504 Mr. J. W. L. Glaisher^s Supphmentary Remarks 



Wright^s English translation of the Canon Mirificus in 1616. 

 The statement^ however, given on the authority of Mr. Mark 

 Napier (in his ' Memoirs of John Napier of Merchiston/ 

 1834), that Napier died on April 4, 1617, explains the matter, 

 and shows that the pubhcation did take place in 1617. The 

 other facts also agree : in 1614 Napier published the Canon Mi- 

 rificus ; Briggs visited him at Merchiston in 1615 and 1616, 

 and intended to pay a third visit in the summer of 1617 

 to show him his work. Dodson says that Briggs^s logar- 

 ithms were published with Gunter's Canon Triangulorum in 

 1620; and in the only copy of Briggs (or Gunter) that I have 

 been able to see, the two are bound up together. It is not un- 

 likely that Gunter did issue Briggs^s Chilias with his Canon; and 

 if so, the copies were most likely originally printed in 1617, 

 and were not reprints. Henrion mentions that he received 

 Briggs's Chilias with Gunter^s Canon; but as both the Latin 

 and English editions of the latter appear in the Bodleian Cata- 

 logue, it is not worth while discussing a question so easy to set 

 at rest. 



With reference to the relations between Napier and Briggs, 

 wath regard to the invention of decimal logarithms, it seems, 

 after reading the facts, hard to believe that they could have 

 formed matter for controversy. The statements of Napier and 

 Briggs both agree in all particulars; and the warmest friendship 

 subsisted between them. Napier at his death left his manuscripts 

 to Briggs ; and all the writings of the latter show the greatest 

 reverence for him. Hutton, though stating the facts correctly, has 

 unfortunately imputed to Napier want of candour, a charge which 

 the evidence he adduces in no way justifies. Mr. Mark Napier, in 

 his '^ Memoirs,^' referred to above, has successfully refuted this 

 imputation, but he has fallen into the opposite extreme of extra- 

 vagantly eulogizing Napier and depreciating Briggs; he attri- 

 butes Hutton's assertions to national jealousy ! Mr. Napier^s 

 book, though published nearly forty years ago, has not been 

 much referred to ; and it is scarcely to be expected that many 

 will care to pick out from a quarto volume of 534 pages of dif- 

 fuse writing the slight additional matter it contains. Hutton^s 

 history of logarithms is generally accurate and truthful ; and it 

 is a matter of regret that he should have systematically inter- 

 preted Briggs^s remarks in a manner clearly contrary to their 

 true meaning, and the more so as there unquestionably existed 

 between the inventor of logarithms and his friend an attachment 

 almost unique in science. Hutton^s account has now remained 

 the standard work of reference for nearly a century, and his 

 views have been adopted in a more or less modified form by De- 

 lambre and Montucla; so that it will be long before the simple 



