologie: Theorien, Methode, Institutionen, Kurzbiographien, edited by Ilse Jahn et al., 231–70. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1998. Kaasch, Joachim and Michael Kaasch. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina. Geschichte, Struktur, Aufgaben. Halle: Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, 2007. Kaiser, Wolfram and Arina Völker. Kurt Sprengel (1766–1833). Halle: Martin–Luther–Universität Halle–Wittenberg, 1982. Kaplan, Lawrence S. “Jefferson, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Balance of Power.” William and Mary Quarterly 14/2 (1957): 196–217. Karnefelt, Ingvar. “Erik Acharius – the last of the Linnean pupils.” Svenska–Linne Sallskapets årsskrift (2007): 109–35. Keeney, Elizabeth B. The Botanizers. Amateur Scientists in Nineteenth–Century America. Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1992. Kelly, Howard A. Some American Medical Botanists. Commemorated in our Botanical Nomenclature. Boston: Longwood Press, 1913. Kempe, Michael. “Die Anglo–Swiss Connection. Zur Kommunikationskultur der Gelehrtenrepublik in der Frühaufklärung.” Cardanus 1 (2000): 71–92. Klemun, Marianne. “Globaler Pflanzentransfer und seine Transferinstanzen als Kultur–, Wissens–

Bibliography

577

und Wissenschaftstransfer der frühen Neuzeit.” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 29 (2006): 205–23. Koch, Hans–Theodor. “Zum 200. Geburtstag Curt Sprengels (1766–1833).” Medizinische Monatsschrift 20 (1966): 462–63. Kotschy, Theodor. “Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Botaniker Oesterreichs.” Sitzungsberichte der Zoologisch–Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 42 (1857): 111–13. Kötter, Monika, Roswitha Poll and Ellen Schug. Verzeichnis der Erlanger Promotionen 1743–1885. 2 Vols. Erlangen: Universitätsverbund Erlangen–Nürnberg, 2009. Krempel, Lothar and Carola Lipp. “Petitions and the Social Context of Political Mobilization in the Revolution of 1848/49: A Microhistorical Actor–centered Network Analysis.” International Review of Social History 46 (2001): 151–69. Lane, William Coolidge. “Glimpses of European conditions from the Ebeling letters.” Proceedings of the Massachussets Historical Society 59 (1926 ): 324–76. Laudan, Rachel. “The History of Geology, 1780–1840.” In Companion To The History of Modern Science, edited by R.C. Colby et al., 314–25. London/New York: Routledge 1990. Lawrence, George H. M. “The botanical significance of letters and manuscripts.” Huntia 1 (1964): 162–65. Lefebvre, Georges. The Great Fear of 1789. Rural panic in revolutionary France. New York: Pantheon Books, 1973. Lehmann, Helmut T. and J. Woodrow Savacool. “Muhlenberg’s Ministry of healing.” Lutheran Quarterly 6 (1992): 51–68. Lester, Malcolm. Anthony Merry Redivivus. A Reappraisal of the British Minister to the United States, 1803–1806. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia 1978. Lewis, Andrew J. “A Democracy of Facts, An Empire of Reason: Swallow Submersion and Natural History in the Early American Republic.” William and Mary Quarterly (Third series) 62/4 (2005): 663–96. ———. “Gathering for the Republic. Botany in Early Republic America.” In Colonial Botany. Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World, edited by Londa Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, 66–80. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. Lewis, James E. Jr. “’What is to become of Our Government?’ The Revolutionary Potential of the Election of 1800.” In The Revolution of 1800. Democracy, Race, and the New Republic, edited by James Horn, Jan Ellen Lewis and Peter S. Onur, 3–29. Charlottesville/London: University of Virginia Press, 2002. Lindberg, Carter. “The Lutheran Tradition.” In Caring and Caring. Health and Medicine in the Western Religious Traditions, edited by Ronald L. Numbers und Darrel W. Ammundsen, 173– 204. New York: Macmillan, 1986. Lipp, Carola. “Struktur, Interaktion, räumliche Muster. Netzwerkanalyse als analytische Methode und Darstellungsmittel sozialer Komplexität.” In Komplexe Welt. Kulturelle Ordnungssysteme als Orientierung, edited by Silke Göttsch–Elten, 49–63. Münster, New York: Waxmann, 2003. Long, Mary Ann. “Muhlenberg’s Influence on a Local Level.” Journal of the Lancaster County Historical Society 91 (1987): 128–36. Lorrain, Francois and Harrison C. White. “Structural Equivalence of Individuals in Social Networks.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1 (1971): 49–80. Madsen, Karen. “To Make His Country Smile: William Hamilton’s Woodlands.” Arnoldia. The Magazine of the Arnold Arboretum 49/2 (1989): 15–23. Maisch, J. M. Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg als Botaniker. Vortrag gehalten vor dem Pionierverein zu Philadelphia am 6. Mai 1886. New York: Gustav Lauter, 1886. Marsden, Peter and Nan Lin. Social Structure and Network Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982. Mauelshagen, Franz. “Netzwerke des Vertrauens. Gelehrtenkorrespondenzen und wissenschaftlicher Austausch in der Frühen Neuzeit.” In Vertrauen. Historische Annäherungen, edited by Ute Frevert, 119–51. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003.

578

Bibliography

McAdam, Doug. “Recruitment to High–Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer.” American Journal of Sociology 92 (1986): 64–90. McKinley, Daniel. “Anna Rosina (Kliest) Gambold (1762–1821), Moravian Missionary to the Cherokees, with special reference to her botanical interests.” Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society 28 (1994): 59–99. McLean, Elizabeth P. “John and William Bartram: Their Importance to Botany and Horticulture.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 57 (1992): 10–27. McVaugh, Rogers. “A Study of the Plant–Collection made by Frederick Pursh during a Trip to New York and Vermont in the year 1807.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 17 (1935): 24–33. Mears, James. “Some Sources of the Herbarium of Henry Muhlenberg (1753–1815).” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 122/3 (1978): 155–74. Merrill, E. D. “Palisot de Beauvois as an Overlooked American Botanist.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 76 (1936): 899–921. Morton, A.G. History of Botanical Science. An account of the development of botany from ancient times to the present day. London: Academic Press, 1981. Muhlenberg, Henry A. The Life of Major–General Peter Muhlenberg of the Revolutionary Army. Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1849. Muhlenberg–Richards¸ Henry Melchior. “Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg” The Pennsylvania German 3 (1902): 51–60. ———. “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg, D.D.” The Pennsylvania German 3 (1902): 147–55. ———. Descendants of Henry Melchior Mühlenberg. Lancaster, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1900. Müller, Wolfgang G. “Der Brief als Spiegel der Seele. Zur Geschichte eines Topos der Epistolartheorie von der Antike bis zu Samuel Richardson.” Antike und Abendland 26 (1980): 138–58. Müller–Bahlke, Thomas. “Communication at Risk. The Beginnings of the Halle Correspondence with the Pennsylvania Lutherans.” In In Search of Peace and Prosperity. New German settlements in eighteenth–century Europe and America, edited by Hermann Wellenreuther, 139–55. University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. ———. “Die Geschichte der Lateinschule in den Franckeschen Stiftungen.” Jahresprogramm der Franckeschen Stiftungen 5 (1997): 40–58. ———. “Naturwissenschaft und Technik. Der Hallesche Pietismus am Vorabend der Industrialisierung.” In Geschichte des Pietismus 4. Glaubenswelt und Lebenswelten, edited by Hartmut Lehmann, Martin Brecht et al., 357–85. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Müller–Jancke, Wolf–Dieter. “Der ‘Linneaus Americanus’ und seine Beziehungen zu deutschen Botanikern: G.H.E. Mühlenberg. Beiträge zu amerikanisch–deutschen Beziehungen in den Naturwissenschaften des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts.” Deutsche Apotheker–Zeitung 117/33 (1977): 1323–29. ———. “Johann David Schoepf (1752–1800). A German Physician as a Botanist and Zoologist in North America.” Pharmacy in History 20 (1978): 43–64. Müller–Wille, Staffan. “Walnuts at Hudson Bay, Coral reefs in Gotland. The colonialism of Linnean Botany.” In Colonial Botany. Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World, edited by Londa Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, 34–48. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. Münte, Heinz. Das Altonaer Handlungshaus Van der Smissen 1682 – 1824. Altona: Verlag Herm. Lorenzen, 1932. Neigebaur, Johann D. F. Geschichte der Kaiserlichen Leopoldino–Carolinischen Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher während des zweiten Jahrhunderts ihres Bestehens. Jena: Friedrich Fromann, 1860. Neilreich, August. “Geschichte der Botanik in Nieder–Oesterreichs.” Abhandlungen der Zoologisch–Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 47 (1857): 23–76. Nickisch, Reinhard M. G. Die Stilprinzipien in den deutschen Briefstellern des 17. und 18. Jahrhun-

Bibliography

579

derts. Mit einer Bibliographie zur Briefschreiblehre (1474–1800). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Nolan, J. Bennett. The Smith Family of Pennsylvania. Johann Friederich Schmidt 1746–1812. Reading, PA: Printed by the family, 1932. Nolt, Steven M. Foreigners in Their Own Land. Pennsylvania Germans in the early republic. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001. Norwood, Frederick William. “American Medical Education from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War.” Academic Medicine 32/6 (1957): 433–48. Obst, Helmuth. August Hermann Francke und die Franckeschen Stiftungen in Halle. Göttingen: Vandenoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Orser, Charles E. Race and Practice in Archaeological Interpretation. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2004. Ostrander, Gilman M. Republic of letters. The American Intellectual community, 1776–1865. Madison, WI: Madison House, 1999. Overhoff, Jürgen. “Christoph Daniel Ebeling (1741–1817). Forschungsbericht zu einem weit über Hamburg hinaus bedeutsamen Aufklärer, Amerikanisten, Pädagogen, Publizisten, Musikkritiker und Bibliothekar.” Mitteilungen des Hamburger Arbeitskreises für Regionalgeschichte (HAR) 43 (2004): 69–82. Overlease, William R. “A Short History of the William Darlington Herbarium with an Annotated List of Plant Collectors Represented.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 57 (1992): 82–94. Paquet, Giles and Jean Pierre Wallot. «Les conséquences économiques en Amérique du Nord des guerres de lat Révolution et de l’Empire.» In Economic Effects of the French Revolutionary Wars Session B–1, edited by Erik Aearts and François Crouzet, 122–35. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Pennel, Francis W. “Botanical Collectors of the Philadelphia Area.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 21 (1941): 38–58. ———. “Botanical Collectors of the Philadelphia Area (Concluded).” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 22 (1942): 10–32. ———. “The Botanist Schweinitz and his Herbarium.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 16 (1934): 1–8. ———. “The Elder Barton – his Plant Collection and the Mystery of his Floras.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 9 (1926): 17–34. Petersen, Ronald H. “Some brief reflections on C. H. Persoon.” Kew Bulletin 31 (1977): 695–98. ———. New World Botany. Columbus to Darwin. Ruggell: A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G., 2001. Peucker, Paul. “Link in the Moravian Network: Moravian Colonists Destined for Pennsylvania.” Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society 30 (1998): 9–21. Pleadwell, Frank Lester. “William Paul Crillon Barton, Surgeon United States Nay, A Pioneer in American Naval Medicine (1786–1856). Annals of Medical History (1919): 267–301. Price, Michelle J. Catalogue of the Hedwig–Schwägrichen herbarium (G). Part I Type material and a review of typifications for the Hedwig moss names. Geneva: Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques, 2005. Pyrges, Alexander. “Religion in the Atlantic World: The Ebenezer Communcation Network, 1732– 1828.” In Pietism in Germany and North America 1680–1820, edited by Jonathan Strom, Hartmut Lehmann and James Van Horn Melton, 51–67. Farnham, UK; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, 2009. Ransbottom, J. “C.H. Persoon and James E. Smith.” Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 146 (1933): 10–21. Reinhard, Wolfgang. Freunde und Kreaturen. ‘Verflechtung’ als Konzept zur Erforschung historischer Führungsgruppen. Römische Oligarchie um 1600. München: Ernst Vögel, 1979. Rickett, H. W. “John Bradbury’s Explorations in Missouri Territory.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 94/1 (1950): 59–89. Rigby, Nigel. “The Politics and Pragmatics of Seaborne Plant Transportation, 1769–1805.” In Sci-

580

Bibliography

ence and Exploration to the southern oceans in the eighteenth century, edited by Margarette Lincoln, 81–103. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 1998. Ritter, John N. “Muhlenberg’s Anticipation of Psychosomatic Medicine.” Lutheran Church Quarterly 19 (1946): 181–88. Robinson, Benjamin L. “The Doctors John Brickell.” Rhodora. Journal of the New England Botanical Club 18 (1916): 225–30. Roeber, Gregg A. “Der Pietismus in Nordamerika im 18. Jahrhundert.” In Geschichte des Pietismus 2. Der Pietismus im achtzehnten Jahrhundert, edited by Martin Brecht et al., 668–700. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. ———. “J. H. C. Helmuth, Evangelical Charity, and the Public Sphere in Pennsylvania, 1793– 1800.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 71 (1997): 77–100. Rosenthal, Naomi. et al. “Social Movements and Network Analysis: A Case Study of Nineteenth Century Wome’s reform in New York State.” American Journal of Sociology 90 (1985): 1022– 54. Rossi, Paolo. Die Geburt der modernen Wissenschaft in Europa. München: Beck, 1997. Russo, David J. Families and Communities. A New View of American History. Nashville: Williams Printing Co., 1974. Saalfeld, Diedrich. “Die Kontinentalsperre.” In Die Auswirkungen von Zöllen und anderen Handelshemmnissen auf Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, edited by Hans Pohl, 121–39. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1987. Savage, Henry. André and François André Michaux. Charlottesville: University press of Virginia, 1986. ———. Discovering America. 1700–1875. New York: Harper&Row Publishers, 1959. Schallert, P.O. “Schweinitz’ Collecting–Ground in North Carolina.” Bartonia. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 16 (1934): 8–12. Schieber, Martin. Erlangen. Eine illustrierte Geschichte der Stadt. München: C. H. Beck, 2002. Schiebinger, Londa. “Das private Leben der Pflanzen: Geschlechterpolitik bei Carl von Linné und Erasmus Darwin.” In Ansichten der Wissenschaftsgeschichte, edited by Michael Hagner, 107– 36. Frankfurt a. Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 2001 Schiedt, R. C. “The First President of Franklin College.” The Reformed Church Review 16 (1912): 504–16. Schnalke, Thomas. “Sammeln und Vernetzen. Christoph Jacob Trew (1695–1769) in seiner botanischen Matrix.” In Wissen im Netz. Botanik und Pflanzentransfer in europäischen Korrespondenznetzen des 18. Jahrhunderts, edited by Regina Dauser et al, 171–201. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008. Schnurmann, Claudia. “Die Rekonstruktion eines atlantischen Netzwerkes – das Beispiel Jakob Leisler, 1660–1691. Ein Editionsprojekt.” Jahrbuch für Europäische Überseegeschichte 2 (2002): 19–41. Schwarz, Ingo. “Korrespondenz als Last und Vergnügen. Zum Briefwechsel Alexander von Humboldts.” In Politische Netzwerke durch Briefkommunikation. Briefkultur der politischen Oppositionsbewegung und frühen Arbeiterbewegung im 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Jürgen Herres and Manfred Neuhaus, 193–219. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002. Seavoy, Ronald E. An Economic History of the United States. From 1607 to the Present. New York & London: Routledge, 2006. Sherk, Henry H. “David Hosack, MD, and Rutgers. The Politics of Medical Education in the Nineteenth Centruy.” New Jersey Medicine 99 (2002): 17–23. Silvestre, A. F. Notice Biographique sur M. André Thouin, Professeur de Culture au Jardin du Roi, Membre de l’Institut, de la Société et Centrale d’Agriculture. Paris: Huzard, 1825. Smith, C. Earle. “A Century of Botany in America.” Bartonia. Journal of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 28 (1954): 1–30. ———. “Henry Muhlenberg – Botanical Pioneer.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106/5 (October 1962): 443–60.

Bibliography

581

Smith, Edgar Fahs. “Samuel Latham Mitchill – A Father in American Chemistry.” Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 14/6 (1922): 556–69. Sommer, Elisabeth. “A Different Kind of Freedom? Order and Discipline among the Moravian Brethren in Germany and Salem, North Carolina 1771–1801.” Church History 63 (1994): 221– 34. Sorensen, W. Conner. Brethren of the Net. American Entomology, 1840–1880. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1995. Spary, E. C. Utopia’s Garden. French Natural History from Old Regime to Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Splitter, Wolfgang. Pastors, People, Politics. German Lutherans in Pennsylvania 1740–1790. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1998. Sprague, William Buell, Annals of the American Pulpit: Trinitarian Congregational (1). New York: R. Carter and Bros., 1866. Reprint New York: Arno Press, 1969. Stearns, Raymond Phineas. “Colonial Fellows of the Royal Society of London, 1661–1788.” William and Mary Quarterly (Third series) 1 (1946): 208–68. ———. Science in the British Colonies of America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970. Steinke, Hubert. Der nützliche Brief. Die Korrespondenz zwischen Albrecht von Haller und Christoph Jakob Trew 1733–1763. Basel: Schwalbe, 1999. Stetson, Sarah. “William Hamilton and his Woodlands.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 73/1 (1949): 26–33. Störkel, Arno. Christian Friedrich Carl Alexander. Der letzte Markgraf von Ansbach–Bayreuth. Ansbach: Wiedfeld & Mehl, 1995. Stuber, Martin, Stefan Hächler, Lothar Krempel and Marion Maria Ruisinger. “Exploration von Netzwerken durch Visualisierung. Die Korrespondenznetze von Banks, Heister, Linné, Rousseau, Trew und der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern.” Wissen im Netz. Botanik und Pflanzentransfer in europäischen Korrespondenznetzen des 18. Jahrhunderts, edited by Regina Dauser et al, 374–76. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008. Stübler, E. Johann Heinrich Ferdinand von Autenrieth 1772–1835. Professor der Medizin und Kanzler der Universität Tübingen. Stuttgart: Schröder, 1948. Stuckey, Ronald L. “Daniel Steinhauer, Early Ohio Plant Collector and his correspondence with the Botanist Schweinitz.” Bartonia. Journal of the Philadelphia Botanical Club 36 (1966): 1–24. ———. “The First Public Auction Of An American Herbarium Including An Account Of The Fate Of The Baldwin, Collins, And Rafinesque Herbarium.” Taxon 20/4 (1971): 443–59. Tiemann, Hermann. “Christoph Daniel Ebeling. Hamburger Amerikanist, Bibliothekar und Herausgeber Klopstocks.” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Hamburger Geschichte XLI (1951): 352–74. Tolles, Frederick B. “George Logan and the Agricultural Revolution.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95 (1951): 589–96. Tolles, Frederick B. “George Logan, Agrarian Democrat: A Survey of his Writings.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 75 (1951): 260–78. ———. George Logan of Philadelphia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953. ———. Quakers and the Atlantic Culture. New York: MacMillan, 1960. Tursi, Frank V. “Salem Academy: ‘Sober Duties, Solid Realities.” In Winston–Salem. A History, edited by Frank Tursi, 58–60. Winston–Salem; N.C.: J. F. Blair, 1994. Ultee, Maarten. “The Republic of Letters: Learned Correspondence, 1680–1720.” Seventeenth Century 2/1 (1987): 95–112. van Cortlandt–Mathews, Catharine. Andrew Ellicott. His Life and Letters. New York: The Grafton Press, 1908. van Strien–Chardonneau, M. M. G. «La correspondance d’André Thouin (1747–1824) et de Martinus van Marum (1750–1837), 1796–1818.» Lias: Sources and Documents relating to the Early Modern History of Ideas 24 (1997): 67–123. Viereck, Regina. “Zwar sind es weibliche Hände.” Die Botanikerin und Pädagogin Catharina Helena Dörrien (1717–1795). Frankfurt / New York: Campus Verlag, 2000. Vogel, Gerd–Helge. “Willdenow, Usteri und Humboldt – ein wissenschaftliches Dreigestirn im Di-

582

Bibliography

enste der Botanik. Wissenschaftliche Illustrationen im Umkreis von Alexander von Humboldt.” In Die Welt im Großen und im Kleinen. Kunst und Wissenschaft im Umkreis von Alexander von Humboldt und August Ludwig Most, edited by Gerd–Helge Vogel, 247–69. Berlin: Lukas Verlag, 2009. Vogt, Peter. “Des Heilands Ökonomie: Wirtschaftsethik bei Zinzendorf.” Unitas Fratrum 49/50 (2002): 157–172. von Steinmeier, Elias. Die jüngeren Handschriften der Erlanger Universitätsbibliothek: anlässlich der Einweihung des neuen Bibliotheksgebäudes verzeichnet. Erlangen: Junge, 1913. Wagenitz, Gerhard. “Georg Franz Hoffmann, 1760–1826.” In Göttinger Gelehrte I. Die Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen in Bildnissen und Würdigungen 1751–2001, edited by Karl Arndt et al., 70. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2001. ———. “Heinrich Adolf Schrader, 1767–1836.” Göttinger Gelehrte I. Die Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen in Bildnissen und Würdigungen 1751–2001, edited by Karl Arndt et al., 78. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2001. ———. Anfänge der Botanik an der Georgia Augusta im Spannungsfeld zwischen Halller und Linné. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Rupprecht, 2001. Walker, Margot. Sir James Edward Smith M. D., F. R. S., P. L. S. 1759–1828. First President of the Linnean Society of London. London: Linnean Society of London, 1988. Wallace, Paul A. “John Heckewelder’s Indians and the Fenimore Cooper Tradition.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96/4 (1952): 496–504. ———. The Muhlenbergs of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950. ———. The Travels of John Heckewelder in Frontier America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1958. Wanger, Harald. Die Regierenden Fürsten von Liechtenstein. Triesen: van Eck 1995. Warren, Leonard. Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. A Voice in the American Wilderness. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2004. Weinlick, John R. “The Moravians and the American Revolution. An Overview.” Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society 23/1 (1977): 1–17. Wellenreuther, Hermann. “Die atlantische Welt des 18. Jahrhunderts. Überlegungen zur Bedeutung des Atlantiks für die Welt der Frommen im Britischen Weltreich.” In Transatlantische Religionsgeschichte 18. bis 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Hartmut Lehmann, 9–30. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2006. ———. “Pietismus und Mission. Vom 17. bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts.” In Geschichte des Pietismus 4. Glaubenswelt und Lebenswelten, edited by Hartmut Lehmann, Martin Brecht et al., 168–94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. ———. Glaube und Politik in Pennsylvania 1681–1776: die Wandlungen der Obrigkeitsdoktrin und des Peace Testimony der Quäker. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 1972. ———. Von Chaos und Krieg zu Ordnung und Frieden. Der Amerikanischen Revolution erster Teil, 1775–1783. Berlin: Lit, 2006. Wellman, Barry and Charles Wetherell. “Social Network Analysis of historical communities: Some questions from the present for the past.” The history of the family 1 (1996): 97–121. Wellman, Barry. “Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance.” In Social Structures: a network approach, edited by S. D. Berkowitz and Barry Wellmann, 19–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ———. “Studying Personal Communities.” In Social Structure and Network Analysis, edited by Peter Marsden and Nan Lin, 61–80. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982. Williams, Aaron. The Harmony Society at Economy, Penn’a. Founded by George Rapp, A. D. 1805. Pittsburgh: W. S. Haven, 1866. Reprint New York: A. M. Kelley, 1971. Wilson, Renate. Pious traders in medicine. A German pharmaceutical network in eighteenth–century North America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. ———. “The Second Generation: Pietist Clergy, Commerce, and the Commerce scientifique in the New Republic, 1780–1820.” In Halle Pietism, Colonial North America, and the Young United States, edited by Hans–Jürgen Grabbe, 233–57. Stuttgart: Steiner 2008.

Bibliography

583

Wittern, Renate. “Aus der Geschichte der Medizinischen Fakultät.” In 250 Jahre Friedrich–Alexander–Universität Erlangen–Nürnberg, edited by Henning Kössler, 315–421. Erlangen: Universitätsverbund Erlangen–Nürnberg, 1993. Wolf, E. At the Instance of Benjamin Franklin. A Brief History of The Library Company of Philadelphia, 1731–1976. Philadelphia: Library Company of Philadelphia, 1976. Worner, William F. “The Lancaster County Society for Promoting Agriculture, Manufactures, and the Useful Arts.” Lancaster Historical Society Papers xxxiii (1929): 145–46. Wyatt, Edward A. “Dr. James Greenway, eighteenth Century Botanist of Dinwiddie County with an account of two generations of his descendants.” Tylers quarterly historical and genealogical magazine 17/4 (1936): 210–223. Youman, William J. “Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Muhlenberg. 1753–1815.” In Pioneers of Science in America. Sketches of their Lives and Scientific Work, edited by William J. Youman, 58–70. New York: D. Appleton, 1896. Reprint New York 1978.

Online Resources Franckesche Stiftungen, Halle, Germany Matrikel der Lateinschule (AFSt/S L 4): http://www.francke–halle.de/francke.htm/archiv/matrikel/latina/seiten/indexlat.html (last accessed on February 18, 2010) Bio–bibliographisches Register zum Hauptarchiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen (Grüne Kartei): http://www.francke–halle.de/francke.htm/archiv/gk/ (last accessed on December 13, 2010)

Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, Germany Götz, Peter. „Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin (gegr. 1773). Ihre Geschichte und ihre heutige Aufgabe.“ http://www.gnfb.de/Historie%20und%20Aufgaben.pdf (last accessed on May 8, 2010)

H–Soz–u–Kult, Berlin, Germany Kücking, Verena. „Workshop Historische Netzwerkforschung.“ http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu–berlin.de/tagungsberichte/ id=2982&count=2820&recno=1&sort=datum&order=down (last accessed on June 1, 2011)

Staatsbibliothek Berlin – Kalliope – Verbundkatalog Nachlässe und Autographen Kalliope (Nachlässe & Autographen in Deutschland) http://kalliope.staatsbibliothek–berlin.de/ (last accessed on February 8, 2011)

United States Congress, Washington D.C. Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp (last accessed on December 1, 2010)

584

Bibliography

Online articles Hatch, Peter J. “Bernard McMahon, Pioneer American Gardener.” Twinleaf Journal online (January 1993) http://www.monticello.org/site/house–and–gardens/bernard–mcmahon–pioneer–american–gardener (last accessed on November 8, 2009) Lawley, Mark. Dawson Turner (1775–1858). http://rbg–web2.rbge.org.uk/bbs/Learning/Bryohistory/Bygone%20Bryologists/dawson%20turner.pdf (last accessed on May 13, 2010) Pelczar, Rita. “The Plants of Lewis and Clark.” The American Gardener (November/December 2000). http://www.ahs.org/publications/the_american_gardener/0011/feature_1.htm (last accessed on April 18, 2010)

IX REGISTER OF PERSONS Acharius, Erik (1757–1819): 156, 230n, 250, 264n, 265, 330, 337, 345, 351–354, 355n, 401n, 406n, 416n, 460, 463–464 Adams, John (1735–1826): 119, 464n Adet, Pierre Auguste (1763–1834): 303 Afze¬lius, Adam (1750–1837): 212n Agardh, Carl Adolf (1785–1859): 460, 464, 465n Aichmiller (Doctor, unidentified): 324n Aiton, William (1731–1793): 41n, 163n, 193n, 199 , 231–232, 406n, 416n Albers, Johann Abraham (1772–1821): 180n Albertini, Johann Baptist (1769–1831): 189n, 445 Alexander Mackenzie (1764–1820): 267 Allen, D. E.: 213 Allen, Paul (1775–1826): 393 Alois Josef I (1759–1805), Prince of Lichtenstein: 289–290, 291n, 408n Anne Stuart (1665–1714), Queen of Great Britain: 54n Ansell, Christopher: 21, 30–31 Aristotle (384–322 BC): 109, 481n Arndt, Johann (1555–1621): 87 Arndt, Karl J. R. (1905–1991): 379 Astor, John Jacob (1763–1848): 394 Autenrieth, Johann Hermann Ferdinand (1772–1835): 182–186, 201n, 227, 231n, 233–235, 401n, 469n, 470n Authenrieth, August: 184 Baatz, Simon: 120 Bacon, Francis (1561–1626): 103n, 114n Baldwin, William (1779–1819): 12, 36n, 40, 41n, 44n, 107n, 111, 183, 228, 331, 342, 354n, 359n, 366, 372, 384, 389, 401n, 402–403, 404n, 405, 406n, 410, 411n, 412, 413n, 414, 415n, 416n, 417n, 421–422, 423n, 424n, 425–426, 428–429, 430n, 432–440, 445–446, 448n, 453, 455,

456n, 459n, 463, 465n, 468–471, 477–478, 481 Banks, Joseph (1743–1820): 119–120, 172, 182, 211–212, 351, 357, 392, 451n, 477, 479 Bannister, John (1650–1692): 105, 108, 110 Barkey, Karen: 31 Barnes, John: 16 Barnhart: 419n Barton, Benjamin Smith (1766–1815): 41n, 104n, 113, 139, 161, 174, 176, 177–183, 185, 191, 193, 195n, 196, 198, 199n, 211–222, 227–228, 231, 234, 256, 261, 263–265, 266n, 267–268, 283, 286, 291, 303, 312–313, 316–322, 322, 331, 334n, 342, 352, 357–358, 363, 382–386, 388–391, 393–394, 397n–398n, 402, 405n, 406, 407, 409n, 410, 411, 412–414, 416n, 417n, 419n, 424, 433n, 434, 444n, 454, 457, 460, 464, 469n, 470, 471, 474–475, 481n Barton, Esther: 175 Barton, Thomas (1730–1780): 175 Barton, William (1754–1817): 397n Barton, William Paul Crillon (1786–1856): 406, 412n, 419, 446, 479n, 480 Bartram, John (1743–1812): 107, 118–119, 166–167, 169n, 170–173, 213n, 231n, 475, 480n Bartram, William (1739–1823) and John (1743–1812): : 107, 118–119, 139, 161–163, 165–173, 176, 178–180, 182, 184–185, 192, 193n, 194, 199, 228, 230n, 231n, 234n, 248, 256, 257n, 263–264, 267, 286, 316, 318, 363n, 367–368, 389, 405n, 408n, 409n, 411n, 414n, 415n, 416–417, 424, 425, 462n, 469n, 470n Batram, John (1699–1777): 40–41, 104n, 105–107, 109, 115, 118–119, 267n

586

Register of Persons

Batsch, Johann Georg Karl (1761–1802): 41n, 218 Bauhin, Gaspar: 109 Baylin, Bernard: 361n Bearman, Peter: 25, 29 Beauvois, Palisot de (1752–1820): 264n, 271, 302–304, 305, 318, 340, 345, 346n, 347–348, 354n, 357n, 455n, 460, 461n, 462–463, 470 Beck, Herbert H.: 482, Beck, Theodoric Romeyn (1791–1855): 313n, 405n, 423n, 424n, 447n, 450, 451–452, 458 Becker, Ludwig: 374n Bense (Vetter, unidentified): 53n, 371n Bensen, Carl Daniel Heinrich (1761–1805): 11n, 229, 233, 238–239, 241n, 329, 335, 335, 341n Bensen, Sophie : 11n, 341n, 403n, 470n Berkowitz, Stephen: 16, 31 Berneaud, Arsène Thiébaut de (1777–1850): 231–232, 302 Biddle, Edward (1738–1799): 83, 183, 404n, 422n, 423n, 424n, 438, 439n, 441n, 446, 451n, 453, 456–459, 460n, 468n Billy, Peter: 371, 372, 406n, 426n, 470n Black, Joseph (1728–1799): 175n Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich (1752–1840): 181n Boerhave, Herman (1668–1738): 105 Böhme, Anton Willhelm (1673–1722): 47, 54–55, 54n, 56n Boltzius, Johann Martin (1703–1765): 55, 64, 64n Bonaparte, Napoleon (1769–1821): 59n, 65, 332, 335, 338n, 354, 401, 404n Bond, Thomas (1712–1784): 108, 116 Bonpland, Aimé (1773–1858): 466, 467n Bott, Elizabeth: 16, 22 Bourdieu, Pierre: 18n Bowdoin, James (1726–1790): 119 Boykin, Samuel: 424n, 429n, 469n, 470n Bradbury, John (1768–1823): 393, 394, 395, 404n, 406n, 470n

Brenner (Merchant, Basel, Switzerland, unidentified): 66 Brickell, Eddy (1749–1809): 173 Brickell, John (1749–1809): 266n, 267, 268, 270, 273–275, 277–279, 282–283, 288, 290–291, 297, 302, 315–317, 320, 330–331, 342, 358–359, 367, 406n, 407, 409, 425n, 426, 428, 434 Brodersen, Martin (1718–1813): 189n Broussonet, Pierre Marie Auguste (1761– 1807): 212n, 481n Bruce, Archibald (1777–1818): 120n Brunnholtz, Peter (†1757): 59 Brutelle, Charles Louis L’Héritier de (1746– 1800): 212n Burke, Peter: 39 Burr, Aaron (1756–1836): 268n, 396 Bushnell, David (1742–1824): 115 Canstein, Carl Hildebrand von (1667–1719): 46 Captain Fiser (aka Fisker; unidentified): 74 Captain Winn (unidentified): 53 Carl, Johann Jacob (Merchant, Book Trader): 63, 65–69, 70, 155, 198, 229, 230, 255, 264n, 384, 393, 394 Catesby, Mark (1679–1749): 105–106, 110, 134, 392n Cesalpino, Andrea (1519–1603): 103 Christian Friedrich Carl Alexander (1736– 1806), Margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth: 126–127, 129, 129n, 160, 200n Clark, Dana: 362, 384 Clark, William (1770–1838): 268, 407n Clarkson (Doctor, unidentified): 166 Clayton, John (1657–1724): 105–106, 115, 134, 273, 298n, 307n, 392n, 432n Cleaver, Isaac (1785–1822): 409n, 418n, 424, 425n Cleghorn, Robert (1778–1841): 393 Cleyer, An¬dreas (1634–1697): 200n Clifford, John D.: 293 Clinton, DeWitt (1769–1828): 120n Colden, Cadwallader: (1688–1776): 105–106, 108, 110, 115, 134, 166 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor (1772–1834): 168

Register of Persons Collin, Nils (1746–1831): 353 Collins, Nicolas (1746–1831): 177n Collins, Zaccheus (1764–1831): 40–41, 44n, 288, 297, 359n, 366n, 392n, 394, 401n, 402, 403, 404n, 405–406, 408n, 410, 411n, 413n, 414n, 415n, 416, 417n, 418–424, 425n, 429, 430n, 432, 433n, 437n, 439, 441n, 446–452, 455, 457–459, 461n, 463n, 465n, 468–471, 477, 478n, 479n Collinson, Peter (1694–1768): 105–106, 108–110 Conrad, Frederick Augustus: 256 Conrad, S. W. (Publisher, Philadelphia): 478 Cook, James (1728–1179): 111n Copernicus, Nicolaus (1473–1543): 102 Cordus, German Valerius (1515–1544): 103 Cornelius, Elias: 375 Cornut, Jacques Phillipe (1606–1651): 104 Coxe, John Redman (1722–1808): 178n, 412n Craig, Susan Ann: 400 Craven, Elizabeth (1750–1828): 160 Cullen, William (1710–1790): 175 Cummins: 163n, 174n Curtis, Moses Ashley (1808–1872): 193n, 479n Custis, Peter (1781–1842): 363n, 388 Cutler, Manasseh (1742–1823): 114, 133, 148n, 162, 163n, 166, 170, 181, 186, 192–196, 198, 199n, 223, 230n, 231n, 232n, 248, 253, 254n, 256, 257n, 261n, 263, 264n, 294, 306, 351, 356–358, 368, 375n, 396–397, 401n, 406n, 453–454 , 455n, 456 Cuvier, Georges (1769–1832): 180n, 183n Dallmann, Gustavus: 187n, 256–258, 262, 264n, 270, 273, 275–278, 302, 315–316, 320, 330, 331, 372, 406n, 426n, 441–442, 470n Darlington, William (1782–1836): 424–425, 434n, 439, 470n Daston, Lorraine: 101 Davis, John (1761–1847): 412n de l’Étang, Pierre Antoine Dupont (1765– 1840): 335 Deleuze, Joseph: 243n, 251n

587

Delius, Heinrich Friedrich (1720–1791): 126, 130, 130n, 138n, 199–200 Dengler, Jacob : 378n Denke, Christian Friedrich (1775–1838): 187n, 191, 228, 256–264, 267, 271, 276, 277, 331, 374, 401n, 405n, 411n, 441–444, 446 Denke, Jeremias (1759): 259 Denke, Sara: 259 DeRosier, Arthur H. : 361n, 363n Dickson, James (1732–1822): 41n, 397 Dillenius, John Jacob (1687–1747): 41n, 106, 111n Dillon, Johan Jacob (1687–1747): 305 Dillwyn, Lewis Weston (1778–1855): 41n, 424 Dörry, Henry: 425, 427, 428, 470n Douglas, Thomas (1771–1820), 5th Earl of Selkirk: 393 Dubbs, J. H.: 144, 147 Dunbar, Alexander (1742–1791): 264n, 343n, 355, 361–365, 368n, 369, 377, 388, 459 Dupree, Anderson H.: 25, 106, 477 Durand, Elias (1794–1873): 479n Durkheim, Emile (1858–1917): 16 Ebeling, Christoph Daniel (1741–1817): 176–177, 180, 181n, 182, 231n, 234–235, 401n, 460, 465, 470n Eddy, Caspar Wistar (1761–1828): 402, 404n, 406n, 424n, 446, 447n, 448–450, 452, 457 Eddy, Philip: 450 Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried: 240 Eicke (Vetter, unidentified): 53n, 75 Ellicott, Andrew (1754–1820): 268, 362, 378, 397 Elliott, Stephen (1771–1830): 41n, 44n, 195, 284, 286, 288, 296, 310, 333, 343n, 349n, 355, 358–361, 366n–367n, 368–369, 373n, 375, 377, 382, 384, 387n, 390, 393, 402–405, 406n, 408, 409, 413, 414n, 415, 416n, 417n, 419–422, 423n, 424–426, 428–434, 436, 437n, 438–440, 442, 446–447, 459, 468–471, 477, 481 Emirbayer, Mustafa: 18, 31–34, 473 Enslin, Aloysius († 1810): 178n, 266, 280, 281n, 287, 289, 290–292, 315, 317, 320, 381, 383, 386, 389, 392n, 405n, 408, 411n

588

Register of Persons

Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466/1469–1536): 98 Erskine, John: 97n Esquire, William: 411n, 426n Ewan, Joseph: 107, 263, 285, 361n, 413n, 431n, 477 Fabricius, Johann Christian (1743–1807): 176, Fabricius, Sebastian Andreas (1716–1790): 12, 36n, 51–52, 64n, 65, 67, 74, 82n, 95, 122n, 140, 144n, 148–151, 149n–152n, 155n, 155–156, 159–161, 176, 215–216, 218–220, 231, 254–255, 350, 441n Faucitt, William (1728–1804): 127 Faust, Katherine: 17, 24 Fischer: 163n, 174n Flügge, Johannes (1775–1816): 235, 401n, 460, 465, 466n, 470n Fock, Johann Georg: 97n, Forby, Robert (1759–1825): 306 Forster, Reinhold: 134 Foster, Thomas: 293, 481n Fothergill, John (1712–1780): 168 Fox, George (1624–1691): 166 Francke, August Hermann (1663–1727): 46n, 46–48, 50n, 54, 59, 74, 114, 141, 166, 218, 226n Francke, Gotthilf August (1696–1769): 54–56, 58, 60–61 Franklin, Benjamin (1706–1790): 153n, 166, 175, 193, 420n, 45, 107, 118, 120, 481n Frederick I (1657–1713), King of Prussia: 46n Frederick II (1712–1786), King of Prussia: 218 Frederick IV (1671–1730), King of Denmark: 47 Frederick Wilhelm II (1744–1797), King of Prussia: 160 Freeman, Thomas : 363n Fresenius, Friedrich Anton (1745–1814/15): 198, 231n, 246n Freylinghausen, Gottlieb Anastasius (1719– 1785): 61, 62n, 64–65, 160n Fritsch, Johann Christoph: 126, 127n Gaissenhainer, Frederick William (1771– 1838): 401n Galen (129–216): 102n, 103n Galloway, David J.: 167, 352n

Gamble (Professor, Philadelphia, unidentified): 96 Gambold, Anna Rosina (1747–1811, née Kleist, aka: Elizabeth Gambold): 187n, 276n, 284, 373, 374, 375, 376, 382, 406n, 426n, 441–443, 446, 469n, 470n Gambold, John (1760–1827): 374 Garden, Alexander (1730–1791): 108, 166 Garliep (Accise–Einnehmer, unidentified): 51, 53n, 54n, 79 Gayoso, Manuel Luis (1747–1799): 362 Gellert, Christian Fürchtegott (1715–1769): 42, 76 Geus, Armin: 227 Glatfelter, Charles: 55, 57–58 Gluckmann, Max (1911–1975): 16 Goering, Jacob (1755–1807): 141, 326 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749–1832): 234n, 334n Goldgar, Anne: 100 Good, John Mason (1764–1827): 181n Goodenough, Samuel (1743–1827): 212 Goodwin, Jeff: 18, 31–34, 473 Gottschall (Neighbor of Mühlenberg, unidentified): 140n Gould, Roger V.: 25, 28–29, 31 Granovetter, Mark: 20 Gray, Asa: 104n, 163n, 174n, 477, 479, 480n, Green, Jacob (1790–1841): 447n, 450–452, 453n, 458, 459n, 470n, 475 Greene, John C.: 117 Greene, Nathanael (1742–1786): 167 Greenway, James (1703–1794): 162, 181, 198, 199n, 231–232 Grew, Nehemiah (1641–1712): 103 Grimaldi, Clelia Durazzo (1760–1830): 212n Griscom, John (1774–1852): 120n Gronovius, Jan Frederick (1686–1762): 105–106, 273, 298n, 307n Grosch (Neighbor of Mühlenberg, unidentified): 163n, 174n Gruber (Interpretor, unidentified): 264n Gundacker (Neighbor of Mühlenberg, unidentified): 140n, 229n

Register of Persons Gustav Adolf IV (1778–1837), King of Sweden: 354 Häberlein, Mark: 123, 162, 441 Hächler, Stefan: 37 Hall, Mary Catherine (1756–1844, née Mühlenberg): 81, 122n, 328, 410n Hall, Philip (Merchant, Philadelphia): 81, 83n, 89n, 197, 222n Haller, Albrecht von: 37, 41n, 100n, 101, 111, 127, 212, 481n Hamilton, Alexander: 158 Hamilton, Andrew (1776–1741): 173n Hamilton, James (1710–1793): 173n Hamilton, William (1749–1813): 119, 139, 162–163, 171, 173, 174n, 176, 249n, 256, 264n, 267–268, 270, 280–282, 284–286, 312, 316, 320, 348, 384–391, 396, 401n, 405n, 407, 408n, 409, 411n, 413, 414n, 433n, 463n, 469n, 470n Hancock, John (1737–1793): 119 Handschuh, John Frederick: 60 Hänlein, Louise Magda: 161n Hänsel, Gottfried (1749–1814): 189n Hardenberg, Karl August von (1750–1822): 160, 238 Hardenberg, Karl August von (1750–1822): 238n Hardy, Thomas: 211 Harshberger, John: 281, 287 Harvey–Gibson, R. J. (1748–1836): 111 Heckewälder, Christina: 261 Heckewälder, David († 1760): 261 Heckewelder, John (1743–1823): 180–181, 187n, 191, 257–258, 260–263, 264n, 375n, 442n Hedwig, Johann (1730–1799): 156, 161, 163n, 209, 210–211, 215, 218, 230–231, 232n, 233, 235–236, 242–245, 249–253, 256n, 297, 299, 305, 312, 314, 354n, 473, 476–477 Hedwig, Romanus Adolf (1772–1806): 230, 243–245, 249, 252–253, 265, 272, 297, 299, 330, 334–335, 342, 354n Heinzelmann, John Diedrich Matthias (1726–1756): 56n, 59

589

Heller, John: 110 Helmuth, Justus H. Philip (1745–1825): 51, 56n, 60n, 62, 63n, 70, 92, 95, 97, 123–124, 141–143, 148–151, 155–156, 217–218, 221–223, 224n, 229n, 230, 256, 263, 325, 326, 327, 409, 410, 469n, 470n Hendel, Johann Willhelm (1740–1798): 68n, 125, 140, 142, 143n, 163 Henkel, Anthony Jacob (1668–1728): 55 Henkel, Paul (1754–1822): 410n, 470n Henkel, Solomon : 275, 401n, 469n, 470n Herbst, Nicolaus Friedrich (1705–1772): 240 Hermann, Johann C.: (Book Trader, Frankfurt, Germany): 63, 65–69, 70, 138n, 151, 155, 198, 229, 230, 255, 264n, 384, 393, 394 Hernholt, John (1764–1836): 181n Herschel, Sir William (1738–1822): 363n Hiester Jr., Daniel: 142n Hiester, Isaac: 433, 470n Hiester, Joseph: 142n Hiester, Mary Elizabeth: 400 Hiester, Rebecca (1781–1841): 400 Hindle, Brooke: 114 Hirzel, Hans Kaspar (1751–1817): 127, 127n, 135n Hoffmann, Friedrich (1660–1742): 50n Hoffmann, Georg Franz (1761–1821): 67, 156, 161, 163n, 198, 201–202, 215, 230, 232n, 233, 235–236, 241–244, 252–253, 265, 288, 297, 301, 304, 306, 308–310, 312, 330, 334, 401n, 420n, 469n, 470 Hoffmann, Johann Adam (1707–1781): 202 Hölzer, Georg Friedrich: 59n Hooke, Robert: 103n Hooker, William Jackson (1785–1865): 359n Hope, John: 211 Hosack, David (1769–1835): 119–120, 183n, 231, 264n, 265, 286, 390–391, 392n, 401n, 402n, 447n, 448, 449n, 451, 481n Hu, Shiu–Ying: 13, 286–287, 392n Hübele, Michael: 123 Hubley, John: 144n Hugo, C.E.: 251 Humboldt, Friedrich Willhelm Heinrich Alexander von (1769–1859): 101, 246,

590

Register of Persons

268–271, 302, 328, 397, 466, 467n, 469n, 470n, 479, Hunter, George: 363 Hunter, John: 174–175 Huntington, Samuel (APS member): 96 Hutchins, Joseph: 141, 141n, 147 Hütter, Christian Jacob: 235, 239–240, 255, 324–325, 410n Isenflamm, Jacob Friedrich (1726–1793): 130, 201 Jackson, John (1748–1821): 424, 470n Jaeger, Herbert: 200n Jefferson, Thomas (1743–1826): 113, 117, 120, 153, 153n, 158–159, 173, 182, 266–269, 293–294, 296, 303, 321, 328, 334, 340, 362–364, 368–369, 384–386, 387n, 388–390, 393n, 394–395 406, 407n, 463, 470n, 481n, 265 Josselyn, John (1638–1675): 104 Jugel, Johann Gottfried (1707–1786): 240 Juncker, Johann (1679–1759): 226 Junghans, Philip Kaspar (1738–1797): 218–219, 231, 249, 250n Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de (1748–1836): 111, 113, 180n, 212n, 270–271, 303, 476, 478–479, 481n Kalm, Pehr (1716–1779): 108–109, 166, 214, 301 Kampmann, Frederick (1746–1832): 40, 162, 186, 187n, 188, 190–191, 228, 236, 257–258, 262, 264n, 373–374, 376–377, 405n, 411n, 441–443 Karl Eugen (1728–1793), Duke of Württemberg, Duke: 184 Kärnefelt, Ingvar: 351n Karsteboom (Merchant, Karsteboom&Companie, unidentified): 218, 221n Keppele, Johann Heinrich: 56n, 62, 63n, 65, 85 Keppeler, Simon: 67n, 218n (Keppelin) Kerr, Isaac (unidentified): 401n Kiemle, Jacob: 89 Kin, Matthias († about 1825): 266, 270, 280, 281n, 282, 287–289, 315, 317–318, 320,

331, 381–382, 386, 405n, 411n, 416–417, 424, 437n, 446 Kinzing (Philadelphia, unidentified): 467n Kirby, William (1750–1850): 357 Kitaibel, Paul: 301n Kliest, Daniel († 1792): 373 Knapp, Georg Christian (1753–1825): 51, 65, 78, 336 Knapp, Johann Georg (1705–1771): 51, 61, 62n Knoch, August Willhelm (1742–1818): 144, 146n Kochertal, Joshua: 54n Kramsch, Johann Gottlob (†1765): 190 Kramsch, Samuel (1764–1824): 162, 163n, 172, 181, 186, 187n, 188, 190–191, 193n, 198, 199n, 228, 231n, 232n, 236, 256–260, 262, 264n, 267, 276–277, 283, 331, 373–376, 382, 406n, 426n, 441–443, 445–446 Kücking, Verena: 39 Kuhn, Adam: 222 Kunze, Johann Carl: 90n, 97n, Kunze, Johann Christopher (1744–1807): 48, 53, 58, 62, 64–65, 70, 78–79, 83n, 85, 89–93, 119, 141, 143–144, 154–155, 155n, 216n, 228, 229n, 254n, 263, 329, 399, 401n Kunze, Margaretha Henrietta (1751–1831): 79, 83n, 89–93 Kurtz, Johann Daniel (1764–1856): 154 Kurtz, Johann Nicholas (1720–1794): 154 Kurtz, John Nicolaus: 87, Lacépède, Comte de (1765–1825): 180n Lambert, Aylmer Bourke (1761–1842): 392 Landrath, David (1752–1836): 119, 282–283, 385n, 415n, 416n Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von (1774–1852): 180n Latreille, Pierre André (1762–1833): 357 Laumann, Ludwig (Merchant, Lancaster, † 1797): 93, 123, 125, 150, 150n, 220, 235 Läwatz, Heinrich Willhelm: 101 Lawersweiler (unidentified –Mühlenberg & Lawersweiler, Trappe): 85

Register of Persons Le Doux, Louiza Amelia: 445 Leathes, John: 395n Leclerc, Georges Louis Marie, Comte de Buffon (1707–1788): 116–117, 294, 334n, 481n LeConte, John Eaton: 40, 104n, 242n, 284, 449n, 452n, 469n, 470n Lee, Arthur (1740–1792): 120 Lehmann (Mister, unidentified): 143 Lenndict, Leonhard (unidentified): 144n Leopold I (1640–1705), Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire: 200n Lester, Malcolm: 396n Lettsome, John C. (1744–1815): 119, 172, 174–175, 212 Lewis&Clark: 265, 406, 407, 411, 414, 416n, 422, 435n Lewis, Meriwether (1774–1809): 366n, 383–385, 386n, 388, 395, 398, 406, 407n, 415n Lightner, Joel: 424 Linneaus, Carl (1707–1778): 39, 87, 103–104, 105n, 106, 108–114, 130, 134n, 137, 151, 156, 236, 243n, 247–248, 253, 270, 298, 302–303, 305–307, 321, 350–351, 357n, 377n, 387, 389, 450n, 479, 481n Linneaus, Carl (1741–1783): 211, 351 Liston, Robert (1794–1847): 395n Livingston, Robert (1746–1813): 120n, 196 Loddiges, Joachim Conrad (1738–1826): 282, 283n Logan, Deborah Norris: 369 Logan, Frederick: 370 Logan, George (1753–1821): 267n, 334, 355, 367–369, 370–371, 377, 403n, 425, 427–428, 470n, 476 Logan, James (1674–1751): 105, 369 Logan, James (1753–1821): 159, 166 Logan, James: 369 Logan, William (1717–1776): 369 Löhning–Pratt, Michael (unidentified): 467n Loskiel, George Henry (1740–1814): 375n Louis XIV (1638–1715), King of France: 273 Löwenstern, Johann Kunkel von (1630–1703): 240

591

Ludolf, Heinrich Willhelm (1655–1712): 46 Luther, Martin: 226, 426 Lyon, John (1765–1814): 171n, 178n, 266, 270, 280–284, 287–288, 315–317, 331, 359, 361, 374, 381–383, 389, 404n, 405n, 411n, 412n, 414–416, 424, 480n M’Mahon, Bernard (1775–1816): 334, 384, 385n, 386–388, 391, 401n, 403n, 404n, 405n, 406, 407n, 408, 411n, 414–416, 422n, 424 Madai, David Samuel (1709–1780): 57n Madison, James (1751–1836): 139, 268, 340, 429 Malpighi, Marcello (1628–1684): 103 Man, Mary Agnes: 146n Marksham, Richard Anthony: 211 Marshall, Humphrey (1722–1801): 36n, 118, 139, 158n, 162–163, 165, 171–174n, 192, 194, 256n, 260n, 263, 264n, 267, 272–273, 281, 283, 285, 293, 386, 401n, 424, 434n, 469n, 470n Marter (Professor, unidentified): 125 Martini, Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm (1729– 1778): 249 Mather, Cotton (1663–1728): 54 Mauelshagen, Franz: 99, 132 McAdam, Doug: 33 McBride, James (1784–1817): 178, 179n, 424n McKean, Thomas (1734–1817): 142n, 268 McKinley, Daniel: 373n, 374, 375n, 442 McLean, Elizabeth: 168 Mead, Richard (1673–1754): 100n Mears, James: 278, 287, 417, 425, 428n, 434n, 450 Mease, James D. (1771–1864): 181, 231, 264n, 273, 278–280, 315, 330, 401n, 403n, 405n, 411n, 416, 417n, 424, 455n Mecken, J. W.: 47n Mecklenburg, Sophie Luise von (1685–1735): 46n Melish, John: 380n Melsheimer, Frederick Valentin (1749–1814): 141, 141n, 144n, 146n, 144–145, 147, 217, 230, 235, 241, 264n, 401n, 469n, 470n

592

Register of Persons

Melsheimer, Joachim Sebastian: 146n Mencke Family (Publishers, Leipzig): 101 Meng, Melchior (1725–1812): 287 Merkel, Paul (aka Merkle, Neuländer): 67n, 429n Merril, E. D.: 286, 287, 392n, 303 Merry, Anthony (1756–1835): 395–398 Merry, Elisabeth († 1824): 395–398, 401n, 407n Mertens, Franz Karl (1764–1831): 357 Meusel, Johann Georg (1743–1820): 128n Meyer (Chrirurgus, unidentified): 49 Michaelis (Mister, unidentified): 182, 234n, Michaux, André (1746–1802): 273, 301, 348, 476 Michaux, Francois André (1770–1855): 162, 163n, 178, 179n, 193n, 231n, 232n, 270–277, 282–285, 337, 341, 343, 345–346, 348, 354n, 360, 364n, 367–377, 383, 392, 405, 406n, 416n, 425, 427n, 430, 432, 443, 457n, 461–462, 463n, 471 Militzer, Max (1894–1971): 188–189 Miller, Samuel (1769–1850): 120 Minto, Walter (1753–1796): 115 Mirbel, Charles Francis Brisseau de (1776– 1854): 180n Mitchell John: 166 Mitchell, Samuel Latham (1764–1831): 105, 106n, 113n, 119–120, 162, 186, 196–197, 199, 228, 231, 240n, 263, 264n, 266n, 296, 306, 368, 401n, 402, 406n, 438, 446–447, 448n, 450–451, 478, 481 Moore, F. (unidentified): 41n Moore, Henry: 355, 365–366, 367n, 384, 406n, 442, 453, 459 Moreno, Jacob (1889–1974): 16 Morgan, John: 227 Morris, Robert (1734–1806): 96 Morse, Jedediah (1761–1826): 117 Mosche, Gabriel Christoph Benjamin: 97 Moulton, Gary: 392 Mühlenberg, Anna Maria (1727–1802, née Weiser): 56, 71, 88, 225n Mühlenberg, Catharina (née Schaefer): 76, 123n,

Mühlenberg, Eva Elizabeth (1748–1808): 71, Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad (1750–1801): 12, 48–49, 51, 53, 58, 69n, 71–97, 141, 145n, 153–155, 158n, 163, 225, 229, 230n, 263, 268n, 272–273, 325–329, 370, 398, 410, 467n, 469 Mühlenberg, Frederick Augustus Hall (1795–1867): 481 Mühlenberg, Georg Heinrich (1749–1833): 341n, 401n, 469n, 470n Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior (1711–1787): 11n, 34n, 36n, 42, 52–53, 56, 60, 63n, 64–65, 67, 71–97, 114n, 122n, 124–125, 125n, 149, 152, 153n–154n, 155, 161, 202, 225–227, 257n Muhlenberg, Henry A.: 75 Mühlenberg, Henry Augustus Philip (1782– 1844): 145n, 225, 227, 291, 292, 327, 328, 399–400, 411n, 441, 469n, 470n Mühlenberg, Henry William (1772–1805): 145n Mühlenberg, John Peter Gabriel (….): 12, 48–49, 60, 62, 71–97, 141, 141n–142n, 153n, 153–154, 163, 225, 229, 325, 327, 373, 399, 410 Mühlenberg, John Philip Emanuel (1784– 1825): 329, 399–400, 401n, 402, 446–448, 459 Mühlenberg, Margaretha Henriette (1751– 1831): 71 Mühlenberg, Maria Katharina (1755–1812): 71, 80, 122n Mühlenberg, Maria Salome (1766–1827): 71 Müller, Johann Christopher (1779–1845): 292, 377–381, 402, 405n, 408n, 409n, 411n, 418, 424, 438, 446 Müller–Bahlke, Thomas: 47–48, 87, 114 Münte, Heinz: 65 Murray, Johann Andreas (1740–1791): 202n Musser, John (1774–1813): 328, 361, 399, 420, 423, 427n, 436n Natzmer, Gneomar Dubislav von (1654–1739): 46 Nebe, Joseph Friedrich (1737–1812): 12, 36n, 65, 153, 159n, 163n, 233, 235, 239–241,

Register of Persons 244n, 246n, 247, 249–251, 253n, 254–256, 265, 323–325, 330–332, 336–338, 341, 410, 426n, 469n, 470n Neff, Jacob: 378n Neukirch, Benjamin (1665–1729): 42 Newton, Isaac (1643–1727): 104 Nickisch, Reinhard: 41 Niemeyer (Merchant, Lübeck): 50n, 74 Niemeyer, August Hermann (1754–1828): 336 Nooth, James (1743–1814): 128 Nuttal, Thomas (1785–1859): 113, 171n, 322n, 390n, 393–394, 404n, 408n, 412n, 424n Ny¬berg, Laurentius Thorstensson: 188 Oemler, August Gotthold (1774–1852): 328n, 331, 376, 376, 409, 425–428, 435, 437n, 440, 443n Oemler, Nicholas: 426 Oglethorpe, James (1696–1786): 55n Ostrander, Gilman: 117 Ott, John (unidentified) 271, 371–372, 401n, 437n, 456n Padgett, John: 21, 30–31 Paine, Thomas (1737–1809): 115 Pallas, Peter Simon (1741–1811): 392n Palm, Johann Jacob (1750–1826): 134n, 198, 201, 202n, 233, 238–240, 241n, 242n, 304n, 311, 324, 335, 339, 350n, 469n, 470n Palm, Johann Philip (1766–1806): 340, 341n Panzer, Wolfgang Franz (1755–1829): 240 Paquet, Gilles (*1936): 332n Parsons, Sa¬muel Holden (1737–1789): 192 Pascalis, Felix: 197 Pasche, Friedrich Willhelm (1728–1792): 52, 60, 63n, 97n, 149, 160, 217–218 Patterson, Robert (1743–1824): 268 Peale, Charles Wilson (1741–1827): 118, 178, 303, 347 Peale, Rembrandt (1778–1860): 347 Peck, William Dandridge (1763–1822): 112, 145n, 174, 181, 183, 194–195, 231, 264n, 347, 349, 355–358, 392n, 440, 453–457 Pendergrast, Garrett Elliott: 363n Penn, William: 166 Pennant, Thomas (1726–1798): 176, 182

593

Pennel, Francis: 190, 287, 317 Perlee (Doctor, unidentified): 228 Persoon, Christian Hendrik (1761–1836): 210, 243n, 244, 251–253, 265, 271, 295, 297, 300n, 301–305, 314, 318, 330–332, 337, 340, 345–348, 352, 402, 446, 448n, 455n, 456n, 460–462, 463n, 466, 467n, 470, 479 Petersen, Ronald H.: 384n Peucker, Paul: 187 Pickford (unidentified): 372 Pierce (unidentified): 425n Pike, Zebulon (1779–1813): 363n Playfair, John (1748–1819): 175n Pliny (23–79): 481n Plukenet, Leonard (1642–1706): 392n, 413n, 414 Plütschau, Heinrich (1676–1752): 47 Priestley, Joseph (1733–1804): 139, 196 Pursh, Frederick Traugott (1774–1820): 171n, 266, 268, 280–281, 284–287, 291, 300, 317, 320, 322n, 385n, 390–395, 402n, 405n, 406–407, 408n, 409n, 411n, 412n, 415n, 416n, 432n, 451n, 452n, 477 Putnam, General Rufus (1738–1824): 192, 261n Pyrges, Alexander: 37, 55 Pythagoras of Samos (570– 495 BC): 481n Rabenhorst, Christian († 1783): 86 Racknitz, Joseph Friedrich Freiherr von (1744–1818): 284 Radcliffe–Brown, Albert (1881–1955): 16 Rafinesque, Antoine Auguste: 293n Rafinesque, Francois Georges A. (1750–1793): 292 Rafinesque–Schmalz, Constantine Samuel (1774–1820): 43, 178, 196n, 285n, 292–296, 317, 322, 375n, 401n, 405n, 411n, 424n, 433–435, 469n, 470n Ramsay, David (1749–1815): 116n, 481n Rapp, Georg (1757–1847): 378–379, 381n, 418 Rappe, Andrew: 379n Ray, John (1623–1705): 103, 105 Redman, John (1722–1808): 222

594

Register of Persons

Reich, (Professor, Erlangen, unidentified): 197n Reichard, Matthias (1758–1830): 80 Reichel, Charles Gotthold (1751–1825): 181n Reichenbach, William (1749–1821): 141 Reimarus, Johann Albert Heinrich (1729– 1814): 460 Retzius, Anders Jahan (1742–1821): 138n Reuter, Christian: 189, 190n Rich, Obadiah (1777–1850): 453, 455–456, 460 Richard (Professor, unidentified): 461n Richardson, Samuel (1689–1761): 41n Richter, Christian Friedrich (1676–1711): 57n, 226 Richter, Friedrich Adolf (1748–1797): 219, 231, 249 Rittenhouse, David (1732–1796): 115, 116n, 118, 175, 176n, 182, 481n, Ritter, John N.: 225 Roche, Daniel: 34, 40, 101 Roeber, Gregg A.: 325 Rohde, Michael (1782–1812): 460, 465–467, 469, 470n Romanow, Alexander I Pawlowitsch (1771– 1825), Emperor of Russia: 309 Roscoe, William (1753–1831): 181n, 394 Rosenmüller, Johann Christian : 210n Rosenthal, Naomi: 25–28, 32 Rossen, Ronan van: 31 Roth, Albrecht Willhelm (1757–1834): 251n, 306, 460, 465–466, 470n Rottler, Johann Peter: 301n Ruel, Jean (1474–1537): 103 Rukenbrodt, Michael: 379n Rumpf, Georg Eberhard (1637–1706): 200n Rush, Benjamin (1745–1813): 138n, 142, 148, 155, 172, 175–176, 178, 180, 182, 183n, 184, 193, 212, 222, 225, 227, 229n, 231n, 234n, 263, 264n, 265, 268, 279n, 363, 401n, 410, 411n, 412, 457, 481n Sabunde, Raymonde de (1436): 87n, Salisbury, Richard Anthony (1761–1829): 181n Saur, Christopher (1695–1753): 123 Savacool, Woodrow: 225–226

Say, Thomas (1787–1834): 145 Schaefer, Frederick (Sugar Manufacturer): 76n Schaeffer, David: 91 Schaubert, Johann Willhelm (1720–1751): 42 Schaum, Johann Helferich: 56n Schauwecker, Anna Barbara (1749–1793): 150n Schkuhr, Christian (1741–1811): 243n, 265, 272, 300, 313–315, 330, 332, 337–338, 340, 341n, 342, 408, 426n Schleuchzer, Johann Jakob (1672–1733): 101 Schlötzer, August Ludwig (1735–1809): 128n Schmaltz, Magdalena (1767–1831): 292 Schmid, Georg: 379n Schmidel, Casimir Christoph (1716–1792): 100n Schmidt, John Frederick (1746–1812): 51, 63, 97, 141, 149–151, 155, 217, 221–223, 230, 233n, 256, 263, 325–327, 409, 410 Schmidt, Peter (1780–1831): 448, 453n, 469n, 470n Scholler, Friedrich Adam (1718–1790): 189 Schönberg (Gardener, Halle Orphanage): 51 Schopenhauer, Arthur (1788–1860): 98n Schöpf, Johann David (1752–1800): 13, 40, 42n, 43, 45, 69, 104, 106n, 125–138, 144, 145n, 146–148, 151, 155–156, 160–161, 163–165, 168n, 169–171, 173n, 177, 198, 200–201, 215, 223, 227, 228n, 229n, 230–231, 233, 235, 240, 241n, 248, 253, 257n, 264n, 272, 380, 420, 458, 472, 475–476 Schöpf, Johann Martin:126 Schöpf, Katharina Elisabeth (née Müller): 126 Schott, (Madam, Wife of Joseph van der Schott) van der: 409n Schott, Joseph van der († 1812): 266, 280, 287, 289– 292, 381, 386, 405n, 408, 411n, 469n, 470n Schrader, Heinrich Adolf (1767–1836): 210, 264n, 265, 306, 309–311, 314–315, 318, 330, 334, 338, 340, 341n, 344, 350, 352, 427n, 446, 460–461, 465–466 Schreber, Johann Christian Daniel Edler von (1739–1810): 12, 40, 59n, 69, 104, 110n,

Register of Persons 111–114, 126–139, 146–148, 151, 152n, 155–157, 158,160–165, 170–171, 173n, 185, 191, 193n, 194, 198–202, 209–211, 214–215, 229n, 230–231, 232n, 233–234, 236–241, 243, 244n, 246–248, 250, 252–254, 257n, 265, 267, 272, 276, 297, 301–302, 306, 310–312, 330, 335, 338–340, 350, 368, 375, 407, 408n, 420, 425, 429n, 438, 458, 466, 467n, 469n, 470n, 476 Schubak, Johannes: 185n Schultz, Christian: 55 Schultze, Christopher Emanuel (1740–1809): 60, 62, 71, 76–77, 94, 123, 154–155, 217, 220–222, 224–225, 228, 229n, 230, 235n, 236n, 257n, 263, 272, 325, 399, 410, 467 Schultze, Eva Elizabeth (1748–1808, née Mühlenberg) 1748–1808): 60, 62n, 71, 76, 325 Schulze, H.D.: 160n Schulze, Henry (unidentified): 229n, 327, 329 Schulze, Johann Ludwig (1734–1799): 264n, 336 Schuster, Anna Felicitas († 1765): 373 Schwägrichen, Christian Friedrich (1775– 1853): 210, 230–231, 243, 245, 249, 252–253, 256n, 265, 289, 297, 299, 300, 310, 312, 330, 331, 334, 340, 342, 401n, 426n, 446, 460, 465, 470 Schweinitz, Lewis David von (1770–1834): 187n, 191, 374, 375n, 424n, 441, 442n, 444–446, 469n, 470n, 481n Scudder, John (1793–1855): 120n Seabury, Sion (1720–1801): 115 Seckendorf, Friedrich Carl Freiherr von: 129–130, 129n, 133 Seidel, Johann Heinrich (1744–1815): 284 Serra, José Correa de (1750–1822): 113, 176, 264n, 330, 375, 393n, 401n, 443, 446, 478–479, 454n, 457n, 463n Seybert (Doctor, unidentified): 232n Shaffner, Caspar: 67n Shattuck (Doctor, Boston, unidentified): 455n Sheaff, William: 142n Shecut, John Linnaeus Edward W.: 41n

595

Shippen, William Jr. (1736–1808): 172, 175–176, 227 Shipper, B.J.: 216n Shull (Mister, Marcus Hook, unidentified): 424–425 Silliman, Benjamin (1779–1864): 120n, 424n Simmel, Georg (1858–1918): 16 Sloane, Hans (1660–1753): 104n, 106 Smissen & Son, van der (Trading Company, Altona, Germany): 185n, 219n, 221n, 241n, 246, 255, 460, 465, 470n Smissen, Hinrich Gilbert III (1742–1814): 63–65 Smissen, Hinrich II van der (1704–1789): 63–65 Smissen, Jacob Gysbert van der (1746–1829): 52, 63–65, 63n, 337 Smith, Earle C.: 292, 301, 306–308, 319, 321–332, 340, 343, 345, 350, 352–354, 366n, 397, 398, 445 Smith, Edgar Fahs: 197 Smith, Jacob Edward: 212n Smith, James Edward (1759–1828): 12, 38, 104, 156, 161, 162n, 175, 182, 199, 211–215, 228, 230, 231n, 233, 235–237, 243–244, 246, 248–249, 253, 257n, 265, 272, 297, 299, 284, 302, 304, 330, 332, 340, 343, 345, 347n, 349–354, 357, 392n, 397–398, 402n, 449n, 451n, 463n, 465–466, 470, 479 Smith, Pleasance: 236 Smith, Robert: 481n Snider, Melchior: 123n Söderstrom, Richard (Swedish Diplomat): 353n, 396n, 463n, 464n Solms–Rödelheim, Willhelm Carl Ludwig Graf von (1699–1778): 61, 88n Sorensen, Willis Conner: 356n Sparrmann, Anders (1748–1820): 181n, 481n (Spearman) Spener, Philip Jacob (1635–1705): 54 Sprengel, Kurt Polycarp Joachim (1766–1833): 230–231, 243n, 244, 249–252, 253n, 256n, 265, 310, 314–315, 330–332,

596

Register of Persons

335–336, 340–343, 350, 408n, 446, 460, 465 Stearns, Raymond Phineas: 106 Steinhauer, Henry : 374n, 375n, 424n Steuben, Friedrich Willhelm von (1730–1794): 83 Stockar, Jean: 211 Stockhausen, Johann Christoph (1725–1784): 42 Stoever, John Caspar (1707–1779): 55, 58n, 124 Stokes, Jonathan (1755–1831): 163n, 193n, 211–213, 231, 232n Stoppelberg, Gottlieb Friedrich († 1797): 12, 42n, 51, 65, 151, 160, 198, 210n, 215–220, 221n, 229n, 230–231, 235, 242, 254–255 Stoy (Herr, unidentified): 64n Stupicz (Doctor, unidentified): 125n Sturm, Jakob (1771–1848): 235, 238, 240–241, 310, 350n, 401n, 469n, 470n Sulzberger, Klara Benedikta († 1777): 243 Swaine, Francis (1754–1820): 80, 83, 467n Swartz, Olof Peter (1760–1818): 111, 156, 210, 230, 250, 264n, 265, 278, 295, 330, 332, 345, 350–354, 355n, 357, 402, 460, 463–464, 465n Theoprastus (371–287 BC): 103, 481n Thievet (Botanist, unidentified): 104n Thilo, Ernst: 55 Thomas Pennant (1726–1798): 138n, 176, 182 Thomson, Charles (1729–1824): 107 Thomson, William: 211 Thornton, John (1768–1837): 103n Thornton, William (1759–1828): 115 Thouin, André (1747–1824): 385n, 415, 463 Thunberg, Carl–Peter (1743–1828): 138n, 177n, 212n Ticknor, George (1791–1871): 235, 301, 344, 407, 460, 461n, 463, 465–466, 470n, 481 Tilesius, Willhelm Gottfried (1769–1857): 180n Tillary (Doctor, unidentified): 450n Tilton (Doctor, unidentified): 425n Tolles, Frederick: 166

Torrey, John (1796–1873): 104n, 374n–375n, 424n, 477, 480n Tournon–Simiane, Philippe–Marcellin Camille de (1778–1833): 338 Tozetti (unidentified): 138n Trevett, Benjamin: 437n Trew, Christoph Jacob (1695–1769): 34, 101 Tupper, Benjamin (1738–1792): 192 Turner, Dawson (1775–1858): 242, 245, 264n, 307–308, 316, 327, 345, 349, 351–354, 397, 401n, 406n, 408n, 416n, 464n, 465, 469n, 470n Turpin, Jean Francois (1775-1840): 318n Turnon–Simiane, Philippe–Marcellin Camille de (1778–1833): 338 Usteri, Paul (1768–1831): 210, 246 Valentin, Louis (1758–1829): 180n Vaughan, John (1756–1841): 183n, 193, 262n, 362–363, 366n, 384, 443n, 454n, 462, 463n Vaughan, Samuel: 115 Vaughan, William: 183n Vauque¬lin, Louis Nicholas (1763–1829): 180n Ville–sur–Illon, Bernarde Germain Etienne de la: 180n Vleck, Jacob van (1751–1831): 187n, 191, 257–258, 260–264, 271, 276–277, 373–374, 376–377, 405n, 411n, 423n, 441–442, 444–445, 446n, 481n Vleck, Jane van: 260 Vogel, Charles T.: 344n Voigt, John Lewis (1731–1802): 61 Wager, Philip: 142n Waldheim, Gottheld Fischer von (1771–1853): 180n Walker, John (1731–1803): 175n Wallace, Paul A.: 82, 224, 260n, 261 Wallot, Jean–Pierre (1935–2010): 332n Walter, Thomas (1720–1789): 114, 146, 164–165, 273, 274, 275, 277, 360, 367, 392n, 432–433 Wangenheim, Friedrich Adam Julius von (1749–1800): 116n, 248, 298n Warden (Consul, unidentified): 461n

Register of Persons Warren, Leonard: 293, 294 Washington, George (1732–1799): 28, 83, 362 Wasserman, Stanley: 17, 24 Webster, Hannah M.: 434n Webster, Noah: 117 Wegmann (Mühlenberg & Wegmann Company, unidentified): 85 Weinland, Frederick: 217 Weiser, Conrad (1696–1760): 56 Weisiger, David: 54 Wellenreuther, Hermann: 12, 14, 240n Wellman, Barry: 16, 21–22, 31 Wendt, Friedrich von (1738–1818): 407n Werner, Abraham Gottlob (1750–1817): 145n Weyberg, Caspar: 88 White (Bookseller, unidentified): 214 White, (Mister, unidentified): 215n Whitlow, (Mister, unidentified): 197, 404n Whitlow, Charles: 449–451 Willdenow, Karl Ludwig (1765–1812): 156, 200, 230, 243, 245–247, 248n, 249–250, 252, 253n, 256n, 265, 266n, 269, 272, 289, 295, 297–298, 300, 310, 312, 314–315, 320, 330–332, 337–338, 340, 341n, 343–344, 377, 406n, 408, 409n, 410n, 415n, 416n, 419n, 420n, 421n, 429n, 437n, 466, 467n, 469n, 470n, 481n Wilson, Alexander (1766–1811): 171n, 179, 363n, 390n Wilson, Renate: 46, 50, 58, 60, 68, 78–79, 133, 186, 220 Wistar, Caspar: 59n, 303 Withlow, Charles (1776–1829): 394n Witt, Simeon de (1756–1834): 196 Wolper (unidentified): 92 Woodward, John (1665–1728): 100n Wordsworth, William (1770–1850): 168 Wrangel, Carl Magnus (1727–1786): 74 Wyberg, Caspar (1734–1790): 142, 142n Young (Neighbor of Mühlenberg, Lancaster): 112n Zeisberger, David (1717–1818): 258n, 261, 263 Zentler, Conrad (Book Trader, Philadelphia, no data available): 380n

597

Ziegenbalg, Bartholomäus (1682–1719): 46 Ziegenhagen, Friedrich Michael (1694–1776): 47, 49, 52, 55–56, 55n, 56n, 61, 64, 78, 149, 149n Zimmermann, Eberhard August Willhelm von (1743–1815): 176, 181n Zinzendorf, Count Nikolaus Ludwig von (1700–1760): 55, 186, 187n, 188

X REGISTER OF PLACES Aberdeen: 361 Africa: 103 Aix–en–Provence: 212 Albany: 424n, 451, 452n Alfeld: 309 Alleghenies: 282, 287 Alsace: 190 Altona: 52, 59, 63, 65, 152, 185n, 221n, 337, 465 America (see also : United States of America): 34, 128, 128n, 130, 134, 135n, 137n, 144, 145n, 146–148, 162, 165, 173, 176n, 182, 185n, 186–187, 188n, 192, 197, 200n, 217, 220–221, 239–240, 244, 246, 254, 262, 265, 266–267, 269, 281, 285n, 288–289, 291n, 294, 308, 316n, 319, 322–323, 330, 404n, 405, 406n, 409n, 411, 421, 429, 445, 454n, 460, 462–463, 466n, 469n, 470n, 473, 476, 479 Amsterdam: 49, 59, 62, 65n, 161n, 217n, 218, 221n, 378, 461n Ansbach: 160, 233n, 338n Ansbach–Bayreuth (Duchy): 40, 126, 127n, 129, 133, 160, 241n, 338, 407 Anticosti Island: 393 Appalachians: 266, 282 Aranjuez: 269n Arkansas (State): 363 Arras: 302 Aschersleben: 52 Ashville: 416 Augsburg: 55, 125n Australia: 281 Austria: 290n, 291n, 338, 400n Austria: 408n Bäckaskog: 352n Bahamas: 128, 128n Ballstown: 279n Baltimore: 184

Baltimore: 281, 285, 296n, 327n, 328n Baltimore: 378, 427, 440n, 466n Barby (Silesia): 189, 191, 260 Barren Hill: 54, 73n, 89, 111, 115n Basel: 238n Baton Rouge: 362 Bavaria: 407 Bayreuth: 168n, 338 Beaufort: 359 Bedford: 261 Bedminster (Pennsylvania): 73n, 77n Benin: 303n Berks: 124n Berlin: 122n, 127, 216, 230, 245–47, 269, 288n, 289, 298, 314, 332–333, 343–344, 377, 408n Bern: 212 Betharaba: 190n Bethlehem (Pennsylvania): 146n, 187n, 188, 190, 257–261, 264n, 324n, 373–374, 376, 424n, 442n, 444–445, 446n Bordeaux: 303 Boston: 35, 119, 117, 145, 174, 192, 194, 196, 227, 315, 344, 347, 356, 358, 392n, 404n, 409n, 412n, 421, 422n, 424n, 438, 441n, 453, 455–458, 460, 476–477 Brandywine: 83, 87 Braunau: 340 Braunschweig: 52n, 144 Bremen: 460, 465, 467n Britain (see also Great Britain and England): 127, 127n, 428 British West Indies: 213n Brown (College): 119 Brunswick on the Tweed: 385n Bucks County: 268 Butler County: 378 Bützow: 130

Register of Places Canada: 109, 228, 261–262, 276, 306, 352n, 358, 385n, 398, 405n, 411n, 436, 438, 442, 443n, 444n, 446n, 456 Canton: 379n, 434 Cape of Good Hope: 281 Carolinas: 262n, 270, 273, 277n, 282, 290, 406n, 425n, 426n, 431n, 437n Charleston: 41n, 55, 147n, 164n, 270, 273, 315, 333, 348, 359, 361, 404n, 424n, 428n, 430n, 431–432, 435n, 436, 438 Chatham: 424 Cherokee County: 356, 373, 375, 382, 414n, 426, 442 Chesapeake: 294n, 439 Chester County: 424, 434 Chester: 171–172, 273 Chile: 351 China: 434 Christiana (New Jersey): 281 Christiansbrunn: 261 Clausthal (Germany): 75, 77n Cohansey (aka Cohenzy): 54, 73 Cologne: 161n Columbia (College): 120, 318n, 428n, 440n Conestoga Valley: 123n, 175 Connanicut Island: 127 Constantinople: 292 Copenhagen: 395n Delaware: 89, 162n, 180, 318n, 323n, 403n, 405n, 406n, 411n, 426n, 433, 440n Denmark: 46, 336, 354, 445 Deptford (England): 53 Dinwiddie County (Vir¬ginia): 181 Dresden: 269, 284 Dunmore County (Pennsylvania): 81 Easton: 325 Ebenezer (Georgia): 37, 54–55, 57, 64, 86, 283n Edinburgh (Scotland): 97n, 174–176, 181–182, 184, 193n, 196, 211–213, 412, 450 Egypt: 189n Einbeck (Germany): 49, 71, 77, England (see also Great Britain): 160, 162, 163n, 165–166, 171n, 173, 193n, 199, 212, 217n, 218, 231n, 232n, 261, 266,

599

269, 283–284, 289, 306, 314n, 315n, 320, 321n, 345, 349n, 352, 355, 369, 382, 383n, 384–385, 392, 394–395, 398, 404, 413n, 414–415, 416n, 428n, 432n, 436, 438, 451n, 460, 463n, 465, 466n, 75, 88, 107, 116, 128, 136n Erlangen: 35, 126–136, 127n, 133n, 134n, 146–147, 152, 155, 160–161, 164, 185, 191, 197n, 198–202, 210, 215, 223, 229, 233n, 234, 237–241, 250, 252n, 253, 267, 276, 310, 324, 329, 333, 335, 338, 340, 350, 371n, 407 Europe: 104, 116, 121, 135n, 137–139, 148, 158, 163–165, 174, 179, 182, 184n, 193n, 196, 210, 229, 230, 233, 238, 244, 246–247, 256, 260, 264, 266, 267n, 268n, 271, 283–284, 287–288, 290n, 291, 296–298, 301, 303, 306, 310n, 312–313, 316n, 320–321, 330, 332–335, 342, 345, 357, 390, 401, 404, 413n, 429n, 455, 460, 463n, 467, 469n, 470n Fairfield: 228, 261–262, 276, 443n, 444n Falckner’s Swamp (New Hanover, Pennsylvania): 55, 86n, 91 Finland: 355n Florence: 34 Florida : 128, 128n, 168, 268, 282, 290, 362, 436 Forfardshire: 281 France: 110n, 118, 121n, 158, 213, 217n, 232n, 233, 238n, 266–267, 270, 302–303, 321n, 336, 338, 345, 348, 354, 372, 377, 395n, 414n, 436n, 460, 461–463 Franconia: 127n, 128n Frankfurt (Germany, Main River): 59, 63, 65, 67–68, 70n, 97n, 136n, 151, 229, 230n, 255, 442n Frankfurt (Pennsylvania): 54, 73n Franklin (Missouri): 439n Fredericksburg (Virgina): 281 Freiberg: 145n Fulham (England): 284 Gamsen (Germany): 52n Gävle (Sweden): 351 Genoa: 184, 212

600

Register of Places

Georgetown (Washington DC): 371, 436n, 437n, 445, 455, 456n Georgia: 149n, 162n, 194, 270, 273, 279, 282, 284, 291, 297, 315n, 320, 359n, 362, 373, 374n, 382n, 404n, 405n, 406n, 408n, 409n, 411n, 416, 425–426, 428, 429n, 432–433, 436, 440n, 441n, 445, 449n Germantown (Pennsylvania): 55, 150, 223n, 287, 288n, 318, 435n Germany: 68, 90, 144–145, 162n–163n, 172, 183, 184n, 188–189, 198, 200n, 232n, 240, 276n, 285, 289, 300n, 317, 323n, 288n, 300n, 309n, 310n, 314n, 318n, 321n, 325n, 332, 350n, 414n, 426, 440n, 442n, 445–446, 460n, 461, 464 Gillogie (Scotland): 281 Glasgow: 361 Glaucha (Saxony): 141, 202 Gnadau (Silesia): 445 Gnaden (Silesia): 445 Gnadenberg (Silesia): 190 Gnadenfrei (Silesia): 190 Gnadenhütten (Ohio): 261 Goshenhoppen (Pennsylvania): 55 Gossenhain (Saxony): 284 Gothenburg: 465n Göttingen: 35, 67, 161, 162n, 174–176, 181n, 184, 201–202, 215, 230, 234–235, 241–42, 248, 251–253, 271–272, 288–289, 304, 306, 308–309, 310n, 311, 314, 334, 344, 350n, 352n, 427, 460, 465 Great Britain: 333, 338, 392, 429 Greenland: 189n Greifswald: 250 Greiz (Germany): 78 Grossglattbach (Germany): 378 Guinea: 303 Haarlem: 161n Halberstadt: 52n Halifax: 281, 303 Halle (Saale): 25, 45, 48–52, 54–68, 71, 73–74, 77–80, 82, 87–88, 90–91, 92n, 95, 97n, 113–114, 126n, 130, 132, 141, 148–156, 150n, 152n, 155n, 159–160, 163n, 182, 186–188, 202, 215–220, 221n, 223–225,

227, 229–230, 235, 239, 242, 246–247, 249–250, 252, 254–256, 265, 274, 284, 300–301, 310, 314, 323, 325, 332, 335–338, 340, 342, 350n, 410, 442n, 460, 465 Hamburg (Germany): 52n, 59, 63n, 176n, 182, 184, 185n, 234, 240 Hamburg: 288, 301n, 315, 319n, 321n, 323n, 331n, 342, 460, 465 Hanover (Pennsylvania): 145, 146n, 281 Harburg (Germany): 52n Harmony (Indiana): 377, 378n, 379, 402, 405n, 408n, 411n, 424n Harrisburg: 228 Harvard (College): 116n, 119, 357, 454, 457 Havanna: 447n Heimerdingen: 378 Helmstedt: 146n Herrnhaag: 187 Herrnhut (Saxony): 186–187, 190, 260 Hettstedt: 426 Hildesheim: 309 Hof (Germany): 126, 127n Holland: 68, 187n, 304n, 324n Holzminden: 146n Hope (New Jersey): 188n, 190–191, 257, 283, 374n, 376, 443 Hungary: 184n Idaho: 384 Ijsselstein (Netherlands): 187n Ildefonso: 267 India: 46, 56n, 97n, 127, 214n Indiana (State): 279n, 381, 418 Iowa (State): 384 Ipswich (Massachussetts): 95, 192 Ireland: 386, 409 Italy: 103, 127, 183–184, 212, 293, 311n Jamaica: 351 Japan: 281 Jena: 55 Jersey Beach: 416n Jersey: 286, 405n, 406n, 411n Kansas: 384 Kensington (London, England): 52, 218 Kent: 453n

Register of Places Kentucky: 95, 128n, 164n, 416n Kiel: 176, 445 Kittery: 181, 356–357 Knoxville: 365, 366n Könnern: 52n Labrador: 189n Lancaster (County): 198n Lancaster: 37–38, 45, 67, 71, 80, 86, 88–89, 92–93, 96–97, 101, 112, 117, 122n, 123n, 122–126, 125n, 126n, 128, 131, 138, 140–142, 144, 146, 148, 150–151, 153–154, 161, 163, 167n, 173, 175n, 182–184, 188, 193–194, 199–200, 214–215, 219n, 220, 222, 225, 228, 231, 234–235, 237, 239, 241n, 242n, 244–245, 247, 249–250, 252, 255, 256n, 258–260, 264n, 265, 267–269, 271n, 273–274, 276, 279, 281–282, 284–286, 288–290, 294–295, 296n, 299, 302, 304, 307, 308, 310, 314, 319n, 320, 323–325, 327–329, 334n, 337, 339, 341, 343, 345, 347–348, 352–353, 355, 359, 361–362, 365–365, 368–371, 373–375, 378–380, 382–383, 384n, 386n, 396, 397n, 404n, 405n, 406n, 409n, 413, 415n, 416, 420–421, 422n, 424–425, 430, 431n, 432, 434–436, 438–439, 441, 442n, 443n, 444, 449–450, 453n, 454n, 459, 461–464, 479, 482 Lebanon (Pennsylvania): 124n Leghorn (Italy): 293, 296 Lehigh: 124n Leiden: 105, 161n, 252 Leipzig: 59, 70n, 101, 107, 156, 161, 209–210, 215, 230, 240, 242–245, 249, 251, 256n, 272, 299, 300, 301n, 314, 332, 334, 342, 460, 465 Lexington: 104 Lisbon: 174–176 Lititz: 188n, 444 Livorno: 184 London: 22, 35, 47, 49, 54–55, 56n, 59, 65n, 71, 100n, 104–105, 109–110, 120, 128, 149, 149n, 151, 160–161, 168, 174, 183n, 210–212, 213n, 214, 217n, 218n, 228, 230, 235, 248, 253, 282, 283n, 284, 302,

601

305n, 306–308, 316, 319n, 333, 349, 361n, 392, 394, 397 Long Island: 127, 196–197 Louisiana (State): 168, 266–267, 291n, 355, 363, 385n Louisville (Kentucky): 153, 362 Louth County: 274 Lowth: 409n Lübeck: 50n, 74 Lund: 460, 464 Lüneburg: 52 Madagascar: 214n, 301 Madrid: 395n Majorca: 395n Manchac (Louisiana): 362 Manchester: 16 Marcus Hook (Pennsylvania): 424–425 Marienborn (Silesia): 187 Marktbreit am Main (Germany): 202 Marseille: 212, 293 Maryland: 83n, 128, 162n, 281, 293, 466n Massachusetts: 192, 195n, 406n, 453, 454n, 456 Mexico: 351 Milledgeville: 424n, 429n Mississippi (State): 33, 266–267, 287, 290–291 Missouri (State): 384 Monmouth: 127 Montana: 384 Montgomery County (Pennsylvania): 80, 86, 95, 124n, 127 Monticello: 269 Montpellier: 311n Montreal: 393 Morayshire: 361 Moscow: 215, 309, 334, 470n Munich: 407n Muskingum: 192–193, 261 Nassau: 55 Natchez (Louisiana): 361–366, 377, 384n, 406n, 459 Nazareth (Pennsylvania): 188n, 190, 257–260, 373, 356, 405n, 411n, 445 Nebraska (State): 384 Negenborn (Germany): 146n,

602

Register of Places

New Economy (Indiana): 119, 134n, 162, 194, 227, 356, 378n, 453–454, 456, 459n New Germantown: 72, 73n, 75, 122n New Goshenhoppen: 82 New Hampshire: 454n New Hanover: 55, 83n, 86n, 87, 90–91 New Jersey: 72, 75, 78, 108, 123n, 128n, 162n, 180, 184, 190–191, 257, 281, 283, 318n, 400, 401n, 443, 448 New Orleans (Louisiana): 149, 267, 362 New Providence: 128 New South Wales: 182 New York (City): 35, 55, 68, 73n, 77, 92n, 96–97, 106n, 107n, 115, 117, 119, 120n, 127n, 127–128, 137, 143, 155n, 175n, 195–197, 227, 229, 231, 266n, 274, 285–286, 293n, 294n, 296, 311, 315, 328–329, 356, 372, 382, 390–391, 394n, 399–400, 401n, 402, 403, 406, 411, 414, 417n, 424n, 446–452, 458, 459n, 464n, 470, 475, 477 New York (State): 26, 108, 162, 178n, 196n, 260, 279n, 356, 401n, 451n Newlin (Chester County): 434 Newport (Connanicut Island): 127 Niagara: 409n Niesky (Saxony): 374n, 189, 191, 445 Norfolk (England): 29, 306, 419n Norköpping: 350 North America (see also America and United States of America): 104–107, 109, 124, 126, 128, 131, 133, 134n, 137, 138n, 149, 151, 162, 165–166, 177, 182, 185–189, 191n, 200n, 201n, 214, 220, 229, 260, 270, 274, 278–279, 288, 299, 319n, 320, 404n, 405n, 422n, 455, 461–462 North Carolina (see also Carolinas): 123n, 128, 128n, 162, 168, 187n, 190, 194, 270, 273, 275–276, 318n, 331, 406n, 425, 426n, 442–443, 445, 446n North Dakota: 384 Northampton: 124n Norwich (England): 211, 236–237, 284, 306–307, 347n, 349, 352, 398, 402 Nuremberg: 238, 240–241, 350

Ohio (State): 95, 128, 169, 181, 192, 261, 427n, 442n Oley Hill: 82 Oregon (State): 384 Palatinate (Germany): 54 Paris: 29, 31, 34n, 35, 88n, 115, 168, 182n, 211–212, 252, 267, 269, 271, 288n, 289, 300n, 301–304, 305n, 307, 311, 319n, 332–333, 343–349, 395n, 402, 455n, 460–462 Pennsylvania (State): 28–29, 45–46, 51–52, 55–58, 61, 65, 71, 74, 77, 82, 83n, 88, 96, 105n, 106n, 108, 111, 118, 123n, 122–124, 128, 141–142, 144, 145n, 146, 149–150, 153, 162, 165–166, 172, 173n, 176, 180, 183, 185n, 187, 188n, 189n, 190, 194, 200n, 213n, 214n, 216–217, 220–221, 225–227, 230, 242, 257, 261, 234, 247n, 268, 273, 277n, 278n, 281, 285n, 290n, 293, 294n, 297, 307n, 311, 313n, 315, 318n, 319n, 320, 325, 332n, 336, 369–371, 374, 378, 382n, 402, 403, 404n, 405n, 406n, 411–412, 418, 424n, 425, 427n, 431n, 434, 436n, 442–444, 453, 457, 459, 462n Peru: 214n, 351 Pescia (Italy): 184 Philadelphia: 35, 45, 53–55, 54n, 65n, 73, 78–79, 81, 83n, 85, 87, 88–97, 101, 105n, 106n, 108, 111n, 112, 115, 118, 120, 122, 123n, 124n, 127, 128n, 136n, 138–141, 142n, 149n, 150–151, 154n, 155, 161–162, 166, 168–169, 172, 173–177, 181–182, 183n, 184n, 186, 187n, 192–193, 195–196, 212, 215, 217, 219n, 222, 223n, 227, 229n, 230n, 231, 234, 256–257, 261, 263, 267–268, 271, 278–280, 282–285, 287, 289, 291–293, 294n, 297n, 302–303, 315–318, 323n, 324n, 325, 326n, 327–328, 329n, 333, 347–348, 351, 353, 356–357, 359n, 361–363, 366n, 369, 371n, 379, 380n, 384–387, 388n, 390–391, 392n, 394n, 396, 398n, 399, 403, 404n, 405, 408–411, 413–414, 415n, 416n, 417n, 418–423,

Register of Places 424n, 425–426, 427n, 429n, 432, 434, 435n, 436n, 440n, 443n, 447n, 451, 454n, 459n, 462n, 467n, 470, 474–475, 477–479 Pikestown (Pennsylvania): 54, 73n Pisa: 184, 212 Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania): 128n, 171n, 292, 333, 361–362, 378, 408 Portsmouth: 395n Portugal: 279n Posey County: 418 Providence (Pennsylvania): 55, 81, 88, 93, 112, 159 Prussia: 46n, 152n, 160, 161n, 219, 238 Quebec: 146n Queen’s County: 196 Raritan: 73n Reading (Pennsylvania): 83, 291, 292, 325n, 328–329, 399–400, 433n Rhode Island: 115, 127 Roman Empire: 125, 125n, 129 Rotterdam: 59, 62, 65 Rudelstadt: 190 Russia: 46, 309n, 338, 354 Santo Domingo: 222, 303 Salem (North Carolina): 190, 195, 262n, 270, 273, 275–277, 331, 375, 382, 443–445, 446n Salzburg: 54, 55n Savannah (Georgia): 273–275, 283–284, 290, 315, 328n, 331, 342, 349n, 358–359, 367, 382, 403n, 409, 421, 424n, 426, 427n, 428n, 429n, 431, 436, 437n, 439, 440n Saxony: 188, 190, 260, 284 Schlitz: 246n Schweinfurt: 200n Schwingelsen: 191 Scotland: 163n, 193n, 232n, 281, 361 Shaefferstown: 73 Shenandoah Valley: 73n, 75, 82 Shonokin: 73 Siberia: 285n Sicily: 292, 296, 297n Siena: 212 Silesia: 190, 445 Silk Hope: 284

603

Simon‘s Island: 279, 416 South America: 104, 268n, 269, 281, 311n, 351, 439n, 455 South Carolina: 128, 128n, 146, 146n, 147n, 162, 164, 194, 301, 333, 359, 402, 428, 439, 440n South Dakota: 384 Spain: 149, 239, 267, 269n, 455n Spanish Florida: 438 Springplace (Georgia): 374–375 St. Louis (Missouri): 290, 394 St. Mary’s (Georgia): 372, 404n, 426, 432, 436, 437n, 439 St. Petersburg: 209 Staten Island: 127 Stenton (Pennsylvania): 369 Stockholm: 111, 350n, 351–352, 402, 460, 464 Strasburg (France): 288n, 289 Strassburg (Pennsylvania): 378n Stuttgart: 183, 185n, 186, 378 Sulivan’s Island: 83 Surinam: 189n Susquehanna: 294n, 319n Sweden: 97n, 108, 210, 276n, 278, 338, 345, 350–351, 352n, 353–354, 355n, 445, 460, 463n, 464 Switzerland: 127, 135n Tenessee: 282, 365, 406n, 416n, 442, 459 Togo: 303n Trappe: 49, 82–83, 85–86 Tübingen: 185n, 186, 201n, 234, 304 Tulpehocken: 77, 78n, 80, 122, 154, 325, 327, 329, 399 Tuscany: 293 Uelzen: 52n United States of America (see also America and North America): 68, 133n, 138n, 146, 148n, 149, 158, 172, 176, 179n, 180, 183, 191n, 193n, 196, 198, 227–228, 259, 264, 267–271, 280–282, 284–287, 292–293, 297, 303, 315–316, 329, 330–331, 355, 368–369, 371, 377, 391–392, 394–395, 401n, 402, 403, 406n, 408, 409n, 411, 422, 429n, 445, 452–453, 458, 460, 470 Uppsala: 130, 350, 387

604

Register of Places

Urbanna (Virginia): 105 Utrecht: 161n, 255, 319n, 324n Vadstena: 345, 351–352, 354 Valley Forge: 83–84 Vegesack: 466n Venice : 212 Versailles: 211 Vienna: 97n, 127, 288n, 289–290 Virginia: 72, 73n, 75–76, 82–83, 105, 128, 134n, 162, 180n, 194, 267, 273, 277n, 281, 290, 293, 316, 317n, 406n, 413n, 422n, 425, 426n Wabash: 418 Wales: 308n Washington (DC): 267–268, 269, 293, 363, 370, 384, 395, 437n Wernigerode: 52n West Bradford: 173n West Indies: 281, 351, 392n Westphalia (Duchy): 246n, 336, 341 Williamsburg (Virginia): 115n, Wilmington (Delaware): 174n, 175, 359n, 425, 433–434, 436n, 440n Winchester: 281 Windmill Hill: 127 Winston Salem: 283, 414n Wittenberg: 300, 301n, 313–314, 323n, 332, 426n Wolfenbüttel: 52 Woodlands (Philadelphia): 119 Wunsiedel: 126 Württemberg (Duchy): 186n Würzburg: 335 Yale (College): 119 Yarmouth (College): 306, 349, 352 York (Pennsylvania): 87n, 124n, 175 Yorktown: 94, 127–128, 150n Yucatan: 447n Zürich: 127

b e i t r äg e z u r e u ro pä i s c h e n ü b e r s e e g e s c h i c h t e bis Band 88: Beiträge zur Kolonial- und Überseegeschichte

Im Auftrag der Forschungsstiftung für vergleichende europäische Überseegeschichte herausgegeben von Markus A. Denzel, Hermann Joseph Hiery und Eberhard Schmitt.

Franz Steiner Verlag

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

ISSN 0522–6848

Hans-Joachim König Auf dem Wege zur Nation Nationalismus im Prozeß der Staats- und Nationbildung Neu-Granadas 1750–1856 1988. 332 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-04769-2 Beat Bumbacher Die USA und Nasser Amerikanische Ägyptenpolitik der Kennedy- und Johnson-Administration 1961–1967 1987. 308 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05008-1 Beat Witschi Schweizer auf imperialistischen Pfaden Die schweizerischen Handelsbeziehungen mit der Levante 1848 bis 1914 1987. X, 303 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05063-0 Sergio Aiolfi Calicos und gedrucktes Zeug Die Entwicklung der englischen Textilveredelung und der Tuchhandel der East India Company 1650–1750 1987. X, 441 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05094-4 Martin Beglinger „Containment“ im Wandel Die amerikanische Sicherheitspolitik im Übergang von Truman zu Eisenhower 1988. IV, 341 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05131-6 Armin Reese Europäische Hegemonie und France d’outre-mer Koloniale Fragen in der französischen Außenpolitik 1700–1763 1988. X, 355 S. mit 8 Ktn., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-04937-5 Christoph Marx „Völker ohne Schrift und Geschichte“ Zur historischen Erfassung des vorkolonialen Schwarzafrika in der deutschen Forschung des 19. und frühen

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

20. Jahrhunderts 1988. XV, 493 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05173-6 Walther L. Bernecker Die Handelskonquistadoren Europäische Interessen und mexikanischer Staat im 19. Jahrhundert 1988. IV, 1172 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-04929-0 Roland Bless „Divide et Impera“? Britische Minderheitenpolitik in Burma 1917–1948 1990. XX, 376 S. mit 4 Ktn., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05654-0 Marcel Bearth Weizen, Waffen und Kredite für den indischen Subkontinent Die amerikanische Südasienpolitik unter Präsident Johnson im Dilemma zwischen Indien und Pakistan, 1963–1969 1990. IX, 323 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05659-5 Walter Leimgruber Kalter Krieg um Afrika Die amerikanische Afrikapolitik unter Präsident Kennedy 1961–1963 1990. XIV, 563 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05671-7 Wieland Wagner Japans Außenpolitik in der frühen Meiji-Zeit (1868–1894) Die ideologische und politische Grundlegung des japanischen Führungsanspruchs in Ostasien 1990. IV, 362 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05571-0 Gerd Hardach König Kopra Die Marianen unter deutscher Herrschaft 1899–1914 1990. 216 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05762-2 Yvonne Baumann John F. Kennedy und „Foreign Aid“ Die Auslandshilfepolitik der Administration

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

Kennedy unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des entwicklungspolitischen Anspruchs 1990. XVIII, 460 S. mit 34 Tab. und Graf., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05774-5 Ralph Erbar Ein „Platz an der Sonne“? Die Verwaltungs- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der deutschen Kolonie Togo 1884–1914 1991. 351 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05800-1 Stefan Karlen „Paz, Progreso, Justicia y Honradez“ Das Ubico-Regime in Guatemala 1931–1944 1991. XVI, 581 S. mit 28 Tab., 20 Fig., 36 Abb. und 12 Ktn., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05952-7 Marâlia dos Santos Lopes Afrika Eine neue Welt in deutschen Schriften des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts 1992. VI, 285 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06087-5 Stig Förster Die mächtigen Diener der East India Company Ursachen und Hintergründe der britischen Expansionspolitik in Südasien, 1793–1819 1992. 416 S. mit 5 Ktn., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-05953-4 Anita Müller Schweizer in Alexandrien 1914–1963 Zur ausländischen Präsenz in Ägypten 1992. 226 S., 1 Kte. und 8 Taf. mit 16 s/w-Fot., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06167-4 Klaus H. Rüdiger Die Namibia-Deutschen Geschichte einer Nationalität im Werden 1993. VI, 191 S. und 4 Taf., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06375-3 Jochen Meißner Eine Elite im Umbruch Der Stadtrat von Mexiko zwischen kolonialer Ordnung und unabhängigem Staat 1993. XII, 424 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06098-1 Maurus Staubli Reich und arm mit Baumwolle Exportorientierte Landwirtschaft und soziale Stratifikation am Beispiel des Baumwollanbaus im indischen Distrikt

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

Khandesh (Dekkan) 1850–1914 1994. 279 S., 4 Taf., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06490-3 Eno Blankson Ikpe Food and Society in Nigeria A History of Food Customs, Food Economy and Cultural Change 1900–1989 1994. XI, 287 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06567-2 Rolf Tanner ‘A Strong Showing’ Britain’s Struggle for Power and Influence in South-East Asia 1942–1950 1994. 299 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06613-6 Boris Barth Die deutsche Hochfinanz und die Imperialismen Banken und Außenpolitik vor 1914 1995. VII, 505 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06665-5 Astrid Meier Hunger und Herrschaft Vorkoloniale und frühe koloniale Hungerkrisen im Nordtschad 1995. X, 303 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06729-4 Horst Drechsler Südwestafrika unter deutscher Kolonialherrschaft Die großen Land- und Minengesellschaften 1996. 360 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06689-1 Annerose Menninger Die Macht der Augenzeugen Neue Welt und Kannibalen-Mythos, 1492–1600 1995. 334 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06723-2 Dieter Brötel Frankreich im Fernen Osten Imperialistische Expansion in Siam und Malaya, Laos und China, 1880–1904 1996. XVIII, 890 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06838-3 Christian Büschges Familie, Ehre und Macht Konzept und soziale Wirklichkeit des Adels in der Stadt Quito (Ecuador) während der späten Kolonialzeit, 1765–1822 1996. 318 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06908-3 Ralph Dietl USA und Mittelamerika Die Außenpolitik von William J. Bryan

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

1913–1915 1996. 496 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06914-4 Paul Schenck Der deutsche Anteil an der Gestaltung des modernen japanischen Rechts- und Verfassungswesens 1997. 396 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-06903-8 Beate Rosenzweig Erziehung zur Demokratie? Amerikanische Besatzungs- und Schulreformpolitik in Deutschland und Japan 1998. 246 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06874-1 Andreas Eckert Grundbesitz, Landkonflikte und kolonialer Wandel Douala 1880 bis 1960 1999. XI, 504 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-06777-5 Steven Wedema „Ethiek“ und Macht Die niederländisch-indische Kolonialverwaltung und indonesische Emanzipationsbestrebungen 1901–1927 1998. XIV, 353 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07264-9 Claudia Linda Reese Neuseeland und Deutschland Handelsabkommen, Außenhandelspolitik und Handel von 1871 bis 1973 1998. XXVI, 378 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07387-5 Ulrike Kirchberger Aspekte deutsch-britischer Expansion Die Überseeinteressen der deutschen Migranten in Großbritannien in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts 1999. V, 508 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07439-1 Gisela Cramer Argentinien im Schatten des Zweiten Weltkriegs Probleme der Wirtschaftspolitik und der Übergang zur Ära Perón 1999. X, 395 S. mit 62 Tab., 5 Abb. und 1 Kte., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07148-2 Thomas Beck / Horst Gründer / Horst Pietschmann / Roderich Ptak (Hg.) Überseegeschichte Beiträge der jüngeren Forschung. Festschrift anläßlich der Gründung

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

der Forschungsstiftung für vergleichende europäische Überseegeschichte 1999 in Bamberg. Für Eberhard Schmitt zum 60. Geburtstag 1999. XVI, 304 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-07490-2 Hendrik L. Wesseling Teile und herrsche Die Aufteilung Afrikas 1880–1914. Autorisierte Übersetzung aus dem Niederländischen von A. Pistorius 1999. 386 S. mit 136 Abb. und 11 Ktn., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07543-5 Rolf Peter Tschapek Bausteine eines zukünftigen deutschen Mittelafrika Deutscher Imperialismus und die portugiesischen Kolonien. Deutsches Interesse an den südafrikanischen Kolonien Portugals vom ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg 2000. 475 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07592-3 Michael Mann Bengalen im Umbruch Die Herausbildung des britischen Kolonialstaates 1754–1793 2000. 469 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07603-6 Urs Olbrecht Bengalens Fluch und Segen Die indische Juteindustrie in spätund nachkolonialer Zeit 2000. 288 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07732-3 Horst Pietschmann Mexiko zwischen Reform und Revolution Vom bourbonischen Zeitalter zur Unabhängigkeit 2000. XII, 304 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07796-5 Silvia Brennwald Die Kirche und der Maya-Katholizismus Die katholische Kirche und die indianischen Dorfgemeinschaften in Guatemala 1750–1821 und 1945–1970 2001. 289 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-07705-7 Christian Koller ,Von Wilden aller Rassen niedergemetzelt‘ Die Diskussion um die Verwendung von Kolonialtruppen in Europa zwischen

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

Rassismus, Kolonial- und Militärpolitik (1914–1930) 2001. 476 S., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-07765-1 Martin Stäheli Die syrische Aussenpolitik unter Präsident Hafez Assad Balanceakte im globalen Umbruch 2001. 574 S. mit 7 Ktn., geb. ISBN 978-3-515-07867-2 Cornelia Pohlmann Die Auswanderung aus dem Herzogtum Braunschweig im Kräftespiel staatlicher Einflußnahme und öffentlicher Resonanz 1720–1897 2002. 373 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08054-5 Carl Jung Kaross und Kimono „Hottentotten“ und Japaner im Spiegel des Reiseberichts von Carl Peter Thunberg (1743–1828) 2002. 323 S. mit 5 Abb. und 2 Faltktn., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08120-7 Michael Schubert Der schwarze Fremde Das Bild des Schwarzafrikaners in der parlamentarischen und publizistischen Kolonialdiskussion in Deutschland von den 1870er bis in die 1930er Jahre 2003. 446 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08267-9 Dawid Danilo Bartelt Nation gegen Hinterland Der Krieg von Canudos in Brasilien: ein diskursives Ereignis (1874–1903) 2003. 408 S. und 6 Taf., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08255-6 Christian Rödel Krieger, Denker, Amateure Alfred von Tirpitz und das Seekriegsbild vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg 2003. XI, 234 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08360-7 Teresa Pinheiro Aneignung und Erstarrung Die Konstruktion Brasiliens und seiner Bewohner in portugiesischen Augenzeugenberichten 1500–1595 2004. 355 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08326-3 Frank Becker (Hg.) Rassenmischehen – Mischlinge – Rassentrennung Zur Politik der Rasse im deutschen

91. 92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

Kolonialreich 2004. 378 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-08565-6 in Vorbereitung Markus A. Denzel (Hg.) Vom Welthandel des 18. Jahrhunderts zur Globalisierung des 21. Jahrhunderts Leipziger Überseetagung 2005 2. Auflage 2009. 147 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09378-1 Alexander Keese Living with Ambiguity Integrating an African Elite in French and Portuguese Africa, 1930–1961 2007. 344 S. mit 3 Abb., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09032-2 Nikolaus Böttcher Monopol und Freihandel Britische Kaufleute in Buenos Aires am Vorabend der Unabhängigkeit (1806–1825) 2008. 198 S. mit 3 Ktn. und 5 Tab., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09185-5 Eva Maria Stolberg Sibirien: Russlands „Wilder Osten“ Mythos und soziale Realität im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert 2009. 392 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09248-7 Christian Haußer Auf dem Weg der Zivilisation Geschichte und Konzepte gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung in Brasilien (1808–1871) 2009. 349 S., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09312-5 Mark Häberlein / Alexander Keese (Hg.) Sprachgrenzen – Sprachkontakte – kulturelle Vermittler Kommunikation zwischen Europäern und Außereuropäern (16.–20. Jahrhundert) 2010. 421 S. mit 4 s/w Abb., 6 farb. Abb. und 10 Tab., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-09779-6 Thomas Fischer Die Souveränität der Schwachen Lateinamerika und der Völkerbund, 1920–1936 2012. 459 S. mit 39 Abb. und 2 Tab., kt. ISBN 978-3-515-10077-9 Niels Wiecker Der iberische Atlantikhandel Schiffsverkehr zwischen Spanien, Portugal und Iberoamerika, 1700–1800 2012. 286 S. mit 14 Abb. und 16 Diagr. ISBN 978-3-515-10201-8

The Lutheran Pastor Gotthilf Heinrich Ernst Mühlenberg (1753–1815) is remembered today as one of the pioneering figures in early American botany, which earned him the posthumous epithet “The American Linnaeus”. This study traces Mühlenberg’s contributions to American botany by reconstructing his vast transatlantic correspondence network over a period of more than 30 years. Working on the tenets of modern network studies and with information gathered from close to 700 original letters, diaries and publications, the present study places Mühlenberg both within his own web of correspondences

and within the botanical discourse of his time. The result is a multi-faceted depiction of contemporary standards, codes and pitfalls of scientific communication in the so-called “Republic of Letters”. As Mühlenberg’s example shows, the very fabric of this Republic – open exchange of information – had a strong impact on the course and outcome of scientific research itself. This “Network Factor” becomes clearly visible in Mühlenberg’s networking strategies, which he developed to protect his original work against the negative effects of the very medium he was working with.

www.steiner-verlag.de Franz Steiner Verlag

ISBN 978-3-515-10796-9