. Compare JA
’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 JA