A casual glance at the circumstances of the beginning of the famous observatory in the neighboring city of Cambridge will show that a most important contribution to the success of that enterprise was made by the first director of the observatory, Prof. W. C. Bond. The more diligently those circumstances are studied, the stronger will be the conviction that his work, while it was that of designer and organizer, was also somewhat better in the sense of being more rare in quality; that his presence and enthusiasm gave the institution vitality. The record of his life gives him title to rank among eminent Americans.

William Cranch Bond was born in Portland, Me., Sept. 9, 1789. He was the youngest son of William and Hannah (Cranch) Bond, who were natives of England. The family was of distinction there, and is genealogically traceable to the time of William the Conqueror, or earlier. The Brandon manor is said to have been granted by that monarch to the ancestor of this line, and to have been held by the family through many generations. William Bond was born In Plymouth, Eng. Richard Cranch, an uncle of Hannah, settled in Braintree, Mass, in 1751. The name, in himself and his descendants, became distinguished in the annals of the province and commonwealth. From him William Bond received information which induced him to emigrate to this country. He located for business purposes at Portland, then Falmouth, and engaged in cutting ship-timber at Frenchman’s bay, sending the commodity to England. He made a voyage thence to England, returning with his wife and elder children. The timber business proved in the end unprofitable and he removed to Boston in 1793, where he established himself in his vocation of clockmaker and silversmith, his stand being at the corner of Milk and Marlboro, now Washington street. The youth of William C. Bond was, accordingly, spent in Boston, where he had such education as the common schools afforded. Indeed, that he did not have fully that privilege, may be inferred from his remark quoted by Josiah Quincy, that pecuniary restrictions “obliged me to become an apprentice to my father before I had learned the multiplication table.” Mainly he was self-taught, though doubtless he derived instruction from his father, who was a well-informed man, and from some of the Cranch relatives, who were of good education. The traditions of the family and the facts of his career, indicate his mental quality to have been that of genius, one trait of which is that it absorbs congenial knowledge from unpromising materials and amidst adverse conditions.

His eldest sister wrote of him as having been, at the age of 14, “a slender boy with soft gray eyes and silky, brown hair, quick to observe, yet shrinking from notice, and sensitive to excess.” She adds, in reference to his early-developed tastes: “The first that I remember, was his intense anxiety about the expected total eclipse of the sun of June 16, 1806. He had then no instrument of his own, but watched the event from a house-top on Summer street through a telescope belonging to Mr. Francis Gray, to which, somehow, he got access. In so doing he injured his eyes and for a long time was troubled in his vision.” An elder brother writes Of him at this early period: “He was the mildest and best-tempered boy I ever knew, and his remarkable mechanical genius showed itself very early.” He adds that in devising and making bits of apparatus that boys use in their sports, William was chief among his comrades. His early apprenticeship in the clockmaking business undoubtedly gave a fortunate discipline to this natural ingenuity, by confining his experiments pretty closely to the facilities of his father’s workshop as to tools and materials.

He found or made “idle time” enough before he was 15 years old to construct a reliable shop chronometer. It had to be a fixture, for lacking a suitable spring he contrived to run it by weights.

When he was about 16 years of age he made a good working quadrant out of ebony and boxwood, the only materials he had. His son, G. P. Bond, wrote of this instrument, years afterwards: “It is no rude affair, but every part, especially the graduation, the most difficult of all, shows the neatness, patience, and accuracy of a practised artist. A better witness to the progress he had already made in astronomy could not be desired. It is all that the materials would admit of, and proves that he must have been, even then, irrevocably devoted to astronomy.”

How these “eccentricities of genius” were looked upon by the senior Mr. Bond does not appear, but, at any rate, William was made a member of the firm about the date of his majority, and forthwith the clockmaking business was expanded to include the rating, repairing and making of chronometers. Astronomy could now go hand in hand with “business.” He must have had the means of ascertaining the true local time before he was himself owner of an instrument suited to that purpose. He made his first seagoing chronometer in 1812, and it was the first made in America. Its engraved trade mark was “Wm. C. Bond, 1812.” It at once went into service, and satisfactorily stood the test of a voyage to and from the East Indies. For making this he had a working model; the stationary or shop chronometer of 1804 was made according to a description he found in an old French book of a chronometer used by La Perouse, the navigator. In 1810 the business of the Bonds was removed to Congress street. About the same time the family removed to Dorchester where for a while they occupied, as tenants, different houses.

Mr. Bond himself said in his later years that what first gave him a determination for astronomy was his experience of the total eclipse of 1806. Once aroused, the feeling never ceased to have sway, and it modified all his business ambitions as a chronometer maker. But as such an artisan he had excuse in the eyes of the practical minded for his loved explorations into the starry depths. In the lack of proper instruments his earliest observations were made by crude methods, which yet gave proof of his originality and of the fascination which the study had for him. It was soon after 1811 that he first gained recognition from any one competent to pass judgment upon his essential mental qualities. On Sept. 4, 1811, Prof. John Farrar of Harvard College first caught sight of a comet in the western sky. He appears to have at once notified Dr. Nathaniel Bowditch of Salem, and they two, and a few others in New England who had telescopes, traced its subsequent progress. Each of the two published an account of his observations in the Memoirs of the American Academy. Prof. Farrar having given in his introductory paragraph the date of his first observation, adds that the comet had been seen earlier by Mr. Bond of Dorchester, whom he calls “William Bond, Jr.,” and says that Mr. Bond had “obligingly favored” him with the following notices:

I remarked on the 21st of April a faint, whitish light near the constellation Canis Major, projecting a tail about one degree in length, and set down its place as follows: Right ascension, 106°; declination, 9° S. April 24, right ascension, 108°; declination, 7° or 8° S. Its motion and the situation of its tail convinced me that it was a comet. I noticed it several times in May, and supposed that its motion was toward the western part of the constellation Leo.

By messages coming in sailing ships it was learned subsequently to September that the comet had been seen in Europe on March 25. Its perihelion passage was September 12, 1811.

The elder brother already quoted says of these early days: “I suppose it would cause the astronomer royal to laugh could he see the first transit instrument used by us at Dorchester, a strip of brass nailed to the east end of the house, with a hole in it to see a fixed star and note its transit; this in 1813. When we moved into the Hawes house, he procured a good granite block; we dug a deep hole and placed it at the west end of the house and got Mr. Alger to cast a stand for the transit instrument, a small one, which I think belonged to Harvard College. From this time he began to live among the stars.”

The facts thus recorded of the beginning of Mr. Bond’s career show his zeal and watchfulness as an amateur in astronomy, and that up to the date of the comet’s appearance, and later, he had no personal acquaintance with men of science in the vicinity, since he informed none of them of what he had seen. When, months afterwards, Prof. Farrar inquired about it, the young discoverer was able to report from his memoranda no more than the degrees of position, without the minutes and seconds, and to say that he “supposed” the comet to be moving towards the constellation Leo, circumstances indicating that a strip of brass with a hole in it and a home-made boxwood quadrant were all that was astronomically in use at Dorchester as late as 1811.

That this experience with the comet was a fortunate turning point in Mr. Bond’s career is evinced by Prof. Farrar’s genial recognition in the paper published in the organ of American Science, where he might excusably have ignored so crude a record as that which was the best Mr. Bond could supply, and by the appearance not long afterwards, at the west end of the Hawes house in Dorchester, of a loaned telescope belonging to Harvard College.

There is no doubt that whatever previously had been lacking of opportunity to gain knowledge of the technics of astronomical science was now fully within his reach and that henceforth he had the best possible of instructors and counsellors so far as he had occasion for any. Mr. George P. Bond writes of his father: “He has mentioned the names of Dr. Nathaniel Bowditch, Prof. Farrar and Tutor Clapp as those from whom he received most encouragement to continue the cultivation of astronomy. Upon his friendly intercourse with the eminent mathematician and astronomer first named he often dwelt with peculiar pleasure and warmth of feeling.” The name of one other of the godfathers of the young scientist is entitled to be mentioned, that of Josiah Quincy. The lady above quoted gives an account of the setting up of the first telescope at Dorchester by her brother, and says that through it could be seen the satellites of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn. She adds that in the pursuit of astronomy up to this period “he had had no assistance whatever except from the genial kindness of Hon. Josiah Quincy, who had early recognized the future astronomer in the unpretending boy in the watchmaker’s shop on Congress street, and whose kindness and encouragement never failed throughout the subsequent years.”

That these men found their patronage to have been well bestowed is manifest from the action taken four years after the date of the comet by the college in making Mr. Bond its delegate and agent. The board of that year consisted of President Kirkland, John Lathrop, D.D., Christopher Gore, LL.D., John Davis, LL.D., John Lowell, LL.D., and John Phillips. It is of record that the moving spirits in the matter were Prof. Farrar and Dr. Bowditch, and they were appointed a committee to prepare technical written instructions to the agent as to the general scope of his inquiry.

During his visit abroad, Mr. Bond married his cousin, Selina Cranch, of Kingsbridge, in Devonshire, the date being July 18, 1819. Soon after his return he purchased a house near to his father’s residence in Dorchester, and erected on the premises a small wooden building, which he carefully equipped as an astronomical observatory. Its position is that meant in the official references to the observatory at Dorchester, and is about 45 feet southerly of the present south line of Cottage street, and 360 feet southeasterly of the centre of the New York & New England railroad bridge, over that street. Here, as one of his brief biographers remarks, “no eclipse or occultation escaped him, though occupied in business during the day in Boston,” and here Mr. Quincy found him in 1839, busy in his work for the Navy Department. The period which had elapsed since the setting of the granite block and the poising upon it of the borrowed telescope had been for Mr. Bond one of constant and rapid advance in the astronomer’s art. The Cottage street observatory was built about the year 1823.

Referring to the period between 1823, or a little earlier, and 1839, Mr. G. P. Bond writes of his father: “As soon as his circumstances permitted, he imported more perfect apparatus from Europe and continued to add to his collection until it was the best in the country.” And he adds this statement, which is highly suggestive as respects the enthusiasm with which the accomplished and successful chronometer maker entered upon the broader and loftier mission which destiny had in reserve for him: “When appointed by the Navy Department to the charge of astronomical and other observations, he forthwith laid out a sum of money on instruments and buildings more than ten times greater than the annual salary (to continue but four years), which he had himself proposed as an adequate compensation for all necessary expenses, and his own time, besides.”

During a few years prior to 1830, he gathered materials for investigating the comparative rates of chronometers at sea and on shore. Subsequently he communicated to the American Academy the results reached, and in this paper effectually disposed of the scientific question involved, so far as it related to the interests of navigation. The authority for this statement is Mr. G. P. Bond, who also says that about the same time his father conducted a series of experiments to ascertain the influence of changes of temperature in the presence of large surfaces of iron upon the performance of chronometers; and adds that “although the conclusions arrived at were at variance with the opinions of men high in authority in such matters, they are now known to be correct.”

President Quincy, in making his overture, was dealing with no novice, and, certainly, no stranger. Some intimation of what Mr. Bond had attained to is contained in the remarks of Prof. Benjamin Peirce spoken in the obituary proceedings of the American Academy in 1859, consequent upon Mr. Bond’s decease, though the reference is to a longer period. The instrument alluded to is the great equatorial at Cambridge. Prof. Peirce said: “In his original investigations he naturally restrained himself to those forms of observation which were fully within the reach of his own resources. He did not, therefore, seek those inquiries which could only be accomplished by long, intricate, and profound mathematical computations, but preferred those which were purely dependent upon the thorough discipline of the senses. He consequently availed himself less of the remarkable capacity of his instrument for delicate and refined measurements than of its exquisite optical qualities. But when observations were required which must be passed over to the computer, his skill was not wanting to the occasion. Thus, in conjunction with Major Graham, he made that choice series of observations from which the latitude of the observatory was determined.”

To this testimony as to Prof. Bond’s skill as an observer maybe added that of Mr. G. P. Bond as to his diligence and zeal: “There is something to my mind appalling in the contemplation of my father’s labors, from the time when he was first enabled to indulge freely his passion for observation. The accumulated volumes filled with manuscript records give me a shudder at the thought of the weary frame and straining eye, the exposure, and the long, sleepless nights that they suggest.”

Ex-President Quincy, upon the obituary occasion referred to, made this interesting statement as to the initiation of his project for Mr. Bond’s removal to Cambridge: “This proposal, so in unison with his pursuits and talents, I expected would be received with pleasure. But it was far otherwise. In the spirit of that innate modesty which predominated in his character, and apparently cast a shadow over all his excellent qualities and attainments, Mr. Bond hesitated, doubted his qualifications for the position. He said his habits were not adapted to public station; that our combined apparatus would be small, and that something great might be expected; that he preferred independence in obscurity to responsibility in an elevated position. He raised many other objections, which need not here be repeated, as they were overcome.”

At the date of this interview the president found Mr. Bond well established in a profitable manufacturing business, happily situated in his domestic and neighborhood surroundings, with an avocation fascinating enough to occupy all his leisure and a fame extensive enough to satisfy his own modest estimate of his abilities. There was no pecuniary betterment for Mr. Bond in the suggested change. Mr. Quincy could only offer him what he had already, a family domicile; so that the proposal might warrant an adaptation of Sidney Smith’s famous phrase and be described as an invitation to come to Cambridge and “cultivate astronomy upon a little oatmeal.” In so phrasing it there is no disparagement of the college; it was the day of small things, of pennies, not dollars, in the college treasury. But the event speaks the praises of Mr. Quincy, whose sagacity was unfailing and before whose persuasiveness and energy difficulties in administration were wont to give way, and of Mr. Bond, whose unselfishness and loyalty to science were proof against pecuniary considerations. In mental traits each was in many respects the complement of the other, and it is not too much to say that these two were pre-eminently the founders and builders of the observatory.

The official report for 1846 states that up to that time the labors of Mr. Bond had been “entirely unrequited, except by the gratification of his love of science and of home,” and suggests that this devotion to the institution at Cambridge was the more marked in that during the preceding spring he had declined “the almost unlimited offers made to him by the administration at Washington to induce him to take charge of the observatory there.” It is known, also, that frequent expenditures of his own money were made during this period for current expenses and for things convenient in conducting the observatory, sums small severally, no doubt, but considerable in the total. In 1846 a sum equal to the proposed salaries for the next two years was subscribed by citizens of Boston, and in 1849 the official board was able to report that “through a bequest of $100,000 made by Edward Bromfield Phillips they should thereafter be relieved from anxiety as to the payment of salaries and current expenses.” Various official documents evince that during the first eight years Mr. Bond is to be regarded not in the character of an employee, but a benefactor of the college; that his labors were deemed by those most familiar with them to be indispensable and invaluable, and that his friendship for the college, manifested in all ways, and especially in his declination of the liberal offers coming from Washington, was appreciated and honored. The date of Mr. Bond’s appointment as director of the observatory was Feb. 12, 1840, though the confirmation by the corporation was later. He was given the honorary degree of A.M., by Harvard in 1842.