’s explanation for wanting an article dealing with the issue of refraction with Francis
Dana’s comments in his letter of 22 Oct. 1781
(vol. 12:36–37) and those of Nicolaas & Jacob van Staphorst in their letter of 13 Aug.
, above. His approval of the amended article probably says more about the impossibility
of reforming an entrenched practice than anything else, for the article provided no
substantive relief for the issues