1809.] 
a new method of describing the catena- 
ria, which he depicts, but does not de- 
scribe, “ may excite gome discussion du- 
ring the erection of the bridges proposed 
to be built over the Thames,” because 
“the properties of this line are admitted 
by all writers on arches, to be of the ut- 
aost importance in determining the re- 
lations of an arch.” “Instead of this, he 
should have said, that the simple catena- 
ria is of no use whatever in determining 
the relations of an arch, except when 
that curve is realty adopted as the in- 
tradus of the preposed erection. Bat, f 
will not press too hard vertically upon 
the crown of this gentleman’s material 
structure. Poor Lapicida has certainly 
got an awkward twist, and I pity bim: 
when a youth is left-handed, there is 
some hopes that careful discipline may . 
bring him about; but when a maiz is left- 
handed in his head, (if I may so express 
it), I know of no remedy that, will farnish 
relief, without risking the total destruc- 
tion of the part affected. Pope traces 
the cause of the sad habit, when he 
SAYS, 
** Nonsense precipitate like melted lead, 
** Runs through the cracks, and zig-zag: of 
his head :”* 
but the cureis yet, I fear, among the de- 
siderata, 
T willnext, with*your permission, Mr. 
Editor, present a few observations upon 
the account of “ Henry Briggs, the Ma. 
thematician,” in your last) Number 3 
which, I am sorry to say, does not satisfy 
many of your mathematical readers in the 
University, much more than Lapicida’s 
elucidations. “The author of this new 
account is, doubtless, aman of talent: 
but, is he not prejudiced? Indeed I 
shall indulge “ nae nvutionel raftac!ions;” 
buat, might { presume to ask it, [s not the 
author a Scotchman? And is he not sti- 
-_ -mulated by some such lve of appropria- 
tion, as made a Scotchman once affirm, 
“That the author of Paradise Lost was 
a North-Briton, that his father was 
named Ha-milton, and he sold crowdie 
at Aberdeen?” The whole account 
appears to me, written merely for the ex- 
press purpose of exalting Napier, at the 
expense of Briggs, and reducing the lat- 
ter almost to the level of a mere caicula- 
tor, working under the direction of the 
former. I cannot, on any other supposi- 
tion, account for the remarkable fact, 
that the most claborate and faithful his- 
tory of the invention of Logarithms, that 
»y Dr. Hutton, is totally unnoticed in 
Reply to Lapicida on the Theory of Arches. 863 
this memoir. Does the writer wish to 
have it thought, that he does not know of - 
such a book as Hutton’s Lavarithins? 
Or, does he wish to keep that book out 
of the sight of general readers, that he 
may seem plausibly to establish his de= 
sired point, by suppressing some evi- 
dences, and garbling others? Be this as 
it may, I trust, Mr. Editor, your love of 
justice to national, as well as to individual 
character, willallow ine to state a few 
plain truths, as bélow.* 
With respect to the discoveries of the 
Neperean, and of Briggs’s Logarithins, 
Dr. Hutton has proved, (in the valuable 
Tatroduction to his Logarithmic Tables) 
upon indubitable evidence: 3 
i. That Briggs’s system, and Napie?’s 
small alteration, give, or are, in fact, the 
same logarithms: the numbers in both 
being uniformly alike, only that the one 
is afirmative, where the other is negative, 
and vice versa, Si 
@. That Briggs mentioned his systera 
of logarithms before Napier did, both ia 
his public Jectures, and to several indi- 
viduals, among others, to Napier him- 
self; taking a long journey for the ex. 
press purpose of shewing them to him, 
' $. That Napier never mentioned the 
new system, till after Briggs had com- 
municated it to hun; and even ihen he 
never made any mention of Briggs’s come 
munication. ¥ 
4, That after that communication, 
Napier appeared anxious to state to the 
world his intention to alter the system, 
by introducing the notice of it inte 
Wright’s transiation, (in such a manner 
as to give the English reader the impress 
sion, that such notice was also in his 
Latin original. contrary to trath;) also 
into his Rabdologia, and his Deseviption 
of his original Logarithms; aod ail this 
without alluding, in the most distant 
manner, to the Communication Briggs 
had made to him. 
5. That when Briggs explained his 
system to Napier, so candidly, the latter 
said, he had thought of the same thing, 
but he had mentioned it to no one; and, 
of course, none but himself could know 
the truth: and, therefore, each must 
judge for himseif. . 
6. That Briges, finding his share of the 
invention was not voticed, expressed his 
hopes that the reason of the change of 
system, would be made to appear ina 
posthumous work of Napier’s, shortly to 
be published. But the book came out 
without the expected notice! And then 
‘Briggs published a modest statement of 
the 
