belonged. All this seems, I am aware, an elaborate edifice of shaky conjecture. I hope so to shore it up with chronological props that it may present at least the appearance of stability.
The fifth edition of the "Observations" is dated "London, 1676." Now Evelyn gave the earliest intimation of a Pettian authorship after supping at Petty's house in 1675. In 1680 Aubrey, in an account perused by Petty, assigned the "Observations" to Graunt, and in his life of Graunt asserted that they were done by him upon a hint from Petty. In or about 1682 Petty himself included "Observations on the Bills of Mortality of London, 1660" in a chronological list of his several works since 1636[1]. Subsequently Aubrey also asserted that they were "really" Petty's. These are, strictly speaking, the only direct testimonies for Petty's authorship of the London "Observations." As already noted, Halley and Burnet were less intimate with Petty, and what they say is of little independent weight. Meanwhile Petty, if indeed he had ever publicly held himself out as the author of the London "Observations," appears to have repented. The title-page and advertisement of 1683, indirectly attributing that book to him, were altered at the first opportunity to a form consistent with what seem to be the facts, and when he has occasion, in his later works, to mention the "Observations," he repeatedly speaks of them as Graunt's, although he specifically cites the fifth edition, in which his share was larger than in either of the others. In short, the "Observations upon the Bills of Mortality of London" are essentially Graunt's work, and he deserves the credit for them. Petty probably made contributions to the book which may have helped to bring it to popular, and even to scientific notice, but he added little, if anything, to its real merits. He edited it in 1676 with further additions, and for a while perhaps caused or allowed it to be supposed that he was the author. Subsequently he corrected the error.
The general conclusion thus reached makes Graunt in every proper sense the author of the "Observations." This conclusion is by no means new. But those who have held it have not hitherto explained the countervailing testimony for Petty; nor can it be explained save by a chronological examination of the evidence. Consequently one party has accepted Evelyn and Aubrey's second statement, while the other party has ignored them. The attempt here made to explain the testimony for Petty without forgetting the
- ↑ Fitzmaurice, 317; reprinted in supplement to Bibliography, post.
