Going Deep: John Philip Holland and the Invention of the Attack Submarine

PROLOGUE

DEATH FROM BELOW

September 22, 1914, 3:00 A.M. Six weeks into a war that was to become the bloodiest in human history. A tentative calm had finally descended on the North Sea after three days of savage storms, and the British Admiralty ordered a resumption of patrols off the coast of Holland. An hour before dawn, three aging battle cruisers were sent out to take positions on the line, three miles apart. While the ships were old, the crews were not. The Aboukir, the Hogue, and the Cressy were part of a five-boat contingent manned mostly by young reservists and thus nicknamed the Live Bait Squadron. They would certainly be so that day. With the seas still rough, the cruisers’ usual destroyer escort was ordered to remain at anchor.

At 6:30 A.M., the three ships separated to take up their stations. Almost immediately, a huge explosion shook Aboukir, which was seen to reel violently, and then settle down with a list to port. The two other ships turned at once to steam to her aid. When they had closed sufficiently to lower cutters to pick up survivors, the Hogue to starboard and the Cressy to port, the cruisers came to a halt. As the rescue boats were returning with burned and wounded sailors, two tremendous blasts devastated the Hogue; she leapt up like a roweled horse and quivered all over, just as a steel spring will quiver when firmly held at one end and sharply struck at the other.¹ Soon after that, the Cressy exploded amidships and, like the other two, sank almost immediately.

Two Dutch vessels appeared quickly and helped rescue 60 officers and 777 men. But another 60 officers and some 1,399 sailors died in the explosions, were roasted to death, or drowned.

In this singular battle, lasting less than ninety minutes, the three British cruisers had been attacked by a vessel that, until six weeks earlier, had never been employed by the German navy, or, in a real sense, by any navy at all. It sailed not on the sea, but under it.

It was only after the Aboukir and the Hogue had been torn apart that Captain Robert W. Johnson, aboard the Cressy, realized what had befallen his comrades, although too late to save them or himself. According to the official report, "five minutes after Captain Johnson maneuvered the ship so as to render assistance to the crews of the Hogue and Aboukir . . . a periscope was seen on the starboard quarter, and fire was opened. The track of the torpedo she fired at a range of from 500 to 600 yards was plainly visible, and it struck on the starboard side just before the after bridge."

The periscope belonged to submarine U-9, commanded by dashing, thirty-two-year-old Kapitänleutnant Otto Weddigen. The boat was 188 feet long and only 19 feet across. Its crew of twenty-six officers and men lived in impossibly cramped conditions, stuffed along with provisions and armaments into a narrow cylinder that provided little room to move and even less to sleep. Fans to circulate the air were so feeble that most of the sailors were left constantly gasping for breath, even when U-9 was running on the surface. Heat from the engines was stifling and sanitary facilities were worse than in a prison. But neither Weddigen nor his crew would ever register a single complaint. They were pioneers, entrusted with a potent new weapon they were certain would be instrumental in their nation’s victory.

Postcard depicting Weddigen’s triumph

Weddigen had gained his commission four years earlier, when U-9 first put to sea, and just days before he left on patrol, he had been married to his childhood sweetheart. With the sinking of the Aboukir, Hogue, and Cressy, U-9’s captain became a national hero. I reached the home port on the afternoon of the 23rd, he said later, and on the 24th went to Wilhelmshaven to find that news of my effort had become public. My wife, dry-eyed when I went away, met me with tears. Then I learned that my little vessel and her brave crew had won the plaudit of the Kaiser, who conferred upon each of my co-workers the Iron Cross of the second class and upon me the Iron Crosses of the first and second classes.²

In Great Britain, the reaction was far different. Within days, the Admiralty issued a statement: "The sinking of the Aboukir was of course an ordinary hazard of patrolling duty. The Hogue and Cressy, however, were sunk because they proceeded to the assistance of their consort, and remained with engines stopped, endeavoring to save life, thus presenting an easy target to further submarine attacks. The natural promptings of humanity have in this case led to heavy losses, which would have been avoided by a strict adhesion to military consideration. Modern naval war is presenting us with so many new and strange situations that an error of judgment of this character is pardonable."

War on the high seas had changed forever.

On August 12, 1914, roughly six weeks before Weddigen fired his torpedoes, John Philip Holland died of pneumonia at his home at 38 Newton Street in Newark, New Jersey. Holland, a former schoolteacher and once a choirmaster at his local church, was by all accounts a gentle, modest man, and he rated only a brief obituary in local newspapers. He had been born seventy-three years earlier on the west coast of Ireland, in County Clare. Gaelic was the chosen language in the Holland home, since his mother spoke no English. John had been a sickly child, plagued with chronic respiratory problems that followed him into adulthood and would eventually kill him. Because of his delicate health, he had been sent to the Christian Brothers for his education; he stayed on to teach but left the order just before he was to take his final vows. Shortly afterward, he immigrated to the United States, where he spent the remainder of his life. While he never waned in his passion for Ireland, Holland chose to be buried in his adopted homeland rather than the one of his birth.

John Holland emerging from one of his creations.

Although he had died in near obscurity, John Holland cast a shadow over those fifteen hundred deaths in the North Sea and also the thousands of other encounters between traditional warships and this new instrument of stealth and surprise. He was then and still widely is considered the father of the modern submarine, but he would never know that he had helped create one of the defining killing machines of two world wars.

For millennia, the ocean depths have held as great a fascination as the heavens, and undersea travel has been a fantasy equal to the dream of flight. Just as virtually every society created fanciful machines to allow men to soar into the sky, there were similar fancies about devices that could sustain humans under the water. Leonardo, as did many of the greatest scientific thinkers, theorized about both but failed to bring either to fruition. But, like Wilbur and Orville Wright, who had also followed in many of the same footsteps, John Holland did not fail. For decades, combining insight with perseverance, and enduring frustration, trial, and much error, Holland turned imagination into reality. And, as with every journey of exploration, death waited constantly in the wings.

Frank T. Cable, an engineer who, after four decades, penned the definitive firsthand account of submarine development, wrote, The submarine is an American invention—it is the genius of an ardent Irish-American patriot. It belongs to America—with the telephone, the telegraph, the steamship, the airplane, electricity, and the other wonders of the modern world that marked the beginnings of new epochs.³

John Holland was not the only man who labored for decades to design and build a successful undersea craft. Although twenty-five years his junior, a precocious inventor from New Jersey named Simon Lake would become Holland’s fiercest competitor, both under the water and in the committee rooms of Congress, where each man fought to have his design accepted as the paradigm for the American navy’s nascent submarine fleet.

Lake and Holland were separated by a good deal more than age and could not have come to the quest by a more different route. Where John Holland initially had sought a means for Irish nationalists to combat the overwhelming dominance of the British navy, Lake was inspired by an adventure novel he read as a twelve-year-old boy. While Holland was an immigrant who never lost his Irish brogue, Lake was descended on his father’s side from one of the founders of Atlantic City, New Jersey, and on his mother’s from one of the founders of Hartford, Connecticut. Where Holland was self-taught, Lake received an engineering education at Pennsylvania’s prestigious Franklin Institute. Precisely because of their differences, however, and that they approached every problem from a different perspective, the two men became responsible for nearly every feature of the modern submarine.

But theirs was a war with no winners. After decades of working to solve one of humankind’s great mysteries, Holland and Lake would be shunted aside, replaced by those for whom innovation was far less important than profit.

One man in particular would be nemesis to both Holland and Lake. Isaac Leopold Rice was one of the most remarkable men of a remarkable age—a chess master, social commentator, musician, lawyer, innovator, philanthropist, and one of the most ferocious competitors of an age of breakneck innovation to rival any other. To Holland, in theory a business partner and ally, and to Lake, an avowed rival, Rice would demonstrate that an elegant design or watershed invention was no guarantee of success in either the boardroom or the marketplace. In the process, he would repeatedly confound Congress and then fashion one of the United States’ most powerful and enduring engineering conglomerates.

And so today, when submarines can travel around the world and remain submerged almost indefinitely, limited only by the amount of food they carry, John Holland and Simon Lake have all but disappeared from the history books. Why these men are not known to every American and have not been accorded the same posthumous accolades as other great innovators of the period, is a tale of genius and stupidity, persistence and deceit, vision and blindness, and, ultimately, tragedy.

CHAPTER 1

BLURRED BEGINNINGS

It is fitting, perhaps, that the first accounts of a working submarine are as murky as the underwater depths its inventor claimed to have navigated. The inventor himself, in fact, has been described as a shadowy figure, a kind of dismembered historical ghost. Now generally referred to as Cornelis Drebbel, he was at various times known to contemporaries as Drubelsius, Derbbel, Dribble, Tribble, and De Rebel.

Drebbel was born in Alkmaar, Holland, in 1572. He received a solid education, became an engraver, and married an extremely profligate woman who kept him in constant debt and bore him six children, four of whom survived. Drebbel, always casting about for ways to earn a bit of extra money, came across the works of the renegade physician, astrologer, alchemist, botanist, and natural scientist, Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, later known as Paracelsus.

Paracelsus was half-genius, half-fabulist, a sort of combination Jonas Salk and P. T. Barnum. Bombast was coined from his name. He was the most prominent early proponent of the germ theory of disease; he also initiated the notion that some ailments spring from psychological disorders and others from environmental pollution, which he discovered by studying miners with lung disease. Paracelsus has been variously credited with founding psychotherapy, toxicology, and pharmacology. But he also claimed to have transmuted base metals to gold, to have cured the sick with spiritual intervention, and that the key to good health was an enema at the time of the full moon. Despite a brilliant record as a physician, Paracelsus was so personally unpleasant that he spent a good deal of his later life moving from one city to another to avoid being murdered by his enemies. The cause of his death, at age forty-seven, and whether it was from natural or unnatural causes, remains unclear. But Paracelsus left behind a stunning legacy in a wide variety of disciplines, which spurred generations of youthful acolytes across the scientific spectrum. Drebbel’s work too would cross many disciplines and be a combination of the practical, the unlikely, and the impossible.

Brimming with ideas, Drebbel crossed the Channel in 1605, shortly after the ascension of James I to the English throne. James’s interest in science and innovation was well known and, with Mrs. Drebbel’s pecuniary appetites undiminished, the new king seemed the perfect patron.

Drebbel had chosen well. He secured an audience with the king, who, impressed with what seemed a wondrous range of knowledge, sent him to live in Eltham Palace in Greenwich, where Drebbel would be left free to tinker as he pleased. James visited frequently to view his wonder-worker’s creations.

James also appeared to have chosen well. Described by a visiting courtier as a very fair and handsome man, and of very gentle manners, altogether different from such-like characters,¹ Drebbel designed intricate gardens and fountains, introduced to the English court Paracelsus’s notion of iatrochemical medicine, in which cures to disease are found in chemicals—drugs—rather than in a rebalance of the humors, and produced impressive innovations in pumps, clocks, and dyes.* He is said to have built improved telescopes and microscopes, although evidence for this is sketchy. Drebbel is also purported to have designed a perpetual motion machine mounted in a globe that tracked the time, date, and season. He put this device on display at Eltham and there demonstrated it to a series of notables. That a true perpetual motion machine is impossible—friction or energy loss will eventually slow it to a halt—in no way diminished the accolades. Even more dubious are Drebbel’s claims to have created a means of purifying seawater, fashioning a working torpedo, and bottling a liquid quintessence of air, this more than a century before oxygen was identified as an element by Joseph Priestley. Such were the range and mystery of Drebbel’s achievements that he has been theorized to be Shakespeare’s model for Prospero in The Tempest.

And then there was the Drebbel submarine.

The notion of underwater boats had been introduced to the English Court in 1578, when a mathematician, William Bourne, who had served as a Royal Navy gunner, published a treatise titled Inventions or Devices, very necessary for all Generals and Captains, or Leaders of men, as well by Sea, as by Land. In one section, Bourne wrote, And also it is possible to make a Ship or Boat that may go under the water unto the bottom, and so to come up again at your pleasure . . . that any thing that sinketh is heavier than the proportion of so much water, and if it be lighter than the magnitude of so much water, then it swimmeth or appeareth above the water, according unto the proportion of weight. Bourne included detailed instructions on how to construct an underwater craft. Let there be good store of Ballast in the bottom of her, and over the Ballast, as low as may be, let there be a closed Orlop [deck] such that no water may come into it, and then in like manner at a sufficient height, to have another closed Orlop that no water may come through it, and that being done, then bore both the sides full of holes between the two closed Orlops: and that being done, then make a thing like the side of the Bark or Ship that may go unto the side of the Ship . . . and that must be made so tight and close, that no water may come through it, and that done, then take leather, such a quantity as is sufficient for to serve your purpose, and that leather must be nailed with such provision that no water may soak thorough. The vessel was to be propelled by oars, the exact placement of which was left vague.

Bourne included a diagram that showed ballast controlled by drawing water into or forcing water out of the body of the vessel by means of a capstan screw mechanism.

Bourne’s design

There is no record of Bourne ever attempting to build such an impractical craft—it would have been fatally unstable and there was virtually no room for a crew—but the idea struck the fancy of many English nobles. (Naval officers, on the other hand, thought it ridiculous.) The underwater boat remained only an alluring theory until 1620, when Drebbel announced that he had built one.

He claimed to have come to the idea walking on the banks of the Thames [when] he noticed some fishing-boats dragging baskets of fish, and whilst a strain was on the towing-line, the boat was more immersed in water than when it was slack. He decided that there was no reason to doubt that a boat could be kept partially under water by means of oars or poles, provided she was weighted down with ballast.

Drebbel then, the story went, built two boats. The larger had twelve oars, and the hull was made of wood, strengthened inside with iron bands and covered over with tightly stretched hide soaked in grease in order to keep out the water when submerged. The oars passed through holes in the sides, and leather joints were used to make them water-tight.²

There are many reports of this vessel regularly navigating up and down the river under the water, some of the sojourns going as far as London. Other accounts had passengers aboard and some authorities even go so far as to say that, as the savant was a personal friend of James I, he persuaded that monarch to overcome his constitutional timidity, and go for a trip under water in the Thames. (This last assertion was not taken seriously. That James, by then hugely fat, would venture into a closed vessel that would submerge in the Thames would have evoked chuckles or worse.)

The most famous account of the Drebbel submarine was published by Ben Jonson in his immensely popular play The Staple of News. In Act III, Scene 1, his characters have the following exchange:

THOMAS: They write here, one Cornelius-Son

Hath made the Hollanders an invisible eel

To swim the haven at Dunkirk and sink all

The shipping there.

P. JUNIOR: But how is’t done?

CYMBAL: I’ll show you, sir. It’s an automa, runs under water,

With a smug nose, and has a nimble tail

Made like an auger, with which tail she wriggles

Betwixt the costs of a ship and sinks it straight.

P. JUNIOR: A most brave device

To murder their flat bottoms.

But Jonson had never actually seen Drebbel’s boat cruise underwater, nor had any other of those who extolled the new invention. There were, in fact, no first person accounts, except those issued by Drebbel himself. And Jonson had hardly wished to be taken seriously. The Staple of News was a lacerating send-up of dishonest news agents and the credulity of their customers. In the passage immediately following, for example, a character discusses a plan to launch a surprise attack on an enemy by fitting the invaders’ horses with cork shoes. When asked, Is’t true? the speaker replied, As true as the rest. Moreover, Jonson had long since considered Drebbel a fraud and lampooned him mercilessly. As far back as 1609, in a relationship characterized over many years by relentless public ridicule from Jonson’s side, Jonson had also dismissed the perpetual motion machine as a laughable humbug.³

An early depiction of Drebbel’s design. Drebbel himself left no drawings.

Nonetheless, Jonson’s description began to circulate as a true account, confirmation of other assertions that not only had Drebbel built an underwater boat, but that a few sprinkled drops of his quintessence of air had allowed the crew to breathe air as fresh and as pure as if they were on the top of a mountain, and that he had lit the interior without candles.⁴ In 1623, Francis Bacon, another non-witness, doubtless influenced by all the hoopla, decided to immortalize the Drebbel submarine in New Atlantis, his utopian vision of a just and prosperous society ruled according to the principles of natural science. As this society was also governed by scientists, Bacon’s unfinished work became required reading for anyone of scientific bent coming of age in the seventeenth century.

As the decades passed, others, including the polymath Robert Boyle, who was not born until 1627, the year New Atlantis was published, made specific scientific reference to Drebbel’s invention, stating categorically that the vessel went under water perfectly, and was rowed at a depth of twelve or fifteen feet for several hours. In fact, Boyle undertook his landmark Experiments On Air, largely as a result of his belief in Drebbel’s achievement. Boyle would become so obsessed with the Drebbel submarine that he sought out the Hollander’s daughter and son-in-law, who, even as late as 1662, were trying to find ways to make money from the elder Drebbel’s terrible destroying invention.

That Drebbel’s legend thrived, and that it would captivate as brilliant a scientific mind as Robert Boyle, is largely due to the mass of propaganda that was thrown up around him. In a nineteenth-century publication by the British Museum with the alluring title, England as Seen by Foreigners in the Days of Elizabeth and James the First, Comprising Translations of the Journals of the Two Dukes of Württemberg in 1592 and l6l0; Both Illustrative of Shakespeare, the editor did admit, The accounts we have of that ‘deservedly famous mechanician and chymist,’ as the Hon. Robert Boyle calls Cornelius Drebbel, are confused and inexact. But that did not prevent chroniclers from waxing rapturously of Drebbel’s alleged achievements. This extraordinary testament made its way across Europe and deserves to be read in full:

Other epithets have been bestowed upon Drebbel, as alchemist, empiric, magician, and professor of the black art. But, however extravagant and improbable some of the following descriptions may appear . . . Cornelius Drebbel is entitled, we think, to hold a respectable position among the ingenious inventors and mechanicians of the early part of the seventeenth century. . . . He built a ship, in which one could row and navigate under water, from Westminster to Greenwich, the distance of two Dutch miles; even five or six miles, or as far as one pleased. In this boat a person could see under the surface of the water and without candlelight, as much as he needed to read in the Bible or any other book. Not long ago this remarkable ship was yet to be seen lying in the Thames or London river. Aided by some instruments of his own manufacture, Drebbel could make it rain, lighten, and thunder, at every time of the year, so that you would have sworn it came in a natural way from heaven. By means of other instruments he could, in the midst of summer, so much refrigerate the atmosphere of certain places, that you would have thought yourself in the very midst of winter. This experiment he did once at his Majesty’s request, in the great Hall of Westminster; and although a hot summer day had been chosen by the King, it became so cold in the Hall that James and his followers took to their heels in hasty flight. With a certain instrument he could draw an incredible quantity of water out of a well or river. By his peculiar ingenuity he could at all times of the year, even in the midst of winter, hatch chickens and ducklings without the aid of hens or ducks.†

So comprehensive was Drebbellian lore that whether the Drebbel submarine was ever launched, or even if it existed, the details of its construction, disseminated almost certainly by Drebbel and his friends at Court, have inspired replicas to be built for numerous museums, one, not surprisingly in Alkmaar, and even for a television documentary.

One description, by BBC History, had the craft based on a rowing boat with raised and meeting sides, covered in greased leather, with a watertight hatch in the middle, a rudder and four oars. Under the rowers’ seats were large pigskin bladders, connected by pipes to the outside. Rope was used to tie off the empty bladders. In order to dive, the rope was untied and the bladders filled. To surface the crew squashed the bladders flat, squeezing out the water.⁵ There is no direct evidence that any of this is true.

An article in Scientific American in 1909 added flourishes that even Drebbel had not considered. It was provided with boring tools, working in stuffing boxes in the side of the vessel, by which the enemy’s ships could be perforated, and with long poles carrying torpedoes at their ends.⁶

The most curious aspect of the Drebbel submarine, however, is not whether it was simply an elaborate hoax perpetrated on a guileless king by an ambitious mountebank, but that, real or not, it helped spark genuine innovation by a series of inventors that resulted in vessels that could do everything Drebbel claimed to do and more.

The progression began in 1648, when Bishop John Wilkins published his most famous work, Mathematical Magick, a two-volume treatise on physics and mechanical devices, meant to explain how existing machines operate and expound on the feasibility of those considered futuristic. A dozen years later, inspired by Bacon’s New Atlantis, Wilkins would help found the Royal Society, an organization that, with members such as Boyle, Robert Hooke, and Edmond Halley, might have been the most impressive array of scientific brilliance the world has ever known.

In the sections of Mathematical Magick that were devoted to predictions of technological advances, Wilkins described at length Drebbel’s vessel, which he called the Ark, and for the first time discussed the potential uses of an undersea craft, in peace and in war:

A man may go to any part of the world invisibly without being discovered or prevented in his journey. Man will be safe from the violence of tempests which never move the Sea more than five or six Paces deep; they are safe from Pirates and Robbers, from Ice and great Frosts which are such deadly foes to us in our passages towards the Poles. One is also free from the uncertainty of the tides. It may be of a very great Advantage against a Navy of Enemies, who by these means may be undermined in the Water and blown up.⁷

Interest in perfecting the science of underwater travel increased through the remainder of the seventeenth century, everyone using Drebbel as his model. In the 1650s, Charles, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, ordered a submarine built based on the Drebbel design, but the man who received the assignment discovered to his chagrin that Drebbel had died in 1633, leaving no records or accounts of his most famous invention. No drawing, model, or even description of the vessel seemed to exist. The project was soon abandoned. Others across Europe drew up plans for undersea craft, boasting of their prowess, but none of these were constructed either. Principles of submarine travel, these inventors discovered, were a good deal more arcane than would allow a simple closed vessel to be slapped together and successfully launched.

Some returned to more basic undertakings with better results. Edmond Halley joined the Royal Society in 1672, when, thanks to Boyle, undersea travel had become one of the more alluring scientific conundrums of the age. Although best known for the comet that bears his name, Halley’s experiments were vital to solving the formative problems of underwater navigation. Halley dropped into the water a primitive diving bell, something of a giant inverted barrel, weighted with lead along the bottom. As long as it dropped straight—thus the lead weights—air would remain trapped inside and sustain the man stationed there. Another man could even venture outside with a primitive helmet, air fed to him from the supply under the bell. To raise the device, the operator would simply remove weights on either side.

Halley’s diving bell

In 1690, Halley demonstrated his device in the Thames. It was useful for little more than staring at the river’s bottom or picking up curiosities—when light permitted—but Halley had demonstrated a relationship between air and water pressure. In some senses, Halley did not advance underwater technology any more than Christiaan Huygens’s gunpowder-filled cylinder provided a blueprint for the internal combustion engine—theoretical knowledge of air and water pressure was not new—but his design established a paradigm for more complicated vessels in which the taking on and expelling of ballast would be crucial to stability.‡

Also in 1690, a more serious effort to build a submarine boat was undertaken by Huygens’s former assistant, French mathematician, Denis Papin, again financed by the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, son of the man who had financed the 1640 attempt, and again based on the Drebbel model. Papin had been one of the first foreigners invited to join the Royal Society and was an original member of the French Académie des Sciences. At the Royal Society he had spent a good deal of time with Boyle, Hooke, and Wilkins, all of whom were actively considering the viability of submarine navigation. Still, Papin’s primary interest was steam power. He had experimented widely with devices that would convert steam pressure to thrust, in the course of which he invented the pressure cooker. He had done no work with underwater vessels, however, beyond talking about them, but the landgrave was wealthy and eager, so Papin took on the project. In 1691, he described the plan for his underwater vessel in a letter to his mentor, Huygens.

It was neither a submarine nor even a boat. Essentially a submersible cube, the design featured a leather tube that extended to the surface to supply air, the upper end of which was attached to a wooden float. An entrance turret was placed at the top, and other openings were configured through which explosives could be attached to an enemy’s ship without admitting water into the interior. This device was never tested, undergoing serious damage when the crane lowering it into the water snapped.

The landgrave then was said to have financed construction of a second apparatus, this one cylindrical, which Papin took beneath the surface of the river Fulda in 1692. Although the experiment was said to have been a success, land-locked Hesse had little use for submarine boats, and so the effort was abandoned. Never explained is why the landgrave, having undertaken expenditures for two vessels, would refuse to continue to fund the project only after it had proven successful.

Papin’s submarine . . . or pressure cooker

Whatever the reason for the termination of his contract, Papin produced a monograph detailing his findings and then never experimented with underwater boats again. His work was forgotten until 1747, when an article on the Papin submarine, complete with a drawing, appeared in The Gentleman’s Magazine, a popular English monthly. The drawing seems scant, unlike anything that could move underwater, or even on land. In addition to lacking any means of propulsion, the entryway on the top appears far too small to admit a person. Speculation exists that, instead of a submarine, Papin had thrown the monograph together and simply inserted one of the first renderings of his pressure cooker.

_____________

*Iatrochemical medicine would later be championed by a young physician named John Locke, who later abandoned doctoring for political theory to write Two Treatises on Government, which would provide significant philosophical underpinning for the American Revolution.

†Italics added.

‡Huygens believed that power could be generated in a cylinder, closed at one end, by an explosion that pushed a fitted tool—a piston—outward. When he tried his device, he made an odd discovery. After the explosion, the piston was sucked inward. Unaware of oxygen as an element—Drebbel’s quintessence of air notwithstanding—Huygens’s could not have realized that the explosion would burn off the gas and create a partial vacuum that would suck the piston in. Engines of that sort were later described as atmospheric, and dominated piston power until the discovery that compressing the fuel—by then hydrocarbon—before ignition, would result in an explosion that drove the piston outward.

CHAPTER 2

MADE IN AMERICA

More important, however, than the devices that may or may not have been fabricated—each of them even if completed a technological dead end—was the literature suggested by those putative researches that speculated on both the uses and construction of a vessel that could travel underwater and surreptitiously deliver a weapon to the hull of an enemy ship.

In Bacon’s New Atlantis, for example, the Father of the House of Solomon informs his guests that the halls contained ordnance and instruments of war, and engines of all kinds: and likewise new mixtures and compositions of gunpowder, wildfires burning in water, and unquenchable. Just after this passage, suggesting underwater mines, the Father continued, We have ships and boats for going under water, and brooking of seas. Robert Hooke discussed the nature of explosions in Posthumous Works; Bishop Thomas Sprat penned a dissertation on the development of saltpeter and gunpowder in History of the Royal Society; and Robert Boyle described burning and explosions in a vacuum and underwater in New Experiments Physico-Mechanicall: Touching the Spring of the Air and Its Effects and Tracts about the Cosmical Qualities of Things, the Temperature of the Subterraneal and Submarine Regions, the Bottom of the Sea, &tc. with an Introduction to the History of Particular Qualities. Boyle also discussed in New Experiments the theory of buoyancy and displacement, which he labeled the grand rule of Hydrostaticks, as well as going on at some length on great achievements of Cornelis Drebbel.

As it turned out, all of these works, as well as Mathematical Magick and other source materials on underwater warfare were on the shelves of the Yale library when thirty-one year old David Bushnell enrolled in 1771.

Bushnell was born in Saybrook, Connecticut, on Long Island Sound, at the mouth of the Connecticut River, a town where ships were built and sailed. Saybrook had also been the home of the Collegiate School, which had migrated west in 1718 to become Yale College. The school’s departure, and especially its thirteen-hundred-book library, had not sat well with many local residents and after a good deal of wrangling, including a battle of the books, joined on occasion with closed fists, only one thousand of the volumes managed to make their way to New Haven. So David Bushnell, though from a farming family, grew up in an environment where scholarship was valued and had been fought for.

Although he managed the family farm with his brother, Bushnell was more attracted to the sea and read what he could on shipbuilding. At twenty-nine, the soil could no longer hold him. He sold his share of the farm to his brother and began to study with the beneficently named Reverend John Devotion. Reverend Devotion was a Yale graduate and so, two years later, Bushnell left Saybrook to enroll in his tutor’s alma mater.

With Reverend Devotion, and at Yale, Bushnell studied religion—as did just about everyone else—but discovered his real interests were in mathematics, geometry, and the sciences. He spent a good deal of time in the Yale library, which had grown fourfold from the one thousand volumes spirited away from Saybrook, part of which was the most comprehensive collection of scientific texts in the colonies.

Although Bushnell had not previously exhibited any particular flair for invention, as relations with England deteriorated, he began to focus on underwater explosions, an interest that moved quickly from the theoretical to the practical. Tales of students and teachers frightened by loud reports in the night followed Bushnell during his stay. He learned quickly that keeping the charge dry was not difficult; the principle problem was detonation. Bushnell solved the problem by removing the flintlock from a musket and, using a spring mechanism, converting it to a time fuse. After Lexington and Concord, David Bushnell resolved to design a vessel to deliver his underwater charge; his ambition was no less than to cripple the British fleet. In late 1775, he demonstrated his newly designed mine for a group of dignitaries, including Connecticut Governor Jonathan Trumbull, and was given financing to build a boat to deliver it.

While Bushnell must have been thinking of an underwater craft for a while—if not, why go to so much trouble to ignite gunpowder underwater—just when he got the idea is not certain. But the where is almost certainly the Yale library. While there is no record of the specific volumes Bushnell pored over, it seems unlikely that a man who boasted of the long hours he spent studying