; 
 A Se Soeerk aa 
 ee ines : : 
 te ete Aas ees aes Tek ee! A 
 i pay Ne shots! : 3 
 oo RR ear te e Farha ratte eal 5 sre ees <* bh 
 npeevet nee A : hates Hele ea : aps ae ri ; See 7 
 Perea eS Cree : : 2 ee ees nin A ; ' ns é : : 
 se 5 ¥ » Fay Boe? — “ aan a et ete ap ae ‘ eae 
 an ite My te tata tete Ea ariel ere a Sites 
 Sh Ackeras ahaha Ae vs “apg ga uteyinc re vod ea “ ropes) 
 aye 4 ! — RS ae! 
 ch Vhs ae ottey it ts hw i . ae 2 D : 
 anaes Acie mt, ‘ eee ; 3 - ; 
 aed 1 ae S r ts : < = 4 
 ~ shoksnsts et ; a . . . ‘aa ttta BeBe a 
 = . ; ‘a ae pS ee a 
 et 
 
 S rab : 
 =.= 5 mits tat 
 Reo : eee ee acyl 
 
 cris Se ee 
 
 tA . 
 ae ie nM be 3 CIP setae 
 
 Feats Bait te NS Tne tbe 
 ee Se TG LR 
 
 Seca yer) 
 
 Se st 
 oP Reo FS. 
 
 carey , 
 a hench > ys da ee rig x * 
 eke al oars pore 
 ee APT 
 
 ta te atinttpateeNe 
 aes 
 
 Siege Se 
 nig bie te Se 
 ate 
 
 pa 
 eae 
 peor > 
 
 ety te 
 ae ae oy 
 
 ome eae 
 
« LIBRARY“OF THE *~ 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 510.95 da vA 
 Nié6n 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding trom 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 https://archive.org/details/memoirsofjohnnapOOnapi_0O 
 
an 
 
 ua 
 
 Oy 
 2 
 
 7 1 
 : ae : a 
 al la VAY 
 
 7 AL a 
 i‘ 
 
WSs 
 SAY 
 
 \\ \\ 
 
 \PIER TO THE COLLEGE OF EDINBURGH. 
 
 A 
 vat 
 
 N 
 
 ONESS 
 
 > 
 L 
 
 BAI 
 
 ESENTIED BY THE 
 
 > 
 x 
 
 FROM BHE ORIGINAL PE 
 
MEMOIRS 
 
 OF 
 
 JOHN NAPIER OF MERCHISTON, 
 
 LINEAGE, LIFE, AND TIMES, 
 
 WITH A 
 
 HISTORY OF THE INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 
 
 BY 
 
 MARK NAPIER, Ese. 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH ; AND 
 THOMAS CADELL, LONDON. 
 
 - MDCCCXXXIV. 
 
" " ey + ) , 
 
 : ey ¥ 
 it ‘ . , 
 : rd 
 
 0 oe ae i? Nh, WU hey cA 
 on a +r ay i oe 
 
 * ‘ 
 we ee 
 
 '* 
 se 
 
 JOHN STARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 fh i i ‘ie rz ie 
 eae geen 
 : iP a ‘ 
 
KN) GAY 
 PiY j 
 
 ¥\ 
 '\ 
 
 t \ | | by ; yyarnet 
 ae. | “gp wusnntic> 
 
 TO HIS MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 
 
 BVeLL Ia Agee Eee OU Rei EL 
 
 KING OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, 
 
 &e. &ec. &e. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 By your Majesty’s most gracious permission, I have the 
 honour to present to your Majesty the Domestic History of the 
 Inventor of Logarithms. That his invention was the greatest boon 
 genius could bestow upon a Maritime Empire is a truth universally 
 felt, and which no person is better qualified to appreciate than your 
 Majesty. It is a proud reflection for Britain, that she does not owe 
 to a stranger the creation of that intellectual aid which renders your 
 Majesty’s Fleets as free and fearless in Navigation as they have ever 
 
 been in Battle. 
 
 To such considerations alone am I entitled to attribute your Ma- 
 
 jesty’s condescension in accepting of this work. 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 Your Majesty’s humble and devoted 
 Subject and Servant, 
 
 MARK NAPIER. 
 
 5 FL1LE 
 
7 | fie 
 yw bane thot 
 
 « 
 
 -, 2 y? 
 io ADEE ini ‘aD gf coubin 
 
 ah dix oe wiobcery. 
 
dhol ted shed ysl Cal 
 
 Tue illustrious Philosopher whose domestic history is now, for 
 the first time, fully recorded, left many private papers besides 
 voluminous parchments. His personal manuscripts, of course 
 chiefly scientific, came into the possession of his third son, Ro- 
 bert Napier of Bowhopple, Culcreugh, and Drumquhannie, who 
 edited his father’s posthumous works. The late Colonel Milliken 
 Napier, Robert’s lineal male representative, was still in possession 
 of a mass of the Culcreugh papers at the close of last cen- 
 tury. The Colonel was no antiquary, and, like most of the de- 
 scendants of the great Napier, chiefly evinced his philosophy in a 
 supreme indifference to sabre and gun-shot wounds, in the service 
 of his country, which were liberally bestowed upon him during 
 twenty-two years of a military career in every quarter of the globe. 
 His excellent lady, from whom I have the following fact, upon one oc- 
 casion, before accompanying her husband from home, deposited the 
 venerable relics of the Philosopher, including a portrait of him, and 
 a Bible with his autograph, in a chest which was placed for safety 
 in a garret of their house of Milliken in Renfrewshire. During 
 their absence the house was burnt, and the precious deposit perished. 
 It is to be regretted that the present attempt had not been made 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 before this dilapidation of the materials occurred. Still, however, 
 much remained which it was desirable to rescue from the chapter 
 of accidents. In particular, two manuscript treatises, one upon 
 Arithmetic, and the other upon Algebra, composed by Napier, had 
 been previously presented to Francis V Lord Napier, by William 
 Napier, fifth of Culcreugh, and thus escaped the destruction of the 
 other papers. The late Lord (Francis VII.) saved these manu- 
 scripts from decay, very obviously commencing, and he notes upon a 
 blank leaf, “ finding them in a neglected state amongst my family 
 papers, I have bound them together, in order to preserve them en- 
 tire.’ The reason of this remnant having passed to the noble 
 branch of the family is manifest. Francis V Lord Napier, a most 
 accomplished nobleman, (who in the year 1761 procured, at his own 
 expense, a survey, plan, and estimate for a navigable canal to form a 
 communication between the rivers Forth and Clyde, and which 
 idea was subsequently carried into execution upon a great scale,) 
 had turned his elegant and comprehensive mind towards the 
 composition of a biographical work worthy of the memory of his 
 great ancestor. The fact is curiously recorded. Sir Alexander 
 Johnston, late Chief-Justice of Ceylon, and now of his Majesty’s 
 Privy-Council, was examined before the committee on the affairs 
 of the East India Company in July 1832, when he gave some inte- 
 resting evidence relating to the Hindoo governments. The follow- 
 ing extract from that evidence will inform the reader of the unex- 
 pected termination of Lord Napier’s literary project: “ Were you 
 acquainted, while in Ceylon, with the late Colonel C. Mackenzie, 
 the Surveyor-General of all India, and with the collection which he 
 made of materials for writing a history of India? I was intimately 
 acquainted with him from my earliest youth, and I was in constant 
 communication with him all the time I was in Ceylon, from 1802 
 to 1818, upon subjects connected with the history of India and of 
 that island, and had frequent occasion to refer for information to his 
 valuable collection of ancient inscriptions and historical documents. 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 Be so good as to explain the circumstances which first led Colonel 
 Mackenzie to make this collection, and those which led the Bengal 
 government after his death to purchase it from his widow ? Colo- 
 nel Mackenzie was a native of the island of Lewis ; as a very young 
 man, he was much patronized, on account of his mathematical 
 knowledge, by the late Lord Seaforth, and my late father, Francis, 
 the fifth Lord Napier of Merchiston. He was for some time em- 
 ployed by the latter, who was about to write a life of his ancestor, 
 John Napier of Merchiston, the Inventor of Logarithms, to collect 
 for him, with a view to that life, from all the different works rela- 
 tive to India, an account of the knowledge which the Hindoos 
 possessed of mathematics, and of the nature and use of Lo- 
 garithms. Mr Mackenzie, after the death of Lord Napier, be- 
 came desirous of prosecuting his oriental researches in India. 
 Lord Seaforth got him appointed to the engineers on the Ma- 
 dras establishment in 1782, and gave him letters of introduction 
 to the late Lord Macartney, the then Governor of that Presi- 
 dency, and to my father, who held a high situation under his 
 Lordship at Madura, the ancient capital of the Hindoo kingdom, 
 described by Ptolemy as the regio Pandionis of the peninsula of 
 India, and the ancient seat of the Hindoo college. My mother, 
 who was the daughter of Mr Mackenzie’s friend and early patron, 
 the fifth Lord Napier, and who, in consequence of her father’s 
 death, had determined herself to execute the plan which he had 
 founded of writing the life of the Inventor of Logarithms, resided 
 at that time with my father at Madura, and employed the most 
 distinguished of the Brahmins in the neighbourhood in collecting 
 for her from every part of the peninsula the information which she 
 required relative to the knowledge which the Hindoos had. posses- 
 sed in ancient times of mathematics and astronomy. Knowing that 
 Mr Mackenzie had been previously employed by her father in pur- 
 suing the literary inquiries in which she herself was then engaged, 
 and wishing to have his assistance in arranging the materials which 
 
Vill PREFACE. 
 
 she had collected, she and my father invited him to come and live 
 with them at Madura early in 1783, and there introduced him to 
 all the Brahmins and other literary natives who resided at that 
 place.” No life of Napier, however, was destined to result from 
 these spirited proceedings, which gave rise to the celebrated Mac- 
 kenzie Collection ; and, Sir Alexander adds in his evidence, “ the 
 Marquis of Hastings purchased the whole collection for the Kast 
 India Company from Colonel Mackenzie’s widow for L. 10,000, 
 and thereby preserved for the British Government the most valu- 
 able materials which could be procured for writing an authentic 
 history of the British empire in India.” Unfortunately the papers 
 of the Honourable Mrs Johnston were also consumed by fire, an 
 element that has been severe upon the materials for our Philosopher’s 
 biography. The late Earl of Buchan, towards the close of last cen- 
 tury, put together a few quarto pages of meagre and inaccurate bio- 
 graphy, which he called the Life of Napier, and to this was added 
 an able but dry analysis of his published mathematical inventions by 
 Dr Minto. This work has done more harm than good to the sub- 
 ject, as, from its imposing shape and title, it has given rise to a vague 
 impression that nothing further could be known or said about Na- 
 pier, and may have deterred others, better qualified for the task 
 than I can pretend to be, from exerting themselves to do justice to 
 his memory. 
 
 The late Lord Napier compiled with great pains and accuracy a 
 digest of his charters and private papers, composing a genealogical 
 account of his family, which remains in manuscript. ‘This his Lord- 
 ship communicated to Mr Wood, and the substance of it will be 
 found in the account of the family of Napier contained in that 
 gentleman’s edition of Douglas’s Peerage. From that source chiefly 
 the slight biographical notices of the philosopher, lately published, 
 are derived. Still his very curious mathematical manuscripts re- 
 mained unexamined, and some of the most interesting and charac- 
 teristic particulars of his history unrecorded. 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 The present Lord Napier having allowed me unlimited access to 
 his family papers, and encouraged me throughout this undertaking 
 with his kind and intelligent co-operation, I have done my best to 
 supply the desideratum. In some respects a philosopher would 
 have been the most proper biographer of Napier, particularly in the 
 analysis of his unpublished treatises, to which I can scarcely hope to 
 have done justice beyond the fact of making their contents known. 
 But there were antiquarian difficulties to encounter, both in mas- 
 tering the contents of his manuscripts, and in the other researches 
 upon which these Memoirs are founded, to which mathematicians 
 are little inclined. ‘The world had waited long enough for a scien- 
 tific life of Napier, and while the Logarithms, most amply and ad- 
 mirably commented upon by illustrious foreigners, were continually 
 adding glory to the land of their birth, the very knowledge of who 
 invented them seemed to be escaping from the popular literature 
 of his own country. My object has been not only to record every 
 fact of interest regarding the great Napier, but to exhibit a pic- 
 ture of him relieved upon the dark ground of his times,—to con- 
 nect him with the political and religious history of his country, no 
 less than with the history of science. 
 
 It is a curious fact, and affords one of several instances in which 
 the memory of our Philosopher has been strangely neglected, that 
 no portrait of him has been engraved in Mr Lodge’s Portraits of [- 
 lustrious Personages of Great Britain. Bacon is there, and New- 
 ton, but not Napier. Yet that brilliant publication includes John 
 Knox, though the engraving, meant to represent him, is taken 
 from an old anonymous portrait in Holyroodhouse, certainly not 
 of John Knox, holding a pair of compasses over a chart. A most 
 authentic portrait of Napier, however, and in excellent preservation, 
 belongs to the College of Edinburgh. The record of donations to 
 that University proves that it was presented by Margaret, Baroness 
 of Napier in her own right, to whom the honours opened in 1686. 
 There can be no doubt of its originality. It bears the shield of 
 
 b 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 x 
 
 arms and the initials of the philosopher with the date 1616, the 
 year before his death ; and also his age, 67, all of which are ob- 
 viously contemporary with the rest of the painting. It has been 
 partially engraved for this work, including a sketch, however, of all 
 the minor details. Who painted it is a difficult question, as the 
 date is prior to the era of Jamieson, and during a very rude age of 
 portrait painting in Scotland. Yet, though defective in perspective, 
 it is well coloured, and altogether a noble portrait. I have chosen 
 it for this work in preference to another, unquestionably original, 
 of the same size, belonging to Lord Napier, and which has never 
 been out of the family. But his Lordship’s is not in such good 
 preservation, and, though quaint and interesting, is a ruder specimen 
 of art. The countenances are very similar, but the paintings quite 
 different. They are seated in different chairs, and in a different 
 dress and attitude. The upper part of the figure in Lord Napier’s 
 is clothed in a close tunic of black, with a black cowl concealing 
 the hair and half of the brow. The lower part of the figure seems 
 enveloped in drapery, and the left hand holds a book at a table. 
 An etching of it was intended to illustrate this preface, and also 
 one from a dilapidated portrait, in Lord Napier’s gallery, of the 
 Philosopher’s first wife; these etchings, accordingly, are alluded to 
 in the Memoirs, but have not been inserted, as the details of the 
 old paintings were doubtfully made out. Mr Napier of Blackstone 
 possesses a half-length portrait of the Philosopher with the cowl, 
 which has very much the air of an original. The same may be 
 said of one in possession of Aytoun of Inchdernie, whose ancestor 
 was connected by marriage with the family of Merchiston. This 
 also has the cowl. The late Lord Napier acquired a very original- 
 looking half-length of him without the cowl, the history of which I 
 cannot trace. ‘There is another of the same size with the cowl, be- 
 longing tooneof the law professors in Edinburgh, which I have heard 
 called an original of the Baron from the pencil of Jamieson. This 
 would be an exceedingly interesting portrait. But could the Scot- 
 
PREFACE. xi 
 
 tish Vandyke have painted any portrait in Scotland until some years 
 after the Philosopher’s death ? Unquestionably he painted the first 
 Lord Napier. ‘This portrait, of which an engraving is given in the 
 Memoirs, is included in the catalogue of Jamieson’s works, and is 
 still in possession of Lord Napier. An original of the great Napier 
 by the same master would scarcely have been suffered to wander out 
 of the family.* Jamieson, however, may have copied some of these 
 heads of the Philosopher when he painted his son. The en- 
 graving of Mary Queen of Scots will be contemplated with great 
 interest. Among the various portraits of her, with more or less 
 claims to originality, none possess higher than this, though never 
 until now publickly noticed. It is not a copy from any other 
 known, and all the characteristics are in favour of its perfect 
 originality. Upon the back of it there is, in the hand-writ- 
 ing of the late Lord Napier, “ This picture of Mary Queen of 
 Scots, supposed to be painted when she was about twelve years 
 old, has ever been considered an original picture, and has been in 
 the possession of the family of Napier for many generations. Mr 
 David Martin, at the desire of Lord Napier, stretched it on new 
 
 * A biographical notice of our Philosopher, contained in the Library of Entertaining Know- 
 ledge, 1830, is at great pains to state that he was not Lord Napier; but, adds a note, hitherto un- 
 contradicted, which has a much greater tendency to confuse his genealogy, “ Professor Napier of 
 Edinburgh, who is descended from Lord Napier, is in possession of the set of bones used by his 
 great ancestor.” —Vol. viii. p. 56. I would not have noticed a capricious adoption of the sur- 
 name of Napier by the Professor of Scots Law Conveyancing in Edinburgh, (also editor of the 
 Encyclopedia Britannica,) whose proper surname is Macvey, were it not that the publication 
 and wide diffusion of the genealogical error quoted above might impress, foreigners at least, 
 with the notion that a scion of Merchiston, perhaps the philosopher’s representative, occupies 
 a learned chair in the University of Edinburgh. A very minute acquaintance with the history 
 of Napier, in all its branches, does not enable me to record the most distant genealogical connec- 
 tion between the family of Napier of Merchiston and any one of the name of Macvey ; or, however 
 honoured the Napier tree might be by the acquisition, that it is possible that the Professor can be 
 descended from any Lord Napier. Lord Napier possesses a very primitive set of those ingeni- 
 ous instruments of calculation “ Neper’s Bones,” but framed of card disposed upon rollers in an 
 oaken box, the figures upon which appear to be in the handwriting of the philosopher or his son 
 Robert. Like the wood of the true cross, however, the identical original bones may have been 
 
 scattered far, and infinitely multiplied. 
 
xii PREFACE. 
 
 canvass and cleaned it 1787.” It will be seen that there were many 
 channels through which such a relic might reach the family of Mer- 
 chiston. The likeness is perfectly preserved in the engraving, which, 
 however, cannot convey the delicate and youthful complexion, Dr 
 Robertson says, “ Her hair was black—her eyes were a dark-grey ;” 
 and had this been written in any other spirit than that of romance, 
 it would contradict the authenticity of Lord Napier’s picture, where 
 the hair is yellow, and the eyes of a decided hazel or chesnut-colour. 
 But Sir James Melville says expressly, that her complexion was fair ; 
 and “ Beal, the clerk of the Privy-Council, who was directed by Ce- 
 cil to see and report the death of the Scottish Queen, describes her 
 as having chesnut-coloured eyes.’— Chalmers. The autograph at- 
 tached is taken from an original letter of the young Queen (when 
 about the age represented in this portrait) to her mother, preserved 
 in the Register-House. The Portrait of Dr Napier, the warlock of 
 Oxford, is exceedingly characteristic. There can be no doubt that 
 he and the Philosopher were brothers’ children, that fact being re- 
 corded by the first Lord Napier, who could not be mistaken as to 
 the family of his own granduncle. 
 
 I had intended to have given a complete statement, in the Ap- 
 pendix, of the Lennox Case for Merchiston, proving the Philosopher’s, 
 and consequently Lord Napier’s, right to that ancient Earldom ; 
 but having occupied more space with the abstract of Napier’s Alge- 
 bra than I had anticipated, the Case, with genealogical trees of the 
 family, &c., is reserved for publication in another shape. I have 
 retained, however, so much of it as may suffice to meet certain er- 
 rors that have crept into the history of Scotland. 
 
 August 1834. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Historical Account of the Philosopher’s Paternal and Maternal Lineage—Errors of Genealogical 
 and Heraldic Writers regarding his Family, - . : Page | 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Historical Account of the Philosopher’s Contemporary Relatives, and of the conspicuous 
 parts they enacted in Scotland from the period of his Birth to the commencement of his 
 public Education—Letters from his uncle, the Bishop of Orkney, to the Laird and Lady 
 of Merchiston, : : : 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Of the Philosopher's College Education—Notices of his most distinguished Contemporaries 
 —Theory of his Travels—Farther Particulars of his Family and Relatives in connec- 
 tion with the History of the Times—Letter from the Bishop of Orkney to the Laird of 
 Merchiston regarding the Plague of 1568—Conduct of that Prelate, and other Rela- 
 tives of the Philosopher, towards Mary of Scotland—The Philosopher’s First Marriage 
 —Various Sieges of the Castle of Merchiston during the King and Queen’s Wars, 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Of the Philosopher’s Habits, and Personal Connection with the State of Affairs in Scot- 
 land—His Second Marriage—Opposed to his Father-in-Law in Public A ffairs—His 
 Mission from the General Assembly of the Church to James VI.—His Epistle Dedica- 
 tory to that Monarch, urging Reform in Church and State, 
 
 CHAPTER YV. 
 
 History and Analysis of the Philosopher's Commentaries upon the Apocalypse—Compa- 
 rison with Sir Isaac Newton and other Modern Writers on Prophecy—The Philosopher, 
 a Poet, 
 
 06 
 
 83 
 
 147 
 
 174 
 
iy CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Of the Philosopher’s Reputation in Magic—Theory of the Black Cock, alleged to be his 
 Familiar Spirit—His Contract with Logan of Restalrig for the Discovery of Hidden 
 Treasure at Fastcastle—His Father’s connection with the Mint and Mining Operations 
 in Scotland—Superstitions of the Times, and Rosicrucian Propensities of the Philoso- 
 pher’s near Relatives—Dr Richard Napier, the Warlock of Oxford, : Page 215 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Of the Philosopher’s Inventions for the Defence of the Island against the threatened 
 Popish Invasion from Spain—Comparison of his Experiments in Practical Science with 
 those of Ancient and Modern Philosophers, 5 : A : 243 
 
 CHAPTER VIIL. 
 
 The Philosopher, a Farmer—The Agriculture of Scotland indebted to the family of Mer- 
 chiston—The Philosopher's eldest Son, a Gentleman of the Bed-Chamber, and a Eu- 
 phuist—Euphuistic Letter from the First Lord Dunkeld—State of the Philosopher's 
 Family in connection with the Border History of Scotland—Feudal Murder of his 
 Brother—Letters from the Philosopher and his Father upon the subject—Cruel fate of 
 his Cousin and near connection Francis Mowbray—Death of his Father—Letter to his 
 Son upon that occasion—Astrological Propensities of the Family—The Philosopher's 
 Second Theological Treatise—His Feudal Contract with the Campbells, : 282 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Historical view, in reference to the Invention of Logarithms, of the State of Science and 
 its great, Benefactors in the Schools of Greece, and in Europe after the Revival of 
 Letters—First announcement of the Logarithms to Tycho Brahe—Reply to Sir David 
 Brewster’s Strictures, in his Life of Newton, upon the Conduct and Character of Ga- 
 lileo—Publication of the Logarithms—The Philosopher’s Dedication to Charles I. and 
 Preface—Reception of the Canon Mirificus in England, ; : : 328 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Dr Hutton’s partial and confused Account of the Genesis of Logarithms—Kepler and 
 the Logarithms—Dr Hutton’s Injustice to their Inventor—His groundless Attack upon 
 Napier Exposed—History of the Friendship between the Philosopher and Henry Briggs 
 —Lilly’s Anecdote of their First Meeting—Briges’ own Account of Napier’s Invention 
 of the Common System of Logarithms contrasted with Dr Hutton’s—The Philosopher's 
 Letter to the Earl of Dunfermline, and the publication of his Minor Works—His 
 Death—His Posthumous Works—His Manuscripts—His Burial-Place—His Will— 
 Kepler’s Letter to him after his Death, es 4 : , 363 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 Supplementary History of the Invention of Logarithms, and of the Philosopher’s Mathe- 
 
 matical Studies, ; : : ; : Page 435 
 
 APPENDIX, containing 
 Notes and References, - : : ‘ A 509 
 ORIGINAL CHARTERS, &c. 
 
 I. Extract from the Philde Charter, : A f : : pit 
 II. Grant from Henry VI. to John Napier of Rusky, : : : 51] 
 III. Instructions from James III., &c. ‘ ‘ ; : 512 
 IV. The Philosopher’s Theory of Equations, : : : 515 
 V. Kepler’s Letter to Napier, : , “ 521 
 VI. Reply to some Erroneous Historical Pisses relating to Levenax and Menteith, 524 
 
 EXPLANATION OF PLATES OF SEALS. 
 
 I.— Charter Seals proving that the old Earls of Levenax did not carry the Cross engrailed. 
 
 1. 
 
 oo) 
 
 4. 
 
 = 
 
 or) 
 
 ve 
 
 IT_— 
 
 o f W ND = 
 
 6. 
 if 
 
 2. The Signet and Charter Seal of Malcolm V. Earl of Levenax, preserved in the Chapter- 
 House at Westminster. This was the friend of King Robert Bruce, and he who died at 
 Halidonhill 1333. 
 
 . Seal of John Stewart Lord Dernely, First Earl of Levenax of the usurping Race, to a Con- 
 
 tract of Agreement with Elizabeth Menteith and Archibald Naper, her son, 19th May 1490, 
 penes Napier. 
 Seal of his son Mathew, Second Earl of that Race, to a Precept of Clare Constat to Archi- 
 bald Naper, 8th January 1509, penes Napier. 
 Seal of Mathew Earl of Levenax, Father of King Henry Darnley, to a Precept of Seisin to 
 Adam Colquhoun, 10th November 1543. 
 N. B.—The above prove both that the old Earls of Levenax carried the saltier plain, and also 
 contradict Mr Nesbit, who asserts, that the surtout carried by the Race of Dernely was 
 “ argent a saltier engratled betwixt four roses.” 
 
 . Seal (probably the only one extant) of Robert Stewart Bishop of Caithness, created Earl of Len- 
 
 nox by James VI., 16th June 1578. Resigned that Earldom 5th March 1579 and was created 
 Earl of March. This seal is attached to a Trust-Deed dated 11th December 1578, penes Na- 
 pier, and is the earliest instance of an Earl of Lennox carrying the cross engrailed. 
 
 Seal of Ludovick, Second Duke of Lennox, from a cast by Mr Laing from the original silver. 
 
 Charter Seals proving that John Napier, Third of Merchiston, did not take the coat of Levenax 
 from his Marriage with the Heiress of that Earldom, but from his paternal Ancestors. 
 
 . Seal of Alexander, First Napier of Merchiston, deed 1453. 
 
 . Seal of Alexander, Second Napier of Merchiston, deed 1452. (vita patris. ) 
 
 . Seal of John, Third Napier of Merchiston, deed 1482. 
 
 . Seal of Archibald, Fourth Napier of Merchiston, deed 1512. 
 
 . Seal of Alexander, Fifth Napier of Merchiston, (son of Alexander, killed at Flodden wita 
 
 patris, whose seal I cannot find,) deed 1543. 
 Seal of Archibald, 6th Napier of Merchiston, 1582. 
 8. The Philosopher’s Seal and Signet. 
 
Xvi CONTENTS. 
 
 LIST OF PLATES. 
 
 Portrait of the Philosopher, . ‘ : : 4 . Frontispiece. 
 Plate of Lennox Seals, . : : * e ‘ - To front p. Ll 
 Plate of Merchiston Seals, . ; E - A ; ; ¢ OSS 
 Merchiston Castle, : ; ; . : ¢ 3 é 133 
 Portrait of Queen Mary, : : ‘ ; ‘ ‘ 140 
 Fac-simile of Napier’s Contract of Magic, : ‘ ‘ F ‘ + 1223 
 Portrait of Dr Richard Napier, : : : ’ : i 240 
 Fac-simile of Napier’s Paper of Secret Inventions, To fold between 248 and 249 
 Portrait of Archibald First Lord Napier, : : : : : 5 299 
 Horoscope of Alexander Napier, ‘ : : : 301 
 Fac-simile of the title-page of the First Edition of the eer : : 374 
 A View of “ Neper’s Bones,” : : ; - : : - 435 
 Napier’s Arithmetical Triangle, ‘ 4 : ; , : 481 
 Genealogical Scheme, : ‘ ‘ : ; ‘ F 509 
 
 Fac-similes of Autographs from the Merchiston Papers. 
 
 James II. : : : : . 5 : 25, 511 
 James III. ° ‘ ‘ : ‘ ‘ 22, 36, 513, 514 
 James V. ; : 4 : é : 3 44 
 Mary, 5 - : ‘ : 7 A » 80 
 James VI. : ‘ . ‘ : ' ‘ 152 
 Montrois, : : . ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ 152 
 Mortoun, s ; : : ; 3 152 
 Adam Bishop of Crea : ; ‘ ‘ ‘ + 129 
 John Neper, Fear of Merchistoun, : r 2 Ns 173 
 
 The Wood-Cuts at the commencement and end of the History of the Invention of Loga- 
 rithms are fac-similes from the original work published by Andrew Hart. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 492, note +, for moetur read movetur, and for motur describir read motu deseribi. 
 203, line 31, for perimur read ferimur. 
 
 —— 330, —- 19, for extitit read excidit. 
 
 — 374, —— 13, for and was followed by read followed by. 
 
 — 384, —— 8, for semicolon put a period, and close quotation. 
 
 —— 431, -— 1], for framed his read framed some of his. 
 
LIFE 
 
 OF 
 
 JOHN NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 
 
 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 THAT the life of a philosopher affords few incidents for his biography, is 
 remarked in every attempt to satisfy the curiosity of the world as to the do- 
 mestic habits of such men. Even with regard to Sir Isaac Newton, who 
 lived in an age and country the ameliorated state of which had multiplied 
 social relations, a regret has been expressed, that he must be constantly viewed 
 in connection with the progress of science, and scarcely ever in communion 
 with human nature. 
 
 _ If this be true of Newton, how much more so is it of him whom the com- 
 mon people of his day used to designate by the mysterious epithet of the 
 “ Marvellous Merchiston,’—who was born a century before the English phi- 
 losopher, in the most savage age of a barbarous land, where betwixt himself 
 and contemporary barons, much the same sympathies existed that Daniel en- 
 joyed in the lion’s den. 
 
 There is this advantage, however, in the antiquity of the present subject, 
 that slight notices become valuable, particularly if they involve picturesque 
 relations to the history of the country. I do not despair of being able to sa- 
 tisfy the reader’s curiosity as to the private life and habits of our great phi- 
 losopher, more fully than he may have anticipated. But this it is hoped, will 
 also add something to the interest, that the lineage which Napier represent- 
 
 A 
 
4 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ed, and the relatives among whom he was reared, connect in a remarkable 
 manner with the annals of Scotland. 
 
 It may be said that his biography can be neither more nor less than a 
 chapter of human knowledge in its loftiest departments; and it is usual to 
 dismiss the mortal genealogies of the sons of science with almost contemp- 
 tuous brevity. But the pride of intellect which affects a supercilious disdain 
 for an historical lineage or hereditary honour, if less absurd, is perhaps more 
 mischievous than the pride of ancestry. Applied to the history of philoso- 
 phers the proposition seems questionable, that it is “ more honourable to 
 have achieved fame and eminence without the advantages of high birth, than 
 with their assistance.” * Necessity is the mother of invention, and poverty 
 has been found the most faithful nurse of genius. Napier incurred a greater 
 risk of never attaining his throne in letters, from the wealth of his family, 
 and the courtly and historical connections of his house, than if his parentage 
 could only have been traced to a hovel. Jamus was reared as a shepherd, 
 Ben Jonson as a bricklayer, Longomontanus was the son of a labourer, 
 Metastasio of a common mechanic, Hadyn’s father was a wheelwright, 
 Linneus was bred a shoemaker, and the fiery spark of Franklin’s genius 
 was struck from the forge of a blacksmith. Without multiplying examples, 
 or taking any from our own country, where the instances are too modern to 
 be within the pale of courteous observation, it may be safely said, that the 
 annals of letters are gorged with illustrious proofs that the sons of the lowly 
 may become the lights of the world. 
 
 Yet the illustrious transatlantic philosopher whom we have named, while 
 expressing exultation in his victory over the difficulties of an inferior origin, 
 evinces at the same time an aristocratic anxiety to surround the smithy of his 
 ancestors with the halo of antiquity and hereditary right. ‘“ From the bosom 
 of poverty and obscurity,” says he, in a letter of autobiography to his son, 
 “ in which I drew my first breath and spent my earliest years, I have raised 
 myself to a state of opulence, and to some degree of celebrity in the world.” 
 Then he adds, “ one of my uncles, desirous like myself of collecting anecdotes 
 of our family, gave me some notes, from which I have derived many particulars 
 respecting our ancestors. Krom these I learn, that they had lived in the same 
 village, (Eaton in Northamptonshire,) upon a freehold of about thirty acres, for 
 
 * The Pursuit of Knowledge under Difficulties, published by the Society for the Diffusion of 
 
 Knowledge. 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 3 
 
 the space at least of three hundred years. How long they had resided there prior 
 to that period, my uncle had been unable to discover,—probably ever since 
 the institution of surnames, when they took the appellation of Franklin, which 
 had formerly been the name of a particular order of individuals. This petty 
 estate would not have sufficed for their subsistence had they not added the 
 trade of a blacksmith, which was perpetuated in the family down to my uncle’s 
 time, the eldest son having been uniformly brought up to this employment,— 
 a custom which both he and my father observed with respect to their eldest 
 sons. In the researches I made at Eaton, I found no account of their births, 
 marriages, and deaths, earlier than the year 1555; the parish register not ex- 
 tending farther back than that period. ‘This register informed me that I was 
 the youngest of the youngest branch of the family, counting five genera- 
 tions,” &c. 
 
 But in the British isles at least, the cottage school of knowledge is not un- 
 rivalled ; nor can it be said, that with us genius only flashes, like the light- 
 ning, from the bosom of obscurity. While such names as Bacon, Boyle, and 
 Byron, illustrate the aristocracy of England and Ireland, those of Napier and 
 Scott belong to the feudal history of their country. * The magnitude of these 
 examples outweighs the multitude opposed ; and the contemplation is consola- 
 tory and wholesome to the higher classes of society. 
 
 The instance of Napier is peculiarly striking. In his own country, where 
 he has no monument but his works, he as far excels all her philosophers 
 in a comparison of intellectual achievement, as in the curious and quaint anti- 
 quities of his race ; and of him it is that England’s greatest historian has re- 
 corded an estimate, true to this hour, that he was “ the person to whom the 
 
 * T have not instanced Sir Isaac Newton, because his mighty name belongs to the debateable 
 land in this question. According to his latest biography, neither England nor Scotland, the aris- 
 tocracy nor the people, can positively claim him. Sir David Brewster, after stating the pros and 
 cons on the subject, adds, “ all these circumstances prove that Sir Isaac Newton could not trace 
 his pedigree with any certainty beyond his grandfather ; and that there were two different tradi- 
 tions in his family,—one which referred his descent to John Newton of Westby, and the other toa 
 gentleman of East Lothian, who accompanied King James VI. to England. Ina letter addressed to 
 me by the learned George Chalmers, Esq. I find the following observations respecting the imme- 
 diate relations of Sir Isaac: ‘ The Newtons of Woolsthorpe,’ says he, ‘ who were merely yeomen 
 farmers, were not by any means opulent. The son of Sir Isaac’s father’s brother was a carpenter 
 called John,’ ” &c.—Brewster’s Life of Newton. 
 
A THE LIFE OF 
 
 title of a GREAT MAN is more justly due than to any other whom his country 
 ever produced.” * 
 
 To verify this eulogy—which, since the career of one whose glory is so 
 bright upon his recent grave might be thought no longer due—is the chief ob- 
 ject of the following Memorials. In the first place, however, we must indulge 
 in achapter or two of historical reminiscences of the descent of our great phi- 
 losopher, and the family connections in the midst of whom his own quiet pro- 
 gress to maturity and fame was completed. Nor is this to gratify a local 
 vanity, or the mere lovers of genealogy. Two of the brightest stars in the 
 galaxy of France have turned with disappointment from the difficulty of ob- 
 taining even the miserable records which this country affords of its greatest phi- 
 losopher. “ On connait peu de circonstances,” (says Delambre,+) “ de la vie de 
 Neper; il était Ecossais, baron de Merchiston.”—-And Montucla,? after re- 
 cording of his family and personal history the little he knew, which involved 
 two errors, adds, “ Je sais qu'il y a une vie de Néper publiée, il y a peu d’an- 
 nees a2 Edimbourg. Mais c’est en vain que j'ai tenté de me la procurer. I) 
 est bien plus difficile d’obtenir un livre de Londres que de Petersbourg, quoi- 
 que cette derniere ville soit six fois eloignée de nous.” 
 
 John Napier was not the man to have obviated by his own researches, this 
 dearth of information with regard to his domestic history, and we must do 
 for him what the great American did for himself. 
 
 ‘* Alexander Napare,” the first of Merchiston, acquired that estate before 
 the year 1438, from James I. of Scotland, § was provost of Edinburgh in 1437, 
 and otherwise distinguished in that reign. His eldest son, also Alexander, 
 became in his father’s lifetime comptroller to James II., and ran a splendid 
 state career under successive monarchs. 
 
 But whence these Napiers came, though obviously at this early period a 
 wealthy and distinguished family, has hitherto baffled genealogical inquiry. 
 Peerage writers, not easily discomfited, have without any authority, boldly 
 traced their descent from “ Johan le Naper del Counte de Dunbretan,” (one of 
 those who swore fealty to Edward I. in 1296, and defended the Castle of 
 
 * Hume’s History of England, vii. 44. 
 t Histoire de lAstronomie Moderne, par M. Delambre, &c. &c. &c. T. i. p, 491. 
 
 ¢ Histoire des Mathematiques, par J. F. Montucla, de l’Institut National de France, T. ii. p. 15. 
 § See Note (A.) 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 5 
 
 Stirling against that-monarch in 1304;) and thence through a variety of Wil- 
 liam and John de Napers of feudal celebrity. After a long and arduous search 
 through authentic records, I find there exists no authority for this genealogy. 
 
 Under these circumstances, we can do no less than attend to the Legend of 
 Merchiston, as illustrated by the truest of all records so far as it goes, the 
 heraldic language of ancient seals. 
 
 From time immemorial, that family cherished a tradition, that one of their 
 lineal male ancestors was a younger son of a Scottish Earl of the ancient race 
 of Levenax. In the imperfect shape in which the tradition has been transmit- 
 ted, it must rank with those fanciful legends which compose the pleasant apo- 
 crypha of profane history. “ The Hay of Longcarty, who bequeathed his 
 bloody yoke to his lineage,—the dark-gray man who first founded the House 
 of Douglas,” *—cause fastidious antiquaries to shake their heads, yet still keep 
 their own in the romance of Scottish history. The legend of Napier is of the 
 same description, but has been solemnly recorded in the Heralds’ books of 
 London, owing to circumstances which, as they are not generally known, I 
 shall narrate. 
 
 James VI., of facetious memory, had no objection to enrich his coffers by an 
 indiscriminate distribution of knighthoods and higher honours. “ Hold up thy 
 head man, thou hast less need to be ashamed than I, sure,” was an encourag- 
 ing exclamation of his to a shamed-faced country gentleman about to be 
 knighted. It was a prize to him to discover in one individual the rarely com- 
 bined qualities of wealth, good Scotch extraction, and a desire to pay for fur- 
 ther honours with Sterling coin. Such a rara avis occurred in the person of 
 a cadet of Merchiston in the year 1612. Robert Napier, a cousin-german of 
 the great John, had amassed riches abroad asa merchant. At the same time 
 the services of his fathers to the royal house, entitled him to look for honours 
 and preferment at home. Archibald, the philosopher’s eldest son afterwards 
 first Lord Napier, was at this time a gentleman of the bed-chamber to King 
 James, but in no condition to purchase aggrandizement, as notwithstanding 
 his father’s great estates in Scotland, the young laird had become involved in 
 debt from his long attendance on the avaricious monarch.t James himself 
 was well aware that the Napiers of Merchiston, independently of their pre- 
 tensions to a male descent from Lennox, represented through a female a branch 
 
 * Sir Walter Scott. 
 + Original letter of Archibald Naper to Sir Julius Cesar in 1613. 
 
6 THE LIFE OF 
 
 of that earldom collateral to his own descent through Darnly.* So he knew 
 his man, and rejoiced in the wealthy merchant, who claimed the honour of a 
 baronetcy and was ready to pay for it. Sneers and whispers, expressive of 
 an outraged aristocracy, went round the circle of his courtiers, who were par- 
 ticularly jealous when the sword of honour was about to descend upon the 
 shoulders of a Scotchman. But the king had less reason to be ashamed than 
 usual. He attested the birth and breeding of the candidate with an oath 
 which has become familiarly characteristic of his energetic mood. He declar- 
 ed “ by his saul,” that the family to which Robert Napier belonged had ranked 
 with the aristocracy for more than 300 years. William Lilly, “ the last of 
 the astrologers,” tells this anecdote in his gossipping and graphic manner. 
 ‘* A word or two of Dr Napper,” says he, “ who lived at great Lindford, in 
 Buckinghamshire, was parson, and had the advowson thereof. He descended 
 of worshipful parents, and this you must believe, for when Dr Napper’s brother, 
 Sir Robert Napper, a Turkey merchant, was to be made a baronet in King 
 James’ reign,} there was some dispute whether he could prove himself a gen- 
 tleman for three or more descents. ‘ By my saul,’ saith King James, ‘ I will 
 certify for Napper, that he is of three hundred years’ standing in his family ; 
 all of them, by my saul, gentlemen.’” { 
 
 * In “an Abstract of the Evidence adduced to prove that Sir William Stewart of Jedworth, 
 the paternal ancestor of the present Earl of Galloway, was the second son of Sir Alexander Stewart 
 of Darnly,” printed in London 1801, is the following observation: “ King James (VI.) was him- 
 self descended from the family of Lennox, and was well versed in its history; for he had during 
 his reign employed several persons to trace its genealogy. It was a subject with which he was 
 well acquainted, and which he took particular pleasure to contemplate.” 
 
 + In Sir William Dugdale’s Usage of Arms, printed at Oxford 1682, I find in his catalogue of 
 Baronets created by James VI. November 25, 1612: “Sir Robert Naper, alias Sandy, of Lewton- 
 How, Knight ;” and of those created by Charles II., under date March 4, 1660, “ John Napier, 
 alias Sandy, Esq. with remainder to Alexander Napier, &c. with remainder to the heirs-male of 
 Sir Robert Napier, Knight, grandfather to the said John; and with precedency before all baronets 
 made since the four-and-twentieth of September, anno 10, Regis Jac., at. which time the said Sir 
 Robert was created a baronet, which letters patent so granted to the said Sir Robert Napier were 
 surrendered by Sir Robert Napier, (father of the said John and Alexander,) lately deceased ; to 
 the intent that the said degree of baronet should be granted to himself, with remainder to the said 
 John and Alexander.” It appears from Dugdale that the Turkey merchant was a knight, and of 
 Lewton-How, before he was created a baronet in 1612. The alias of “ Sandy” was acquired from 
 the favourite name of Alexander in the Merchiston family. 
 
 { This did not escape Sir Walter Scott, who, while describing the old castle of Merchiston in 
 his Provincial Antiquities, thus comments upon the anecdote in reference to the leaning of the 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 7 
 
 The king’s asseveration seems to have silenced the courtiers for the time ; 
 but in the year 1625, immediately after the demise of that monarch, and 
 when Sir Archibald Napier was residing on his estate in Scotland, his cou- 
 sin Sir Robert deemed it prudent to put his genealogical pretensions formally 
 upon record in the Heralds’ books, beyond the reach of courtly cavil. He ac- 
 cordingly applied to Merchiston, as the head of his house, for an authentic 
 certificate of cadency; and the document with which Sir Archibald favoured 
 him under his own hand contains the only written statement of the legend al- 
 luded to that I can discover. It is to be regretted that King James answered 
 so readily and lustily for the Turkey merchant ; John Napier, the philosopher, 
 might otherwise have been applied to for this document, which would then 
 have entered the English records in the words of the inventor of Logarithms.{ 
 As it is, we have the tradition transmitted by him to his son, who first gave 
 it publicity under the circumstances narrated. 
 
 Sir William Segar was at the time principal king-at-arms for England. He 
 was the very preux chevalier of heraldry, and lived amid a halo of its most 
 brilliant recollections. In 1586, he had walked as portcullis pursuivant at the 
 
 inventor of Logarithms to the occult sciences. “ It is curious to observe, that amongst the pro- 
 fessors of astrology and other occult sciences who abounded in England in the beginning of the 
 sixteenth century, was a Dr Napper ; this person was probably of the stock of the Scottish Na- 
 piers,—it is possible, however, that the British Solomon tendered his evidence thus readily, be- 
 cause his palm itched for the baronet’s fees.” Our illustrious author was not aware of the near 
 relationship existing betwixt the great Napier and this celebrated astrological doctor, whose por- 
 trait is still preserved at Oxford, though with a sort of longing for the fact, he ventured a conjec- 
 ture that they belonged to the same stock. They were brothers’ sons, and I shall elsewhere have 
 a word or two of Lilly and Dr Richard Napier. 
 
 + The philosopher certainly knew the tradition, and seems to have laid some stress upon it. His 
 commentaries on the apocalypse were translated at Rochelle; and the edition 1602 has on the 
 title-page, “ Par Jean Napeir (c.a.d.) NompareiL, Sieur de Merchiston, reueue par lui meme.” 
 The commendatory verses attached to his works generally turn upon the words “ nulli par,” or 
 “impar.” The famous civilian Mranciscus Baldiunus wrote a Latin stanza upon Napier, the first 
 couplet of which embodies the allusion,— 
 
 Scotia te genuit phocis Parnassia fovit 
 
 Estque impar versum nomen (Apollo) tibi. 
 “In the year 1705, Sir Isaac Newton gave into the Heralds’ Office an elaborate pedigree, stating 
 upon oath that he had reason to believe that John Newton of Westby, in the county of Lincoln, 
 was his great-grandfather’s father,” &c. The pedigree was accompanied by a certificate from Sir 
 John Newton of Thorpe, Bart——Brewster’s Life of Newton, p. 347. 
 
8 THE LIFE OF 
 
 thrilling pageantry of the state funeral of Queen Mary. He became succes- 
 sively Somerset, Norroy, and garter herald; and in 1603, was honoured with 
 the commission to carry the garter to Christian IV. of Denmark. In 1612, 
 he invested the Prince of Orange with the same illustrious insignia, who pre- 
 sented him in return with his picture set in diamonds, and a chain of gold 
 weighing six pounds. James VI. conferred upon him the honour of knight- 
 hood.* Such was the worthy to whom, at the request of the Turkey mer- 
 chant, Sir Archibald Napier (by this time deputy-treasurer for Scotland, and 
 a privy-councillor,) transmitted a curious, though very imperfect, genealogical 
 history of the family, which Sir William recorded with the profound respect 
 and heraldic flourishes wherein his duty and his delight at once consisted. 
 
 Some account of the contents of this document. will be found in the genea- 
 logical note at the end of the volume.+ Here it is sufficient to extract the 
 words of Sir Archibald which refer to the Lennox origin of his house. 
 
 “One of the ancient Earls of Lennox in Scotland had issue three sons; the 
 eldest, that succeeded him to the Earldom of Lennox ; the second, whose name 
 was Donald; and the third, named Gilchrist. The then King of Scots having 
 wars, did convocate his lieges to battle, amongst whom that was commanded 
 was the Earl of Lennox, who, keeping his eldest son at home, sent his two 
 sons to serve for him with the forces that were under his command. This 
 battle went hard with the Scots; for the enemy pressing furiously upon them, 
 forced them to lose ground until it came to flat running away, which being 
 perceived by Donald, he pulled his father’s standard from the bearer thereof, 
 and valiantly encountering the foe, being well followed by the Earl of Lennox’s 
 men, he repulsed the enemy and changed the fortune of the day, whereby a 
 great victory was got. After the battle, as the manner is, every one drawing 
 and setting forth his own acts, the king said unto them, ye have all done va- 
 liantly, but there is one amongst you who hath Na-PEER; and calling Do- 
 nald into his presence, commanded him, in regard of his worthy service and in 
 augmentation of his honour, to change his name from Lennox to Napier, and 
 gave him the lands of Gosford and lands in Fife, and made him his own ser- 
 vant, which discourse is confirmed by evidences of mine wherein we are called 
 Lennox alias Napier.” 
 
 * He died in 1633, and left, as monuments of his science,—An Institute of Honour, Military 
 and Civil, in four books, 1602. Honores Anglicane, &c. 1602. Baronagium Genealogicum, or 
 the Pedigree of the English Peers, &e. 
 
 + Note (A.) 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 9 
 
 This story is told, I speak with deference, rather in the historical vein of 
 Sir Walter Scott than of Lord Hailes, and, perhaps, deserves to rank no higher 
 in authentic history than the legends of Douglas, or Dalyell, or Hay, or For- 
 bes.* But the Lennox descent may be true independently of the legend, 
 “ though” (says Sir Archibald) “ this is the origin of our name, as, by tradition 
 from father to son, we have generally, and without any doubt, received the 
 
 > 
 
 same ;” an assertion justified by a fact not adverted to in his own narrative, 
 
 that the charter-seals of his lineal paternal ancestors, since at least the year 
 1400, had all proclaimed that very descent throughout an age of heraldry, and 
 for more than two centuries before it was thus recorded in 1625. 
 
 To a charter of the first Alexander Napier of Merchiston, dated in 1453, 
 there is appended a seal bearing his name and arms in such preservation as 
 to be distinctly read. + The device upon the shield is, in heraldic language, 
 “a saltier engrailed, cantoned with four roses,’—a chaste and simple cogni- 
 zance, well known to armorists as that carried by the old Earls of Levenax ; 
 with this exception, however, (not attended to by our modern heralds and genea- 
 logists,) that those Earls bore the saltier plain, never engrailed. 
 
 * See Nisbet’s Heraldry for an account of these fanciful derivations and their legends. He has 
 not that of Napier; but I was led to trace the history of it so far as I could, in consequence of find- 
 ing that one of the most illustrious men of modern days, whose commentary on the Logarithms is 
 the best and most scientific that has appeared, M. Delambre, did not disdain to advert to the le- 
 gend in the midst of his profound speculations. 
 
 “ On a varié,” says he, “sur l’orthographe du nom de Néper, qu’on a écrit Napier, et Nepair ; 
 on croit ce dernier mot l’équivalent de peerless, sans pair, donné a l'un de ses ancétres; mais il 
 s’est_ appelé lui-méme Neperus dans son ouvrage. Nous avons suivi l’usage constant des écrivains 
 Francais qui écrivent Néper.”—Astronomie Moderne, p. 506, v. i. A multiplicity of original sig- 
 natures of the great Napier occur among the family papers. His marriage settlements in 1572 
 are signed Jhone Neper ; the same in many other deeds down to 1610. His contract with Logan 
 of Restalrig preserves in the signature the same orthography ; and so in a letter to his father 
 about the close of the 16th century. But one to his son in 1608 is signed “ Jhone Nepair.” All 
 the deeds after that date signed by him have the latter signature. His letter to James VI. prefix- 
 ed to his theological work is signed “ John Napeir.” 1st Edit. 1593.—“Neper” is the oldest mode, 
 His great-great-great-grandfather John, who married the heiress of Lennox, and who (mirabile 
 dictu) could write his name in the 15th century, so spelt it. His own children, who sign deeds 
 along with him, use every mode except Napier, which is comparatively modern. 
 
 + See Note (A.) 
 B 
 
10 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Other contemporary races of Napier, of whom the Dumbartonshire barons 
 already mentioned are the chief, carried coat armour totally different. These 
 were the Napiers of Kilmahew, whose estates lay in the Lennox country, and 
 who were vassals of that earldom. But they did not assume a single bearing 
 indicative even of the patronage of Lennox. Kilmahew is the most ancient 
 family of the name of Napier on record in Scotland; and their armorial bear- 
 ings were gules, on a bend azure, three crescents argent. * 
 
 The Napiers of Wrightshouses, (whose antique and beautiful castle, gor- 
 geous with heraldic carvings crowning its numerous doors and windows, was 
 removed in the present century to make way for an hospital,} and whose an- 
 cient line of territorial possessors has been severed from its parent stem, and 
 cast aside by modern genealogists,) were a race quite distinct from Merchis- 
 ton, and obviously an early branch of Kilmahew. Their armorial bearings 
 were, 07, on a bend azure, a crescent between two mollets or spur-rowels,—the 
 arms of Kilmahew with a slight difference. The families of Merchiston and 
 Wrightshouses became closely connected by marriage about the epoch of the 
 battle of Flodden Field, when Margaret, the daughter of Merchiston, married 
 the laird of the neighbouring castle. This appears from the records of the 
 city of Edinburgh, and the carving upon an armorial stone which once adorned 
 a door or window of Wrightshouses, commemorative of that alliance. The stone 
 is still preserved in an artificial ruin at Woodhouselee, and affords additional 
 
 * The only ancient seals of Kilmahew probably extant, (the old papers of that family being lost,) 
 I have lately discovered in the Merchiston charter-chest. 1. “ Duncan Naper de Kilmahew” is one 
 of the inquest in the retour of Elizabeth Menteith of Lennox and Rusky, spouse of John Napier of 
 Merchiston, dated 4th November 1473. Kilmahew’s seal is entire,—it carries a bend charged with 
 three crescents. 2.“ James Naper of Kilmahew” is one of the inquest in the retour of the brieve of 
 division of the Earldom of Lennox, as to Elizabeth Menteith’s share, dated in 1490. This seal has 
 the same bearings. 
 
 There are also among the Merchiston papers seals of the Lairds of Wrightshouses. 1. “ Alex- 
 ander Naper de Wrichtyshouse” is one of the inquest in the retour of Archibald Napier, as heir 
 _ to Elizabeth Menteith, dated 12th December 1488. His seal carries a bend charged with a cres- 
 cent betwixt two mollets or spur-rowels, and in the sinister chief point what appears to be the head 
 of aunicorn. 2. A deed of reversion, signed and sealed by “ Alexander Naper of Wrichtishouse,” to 
 Alexander Napier of Merchiston, and Annabella Campbell his spouse. This seal is the same as the 
 former, but without the unicorn’s head. There is no date to the deed, but this baron of Merchis- 
 ton was killed at Pinkie in 1547. ; 
 
 + Gillespie’s Hospital, in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh. See Note (A.) 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF reLAMATS 
 
ae 
 
 gor } 
 y 
 
 CU eS 
 oe ie Py ste 9) es 
 
 OLiccten «nele ammacing thatthe ald Bavle af Lovenay dia motoarry the eross endrailed.. See explanaiignh aera mMenOnmiraiitemts. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 11 
 
 proof of the distinction betwixt the two families ; the arms of the husband, a 
 crescent on a bend between two spur-rowels, being impaled with those of his 
 wife, a saltier engrailed, cantoned with four roses. The date on the stone is 
 1513. 
 
 While it is impossible, therefore, to follow the peerage-writers who deduce 
 Merchiston from the progenitors of Kilmahew, the armorial bearings of the 
 former, afford at the same time an interesting and remarkable confirmation of 
 so much of the family legend, and prove the antiquity, if not the truth of that 
 pretension. 
 
 This proof has hitherto been lost in the inaccurate theory and false as- 
 sumptions of our great oracles of heraldry, Sir George M‘Kenzie and Mr 
 Nisbet, from whom it must be redeemed in order to establish its value. 
 
 A transcript of a very ancient charter without a date, describes the Lennox 
 shield as bearing a lion passant.* Such probably was the ensign of those 
 earls until altered in some crusade, of which the cross is an obvious token. 
 M‘Farlane of M‘Farlane, a most accurate and well-known antiquary of the 
 last century who claimed a lineal male descent from the Earls of Levenax, 
 gives the following traditionary account of their banner :—“ Alan M‘Arkill, 
 second Earl of Levenax, having accompanied David Earl of Huntingdon, 
 King William the Lion’s brother, to the Holy Land, assumed upon his under- 
 taking that expedition, as a badge, a red St Andrew’s cross in a white field, 
 which, with the addition of four red roses, became the armorial bearings of 
 his successors.” + 
 
 Modern writers, almost invariably state these bearings inaccurately. “ Sir 
 James Balfour” (says Nisbet) “ in his manuscript of the nobility of Scotland, 
 tells us, that Malcolm de Lennox went to the Holy Land, and was crossed, for 
 which he and his posterity carried for arms, argent, a saltier engrailed gules, 
 cantoned with four roses of the last.” { 
 
 Sir David Lindesay, however, gives the cognizance of “ the Erles of La- 
 nox of auld” in its pristine purity, argent, a saltier cantoned with four roses 
 gules ; while for the arms of Merchiston he gives the same, with the ca- 
 
 * Register House. 
 + MSS. Advocates’ Library. 
 { Nisbet’s Heraldry, v. 1. p. 182. 
 
12 THE LIFE OF 
 
 dent difference of the cross engrailed.* And who knew better than old Sir 
 David ? + | 
 Still is thy name in high account, 
 And still thy verse hath charms ; 
 Sir David Lindesay of the Mount, 
 Lord Lion king-at-arms. 
 
 The most ancient example probably extant of the Lennox saltier engraied 
 is the seal of Alexander Napier attached to the deed of 1453. This date was 
 about the close of the granter’s life; and as his son and heir appears to have 
 attained the years of puberty before 1432, we may hold this example of the 
 Lennox bearings, with a mark of difference, to be traced as far back in the fa- 
 mily of Merchiston as the end of the fourteenth century. 
 
 Assuming a cadency from the earldom, this seal would be scientifically 
 legible. “ In carrying arms,” says Nisbet, “it has always been punctually 
 observed by all nations, that none shall presume to take to himself the armo- 
 rial ensign of another, and so intrude into their family and name; for arms 
 are silent names, distinguishing families ; and even those of the same blood 
 and parentage could not bear the coat armour of the principal family, without 
 some variety and alteration by which they were distinguished from the stem, 
 and from one another.” + 
 
 To engrail the cross, though not a definite expression of the particular de- 
 gree of cadency, as the minute differences of the crescent, the mollet, or the 
 martlet, was yet sufficient to satisfy the code of arms, and such as might be 
 adopted by a cadet, more attentive perhaps to found a new family, than to 
 denote his precise position upon the ancient stem. | 
 
 * Of this term, G'uillim, in his Display of Heraldry, gives the following quaint explanation :— 
 « Engrailed isa term derived from the French, graisle or gresle, which signifies any thing struck 
 with hail, which the edges of this band seem to resemble, like the edges of the tender leaf, which 
 is often a sufferer thereby.” 
 
 « Engrailed is said of crooked lines which have their points outward, as those which form the 
 saltier engrailed in the arms of Lennox.” Nisbet's Essay on the Ancient and Modern use of 
 Armories.—Yet in the same work he expressly states, that engrailing was a mode of differencing 
 for cadets. ‘ When lines of partition are carried right by principal families, their cadets make 
 them crooked by putting them under accidental forms, such as engrailed, waved, &c. for a dis- 
 tinction.” —P. 115. 
 
 + An Essay on Additional Figures and Marks of Cadency, &c. By Alexander Nisbet, gent. 
 
 Edin. 1702, p. 18. 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 13 
 
 In like manner, “ the M‘Farlane,” who claimed to represent Gilchrist, a 
 younger son of Alwyne second Earl of Levenax, carried argent a saltier 
 waved and cantoned with four roses gules ; and it is worthy of remark, that 
 Gilchrist was the name of a brother of him from whom, according to the fa- 
 mily legend, the Napiers of Merchiston sprung. If these were brothers, by 
 this variety of differencing their descendants might express their respective 
 cadencies. Nisbet, in his Essay quoted above, has taken these very cadets as 
 examples in support of his proposition, that, “ as arms were long in use before 
 surnames, and instead of them served to distinguish descendants, and to show 
 from whom they had their original, so at this day they afford us great advan- 
 tage, by letting us know from what ancient families a great many of the pre- 
 sent families in Europe are descended.”-—“ The Napiers and M‘Farlanes,” 
 says he, “ cadets of the old family of Lennox; for they both carry a saltier 
 cantoned with roses, but of different tinctures, to distinguish them from one 
 another.” 
 
 In one respect, however, Nisbet was mistaken in this reference, as he after- 
 wards discovered, for the same mistake does not occur in his large work. 
 Napier and M‘Farlane have always been understood to carry argent and gules, 
 the tinctures of Lennox; but for difference, the one engrailed the cross, and 
 
 the other waved it. * 
 
 Thus it appears that the Napiers of Merchiston, for the very long period 
 during which the proofs are extant, have uniformly carried the Lennox coat, 
 with the cross engrailed for a difference, while no other family of Napier upon 
 record approximate to those bearings. It is impossible to conjecture how this 
 could be, if Merchiston were descended either from Kilmahew or Wrights- 
 houses; or had acquired their pretensions to the Lennox coat through the 
 first-mentioned ancient barons of the Lennox country, who were vassals of 
 ‘that earldom, and yet bore coat armour totally different. It sometimes hap- 
 pened, no doubt, that families, whose ancestors had been feudally dependant 
 upon some great fief, carried on their own shield the armorial bearings of the 
 over-lord, more or less differenced, according to the caprice of those who 
 
 * « The M‘Farlanes carry the arms of Lennox with this difference, the saltier waved instead of 
 engrailed,—(ought to be, instead of plain.)—A System of Heraldry, speculative and practical, 
 with the true art of Blazon. By Alexander Nisbet, gent. First Part. 1722. Edin. 
 
14 THE LIFE OF 
 
 adépted them. “ Arms of patronage,” says Nisbet in his essay on the use of 
 Armories, “ are those of patrons and superiors, carried in part or in whole by 
 their clients and vassals to show their dependance.” But when Alexander 
 Napier sealed with those arms early in the fifteenth century, he had no pro- 
 perty in the Lennox. His wealth was mercantile, and his property burgage, 
 or at least in the vicinity of Edinburgh ; and clearly his family had no terri- 
 torial dependance on the Lennox whatever. The anomaly, therefore, would 
 be most remarkable, were we to suppose that Merchiston, an alleged branch 
 of Kilmahew, pertinaciously adhered for centuries to the coat of Lennox slightly 
 differenced, as arms of patronage and dependance, after having shaken off all 
 ties to the earldom ; while the Napiers of Kilmahew, who remained for so many 
 generations vassals of the Lennox, and always resided on their possessions in 
 that country, never carried a vestige of those arms; an anomaly which would 
 be very much increased by the consideration, that, when Napier of Merchiston 
 married the heiress of the Lennox, he still retained the identical bearings which 
 appear upon the seals of his grandfather and his father :—that is to say, ea hy- 
 pothese, he preferred the arms of patronage of Lennox, though his family had 
 no dependance upon the earldom or possessions in the district, to the pro- 
 per arms of Lennox, which he might have adopted from his lady, who brought 
 him in right of her own representation, the imposing dowry of one-fourth of 
 those noble domains. 
 
 That he had done so is the theory of M‘Kenzie and Nisbet. Sir George as- 
 sumes that this John Napier, rejecting his own whatever they might have 
 been, took the Lennox bearings from his lady, and transmitted the same to his 
 descendants. “ Sometimes,” says that accomplished lawyer with the utmost 
 gravity, “ the husband did of old assume on(y the wife’s arms, who was an 
 heretrix; as Scott of Buccleugh the arms of Murdiston, and Napier the arms 
 of Lennox, and did not bear their own native arms.”* It happens that both 
 examples fail. “ The bold Buccleugh” did not assume “ only his wife’s arms.” 
 The stars and crescent were his own, which originally were carried by Buc- 
 cleugh without a bend; but with these he afterwards charged the bend of 
 Murdiston as arms of alliance, indicating the marriage with the heiress of 
 that house. Thus Scotland’s poet and historian, (a scion who illustrates be- 
 
 * Sir G. M‘Kenzie’s Heraldry, p. 72 and 82. 
 
ie aa 
 
 a tae 
 Ow hee 
 
 Ue | yy er 
 
 (aire 
 
 . a 
 } en : 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 15 
 
 yond nobility the race of Harden and Buccleugh, as Scotland’s philosopher 
 and theologian does the race of Lennox and Merchiston,) tells us :— 
 
 “ An aged knight, to danger steel’d, 
 With many a moss-trooper, came on ; 
 And azure in a golden field, 
 The stars and crescent graced his shield 
 Without the bend of Murdieston.” * 
 
 But Sir George has erred even more egregiously in his second example. 
 Napier, so far from assuming his wife’s armorial bearings to the exclusion 
 of his own, did exactly the reverse. He retained unaltered the shield of 
 his fathers, without allowing his lady to share it by any mode of armorial 
 matrimony ; and it was so retained in its pristine purity for generations there- 
 after, until it came to be quartered with the royal augmentation of Scot of 
 Thirlstane. 
 
 Nisbet has allowed himself to be misled by M‘Kenzie. In his essay on the 
 ancient and modern use of armories, he founds a statement upon the faulty 
 passage ; and this accounts for the following extraordinary mistake in his 
 great work, the really valuable and delightful institute of Scottish heraldry. 
 “ What Napier of Merchiston, the most eminent family of the name, carried 
 of old I know not; but s¢nce John Napier of Merchiston married Margaret 
 [Elizabeth] Monteith, daughter and co-heir of Murdoch Monteith of Ruskie, 
 and one of the heirs of line to Duncan Earl of Lennox, in the reign of James 
 the Second, they have been in use to carry only the arms of Lennoz, viz. 
 argent, a saltier engrailed, cantoned with four roses gules.” + 
 
 It is difficult to understand how Nisbet, an able and enthusiastic herald, 
 came to adopt a theory of arms so unscientific. The proposition is startling, 
 that the eldest son of that Sir Alexander Napier, whose career, we shall find, 
 was most distinguished, had so utterly discarded the shield of a dignified pa- 
 rentage, as to leave no trace of what Napier of Merchiston carried of old. To 
 
 * « The family of Harden are descended from a younger son of the laird of Buccleugh, who 
 flourished before the estate of Murdieston was acquired by the marriage of one of those chieftains 
 with the heiress in 1296. Hence the cognizance of the Scotts upon the field ; whereas those of 
 the Buccleugh are disposed upon a bend dexter, assumed in consequence of that marriage.—See 
 Gladstaine of Whitelawe’s MSS. and Scott of Stokoe’s pedigree. Newcastle, 1782.”—Scott’s Lay 
 of the Last Minstrel, c. 4th, and notes. 
 
 + Vol. i. p. 137. 
 
16 THE LIFE OF 
 
 have done so in those high and palmy days of the Lyon of Scotland, in order 
 to assume only the armorial bearings of his wife, would, however lofty the 
 lady, have been “ parma non bene relicta.” It is also singular that Nisbet 
 should not have at once perceived, that, had her husband indulged in such 
 caprice, the armorial bearings of Elizabeth Menteith would not by any means . 
 have given him the Lennox cognizance alone. This lady was eldest co- 
 heiress of the Lennox through Margaret, her paternal grandmother, daughter 
 of the last Earl Duncan. But Elizabeth’s own father, of whom she was also 
 eldest co-heiress, was Sir Murdoch Menteith of Rusky, a wealthy and proud 
 baron; being heir-male of Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith, third son of 
 Walter, high steward of Scotland in the reign of Alexander II., and inherit- 
 ing a considerable portion of the domains of those earls. Now the house of 
 Rusky, of which Elizabeth is frequently styled domina in the family charters, 
 was, as Nisbet himself informs us, “in use to carry quarterly first and fourth, 
 or a bend cheque, sable and argent for Monteith, second and third, azure three 
 buckles or ;” bearings of which there is not a vestige in those Lennox arms, 
 said to have been adopted from that marriage. 
 
 But further, had Napier really assumed those arms, the cross or saltier would 
 not have been engrailed ; for undoubtedly the co-heiresses of the earldom would 
 carry the shield of the comitatus undifferenced, though combined with their 
 paternal coat.* 
 
 It is of some importance in the history of our philosopher’s family, that 
 this heraldic evidence should be correctly recorded, the more particularly, 
 as it has been thrown into confusion by such high authorities. Those con- 
 versant with the science will know that, in a genealogical point of view, a coat 
 of arms so unequivocally proved as that of Merchiston, by the original charter 
 
 * This may be seen in the arms of Haldane of Gleneagles, who married Agnes Menteith, the 
 younger sister of John Napier’s lady, and co-heiress with her of Lennox and Rusky. Co-heiresses 
 do not difference their arms, but carry the coat of the house they represent equally. Sir David 
 Lindesay gives both the coat of Haldane of Gleneagles after that marriage, and of Napier of 
 Merchiston. The latter, as already noted, he blazons without any quarterings, being the Len- 
 nox shield, with the difference of engrailing. But Gleneagles, according to Sir David, quar- 
 tered his wife's arms with his own, and there the Lennox cross is, as it ought to be, plain. Iam 
 aware that, in the official register of arms in the Register-House, the cross in the Gleneagles’ coat 
 is engrailed ; but this is a modern error.—See Sir David Lindesay’s original MS. book of He- 
 raldry in the Advocates’ Library. 1542. ; 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. iif 
 
 seal of an ancestor born before the year 1400, is not to be disregarded. The 
 language of heraldry, though limited, is distinct ; and about the period refer- 
 red to was cultivated as a science in Scotland, and its rules strictly observed. 
 
 But, learned reader, if, like Louis XI., thou shouldst be, “ in special a pro- 
 fessed contemner of heralds and heraldry,—red, blue, and green, with all their 
 trumpery,—I would pray of you to describe what coat you will, after the ce- 
 lestial fashion, that is, by the planets,” * while I proceed to record the worthies 
 who form the paternal chain betwixt this scion of the Levenax, and the great 
 John Napier. 
 
 Sir Alexander Napier, eldest son of Alexander the first Napier of Merchis- 
 ton, succeeded his father in the year 1454. For several years before that 
 event he had become highly distinguished, was about court when a very 
 young man, and probably belonged to the household of the first James, at 
 the time of the murder of that monarch. Undoubtedly he held some post in 
 the royal house not long afterwards, and thus found an opportunity of dis- 
 playing his loyalty and courage in defence of the persecuted queen dowager. 
 
 Urged probably by the forlorn and harassed state of her widowhood, and 
 anxious to obtain a natural protector for the young king, Queen Joanna mar- 
 ried the black knight of Lorn, an ally of the house of Douglas. As this 
 marriage indicated a revival of that powerful interest in her favour, a faction 
 of the Livingstons, by which Scotland was then distracted, became bent upon 
 the complete subjection of the royal party. Sir Alexander Livingston was at 
 the time governor of Stirling Castle, in which the queen had fixed her residence 
 with her consort and her son. Upon the second day of August 1439, this fac- 
 tion, with inconceivable audacity, seized the queen’s husband and his brother 
 William Stewart, and, without a shadow of accusation, cast them into the dun- 
 geons of the castle. According to the mysterious phrase of a contemporary 
 chronicle, they “ put tham in pittis and bollit thaim.”{ Nor did they rest 
 satisfied with this outrage. Admirably fitted for a species of barbarous ex- 
 ercise, which has been termed “ riding rough-shod through a palace,” Sir Alex- 
 ander Livingston and his sons, with other accomplices, determined to place 
 the queen herself under restraint; and upon the 3d August 1439 effected 
 their purpose, with an extremity of violence that drew the blood of at least 
 
 * Sir Walter Scott. 
 + MS. Chronicle of the reign of James I. in the family of Boswell of Auchinleck. It is scanty, 
 but valuable, being the sole contemporary record of the reign of James I. and II. 
 
 Cc 
 
18 THE LIFE OF 
 
 one brave and loyal subject in her defence. This unmanly attack upon the 
 queen has been doubtingly recorded by several historians ; but the fact is placed 
 beyond dispute by one of the proudest archives of the family of Merchiston. 
 
 Young Napier possessed the gallant spirit and devoted loyalty which has 
 distinguished many of his descendants. He did his best to rescue his royal 
 mistress, and was severely wounded in the attempt. This must have been 
 a daring act, and rare instance of fidelity. Not only was the power of the 
 Livingston faction then irresistible, but true chivalry seemed banished from 
 the land. To borrow the graphic expressions of Pitscottie, these were times 
 “‘ when the whole youth of Scotland began to rage in mischief and lust, for 
 slaughter, theft and murder were then patent; and so continually day by 
 day, that he was esteemed the greatest man of renown and fame, that was the 
 greatest brigand, thief and murderer.” 
 
 This ill-fated princess whom Alexander Napier in vain endeavoured to rescue, 
 was the Lady Jane Beaufort, a daughter of the Earl of Somerset, of royal de- 
 scent, and moreover the heroine of “ the king’s quair,” a poem that redeems 
 an age of darkness. She had captivated, by a gentler bondage, its accom- 
 plished author, the young King of Scots, when he was pining as a state prisoner 
 in Windsor Tower, and cherishing the most melancholy mood of an ardent 
 and romantic mind. Then it was that, from the lattice of his prison, overlook- 
 ing a beautiful garden and terrace, “ on a fresh Maye’s morrow,” as the royal 
 poet himself expresses it, “ foretired of my thought and woe begone,” he saw 
 the Lady Jane, 
 
 “‘ Walking under the tower, 
 The fairest and the freshest young flower 
 That ever I saw methought before that hour.” 
 
 Well might the voice of that “ tassel-gentle” James I. of Scotland have per- 
 suaded a heart more obdurate than the Lady Jane’s, that the land of the cap- 
 tive prince was a fairy realm of song and chivalry, where never cruelty could hap- 
 pen towoman. Yet this was the queen, whose most secluded apartments were 
 not secure from the midnight assassin, or from the attack of ruthless traitors ! 
 
 It is remarkable that Napier, having failed in the rescue, should have es- 
 caped the utmost vengeance of the Livingstons. That he did escape with 
 life, though not without grievous injury, and lived to see the day of retri- 
 bution arrive long after the unhappy daughter of Somerset had found repose 
 in the grave,—is proudly recorded in a royal charter honourable alike to the 
 sovereign and the subject. In the year 1449 when James II. attained ma- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 19 
 
 jority, and four years after the death of his mother, the young monarch 
 reared a hecatomb to her memory. The blow which then fell upon the 
 Livingstons is depicted in the Auchinleck manuscript with so quaint an air 
 of authenticity, that we may again quote the words of this unpublished 
 record. “ Monunday, the 23d day of September, James of Levingstoun was 
 arrestit be the king, and Robyn Kalendar, capitane of Dunbertane, and Johne 
 of Levingstoun, capitane of the castell of Doune, and David Levingstoun of 
 the Greneyardis, with syndry uthiris. And sone efter this, Schir Alexander 
 Levingstoun was arrestit, and Robyn of Levingstoun of Lithqw, that tyme 
 comptrollar ; and James and his brother Alexander, and Robyn of Lithqw 
 war put in the Blacknes, and thair gudis tane within forty days in all places. 
 and put under arrest, and all thair gudis that pertenet to that party. And all 
 officeris that war put in be thaim war clerlie put out of all officis, and all put 
 doun that thai put up. And this was a gret ferlie.” 
 
 The king, now about to complete his nineteenth year, had been married a few 
 months before the meeting of this Parliament * to Mary of Gueldres. It is 
 more than probable that his young consort had heard from James the event- 
 ful history of his boyhood, and that the expressions of her foreboding sym- 
 pathy powerfully accelerated the fall of those who had persecuted the late 
 queen. Certain it is, that hardly were the tournaments concluded with 
 which James II. honoured his bride, than the scaffold streamed with blood, 
 from which she might gather a better promise of future security, than from 
 the stalwart blows interchanged at their nuptials, between the knights of Scot- 
 land and Burgundy. Robert Livingston, comptroller of the royal household, 
 and Alexander Livingston, sons of Sir Alexander, the ringleaders in the at- 
 tack upon Queen Joanna, were hanged on the Castlehill of Edinburgh in Ja- 
 nuary 1449; while others, more or less guilty, were at the same time cast into 
 prison, or compelled to betake themselves to their baronial strongholds. 
 
 But the justice of the young king did not stop here. Immediately after 
 the execution of the two leading traitors, he bestowed the high office of the 
 one, and the possessions of the other, upon Alexander Napier.t Ten years 
 
 * It met in September 1449, and commenced with enactments ominous of the approaching 
 fate of the Livingstons and their accomplices. “ Gif it happynes ony man till assist in rede, con- 
 sort, or consal, or mayntenance to thaim that ar justifeit be the king in the present Parliament, 
 or sall happin to be justifeit in tyme cummyn for crimes commitit agaynes the king or agaynes 
 his derrest modir of gud mynde sall be punyst in sik lik maner as the principall trispassours.”— 
 Acts of Parl. of Scotland. 
 
 + « Et per solucionem factum Roberto de Livingstone Compotorum Rotulatori, ac usus et ex- 
 
20 THE LIFE OF 
 
 had elapsed since the perpetration of the crime ; and it is less remarkable that 
 the vengeance of a son slumbered no longer, than that the gratitude even of a 
 youthful king should survive so long. The fact affords an interesting illustra- 
 tion of the disposition of the monarch, no less than of the merit of the deed re- 
 warded. The lands of Philde, part of the lordship of Methven in Perthshire, had 
 belonged to Alexander Livingston; but his forfeiture placed them in the hands 
 of the king. Having already bestowed upon Napier the comptrollership, va- 
 cant by the execution of Robert Livingston, James granted him a charter 
 of those lands under his great seal and sign manual. This interesting charter 
 at once records the extreme violence done to the queen-mother, and the noble 
 defeuce attempted by her faithful domestic ; the filial indignation that pursued 
 the traitors, and the kingly munificence that rewarded loyalty. After the 
 lapse of nearly four hundred years it still remains among the archives of his 
 race, from whom the lands of Philde have long since passed away. The great 
 seal of Scotland, attached to the deed, is nearly entire ; and the king’s auto- 
 graph yet distinct as on the day it was traced. * 
 
 The daring temperament evinced by this act of his youth, seems never to 
 have betrayed Alexander Napier into dangerous paths of ambition ; and there 
 is ample evidence that his career, so auspiciously commenced, was ever after- 
 wards distinguished by uncommon talents, prudence and integrity. He had 
 witnessed the fate, and risen upon the ruin of the turbulent Livingstons. 
 Twenty years afterwards he beheld, under a new minority, the similar treason 
 and fate of the house of Boyd. Yet he found himself in possession of the favour 
 and affection of the third sovereign he had obeyed, and still enjoying the re- 
 spect and confidence of a country vexed and degraded by its brawling barons. 
 In 1451, before the death of his father, he was one of the ambassadors upon 
 whom devolved the difficult and important task of establishing an amicable 
 
 pensas domicilii Regis.”—G'reat Chamberlain Rolls, ad an. 1448. In the same Roll :—* Scac- 
 carium serenissimi principis,” &c. “ David Murray de Tullibardine, Alexander Ramsay de Dal- 
 wolsy, militibus, Alewandro Naper, Compotorum Rotulatori,” &c. Napier is also designed our 
 comptroller in the Philde charter, dated 7th March 1449. It is obvious, therefore, that he was 
 rewarded with the office of the one traitor, and the lands of the other. 
 
 * This was “ James with the fiery face.” The Philde charter, one of historical value in a 
 reign whose records haye been almost entirely lost, will be found in the Appendix, (No. I.) 
 with a fac-simile of the young king’s signature before his hand was stained with the blood of Earl 
 Douglas. Another at a maturer period will be found in the note to page 25. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 21 
 
 relation with England. The internal dissensions of the neighbouring king- 
 doms recommended a peaceful policy betwixt them ; but it is well known, that 
 the stormy ascendancy of the house of York, and the ungovernable blood of 
 Douglas, rendered that mission one of extreme delicacy and doubtful result. 
 The negotiations however terminated favourably ; and a truce was concluded 
 for three years.* A few years afterwards, and subsequent to his father’s 
 death, we find him occupying the civic chair of his native city ; an honour 
 for many years bestowed upon successive representatives of his family. This 
 office he seems to have held as frequently as his numerous state employments 
 permitted him to exercise its functions. There is evidence still extant of his 
 having been provost of Edinburgh in the years 1455, 1457, and 1469. 
 Wherever the best interests of his country were to be protected his name 
 will be found. It had been discovered that merchants speculated upon the 
 bullion, which, as the coin exceeded the statutory value, they were tempted to 
 export. A statesman, and probably a merchant, Napier seems to have avoided 
 the vices of both. In 1457, he is one of those “ ordaynet and chosen for visit- 
 ing the moneyes.” For many years afterwards this important subject occu- 
 pied the deliberations of Parliament, and his services are frequently in requi- 
 sition. By a commission under the privy seal, preserved among the family 
 papers, and dated at Edinburgh the 24th February 1464, “ Sir Alexander 
 Napar of Merchamston,” and others, are appointed searchers of the port and 
 haven of Leith, in order to prevent the exportation of gold and silver ; and in 
 1473, his name again occurs as a parliamentary commissioner for “ searching 
 
 of the money.” 
 
 The unfortunate death of James II. did not retard the successful career of 
 Sir Alexander Napier. At the commencement of the new minority, the attend- 
 ant circumstances of which were almost a repetition of those in the previ- 
 ous reign, he again held the office of comptroller of the royal household. + If 
 
 * The indenture is dated 14th August 1451, and signed, T. Episcopus Candide Case; An- 
 dreas Abbas de Melros ; Andreas Dominus de Gray ; Johannes de Methven, Doctor Decretorum ; 
 Alexander Home Miles; Alexander Naper Armiger. All these individuals set out, in the Sep- 
 tember following, on a pilgrimage to Canterbury, as appears from a safe-conduct granted to them 
 for that purpose by the English government.—Federa. 
 
 + This appears from a discharge among the Merchiston papers, under the privy-seal of James 
 III., bearing, that the king had received “a dilecto milite nostro Alexandro Napare de Mercham- 
 
22 THE LIFE OF 
 
 his talents were not ill appreciated, neither were they spared. His king and 
 country could scarcely have extracted more good service from the intelligence 
 and activity of a single subject. Hurried repeatedly and alternately from the 
 royal household to the civic chair,—from judicial functions to legislative deli- 
 berations,—from domestic finance to foreign diplomacy,—his whole life seems 
 to have been a constant round of dignities, embracing occupations of the most 
 opposite and arduous nature. With the Abbot of Melrose and others, he ob- 
 tained letters of safe-conduct again to pass into England in 1459, as one of 
 the Scottish commissioners appointed to treat in that year. In 1461 he was 
 in still higher consideration. He had obtained the then illustrious honour of 
 knighthood, was appointed vice-admiral of Scotland, and with these accumu- 
 lated dignities, proceeded as one of the ambassadors to England. * 
 
 At this critical period, the rose of Lancaster had been torn and trampled 
 on the bloody field of Towton ; and old Holyrood, the sanctuary of royalty in 
 distress, afforded an asylum to the exiled Henry, and his spirited consort 
 Margaret of Anjou. The queen-mother of Scotland bestowed upon them all 
 that the strength of her councils, and the weakness of her kingdom could 
 afford. But the expatriated monarch did more than rely upon Scottish gene- 
 rosity. To aid him in regaining his crown, he tendered to Scotland the 
 castles of the frontier, he promised an English dukedom to the powerful Earl 
 of Angus; and upon the city of Edinburgh he bestowed the prospect at least 
 of very valuable commercial privileges. Amid this lavish policy or gratitude, 
 the family of Merchiston was not overlooked. Henry bestowed a pension of 
 
 stoune nostrorum compotorum rotulatore bonum fidele et finale compotum,” &c. dated at Stirling, 
 7th July 1461, “ et regni nostri primo.” 
 
 wc 
 
 It is interesting to observe the young king’s signature to this deed, of which the above is a fac- 
 simile. He was anointed and crowned at Kelso on the 24th of August 1460, when a number of 
 knights were made, and probably among the rest Sir Alexander Napier. James was just eight 
 years, two months, and twenty-three days old at his coronation. His signature at a maturer age 
 will be found in the Appendix. 
 
 * Foedera, Tome xi. 476. He is designed “ Sir Alexander Napare of Merchainstoun, Vice- 
 admiral of Scotland.” The chief admiral we) Alexander Duke of Albany, the king’s brother. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 23 
 
 fifty merks Sterling annually upon John Napier, the son and heir of the vice- 
 admiral of Scotland, who at this time was on his embassy to England.* 
 
 Sir Alexander was also in England in 1464, as appears from his letters of 
 safe-conduct dated 6th November of that year; and an important embassy, 
 which occurred in the year 1468, again called into requisition his well-tried 
 sagacity.{ Christiern, king of Denmark and Norway, at that time feudal 
 superior of the islands of Orkney and Shetland, had been highly offended at 
 the imprisonment of his friend and favourite Tulloch bishop of Orkney, 
 by the Earl of Orkney. He accordingly sent letters, of no very amicable as- 
 pect, to James III., complaining of the indignity. Repeated remonstrances 
 were at length accompanied with an argument more formidable to Scotland 
 than a declaration of war. Denmark demanded the arrears of the Hebudian 
 annual, due to the crown of Norway from those islands ; and Scotland found 
 the claim not easy to evade either in law or honour. The menace was met, 
 however, by a courtship of Denmark’s daughter on behalf of the young king 
 of Scots ; and the latter, instead of paying tribute, eventually received the va- 
 luable cession of the islands themselves, in satisfaction of the arrears of the 
 princess’s dower. 
 
 Lord Napier, in his genealogical account of the family, states that, “in a 
 manuscript book of heraldry, formerly belonging to that great antiquary the 
 laird of M‘Farlane, and now in the library of Andrew Plumber of Sunderland- 
 Hall, Sir Alexander Napier is said to have been sent with Andrew Stewart, 
 the lord-chancellor, to negociate the marriage betwixt King James III. and 
 the king of Denmark’s daughter.” Though I have not discovered any official 
 record of this fact, it can hardly be doubted. Napier, during a period of 
 twenty years, was continually employed in the most difficult and important 
 missions of his day ; and the circumstances of the Danish alliance were such 
 as scarcely to dispense with his experience in foreign negociation. Besides, 
 his eldest son was by this time married to a grand-niece and co-heiress of 
 
 * See Appendix, (No. II.) 
 
 + Betwixt the years 1464 and 1468, Sir Alexander’s services were bestowed at home. In 
 1467 he is one of the commissioners for a tax raised upon the barons, &c. “ Item, anent ye 
 taxt of the barouns, it is ordanit yat yar be ane inquisitioun taken be ye personnes efter folowand 
 and depute yarto and nemmyt in ilk schir, and to retour again ye avale of ilk mannis rent, and 
 efter ye cummyn of ye retouris, that’ye abbot of Halirudhous, Sir Alexander Napar, and Thomas 
 Oliphant sall modyfie and set ye said taxt evinly apoun all ye persounis yat ar ordanit to contribut 
 yarto.”—“ Item, it is ordanit yat ye abbot of Halirudhous be resavoir of ye taxt of the clergy, 
 Sir Alexander Napar of ye barons, and Thomas Oliphant of ye baronis.’—Parl. Record. 
 
24 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Isabella Duchess of Albany and Countess of Lennox, the grandmother of the 
 chancellor. James Stewart, that son of the Duke of Albany who alone escap- 
 ed by flight from the scaffold where the Duke and his other sons perished, 
 left no legitimate offspring ; but the powerful talents of Andrew Stewart, his 
 natural son, raised the latter to that elevation which, under the title of Lord 
 Avandale or Evandale, he so long held in the kingdom. No one had more 
 opportunies of knowing, or could better appreciate the talents of Napier, than 
 the chancellor; and that he was accompanied in this negotiation by his near 
 connection, a man who for so many years had divided his energies betwixt 
 foreign policy and domestic finance, may be assumed upon the authority quot- 
 ed.* “ The negotiations” (says Mr Tytler, in his History of Scotland now 
 in progress of publication) “ upon this occasion appear to have been conduct- 
 ed with singular prudence and discretion ;” and he adds this lively sketch of 
 the happy result :—“‘ Having brought these matters to a conclusion, in a man- 
 ner honourable to themselves, and highly beneficial to the country, the Scot- 
 tish ambassadors, bearing with them their youthful bride—a princess of great 
 beauty and accomplishments—and attended by a brilliant train of Danish 
 nobles, set sail for Scotland, and landed at Leith in the month of July, amidst 
 the rejoicings of an immense assembly of her future subjects. She was now 
 in her sixteenth year ; and the youthful monarch, who had not yet complet- 
 ed his eighteenth, received her with that gallantry and ardour which was 
 incident to his age. Soon after her arrival, the marriage ceremony was com- 
 pleted, with much pomp and solemnity, in the Abbey Church of Holyrood ; 
 and was succeeded by a variety and splendour in the pageants and entertain- 
 ments, and a perseverance in the feasting and revelry, which were long after- 
 wards remembered with applause.” + 
 
 Sir Alexander Napier must have been very wealthy. I have not been able 
 to trace the history of the lands of Philde, or to ascertain their extent; but 
 the comptroller, before the death of his father, took his designation from those 
 lands, which probably were of considerable value. A crown charter, dated 
 
 * In the Parliament held 6th May and 2d August 1471, Sir Alexander is designed Secretary 
 —‘ Parliamentum inchoat. apud Edinr. 6th May,” &c. “ per prelatos, barones, ac commissarios 
 subscriptos ;” among others, the Chancellor Avandale, and “ Dominum Alexandrum Naper, Secre- 
 tarium.’—Rotuli Scotia. 
 
 + History of Scotland, iv. 221, 222 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 25 
 
 24th of May 1452, to “ Alexander Napare of Philde,” of the lands of Lin- 
 doris and Kinloch in the shire of Fife, is yet among the family papers. He 
 succeeded his father in the estate of Nether Merchiston, and the feu-charter 
 of his own acquisition of Over Merchiston from the church of St Giles, is 
 preserved among the archives of Edinburgh. He held of the crown cer- 
 tain lands called the Pulterlands, to which was attached the hereditary office 
 “ Pultrie Regis,” or king’s poulterer, the reddendo of which was an annual pre- 
 sent of poultry to the king s¢ petatur tantum. These lands are described as 
 lying near the village of Dean, in the shire of Linlithgow. Sir Alexander also 
 acquired the lands of Balbartane in Fife, formerly belonging to James Lord Dal- 
 keith.* Besides these extensive estates, it appears from the great chamberlain 
 rolls that he obtained grants of casualties due to the crown ; and from the offices 
 he held, his public emoluments could not have been inconsiderable. It is also 
 very probable that he indulged in merchantile speculations. The character 
 and status of a Scottish merchant then ranked high, and was not incompatible 
 with that of a diplomatist and a statesman. Mr Tytler mentions as a re- 
 markable circumstance, that in the reign of James III., “ the nobility and even 
 the monarch continued to occupy themselves in private commercial specula- 
 tions, and were in the habit of freighting vessels, which not only engaged in 
 trade, but falling in with other ships similarly employed, did not scruple to 
 attack and make prize of them.” There are no indications of such predatory 
 habits on the part of our philosopher’s ancestors; but from the circumstance, 
 that the three first Napiers of Merchiston in lineal male descent were succes- 
 sively provosts of Edinburgh, it may be assumed that these wealthy and dis- 
 tinguished burgesses were 
 
 “ Merchants and rich burghers of the deep.” + 
 
 * This appears from a discharge under the sign-manual and privy-seal of James II. to his 
 “lovit and familiar squyre, Alexander Napare of Merchamstoune, of al soumes of mone, &c. 
 ressavit. be the saide Alexander Napare of Merchamstoune, the time he was in office til us of 
 comptrollership, or ony uther time to ye date of thir presant letters, and specially of the soume of 
 five hundredth marks, aucht till us be ye saide Alexander for ye charter of the lands of Balbartanis 
 with ye miln liande within the sheriffdome of Fiff, some time belonging to our cousin James, Lord 
 Dalketh,” &c. dated at Edinburgh, 24th October, in the 20th year of the reign (1456.) 
 
 + “ In the Parliament of Scotland, 1466, enactments were passed, « That na man of craft 
 use merchandise. Item, it is statuyit and ordanyit that na man of craft use merchandize be him- 
 D 
 
26 THE LIFE OF 
 
 The romantic plains of Flanders, with their rich combination of arts and 
 arms, where chivalry and traffic seemed like the lion and the lamb to lie 
 down together, were familiar to Sir Alexander Napier. He was in the town 
 of Bruges, “ taking up finance,” and making purchases for James III. some 
 time prior to January 1472. This appears from the following receipt, under 
 the hand and seal of the treasurer of Scotland. 
 
 “ T graunt me to have resavit in oure Soverane Lords name be the handis 
 of ane Richt Honorable and Worshipfull man Sir Alexander Napare of Mer- 
 chamstoune Knicht the soume of twa hundreth pundis of usuale monee of Scot- 
 land of certane finance tane up be the said Sir Alexander in the toune of Bruges, 
 in Flanders, and als that the king has remittit and forgevin him ane hundreth 
 crounes for certane grath* coft and brocht hame to the king be him, of the 
 quhilk soume of [L. 200] I hald me wele content and payt, and thereof in oure 
 saide soverane lords name, quitclames and discharges the saide Sir Alexander of 
 the saide soume of monee and al uther quhame it efferis be this my presente ac- 
 quitance. ‘To the quhilk I have set my signett, and subscrivit with my awin 
 hand at Edinburgh, the xxvii. day of Januare, the year of God” (1472.)— 
 “ Thesaurar J. LAYNG, manu propria.” 
 
 The grath mentioned in this receipt was probably a royal suit of Flemish 
 armour,—in high request in those steel-clad times. The harness and weapons 
 for a man-at-arms in Scotland were frequently selected from the conti- 
 nent, and the records of Parliament in the reign of James II. contain a 
 characteristic statute “ Anentis harness to be brought hame be the mer- 
 chands. Item, it is ordaynit be the king and the Parliament, that all merchands 
 bring hame, as he may gudely thole after the quantitie of his merchandice, 
 harness and harmours, with speirs, staflis, bowyss stringes, and that be done be 
 ilk one of thame als oft as thai happyne to pass our the sey in merchandice.” 
 
 Bruges, in the fifteenth century, was the focus of all that was wealthy and 
 brillant. 
 
 self, nor saill in merchandise nather be himself, his factouris, nor servandis, but gif he leyf and re- 
 nunce his craft, but colour or dissimulacioun.”—*“ Item, that no man saill nor pass without the 
 realme in merchandise bot a famoss and worshipfull man.” &c.—Acts of the Parl. of Scotland. 
 * Go dress you in your graith, 
 
 And think weill throw your hie courage ; 
 
 This day ye sall wyn vassalage, 
 
 Than drest he him into his geir, 
 
 Wantounlie like ane man of weir. 
 
 r Lyndsay’s Squire Meldrum. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 27 
 
 The year 1449, that in which James II. avenged the wrongs of his mother, 
 had commenced auspiciously with his marriage to the princess of Gueldres. 
 Some of the negotiations which about twenty years afterwards were intend- 
 ed to renew and strengthen the consequences of this prudential alliance, were 
 committed to the indefatigable sagacity of Sir Alexander Napier. ‘The wounds 
 received in defence of a persecuted queen well became the venerable knight 
 of Philde in his latest embassy to the Court of the Golden Fleece, which oc- 
 curred in the year 1473. 
 
 Sir Alexander was no stranger to Charles the Bold. The tenor of his in- 
 structions from James III., as well as his private papers, prove that he had 
 visited Bruges and the court of Burgundy repeatedly before this occasion ; * 
 and the last public duty in which he appears to have been engaged was to 
 negotiate, under difficult circumstances, with this gorgeous and overbearing 
 duke. The written instructions which he then received from his sove- 
 reign are still preserved in the Merchiston charter-chest, though unknown to 
 history. 
 
 While the political relations of England and France, as affected by the am- 
 bition of Burgundy, are recorded in the contemporary chronicle of Commines,— 
 ' picturesque as Burgundian chivalry ; and in the modern history of Barante,— 
 exuberant and glowing as romance ; our own historical sources afford only im- 
 perfect glimpses of the foreign policy of Scotland in those stirring times. Mr 
 Tytler, the latest historian of the period, has done much to elucidate the ob- 
 scurity ; but he confesses the paucity of proofs; and, in some of his deductions, 
 has perhaps misapprehended the real tone of our foreign relations in the last 
 quarter of the fifteenth century. He admits, however, that the instructions 
 to the Scottish ambassadors to England and Burgundy about the year 1470, 
 “ were unfortunately not communicated in open Parliament, but discussed se- 
 cretly among the Lords of the privy-council, owing to which precaution it is 
 
 * From a document among the Merchiston papers, it appears that Sir Alexander Napier had 
 lent eighty pounds Scots to William Lord Graham (ancestor of the Duke of Montrose) in the 
 town of Bruges. It appears from the Feedera, that Lord Graham obtained a safe-conduct to pass 
 into England, and from thence to the continent, 23d December 1466. There were great festivi- 
 ties in Bruges at the nuptials of Charles the Bold of Burgundy in 1468, when the towrnament of 
 the golden tree was held; and Sir Alexander Napier was probably selecting armour for his sove- 
 reign in that romantic town, when it was under all the excitement of the dazzling presence of a 
 
 chapter of the Toison d’Or. 
 
28 THE LIFE OF 
 
 impossible to discover the nature of the political relations which then subsist- 
 ed between Scotland and the continent.” * The desideratum is, to a certain 
 extent, supplied by these written instructions to Sir Alexander Napier. 
 They furnish new facts filling up chasms in some interesting matters, cor- 
 roborate our historian in some views of the policy of that obscure reign, and 
 correct him in others. The language and details of this venerable state paper. 
 which is not even to be found in the late splendid edition of the Acts of the Scot- 
 tish Parliament, are so interesting as to deserve to be literally transcribed. It 
 will be found, therefore, in the appendix. But the obscurity of the ancient 
 style requires elucidation; and a general view of the historical incidents upon 
 which the instructions cast some additional light, may not be out of place. 
 
 The spirit, at least, of Charles “le temeraire,” did not disgrace the illus- 
 trious memory of his father, or the high blood of England and France that 
 mingled in his veins. Well and quaintly is he described by a writer of his 
 own times, as “ Duc de Bourgogne, prince de la maison de France, surnome 
 terrible guerrier, et qui n’a jamais cedé aux grands Roys.” | This terrible war- 
 rior, whose heart bounded lightly to the bugle of chivalry, till it learnt a 
 strange lesson of terror from the horns of Uri and Unterwalden, and was 
 crushed by 
 
 “ The might that slumbers in a peasant’s arm,” — 
 
 then played a desperate game against the crafty Louis XI. which involved the 
 whole of Europe. Connected with England by lineal descent from old John 
 of Gaunt, and closely allied to Scotland through the House of Gueldres, Charles 
 received embassies from all quarters, rendered frequent and anxious by the 
 daring position which he had assumed towards the illustrious crown of which 
 he was but a feudatary. It was the policy of Scotland to reconcile France and 
 Burgundy, her ancient allies. The King of England, than whom, to use the 
 words of James’ diplomatic instructions to Sir Alexander Napier, “ nane uthir 
 prince made wer upon Scotland,” courted Burgundy more earnestly than be- 
 came his dignity, and even bestowed the hand of his sister Margaret upon the 
 terrible guerrier. It was Edward’s object, though scarcely secure at home, to 
 farther his own ambition by fomenting the quarrel, and supporting the war 
 betwixt Charles and Louis. The Duke, on the other hand, in order to relieve 
 England as well as to realize his own unbounded views, laboured to prolong 
 
 * Vol. iv. p. 236. t+ Appendix, (No. III.) t “ Discours tire d’un viel Manuscript.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 29 
 
 those doubtful pauses of hostility betwixt that country and Scotland, which 
 (again to quote the words of Napier’s instructions) were dignified with the names 
 of “ pese and trewes,” though, it must be confessed, not “sa sicker bundyn.” 
 
 But Charles found it no easy task to engage James III., however small the 
 pretensions of that monarch to the nom de guerre of his cousin, in a peace even 
 of limited duration with England. It appears that the king of Scots was far 
 from evincing that disinclination to hostilities with the sister kingdom which 
 Mr Tytler infers from the muniments he had examined. Our historian conceives 
 that “the repeated consultations, between the commissioners of the two countries 
 on the subject of those infractions of the existing truce which were confined to 
 the borders, evinced an anxiety upon the part of both to remain on a friendly 
 footing with each other.” Butthe instructions seem rather to contradict this view. 
 It is there expressly stated, that James had absolutely refused to ratify a treaty 
 with his cousin of Burgundy, to which his own ambassadors had agreed ;_ be- 
 cause he thought the terms too favourable to England. It may be true that 
 James and his ministers had full “ occupation at home,” but it is by no means 
 proved that the former “ wisely shunned all subjects of altercation which might 
 lead to war.”* On the contrary, having despatched ambassadors to Burgundy 
 for the purpose of renewing the offensive and defensive alliance entered into 
 betwixt their respective fathers, the king of Scots proved not very tractable on 
 the subject of peace with England. Hehad introduced some exception in favour of 
 his father-in-law, the king of Denmark. Charles, on his part, proposed an ex- 
 ception in favour of the king of England, and had sent his own ambassadors to 
 James urging him to prolong a truce with that country for the space of two years, 
 as a personal favour and support to Burgundy. The Scottish ambassadors in 
 Flanders consented to the exeption proposed by the Duke of Burgundy ; but 
 James refused to ratify what he considered a reckless or negligent concession 
 on the part of his ambassadors. He immediately furnished Sir Alexander 
 Napier with these special and confidential instructions, deprecating in strong 
 terms the exception in favour of the only king who made war upon him,—an 
 important item in a treaty of mutual defence,—and he was too much in ear- 
 nest to stand upon ceremony with regard to the king of Denmark, but at once 
 departed from his own condition in favour of that monarch. With these origi- 
 nal exceptions left out, James sent letters under his great seal to the Duke, com- 
 prehending “ baith the auld confederatioun and the new” in all other points ; 
 
 * Tytler, iv. 239. 
 
30 THE LIFE OF 
 
 and “ requerand his said cousing the Duc, that gif the forme of the said new 
 confederatioun send to him be acceptable, that he will ressave it, and deliver 
 siclike under his gret sele to the said Sir Alexander.” Further, the king of 
 Scots complains bitterly of injuries and indignities from England, committed 
 upon his lieges both by sea and land, and still remaining unredressed, though, 
 says James, Edward had pledged his royal word, and bound himself in writ- 
 ing to make immediate reparation. He declares that nothing less than his 
 own affection and respect for his cousin of Burgundy could have induced him 
 to listen to the Duke’s urgent request of a truce with England, and he re- 
 quires Charles, as an indispensable condition of the stability of any such truce, 
 to send ambassadors of the highest credit to England, to demand compensation 
 from Edward for the Scottish grievances ; and in particular, “ to mak him 
 redress incontinent the bargh broken at Balmburgh.” Instead of shunning all 
 subjects of altercation with England, King James, inter alia, harped inces- 
 santly upon this same Bishop’s barge for years until he got amends.* Ag- 
 gressions from the states of Burgundy, of more consequence to Scotland 
 than the pillage of the blessed ship St Salvator, are also complained of in Na- 
 pier’s instructions. The severe treatment experienced by our merchants in 
 the Hans towns opposed serious impediments to commerce. Animosities grow- 
 ing out of the thievish propensities of certain Scottish merchants, led to re- 
 prisals from the states of Flanders. After a long course of mercantile hos- 
 tilities, the Bremeners captured a vessel and cargo of considerable value be- 
 longing to the town of Edinburgh. This severe indignity to our commercial 
 flag occasioned an embassy to the Low Countries, headed by the provost of 
 Edinburgh, conveying anxious proposals for a treaty of redress and mutual 
 concessions. An adjustment was then effected which sprung from the wise 
 and able administration of Bishop Kennedy; but it appears from Napier’s in- 
 structions, that a good feeling betwixt the mercantile interests of the two coun- 
 tries was not re-established even in 1473, thirty years subsequent to the 
 bishop’s mission. James, after his indignant and spirited expressions against 
 the king of England, ventures in a minor key, to remind the dangerous duke, 
 ( * his derrest cousing and confederat,”) of the ancient commercial ties betwixt 
 
 * See Pitscottie for the building of the “ Bishop’s barge” by Archbishop Kennedy ; and Les/y 
 for its wreck and spoliation. Rymer (xi. 850,) records an acquittance by Thomas Bishop of 
 Aberdeen, dated 3d Feb. 1474-5, for 500 marks English, “ pro finali concordia, &c. super querelis 
 unius navis vocati le Salvator que fracta jucta Bamburgh.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 31 
 
 them ; and complains, soéto voce however, that his merchants are aggrieved 
 as to their privileges in the town of Bruges, “ and nocht sa wele tretit be 
 thame as frendis suld be, na as thai are tretit in Scotland quhen thai cum.” * 
 
 Another very anxious object of Sir Alexander Napier’s mission was “ the 
 matter of Gelrill.”. This item of the instructions regards a wild and sad 
 story in the history of the dutchy of Gueldres ; a romance in which Charles 
 the Bold is a prominent actor, and James III. a spectator deeply interested. + 
 
 For a long period of the fifteenth century, that unhappy dutchy presented 
 the revolting spectacle of a son leagued in deadly enmity against his father. 
 The eldest daughter of the reigning Duke Arnold was that princess 
 whom Philip of Burgundy conducted with great pomp into Scotland as the 
 bride of James II., and who became the mother of James III. The consort 
 of the Duke of Gueldres was Catherine of Cleves, an undutiful wife and mo- 
 ther, who instilled lessons of disobedience and revolt into the mind of their 
 son and heir, the young Adolphus, which the latter too aptly acquired. In 
 consequence chiefly of the conduct of this princess, disorders of long endur- 
 ance arose in the dutchy. An unnatural war, in which Arnold was opposed by 
 his consort and son, terminated favourably for the old Duke. Adolphus fled 
 to the court of Burgundy, where he was more kindly entertained by his uncle 
 Philip than his own conduct had merited. He afterwards became a follower 
 of the cross, and a knight of the high and holy order of St John of Jerusalem. 
 But the chivalry of Christendom failed to reclaim the heart of Adolphus. He 
 returned from the Holy Land to Burgundy, where his uncle again received 
 him with the highest distinction,—bestowed upon this unworthy prince the 
 hand of Catherine of Bourbon, (Philip’s niece) and invested him with the col- 
 lar of the Toison d’or. It was the object of the benevolent Duke of Bur- 
 gundy to reunite the unhappy house of Gueldres ; and through his exertions, 
 the festivities of this alliance were distinguished by an apparent reconciliation 
 of Catherine to her husband, and Adolphus to his father. It appears that 
 the old Duke of Gueldres, notwithstanding all his wrongs, still dearly loved his 
 
 * « Come youngster, you are of a country I have a regard for, having traded in Scotland in my 
 time. An honest poor set of folks they are.”—Louis XI. to Quentin Durward. 
 
 + “ Well, my young hot blood,” replied Maitre Pierre, “ if you hold the Sanglier too scrupu- 
 lous, wherefore not follow the young Duke of Gueldres ?”—“ Follow the foul fiend as soon,” said 
 Quentin. “Harkin your ear; he isa burthen too heavy for earth to carry. Hell gapes for him. 
 Men say that he keeps his own father imprisoned, and that he has even struck him. Can you be- 
 
 lieve it ?”—Quentin Durward. 
 
32 THE LIFE OF 
 
 son, and the occasion was to him the happiest of his life. With a heart reliev- 
 ed from a load of sorrow and anxiety, he retired early from the ball to repose. 
 But Adolphus and his mother had plotted a cruel conspiracy. A party of 
 rebels who espoused their cause, made a desperate midnight attack upon the 
 chamber of the Duke, who supposing the disturbance to be a bridal frolic, ex- 
 claimed, with a bonhommie worthy of a better fate, “ Let me sleep, my chil- 
 dren, I am too old to dance.” When he heard the fierce reply, “ You are a 
 prisoner,” his unsubdued affection burst forth in the exclamation, “ Is my 
 son safe ?” and even when, at the head of the conspirators, that son replied, 
 * Yield! you have no alternative!” the old Duke uttered but a single re- 
 monstrance,—* Alas! Adolphus. what make you there?” He was dragged 
 nearly naked to the castle of Burin, where he long languished in a dungeon, 
 only visited by the light of day through a miserable aperture, sometimes dark- 
 ened by the shadow of the remorseless Adolphus, * who came there to load his 
 aged parent with execrations. Not long after the death of Philip the Good, 
 Charles his successor, forced Adolphus to release the Duke of Gueldres. 
 Upon this page of history, Sir Alexander Napier’s instructions afford a new 
 commentary. They account more naturally than historians have been able 
 to do, for that apparently desperate and sudden inclination to go a-roving, 
 which for a time possessed James III. They also prove that’ Charles of Bur- 
 gundy actually extorted the succession of Gueldres from the oppressed and 
 aged Duke. When released by the determined though selfish interference of 
 Burgundy, the sole remaining anxiety of Duke Arnold was to exheridate his 
 only son, who had embittered his declining years, and had so recklessly crushed 
 the last spark of parental affection. But Arnold had no partiality for Charles 
 the Bold; nor did he entertain an idea that the haughty Duke of Burgundy 
 should become his successor. He looked to Scotland, where his eldest daugh- 
 ter,—at one time his presumptive heiress,—had borne three sons, who seem- 
 ed to do more credit to the house of Gueldres than his degenerate Adolphus. 
 Failing that prince, his natural inheritor was James of Scotland; and the 
 fond hope of the old man was to persuade the monarch to come in person to 
 the dutchy, and be formally installed in the succession forfeited by the treason 
 of the young Duke. If James could not quit his dominions, Arnold looked 
 for the presence of one or other of his remaining grandsons,—the Duke 
 of Albany and the Earl of Mar,—whose knightly bearings and ardent tempera- 
 
 * This horrid scene attracted the pencil of Rembrandt. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 33 
 
 ments fitted them much better than the king for such an enterprise. It ap- 
 pears from Napier’s instructions that these wishes had been expressed in a 
 letter from the Duke of Gueldres to his royal grandson, which, so far as I can 
 discover, is unknown to history. Mr Tytler imputes the unusually restless 
 impulse of James to the warlike persuasions of Concressault, the French en- 
 voy, who urged in the name of Louis XJ. the conquest of Brittany. But 
 James was not easily beguiled into such extravagant manhood; and why he 
 so readily agreed to yoke the red dragons, and take the reins himself, contrary 
 to the earnest and almost ludicrous remonstrances of Parliament, is a problem 
 in the effeminate character of that monarch. The letter from his grandsire 
 of Gueldres, “ exorting and requiring” him to pass into the dutchy as his na- 
 tural inheritance, for the purpose of being unanimously installed by the nobles 
 and barons of that rich principality, must have had a more powerful effect 
 upon the dispositions of James III. than the warlike voice or wily promise 
 of “* Mesnil Penil.”* The alternative proposed by his grandfather, namely, 
 to send Albany or Mar as a substitute, and which proposal was likely to be 
 more eagerly received by his brothers than suited the views of King James, 
 must have added to his inclination to go in person; and the idea that the 
 letter in question was at least his chief instigation, is strengthened by the fact, 
 that shortly after the sudden death of the old Duke of Gueldres, James aban- 
 doned his enterprise altogether. Mr Tytler, however, refers the king’s final 
 determination to another cause. “On the 17th March 1472,” (says that his- 
 torian,) “ the birth of a prince, afterwards James IV. had been welcomed with 
 great euthusiasm by the people; and the king, towhom, inthe present discontent- 
 ed and troubled state of the aristocracy, the event must have been especially grate- 
 ful, was happily induced to listen to the advice of his clergy, and to renounce for 
 the present all intentions of a personal expedition to the continent.”+ Duke Ar- 
 nold died upon the 24th of February, in the year 1472,! that is to say, towards 
 
 * So Barante terms the Sieur Concressault, perhaps for Monipenny ? Pinkerton, (i. 294,) 
 speaking of Albany’s reception in Paris, 1479 says, “ Louis ordered Monipenny and Con- 
 cressault, Scotishmen of rank, to attend the Duke ;” but were Monipenny and Concressault two 
 
 persons? ‘“ Monipenny de Congirsalte” was an individual well known in the reigns of James II. 
 and III. 
 
 + History, iv. p. 241. 
 { Lart de verifier les dates.—Pinkerton is wrong in his chronolgy of Duke Arnold's death. 
 He says “ Arnold of Egmont became Duke of Guelder in 1423, and died in 1468. His son hay- 
 
 ing rebelled against him, he left his territories to Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy.” —History 
 of Scotland, V. i. p. 206. 
 
 E 
 
34. THE LIFE OF 
 
 the close of the year which, according to the Scottish kalendar of that period, end- 
 ed upon the 24th day of March. There is no date attached to the instructions 
 themselves, but they bear internal evidence of having been written immediate- 
 ly after Arnold’s death; and another document which accompanies them 
 among Sir Alexander’s papers, fixes their date immediately after the Ist of 
 May 1473. The document alluded to is a letter of protection from James 
 ITI. under his privy-seal, for the lands, servants, and goods, of his beloved 
 familiar Sir Alexander Napare of Merchamstoun, knight, ordered forthwith 
 beyond seas on his majesty’s service; and from all pleas, &c. from the day 
 of his departure to the day of his return, and forty days thereafter, dated 
 at Edinburgh the 1st day of May 1473.* 
 
 The conduct of the King is thus very naturally accounted for. His grand- 
 sire’s invitation was a powerful inducement; but on receiving intelligence of 
 that prince’s death, James found it convenient to pause before coming into 
 contact with his cousin of Burgundy, whose affectation of retributive jus- 
 tice in keeping the young Duke Adolphus under personal restraint, very 
 slightly veiled the most interested designs. The power and ambition of 
 Charles was notorious; and James, having lost the countenance of his father- 
 in-law, must have felt how hopeless would be a descent upon the proffered 
 dutchy, unless beaconed by the imperious star of Burgundy. Under this new 
 aspect of affairs, and while his prelates and lords of Parliament were still un- 
 certain of his resolves, and devising new expostulations to prevent his quitting 
 the kingdom, the King of Scots instructs Sir Alexander Napier to urge the 
 Duke of Burgundy to send “ in haistywiss his entent thereapon,” to afford the 
 king counsel and directions in the matter, “ and quhat that he sal traist and 
 lippin thereto, sen he [ Burgundy ] has the personage in hand that pretends to 
 have richt or interess thereto.” 
 
 In vain had the Duke of Gueldres struggled to place a grandson on his 
 throne ; the power of Charles the Bold was at its zenith, and his very con- 
 science was clothed in steel. On the 30th December 1472, Arnold had been 
 compelled finally to conclude at Bruges a cession of his territory in favour of 
 
 * « Jacobus,” &c. “ sciatis nos dilectum famuliarem nostrum Alexandrum Napare de Mercham- 
 stoun militem, quem ad partes transmarinas nostris in negotiis derigimus de presenti,” 3c. “ da- 
 tum sub nostro secreto sigillo apud Edinburgh primo die mensis Maii A. D. millesimo quadringen- 
 tesimo septuagesimo tertio, et regni nostri decimo tertio.” At the very time, John Haldane of 
 Gleneagles was sent ambassador to Denmark, probably on the same subject. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 35 
 
 Burgundy, reserving to himself a liferent possession, which, however, bur- 
 dened the grant only two months. The earnest request transmitted in writ- 
 ing to his grandson about the period, leaves no doubt that this will (so called) 
 was extorted. Perhaps, in that cession the aged and heart-broken sovereign 
 signed his own death-warrant ; the times and the actors were not uncongenial 
 for such deeds, and a surmise as dark shrouds the fate of a prince of Bourbon 
 in a more enlightened age. 
 
 The next object of the Duke of Burgundy was the disposal of that * perso- 
 nage” whose “ richt or interess in the matter of Gelrill” might interfere with 
 the equivocal will of the old duke. If the concluding words of James’ instruc- 
 tions meant to convey no hint favourable to the wretched Adolphus, Charles, 
 who in such matters required little prompting, anticipated so far at least the 
 views of his ally. At the very moment when Napier was about to leave Scot- 
 land, the “ terrible guerrier” was dealing with the disobedient son according 
 to his deserts,—but neither for the sake of justice nor of King James. 
 
 Adolphus was a knight-templar and a knight of the golden fleece; and 
 Charles was determined that the imposing solemnity of his fall should dazzle the 
 eyes of Europe, and veil the selfish motives of his judge. He cited him before a 
 chapter of his order assembled at Valenciennes on the 3d day of May 1473 ; 
 and Sir Alexander Napier may have once more beheld the Court of Burgundy 
 glowing with chivalry. No picture of arms could equal a chapter of the Toi- 
 son d’Or ; and the princes who flocked to its imperative summons must have 
 rendered the place of its enactment an imposing scene. Upon these occa- 
 sions Burgundy displayed his most gorgeous array. He replenished his order 
 with the most illustrious names in Europe; and now it was a sovereign prince 
 whom he summoned to defend his honour before the assembled chapter. But 
 the young Duke of Gueldres, though cited, was not permitted to quit his pri- 
 son. He was only allowed to appear by a procurator, and as might be ex- 
 pected, the knights of the golden fleece in one voice sustained the will of the 
 late duke, and pronounced a decree of perpetual imprisonment against his son. 
 So ended the hopes of King James in that quarter, his truant disposition, and 
 the last diplomacy in which Sir Alexander Napier received instructions from 
 his sovereign. I may have erred in this application of the document to il- 
 lustrate the history of those remote times, and have given it in the Appendix, 
 that the reader may judge for himself. It is a very interesting fragment of 
 
36 THE LIFE OF 
 
 history, clothed in the quaint terms of our ancient language upwards of three 
 hundred years ago; and now, 
 
 When the knights are dust, 
 Aud their good swords are rust, 
 And their souls are with the saints, we trust, 
 
 casts a light like the dubious gleam of a corslet, upon times illuminated by few 
 or no records. 
 
 Sir Alexander died soon after, and while he was master of the household 
 to James III. On the 15th February 1473, being the close of the same year 
 at the commencement of which the Knight of Philde’s last mission occurred, 
 John Napier of Rusky was infeft in the lands “ vulgariter nuncupat. le pultre 
 land,” as nearest lawful heir of the late Sir Alexander Napier, his father. 
 
 I have quoted below the last grant he received under the hand and seal of 
 his royal master, as it forms an apt conclusion to a career which must have 
 been eminently distinguished by talent and virtue in a barbarous age.* 
 
 * « James, be the grace of God, King of Scottis, to all and sundry oure liegis and subditis, 
 quham it efferis, quhais knaulage thir oure letters sal cum, greting.—Forsamekill as oure lovett fa- 
 muliare knicht and maister of housshald, Alexander Napar of Merchamstoun, has componit 
 with us on the behalve of Johnne Napare his sone and are, and Elizabeth his spouss, for the soume 
 of twa hundir markis, and fifty markis of usuale money of oure realme, for the composition of the 
 parte of the Erldome of Levenax, pertenyng to the saide Johnne be ressoun of his saide spouss, in a 
 part heritare of the said Erldome. The quhilk soume of twa hundir and fifty markis we have in 
 favour of the saide Alexander, for his lele and trew service done of lang tyme to us and our pro- 
 genitouris of mast noble mynde, remittit and forgevin, and be thir oure lettres remittis and for- 
 gevis to the saide Johnne and Elizabeth his spouss, and quit clemys, and dischargis thame, thare 
 airis, executouris and assignais thareof, for us and oure successouris for euermare, be thir presentis 
 gevin undir oure prive sele, and subscrivit with oure hand at Edinburgh, the xxilj day of October 
 the yere of our Lorde a thousand, four hundreth, seventy and thre yeris, and of our Regnne the 
 xiii} zeir.” 
 
 c 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 37 
 
 He married Elizabeth, a daughter of the ancient Scottish family of Lauder, 
 of which marriage there were at least three children.* As an additional evi- 
 dence in support of his own aristocratic pretensions, it may be mentioned that, 
 while his eldest son John Napier married the co-heiress of Lennox and Rusky, 
 his only daughter Janet formed an alliance yet more illustrious. She married 
 Sir James Edmonstone of Edmonstone. The mother of her husband’s father 
 was the Princess Isabella, daughter of Robert II. Sir William Edmonstone, 
 her husband’s uncle, (being the younger brother of his father,) again allied his 
 family to the royal house. He married the Princess Mary, eldest daughter of 
 Robert III., his own first cousin. Thus the grandchildren of Sir Alexander 
 Napier were the great-great-grandchildren of Robert II. and one generation 
 nearer in the collateral line to Robert III., which monarch was also the father- 
 in-law of their paternal uncle. 
 
 John Napier of Rusky, and third of Merchiston, belonged to the royal 
 household during the zenith of his father’s active career,}.and stood high in the 
 estimation of his countrymen. It has been already observed, that he was par- 
 ticularly noticed by Henry VI. when that unfortunate monarch was a re- 
 fugee in Edinburgh ; and, from the situations he held, there can be no doubt 
 that this John Napier inherited some portion of his father’s talent, and was 
 
 * See Note (A.) 
 + In a charter of the lands of “ Calzemuk,” from the Queen dowager of James II., dated 16th 
 
 July 1462, to John and his second son George, the former is designed “ dilecto familiari scutifero 
 nostro Johanni Napare de Rusky.” Mary’s seal is attached ;—the lion of Scotland and the lions 
 of Guelders parted per pale. 
 
 The following curious document under the privy seal of James III., also designs John as be- 
 ing of the household :-— 
 
 “ Rex,—Weilbelouite clerk we grete you wele, and for sa mekil as it is menit and complenzete 
 to us be our lowite familiar sqwiar Johne Napar of Merchamestoune, that quhar he has optenit 
 apon the Lady Cragmillar a siluer basing and ane ewar in his areschip befor the Lordis of our coun- 
 sale, scho schapis to procede agains him befor you in the spirituale courte, and has summounde him 
 befor you, and tendis to get asentence thereupoun ; of the quhilk we ferly. We exhort ande prais 
 you herefor, & alsa chargis straitly & commandis, that the said action is prophane & is decidit & 
 finaly endit befor the said Lordis, lyke as thar deliverance & decrete gevin to the said Johne there- 
 upon purportis, ye desist ande cess of al proceding therein as ye will haue thank of us, and under 
 al pain & charge that efter may folow, deluering thir our lettres, be yow sene and understandin, 
 again to the berar. Gevin under our signet at Edinburgh, the xv day of June, and of our Regne 
 
 the xiiij yere [1474]. 
 
38 THE LIFE OF 
 
 not unworthy of his lineal representative of the same name. He is repeated- 
 ly mentioned, during a period of many years, commencing before the death of 
 Sir Alexander, as one of those chosen, “ ad causas et querelas audiendas in 
 parliamentis,’—a committee of Parliament, which necessarily comprehended 
 a selection of the leading and talented men of the country. His name also 
 frequently occurs in the “ acta dominorum concilii,” as one of the Lords of 
 Council, to whom, before the establishment of a Court of Session, the supreme 
 jurisdiction of the country was intrusted. In these important legislative and 
 judicial functions, he seems to have supplied his father’s place when that 
 statesman was abroad on the public service, and also after his death. In like 
 manner, he was at various times provost of Edinburgh. It is a notable in- 
 stance of the high estimation in which the lairds of Merchiston were held, 
 that three of them, in immediate lineal succession, repeatedly held that respon- 
 sible office during a period of half a century ; and in times which, though tur- 
 bulent and unlettered, are regarded as having been highly auspicious to the 
 growing consideration and improvement of the city of Edinburgh. The pe- 
 riod embraced by the dates of these successive provostships in the Merchiston 
 family is said to have been palmy days for old Edina, who then commenced 
 that mighty march of improvements, which has progressed from the Cowgate 
 to the Acropolis, outstripping the admiration of the world, and the patience 
 of her taxed inhabitants. 
 
 In a Parliament held at Edinburgh on the 16th February 1483, when 
 Napier sat as one of the lords auditors, a case occurs in which he is the 
 party. It seems sufficiently curious and characteristic of the times to be 
 quoted from its unpublished record. On one of the sederunts of that Parlia- 
 ment, (20th February,) “ The Lordis Auditoris decretis and deliveris, that 
 John Courrour sall content and pay to Johne Naper, provost of Edinburgh, a 
 croce of gold wayand ane unce, price L. 6, with five sapphiris, price twenty 
 shillings, a grete perle, price forty shillings, and thre uther small perle, 
 price of the peice three shillings ; because there was a day, assignit of befor 
 to the said John Currour, to have brought his warrand anent the said croce, 
 and failzeit therein the said day ; and that letters be direct to distrenze him 
 therefor.” * 
 
 There is every reason to believe, that during the fickle turbulence which 
 characterized the unhappy reign of James III. he had never swerved from his 
 
 * Acta Auditorum. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 39 
 
 allegiance, and that he lost his life under the standard of that monarch, upon 
 the disastrous day of the battle of Sauchieburn. A new and shameful ral- 
 lying point had been seized by the factious towards the close of the year 
 1487. The young prince of Scotland, James Duke of Rothsay, had not com- 
 pleted his fifteenth year; and the standard of rebellion and patricide was un- 
 furled over the head of a boy. The unnatural struggle, which commenced on 
 the 2d February 1487, was short though violent, and the result is well 
 known. Upon the 11th June 1488, the insurgents defeated the king’s forces 
 at Sauchie, near the memorable field of Bannockburn ; and James himself was 
 basely murdered on his flight from the lost battle. In a charter of that mo- 
 narch, dated less than a twelvemonth before the battle, John Napier is de- 
 signed our beloved household esquire ; and, by the expressions in the retour 
 of his son and heir, the period of his death may be traced to the very day of 
 the battle; * an interesting circumstance, as two of his lineal heirs-male fell 
 successively at Flodden and Pinkie. His marriage to Elizabeth Menteith in- 
 volves the history of the right to the earldom of Lennox, a subject fully discus- 
 sed in the Lennox case for Merchiston at the end of the volume. 
 
 His eldest son, Archibald Napier of Edinbellie, and fourth of Merchiston, 
 belonged to the household of James IV. at the commencement of that reign. 
 Of his career I have discovered few particulars, except that he married thrice, 
 connecting himself each time with noble and distinguished families, Douglas, 
 Crichton, and Glenorchy ; as more fully recorded in the genealogical note. 
 There is a charter in the record of the great seal, 22d February 1494-5, 
 by which James IV. confirms a charter of mortification, dated 9th Novem- 
 ber 1493, for support of a perpetual chaplain (unius capellani perpetui) at 
 the altar of St Salvator within St Giles’ Church of Edinburgh; grant- 
 ed by Archibald Naper of Merchamstoun, with consent of Elizabeth Men- 
 teith, Lady of Rusky, his mother; to pray for the souls of the Kings James 
 I. II. III. and IV. and of the deceased Sir Alexander Naper of Merchamstoun, 
 Knight, grandfather of the mortifier ; and of his grandmother Elizabeth Lau- 
 der, Sir Alexander’s spouse; of his father and mother, John Naper of Mer- 
 chamstoun and the said Elizabeth Menteith; and also for the souls of him- 
 
 * See Note (A.) 
 + Letters under the privy-seal of James IV. in favour of “ our lovit familiar squiar, Archibald 
 
 Napar of Merchameston ;’ dated 7th February 1488. 
 
40 THE LIFE OF 
 
 self and his wife Catherine Douglas. The sum mortified was ten merks 
 yearly. 
 
 Betwixt his second and third marriage occurred the battle of Flodden. 
 Led by a barbarous love of arms, and a wild romantic spirit of chivalry, 
 James IV., in the year 1513, determined to invade England. The voices of 
 wisdom and superstition were blended to warn the infatuated monarch. But 
 he was not to be stayed; and his folly sealed the fate of Scotland. It is well 
 known that the devoted barons and gentry of the Lothians followed their so- 
 vereign en masse, and were conspicuous in the very centre of the battle. The 
 Earl of Bothwell led these chiefs and their retainers, who were placed imme- 
 diately in the rear of the king’s division. After the four earls commanding 
 the Scottish wings (Lennox, Argyle, Crawfurd, and Montrose,) were slain, the 
 men of Lothian found themselves placed betwixt the victorious bands of Sur- 
 rey and Stanley, where they fought and bled in vain. 
 
 Still from the sire the son shall hear 
 Of the stern strife and carnage drear 
 : Of Flodden’s fatal field, 
 Where shiver’d was fair Scotland’s spear 
 And broken was her shield ! 
 
 Archibald Napier escaped the carnage of that fatal day, and survived be- 
 yond the year 1521. But his eldest son was left dead on the field. 
 
 Sir Alexander (fifth of Merchiston) who fell at Flodden, was the only son of 
 Archibald’s first marriage with Catherine Douglas; (a daughter of the illustrious 
 houseof Morton and Whittingham,) and had obtained the honour of knighthood 
 some years before his death. James IV. by a charter dated 2ist June 1512, 
 erected the lands of Merchiston and others into a free barony in his favour, with 
 all the consequent privileges, thus forming a second barony in the family. He 
 married Janet, the eldest daughter of Edmund Chisholme of Cromlix, the same 
 family from which his great-grandson, the philosopher, took his second wife. 
 
 Their eldest son, Alexander sixth of Merchiston, was, upon the 11th of March 
 1513, infeft in the barony of Edinbelly-Napier, as heir to his father. The 
 young laird was at this time an infant, having been born about the year 
 1509. He was the only son; and junior to both his sisters, Helen and Janet, 
 the first of whom became the wife of Sir John Melville of Raith, and the other 
 
 of Andrew Bruce of Powfoulis. 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. Al 
 
 When he was only about sixteen years of age, a conspiracy was entered into 
 by some of his relations both against his purse and person, which may be no- 
 ticed, as it introduces names of historical and romantic interest, and is moreover 
 characteristic of the times. His mother, after the loss of her first husband, 
 married Sir Ninian Seton of Touch and Tullibody, a baron of a well known 
 and ancient house, who became the guardian of young Merchiston. His ma- 
 ternal uncle was James Chisholme, (chaplain to James III.) who had been at 
 Rome in 1486, and was at that time provided by Pope Innocent VIII. with the 
 bishoprick of Dumblane. This prelate also took some charge of his nephew. 
 Upon the 18th day of June 1525, a contract was concluded at Edinburgh, of 
 which the parties were, on the one side, the Bishop of Dumblane, the Lady 
 Seton his sister, her husband Sir Ninian for his interest, and the young laird 
 of Merchiston; and on the other side, Archibald Douglas of Kilspindie, Isa- 
 bella Hopper his wife, and Agnes Murray, the daughter of Isabella by a pre- 
 vious marriage. This contract bears, that, in contemplation of a marriage to 
 be solemnized, and hereby contracted between Alexander Napier and Agnes 
 Murray, the former was to grant a receipt and discharge to Douglas, Isabella 
 Hopper, and Agnes Murray, as if he had obtained from them the sum of 1200 
 merks as a marriage portion. That this sum was to be held in trust by the par- 
 ties contracting, as a marriage portion for Janet Napier, the sister-german of 
 Merchiston, whom failing, to his other sisters. Then follows a clause by which 
 the young laird bound himself to grant to his mother and stepfather a full 
 and free discharge of all intromissions whatever with his means and estate, 
 up to the date of the fulfilment of the marriage betwixt him and Agnes Murray. 
 There is no indication among the family papers that this marriage actually 
 took place ; and upon the 23d September 1531, after he had become of age, 
 Alexander Napier executed a deed of revocation, narrating this contract, and 
 declaring that he had only become a party to it in consequence of the s¢nister 
 machinations, and false information of his own relations. He therefore re- 
 voked the whole transaction as done to his great prejudice.* The Douglas 
 mentioned in this deed was the celebrated Sir Archibald Douglas of Kilspindie, + 
 son of Archibald fifth Earl of Angus, (the great Earl, commonly called “ Bell 
 
 * « Tn sua minorietate, ex sinistra machinatione circumuentus per certos suos consanguineos, 
 fatebatur se recipisse.” &c.—Merchiston Papers. 
 
 + “ Archibald of Kilspindie, whom he [James-V.] when he was a child loved singularly well 
 for his ability of body, and was wont to call him his Gray-Steill,” [a champion of popular romance. ] 
 
 — Godscroft. 
 F 
 
AQ THE LIFE OF 
 
 the Cat”) by his second wife, Catherine, daughter of Sir William Stirling of 
 Keir. He was appointed high treasurer of Scotland, 29th October 1526, by 
 James V., who was trained to manly exercises under his faithful care, which he 
 ill-requited. Hume of Godscroft, (the historian of the house of Douglas, who 
 wrote in the reign of James VI.) gives an affecting account of Kilspindie’s ser- 
 vices and fate ; and Sir Walter Scott has immortalized him in the Lady of the 
 Lake. 
 
 Two years after the date of this revocation, Alexander Napier obtained a 
 dispensation from the Pope for his marriage with his cousin Anabella Camp- 
 bell, which deed, dated 9th October 1533, is still preserved among the family 
 papers. It was the interest of the Church of Rome to throw as many obstacles 
 as possible in the way of matrimony, in order to have the credit and the pro- 
 fit of removing them ; and this dispensation proceeds upon the narrative, that 
 the parties were related to each other within the fourth degree of consangui- 
 nity. As the deed afforded no other clue to the family of Anabella Camp- 
 bell, the late Lord Napier, in the progress of compiling the genealogy of his 
 house, applied to the Earl of Breadalbane for information on the subject, and 
 received the communication which will be found below. * 
 
 Soon after his marriage Merchiston went abroad, and was much in foreign 
 countries, latterly, it would appear, on account of his delicate state of health. The 
 
 * « London, July 11, 1808. 
 
 “ My Dear Lorp,—lI have endeavoured to collect every information I possibly could on the 
 point you wished ; the result is from a memorandum I took when I was at Taymouth, after at- 
 tentively examining Jamieson’s genealogical tree, as well as a book (manuscript) containing a his- 
 tory and some anecdotes of the family of Glenorchy. It is as follows :— 
 
 «¢ ¢ Sir Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy, who succeeded his father Sir Colin, in the year 1480, and 
 was afterwards killed at the battle of Flowden in 1513, was, by his second wife, Mon- 
 crieff daughter of the Laird of Moncrieff, father to John Bishop of the Isles, and to Catherine 
 and Anabella Campbell. Catherine was married to the Laird of Tullybardine ; and Anabella to 
 Napier of Merchiston, (the dates of these daughters’ marriages are not mentioned,) from whom 
 was descended, Sir Archibald Napier, John Napier, and Archibald Lord Napier of Merchiston.’ 
 
 “ T assure you it gives me great pleasure to find there is such an alliance between your Lord- 
 ship’s family and mine ; and I have the honour to be, my dear Lord, your obedient humble Ser- 
 
 vant,—BREADALBANE.” 
 
 This genealogical information is confirmed by the following document, which Lord Napier had 
 not observed among his papers.—“ 10¢h November 1554, &c.—The quhilk day ane honorabill 
 man Archibald Naper of Merchamstoun [the philosopher's father] past to the personalie presence 
 of ane honorabill lady and his ¢ratst consignate Kathryne Campbell Lady Tulyberdin, executrice 
 and intromissatrice with the gudis and geyr of vmquhile ane honorabill lady, Dame Margaret 
 Moncreif Lady Kers, and proponit, that becaus it wes cumin to his vnderstanding that the said 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 43 
 
 royal licenses to travel, and charges to return, which he received under theprivy- 
 seal and sign-manual of James V., are still preserved among the family papers. 
 Upon the 18th and 28th September 1534, he obtained royal letters of license and 
 protection, bearing that, ‘‘ We, for the guid, trew and thankfull seruice done 
 to us be our louit, Alexander Naper of Marchamston, and Androw Bruss of 
 Powfoulis, his guid bruthir,” &c. “ grantis and gevis licence to thaim to pas 
 to the partes off France,” &c. for three years. The letters protecting his property 
 in his absence narrate, that “ our weilbelouit Alexander Napar of Mercham- 
 stoun is of our speciall licence to pass furth of our realm be sey or be land, 
 for fulfilling of his pilgramage at Sanct Johne of Ameis in Fraunce,” &c. 
 
 At this time France was the centre of attraction; and James V. not long after- 
 wards went there himself on his matrimonial expedition. “ Here is to be remem- 
 bred,” says Bishop Lesley, “ that thair wes mony new, ingynis and devysis, 
 alsweil of bigging of paleicis, abilyementis, as of banquating and of menis be- 
 haviour, first begun and used in Scotland at this tyme, eftir the fassione quhilk 
 thay had sene in France. Albeit it semit to be varray comlie and beautifull, 
 yit it wes moir superfluous and volupteous nor the substaunce of the realme of 
 Scotland mycht beir furth or susteine ; nottheles, the same fassionis and cus- 
 tome of coistlie abilyements indifferentlie used be all estatis, excessive banquat- 
 ing and sic lik, remains yit to thir dayis, to the greit hinder and povartie of the 
 hole realme.” 
 
 Napier did not return with the royal cortege, but had been ordered home 
 immediately afterwards, as appears by another letter dated at Edinburgh the 
 28th July 1537, and under the hand of the monarch, prolonging his leave of 
 
 vmquhile Lady Kers had namit him ane of hir executouris, protestit for the oter prices and 
 availl of quhatsumeuir gudis or geyr that the said Lady Tulyberdin intromettis with, disponis or 
 puttis away of the said ymquhile Lady Kers’s, and for remeid. Super quibus dict. Archibaldus 
 cepit instrumenta in manibus mei notarij subscript. Acta in domo Johannis Forester de Logy, 
 infra burgum de Strivling,” &c. ‘ The samin day comperit befor me noter and witnes vnder- 
 writtin, Maister Neyll Oyg, leiche, and Dene Dauid Nicholl, channoun in Cambuskynet, and con- 
 fessit of thair awne motive, will, &c. that thai wer in the Lady Kers chalmer on Friday the secund 
 day of Nouember instant, scho beand apon hir deid bed, and wes requyrit be Schir Johne Craig 
 curat of Strivling, to mak her testament, scho ansuerit on this manner: I have na geyr to mak 
 testament of attour ye valour of xl libs. except ye Lard of Merchamstonis, and his bruthir 
 and sisteris geyr. Super quibus Honorabilis Archibaldus Naper de Merchamstoun cepit instru- 
 menta,” &c. “The nowmer of ky pertening to the Lady Kers.—Item of newcauld ky xij ky. Item 
 of ky to ye bule xv ky. Ane bule of twa zeir auld, ane stot of the samin eild, thre qwy calfis, 
 
 and thre stot calfis.” 
 
4A THE LIFE OF 
 
 absence. “ Forsamekle as we for divers causis and considerationis moving us, 
 directed oure writingis to command and charge Alexander Naper of Merchams- 
 toun, now being in the partis of France, to returne hame in this oure realme 
 with all diligence, as in oure writingis directed thereuppoun is at mair lenth 
 contenit, and now we ar surelie informit that the said Alexander is vesiit be 
 the hand of God, and fallin in the feberis, quharfor he may not travale for 
 to cum hame in this realme for danger of his liff, we be the tennour heirof dis- 
 pensis with the said Alexander to remane still in the partis of France quhar 
 he now is, quhill he haif recouerit his heill, and have new charge of us for his 
 returning hame in this realme, notwithstanding our utheris letters directed of 
 befor to charge him to cum hame.” But the absence of a single baron on 
 whose loyalty and counsel he could rely, seems at this time to have been con- 
 sidered an important circumstance by James, and indeed, from the state to 
 which the country had been reduced by the paralyzing defeat at Flodden, a 
 baron could iJ] be spared. ‘The following pressing letter was accordingly des- 
 patched by the king to recall Merchiston from France. 
 
 “ To oure weilbelouit freynd the Lard of Marchaymstoun. 
 
 “ Traist frend we grete zou weill. Forsamekill as oure Perliament is con- 
 tinewit to the ferd day of November nixt to cum, and all our Baronis ar or- 
 danit to compere in the samyn, for treting and concluding upoun grete ma- 
 teris concerning the weill and honour of us, oure realme and lieges, and it is 
 oure will nochtwithstanding ony oure licence grantit to zou of before, all ex- 
 cusatioun postponit, that ze in speciall compere in oure said Perliament the said 
 day, for zour avyss and counsale to be had tharein. Oure will is herefor, and 
 we pray zou effectuislie, and als chargis, that incontinent efter the sycht hereof, 
 all excusatioun cessing as said is, ze cum hame within this oure realme, and 
 compere in oure said Perliament the said day and place personalie, to the effect 
 forsaid, as ze will ansuere to us at zour uter charge. Subscrivit with oure 
 hand and under oure signete, at Edinburgh, the first day of August, and of oure 
 regnne the xxv yeir.”—[1538, | 
 
 peer ie ROOTS 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 45 
 
 The above is folded and directed in the form of a letter and sealed with the 
 royal signet. 
 
 The active career of James V. was now drawing to its melancholy close. In 
 the year 1542 his barons deserted his standard at Fala; and refused, with one 
 solitary exception it is said, to follow their ardent monarch across the border to 
 invade England. So great was the disgust which he had occasioned to the 
 chiefs of his army, that loyalty and love of arms was in abeyance with them all 
 except Sir John Scott of Thirlestane, who possessed the estates of Thirlestane, 
 Gamescleugh, &c. lying upon the rivers Ettrick, and including St Mary’s Loch 
 at the head of Yarrow. This baron, amid the general disaffection, nobly de- 
 clared, that he with his plump of spears would follow the king wherever he 
 led; and one of the latest acts of James V. was to reward his feudal devotion 
 by a charter of those arms, which are now quartered with the Lennox roses 
 of Merchiston. j 
 
 From fair St Mary’s silver wave, 
 From dreary Gamescleugh’s dusky height, 
 His ready lances Thirlestane brave 
 Array’d beneath a banner bright. 
 The tressured fleur-de-luce he claims 
 To wreath his shield, since royal James, 
 Encamp’d by Fala’s mossy wave, 
 The proud distinction grateful gave, 
 For faith ’mid feudal jars ; 
 What time, save Thirlestane alone, 
 Of Scotland’s stubborn barons none 
 Would march to Southern wars ; 
 And hence, in fair remembrance worn, 
 Yon sheaf of spears his crest has borne ; 
 Hence his high motto shines reveal’d 
 «“ Ready, aye Ready,” for the field.* 
 
 The disgraceful rout of Solway, which immediately followed, sealed the fate 
 of the unhappy king; and the heart which had withstood the rude assaults 
 of affliction from the death of his first consort, and of the two young princes 
 whom his second had lately borne him,—which had been impervious to the 
 voice of justice and mercy when he decreed the death of the Lady Glammis,— 
 broke under the affliction of dishonour to his arms. 
 
 * The Lay of the Last Minstrel. The heir of line of Merchiston is lineal heir-male of Thirle- 
 stane ; Lord Napier being also Sir William Scott of Thirlestane, Bart. and possessor of that estate. 
 
46 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Alexander Napier could not have been disloyal.* It seems that he had never 
 recovered the fever by which he was attacked abroad ; and that in the second 
 year of the new reign he again settled his worldly affairs, and obtained leave 
 from the regent to go abroad for a twelvemonth. The letters run in the queen’s 
 name in these terms :—“ REGINA.—We, with aviss and consent of oure derrest 
 cousing and tutour, James Erle of Arrane Lord Hamiltoun, protectour and 
 gouernoure of oure realme, understanding that oure louit Alexander Naper of 
 Merchamstoun is vexit with infirmiteis and seikness, of the quhilkis he may 
 nocht be gudelie curit and mendit within oure realme. Thairfore, and for 
 certane utheris caussis and considerationis moving us and oure said gouernour, 
 be the tennoure heirof grantis and gevis licence to the said Alexander to pas 
 to the partis of France, or ony utheris beyond sey quhar he pleiss, and thar re- 
 mane for curing of him of his saidis seikness for the space of five zeris nixt to 
 cum eftir the day of the dait heirof, and will and grantis that he sall nocht be 
 callit nor accusit thairfore, nor incur ony skaith or danger thairthrow in his 
 persone, landis or gudis, in ony wiss,” &c. “ Gevin under oure signet, and sub- 
 scriuit be oure said governoure, at Edinburgh the xxviii day of Merche, and of 
 oure regnne the secund zeir.” (Added in different ink before the signature.) 
 “ This licence my lord governoure intendis to haif effect for ane xeir alanerly, 
 and farder induring his Gracis plesure.” (Signed) “ JAMEs G.” 
 
 But it was Napier’s fate neither to die abroad, nor of the sickness which seems 
 so long to have afflicted him. He departed to be cured by the cunning leeches 
 of a foreign land ; and he returned to lose his life in one of those memorable 
 battles which form such melancholy chapters in the history of Scotland. He 
 fell at the battle of Pinkie in September 1547, when the Earl of Somerset 
 inflicted another defeat upon the chivalry of our country. The circumstance 
 
 * Alexander Napier had certainly returned to Scotland after the king’s letter. Among the family 
 papers is a summons raised by him to effect redemption of a dwelling-house which his grand- 
 father Archibald had sold under that conditional clause, to “ Andro Bishop of Murray.” The de- 
 tails of what was then considered a great mansion are curious. “ All and hale his [ Napier’s] grete 
 mansion, contenand hall, kecheing, loft abone the kecheing, pantre, and loft thairabone, than oc- 
 cupit be maister Jasper Cranstoun, the chapell and three sellaris, with ane litill hous callit the pre- 
 sone, and all thair pertinentis, liand within oure burgh of Edinburgh, on the north side of the street 
 of the samyn.” The summons is dated 16th October, first year of the reign of “ Marie, be ye grace 
 of God Quene of Scottis,” ¢. e. in 1543, when she was precisely ten months old; and is directed 
 against “ Patrick, now bishop of Murray, Ge maister Henrie Lawdre our advocat.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. AZ 
 
 of Alexander Napier falling in this battle is mentioned in the confirmation 
 of his will by Anabella Campbell his widow. * 
 
 Among the Merchiston papers there is an interesting charter, alluding to the 
 death in battle of the two Alexander Napiers, in relation to the following circum- 
 stances: Mathew Stewart, fourth Earl of Lennox of the usurping line, became after 
 the death of James V. the rival candidate with the Earl of Bothwell for the affec- 
 tionsof thequeendowager. Buthaving warmly embraced the project ofan alliance 
 betwixt the young Queen of Scots and Prince Edward of England, and taken 
 arms in support of the English interest, he was compelled on the failure of that 
 matrimonial scheme, to fly to England. He signed a secret convention with 
 Harry VIII. in June 1544; and in August following was sent into Scotland with 
 a hostile fleet and army. For this and other treasonable delinquencies, he was 
 forfeited in Parliament 1545. The Napiers of Merchiston, as we shall have 
 occasion more particularly to notice, held of the Earls of Lennox the lands of 
 Blairnavaidis and Isle of Inchmone in Lochlomond, with valuable pertinents 
 and privileges, as a compensation, by way of excambion, for higher interests 
 in the fief usurped by those Earls. As the earldom of Lennox fell into the 
 hands of the crown by this temporary forfeiture, the vassals required to have 
 their respective grants renewed or confirmed to them by the sovereign. It 
 would appear that Haldane of Gleneagles, taking advantage of the confusion 
 of the times and the minority of Archibald Napier, obtained a grant of the 
 lands of Blairnavaidis &c. to the exclusion of the Merchiston family. In the 
 year 1558, however, before the Earl of Lennox was restored, and shortly 
 after the marriage of Queen Mary to the Dauphin, that princess issued a 
 charter, revoking the one she had granted to Gleneagles, and reinstating the 
 family of Merchiston in their patrimonial rights. The precept of sasine un- 
 der the great seal of Queen Mary is dated 14th July 1558, and narrates, 
 that the lands of Blairnavaidis, eister and wester, with the Isle of Inchmone, 
 and the right of fishing over the whole of the lake of Lochlowmond, (in 
 lacu de Lochlowmonde,) &c. which belonged to Archibald Naper, holding of 
 Mathew late Earl of Lennox, and which have fallen into our hands by reason 
 of escheat and process of forfeiture against the said Mathew, &c. and which, 
 after the decree of forfeiture we, in our minority, had granted by charter un- 
 der our great seal to James Haldane of Gleneagles, his heirs and assignees,— 
 
 * See the series of family wills in the Appendix, No. IV. 
 
48 THE LIFE OF 
 
 and which lands and islands having again fallen into our hands by reason of 
 our general revocation made in our last Parliament,—and we considering that 
 the predecessors of the said Archibald Naper had obtained the said lands in ex- 
 cambion from the predecessors of the said Mathew late Earl of Levenax,—so 
 that they may have regress to their first excambion, and also because the said 
 Archibald and his predecessors were in no manner of way participators in the 
 crimes of the said Mathew late Earl of Levenax, but were innocent of the 
 same ; * and that they in all past times have faithfully obeyed the authority of 
 our realm, even to death, and have, under the standard of our dearest grand- . 
 father, and under our own, in the battles of Flowdoun and Pinkie, been slain ; 
 —therefore, and for other good causes moving us, we, after our general revo- 
 cation in Parliament, have of new given and granted to the said Archibald © 
 Naper of Merchanstoun, his heirs and assignees, the said lands of Blairnavaid- 
 dis, eister and wester, isle, fishing,” &c. : 
 
 Archibald Napier, seventh of Merchiston, to whom this charter was grant- 
 ed, was the eldest son of Alexander killed at Pinkie, and Anabella Campbell. 
 At the time of his father’s death, Archibald had not completed his fifteenth year. 
 On the 8th November 1548, he obtained a royal dispensation enabling him, 
 though a minor, to feudalize his right to his paternal barony, in contemplation, 
 it would seem, of his marriage to Janet Bothwell, the mother of our philoso- 
 pher, which occurred in or before the year 1549. {+ The connection was highly 
 eligible, though from his extreme youth it might have involved some impru- 
 dent step. John Napier, however, had no reason to blush for his maternal 
 descent. 
 
 Archibald Napier’s father had an intimate friend in Francis Bothwell, one 
 
 * The words are “ac nos considerantes predecessores dicti Archibaldi Naper predictas terras in 
 excambium de predecessoribus dicti Mathei olim Comitis de Levenax habuerunt, sic, quod regres- 
 sum ad eorum primum excambium haberent ; et quod dictus Archibaldus et sui predecessores 
 nullo modo seu pacto participes cum iniquitate dicti Mathei olim comitis de Levenax fuerunt, sed 
 innocentes de eadem erant, et quod ipsi omnibus temporibus retroactis authoritati regni nostri fide- 
 liter servierunt, wsque ad eorum decessum, et quod sub vexillo quondam charissimi avi nostri et 
 nostro vexillo in bellis de Flowdoun et Pinke occisi fuerunt ; idcirco,” &c. 
 
 t His retour runs in the name of the young Queen of Scots and bears, “ quod est legittime 
 etatis per dispensationem nostrum cum consensu et assensu nostri charissimi consanguinei Jacobi 
 comitis Aranie Domini Hamiltoun nostri tutoris et gubernatoris,” &c. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. AQ 
 
 of the most respected and distinguished burgesses of Edinburgh in the reign 
 of James V. In one of Alexander Napier’s testaments, he names Francis Both- 
 well sole tutor of his eldest son, failing the administration of his widow Ana- 
 bella Campbell. Bothwell, however, died before the battle of Pinkie; and the tu- 
 torial charge of young Merchiston devolved upon his uncle Sir William Mur- 
 ray of Tullibardine, James M‘Gill of Rankeillor-nether, and John Forrester 
 of Logie. 
 
 At the tender age of fifteen, or thereabouts, this interesting minor was united 
 to Janet Bothwell, the daughter of his father’s friend, and of Katherine Bel- 
 lenden, only daughter of Patrick Bellenden and Mariota Douglas, and sis- 
 ter of the distinguished Thomas Bellenden of Auchinoul, Justice-Clerk and 
 Director of the Chancery to James V. A notice of the Bothwell family in 
 Nisbet’s Heraldry records, that Francis Bothwell “ married Janet, one of the 
 two daughters and co-heirs of Patrick Richardson of Meldrumsheugh, and got 
 with her these lands lying within the regality of Broughton, and shire of Edin- 
 burgh. He had by his wife two sons and one daughter: Richard, who was 
 provost of Edinburgh, and allied in marriage with the house of Hatton; Mr 
 Adam Bothwell, the second son; and Janet, who was married to Sir Archibald 
 Napier of Merchiston, mother by line to the honourable and learned mathe- 
 matician, John Napier of Merchiston, inventor of the logarithms.” In tra- 
 cing this family, however, through the old records of the city of Edinburgh, 
 I detect a fact not observed by any genealogical writer, that the mother of 
 this celebrated prelate Adam Bothwell Bishop of Orkney, and the grandmother 
 of our philosopher, was not the heiress of Meldrumsheugh, as hitherto sup- 
 posed, but Katherine Bellenden of Auchinoul.* No record could more fully 
 
 * One of the ancient protocol books bears an entry to this effect, that William Bothwell, bur- 
 gess of Edinburgh, acting as bailie for James Mailville, son and heir of the late James Mailville, 
 burgess of Kirkaldy, lord of Dunsyre in the barony of Bothwell, and shire of Lanark, gives sei- 
 sin at the east town of Dunsyre to the attorney of Adam Bothwell Bishop of Orkney, proceed- 
 ing on a precept of clare constat, which narrates, that ‘“ clare constat et est notum quod quond. 
 Magister Franciscus Bothwill, burgensis burgi de Edinburgh, et Katherina Ballinden, ejus sponsa, 
 pater et mater reverendi in Christi Patris Adami Bothwill, miseratione divina episcopi Orchaden- 
 sis, latoris presentium ; obierunt ultimo vestiti et sasiti ut de feodo in conjuncta infeodatione de 
 omnibus et singulis terris ville orientalis de Dunsyre, &c. et quod dict. reverendus pater est legi- 
 timus et propinquior heres eorundem quond. Magistri Francisci Bothwill et Katherine Ballin- 
 den, sue sponse, inter eos legitime procreatus.” Subscribed at Edinburgh, 27th August 1560.—Pro- 
 tocol book marked Alewander King, 4th Vol. 
 
 G 
 
50 THE LIFE OF 
 
 or distinctly establish a genealogical fact than what is quoted in the note ; but 
 as the same records prove that Francis Bothwell had been previously married 
 to Janet Richardson, the question remained, whether the Bishop of Orkney 
 was John Napier’s maternal uncle by the full or the half-blood. A remnant of 
 theancient Books of Adjournal of the High Court of Justiciary, preserved among 
 the MSS. of the Advocates’ Library, solves this question also. Ina trial of the 
 magistrates of Edinburgh, of date 22d March 1566, for setting a prisoner at li- 
 berty who had committed “ slauchter ;” Sir Archibald Napier, the philosopher’s 
 father, is one of the prosecutors, while Sir John Bellenden officiates as jus- 
 tice-clerk, having also a seat on the bench. An objection is taken for the pan- 
 nels by Mr David Borthwick, who “ allegit that the justice-clerk mycht nocht 
 be clerk in this mater, nor voit thairintill, becaus he and the lard of Mer- 
 chamestonis wyfe wes sister and brethir bairnis, and that thair wes bairnis be- 
 tuix the said lard and his spous.” ‘This proves that Katherine, the only sister 
 of Sir Thomas Bellenden of Auchinoul, was the grandmother of John Napier ; 
 for that lady unquestionably was the aunt of Sir John Bellenden, who succeed- 
 ed his father, Sir Thomas, as justice-clerk. It can be proved, however, from 
 various sources, that this Katherine Bellenden was the wife of the famous Oli- 
 ver Sinclair, whose ill-fated elevation in the affections of James V. led to the 
 untimely death of that monarch. But the difficulty is removed by an expres- 
 sion in a letter (to be afterwards quoted) of the Bishop of Orkney to Archi- 
 bald Napier in 1560, wherein he mentions “ Olyfer Sinclair, my gud-father.” 
 Thus, by a very accidental chain of conclusive evidence, the maternal descent 
 of John Napier is, for the first time, completely cleared.* 
 
 Our philosopher’s mother must have been reared in the family of this unfor- 
 tunate minion of James V. It is also worthy of remark, that by other near re- 
 latives of Merchiston, the same monarch was attended and soothed at the mo- 
 ment the news reached him of the defeat of his favourite at Solway. Helen 
 Napier, eldest daughter of Sir Alexander killed at Flodden, had married Sir John 
 Melville of Raith, who was particularly distinguished in the reign of James V., 
 and one of the early Protestant martyrs of the Reformation in Scotland.t+ 
 
 * See Note (B) as to the Bothwells and Bellendens. 
 
 + He was beheaded by the Catholic faction in 1548, although the most honourable and inno- 
 cent statesman of his country. An old MS. history thus records the death of “ Johnne Meluill, 
 ane nobill man of Fyff, quho was ane of the king’s most familiaris, quhois lettres send & writtin 
 to ane certane Englisman, recommending re him ane freind of his takin pressoner, war inter- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 51 
 
 Their daughter Janet, thus the cousin-german of our philosopher’s father, be- 
 came the wife of Sir James Kirkaldy of Grange, high treasurer of Scotland. 
 Towards this lady and her son William, so remarkably celebrated as the 
 champion at once of the Reformation and of Queen Mary, James V. en- 
 tertained the same affectionate regard with which he honoured the trea- 
 surer; and the most friendly intercourse seems to have passed betwixt the 
 monarch and these cousins of Merchiston. It was to their residence in 
 Fife that he first betook himself, accompanied by young William Kirkaldy, 
 upon hearing of the rout of Solway. Grange was from home; but his lady 
 received her sovereign (conducted by her son) as became one in whose veins 
 flowed the united loyal blood of Melville of Raith, and Napier of Merchiston ; 
 and who was, besides, the spouse of his best and most faithful councillor. She 
 exerted herself to calm his ruffled spirits, and to persuade him to take nourish- 
 ment. During supper, she endeavoured to sooth and comfort him by every 
 means in her power. “ It is the will of God,” said the good lady, “ take not 
 his will amiss.”——“ My portion,” was his reply, “ of this world is short. I will 
 not be with you fifteen days.” His servants tried to rouse him with the idea 
 of festivities. ‘‘ Where shall we prepare for the approaching Christmas,” said 
 they ; to which the king answered, with a smile of derision, “ Choose your 
 place ; but this I know, before Christmas arrive you will be masterless, and 
 the realm without a king.” Shortly after, he went to his own palace of Falk- 
 land, where he lay down to die. ‘Those around endeavoured once more to 
 rouse him with the intelligence, that his queen was safely delivered of a fair 
 daughter. “ A daughter,” said the dying monarch, and turned his face to the 
 wall, “ the devil go with it; it will end as it begun; it came from a woman, 
 and it will end with a woman.”* After that, continues John Knox, who pro- 
 bably had all the particulars from his intimate friend William Kirkaldy, he 
 spake not many words that were sensible, but ever harped on his old song, 
 * Fy fled Oliver ? Is Oliver taken ? All is lost.” 
 
 Thus prominent, in one of the most interesting scenes of the history of the 
 Stuarts, were the near relatives of Archibald Napier and Janet Bothwell, a few 
 
 ceptid. Althocht thair was no suspitioun of any crime conteaned in thame, zit was the wrytid 
 lettre and wryter thairof harlid to judgement. His landis geivin to David Hamilton, the gouer- 
 nouris younger sone, maid the punischement moir filthie. The arme of theise infamous deidis 
 twitchid bot a few, the invy many, bot the example perteneit almost to all.”—Johnston’s MS. 
 Hist. of Scotland, Adv. Library. See Piteairn’s Trials. 
 
 * Knox’s History of the Reformation. 
 
52 THE LIFE OF 
 
 years before their youthful union, which was crowned by the birth of our phi- 
 losopher. 
 
 Francis Bothwell, the father of John Napier’s mother, is a worthier object 
 of historical reminiscences than her stepfather. For many years he presided 
 over the councils of his native town, and aided those of the state, both legisla- 
 tive and judicial, with an honest energy of character and talents that had fallen 
 on evil times. At the period of the battle of Flodden, when the magistrates 
 and citizens of Edinburgh distinguished themselves both by their devotion in 
 the field, and by the wisdom and firmness with which they met and provided 
 for the exigencies of a moment so fatal to the independence of Scotland, Both- 
 well ranked foremost among his fellow-citizens. In the course of the period 
 betwixt the years 1514 and 1524, he passed successively through all the dig- 
 nified civic offices during the unpopular regency of Albany. 
 
 One curious feature in the history of the manners and the times is display- 
 ed in the fact that, while the country was torn with war and scourged with 
 fearful visitations of pestilence, and while at a moment’s warning the very 
 gutters of Edinburgh were apt to run red with the best blood of Scotland, the 
 citizens of the highest class lent themselves to promote a species of saturnalia 
 or unruly games, which not unfrequently added to the savage turbulence of 
 the times. Yet some of the graver and wiser citizens expressed a distaste for 
 these dangerous gambols, refused their countenance to the play, and declined 
 the elevation pressed upon them of being masters of the revels. Such recusants, 
 however, were only regarded as traitors to Momus, and an extraordinary 
 power seems to have been exercised by the town-council over any member 
 of the community who attempted to evade the crown and sceptre of misrule. 
 He was liable to heavy fines, which were rigorously exacted, even to the ex- 
 tent of attaching his property. Francis Bothwell accepted the dignities of 
 bailie, “ magister societatis,” dean of guild and provost of Edinburgh ;—but 
 that of “ Litil John,” to which in 1518 he was elected, being not agreeable to 
 his habits and tastes, he declined to accept, and was actually constrained to peti- 
 tion the Earl of Arran, at that time provost of Edinburgh, for a remission from 
 the duty imposed upon him, and from the consequences of his non-acceptance. 
 It must have been a sight truly ludicrous to behold some dignified and thought- 
 ful bailie, such as the grandfather of our philosopher, his heart full of disgust 
 and foreboding, making sport to the rabble, and kicking his heels perforce, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 53 
 
 under some fantastic dress, amid the merriment of his more jovial brethren and 
 the shouts of the assembled populace. The old record of Bothwell’s escape 
 from figuring in this tyrannical mummery, affords so curious an illustration 
 of the customs and manners of the day, that I shall give it here in the quaint 
 terms of the original :* “17 April 1518, the 12th hour.—The quhilk in pre- 
 sence of the president, baillies, counsall and communitie, Maister Frances 
 Boithwell producit my Lord Erle of Aranis principall provest’s writingis and 
 charge, till excuse him fra the office of litil Johne to the quhilk he was chosen 
 for this yeir, desyrand the samyn to be obeyit and the tenour thairof to be 
 incertit in this instrument, the quhilk tenour of the said writing followis: 
 “ President, ballies and counsall of Edinburgh we greit you weill; It is un- 
 derstand to us that Maister Francis Boithwell your nichtbour, is chosin to be 
 litil Johne for to mak sportis and joscositeis in the toune, the quhilk is a man 
 to be usit in’hiear and gravar materis, and als is apon his viage to pas beyond 
 sey his neidfull erandis ; quharfor we request and prayis, and als chargis you 
 that ye hald him excusit at this tyme, and we be this our wrytingis remittis to 
 him the law, gif ony he has incurrit for none excepping of the said office, dis- 
 charging you of ony poynding of him tharfor. Subscrivit with our hand at 
 Linlithgow the 12th day of Aprile, the yeir of God 1518. Youris, JAMES 
 ERLE OF ARANE. The quhilk wrytingis the said Maister Frances allegit war 
 nocht fulfillit nor obeyit, and tharfor he protestit that quhat euir war done 
 
 * Protocol Book of the City of Edinburgh. 
 
 In the “ Register of the proceedings of the Burrow Court and Court of Consale of Haidinton,” 
 embracing the period betwixt 28th June 1530, and last day of April 1555, the following entries 
 occur, which show that this custom was in full vigour more than twenty years after Francis Both- 
 well’s appointment in Edinburgh. 1540, March 30.—“< The which day the bailies and commu- 
 nity ordain, that whoever be made abbot this year, that he shall take the same on him within 
 24 hours next after they be chosen and charged therewith : or then to refuse the same, and pay 
 their 40 shillings ilk ane after other as they refuse ; and this to be observed in time to come. 
 The which day, James Horne was chosen by the bailies and community Abbot of Unreason for 
 this year ; and failing of him, Patrick Douglace, flesher ; and failing of him John Douglace, mason ; 
 syne Philip Gipson ; syne Robert Litstar ; syne James Raburn ; syne John Douglace, baxter ; and 
 George Vaik. July 20.—The bailies and assize will, that the first burgess that beis made, ex- 
 cept burgess-air, be given to Patrick Douglace [that is, the fees paid when a person was admitted 
 burgess, | for his Abbot of Unreason, that he should have ; and will relieve the town of the bond 
 that they are bound to him therefore.” 
 
 These May games occasioned so many tumults, that the Legislature was at length compelled to 
 put them down by acts of Parliament, which it was very difficult to enforce. 
 
54 THE LIFE OF 
 
 in the contrar turn him to na prejudice, and for remeid of law, tyme and place 
 quhar it efferis.” 
 
 After this, Francis Bothwell became provost of Edinburgh, and continued 
 to rise still higher in public estimation, and in the employment of his sove- 
 reign James V. He appears in the rolls of Parliament, 16th November 1524, 
 as a commissioner of the burghs, and was then chosen one of the Lords of the 
 Articles ; again on the 10th July 1525, and on many other occasions. On 
 the 7th June 1535, he appears as one of the royal commissioners to Parlia- 
 ment, and also one of the commissioners for the city of Edinburgh. He was 
 again chosen on the Articles, and appointed by the barons one of the commis- 
 sioners for the tax granted to James V. on his marriage.* But not the least 
 of his honours was having been selected as one of the fifteen upon the insti- 
 tution of the College of Justice. The Court was for the first time assembled 
 in presence of his majesty on the 27th May 1532, and their sittings have con- 
 tinued ever since at the appointed times, except when occasionally interrupted 
 by war, pestilence, or usurpation. Francis Bothwell was among the number 
 of “ cunning and wise men” chosen for the temporal side; while on the spiri- 
 tual, the person who had the honour of being named first after the Lord Chan- 
 cellor and president, was Richard Bothwell, his younger brother. 
 
 From every line of his descent talent seems to have flowed in upon John Na- 
 pier. His granduncle Richard being bred to the church, was made prebend 
 of the Cathedral of Glasgow, and afterwards appointed rector of Eskirk or Ash- 
 kirk, a parish in the presbytery and shire of Selkirk, and diocese of Glasgow. 
 He was director of chancery to James V. not long before another granduncle 
 of our philosopher’s, Sir Thomas Bellenden, held that office in the same reign. + 
 He appears as one of the royal commissioners for fencing or opening Parlia- 
 
 * Act Parl. II. 285, 339, 340, 343.. Historical Account of the Senators of the College of 
 Justice, by Messrs Brunton and Haig. 
 
 + Pinkerton says (ii. 356, ) “ The transactions of this year (1540) commence with a negotiation 
 on the borders, in which it was mutually agreed that all fugitives, from either realm, should in fu- 
 ture be surrendered to their respective sovereigns. Sir William Eure appeared for Henry, and 
 Mr Thomas Ballenden and Mr Henry Balnavis for the Scottish king. This affair, of little mo- 
 ment in itself, is connected with an important letter from Eure to the lord privy-seal of England, in 
 which he narrates some conversations with Ballenden, a man of aged experience and eminent abi- 
 lities, concerning the court and character of James, on which they reflect a new and strong light.” 
 This was Sir Thomas Bellenden, our philosopher’s grand-uncle. Thus both his grand-uncles, of 
 separate stocks, were successively directors of the chancery to James V., and very able men, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 55 
 
 ment in August and December 1534, was chosen one of the Lords of the Ar- 
 ticles for the clergy on the 7th June following, and on the 12th of that month 
 was appointed, by his brethren of “ the spiritualitie,” one of their commissioners 
 for the taxation granted by the three estates to the king on his marriage. He 
 was also doctor of the civil and canon laws, and provost of the church of St 
 Mary in the Fields, which became so infamously unhallowed by the name of 
 Kirk-of-Field, as the place of Darnley’s murder. <A curious testimonial of the 
 rector’s worth and services will be found below. * He was frequently at his 
 post after the date of that dispensation, and died in the year 1547. 
 
 Francis Bothwell died about twelve years sooner,{ leaving a family who sus- 
 tained to the full, the reputation of their father’s talent. Richard, his eldest son, 
 (of the marriage with Janet Richardson,) succeeded him as provost of Edin- 
 burgh ; Adam, the son of Katherine Bellenden, rose to a mitre, and ran a most 
 extraordinary and conspicuous career in church and state; Janet, the bishop’s 
 full sister, was the mother of the INVENTOR OF LOGARITHMS. 
 
 * « Rex.—Chancelar, President, and Lords of our Sessionne, we greit yow weill. Forsamekle 
 as we understand that our lovit servitour and counsulir, Maister Rechert Bothuell, is greitlie trub- 
 lit be infirmate and seiknes, swa that he is noclit so abile to continew our service, and to remane 
 with you continewelly as he was wont, herefor we movit of gude consideracioune, and rememberand 
 his aulde and guid service dune to uss, and to our derrest fader, quhome Gode assolye, relaxis him, 
 and grantis to him our gudewill, leif and licence to kepe himself frae labouris and inquietacioune, 
 quhill God sende him his perfyte heil and strength, because we knaw that he is of gude mynde 
 thane to continew, and to do us service as he wes wont to do before, we grant him that he sall 
 brouke, for all the dayis of his life, all sic honoures, dignities, privilegis, and exempcionis, with all 
 utilitie and proffittis that our haly faider the Paip and we hes granted to thame that daily sittis 
 on our seit. Gevin under our signet and subscripcionne manuall, at Edinburgh the 24th day of 
 Februare, and of our regnne the 27th yeir.—James.’—See Act of Sederunt, 1811, 39. 
 
 + Ina manuscript volume, entitled Anderson’s Protocols, preserved in the Advocates’ Library, 
 I find a notice of probably the last illness of our philosopher’s maternal grandfather; the oath and 
 evidence (in support of an instrument to which he had been a witness, in the year 1527,) “ hono- 
 rabilis viri magistri Francisci Bothuile ciuis Edinburgensis, gravem egritudinem patientis,” was 
 taken in his house in Edinburgh, 20th December 1535. 
 
56 THE LIFE OF 
 
 CHAPTER IL. 
 
 THE last chapter affords the only accurate account hitherto recorded of the 
 lineage, paternal and maternal, of the illustrious Napier. In this chapter 
 we must glance at the state of Scotland, and the near relatives among whom 
 he was reared, from the period of his birth to the commencement of his pub- 
 lic education. 
 
 He was born in the year 1550, at Merchiston, the seat of his forefathers, 
 near Edinburgh ; four years after the birth of Tycho, fourteen before Galileo, 
 and twenty-one before Kepler. But the youngest of these contemporaries 
 reached the summit of fame at an earlier period than he did. They encouraged 
 and emulated each other in their brilliant careers. He was distant and isolat- 
 ed from the great arena of letters ; cooped up within the narrow limits of deso- 
 late Scotland, and encircled with savage sights and sounds of civil discord, above 
 which the name of God was howled by those whose hands were red with mur- 
 der. When we regard his times, and observe the influence that for so long a 
 period of his life, the war of religion exercised over his intellectual exertions, 
 the wonder is, not that his great contemporaries of the continent became distin- 
 guished before him, but that after all he should have extricated his mind from 
 so many toils, and have placed himself by a single effort—though one like the 
 spring of a roused lion—at the side of the astonished demi-gods of science, who 
 had been unconscious of their rival. 
 
 In the year of his birth commenced, properly speaking, the Reformation 
 in Scotland. In that immediately preceding it, John Knox was released from 
 the French galleys, to which his participation in the defence of the castle of 
 St Andrews, after the murder of Cardinal Beaton, had consigned him; and 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 57 
 
 was then enjoying royal patronage in England. A very few years afterwards, 
 however, the accession of the “ bloody Mary” to the throne of England, and 
 of the Catholic Mary of Guise to the regency of Scotland, depressed the Pro- 
 testants in both countries, and Knox was again driven into exile. But many 
 of the lesser barons, and a few of the higher nobility in Scotland, had embraced 
 the new doctrines with irresistible ardour. These were the men who soon called 
 forth the genius of the e/eve of Calvin into that prominent and popular action 
 for which its rugged features were so eminently fitted; and their movements 
 and policy it was that induced him to quit Geneva for Scotland in the year 
 1555, when he met with the most flattering reception. A pressing call from 
 his flock at Geneva occasioned his return before the close of that year, parti- 
 cularly as his friends in Scotland, though anxious to retain him, were as yet 
 unequal to afford him the necessary protection. To use his own words, 
 he “ passed to the Earl of Argyle, who then was in the Castle Campbell, 
 where he taught certain days. The laird of Glenurchy, which yet liveth, 
 being one of his auditors, willed the said Earl of Argyle to retain him still, 
 but he, resolved on his journey, would not at that time stay for any request ; 
 adding, that if God blessed those small beginnings, and if that they con- 
 tinued in godliness, whensoever they pleased to command him they shall find 
 him obedient.” * 
 
 The patrons of Knox here mentioned were the relatives of Merchiston, whose 
 domestic history I resume at that momentous year of the Reformation (1559) 
 when the Protestant apostle returned to Scotland, and commenced in his own 
 country the part allotted him in the great revolution by which Europe was agi- 
 tated. At this time Archibald Napier was residing in the castle of Merchiston 
 with his family, consisting of his wife Janet Bothwell, his two sons, John (in 
 his ninth year) and Francis, and one daughter, Janet. Our philosopher’s father 
 possessed talents of the highest order, which he sustained through a long life 
 with unblemished integrity. A deep and speculative turn of mind, which 
 eminently characterized his race, seems to have withdrawn him from that 
 rude and tumultuous militancy, by which many barons, like his cousins Tul- 
 lybardin and William Kirkaldy of Grange, were distinguished in the Pro- 
 testant revolution. He had studied the laws, one of the fashionable pursuits 
 of times upon whose turbulence the dawn of letters was breaking. There 
 
 * Knox’s History. 
 H 
 
58 THE LIFE OF 
 
 is some authority for saying that he was a proficient in the mathematics ; * 
 and his practical abilities for science and more ordinary matters will appear 
 in the sequel. This character sufficiently accounts for the fact, that although, 
 in the progress of a long and active life, Archibald Napier rose to high con- 
 sideration in the state, he is not identified with any one of those stormy and. 
 desperate events which have rendered the names of many of his near relatives 
 and family connexions familiar to history. Of some of these relatives we may 
 here take a cursory glance. 
 
 At the head of the “ Congregation of the Lord” was Archibald fifth Earl 
 of Argyle. His father was the first man of his rank who openly espoused the 
 reformed faith in Scotland. The fifth Earl was still Lord Lorn, and about 
 twenty-three years of age, when, in 1555, Knox went to Castle Campbell 
 before his departure to Geneva. When Lorn succeeded to the earldom in 
 1558, though attached to the new doctrines, he had not as yet separated from 
 the party and councils of the queen-regent. In this year he was appointed 
 to carry the crown and other insignia of royalty to the Dauphin. The person 
 named to accompany him on that illustrious mission was James Stewart, prior 
 of St Andrews, Mary’s natural brother, celebrated as the Regent Murray. 
 The enmity entertained by the house of Guise towards both these young men, 
 and the state of affairs in Scotland, induced them to forego the honour of that 
 voyage. ‘They remained at home to become, “the one,” as Dr Robertson ex- 
 presses it, “ the most powerful, and the other, the most popular leader of the 
 Protestants in Scotland.” The character of Argyle was loftier and less sel- 
 fish than that of his early companion, the Lord James, as the bastard was 
 then called; and although he ardently co-operated with him for the esta- 
 blishment of the reformed religion, his career was not in like manner tainted 
 _ with worldly ambition, or unfeeling disloyalty and duplicity to his sovereign. 
 When Mary returned from France, he was sworn a privy-councillor ; and 
 
 * Wishart, bishop of Edinburgh, the celebrated historiographer of the great Marquis of Mon- 
 trose, was much domesticated in the family of the first Lord Napier. In his memorable history, 
 the Latin edition of which was hung round the Marquis’s neck at his execution, he observes, 
 «« About this time the Lord Napier of Merchiston departed this life in Athole,—a man of a most 
 innocent life and happy parts ; a truly noble gentleman, and chief of an ancient family. One who 
 equalled his father and grandfather Napiers (philosophers and mathematicians famous through all 
 the world) in other things, but far excelled them in his dexterity in civil business.”—English edi- 
 
 tion, Haghe, p. 148. 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 59 
 
 also presided over the supreme criminal jurisdiction of the country, having 
 succeeded his father as Lord Justice-General. Although this nobleman sacri- 
 ficed no principle in his attachment to his sovereign, and was occasionally in 
 the ranks of her opponents, he abhorred the ill-judged and shameful rigour 
 with which Mary, from first to last, had been treated by her rebellious subjects ; 
 and when he ultimately ranged himself on her side, the Earl of Argyle only fol- 
 lowed the dictates of honour and humanity. 
 
 With this illustrious house the family of Merchiston was doubly connected ; 
 Archibald Napier’s mother being the daughter of Sir Duncan Campbell of 
 Glenorchy, a distinguished scion of Argyle, (from whom flow the Earls of Bread- 
 albane,) while his great-grandfather, also Archibald Napier, had married, as 
 his third wife, a sister of the same Sir. Duncan. Accordingly, Argyle was 
 the friend and patron of Merchiston at the very commencement of the Refor- 
 mation, when he made him his deputy in the criminal court. 
 
 Another distinguished leader in the Protestant cause was Sir Colin Camp- 
 bell of Glenorchy.* He was the nephew of Archibald Napier’s mother, 
 and the same who, with the Earl of Argyle, met Knox at Castle Camp- 
 bell during his temporary visit to Scotland, and pressed him to remain. 
 The account of Sir Colin, contained in Nisbet’s heraldry, says, that “ he had 
 the character and reputation of a gentleman of great wisdom and prudence. 
 He was among the first of his quality who went into the reformation of the 
 church, not in a tumultuary but regular manner, by addressing the queen- 
 regent to grant the reformers the exercise of their religion, at least till mat- 
 ters were regularly settled in a legal way ; and was on the side of the reformed 
 in the Parliament 1560.” He was one of the commissioners for settling the 
 government of the church in 1573, and died in 1584. 
 
 Among the relatives of Merchiston who must have been most influential 
 with that family, the barons of Tullibardine, also doubly connected with it, 
 deserve to be particularly noted. Sir William Murray was one of Archi- 
 bald Napier’s tutors, and his uncle, by marriage with his mother’s sister, 
 
 * In 1560, says Archbishop Spottiswood, “ for fulfilling the article whereby the Lords were 
 tied to send pledges unto England, Colin Campbell, cousin to the Earl of Argyle, Robert Doug- 
 las, brother to the Laird of Lochleven, and Ruthven, son to the Lord Ruthven, were 
 delivered to the English admiral, and by sea conveyed to the town of Newcastle.” 
 
60 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Katherine Campbell. He stood at the head of the Protestant barons in the 
 year 1559; and was one of ten, selected from only twenty-nine nobles and 
 gentlemen, who then upheld the cause, to compose a council to manage the af- 
 fairs of the congregation.* He died in 1562; but the zeal of his house did not 
 expire with him. His son and successor, also Sir William, Merchiston’s cou- 
 sin-german, was one of the bravest and best of those Scottish chiefs, without 
 whose countenance and stalwart aid, the voice of John Knox might have de- 
 stroyed the Cathedrals, but would never have reared the Kirk. 
 
 The justice-clerk, Sir John Bellenden of Auchinoul, must not be omitted. 
 In the words of the old justiciary record, which I have elsewhere quoted, “ he 
 and the lard of Merchamstonis wife wes sister and brether bairnis ;” and 
 thus he was also the cousin-german of her brother the Bishop of Orkney. 
 He belonged to the party of the queen-regent even after Argyle and the 
 prior of St Andrews had forsaken it, and was one of the commissioners 
 appointed to treat with the lords of the congregation in July 1559. Knox, 
 
 € 
 
 speaking of what he calls a “ proclamation set forth by the queen-regent 
 
 to blind the vulgar people,” dated in August of that year, adds, “ this pro- 
 clamation she sent by her messengers through all the country, and had her 
 solicitors in all parts, who painfully travailed to bring men to her opinion, 
 amongst whom, these were the principal, Sir John Ballantyne, justice-clerk, 
 Mr James Balfour, official of Lothian, Mr Thomas and Mr William Scott, 
 sons to the laird of Balwerie, Sir Robert Carnagie, and Mr Gavin Hamilton ; 
 who, for fainting of the bretheren’s hearts, and drawing many to the queen’s 
 
 * See Dr Cook’s History of the Reformation. I presume it was the elder Tullibardine who, 
 in 1559, was of the council of ten to manage the affairs of the congregation. In that year, some 
 of the mercenary foreign soldiers, who then lived upon our unhappy country, mutinied for lack of 
 wages; and, says Knox, “ they made a fray upon my Lord Argyle’s Highlandmen, and slew one 
 of the principal men of his chamber, who, notwithstanding, behaved himself so moderately, and 
 so studious to pacify that tumult, that many wondered, as well of his prudent counsel and stout- 
 ness, as of the great obedience of his company. The ungodly soldiers, in hatred of goodness and 
 good men, continuing in their disorder, mocked the laird of Tullibairn, and other noblemen who 
 exhorted them to quietness.” The then laird was Sir William Murray, the grand-uncle of our 
 philosopher. From him, in lineal male descent, flowed the Earls of Tullibardine, Dukes of Atholl, 
 and Kings of Mann. The double connexion with Merchiston was this,—Christian Murray was 
 the mother of Elizabeth Menteith of Lennox and Rusky, and daughter of Sir David Murray of 
 Tullibardine. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 61 
 
 faction against their native country, have declared themselves enemies to God 
 and traitors to the commonweal.”* Before the end of that same year, however, 
 the justice-clerk had joined the Protestant church militant, though, according 
 to the graphic account of the same not unprejudiced author, he by no means dis- 
 tinguished himself in one of its early brawls. “ The feeble,” says Knox, “ among 
 whom the justice-clerk Bellenden was; fled without mercie.” But, however 
 feeble as a soldier, he was an acute lawyer and wily statesman, In 1547 he 
 succeeded his father, John Napier’s grand-uncle, in the office of justice-clerk ; 
 and in 1554 was repeatedly employed in the important negotiations for the 
 peace with England. When the war of religion commenced, he ranked high 
 in the councils of Mary of Guise, who shortly before her death in 1559, trans- 
 mitted to her daughter in France, a list of those upon whose talents and affec- 
 tions she might depend. He was chosen a privy-councillor on the instant of 
 Mary’s arrival, and took a principal part in all the councils and intrigues which 
 led so rapidly to her ruin. There is a curious notice of his accomplishments 
 in a letter from Throckmorton to Queen Elizabeth, dated 20th August 1567, 
 on the subject of the conference which took place with the French ambassador 
 when Murray became regent. “* Mr James Macgill,” says Sir Nicholace, “ pro- 
 nounced all the premises in the Scottish tongue, which, upon De Lignerol’s 
 desire, was interpreted into French by the justice-clerk.”. This worthy was 
 also doubly connected with the Merchiston family. Besides the near relation- 
 ship already-mentioned, he married (his second wife) Janet Seton, who was 
 the aunt of our philosopher’s father, by the half-blood, and a favourite maid 
 
 of honour to Queen Mary. t 
 
 But one of his nearest relatives, who were remarkably prominent during 
 the stormy and eventful period of his youth, was his mother’s brother Adam 
 Bothwell, bishop of Orkney. He deserves to be particularly noticed ; for to 
 this courtly and luxurious prelate we trace what appears to be the first anxiety 
 expressed on the important subject of John Napier’s education. Although he 
 was the first reformed bishop of Orkney, no prelate of the ancient regime could 
 have been more studious of his ease. He seems to have joined the infant church, 
 rather from a sense of the staggering state of the old religion than because he 
 entertained a violent distaste for its corruptions. He succeeded his brother 
 William t as rector of Eskirk in 1552; and was only about thirty years of age 
 
 * Knox’s History. +t See the Preface. 
 { William had succeeded their uncle Richard. 
 
62 THE LIFE OF 
 
 when the vacancy occurred in the see of Orkney, which he was selected to fill.* 
 His immediate predecessor was Bishop Reid; a most distinguished prelate, 
 statesman and patron of letters; president of the College of Justice ; and one 
 of the unfortunate ambassadors who were sent to arrange the preliminaries of 
 Mary’s marriage with the Dauphin. Most of these, and among the rest Bishop 
 Reid, died, under strong suspicions of poison, on their way home in 1558. 
 
 Among the Merchiston papers I found, what had hitherto escaped observa- 
 tion, the bishop’s part of a correspondence with his brother-in-law and sister, 
 which he seems to have commenced on taking possession of his see about the 
 end of the year 1559,+ and to have continued until he went to join Queen 
 Mary in France on the eve of her return to Scotland. These letters furnish 
 some curious glimpses of affairs, and contain the only notices of our philosopher 
 when a child hitherto discovered. They are chiefly interesting, however, in 
 the light they cast upon the private character of one of those statesmen, who, 
 if the fair fame of Mary Queen of Scots was the victim of a vile political ca- 
 bal, had been an arch-conspirator against her. To look into the bosoms of 
 those who spread with infinite art their toils around her, has by that very 
 art, been rendered indispensable to her exculpation ; though it is consolatory 
 to find that such minute inspection is equally necessary to determine her guilt, 
 which yet remains a question the most interesting in the history of Scotland. 
 Into the bosom, therefore, of this wily bishop we shall look as far as pos- 
 sible ; and by comparing his letters with his political career, add another 
 proof to the duplicity at least of Mary’s accusers. If it was through evil coun- 
 sel that she married Bothwell, this uncle of our philosopher counselled that 
 act. If guilty passion prompted her,—he pronounced the blessing of the Pro- 
 testant church over them, and joined their hands. If she was innocent,—he 
 foully and falsely accused her. If the casket contained forgeries,—he was deep- 
 ly an accessory to the most heinous instance of that crime that ever outraged 
 justice and humanity. If it contained incontestible proofs that this young and 
 beautiful queen was a hardened, unshrinking murderess,—then he had been 
 silent when he ought to have spoken, and is not free from the imputation of 
 an accomplice. 
 
 * From the Register of the privy-seal (xxx. 11.) it appears that Adam Bothwell was preferred 
 to all the temporalities of the see of Orkney on the 11th October 1559. He is designed Bishop 
 of Orkney in the grant ; and must have been elected by the chapter some time previous to that date. 
 
 + Some of these letters do not mention the year in which they were written ; but, upon com- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 63 
 
 From some expressions in the latter will of Sir John Bellenden, it would 
 appear that he had stood in the place of a parent to his cousin Adam 
 Bothwell; and probably he had also been the means of his promotion. 
 The following letter to the laird of Merchiston seems to complain that the 
 
 justice-clerk presumed upon this patronage, to make free with the bishop’s re- 
 venues : 
 
 * To his Bruder ye Laird of Merchinstoun, in Merchinstoun. 
 
 *“ Darrest Brother, Efter all hartle recommendation, pleis wit I ressauit 
 ane wreting of youris fra James King, be the quhilk ye schew me ye haid wretin 
 dyvers tymes to me, and mervalet that ye haid gottin na anser; treule 
 other na that wreting, I gat naine fra you this gryt quhyill, quhairfor think 
 not onkuith that I wreit na anser of that thing I ressauit not. As to the knaw- 
 lege of my being, quhilk ye war desyrus of, it hes bene in continuall travell 
 and labour of bodye and mynd and euill helth thairthrow continualle sene my 
 cuming in this cuntray, as this berar can reherse and informe you sufficientle. 
 Alsua quhat cummeris* sume frendis hes sterit oup unto us, and how the 
 samin standis with us presentle, James Meinzes will reherse you; prayand you 
 hartle to rekkin, that all the cumer that can be maid me sall not caus me to geif 
 ouer that thing suld be my supple in time of neid, and that otheris weill deser- 
 ving suld bruik efter me: bot gif thais that hes done me plessuir will resaiff 
 sic thankfulnes of me as of thankfull mynd I am willing and glaid to do thame, 
 I sall be about to do thame mair plessuir, and acquyt the benifet done to me 
 mair thankfulle than ony in Scotland that euer ressauit sic guid deid. Prayand 
 you, that gif ye cum in commonyng with ony man thairanent, schaw how I haif 
 offeret the iustice-clerk, haiffand + vpone this benefice xi hundreth merk of 
 pension, yeirle to be geiffen out of the quantite of xx. chailder beyr, quhilk is 
 mair than I haif to sustene me one behind, and gif the victuall com to sic pryces 
 
 paring their internal evidence with the dates that are given, the first letter quoted appears to have 
 been written upon the 26th October 1559, (twelve days after the hishop’s appointment to the tem- 
 poralities of his see, of which he had just taken possession,) and the rest to follow as arranged. 
 
 * Cummar. Vexation, difficulty, entanglement. E. Cumber. Deliuir ys fra all dangears and 
 perrelis of fyre and wattir, of fyir-flauchtis and thundir, of hunger and derth, seditioun and battel, 
 of pleyis and cwmmar, seiknes and pestilence, &c. Archbishop Hamiltoun’s Catechisme.—Jamieson. 
 
 It was a conspicuous prayer in the Bishop of Orkney’s Catechism too. 
 
 + Haiffand. Having, possessing. 
 
64 THE LIFE OF 
 
 as it hes bene guid * chaip within this schort spaice, I wald not haif sua mekil 
 
 behind my pensions as ether mycht pay that or susteine myselff ; quhairfor pray 
 him to be ressonable, and ramember him, that he that wald haif all, all is able 
 to tyne. Alswa pray him to put ordour till his demandeis ;- for gif he conti- 
 nowis as he hes begoun, I may find rameid thairfor sik as I best may, althocht 
 it stand not with his plessuir, and I war laith thairto in respect of amite: I 
 haif heithertillis borne that I will be absoluit fra, gif he, as ye gait,} castis 
 doune with his fuit sic plessuir as he hes done me. And mak my hartle com- 
 mendanes to my sister, quhem, with you and my navows, your bairnis, the 
 Lord God mot eternallie preserve in weilfair of saull and body. At the yairdis, 
 this xxvi day of October, be 
 
 ‘Your bruder at his powair the 
 BISHOP oFF ORKNAY.” 
 
 The next letter seems to have been written in December following, and af- 
 fords rather an amusing picture of the cunning and worldly mind of the writer. 
 
 “ To his Bruder the Laird of Merchinstoun, thair. 
 
 “ Rycht honorabil schir and bruther, Eftyr all hartle reeommendatioun, pleis 
 wit, this present is to schaw you of my helth, and quhow all affairis standis 
 with me, quhilkis ar at syk punt that, althocht friendis hes steret me owp mair 
 cummer nor lyis in thair powair to lay to me againe, that I remaine yit constant 
 at my purpois that is to do thaim plesour that newer deserwet ewill off me, off 
 quhilk numer ye ar; not dowbtand bot ye will continew and adverteis me 
 quhatt is your opinion off all matteris, and quhair away ye beleiff all sall turne : 
 this ye may do sua weill awysetle, that I may haiff knawlege off my desyr, and 
 ye nathing hairmet thairthrow; quhilk I pray you obmit not with the first that 
 passis betwix, and be labourand to put off cumeris off me that others quhilk 
 suld be frendis dois all thair powair to bring on, or at leist get me wit thairoff, 
 and mak me with the first ay adverteissement ; and spair not to fee ane or twa 
 futte fallowis to do the samyn with, quhatt evir thai cost I sall pay it. Alsua 
 get wit of my gossop Alexander King, quhat he hes donne anent the enterie 
 off me unto the landis off Briglandis and Estown off Dunsyr, quhairinto I pray 
 
 * I find in Jamieson, “ gude, guide, good, to manure,” &c.—“ They good their land with sea- 
 ware, and lightly midden muck.” MS. Adv. Libr. Barry’s Orkney, p. 447 : “cheap as dirt” pro- 
 bably answers to the Bishop’s phrase. 
 
 + Goat. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 65 
 
 you beyr help as I wald do giff I war present in ony causs concerning you; 
 and that becaus ye haiff enteres; and than I doubt not bot I will forder the bet- 
 ter, notwithstanding the iustice-clerk reprochet me be wryt, sayand, that my 
 sairry frendis that I chairget with my bissines left all in the myrre, and culd do 
 me na guid. Schir this is litill off his evill speiche ; I haiff not laissair to wryt 
 off the laiff, and off his unkind behavour towart me, quhilk sall never van- 
 taige hym ane d.* as I tak God to witnes, for that is not the way to conqueis me; 
 nor he sall never haiff me be that moyen. Treit my sister the berair weill, and 
 hald hir, sua far as ye may, in thai pairtis ; for I haiff gottynne off hir word 
 nor deid heyr away litill guid or eiss, bot continualle at debait with hir hus- 
 band, + becaus I wald not geiff hym all that I haid quhill I get mair; be hyr 
 caussing ; and sua hes beynne hethirtillis be my awin maist hurt off ony. Com- 
 mend me hartle to my sister your bed-fallow, and your sonne Jonne, quhem 
 with you and the remanent of your succession, God mot preserff. At the Yeards, 
 the first off December, be 
 “ Your bruder the 
 ** BISCHOP OFF ORKNAY. 
 “J pray you Schir, schaw you kynd to Alexander King for my saik.” 
 
 To this letter, the following affords a remarkable contrast. It seems to have 
 been called forth by one from his sister, complaining that her husband was no 
 longer her lover. But the bishop’s precepts are totally opposed to his example ; 
 and the ghostly comfort and advice he bestows upon his favourite sister, to 
 bear patiently her crosses as the signs and tokens of God’s love, is precisely 
 the reverse of his own conduct through life. 
 
 “ To his darrest Sister, Jene Bothwill, Lade of Mercheistoune. 
 
 * Darrest and best beluiffet Sister.—I commend me hartle to you. I ressavit 
 your wreitting fra the berer, making mention that thair is sume variance be- 
 twix you and your housband, and that ye ar not sua luiffet of him as ye war 
 wont ; and I am sorie that ye suld be at sic disease, | and specially I beyng sua 
 far removet fra you, and in sic tyme as I might haif worse supportet you of 
 
 * Probably meaning “ane doit,” or d. for denarium, a penny. 
 
 + The parties to whom the bishop alludes, are his sister Margaret, and her husband Gilbert Bal- 
 four, to whom she was married some time before 9th April 1559. Gilbert was a brother of the 
 celebrated Balfour, parson of Flisk, who became president of the Court of Session, and is the re- 
 puted author of the Pratiques of the Law of Scotland. 
 
 t Want of ease,—uneasiness. 
 I 
 
66 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ony tyme that hes passit sen my cumin in this roume.* Bot alwayes, sister, ac - 
 compt with yourself, that sic trubles as hes happinet unto you ar the visita- 
 tions of God, to pruif you, to try you gif ye luif him; and ar, as the croce of 
 the fathfull uses ever to be, the fatherle cheisteisment and maist speciall singis + 
 and evident taikinge of Goddis onedouttet favour and luif toward you ; quhome 
 as he hes beyne protectour, guvernour and defender of in tymes passit, sua dout 
 not bot he will be in tymes cuming; and reconsall you with your husband in 
 gaynning {| tyme, to your gryt contentment; geiffing your croce sik ane ysthew 
 and end of joy and glaidnes as ever the faythfulles croce uses till haiff. Prayand 
 you to tal ye samin therfor in patience ; saying with godle Job, gif we haif res- 
 saivit guid out of the hand of the Lord, quhai suld we not alsua ressaive evill ; 
 and geiffin him maist hartle thankis therfor, attesting your godle and stedfast 
 fayth in him, quhilk is maist evident in tyme of probane. And as for my part, 
 notwithstanding my inhabilite that is happinet throu frendis mysusing, 
 quhilk this berer will schaw you, ye sall ressaive of him threte libs. § and, as 
 God furthers me, I sall send sume taikin to your housband for intertynement 
 of amite. Committing you in the protection of the hiest. At the Yairdis, this 
 19th of January be 
 * Your bruther at all powair the 
 “ BISCHOP OFF ORKNAY.” 
 
 The following letter proves that Oliver Sinclair had married Katherine 
 Bellenden, the bishop’s mother, in her widowhood. It also contains an in- 
 teresting passage in reference to the education of our philosopher. 
 
 * To his Bruder the Laird off Merchistoun in Loudeanne. 
 
 “Rycht Honourabill Schir and Broyer,—Efter maist hartlerecommendatione: 
 pleis witt, I haif send presentle with this berar, sume power and commissione 
 to your nyghbuir the lard of Rosling, yourself, the schiref Olyfer Sinclair my 
 guid-father, || and Alexr King, coniunctle to commone, and, giff ye may, 
 
 * Place, or a possession. 
 
 + Signs and evident token. 
 
 t In time to come. 
 
 § L. 30. 
 
 || Oliver Sinclair was at one time Sheriff of Orkney ; perhaps, however, the Sheriff of Edinburgh 
 is meant. This minion survived his disgrace for many years, and was, it seems, still alive in 1582. 
 Sir Walter Scott narrates the anecdote of him and the unfortunate upstart Earl of Arran, that “ one 
 day, when the favourite was bustling into the court of justice at the head of his numerous retinue, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 67 
 
 mak appoyntement anent sic differentis as ar happinnit betwix the justice-clerk 
 aud me: quhairunto, Schir, ye ar maid juge in your awin causs: advyss gif 
 be your jugement ye will condame your self for that thing quhilk is cumin to 
 me throu my father; for ony weyr that may be maid me, without that chance 
 of poverte compell me, sall not be me, God willing, induring my tyme be put in 
 fremmit handis :* quhairfor in this behalf I will put you to cumir to labour 
 concord; gif it may be haid upone sic heiddis as I haif geiffin power to you 
 and your colleggis to offer: quhilk gif beis refuset, I pray you mak my pairt 
 knawin till all honest men that happinnis to heyr of our debaitt; and, sa far 
 as ye may, stay cummeris fra uss, quhilk I wait thai folkis will not leyf to 
 bring one us sa far as is in thame: bot gif thai get thair intent thairthrou, thai 
 will haif the mayr caus to vant thame thairoff; onlye, Schir, do that is in you to 
 appoynt us gif the samin may be; failzeand thairof, lat him be at his vayntage 
 of me; for gif he continouis in the stering of me oup mair cumir thane he hes 
 alradye done, I sall suyt help at sik ane as I wait will mainteine my just caus 
 agannis his violence, and all thais that will tak his pairt in wranging of me. I 
 pray you, Schir, to send your sone Jhone to the schuyllis; oyer to France or 
 Flandaris; for he can leyr na guid at hame, nor get na proffeit in this maist 
 perullus wordle,—that he may be savet in it,—that he may do frendis efter hon- 
 nour and proffeit as I dout not bot he will: quhem with you, and the rema- 
 nent of our successione, and my sister, your pairte, God mot preserve eternalle. 
 At the Yairdis in Kirkwall this v day of December, the yeir of God 1560, + be 
 * Your bruder at powair, 
 “ ADAME BISCHOP OFF ORKNAY. 
 
 ‘J pray you, Schir and bruder, to dress the laiff off your colleggis to beyr you 
 
 cumpanye for to dress thir affairis, becaus I may notlaubour thairin in my absence.” 
 
 The next letter affords a curious picture of the state of the times at the com- 
 
 mencement of our Reformation. 
 
 “ To the Rycht Honorable and his best beluiffet Bruther the 
 Laird off Marchinstoun. 
 
 “ Weilbeluiffet Bruder, I commend me hartle to you.—Pleis wit, I ressaivet 
 
 an old man, rather meanly dressed, chanced to stand in his way ; as Arran pushed rudely past him, 
 the man stopped him, and said, “ Look at me, my Lord! I am Oliver Sinclair.”— Tales of a 
 Grandfather- 
 
 * Strange, unfriendly,— wery and irkit in ane fremmyt land.” —Dougl. Virgil. 
 
 + The Arabic characters are used in this letter in the date of the year, but not of the month. 
 
68 THE LIFE OF 
 
 your wrytin off Marchinstoun the xxiv day off December, Jattin me knaw syk 
 novellis as occurret, and sua specialle that I cunne you verry meikill thank 
 thairoff ; and specialle off the advertesseiment maid my lord James, * quhill he 
 was in Strathbogy, be aine off the Sinclairis ; quhaironto that ye may be the ha- 
 billair to mak auswer, pleis understand the caussis off thair setting fordeward 
 off syk thingis: quhilk was, that thai beand instigat be the justice-clerk, quha 
 maryet with thaime twa sisteris, + to loup in ane off my plaices callet Birsay, { 
 quhilk thai kepit, and thaireftyr onbesset the way quhairbe I was to cum haime 
 from my visitatioun, ) with gret nomber off commonis quhem thai pat than in 
 beleiff to leiff frelie, and to knaw na superiouris in na tymis cumyn; quhilkis 
 be Goddis graice haid na powair to hairme me, althocht thair uttir purpos was 
 at thair hethir cumyn, to haiff alder slaine me, or taiken me: at quhatt tyme I 
 caussed demande off the said Henrie Sinclair, cheiff off that conjuratioune, quhatt 
 movet hyme to do syk thingis to me; and als quhat offence I haid donne hyme 
 or any off the countray, to provok thaime to syk thingis in my contrair ; 
 quhairunto he promeisset to mak answer in wryt; and schortlie he gaiff me 
 certaine petitionis, in quhilkis I findand petitionis and not answeris or ressonis 
 of the injury doune to me, I schew thaime to the Schireff and said, Schir, now ye 
 see thai haiff na just causs off taikin my houss or doyin me uther wrangis thai 
 do; quairfor I requyr you in the Quenis name, to do me justice: quha, beand 
 weill myndet to dress concord betwix us, wald use na chairgis apon hyme 
 for delyvre off my houss, bot desyret me mak answeris to his petitionis; quhilk I 
 refuset simpliciter quhill I haid my houss againe. Thir petitionis wes proponet 
 be the said Henry and his bruder Robert, and certaine als weill geiffin as 
 thaimeself, not exceding the nomber off xviii or xx; to the quhilkis the said 
 Henry fader gainstowd, || calland hyme and the laiff fullis that wist not quhatt 
 thai did; and said he wald on na sort consent the mess wer donne; lyk as sen- 
 
 * Murray, afterwards the regent. 
 
 + These two sisters of Sir John Bellenden married to Sinclairs, are not mentioned by the peer- 
 age writers. 
 
 { Patrick Earl of Orkney and his natural son Robert Stewart were tried and executed for their 
 rebellion in Orkney in 1614 and 1615, especially for holding out against the king, “ the castell 
 of Kirkwall, the House and Palice of Birsay,” also for the “ intaking and manning of the kirk 
 and steiple of Kirkwall, the castell thairof, and place of the yairdis.” Thus it seems to have been 
 long a favourite exploit to loup into Birsay. 
 
 § This corrects Keith, who in his catalogue of Bishops says, that Adam of Orkney appears 
 never to have taken any charge of his cure. 
 
 || Which the said Henry’s father opposed ? &c. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 69 
 
 synne he hes said, and biddin be with ane gret multitude off the commonis at 
 the first heid court eftyr Yeuil, * quhen thai wer all gatheret and inquyret be 
 certain off my messingeris, send to thaime to that effek, giff yai wald be con- 
 tent off mutatioun off religion, quhilk thai reffuset, and that notwithstanding 
 I cloisset my kirk dorris, and hes thoilet na mess to be said thairin sensynne ; 
 quhowbeit thai wer sua irritat thairbe, that eftyr thai haid requyret me sindrie 
 tymes to let thaime in to that effek, at last gaderet together in gret multitud, 
 brocht ane preist to ane chapell hard at the scheik off the schamber quhair [I 
 wes lyand seik, and thair causset do mess, and marye certaine pairis in the 
 auld maner. This was donne on Sonday last, quhilk I culd not stoppe with- 
 out I wald haiff committit' slauchter : quhairfor thai falzet far informet the lor- 
 dis sua; quhilk I pray you hartle to put out off thair heidis be contrair infor- 
 mation; and mak me frendis amangis thaime; for I am heir detainet with seik- 
 nes, and may not do for myselff as now ; bot as sonne as I may, I sall mak to 
 the gait fra I understand that ye haiff graipet the principal off the consailis 
 myndis towartis me, and found the samyn ressonable ; for I am certaine as my 
 small frend the justice-clerk hes steyret me oup all sorte off cummeris heyr 
 that he culd be Henrie Sinclair and Thomas Tulloch, sua hes he labouret thair 
 my hurt sua far as he may: quhilk, Schir, giff ye may persaiff, I pray you mak 
 me adverteissement, that I may provid for my affairis in caice thair wraith 
 may not be mitigat; for I will not commit me to ane angry multitud. Your 
 wrytin was veray comfortable to me anent the frendis ye schew me ye haid to 
 do for me; but leiff [not? ] thairfor tomak may; and the gratest rathest: schortle, 
 bruther and Schir, I commit my lyff and honnour in your handis. Quhatever 
 happen, I haiff maid ane charter to you and your airis off syk thing I haiff ; 
 quhairfoir subscrive ye the reversion I send to you be this berair; and put to 
 your seill thairto ; and quhatever chancis, ye nor your airis sall not be defraud- 
 et off your portion and pairt ye suld haiff off me. As to the landis off Brig- 
 landis quhilk I suld be enteret to; I pray you bayth speik yourself, and causs 
 Alexander King speik Michaell Nasmyth that is with my Lord off Sant An- 
 drews that is donatour to the waird and mairigge off the Laird off Man my 
 superior quhem off I hald blench, and my superior alsua off the queine blenche ; 
 and, giff neid beis, compone with hyme as ye wauld do for ony your awin lan- 
 dis; and quhatt ye promeis I sall keip. At the maist ther is thairoff bot twa 
 yeiris to rynne off the waird. This, Schir, ye may do giff the said Michael 
 cumes to the toun; failzeynne thairoff, witschauff ane servand apon my ex- 
 pensis, and J sall quyt it to pass to Paslay quhair he is, All uther thingis 
 
 * Christmas. 
 
70 THE LIFE OF 
 
 M? Frances and this berair kan reherss you. Quhairfoir, I will not distaine you 
 with lang wrytin ; bot commendis you with my sister, your wyff, and my awin 
 bairnis, your successioun, in the kepin off the Almytty. Prayand you hartle, 
 Schir, to mak my commendationis to thaime and all other frendis. At the Year- 
 dis, this feift of Februair anno Ix°, [1560,] be ‘ 
 “ Your bruder at his utter powair, 
 “ ADAME BISCHOP OFF ORKNAY.” 
 
 Upon the first day of the year 1561, (25th of March) that in which Queen 
 Mary came over from France, the bishop again wrote to his brother-in-law 
 as follows : 
 
 “To the Laird off Mercheistoune. 
 
 “‘Rycht Honorabill Schir and Brother,—Efter all hertle commendatioune, pleis 
 witt, I ressavitt this day ane wreitten of Mercheistoune, the ix day of Merche, 
 answer of ane other wreittin of mine the v of Februar, and hes understand thair- 
 be your vigilant favour in the dress of my bissines ; quhairof, Schir, I bliss God 
 and thankis you. I can na wayis rameid, bot onefrendis* sall saye the wors 
 of me; bot I sall keip that thai sall not haif the moyane to saye trewlie ony 
 evillof me. As to the first pairt of the complaint that is geiffin in to the lordis 
 one me, I wreitt sik informatione to you befoir, that I beleif, gif ye plesit to 
 informe the lordis in that poyntt, thai suld be thairby satisfeit. As to the se- 
 cond poyntt, I nay it utterlie that the samin can ever be verefeit; altoght I 
 haid guid caus to haif done the samin to our soverane, and to all that mycht 
 haif holpit or supportit my caus. I pray you to mak and entertinye the 
 moneast frendis ye can; and mak my hartlie commendationes to my Lord of 
 Kylmauris, +} assuring him that we sal be fund thankfull folkis for sik kynd- 
 nes as he hes schawin us. And the narration I maid you is veritable, and I 
 will mak it guid, and of other mair sene syne, that may infuse my caus amangis 
 all men; and whow-evir it be, I sall be fund the hounest man, and my adver- 
 sairis luid liearis. As to the wreittingis that ar send, quhilk contenit plaintis, 
 I did bot as I haid caus, and hes beyne thankfull to the gentill-man ye waitt 
 of. At this time gif he recompensis me with evill, I may weill tyne this, bot I 
 sall tyne na mair. As to the inspectioun of my wreittingis quhilk he hes 
 
 * 7. e. enemies. 
 + I presume this was Alexander, fifth Earl of Glencairn, particularly distinguished as a sincere 
 and upright champion of the Reformation, and called “ the Good Earl.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 71 
 
 gottin, that was wreittin to my Lord James,* I regard it not, and farles his 
 menaces; for and he war heir, and soght me be oneressonable wayis, he suld 
 haif nathing bot evill will and sad straikkis, and his allya with him. As to 
 the evidentis quhilk ye mak mention of in your wreittingis, I was in purpois 
 at the wreittin of your wreittin to send thame; bot becaus I tuik purpois to 
 cum till you, I thocht not expendient till committ thame to ony messinger 
 quhill I cum myself; assuring you, Schir, that the mair onkyndnes I thollit 
 for the keipin of favour to you and youris, and the preserving of your of- 
 springis apperand rycht; the mair constantt am I at the samin purpois, and 
 salbe, God willing: quha mot evirlestinglie preserve you and my sister, your 
 bedfellow, and your ofspring, my bairnis. At Mousbollus in Orknay, this xxv 
 of Merche, be ; 
 * Your bruther at all powair, 
 “ ADAME BISCHOP OFF ORKNAY.” 
 
 The following letters from the members of the bishop’s household are aiso 
 curious, and prove that he fufilled his threat of going in person to France, to 
 lay his grievances before the young queen, who was now on the eve of em- 
 barking on that sea of troubles where her fortunes and her fame were ship- 
 wrecked. No wonder that she grew sick and fevered, and looked with weep- 
 ing eyes back to her beautiful France. The most luxurious crown in Christ- 
 endom had just departed from her; and, as an earnest of that which was to 
 replace it, she was now hailed with disputes and grievances from her native 
 shore. On one side, her bastard brother reminded her of the ascendency of 
 Protestanism ; on the other, John Lesly (afterwards bishop of Ross) warned 
 her, in the name of all the saints, against the intrigues and ambition of her 
 faithless brother ; and between whiles, that indefatigable bore the Bishop of 
 Orkney fatigued her with complaints against the justice-clerk. 
 
 The two next letters are, of the same date, addressed to the Laird and Lady 
 of Merchiston, by one James Alexander, who seems to have been a relation 
 of the bishop. t 
 
 * Murray, afterwards Regent. 
 
 + Among the bishop’s legacies I find, “ Item, to James Alexander, the soume of ane hundreth 
 merkis, to-gidder with his obligatioun of xx merkis.” The third son of Andrew Alexander of 
 Menstrie was James, who had a charter to James Alexander in Menstrie, of an annual rent out 
 of Lancarse in Clackmannanshire, 30th May 1584.— Wood's Peerage, ii. 536. . If this be the 
 
72 THE LIFE OF 
 
 “ To the Honorabill the Lard of Marchzestoune. 
 
 “ Rycht Honorabill Schir and Traist Frend,—Efter my maist inwart and 
 hartle recommendatione of service, it will ples your m* wit, at the wretine 
 of this present, me Lord, my maister and your brothir, was departit of his 
 Lordschip’s ples of Kyrkwall, and passyt to the schype quhairine his Lordschip 
 was myndit to depart into, and, be the grayce of God, to pass in France to 
 vese the queny’s grace, our maistres ; and is of purpos to remane at the schype 
 quhill God provide the wynd and wadir, that his Lordschip may pass to the 
 completing of his Lordschip’s voaig. And as anent the ocatione of his Lord- 
 schip’s voaig and interprys at this tym, is to lament his Lordschip’s extorsyone 
 done to hym in the partis quhair his Lordschip hes cur of; and in lyk man- 
 ner, the oppressyone that is done to uthir frendis ; the quhilk his Lordschip be- 
 leifis that his maistres sall caus rameid to be put thairto as affeirs. And ye 
 sall wit, that afoir his Lordschip’s departing, hes maid his device and legasé, 
 as it afferit to be done, and hes left your m’ ane of his Lordschip’s executoris, 
 and hes left your sone his Lordschip’s air ; and intendis, gyf God prolongis his 
 Lordschip’s dayis, to agment that airschyp te the gret weill and prophit of 
 your m® and your airis and his. Farder, your m" sall reseif fra this berar 
 ane aquytans of Gylbart Balfouris apone the somys of mone the quhilk your 
 m' was akit in the buikis of cunsell for to the said Gilbart ; and me Lord 
 hes dessyrit your m" quho sone that ye haif reseifit this his aquytance, and 
 that your m™ may be at laisser, that your m* caus this acquytance be in- 
 sert in the buikis, and the act quhair your m™ was actit to be distroyit. 
 And as to the uthir affairis of this cuntra, the berar can schaw as me Lord 
 hes bene usyt, and as thai intend to us his Lordschip’s servandis efter his Lord- 
 schip’s departing, gyf thai may. Als me Lord hes prayit your m* to speik the 
 justice-clark,{ and the uthir Lordis of Sessyone as your m" thinkis gud towart 
 the mater betweix his Lordschip and Tomas Tulloch. The said Tomas hes 
 
 same, Merchiston’s correspondent was paternal uncle of Sir William Alexander of Menstrie, the 
 celebrated poet, who obtained a charter of the territory of Nova Scotia in America, 10th Septem- 
 ber 1621; with the power of making and endowing baronets, &c; the same who was created Vis- 
 count Stirling, Lord Alexander of Tullibody by patent dated at Windsor 4th September 1630. 
 He had a grant of, and colonized Long Island, and thus founded the flourishing State of New 
 York. James VI. used to call him his philosophical poet.— Wood. ‘ 
 
 * Your mastership, probably ; or, as one might say, your worship. 
 
 + Bellenden was not only justice-clerk, but had obtained a seat on the bench. In those days 
 the clerkship was not merely nominal. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. ih: 
 
 raissyt new sommandis, and hes execut the letteris afoir hys Lordschyp’s de- 
 parting: I beleif the day be the xxv of May. And to his cusyng Jhone Kyn- 
 kaid, he hes rafussyt to remane in this cuntra, for quhat caussys I kna nane; 
 for I will assur your m" that it was me Lord’s intent and mynd to haif done 
 [him] gret honor and plesour gyf he wald haif remanyt ; the quhilk your m* 
 and his uthir frendis will knaw quhen it plessys the Lord God that his Lord- 
 schip and frend meitis : the quhilk Lord mot preserf your m* in prosparete 
 wyth gud heill. At Kyrkwall, the xx of Aprill [1561] be 
 * Your m’ servand and frend, 
 * JAMES ALEXANDER.” 
 
 “ To the Ladie of Marchzestoune. 
 
 * Maistress—Efter my maist hartle recommendatioun of service to your 
 Ladyschip, it wil ples your Ladyschip wit, that me Lord your Ladyschip’s 
 brothir is, at the wretyng of this present, blyth and weill in halth, thankis 
 to the Lord God, fra all the havie trybbill and cumyris his Lordschip hes had 
 in tymys past; the quhilk trybbyllis gyf your Ladyschip had knawyne be quhat 
 personyss thai war moifit, ye wald nocht beleifit. I wil expreme na namys, bot 
 the occasyone of the trybill that mufit his Lordschip maist was nocht done be 
 na Orknanaze borne. Albeit that the Synklairis maid insurrectioun agane his 
 Lordschip, he wald nocht haif regardit that one thyng gyf his Lordschip had 
 wantit the occatioune of dissplesour done to hys Lordschip be thame that his 
 Lordschip confydit maist into presentlie for the warldis part; bot, as now, 
 thankis to God, his Lordschip’s mynd is releifit of the maist part of the occa- 
 tiounis. Atour your Ladyschip sall wyt, that at the tym of his Lordschip’s 
 seiknes, as his Lordschip was mervallis seik and beleefit nocht to haif recuver- 
 rit, thair was na speciall persone that his Lordschip was myndit to haif left his 
 Lordschip’s heretag, pois of sylver that his Lordschip had for the tyme allen- 
 renlie bot to your Ladyschip’s housband, your self and your airis; and this I 
 mak your Ladyschip assurit of. And now presentlie at his Lordschip’s depert- 
 ing, his Lordschip hes maid his deviss and lagesé, and hes nemyt your Lady- 
 schip’s housband ane of his Lordschip’s executouris, and your sone to be his Lord- 
 schip’s air in all thyngis pertenyng to heretaig; quhairfoir your Ladyschip may 
 beleif surlie to haif ane faithful brothirand ane kynd Lord, gyf God prolongis his 
 Lordschip’s dayis ; the quhilk your Ladyschip and all his Lordschip’s gud 
 frendis aucht to pray for. Farder, your Ladyschip sall wit anent your cusyng 
 
 K 
 
74 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Jhone Kynkaid, that me Lord is varay myscontentit that he wald nocht remane 
 in this cuntra; consyndirane that his Lordschip send for hym affectuoislie, bayth 
 to haif done hym prophit gyf he wald haif remainyt in the cuntra, and to set 
 fordwart his Lordschip’s honor in his absence ; bot I will assure your Lady- 
 schip that he wald nocht remane wythout me Lord wald haif put awaye the 
 constabill Gylbert Balfour * instantle, quha hes intrametit wyth this yeiris 
 fruttis, and can gef na compt of his Lordschip fruttis of this yeir, he beand put 
 awaye; and to haif maid hyim chalmerlaine, the quhilk office, gyf me Lord 
 wald haif gyfin hym, is nocht gaynand for hym; bot nochtwythstanding he 
 wald haif maid hym hail bailzie, and kabtane of hys Lordschip’s pless ; and pro- 
 mest, gyf Jnone Kynkaid wald us that weill, and remane quhill his Lordschip’s 
 returnyng, that he suld haif his dissyris fulfillit; and gyf Jhone makis ane 
 uthir rehairss to excus hymself, and to put the weit to me Lord, belyf it nocht ; 
 for I assur your Ladyschip it is trew that I haif wretin; quhairfoir gyf your 
 Ladyschip speikis wyth his modir, or anie uthir frendis, schaw as I haif wretin ; 
 and lat nocht me Lord be murmuryt wyth na frendis ; I wil wrat na mair as 
 now, bot the eternall Lord preserf your Ladyschip. At Kirkwall the xx of 
 Aprill [1561] by 
 * Your Ladyschip’s cusyng at powar, 
 “ JAMES ALEXANDER.” 
 
 Another worthy, Francis Bothwell, now takes up the pen, a nephew of the 
 Lady of Merchiston ; and one who appears deeply interested in her welfare and 
 her family’s, no less than in that of the bishop, whom he pronounces to be a 
 man of an extremely facile disposition : + 
 
 * This corrects a prevalent idea, that Gilbert Balfour was put in command of the Castle of Kirk- 
 wall by the Earl of Bothwell, or Queen Mary, for political purposes.—See Whitaker’s Vindica- 
 tion, and Peterkin’s Antiquities of Orkney. 
 
 + Adam Bothwell had not yet availed himself of the Protestant privilege of a wife, so this 
 Francis could not be a son of his born in wedlock. Though it was the custom of the clergy in 
 those days to have natural children, he appears not to have been young enough to be ason of the 
 bishop, who was not much above thirty at this time, and the General Assembly made no such ac- 
 cusation against him. The writer, therefore, must have been a son of one of the bishop’s brothers, 
 Richard, or William. In the records of justiciary I find, under date December 9, 1561, that « Mr 
 Alexander Dick Provost of Orknay, Schir Magnus Ramsay Chaiplane, Schir Duncane Ramsay 
 Chaiplane, in Orkney, found caution this day ; and (on Dec. 5,) Edward Sinclair bruder to the 
 Lard of Rosyln, and ten others. Mr Maszins, Halcro, William Halcro, Nicholl Chalmer, and 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 75 
 
 “ To his darrest Antt Jane Botwall, Lady Merchyngstoun. 
 
 “ Darrest Antt,—Efter hartlie commendatioun, ye sall understand that my 
 Lord your broder, hes tane purpos to pas in Franche, God willyng, and for 
 the gud of hymself and all his freindis, sua that God Almychty geif hym pro- 
 sperite in his vaiage. And in the tyme of his departyng, I spak hym effec- 
 tuislie for to be gud unto you and your barnis, gif it chanche hym inlaik in 
 the tyme of his vaiage ; quhilk he shew in deid; for he institute, nominat and 
 ordinat your son Jhon to be his undouttit ayr of all hes heretage, and your 
 housband to be executour to hym also; and hes left to your dochter and 
 Frances your son, in legasie, largilé of his geir : and quhen he wes seik, I being 
 absent with you, efferand of his lyff, he schew sic greit kyndnes to you and 
 your barneis, that he leift and gaif outt of his handis the effect of the mony 
 that he had than, before famois wittnes; and commandit it to be delyverit to 
 you and your barnis; and this I have of hymself, and of thame that was 
 maist secret than with hym. Thairfor ye aucht till have greit luiff to his 
 Lordschip, for I assur you his Lordschip beris als greit luiff to your housband, 
 your self and your barnis, as to ony that is in this present lyff; quhairfor I 
 pray you speyk your housband effectiuslie that he await upoun my Lordis be- 
 synes in till Edinbrugh intentit and movit contrar his Lordschip be Thomas 
 Tulloch of the Fluris; quhilk wil be upoun the xxv day of May nixtocum; and 
 caus him requeist the Lordis of the Session that my Lord gaitt na hurtt nor 
 skatht in na matteris intentit befor thame, untill his Lordschipis hame cummyng 
 fra the Quenis grace service. This I doutt nocht bot ye wil be diligant thairin- 
 till, as your partt is for to do. Attour I will nocht latt you gang withoutt re- 
 pruyff, and this is it. I schew you sum thyngis anentis sum personis, to- 
 wart thair misbehavar towart my Lord, quhik he will schaw at the meittyng 
 be you with hym ; the quhilk thyng I bad you keip secrett ; yit notwithstand- 
 ing ye schew thame agane to your sister Mergratt, * quhilk scho vrait agane 
 heir despitfullie, and causit cummaris to be amang us; of the quhilk my Lord 
 
 Freir Francis Bothwell, also found caution to underly the law on April 15 next, ‘ for convoca- 
 month of September last bypast, ischeid out of the Castell of Kirkwall, and cumand to the toune 
 thairof, and serchit and socht Henry Sincler of Strone, and Mr William Mudy, for thair slaughter, 
 &c. and utheris crymes contenit in the letteris direct thairnpoune.’ After having been continued 
 from time to time, the case was at length (May 13, 1562) referred to the Justiceaire of Orknay,” 
 —Piteairn’s Trials, i. 413. 
 
 * The wife of the constable of Kirkwall, Gilbert Balfour. 
 
76 THE LIFE OF 
 
 was gretlie offendat at you for the tyme ; quhairfor apardon me in tyme cum- 
 myng till schaw you ony secrett bot only that thing quhilk I sett no by quha 
 heir it ; for thair was nocht ane word that I said to you,—and ye will keip the 
 treuth,—bot I will byd be thame, and verefee thame in my Lordis presence, 
 quhan it will pleis God us till meitt all togethir. Of this repruiff tak in pa- 
 tience, for it was writtyn heir be your narration, and thairfor my Lord bad me 
 writt to you and repruiff you thairof in his name. Command my hartlie 
 service to the Lard, and Jhon, and my awn son Frances, and to the rest of 
 my gud frendis: nocht ellis, bot ye leving Lord keip you now and evir. At 
 Kirkwall the xxv day of Aprill the yeir of God 1™ v° lx ane yeirs, [1561.] 
 “ Be yours at powar, 
 * M* FRANCES BOTHWALL.” 
 
 The last of this series of letters is from the same to the same, announcing 
 the safe arrival in Scotland of Queen Mary and the Bishop of Orkney. 
 
 *“'Po ane Honorabill Lady Jein Boitwall, Lady off Merchestoun. 
 “ Darrest Antt,—Aefter maist hartly commendatioun, loving to God I haiff 
 hard of the Quenis grace cuming hame, and off my Lord your brother’s, quhair- 
 foir I pray you that ye beir your self waisly and kyndly to his Lordschip : in- 
 lykwiss your husband, in sic ane maner that your husband be never frai hyme, 
 and that for your greit weill and profeit ; ffor I feir, be rasone that I am frai 
 hyme, that thair sal be sum that sall labour in your contrary for to obteine that 
 thyng the quhilk ye haiff Goddis rycht of. It is nocht neidfull to expreim the 
 personis to you, for ye knaw them ; ffor giff I war present with hym, I suld 
 keip hyme that na man suld do you hurt in to your rychtis ; ffor [ knaw weill 
 thair greit deligence that thai will mak one the ane pairt, and my Lordis fa- 
 cilite one the uther pairt ; quhairfoir be ye deligent and waikryf; and gyf my 
 Lord cumis nocht haistaly heir, bot is in purpois to remaine thair, labour ye, and 
 caus for to labour, that my lord send about me to remain with hys Lordship ; 
 for your weill and uther fryndis ; nocht that I desir to be in courtein or cum- 
 mer, bot only for me Lordis weill: bot I prai you lat nocht my Lord wit that 
 I wreit to you for ony affaris ; for I wreit to you as ane freind, warnand you 
 of inconvenientis that maye chance excep ye be the mair deligent : and weit 
 nocht me gyff it be uthrewaiis nor weill; for quhene his Lordship and I de- 
 pertit, he was als weill gevin to you and your bairnis as ye or I wald haif de- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 17 
 
 sirit, as I wreit to you at lentht efter his Lordship’s depertyng: and gyf it 
 chansis me to cum in his cumpani, I wald trow in God that his Lordship suld 
 continew in the sam luiff and favour that he had to you and your bairnis 
 quhene his Lordship depertit ; and thait na uther laboraris suld prevaill. The 
 rest of this maiter I refar to your wisdom and your husband’s. I wreit to you 
 oft tymes of befoir and gat na answer as yit; thairfoir be nocht sweir in 
 tymes cuming, bot adverteis of all thyngis ye thynk necessair. I sall send 
 your hors to you all sone as I get passingiairis cumand betwein; for this com 
 awaye at the poist and your naik mycht induir to cum with hyme.* And 
 commend me hartly to the Laird and to Jhone, and your sone Frances quhilk I 
 trest in God salbe als gud ane man as ever was in Lowdyene: nocht ellis, but the 
 eternale God preserve you. At Kirkwall the xxviij daye of August [1561] be 
 * Your cusyng at the utirmaist of his powar, 
 “ M’ FRANCES BOITWALL.” 
 
 The name of Queen Mary suggests another near relative of Merchiston, with 
 whom it is well that the family can counterbalance the stigma of the Bishop of 
 Orkney. James Melville was the third son of Raith and Helen Napier. This 
 lady had been left (by the judicial murder of her husband) with a large family 
 of young sons in a miserable and destitute situation. But the consolation with 
 which he endeavoured to soothe her, that God would provide better for her 
 young sons than he could have done, proved true. The widow of James V., 
 Mary of Guise, had too noble a soul to suffer a family linked by many ties to 
 the memory of her own husband, to remain in a state of destitution. Some of 
 them she took under her immediate care; but James Melville, a beautiful and 
 engaging boy, she selected to be page of honour to her daughter in France. The 
 fortunes of this youth, who became so well known as Sir James Melville of 
 Halhill, are remarkable from their very outset. No fiction of romance or fairy 
 tale can equal them in vivid interest and curious adventure. He moved, as if 
 with a charmed life and reputation, through the storms of faction and the 
 halls of princes of various courts; conspicuously active in them all, yet in- 
 jured and sullied by none. The record of his adventures he bequeathed in the 
 most authentic and least suspicious form; a private legacy in his own hand- 
 writing to his sons, as a beacon by which to steer their course in public life. + 
 
 * Sic. 
 + “ Memorialis be Sir James Meluill, specefeing of matters whereintill he hes bene employed 
 be sindrie princes, or has seen and ynderstand being in ther courtis or contrees. To serue for an 
 
78 THE LIFE OF 
 
 He was unaccused, so had no motive to publish a deceitful gloss upon his own 
 conduct. He published nothing, so had no intention to prejudice after ages 
 with a false view of his times, and the characters who compose them. He had 
 the sacred and single-hearted purpose in view of reading a moral lesson to his 
 children from the facts of his own life, in connection with the history of his 
 country. “I grant,” says he, “ that thir litle triffelis ar not worthy to be put 
 in wret, wer not to testify of God’s gratious gudnes to the posterite of his faith- 
 ful; as David rehearses in the psalme, ‘ I have bene yong, and am waxing 
 auld, and yet I never saw the just abandonit, nor ther children.” To this 
 faithful record of the times, compiled by so near a relative of our philosopher, 
 I may have frequent occasion to refer. His eldest brother, John Melville of 
 Raith, was restored to the family estates by Queen Mary. Robert, the second 
 son of Helen Napier, well known as an able diplomatist and statesman under 
 the designation of Sir Robert Melville of Murdocairny, was long ambassador 
 at the court of Elizabeth from Scotland; and one of Mary’s dearest friends. 
 He became the first. Lord Melville. Sir Andrew Melville of Garvock, another 
 of these distinguished brothers, was equally beloved by, and faithful to, his 
 unhappy sovereign whom he served as master of her household in England 
 until her execution parted them. Their names occur in almost every page of 
 her tragic story, and of the diplomacy of the times. They were the grand- 
 sons of Sir Alexander Napier, who fell at Flodden ; the nephews of Alexander, 
 who fell at Pinkie; and consequently the cousins-german of our philosopher’s 
 father. Their sister Janet, already mentioned as the wife of the high treasurer 
 Kirkaldy, emulated her mother in a son whose devoted loyalty to Queen Mary 
 was only equalled by his determined support of the Protestant cause. “ The 
 gallant Grange” was thus the second cousin of the philosopher. He had par- 
 ticipated in the murder of Cardinal Beaton, the only stain upon a shield which 
 dazzled even the chivalry of France with the valour of a Scottish knight. An 
 exile for that crime, he served in the wars of the Low Countries about the year 
 
 exempler of lyf and better behauor to his sonnis concerning the seruice of princes and medling 
 in ther affaires.” —MS. printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1827. “It must,” says the able editor, “ af- 
 ford much gratification to those who take an interest in such researches, to learn that an original ma- 
 nuscript of Sir James Melville’s historical work has at last been found.” — Preliminary Notice, 1827. 
 
 It is a great pity that Dr M‘Crie had omitted to observe this in his edition of the Life. of 
 Knox, dated 1831, wherein he still refers to a spurious and unfaithful print of this MS. which ap- 
 peared in 1683; and attempts to throw discredit upon the authenticity of any testimony afforded 
 by the most authentic and delightful memoirs in aid of history that are to be met with. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 79 
 
 1553, under Henry II. and the high constable Montmorency. His nephew, 
 James Melville, was then the favourite secretary of the constable, and at his 
 side in battle. Melville narrates that his illustrious master—the most unlikely 
 to be astonished by deeds of arms, or to waive his dignity—would not address 
 Grange without uncovering ; and Henry IJ. who took the proud style of “ Pro- 
 tector of the Liberties of Germany and its captive princes,”—and while victori- 
 ous over Charles V., pointed to this young Scotchman, in the presence and hear- 
 ing of his uncle James Melville, with these memorable words: “ Yonder is 
 one of the most valiant men of our time.” 
 
 From these his collateral relatives, so variously conspicuous in political his- 
 tory during the period of John Napier’s boyhood and youth, we must turn 
 to contemplate the conduct and situation of his own father. Some expres- 
 sions in the Bishop of Orkney’s letters, and also the circumstances of Sir 
 Archibald’s being honoured with knighthood in the year 1565, and the mas- 
 tership of the mint about 1582, led me to examine the records more mi- 
 nutely, and to discover his first appointment to a high and responsible public 
 office. In the criminal court of Scotland, the Earl of Argyle, hereditary 
 justice-general of the kingdom, sometimes presided in person, but more fre- 
 quently delegated his important functions. From the remnants yet extant of 
 the ancient records of that court it appears, that upon the 16th March 1561, 
 a few months after Mary’s arrival in Scotland, “ The justice principall being 
 present, Archibald Naper of Merchinstone maid fayth in judgement that he 
 suld use ye office of justice deputrie lelilie and treulie, as effeirs ;” which, ac- 
 cordingly, he did for several years thereafter, and at a time when the coun- 
 try was so disorganized, and when learning no less than ignorance was so 
 leagued with the darkest superstitions, that to direct an assize must have been 
 a duty of no ordinary pain and anxiety to an upright mind. In a register 
 which commences 12th March 1560, and ends 16th May 1562, the justice de- 
 puties named are “ Sir John Campbell of Lundie, Mr Alexander Barroune of 
 Spittalfield, and Archibald Naper of Merchistoune.”* In one from 17th May 
 
 * The following royal letter, which I find among Sir Archibald Napier’s papers, seems to refer 
 to the period of his appointment to the office of justice-depute by the Earl of Argyle. The fac- 
 simile is of Queen Mary’s signature, a few months after her return from France. 
 
 « Marie be the grace of God Quene of Scottis,” &c. “ forsamekle as in the absens of our 
 
80 THE LIFE OF 
 
 1563 to 17th May 1564, they are “ Archibald Naper of Merchistoune, Alex- 
 ander Bannatyne burgess of Edinburgh, James Stirling of Keir, and Mr 
 Thomas Craig.” This is the celebrated Craig, author of the great work De 
 Feudis which forms so brilliant an epoch in the legal learning of our country. 
 He sits for the first time on the 6th July 1563, very shortly after he had 
 passed advocate. The Earl of Argyle is named as present on several sede- 
 runts. In the register which embraces from 24th May 1564 to 5th March 1565, 
 there is marked, “ curia tenta in preetorio de Edinburgh, 24 die May coram 
 magistro Archibaldo Neper de Merchistoune, justiciarie deputato.” I do not 
 find a record of Merchiston holding this office after the year 1565. He must 
 have received the honour of knighthood betwixt the dates of 24th May 1564 
 and 10th November 1565, which latter is that of the confirmation of the will of 
 his spouse Janet Bothwell, wherein he is designed “ Archibald Neper of Edin- 
 bellie, knycht.” His colleague in office, James Stirling of Keir, whose daughter 
 the philosopher afterwards married, was knighted along with Tullibardine, 
 (Merchiston’s cousin-german,) upon the occasion of Darnly’s being created 
 Ear] of Ross preparatory to his marriage. This honour was conferred upon 
 
 traist cousing Archibald Erle of Ergyill Lord Campbell and Lorne, justice generall of our realme, 
 in our effars concernyng the commone weill of our realme and quietnes amangis oure subjectis in- 
 dwellaris of our ilis therof, our traist counsalour Sir Jnone Campbell of Lundy knycht, depute to 
 oure said justice, in the meyntyme being vexit with sic infirmitie that he wes not able to serve in 
 the said office of deputrie, upone that necessitie, and consideratione that oure liegis havand criminale 
 actionis in courtis of justiciarie to be haldin in oure tolbuyth of Edinburgh suld not be hyndred 
 in process therintill, oure derrest moder the quene regent of gude memorie happynit to grant 
 commissionis of oure justiciarie in that parte to sindrie persones, sic as Alex. Bairrone of Spittel- 
 feilds, Maister Edward Henrysone, and dyvers uther persones, quhilkis commissionis we understand 
 ar providit to the office and commissione of our said justice general, quhairthrow he may not use 
 the privilege thairof, as efferis, specialie be making of sic honorable persones in his deputtis as he 
 will answer for to God and us.” &c. [Therefore the queen annuls these previous commissions, 
 and discharges all concerned from acting in virtue thereof. ] 
 
 “ Subscrivit with our hand and gevin under our signet, at Edinburgh the tent day of Januare, 
 and of our regne the xix yeir.” [1561.] 
 
 Vile R 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 81 
 
 them at Stirling on the 15th May 1565, about the very period to which Archi- 
 bald Napier’s knighthood may be traced. * 
 
 In selecting his assistants, it may be supposed that the good Earl of Argyle 
 looked for energetic minds sufficient to cope with the lawless turbulence of the 
 times. The lower classes, in the great towns at least, were continually in a 
 state of insurrection ; and now it was under a sacred banner that anarchy 
 veiled her unhallowed countenance. When we call to mind the raging of the 
 populace, the ranting of the popular preachers, and the storming of the lords 
 and gentlemen—all mingling with the blood of civil war and the tears of in- 
 sulted royalty —it must appear much more pleasant to contemplatethe infancy of 
 our Reformation in the tenderly selected pages of church historians, than it could 
 have been to walk the streets of Edinburgh in those days, or to presidein her halls 
 of justice. There is one crime of which we do not find much notice in the muti- 
 lated records referred to, though other more conspicuous mutilations speak of it 
 to this hour,—the destruction of some of our fine cathedrals, to which a de- 
 praved mob were then easily excited, as they might be to similar excesses in 
 a less barbarous age. It is in vain for modern historians of the church of 
 Scotland to speak of “ the merit which belongs to the very men by whom 
 the buildings were overturned,” or to tell us, that “ we must not forget to 
 take into view, that without such a degree of enthusiasm as led to these exces- 
 ses, the inestimable blessings resulting from the Reformation would in all pro- 
 bability not have been acquired.” | The men who accomplished the Reforma- 
 
 * Many trials of importance occurred during the years when Napier held office. He presided 
 upon the 16th March 1562-3 in the trial of Mr Adam Colquhoune, a gentleman of rank and pro- 
 perty in Ayrshire, condemned for the murder of a man-servant. The sederunt is marked, “ In 
 insula vocata Halie-Blude [ill [aisle] loco pretorii de Edinburgh coram Archibaldo Neper de Mer- 
 chinstone, justiciario deputato.” On May 19, 1563, “ John Archiebischop of Sanct Androis,” and 
 many others are tried for celebrating the mass, &c. a new crime in those records. Besides of- 
 fences of this nature, the numerous “ unmercifull slauchters,” feuds, tumults, “ umbesetting the 
 gait,” and violence of every description which characterize the period of his official duties, must 
 have rendered them no sinecure. Within this period too, namely, on the 26th June 1563, “ Agnes 
 Mulliken alias Bessie Boswell, in Dunfermeline, was banist and exilit for wichecraft.’—“ This,” 
 says the indefatigable editor ofthe Ancient Criminal Trials in Scotland, “is the earliest existing 
 case in the records of the high court of this nature; and it is almost the only instance of so mild 
 a sentence having been pronounced.”—Pitcairn’s Trials. 
 
 + Dr Cook’s History of the Reformation in Scotland. Dr M‘Crie, in his Life of Knox, has 
 
 L 
 
82 THE LIFE OF 
 
 tion in Scotland were not “ the rascal multitude.” The cathedrals were 
 destroyed by those who mingled their zeal for Religion with their passion 
 for Robinhood ;—who one day rioted for the “ Lords of the Congregation,” 
 and the next for “ the Lord of Inobedience ;’—with many of whom it was 
 matter of accident and indifference whether their convocation was for the mass, 
 as at the door of the sick chamber of the Bishop of Orkney ; or against it, as 
 when their unprincipled outrages caused a priest to commit suicide. 
 
 The Church of Scotland was planted by such noblemen as Argyle and Glen- 
 cairn; such barons as Tullibardine and Grange. It was rendered popular, 
 and thus greatly aided, by such preachers as Knox and Goodman; and it 
 became dignified in the eyes of Protestant Europe by its first and greatest 
 theologian, John Napier. 
 
 also taken a view of the matter not reconcileable either with sound principles of Christian govern- 
 ment, or with the facts and the opinions recorded by Knox himself. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 83 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 IT may surprise the reader to find this honour claimed for the Inventor of 
 Logarithms, who has hitherto been regarded only on his throne of science, and 
 that by the limited number capable of appreciating his genius. The celebrated 
 historian and philosopher who pronounced him to be the greatest man his 
 country ever produced,* founded, probably, none of that estimate upon his 
 theological merits; and more recent authors, ranking high among the histo- 
 rians of Christianity and theological learning in Scotland, have omitted to illus- 
 trate their subject with the most efficient example they could have found. I 
 propose, therefore, before approaching him in the majesty of his science, to 
 trace him through the progress of his education, and the perils of his times, 
 until he be discovered on the cathedra of theology in Scotland. 
 
 With the rise of the reformed doctrines that of our learning is intimately 
 connected. On the great field of the continent, human knowledge could ex- 
 pand even while bigotry kept her seat with persecution at her side. But 
 within the narrow limits of Scotland, there was little to induce sages to quit, 
 for her instruction, the richer and wider range of those countries where genius 
 might feel that the danger of the path only enhanced its glory ; and when 
 with us the study of the Greek language, for instance, was condemned as 
 heresy, and rendered those who indulged in such intellectual excursions ob- 
 jects of suspicion to a tyrannical priesthood, it was no wonder that learning 
 shunned our shores.t| Nothing can be more dreary than the prospect of letters 
 
 * David Hume. 
 
 + Boece records George Dundas as an excellent Greek and Latin scholar in 1522. He was 
 x 
 
84 THE LIFE OF 
 
 in a country whose rude legislature had to compel gentlemen to educate their 
 eldest sons. In the year 1494, an act of Parliament passed in Scotland, impos- 
 ing a fine of twenty pounds upon every baron and substantial freeholder who 
 neglected to put his son and heir to school. The limited application of this 
 statute, which seemed to consider the highest class of nobility entitled to the 
 luxury of ignorance, savours, perhaps, more of barbarity than the enactment 
 itself does of the revival of letters. Until the Reformation had made some pro- 
 gress, learning in Scotland can only be said to have exhibited occasional signs of 
 animation. While the rest of Europe, including England, could point to such 
 men as Petrarch and Erasmus, Regiomontanus, Copernicus, and Roger Bacon ; 
 Scotland had not distinguished herself in any department of human knowledge. 
 No lasting achievement had obtained for her a place in the history of letters ; 
 and even the art which approaches nearest to instinct, that of medicine, 
 found no Paracelsus there, when in 1543, just seven years before the birth of 
 our philosopher, his grandfather Alexander Napier obtained the royal permis- 
 sion to go abroad, being “ vexit with infirmities and seiknessis, of the quhilkis 
 he may nocht be gudelie curit and mendit within oure realme.” Poetry to be 
 sure, like springs in the desert, gave freshness to the reign of James V., when 
 Dunbar, Gawin Douglas, and Sir David Lindsay, put forth what 
 
 “« Unto ears as rugged seemed a song ;” 
 
 though, after all, not one of them could match the nightingale note, which 
 James I. acquired during his long captivity in another land. But the highest 
 flight of science and art which in Scotland illustrates the period alluded to, 
 was when the Italian alchemist patronized by James IV., attempted to soar 
 from the battlements of Stirling Castle upon wings of his own constructing ; 
 the result being, that he fell down and broke his thigh.* 
 
 master in Scotland of the knights of St John of Jerusalem. Dr M‘Crie inclines to think that he 
 must have acquired his learning on the continent. “ The Bishop of Brechin, William Chisholm, 
 hearing that Wishart taught the Greek New Testament in Montrose, summoned him to appear 
 before him on a charge of heresy, upon which he fled the kingdom. This was in 1538.”—See Dr 
 MCrie’s Note on the early state of Grecian Literature in Scotland, Life of Knox, i. 343. 
 
 * He came into Scotland about 1503, and deluded James IV. with promises of the philoso- 
 pher’s stone. He attempted to explain the failure of his aérial expedition in this manner :—The 
 wings, said he, were partly composed of the feathers of dunghill fowls, and so by sympathy tended 
 downwards, which would have been otherwise had eagle’s feathers alone been used. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 85 
 
 John Napier is the great land-mark of the most important epoch of let- 
 ters in Scotland. He is the first who, in the early struggles of our church, 
 gave a decided impulse to its biblical lore, by a commentary on the most ab- 
 struse books of the sacred Scriptures, which for learning and research has 
 never been equalled by any of his countrymen. At the same time, alone and 
 unaided, he placed his sterile country upon a level in mathematical learning 
 with those more propitious climes, Germany and Italy,—the cradle of astro- 
 nomy, and the hot-bed of letters. It would be no less interesting than instruc- 
 tive to trace minutely the developement of his extraordinary faculties. But 
 it is chiefly from traits afforded by the individual himself that the progress of 
 so great an intellect can be intimately known, and autobiography was incom- 
 patible with the qualities of Napier’s mind, and the nature of his achieve- 
 ments. Yet few could have left a more instructive diary of education. He 
 had drank deeply of human knowledge at its most recondite fountains ; and 
 the Bishop of Orkney, when he urged immediate attention to his studies, 
 had not cast his advice upon the waters, or falsely predicted the result. His 
 illustrious nephew made himself acquainted with the heights and depths of 
 learning. He read and studied the sacred volume in all its tongues. He 
 could enliven his abstruse lucubrations with the beauties of the ancient clas- 
 sics. He was more than learned in science and philosophy,—he was a high 
 priest in their temples ; and the occult sciences were not left by him unexplored. 
 Most probably it was the state of the country that prevented the advice of 
 his uncle given in 1560 from being immediately adopted. In 1558 the Uni- 
 versity of St Andrews, the most celebrated in Scotland, became nearly desert- 
 ed in consequence of the tumults of the Reformation ; and in the following 
 year, for the same reason, the faculty of arts were obliged to dispense with 
 the public exhibitions of the graduates.* Yet Napier commenced his public 
 education at an earlier period than has been supposed. It was in his four- 
 teenth year, before the marriage of Mary to Darnly, and when the seats of 
 learning were shaken by the storms gathering around the unhappy queen, 
 that he left, for the first time, his paternal roof. His mother died in 1563 ; 
 and in that same year he became a student in St Salvator’s College. 
 
 Although this was three years after the Parliamentary establishment of the 
 Reformed doctrines, St Salvator’s was still remarkable for the divided state of 
 
 * Dr M‘Crie’s Life of Andrew Melville. 
 
86 THE LIFE OF 
 
 its opinions; and the keenness engendered betwixt the scholastic temper of 
 the age and the magnitude of the question which agitated Europe, must 
 have exercised a corresponding and decisive influence over many a youthful 
 mind. In the mass of learned and minute information respecting St Andrews, 
 afforded by Dr M‘Crie in his Life of Andrew Melville, I find it stated that some- 
 time at this period “ the students were exercised once a-week in theological dis- 
 putations, at which one of the masters presided, and the rest were present and 
 took a share in the debate. . The disputants were exhorted to avoid the alter- 
 cation usually practised in the schools, and not to bite and devour one another 
 like dogs; but to behave as men desirous of mutual instruction, and as the 
 servants of Christ, who ought not to strive, but to be gentle to all.” Napier, 
 who throughout all his life was characterized by the utmost singleness of heart, 
 and the gentlest dispositions, appears, nevertheless, to have been able to keep 
 his own, and even to play a conspicuous part, amid the gladiatorship of intel- 
 lect affected by his youthful competitors. From the moment his mind began 
 to work he aspired to be a Protestant champion, and applied his whole ener- 
 gies to that sacred cause. The fact is derived from his own words, which are 
 the more interesting as they convey the solitary anecdote of his youth that is 
 known to exist. In his address ‘‘ to the Godly and Christian reader,” prefixed 
 to his Scriptural Commentaries, he says, “ In my tender yeares and barneage in 
 Sanct Androis, at the schooles, having, on the one part, contracted a loving fa- 
 miliaritie with a certaine gentleman, a Papist; and, on the other part, being 
 attentive to the sermons of that worthy man of God, Maister Christopher Good- 
 man, * teaching upon the Apocalyps, I was so mooved in admiration against 
 
 * « This Goodman or Gudman was an Englishman, formerly a public reader of divinity at 
 Oxford, one of those Protestants that fled away under the reign of Queen Mary, and that fixed 
 their residence at Geneva ; in which city, in the year 1558, he published a little tract against his 
 sovereign, under this title, ‘ How Superior Powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects, and 
 wherein they may lawfully be disobeyed and rejected ; wherein also is declared the cause of all 
 this present misery in England, and the only way to remedy the same.” —Keith’s History, p. 145. 
 This work of Goodman’s was of the same nature as Knox’s Blasts against the Monstrous Regi- 
 ment of Women. But he had not the spirit of his friend and colleague. He emitted a mean- 
 spirited retractation before the ecclesiastical council of Queen Elizabeth.—See Stripe’s Annals. 
 Keith adds, “ Thus it will be seen that this Christopher Goodman has been one of the same 
 spirit with our Mr Knox. But it seems though Goodman made this recantation, yet Queen 
 Elizabeth and her council have not thought it expedient to give him encouragement at home, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 87 
 
 the blindness of Papists, that could not. most evidently see their seven-hilled 
 citie Rome painted out there so lively by Saint John as the mother of all 
 spiritual whoredom, that not onely burstit I out in continual reasoning 
 against my said familiar, but also from thenceforth I determined with myselfe 
 (by the assistance of God’s spirit) to employ my studie and diligence to search 
 out the remanent mysteries of that holy Book; as to this houre (praised be 
 the Lorde) I have bin doing at al such times as conveniently I might have 
 occasion.” ‘Thus from himself we have an explanation of his long retiring 
 habits, and, at the same time, such a picture of the early vigour and independ- 
 ence of his mind as to make us wish for more. A youth, under fourteen years 
 of age, listening so intensely to an exposition of the Apocalypse from the pul- 
 pit, and bursting forth in disputation with his Papistical friend and companion, 
 until he conceived the daring project of leaving not a mystery of prophecy 
 unfolded, is a trait seldom surpassed in the history of boyhood. Galileo, 
 when a few years older, was also roused to powerful activity in the house of 
 God. But it was his eye that was attracted,—a characteristic difference be- 
 twixt the practical and the speculative philosopher which continued through- 
 out their respective careers. In the cathedral of Pisa, to which city the young 
 Italian had been sent for the benefit of an university education, he fixed his 
 gaze upon the vibrations of a lamp. Amid the pageantry of that worship 
 against which Napier warred, and of which Galileo was destined to be a vic- 
 tim, he watched, with the eye of an eaglet, the isochronal movements of the 
 chain, and measured them by the beatings of his pulse. The result was the 
 pendulum. 
 
 The time and the scene of Napier’s early studies were the great epoch and 
 arena of letters in Scotland, and deserve to be more closely examined. “ Not 
 to name the school or the masters of men illustrious for literature is,” said 
 Dr Johnson, “a kind of historical fraud by which honest fame is injuriously 
 diminished.” * The University of St Andrews became so celebrated that its 
 
 which very probably hath been the occasion of his wandering into our country. It were to be 
 wished our men at the helm had equally discountenanced such firebrands. However, after a great 
 many years he returned into England.” He was appointed to the ministry at St Andrews at the 
 same time that Knox was appointed to Edinburgh in 1560. 
 
 * Life of Addison. 
 
88 THE LIFE OF 
 
 fame spread over the continent. It was composed of various colleges, among 
 - which St Salvator’s was highly distinguished. Precisely a century before our 
 philosopher’s birth, namely in 1450, it was endowed by that celebrated Bishop 
 Kennedy, who, says Pitscottie, “ founded a triumphant college in St Andrews, 
 called St Salvator’s College, wherein he made his lair very curiously and costly; 
 and also he bigged a ship called the Bishop’s berge, and when all three were 
 complete, he knew not which of the three were costliest ; for it was reckoned 
 by honest men of consideration being for the time that thie least of them cost 
 ten thousand pounds Sterling."—But the Bishop’s munificent patronage of 
 letters did not stop here. He continued to take a fatherly charge of its consti- 
 tution, and was careful in his selection of the most able officials and professors. 
 The learned and laborious M‘Crie has given a minute account of its whole 
 economy, in his biography of Andrew Melville, Napier’s contemporary ; which 
 account, says he, “is chiefly taken from copies of papers and notes kindly fur- 
 nished me by Dr Lee, Professor of Church History and Divinity” in the College 
 of St Mary’s there. I need offer no apology, therefore, for extracting a little 
 on the subject from such asource. “ The University of St Andrews was form- 
 ed on the model of those of Paris and Bologna. All its members or supports, 
 as they were called, including the students who had attained the degree of ba- 
 chelor, as well as the masters, were divided into nations, according to the places. 
 from which they came. The nations were those of Fife, Angus, Lothian, and 
 Albany ; which last included all that did not belong to any of the three former 
 districts. These elected annually, at a congregation or general meeting, four 
 procurators, who had a right to act for them in any cause in which their in- 
 terests were concerned, and four intrants or electors, by whom the rector was 
 chosen. The rector was chief magistrate, and had authority to judge and 
 pronounce sentence, with the advice and consent of his assessors, in all causes, 
 civil and criminal, relating to members of the university, with the exception 
 of crimes which inferred the highest punishment. He had a right to repledge 
 any member of the university who might be called before any other judge, ci- 
 vil or ecclesiastical. And in certain cases, those who did not belong to the 
 university might be called before the rector’s court upon the complaint of a 
 master or student.”—“ Besides its civil and criminal jurisdiction, the univer- 
 sity possessed ecelesiastical powers, in the exercise of which it sometimes pro- 
 ceeded to excommunication. It may be mentioned as an evidence of the re- 
 spect paid to literature, that, in consequence of a dispute which had arisen, it 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 89 
 
 was determined that the rector of the university should take precedence of the 
 prior of the abbey in all public processions. For the direction of its literary 
 affairs, the members of the university were divided into Faculties according to 
 the sciences that were taught; at the head of each of these was a dean, who 
 presided at the meetings of the masters of his faculty, for regulating the mode 
 of study, for examinations, and the conferring of degrees.” Of the college in 
 which our philosopher was incorporated, the same author gives the follow- 
 ing account: “ The College of St Salvator consisted of three professors of 
 divinity, called the provost or principal, the licentiate, and the bachelor ; 
 four masters of arts, who were also in priests orders; and six poor scho- 
 lars or clerks, making in all thirteen persons, according to the number of 
 the apostles of our Saviour, in honour of whom the college was named. 
 The provost was bound to read lessons in theology once a-week, the licentiate 
 thrice a-week, and the bachelor every readable day. The first to preach to 
 the people four times, and the second six times a-year. From the four mas- 
 ters of arts two at least were to be annually chosen as regents, the one to teach 
 logic, and the other physics and metaphysics, according to the method of the 
 schools and the statutes of the university. The college was liberally endow- 
 ed by the founder for the support of the masters and scholars, besides the al- 
 tarages liberally founded by other individuals. The strictest rules were laid 
 down as to the behaviour of all the members, and as to the religious ex- 
 ercises, as well as the studies of those who were admitted to the benefit of the 
 institution. Young men of rank or opulence who might choose to study in 
 the college, and to pay for their board, were bound to obey the provost, and 
 to submit in all things to the rules of the house equally as the bursars or poor 
 scholars.” Without entering into the history of the other colleges, enough 
 has been quoted to show generally the nature of the institution and discipline 
 to which the young philosopher was first committed. It is proper to add, how- 
 ever, in reference to the earliest indications of his mind, that, although the 
 great question was still keenly contested among them, (of which Napier gives an 
 instance in himself and his papistical friend,) “ every thing connected with the 
 Roman Catholic faith and worship, which was interwoven with the laws and 
 practice of the university, and of the colleges belonging to it, was removed im- 
 mediately upon the establishment of the Reformation. Other alterations were 
 at the same time contemplated by the reformers, but various causes prevented 
 them from being carried into effect. Accordingly, the mode of teaching, and 
 M 
 
90 THE LIFE OF 
 
 the academical exercises, so far as related to philosophy or the arts, continued 
 nearly on their former footing.” 
 
 With regard to the classes, “ all the scholars who entered at one time into a 
 college formed a class, which was put under the government or tuition of a 
 regent. The regents were different from the professors, who had permanent 
 situations in the college. Originally every master of arts was bound to teach 
 a class, and came under an engagement to this purpose at his laureation. Af- 
 terwards it became customary to grant dispensations from this duty.”—“ The 
 regular time of the course was four years, but it was more usually finished in 
 three years and a-half. The session began on the first of October, and conti- 
 nued through the whole year, except the months of August and September, 
 which were allowed as a vacation.” —“ In the middle of the third year of their 
 course, such of the students as obtained an attestation of regular attendance and 
 good behaviour from their regent and the principal of their college, were admit- 
 ted to enter on trials for the degree of bachelor,” &c. At the end of the course, 
 the act of laureation passed through a wider field of examination; and “ the 
 degree of master of arts was solemnly conferred by the chancellor of the uni- 
 versity,—in nomine patris, filiz, et spiritus sancti.” 
 
 - The name of our philosopher has never been connected with the Uni- 
 versity of St Andrews upon an accurate examination of its records. Lord 
 Buchan observes, “ the time of Napier’s matriculation does not appear from 
 the register of the University of St Andrews, as the books ascend no higher 
 than the beginning of the last century; but as the old Lady of Babylon as- 
 sumed in the eyes of the people of Scotland her deepest tinge of scarlet about 
 the year 1566, and as that time corresponds to the literary bairnage of John 
 Napier, I suppose he then imbibed the holy fears and commentaries of Mais- 
 ter Christopher Goodman ; and, as other great mathematicians have ended, so 
 he began his career with that mysterious book.” Thus carelessly, in the only 
 life of him hitherto written, was the fact of the commencement of his studies 
 investigated, and one of their most anxious objects dismissed. I am bound 
 to record, however, that after having travelled to St Andrews to examine 
 the books of its university, I was told the same story of their reaching 
 no higher than a date comparatively modern; but afterwards discovered 
 that the original record was in Edinburgh. It is to be regretted that the 
 able historian of Scottish learning, from whom we have quoted so liber- 
 ally, had not, in his minute account of St Andrews and its students, cor- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 91 
 
 rected the mistake of Lord Buchan. Indeed the fact had nearly been lost, at 
 
 what seat of learning the greatest man whom Scotland ever produced first re- 
 
 ceived instruction. That Napier himself should have recorded it was the most 
 
 unlikely mode of its being saved, for no one was less egotistical or more spar-' 
 ing of his words. The accidental notice he has left is not given for the sake 
 of autobiography, further than to account for the progress of that holy spirit 
 
 which led him to endeavour to make plain the whole revelation of St John. 
 
 Although the “ Life of Andrew Melville” might be entitled a history of the 
 
 University of St Andrews its students and professors, Napier’s name is omit- 
 
 ted in this antiquarian research; and when a complimentary mention of 
 him as a mathematician occurs in a subsequent page of the volume, no bio- 
 
 graphical sketch is attempted, and no suggestion offered as to the place of 
 his education, though his name is more consequential to St Andrews than 
 
 that of Locke to Oxford, or even Newton’s to Cambridge. Fortunately, 
 
 however, we know the place of his youthful studies from his own account ; 
 
 and of the existence of the books of the college in which the original record 
 
 of his incorporation stands, I can now assure the reader, having satisfied my- 
 
 self upon that point by ocular inspection.* 
 
 Nothing can be more interesting than to trace in the columns of that ve- 
 nerable tome the original entry of his name, whose pre-eminence amid all the 
 learning of St Andrews can be so easily demonstrated. At the usual season of 
 matriculation, he was incorporated in St Salvator’s in the year 1563. The record 
 bears that this was the fourteenth rectorship of Master John Douglas, the pro- 
 
 * It is a curious fact, that at the University of St Andrews an idea prevails that their records 
 ascend no higher than some time in the 17th century. This must have arisen from that mischiey- 
 ous carelessness about the literary antiquities of the country, of which the tendency is to engender 
 those apocryphal histories which Lord Hailes did so much to eradicate and render disreputable. 
 But a philosophical spirit of antiquities can never pervade the annals of Scotland, if her seats of 
 learning do not catch and cherish the fire. 
 
 To the Rey. Dr Lee my best thanks are due for having furnished me with the following accu- 
 rate note as to these records :—“ The Record of the Faculty of Arts begins in 1413, and has been 
 continued without any material interruption ; and the Record of Matriculations has been preserv- 
 ed since 1484, What is called the Faculty Questor’s Book (containing accounts of the fees paid 
 for graduation) begins in 1456, two years prior to the opening of the oldest of the colleges. Every 
 thing which was ever published relating to the University of St Andrews, till within the last 
 twenty years, abounds with errors ; and nothing can be more incorrect than the authorized state- 
 ments inserted in the Statistical Account of Scotland.” 
 
92 | THE LIFE OF 
 
 vost of the new College of St Mary.* The names of the imcorporati, “ ex 
 collegio Salvatoriano, hoc anno 1563,” are registered in the following order : 
 “ Johannes Baxtar, Johannes Kar, Gulielmus Malwill, JOHANNES NEAPER, 
 Thomas Ramsay, Gulielmus Ramsay, Walterus Buchquhannane, Bartholomeus 
 Porterfield, Homerus Blair, Marcus Kar, Thomas Anderson, Johannes M‘Kal- 
 zenie.” ‘The names of those who entered the other colleges at the same time 
 will be found in the note at the end of the volume.{ Although some learn- 
 ed men may be discovered among the incorporat: of 1563, certainly there is 
 not one sufficiently illustrious to render any comparison with Napier interest- 
 ing. Of those who formed the same class with himself the most peculiar 
 name, Homer Blair, affords the only coincidence worth mentioning. He of 
 that ambitious appellation was born in the same year with Napier,—was in- 
 corporated in the same year and class,—and became professor of mathematics 
 at St Andrews, in which capacity he died. These facts are gathered from his 
 epitaph as recorded by “ Old Mortality.” | The “ Marcus Kar” of the same 
 class as our philosopher was probably he who was created first Earl of Lo- 
 thian in 1606,—namely, the eldest son of Mark Ker Abbot of Newbottle, and 
 the Lady Helen Lesly. The earliest notice of him in the peerage is, that he had 
 been provided to the reversion of his father’s abbacy by Queen Mary in 1567, 
 and was appointed master of requests in 1577. Of the zncorporati of the other 
 colleges, the name which chiefly attracts the eye is that of Hercules Rollock, 
 
 * James Melville (the minister) in his diary to be afterwards noticed, makes frequent mention 
 of the rector. Speaking of the year 1571, he says, “ Our haill collage, (St Leonard’s) maisters 
 and schollars, war sound and zelus for the guid cause; the uther twa collages nocht sa; for in the 
 new collage (St Mary’s,) whombeit Mr Johne Dowglass their rector was guid aneuche, the thrie 
 uther maisters and sum of the regentes war evill myndit.”—“ The auld college (St Salvator’s) was 
 rewlit be Mr Jhon Rutherfurd, then dean of facultie, a man lernit in philosophie, bot invyus cor- 
 rupt. This I mark for the setting furthe of the benefit I receayit in the collage and companie [| 
 was into.”"— The Diary of Mr James Melville, 1556-1601. 
 
 + See Note C. 
 
 { “ Hic jacet Magister Homerus Blair, Professor Mathematicus Academic Andreanse.—Vir 
 pius, probus, et doctus. Obiit 21 Martii 1603, atatis sus 53.”—Monteith’s Theater of Mortality, 
 p- 119. Sohe had not the satisfaction of living to enjoy the invention of Logarithms by his class- 
 fellow. His name is mentioned by the secretary of Knox in conjunction with that of Rutherfurd 
 in the affairs of 1572. “ Also the said Mr Jhone Rutherfurde, at what time one of his colledge 
 called Mr Homere Blair hath made orasone invective against St Leonard’s Colledge,” &c.— Ban- 
 natyne’s Journal, p. 375. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 93 
 
 who became distinguished in the same path of fame as George Buchanan, 
 though of an inferior grade. He was a Latin poet and a pedagogue. His 
 muse figures in the “ Delitiz” of Scotland, and his biography has been sketch- 
 ed by Dr M‘Crie.* The dignity to which he rose was that of head master 
 of the High School of Edinburgh. His appointment was under the patron- 
 age of Napier’s uncle the Bishop of Orkney, and I have ventured to ascribe to 
 Rollock the bishop’s poetical epitaph, which yet may be read in ancient Holy- 
 rood. + 
 
 Looking further than the year of our philosopher’s incorporation, we see 
 names which certainly reflect lustre upon Scotland ; and to say that he is beyond 
 all comparison the finest genius that can be connected with St Andrews in her 
 brightest era, is tantamount to claiming for him the throne of letters in Scot- 
 land. At the commencement of the century in which he was born, and prior 
 to the introduction of grammar-schools in Scotland, men of rank, who took any 
 pains with the education of their sons, sent them to board with monks, where 
 they imbibed the scholastic absurdities of the cloister. But it is obvious, from 
 an item in his mother’s will, that cur philosopher had been boarded within the 
 college, and under the especial charge of the principal. The statement of 
 debts due at her death, which occurred 20th December 1563, bears “ item, to 
 Johnne Rutherfurde for hir sonnis burde, auchtene pundis.” Rutherfurd was 
 a philosopher in all but his temper, which was violent to a degree: in the very 
 year when Napier matriculated, the principal had been so outrageous as to 
 receive a solemn rebuke from a court of inquiry on the subject. The following 
 spirited sketch of his history, from the pen of Dr M‘Crie, renders any other no- 
 tice of him superfluous. “ The scholastic philosophy still maintained its autho- 
 rity, and formed the chief subject of study in the universities. John Rutherfurd 
 was at this time the most celebrated teacher of it in Scotland. He was a native of 
 Jedburgh in Roxburghshire; and, having gone to France, entered the College of 
 Guienne at Bordeaux. There he prosecuted his studies under Nicolaus Gruchius, 
 equally distinguished for his knowledge of the Roman antiquities and his skill 
 
 * Life of Andrew Melville. 
 
 + See Note B. 
 
 { James Melville, who went to St Andrews in 1571, says, “ I was burdet in the houss of a man 
 of law, a verie guid honest man, Andro Greme be nam, wha lovit me exceiding well, whase wyff also 
 was an of my mothers; I am sure sche haid nocht sone bern sche loved better.” —Diary, p. 33. 
 
94 THE LIFE OF 
 
 in the Aristotelian philosophy. He appears to have accompanied his teacher 
 and his countryman Buchanan on their literary expedition to Portugal, from 
 which he came to the University of Paris. His reputation reached Archbishop 
 Hamilton, who invited him home to occupy a chair in the College of St Mary, 
 which he had recently organized at St Andrews ; and, after teaching it for some 
 years as Professor of Humanity, Rutherfurd was translated to be principal of 
 St Salvator’s College in the same university. In such estimation was he held, 
 that, soon after his admission into the university, he was raised to the honour- 
 able situation of Dean of the Faculty of Arts, though not qualified for hold- 
 ing it according to the strict import of the statutes. He had embraced the 
 reformed doctrines before their establishment in Scotland, and was declared qua- 
 lified for “ ministering and teaching” by the first General Assembly. By the au- 
 thority of a subsequent assembly he was admitted minister of Cults, a parish in 
 the neighbourhood of St Andrews, of which the principals of St Salvator’s were, 
 by the foundation of that college, constituted rectors. It was also part of his 
 duty as principal to lecture on theology. But Rutherfurd was more celebrat- 
 ed as a philosopher than a divine. Considered in the former character, his 
 labours were unquestionably of benefit to the university and the nation. The 
 publication of his treatise on the art of reasoning may be considered as marking 
 a stage in the progress of philosophy in Scotland. It is formed, indeed, strictly 
 upon Aristotelian principles, of which he was a great admirer, but still it dif- 
 fers widely from the systems which had long maintained an exclusive place in 
 the schools. Treading on the steps of his master De Gruchi, Rutherfurd re- 
 jected the errors into which the ancient commentators upon Aristotle had fal- 
 len, and discarded many of the frivolous questions which the modern dialecti- 
 tians took so much delight in discussing. His work contains a perspicuous 
 view of that branch of the peripatetico philosophy of which it professes to 
 treat. He had caught a portion of the classical spirit of the age; and the 
 simplicity and comparative purity of his Latin style exhibit a striking con- 
 trast to the barbarous and unintelligible jargon which had become hereditary 
 in the tribe of schoolmen and sophists. It appears from a curious document, 
 that Rutherfurd, like some other philosophers, did not always display his phi- 
 losophy in the management of his temper. In consequence of complaints 
 against him by his colleagues, a visitation of the College of St Salvator took 
 place in 1563, when it was found that the principal had shown himself ‘ too 
 hasty and impatient, and he was BOSE ee ‘not to let the sun go down 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 95 
 
 upon his wrath, and to study to bridle his tongue, and conduct himself with 
 greater humility and mildness.’” * Thus Napier’s mind was awakened to theo- 
 logy by Goodman, and he first caught the spirit of philosophy, but without the 
 alloy of passion, from the ardent soul of the pupil of De Gruchi, from whom | 
 also he may have acquired the simplicity and purity of his Latin style, in which 
 our philosopher even excelled his master. There is no question that he as far 
 excelled him in mathematics as he did Goodman in recondite theology. 
 Several of Napier’s contemporaries who had studied at St Andrews in their 
 youth, and who were well known to him in after life, became no less prominent 
 in the public affairs of the country, than they were distinguished in letters. 
 Among these was Sir John Skene of Currie Hill, the clerk-register, to whom 
 we owe the first collection of the Scottish Acts of Parliament, the treatise 
 de Verborum Significatione, the Regiam Majestatem, and the Quoniam At- 
 tachiamenta. He studied first at the King’s College of Old Aberdeen, but took 
 his degree of master of arts at St Andrews, where he taught as a regent in 
 the years 1564 and 1565, that is, during the short period that Napier was 
 there. He became well known and distinguished as an officer of state and 
 a diplomatist. Lord Hailes notes this critique of him in his catalogue of the 
 Lords of Session. “ It were to be wished that his knowledge of Scottish an- 
 tiquities had been equal to his industry.” Upon one occasion, however, he 
 supplied his own defects in a way that, had he always followed it, would 
 have left Lord Hailes nothing to say against him. Jn the course of prepar- 
 ing the treatise de Verborum Significatione, he came to the word “ particata 
 vel perticata terrz,” which he defines “ from the French word perche; meikle 
 used in the English lawes, ane ruid of land.” He then adds, “ But it is ne- 
 cessare that the measurers of land called landimers, in Latin agrimensores, ob- 
 serve and keep ane just relation betwixt the length and the breadth of the 
 measures quhilk they use in measuring of Jands, quhairanent I find na mention 
 in the lawes and register of this realme, albeit ane ordinance thereanent be 
 maid to King Edward the First, king of England, the 33d yeir of his reigne; 
 and because the knawledge of this matter is very necessare in measuring of 
 lands dayly used in this realme, I thought gud to propone certaine questions 
 to John Naper fear of Merchistoun, ane gentleman of singular judgement and 
 learning, especially in the mathematique sciences ; the tenour quhairof, and his 
 
 * Life of Andrew Melville. 
 
96 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ausweres maide thereto, followis,” &c.* As this treatise was published in 
 1597, (seventeen years before the publication of the Logarithms,) Napier’s 
 fame must have been long established with those who knew him ; and there 
 can be no doubt that Skene regarded him with a veneration that was founded 
 on his knowledge of him from youth upwards. 
 
 Sir Thomas Craig of Riccarton, his father’s colleague in office, may never- 
 theless be considered Napier’s contemporary. Indeed, if we are to rely upon 
 the account of his biographer Baillie, who says that he was born in 1548, 
 he was just two years older than the philosopher. But in the more recent 
 life of Craig compiled by Mr Tytler, it is suggested, with great plausibi- 
 lity, that the above date ought to be read 1538, which is consistent with the 
 rest of his career. He certainly was incorporated as a student of St Leonards 
 in 1552, eleven years before Napier became a student of St Salvator’s, and pro- 
 bably this was about the difference betwixt their ages. Craig continued at St 
 Andrews long enough to take his place among the determinantes or bache- 
 lors, but not the degree of master of arts, having set out to complete his 
 education at the far-famed university of Paris, somewhere about the year 
 1555.{ He returned a few years afterwards, and brought his natural and 
 acquired capabilities to profitable account at the then rising bar of Scotland. 
 Mr Tytler observes, “ in the year 1564, Craig, after having been for a very 
 short time at the bar, was promoted to a situation of importance and responsi- 
 bility. This was the office of justice-dupute.” But it appears from the re- 
 cords of justiciary, which we have elsewhere quoted, that he obtained this of- 
 fice even sooner than is here supposed, and sat for the first time on the 6th 
 July 1563, the year that Napier entered St Salvator’s. He acquired the 
 reputation of one of the first classical scholars of his country and times. 
 Baillie says of him, that in elegant literature he surpassed all his con- 
 temporaries ; and Burnet,( that he had no rival in Greek and Latin, and 
 spent his life among his books. Biographical eulogies are about as trust- 
 worthy as those of an obituary, unless there be some unequivocal fruits of 
 the genius that is lauded. The beautiful treatise De Feudis, the first philo- 
 
 * See Note D for Napier’s answers. 
 
 + “De D. Thome Cragii Vita,” &c. prefixed to the last edition of the treatise de Feudis. 
 { See Mr Tytler’s Life of Craig, 1823. 
 
 § Burneti, Prefatio. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 97 
 
 sophical work on law which our country produced, may still be proudly ap- 
 pealed to in the history of letters, and is that which sustains the fame of its 
 author Sir Thomas Craig. That the work is in some respects faulty and cal- 
 culated to mislead the student of our laws, has been asserted; though it is 
 never pretended that these errors destroy its character as a great national work, 
 worthy of a philosophical subject and of a philosophical country. When we 
 add that Craig was no mean Latin poet in the age of Buchanan, his claims are 
 exhausted; but they are sufficient to place him among the most distinguished 
 in the annals of his country’s learning. Yet after all he can only stand such 
 a comparison with the Inventor of Logarithms, as Blackstone with Sir Isaac 
 Newton. Napier, we shall find, acquired the same command of languages, 
 and was not unvisited by the muses; but he demonstrated the far superior 
 grasp of his intellect in a manner that renders all critical comparison useless. 
 Sir Thomas’s second son was an intimate friend of Napier, and apparently the 
 first person to whom he revealed the fact that he had conceived the Logarithms. 
 This was Dr John Craig, the physician of James VI., a more particular notice 
 of whom, with the interesting anecdote alluded to, belongs to another chapter 
 of these memoirs. From the circumstance of the fathers being colleagues in 
 office, and the sons confidants in science, it may be assumed that a great inti- 
 macy subsisted betwixt the Napiers of Merchiston and the Craigs of Riccarton. 
 It is singular that the parents of one so distinguished as our feudist should 
 only have been ascertained the other day. Baillie, without citing any autho- 
 rity, had said that he was the son of Mr Robert Craig, a merchant in Ediu- 
 burgh. Tytler, upon very slender presumptive evidence, decides that he was 
 “ the eldest son, not of Mr Robert Craig, but of Mr William Craig of Craig- 
 fintray.” Neither of these biographers attempted a suggestion even, as to the 
 name of his mother. Mr Riddell, an able antiquarian lawyer, settled this 
 question only last year. In a compilation replete with facts, but the title of 
 which holds out little promise of this one,* he discloses the marriage-contract 
 of the feudist himself, dated last day of October 1573, in which he is expressly 
 called the son of Robert Craig, burgess of Edinburgh, and Katharine Ballan- 
 dine, his spouse. Having thus discovered the father and mother of Sir Thomas 
 Craig, this writer adds, “ and there can be little doubt that Katherine Bellen- 
 
 * « Remarks upon Scotch Peerage Law, as connected with certain points in the late case of 
 the Earldom of Devon, to which are added desultory observations upon the nature and descent of 
 
 Scotch Peerages, &c. &c. by John Riddell, Esq. Advocate.” 1833.—Appendix, No. IV. 
 N 
 
98 THE LIFE OF 
 
 den, his mother, was of the distinguished and powerful family of the Bellendens 
 of Auchinoul and Broughtown, who were raised to the peerage at the restora- 
 tion.’* Mr Riddell was scarcely aware of the genealogical surprise involved 
 in this theory. If true, there would be no doubt who the lady was. She must 
 have been that sister of Sir Thomas Bellenden, and aunt of the justice-clerk, in 
 whom we have already detected the mother of the Bishop of Orkney and Janet 
 Bothwell. In other words, the grandmother of John Napier of Merchiston 
 was the mother of Sir Thomas Craig of Riccarton. We would then have to 
 add this to the marvel, that the names of these near relations of two such 
 great contemporaries had been lost till within the last twelvemonth,—had 
 been recovered about the same period, by researches totally separate and 
 independent, but which eventually disclosed the same lady for both. Such 
 a fact would be considered of great value in genealogical researches; and 
 in hopes of being able to establish it we have traced Katherine Bellenden 
 of Auchinoul through all her marriages; but regret to say that Robert Craig 
 is not one who can claim the honour of having been her spouse. That lady 
 had her arms full enough already. She was successively the wife of Francis 
 Bothwell, Adam Hoppar, and Oliver Sinclair ; and it was during her marriage 
 to the latter that Sir Thomas Craig must have been born. + 
 
 * Mr Riddell founds this upon the plausible fact, that Sir John Bellenden, in his will, styles 
 Mr Thomas Craig, advocate, “ cousing,” and makes him, along with other relatives, one of the 
 tutors to his children. No other Katherine Bellenden of Auchinoul is given by the peerage 
 writers, except the lady whom we have elsewhere proved to have been the maternal grandmother 
 of Napier. If Craig’s mother was of Auchinoul, she could have been none other than this same 
 lady. She could not have been a daughter of Sir Thomas Bellenden, as that would have made 
 Craig Sir John’s nephew. But she may have been a natural sister of the other Katherine Bel- 
 lenden, which would explain the expression in Sir John’s will. 
 
 + Note B.—But we cannot leave the feudist in this doubtful position ; and if we fully solve the 
 problem of his parentage, this genealogical digression, it is hoped, will be pardoned. The high trea- 
 surer’s accounts in the reign of James V.and of date 25th March 1539, bear ;—* item, send to Lin- 
 lithgow be Katheryne Bellendene to the quenis grace, twa pound of sewing gold; item, ane pound 
 of sewing silver ; ¢tem, ix unce of blak Paryse silk,” &c. Many items of the same sort, with their 
 various prices, follow, which prove that, besides the wife of the king’s minion, (Napier’s grandmo- 
 ther, ) there was a female of the same name about court in the quality of an embroideress. In the 
 following year, 10th May 1540, there is ;—item, deliverit to Katherine Belendene, till complet 
 ane sark to the kingis grace, sewit with gold and silver wark, half ane doubill hank of sewing 
 gold.” Upon the 11th of January of the very next year we find, “ item, to Robert Crag, for ane 
 collar of gold sett with perle, brocht hame be him to the quenis grace, and for bonettis, swerd- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 99 
 
 We have now to name the man whom contemporary eulogists were most apt 
 to select as a pendant to Napier; and that is the popular Buchanan, who be- 
 came principal of St Leonard’s College in 1567. ‘ The intellectual endow- 
 ments of George Buchanan,” says Dr Irving, “ reflect the highest splendour 
 on the land of his nativity; and every scholar who derives his origin from 
 the same country is bound to cherish and revere his memory.”—“ The his- 
 tory of Buchanan is the history of an individual unrivalled in modern times.” * 
 There is some exaggeration in this estimate. It is what may be said of Na- 
 pier, but not of Buchanan. He ranks high in the learning of his country ; 
 but to render the praise of his biographer not hyperbolical, the heart of Buc- 
 hanan ought to have been purer, and his head more profound. Blackwood 
 says of him with great truth, that he was “ homme ingrat, et desloyal ;” 
 and when we examine his conduct and his writings in reference to the his- 
 tory of Queen Mary, with the aid of those proofs which have been collected 
 within these few years to illustrate that unhappy page of our history, no im- 
 partial mind can come to any other conclusion, than that Buchanan was a rogue. 
 His admirers have claimed for him an apotheosis with the eloquent and elegant 
 Livy; but he may find himself—under the fiat of eternal justice,—nearer the re- 
 probate Sallust. In popular estimation his name is much more identified with 
 the erudition of his country than Napier’s. Our philosopher has acquired with 
 the vulgar the equivocal status in letters of a warlock; but there are men in our 
 own times of considerable literary attainments, who will afford him no higher 
 praise than the sneer of Iago “ forsooth a great arithmetician.”—“ Napier,” says 
 an author of historical celebrity, “ has much merit, but cannot stand in the rank 
 of great inventors. He is only an useful abbreviator of a particular branch of 
 the mathematics.” + Sir David Brewster (or the writer he employed) ransack- 
 
 beltes, sewing-silk, and uther gear,” &c. Here (for the first time reunited in modern days) are 
 the parents of Napier’s friend and contemporary Sir Thomas Craig of Riccarton. The silken 
 bonds that drew them together are manifest. In the same royal accounts there is an ztem 18th 
 July 1537, “ to Thomas Crag fyve elne Paris blak, to be the kingis grace ane ryding goune with 
 ane hude.” This was probably the feudist’s grandfather, after whom he was called. 
 
 * Life of Buchanan, by Dr David Irving. 
 
 + See Pinkerton’s “ Inquiry into the History of Scotland preceding the reign of Malcolm 
 IIT.” He there reads a solemn lecture to the Scottish nation upon that “ fervidum ingenium,” that 
 “impatience of thought and labour,” from which, he conceives, Scotland has never been redeemed 
 by a single instance. “ In literature and philosophy,” says he, “ the same impatience prevails, and 
 the consequence is, that we have not only never produced any man of erudition, but we have also had 
 
100 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ed his memory to record the names of those whose literary achievements illus- 
 trate Scotland, and forgot, only John Napier. But had he omitted the name 
 of George Buchanan, the very printers’ devils would have mobbed the disciple 
 of Newton on the streets of Modern Athens. * 
 
 The purest pedestal of Buchanan’s fame is his Latin poetry. Thus it 
 is not difficult to determine the respective grades in letters, of James’ peda- 
 gogue and Scotland’s philosopher. We shall show that Napier surpassed Ar- 
 chimedes in logistic, and emulated him in mechanics. Does Buchanan rival 
 Horace in rhyme? This test of their comparative literary merits is well illus- 
 trated by the commendatory verses attached to Napier’s Canon Mirificus, by 
 his friend Andrew Young, professor of philosophy in the University of Edin- 
 burgh. 
 
 BucHANANE tibi NEPERUM adscisce sodalem 
 Floreat et nostris, Scotia nostra viris : 
 
 Nam velut ad summum culmen perducta poesis 
 In te stat, nec quo progrediatur habet ; 
 
 Sic etiam ad summum est culmen, perducta mathesis 
 
 Inque hoc stat, nec quo progrediatur habet. 
 
 The distinction of their moral characters is yet more marked; being that 
 betwixt an unprincipled partisan, and a Christian philosopher. While the learn- 
 ed in our own times labour to give us fanciful portraits of Buchanan, we have 
 one of him drawn from the life by Napier’s relative Sir James Melville, upon 
 every line of whose simple portraiture the stamp of truth is impressed. “ Bot 
 mester George was a stoik philosopher, and loked not far before the hand; a 
 man of notable qualites for his learnyng and knawledge in Latin poesie, mekle 
 maid accompt of in other contrees, plaisant in company, rehersing at all occa- 
 
 no INVENTOR,—no man who opened up a new path in science. We cannot boast, like Denmark, 
 of a Tycho Brahe, nor, like Sweden, of Linnzeus, nor, like Poland, of a Copernicus. By the same 
 impatience of thought and labour, our writers of every class, though often ingenious and elegant 
 in a supreme degree, have never yet attained the character of great or sublime. We have no Bacon 
 —no Newton—no Shakespeare—no Milton. These remarks are given not to upbraid, but to ad- 
 monish and to serve.” 
 
 * See Brewster's Edinburgh Encyclopedia, article ScotLanp. A chapter on the literature of 
 Scotland is there given, in which every Scotchman of literary fame down to modern days (and 
 particularly mathematicians) are specially enumerated, except Napier. The two striking events 
 in our literary annals particularized are the poems of Ossian and the novels of Sir Walter Scott ; 
 but the invention of Logarithms is passed in silence. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 101 
 
 sions moralities schort and fecfull, whereof he had aboundance, and invented 
 wher he wanted. He was also of gud religion for a poet ; bot he was easely 
 abused, and sa facill that he wes led with any company that he hanted for the 
 tym, quhilk maid him factious in his auld dayes; for he spak and wret as they 
 that wer about him for the tym infourmed him. For he was becom sleperie and 
 cairles, and folowed in many thingis the vulgair oppinion; for he was natu- 
 rally populaire, and extrem vengeable against any man that had offendit him, 
 quhilk was his gretest falt.” * Other cousins of our philosopher were in daily 
 converse with Buchanan. The Lady Mar and her brother Tullibardine had 
 the especial charge of King James in his youth, At this time, says Melville, 
 the king “ had for principall preceptouris, Mester George of Buchwennen, 
 and Mester Peter Young,” &c.+ ‘“ My Lady Mar was wyse and schairp, and 
 held the king in great awe; and sa did Mester George Buchwhennen.” Thus 
 the family of Merchiston must have been well known to James’ pedagogue, 
 though probably the contrariety of their habits, moral and intellectual, kept 
 him and the philosopher always separate. 
 
 Another alumnus of St Andrews, belonging to the era of learning which 
 Napier consummated, was Robert Pont, his intimate friend, and a man of a 
 much superior stamp to Buchanan, though not of such popular celebrity. He 
 was obscurely born at Culross in the year 1529, his name being properly Kyn- 
 pont. It seems that he was only incorporated as a student in St Leonard’s 
 College of St Andrews nine years before Napier came to the University. | He 
 soon became distinguished among the pastors of the reformed church,—was 
 one of the most efficient leaders of the General Assembly during times of the 
 greatest difficulty,—regulated their affairs with the most practical zeal and 
 prudence, and yet was a master in the deepest speculations of theology. ‘ In 
 1563, he competed with Alexander Bishop of Galloway for the office of superin- 
 tendent of that diocese; but it does not appear that he obtained it, though he was 
 shortly after appointed commissioner of the diocese of Moray. In 1566, his 
 translation and interpretation of the Helvetian Confession were ordered to be 
 printed by the General Assembly ; and, in March 1569, they petitioned the 
 regent that the kirk, without offence to his majesty, might appoint him to a 
 situation of greater usefulness ; aud he was, in consequence, presented to the 
 
 * Memoirs, p. 262. te Pa 2Gds t Tytler’s Life of Craig. 
 
102 THE LIFE OF 
 
 provostry of Trinity College, and afterwards to St Cuthbert’s Church. In 
 this year, also, he executed the commands of the General Assembly in excom- 
 municating ddam Bishop of Orkney, who married Bothwell and Mary.” * 
 But he was equally fitted for secular employments. In 1571, at the request 
 of the Regent Mar, the convention at Leith, taking into consideration his su- 
 per-eminent knowledge of the laws, made a special exception in his favour, 
 allowing him to accept the place of a Senator of the College of Justice ; and 
 when, in opposition to the proposal of Morton, the Assembly “ vottit through- 
 out, that naine was able nor apt to bear the saides twa charges,” Pont was 
 again excepted. He was, moreover, a profound mathematician ; and altoge- 
 ther the cast of his mind more nearly approached that of our philosopher than 
 any other scholar whom St Andrews produced. When we add, that for up- 
 wards of thirty years they lived close to each other, united in the cause of the 
 church and in their common studies of theology and science, and holding dur- 
 ing all that time the reciprocal relation of principal heritor and parish priest, 
 it is not to be wondered at that Pont should quote frequently in his abstruse 
 lucubrations, “ that faithful servant of Christ, my honored and surpassingly 
 learned friend John Napier.” t 
 
 If we consider how Napier’s life was consumed, it ceases to be a subject 
 of regret that we must derive our knowledgeof what was passing around him,— 
 of the scenes in which his youth was trained, and the state of education and 
 society that may be supposed to have in some measure influenced the progress 
 of his mind,—from his contemporaries and not from himself. Fortunately, 
 while his cousin, Sir James Melville, has bequeathed to posterity that origi- 
 nal manuscript of political and courtly memoirs already referred to; another 
 James Melville, his contemporary, has left a diary (to which we have already 
 referred) of his own life, and church affairs in Scotland, still more minute in its 
 details, though less varied and interesting. The latter journalist was a Scotch 
 clergyman, and the nephew of that celebrated moderator of the church, An- 
 drew Melville, whose life has been so ably compiled by Dr M‘Crie.t James 
 
 * Messrs Brunton and Haig’s History of the Lords of Session. 
 + “ Et apud honoratum et apprimé eruditum amicum nostrum fidelem Christi servum Joan- 
 
 nem Naperum, cujus extant in Apocalypsin v'rouvyuara.”—De Sabbaticorum annorum pe- 
 riodis, &c. 1619. We shall afterwards have to notice Pont’s works more particularly. 
 
 { The Memoirs of Sir James Melville must be distinguished from the Diary of James Mel- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 103 
 
 Melville, the minister, (with whom we shall find our philosopher associated on 
 a most critical mission of the church to James VI.) entered in 1571 the same 
 university that claims the honour of Napier’s earliest public instruction. 
 From his quaint diary we may extract a passage, containing a curious and in- 
 teresting account of St Andrews and its tuition a few years after Napier left 
 it, and before it had undergone any revolution in habits or system. Speak- 
 ing of his regent, William Collace, he says, “ So I cam to St Andros about 
 the first of November, in the forsaid yeir 1571, and enterit in the course 
 of philosophie, under the regenterie of the said Mr Wilyeam, wha haid the 
 estimation of the maist solide and lernit in Aristotle’s philosophie. And 
 first hard under him Cassander his rhetorik; but at the beginning, nather 
 being weill groundet in grammer, nor com to the years of naturall judgement 
 and understanding, I was cast in sic a greiff and dispear becaus I understood 
 nocht the regent’s language in teatching, that I did nathing bot bursted and 
 grat at his lessones, and was of mind to haiff gone ham agean, war nocht the 
 luiffing cear of that man comforted me, and tuik me in his awn chalmer, causit 
 me ly with himselff, and everie night teached me in privat, till I was acquented 
 with the mater. We hard the oration pro rege Deistaro. Then he gaiff us 
 a compend of his awin of philosophi, and the partes thairof, of dialectik, of 
 definition, of division, of enunciation, and of a syllogisme enthymen, and induc- 
 tion, &c. quhilk I thought I understood better. About the quhilk tyme, my 
 father, coming to the town, begonde to examine me, and finding sum begin- 
 ning, was exceidinglie rejoysit, and uttered sweittar affection to me than ever 
 before. He enterteined my regent verie hartlie in his ludging, and gaiff him 
 grait thanks; he send me to him, efter he haid taken leive, with twa pieces 
 of gold in a neapkine; bot the gentleman was sa honest and loving, that 
 he wald haiff non of his gold, but with austere countenance send me bak 
 with it: Na, never wald receave gold nor silver all the tyme of my course. 
 We enterit in the Organ of Aristotle’s Logics that yeir, and lernt till the De- 
 monstrations. He haid a lytle boy that servit him in his chamber, callit 
 David Elistone, wha, amangs threttie and sax schollars in number, (sa manie 
 war we in the class) was the best. This boy he causit weat on me, and con- 
 fer with me, whase ingyne and judgement past me als far in the wholl course 
 
 ville, which is also beautifully printed for the Bannatyne Club. There is some idea that the mi- 
 nister belonged to a family derived from an early cadet of Raith, but the genealogical proofs are 
 not sufficient. 
 
104 THE LIFE OF 
 
 of philosophie, as the aigle the howlet. In the multiplication of propositiones, 
 medalles, coversion of syllogismes, pons asinorum, &c., he was als read as I 
 was in telling an-and-threttie.”* It seems thus to have been Melville’s fate, 
 both in boyhood and maturer years, to meet an associate who, in philosophy 
 and mathematics, surpassed him as “ the aigle the howlet.” 
 
 The first book of discipline, one of the committee appointed to revise which 
 was Napier’s uncle the Bishop of Orkney, had paid particular attention to the 
 subject of education, and contained a chapter for remodelling the schools and 
 universities. This book of discipline fell to the ground; and, in the year 
 1563, (that of Napier’s matriculation,) a petition was presented to Queen 
 Mary and the Lords of the Articles, “ In the name of all that within this 
 realm ar desyrous that leirning and letteris floreis ;” and praying for a statu- 
 tory remedy against the decay of funds, and the decline of learning and good 
 tuition at St Andrews. George Buchanan was one of the commissioners ap- 
 pointed by Parliament to visit and report.t| The distracted state of the country, 
 however, prevented any effectual reform until the year 1579. It is not sur- 
 prising, therefore, that John Napier, whose precocious talent and gentle dispo- 
 sitions must have been observed and appreciated, cannot be traced in the college 
 records beyond his matriculation. 
 
 The names of those who had the honour of teaching our philosopher in the 
 quality of regents will be found in a note at the end of the volume;t{ from 
 which also it will be seen that he had not remained long enough at St An- 
 drews to become a regent himself. ‘The names, with a few exceptions, of all 
 his class-fellows can be traced as becoming, at the stated periods, bachelors 
 and masters of arts. That of John Napier, however, is not among them; and 
 the necessary inference is, that no more than the ground-work of his educa- 
 tion had been laid at that university. Had he remained at St Andrews ac- 
 cording to the discipline of his college, and the contemporary instances, his 
 name would appear in the list of determinantes for the year 1566, and of mas- 
 ters of arts for 1568. 
 
 There were several causes which may have induced his father to shorten 
 the time of the young philosopher’s studies in Scotland: The violent temper 
 
 * Diary, p. 20. 
 + Acts of the Scotch Parl. 11. 544. 
 t Note C. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 105 
 
 of the principal ; the fact that John Napier, according to his own account, had 
 there “ contracted a loving familiaritie with a certaine gentleman, a Papist ;” 
 the unsettled state of the country and the university ; and, finally, because 
 some exceptions had about this time been taken to the internal state of the 
 colleges, which occasioned a Parliamentary inquiry. 
 
 Nor can it be doubted that he finished his education at a foreign university. 
 Crawfurd the peerage writer, who lived in the same century in which Napier 
 died, and who tells us that he obtained much of his information through the 
 liberality of the noble families he records, states that Napier, “ being a man of 
 great natural parts, took care to improve them by a good education in the 
 schools of learning, first at home, and then by travelling abroad into foreign 
 parts, where he spent some years.” * This obviously is just a mode of stating 
 that he obtained the usual advantages of a good education in those days. It 
 was the invariable practice for all who had the slightest pretensions to become 
 learned, to follow out a few years of study at home in a foreign university. 
 Such we know to have been the case with every contemporary of Napier who 
 distinguished himself; and it would be most remarkable if he who was pre-emi- 
 nent among them, and to whom the wealth of his family rendered the advantage 
 one of easy attainment, had remained at home. His excellence in the science of 
 theology, and his thorough command of languages, no less than his philosophi- 
 cal powers, clearly indicate the most recondite education which the times could 
 afford. It must be remarked, too, that the Bishop of Orkney advised that his 
 nephew should be sent abroad ; and about the period when his name disappears 
 from among those of his fellow entrants of St Salvator, the university of Paris 
 enjoyed its highest reputation and greatest security. Andrew Melville, who 
 was Napier’s senior by five years, after studying in St Mary’s College of St 
 
 * Peerage. Napier.—< Crawfurd, the peerage writer, although not the most acute or accurate 
 of men, yet far honester than Douglas.’—Remarks upon Scotch Peerage Law, 3c. by John Rid- 
 dell, Esq. 
 
 There is a short account of John Napier and his works by Dr Mackenzie in his Lives and Cha- 
 racters of Eminent Scotchmen. Mackenzie was a contemporary of Crawfurd the peerage writer, 
 whom he calls “ my good friend and learned antiquary.” He thus speaks of Napier’s travels : “ Our 
 author had no sooner finished his studies in philosophy at St Andrews, but he was sent to his tra- 
 vels by his parent ; and, having stayed for some years in the Low Countries, France and Jtaly, he 
 returned to his native country, and applied himself closely to the study of the mathematics, in which 
 
 he excelled all the mathematicians of his. age.” 
 O 
 
106 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Andrews, set out for France in the autumn of 1564, and became a student 
 at Paris. ‘“ The university then had,” says his accurate biographer, “ long 
 enjoyed a pre-eminent reputation among the great schools of Europe, found- 
 ed on its antiquity, the number of its colleges, the extent of its revenues, and 
 the venerated names which stood enrolled on its registers, as professors or as 
 students. Attracted by these considerations, a multitude of young men from 
 all the surrounding countries flocked to it annually, and were admitted citizens 
 of one or other of the four nations into which that learned corporation was 
 divided. The four nations were France, Piccardy, Normandy, and Germany, 
 or England, which last included Scotland and Ireland.” * 
 
 There were other foreign universities in great repute at this period, but 
 chiefly distinguished for their chairs of law ; a study which Napier did not pur- 
 sue. The person whom Sir Archibald was most likely to consult on the subject 
 of his son’s education, was his colleague in office Craig; and he may have also 
 consulted that arbiter literarum in Scotland, Buchanan. Now of these, Craig 
 had lately returned from finishing his own studies in Paris; and the other had 
 even taught in that illustrious seminary. ; 
 
 If the theory of his travels be correct, Napier quitted Scotland for the Uni- 
 versity of Paris very nearly at the same time as Andrew Melville; and from 
 the diary of Andrew’s nephew, we learn some interesting particulars as to the 
 state of public instruction at Paris. In the autumn of the year 1564, his uncle, 
 says he, “ ending his course of philosophie, left the University of St Andros 
 with the commendation of the best philosopher, poet, and Grecian, of anie 
 young maister in the land; and with all possible diligence maid his prepara- 
 tion, and past to France, Be the way he was extreamlie tormented with sie 
 seiknes and storme of wather, sa that oft tymes, whylls be danger of shipwrak, 
 whylls be infirmitie and seiknes, he luiked for deathe. He arryvit first in Eng- 
 land, and again imbarking, came to Burdeaux, wher he taried nocht lang, bot 
 imbarking from that, came to Deipe ; from that to Paris, whar he remeanit in 
 the Universitie twa yeirs at his awin studies, heiring the lightes of the maist 
 scyning age in all guid lettres, the king’s publict professors, Andreas Tornebus 
 in Greik and Latine humanitie; Petrus Ramus in philosophie and eloquence ; 
 
 * M‘Crie’s Life of Melville, i. 18. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 107 
 
 Jo. Mercerus in the Hebrew language, whereupon he was speciallie sett. 
 In the last yeir of they twa he grew sa expert in the Greik, that he de- 
 clamit and teachit lessones, uttering never a word but Greik with sic readi- 
 ness and plentie as was mervolus to the heirars. From Paris he past to Poic- 
 teors, whar he regented in the Collage of St Marceun thrie yeirs. Ther he 
 haid the best lawers, and studeit sa mikle therof as might serve for his pur- 
 pose, quhilk was Theologie, wherto he was dedicat from his mother’s wombe.”* 
 It seems most likely that the shining lights enumerated by James Melville 
 were the very men under whose instructions Napier’s mind expanded. “ Mer- 
 cerus and Quinquarboreus,” says Dr M‘Crie, “ were conjunct royal professors 
 of Hebrew and Chaldee. By his oral instructions, the elementary treatises 
 which he published, and his translations from Hebrew and Chaldee, the for- 
 mer contributed more than any individual of that age to the advancement of 
 eastern learning. His commentaries on the Old Testament still deserve the 
 attention of the biblical student; and Father Simon, whose judgment was 
 sufficiently fastidious, has pronounced the highest eulogium on him, when he 
 says, that Mercier possessed all the qualifications of an interpreter of Scrip- 
 ture, and that the only thing to be regretted in him is, that he suffered him- 
 self to be carried away by the novel opinions of the reformers. Quinquarbo- 
 reus, though destitute of the critical acumen and extensive knowledge of his 
 colleague, has shown that he was well acquainted with the Hebrew language.” + 
 
 The doctrines of the Hugonots or Protestants had made a decided progress 
 in the University of Paris when Napier left St Andrews. Many of the profes- 
 sors and heads of colleges were well known to have embraced the heresy, and 
 scarcely one among them was exempt from suspicion ; a fact which affords ano- 
 ther strong presumption that Napier was sent there, being about the very pe- 
 riod when his father was presiding in the criminal tribunal of reformed Scot- 
 land against such delinquents as the Archbishop of St Andrews, and others, 
 for “ makand alteratioun and innovatioun in the state of religion ;” and when 
 his uncle was revising the first Book of Discipline. But, after the year 
 1567 a storm burstover this great seminary, and spread through the con- 
 tinent with a desolating fury, the remembrance of which may have often 
 
 * Diary, p- 31.—Melville adds in a note, “ Salinacus, Pascasius, Forcatellus, mathematiciens ; 
 Balduinus the lawyer; Duretus, medicine; Carpentarius, Quinquarboreus, hebrew.” 
 + Life of Andrew Melville, p. 31. 
 
108 THE LIFE OF 
 
 crossed the lucubrations of our philosopher in the quiet and studious decline 
 of his life at Merchiston. In that year the second civil war betwixt the 
 Protestants and Catholics broke out; and very soon afterwards, all those 
 professors who refused to subscribe the Catholic faith were forced to fly 
 from Paris. Of these the most celebrated was Petrus Ramus. During the 
 interval of repose and security which had previously visited the University of 
 Paris, that celebrated philosopher there enjoyed himself in his successful hos- 
 tility to the tottering throne of Aristotle, and in his ardent devotion to philo- 
 sophy and the sciences, as royal professor of Roman eloquence, and principal 
 of the College of Presle. But what he chiefly laboured to advance, during this 
 oasis of a life of persecutions, was the study of mathematics. The royal 
 library of Fountainbleau had nursed his ardour for geometry and astronomy 
 to a most enthusiastic height, and he made himself a mortal enemy in his great 
 rival Carpentarius, by slighting the mathematical attainments of that eminent 
 philosopher, who was elected royal professor of mathematics at Paris in 1565. 
 Ramus opposed his admission upon the ground of incapacity to teach, and for 
 this contemptuous rivalry is said to have afterwards paid the forfeit of his 
 life. From one or both of these illustrious men, Napier in all probability had 
 imbibed some of that ardent desire for the progress of the mathematical 
 sciences, which induced him in his latter days to toil for those whom he affec- 
 tionately addresses as “ charissimi mathematum cultores.” The fate of 
 Petrus Ramus could not fail to affect him. That martyr to science and 
 Catholic fury returned to Paris in the year 1571, and fell a victim at the me- 
 morable massacre of St Bartholomew, which occurred in the following year.* 
 De Thou has recorded his fate, and says that the murder was perpetrated by 
 the scholars of his rival Carpentarius. é 
 
 If Napier encountered perils abroad, he certainly escaped one of a deadly 
 nature at home. In the year 1568, (exactly a century before Newton was 
 driven from Cambridge by the plague which then ravaged England,) a most 
 fearful infliction of pestilence broke out in Edinburgh. The courts of justice 
 were closed, the General Assembly of the Church postponed, and the very li- 
 terature of the country threatened with annihilation.t Sir Archibald Napier 
 
 * Bayle, Art. Ramus. See also Buleus, Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, Tom. vi. 
 + “ Nota.—Fra the hinderend of August 1568, to the secund day of March in the samin year, na 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 109 
 
 and his family were much exposed to the contagion, by the vicinity of his 
 mansion to the ** Borough Muir” of the city, upon which waste the poorer 
 class of those infected were driven out to grovel and die under the very walls 
 of Merchiston. At this very time Sir Archibald was not suffered to quit the 
 Lothians. Mary’s defeat at Langside had just occurred, and the regency of 
 her brother was securing the fruits of victory by a rigorous surveillance of the 
 baronial strongholds, and the conduct and affections of their proprietors, 
 throughout the whole country. All Protestant as he was, and although even 
 his cousins Tullibardine and Grange had been in arms upon this occasion 
 against the fugitive queen, it is not surprising that Merchiston, whose imme- 
 diate predecessors had fallen successively under her father’s standard and her 
 own, should have evinced some affection for the persecuted, and only legitimate 
 child of James V. That this was the case is proved by the bond quoted below,* 
 
 dyettes of justiciarie halden be ressoun of the pest and Regentis being in England.” —Justiciary 
 Records, MS. Advocates’ Library. 
 
 It was in the midst of this fearful devastation that the celebrated George Bannatyne collected 
 the poetry of Scotland. His patriotic industry has obtamed a grateful commemoration, and an il- 
 lustrious monument, from the institution of the “ Bannatyne Club,” and the compilation of his 
 memoirs by its first president, Sir Walter Scott. I have seen a curious pamphlet entitled, « Ane 
 breve descriptioun of the Pest, quairin the causis, signis, and sum speciall preservatioun and cure 
 thairof ar contenit, set furth be Maister Gilbert Skeyne, Doctoure in Medicine, imprentit at Edin- 
 burgh be Robert Lekpreok, 1568.” The Doctor strongly advises to take “conseill” of “ weil ler- 
 nit phisicians, for” says he, “ in this pestilenciall diseis, everie ane is mair blind nor the moudeuart 
 in sic thingis as concernis thair awin helth, and besyde that, everie ane is becum sa detestable to 
 uther, (quhilk is to be lamentit,) and speciallie the pure in sicht of the riche, as gif they var not 
 equall with thame twichand thair creatioun, but rather without saule or spirite, as beistis degenerat 
 fra mankynd.” 
 
 * « Apud Edinburgh, 12 Augusti anno 1568. The quhilk day Johnne Cunynghame of Drum- 
 quhassill become sourtie for Archibald Naper of Marchamstoun, that he sall remane in ward with- 
 in the burgh of Edinburgh, and twa mylis about the samyn, and als sall compeir befoir my Lord 
 Regent and Lordis of Secreit Counsale, to answer to sic thingis as sal be inquirit of him at his 
 cuming, as he sal be requirit on sex houris warning, owther personalie, or at his hous of Marcham- 
 stoun, under the pane of twa thowsand pundis, and the said Archibald obleist him to releif the 
 said Johnne of the samyn.”— Original Privy-Council Record, Register House. 
 
 Many other barons occur in the same record as becoming bound in the same manner, but the 
 usual security is only one thousand pounds. It also appears that both the brother and cousin-ger- 
 man of Merchiston’s Lady (the philosopher’s mother) were members of this privy-council. The 
 sederunt marked on the occasion of issuing a charge against the Bishop of St Andrews, in June 
 previous to the above, are “ Jacobus Doms. Regens. Jacobus Comes de Morton. Patricius Doms. 
 
110 THE LIFE OF 
 
 the terms of which compelled Merchiston to remain a prisoner in Edinburgh, 
 or within two miles of it, under heavy securities. When the plague broke out, 
 he appears to have petitioned the privy-council of the regent for some relaxa- 
 tion, which had been refused in the most peremptory manner, although his bro- 
 ther-in-law, the Bishop of Orkney, was one of that council, and apparently an- 
 xious to befriend him. The following letter, than which a more curious and 
 interesting remnant of the kind could scarcely be produced, was written in con- 
 sequence by the prelate to our philosopher’s father :— 
 
 “ To the Richt Honorabill and our weilbelovit Bruther the Laird 
 off Merchanstoun. 
 
 “ Richt Honorabill Schir and Bruther,—I haird the day the rigorous answer 
 and refuis that ye gat, quhairof I wes not wele apayit;* bot alwayis I pray you, 
 as ye ar sett amiddis betwix twa grete inconvenientis, travell to eschew thame 
 baith ; the ane is maist evident, to wit, the remaining in your awin place quhair 
 ye ar; for, be the nummer of seik folk that gais out of the toun, the muir is 
 abill to be ovirspred, and it can not be bot throw the nearness of your place, 
 and the indigence of thame that ar put out, + thai sall continewallie repair 
 aboutte your roume, and throu thair conversatioun, infect sum of your 
 servandis, quhairby thai sall precipitat yourself and your childrent in maist 
 extreme danger; and, as I se, ye hef foirsene the same for the young folk, quhais 
 bluid is in maist perrell to be infectit first, and therefoir purposis to send 
 thame away to Menteith, quhair I wald wiss at God that ye war yourself, 
 without offence of authoritie, or of your band, sua that your houss gat na 
 skaith. Bot yit, Schir, thair is ane midway quhilk ye suld not omit, quhilk is 
 to withdraw you fra that syid of the toun to sum houss upon the north syid of 
 the samin, quairof ye may hef in borrowing § quhen ye sall hef to do, to wit, the 
 
 -Lindesay. Epis. Orchaden. Commend. Dumfermling,” &c. “ Clericus Justiciarie.’ These com- 
 posed the cabal against Queen Mary. 
 
 * This word is not to be found in Jamieson. 
 
 + “ That with all diligence possible, sa sone as ony hous sall be infectit, the haill houshold, 
 with thair gudds, be despescit towert the mure, the deid buriet, and, with like diligence, the hous 
 clenzit.”—“ That na maner of persoun pass to the mure for vesiting of thair friends thair, quhill 
 eleven hours before none, in companie with the officar appoyntit for that day, under the pane of 
 deid.”— Town-Council Register, 1568. This is a different record from the Protocol Books. 
 
 { Francis and Jane, who were both very young. 
 
 Sic. 
 § Sic 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 111 
 
 Gray-Cruik, Innerlethis self, Weirdie, or sic uther placis as ye culd chose within 
 ane myle; quhairinto I wald suppois ye wald be in les danger than in Merchan- 
 stoun: and close up your houssis, your grangis, your barnis and all, and suffer 
 na man cum therin, quhill it plesit God to put ane stay to this grete plage. 
 and in the mein tyme, maid you to leve upon your penny, or on sic thing as 
 comis to you out of the Lennos or Menteith ; quhilk, gif ye do not, I se ye will 
 ruine yourself ; and howbeit I escape in this wayage,* I will nevir luik for 
 to se you again, quhilk war some mair regrate to me than I will expreme be 
 writing. Alwayis besekis you, as ye luif your awin wele, the wele of your 
 houss, and us your freindis that wald your wele, to tak sum order in this be- 
 half, that howbeit your evill favoraris wald cast you away, yit ye tak better 
 keip upon yourself, and mak not thame to rejoce, and us your freindis to 
 murne baith at anis; + quhilk God forbid, and for his guidues preserve you 
 and your posteritie from sic skaith, and manteine you in holie keping for evir. 
 Of Ed’ this xxi day of September, be 
 * Your Bruther at power, the 
 “ BISCHOP OFF ORKNAY.” t 
 
 Notwithstanding the forebodings contained in this letter, Sir Archibald Na- 
 pier managed to escape the contagion of the plague as well as the bishop; and 
 the contagion of the times a great deal better. Having laid so much of. that 
 prelate’s private correspondence before the reader, we must glance at his career 
 in connection with the stormy period of history during the few years that John 
 Napier spent on the continent. These embrace the time when Queen Mary 
 
 * With the Regent Murray to England. I find among the many curious notices contained in the 
 Protocol Books of the city already referred to, that on the 5th October 1568, the Regent, on the 
 eve of his departure, sent a letter to the town-council desiring them to continue their magistrates, 
 least through the refusal or inexperience of persons newly chosen, the rigorous measures adopted 
 against “the pest” should be obstructed. This the council obeyed under protest. Upon the 19th 
 December 1568, a deputation is sent “ to vesie the lands [7. e. houses] laitlie biggit on the 
 Burrow Muir be Mr Archd. Grahame and Alexander Naper.” Upon the 8th of April follow- 
 ing, Will. Smyth and his “ spous, Black Meg,” are capitually condemned for “ concealing the pest 
 in their house.” 
 
 + There seems more couched in this sentence than is plainly expressed. The expressions are 
 hardly consistent with the mere risk of the plague. Perhaps the wily bishop here inculcates a 
 lesson in politics to his upright brother-in-law ? 
 
 { Original in Lord Napier’s charter-chest. 
 
112 THE LIFE OF 
 
 was hurried, through some fearful steps, from her throne to exile and captivity; 
 and it is curious to observe that the dramatis persone of her unhappy story, 
 at least in all its striking incidents, were chiefly composed of the near relatives 
 and connections of Merchiston. The Bishop of Orkney and his cousin the 
 justice-clerk, than whom two greater hypocrites never breathed, * were deep- 
 ly implicated in the rebellion of the times, and parties to that diabolical plan 
 to ruin the queen, which owed its success to treason, murder, rape, and for- 
 gery- Some time before the slaughter of Rizzio, they were in high favour 
 with the assembly of the church. Upon the 29th December 1563, they were 
 both named upon the select committee to whom was entrusted the sacred 
 charge of revising and reporting upon the First Book of Discipline; and the 
 bishop was still further honoured with the confidence of the church, by being 
 appointed superintendant of Orkney under its special commission. But his 
 career presented opposite phases. At the same time that he was favoured and 
 consulted by the General Assembly, he was a successful courtier of his Catho- 
 lic Queen. He had joined Mary in France for the express purpose of esta- 
 blishing himself in her good graces, and was not unsuccessful. Upon the 6th 
 January 1563, about a week after he had been appointed to revise the disci- 
 pline of the church, he was admitted, upon a letter from her majesty, to the 
 place of an extraordinary Lord of Session, vacant by the promotion of Mr 
 James Balfour, whose brother Gilbert was married to the bishop’s sister. By 
 its original constitution the Court of Session was to consist of an equal pro- 
 portion of churchmen and laymen. But, like other reformations, that of the 
 church professed at least a violent opposition to pluralities ; and in the Gene- 
 ral Assembly held at Edinburgh in December 1564, “ some brethren motion- 
 ed that it might be demanded of the commissioners of Galloway and Orkney, 
 if they thought that they might with a safe conscience discharge both the of- 
 fice of a superintendant and of a Lord in the Session. The answer to it and 
 other questions was referred to another diet. The question was renewed at 
 another assembly.” + 
 
 * The bishop says in one of his letters, “ with godly Job, gif we haif ressavit guid out of the 
 hand of the Lord, quhai suld we not alsua ressaive evill,” &c.; and the justice-clerk, in his testa- 
 ment, wherein he solemnly bequeaths to his eldest son his own worldly and nefarious policy, speaks 
 of “ this my saule quha baith sall meit my Maister with joy and comfort to heir that comfortabill 
 voce, that he has promeist to resotat, saying, cum unto me thou as ane of my elect,” &c. 
 
 + Calderwood.—MS. Advocates’ Library. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. Ls 
 
 Bothwell, notwithstanding these threatening interrogatories, not only re- 
 tained his appointment of an extraordinary lord, but so little had his venerable 
 coadjutors of the reformed church alarmed his conscience, that before another 
 twelvemonth elapsed he accepted the place of an ordinary Judge of the Session ; 
 —thus pledging himself to duties which necessarily withdrew him from his 
 ecclesiastical superintendancy. By the letter of his appointment, signed 
 by Mary and Darnly, it appears that the queen had promised Orkney the first 
 vacant seat as an ordinary lord; and that a vacancy having occurred by the 
 death of Abraham Crichton, provost of Dunglass, she expressed her royal will 
 that the bishop should be received into his place upon condition of being found 
 duly qualified after examination. * We must now reckon him among those who 
 obtained the appellation of the “ adversaries of discipline,” and he immediately 
 became entangled in the most equivocal proceedings of the aristocratic party of 
 the Protestants. He succeeded to his wish in acquiring power and influence in 
 the state. To his bishoprick and seat among the Lords of Session was added 
 the weight of a privy-councillor, his name appearing as such in the ordina- 
 tion for a tax of L. 12,000 to defray the expences of the baptism of James VI. 
 
 He was probably well aware of the desperate plot to murder Rizzio, those 
 with whom he was most intimate being infamously conspicuous in that and 
 other scenes of blood which rapidly followed. Patrick Bellenden was the 
 greatest ruffian of that desperate band. He was the brother of the justice- 
 clerk, who was also implicated and obliged to abscond until the privy-council 
 cleared him. M(‘Gill of Rankeillor-Nether, Sir Archibald Napier’s tutor, was 
 another of the murderers, and lost his office of clerk-register in consequence. 
 But Tullibardine and Sir James Melville, who were both within the palace at 
 the time, narrowly escaped with their lives when Rizzio was slain, being marked 
 in consequence of their well known affection to the queen. It is curious to ob- 
 serve the contrast betwixt the parts enacted upon this occasion by Patrick Bel- 
 lenden and James Melville, whostood precisely in the same degree of relationship 
 
 * « 13th November 1565.—The quhlk day the wryting underwritten wes produced. Rex et 
 Regina. To our Chancellor, President, and Lords of our Council and Session : we promittit to 
 our lovite Adam Bishop of Orkney the first ordinary place vacant in the session, and now there 
 being one by the death of Mr A. Crightoun,” &c. “ it is our will ye receive him therin, &c. Sub- 
 scribed with our hands at Edinburgh the 12th November 1565. “ Marie R. 
 —Pitmedden MS. Advocates’ Library. «“ Henry R.” 
 
 Ie 
 
114 THE LIFE OF 
 
 to our philosopher, the one being the cousin-german of his mother, and the other 
 of his father. The Earl of Bedford and Randolph, in their letter to the council 
 of England narrating the particulars, say, “ There were in this companie two 
 that came in with the king,—the one, Andrewe Car of Fawdenside, whom the 
 queen sayth would have stroken her with a dagger ; and one Patrick Balentine, 
 brother to the justice-clerk, who also, her grace sayth, offered a dag against her 
 belly with the cock down.” * It is a relief to turn from this to the conduct of 
 Melville. “The nyxt mornyng,” says he in his Memoirs, “ quhilk was Sonday, 
 I was lettin fourth at the yet, for I lay therein. Passing throw the utter close, 
 the queenis majeste was loking fourth of a window, and cryed unto me to help 
 hir. Then I drew neir unto the window, and askit what help lay in my power 
 Isuld mak. Sche said, go to the provest of Edenbrough, and bid him, in my 
 name, convene the toun with speid, and com and releave me out of thir traitouris 
 handis. ‘ Bot run fast,’ said sche, ‘ for they will stay you.” Melville exe- 
 cuted her commands with his usual fidelity. 
 
 The crisis of the murder of Darnly also involves the names of the philoso- 
 pher’s near relations. James Murray, the brother of Tullibardine, actuated by 
 motives which cannot now be fathomed, affixed to the door of the tolbooth of 
 Edinburgh a placard in reply to the proclamation for the discovery of the 
 murderers. Of this placard, Cecil, the English secretary, gives in the Cabala 
 the following as the substance :—“ I, according to the proclamation, have made 
 inquisition for the slaughter of the king and do find, the Earl of Bothwell, Mr 
 James Balfour parson of Flisk, Mr David Chambers, and black Mr John 
 Spence, the principal devisers thereof; and if this be not true, spier at Gilbert 
 
 * That is to say, a cocked pistol. In a letter to Secretary Cecil upon this occasion, dated 4th 
 April 1566, Randolph writes, “ The justice-clerk in hard terms, more for his brother's cause than 
 any desert,” &c. There is no doubt, however, that Sir John Bellenden was devoted to Morton, 
 and ruled both his brother Patrick and the Bishop of Orkney. I find a charter of confirmation 
 under the great seal (dated three weeks before the murder) to Patrick Bellenden of Stenhouse, 
 Sheriff of Orkney, and Katherine Kennedy, his spouse, in conjunct fee, and to the heirs-male be- 
 twixt them; whom failing, the heirs-male of Patrick’s body ; whom failing, to John Bellendene of 
 of Auchinoule, Knight, justice-clerk, brother of the said Patrick, and the heirs-male of his body ; 
 whom failing, to Patrick Bellendene, the natural son of the Sheriff, &c. proceeding upon a char- 
 ter from Adam Bishop of Orkney and Zetland, with consent of his chapter, of all the lands be- 
 longing to the said bishoprick lying within the parish of Ewie, with part of the lands of Bustane, 
 &c.; and also all the lands belonging to the bishoprick lying within the parish of Stenhouse, &c. 
 to be held of the bishop and his successors. The charter of confirmation is dated at Edinburgh, 
 18th February 1565-6.—Diplomata Regia, v. x. p. 90, MS. Advocates’ Lib. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 115 
 
 Beafour.” Cecil adds, that there were also words which touched the Queen of 
 Scots. This inflammatory and mysterious placard was unsigned ; but is well 
 known to have been put up by James Murray, the same who afterwards chal- 
 lenged Bothwell to single combat. Sir James Balfour, who became President 
 of the Court of Session, is said to have been the original deviser of the murder 
 of Darnly ; and the house blown up belonged to the family. Gilbert Balfour 
 mentioned in the placard, was his brother, and undoubtedly the same person 
 alluded to in the Bishop of Orkney’s correspondence. By his marriage to 
 Margaret Bothwell he was the uncle of John Napier. 
 
 The circumstances of Bothwell’s trial and acquittal are well known. To 
 the suspicious verdict of his jury, he deemed it necessary to add the bravado 
 of a personal challenge to any one that dared impugn him. This he affixed 
 to the most public quarter of the town, and it was immediately replied to by 
 James Murray in an anonymous placard, declaring that he accepted the com- 
 bat, provided the lists were so arranged that the acceptor would be certain of 
 fair play when he disclosed his name. Upon the 14th of April 1567, two days 
 after Bothwell’s acquittal, a Parliament was held at Edinburgh, wherein com- 
 missioners were appointed, of whom the Bishop of Orkney was one. ‘“ After 
 the rising of the Parliament,” says Keith, “ in which the Earl of Bothwell is 
 marked every day to have been present, a very infamous and remarkable scene 
 did quickly open. This was the subscribing a bond by a great many of the 
 nobility in favour of the Earl of Bothwell, bearing testimony of his acquittal 
 of the late king’s murder,—recommending him as a proper person upon seve- 
 ral accounts for partaking the honour of the queen’s bed,—and pledging their 
 mutual assistance in defence of the Earl’s marriage with her majesty.” To 
 this disgraceful bond the Bishop of Orkney’s name is attached. Immediately 
 followed the seizure and abduction of the queen by the Earl of Bothwell, with 
 all its diabolical concomitants. ‘ She yielded to that,” says Bishop Leslie, 
 “ to the which these crafty colluding seditious heads, and the necessity of the 
 time, as then to her seemed, did in a manner enforce her.”* On the 12th of 
 May thereafter, the queen, no longer a free agent, and with a broken spirit and 
 disordered mind, was led by the infamous Bothwell to the Court of Session, 
 and in presence of the Lord Chancellor, President, and other Lords, among 
 whom sat the Bishop of Orkney, pronounced the celebrated speech, in which 
 
 * For the proofs of Mary’s innocence, consult Goodall, Tytler, and Whittaker, and compare 
 with Hume and Robertson. 
 
116 THE LIFE OF 
 
 she declared that she had forgiven the violence committed on her person, and 
 that she was no longer under restraint. 
 
 Having obtained the collusive divorce from his own spouse, the Earl of 
 Bothwell, now Duke of Orkney, found considerable difficulty in prevailing upon 
 any of the reformed clergy to publish the banns with Mary. Sir John Bellen- 
 den was particularly active in removing this obstacle. He managed to ob- 
 tain, and carried a letter from the queen herself to the minister John Craig, 
 in which she declared that she was under no restraint. ‘ His answer was, that 
 he could ask no banns, especially such as these were, without the knowledge 
 and consent of the church. The matter being motioned in the session of the 
 church, after much reasoning kept with the justice-clerk, it was concluded that 
 the three next preaching days the queen’s mind should be intimated to the 
 people.”* The banns being published, the next difficulty was to find a bishop 
 who would bless them. One bishop was found, says Buchanan with the se- 
 verest point of his elegant Latinity, one, the Bishop of Orkney, who preferred 
 the smiles of a court to the light of truth, while others declined the task, and 
 pointed out the unhallowed nature of nuptials with him who had already two 
 spouses alive, and had lately obtained himself to be repudiated by a third on 
 the ground of his own adultery.t Sir James Melville gives the following view 
 of the bridegroom immediately before the marriage :—“ I taried not at court, 
 but now and then, yet I chancit to be ther at the mariage. When I cam that 
 tym to the court, I fand my Lord Duc of Orkney sitting at his supper. He 
 said I had bene a gret stranger, desyring me to sit down and soup with him. 
 The Erle of Huntly, the justice-clark, and dyvers uthers, wer sitten at the 
 table with him. I said that I had already souped. Then he callit for a coup 
 of wyn, and drank to me, that I mycht pledge him lyke a Dutcheman. He 
 bad me drink it out, till grow fatter ; for, said he, the zeall of the commoun 
 weall has eaten you up, and maid you sa lean,” &c. {| —“ The marriage was 
 
 * See Craig’s defence printed in the Appendix to Dr Cook’s History of the Reformation. 
 
 + “ Unus, Orcadum Episcopus, est inventus, qui gratiam aulicam veritati preferret, czeteris 
 reclamantibus, caussasque proferentibus, cur legitime non essent nuptiz cum eo, qui duas uxores 
 adhuc vivas haberet, tertiam, ipse nuper suum fassus adulterium, dimisisset,” &c.—Lib. 18, § 30. 
 
 + Melville then adds, that the Duke of Orkney beganaconversation about “ gentilwomen,” soun- 
 pleasant “ that I left him, and passed up to the queen, wha was very glaid of my cummyng.” Dr 
 M‘Crie, who only knew of the spurious edition of Melville's Memoirs, has endeavoured to detract 
 from his character and credit, Among other objections, the biographer of Knox says, “ We find him 
 exposing himself to danger, by dissuading his mistress from marrying Bothwell, and yet counte- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 117 
 
 maid in the Palice of Halyrudhouse, at a preaching be Adam Bodowell, Bis- 
 chop of Orkeney, in the gret hall for the consaill uses to sit, according to the 
 ordour of the reformed religion, and not in the chapell at the mess, as was the 
 kingis mariage.”* The queen had now reached the dregs of her bitter cup, 
 and shamefully were they pressed upon her. “ Nota spear,” says a beautiful 
 writer, “ was lifted, not a sword drawn to rescue Mary from the power of that 
 atrocious ruffian. She was suffered, without either warning or opposition, to 
 unite herself with this worthless man, and it was not until her honour became 
 inseparable from his, that the same advisers changed their note, sounded an 
 alarm to the nation, and called on all true subjects to rescue the queen from 
 the control of Bothwell.” + This reproof falls justly upon the men whose in- 
 fluence and admonitions, had they been united with those of Lord Heries and 
 James Melville, might have extricated Mary from her toils; but the hour of 
 redemption was passed when they meet her on Carberry-Hill. 
 
 To that spot where the Duke of Orkney’s short and nefarious reign con- 
 cluded, and where, for the last time but one, the unhappy queen seemed to 
 command an army, we must now turn; for here, too, among the most conspi- 
 cuous dramatis persone were the relatives of Merchiston, Sir William Kirk- 
 caldy of Grange, and the Murrays of Tullibardine. While the armies stood 
 viewing each other, Grange, at the head of 200 horse, rode round the hill to 
 obtain a favourable position for charging Bothwell. The manceuvre attract- 
 ed the queen’s attention ; and when she heard that this threatening body of 
 chivalry was led on by him whom Europe acknowledged as the bravest and 
 most distinguished knight of his times, she sent the Laird of Ormeston to 
 desire him to come and speak to her under a flag of truce. Grange, like his 
 uncle Melville, was in his heart devoted to Mary, and scorned the false slander 
 that identified her misguided and faltering steps with the gory stride of Both- 
 well. Against the latter he was now in arms, with that spirit which, but for 
 the indelible stain of murder on his own shield. would have made him the 
 
 nancing the marriage by his presence.’ Had Melville’s power equalled his inclinations, Mary 
 would have been saved. He “ chancit to be ther at the mariage,” as he tells us himself. What 
 of that ? To admit that he dissuaded Mary from that fatal step, is, considering the state of the 
 times, the highest compliment that could be paid to his courage and integrity. 
 
 * Birrel in his Diary says, “ the 15 of Maii 1567 the Queine was maried to the Duck of Ork- 
 ney, in the chappel royall of Holyrudhous, hy Adam Bothuel, Abbote of Holyrudhous ; and hes 
 text wes the 2d of Genesis.” 
 
 + Sir Walter Scott. 
 
118 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Bayard of his times. He lost not a moment in being at the side of his sove-~ 
 reign. “ All in this field, madam,” said the gallant Grange, “ will love, ho-— 
 nour, and serve you, if you will only abandon the murderer of your husband.” 
 While he was uttering these words, a soldier, ordered to the deed by Both- 
 well, had raised his harquebuss, and was in the act of taking deliberate aim at 
 his life; but the queen shrieked out to save him, and exclaimed, “ Shame me 
 not with so foul a murder.” Bothwell covered his confusion by a vaunting 
 offer of the combat to any man who would decide the day singly with him- 
 self. ‘“ You shall have an answer speedily,” said Grange, as he spurred his 
 horse down Carberry-hill, to join his own comrades in the distance. There 
 was one in that host especially bound to accept this challenge. James Murray 
 had, upon a former occasion, accepted the same offer, though anonymously. 
 Now he stood forward in the face of the two armies to avow his challenge. 
 Bothwell rejected his gauntlet as that of one not equal in rank to lift his own. 
 “ Tat least,” then exclaimed Tullibardine himself, “am your peer. My estate 
 is better than yours, and my blood is more noble.”* This offer, however, 
 and a challenge of a similar nature from Grange, were all scornfully reject- 
 ed by the Duke. Lord Lindesay, a ruffian like himself, gave him the op- 
 tion of an opponent who was technically his peer. “ But,” says Melville, 
 “his hart cauldit ay the langer the mair ;” so he prepared himself for flight. 
 Mary, who had heen crushed by his treason and tyranny, now learnt to despise 
 him for his cowardice. She again sent for Grange, and told him, that if she 
 were certain of the reception he promised her, she would abandon Bothwell. 
 Grange asked the leaders of his own party if he might assure the queen of their 
 loyalty on those terms. Upon the most solemn declaration that he might, he 
 rode back to the queen, who looked upon him as her friend, and a true knight 
 among a host of insidious enemies. She met him half-way, and said, “ Lard 
 of Grange, I render me unto you, upon the conditions ye rehearsit unto me 
 in the names of the Lordis ;” and gaif him her hand, quhilk he kessit, and led 
 hir majeste be the brydell doun the bra unto the Lordis, wha cam fordwart 
 and met hir; the noblemen using all dewtyfull reverence; but some of the 
 rascallis cryed out dispytfully, till the Lard of Grange drew his sword, and sa 
 did some uthers that knew ther dewtie better, and straik at such as spak un- 
 reverent langage, quhilk the nobilitie allowed weill of.”+ The queen and 
 
 * Knox’s History. + Melville’s Memoirs. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 119 
 
 Grange were both deceived. The traitor nobles kept no faith with them, and 
 their system of forgery commenced. After suffering the most inhuman indig- 
 nities, which brought disgrace on Scotland and its capital rather than on her, 
 Mary was lodged in the castle of Lochleven. 
 
 In this memorable scene of her story, wherein she is compelled to abdicate 
 in favour of her son, the reader must be introduced to another cousin-german 
 of Merchiston who acted a conspicuous, but kind and honourable part. This 
 was the second son of Helen Napier, Sir Robert Melville of Murdocarny. 
 Like his brother James, he had become highly distinguished as a statesman 
 and diplomatist, without, however, following so brilliant a career in foreign 
 courts. He had been resident ambassador at the court of Elizabeth, where he 
 was held in the highest estimation, but was in Scotland about the close of the 
 year 1566, when he obtained a grant of the office of hereditary keeper of the 
 palace of Linlithgow. In the following year he was engaged in the negocia- 
 tions with the queen at Lochleven. Being full of experience, and his reputa- 
 tion of the highest, his assistance was eagerly sought; but, like all his race, 
 he was devoted to the queen, and among the steel clad barbarians that per- 
 secuted her there, Sir Robert Melville appeared like her guardian angel. 
 The object of the rebels was to obtain her signature to three deeds carefully 
 prepared for the purpose. ‘The first was that of her abdication in favour of 
 James. The second was the appointment of her bastard brother to the re- 
 gency; and the third named a council to regulate the affairs of the state until 
 Murray accepted the office. These deeds were dated 24th July 1567. In 
 that of the abdication, one of the commissioners named in the body of the in- 
 strument, as if empowered by Mary to receive her renunciation of the throne, 
 is Adam, Bishop of Orkney.* When these were first laid before her by the 
 very hands that had committed murder in her presence, the spirit of her 
 fathers rose once more to the regal brow of Mary of Scotland, who declared, 
 
 * Dr Barry, in his history of the Orkney Islands, says of Adam Bothwell, “« Notwithstanding 
 his having joined the enemies of the queen, Mary seems still to have retained for him some de- 
 gree of her former fayour; for when her unfortunate circumstances compelled her to resign the 
 crown, she granted a procuration to him to inaugurate her son, the young prince, which was ac- 
 cordingly done at Stirling.” —P. 244. This is a great mistake. Mary never even read the deed 
 which named the bishop. It was her enemies who devolved the office on him, not as her friend, 
 
 but as thezr creature. 
 
120 THE LIFE OF 
 
 that sooner would she renounce her life than her crown. It was not the 
 brutal grasp of Lindesay that made her quail. ‘‘ She was induced,” says Spo- 
 tiswood, “ to put her hand to the renunciation they presented, by the persua- 
 sion chiefly of Robert Melvil, who was sent from the Earl of Athol, and Le- 
 thington, to advise her, as she loved her life, not to refuse anything they did 
 require. He likewise brought a letter from Sir Nicholace Throgmorton, the 
 ambassador of England, (who was come a few days before to visit her but was 
 denied access,) to the same effect, declaring, that no resignation made in the time 
 of her captivity would be of force, and in law was null, because done out of a 
 just fear; which having considered with herself a while, without reading any 
 of the writs presented, she set her hand to the same, the tears running down 
 in abundance from her eyes.” * 
 
 The next important occurrence was the coronation of James VI. From 
 the records of the privy-council we learn, that, upon the 29th July 1567, 
 Adam Bishop of Orkney anointed the baby king. The rebel Lords and 
 their adherents assembled for that purpose in the parish church of Stirling. 
 Among the cortege were conspicuous the bishop and his cousin, “ Sir Johne 
 Bellenden of Auchinoull, knycht, clerk of justicarie ; and Sir William Murray 
 of Tullebardine, knycht, comptrollar.” The extorted deeds were produced. 
 For the young king, “‘ James Earl of Mortoun inclynand his bodie, and layand 
 his hand on the buik of God, in name and upoun the behalf of his grace, so- 
 lempnlie maid the ayth and promeiss,” &c. after which “ the said Lordis of the 
 nobilitie,” &c. ‘‘ be the ministration of the said reverend fader, Adame Bischope 
 of Orknay, anointed the said maist excellent prince, in king of this realme and 
 dominiounis thairof, investit and inaugurat his grace thairin, deliverit in his 
 hands the sword and sceptour, and put the crown royall upoun his heid with all 
 
 * Sir Walter Scott, in his romantic description oftheir progress to Lochleven upon this mission, 
 draws the following portrait of Sir Robert Melville: “ The personage who rode with Lord Lindesay 
 at the head of the party was an absolute contrast to him in manner, form, and features. His thin 
 and silky hair was already white, though he seemed not above forty-five or fifty years old. His tone 
 of voice was soft and insinuating ; his form thin, spare, and bent by an habitual stoop; his pale 
 cheek was expressive of shrewdness and intelligence ; his eye was quick, though placid, and his 
 whole demeanour mild and conciliatory. He rode an ambling nag, such as were used by ladies, 
 clergymen, or others of peaceful professions ; wore a riding habit of black velvet, with a cap and 
 feather of the same hue, fastened up by a golden medal; and for show, and as a mark of rank ra- 
 ther than for use, carried a walking sword, as the short light rapiers were called, without any other 
 
 arms, offensive or defensive.” 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 121 
 
 due reverence,” &c. “ quhairupon the said Sir Johne Bellenden justice-clerk, in 
 name of the said estaitis, and also John Knox minister, and Robert Campbell of 
 Kinzeancleugh, asked actis, instrumentis and documentis.” * 
 
 The Duke of Orkney in his flight from Carberry-Hill, being well aware of 
 his desperate situation, stood at gaze for a moment in the castle of Dunbar, 
 and then started northward to seek refuge among the stormy intricacies of 
 those islands from which he derived his infamous title. Being Lord High Ad- 
 miral of Scotland, he contrived to fit out and arm some light piratical vessels, 
 fleet as falcons, and well adapted to the dangers of those narrow seas. His 
 first attempt was to fortify himself in the castle of Kirkwall. But he was 
 frustrated in this object by John Napier’s uncle, who commanded there. Pro- 
 bably the constable had received his instructions from the Bishop of Orkney. 
 That prelate was eager for the apprehension of the fugitive; { and the per- 
 sons to whom the party of the Earl of Murray immediately looked as the fit- 
 test to command the expedition that was to accomplish the destruction of this 
 dangerous outlaw, were the philosopher’s other relatives so often mentioned, 
 Sir William Murray of Tullibardine, and Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange. 
 Their daring characters marked them for such an enterprise; and the rejec- 
 tion of their gauntlet at Carberry-Hill left them a personal insult to avenge. 
 They were accordingly associated in this undertaking, which, notwithstand- 
 ing the government force placed under their command, promised sufficient dif- 
 ficulty and danger to add another zest to their object. { 
 
 Upon the 19th of August 1567 their armament was complete, and set sail 
 for the Orkneys. But the Duke of Orkney was reserved for a fate less honour- 
 
 * Keith. Privy-Council Records. 
 
 + Spotswood says, that Bothwell’s purpose “ was to have remained in the castle of Kirkwall, 
 and if any did pursue him, to take himself to the ships; but the keeper, Gilbert Balfour, would not 
 receive him, so as he was forced to return to sea.” 
 
 { There is a charge in the register of privy-council, dated 10th August 1567, to some parti- 
 cular masters of ships belonging to the town of Dundee, and in general to all masters of ships and 
 other mariners, indwellers within the burgh, to prepare themselves and their ships to pass with Sir 
 William Murray of Tullibardine, the comptroller, in quest of the Earl of Bothwell, within six hours 
 after they be charged ; and on the 11th day of the same month, there is a commission to Sir William 
 Murray, comptroller, and Sir William Kirkcaldy of Grange, to convey the king’s lieges in warlike 
 manner, and provide ships to pursue the Earl of Bothwell, his assistars, or colleagues, by sea or 
 land, with fire, sword, and all kind of hostility, and fence and hold courts of justice wheresoever 
 
 they shall think good. 
 Q 
 
122 THE LIFE OF 
 
 able than to die on his deck. His pursuers, with five ships heavily armed 
 and carrying four hundred soldiers, soon reached the Orkneys, from whence 
 they were directed, probably by Gilbert Balfour, to Shetland as the covert of 
 their quarry. It was not long before two vessels were descried cruising off the 
 east coast of Shetland, where currents, tides, and whirlpools threatened destruc- 
 tion to the most skilful navigator. ‘These vessels were the Duke of Orkney’s 
 on the look out, and manned by desperate seamen. Grange, who commanded 
 the swiftest of the government ships, shot a-head, and approached Bressa Sound 
 through which the pirates steered. Onward pressed their pursuers, and every 
 nerve was strained on board the Unicorn, Grange’s ship, to gain their object. 
 The maneeuvre of the fugitives would have done credit to the more practised 
 days of the Red Rover. So close was the chase, that, when the pirate escap- 
 ed by the north passage of the sound, Grange came in by the south, and con- 
 tinued the chase northward. But the fugitives were familiar with those nar- 
 row and dangerous seas. They knew how lightly their own vessels could dash 
 through the boiling eddy that betrayed a sunken rock, and discerned at ‘a 
 glance what would be the fate of their bulky pursuers if they dared to follow 
 in their desperate track. They steered accordingly upon breakers ; and though 
 the keel grazed the rocks, their vessel glided through the cresting foam, and 
 shot into a safer sea. Grange ordered every sail to be set to impel the Uni- 
 corn in the very same path. In vain his more experienced mariners remon- 
 strated. The warlike baron, as if leading a charge of horse in the plains of 
 Flanders, rushed on the breakers, and instantly his gallant ship was a wreck,— 
 there being just time to hoist out a boat and save the ship’s company and sol- 
 diers. As it was, one warrior heavily armed still clung to the wreck, and the 
 boat being already on its way deeply laden, it seemed impossible to save this 
 being from destruction. His cries reached them, but were disregarded ;—ano- 
 ther instant of delay and he had perished, when, collecting all his energies, he 
 sprung with a desperate effort into the midst of the crowded boat, causing it 
 to reel with his additional weight, encumbered as he was with a corslet of proof: 
 “ which,” says Godscroft, who records the incident, “ was thought a strange 
 leap, especially not to have overturned the boat.” Who would have surmised 
 that this athletic man-at-arms, the last to quit the wreck, was a bishop !—the 
 bishop, who had so lately joined the hand of him he pursued, with that of Queen 
 Mary !—the very bishop, who a month before had poured the holy oil on the in- 
 fant head of James VI. and stood proxy ae the extorted abdication of that mo- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 123 
 
 narch’s mother. It was Adam Bothwell, Bishop of Orkney. The rock 
 from which he leapt can be seen at low water, and is called the Unicorn to 
 this day. * 
 
 It is remarkable, that, at the very time when the bishop was so conspicuous 
 in his enmity to the Duke of Orkney, the General Assembly of the Church 
 entertained their highest indignation against him for having married that 
 nobleman to the queen. In the Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 25th 
 December 1567, just five months after the exploit above recorded, “ Adam, 
 called Bishop of Orkney, commissioner of Orkney, being absent, was delated 
 for not visiting the kirks of his country, but from Lambmess to Hallowmess : 
 Item, That he occupied the room of a Judge of the Session, the sheep wander- 
 ing without a pastor: J¢em, Because he retained in his own company Sir 
 Francis Bothwell, a Papist, to whom he had given benefices, and placed a 
 minister: Item, Because he solemnized the mariage of the queen and the 
 Earl of Bothwell, which was altogither wicked, and contrair to God’s law 
 and the statutes of the Kirk.” Again, “ Anent the mariage of the queen 
 with the Earl of Bothwell, be Adam callit Bischop of Orkney ; the haill kirk 
 finds that he transgrest the act of the kirk in marieing the devorcit adulterer ; 
 and therefore deprives him fra all function of the ministrie, conform to the 
 tenor of the act made thereupon, ay and quhyll the kirk be satisfyit of the 
 
 * Hume of Godscroft’s History of the House of Douglas,—Edmonstone’s Zetland Islands,—Sir 
 James Melville’s Memoirs.—Speaking of this pursuit, Melville says, “ Now the lard of Grange 
 twa schippis being in redines, he maid saill towardis Orkenay ; and na man was sa frak to ac- 
 company hym as the Lard of Tullibardin and Adam Bodowell, Bishop of Orkenay.” 'Tullibar- 
 dine’s keenness is easily accounted for; and, from the records of the privy-council, it appears 
 that he held the government commission as leader in the expedition. But why the bishop was 
 there isa question. So dangerous an enterprise, undertaken by one of his timid and luxurious ha- 
 bits, must have had a powerful stimulus, and may be thus accounted for: Tullibardine and Grange 
 were armed not only with authority to apprehend the Duke of Orkney, but to hold courts of jus- 
 tice wherever they might take him, obviously for the purpose of his «immediate condemnation. 
 But these barons, who were both above the duplicity of the times, would have cut an awkward 
 figure in their judicial capacity had it been left entirely to them, and probably their impulse would 
 have been to bring the Duke hack, to be again tried by his peers in the face of his country. But it 
 was desirable to the Morton faction that he should be instantly put out of the way, and in a manner 
 least likely to elicit disclosures ; so, to aid the warlike barons when the hour of fight was over, and 
 to countenance them in their judicial functions, Adam Bothwell, a privy-councillor and a Lord of 
 Session, accompanied the expedition, and no doubt had his instructions. 
 
 + Calderwood. 
 
124 THE LIFE OF 
 
 slander committed by him.”* Calderwood adds, “ Adam called Bishop of 
 Orkney pretended he might not remain in Orkney by reason of the evil air 
 and weakness of his body. He denied that he understood Francis Bothwell 
 to be a Papist, or that he placed him in the ministry. He was deprived of all 
 functions in the ministry, for solemnizing the mariage betwixt the queen and 
 the Earle of Bothwell, contrair to ane act made against the mariage of the 
 devorced adulterer, till the Assembly were satisfied for the slanders committed 
 be him.” There appears, however, an act of the General Assembly restoring the 
 bishop on the 10th of July 1568, in these terms :—“ Toutching the Bischop of 
 Orkney’s suspensione from the ministrie the last Assemblie, and his obedience 
 and submission; the kirk restoris him again to the ministrie of the word, 
 and aJs ordains him on some Sunday, quhen he best may for waiknes of his 
 body, to mak an sermoun in the kirk of Halieruidhouse, and in the end thereof 
 to confess his offence in marieing the queene with the Erle of Bothwell; and 
 desire the Kirk thair present for the time, to forgive him his offence and sclan- 
 der given be him in doing the fornamit act: the quhilk he promisit to do.” 
 Shortly before the date of this act, namely, on Sunday the 2d of May L568, 
 the queen escaped from Lochleven ; and on the 13th of the same month the 
 battle of Langside was fought, which decided her fate, when she fled to Eng- 
 land. ‘This brings us down to the period of the Bishop of Orkney’s letter to 
 Merchiston on the subject of the plague; and it remains to notice the result 
 of the voyage to which he therein alludes. 
 
 A scene, the most disgraceful to both countries, now occurred at the con- 
 ferences held at York and Westminster, where a rebel faction familiar with 
 the darkest crimes, and a rival queen, destitute of every feminine virtue, com- 
 bined to consummate the ruin of the Queen of Scots. It was upon this occasion 
 that Mary was deliberately accused of having been an accessory before the fact 
 to the murder of her husband. But happily the very mode in which the ac- 
 cusation was preferred, and the shameless forgeries with which it was at- 
 tempted to be supported, no less than the total absence of every principle of 
 law and justice which characterized the whole proceedings, afford the strong- 
 est refutation of the charge. These disgusting proceedings I shall only no- 
 tice, in order to follow out the train of historical connections which subsist be- 
 twixt the domestic annals of Merchiston and those of his country and the 
 
 times. 
 * Acts of Assembly. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 125 
 
 James and Robert Melville were both present at that memorable mockery 
 of judicial procedure. James Melville, and his nephew Grange, whose eyes 
 were now completely opened to the duplicity of Murray’s faction, had endea- 
 voured to prevent a step so degrading to the nation. But the honest party 
 in Scotland were too weak to protect either the honour of Scotland or the 
 queen; and some, says Melville, including himself, “ that culd not get the 
 regent disswadit fra this extream folly at hame, past with him in England, to 
 se gene be any assistance of sic as wer frendis ther to the union of this yll, 
 and to the title of Scotland, mycht, perchance, mak them some help to get the 
 accusation stayed.” Conspicuous in the commission against the Queen of Scots, 
 chiefly composed of the murderers of Rizzio, was our philosopher’s worthy 
 uncle, the Bishop of Orkney, as representing the spiritual estate. On the 
 other side were marshalied some of the few nobles left to unhappy Scotland, 
 who possessed the feelings of humanity and the honour of gentlemen. With 
 these was the good Bishop of Ross, and, says Melville, “ my brother, Sir Ro- 
 bert Melvill, an onwaiter to do the gud he culd.” A complete history of that 
 commission (for which Sir James Melville has furnished materials that have 
 not been taken advantage of by our partial, though classic, historians) I leave 
 to those who have yet to redeem the annals of our country, in some essential 
 points, from ignorance and error. There is one scene, however, in which the 
 Bishop of Orkney became so ludicrously conspicuous as to require notice here. 
 When the commissioners first met at York, the Duke of Norfolk cast vari- 
 ous obstacles in the way of the accusation; and after sounding Lethington, 
 opened a secret conference with him and the Regent Murray, the object of 
 which was to frustrate the designs of Elizabeth. No one was privy to this coun- 
 ter-plot except Norfolk, Murray, Lethington and James Melville; and the plan 
 proposed is minutely recorded by the latter. The Duke, after expressing his pri- 
 vate horror and astonishment at the step the commissioners were about to take, 
 said, “ I am send to heir your accusation, bot nother will the quen, my mes- 
 tress, nor I, dicern nor geve out any sentence upon your accusation ; and that 
 ye may understand the veritie in this point mair clearly, ye sall do weall, the 
 nyxt tym that I requyre you before the consail to geve in your accusation in 
 wret, to demand again the quen, my mestres, seale and handwret, before ye 
 schaw your foly ; that incaice ye accuse, that sche sall immediately convict 
 and geve out hir sentence ; otherwayes that ye will not open your pak ; quhilk 
 geve hir Majeste sall refuse to grant unto you, quhilk undoubtedly sche will 
 
126 THE LIFE OF 
 
 do, then assure your self that my information is rycht, and tak occasion ther- 
 upon to stay fra fader accusation.” 
 
 The accusation here alluded to was that held in petto by Murray and his 
 crew, wherein Mary was denounced as a murderess ; her marriage to Both- 
 well being urged as one of the principal proofs, and the very bishop who had 
 prenounced his blessing over that marriage being the keenest of the accusers, 
 Elizabeth vehemently desired that this accusation should be unconditionally 
 presented ; and when the counter-claim suggested by Norfolk was made, the 
 delay occasioned by communicating with her majesty at such a distance caus- 
 ed the commission to be moved from York to the court. The Regent Murray, 
 whose conduct bewildered such of his colleagues as were not in the secret, was 
 incessantly importuned by the Bishop of Orkney, and the most violent of the 
 faction, to give in the accusation unconditionally. At length Morton disco- 
 vered the substance of what had passed betwixt the Duke and the Regent ; 
 and, being highly offended at the exclusion of himself from their conference, laid 
 a plan with his colleagues to defeat the object of it. Murray’s secretary, John 
 Wood, a thorough paced traitor, was made to disclose the whole matter to Cecil, 
 who at their suggestion became more and more urgent. They pretended, how- 
 ever, to stand by the condition to which Murray had pledged himself. The rest 
 of this extraordinary scene is best pourtrayed in Melville own words: 
 ‘“* Master Jhon Wod said, that it was meit to cary in all the wretis to the 
 consail house, and he suld keip the accusation in his bosome, and suld not de- 
 lyver it without all conditions wer also kepit to him. The rest of the Regentis 
 lordis and consellours had concludit amang them, that sa schone as the Duc 
 of Norfolk, as cheif of the consaill, wald inquyre for the accusation, that they 
 suld all with a voice cry and persuad the Regent to ga fordwart with it. The 
 secretary Liddingtoun and a few uthers remembrit the Regent, how far he had 
 obligit himself to the Duc of Norfolk. He said he suld do weal anough, and 
 that it wald not com that far agaitwart. Sa schone as he with his consaill 
 wer within the consaill house, the Duc of Norfolk askit for the accusation. 
 The Regent desyred again the assurance of the conviction, be wret and Seale, 
 as said is. It was answerit again, that the quenis majesteis word, being a 
 trew Princes, wald be sufficient anough. Then all the consaill cryed out, wald 
 he mistrust the quen, wha had geven sicjproif of hir frendschip to Scotland ? 
 The regentis consaill cryed out also in that same maner. Then the Secretary 
 Cicile askit, gene they had the accusation ther. ‘ Yes,’ said Mester Jhon 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 127 
 
 Wod, (with that he pluckis it out of his bosome) ‘ bot I will not delyver it 
 untill her majesteis handwret and seale be delyverit to my Lord’ Then the 
 Bischop of Orkeney cleakis the wret out of Mester Jhon Wodis handis. ‘ Let 
 me have it, I sall present it,’ said he; Mr Jhon ran efter him as gene he wald 
 have had it again, or riven his clais. Fordwart past the bischop to the con- 
 saile table, and gave in the accusation. Then said to him my Lord Willyem 
 Hauvert, chamberlan, ‘ Weill done Bischop Turpy; thou art the frackest 
 felow amang them; none of them all will mak thy loup gud ;’ scornen him 
 for his lowping out of the lard of Grange schip. Mester Hendre Belnaves 
 only had maid resistance, and callet for the Secretary Liddingtoun, wha taried 
 without the consaill house; bot sa schone as Mester Hendre Belnaves had cal- 
 let for him he cam in, and roundit in the Regentis ear that he had schamed 
 himself, and pat his lyf in parell by the loss of sa gud a frend, and his repu- 
 tation for ever. The Regent, wha had bene brocht be his facilite to brek 
 with the Duc of Norfolk, repented him again sa schone as Liddingtoun had 
 schawen him the danger, and desyrit the accusation to berenderit to him again; 
 alleging that he had some mair to add unto it. Bot they said, that they wald 
 hald that quhilk they had, and wer ready to receave any uther addition when 
 he pleased to geve it in. The Duc of Norfolk had anough ado to keip his 
 contenance; Mr Jhon Wod winket upon the Secretary Cecill, wha smyled 
 again upon him; the rest of the Regentis company were lauchen upon other ; 
 the Secretary Liddingtoun had a sair hart ; the Regent cam fourth of the con- 
 saill house with the tear in his eye, and past to his loging at Kingistoun, a myll 
 from court, where his factious frendis had anough ado to comfort him.”* 
 The church was not appeased by the bishop’s harlequin activity upon this 
 disreputable service. ‘Ihe commissioners returned in the month of February 
 1568-9; + and in the General Assembly held in July following, “ Adam 
 
 * Melville’s Memoirs, p. 211, 212. 
 
 + It was in 1569 that the Regent Murray was assassinated ; and it is curious to observe, that 
 the person who is said to have been the indirect cause of his fate was the bishop's cousin, Sir John 
 Bellenden. In some of the interested transactions to which the struggle for life and place and 
 property after the battle of Langside gave rise, the justice-clerk obtained a gift of the lands and 
 mansion-house of Woodhouselee. These had belonged to Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, a man, 
 like all of his name, devoted in the cause of Queen Mary. Under the auspices of the Regent, Bel- 
 lenden obtained a transference in his own favour, and took possession with such inhuman violence, 
 as to drive Hamilton’s lady out of the house in a stormy night, which impaired her reason. 
 
 It is 
 well known that Bothwellhaugh took his revenge upon the Regent himself. 
 
128 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Bishop of Orknay was accused for not fulfilling of the injunction appointed by 
 the Assembly in the month of July 1568.” No further notice of him appears 
 in the acts of Assembly until the 25th of February 1569-70, of which date 
 the following detailed accusation stands recorded against him :—“‘ Adam of 
 Orknay being called to the office of a bishoprick, and promoted to the profits 
 thereof, and suffered by the kirk, receives charge to preach the Evangell, to 
 be also commissioner of the country of Orknay, which he received and exer- 
 cised for a certain space ; while now of late he made a simoniacall change with 
 the abbacie of Halirudhous, although yet brooking the name, and stiled 
 Bishop of the same ; contrary to all lawes, both of God and man, made against 
 simony. Secondly, he dimitted his cure in the hands of an unqualified person 
 without the consent of the kirk, leaving the flock destitute without a shep- 
 heard, whereby not onely ignorance is increased, but also most aboundantly all 
 vice and horrible crimes there are committed, as the number of 600 persons 
 convict of incest, adultery, and fornication, beares witnes. Thirdly, he hath 
 given himselfe daily to the execution of the function of a temporall judge, as 
 to be a Lord of Session, which requires the whole man, and so rightly in nai- 
 ther can he exercise both: And stiles himselfe with Romane titles, as Reve- 
 rent Father in God, which pertaines to no minister of Christ Jesus, nor is given 
 to any of them in Scripture. Fourthly, in great hurt and defraud of the kirk, 
 he hath bought all the thirds of the abbacie of Halirudhous; at least, he hath 
 made simoniacall change thereof with the rents of Orknay. Fifthly, he hath 
 left the kirks partly unplanted and partly planted, but destitute of provision. 
 Sixtly, some of the kirkes are sheepfolds, and some of them ruinous. Seventh- 
 ly, he hath traduced, both publikly and privatly, the ministers of Edinburgh, 
 absented himselfe from preaching in that kirk, and from receiving the sacra- 
 ments.” * 
 
 The simoniacal exchange of which the bishop is here accused, seems to have 
 been forced upon him rather to his disadvantage in the year 1569, in favour 
 
 * « Acts of the Generall Assemblies concerning the Adversaries of Discipline.” See also Cal- 
 derwood’s MS. Adv. Lib.—Calderwood says, “ the bishop presented his answers to the tenth 
 session. Mr Knox, Mr John Craig, and Mr David Lindsay, were appointed to try the sufficiency 
 of these answers, and to report to the next Assembly ; but I find them not. Yet ye may see 
 what thingis they judge offensive in bishops or ministers.” Bothwell’s diocese comprehended the 
 Isles, Orkney, Zetland, Caithness, and Stranaver ; and his fixed residence ought to have been Kirk- 
 
 wall.— Book of Discipline. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 129 
 
 of a natural son of James V., Robert Stewart, afterwards Earl of Orkney.* 
 Be this as it may, our prelate continued to retain both the abbacy of Holy- 
 rudhouse, and the style of Bishop for the remainder of his life; and ever 
 after this exchange, indulged in the imposing signature, “ Adam, Bishop of 
 Orkney, Commendator of Holyrudhouse.” 
 
 While the fact of John Napier’s foreign education seems unquestionable, it is 
 a mistake, though a prevalent one, { to suppose that he spent the best years of 
 his manhood abroad, and that upon no occasion after his return did he in- 
 terfere with or interest himself in public affairs. He was certainly at home 
 in 1571 (being just of age) when the preliminaries of his marriage were ar- 
 ranged at Merchiston; and for many years after that event, he took an ear- 
 nest and even a leading interest in the affairs of the church, which composed 
 the most engrossing politics of the day. 
 
 * See act of Parliament 1592, entitled, “ Exceptioun in favour of Adam Bischope of Orknay.” 
 
 + The following deed among the Merchiston papers affords a good specimen of the Bishop’s auto- 
 graph. “ We, Adame be the permissioun of God, commendater of the Abbay of Halycroce besyd 
 the bruch of Edinbruch, and convent of the samin cheptourlie gadderit, the utilitie, weill, and 
 proffeit of us and our said place being alwayis forsene and considerit, lang and mature delibera- 
 tioun and avyss had theirintil ; and als for certan gret soumes of money payit and delyverit to us 
 and our said convent for performing and setting forwarts of certan gret effairis and besynes con- 
 cerning us and our said place, and sustentatioun of the said convent, be our lovit, Sir Archibald 
 Neper of Edinbelly, knycht,” &c. therefore setts to Sir Archibald, and to “ Jhon Neper, his sone 
 and apperand air, and Francis Neper, als sone to the said Archibald,” &c. “ all and syndrie our 
 teindschaiffis of the lands of Merchinstoun,” &c. for 19 years. At Leitcht the xxiii October 1571.” 
 
 { Lord Buchan says, “ I have not been able to trace Merchiston from the university (St An- 
 drews) till the publication of his plain discovery at Edinburgh, in the year 1593.” In the recent 
 account of the baron, published in London by the Society for the Diffusion of Knowledge, it is 
 said, that, “ on leaving College, Napier is understood to have set out on his travels, in the course 
 of which he visited France, Italy, and Germany. It is not known when he returned home; but 
 he was probably a considerable time abroad, since we hear nothing farther of him till he was above 
 forty years of age. On arriving again in his own country, although he had already acquired considerable 
 reputation for abilities and learning, and might probably have entered upon a political career with 
 many advantages, he declined interfering in public affairs, and retired to Merchiston with the in- 
 
 tention of devoting himself exclusively to study.” —Library of Entertaining Knowledge. 
 R 
 
130 THE LIFE OF 
 
 The important subject of his marriage is first met with among the archives 
 of his family, in a contract dated 23d February 1571-2, wherein are these 
 words: “ Till all and sundry,” &c. “ Archibald Naper of Edinbillie, Knycht, 
 that albeit the Rycht Honorabill Sir James Striveling of Keir, Knycht, with 
 consent and assent of Jane Cheisholime, his spouse, for fulfilling of ane contract 
 of mairage maid betwix thame and Elizabeth Striveling, thair dochter, on the 
 ane part, and ane reverend fader in God, Adam, Bischop of Orknay, commen- 
 dator of Halyrudehouse, me the said Archibald, and Johne Naper my sone 
 and apperand air, on the uther part, for mairage to be maid and solemnized 
 betwix the saidis Elizabeth and Johne Naper.” The marriage did not take 
 place till towards the close of the following year. Sir James Stirling of Keir, 
 already noticed as the colleague of Sir Archibald Napier in the office of justice- 
 depute, and who was knighted at the same time, represented one of the oldest 
 and most respectable baronial families in Scotland. His place of “the Keir,” cele- 
 brated both in history and song, joined the Napier estates in the Menteith, and 
 was finely situated for astronomical purposes. * 
 
 Almost immediately before his son’s marriage, Sir Archibald had take a se- 
 cond spouse to himself in Elizabeth Mowbray, a cousin of his own, and a daugh- 
 ter of John Mowbray of Barnbougall, who represented a distinguished and 
 well-known family of Norman extraction. + It is curious to observe that these 
 double zoces in the family of the philosopher occurred at a time when their re- 
 sidence in the Lothians was literally invested with fire and sword. Their old 
 fortalice became from its situation the very centre of “ the Douglas wars,” which 
 ravaged the metropolis for a few years after the death of the Regent Murray. 
 These had justcommenced when John Napierreturned from abroad, driven home 
 probably by that state of affairs on the Continent which led to the massacre of 
 
 * Shortly before the battle of Sauchie Burn, the Prince of Scotland (James IV.) was routed 
 by his father’s forces near Stirling, and took refuge in the Keir. He was driven out, and the place 
 burnt to the ground by his pursuers. When he gained the throne, he granted new charters of all 
 the lands to Sir William Keir, whose writs had been destroyed, and also L. 100 to “ Schir Wilzeam 
 of Stirling, to the bigging of his place.” — Treasurer's Accounts, 1488. Mag. Sig. xii. 64.—Sir 
 Walter Scott thus celebrates the Keir in the Lady of the Lake : 
 
 Blair-Drummond sees the hoofs strike fire, 
 They sweep like breeze through Ochtertyre ; 
 They mark just glance and disappear, 
 
 The lofty brow of ancient Keir. 
 
 + See Note E. 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 131 
 
 St Bartholemew. Upon the 2d of April 1572, he and Elizabeth Stirling sign 
 a deed at Merchiston preliminary to their marriage. * Upon the 5th of the 
 following month, before the marriage was completed, “ the company of Edin- 
 burgh,” says a contemporary journalist “ past furth and seigit Merchistone, 
 quha wan all the partis thairof except the dungeon,” &c. + 
 
 A glance at the state of the times, as affecting in particular our philosopher’s 
 domestic comfort during the period when he was commencing his labours to 
 immortalize his country, will afford an interesting idea of that intellectual 
 power which no dangers could deter, or difficulties turn aside from its victori- 
 ous path. 
 
 « A new civil war,” says Spotswood, “ did then break out [1571] which 
 kept the realm in trouble the space of two years very nigh, and was exerced 
 with great enmity on all sides. You should have seen fathers against their sons, 
 sons against their fathers; brother fighting against brother; nigh kinsmen 
 and others allied together as enemies seeking one the destruction of another. 
 Every man, as his affection led him, joined to the one or other party ;_ one pro- 
 fessing to be the Azng’s men, another the queen’s. The very young ones scarce 
 taught to speak had these words in their mouths, and were sometimes observ- 
 ed to divide, and have their childish conflicts in that quarrel. But the condi- 
 tion of Edinburgh was of all parts of the country the most distressed. They 
 that were of quiet disposition and greatest substance being forced to forsake 
 their houses ; which were, partly by the soldiers partly by other necessitous 
 people who made their profit of the present calamities, rifled and abused.” { 
 
 Two notable examples of “ quiet men,” whose high characters and sub- 
 stance would have made them very acceptable to either faction, was Sir Ar- 
 chibald Napier, and his immediate neighbour in the Lothians, Fairley of Braid. 
 Like Merchiston, the laird of Braid was a staunch friend to the Reformation, 
 but not one of those of the church militant who were leagued with factious 
 and grasping violence. John Knox, when the infirmities and disappointments 
 of his latter days had subdued the rude spirit of his prime, and indeed on his 
 deathbed, turned to Fairley with this affecting speech ; “ilk ane biddis me gude 
 nyght, but when will ye doe it; I have bene greatlie behaudin and indebted unto 
 you, quhilk I can never be able to recompence you, but I comit you to one 
 
 * See a fac simile of those autographs attached to the etching of the portrait of Elizabeth 
 Stirling ; and the Preface for a notice of the deed. 
 
 + The Pollock MS. 
 
 { History of the Church. 
 
132 THE LIFE OF 
 
 who is able to doe it, that is, to the eternal God.” * The faithful servant and 
 secretary of Knox, Richard Bannatyne, has left a journal of the transactions 
 in Scotland during the contest betwixt Queen Mary and her son. From his 
 original descriptions we may cull a picture of the scenes enacted at the very 
 gates of Merchiston and Braid, during the period of the philosopher’s courtship. 
 I am not. certain, however, whether it be himself or his father who is mentioned 
 in what follows. ‘ Fryday the 25 May (1571) a doosane of suddartis come to 
 Braid at supper tyme, and spoyled the myllaris house, the miller beand at supper 
 with the lard; and when they saw the miller cuming in and staying them fra 
 spoyling his house, tuik him and brought him to the yeat of Braid, and gave the 
 lard injurious wordis, bidding him come out to Captane Melving, or elis they 
 suld burn the hous about his luggis. The lard being a quyet man, bad thame 
 depart, saying that he had nothing to doe with thame, and gif Captane Mel- 
 ving wald have had him, he had not sent sic messengeris as they were. They 
 still continewing in thair injurious wordis, and misusing the lairdis miller be- 
 fore his eyes, the lard went foorth with a two-handit sword, (the rest of his 
 be occasione hinderet followeth as they myght,) the suddartis, I say, for the 
 most part of thame discharges thair hagbutteris at the laird, but be Godis pro- 
 vidence he escaped their furie, and straik ane of them breadlinigis with his 
 sword to the eird, wha cryed that he wald be tane. Uther two of thame hav- 
 ing their pieces undischarged, in ane of the which there was thrie bulletis, 
 and seing ane of thair marrowes dung to the grund, they discharge bayth at 
 the laird ; yit be Godis eternall providence he was so preservit that he gat no 
 hurt, nor nane of his, albeit they were all but + armour; bot the skeath fell 
 upon themeselvis, for they slew their awin man that had renderit himself to the 
 laird; uther thrie also was tane, before whom this man confessit that his 
 awin marrowes slew him, for the lardis company never schot a schot, and so 
 the suddartis when they had discharged thair pieces fled to the toun, and made 
 report that the Laird of Braid had a cumpany of men of weir waiting thame. 
 So the alarume struk, and all come furth to the querrel holes, bot hearing the 
 treuth, were stayed be the Lard of Merchinstone, wha schaw Captane Mel- 
 ving that there were uther men cuming from Dalkeyth for the lardis releif, 
 as that they did with speid.” { 
 
 * Bannatyne. 
 
 + 2 e. without. The immediate sequence of the word dot affords a good instance of the dis- 
 tinction as the language then stood. 
 
 { Bannatyne’s Journal, pp. 172, 173,174. Printed from the original MS. at Edinburgh 1806; 
 and edited by J. G. Dalzell, Esq. The Laird of Merchiston mentioned above is not unlikely to have 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
Blackwood 
 
 HW Willams del= 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 133 
 
 But it was impossible for Sir Archibald himself to remain long unmolested. 
 The most important place in the neighbourhood was his own dwelling, as yet 
 may be seen from the strength and simplicity of its structure no less than its 
 commanding position. It formed the key of the south approach to Edinburgh 
 which the king’s party were endeavouring to reduce to famine; nor was it to 
 be expected, that, amid such brawls, even the gently disposed inhabitants of 
 this fortalice would be suffered long to enjoy scientific pursuits within its walls. 
 Sir Archibald’s name occurs in none of the reciprocal decrees of forfeiture 
 which both parties fulminated against each other from their respective 
 Parliaments, and in which the Bishop of Orkney is so conspicuous; yet 
 he seems to have fallen under the displeasure of the queen’s party at 
 this time, probably because he took no active share in the civil war. 
 The Pollock MS. bears, that, “ upoun the 18 day of the said moneth,” 
 (July 1571,) “ Naper of Merchingstoune, Knycht, wes tane, and brocht 
 to Edinburgh Castell be the Laird of Mynto and his cumpany.” Another 
 old historian, after narrating the death of Lennox and the appointment of 
 Mar in 1571, adds, that Sir Wiliam Kirkcaldy, who commanded the castle, 
 bombarded the house of Merchiston with iron balls from his great guns, be- 
 cause certain soldiers, hirelings of the king’s party, occupied it, and intercept- 
 ed the provisions coming to the castle and town.* Thus it would appear 
 
 been the philosopher, who was frequently styled Laird of Merchiston, (of which barony he was in 
 fee) before his father’s death. Sir Archibald was generally called of “ Edinbellie” and “ Knycht.” 
 This “ Captane Melving” was clearly one of the eight sons of Helen Napier and Sir John Mel- 
 ville of Raith, who were all devoted to Queen Mary. He was consequently the cousin-german of 
 Sir Archibald. Very shortly after the incident in the text, Melville was blown into the air by 
 the igniting of a barrel of gun-powder which he was in the act of dealing out to his soldiers on 
 Craigmillar hill. There was great lamentation by the queen’s party for his death. All the nobility 
 followed him to his grave, over which his nephew Grange pronounced a funeral oration to his sol- 
 diers. His brother David Melville was placed in his command. He is not mentioned in the 
 peerage (Leven and Melyille,) but these facts may be gathered from a comparison of the contem- 
 porary journals of Bannatyne, Sir James Melville, and the Pollock MS. 
 
 * « Ecclesie Scoticane Historia per Archibaldum Symsonum,” §¢.—MS. Advoc. Lib. 
 
 The words are, “ Guhelmus Kirkaldy arcis preefectus, tormento majori ferreis globulis domum 
 Merchistoniam oppugnat propterea quod conductitii milites a Regis partibus ibi residentes viati- 
 ca, unde arx et oppidani alantur, intercludant.” 
 
 Nor had the paternal house of John Napier’s spouse escaped the consequences of the times. 
 After the battle of Langside, the privy-council of the Regent issue letters charging certain barons 
 
134 THE LIFE OF 
 
 that Grange entertained his cousin Sir Archibald, when under his custody, 
 with the agreeable pastime of battering the family fortalice. Barnbougall, 
 the paternal house of Sir Archibald’s spouse, was about the same time suffering 
 under the tyranny of the worst civil war that ever ravaged Scotland. At the 
 commencement of the year 1572, the Laird of Dundas was entertaining at his 
 castle in the neighbourhood of Barnbougall, Sir Richard Maitland of Lething- 
 toun and his lady. Notwithstanding the presence within its walls of so staunch 
 a queen’s man as “auld Maitland,” that faction had determined to become mas- 
 ters of the castle of Dundas; an attempt which seems to have emanated from 
 Grange, ever fertile in such enterprises. Robert Mowbray, the eldest brother 
 of Merchiston’s lady, undertook to execute the dangerous project in the follow- 
 ing manner: He obtained from Edinburgh thirty mounted soldiers, who were 
 placed in concealment under a bank near the iron gate of Dundas. Two men 
 disguised in ragged garments, with pistols under them, lurked close to the 
 gate, while Mowbray and a comrade, also disguised and armed, took up their 
 stations in a house in the village of Dundas, close to the place. It happened, 
 however, that one David Ramsay, the Laird of Dundas’s servant, went down 
 to the village ‘ to get a morning drink,” and entered the very house where 
 Mowbray and his comrade were on watch. The result of Davie Ramsay's 
 early potation was, upon this occasion at least, fortunate for his master. He 
 detected the adventurers under their disguise, and instantly started off to give 
 the alarm, pursued by Mowbray and his comrade, who fired their pistols at 
 him without effect. The enterprise failed ; and Sir John Mowbray, in conse- 
 quence of his son’s participation, was summoned before the Regent and 
 privy-council, confined in prison for two or three days, and only released 
 upon finding security that he would not suffer “ the rebelis” (z. e. the queen’s 
 party) to occupy his castle of Barnbougall as a garrison. Not satisfied with 
 this, however, the Regent occupied the place with soldiers of his own, and 
 again committed the laird to confinement in the town of Ayr. * 
 
 to yield up their strongholds to the bearers of the letters “to be kepit be thame, and to devoid and 
 red thamesellis, thair servandis and gudis, furth of the samyn, within sex houris, under pains of trea- 
 son ;” and this for holding them for the queen: “ That is to say, Andro Hamiltoun of Cochno, the 
 tour and fortalice of Cochno,” and after many others, “ James Striueling of Keir, the house and 
 fortalice of Keir. The said James Striueling of Keir, the tour and fortalice of Cadder,” &c. Mer- 
 chiston is not mentioned.— Original Privy-Council Record. 
 
 * Bannatyne’s Journal. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 135 
 
 About this time the English ambassador, Sir William Drury, went a pro- 
 gress through Scotland to visit the strongholds of the king’s party, and in 
 pursuance of his advice, the Regent Mar, whose humane and gentle disposi- 
 tions soon sunk under the policy he was constrained to pursue, endeavoured 
 to reduce the town of Edinburgh to absolute famine. With this view, “ the 
 regent and the kingis favouraris stuffit,” (7. e. garrisoned,) “ the houssis ‘of 
 Craigmillar, Merchingstoun, Sclatfurd, Reidhall, Corstorphine, and the college 
 thairof, and the abbay, with all places about the town of Edinburgh.”——“ And 
 also all inhabitouris within twa myles to Edinburgh wer constranit to leave 
 thair houssis and landis, to that effect Edinburgh sould have na furneissing, 
 and damnit poore men and women to the deid, for inbringing of victuallis to 
 Edinburgh. * Sir Archibald Napier seems to have been released from his du- 
 rance in the castle of Edinburgh, and to have escaped forfeiture. He had re- 
 tired probably to his estates in the Lennox or Menteith, for in the same con- 
 temporary journal I find it recorded, that “ upoun the 3d day of July (1572) 
 Archibald Naper of Imbillie (Edinbellie), knycht, wes summoned to have com- 
 peirit befoir the quenis lieutennentis and hir counsall, the 6th of this instant, 
 under the pain of rebellioun and putting of him to the horne.” Thus was he, 
 —as his brother-in-law wrote to him a few years before,— sett amiddis be- 
 twix twa grete inconvenientis ;” for the king’s faction in 1568 kept him pri- 
 soner in his own house under heavy securities; in 1571 the queen’s faction 
 sent him to Edinburgh Castle for not remaining in the vicinity of the town ; 
 and having been in 1572 again compelled to seek refuge or peace elsewhere, 
 he was summoned by the queen’s lords to compear before them at the very 
 time the king’s lords had filled his mansion with soldiers, and surrounded it 
 with fire and sword. These factions had indeed made his house too hot to 
 hold him; and Merchiston was at this time no retreat for the lovers of ma- 
 thematics and alchemy, or for those who only sought its battlements to con- 
 sult the stars. 
 
 Upon the 5th of May 1572 the queen’s troops issued from the town to be- 
 siege Merchiston. After a desperate struggle they made themselves masters 
 of the outworks, and finally of the entire castle, with the exception of its “ don- 
 jon keep,” to which the regent’s garrison had retreated as a place impregnable. 
 The besiegers followed up their advantage with the most determined ferocity. 
 Finding it impossible otherwise to dislodge their enemies, they set fire to the 
 
 * The Pollock Manuscript. 
 
136 THE LIFE OF 
 
 out-houses, “ thinking to have smokit the men of the dungeon out ;” but the 
 king’s party in Leith, well aware of the importance of this fortalice, marched 
 in great force to raise the siege. The guns of Edinburgh Castle commenced 
 to play upon these new assailants, and fired more than forty shots to cover the 
 besiegers, who were commanded by one Captain Scugall. But nothing could 
 resist the charge of the Laird of Blairwhain, who drove the queen’s cavalry 
 back into the town,—his own horse being shot under him. Captain Scugall 
 was mortally wounded. Among the incidents of this skirmish, “ ane canone 
 bullet dingis the revell, the spurre, and the heill of the sock and hois of ane of 
 the horsemenis leggis without stirring the hyde.” 
 
 Upon the 10th of June following, most of the horsemen and soldiers in Leith 
 (the king’s faction) laid siege to the castle of Nydrie Seytoun; and upon the same 
 day the entire disposable force in Edinburgh, with as many of the townsmen 
 as were for the queen, and a small train of artillery, all led on by George Ear] 
 of Huntly, made another desperate attempt to win the castle of Merchiston. 
 This had nearly succeeded. The assailants battered its gray walls with 
 their cannon ; while their cavalry, scouring the fields to the south betwixt the 
 fortalice and the hills of Braid, brought in forty head of cattle and sheep. The 
 siege commenced at two o’clock in the afternoon, and the cannon played upon 
 the tower until four o’clock ; and, says the old chronicle, “ maid greit slap- 
 pis in the wall; quhairat the keiparis of the said place being bot * 
 men, and the principalcommander absent, unbethocht thameselffis that they wer 
 nocht of possibilitie to detene it fra thair said adversaris. Ane of them, nameit 
 Alexander Felde, souldiour, be advyce of the remanend, seing ane of his broder 
 slane, past to the wall heid benevolentlie to have randerit the said place,” &c. 
 provided the Earl of Huntlie would allow the garrison to march out with the 
 honours of war. In the midst of this parley, however, a large body of the 
 country people, attracted towards the scene of action by the noise of the guns, 
 but more from curiosity than any intention of siding with either party, impres- 
 sed the besiegers with the idea that they were menaced by the forces of the 
 regent. They instantly sent back their battering train into the town, which ar- 
 rived in safety ; but the regent’s party, issuing from Leith, overtook the queen’s 
 forces, and the result is thus given by the journalist, who seems to have 
 been one of the besiegers. ‘“ We ruchit on thame, and incontinent thairefter 
 gaif bakis and fled, castand thair wappinis fra thame for haist to win the town 
 of Edinburgh, all because thair wes sum of the horsemen wes come with my 
 
 * This blank occurs in the Bannatyne print of the Pollock MS. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 137 
 
 Lord Mortoun fra Nydrie to the said effect. hair wes sum slauchter on 
 baith syddis; four of Leith and five of Edinburgh, with fifteen burgessis and 
 craftismen of Edinburgh tane to Leith, and twa of Merchinstonis suddartis 
 tane. The leiving of the hous of Merchingstoun wes Capitane Hew Lauder, 
 callit serjand majour; because the capitane thairof mariit the said Hew his 
 sistar ; and als wes suspectit of the skaith the town gott at this chaiss, becaus 
 he promittit in hechting to caus the town men doe or die; bot he wes hurt at 
 this chaiss ; and als-George Erle of Huntlies horss wes slaine under him be 
 ane schote that come out of the palice of Halyrudhous.” A conflict yet more 
 bloody occurred at Merchiston on the last day of the same month. <A party 
 of twenty-four mounted soldiers had been sent to forage for the town, which 
 was nearly reduced to famine. The well-stocked fields in the neighbourhood 
 of that fortalice were the constant scene of enterprise; and upon this occasion 
 the foragers collected many oxen, besides other spoil, which they were driving 
 triumphantly into the town. They were pursued, however, by Patrick Home 
 of the Heucht, who commanded the regent’s light horsemen. The foraging 
 party, whom hunger rendered desperate, contrived to keep their pursuers, 
 amounting to four score, at bay, until they were passing the gate of Mer- 
 chiston, when the regent’s garrison issued forth and drove back the cattle. 
 The Edinburgh horsemen instantly alighted from their horses, which they 
 suffered to go loose, and “ faucht creuallie.” A strong body of infantry quit- 
 ted the town to support this brave little band, and turned the fight in their 
 favour. All the loss fell upon the party of the regent ; Home of the Heucht 
 their leader, Patrick Home of Polwarth, besides four other gentlemen, were kil- 
 led. Of the queen’s party a few were wounded, and only one foot soldier lost 
 his life, who was killed by a shot from the battlements of Merchiston. * 
 Very shortly afterwards a truce was effected betwixt the contending fac- 
 tions. The French and English ambassadors used some exertions to put an 
 end to the savage and unnatural warfare which desolated the heart of Scot- 
 land, and threatened Edinburgh with absolute destruction, from the number 
 of houses that were daily pulled to pieces for fire-wood. ‘Their influence, 
 cordially aided by the good Earl of Mar, brought about a cessation of hos- 
 tilities for two months from the Ist of August, which was agreed to, and 
 signed by each party, at Leith and Edinburgh, on the last day of July 1572. 
 
 * The Pollock MS. pp. 264, 299, 300, 303. For these sieges see also Historie of K. James 
 Sext, and Bannatyne’s Journal. 
 Ss 
 
138 THE LIFE OF 
 
 To the propositions in this armistice, “ What persons were meetest to convene 
 on either side, during the time of the abstinence, to treat upon the pacification, 
 and in what place and order, it was answered, that the meeting should be 
 on the Gallowley, the Earl of Morton with the Earl of Huntlie, the Lord 
 Home with the Lord Ruthven, the Abbot of Dumfermling with the Prior of 
 Coldinghame, the Bishop of Orknay with the Bishop of Athenis,” &c. * 
 
 Sir James Melville narrates, that, shortly before the death of the Earl 
 of Mar, a strenuous endeavour was made to accommodate matters with 
 the noble and disinterested Grange, so as to reconcile the interests of the 
 queen and her son. Grange demanded only that every man should be al- 
 lowed to retain his own, and that Mar should cause certain debts to be 
 paid, which had been contracted for repairing the castle and its great 
 guns; “ Quhilk conditions,” says Melville, “ the regent promysed to fulfill, 
 and to be ane assured frend to Grange, and them of the castell in particu- 
 laire; and without any further cerimonies, callit the Lard of Tullibarden his’ 
 gud brother before, and efter that he had declaired unto hym how far we had 
 proceadit, he choppit his hand in myn, and swore the paice in presence of the 
 said lard; who had also been a good instrument to the said agrement, to- 
 gither with his man of law, Maister Clement Litle, a very honest man, bro- 
 ther to Willyem Litle, efterwart provest of Edinbrough. Na ma were made 
 prevy thereto, bot my Lady Mar and Capten James Kuningame.” The regent 
 went afterwards to Dalkeith, where he was banqueted by the Earl of Morton. 
 “ Schortly efter, he tok a vehement seaknes, quhil caused him ryd to Stirling 
 sodanly, wher he departed this life, and was regreted of many. Some of his 
 frendis, and the vulgair people, spak and suspected that he had gottin wrang, 
 and others, that it wes for displeasour.” He died on the 29th October 1572. 
 
 Morton, the mortal enemy of his queen and of all who espoused her cause, 
 or had compassion on her state, succeeded Mar in the regency. The castle of 
 Edinburgh was the only remaining stronghold of the queen’s party. There 
 the few friends that continued devoted to her, and who looked forward with 
 sanguine hopes to the adjustment of an amicable policy betwixt her and 
 the young king, still maintained that honest and determined bearing which 
 opposed a formidable barrier to the schemes of Morton. It was chiefly 
 with the cousins of Merchiston that the new regent had now to deal. Grange 
 commanded the castle, and with him were his brother James, and his ne- 
 
 * Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 347. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 139 
 
 phews Sir Robert and Sir Andrew Melville. These, with the Lord Hume 
 and the Secretary Lethington, were the leaders of that small but illustrious 
 band of patriots, who, in the castle of Edinburgh, vainly struggled to break 
 the toils which the dark Morton was drawing around them. Nor did Sir 
 James Melville, at this fearful crisis, forsake his relatives. Ever active in 
 the cause of justice, peace, and humanity, he laboured, though fruitlessly, 
 to negociate betwixt the regent and the queen’s party in the castle, to which 
 place Morton, backed- by an English army under the conduct of the marshal 
 of Berwick, and assisted by all Scotland, now laid siege. Grange declared he 
 would keep it against the world, with the aid of eight persons, “ of the quhilk 
 nomber,” says Melville, “ the Lord Hum wes ane, my twa brether, Sir Robert 
 and Androw, the Lard of Pittadrow, and his brother, Patrick Echlin.” But 
 the usual fate of a devoted garrison awaited them. Their provisions failed, 
 and their draw-well became dry. That without the walls, to which men were 
 let down over the rocks by cords from the ramparts, was poisoned by the 
 enemy ; and at length Grange was forced to capitulate. The marshal of Ber- 
 wick, Sir William Drury, being his warm friend and great admirer, no fears 
 were, in the first instance, entertained for his personal safety. The leaders of 
 the garrison, allowed to go forth with all their arms, were for three days at 
 large. Grange and Lethington took up their abode with Drury, who had 
 earnestly stipulated for the safety of the former. Sir Robert Melville went to 
 his own residence, where he was joined by his brothers. But Morton’s re- 
 venge was unsatiated. He prevailed with the Queen of England to send her 
 commands to her marshal to deliver up Grange and the secretary, “ quhilk 
 he durst not disobey, bot delyverit them, with gret regret, be raisoun of his 
 promyse, and returnit malcontent to Barwik.” * The secretary, crippled with 
 gout and other bodily infirmities, died almost immediately at Leith, “ some 
 supponyng he tok a drink, and died as the auld Romanes wer wont to do.” + 
 But Grange was reserved for a fate yet more cruel. In vain had Drury 
 pledged his own honour for his life; in vain did a hundred of his kin offer 
 suit and service to Morton, and a yearly pension of three thousand merks, if 
 he would spare Grange. He was executed, with his brother James, like a 
 common felon on the Castlehill. Having escaped the gibbet for a deed of his 
 youth which richly merited such a fate, he was doomed to that ignominious 
 death, after a career of arms that rivalled the chivalry of Europe, for fidelity 
 
 * Melville’s Memoirs. + Ibid. 
 
140 THE LIFE OF 
 
 to his trust and devotion to his queen. With this relative of our philosopher 
 fell the last hopes which enlivened the captivity of Mary. * 
 
 Sir Archibald Napier and his illustrious son were too earnest in the 
 Protestant cause to be devoted to a Catholic queen. But the relics and 
 reminiscences of poor Mary, which are preserved in the family of Mer- 
 chiston,—the little quaint panelled closet there with its vast depth of win- 
 dow, still called Queen Mary’s bed-room,—and above all, the long-cherish- 
 ed portrait, taken before sorrow had reached her,—are all touching indica- 
 tions that the house of Merchiston contained none of those factious rebels 
 who dared to tell their sovereign that her “ life was the death of the church, 
 as her death would be its life.” While Sir Archibald and John Napier were 
 both studiously removed from either faction, their attention must have been 
 constantly attracted by the connections we have traced, to the treatment which 
 the queen experienced ; and even after her exile, those connections continued 
 to subsist to the last hour of her captivity, and under circumstances that must 
 have called forth their deepest sympathy. Of the eight sons of Helen 
 Napier, who were all queen’s-men, the three most distinguished were Mary’s 
 confidential and affectionate advisers at three distinct periods of her career. 
 Sir James Melville, though he never forsook her, is more particularly identi- 
 fied with her story while she was yet a queen. Sir Robert was the friend 
 upon whom she leant at the fearful crisis of her abdication ; and now, in her 
 captivity, she reposed with equal confidence upon Sir Andrew Melville, who, 
 after the fall of his nephew Grange, had joined her in England, and became 
 master of her household. But in that melancholy household other near rela- 
 tives of Merchiston were domesticated. It has entirely escaped our genea- 
 logical writers, that Sir John Mowbray of Barnbougall and his lady, the 
 sister of Grange, had two daughters named Barbara and Giles, who were 
 younger than their sister Elizabeth, the stepmother of our philosopher. 
 Barbara, the eldest of these two, was only eight years old when the queen fled 
 to England ; consequently, neither of them could have accompanied her at that 
 
 * Sir James Melville says, that King Henry II. of France commonly chose Grange on his side 
 at their sports, “ and because he schot faire with a gret schaft at the buttis, the king wald have 
 him to schut twa arrowes, ane for his pleasour; and the Gret Constable of France wald not speak 
 with him oncoverit.”—“ He (Grange) wes humble, gentill and meak lyk a lamb in the house, but 
 
 lyk a lyon in the feildis; a lusty, stark and weill-proportionate personage, hardy and of a mag- 
 nanyme curage,” &c. p. 257. 
 I 
 
SQ7 
 
 SS 
 
 < LRSSSS 
 WSs 
 
 SN 
 
 4 
 
 i fr : f 
 ) ie re(humble ert refo be {San te fe 
 aH! i i i 
 MA rie 
 
 i, 
 
 UL 
 
 a 
 LE 
 © 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 141 
 
 time; but they both joined her afterwards, and never left her in her captivity 
 till death parted them. Perhaps they had accompanied Sir Archibald Na- 
 pier, who went into Mngland upon some royal mission in the year 1580, 
 as appears from the following item in the high treasurer’s accounts :— 
 “ May 1580. Item, be the kingis grace precept to the Laird of Merchain- 
 stoun, for defraying of his chargeis maid in his preparatioun for his jorney 
 in England, as the said precept and his acquittance apoun compt beiris, 
 L. 400.” This was a large sum, and indicates the mission to have been one 
 of dignity ; but I cannot find Merchiston on any of the embassies of that pe- 
 riod noticed in history, or by contemporary chroniclers. It is not impossible, 
 however, considering his relationship to Lady Mar and the Melvilles, that 
 he may have been sent on some errand from the young king to Mary in 
 England, and have taken along with him his two sisters-in-law. Certainly, 
 James owed his mother at this time a message of kindness. It was upon the 
 17th June 1579, that she had sent her French secretary Nau with letters and 
 presents to her son, particularly a vest richly embroidered by her own hand. 
 But this messenger was not allowed to obtain an audience ; and was harshly 
 and unceremoniously dismissed, because his credentials were only directed to 
 the Prince of Scotland. Be this as it may, the Misses Mowbray were still at- 
 tendant on the person of Queen Mary, and Sir Andrew Melville still her mas- 
 ter of household, when the Babington conspiracy was made the pretext for 
 putting her to death. Connected with their history, we must also mention 
 William Curle, Mary’s favourite secretary, and Jane Kennedy, her favourite 
 maid of honour. During their long and affectionate service, attachments had 
 sprung up among them, which were evinced by the marriage of Sir Andrew 
 Melville to Jane Kennedy, and of Barbara Mowbray to William Curle. Be- 
 fore these unions, however, their mistress was no more; and we must notice 
 the termination of her life, to mark the interesting parts which Merchiston’s 
 relatives enacted in that closing scene. 
 
 When the Queen of Scotland was condemned to die, her son James felt, or 
 affected the utmost extremity of grief and indignation. After some negocia- 
 tions, in which the sincerity of his feelings are not very apparent, he despatch- 
 ed two ambassadors, who were understood to be intrusted with the most 
 peremptory demands for the life of Mary. They were totally opposed, how- 
 ever, in their characters and conduct. The one was that old friend and faith- 
 
142 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ful adviser of the queen, Sir Robert Melville; the other was the Master of 
 Gray, her insidious enemy, and the friend of herson. This degenerate young 
 nobleman either betrayed his public trust, or fulfilled his secret instructions too 
 faithfully. ‘‘ The dead cannot bite” was the diabolical phrase with which he 
 qualified his remonstrance. Not so Melville. At the risk of his own life, he 
 followed the dictates of honour, courage, and humanity. ‘“ My brother,” says 
 James Melville, “ spak brave and stout langage to the consaill of England, 
 sa that the quen hirself boisted him of his lyf; and efterwart had bene retenit 
 captyve, wer not the credit that his collig had, and the promyses that he had 
 maid, wherby they wer baith sufferit to com hame togither.” Crushed by 
 her rival, and betrayed by her son, Mary, with the most serene dignity, 
 prepared to meet a fate which the same writer has characterized in three 
 words, “ that unkouth, unkyndly mourther.”* On the morning of the execu- 
 tion, while the queen was on her knees at the altar, Barbara Mowbray, and a 
 young French lady of the name of Beauregard, complained to her physician Bur- 
 goin, that their names had been omitted in her will, (which the queen had has- 
 tily drawn up with her own hand,) and with tears entreated him to tell her so. 
 No sooner was Mary informed of their affectionate complaint, than she rose 
 
 * Melville would never have used these strong expressions of sympathy for Mary, and execra- 
 tion against Elizabeth, had he believed the former guilty of the murder of Darnly. Throughout 
 the whole of his Memoirs he speaks of her in the most affectionate terms, totally inconsistent with 
 a belief in her entire abandonment of character. He expressly says, that Tullibardine, Grange, 
 and others, bore great love towards the queen, and were only in arms for the safety of the prince, 
 and the punishment of the king’s murder ; and that they sent him, Melville, to the Regent Mur- 
 ray, to entreat him in their name, “ to bear him gently and humbly unto the quen.”—P. 193. 
 He also says, that Bothwell treated Mary so inhumanly after he had her in his power, « that 
 Arthour Askin and I being present, hard her ask a knyf to stik hirself, or else, said sche, ‘ I sall 
 drown myself.’”” This he narrated to Sir James Balfour, and told him to keep the castle of Edin- 
 burgh, “ and to be that gud instrument to saif baith quen and prince, and to persew the Erle Bodo- 
 well for the kingis mourther.”—P. 180. While he speaks of that “ fowll mourther of the king,” 
 he calls Mary “ that gud princess.” Is it possible, then, that Sir James M‘Intosh could have 
 read these Memoirs, when, in his History of England published 1832, he says, “ Of Mary’s 
 friends, the most experienced and sagacious was Sir James Melville,—true to his queen, but not 
 a slave to state,—who, of all the writers of that age, has made the nearest approach to impar- 
 tiality ? Though he was too honest to deny the queen’s share in the death of her husband, his 
 conviction, which was proved sufficiently by his silence, did not extinguish his loyal attachment.” 
 
 —P. 88. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 143 
 
 from her kneeling posture, and remedied the omission by writing a remem- 
 brance of them upon the blank leaf of her book of devotions. * 
 
 But one of the most affecting scenes was what past betwixt Mary and Sir 
 Andrew Melville. On her progress to the scaffold he was permitted to accost 
 her once more, and it was to him that Mary’s last solemn and sustained speech 
 was addressed. Melville, in an agony of grief, lamented the sad tidings he would 
 have to return with to Scotland. ‘ Rejoice rather than mourn,” said she, “ that 
 the woes of Mary Stuart are about to cease. Know you not, Melville, that all 
 this world is vanity,—full of trouble and misery. Return with these tidings, 
 that I die a Catholic, true to my religion,—a Scotchwoman, but true to France. 
 God forgive those who have thirsted for my blood. He who knows our secret 
 thoughts, knows that mine ever sought peace, and the union of the realms. 
 Remember me to my son, and tell him that no act was ever done by me de- 
 rogatory to my kingdom and the crown.” She then reclined over Melville, 
 and kissed him, while tears fell from her eyes. “ And so,” said she, “ good 
 Melville, farewell. Once again, farewell, good Melville, and grant me your 
 prayers.” t Her next request was that her own attendants might see her die ; 
 and having with difficulty obtained leave to select a few, she chose Melville to 
 support her train to the scaffold, her physician Burgoin, and from among her 
 maidens, Jane Kennedy, afterwards the wife of Melville, and Elizabeth Curle, 
 the sister of her secretary. These ladies attended her on the scaffold ; and when 
 the fatal moment approached, Jane Kennedy bound an embroidered handker- 
 chief about the eyes of her beloved mistress, and received her last kiss. ta 
 
 After her death, the household of the Queen of Scots were treated with great 
 harshness and cruelty. These forlorn domestics humbly prayed to be allowed 
 to depart to their respective abodes. They were detained, however, as pri- 
 soners, and kept in constant dread of death or torture, with food barely suffi- 
 cient to sustain them. None of them were suffered to take exercise, or move 
 without a guard. During these tyrannical proceedings, Barbara and Giles 
 Mowbray, the affectionate companions of a queen, and the daughters of one 
 of the oldest baronial houses in Scotland, young and irreproachable in their 
 couduct, were cast into prison. This inhuman step brought matters to a crisis. 
 Sir Archibald Napier’s father-in-law complained to his own sovereign of this 
 cruelty, and obtained the royal commission to proceed to London for the re- 
 
 * La Mort de la Royne D’Escosse. 1589. 
 + Ibid. t Ibid. 
 
144 THE LIFE OF 
 
 lease of his two daughters, and of all her late majesty’s domestics.* About the 
 period of this mission, information had been sent to Elizabeth by those who 
 were weary of guarding the body of Queen Mary and tyrannizing over her ser- 
 vants, that the embalming had been insufficient, and that part of the leaden 
 coffin had given way. Her own dissimulation, added to the opportune arrival 
 and strong remonstrance of the Laird of Barnbougall, at length determined 
 Elizabeth to order the remains of her rival to be interred at St Peterborough 
 with the pomp suitable to royalty. In the same curious contemporary tract 
 from which these details are obtained, it is recorded, that in the heraldic pa- 
 geantry, “ Les femmes de la Royne d’Escosse” walked in the following order. 
 * Madamoyselle Barbe Maubray. Christine Sog. Gilles Maubray. Els- 
 peth Curle. Rence de Realay. Marie Pagets. Janne Kennedy. Susanne 
 Korkady.” + Very shortly afterwards Jane Kennedy was united to Sir 
 Andrew Melville, and Barbara Mowbray to William Curle. This faithful 
 secretary had acted in that capacity to Queen Mary for more twenty years ; 
 that is before her captivity commenced. His extorted evidence had partly 
 been made an excuse for her condemnation, which greatly afflicted him; and 
 many a time his sister Elizabeth used to fall on her knees before the queen, 
 and in an agony of tears implore forgiveness for her brother. { One of Mary’s 
 latest requests to the Karl of Kent, rendered more earnest, perhaps, by her know- 
 ledge of the affection which subsisted betwixt her secretary and Barbara Mow- 
 bray, was that William Curle should be suffered to depart in peace. The Earl 
 pledged himself for his safety ; and, accordingly, not long after the solemn in- 
 terment at St Peterborough, Curle with his spouse and his sister Elizabeth, 
 
 * See Note E. 
 
 + “ La Mort de la Royne D’Escosse,” printed 1589 ; reprinted by Jebb in his Collections, v. 
 i. p- 611. This account, which is extremely minute and curious, appears to have been written 
 by one of her household,—probably her physician Burgoin. “ Prenez,” says the writer, “ en 
 bonne part je vous supplie, la grande affection et juste regret d'un serviteur fidele, et de bonne 
 volonté, qui ne peut endurer que l’honneur de sa maistresse soit foulé on offencé,” &c. He also 
 narrates, that when the royal procession had reached the chapel, and the service had begun in 
 English, Burgoin and the other domestics of her late majesty rushed out of the chapel, with the 
 exception of Sir Andrew Melville and Barbara Mowbray. 
 
 { Mary always exonerated William Curle, whom she loved; and accused Nau, the French se- 
 cretary, of misleading him, and being instrumental in her death. Gilbert Curle, the brother of 
 William, was also of her household in her captivity, and a married man, as Queen Mary in her 
 will mentions Gilbert Curle’s wife. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 145 
 
 turned their backs for ever on the shores of Britain, and sought security and 
 consolation in a Catholic country. 
 
 .I know not what became of Giles Mowbray, who probably returned to 
 Scotland with her father. As for Barbara, it is a curious fact that some time 
 in last century, a Flemish gentleman of talent and consideration in the Low 
 Countries possessed an ancient Flemish manuscript, which narrated that Wil- 
 liam Curle, accompanied by two ladies of the same name, came over to Ant- 
 werp after the execution of the Queen of Scots, carrying with them a picture 
 of that unhappy princess, and her head which they had contrived to abstract ; 
 that in the little church of St Andrew there, they buried this fearful relic at 
 the foot of one of the pillars where their own tombs were to be, upon which pil- 
 lar they hung the picture of their queen, and placed a marble slab to her memory. 
 Thus far the Flemish manuscript. Whoever visits that little church may 
 still see upon the pillar that self-same picture of Mary Queen of Scots, and 
 read the inscription which records her martyrdom. He will also find beneath 
 it the tombs of Barbara Mowbray and Elizabeth Curle, and may peruse their 
 story engraved upon the slabs that cover their dust. * 
 
 The fate of Jane Kennedy was yet more melancholy. After her union to 
 Melville, they were both in the highest favour with James VI., and when that 
 monarch in 1589 was arranging the preliminaries of his marriage, Sir Andrew 
 was his master of the household, and the lady whom he selected to be 
 about the person of his queen was Sir Andrew’s spouse. But she who had 
 so affectionately shrouded the eyes of Mary at the block, was not destined to 
 wait upon the mother of Charles I. When she received this high mark of 
 her sovereign’s confidence, she was residing in Fife, and nothing could deter 
 her from instantly crossing the water, though the storms were so great as to 
 be considered the effect of a combination of witches against the royal ailiance. 
 The result we shall give in the words of Sir James Melville. ‘“ The stormes 
 wer also sa gret heir, that ane boit perissit between Brunteland and Leith, 
 wherin was a gentilwoman callit Jane Kenete, wha had been lang in England 
 with the queen, his majestei’s mother, and was sen-syn maried upon my brother, 
 the maister houshald to his majestie, Sir Andro Melville of Garvok. Quhilk 
 gentilwoman being discret and grave, was sent for be his majestie to be about 
 the quen his bed-fallow. Sche being willing to mak deligence, wald not stay, 
 for the storm, to saill the ferry; when the vehement storm drave a schip 
 
 * See Note E. 
 T 
 
146 THE LIFE OF 
 
 forceably upon the said boit, and drownit the gentilwoman, and all the person- 
 nes except twa. This the Scotis witches confessit unto his majestie to have 
 done.” 
 
 Having recorded the various coincidences which form such interesting links 
 between the annals of our philosopher’s house and kindred, and the eventful 
 history of his times ; and especially the circumstances, which must have called 
 his attention, and, all-protestant though he was, attracted his sympathies to 
 every step in the fate of Mary of Scotland; we must now follow more exclu- 
 sively his own personal history. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 147 
 
 : CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ALTHOUGH it was impossible for John Napier entirely to withdraw him- 
 self from the numerous connections that linked him to public events as well as 
 to social life, yet he lived aloof from the court and its intrigues, which can 
 scarcely be said of any laird or lord of Merchiston except himself. There was, 
 however, no austerity in this mode of life. Retirement was to him a matter 
 of necessity, unless he had forsaken his scientific pursuits; but I cannot dis- 
 cover, though such is his popular character, that he possessed either the tem- 
 per or the habits of arecluse. In the midst of his most profound meditations he 
 was ever open to the demands of others upon his time, and “ singular judg- 
 ment.” When, as we shall find, the General Assembly of the church wished to 
 overcome king James, they sent John Napier at the head of a mission from 
 which the sturdy school of Knox held themselves excused. When King James’s 
 courtly lawyer, Sir John Skene, met with a word whose signification required 
 more than ordinary talent to elucidate, he selected John Napier from among 
 all the learned of a learned age to frame answers to his queries. When tid- 
 ings came from the enchanted palace. of science at Uranisberg, how Tycho 
 and his satellites, Longomontanus and Kepler, had been groaning under the 
 tyranny of Logistic, their grievances were submitted by a mutual friend * to this 
 Scottish oracle, who returned them for response a promzse of the logarithms. 
 The learned Robert Pont would seek his aid to disclose the times of a prophe- 
 tical text ; and the stormy Robert Logan crave his “ ingyne,” to discover a 
 hidden treasure at Fastcastle. In his own family he was equally respected, 
 and consulted upon all occasions. He was his father’s right hand in parish 
 business and family affairs. While the knight was engrossed with searching 
 for gold in the Pentland hills, operations of which we shall afterwards take 
 a view, his illustrious son was frequently burdened with the charge of the 
 
 * Dr John Craig. 
 
148 THE LIFE OF 
 
 family estates. Besides agricultural and other ordinary occupations, we shall 
 have to contemplate him, one while drawing the horoscope of an infant bro- 
 ther, and again, framing an elaborate epistle to reclaim an unruly one. 
 
 The following letter to his father, which had hitherto escaped observa- 
 tion among the family papers, affords an admirable illustration of the un- 
 affected simplicity of the philosopher’s character, and the kindliness of his dis- 
 position. It is not dated by the year in which it was written; but it bears 
 internal evidence of a date somewhere betwixt 1580 and 1590. 
 
 “ To the Rycht Honorable and his belovit Father, Schir Archibald 
 Neper of Edinbelly, Knycht. 
 
 “ Rycht Honorable Schir and Father, efter my hairtlie commendatione.— 
 Your tryst apoyntit befor you to hewf bein keipit be the fewers, beand con- 
 tinuit to Thurisday, we mett at Ogilgirth, but ony appirant mynd that evir 
 thei menit to agrie, for we fand thaim mair onressonable and mair extrem 
 nor evir thei wer of befor; bot the tryst wes apoyntit for na uther cours nor 
 to get us al togidder, that thei mycht the easelier summond us (as thei hewf 
 doine beth) to find lawbouris, * as also hes aristit the cornis and crop by sik 
 forme of letters as ar nocht commone. Ye hewf heir the copie of the chergis 
 of lawburowis ; bot we hewff gottin na copie of the aristment; bot heirs that 
 the officer is deput to cheir the sam, and stak the sam upon the grund, upon 
 the expensis of the crop itself, ther to stand ondir aristment til it be decydit ; 
 and also hes fensit and aristit the pettis, turris, heddir and fewall castin ther 
 be us; quhereupon ther is certainlie appirans of cummer to fall schortlie be- 
 twix thame and our folkis Waltir Grahemis sonis and David Haldaine, onles 
 ther be sum wey devysit and doun ther be you, by chargis that may get the 
 said arristment lowsit upon catione to prowf the landis,’ quhereon that corn 
 grows, to be ours; for David Haldane and Waltiris bairnis ar determit nocht 
 to find lawbourrows, bot to pass to the horne. As for me, I mynd nocht, God 
 
 * « Letters of lawborrow, obtained at the suit of him who is disturbed in his person or goods 
 by another, contain a warrant to charge the party complained of to give security that the com- 
 plainer shall be kept harmless from illegal violence. The word is derived from borrow or bogh, 
 an old word for cautioner. The complainer, before obtaining letters of lawborrows, must either 
 swear that he dreads harm from the party complained of, or bring evidence of his malicious in- 
 clinations towards him. At first no letters of lawborrows were granted except where one sus- 
 pected his own life to be in danger ; but they were afterwards extended in favour of the complainer’s 
 family, and even tenants, that none of them should be troubled in their persons or goods,” &c.— 
 Erskine’s Institute of the Law of Scotland, B. iv. Tit. i. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 149 
 
 willing, to mell* with na sik extraordinar doingis ; and therfor I prey you, ather 
 yourself, or causs ony of your gudsonis act thamselfis cationeris in the buiks 
 of secrit consal, conforme to this cherg, ondir the painis of 1™ [1000] merkis 
 that I sal nocht molest thaim. And this man be done schortlie, for the cherg 
 is upon sax days, and I wes chergit on Thurisday, And I, be thir presentis, 
 binds and oblissis me my airis and executoris to reliss you or thaim that beis 
 catione for me, Also David Haldane desyrit me to wrett to you to raiss the 
 lyk letteris in al our namis agains thaim al be naim that ar in the copie, anent 
 the lyk lawborrowis, lest quhen ony other man truble that aristment, thei 
 wald truble us, and provok us to contravein our lawborrowis. Of sa smal 
 metteris as the pryce of the letteris I wald nocht say na thing to David ; for 
 we man nocht compt sa nerly with him, seing it is apeirant to be derair and 
 mair expensis to him and ilk ane of us heir, nor the expensis of the law. 
 Farder,—Jhone Duglass had neir endit letly with Drumquhassil, anent the 
 vittell ye tuik or the land wes redemit, and suld hewf gottin fra him aucht 
 bollis in hand: the gudman of Cayston hes steyt him, and brocht him to his 
 Jatter answer, quilk I assur you is four bollis mell of you; yit becauss he is 
 presently in mister, + gef ye think guid to send your precept of twa bollis, I sall 
 do that I mey to get his present discherg, and that metter past danger. Befor 
 the concluding of this letter, Mr Jhone Grahaim, cumming to the Keir heir, 
 schawis me, that the commoun custoum of the Lordis of Session is to gif let- 
 ters to officers to cheir and stak debetable cropis upon the land quher thei 
 grew, gif that be the first yeir that evir that land wes tillit. Therfor, I think 
 ye suld get suspensione or lowsing of the aristment upon the contrair narra- 
 tiwf, that beth thair wer staidis of rigs of ald in that land, to manifest that it 
 heth bein tillit of befor, as also that ther ar evidently to be sein staidis of rigs 
 of ald in al pairtis abut that land that Waltir now hes tillit; and that the 
 saming wes of ald tillit be us is notoir, for it lys betwix our hid dyks and the 
 fewairis awin ryding of propertie, as thei red upon thair consciens beand 
 sworn ; and that thei hewf na commontie be nath thair ryding is notoir, beth 
 becauss riggis can nocht be commontie, as also we offer to prowf be our evident, 
 
 * To mell, mel, mellay. To meddle with, to contend with.— See Jamieson. 
 
 Rycht peralous the semlay was to se, 
 Hardy and hat contenyt the fell mellé.—Blind Hary’s Wallace. 
 
 + Mister, myster. Want, necessity.—Jbid. 
 
 He ete and drank with ful gude chere, 
 For thareof had he grete myster.— Ywaine, 
 
150 THE LIFE OF 
 
 that thair proper merch is al ane with our proper merch, but ony’commontie ; 
 and by and besyds al this, quilk desolvis thair fals narratiwf, ye sal find ca- 
 tione to recompance thair domnag, incaiss that land be not provin your pro- 
 pertie ; and that I will assur you we wil get mest clairly provin, as I shall 
 schaw you at meting. Heirfore, lest upon our honestie we be forsit to assist 
 David and our men in their extraordiner doingis, the causs tending als weil to 
 us as to tham, I prey you do that mey be done by letters, for war nocht I, 
 thei had ellis enterit in cummer.* So referring to your answer and adwertis- 
 ment of al thir turnis, I commit your m™ and yours in the protectione of the 
 Eternall. At the Keir this xx of August, 
 * Be your m” Sone at command, 
 “ JHONE NEPER.” 
 
 We pity the philosopher who could travel through this letter, and cry “ all 
 is barren.” It is a remnant more valuable in reference to the biography of its 
 writer, than if it had been crammed, like the epistolary effusions of Kepler, 
 with the deepest calculations ; and we may see from it how justly his charac- 
 ter was appreciated by those about him when they adopted that sacred device 
 and legend for his portrait, “ wise as the serpent, and simple as the dove.” He 
 mentions, that while he was in the act of writing, Mr John Graham arrived 
 at the Keir, whom he did the honour to consult with regard to the forms of 
 law, as a person of authority upon such points. It is interesting to trace who 
 this person, thus familiarly mentioned, was ; and while his name assists us in 
 fixing the chronology of the letter, his history serves to illustrate the forebod- 
 ing of our philosopher as to the chances of such patrimonial disputes proving 
 “ derair and mair expensis to ilk ane of us nor the expensis of the law.” 
 John Graham of Hallyards succeeded to the office which Sir Archibald Na- 
 pier had held, of justice-depute to the Earl of Argyll, some time before 
 the 12th of January 1579; and at the trial of Morton in 1581, he pre- 
 sided in that capacity. On the trial of Gowrie in 1584, he was appointed 
 justice by special commission ; and immediately thereafter, obtained the place 
 of an ordinary Lord of Session in the room of Robert Pont, who was then 
 removed under a peremptory act, incapacitating “ all persouns exercising 
 functions of ministrie within the kirk of God to bear or exerce any office 
 of civil jurisdiction.” David Moyse the notary, who has left a very curious 
 journal] of his times, records, that in June 1590, “The Lordis of Sessioun wer in- 
 
 * 7. e. Had it not been for my exertions they would otherwise have gone to loggerheads. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 151 
 
 tendit to be altered, and sum accusatioun past betwix Mr John Grahame and 
 Mr David M‘Gilil, baithe Lordis of the Sessioun, ather of thame accusing utheris 
 of bryberie and kneaverie.” * But he afterwards became involved in a mat- 
 ter yet more serious, and which proved fatal to him. The estate of Hall- 
 yards consisted of temple lands, which Graham had obtained through his 
 wife, the widow of Sir James Sandilands of Calder. That lady held them upon 
 a title granted by her first husband, whose tenants in those lands had a pre- 
 ferable right of possession. ‘To defeat this, a deed was forged by a notary 
 at the suggestion of William Graham, a brother of the Lord of Session, by 
 which it was made to appear that these tenants had yielded their preferable 
 right ; and consequently, they were cast in an action raised to establish it. But 
 the forgery was discovered, and the notary hanged; upon which Mr John 
 Graham raised another action against the minister of Stirling, who, he alleg- 
 ed, had extorted a false confession from the unfortunate notary. This pro- 
 ceeding brought the General Assembly of the Church and the Court of Session 
 into violent collision. The Assembly cited Graham to appear before it, and 
 answer for his scandal against the church. The Court of Session stood up for 
 the independence of their own jurisdiction and members ; and sent their presi- 
 dent Lord Provand, with the Lords Culross and Barnbarroch, as a deputation 
 to the ecclesiastical court, disclaiming the Assembly’s right to interfere in the 
 matter. Both jurisdictions were obstinate, and the dispute was quashed 
 without being properly adjusted. The result was, that the tenants of the 
 temple lands pursued the young heir of the original proprietor, whose tutor 
 and uncle, Sir James Sandilands, took up the matter with all the vindictive 
 violence of the times. The Duke of Lennox lent his powerful aid ; and, says 
 Calderwood, “ upon Tuesday, 13th February 1593, Mr John Graham of Hall- 
 yards went out of Edinburgh towards Leith, being charged to departe off the 
 toun. The Duke and Sir James Sandilands following as it were, with clubs 
 in their hands, and coming down Leith Wynd, one of Mr John’s company 
 looked back, and seeing them, they turned to make resistance. The Duke 
 sent and willed them to go forward, promising no man should invade them; 
 yet Mr John Graham’s company shot, whereupon the Duke suffered Sir James 
 and his company to do for themselves. Mr John was shot; his company fled 
 before ever he was carried toa house. Sir Alexander Stuart’s page, a French 
 boy, seeing his master (Sir Alexander) slain, followed Mr John Graham into 
 
 * See a beautiful and accurate print of this MS. edited for, and presented to the Bannatyne 
 Club, by James Dennistoun, Esq. Younger of Dennistoun.—P. 84. 
 
152 THE LIFE OF 
 
 the house, dowped a whinger into him, and so dispatched him. Before this 
 encounter, Mr John was accompanied with three or four score.” * The tragic 
 end of this unhappy Lord of Session affords a curious picture of the times, and 
 shows that our philosopher acted wisely in his endeavours to prevent cummer 
 in such matters, and in his anxiety to “ mell with na sik eatraordinar doingis.” 
 Probably his letter is of a date long previous to the death of Graham, and it 
 may be before the latter was elevated from his justiceship to the Bench. Per- 
 haps the deed quoted below has reference to the period when John Napier 
 encountered such perilous disputes in the management of his father’s estate. T 
 
 * Calderwood MS. Advocates’ Library. See also Historie of K. James Sext, Melville’s Diary 
 and Spotswood’s History, as to Mr John Graham. Melville the minister says in his Diary, that 
 he was called My Lord Little-Justice. 
 
 + “ Justice, Justice-Clerk, and your deputis, we grete you wele. Forsameikle as it is understand 
 to us and our counsale, that, be vertew of lettres past under the signet and subseriptoun of our 
 dearest guidschir King James the Fift of worthie memory, all and sindrie the tennentis and inha- 
 bitantis of the landis liand within the boundis of our Schirefdome of Perth, Stewartrie of Menteith, 
 and baillierie of Dischoir and Toyer, pertenning then to Alexander Naper of Merchestoun, and 
 now to our lovit Sir Archibald Naper of Edinbillie, Knycht, and Johne Naper, fear of Merches- 
 toun, his sone and apperand air, ar specialie exemit frome all calling, jornaying, unlawing, or pro- 
 ceiding againis thame, or ony of thame, in ony wyiss, in our court or courtis of justiciarie or jus- 
 tice airis of our said Schirefdome of Perth, &c. or utheris courtis wheresumevir, except in our 
 Schirefdome of Dumbartane and justice airis thereof allanerlie, conforme to the tennour of the 
 infeftment past thereupoun of befoir to his umquhile guidschir, be our dearest grandschir King 
 James the Ferd of worthie memorie ; and, notwithstanding thereof, being surlie informit that in 
 this our justice air of Perth, the said Archibald and his tennentis, dwellaris within the saidis 
 boundis, ar arreistit to compeir and underly our lawis befoir you,” &c. therefore the king issues 
 his commands exempting Sir Archibald, &c. from answering in any courts but the justice air of 
 Dumbartane. ‘ Subscrivit with our hand at our bruch of Perth the xxi day of Julij, and of our 
 
 Regnne the xv yeir, 1582.” 
 ~w 
 VN} BO 
 \ = 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 163 
 
 The autographs will interest the reader. The royal signature is of James VI. 
 while he was yet a youth. ‘That of Montrose is of the grandfather of the lady 
 who became the wife of John Napier’s eldest son and was the sister of the great 
 marquis. He was high chancellor, and viceroy of Scotland after James suc- 
 ceeded to the throne of England.* As for the signature Morton, the right hand 
 that traced it is recorded in blood. The Lord Maxwell, a celebrated border 
 noble, obtained a grant of the Earldom of Morton (upon the fall of the regent) 
 in the year 1581, of. which, however, he was deprived a few years after- 
 wards. A deadly feud arose betwixt the Maxwells and the Johnstones : 
 and in the celebrated battle fought betwixt them, the Lord Maxwell or 
 Morton, being borne to the ground, stretched out his right hand for quarter, 
 but it was instantly severed from his body. In the meanwhile, a certain 
 feudal lady of the Johnstone clan issued from a family fortress, (which she 
 had valiantly defended,) attended by a single female, and with the keys of 
 the tower hanging on her arm. On the field of battle “she saw lying beneath 
 a thorn-tree, a tall, gray-haired, noble-looking man, arrayed in bright armour, 
 but bare-headed, and bleeding to death from the loss of his right hand. He 
 asked her for mercy and help with a faltering voice; but the idea of deadly 
 feud, in that time and country, closed all access to compassion even in the fe- 
 male bosom. She saw before her only the enemy of her clan and the cause 
 of her father’s captivity and death ; and raising the ponderous keys which she 
 bore along with her, the Lady of Lockerby is commonly reported to have dash- 
 ed out the brains of the vanquished Lord Maxwell.” + Such, gentle reader, 
 were the characters and habits of Lords of Session, noblemen, and ladies, in 
 the times of our philosopher, and with many of whom, notwithstanding the 
 quiet and studious retirement of kis own habits, he must have come into oc- 
 casional contact. 
 
 Nor. was his personal career entirely free from the storms of public life. 
 According to his own account, it was in his “ tender years and barneage in 
 Sanct-Androis at the Schooles,” that he first turned his mind to the study 
 of Scriptural prophecy in connection with political events. It seems to 
 
 * Robert Birrel notices his son (the father of young Napier’s lady) in connection with the fate 
 of Mr John Graham. “ The 19th Januar 1595, the young Earle of Montrois fought ane com- 
 bate with Sir James Sandilands at the Salt Trone of Edinburgh, thinking to have revengit the 
 slauchter of hes cusine Mr Johne Grahame,” &c.—Diary, p- 34. 
 
 + Sir Walter Scott. 
 
 U 
 
154 THE LIFE OF 
 
 have been long before the year 1588, that after many doubts and misgivings 
 he began to feel confidence in his undertaking. But the state of Europe as 
 affecting the most vital interests of his country, and not the maturity of his 
 plans, brought his treatise to light in the shape and at the time when it ap- 
 peared. He was ardently devoted to the Protestant cause; but the most 
 gentle and excellent dispositions, no less than his hereditary loyalty, saved him 
 from becoming a tumultuous leader among the barons. At the same time he 
 was regarded with reverence and affection by the most distinguished cham- 
 pions of the church. Among these his friend Robert Pont stood first. * 
 
 The philosopher must have been greatly shocked when his friend and 
 pastor became a martyr in the cause to which both were devoted. It 
 was in the Parliament of 1584 that James VI. made his first determined 
 attack upon the privileges of the church. By the new enactments, its dis- 
 cipline and constitution were more than threatened ; and the penalty attached 
 to the slightest infringement of these arbitrary measures was death. On the 
 very spot where they were proclaimed, Pont publicly protested against them ; 
 but not supported, as Knox was, by a physical force in opposition to the court, 
 he was obliged to fly his country for a time with other clergymen who had em- 
 braced his spirited remonstrance. Nichol Dalgleish, his colleague, upon whom 
 devolved the sole charge of St Cuthberts, was soon cast into prison, and even 
 condemned to death (though the sentence was remitted) for holding some cor- 
 respondence with his distressed brethren. + Such was the state of the philo- 
 
 * St Cuthberts was a most exemplary and conspicuous parish, under the auspices of Ro- 
 bert Pont and John Napier, during all the contentions with King James. In its old records, I 
 find the following characteristic entry, of a date two years before the publication of the Loga- 
 rithms: “ Upon Thursday the 25th of June 1612, Conyenit Mr William Arthur, Mr Richard 
 Dicksone, Ministers, &c. The quilk day anent the supplication gevin in be William Naper, Laird 
 of Wrytishouse, craving in effect that he myt have libertie to affix ane dask at the west end of the 
 Laird of Merchistoun’s dask ; the session, because they knaw that he is ane honorabile gentel- 
 man quho bruikit office in the town of Edinburgh sundrie times, and lykwise ane of the mayst 
 ancient heritors in the parochin, and that he hes borne burdene in the king’s and kirk’s stents, 
 be ther presents grants and condescends that he big ane dask there, providing always that the 
 session, upon the sicht of ony uther reponable or important cause, sall have liberty to transport 
 and use the former sait quhen and quhair they plies, so that be thir presents the said William 
 Naper clame no propertie nor heritage to the said sait and dask in the kirk, for the session nether 
 may nor can give sick richt.” 
 
 + Nichol Dalgleish was regent in the college of St Leonards, and one of the assessors from the 
 nation of Albany, the same year that Napier was incorporated in St Salvator’s. 
 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 155 
 
 sopher’s own parish, and the treatment his most cherished companions met 
 with in the year 1584, when he was occupied with his studies in theology and 
 mathematics. 
 
 No sooner had this hurricane past, and the exiled clergymen been restored, 
 when another yet more dangerous visited the country from abroad, powerfully 
 influenced the intellectual schemes of Napier, and bestowed upon his retiring 
 life a few stormy years of political existence. In the memorable year 1588, 
 he was chosen by the Presbytery of Edinburgh one of their commissioners to 
 the General Assembly of the church, * called together under most agitating 
 circumstances, both for church and state. Napier, as we shall have occasion 
 more particularly to notice, was an astrologer in days when astrology was a 
 science of high repute among the learned ; and if ever there was a year which 
 seemed to fulfil the predictions of those who consulted the stars, it was 1588. 
 “ This,” says Archbishop Spotswood, “ was the marvellous year talked of 
 so long by the astrologues, which this defeat, and the accidents which fell 
 forth in France about the end of the same year, did in a part make good.” 
 The defeat alluded to was that of the gigantic effort of Spain, which fail- 
 ed through the almost miraculous destruction of her fleet ; and many eyes 
 must have been turned to the oracle of the occult sciences in Scotland, } at a 
 crisis when the predictions of astrologers seemed in the very act of fulfilment. ¢ 
 The venerable Assembly displays, even in our own times, something of the 
 picturesque ; and there is perhaps no sight or sound more imposing, than 
 when under the steeple of old St Giles some huge pillar of the church, with a 
 mind as powerful as his body, and a voice of no ordinary tones and compass, 
 is roused in the noble theme; “ ne quid ecclesia detrimenti caperet.” But 
 think what it must have been in “ the marvellous year,” and in the days of the 
 “‘ marvellous Merchiston.” Of that very Assembly,—the first in which I can 
 trace the name of our philosopher as a commissioner,—we derive a graphic ac- 
 
 * Original Records of the Presbytery of Edinburgh. 
 
 + That Napier was so, see Chapter VI. 
 
 + The other remarkable events of the period were, the death of Catherine de Medicis, “ bludie 
 Jezabell to the sancts of God,” as James Melville the minister calls her in his Diary,—the murders 
 of the Duke and Cardinal of Guise, at the instigation of Henry III., and the assassination of that 
 monarch himself. The same journalist thus succinctly notes these events,—‘ The Duc and Car- 
 dinall wer slean in Decem. 88 ; the Quein, for hartsearnes, followit in Januar; and the King was 
 stickit the August following.” —Diary, p. 177. 
 
156 3 THE LIFE OF 
 
 count from the pen of its noted member, and sometime moderator, James Mel- 
 ville, “ Terrible was the feir, persing were the pretchings, ernest, zealus, and 
 fervent war the prayers, sounding war the siches and sobbes, and abounding 
 war the tearesat that fast and Generale Assemblie keipitat Edinbruche, when the 
 newes war crediblie tauld, sum tymes of thair landing at Dumbar, sum tymes at 
 St Andros, and in Tay, and now and then at Aberdein and Cromertie,” &c. 
 The mind of Napier was particularly agitated upon this occasion. He had 
 been long brooding over the depths of the Apocalypse, and began to perceive 
 a divine light breaking upon his hitherto obscure lucubrations. The sequel 
 I shall give in his own words. “ Then,” says he, “ greatly rejoycing in the 
 Lord, I began to write thereof in Latin; yet I purposed not to have set out 
 the same suddenly, and far lesse to have written the same also in English, 
 til that of late, this new insolencie of Papists, arising about the 1588 year 
 of God, and dayly incresing within this iland, doth so pitie our hearts, see- 
 ing them put more trust in Jesuites and seminarie priests than in the true 
 Scriptures of God, and in the Pope and King of Spaine than in the King 
 of Kings, that to prevent the same, I was constrained of compassion, leav- 
 ing the Latin, to haste out in English this present worke, almost unripe, 
 that thereby the simple of this iland may be instructed, the godly confirmed, 
 and the proud and foolish expectations of the wicked beaten downe ;_purpos- 
 ing hereafter, God willing, to publish shortly the other Latin edition hereof, 
 to the publike utilitie of the whole church.” * One great object was to 
 awaken and alarm the conscience of King James, whose duplicity and in- 
 consistent conduct harassed the church at home while beset by powerful 
 enemies from abroad. Our philosopher proposed, therefore, to address his 
 commentaries to that prince with such a solemn warning as the times sug- 
 gested, and his majesty’s conduct seemed to require. But in the begin- 
 ning of the winter 1589, James was absent on his matrimonial expedi- 
 tion to Denmark. When he returned with his consort in the following 
 year, he found every department of his government unusually tranquil, owing 
 chiefly to the judicious management of the affairs of the church by Robert 
 Bruce of Airth, aided in his exertions by such laymen as John Napier and 
 Thomas Craig of Riccarton, who were at the same time members of the Gene- 
 ral Assembly. The whole country now became engrossed with the ceremony 
 
 * Preface to the Plain Discovery. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 157 
 
 of the coronation, and great cordiality prevailed betwixt the church and the 
 court. James was submissive to his clergy, and the clergy played the part of 
 courtiers as well as they could. 
 
 But this calm was momentary. The loss of the Invincible Armada had not 
 entirely discouraged the King of Spain in his attempts against Britain; and 
 he met with secret countenance and aid from a few of the most distinguished 
 persons in Scotland. In the very year after the destruction of the Spanish 
 fleet, it appears that the prince of Parma, Philip’s general commanding in the 
 Low Countries, was in direct communication with a desperate faction in Scot- 
 land, of whom two of the most active and determined agents were Sir James 
 Chisholm of Cromlix and his brother John Chisholm,—the father and uncle 
 of the lady to whom Napier was now united. His first wife, Elizabeth 
 Stirling, died about the end of the year 1579, leaving him one son Ar- 
 chibald, the first Lord Napier, and one daughter Jane. From among his own 
 relations, but from a family deeply dyed in scarlet, he took a second spouse 
 in Agnes Chisholm,* whom he married a few years after the death of his 
 first. The ancient family of Cromlix, to which he was united by double ties, 
 had shot forth a succession of Catholic bishops like stars from a Roman candle. 
 The numerous progeny which he had by this lady were already considerably 
 advanced, when a crisis arrived which must have been very appalling to the 
 family at Merchiston. The Parliament of June 1592 had solemnly ratified 
 the liberties of the church, and the freedom of its jurisdictions ; but the Scotch 
 clergy, like other successful sects, evinced a spirit of persecution which had 
 not the effect of overawing their opponents, and even rendered some of them 
 more desperate. It was insisted, that as the reformed religion had been con- 
 stitutionally established, all who professed the Roman Catholic faith, should be 
 compelled either to embrace the Protestant doctrines, or suffer the pains of rigo- 
 rous excommunication ; and that, after such delinquents had continued for the 
 space of a whole year thus cast off from Christian society, their property should 
 
 * She was a great-granddaughter of James IV., her grandmother being the daughter of that 
 monarch and his celebrated and ill-fated love, Margaret Drummond. Agnes Chisholm was the 
 second cousin of the philosopher’s first wife (Sir James Stirling of Keir having married a daughter 
 of the prelatic concubinage betwixt the Bishop of Dumblane and the Lady Jean Graham, daughter 
 of the Earl of Montrose.) She was also the second cousin of his father, whose grandmother was 
 Janet Chisholm. For the genealogy of the Chisholms, consult the Strathallan MS. ; and for the 
 Bishops of Dumblane, see the table of bishops in the Rey. M‘Gregor Stirling’s edition of Nim- 
 mo’s Stirlingshire. 
 
158 THE LIFE OF 
 
 be forfeited to the crown. This policy had been adopted against various in- 
 dividuals, and, in particular, George Kerr, a brother of the philosopher’s class- 
 fellow, Lord Newbottle, having refused to conform upon the requisition of the 
 presbytery of Haddington, was excommunicated. David Grahame of Fintry, 
 and Barclay of Ladyland, suffered the same sentence. * 
 
 At this time Sir James Chisholm, who was the king’s master of household, 
 had fallen under no persecution, and was not even suspected. Yet since at 
 least the close of the year 1589, he had become deeply involved in a treason- 
 able plot to aid Spain against Britain; and various members of his family 
 were amongst the most active plotters. His uncle William Chisholm, the 
 Ex-Bishop of Dumblane, and now of Vason in France, where he had been 
 driven for his adherence to the Catholic cause and the fortunes of Queen Mary, 
 was of great account among the Jesuits, and seems to have been the person 
 through whom Sir James was seduced. The bishop’s other nephew John was 
 the party employed to carry money from Spain to aid the cause in Scotland. This 
 appears from the terms of a letter which fell into the hands of the Protestants 
 after the plot was discovered. It is addressed by one Bruce, a Papist, to the 
 Duke of Parma, written in French cypher, and dated from Edinburgh 24th 
 January 1589. According to the translation made of it upon disclosure, it 
 commences by informing the Duke that “* Monsieur Chesholme” had arrived 
 in Scotland after a voyage of five days: that he instantly proceeded to the 
 Earl of Huntly, and delivered letters from the duke to that nobleman in his 
 own house in Dumfermline on the 13th of October: the letter then acknow- 
 ledges receipt by the hand of John Chisholm of “ sax thousand twa hundreth 
 thre scoir twelve crounis of the sum, and thre thousand sevin hundreth Span- 
 ish pistolets” from the Duke of Parma. The writer proceeds to detail the 
 plans and resources of the Spanish party in Scotland, and adds, “ likewise I 
 sall help myself by the prudence of Schir James Chesholme, eldest brother to 
 the said John quha brocht the money from your hienes, for he is a man con- 
 fident, wise, ane on our pairt, and very little suspect.” It appears, however, 
 that some suspicion had arisen against the family at this time, for the same 
 letter mentions, that one Thomas Tyrie had reported to King James that 
 Bishop William had spoken with the Duke of Parma, very much to his ma- 
 jesty’s disadvantage, and that John Chisholme was also in close communica- 
 tion with his uncle the bishop. 
 
 * Calderwood. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 159 
 
 Thus the celebrated plot of “ the Spanish blanks” was organized ; and when 
 nearly ripe, the person selected to fire the train, by carrying the treasonable 
 papers abroad, was John Napier’s father-in-law,—the grandfather of his 
 numerous second family. Probably that prudence, which might have added 
 success to the scheme had Sir James followed out the first plan, saved him 
 from so perilous a part in the conspiracy. George Kerr, finding it impossible 
 to live in comfort or safety in Scotland under his sentence of excommunica- 
 tion, was on the eve-of quitting the country; and it was finally arranged that 
 the commission should be transferred to him. While he was waiting for fur- 
 ther instructions, near the Island of Cumray, Andrew Knox, the minister of 
 Paisley, acquired secret intelligence of the plot, and with a spirit and deter- 
 mination worthy the name he bore, proceeded with some armed men, and seve- 
 ral Protestant gentlemen, on board of the vessel where Kerr was, and instantly 
 seized him. Various treasonable letters and papers were discovered in the 
 coat sleeve of one of the mariners. Graham of Fintry and Barclay of Lady- 
 land were apprehended about the same time. This important intelligence 
 reached Edinburgh upon a Sunday during divine service. The sensation was 
 so great that the clergymen brought their sermons to a speedy conclusion, and 
 exhorted the people to arm themselves immediately in order to insure the safe 
 custody of the prisoners. These unfortunate individuals, escorted by a sort 
 of national guard hastily got up among the townsmen, were lodged in the tol- 
 booth of Edinburgh. Meetings and solemn conventions of the ministers and 
 well-affected barons followed, which at once alarmed and enraged the monarch, 
 who “ was haistit from his pastyme sonar nor he thoght to have bene.”* His 
 presence was the more necessary, that three earls, Huntly, Angus, and Errol, 
 were deeply implicated,—their signatures having been found to certain suspi- 
 cious blanks among the papers; and before the king’s arrival in Edinburgh, 
 the Earl of Angus had been carried a prisoner to the castle. 
 
 A most disgraceful scene, not generally noticed by our historians, now oc- 
 curred before the privy-council. George Kerr would make no confessions ; 
 and it was proposed to put him in the booti:kins, an infernal instrument of tor- 
 ture, worthy of the most savage age of heathen persecution.+ The justice- 
 
 * His pastime was feasting at the marriage of Napier’s cousin, the young Earl of Mar. 
 + Spotswood, in his History of the Church, says, “ Mr George Ker at his examination did in- 
 genuously confess.” Dr M‘Crie, in his Life of Andrew Melville, observes that “ Graham of 
 
160 THE LIFE OF 
 
 clerk, Sir Lewis Bellenden, * alarmed at the menaces of Kerr’s friends, refused 
 to comply ; but the monarch himself ordered the torture to proceed. The na- 
 ture of it was to lacerate and crush the limb of the sufferer, by driving iron 
 wedges between the shin bone and the iron boot, the interrogatories being 
 repeated at each successive stroke of the hammer. Kerr’s fortitude was 
 proof against the dreadful preparatives, and the first blow; but upon the 
 application of a second, he cried out for mercy, and said he would confess all. 
 The substance of his deposition taken on the 13th February 1592-3 was,—that 
 in June 1592, Sir James Chisholm had obtained from the Earls of Angus and 
 Errol, in their own lodgings in Edinburgh, their respective signatures in 
 French, as if addressed to the King of Spain, but with blanks above, to be 
 filled up by one Mr William Crichton, a Jesuit, as he pleased,—that the other 
 blanks produced, with their respective signatures, had been procured about the 
 same time, and that Sir James Chisholme held secret conferences on the sub- 
 ject with David Graham of Fintrie and the witness Kerr,—that at first the 
 noblemen implicated had agreed that Sir James, “ quha wes then ane of his ma- 
 jestie’s maister houshaldis, suld have gone to Spain with this commission, in 
 respect he wes utherwise bounit towardis his uncle Maister William Ches- 
 holme, callit Bischop of Dumblane, for Schir James had the first credeit of this 
 erand with the nobillmen,” &c.; but not being ready in time, and “ Maister 
 George Ker being bounit off the cuntrie, it wes thocht best that the same com- 
 mission suld be gevin to him,” and “ he wes employed in that errand the ra- 
 ther because baith his gud-dames were Creichtouns.” + The result contem- 
 plated was, that 30,000 men should land out of Spain on the west coast of 
 
 Fintry and Ker being both examined before the privy-council, testified,” &c. But David Moysie, 
 in his contemporary memoirs, says, “ It wes thocht meit, because of Mr George Keris denyell, 
 that he suld be butted ; and the justice-clerk and Mr William Hairte, being bosted be his freindis, 
 durst not doe the sam untill the tyme his majestie, taking the maiter hiechly, wold have the same 
 donne. And efter the secund streak he cryed for mercie, and confest all.”—P. 100. 
 
 * The philosopher’s relative ; being eldest son and successor in office to Sir John Bellenden. 
 
 + The confessions of the traitors, with the intercepted blanks and letters, &c. were all publish- 
 ed at the express desire of the king, and with an admonitory preface, like a sermon on the occa- 
 sion, drawn up by a clergyman. The treatise issued from the press of the king’s printer, Robert 
 Walde-grave, 1593, a few months before Napier’s Treatise on the Revelation was published from 
 the same press. Mr Pitcairn has reprinted the confessions in his Criminal Trials, and considers 
 the tract almost unique. There is one copy in that gentleman’s possession, and another in the 
 Advocates’ Library. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 161 
 
 Scotland, march to Carlisle and invade England, leaving 5000 Spaniards with 
 the noblemen in Scotland to proclaim liberty of conscience. David Graham 
 deponed to the same effect. On the 15th of February, the Earl of Angus 
 made his escape from the castle ; and upon the 16th, Fintrie, more dead than 
 alive, and certainly the least guilty of all concerned, was beheaded at the Cross. 
 But Kerr’s life was spared, and he was sent to the castle of Edinburgh, from 
 which he too made his escape on the 20th of June following. 
 
 The most vigilant synod in the kingdom, that of Fife, was summoned at St 
 Andrews on the 25th September 1593. Great excitement prevailed at this 
 assembly, where it was determined that commissioners should be appointed 
 from the separate estates of barons, boroughs, and clergy, “ to declare freely 
 to his majesty the mind and resolution of all his godly and faithful subjects 
 within the province, that they are ready to give their lives rather than suffer 
 the same to be polluted with idolatry, and overrun with bloody Papists.” The 
 assembly then solemnly declared, “ that the principal and chief enemies, the 
 Earls of Huntly, Angus, and Errol, Laird of Auchindoun, and Sir James 
 Chisholm, have, by their idolatry, heresy, blasphemy, apostacy, perjury, and 
 professed enmity against the kirk and true religion of Jesus Christ within this 
 realm, ipso facto cut off themselves from Christ and his kirk, and so become 
 most worthy to be declared excommunicated, and cut off from the fellowship 
 of Christ and his kirk, and to be given over to the hands of Satan, whose 
 slaves they are, that they may learn, if it so please God, not to blaspheme 
 Christ or his Gospel,” &c. It is further added, that “the said Sir James 
 Chisholm being one of the principal complices and devisers of their most mali- 
 cious plots, the said synod found that they had good interest and occasion to 
 excommunicate and cut him off,” &c.* 
 
 Thereafter, on the 11th of October, an extraordinary meeting of delegates 
 was held at Glasgow, which professed to be convened “ according to the bande 
 maid be our sourane lord and his estatis for maintenment of the trew religion.” 
 At this meeting, the noblemen, barons, gentlemen, and ministers of the vari- 
 ous shires, made, constituted, and ordained, “ the Lard of Calderwood, [James 
 Maxwell, | the Lard of Merchiston, [John Napier, ] the Gud-man of Duchall, 
 the Lard of Greinoh, Mr Robert Lindsaye, Mr Johne Hewesoun, Mr Johne 
 Haye, Mr Johne Couper, and Mr Patrik Scharp, ministers, or ony thre of the 
 saidis ministers, thair lawfull and undoutit commissioners, to convein and meet 
 
 * Calderwood. 
 >.4 
 
162 THE LIFE OF 
 
 at Edinburgh,” with commissioners from the other provinces, “ to give thair 
 advyss and consale,” &c.* These commissioners met accordingly at Edinburgh 
 on the 17th of October. As Sir James Chisholm was not subject to the juris- 
 diction of the province in which he had received sentence of excommunication, 
 the first act of these commissioners was to ratify all that had passed, and then 
 to ordain a proclamation to that effect from the pulpit of all the parish 
 churches on the following Sunday, which was the 21st. Our philosopher 
 must have been particularly conspicuous at this convention, which confirmed 
 the excommunication of his own father-in-law ; and his family, if they attended 
 their parish church on the day appointed, heard their grandfather doomed to 
 exclusion from the social comforts of life, and the blessings of the church. 
 
 The king used his utmost endeavours, both with his Protestant barons and 
 the clergy, to prevent this vigorous measure, and was inveterate against the 
 proclamations. ‘‘ He said the ministers were cruel, and as they sought blood 
 they should have it.” He complained to the Lord Hamilton at Hamilton 
 House, that he knew not how to act, or which way to turn. “ In whom can 
 I trust more than Huntly,” said he, “ and yet, if I countenance him, the 
 clergy call me apostate.”—* There is no difficulty,” replied the nobleman he 
 addressed ; “ countenance them if they be not enemies to religion ; but if they 
 be, receive them not.” James having muttered something about liberty of 
 conscience, the Lord Hamilton brought him to his senses by thundering in 
 his ear, “ Sir! then we are all gone, then we are all gone; if there be no more 
 to withstand them than I,—I will do it.” 
 
 The same convention of the 17th October, which ordained the proclama- 
 tions, appointed a select committee to follow the king wherever he was bound, 
 and to lay before him, in a personal interview, certain well-digested instruc- - 
 tions for the punishment of the rebels, the safety of the church, and the quiet- 
 ing of the public mind. The men to whom this extraordinary and perilous 
 mission was entrusted, must have been selected from the most able and coura- 
 geous of the convention. They were for the barons, John Napier of Mer- 
 chiston, and James Maxwell of Calderwood.t The clergy, however, shrunk 
 
 * Records of the Presbytery of Glasgow. 
 
 + Melville’s Diary. 
 
 ¢ 17th October 1593.—« Petitiones per Commissarios Ecclesize Scoticane Regi exhibitz.” 
 (Then follows the petition.)—“ Theise forseid petitionis and conclusions being read and consider- 
 ed by the commissioners of the kirk, barons, ae burghs present, the said commissioners agreed 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 163 
 
 from this mission, and declined it to a man, with the exception of their sturdy 
 moderator, James Melville, who then stepped forward to assert the courage of 
 the school of Knox. To him was joined Patrick Galloway, the king’s ordi- 
 nary minister, who was going to join his majesty at any rate. With the ad- 
 dition of two burgesses, this brave little band, just six in all, girded their loins, 
 and set out that very day to seek an interview with the king. * 
 
 A few days before the convention that appointed them had met, namely, on 
 the 12th of October, King James,—harassed by his clergy and haunted by 
 witches ; now dreading the King of Spain, and now in terror for the wild 
 Earl of Bothwell, to whose harlequin treasons he was most unwillingly com- 
 pelled to play pantaloon, }— was trotting at the head of his retinue to the 
 borders, with the temper of a goaded ox. Suddenly a most unwelcome appa- 
 rition arrested his progress at Fala. The Earls of Angus, Huntly, and Er- 
 rol, and Sir James Chisholme, had been hiding themselves among the moun- 
 tains. Aware of the royal progress, they determined to extort some favour- 
 able expressions from the king himself, and started up in his path on the high 
 road at the foot of Soutra-Hill. Falling on their knees before him, they ear- 
 nestly implored a fair trial, and that they should not be condemned unheard. 
 The king, though favourable to the Popish earls, was very much alarmed for 
 the interpretation that might be put on this audience, and refused to treat with 
 them ; but, instead of ordering them into custody, he dismissed them without 
 committing himself, and immediately sent a report of the whole matter, by the 
 Master of Glammis and the Abbot of Lindores, to Queen Elizabeth’s ambas- 
 
 to the same, and promised to stand by them ; and for this purpose, hath directed in commission 
 these brethren,—the Laird of Merkinston younger, the Laird of Calderwood, the commissioners 
 of Edenburghe and Dundee, Mr Patrick Galloway, and Mr James Melville, to present these 
 humble petitionis to the king’s majestie, and to retourne his majestie’s answer back with all dili- 
 gence. Ordains the excommunication of the Erles of Huntley, Angusse, and Erroll, the Lairde 
 of Auchindowne, and Sir James Chesholme, to be intimate in all the kirkes of Lowthian the next 
 Sabbothe.”— Bibl. Cotton. Caligula, d. 2, fol. 190. Federa, xvi. p. 222. 
 
 * «Jt behoved me (all uther refusing except Mr Patrik Galloway, the kingis ordinar mini- 
 ster, wha was to go thither) to tak jorney to Jedwart, accompanied with twa barrones, the Lards 
 of Merchiston and Caderwoode, and twa burgesses of Edinbruche ; whar finding the king were 
 bot bauchlie lukit upon.”—Melville’s Diary, p. 208. 
 
 + The Earl of Bothwell’s dramatic invasion of the king’s privacy, when that nobleman, armed 
 cap-a-pee, fell on his knees and asked pardon, occurred 24th July 1593. “ After thai came in, 
 hes majestie wes coming frae the backstair, and his breiks in his hand.”—Birrel’s Diary. 
 
164 THE LIFE OF 
 
 sador and the clergy in Edinburgh. “ It was,” says Melville in his Diary, 
 “ verie greivus to the breathring to heir that the saids excummunicat lords 
 haid repearit to his maiestie and spokin him at Faley, even immediatlie befor 
 the meiting of the kirk. This was given in commission to be regratit.” 
 
 The selection of our philosopher, a sage who had hitherto kept himself aloof 
 from public affairs, and whose wife was the daughter of one of the delinquents, 
 presents a good illustration of his character. It speaks volumes as to his entire 
 devotion to the cause of the church, and points him out as a man whose courage, 
 talent, and integrity were universally admitted. The delegates found the 
 king at Jedburgh, not in the best humour with his clergy, and his nerves in a 
 state to receive an additional shock of no ordinary kind, when the marvellous 
 Merchiston and the moderator of the church were ushered into his presence. 
 It must have been a scene worthy of historical painting, this interview be- 
 twixt the grotesque king of Scotland aud the recluse philosopher. We may 
 imagine the monarch as pourtrayed in that ancient description of him which 
 seems to have been drawn by an actual observer. “ Of a middle stature, more 
 corpulent throghe his clothes than in his body, yet fatt enouch, his clothes 
 ever being made large and easie, the doubletts quilted for steletto proofe, his 
 breeches in grate pleits, and full stuffed; of a timorous dispositione, which was 
 the gratest reasone of his quilted doubletts,—his eyes large, ever roulling after 
 aney stranger cam in his presence; in so much as maney, for shame, have left 
 the roome as being out of countenance; his beard werey thin; his toung 
 too large for his mouth :” &c.* confronted with John Napier, with his serene 
 presence, thoughtful eye and ample beard, rarely seen within the royal 
 
 circle. 
 
 It has not been observed by any of our historians, nor in any biographical 
 notice of our philosopher, that he acted so prominent a part at a time of more 
 than usual excitement against the Catholics; and with better reason than 
 when John Knox rated Queen Mary. To those well-known scenes which have 
 been so often pourtrayed, Napier’s mission to her son forms a curious pendant 
 in the history of the church. After the parliamentary establishment of the 
 Protestant doctrines in 1560, their popular apostle lost his power, and sank 
 into comparative insignificance with his party in the state. The clergy of his 
 
 * Printed by J. G. Dalyell, Esq. in his Fragments of Scottish History. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 165 
 
 own school who succeeded him, though eager to catch his mantle, were made 
 to feel, in reference to their powers of dictation and the independence of their 
 church, a change of circumstances in the state of Scotland. Upon the occa- 
 sion of the Spanish blanks, the grounds of remonstrance were the most crying 
 that could have threatened the country; and the baronial interests were re- 
 presented by one whose talents were far in advance of his age. But it was no 
 longer with deserted queens that the clergy had to contend, nor were the lords 
 of the congregation now at their call. The alleged vices of a female court, 
 upon which vulgar slander delights to dwell, and whose follies can easily be 
 magnified into crimes,—“ the monstrous regiment of women,’—no longer af- 
 forded a theme, ad captandum vulgus. A mean-spirited, but shrewd and wily 
 monarch reigned, whose precocious youth had learnt a deplorable lesson of 
 selfish caution. His timorous heart must have quaked at the sight of the un- 
 flinching moderator of the church, and the majestic Merchiston; but he kept 
 his trepidation to himself, and his rolling eyes shed no tears. 
 
 James commenced with a violent invective against the synod of Fife, which 
 had presumed to excommunicate beyond the bounds of its jurisdiction in the 
 case of Sir James Chisholm ; and spoke bitterly against the moderator’s uncle 
 Andrew Melville, and Mr David Black. The representative of the church re- 
 plied to this tirade, “ as it pleasit God to giff, and efter the king’s coler ap- 
 peasit, we dischargit our commission in maist humble and fectfull manner.” 
 The instructions of this commission were bold and peremptory. In the jirst 
 place, his majesty was requested not to be hasty in fixing the day of trial claim- 
 ed by the rebels at Fala; but that all true professors of the Gospel, the proper 
 pursuers in the case, should be apprized of the diet, that they might have time 
 to consult with each other on the subject. _The apprehension and close con- 
 finement of the apostates formed the second head of the petition. In the third 
 place, it was craved that the accusers, and not the accused, should have the se- 
 lection of the assize. In the fourth place, that the excommunicated rebels, so 
 long as they laboured under that disability, should not be recognized as hav- 
 ing any persona standi in judicio, or the benefit of law. And in the last place, 
 it was proposed, that if, contrary to the wish of the church, the trial was to 
 take place forthwith at Perth, for which it was understood that the rebels 
 were making great preparations, the professors of religion alone were to form 
 a body-guard to surround the king’s person ; “ and in this,” added the instruc- 
 
166 THE LIFE OF 
 
 tions, “ we of the church are determined, though we perish in the attempt ; for 
 the country shall not hold those apostates and us together.” 
 
 The king could scarcely endure the reading of the preamble ; and, titer 
 fiercely to Merchiston and Calderwood, declared that he would neither acknow- 
 ledge the convention of Edinburgh, constituted without his authority, nor them 
 for commissioners. The two barons, of whom our philosopher must have been 
 the spokesman, “ stud,” says Melville, “ honestlie be it; saying it was in trew 
 and upright hartes, with all dewtie and reverence to his maieste for preventing 
 of imminent evill and danger to his state, religion, and countrey.”* As for the 
 convention, which was held in Merchiston’s parish church, and had doubtless 
 been much indebted to hiszeal and activity,it was defended upon the ground that 
 his majesty’s own proclamations authorized such assemblies ; and they remind- 
 ed the king at the same time of the exigency of the case, and of his own ex- 
 pressions when he superintended the torture of George Kerr, “ that the crime 
 was above the reach of his power to pardon.” James, after a lengthened dis- 
 cussion, consented to receive them as subjects, but not as delegates from the 
 convention. He excused his reception of the three earls and Sir James Chis- 
 holm at Fala, as an event which took him by surprise, and in which he said 
 no more than the meanest of his subjects in that humble attitude on the high- 
 way would have been entitled to extort ; and when the barons repeated the 
 offer to guard his person on the day of trial, he replied, that he would make 
 choice of his own guard. + 
 
 Napier and his colleagues seem to have executed their commission as fear- 
 lessly as the church expected at their hands. They did not retire until 
 their petition was received. On the following morning they obtained an an- 
 swer in writing, in terms of the above conference ; to which was added, that 
 the king would hold a convention at Linlithgow, and take order with regard 
 
 * Diary, p. 208. 
 
 + “ Answerit, as God shall judge his soule, he knewe not of their cominge, nor was under no 
 privy paction or condition with them, and when upon their knees they had craved tryall, he could 
 not deny the same to them if it had been the simplest of the lande. Hee dismissed them without 
 any promise.” 
 
 «« Answerit, such as he charged should be welcome, and such as came undesired should not be 
 welcome; and he should take order, that they should not come with such number as might trouble 
 the day of law.”—Ad Petitiones prelibatas Responsio Regis. Bibl. Cotton. _ Federa, xvi. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 167 
 
 to all these matters as soon as he returned from the south. On the third day, 
 they travelled homewards to report their proceedings to their brethren, who 
 were anxiously awaiting the result. * 
 
 But the king’s double dealing had very nearly brought matters to the im- 
 mediate decision of civil war; and we may for the first and last time contem- 
 plate our philosopher as eyeing the hilt of his sword, and even (with him a 
 very necessary precaution) practising the art of extracting it from the scab- 
 bard. No doubt he incurred at this period some risk of not being spared to 
 publish the Logarithms. The excommunicated earls had taken the field in 
 great force to attend the king at Perth. The convention instructed their com- 
 missioners to repair to their respective districts, to spread the news of the king’s 
 answers, and to sound the tocsin. ‘ The quhilk,” says the moderator in his 
 Diary, “ was done be evrie commissioner with exact diligence.” He also adds, 
 that the best and most zealous barons, (which must have included our phi- 
 losopher, their leading commissioner) gentlemen and burgesses, were on foot 
 to meet the forces of the Earls of Huntly and Errol who had occupied Perth. 
 The collision was prevented, however, by the king’s charge to those noblemen 
 to dismiss their followers, and remain. with a few friends in Perth to abide his 
 judgment. Upon this the Protestant party also laid down their arms, and 
 hastened from all quarters to attend the convention at Edinburgh. Here it 
 was resolved, that the delegates sent to Jedburgh should again meet his majesty 
 at Linlithgow, and repeat their former instructions. This was done according- 
 
 * Spotswood, in his History of the Church (p. 398,) is mistaken, when he says the commis- 
 sioners “ humbly besought his majesty to vouchsafe the assembly some answer in writing; but he 
 absolutely refused, and so they took their leave.” Before they left the presence, they had brought 
 James from a state of wrath to comparative condescension. “ In the end, his majestie, willing 
 that we should report his good intention and honest meaning in this turne, with solempne oathes, 
 protesting before God and his conscience, affirming that he should proceed in this matter as he 
 would answer to God and the estates of this kingdom, and that he meant nothing in that matter 
 but sincerity of religion, and security of good men, and that such substantiall order should be 
 taken with theise excommunicat earles that religion might be in security, and none should be 
 suffered afterward to trouble religion and professe papistry, and that his good intention and our 
 petitions should go together.” —Bibl. Cotton. Federa, xvi. 
 
 Melville expressly says they got their answers in writing next morning. Upon the 20th Oc- 
 tober, the convention received the commissioners, “their brethern, and good frendes the Larde of 
 Marchiston younger,” &c. who delivered the king’s answers.—Federa ut supra. 
 
168 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ly, their numbers being doubled, and the moderator of the church accompanying 
 them as before to present the petition. ‘“ Bot,” says Melville, “ the Chancel- 
 lor Mattellan haid dressit all to our coming, sa that their was nocht mickle ado 
 at that dyet, bot all remitted to a new convention of esteats, to be halden at 
 Edinbruche the moneth following. The erles Papists turning bak, and all 
 our folks going ham, with thankfull harts to God for disappointing of a maist 
 dangerus interpryse as ever was of any be Papists in this land.” 
 
 The remonstrance which our philosopher conducted, was made in that 
 judicious spirit which seems to have had more effect in bending the stubborn 
 will of James, than if Knox, arrayed in all the terrors of his blood-provoking 
 tongue, had stood in propria persona before him. The characteristics of the 
 latter school of clerical censure was an overweening idea of self-importance, 
 and a lamentable want of tact and temper, calculated, indeed, to madden 
 a mob or throw a female into hysterics, but not to render glory to God. 
 Napier knew better how to reconcile with itself the sacred injunction, “ fear 
 God, honour the king ;” nor could a nobler example be afforded than a let- 
 ter he now wrote to his majesty ; and which shall be immediately quoted as 
 forming the sequel of this adventure. It contains remonstrance without 
 sedition, rebuke without disloyalty, and admonition without impertinence ; 
 distinctions which the genius of Knox could not appreciate. 
 
 With increased dislike to his clergy, and a corresponding growth of favour to- 
 wards the Popish conspirators, James brought them toa collusive trial, which had 
 no other result than the well-known “ act of abolition.” This was in fact an 
 acquittal under securities which, in those lawless times, were of very little va- 
 lue. They were absolved from all the consequences of the “ Spanish blanks,” 
 upon condition that they were not to repeat such mal-practices ; that those of 
 them who embraced the Protestant faith and discipline might remain in the 
 country within certain appointed bounds; that they should purge their house- 
 holds of Jesuits, and if they preferred a voluntary exile, were to become bound 
 not to plot or practice against their country ; that the Popish earls should find 
 security each in forty thousand pounds, and Sir James Chisholm, * aud Gor- 
 don of Auchindoun each in ten thousand. 
 
 * The battle of Glenlivet brought this matter to a crisis. Upon the Sth of June 1594, four 
 months after the date of Napier’s letter to the king, the Earls of Angus, Huntly, Errol, and Au- 
 chindoun, (who was Huntly’s uncle,) were forfeited in Parliament. Upon the 8d of October fol- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 169 
 
 It was in the month of October 1593 that Merchiston’s interviews with 
 James at Jedburgh and Linlithgow took place. <A third deputation laid the 
 same petition before him in December following ; because, in the intermediate 
 month of November, the act of abolition had been proclaimed, to the great dis- 
 may and dissatisfaction of the Protestant party. At this very time the king 
 and his consort were occasionally residing in the houses of our philosopher’s 
 relations, where doubtless his character and conduct would be fully canvassed. * 
 Upon the 10th of January his majesty attended the convention of estates at 
 Edinburgh, when some measures were adopted against the conspirators who 
 had scorned the act of abolition and its conditions. Queen Elizabeth was most 
 anxious that the Popish lords should be brought to justice, and her am- 
 bassador was closely watching these proceedings. On the 22d of the same 
 month, the act of abolition was declared null and void. Upon the 29th, John 
 Napier wrote the following epistle to King James, which is prefixed as the 
 dedication to that monarch of “ the Plain Discovery” published at this 
 crisis with a pointed reference to the transactions of which a sketch has been 
 given. 
 
 lowing, Huntly and Errol defeated Argyle and his Highlanders, but Gordon of Auchindoun was 
 slain, and the Popish earls could make no head against the king himself, who immediately took the 
 field against them. I can find no farther trace of Napier’s father-in-law after the act of abolition in 
 which heismentioned. Heis not included in the act of forfeiture and sentence of treason passed against 
 the rest, nor does he appear to have been at the battle of Glenlivet. Probably the Philosopher had 
 persuaded him to accept the conditions of the act of abolition. ‘“ His remains he in a niche in the 
 west wall, inside of the nave of the church of Dunblane. His tombstone executed in low relief, 
 and exhibiting in a mutilated state the family arms, has an inscription in relief, of which the fol- 
 lowing words are legible: Hie jacit honorabilis vir Jacobus Chisholme eques auratus de Dun- 
 dorn.” ‘ The Chisholmes of Cromlix merged by marriage in the Maderty and Strathallan branch 
 of the Drummonds ; and the Cromlix estate, on which is the celebrated Spa of Dunblane, was 
 latterly, by the same process, transferred to the family of Kinnoul.”—M‘Gregor Stirling’s Stir- 
 lingshire, 414. 
 
 * « Upone the 27 December 1593, the king and queenis majesteis baithe tuik jorney unto Ster- 
 ling, and were the first nicht in Linhthgow be the way ; and at thair comming to Sterling, ludgit 
 in the Erle of Ergyle’s house theare, and fra that in the Lady Maris ludging, quhill the castell wes 
 prepaired. Upone the 7 Januar 1593, the king past from Sterling to Tullibardin, quhair he re- 
 manit a nicht.”—Moysie’s Memoirs, p. 111. 
 
170 THE LIFE OF 
 
 “To the Right Excellent, High and Mightie Prince, James the Sixt. 
 King of Scottes, Grace and Peace, &c. 
 
 “ Forsomuch (right highe and mightie Prince) as both this our divine pro- 
 phet St John, intreating here most speciallie of the destruction of the Anti- 
 christian seate, citie, and kingdome, doth direct the execution of that great 
 worke of God’s justice and just judgement to the kings of the earth: as also, 
 the whole prophets of al ages have for the most part directed al their admo- 
 nitions generally to kings, princes, and governors, to the effect that they (as 
 Heads-men) being by holy admonitions forewarned, might (according thereto) 
 holde all the whole body of their commoun wealth in good order ; for certaine 
 it is that the heade, being well affected, will of necessitie ministrat health and 
 wholsome humors to the whole body. Therefore it is likewise the dutie of 
 God’s servants in this age, interpreters of prophecies, as well (according to the 
 example of the prophets) to incourage and inanimate princes, to be ready 
 against that greate day of the Lord’s revenge, as also to exhort them generally 
 to remove all such impediments in their cuntries and common wealths as may 
 hinder that work and procure God’s plagues. For the which causes wee, also 
 all your M. subjects that any waies (how litle soever) have addicted our stu- 
 dies unto these propheticall mysteries, do not onely crave your highnes to 
 abide constant and couragious against that day of the destruction of that 
 Apostatik seate and citie, in case (God willing) it fall in your time; but also 
 in the meane time, untill the reformation of that idolatrous seate, to be pre- 
 paring and purging your M. own seat and kingdom from all the enemies of 
 that cause: yea, and from all others any waies enemies or abusers of justice : 
 for verely and in trueth, such is the injury of this our present time, against 
 both the Church of God and your M. true lieges, that religion is despised, 
 and justice utterly neglected: for what by Atheists, Papists, and cold profes- 
 sors, the religion of God is mocked in al estates : Againe, for partialitie, pro- 
 lixitie, dearth, and deceitfulnes of lawes, the poore perishe, the proud triumphe, 
 and justice is no where to be found. Praying your M. to attend your self 
 unto these enormities, and (without casting over the credite thereof to wrong 
 wresters of justice) your M. self to wit certainly that justice be done to these 
 your true and godly lieges, against the enemies of God’s church, and their 
 most cruell oppressors: Assuring your M. be concordance of al Scriptures, 
 that if your M. ministrate justice to them, God the supreme judge shal mini- 
 
 strate justice to you against al your enemies, and contrarily if otherwise. 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 171 
 
 Therefore Sir, let it be your M. continuall study (as called and charged there- 
 unto by God) to reforme the universall enormities of your country, and first 
 (taking example of the princely prophet David) to begin at your M. owne 
 house, familie and court, and purge the same of all suspicion of Papists and 
 Atheists or Newtrals, whereof this Revelation foretelleth that the number 
 shall greatly increase in these latter daies. For shall any Prince be able to 
 be one of the destroyers of that great seate, and a purger of the world from 
 Antichristianisme, who purgeth not his owne countrie? shal he purge his 
 whole country, who purgeth not his owne house? or shal hee purge his house, 
 who is not purged himselfe by private meditations with his God ? I say there- 
 fore, as God hath mercifully begunne the first degree of that great worke in 
 your inward minde by purging the same from all apparant spot of Antichris- 
 tianisme, as that fruitfull meditation upen the 7. 8. 9. and 10. verses of the 
 20. Chapter of the Revelation, which your highnes hath both godly and 
 learnedly set forth, doth beare plaine testimony, to your M. high praise and 
 honour; so also wee beseeche your M. (having consideration of the treason- 
 able practices in these present daies, attempted both against God’s trueth, 
 your authoritie, and the common wealth of this countrie,) to proceede to the 
 other degrees of that reformation, even orderly from your M. owne persone 
 til your highnes familie, and from your family to your court; til at last, 
 your M. whole country stand reformed in the feare of God, ready waiting for 
 that great day, in the which it shall please God to call your M. or yours after 
 you, among other reformed princes, to that great and universall reformation, 
 and destruction of that Antichristian seat and citie Rome, according to the 
 wordes prophecied, Apoc. 17. saying,—the ten horns are ten Kings, &c. 
 these are they that shall hate that harlot, and shall make her desolate and 
 naked, and shall eate up her flesh and burne herselfe with fire ;—beside also a 
 warrant and commaund generally given to all men, Apoc. 18, saying,—re- 
 warde her even as shee hath rewarded you, and give her double according to 
 her workes, and in the cup that she hath filled to you, fill her the double. And 
 now, because the spirit of God, both by all his prophets generally and by St 
 John particularly, commends and directs the execution of justice to kings and 
 rulers, I trust no man shall thinke that this our discovery (wherein is con- 
 tained God’s justice and severe judgement against the Antichristian seate) can 
 more justly be dedicate unto any man than unto these ten Christian kings, 
 sometimes maintainers of that seate, whome or whose successors now both the 
 
172 THE LIFE OF 
 
 prophet promises to be executers of that judgment, as also in whose kingdomes 
 reformation is already begunne ; but, because of these kingdomes, sometimes 
 maintainers of that seate and nowe desisting therefro, this your M. realme is 
 undoubtedly one, as also this present treatise, both being written by your high- 
 nes subject and in your M. native language,—were unproper to be directed to 
 any of the other princes. Therefore, of necessitie I am led (as by the eare) to 
 direct and dedicate these primices and first fruites of my study unto your high- 
 nes, wherein, if perchance I should seme any waies more presumpteous then 
 acceptable, I doubt not but your M. clemencie will pardone that presumption 
 that comes of necessitie: but contrarily, if I herein shall be found acceptable, 
 (as verely I look for of your M. humanitie) then certainly, not onely conjoyne 
 I unto the former necessitie, a voluntary heart, and so do offer these presents 
 both gladly and necessarily unto your highnes, but also it shall incourage both 
 me and others your M. lieges, to proceede, every man in his own calling, to all 
 kinde of godly workes and good exercises, to the honour of God, edification 
 of his church, your highness renowne, and welfare to your M. realme, when 
 they shall finde your clemencie to become the patrone and protector of all 
 zealous students, and an allower and accepter of their godly exercises. For let 
 not your M. doubt but that there are within your realme (als wel as in other 
 countries) godly and good ingynes, versed and exercised in al maner of honest 
 science and godly discipline, who by your M. instigation might yeelde foorth 
 workes and fruites woorthie of memory, which otherwise (lacking some 
 mightie Mzcenas to incourage them) may perchance be buried with eternall 
 silence. Hoping, therefore, that your highnes will be a protector of us and 
 our godly exercises, wee pray aud humblie beseech the Almightie to be also 
 unto your highnes selfe, and most honourable bedfellowe the queenes M., a 
 perpetuall protector of your honourable estates and welfare of your persones, 
 both in body and soule, to the quieting of your M. lieges, increase of the true 
 church, and honour of God, to whome, in Trinitie and Unitie, bee praise for 
 ever. At Marchistoun the 29. daye of Januar. 1593. 
 Your highnes most humble and obedient subject, 
 JOHN Naperir, Fear of Marchistoun. * 
 
 * A very absurd mistake as to this signature occurs in some notices of Napier, published in 
 1830 by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. “ The first name we shall men- 
 tion is that of Joun NarpreR—often, but erroneously, called Lord Napier. He was not a noble- 
 man, but only what would in England be called a lord of a manor. Such persons, in Scotland, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 173 
 
 As a frontispiece to this noble letter, the philosopher selected the arms ma- 
 trimonial of Scotland and Denmark in compliment to the king’s recent alliance. 
 
 Underneath the heraldic conjunction, however, he added the warning sentence 
 with which this chapter concludes. 
 
 TER 
 fIN ae ap of! BERND 
 ESV Sieh. J Es 
 7 Uy e si aS 
 ae, 
 
 bm) 
 Ay 
 
 Z 
 Oona 
 
 \ 
 & 
 
 | 
 f; 
 Et 
 FAW 
 
 3 ni =N =) 
 
 If 
 
 & 
 < leaagedg 
 
 Z. 
 
 IN VAINE ARE AL EARTHLIE CONIVNCTIONS, VNLES 
 VVE BE HEIRES TOGETHER, AND OF ONE BODIE, AND 
 FELLOVV PARTAKERS OF THE PROMISES OF GoD IN 
 CHRIST, BY THE EVANGELL. 
 
 were formerly designated barones minores, or lesser barons ; and to this class the baron of Brad- 
 wardine belonged as well as Napier, who in like manner was baron, or, as he himself expresses 
 it, ‘ Peer of Marchistown,’—an old seat of the family in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh.” —Pur- 
 suit of Knowledge under Difficulties. 
 
 Napier was as likely to have signed pope as peer; which term was not then in use to express 
 the rank of a nobleman. Having been, more majorum, invested with the fee of his paternal barony 
 during his father’s life, who retained the liferent, our philosopher wrote his name accordingly. 
 From a contract of lease, dated at Gartnes, 23d April 1584, a fac-simile of his signature is here 
 
 given, being the most distinct I could find, for the benefit of the Society for the Diffusion of 
 Useful Knowledge. 
 
 yah frond pop &- Pak mpi[Key 
 
174 THE LIFE OF 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 AN able writer in a biographical work to which we have already referred 
 more than once, has sketched the rise and early progress of Protestant learning 
 in this country, under the title of “ the Life of Andrew Melville, containing il- 
 lustrations of the ecclesiastical and literary history of Scotland during the lat- 
 ter part of the sixteenth, and beginning of the seventeenth century.” * This 
 task he has accomplished, with an accuracy of research and depth of criticism 
 that have deservedly met with great applause. It is only in the strict fulfl- 
 ment of our own biographical duty that we are so bold as to point out an in- 
 stance where his researches have failed him ; and one which leaves his sketch of 
 the ecclesiastical literature of Scotland essentially imperfect. While minutely 
 recording literary facts of far inferior interest, he has not observed that Na- 
 pier, whom he places at the head of our mathematicians, and pronounces to 
 be the man “ who reflected the highest honour on his country ;” + occupied 
 at the same time the throne of recondite theology in Scotland.{ Speaking 
 of the very epoch of the publication of Napier’s commentaries he says, 
 “ Theological learning made great advancement during this period. _Former- 
 ly no commentary on Scripture, and no collection of sermons had appeared in 
 
 * Dr M‘Crie. 
 
 + Vol. ii. p. 321. 
 
 { By “a plaine discovery of the whole Revelation of Saint John : set downe in two treatises : 
 The one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof : The other applying the same para- 
 phrastically and historically to the text. Set foorth by John Napier, L. of Marchistoun younger. 
 Whereunto are annexed certaine oracles of Sibylla, agreeing with the Revelation and other places 
 of Scripture. Edinburgh, printed by Robert Walde-grave, printer to the King’s Majestie, 1593. 
 cum privilegio Regali.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 175 
 
 Scotland. This blank was now filled up by the writings of Rollock and Bruce. 
 The former published commentaries on the most of the New Testament, and 
 on some parts of the old, which were speedily reprinted on the continent with 
 warm commendations by Beza, and other foreign divines. They are not distin- 
 guished for critical learning, although they contain occasional remarks on the 
 original; nor do they discover deep research, but they are perspicuous, succinct, 
 and judicious.” * Wallace, Sharp, Cameron, Boyd, the Simpsons, Alexander 
 Hume, and Robert Pont, are all successively reviewed as writers who mark the 
 rise of theological learning. But Napier, the one to whom Pont (among the 
 most learned of those enumerated,) repeatedly refers as a master in the science, is 
 omitted. It is also curious to observe, that while this keen and elaborate re- 
 search of a modern writer gives us the names of Rollock and Bruce as they who 
 first filled up the blank, not very many years after Napier’s death a tract was 
 published in London, entitled “‘ Napier’s Narration, or an Epitome of his booke 
 on the Revelation,” written in the form of a dialogue, wherein Rollock is made 
 the scholar and Napier the master.{ Had his proper place been assigned him, 
 it could no longer be said that the blank in the theological learning of Scot- 
 land was filled by writers whose works “ are not distinguished for critical learn- 
 ing, nor discover deep research.” 
 
 The language in which Napier’s commentaries on the Apocalypse were com- 
 posed, though it enables us now to judge more easily of their merits, was at 
 the time highly unfavourable to their promulgation. Latin was then the me- 
 dium through which learned men endeavoured to enlighten the world and im- 
 
 * V. ii. p. 308.—Dr M‘Crie particularizes Rollock’s Effectual Calling, published at Edinburgh 
 1597, and his Sermons upon the Epistles of Paul, 1599. His first two works were published in 
 1590 and 1591, immediately before the publication of Napier’s Plain Discovery, but have no pre- 
 tension to a comparison with that profound commentary. Bruce published a few sermons in 
 1590 and 1591. But it is obvious that these comparatively trifling productions cannot be said 
 to have filled up the blank in the theological learning of Scotland, when such a work as our phi- 
 losopher’s was on the eve of publication ; otherwise the palm must be allotted to the puerile pro- 
 duction of King James himself; “ane fruitful meditation,” &c. alluded to in Napier’s letter, and first 
 published in 1588. The doctor's statement (we speak with great deference) ought to have been, 
 that the blank was filled up by Napier’s Plain Discovery ; a work of profound research and critical 
 learning ; containing, moreover, the soundest practical doctrines, and many indications of the finest 
 
 genius. 
 + London, i641. 
 
176 THE LIFE OF 
 
 mortalize themselves, and those who like Napier were constrained from acci- 
 dental circumstances to adoptthe vulgar tongue of their country, generally made 
 a formal apology to the reader for the uncouth and unscholar-like garb in which 
 they appeared before him. It was, as he expressly states, “that hereby the simple 
 of this island may be instructed,” that our philosopher was “ constrained of com- 
 passion, leaving the Latin, to haste out in English this present work.” But 
 his task was scarcely lightened to himself by doing so. Indeed he seems to have 
 been a little trammelled with the rude and undetermined state of the language of 
 his own country; and doubtful of being able to put his treatises in words, which, 
 while they conveyed his meaning to all classes of his native island, would be re- 
 cognized by the learned as a language at all. “‘ Whatsoever, therefore,” says he, 
 “through haste is here rudely and in base language set down, I doubt not to 
 be pardoned thereof by all good men, who, considering the necessity of this 
 time, will esteem it more meet to make haste to prevent the rising again of an- 
 tichristian darkness within this island, than to prolong the time in painting 
 of language. Especially, also, seeing herein purposely I press not to follow 
 the particular ornate terms of neither Scottes nor Englishmen; but rather 
 contrarily for both their instructions, I use so much as I can these words and 
 terms that be more common and sensible to them both, than proper or ornate 
 to any one of them.” * Afterwards, in his solemn but gentle and deprecating 
 address “‘ to the mislyking reader whosoever,” he adds, “ I grant, indeed, and 
 am sure, that, in the style of words and utterance of language, we shall greatly 
 differ, for therein I do judge myself inferior to all men; so that scarcely in 
 these high matters could I with long deliberation find words to express my 
 mind; but this imperfection, seeing God perchance sendeth it to make the 
 greater perfection in humility, and to beat down vain glory, and that Moses 
 and many great men have lacked the eloquence of tongue; I trust charitable 
 Christians shall not disdain me therefore, but rather amend the same in their 
 own editions.” Such was this great man’s estimate of his style and language, 
 the nervous simplicity of which was far superior to the contemporary produc- 
 tions of his own country, and would have done credit to the language of any 
 other. 
 
 He was hitherto unknown on the continent ; and this treatise had not the 
 advantage of its author’s ultimate reputation as a philosopher, to introduce it 
 
 * In this and the other passages quoted from Napier in this chapter I have not followed the an- 
 tiquated orthography. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 177 
 
 to the world. Yet it instantly found a translator; and no sooner was that ar- 
 duous task completed than the work attracted the eyes of the most learned, 
 both of Catholics and Protestants, in Europe. 
 
 - At this time the famous city of Rochelle was the citadel of the Hugonots in 
 France, and there, as the very heart of the cause, Protestantism was cherish- 
 ed, and even defied the armies of antichrist. Among the champions of the true 
 church in that city resided one George Thomson, a Scotchman by birth, who 
 had become naturalized at Rochelle. According to his own account, he had 
 neither been called to the ministry nor possessed the gift of original composi- 
 tion. ‘ But,” says he, “ I was nevertheless determined not to be totally useless, 
 or to sit with my hands across during the war of religion, and so I did as they 
 who, having no weapons of their own, snatch those of others, with which they 
 fail not to pierce the enemy.”* The weapon he siezed was the work of his 
 countryman, the value of which he instantly appreciated, and determined to 
 translate it into French. ‘‘ The reasons,” he adds, “ which led the author 
 of this work to compose it, induced me also translate it,—the zeal, namely, 
 which all of us ought to possess for the glory of God, and the kingdom of 
 his Son,” &c. “ And I trust that my translation may have even a greater 
 effect than the original, which being hitherto clothed in a language known but 
 to a few, and confined to a land surrounded by the ocean, has never been blaz- 
 ed abroad until now that it is made to speak in a language familiar to Eu- 
 rope. Then, the sound of it had scarcely crossed the ocean, but now it shall 
 awaken Antichrist in his very lair,” &c. t 
 
 * Translator’s preface; “aux Eglises Frangoises Reformees tant en la France qu ailleurs.” 
 
 + “ Ouverture de tous les secrets de l’Apocalypse, &c. Par Jean Napier (c. a. d.) Nonpareil, 
 Sieur de Merchiston, reveue par lui-meme, et mise en Francois par Georges Thomson, Escossois. 
 A la Rochelle, par Jean Brenouzet, demeurant prés la boucherie Neufue, 1602.”—The translator 
 when he first conceived the project had opened a communication with the author. The commen- 
 
 datory ode attached, has 
 
 Hos inter unus, stemmate nobilis 
 Scotus Napeirus, multa perititis 
 Diviniusque excogitavit, 
 Auxilio Jehove impetrato. 
 Que, cum Britannis consuleret suis, 
 Veste expolivit non nisi patria 
 Paucisque nota, vir disertus, &c. 
 
 This translation is well and handsomely got up. Another edition of it appeared at Rochelle 
 Z 
 
178 THE LIFE OF 
 
 These proud anticipations were not entirely disappointed. The translation 
 attracted great attention throughout the continent. The Protestants bowed 
 as if an oracle had spoken, and the Catholics looked to their champions for 
 areply. At this time the famous Joseph Juste de la Scala, or Scaliger, sway- 
 ed the sceptre of letters. He was ten years older than Napier, and may have 
 been known to him abroad. Certainly our philosopher was well acquaint- 
 ed with his writings, and especially with his most important work, the trea- 
 tise De E’mendatione Temporum, published at Paris in 1583. This was the 
 first attempt to treat of chronology as a science, and seems to stand in the same 
 relation to history that the Novum Organum of Bacon does to a more extend- 
 ed circle of human knowledge. The noble plan and varied erudition of the 
 work had been deeply studied by Napier, who seems to have taken it as the 
 basis of his own chronology. * Scaliger, though his father died a Catholic, had 
 embraced the Calvinistic doctrines; and at the time our philosopher’s work 
 appeared, interested himself deeply in the success of the Protestant church. 
 It would have been exceedingly curious to have found his recorded opinion of 
 Napier’s Plain Discovery. The subject of the Apocalypse was one which, some- 
 times at least, Scaliger professed to consider unapproachable. He praised Cal- 
 vin for not attempting to fathom it. ‘ None,” said he, “ has better unravel- 
 led the prophets than Calvin, but he was wise to leave the Apocalypse as he 
 found it.” + Calvin himself, when asked his opinion on the subject, is said to 
 have declared openly his total ignorance of what that obscure writer would be 
 
 in 1605, with some additions by the translator, who, as he advertises the reader, distinguishes these 
 from the original by an asterisk, according to the express injunctions of the author to him. A 
 third edition came out at the same place in 1607. 
 
 * Scaliger published several amended editions of this treatise after Napier’s Plain Discovery ap- 
 peared. See an account of Scaliger and his writings in Chauffepié’s Supplement to Bayle. Napier 
 in his Commentaries says, “ as further I intend, God willing, to set out some time in a little table of 
 chronologies; but, in the meantime, I remit the reader to Josephus Scaliger, De Emendatione Tem- 
 porum, whom I cannot but follow in so far as he proves and demonstrates, and no otherwise.” —P. 
 342, edit. 1611. 
 
 + It would appear, from Scaliger’s contradictory sayings on the subject, that he had formed no 
 settled opinions upon the merits of the Apocalypse. ‘“ Hoc possum gloriari me nihil ignorare eo- 
 rum que in Apocalypsi, canonico vere libro, prophetice scribuntur, preter illud caput in quo v@ sep- 
 ties repetitur.” “In Apocalypsi sunt tantum duo capita que possunt intelligi,” &c. ‘Calvinus sapit 
 quod in Apocalypsim non scripsit.”—Scaligerana, Sc. avec des notes de M.le Fevre et M. de Co- 
 lomies, 1695, p. 26, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 179 
 
 at.* Such sentiments were equivalent to a denial of the inspired character of 
 that portion of the Scriptures ; but, had either of them been conscious of the 
 capacity of producing atreatise on thesubjectlike Napier’s, all Europe would have 
 rung with the attempt. There is no doubt of the fact, however, that the Plain Dis- 
 covery was brought under the special notice of the “ Dictator of Letters;” and the 
 perusal may havechanged his views considerably as to the propriety of leaving the 
 Apocalypse without acommentary. Scaliger had an intimate correspondent and 
 devoted admirer in one “ Jaques Esprinchard,” a zealous Hugonot, and appa- 
 rently a man of learning and considerable weight in Paris. In a letter from 
 him to Scaliger, dated at Paris 5th July 1602, the following passage occurs. 
 “ Our churches here and at Guyenne are in a prosperous state, and their 
 daily increase is very perceptible. This enrages our enemies, who would fain 
 involve us in fresh turmoils and thus impede the course of the Gospel, seeing 
 as they do the total ruin of their papal and papistical darknesses near at hand. 
 There is a Commentary upon the Apocalypse in great estimation among us 
 at present. The author is a Scotch gentleman who rejoices in the name of 
 Peerless. You must have read it; and therefore I entreat you, Sir, to send 
 me your judgment of its merits, as you know I bow to that more than to the 
 judgment of any other man in the world.” tT Unfortunately, Scaliger’s reply 
 is not to be found in the little rare volume from which the above is derived. 
 It was not in France only that Napier now became revered. Germany longed 
 for the acquisition of the fruits of his labours ; and at the commencement of the 
 year 1627, his Commentaries had gone through their third German edition at 
 
 * Valde mi hi probatur Calvini aon minus urbana quam prudens oratio, qui de libro Apocalyp- 
 seos sententiam rogatus, ingenué respondit, se penitus ignorare quid velit tam obscurus Scriptor. 
 —Bodin, quoted in Scaligerana, p. 27. 
 
 + “* Voyant que le temps approche de la ruine totale de leurs tenebres papales et papables. On 
 faict grand cas par deca d'un Commentaire sur Apocalypse qui a pour aucteur un Gentil-homme 
 Escossois, nommé Nonpareil. Il n’est pas que vous ne l’ayez leu, c’est pourquoy je vous supplie, 
 Monsieur, de m’en mander vostre jugement, auquel vous scaurez que je defere plus qu’a homme 
 du monde,” pp. 80, 81. Under Scaliger, in the Supplement to Bayle, p. 197, I find, “ Morhof 
 parle d’un petit Recueil fort rare publié par Jaques Revius 4 Harderwyk 1624 in—8. intitule 
 Epistres Francoises des personnages illustres et doctes a M. Jos. Juste della Scala: on y trouve, 
 dit il, l'explication de diverse passages des auteurs classiques, on y consulte Scaliger sur différens 
 points,” &c. This is the volume from which the above extract from the letter of Esprinchard is 
 taken ; and Iam indebted to the kindness and bibliographical knowledge of Sir William Hamilton, 
 
 Bart. for the perusal. 
 
180 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Frankfort on the Main. It was thereentitled “ the beautiful and long-wished for 
 Exposition of the Revelations of St John, by John Napier, an excellent Scottish 
 divine,” * &c.; and such was the sensation created, that the more learned of the 
 Catholics indicated some intentions of taking the field publicly against its au- 
 thor. In 1611, after three editions had been published at Rochelle and one at 
 Frankfort, another English edition appeared. In his Preface tothis Napier states, 
 that, “ after the first edition of this book in our English or Scottish tongue, I 
 thought to have published shortly the same in Latin, (as yet, God willing, I 
 mind to do,) to the public utility of the whole church. But understanding, on 
 the one part, that this work is now imprinted and set out diverse times in the 
 French and Dutch + tongues, beside these our English editions, and thereby 
 made public to many ; as on the other part, being advertised that our papis- 
 tical adversaries were to write largely against the said editions that are already 
 set out; therefore I have as yet deferred the Latin edition, till, having first 
 seen the adversaries’ objections, I may insert in the Latin edition an apology 
 of that which is rightly done, and an amends of whatsoever is amiss.” This 
 threatened hostility on the part of the Catholics never arrived at publication, 
 although the object of it continued to pass through a variety of editions, both 
 at home and abroad. Consequently Napier’s Latin work did not appear, and 
 the lightened task descended to Joseph Mede. 
 
 Such, generally, was the origin and reception of a work most unaccountably 
 neglected in every biographical notice of its illustrious author hitherto attempt- 
 ed. At this Lord Buchan sneered as at a visionary cloud passing over the 
 mind of the Scottish Archimedes, which neither connected him with the history 
 of his country, nor with the triumphs of genius. Dr M‘Crie left it unnoticed, 
 while he traced minutely the progress of our learning, from its fountain at St 
 Andrews through Scotland, during the first years of the Reformation. And 
 a more distinguished writer than either has observed, “ The sublime genius 
 
 * Johannis Napeiri, Herren zu Merchiston, eines trefflichen Schottlindischen Theologi, schéne 
 vnd lang gewiinschte Ausslegung der Offenbarung Johannis, u.s. w. Nach dem Frantzdsischen, 
 Englischen, ynnd Schottischen Exemplaren, dritter Edition, u.s.w. Getruckt zu Franckfurt am 
 Mayn im Jahr 1627, 8vo. Sir David Brewster says, “ Newton was well known by the appel- 
 lation of an ‘ excellent divine.’ ”—P. 273. 
 
 + By the Dutch tongue, Napier here obviously means the German, which was then frequently 
 called Dutch ; Dutchland meaning Germany. Dr Mackenzie, in his Lives, says, the Plain Disco- 
 very “‘ was immediately translated into Dutch, French, Italian, and Latin.” I have not seen the 
 Italian or Latin editions. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 18] 
 
 which marked by the logarithmic canon the correspondence betwixt arithme- 
 tical and geometrical progression, had his weak point. Napier, like Newton, 
 wasted time in endeavouring to discover the mysteries of the Apocalypse, and 
 to ascertain prophecies, which, if intended for our instant comprehension, 
 would (with deep respect we speak it) have been expressed more clearly,” * &c. 
 Had all this arisen from the slightest knowledge of Napier’s theology, it 
 might have been temerity to illustrate the biography of its author by enter- 
 ing into any details. _As it is, we must institute some further examination of 
 a work, which, while it gave an impulse to Religion at a critical period of the 
 Church, and marks an epoch in letters, will be found to contain unequivocal 
 indications of a mind superior in its grasp to every contemporary.t+ 
 
 No perfect account of it can be given more briefly, or in language more dis- 
 tinct than his own :—‘ Being of purpose,” says he, “ to expound and open up 
 the mysteries of this Revelation, by a twofold discourse, the one paraphrasti- 
 cal, the other historical, both confronted together, I have thought good before 
 that work to premit, by way of introduction, areasoning for the investigation 
 of the true sense and meaning of every notable mystery thereof, and to set the 
 same in form of propositions, as near the analytick or demonstrative manner as 
 the phrase and nature of holy Scriptures will permit,” &c. After giving some 
 account of his first inclination to this task, (as we have elsewhere quoted) he pro- 
 ceeds—“ Here then, beloved reader, thou hast this work divided into two trea- 
 tises, the first is the said introduction and reasoning for investigation of the true 
 
 * Sir Walter Scott’s Provincial Antiquities, 1819. 
 
 + Since the above went to press, there has been published “ An Historical View of the Progress 
 of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences, from the earliest ages to the present times, by the Rev. 
 Baden Powell, M. A. F. R.S. Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University of Oxford,” 1834, 
 being a volume of Dr Lardner’s Cyclopedia. In that I find, p. 194, “ The intellectual character 
 of Napier exhibits an instance of one of those singular inequalities which not unfrequently cha- 
 racterize high genius. Exact and comprehensive as were his views of mathematical truth, he 
 could not discriminate other kinds ; and engaged with all the sober assurance of certainty in a 
 puerile commentary, in which he imagined he had decyphered all the mysteries of the Apocalypse. 
 He died in 1622.” 
 
 He died in 1617. These cabinet Cyclopzedias and Libraries of useful Knowledge will be the 
 ruin of British letters. Where the treatises are original they are not always founded upon re- 
 search, and where they seem most meritorious, the labours of others have been adopted with just 
 such acknowledgment as may serve to save the honour of the compiler. After repeating Profes- 
 sor Playfair’s beautiful eulogy of the Logarithms, Professor Powell adopts an idea of Napier’s theo- 
 logical commentaries, apparently not founded upon the most cursory inspection of the work, and 
 certainly upon no critical or historical consideration of its merits. 
 
182 THE LIFE OF 
 
 sense of every chief theological term and date contained in the Revelation, 
 whereby not only is it opened, explained, and interpreted, but also that same 
 explanation and interpretation is proved, confirmed, and demonstrated by evi- 
 dent proof and coherence of Scriptures agreeable with the events of history. 
 The second is the principal treatise, in the which the whole Apocalyse, chapter 
 by chapter, verse by verse, and sentence by sentence, is both paraphrastically 
 expounded and historically applied. This second and principal treatise keep- 
 eth this order, that first before every chapter is premitted the argument, not 
 of the literal sense of the chapter, but of the true meaning and interpretation 
 of the same. Thereafter, (seeing all the chapters of the Apocalypse do either 
 describe the vision, or then express the prophecy,) if the present chapter be 
 descriptive, every page thereof is divided into two columns, in the first 
 whereof is set the text by verses ; in the second column, is set the paraphras- 
 tical exposition, answering verse by verse to the text of the first column ; but 
 if the present chapter be prophetical, then is every page thereof divided in 
 three columns ; the first containeth the text by verses, the second the para- 
 phrastical exposition thereof, verse by verse, the third, also agreeable there- 
 with by verses, containeth the history or historical application, in the which, 
 and by the which, the same prophecy is or shall be performed; and if any 
 chapter is partly descriptive, partly prophetical, then where it is prophetical, 
 there are three columns ; the first is the text, the second is the paraphrastical 
 exposition of the text, the third is the historical application and accomplish- 
 ment thereof. But wherein that same chapter any part is descriptive, then 
 are there forenent that part only two columns; whereof the first is the text, 
 the second is common to both the paraphrastical column and to the histori- 
 cal column; and therefore it passeth through, occupying the room of both the 
 second and third columns, so that when ye read the second column, ye shall 
 read it with the second column, and when again ye read the third column, ye 
 shall also read it with the third column: for it is such a common thing as 
 agrees to be read with either of them. Furthermore, there is two drawn lines 
 betwixt the paraphrastical column and the historical, within the which lines 
 there is set down the dates of times, by seals, trumpets, vials, thunders, and 
 years of God, answering to the precise time in the which every prophecy 
 thereof was, or shall be performed. Moreover,—in case any part of the text 
 may be thought to he wrong translated, any part of the paraphrase wrong ex- 
 pounded, or finally, any part of the history wrong applied, over briefly hand- 
 led, not sufficiently proved, or haying need of annotations,—I have therefore 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 183 
 
 forenent every doubtful and needful place of the text, paraphrase, and history, 
 set marks of the ordinary letters of a, b, c, &c. in the paraphrase, and after 
 the end of the whole chapter have subjoined notes, reasons, and amplifications, 
 marked correspondently with the like letters of a, b,c, &c. by the which notes 
 and amplifications, not only the brevity of the paraphrase and history is sup- 
 plied, but also by reasons, proofs, and arguments of Scripture therein insert, 
 the whole smaller doubts thereof are resolved. And as .toward the greater 
 doubts, they are referred to the first treatise, wherein they are at length and 
 demonstratively proved. So the note here in the second treatise doth only 
 quote the proposition of the first treatise, that proves that present assertion. 
 And because this whole work of Revelation concerneth most the discovery of 
 the Antichristian and Papistical kingdom, I have therefore, (for removing of all 
 suspicion) in all histories and profane matters taken my authorities and 
 cited my places either out of Ethnik authors, or then Papistical writers, whose 
 testimonies by no reason can be refused against themselves. But in matters of 
 divinity, doctrine, and interpretation of mysteries, (leaving all opinions of men) 
 I take me only to the interpretation and discovery thereof, by coherence of 
 Scripture, and Godly reasons following thereupon ; which also not only no Pa- 
 pist, but even no Christian may justly refuse. And forasmuch as our Scrip- 
 tures herein are of two sorts, the one our ordinary text, the other extraordi- 
 nary citations ; in our ordinary text I follow not altogether the vulgar English. 
 translation, but the best learned in the Greek tongue, so that (for satisfying 
 the Papists) I differ nothing from their vulgar text of S. Jerome, as they call 
 it, except in such places where I prove, by good reasons, that he differeth from 
 the original Greek. In the extraordinary texts of other Scriptures cited by 
 me, I follow ever Jerome’s Latin translation where any controversy stands 
 betwixt us and the Papists, and that moveth me in divers places to insert his 
 very Latin text, for their cause, with the just English thereof for supply of the 
 unlearned. And hereof it cometh that our quotations are according to the 
 sections and verses of Jerome’s translation, printed in Antwerp by Planitine, 
 agreeing also with the great concordances of Robert Stephane. In other texts 
 not controverted, the English text alone is sufficient in a Scottish or English 
 treatise, and therefore omit we the Latin. Further, as concerning my cita- 
 tions of ancient and unsuspect writers, I have chosen the same out of the most 
 old and faithful copies, chiefly those that be found in old Popish libraries and 
 imprinted by Popish printers. But as for the new copies and latter editions, 
 there is a malicious ordinance observed in these latter days, by the which the 
 
184 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Friers of Lovane, and other Papistical correctors, eiketh, paireth, and perverteth 
 all good and rare books, causing first one sort of them to be imprinted under 
 their testimonial, so that (as that same testimonial therein imprinted beareth) 
 nothing is left therein that may be contrarious to the Roman Church, although 
 the author by his true edition had never so much inveighed against Rome. 
 Thereafter all the remnant Popish printers do follow these new perverted 
 copies in their latter editions without any testimonial, as being warranted by 
 the said first testimonial, and this is most evident to be seen by their books 
 entitled Index Hxpurgatorius. Praying, therefore, all good men to beware 
 of these, we desire earnestly with our hearts so to proceed hereinto, that truth 
 may come to light, and that such grounds may be laid, as thereby the igno- 
 rant and simple reader may be best instructed, the Godly and learned Christian 
 most surely confirmed, and the arrogant and obstinate calumniator ratherest 
 confounded and put to silence. But forasmuch as this our good intention and 
 Godly purpose doth always proceed of a very tender and frail vessel; and that 
 as all liquors, how precious soever, do take some taste of their vessels ;* so 
 this holy work may in some things, though not espied by myself, taste of 
 my imperfections. Therefore, humbly I submit these imperfections what- 
 soever to the gentle correction of every wise and discreet person, who in the 
 motion of God’s spirit judgeth uprightly, without envy or partiality, pray- 
 ing all good men to have me apardoned of whatsoever is amiss. For although 
 I have not done herein perfectly as I would, yet zealously as I could, know- 
 ing that the poor widow’s mite was acceptable unto the Lord. For man hath 
 not gold, silver, silks, and purple to offer to the work of the Sanctuary,—to 
 me (as saith Jerome) it shall be much if I may purchase wool or flocks to offer 
 to that holy work. And surely this that I have, how small soever it be, till 
 God enlarge me with more, I offer it gladly unto the glory of God and edifi- 
 cation of his truechurch. To God, therefore, the disposer of this and all other 
 Godly works and meditations, who liveth and reigneth eternally in Trinity and 
 Unity, be glory, praise, laud and thanks, for ever and ever, Amen.” + 
 
 . Having thus disclosed his method, he proceeds to the introductory treatise, 
 being the ground-work of his exposition. His first object is to demonstrate 
 the meaning of “ dates and chief reckonings hid under terms.” These terms 
 are either “ vulgar and used,” or “ new and strange.” This division compre- 
 
 * Lord Bacon used somewhere the comparison, “ like as waters do take tinctures and tastes 
 from the soils through which they run.” 
 
 + Compare this conclusion with the prayer printed in capital letters at the end of Mr Cun- 
 ningham of Lainshaw’s introduction to his Dissertation on the Apocalypse. 1832. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 185 
 
 hends his chronology both as to its language and computation. How, for in- 
 stance, under the vulgar terms, a day in prophetical language is taken for 
 a year, a week for seven years, &c.; what is meant by a time, times, and half 
 a-time; and how under the new or strange terms (such as the seven seals, 
 trumpets, and vials,) the history of the church may be traced, and the latter 
 day itself nearly computed. The second object of this preliminary treatise, are 
 the “ affairs and chief matters concerning God’s servants; and God’s greatest 
 enemies.” As to the-former, he demonstrates that the Church,—Religion,— 
 the two Testaments,—the Books of the Old and New Testaments,—are signi- 
 fied by God’s temple,—his throne,—the two witnesses,—the twenty-four elders, 
 —and the four beasts. As for “ God’s greatest enemies,” that opens the wider 
 field of “ Sathan” and the “ wicked kingdoms.” Sathan,—the time and nature 
 of his bondage. The wicked kingdoms, as signified under the terms Gog and 
 Magog and the two beasts; Gog and Magog being the Papists and Mahometans, 
 and their armies indicated in the sixth trumpet and vial. Of the two beasts, 
 the one with two horns is Antichrist, who is proved to be the Pope, and the 
 time of his reign computed ; the other, with ten horns, signifies the whole Latin 
 or Roman empire from which Antichrist descends,—Rome being figured under 
 Babylon. Lastly, the image, the mark, the name, and the number of the ten 
 horned beast are all successively explained and demonstrated. The ¢mage,— 
 being the degenerate Roman emperors; the mark,—being the league of ser- 
 vitude professed to the Romans by their subjects, and afterwards marked by 
 the Pope with the visible mark of yes and crosses of various kinds; the name, 
 —being Aureos or the Latin empire; and the nwmber,—being 666. 
 
 It is obvious, that, if all this be clearly demonstrated, the promise of “a Plain 
 Discovery of the whole Revelation of St John” is well-nigh fulfilled. Accord- 
 ingly our author seems to have arranged and supported his premises at the 
 expence of vast research and deep contemplation. This he does in a series of 
 thirty-six short propositions, each followed by its own chapter of elaborate 
 proofs, but in a condensed form, and disfigured with none of those long con- 
 troversial digressions that rendered the continental commentators who preced- 
 ed him so unwieldy and useless. 
 
 It would far exceed the limits of a chapter of his biography to enter into 
 the details of these propositions so as to do justice to their ingenuity and eru- 
 dition. Indeed, we would despair of being able to afford a view of their 
 
 contents in clearer and shorter terms than the treatise itself. One of his 
 Aa 
 
186 THE LIFE OF 
 
 propositions, however, demands a few observations, being the only part of 
 his work that has obtained popular notoriety. That Napier predicted the 
 latter day to fall. about a period now long past, may be considered the 
 amount of any knowledge of his theological writings possessed even by the 
 learned of our times. This error calculi may be presumed to have occasioned 
 the disregard of his Commentaries already noticed, and is, perhaps, the reason 
 why Biot and Brewster, in their analysis of the corresponding production of 
 Newton’s mind, have not adverted to Napier. And we can only account for 
 the fact, that both of the Newtons, and other more modern apocalyptic com- 
 mentators, never among their numerous authorities refer to the Scotch philo- 
 sopher, by supposing that the repute of his having failed in an attempt to 
 ascertain the day of judgment, deterred these authors from seeking out his 
 treatises which have become rare. As there is great misapprehension on the 
 subject, it becomes the duty of his biographer to redeem his memory from those 
 vague ideas of something weak and wild pervading the whole of his exposi- 
 tion; which, in truth, are much rather the characteristics of that species of 
 composition in the present century. 
 
 By his first proposition, Napier lays down, that “ in prophetical dates of 
 days, weeks, months, and years, every common prophetical day is taken for a 
 year.” His second is the sychronical proposition, that “ the seven trumpets of 
 the 8th, 9th, and 11th chapters, and the seven vials of the 16th chapter are 
 all one.” In his third, he maintains that the pouring out of the fifth vial, or 
 the sounding of the fifth trumpet, was in Anno Domini 1051, when the Turks 
 began their dominion under Zadok ; and in his fourth, that “ at the sixth vial 
 and trumpet, the four Mahometan nations began their empire Anno Domini 
 1296.”—“ Therefore, the fifth trumpet or vial endured from the 1051 year to 
 1296 years, which is the space of 245 years.” He then demonstrates by his fifth 
 proposition, “ that every one of the rest of the trumpets or vials doth contain 
 the same space.” Upon these propositions he builds his sixth, that “ the first 
 trumpet or vial began at the jubilee in Anno Christi 71.” His eighth and ninth 
 are devoted to fixing the times and spaces of the seals; and his tenth is that 
 which first touches the duration of the world. As the necessary consequence 
 of his premises, that proposition is, that “ the last trumpet and vial beginneth 
 Anno Christi 1541, and should end in Anno Christi 1786.”—* Not,” says he, 
 “that I mean that that age, or yet the world, shall continue so long, because it 
 is said that, for the Elect’s sake, “Gs shall be shortened ; but I mean, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 187 
 
 that, if the world were to endure, that seventh age should continue until the 
 year of Christ 1786.” The eleventh and twelfth propositions fix the signifi- 
 cation and times of the seven thunders; and the thirteenth is, that “ Every 
 one of the first three thundering angels containeth a jubilee, and then the last 
 four all at once completeth the day of judgment.” Such are the steps by which 
 our philosopher was led to lay down his fourteenth proposition, that “ the 
 day of God’s judgment appears to fall betwixt the years of Christ 1688 and 
 1700.” y 
 
 We have thought it necessary to trace them, because an idea prevails 
 that Napier’s dictum on the subject was of the nature of those wild denun- 
 ciations, springing from an overheated imagination, which pretended (like 
 John Knox) to supernatural perceptions of the future. But the fact is far 
 otherwise. Napier had arranged his chronology upon authorities which he 
 considered infallible; and having determined, as he supposed, certain points 
 of time, or nearly so, the process of calculation was then simple, and the at- 
 tempt inherent in his nature, as (if we may borrow the poet’s attribute) 
 
 “ He lisped in numbers, for the numbers came.” 
 
 The argument which supports his fourteenth proposition is too long to 
 quote, but. may be safely referred to as an evidence of the healthful state of 
 mind and soul in which it was propounded. Looking, as all such commenta- 
 tors must do, to the signs of his times, and impressed, as they generally are, with 
 a belief that to the turbulent elements of his own times the language of the Apo- 
 calypse was more applicable than to any other, he concluded that the end of all 
 things was not far distant. This idea has been so prevalent in every age, 
 including that of the Apostles themselves, and is so natural to those who 
 study the subject deeply, that to infer from it an unsound state of mind would 
 argue little knowledge of books or human nature. © It is from the individual’s 
 mode of treating that conclusion, rather than from the conclusion itself, that 
 his weakness or wildness is to be discovered. Impressed with such a feel- 
 ing, Napier reasons in a manner that cannot be impugned. He refers to 
 the text, “ But of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no not the 
 angels which are in Heaven; neither the Son, but the Father.” His ar- 
 gument, however, from the same chapter, it is not easy to refute, that 
 Christ’s knowledge only yields to that of the Father in respect of the 
 
188 THE LIFE OF 
 
 precise day and hour; and that the Son was even careful to instruct his 
 servants, that they might know the signs of the approaching end. He com- 
 pares this design to our knowledge of the approach of death, which, for ob- 
 vious reasons, is concealed from view, though to some it becomes apparent 
 when near at hand; and he adds, “ To what effect were the Prophecies of 
 Daniel and of the Revelation given to the Church of God, and so many dates 
 of years and circumstances of time foreshewing the latter day contained therein- 
 till, if God had appointed the same to be never known or understood before that 
 day come.” He also quotes Daniel; “ Saith Daniel of the time of revelation, 
 ‘Signalibrum ad tempus statutum, multi pertransibuntet multiplex erit scientia.’ 
 Seal the book till the appointed time ; many shall go to and fro, and knowledge 
 shall be increased.” And we cannot deny his right to lay stress upon such 
 a text, who at the very time was conscious of conceiving that great revolution 
 in the science of numbers, whose effect upon navigation was appreciated the 
 instant it appeared. 
 
 How little, after all, does his language on this momentous subject differ 
 from Sir Isaac Newton’s, who wrote a century later? “ In the very end,” 
 says the English philosopher, “ the prophecy should be so far interpreted 
 as to convince many. ‘ Then, saith Daniel, ‘ many shall run to and fro, 
 and knowledge shall be increased.‘ For the Gospel must be preached in all 
 nations before the great tribulation, &c. But if the last age, the age of open- 
 ing these things, be now approaching, as by the great successes of late inter- 
 preters it seems to be, we have more encouragement than ever to look into 
 these things. Ifthe general preaching of the Gospel be approaching, it is to 
 us and our posterity that those words mainly belong, ‘ In the time of the 
 end the wise shall understand, but none of the wicked shall understand.’ ” * 
 It will be obvious to any one who compares their respective treatises, that 
 Napier, even upon the problem of the last day, is no more wild and visionary 
 than was Newton. The former, who, it must be remembered, belonged to a 
 
 very different age and state of the Protestant church, is more precise and cou- 
 rageous in his examination of this mystery than the latter, comes more to par- 
 
 * Sir Isaac Newton’s Observations on the Apocalypse of St John.—Newtoni Opera, Tom. vy. 
 p. 448. 4to. 1785. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 189 
 
 ticulars, and even commits himself by hazarding a conjectural computation of 
 the period. But Sir Isaac Newton, with the immense advantage of a century’s 
 additional light and additional experience,—with the Commentaries of Mede 
 betwixt him and Napier,—hazards the very same conjecture of the end of all 
 things being at hand, wields the very arguments of Napier, and quotes the 
 same texts to prove, that “if the general preaching of the Gospel be ap- 
 proaching, it is to us and our posterity that those words mainly belong, ‘ in 
 the time of the end the wise shall understand, &c.” The difference betwixt 
 them is merely this, that Napier, upon comparing his chronology of the world 
 with the signs of his times, supposed that the period of “ understanding” had 
 arrived ; while Newton only gathered from his comparison, that “ the age of 
 opening these things” was approaching. The one accordingly perilled a cal- 
 culation ; the other said, there was “ encouragement to look into these things.” 
 
 It is in his chronology that we must look for the weak point of Napier’s 
 admirable commentary. But this does not prove him a visionary, unless all 
 commentators on prophecy be called so. Every one of them, not excepting Sir 
 Isaac Newton, are lost in their chronology, which seems to be the impassable 
 gulf betwixt these mysteries and mortal interpreters. The learned Mede, who 
 followed Napier, and still occupies the cathedra of theological science in Eng- 
 land, toiled over the question, how long the world should last, and came, 
 after infinite labour, to a conjectural and useless conclusion. In despair, how- 
 ever, at the delusive nature of ancient chronology, he suggests the idea, “ whe- 
 ther there may not be some secret disposition of Divine Providence in this va- 
 riety of computation, to prevent our curiosity in counting the exact time of the 
 day of judgment.” * Napier identified the “ time, times, and half a time” with 
 the 1260 prophetical days and actual years ; and maintained that these were 
 the years of Antichrist’s reign over Christians, commencing “ about the year of 
 Christ 300 or 316 at the farthest,” and ending with the destruction of the “ Pa- 
 pistical policies” in 1560. Mede, who was born only thirty-six years after Na- 
 pier, and quotes him, adopts his interpretation of the 1260 days, but dates their 
 commencementabout the year 456. Sir Isaac Newton repeats the very commen- 
 tary of Napier on this prophetical period, but gives the year 794 as his nearest 
 
 * The works of Joseph Mede, B.D. fol. 1677, containing, inter alia, “ In Sancti Joannis 
 Apocalypsin Commentarius,” &c. The fifth Book contains Miscellanies, the third chapter being, 
 «¢ Answer concerning a Discourse, &c. that the world should last 7000 years,” &c.—See page 895 
 for passage quoted. ‘“ Napeirus” is quoted by Mede as a high authority. 
 
190 THE LIFE OF 
 
 approximation to the commencement. Bishop Newton does not quote Napier. 
 His interpretation, however, of “ a time, times, and half a time,” is precisely 
 the same ; and then he adds, “ To fix the time exactly when these 1260 years 
 begin, and consequently when they will end, is a matter of some niceness and 
 difficulty ; and perhaps we must see their conclusion before we can precisely 
 ascertain their beginning.” In this there was much sense; but after he had 
 decided that fixing the commencement so soon as 456 “ was the capital error 
 of Mr Mede’s scheme, which hath led him and others who have followed his 
 example into subsequent errors, and what the event hath plainly refuted,” 
 the bishop ventures, through the usual labyrinth of historical coincidences, 
 to peril his own conclusion, no doubt to be refuted in its turn. “ What ap- 
 pears,” says he, “ to be most probable is, that it is to be dated from the year 
 727, when, as Sigonius says, Rome and the Roman dukedom came from the 
 Greeks to the Roman pontiff.”* Much more might be said, not only to 
 exonerate our philosopher from vague imputations of being visionary beyond 
 the rest in his theological speculations, but to place him at the head of those 
 illustrious English divines, who are acknowledged to be the lights of a school, 
 in which, however, they did not excel its founder, Napier. But we must now 
 pass rapidly over the rest of his work, or, at least, with such notices as will 
 suffice to support what may appear a bold proposition. 
 
 His second and chief treatise contains the Apocalypse itself, arranged with 
 a paraphrastical version and historical application in separate columns, with 
 commentaries at the end of each chapter, according to the plan announced in his 
 preface. What is much to be admired in the structure of the work, and affords 
 a good picture of Napier’s mind, is the compression of so minute an analysis of 
 the whole Revelations, accompanied with reasoning so constant and close, and 
 erudition so varied, within the space (in the most amplified edition) of a small 
 quarto, less than 400 pages. The philosopher was well characterized by his 
 son, when he said, “ It was the opinion of the best judges, that my dearest 
 father, among many rare gifts, was unrivalled in this, that he could extricate, 
 in the fewest words, the most difficult matters by some sure and simple me- 
 thod.” t The task he so ably performed in this commentary was one of Hercu- 
 
 * Dissertations on the Prophecies, by Thomas Newton, D.D. late Lord Bishop of Bristol. 
 Vol. iti. p. 244. Svo. edit. 1802. 
 + Patri charissimo, in quo, ex optimorum hominum sententia, inter alia preclara hoc eximii 
 
 —— > 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 191 
 
 lean labour, and in his hands perfectly original. When we consider the state 
 in which he found scientific theology, and the passions and prejudices which 
 surrounded his subject, we must be struck with the wonderful resources of his 
 clear and powerful intellect, so far in advance of his time. It was compara- 
 tively easy, with such an example before him, for the learned Mede to compose 
 his ponderous treatise. Nor can we help surmising that the “ Clavis et Com- 
 mentationes Apocalyptic” derived a hint at least from Napier’s declaration, 
 that he considered his own exposition imperfect, and merely as paving the way 
 for more extended commentaries in Latin. 
 
 In Mede’s celebrated work a method has been adopted with regard to the order 
 and connection of the apocalyptical visions, the principal of which the author 
 thus explains :—“ The Apocalyse, considered only according to the naked 
 letter, as if it were a history and no prophecy, hath marks and signs sufficient, 
 inserted by the Holy Spirit, whereby the order, synchronism, and sequel of 
 all the visions therein contained may be found out and demonstrated, without 
 supposal of any interpretation whatsoever. This order and synchronism thus 
 found and demonstrated, as it were by argumenta intrinseca, is the first thing 
 to be done and forelaid as a foundation, ground, and only safe rule of inter- 
 pretation, and not interpretation to be made the ground and rule of it.”. The 
 editor and biographer of Mede says:* “ The glory of the first discovering 
 these synchronisms is peculiarly due to Mr Mede; and upon this score shall 
 the present and succeeding ages owe a great respect and veneration to his . 
 memory,” &c. But we must do our own philosopher the justice to observe, 
 that, long before Mede, he adopted that very principle (though in a form so 
 simple and unaffected that those who run might read) for the developement of his 
 plain discovery. To each of his treatises tables are attached, occupying a single 
 page, and where at a glance, the nature, order and connection of the whole 
 Revelations may be discovered. He fixes the essential synchronisms, both of 
 dates and terms, in his preliminary propositions ; and has even done so in an 
 instance where Mede had failed. “ Mr Mede,” says Sir Isaac, “ hath explain- 
 ed the prophecy of the first six trumpets not much amiss; but if he had ob- 
 
 eminebat, res difficillimas methodo certa et facili quam paucissimis expedire.’—Preface to the 
 Canonis Constructio edited by Robert Napier, 1619. 
 * See the Life of Mede and account of his works at the commencement of the volume already 
 
 referred to. 
 
192 THE LIFE OF 
 
 served that the prophecy of pouring out the vials of wrath is synchronal to 
 that of sounding the trumpets, his explanation would have been yet more 
 complete.” * Now Napier carries this synchronism so far, as in his second 
 proposition to “ conclude both those trumpets with those vials, and also the 
 rest of the trumpets with the rest of the vials respective, in purpose, meaning, 
 time, and in all other circumstances to be one and the self-same thing.” + 
 
 That the best part of all the celebrated apocalyptic commentators who are 
 quoted and looked up to in modern times is to be found in Napier, might be 
 proved by a series of comparisons of the important passages in each, chronolo- 
 gically arranged. This would far exceed our limits. ‘The object, however, 
 being to assert his right to the throne of scientific theology in Scotland, no 
 less than of mathematical science; and his right of priority at least over Mede 
 and the Newtons, it is hoped that a few more comparisons will be excused. 
 
 The department of Sir Isaac Newton’s theological works in which he is held 
 to be most original and profound is hissystem of chronology. “ Among thechro- 
 nological writings of Sir Isaac Newton,” (says his biographer, Brewster,) “ we 
 must enumerate his letter to a person of distinction who had desired his opinion 
 of the learned Bishop Lloyd’s hypothesis concerning the form of the ancient 
 year. ‘This hypothesis was sent by the Bishop of Worcester to Dr Prideaux. 
 Sir Isaac remarks, that it is filled with many excellent observations on the an- 
 cient year ; but he does not “ find it proved that any ancient nations used a 
 year of twelve months and 360 days without correcting it from time to time, 
 by the luminaries, to make the months keep to the course of the moon, and the 
 year to the course of the sun, and returns of the seasons and fruits of the earth,” 
 &c.{ In like manner Sir Isaac, in his “ chronological observations upon the 
 years used by Daniel,” has these observations. The ancient solar years of the 
 
 * Opera, v. 474. 
 
 + Synchront motus sunt, qui simul et eodem tempore fiunt. Esto quod B. moveatur ab A. in 
 - C. eodem tempore quo € moetur ab « in y dicentur rectz A C, et « y synchrone motur describir. 
 —Napier. 
 
 Synchronismum vaticiniorum voco rerum in iisdem designatarum in idem tempus concur- 
 sum ; quasi contemporationem dixeris et cozteneitatem: Prophetie siquidem de rebus contem- 
 poraneis cvyxzouCso1.— Mede, p. 419. 
 
 Synchronism. Concurrence of events happening at the same time.— Johnson. 
 
 { Brewster’s Life of Newton, p. 268. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 193 
 
 eastern nations consisted of 12 months, and every month of 30 days: and 
 hence came the division of a circle into 360 degrees. This year seems to be 
 used by Moses in his history of the flood, and by John in the Apocalypse, 
 where a time, times, and half a time, 42 months, and 1260 days, are put equi- 
 pollent. But in reckoning by many of these years together, an account is to 
 be kept of the odd days which were added to the end of these years. For the 
 Egyptians added five days to the end of this year ; and so did the Chaldeans 
 long before the times of Daniel, as appears by the era of Nabonassar : and the 
 Persian magi used the same year of 365 days, till the empire of the Arabians. 
 The ancient Greeks also used the same solar year of 12 equal months or 360 
 days; but every other year added an intercalary month, consisting of 10 and 
 11 days alternately.” 
 
 How many are there (such as Sir David Brewster) well acquainted with 
 all these passages in Sir Isaac’s works, who are yet not aware that the Scotch 
 philosopher had the sagacity to perceive in his subject the necessity of clear- 
 ing the very matter which, a hundred years afterwards, came under the consi- 
 deration of such men as Newton, Lloyd, and Prideaux: and that he did so in 
 words very nearly the same, and certainly as distinct as those of the great Eng- 
 lish philosopher. Napier’s 15th proposition contains the very synchronism quot- 
 ed above. He says “ The 42 months, a thousand and twohundreth and threescore 
 prophetical days, three great days and a-half, and a time, times, and half a time, 
 mentioned in Daniel and the Revelation, areall onedate;” and thenenters intothe 
 details, in nearly the words and order observed by Sir Isaac Newton, but perhaps 
 with still greater precision. “ Every month among the Grecians contained 
 thirty days precisely,” &c. “ twelve months in the year, and thirty days in 
 every month,” &c. For confirmation whereof it is to be understood that the 
 first institutors of time, to wit the Chaldeans, Grecians, and astrologers, in their 
 directions do agree with this description of time ; for they divide the equinoc- 
 tial into 360 degrees, and attribute a year for every degree of their directions, 
 whereby the whole time of the great revolution or direction of the whole equi- 
 noctial will be 360 years,” &c. “ But now although it is proved these dates 
 to be 1260 years, yet forasmuch as 1260 of Grecian years are but 1242 Julian 
 years, and 8 months or thereabout ; and 1260 Julian years are 1277 and a 
 half of Grecian years, making thereby near 18 years difference; it rests 
 therefore to prove what kind of years these be. These, we say, are common 
 Julian years for two causes. rst, although the Grecian common year con- 
 
 tained but 12 months, and 30 days in every month, yet do they adjoin certain 
 Bb 
 
194 . THE LIFE OF 
 
 intercalar days, which doth make every year overhead to contain 12 months, 
 Jive days and a quarter, which is 365 days and a quarter ; and so consequent- 
 ly are overhead equal with our common Julian year. Secondly, among the 
 Hebrew prophets, where a day is taken for a year, although the common year 
 contain but 12 months, yet almost every third year, they adjoined an inter- 
 calar month by doubling the month Adar, which made their Hebrew years 
 overhead equal also with our Julian years,” &c. 
 
 The similarity apparent in the train of thought of these two chief philoso- 
 phers of the sister kingdoms is very interesting, and has been little observed. 
 * Know youthe meaning,” (says Sir Isaac in the postscript of a letter to Locke,*) 
 “ of Dan. x. 21,—there is none that holdeth with me in these things but Mich. 
 the Prince ?” Napier, too, saw the propriety of a commentary upon this name, 
 and Newton might have found in the Plain Discovery a dissertation upon the 
 very question he put to Locke. Napier says, “ Michael is taken for one of the 
 persons of the Trinity,” &c. “ with the name of Michael,—which is to say, who ts 
 like God, or otherwise Deus percutiens, a beating or striking God,—doth both 
 the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit agree,” &c. “ The question, there- 
 fore, is, which person of the Deity doth Michael signify?” &c. and then, through 
 proofs which it is unnecessary to quote, Napier arrives at the conclusion, that 
 the Michael of Daniel and St John is the Holy Spirit that helped Christ, and 
 not Christ himself. 
 
 Sir Isaac devotes the second chapter of his commentaries to “ the propheti- 
 cal language,” of which he there affords the key. Upon this M. Biot ¢ re- 
 marks very justly, that Newton is not original in the idea or nature of these ex- 
 planations, though he is so in the plan of establishing his glossary by a prelimi- 
 nary chapter, which enables him afterwards to make aquicker progress by simply 
 placing a prophetical term beside its explanation. Napier has not adopted this 
 plan; but that arises from the circumstances, that his work is more thoroughly 
 digested,—more systematically and philosophically arranged,—and more com- 
 plete in all its parts than Newton’s. The commentaries of the latter consist 
 of desultory essays upon certain points, and are therefore called “ observations” 
 merely. He could have made no progress had he not, in the first instance, 
 given his explanations of the prophetical language, as he must otherwise have 
 paused to explain at every step of his observations. But Napier, after his 
 thirty-six fundamental propositions, gives the whole version of the Apocalypse 
 
 * See Newton’s Correspondence with Locke, published by Lord King. 
 + See Biot’s Life of Newton, in the “ Biographie Universelle.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 195 
 
 parallel with the paraphrase and application ; and then supports his interpre- 
 tation of the text with notes and illustrations. In this manner there is a glos- 
 sary to each of the chapters, and he explains all the terms and figures even 
 more minutely than Newton has done. The English philosopher seems to 
 have followed precisely the same explanations, as the curious may see by com- 
 paring their respective works. 
 
 Newton commenced his observations on the Apocalypse by declaring, that 
 “ the folly of interpreters hath been to foretell times and things by their pro- 
 phecy, as if God designed to make them prophets ;” and that the only legiti- 
 mate province of human interpretation was to illustrate the prophecy when 
 fulfilled, by comparing it with the event. Now this is precisely the nature, 
 generally, of Napier’s work, and Newton’s censure has no application to him. 
 For the English philosopher expressly admits, (in a passage we have quoted.) 
 that a time of “ understanding,” 2. e. of foretelling the actual approach of the 
 latter day was nigh ; and certainly he could not mean that that knowledge 
 was only to be exercised after the event had arrived. And even with regard 
 to his preliminary caution, it did not escape the Catholic eye of his biographer 
 Biot, (though the Protestant one of Brewster might wink at the inconsistency,) 
 that Newton “ entrainé lui méme au de la limites quwil avait d’abord assig- 
 nées aux interpretes, il se trouve aussi predire comme eux lepoque de la chute, 
 au du moins du declin de cette domination temporelle.” Our own philosopher, 
 who gathered from the signs of his times that the end was at hand, must, 
 therefore, upon the principles laid down by Sir Isaac Newton himself, stand 
 exonerated in hazarding a calculation which, amid the erudition and practical 
 Christianity of his work, is like a spot on the sun. * 
 
 One effect of that work in his own country is very perceptible,—namely, 
 the impulse it gave to the train of theological learning which succeeded it ; 
 but from all connection with which Dr M‘Crie has tacitly excluded him. 
 
 * Jt is curious to observe the coincidences betwixt Napier and Newton. When the Protestant 
 privileges were attacked by James II., who endeavoured to force an unlettered monk upon Cam- 
 bridge, Newton, who was a great Protestant champion there, was chosen to be one of the dele- 
 gates sent to remonstrate, which they did with success. This forms a pendant to Napier’s mis- 
 sion to James I. Then both philosophers viewed the Apocalypse through a mental eye of the 
 same construction, and put forth commentaries. I do not think Newton ever read the Plain Dis- 
 covery, yet some of his pages seem as if borrowed from it. Newton arranged a chronology for 
 himself. Napier declared it was his intention to do so. Napier explained his Logarithms by the 
 idea of lines generated by moving points, “ fluxu puncti.” Newton, too, regarded lines as gene- 
 rated by the motion of points, and thus arrived at what he termed uations. 
 
196 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Napier’s friend and pastor, Robert Pont, was, like the philosopher, impressed 
 with an idea that the world was departing,—that the hour of understanding 
 was come. But he too was gifted nevertheless with a powerful and pene- 
 trating intellect, was not carried by his own imaginings, and possessed a mind 
 as composed as if it never wandered from its mathematical demonstrations. 
 The consequence was, that he in like manner produced works in aid of theolo- 
 gical science, seasoned, no doubt, with a sprinkling of mysticism, but charac- 
 terized by- profound and philosophical learning. These are written with 
 the same view, and in the very tone of the Plain Discovery; issued from the 
 same press when Napier’s Commentaries were in their first repute; and pro- 
 bably were matured under his advice and inspection. In 1599, Pont’s chronolo- 
 gical work made its appearance, entitled, “ A newe treatise of the right reckon- 
 ing of yeares and ages of the world, and men’s lives, and of the state of the last- 
 decaying age thereof this 1600 yeare of Christ,” &c. In imitation of his friend, 
 he sets forth this treatise in a series of propositions, supported precisely in the 
 same manner, with condensed but recondite dissertations. He prefaces, too, that 
 the exigencies of the times “ moved me to publish this treatise in our English 
 tongue ;” and he refers, like Napier, “ to my more ample discourse to be set 
 out in Latine.” He also arrives at within one year of the same conclusion as 
 to the duration of the world, and gives it very nearly in our philosopher’s 
 words. The seventh and last trumpet, says he, “ will extend to the year of 
 Christ 1785 years, if the world shall continue so long. But the time, by great 
 probabilitie and good arguments, is to be abbreviate for the elect sake.” And 
 when he comes to illustrate his propositions with the mysteries of the Apo- 
 calypse, he says, “ Whereanent I wil remit the readers to the profound and 
 learned Commentaries of John Naper upon the Revelation, wherein the acci- 
 dents of everie particular period of time, both in the one estate and the other, 
 are set out at large.” It was not until the year 1619, after Napier’s death, 
 that Pont brought out his more elaborate Latin treatise entitled, “ De Sabba- 
 ticorum annorum periodis chronologica a mundi exordio,” &c. a work of great 
 learning, and worthy of the high reputation of this “aged pastour in the Kirk 
 of Scotland.” In this, too, he leans upon Napier ; “ Ut recté observat Naperus, 
 et cum eo alii docti;” and calls him, as we have elsewhere noticed, “ Apprimé 
 eruditum amicum nostrum fidelem Christi servum.” 
 
 But the success of Napier’s Commentaries seems to have excited the Scot- 
 tish bishops and Episcopal divines to similar attempts ; and he was followed, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 197 
 
 at no distant period, by Patrick Forbes of Corse,* afterwards Bishop of Aber- 
 deen, and William Cowper, Bishop of Galloway. The production of the for- 
 mer is a long dull argument of 256 quarto pages, critical rather than learned, 
 and written in such barbarous English as to be nearly unintelligible. The 
 version of the Apocalypse is not given; and we look in vain for the phi- 
 losophical arrangement, the varied illustrations, and the beautiful practi- 
 cal expositions of Napier’s Plain Discovery. Like that, it commences with an 
 “ Epistle Dedicatorie” to King James, (but a very fulsome production,) and 
 with an address to the Christian reader. It is decidedly a step backwards, and 
 not in advance, from the mode of investigation developed by our philosopher. 
 
 The Commentary by the Bishop of Galloway is a most respectable monu- 
 ment of the theological science of the age, and a much more readable produc- 
 tion than the work of Forbes ; being clearer, less verbose, and in good English. 
 It is a mere sermon, however, or series of discourses, as compared with Na- 
 pier’s. It is rich, however, in a gem of a commendatory poem, which we cannot 
 resist quoting, both from its beauty and the name that owns it. 
 
 To this admired discoverer give place, 
 Ye who first tam’d the sea,—the winds outran,— 
 And matched the day’s bright coachman in your race, 
 Americus,—Columbus,—Magellan. 
 It is most true that your ingenious care 
 And well-spent pains, another world brought forth 
 For beasts, birds, trees, for gems and metals rare, 
 Yet all being earth, was but of earthly worth. 
 He a more precious world to us descries, 
 Rich in more treasure than both Inds contain,— 
 Fair in more beauty than man’s wit can feign,— 
 Whose sun sets not, whose people never dies. 
 Earth should your brows deck with still verdant bays, 
 But Heaven crown his with stars’ immortal rays. 
 “ Master William Drumond of + Sawthorn-denne.” 
 
 * « An learned Commentarie upon the Revelation,” &c. “ by Patrik Forbes of Cotharis, printed 
 at Middleburg by Richard Schilders,” 1614. Dr M‘Crie has not overlooked him. “ The most 
 learned of the divines who embraced Episcopacy received their education during this period. 
 Patrick Forbes of Corse, the relation and scholar of Melville, and who afterwards became Bishop 
 of Aberdeen, wrote an able defence of the calling of the ministers of the Reformed Churches, and 
 a Commentary on the Reyelation.”—Life of Melville, ii. 316. 
 
 + The celebrated poet and historian. It may be presumed that Sawthorn is a misprint for 
 Hawthorn. 
 
198 THE LIFE OF 
 
 The most interesting pages of the bishop’s volume are the short notices he 
 has given of the writers upon the Apocalypse whose works he had consulted. 
 From this we may perceive that Napier had many ‘imitators both in Britain 
 and abroad. Of our philosopher he thus speaks: “ John Napeir, Laird of 
 Merchistoun, our countryman; worthily renowned as peerelesse indeed for 
 many other his learned workes, and specially for his great paines taken upon 
 this book out of rare learning and singular ingene, which are not commonly 
 found in men of great ranke. Cotterius gives him great praise, but takes it 
 backe again too suddenly to himselfe. He compares the Revelation to a 
 golden mine. Natperus aurifodinam invenit, Vignerus ostendit, Ego vero 
 aurum inde erui. Naiper found it,—Vigner hath shewed it,—but I (saith he) 
 ‘have digged and wrought the gold out of it. He hath resolved this booke 
 by a marveillous artifice, that it is not unlike a building standing upon six and 
 thirty proppes or pillars. These are his propositions, so ingenuously indented, 
 and combyned one with another, that the fall of oue imports the destruction 
 of all. Most certaine it is, that his paines have been exceeding profitable for 
 the discovering of many hard and obscure places of this prophecie.” * 
 
 It is perfectly obvious then, that Napier must be regarded as the illustrious 
 founder of that best school of scientific theology which Bacon desiderated in 
 his Augmentis Scientiarum. We claim for our countryman this honour, even 
 before Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton; and, considering his 
 priority and originality, would be entitled to do so even if his Plain Discovery 
 could not bear a strict comparison with their commentaries. 
 
 * « Pathmos, or a Commentary on the Revelation,” &c. “ by Mr William Cowper, Bishop of 
 Galloway. London, 1619.” Nor has Dr M‘Crie overlooked him. He says his discourses “ are 
 superior to perhaps any sermons of that age. A vein of practical piety runs through all his 
 evangelical instructions,—the style is remarkable for ease and fluency,—and the illustrations are 
 often striking and happy. His residence in England may have given him that command of the 
 English language by which his writings are distinguished.”—Life of Melville, ii. 316. Yet Na- 
 pier’s Commentaries display a more nervous style than Cowper's, and excel them in every thing 
 else.. Dr M‘Crie, however, had not observed Cowper’s Commentaries, which is a pity, as it would 
 have led him to Napier’s. He narrates an amusing anecdote of this Bishop. An old Presbyte- 
 rian woman came from Perth to Edinburgh to scold him for taking a bishoprick. She found the 
 Bishop in state, in a fine house. “ Oh, Sir, what’s this? And ye ha’ really left the guid cause 
 and turned prelate !”—“ Janet, (said the Bishop,) I have got new light upon these things.”— 
 « So I see, Sir, (replied Janet,) for when ye was at Perth ye had but a’e candle, and now ye’'ve 
 got twa before ye; that’s a’ your new light.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 199 
 
 The name of Bacon suggests a view of this monument of Napier’s genius, 
 which shows not only how important it is to his own biography, but how ho- 
 nourable to the literary character of Scotland. In the midst of his scientific 
 pursuits, and when his soul was imbued with the mysterious stores of Num- 
 bers, our philosopher brought his theological work to light. It is a mis- 
 take, as we shall afterwards see, to suppose that mystical theology was the 
 study upon which the years of his manhood were “ wasted ;” and that only 
 in the decline of life did he redeem the time with science and Logarithms. 
 The true statement of his occupations is, that he at once assailed the strong- 
 holds in which human knowledge was confined, at two separate points where 
 the barriers were most formidable. FraNcis Bacon, Napier’s immortal con- 
 temporary, and just ten years younger, was about the same time reviewing 
 those strongholds with a glance so comprehensive, that nothing could escape 
 its penetration. “ He surpassed,” says his elegant eulogist, “ all his predeces- 
 sors in his knowledge of the laws, the resources, and the limits of the human 
 understanding. The sanguine expectations with which he looked forward to 
 the future were founded solely on his confidence in the untried capacities of 
 the mind; and on a conviction of the possibility of invigorating and guiding 
 by means of logical rules, those faculties which, in all our researches after truth, 
 are the organs and instruments to be employed.”* In reviewing eccle- 
 siastical history, Bacon distinguishes the history of prophecy. “ It forms,” 
 says he, “ the second part of ecclesiastical history, and consists of two 
 relatives, the prophecy and the fulfilment. Hence it ought to be founded 
 on this principle, that every scriptural prophecy be compared with the event, 
 and this through all ages, not only in confirmation of the faith, but in order to 
 establish a certain discipline and skill for the interpretation of those prophecies 
 whose accomplishment are yet tocome. ‘This department I mark as deficient, 
 yet it is of a nature to be treated with great learning, sobriety, and reverence, 
 or not at all.”+ In reviewing the department of mathematics, the same mas- 
 ter mind observes of the most recondite branch of the abstract science, “ in 
 arithmetic there is still wanting a sufficient variety of short and commodious 
 
 * Dugald Stewart's Dissertation. 
 
 + De Augmentis Scientiarum, lib. ii. c. xi. Vol. vii. p- 141. edit. 1819. Ad instituendam 
 disciplinam quandam et peritiam in interpretatione prophetiarum, que adhuc restant complende.” 
 —‘ Hoc opus desiderari statuo, verum tale est, ut magna cum sapientia sobrietate et reverentia 
 tractandum sit, aut omnino dimittendum.” 
 
200 THE LIFE OF 
 
 methods of calculation, especially with regard to progressions, whose use in 
 physics is very considerable.” ** A few years before Bacon had promulgated 
 these observations, the retired and contemplative Scotch philosopher had en- 
 deavoured to supply from the resources of his single mind both these deficien- 
 cies. With a mental eye of equal penetration, and only not so excursive because 
 a higher intellectual power impelled him to conquer where it dwelt,—he 
 saw how much was wanting, and instantly set himself to supply what he 
 could. While he toiled to institute “ disciplinam quamdam et peritiam in in- 
 terpretatione prophetiarum,” he was continually extracting from the infi- 
 nite play of numbers the most hidden and precious secrets of logistic. If the 
 writings of Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton, have filled the de- 
 partment of prophecy, so that Bacon could no longer pronounce it deficient,— 
 even before he spoke, Napier had founded that very school by a work which 
 may compete with their most elaborate productions. If the Virgule, the 
 Scacchia, the Lamne, and the Logarithms, can be called such variety of com- 
 pendious methods of calculation as Bacon desiderated, the glory is all due 
 to Napier; and even before the “ the prophet of the arts,” had spoken, the des- 
 tiny of NUMBERS was fulfilled by a mind mightier than his. + 
 
 To have founded a school of mysticism would be little merit in a philoso- 
 pher. Had Napier only (though with success) attempted to demonstrate that 
 the Pope was Antichrist, and had calculated to a day the final judgment, he 
 would have been, after all, no great benefactor of his race. But he is not the 
 less so for having failed in some of his speculations, if it be true that he was the 
 first to imbue such recondite studies, with plain and practical expositions of 
 the Christian scheme ; that he was the first to bring the light of a true phi- 
 
 * In arithmeticis autem nec satis varia et commoda inyenta sunt supputationum compendie ; 
 presertim circa progressiones quarum in physicis usus est non mediocris.—De Aug. Scient. lib. iii. 
 cap. vi. Bacon's Works, Vol. vii. p. 204. 
 
 Bacon could not have written this with any knowledge of the nature and effect of Napier’s in- 
 ventions ; and Napier could not have taken his hint from Bacon, because the baron was dead 
 before the publication of the De Aug. Scient. 
 
 + Ergo in tam faciles numerorum teedia lusus 
 Versa, mathematicos qui latuére prius. 
 Dum Logarithmus erit, dum Virgula, Scacchia, Lamne, 
 Magnum erit et nomen, magne Nepere, tuum. 
 
 ’ Patricius Sandeus. 1617. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 201 
 
 losophy to bear simply but systematically upon scientific theology, and by his 
 writings to demonstrate, that the humble heart of a perfect Christian, and the 
 profound head of a master in science, might be combined to illustrate the 
 Scriptures. Napier, too, even for the most visionary portions of his work, 
 finds an excuse in his times which cannot apply to modern writers. Whe- 
 ther the Pope be Antichrist was then a great political and constitutional 
 question upon which revolutions’ were pending; and although he treated 
 it not as a political partisan, but with the calm and sincere conviction of a 
 pious Christian, still the cause of freedom with which it was immediately 
 mixed up, and the patriotic interests it involved, entirely remove his treatise on 
 the subject from the class of useless and fanciful speculations, which the sub- 
 ject is too apt to engender. In the present state of the world it creates no 
 sensation to hear M. Biot announce, that it is impossible for him to believe 
 the eleventh horn of Daniel to be the Church of Rome; but the times were 
 very different when Napier wrote.* To this we must add, that when such 
 
 * See M. Biot’s review of Brewster’s Life of Newton.—Journal des Savans, 1833, p. 339. 
 Sir David says, ‘“‘ The Newtonian interpretation of the prophecies, and especially that part which 
 M. Biot characterizes as unhappily stamped with the spirit of prejudice, has been adopted by men 
 of the soundest and most unprejudiced minds.” But it is a mistake to talk of the Newtonian 
 interpretation in this matter. Napier (pp. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 352, 353, 354, &c.) has up- 
 wards of nine quarto pages of condensed proofs, to demonstrate “ that the little horn in Daniel, 
 chap. vii. doth signify the Roman Antichrist and not Antiochus properly as some suppose.”— 
 P. 352, edit. 1611. The interpretation ought to be referred to Napier, and not to Newton. If 
 it be true, he is entitled to the merit,—if it be false, his fame can better afford the failure, when 
 we compare the times and circumstances under which he wrote with those of Sir Isaac Newton. 
 It was from the years in which he was a commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church 
 that Napier took his signs of the times; and we must sympathize with him even in his visions, 
 to which Biot himself would not apply the epithet cliberal. No one had as yet commented 
 on the Apocalypse systematically and historically. He wrote in the marvellous year, when the 
 Church of Scotland was threatened from abroad, and betrayed at home,—when his own father- 
 in-law (one in the court of the king) was a leader in the Popish plot. The signs he quotes are 
 all immediately connected with the struggle betwixt the two religions. “ In the 88, 89, and 90 
 yeares of God (says he,)God hath, by the tempest of his winds, miraculously destroied the hudge and 
 monstruous Antichristian flote, that came from Spaine against the professours of God in this poore 
 iland: Againe, God hath stirred up one of the chiefe murtherers of the saints of God in Paris 
 eyen the late King of France, to murther the Duke of Guize, and the Cardinall, his brother, 
 speciall devisers of that cruell massacre. Then further, that mighty God hath stirred up a des- 
 perat Papisticall frier to change lives with that bloody king ; so that by the sword, and mutuall 
 blood-shed of Papists among themselves, the right of the crown of France is now fallen into the 
 
 Cec 
 
202 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Protestants as Calvin and Joseph Scaliger openly avowed their impressions, 
 that the whole Revelation of St John was an inexplicable mystery, of which 
 the very writer was a problem, it is greatly to the honour of Scotland, that 
 from the bosom of so rude a country a commentary should have come, worthy 
 of the first scholar of the age, and capable, as we shall show, of instructing 
 even our own enlightened times. 
 
 When Napier commenced his labours, the modes of investigating and pro- 
 mulgating the Scriptures, though beginning to be animated with a more ra- 
 tional spirit, were yet very faulty. Every country that aspired to be free 
 was now bursting the fetters of the Catholic faith ; but there were very few 
 men, even among the learned, capable of teaching theology. As the century, 
 at the close of which he appeared as an author, advanced, the sacred science 
 reaped the benefit of the restoration of letters, in the substitution of biblical cri- 
 ticism founded upon an examination of the sacred writings, in place of the pon- 
 derous tomes and barbarous terms of the Positivi and Sententiarii, the divines 
 of a false and unintelligible philosophy. Yet prior to Napier’s time not a single 
 work can be pointed to, of the nature and extent of his, which like that is 
 both profound and clear,—of varied erudition, yet simple in its doctrines, and 
 systematic in the arrangement,—at once argumentative, succinct, and rational. 
 Under these circumstances, the world was fortunate to obtain so beautiful an 
 example of Scriptural investigation. He wrote amid a hurricane of contend- 
 ing religions. He produced a work most effective in its disclosure of Anti- 
 christ, but so replete with Christian charity, that its last sentence implores 
 Antichrist to repent and be saved; containing matter for the reflection of 
 sages; yet so clear and simple in its method, that a child might understand ; 
 not, indeed, entirely free from the fallacies and mysticism that must ever at- 
 tend a minute commentary on the subject, but chargeable with neither the 
 weakness nor wildness of our own enlightened century, and treated with pre- 
 cisely that “ sapientia sobrietas et reverentia” which Lord Bacon inculcated. 
 
 One observation occurs forcibly upon a perusal of it, and. that is, its 
 vast superiority in point of style, not merely to his contemporaries, but to 
 
 hands of the King of Navar, who, pretending himselfe to have bene a Protestant, the church of 
 true Protestants under him hath thereby had rest hitherto. And with these miraculous accidents 
 hath this jubilee begun, hoping in God, before the end thereof, to heare that whole papistical city and 
 kingdome of Rome utterly ruined: For these premises were as unlikely before those three yeares.” 
 —Plain Discovery, p. 228. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 203 
 
 the popular and talented apocalyptic writers in Scotland of the present 
 day. When the eye is relieved by the slight alteration which the anti- 
 quated orthography requires, we find ourselves led into his alarming sub- 
 ject by sentiments so rational, conveyed in sentences so distinct and un- 
 affected, that our alarm begins to wear off soon after the title-page is passed. 
 He commences in his introductory address by anticipating what in his time 
 was the dictum of a tyrannical priesthood, and in ours is the pious pro- 
 position of the weak minded,—namely, that every application of human rea- 
 son to investigate the Christian scheme is forbidden. “ Although,” says he, 
 “‘ the nature of the truth be of such force and efficacy, that after it is heard 
 by the spiritual man, it is immediately believed, credited, and embraced ; yet 
 the natural man is so infirm and weak, that his belief must be supplied by na- 
 tural reasons and evident arguments. Wherefore many learned and godly men 
 of the primitive church have gathered out divers pithy and forcible, natural 
 and philosophical arguments to prove and confirm the Christian faith thereby. 
 As in the Ist Corin. xv. 36, Paul, the learned and godly teacher of the Gentiles, 
 persuading them to confess the resurrection of the dead, induceth a marvellous 
 pithy and familiar argument, by a natural comparison of seed sown in the 
 ground, that first must die and be corrupt in the earth, and then doth it quick- 
 en up and rise again after another form than it was sown into. And likewise, 
 other learned doctors of the primitive church, writing to the Ethnicks, (who 
 stirred at the Virgin’s conception, and at Christ’s divinity,) reasoneth with them 
 on this manner, saying, ‘ your Gods, as ye believe,’ have conversed with many 
 women among you, and have begotten many children who have wrought no 
 miracles; and how can ye, that so believe, deny us that our great God hath 
 begotten one Son, in whom divinity and humanity are conjoined ; seeing your 
 eyes and forefathers have seen so many and divine miracles wrought by him 
 and in his name. And so most wisely used they these Gentiles’ own opinions 
 and arguments against themselves ; which moved the malicious apostate Julian 
 the Emperor to discharge from Christians the schools and learning of philo- 
 sophy, yielding the reason, because saith he, propris pennis perimur.” 
 
 This is the preamble of one who saw far before him, and deeply into his sub- 
 ject; and the quiet, rational, historical tone of this fine old Scottish baron 
 will be best appreciated by glancing for a moment to the most popular work 
 on the same subject of the present day. Keith thus commences his Signs of 
 
204 THE LIFE OF 
 
 the Times :* “ Never, perhaps, in the history of man, were the times more 
 ominous, or pregnant with greater events than the present. The signs of them 
 are in many respects before the eyes of men, and need not to be told.” “ It is 
 not a single cloud surcharged with electricity, on the rending of which a mo- 
 mentary flash might appear, and the thunderbolt shiver a pine, and scathe a 
 few lowly shrubs that is now rising into view; but the whole atmosphere is 
 lowering, a gathering storm is accumulating fearfully in every region,—the 
 lightning is already seen gleaming,” &c. &c. “ A citizen king, the choice of 
 the people, and not a military usurper, sits on the throne of the Capets; and, 
 as if the signal had gone throughout the world quick as lightning,” &c. “ from 
 the banks of the Don to the Tagus,” &c. “ from the new states of South Ame- 
 rica to the hitherto unchangeable China, skirting Africa and traversing Asia, 
 to the extremity of the globe on the frozen North, there are signs of change 
 in every country under Heaven,” &c. But no sooner is his first storm past, 
 than the same author utters a sentiment highly complimentary to the more 
 old fashioned style of our philosopher. “ It is not by a light issuing from the 
 earth, nor by the meteor gleam of high imaginations, that a page of future his- 
 tory can be read, or the dark recesses of futurity be disclosed.” 
 
 This characteristic difference betwixt Napier and the moderns of the nine- 
 teenth century prevails throughout the whole of their respective expositions. + 
 
 * « Sions of the Times,” &c. by the Rev. Alex. Keith, &c. 2d edit. Edinburgh, 1832. See 
 Introduction, &c. 
 
 + See also “ A Dissertation on the Seals and Trumpets of the Apocalypse, and the prophetical 
 period of 1260 years, by William Cunninghame, Esq. of Lainshaw, in the county of Ayr, 3d edit. 
 Corrected and Enlarged.”—“ The result,” says the author, “ of thirty years’ meditations on this won- 
 derful book.” But cui bono? To have excused the work it ought to have been more learned, more 
 practical, more scriptural, more clear, and more original than Napier’s ; and these are precisely the 
 advantages possessed by the old philosopher over the modern enthusiast. Yet it would appear, that in_ 
 his thirty years’ meditation he had never read Napier. He says, “ to those who are conversant with 
 the writings of the older commentators on the Apocalypse, it will be evident that I have carefully 
 consulted their works,” &c. p. 28. He lays great stress upon the proposition, that “ the whole se- 
 ries of the first siz seals relates to the church, with the exception of the political earthquake of the 
 sixth,” p. 26, and not that the first applies to the church and the rest to the empire; and he adds, 
 « Archdeacon Woodhouse, in his learned work on the Apocalypse, seems to he the first writer who 
 has adopted” the view in the above proposition; “ till I saw his work I rested in the commonly 
 received interpretation of the above seals.” Now, one of Napier’s divisions of the Apocalypse is 
 into secular and ecclesiastical history. To the seals he refers the history of the church,—l1st Seal, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 205 
 
 A man of sound and sober judgment may read the Plain Discovery, and, without 
 being satisfied of the accuracy of all its interpretations, close the volume a wiser 
 and a better man than when he opened it. In the perusal his mind is suffered 
 . to repose upon the sacred volume itself; and, without being either warpt or ir- 
 ritated by the fancies of the ancient commentator, he may gather many a bright 
 light and consolatory reflection from the practical wisdom and pure Christianity 
 of which the staple of his work consists. 
 
 With all his simplicity, Napier is singularly close and critical in his commen- 
 tary. For instance, Bishop Newton, in commenting upon the first chapter of the 
 Apocalypse, says, “ In the first vision Jesus Christ, or his angel, speaking in his 
 name and acting in his person, appears,” &c. Napier sifts this material point. 
 “ Some,” says he, “ may think this not to be Christ, but an angel bearing the 
 type and figure of Christ, whom Christ had deputed;” and then, that the 
 glory of God may not be given to angels, he enters into a close and beautiful 
 argument to prove that quast filius hominis, and similis filio hominis, are meant 
 not of a representation of Christ by another, but of Christ actually in the 
 Godhead, though made visible to the prophet in the semelitude of his flesh ; 
 “ not in his humanity, as the Son of Man, but in the likeness of the Son of 
 Man.”t He then anticipates and exposes a sophism in the following character- 
 istic manner: “ Here may some induce a sophism, saying, He who was dead 
 and revived eternally, appeared to John. But Christ in his humanity died, and 
 revived again eternally: therefore, Christ in his humanity appeared unto John. 
 
 Christ opens and preaches the Gospel,—St Matthew. 2d Seal, Persecution of the church,—St 
 Mark. 3d Seal, Increase of the Gospel,— St Luke. 4th Seal, Heresies in the church,—S¢ John. 
 5th Seal, Martyrs in thechurch under Nero. 6th Seal, partly ecclesiastical and partly secular; being 
 the persecution of the church, and the revolting of the nations. So much for Archdeacon Wood- 
 house’s originality. Again; ‘“ Interpreters,” says Mr Cunninghame, “ have generally supposed 
 that the rider on the white horse is our Lord himself.” He dissents and again quotes Archdeacon 
 Woodhouse, who says, “ the progress of the white horse seems to be rather that of the Christian 
 religion,’ &c. But Napier explained all this centuries prior to Cunninghame or the Deacon before 
 him. He interprets it, “the pure and holy teachers and apostles,” p. 140. 
 
 Keith takes his signs from “ Annual Register,”—“ Capt. Alexander's Travels,’—“ Spain, by 
 H. D. Inglis,’ —“ Sir Walter Scott's Napoleon,”—Edinburgh Almanack,”—“ Victims of Don 
 Miguel's cruelty, Courter, July 13, 1831.” But this author lost a sign; for Count Cape St 
 Vincent had not then taken Don Miguel’s fleet. In Cunninghame, Napier appears as if carica- 
 tured ; in Keith, as if travestied. 
 
 + P. 103. 
 
206 THE LIFE OF 
 
 For opening the deceit of this caption, the subject of the assumption is Christ 
 alone: His atiributum is to die in His humanity, and to revive again eternally ; 
 and therefore neither this His humanity, nor any part of this attributum, ought 
 to be repeated in the conclusion, but only the subjectum Christ, with the at- 
 tributum propositionis after this form : He who was dead and liveth eternally 
 appeared unto John; but Christ died in His humanity, and revived again eter- 
 nally : therefore Christ appeared unto John. And to the effect that the vul- 
 gar capacities may understand these frauds, this is, as one would say in a fa- 
 miliar example, he who carried this book to you wrote the same; but on 
 horseback I carried this book to you, therefore on horseback I wrote this 
 book. Whereas the right argument should be this wise disposed: he who 
 carried this book to you wrote the same; but I carried this book to you on 
 horseback ; or rather, simply, but I carried this book to you; therefore I wrote 
 this book. Praying, therefore, the simple to beware of these and the like so- 
 phisms, J thought good in this due place, to yield this one by way of example.” * 
 
 Both Napier and Kepler took their illustration of the Trinity from 
 science. The former notices “the marvellous harmony and accord in all 
 points betwixt God and His holy Jerusalem.” “ God is one; so here by 
 one only spiritual Jerusalem He representeth His church. There be three 
 equal persons of the Deity; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So be there 
 here of this Jerusalem three equal dimensions of longitude, latitude, and 
 altitude. None of the three persons of the Deity is separable from other ; 
 so none of these three dimensions of a city, or of any solid body, can be 
 separable one from another, for then should it become a superfice and no 
 solid body. The three persons of the Deity and their functions cannot be 
 confounded ; so are not these three dimensions confounded, for the length 
 is not the breadth, nor the breadth the height.”+ Kepler, in his Har- 
 monices Mundt, took the spherical world as an image of the Trinity. He 
 supposed the Father the centre, the Son the surface, and the Holy Ghost all 
 that is betwixt the centre and the surface; and thus inseparable without be- 
 ing confounded. Kepler’s Christianity, however, was mixed up with the wild- 
 est flights of an exuberant imagination. Napier’s presents that chastened so- 
 briety throughout, which renders many of his notes and illustrations plain and 
 practical discourses. How refreshing is it to turn from some noisy tirade in 
 our own times against good works, to a reconcilement of the doctrines so 
 
 * P. 106. + P. 313. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 207 
 
 simple and satisfactory as this: “ By works here are we judged and justified, 
 and not by faith only; as also James ii. 24, testifieth ; meaning thereby, that 
 of lively faith, and of the good works that follow thereupon, man is justified ; 
 and not of that dead faith that is by itself alone without any good works; 
 otherwise were the words of Paul (Rom. 3. 28,) expressly contrary to this text 
 and to James; for saith Paul, ‘ we are justified by faith without the works of 
 the law; that is to say, not without good works whatsoever; but meaning 
 that we are justified by lively faith, with such small good works as our weak 
 nature will suffer that faith to produce, although it be without the precise 
 works that the law requireth. And for confirmation of this interpretation, 
 and union of these texts, ye shall find both James and Paul agree in divers 
 places that faith without works is a dead faith, and serveth nothing to justifi- 
 cation. And again they agree both, that all works, how good soever they seem, 
 that proceed not from faith are evil. And so it is no difference to say with 
 Saint Paul, we are justified by fruitful faith, or faith that produceth good 
 works, although not the works that the law requireth; or to say with James, 
 and here with Saint John, we are justified by faithful works; seeing a work- 
 ing faith and faithful works are inseparable, and none can have the one with- 
 out the other. So for conclusion, these works by the which here we are judg- 
 ed, are to be esteemed good or evil, not in themselves or in so far as they sa- 
 tisfy the law, (for so were all works evil and imperfect,) but in so far as they 
 have or want faith adjoined with them, they are accounted good or evil only.”* 
 
 As some of our modern theologians might cull from him a correction of their 
 mysticism, so might others of their credulity. A popular historian of the Church 
 of Christ solemnly records, as a Christian miracle, the fable that “ Constantine 
 marching from France into Italy against Maxentius, on an expedition which 
 was likely either to exalt or ruin him, was oppressed with anxiety. Some god 
 he thought needful to protect him. The God of the Christians he was most 
 inclined to respect.”——“ He prayed, he implored, with much vehemence and 
 importunity, and God left him not unanswered. While he was marching with 
 his forces in the afternoon, the trophy of the cross appeared very luminous in 
 the heavens, higher than the sun, with this inscription, ‘ Conquer by this.’ He 
 and his soldiers were astonished at the sight. But he continued pondering on 
 the event till night. And Christ appeared to him when asleep, with the same 
 sign of the cross, and directed him to make use of the symbol as his military 
 
 Pp 296). 
 
208 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ensign.” * 
 
 But Napier, with much better reason, takes this as about the com- 
 mencement of the abused mark of the cross, “ which,” says he, ‘‘ was now in- 
 duced among the Christians by the fabulous alleagance of two feigned mira- 
 cles; the one, that Queen Helen the mother of Constantine, admonished by 
 an heavenly vision, passed, and did find that very real cross whereon our Lord 
 suffered ; the other, that Constantine her son, fighting against Maxentius, saw 
 appear in the air the figure of a cross, with these words, zm hoc signo vinces, 
 by this mark thou shalt overcome, with which mark and inscription the Por- 
 tugal ducat and some other coins of late are imprinted.” + 
 
 He interprets the text (Rev. xx. 6,) regarding the reign of Christ for a 
 thousand years, to mean eternity, and thus treats the millenary doctrine : 
 “ By this text, literally and definitely taken, resulted the great error of Cerin- 
 thus, and his sects of Chilasts or Millenaries, who thought our reign with 
 Christ to be on earth, and temporal, for a thousand years, and we then again 
 to die and ly dead another thousand years, and so about by vicissitudes, as 
 did of old the Platonicks, and of new in a manner the Originists. Further, 
 some also, by the mistaking of this text, suspected the authority of this whole 
 Revelation ; but to the true Christian conceiver thereof, both is the authority 
 of this book confirmed, and the heresy of the miilenaries refelled.” 
 
 The following may be taken as an example of his philological learning, 
 of which there are many indications: “The vulgar text saith here, (Rev. x. 7,) 
 quum ceperit tube canere consummabitur mysterium magnum ; that is, 
 ‘When he begins to blow the trumpet ;’ but the original Greek may ra- 
 ther import, ‘ After he shall blow the trumpet ;’ for the word éra» may more 
 justly be taken for after than for immediately or incontinently when, &c. as 
 is to be seen in Mark iv. 32, where ora» is taken for a long time after, and 
 not instantly ; for there it is not meaned that the seed which is sown doth in- 
 stantly rise up; and John viii. 28, by the word éray meaned not that instant- 
 ly after the crucifying of Christ they should know him truly, but rather after 
 a certain progress of time from his passion. We therefore here justly dis- 
 assent from the vulgar translation,” &c. And thus he scatters classical allu- 
 sions and quotations throughout his commentaries. “ This Susy is the word 
 Thyia, which Theophrastus reporteth to be a long-lasting and incorruptible 
 timber ; thereof mentioneth Pliny, Lib. xiii. c. xvi. ; and with this timber tem: 
 
 * Milner’s History of the Church of Christ, Vol. ii. p. 41. Edit. 1827. 
 + Napier says, “ Constantine was illuded by a cross shadow in the clouds.” —pp. 75, 89. 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 209 
 
 ples in old times were decored and, replenished.” Again, “ Aretas reporteth 
 that the ancients were accustomed to give a certain white stone to him that 
 did get the victory in their plays and games. Moreover, among the ancients 
 they that cleansed or absolved an accused person did cast in a white stone, and 
 they that filed or convicted him did cast in a black stone, as Ovid testifieth, 
 Lib. xv. Metamorph. in these words, 
 
 “ Mos erat antiquis, niveis atrisque lapillis, 
 
 > 99 
 
 His damnare reos, < illis absolvere culpa. 
 
 Nor must we omit a notice that may interest the antiquaries. When illus- 
 trating the names of blasphemy upon the seven heads of the beast, our philo- 
 sopher refers to the superscriptions and titles dedicatory of the Roman mo- 
 numents; “as,” says he, “ Diis manibus, Fortuna, Plutoni, Veneri, Priapo ; 
 and even at Musselburgh, among ourselves in Scotland, a foundation of a Ro- 
 man monument lately found, now utterly demolished, bearing this inscrip- 
 tion dedicatory, Apollint Granno Quintus Lucius Sabinianus Proconsul, 
 Aug.” 
 
 Sometimes he illustrates a proposition as Lord Stair might have done. 
 “ Our lawyers, in the account of the six days that go betwixt every citation 
 and summons of the letters of four forms, neither account the first day of the 
 summons, neither the next day, nor any day upon which they do summons; 
 but, leaving out the extremes, they reckon only the six middle whole days, upon 
 which no citation or summons falleth. As, for example, if the first summons 
 be execute upon Tuesday, it is not lawful to execute the next summons before 
 the next Tuesday, and this they call a summons of six days.” (We wish that 
 my Lord Stair had always been as distinct.) At other times, as if, like Kep- 
 ler, he could have written a treatise on music. ‘“* Among the musicians, the 
 eighth voice, or octave above de-sol-re, is called de-la-sol-re, and the octave 
 above de-la-sol-re is called de-la-sol ; yet, from de-sol-re to de-la-sol, there are 
 not twice eight, or sixteen voices or harmonical notes, but fourteen alanerlie ; 
 and yet is that space called two octaves.” 
 
 These are but a few, and, perhaps, not the best selected examples of the 
 practical nature of his theological works, upon a subject, and in times, which 
 afforded every temptation to run into barbarous mysticism and controversial 
 jargon. Such is the manner which our philosopher adopted to instruct the 
 uninformed of his own country ; the sobriefas et sapientia with which he 
 handled the dangerous subject of prophecy. 
 
 Dd 
 
210 | THE LIFE OF 
 
 At the end of his treatise are added, “certaine oracles of Sibylla,” the au- 
 thenticity of which Napier doubted, but inserted in this place rather than omit 
 them entirely, as they were ancient, generally believed, and coincided with the 
 Scriptural prophecies. They are chiefly to be noticed, however, as affording 
 a good specimen of his powers of versification, and the extent to which he car- 
 ried his flirtation with the muses. He mentions that he gives these oracles 
 from Castalio’s Latin translation, “ faithfully Englished this way.” Of these 
 we may select a few specimens. 
 
 O cursed and unhappy Italy, 
 
 Unmeind or mourned for, barren shalt thou be. 
 To ground as green as wilderness unwrought, 
 To woodes wild, and bushes beis thou brought. 
 
 Far shalt thou flit into an uncouth land, 
 
 Thy riches shall be reft out of thine hand. 
 
 In thy wall-steds shall wolves and tods convene. 
 Waste shalt thou be, as thou hadst never been. 
 Where then shall be thy oracles divine ? 
 
 What golden Gods shall keep or save thee syne ? 
 What God, I say, of copper or of stone. 
 
 Where then shall be the consultation 
 
 Of thy senate? What helps thy noble race 
 
 Of Saturn, Jove or Rhea, in this case, 
 
 Whose senseless souls and idols thou before 
 Religiously didst worship and adore. 
 
 The fathers old, and babes shall mourn for thee, 
 Beholding then thy dolorous destiny. 
 
 On Tiber banks lamenting sore thy case, 
 
 Sad shall they sit with many loud alace. 
 Lament shall you, and mourn, laying aside 
 
 Thy purple weed, imperial robes of pride, 
 
 And into sackcloth sitting sorrowful, 
 
 Repeat shalt thou thy plaintis pitiful. 
 
 O royal Rome, thou bragging prince but peer, 
 Of Latin land the only daughter dear ; 
 
 Thy pride, but pomp, ruined shall remain, 
 Thou, once trode down, shall never rise again ; 
 For gone shall be the glore of that armie, 
 
 That bears the eagles in their enseignie. 
 
 “ Then ends the world, then comes the latter light, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 211 
 
 Then God shall come to judge his folk aright. 
 But first shall fall on Rome, but resistance, 
 
 Of God, his wrath, the wofull vengeance. 
 
 A wofull life, a bloudie time shall be. 
 
 Oh! people rude, oh land of crueltie, 
 
 Thou little lookest, nor doth regard aright, 
 
 How poor and bare thou first came in the light, _ 
 That to the like again you should return, 
 
 And last, before a dreadful judge should murne. 
 
 We have known an Oxford prize-poem worse than this. 
 
 There is one view arising from the whole of this chapter of our philosopher’s 
 history which must not be omitted. Those who are incapable of appreciating 
 the power and originality of mind necessary to have invented the Logarithms, 
 but who, at the same time, can just understand that Napier did something for 
 science, are apt to regard him in the same light that the historian Pinkerton 
 did,—** only an useful abbreviator of a particular branch of the mathematics.” 
 In this view of his capacities, he would rank with that inferior class of scienti- 
 fic men, who possess power sufficient to act upon principles already discovered, 
 but have not within themselves the intellectual resources for establishing ori- 
 ginal principles. How mistaken this view of Napier’s genius is, will be best 
 seen when we come to the history of his mathematical life. But it is not unim- 
 portant to observe, and it will stand as an excuse for our having dwelt so long 
 upon the subject, that from the review of his theological character we may arrive 
 at the same conclusion, that, as a man of science, he must have belonged to the 
 very highest class, the class of Newton, and could not have been a mere mathema- 
 tician. Ina recent philosophical production, the question has been admirably 
 considered, how far the study of mathematics is unfavourable to religious views; 
 or, to put the proposition more fully in the words of the author, how far 
 “ deductive habits, or the impression produced on men’s minds by tracing the 
 consequences of ascertained laws,” are unfavourable to “ a belief in a Divine 
 Author of the universe, by whom its laws were ordained and established.” * 
 Now, the value of this writer’s solution of the question, is the establish- 
 ing a distinction betwixt those capable of original discovery, and those 
 
 * Astronomy and General Physics considered with reference to Natural Theology, by the Rev. 
 William Whewell, M. A. Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge. London, 1833,— 
 
 P. 302, et infra. 
 
212 THE LIFE OF 
 
 only occupied with derivative speculations. If there be, says his argument, 
 a tendency in men of science to refer every thing to mechanical causes, and to 
 exclude from their view all reference to an intelligent First Cause and governor, 
 it is not owing to “ the mathematical habits of the mind, but the deficiency of 
 the habit of apprehending truth of other kinds,—not a clear insight into the 
 mathematical consequences of principles, but a want of a clear view of the nature 
 and foundation of principles,—not the talent for generalizing geometrical or 
 mechanical relations, but the tendency to erect such relations into ultimatetruths 
 and efficient causes.” 
 
 How well does this illustrate the intellectual calibre of the man who 
 wrote the Plain Discovery, and invented the Logarithms; and how bright 
 an example does Napier afford, that a falling off from religion must ar- 
 gue a defective rather than a perfect scientific constitution ? How well does 
 this prove that it would be great neglect in his biographer not to bring 
 prominently into view the whole history of his theological studies ? For it 
 is the combined view of the two great characteristics of his mind, its RELI- 
 GION and its SCIENCE, that will best prove him to have been, not “ the ma- 
 thematical philosopher dwelling in his own bright and pleasant land of deduc- 
 tive reasoning, till he turns with disgust from all the speculations in which 
 his practical faculties, his moral sense, his capacity of religious hope and be- 
 lief, are to be called into action ;’—but one of “ those mathematicians whose 
 minds have been less partially exercised,—the great discoverers of the truths 
 which others apply,—the philosophers who have looked upwards as well as 
 downwards,—to the unknown as well as to the known,—to ulterior as well 
 as proximate principles,—and who have perpetually looked forward beyond 
 mere material laws and causes, to a First Cause of the moral and material 
 world.” * 
 
 * Astronomy and General Physics considered with reference to Natural Theology, by the Rey. 
 William Whewell, M. A. Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge, pp. 337, 339, 340. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 213 
 
 CHAPTER VT. 
 
 HavineG bestowed a chapter upon our philosopher’s theological works, and 
 thereby, it is hoped, at least afforded the means of forming a juster estimate of 
 his character in that respect ; we would have wished to relieve the dulness of 
 our imperfect review, by introducing the reader more particularly to Napier 
 himself,—by making him as well acquainted with the Baron of Merchiston 
 as he is with the Baron of Bradwardine,—and inducing him to spend, like 
 Henry Briggs, * one whole month with him in his war and weather-beaten 
 tower. We are certain that a month of real life at Merchiston, enjoyed 
 through the safe medium of a minute and graphic account, would satisfy the 
 keenest appetite for romance, without offending the lovers of truth and his- 
 tory. From what can be discovered, it is obvious that all the ingredients es- 
 sential to the most fascinating historical novel actually occurred in the career 
 of the Inventor of Logarithms. Independently of his sound and _ practical 
 views of the Christian scheme, and of his substantial triumphs in mathema- 
 tics, he moved amid a halo of the romance of religion, the romance of science, 
 and the romance of history. He persuaded others no less than himself, that 
 he had ascertained about the period of the end of all things earthly ; and he 
 stood among the Protestants of Europe as the being who, by the intensity of 
 his faith, and the depth of his speculations, had been enabled to read the 
 world its destiny, and from encountering whom the boldest of the Catholic 
 champions shrunk back. He had gazed, too, upon the stars with more than 
 mortal] aspirations ; and while he was silently determining, that, through his 
 means, their eternal paths should be subjected to a more certain and rigorous 
 
 * « Ubi humanissime ab eo acceptus, hest per integrum mensem,” says Briggs of his visit to 
 Merchiston. 
 
214 THE LIFE OF 
 
 scrutiny, he had caught a corner, at least, of the mantle of Cardan, and loved 
 to trifle with those mysterious indices of futurity. All this, in addition to 
 the romantic historical relations already traced, would give us something be- 
 yond “ the cold, dry, hard outlines which history delineates ;”* and did we 
 but possess good store of the connecting links of daily incident and domestic 
 intercourse, there would be in this instance little need “ to fill up and round 
 the sketch with the colouring of a warm and vivid imagination, which gives 
 light and life to the actors and speakers in the drama of past ages.” | With- 
 out the pen of Scott, but with some of those every-day facts which must have 
 connected the prominent features of our philosopher’s life, one month in Mer- 
 chiston, at any time from the epoch of the Douglas wars to the commencement 
 of the seventeenth century, would be fairly worth two,—even at Tully-Veolan. 
 
 There is this remarkable circumstance in his history, that while he pos- 
 sessed the respect and confidence of the most able and Christian pastors of the 
 Reformed Church, and while he was looked up to and consulted by the Ge- 
 neral Assembly, of which he was for years a member, he was at the same time 
 regarded, and not merely by the vulgar, as one who possessed certain powers 
 of darkness, the very character of which was in those days dangerous to the 
 possessor. ‘Traditions to this effect might be met with in the cottages and 
 nurseries in and about the metropolis of Scotland not many years ago; and 
 the marvels attributed to our philosopher, with the aid of a jet-black cock 
 supposed to be a familiar spirit bound to him in that shape, have, within the 
 memory of the present generation, been narrated by the old, and listened to 
 by the young. We cannot help suspecting that the legend of the black cock 
 is in some way connected with the hereditary office of king’s poulterer (Pultrie 
 Regis,) for many generations in the family of Merchiston, and which descend- 
 ed to John Napier. This office is repeatedly mentioned in the family charters 
 as appertaining to the “ pultre landis,” hard by the village of Dene, in the 
 shire of Linlithgow. ‘The duties were to be performed by the possessor or 
 his deputies ; and the king was entitled to demand the yearly homage of a 
 present of poultry from the feudal holder. It is not improbable that our phi- 
 losopher made a pet of some jetty chanticleer, which he cherished as the badge 
 of his office, and as worthy of being presented to the king, si petatur.t If so, 
 
 * Waverley. + Ibid. 
 
 + The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge has Mephostophilized our philosopher. 
 «« It was believed, it seems, that he was attended by a familiar spirit in the shape of a large black 
 dog.’ —Pursuit of Knowledge under Difficulties. His contemporary Tycho was constantly at- 
 tended by “ son chien, qu'il aimoit beaucoup, qu'il avoit meme pris pour son symbole, et qu'il avoit 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 215 
 
 there can be little doubt that in those days it would pass for a spirit. A story 
 was once abroad of this animal, which has since reappeared in some popular 
 drama or nursery tale. It is said that Napier adopted the policy of Mahomet 
 to control his own domestics, and impressed them with a belief that he and 
 chanticleer together could detect them in their most secret doings. Having 
 missed some property, and suspecting his servants, he ordered them one by 
 one into a dark room, where his favourite was confined, and declared that the 
 cock would crow when the guilty one stroked his back, as each was required 
 to do. The cock remained silent during all the ceremony ; but the hands of 
 one of the servants were found to be entirely free from the soot with which 
 the feathers of the mysterious bird had been anointed. The story of his be- 
 witching the pigeons is yet remembered about the neighbourhood of Merchis- 
 ton. He had been annoyed by the flocks that ate up his grain, and threaten- 
 ed to pond them. “ Do so, if you can catch them,” said probably his “ nich- 
 bour, the Lard of Roslin ;” and next morning the fields about “Merchiston 
 were alive with reeling pigeons, who were easily made captives, from the in- 
 toxicating effect of a dose of saturated pease.* There are other traditions of 
 the Laird of Merchiston which savour more of supernatural means ; but lest 
 the reader suspect us of taking liberties with his credulity, we shal) content 
 ourselves with referring to similar reminiscences, met with about the place of 
 Gartness, part of the Napier property in the Menteith, in the words of the 
 clergyman who collected them for the Statistical Account of Scotland. 
 
 * Adjoining the mill of Gartness are the remains of an old house in which 
 John Napier of Merchiston, Inventor of Logarithms, resided a great part of 
 his time, (for some years,) when he was making his calculations. It is reported 
 that the noise of the cascade being constant, never gave him uneasiness ; but 
 that the clack of the mill, which was only occasional, greatly disturbed his 
 thoughts. He was therefore, when in deep study, sometimes under the neces- 
 sity of desiring the miller to stop the mill, that the train of his ideas might 
 not be interrupted. He used frequently to walk out in his night-gown and 
 cap. This, with some things which to the vulgar appeared rather odd, fixed 
 on him the character of a warlock. It was firmly believed, and currently re- 
 ported, that he was in compact with the Devil; and that the time he spent in 
 
 fait représenter dans une Médaille, ou étoient gravés ces mots, Tychonis Brahei delitium.”—His- 
 toire des Philosophes Modernes, T. v. p. 59, 1766. Upon the seal of a letter written by one of 
 Napier’s brothers, I find the symbol of a cock. 
 
 * A field in front of Merchiston is pointed out as the scene of this exploit, and still called “ the 
 
 Doo Park.” 
 
216 THE LIFE OF | 
 
 study was spent in learning the black art, and holding conversations with Old 
 Nick.”* From this worthy clergyman’s narrative, we might be led to sup- 
 pose, that our philosopher cooled himself of an evening by walking abroad in 
 his night-gown and night-cap ; a freak more decent to be sure, yet even more 
 ridiculous than the ecstacy of Archimedes, who rushed naked from the bath 
 through the streets of Syracuse. But if the reader will turn to the etching 
 which illustrates our Preface, he will there see the sober cowl and gown in 
 which, we doubt not, our philosopher frequently appeared ; and he will exone- 
 rate him from the charge of a more eccentric costume. He himself remarks, 
 in his notes upon the first chapter of the Apocalypse, “long garments or 
 gownes were of olde, and to this day, worne of doctors and senatours, to repre- 
 sent gravitie and wisedome.” 
 
 If, as the Reverend Mr Ure reports, John Napier really enjoyed in his own 
 times the character of “ holding conversations with Old Nick,” it is a most re- 
 markable fact in his history, that never for a moment did he fall into the 
 slightest “ cummer” on that account. The period of the Popish conspiracy, 
 to which we have brought down his memoirs, was particularly fertile in per- 
 secutions for sorcery and witchcraft; and, when the cry was once raised 
 against an individual, neither rank nor innocence were sufficient to afford pro- 
 tection. ‘The name of Napier, too, had about this time come under that fatal 
 imputation. David Moysie the notary (who was well acquainted with the 
 Merchiston family during the life of the philosopher) records, that, in the year 
 1590, “ Barbara Neapper, and Euphane M‘Kallian, [a daughter of the Lord 
 of Session of that name,] wemen of guid reputation afoir, wer teane as 
 witches, + with sundrie utheris, baithe men and weemen. Sampsoun wes 
 brunt, and died weill; the rest wes keepit. Amangis the rest, ane Ritchie 
 Grahame, accusit of witchcraft, confest many poyntis, and declaired that the 
 Erle of Bothuell wes ane treffecker with him and utheris, anent the conspyring 
 of the kingis dead. Quhairupone the Erle of Bothuell being send for and ac- 
 cusit, being ane great poynt of treasoune, wes committed to waird within the 
 Castle of Edinburgh, and verie straitlie keepit.”. This accusation and harsh 
 treatment drove Bothwell to the roving life of turbulence and treason, which 
 for several years kept King James in constant and almost ludicrous terror ; 
 until the Earl, who long contrived to make his hand save his head, was at last 
 
 * Account of the Parish of Killearn, Stirlingshire, by the Rev. Mr David Ure, M. A., Minis- 
 ter, Glasgow. Statistical Account, Vol. XVI. p. 104. 
 + See Mr Pitcairn’s Collection, for their trial and whole history. 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. Q17 
 
 driven into exile. I cannot discover the slightest connection betwixt Bar- 
 bara Napier and the family of Merchiston ; but it is singular that John Na- 
 pier may be traced into one very curious instance of dangerous proximity to 
 this Earl of Bothwell, to whom the imputation of sorcery clung, like the mark 
 of Cain, wherever he went. 
 
 A very pleasant exercise of such powers was the discovery of hidden 
 treasure, which, from the lawless and unsettled state of the country, (so 
 strongly commented upon by Napier in his letter to the king,) was not un- 
 frequently secreted by those who never returned to recover it. At the crisis 
 of the battle of Glenlivet, when the Popish earls defeated Argyle, the public 
 mind was deeply imbued with the imagination of effecting such precious 
 discoveries by supernatural means. It appears that Argyle had along with 
 him in the field of battle a noted sorceress, for the express purpose of bringing 
 to light, by her incantations, the treasures hid under ground by the terrified in- 
 habitants.* This was one of the arts for which Bothwell was famed ; a repu- 
 tation he attempted to turn to profitable account in his exile. The traveller 
 and poet, George Sandys, mentions, that when he was abroad in the year 
 1610, ** a certain Calabrian, hearing that I was an Englishman, came to me, 
 and would needs persuade me that I had insight in magick, for that Earl 
 Bothwell was my countryman, who lives at Naples, and is in those parts 
 famous for suspected necromancy ;” and Sir Charles Cornwallis, in a letter 
 to the Lords of the Privy-Council, dated from Valladolid 1605, after mentioning 
 some of the banished nobleman’s scandalous freaks on the continent, adds, 
 “ this moves the rest of his carriages to be looked into; and, by takeing upon 
 him to tell fortunes and help men to goods purloyned, he hath incurred the 
 suspicion of a sorcerer.” + Now it must be observed, that before the earl was 
 driven out of Scotland, one of his sworn friends and most useful allies was that 
 turbulent and irregular baron, Robert Logan of Restalrig. Hewas the head of an 
 ancient and powerful family, long in possession of what amounted to a principali- 
 ty of property about the town of Leith, but which was greatly dissipated in the 
 hands of this unprincipled representative. Robert Logan, however, had made 
 
 ? 
 
 * There is preserved in the Advocates’ Library a Latin manuscript, being a contemporary cir- 
 cumstantial account of the battle of Glenlivet or Belrinnes, where this fact is particularly men- 
 tioned, “ Adde et illud quod insignem veneficam itineris comitem habuerint, eo consilio ut suppel- 
 lectilem ab incolis metu reconditam, et thesauros abstrusos, incantationibus proderat,” &c. 
 
 + Winwood’s Memorials of State Affairs. 
 Ee 
 
218 THE LIFE OF 
 
 one acquisition of no small value to a person of his propensities and habits, and 
 that was the fortress of Fastcastle, being one of the most impregnable places 
 in the kingdom. Overhanging a sheer precipice of vast height washed by the 
 German Ocean, it required very little skill in those times to render such a strong- 
 hold as secure from mortal invasion as the depths of the ocean.* Logan did 
 not constantly inhabit this wild and dreary fastness, but reserved it for des- 
 perate emergencies, living occasionally in a more Christian-looking dwelling- 
 place in the vicinity. According to a mass of evidence collected on the sub- 
 ject, it was by this baron, in conjunction with the Earl of Gowrie, that the 
 fearful conspiracy was hatched to carry off King James and seclude him from 
 human aid and converse in the dungeons of Fastcastle. Here it was that 
 Francis Earl of Bothwell was always sure of a safe retreat when hard pres- 
 sed by the king’s troops or the officers of justice ; and here, too, his necromantic 
 propensities must have met with the fullest encouragement, for no man was 
 more constantly haunted with the hopes of recovering buried treasure than 
 his host Robert Logan of Restalrig. The first scene in the Gowrie conspiracy 
 opens with a reference to this natural craving for gold, satisfied by superna- 
 tural or sinister means. “ The fyft day of August 1600, Mr Alexander 
 Ruthven, brother to the Erle of Gowrie, come tymuslie to Falkland, quho did 
 informe the kingis majestie that certane gold wes fund within the grund, in 
 a plaice with the quhilk he wald on no wayis meddle unto sick tyme as his 
 majestie did sie it, quairupon his majestie come to Perth to dyne with the 
 said Erle,” {+ &c. and the organization of this hellish plot is traced to Lo- 
 gan under his own hand. As we must immediately disclose our philo- 
 sopher in most extraordinary juxtaposition with this desperado, we shall 
 premise an extract from Logan’s original letters, preserved in the Re- 
 
 gister House, which place his character and habits under the most pene- 
 trating light. In one letter to the Earl of Gowrie, dated in July 1600, 
 
 after impressing him with the necessity of profound secrecy, he adds, “ and 
 
 than I dout nocht, bot with God’s grace we sall bring our matter till ane fine, 
 
 quhillk sall bring contentment to us all that ever wissed for the revenge of the 
 
 * « The fortress called Fastcastle overhangs the German Ocean, occupying almost the whole 
 projecting cliff on which it stands; connected with the land by a very narrow path, and of such 
 security that, manned with a score of desperate men, it must in those days have been impregnable, 
 save by famine.”——Sir Walter Scott's Hist. of Scotland. 
 
 + Moysie’s Memoirs. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 219 
 
 maschevalent massakering of our deirest frendis. I doubt nocht bot M. A. 
 your Lordschipis brother hes informed your Lordschip quhat course I layid 
 down to bring all your Lordschipis associatis to my house of Fastcastell be 
 sey, quhair I suld hew all materiallis in reddyness for thair saif recayving a 
 land, and into my house; making, as it wer, bot a maner of passing time, in 
 ane bote on the sey in this fair somer tyde ; and nane other strangeris to hant 
 my house, quhill we had concluded in the laying of our platt, quhilk is alredy 
 devysed by M. A. and me. And I wald wiss that your Lordschip wald ather 
 come, or send M. A. to me, and thereftir I sould meit your Lordschip in 
 Leith, or quyetly in Restalrig, quhair we sould hev prepared ane fyne hattit 
 hkit,* with succar, comfeitis and wyn ; and thereftir confer on matteris, And 
 the soner we broght our purpose to pass it wer the better; before harvest. 
 Let nocht M. W. R. your auld pedagog ken of your comming, bot rather wald 
 I, if I durst be sa bald, to intreet your Lordschip anis to come and se my awin 
 house, quhair I hev keipit my Lord Bothwell in his gretest extremities, say 
 the king and his counsall quhat they wald. And incaise God grant us ane 
 happy success in this erand, I hope bayth to haif your Lordschip, and his 
 Lordschip, with money otheris of your loveris and his, at ane gud dyner be- 
 fore I dy. Alwyse I hope that the K (ingis) buk-hunting at Falkland this 
 yeir sall prepair sum daynty cheir for us, againis that denner the nixt yeir. 
 Hoc jocose, till animat your Lordschip at this tyme, bot efterwartis we sall 
 hev bettir occasion to mak mery,” &c. In the same letter he mentions the 
 bearer of it, “ my man Laird Bour—and I trow he wald nocht spair to ryde 
 to Hellis-yet + to pleasour me.” After committing his Lordship “to the pro- 
 tectioun of the Almychtie God,” Logan concludes, by subscribing himself, 
 * Your awin sworne and bund man to obey and serve with efauld and ever redy 
 
 service, to his uttir. power till his lyfis end, 
 “ RESTALRIGE.” t 
 
 * A preparation of milk ; also called Corstorphine cream. 
 
 + The gates of Hell. 
 
 { Restalrig’s original letters, and other proceedings in reference to the detection of the Gowrie 
 conspiracy, have been only recently discovered among the warrants of Parliament preserved in the 
 General Register-House, Edinburgh. They are printed and illustrated in Mr Pitcairn’s Collection 
 of Criminal Trials, where the curious reader will find the character of Restalrig more fully displayed. 
 It may be remarked, that his letters conclude with committing his correspondents in this nefarious 
 matter “ to the protectioun of the Almychtie God,” or “ to Chrystis haly protectioun,” and yet he 
 
220 THE LIFE OF 
 
 About the commencement of the year 1594, the very time when he was shel- 
 tering the Earl of Bothwell in his stronghold in defiance of king and council, 
 and a few months after the date of John Napier’s letter to his majesty in re- 
 ference to the Spanish plot, Restalrig, in great need no doubt of the sinews of 
 war and wickedness, adopted two modes of acquiring wealth. He seems to have 
 sent his servants to the king’s highway, with instructions to knock down and 
 rob, and, if necessary, to murder the richest man they could meet; and he, at 
 the same time, determined to apply even to higher authority than his guest 
 the Earl of Bothwell, or, in legal phrase, to retain the best counsel in Scot- 
 land, upon the necromantic question of treasure buried at Fastcastle. In the 
 books of the High Court of Justiciary, it stands recorded, that, upon the 13th 
 June 1594, Robert Logan of Restalrig is ordained to be denounced rebel, for 
 not appearing before the king and council, to answer a charge at the instance 
 of Robert Gray, burgess of Edinburgh ; “ makand mention, that, quairupoun 
 the secund day of Aprile last, he being passing in peceable and quiet maner 
 to Berwick, for doing of certane his lessum effearis and busynes, lippynning 
 for na trouble nor injurie of ony personis, treuth it is, that Johnne, alias Jokkie 
 Houldie, and Petir Craik, houshald servandis to Robert Logane of Restalrig, 
 with three utheris, thair compliceis, umbesett his hie way and passage, besyde 
 the Bowrod ; quha not onlie reft and spuilzeit fra him nyne hundredth and 
 fiftie pundis money, quhilk he had upoun him, bot alsua, maist cruellie and 
 barbarouslie invadit and persewit him of his lyffe, hurte and woundit him in 
 the heid, and straik him with divers utheris bauch straikis upoun his body, to 
 the grite danger and perill of his lyffe, to the said complenaris utter wrak,” &c. 
 Logan failed to appear and present these robbers for whom he was respon- 
 sible; and was outlawed accordingly. How he was engaged immediately after 
 this sentence had passed against him, will be seen from the following contract, 
 which IJ find among the Merchiston papers :— 
 
 * Contract Merchiston and Restalrik. 
 
 « At Edinbruch the day of Julij, yeir of God im v‘ foirscoir fourtein yeiris 
 (1594. |—It is apointit, contractit, and agreit, betwix the personis ondirwret- 
 tin; that is to say, Robert Logane of Restalrige on the ane pairt, and Jhone 
 Neper, fear of Merchistoun, on the uther pairt, in maner, forme, and effect as 
 
 gives as a reason for excluding Gowrie’s “ auld pedagog,” Mr William Rhind, from the plot, that 
 he “ will dissuade us fra our purpose with ressounes of religion quhilk I can never abyd.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 22) 
 
 folowis :—To wit, forsamekle as ther is dywerss ald reportis motiffis and ap- 
 pirancis, that thair suld be within the said Robertis dwellinge place of Fas- 
 castell a soum of monie and poiss, heid and hurdit up secritlie, quilk as yit is 
 on fund be ony man. The said Jhone sall do his utter and exact diligens to 
 serche and sik out, and be al craft and ingyne that he dow, to tempt, trye, and 
 find out the sam, and be the grace of God, ather sall find the sam, or than 
 mak it suir that na sik thing hes been thair; sa far as his utter trawell dili- 
 gens and ingyne may reach. For the quilk the said Robert sall giff, as be the 
 tenour heirof, giffiis and grantis unto the said Jhone the just third pairt of 
 quhatsoewir poiss or heid treasour the said Jhone sall find, or beis fund be his 
 moyan and ingyn, within or abut the said place of Falscastell, and that to be 
 pairtit be just wecht and balance, betwix thaim but ony fraud, stryff, debait, 
 and contention, on sik maner as the said Robert sall heff the just twa partis, 
 and the said Jhone the just third pairt thereof upone thair fayth, truth, and 
 consciens. And for the said Jhonis suir return and saiff bakcumming tharwith 
 to Edinbruch, on beand * spulzeit of his said thrid pairt, or utherways hairmit 
 in body, or geir, the said Robert sall mak the said Jhone saiff convoy, and ac- 
 cumpanie him saifflie in maner forsaid bak to Edinburgh, quher the said Jhone, 
 beand saiflie returnit, sall, in presens of the said Robert, cancell and destroy 
 this present contract, as a full discherg of ather of thair pairtis honestlie sa- 
 tisfiet and performit to utheris; and ordanis that na uther discherge heirof but 
 the destroying of this present contract sal be of ony awaill, forse, or effect. And 
 incaiss the said Jhone sal find na poiss to be thair eftir all tryall and utter 
 diligens tane; he referris the satisfactione of his trawell and painis to the dis- 
 cretione of the said Robert.—In witnes of thir presens, and of al honestie, 
 fideletie, fayth, and uprycht doing to be observit and keipit be bayth the saidis 
 pairtis to uther, thei heff subscrywit thir presentis with thair handis at Edin- 
 bruch, day and yeir forsaid. 
 “ ROBERT LOGANE of Restalrige. 
 “ JHONE NEpPER, Fear of Merchistoun.” + 
 
 * Without being. 
 
 + Logan’s part in the Gowrie conspiracy was not detected until after his death, and by singular 
 good fortune he died in his bed, before 1609. In that year one Sprot, a notary, was such an idiot as 
 to drop a hint that he knew something of the matter, and even that he had stolen Logan’s letters 
 from the old messenger “ Laird Bour.” This was sufficient to bring upon himself the extremity 
 of torture, and the most ignominious death. His depositions were taken before the privy-council; 
 the letters were produced, and identified with Logan’s hand-writing, comparatione literarum. Lo- 
 
222 THE LIFE OF 
 
 The existence of this singular contract has been hitherto only partially 
 known through the medium of Mr Wood’s edition of Douglas’s Peerage, from 
 a communication to that gentleman by the late Lord Napier; but the details 
 of it have been nowhere published, and the matter remained wrapt in such 
 mystery as might lead sceptical antiquaries to suppose that there was some 
 misapprehension on the subject. Upon examining, however, the original do- 
 cument, we discover a circumstance which adds greatly to its interest and 
 antiquarian value. The entire contract, with the exception of Logan’s own 
 signature, is carefully written by the hand of John Napier himself. There is 
 no question of the fact; and it is even apparent, on comparing (as may be 
 done in the fac-simile here given) the *‘ Jhone Neper” of the are with 
 that which occurs in the body of the deed. 
 
 Having displayed this page of his history, and picture of his times, to the 
 public eye, it is necessary to meet two ideas very naturally arising from a 
 hasty view of the transaction. It may appear to call in question both his 
 moral conduct and his mental power. The first idea is easily dealt with. 
 The circumstance of this casual intercourse with one of the darkest characters of 
 his times, for the special purpose detailed in the contract, is totally innoxious 
 against the author of the Plain Discovery,—the friend of Robert Pont,—the 
 leading commissioner of the assembled church,—and he who only six months 
 before wrote the letter of Christian admonition to King James, which has been 
 quoted. All this, and the fact, that during an age of tyrannical superstition, 
 
 gan’s mouldering bones were dug up, produced in court, tried, condemned and executed. Sprot 
 was led to the scaffold for his pains, where he adhered to his extraordinary confession in the face 
 of a vast and attentive multitude ; and, says Spotswood, gave the people a sign of his truth, “ by 
 clapping his hands three several times after he was cast off by the executioner.” The letters, de- 
 positions, &c. were all, by command of the king, engrossed in the records of the Parliament of 
 Scotland ; and the original letters themselves have recently been discovered in the Register-House. 
 They have been called forgeries ; but the weight of evidence in support of their authenticity seems 
 irresistible. It is interesting to institute the comparatio literarum now, which Napier was too wise 
 to allow to be made at the trial of Logan’s bones. This the reader may do by comparing the signa- 
 ture of the contract with the fac-similes of the letters in Pitcairn’s Trials. The “ Restalrige” in both 
 are certainly very similar; but this must be observed ; the dittay against Logan specially narrates, 
 that the letters were subscribed “efter his accustomet maner, with this woird Restalrig ;” whereas 
 the contract has his name in full. Napier’s cousin-german, the Bishop of Orkney’s eldest son, 
 (first Lord Holyroodhouse, ) was one of the assessors on the trial of Sprot, attended him on the scaf- 
 fold, and attested his dying confession. 
 
/ eeataa 
 
 Mos 
 ‘g ry Ae eet 
 
 at A a a sie ie ie ae poten i ipl sane 
 164 om fi Fe ee i oo rae eC LP EX: otha la JE 
 as e Y HA. ne Logan “f voftabrar o oy as aa) & mip 
 
 af gy 1 eM oF vies 
 £3 Linc le a na ieee 
 i eee eh bo ws y B sash netigs p Lie A 
 2 mone ‘oe 
 se / Pr be eee jae Q, ape Wa © seact- Pao 
 f° ib eC bs al mm a A eee, OF ok 
 4 : 7 ani bo Tae fe fi8 yp erry RSs 
 ; a rE Sl ‘ | eee Bo ie any 
 a li met rae (Be ne | ye -Ovb briny ay / Lee fas pr iar 
 al ok ak BE obra atk if, 
 tie v6 oT : eae ee pps DI aREE kod 
 ; Lond boat as ee. me: ies 48 
 —s God bind be g saa mAh vom o-abwk yx far) Pag Bele ha (hb 
 ‘ aut Beige be ie wb oe a def Mad Gallanes— / betrve vary On jn tl omy 
 
 vane FE tips Leer Ws ba: poy & Cu, aie ss Aye. yf ge ps wid. 
 
 al 
 
 in fone fe ayy uthiy 
 ag bt ° fi? land pid pea ee 
 i fags He mah Ff Gy fow* 
 
 i. nd lf an @ nb / and 
 4 I by Fe aa orl fo oe a Geund- 
 : = CN iaaté Gainer f vn babs, epee v7) 
 : 
 
 . A eo boy co wrrpanis my 2:9 tak é aw 
 4 aan Ream eee ; Led ype [tod 
 1Drffor Yr f 
 afr yr (OS oa a 
 ’ Pint Z NKR 
 eeu ap) pir aisles 
 i zs ’ 8 wa, 
 eam Ta ipod soe ae | aod pre P woh Af be 
 
 2 ‘ ¢ LEC 4 he dsc 
 As eC ‘P en ho a ah oes ti ens y free 
 pv ey See et iL yi is & t ait f PEE ae 
 
 | EG Gswk te Guo 
 
 Ary (Qo 
 yar ateae 
 
 daa N ge or 
 
ee ee ee ee 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 223 
 
 no breath of slander or persecution ever visited Napier alive or dead, though 
 he had the reputation of such dangerous powers, leave his character invulner- 
 able. The singularity of his holding conference with one who had just been 
 proclaimed an outlaw, and whose lawless violence is alluded to and provided 
 against by Napier himself, must be accounted for by the rude state of society, and 
 the simplicity of our philosopher’s character. He took care to word the contract 
 himself, however, and there is not an expression which indicates an idea beyond 
 the most legitimate purpose ; but, under the shield of his own innocence, he ne- 
 ver dreamt of contamination from his company ; was fond of the romance of 
 science ; and not averse (nothing derogatory in his times) to the prospect of 
 gold. We must admire, moreover, the undaunted courage of the man, who 
 was willing to go alone with the robber to his cave, and only stipulated for a 
 safe convoy back again to prevent his being robbed by Logan’s own domes- 
 tics. ‘To pronounce the transaction mercenary would be to apply the fal- 
 lacious test of modern notions to the dimly seen manners of antiquity. 
 As the deed is still in existence, we must suppose that the terms of it 
 had not been fulfilled; nor is it improbable that no faith had been kept 
 by Robert Logan; but the idea is too picturesque to be entirely discarded, 
 that the philosopher actually went to the dreary castle overhanging the 
 German Ocean; that there, in his gown and cowl, he sat betwixt the wild 
 Earl of Bothwell and the turbulent Restalrig, both armed to the teeth ; that 
 he partook of their “ daynty cheir—fyne hattit kit with succar, comfeitis and 
 wyn;” and that the necromantic nobleman and the lawless chief bowed before 
 the pure but mighty mind, for whom the destiny was yet in store to become the 
 universal benefactor of science and the arts. Whether he found the treasure, 
 or got back to Merchiston “ on beand spulzeit of his said thrid pairt, or uther- 
 ways hairmit in body or geir,” is another matter. But that the reader may 
 be assured that John Napier immediately dropt the acquaintance, and fore- 
 swore the society of Robert Logan, we shall lay before him the preamble of 
 a lease among the philosopher’s papers. “ At Gartnes, the xilij day of Sep- 
 tember, the yeir of God a thousand, five hundreth, fourscoir saxtein yeirs ; 
 it is agreit betwix Johne Neper, fear of Merchistoune, and Robert Ne- 
 per of Blackyairdis as cationer for him, on the ane pairt ; and Johne Cun- 
 nynghame of Ross, principall,” &c. “on the uther pairt, as followis, to witt,— 
 The said Johne Neper sall sett to the said Johne Cunynghame of Ross, and 
 his subtennentis, labourers of the ground, allanerlie nocht of the surname of 
 
224 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Loganes, nor Cunynghames of the houss of Drumquhassell, all and haill 
 the four pund landis of Blairour,” &c.; and further on in the same deed the 
 condition is more positively repeated, that the lessee oblige himself that he 
 *‘ nather directlie nor undirectlie, nor yitt be na maner of pactioun, private or 
 publicke, sall suffer or permit ony persoune beirand the name of Logane, or 
 Cunynghame of the houss of Drumquhassell, to enter the possessioun,”* &c. 
 As a page in the intellectual history of mankind, the contract now before 
 the reader affords matter for curious and interesting reflection. It is well 
 known, that, at the period of its date, the chrysalis of the adept was still hang- 
 ing upon the brilliant wings of science, and that superstition darkened the 
 fountains of justice with innocent blood. Astronomy had not yet escaped 
 from judicial astrology ; nor chemistry from alchemy ; nor mathematics from 
 magic squares and mysterious powers of numbers ; nor (horresco referens ) the 
 High Court of Justiciary from its belief in witchcraft. We are prepared in 
 short, by the history of that age, by the lives of its most illustrious orna- 
 ments, from Cardan to Kepler, for any absurdity, however wild and baseless, 
 proceeding from any intellect, however powerful and profound. But there 
 is something in this little quiet Scotch contract, entered into betwixt the 
 best man and the worst man whom Scotland then held, more startling than 
 the Harmonices Mundi of the imaginative German philosopher, or the folly 
 of Tycho Brahe and his prophetical idiot. + Most of these instances of supersti- 
 
 * Cunninghame of Drumquhassil was a distinguished, but not a respected, statesman, in the 
 minority of James VI. He is mentioned as the cautioner for the philosopher’s father in two 
 thousand pounds, when the regency confined Napier after the battle of Langside in 1568. But 
 his fate in 1585, may account for the horror taken to his house by John Napier. Moysie thus 
 records it :—‘ About the letter end of Januar, theare wes a conspiracie discoverit by Hamiltoun 
 of Inchemachane, anent the taking of the king at the hunting, or careing him to the Merse, be 
 the Erle of Angus and Maris confederates, or killing him unnaturally. Quairupone Duntreathe, 
 Drumquhassil, and the Laird of Maynes, being teane and accusit, Duntreathe confest, and fyled ; 
 Drumquhassel and Maines, quha wold never confes, they wer execut ; and Duntreathe spaired for 
 his confessioun.”—P. 52. 
 
 + Tycho was very superstitious. If, on going out of his house, he met an old woman or a hare, 
 he invariably turned back. During his reign at Uraniburg he kept a fool of the name of Lep, 
 who sat at his feet at dinner time, and was fed by the hands of the philosopher. Lep was a pro- 
 phet, at least Tycho believed so and noted all his predictions carefully—See Tycho's Life by Gas- 
 sendi, p. 229 ; and Memoirs of Men Illustrious in the Republic of Letters, by Niceron, T. xy. 
 p. 170. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 225 
 
 tion create disgust from their extravagance, or doubt from the vagueness 
 of the record ; but here is a page of such chastened and decent magic, so au- 
 thentically recorded, and soberly set down by the same hand that set down the 
 Canon Mirificus Logarithmorum, that common sense herself might pause to 
 consider it. 
 
 There is no ostentatious display of the terms of magic in the deed ; but that 
 something romantic is meant cannot be doubted, as the words will bear no or- 
 dinary interpretation. “ Thesaid Jhone sall do his utter and exact diligens to 
 serche and sik out, and be al craft and ingyne that he dow, to tempt, try, and 
 find out a soum of monie and poiss heid and hurdit up secretlie, quhilk as yit 
 is on fund be ony man,” some where in the Dom Daniel of Fastcastle, indi- 
 cate that the mattock and the spade had been tried in vain, and that the 
 blackest art of the Earl of Bothwell had failed, but that there was still a hope 
 from the power of Napier. It is nothing extraordinary that a rude and tur- 
 bulent baron should have formed this idea; but that Napier himself should 
 have accepted the reference, and so gravely written its conditions with his own 
 hand, is very inexplicable in one who was most assuredly neither a charlatan, 
 nor given to jesting with such characters as Logan ; and who is unrecorded 
 as having displayed any public pretensions to the character of that 
 
 “ Cunning man, hight SIDROPHEL, 
 That deals in destiny’s dark counsels, 
 And sage opinions of the moon sells ; 
 To whom all people, far and near, 
 On deep importances repair ; 
 
 When brass and pewter hap to stray, 
 And linen slinks out of the way.” * 
 
 The Sidrophel of Butler. was none other than the famous William Lilly, 
 who wrote the history of his own life and times. He was nearly a contem- 
 porary of Napier’s, and well acquainted with those who knew him ; but, in his 
 notices of our philosopher, he imputes nothing to his character beyond the 
 
 * When Hudibras discomfits Sidrophel, and asserts the right of conquest by rifling his pockets, 
 he therein finds inter alia, 
 A moon-dial with Napier’s bones, 
 And several constellation stones 
 Engraved in planetary hours, 
 That over mortals had strange powers. 
 
226 THE LIFE OF 
 
 most respectable department of the romance of science. “ Lord Merchiston,” 
 says he, “ was a great lover of astrology, but Briggs the most satirical man 
 against it that hath been known. But the reason hereof I conceive was, 
 that Briggs was a severe Presbyterian, and wholly conversant with persons 
 of that judgement ; whereas the Lord Marchiston was a general scholar, and 
 deeply read in all divine and human histories. It is the same Marchiston who 
 made that most serious and learned exposition upon the Revelation of St John, 
 which is the best that ever yet appeared in the world.” * 
 
 A scene was witnessed by Sidrophel himself, just forty years after Napier’s 
 contract with Logan, which is the best illustration I can find of what may, 
 possibly, be indicated by that curious document. “ Two accidents,” says Lilly, 
 * happened to me in that year something memorable. Davy Ramsay, his 
 majesty’s clock-maker, had been informed that there was a great quantity of 
 treasure buried in the cloyster of Westminster Abbey; he acquaints Dean 
 Williams therewith, who was also then Bishop of Lincoln; the Dean gave him 
 liberty to search after it, with this proviso, that, if any was discovered, his 
 church should have a share of it. Davy Ramsay finds out one John Scott, 
 who pretended the use of the Mosaical rods to assist him herein. I was de- 
 sired to join with him, unto which I consented. One winter’s night, Davy 
 Ramsay, with several gentlemen, myself, and Scott, entered the cloysters.t 
 We played the hazel-rod round about the cloyster ; upon the west side of the 
 cloysters the rods turned one over another, an argument that the treasure was 
 there. The labourers digged at least six foot deep, and then we met with a 
 coffin; but in regard it was not heavy, we did not open, which we afterwards 
 much repented. From the cloysters we went into the abbey church, where 
 
 * William Lilly’s History of his Life and Times, from the year 1602 to 1681. Written by 
 Himself in the sixty-sixth year of his age to his worthy friend, Elias Ashmole, Esq.” Edit. 1822, 
 p- 237. 
 
 + Elias Ashmole, whom Lilly calls “ Arts great Meczenas, noble Esquire Ashmole,” hasillustrated 
 his friend’s journal with a few notes. He seems to have been well acquainted with this anecdote, 
 and notes, that “ Davy Ramsay brought an half quartern sack to put the treasure in.” Sir 
 Walter Scott honours Davy too much in classification. “ Master Ramsay was often accus- 
 tomed to retreat to the labour of his abstruse calculations ; for he aimed at improvement and dis- 
 coveries in his own art, and sometimes pushed his researches like Napier, and other mathemati- 
 cians of the period, into abstract science.” He also makes the scientific constructor of horologes, 
 when irate against his apprentices, swear “ by the bones of the immortal Napier.”—Fortunes of 
 Nigel. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 227 
 
 upon a sudden (there being no wind when we began,) so fierce, so high, so 
 blustering and loud a wind did rise, that we verily believed the west end of 
 the church would have fallen upon us. Our rods would not move at all; the 
 candles and torches, all but one, were extinguished, or burned very dimly. 
 John Scott, my partner, was amazed, looked pale, knew not what to think or 
 do, until I gave directions and command to dismiss the demons ; which, when 
 done, all was quiet again, and each man returned unto his lodging late, about 
 twelve o’clock at night. I could never since be induced to join with any in 
 such-like actions. The true miscarriage of the business was by reason of so 
 many people being present at the operation ; for there was about thirty, some 
 laughing, others deriding us; so that, if we had not dismissed the demons, I 
 believe most part of the abbey church had been blown down. Secrecy and 
 intelligent operators, with a strong confidence and knowledge of what they are 
 doing, are best for this work.” * 
 
 Such was the state of the art in question, in the times and in the hands of 
 Lilly ; but we suspect it must have degenerated during the years that had 
 elapsed since Napier practised it, from some more scientific, or at least 
 more innocent mode of operation. What he proposed to do was by “ the grace 
 of God ;” and had the two dark outlaws, whom he may have met at Fastcastle, 
 required of him to exercise any control over demons, he would probably have 
 answered in the spirit of Sampson Agonistes, 
 
 I know no spells, use no forbidden arts ; 
 My trust is in the living God, who gave me 
 At my nativity this strength. 
 
 One circumstance must be observed in reference to the characteristic trait 
 we are considering, that Napier was brought into close and constant contact 
 with practical operations, the most likely in the world to imbue him with all 
 the enthusiastic fancies, then so current, upon the subject of discovering the 
 occult recesses and properties of the precious metals. Since the year 1582, 
 his father, Sir Archibald, had been master of the mint, with the sole su- 
 perintending charge of the mines and minerals within the realm. In those 
 times, the soil of Scotland was supposed to be teeming with gold and 
 other precious metals. Mr Chalmers, in his Caledonia, informs us, that 
 « James IV., who was a great dabbler in alchemy, appears to have 
 
 * Lilly’s History, p. 78. 
 
228 THE LIFE OF 
 
 wrought some mines in Crawford-Muire. In the treasurer’s accounts of 
 1511, 1512, and 1513, there are a number of payments to Sir James Pet- 
 tigrew and the men who were employed under him in working the mine of 
 Crawford-Muire. There are also payments of wages to Sebald Northberge, 
 the master-finer, to Andrew Ireland, the finer, and to Gerard Essemer, a 
 Dutchman, the melter of the mine. At Wynlockhead, on the Nithsdale side 
 of the Leadhills, a lead mine was wrought in 1512 by some of the workmen 
 who were employed by James IV.” * The next monarch in like manner, and 
 with greater success, patronized this royal and delightful sport. It appears 
 from the Acta Dominorum Concilii, that in the year 1526, a company of Ger- 
 mans obtained a grant from James V. of the precious mines in Scotland for 
 forty-three years, and were much encouraged. Bishop Lesley declares that 
 these foreigners worked for many months most laboriously in Clydesdale, 
 seeming to be only employed in rolling up great balls of earth; from which, 
 however, they enriched themselves, by extracting quantities of the purest 
 gold.+ These operations probably introduced into Scotland much scientific 
 knowledge on the subject, mingled with the wilder aspirations of the adept. 
 Sir Archibald Napier seems to have forsaken his legal pursuits not many 
 years after he held the office of justice-depute, in order to betake himself to 
 this seducing craft; and he became the most expert man in his own country 
 at detecting gold amid the grosser elements of creation, refining it for human 
 purposes, and, finally, at regulating the whole preparatives of its legal cir- 
 culation inthe realm. In the preface to a translation of the Life of James V., 
 written in French and printed at Paris 1612, it is stated, upon the authority 
 of a manuscript in the Cotton Library, that, “ In King James the Fifth’s time, 
 300 men were employed for several summers in washing of gold, of which 
 they got above L. 100,000 of English money. By the same way, the Laird 
 of Merchiston got gold in Pentland Hills.” + I have not had the advantage 
 of inspecting the manuscript ; but there can be no question that this was the 
 father of our philosopher. In the Balcarres collection of original manu- 
 scripts, belonging to the Advocates’ Library, there is a mass of papers relating 
 to the “* Cunzie” of Scotland, in which the names of Sir Archibald Napier 
 and his son Francis figure very conspicuously. From these it appears, that, 
 
 * Caledonia, Vol. ii. p. 732. 
 + De Rebus Gestis Scotorum. Rome, 1578, p. 452. 
 
 { Miscellanea Scotica, Vol. iy. p. 100. 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 229 
 
 about the year 1582-83, the former had been appointed to an office, the limits 
 of which seem not to have been very accurately defined, but under which he 
 was styled General of the Mint.* In 1592, after Sir Archibald had held 
 this appointment above nine years, an act of Parliament was passed, creating 
 a new office in that department in favour of the celebrated Mr John Lindsay, 
 who soon after became Lord Privy-Seal, and then Secretary of State, as one 
 of the Octavians, or eight commissioners of Exchequer, who for a time ruled 
 Scotland.+ The act narrates that his Majesty, knowing Lindsay’s qualifica- 
 tions, and his “ travellis in seiking out and discovering of dyvers metallis of 
 great valor within this realme, and in sending to England, Germanie, and 
 Denmark, to gett the perfite essey and knawledge thairof,’ appoints him to 
 this new office of master of the metallis. The same act bears, “ That forsa- 
 mekle as Thomas Foullis, gouldsmyth, has found out the ingyne and moyene 
 to caus melt and fyne the vris (ores) of metallis within this cuntrie, and hes 
 brocht in strangearis,” &c.; therefore ratifies to him the gift of “ the said 
 melting and refyning of all and quhatsumevir vris of metallis won and 
 wrocht within this countrie,” &c. 
 
 These proceedings gave great offence to Sir Archibald Napier, who seems 
 to have viewed the whole matter in the light of a rash experiment on the part 
 of the king, at the instigation of those who had nothing in view but their 
 own private interests, and no knowledge or experience in the particular craft. 
 He accordingly opposed these measures in his place in Parliament, and re- 
 corded a formal protest against them.{ Besides this, he drew up for the 
 
 * In the year 1587, “ Sir Archibald Naper of Edinbellie, Knicht, Generall of his Hienes 
 Cunze-Hous,” is joined in commission with his cousin-german, “ Sir Robert Melville of Murdo- 
 cairnie, Knicht, Thesaurare-depute,” and a few others, whose ordinance is to have the force of an 
 act of Parliament, “ for setting of the quantitie of the bulzeon to be brocht to the cunze-hous” 
 for all manner of exported goods liable to custom.—Acts of the Scottish Parl. 
 
 + John Lindsay, commonly called Parson of Menmure, from holding that rectory, was the 
 second son of Sir David Lindsay of Edzell and Glenesk, and the father of David first Lord 
 Lindsay of Balcarras. He was a Lord of Session, and highly distinguished as a statesman.— See 
 the History of his Times, passim. 
 
 + « The Laird of Merchanstounis Protestatioun :”— Sir Archebald Naper of Edinbillie, Knicht, 
 as commissioner for the Shrefdome of Edinburgh, principall, be his vote, dissasentis fra the dis- 
 solutioun of the mynis, and setting of the same in few, efter the maner proponit ; be reasone the 
 same is proponit cwm diminutione, for payment now allanerlie of ane hundreth stane of ilk thou- 
 sand, quheras the mynis payit of befoir fiftie unce utter fine silver of ilk thousand stane, qlk is 
 neirly four tymes alsmekle proffite as the offer proponit ; as alsua protestis, as Generall of his Ma- 
 
230 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Lords of Council, in his own name and that of his son Francis, who was finer 
 and assey-master under him, answers to the “ particular heads of the act of 
 affyning, maid at Linlithgow 8th March 1591, in favors of Thomas Foulis.” 
 This paper is in the Balcarres collection, and the characteristic remarks it con- 
 tains enables us to form some judgment of Sir Archibald’s activity in this 
 matter, and the nature of his occupations. To the first head, “‘ quhair the said 
 Thomas suld big ane strong and lairge hous upone his awin expensis; for an- 
 seir heirto; gif it be upone Thomas awin expensis we querrell it not ; bot gif 
 it be upon his majesties, as appeiris be the letter pairt of the said act, we think 
 that bigging to be sumptuous and inuteill; be ressoun the money micht be 
 affynit in ony convenient hous in Edinburgh.” He expresses great misgivings 
 as to the public utility of the scheme, “ and thairfoir,” says he, “ we desyre 
 your Lordschippis to inquyre of the said ‘Thomas quhat free proffeit his ma- 
 jestie will ressave upone ilk stane wecht being affynit and prentit, all maner 
 of deductions being deduceit ; and thairefter we sall latt your Lordschippis un- 
 derstand ane uther plat concerning the money, quairupone his hienes and your 
 Lordschippis may juge, and tak the best and maist proffitable.” He doubts 
 exceedingly the affyning qualifications of Foulis and his strangers ; and urges 
 that “ the said affyning aucht to be maid in presens of the wardens and essayer 
 of the Cunziehous onlie; for gif sum controlement heirof be not usit be the 
 maist expert of the Cunziehous, the saids effyneris may mak mair nor x]™ 
 pundis [L. 40,000] of proffeit to thameselffis, and never kennell ane fyre for 
 effyning thairof. Gif your Lordschippis pleissis to know the maner heirof, the 
 same sal be evidentlie declairit in presens of his majestie and your Lordschippis, 
 quhilkis wer langsum now to rehers. And in caice the said Thomas Fowlis 
 will object, that his saidis straingearis will permit na qualifeit officiar of the 
 Cunziehous to see and controill their said wark, it is answerit, we desyre not 
 to see thair craft of effynings, bot allanerlie how mekle and quhat spaceis of 
 guid money they demoleis, seing thair is na grit craft in demolesching, for everie 
 tinklair can do the samin,” &c. 
 
 In like manner Sir Archibald canvasses very severely the act of appoint- 
 ment in favour of Mr John Lindsay; and from his strictures, also among the 
 
 jestie’s Cunzehous, that na collectoire be appointit over the ingaddering of his Majestie’s deutie of 
 the mynis, except the Generall of his Majestie’s cunziehous ; and that becaus it is ane pairt of the 
 said Generallis office, quhereof he and his predicessouris generallis hes bene hitherto in use.”— 
 [1592.] Acts of Parl. iii. 559. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 231 
 
 Balcarres papers, we find some minute particulars in reference to his own craft 
 and a history of the mines and the mint of Scotland.* He contrasts the 
 terms of the old leases with the schemes now proposed, which, he does not 
 hesitate to affirm against Mr Lindsay, are “ ane substantius ground to mak 
 himself ane havie purs.” He informs us, that “ the mynis hes bene sett heir- 
 tofoir to Johnne Achesoun and John Coslon ; and to James Johnstoun of Kel- 
 liebaukis, Cornelius de Vos, George Douglas of Parkheid, Abraham Petersoun, 
 his pertineris, and Mr Eustatius,” upon terms much more advantageous to 
 the king and country than those contained in the new act; and he adds, “ I 
 find na commoditie be this act to the finder, nochtwithstanding it wer the 
 kingis majesties profit to appoint ane ressonabill portioun thereof to quhat- 
 sumever man that wald discover ony myne.” Speaking of himself, he says, 
 “there is ane officiar appointed alredde, quha hes the oversycht of the mynis, 
 hes servit and presentlie servis therinto, gadderis up the king’s dewties thairof, 
 and being commanded, will serve therintill upon his accustomet wages; evin 
 the generall of the Cunziehous, quha is redde to abyd tryell of his qualifica- 
 tioun.” 
 
 His qualification seems to have been the result of assiduous practice and 
 great experience, in the course of which the attention of his philosophical son 
 must have been more or less attracted to these matters. In asserting his own 
 right to be master of the metals, exclusive of Lindsay, he adds, “ the present 
 maister of the mettallis, to wit, the generall of the Cunziehous hes thir money 
 
 * There is a very full and curious manuscript entitled “ The Discovery and Historie of the 
 Mynes in Scotland” among the MSS. of Sir Robert Sibbald belonging to the Advocates’ Library ; 
 written in a wild fantastical strain, but full of minute and interesting information. It was printed 
 for the Bannatyne Club, with copious notes and illustrations, by Gilbert Laing Meason, Esq. in 
 1825, and is one of their rarest, consequently most valuable, volumes. It ought to be reprinted 
 with the additional illustrations to be obtained from the Balcarres MSS. In the notes I find it 
 said, “ It is not very clear who the foreigner was alluded to in an act of Parliament, 5th June 1592, 
 as then enjoying a lease of the gold mines, although it may probably have been Bronckhorst,” 
 p- 110. Sir Archibald Napier’s papers, however, in the Balcarres collection, prove that it was “ Eus- 
 tathius Roghe Mediciner,” who had been tacksman under Merchiston since the year 1584. The 
 privy-council took Sir Archibald’s opinion as to the force and effect of this tack in reference to 
 the act in favour of Lindsay ; who returned for answer, that it was absolutely necessary to reduce 
 the tack, and pointed out the proper grounds upon which to libel the summons. An action was 
 raised accordingly, in which, inter alva, it is narrated against the defender, that, “ being ane stranger 
 of evill fame at hame in his awin cuntre, hes manifestlie circumventit us,” &c. The tack was re- 
 duced. 
 
232 THE LIFE OF 
 
 yeiris bygaine, be himself and his deputis merkit barrellis, keippit register of 
 the quantitie, and hes gevin up to the kingis majesties thesaurer compt of all 
 the (ores) of mettallis, as heirtofoir hes bein transportit out of the cuntre.”— 
 “ Let the generallis qualificatioun be conferrit with Mr Johnne Lindsayis in 
 this facultie, and quhilk of them can baith gif best resounis and work it with 
 thair handis, (utherways thei may be decavit,) have this office.” The gene- 
 rall can and will quhenever he is chargit, baith work in small and greit, and 
 hes lernit utheris to do the same als perfytlie, and with less expensis nor ony 
 strangaris that sall cum within this cuntre is hable to do.” * 
 
 The parson of Menmure had no idea of submitting quietly to these animad- 
 versions, and, accordingly, recriminates very much in the style of a modern 
 reformer attacking one whom he alleges to be growing fat upon old abuses. 
 When Sir Archibald’s sharp-sightedness seems to have penetrated too far, Lind- 
 say observes, “ it mervelis me quhou Merchinstone can have onie ground or 
 fundament of his rakning,” &c. “ except it be be the spirit of divination ;” a 
 gibe he is very fond of casting at the laird, for he repeats, “ this is founded 
 upon the spirit of divination, propheticallie affirming,” &c. “ I will answer 
 conforme to the Scripture, that gif the contrarie be found in effect, lat that 
 prophet be estemit untrew,” &c. He then rides rough-shod over Sir Archibald’s 
 experience; “ he may be weill better versit in bellices and fornaces nor I, and 
 sua have mair knauleg; bot vertu is in action, and noth in contemplatioun ; 
 and I believe that I sall schaw better effect of my office in ane year nor he hes 
 done in nyne ;” and, finally, he adds, what will give us a more complete, though 
 somewhat distorted, view of the vocation of our philosopher’s father: “ To con- 
 clude, I desyre your Lordships to tak the general’s gryt aith upon sik sems of 
 metals as he hes found, and knawis to be in Scotland ; of the profit quherof it is 
 na resone that his majestie and the cuntrie sould be defraudit be his malicius si- 
 lence; and gif he sweris that he knawis nain, I wilofferto prove that divers tymes 
 he hes avowet that he knawis and hes tentit ane copper sem neir the sie, fyve 
 myle lang, quhilk sem I will be content to have in tak, or oni uther sem quhilk 
 he hes found, he making ane resonable offer to the king of the fourt pairt free, 
 
 * Sir Archibald also says, “ Mr Johnne Lindsay and Thomas Fowlis hes leid subtill platis to 
 bring the haill mynis of this cuntrie in thair awin hands allanerlie ;” and he concludes, “ I prey 
 you my Lordis gif attendence to the subtill mening of this act, and provyd remeid thairfor in tyme ; 
 utherwyis the burdein therof lyes upoun your Lordschips ; for I haif exonerat myself heir to your 
 Lordships ; and also in Parliament be my protestatioun tane in the contrair of this present act.” 
 Balcarres Papers, Vol. ix. 
 
 ro 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 233 
 
 quhilk he sayis wes the auld dewtie, or oni uther dewtie quhilk your Lordships 
 sall find reasonable. Nixt, I desyre your Lordships to caus him produce his 
 gift of the office of General of the Cunziehouse, togidder with all the contracts 
 of the stamping, forgin, and reforgin of the cunzie, with the compts thairof, 
 and haill warrandis, that they may be delyverit to me, and that I may have 
 libertie to mak notis and observationis, as he hes done against me; and quher 
 he, be the spirit of divination, * alleges that I will do wrang and hurt the king, 
 I will offer me to prove sufficientlie, that, be his stamping and forgin over of 
 the cunzie, he hes actuallie done ane verie gryt hurt baith to his majestie and 
 to the hail cuntrie; and als that his awen office is not onlie ane new office, 
 himself beand bot the second generall that ever was in Scotland, bot also is 
 altogidder pernitius to the king and cuntrie, in sa far as he hes yeirlie of his 
 majestie neir ane thousand merkis in feis ordinar and extraordinar, besyde the 
 allowance of the expensis of sum of his voyages to Dumfermeling, &c. as gif 
 he war ane pursuivant ; for the quhilkis feis himself is not abill to schaw quhat 
 gude and proffitabill service he dois to his majestie; alwayis, of ressoun and 
 justice, your Lordships will not refuis to me the lyke libertie to gif in artiklis 
 againis him as he hes done againis me, that, be our contradictioun, his majes- 
 teis proffeit may appeir, and quhilk of us is servus nequam.” 
 
 The most complete defence of Sir Archibald Napier from the tu quoque 
 attack of this fiery and powerful Octavian, is to be found in the fact, that, 
 twelve years from this time, and long after the Parson of Menmure had been 
 gathered to his fathers, he is still in the same office, and in the highest 
 repute. Balfour records, that upon the “ 10 September 1604, Napier, Laird 
 of Merchistoun, General of the Cunzie House, went to London to treat with 
 the English commissioners anent the cunzie, who, to the great amazement 
 of the English, carried his business with a great deal of dexterity and skill ; 
 and, having concluded the business he went for, he returned home in Decem- 
 ber thereafter.”. By what particular display of the golden art he amazed the 
 
 * It is curious to observe that both Lindsay’s son, and Sir Archibald’s grandson, wrote on the 
 occult sciences. It is mentioned by Mr Wood in the peerage, quoting the Lindsay MSS. and 
 speaking of David first Lord Lindsay of Balcarres, “ there is in the library at Balcarres ten vo- 
 lumes wrote by his own hand, upon the then fashionable subject of the philosopher's stone.” Ro- 
 bert Napier’s treatise on the same subject is noticed p. 236. 
 
 + Balfour’s Annals, MS. Advocates’ Library. These were printed some years since in three 
 vols. 8vo, by Messrs Haig of the Advocates’ Library. 
 
 2 
 
234 THE LIFE OF 
 
 savans of the sister kingdom is not recorded; but the matter seems to have 
 attracted universal attention, for honest Robert Birrell in his contemporary 
 diary thus notes the occurrence: “ The 10th of September, the General Mais- 
 ter of the Cunziehous tuik shipping to Lundone, for the defence of the Scot- 
 tis cunzie befoir the counsell of Ingland, quha defendit the same to the uttir- 
 most; and the wit and knawledge of the General wes wunderit at be the Eng- 
 
 lischmen.” 
 
 Thus, independently of the natural leaning of a profound mind (in days when 
 the limits of human power were not so clearly defined as now) towards the oc- 
 cult sciences, our philosopher had to sustain unusual temptations from his 
 daily contact with the mysteries of mining, and the brilliant hopes and 
 tempting jargon of the searchers for gold,—with their “ saxere stones,” and 
 *‘ calamineere stones,” and * salineere stones as small as the mustard seede, and 
 some like meall; and the sappar stone in lumps, like unto the fowles eyes, or 
 bird’s eggs; and, the most strangest of all, naturall gold linked fast unto the 
 sapper stone, even as vaines of lead-ewer and white sparrs doe growe togea- 
 ther,” *—and all this in Scotland before the seventeenth century! The wonder 
 is not that he was infected with what we have ventured to call the romance of 
 science, but that all his writings, theological and philosophical, should be en- 
 _tirely free from a vestige of such propensities. Whatever pranks he may have 
 played in the cellars at Fastcastle, the moment he set fairly to work with his 
 head, it grew clearer the more profound it became, and cooler the further it 
 
 penetrated. 
 
 The superstition so subdued in him was decidedly manifested in many of his 
 contemporary relatives. His uncle the Bishop of Orkney was said to be a “ sor- 
 cerer and execrable magitian.” + Of this there is scarcely sufficient proof; but 
 
 * Stephen Atkinson’s MS. on the gold mines in Scotland. Advocates’ Library. 
 
 He also says that Cornelius, the lapidary, (whom Sir Archibald Napier mentions as a tacksman 
 of the mines) “ consulted with his friends at Edinburgh, and, by his persuasions, provoked them 
 to adventure with him, showing them first the natural gold, which he called the temptable gold, 
 or alluring gold. It was in sternes, and some like unto bird’s eyes and eggs; he compared it unto 
 a woman’s eye, which intiseth hir joyes into hir bosome.” 
 
 + There has been lately discovered in the Register House a Scotch MS. chronicle, embracing 
 
 an apology for Queen Mary, and an exposure o¢ the faction by which she was destroyed. The 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 235 
 
 his cousin Sir James Melville, who had seen the world under every aspect and 
 breath of Heaven, was an unhesitating believer in necromancy, though he ne- 
 ver practised it. He narrates among his youthful adventures, that, while un- 
 der the charge of the Bishop of Valence in Paris, before becoming the secre- 
 tary of Montmorency, two great scholars and mathematicians, Cavatius and 
 Taggot, frequented the bishop’s house. Cavatius gravely informed the pre- 
 late that there was an old shepherd in Paris to whom had been bequeath- 
 ed the singular legacy of two familiar spirits, from a priest whose servant the 
 shepherd had been. Valence thought this so great a curiosity that he led the 
 mathematician into the presence of Henry II. before whom Cavatius offered to 
 lose his head, if he did not produce those very spirits, either in the shape of 
 dogs or cats, as might be most agreeable. But the king took a very sensible, 
 though unexpected view of the matter; “ he caused burn the schephird, and 
 imprisonit the said Cavatius, and wald not see the saidis spritis.” As for 
 Taggot, “ he,” says Melville, “ had learnit be the art of palmestrie, as he said 
 to me himself, that he wald die before he atteanit unto the age of twenty-eight 
 years. Wherfore, said he, I know the trew religion to be exercysed at Gene- 
 va; there will I go and end in Godis service. Sa he did, and died ther at 
 Lausan, as he had conscavit the opinion; as I gat word afterwart.” This 
 was in the year 1553. Six years afterwards, when Melville was returning to 
 France from his first embassy to Scotland, he “ fell in company with ane Eng- 
 lishman, wha was ane of the queenis varletis of hir chamber; a man learnit 
 in mathematik, necromancye, astrologie, and was also a gud geographe.” 
 This man entertained Melville with a long story about Harry VIII. having 
 been “ sa curious as till enquyre at men callit devyners and negromanciens, 
 what suld becom of his sone K. Edward 6. and of his twa dochters Mary and 
 Elysabeth ;” and that all their fate had been accurately foretold. “ This,” 
 says Melville, “ the honest man affirmed to be true, and not knawen till 
 
 language and expressions clearly indicate a contemporary production. Speaking of the conyen- 
 tion of estates after Mary’s forced abdication, this writer says “ they caused thither to come to re- 
 present the ecclesiastical estate and spiritualitie, the venerable, often perjured and foirsworne fa- 
 ther, Mr Adam Boithwell, whom, for this purpose, they befoirhand helped to be made Bischope 
 of the Orcades, a camelion, a sorcerar, and evecrable magitian,’ &c. For the perusal of this cu- 
 rious manuscript, which seems to be either the original, or a contemporary translation of Adam 
 Blackwood’s Martyre de Maria Stuart, I am indebted to the never-failing attention of Mr Macdo- 
 nald of the Register House. 
 
236 THE LIFE OF 
 
 many. He was a man of gret gravitie, about fifty years of age; and when 
 we cam to London, he schew me gret courtesie, and made me presents of some 
 bukis.” Our philosopher had another cousin who actually died of fright at 
 the result of an incantation. Sir Lewis, the son of Sir John Bellenden, though 
 quite a youth when his father died, stepped immediately into his office and state 
 career. After he had become experienced and notorious as a statesman, he 
 chose to have dealings with that dangerous person Richard Graham, of whose 
 evil company Francis Earl of Bothwell was accused. In the year 1591, the 
 justice-clerk, “ by curiosity dealt with a warlock called Richard Graham to 
 raise the Devil, who having raised him, in his (Bellenden’s) own yard in the 
 Canongate, he was thereby so terrified that he took sickness and there died.” * 
 
 Robert Napier, the philosopher’s second son of his second marriage, and 
 through whom his lineal male representation is now held,+ affords a re- 
 markable instance of the superstition of the family ; and this is curious, as 
 he was the favourite son to whom John Napier bequeathed the care of his 
 younger children, and the editorial charge of his unpublished works. Among 
 the Merchiston papers I find a thin quarto volume in manuscript, closely writ- 
 ten in the autograph of Robert Napier. It is addressed to his son, and upon 
 the first leaf appears an injunction which we may presume to be now entitled 
 to as little consideration as a freehold superiority in Scotland since the act of the 
 Reform Parliament. “ This book to remaine in my charter-chist, and not to 
 be made knowne to any except to some neir freind, being a scholler, studious 
 of this science, who feares God, and is endewed with great secrecie not to re- 
 veil and mak commune such misteries as God hes apointed to be keipit secrit 
 among a few in all ages, whoes harts ar upright towards God, and not given 
 to worldly ambitione or covetousnes, but secretly to do gud and help the poor 
 and indigent in this world, as they wold eschew the curse of God if they do 
 otherways, | 
 “ R. NAPIER.” t 
 
 * Scott’s Staggering State, p. 131. 
 
 + By Sir William Milliken Napier of Napier and Milliken, Bart. 
 
 { “In the Green Lion’s bed, the sun and the moon are born; they are married and beget a 
 king. The king feeds on the lion’s blood, which is the king’s father and mother, who are at the 
 same time his brother and sister. I fear I betray the secrete which I promised my master to con- 
 ceal in dark speech from every one that does not know how to rule the philosopher's fire. When 
 you have fed your lion with sol and luna,” &c.— Abraham Andrew’s Hunting of the Green Lion. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 237 
 
 The book is in Latin, and consists of a digest of all that is precious in alchemy 
 or hermetic philosophy, being a revelation of the mystery of the Golden Fleece. 
 It commences with a solemn address to his son. He tells him, “ above all 
 things embrace God with your whole heart and purity of mind; for without 
 his guidance all is vanity, and especially in this divine science.” He then 
 strongly inculcates secrecy as the first essential duty of the hermetic art; “a 
 madman,” says he, “ must not have a sword, and were these secrets to be di- 
 vulged, the hind would become greedy of gold to his own destruction, and ini- 
 quities would cover the earth; mighty in their gold, nations would rush to 
 war for nothing ; the worthless would wax proud and scorn their rulers ; and 
 the reins of civil power and legitimate government being relaxed, an earth- 
 quake would follow. Oh! I say, reveal this secret to the vulgar, and the 
 darkness of chaos shall again brood upon the face of the waters.” Having 
 thus enjoined secrecy, Robert Napier of Culcreuch, Esq. proceeds to give his 
 reasons for pointing out to his son the path to the precious elixir ; namely, that 
 he might not waste his time in consulting books that would lead him astray, 
 or ruin himself with the expences of an ill-directed search; and having sketch- 
 ed the plan of his work he thus concludes: ‘“ But, above all things, you my 
 son, or whoever he be of my posterity who may chance to see and read this 
 book, I adjure by the most holy Trinity, and under the pains of the curse of 
 Heaven, not to make it public, nor. to communicate it to a living soul, unless 
 it be to a child of the art, a good man fearing God, and one who will cherish 
 the secret of Hermes under the deepest silence. But if thou dost otherwise, 
 accursed be thou! and, guilty before the throne of God, may every pain of that 
 condemnation follow thee which Heaven in its wrath will visit upon him who 
 reveals the shrine of Hermes to unhallowed eyes. God grant that my soul 
 may be free from so deadly a sin; and, imploring him that no malign influ- 
 ence may direct this book into impious hands, I take his holy name to witness 
 that I have written it only for the sake of the good, those who with sincere 
 and pious hearts worship him, to whom be the honor, the praise, and the glory 
 
 for ever and ever.” * 
 
 * The title of the MS. is “ Mysterii aurei velleris Revelatio; seu analysis philosophica qua 
 nucleus vere intentionis hermeticz posteris Deum timentibus manifestatur. Authore R. N.” 
 And its motto, 
 
 _ Orbis quicquid opum, vel habet medicina salutis, 
 Omne Leo Geminis suppeditare potest. 
 
238 THE LIFE OF 
 
 The reader will excuse our penetrating farther into a work with so fearful 
 a preface; but so much we may afford him, without falling under the ana- 
 thema maranatha of this disciple of Hermes, as a very curious picture of the 
 times, derived from one under whose auspices was published the revelation 
 of a more humble secret,—his father’s secret method of constructing the Lo- 
 garithms. 
 
 In the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, there is an original picture of Dr Ri- 
 chard Napier of necromantic memory, which in some features bears so strong 
 a resemblance to the portraits of our philosopher, that they might easily pass 
 for brothers. ‘The relationship is not quite so close, though very nearly, as 
 they were brothers’ sons,—a fact not generally known. Alexander Napier of 
 Merchiston killed at the battle of Pinkie, and who was so frequently abroad, 
 had a son named Alexander, who came immediately after his eldest son Archi- 
 bald, the philosopher’s father. Alexander seems to have accompanied his father 
 in some of his foreign excursions, and was left by him in England, probably at 
 school, before the year 1548. Instead of returning to his country, young Alex- 
 ander Napier established himself in Exeter, and married an English lady, Ann, 
 a daughter of Edward Birchley, Esq. of Hertfordshire. Of this marriage 
 there were two sons; Robert, the Turkey merchant, who became a baronet, 
 as we have elsewhere particularly noted, and Richard, whose history and ad- 
 ventures we shall now sketch. 
 
 He was about eight years younger than the philosopher, and seems to have 
 obtained all the advantages of a classical education; was fellow of Exeter Col- 
 lege, Cambridge,—took a degree in that university,—and became rector of 
 Lynford. In his youth, however, he attached himself to one of the lights of 
 the Rosicrucian school, Dr Simon Forman. This celebrated adept, who, among 
 many works of the kind, published one on the art of discovering hidden trea- 
 sure and goods purloined, was rather successful as a physician, but much more 
 soasacheat. His character and occupations cannot be better displayed to the 
 reader than in a single sentencé.written by himself in one of the books he left 
 behind him, viz. ‘‘ This I made the Devil write with his own hand in Lam- 
 beth Fields, 1596, in June or July, as I now remember.” Under such auspices, 
 it is not surprising if Doctor Richard Napier far excelled his Scotch cousin in 
 the occult sciences. William Lilly, speaking of Forman’s death, says, “ all 
 his rarities, secret manuscripts of what quality soever, Dr Napper of Lindford 
 in Buckinghamshire had, who had been a long time his scholar; and of whom 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 239 
 
 Forman was used to say he would be a dunce; yet in continuance of time he 
 proved a singular astrologer and physician.”* The same author, who was 
 personally acquainted with Richard Napier, adds, that his “ family cam into 
 England in King Henry the Eighth’s time.+ The parson was master-of-arts ; 
 but whether doctorated by degree, or courtesy because of his profession, I know 
 not. Miscarrying one day in the pulpit, he never after used it; but all his 
 lifetime kept in his house some excellent scholar or other to officiate for him, 
 with allowance of a good salary. He outwent Forman in physic and holiness 
 of life ; cured the falling sickness perfectly by constellated rings ; some diseases 
 by amulets, &c. A maid was much afflicted with the falling-sickness, whose 
 parents applied themselves unto him for cure. He-framed her a constellated 
 ring, upon wearing whereof she recovered perfectly. Her parents acquainted 
 some scrupulous divines with the cure of their daughter; ‘ the cure is done 
 by inchantment,’ say they ; ‘ cast away the ring, it’s diabolical; God cannot 
 bless you if you do not cast the ring away. ‘The ring was cast into the well, 
 whereupon the maid became epileptical as formerly, and endured much misery 
 for a long time. At last her parents cleansed the well, and recovered the ring 
 again; the maid wore it, and her ‘ fits’ took her no more. In this condition 
 she was one year or two; which the puritan ministers there adjoining hear- 
 ing, never left off till they procured her parents to cast the ring quite away ; 
 which done, the fits returned in such violence that they were enforced to apply 
 to the doctor again, relating at large the whole story, humbly imploring his 
 once more assistance; but he could not be procured to do anything, only said, 
 ‘ those who despised God’s mercies were not capable or worthy of enjoying 
 them.’ I was with him in 1632 or 1633 upon occasion. He had me up into 
 his library, being excellently furnished with very choice books ; there he prayed 
 almost one hour ; he invocated several angels in his prayer, viz. Michael, t Ga- 
 
 * Lilly’s Life and Times, p. 44. 
 
 + There were two distinct branches of the Napiers of Merchiston in England. James, a younger 
 son of Archibald fourth of Merchiston, settled in England in the reign of Henry VII. His sons 
 all founded wealthy and distinguished families, and his grandson was Lord Chief Baron of Ireland. 
 Through him various noble families are lineally descended from Sir Alexander Napier of Philde 
 and Merchiston. James Lenox Napier of Ireland became Lord Sherbourn. His son married the 
 daughter of Lord Stawel; one of his daughters married Viscount Andover, son and heir of Charles 
 Earl of Suffolk; and another daughter married Prince Bariatiusky of the Russian Empire.—See 
 Note A, as to the English and Irish Napiers cadets of Merchiston. 
 
 { Elias Ashmole here notes, “ At some times, upon great occasions, he had conference with 
 Michael, but very rarely.” 
 
240 THE LIFE OF 
 
 briel, Raphael, Uriel, &c. We parted. He instructed many ministers in as- 
 trology ; would lend them whole cloak-bags of books; protected them from 
 harm and violence by means of his:power with the Earl of Bolingbroke He 
 would confess my master Evans knew more’ than himself in some things; and 
 some time before he died; he got: his cousin Sir Richard to set a figure to see 
 when he should die.. Being brought to him, ‘ well,’ he said, “ the old man will 
 live this winter, but'in the spring he will die; welcome Lord Jesus, thy will 
 be done. He had many enemies; Cotta, doctor of physick in Northampton, 
 wrote a sharp book of Witellorakt; wherein obliquely he bitterly inveighed against 
 the doctor.” * 
 
 Thus far Sidrophel. But I find Doctor Napier still more curiously recorded by 
 John Aubrey in his quaint volume of Miscellanies, and under the attractive title, 
 “ CONVERSE WITH ANGELS AND SPIRITS.” 
 
 “ Dr Richard Nepeir-was a person of great abstinence, innocence, and piety ; 
 he spent every day two hours in family prayer. When a patient or querent 
 came to him, he presently went to his closet toypray, and told to admiration 
 the recovery or death of the patient.. It appears by his papers, that he did 
 converse with the angel Raphael, who-gave him the responses. Elias Ash- 
 mole, Esquire, had all his papers, where is contained all his»practice for about 
 fifty years, which he, Mr Ashmole, carefully bound up, according to the year 
 of our Lord, in volumes in folio, which are now reposited in the library 
 of the museum in Oxford. Before the responses stands this mark, viz. R. Bis, 
 which Mr ‘Ashmole said was Responsum Raphaelis. In these papers are 
 many excellent medicines or receipts for several diseases that his patients had, 
 and before some of them is the aforesaid mark. Mr Ashmole took the pains 
 to transcribe fairly with his own hand all the receipts. They are about a quire 
 and half of paper in folio, which since his death were bought of his relict by 
 +E. W. Esquire, R.S.S. The angel told him if the patient were curable or 
 incurable. There are also several other queries to the angel as to religion, 
 transubstantiation, &c. which I have forgot. I remember one is, Whether the 
 good spirits or the bad be most in number ? Responsum Raphaelis, The good. 
 It is to be found there that he told John Prideaux, D. D. anno 1621, that 
 twenty years hence, 1641, he would be a bishop, and he was so, sc. Bishop of 
 Worcester. Raphael did resolve him, that Mr Booth of in Cheshire, 
 should have a son that should inherit three years hence, (sc. Sir George Booth, 
 
 * Lilly’s Life and Times, p. 123. + Edward Waller. 
 
Yay 
 iisipey 
 Yj 
 WY Uy 
 
 Yi Wy 
 YYW 
 
 YY 
 YY 
 
 Yy 
 Yyy 
 
 YY 
 y 
 
 Uf 
 UY y y y Yi 
 
 j y WY yj ET y y YY 
 
 p og YY YYYyyuy , 6 = Uy HY) 
 MEAN A WM y UY WY Jy : YY Yj fj 
 GHEE, if ¢: iy WY YJ 4 pie ¥ Wy j 
 Mier Y y 3 : 
 EPH Ly ; 
 
 YM 
 YY) 
 “Yy 
 
 Wy 
 Yi 
 UY 
 
 GLEE 
 
 GEL 
 
 SELES EES. 
 
 i iity 
 Aes 
 
 we 
 
 Th, 
 Lf 
 Le 
 
 Lip 
 TIPE E: 
 
 LIL L 
 
 GEL ee F 
 LILLLL ILL ZS 
 
 y 
 
 ) 
 \Y SH 
 RES 
 ANS INR 
 I We 
 AN SN 
 NY SN 
 . NS 
 
 {77 
 77 
 
 y 
 
 LT, 
 LJ 
 
 a 
 
 SS 
 
 SSw 
 
 DE IRUCGUCAIRID WAIPIOE IR . 
 
 FROM THE: ORIGINAL IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM OXFORD 
 
_ (OU av. Py eT). ae ime Sh 
 nal tial : i om : " 
 ; \ 
 4 f 
 " 
 . " a , : 
 ’ he) = ed 
 
 “ ; oh ae Sg fa ve 
 
 oT Nas thea Y 
 
 Duin) )f uit hey 
 
 r / AO Ta ily ee Pe ae 
 ¥ , ta ya! P a? 
 + , ine ¥ . 1 . — 
 “se » 
 * " 
 ¢ 
 ‘ 
 5 
 a 
 i 
 ies 1 
 . 
 * ‘ 
 
* 
 
 NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 241 
 
 the first Lord Delamere,) viz. from 1619. Sir George Booth aforesaid was 
 born December 18, anno 1622. This I extracted out of Doctor Nepeir’s ori- 
 ginal diary, then in possession of Mr Ashmole. When E. W., Esquire, was 
 about eight years old, he was troubled with the worms. His grandfather car- 
 ried him to Doctor Nepeir at Lynford. Mr E. W. peeped in at the closet at 
 the end of the gallery, and saw him upon his knees at prayer. The doctor 
 told Sir Francis, that at fourteen years old his grandson would be freed from 
 that distemper, and he was so. The medicine he prescribed was to drink a 
 little draught of muscadine in the morning. “T'was about 1625. It is impos- 
 sible that the prediction of Sir George Booth’s birth could be found any other 
 way but by angelical revelation. This Doctor Richard Nepeir was rector of 
 Lynford in Bucks, and did practice physick ; but gave most to the poor that 
 he got byit. *Tis certain he told his own death toa day and hour. He dyed 
 praying upon his knees, being of a very great age, 1634, April the first. He 
 was nearly related to the learned Lord Nepeir, Baron of M............ in Scot- 
 land, I have forgot whether his brother. His knees were horny with frequent 
 praying. He left his estate to Sir Richard Nepeir, M. D. of the College of 
 Physicians, London, from whom Mr Ashmole had the doctor’s picture now in 
 the museum. He was a good astrologer.” * 
 
 The Sir Richard Napier last-mentioned was a nephew of Doctor Richard, and 
 younger son of Sir Robert Napier of Luton-Hoe, Bart., the Turkey merchant ; 
 consequently, he was first cousin once removed to John Napier of Merchiston. 
 Sir Richard was first of Wadham College, Oxford, and afterwards fellow of All- 
 Souls, and took his degree as doctor of physic. “ Hewas,” says Anthony a Wood, 
 * one of the first members of the Royal Society,—a great pretender to virtue and 
 astrology,—made a great noise in the world, yet did littleor nothing towards the 
 public. He died in the house of Sir John Lenthall, at Besills-Lee near Ab- 
 
 * Miscellanies, &c. Collected by John Aubrey, Esq. F. R.S., second edit. p. 169. There is 
 also a curious collection of letters from eminent persons in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
 tury, published under Aubrey’s name, from the originals in the Bodleian Library and Ashmolean 
 Museum. He was a great friend and source of information to the well-known Anthony a 
 Wood, author of the Athenz and Fasti Oxoniensis. Wood, in his Life of Judge Jenkins, threw 
 some reflection upon Lord Clarendon, for which he (Wood) was expelled from Oxford; but he 
 afterwards declared that he had it from Mr Aubrey, who had it from Judge Jenkins himself. 
 Anthony used to say of Aubrey, “ Look, yonder goes such a one, who can tell such and such 
 stories ; and I’le warrant Mr Aubrey will break his neck down stairs rather than miss him, —— 
 
 Hearne. 
 
 Hh 
 
Q42 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ingdon, in Berks, 17th January 1675, and was buried in the church at Lin- 
 ford, the manor of which did belong to him; but, after his death, his son 
 Thomas sold it for L. 19,500, or thereabouts. The said Sir Richard drew up 
 a book containing a collection of nativities, which is now in MS., in the hands 
 of Elias Ashmole, Esq.” * Aubrey gives this curious account of his death :— 
 “ When Sir Richard Napeir, M.D. of London, was upon the road coming 
 from Bedfordshire, the chamberlain of the inn shewed him his chamber. The 
 doctor saw a dead man lying upon the bed; he looked more wistly, and saw 
 it was himself! He was then well enough in health. He goes forward in his 
 journey to Mr Steward in Berkshire, and there died. This account I have in 
 a letter from Elias Ashmole, Esq. They were intimate friends.” + 
 
 Had our philosopher in any degree partaken of the wild absurdities which 
 characterized his cousins in England, the probability is that some traces of a 
 correspondence betwixt them would be found among the papers of Dr Napier 
 at Oxford, which, however, is not the case; and when we compare all that 
 appears of John Napier’s fanciful vein, not merely with that of contemporary 
 philosophers, historians, and statesmen, but with the members of his own 
 family, and the cadets of his house, we are led to conclude, that in him astro- 
 logical and rosicrucian superstitions were subdued in the proportion that his 
 science predominated. When not absorbed in his deep contemplation of the 
 Scriptures, or his purely abstract speculations in mathematics, we shall show 
 that he was better employed than in framing constellated rings for the vulgar, 
 or teaching the Devil to write. But the picture we have now to afford of him 
 deserves to be the subject of a separate chapter. 
 
 * Wood's Fasti Oxonienses. By Bliss. Part Second, p. 47. 
 + Miscellanies, p. 91. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 243 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ANOTHER view may be taken of what possibly was the result of our phi- 
 losopher’s contract with Logan, than that he had actually gone to Fastcastle, 
 and been cheated or robbed by its sinister possessor. The Popish Lords, 
 against whom Napier had just been so active and public an instrument, were, 
 after much shuffling on the part of James, again brought before the tribunal 
 of their country. In the month of June 1594, the intercepted blanks and 
 other treasonable papers were produced and verified in Parliament, where a rigo- 
 rous sentence of forfeiture for high treason passed against the delinquents, with 
 every circumstance of favour to the Protestant cause which had been desired 
 by the Assembly of the Church. The consequence was, that these noblemen were 
 driven to extremities, and they received at this time the accession of the unprinci- 
 pled Earlof Bothwell, who, like them, could find amid the fast-flowing tide of the 
 king’s reformation and justice, no spot to stand on save the most towering 
 treason. They took the field accordingly in great force, with the secret co- 
 operation of Bothwell; and the king sent the young Earl of Argyle to meet 
 them, who sustained the signal defeat at Belrinnes, known by the name of the 
 Battle of Glenlivet, which occurred in October 1594. It was in the intermediate 
 month of July betwixt the forfeiture of the Popish Earls and the date of their 
 victory, that Napier was invited to Fastcastle; and as we see that the Earl of Ar- 
 gyle considered supernatural powers an essential ingredient of his matervel, it is 
 not impossible (what idea is too extravagant for the times and the actors *) 
 
 * The Latin historian of the battle of Glenlivet, who seems to have been an eye-witness, says, 
 that Argyle’s sorceress spread a thick darkness around them, but that all her incantations failed, 
 because, as she herself confessed when taken prisoner, there was something in the Catholic camp 
 
244, THE LIFE OF 
 
 that his enemies considered it advisable to lay a plot to cripple his corps 
 @armée, by the seizure of the marvellous Merchiston. It might also have 
 been intended to bring the laird to a very serious reckoning at Fastcastle on 
 his own account, his host being one more ready to discuss reasons of ransom 
 than of religion. Our philosopher’s better genius may have opened his eyes 
 to some such scheme against himself and his party, and thus have prevented 
 his falling into the same suare so soon afterwards spread for the king himself. 
 We see his subsequent indignation against the very name of Logan ; and cer- 
 tainly if he went to Fastcastle at this crisis, he must have escaped from it by 
 a miracle. That all eyes were attracted to him at the time, as one able to do 
 more than any other single individual to protect his country from insidious 
 enemies and foreign invasion, is evinced by other of his operations, the history 
 of which is not generally known. 
 
 Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty, in a tract which he entitled, “ The Dis- 
 covery of a most Exquisite Jewel, more precious than diamonds inchased in 
 gold,” &c. speaks of a Colonel Douglas, who, he says, was very serviceable to 
 the States of Holland, and presented them with a paper, containing “ twelve 
 articles and heads of such wonderful feats for the use of the wars both by sea 
 and land, to be performed by him, flowing from the remotest springs of mathe- 
 matical secrets, and those of natural philosophy, that none of this age saw, 
 nor any of our forefathers ever heard the like, save what out of Cicero, Livy, 
 Plutarch, and other old Greek and Latin writers we have couched, of the ad- 
 mirable inventions made use of by Archimedes in defence of the city of Syra- 
 cusa, against the continual assaults of the Roman forces both by sea and land, 
 under the conduct of Marcellus.” Sir Thomas then introduces his celebrated 
 episode of Napier of Merchiston and Crichton of Elliock, whom he classes to- 
 gether as the Castor and Pollux of Scottish letters. “ To speak really,” says 
 he, “ I think there hath not been any in this age of the Scottish nation, save 
 Neper and Crichtoun, who, for abilities of the mind in matter of practical 
 inventions useful for men of industry, merit to be compared with him: and 
 yet of these two (notwithstanding their precellency in learning) I would be 
 altogether silent (because I made account to mention no other Scottish men 
 here, but such as have been famous for souldiery, and brought up at the school 
 
 which impeded all her efforts ; “ irrito incepto destitit, eo quod, (ut capta dicebat)) aliquid in nos- 
 tris esset castris quod conatus ipsius vehementer impediebat.’”—MS. Advocates’ Library. This 
 must have been the genius of the Earl of Bothwell. The wretched woman was put to death. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 245 
 
 of Mars) were it not, that, besides their profoundness in literature, they were 
 inriched with military qualifications beyond expression. As for Neper, (other- 
 ways designed Lord Marchiston) he is for his logarithmical device so com- 
 pleatly praised in that preface of the author’s, which usher’s a trigonometrical 
 book of his, intituled, The Trissotetras,* that to add any more thereunto, 
 would but obscure with an empty sound, the clearness of what is already said : 
 therefore I will allow him no share in this discourse, but in so far as con- 
 cerneth an almost incomprehensible device, which being in the mouths of the 
 most of Scotland, and yet unknown to any that ever was in the world but 
 himself, deserveth very well to be taken notice of in this place ; and it is this: 
 he had the skill (as is commonly reported) to frame an engine (for invention 
 not much unlike that of Architas Dove) which, by vertue of some secret springs, 
 inward resorts, with other implements and materials fit for the purpose, in- 
 closed within the bowels thereof, had the power (if proportionable in bulk to 
 the action required of it (for he could have made it of all sizes) to clear a field 
 of four miles circumference, of all the living creatures exceeding a foot of 
 height, that should be found thereon, how near soever they might be to one 
 another ; by which means he made it appear, that he was able, with the help 
 of this machine alone, to kill thirty thousand Turks, without the hazard of 
 one Christian. Of this it is said, that (upon a wager) he gave proof upon a 
 large plain in Scotland, to the destruction of a great many herds of cattel, and 
 flocks of sheep, whereof some were distant from other half a mile on all sides, 
 and some a whole mile. ‘To continue the thread of the story, as I have it, I 
 must not forget, that, when he was most earnestly desired by an old acquaint- 
 
 * Sir Thomas Urquhart’s address to the reader in that strange work entitled Trissotetras, &c. 
 occupies two quarto pages, and is from beginning to end a panegyric upon Napier. It commences, 
 « To write of trigonometry, and not make mention of the illustrious Lord Neper of Marchiston, 
 the Inventor of Logarithms, were to be unmindful of Him that is our daily benefactor,” &c. He 
 also says most justly, “ the philosopher’s stone is but trash to this invention, which will always 
 be accounted of more worth to the mathematical world than was the finding out of America to the 
 King of Spain, or the discovery of the nearest way to the East Indies would be to the northerly 
 occidental merchants ;” and he concludes by recommending the “ imitation of that admirable 
 gentleman, whose immortal fame, in spite of time, will outlast all ages, and look eternity in the face.” 
 
 Sir Thomas Urquhart was born a few years before Napier died. A complete edition of his 
 works, which may be expected to be well illustrated, is now in the press for the Maitland Club of 
 Scotland. It is a curious genealogical fact, of which this author was not aware, that the respec- 
 tive fathers of his two idols, Napier and Crichton, married (their second wives) about the same 
 time (1571-72) sisters, namely, the daughters of John Mowbray of Barnbougall. 
 
Pa 
 246 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ance, and professed friend of his, even about the time of his contracting that 
 disease whereof he dyed, he would be pleased, for the honour of his family, 
 and his own everlasting memory to posterity, to reveal unto him the manner 
 of the contrivance of so ingenious a mystery ; subjoining thereto, for the bet- 
 ter perswading of him, that it were a thousand pities, that so excellent an in- 
 vention should be buried with him in the grave, and that after his decease 
 nothing should be known thereof: his answer was, That for the ruin and 
 overthrow of man, there were too many devices already framed, which if he 
 could make to be fewer, he would with all his might endeavour to do; and 
 that therefore seeing the malice and rancor rooted in the heart of mankind 
 will not suffer them to diminish, by any new conceit of his the number of them 
 should never be increased. Divinely spoken, truly.” 
 
 The knight of Cromarty’s compositions are written in such a strain that it 
 is no easy matter to determine whether he meant to speak truth jestingly, or 
 to tell lies in downright earnest ; and we would hardly have ventured to quote 
 this extraordinary story, were it not susceptible of very curious illustration. 
 
 Their success at the battle of Glenlivet gave great encouragement to the 
 Popish Lords ; but they were unable to cope with the royal banner, and re- 
 treated abroad. Philip of Spain, however, still adhered to his lawless projects 
 for the conquest of Britain; and in the year 1595-6, another crisis arrived 
 very similar to that in which Napier was so conspicuous two years before. 
 While Huntly, Angus, and Errol were yet abroad, the news arrived in Scot- 
 land in the month of April 1596, that a Spanish army of 25,000 had assaulted 
 and won Calais; and that an English army of 30,000 had entered Spain, and 
 taken signal revenge upon the city of Cadiz. Previous to this the greatest ex- 
 citement prevailed in Scotland from the terror of a Catholic invasion, and Wap- 
 pin-schaws, for the universal practice of arms, were everywhere assembled by the 
 express orders of government. That Napier, at least since the detection of the 
 Spanish plot, had deeply occupied himself in the construction of unknown in- 
 struments of war for the protection of his country, is proved by the scantlings 
 or summary of his inventions, which at that time he had drawn up, and which 
 appears also to have been presented to the English government by some of 
 James’ ambassadors, who were sent with offers of co-operation to all Christian 
 kings against the enemies of the Gospel. In the “ Historie of James the Sext,” 
 it is narrated, that “ in the end of this yeir, (1595) the king being informit 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 247 
 
 that the Ture was entrit Christendome with a potent armie, and his majestie 
 having favour to the Christien cause and glorie of Chryst, thought expedient 
 to direct a condigne messinger unto the emperor, and that was William Stew- 
 art, Lord of Pittinweme, and knycht of Houston,* with letters, declaring that 
 his majestie was glad to understand his forwartnes in that gude cause, and 
 tharefore he promeist to mak sik assistance as he could in that purpose, to de- 
 bell the great ennemie to our Salviour Chryst,” &c. Now, there is yet pre- 
 served in the Bacon Collection in Lambeth Palace the following document, of 
 which, through the liberality of its noble possessor, I am also enabled to pre- 
 sent the reader with a fac-simile. 
 
 “ Anno Domini 1596, the 7 of June, Secrett Inventionis, proffitabill and ne- 
 cessary in theis dayes for defence of this Iland, and withstanding of stran- 
 gers, enemies of God’s truth and religion. 
 
 “ First, the invention, proofe and perfect demonstration, geometricall and 
 alegebricall, of a burning mirrour, which, receving the dispersed beames of the 
 sonne, doth reflex the same beames alltogether united and concurring priselie 
 [precisely | in one mathematicall point, in the which point most necessarelie it 
 
 ingendreth fire, with an evident demonstration of their error who affirmeth 2. 
 
 this to be made a parabolik section. 
 
 “ The use of this invention serveth for burning of the enemies shipps at what- 
 soever appointed distance. 
 
 ‘“ SECONDLIE, The invention and sure demonstration of another mirrour 
 which receiving the dispersed beames of any materiall fier or flame yealdeth 
 allsoe the former effect, and serveth for the like use. 
 
 « THIRDLIE, The invention and visible demonstration of a piece of artillery, 
 which, shott, passeth not linallie through the enemie, destroying onlie those 
 that stand on the randon thereof, and fra them forth flying idly, as utheris 
 do; but passeth superficially, ranging abrode within the whole appointed place, 
 and not departing furth of the place till it hath executed his whole strength, 
 by destroying those that be within the boundes of the said place. 
 
 «“ The use hereof not onlie serveth greatlie against the armie of the enemy on 
 
 * P, 354. This was Colonel Stewart, commendator of Pittenweem, and captain of the king’s 
 guard. His son was created Lord Pittenweem, in whom the title became extinct. In the old 
 chronicle quoted, the date of this mission is stated loosely as occurring at the end of 1595, and 
 that he returned in December following. 
 
248 THE LIFE OF 
 
 land, but alsoe by sea it serveth to destroy, and cut downe, and one shott 
 the whole mastes and tackling of so many shippes as be within the appoint- 
 ed boundes, as well abried as in large, so long as any strength at all remayneth. 
 
 “ FoURTHLIE, The invention of a round chariot of mettle made of the 
 proofe of dooble muskett, which motion shall be by those that be within the 
 same, more easie, more light, and more spedie by much then so manie armed 
 ‘men would be otherwayes. 
 
 “ The use hereof as well, in moving, serveth to breake the array of the ene- 
 mies battle and to make passage, as also in staying and abiding within the 
 enemies battle, it serveth to destroy the environed enemy by continuall charge 
 and shott of harquebush through small hoalles ; the enemie in the meanetime 
 being abased and altogether uncertaine what defence or pursuit to use against 
 a moving mouth of mettle. 
 
 “ These inventiones, besides devises of sayling under the water, with divers 
 other devises and stratagemes for harming of the enemyes, by the grace of 
 God and worke of expert craftesmen I hope to perform. 
 
 “Jo. Never, Lear of Marchistoun. 
 
 This paper is indorsed “ Mr Steward, secretes inventiones de la guerre le 
 mois de Juillet, 1596.” * 
 
 M. Biot, as an apology for the celibacy of Sir Isaac Newton, remarks, that 
 when we consider how his time was occupied, we may easily conceive that he 
 was never married. But we thus see that our philosopher who by this time 
 was married to a second wife, and had six sons and six daughters, was just as 
 completely and profoundly occupied with theology, science and the state of 
 the country, as any human being could possibly be. Upon looking at the in- 
 dorsation of this paper, it appears to have been received from some one of the 
 
 * This very curious paper is little known, and no perfect copy of it has been hitherto printed. 
 It appeared, but without any illustration, in Dr Anderson’s collection of fugitive pieces, entitled 
 “ The Bee ;” in the month of June, 1791: but that copy is imperfect both in the contents and 
 in the signature. It was reprinted with these errors in the year 1804, in the 18th volume of 
 Tilloch’s Philosophical Magazine, where some of the inventions are illustrated with scientific re- 
 search. The illustration, however, considered scientifically, is by no means complete ; but serves 
 to show how much might be made of a review of Napier’s scantlings if thoroughly digested by a 
 philosopher. Lord Buchan in his life of Napier, merely refers to the title of this paper, and calls 
 it a “letter to Anthony Bacon ;” which shows he had not considered it. He refers his reader to 
 his appendix for the document, where, thas it is not to be found. 
 
‘creas 
 
 In bef ~cithonary Vo V. foe Be. Org) Bierg a‘, 
 
 n * 
 \ 72 , ; ad a | 
 Pay le, 
 Te Ara A Muda 8 ta) a aN y rf aa J a 
 ae ; ‘ , ie Me fy 
 
 ( eg ~ i 
 
 4 + 
 iy 
 FLAC vere 
 
 oxk on ¢ (/ reqs 
 Cue Kenner ue OI te pa Nee eeveas6 . Ue ; 
 es: ieee me | 
 i Sa Dyiieeet Ppl ~sime " avi bebe 4 Past p : 
 NAP COWE, OW ty et. c SS} YO, nS ~~ ation fac 3 CAM ci legit, cult 
 Uae aie peste Ee. Oss hannah oP ios (Soa. 
 casmmsa atthe getPov iB = : eh ve: ee 
 Ree Wie #ER CL Sove we ing” orice? 
 eal vor fn ce Wi Semi ) | | ye As 
 4 j wh ia ee a ‘Was Oe, Sh a - AVEOE “4 oa Bd éf te my 
 Ips { ge nw f an O14 ef ‘ pone hraton Pah CRreov (Msp af fie rmoly 
 ae et er ~~ parable Cua, mys he cade ot 
 pc Spd anuenhs 
 pit Si aa : . 
 
 seen: 
 
 wey 
 
 nf Cn Race 
 An 
 
 oat J pecot MOA OA 
 ee 
 
 SS 
 
3 eg huge ek Aaa . F ga f, oun & he 4 a. 
 i 84H AL & aPQud) : ne oes Nag Hadeo eae 
 oe Pt Eh UH EE ve 
 ey: a Faberge yr Bees 
 pH fo Symon 
 —— Qu oe “Site ees oe 
 LA Be Af » Se : ; ik : 
 reise Sr a9 7ts Poh 
 a = = a pron i. on ie . . 3 
 fam Jorn gy ee. Aen | 
 cps HS Tea eh . 
 
 SI oe iLO 
 
 7 10m 
 
 ( ~* PUG Jay TAs , 
 a) e sng 4 2A Barty BOY — a ee 
 
 wereg FEO 0 dave ‘ s¥ 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 249 
 
 name of Steward, a month after its date; and there seems reason to surmise 
 that this was the ambassador of James VI., who had taken an opportunity, 
 (during his mission to “ debell the great Turc,”) of presenting the result of the 
 Scotch philosopher’s scientific ingenuity to the English government, which 
 was then very much excited against the Catholic enemy. England herself was 
 threatened, and, accordingly, Napier frames his proposals in reference to the 
 whole island. 
 
 It was obviously not from this paper that Sir Thomas Urquhart obtained a 
 knowledge of the machine he describes as having been put to a practical test in 
 Scotland ; in that case he would have noticed the other inventions, and also 
 the coincidence of Napier having offered to his countrymen a written sum- 
 mary, or succinct description of more than one of the very schemes which 
 Colonel Douglas presented to the states of Holland. We must therefore hold, 
 that the knight of Cromarty is corroborated in his story by Napier himself, 
 whose description of the third invention contained in his paper seems to 
 agree precisely with that said to have been tried on a large plain in Scot- 
 land. Whether the experiment actually took place, or with the effect al- 
 leged, is, however, not of much consequence. Napier was as far removed as 
 possible from the character of a quack, or empiric, in any branch of science 
 to which he directed his powerful mind; and we may safely take it upon his 
 own declaration, that he had mastered, so far as he was concerned, all the ma- 
 chinery he describes. Neither is it necessary for his reputation in the matter 
 that these inventions should be capable of the practical application which their 
 author anticipated. That they are not so, or at least that their utility is super- 
 seded by a more intellectual art of war, may indeed be taken for granted. But 
 the question is, what evidence do they afford of Napier’s inventive powers when 
 compared with the scientific resources of his day, and the scientific experiments 
 of subsequent philosophers who illustrate more enlightened times? To answer 
 this question properly, would require a profound acquaintance with science. 
 If by laying the document itself in this authentic form before the public, a 
 philosopher should be attracted to bestow upon it the illustration it me- 
 rits, we shall have performed all that we can hope todo. There are, however, 
 some readers who may be apt to regard with contempt these “ scantlings of 
 inventions,” * as the shadows of a fanciful mind, or at best only worthy 
 
 * In the year 1663, Edward Marquis of Worcester published what he entitled, “ A Century 
 Ii . 
 
250 THE LIFE OF 
 
 of being classed with those visionary experiments of which we have an in- 
 stance in the Italian alchemist who broke his bones in an attempt to fly. In 
 the only scientific notice hitherto bestowed upon them, there is, from the 
 nature of the publication which contains that notice, no attempt to trace the 
 history of their origin in Napier’s mind, or to connect them with the state 
 of the country and his own career. The reader of the Philosophical Ma- 
 gazine is at once confronted with the Inventor of Logarithms, in a po- 
 sition which, notwithstanding the scientific analysis, gives him, in that ab- 
 stract consideration, something of the air of an over-excited philosopher, ex- 
 ercising a fine mathematical genius within and upon the walls of a mad-house. 
 But, having followed the progress of his mind, amid every collateral circum- 
 stance likely to influence it, from his birth in the dawn of the Reformation, 
 through his youthful studies so abhorrent of popery, to the maturer exertion 
 of his faculties in the cause of God’s truth,—and then in its prominent part, 
 even against those connected to him by the strongest ties, down to this year 
 1595-6, when the greatest excitement prevailed in the country from the ex- 
 pected Spanish invasion,—the disagreeable effect of this luminous, but appa- 
 rently isolated spot, vanishes in the natural union of the broad lights and sha- 
 dows of his life, and we find the picture of a philosopher. 
 
 Some remarkable coincidences, betwixt the mental structures of Napier and 
 Newton, have been already noticed. ‘The remnant we are now considering 
 will have suggested another very interesting parallel, viz. betwixt Napier 
 and Archimedes,—the Newton of the schools of Greece. We may turn for a 
 
 of the names and scantlings of such Inventions as at present I can call to mind to have tried and 
 perfected, which (my former notes being lost) I have, at the instance of a powerful friend, en- 
 deavoured now, in the year 1655, to set these down in such a way as may sufficiently instruct me 
 to put any of them in practice.” A few of these are very analogous to Napier’s; but, with some 
 brilliant exceptions, they are characterized rather by trick and plagiarism, than science and origi- 
 nality. The following encomium may nevertheless be just: “ Here it may not be amiss to re- 
 commend to the attention of every mechanic the little work entitled, a « Century of Inventions,’ 
 by the Marquis of Worcester, which, on account of the seeming improbability of discovering many 
 things mentioned therein, has been too much neglected; but when it is considered that some of 
 the contrivances, apparently not the least abstruse, have by close application been found to answer 
 all that the Marquis says of them, and that the first hint of that most powerful machine, the steam 
 engine, is given in that work, it is unnecessary to enlarge on the utility of it.”— Trans. of the 
 
 Society of Arts, Vol. iui. p. 6. 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 251 
 
 moment to the early epochs of philosophy, introduced to us by the revival of 
 letters, when the mathematical stores of those illustrious schools were gra- 
 dually unfolded by men worthy of that exciting task. “ In nothing, perhaps,” 
 said one who deeply felt what he eulogized, “ is the inventive and elegant 
 genius of the Greeks better exemplified than in their geometry. The elemen- 
 tary truths of that science were connected by Euclid into one great chain, be- 
 ginning from the axioms, and extending to the properties of the five regular 
 solids, the whole digested into such clearness and precision, that no similar 
 work of superior excellence has appeared, even in the present advanced state 
 of mathematical science.” * Plato himself was one of the most expert geome- 
 tricians of his time ; and how he regarded the science may be gathered from his 
 reply to the question, In what manner Omnipotence is occupied? “ With 
 geometry through all eternity,” said the philosopher, in allusion to the geo- 
 metrical laws which pervade the physical universe. This was indeed a lofty 
 conception and magnificent picture of the mixed mathematics, of which So- 
 crates, too, offered a profound and practical view, even while he inculcated 
 the propriety of its limitation, in mortal hands, to mortal necessities: ‘“ When 
 we know,” said he, “ enough of geometry to measure our fields, enough of 
 astronomy to measure our time, and to guide us by sea and land, we ought 
 to affect no higher knowledge.” But, if we are to search for the most illus- 
 trious instances of speculative and applicate science which the annals of the 
 ancient world afford, we must study the works of Archimedes. He was born 
 at Syracuse about 287 years before the Christian era; and his success in the 
 higher geometry, independently of other mathematical attainments, is even 
 now the wonder and admiration of an age of algebra. Geometry and me- 
 chanics were the regions in which his genius delighted to expand; but so 
 deeply was he imbued with the spirit of the pure and profound speculations 
 of the former, that he seems to have disregarded, and is said in some measure 
 to have disdained, his own most ingenious and effective mechanical inven- 
 tions. Far in advance of his species, he carried his investigations on the 
 most daring and determined wing of intellectual adventure, beyond the boun- 
 daries of elementary geometry, to the most recondite fields of the higher 
 curves, and the originality and fertility of his mind were manifested, not 
 only by the most eminent success in these difficult and unexplored depart- 
 ments, but by the germ which his methods of philosophizing disclosed of some 
 
 * Professor Playfair’s Dissertation on the Progress of Mathematical and Physical Science, 
 
252 THE LIFE OF 
 
 of those subtile resources which constitute the power and the glory of the new 
 geometry. His unwearied application to the properties of curves elicited the 
 celebrated method of exhaustions, the most triumphant monument of his 
 speculative genius, and one which bears much the same relation to the ancient 
 geometry that the infinitesimal analysis does to the new. In the science of 
 numbers, too, he was deeply versed; and the sands of the sea afforded a nu- 
 merical subject commensurate with the magnitude of his mind. His well- 
 known work, De Numero Arene, refutes, by a beautiful application of a 
 logistic peculiar to himself, the plausible but crude proposition, that no mortal 
 power of numbers would suffice to express the quantity of the grains of sand 
 on the shores of the ocean. It was in this treatise that he evinced a know- 
 ledge of that quantitative property lurking in the proportions betwixt arith- 
 metical and geometrical progressions, which is the germ or fundamental prin- 
 ciple of LOGARITHMS. With the aid of this, he supplied the deficiency of the 
 arithmetical notation of the Greeks to express numbers unusually great ; but 
 the glory was left for Napier to elicit from that numerical speculation a beam 
 of light, still travelling with unchecked career in boundless space. To the 
 Arenarius of Archimedes, therefore, we must recur in another chapter. 
 With what finer genius of antiquity than him so justly called “ a man of 
 stupendous sagacity, who laid the foundation of almost every discovery whose 
 extension constitutes the triumph of our own age,” * could we compare the 
 old Scottish baron, and how fearlessly may we do so! Though the schools of 
 Greece be hallowed by such names as Euclid and Archimedes, and the last 
 age of a brilliant but false philosophy, which succeeded the restoration of 
 letters, saw the rise of Kepler and Galileo; still it may safely be said, that 
 before the dawn of the Baconian era in Britain,—an era which Newton consum- 
 mated, but to which Napier brought the first irresistible impulse,—the history 
 of the mixed.mathematics is comparatively barren. We find, it is true, from 
 the earliest times, rich treasures of speculative, and illustrious instances of 
 practical genius; but where were the achievements of the new geometry, 
 the celestial wing of physical astronomy, the fearless paths of navigation ! 
 These accumulated triumphs are all crowded within the last two centuries, 
 and belong to an island which in the preceding ages was a prey to savage tur- 
 bulence, and seemed never destined to overtake, far less to outstrip the conti- 
 
 * « Vir stupende sagacitalis qui prima fundamenta posuit inventionum feré omnium in quibus 
 
 promovendis etas nostra gloriatur.”— Walls. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 253 
 
 nent in its immortal career of science and letters. In the conquests of the 
 seventeenth century the Scotch philosopher stands first ; and we shall have 
 to show that he was pre-eminently successful at the very point where the sage 
 of Syracuse failed. But it will be no mean preliminary, if we can discover in- 
 dications that Napier, on the other hand, could bend the bow of Archimedes. 
 
 It is alleged that the Grecian philosopher considered the sublimity of 
 abstract thought as debased by material contact ; but he did not act upon 
 that selfish and mystical idea. No man, according to Livy and Plutarch, 
 ever worked such wonders in and by means of mechanical science, as he 
 did. “ Give me another spot for my foot, and I will displace the earth,” * 
 was an expression scarcely hyperbolical in the mouth of a philosopher, 
 whose achievements in statics rendered aghast the military experience of 
 Rome. When the states of Sicily revolted, and joined the Carthaginians 
 against the Commonwealth, Claudius Marcellus sat down before the rich city 
 of Syracuse, which was expected to fall an easy prey to the vigour of the 
 Roman arms. “ And so it would,” says Livy, “ but for one man in Sy- 
 racuse; this was Archimedes, an unrivalled astronomer, but yet more ad- 
 mirable for the invention and management of missile engines and other war- 
 like contrivances, by which, with perfect ease, he rendered futile the most la- 
 borious operations of the enemy. The wall of Syracuse, which was carried 
 along the unequal surface of ridges, and thus in some places inaccessible, and 
 in others almost so level as to afford an open path, he crowned with every 
 species of engine, each adapted to the nature of its position. Marcellus placed 
 his first class of ships against the fortification Achradina, whose bulwarks are 
 washed by the sea; while with his archers, slingers and skirmishers, whose 
 weapon it requires great skill to throw back again, he so plied the walls that 
 nothing could live upon them. These, however, kept at some distance, in the 
 smaller vessels, to afford room for their missiles. The other vessels were so 
 disposed in pairs, closely wedged together by removing the banks of oars in the 
 inside, as to be worked at one and the same time by the outside oars, and these 
 sustained towers protected by a cover of planks, and other machines for shaking 
 the walls. Against this armament Archimedes disposed machines of various 
 
 ? 
 
 * « This,” says Tzetzes, “ he uttered in his own Syracusian Doric;’ and then he gives the 
 
 expressions thus, 
 Tlé 60, nor Xagisiom rev yey xvgow wesc ; 
 
254 THE LIFE OF 
 
 magnitudes upon the walls. At the distant ships he cast rocks of a tremen- 
 dous size, and those under the walls he pelted with lighter stones, of which, 
 consequently, the showers were more frequently repeated ; and, besides all this, 
 he hit upon a contrivance to annoy the enemy secretely and safely, by piercing 
 the whole surface of the walls with loop-holes a cubit in length, through which 
 the archers, and those who worked the light scorpions, darted their mis- 
 siles,” &c. * 
 
 The Roman historian proceeds to describe other machines of tremendous 
 power, but enough has been quoted to display the analogy betwixt the pro- 
 posals of Napier and what was actually effected by the patriotic science of Ar- 
 chimedes, according to the accounts of Livy and Plutarch. But these histo- 
 rians have said nothing of the celebrated burning mirrors which form so con- 
 spicuous a part of the philosopher’s exploit upon that occasion ; and it is ob- 
 vious that Napier must have found elsewhere the prototype of his catoptric in- 
 struments which form his two leading propositions. Zonaras and Tzetzes, By- 
 zantine authors, notice particularly the fact, that Archimedes destroyed the fleet 
 of Marcellus by reflecting the sun’s rays upon it from a mirror, or mirrors of a 
 particular construction. Tzetzes refers to a variety of authorities, and among 
 the rest to Dion Cassius, and Diodorus Siculus ; but the passages he quotes have 
 been lost, and we must now take the authority of those ancient authors upon 
 that of the more modern. He also refers particularly to the Paradoxva Ma- 
 chinamenta of Anthemius of Tralles, the celebrated architect and philosopher 
 patronized by Justinian. A fragment of this Greek work is still preserved, in 
 which the catoptric feat of Archimedes is much enlarged upon, andatheory of its 
 execution given con amore ; but we cannot suppose that Napier derived any hint 
 or assistance from this, which was only given to the world in the last century by 
 the elaborate version of M. Dupuy.t It was most probably through Tzetzes 
 that our own philosopher became acquainted with the fact, that the fleet of 
 Marcellus was so destroyed at Syracuse; and unless we are to adopt the sup- 
 position, that, by a most extraordinary coincidence, he hit upon the very 
 schemes of Archimedes, and for the same patriotic purpose, without having 
 studied his history or looking to him as a prototype, it is obvious that Napier 
 had caught fire, to use an appropriate image, even at the feeble reflection which 
 
 * Livit Histor. Lib. xxiv. c. 34. Ruddiman’s edit. T. ui. p. 347. Plutarch, in Marcello. 
 + Traduction du fragment d’Anthemius, sur des Paradoxes de Mechanique—L’ Academie des 
 Inscriptions, T. xii. p. 401. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 255 
 
 Tzetzes affords, and actually succeeded in discovering the power which Archi- 
 medes wielded. The fact itself, that in those rude and unlettered days of Scot- 
 land, he could relish and emulate the triumphs of Archimedes, presents a re- 
 markable picture of his mind, of which the interest is not a little heightened 
 when we reflect, that, like the hero of Syracuse, it was for his country’s salva- 
 tion he laboured ; and that, in adopting so noble an example, he must have felt 
 himself ready to become her most prominent protector in the worst extremity. 
 
 To what extent the proposals, which he then submitted to his country and 
 to England, indicate the mental power which eighteen years afterwards gave 
 the logarithms to the world, is a question which we can only expect to illus- 
 trate in such a manner as may interest those to whom a popular view of the 
 facts may be more agreeable than a profound exposition of the science. 
 
 It is obvious that, in the preczs of his inventions, Napier intended to conceal 
 rather than display the particular mode of his catoptrics, and the principles 
 of the mechanism he had conceived. ‘This mystery was the fashion of his 
 day, and we find that even in the greatest of his speculations, while benefiting 
 the world by the result, he reserved to himself the secret construction of his 
 canon, until the learned should inform him how they relished the invention. * 
 But there can be no question, when we attend to that combination of power 
 and unaffected simplicity which were the leading features of his mind, and 
 which are so deeply impressed upon everything it produced, + that he had fully 
 satisfied himself as to the inventions he thus vaguely intimated, that for years 
 he had been occupied with the subject, and was now prepared, not merely with 
 the mathematical demonstrations, but also with the practical proof, and visible 
 demonstration of one and all of these warlike instruments, of which he ex- 
 
 * « Promissum itaque mirificum Logarithmorum canonem habetis, ejusque amplissimum usum: 
 “que si vobis eruditioribus grata fore ex rescriptis vestris intellexero, animus mihi addetur, ad ta- 
 bule condendze methodum in lucem etiam proferendam.”—Canonis Descriptio, Lib. ii. C. vi. 
 
 + Speaking of Napier’s great work, Professor Playfair observes, “ At a period when the nature 
 of series, and when every other resource of which he could avail himself were so little known, 
 his success argues a depth and originality of thought which, I am persuaded, have rarely been sur- 
 passed.” Certainly no man was less indebted to extrinsic resources in every thing he undertook, 
 than Napier. The first treatise extant on catoptrics is that attributed to Euclid; and which was 
 only first published in Latin in 1604 by John Pena. Alhazen, the Arabian, composed a volume 
 of optics about the year 1100, in which catoptrics are treated of. Vitello, a Polish writer, com- 
 posed another about the year 1270. Most probably Napier never saw these works. 
 
256 THE LIFE OF 
 
 pressly claims to himself the envention. We may suppose that it was to these, 
 among other projects of his fertile genius, that he so solemnly refers in his letter 
 to James VI. in 1593; “ for let not your majesty doubt, but that there are within 
 your realm (as well as in other countries) godly and good ingynes, versed and 
 
 exercised in all manner of honest science, and godly discipline, who by your ma- 
 jesty’s instigation might yield forth works and fruits worthy of memory, 
 which otherwise, lacking some mighty Mzcenas to encourage them, may per- 
 chance be buried with eternal silence.” And we may, perhaps, in this sentence 
 trace an allusion to a work of his day which must have created some sensation 
 in England. Leonard Digges, the grandfather of Sir Dudley, was an able ma- 
 thematician, born in the county of Kent about the commencement of the sixteenth 
 century. Exceedingly ingenious, and indefatigable in his attempts to apply the 
 secrets of science to practical purposes, he published various works of the kind 
 betwixt the years 1555 and 1570, when he died suddenly. One of his most cu- 
 rious works he left unpublished. This was a geometrical treatise, entitled Pan- 
 tometria, containing many rules for mensuration, particularly in the art of war, 
 towards which his practical applications generally turned. His son, Thomas 
 Digges, published this work in the year 1571, and dedicated it tothe Lord-Keeper, 
 Sir Nicholace Bacon, among the papers of whose son, Anthony Bacon, Napier’s 
 scantlings of inventionsarefound. In the twenty-first chapter of the first book of 
 Digges’ Pantometria occurs the following passage :—“ But of these conclusions 
 I mind not here more to entreate, having at large, ina volume by itself, opened 
 the miraculous effects of perspective glasses ; and that not onely in matters of 
 discoverie, but also by the sunne beames to fire powder or any other combustible 
 mater, which Archimedes is recorded to have done at Syracuse in Sicilie when 
 the Roman navie approached the town. Some have fondly surmised he did it 
 with a portion of a section parabolicall, artificiallye made to reflect and unite 
 the sunne beames a great distance off; and for the construction of this glasse, 
 take great paines, with high curiosity, to unite large and many intricate de- 
 monstrations ; but it is a mere fantasie, and utterlie impossible with any one 
 glasse, whatsoever it be, to fire any thing onely one thousand pace off, no, 
 though it were a hundred foote over. Marry true it is, the parabola for his 
 
 small distance most perfectly doth unite beames, and most vehemently burneth 
 
 of all other reflecting glasses. But how, by application of mo glasses, to ex- 
 tend this unitie or concourse of beames in his full force, yea to augment and 
 
 multiplie the same that the farder it is carried the more violently it shall 
 
 pearse and burne, hoc opus, hic labor est, wherein, God sparing life, and the 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 257 
 
 time with opportunitie serving, I minde to imparte with my countriemen some 
 such secrets, as hath, I suppose, in this our age beene revealed to very few ; 
 no lesse serving for the securitie and defence of our naturall countrey than 
 surely to be mervailed at of strangers.” Thomas Digges, the editor of his 
 father’s work, mentions, in his dedication to the Lord Keeper, that the author 
 had intended to present it to Sir Nicholas, but was prevented by death; and 
 he also declares in his address to the reader, that his father “ hath also sundrie 
 times, by the sunne beames, fired powder and discharged ordinance half a-mile 
 and more distante; which things I am the boulder to report, for that there 
 are yet living diverse, of these his dooings, oculati testes,” &c.* It is not im- 
 probable that Napier may have seen, or at least have been informed of the 
 contents of this work, and that his own attempt to solve the important pro- 
 blem of Archimedes may have derived an impulse from the alleged success of 
 the English mathematician ; but by the year 1596 both Leonard and Thomas 
 Digges were dead, and the catoptric secret of the former had not been dis- 
 closed. 
 
 The coincidence, however, serves to explain an expression in Napier’s 
 leading proposition, which may be thought obscure and startling. He pro- 
 fesses to be able to demonstrate “ their error who affirmeth this to be made a 
 parabolic section.” To those not acquainted with mathematics and optics, this 
 would convey no meaning whatever; while to those who are, it might, on a 
 hasty consideration, seem to involve a blunder in catoptries or the science of re- 
 flected light.+ It is difficult to give a distinct illustration of this matter, unless 
 the reader have some knowledge of the geometry of curves, as well as of catop- 
 trics, both of which are involved in the expressions to be considered. A cone 
 may be cut through in a variety of directions, so that the outline of the cut 
 surfaces will present a corresponding variety of mathematical figures. Some 
 of these will be the circle and triangle, the well known figures of ordinary 
 
 * Sir David Brewster (Edinburgh Encyclopzedia, Burning Instruments, ) has mentioned this work 
 as published by the author himself, and that his son merely republished it in a second edition. But 
 Thomas Digges says in his dedication, “ perusing also of late certaine volumes that he (Leonard) 
 in his youthe time, long sithens had compiled in the English tongue, among others I found this 
 geometricall practise which my father, if God had spared him life, minded to have presented your 
 honor withall; but untimely death preventing his determination, I thought it my part to accom- 
 plish the same,” &c. There are two editions of the work, 1571 and 1591. 
 
 + I know from experience that scientific men are apt to consider this sentence as containing 
 
 a hasty and erroneous proposition. 
 Kk 
 
258 THE LIFE OF 
 
 geometry ; other sections, however, produce different curves, namely, the 
 ellipsis, hyperbola, and parabola. The parabola is obtained by cutting the 
 cone obliquely through one of its sides and the base, but always in a direction 
 parallel to the opposite side of the cone from that which is cut. This curve, 
 passing through the base, is obviously not complete in itself, and one of its cha- 
 racteristics or properties is, that it has no tendency to complete a figure, like 
 the ellipsis or the circle, by meeting or relapsing in a continuous line. A 
 perpendicular line passing through the vertex of a parabola so as to divide 
 it into two equal and similar parts is termed its avs; and within this axis 
 is a point whose situation is geometrically ascertained, and which is termed 
 the focus. The principles of conic sections are beautifully combined with 
 optics in evolving the properties of burning mirrors, and the best form 
 of their construction. If the polished surface of a mirror be concave and sphe- 
 rical, it is a well known property, which can be geometrically demonstrated, that 
 a ray of light falling upon it near and parallel to the axis, will be reflected at a 
 distance from the mirror nearly equal to half the radius; this is the focus, 
 where the condensation of the rays into a small space will be apt to pro- 
 duce combustion. But it can be also geometrically demonstrated, that, in order 
 to make the rays concur precisely in their reflection upon one focal point, it is 
 necessary to give the concave surface of the mirror a parabolic curve, the pro- 
 perty of which is, that every ray parallel to the axis of this parabola will be 
 reflected precisely upon that point. Hence, if rays from the sun, or any ra- 
 diating point so distant that the rays may be considered parallel to one ano- 
 ther, fall upon the concave surface of a parabolic mirror, they will all be re- 
 flected into its focus. 
 
 Now, a hasty view of Napier’s proposition might lead us to infer that he 
 meant to contradict what he considered a mistake in the catoptrics of his day, 
 namely, that a parabolic speculum reflects the solar rays to the focus, as the 
 burning point. But the mathematical investigation demonstrative of the truth 
 of that proposition, is also sufficient to assure us that one so thoroughly master 
 of geometrical laws as our philosopher could never have fallen intosuch an error. 
 We must understand, therefore, his proposition in another sense ; and the pas- 
 sage quoted from the Pantometria of Leonard Digges may assist us to the 
 true meaning of Napier’s expressions, It appears, that, relying upon this known 
 property of a parabolic speculum, various attempts had been made to construct 
 a mirror of the sort, which would produce the astonishing effect of com- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 259 
 
 bustion at a distance far beyond the ordinary reach of any parabolic fo- 
 cus.- Digges declared that it was a “fantasie and utterly impossible” to 
 construct a mirror of the requisite dimensions for such a purpose, “ marry, 
 true it is, the parabola for his small distance most perfectly doth unite beames, 
 and most vehemently burneth of all other reflecting glasses :” What is this but 
 the language of Napier, who, in proposing to burn the enemie’s ships “ at 
 whatsoever appointed distance” also offers a demonstration of their error who 
 affirm that this is to be done by means of constructing a mirror whose curve 
 shall be a parabolic section; and the language of Montucla, in the eighteenth 
 century, is precisely to the same effect; “ I] ne faut qwune légére théorie de 
 catoprique pour appercevoir qu’ Archimede ne put produire cet effet par un 
 seul miroir de courbure continue, soit sphérique, soit parabolique. La distance 
 4 laquelle devoient ¢tre les vaisseaux romains, n’eussent-ils été qu'un peu au- 
 dela de la portée du trait, ou méme plus pres, auroit exigé une portion de 
 sphére d’une prodigieuse grandeur ; car le foyer dun miroir sphérique est au 
 quart du diamétre de la sphere dont-il fait partie. J] n’y auroit pas moins 
 d’inconveniens dans un miroir parabolique: en vain proposeroit-on avec quel- 
 ques-uns une combinaison de miroirs paraboliques, 4 Vaide de laquelle ils ont 
 prétendu produire un foyer continu dans l’étendue dune ligne d'une grande 
 longueur ; ce n’est-la qu une idée mal réfléchie, et dont ’exécution est imprac- 
 ticable par bien des raisons.”* It was in consequence of such vain attempts, 
 founded, however, upon a law of catoptrics undeniable in the abstract, that the 
 exploit of Archimedes began to be looked upon as a fable ; an idea which, not- 
 withstanding all the historical and scientific evidence in support of it, is even 
 yet more or less entertained. If Napier, therefore, was conscious of having 
 discovered the true secret, it was natural, that, to the announcement of that 
 fact, he should add a proposed refutation of the practical error which 
 had brought the attempt into disrepute. Scientific men might possibly 
 take more profound views of his meaning, and discover some more original 
 idea in his proposal, than that he meant merely to demonstrate the li- 
 mited range of a practical parabolic focus. ‘The parallelism of the solar 
 rays seems to be a postulate in arriving at the results of that form of specu- 
 lum; and if we may suppose that Napier intended to change the direction of 
 the solar rays from parallelism, and afterwards to bring them to a burning 
 focus, certainly the parabolic figure would not have answered his purpose. 
 
 * Hist. des Mathémat. T. i. -p. 232. 
 
260 THE LIFE OF 
 
 We shall not, however, presume to argue so refined a hypothesis, by which, 
 in unskilful hands, our philosopher might haply be landed in a quirk, or even 
 in a blunder worse than that alleged against him. That he had not fal- 
 len into the mistake of denying the simple and well-established proposi- 
 tion, that a parabolic speculum reflects the solar rays to a burning point 
 which is the focus of the parabola, will be readily admitted by every man of 
 science who compares the nature of that proposition with the genius of Napier ; 
 and we cannot help thinking, that his true meaning is just as we have attempt- 
 ed to illustrate it by the corresponding passages from Leonard Digges and 
 Montucla. 
 
 Napier flourished in a rude and credulous age, from whose hallucinations 
 the loftiest intellectswere bynomeans exempt. As the wonders of natural magic 
 became gradually developed, it is not surprising that the most extravagant 
 hopes should have been formed of its practical application ; and that the beau- 
 tiful phenomena, which could be actually demonstrated, were for a time mingled 
 with the wildest theories, and the merest impossibilities. It was the age when 
 theories were in their most gigantic growth, and philosophical experiments in 
 the feeblest stage of infancy. But it would be exceedingly rash to class the 
 catoptric propositions of our philosopher with such day-dreams, or even with 
 his own astrological or rosicrucian propensities. Their value, as an evidence 
 of his capabilities in profound and practical geometry, will be best seen by 
 glancing at the history of such speculations since his own times. 
 
 He probably soon became aware, that these scientific instruments were 
 not likely to be of any service to the art of war, whose practical improve- 
 ments really depend upon a combination of the greatest power with the most 
 perfect simplicity and readiness of action. Consequently, his schemes shar- 
 ed the fate of those which Archimedes was so fortunate as, upon one occa-~ 
 sion, actually to perform,—they were cast aside, and fell into oblivion. There 
 was still, however, among men of science, a hankering after the experiment, 
 the principles of which fell continually under consideration during the pro- 
 gress of optics. But, confined as these considerations generally were to the 
 laws of ordinary reflection, the disciples of light, fascinated by their parabolic 
 focus, kept gazing at that, and marvelling how a ship could get there, until 
 they began to sneer at the immortal Archimedes and those who believed in 
 him. At length the great DESCARTES arose, whose word was a law. The 
 publication of his Dioptrics in 1637, established an era in the science of light. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 261 
 
 His investigation of the laws of refraction was, in one problem at least, emi- 
 nently successful. Distinguished, however, for the truth and beauty of the 
 geometrical demonstration, rather than for practicability, even the celebrated 
 ovals of Descartes, (or those conic sections which he discovered to be the only 
 form of a dens capable of concentrating incident rays to one focal point,) from 
 the difficulties attending their construction, have also fallen into oblivion. 
 But in the same work, that great man hazarded a very defective dictum 
 on the subject of the -catoptrics of Archimedes. “ A burning mirror,” says 
 he, “ whose diameter is not much more than a hundredth part of the distance 
 betwixt it and the spot where the burning point ought to fall,—that is to say, 
 whose diameter is in the same ratio to that distance as the diameter of the 
 sun is to the distance betwixt it and us, though it were polished by the hand 
 of an angel, would bring no more heat to the spot where it most powerfully 
 concentrated the rays, than what would arise from the direct rays of the sun 
 without the aid of such reflection; and this may be esteemed nearly equally 
 true in the same proportion of burning glasses. Hence it is obvious, that. 
 from a crude conception of optics, impossibilities have been imagined ; and that 
 those famous burning mirrors of Archimedes, by which he is said to have con- 
 sumed a fleet in the distance, must either have been mighty big, or, what is 
 more probable, are a fabulous creation.” * 
 
 If, as is possible, Descartes in this passage meant chiefly to deride their 
 exertions who, assuming that Archimedes owed his success to the focal proper- 
 ties of concave mirrors, toiled to construct the most perfect for that purpose, 
 so far he only maintained that refutation which Napier proposed half a cen- 
 tury before him. + But in limiting his remarks with the sceptical expressions 
 
 * « Et speculum comburens, cujus diameter non multo major est centesima circiter parte dis- 
 tantize que inter illum et locum in quo radios solis colligere debet ; id est, cnjus eadem sit ratio ad 
 hance distantiam, que diametri solis ad eam que inter nos et solem, licet angeli manu expoliatur, 
 non mag's calefaciet illum locum in quo radios quam maximé colliget, quam illi radii qui, ex nullo 
 speculo reflexi, directé ex sole manant. Atque hoc etiam, feré eodem modo, de vitris comburenti- 
 bus intelligi debet. Unde patet, eos qui non consummatam optices cognitionem habent, multa 
 fingere que fieri non possunt ; et specula illa famosa quibus Archimedes navigia procul incendisse 
 fertur, vel admodum magna fuisse, vel potius fabulosa esse.”—Renati Descartes, Dioptrices, 
 c. Vill. § xxii. 
 
 + M. Dupuy, in his Commentary upon the Fragment of D’Anthemius, observes, in reference 
 to the dictum of Descartes, “ Si Descartes n’a jamais parlé des miroirs plans, s'il n’a méme 
 pas soupconné la maniére de les disposer pour porter l’incendie au loin, il est clair que ce n'est pas 
 i cet égard qu'il a traité de fabuleux les miroirs dont on attribuoit Pusage au Géométre de Syra- 
 
262 THE LIFE OF 
 
 as to the exploit of Archimedes, Descartes betrays the fact, that profoundly 
 versed as he was in optics, he had not discovered, what Napier had, namely, 
 some other mode of operation, independent altogether of parabolic mirrors, 
 which would afford the result required. 
 
 At length, however, Athanasius Kircher, a man of an imaginative but most 
 original and ingenious turn, laid a substantial foundation for refuting those who 
 denied the possibility of the fact. In a work of his published nine years after 
 the Cartesian Dioptrics, and entitled, “ Ars Magna Lucis et Umbre,” he pro- 
 poses this question, “ Whether the mirrors of Archimedes and Proclus could 
 set fire to ships at the distance described by some authors ?” He then reviews 
 the ancient historians who have recorded the facts, and prefers the account of 
 the Byzantine chronicler, Tzetzes, who calls the distance a bow-shot ; he also 
 narrates, that, not satisfied with such vague statements of that important part of 
 the problem, he went in person to Syracuse, examined minutely and critically 
 that part of the walls anciently called Achradina, under which Marcellus placed 
 his ships, and satisfied himself that the distance with which the philosopher 
 had to contend was not more than thirty paces. Under these circumstances, 
 Kircher seems to have considered it possible, that Archimedes may have had 
 a concave mirror of such magnitude as to project a focus upon the ships; and 
 that these might have been so steady under the walls, as to afford an oppor- 
 tunity of applying that focus with effect. “ Nay,” says he, “ I admit that a 
 mirror whose parabola would embrace a mountain, would throw a focus to a 
 corresponding distance. But where is the man to construct a mirror of that 
 portentous magnitude ? I myself, toiling to get to the bottom of this matter, 
 have gone a pilgrimage through Germany, France, and Italy, to discover a 
 parabolic speculum, the focus of which would reach the distance of twenty or 
 thirty paces, and have found it not, even among the most cunning artificers.” 
 He mentions, however, that his friend Manfredus Septalius actually succeed- 
 ed in constructing one which burned at the distance of fifteen paces ; but the 
 result of his researches and labours is the conviction, that human industry 
 was unequal to construct a parabolic mirror with a focus beyond thirty 
 paces. Kircher then betook himself to experiments with plain mirrors, 
 
 cuse. Il en vouloit seulement a ce demi Savans en Optique, comme il s‘exprime, qui soutenoient 
 qu’avec des miroirs concaves Archiméde avoit brilé des navires de fort loin ; d’ou il concludit avec 
 raison que ces miroirs devoient etre extreémement grands, ou plutét qu’ils sont fabuleux.”—Z’Aca- 
 demie des Inscriptions, 'T. xlii. p, 449. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 263 
 
 and professes to have solved the problem, “ How to construct a machine, com- 
 posed of plain mirrors, capable of causing combustion at the distance of one 
 hundred feet, or even further off.’ The extent to which he carried his prac- 
 tical solution he declares to be this :—Having ascertained that a mirror of an 
 ordinary size would illuminate a spot in the plain before it, diminished in the 
 ratio of one-fourth to the reflecting mirror, and this a hundred feet off, he 
 tried the experiment with a single mirror. This he found afforded a heat not 
 equal to the direct heat of the sun ; doubling the reflection, by means of a se- 
 cond mirror directed upon the same spot, he perceived a remarkable increase 
 of heat ; a third mirror produced the heat of a fire; under the influence of a 
 quadruple reflection, the heat was still bearable ; but, upon the application of 
 a fifth mirror, the heat was scarcely to be endured. Satisfied with these une- 
 quivocal results, Kircher proceeds no further, but recommends the extension 
 of his experiment to future philosophers. * 
 
 M. Dupuy, as an apology for the scepticism of Descartes, refers to the fact, 
 that Kircher’s experiment was instituted nine years subsequent to the dioptrics 
 of the former ; “and what geometrician,” he exclaims, “ before the time of Des- 
 cartes, had ever dreamt that Archimedes might have operated by plain mir- 
 rors? Kircher’s experiment is in truth the first of the kind since the days of 
 Anthemius.” But, however limited Napier might have been in his practical 
 resources, we owe it to his genius, and the boon he has bestowed upon mankind, 
 to admit, when we read the summary of his inventions, that at all events 
 through his abstract mathematical powers, he had arrived at the very result to 
 which Kircher’s unwearied journeyings and practical labours had conducted 
 him. It is even possible that he had instituted the experiment, as, indeed, 
 Sir Thomas Urquhart’s relation would lead us to suppose he was in the 
 habit of doing with all his inventions ; but if he had treated the problem pure- 
 ly mathematically, as, on the other hand, some of his expressions seem to indi- 
 cate, our admiration cannot be the less, when we find his abstract speculations, 
 so subtile it would seem as to have escaped the catoptric penetration of Des- 
 cartes himself in the succeeding century, completely verified by the experi- 
 ments of Kircher. Napier, indeed, uses the expression of “ one mathematical 
 point, in the which point most necessarily it engendereth fire ;” which might 
 
 * Ars magna lucis et umbre in decem libros digesta.—Lib. x. pars iii., Magia Catoptrica. 
 Kircher wrote many philosophical works ; he was not born at the date of Napier’s inventions, the 
 year of his birth being 1601. 
 
264 THE LIFE OF 
 
 seem to exclude him from an experiment whose spot of combustion was one 
 of very sensible dimensions. The expression, however, is natural to one who 
 had solved the problem geometrically, and had ascertained the relative position 
 of the burning point by mathematical laws; but that he did not even mean 
 the concentrated focus of a parabola is apparent, as he expressly rejects that 
 figure for his speculum. He mentions, indeed, not mirrors, but “a burning 
 mirror ;” it is obvious, however, that he did not intend to be very explicit as 
 to his machinery; and when he speaks of “ receiving dispersed beams of 
 the sun,” and reflecting “ the same beams altogether united,” this, on the 
 other hand, reminds us strongly of the reiterated reflections of Kircher. 
 The latter, however, limited his experiment to the distance of a hundred 
 feet; Napier proposed to burn “ the enemy’s ships at whatsoever appointed 
 distance.” Hoc opus, hic labor est, as Leonard Digges well remarked when 
 he proposed to make the focus burn more fiercely the further it was thrown. 
 Our own philosopher’s proposal will be best illustrated by the experiment of 
 one greatly distinguished in modern science. 
 
 The Count de Buffon, led to the consideration not by studying the ancient 
 historians, or from being acquainted with the fact of Napier’s proposals, or 
 Kircher’s experiment; but because he was unwilling to bow like some of his 
 friends before the shrine of Descartes ; set himself to construct mirrors capable 
 of burning at the distance even of 300 feet. He was aware of the limited 
 powers hitherto observed both in reflecting and refracting surfaces, and he at 
 once perceived the practical difficulties in the way of constructing a mirror of 
 sufficient demensions to cast a burning point 200 feet off. After many inge- 
 nious experiments by which he ascertained the best reflecting substances, and 
 also how much of the sun’s direct heat was lost by reflection, he arrived at the 
 fact, that a large and a small mirror respectively produced, at great distances, 
 an image of the solar rays not sensibly differing from each other except in 
 temperature ; and always of a circular form, whatever might be the figure of 
 the plain mirror. 
 
 Reasoning mathematically upon these experiments he arrived at the con- 
 clusion, “ que les courbes, de quelque espéce qu’elles soient, ne peuvent étre 
 employées avec avantage pour briéler de loin, parce que le diamétre du foyer 
 de toutes les courbes ne peut jamais ¢tre plus petit que la corde de Yare qui 
 mesure un angle de 32 minutes, et que par conséquent, le miroir concave de 
 plus parfait, donc le diamétre seroit egal a cette corde, ne feroit jamais le 
 
 double de l’effet de ce miroir plan de méme surface: et si le diametre de ce 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 265 
 
 miroir courbe étoit plus petit que cette corde, il ne feroit guére plus d’effét 
 qu'un miroir plan, de méme surface. Lorsque j’eus bien compris ce que je 
 viens d’exposer, je me persuadai bientdt an’en pouvoir douter, gu’ Archimede 
 navoit pu briler de loin qu avec des miroirs plans; car indépendamment 
 de limpossibilité ou lon étoit alors, et ot Yon seroit encore aujourd’hui, d’ex- 
 écuter des miroirs concaves d’un aussi long foyer, je sentis bien, que les réflex- 
 ions que je viens de faire ne pouvoient pas avoir échappé 4 ce grand mathe- 
 maticien.” Now, had-Napier written the sentence we have quoted, in refe- 
 rence to his own catoptric proposition, which, like Buffon’s, was “ pour briler 
 de loin,” we cannot conceive that he would not have been held to have per- 
 formed his promise of “ an evident demonstration of their error who affirm 
 this, [i. e. the burning mirror, ] to be made a parabolic section.” 
 
 It would carry us too much into detail to give a minute description of the 
 mirror, or combination of mirrors, which the laborious experiments and mathe- 
 matical speculations of the Count de Buffon led him to construct. It is suf- 
 ficient here to say, that he combined 168 portions of plain glass mirror (the di- 
 mensions of each being six inches by eight) by fixing them in a frame, with 
 intervals betwixt them to admit the free and independent motion of each in 
 every direction, and, consequently, the application of their united reflections 
 to the same spot. The machinery for this purpose was very complicated, but 
 the result more than answered the philosopher’s most sanguine expectations. 
 Some of these we cannot resist noticing, as they serve so well to sustain the 
 simple truth of Napier’s concluding expressions, “ these inventions, by the 
 grace of God, and work of expert craftsmen, I hope to perform ;” and to give 
 something more of a philosophical character to that proposal than belongs to 
 the vaunting dreams of Cardan or Bishop Wilkins. * 
 
 The first experiment which Buffon made was upon the 23d of March 1747, 
 at mid-day, when, having cast the united reflections of only forty of his glasses 
 
 * Kircher (Magia Catoptrica) exposes the ill-digested and purely hypothetical proposal of Car- 
 dan to cause combustion from the portion of a sphere at the distance of a thousand feet; and ex- 
 claims, “ Good God, how much folly in a few words from one so learned withal.” But the fol- 
 lowing out-Herods Herod. “By these mechanical contrivances it were easy to have made one of 
 Sampson’s hairs that was shaved off, to have been of more strength than all of them when they 
 were on; by the help of these arts it is possible (as I shall demonstrate) for any man to lift up 
 the greatest oak by the roots with a straw, to pull it up with a hair, or to blow it up with his 
 breath.” — The Mathematical and Philosophical Works of the Right Rev. John Witkins, late 
 
 Lord Bishop of Chester, 1708.—p. 55. 
 L | 
 
266 THE LIFE OF 
 
 upon a beech plank rubbed with pitch, at the distance of sixty-six feet he set it 
 on fire, under disadvantageous circumstances. On the same day, having ad- 
 justed his mirror more adroitly, he set fire to a plank rubbed with pitch and 
 sulphur, by the application of ninety-eight glasses, at a distance of 126 feet. 
 He made a third experiment in the following month, in the afternoon, when 
 the sun was weak and the light pale, the result being a slight combustion pro- 
 duced upon a plank covered with pieces of wool, from 112 glasses at the dis- 
 tance of 138 feet. The following morning, when the sun was pale and cloudy, 
 154 glasses, at the distance of 150 feet, produced smoke from a pitch plank in 
 less than two minutes; but the sun suddenly disappeared when the plank was 
 on the point of flaming. His next experiment was at three o’clock in the af- 
 ternoon, when the sun was yet more feeble; and upon this occasion, chips of 
 fir-wood, rubbed with sulphur and mixed with charcoal, flamed in less than a 
 minute and a-half, under 154 glasses, at the distance of 150 feet.* Many 
 other experiments were all more or less successful; and the Count declares, 
 that, with the same mirror, (for like Napier he speaks of a mirror, though it 
 was composed of 168 separate reflectors,) under a summer sun and clear sky, 
 he has set fire to wood at the distance of 200 and 210 feet, and was convinced 
 that four such mirrors would be equally successful at the distance of 4.00 feet, 
 and further. Again, we say, that had these very experiments been instituted 
 by Napier in support of his own professions, it must have been admitted, that, 
 “with the aid of expert craftsmen,” he had performed his promise to cause 
 combustion, by united reflections, at a point mathematically determined in re- 
 lation to the glasses used ; and this too “ at whatsoever appointed distance ;” 
 for it is obvious that Buffon’s principles were capable of indefinite extension, 
 at least within human means, which are necessarily finite. + 
 
 * Sir David Brewster, in his article Burning Instruments, Edin. Encyclop. states this experiment 
 as having been made at 250 feet, and that the effect was produced in two minutes and a-half. But 
 M. Buffon in his paper says, “a 150 pieds de distance,” and, “en moins d’une minute et demie.” 
 
 + We cannot refrain from quoting one other passage from the Count de Buffon’s paper, as in 
 all its expressions it might have come from Napier as the theory of his first catoptric proposition. 
 ‘‘ La théorie de mon miroir ne consiste donc pas, comme on I’a dit ici, 4 avoir trouvé l'art d’in- 
 scrire aisément des plans dans une surface sphérique, et le moyen de changer a volonté la cour- 
 bure de cette surface sphérique ; mais elle suppose cette remarque plus délicate, et que n’avoit ja- 
 mais été faite, c’est quil y a presque autant d’avantage a se servir de miroirs plans que de miroirs 
 de toute autre figure, dés qu’on veut briler 4 une certaine distance, et que la grandeur du miroir 
 
 plan est déterminée par la grandeur de l'image a cette distance, en sorte qu’a la distance de 60 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 267 
 
 It was not, he tells us, until he was busy with his mirror, that he became ac- 
 quainted with the precise details of Archimedes’ operations, as recorded by 
 ancient writers ; and this was only in consequence of being presented with a 
 classical dissertation on the subject by its author, and his friend, M. Melot.* 
 What is yet more singular, it was only in this way that he became aware 
 of the fact, that Kircher had turned his attention to the subject, and had suc- 
 cessfully, though less perfectly, applied the very same principle. It is well for 
 his fame in this matter that he was ignorant of Kircher’s works; as his own 
 extension of the principle depended more upon expert craftsmen than any- 
 thing else; but had he been thoroughly imbued with all that historians have 
 written on the subject, from the marvellous Livy to the Byzantine Tzetzes, 
 (which was all that Napier cow/d have had to assist him,) it would not have 
 taken a leaf from his laurels, as their details are scarcely intelligible. The 
 old authors who have mentioned the burning mirrors of Archimedes are, Lu- 
 cian, Galien, Anthemius de Tralles, Eustathius, Tzetzes, and Zonaras. Of 
 these, Anthemius alone is scientific. He lived about the end of the fifth cen- 
 tury ; and it is curious to observe how completely his demonstrations agree 
 with the experiments pursued by Kircher and Buffon. He supposes a hexa- 
 gonal mirror, surrounded by other moveable mirrors of the same kind; to 
 these he adds others indefinitely, and the more the better; and, by directing 
 their united reflections to the same spot, proposes to effect combustion at a dis- 
 tance. Napier, as already observed, could scarcely have seen this fragment ; 
 but he may have read a passage of Tzetzes (who obviously derives his descrip- 
 tion from Anthemius,) which has been much disputed. That the reader may 
 
 pieds, ot l'image du soleil a environ un demi-pied de diamétre, on brilera 4 peu-prés aussi-bien 
 avec des miroirs plans d’un demi peid qu’avec des miroirs hyperboliques les mieux travaillés, 
 pourvu quils n’aient que la méme grandeur. De méme avec des miroirs plans d’un pouce et demi, 
 on bralera & 15 pieds 4 peu-prés avec autant de force qu’avec un miroir exactement travaillé dans 
 toutes ses parties, et pour le dire en un mot, un miroir a facettes plates produira a peu-prés au- 
 tant d’effet qu’un miroir travaillé avec la derniére exactitude dans toutes ses parties, pourvu que 
 la grandeur de chaque facette soit égale ala grandeur de l'image du soleil ; et c’est par cette raison 
 qu'il y a une certaine proportion entre la grandeur des miroirs plans et les distances, et que pour 
 briler plus loin, on peut employer, méme avec avantage, de plus grandes glaces dans mon miroir 
 que pour briler plus prés.”—Jnvention de Miroirs pour briler a de Grandes Distances. Supple- 
 ment al Histoire Naturelle, T.i. p.399, et infra. See also L’ Académie des Sciences, année 1747. 
 
 * « Feu M. Melot, de l’Académie des Belles-Lettres, et l’un des Gardes de la Bibliothéque du 
 Roi, dont la grande érudition et les talens étoient connus de tous les Savans.’— Buffon. 
 
268 THE LIFE OF 
 
 see how little assistance our philosopher could have derived from that source, 
 it is here given with as literal a translation as it will bear. 
 
 Og Magnedros O aréornos Horny extwas roés, 
 Efdywviv ri ndrorrgoy exénrnguey 6 yew, 
 
 A’ad 6¢ dimorhwaros oummeres Te nuronTeE, 
 Minee roiure AATOWT LC belg reroumrAd yovious 
 Kigueva Aerio re xcs thor yuyyAvusos, 
 
 Méooy éxsivo rédeimey axriven Tov 7Als, 
 MeonuBeniic, nas deguqs, noel KEMLELINTATNS, 
 “AvanrAwpévay 02 Aommoy tig rBr0 ray dure, 
 “EEd dis nedn poBeges TueuONS THIS OAKKOE 
 
 Kai rairus dererépgwoev ex ugnous roeoBdrs. * 
 
 “ But Marcellus having removed them [the ships, ] to the distance of a bow- 
 shot, the sage constructed a certain hexagonal mirror ; but at a proportional 
 [or convenient | distance from this mirror, placing at angles four rows of such 
 like other small mirrors, moveable by means of plates and certain hinges, he put 
 it [the main mirror] in the midst of [opposite to] the sun’s rays at noon, both 
 summer and winter. Now the rays being reflected in it, a tremendous fiery 
 conflagration arose in the ships; and, at the distance of a bow-shot, he re- 
 duced them to ashes.” + This passage is so obscure, that it is not certain 
 
 * Joannis Tzetze Historiarum, Chiliade II. vv. 118—127. 
 
 + I have adopted the Greek version which Kircher adopts, and which gives the additional fact 
 of the mirror being hexagonal. But a more popular reading is efaya» dvr, from e&dyw to bring 
 out or produce. In that case, the translation would run thus :—“ The sage, bringing out the 
 mirror which he had made.” M. Dupuy remarks, “ Le texte de l’édition de Bale, 1546, portoit 
 eEéyuv ovr, et dans une note marginale Ancanthérus a eu raison de corriger ifcéywvivr1; car 
 Y Historien ne parle que d’apres Anthémius, qui avoit proposé un miroir héxagone. Dans le Re- 
 cueil des Poete Greci, imprimé 4 Genéve, Tom. ii. p. 229, on lit 2&éywv dvr, un esprit doux 
 sur I’o au lieu du rude.” —L’ Academie des Inscriptions. But the facts that Anthemius unques- 
 tionably speaks of a hewagonal mirror, and that Tzetzes takes the description from him, appear 
 to me decisive of the reading. The passage requires a comment, as modern savans of the first 
 class are gradually corrupting it more and more. Montucla gives the passage, because, says he, 
 it is remarkable in many respects ; but he only affords a rude Latin version, and does not attempt 
 to translate that, which moreover he misquotes; for cvyuérgs in the third line, an important 
 word, he gives commemorati, instead of commensuratt, or commensurata, which is the better ver- 
 sion. Professor Peyrard translates the second line thus :—“ Le vieillard fit approcher un miroir 
 heaagone,” &c. Sir David Brewster has it, “ The old man brought out a hexagonal mirror which 
 he had made.” This is one way of conquering the difficulty, for they thus make the dubious words 
 yield both conflicting meanings at once. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 269 
 
 whether the shape of the mirror be mentioned or not, and the expressions trans- 
 lated “ both summer and winter,” and which probably indicate some relative 
 positions betwixt the glass and the solar rays, have never obtained a satisfac- 
 tory commentary. But we cannot doubt that the secret of Archimedes was 
 just some modification of the plan which Anthemius and Kircher, and Buffon, 
 all independently discovered; and that Napier, with equal originality, had 
 done so before the year 1596. 
 
 A translation of the works of Archimedes was executed by M. Peyrard in 
 1808 at the desire of the French Institute. That author added to his labours 
 a very able paper demonstrative of his own improvements upon the burning 
 mirror of Buffon. In this, which was formally reported upon and approved 
 of by the Institute, the reader who wishes to follow out the subject will 
 find very minute scientific details. We shall only quote Peyrard’s conclusion, 
 which must exonerate Napier’s catoptric propositions from every charge of 
 chimerical wildness, so long as the Institute of France shall be the throne of 
 science. ‘ Nul doubte, du moins je le pense, qu’ avec 590 glaces de cing dé- 
 cimétres de hauteur, on ne fat en état d’embraser et de reduire en cendres une 
 flotte 4 un quart de lieve de distance; 4 une demi-lieue, avec 590 glaces d’un 
 métre de hauteur, et 4 une lieue, avec 590 glaces de deux metres de hauteur.” * 
 
 Our philosopher’s second invention, in the paper under consideration, it is 
 not easy to illustrate. He professes to be able to produce the same astonish- 
 ing results by means of reflection from any material fire or flame. This se- 
 cret appears to be peculiarly his own, and to have died with him; for the 
 nearest approach to it, that I can discover, is obviously very remote from the 
 results he anticipated. Christianus Wolfius mentions in his Catoptrics, that an 
 experiment had been made at Vienna to obtain combustion from a common 
 fire, which had succeeded in this manner. ‘Two concave specula, composed of 
 fine brass, the one six feet in diameter and the other three, were arranged at 
 a distance from each other of twenty or twenty-four feet. A coal fire was placed 
 in the focus of the larger mirror; and in the focus of the small one, a chafing- 
 dish and candle with a sulphur wick. The reflected rays of the fire ignited 
 the candle.t But this obviously affords very little support to the scheme of 
 
 * T. ii. p. 486. 
 
 5 Experimento id comprobatum Vienne testo Zahnio, ope duorum speculorum concayorum 
 ex lamina orichalcea confectorum. Majus erat 6, minus 3 pedum, distantia eorundem 20 vel 
 24 pedum. In foco majoris constituti erant carbones candentes, in foco minoris ignitabulum cum 
 
270 THE LIFE OF 
 
 burning the enemy’s ships at an indefinite distance, by means of the reflection 
 of any material fire in a single mirror. It would, however, be exceedingly 
 rash to pronounce a proposition of Napier’s, so positively and formally assert- 
 ed, to be beyond the limits of science ; and the modern verification of his first 
 proposition is an additional reason for treating his second with respect. We 
 must recollect, that, from the state of science in his day, especially in Scot- 
 land, he must have been chiefly indebted to the geometrical and algebraical 
 powers of his own mind for the success of his speculations ; and those who 
 have studied most deeply the steps by which he created the logarithms and un- 
 fettered calculation, and who are best able to appreciate his celebrated trigono- 
 metrical theorems, will know best how little danger there was of his being 
 misled by such mental resources into the crude and visionary marvels, even 
 of men so able as Cardan and Baptista Porta.* The latter ingenious author 
 had, ten years after Napier’s birth, given perhaps the only remarkable impulse 
 to optical science which it received since the labours of Roger Bacon, who, 
 with all his devotion to the subject, had added little to those of Ptolemy and 
 Alhazen. This last-mentioned philosopher, an Arabian who flourished in the 
 eleventh century, was the successor of Ptolemy in optical discovery, though a 
 thousand years divided them. He distinguished himself greatly by the ori- 
 ginality and recondite nature of his geometrical applications to the rectilineal 
 propagation of light, and in some respects excelled his master. Ptolemy, whose 
 work on optics, however, was unknown in Napier’s day, connects immediate- 
 ly with Euclid, who is supposed to have derived from the school of Plato the 
 fundamental principles of optics, as regards the theory of direct light, and also 
 
 filo sulphureo candelx circa apicem circumligatum. Radii carbonum reflexi candelam accende- 
 bant.”—EHlementa Catoptrice, Chap. iv. p. 156. I have presumed that the 6 and 3 feet are the 
 measure of the diameter of the specula, and not their focal distance. 
 
 * Joh. Baptiste Porte Neapolitant, Magie Naturalis, libri viginti. Amstelodamt, 1664.— 
 A curious work, full of scientific trifles. Itis in this work he describes his beautiful and popular 
 invention of the Camera Obscura. Professor Playfair observes, “ He appears to have been a 
 man of great ingenuity ; and though much of the Magiz Naturalis is directed to frivolous objects, 
 it indicates a great familiarity with experiment and observation. It is remarkable that we find 
 mention made in it of the reflection of cold by a speculum,—an experiment which of late has drawn 
 so much attention, and has been supposed to be so entirely new. The cold was perceived by 
 making the focus fall on the eye, which, in the absence of the thermometer, was perhaps the best 
 measure of small variations of temperature.” Let no man hastily deride Napier’s second propo- 
 
 sition. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 271 
 
 of catoptrics or reflected light, to which our philosopher’s propositions belong. 
 The impulse which optics acquired from Kepler and Descartes was of a later 
 date than Napier’s speculations. 
 
 The third item of his secret inventions is clearly the warlike instrument 
 described by Sir Thomas Urquhart; nor is there any thing more marvel- 
 lous in the story than what might be made to appear from a covert description 
 of many well known and successful efforts of mechanical genius. Coupling 
 the anecdote in the Jewel with Napier’s own declaration, we have no doubt 
 that he had constructed such a machine, and that it was actually tried in the 
 neighbourhood of Edinburgh or Stirling. But some allowance must be made 
 for the Knight of Cromarty’s peculiar vein, especially as he does not pretend 
 to have been an eye-witness ; and that part of his story, therefore, may be 
 doubted, wherein he declares the experiment to have been made “ to the de- 
 struction of a great many head of cattle and flocks of sheep.” Our philoso- 
 pher was too patriarchal to destroy his own flocks and herds,—too honest to 
 kill his neighbours,—and too humane thus wantonly to massacre any of God’s 
 creatures. We verily believe, that had he been placed with his secret artillery 
 in the most convenient situation for scattering the “ Great Turc” and Antichrist 
 himself to the four winds of Heaven, the machine would have received no im- 
 pulse from his hand, though he might have hurled at the enemy the last sen- 
 tence of his scriptural commentaries, “ O Rome! repent therefore always, in 
 this thy latter breath, as thou lovest thine eternal salvation.” There is a tra- 
 dition, that this “ 2fernal machine” of the sixteenth century was buried some- 
 where in the neighbourhood of Gartness by order of the inventor himself, 
 which agrees with the sentiment he is said to have expressed on his deathbed. 
 It is curious to find the very sentiment echoed about a century afterwards, and 
 under circumstances somewhat similar, by Sir Isaac Newton to one of the 
 Gregories. ‘The name of Gregory will be remembered in Scotland until science 
 is forgotten. Dr David Gregory of Kinnairdy, (ancestor of the celebrated Dr 
 John Gregory,) among other philosophical attainments, was a most ingenious 
 mechanic. Of him the anecdote is told by a relative of the family,* that 
 
 * Dr Reid, nephew of Dr John Gregory.— See his Additions to the Life prefixed to his Uncle's 
 
 Works, printed at Edinburgh, 1788. 
 
 « Kinardie is above forty English miles north from Aberdeen, He (Dr David Gregory,) was 
 a jest among the neighbouring gentlemen for his ignorance of what was doing about his own farm, 
 but an oracle in matters of learning and philosophy.” This was very different from Napier, who, 
 
a7 2 ; THE LIFE OF 
 
 “ about the beginning of the last century, he removed with his family to Aber- 
 deen ; and, in the time of Queen Anne’s war, employed his thoughts upon an 
 improvement in artillery, in order to make the shot of great guns more de- 
 structive to the enemy ; and executed a model of the engine he had conceiv- 
 ed. I have conversed with a clock-maker in Aberdeen who was employed in 
 making this model; but having made many different pieces by direction, with- 
 out knowing their intention, or how they were to be put together, he could 
 give no account of the whole. After making some experiments with this 
 model which satisfied him, the old gentleman was so sanguine in the hope of 
 being useful to the allies in the war against France, that he set about pre- 
 paring a field equipage, with a view to make acampaign in Flanders; and in 
 the meantime sent his model to his son, the Savilian professor, that he might 
 have his and Sir Isaac Newton’s opinion of it. His son shewed it to Newton 
 without letting him know that his own father was the inventor. Sir Isaac 
 was much displeased with it, saying, that, if it tended as much to the preser- 
 vation of mankind as to their destruction, the inventor would have deserved 
 a great reward; but, as it was contrived solely for destruction, and would 
 soon be known by the enemy, he rather deserved to be punished ; and urged 
 the professor very strongly to destroy it, and, if possible, to suppress the in- 
 vention. It is probable the professor followed his advice; for at his death, 
 which happened soon after, the model was not to be found.” 
 
 The mechanical automata, both of ancient and modern days, have left nothing 
 incredible in that department of science ; and when we turn from the artificial 
 eagle and the iron fly of Regiomontanus, to the destructive mechanism of 
 Napier, the latter appears, by comparison, a very humble effort. Nay, such is 
 the universal reliance upon human powers in this respect, that Sir David 
 Brewster, in a recent popular work, states, as a fact of which he expresses not 
 the slightest doubt, that Janellus Turrianus of Cremona, who had for his 
 pupil in such arts the Ex-Emperor Charles V., “ exhibited corn-mills so ex- 
 
 ¢ 
 
 there is good reason to believe, was an oracle in agricultural science as well as in mathematical. 
 Dr Reid also mentions a fact with regard to David Gregory, which shows how well Napier must 
 have managed matters to be the idol of his own Presbytery. “ He was the first man in that 
 country (Aberdeenshire) who had a barometer. He was once in danger of being prosecuted as a 
 conjuror by the Presbytery, on account of his barometer. A deputation of that body waited upon 
 him, to inquire into the ground of certain reports that had come to their ears. He satisfied them 
 
 so far, as to prevent the prosecution of a man known to be so extensively useful by his knowledge 
 of medicine.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 273 
 
 tremely small that they could be concealed in a glove, yet so powerful, that 
 they could grind in a day as much corn as would supply eight men with food 
 for a day.” * There is nothing marvellous, therefore, in Napier’s mechanical 
 inventions ; and we may give him the fullest credit for having constructed 
 them. They afford, however, a most interesting proof of the universal grasp 
 of his genius. A machine is well defined, as being any thing that serves to aug- 
 ment or to regulate moving powers, or any body destined to produce motion, 
 so as to save either time or force ; and in their theory two principal problems 
 present themselves: the first is to determine the proportion which the power 
 and weight ought to have to each other, that they may just be in equilibrio ; 
 the second is to determine what ought to be the proportion between the 
 power and the weight, that a machine may produce the greatest effect in the 
 given time. Now, we cannot conceive a mind like Napier’s to have been 
 turned to this subject, and, as he himself says, successfully, without having 
 deeply pondered and mastered these principles. But we must recollect that 
 the very foundations of modern mechanical science were then hardly laid. 
 About twenty years afterwards, Galileo was still busied with examining 
 the strength and resistance of beams of different sizes and forms, and spe- 
 culating on the motion of projectiles. “ Before the end of the sixteenth 
 century,” says Professor Playfair, “ mechanical science had never gone be- 
 yond the problems which treat of the equilibrium of bodies, and had been 
 able to resolve these accurately only in the cases which can be easily reduced 
 to the lever. Guido Ubaldi, an Italian mathematician, was among the first 
 who attempted to go farther than Archimedes and the ancients had done in 
 such inquiries. In a treatise which bears the date of 1577, he reduced the 
 pulley to the lever; but with respect to the inclined plane, he continued in 
 the same error with Pappus Alexandrinus, supposing that a certain force 
 must be applied to sustain a body, even on a plane which has no inclination. 
 Stevinus, an engineer of the Low Countries, is the first who can be said to 
 have passed beyond the point at which the ancients had stopped, by deter- 
 mining accurately the force necessary to sustain a body on a plane inclined at 
 any angle to the horizon.” ‘“ The person who comes next in the history of 
 mechanics made a great revolution in the physical sciences. Galileo was born 
 at Pisa in the year 1564,” &e. 
 
 * Letters on Natural Magic, addressed to Sir Walter Scott, by Sir David Brewster. 1832. 
 
 P. 266. 
 Mm 
 
274 ; THE LIFE OF 
 
 Thus both statics and dynamics were little understood at the time when 
 our philosopher busied himself with inventions, depending so much upon a 
 knowledge of the composition and resolution of forces; and although another 
 destiny was in store for him than to create a new era in that department of 
 science, we see that he was not incapable of having done so. The modesty 
 of his nature, and the brevity which, as his son informs us, was peculiarly cha- 
 racteristic of his style, entitle him to the credit of having studied mechanics far 
 more extensively than he discloses in this paper; and his concluding expressions, 
 “‘ besides devices of sailing under the water, with divers other devices and strata- 
 gems,” may cover what Kircher or Baptista Portawould have swelled into a folio, 
 The proposal of sacling under the water indicates a further extension of his 
 mechanical speculations beyond the resources of his times. Archimedes had de- 
 termined the weight of bodies immersed in fluids, and also the position of bodies 
 floating on them; but the fundamental principle of modern hydrostatics, that the 
 pressure of fluids is in proportion to their depth, was only laid by the work of Ste- 
 vinus, which appeared not sooner than 1600. The diving-bell had not been in- 
 vented; and our philosopher was here venturing into a region literally unexplor- 
 ed, It is not improbable, considering the chemical propensities of the family, 
 that Napier, besides the more ordinary contrivances for preserving respiration 
 under water, had discovered a fluid, the effect of which was to restore corrupt 
 air to a respirable state. ‘There seems to be no doubt that such a liquor had 
 been obtained, through recondite chemical means, by a foreigner of the name 
 of Cornelius Drebell, some years after the date of the Lambeth paper. This 
 Dutchman was curious and ingenious in natural magic, but not at all averse 
 to the reputation of originality in matters where he had not the right. The 
 microscope, telescope, and thermometer, have all been ascribed to him upon 
 grounds considered extremely equivocal. * It is not unlikely that the secret 
 narrated in the following anecdote was just what Napier had discovered ; and 
 if Drebell was one of those foreigners who originally came over to this country 
 to look after the mines and minerals, the surmise would be still more plausible. 
 The Honourable Robert Boyle, so distinguished in the annals of philosophy, 
 mentions, in a work addressed to his nephew, Lord Dungarvan, “ A conceit 
 of that deservedly famous mechanician and chymist, Cornelius Drebell, who, 
 among other strange things that he performed, is affirmed, by more than a 
 
 few credible persons, to have contrived, for the late learned King James, a 
 
 * Montucla, Histoire des Mathematiques, Tom. ii. p. 237. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 275 
 
 vessel to go under water; of which tryal was made in the Thames with ad- 
 mired success, the vessel carrying twelve rowers, besides passengers, one of 
 which is yet alive, and related it to an excellent mathematician that informed 
 me of it. Now that for which I mention this story is, that, having had the 
 curiosity and opportunity to make particular enquiries among the relations of 
 Drebell, and especially of an ingenious physitian that marryed his daughter, 
 concerning the grounds upon which he conceived it feasible to make men, un- 
 accustomed, to continue so long under water without suffocation, or (as the 
 lately mentioned person that went in the vessel affirmes) without inconve- 
 nience,—I was answered, that Drebell conceived, that ’tis not the whole body 
 of the air, but a certain quintessence (as chymists speake) or spirituous part 
 of it, that makes it fit for respiration, which being spent, the remaining grosser 
 body, or carcase (if I may so call it) of the air, is unable to cherish the vital 
 flame residing in the heart; so that, (for ought I could gather,) besides the 
 mechanicall contrivance of his vessell, he had a chymicall liquor, which he 
 accounted the chiefe secret of his submarine navigation. For when from time 
 to time he perceived that the finer and purer part of the air was consum- 
 ed, or over-clogged by the respiration, and steames of those that went in his 
 ship, he would, by unstoping a vessell full of this liquor, speedily restore to 
 the troubled air such a proportion of vital parts, as would make it again for a 
 good while fit for respiration, whether by dissipating or precipitating the 
 grosser exhalations, or by some other intelligible way, I must not now stay to 
 examine, contenting myself to add, that, having had the opportunity to do 
 some service to those of his relations that were most intimate with him, and 
 having made it my business to learne what this strange liquor might be, they 
 constantly affirmed that Drebell would never disclose the liquor unto any, nor 
 so much as tell the matter whereof he made it, to above one person, who him- 
 self assured me what it was.” * 
 
 There are not wanting other most interesting indications that Napier scarce- 
 ly left any branch of science untouched,—that his gigantic mind applied itself 
 to the Heavens and the earth, and the waters under the earth,—and that the 
 mortal whom he emulated was ARCHIMEDES. ‘The spiral pump or screw 
 which bears that philosopher’s name is universally known. It was invented 
 
 * « New Experiments, Physico-mechanical, touching the spring of the air and its effects, &c. 
 written by way of Letter to the Right Honourable Charles Lord Viscount of Dungarvan, eldest 
 son to the Earl of Corke. By the Honourable Robert Boyle, Esq.” 1662. p. 188. 
 
276 THE LIFE OF 
 
 by Archimedes when in Egypt, to enable the inhabitants to get rid of a 
 superabundance of inundation, and acts upon the principle of causing a 
 body to rise, from its propensity to fall,* a paradoxical effect which caused 
 Galileo to exclaim, “ la quale inventione non solo é maravighosa, ma é mi- 
 racolosa.” + Colonel M‘Kenzie, whose celebrated Asiatic researches, originat- 
 ing in collections for a Life of John Napier, have already been mentioned, t 
 drew up his report upon those collections for the Honourable Mrs Johnston 
 in 1786, which is supposed to be now among the papers at the India House. 
 I have been much disappointed in not procuring a copy of this document, or 
 a more perfect knowledge of its contents ; but the following information re- 
 specting it was communicated by one who could not be misinformed as to its 
 import :—“ This report contains a great deal of curious information which 
 the Colonel had discovered, while investigating the subject in Scotland, upon 
 the improvement which had been made by John Napier in the machine invent- 
 ed by Archimedes, and known by the name of Archimedes’ Screw, for the 
 purpose of raising water. It appears to the Colonel, that a statement of that 
 invention had been carried out to India by some of the Portuguese, and had 
 been adopted by the natives from the Portuguese who were established at Goa, 
 and used in some parts of the peninsula of India for the practical purpose of 
 irrigation. M‘Kenzie saw an instance of it, and was perfectly satisfied that 
 the natives of India could not have adopted it from the original discovery of 
 Archimedes, but must have adopted it after the improvement had been made 
 by Merchiston, because the machine which he saw was not in the original, but 
 in the improved form, as described in a paper which he had found in Scotland 
 upon the death of the fifth Lord Napier, giving an account of different machines 
 which had been made or improved upon by Merchiston.” § 
 
 When the paper containing Napier’s schemes came into the hands of An- 
 thony Bacon, Francis Bacon, his younger brother, had acquired none of his 
 eminence political or philosophical, so its presence in that collection cannot be 
 
 * That is to say, the water only rises in the screw in proportion to its descending power first 
 applied. 
 + CEuvres d’Archiméde, par F’. Peyrard, Professeur de Mathematiques et d’Astronomie au Lycée 
 Bonaparte. Dedie a sa Majesté |’ Empereur et Roi. 1808. 
 { See Preface. 
 § Letter from the Right Honourable Sir Alexander Johnston ; to whose kindness I have been 
 indebted for several communications in the course of compiling these memoirs. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 277 
 
 considered to indicate any scientific correspondence betwixt the stars of the sis- 
 ter kingdoms. It has generally been called “ a letter to Anthony Bacon ;” but 
 I suspect it may be traced into his hands otherwise than by a direct commu- 
 nication from the philosopher himself. In doing so, we must again recur to 
 the connection betwixt our philosopher’s near relatives and the history of the 
 times. 
 
 Adam Bishop of Orkney died in the year 1593, and was buried beneath 
 one of the pillars of the aisle of Holyrood, where his grave is yet shown to the 
 curious stranger. We shall not say 
 
 In Santa Croce’s holy precincts lie 
 Ashes which make it holier. 
 
 But, notwithstanding all the promises contained in the bishop’s letters, his il- 
 lustrious nephew did not succeed to one farthing of his estate. Like Benedict, 
 when he said he would die a bachelor the bishop did not expect to live to be 
 married. He married, some time before the year 1571, a niece of the good 
 Regent Mar, whose wife was the cousin-german of Sir Archibald Napier. The 
 eldest son of this marriage was John Bothwell, who succeeded his father both 
 in his seat on the bench, and in his abbacy. He became a great favourite with 
 James VL., and inherited so little of his grandfather Francis Bothwell’s dislike 
 to masking and mummery, that he was always ready to play the fool whenever 
 his sovereign required him. In the year 1594, a few months after the philoso- 
 pher’s letter of admonition to the king, the baptism of Prince Henry occurred, 
 when his majesty entered the lists of the tournament, given upon that occa- 
 sion, disguised as “a Christian ;” while Napier’s cousin, “the Abbot of Holy- 
 roodhouse,” appeared at the same time as “ an Amazon in women’s attire, very 
 sumptuously clad.” * By these and other courtly arts, John Bothwell stood 
 high in the king’s favour, and rose to the peerage under the title of Lord Holy- 
 roodhouse. + 
 * « An exact Account of the Babtism of Henry Prince of Scotland, August 30, 1594.” 
 
 + The following document, from the original in the Register-House, affords a curious picture of 
 the footing upon which James was with his courtiers, and the manner in which he paid his debts :— 
 
 « Rex. We, having consideratioun that, in the yeir of God 1™ v° foure score and yeris, 
 we borrowit and ressavit fra our traist counsallour, Adam Bishop of Orknay, commendator of 
 Halyrudhous, the soume of fyve hundredth pundis money of this realme, for refounding of the 
 
 whilk soume we gave and layd in pledge to him ane greit rubie set in golde, whilk rubie, Johnne, 
 
278 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Some years before this accession of rank he had formed a strict alliance of 
 political friendship with Anthony Bacon, and was in correspondence with him, 
 probably in connection with those intrigues which were intended to secure the 
 undisputed succession of James VI. to the throne of England, in the event of 
 the demise of Queen Elizabeth. The following original and unpublished let- 
 ter is from the Lambeth Collection, and appears to have been received by An- 
 
 thony Bacon about the time when he obtained Napier’s summary of secret in- 
 ventions. 
 
 “ A Tresnoble et vertueux Seigneur Monsieur Antoine Bacon, Esquier. 
 
 “* Monsieur souventesfois m’est venu en l’entendement le service que je vous 
 ay voué, mais n’ay eu jamais occasion de vous le tesmoigner jusques a present, 
 esmeu par je scay quelle memoire de vos vertus, quide jour en jour prennent 
 accroissement parmi les plus grands de ce pais, et souhaitent comme moy vostre 
 bonne santé, le Roy m’en a souvent parlé, mais de cela il n’est propre a pre- 
 sent d’escrire: Je feray tous les bons offices qui me seront possibles encore qu'il 
 n’y en ait point de besoing. Toutes fois, si me voulez faire ’honneur de m’ em- 
 ployer, me trouverez, selon nostre promesse confermée a Bourdeaulx, fort con- 
 tent de satisfaire a ’opinion q’aviez conceve de moy. Au reste, il n’y a rien 
 que je souhaite plus que vostre bonne sante et advancement au plus haut estage 
 dhonneur que pas un de vos tres nobles ancestres ; vous priant de m’escrire a 
 toutes occasions, et me faire entendre ce que vous autres faites par dela. Je 
 
 now Commendatar of Halyruidhous, sone and air to the said umquhile Adam, his father, hes 
 reallie, and with effect, instantlie redylevrit to us, but [without] payment of the siad soume to 
 him be us, whereupon the samyn was impignorat ; and tharefore, we, with advyce of the Lords of 
 Secreit Counsall, and officiars under subscryvand, be the tenor heirof, grantis and confessis us to 
 have ressavit the same rubie set in gold, in als gude estait as we delyverit the same, fra the said 
 Commendatour, now of Halyruidhous ; and tharefore, we, with consent foirsaid, exoners, quyt 
 clames, and dischargeis the said commendatar of the samyn for ever: and renounces and dischargeis 
 all actioun and instance that we may have against him as sone and air to his said father, as also 
 the executors and intromettors with the umquhile father’s guds and geir for the same rubie, and 
 redelyvery thereof for ever, &c. Subscryvit with our hand at Halyrudhous the four day of 
 
 Januar 1595 yeiris.” 
 ue) 
 ee sie 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 279 
 
 m’ acquiteray de mesmes envers vous, et demeureray, apres vous avoir baise 
 bien humblement les mains, Monsieur, 
 * Vostre tres affectionne et tres serviable serviteur. 
 “ Halyrudhous. 
 
 ** Ce mien parent, porteur de la presente, en Octobre dernier trouva beaucoup 
 de courtoisie en Monseigneur d’Essex, qui luy enjoignit quelque particularite, 
 laquelle luy mesme vous declarera. Mais d’autant que j’ay entendu que Mon- 
 seigneur est absent, je vous supplie pour ce regard de suppleer son absence, a 
 quoy je m/asseure de vostre bonne affection.—xxvii Juil. 1596.” * 
 
 The statesman to whom this letter is addressed, was the eldest son of Sir 
 Nicholas Bacon, and his second wife Anne Cook ; and the brother-german of 
 the great Verulam. He spent many years of his youth abroad, and was much 
 at Bourdeaux, where he met John Bothwell. He returned to settle in his own 
 country about the year 1591, and attached himself with the most enthusiastic 
 devotion to the service and friendship of Robert Devereux Earl of Essex, the 
 lover, the hero, and the martyr of Queen Elizabeth. Anthony Bacon’s volumi- 
 nous papers and correspondence are reposited in the library at Lambeth Palace, 
 and from these it is evident that the secretary of state himself was scarcely 
 more engrossed with public affairs, or more generally regarded in state nego- 
 ciations than he was, at the period when our philosopher’s schemes for de- 
 stroying the enemy came into his hands. ‘These must have been submitted to 
 him, (perhaps by Sir William Stewart, or by the relative whom John Bothwell 
 mentions in his letter,) not simply on account of their scientific curiosity. 
 When we compare the dates of that paper with those of public events at the 
 time, the fact is very naturally accounted for, that one so unassuming as our 
 philosopher should have offered to the whole island his Archimedean powers, 
 and have afterwards cast them aside, and even refused to give them further 
 publicity. The moment was one of great excitement in both countries, and 
 that excitement arose from the very circumstances which for years had en- 
 grossed the mind of Napier, even in the midst of his scientific speculations ; 
 
 * Lambeth MS, Bacon’s Coll. vy. fol. 116. orig. I am also indebted to the liberality of His 
 Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury for this letter, which is not in Birch’s Collection. It is in- 
 dorsed “ Domini Bothwell ou Holirudhouse, le 6me d’Aoust, 1596.” Bothwell was not a peer at 
 this time, and his signature must have been as commendator of the Abbey. He was raised to the 
 peerage, with that title, by charter dated at Whitehall 20th December 1607. 
 
280 THE LIFE OF 
 
 namely, the treasonable intrigues of the popish nobility with the King of Spain, 
 
 * The state of affairs in Scotland at this time, was written in a letter from 
 Edinburgh on the 23d of November 1596, to this purpose: The ministers 
 were in a continual uproar, clamouring against the king and counsellors for 
 the liberty allowed to the excommunicated earls, having shown the king a copy 
 of a respite granted to those lords, to remain for the space of six months in 
 the country, peaceably, unmolested by any man. This respite was subscrib- 
 ed by his majesty, the Duke of Lennox, the Earl of Mar, the Earl of Athol, 
 the Treasurer, President, Mr John Lindsay, and all the rest of the council. 
 But every one of them denied it.”* Anthony Bacon’s feelings on the state 
 of the times seem to have been congenial with those of Napier. In the very 
 month when the latter drew up his warlike propositions, Bacon begins a letter 
 to his mother, with a pious reflection on the weather, which had been at Lon- 
 don extremely stormy and unkindly for the season, “ the changes whereof,” 
 says he, “ as they were used for threatnings by the prophets in antient time, 
 so God grant they may work now in us as due and timely apprehension of 
 God’s heavy judgement imminent over us for the deep profane security that 
 reigneth too much amongst us.” He then, (adds Birch) informs her ladyship, 
 that an account arrived at court the day before, that the French King and 
 King of Spain, by the entremise of a Florentine cardinal sent into France from 
 the Pope, had made a truce for three months, and that the Grand Signor was 
 for certain on horseback himself, with two hundred thousand men, and likely 
 to be a heavy scourge to Christendom. 
 
 Napier’s paper, dated on the 7th of June 1596, seems to have been de- 
 livered to Bacon in July following. On the Ist of June of that year, the 
 celebrated expedition against Cadiz, in which England acquired so much 
 glory, set sail; the land forces being commanded by Essex, and the fleet by 
 
 = “ Memoirs of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581 till her death ; in which 
 the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert Earl of Essex, both at 
 home and abroad, are particularly illustrated from the original papers of his intimate friend An- 
 thony Bacon, Esquire, and other manuscripts never before published. By Thomas Birch, D. D.” 
 Vol. ii. p. 205. 
 
 I find, what I was not aware of when the previous sheets went to press, that Dr Birch has ~ 
 not omitted, in his collections from the Lambeth papers, Napier’s scantlings of inventions; of 
 which, however, his transcript is faulty and imperfect. This, probably, is the source from which 
 it found its way into Tilloch’s Philosophical egg 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 281 
 
 the Lord High Admiral, Howard. Most probably Napier’s schemes were 
 transmitted to the bosom friend of Essex in reference to this very expedition, the 
 result of which, however, proved how independent Old England was of catop- 
 trics as a means of destroying the enemy’s fleet.* With no mirrors but those 
 mirrors of Knighthood, Effingham, Essex, and Raleigh, “ Her Majesty de- 
 feated and destroyed the best fleet which the King of Spain had together in 
 any place, and amongst those his ships of greatest fame, and in which all the 
 pride and confidence of the Spaniards were reposed. The captains of them 
 confessed, aboard the Due Repulse, that forty gallies were not able to encounter 
 one of her Majesty’s ships.” + 
 
 * In like manner, when, in the year 1833, the lineal descendant of our philosopher, Charles 
 Napier, Viscount Cape St Vincent, annihilated the whole naval force of the King of Portugal,—by 
 an action as brilliant in the annals of British prowess as the cause it illustrates is mean in political 
 history,—he preferred boarding to burning glasses. 
 
 + “ A paper, entitled the Advantages which her Majesty hath gotten by that which hath passed 
 at Cadiz the 21 of June 1596.”—Lambeth Coll., Vol. xi. fol. 146. 
 
282 THE LIFE OF 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 It may be imagined, that after so long a succession of wars and civil com- 
 motions, the agriculture of Scotland was at its lowest ebb, and the people 
 reduced to famine. A contemporary chronicle records, that, “ during all 
 this yeir (1595) thair was great scant of cornes, and exceiding great derth. 
 The somer was sa raynie, that the maist part of the cornes war rottin on the 
 grunde before that thay war cut doun, and the rest that was cut doun spilt 
 for fault of dry weather. Thair was also a great decay of the bestiall, and 
 manie poor people deit for hungar, and sum of better estait had na better con- 
 ditioun ; for thay war constraynit to sell the best of thair geir to supplie the 
 gredeynes of mercats.”* It is remarkable that the first impulse to agricultu- 
 ral activity emanated, while the country was in this state, from the family of 
 Merchiston. 
 
 Archibald Napier, the philosopher’s eldest son by his first marriage, was 
 educated at the University of Glasgow, which he entered in March 1593. 
 Instead of going abroad after finishing his studies there, he returned home, 
 and became almost immediately attached to the household and person of 
 James VI. “ Had I ten sons,” exclaimed the famous Scaliger, “ not one 
 of them should be scholars, I would make courtiers of them all;”+ and 
 such seems to have been the plan adopted by John Napier with regard 
 to his first-born, who tells us himself, “ After I had left the schooles, I ad- 
 dressed myself to the service of King James of blessed memory, and wes gra- 
 tiously receaved by him; and after the death of Queene Elisabeth, I follow- 
 ed his majestie into England, when he went to receave the crowne of that 
 
 * Historie of James Sext. 
 + “ Sij’avois dix enfans, jen’en ferois estudier pas un, je les avancerois aux cours des princes,” 
 
 —WScaligerana. 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 283 
 
 kingdome.” * It seems, however, that, in the short interval betwixt his leav- 
 ing college and becoming a courtier, young Napier had so far attended to 
 agricultural matters, as to entitle him to receive the royal gift of a monopoly 
 of a new mode of tillage, which, most. probably, the experience of his father 
 or grandfather had discovered. On the 23d October 1598, there is noted in 
 Birrel’s Diary, “ Ane proclamatione of the Laird of Merkiston, that he tuik 
 upon hand to make the land mair profitable nor it wes befoir, be the sawing 
 of salt upon it.” And in the register of the privy-seal appears a grant from 
 King James to “ Archbald Naper, apperand of Merchistoun,” as one qualified 
 and expert in such matters, of a monopoly of this new mode of tillage for 
 twenty-one years. At the same time there was published, “ The new order 
 of gooding and manuring of all sorts of field land with common salts, whereby 
 the same may bring forth in more abundance, both of grass and corn of all 
 sorts, and far cheaper than by the common way of dunging used heretofore in 
 Scotland. Set forth by Archibald Napier, the apparent of Merchistoun, con- 
 form to the gift of office given him by the king’s majesty under the privy-seal, 
 with advice of the Lords of Council thereof, and made to him thereanent, of 
 the date at Holyroodhouse the 22d of June 1598 years.” +} We suspect, how- 
 
 * < A true relation of the injust persute against the Lord Napier, written by himselfe.”— 
 MS. in the handwriting of the first Lord Napier. Merchiston Papers. 
 
 + “Oure Soverane Lord, considdering the greit proffite and commoditie that may redound uni- 
 versallie to this realme be the diligent cair and paines to be taine in laboring, mukking, and ma- 
 nuring of the ground, in sik sort and manner that wes never usit nor frequentit within any pairt 
 of the boundis thereof be anie persoun or persouns of before, and of the greit incres, alsweill of 
 coirnes as grass, as may accress thair throw, and how neidful it is that that invention and pratique 
 be useit and exercesid be ane skillfull persoun, wha hes tane, hantit, and frequentit thairwith in 
 tymes bipast, that, be his expert useing of sick ane lauthfull and rair industrie, greit utilitie may 
 result to this universall commonweill; and understanding that his hienes lovit Archibald Naper, 
 appeirand of Merchinstoun, is ane qualifiet and expert persoun, maist apt and meit for exercesing 
 of sik ane commodious industrie and laboure; thairfore his hieness, with avis of the Lordis of se- 
 creite counsal, gevand, grantand to the said Archbald Naper onlie, and to sik others whom he sall 
 depute and substitute, licence and tollerance to use, hant, and frequent the said commodious use 
 and industrie of mukking, laboring, and manuring of all and whatsumevir landis, alsweill manurit, 
 and redin out-as unmanurit, within the haill boundis of this realme, alsweill to coirne land as to 
 pasturage and medowis, during the haill space of twentie-ane yeiris nixt efter his entrie thereto, 
 whilk sal be and begin at the date of thir presentis, and that efter sik sort and maner as sal be pub- 
 lischit and sett out be the said Archbald authentiklie in prent; with full powers to him, and his 
 saidis deputes and substitutes, to use and exerce the said industrie within the haill boundis of this 
 realme during the foirsaid space. Dischargeing be thir presents, all and sundrie his hienes lieges, 
 
284. THE LIFE OF 
 
 ever, that young Napier’s share in this agricultural discovery must have been 
 very small, though the profits were presented to him, probably, to fit him out 
 in the commencement of his courtly career. He could not have acquired suffi- 
 cient experience in such matters, aud he takes no credit to himself for it 
 in the autobiography he has left. The plan must have undoubtedly ori- 
 ginated with his father or grandfather; and, considering the charge the 
 philosopher took of country matters, it is not unlikely that the merit of it 
 chiefly belongs to him. Certainly he cannot be said to have afforded, like 
 David Gregory, any merriment to the neighbouring gentry from that ignorance 
 of farming operations, which, however, would have been excuseable in one 
 deeply immersed in abstract mathematical speculations ; and we have no doubt, 
 that, wasted as were the fields round Merchiston during the civil wars, they 
 presented, in those desolate years to which we have brought down the family 
 history, the fairest prospect and the best example in the Lothians. The pub- 
 lished account of the Merchiston mode of tillage is too rare and curious to 
 omit. It contrasts finely with the scenes through which we have traced our 
 philosopher ; and, compared with his warlike inventions, and the anecdote of 
 his too successful experiment of destructive ingenuity, is placid and warm as 
 Cuyp beside the stormy Borgognone. 
 
 “ After the corns are win and put into the barn-yard, the piece land tilled, 
 and the wheat seed ended, you shall till down the land whereon you intend 
 to sow down your bear seed ; and if the same be clay, or reasonable stiff, and 
 not sandy land, you shall sow on every acre red land thereof one boll of com- 
 mon salt ; and if it be sandy ground, one half boll will suffice. Do that upon 
 even and level ground, so soon as you can before every Martinmas, so that 
 the land may have sufficient time to rot and digest the said salt' in the winter 
 season, that the salt may temper; make the land moury and soft, and open 
 the same before it be sown with any sort of seed; for the nature of earth 
 being cold, and the nature of the salt being hot, will, with temperate mois- 
 
 that they, nor nane of them, of whatsumevir estate, qualitie, or condition thay be of, presume, nor 
 tak upoun hand to use, hant, or frequent the foirsaid novation of guiding, mukking, or manuring 
 of thair landis, ather manurit or pasturage, during the said haill space, certefeing thame that dois 
 in the contrair, that they sal be constraint to content and pay to the said Archbald the soume of 
 [ten shillings] for everie aiker tharof that thai sall manure efter that sort and maner, alsweill 
 corne land and pasturage, during the space foirsaid.”—Privy Seal, 70. 22 June 1598. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON 285 
 
 ture, in summer with heat, accordingly bring forth, God willing, plenty of 
 bear and clean, without weeds. You must in due time till the said land over 
 again once, or in some places twice, very near before the time you should sow 
 your bear-seed, according to your common use of two or three furrows for the 
 most part of our country. But if your land lie hanging or dipping down, 
 you may before Martinmas sow the said salt upon the stubble-land, where you 
 would make your bear; but immediately till the same down, lest the substance 
 of the salt descend over soon from the land by the great showers in winter ; 
 and in due time before you sow, you must till the said land once or twice again, 
 according to your custom of bear-land, or as the stiffness of the ground re- 
 quires, for sandy land needs but twice tilling. 
 
 “When you have sown your white seed, you may sow for every boll of 
 wheat, upon reasonable stiff or clay-land, one half boll of salt thereupon, and 
 in sandy ground one firlot of salt; and let all be harrowed together, and 
 hereby, God willing, you may have a good clean crop. In like manner, when 
 you have sown your oat-seed, you may sow three firlots of salt upon every 
 boll of oats sowing ; but this must be done upon watery or laigh land only, 
 as upon meadow or haugh land, whereupon the water stands commonly in 
 winter, ye shall, God willing, find a rich crop. But upon dry ground ye shall 
 sow no salt when the oat-seed is presently sown, but before Martinmas, ex- 
 cept with wheat, as said is, else you shall rather lose as gain. You shall sow 
 no salt with bear instantly, neither upon wet nor dry ground ; but as long be- 
 fore Martinmas as you may, as said is. 
 
 “ The general rule of salt is, that the same be sown on all sort of land four 
 or five months’ space before the same be sown with any seed, and that accord- 
 ing to the quantity above specified, more or less, as you shall find by expe- 
 rience your sort of ground may bear. For it is certain, if over much of com- 
 mon dung be laid upon land, or yet over little, [there will be little] or no in- 
 crease of corn. The like happens in salt, and, therefore, I refer you to expe- 
 
 rience, and the above quantities. 
 
 ** Follows the order of pasturage, and to increase the grass, both in abundance 
 and goodness, which being rightly used, may enrich our countrymen wonder- 
 fully. Set forth by the foresaid ARCHIBALD NAPIER. 
 
 “ Let every man cause bigg ten or twelve parks upon two or three year old 
 
286 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ley land at the least, of what bounds he pleases, from the middle of the month 
 of March till the eighth of April, and that the dikes thereof be strong and 
 thick, that they may stand for five or six years or longer at pleasure ; and in 
 the first or second day of the said March, let the foresaid whole parks be sown 
 with common salt, nearly one boll to one acre of clay or stiff ground, or with 
 half one boll upon sandy ground. 
 
 “ The said haill parks should be hained, and not pastured upon till Whitsun- 
 day thereafter, that they may be once exceeding good grass, and so will last 
 the longer good. Make your parks so near the one to the other, that upon 
 the said Whitsunday, when your cattle or bestial have eaten the grass of the 
 first park, upon the morrow they may go to the second, and eat in the same; 
 and the third day to eat and pasture in the third, and so forth, till they have 
 eaten the twelfth park; and then to return and eat in the first park, it being 
 cleansed and salted as hereafter. 
 
 * The said Whitsunday, which is the first day that you enter and eat the 
 first park, you shall let the cattle feed and pasture themselves until eleven 
 o’clock that you give them water to drink, and thereafter put them into a 
 common fold till two afternoon to dung the same, as use is; and at the said 
 two hours, put them again into the said first park to pasture themselves until 
 eight o’clock at night; then take them forth to drink, and thereafter all night 
 put them to dung in the said common fold; and let them never tarry over 
 night in the said parks. 
 
 “ When the herd hath folded the cattle at eight hours after even for the 
 night time, he must return to the first park where they eat all the day, and 
 there with a sharp shovel must take up the dung of every cow or ox, and 
 throw it out of the park in a maund or scull ; and upon every place where the 
 said dung lay he must sprinkle a little salt, or some earth and some salt 
 sprinkled thereupon, or some salt-pickled water, otherwise the cattle will not 
 eat the grass that grows thereupon where the dung lay ; where [as] if salt be 
 put thereupon, they will rather eat that grass than any other. 
 
 “ When they come about again to the thirteenth day, eat again in the first 
 park; and as the herd has done the first day to the first park, see that he do 
 the same the second day to the second park; and that he fail not to do the 
 same every night as a good servant; and so on the third day to the third park, 
 and so forth till all be eaten, and that they return to the first park. One acre 
 used this way will feed twice as many cattle as otherwise; and the kine fed 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 237 
 
 thereon will yield twice as much milk as they that are fed on unsalted grass. 
 Every year thereafter, for the space of five years, the said parks will fold more 
 cattle, and they be better fed ; and then, if you please to till and sow the said 
 parks for the space of four years thereafter, there will more corn and bear 
 grow than may in a manner stand thereupon. Let the dikes stand notwith- 
 standing the tilling thereof. 
 
 “ If the use of salt come up this way among us, I doubt not but all men 
 will request his majesty that no man be allowed to transport salt out of the 
 kingdom ; whereunto I most earnestly entreat you all to practise the discharge 
 of the same. | 
 
 “ That no man take upon him to use this kind of husbandry without licence 
 from the said Archibald, or his deputies, under the pain of ten shillings to be 
 paid him for every acre of land they labour therewith, as well grass as corn, 
 conform to his gift granted thereupon by his majesty.” * 
 
 We thus see, that with whatever romance the scientific powers of our phi- 
 losopher, and the members of his gifted family, may have been seasoned, those 
 powers were not lost in the mazes of superstition, nor did they evaporate in 
 vain attempts to work by magnetic sympathies, or to discover the secrets of 
 Hermes. “ The King of Tunis, invaded by a powerful enemy, promised toa 
 neighbour who assisted him, the philosopher’s stone. He sent a plough, 
 terming it the philosopher’s stone, because it would produce rich crops, to 
 procure gold in plenty ;”+ and the secret, which Merchiston thus ably com- 
 municated to the country, might have done more than the immortal elixir 
 for Scotland, by infusing a spirit of practical improvement, and new agricul- 
 
 * Archaelogia Scotica, or Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. ii. p. 
 154, <“ This curious paper is given from a MS. in the Archives of the society, which appears to 
 have been taken from the printed copy [printed by Robert Waldgrave, printer to his Majesty ]. 
 This, it is supposed, is extremely rare. Neither Ames nor Herbert seem to have known any 
 thing of it—Eprr.” 
 
 The late Lord Napier states in his MS. genealogical collections, “ the compiler laments his 
 being unable to give any account of the mode in which the salt was used,—never having been so 
 fortunate as to meet with the printed exemplification of the patent.” I have not been able to dis- 
 cover a copy either, and am indebted to Mr Macdonald, one of the Curators of the Scottish Anti- 
 quaries, for having pointed out to me the above reprint of it in their Transactions. The date of 
 the tract as given there is 1595; but the register of the privy-seal shows that this must be a mistake 
 
 for 1598. 
 + Kames. 
 
288 THE LIFE OF 
 
 tural hopes throughout a land devastated by wars, and disheartened by famine. 
 When we consider the glad tidings brought to human knowledge by the promul- 
 gation of logarithms a few years afterwards, it is doubly interesting to con- 
 template the fitful rays which from time to time were shooting from the rude 
 tower of Merchiston, across the whole horizon of the arts and sciences. 
 Nearly two centuries and a-half have passed away since this agricultural es- 
 say was composed in the midst of the darkest ignorance and distress pervading 
 Scotland. Yet, both in the practical knowledge it displays, and in the style of 
 composition by which it imparts that knowledge, we would even now fearlessly 
 submit it to the most hypercritical consideration of an age rejoicing in a Board 
 of Agriculture. 
 
 The application of common salt to this important purpose was a discovery 
 by no means obvious, or one easy to practise when discovered. Upon a cursory 
 investigation of its properties it is apt to be rejected, or, at least, to be used 
 so sparingly as not to afford very strikingor extensive benefit; and it was 
 not without reason that Merchiston laid down such special rules for the ma- 
 nagement of his system. Lord Kames, in his “ attempt to improve agricul- 
 ture by subjecting it to the test of rational principles,” observes, “ Salt is 
 powerful ; and an overdose of it does more mischief than of any other manure. 
 It is soluble in water, and by that means enters the mouths of plants. Its 
 effects, the, must be the same with that of lime-water ; and, considering how 
 sparingly it ought to be laid on land, it is not obvious what other effect it can 
 have.”* Now we will venture to say, that the Merchiston method was found- 
 ed upon a deeper knowledge of the experiment than this; and that had his 
 Lordship read the tract of 1598, he would have paused longer upon the sub- 
 ject. Since his time, experiments have been instituted which go to prove, not 
 that such a system is futile and founded on unscientific principles, but that it 
 is one requiring extensive practical knowledge in the management, and which 
 even now demands a more thorough investigation. This will appear from 
 the following observations contained in a work published under the auspices 
 of one who deserves to be called the Genius of Scottish agriculture. 
 
 “ Much has been said as to the utility of salt as a manure; but many 
 doubts are still entertained on this subject by respectable agriculturists. From 
 its well known antiseptic quality, it would at first sight appear not a very 
 
 * The Gentleman Farmer, &c. by the Honourable Henry Home, Lord Kames, one of the Se- 
 nators of the College of Justice. Sixth Edition, p. 385. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 289 
 
 likely substance to be beneficially applied as a manure; but, as it has been 
 found to possess a contrary quality, and act as an assistant to putrefaction when 
 used in small quantities, it may in this way prove useful by preparing the 
 food of plants, from suitable substances contained in the soil. Indeed, the 
 most generally received opinion, among those who recommend it as a manure, 
 seems to be, that it serves vegetables in the same way it does animals, 2. e. ra- 
 ther as a condiment or promoter of digestion than as affording them nourish- 
 ment from its own substance. Numerous experiments have been made to as- 
 certain its effects as a manure, but few of them have been productive of 
 favourable results, and of these few the generality seems only to place it among 
 manures of an inferior class. In one case, however, its effects appear to have 
 been eminently conspicuous. The case here alluded to is a series of experi- 
 ments made by the Rev. Dr Cartwright, for which he obtained the gold medal 
 from the Board of Agriculture. Having laid out twenty-five lots or beds, 
 forty yards long and one broad, he planted each of them with a single row of 
 potatoes after manuring them all differently ; and, after carefully and accu- 
 rately stating the different appearances in all the different stages, and placing 
 in regular succession each lot, with its produce in weight opposite, he found 
 the preference due to a mixture of salt and soot, while plain salt occupied the 
 sixth place; so that in this instance there were no fewer than nineteen manures 
 inferior to it in the scale of public utility ; and in that list were malt dust, 
 fresh dung, and lime. <A result so favourable undoubtedly calls for further 
 trials, particularly with the soot mixture, which, if found uniformly success- 
 ful, would be of considerable advantage to farmers in the vicinity of large 
 towns. A discovery has recently been made in America, that salt is an excel- 
 lent manure for flax. The quantity of salt should be double that of the seed 
 used, and should be sown at the same time. Carrots also grow well in a salted 
 bed, the salt being laid under the surface, in the centre of the intervals be- 
 tween the rows, and at some distance from the roots, that it may be dissolved 
 before the fibres of the roots reach it.” * 
 
 The paper to which Sir John Sinclair refers in the passage quoted above, is 
 to be found in the fourth volume of Communications to the Board of Agri- 
 culture, and seems to stand very much in the same relation to the Merchiston 
 
 * General Report of the agricultural state and political circumstances of Scotland. Drawn 
 up for the consideration of the Board of agriculture and internal improvement, under the direc- 
 tions of the Right Hon. Sir John Sinclair, Bart. the President. 1814. Vol. ii. p. 541. 
 
 O00 ; 
 
290 THE LIFE OF 
 
 method, that the experiments of Buffon and Peyrard bear to the catoptric pro- 
 positions of our philosopher’s secret inventions of war. As Descartes treated the 
 burning mirrors of Archimedes, so did Lord Kames the virtues of salt, by enter- 
 taining the subject with brief scepticism, and dismissing it without experiment. 
 It is much easier to find a plausible theory against the success of an improve- 
 ment, than to institute experiments, or to mature a system requiring scientific 
 skill in the management ; and, accordingly, Lord Kames, and those who held 
 his opinion, were not likely to be contradicted by ordinary practical farmers. 
 Dr Cartwright, with the scientific independence of a Buffon, commenced experi- 
 ments on the subject in the year 1804, the general results of which were as 
 stated above by the president of the board. These results are very ably 
 communicated in what the author entitles “ An experimental Essay on Salt as a 
 manure, and as a condiment mixed with the food of animals; sent in claim 
 of the premium offered by the board, and to which essay the gold medal was 
 adjudged.” 
 
 It is interesting to observe, considering the vast difference betwixt the state 
 of knowledge in their respective ages, how well the Merchiston paper can stand 
 a comparison with this prize-essay of the nineteenth century. ‘‘ Were,” says Dr 
 Cartwright, “ the beneficial effects of salt as a manure to be once fairly ascer- 
 tained, there can be no doubt but that the wisdom of the legislature would devise 
 some means by which, without prejudice to the revenue, the farmer might apply 
 it to the purposes of agriculture. At present the use of salt as a manure is a 
 subject on which the public opinion is much divided ; its advocates, reason- 
 ing from the striking effects of salt-water on the marshes which are occasion- 
 ally irrigated by the sea at spring tides, conclude that the fertilizing virtue of 
 such irrigation is owing to its saline quality, without taking into considera- 
 tion the quantity of animal and vegetable matter which sea water, (particular- 
 ly near the coast, and where rivers disembogue themselves,) must necessarily 
 hold in solution. Those who maintain a contrary opinion, considering salt 
 merely as an antiseptic, satisfy themselves that it is impossible that any thing 
 can be friendly to vegetation which retards putrefaction ; a process indispen- 
 sable in substances that are to be the food of plants. To get over this diffi- 
 culty it has been conjectured, nay, there have not been wanting those (and of 
 great name too) who have even attempted to prove, that salt in small quanti- 
 ties accelerates, as in large quantities it is known to resist, putrefaction ; a 
 doctrine, to which, however, I shall not willingly yield my assent till I can 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 291 
 
 be persuaded that effects are not, in all cases, proportional to their causes. 
 The operation of every cause is and must be uniform; and when to appear- 
 ance it is not so, some other cause obtrudes itself, too subtile for our observa- 
 tion, which, operating at the same time with the primary cause, joins in giv- 
 ing a result, which, not being able to account for, we consider as anomalous. 
 That theorists should be at variance with each other is not to be wondered 
 at, for, having the wide field of imagination and conjecture before them to ex- 
 patiate in, it is reasonable to conclude, indeed it is unavoidable, that some of 
 them must lose their way. But what shall we say to the disagreement and 
 inconsistency which prevail on this subject amongst practical farmers ? No- 
 thing, indeed, can be more contradictory than the different reports that have 
 been made on the effects of salt as a manure, by those who have even brought 
 it to the test of actual experiment. As there is no reason to question the ve- 
 racity of the reporters, we must look for the grounds of their disagreement in 
 some predominating circumstance or other, which at the time escaped their 
 observation. Indeed, the success or failure of an agricultural experiment de- 
 pends so frequently on causes which can neither be controlled nor foreseen, 
 and so foreign from those which were expected to operate, that it is not to be 
 wondered at if the repetition of the very same experiment gives oftentimes a 
 different result. As it is not the business of this paper to support a theory, but 
 to detail what has been practised, not to contend for an opinion, but to state 
 facts, the few observations which may be hazarded will be such only as are 
 required merely in explanation of occurrences as they arise. I shall endeavour 
 to give, therefore, as simple a relation as possible of the experiments I have tried, 
 to ascertain the advantages or disadvantages which may attend the use of salt as 
 a manure, and also when mixed with the food of animals. It may be necessary 
 first of all to premise, that the soil on which my experiments were tried is a 
 ferruginous sand, brought to a due texture and consistence by a liberal cover- 
 ing of pond mud.” 
 
 After detailing his experiments, and giving a minute table of their re- 
 sults, Dr Cartwright adds, “ The foregoing table furnishes many parti- 
 culars worthy of observation. In the first place, it is remarkable that of 
 ten different manures, most of which are of known and acknowledged effi- 
 cacy, salt, a manure hitherto of an ambiguous character, is superior to them 
 all, one only excepted! and again, when used in combination with other sub- 
 
292 THE LIFE OF 
 
 stances, it is only unsuccessfully applied in union with that one, namely, 
 chandler’s graves, no other manure seemingly being injured by it.” * 
 
 Thus much has been quoted from the highest agricultural authorities in Scot- 
 land, in order to place in its proper light to the general reader, the Merchiston 
 scheme of the year 1598. What in our own times has obtained such 
 consideration, and with such results, must not be regarded as a fanciful or 
 crude proposal, even from one who lived when agriculture, as a science, 
 could hardly be said to exist in Scotland ; nor is it unimportant to observe, 
 that this either forms an honourable exception to a harsh dictum of Dr 
 Samuel Johnson versus Scotland, or serves to contradict it entirely. The 
 giant of letters admitted, that “ Literature soon after its revival found its 
 way to Scotland, and from the middle of the sixteenth century, almost to the 
 middle of the seventeenth, the politer studies were very diligently pursued. 
 Yet, (added he,) men thus ingenious and inquisitive were content to live in 
 total ignorance of the trades by which human wants are supplied, and to sup- 
 ply them by the grossest means. ‘Till the union made them acquainted with 
 English manners, the culture of their lands was unskilful, and their domestic 
 life unformed ; their tables were coarse as the feasts of Eskimeaux, and their 
 houses filthy as the cottages of Hottentots. Since they have known that their 
 condition was capable of improvement, their progress in useful knowledge has 
 been rapid and uniform.” t But Merchiston at least, even in the sixteenth 
 century, was no den of savages. It is obvious, that the plan of tillage promul- 
 gated from that house had been matured by long experience, and anxious ex- 
 periments, that all the difficulties and objections likely to counteract it had been 
 foreseen and well weighed, and that the object of the careful instructions pub- 
 lished was to neutralize the refractory qualities, both in salt and soils, which, 
 perhaps, are the very causes of scepticism on the subject at this day. Whether 
 that method be complete and of practical value to Scotland in the present state 
 of her agriculture, is a question for the scientific. But the Merchiston 
 tract deserves to be redeemed from the oblivion into which it has fallen, not 
 merely as a page in the history of that family, but in order to obtain its due 
 place in the annals of agriculture ; and that, when gold medals are distributed, 
 
 * By the Rev. Edward Cartwright of Woburn. sat sapit omMNIA.—Communications to the 
 Board of Agriculture, on subjects relative to the husbandry and internal improvement of the 
 Country, Vol. iv. p. 370. 
 
 + A Journey to the Western Islands. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 293 
 
 in an enlightened age of plenty, for agricultural essays upon salt, the name of our 
 philosopher,—whose farming operations were conducted in times of ignorance, 
 turbulence, and famine,—may be honoured even by the Board of Agriculture. 
 
 Considering the terms of John Napier’s letter to his father, quoted in a pre- 
 vious chapter, wherein he displays a minute acquaintance with country mat- 
 ters, and something like the habits of a farmer, we are much tempted to ascribe 
 entirely to his teeming genius this method of enriching the land; especially as 
 the profits of it were gifted to his son. But even if the plan originated with 
 the old laird, whose active mind was certainly more than equal to the disco- 
 very, it cannot be doubted that it was matured and practised under the inspec- 
 tion and advice of the philosopher. It must have taken a series of years to 
 afford the condensed information contained in the method as given to the pub- 
 lic. During this time young Archibald Napier was pursuing his studies at 
 Glasgow College, and in the year 1598 was only about twenty-three years 
 of age, a time of life not likely to amass such practical knowledge in farming ; 
 nor is it improbable, as indeed his own expressions would lead us to sup- 
 pose, that he had already joined the household of the king. An anecdote of 
 his early history and habits will show yet more distinctly how far he was re- 
 moved from the character of an agriculturist. 
 
 Patrick Galloway, the sturdy minister who alone of all the clergy, except the 
 moderator, would venture on the mission with Merchiston to King James, had 
 a son James Galloway, who was as little inclined to confine himself to the walk 
 of a Scotch clergyman, as young Archibald Napier aspired to the habits of a 
 philosopher. A close friendship had grown up betwixt these youths; and it 
 is evident that the minister’s son regarded his more fortunate companion 
 with emulous, though not with envious eyes, and longed to equal him in his 
 courtly career and attainments. About the commencement of their first ardent 
 struggles for fame and fortune, and when both were little aware how high, and 
 varied, and full of vanity their destinies were to be, James Galloway penned 
 the following morceau to Archibald Napier. 
 
 “To the Right Worthie his much respected freind, Mr Napeir, gentleman 
 of his Majesties privie chamber. 
 
 * Sir,—Upon the sight and approbation of those weall done peeces, which, 
 before ye shew me, I confess my mynd was in some measure consenting to 
 try sumthing in that kynd be way of imitation ; for howsoever I did conceave 
 the difficulty that might be in the performance, yitt wold I not give way to 
 
294 THE LIFE OF 
 
 any such surmise, not dreaming it to be any other then that which does ordi- 
 narly accompany all beginnings; besids, I hoped that the satisfying of this 
 desyre of knowledge should, as it is in the appetits of the body, not only tend 
 to the conservation of that facultie, bot even inrich it by this new growth of 
 learning. Bot having made triall in one or two matters with such unhappy 
 success as I am ashamed to relate, I fonde the supposed difficultie turned in 
 a meere impossibilité, and the desire to be bot a fals appetit, bewraying no 
 stomak att all fitt for disgesting so strong and delicate a foode. Tharfore I 
 had quyt given over the enterprise, and resolved, rather wyslie not to sett 
 forward in this feeld, then shamefully be forced afterwards to retire ; when 
 behold, by the reading of your letter, Iam ona sudden driven back to plunge 
 again in that doubtfull deliberation, and how to rescue myself from the danger 
 of this new assalt. For whyles I consider how plausiblie and insensiblie ye 
 wold put the matter upon me, by acknowledging store of excellent matter and 
 liberalitie in the bestowing of it att some occasions—how craftily ye insinuat 
 the easiness of the practise, calling it bot astyle simplie, obvious only to the in- 
 ferior powers of our mynd, sense and imagination, a sauce of exterior grace, 
 and bot a complement of vertue and learning—and last, how powerfully ye 
 preass to persuade by the profitablenes to others and to myselfe, in begetting 
 favor and opinion of meritt, and by the necessitie of ordering the conceptions 
 and eviting of confusions—I must confess (to use your owne similitude) ye 
 have so weall gilded the pills, and candied the drogs, that, if I had not tasted 
 the bitternes and harshnes of the ingredients before, I should, without more 
 adoo, have passed them peaceablie, and returned again into my first standing 
 with fresh curage, by vertue of this new alarum. Bot when I look again more 
 inwardlie into it, and, by a more exact survey, tak up the true dimensions, 
 the depth of understanding, the hight of conceptions, the proportionable su- 
 perfice in the style, with the pleasantness of the plantation through the whole, 
 I must of force acknowledge, that the proportion is not fitt for my undertak- 
 ing, not being able to fulfill the conditions. For an essay in my mynd is the 
 name of a most ambitious practise ; the word both importeth doubt and de- 
 nyeth perfection ; for he is properly said to essay, who endevoreth to doo 
 that wharof the performance is doubtfull ; and ane essay which, howsoevir 
 it handleth the subject, yitt leaveth hope of forder dyving into the same, 
 denoteth bot a spare and restrained triall. Wharfore, it might seeme that 
 even a most barren spirit might, without suspition of self-conceat, labour his 
 awnue perfection in this kynd, and boldly enter these ambitious lists, under so 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 295 
 
 modest a mask to cover his pretensions, being able by the propriete of the 
 word to excuse his rash attempt, if his meaning should be misconstrued and 
 anyways wrasted to ambition. Bot whatsoever the word signifieth, sure ane 
 essay, as it is usually taken, is a practising of a man’s witt, or the wittiest 
 practise of his witt, about any certain subject. A wittie practise it must be, 
 since every practise of witt is not worthie this name; and a practise of witt 
 I call it rather than judgement, since it must be more relevat, and have a hyer 
 straine, then judicious solidness dois requyre ; for, as in this elementar world 
 the globe of earth and water, as most confused, is lowest,—the aire, as 
 most temperatt, in the middle,—and above all, as most pure, is the fyer; so 
 in the scale of our understandings, fixed by the temper of the elementar qua- 
 lities in the organs, the knowledge of sens, as most confused and terreall, is 
 the lowest,—that of judgement, proceeding of a moderatt and equal temper, 
 hes and is the true meane,—bot witt, as most fyrie, transcending the rest by 
 his active and searching heatt, is placed in the highest degree. Whence it is 
 that in this microcosme, the most majestuous state of nature, the sensuall and 
 grossest understandings, as hir basest subjects, are, as least dangerous, so least 
 exposed to danger, the middle sort of juditious, both the ways most secure, 
 bot the wittiest, thogh hir greatest mignons, are both most perillous, by over- 
 reaching thair naturall prince with artificiall inventions, and also most obvious 
 to the frownes of fortune by outreaching themselfes, being nixt to the preci- 
 pice of folly, if not content to consist in the hyest. Since, then, (to return to 
 my purpose) ane essay is a practise of witt, it must of force be juditious ; for 
 witt, being the last and hyest degree of knowledge, it presupposeth and in- 
 cludeth judgement, for witt is as it wer the subtill perfection of judgement, 
 and judgement againe the moderation of witt. In a word, judgement must 
 furnish the matter of this practise, for it must be juditious ; bot witt gives it 
 the forme in excellency and quicknes, and that not in any degree bot the su- 
 preamest of lyvely grace and proportion, whence I call it, of all the practices 
 of witt, the wittiest. For in matter of essays, nothing that is meane can please 
 no more than in poesie ; 
 
 mediocribus esse poetis 
 Non homines, non Dii, non concessere columnz.* 
 
 The ground must be juditious, the words choise, the steill tight, the illus- 
 trations apposit and cleare, all excellent and quick; bot which is the cheif- 
 est of all, and whence, as from the former, it must be thoght worthie of 
 
 * De Arte Poetica. 
 
296 THE LIFE OF 
 
 this name, is, that both the conceptions themselfes, and the manner of couch- 
 ing them, must not be ordinarie : for it is the perfyt portrait of the mynd, and 
 may fitly be compared to that of the bodie, whois excellency dois not consist in 
 the choisnes and variete of colours, or in the cleanlines and delicacie of the 
 draghts, or yitt in the exact proportion of every member to another, and of the 
 whole to the dimensions of the body, but it must have that lyvelines of repre- 
 sentation answering the conceaved idea in the imagination of the artificer, and 
 the treuth of the person, so as there seem nothing to inlaik of lyfe bot motion. 
 Now, to poynt out formally wherin this formalité dois consist, I must of force 
 use that ingenuous word of NEscio, thinking that to be the best expression 
 that I can make of it, that I cannot expresse it ; yitt, least my apologie should 
 not be sufficient, in being as it were afraid of a thing I know not, the reflexion 
 of the brightnes of those peeces which I have seene, will afford some glance to 
 leade me by the threed of similes and negatives, unto the outgate of this laberinth 
 wharin I am so obscurely involved.* For negatives, I have said that the con- 
 ceptions and couching must not be ordinary, that is, that they must nather 
 be too obvious nor too far soght, and, as it were, wrested to the purpose @ con- 
 trepowl ; and this naither too spair and restrained, nor yit too large and disso- 
 lute, both not affectat, bot naturall and naife, and all both furnished and 
 flowred with quicknes of invention; for it is lyk that grace that showes it- 
 self in the pleasing and delightfull variete of colours springing up in sundrie 
 places in good order, one after another, in this pleasant garden of the mynd ; 
 or it is the excellency and comlines of the project of this hir stateliest pallace, 
 consisting both in the plot of the whole, and proportionat contryving every 
 roome, and therin placing conveniently these entrys of invention and lights of 
 cleere elocution, besids the preciousnes of the materialls, the rarete and excel- 
 lency of the workmanship, and the richnes of other furniture belonging therto. 
 And, in a word, since I am driven to ane end, it is that true golden tincture, 
 without the which al the rest will prove bot counterfitt ; and, being broght 
 on, dois shew the inestimable riches both of the peece and the possessor. 
 
 “ Now, Sir, I hope ye have seen really what before in words I protested ; for 
 heer ye may sie ane intended essay of myne, bot so defective, that it cannot 
 express that part of itself, without which it can not enjoy that name; how 
 much more to illustrate or sett forth any other thing in that kynd; wharfore, 
 Sir, Iam sory that your both honorable and profitable conclusions should not 
 have thair premisses in me, and that your so wholesome and restoring drogs 
 
 * This is very like what some wags call a speech upon the general question. 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 297 
 
 should not have bredd some lyvely sprits for performance in this kind; and not, 
 as now it is, (such is the distemper of my stomach,) turned them in comple- 
 mentall persuasions, only fitt to begett and nurish fekles and courtlie hopes, 
 whare ther is no reall probabilitie. Wharfore, I must returne them all upon 
 yourself, whois richnes in thes possessions doth appeare in your neglectfull and 
 lavish spending, and demonstrat my povertie more than sensibly ; for you 
 having intended bot a letter, have expressed a perfyt essay, such is the fruit- 
 fulnes and obsequiousness of your quill; bot I, having intended to sett downe 
 ane essay, have scarce given you the say of a perfyt letter; so hard it is to 
 performe any thing :zvita Minerva, and am in this, lyk that unskilfull potter 
 
 with whom 
 
 amphora ccepit 
 
 Institui: currente rota cur urceus exit ? * 
 
 Now, Sir, in retribution of your frendlie and verteous advice, since I sie your 
 mynd sett to draw some man in to his disadvantage, my advice is, that ye dis- 
 semble a litle your play in the beginning, least ye seeme both too avaricious in 
 not contenting yourself with the richness of your own possessions, and too court- 
 ly and crafty in cunnicathing others, who perhaps will not so willingly, accord- 
 ing to the law of armes, yeeld as I doo myself, by right of conquise, 
 Your most obsequious and loving servant, 
 “ Ja. GALLOWAY.” 
 
 And what is this, the reader may perhaps exclaim, and what does it por- 
 tend? “ * Marvellous fine words, neighbour Happer, are they not?’ ‘ Brave 
 words,—very brave words,—very exceeding pyet words,’ answered the miller, 
 ‘ nevertheless, to speak my mind, a lippy of bran were worth a bushel o’ them.’ ” 
 Shade of Sir Piercie Shafton, this is EupHutsm! Archibald Napier had wor- 
 shipped at the shrine of John Lylie, and the minister’s son was his pupil. 
 ** Ah, that I had with me my anatomy of wit,—that all-to-be-unparalleled vo- 
 lume,—that quintessence of human wit,—that treasury of quaint invention,— 
 that exquisitely-pleasant-to-read, and inevitably-necessary-to-be-remembered 
 manual of all that is worthy to be known,—-which indoctrines the rude in ci- 
 vility, the dull in intellectuality, the heavy in jocosity, the blunt in gentility, 
 the vulgar in nobility ; and all of them in that unutterable perfection of hu- 
 man utterance ; that eloquence, which no other eloquence is sufficient to praise ; 
 that art, which, when we call it by its own name of Euphuism, we bestow on 
 it its richest panegyric !” + 
 
 * De Arte Poetica. + The Monastery. 
 
 Pp 
 
298 THE LIFE OF 
 
 The above letter, which bears no date, is obviously written about the close 
 of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, or the commencement of that of James in 
 England, when the most recherché literature were the works of Lilye. To 
 these “ ’tis said our nation was indebted for a new English, which the flower 
 of the youth thereof learned,—when all the ladies were scholars to them and 
 their author; and that beauty in court which could not parly Euphuism, was 
 as little regarded as those now there that cannot speak French.”* The am- 
 bition of James Galloway was not entirely disappointed. He was knighted, 
 became master of requests to James VI. and Charles I., a privy-councillor, and 
 conjunct secretary of state with the celebrated William Earl of Stirling. At 
 length, in the year 1645, he was elevated to the peerage by the title of Lord 
 Dunkeld, and is now chiefly remembered as having been numbered among 
 the prophets. Sir Walter Scott possessed a curious manuscript, appended to the 
 rare edition of “ The whole Prophecies of Scotland, &c. printed by Andro Hart, 
 1615 ;” the first item in which manuscript is entitled, “ a prophesie, whereof Sir 
 James Galloway, predecessor to the Lords of Dunkell, was called author; others 
 ascrybe it to Napier of Merchistoun, the famous mathematician, first Lord Na- 
 pier.” +} But among the papers of the philosopher’s son (who was first Lord) 
 I find an old copy of those very prophecies, entitled “the prophesies of James 
 Galloway, Lord Dunkeld, before the troubles in England,” to whom, therefore, 
 the merit must be ascribed. Though our Euphuist succeeded in obtaining such 
 lofty places, both in the Court of Apollo and of King James, yet, like Sir Piercie 
 Shafton, the thorn of a less gentle origin rankled in his side, and it was upon 
 the occasion of his elevation to the peerage that some English courtier exclaimed, 
 “ the king can make a peer, but he cannot make a gentleman.” Lord Dunkeld’s 
 
 * Anthony a Wood, who gives the following account of the author: “ John Lylie or Lylly, 
 a Kentish man born, became a student in Magd. Coll. in the beginning of 1569, aged 16, or 
 thereabouts, and was afterwards, as I conceive, either one of the demies or clerks of that house ; 
 but always averse to the crabbed studies of logic and philosophy,” &c. He became a noted wit 
 in the Court of Queen Elizabeth, and unjustly celebrated for many ridiculous works, especially 
 Euphues and his England, and the Anatomy of Wit, first published in 1580 and 1581. 
 
 + This MS. consists of nine leaves, and bears the general title, « Prophesies collected from 
 other authors; some whereof knowen, and ther names affixed; others not knowen, but many of 
 them old and currant through the isle of Great Britain; collected and faithfully written by John 
 Gordon of Tillichondie, anno 1711.” A copy of this was taken for the Advocates’ Library ; it 
 varies slightly from that among the Merchiston papers, and the contents are so silly as obviously 
 not to have proceeded from John Napier. 
 
ai 
 
 eh ate en 
 
 P Way 
 rs i] 
 
 i wil ,* eh Mis rf (9 
 
 ie» _ 1 a: s 
 0) / ae oo ‘ ‘ = ty 
 Cnn i RAR ys | BE vide 
 f ¢ , : 7 
 . a) 
 iv ry , ‘ , ® bv ft eu Wish - “ 8 con f s 
 
 asia io vivk 7 
 ae ‘wh Ap a Gi ts - 
 
 a 
 j ei 
 
WAHL 1V 
 TLSA199 SIH 
 AINAOLSWIH 9. 
 YaW AOqdV Ss 
 OLANOS lad 
 VN sd IVS: 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 301 
 
 ed by those persons aforesaid. For, said he, these are wise men, and will seek 
 their advantage, either by the Queen’s Majesty of England, or else by the 
 King of Spain. And if this offer of their service take not effect, or be not 
 embraced of the English, they will take their vantage of the Spaniard. But 
 because of a promise that my lord made to the king, that he wold in no sort 
 meddle with Francis, he refused to deal any farther with them, save only that 
 he had the sight of the contract, which I brought him, because I was the tra- 
 veller between them, requested thereto by Francis, with whom I have been in 
 great friendship this great while, and am yet. Now I understand that he is 
 a special doer for the Earl of Huntley ; and my Lord Sanquire, who is the 
 chief man in the foresaid league, hath had sundry meetings with the Papists, 
 and now is become a great courtier; so that this makes great appearance to 
 affirm that which I say, yea more than this, my Lord Sanquire is to be excom- 
 municated, because he can in no wise be brought to subscribe to the religion.” * 
 Shortly after this, Mowbray went abroad to the Low Countries, (where his 
 sister Barbara was mourning over the relics of Queen Mary,) and, attaching 
 himself to the court at Brussels, became deeply involved in all the Popish plots 
 against which John Napier entertained so pious and patriotic a horror. 
 Alexander Napier was the eldest son of Sir Archibald and Elizabeth Mowbray. 
 He was born in the year 1572, under certain conjunctions or aspects of the pla- 
 nets, which were carefully recorded, and are still preserved. Even a century after 
 this date judicial astrology was almost universally believed ; and, if it was our 
 philosopher who cast the horoscopes of his family, he only performed a task 
 which in those days it would have been undutiful in him to have refused, sup- 
 posing him acquainted with the celestial science. We shall not attempt to 
 read the scheme here presented to the curious reader; but, certainly, if they 
 contain not “ fiery and airy masculine signs,” those twelve houses were not 
 erected by the hand of a master. Besides Alexander, there were other two 
 sons of the same marriage—Archibald and William. These three brothers 
 were of restless turbulent dispositions, giving great uneasiness to their parents, 
 and to the philosopher, who seems to have been regarded by them rather 7 
 loco parentis than as a brother. It appears that Alexander and William, some 
 time before the year 1600, were exceedingly anxious to join their wild uncle, 
 Francis Mowbray, abroad, and sought various pretexts for doing so, contrary 
 
 * Letter in the Lambeth Collection. See it referred to, supra, p. 280, 
 
302 THE LIFE OF 
 
 to the wishes both of their father and mother. Archibald, though just of age 
 in that year, was a married man with a family, but not at all settled or sobered 
 on that account. His sword was as seldom in its scabbard as he was in his 
 own house of “ the Wowmet,” with his young wife “‘ Alesoune Edmeistoune,” 
 and their infant daughter. He was ever riding to the hills or the borders, 
 like a knight-errant in search of adventures ; or, to use Lindsay’s mode of cha- 
 racterising Sir Archibald, “ as gif he war ane pursuivant.” He seems, how- 
 ever, to have been a generous high-spirited youth, the Mercutio of his family, 
 and it was matter of deep distress to them all when these wandering and war- 
 like habits brought him to an untimely end. 
 
 The Scotts of Bowhill were a younger branch of Scott of Thirlstane, a cadet 
 of Buccleuch. Satchells, in his doggrel history of the name of Scott, dedicated 
 to James Scott laird of Bowhill, in 1686, says,— 
 
 “ Thy father Robert, yet survives ; 
 Thy goodsire was by the Napiers slain;” 
 
 a verse recording an incident, of which the particulars have been hitherto un- 
 known to modern readers of border history. About the period of the Gowrie con- 
 spiracy, which happened in August 1600, young Archibald Napier chanced to 
 be somewhere in the border country, and while in the act of searching for 
 his horse, stolen or strayed, he met Scott of Bowhill. This moss-trooper, 
 taking some questions on the subject of the missing quadruped as a personal 
 affront, told Napier to defend himself or die. The latter did all that he could 
 to avoid the quarrel; but Scott, having waylaid him that same evening in a 
 lonely spot, again defied him, when they fought, and Napier killed his perti- 
 nacious adversary. ‘There seems to have been nothing unfair on the part of 
 the successful combatant, nor was any attempt made to bring him to justice ; 
 but upon the 8th of November 1600, the brothers of Bowhill, with others of 
 the name of Scott to the number of six, with the addition of Thomas Crichton, 
 a cadet of the house of Sanquhar, waylaid the unfortunate youth as he was 
 riding alone, under cloud of night, to his own house in the neighbourhood of 
 Edinburgh, and put him to death with many wounds, very near the palace 
 itself. This, even in those times when such tragedies were of daily occurrence, 
 created a great sensation, and was considered a very horrible murder. Sir Ar- 
 chibald Napier went in person for redress to King James, who expressed the 
 strongest indignation against the perpetrators, and declared, that he would as 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 303 
 
 soon forgive the Gowrie conspirators as the murderers of Archibald Napier. 
 That fearful attempt upon his own person, with which the whole country was 
 then engrossed, happened only three months previously ; no stronger expres- 
 sions could have been used, and this of itself is sufficient to show that Archi- 
 bald Napier was not considered as having justly paid the penalty of his life to 
 the brothers of those he had slain. Alexander seems to have been very much 
 excited by the murder of his brother, and both he and William proposed some 
 dark scheme of revenge by which they should have blood for blood. This had 
 been seriously urged by them to Sir Archibald Napier and the philosopher ; 
 and when their meditated revenge met with nothing but rebuke from that quar- 
 ter, these hasty youths wrote to their father, declaring that they felt dishonoured 
 in their own country, and must quit it. Sir Archibald endeavoured, with the 
 assistance of his eldest son, to bring these prodigals to a sense of their evil 
 ways by the most earnest admonitions. The letters composed upon this tragi- 
 cal occasion, apparently by the philosopher himself, are exceedingly powerful, 
 and present a very curious picture of the times. The following is unsigned, 
 but seems to be in the handwriting of John Napier, though somewhat hastily 
 written, and afterwards to have been rejected for another written on the same 
 day, and signed both by himself and his father. 
 
 “ SONEIS,—We ereit you with sick commendatiouns as your folifull deid de- 
 servis, be ministering unto us new occasioun of gritter displessour. Ye lament 
 onlie your brothir’s deid, but we lament bayth heis deid and your foleis, and 
 the mair, that as he wes in his tyme uncounsalabill, sua ye appeir to follow the 
 samyn cours. God mak ye end better. We haif ressavit your lettre, or rather 
 your fuillische gudenycht, be the quhilk ye wald bring upoun us the occasioun 
 of this your vane interpryse ; allegeing us to be slak in the revengeing of the 
 lait injurie done be our enemeis, sayinge ye proponit dyvers wayis to haif re- 
 pairit the wrange done, bot we wald nawyis prosecute your devices, bot ob- 
 jectit in the contrair. Judgement, wit, and experience craveis ressouning in 
 materis of grit importance befoir conclussioun. Gif we had fund your devices 
 possibill, we culd esilie agreit to the samyn, bot being so heiche, thai passit 
 the reiche of our power, though we had bene twentie tymes gritter of power, 
 rank, and rent nor we ar. We behuiffit to ressoun and oppone aganes unpos- 
 sillitie, not leiffing of in the meyne tyme sick possibill preparativeis as the 
 
304 THE LIFE OF 
 
 tyme and occasioun offerit. Bot this your proceidingis declairis that ye haif 
 taikin up this our slaknes, as ye tarme it, to be bot onlie ane pretext of your 
 uncumlie and dishonorable doinge; for we knaw that this lang tyme, the 
 yeiris past, ye bayth hes bene of this purpois; and sua justlie ye can nocht 
 pretend the lait deid done to be the occasioun of your auld foliche intentioun ; 
 nather yit can ye justlie burthing us with ony strait deilling towardis you, 
 for we war contentit at all tymes that ather of you suld chuis, quhom ye pleissit 
 best, ane wyfe of honorable parantages, at quhilk tyme we suld extend our 
 gude will to you and hir on sick maner as, justlie, ye nor the frendis of hir 
 suld haif na occasioun to plent ; we ressavinge ressounabill meitting ; bot pro- 
 pone or do quhat we culd, all for nocht, except we wald haif giffing gritter 
 rent and landis to you nor our power mycht extend to; and that onlie to 
 your selffis to play the ryote with, and nocht to be ussit as we haif said befoir. 
 Alexander! ye knaw that ye wer nocht provydeit be birthe, nather to landis 
 nor rent, and yit God of his mercy, be the providence of me and your dolorous 
 mother, hes obtenit ane ressonabill leving to you, (gif sufficience wer content- 
 ment,) quhill we culd nocht haif done, togidder with uthir turnes we haif 
 done, gif we had playit the ryote, as ye wald. Thir thingis set apairt, we 
 haif thocht gud to lay befoir your jugments, honour and dishonour, prospe- 
 ritie and povertie, lyfe and deithe. First, quhat sall it be said bot for feir 
 and febilnes ye haif left the cuntre, feiring to fall in the handis of your ene- 
 meis! Secundlie, beleiffis ony of you to obtene in uthir cuntreis sick roumes 
 and rent as ye haif appeirance heir to? bot in steid of seiking a gritter, sall 
 lois it that ye haif; heir tyneing your selffis be opponing you to unnecessar 
 dangeris of your lyffis ; or at the leist to fall for laik of interteinment in mi- 
 serable povertie! and than ye will say, ye wald wis to God that ye had fol- 
 lowit the counsell of your parentis and freindis, rather than nor the wilfulnes 
 of your selffis. Bot, allace, we feir that your repentance sall than cum too 
 lait, quhen nather counsell nor assistance of freindis may help. Heirfor, leif 
 off, in Godis name, sick vane interpryises, and apply your-selffis to wyis coun- 
 sell, traisting the assistence of Godis spreit to concur with you in your pro- 
 ceidingis ; and be nocht as the foirlorne sone, leist your fatheris be nocht nor 
 may nocht releif you of your calamiteis. Gif ye will nocht lief of sick foliche 
 interpryses, we draw the heavin and the eirthe, and the name of our grit 
 God, to witnes, that ye ar the pers toners of your awin perditioun, in respect 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 305 
 
 of the gude will and luif that we beir unto you, gif we fand you counsillabill ; 
 quhilk gif ye be nocht, think nocht to eschaipe the heavie hand of the Lord. 
 And quhair-as ye write of my thre sones and my oy, that the exspectatioun 
 of that raice concistis onlie in the barne that is yit unborne! * think it is litill 
 of Godis mycht to rais of the dust childrene to Abraham ; and thairfoir be 
 nocht of that opinioun that we will die without airis; nor be nocht the 
 prouder that we had rather ye wer our airis nor utheris ; for we dout nocht 
 in the mercie of our God to haif sick as salbe to our comfort, beit ye or 
 uthris at heis plesour. Thairfor embrace our loving counsell towardis you 
 bayth, for your honouris and weill ; and ground your selffis rather, than, upoun 
 God nor upoun vane inventiones ; uthirwyis, as said is, we protest befoir God 
 ye ar the causseris of your awin distructeris, and we innocent of the samyn. 
 Ye write tuicheing the provydeing of ane servand to everilk ane of you! I beleif 
 it to be nocht sua schortlie past out of your memorie quhat wes your lait an- 
 swer tuiching Mrances Mowbray. This for conclusioun, humbill your selffis 
 to your God, returne to us your parentis, and be nocht eschameit, but rather 
 repent in tyme nor ower lait; utherwyis we protest before God, that we ar 
 fre of your blude cum quhat sua may heirefter. Sua committis you bayth to 
 the governament of the Spreit of the Lord. At Merchingstoun the last day 
 
 of November 1600. 
 * Be your loving parentis.” 
 
 As the handwriting of this letter, though similar to that of the philosopher, 
 varies from it in some respects, it may possibly have been written by Sir 
 Archibald himself, and rejected for the following, which, unquestionably, is 
 all in the handwriting of John Napier, and from the subsequent part of the 
 correspondence it is obvious that the philosopher was chiefly regarded as the 
 
 Mentor upon this unhappy occasion. 
 
 * This must refer to the family of Sir Archibald’s second marriage only, (in the name of whose 
 parents the letter is written, ) otherwise the sentence is not intelligible. Of that marriage there 
 were three sons, Alexander, Archibald, and William. Sir Archibald mentions in the will “ Helen 
 Naper, my oy (grandchild) dochter to umquhile Archibald Naper my son.” Alexander probably 
 had threatened his father with the loss of heirs-male of the second marriage. Of the three sons 
 two were unmarried, and one murdered ; the “ oy” was a girl; the “ babe unborn” was the chance 
 of Aleison Edmonstone having a son. 
 
 aq 
 
306 THE LIFE OF 
 
 “ Sonis,—Efter our commendationis, we heff recevit your letter concerning 
 your onorderlie depairting furth of this cuntrie, the breif soume quherof semis 
 to be, that ye imput the haill wyt and occasione of your saidis depairtouris 
 to our defaltis, that ar your parentis, in that we nather agerie to ony of your 
 plattis, nather proponis other mair solid coursis of ouris awin for the reveng of 
 the lait horrible murthour of your bruther, and that ye can nocht comport, for 
 schame thereof, to remaine in the cuntrie. For answer hereto, althocht sa war 
 that we nather can (for just occasionis) agrie to your coursis theranent, nather, 
 as yit, will conclud by our selfis alanerlie upon sa wechtie ane caiss that con- 
 cernis hous, haill name and frendis, without we first convein our frendis to that 
 effect, that thair deliberatioun also may be had theranent. Is that smal delay ane 
 argument that we mynd to overpass that matteris with sylence, and not rather 
 to provide with diligens, conforme to the commone consent and conclusione of 
 frendis ? Bot put the caiss it wer sa, is that the occasione of your oncumlie de- 
 pairting ? nay surlie, altho ye mak it the only pretext thereof, for it is knawin 
 to God, to the world, and to your awin consciencis, that this lang season, be- 
 for the said slaughter and lett pretext of dishonor, ye heff socht all occasionis, 
 pretextis, and causes ye culd, to heff departit away. We wold wisch you, in 
 the feir of God, to behaif yourselfis mair plainlie and obedientlie to us your pa- 
 rantis than to be making sik pretextis to colour your inobediences, quherby 
 ye do that in you lyis, to bring us, that are your parentis, to the graif with sor- 
 row, as also to heipe on yourselfis the wratht of God therfor. Ye tak in mynd 
 deiplie the reveng of the said murther! and na marvell, for sa do we all; bot 
 quhy neglek ye the originall pairt of the tragedie ? forgetting how your um- 
 quhil brother became ane inobedient and stubborn contemptnair of father and 
 mother, depairting away at his awin hand, first to the north to fecht in ane on- 
 godly causs,—syn to the south to procure his awin deid,—last out of the cun- 
 trie ;*-—and other contempts nocht to be wrettine; for the quhilkis, that Lord 
 that in his commandis promissis long lyf and inheritance to them that be obe- 
 dient to father and mother, geff to him ane schort lyf and ane tragicall end, to 
 all our greiffis. Quhy heff ye nocht thir thingis befor your eis, to eschew the 
 
 * So it is in the original. But how, in the catalogue of his offences, there could be the item, 
 of quitting the country after having procured his own “ deid,” 7. e. death, is difficult to under- 
 stand. It must mean, that, after fighting in the north, he went south, where the consequences 
 paved the way for his own death; that, having killed Bowhill, he left the country for a little, and 
 was murdered on his return. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 307 
 
 lyk inobediens, that ye may haff the blissing of God and of your parentis by a 
 long lyf and inheritans ? and chusis rather to pass the way quherin otheris hes 
 perisched, and quhilk will bring both you and us to decay. This we, upon 
 fatherlie dewtie, can nocht lef on admonishing you of ; desyring, therfor, you, 
 both, upon your dewties and sonly obedience, both to cast off sik ongodly no- 
 tions and temptations of rebellione against God and your parentis, and to re- 
 turne haim to that obediens, that, be the law of God and man, ye ar bund 
 to. Lyk as we your parentis sal leif na thing ondone to you that belangis to 
 our dewtie, and though nocht as ye wald, yit as we gudly mey by the discre- 
 tione of our wysest frendis, and estait of our effairs. Bot if ye wil not returne 
 to the obediens and honor of your parentis, we tak God to witness, and thir 
 presentis sal be a testificatione, that the wyt is not in us. Seing with Moses, 
 Deut. 30, we call the Heaven and earth to record this day against you, that 
 we heff sett befor you lyf and deth, blissing and cursing ; tharfor chouss lyf, 
 that both you and your seed may leif in the land. And sua praying the AI- 
 mychty to inspyr your hairtis with a mair quyet and obedient spirit, we re- 
 mitt and committis you both, to him and his protectione. At Merchistoun this 
 last of November 1600. 
 “* Be yours loving parentis, 
 “ St Ar? NEPER. 
 “ JHONE NEPER.” 
 
 This powerful appeal seems not to have been made without effect. A letter, 
 addressed shortly afterwards by Alexander to his nephew Archibald, the phi- 
 losopher’s eldest son, indicates that the writer of it had become more reason- 
 able, though the fate of his favourite brother still rankled in his bosom. — It 
 is also a most energetic and characteristic epistle. 
 
 “ To the Richt Honorabel, my luvin Bruther, * Archibald Nepier, 
 Yunger of Merchiston, This, 
 
 “ Richt Honorable and weil-belovit Brother,—Seing nather resone com- 
 mandes, nor I of deutie acht to pretermit you in anie speciall erand, (cheiflie © 
 now quhan your father is movet nather to think I evir did him wrong, nor to 
 do me injurie,) thairefoir I hev thocht expedient that ye suld knaw, the better 
 
 * Alexander Napier always addressed his nephew as his brother ; probably from the habit of 
 
 considering the philosopher as a parent. 
 
308 THE LIFE OF 
 
 that ye mey prevent, the inequitable petitione of the brother of Buhill, quho 
 hes stired up the Lord Bacleuch to suit, be the mediatione of the Lord Sancher,* 
 agriment betwix us and thaim; quha, in thair name, com to me with a paper 
 conteining certau offers the quhilk to lnik [at] I altogither did refuse ; yet, ef- 
 terhend, I resevit knawledg of the contents, to wit, they suld give us a thusand 
 pund, and in all tyme cuming to be as brither! the quhilk offer dois so inani- 
 mat me with grit disdaine, that give it war for no moir bot for wilipending 
 so our house and name, and so lichtlie accunting of all, that I resolve, God wil- 
 lin one dey to mak thame buy it dearer. Bot for answer to the Lord Sanchair, 
 I schew him the matter acht not to be proponnet to me myne alaine, for thair 
 was other frindes to be spoken, bot chiflie yourself, quhom God mey schortlie 
 _ install in your father’s place; + and I was ignorent how ye wald estem of that 
 propositione, and weill assurit it war the redie way to banisch me from your 
 guid consait give I suld attemp, yourself prettermittet in that erand. Quhilk 
 answer he accepted, and went his way for the tyme, bot com efterward, and 
 schew me that the sam had bein gevin befoir be my father, and wald hev 
 aledgit be me; the quhilk I sed was niver given be me; than he desyret that 
 I wald speik you, or writ to you, to heir of your mind ; the quhilk to do I pro- 
 miset, bot so I must do it as Regulus, quho being a Roman, captived at Car- 
 thag, was send to Rome to treit de redimendis captivis, quha gev cunsall in 
 the contrair, and forbad the Roman senat to exchang the captives at Rome 
 with himself, for he was auld, and they yung. So must I sey, thocht it be 
 my quietie—as being neirest to the frunt of thir men’s fid [feud ]—to foirsei, and 
 to tak hold of offeret peice [peace.] Yit, luving brother, niver imbrace disho- 
 norabell agriment, for all is dishonorabell quhair thair is not eie for eie, and tuith 
 for tuith; and as I think, God willing, nothing sall divert me from the sam; ye, 
 [yea, ] not the thing Lord Sanchar said. Schaw thame give ye will or not agrie, 
 that give not, thay mey do for themselvis. The feir I hev they deill be the 
 cunsall, or be his majestie, freyes me; yit it must not divert me from the 
 deutie of a luving brother, of a myndfull man, quhom God in his word hes, 
 as he hes meid us beith the revengers of bluid, and thairfoir suld seik justice ; 
 the quhilk give ye find no good meins to obtein, yit I hartlie pray you to de- 
 lay the contrair, and go to his majestie, ernestlie asking promise of him nather 
 to give respet for long or schort time, nor remissione ; quhilk I assur me he 
 
 * The noted Robert Lord Sanquar, who was hanged in 1612 for the murder of a fencing-master 
 
 + The Logarithms were not published until fourteen years after the date of tiiis letter. 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 309 
 
 will niver denay to you, give ye put his heines in mynd that he sweir to my 
 father, that as sone suld he remit the tresone of the brither of Gowrie as that 
 Jellonius murther ;* quhilk his majesty detesting quhen it was acted, did 
 agraig, eiven out of his awen considerationes, that it was done in tyme of his 
 heines Parliament,—hard by his palace,;—under clud of nicht,—on foirthocht 
 felloine,—be the number of seven, airmed with suird, speir, and pistellettes,— 
 with quhilks all he was slaine, being a young man not twentie-twa yeirs, and 
 for no moir cause bot that he defendet himself against the furie of their 
 brother, quha persuit him in the bundes quhair he niver had travellet in his 
 lyf of befoir, and that for aledging of a horse to bein stollen out of the house 
 of the mure, quhilk he demanding give he had sein aine lyk to it, tokens being 
 all tauld, presentlie was mistaken be the other, quha neid wold hev him ather 
 defend or dei; quha, for that tyme, chuset rather to leive him alon ; bot the 
 other lay all day in wait of him in the way, and at the evning focht him in 
 the stret of the gait, betwix low dykes, quhair he culd not flei. I hev in 
 lenth tauld this knawen storie to you, that ye mey mynd his heines of it the 
 better, and beseik him at leist to give no remissione to the murthearers of our 
 brother ; and to mak moyan to get the cunsall forbiden from medling with 
 the sam, because it was so detestable and hynus a wrong. I hev written to 
 my Lord Dingwall for the sam cause, quhois aid give ye think guid to use, I 
 am suir it will not be the worse for his defalt : alwayes as likes your wisdome 
 to procid. So doI prey you, and do for boith your awen and my honor ; bot 
 cheiflie for the remimbrance of him, quhois curaguis luve wald niver lyne so 
 long idill in ather your or my erand. And let me be advertisit be sum suir 
 meines ; not be ye paket, nor no common passenger. I neid not intreit for this 
 at your hand, and tell you that I am yours in anie thing I can; for thairof ye 
 niver neidet dute [doubt]; so God me saine, to quhom I prey for you. 
 * ALEXANDER NEPIER.” 
 
 * This shows what a miserable creature James VI. was. He dared not fulfil his own solemn pro- 
 mise to bring murderers to justice. 
 
 + Slaughter near the king’s person was in that reign a dreadful aggravation, even of murder. 
 William Bikartoune of Casch was brought to trial for wounding George Auchinlek of Balman- 
 no, at the “ stinkand style” of the burgh of Edinburgh. But the chief point of dittay was, 
 that this was within three quarters of a mile to the king’s person. The jury found the pannel 
 guilty of the assault, but without the aggravation, “in respect it wes notour to thame, that the 
 kingis majestie wes furth at the hunting, farder nor three quarteris of ane myle quhair the deid 
 wes committit, the tyme of the committing thairof.”—Prtcairn’s Criminal Trials. 
 
310 THE LIFE OF 
 
 This is eloquence, as the utterance of passion and deep feeling ever must 
 be, however rude the times and the language in which it is expressed. Of 
 those times the letter affords a very curious and melancholy picture. It was 
 not without reason that Alexander Napier urged the young courtier to use his 
 personal influence with his majesty, and to lay before him all the aggravating 
 circumstances, to induce him to insist upon the law taking its course. There 
 was then one law for the poor and another for the rich; and the monarch, 
 who had more than connived at the murder of his own mother, who had 
 even accepted, from the haughty perpetrator of that crime, a pension as the 
 price of a parent’s blood, was not likely to institute an unbending measure of 
 justice against murderers in a private quarrel, who were supported by the 
 Lord Sanquar and the Laird of Buccleuch. When a rich man committed 
 murder, he offered a sum of money by way of compensation to the nearest of 
 kin to the deceased ; and if this assythment, as it was termed, met with me- 
 rited scorn, it generally proved successful in the shape of a bribe to the king 
 and his council. Selling the king’s pardon was then no inconsiderable source 
 of his revenue, which accounts for the earnest and deprecating tone of the 
 above letter. 
 
 From the records of the High Court of Justiciary, it appears that upon the 
 22d of January 1601, a criminal process was called against “ Walter Scot, 
 James Scot, and William Scot in Schostains, all brether to Robert Scot of 
 Bowhill, and John Scot in Quholplaw, alias callit Johne of Bonytoune.” 
 That there “ comperit Mr Allane Hammiltoune, servitour to Sir Archebald 
 Naper of Edynbillie, Knycht, and as procurator for the said Sir Archebald, 
 aud produceit our Soverane Lordis letteres, deulie execute and indorsat, pur- 
 chest be Alesoune Edmeistoune the relict, and the said Sir Archebald Naper 
 as fader, with the brether and remanent kyn and freindis of umquhile Arche- 
 bald Naper, gudeman of the Wowmet, to tak souertie of Walter Scot, &c. 
 that they suld haif comperit befoir the Justice or his deputis, this day and 
 place, in the hour of cause, and underlyne the law for the slauchter of the 
 said umquhil Archebald ; be the quhikis lettres the saidis personis ar denun- 
 ceit our Soverane Lordis rebellis, and put to the horne. The said Mr Allane 
 Hammiltoune protestit for releve of Johne Naper, younger of Merchinstoune, 
 cautioner for production of the saides lettres : quhairupoune he askit actis and 
 instrumentis.” No further notice of the case is to be met with in what re- 
 mains of these criminal records; and it is most probable that no other redress 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. S11 
 
 was obtained. It is a revenge of its kind, that the house, of which these mur- 
 derers were cadets, is now merged and lost in Napier,—the peer of that name 
 being also Scott of Thirlstane.* 
 
 No sooner had the family of Merchiston suffered this misfortune, than it re- 
 ceived another shock in the dreadful fate of Francis Mowbray. Mowbray was in 
 England in 1602, when one Daniel, an Italian, who had conceived a spite against 
 him, accused him before Queen Elizabeth of having urged his accuser to con- 
 cur in a plot to assassinate the King of Scots. Elizabeth sent them both pri- 
 soners to Scotland. There was no evidence of the slightest credit against Mow- 
 bray, and the anxiety to procure even discreditable witnesses, showed that the 
 fears and bad passions of King James were roused. Mowbray made this remark- 
 able speech to his sovereign. “ If ever I thought evil, or intended evil against my 
 prince, God, that marketh the secrets of all hearts, make me to fall at my 
 enemies feet! make me a spectacle to all Edinburgh, and cast my soul in Hell 
 for ever!” James immediately required these words to be recorded and sub- 
 scribed by Francis Mowbray, who did so, and also demanded, as he had done in 
 England, the combat with Daniel,—a bold measure, as the latter was an Italian 
 fencing-master. This was granted, and the 5th of January named as the day 
 of mortal trial, which was to take place in lists prepared for the occasion in the 
 great close of Holyrudhouse. The combat, however, was postponed by the 
 king, under pretext of “ confronting Francis with other two Scotish men sent 
 out of England, bot of light accompt, because they had spent their moyen, and 
 wes forced to leave the country.” In the meantime Mowbray was confined 
 in the castle of Edinburgh, and the Italian in another chamber immediately 
 
 * See Note (F.) 
 John Bothwell, the philosopher’s cousin, found himself under similar obligations to prosecute 
 
 for the murder of his father-in-law, which occurred in the very same year. Sir John Carmichael, 
 whose daughter Bothwell had married, was then warden of the west marches. The Armstrongs, 
 Kinmont Willie’s clan, being closely watched by the warden, they sent a brother of this noted 
 worthy to fathom the intentions of Sir John with regard to them. Some foolish young men put 
 yolks of eggs in the sword scabbard of this moss-trooper, who vowed a deadly revenge. Upon 
 the 16th of June 1600, the Armstrongs waylaid the warden as he was riding unsuspectingly to 
 hold a court, and “ sett apoun him at the Raeksowis, quhair, with schottis of hagbuttis and pis- 
 tolletis, thay schot him through the body.” There was no difficulty with king or council in this 
 case, and one of the murderers was hung in chains upon a gibbet close to the castle of Merchis- 
 ton, as if to show its inmates that justice could sometimes be found. In 1606 the commendator 
 of Holyrudhouse prosecuted another of the Armstrongs for the same crime, who was also executed. 
 
 + Calderwood. 
 
312 THE LIFE OF 
 
 above him. On the day after he had been confronted with the worthless wit- 
 nesses, who only tended to strengthen his case, and, thirsting as he had been 
 for the combat which was to test his honour, this unhappy youth was found 
 dead and mangled at the foot of the castle rock. It was said, that endea- 
 vouring to effect his escape by means of his sheets and blankets, they proved 
 too short, and he was killed in the fall. There was, however, another ver- 
 sion. ‘ His friends,” says Archbishop Spotswood, “ (for he was well born, 
 and a proper young gentleman) gave out that he had been strangled, and his 
 corps thrown down at the window. But this carried no appearance, and was 
 believed of few.”’ 
 
 But it did carry great appearance. In the first place, from the manner in 
 which the Italian had been placed, above the cell of him he accused, it might 
 be said that Mowbray had fallen at his enemy's feet; and these words stood 
 recorded against him and signed by himself. In the next place, it was upon 
 Sunday the 20th of January that he was killed, and upon Monday following, 
 James and his councillors subscribe a letter to the Justice-Clerk, (in which great 
 stress is laid upon the evidence of guilt derived from the attempt to escape,) de- 
 siring him to condemn the dead man to be hanged and quartered; and his quarters 
 exposed upon the most public places of Edinburgh. Accordingly that very day, 
 the ghastly and mangled body was placed at the bar of the High Court of Justi- 
 ciary, having been dragged backwards through the streets. There it was pro- 
 nounced against the corps for doom, “ to be hangit be the craig upoun ane gibbet 
 besyde the mercat croce of Edinburgh, and his body quarterit, and his heid ane 
 leg and ane airm, to be put up above the Nether-boll, ane elne above the rest, 
 and ane uther leg to be hung on the west-poirt of Edinburgh, and ane uther 
 arme to be hungin upoun the Potter-raw-poirt: And all his lands, &c. to be 
 foirfalt and inbrocht to our soverane lordis use.” * So it was made to appear, 
 that the unhappy youth had forespoken his own remarkable fate in every par- 
 ticular ; and that he fell at his enemy’s feet, and was made a spectacle to all 
 Edinburgh, not in consequence of the contrivance of the king, but by the wrath 
 and direct interposition of Heaven. John Napier toowell characterized the times 
 when he told his sovereign, that, “ for partiality, prolixity, dearth and deceit- 
 fulness of laws, the poor perish, the proud triumph, and justice is nowhere to 
 be found.” Mowbray was no doubt a fiery youth, attached to the Catholic 
 cause, and an active plotter. but there was no sufficient evidence that he in- 
 
 * Records of the High Court of Justiciary. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 313 
 
 tended to assassinate the king ; and this manner of wresting his solemn denial, 
 to suit the purpose of a craven monarch which was to terrify secret enemies 
 by sacrificing even the innocent, could only deceive a superstitious age. Thus, 
 under a process most revolting in all its features to justice and humanity, pe- 
 rished a son of one of the finest old baronial houses in Scotland, the brother of 
 two ladies whose youthful years were devoted to James’ mother in her capti- 
 vity,—of Barbara Mowbray, whose mortal remains even now moulder in a fo- 
 reign land beneath the picture of her beloved mistress. * 
 
 Besides these distractions, the philosopher became involved in disputes and 
 lawsuits with the junior members of his family, at the time of Sir Archibald’s 
 death, which remind us of the domestic discomfort of Kelper. Such events, 
 belonging to the meaner currents of mortal passions, are not in themselves 
 worthy of a record; but in this instance they are indicated by some original 
 letters, which, though entirely domestic, will interest many who love to con- 
 template human nature in all its aspects, and who are curious in the character- 
 istics of private life in the olden times. They serve, moreover, to refute the 
 assertion, “ that Napier dissipated his fortune by his experiments.” + 
 
 He was, on the contrary, exceedingly anxious to keep his paternal acres 
 well together, and, at the same time, to provide handsomely, as he did, for 
 his numerous family. By the deed quoted below, { it appears that, in the 
 year 1586, he thought it necessary to take the precaution of preserving evi- 
 
 * See Mr Pitcairn’s Collection of Criminal Trials for all the particulars of Francis Mow- 
 bray’s fate. 
 
 + M<Crie’s Life of Melville, Vol. ii. p. 322. Quoting Dempster. 
 
 + We, under subscryvand, testefeis be thir presents, that the Rycht Honorable Sir Archibald 
 Neper of Edinbellie, Knycht, and Johnne Neper, fear of Merchamstoun, his sone and apperand 
 air, comperand personallie before us, day and place underwritten, the said Johnne, frelie and bene- 
 volentlie, subscryvet and discharget his said fader of divers and sindrie actions of geir and soumes 
 of money quherinto the said Sir Archibald was addebtit to the said Johnne ; for the quhilk the 
 said Sir Archibald hes sworne and promesit faythfullie and solempnitlie in our presentis, that, al- 
 thocht he will not infeft his said sone and apperand air in all and haill his lands of Merchanstoune, 
 speciallie the lands of Ovir-Merchanstoune, halden of the chaplayne of Sanct Kathereneis altar 
 sumtyme situat within St Geleis Kirk of Edinburgh, conforme to ane contract of mariage of the 
 dait ; not-the-les he sal never wodset, analie, nor dispone fra the said Johnne nor his airs, 
 the said lands of Ovir-Merchamston, nor na pairt therof, bot sal keip the samen free, to be brou- 
 kit of the said Johnne and his airs efter the said Sir Archibald’s deceas. In witness of the quhilk 
 
 Rr 
 
314 THE LIFE OF 
 
 dence of a solemn and onerous declaration of his father to him, that the lands 
 of Over-Merchiston, holding of the church of St Giles, and in which the 
 philosopher had not been infeft, should never be alienated from him under 
 any form. In the lands of Nether-Merchiston, holding of the crown, he was 
 infeft upon a charter under the Great Seal. Sir Archibald, many years before 
 his death, acquired the lands of Lauriston, near the sea to the north of his 
 place of Merchiston, whereon he built a castle very much of the same descrip- 
 tion, and which still stands.* Here he occasionally resided, always busy with 
 the barrels of the ‘“‘ Cunzie-house,” or “ ane copper sem neir the sie, fyve myle 
 lang,” and at the same time enjoyed the near neighbourhood of his father-in-law, 
 the Baron of Barnbougall. Upon Sir Archibald’s death in 1608, he left to 
 his son AJexander the lairdship of Lauriston, a very handsome inheritance, 
 especially for one born to neither lands nor rents. But Alexander laid claim 
 to an additional inheritance, being a considerable portion of the lands of Over- 
 Merchiston, in which, a few month’s after his birth, he had been infeft by his 
 
 solempne aythe and faythfull promeis, we have subscryvit this present with our hands at Edinburgh, 
 the tent day of Februar, the yeir of God 1586. 
 CuartLes NEpaIR, witnes. ARCHIBALD Brus of Powfoullis, witnes. 
 
 Humpuray HAMILTON, witnes. Joun Hamitton of Bardowie, witnes. 
 WILLIAM NEPER, witnes. 
 
 The following memoranda on the back of this document are interesting, being in the hand- 
 writing of John Napier, and indicative of his business habits and anxiety about his patrimonial 
 interests. 
 
 “ The deat of my father’s infeftment of resignation, quhere he resigns the place and lands of 
 Merchiston in the kingis hands for infeftment to be giffin me, is the year of God 1572, the first 
 of October. The deat of the infeftment mead to my brother Alexander of the lands of Tipperlin, 
 and nyn-aikeris landis at Lang-hill and Myr-Flatt, is in Anno Domini 1572, the 26 day of Ja- 
 nuarie. Item, the deat of the chertour under the king’s Great Seal is the aucht day of October, 
 the year of God 1572. Item, the deat of the kingis precept under the quarter seal is of that sam- 
 ing deat. Item, the deat of my seasing of the place and heall landis of Merchistoun is in anno 
 1572, the auchtienth dey of Merch.”—It must be remembered that at this period in Scotland, 
 and down to the year 1600, the 25th of March was new year’s day. 
 
 * Charters were granted to Sir Archibald Napier of Edinbellie, Elizabeth Mowbray, his wife, 
 and Alexander Napier, son and heir of that marriage, of the lands and meadow called the King’s 
 Meadow, 8th February 1587-8, and of half the lands of Lauranstoun, &c. 16th November 1593, all 
 in the parish of Cramond. Sir Archibald built thereon the castle of Lauriston, the initials S. A. N. 
 and D. E. M. (Dame Elizabeth Mowbray) being among the decorations of two of the windows. 
 The old tower was added to, and all the carved stones preserved in a manner that does equal cre- 
 dit to the taste and feeling of its proprietor, Thomas Allan, Esq. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 315 
 
 father. It seems to have been in order to prevent this dilapidation of the fa- 
 mily estates, that our philosopher purchased the promise of his father so so- 
 lemnly witnessed. . 
 
 At the time of his grandfather’s decease, young Archibald Napier was with 
 the king in London, and seems to have anticipated that his venerated fa- 
 ther would be sadly disturbed by the undutiful conduct of some of the unruly 
 members of Sir Archibald’s family. He had written to Alexander an admo- 
 nitory letter on the subject, and also to his own father to know how that ad- 
 monition took effect. The philosopher replied as follows : 
 
 “ To his belovit Sone, Archibald Neper, servitor to his Magestie. 
 
 “ SonE,—Efter my very heartly commendatiouns, the occasioun of my deley 
 of wreatting to you sa lang, was first, the lang absence of the wreattings ye 
 sent to me with Robert Neper,* quhilks cam bot of leat into my hand; 
 therefter ther fell outt betwixt me and my breithirs and sisters a controversie 
 for the teinthis of Merchistoun, quhilks, altho they justly belangit to me, yit 
 they boastit to lead them awey with the rest of the stoke unteinthit be me, 
 and to that effect mead all the moyant they could to gather ther freinds, bot 
 all for not. This causit me to continow unwreatting to you quhill I saw quhat 
 end our teinth laiding sould tak. Now the counsell yesterday tuik ordour 
 that William Neper of Wrichthousis sould gather and lead awey the said 
 teinthis to his barnyairds of Wrichthousis, ther to stand till the saming be 
 disydit till quhom it apperteinis : quhilk ordour is guid aneuch for me, and 
 lytill to ther contentment. Ye desyrit in your letter to witt how your coun- 
 sell, that ye wreatt to them, wrocht, concerning ther dewtefull behaviour 
 towards me! bot, sone, ye sall witt that they war never as malicious as they 
 heaf bein sin syn; reaging in all pryd, blasphemous words, and contemptuous 
 deids; for the quhilk ther ar ane number of actiouns intendit, and to be per- 
 sewit betwix them and me this winter, anent the lands of Tipperlin, Lang- 
 hill, Myrflatt, and Myrsyd, neirhand the thrid of Merchistoun, quherof they 
 think to defraud us, as also of dyvers evidents and taks of my teinths, rentell 
 buiks, and others that they heaf takene awey out of my chertour-chist ; and 
 bostis therby to make us to tyne the lands of Merchistoun, as also to heaf 
 purchasit of my father, on his deidbed, dyvers securities and subscriptiouns 
 
 * The Adept. 
 
316 THE LIFE OF 
 
 very hurtfull to us, quherupon they heaf intendit actiounis, cherging me to 
 enter air that I may fulfill all thes bands maid be my father. This, and dy- 
 vers other things, disdainfullie they refuis to submitt to friends. For ordour 
 taking with the quhilks turns, against them, and also for taking of consultation 
 quhat sall be doin toward your awin esteat, that ye may be satlit here amangst 
 us, I and your other freinds ar very desyrous ye heast you hither to us, that 
 we may treat, resolve, and conclud upon all things to be doin for the weill of 
 our houss; efter the quhilk conclusioun, ye mey, giff neid beis, return bake 
 again to Ingland, and put ordour to your office and all your affairs, that ther- 
 efter ye may heast you hither for constant residens. Sa, luiking for your 
 cumming with all diligens, I remitt the rest of maitters till our meitting, 
 quhilk war tedious to wreatt at this tym. And sa committis you and all our 
 guid freinds in thes pertis to the protectioun of the eternall. Ye sall make my 
 commendatiouns to Doctor Craig,* and other freinds ther; my wife and bairnes 
 commends them to you; the lairds of Keir, Muschett, and other freinds here 
 with me commends them all to you. At Merchistoun this secund dey of Sep- 
 timber 1608. 
 * Be your loving father, 
 “ JHONE NeEpatR of Merchistoun.” 
 
 But Archibald Napier could not tear himself from the court of London even 
 to obey this urgent invitation, as he informs us himself in a page of his 
 memoirs where he mentions his father with reverence and affection. He 
 says, that, having followed King James into England, “ I served him 
 there as gentleman of his privy-chamber, the space of sixteen or seventeen 
 years, or thereabout, continually ; till his majesty was pleased to cast the 
 Earle of Somerset out of his favour, and take in his place, George Vi- 
 liers, afterwards Duk cf Buckinghame, a powerfull favorite, and no good 
 friend of myne, because I, with some of our countrymen, endeavoured to sup- 
 port Somerset, which, in his construction, wes ane opposing of his rysing. 
 Therefore I, being before much desyred thereto by my worthy father, took this 
 occasion to repaire to Scotland, and expect the events of things; wherewith 
 I did acquaint the king, and desyred his leave, which he granted; but not be- 
 fore he made his favorite (against his mynd, I think,) to give me large pro- 
 
 * The friend and correspondent of Tycho Brahe, and physician to James VI. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 317 
 
 mises of friendship, and faire blossomes of protestations and complement, 
 which never bore fruit.” * 
 
 The expressions “ my worthy father,” used in reference to the very corre- 
 spondence we are quoting, will be a sufficient antidote against all the virulence 
 of the following epistle from Alexander Napier to his nephew, which is ne- 
 vertheless too characteristic to be omitted. We cannot spare a picturesque 
 sketch of our philosopher beside the deathbed of his father, however severely 
 executed ; and prolix as the writer himself confessed it to be, we have not the 
 heart to garble a letter so minutely descriptive of a domestic scene occurring 
 nearly two centuries and a-half ago. Alexander, as usual, calls his nephew 
 brother. 
 
 “ To his well-belovit Brother, Archibald Nepier, Yonger of Merchistune. 
 
 “ LuvinG BritHEeR,—lI perseve your kyndnes be your accusatione, in so 
 far as ye blem me for not acquenting you quha was willing to underly paines 
 for my sak. Suirlie I had so done gif he had not bein thair resident quhais 
 cheiflie was the erand, to quhom I referred the arnist laboring with you, or 
 be quhat moyenais, to himself. I give you thankes for the delyverie of my fa- 
 ther’s letter, quhom, as ye wryt, ye hev now hard to be depairtit this lyf; and 
 because thair is sumthing, quhilk I red in your letter, quhilk requires speciall 
 answer, pardone me gif I be ainie way prolixet; for in gainstanding that ar- 
 gument, (quhilk seimes to me to hev sprung from your faither’s informatione, 
 thocht I afferm it not, sen ye hev said the contrair,) thair must be sperit sum 
 tyme. The word I mark is that my possessione can not be retinet with seif 
 credit or consience. Your father, befoir aver my father tuik bed, was requist- 
 ed be him to conferme all rechtes quhilk he had passet in my favores, quhilk 
 indeid he refusit, and not onlie schew to me, bot to sindrie others a resone 
 (as wald appeired) of his refusall, quhilk was a testificatione of certane freindes 
 quhair my father had solemlie by aith promiset niver to hurt the house of 
 Merchistoune ; now, seyes he, give I consent to the laird’s desyre, not onlie 
 he bot I sall boith consent to hurt the house. Quhairfoir I heving sein this 
 solem aith subscryvet be frendes, schew to my father that sik a thing was of- 
 ferit to my sicht: and is it, quoth my father, subscrivet be me? na said I: 
 quhat devall ailse the man, quoth he, to purches that of ainie freindes, quhat 
 culd I not hev subscryvet ? quhair was it daitit ? I schew him: give ever, 
 
 * MS. Memoirs.—WMerchiston papers. 
 
318 THE LIFE OF 
 
 quod he, I maid sik a promise, as indeed I did not, it is posterior to your 
 richtes be monie yeires ; and yet, quod he, I never myndet to hurt the houss, 
 for I hev sald nor wadset nothing, and quhat I hev done to you, I hev put bet- 
 ter in place of it ; for the redemptiones, quhilk I uset of wadsetes be your gud- 
 sier disponet, ar much better than your lyverentes. Ye, as that the laws 
 of the cuntrie will repair evrie man to his just claimes, so I pre God it be, 
 than sall I reseive no wrong, and give I offer onie, I sall find a stryp for my 
 folie. Bot to setisfie you, quhom I tak not to be informit in that matter, 
 knaw (as I speik it so afoir God it is veritie, nather sall I ever be brocht bak 
 of this as a lier) thair was a contract of mariedg betwix the laird of Keir, tak- 
 ing the burdine on him for your mother, and the laird my father, and your 
 father with the Bishop of Orkney, befoir my birth, quhairbe the laird my fa- 
 ther oblises him to give infeftment to his sone of the landes of Merchistoune 
 halden of the king, and pultrielandes, incorporat in en barronie be King James 
 the Thrid. Now, seyes your father, justlie I klaime the landes, brother, in 
 your possessione. Quhairunto I answer, that aJl the landes of Merchistoune 
 ar not halden of the king as his superior, for they are devydet in Nether and 
 Over Merchistoune, the ane halden of the king, and the other, to wit the over 
 landes, halden of the kirk of Edinbruch, or, to say the treuth to you, halden 
 of the toune of Edinbruch in feu ferme for the payment of twentie markes be 
 yeir, lyk as may be provin by mainie evidentes, retoures, and last be my fa- 
 ther’s awen sesing, quha was faine to enter be thaime, lyk as I trow yours 
 sall be, or to lose much better than ainie thing I hev of the house. This is 
 my richt, and this is the stait of metters; and it was my father’s will and 
 plesur, quha had power to give it me, that by this forementioned richt I suld 
 bruik it; quhilk is mainfest be my charter and sesing given quhan I was not 
 past half a yeir auld, and confermit be him most constantlie be word, as on 
 Setterday twix fyve and six at eiven, quhilk was the nicht befoir he died, at 
 quhilk tyme Mester Richert Dicsone desyret him to blise his bairnes, quhilk 
 he did, and than your faither, perseiving the tyme of daith to be neir, drew 
 Mr Richert by, and desyrit him to ask gif his father had anie greif in con- 
 cience that trublit him, and tauld him the resone of that questione, bot willet 
 him not to be so particular with his father as to expres it. This Mester Ri- 
 chert schew to me, that he was to speik as derectit be your father, first to see 
 gif I thocht gud thairof; yis, said I, and so he went to tell your father, and 
 cumming bak to me, quha was than ypels at the laird’s bed syd, he fell in 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 319 
 
 other purpose with the laird, quhairat I wonderit, and asket quhat he meint ; 
 seyes he, ‘ I am dischairget exep I speik it in particular ;’ in quhat particular, 
 quod I? ‘in the particular betwix you and him; than speik it said I. So 
 Mr Richert seyes to my father, ‘ Sir, ar ye in anie trubell of conscence ?’ ‘ Na,’ 
 quoth he, ‘ I thank Chryst I am assuret of salvatione.” ‘ Find ye no greif of 
 mynd for anie wrong ye hev done to your eldest sone in favors of Alexander ?’ 
 ‘Wrong! I hev done no wrong, Alexander’s is the richt;’ and speiking to 
 your father, and lykweise poynting, he said, ‘ Jhone ye hev no richt, I maid 
 you no richt.. Now, quhat sall I do? steill from thir richtes ? forsaik his 
 gift quha was nather burdinet in consiens for anie wrong, nor aschemet to sey 
 this befoir your father, brother Jhone,* and Alex" Mentieth ; and quha gef me 
 the same onaskete, and befoir J culd ask it, and quha confermit all in the last 
 end ? This is the questione quhilk is lyk to aryse, and how we ar uset for 
 the respect of this, judge ye. For me, I nether thocht it freindlie, much les bro- 
 therlie, and no weyes honest; yea not to hev bein done twix enimies. To 
 tell you from the beginning ; our father in his lyfetyme, bot on his bed, sent 
 Sir James Sandilans to speik with your father, and desyre him to tak a sume 
 of monie for his airship; quhilk he refuset, aledging he knew not the waill of 
 it; re imfecta he returnet, and shortlie after my father deciset on the Sunday ; 
 quhilk dey Sir James was sent for be your father, and on the same day my 
 sisters had vowet niver to tak kyndlie rest, nor go to nekit bed quhill thair 
 father was buriet and put to his rest; and lykweyes war onder promise niver 
 to ly in that house behind him. Quhairfor Elspet, + in the name of the rest, 
 sent Sir James to your father to schaw him thair resoiutione, and desyre him 
 to tak the house, and ather subscrive ane inventur of the geir, and be thair- 
 foir answerabell, or else to buy the same for the soume of sax hundreth marks ; 
 quhilkas he refuset, or to common of befoir the buriell of his father; the 
 Wednesdey efter was the dey quhairone he was buiret ; and your father spok 
 to me concerning the pleniseine and the house, and it was appoyntet in the 
 audience of Williame Wardlaw of Babertune, that my sisters suld cum to 
 Edinbruch on Monedey nixt following, and tak, with him, computent ordur for 
 quieting all. On the Sondey he preventit all frendlie duing, be sending ane of- 
 ficer of airmes with a chairg within four and twentie hours to give over the 
 
 * The philosopher's eldest son of the second marriage. 
 + Elizabeth Napier, Sir Archibald’s eldest daughter. She afterwards married, lst, Lord Ogilvy 
 of Airly, by whom she had a son James ; 2d, Alexander Auchmutie, gentleman of the bed-chamber. 
 
320 THE LIFE OF 
 
 place, and, quhilk was foullest, in his coppies he pat ane ‘ &c.’ for to hyd the 
 chairg from us, quhilk was onder paine of horning; and quhan I send to se 
 the principall letters, he refuset. This is his duing! and yet we delyverit 
 him the place on the Monedey, quhilk dey he brocht the schirref to gif him 
 possessione, in quhas presence he promisit faytfullie to give us all the geir, 
 quhan we suld require it, quhilk was left; and thocht the schirref requistet 
 him to keip his promise, he refuset, quhill the exequtors are fane to hev 
 chairget for thair geir. I am long and cannot truble you with all thinges. 
 Bot exhort him to keip honestie and consience. I could tell you a particular 
 quhairin he wald hev bein inkyndlie in, bot that I leave, and commettes you 
 to God with hairtle commendatione. 
 * Your brother, to his power, 
 “ ALEX® NEPER of Lauristone.” 
 
 Under these unpleasant circumstances, which must have been torture to the 
 gentle and studious dispositions of our philosopher, was he installed into his fa- 
 ther’s place. 
 
 As for the fiery Alexander Napier, in consequence of his vivid ideas of re- 
 tributive justice, he became—a Lord of Council and Session, by the name of 
 Lord Lauriston. In those rude and ardent times, we can imagine a full ex- 
 hibition of “ the fifteen” to have resembled a menagerie at feeding hours, 
 and well worth double price to have witnessed. A full attendance, however, 
 was rarely to be counted on. A judge in his place one day was gone the next. 
 It might be “ auld Durie,” the President, carried off in his walks as if by demons, 
 and concealed no one could tell where ; or Hallyards murdered on the shore of 
 Leith }-.or Edzell sent to Dumbarton Castle for his share in a desperate feudal 
 combat fought on the High Street during the previous night ; or the whole court 
 adjourned to make room for the criminal trial of their brother Cliftonhall’s 
 only daughter and heiress, who was “ takin to the Castel-hill of Edinburgh, and 
 there bund to ane staik, and burnt in assis, quick, to the death,” for witchcraft. 
 Among these, or such like, sat Alexander Napier, whose dictum, so encourag- 
 ing to litigation, was “ niver imbrace dishonorabell agriment, for all is dis- 
 honorabell quhair thair is not eie for eie, and tuith for tuith ;” and who more- 
 over read his session-papers in the stars, and wrote his interlocutors in the 
 twelve houses of Heaven, being a most learned judicial astrologer. 
 
 An evidence of this part of his character is preserved in a very curious letter, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 321 
 
 dated “ from Lauriston, this Sonday,” and addressed “To the Right Hons my 
 very gud Lord, the Erle of Laudien.” The letter itself is written in Latin, and 
 stuffed full of astrological jargon; it affords, however, a curious trait of the times, 
 and is given below as an example of Alexander Napier’s classical and cabalistic 
 style.* Lord Lothian, it appears, was a great friend of the laird of Lauriston, 
 and had obtained from him the horoscope of his infant son. In his paternal an- 
 xiety, this nobleman caused some other person learned in the stars to erect a 
 scheme of his son’s nativity, which he transmitted to his friend, requesting his 
 judgment. Lauriston, however, declines the task for very substantial reasons. He 
 tells his Lordship that all astrologers do not follow the samemode of erecting a fi- 
 gure of Heaven ; that some divide the zodiac into twelve equal parts, and others 
 
 * “ Non omnibus eadem usitata est erigendi forma; quidam enim ab horoscopo, Domine 
 mi, exoriuntur, et totum zodiacum ex ordine in 12 equales dissecant partes; alii non zodia- 
 cum, sed ipsum equinoctialem in 12 partes distrahunt. Campanus circumlum Orientis et Oc- 
 cidentis per verticis punctum transeuntem in 12 partes distinguit. Qui Joannis Regiomon- 
 tani sequuntur rationem, xquinoxtialem dividunt in 12 exquas partes sed domicilia inzequa- 
 lia efficiunt, preeterquam sub eequinoctiali habitantibus, ita et eclipticam. Qui thema natalitium 
 filii tui erexit, ab Arabum forma differre se fatetur, et ab Alcabitii, qua secunda est ratio memora- 
 tarum, etiam dissidet, propterea quod zequaliter dividat zodiacum ; atque sic, eadem ratione ductus, 
 mihi a Campano diferre videtur, nec sequitur Regiomontanum qui semper domicilia inzequalia ef- 
 ficit, cum hic equalia. Cum igitur non sequi quemquam horum, mihi videtur perperam facturum 
 me si judicium aliquod facerem aut certi aliquid de filiolo statuerim. Dic tamen me falli, et fin- 
 ge eum Alcabitii vestigiis incedere, tamen cum Alcabitius et Regiomontanus non eadem ratione 
 utantur in erectione thematum, necesse erit ut hoc postremum judicium non congruat cum priori 
 illo quondam a me facto; proinde, ne mihi contrarius esse videar, pace tua, malim mullam quam 
 ullam ferre sententiam. Intactum igitur ad te remitto, non immemor officii mei, nec benevolen- 
 tie tue que me ad longe difficiliora suscipienda pro te hortantur. Sed [ut sciatis] veram hanc 
 esse causam a me allatam, exemplo in re tibi satis nota ostendam. Continetur prima matrum 
 cum prima filiarum a geomante aliquo, sic et secunda mater conjungatur secunde filiarum, sic ter- 
 tia tertie, quarta quarts, nonne producentur aliz nepotes, alii testes, alius quoque Judex, quam si 
 quis primam et secundam matrem tertiam et quartam matrem, primam et secundam filiam tertiam 
 et quartam filiam conjunxerit ? atque etiam nonne aliud judicium in eo cum nepotes testes atque 
 ipse Judex qui primas obtinet sint dissimiles, judicium dissimile erit ? Pari ratione si quis, Regio- 
 montanum secutus, dixerit 21 sy esse in cuspide prime domus, cum aliter alius 18 >¢ venerem quo- 
 que asserat, sic qui pisces horoscopi initium dicit octave domus dominam, atque ego martem octave 
 imperare, nonne videtur tibi, ex tanta diversitate diversum judicium oriri debere? His rationibus 
 impulsus judicium novyum non exhibui, possum tamen cum meo et artis ludibrio que semper ho- 
 noranda est. Vale. Tibi adictissimus. 
 
 « ALEXANDER NAPEIR.” 
 ss 
 
322 THE LIFE OF 
 
 the equator; that Campanus adopts one method, Regiomontanus and Alcabitius 
 another. ‘“ Whoever,” says he, “ has rectified this nativity of your son, confes- 
 sedly differs in his method both from Campanus and Regiomontanus,—the Ara- 
 bian and Alcabitian methods. Now, as he appears to have a way of his own, 
 it would be exceedingly rash in me to pronounce or predict any thing there- 
 upon regarding the fate of your little son. But suppose I am deceived, 
 and that he really follows Alcabitius, still, as Alcabitius differs from Regio- 
 montanus, were I to give judgement here it might be inconsistent with what 
 I have already given, and thus lead me to contradict myself. I therefore re- 
 turn the nativity untouched, however mindful of my duty and your kindnesses, 
 which would impel me to undertake much greater difficulties for your sake.” 
 He then adds what he calls a sufficiently familiar example, to convince his Lord- 
 ship of the contradiction that might arise from the contrariety of methods, and, 
 as an excuse for not pronouncing a second judgment, which might haply 
 afford the profane a scoff both against himself and the “ ever-to-be-venerated 
 art.” The letter in the Merchiston charter-chest is probably an old copy 
 taken at the time. The address might mean either Lothian or Loudoun. 
 But Lord Lauriston died in the year 1629, and Sir John Campbell of Lawers, 
 first Earl of Loudoun, did not obtain the patent of his earldom until some 
 years after that date. The letter must have been addressed, therefore, to an 
 Ear] of Lothian, and probably it was to John Napier’s class-fellow, Mark Ker, 
 commendator of Newbottle, who became first Earl of Lothian by patent in 
 1606. 
 
 The family dispute (which gave rise to the only harsh expressions ever 
 breathed against our philosopher, and those unjustly,) terminated before the 
 Oth of June 1613, on which day he was served and retoured heir of his fa- 
 ther in the lands of Over-Merchiston. That he had dissipated his means 
 by his inventions is an assertion characteristic of the inaccuracy of Dempster.* 
 During his father’s lifetime, he was infeft in the extensive barony of Nether 
 Merchiston in the Lothians, including the pultrelandis and their hereditary 
 office. Also in the lands and miln of Gartness, the lands of Dolnare, Blareoure, 
 Gartharne, the two Bollatis, Douchlass, Badwow, Edinballe, Ballacharne, and 
 Thomdaroch, with the forests and woods thereof, and the fishings in the 
 waters of Anerick and Altquhore, situated in the earldom of Levenax and shire 
 
 * The work to which Dr M‘Crie refers is, Historia Ecclestastica Glentis Scotorum, by Tho- 
 mas Dempster; a man of great learning, but not to be trusted as an authority for facts. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 323 
 
 of Stirling ; also the fourth part of the fishing of Loch Lomond ; also the half of 
 the land of Ardewnane, with the right of patronage of the church thereof, with 
 the fishing of Loch Tay, within the lordship of Discher and Toyer in Perth- 
 shire. In the Menteith, he was infeft in half the lands of Rusky, half the lands of 
 Thom, the three Lanarkynnis, Cowlach, Sauchinthom, the miln of Lanark, the 
 lochs and fishings of all the said lands, the third of the lands of Cailzemuck, 
 and the fishings on the Water of Teith, and loch of Gudy. All the above 
 estates in the Levenax and the Menteith, composed the barony of Edinbelly. 
 But he was likewise infeft in the lands of Blairnavadis, and the island of 
 Inchmone of Loch Lomond; also in the lands and miln of Achinleschy ; 
 also in the lands of Boquhople, which last were disponed to him the year be- 
 fore his death, by Archibald Edmonstone of Balintone, whose daughter, pro- 
 bably, it was to whom his murdered brother had been married. Besides all 
 this, his father acquired the estate of Lauriston, and had high emoluments 
 from his office. To have dissipated such means, John Napier must have 
 “ played the ryot” indeed. These estates all descended, improved and undimi- 
 nished, to his posterity, except that he sold the pultrelands and office of king’s 
 poulterer to Nisbet of Dean, in the year 1610, for one thousand seven hundred 
 
 marks. 
 
 With the exception of those little episodes we have noticed, of battle, mur- 
 der, and sudden death, Popish plots, pestilence, and famine, ever and anon 
 demanding more or less of our philosopher’s time and attention ; together with 
 the whole charge of his own twelve children, and more than half the charge 
 of his unruly brothers, besides farming operations, extending from the shores 
 of the Forth to the banks of the Teith, and the islands on Lochlomond ; 
 mingled with occasional demands upon his “ singular judgement,” from the 
 General Assembly of the church, to the dark outlaw who indulged in magic, 
 and the courtly lawyer who sought a lesson in mensuration ; with the excep- 
 tion, we say, of these inevitable interruptions, our philosopher lived the life of 
 an intellectual hermit, entirely devoted to his theological and mathematical 
 speculations, and delighting in no converse so much as the clear crow of his 
 favourite bird, more powerful to “ dismiss the demons” than all the incanta- 
 tions of Lilly. 
 
 Betwixt the years 1593 and 1611 his mind was divided betwixt his great 
 theological work, which he considered to be yet only in embryo, and the con- 
 
324 THE LIFE OF 
 
 fident hopes he cherished of being able to emancipate science, now in manifest 
 danger of being strangled by the increasing coils of calculation. Still, however, 
 the progress of religion was his chief object. The Plain Discovery had found 
 its way into every Christian country, and Napier had paused eighteen years 
 for the judgment of the Protestant brethren, and the reply of a Catholic cham- 
 pion, as preparatory to publishing his Latin commentaries. He had the sa- 
 tisfaction in that time to find his work received with growing admiration by 
 the well-affected and regarded at least with respect by the adversary. But 
 the former expressed doubts upon some controversial points, and the latter 
 threatened to give battle to it all; and the consequence was, that, at the end of 
 that long period of probation, Napier still delayed his Latin folio. He publish- 
 ed, however, in 1611, a new edition of the Plain Discovery, and added what he 
 entitled, “a resolution of certain doubts proponed by the well-affected brethren, 
 and needful to be explained in this treatise.” The sentence with which he in- 
 troduces this additional treatise is characteristic of his gentle dispositions, and 
 shows how much he must have been harassed, and how little he could have 
 been to blame in the contention with his brothers. “ As,” says he, “ we are 
 commanded by the Spirit of God to separate ourselves from all disputers con- 
 tentiously by strife of words, (1. Tim. vi. 4, 5.) so are we bound and com- 
 manded, with gentleness and meekness to instruct all that are doubtful minded, 
 that they may know the truth. (2. Tim. ii. 23, 24, 25, 26.) And seeing there 
 are certain well-affected brethren, who, not in the spirit of arrogance and con- 
 tention, but in all sobriety and meekness, have craved of me the resolution of 
 some doubts arising upon my treatise of the Revelation; therefore, discharg- 
 ing my duty, I have thought good to write a resolution of their doubts, and 
 to insert the same in this treatise upon the Revelation, for the better satisfac- 
 tion of their reasonable desire, and instruction of others meek and zealous per- 
 sons whom the like doubts might hinder. As to the contentious and arrogant 
 reasoners, I leave them to the mercy of the Lord.” 
 
 The grasp of his mind, the unaffected simplicity of his nature, the extent 
 and variety of his knowledge, are all again manifested in this addition to his 
 theological labours. It is written in the same clear and condensed style as 
 the principal commentary, and in like manner is composed under the form of 
 distinct propositions, each supported by a chapter of proofs and arguments, 
 in which the most familiar examples are mingled with deep research. The 
 enumeration of these propositions will point out the nature of the doubts 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 325 
 
 which, in the course of eighteen years, had suggested themselves to Protestant 
 divines. “1. That the space betwixt one year of jubilee and the next year of 
 jubilee is 49 years precisely, and not 50 years as some do suppose. 2. That 
 the year of God 71, and consequently each 49 years thereafter, are jubilee 
 years, and not the years of Christ’s birth, as some suppose, nor of Christ’s 
 passion, as others. 3. How and for what causes both the last seal, and first 
 vial or trumpet do begin at the destruction of Jerusalem in anno 71, and not 
 the last seal to end before the trumpets and vials do begin. 4. That the 
 fourth kingdom in Daniel is the monarchy of the Romans, and not the small 
 divided kingdoms of the Seleucians and Syrians, as some of late do suppose. 
 5. That the little horn in Daniel, chap. vii. doth signify the Roman Anti- 
 christ, and not Antiochus properly, as some suppose. 6. That the Pope’s 
 kingdom, both spiritual and temporal, began in the days of Sylvester L.. be- 
 twixt the years of God 300 and 330. 7. That the Pope, during his foresaid 
 reigns, hath possessed and corrupted the outward and visible face of the church, 
 and hath persecuted God his true church, and made the same to lurk and be- 
 come latent and invisible all these days.” 
 
 At the time when Napier published his larger work, we find him engaged 
 in the contract with Restalrig ; and in 1611, when he again appeared before 
 the public as a theologian, he was a party to another contract, characteristic 
 of his times, and connected with matters very foreign to his natural bent and 
 occupations. It is well known, that, about the year 1603, the Lennox, in which 
 the philosopher held so extensive an interest, was wasted by the memorable 
 conflict betwixt the chief of Macgregor and Colquhoun of Luss, known by the 
 name of the Field of the Lennox, or the Raid of Glenfroon. Macgregor, 
 having been most treacherously entrapped by the Earl of Argyle, was tried 
 for his life with several of his clan, all of whom, found guilty of slaughter, 
 stouthreif, treason and fire-raising, were gibetted together. John Napier 
 was one of the jury, along with Stewart of Garnetullie, Campbell of Glennor- 
 chie, Robertson of Strowane, Crichton of Cluny, Blair of Blair, Graham of 
 Knokdoliane, Robertson of Fastkeilsie, &c. upon whose verdict this unfortu- 
 nate chief was condemned to die. The clan Gregor, driven to desperation by 
 the relentless pursuit of Argyle and the Campbells, became broken and law- 
 less, and infested the Lennox like banditti. Considering the share he had in 
 the condemnation of their chief, the philosopher could not expect forbearance 
 
326 THE LIFE OF 
 
 at the hands of these broken men, and the following contract indicates that 
 he found the law of the land no sufficient protection from their inroads. 
 
 “ At Edinburgh, the 24 day of December, the year of God 1611, it is ap- 
 poyntit, aggreit, and finallie contractit, betwixt Johnne Napeir of Merchistoun 
 on the ane pairt, and James Campbell of Laweris, Coline Campbell of Aber- 
 urquhill, and Johnne Campbell thair brother-germane, on the uther pairt, in 
 manner, forme, and effect as eftir followis ; to wit, forsamekill as baith the saids 
 parteis respecting and considdering the mutuall amitie, frendship, and guidwill 
 quhilk hes been thir divers yeiris bygane betwixt the Lairds cf Merchistoun . 
 and Laweris and thair houssis, and willing that the lyk kyndness, amitie, and 
 frendship, sall still continew betwixt thame in tyme coming; thairfoir, the 
 saidis James Campbell of Laweris, Coline and Johnne Campbellis thair breither, 
 faithfullie promittis, that in cais it sall happin the said Johnne Napeir of Mer- 
 chistoun, or his tennentis of the landis within Menteith and Lennox, to be trub- 
 lit or oppressit in the possessioun of thair said landis, or their guidis and geir, 
 violentlie or be stouth of the name of M‘Grigour, or ony utheris heilland broken 
 men; in that cais, the said James, Coline, and Johnne Campbellis to use thair 
 exact dilligence in causing searsch and try the committaris and doars of the 
 said crymes : and, on the uther pairt, the said Johnne Napeir of Merchistoune 
 promittis and oblissis him and his airis to fortifie and assist with the saidis 
 James, Coline, and Johnne Campbellis in all thair leasum and honest effairis, 
 as occasioun sall offer; and herit baith the said parteis faithfullie promittis, 
 binds, and oblissis thame, henc ende, to utheris. In witnes of the quhilk thing, 
 (written be George Banerman, servitor to Antone Quhyte, wryter in Edin- 
 burgh,) baith the said pairties have subscryvit this presentis with thair hands, 
 day, yeir, and place foirsaid, befoir thir witnesses ; Johnne Napeir, sonne lauch- 
 ful to the said Laird of Merchistoun ; Alexander Menteith, his servitour ; Wil- 
 liam Campbell, sone naturrell to the said Laird of Laweris; and the said George 
 Bannerman. 
 
 JAMES CAMPBELL of Laweris.* 
 
 JHONE NEpairR of Merchistoun. 
 
 JHONE CAMPBELL of Ardewnane. 
 COLEINE CAMPBELL of Aberurquhill. — 
 
 * Sir James Campbell of Lawers was the father of Sir John, who was created Earl of Loudoun, 
 Lord Farrinyean and Mauchline in 1688, and was High Chancellor of Scotland in 1641. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 327 
 
 This completes the catalogue of our philosopher’s distracting connections 
 with the troubles of his times, from the Douglas wars, to the battle of Glenli- 
 vet, and from that to the raid of Glen-Fruin. Could he have known the song 
 (for he loved the muses) which that raid was yet to call forth from the genius 
 of the greatest man, next to himself, whom Scotland has produced,—could he 
 have heard the wild names of hes own Levenax so enchantingly mingled,—he 
 would have forgiven the Macgregor. 
 
 Proudly our pibroch has thrill’d in Glen-Fruin, 
 And Banochar’s groans to our slogan replied ; 
 Glen Luss and Ross-dhu they are smoking in ruin, 
 And the best of Loch Lomond lie dead on her side.* 
 Widow and Saxon maid 
 Long shall lament our raid, 
 Think of Clan-Alpine with fear and with woe ; 
 Lennox and Leven-glen 
 Shake when they hear agen, 
 “ Roderich Vich Alpine dhu, ho! ieroe !” 
 
 Though no man knew it, the destiny of Napier was now about to be fulfil- 
 led. High as he stood in the estimation of his country for talents of no ordi- 
 nary kind, it was not in his own lifetime that his power could be appreciated. 
 Searcely conscious himself of the magnitude of the achievement, and while he 
 was seeking his immortality in other speculations even more unapproachable, 
 he had broken the spell which through all ages had bound the genius of num- 
 bers in her mysterious labyrinths,—which, invincible to the schools of Greece, 
 and undisturbed by the revival of letters, had baffled Archimedes and tortured 
 Kepler. In the year 1614, when his mind had exhausted the body, and, to 
 use his own expressions to Charles I., “ now almost spent with sicknesse !” 
 Napier published his M1r1F1cI CANONIS DEscRIPTIO LOGARITHMORUM. 
 
 * See the note to this line in the Lady of the Lake for an account of this raid, and the subse- 
 quent fate of the Macgregor and his clan. 
 
328 THE LIFE OF 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THAT our own estimate may not seem hyperbolical to those who may ima- 
 gine the Logarithms to be “ but an useful abbreviation of a particular branch 
 of the mathematics,” * we shall commence this chapter with the words of a phi- 
 losopher who knew what he was writing about. “ It will be admitted,” says 
 Sir John Leslie, “ that artificial helps may prove useful in laborious and pro- 
 tracted multiplications by sparing the exercise of memory, and preventing the 
 attention from being overstrained. Of this description are the Rods or Bones, 
 which we owe to the early studies of the great Napier, whose life, devoted to 
 the improvement of the science of calculation, was crowned by the invention of 
 logarithms, the noblest conquest ever achieved by man.” + He who wrote this 
 sentence was no granter of propositions, or one very widely awake to excel- 
 lence in others; nor had he any ties, beyond the sympathies of science, to him 
 he so ardently eulogized. But he was deeply imbued with the powers of num- 
 bers, and knew, if any man did, the relative value of every conquest in the 
 _ mathematics; he pronounced this eulogy in the full freshness and vigour of 
 his own mathematical mind, and while deliberately and profoundly tracing 
 through every age, and in all countries, the triumphs of logistic. 
 
 It may be said, however, that such praise must be exaggerated, because, 
 assuming that the Scotch philosopher attained what the schools of Greece 
 and the lights of Germany were unable to accomplish, yet England produced 
 Newton! Unquestionably, the author of the modern analysis, the discoverer 
 of the composition of light, the prophet of universal gravitation, is “ immortal 
 
 * Pinkerton. t Leshe’s Philosophy of Arithmetic. 
 3 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 329 
 
 by so many titles,” that no country and no age can point to his equal. But, 
 (without taking into account many peculiar disadvantages under which Napier 
 laboured,) if we consider what really constitutes the magnitude of any conquest 
 which an individual can claim, we will be inclined to admit, that the expressions 
 used by Sir John Leslie are not the loose and exaggerated utterance of admira- 
 tion, but must have been founded upon a deliberate review, and just estimate of 
 such claims; for if it be true that the test of the noblest conquest which huma- 
 nity could achieve is, first, the indication it affords of abstract mental power, 
 and, second, the utility and extent of its practical application to human neces- 
 sities, as well as to physical research, not all the marvellous combinations in 
 Newton’s mind, of mathematical resources with applicate skill, will wrest from 
 Napier the eulogy he has obtained. 
 
 In respect of its indications of abstract mental power, * his invention or 
 discovery, (for it combines the characteristics of both,) must, it is true, un- 
 dergo a comparison with the fluxionary calculus of Newton ; and by an au- 
 thority, at least as high as what we have quoted, that wonderful analysis 
 was pronounced to be “ the greatest discovery ever made in the mathema- 
 tical sciences.” But the same author, in the same work, had previously declar- 
 ed, after a minute inspection of the intellectual order of the Logarithms, “ Of 
 Napier, therefore, if of any man, it may safely be pronounced, that his name 
 will never be eclipsed by any one more conspicuous, or his invention supersed- 
 ed by any thing more valuable.” + Nor are these eulogies of Napier and Newton 
 inconsistent with each other. The higher calculus was not so much an indivi- 
 dual conquest, as the grand result of a succession of victories under separate 
 leaders, and during distinct campaigns. Euclid, Cavalieri, and Descartes paved 
 the way directly to that calculus. The torch that fired the pile had been passed 
 from hand to hand through a succession of ages; and while a series of the 
 
 * La PLACE, a name second only to Newton in modern science, was struck with the abstract 
 grandeur of Napier’s invention, which he thus powerfully characterises :—“ I] (Kepler) eut dans 
 ses derniéres années, l’avantage de voir naitre, et de profiter de la découverte des Logarythmes, 
 artifice admirable, di a Neper, Baron Ecossais ; et qui, en reduisant a quelques heures, le travail 
 de plusieurs mois, double, si l’on peut ainsi dire, la vie des astronomes, et leur épargne les erreurs 
 et les dégofits inséparable des longs calculs ; invention d’autant plus satisfaisante pour l’esprit 
 humain, qu’ il l’a tirée en entier de son propre fonds. Dans les arts, l’homme emploie les maté- 
 riaux et les forces de la nature pour accroitre sa puissance ; mas ici, tout est son ouvrage.’—Sys- 
 téme du Monde, Tome ii. p. 266. 
 
 + Professor Playfair’s Dissertation. 
 het 
 
330 THE LIFE OF 
 
 most illustrious names in the annals of speculative power mark a constant 
 progress to the point where Newton and Leibnitz simultaneously conquered, 
 that gradual approach was latterly covered and fortified by a cloud of skir- 
 mishers, whose collateral aid, illustrated by such names as Torricelli, Roberval, 
 Fermat, Huygens and Barrow, well deserves to be remembered. ‘The invention 
 of Logarithms presents a different aspect. They were the result of an un- 
 aided, isolated speculation, and unlooked for when they appeared ; a victory, 
 in short, in defiance of all established rules of progressive knowledge and 
 systematic conquest. * The algebraic analysis ought to have preceded the in- 
 vention of logarithms. “ Though logarithms (says Playfair) had not been in- 
 vented by Napier, they would have been discovered in the progress of the alge- 
 braic analysis, when the arithmetic of powers and exponents, both integral and 
 fractional, came to be fully understood. The idea of considering all numbers as 
 powers of one given number would then have readily occurred, and the doctrine 
 of series would have greatly facilitated the calculations which it was necessary 
 to undertake. Napier had none of these advantages, and they were all sup- 
 plied by the resources of his own mind.” What right had a philosopher of 
 the stateenth century, born and bred, too, among the savages of Scotland,— 
 ** Scotus Baro, cujus nomen mihi extitit,’+ as Kepler at first designed him,— 
 to anticipate triumphs which, in the order of things, belonged to the close of 
 the seventeenth ! What had he to do with so powerful a command of the doc- 
 trine of series, and the theory of indices, before that department of mathematical 
 science was evolved,—or with the fruit of a tree before it was planted! He 
 had, it seems, resources within himself, by means of which, outstripping the 
 slow progress of science, he attained a point, the natural intermediate steps to 
 which were yet to compose the conquests of future philosophers. So, when the 
 
 * Sir David Brewster, speaking of the astronomical discoveries of Newton, says, “ Pre-eminent 
 as his triumphs have been, it would be unjust to affirm that they were achieved by his single arm. 
 The torch of many a preceding age had thrown its light into the strongholds of the material uni- 
 verse, and the grasp of many a powerful hand had pulled down the most impregnable of its 
 defences. An alliance, indeed, of many kindred spirits had been long struggling in this great 
 cause, and Newton was but the leader of their mighty phalanx,—the director of their combined 
 genius,—the general who won the victory, and therefore wears the laurels.”—Life of Newton. 
 This last was for the benefit of military men ; and we may add, that, in the great fight of the se- 
 venteenth century, Bacon was quarter-master-general, and surveyed the country; but Napier, so 
 rapid in his evolution of numbers, commanded the cavalry, was first in action, and the enemy ne- 
 ver recovered his first charge. Thus Britain won the day. 
 
 + A Scotch Baron whose name has escaped me.—Kepleri Epistole. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 331 
 
 illustrious adventurers, who long after his time followed the exciting and ever- 
 growing path of analytical discovery, by which the shrine of the higher calcu- 
 lus was at length unveiled, detected in their progress the shrine of the logarithms 
 too, there was nothing to seize, for that spell had been broken already. 
 
 On the other hand, so far as regards practical utility, what may compete 
 with the invention ? A modern astronomer could better spare his telescope than 
 his tables of calculation ; and almost miraculous as is the power of the infinites- 
 mal analysis, the finest steps in the working of that exhaustless instrument of 
 human investigation are dependent upon the aid of logarithms. When New- 
 ton attained the analysis, he had been already gifted with that engine, which 
 ultimately afforded his calculus “ many of the most refined and most valuable of 
 its resources.”* He had, it is true, only to contemplate the logarithms through 
 the medium of his own analysis in order to obtain a far simpler view and 
 easier command of the former invention than its author could possess ; but it 
 must ever be remembered, that, although Newton had the logarithms when 
 he discovered the calculus, Napier had not the calculus, nor the steps which 
 led to the calculus, when he conceived, discovered, and computed the logarithms. 
 While, even in the comparison of practical utility, Napier’s invention claims a 
 sublime fellowship with Newton’s, the latter does not descend in like man- 
 ner to mere mortal necessities. Logarithms are so useful and prevalent in 
 the ordinary arts of life, that many a practical man is most efficient with 
 those tables, who neither knows nor cares about the mystery of their construc- 
 tion, and would sooner think of mastering the craft of his own spectacles, than 
 the fine theory of that invention. The practical application is familiar to the 
 antiphilosophical midshipman at sea; yet, so uncertain was the art of naviga- 
 tion until this aid raised it to the sciences, that the scriptural prophecy, 
 “ Multi pertransibunt et augebitur scientia,’ + may be said only to have 
 been fulfilled when the logarithms were published. High, then, and in- 
 disputable as is the throne of Newton, Professor Leslie was right, and used no 
 exaggerated expressions, when he called Napier’s invention the noblest conquest 
 ever achieved by man; and, the more closely the mathematical achievements 
 of all ages are examined, the more just will this eulogy appear. 
 
 Of the two great branches of mathematical science, arithmetic and geome- 
 
 * Playfair. 
 + « Many shall go to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” 
 
332 THE LIFE OF 
 
 try, the first devoted to the properties of numbers, and the latter to those of 
 extension or space, unquestionably the most recondite, the most fertile, and 
 the most generally useful is the science of numbers. To the highest order of 
 the theory, or purely abstract consideration of numbers, and to the most 
 beneficial results of their practice, the system of logarithms equally belongs. 
 When the restorers of letters gradually recovered the fragments of anti- 
 quity, and gladdened the world with riches redeemed from the lava of bar- 
 barity, there were no mathematical resources disclosed which could equal 
 in power and beauty that which Scotland can claim as her own. The 
 fame of the Grecian schools is chiefly founded upon their combinations of 
 the properties of space, possessing a purity of abstract speculation, and 
 a severity of reasoning, which, if that mystical estimate of mathematical excel- 
 lence could be admitted now, would still place them above all the efforts of 
 mind. Conspicuous among these mathematical attainments is the geome- 
 trical analysis, an invention ascribed to Plato, and which constitutes the 
 power and the glory of the Grecian schools. Synthesis was the original 
 and usual mode of the ancient geometry. It consisted in the art of build- 
 ing one elementary truth upon another, commencing with some acknow- 
 ledged principle, until the problem was solved, or the proposition demon- 
 strated. This method is peculiarly adapted to the communication of ac- 
 quired knowledge. The genius of Plato conceived the bolder instrument of 
 analysis, a method not possessing the severity and caution of synthetical demon- 
 stration, but which at the same time is peculiarly calculated to enlarge the limits 
 of science by the discovery of unknown truths. ‘ The geometrical analysis,” 
 says Playfair, “is one of the most ingenious and beautiful contrivances in the ma- 
 thematics. It is a method of discovering truth by reasoning concerning things 
 unknown, or propositions merely supposed, as if the one were given, or the 
 other were really true. A quantity that is unknown is only to be found from 
 the relations which it bears to quantities that are known. By reasoning on 
 these relations, we come at last to some one so simple that the thing sought 
 is thereby determined. By this analytical process, therefore, the thing re- 
 quired is discovered, and we are at the same time put in possession of an in- 
 strument by which new truths may be found out, and which, when skill in 
 using it has been acquired by practice, may be applied to an unlimited extent. 
 A similar process enables us to discover the demonstrations of propositions, 
 
 supposed to be true, or, if not true, to discover that they are false. This me- 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 333 
 
 thod (he adds) was perhaps the most valuable part of the ancient mathema- 
 tics, in as much as a method of discovering truth is more valuable than the 
 truths it has already discovered.” * 
 
 Apollonius, who graced the school of Alexandria about the period when the 
 career of Archimedes was so violently closed at the siege of Syracuse, and who 
 is thought by some to have more than compensated the world for the loss of 
 the Sicilian philosopher, distinguished himself by a profound application of the 
 ancient analysis. He was born at Perga about 150 years before the Christ- 
 ian era; and while, on the one hand, the grasp of his genius unlocked some of 
 the richest stores of modern research, on the other, his restless ingenuity be- 
 stowed upon the ancient system one of the most imposing of its errors. En- 
 dowed, like Archimedes, with a mind capable of extracting the latent powers of 
 numbers, but checked and hampered by the feeble notation of the Greeks, he 
 supplied the defect as he best could, from his geometrical resources, and 
 though he stretched the arithmetic of his times beyond its imagined capabili- 
 ties, it cannot be said that he effected a revolution in that slumbering science. 
 His genius followed a less recondite but more seducing path. The genesis 
 and properties of those curves which are obtained from the cone deeply 
 engaged him whom his countrymen deservedly styled the Geometer par ex- 
 cellence. Though generally referred to the school of Plato, the precise ori- 
 gin of this important branch of geometry is not determined. Conic sections 
 have become of infinite value to physical astronomy, since the curves which 
 the planets and comets describe in space, the law of projectiles, and a mul- 
 titude of physico-mathematical problems have been demonstrated to depend 
 upon their theory. “ What,” says Montucla, “ would have been the ec- 
 stasy of Plato, and the geometers of his school, could they have foreseen 
 the demonstration.” It is to Apollonius, however, that we are chiefly indebt- 
 ed for this profound and beautiful aid. His treatise on the subject, the most 
 distinguished of his many compositious, almost entitle him to be considered 
 the inventor of that branch of geometry; for while the first books have intro- 
 duced us to so much of the theory as, we learn from himself, had been known 
 before his time, the latter are undoubtedly the produce of his own genius, and 
 compose the climax of those speculations. 
 
 But while Apollonius bestowed this boon upon physical astronomy, and, 
 by his elaborate and profound researches, “ had laid the foundation of 
 
 * Dissertation. 
 
334. THE LIFE OF 
 
 discoveries which were to illustrate very distant ages,” he at the same time, 
 by his celebrated hypothesis of epicycles and deferents, greatly prolonged 
 the false, though plausible system of the earth’s repose amid the revoly- 
 ing stars. The method consisted of a geometrical artifice, by means of 
 which certain celestial observations, difficult to reconcile with the establish- 
 ed doctrines of ancient astronomy, were accounted for in a manner which, 
 according to the Greek expression, “ saved the phenomena.”* It had been ob- 
 served from the most remote antiquity, that certain planets traversed the Heavens 
 in distracted or perturbed paths, wholly inconsistent with the simple idea of a 
 circle or perfect revolution, an order the ancients were most unwilling to reject. 
 Cumbrous artifices were readily adopted by way of protecting the original suppo- 
 sition of that simple uniform motion. The system of Aristotle and Eudoxes had 
 inclosed the earth within concentric spheres, to whose revolving surfaces the pla- 
 nets were fancifully attached, and through whose crystalline substances their rays 
 were supposed to be transmitted. In the progress of time, this complicated ma- 
 chinery, though not positively discarded, faded from the imagination, and the 
 planets were permitted to describe their airy circles without the leading-strings 
 of the crystalline spheres. Buttheir unequal movements could not escape the ob- 
 servations of the most defective astronomy. Sometimes they seemed to check 
 their career, to become stationary, and, fmally, to perform a retrograde motion ; 
 and the eternal orbs had thus the appearance of tottering in their gait with the 
 capricious movements of chaos, or the undetermined steps of infant creation. 
 Pythagoras, who long before had caught a glimpse of the truth, failed to es- 
 tablish, though he partly promulgated, the doctrines of the solar system. Apol- 
 lonius bent his mind to reduce the false terrestrial system within the power 
 and the protection of geometry, and he demonstrated a hypothesis the most 
 ingenious and beautiful that ever served to perpetuate error. He imagined the 
 planets to describe a small circle or orbit round a centre, which centre at the 
 same time described a great orbit round the earth. It is obvious, that, upon 
 this supposition, the planet would assume the phases, sometimes of accompany - 
 ing the orbit described by the centre of its smaller orbit, and sometimes of a 
 stationary, or even a retrograde opposition. The smaller circle he named 
 
 * Milton alludes to this in Paradise Lost. 
 “ To save appearances, how gird the sphere 
 With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er, 
 Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 335 
 
 epicycle, and the larger one deferent, or that which carried along with it the 
 smaller. 
 
 Apollonius was succeeded by Hipparchus, who, notwithstanding the ardour 
 and ingenuity of such researches before his time, deserves to be called the 
 founder of astronomy as a systematic science. No rapid glance can do justice 
 to the value and variety of his speculations. The motions of the most im- 
 portant luminaries, the sun and moon, he detected and demostrated with a per- 
 severance and dexterity worthy of Newton, and thus amended the solar year. 
 He was the first to conceive and execute the stupendous task of forming a ca- 
 talogue of the stars. He founded the science of trigonometry. With him 
 closed the Pagan era, for he is the last philosopher of great account before the 
 rise of Ptolemy, who flourished in the second century. 
 
 Ptolemy, “ prince of astronomers,” marks a great epoch in the history of 
 science. ‘The Ptolemaic system founded on the labours of Hipparchus, com- 
 bining all the power and weakness of the ancient geometry, was submerged 
 in the dark ages, and, after that dreary hybernation of letters, reappeared 
 to triumph for a time over truth, and to be invested with the terrors of 
 Rome. 
 
 The schools of Alexandria, towards which we have cast a glance so hurried. 
 and imperfect, were thus illustrated by men whose names are immortal. Phy- 
 sical inquiry, had arrived through a train of brilliant speculations to the basis 
 of Hipparchus, and the system of Ptolemy. The task alone, had he done no 
 more, of enumerating and recording the stars, evinces in the former philoso- 
 pher a mind equal to any intellectual daring ; but the fact, that three centu- 
 ries of apathy intervened before another philosopher like himself arose in 
 Ptolemy, and that Ptolemy did no more with the resources of his predecessors 
 and his own, than erect a dazzling fabric of error, argues some great defect in 
 the machinery of human investigation. 
 
 This defect may be told ina single sentence. It wasan age of geometrical, 
 rather than of arithmetical science. All its boasted analysis was devoted to 
 diagrams and abstract properties of space. The Grecian philosophers were 
 slaves to the rule and compass, and not aware that the pure reasoning in 
 which they delighted, and the elegant constructions they worshipped, were 
 but vain shadows compared with what the human mind was destined to per- 
 form with numerical aids. It was in that very department of science where 
 the greatest conquests are to be achieved, the science of arithmetic, that Greece 
 
336 THE LIFE OF 
 
 has least pretensions to rival an era of logarithms. In the weakness of its 
 arithmetic, and the almost vicious refinement of its geometry, lurk the defects 
 which have stampt upon its loftiest monuments the title of splendide mendax. 
 
 We must not say, however, that the Greeks were destitute of numerical 
 resources. Mathematical investigation is absolutely powerless without some 
 mode of applying the properties of numbers, and such speculations very 
 readily suggest themselves to all stages of civilized humanity. It was im- 
 possible that a nation so refined should exhibit none of its genius and inge- 
 nuity upon a subject so profound and valuable as the philosophy of arithmetic, 
 and, accordingly, though neither justly appreciated, nor systematically culti- 
 vated among them, that science derived illustrious aid from the schools to 
 which belonged Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, Ptolemy and Diophantus. 
 The oldest treatise on the theory of arithmetic extant is that comprehended 
 by the seventh, eighth, and ninth books of Euclid’s Elements. But to Ar- 
 chimedes we must chiefly turn in this rapid survey, for of all the sages of anti- 
 quity he is the one with whom a variety of coincidencies entitle us to compare 
 our own philosopher ; and we are the more anxious to do so, because Napier 
 is the solitary being who raises Scotland to that level in the history of science. 
 
 Thales and Pythagoras had travelled to the east, from whence, as is said, 
 they enriched their own country with some of the mathematical powers, and 
 more of the mystical properties of numbers. Archimedes, who lived some cen- 
 turies afterwards, found the arithmetic of the school of Alexandria sufficiently 
 advanced to attract his mind occasionally from the seductions of geometry, 
 in order to attempt new conquests in numbers. The Greeks, who had adopted 
 the decimal scale, ascended so far in their notation as to include the four terms 
 of the progression, units, tens, hundreds, thousands ; and attained by cumbrous 
 artifices a still further extension, until they could reckon myriads. But all 
 their efforts seemed to be paralyzed by the figurative part of their system, 
 which, instead of being composed of symbols exclusively devoted to that pur- 
 pose, as in the simple but powerful method of Arabic notation, derived its 
 numeral characters from the Greek alphabet, most ingeniously and scientifically 
 combined, but affording very unwieldy and feeble instruments of calculation. 
 For instance, instead of such characters as those now in use, 1, 2,:3,/4,.5, 
 6, 7, 8,9, the Greeks employed , 8, y, 0, ¢, s, Z, 1, 8, to express the same quan- 
 titative ideas, being the first letters of their alphabet, with one auxiliary sym- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 337 
 
 bol, episémon intercalated betwixt ¢ and %. This was their series of units ; 
 but instead of the admirable artifice which forms the peculiar merit of the 
 present method, namely, that which expresses the succeeding series in the de- 
 nary scale by repeating the same symbols raised to the requisite value by a 
 change of position, the Greeks continued to exhaust their alphabet. 
 
 Their defects will be better understood by glancing at the system which 
 now prevails. The Arabic notation is that in which the advance of any 
 of the symbols of unity one step from right to left, has the effect of increas- 
 ing its value ten times, in other words, of multiplying it by ten. But 
 if this were done in empty space, so as to leave no trace of the starting 
 point, the change of position would not be perceptible. To obviate this diff- 
 culty, a circular figure or cypher, expressive of no value in itself, and conse- 
 quently termed nothing, is used for the purpose of indicating that origi- 
 nal position. In this manner, 10 comes to signify ten, because the cypher 
 indicates that the unit has been advanced a step from right to left, and con- 
 sequently has increased tenfold. It is not the addition of the circle which 
 gives the increased value, (a view of this personification of nothing which 
 might vaguely present itself,) for nothing added to one leaves one still, but it 
 is the relative position to which the expressive unit has been shifted. Any 
 of the series of units advanced in like manner obtains its corresponding in- 
 crease. 20 is 2 advanced tenfold; in other words, twenty. But the circle 
 to supply the vacant place becomes unnecessary when any original value of 
 the digits is to be added to the acquired value of the digit advanced ; 11 in- 
 dicates one ten and one unit; 22, two tens and two units; in other words, 
 eleven, and twenty-two. The infinite extension of this system is obvious upon 
 the slightest inspection of its principle. And such is the rapid wing, so ele- 
 gant in its simple construction, so powerful to make its way, which, flitting 
 through the very bosom of the dark ages, came to the aid of regenerated 
 science from some distant and doubtful clime of the east,—some chiarosciro 
 land of science and superstition. How gladly would the genius of Archimedes 
 have hailed this bird of glorious promise! but it came not to the schools of 
 Alexandria. 
 
 To express the second term in their denary scale, that is, the series of tens, 
 the Greeks continued to draw upon their alphabet, and selected the letters 
 1, #, A, 4, ¥, & 0, *, and the auxiliary symbol termed koppa, to signify 10, 
 
 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90. The ascending term of hundreds, 100, 
 uu 
 
338 THE LIFE OF 
 
 200, 300, and so on to 900, was expressed by the letters e, o, 7, v, 0, x, J a, 
 and the third auxiliary intercalation termed sanpi.* In this state of their scale, 
 the greatest number that could be noted was only nine hundred ninety-and-nine, 
 being the sum of the highest expressions in each progression. ‘T’o obtain the pro- 
 gression, 1000, 2000, &c. up to 9000, the nine characters of the progression 
 of units were repeated with a mark below each, thus: a, 6, y, 0, é, C, 1, 4 
 
 This extended the grasp of their notation to nine thousand, nine hun- 
 dred, ninety-and-nine. ‘The series of myriads, or tens of thousands, was 
 obtained by placing the sare letter M under any number, to He effect of 
 
 giving it that value. Thus, M signified one myriad or 10,000 ; M, two my- 
 riads, or 20,000, &c- ‘Two dots placed over the symbol or character were 
 sometimes used for the same purpose. 
 
 The system of Greek notation,—thus limited to the expression of myriads 
 by devices, which, though sufficiently ingenious and effective to be not un- 
 worthy of that enlightened people, were cumbrous and deficient in the 
 hands of philosophers,—betrayed some of them into the crude proposition, 
 that no combination of numbers was sufficient to express the quantity of 
 the grains of sand composing the shores of the ocean. This idea arose 
 directly from that defect in their notation, which limited any distinct 
 numerical expression to the quantity of myriads or ten thousands. The 
 mind of Archimedes, like that of Napier, surrounded with difficulties, and 
 driven upon its own resources, always led him to attempt either what others 
 had never dreamt of, or what they deemed impossible. He immediately set 
 himself to refute this confident assertion, and his somewhat Quixotic deter- 
 mination was crowned by results far beyond the utility of that particular 
 refutation. It gave birth to the ARENARIUS, a beautiful treatise, which ex- 
 tended the feeble notation of the school of Alexandria, or at least demon- 
 strated the power of doing so, approaching, at the same time, the confines 
 
 * There were only twenty-four letters in the Greek alphabet, and their scale required twenty- 
 seven. The Greeks, therefore, added three intercalations or auxiliary marks. Before the im- 
 provement of dividing their alphabet into three distinct classes, the Greeks had another very feeble 
 method, which I have not thought it necessary to explain. There were also some varieties and mo- 
 difications of their arithmetical language which I have not mentioned. The reader who wishes to be 
 minutely informed on the subject, will find what he wants in the edition of Archimedes’s works, 
 with a learned Latin commentary, printed at Paris, 1615. Also Delambre’s Astronomie Ancienne, 
 Arithmétique des G'recs. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 339 
 
 of some of the most precious secrets of arithmetical science, and affording 
 an impulse whose career would have left geometry far behind, had barba- 
 rian conquests not checked its progress. ‘This work is addressed to Gelo, 
 the eldest son of the King of Sicily, the philosopher’s relative, and commences 
 with the following address :—‘ There are some, O Prince Gelo, who ima- 
 gine that the sands are innumerable! I speak not of the sands of Syracuse, or 
 of those which are spread upon the shores of Sicily, but of the sands of the 
 whole world. Others, again, believe that the grains are finite, but that num- 
 bers cannot express them! If the earth itself were composed of sand, whose 
 particles rose to the summits of her mountains, and filled the abysses of the 
 deep, such reasoners would find still greater difficulty in persuading themselves 
 that those sands could be numbered. But I will shew, and by geometrical de- 
 monstrations to which you must bow, that in a system of numbers of my own, 
 which I formerly addressed to Zeuxippus, a progression may be found, exceed- 
 ing not merely the grains of a sphere equal in bulk to the earth, but even to 
 that of the whole universe.” It is not, however, the geometrical demonstra- 
 tions of Archimedes, but his knowledge and command of numerical progres- 
 sions, which here call for our attention; and as this knowledge forms one 
 grand coincidence betwixt his mind and Napier’s, it may be proper to afford 
 a popular explanation of the term. 
 
 “The physical world,” says an elegant and distinguished writer, “is asystem 
 of progressions ; time is composed of moments added to moments ; animal ex- 
 istence is made up of the progressions of nature, advancing by steps more or 
 less perceptible, from the inanimate molecule, to the animated being honoured 
 with the light of immortality. There are degrees in all the properties of nature, 
 passing through fine gradations, from one extreme to the other. It is nature 
 whom we imitate in the arithmetical progression, ceaselessly adding number 
 to number till, like her, we mount the scale by equal steps from zero, and rise 
 from nothing to infinity. When the human mind passes from addition to mul- 
 tiplication, it has attained a new method of progressing towards infinity. In 
 ceaselessly multiplying one number by another, we advance by steps still equal, 
 but more hurried, more rapid. Such is the geometrical progression.”* 
 
 To afford a more practical illustration than this beautiful passage, sup- 
 pose a series of numbers either to increase or decrease in such relative propor- 
 tions, that the difference betwixt any two of the numbers, which are together, 
 
 * Histoire de lAstronomie Moderne, par M. Bailly. 
 
340 THE LIFE OF 
 
 shall be the same throughout; this will be an arithmetical progression. The 
 simplest example is afforded by a progression continually increasing by 
 unity from nothing. Thus, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, &c. is a progression 
 where the difference betwixt any two consecutive terms throughout is 1. 
 Again, take another increasing series bearing this relative proportion, that 
 every term is the product of the one immediately preceding, by a common mul- 
 tiplier, and you have a geometrical progression. Thus, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, &c. is 
 an increasing progression, where each term multiplied by 2 gives the succeed- 
 ing one. The examples in both cases might be varied by adopting other se- 
 ries with the same characteristics, such as 1, 5, 9,13, &c. where the diffe- 
 rence is always 4; and 1, 10, 100, 1000, where the multiplication proceeds 
 by 10. In other words, the arithmetical progression advances in this instance 
 by the uniform addition of 4 to the last term, and the geometrical is propagated 
 by the products of the continual multiplication of the last term by 10. Simple, 
 and almost puerile as these explanations may appear, they involve principles 
 which, in the possession of Archimedes, raised the languid arithmetic of the 
 Greeks to a capacity for great adventure, but in that of Napier, created a 
 revolution in science; and even this simple statement of them will soon find 
 an excuse as we proceed in the illustration of our own philosopher’s intellec- 
 tual achievements, where, in the words of Bailly, “ tout est progression.” It 
 is in the properties and relative analogies of these characteristic series of num- 
 bers, that the mighty powers of calculation lurk; and we have now to consi- 
 der how far those powers were developed by Archimedes in the Arenarius. 
 The expedient of the initial letter M having enabled them to note myriads, with 
 this extension of the system, the Greeks could express anything below ten thou- 
 sand times ten thousand ; in other words, the limit of their notation was the my- 
 riad of myriads. | In this state Archimedes found it, and, of course, when he un- 
 dertook to demonstrate the possibility of expressing a number equivalent to the 
 contents of the vast sphere he imagined, he was under the necessity of extend- 
 ing the scale of notation from this limited to an indefinite grasp. The profound 
 views he entertained of progressions and their properties enabled him to effect 
 his purpose, and in doing so he touched more than one principle im arith- 
 metical science, which, had he mastered them, would have completely unfetter- 
 ed that wing of the mathematics.* In the existing state of the notation he 
 proposed to extend, it was not difficult for a mind like his to perceive that the 
 
 * It was a saying of Plato, that Arithmetic and Geometry are the two wings of the Mathematics. 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 341 
 
 scale ascended in a geometrical progression, of which the ratio or common mul- 
 tiplier was 10. In order to demonstrate the indefinite grasp of these powers, 
 he continued the geometrical progression by taking its limit, a myriad of my- 
 riads or ten thousand times ten thousand, as the unity of a second order of 
 numbers, ascending in the same geometrical progression by ten, from myriads 
 of myriads as the unity, up to myriads of myriads of this extended progres- 
 sion. This he again took as the unity of a third order, and so on through 
 eight periods, until he obtained a power of notation equivalent to 64 places of 
 the Arabic numerals. To form a just notion of Archimedes’s command of the 
 philosophy of numbers, and also of the comparative excellence of Napier as 
 evinced by his theory of Logarithms, we must have a distinct idea of what the 
 former proposed in the Arenarius, and of the extent to which he carried his ob- 
 servation of the properties of progressions. We shall, therefore, assist what 
 has been stated above by an example, taking the aid of the notation now in 
 use. 
 
 Their alphabet and auxiliarysymbols, with the other devices, gave the Greeks 
 the command of a decuple scale of eight terms, viz. units, tens, hundreds, thou- 
 sands, myriads, tens of myriads, hundreds of myriads, thousands of myriads, 
 which in our notation would be expressed :— 
 
 Units, - - 1 
 
 Tens, - . - 10 
 Hundreds, - - 100 
 Thousands, - - 1,000 
 Tens of thousands, ahee 10,000 
 Hundreds of thousands, - 100,000 
 Millions, - - - 1000,000 
 Tens of millions, - - 10,000,000 
 
 Archimedes took this progression as the first order of a period which he 
 supposed to contain eight orders, each composed like the above of eight terms. 
 This first order he named an octade of the first. To form his octade of the 
 second, he took the eighth term of the first octade multiplied by ten, which 
 gave him myriads of myriads, and this was no arbitrary acceleration, because 
 it was the very next term ina decuple geometrical progression. Thus, myriads 
 of myriads became the unity of a second octade; and, therefore, that which 
 Archimedes proposed to name a unity of an octade of the second, would re- 
 present myriads of myriads, #. e. an hundred millions, The highest term of 
 
B42 THE LIFE OF 
 
 this new octade was equivalent in our notation to 16 figures, or 1 and 15 cy- 
 phers annexed ; thus, 
 
 Octade of the Second. 
 Units, - - 100,000,000 
 Tens, : : -  1,000,000,000 
 Hundreds, - - 10,000,000,000 
 Thousands, - - 100,000,000,000 
 Myriads, . : 1,000,000,000,000 
 Tens of myriads, - - 10,000,000,000,000 
 Hundreds of myriads, - 100,000,000,000,000 
 Thousands of myriads, - 1,000,000,000,000,000 
 
 This last term, thousands of myriads of the octade of the second, (or, as we 
 would name it, one thousand billions,) multiplied by ten, became in like man- 
 ner the unity of an octade of the third. Eight of these octades were to compose 
 a period, and the highest number of the octade of the eighth, which closed the 
 period, would be equivalent to the expression with us of 1 and 63 cyphers an- 
 nexed. Thus, by adding period to period, Archimedes could extend the ex- 
 pression of his scale ad infinitum. But his first period of octades was sufficient 
 for his problem. Taking not merely the sphere of the world for the bulk of 
 sands, but considering the whole universe as such a sphere, he was able, from 
 his geometrical resources and the abstract power of his mind, to bring the con- 
 tents of this imaginary sphere, by approximating steps, within the grasp of 
 measurement and calculation ; and thus he demonstrated, that this inconceiv- 
 able volume of sand did not contain so many grains as would be expressed by 
 the eighth term of the octade of the eighth, or, as we would say, one thousand 
 decillions, a number beyond the grasp of the human mind, but not of nota- 
 tion. * 
 
 * Our scale of notation, when divided from right to left into periods of six figures each, gives 
 units, millions, billions, trillions, quadrillions, quintillions, sextillions, septillions, octillions, non- 
 illions, decillions, &c. Now Archimedes’s approximate result was one thousand decillions, or 
 
 1000000000000000000000000000000800000000000000000000000000000000. 
 
 This affords a good illustration of the simplicity and power of Arabic numerals. The single 
 unit moved from right to left in a decuple scale by as many proportional steps as the vacancies or 
 cyphers indicate, gives a mathematically accurate notation of a numerical power which cannot be 
 appreciated even by comparison. For instance, it can be demonstrated, that if a thousand persons 
 employed to reckon money, were each to reckon a hundred pieces in a minute, and work at that 
 rate for ten hours a-day, they would take forty-five years to reckon a billion. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 343 
 
 Archimedes differed from Napier in this, that our philosopher loved calcu- 
 lation as the light of day, whereas the Sicilian, being a philosopher of the 
 geometrical school of Alexandria, only loved it as a cat loves the brook, 
 into which she will dip her paw for the sake of a fish. But we must sympa- 
 thize with the immortal author of the Arenarius, when we call to mind that 
 he had not the Arabic notation, and that all this tremendous gallop of octades 
 was not rendered easy and pleasant to him by the simple, but omnipotent ex- 
 pedient, of the same symbol expressing a decuple progression to any extent 
 merely bya progressive change of place, leaving a mute mark behind it to indicate 
 each step of its advance. The cumbrous and weak combinations of the initial 
 M, or Mv, were little better than the confused repetitions of a child, who might 
 say myriads of myriads of myriads to express what it could not conceive; and 
 the characteristics of the most simple arithmetical operations of that illustrious 
 school were labour and imperfection. ‘“ The procedure of the Greek arithme- 
 ticians,” says Professor Leslie, ‘“ was necessarily slower and more timid than 
 our simple, yet refined mode of calculation. Each step in the multiplication 
 of complex numbers appeared separate and detached, without any concentra- 
 tion, which the moderns obtain by carrying forward the multiples of ten, and 
 blending together the different members of the product. In ancient Greece, 
 the operations of arithmetic, like writing, advanced from left to right; each 
 part of the multiplier was in succession combined with every part of the mul- 
 tiplicand ; and the several products were distinctly noted, or, for the sake of 
 compactness, grouped and conveniently dispersed till afterwards collected into 
 one general amount.” 
 
 Profound, therefore, as were the conceptions of Archimedes in the philosophy 
 of arithmetic, he looked askance at calculation as a labour which he loved not, 
 and fain would avoid. But it is remarkable, and most interesting to observe, 
 that the very struggles of this great geometrical mind to escape from such opera- 
 tions, brought it to the verge of all that is most valuable in arithmetical science. 
 The object of the Sicilian was to obtain such abstract powers, as would give 
 him the grasp of numbers, by a geometrical consideration of their properties, 
 and, at the same time, save him from the torture of calculation. Nothing 
 was better suited to his purpose than the doctrine of progressions ; and it is 
 obvious that his system of octades was just an indefinitely extended geometri- 
 cal progression, so classed or divided, indeed, as to facilitate notation, but pos- 
 
344 THE LIFE OF 
 
 sessing, at the same time, those abstract properties of an uninterrupted series 
 of proportionals, which enabled him, as a geometrician, to detect and to point 
 out results, without actually performing any of the calculations. So it hap- 
 pens, that the profound and elegant monument of his genius which we are 
 considering, possesses the anomalous merit of conveying to the mind a 
 mathematical idea of the number of the sands of the ocean, and infinitely be- 
 yond them, without executing any arithmetical operations. In achieving this 
 it was, that Archimedes touched the bases of three great pillars of modern 
 calculation, the system of Arabic notation, the Logarithms, and the language 
 of Algebra ; and thus, unconsciously, he was at the sources of modern science, 
 before which his own beloved geometry has fallen from her throne, and now 
 lies like a broken mirror, unfit to reflect a true image of the Heavens, though 
 still dazzling us with the glories of ancient Greece. 
 
 In the first place, it is obvious that the classification proposed in the Are- 
 narius is quite analogous to that so universal now, a fact which the follow- 
 ing tree of our notation will at once present to the eye. 
 
 &c. 
 Hundred thousand of billions, 100,000,000,000,000,000 
 Ten thousand of billions, 10,000,000,000,000,000 
 Thousand of billions, 1,000,000,000,000,000 
 Hundred billions, 100,000,000,000,000 
 Ten billions, 10,000,000,000,000 
 Bixxions, 1,000,000,000,000 
 
 Hundred thousand of millions, 100,000,000,000 
 Ten thousand of millions, 10,000,000,000 
 - Thousand of millions, 1,000,000,000 
 Hundred millions, 100,000,000 
 Ten millions, 10,000,000 
 Mituions, 1,000,000 
 
 Hundred thousands, 100,000 
 Ten thousands, 10,000 
 Thousands, 1000 
 Hundreds, 100 
 Tens, 10 
 Units, 1 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 345 
 
 This is just a decuple geometrical progression ascending ad infinitum, and 
 the same in which Archimedes detected the principle of logarithms. The 
 Greek notation, from the very fact of being so imperfect, varied in its charac- 
 ter,* and the more simple the expedients for raising the value of the digit 
 became, the nearer they approached to the invaluable simplicity of the cypher. 
 Thus «was the unity, «, increased by the subscribed mark to the value of a thou- 
 sand ; the next multiplication was expressed by M, or Mv; had they merely ad- 
 ded another mark below the letter, so much would have been gained, and the 
 idea would have more readily suggested itself of throwing aside auxiliary 
 marks entirely, and making a few symbols answer all the purpose, even in an 
 infinite scale, by a change of place. The very philosophy of progressions might 
 have led Archimedes to this beautiful aid of his decuple system,—a _ philo- 
 sophy so simple, yet so powerful; ‘“ mais ces moyens simples sont le fruit 
 des idées profondes et lumineuse ; tout est progression dans le monde phy- 
 sique.” Had he done so, he would have added the Arabic notation to the 
 denary system, and have been the father of arithmetic. The difference be- 
 twixt his mind and Napier’s seems to be this, that the latter would in like 
 manner have denied the proposition that numbers could not grasp the sands 
 of the sea, and have set himself to demonstrate the contrary; he, too, (as 
 he did) would have developed the properties of progressions; but, instead 
 of shunning the numerical operations, or clinging to his geometry, he would 
 have hailed the dawn of the science of calculation, have instantly attacked the 
 tyranny of notation, and most probably reduced it to the present simplicity 
 of its elements, for we shall find, that to semplify notation was a propensity of 
 Napier’s mind, whose characteristic, in prudentia et stmplicitate, is descriptive 
 of the nature of Arabic numerals. 
 
 In the second place, Archimedes, anxious, not to perfect the science of calcu- 
 lation, but to avoid its difficulties when having to deal with such a scale, observ- 
 ed and demonstrated certain properties inherent in the principles of its construc- 
 
 * This will be seen by comparing M. Delambre’s “ Arithmétique des Grecs,” as forming the 
 first chapter of his “ Astronomie Ancienne,” 1817, with the same treatise, as given by M. Pey- 
 
 rard at the conclusion of his @Zuvres d’Archiméde. The Greek notation is different in the cor- 
 
 responding passages of the separate editions, and there are other discrepancies perplexing to 
 the student. Compare Tome ii. p. 8 of Delambre’s works, with Tome ii. p. 524 of Peyrard, Edit. 
 
 1818. 
 xX X 
 
346 THE LIFE OF 
 
 tion, which enabled him to find the place, and consequently the value, of any term 
 in that progression, without the labour and difficulty of generating it by actual 
 calculation. Here he reached the base of the Logarithms ; but, totally uncon- 
 scious of the superstructure he might have reared, and entirely engrossed with 
 his particular problem and his race of octades, he left that immortal conquest 
 to slumber unachieved through the dark ages. As his statement of the prin- 
 ciple, however, is essential to the history of Logarithms, we shall give it 
 here. 
 
 “ It is also of some use” (says Archimedes) “ to know this property. Ifa se- 
 ries of numbers be arranged in geometrical progression from unity, and any 
 two of the terms of that progression be multiplied together, the product 
 will also be a term in the same progression ; and its place will be at the same 
 distance from the larger of the two factors that the lesser factor is from unity ; 
 and its distance from unity will be the same, minus one, that the swm of the dis- 
 tances of the two,factors from unity is distant from unity. For, let A, B, C, 
 D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, represent any geometrical progression from unity, of 
 which A is the unity; let D be multiplied by H, and let X [the unknown 
 quantity, | represent the product. Take L in the given progression, which is 
 at the same distance [or number of places,] from H that D is from unity. 
 It is to be demonstrated that X is equal to L. Because, since in a geometri- 
 cal progression D is at the same distance from A that L is from H, D is in 
 the same ratio to A that Lis to H. But A multiplied by D gives D; and 
 likewise H multiplied by D gives L; therefore X is equal to L. It is demon- 
 strated, therefore, both that the product is a term in the same progression, and 
 that it is at the same distance from the larger, factor that the lesser is from uni- 
 ty. It is also demonstrated, that this product is at the same distance from 
 unity, minus one, as the sum of the distances of the factors from unity ; for A, 
 B, C, D, E, F, G, H, are as many terms as H is distant from unity, and I, K, 
 L, are less by one than the number of D from unity, but with H they are equal 
 to that number.” * 
 
 * Xojoyuov 02 ess nou r6de yryvwoxiuevor. Kinet, agiluav amd rec wovddos dvkhoyov twrrwv, ToAAa- 
 mraoiklovres TES GAAGABS Ta ex THs wires aVMAoYiag 6 Yevduev0g EooEiras Ex Thc ares dvKAoyiac, 
 creo card jueiCovos ray TOAKUTAROIUEAITOY HAAGASS, Boxs 6 EAdrluv rv ToAAaTAUCIAEdYTOY cord 
 povdidog cucdoyoy dmtyn amo dz ras wovddos apeces evi cAdtlovas, 4 Boog éesly Geiswos Cuva@oréeay, oUg 
 
 amtywvrs aad movddos of TOARKATAGOIE QTES Grieg a "Eswv yg cerduol ries dvd Abyov cd povecdos, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 347 
 
 We have given a literal translation of this passage in the Arenarius, with 
 the original below, because it is the first statement on record of the funda- 
 mental principle of Logarithms ; not, indeed, of the Logarithms in reference 
 to their discovery, but it is that principle or property which suggested the 
 value of such a discovery, though it did not aid the accomplishment. Ar- 
 chimedes detected the property simply in its application to his own scale, 
 as indicating the place of any product of its terms ; but it never entered into 
 his imagination that tables of numbers could be demonstrated and construct- 
 ed, so as to render that of universal application which saved him the trouble of 
 calculation in his problem. ‘To demonstrate the property and its value as 
 applied to a particular progression, was the merit of Archimedes. 'To imagine 
 that NUMBERS might be brought into such a state, as to be subservient to 
 that principle, and then to bring them to that state, was the conquest achiev- 
 ed by Napier. In the one case, the discovery was merely a philosophical de- 
 tection of certain analogies, which no philosopher, busy with such progres- 
 sions, could have failed to observe ; a discovery, in short, which can add no- 
 thing to the fame of Archimedes. In the other case, as we shall find when 
 we come to examine more particularly the nature of Logarithms, the disco- 
 very involved an original conception, which, when we say that Archimedes 
 did not form it, we have said enough to prove, that it was such as the detec- 
 
 ci A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, ©, I, K, A, moves 02 ecw 6 Ar nal rugamorramraciasw 0 A, TG Or 6 2 yev6- 
 wsvog #50 6X. Biaggdw oy 6 én rus adrtis dvaroying 6 A, ameyuv ard rod O rockrss, dos 6 A amd 
 jwovebog arrest. Aeinréov ori fo0g éslv 6 XH A. "Eel 2y, dvdAoyoy eovray, foov ameyer Ore A amo rod A, 
 xe 6 A amd rod O, roy adroy eel Abyov 6 A sori roy A, ov 6 A mori roy @. TloAAawAaciwy o¢ esv 6 A 
 ro Ar@ A. TloAAamrAcory dec esi xc d A ro Or A. “Oe re toog esiv6 A rw X. Ajjroy sv OF 
 yevousvos En Tes arcs dvaroyiag Te iv, HCl GTO TOU [u2iZov0s ToMAaTAMOInEKITOY AAAGARS foov Amey, 
 boas 6 Ade law card rig worddos aaéyer, Davegdy Oz, Ori nou Hrd uovddos camer Evi EAaTloVALS 7 0005 ésly 6 
 aeiduuds CuveynDoreguy og amexovrl awd THE juoveedog. Of de wey yap of A, B, I, A, E, Z, H, O, rookro 
 evel boss 6 © card wovados aréeyer of 02 I, K, A, evi cAaTloves, 4 Goss 6 A aad movedog ameye Loy yuo 
 rH O, rookros evr Oxford edit. of the works of Archimedes, p. 326. 
 
 We are indebted to Professor Peyrard for sending us to the original, though after much puz- 
 zling over his translation, from not being inclined to doubt the accuracy of an “ ouvrage approuvé 
 par l'Institut, et adopté par le gouvernement pour les Bibliothéques des Lycées. Dédié a sa Majesté 
 !Empereur et Roi. Seconde edition.” He thus concludes Archimedes’s demonstration, “ En effet, 
 le nombre des termes A, B, I, A, E, Z, H, © est égal au nombre des terms dont © est éloigné de 
 Yunitié ; et les nombre des termes I, K, A est plus petit d’une unité que le nombre des termes 
 
 ? 
 
 dont © est éloigné de l’unité, puisque le nombre de ces termes avéc © est égal au nombre des 
 termes dont © est éloigné de l'unité.” This is unintelligible. 
 
348 THE LIFE OF 
 
 tion of the property did not necessarily lead to; it also involved the verifica- 
 tion of that sublime idea, by demonstration and computation more than equal 
 to any difficulty which Archimedes ever conquered. The Sicilian, then, 
 being a geometer par excellence, anxious to shake himself loose from calcu- 
 lation, and not at all to attempt to turn any property of numbers to such ac- 
 count as to create a revolution in arithmetical science, missed the discovery 
 of Logarithms, as he missed the discovery of Arabic notation ; and he did so, 
 without bequeathing to Napier such aid as, for instance, even Newton obtain- 
 ed towards his conquests in the geometry of infinites, from Wallis’s Arithmetic 
 of Infinites. 
 
 We have now to add, in the third place, that when Archimedes made use 
 of certain arbitrary signs or characters, to represent any given progression of 
 the nature he required, as A, B, T, A, E, &c. for the given quantities, and X 
 for the unknown, he struck a note prophetic of a vast revolution in the lan- 
 guage of science. Geometrical constructions and arithmetical calculations ex- 
 hibit the actual values of the magnitude or quantities upon which they are 
 brought to bear, and these operations are apt to become painfully unwieldy. 
 This gave birth to algebra, which “ was a contrivance merely to save trouble ; 
 and yet to this contrivance we are indebted for the most philosophical and refin- 
 ed art which men have yet employed for the expression of their thoughts. This 
 scientific language, therefore, like those in common use, has grown up slowly 
 from a very weak and imperfect state, till it has reached the condition in 
 which it is now found.”* Its perfection consists not merely in representing 
 quantities by conventional symbols instead of the natural signs, but also ex- 
 pressing, in an abbreviated form, the operations performed, or supposed to be 
 performed, on those quantities. It is obvious, therefore, that Archimedes had 
 made no advance in this refined art; but still he touched the principle, a fact 
 sometimes overlooked. The distinguished author who has just been quoted, 
 in tracing the progress of science after the revival of letters, says, “ Vieta 
 was the first who employed letters to denote the known as well as the un- 
 known quantities, so that it was with him that the language of algebra first 
 became capable of expressing general truths, and attained to that extension 
 which has since rendered it such a powerful instrument of investigation.” 
 But in the Arenarius, the ancient geometer afforded a hint, at least, of that 
 language, by using letters to represent both the known quantities of his pro- 
 
 * Playfair. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 349 
 
 gression, and the unknown product of which he was in quest ; and these are 
 just algebraic signs, or cossic numbers, as they have since been denomi- 
 nated. * | 
 
 When the statics and catoptrics of Archimedes were found irresistible, the 
 Roman General Marcellus turned the siege of Syracuse into a blockade. Its 
 inhabitants felt too secure in their wonderful resources, and the philosopher 
 himself returned to his geometry. The city was taken by surprise, and its 
 protector only became aware of the fact when the rude voices of the Roman 
 soldiers interrupted his studies with an order to appear before Marcellus. The 
 Sicilian is said to have been lying on the ground at the time, intent upon a 
 diagram : “ I will come,” said he, “ when I have finished my problem,”—and 
 the soldier plunged his sword into the philosopher’s bosom. So perished Ar- 
 chimedes, two centuries before the Christian era. A sphere within a cylinder 
 was engraved upon his tomb, in conformity to a desire he had once expressed 
 when exulting in a geometrical conquest. 
 
 Apollonius succeeded him, and the arithmetic of the Greeks was improved 
 by that philosopher in the proportion that he simplified the notation. But all 
 his improvements were modifications of the system of his predecessor, and his 
 rules for ameliorating calculation arose from the properties pointed out by Ar- 
 chimedes. Apollonius approximated, however, still nearer to the present sys- 
 tem of notation; but the simple expedient of the cypher still eluded the grasp 
 of his mind, and the Logarithms were left undisturbed. 
 
 The recovered remnants of ancient science are so scattered and imperfect, 
 that no accurate estimate can be formed of the extent to which the impulse 
 prevailed which Archimedes, Apollonius, and Ptolemy bestowed upon the 
 science of calculation. ‘There are some indications that both arithmetic and 
 algebra attained to greater perfection before the barbarian conquests than is 
 generally supposed; and although nature for a time seemed as if exhausted 
 by the production of such philosophers, yet, in the progress of those centuries 
 
 * Wallis (“ bon juge en ces matiérs,” says Montucla) notices the fact particularly, as one of 
 interest and historical value: “ Quanquam enim Nuwmerorum Cossicorum (quod jam dici solet) 
 seu Denominatorum, aut Algebricorum Nomina, jam recens introducta censeantur, vel ab Ara- 
 bibus, vel a recentioribus Grecis, (inter quos eminet Diophantus) post Huclidis, et Archimedis 
 tempora: res tamen ipsa jam olim obtinuit, estque in his Archimedies numeris, A, B, I, A, &c. 
 
 conspicua,” &c.—Note in Arenarium. 
 
350 THE LIFE -OF 
 
 which were still to see the uninterrupted light, men arose whom science might 
 well be proud to call her sons. With Hipparchus, whom we have already 
 noticed, closed the jirst school of Alexandria; Ptolemy and his system mark 
 the rise of the second. This great astronomer was thrown too frequently upon 
 difficult calculations not to benefit by the system of Archimedes, and in his 
 hands it was considerably enriched. He applied with great effect to his as- 
 tronomical researches, the sexagesimal arithmetic, arising out of the division 
 of the circle, (following the ancient year,) into three hundred and sixty degrees, 
 the radius being held equivalent to sixty of those degrees. The sexagesimal 
 scale proceeded upon the same principles as the scale of Archimedes, but fol- 
 lowed.a descending instead of ascending ratio. Ptolemy was even led to the occa- 
 sional use of the Jetter o to indicate a blank in the scale, and we thus see the 
 tendency of the Archimedean system of notation to that now in use, and the 
 gradual and near approach to a treasure which those ill-fated schools were des- 
 tined never to attain. 
 
 About the middle of the sixteenth. century, however, a Greek fragment was 
 discovered in the Vatican, which proves, that, before the fall of letters, the 
 science of calculation had reared its head so high as to threaten the throne of 
 geometry. Diophantus, among the last who may be named with the most il- 
 lustrious of his country, seems to have escaped that inordinate love of diagrams, 
 which constituted the effeminacy of Grecian science, and composed a work 
 of thirteen books upon arithmetic, whose fragments have occupied the 
 closest attention, and demanded all the illustrative power of such profound 
 modern algebraists as Bachet and Hermat. We thus see the mathematics of 
 that age struggling painfully, but not in vain, to unfold their most powerful 
 wing. A proportional advance in logistic from the system of Ptolemy would 
 have developed the Arabic notation ; a successor to Diophantus, in decuple 
 ascending progression, might have achieved the Logarithms. But other con- 
 quests were now to prevail, and the star of science waned. As if the coming 
 night had cast its shadow before, the successors of Diophantus seem to have 
 anticipated the approach of the dark ages, and, instead of pressing onwards in 
 the vast field of discovery, devoted themselves to the task of collecting and eluci- 
 dating the works of others. To the mathematical collections of Pappus of Alex- 
 andria our own age is indebted for the knowledge of such sublime resources as 
 the geometrical analysis, and the conics of Apollonius. His friend and colleague, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 351 
 
 Theon, left a Commentary on the Almagest of Ptolemy, and was other- 
 wise distinguished ; but, strange to say, his fame is almost eclipsed by that of 
 his daughter. Hypathia is a rare instance of her sex not only devoted to the 
 silent abstraction of mathematics, but so successful in her studies, as to rank 
 with the immortal philosophers of Greece. She, too, watched with star-like 
 fidelity the closing gates of light, and gemmed like a planet the departing day 
 of Grecian philosophy. Apollonius, Ptolemy, and Diophantus, received the 
 homage of her commentaries. 
 
 How lived—how loved—how died she ? 
 
 The fate of Hypathia is not left to conjecture. Cyril, a Christian bi- 
 shop, and his fanatical monks, are accountable for her barbarous murder, 
 which inflicted the last mortal stab upon the expiring school of Alexandria. 
 ** He (Cyril) prompted or accepted the sacrifice of a virgin who professed the 
 religion of the Greeks, and cultivated the friendship of Orestes. Hypathia, 
 the daughter of Theon the mathematician, was initiated in her father’s studies. 
 Her learned comments have elucidated the geometry of Apollonius and Dio- 
 phantus ; and she publicly taught, both at Athens and Alexandria, the philo- 
 sophy of Plato and Aristotle. In the bloom of beauty, and in the maturity 
 of wisdom, the modest maid refused her lovers, and instructed her disciples. 
 The persons most illustrious for their rank or merit were impatient to visit 
 the female philosopher, and Cyril beheld with jealous eye the gorgeous train 
 of horses and slaves who crowded the door of her academy. A rumour was 
 spread among the Christians, that the daughter of Theon was the only obstacle 
 to the reconciliation of the prefect and the archbishop, and that obstacle was 
 speedily removed... On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypathia was 
 _ torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly 
 butchered by the hands of Peter the reader, and a troop of savage and merci- 
 less fanatics. Her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster shells, 
 and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames. The just progress of 
 inquiry and punishment was stopped by seasonable gifts ; but the murder of 
 Hypathia has imprinted an indelible stain on the character and religion of 
 Cyril of Alexandria.” * 
 
 The connection of Logarithms with the first of the regenerated sciences, is, 
 
 * Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 
 
352 THE LIFE OF 
 
 perhaps, the proudest view that can be taken of them ; and certainly the least 
 fallacious test of the author’s claims, is the instant and ardent homage paid to his 
 genius by philosophers greatly distinguished in rearing the pillars of that most 
 sublime of human monuments, physical astronomy. That Napier was the one 
 destined to create the first important revolution in the means of inquiry which 
 after the dawn of letters enabled the new world of science to surpass the old, was 
 to a certain extent perceived the moment his work became known, though it was 
 impossible to foresee the refined resources of the Newtonian era, to which loga- 
 rithms are so admirably subservient. To the English translation of the Canon 
 Mirificus, which passed through the author’s own hands in manuscript, and 
 received his most cordial imprimatur, many commendatory poems are attached, 
 after the fashion of his times, evincing a more than usual excitement and en- 
 thusiasm. One of them has the following quaint verses, in which some of the 
 lines would not discredit Spencer. 
 
 Pull off your laurel rayes, you learned Greekes, 
 Let ARCHIMED and Evc ip both give way, 
 For though your pithie sawes have past the pikes 
 
 Of all opponents, what they e’er could say, 
 And put all moderne writers to a stay, 
 Yet were they intricate, and of small use 
 Till others their ambiguous knots did loose. 
 
 And bonnets vaile, you Germans! RuETICUS, 
 REIGNOLDUS, OSWALD, and Jonn REGIOMONT, 
 LANSBERGIUS, FINCKIUsS, and CoPpERNICUS, 
 And thou Pitiscus, from whose clearer font 
 We sucked have the sweet from Hellespont. 
 For were your labours ne’er composed so well 
 Great Naprer’s worth they could not parallel. 
 
 By thee great Lord we solve a tedious toyle, 
 In resolution of our trinall lines, 
 We need not now to carke, to care, or moile, 
 Sith from thy witty braine such splendor shines, 
 As dazels much the eyes of deepe divines. 
 Great the invention, greater is the praise, 
 Which thou unto thy nation hence dost raise. * 
 
 We have here a catalogue of those worthies, who before Napier’s time, 
 and after the dawn of letters, were laying the foundations of physical 
 
 * Thomas Bretnor, Mathem. 1616. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 353 
 
 astronomy. Their labours we must first shortly notice, and then turn to 
 those Di majorum gentium who were toiling to rear the superstructure, 
 when Napier appeared to claim for Britain an equal place in that bright 
 page of history to which their names belong. Let us not, however, as we 
 pass, forget Gerbert the monk, more honoured in that simple appellation than 
 even in the title he afterwards attained of Pope Silvester the second. While 
 the science of Greece lay quenched in the dissolution of the Roman Empire, and 
 her very language was forgotten, the Arabs in the East, and the Moors in Spain 
 reaped the honour of preserving both from utter extinction. Gerbert, a Bene- 
 dictine, disgusted with the ignorance of the monkish schools of Europe, sought 
 science in the Moorish Institutions, rich in Arabic versions of the old philoso- 
 phers. He returned like a laden bee, and among his stores appeared the Ara- 
 bic notation, which was more than the Greeks themselves had possessed. 
 Whether India or Arabia gave birth to the system has baffled all inquiry, and 
 the human being who conceived it was destined never to obtain the honour 
 his name deserves. It is the first great revolution in the arithmetic, and 
 consequently in the science of Hurope, and was introduced so early as the 
 tenth century, long before the boon could be well appreciated. Centuries 
 elapsed, however, before Arabic numerals came into active operation, and 
 the claims of their alleged importer are not very distinctly established. 
 He acquired the character of a magician, but escaped the faggot, to reach 
 the loftiest throne in Christendom, that of Antichrist, which the next 
 great benefactor of calculation held in such abhorrence. While darkness 
 still prevailed, another treasure was brought to Europe from the east, os- 
 tensibly of Arabian birth, but now, like the last, generally referred to India. 
 Leonardo of Pisa brought home, with his merchandise, the science of algebra 
 about the commencement of the thirteenth century; but “ the language was 
 very imperfect, corresponding to the infancy of the science, the quantities and 
 the operations being expressed in words with the help only of a few abbrevia- 
 tions.” * These were the resources awaiting philosophers whose high destiny 
 was to restore science to a mightier throne than the one she had lost. But, not- 
 withstanding such valuable acquisitions, the great work of restoration can 
 only be said to have commenced in the fifteenth century, nor was it until the 
 following (in which Napier was born) that the invention of printing began to 
 
 * Playfair. 
 Y¥y 
 
354 THE LIFE OF 
 
 have a decided influence on the progress of letters. These historical facts must 
 be kept in view in order fully to appreciate the merit of our own philosopher, 
 or the rank he holds in the history of science. We must also remember how 
 long it was ere the light so slowly expanding over the continent could reach 
 our less favoured island, and that, while its genial warmth was still almost 
 exclusively confined to the cradle of modern astronomy, an independent ray 
 burst from the least propitious quarter of Britain, whose effect was to consum- 
 mate what had been achieved elsewhere. We have hastily reviewed, in refer- 
 ence to mathematical conquests, that first great period, in the history of science, 
 whose characteristic is the exclusive prevalence of geometrical methods ; a 
 period when the absence of those connecting links which now unite mathema- 
 tics and physics was like the separation of soul and body. Unquestionably 
 the greatest men, in an intellectual point of view, whom the world has ever 
 produced, are those who contributed most largely, not merely to the restora- 
 tion of letters, but to the memorable revolution which has reared physical sci- 
 ence upon the basis of calculation. Considering that Euclid wrote on arith- 
 metic, and how nearly Archimedes had unlocked the treasures of logistic, it is 
 no slight commendation of Napier to exclaim “ Let Archimed and Euclid both 
 “* give way ;” but the praise is still higher, “ and bonnets vail you Germans "” 
 for it was in Germany that science first reared her drooping head, and as we 
 watch her restoration under the new influences of arithmetic and algebra, we 
 hail the second period of her history, and cease to regret the first. 
 
 In the progress of astronomy a branch of science became developed, the im- 
 portant effect of which was to bring the speculative pride of mathematics 
 to minister greatly to physical research. To measure the times and spaces. 
 which fall under the investigation of rational astronomy, was an attempt 
 which could only succeed in the schools of Greece, so far as her philosophers 
 had escaped beyond the enchantments of geometry. Thus it is that Hippar- 
 chus ranks so high in her annals; for in the course of the daring career that led 
 him to catalogue the stars, he applied to a certain extent the science of TR1Go- 
 NOMETRY. Adefinition of this science, derived from the etymology of the word, 
 affords but a feeble sense of its value. Literally, it means the science of the 
 measurement of triangles; but in an extended view, we must call it that which 
 treats of the union betwixt arithmetical and geometrical properties and powers, 
 in the application of mathematics to physics. It is in fact the basis of physi- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 355 
 
 cal astronomy, which is the temple of modern science. The era of trigonome- 
 trical computation is, in the history of human knowledge, the great period of 
 transition from the exquisite effeminacy of geometrical constructions, to the 
 omnipotent independence of algebra; and without which period of transition, 
 the higher geometry could not have been attained. To this era Napier stands 
 in the same relation that Newton does to the last and greatest period of ma- 
 thematical history. 
 
 It is not to Hipparchus that Europe owes the introduction of trigonometry. 
 It came, like other strange gifts, from “ Araby the blest,” before a knowledge 
 of the Greek language had revealed the stores of the schools of Alexandria. 
 “The two men,” says Montucla, “to whom the mathematics are most indebt- 
 ed during the fifteenth century are Purbach and Regiomontanus ;” and it was 
 in their hands that trigonometry received its first essential improvements be- 
 yond both the Grecian and Arabian methods. Purbach, so named from his 
 birth-place in Germany, was born in the year 1423, and, while yet a young 
 man, became professor of astronomy at Vienna, where his fame attracted, as 
 a scholar, the famous John Muller, or Regiomontanus, his junior only by a few 
 years. These two are considered as the first who mark the decided dawn of 
 science. Purbach laboured to relieve, as well as to insure accuracy to, the cal- 
 culations of astronomers, by framing numerical tables of various kinds, and he 
 introduced a most important change in trigonometrical arithmetic, by modify- 
 ing the sexagenary system of Ptolemy in the division of the radius of the 
 circle. In Ptolemy’s table the radius was computed at 60 degrees, by which 
 the chords and sines were expressed. Purbach supposed the radius to be di- 
 vided into 600,000 equal parts, and computed the sines of the arcs, for every 
 ten minutes, in such equal parts of the radius by the decimal notation. His 
 death, at the early age of 38, left the rich field of conquest he had opened, 
 to his pupil Regiomontanus.. This philosopher was even more highly dis- 
 tinguished in every branch of science than his master. That of trigonometry, 
 especially, advanced in his hands to a point which only some extraordinary effort 
 could greatly exceed. He carried the system of Purbach, exclusive of the sexa- 
 genary, so far as to have the merit of introducing the first idea of the ordinary 
 practice of decimal fractions, the most valuable addition to arithmetical science 
 since the introduction of Arabic numerals. Thus numbers obtained as it were 
 both their ¢elescope and microscope, though the instruments were rude, and. 
 comparatively feeble until Napier arose. High as Regiomontanus ranks, he 
 
356 THE LIFE OF 
 
 must indeed “ vail his bonnet” to the Scotchman ; for, in all the proudest eulo- 
 gies of him of Konigsberg, our philosopher’s superiority is expressly admitted. 
 Montucla declares, that Regiomontanus’s system of trigonometry is equal in 
 every respect to that of modern times, if (he adds, however,) we throw out of 
 the comparison the Logarithms, and the trigonometrical theorems of Napier ; 
 and Professor Leslie, in recording the great advance made by the German to- 
 wards decimal fractions, has these observations :—“‘ To count downwards 
 might seem as easy as to reckon upwards. But the mode of denoting the 
 ranks of decimals was then most cumbrous, the successive numerals, like the 
 indices in algebra, being inclosed in small circles. Bayer, in 1619, proposed 
 to substitute for these complex marks an accent repeated. It was our illus- 
 trious countryman Napier, however, that brought the notation of decimals to 
 its ultimate simplicity, having proposed in his Rhabdologia, printed two years 
 earlier, to reject entirely the marks placed over the fractions, and merely to 
 set a point at the end of the units. But his sublime invention of Logarithms 
 about this epoch eclipsed every minor improvement, and as far transcended 
 thedenary notation, as this had surpassed the numeral system of the Greeks.” * 
 Regiomontanus died in 14'75, suddenly cut off, like his master, in the flower 
 of his age, having lived to revolutionize the trigonometrical system of 
 Ptolemy. But a child was already born, from whom the Ptolemaic system of 
 the universe was to receive a signal overthrow. 
 
 NIcHOLAS COPERNICUS, the author of the True System of the World, was 
 born in Prussia about the year 1473. Regiomontanus, says M. Bailly, “ from 
 his deathbed transmitted to the infant Copernicus that torch of astronomy which 
 he had received from Purbach.” Certainly no one could have been worthier to 
 receive it. His genius escaping the enchantments that beset its path, and which 
 dazzled and seduced even his successors, penetrated, through the labyrinths of 
 epicycles and crystalline spheres, back to the throne of Pythagoras where it read 
 the truth. This in itself was no trifling intellectual exertion, for the power of 
 an established system, though it present the most clumsy combinations of ig- 
 norance or accident, may be fortified and even hallowed by time; and the 
 incongruities of this ancient system of the world, being entirely concealed from 
 vulgar sense by optical illusion, were also shrouded or softened to the philoso- 
 phic view by geometrical demonstrations. But the unfettered mind of Coper- 
 
 * Leslie’s continuation of Playfair’s Dissertation. See also Delambre, Histoire de L’ Astrono- 
 mie Moderne, 'T. 1. p. 494. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 357 
 
 nicus brooded over the doctrine of Pythagoras, that the sun alone was worthy 
 to occupy the centre of the system,—from the stores of Cicero he seized the 
 fact, more precious than his eloquence, that Nicetas of Syracuse had accounted 
 for the rising and setting of the stars, by the supposition of the earth’s mo- 
 tion round its own axis ; and from the union of these long-rejected specula- 
 tions, he conceived and formed a planetary system destructive of the Ptole- 
 maic. This invaluable work he reserved for his friends and disciples, and 
 only gave it to the world about the close of his life. In the year 1507, 
 the thirty-fourth of his age, he had already rejected the idols of antiquity, 
 and founded the pillars of physical astronomy; but it was not until the 
 year 1543 that his disciple, Rheticus, undertook to superintend the publica- 
 tion of the new doctrines at Nuremberg. In his preface to the Pope, Coper- 
 nicus deprecates theological calumnies, and claims the powerful protection of 
 Paul III. But he neither lived to endure or to defeat persecution ; stricken 
 in years, he was just able to touch the volume, which his friends had hurried 
 from the press to his deathbed, when he expired in peace, a few years before 
 the birth of Napier. 
 
 Copernicus produced a treatise on trigonometry about the commencement 
 of the sixteenth century ; and his favourite pupil, George Joachim Rheticus, 
 who became professor of mathematics in the University of Wurtemberg, dis- 
 tinguished himself greatly by his trigonometrical canon, published in 1596, 
 which still further advanced the science. About the same time appeared the 
 Geometria Triangulorum of Philip Lansbergius, in four books, enriched with 
 all the increased store of sines, tangents, and secants. Dr Hutton calls this 
 “a brief but very elegant work, the whole being clearly explained, and is per- 
 haps the first set of tables titled with those words.” The same author also 
 mentions the trigonometry of Bartholomew Pitiscus, first published at Franc- 
 fort in the year 1599; and commends it as “ a very compleat work, contain- 
 ing, besides the triangular canon, with its construction and use in resolving 
 triangles, the application of trigonometry to problems of Surveying, Altimetry, 
 Architecture, Geography, Dialling, and Astronomy.”* This is no doubt, “ that 
 clearer font of Hellespont,” to which our philosopher’s quaint eulogist refers. 
 
 Through such hands the science of trigonometry had arrived at great per- 
 fection, and the magic circle, clothed with its full complement of lines and 
 angles, seemed now to menace the heavens. But numerical powers had not 
 
 * History of Trigonometry attached to Hutton’s Tables of Logarithms. 
 
358 THE LIFE OF 
 
 kept pace; so there was an inevitable tendency to shrink from the Herculean 
 task of co-extensive computation, and to relapse into the illusions of sense. It 
 is the remark of Herschel, that, “ in all cases which admit of numeration or 
 measurement, it is of the utmost consequence to obtain precise numerical state- 
 ments, whether in the measure of time, space, or quantity of any kind. Nu- 
 merical precision is the very soul of science, and its attainment affords the 
 only criterion, or at least the best, of the truth of theories, and the correctness 
 of experiments. Thus, it was entirely to the omission of exact numerical de- 
 terminations of quantity that the mistakes and confusion of the Stahlian che- 
 mistry were attributable,—a confusion which dissipated like a morning mist 
 as soon as precision in this respect came to be regarded as essential.”* But 
 while the quantities of chemistry, and the laws of other mundane sciences, or 
 the ordinary estimates of time, space, or velocity, could be readily subjected 
 to the rigor of numbers, the eternal systems to whose vastness trigonometry 
 aspired, presented at each new inspection some Archimedean labour, and it 
 was in vain to attempt precision where there was not the power. 
 
 TycHo BRrAHE, born four years sooner than Napier, was the last philosopher 
 destined to attempt such achievements without the aid of logarithms; yet he 
 was the first of great renown to whom the coming boon was announced, though 
 he lived not to witness their promulgation, or to comprehend the reality of that 
 announcement. He was born in the year 1546, of a noble family in Denmark, 
 still holding its rank there, and became one of the most distinguished astrono- 
 mers of any age or country. He is generally named after Copernicus in the 
 history of all that is illustrious in science; and stands unrivalled for ardour 
 in astronomical pursuits, as well as for the magnificent scale upon which he 
 conducted his observations. He appeared at a critical time for the advance- 
 ment of physical research. The great union betwixt speculative and practical 
 science had been partially effected ; but the applicate means were still in the 
 infant state, to which the talents, zeal, and good fortune of Tycho were emi- 
 nently capable of bringing the necessary impulse. From the rise of this phi- 
 losopher may be dated the era of astronomical instruments, and the establish- 
 ment of a complete practical system. Even his besetting sin had a whole- 
 some effect, being precisely the reverse of what had retarded the Grecian 
 schools. He was fonder of observing than of abstract reflection ; and so greedy 
 
 * Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. This beautiful treatise is not indebted, like 
 Powell’s, to the Scotch Dissertations. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 359 
 
 of practical excitement, that he occupied his whole genius with the means of gra- 
 tifying that taste. In the early part of his career he is said to have applied 
 himself diligently to discover the philosopher’s stone, and for the most part of 
 his life was as much devoted to chemistry as his loftier pursuits would allow. 
 Two events of his youth seemed to augur a less favourable career in life than 
 what afterwards befel him. Having engaged in a dispute with a friend on 
 the subject of mathematics, the young philosophers brought the question to 
 the arbitrement of their swords, and Tycho lost his nose. This combat took 
 place at seven o’clock of a dark evening in December, the very stars hiding 
 themselves for shame. But the future King of Uranibourg was no ways 
 daunted by his loss, and the manner in which he supplied it is characteristic of 
 the magnificence of all his ideas and habits. He would have disdained that 
 savage borrowing from the forehead, of which modern surgery is so vain; and 
 he rather gloried in an opportunity of obtaining a finer nose than any other 
 man. Accordingly, he framed one of gold, silver, and ivory, exquisitely mingled, 
 and with this he feared not to look Heaven in the face.* Shortly afterwards, 
 he fell in love with a beautiful peasant girl, and married her, to the great 
 displeasure of his noble family, who treated him so rigorously in consequence, 
 that the King of Denmark thought it necessary to interpose his good offices. 
 This gave rise to the illustrious patronage which was fortunate for science. 
 Frederick II. proved himself to be worthier of Tycho for a subject, than 
 James VI. was of Napier. The King of Scotland aspired to be a patron of 
 pedagogues, while his greatest philosopher, the most unobtrusive of human 
 beings, was constrained to remind him, “ that here are within your realm 
 (as well as in other countries) godly and good ingynes, versed and exercised 
 in all manner of honest science and godly discipline, who, by your Majesties 
 instigation, might yield forth works and fruits worthy of memory, which 
 otherwise (lacking some mighty Mecenas to incourage them) may perhaps be 
 buried with eternal silence.” At the date of this letter, King James had just 
 returned from visiting Tycho at Uranibourg. There, on the island of Huen, 
 situated at the mouth of the Baltic, Frederick had placed his philosopher on 
 a prouder throne than his own, adding honours and revenues, and every aid 
 
 * Histoire des Philosophes Modernes par M. Sayerien. Tome V. p. 40. The author adds, 
 «“ qu’il étoit si bien fait et si bien ajusté, que tout le monde le croyoit naturel. Cela peut étre, 
 mais on ne congoit pas comment J’or et l’argent pouvoient imiter la chair, ces deux métaux étoient 
 apparement caches.” 
 
360 THE LIFE OF 
 
 and encouragement that an astronomer could desite. Arabia had been lavish 
 of her stores to renovated science, and now her most romantic tales of magic 
 splendour seemed realized in the north. Upon the 8th of August 1576, the 
 first stone of the far-famed castle of Uranibourg was laid in Tycho’s principality. 
 The island, about eight miles in circumference, rises by a gentle elevation so 
 as to command the sea and the horizon on all sides, and the edifice with which 
 it was honoured was as royal as the gift. It was of a quadrangular form, 
 the dimensions being sixty feet every way, and flanked with lofty towers 
 thirty-two feet in diameter, the observatories of this palace of science. Ty- 
 cho’s whole establishment was in keeping with the magnificence of his dwel- 
 ling, where his gold and ivory nose seemed no longer out of place. Like 
 other potentates, he kept an idiot, but gifted with second sight, who, as we 
 have elsewhere noted, sat at his feet at meals. Tycho is also said to have 
 fitted up his palace with certain mysterious tubes, and other telegraphic con- 
 trivances, which enabled him to communicate with his domestics as if by 
 magic, and to obtain secret knowledge of his many visitors long before their 
 arrival. 
 
 But could the King of Denmark have given his philosopher the Loga- 
 rithms, he would have done more for his fame. If, to Arabic splendour, he 
 could have added the power that still lay hid in Arabic numbers, a false sys- 
 tem of the world might not have been re-established at Huen. With such 
 numerical aid, Tycho’s observations, escaping the illusions of sense, would 
 have become imbued with what Herschel so justly calls, “ the very soul of 
 science ;” and thus, gifted with powers of calculation beyond even his pupil 
 Kepler, it might not have been left for the latter to become “ the legislator of 
 the heavens.” Tycho catalogued the stars with an accuracy, and to an extent 
 which threw the labours of Hipparchus and Ptolemy for ever into shade. His 
 instruments, “ were of far greater size, more skilfully contrived, and more 
 nicely divided, than any that had yet been directed to the heavens. By means 
 of them he could measure angles to ten seconds, which may be accounted sixty 
 times the accuracy of the instrument of Ptolemy, or of any that had belong- 
 ed to the school of Alexandria.” But he was, comparatively speaking, 
 feeble in calculation, so he wasted his genius in framing systems out of his 
 own imagination, and fortifying them with his ingenuity. Rejecting that of 
 Copernicus, he took vast credit to himself for superseding the Ptolemaic Sys- 
 tem with his own, which was, pat the sun, attended with the whole cortege: 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 361 
 
 of revolving stars, performed the grand revolution round the central and sta- 
 tionary earth. “ If Tycho had lived before Copernicus, his system would have 
 been a step in the advancement of science; coming after him it was a step 
 backward.” His illustrious pupil Kepler, however, has left a record of what 
 calculation could do to redeem the mind from such erratic flights. He under- 
 took the Herculean task of unravelling the irregular orbit of the planet Mars, 
 and succeeded in determining the relative position of the sun, both in respect 
 of Mars and of the earth, and thus laid the foundation for the true solar system. 
 But in doing so he had to grapple with calculations to which few men in Eu- 
 rope but himself and Napier were equal. “ The industry and~patience of 
 Kepler in this investigation were not less remarkable than his ingenuity and 
 invention. Logarithms were not yet known, so that arithmetical computation, 
 when pushed to great accuracy, was carried on at a vast expense of time and 
 labour. In the calculation of every opposition of Mars, the work filled ten 
 folio pages, and Kepler repeated each calculation ten times, so that the whole 
 work for each opposition extended to one hundred such pages; seven opposi- 
 tions thus calculated produced a large folio volume.” * 
 
 It is a remarkable fact, and not generally known, that Tycho Brahe was 
 informed of the boon to be conferred upon science, in a very direct communi- 
 cation from Napier himself, twenty years before our philosopher’s other avo- 
 cations, added to the labour of the computations, and his own diffidence, suffer- 
 ed him to give the logarithms to the world. We have already noticed that 
 Sir Archibald Napier’s colleague in the office of justice-depute was Sir Tho- 
 mas Craig of Riccarton. Betwixt the Feudist’s third son, John Craig, and 
 John Napier, a friendship grew up, of which the source is not to be doubted. 
 Young Craig was devoted to mathematical studies, and, although not gifted 
 with those lofty capacities which have placed his friend among the lights of 
 the world, he was an excellent mathematician. There is, indeed, one record 
 which of itself is sufficient to hallow the memory of Dr Craig, though it is 
 rarely met with in his own country, and still seldomer perused. I allude to 
 a small volume of Latin epistles printed at Brunswick in the year 1737, 
 and dedicated by their collector, Rud, Aug. Noltenius, to the Duke of Bruns- 
 wick. The three first letters in the collection are from Craig to Tycho Brahe, 
 and prove that he was upon the most friendly and confidential footing with the 
 Danish astronomer. He addresses Tycho as his “ honored friend,” and signs 
 
 * Playfair’s Dissertation. 
 ZZ 
 
362 THE LIFE OF 
 
 himself “your most affectionate John Craig, doctor of philosophy and medicine.” 
 The first letter thus commences: “ About the beginning of last winter that 
 magnificent man Sir William Stuart delivered to me your letter and the book 
 you sent.” The date is not given, but I have seen a mathematical work of 
 Tycho’s in the library of the Edinburgh University, which bears upon the 
 first blank leaf a manuscript sentence in Latin to the following effect: “ To 
 Doctor John Craig of Edinburgh in Scotland, a most illustrious man, and 
 highly gifted with varied and excellent learning, Professor of Medicine, and 
 exceedingly skilled in the mathematics, Tycho Brahe hath sent this gift, and 
 with his own hand hath written this at Uraniburg, 2 November 1588.” It 
 appears from contemporary chronicles, that, in the month of August 1588, Sir 
 William Stuart, commanding the King’s guard, the same who may have 
 been the bearer of Napier’s catoptric proposals to the secretary of Essex, 
 was sent to Denmark to arrange the preliminaries of the King’s marriage, and 
 that he returned to Edinburgh upon the 15th of November 1588. There can 
 be no doubt that the book in the College Library is that referred to in Craig’s 
 epistle to Tycho, which must have been written, therefore, in the begin- 
 ning of the year 1589. Neither can it be doubted that this was Sir Thomas 
 Craig’s third son, Dr John Craig, physician to King James. Napier men- 
 tions him in a letter to his own son, quoted in a previous chapter, where he 
 says, “ Ye sal mind me to Doctor Craig ;” which letter is dated 1608, when 
 Napier’s son and the King’s physician were both with his Majesty in England. 
 
 That fine old gossip, Anthony a Wood, picked up a story of Napier, Dr 
 Craig, and the Logarithms, which he thus recorded in the Athene Oxonienses. 
 
 “It must be now known, that one Dr Craig, a Scotchman, perhaps the 
 same mentioned in the Fasti, under the year 1605, among the incorporation, 
 coming out of Denmark into his own country, called upon Joh. Neper, Baron 
 of Mercheston, near Edinburgh, and told him, among other discourses, of a 
 new invention in Denmark (by Longomontanus, as ’tis said,) to save the tedious 
 multiplication and division in astronomical calculations. Neper being solici- 
 tous to know farther of him concerning this matter, he could give no other 
 account of it than that it was by proportional numbers. Which hint Neper 
 taking, he desired him at his return to call upon him again. Craig, after some 
 weeks had passed, did so, and Neper then showed him a rude draught of what 
 he called Canon mirabilis Logarithmorum. Which draught, with some alte- 
 rations, he printing in 1614, it came forthwith into the hands of our author 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 363 
 
 Briggs, and into those of Will. Oughtred, from whom the relation of this 
 matter came.” * 
 
 It is singular that authors who ought toknowsomething of the theory of loga- 
 rithms have been led by this anecdote to refer their conception in Napier’s mind 
 to such a casual accident, and the production of the canon mirificus to the cogi- 
 tation of afew weeks. Even Dr Charles Hutton, whose mathematical works are 
 so valuable, adopts the opinion, that our philosopher was thus “ urged into action,” 
 and quotes the anecdote as if he believed it literally. Another philosophical 
 writer alludes to the same story in support of his proposition, that Napier’s 
 mind was very ready to take a hint in such matters.+ A hint! why the 
 whole world had been in possession of one since the days of Archimedes. If a 
 hint could have urged any human mind thus rapidly upon the theory of the Lo- 
 garithms, there was a hint which arose in the school of Alexandria, which was 
 submerged in the middle ages, and rose again with the letters of Greece ; 
 which Tycho had—which Stifellius, Byrgius, Longomontanus, and above all 
 
 Craig, a Scot, doct. of phys. of the 
 
 * The passage referred to in the Fasti is as follows: “ 
 university of Basil. This is all that appears of him in the public register. So that whether he 
 be the same with another of the Dr Craigs, the King’s physicians, one of whom died in Apr. 
 1620, I know not; or whether he be Joh. Cragg Dr of Phys., author of a MS. entit. Capnu- 
 ranie seu Comet. in Aithera Sublimationis Refutatio, written in qu. to Tycho Brahe, a Dane, I 
 am altogether ignorant.” But upon comparing the letters quoted in the text with other records 
 and dates, it is manifest, that John Craig, King’s physician, and the author of the MS. to 
 Tycho, are one and the same person. There was no other Craig in that capacity, that I am 
 aware of; but there was the well-known Dr John Craig, “ Minister of God’s word to the 
 King’s Majesty,” who was the relative and preceptor of Sir Thomas Craig, and died at the age 
 of 88, in the year 1600. James Baillie, in his Life of Sir Thomas Craig, prefixed to his works, 
 says that the Feudist’s second son was Sir James Craig of Castle Craig and Craigston in Ire- 
 land, and that he left his fortune to his immediate younger brother, “ Joanni Cragio, qui 
 Jacobo VI. medicus ordinarius, Carolo I. archiater fuit.”. Mr Tytler, inhis Life of Craig, p. 246, 
 also says that John Craig, “ became successively physician to James VI. and Charles I.” But Dr 
 Craig died before the reign of Charles I.; for in the Feedera, I find the royal gift of James VI. “dilec- 
 to nobis Johanni Craigio in medicinis doctori officium et locum ordinarii et: primarii medici nostri,” 
 with a hundred pounds of English money per annum, and various perquisites, dated at Westmin- 
 ster, 20th June 1603; and in the same record appears the like gift, dated 9th July 1620, “ Jacobo 
 Chambers in medicinis doctori officium et locum ordinarii medici nostri quod Johannes Craige 
 defunctus nuper tenuit.” The evidence seems complete, that the third son of Sir Thomas Craig,— 
 Napier’s friend,—Tycho’s correspondent,—and King James’ Physician were all one and the same 
 
 John Craig, who died in 1620. 
 + Tilloch’s Philosophical Magazine, Vol. xviii. p. 53. See also Hutton’s Mathematical Diction- 
 
 ary, Napier ; and article Napier in Brewster’s Encyclopedia. 
 
364 THE LIFE OF 
 
 which Kepler had—and all made no more of it than Archimedes had done. 
 If our philosopher really broke the spell in an afternoon’s reflection upon a 
 forenoon’s conversation with Dr Craig, he is a greater man than we took 
 him for; but we shall find that Napier kept beside him, unknown to the 
 world, the construction of his canon, under the name of “ Tabula Artificialis,’ 
 for years before he envented the word Logarithms ; therefore Wood is clearly 
 wrong when he says that Napier called the rude draught (assumed to have 
 been constructed for the occasion) “ Canon Mirabilis Logarithmorum.” The 
 story, however, is not without foundation. Kepler, in a letter to his friend 
 Cugerus, chiefly regarding the economy of the heavenly bodies, after revelling 
 in all the unapproachable sublimities of his calculations, and naming and com- 
 menting upon the most illustrious benefactors of trigonometry, exclaims, 
 “ But nothing, in my mind, surpasses the method of Napier, although a 
 certain Scotchman, even in the year 1594, held out some promise of that 
 wonderful canon in a letter to Tycho.”* That this correspondent was Dr 
 John Craig cannot be doubted when the fact is coupled with what we have 
 noticed above. Craig had long intended to pay Tycho a visit, as appears 
 from his own account in the letter he wrote to that philosopher in 1589. He 
 there states, that five years before, he made an attempt to reach Urani- 
 bourg, but had been baffled by storms and the inhospitable rocks of Norway, 
 and that ever since, being more and more attracted by the accounts brought 
 by ambassadors and others, of Tycho’s fame, and the magnificent scale of his 
 observatory, he had been longing to visit him. It is not at all unlikely, there- 
 fore, that James VI., who in the year 1590 spent some days at Uranibourg 
 before returning to Scotland, had been encouraged in the idea of paying his 
 
 * Nihil autem supra Neperianam rationem esse puto: etsi quidem, Scotus quidam literis at 
 Tychonem A. CIdIOxcIv scriptis jam spem fecit Canonis illius Mirifici. Petrus Cucerus, 
 to whom the letter is addressed, a mathematician of Dantzick, and the master of the celebrated Hel- 
 velius, was a favourite correspondent of Kepler’s. The volume in which the above occurs is Kep- 
 lert Epistole, a splendid folio, published under the auspices of the Emperor Charles VI. by Mi- 
 chael Gottlieb Hanschius. I was anxious to see this volume, but could find it nowhere in Scot- 
 land, nor could I procure a copy from London. Dr Irving, however, obtained one from Germany, 
 whichis now in the Advocates’ Library. Napier is particularly mentioned by the learned editor in his 
 prefatory notice of great men,—“ Non hic reticenda est Jo. Neprert, Baronis Merchistonii Scoti, 
 inventio Canonis Mirifict Logarithmorum,’—he mistakes, however, the import of Kepler's ex- 
 pressions, the gloss on tne margin being Canon Mirificus an Nepperi ? But Kepler meant to 
 
 imply no such doubt, as will afterwards appear from his own letter to Napier, which is not in this 
 collection. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 365 
 
 respects to the philosopher from the suggestion of Dr Craig, who was so long 
 about his person in a medical capacity, and ultimately at the head of his me- 
 dical board. Craig, of course, seized the propitious opportunity of the royal 
 progress, to visit his friend, and we may well imagine, that among the first 
 to whom on his return to Scotland he narrated all that he had seen and 
 heard at Huen, was John Napier. Something must have passed betwixt 
 them as to the trigonometrical difficulties experienced by Tycho and his 
 assistant Longomontanus, in the vast field of their researches; and Kep- 
 ler was too well acquainted with the prince of Uranibourg, and his corre- 
 spondence, not to be worthy of the fullest credit when he says, that Tycho’s 
 friend in Scotland wrote him a promise of the Logarithms so early as 1594. 
 We have looked in vain for that letter, which Kepler probably had only heard 
 of, as he did not join Tycho until after the expulsion of the latter from his 
 island in 1597.* Enough, however, is here afforded completely to refute the 
 idea which some have adopted from the anecdote in Wood. If, on the return 
 of Craig from Denmarkin 1590, Napier had actually framed his canon for the spe- 
 cial purpose supposed, the boon would not have remained unheard of for more 
 than twenty years ; and if the hint from Longomontanus was of a nature to lead 
 thus suddenly to the discovery, surely the Danish philosopher might himself have 
 made something of the matter when, in addition to his own idea, hereceived through 
 Craig a new hint in the account of Napier’s success. The fact is, that no hints 
 could so quickly generate the logarithms, the discovery of which was the fruit of 
 most original, profound, and laborious abstraction. That our philosopher delay- 
 
 * There is an anachronism committed, supra, p. 147. Kepler did not join Tycho until the 
 expulsion of the latter from Uranibourg. But Longomontanus was with him there for eight years, 
 and Dr Brewster (Life of Newton, p. 122,) is mistaken in supposing that he only joined him as 
 a pupil at the time Kepler did. Of all Tycho’s pupils and assistants at Uranibourg, the most dis- 
 tinguished was Longomontanus, the son of a labourer, and so called from his birth place in Ger- 
 many. It was the affectation of the times to construct sonorous names from the birth-place ; such 
 as, Fheticus, Dithmarthus, Regiomontanus. Kepler was sometimes called, for the same reason, 
 Leomontanus. There is no notice in the works of Longomontanus that he had acquired the 
 slightest foreknowledge of the Logarithms; and, according to Vossius and Montucla, he survived 
 Napier for nearly thirty years, nor ever hinted such aclaim. The learned Thomas Smith notices 
 the anecdote of Wood to reject it, and adds, in reference to Longomontanus, “ an vero quicquam 
 simile aut quovis modo analogum, hac ex parte prestiterit celeberrimus ille Tychonis discipulus, 
 alitér fame in se ex scriptis editis et inventis derivande cupidissimus, nullibi ab illo memoratum 
 reperio. Inventum hoc prorsus mirabile czlesti ingenio Nepert unicé debetur.”— Vite Hrudissi- 
 
 morum, &¢. 4 
 
366 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ed the publication long after he had achieved the conquest, may easily be ac- 
 counted for both by the nature of the tables he had to construct, and of his 
 own diffident and retiring disposition. 
 
 Tycho Brahe did not live to obtain the benefit of a discovery which thus 
 seems to have been first reported to himself on his throne of science. Soon 
 after the date of that communication, his reverse of fortune occurred which 
 so cruelly interrupted his studies. The death of his kind patron Frede- 
 rick II. left him a prey to faction, and the grand master of the king’s house- 
 hold was his enemy. The pretext of economy, a never-failing recourse of 
 all rising factions, was listened to as a reason for breaking up the establish- 
 ment at Huen. And Tycho was driven from Uranibourg, where for five 
 and twenty years he had made acquaintance with the stars, and spread the 
 light of science far and wide. He was deprived of the throne before which 
 kings had bowed, and in his declining years was turned adrift with his fa- 
 mily to seek an asylum elsewhere. The latest biographer of Newton has (most 
 unjustly we think) bitterly reproached England for her treatment of her 
 own philosopher. ‘“ Such disregard,” are his words, “ of the highest genius, 
 dignified by the highest virtue, could have taken place only in England, and 
 we should have ascribed it to the turbulence of the age in which he lived, had 
 we not seen in the history of another century that the successive governments 
 which preside over the destinies of our country, have never been able either 
 to feel or to recognize the true nobility of genius.”* But England, who 
 did not thus disgrace herself, would, in the worst fit of economy that 
 ever afflicted her, have shrunk from treating Newton as Denmark treated 
 Tycho. To the honour of Germany, Rodolph II. received the wanderer, 
 and his faithful Longomontanus, at Prague, and re-established him in a faint 
 reflection of his former state. It was under this emperor’s patronage that 
 he received as a coadjutor the immortal Kepler, which might have con- 
 soled him for the loss of Uranibourg. His health, however, was broken, and 
 he died at the age of fifty-five, in the year 1601, when speculative and prac- 
 
 * This severe sentence has a ludicrous effect when contrasted with the index of the very work 
 in which it occurs. ‘“ Mr Newton, warden of the Mint, in 1695—appointed master of the Mint 
 in 1699—elected associate of the Academy of Sciences in 1699—Member for Cambridge in 1701 
 —President of the Royal Society in 1703—Queen Anne confers upon him the honour of knight- 
 hood in 1705—His death 1727—His body lies in state—He is buried in Westminster Abbey— 
 A medal struck in honour of him—Roubilliac’s full length statue of him erected in Cambridge.” 
 —Dr Brewster's Life of Newton. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 367 
 
 tical science were both on the very eve of obtaining the two greatest impulses 
 they ever received, Logarithms and the Telescope. 
 
 In reference to the state of science, no less than to the scientific fame of this 
 country, Napier’s discovery was admirably timed. Kepler was in the act of 
 examining the orbits of the planets, to the destruction of Tycho’s system, but 
 at the expense of calculations, which, had the Scotch philosopher not come to 
 his aid, would have killed him. Galileo had just turned the telescope to the 
 stars, and disclosed a scene which added so vastly to the field of inquiry that 
 trigonometry was paralysed, and could grasp the heavens no longer. But be- 
 fore proceeding with the history of the Canon Mirificus, we must pause to do 
 homage to him, “ the starry Galileo,” for he was suffering the persecution of the 
 Romish Church at the very time when Napier’s treatise against Antichrist was 
 creating a sensation on the continent; and the treatment he met with affords 
 another contradiction to Brewster’s condemnation of England. 
 
 He was born at Pisa in the year 1564, fourteen years later than Napier. 
 His father was a Florentine nobleman, highly distinguished for his taste and 
 accomplishments, and rather averse to the philosophical propensities which dis- 
 played themselves in his son at an early age. But Galileo overcame every ob- 
 stacle, and devoted his whole mind to physical research. His open hostility to 
 the schoolmen, necessarily placed him in imminent danger at an early period of 
 his career, and he was soon forced to take refuge in Padua from the bigotted 
 faction of his country. There, in 1592, he obtained the professorship of mathe- 
 matics, which he graced for nearly twenty years with a reputation constantly in- 
 creasing, until Cosmo II., the son and successor of Ferdinand his original patron, 
 courted his return to Pisa, and placed him at the head of the science of his 
 country with every mark of honour and means of independence. Galileo had 
 then ample opportunity to apply the whole powers of his penetrating obser- 
 vation against the ancient systems, which he fearlessly derided. While a storm 
 was gathering around this determined enemy of Aristotle and Ptolemy, Pro- 
 vidence placed in his hand that discovery which became the acme at once of 
 his triumph and his persecution. Some superficial observer had detected the 
 fact, that a certain combination of glasses magnified objects seen through them. 
 Galileo, who in that sickly age of philosophy already reasoned like a Baconian, 
 and was the most penetrating of experimentalists, brought the popular fact un- 
 der the question of his severest scrutiny, and extorted from nature her secret of 
 the telescope. It would prolong his biography beyond the purpose of this sktech, 
 
368 THE LIFE OF 
 
 to follow minutely the triumph. His own account, so graphically given in the 
 Sidereus Nuncius, of his gradual approach, through a long chain of optical 
 experiment, from the fact he scrutinized to the complete instrument, the as- 
 tounding success of its first application, and his details, con amore, of those 
 ethereal visions of immortal light, gradually disclosing their unheard of eco- 
 nomy, complete the most splendid picture in the history of applicate science, 
 and compose a narrative more fascinating than an eastern tale, and more ex- 
 citing than the fictions of romance. In our long enlightened age, we can scarcely 
 appreciate the triumph of Galileo. He obtained the homage of kings, and 
 became domesticated in palaces. ‘The most important result, and to him infi- 
 nitely above the favour of princes, was the visible demonstration which the 
 telescope afforded of the truth of the Copernican system. Not only by unfold- 
 ing the immensity of creation, and the lavish economy of the heavenly bodies, 
 were the pretensions of our own planet to repose in the centre of such a sys- 
 tem rendered palpably ridiculous, but facts were disclosed of a nature to force 
 conviction upon the most unwilling. It had been objected to Copernicus, 
 that, if his theory of the heavenly bodies were correct, some of the planets, 
 especially Venus, while describing an orbit round the sun, and betwixt that 
 luminary and the earth, would present phases like the moon. Copernicus met 
 the objection in the boldest manner. He saw the necessity of the deduction, 
 and maintained, that were it not for the minute sparkle of the distant planet, 
 her phases would be visible. Galileo, by the most persevering observations, 
 found the fact to be precisely as predicted. He might have despaired had he 
 only discovered the satellites of Jupiter, and we may imagine the feverish 
 anxiety with which he sought to redeem this special pledge of Tycho’s prede- 
 cessor, and almost dreaded the result of each new developement. The predic- 
 tion of Copernicus was so bold, the field of research so vast, that to doubt and 
 
 tremble for the result might be forgiven in the most ardent and indomitable 
 of his disciples. 
 
 At VENUus etherios inter Dea candida nimbos 
 Dona ferens aderat. 
 
 Ille Dez donis et tanto letus honore 
 
 Expleri nequit, atque oculos per singula volvit, 
 Miraturque ! 
 
 From night to night, a season to him of more than diurnal excitement or 
 meridian splendour, he followed with sleepless assiduity the bright steps of the 
 beautiful goddess, detected, with trembling devotion, the coy planet in all her 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 369 
 
 phases, and he remembered his master. “ Oh Nicholas Copernicus ' he ex- 
 claimed, “ how would’st thou have exulted at this evidence of thy truth !” 
 
 The life of Galileo had its phases like the planets. The terrors of the In- 
 quisition were then more than a match for philosophers and princes, and it 
 was not likely that discoveries which so greatly increased the rising tide of 
 universal reformation, would escape the keenest persecution of the church. 
 The system of Copernicus was, comparatively, little dreaded by the Jesuits 
 until they found it so powerfully pressed upon the conviction even of the vul- 
 gar, by the most fascinating application to their senses. It was not at once, 
 however, that they could attempt to crush a philosopher, whose lofty genius 
 and unprecedented success had drawn around him a brilliant and powerfulcircle, 
 which he daily enlightened. But the extreme popularity of his dialogues on the 
 rival systems, and the ridicule with which they overwhelmed the adversa- 
 ries of Copernicus, roused the Inquisition. Not all the power of his friends 
 could shield the aged philosopher ; and it is sad to think, that such a name as 
 Galileo’s should be connected with the darkest secrets of the Inquisition. Some 
 phrases in the sentence pronounced against him create a suspicion, that the 
 holy tribunal had privately inflicted torture upon the noble Florentine for the 
 purpose of reducing his spirit to obedience. ‘The details of this disgusting judi- 
 cial process against one of the greatest benefactors of science are too painful to 
 be dwelt upon. The result was the celebrated abjuration, which the church 
 has put on record to its own eternal disgrace as a judicial establishment. The 
 composition cf that oath dictated by the Inquisition,—its blasphemous energy 
 of style,—the solemn ignorance of its details,—the very first words, “ I, 
 Galileo Galilei, aged seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, 
 and kneeling before you most eminent, and most reverend Lords Cardinals, 
 general inquisitors of the universal Christian republic against heretical depra- 
 vity,” &c.—the seven cardinals signing their own immortal infamy,—compose 
 the severest satire ever penned against the Church of Rome. Why have all 
 the distinguished philosophers of our own times not done justice to the 
 memory of the illustrious Galileo, who in his will so pathetically and con- 
 fidently bequeathed his fame to after ages ? Delambre has hastily censured 
 him for want of sincerity ; and Brewster, a disciple of light, has arraigned 
 him at the bar of public opinion with more solemn and elaborate injustice, 
 “ On the 22d June 1633,” says Newton’s biographer, “ Galileo signed an ab- 
 
 juration humiliating to himself, and degrading to philosophy. At the age of 
 3A 
 
370 THE LIFE OF 
 
 seventy, on his bended knees, and with his right hand resting on the Holy 
 Evangelists, did this patriarch of science avow his present and past belief in 
 all the dogmas of the Romish Church, abandon as false and heretical the doc- 
 trine of the earth’s motion, and of the sun’s immobility, and pledge himself to 
 denounce to the Inquisition any other person who was even suspected of he- 
 resy. He abjured, cursed, and detested those eternal and immutable truths, 
 which the Almighty had permitted him to be the first to establish. What a 
 mortifying picture of moral depravity and intellectual weakness ! If the un- 
 holy zeal of the Assembly of Cardinals has been branded with infamy, what 
 must we think of the venerable sage, whose gray hairs were entwined with 
 the chaplet of immortality, quailing under the fear of man, and sacrificing the 
 convictions of his conscience, and the deductions of his reason, at the altar of 
 a base superstition ? Had Galileo but added the courage of the martyr to the 
 wisdom of the sage,—had he carried the glance of his indignant eye round 
 the circle of his judges,*—had he lifted his hands to Heaven, and called the 
 living God to witness the truth and immutability of his opinions, the bigotry 
 of his enemies would have been disarmed, and science would have enjoyed a 
 memorable triumph.” 
 
 It is impossible to admit that this is either true to the character, or just to 
 the conduct, of Galileo. The most gentle and least pugnacious are fond to 
 picture lofty conceptions of indomitable bearing, which yet might desert the 
 stoutest in the hour of need; and from the bosom of security it is not difficult 
 to pronounce an eloquent anathema against extorted apostacy, and to flatter 
 ourselves that we would have remained unmoved amid terrors, and mute 
 under torture. But it should not be forgotten that the spirit of Galileo, 
 though shattered by the weight of seventy years, and many a physical 
 infirmity, still required the earnest and anxious persuasions of judicious 
 friends to subdue it. Alas! for such weapons against the most holy In- 
 quisition, as.the trembling invocation of aged hands, and the indignant glance 
 of an old man’s eye, whose vision had been already sacrificed at the fountains 
 
 * By this time Galileo was nearly blind from the use of his telescope, and not long afterwards 
 became totally blind. Newton’s biographer, (p. 139,) ingrafts a sentiment of his own upon the 
 eloquence of M. Bailly ; “ C’est un singulier spectacle que celui d’un yieillard couvert de cheveux 
 blanchis par étude, par ses veilles, par ses bienfaits envers les hommes, A genoux devant le livre 
 le plus respectable, abjurant la vérité aux yeux de I’Italie qu'il avoit éclairée, malgré le temoinage 
 de sa propre conscience, et contre la nature entiére qui manifeste cette vérité.” But Bailly con- 
 demns the judges, not the pe eter otass Moderne, Tome ii. p- 1380. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 371 
 
 of light. There is an obvious fallacy, too, which pervades the moral senti- 
 ment of the author quoted, when he bewails the absence of the “ courage of a 
 martyr from the conduct of the sage.” To expire calmly under torture, as an 
 evidence of believing, has substantial meaning in the cause where, farth is life, 
 though even in that cause it is not for mortal man to condemn the frailty of 
 the flesh shrinking under terror or torture. But when the idea-is extend- 
 ed beyond the case of adherence to the Christian creed, the necessity or 
 beauty of martyrdom assumes a very different, perhaps an equivocal aspect. 
 Unprotected by mortal power, unsustained by those immortal visions which 
 the martyrs of the church found mightier than the help of man, was that il- 
 lustrious philosopher, bending under a load of infirmities, brought before a 
 tribunal whose actual terrors romance cannot exaggerate. Had he called 
 God to witness the truth of demonstration, and sacrificed his life “ at the altar 
 of a base superstition,” where would have been the triumph to science ? the 
 melancholy scene would not have added an atom to the evidence of physical 
 truths—not a convert to the system of Copernicus. If, in the particular in- 
 stance, Galileo did not display the courage of the martyr, it cannot be de- 
 nied that he eminently possessed the daring of a man. In character and 
 temperament he resembled his friend Kepler, and it was the persevering 
 and satirical independence of his tone, which ultimately brought him un- 
 der the ban of the Inquisition. There cannot be a stronger proof of 
 his spirit than the exclamation with which, old, and feeble, and subdued 
 as he was, he accompanied his extorted oath. To him the whole pa- 
 geantry of the abjuration appeared a ludicrous satire on his judges. Tho- 
 roughly imbued with a feeling of the necessity of demonstrated truth, to 
 him it was the same to be compelled to call God to witness against any self- 
 evident proposition, as that the system of Copernicus was false; and toa 
 mind, accustomed like his to mount so easily from proposition to proposition 
 in the ascending scale of mathematical certainty, it was not more absurd to 
 forswear that two and two make four, than those eternal truths which the 
 very evidence of his senses had confirmed. Regarding the ignorant energy 
 of the abjuration dictated to him, as supremely ridiculous, the venerable phi- 
 losopher, when rising from the kneeling attitude, struck the earth with his 
 foot, and murmured to his friends,—“ J¢ moves, nevertheless.” 
 
 Bailly, in his eloquent history of astronomy, observes, that, with the 
 
372 THE LIFE OF 
 
 aid of the telescope, man had penetrated far into space, and yet that nature, 
 in opening so many paths to truth, would have done nothing for mankind, 
 had she not also afforded the means of economising time; that physical 
 researches increasing in multitude, depth, and nicety, required the aid of nu- 
 merical calculation to an infinite extent, the labour of which left philosophers 
 with broken spirits and a prey to disgusts; that the same calculations which 
 now occupy a month, were then the labour of three years, and that Kepler 
 alone was unsubdued by the tyranny of logistic. But, he adds, “ Le baron de 
 Neper, Ecossois, montra des routes plus faciles, et ila rendu son nom immor- 
 tel, comme celui des bienfaiteurs du monde.” While Denmark had Tycho, 
 France Vieta, Germany Kepler, and Italy Galileo, Britain was absolutely ray- 
 less by comparison ; for Roger Bacon belonged to an obsolete era, Francis 
 Bacon was yet a statesman, and the works of Harriot were not published until 
 many years after the death of Napier. ‘The moment, however, it came to be 
 understood, that, by the exertions of a single individual, NUMBERS were revo- 
 lutionized,—and in their loftiest department the science of trigonometry,—all 
 eyes were turned to Scotland. Nor is this a partial and local sentiment. From 
 Bailly we have drawn a description of the painful struggles of science while 
 her best wing was fettered, and from Montucla we shall cull a picture of her 
 daring flight the moment that wing was free. 
 
 “ Among the ages which have successively contributed to the advancement of 
 the sciences, that which is now fleeting away (the 18th century) holds undoubt- 
 edly the highest rank, and probably no succeeding age will deprive it of that ele- 
 vation. Far be it from us to fix a limit to the human mind. Who knows the last 
 boundary of knowledge, or where she must stay her step! Day after day uttereth 
 knowledge, and to disregard the progress of discovery would be to withhold 
 unjustly the tribute that is due to our illustrious contemporaries. Still, 
 when we regard the wonderful flight which the sciences, and especially the 
 mathematics, took in the seventeenth century, we must admit, that, what- 
 ever perfection they may receive from succeeding ages, a vast portion even 
 of their glory will ever reflect back upon the age which so propitiously com- 
 menced the career. How brilliant is the spectacle which that era presents ! 
 How fascinating and admirable to the philosophic eye! If we turn to the 
 pure mathematics, we find in the first years of that century LOGARITHMs, 
 that invention so ingenious, and whose utility surpasses its ingenuity. We per- 
 ceive the algebraic analysis, or the resolution of equations, greatly advanced 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 373 
 
 by the discoveries of Harriot, Descartes, Newton, Halley. A new geome- 
 try, generated in the hands of Cavalleri, and cultivated by others, aspires 
 to researches far beyond the penetration of antiquity. Descartes in the mean- 
 while explores another path, and, applying the analysis to his geometry, gives 
 the theory of curves an extension and play hitherto unknown, and invents a 
 variety of methods of solving with perfect certainty the most difficult problems 
 in that branch of science. Fermat, the rival and contemporary of Descartes, 
 pursues the same career, and promulgates inventions in which the germ of the 
 new calculus is greatly developed. Wallis, Barrow, Gregory, enrich geometry 
 with a multitude of new methods and discoveries. Newton at length gives 
 birth to that sublime geometry, compared with which the labours that 
 paved the way were as trifles, and has furnished the only key to those 
 difficult investigations which occupy the geometers and naturalists of the pre- 
 sent day. If we carry our view to the mixed mathematics, we will be no less 
 delighted with the prospect of their acceleration. Mechanics present to us 
 the laws of motion and its communication, the laws of the acceleration of heavy 
 bodies, of the path of projectiles, of the motion and reciprocal action of fluids. 
 We see them enriched by several profound theories,—such as the centre 
 of oscillation, the resistance of fluids, the doctrine of central forces, &c. 
 At the same time the progress of optics is proceeding with equal brilliancy, 
 the laws of vision and refraction unfolded, and a new science rises from 
 that foundation. The telescope and microscope afford aids unknown to 
 antiquity, —the rainbow is submitted to reason, —light is analyzed, and 
 the various refrangibility of colours detected, —the reflecting telescope is 
 conceived and constructed with success,—Astronomy, in fine, presents us 
 at once with the discovery of the actual forms of the planetary orbits, and 
 of the laws which preside over the celestial motions. Soon after the in- 
 vention of the telescope, we see astronomers as it were soaring into space,— 
 descrying the spots on the sun,—the motion of that luminary round its axis, 
 —the phases of Venus and Mercury,—the little planets which attend like 
 moons the steps of Jupiter, and of Saturn with his marvellous ring,—pheno- 
 mena which shed a meridian light upon the true system of the universe. 
 Upon these observations geography is entirely remodelled,—the earth is mea- 
 sured with an accuracy far surpassing the measurement of the ancients, and 
 her true form is ascertained,—the truth of Kepler’s observations is demon- 
 strated by means of a profound application of geometry and mechanics to the 
 
374 THE LIFE OF 
 
 motion of the heavenly bodies,—the comet is controlled into a planet, and the 
 career of that rare apparition submitted to calculation. The moon, so long 
 rebellious to astronomy, is captive at length, and her eccentricities account- 
 ed for. And at last, from the hands of the immortal Newton, we receive the 
 system of physical astronomy, the master-piece of geometry and mechanics, 
 accumulating daily new confirmation from the combined labours of geometri- 
 cians and observers.” * 
 
 With how few of the conquests here enumerated is that of Napier not 
 identified. To be named first among the great landmarks of an era of 
 calculation, is certainly due to him, because the mechanical discovery of the 
 telescope, though applied a few years before the promulgation of Logarithms, 
 has no pretensions to such intellectual claims. The century which com- 
 menced with the Canon Mirificus Logarithmorum, and was followed by 
 the Novum Organum Scientiarum, deserved to be closed by the Princi- 
 pia Mathematica ; and thus it is that Napier, and Bacon, and Newton, creat- 
 ed the transcendant era of science, and, to use a congenial phrase, brought up 
 so gloriously the lee-way of old England. 
 
 We now present the reader with a fac-simile of a title-page fraught with glad 
 tidings ; and we do so, not so much on account of the beauty of the design, as be- 
 cause no page of profane history can be more interesting, though the volume is so 
 rare that the most illustrious commentators upon Logarithms have never seen 
 it.t But all the power of such minds as Montucla’s and Delambre’s has been 
 called into action in order to analyze the structure, to test the intellectual 
 value, and to expound the theory of this work, while other authors, of no mean 
 repute in the school of Newton, have treated of it in a manner which shows 
 how deeply rooted the theory is, and how it comes into operation with all the 
 mysterious powers of the higher calculus. In order to see that it would be 
 vain and presumptuous for any one, not far above mediocrity in mathematics, 
 to attempt a scientific analysis of the invention, it is only necessary to glance 
 at such works, and also at the six enormous volumes entitled “ Scriptores Lo- 
 garithmici,” which form the scientific collections of Baron Maseres. Were it 
 
 * « Tableau Général des découvertes Mathématiques dues au dix-septiéme siécle.” Histoire 
 des Mathématiques, Tom. ii. p. 2. 
 
 + “ La premiére edition de cet ouvrage important est de 1614 ; je n’ai que celle de Lyon, 1620.” 
 DELAMBRE, Astronomie Moderne, Tom. i. Livre v. Neper, Kepler, et Briggs. 
 
ZR 5 
 
 ZIT ccc 
 
 , 
 N 
 \ 
 5 N 
 \ 
 y 
 
 \ 
 
 1K 
 | 
 \y 
 
 Lo garithmorum 
 Canonis defcriptio, 
 
 Byufque ufus, in utraque | 
 
 Trigonometria ; ut etiam in 
 
 omni Logiftica Mathematica , 
 Amplifsimi, Facillimi, (én 
 
 expedi tifSimi explicatio. 
 
 Authore ac Inventore, 
 
 IOANNE NEPERO, 
 Barone Merchiftonu, 
 erc. Scoto. 
 
 aN 
 ni 
 TOTO 
 sea 
 
 AN) 
 
 een 
 
 \\ 
 
 MS 
 SS 
 
 MIs 
 GY SXy 
 
 A\\\ ‘ 
 firms — sd 
 
 | Ex officind ANDRE HART 
 
 ai il Ay Ht) 
 ‘ A 
 UMM Th 
 SA ‘ we y) 
 
 EDINBURGI, 
 
 Bibliopole, c19. Dc. x1Vv. 
 
 SS SS 
 
 ie. 
 
 B | 
 
 i] 
 
 RL 
 
 My EZ 
 
 — 
 
 Se 
 
 a 
 
 } NX a 
 ie So \ 
 
say eee 
 , ht wy 
 . besa ae.) 
 
 ; ie sat iz o ; me 
 ; ery 1 s iy , al ties, . sau § 
 ‘ . J 1. PS Ai ay 
 . r | wat Vd te | pe ils oy Sali RLS 
 ; » ‘blade ‘ Hie! } 
 
 Hi ; | 
 { ' 
 e : ? 
 
 ¥ Le 
 
 siti seb 
 i ; ; s 
 Ly i y yi 
 
 1 rh “hy ilvG 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHSTON. 375 
 
 desirable to add to the historical memoirs of Napier’s Life and Times such an 
 account of the Canon Mirificus as philosophers might relish, it would be 
 quite unnecessary for me to adopt the plan of Lord Buchan, and take into 
 partnership some man of learning equal to the task. DELAMBRE has writ- 
 ten that chapter of our philosopher’s life. But to translate in these pages 
 the labours of Delambre, whose elegance and depth have left nothing to 
 desire, and would suffer from abridgement, would be of no use to readers 
 who can relish his writings, and unintelligible to all the rest. Science has a 
 language that is sealed to most people, though indispensable, from the very 
 relief it affords, to philosophers. Delambre himself might shrink at the idea 
 of extracting the secret of Logarithms from numbers, in the chaotic state 
 in which Napier found them; and of constructing the tables, and demon- 
 strating them to the world with the imperfect mathematical resources and 
 language of his day. It was like separating the light from darkness, and 
 Newton was not compelled envisager the subjects from which he drew his 
 immortality, under the difficulties that beset the path of Napier. A complete 
 exposition of Logarithms, therefore, is not to be attempted except in the mo- 
 dern language of science ; and we cannot pay our philosopher a higher com- 
 pliment than to say, that, until that language came to be developed, with all 
 the powers and properties of numbers which it alone can fully disclose, no 
 complete exposition of his work could be obtained. Delambre, therefore, 
 and all who are capable of the investigation, have viewed the invention under 
 the penetrating lights of the New Geometry, and draw this inference as to the 
 author’s mind, “ Tous ces moyens étaient connus de Néper, quoiqu’il n’elt pas 
 ces expressions algébriques ; ce calcul est la traduction de ses raisonnemens ; 
 een est le fond, si ce n’est pas la forme tout a fait; i] ne négligeait que des 
 quantites reconnues insensibles ; la construction de ses tables preparatoires est 
 donc démontrée.” 
 
 But the general reader, however anxious to form a just estimate of Na- 
 pier’s achievement, would scarcely thank us for an analysis which requires 
 
 to be expounded as follows :—‘ Néper n’emploie pas ces expressions, que 
 étal nnues ; mais soit R le rayon; les limites seront 2 fe 
 n étaient pas co 3 yon ; Sr 
 
 F . bos R?—RsnA “R—sin A 
 R et R — sin A; la moyenne arithmétique oa to = 
 
 R2—RsnA+RsnA—sin? A R?—sin? A _ (R 4+ sin A) (R —sin A). 
 TTT eee woe eae | 2 sin A 
 
376 THE LIFE OF 
 
 “ Voici encore un autre thedréme dont Néper a fait usage, et qwil présente 
 un peu différemment. 
 
 Log sin A — log sin A’ est entre R (“Aa gor 8 =) e et R Can sabes: wee) 
 
 sin A sin A’ 
 
 ou entre (= sa) ( sin A —sin A’) et (a ) (sin A — sin A’); la moyenne 
 
 arithmétique serait CR <a) (sin A — sin A’) + (=, a ax) (sin A—sinA’), 
 
 4 (coséc A + coséc A’) (ein A — sin A’). 
 
 ne R (sin A —sin A’) _ R (sin A—sin A’) © 
 La moyenne geometrique — jaan A” =«0 > ~ Jan? (APA A ahAY me 
 
 R (sin A — sin A’) , ra dn 
 Sea A= AY a peu pres, ou d log n gilda 
 
 ** Par ces moyens on aura les deux limites d’un logarithme et sa valeur a peu 
 pres,” &c. “ c’est ainsi que Néper a trouvé,” &c. * 
 Or, to take one other example from the same author, 
 
 [(coséc A — 1) (1 — sin A)] ? = [(@+77?+4+ 4° + v4 4 etc.) (x)} 2 
 
 (? tar paottaed + e6 4 ete)? 
 
 emerge ge + y)? 
 
 ol + 3y— 9-497 +3-4-39°— 9-4-8 -hy' + etc.) 
 a{l+si(@4+-2n? Ne een + etc.) 
 —}(@? +2754 344 + etc.) 
 bakes? Ge) paige ect ee aes 
 l+gu+ 3a? +3 we4. 2 gt 
 
 | Il 
 
 Ligeia 5 4 
 a —go°—$§e*— Boz 
 o 1 3 3 4 
 +yg%° + 
 5 4 
 Cee 
 =a(l+gu4 $ar?4 7 v5 U*) 
 Sop eu? + grr t f Diu ae 
 2 28 ee 1 3 
 La moyenne géométrique est donc #w+3a?+4 34°44 vt oF, 5, 
 log sin A=a+4u7?4+3 45 ee to Lg ®, 
 ta a OS eR ES ae 
 excés du moyen géométrique cH i) + (5 — ts) wt + AG 2, 
 excés du moyen géométrique = 7 #° + ge u*+ 37 aw, 
 
 excés du moyen arithmétique = 4a°+5 44+ 5, a. 
 
 The play of symbols,—which, to those familiarized with algebraic ex- 
 pressions, is as a glass to the mental! eye,—appears to the uninitiated like the 
 
 * Delambre. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 377 
 
 handwriting on the wall. Referring, therefore, those who wish to fathom 
 the subject, to the works quoted below,* we shall discharge our biographical 
 duty by concluding these Memoirs with a history of the reception of Loga- 
 rithms, a defence of the author’s intellectual rights, and some popular views 
 and original information respecting his mathematical studies. 
 
 No sooner did the Canon Mirificus appear than it found, like the Plain Dis- 
 covery, an able and enthusiastic translator. England did not at the time possess 
 any philosopher whose capacities entitled him to rank in science with such as 
 Kepler and Galileo, or whose labours were so pre-eminent as to attract the eyes 
 of the continent to this island. Scotland was out of the question, where, of those 
 times, generally speaking, he is the most worthy of recollection who was least 
 identified with judicial, feudal, or fanatical murder. But in the sister kingdom, 
 there were one or two conspicuous, in their own country at least, for the highest 
 order of that species of talent, which is rather characterized by acuteness in 
 derivative speculations than eminent success in original discoveries ; men, in 
 short, who most deservedly obtain a place in the history of science, but chiefly 
 in connection with some greater genius than their own, to whom they mini- 
 ster. It marks at once the majestic position of our philosopher when we say, 
 that no sooner was his orbit discovered in the system than he was observed to 
 be followed by two such satellites, in Kdward Wright and Henry Briggs, 
 who at the time were Tycho and Kepler to England. Of these, the former 
 ardently set himself to translate the work into English, and the latter became 
 the most enthusiastic co-operator of the author in computing improved tables. 
 
 NAVIGATION, like trigonometry, had arrived at the period of its history, 
 beyond which it couid not advance without some revolution in science. That 
 scientific art had indeed done wonders without Logarithms; but the very 
 extent of its conquests required such aid to secure them, and bring out all 
 their value. It was only about the middle of the fifteenth century that ma- 
 
 * For profound views of the theory of Logarithms, consult the Histories of Astronomy and 
 Mathematics by Montucla and Delambre, already quoted; the History of Logarithms, by Dr 
 Charles Hutton, prefixed to his edition of Sherwin’s Tables; Dr Wallis’s Treatise of Algebra; 
 a Treatise of Fluxions, by Colin Maclaurin, A. M.; account of Napier’s Writings and Inventions 
 by Dr Minto ; appendix to a Treatise on Plane and Spherical Trigonometry by Robert Wood- 
 house, Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge; and above all, Baron Maseres’ Scriptores Logarith- 
 mici, in six volumes quarto. ‘The editio princeps of the Canon is reprinted in the Maseres col- 
 lection, but without the engraved title-page. 
 
 3B 
 
378 THE LIFE OF 
 
 riners began to feel themselves at home upon the deep, when, in addition to 
 the compass, they could derive assistance from mathematical science; and it 
 is melancholy to observe that the country which ranks first in the history of 
 navigation, and once stood so high in the chivalry of Europe, is now the lowest 
 in the scale. Portugal, by her series of unrivalled discoveries, marks the com- 
 mencement of the grand era of nautical science ; and when that nation pointed 
 out the New World, and the passage to India by the Cape of Good Hope, she 
 gave navigation enough to do. One indispensable requisite, in order to secure 
 the benefit of such discoveries, was those scientific sea-maps, or charts as they 
 are called, without which the compass itself would be of little value. These 
 had been constructed upon a very imperfect principle, until towards the close 
 of the sixteenth century, when the plane chart began to be superseded by the 
 improvement of Gerard Mercator, the well-known geographer of the Low 
 Countries. In the old sea-charts, the nearer the degrees of longitude ap- 
 proach the pole the more they were increased beyond their just proportion, 
 while the degrees of latitude remained the same ; and thus false bearings were 
 obtained in nautical geography, and errors pervaded the system. The pro- 
 position of Mercator, which has immortalized his name, was to rectify these 
 evils, by augmenting the parallels of latitude in their approach to the pole, in 
 the same proportion as those of the longitude ; and he published a chart, con- 
 structed upon these principles, about the year 1569. But Montucla, in his 
 History of Navigation, says, that Mercator, although he furnished the idea, 
 was not aware of, and could not demonstrate, the scientific laws of his own 
 scheme, and that this honour was reserved for our countryman, Edward 
 Wright, who was the first to do so, in a treatise printed in London in the 
 year 1599, and entitled, “ Certain errors in navigation detected and corrected.” 
 Thus Wright is the person to whom, scientifically speaking, Mercator’s sail- 
 ing belongs; and this seems to have been the estimation in which he was 
 held by his contemporaries. One of Napier’s poetical eulogists, who designs 
 himself, “ the unfained lover and admirer of his art and matchlesse vertue, 
 John Davies of Hereford,” when praising the Canon Mirificus, thus suddenly 
 and facetiously apostrophizes its translator :— 
 
 Waricut !—ship-wright ? no; ship-wright, or righter then 
 When wrong she goes,—lo! this, with ease, will make 
 Thy rules to make the ship run rightly, when 
 She thwarts the main for praise or profit’s sake. 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 379 
 
 We have called Wright the Tycho of England, because in astronomical obser- 
 vations and instruments he outwent all his countrymen. He was ten years 
 younger than Napier, and, after studying at Cambridge, devoted himself en- 
 tirely to navigation. For the purpose of perfecting himself in that art he ac- 
 companied George Earl of Cumberland in his expedition to the Azores, and 
 the fruits of his enterprise was the treatise published in 1599. He was dis- 
 tinguished for his tables of latitudes, his sea-rings, his great quadrant, and 
 his sea-quadrant, besides other ingenious astronomical contrivances. He was 
 also appointed instructor in mathematics to Prince Henry, the young Mar- 
 cellus of England, whose hopeful promise perished so soon. Montucla derives 
 from Sir Edward Sherburne some details of the life of Wright, and adds, “ Il 
 fut enfin (ce que Sherburn a ignoré) un des premiers promoteurs de la theorie 
 et de la pratique des Logarithmes, avec Briggs ; car il en avoit construit des 
 tables. Mais sa mort, arrivée vers 1618 ou 1620, l’empécha de les publiés. 
 Ce fut son fils qui les mit au jour en 1621.” But we must, in our turn, cor- 
 rect Montucla. Not only did Edward Wright construct tables connected 
 with Logarithms, but he translated the canon into English the moment it ap- 
 peared, and his exertions to aid the promulgation seem to have killed him, 
 for he died in the year 1615. So rare are these original editions, that of the two 
 greatest historians of Logarithms, Delambre never saw the Latin edition, and 
 Montucla never heard of the English. 
 
 But the interest in the English edition is greatly increased when we under- 
 stand that it passed through Napier’s hands to the press. It appears that some 
 patron of letters had recommended Wright to translate the Canon the moment 
 it was published, who was himself instantly struck with the prospect of the 
 revolution it would effect in navigation, of which, at the time, he unquestionably 
 occupied the cathedra. Ina preface to Wright’s translation we are informed by 
 his son, that he “ gave much commendation to this work, and often in my hear- 
 ing, as of very great use for mariners.” This must have been in the first year of 
 its publication, for in that or the following Wright sent Napier the translation 
 for revisal, “‘ and,” says his son, “shortly after he had it returned out of Scotland, 
 it pleased God to call him away afore he could publish it.”* The task accordingly 
 devolved upon Samuel Wright, with the assistance of Henry Briggs, and the 
 volume was printed in London by Nicholas Okes in 1616. That the most 
 
 * There is a Latin memoir of him in the annals of Gonyile and Caius College, Cambridge, 
 which bears, “ This year, 1615, died at London, Edward Wright of Garveston in Norfolk, for- 
 
380 THE LIFE OF 
 
 important practical application of Logarithms in human affairs was instantly 
 appreciated appears from the first page of this translation. “ To the Right 
 Honourable and Right Worshipful Company of Merchants of London, trading 
 to the East Indies, Samuel Wright wisheth all prosperity in this life, and 
 happiness in the life to come. Your favours towards my deceased father, and 
 your imployment of him in business of this nature, but chiefly your continual 
 imployment of so many mariners, in so many goodly and costly ships, in long 
 and dangerous voyages, for whose use (though many other ways profitable) 
 this little book is chiefly behooveful, may challenge an interest in these his 
 labours. This book is noble by birth, as being descended from a noble pa- 
 rent, and not ignoble by education, having learned to speak English of my 
 late father,” &c. 
 
 Probably it would be left to Napier to translate his own letter to Prince 
 Charles, and the address to his “ charissimt mathematum cultores ;? and we 
 shall present them to the reader in the English version, which, though not 
 equal in purity of style to the Latin, is quaint and characteristic. As if he had 
 never lost sight of Archimedes for a prototype, * our philosopher addresses the 
 
 volume. 
 
 * 'To the Most Noble and Hopeful Prince CHARLES, only son of 
 the High and Mighty James, King of Great Britain, France, and 
 Ireland ; Prince of Wales, Duke of York and Rothesay; Great 
 Steward of Scotland, and Lord of the Islands. 
 
 “ Most NOBLE PRINCE. Seeing there is neither study nor any kind of learn- 
 ing that doth more acuate and stir up generous and heroical wits to excellent 
 
 merly a fellow of this college; a man respected by all for the integrity and simplicity of his man- 
 ners, and also famous for his skill in the mathematical sciences.” After narrating his various 
 scientific labours, the memoir adds, “ A little before his death he employed himself about an Eng- 
 lish translation of the book of Logarithms, then lately found out by the Honourable Baron Napier, 
 a Scotchman, who had a great affection for him. This posthumous work of his was published 
 soon after by his only son Samuel Wright, who was also a scholar of this college. He had form- 
 ed many other useful designs, but was hindered by death from bringing them to perfection. Of 
 him it may be truly said, that he studied more to serve the public than himself; and though he 
 was rich in fame, and in the promises of the great, yet he died poor, to the scandal of an ungrate- 
 ful age.” —See Hutton’s Hist. of Logarithms, and Wilson's Hist. of Navigation. 
 
 * Archimedes is always said to have been a relation of his own Sovereign, Hiero King of Sy- 
 racuse, and he addressed the Arenarius to Prince Gelo, that monarch’s eldest son. Napier was 
 “unquestionably a relation of James VI.; for the philosopher was the lineal descendant and repre- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 381 
 
 and eminent affairs ; and contrariewise, that doth more deject and keep down 
 sottish and dull minds than the mathematics; it is no marvel that learned 
 and magnanimous princes in all former ages have taken great delight in them, 
 and that unskilful and slothful men have always pursued them with most 
 cruel hatred, as utter enemies to their ignorance and sluggishness. Why 
 then may not this my new invention (seeing it abhorreth blunt and base na- 
 tures,) seek and fly unto your Highness’ most noble disposition and patronage ? 
 and especially seeing this new course of LOGARITHMsS doth clean take away 
 all the difficulty that heretofore hath been in mathematicall calculations, 
 (which otherwise might have been distastful to your worthy towardness,) and 
 is so fitted to help the weakness of memory, that by means thereof it is easy 
 to resolve more mathematical questions in one hour’s space, than otherwise by 
 that wonted and commonly received manner of sines, tangents, and secants, 
 can be done even in a whole day. And, therefore, this invention (I hope) will 
 be so much the more acceptable to your Highness, as it yieldeth a more easy 
 and speedy way of accompt. For what can be more delightful and more ex- 
 cellent in any kind of learning than to dispatch honourable and profound 
 matters, exactly, readily, and without loss of either time or labour. I crave, 
 therefore, most gracious Prince, that you would, according to your gentleness, 
 accept of this gift, though small and far beneath the height of your deserv- 
 ings and worth, as a pledge and token of my humble service. Which, if I 
 understand you do, you shall, even in this regard only, encourage me, that 
 am now almost spent with sickness, shortly to attempt other matters perhaps 
 greater than these, and more worthy so great a Prince. In the mean while, 
 the Supreme King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, long defend and preserve to 
 us the great lights of Great Britain, your renowned parents, and yourself, the 
 noble branch of so noble a stem, and the hope of our future tranquility. To 
 Him be given all honour and glory. 
 “ Your Highness’ most devoted Servant, 
 * JOHN NEPAIR.” 
 
 This epistle dedicatory is followed by the author’s very interesting preface. 
 
 “ Seeing there is nothing, (right well beloved students in the mathematics,) 
 
 sentative of Margaret, second daughter of Duncan Earl of Levenax ; and the monarch stood in 
 precisely the same relationship (through his father Henry Darnly,) to Elizabeth, Earl Duncan’s 
 third daughter. 
 
382 THE LIFE OF 
 
 that is so troublesome to mathematical practise, nor that doth more molest 
 and hinder calculations, than the multiplications, divisions, square and cubical 
 extractions of great numbers, which besides the tedious expence of time, are 
 for the most part subject to many slippery errors, I began, therefore, to con- 
 sider in my mind, by what certain and ready art I might remove those hin- 
 drances. And having thought upon many things to this purpose, I found at 
 length some excellent brief rules to be treated of perhaps hereafter: But 
 amongst all, none more profitable than this, which together with the hard and 
 tedious multiplications, divisions, and extractions of roots, doth also cast away 
 even the very numbers themselves that are to be multiplied, divided, and re- 
 solved into roots, and putteth other numbers in their place which perform as 
 much as they can do, only by addition and substraction, division by two, or 
 division by three. * Which secret invention being, (as all other good things 
 are,) so much the better as it shall be the more common, I thought good here- 
 tofore, to set forth in Latin for the public use of mathematicians. But now, 
 some of our countrymen in this island, well affected to these studies, and the 
 more public good, procured a most learned mathematician to translate the 
 same into our vulgar English tongue, who after he had finished it, sent a copy 
 of it to me, to be seen and considered on by myself. I having most willingly 
 and gladly done the same, find it to be most exact and precisely conformable 
 to my mind and the original. Therefore it may please you who are inclined 
 to these studies, to receive it from me and the translator, with as much good 
 will as we recommend it unto you.—Lare thee well.” 
 
 The philosopher, in the original, adds a Latin verse of his own, which is 
 not given in the translation. 
 
 IN LOGARITHMOS. 
 
 Quz tibi cunque sinus, tangentes atque secantes 
 Prolixo prestant, atque labore gravi: 
 
 Absque labore gravi, et subito tibi, candide Lector, 
 Hee Logarithmorum parva tabella dabit. 
 
 * Woodhouse states in a note to his admirable exposition of the theory of Logarithms, that 
 «“ the introduction to the English translation of Briggs’ Logarithmetical arithmetic 1631, states 
 very plainly and distinctly the uses of Logarithms.” But the words which Woodhouse proceeds 
 to quote are just Napier’s own statement : he does not appear to have met with either the Latin or 
 English edition of the Canon Mirificus. ‘They are very scarce, and lost sight of in consequence of 
 the tables published since. Of the English edition I have only seen one copy, that in possession of 
 the Lord Napier. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 383 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Dr CHARLES HUTTON, in an able history of Logarithms attached to the 
 best English tables, has done great injustice to Napier, both negative and 
 positive. He has, in the first place, not sufficiently distinguished the inven- 
 tion from every other analogous idea that had been previously entertained of 
 progressions, nor shown how undivided is the honour which belongs to 
 Scotland. On the other hand, he has attempted to deprive Napier of the 
 praise of having perfected the system he created ; and, what is worse, while 
 erroneously referring that merit to another, he has falsely accused our philo- 
 sopher,—the lofty cast of whose mind was only equalled by its unpretending 
 modesty,—of a mean attempt to appropriate to himself what was not his due. 
 It would be an omission on the part of his biographer not to place these mat- 
 ters in their proper light, though the character and genius of Napier stand 
 far above such attacks or the necessity of a defence. His character, in- 
 deed, is remarkable for purity in the rudest age of his country; he was in- 
 capable of meanness, nor would I have been much inclined to notice the 
 groundless insinuations of a modern writer, who knew nothing of Napier’s 
 private history, were it not that those insinuations disturb the beautiful pic- 
 ture of friendship and enthusiastic co-operation betwixt Napier and Henry 
 Briggs, which does so much honour to science. 
 
 It is well-known to those who have examined the matter scientifically, that 
 Napier viewed and worked his subject under the most difficult aspects, and in 
 the most laborious manner. He had none of those resources, which, if the task 
 were still to be performed, the most fearless calculator of our own times would 
 
384: THE LIFE OF 
 
 be too happy to call to his aid. He had clearly in his mind, however, many 
 of the most valuable analytical principles of a school then unfounded, the 
 school of Newton; and he caused them to bear fruit, without possessing the 
 new modes of analytical inquiry, in the progress of whose subsequent develope- 
 ment those very. principles became disclosed to others. This is implied in the 
 words of admiration bestowed upon him by so illustrious a foreigner as De- 
 lambre :—“ All these means were known to Napier, although he had not the 
 algebraic expressions; he drew his calculus from the resources of his own mind.” 
 Napier’s innate algebraic power is that which eminently distinguishes him above 
 all the great calculators of his day ; the consequence is, that he produced the Lo- 
 garithms before algebraic analysis reached that point in its progress to which 
 the discovery properly belonged; and we can at the same time detect, in 
 his modes of operation and train of thought, the most striking characteristics 
 _of Newton’s mind. “ At a period,” says Playfair, speaking of Napier, “ when 
 the nature of series, and when every other resource of which he could avail 
 himself, were so little known, his success argues a depth and originality of 
 thought, which I am persuaded have rarely been surpassed.” Thus his in- 
 vention stands unquestionably more isolated in its glory, and more the un- 
 divided property of one individual, than any other with which it can be com- 
 pared. 
 
 Now, Dr Hutton, while he states the properties of progressions, which are 
 the fundamental principles of the system of Logarithms, in a very clear and 
 distinct manner, has at the same time so framed his exposition as to lead any 
 reader, who went no further than this author, to suppose that Napier shared 
 the merit with many others, and only surpassed them in this, that to him “ the 
 _world is indebted for the first publication of Logarithms.” The very able 
 history of them, in which so much at least has been admitted, is in this country 
 perhaps more under the eye of students than any other, and I shall quote the 
 passages to which I allude. “ Incessant endeavours at length produced the 
 happy invention of Logarithms, which are of direct and universal application 
 to all numbers abstractedly considered, being derived from a property inherent 
 in themselves. This property may be considered either as the relation be- 
 tween a geometrical series of terms and a corresponding arithmetical one, or 
 as the relation between ratios and the measures of ratios; which comes to much 
 the same thing, they having been conceived in one of these ways by some of 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 385 
 
 the writers on this subject, and in the other by the rest of them, as well as 
 in both ways at different times by the same writer. A summary idea of this 
 property, and of the probable reflections made on it by the first writers * on 
 Logarithms, may be to the following effect. The learned calculators about 
 the close of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century, finding the operations 
 of multiplication and division by very long numbers of 7 or 8 places of 
 figures, which they had frequently occasion to perform in solving problems 
 relating to geography and astronomy, to be exceedingly troublesome, set them- 
 selves to consider whether it was not possible to find some method of lessening 
 this labour, by substituting other easier operations in their stead. In pursuit 
 of this object they reflected that, since in every multiplication by a whole num- 
 ber, the ratio or proportion of the product to the multiplicand is the same as 
 the ratio of the multiplier to unity, it will follow that the ratio of the product 
 to unity (which, according to Euclid’s definition of compound ratios, is com- 
 pounded of the ratios of the said product to the multiplicand and of the mul- 
 tiplier to unity,) must be equal to the sum of the two ratios of the multiplier to 
 unity, and of the multiplicand to unity. Consequently, if they could find a set 
 of artificial numbers that should be the representatives of, or should be propor- 
 tional to, the ratios of all sorts of numbers to unity, the addition of the two 
 artificial numbers that should represent the ratios of any multiplier and mul- 
 tiplicand to unity, would answer to the multiplication of the said multiplicand 
 by the said multiplier, or the sum arising from the addition of the said re- 
 presentative numbers, would be the representative number of the ratio of the 
 product to unity ; and consequently the natural number to which it should be 
 found, in the table of the said artificial or representative numbers, that the 
 said sum belonged, would be the product of the said multiplicand and multi- 
 plier. Having settled this principle as the foundation of their wished-for 
 method of abridging the labour of calculations, they resolved to compose a 
 table of such artificial numbers, or numbers that should be representatives of, 
 or proportional to, the ratios of all the common or natural numbers to unity. 
 The first observation that naturally occurred to them in the pursuit of this 
 scheme was, that, whatever artificial numbers should be chosen to represent 
 the ratios of other whole numbers to unity, the ratio of equality, or of unity 
 
 * There were no writers on Logarithms, ewcept Napier, until the Canon of Logarithms was 
 published. There were plenty of writers on Logarithms after that, and, according to Dr Hutton, 
 these learned calculators then set themselves to discover the Logarithms. 
 
 3 C 
 
386 THE LIFE OF 
 
 to unity, must be represented by 0; because that ratio has properly no mag- 
 nitude, since, when it is added to, or subtracted from, any other ratio, it nei- 
 ther increases nor diminishes it. The second observation that occurred to 
 them was, that any number whatever might be chosen at pleasure for the re- 
 presentative of the ratio of any given natural number to unity; but that, when 
 once such choice was made, all the other representative numbers would be 
 thereby determined, because they must be greater or less than that first repre- 
 sentative number, in the same proportions in which the ratios represented by 
 them, or the ratios of the corresponding natural numbers to unity, were 
 greater or less than the ratio of the said given natural number to unity. 
 Thus, either 1, or 2, or 3, &c. might be chosen for the representative of the 
 ratio of 10 to 1. But, if 1 be chosen for it, the representatives of the ratios 
 of 100 to 1 and 1000 to 1, which are double and triple of the ratio of 10 to,1, 
 must be 2 and 3, and cannot be any other numbers ; and, if 2 be chosen for 
 it, the representatives of the ratios of 100 to 1 and 1000 to 1 will be 4 and 6, 
 and cannot be any other numbers ; and, if 3 be chosen for it, the representa- 
 tives of the ratios of 100 to 1 and 1000 to 1 will be 6 and 9, and cannot be 
 any other numbers; and soon. The third observation that occurred to them 
 was, that, as these artificial numbers were representatives of, or proportional 
 to, ratios of the natural numbers to unity, they must be expressions of the 
 numbers of some smaller equal ratios that are contained in the said ratios. 
 Thus, if 1 be taken for the representative of the ratio of 10 to 1, then 3, 
 which is the representative of the ratio of 1000 to 1, will express the number of 
 ratios of 10 to 1 that are contained in the ratio of 1000 to 1. And if, instead 
 of 1, we make 10,000,000, or ten millions, the representative of the ratio of 
 10 to 1, (in which case 1 will be the representative of a very small ratio, or 
 ratiuncula, which is only the ten-millionth part of the ratio of 10 to 1, or will 
 be the representative of the 10,000,000th root of 10, or of the first or smallest 
 of 9,999,999 mean proportionals interposed between 1 and 10), the represen- 
 tative of the ratio of 1000 to 1, which will in this case be 30,000,000, will 
 express the number of those ratzuncule, or small ratios of the 10,000,000th 
 root of 10 to 1, which are contained in the said ratio of 1000 to 1. And the 
 like may be shown of the representative of the ratio of any other number to 
 unity. And therefore they thought these artificial numbers, which thus re- 
 present, or are proportional to, the magnitudes of the ratios of the natural 
 numbers to unity, might not improperly be called the LoGAaRITHMs of those 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 387 
 
 ratios, since they express the numbers of smaller ratios of which they are 
 composed. And then, for the sake of brevity, they called them the Logarithms 
 of the said natural numbers themselves, which are the antecedents of the said 
 ratios to unity, of which they are in truth the representatives. The fore- 
 going method of considering this property, leads to much the same conclu- 
 sions as the other way, in which the relations between a geometrical series of 
 terms, and their exponents, or the terms of an arithmetical series, are contem- 
 plated. In this latter way, it readily occurred that the addition of the terms 
 of the arithmetical series corresponded to the multiplication of the terms of 
 the geometrical series ; and that the arithmeticals would therefore form a set 
 of artificial numbers, which, when arranged in tables with their geometricals, 
 would answer the purposes desired, as has been explained above. From this 
 property, by assuming four quantities, two of them as two terms in a geome- 
 trical series, and the others as the two corresponding terms of the arithme- 
 ticals, or artificials, or logarithms, it is evident that all the other terms of both 
 the two series may thence be generated. And therefore there may be as many 
 sets or scales of Logarithms as we please, since they depend entirely on the 
 arbitrary assumption of the first two arithmeticals. And all possible natural 
 numbers may be supposed to coincide with some of the terms of any geome- 
 trical progression whatever, the Logarithms or arithmeticals determining 
 which of the terms in that progression they are.” * 
 
 The urgent demand for such a power, universally felt before its appearance, 
 and the prior but obscure knowledge of certain principles connected with 
 that power, may be admitted. But the error (which almost seems preme- 
 ditated on the part of Dr Hutton) of the above exposition is, that the author 
 has not chosen to discriminate betwixt the Archimedean principle as observed 
 in the European school, and Napier’s great discovery, whose merit is to have 
 passed a gulf which that principle had only reached, and which had hitherto ren- 
 dered it an idle and fruitless speculation. He has traced, indeed, those long bar- 
 ren ideas to their consummation ; but he has done so expressly, as if many had 
 been at work for years to effect that conquest, and as if the whole system of Loga- 
 rithms, and the very compounding of the term, did not exclusively belong to one 
 individual. These deliberate speculations of “learned calculators about the close 
 of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century,” are all creations 
 of Dr Hutton’s jealousy. No one but Napier can be said to have thus set him- 
 
 * Hutton’s History of Logarithms. 
 
388 THE LIFE OF 
 
 self to the task, and he alone it was who conceived a table which he at first 
 called a table of artificcal numbers, and for which he afterwards composed the 
 term Logarithms. We have elsewhere endeavoured to show precisely how far 
 Archimedes went in the doctrine of numerical progressions. Now, until the 
 Canon Mirificus appeared, and that was nearly two thousand years after him 
 of Syracuse, these progressions, and the few speculations about them which 
 occurred after the revival of letters, attracted no scientific admiration, and 
 were unheard of, or uncared for in the world of letters. But when Napier 
 had grafted that astonishing chapter of algebra upon the doctrine, men 
 began to look about them to see if any one shared with him the glory of 
 what was now felt to be an indispensable aid. 
 
 Of all others, he who was most astonished, and who was most deserving to 
 have anticipated Napier, was the immortal KEPLER. No greater philosopher 
 ever arose in Germany, or one whose calculating powers were more gigantic and 
 in more constant requisition. At this time he was far advanced on his path to 
 fame, though considerably younger than Napier, and the diffidence of the Scotch 
 philosopher, in withholding his great work from the public for so many years, 
 gave the German ample time to have been thefirst “ to publish Logarithms,” had 
 he formed any conception of such a canon. He was born in 1571, in a country 
 where science was considered the most important department of human affairs, 
 and found the richest patronage. Tycho, Galileo, and Kepler, all became pro- 
 fessors and public astronomers while they were young men, and thus were not 
 only conscious that the eyes of Europe were turned towards themselves, but 
 being entirely devoted to such pursuits as a profession, and surrounded by their 
 adoring students, and scientific domesticz, they possessed a never-failing stimu- 
 lus, and constant practice. Kepler, like the two great contemporaries with 
 whom he is always classed, was the scion of a noble family, which, however, was 
 so reduced in circumstances, that nothing but his towering genius redeemed the 
 young philosopher from falling into menial capacities. He received an excellent 
 learned education, however, through the patronage of the Duke of Wirtemberg, 
 took his degree of master of arts in 1591, and shortly afterwards obtained an 
 astronomical post, which, as he tells us himself, he most unwillingly accepted. 
 This was the chair of astronomy at Gratz, and, strange to say, Kepler felt 
 alarmed that his own ignorance in that branch of science would only bring 
 disgrace upon him. His voluminous correspondence, his works, his prefaces 
 and dedications being all full of himself, we have thus the most minute de- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 389 
 
 tails of the progress of his fortunes and his mind. He was not long of dis- 
 covering that he had entered the path of his fame, and two years after his 
 appointment, produced that cosmographical work which even Tycho con- 
 demned as a system of nature singularly imaginative. There was this dis- 
 tinction betwixt the minds of Napier and Kepler, that, although the former has 
 left some indications of being tinged with the superstition which then attached 
 itself to the loftiest geniuses, he seems to have cast it aside in all his serious 
 operations, and did not suffer his mind to be drawn aside from its progress to 
 the Logarithms even by the allurements of magic squares, and the mystical 
 number seven. * But with Kepler’s greatest works, his wildest extravagances 
 are lavishly mingled, and we have to seek for the evidences of his immortality, 
 amid his own records of the most extraordinary ideas that ever entered the 
 human imagination. The first discovery which he announced with much 
 complacency to the world was, that in the geometrical solids, namely, the 
 sphere, the dodecahedron, the tetrahedron, the cube, the isosahedron, and the 
 octohedron, he had detected the true reason of the number and arrange- 
 ment of the planetary system. Such were the almost insane speculations 
 which brought out Kepler’s wonderful powers of calculation. ‘‘ There were,” 
 he says, “ three things in particular of which I pertinaciously sought the 
 causes why they are not other than they are,—the number, the size, and the 
 motion of the orbits. I attempted the thing at first with numbers, and con- 
 sidered whether one of the orbits might be double, triple, quadruple, or any 
 other multiple of the others; and how much, according to Copernicus, each 
 differed from the rest. I spent a great deal of time in that labour, as if it 
 were mere sport, but could find no equality either in the proportions or the 
 differences, and I gained nothing by this beyond imprinting deeply in my me- 
 mory the distances as assigned by Copernicus.” After succeeding, as he ima- 
 gined, with his geometrical methods, he declares, that “ the intense pleasure 
 I have received from this discovery never can be told in words; I regretted 
 no more the time wasted; I tired of no labour; I shunned no toil of reckon- 
 ing; days and nights I spent in calculations, until I could see whether this 
 opinion would agree with the orbits of Copernicus, or whether my joy was to 
 
 * One of the propositions in Robert Pont’s work on the “ Last Decaying Age of the World” is, 
 « That there is a merveilous sympathie of periods of times in reckoning by sevens, and by Sab- 
 patical years, and of the manifold mysteries of the number of seven.” 
 
390 THE LIFE OF 
 
 vanish into air.”* By the time, however, the canon of Logarithms made 
 its, appearance, Kepler’s mind had atoned for his imagination. ‘Through 
 the most chilling pecuniary difficulties, and the most distracting domestic 
 broils, he struggled onwards to the discovery of those great laws of the 
 planetary orbits, which have obtained for him the daring title of “ Legis- 
 lator of the Heavens.” When Tycho was banished from Uranibourg, 
 the moment he found a resting-place for himself and his instruments, he 
 and Longomontanus returned to their observations of the heavenly bodies 
 with the true spirit of philosophers, and with the same ardour as if no- 
 thing had happened. Kepler joined them in the year 1600; and in the 
 following was presented by Tycho to his new patron, the Emperor Ro- 
 dolph, who made it his request that Kepler should assist the great astro- 
 nomer, and at the same time bestowed upon him the title of Imperial Mathe- 
 matician. Hence arose Kepler’s connection with the Rudolphine Tables, the 
 great source of his future labours, and of which we shall afterwards hear 
 something from himself in connection with Napier and Logarithms. Before 
 Kepler knew of that invention, he had passed through most of the calcula- 
 tions of those great astronomical discoveries which have been called Kepler’s 
 Laws; and it was immediately after he had published the Harmonices Mundi, 
 that we shall find he sat down to address a letter of thanks to Napier for the 
 boon he had presented to the world. And well might Kepler do so notwithstand- 
 ing all his success. Tycho had left him, among other bequests, the Herculean 
 task of completing his Astronomical or Rudolphine Tables, for which the world 
 of science looked so eagerly and so long. ‘They were the first that were founded 
 on the system of Logarithms; and there was now little chance of the German’s 
 finding himself in a dilemma, which once occurred to him. While examining 
 the orbits of the planets, he had adopted a theory, whose results, after great 
 labour, proved unsatisfactory ; he commenced the calculations upon a new 
 theory, “ but was much astonished at finding the same exactly as on his former 
 7 hypothesis ; the fact was, as he himself discovered, although not until after 
 several years, that he had become confused in his calculation, and when half 
 
 * There is an excellent life of Kepler by Mr Drinkwater, who has translated into it copious 
 extracts from Kepler’s works and correspondence. He has made great use of the Kepleri Epis- 
 
 tole by Hansch. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 391 
 
 through the process, had retraced his steps, so as of course to arrive again at 
 the numbers from which he started.” * We must not omit, that, like Napier, 
 Kepler mingled with his scientific labours the study of recondite theology, 
 and also of judicial astrology. His theological studies were not indeed pur- 
 sued with the devotion and ability of our own philosopher ; but he surpassed 
 him in astrology. He pretended, indeed, to a peculiar and purified creed on 
 the subject. “ I maintain,” says he, “ that the colours and aspects, and con- 
 junctions of the planets, are impressed on the natures or faculties of sublu- 
 nary things, and when they occur, that these are excited as well in forming as 
 in moving the body over whose motion they preside ;” after scorning the 
 quacks in astrology, he adds, “ A most unfailing experience of the excite- 
 ment of sublunary natures, by the conjunctions and aspects of the planets, has 
 instructed and compelled my unwilling belief.” 
 
 Such, generally, was the position in science of the most illustrious and 
 laborious calculator in Europe at the time the Logarithms appeared; and, 
 in reference to Dr Hutton’s history, it is material to attend to the first 
 expressions used by Kepler on the subject. He was now in correspond- 
 ence with every man of science on the Continent; and, in a letter dated 
 11th March 1618 to his friend Schikhart, after descanting upon the various 
 difficulties and resources of trigonometry, he exclaims, “ A Scottish baron has 
 started up, his name I cannot remember, but he has put forth some wonderful 
 mode by which all necessity of multiplications and divisions are commuted to 
 mere additions and subtractions, nor does he make any use of a table of sines ; 
 still, however, he requires a canon of tangents, and the variety, frequency, and 
 difficulty of additions and subtractions, in some cases exceed the labour of 
 multiplication and division.” + ‘This was the first crude notion formed by Kep- 
 
 * Drinkwater. 
 + “ Extitit Scotus Baro, cujus nomen mihi excidit, qui preclari quid preestitit, necessitate omni 
 
 multiplicationum et divisionum in meras additiones et subtractiones commutata, nec sinibus uti- 
 tur: at tamen opus est ipsi tangentium canone: et varietas, crebritas, difficultasque additionum 
 subtractionumque alicubi laborem multiplicandi et dividendi superat.” Myr Drinkwater, in his Life 
 of Kepler, observes, “ the meaning of this passage is not very clear ; Kepler evidently had seen 
 and used Logarithms at the time of writing this letter, yet there is nothing in the method to jus- 
 tify this expression, “at tamen opus est pst tangentiwm canone.” The letter from Kepler to 
 Napier, of which Mr Drinkwater was not aware, and which we shall afterwards quote, may 
 throw some light upon this expression ; it certainly proves that Kepler did not peruse Napier’s 
 work until the following year, when he instantly caught fire. 
 
392 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ler of a work which he had not as yet examined, but with which all his future 
 labours and fame were to be identified. It would appear from these expressions, 
 that he had not yet heard of that letter to Tycho in the year 1594, which he 
 mentions in a subsequent correspondence with Cugerus; they also afford addi- 
 tional evidence, that the idea of Longomontanus having suggested the inven- 
 tion to Napier in the manner recorded by Wood, can have no foundation, as 
 Longomontanus and Kepler had been fellow-calculators for years, living in the 
 same house together, and if any thing even analogous had been previously 
 imagined by either of them, it must have been instantly recognized. 
 
 But where were all the “ learned calculators of the 16th and 17th centuries,” 
 whom Dr Hutton pictures as evolving the Logarithms by profound reasonings 
 upon the doctrine of progressions? And who were they ? Not Kepler, who, 
 when he first heard of Napier’s method, could hardly form an accurate idea of 
 its meaning. Not Tycho, nor Longomontanus, nor Galileo, nor any one of 
 Kepler’s numerous correspondents, including, we should think, nearly all the 
 learned calculators of the period. At length, however, Kepler, who to his dy- 
 ing day never ceased to marvel at the achievement, seems a little excited by 
 discovering that ove other person had actually approached the theory without 
 being aware of it. In his Rudolphine Tables, published in the year 1627, 
 he remarks, “ the accents in calculation Jed Justus Byrgius ou the way to 
 these very Logarithms many years before Napier’s system appeared ; but being 
 an indolent man, and very uncommunicative, instead of rearing up his child for 
 the public benefit, he deserted it in the birth.” * This was the result of Kepler’s 
 indefatigable inquiries, for nine years, as to who had ever thought of the Sys- 
 tem before, and, giving him the fullest credit for the fact, it amounts to this, 
 that Byrgius had made some observations upon the adaptation of an arith- 
 metical to a geometrical progression, very naturally occurring to him in tri- 
 gonometrical calculations. The Apices Logistict, to which Kepler alludes, are 
 those accents which the Greeks used in order to change the value or mark the 
 order of a symbol, as we use the cypher; and this is particularly exemplified 
 in their sexagesimal division of the circle still in use, where the accents ’,",’, ’, 
 &e. of minutes, seconds, thirds, fourths, &c. are an arithmetical progression 
 denoting the fractional orders, the values of which descend in a ratio of 60, and 
 
 * « Apices Logistici, Justo Byrgio, multis annis ante editionem Nepeiranam, viam preiverunt 
 ad hos ipsissimos logarithmos, etsi homo cunctator, et scretorum suorum custos, foetum in partu 
 destituit, non ad usos publicos educavit.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 393 
 
 form the corresponding geometrical progression. It is obvious, however, that 
 Kepler meant nohonour to his friend to the prejudiceof Napier. On thecontrary, 
 the spirit in which he notices the fact, is, that Byrgius had substantially failed 
 to perceive that a chapter of algebra might be composed in which that property 
 of progressions would be reared into vast importance ; an importance never 
 felt until Napier demonstrated it by a method far more nearly allied to the 
 profound algebraic views of Newton, than those easy progressions,—so obvious 
 in the Arabic scale itself, and through which, perhaps, Byrgius had been un- 
 wittingly on a tract to Logarithms,—are to Napier’s system. 
 
 The mathematician whose claim we are considering ranked not meanly in 
 science ; he was instrument-maker and astronomer to the Landgrave of Hesse, 
 and must have been well known to Kepler; he may have been “ homo cunc- 
 tator,” but he was not so foolish as to have cast aside his own immortality had 
 he really extended the Archimedean principle in any remarkable manner; he 
 was a public astronomer, under high patronage, in a country teeming with ri- 
 vals in science, and where a great mathematical discovery was the means of 
 obtaining rank, wealth, and adoration; it is absolutely impossible, therefore, 
 that an astronomer of the Landgrave of Hesse could have calculated tables 
 of Logarithms, knowing what he was about, and then have cast them aside ; 
 there was the gulf of ignorance betwixt him and Logarithms, and so 
 we must construe the expressions of Kepler, “ faetum in partu destituit, non 
 ad usos publicos educavit.” Supposing him even to have observed all the cu- 
 rious properties of a corresponding series, under the fertile and flexible Arabic 
 notation,—the parent of progressions,—he would not have been singular in 
 thus obtaining a glimpse of Logarithms without knowing them ;* and there 
 
 * Michael Stifels has a far stronger claim to be named in a history of Logarithms than Justus 
 Byrgius. Montucla records him as an observer of progressions, but will not allow him any share 
 whatever of the honour of Logarithms. He was a Protestant clergyman, born at Eslingen in 
 Saxony, in 1509, who published at Nuremberg, so early as 1544, a very original and philosophi- 
 cal work upon arithmetic and algebra, entitled Arithmetica Integra. In this he examines loga- 
 rithmic properties of corresponding series of numbers, so ingeniously and profoundly that he al- 
 most deserves to have made the great discovery. But his mind had not the grasp of Napier’s, 
 and fell short even of the conception of bending the whole system of Numbers to these Archime- 
 dean principles ; consequently, after labouring earnestly at progressions, anc talking con amore of 
 their properties, his genius dies away into the doctrine of magic squares. So far from interfering 
 with the fame of Napier, he affords the best illustration of the fact that no hints could suggest 
 the Logarithms accidentally even to mathematical minds. Napier is the solitary being who said to 
 
 3D 
 
394 | THE LIFE OF 
 
 would still be this distinction betwixt Byrgius and Napier, that the former, 
 neither seeking nor dreaming of such a power, stumbled upon a natural tract 
 in the system of notation, which might have led him, but did not, to an im- 
 perfect and accidental developement of Logarithms ; whereas the latter saw 
 that the power was wanted, that calculation was impeded, and, to use his own 
 words, “ began therefore to consider in my mind by what certain and. ready 
 art I might remove those hindrances,” and in doing so sought no easy path 
 pointed out to him by the progressive power of cyphers, but, plunging at 
 once into the algebraic depth of his own original fluxionary system, took 
 the very path which NEWTON and LEIBNITZ would have taken, and 
 returned leading the whole system of Numbers captive to the properties 
 of progressions. The distinguished Playfair, in stating to the full extent 
 ' those properties as observed before Napier’s time, has well expressed the pro- 
 per appreciation of such prior claims: “ Thus far, however,” he says, “ there 
 was no difficulty, and the discovery might certainly have been made by men 
 much inferior either to Napier or Archimedes. What remained to be done, 
 what Archimedes did not attempt, and what Napier completely performed, 
 involved two great difficulties. It is plain that the resource of the geometri- 
 cal progression was sufficient when the given numbers were terms of that 
 progression ; but if they were not it did not seem that any advantage could be 
 derived from it. Napier, however, perceived, and it was by no means obvious, 
 that all numbers whatsoever might be inserted in the progression, and have 
 their places assigned in it. After concewing the possibility of this, the next 
 difficulty was to discover the principle, and to execute the arithmetical pro- 
 cess by which these places were to be ascertained. It isin these two points 
 that the peculiar merit of his invention consists.” * When this idea occurred to 
 Napier, then, and not till then, were Logarithms conceived ; when he set him- 
 self to show how such intercalations could be generated, then, and not till 
 
 himself I wILL DISCOVER SUCH A POWER, who sat down to the task, and who accomplished 
 it. Sir John Leslie, when speaking of Stifels in his Dissertation, uses a careless expression. 
 “ Stifels anticipated some of the later discoveries, pointed out the nature of Logarithms,” &c. 
 Napier invented the very term; and that Leslie could mean no more than what we have already 
 conceded to Stifels, is obvious from his saying elsewhere, that “ Napier’s life, devoted to the im- 
 provement of the science of calculation, was crowned by the invention of Logarithms, the noblest 
 conquest ever achieved by man.” 
 * Dissertation. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 395 
 
 then, were Logarithms demonstrated ; and when he completed the laborious 
 operation of calculating tables constructed upon those principles, then, and not 
 till then, the world was in possession of Logarithms. 
 
 Justus Byrgius is the solitary mathematician for whom any thing like an 
 independent claim to the invention has been set up betwixt the time of Archi- 
 medes and Napier. Not that it has ever been said that our philosopher bor- 
 rowed any thing from the German ; for the priority of Napier’s publication, and 
 the surpassing beauty of his algebraic method, has never met with contradic- 
 tion. But there is a story that Kepler’s friend had actually computed tables 
 of Logarithms years before Napier published his canon, and, consequently, 
 that the German stands nearly in the same relation to this great discovery that 
 Newton himself does to the infinitesmal calculus, in the celebrated competition 
 with Leibnitz. It would, indeed, be singular, if this public astronomer had 
 computed such tables without giving them to the world, or ever himself 
 pretending to the discovery. Yet the facts have been imposingly detailed 
 by Montucla in his great history of Mathematics, and hitherto without any 
 refutation. If Dr Hutton, instead of confusing the history of Logarithms 
 to the further detriment of Napier’s intellectual rights, by appearing to as- 
 sume that the conquest, which our philosopher a/one imagined and accom- 
 plished, was the work of many, had refuted the false claim we are about to 
 expose, he would thereby have only done justice to his country. 
 
 “ There is a geometer,” says Montucla, “ to whom we must here give a 
 place, and that is, Juste Byrge. That which chiefly renders him worthy of 
 notice is the fact, that he invented and constructed tables of Logarithms si- 
 multaneously with Napier. Kepler represents him to us as a man of consi- 
 derable genius, but thinking so modestly of his own inventions, and so indif- 
 ferent about them, as to suffer them to be buried in the dust of his study ; 
 and, says Kepler, for that reason he never gave any thing to the public 
 through the medium of the press.* But Kepler was in error when he said 
 so, and we shall proceed to unfold a tale not a little curious upon that sub- 
 
 * This is a very erroneous version of the passage we have already quoted from Kepler’s Ta- 
 bule Rudolphine, and argues literary carelessness on the part of Montucla, as may be detected 
 in more than one instance in his great work. It will be perceived that Kepler confines his remark 
 entirely to the extent which Byrgius had evinced his knowledge of Logarithmic properties, and 
 says something totally different from Montucla’s paraphrase.—See supra, p. 392. 
 
396 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ject.* Notwithstanding what Kepler says of J. Byrge, Benjamin Bramer 
 bears witness to the fact, that he (Byrge) did publish something relative to 
 Logarithms. That author in a German work of his, entitled, Description of 
 an Instrument very useful for perspective and drawing plans, (Cassel, 1630, 
 4to,) says expressly, “ It was upon these principles that my dear brother-in-law 
 and master, Juste Byrge, constructed, more than twenty years ago, a beautiful 
 table of progressions, with their differences from 10 to 10, calculated to 9 
 places, and which he caused to be printed at Prague in 1620, so that the in- 
 vention of Logarithms is not Neper’s, but was made by Juste Byrge long 
 before him.” 
 
 Upon this unblushing assumption, Montucla continues his remarks. ‘“ But 
 the work of this geometer was nowhere to be found, and probably would 
 never have been discovered had not the passage led M. Kastner to recognize 
 these tables among some old mathematical works which he had purchased. 
 They bore this title in German: Tables of Arithmetical and Geometrical 
 Progressions, with an introduction explanatory of their meaning and use in 
 all manner of Calculations, by J. B. printed in the ancient city of Prague, 
 1620. The tables contain seven leaves and a-half, printed in folio, but the 
 introduction announced is awanting, which leads to the conjecture, that some 
 peculiar circumstances had stopped the progress of the work; and, indeed, 
 Bramer informs us in another of his own works, that Juste Byrge contem- 
 plated the publication of several of his inventions, and, for that purpose, had 
 his portrait engraved in the year 1619, but the thirty years’ war, which un- 
 happily desolated Germany, opposed an obstacle to his design.” Montucla 
 then proceeds to give a specimen of the fragment of Byrgius taken from M. 
 Kastner, and concludes his curious story, by deigning to extend his illustrious 
 protection thus far over old John of Merchiston. ‘“ We must remark at the 
 same time, that it would be unjust to conclude, from the work printed in 1620, 
 that Byrge had invented Logarithms before Neper ; for the work of Neper 
 appeared in 1614, and it is the priority of dates of works which determines at 
 the bar of public opinion the anteriority of the invention. How then does 
 Bramer from that date, 1620, arrive at the conclusion, that his brother-in-law 
 had made the discovery long before Napier ? It is well known, that the date 
 
 * « Mais Kepler étoit dans l’erreur en cela, et nous allons développer ici une anecdote assez 
 curieuse sur ce sujet.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 397 
 
 of an invention requiring much calculation is necessarily anterior to that of 
 publication, and Neper is equally entitled to the assumption, that his inven- 
 tion existed in his head for several years before he published it ; and besides, 
 in a court of law itself, Byrge would lose his suit, for, according to the 
 strictest administration of justice, a date of publication anterior by six years 
 must be held to have afforded an opportunity of becoming acquainted with 
 the discovery, and disguising it under another form. Let us be contented, 
 therefore, with associating at a distance, and to a certain extent only, Byrge 
 with the honour of that ingenious invention ; but the glory must always be- 
 long to Neper.” * 
 
 Fair and softly, M. Montucla, “ de l’Institut National de France, An vii.” 
 Britain has but one name by which she can claim her place in that page of the 
 history of physical astronomy, where Tycho, Kepler, Galileo, are record- 
 ed, and it is Napier,—Scotland has in him her solitary philosopher majorum 
 geniium, and must not part with a ray of his glory. The value of Byrgius’s 
 share of any honour in the matter may be expressed by that ghostly symbol 
 which is the soul of Arabic notation, 0. We might say so upon the evidence 
 adduced in his favour, which is totally inadequate to sustain his claim. His 
 brother-in-law is, under the circumstances, not competent evidence; for the 
 peremptory manner in which he springs from so vague a statement to the 
 astounding conclusion, that Byrgius, and not Napier, is the Inventor of 
 Logarithms, proves Bramer to have been either an idiot or a false witness. 
 The miserable fragment of miscalculated tables discovered by Kastner proves 
 nothing, for there is neither description nor claim attached to them, and their 
 date is 1620; and any support which the claim attempted to be reared upon 
 that fragment may seem to obtain from the notice of Kepler (also very vague) 
 is more than neutralized by Kepler himself. But there exists positive evi- 
 dence against the claim, shadowy as that is, “ et nous allons développer ici 
 une anecdote assez curieuse sur ce sujet.” 
 
 According to Bramer, his kinsman had calculated tables of Logarithms 
 more than twenty years before 1630. As he has not fixed the date, we take 
 the assumption as referring to the year 1609. “ But,” says Kepler, writing 
 in the year 1624, and without the slightest notice of Byrgius, “ a certain 
 Scotchman, so early as the year 1594, wrote to Tycho a promise of that won- 
 derful canon.” According to Bramer, his kinsman, the “ homo cunctator,” 
 
 * Histoire des Mathematiques, Tom. ii. p. 9, et infra. 
 
398 THE LIFE OF 
 
 did so far bestir himself as to have his portrait engraved, in the year 1619, for 
 a frontispiece to his great discoveries, among which, and probably the least, 
 were the Logarithms! In 1620 the fragment of his tables was printed 
 at Prague, but without frontispiece or anything else. Now it happens, 
 though Montucla was not aware of the fact, that the very place where 
 Kepler himself first saw a copy of John Napier’s Canon Mirificus was THE 
 ANCIENT CITY OF PRAGUE, and this was in the year 1617. Our autho- 
 rity is the letter from Kepler to Napier, with which these Memoirs con- 
 clude, and which Montucla had never seen. So the “ homo cunctator” calcu- 
 lated tables of Logarithms in 1609, and then cast them among the rub- 
 bish of his study; in the year 1617 a copy of Napier’s Canon is laid, as the 
 wonder of the day, before Kepler himself, the oracle of European science, in 
 the city of Prague; from that moment Kepler’s whole existence is identified 
 with his love of Logarithms, and all that he ever says for his friend Byrgius 
 is, that he did not make the discovery; in 1619 (two years after Napier’s 
 death,) the “ homo cunctator” has his portrait engraved; in 1620 he is said 
 to have printed at Prague some isolated and useless fragment of a table, but 
 it is not even pretended that he put forth any claim; ten years afterwards, 
 namely, in 1630, Bramer, brother-in-law to the “ homo cunctator,” has the 
 effrontery to announce, and without so much as a detailed or explicit account 
 in support of his allegation, that Justus Byrgius, and not John Napier, is the 
 inventor of Logarithms. We regret to add to the name of Montucla, that of 
 another distinguished historian of science, as having been carried by this ground- 
 less pretension, which was probably a villanous though weak attempt to wrest 
 the laurels from the grave of a foreigner.* M. Kluegel, in his philosophical 
 dictionary, a work of great ability, records, that “ Neper in Scotland, and 
 Jobst Byrg in Germany, were the first who, without any intercommunica- 
 tion, calculated tables of Logarithms.” + It is some consolation to find, that 
 
 * Any one who will take the trouble to examine the table of Byrgius, as given by Montucla 
 in his French work, and Kluegel in his German one, will at once perceive how wretched an affair 
 it is; and how easily it may have been an abortive attempt to examine Napier’s system, whose 
 secret method of construction was not published until the year 1619, and might not reach Prague 
 for some time afterwards. Kepler himself, as we shall find, wrote in that very year to Napier, 
 
 entreating, in his own illustrious name, and that of all the scientific men around him, that he 
 ~ would give the world his secret. Where was the “homo cunctator” then ? Viewed in every igh 
 the claim for Byrgius is either nonsense or roguery. 
 
 + “ Neper in Schottland und Jobst Byrg in Deutschland sind die ersten welche, ohne etwas von 
 einander zu wissen, Logarithmische Tafeln berechnet haben.” 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 399 
 
 our philosopher is admitted to an equal share, and has no other competitor. 
 But how happened it, we would ask M. Kluegel, that Kepler gave all the glory 
 to Napier, and none to his own countryman ? This same author expresses 
 most graphically the enthusiastic zeal with which the legislator of the stars 
 rushed upon the Logarithms; “ Kepler ergriff Nepers Erfindung mit Eifer,” 
 —Kepler seized Napier’s discovery with enthusiasm,—now Kepler expressly 
 regards the speculation of Byrgius with contempt. 
 
 Montucla and Kluegel have, in every other respect, done justice to the 
 illustrious Scotchman. Dr Hutton, actuated it would seem by some feel- 
 ing of national jealousy, has treated Napier’s fame and memory in the most 
 unbecoming manner. Anxious to imbue his students with an idea that 
 those profound and philosophical views which engendered the Logarithms 
 were diffused over all ages, and, towards the consummation, equally shared 
 among many calculators, this author, in the progress of casting every doubt 
 he can upon Napier’s intellectual rights, thus winds up his own peculiar exa- 
 mination of the birth of that wonderful invention. “ This, however, was no 
 newly discovered property of numbers, but what was always well known to 
 all mathematicians, being treated of in the writings of Euclid, as also by 
 Archimedes, who made great use of it in his Avenarius, a treatise on the 
 number of the sands, namely, in assigning the rank or place of those terms of 
 a geometrical series produced from the multiplication together of any of the 
 foregoing terms by the addition of the corresponding terms of the arithmeti- 
 cal: ‘series which served as the indices or exponents of the former. And the 
 reason why tables of these numbers were not sooner composed was, that the 
 accuracy and trouble of trigonometrical computation had not sooner rendered 
 them necessary. It is therefore not to be doubted, that, about the close of 
 the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, many persons had 
 thoughts of such a table of numbers besides the few who are said to have 
 attempted it.”* The reason why tables of Logarithms were not sooner compos- 
 ed was, that they were of no use before the year 1614, is here solemnly recorded 
 by one who calls himself their historian! The same might, with equal sense 
 and justice, be said of the invention of printing, or of the steam-engine, 
 or of any other mighty impulse which the human mind ever received. It is 
 curious that a mathematical professor (we do not call him a philosopher) 
 
 * ‘History of Logarithms, by Charles Hutton, LL. D., F.R.S., and Professor of Mathematics 
 in the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. 
 
400 THE LIFE OF 
 
 should cause the question.—Would Logarithms have been of no value in the 
 schools of Alexandria? Would Euclid, and Archimedes, and Apollonius, and 
 Hipparchus, and Ptolemy, and Diophantus, not all have seized, like Kepler, 
 the Logarithms mt Kifer? A perfect notation in Arithmetic, and the infant 
 Algebra itself came even to the dark ages. Were those gifts too soon for Science ? 
 In the dusky land of the birth of algebra, had the Logarithms lurked far away 
 at the mysterious fountain of numbers, would no wandering prophet of science, 
 no glorious dealer in immortal merchandize, no Leonardo, or Gerbert, or de 
 Burgo, have brought home that treasure, too, in his bosom rejoicing ? When 
 the reviving torch of science first flashed in the hands of Purbach and Regio- 
 montanus, would they have rejected the key of calculation? Had it appeared 
 a century before Napier, would not physical astronomy have been as far ad- 
 vanced in his time as it was a century after, and would not NAPIER have 
 been NEWTON ? 
 
 But there were many persons having thoughts of such a table of numbers be- 
 sides the few who are said to have attempted it! Dr Hutton, in support of this 
 assertion, first tells us, that “ some say Longomontanus invented Logarithms ;” 
 but he dare not give him credit for much more than the zdea of them, being 
 forced to admit, that Longomontanus lived thirty-three years after the publica- 
 tion of the invention, and never hinted aclaim. He quotes, however, the story 
 from the Athene Oxonienses, as if it were to be taken literally; tells us that 
 it is rested upon the authority of Oughtred and Wingate; but without adding 
 that it is not confirmed by the writings of those philosophers. He then clings 
 to Byrgius; “ Kepler also says, that one Juste Byrge, assistant astronomer 
 to the Landgrave of Hesse, invented or projected Logarithms long before Neper 
 did, but that they had never come abroad on account of the great reservedness 
 of their author with regard to his own compositions.” * But Hutton, though 
 he suppresses what so materially qualifies the words of Kepler, and ventures 
 not into the slightest examination of the pretension for Byrgius (who never 
 made it for himself) is fond of the story, and does what he can to fix it upon 
 the legislator of the stars as an unqualified assertion of his; for, speak- 
 ing of the Rudolphine Tables, our author takes occasion to repeat, “ and 
 here it is that he (Kepler) mentions Justus Byrgius as having had Lo- 
 
 * Is that a fair or true statement of Kepler’s expressions fetum in partu destituit, non ad usos 
 publicos educavit ? Those expressions amount not to a statement that Byrgius never published 
 tables, but that he never found the Logarithms. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 401 
 
 garithms before Napier published them.” These, Longomontanus and Byr- 
 gius, are all whom Dr Hutton can find to represent his learned calculators of 
 the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who anticipated or coincided with 
 Napier in the discovery. We have already given a few hurried sketches of 
 the great actors in the scientific world, from the revival of letters to the pub- 
 lication of Logarithms, which, though necessarily very imperfect, will be 
 sufficient to meet this unjust appreciation by a modern English author. 
 But he is contradicted by the history of science, ancient and modern, and 
 by every philosopher of greatest name, both in Napier’s time and ours. 
 Among the finest characteristics of our philosopher’s invention was the un- 
 hoped-for manner in which it removed a pressure, long and severely felt, and 
 which might have crushed the temple of science, had that not possessed such 
 a pillar as Kepler. ‘To use the expressions of a distinguished writer, “ What 
 all mathematicians were now wishing for, the genius of Neper enabled him 
 to discover ; and the invention of Logarithms introduced into the calculations 
 of trigonometry a degree of simplicity and ease, which no man had been so 
 sanguine as to expect.” * Kepler, Ursine, Speidell, Gunter, Briggs, Vlacq, 
 Cugerus, Cavalieri, Wolff, Wallis, Halley, Keill, and a host of others, all bear 
 witness against Dr Hutton, in the honourable and enthusiastic manner they 
 acknowledge Napier as the only author of that revolution in science. 
 
 It seems, however, that this writer was only paving the way for a more de- 
 termined attack upon the memory of our philosopher. He notices the Eng- 
 lish translation of the Canon as having passed through Napier’s hands, and 
 also, that there was “ a preface by Henry Briggs, of whom we shall presently 
 have occasion to speak more at large, on account of the great share he 
 bore in perfecting the Logarithms ;” then he adds, “ the note which Baron 
 Napier inserted in this English edition, and which was not in the original, 
 was as follows :—But because the addition and subtraction of these former 
 numbers may seem somewhat painful, I intend (if it shall please God) in 
 a second edition, to set out such Logarithms as shall make those numbers 
 above written to fall upon decimal numbers, such as, 100000000, 200000000, 
 300000000, &c. which are easy to be added or abated to or from any other 
 number.—This note (continues Dr Hutton) had reference to the alteration of 
 the scale of Logarithms in such manner, that 1 should become the Logarithm 
 of the ratio of 10 to 1, instead of the number 2.3025851, which Napier 
 
 * Review of Woodhouse’s Trigonometry —Edin. Review, Vol. xvii. p. 124. 1810. 
 3 E 
 
402 THE.LIFE OF 
 
 had made that Logarithm in his table, and which alteration had before been 
 recommended to him by Briggs, as we shall see presently. Napier also in- 
 serted a similar remark in his Rabdologia, which he printed at Edinburgh in 
 1617.” After examining various modifications and editions of the tables, our 
 author then proceeds to accuse John Napier of breach of truth, breach of 
 honesty, and breach of friendship. He quotes some extracts from the corre- 
 spondence of Briggs with Archbishop Usher, and the account which the former 
 himself has given of his first visit to Merchiston, all of which are directly con- 
 tradictory of what he means to found ; and these, his own evidence, we shall 
 present against that author in a less garbled form, after abstracting his asser- 
 tions and accusations. ‘“ Mr Henry Briggs, (he says,) not less esteemed for 
 his great probity and other eminent virtues, than for his excellent skill in the 
 mathematics,” &c. “ appears to be the first person who formed the idea of this 
 change in the scale, which he presently and generously communicated, both to 
 the public in his lectures, and to Lord Napier himself, who afterwards said, 
 that he also had thought of the same thing.” He then quotes the positive de- 
 claration of Briggs, that the Logarithms were improved according to Napier’s 
 own conception and advice; and yet proceeds: “ So it is plain that Briggs 
 was the inventor of the present scale of Logarithms, in which one is the 
 Logarithm of the ratio of 10 to 1, and 2 that of 100 to1, &c. and that the share 
 which Napier had in them was only advising Briggs to begin at the lowest 
 number, 1,” &c. He goes on to depreciate Napier’s important modification of 
 the improved plan, notices a preface of Briggs written after our philosopher's 
 death, and quotes this passage from it, ““ Why these Logarithms differ from 
 those set forth by their most illustrious inventor of ever respectful memory, 
 in his Canon Mirificus, Ir Is TO BE HOPED his posthumous work will shortly 
 make appear.” 
 
 Having laid his foundation by these capital letters, Dr Hutton thus winds 
 up his calumny against the inventor of Logarithms. “ As Napier, after 
 communication had with Briggs on the subject of altering the scale of Lo- 
 garithms, had given notice, both in Wright’s translation, and in his own 
 Rabdologia, printed in 1617, of his intention to alter the scale, ( though 
 it appears very plainly that he never intended to compute any more,) with- 
 out making any mention of the share which Briggs had in the alteration, this 
 gentleman modestly gave the above hint. But not finding any regard paid 
 to it in the said posthumous work, published by Lord Napier’s son in 1619, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 403 
 
 where the alteration is again adverted to, but still without any mention of 
 Briggs, this gentleman thought he could not do less than state the grounds of 
 that alteration himself, as they are above extracted from his work published 
 in 1624. Thus, upon the whole matter, it seems evident that Mr Briggs, 
 whether he had thought of this improvement in the construction of Logarithms, 
 of making 1 the Logarithm of the ratio of 10 to 1, before Lord Napier or not 
 (which is a secret that could be known only to Napier himself,) was the first 
 person who communicated the idea of such an improvement to the world; and 
 that he did this in his lectures to his auditors at Gresham College in the year 
 1615, very soon after his perusal of Napier’s Canon Mirificus Logarithmorum 
 in the year 1614. He also mentioned it to Napier, both by letter in the 
 same year, and on his first visit to him in Scotland in the summer of the year 
 1616, when Napier approved the idea, and said it had already occurred to 
 himself, and that he had determined to adopt it. It would therefore have 
 been more candid in Lord Napier to have told the world in his second edition 
 of his book, * that Mr Briggs had mentioned this improvement to him, and 
 that he had thereby been confirmed in the resolution he had already taken be- 
 fore Mr Briggs’s communication with him, to adopt it in that his second edition, 
 as better fitted to the decimal notation of arithmetic which was in general use. 
 Such a declaration would have been but a piece of justice to Mr Briggs; and 
 the not having made it cannot but incline us to suspect, that Lord Napier was 
 desirous that the world should ascribe to him alone the merit of this very use- 
 ful improvement of the Logarithms, as well as that of having originally in- 
 vented them ; though, if the having first communicated an invention to the 
 world be sufficient to entitle a man to the honour of having first invented it, 
 Mr Briggs had the better title to be called the first inventor of this happy im- 
 provement of Logarithms.” 
 
 With the partiality which characterizes the whole of his incoherent attack, 
 Dr Hutton studies to keep out of view that the improvement in question 
 is not of the nature of an invention at all, but, at best, is a mere derivative 
 idea, readily suggested by the invention of another. “ Various systems of 
 Logarithms,” says Professor Playfair in his Dissertation, “ ¢¢ 7s evedent, may 
 be constructed according to the geometrical progression assumed ; and of these, 
 
 * Napier never published a second edition of his book; and his son, who gave the world the 
 Constructio after the philosopher's death, laments in the preface that his father died even before 
 he had prepared that second edition for the press. 
 
404 THE LIFE OF 
 
 that which was first contrived by Napier, though the simplest and the foun- 
 dation of the rest, was not so convenient for the purposes of calculation as one 
 which soon afterwards occurred, both to himself and his friend Briggs, by 
 whom the actual calculation was performed. The new system of Logarithms 
 was an improvement practically considered ; but, in as far as it was connect- 
 ed with the principles of the invention, it ¢s only of secondary consideration.” 
 But Dr Hutton seems not to have been qualified to judge betwixt two of the 
 highest minded philosophers in Europe. If Napier, when he expressly declar- 
 ed that he had the improvement in a better shape long before his friend, and 
 upon two separate occasions publicly announced his intention to publish it as 
 his own, did all this in order to wrest the merit from his friend, we must not 
 call him uncandid merely, but a rogue. If Briggs was conscious and proud 
 of his own suggestion, and anxious that the world should know it, yet left 
 it to his friend for years to make the acknowledgment, though he half sus- 
 pected that friend’s intention to cheat him, and then, when he found he had 
 cheated him, waited for five years longer before he told his story, and after 
 all told it in Napier’s favour and not his own, we need not speak of the 
 modesty of Briggs, for he must have been a fool. Such is the inevitable re- 
 sult of Dr Hutton’s view, and it is a relief to turn to the truth. 
 
 Henry Briggs was then the Kepler of England. He was ten years 
 younger than Napier, and was distinguished in navigation and astronomy 
 before the close of the sixteenth century. About the year 1596 he was ap- 
 pointed professor of geometry in the munificent establishment founded by Sir 
 Thomas Gresham, where he devoted himself particularly to astronomy, and 
 became known to the most celebrated men of his day. He was the intimate 
 friend and literary coadjutor of Edward Wright, and also the friend and cor- 
 respondent of the great James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh. Kepler was 
 the luminary to whom Henry Briggs chiefly looked, until Napier fascinated 
 him. From that moment he continued to revolve round the genius of the 
 Scottish philosopher, so long as his own career lasted; and Napier, in re- 
 turn, called him “ my most beloved friend.” In Usher’s correspondence, 
 there is a letter, dated August 1610, from Briggs to that prelate, an extract 
 from which will best show the nature and inclination of Napier’s friend :— 
 “ Concerning eclypses, you see by your own experience, that good purposes 
 may in two years be honestly crossed, and, therefore, till you send me your 
 tractate you promised the last year, do not look for much from me, for, if any 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 405 
 
 other business may excuse, it will serve me too. Yet am I not idle in that 
 kind, for Kepler hath troubled all, and erected a new frame for the motions 
 of all the seven upon a new foundation, making scarce any use of any former 
 hypotheses ; yet dare I not much blame him, save that he is tedious and ob- 
 scure ; and at length coming to the point, he hath left out the principal verb. 
 I mean his tables both of middle motion and prosthaphereseon, * reserving 
 all, as it seemeth, to his Tab. Rudolpheas, setting down only a lame pattern in 
 Mars; but I think I shall scarce with patience expect his next books, unless 
 he speed himself quickly.” Little did Briggs then know what was in store 
 for himself and Kepler, and the Rudolphine Tables. Before those long-ex- 
 pected tables were published, the Logarithms appeared ; and Kepler, the mo- 
 ment he knew it, unwove his web, and remodelled the work upon this new 
 chapter in science. It must have been early in the year 1614 that the Canon 
 Mirificus issued from the press, because Edward Wright died in 1615, and 
 yet he had completed the translation, sent it to the author in Scotland, and 
 received it back revised before his death. It was then published, as we have 
 already observed, by Samuel Wright, but under the auspices of Briggs, who 
 wrote a preface, wherein he informs us,— Gentle Reader, seeing I have public- 
 ly taught the meaning and use of this book at Gresham-House, and have had 
 some charge about this impression committed unto me, both by the honour- 
 able author, the L. of Marchiston, and by my very good friend, Mr Edward 
 Wright, the translator ; and seeing the one who hath most right, and is best 
 able to commend it, is so far absent, and the other hath made a most happy 
 change of this place and life for a better; thou mayst haply expect that I 
 should write somewhat that may give some taste of the excellent use of it,” 
 &c. The expressions used by Briggs in his first notice of the great discovery 
 to Usher, in a letter, dated Gresham-House, 10th March 1615, are very in- 
 teresting. After speaking of the Arabic versions of the Greek philosophers, 
 
 * « There is a passage in the life of Tycho Brahe by Gassendi, which may mislead an inatten- 
 tive reader to suppose, that Napier’s method had been explored by Herwart at Hoenburg, ’tis in 
 Gassendi’s observations on a letter from Tycho to Herwart of that day of August 1599. . Dixit 
 Hervartus nihil morari se solvendi cujusquem triangul difficultatem ; solere se enim multiplica- 
 tionum ac divisionum vice additiones solum, subtractiones 93 usurpare (quod ut fiert posset, do- 
 cuit postmodum suo Logarithmorum Canone Neperus.) But Herwart here alludes to his work 
 afterwards published in the year 1610, which solves triangles by Prosthaphzresis,—a mode totally 
 different from that of the Logarithms.”—Account of the Life, 3c. of Napier, by Lord Buchan and 
 
 Dr Minto. 
 
406 THE LIFE OF 
 
 and also holding some discourse concerning eclipses, he adds, “‘ Napper, Lord of 
 “Markinston, hath set my head and hands a work with his new and admirable 
 Logarithms. I hope to see him this summer, if it please God, for I never 
 saw book which pleased me better, or made me more wonder. I purpose to 
 discourse with him concerning eclipses, for what is there which we may not 
 hope for at his hands.”* Dr Thomas Smith, the biographer of Usher and 
 Briggs, has painted in vivid colours the state of excitement into which the 
 latter was thrown by the Canon Mirificus. He says, that Ursin, Kepler, 
 Frobenius, Batschius, and others, received it with great honour, but none 
 more so than Briggs. ‘“ He cherished it as the apple of his eye; it was ever 
 in his bosom, or his hand, or prest to his heart, and, with greedy eyes and 
 mind absorbed, he perused it again and again. In his study, or in his bed, 
 his whole thoughts were bent upon illustrating it, and bringing it by new 
 stores to the last stage of perfection ; and he considered that his thoughts could 
 not be more fruitfully, or beautifully, or gloriously, bestowed than upon this 
 most illustrious discipline; for he regarded all other works as idleness. It 
 was the theme of his praise in familiar conversation with his friends, and, ex 
 cathedra, he expounded it to his disciples.” + 
 
 Napier was prepared for the visit of this enthusiastic disciple some time before 
 Briggs arrived in Scotland, by the presence of one John Marr, a mathematician 
 attached to the household of King James. The philosopher’s eldest son was still 
 with his majesty, and by this time had risen to be a privy-councillor. Aware 
 of his father’s retiring dispositions, probably he thought it necessary to send 
 John Marr to prepare him to receive England’s most ardent and illustrious 
 philosopher, who designed himself the “ lover of all them who love the 
 mathematics.” | We may imagine how great the ardour must have been 
 that could induce one so completely occupied as Henry Briggs, with the most 
 laborious and varied science, to undertake a journey to Scotland, which in those 
 days Englishmen considered a pilgrimage to the desert. The fact also affords 
 a striking proof, that, whatever ideas might at this time have already occurred 
 to Briggs as to practical improvements in the structure of the system of Lo- 
 
 * Usher's Letters, p. 36. 
 
 + “ Hunc in deliciis habuit, in sinu, in manibus, in pectore gestavit, oculisque avidissimis, et 
 mente attentissima, iterum iterumque perlegit,” &c.— Vita Henrici Briggii, Scriptore Thoma 
 Smith, p. 6. 
 
 { Preface to Wright’s Translation, by Henry Briggs. 
 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 407 
 
 garithms, he considered those ideas merely derivative, and by no means of the 
 nature of an independent invention. He had stated them to his class, as he 
 informs us himself, in the year 1615, but thought so little of his discovery 
 as an intellectual achievement, that he does not mention the matter in his 
 correspondence to Usher, and took no step in it further than to put his ideas 
 into such a shape as might be fit for inspection by Napier. Him he obviously 
 considered the sole author of Logarithms, whatever shape or structure the sys- 
 tem could be made to assume. 
 
 It was in the summer of the year 1615, that the English philosopher, the 
 pride of Oxford, and who is recorded in the registers of Alma Mater as “ vir 
 doctrina clarus, stupor mathematicorum, moribus ac vita integerrimus,” left his 
 studies in London to do homage to the Scotch philosopher. They who know no 
 more of Logarithms than merely to call them “ an useful abbreviation of a par- 
 ticular branch of the mathematics,” can only regard the ecstacy of Briggs, his ca- 
 resses of the volume, his adoration of the author, his discussions by day and his 
 study by night, his long journeyings, and his years of toil in that cause, as the 
 conduct of one whom too much learning had rendered mad. A more enlight- 
 ened view of the subject brings before us the vast results of the system, and we 
 can then better appreciate and respect such enthusiasm. But if we look more 
 closely to the state of the scientific calculus in Napier’s day, if we examine the 
 structure of the Canon Mirificus itself, the philosophy of its demonstrations, and 
 the whole developement of this unlooked-for aid, and then compare it with 
 the disjointed and timid unfoldings of algebraic analysis, shared among many 
 learned calculators long after Napier’s time, we are impressed with the belief, 
 that, in order to produce such an institute, his mind must have been thickly 
 sown with the germs even of the higher calculus, and we feel that his friend 
 was right, as, struck at this first great move in the chaos of calculation, he 
 exclaimed, “ for what is there which we may not hope for at his hands.”* 
 
 * Dr Hutton, while quoting from that letter Briggs’s first notice of the Canon Mirificus, sup- 
 presses this sentence. But it is material in the question how far Briggs himself credited Napier 
 when the latter said he had anticipated him in the conception of the improvement. It is the au- 
 thor’s object to prove that Briggs did not believe Napier, and that he endeavoured, after Napier’s 
 death, in the weakest manner, to insinuate to the world that Napier had cheated him. But this 
 is a calumny against Henry Briggs no less than against John Napier. Dr Hutton also says that 
 Briggs’s first visit to Napier was in the summer of 1616, and thus the latter would have had a 
 
408 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Henry Briggs, journeying on that high mission, before even Kepler knew that 
 science was emancipated, must have felt deeply 
 
 —when looking forth 
 He saw the empress of the north 
 Sit on her hilly throne ; 
 Her palace’s imperial bowers, 
 Her castle proof to hostile powers, 
 Her stately halls and holy towers,— 
 
 and his heart would beat higher still when first there rose upon his sight the old 
 gray tower of Merchiston. * But with whatever excited feelings he approached 
 the place, they were responded to from the bosom of its illustrious owner. John 
 Marr himself, who was an eye witness of that meeting, described it to William 
 Lilly, King Charles's astrologer, with a graphic minuteness which assures us.of 
 the truth of the picture; and Lilly in his life and times thus narrates it to Elias 
 Ashmole. “ I will acquaint you with one memorable story related unto me 
 by John Marr, an excellent mathematician and geometrician, whom I conceive 
 you remember. He was servant to King James I. and Charles I. When 
 
 twelvemonth to think of his friend’s suggestion by letter, without letting him know till they met 
 that he had the improvement before Briggs communicated it. Now the fact is certain, that 
 Briggs followed his letter to Napier as soon as he could in 1615. He says so in his letter to 
 Usher of that year, and as Napier died in the spring of 1617, and Briggs visited him two succes- 
 sive summers, the first visit must have been in 1615. 
 
 * The reader has been presented with a delineation of Merchiston Tower from the pencil 
 of Williams. What follows is from the pen of Sir Walter Scott. ‘ This fortalice is situated 
 upon the ascent, and nearly about the summit of the eminence called the Borough-moor-head, 
 within a mile and a-half of the city walls. In form it is‘a square tower of the fourteenth or fif- 
 teenth century, with a projection on one side. The top is battlemented, and within the battle- 
 ments, by a fashion more common in Scotland than in England, arises a small building with a 
 steep roof, like a little stone cottage erected on the top of the tower. This sort of upper storey, 
 rising above the battlements, being frequently of varied form, and adorned with notched gables 
 and with turrets, renders a Scottish tower a much more interesting object than those common in 
 Northumberland, which generally terminate in a flat battlemented roof, without any variety of 
 outline. It is not from the petty incidents of a cruel civil war that Merchiston derives its re- 
 nown ; but as having been the residence of genius and of science. The celebrated John Napier of 
 Merchiston was born in this weather-beaten tower; and a small room in the summit is pointed 
 out as the study in which he secluded himself while engaged in the mathematical researches 
 which led to his great discovery. The battlements of Merchiston tower command an extensive 
 view of great interest and beauty.”’—Provincial Antiquities of Scotland. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 409 
 
 Merchiston first published his Logarithms, Mr Briggs, then reader of the astro- 
 nomy lectures at Gresham College, in London, was so surprised with admira- 
 tion of them, that he could have no quietness in himself until he had seen 
 that noble person whose only invention they were. He acquaints John Marr 
 therewith, who went in Scotland before Mr Briggs, purposely to be there 
 when these two so learned persons should meet. Mr Briggs appoints a certain 
 day when to meet at Edinburgh, but, failing thereof, Merchiston was fearful 
 he would not come. It happened one day as John Marr and the Lord Napier 
 were speaking of Mr Briggs, ‘ Oh! John,’ saith Merchiston, ‘ Mr Briggs will 
 not come now;’ at the very instant one knocks at the gate, John Marr hasted 
 down, and it proved to be Mr Briggs to his great contentment. He brings 
 Mr Briggs into my Lord’s chamber, where almost one quarter of an hour 
 was spent, each beholding other with admiration, before one word was spoken. 
 At last Mr Briggs began,—‘ My Lord, I have undertaken this long journey 
 purposely to see your person, and to know by what engine of wit or ingenuity 
 you came first. to think of this most excellent help unto astronomy, viz. the Lo- 
 garithms; but, my Lord, being by you found out, I wonder nobody else found 
 it out before, when, now being known, it appears so easy. * He was nobly 
 entertained by the Lord Napier; and every summer after that, during the 
 Laird’s being alive, this venerable man went purposely to Scotland to visit 
 
 him.” 
 
 We must now give Briggs’s own account of those visits, from which it 
 might have been conceived impossible that envy itself could have extracted 
 anything to disturb the beautiful picture of friendship and intellectual co-ope- 
 ration betwixt these great men. Seven years after Napier’s death, Briggs 
 tells us in his preface to the Arithmetica Logarithmica, published in Lon- 
 don, 1624, “ That these Logarithms differ from those which that illus- 
 trious man, the Baron of Merchiston, published in his Canon Mirificus, must 
 not surprise you. For I myself, when expounding publicly in London their 
 doctrine to my auditors in Gresham College, remarked that it would be much 
 more convenient that 0 should stand for the Logarithm of the whole sine, 
 as in the Canon Mirificus, but that the Logarithm of the tenth part of the 
 same whole sine, that is to say, 5 degrees, 44 minutes, and 21 seconds 
 should be 10,000,000,000. Concerning that matter, I wrote immediately to 
 
 * This interferes with Dr Hutton’s fable of the learned calculators of the 16th and 17th cen- 
 
 turies. 
 
 3 F 
 
410 THE LIFE OF 
 
 the author himself; and, as soon as the season of the year and the vacation 
 time of my public duties of instruction permitted, I took journey to Edin- 
 burgh, where, being most hospitably received by him, I lingered for a whole 
 month. But as we held discourse concerning this change in the system of 
 Logarithms, he said, that for along time he had been sensible of the same 
 thing, and had been anxious to accomplish it, but that he had published 
 those he had already prepared, until he could construct tables more convenient, 
 if other weighty matters and his frail health would suffer him so todo. But 
 he conceived that the change ought to be effected in this manner, that 0 
 should become the Logarithm of unity, and 10,000,000,000 that of the whole 
 sine; which I could not but admit was by far the most convenient of all. So, 
 rejecting those which I had already prepared, I commenced, under his encour- 
 aging counsel, to ponder seriously about the calculation of these tables; and 
 in the following summer I again took journey to Edinburgh, where J sub- 
 mitted to him the principal part of those tables which are here published, and 
 I was about to do the same even the third summer, had it pleased God to 
 spare him to us so long.” * 
 
 * « Quod Logarithmi isti diversi sunt ab iis quos clarissimus vir, Baro Merchistonii, in suo 
 edidit Canone Mirifico non est quod mereris. Ego enim, cum meis auditoribus Londini, publicé 
 in Collegio Greshamiensi horum doctrinam explicarem, animadverti multo futurum commodius 
 si Logarithmus sintis totius servaretur 0 (ut in Canone Mirifico) Logarithmus autém partis deci- 
 mz ejusdem sintis totius, nempe, sints 5 graduum, 44 minutorum, et 21 secundorum, esset 
 10,000,000,000. Atque e& de re scripsi statim ad ipsum auctorem ; et quamprimum per anni 
 tempus et vacationem a publico docendi munere licuit, profectus sum Edinburgum; ubi, huma- 
 nissimé ab eo acceptus heesi per integrum mensem. Cum autém inter nos de horum mutatione 
 sermo haberetur, dle se idem DUDUM sensisse et cupivisse dicebat; veruntamen istos, quos jam 
 paraverat, edendos curasse, donec alios, si per negotia et valetudinem liceret, magis commodos con- 
 fecisset. Istam aiitem mutationem ita faciendam censebat ut 0 esset Logarithmus unitatis, et 
 10,000,000,000, sinds totius ; guos ego longé commodissimum esse non potui non agnoscere. Co- 
 pi igitur, ejus hortatu REGECTIS ILLIS QUOS ANTEA PARAVERAM, de horum calculo serio cogi- 
 tare; et sequenti zstate iterim profectus Edinburgum, horum quos hic exhibeo, preecipuos illi os- 
 tendi; idem etiam tertia estate facturus, si Deus illum nobis tamdiu superstitem esse voluisset.” 
 —Henry Briggs’s Address to his Readers; Avithmetica Logarithmica, London, 1624. 
 
 I have translated the word dudum in this passage, ‘ for a long time,” because it appears to me 
 that such is its general acceptation and its obvious meaning here. Dr Hutton of course translates 
 “se idem dudum sensisse et cupivisse’ in the weakest sense, “ he said that he had formerly thought 
 of it, and wished it.” Baron Maseres has also animadverted upon Napier for alleged injustice to 
 Briggs. He professes to give an accurate reprint of the passage, but has omitted the word dudum. 
 ——Scriptores Logarithmici, Vol. vi. pp. 707, 708. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON, 411 
 
 This acknowledgment on the part of Henry Briggs,—that he had no me- 
 
 rit, save the zeal and the toil, in bringing Logarithms to perfection,—that 
 the very improvement which struck himself while expounding the canon, 
 and which he had publickly noticed to a London audience, (so that a false 
 impression of his own merit in the matter might have gone abroad,) was in 
 _ possession of the author himself long before, and in a far preferable form,— 
 that he, Briggs, had therefore cast aside all he had laboured on his own con- 
 ceptions, and bent his mind to the instructions of the venerable author,—that 
 season after season, until death divided them, he travelled, like the comet to 
 the sun, to draw light from his master, without whose advice and approba- 
 tion he would not venture one step in his arduous undertaking,—says as much 
 for the heart of Briggs as for the head of Napier. 
 
 But Dr Charles Hutton, modelling a view of these facts upon his own 
 mind, has insulted the memory of Henry Briggs, by interpreting that beauti- 
 ful acknowledgment into a miserably weak defence of literary property alleged 
 to have been pirated by Napier. The passage speaks for itself; but a view 
 of the preliminary circumstances, some of which Dr Hutton has suppressed, 
 while others he has wrested to his own purpose, will render it still more 
 unequivocal. 
 
 On the last page of the tables in the original edition of the Canon Mirifi- 
 cus, but neither in the translation nor in any other edition, is the following 
 very interesting sentence from Napier himself, which he titles “ Admonition.” 
 “ Seeing that the calculation of this table, which ought to have been perfected 
 by the labour and pains of many calculators, * has been finished by the ope- 
 
 * It cannot be known to those not conversant with the theory and structure of Logarithms, 
 how beautiful is the one, and how laborious the other. Some idea of the labour, however, which 
 Napier had already undergone, and which Briggs was now even more laboriously repeating, may 
 be derived from the words of an able mathematician while examining that change in the system 
 to which our text refers. ‘ There are various artifices and methods for computing Logarithms. 
 But the art of computing Logarithms, and dexterity in that art, would by themselves be of no 
 use in expediting calculation : if, for instance, we had to multiply 31.523 by 17.81, and to divide 
 the product by 5.4312, it would be a most long method of performing the operation to investigate 
 the Logarithms of these numbers: but it is the circumstance of registering computed logarithms 
 in tables, and, by the art of printing, of multiplying such tables, that enables us to compute quick, 
 ly. The calculation of Logarithms is exceedingly operose ; but one man calculates for thousands, 
 and the results of tedious operations are made subservient to the abridgement of similar ones,” 
 Woopnovse, Treatise on Trigonometry, p. 167, 
 
412 THE LIFE OF 
 
 ration and industry of one alone, it is not surprising if many errors have 
 crept into them. I beseech you, benevolent readers, pardon these, whether 
 caused by the weariness of computation or an oversight of the press ; for, as 
 for me, declining health, and weightier matters have prevented my adding 
 the last finish. But if I shall understand that the use of this invention 
 proves acceptable to the learned, I will, perhaps, shortly give (God willing) 
 the philosophy, and method either of amending this Canon, or of construct- 
 ing a new one upon a better plan; so that through the diligence of many 
 calculators, a Canon more highly finished and accurate than the work of a 
 single individual could effect, may at length see the light. NOTHING Is PER- 
 FECT AT ITS BIRTH.” * It cannot be doubted, when we couple this sentence 
 with Napier’s subsequent declaration of having fora long time conceived a 
 better system of Logarithms, that hehere alludes to the very improvement after- 
 wards adopted ; now the sentence is printed in the first edition from which 
 Briggs expounded the Logarithms at Gresham College when the idea struck 
 himself, and Dr Hutton takes no notice of it whatever. 
 
 In the English translation, which appeared in 1616, the sentence quoted 
 above is omitted. Had Napier been capable of cheating his friend, that sen- 
 tence, which appears at least to refer to the improvement, would have been re- 
 tained. The reason it was omitted is obvious: the revised translation was sub- 
 sequent to the meeting of Briggs with Napier : the acuteness of the former, 
 though it had not led him to the precise mode of Napier’s improvement, had very 
 nearly done so: this necessarily brought the matter to a point, and accord- 
 ingly, instead of the “ Admonitio” in the Latin copy, Napier inserted that new 
 sentence in thetranslation which states explicitly the improvement in the terms 
 
 * ApMONITIO. Quum hujus tabulz calculus, qui plurimorum Logistarum ope et diligentia 
 perfici debuisset, unius tantum opera et industria absolutus sit, non mirum est si plurimi errores 
 in eam irrepserint. Hisce igitur, sive a Logiste lassitudine, sive typographi incuria profectis ig- 
 noscant, obsecro, benevoli lectores: me enim tum infirma valetudo, tum rerum graviorum cura 
 prepedivit, quo minus secundam his curam adhiberem. Vertm si hujus inventi usum eruditis 
 gratum fore intellexero, dabo fortasse brevi (Deo aspirante) rationem ac methodum aut hune 
 canonem emendandi, aut emendatiorem de novo condendi, ut ita plurium Logistarum diligentia, 
 limatior tandem et accuratior, quam unius opera fieri potuit in lucem prodeat. NIHIL IN ORTU 
 PERFECTUM.” 
 
 I have seen a copy of the Canon Mirificus bearing the date 1614 on the title-page, but without 
 this admonitio on the last leaf, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 413 
 
 we have already quoted from Dr Hutton’s pages. Henry Briggs himself took 
 the charge of bringing out that translation in London, and wrote a preface to 
 it, in which he claims nothing, hints no injustice done to himself, praises the 
 author exceedingly, and adds, “ and if it shall please God (who besides his 
 other mercies hath granted this honour unto the author to begin and thus far 
 to accomplish this admirable work), further to grant unto him life and compe- 
 tent strength, I doubt not we shall have the work so enlarged and perfected 
 that we may use it, both with greater ease and with exactness unto the 
 10th place.” 
 
 In 1617, Napier, in a letter to the Earl of Dunfermline prefixed to another 
 publication, again asserts, without any qualification or contradiction, that he 
 had invented the common Logarithms, and meant to publish the new method. 
 He had arrived at his great invention in the progress of conquering the whole 
 system of numbers. It was a chapter or a section only of a comprehensive 
 work, and this, to a wonderful extent, he had already performed indepen- 
 dent of the Logarithms, the importance and labour of which, however, 
 occupied his last years and brought them too soon to a close. In the 
 progress of this work, mechanical contrivances for relieving the difficulties of 
 computing had not escaped him. From his extensive reading (in an age when 
 books and those who loved them were rare in Scotland,) he gathered, that in 
 Greece, and elsewhere, the abacus and other modes of palpable arithmetic had 
 been in use for practical purposes. He saw that such contrivances were far 
 beneath the dignity and power of intellectual operations, but his genius ne- 
 glected nothing, so in passing he remodelled that chapter too, and enriched it 
 with new stores. Both during the progress of the Canon Mirificus, and after- 
 wards, he had contrived a variety of these methods, of which the most im- 
 portant was RABDOLOGIA, or the art of computing by means of figured rods, 
 better known by the name of Neper’s bones. These inventions he had not 
 at first considered worthy of publication, but having communicated them to 
 his friends, they were beginning to be known both in this country and abroad, 
 and of course in danger of being pirated. The learned Alexander Seton, Earl 
 of Dunfermline, was then Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, and the friend 
 and warm admirer of Napier. At his instigation our philosopher collected 
 the most important of his minor inventions in a profound Latin digest of vari- 
 ous numerical properties. This elegant little volume, now rarely to be met 
 with, he dedicated to the Chancellor by a Latin epistle, of which the following 
 
 is the substance. 
 
414 THE LIFE OF — 
 
 To the most illustrious Alexander Seton, Earl of Dunfermline, Lord 
 of Fyvy and Urquhart, High Chancellor of Scotland, &c. 
 
 The difficulty and prolixity of calculation, (most illustrious Sir) the weari- 
 ness of which is so apt to deter from the study of mathematics, I have always, 
 with what powers and little genius I possess, laboured to eradicate. And 
 with that end in view, I published of late years the Canon of Logarithms, 
 wrought out by myself a long time ago, which, casting aside the natural 
 numbers, and the more difficult operations performed by them, substitutes 
 in their place others affording the same results, by means of easy addi- 
 tions, subtractions, bisections, and trisections. Of which Logarithms, in- 
 deed, I have now found out another species much superior to the for- 
 mer, and intend, if God shall grant me longer life, and the possession of 
 health, to make known the method of constructing, as well as the manner of 
 using them. But the actual computation of this new Canon, I have left, on 
 account of the infirmity of my bodily health, to those versant in such studies ; 
 and especially to that truly most learned man, Henry Briggs, public professor 
 of geometry in London, my most beloved friend.* In the mean time, how- 
 ever, for the sake of those who prefer to work with the natural numbers 
 as they stand, I have excogitated three other compendious modes of calcu- 
 lation, of which the first is by means of numerating rods, and these I 
 have called RABDoLOGIA. Another, by far the most expeditious of all for 
 multiplication, and which on that account I have not inaptly called the 
 promptuary of multiplication, is by means of little plates of metal disposed 
 ina box. And lastly, a third method, namely local arithmetic performed 
 upon a chess-board. I was chiefly impelled, however, to the publication 
 of this little work concerning the mechanism and use of the rods, not 
 merely in consequence of finding that many were so pleased with them 
 
 * « Difficultatem et prolixitatem calculi (vir illustrissime) cujus tedium plurimos a studio ma- 
 thematum deterrere solet, ego semper, pro viribus et ingenii modulo, conatus sum é medio tollere. 
 Atque hoc mihi fine proposito, Logarithmorum canonem, a me longo tempore elaboratum, supe- 
 rioribus annis edendum curavi,” &c. “ quorum quidem Logarithmorum speciem aliam multé pre- 
 stantiorem nunc etiam invenimus, et creandi methodum, una cum eorum usu (si Deus longiorem 
 vite et valetudinis usuram concesserit) evulgare statuimus: ipsam autem novi canonis supputa- 
 tionem, ob infirmam corporis nostri valetudinem, viris in hoc studii genere yersatis relinquimus; 
 imprimis vero doctissimo viro D. Henrico Briggio, Londini publico Geometrie Professori, et 
 amico mihi longe charissimo,” &c, 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 415 
 
 that they are already almost common, and even carried to foreign countries ; 
 but because it also reached my ears, that your kindness advised me so to do, 
 lest they should be published in the name of another, and I be compelled to 
 sing with Virgil, 
 Hos ego versiculos feci, &c. 
 And. this very friendly counsel from your Lordship ought to have the 
 greatest weight with me; though most assuredly, but for that, this little book 
 of rods (to which the other two compendious methods are added) would 
 scarcely have seen the light. If, therefore, any thanks be due from the stu- 
 dents of mathematics for these little books, they all belong to you as your 
 just right, my noble Lord, to whom, indeed, they must spontaneously fly, not 
 only as patron, but a second parent: especially since I am assured that you 
 have done these rods of mine such high honour, as to have them framed not 
 of vulgar materials, but of silver. Accept, therefore, my Lord, in good part, 
 this small work such as it is; and, though it be not worthy of so great a 
 Meceenas, take it under your patronage as a child of your own. And so I 
 earnestly pray God to preserve you long to us and the state, to preside over 
 justice and equity. 
 “ Your Lordship’s most obedient, 
 * JOHN NAPIER, 
 “ Baron of Merchiston.” 
 
 The date of the volume to which this letter is attached is 1617, and Napier 
 died upon the 4th of April in that year. This unfortunate bereavement left 
 the men of letters, in his own country at least, very anxious lest they should 
 also lose those methods of constructing Logarithms which he had promised. 
 His son Robert, a young man of a singular turn of mind, but somewhat 
 imbued with the habits and talents of his father, was, however, naturally 
 backward in attempting the difficult task of preparing for publication the 
 most profound of his father’s works, which had not been left in the state that 
 the author meant the public to see them. Napier himself, who long delayed the 
 publication of the Canon, in various passages evinces anxiety as to its recep- 
 tion, and holds out only a conditional promise of giving the world the secret 
 of constructing it. The most important works were then but slowly spread 
 abroad ; and during the few remaining years of his life, our philosopher had 
 not received sufficient assurance of the approbation of foreign philosophers to 
 
416 THE LIFE OF 
 
 make him hasten to publish the Constructio. But Henry Briggs was still 
 indefatigable in the cause. About the close of the same year in which Napier 
 died, he published, under the title of Logarithmorum Chilias Prima, the first 
 part of that work which he had been on the eve of submitting to Napier in person 
 for the third time. It is in the preface to this that the words occur, “ Why 
 these Logarithms differ from those set forth by their most illustrious inven- 
 tor, of ever respectful memory, in his Canon Mirificus, 1 Is TO BE HOPED, 
 his posthumous work will shortly make appear.” By those capitai letters, Dr 
 Hutton means to call particular attention to the fact, that Briggs “ modestly 
 hints” that justice ought to be done to himself !—a view of the matter deficient 
 both in sense and dignity. Since Briggs first expounded the Logarithms at Gre- 
 sham College in 1615, his days and nights had been spent in admiration of Na- 
 pier. As for hisown share in the improvement, he had announced it to a London 
 audience the moment it struck him. Had that been the object of his solicitude, 
 it was secured so far, and he might have published it at any time, in any other 
 shape he pleased. But such an idea never entered his mind. He had long ago 
 yielded even that merit to the superior sagacity of the author himself, and now 
 he was only expressing, in common with other philosophers, a hope that the 
 world would not be deprived by Napier’s death of the promised method of Con- 
 struction. Robert Napier was hesitating about the publication some time after- 
 wards, and did not produce it until the year 1619. But in the year of Napier’s 
 death, Kepler first saw the Canon Mirificus at Prague when he was too preoccu- 
 pied to pay it much attention. In the year 1618, he looked at it more closely, 
 and his very soul was stirred within him. He displayed the same enthusiasm in 
 Germany that Briggs did in England, and would, like him, willingly have fal- 
 len at Napier’s feet. His Ephemerides, his Rudolphine Tables, and all his 
 calculations were to be remodelled upon the new system; for the rest of 
 his life, Kepler was the very Don Quixote of Logarithms ; and, if an old phi- 
 losopher within the four corners of Germany dared to croak a doubt as to their 
 purity, Kepler shivered his spear on him in an instant. It may be supposed 
 that one so ardent would not be long of communicating in some shape or other 
 with the author. So the German, having struggled to master the subject, by 
 plunging as usual into a sea of calculation, sat down to relieve his overflowing 
 mind in a letter addressed to John Napier, who for two years had been in his 
 grave. To this characteristic epistle we shall return. It may be mentioned 
 
 here, however, that Kepler therein expresses the greatest anxiety to see the 
 4 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 417 
 
 method of construction ; and he adds, that such being the earnest desire of 
 himself and other philosophers in Germany, Napier was bound to redeem his 
 pledge given to the public on those conditions. Now it was in 1619, the year 
 of Kepler’s letter, that our philosopher’s posthumous work appeared, and it is 
 not unlikely that this letter, or some previous report of the warm admiration 
 of Ursin and Kepler, had the greatest influence in bringing it to light. If he 
 had lived to publish his own work, there is no doubt that he would have men- 
 tioned Briggs in the most affectionate terms, as is evident from the manner in 
 which he refers to him elsewhere. Independently of being a gentleman and 
 a philosopher, he entertained punctilious views upon the subject of literary 
 property, * and in the letter to the Earl of Dunfermline, while taking unqua- 
 lified credit for the invention of the new method of Logarithms, he speaks of 
 the risk of literary piracy as a reason for publishing his Rabdologia. Are 
 we to take from Dr Hutton the mean view of this illustrious man, that in the 
 very same letter he was pirating from his “ amico longe charissimo ?” 
 
 But this author has also said, that “in the posthumous work published by 
 Lord Napier’s son in 1619, the alteration is again adverted to, but still without 
 any mention of Briggs.” This is equally unjust to Robert Napier ; the assertion 
 is not borne out by the fact, and we must exonerate the Rosicrucian son of our 
 philosopher, by quoting the substance of the very elegant Latin address with 
 which he prefaces his father’s fragments. “ Some years ago, my father, of ever 
 venerated memory, published the use of the wonderful Canon of Logarithms ; 
 but the construction and method of generating it, he, for certain reasons, was 
 unwilling to commit to types, as he mentions upon the seventh and the last 
 pages of the Logarithms, until he knew how it was judged of and criticised by 
 those who are versed in this department of letters. But since his death, I have 
 been assured from undoubted authority, that this new invention is much thought 
 of by the most able mathematicians ; and that nothing would delight them more 
 than if the construction of his wonderful Canon, or so much at least as might 
 suffice to illustrate it, were published for the benefit of the world. Although, 
 therefore, it is very manifest to me that the author has not put his last finish 
 
 * The French translator of the Plain Discovery thus addresses his readers in a conspicuous ad- 
 vertisement. ‘ D’autant que j’ay mis quelques additions en plusieurs endroits tant du premier que 
 du second Traicté du Sieur de Merchiston sur I’ Apocalypse, et que sa volonté est que je marque 
 ce que j'ay adjousté, afin qu'il soit separé d’avec ce qui est de luy: le lecteur sera adverti que ce 
 qui trouvera en marge marqué de cette estoille*, est de moy, et non de l’autheur de ce livre.” 
 
 3G 
 
418 THE LIFE OF. 
 
 to this little work, yet I have done what in me lay to satisfy their laudable 
 desires, as well as to afford some assistance, especially to those who are weak 
 in such studies, and apt to stick at the very threshold. I doubt not, however, 
 that this posthumous work would have seen the light in a far more perfect 
 and finished state, if to the author himself, my dearest father,—who, according 
 to the opinion of the best judges, possessed among other illustrious gifts this 
 in particular, that he could explicate the most difficult matter by some sure 
 and easy method, and in the fewest words,—God had granted a longer use 
 of life. You have, then, (benevolent reader,) the doctrine of the construction 
 of Logarithms—which, here, he calls artificial numbers, for he had this treatise 
 beside him composed for several years before he invented the word Logarithms, 
 —most copiously unfolded, and their nature, accidences, and various adap- 
 tations to their natural numbers, perspicuously demonstrated. I have also 
 thought good to subjoin to the construction itself a certain appendix, concern- 
 ing the method of forming another and more excellent species of Logarithms, 
 to which the inventor himself alludes in his epistle prefixed to the Rabdolo- 
 gia, and in which the Logarithm of unity is 0, The treatise which comes 
 last is that which, tending to the utmost perfection of his logarithmic trigo- 
 nometry, was the fruit of his latest toil, namely, certain very remarkable pro- 
 positions for resolving spherical triangles, without the necessity of dividing 
 them into quadrantal or rectangular triangles, and which are absolutely gene- 
 ral. These, indeed, he intended to have reduced to order, and to have suc- 
 cessively demonstrated, had not death snatched him from us too soon. I have 
 also published some lucubrations upon these propositions, and upon the new 
 species of Logarithms, by that most excellent mathematician, Henry Briggs, 
 public professor in London, who undertook most willingly the very severe la- 
 bour of calculating this Canon, in consequence of the singular affection that 
 existed betwixt him and my father of illustrious memory,—the method of con- 
 struction and explanation of its use being left to the inventor himself. But 
 now, since he has been called from this life, the whole burden of the business 
 seems to have fallen on the shoulders of the most learned Briggs, as if it were 
 his peculiar destiny to adorn this Sparta.* In the meanwhile, reader, enjoy 
 these labours such as they are, and receive them in good part. Farewell. 
 “ ROBERT NEPER,” 
 
 * « Qui novi hujus Canonis supputandi laborem grayissimum, pro singulari amicitia que illi cum 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 419 
 
 It will be observed, that in all the notices of the new system of Logarithms, 
 either in our philosopher’s own words or his son’s, there is not the slightest 
 indication of any competitor for the invention. If a doubt upon the subject 
 existed then, the story which Briggs so candidly told in 1624 would have 
 been told by the Baron himself. Had he done so precisely in the words used 
 by the Savilian professor, and without contradiction, it must have been re- 
 ceived as complete evidence of his invention of the common Logarithms. 
 But Napier’s right was undisputed. The date of his posthumous work is 
 1619, two years after his death, and two years after those expressions used by 
 Briggs in the preface to his Chilias Prima, which have been interpreted into 
 a modest hint for the protection of his literary property. Yet he attests the 
 truth of Robert Napier’s statement, by adding his own lucubrations to the 
 work, and aiding most materially its publication. He then proceeded in his 
 Herculean task of calculating and illustrating Napier’s new system, as the pre- 
 face to the Constructio intimates, and in 1624 produced his own greatest work 
 the Arithmetica Logarithmica. 
 
 There is very interesting evidence still extant that the most perfect cor- 
 diality prevailed betwixt Robert Napier and Briggs long after our philoso- 
 pher’s death ; and that the Savilian professor, in the progress of his great 
 work, continued to call to his aid as much of the genius of the master he 
 had lost as he could command. Napier left a mass of papers, including his 
 mathematical treatises and notes, all of which came into the possession of 
 Robert as his father’s literary executor. When the house of Napier of Cul- 
 creugh was burnt, these papers perished, with only two exceptions that I 
 have been able to discover. The one is the manuscript treatise on Alchemy 
 by Robert Napier himself; but the other is a far more valuable manuscript, 
 being entitled, “ The Baron of Merchiston, his booke of Arithmeticke, and 
 Algebra; for Mr Henrie Briggs, Professor of Geometrie at Oxforde.” This 
 very curious work was presented to Francis V. Lord Napier, by the then 
 Napier of Culcreugh, probably at the time his Lordship contemplated writing 
 a life of his great ancestor, and it has lain in the Merchiston charter-chest 
 
 patre meo L, M. intercessit, animo libentissimo in se suscepit ; creandi methodo et usuum expla- 
 natione Inventori relictis. Nunc autem ipso ex hac vita evocato, totius negotii onus doctissimi 
 
 Briggii humeris incumbere, et Sparta hac ornanda illi sorte quadam obtigisse videtur,” 
 
420 | THE LIFE OF 
 
 ever since unknown to the world. Reserving a more particular account of 
 it for the supplamentary review of our philosopher’s mathematical works, 
 we may notice here, that it is of great length, beautifully written in the 
 hand of his son, who mentions the fact, that it is copied from such of 
 his father’s notes as the transcriber considered “ orderlie sett doun.” It 
 is material to observe in reference to what we have been considering, that 
 it bears expressly to have been written out by Robert Napier for Henry 
 Briggs, and after the latter had been appointed to the Savilian chair, which ' 
 appointment took place in the year 1619. It seems not unlikely that it had 
 been sent to Briggs while he was in the progress of his great work, and we 
 shall have to consider afterwards a very remarkable and interesting co- 
 incidence in reference to that idea. But we have thus unquestionable evi- 
 dence, that from the time when Briggs first expounded the Canon Mirificus 
 to his scholars at Gresham House, to the period when he published the 
 Arithmetica Logarithmica, he continued to regard our philosopher as his guide, 
 and no cloud but that of death ever past betwixt them. The noble work of 
 Henry Briggs becomes doubly interesting when we view it, not merely as a stu- 
 pendous monument of his own mathematical powers and industry, but as con- 
 taining more or less of the reflection of the mind of his master. Asif to confirm 
 Robert Napier’s classical allusion, Briggs, not merely in his preface, but in the 
 dedication, and on the title-page of that work, anxiously announces it as the 
 fruits of Napier’s genius, expanded and illustrated according to Napier’s own 
 desire. It is dedicated, like the Canon Mirificus, to Prince Charles, whom 
 the courtly professor thus addresses :—“ Most potent Prince, not the rarity 
 and beauty, not the mingled usefulness and infinite delectation of the theme, 
 could have persuaded me to the presumption of dedicating these, my mathe- 
 matical commentaries, to your royal highness, had not that illustrious man, 
 John Napier, Baron of Merchiston, the Inventor of these Logarithms, when 
 he first brought them to light committed the patronage of them to your 
 well known authority and virtue. In respect of that circumstance, indeed, 
 even these, however inferior they may appear at the first glance, shall not be 
 unworthy to be seen and handled by all mathematicians,—especially since it 
 has pleased God (after bestowing the light of the Gospel upon the world) to 
 communicate to us many inventions useful to human life, of which there 
 were no vestiges among the GN ca that, as of these what appertains 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 421 
 
 to mathematics holds the highest rank, so in the mathematics Logarithms 
 are supereminent, whether we regard the penetration of the discovery, or the 
 excellence of its practical application,” &c. * 
 
 All the distinction which Briggs had reached before his companionship with 
 Napier was nothing compared to what he attained afterwards, though he was 
 about sixty years of age when he first visited Merchiston. In 1592 he was 
 a lecturer at Cambridge. When Gresham College was founded in 1596, his 
 high mathematical reputation obtained for him the first professorship of 
 geometry there. In 1609 he was honoured with the correspondence of 
 Usher. In 1610 he was “ discoursing concerning eclipses” with that prelate, 
 and anxiously watching and waiting for the works of Kepler. By this time 
 he had only published “ A Table to find the Height of the Pole, the mag- 
 netic declination being given,” besides tables for the improvement of naviga- 
 tion; and he was generally distinguished as the best mathematician in 
 England. But in 1614 a new path was opened to him. Then, said he, 
 ** Napper, Lord of Markinston, hath set my head and hands a work with his 
 new and admirable Logarithms ;” and from that moment, old as he was, his 
 career of fame may be said only to have commenced, for its proudest orbit 
 was round the sphere of Napier. In 1615 he staid a month at Merchiston, 
 discoursing of numbers. He had not contemplated so long a visit ; but 
  hesi per integrum mensem,”’—he found a mind that fascinated him, and he 
 drunk deeply of its lore. In 1616 he repeated his visit. In 1617, again, his 
 anxious steps were turned northward, but the star of his attraction had dis- 
 appeared. In that year, however, Briggs published “ Logarithmorum Chi- 
 lias Prima ;” and in 1619, “ Lucubrationes et Annotationes in Opera Pos- 
 thuma J. Neperi.” He was then appointed the first Savilian Professor of 
 Geometry at Oxford. There, in Merton College, he devoted his gray head to 
 the arduous computation of Logarithms. In 1624 he published his “ Arith- 
 metica Logarithmica.” In 1630 he died, and his posthumous works, publish- 
 ed shortly after, were all on the subjects he had discussed with Napier at 
 
 * The title-page gives both the original invention and the new system expressly to Napier. 
 «« Hos numeros primus inyenit clarissimus vir Johannes Neperus, Baro Merchistonii ; eos autem 
 ex ejusdem sententia mutavit, eorumque ortum et usum illustravit Henricus Briggius, in celeber- 
 rima Academia Oxoniensi Geometrie, Professor Savilianus.” Is this the language he would 
 have used had he been, as alleged, suffering under the injustice of Napier for nine years ! 
 
4.29 THE LIFE OF 
 
 Merchiston, and that companionship aided most materially the memory he has 
 left at Merton College, “ stupor mathematicorum.” 
 
 But, says Dr Hutton, in his account of Henry Briggs, “ One of his suc- 
 cessors at Gresham College, the learned Dr Isaac Barrow, in his oration there 
 upon his admission, has drawn his character more fully ; celebrating his great 
 abilities, skill, and industry, particularly in perfecting the invention of Lo- 
 garithms, which, without his care and pains, might have continued an im- 
 perfect and useless design.’* Nonsense, when skilfully mingled, seasons 
 to advantage a Latin oration. But it was not fair in Dr Hutton thus 
 gravely, in a philosophical work, to take Dr Barrow at his word. How 
 shocked would Henry Briggs have been at the injustice,—how astonish- 
 ed at the absurdity of this eulogy! Napier, who only required health 
 and prolonged life to have added to his own invention all and more than 
 his friend lived to accomplish, produced a work which nothing but the 
 total submersion of letters could have rendered an imperfect and useless de- 
 sign. His concluding words, in the Canon Mirificus, are far from being an 
 exaggerated estimate of the boon he presented to the world. ‘ Now, there- 
 fore,” says he, “ it hath been sufficiently showed that there are Logarithms, 
 what, they are, and of what use they are; for with help of them, we have 
 both demonstratively showed and taught, by examples of both kinds of trigo- 
 nometry, that the arithmetical solution of any geometrical question may most 
 readily be performed without trouble of multiplication, division, or extraction 
 of roots. You have, therefore, the admirable table of Logarithms that was 
 promised, together with the most plentiful use thereof, which, if (to you of 
 the learned sort) I shall by your letters understand to be acceptable to you, I 
 
 * Hutton’s Math. and Phil. Dict., Art. Briggs. As a defence for Dr Barrow, we have sought 
 out his Latin oration alluded to, and here is the passage: “ Attestor tuum quod nostris agmen 
 ducit in tabulis omni laude majus omnique encomio celebratus nomen, doctrina, acumine, solertia 
 prestantissime Briggi. Tu qui Logarithmorum illud preclarissimum artificium non tua quidem 
 (quod ad gloriam maxime Secerit) reperisti fortuna, sed, quod e@qué laudem meretur, consum- 
 masti industria atque omnibus numeris absolvisti, quod inutile forsan adhuc et imperfectum ja- 
 ceret opus fundimenti sui rudibus obvolutum, nisi subtilissimi tu lunam ingenii et indefesse dili- 
 gentiam manus adhibuisses.”—Jsaact Barrow, Opuscula. Dr Hutton takes care not to notice 
 that the compliment in this passage is, by an admission a little ludicrous, greater to Napier than 
 to Briggs. We shall not translate it, as Dr Barrow never meant his Oration to be done into 
 English. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 423 
 
 shall be encouraged to set forth also the way to make the table. In the 
 meantime, make use of this short treatise, and give all praise and glory to 
 God, the high Inventor and Guider of all good works.”* And Dr Hutton 
 himself, with the inconsistency of error, confirms this estimate, when he calls 
 the Canon Mirificus “a perfect work on this kind of Logarithms, contain- 
 ing, in effect, the Logarithms of all numbers, and the Logarithmic sines, tan- 
 gents, and secants for every minute of the quadrant, together with the de- 
 scription and uses of the tables, as also his definition and idea of Logarithms.”+ 
 By that work alone the science of trigonometry was emancipated. It was 
 the opening of a fountain that could never run dry, and the sage who struck 
 the rock was he who improved the source. Had Henry Briggs never breath- 
 ed, England would have lost a philosopher, and Napier a friend, but the 
 Logarithms would have been as they are. There were Gunter, Gellibrand, 
 and Speidell in England, Wingate and Henrion in France, Ursin and Kepler 
 in Germany, Vlacq in Holland, Cavalieri in Italy, names all identified with 
 the promulgation of Logarithms, and contemporary with their author. If 
 Napier’s system can be imagined to have escaped these contemporaries, 
 would Mercator, Wallis, Gregory, Halley, Sir Isaac Newton, Cotes, Taylor, 
 Leibtnitz, Euler, Wolff, Maclaurin, names all identified in their brightest 
 phases with the philosophy of Logarithms, have suffered the Canon Mirificus 
 to disappear with the fragment of Byrgius ? 
 
 I have been anxious to place this modern depreciation of Napier’s character 
 and merit in its proper light for several reasons. It disturbed the view of his 
 lofty and spotless character, and rendered no longer true his eulogy by the 
 most philosophical and elegant historian of England,—that he is “ the per- 
 son to whom the title of a GREAT MAN is more justly due than to any other 
 whom his country ever produced.” It destroyed the beautiful picture of friend- 
 ship betwixt him and Henry Briggs; and it mutilated an important feature 
 in the history of his great discovery. The system he created was susceptible 
 of one, and but one, material improvement. If it received that, too, from him- 
 self, it was essential to prove the fact even had his honour not been involved 
 in the question. No other instance can be pointed to in the progress of human 
 
 * English translation of tne Canon Mirificus, 1616. P. 89. 
 + Hutton’s History of Logarithms, p. 24. edit. 1785. 
 
424 THE LIFE OF 
 
 knowledge, where an impulse so great, and a power so unlimited, have result- 
 ed from the premeditated achievement of a solitary individual, whose system 
 was perfected at once and without a rival. His improvement superseded his 
 original Canon, but that, so far from perishing, has found its apotheosis in 
 the higher calculus. To distinguish these systems, the illustrious name of 
 Briggs may be justly associated with the common Logarithms, because, 
 “ Sparta hec ornanda il sorte quadam obtigisse videtur.” But the modern 
 expressions, which speak of “ the very great improvement that necessarily 
 ensued on Briggs’ alteration of the Logarithmic Base ;” * and of “ Naperean 
 Logarithms,” as opposed to the “ system of Briggs,” are inconsistent with the 
 history of the invention, and must be met with the reply, that in respect of 
 system, ALL LOGARITHMS ARE NAPEREAN.” + 
 
 The spot where our philosopher Jies interred is not certainly known, and 
 the tradition of his descendants, that he was buried in the church of St Giles, 
 (where some of the family monuments still exist) has been lately questioned. 
 The parish records of Scotland are not in a state to solve the doubt, nor have 
 I been able to obtain any evidence on the subject which seems so good as that 
 contained in a letter by Professor Wallace to the Antiquaries of Scotland. Af- 
 ter passing an enthusiastic encomium upon the character and genius of our 
 philosopher, and noticing the turbulent and unpropitious atmosphere in which 
 he held his being, the professor proceeds to record this evidence : 
 
 “ ON THE BURIAL PLACE OF NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 
 
 * It is no doubt from the combination of these causes, that although we know 
 the exact period when one of the greatest men that Scotland, or even Europe, 
 ever produced, left the stage of mortal existence, yet, with the exception of 
 
 * Woodhouse. Treatise on Trigonometry, p. 171. 
 
 + It was time to clear up this matter, for of late years the tables have been completely turned 
 upon the Inventor of Logarithms. In the “ Dictionary of General Knowledge, by George 
 Crabb, A. M. 1830,” I find Briggs thus recorded, “ Briggs, an English arithmetician, the Jnven- 
 tor of Logarithms !” and in the same volume, “ Napier, a Scotch arithmetician, improved the 
 system of Logarithms /!” So the Library of Entertaining Knowledge says, that our philosopher 
 signed himself “ Peer of Merchiston ;” and the Dictionary of General Knowledge says he was 
 not the inventor of Logarithms. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 425 
 
 what I am presently to communicate, there is no record, so far as I have been 
 able to discover, of the place where he was buried. It is in the recollection 
 of the older inhabitants of Edinburgh, that when the church of St Giles was 
 skirted on the north side by a fringe of wooden erections occupied as shops, 
 there was to be seen, on the front of the church, a stone in the wall, with this 
 inscription : 
 Pe i as a 
 FAM. DE NEPERORVM INTERIVS 
 HIC SITUM EST. * 
 
 “ From this it was evident that some of the family of Napier were interred 
 in the church, and it was commonly believed that John Napier, the inventor 
 of Logarithms, must have been one of them. 
 
 ** In support of this opinion, Maitland, the author of the History of Edin- 
 burgh, has always been quoted. He says, ‘'The following inscription is fixed 
 on the outside of the northern wall of the choir of the church of St Giles, in 
 commemoration of the illustrious and ever memorable Lord Naper, Baron of 
 Merchiston, inventor of the Logarithms, whose remains were interred in the 
 choir of the church. Now, although no monument can add to the fame of this 
 great man, he being most gratefully and honourably remembered in the works 
 of the learned in all parts of Kurope as the author of that most curious and 
 useful art, I have nevertheless chosen to point out the place of his inhumation 
 by the said humble inscription.’ Another writer on the history of Edinburgh, 
 Arnot, says, ‘ In different quarters of this church (St Giles) there are monu- 
 ments of the celebrated Lord Napier of Merchiston.’ 
 
 “ T think it probable that Arnot followed Maitland in saying that the in- 
 ventor of Logarithms was buried in St Giles’; and also that the late Earl of 
 Buchan, who says the same thing in his Life of Napier, had no other authority. 
 I have consulted the very ingenious John P. Wood, Esq. the editor of the se- 
 cond edition of Douglas’s Peerage, who, in his additions to that work, agrees 
 with these writers in saying that Napier was buried in St Giles’; but I find 
 
 * The attention and taste of Mr Burn, who renewed the church, have paid due honour to this 
 old monument, which after undergoing various chances and changes, is now restored to its origi- 
 nal position in a niche on the east side of the north door of the church. The arms above the in- 
 scription are the combined shields of Napier of Merchiston and Napier of Wrighthouses, but of 
 what date I have not been able to determine. The families were connected by marriage in 1513, 
 as I have elsewhere noticed, and may at that time have had a joint burial place at St Giles. The 
 stone has every appearance of being much older than the time of the philosopher.—Author. 
 
 3H 
 
426 . THE LIFE OF 
 
 that he had followed the Earl of Buchan. On the whole,,then, the popular 
 opinion, which I found was also the belief of the present family of Napier 
 when I first brought forward the question, has no other foundation than the 
 assertion of Maitland; and his opinion seems to have been formed merely 
 from the inscription on the stone, formerly on the front of the church, but 
 taken down and placed in the inside by Mr R. Johnston, a zealous preserver 
 of the antiquities of Edinburgh, at the time the Luckenbooths were demolish- 
 ed. It is now restored to its first position, and would certainly be contem- 
 plated with veneration if it could be proved to be the genuine monument of 
 the celebrated Napier. 
 
 “I have good reason, however, to believe that the inventor of Logarithms 
 was not buried in St Giles’ church, but, on the contrary, that he was buried in 
 the old church of St Cuthbert, which has been long demolished, and replaced 
 by the present church on nearly the site of the former. 
 
 “ My authority for this belief is unquestionable: It is a Treatise on Trigo- 
 nometry, by a Scotsman, James Hume of Godscroft, Berwickshire, a place still 
 in possession of the family of Hume. The work in question, which is rare, 
 was printed at Paris, and has the date 1636 on the title-page ; but the royal 
 privilege, which secured it to the author, is dated in October 1635, and it may 
 have been written several years earlier. In this treatise (page 116) Hume says 
 speaking of Logarithms, ‘ L’inwenteur estoit un Seagneur de grande condition, 
 et duquel la posterité est aujour@huy en possession de grandes dignitéx dans 
 le royaume, qui estant sur Cage, et grandement trauaillé des gouttes* ne pou- 
 uait faire autre chose que de sadonner aux sciences, et principalment aux ma- 
 thematiques et a la logistique, a quoy il se plarsoit infiniment, et auec estrange 
 peine, a construict ses Tables des Logarymes, imprimees a Edinbourg en Pan 
 1614, gui tout aussitost donnerent vn estonnement a tous les mathematiciens de 
 Europe, et emporterét le Sieur Biggs ( Briggs), professeur a Oxford, 
 @ Angleterre en E’scosse pour apprendre de lui cette admirable inuention 
 de construire les Logarymes, et Cayant enseigné a. construire vne nouuelle 
 espece de Logaryme, + lui laissa ceste charge pour les faire apres sa mort, ce 
 quil fit comme on le voujouit aujourdhuy par toutes les boutiques de libraires : 
 Tl mourut Can 1616, et fut enterré hors la Porte Occidentale a’ Edinbourg, 
 dans U Eglise de Sainct Cudbert, 
 
 * I have not found it elsewhere recorded that our philosopher suffered from gout.—Author. 
 + This is of more importance than the evidence of his burial-place ; it shows that Briggs was 
 not considered the inventor of the new system of Logarithms.—Author. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 427 
 
 “ Here we have a direct assertion that Napier was buried without the West 
 Port of Edinburgh, in the Church of St Cuthbert; and this is made not 
 more than eighteen years after his death, which happened 3d [4th] April 
 1617 (not 1616, as stated by Hume.) Besides, this circumstantial declaration is 
 made by Napier’s countryman and contemporary, perhaps his personal friend ; * 
 at any rate, by one who had good means of knowing the truth, and who seems 
 to have taken a deep interest in Napier’s invention, and in every thing con- 
 nected with him. . 
 
 “ Further, I would add, that the probability of the thing gives a weight to 
 Hume’s testimony, which, however, it does not require; for Merchiston, the 
 residence of Napier, was in the parish of St Cuthbert ; and nothing is more 
 reasonable than to suppose that he would be buried in his parish church.” + 
 
 It is a mistake, though recorded by Dempster and Dr M‘Crie, to suppose 
 that Napier’s mathematical pursuits led him to dissipate his means. No man 
 attended more strictly and conscientiously to his worldly affairs and numer- 
 ous family. From his will it appears that, besides his great estates, the per- 
 sonal property he left at his decease amounted to a large sum, and suffered 
 little diminution from his debts, which were chiefly the current wages of his 
 domestic and farm-servants. This interesting document has hitherto escaped 
 the search of antiquaries, and it will gratify most readers to know its contents. 
 
 “ Tur WILL OF NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 
 
 “ The Testament Testamentar and Inventar of the guidis, geir, sowmes of 
 money, and debtis pertening to umquhile, the rycht honorabill Jon Naipper 
 of Merchinstoun, within the parochine of Sanctcuthbert and schirefdome of 
 Edinburgh, the tyme of his deceis ; quha deceist upon the fourt day of Appryle 
 the yeir of God i™ vi and sevinteine yeiris, { ffaithfullie maid and gevin up 
 be Agnes Naipper, dochter lawfull to the defunct, only major for hir selff, 
 
 * His personal friend would not have referred Napier’s mathematical studies to his old age, and 
 being troubled with gout.— Author. 
 
 + On the Burial-Place of Napier of Merchiston, by William Wallace, A.M. F. R.S.E. &c. 
 Professor of Mathematics in the University of Edinburgh. Read tothe Society of Antiquaries 
 of Scotland, 9th May 1882. 
 
 + Most writers record the date of Napier’s death erroneously, some placing it in 1616, and 
 
 others in 1618. 
 
428 THE LIFE OF 
 
 and gevin up be Annas Chisholme, his relict spous, tutrix testamentar to Alex- 
 ander, Elizabeth, William, Heleine, and Adame Naipperis, minoris, bairnes 
 lawfull to the defunct; Quhilkis Agnes, Alexander, Elizabeth, Williame, 
 Heleine, and Adame Naipperis, ar onlie executeris testamentaris nominat be 
 thair said umquhile father, in his latter will under-writtine, as the samyn of the 
 dait at Edinburgh the first day of Appryle the yeir of God foirsaid, in presens of 
 the nottaris and witnessis under writtine mair at lenth beiris. 
 
 “ In the first, the said umquhile Jon Naipper had the guidis, geir, sowmes 
 of money, and debtis of the availl and prices efter following pertening to him 
 the tyme of his deceis foirsaid, viz. pasturand upone the maines of Merchin- 
 stoun, xxvi auld oxin, by the airschip price of the peice oureheid, sexteine lib. 
 suma iiij® xvi», Item, aucht werk hors, by the airschip hors price of the 
 peice of foure thairof oureheid fourtie pundis, swma ic Ix">, Item, the uther 
 of the hors thairof, price fourtie merkis. Item, the uther of the said hors, 
 price thairof nyne pundis. Item, the uther two of the saidis aucht hors, price 
 of the peice oureheid xxxv merkis, swma 1xx merkis. Item, sawin upone the 
 said maynes of Merchinstoun, fourtie foure bollis quheit estimat to the feird 
 corne extending to aucht scoir sexteine bollis quheit, price of the boll with the 
 fodder, aucht pundis, swma ane thousand iiij¢ viij">. Item, mair sawin 
 upone said maynes liij bollis iij firlatis aitis, estimat to the third corne, ex- 
 tending to aucht scoir, ane boll, ane firlot aitis, price of the boll, with the fod- 
 der, sevin merkis, swma vij° lij4’. x. Item, mair sawin upone the said 
 maynes xliij bollis, half boll peis, estimat to the feir corne, extending to aucht 
 scoir fourteine bollis peis, price of the boll with the fodder, fyve pundis, suma 
 viij® Ixx">, Item, in the barnis and barneyaird of Merckinstoun nyne scoir 
 bollis and sex peckis beir, price of the boll oureheid, with the fodder, vij'. 
 suma ane thowsand twa hundreth 1xij". xij’. vi. Item, mair thair xx bollis 
 iij firlotis peis, price of the boll oureheid with the fodder, aucht merkis, suma 
 ie xb, xiijs. iiij4, Item, mair thair lvi bollis aits, price of the boll oureheid 
 with the fodder, v¥». swma ij® Ixxx'>. Item, mair thair lxxxvi bollis v 
 peckis quheit, price of the boll oureheid with the fodder, aucht pundis, suma 
 vie Ixxxx'. xs, Item, in the girnell in the defunctis hous in Lennox, sex 
 scoir bollis firme meill, at iiij>. the boll, swma iiij’ Ixxx', Item, in the 
 girnell in Torrey in Monteith, Ixxx bollis meill at iiij". the boll, swma iij¢ 
 xxib, .Ffollowis the silwer wark by the airship, viz. twa silwer peisis and 
 ane goblit, weyand in the haill xx unce weycht, price of the unce weycht thrie 
 pundis, suma Ix">. Item, in utenceillis and domiceilis, with the abulzemen- 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 429 
 
 tis of his body, by the airschip, estimat to the sowme of iiij° ». Item, pas- 
 turand in Merchinstoun foure ky at xx merkis the peis, suma lxxx merkis. 
 Item, pasturand in Monteith xi ky at xx merkis the peis, twa stotis, and twa 
 quoyis of twa yeir auldis, at v'>. the peice oureheid, swma i Ixvi >. xiijs. 
 iiij*, Item, in the girnell of Bowquoppill, sexteine bollis ane firlot meill, at 
 iiij". the boll, swma Ixv"®, 
 
 “ Suma of the inventar, vij™. v°. Ixxvij'. xiis. 64, 
 
 “ Ffollowis the debtis awin to the dead. 
 
 [These details I omit, as they occupy eight folio pages, and are chiefly com- 
 posed of the rents due by his tenants on his estates in Lothian, Lennox and 
 Menteith. | 
 
 “ Suma of the debtis awin to the dead, v™ ix® Ixxxxix!, j9s, x4, 
 
 “ Suma of the inventar, with the debtis, xiij™, v°, lvij™, xijs, 44. [L. 13557, 
 12s. 4d.) 
 
 ** Ffollowis the debtis awin be the dead. 
 
 “ Item, Thair wes awin be the said umquhile Johne Naipper to James Drys- 
 daill, servand, for his yeiris fie and bounteth, fourtie pundis. Item, to Wal- 
 ter Monteith, greive, for his yeiris fie and bounteth, xxxi'. v’. Item, to 
 Williame Haghous, for his yeiris fie and bounteth, viij. Item, to Jon Rid- 
 doch, for his yeiris fie and bounteth, sexteine pundis. Item, to Barbara Ged- 
 die, for hir yeiris fie and bounteth, xx». Item, to Mareoun Finlaysone, for 
 hir yeiris fie and bounteth, sex pundis. Item, to Jon M‘ilholme, servand, for 
 his yeiris fie, v'>. Item, to Mr Henry Blyth, minister at Halirudhous, for 
 the teind dewtie of the landis of Merchinstoune in anno 1617 yeiris, xiiij!». 
 iiij’. Item, to the Principall and Regentis of the Colledge of Glasgow, for 
 the teind dewtie of the landis of the cheines, resten in anno foirsaid, x merkis. 
 Item, to the proveist, baillies, and counsell of the burghe of Edinburgh for the 
 dewtie of ane uther pairt of the saidis landis, resten in anno foirsaid, ten merkis. 
 Item, to Alext Monteith, servand to the defunct, for his yeiris fie and boun- 
 teth, ane hundreth pundis. Item, to his Majestie’s thesaurer for the few-dew- 
 tie and mairt silwer of the landis of Bowquhoppill appertening to the defunct, 
 resten in anno foirsaid, xliiij®. Item, mair to his Maiestie’s thesaurer for 
 the few-dewtie and mairsilwer of the landis of Torrie, resten in anno foirsaid, 
 xij. Item, to Thomas Maissoun, hynd in Merchinstoun, for his hynd-boll 
 thairof, resten in anno foirsaid, aucht bollis aitis at seven merkis the boll, and 
 ane boll of peis, price fyve pundis, swma xlij'®. vis. viij’. Item, to Thomas 
 Davie, hynd thair, for his hynd-boll, in anno foirsaid, aucht bollis aitis at seven 
 
430 THE LIFE OF 
 
 markis the boll, and ane boll peis, price v'». suma fourtie-twa pundis, six 
 schillingis, aucht pennyis. Item, to Johne Flint, hynd thair, for his hynd-boll 
 in anno foirsaid, aucht bollis aitis, at seven merkis the boll, and ane boll of peis, 
 price fyve pundis, swma xlij". vis. viij4. Item, mair to the town of Edinburgh 
 commontie thairof, for the few-dewtie of the landis of Over-Merchinstoun, res- 
 ten in anno 1617, xx merkis. 
 
 “ Suma of the debtis awin be the dead, iiij* ]j". is. iiij4. 
 
 “ Restis of frie geir, the debtis deducit, xiijm i vil. xis. [L. 13106, 11s. ] 
 of the quot is componit for ij merkis. 
 
 “ Ffollowis the deadis legacie and latter will. 
 
 “I, Johne Naipper of Merchinstoun, being sick in bodie at the plesour of God, 
 bot hail] in mynd and spereit, and knawing nathing mair certane nor death, 
 and the tyme and manner thairof maist uncertane, and willing to dispose upon 
 my wurldlie effairis, and to be dischairgit of the burding and cair thairof, sua 
 that at the plesour of Almichtie God I may be reddie to abyd his guid will and 
 plesour quhen it sall pleis him to call me out of this transitorie lyfe, I have no- 
 minat, maid, and constitute, and be the tenour heirof, nominatis, makis, and 
 constitutis my weilbelovit bairnes lawfull, Agnes, Alex"., Elizabeth, Williame, 
 Heleine, and Adame Naipperis, my executouris and onlie intromettoris with my 
 guidis, geir, and debtis, with power to thame and to Annas Chisholme, my 
 loving spous, thair mother, in thair names, be reasone of thair minorities, to 
 gif up inventar thairof, and I have maid and constitut, and be thir presentis, 
 makis and constitutis the said Annas Chisholme, my spous, tutrix to my saidis 
 haill bairnes, and administratrix to thame, thair rentis, guidis, and geir dureing 
 hir wedowheid, and that the said Annas salbe comptabill of hir intromissioun 
 to the saidis bairnes, my executouris foirsaid, at the sicht of Archbald N aipper, 
 my eldest sone, and Jon Naipper and Mr Robert Naipperis, his brether, also my 
 sones ; and gif it sall happin hir to marie, I mak and constitute the said Mr 
 Robert Naipper, oure sone, tutor to my saidis haill bairnes, and administrator 
 to thame, thair rentis, guidis, and geir dureing thair minorities. Item, I leive 
 to the saidis Agnes, Alex’. Elizabeth, Williame, Heleine, and Adame N aipperis, 
 my executouris foirsaidis, my pairt and third part callit the deidis pairt of my 
 haill guidis, geir, and debtis quhatsomever, equallie amangis thame sex; and 
 this to all and sindrie quhome it effeiris, I mak knawin be thir presentis, writ- 
 tine be Jon Stewart, servitour to Adame Lawtie, writter in Edinburgh, and 
 subscryvit with my hand at Edinburgh the first day of Appryle, the yeir of 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. A431 
 
 God i™ vi° and sevinteine yeiris, Before thir witnessis, James Maxwell, appei- 
 rand of Calderwood; Mr Williame Airthour, minister of the Evangell at the 
 West Kirk of Edinburgh ; Edward Mekilson, writter in Edinburgh, and 
 Thomas Caldwell, servitor to the Laird of Dunrod, with utheris divers, viz. 
 David Crichtoun, servitour to Mr Robert Watersone, insertor of the dait and 
 witnessis heirof,and connotter heirto. Sic subscribitur Jon Naipper above-writ- 
 tine, with my hand at the pen led be the nottaris under-writtine, at my com- 
 mand, in respect I dow not writ myself for my present infirmitie and seiknes.” 
 
 This will was signed on the fourth day before his death, which must have 
 overtaken him rapidly at the last, as in that very year he published his 
 Rabdologia, and, subsequently, framed his trigonometrical rules, so distin- 
 guished in astronomy though he left them undigested. Henry Briggs, too, 
 was on the eve of paying him a third visit. Of his last illness I have not 
 been able to ascertain any farther particulars than that he had been for some 
 time in a declining state of health, worn out, as we may gather from his own 
 expressions already quoted, with constant and laborious studies. If the author 
 of the old treatise on trigonometry can be relied upon, to this failure of his 
 bodily strength was added the torture of the gout. But his latest mental 
 effort proves that his mind was all powerful to the last. His character — 
 may be told in few words. No purer heart ever ceased to beat, no gentler 
 spirit ever passed away, no finer intellect was ever extinguished, than when 
 Napier of Merchiston died. His genius was in advance of his times, and 
 isolated in his country. The departed light of Alexandria and the coming 
 glory of England, seemed reflected upon him from the past and the future. 
 He conquered where Archimedes failed ; he entered the loftiest paths of New- 
 ton; and it shall be shown in the sequel, that if Napier’s life had been spared 
 some time longer, England’s monarch of science might not have had so many 
 laurels toreap. Yet is he scarcely remembered, for his genius reposes afar off, 
 amid the wilderness of science, like a solitary lake unexplored by those who en- 
 joy its waters in the valley. 
 
 Is he resolved to dust, 
 
 And have his country’s marbles nought to say ? 
 Could not her quarries furnish forth one bust ? 
 Did he not to her breast his filial earth entrust ? 
 Ungrateful | 
 
 But the Canon Mirificus is his monument; and the following letter from a 
 
432 THE LIFE OF 
 
 philosopher, to whom we owe the first discovery of the great laws of the pla- 
 netary system, is an inscription worthy of his tomb. ° 
 
 KEPLER’S LETTER TO NAPIER. * 
 
 “ To the illustrious and noble John Neper, Baron of Merchiston, in 
 Scotland, greeting, | 
 
 “ Some years ago, at the commencement of my Ephemerides, I began to af- 
 ford my readers information respecting the state of the Rudolphine Tables, and 
 to explain to them the causes of those delays which had frequently been the sub- 
 ject of their complaints to me by letters, public and private. Now, illustrious 
 Baron, I accost yourself, apart indeed from all others,—as the subject, and your 
 book, entitled Mirificus Logarithmorum Canon demands,—yet in this public 
 manner, because my conference with you must interest all men of letters. » 
 
 “ That another year has been added to my delays is owing to the concurrence 
 of peculiar circumstances in this year, besides the general causes which have 
 hitherto impeded me. Some of these are of public notoriety, such as wars 
 and comets,—others I have already spoken of, or alluded to in the preface to 
 my Ephemerides for 1617 and 1619, which appeared in 1618; namely, the 
 publication of five books of the Harmonice Mundi ; which publication alone, 
 not to mention the previous lucubrations, fully occupied me for a complete 
 year. It is finished, however,—praise be to the Almighty Harmoniser of the 
 Universe, despight the roaring, and raging, and at intervals, horridly bluster- 
 ing of Bellona, with her guns, and her trumpets, and her rattling drums. So 
 
 * Kepler was not aware of Napier’s death two years after that event, which shows how retired 
 was our philosopher's situation in reference to the world of letters. Lord Buchan says, “ Kepler 
 dedicated his Ephemerides to Napier, which were published in the year 1617.” His Lordship 
 had never seen the dedication, however, which is the above letter dated in 1619, prefixed to the 
 Ephemeris for 1620. The work seems to be very rare. I have never been able to see a copy, 
 but there is one in the Bodleian Library, Oxford; and my best thanks are due to Dr Bulkeley 
 Bandinel for sending me from thence an accurate transcript of the letter. It would have been a 
 valuable addition to Mr Drinkwater’s Life of Kepler, but that gentleman had not been aware of 
 it. Nor had either Montucla or Delambre seen it, as is obvious from their histories. The latter 
 seems inclined to adopt the idea that Kepler, while so much engrossed with Logarithms, was not par- 
 ticularly anxious to acknowledge the author.— See Astronomie Moderne, Tome i. p. 507, &c. But 
 the above completely exonerates Kepler from all paltry feeling on the subject. It also affords a 
 most illustrious contradiction to the inutile forsan adhuc et imperfectum jaceret opus of Dr Bar- 
 row’s oration. Never having previously met with a notice even of this interesting letter, I have 
 given it entire in the Appendix, and translated Py most popular passages above. 
 
NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 433 
 
 that had not this direful goddess beset me both at home and abroad, as yet 
 she does, and had it not been for certain tricks of the trade (as happened to 
 me in the second part of the Hpitome or Doctrina Theorica, which has not 
 been able to get through the press beyond the first page,) they who love to 
 look deeply into the works of God’s hands, illuminated by immortal mind, 
 might, at this autumn fair of Frankfort, have had copies both of the Harmo- 
 nics, and of my Description of Comets, which now for three months has been 
 sticking at Auxburg. 
 
 “ But the chief cause that impeded my progress this year in framing the Ru- 
 dolphine Tables, was an entirely new but happy calamity which has befallen a 
 part of the tables I long ago completed, namely, THAT BOOK OF THINE, illus- 
 trious Baron, which, published at Edinburgh, in Scotland, five years ago, I 
 first saw at Prague, two years since. It was not then in my power to peruse it ; 
 but last year, having met with a little book by Benjamin Ursin, (long my fami- 
 liar, and now astronomer to the Margrave,) where, in a few words, he gives the 
 substance of your work extracted from the book itself, then I knew what had 
 been done. Scarcely had I attempted a single example, WHEN, TO MY GREAT 
 DELIGHT, I BECAME AWARE THAT YOU HAD GENERALISED THAT PLAY OF 
 NUMBERS, OF WHICH A VERY SMALL PARTICLE HAD FORMANY YEARS BEEN 
 EMPLOYED BY MYSELF ; and which I had proposed to incorporate with my 
 tables; especially in the matter of parallaxes, and in the minutes of duration 
 and delay in eclipses ; of which method this very Ephemeris exhibits an ex- 
 ample. I was aware, indeed, that this method of mine was only applicable in 
 the solitary case of an arc differing in no sensible degree from a straight line. 
 But or THis I WAS IGNORANT, THAT, FROM THE EXCESSES OF THE 
 SECANTS, LOGARITHMS COULD BE CONSTRUCTED, WHICH MAKE THIS 
 METHOD UNIVERSAL THROUGH ANY EXTENT OF ARC. Then I longed 
 above every thing to know if in this little book of Ursin’s the Logarithms 
 had been accurately investigated. Calling to my aid, therefore, Janus 
 Gringalletus Sabaudus, my familiar, I ordered him to subtract the thou- 
 sandth part of the whole sine; again, to subtract the thousandth part of that 
 residue, and to repeat this operation more than two thousand times, until 
 there remained about the tenth part.of the whole sine; but of the sine, from 
 which a thousandth part had been subtracted, I computed the logarithm 
 with the greatest care, beginning from the unit of that division which 
 Pitiscus most frequently uses, namely, the duodecimal. The logarithm thus 
 
 31 
 
ABA THE LIFE OF NAPIER OF MERCHISTON. 
 
 computed, I arranged uniformly with the remainders of all the subtractions. In 
 this manner I ascertained that there was no essential error in these logarithms ; 
 though some little errors had crept in, either of the press, or in that minute 
 distribution of the greater logarithms about the beginning of the quadrant. 
 I mention this to you by the way, in order that you may understand how 
 gratifying it would be to me at least, (and I should think to others,) if you 
 would put the world in possession of the methods by which you proceeded, of 
 which I make no doubt you have many, and most ingenious, at your hand. 
 
 “ Now, let us come a little closer to your tables,” &c. &c. 
 
 ‘“‘ That none may doubt, upon this artifice I have framed the present Ephe- 
 meris, and therefore of right it is inscribed to you, illustrious Baron. Thus, 
 of necessity, your Logarithms become a part of the Rudolphine Tables ; be- 
 ing in the first place reprinted in my printing-office ; and so astronomers 
 shall have cause to congratulate themselves upon my delays. If any better 
 plan suggest itself to you, pray communicate it to me as soon as possible ; 
 and this same request, which by private letters long ago I made to some pro- 
 fessors of astronomy, I now publickly repeat to all of them. Farewell, Illus- 
 trious Baron, and, according to the sympathy of our common studies, receive 
 this address from an inferior in rank, and one most observant of your high 
 distinction. 
 
 * JOHN KEPPLER.” 
 « Ary LINTZ ON THE DANUBE, 
 28th July 1619.” 
 
ei 
 
 ees 5 ae ind © : 
 
 . 
 
 THE LIGRARY 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF IkLINAIR 
 
“ NEPER’S BONES.” 
 
 EILAVALALALArS 
 
 Vlddddédddddidddsddddsdddtéddéddbssssddtdddddddddpiiddddidddndisedg, 
 
 24|¥a|90|24] 24] 92|9<|9<) 
 
 YjjddddddddsrrccosddddgyjjidddddddddidddbrrrLLceegd is 
 
 ete 
 
 mene Lz 
 
 LALAPAL 
 
 (jee al Yj | 7 Seal a 8 ptt 
 
 —— x) 
 
 SG GGG Et Lit 
 
 ZZ Yj? siemens ad SEA ae 
 
 a aucaeaes = 
 
 LU; e185 —————T 
 
 Wee 
 
 ZZ ALATA 
 
 en ee 
 
 Lidia “ddd” i I 
 
a S 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS, &c. 
 
 Tue philosophy of Logarithms has been so thoroughly investigated by the many illus- 
 trious authors already referred to, that it is unnecessary to attach an algebraic discussion, 
 or analytical theory of Napier’s great invention, to his domestic memoirs. I shall attempt, 
 however, to sketch the history of his mathematical studies, especially in reference to 
 those points which appear to have been carelessly or inaccurately recorded. To this 
 shall be added some very curious original matter from our philosopher’s unpublished ma- 
 nuscripts, which cannot fail to interest even those who are deeply read in mathematics. 
 
 The most popular English history of Logarithms mixes up, in one theoretical view, 
 the Logarithmic properties of numerical progressions, observed for many ages before 
 Napier’s time, with “the happy Invention of Logarithms.” * But any observations of the 
 kind made by calculators between the time of the sage of Syracuse, and the sage of Scot- 
 land, seem to resolve themselves into the celebrated theorem of the former, the history 
 of which has been already given. + A more distinct arithmetical view, of the properties of 
 that theorem, was of necessity obtained through the medium of Arabic or Indian notation, 
 which Archimedes did not possess; but our own philosopher was not led to his inven- 
 tion or discovery by the preparatory labours of others, or at least that aid was afforded 
 him as much by Archimedes as by any one else. This can be easily rendered obvious. 
 
 We shall suppose that a mere tyro in modern arithmetic, and one ignorant of geometry, 
 endeavours to make himself master of the theorem in the Arenarius. In any geometrical 
 progression from unity, represented by the letters, 
 
 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, 
 
 * Hutton. t See page 346, 
 
436 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 and of which A is unity, he finds from Archimedes, that, “ if any two of the terms be 
 multiplied together, the product will also be a term in the same progression ; and its 
 place will be at the same distance from the larger of the two factors that the lesser factor 
 is from unity; and that its distance from unity will be the same, minus one, that the sum 
 of the distances of the two factors from unity is distant from unity.” To relieve his 
 attention, our tyro will naturally substitute actual numbers in place of the symbols used 
 by Archimedes. Having mastered the meaning of a geometrical progression, he may be 
 supposed to adopt the series most easy to multiply into such a progression, namely, 
 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000, &c. 
 
 where he obtains a proportional increase in the constant ratio of 10, simply by adding an 
 additional cypher to each additional term. He may select the two nearest terms from 
 unity to make his experiment, and will not be long in discovering, that 100 multiplied 
 by 10, gives 1000, the fourth term in the progression, counting unity. His eye will tell 
 him at once that 1000 is at the same distance from the larger factor 100, that 10, the 
 lesser factor, is from unity. Nor will he have much greater difficulty in ascertaining 
 that the united numbers of the places of the factors, counting unity, is equal to 5, and that 
 the product sought is at that number, minus one, being the fourth term. 
 
 So far the theorem is satisfactorily tested. But if the tyro, in repeating his attempts, 
 should select terms at a greater distance from unity and each other, his eye will not so 
 readily assist him to the fact of the respective distances. He would have to count the 
 
 terms, which might naturally lead him to number them, thus : 
 
 L4ar2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
 
 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000. 
 In this manner, he would soon arrive at the knowledge, that the mere addition of the 
 two upper figures immediately above the two lower terms to be multiplied, will give a 
 sum or figure in the upper line, pointing not to the actual product sought, but to the 
 term immediately beyond it; and he would also easily detect, that the fact of its not 
 pointing immediately to the product, was explained by the minus one, which forms a hitch, 
 as it were, in the theorem of Archimedes. Now, supposing the tyro to possess some 
 ingenuity, he will easily get rid of this inconvenience by numbering the distances in the 
 geometrical series differently, and calling 10 not the second term in the series, but the 
 first term after unity, or the first distance from unity; and this would seem the more 
 accurate way of numbering, for 1 cannot be said to be at any distance from itself. He 
 would then arrange them thus : 
 
 1, o2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000. 
 According to this mode of numbering, he would find that the sum of any two figures in 
 the upper line was a number in that same line directly over a term in the lower line, which 
 would be the product of the two terms respectively below the added figures. After this 
 step it would not be difficult, even for a tyro, to detect all the simpler operations with 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 437 
 
 the upper progression, affording the same results as the more complicated operations 
 with the lower. 
 
 In the case supposed, a rude and limited, and, we may add, useless table of Logarithms, 
 is unconsciously formed ; the numbers composing the arithmetical series being truly 
 Logarithms to the terms composing the geometrical. But no step of any value beyond 
 what was demonstrated by Archimedes is thus accomplished. The theorem of the school 
 of Alexandria has been viewed through the facilities of Arabic notation,—a logarithmic 
 adaptation of numerical progressions has been very clearly brought out,—but the Loga- 
 rithms are just as far as ever from being discovered. Yet the very arrangement and 
 base of the common Logarithms is thus exemplified by a tyro’s translation of Archimedes’s 
 theorem into Arabic numerals ! 
 
 The fact is, that our system of notation is essentially Logarithmic; and the tyro 
 might have even detected, in the simple algorithm, 1000, the very process he had gone 
 through in testing the theorem of Archimedes. 1000 expresses that 1 has progressed 
 three steps from right to left; the cyphers mark those steps, and therefore may be said to 
 number them. ‘Then the Arabic system is in a decuple progression ; 7.e. each move of 
 the advancing digit increases its value ten times its last value ; so.1000 is unit progressed 
 from right to left in this order, 1000, 100, 10, 1. The values of each move are here 
 
 noted ; and the steps themselves may be arranged and numbered, thus: 
 1 2 3 
 
 1, 10, 100, 1000. 
 Here we are back again to the Archimedean theorem and Logarithms! It will be ob- 
 served, that to number the last example is superfluous, for the cyphers perform that office. 
 Again, it is equally superfluous to write the whole steps of the progression at full length, 
 for the simple notation 1000 expresses all the steps. It is a short-hand exemplification 
 of the most convenient system of Logarithms; the cyphers stand in place of the arith- 
 metical progression, 1, 2, 3, &c. as adapted to the geometrical progression, 1, 10, 100, 
 1000, &c. and the whole is based upon the denary scale in use. But if this be true, it 
 must follow that the mere addition of the cyphers in the Arabic scale will afford the same 
 result as the multiplication of the terms? And such, indeed, is the case; for a thousand 
 multiplied by ten thousand gives ten million: ten million is noted by unit moved to the 
 left seven steps, i. e. unit with seven cyphers to the right. A thousand has three cy- 
 
 phers, and ten thousand has four, which added, give seven. Write this out, and we have 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 vf 
 
 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000. 
 Now, 1000 multiplied by 10000 must give 10000000; for the numbers above the fac- 
 tors are 3 and 4, which added, give 7, which number points to the product sought, 
 10000000. 
 Thus we find that the Arabic system itself is essentially Logarithmic, and that the 
 properties of the Archimedean theorem may present themselves to a very ordinary cal- 
 
 1000 
 10000 
 
 10000000 
 
438 | HISTORY OF THE 
 
 culator, upon a consideration of the simple notation 1000. Jam not aware that the 
 most profound observers of numerical progressions before the time of Napier ever went 
 a single step beyond what we have thus exemplified. They pointed out the effect of 
 the adaptation of an arithmetical to a geometrical series of numbers in relieving the 
 calculation of the terms of the latter series in a particular case. ‘They might vary the 
 ease by choosing other ratios of progression, and examine their properties more mi- 
 nutely, but none of them (supposing them as numerous as Dr Hutton assumes) ever con- 
 ceived the possibility of making the principle embrace the WHOLE SYSTEM OF NUMBERS. 
 That was “ the reason why tables of such artificial numbers were not sooner formed,” 
 and by no means because they were not sooner wanted. 
 
 If all numerical operations were performed upon the decuple progression itself, and 
 by means of unit and cyphers, calculators would have an easy time of it, and children 
 might lisp in Logarithms. But where is the advantage of knowing, that to mul- 
 tiply 10000 by 1000 we need only add the cyphers, when we have, for instance, to 
 multiply 4723 by 835? It takes some trouble to discover that the product of those fac- 
 tors is 8943705, a number very little indebted to cyphers for its notation, and which is 
 not to be obtained by reckoning and adding the steps of the factors’ digits. In other 
 words, it required no great penetration to discover that this progression, 1, 10, 100, 
 1000, &c. or this, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, &c. can have for their logarithms the whole range of na- 
 tural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, &c.; but where are the logarithms for the many terms be- 
 twixt 1 and 10, 10 and 100, 100 and 1000, &c. or betwixt all the terms of any other 
 geometrical progression ? Kepler, in one of his enthusiastic essays on the subject, writ- 
 ten not long after Napier’s death, exclaims with testy irony against some jealous carping 
 philosophers in Germany :—‘ Now what is this thing ? Of what use are Logarithms ? 
 Why to be sure, of the very use that was declared ten years ago by the original inventor, 
 Napier, and which may be conceived in three words. Wherever it happens in common 
 arithmetic, and in the rule of three, that two numbers have to be multiplied together, in 
 that case their Logarithms are to be added ; where a number has to divide another, the 
 Logarithm is only to be subtracted from the sum of the Logarithms, so that in the one 
 case the added, and in the other case the remaining Logarithm points out the number 
 sought in either operation. ‘This, I say, is the use of Logarithms. But the featherless 
 chickens of arithmeticians, greedy of facilities, and gaping with their beaks wide open 
 at the mention of this use, as if to gorge every particular gobbet of my precepticles, were 
 not to be satisfied in a work devoted to the fundamental demonstration of the Loga- 
 rithms.” * The use thus characteristically announced by Kepler would have been far be- 
 neath the observation of that lofty philosopher, but for its application to the whole sys- 
 tem of natural numbers, from unity in infinitum ; and Kepler himself, in his letter to 
 Napier, draws the mighty distinction which separates the Scotch philosopher from every 
 calculator in the world who had previously considered numerical progressions, when he 
 
 * Joannis Kepleri, Supplementum Chiliadis Logarithmorum. 1625, 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 439 
 
 says, ‘‘ Vix autem uno tentato exemplo, deprehendi, magna gratulatione, generale factum abs te 
 exercitium tlud numerorum, cujus ego particulam exiguam jam a multis annis in usu habe- 
 bam.” 
 
 We may well believe, that if Kepler, as he tells us himself, did actually observe, and 
 attempt to reduce to practice, logarithmic properties of numbers, without having the 
 least conception of the Logarithms par excellence, and also that Stifellius, a most profound 
 arithmetician, examined such properties still more minutely without forming that con- 
 ception, there was a gulf which totally disunited those speculations from Napier’s inven- 
 tion, however Dr Hutton may have been pleased to jumble the ideas together in his 
 history. The fact is, that, from the undeveloped state of the power of Arabic notation 
 at this early period of European science, the speculations referred to had an obvious ten- 
 dency to check the conception of the Logarithms. ‘ The natural system of numbers, 1, 
 2, 8, 4, &c. composed an arithmetical progression, capable of being Logarithms to various 
 sets of geometrical progressions. How, then, could that system obtain Logarithms adapted 
 to itself throughout its infinite extent? Its nature would require to be changed from an 
 arithmetical to a geometrical series, without losing any of its terms; and this involved a 
 contradiction, and was clearly impossible! The system of Logarithms is founded upon 
 
 ‘the correspondence of those different progressions. That system cannot exist as such, 
 unless it be made applicable to the whole range of natural numbers. ‘The whole range 
 of natural numbers are in arithmetical progression, and never can form a geometrical one. 
 How are these facts to be reconciled ? ‘Here all the calculators in Europe stopt short 
 except Napier. His mind, of an uncommon cast, enabled him to break in upon this 
 enchanted circle of numbers with perfect success. The general conception he formed 
 was that of two flowing points, generating magnitudes by infinitely small degrees, and 
 so regulated in their respective motions, that in the one case, the successive incre- 
 ments would be equal to each other; and in the other case, would differ proportionally 
 from each other in an infinitely small degree. In the latter case, a geometrical progres- 
 sion was conceived, into which, obviously, all the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. might 
 be supposed to enter as terms, having the magnitudes generated in the former case for 
 their arithmeticals. Napier knew, indeed, that the infinitely small ratios which he ima- 
 gined to be generated betwixt the natural numbers, were an approximation merely, and 
 never could equal the determined finite quantity; but he had the sagacity to perceive, 
 that, in such an approximation, the difference or defect would become smaller than any 
 assignable quantity, and therefore would not sensibly affect the calculations to which he 
 meant the system to apply. ‘The two first chapters of the Canon Mirificus contain the 
 developement of this beautiful idea, and no succeeding philosopher, though the most illus- 
 trious have tried it, has ever afforded a clearer view of Napier’s method than his own 
 statement, which is as follows :— 
 
440 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 * Cuap. 1—Or tHE DEFINITIONS. 
 
 1.Definition. —«*_4 [ine is said to increase equally, when the point, describing the same, goeth forward equal 
 spaces in equal times or moments. 
 
 Moment | 2 3 4 a 9 Lo lhe ds 
 
 Ge NS 
 Artiy(C iD 2 gHiis Koy As pede plate ds av aN 
 Viatinhin ei ee a eee 
 
 BBBBBBBBBBBB 
 Let A be a point, from which a line is to be drawn by the motion of another point, which 
 let be B. Now, in the first moment, let B move from A to C. In the second moment 
 from C to D. In the third moment from D to KE, and so forth infinitely, describing the 
 line AC DEF, &c. The spaces AC, CD, DE, EF, &c. and all the rest being equal, 
 and described in equal moments or times, this line by the former definition shall be said 
 to increase equally. 
 aise “ Therefore by this increasing, quantities equally differing must needs be produced in times 
 quent. equally differing. 
 ‘¢ As in the figure before, B went forward from A to Cin one moment, and from A to 
 E in three moments, so in six moments from A to H, and in eight moments from A to K ; 
 and the differences of those moments, one and three, and of these six and eight are equal ; 
 that is to say, two. So also of those quantities AC, and AE, and of these AH and AK, 
 the differences CE, and HK are equal, and therefore differing equally as before. 
 
 2. Definition. —-**_4 Tine is said to decrease proportionally into a shorter, when the point, describing the same 
 in equal times, cutteth off parts continually of the same proportion to the lines from which they 
 are cut off. 
 
 Rh aah le opel 2s ok ge ie 6h i i bl sbdad 
 \) Lae ORS agi ea dy el a i aa | | 
 
 a) euhel ef gk i khimno 
 Moment] . 2.3.4. Sb Pe tho WollMeli la ey 
 ‘¢ For example’s sake. Let the line of the whole sine a Z be to be diminished propor- 
 tionally. Let the point diminishing the same by this motion be 4; and let the propor- 
 tion of.each part to the line from which it is cut off be as QR to QS. Therefore, in what 
 proportion QS is cut in R, in the same proportion (by the 10 of the 6 of Euclid,) let 
 a Z be cut in c; and so let 6, running from a to e in the first moment, cut off a c from a Z, 
 the line or sine c Z remaining. And from this c Z let d, proceeding in the second mo- 
 ment, cut off the like segment or part, as QR to QS, and let that be c d, leaving the sine 
 dZ. From which, therefore, in the third moment, let 4 in like manner cut off the seg- 
 ment de, the sine e Z being left behind. From which, likewise, in the fourth moment, 
 by the motion of 4, let the segment ¢ be cut off, leaving the sine fZ. From this eee: 
 in the fifth moment, let 4 in the same proportion cut off the segment fg, leaving the sine 
 g Z, and so forth infinitely. I say, therefore, out of the former definition, that here the 
 line of the whole sine a Z doth proportionally decrease into the sine g Z, or into any 
 other last sine in which 0 stayeth, and so in others. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 441 
 
 ** Hence it followeth, that, by this decrease in equal moments or times, there must needs also A corollary. 
 be left proportional lines of the same proportion, Sc. 
 
 ** Surd quantities, or inexplicable by number, are said to be defined or expressed by num-_ 3. Definition. 
 bers very near, when they are defined or expressed by great numbers which differ not so much 
 as one unit from the true value of the surd quantities. 
 
 ** As for example. Let the semidiameter, or whole sine, be the rational number 
 10000000; the sine of 45 degrees shall be the square root of 50,000,000,000,000, which 
 is surd, or irrational and inexplicable by any number ; and is included between the limits 
 of 7071067 the less, and 7071068 the greater; therefore it differeth not a unit from 
 either of these. ‘Therefore that surd sine of 45 degrees is said to be defined and expres- 
 sed very near, when it is expressed by the whole numbers 7071067, or 7071068, not 
 regarding the fractions. For in great numbers there ariseth no sensible error by neglect- 
 ing the fragments or parts of an unit. 
 
 “© Equal-timed motions are those which are made together, and in the same time. 
 
 *“* As in the figures following, admit that B be moved from A to C in the same time 
 wherein 4 is moved from a to c; the right lines A C anda ¢ shall be said to be de- 
 scribed with an equal-timed motion. 
 
 4. Definition. 
 
 “© Seeing that there may be a slower and a swifter motion given than any motion, it shall ne- 5. Definition. 
 cessarily follow that there may be a motion given of equal swifiness to any motion, which we 
 define to be neither swifter nor slower. 
 
 “ The Logarithm, therefore, of any sine is a number very nearly expressing the line which 6, Definition. \ ! 
 increased equally in the meantime, while the line of the whole sine decreased proportionally NX 
 into that sine, both motions being equal-timed, and the beginning equally swift. 
 
 Moment 1 2 5) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 al 12 
 Tree Leo ee GF Ele eh Uae i NS ©) 
 ab A oat SERRE AE aor eg SR 
 b b benbwebelhs i b=b2b-6.6 6 Z S R Q 
 | | fl | | | | [Sa wee eG ean ee en ee he oe P| a_i... 
 . d hitktmno 
 Bu Sal iT We : J F & 6°. : ese. O2 10 cL al2 
 
 “¢ As for example. Let the two figures going before be here repeated, and let B be 
 moved always and everywhere with equal or the same swiftness wherewith b began to 
 be moved in the beginning when it wasin a. Then in the first moment let B proceed 
 from A to C, and in the same time let 6 move proportionally from @ to c, the number 
 defining or expressing A C shall be the logarithm of the line, or sine, ¢ Z. Then in the 
 second moment let B be moved forward from C to D, and in the same moment or time 
 let be moved forward proportionally from c to d, the number definmg A D shall be the 
 logarithm of the sine d Z. So in the third moment, &c. and so forth infinitely, 
 
 3K 
 
A conse- 
 quent. 
 
 1. Proposi- 
 tion. 
 
 2. Proposi- 
 tion. 
 
 3. Proposi- 
 tion. 
 
 4. Proposi- 
 tion, 
 
 442 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 “ Therefore, the logarithm of the whole sine 10000000 is nothing, or 0 ; and, consequently, 
 the logarithms of numbers greater than the whole sine are less than nothing. 
 
 “‘ For seeing it is manifest by the definition that, the sines decreasing from the whole 
 sine, the logarithms increase from nothing ; therefore, contrariwise, the numbers which yet 
 we call sines, increasing unto the whole sine, that is 10000000, the logarithms must 
 needs decrease to 0, or nothing; and, by consequent, the logarithms of numbers increas- 
 ing above the whole sine 10000000, which we call secants or tangents, and no more sines, 
 shall be less than nothing. 
 
 “ Therefore we call the logarithms of the sines abounding, because they are always greater 
 than nothing, and set this mark + before them, or else none. But the logarithms which are 
 less than nothing we call defective, or wanting, setting this mark. — before them. 
 
 “¢ It was, indeed, left at liberty in the beginning to attribute nothing, or 0, to any sine 
 or quantity for his logarithm; but it was best to fit it to the whole sine, that the addi- 
 tion or subtraction of that logarithm which is most frequent in all calculations might 
 never after be any trouble to us. 
 
 Cuap. I].—Or tHE Propositions oF LOGARITHMS. 
 
 “ The logarithms of proportional numbers and quantities are equally differing. 
 
 ‘* As for example. The logarithms of the proportional sines, namely c Z, which is to 
 eZash Z isto k Z, are respectively the numbers definng AC, AE, AH, AK, as is 
 manifest by the 6th definition. Now AC and AE differ by the difference CE, and 
 AH and AK by the difference HK. But, by the first definition and his corollary, CE 
 and HK are equal; therefore the logarithms of the foresaid proportional sines are equally 
 differing. And so in all proportionals,” &c. 
 
 “© Of the logarithms of three proportionals, the double of the second or mean, made less by the 
 Jirst, is equal to the third. 
 
 ‘¢ Seeing that by the first proposition the difference of the logarithm of the first and 
 second is equal to the difference of the logarithms of the second and third, that is, the se- 
 cond made less by the first is equal to the third made less by the second; therefore, the 
 second, being added to both sides of the equation twice, the second, or the double of the 
 second made less by the first, shall come forth equal to the third, which was to be proved. 
 
 “ Of the logarithms of three proportionals, the double of the second, or middle one, is equal 
 to the sum of the extremes. 
 
 «* By the second proposition, the double of the second, made less by the first, is equal 
 to the third. To both the equal sides add the first, and there shall arise the double of 
 the second, equal to the first and third, that is, to the sum of the extremes; which was 
 to be demonstrated. ; 
 
 “ Of the logarithms of four proportionals, the sum of the second and third, made less by the 
 first, is equal to the fourth. 
 
 Seeing by the first proposition of the logarithms of four proportionals the second 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 443 
 
 made less by the first, is equal to the fourth less by the third; add the third to both sides 
 of the equality, and the second and the third made less by the first shall be equal to the 
 fourth, which was propounded. | 
 
 “¢ Of the logarithms of four proportionals, the sum of the middle ones, that is, of the second 
 and third, is equal to the logarithm of the extremes, that is to say, the first and fourth. 
 
 ** By the fourth proposition, the second and third made less by the first were equal to 
 the fourth: to both sides of the equality add the first, and the second more by the third 
 shall be made equal to the fourth more by the first, which was to be demonstrated. 
 
 * Of the logarithms of four continual proportionals, the triple of either of the middle ones is 
 equal to the sum of the further extreme, and the double of the nearer. 
 
 *¢ By the second proposition, the double of the second made less by the first is equal 
 to the third; and by the third proposition the double of this, that is, the fourfold of the 
 second, made less by the double of the first, shall be equal to the sum of his extremes, 
 that is, the fourth more by the second. Now if from both sides of the equality you sub- 
 tract the second, the triple of the second made less by the double of the first shall be made 
 equal to the fourth. Ayain, to the sides of this equality add the double of the first, and 
 there shall arise the triple of the second, equal to the fourth, more by the double of the 
 first, which we undertook to prove. 
 
 An Admonition. 
 
 ‘* Hitherto we have shewed the making and symptoms of Logarithms. Now by what 
 kind of account or method of calculating they may be had, it should be here shewed. 
 But because we do here set down the whole tables, and all his Logarithms with their 
 sines to every minute of the quadrant, therefore passing over the doctrine of making Lo- 
 garithms till a fitter time, we make haste to the use of them; that the use and profit be- 
 ing first conceived, the rest may please the more being set forth hereafter, or else dis- 
 please the less, being buried in silence. For I expect the judgment and censure of 
 learned men hereupon, before the rest, rashly published, be exposed to the detraction of 
 the envious.” * 
 
 The abstract geometrical mode in which Napier promulgated his system was so per- 
 fectly original, as to startle and disturb some of the High Priests of Science in Germany ; 
 and although that promulgation was accompanied by a canon, which (to use Dr Hut- 
 ton’s expressions) ‘‘is a perfect work on this kind of Logarithms, containing in effect the 
 Logarithms of all numbers, and the logarithmic sines, tangents, and secants, for every mi- 
 nute of the quadrant, together with the description and uses of the tables,” still some of 
 the venerable sages of the 16th century, no less jealous than astonished, shook their gray 
 heads at the auspicious dawn of the 17th, and refused the summons of Kepler to fall down 
 and. worship the greatest era of science, as its sun first rose above the remote hills of un- 
 lettered Scotland. ‘ When,” says Kepler, “in the year 1621, I: travelled into Upper 
 Germany, and discoursed every where with those skilled in the mathematical sciences, 
 
 * English translation of the Canon Mirificus. 1616. 
 
 5. Proposi- 
 tion. 
 
 6. Proposi- 
 tion. 
 
444, HISTORY OF THE 
 
 concerning the Logarithms of Napier, I discovered that they, of whose minds age had di- 
 minished the activity, in proportion as it had increased the experience, were unwilling to 
 admit this description of numbers in place of the usual canon of sines. ‘They said it was 
 degrading to a professor of mathematics to show such childish exultation about any com- 
 pendious method of numbers; and meanwhile to receive into practice, without even a 
 legitimate demonstration, a form of calculus, which some day or other might betray into 
 errors when least suspected. ‘They complained that Napier’s demonstration depended 
 upon the fiction of a peculiar geometrical motion, whose slippery and unstable nature was 
 inadequate to sustain the severe march of reason and demonstration. This (he adds) 
 induced me to attempt to found a legitimate demonstration, not under the nature 
 of lines, or motion and fluxion, or, so to speak, any other sensible quantity, but under 
 that of ratios and abstract quantities,” &c. But even Kepler was wrong in this conces- 
 sion, as is admitted in modern science; and the puerility of the objection urged by these 
 venerable bigots might have been retorted by the exulting champion of Logarithms. 
 ‘¢ Napier’s view of the subject (says Professor Playfair) is as simple and profound as any 
 which after two hundred years has yet presented itself to mathematicians. The mode of 
 deducing the results has been simplified ; but it can hardly be said that the principle has 
 been more clearly developed.” ‘The opinion of the Newtonian age has in like manner been 
 passed upon those commentaries of Kepler, in which he attempted a new demonstration 
 of the Logarithms, and the judgment is, that even he only mystified the system of Napier, 
 while professing to clear it, and at the same time drew his own purest principles from Na- 
 pier’s code. ‘* Whether (says Delambre) these objections were suggested to Kepler or oc- 
 curred to his own mind, they might have been easily answered. Itis true that the conside- 
 ration of fluents, and fluxions of lines and points in motion, are quite extraneous to the sub- 
 ject; but efface them all, and Napier’s calculations are not a whit the less substantial. From 
 two numbers which are ina given proportion, subtract proportional numbers, and the re- 
 mainder will be proportional. Subtract from 9 and 10, a tenth part of each, there remains 
 8.1 and 9, and you have 10: 9::9:8.1,9 xX 9=10 x 8.1= 81. Behold the fundamen- 
 tal theorem of Napier: upon this principle he formed his preparatory tables. Extend these 
 tables sufficiently, and you will there find numbers sensibly equal to all the natural num- 
 bers, to the sines, and to every possible numerical quantity. ‘The process is only an ap- 
 proximation. Napier admitted the fact: but whefe the limit of the error is known, it is al- 
 ways permitted to disregard it: equally admissible is it to adopt a method so eminently com- 
 modious : there is nothing puerile in adopting it with exultation: on the contrary, the de- 
 sire to confine that conception to lines and hyperbolic spaces has something in it of pedantry. 
 All the clearness, simplicity, and generality observable in the theory of Logarithms are 
 the results of processes purely analytical or numerical ; and we owe whatever is obscure 
 to extraneous considerations with which the system has been painfully alloyed. I would 
 wish no better proof of the fact than the works of Kepler and Mercator. Who would 
 dream now a days of studying in Euclid the theory of numbers and proportions ? These 
 subtleties are more troublesome than useful, and time, which might be more profitably 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 445 
 
 and judiciously bestowed, is lost in demonstrating such conceptions.” Delambre far- 
 ther remarks of the Chilias Logarithmorum ; “ Kepler lays down 30 propositions ; the 
 most part of them appear fit for nothing but to swell the volume; the number was ne- 
 cessary, however, in order to justify a kind of jew de mots in his dedication. The land- 
 grave of Hesse, Philippe, had presented him with 30 pieces of silver, and he evinced his 
 gratitude by dedicating a book to the landgrave containing 30 propositions. The dedi- 
 cation is in Latin verse garnished with Greek words. The book and the dedication are 
 in the taste of the times. Kepler then proceeds to construct his tables, but takes very 
 good care not to employ his 30 propositions ; ix fact, he uses no theorem for which he is 
 not indebted to Napier.’ * Such is the opinion of a philosopher, the hero of whose his- 
 tory of science is, nevertheless, Kepler. 
 
 But the most illustrious defence of Napier’s genesis of Logarithms is to be found in 
 the Life of Sir Isaac Newton. ‘“ The notion of flowing quantities first proposed by New- 
 ton, (says Professor Leslie as if in a day dream,) and from which he framed the terms flux- 
 ions and fluents, appears on the whole very clear and satisfactory ; nor should the meta- 
 physical objection of introducing ideas of motion into geometry have much weight. Mac- 
 laurin was induced, however, by such cavilling, to devote half a volume to an able but 
 superfluous discussion of the question.” + Yet the works either of Napier, Kepler, De- 
 lambre or Maclaurin might have informed our professor that, whatever its merits or de- 
 merits, the notion of flowing quantities was also Napier’s, and that the terms said to have 
 been framed by Newton are to be found in the Canon Mirificus. °* Sié punctus A, a quo 
 ducenda sit linea fluxu alterius puncti, qui sit B; fluat, ergo primo momento,” &c.t and from 
 Kepler we learn that the same cavils against which Maclaurin philosophised had been 
 urged against Napier. Maclaurin himself, in the very work referred to by Sir John Les- 
 lie, has a chapter “ of Logarithms and the Fluxions of logarithmic quantities,” in which he 
 observes, “ the nature and genesis of Logarithms is proposed by the inventor in a me- 
 thod similar to that which is applied in this doctrine (Fluxions) for explaining the gene- 
 sis of quantities of all sorts, and is described by him almost in the same terms.Ӥ We 
 must now turn to the passage in Sir Isaac Newton’s work, where he announces the me- 
 thod that led him to his great discovery. 
 
 “¢ I consider mathematical quantities in this place not as consisting of very small parts, 
 but as described by a continued motion. Lines are described, and therefore generated 
 not by the opposition of parts, but by the continued motion of points; superficies by the 
 motion of lines; solids by the motion of superficies; angles by the rotation of the sides ; 
 portions of time by a continual flux; and so in other quantities. These genesis really 
 take place in the nature of things, and are daily seen in the motion of bodies. And after 
 this manner the ancients, by drawing moveable right lines along immoveable right lines, 
 
 * Histoire de l’ Astronomie Moderne, p. 507 et infra. 
 + Leslie’s continuation of Playfair’s Dissertation. 
 
 t{ Canon Mirificus. 
 § Maclaurin’s Treatise of Fluxions, Vol. i. p. 158. 
 
446 | HISTORY OF THE 
 
 taught the genesis of rectangles. Therefore, considering that quantities, which increase 
 in equal times, and by increasing are generated, become greater or less according to the 
 greater or less velocity with which they increase and are generated, I sought a method 
 of determining quantities from the velocities of the motions or increments with which 
 they are generated; and calling these velocities of the motions or increments Fluxions, 
 and the generated quantities /luents, I fell by degrees upon the method of Fluxions, 
 which I have made use of here in the quadrature of curves, in the years 1665 and 1666.” * 
 
 Here Newton seems to have fallen insensibly upon the method of Napier, for I can 
 discover no indications in all his works that he had ever seen the Canon Mirificus, however 
 deeply he entered the theory which that canon created. But the minds of these great 
 men were formed in the same mould, although belonging to very different ages. Con- 
 stantly bent on conquering where the difficulty seemed greatest, whether it were the 
 mysteries of prophecy or calculation, they attacked their subjects with the same wea- 
 pons. Had Newton been placed in the situation of Napier, he would have attempted the 
 Apocalypse, and invented the Logarithms. Had Napier possessed the algebraic calculus 
 in the state that Newton took it up from the hands of Girard, Harriot, Cavalerius, Des- 
 cartes, Roberval, and Wallis, he would have reached the discovery of Fluxions by the 
 very path of Newton; for, as it was, we shall find that he was on the confines of the 
 binomial theorem. But some of the mathematical magnates of the present century, 
 while reviewing the Fluxions of Newton, and the method which led him to attach that 
 nomenclature to his system, make no mention of Napier, + as if there was nothing inte- 
 resting or worthy of attention in the coincidence. Yet so strong is it, that, when the 
 personal friend of Newton, and the greatest mathematician after Napier that Scotland 
 ever produced, set his powerful mind to expound the philosophy of Newton’s fluxionary 
 method, he wrote a chapter “ of the grounds of this method,” which serves equally well 
 to illustrate Napier’s Logarithms or Newton’s Fluxions. Nay, he adopts the very pro- 
 positions, and nearly the language of Napier. Even Dr Hutton, who has shown himself 
 no friend to our philosopher’s fame, observes, ‘‘ Napier’s manner of conceiving the ge- 
 
 * Sir Isaac Newton’s Treatise of the Quadrature of Curves, &c. translated by John Stewart, A. M. 
 Professor of Mathematics in the Marischal College, Aberdeen, 1745. 
 
 + No one should review, even by the slightest sketch, the mathematical sciences, without naming 
 Napier,—far less if that review be in a life of Newton, who was so deeply indebted to the Logarithms. 
 But the remarkable coincidences of the theological studies, and geometrical modes of investigation 
 pursued by these philosophers, render it doubly strange that Sir David Brewster does not once men- 
 tion Napier in his Life of Newton. How striking, on the other hand, are the observations of Delambre 
 in his History of Astronomy. “ Néper démontre que log sin A > (1 — sin A) et < (coséc A — 1). 
 Il le prouve par ses Fluxions et ses Fluentes.”» Again, “ Képler promet une démonstration légitime ; il 
 regarde donc comme insuffisante ou inexacte celle de Néper: il pouvait lui reprocher des longueurs, des 
 inutilités ; il lui reproche, en effet, cette idée de fluxions, et de fluentes, gu’on a depuis reprochée a New- 
 ton. Mais nous verrons que les principaux théoréms trouvés et démontrés par Néper, n’ ont pas été inu- 
 tiles a la nouvelle demonstration.’ —Tome i, pp. 499, 507. 
 
 { Colin Maclaurin. 
 4 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. MAT 
 
 neration of the lines of the natural numbers and their Logarithms by the motion of points, 
 is very similar to the manner in which Newton afterwards considered the generation of 
 magnitudes in his doctrine of fluxions; and it is also remarkable, that in Art. 2 of the 
 Habitudines Logarithmorum et suorum naturalium numerorum invicem, in the Appendix to 
 the Constructio Logarithmorum, Napier speaks of the velocities of the increments or de- 
 crements of the Logarithms in the same way as Newton does, namely, of his fluxions, 
 where he shows that those velocities, or fluxions, are inversely as the sines or natural 
 numbers of the Logarithms, which is a necessary consequence of the nature of the gene- 
 ration,” &c. And Hutton mentions this more particularly afterwards, when he says, “ I 
 shall here set down one more of these relations, as the manner in which it is expressed (by 
 Napier) is exactly similar to that of fluxions and fluents, and it is this: Of any two num- 
 bers ‘ as the greater is to the less, so is the velocity of the increment or decrement (in- 
 erementi autdecrementi) of the Logarithms at the less, to the velocity of the increment 
 or decrement of the Logarithms at the greater,’ that is, in our modern notation, as 
 X :Y:: y to z, where z and y are the fluxions of the Logarithms of X and Y.” * 
 We thus see that Napier’s method was not an accidental idea, indicative of a rude age 
 and country, but one which the loftiest minds were the most apt to adopt. Logarithms 
 mark one great revolution in modern calculation,—Fluxions another ; and surely the 
 coincidence is not uninteresting that their immortal authors arrived at these discove- 
 ries independently of each other, but by a train of thought identically the same. But New- 
 ton, to use the expression of his latest biographer, was “ the leader of a mighty phalanx, 
 —the director of combined genius,—the general who won the victory, and therefore 
 wears the laurels.” Napier occupies a remote and solitary orbit, whose glory is all his 
 own. Heattacked science precisely at the point where the adventure was most uninviting 
 and most laborious; and he did so precisely at the time when the achievement was of the 
 greatest consequence. Men thought that the utmost power of the Indian algorithm was 
 already displayed in the ascending decuple scale ; and although some faint idea of Deci- 
 mal fractions had been obtained, still, until Napier arose, the system of numbers was 
 viewed falsely and in fragments, like the first appearances of the ring of Saturn through 
 the rude telescope of Galileo. The Brahmins themselves never knew the value of the scale 
 whose beautiful notation they transmitted to Europe. Wallis, the successor of Henry 
 Briggs in the Savilian chair, and whose Arithmetic of Infinites gave the first impulse to 
 Newton’s mind, observes, “ there are two very considerable improvements which we have 
 added to the algorism of the Arabs since we received it from them, to wit, Decimal frac- 
 tions and the Logarithms.” Keill, who succeeded Wallis as Savilian professor, and is dis- 
 tinguished as the opponent of Leibnitz, has also remarked, “ The mathematicks formerly 
 received considerable advantages, first by the introduction of the Indian characters, and 
 afterwards by the invention of Decimal fractions; yet it has since reaped at least as much 
 from the invention of Logarithms as from both the other two.” In short, there is no 
 doubt that the great frame-work upon which the miraculous powers of modern calcula- 
 
 * Hutton’s History of Napier’s Construction of Logarithms, pp. 42, 48. 
 
448 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 tion are reared, consists of three steps, the Arabic numerals, Decimal fractions, and the 
 Logarithms. Now of these, Napier brought the second into operation, and created the 
 last, at a time when other philosophers were engrossed with the fascinations of applicate 
 science, and when physical research was soaring upon unruly wing in dangerous advance 
 of the science of numbers. ‘This view of our philosopher’s fame deserves a closer con- 
 sideration; and we must now glance at the circumstances under which he deliberately 
 undertook to unfold the latent power of the Arabic, or rather Indian, system. 
 
 We have reviewed, generally, in the preceding memoirs, the manner in which his 
 great contemporaries of the continent were employed, and the resources they had obtain- 
 ed from their predecessors. The desideratum of those times was a philosopher of the in- 
 tellectual order of Tycho, Kepler, or Galileo, who, possessing also their ardour for the ad- 
 vancement of science, would devote his whole power to conquer the tyranny of Logistic. 
 One or two had made that attempt before Napier’s time; and although the fruits 
 of their labours conferred honour even upon Germany, still the results prove that his 
 success was beyond the grasp of their minds. Had our philosopher lived under those 
 cloudless skies where the telescope was first applied; had his lot been cast in some of 
 those countries where the sons of science excited each other in the opening path of phy- 
 sical research ; and where, (to use the expressions which, in reference to those countries, 
 Napier addressed to his own monarch,) royalty itself became “ the patron and protector of 
 all zealous students, and an allower and acceptor of their godly exercises ;” he, too, might 
 have exerted his powers of calculation in legislating for the stars, or in founding some 
 department of science less abstract and retiring than the path he followed. As it was, 
 however, he turned to the numeral system, where there was so much to do, and where 
 he achieved all that remained to be developed. That he set himself deliberately to the 
 task, we learn from his own accounts, both in the preface to the Canon Mirificus, and in 
 his letter to the Chancellor, already quoted; and the same is repeated in his preface to 
 the <Arithmetica Localis, where he says, ‘ In the progress of my inquiries by what 
 ineans the toil and trammels of calculation could be removed, and in the course of occu- 
 pying every leisure moment I possessed with investigations of compendious methods of 
 computing, I fell (in addition to the Logarithms, Rabdology, the Promptuary of Multi- 
 plication, and other methods) upon a certain arithmetical table, which, as it performs all 
 the serious operations of vulgar arithmetic upon an abacus or chess-board, deserves to 
 be called an amusement rather than labour.” It appears from his manuscripts, to be af- 
 terwards considered, that our philosopher, as might be supposed, only accomplished all 
 this by a most systematical progress through the whole theory of numbers, which he was 
 endeavouring to accommodate to the practice of science, in a digest replete with philo- 
 sophic beauty, when the magnitude of his own success deranged his plan, and the seve- 
 rity of his labours hastened his life to a close. But we cannot appreciate what he did, 
 unless we keep in view both the state in which he found numbers when he determined 
 to create a revolution in the system, and the state in which he left them at his death. 
 
 There is reason to believe that Napier took up the subject some time before the year 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 449 
 
 1594. He tells us himself, that he had invented the Logarithms long before he publish- 
 ed them ; and this agrees with the fact already noticed, that Dr Craig, soon after King 
 James’s visit to Tycho, wrote some account of the matter to that philosopher. In Na- 
 pier’s manuscripts, however, there does not appear the least trace of his great invention. 
 Now it is impossible to suppose that it would not have been prominent in a work 
 where he enters deeply into the arithmetic of surds, had the conception been then 
 formed. As his treatise on arithmetic and algebra was found among his loose notes 
 in an unfinished state, it seems more than probable that the invention of Logarithms 
 arose out of these deep lucubrations, and would actually have formed a part of a preat 
 work on numbers, which he intended to have given the world had his life been 
 spared. We must, therefore, fix the chronology of Napier as an algebraic writer some- 
 time before the close of the sixteenth century, that is, during the rudest period of alge- 
 braic science in Europe. Leonardo of Pisa composed his work before the invention of 
 printing, and early in the thirteenth century. But this had been lost sight of, and was 
 not known for more than a century after Napier’s death, when the manuscript was dis- 
 covered at Florence. The first printed work on the subject was that of Lucas de Burgo, 
 who brought his mercantile travels to the same good account as Leonardo, and from him 
 is generally dated the decided dawn of algebra in Europe. De Burgo’s principal work 
 was published about the year 1494, and in 1539 the second printed book upon arith- 
 metic and algebra appeared. This was a work of the great but eccentric Cardan, of 
 whom it is affirmed by Scaliger, that he was so devoted to astrology, as to refrain from 
 food, and actually die of starvation, to fulfil his own astrological predictions,—a very 
 equivocal compliment to the mystical science. He died in the year 1575. Germany 
 produced one or two philosophers, who, at the same time that Cardan wrote, gave a 
 more decided impulse to numbers. Hitherto nothing had been added to that recondite 
 science, since Arabic numerals, and the rude and imperfect symbols of Burgo’s alge- 
 bra, except in the theory of equations, which received a great extension from Tartalea 
 and Cardan. The defect which materially clogged and impeded the system was in no- 
 tation, the mainspring of numerical science, and of which the profoundest minds are 
 most apt to see the philosophy and value. Michael Stifellius, a Lutheran clergyman, pub- 
 lished at Norimberg, in the year 1544, his Arithmetica Integra, a very original Latin 
 treatise on arithmetic and algebra, wherein he viewed numerical quantities, and their 
 combinations, closely and ingeniously, and gave an impulse to algebra by improving its 
 notation. He was the first to introduce the signs + and — for plus and minus, and also 
 the character 4/, (acontracted R) which denotes the radix or root. Besides this he entered 
 systematically into the consideration of arithmetical and geometrical progressions, point- 
 ed out the logarithmic properties of a corresponding series of powers and their expo- 
 nents, which latter term he uses, and approached as nearly to the shrine of the Loga- 
 rithms as it was possible for any one to do who formed no conception whatever of 
 the great system itself. Another singular coincidence between Napier and Stifellius may 
 OL 
 
450 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 be mentioned. The latter was a zealous Protestant, and had persuaded himself, though 
 by a less cool and philosophical consideration of the subject than Napier’s, that the day 
 of judgment was at hand. The anecdote is well told by Sir John Leslie in his Disserta- 
 tion.— Captivated, perhaps, by the wonderful properties of numbers, he fancied, as 
 other ingenious persons have since done, that he could interpret the visions of the Apoca- 
 lypse, and foretel the end of the world. He was so imprudent as to place that awful dis- 
 solution very near hand. arly in the morning of the day predicted, in the year 1553, 
 he assembled his trembling flock in a wide open field, where he endeavoured to season 
 their minds for the tremendous change by fervid prayers and pathetic exhortations. The 
 sky was lowering,—the darkness thickened,—a portentous silence prevailed,—and the 
 preacher rolled his thunders with overpowering energy. But the clouds soon passed 
 away, the sun shone forth in his wonted splendour, and all nature smiled. The popu- 
 lace recovered their agitated spirits; and now breathing rage and disdain, they chased 
 the unlucky prophet home with volleys of stones.” Thus it would seem, that, although 
 possessing a mind somewhat similar in its constitution, the German exceeded our own 
 philosopher upon this subject, in the same proportion that he fell short of him in deve- 
 loping the power of the Arabic scale. What he added to the system of numbers was 
 chiefly in algebraic notation ; as for his ingenious observations of numerical progressions, 
 they left that subject very much in the state that Archimedes had done. Another German, 
 Scheubelius, published a work upon arithmetic and algebra about the same time, and of 
 much the same description. In 1552 appeared the first treatise upon the subject in the — 
 English language, written by the unfortunate Robert Recorde, His works are curious 
 and original, but only elementary. ‘They are generally in the form of a dialogue between 
 a master and scholar, and under such quaint titles as the Pathway to Knowledge, the Ground 
 of Arts, the Castle of Knowledge, the Whetstone of Wit. Te is chiefly remarkable in the 
 history of algebra, for having added to its notation the sign of equality; ‘‘ and to avoid 
 (says he,) the tediouse repetition of these woordes, is equal to, I will sette, as I doe often 
 in woorke use, a paire of paralleles, or gemowe lines of ane lengthe, thus =, bicause 
 noe 2 thynges can be moare equalle.” England seems to have thought nothing of her 
 solitary algebraist, who, though an able and meritorious man, was suffered to die a pri- 
 soner in the Fleet for debt about the year 1558. Sir John Leslie, in his Dissertation, 
 observes of this writer, ‘ he was the first to propose the sign = for equality, but made 
 no other advances ; and during a period of most active enterprise, till the close of the 
 century, algebra was not cultivated at all in this country.” In France, the celebrated 
 Ramus, under whom Napier may have studied for a time at Paris, wrote on arithmetic 
 and algebra about the year 1560; but his work is also elementary rather than philosophi- 
 cal, and he left the science as he found it. Raphael Bombelli, whose algebra was pub- 
 lished at Bologna in the year 1572, in Italian, wrote more elaborately and profoundly, 
 but did not add any thing of consequence to the labours of his predecessors. The 
 first that can be said to have done so, gies the time of Stifellius and Napier, was 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 451 
 
 Simon Stevinus of Bruges, who published La Practique D’ Arithmetique about the year 
 1582. He afterwards put forth other works upon arithmetic and algebra, along with a 
 translation of some books of Diophantus, in all of which he evinced the highest genius 
 for his subject. Algebraic notation received from his hands another of those impulses 
 by which it has so gradually reached its present perfection ; and arithmetic is indebted 
 to him as the first who expressly promulgated the doctrine of Decimal fractions. It was 
 most probably about this period that our own philosopher commenced his endeavours to 
 create a decided revolution in the science of numbers. A contemporary of Napier’s was 
 the great Vieta, whose name reflects such lustre upon France. His algebraic work first ap- 
 peared in 1600, but by this time Napier’s studies had ripened into the Logarithms, which 
 were at least in progress. ‘The most accurate chronology of the time of our own phi- 
 losopher’s preparatory labours, therefore, so far as I have been able to ascertain, seems 
 to be between the publications of Stevinus of Germany, and Vieta of France. The 
 French philosopher generalized the language of algebra by employing letters to denote known 
 as well as unknown quantities ; and he extended the theory of equations. It is not likely 
 that Napier ever saw his treatises, which were only first collected into one volume by 
 Schooten in 1646. All the other great works that occur im the history of numerical 
 science, are subsequent to the death of Napier. Countries the most distinguished in Eu- 
 rope for philosophers, had produced in that recondite path the few we have so briefly 
 noticed ; and although their names are illustrious and their labours profound, not one of 
 them struck a blow sufficient to extricate the best wing of the mathematics, which, at the 
 elose of the sixteenth century, still remained with its arithmetic undeveloped, and its 
 algebra little beyond the rude and infant state in which it was brought from the East. 
 The name of Recorde is barely sufficient to give England a place in that history at all; 
 and as for Scotland, until Napier arose, it was only famed for mists that science could 
 not penetrate, and for the Douglas wars, whose baronial leaders knew little of the denary 
 system beyond their ten fingers. 
 
 It is curious to think how much science had attempted in physical research, and how 
 deeply numbers had been pondered, before it was perceived that the all-powerful sim- 
 plicity of Arabic notation was as valuable and as manageable in an infinitely descending 
 as in an infinitely ascending progression. It was only necessary to reverse the notation, 
 and the power of the scale was doubled. How obvious and simple does that expe- 
 dient now appear, “ Mais ces moyens simples sont le fruit des idées profondes et lumineuses.* 
 The decimal fractional division itself was long conceived before that notation was esta- 
 plished from which it derives all its value and beauty as a part of the Arabic system. 
 Yet the history of this important chapter of numbers is carelessly recorded where we 
 might have expected accuracy. ‘‘ Regiomontanus,” says a successor of Henry Briggs 
 in the Savilian chair, ‘ introduced that simple, but most valuable, modification of the 
 decimal notation, which consists in fixing the unit’s place at any figure, and not neces- 
 
 * Bailly. 
 
452 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 sarily at the right hand, by placing there a comma, all arithmetical operations going on 
 just the same; ina word, the use of decimal fractions.” * It may be doubted if this sen- 
 tence expresses its own meaning at all, but certainly it would leave any one, not previously 
 enlightened on the subject, either in the dark or in error. By “ decimal notation,” we 
 understand the professor to mean the whole system; and what he characterizes as “ a 
 most valuable modification of ‘the decimal notation,” to be Decimal fractions. Perhaps 
 they are more properly to be called an extension than a modification of our numeral 
 system; but it may be asked, how is the use of decimal fractions explained by say- 
 ing that it “ consists in fixing the unit’s place at any figure, and not necessarily at the 
 right hand, by placing there a comma?” ‘This idea disturbs the simple and beautiful phi- 
 losophy of the Arabic scale. By the comma of course is meant the decimal point or sepa- 
 ratrix, betwixt the integers and fractions, a comma being sometimes used for that pur- 
 pose; but the fact, that any number of decimals may follow any number of integers, by 
 no means renders unit’s place an arbitrary one. No doubt, in any row of figures, 
 such as, for instance, 465.8329, a point placed between any two of them, say 5 and 
 8, converts all those to the right of the point into decimal fractions, and also indicates 
 5 as occupying the unit’s place of the integers; but the unit’s place is just as necessarily 
 at the right hand as ever ; it is at the right hand of the integers of which it is the unit; 
 just as much so as if the fraction were noted in the vulgar form thus, 465s the 
 shifting the point may alter the sum, but it never can change the character of unit’s 
 place, which must always be to the right of all the integers, and to the left of all the 
 fractions. The reason is obvious, and the slightest attention to what is sometimes apt to 
 be overlooked, the simple idea of our numeral scale, will clear the matter. The unit’s 
 place is said to be at the right hand just because its value increases from the bottom of the 
 scale by progressing to the left. But Decimal fractions made no alteration in this va- 
 luable law ; the unit, though accompanied by a tail of decimals as long as a comet’s, still 
 becomes 10, or 100, &c. only by progressing from right to left; therefore its place is 
 always necessarily at the right hand; not perhaps at the calculator’s right hand in any 
 given sum of integers and decimals ; but, strictly speaking, at the right extremity of the 
 path, by its fluxion through which the unit acquires value. Again, what had Regiomon- 
 tanus to do with the decimal point? No more than Archimedes. So far as a record of the 
 fact can be traced, Napier of Merchiston, who lived a century after Regiomontanus, was 
 the first to conceive the powerful idea of giving decimal fractions their proper value in 
 the scale, by simply reversing the order of the original notation. He was also (according 
 to Delambre) the first to perform calculations with decimal fractions, as in the arithmetic 
 of integers; and he did so in the very work by which he unfolded his method of construct- 
 ing the Logarithms. This fact is very interesting ; and so little observed, that we can- 
 not afford to have it still further obscured in a history of science. 
 
 * Historical View of the Progress of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences, &c. by the Rev. Baden 
 Powell, M. A., F. R. S., Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University of Oxford, 1834. P. 116. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 453 
 
 The principle of Decimal fractions is susceptible of a very simple illustration. A digit 
 progressing from right to left, or from unit’s place in infinitum, increases in a tenfold 
 ratio; but, let the unit’s place be marked by a point after it, and then suppose the digits 
 to progress from unit’s place to the right of the point in the same decreasing ratio of ten ; 
 and the Arabic system will thus be doubled simply by reversing the order of its notation. 
 To the left of the unit’s place are tens, hundreds, thousands; and to the right are tenths, 
 hundredths, thousandths, &c. The idea, however, though apparently a very natural 
 extension of the original system, is twofold; and only arrived at its present perfection 
 by two distinct steps ;—/irst, the decimal division in that direction; and second, the 
 converse application of the decimal notation. A  sexagesimal descending scale was 
 used from the earliest times, having been introduced by Ptolemy in his trigonome- 
 trical tables; but the equivalent decimal system is of European growth. Purbach, as we 
 have already noticed in the preceding memoir, first applied the decimal division to the 
 radius of the circle, which he supposed to be divided into 600000 equal parts. Regio- 
 montanus improved and extended this method, by computing the sines of the arcs for 
 every minute of the quadrant to a radius of 1000000. ‘This clearly introduced the idea 
 of decimal fractions, but only indirectly; and it is a complete mistake to suppose that he 
 had any thing whatever to do with their present punctuated notation. The decimal de- 
 scending scale was so far from being practically introduced, even in Napier’s time, that 
 his early treatise on arithmetic, though it contains a beautiful exposition of vulgar frac- 
 tions, makes no allusion whatever to decimals, of which at that time he appears to have 
 had no notion, as a system. 
 
 In the Rabdologia, however, Napier, after some operations with vulgar fractions, adds 
 what he calls Admonitio pro Decimali Arithmetica, the substance of which is as follows : 
 ‘¢ But should those fractions whose denominators are various be found disagreeable on 
 account of the difficulty of working with them, and should that other kind, whose deno- 
 minators are always tenth, or hundreth, or thousandth, &c. parts, (which that most learned 
 mathematician Simon Stevinus in his decimal arithmetic notes and names in this manner, 
 (1) firsts, (2) seconds, (3) thirds,) be preferred on account of their affording the same 
 practical facilities as integers, then, the vulgar division being completed, and concluded 
 with a period or a comma, you can add to the dividend or remainder one cypher for 
 tenths, two for hundreths, three for thousandths, or more at pleasure ; and with these pro- 
 
 ceed to operate as in the above example, where I have added three cyphers: the quo- 
 273 
 
 tient being 1993.278, signifies 1993 integers, and 273 thousandth parts, or [5 
 
 Stevinus has it, 1993, d 7 3,” &ec. Sir John Leslie, in his Dissertation, alludes to this 
 passage, when he says, ‘* It was our illustrious countryman Napier that brought the nota- 
 tion of decimals to its ultimate simplicity, having proposed in his Rhabdologia to reject 
 entirely the marks placed over the fractiorts, and merely to set a point at the end of the 
 units.” We must remark, however, that the learned knight’s antiquities are here not quite 
 accurate. Napier’s work where this occurs was published in 1617; but in the edition 
 
ASA HISTORY OF THE 
 
 of Pitiscus’s trigonometry, published in 1612, that author, in reference to the decimal 
 division therein used, takes occasion to observe, ‘“‘ which parts are commonly written 
 thus ae but it would be a much more compendious form, and fitter for calcula- 
 tion to write it thus 05176381, which means precisely the same thing; and in like man- 
 ner the two numbers 09, and ;°; have just the same value.” ‘This is very nearly the 
 notation proposed by Napier, and now in use; and therefore it would appear that 
 Sir John Leslie’s assertion in favour of our philosopher is met by the prior claim 
 of Pitiseus. Dr Hutton, in his history of trigonometrical tables, gives the following 
 version of the matter: ‘ Pitiscus, Zig. lib. ii. p. 44, describes, for the first time 
 that I know of, the common notation of decimal fractions as now used; and this 
 same notation was afterwards described and used by Baron Neper in positio 4 and 5 of 
 his posthumous work on the construction of Logarithms, published by his son in the 
 year 1619.” Here it will be observed that Dr Hutton refers to a different work of our 
 philosopher than what is referred to by Professor Leslie, and this is curious, that both 
 commit an error exactly the converse of the other. Hutton refers to Napier’s Constructio, 
 which was composed long before the work of Pitiscus, and yet he gives the priority of 
 the idea of decimal notation to the latter author. Leslie only refers to the Rabdologia, 
 not aware that this was published five years after what has been quoted from Pitiscus. 
 Now, the real facts are as follow: Napier’s treatise on the Construction of Logarithms was 
 composed many years before 1614, when he published the Logarithms themselves. He 
 expressly says so in his dedication of the Rabdologia to Lord Dunfermline; (Logarith- 
 morum Canonem, a@ me longo tempore elaboratum, superioribus annis edendum curavi ; ) and 
 in the posthumous work it is mentioned by Robert Napier, that his father had composed 
 that for years (aliquot annos) before he invented the word Logarithms. Pitiscus, in his 
 first edition of his trigonometry, printed in 1599, says nothing whatever about decimal 
 fractions, and the work of his wherein he mentions them is dated 1612. With these 
 facts not only within his reach, but actually before him, I can only account for Dr Hut- 
 ton’s merely saying that Napier described the modern decimal notation after Pitiscus, by 
 the circumstance, that the English mathematician was upon every occasion unwilling to 
 do justice to the Scotch philosopher. He ought, while recording this interesting portion 
 of scientific antiquities, to have pointed out the certain reasons there were for saying 
 that the exposition of decimals in Napier’s posthumous work was written long prior to, 
 and not in consequence of, the remark of Pitiscus in 1612. 
 
 But it may be said, why so much about a point in decimal notation ? and perhaps it is ne- 
 cessary to assign a reason. ‘The greatest mathematicians are those who are most likely to 
 be interested by such facts in the history of science; because they know best how much 
 has been achieved through the medium of notation. Mathematical science obtained one 
 of its most powerful impulses in the simple expedient of the cypher, and it is curious to 
 trace as nearly as possible who was the first to observe, that the same simple notation re- 
 versed acted with equal facility in the opposite direction. But it is highly interesting 
 to discover that the first to do so was he who was the first to evolve, from the Arabic 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 455 
 
 system, the latent power of the Logarithms; and who was also the first to bring into 
 full operation the calculation with decimal fractions, as Napier unquestionably was. 
 Improvements in notation, however simple and gradual, are of vast importance in the 
 history of mathematical science. ‘The Logarithms themselves would inevitably have 
 been discovered through the medium of improved notation, had Napier not invented them 
 (if I may be allowed the distinction,) even before notation was ripe for their discovery. 
 What transformed numerical computations into analytical science? The simple expedient 
 of using the last letters of the alphabet to denote the object of search before it was found. 
 When this symbolical language became yet more general, the power of algebra in- 
 creased in proportion, and it was through such successive improvements in notation 
 that Newton reached the binomial theorem. But it is not as a discovery for which the 
 world is indebted to Napier, that we are anxious to record that the first idea of the ex- 
 isting notation of decimal fractions must be traced to him. It was truly at the sugges- 
 tion of no individual that that notation came to be finally established. Long after Na- 
 pier and Pitiscus had, independently of each other, proposed the method, mathematicians 
 worked decimals in the vulgar form. Practical experience, however, gradually discover- 
 ed the most perfect manner of doing so. And it is identically that which was so imme- 
 diately perceived by Napier. We claim the fact for him, not that we may call him the 
 author of the established notation, but, as affording a valuable illustration of the power 
 and simplicity of his mind. That which experience has proved to be the perfection of the 
 system is just what occurred to him at the very first, and before the world of science was 
 ripe for the application; and hence it is valuable to show that his idea is of older date 
 than the work of Pitiscus, and was not derived from that source. Had such been the 
 case, Napier would have acknowledged the great Pitiscus as readily as he did Stevinus. 
 We shall now turn to Napier’s posthumous work, where the fact is fully recorded, and 
 it will be seen that what in the work of Pitiscus is a mere passing observation, (indicative, 
 however, of a great mathematical mind,) is, in our own philosopher’s prior lucubrations, 
 a system so brought out as to excite the surprise and admiration of DrLamBrE in mo- 
 dern times. 
 
 The circumstances under which the Logarithmorum Canonis Constructio appeared before 
 the public after our philosopher’s death have been already detailed. ‘This was the work 
 which Kepler in his letter expresses an eager desire to see, and certainly it could not 
 have disappointed his most ardent expectations. No clearer or more elegant treatise 
 upon a more recondite or valuable subject illustrates the history of numbers. ‘The pur- 
 pose of it is to shew by what methods he conquered the second, and not the least diffi- 
 culty he had to encounter in his path to the Logarithms; namely, how to calculate the 
 actual numbers to be intercalated betwixt the terms of his progressions, in order to reap 
 the fruits of his first great conception. He begins by defining and giving examples of 
 an arithmetical and geometrical progression as the foundation of his system. He then 
 says, that what is requisite in such a system, is, first, accuracy, and second, facility,—that 
 the former is obtained by laying a foundation of very large numbers, and the latter by 
 
456 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 obtaining those large numbers, through the instrumentality of cyphers. ‘This profound 
 though simple opening leads him at once to the doctrine of decimal fractions, which I 
 shall translate from his own words, and the reader will bear in mind that they were writ- 
 ten at a period when not even an elementary treatise on arithmetic that has escaped ob- 
 livion existed in Scotland; and when Kepler himself was ignorant both of decimal frac- 
 tions, and of Logarithms, as practical systems. ‘‘’The less accurate,” says Napier, “ take 
 100000 as the largest sine, but the deeper calculators select 10000000, by means of which 
 number, the difference betwixt all the sines can be better expressed. ‘That is the reason 
 why I have adopted it for the whole sine, and as the maximum of the geometrical pro- | 
 gression. In computing tables, even very large numbers are to be made still larger by 
 placing a period betwixt the original number, and cyphers added to it. ‘Thus at the 
 commencement of my computation I have changed 10000000 into 10000000.0000000, 
 lest the most minute error might, by frequent multiplication, grow into an enormous 
 one. In numbers so divided, whatever is noted after the period is a fraction, whose de- 
 nominator is unity with as many cyphers after it as there are figures after the period. 
 
 Thus 10000000.04 is equivalent to 10000000 eae So 25.805 is the same as oper 
 5012 
 
 9999998.0005021 is 9999998 7 55GG99: and so on. From the tables so computed, the 
 fractions placed after the period may be rejected without any sensible error, for in these 
 very large numbers, the error is to be considered insensible and nugatory where it does 
 
 not exceed unit. ‘Thus when the table is completed, for the numbers 9987643.821305 1, 
 
 ; : 21305 
 which are equivalent to 99876430 there may be taken 9987643 without any sen- 
 
 sible error.” * 
 
 Thisisthe earliest conception of the existing notation of Decimal fractions that can be point- 
 ed to, and yet in these few words how completely is it developed !_ Let us compare it with 
 the very latest treatise on the subject, and that is the article Arithmetic in the Encyclopedia 
 Britannica, now in the course of publication,—Chap. ix. Decimal Fractions. ‘ Decimal 
 
 fractions are such as have 10, or some power of 10, (that is 100, 1000, &c.) for a deno- 
 
 3 2% 75 462 ; ; 
 minator : such are these [>> 799? quod’? Igo: they are more simply written thus: .3, 
 
 .24, .075. .00462 ; the number of figures after the point being always the same as the 
 number of cyphers in the denominators. In decimal fractions, as thus written, the figures 
 next the point to the right indicates so many tenths; the next so many hundreths, and 
 so on. ‘Thus in the fraction .346 the figure 8 expresses 3 tenths, 4 denotes 4 hundreths, 
 and 6, 6 thousandths. ‘The use of cyphers in decimals as well as in integers is to bring 
 the significant figures to their proper places, on which their value depends, as cyphers 
 when placed on the left hand of an integer have no signification, but when placed on the 
 right hand increase the value ten times each; so cyphers when placed on the right hand 
 of a decimal have no signification, but when placed on the left hand, diminish the value 
 ten times each.” ‘Thus we see that Napier’s first conception and explanation of that 
 
 * Constructio Logarithmorum, p. 6. How deep, and refined, and far in advance of his times, are the 
 doctrines crowded into this single passage. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 457 
 
 system, written many years before it came into universal practice, might be transferred 
 verbatim into a treatise on the subject for the year 1834. It is remarkable that 
 Sir John Leslie, in connecting Napier’ with the history of Decimal fractions, had 
 not referred to the posthumous work rather than to the Rabdologia; for it was in 
 the Constructio Logarithmorum, that the ordinary rules of calculation were first dis- 
 played working with equal facility upon the descending side of the scale. Delambre 
 ( Astronomie Moderne, p. 493, et infra,) was particularly struck with the fact, and I 
 shall follow so far that illustrious philosopher’s profound exposition of the work in ques- 
 tion. ‘* Napier,” says he, “ in his definitions, and even in his calculations, makes use of 
 decimal fractions ; but only gives the notation without any rule of calculation. It is the 
 earliest example of them I have met with,—it is a first step, and one of the greatest 
 importance,” (i est de la plus grande importance.) Delambre then follows Napier through 
 his method of calculating the terms of his geometrical progression, but takes the aid of 
 modern algebraic symbols. It would occupy too much space here to give the process, 
 for which the reader must be referred to Napier’s own work, or other recondite sources. 
 After detailing it, Delambre exclaims, ‘‘ We here distinctly observe examples of subtrac- 
 tion in decimal fractions.” Passing through some more of the calculations he again ex- 
 claims, “ behold manifestly division in decimal fractions ;” and fnrther on he adds, “ I have 
 already remarked that Napier is the first to afford the idea of the calculation of decimal 
 fractions, a little more developed afterwards by Briggs.” 
 
 Such is the hold that Napier has of Decimal fractions, a part of the system, ‘ which” 
 says Playfair, “‘ completed our arithmetical notation, and formed the second of the three 
 steps by which in modern times the science of numbers has been so greatly improved.” 
 Of course the first step was Arabic numerals, and the ¢hird was the Logarithms; so when 
 we take into consideration that decimals only came into active operation with the system of 
 Logarithms, and that Napier is the first, who affords examples both of the calculation 
 with decimals, and of their best notation, we may fairly say that his share in the develope- 
 ment of the great Arabic system is as two to one. ‘The original algorithm, whose his- 
 tory is lost in distant climes and long past ages, brought as it were the telescope to 
 numbers. When Napier reversed the notation, and caused it to act in the opposite 
 direction, he may be said to have added the microscope; and he did so while creating 
 the last and greatest revolution in the system,—when to ceuc! he added that omnipotent 
 word, which nor Greeks nor Brahmins knew, doyagiduoi.* How proud a contempla- 
 
 * aeiOuor signifies numbers, acyae!80!, the ratios of numbers ; or, rather, the number of ratios, aéyav 
 detfuéc. Napier compounded the word before his system was known, but subsequent to the date of 
 his invention. Dr Minto says, “ the term Logarithm was first used by Napier after the publication of 
 the canon in which he uses the term of numerus artificialis”’ (Buchan and Minto’s Life of Napier, 
 p-43). This is an extraordinary mistake. In the Constructio Napier used the latter phrase, but a profound 
 consideration of his own system led him to frame the term Logarithms before he published his canon ; 
 
 and the first knowledge of the system that the world obtained was through that nomenclature which 
 3M 
 
458 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 tion for Scotland, to observe the most recondite department of science receiving its finest 
 and most powerful expansions in the hand of a Scottish baron of the 16th century. 
 
 It is singular, that while Dr Hutton, in the history commented upon, would lead his 
 readers to suppose that the Logarithms had been attained by some natural transition from 
 the observation of numerical progressions, in which many calculators were simultaneously 
 engaged, he has elsewhere recorded another error, the very antipodes of the former, in 
 which he supposes the Logarithms to have been viewed and reached through an algebraic 
 medium which belongs to a period of science whose date is long after Napier. Our 
 author, in his Mathematical Dictionary, (Exponent of a power, ) after stating that  ex- 
 ponents, as now used, are rather of modern invention,” and noticing the rude and cum- 
 brous approaches made towards their present notation, finally traces that system to Des- 
 eartes and Girard, both of whom, it must be observed, wrote after Napier was dead. He 
 then adds: “ ‘The notation of powers and roots by the present mode of exponents, has in- 
 troduced a new and general arithmetic of exponents or powers; for hence powers are mul- 
 tiplied by only adding their exponents, divided by subtracting the exponents, raised to other 
 powers, or roots of them extracted, by multiplying or dividing the exponent by the in- 
 dex of the power or root. Soa’? x a =a*, anda} x at =a; a ~ a = a2, and 
 a? +a4—az4; the 2d power of a’ is a’, and the 3d root of a° is a. This algorithm* 
 of powers led the way to the invention of logarithms, which are only the indices or expo- 
 nents of powers: and hence the addition and subtraction of logarithms answer to the 
 multiplication and division of numbers; while the raising of powers, and extracting of 
 roots is effected by multiplying the logarithm by the index of the power, or dividing the 
 
 39 
 
 logarithm by the index of the root.” ‘Thus we have two different accounts of the invention 
 
 of Logarithms furnished by Dr Hutton. The one is, that many learned calculators, about 
 the close of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, “‘ set themselves” 
 to find the Logarithms through the numerical properties pointed out by Archimedes, 
 and actually laid down all the necessary principles; so that “* many persons had thoughts 
 of ‘such a table of numbers ;” though, he admits, “ the world is indebted for the first 
 publication of Logarithms to John Napier.” Dr Hutton’s other account, however, is, that 
 
 has stood the test of ages, and remains unchanged under every new application, and every refined ana- 
 lysis of the Logarithmic power. The word of itself affords evidence, that, although Napier demonstrated 
 his system by the geometrical means of fluxions and fluents, his consideration of the subject was just as 
 arithmetical as Kepler’s, Delambre has well observed of Kepler’s method of proportions, “ ce systéme 
 est celui de Néper—cette origine rend raison de la dénomination logarithmique qui signifie nombre des 
 raisons ; mais cette dénomination est de Néper, ainsi que Videe qui la lui a fournie: rcyav agibuce.” 
 
 * Dr Hutton’s own explanation of algorithm is; “the common rules of computing in any art; as 
 the algorithm of numbers, of algebra, of integers, of fractions, of surds, &. meaning the common rules 
 for performing the operations of arithmetic, or algebra, or fractions, &c.”” Now the arithmetic of powers 
 and exponents had no existence until after Napier’s death, 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 459 
 
 the algorithm of powers, as that was established by Descartes and Girard after Napier’s 
 death, and towards the middle of the seventeenth century ‘ led the way to the invention 
 of Logarithms!” That we may clear up this matter to the general reader, it is neces- 
 sary to say a few words of powers and exponents,—a doctrine which derives its whole ef- 
 ficacy from its system of notation. 
 
 The product of any number multiplied by itself is called a power of that number. 
 Thus 9 is a power of 3, because three times three is nine. The multiplication by 
 the same number may be prolonged to any extent, and all the successive products are 
 called powers of that number. So our arithmetical scale, 10, 100, 1000, &c. is com- 
 posed of the powers of 10. In this series, however, there is a property inherent in 
 its system of notation, namely, that the number of cyphers of the product mark the 
 number of times that the multiplier, or root, has entered into the operation of pro- 
 ducing it. Thus 100 is equal to 10 multiplied by 10; or, to express it algebrai- 
 cally, 10 X 10= 100. So10 x 10 x 10 = 1000. By arule in algebra, the phi- 
 losophy of which it is unnecessary to expound here, a number is considered the first power 
 of itself. So 100 is the 2d power (square) of 10; 1000 the 3d power (cube); 10000 
 the 4th power, &c. Another notation, however, to the same effect, is to repeat the 
 root itself with a small number beside it, indicating the order of the power, thus 10’, 
 10°, 10’, &c. Here is an example of the modern notation of powers and exponents. 
 But it is only the notation in a particular case, and must be generalised before it can 
 acquire the important place it actually holds in the system of numbers. One grand dis- 
 tinction betwixt arithmetic and algebra is, that the former considers and works a ques- 
 tion in reference only to a particular case, while the latter affords a general rule for a 
 variety of cases. Hence in algebra the letters of the alphabet are taken as symbols to 
 represent indefinite quantities. |The notation of which an example is given above may 
 be considered as applicable to any geometrical progression of numbers, and consequently, 
 is capable of being expressed in the general language of algebra. Thus take any number 
 a for the root, or first power, and its successive powers will be a? a° a‘, &c. which signify 
 the same as aa, aaa, aaaa, &c. or it may be still further generalized, a being taken for 
 the root, and x for the exponent, thus a*: this expression is called an exponential quan- 
 tity, where a may stand for any root, and x for any exponent; and therefore a” may re- 
 present all possible values or numbers from zero to infinity. The universal exponential 
 notation, of which an example is here given, belongs to a vast and fertile field of algebraic 
 analysis, that cannot be said even to have opened in Napier’s time. Stifellius, Bombelli, 
 Stevinus, and a few others, made some rude attempts to denote the exponents of 
 powers by indices, or small numbers; but this notation was not immediately ap- 
 preciated or improved, and even Harriot, whose algebra appeared long after Napier’s 
 death, denotes the order of the power, by the defective and cumbrous expedient of 
 repeating the root itself, thus, a, aa, aaa, &c. To the great Descartes is yielded the 
 merit of the exponential notation now in use, and hence it is called the Cartesian 
 
460 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 notation. Through this it was that the universal arithmetic of powers and exponents 
 became developed. The system was found to be flexible to any extent and in 
 every direction. The law of continuity (or that algebraic principle which considers a 
 numerical scale as indefinitely extended in both directions, ascending and descending) 
 introduced inverse powers and negative exponents, as the reciprocals of direct powers and 
 positive exponents,—an extension precisely similar to that which Napier first gave to the 
 arithmetical scale, when he proposed the notation of Decimal fractions. The doctrine of 
 fractions was also applied to exponents ; and it was discovered that integral and fractional 
 exponents, whether rational or surds, belonged equally to the same system of notation, 
 and could be worked in the same manner. Thus decimals came to be used as fractional 
 exponents. In short, passing through many illustrious hands, the exponential system 
 obtained an unlimited extension, so that in Newton’s it reached the Binomial Theorem, 
 which may be called the bridge that spans the chasm betwixt common algebra and the 
 higher calculus. 
 
 One result of this analytical developement, even before it reached the crisis of Newton, 
 was very important, but not so exciting as it would have been had Napier not antici- 
 pated the treasure. It is obvious that the exponents of any root compose an arithmetical 
 series, adapted to a geometrical one which is composed of the powers whose values the 
 exponents express ; consequently, when it was discovered that an exponent might be a 
 number of any denomination, integral or fractional, negative or positive, rational or surd, 
 it followed directly that every number whatever might be considered as a power of any 
 given number. Thus, for example, 100 is a power of 10, whose exponent is 2, 7. e. 
 10?= 100. Now, as the value of a power depends upon its exponent, and as the system 
 is found to be infinitely flexible, it follows that the numbers betwixt (say) 10 and 100 
 could be viewed as powers of 10, having their values denoted by fractional exponents ; 
 for, although none of these powers would be commensurable, the doctrine of surds af- 
 forded a notation expressive of approximations infinitely near the truth. Here, then, is 
 the adaptation of an arithmetical to a geometrical series, including numbers of every 
 possible description, so that the logarithmic principle observable in the Arabic system is 
 no longer confined to the ascending decuple scale, but, from a special arithmetical case, 
 has become an algebraic law of universal application. It would have been impossible to 
 have reached this refined extension of the notation of powers and exponents, without 
 detecting all those operations by means of the exponents which afford the same re- 
 sults as the more complicated operations with the corresponding powers; and by this 
 path Napier’s great invention must have been discovered ; for the observation is perfectly 
 just, that in whatever terms the method of Logarithms has been stated and explained, 
 its principle may be reduced to this, “ that all numbers are feigned to be equal to the 
 powers of a certain assumed number.” 
 
 Had the Logarithms been disclosed through this gradual progress of the notation of 
 powers and exponents, however valuable the discovery, it would probably not have at- 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 461 
 
 tached an immortal name to any individual. We would have been indebted for it to all 
 those who had improved and advanced the algebraic notation in which it lurked. It 
 would have been insensibly attained, as it were, in the natural and inevitable course of 
 numbers, and would have been due to a system, the very dawn of which had not appeared 
 in our philosopher's lifetime, wnless that dawn be his own work. Professor Playfair remarks 
 particularly, that Napier could derive no assistance from such analytical considerations, 
 but arrived at the Logarithms by an original path of his own; and for that reason he 
 bestows this eulogy upon him, that, “as there never was any invention for which the 
 state of knowledge had less prepared the way, there never was any where more merit 
 fell to the share of the inventor.” Yet the real value of this praise, which is as just as 
 it is high, has been obscured in quarters where we would have least expected confusion 
 on the subject. Professor Powell, whose work, already referred to, is the latest history 
 of mathematics in which Napier is mentioned, has transferred almost verbatim to his own 
 text Playfair’s account of the Logarithms and eulogy of their author. But, overlooking 
 the real point of that eulogy, the Savilian professor adds rather inconsistently, “‘ Hence, 
 to conceive the fundamental idea, that all numbers might be regarded as some powers of 
 one given number, and to devise the actual means of finding the indices of those powers, 
 must be allowed to have been indications of genius of the highest order.” But the fun- 
 damental idea here assumed to have been Napier’s, belongs to a subsequent developement 
 of algebraic analysis, independently of which, for that was his great merit, he achieved 
 the Logarithms. It is an idea belonging to that mature state of the exponential sys- 
 tem wherein a chapter, “* De quantitatibus exponentialibus ac Logarithmis,” * is made pre- 
 liminary to an exposition of the infinitesimal analysis. But it is at variance with the history 
 of analytical science to suppose that Napier could generalize like Euler, which, however, 
 he must have done if he really reached the Logarithms by the contemplation in question. 
 Delambre, while he views the Canon Mirificus through the modern analysis, is most care- 
 ful to avoid giving the impression that Napier did so, or had the aid such a view implies ; 
 *‘ C’est par anticipation (says he) que j’ecris na, 77a, n°a, &c. on n’avait encore aucune 
 idée des exposans ;” and wherever that. philosopher uses such expressions in reviewing our 
 philosopher’s work, he reminds the reader that Napier did not look through any such medium 
 as this translation of his thoughts might seem to imply; ‘ce calcul est /a traduction de ses rai- 
 sonnemens.” Herschel observes, that Wallis’s Arithmetica Infinitorum, published in 1655, 
 is the first work “in which we find that full reliance on what is called the law of continuity 
 in analytical expressions, which has since led to so many brilliant generalizations;” but that 
 ‘¢ the notation of exponents was invented by Descartes.” Now unquestionably the fun- 
 damental idea attributed to Napier is only co-existent with a knowledge of the full mean- 
 ing and utility of exponential notation ; and we would put it, therefore, to the manes of 
 Dr Hutton, and the cathedra of Professor Powell, whether, before the close of the six- 
 
 * Introductio in Analysin Infinitorum. Auctore Leonhardo Eulero, 1797, cap. 6. 
 
462 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 teenth century, Napier can be supposed to have generalized in this form av=y?* Did he 
 select a base for his system? or consider a base in Logarithms at all? or can he be sup- 
 posed to have known that e (a transcendental number begotten upon the Canon Mirificus 
 by the Binomial Theorem,) + was really the base of his own original and parent system 
 of Logarithms ? If he could know nothing of all this, then it is only confounding the his- 
 tory of his invention to say, that the algorithm of powers led to it, or that the foundation 
 of his conception was the analytical idea, that all numbers might be regarded as some 
 powers of one given number. 
 
 But we-verily believe, that, had Napier lived twenty years longer, he would have 
 reaped in rapid succession many of those laurels which the path of analytical science 
 yielded so gradually to many philosophers between him and Newton. In his letter to 
 King James, he tells that monarch that he could bring him gifts as rare as Tycho’s. He 
 verified that hint with the Canon of Logarithms. In his dedication of the Logarithms, 
 he tells Prince Charles, that, if he received them in good part, it would “ encourage me, 
 that am now almost spent with sickness, shortly to attempt other matters perhaps greater 
 than these.” Had he been spared, this promise, too, would have been realized. There 
 was before him the whole of that wonderful field of analytical inquiry, from which, by an- 
 ticipation, he had already snatched one of its most precious disclosures. We must now 
 turn to his manuscript ‘* Booke of arithmeticke and algebra,” which affords the most con- 
 vincing proofs, that with an innate algebraic power equal to Newton’s, but without one 
 
 * The equation a” = y contains various relations. «x is the exponent of a; y is the power of a; ais the 
 root of y; x is the logarithm of y; y is the number of which z is the logarithm. Thus it is obvious that 
 the exponent of a and the logarithm of y mean the same quantity. In this equation a is also termed 
 the base, and so 2 is the logarithm of y to the base a. Of this algebraic generalization the algorithm 
 102 = 100 isa particular arithmetical case. 2 is here the exponent of the operation of raising 10 to its se- 
 cond power, 100; 2 is therefore the logarithm of 100, and 10 is the base of that logarithm. These are 
 modern refinements in analytical science of which Napier knew nothing. He had not the algorithm. 
 
 + The letter ein modern algebra is taken to represent the base of Napier’s first system of logarithms, 
 which is the fundamental and parent system of all logarithms. That base is equal to the number 
 2.7182818. Now, until the binomial theorem, and the modern doctrines connected with it, afforded new 
 and comparatively easy methods of computing logarithms, the number e was unknown. A treatise 
 on arithmetic and algebra, published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, details 
 the algebraic process which produces the number e, and the author adds, “ the student will find 
 e = 2.7182818 ; this quantity then is known; the discovery of it does not at present appear to have 
 brought us nearer our object, but we shall find it a necessary instrument in arriving at it; it is the 
 base of a system called the Napierean, from Napier, a celebrated mathematician of the seventeenth 
 century, who invented logarithms, and calculated them to this base.” But this is a complete mistake. 
 Napier did not calculate his system to a base at all; it might as well be said that he computed his tables 
 through the eapansion of a”, or by means of a a rapidly convergent series. Napier was so far in ad- 
 vance of science that men forget when he lived. Delambre most justly observes, that the easiest me- 
 thods of computing logarithms were discovered after the greatest difficulty and toil had been accom- 
 plished. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 463 
 
 of the many powerful aids which the English philosopher obtained from the algebra of 
 his day, Napier, ere he found the Logarithms, had launched himself in the very path most 
 likely to have led him even to the Binomial Theorem. 
 
 This very interesting fragment has hitherto been secluded in the family charter-chest. 
 Unfortunately it is written in Latin, and would occupy upwards of 130 quarto pages, so 
 is not suited for an appendix to his memoirs in its original state. I shall endeavour 
 to give such an account of it as will afford some insight into the nature of the prepara- 
 tory study, and mental discipline, through which our philosopher passed to the com- 
 plete accomplishment of his greatest design. ‘The reader must not fail to keep in 
 view the circumstances of its ancient date, and the local disadvantages under which the 
 treatise was written. We have already noticed the works upon the same subject that 
 were published before he can be supposed to have written anything ; and, considering 
 how few they were, how slowly books were then spread abroad, and that literary com- 
 munication between Scotland and the Continent was then so slight, as to leave Kepler in 
 ignorance of Napier’s death two years after that event, we must not suppose that our 
 philosopher had at his command even those scanty sources of information the Continent 
 could afford on the abstruse subjects to which he was attached. ‘This is not to ex- 
 cuse defects or rudeness in his treatise on numbers, but to enhance the surprise that 
 he should then have written as he did, and that even his unpublished papers should 
 be so worthy to meet the eye of modern mathematicians. Any one who now takes the 
 trouble to peruse the Canon Mirificus, and his other published works, (and this is rarely 
 done even by men of science), will be struck, not merely with the invention, but with 
 the power, simplicity, and elegance that characterise all his treatises, and the air that 
 pervades them of having been written a century after his time. ‘The very same may be 
 said of the manuscript we are about to consider. Whole chapters of it might be literally 
 translated and transferred to the most careful and recondite treatise on numbers of the 
 present day. Yet it is the oldest treatise of the kind composed in Britain. Recorde’s 
 works are rudely elementary compared to this of Napier’s, which is a beautiful treatise 
 on the philosophy of numbers, free not merely from the puerile facetie * of the old English 
 writer, but, what is remarkable, from every vestige of mysticism or superstition. It 
 must have been composed before he had formed an idea of the Logarithms, because al- 
 though the arithmetical part is entire, and brought to a close, there is not the slightest allu- 
 sion to his great invention, nor to the system of Decimal fractions. I presume, therefore, 
 
 * “ Master. Exclude number, and answer this question; how many years old are you? Scholar. 
 Mum.— Master. How many days in a week ? how many weeks ina year ? what lands hath your father ? 
 Scholar. Mum.—Master. So that if number want, you answer all by mummes. How many miles to 
 London? Scholar. A poak full of plums.—Master. If number be lacking it maketh men dumb, so 
 that to most questions they must answer mum,” &c. “ What call you the science you desire so greatly ? 
 Scholar. Some call it arsemetrich, and some augrime.—Master. Both names are corruptly written, 
 arsemetrick for arithmetic, as the Greeks call it, and augrime for algorisme, as the Arabians sound it,” 
 
 &c.— Recorde’s Arithmetick, 
 
464 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 it was written before he had seen the work of Stevinus, which he quotes in the Rabdo- 
 logia. Unquestionably it is the oldest philosophical treatise on numbers composed in 
 Scotland. 
 
 The general plan and division of his subject is of itself sufficient to show the profound 
 and comprehensive view he had taken of numerical science. He terms his subject, gene- 
 rally, Loaistic (logistica, ) which he defines “ the art of computing well,” and his princi- 
 pal division of it is into four books, of which the first (he says) regards the computation 
 of quantities common to every species of logistic; the second relates to Arithmetic, which 
 he defines, “ the Logistic of discrete quantities by discrete numbers ;” the third, he calls 
 Geometrical Logistic, and defines it ** the Logistic of concrete quantities, by concrete 
 numbers ;” the fourth is Algebra, which he defines, “ the science of solving questions of 
 magnitude and multitude” (quanti et quoti.) 'The classification of his system, minute. 
 clear, and philosophical, affords a striking ulustration of what Robert Napier declared 
 to be the acknowledged characteristics of his father’s mind, namely, the power with which 
 he could condense, and the simplicity with which he could expound. The first book con- 
 sists of eight chapters, and commences in this simple manner. 
 
 “ Logistic is the art of computing well. Computation is the action or operation which, 
 from several given quantities and their properties, finds what is sought. These are given 
 either by vocal nomination, or in written notation. Hence in all Logistic, first comes 
 nomination and notation, and then follows computation. Computation is either simple or 
 compound. ‘That is simple computation which, from two given quantities, finds a third by 
 a single or uniform operation. Simple computation is either primative or derivative. 
 That is primative computation which computes one quantity with another only once; 
 and which, from any two of a whole, a part and a remainder given, finds the third. 
 Primative computation is either Addition or Subtraction. Addition is that primative com- 
 putation in which several quantities are added, and a whole is produced: ez. gr. let 8 
 and 4 be added, and there will be produced 7 for the whole: so let 2, 3, and 4 be 
 added, and there will be produced 9. Subtraction is that primative computation in which 
 the subtrahend is taken from the minuend, (subtrahendum a minuendo,) and a remainder is 
 produced. Thus, let 4 be taken from 9, and 5 remains. 4 is called the subtrahend, 9 
 the minuend, and 5 the remainder. Subtraction is either of equal quantities and no- 
 thing remains, or of wnequal quantities. The subtraction of unequal quantities, is either 
 of the dess from the greater, and the remainder is a quantity greater than nothing (major 
 nihilo,) or it is of the greater quantity from the less, and the remainder will be less than- 
 nothing (minus nihilo). ‘Thus, subtract 5 from 5, and there remains nothing : subtract 
 3 from 5 and there remains 2 more than nothing: but subtract 7 from 5 and there re- 
 mains 2 less than nothing, or nothing diminished by 2. Hence the origin of defective 
 quantities, namely, by the subtraction of the greater from the less, and of these I shall 
 speak in their proper place. From the premises, it is clear that Addition and Subtraction 
 are related ; and thus the one is the proof ee of the other. Thus, as a proof whether 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 465 
 
 2 is the remainder of 3 from 5, add 2 and 3, and 5 is restored. On the other hand, 
 as a proof whether 2 and 3 added make 5, subtract 3 from 5 and 2 is restored; or other- 
 wise subtract 2 from 5 and 3 is restored. There is, besides, another proof of subtraction 
 in itself, namely, by subtracting the remainder from the minuend, so as turn the first 
 subtrahend into the remainder ; thus, as the proof whether 2 be the remainder of 3 from 
 5, subtract 2 from 5 and 3 is restored. And so it is, that any two of a whole, a part, and 
 a remainder being given, you have the third by Addition and Subtraction.” 
 
 Having disposed of his general view of primative computation in this first chapter, Na- 
 pier passes in the second to derivative (orte,) which he defines, “ the computation of quan- 
 tity with quantity more than once.” He considers it as derived either from Addition and 
 Subtraction, by a repetition of those primative operations (orte ex primis,) which gives 
 Multiplication and Division ( Partitio ;) or as derived from these again (orte ex primo ortis,) 
 which gives radical-Multiplication and radical-Partition ; in other words, involution and 
 evolution. Nothing can be more elegant and symmetrical than the manner in which he 
 brings out the genealogy of those great operations whose prolific field was all before him. 
 We have seen, in the first chapter, that his leading division is into simple and compound com- 
 putation. He regards all simple computation as having to do with three quantities, of which 
 any two are given, and the third is to be found from them ; and he also shows how intimate- 
 ly all simple computations are related to each other ; the different species of the same kind 
 being the mutual proofs of each other, and the different kinds naturally arising each out of 
 the more primative. He shows how Addition and Subtraction test each other. Mul- 
 tiplication he views as continued Addition, and defines it thus elegantly ; ‘¢ Multiplication 
 is the continued addition of either of the two given quantities, as often as there are units in 
 the other; the product is the multiple ; thus 3 multiplied by 5 is the same as 3 five times 
 added, or 5 three times added; being 15.” ‘The three quantities in this operation he calls 
 the multiplier, the multiplicand, and the multiple. Division he views as “ the continued 
 subtraction of the partient from the partitor until nothing remain, and the number of sub- 
 tractions is the quotient.” He then shows that Division may be perfect or imperfect, and 
 points out how “ fractions derive their origin both from the partition of the less by the 
 greater, and the cmperfect partition of the greater by the less;” and he concludes, as in 
 the previous chapter, by showing that Multiplication and perfect Division mutually prove 
 each other. The third chapter contains the third class of simple computation, namely, 
 that which is derived from Multiplication and Division by a repetition of those operations. 
 Here the three quantities considered are thus defined; “ the radicate * is that quantity 
 
 * What Napier calls radicatum is now called power. It forms another of the several coincidences 
 between Napier and Sir Isaac Newton, that the latter also wrote a Latin work upon arithmetic and 
 algebra, entitled Arithmetica Universalis, being the substance of his lectures delivered at Cambridge. 
 In that work I find Newton, like Napier, uses the words index and radix ; but the third quantity he 
 calls“ dimensio, vel potestas, vel dignitas.” Napier’s radicatum will bear the most hypercritical scrutiny ; 
 
 it regards the quantity as rooted, or composed of roots, which are to be decomposed, or evolved, in 
 3N 
 
466 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 which returns to unit by repeated partition by some other quantity; the number of par- 
 titions is the index, the dividing number is the root.” ‘These three quantities he consi- 
 ders subject to three operations; 1. radical-Multiplication, which he defines, the conti- 
 nued multiplication of the given root, as often as there are units in the index, to produce 
 the radicate sought;” and he shows that the remultiplication may be infinite; it may be 
 “ duplication, which is the multiplication of two equal quantities together, or the given 
 quantity placed twice, (bis posite); triplication is the given quantity thrice placed, &c. 
 in these cases the radicate becomes the duplicate, or triplicate, or quadruplicate, &e. the 
 index is two, or three, or four, &c. the root is bipartient, or tripartient, or quadripartient,” 
 &c. The example he affords is by placing 2 for the root, and 2 for the index, and then 
 he raises 2 to the seventh power, as ‘in the following table, where the prior series 
 (prior series) are indices, and the latter radicates, 
 BSN MT Pe eT TO ETT POL TET ey ae rea ee se oc 
 1nd Quince BO coi i ABy lA ees tawil 6 Ui 82 De Aah tobe es Meme ct 
 
 He next considers, (in the same chapter) 2. radical-Partition, which he defines, “ the 
 continued partition of the radicate by the root down to unit, and the number of par- 
 titions is the index sought. In the fourth chapter, he takes up the important case of, 
 3. Extracting the root itself. He defines this process, “ finding that third quantity which, 
 the index being given, raises the given radicate by radical-Multiplication, or resolves it 
 by radical-Partition.” He then lays down that the extraction may be perfect or imper- 
 fect; “ perfect where there is no remainder,—imperfect where a remainder is left irre- 
 soluble ; thus, if the ¢ripartient-root is to be extracted from the radicate 9, the nearest 
 number is 2, which by radical-Multiplication raises 8, and not 9; it is, therefore, called 
 an imperfect extraction, as 1 remains unextracted ; whatever numbers so remain are 
 termed irresoluble (crresolubiles ;) the number obtained by the imperfect extraction is 
 called the lesser term, to which, by adding unit, the greater term is obtained ; between 
 which terms the true and perfect root lies hid.” Our philosopher then proposes a very 
 
 order to produce the indez, which again denotes the quality of the radiz. Radicatum being thus ex- 
 pressive, I have translated it radicate instead of power. 
 
 * It is curious to find, in this example, the inventor of Logarithms framing a logarithmic table un- 
 conscious of that property of the particular arrangement. The reader will at once perceive the Archi- 
 medean theorem in the numeral arrangement quoted ; the upper series being truly logarithms to the 
 lower. But Napier gives it without any reference to that particular property. Had this been his first 
 step to the Canon Mirificus, that work would have presented a very different aspect. We would pro- 
 bably have heard nothing of his fluzions and fluents ; but every thing about the arithmetic of indices ; 
 he would have selected a base for his system, and that a simple one; the tables computed under those 
 circumstances would probably have been of the kind called antilogarithms. (See Dr Hutton’s His- 
 tory of the Construction of Logarithms, and Dodson’s Preface.) The example shows that Napier had 
 not the exponential system in a state to reach the logarithms by that path, though he unconsciously 
 affords a rude table of powers and exponents as well as of logarithms; had he simply repeated the root 
 instead of giving the radicate, and then reduced his indices to small numerals thus, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 
 he would also have afforded a specimen of the Cartesian notation. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 467 
 
 curious notation of his own for these imperfect roots, which shall be afterwards noticed 
 more particularly. His next proposition is, that ‘in radical-computations, some indices 
 are even and some odd ; some again are prime, i.e. only divisible by unit, others compo- 
 site, i.e. perfectly divisible by some other number.” After giving examples, he adds, 
 ** hence a compendious method of radical- Multiplication and Extraction where the indices 
 are composite, for it is easier to multiply, or extract, by means of the component parts 
 of the index separately, than by the composites themselves,” &c. He closes this chapter, 
 as the former ones, by showing that each of the three operations of radical computation 
 is proved by the other two. ‘This concludes his general view of simple computations, — 
 their relations to and dependencies upon each other. I may here observe that he never 
 leaves a term without a definition, or a proposition without examples. 
 
 The remaining four chapters of the first book are devoted to the general view of 
 “© compound computation, or ules.” ‘This he defines “ the computation which, by several 
 and divers modes:of operation, produces the quantity sought from several given quanti- 
 ties.” The fifth chapter accordingly treats of compound computation, embracing rules 
 of proportion and disproportion. It contains a remarkable example of his practical powers, 
 and of his unremitting attempts to create compendious rules where he found them want- 
 ing. I shall translate it, therefore, nearly at length, as he seems to have laid some stress 
 upon his own peculiar method ; and it may be doubted if any thing better is to be met 
 with on the subject even now. 
 
 ‘¢ Rules of Proportion are those which solely by means of simple proportionate com- 
 putations, such as Multiplication and Partition, discover from several given quantities the 
 quantity sought; as, if it be asked, how many miles he may go in 6 hours who goes 
 4 miles in 3 hours? or,—if 6 oxen be nourished for 4 days upon 3 measures of hay, how 
 many oxen may be nourished in 2 days upon 5 measures? or,—20 shillings Scotch are 
 1 pound, 2 pounds are 3 marks, 5 marks are worth 1 crown ; how many shillings, then, 
 are 9 crowns worth? Questions of proportion have no introduction through Addition and 
 Subtraction; for Multiplication and Partition are proportional computations as a con- 
 sequence of their definitions. Two things are considered in such computations,—posi- 
 tion, and working. Position is regulated by four precepts. “rst, that a line be drawn, 
 and a place prepared under it for the quantity sought, along with its collaterals, as fol- 
 lows, in terms of the three examples given above. 
 
 6 hours, 4 miles. 6 oxen 5 meas. 4 days. . 20 shil. 2 pnd. 5 mr. 9 er. 
 * 3 hours, how many miles. “" how many ox. 3 meas. 2 days. ~~ how many shil. | pnd. 3 mr. | er. 
 
 Second, that two quantities, of which the one decreases as the other increases, be placed 
 as collaterals on the same side of the line. As, in the first example, by how much the 
 first hours abound, namely, 3, so much fewer will be the miles sought; in the second 
 example, as the number of oxen increase, the number of days in which they may be nou- 
 rished on the same measure decrease; hence, 3 hours and the miles sought,—6 hours 
 and 4 miles,—again, 6 oxen and 4 days,—the oxen sought and 2 days,—are respectively 
 
468 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 placed on the same side of their lines. Third, that two quantities increasing or decreas- 
 ing together, must be placed on the opposite sides of the line; thus, as the 3 hours in- 
 crease, so must the 4 miles, e¢ contra,” &c. “ Fourth, that two cognominate quantities 
 be always separated by the line; as in the first example, 3 hours to 6 hours, and 4 miles to 
 the miles sought,” &c. “ These precepts of position being attended to, the following single 
 general precept of working will suffice for the solution of every question of this kind.”— 
 “© Multiply the upper quantities together, also the lower together ; then divide the multiple of 
 the upper quantities by the multiple of the lower ; and the quotient will solve the question by 
 giving the quantity sought. ‘Thus, in the first example, 6 and 4 multiplied make 24, which 
 divide by 3, and that will give 8, the number of miles sought ;—or, in the second ex- 
 ample, 6, 5, and 4 multiplied make 120, then multiply 3 and 2, which make 6, by which 
 divide 120, and that will give 20 and solve the second question ;—or, in the third ques- 
 tion, multiply 20, 2, 5, and 9 together, which make 1800; then multiply 1, 3, and 1, 
 which make 3, by which divide 1800, and that will give 600, the number of shillings 
 which are equal in value to nine crowns. In this manner, J bring every species of rules of 
 proportion under one general method and operation. ‘The authors treat of infinite species 
 and forms of the doctrine of proportion, such as the rules of three or the golden, of 
 simple, double, five-quantities, six-quantities, direct, inverse, &c. but they have not 
 touched the triple rule, or any of its manifold forms, all of which you have here in this 
 brief form.””* 
 
 ‘¢ So much for Rules of Proportion ; the Rules of Disproportion follow ; but as these, 
 besides the proportional computations, embrace additions and subtractions and other 
 computations disturbing proportion, mixed up together, therefore I dismiss all these, as 
 what may be sufficiently comprehended under algebra. As the rules of alligation, 
 society, falsehood, simple proportion, double proportion, and many others, form the 
 greatest part of all arithmetical rules, so of geometrical rules do propositions, problems, 
 theorems, &c. which, confused both from their variety and number, disturb the memory. 
 These therefore I Jeave, to be presently treated of under algebra.” 
 
 Having disposed of quantities ‘ im genere,” Napier takes up the division “ suarwm spe- 
 cierum.” His first division of the species is into abundant and defective quantities, (abun- 
 dantes et defective, ) to which the sixth chapter is devoted. Upon this chapter our phi- 
 losopher lays much stress, and I shall give it entire. 
 
 «¢ Abundant quantities are those which are greater than nothing (majores nihilo, ) and 
 carry the idea of increase along with them. ‘These have either no symbol prefixed, or 
 this one +, which is the copulative (copula) of increase. Thus, if you are not in debt, 
 and your wealth be estimated at 100 crowns, these may either be noted 100 crowns, or 
 
 * Recorde’s Arithmetic confirms this remark. There I find, the golden rule direct and inverse, the 
 double rule of proportion, the rule of proportion composed of five numbers, the rule of fellowship, the 
 rule of alligation, the rule of falsehood ; but nothing similar to Napier’s. He made every rule golden 
 that he touched ; witness his trigonometrical rules. 
 
 3 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 469 
 
 ‘+ 100 crowns; and are read a hundred crowns of increase ; always signifying wealth 
 and gain. ‘The computations of such quantities are to be learnt both from what has been 
 said and what is to follow. Defective quantities are those which are less than nothing 
 (minores nihilo, ) and carry the idea of diminution along with them. ‘These are always 
 preceded by this symbol —, which is the copulative of diminution. Thus, in the estima- 
 tion of his wealth whose debts exceed his goods by 100 crowns, justly his funds are thus 
 prenoted, — 100 crowns, and are read, a hundred crowns of decrease ; signifying always 
 loss and defect.* I have already shown that defective quantities have their origin in 
 
 * Abundant and defective terms are now used in a totally different sense.’ A number is some- 
 times considered as composed of aliquot parts, 7. e. of other numbers, any one of which, being repeated 
 a certain number of times, makes up the whole number precisely ; thus 1, 2, and 3, are the aliquot parts 
 of 6. Now when the aliquot parts of a number, added together, make up a sum greater than that num- 
 ber, they are the aliquot parts of an abundant number ; if less, of a defective number ; if precisely the 
 number, as in the example given, it is a perfect number. The terms now in use to express Napier’s 
 idea are negative and positive. Sir Isaac Newton, in his Algebra, says, “ Quantitates vel affirmative 
 sunt, seu majores nihilo ; vel negative sewnihilo minores. Sic in rebus humanis possessiones dici pos- 
 sunt bona affirmativa, debita vero bona negativa ;” the very example which Napier gives. Dr Horsley, 
 Newton’s commentator, observes at this passage; “ Albertus Girardus, ni fallor, omnium primus, 
 (quem summum interea mathematicum agnosco,) dura quddam verborum figura, Diophanto et Viete 
 prorsus ignotd, quam vellem Cartesius et nostrates minus avide arripuissent, nihilo minores, dizit.” 
 This shows how neglected Napier’s great work is by the learned. Horsley, of course, could not know, 
 that in Napier’s unpublished manuscript there was a chapter upon this distinction, but he might have 
 read in the Canon Mirificus, c.i. p. 5, “ Logarithmos sinuum, qui semper majores nihilo sunt, abun- 
 dantes vocamus, et hoe signo +, aut nullo prenotamus ; logarithmos autem minores nihilo defectivos 
 vocamus, prenotantes eis hoc signum —.’ This was published fifteen years before the work of Girard, 
 to which Horsley alludes. Dr Hutton, in his History of Algebra, has fallen into the same mistake ; 
 “ Girard was the first who gave the whimsical name of quantities less than nothing to the negative 
 ones.” Here is another indication that Hutton analyzed Napier’s works, and presumed to attack his 
 character, without reading the original proofs as he ought to have done. Even Leslie and Playfair 
 had not read the Canon Mirificus. The former says, “ Girard was possessed of fancy as well as in- 
 vention; and his fondness for philological speculation led him to frame new terms, and to adopt cer- 
 tain modes of expression which are not always strictly logical ; though he stated well the contrast of 
 the signs plus and minus, in reference to mere geometrical position, he first introduced the very inac- 
 curate phrases of greater and less than nothing.” Playfair says, “ Girard is the author of the figurative 
 expression, which gives the negative quantities the name of quantities less than nothing ; a phrase that 
 has been severely censured by those who forget that there are correct ideas which correct language 
 can hardly be made to express.” It is, indeed, wnphilosophical fastidiousness to call the phrase “ very 
 inaccurate.” Napier fortified it by a better nomenclature, in the terms abundant and defective, than 
 those now in use,—positive and negative, which are said to convey erroneous impressions. Again, 
 his exemplification of the idea is that which is invariably adopted now, though not from him. Surely 
 Euler was never rummaging in the Merchiston charter-chest ? Yet his illustration is identically Na- 
 pier’s ; “ In algebra, simple quantities are numbers considered with regard to the signs which precede 
 or affect them. Farther, we call those positive quantities, before which the sign + is found; and 
 those are called negative quantities which are affected by the sign —. The manner in which we ge- 
 nerally calculate a person’s property is an apt illustration of what has just been said; for we denote what 
 
470 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 subtracting the greater from the less. Abundant and defective quantities come under the 
 operation of Addition; where the signs are alike, by prefixing their common sign to their 
 ageregate sum 5 thus, + Sand + 2 make + 5; but if their signs are unlike, they are added 
 by prefixing the sign of the greater quantity to the difference between them; thus, + 6 
 and—4make +2. In Subtraction they are worked by changing the sign of the subtrahend, 
 and adding it to one or other of the given quantities according to the foregoing rules ; thus, 
 in subtracting -+- 5 from + 8, change + 5 to — 5, then, as before, add — 5 to + 8, which 
 gives + 3, the remainder sought; so to subtract + 8 from — 5, change + 8 into — 8, which 
 added to — 5 gives — 13, the remainder sought; so — 5 from + 8 gives + 13; and + 5 
 from — 8 gives — 13; and — 5 from — 8 gives — 3; and + 8 from + 5 gives — 3; 
 and — 8 from + 5 gives + 13; and — 8 from — 5 gives + 3. Abundant and defective 
 quantities are multiplied and divided, where the signs are alike, by prefixing to the mul- 
 tiple or the quotient the sign of plus, (pluris ;) or, if unlike, the sign of minus, (minutionis:) 
 thus, + 3 multiplied by + 2, or — 3 multiplied by — 2 produce the multiple + 6; 
 and if + 6 be divided by + 3; or — 6 by — 8, the quotient + 2 is produced. But if 
 + 8 be multiplied by — 2, or — 3 by + 2, the multiple will be —6; and if + 6 be di- 
 vided by — 3, or — 6 by + 3, the quotient will be — 2.” 
 
 ‘¢ Roots, both abundant and defective, having an even index, when radically multiplied 
 produce an abundant vadicate ; thus, multiply the root +. 2 to the index 4, and there will 
 be given, first, -+ 2; second, + 4; third, + 8; fourth, + 16; in like manner — 2 gives, 
 first, — 23 second, + 4; third, — 8; fourth, +- 16, as before. Hence it follows, that an 
 abundant radicate, whose index is even, has two roots, one abundant, and the other defec- 
 tive, and that a defective radicate has no root ; for in the above example both the abundant 
 + 2, and the defective — 2, are the quadripartient (fourth) roots of the abundant radicate 
 +. 16; therefore there are none remaining, either abundant or defective, which can be the 
 
 a man really possesses, by positive numbers, using or understanding the sign + ; whereas his debts are re- 
 presented by negative numbers, or by using the sign —: Thus, when itis said of any one that he has 100 
 crowns, but owes 50, this means that his real possession amounts to 100— 50; or, which is the same thing, 
 + 100—50,i.e.50. Since negative numbers may be considered as debts, because positive numbers repre- 
 sent real possessions, we may say that negative numbers are less than nothing ; thus, when a man has no- 
 thing of his own, and owes 50 crowns, it is certain that he has 50 crowns less than nothing ; for if any 
 one were to make him a present of 50 crowns to pay his debts, he would still be only at the point of no- 
 thing, though really richer than before. In the same manner, therefore, as positive numbers are incon- 
 testably greater than nothing, negative numbers are less than nothing.” Maclaurin, too, defends the phrase, 
 but illustrates the idea more poetically; “ the depression of a star below the horizon may be equal to 
 the elevation of a star above it ; but those positions are opposite, and the distance of the stars is greater 
 than if one of them was at the horizon so as to have no elevation above it, or depression below it; it is 
 on account of this contrariety that a negative quantity is said to be less than nothing ; because it is 
 opposite to the positive, and diminishes it when joined to it, whereas the addition of 0 has no effect ; 
 put a negative is to be considered no less as a real quantity than the positive.” The opinion of Leslie, 
 who calls the phrase inaccurate, and of Hutton, who calls it whimsical, must go down before the opi- 
 nions of Napier, Newton, Maclaurin, Euler, and Playfair. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 471 
 
 quadripartient root of the defective radicate — 16. Abundant roots, having wneven indices, 
 when radically multiplied yield abundant radicates; and defective roots, defective radicates ; 
 thus, the abundant root + 2, when radically multiplied to the uneven index 5, yields + 32; 
 namely, first, + 2; second, + 4; third, +- 8; fourth, + 16; fifth, +- 32, the abundant radi- 
 cate; so the defective root — 2, with the index 5 radically multiplied, yields — 32, name- 
 ly, first, — 2; second, + 4; third, — 8; fourth, + 16; fifth, — 32, the defective radicate 
 of the said root. In like manner hence it follows that a radicate with an uneven index 
 has only one root, an abundant radicate an abundant root, and a defective radicate a de- 
 fective root; as in the former example, the abundant radicate + 32 with the index 5, will 
 have the abundant root + 2; so the defective radicate — 32, with the same index, will 
 have the defective radicate — 2. It is unnecessary to repeat here the rules of propor- 
 tion, as they are compounded of multiplications and partitions, and may be learned from 
 what is premised.” 
 
 In a subsequent part of his manuscript, when treating of the notation of irrational 
 roots, we shall find Napier referring to this chapter as the foundation of a great algebraical 
 secret, not previously revealed by anyone. ‘This shall be considered more particularly, when 
 we come to notice the chapter where these expressions occur. It must be observed, 
 however, that he here lays down the general rules of the arithmetic of plus and minus, 
 and connects the chapter with his system, in a manner not sur ppageds if equalled, in the 
 treatises of Newton, Maclaurin, and Euler. 
 
 Our philosopher, i in the next place, passes to his second special division of quantities, 
 
 namely, into integral and fractional. ‘ Those quantities,” 
 
 says he in chapter seventh, 
 “are called integral, which have no denominator, or whose denomimator is unit; and 
 those fractional, whose denominators are varipus. ‘The denominator is the quan- 
 tity placed under the line, and indicates the number of parts into which unity is di- 
 vided; the uumerator is the quantity placed above the line, and denotes how many of 
 those parts are taken. For instance, this quantity 3ad is an integral quantity; so is 
 a which is the same thing written in the form of a fraction; again, oe and i nd 2 
 or 3, which is the same thing, are fractions or broken quantities, whose higher farina 
 the numerators, and whose lower terms are the denominators.” Our philosopher then re- 
 minds his reader that it had been previously observed how broken quantities are also pro- 
 duced greater than unit, namely, by the imperfect division of the greater quantity by the 
 less. ‘* Thus, 9 divided by 2 yields 44, or, if you prefer it, 3 greater than unit. Hence 
 every numerator sustains the part of the quantity divided ; an its denominator, of the 
 ghee that divides it; as in the former example, = signifies that 3ad is divided by 2dc; 
 so 5- has the same value as 3a divided by 2a; or, more briefly, 3 divided by 2; or, fi- 
 vies it has the same value as three parts of unity divided into 2; so ? are three-fourths 
 
 of unity, or three divided by four, which is the same thing.* Every quantity having a 
 
 * Evuter might have written all this; indeed he has written something very like it; he traces from 
 the same source as Napier does the “ particular species of numbers called fractions, or broken numbers ;” 
 
472 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 numerator and denominator is considered and worked as a fraction, and hence, in order to 
 compute with integers as if they were fractions, 1 is placed beneath them as their deno- 
 minator. The computation with fractions is facilitated by contracting and abbreviating 
 their terms (termini). This is done by dividing the terms in their increased form by 
 their greatest common divisor.* The greatest common divisor is that than which a 
 greater cannot be found capable of perfectly dividing each term ; and it is found, first by 
 dividing the greater term by the less; then by always dividing the preceding divisor by 
 its remainder until nothing remain; that last divisor, the quotients being neglected, is the 
 greatest common divisor sought; thus, the greatest common divisor of the terms 55 and 
 15 is found in this manner: divide 55 by 15, there remain 10; divide 15 by 10, there 
 remain 5; divide 10 by 5, and nothing is left over ; 5, therefore, is the greatest common 
 divisor, measuring 15 by 3, and 55 by 11. If, however, you arrive at unit for the di- 
 visor, then the terms are inabbreviable, and prime, or prime to one another; thus, let 
 the terms be 5a and 3a, divide 5a by 3a, and there remain 2a; then divide 3a by 2a 
 and la remains, by which divide 2a and there is no remainder. Hence 5a and 3a have 
 not a greater divisor than unity, or la, by which if those terms be divided, they become 
 to each other the prime numbers 5 and 3, as more fully shall be laid down in its proper 
 place. But this must be specially looked to in the partition of incommensurable quan- 
 tities that it will go on eternally without end, as will plainly appear in its proper place ; 
 thus of the number 10 and its dipartient root, or, as 2 is called, square root, no common 
 measure will be found in eternity ; much less that greatest divisor ; as in its proper place. 
 
 he explains the example Z, and then says, “ so, in general, when the number a is to be divided by 
 the number 4, we represent the quotient by + and call this form of expression a fraction; we cannot, 
 therefore, give a better idea of a fraction > than by saying that it expresses the quotient resulting 
 from the division of the upper number by the lower ; we must remember also that in all fractions the 
 lower number is called the denominator, and that above the line the numerator.’ He turns and views 
 his subject precisely as Napier does; “ the nature of fractions is frequently considered in another way, 
 which may throw additional light on the subject. If, for example, we consider the fraction 3, it is 
 evident, that it is three times greater than 1. Now, this fraction } means, that if we divide 1 into 4 
 equal parts, this will be the value of one of those parts ; it is obvious, then, that by taking 3 of those 
 parts, we shall have the value of the fraction 3.”—Hewlett’s translation of Euler’s Algebra, 1822. 
 
 * © In order to reduce a given fraction to its least terms, it is required to find a number by which 
 both the numerator and denominator may be divided. Such a number is called a common divisor ; 
 and as long as we can find a common divisor to the numerator and the denominator, it is certain that the 
 fraction may be reduced to a lower form; but, on the contrary, when we see that, except no unity, 
 other common divisor can be found, this shows that the fraction is already in its simplest form.” 
 This property of fractions preserving an invariable value, whether we divide or multiply the numerator 
 and denominator by the same number, is of the greatest importance, and is the principal foundation of 
 the doctrine of fractions. For example we can seldom add together two fractions, or subtract the one 
 from the other before we have by means of this property reduced them to other forms.”—“ All whole 
 numbers may also be represented by fractions ; for example 6 is the same as & because 6 divided by 1 
 makes 6,” &c,—Euler’s Algebra. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. AT3 
 
 Having obtained the greatest common divisor, and divided by it each term, the new 
 terms arise; and this operation is termed abbreviation.” 
 
 ~ We now come to the eighth and last chapter of Napier’s first book, and he treats his sub- 
 ject so very like Euler, that we are almost surprised to find him at the addition and subtrac- 
 tion of fractions in his eighth chapter, when Euler is only at the same subject in his ninth. 
 But then we must always recollect what his son said of our philosopher, ex optimorum 
 hominum sententia, inter alia preclara hoc eximii eminibat, res difficillimas methodo certé et 
 facili, quam paucissimis expedire. “* Fractions,” says he, “ of the same denomination are 
 subject to the operations of addition and subtraction. If their denominators are diverse 
 they may be reduced to the same. ‘This is done by dividing each denominator by the 
 greatest common divisor, the quotients being noted, then by multiplying both the terms of 
 the first into the quotient of the latter denominator, you have the first new fraction ; * 
 and multiplying both terms of the latter by the quotient of the former denominator, 
 gives the latter new fraction of the same denomination: thus, to reduce the fractions % 
 and 7 to the same denomination; of denominators 3 and 9, the greatest common divisor 
 is 8, by which divide them and you have 1 for the first, and 3 for the latter; then multiply 
 each term of 2 by the last quotient 3, and § is produced as the first new fraction; in like 
 manner multiplying 3 by unit, which is the first quotient, gives the fraction 5 of the same 
 denomination as §. Being so reduced, these fractions are added or subtracted by adding 
 or subtracting the numerators ; the sum, or remainder, being taken as numerator, and the 
 common denominator retained,” &c. In the same minute and lucid manner, and always 
 preserving the perfect symmetry of his arrangement, our philosopher proceeds to lay 
 down rules for multiplication, partition, extraction of roots, radical multiplication, and ra- 
 dical partition of fractions. This closes the first book, being his exposition of the prin- 
 ciples and rules “ common to every species of logistic.” 
 
 It is particularly striking to observe that his manner of treating the subject is not sur- 
 passed, if equalled, in modern times. With few resources beyond his own mind, liv- 
 ing ina rude age, and in a country whose barbarian darkness in science he was the 
 first to break, Napier surveys the vast field of computation, and not only reduces its 
 complicated elements to a lucid order far before his times, but displays in the task 
 
 * We must here observe, that Napier at once gives the most simple and perfect method of adding 
 and subtracting fractions, and that Euler, although he indicates his knowledge of the rule, only details 
 more imperfect ones. It is a striking fact, of which any one may easily satisfy himself, that this per- 
 fect rule of Napier’s is not taught in the elementary books. A note to Euler’s algebra says, “ the rule 
 for reducing fractions to a common denominator may be concisely expressed thus: Multiply each nu- 
 merator into every denominator except its own, for a new numerator, and all the denominators toge- 
 ther for the common denominator.” This is also the rule’ Maclaurin gives. Now it happens to be the 
 worst rule, and Napier’s is the best. Napier’s exposition of fractions, throughout all his manuscript, is 
 
 perfect. 
 30 
 
A74 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 a philosophical power, and a grasp of mind superior to that of Euter.* That phi- 
 losopher’s Elements of Algebra, written in the eighteenth century, are perhaps the 
 severest test we could adopt of the excellence of Napier’s unpublished fragments of 
 the sixteenth century. ‘There is, indeed, a remarkable similarity between the treatises, 
 and it is manifest that the illustrious German viewed his subject nearly with the same 
 mental eye that Napier did. Still his treatise is less methodically arranged, less sym- 
 metrical, less classic than Napier’s, the characteristics of which may be expressed in 
 the words (written so lately as 1830) of Sir John Leslie; “ Nothing is more wanted 
 for the purpose of education than a classical treatise on algebra, which, avoiding all vague 
 terms and hasty analogies, should unfold the principles with simplicity and rigid accu- 
 racy, and follow the train of induction with close and philosophical cireumspection.” Our 
 philosopher’s exposition fulfils this rule in every particular, and many of his sentences 
 are actually to be found in our most distinguished modern treatises on algebra, as if 
 they had been translated from him. For instance, in the English translation of Euler, 
 I find it said, “ this rule for the division of fractions is often expressed in a manner 
 that is more easily remembered, as follows: invert the terms of the divisor, so that the 
 denominator may be in the place of the numerator, and the latter be written under 
 the line; then multiply the fraction, which is the dividend, by this inverted fraction, 
 and the product will be the quotient sought: thus, # divided by 4 is the same as 
 3 multiplied by ¢, which makes {, or 13.” ‘Turning to Napier, to see how he treat- 
 ed this rule two centuries earlier, I find the very same; “ partiuntur autem (fracte ) 
 invertendo terminos divisoris, et inversos per partiendum multiplicando omnimode ut supe- 
 rius in multiplicatione: ut sint 5 partiende per 2, hujus divisoris inverte terminos, et 
 fient 4, que per ~, multiplicate fient primo per abbreviationem 1; +, deinde 3 2, deinde 
 per multiplicationem superiorum invicem, et inferiorem invicem fient 2 quotus optatus, et 
 superiores multiplicationis examen.” Again, Maclaurin’s+ expressions, “ when unit is 
 the greatest common measure of the numbers and quantities, then the fraction is al- 
 
 * “ The algebra of Euler is in various respects a most remarkable production. That illustrious ana- 
 lyst, when. totally deprived of sight in his advanced age, dictated it in the German language to a young 
 domestic whom he trained for an amanuensis. He was obliged, therefore, to be plain, distinct, and per- 
 spicuous; and these qualities he combined with richness of invention.” —Leslie. Euler seems to have 
 resembled Napier in his moral character also. “ Sweetness of disposition, moderation in his passions, 
 simplicity of manners, were his leading features. Nor did the equability and calmness of his temper 
 indicate a defect of energy, but the serenity of a soul that overlooked the frivolous provocation, the 
 petulent caprices, and jarring humours of ordinary mortals. Possessing a mind of such wonderful 
 comprehension, and dispositions so admirably formed to virtue and to happiness, Euler found no 
 difficulty in being a Christian. Accordingly his faith was unfeigned, and his love was that of a pure 
 and undefiled heart.’—Account of Euler prefixed to the Translation of his Algebra. 
 
 + “ In our own language, Maclaurin’s Elements of. Algebra, though a posthumous work, is perhaps 
 the ablest on the whole, and the most complete.’ — Leslie. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. ATS 
 
 ready in its lowest terms; and numbers whose greatest common measure is unit are 
 said to be prime to one another,” might stand as a translation of Napier’s, “ verum si 
 ad unitatem partitorem perveneris, inabbreviables, discreti tamen sunt termini, aut se in- 
 vicem habentes ut discreti.” Again, the author of the article Arithmetic in the latest 
 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, observes, after going through the rules of 
 the multiplication of fractions, “‘ hence we infer that fractions of fractions, or compound 
 fractions, such as 7 of 3, are reduced to simple ones by multiplication; the same me- 
 thod is followed when the compound fraction is expressed in three parts or more.” 
 Napier, after gomg through the rules of the multiplication of fractions, in like manner 
 adds, ‘* hac multiplicatione fractiones fractionum, imo et fractiones fractionum iterum atque 
 iterum fractarum, ad simplices fractiones reducuntur : ut due quinte trium quartarum sic 
 notate 2 ex % per premissam fiant primo § 3 per abbreviationem,”’ &c. Sir John Leslie, 
 in explaining Lord Brounker’s fractions, observes, ‘ when the original fraction is ex- 
 pressed by rational numbers, its decomposition must always terminate ; but, if the nu- 
 merator and denominator be mutually incommensurable, the process of evolving their 
 elements will never draw to a conclusion.” Napier notices the property in these words, 
 “ verum hic summopere cavendum est a partitione incommensurabilium quantitatum, cujus 
 nullus in eternum erit finis, ut suo loco perspicuum evadet.” Maclaurin gives the rule 
 to reduce an improper fraction to a mixed quantity thus: “ Divide the numerator of 
 the fraction by the denominator, and the quotient shall give the integral part; the re- 
 mainder set over the denominator shall be the fractional part.” Napier gives it thus: 
 “< fit autem restitutio hec partiendo numeratorem per denominatorem, et emerget in quo- 
 tiente integra quantitas, et relinquie erunt numerator, et divisor erit denominator frac 
 tionis ille mixte et adjuncte.” In short, it appears that our philosopher, before he, or 
 any one else, had conceived the system of Decimal fractions, so thoroughly command- 
 ed the difficult doctrine of vulgar fractions, that his exposition of them may be 
 placed side by side with the best treatises on the subject now. Profoundly consci- 
 ous of the unlimitable play of numbers, his mind penetrated the unexplored field of 
 the Arabic system in every direction. His first, and leading idea throughout, is to show 
 how the prominent operations upon quantity and number, gradually unfold; and how 
 the vast fabric produces itself, growth after growth, every rule the parent of ano- 
 ther, and the whole intimately related in all its parts, as one endless family of num- 
 bers. This is peculiarly interesting from the person for whom the immortality was yet 
 in store to compress with such effect that very expansion. He shows how Multipli- 
 cation and Division rise out of the parent operations Addition and Subtraction, and 
 how the involving of radicates, and the evolving of roots, rise in their turn out of 
 Multiplication and Division. He afterwards, by his invention of Logarithms, pro- 
 vided the means of obtaining all the third quantities, hitherto sought in the compli- 
 cated rules, from the more simple operations of their respective primatives. He ex- 
 plored the prolific system in all its channels, and then condensed it to a greater power. 
 
476 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Having given the genealogy of numbers, in the next place with what genius he seizés 
 unit, breaks it into a new and infinite scale, and reduces to order and beauty all the 
 great operations of arithmetic upon its fractions. ‘The subsequent computation of his 
 Logarithms, however, brought out a new system of fractions in Decimals. No sooner 
 had he found these, than he at once took the view that now prevails; he regarded the 
 great Arabic scale as acting reciprocally, in opposite directions, from right to left, and 
 from left to right; and, rejecting in this case the notation of broken numbers, he pro- 
 posed the point to distinguish the reciprocal play of the decuple progression. But the 
 treatise we are considering shows that his mind had been long previously matured for such 
 fearless and prolific views of computation. His arithmetic of plus and minus is a most in- 
 teresting chapter, and full of genius. Before viewing an infinite scale in the fragments 
 of unit, he takes zero, and considers that unpromising symbol as the focus of a reciprocal 
 scale of integers extending infinitely above and below the thus dignified cypher. Destined 
 to accomplish the Logarithms out of their natural course of discovery, he dared to conceive 
 a scale below nothing, and to say quantitates minores nihilo! He showed, in this concep- 
 tion, how the primative operations of Addition and Subtraction, with their distinguishing 
 signs, gave out another infinite scale in opposite directions from zero; and in this pro- 
 found exposition of + and —, he is followed as closely by Euler as if the German phi- 
 losopher had written with Napier’s manuscript before him. In some particulars, how- 
 ever, the modern treatise is superior to the ancient fragment. In the jirst place, it pos- 
 sesses that perfect system of algebraic notation which, between the dates of Napier’s work 
 and Euler’s, had been successively moulded in the hands of Vieta, Girard, Wallis, Har- 
 riot, Descartes,and Newton. In the nezt place, Euler has a chapter upon Decimal fractions, 
 and three chapters upon Logarithms, so that his system is complete and Napier’s is not. 
 We shall find, however, that the important subject of notation was not left untouched by 
 our philosopher ; and as for the systems he omits, what made him throw aside and leave 
 unfinished this beautiful institute of numbers, but that he paused to create those very sys- 
 tems, that he did create them,—and died. / 
 
 In the second book, Napier comes, as he says, to particulars. ‘Through these I must 
 follow him less closely, but shall endeavour to select what is curious and interesting. In 
 the first chapter he proposes a third division of computation, and I shall translate the 
 most of it, as it contains his definitions, and also a beautiful statement of the Indian no- 
 tation, before that had been enriched by its European, or we may say Neperean stores. 
 “¢ In the third place, computation is either of verinomial, or jfictinomial, otherwise hypo- 
 thetical quantities ; and hence logistic is either of verinomes, which are treated of in this 
 second book, and also in the third; or of jictinomes, otherwise algebraics, concerning 
 which the fourth book treats. Veriomes are quantities defined by the actual terms in 
 which their multitude or magnitude is expounded ; and they are either discrete, i. e. nam- 
 ed in discrete number ; or concrete, 7. e. named in concrete number. Hence verinomial 
 logistic is either of discrete quantity, and called Arithmetic, of which this book treats, or 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. A777 
 
 of concrete, called Geometric (geometrica,) of which in the third book. Arithmetic, 
 therefore, is the logistic of discrete quantities by discrete numbers. A discrete number 
 is that which is measured by its single individual number. A discrete number is either 
 whole or broken. Hence arithmetic is of integers and fractions. An integer is that 
 which is measured by its own individual unity. Every idiom supplies its own vocal 
 nomination of integers; as, in Latin, unum, duo, tria, quatuor, &c. But the written 
 names of integers, or their notation, are these nine significant figures, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
 6, 7, 8, 9. These signify various numbers, according to their change of place. Be- 
 sides these nine figures, there is the circle 0, which has no signification wherever it is 
 placed, but is destined to supply the vacancies. The series of places is considered 
 from right to left, in the first of which the figure is named by its own value as above; 
 in the second place, by its tenfold value; the third, a hundredfold; and so on in in- 
 finitum, always progressing by a tenfold increase.” After giving examples, our phi- 
 losopher proposes, for the sake of facility in reading great numbers, to point them off 
 in threes; thus, 4.734.986.205.048.205, which he reads in Latin, guatuor millies mille 
 millena millia millium . septingenta triginta quatuor millies millena millia millium . non- 
 genta octoginta sex millena millia millium . ducenta quinque milla millium . quadraginta 
 octo millia . ducenta et quinque. 
 
 In the second chapter, he passes from nomination and notation to computation, and dis- 
 plays the operations of Addition and Subtraction, taking his first example from the book 
 of Genesis. The third and fourth chapters are devoted respectively to Multiplication 
 and Division, and he shows the most perfect command of all these operations. He gives 
 the well-known multiplication table. The fifth chapter is entitled, “‘ Miscellaneous short 
 methods of Multiplication and Division.” In this occurs a distinct genesis and notation 
 of Decimal fractions in Arithmetic, and perhaps the earliest on record. Ourphilosopher 
 observes, that to divide any number by a divisor composed of unit and cyphers is easily 
 effected by striking off so many figures from the right of the partiend, as the divisor con- 
 tains cyphers; and he directs the figures so struck off to be placed above a line as the 
 numerator of a fraction having the divisor for denominator ; and the fraction thus form- 
 ed to be adjoined to the remainder of the partiend in order to form the quotient. The 
 example he gives is, 865091372, to be divided by 100, and, according to the above rule, 
 8650913,72, is the quotient. Napier goes through this operation apparently unconscious 
 of the important nature of the fraction thus obtained. Had he proposed simply to point 
 off the figures deducted, so as to separate the right extremity, or unit’s place, of the re- 
 maining integers from the broken numbers, he would have obtained his quotient by the 
 most compendious rule possible, and at the same time have given his own notation of De- 
 cimals, and that now in use. But the system was comparatively valueless in Arithmetic 
 until the Logarithms appeared, and it is obvious from the above example that Napier’s ma- 
 nuscript must be referred to a very early date. Clearly he had not seen the work of 
 Stevinus, which he afterwards mentions in Rabdologia, and had formed no conception 
 
478 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 of his system of Logarithms, which, indeed, may be called the parent of the system of 
 Decimal fractions. 
 
 In chapter sixth our philosopher, with a fearless composure becoming the conqueror 
 and king of numbers, enters the formidable field of involution and evolution. This, as 
 we have seen, he terms radical multiplication, partition, and extraction. Kuler himself had 
 not a more thorough command of the relative quantities, root, power, and exponent, than 
 Napier had of radix, radicatum, and index. His opening statement of involution is less per- 
 plexing than that of the illustrious German, whose statement might leave the student at a 
 loss to know why the square of a number is called the second power, seeing Euler at the 
 same time informs him that a power of a number derives its dignity from “the number of 
 times it is multiplied by itself,” and that “‘ we obtain a cube by multiplying a number twice 
 by itself.” Napier creates no such perplexity at the outset, for he commences by saying 
 that the first step in the process of involution is to “* multiply wnzt by the root, which mul- 
 tiplication returns the root itself; secondly, multiply that by the root and the duplicate 
 [%. e. square or 2d power] is raised, and so on, according to the quality of the index; 
 thus if 235 is to be multiplied to the index 4, [7. e. raised to the 4th power] first multiply 
 unit by the root 235, which gives 235; multiply that again by the root, and 55225, the 
 duplicate, is obtained,” &c. ‘* Hence,” he adds, “ radical multiplication repeated any 
 number of times from unity is the same thing as to multiply together so many equal roots ; 
 thus, 235 four times multiplied from unity is the same thing as 235.235.235.235 multi- 
 plied into each other ;” a law which now would be thus generally and shortly expressed 
 at=axayxaxa. Napier, indeed, had not arrived (and be it remembered that he is 
 writing before Vieta, Harriot, and Oughtred, and when “ algebra was not cultivated at all 
 in this country,”) at that powerful notation without the aid of which it was impossible for 
 him to takesome more recent views of the exponential or potential system. He did not 
 possess the algebraic refinement of working known quantities by means of other symbols 
 than the significant digits, or of expressing powers by small letters instead of numerals 
 and initial signs. He did not, for instance, consider aaaa as (to use his own term) the 
 quadruplicatum of any number a ; far less did he consider the same quantity in this form, 
 a‘, While he had not the “eral notation of powers, neither had he the numeral no- 
 tation of indices; for although, in explaining their genesis, he named the indices, one, 
 
 two, three, &c. and even noted them 1, 2, 3, &c., yet he did not systematically attach 
 them to the root for the expression of the power. ‘To have done so would have been 
 to have established the Cartesian notation, whose epoch is 1637. But in each defini- 
 tion he shows his thorough command of the subject, and how capable he was of reap- 
 ing every laurel in that great field of analytical inquiry which notation opened to his suc- 
 cessors. For instance, the exponent of a power is thus defined in modern science: ‘ Ex- 
 ponent of a power in arithmetic and algebra denotes the number or quantity expressing 
 the degree or elevation of the power, or which shows how often a given power is to be 
 divided by its root before it be Beppant down to unity or 1; it is otherwise called the 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 479 
 
 index. Exponents, as now used, are rather of modern invention,” &c.—(Hutton’s Math. 
 Dict.) Now, although Napier had not the algorithm which opened the arithmetic of ex- 
 ponents, (and which Dr Hutton so unaccountably says, “led the way to the invention of 
 Logarithms,”) his view of that important quantity is precisely what is here stated. He 
 says, “‘ the number of the index, or quality of the root, is obtained as well in descending 
 from the radicate to unity by partition, as in ascending from unity to the radicate by mul- 
 tiplication, for in either case the number of the operations is the index and quality of the 
 root.” 
 
 We must now turn to his chapter of the extraction of roots; a subject of which it has been 
 observed, that among all the questions which the developement of our ideas of number 
 places in review before us, there is none which, independently of the importance of the 
 solution, has a greater tendency to excite the curiosity of every mind born for calcula- 
 tion; it is comparatively easy to raise roots to powers, but when we demand the roots 
 back again it is not so easy to obtain them. ( Bertrand.) Accordingly, the seventh chapter 
 of the second book of Napier’s manuscript is entitled “ of finding the rules for radical 
 extraction ;” and here our philosopher is disclosed to us at the very confines of the Bi- 
 nomial ‘Theorem. 
 
 “‘ Every root,” says he, “ has its own appropriate and particular rule of extraction. Each 
 rule of extraction consists in resolving the radicate into its supplements (in swa supple- 
 menta.) ‘The supplement (supplementum) is the difference between two radicates of the 
 same species. Thus 100 and 144 are both duplicates [squares, ] the one of ten and the other of 
 12; and the difference between them is 44, which is the true supplement of the foresaid radi- 
 cates. Supplements are as various, therefore, as the varieties of the species of radicates and 
 roots. There is one rule for finding the supplements of duplication and of the extrac- 
 tion of the bipartient root, another of triplication and the extraction of the tripartient 
 root, and so on of all the rest. But my triangular table,—filled with little hexagonal areas, 
 having, on the right side, a series of units inscribed, and on the left a series from unit in- 
 creasing by unity, and descending from the vertex; every one of the little areas within 
 containing a number each equal to the sum of the two numbers placed immediately above 
 it,—teaches the rules of finding the supplements of all radicates and roots.” 
 
 “ Let A, B, C, be a triangle, of which A is the left angle, B the vertical, and C 
 the angle to the right. By so many species of roots as you wish the table to contain, 
 into twice as many parts, and one more, divide each side of the triangle ; for instance, in 
 order to extend it to 12 species of extractions, let each side of the triangle be divided 
 into 25 equal parts; then beginning from the base A C, draw 12 parallel lines within 
 the triangle, connecting the sides by the points in them alternately taken: in like manner, 
 begin from the side A B, and draw 12 parallel lines betwixt the alternate points of the base, 
 and the side B C, extending the lines beyond the side B C, about the space ofan inch ; ex- 
 actly in the same manner draw the lines betwixt the side B A and the base, extending 
 
480 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 them an inch beyond B A; and you will have the triangle filled with little hexagonal 
 areas. Of these, the 12 to the right, and next the line B C, must each have unit inscrib- 
 ed within it; those on the left must have the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. as far as 13, (ex- 
 clusive) successively inscribed in each, descending in their order from the vertex B to 
 the angle A; then each interior hexagonal remaining vacant must have inscribed the sum 
 of the two numbers immediately above it ; thus, under 2 and 1, must be written 3, under 
 3 and 3, 6; under 8 and I, 4, and so on down to the heel of the table. Lastly, the table 
 must be titled, on the left side above the second hexagonal (2,) let there be written pre- 
 cedentis, above the third hexagonal, (3,) write duplicatum preecedentis, and so on as far as 
 duodecuplicatum. On the right hand of the table write above the first hexagonal, succe- 
 dens, above the second, duplicatum succedentis ; above the third, triplicatum succedentis, and 
 so on down to éredecuplicatum ; as you have here in the diagram of the table itself written 
 below. ” 
 
 AN + /& /9 
 & [s 
 
 ONG OOO Oy 
 erent NY. 
 
 “To every supplement two parts of the root correspond, the one part consisting of one 
 
 The above diagram is a fac-simile from the manuscript. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 481 
 
 or more left hand figures, already found, and which is called precedens ; the other con- 
 sisting of a single figure immediately on the right, which is to be sought for, and this is 
 called succedens. The supplement and these parts of the root mutually compose each 
 other, and are built up together, as will afterwards appear.” * 
 
 In the rest of this chapter our philosopher lays down rules for reading the table by 
 means of the titles annexed, and refers generally to its use in the extraction of roots. In 
 the two following chapters, namely, the eighth and ninth, he shows its application more 
 particularly, and affords a long and profound exposition of the difficult doctrine of evo- 
 lution. 
 
 The remarkable similarity between Euler’s Elements and Napier’s is even observable 
 in the tables that illustrate the respective works; and if Euler’s arrangement had 
 been as purely and philosophically symmetrical as Napier’s, (in which circumstance, 
 however, it is far inferior,) his work would almost have seemed a modern transla- 
 tion of the ancient manuscript. If our philosopher were to be any where complete- 
 ly thrown out in the comparison, that might have been expected to occur in Euler’s 
 chapter of the Binomial Theorem ; yet there I find the latter, after examining the “ im- 
 portant question how we may find, without being obliged always to perform the same 
 calculation, all the powers either of a + b, or a— 4,” gives the following table as that 
 which discovers the law by which binomial coefficients are formed. 
 
 * Dr Wallis, in his Algebra, 1685, reviews Oughtred’s Clavis Mathematica, first published in 1631, 
 (fourteen years after Napier’s death,) and in the chapter of the nature and composition of powers, 
 gives a table of powers from Oughtred’s work, of which I find the counterpart in Napier’s manuscript, 
 but further extended. Napier gives it immediately after his arithmetical triangle, and uses it pre- 
 cisely for the purpose Oughtred did. “ From hence,” says Wallis. “ we may take, without more adoe, 
 the nearest root (quadratick, cubick, &c. respectively,) of any number whose root requires not more 
 than one figure, and the respective power of any such root. But because in extracting the root of 
 great numbers, it will be necessary to seek out the root by piece-meal, (as we do the quotient in divi- 
 sion,) he doth afterwards consider the root as consisting of two parts, A + E, (which he calls a bino- 
 mial root,) whereof one part is supposed to be already known, (or to be found by the preceding table, ) 
 and the other unknown, to be found by the following table, which he calls his latter table of powers.” 
 This latter table is Napier’s binomial table; but under the notation of Vieta, whose symbolical me- 
 thod, called specious arithmetic, was unknown to Napier, and forms an important step in the progress 
 of notation. 
 
 There is an old-fashioned, but excellent work, entitled, “A New System of Arithmetick, Theo- 
 rical and Practical, by Alexander Malcolm, teacher of the mathematics at Aberdeen, 1730,” contain- 
 ing a full exposition of the Binomial Theorem, wherein I find a remark that illustrates our philoso- 
 pher’s explanation of his diagram. “ These expressions of powers of a Binomial root shew us how 
 the difference betwixt any two similar powers is composed of the various powers and multiples of any 
 one of the roots, and the difference betwixt the roots,” &c. 
 
 3P 
 
482 HISTORY OF THE 
 Powers. Coefficients. 
 
 Ist, - ~ Late | 
 
 2d, Lb ’ 1i562-oinl 
 
 3d, : é Pe So] 
 
 4th, - - phe” Na Cate” roe 
 
 bib ane = Ae PPS ss) 
 
 6th, . Liin6ietl5 ap200 1 DiaGweal 
 
 7th, . : Vera das in Seog 
 
 Sth, : 1.8. 28.56.70. 56.28.8.1 
 
 9th, aM 1.9.36. 84. 126,126. 84. 36.9. 1 
 ‘10th, 1.10.45 .120.210.252.210.120.45.10.1 
 
 This is Napier’s combination with the addition of one row of units on the left side, 
 which is not essential to the construction, the coefficients of the first terms being al- 
 ways 1. From this table Euler proceeds to deduce the Binomial Theorem itself, and 
 concludes his chapter with these words, “ this elegant theorem for the involution of a 
 compound quantity of two terms, evidently includes all powers whatever ; and we shall 
 afterwards show how the same may be applied to the extraction of roots.” 
 
 It is obvious from Napier’s expressions, ‘* Tubella nostra triangularis areolis hexagonis 
 referta,” that his beautiful diagram is perfectly original in his hands. A disposition of 
 numbers upon the same principle, for the extraction of roots, was first conceived by Sti- 
 fellius in this form. 
 
 OMANAo FON = 
 —_ 
 =?) 
 ho! 
 i—) 
 
 36 | 84] 126 126 
 10 | 45] 120; 210 | 252 
 11 55 | 165 | 330); 462 462 
 12 | 66 | 220 | 495 | 792 924 
 13 | 78 | 286} 715 | 1287 1716 1716 
 14} 91 | 364 | 1001 | 2002 | 3003 | 3482 
 15 | 105 | 455 | 1865 | 8008 | 5005 | 6435 | 64385 
 16 | 120 | 560 | 1820 | 4868 | 8008 | 11440 | 12870 
 17 | 136 | 680 | 2880 | 6188 | 12376 | 19448 | 24310 
 
 Stevinus has also considered this figurate table and its properties ; but, from what has 
 been already remarked on the subject of Decimal fractions, it seems certain that Na- 
 
 pier wrote his arithmetic before the work of Stevinus was published, or, at least, be- 
 3 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 483 
 
 fore he had seen it. I think it is equally certain that he had never seen the Arithmetica 
 Integra of Stifelltus.* While he praises the former author in Rabdologia, I cannot find 
 that he any where mentions the latter, whose very curious work, however, must have 
 excited his warmest admiration had he met with it. The celebrated Blaise Pascal, one 
 of the most profound minds ever created, has in more modern times obtained the 
 highest praise for his Arithmetical Triangle, which, as the reader will easily perceive from 
 the following diagram of it, is just Napier’s table under a less beautiful form. 
 
 d<| 
 
 PSP 
 Ss 
 
 % 
 
 SI 
 
 PaPapaPeP aps] 
 | 
 
 Montucla, in his History of Mathematics, refers to it in these words; “ Quelques 
 questions sur les jeux lengagérent (Pascal) 4 approfondir les combinaisons, et ses medi- 
 tations sur ce sujet donnerent lieu 4 Vinvention de son triangle arithmetique, au moyen 
 duquel il résoud divers problémes sur cet objet. Il écrivit sur cette matiére un traité qui 
 paroit avoir été achevé vers 1653, quoique imprimé seulement en 1665. Les usages de 
 ce triangle arithmétique sont nombreux, et c’est une invention vraiment originale et singu- 
 liérement ingénieuse.” ‘The properties of this triangle are so intimately connected with 
 the Binomial Theorem that Bernoulli, on that account, claims for Pascal the merit of 
 being its first inventor. In his annotations upon a work of Mr Stone, upon the infinite- 
 simal analysis, where the latter speaks of ‘“ that marvellous theorem,” Bernoulli notes, 
 ‘* Pour Velevation @un binome a une puissance quelconque. Nous avons trouvé ce merveil- 
 leux theoréme aussi-bien que Mr Newton, d’une maniere plus simple que Jasienne. Feu 
 M. Pascal a été le premier qui Ya inventée.” (Johan. Bernoulli Opera, iv. p. 173.) Baron 
 Maseres (Scriptores Logarithmicit, Vol. iv.) republished Pascal’s works on Arithmetic 
 and Algebra, and says, “ ‘These works are so full of genius and invention, that I thought 
 I should do a service to the mathematicians of Great Britain, by republishing them in 
 
 * Dr Minto acutely observes, “ Not only Napier’s manner of conceiving the generation of the Lo- 
 garithms, but his having computed that species of Logarithms which has been described, before the 
 common Logarithms occurred to him, is a convincing proof of his not taking the Logarithms from the 
 remark of Stifellius.” 
 
484 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 this collection. Some of them, and more especially his Arithmetical Triangle, have a 
 considerable connection with Logarithms, by affording a good demonstration of Sir 
 Isaac Newton’s Binomial Theorem in the case of integral and affirmative powers, which 
 is of great use in the construction of Logarithms.” Very probably the invention was 
 original in Pascal’s hands, and the application to games of chance seems entirely his own. 
 It is a curious fact, that Napier’s friend, Henry Briggs, to whom the manuscript we 
 are considering is addressed, did also, in his Trigonometria Britannica, give a table of the 
 same description; and Dr Hutton, when noticing this work in his History of the Con- 
 struction of Logarithms, has accordingly claimed the Binomial Theorem for Briggs. 
 He says, after giving some account of the table and its properties, “ this is the first men- 
 tion I have seen made of this law of the coefficients of the powers of a binomial, com- 
 monly called Sir Isaac Newton’s Binomial Theorem, although it is very evident that Sir 
 Isaac was not the first inventor of it; the part of it properly belonging to him seems to 
 be only the extending of it to fractional indices, which was, indeed, an immediate effect 
 of the general method of denoting all roots like powers with fractional exponents, the 
 theorem being not at all altered,” &c. Briggs’ table, which he called Abacus May yensos. 
 is in this form, only carried further on. 
 
 ABACVS IITArXPH3TOS. 
 
 1 1 1 1 
 9 8 7 6 5 4 3} 2 
 45 36 28 21 15 10 6} 38 
 
 ———————<—_ | | —— | | | | 
 
 an | ee ee |! | | Se [| | — -—_ 
 
 Notwithstanding the many long and delightful discussions that must have passed be- 
 tween Henry Briggs and the Baron of Merchiston upon their favourite topics, there seems 
 no ground for alleging that the former had borrowed his idea from his illustrious 
 friend. We have elsewhere ventured to call him a satellite of Napier’s, and fairly 
 enough, as his memory is chiefly logarithmic, and his persevering pilgrimages to the old 
 tower in Scotland is an ample justification of the epithet. But Briggs has evinced in 
 his two logarithmic works a mind capable of great mathematical conceptions. * In re- 
 ference to the arithmetical triangle, he appears to have been the first to point out a 
 
 * The kind assistance of an Oxford friend enabled me to ascertain, with tolerable certainty, that 
 there are no traces among Briggs’ papers, preserved at that university, of a correspondence between 
 him and Merchiston; probably he found the Baron a better host than a correspondent. Among 
 Briggs’ papers in the British Museum, there is one entitled Imitatio Nepeirea, sive applicatio omnium 
 fere regularum, suis Logarithmis pertinentium, ad Logarithmos, supposed to have been written imme- 
 diately after the publication of the Canon Mirijicus. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 485 
 
 particular law of that configuration which brought him as close to the Binomial theo- 
 rem as the notation of his day rendered possible. The passage is remarkable, and as 
 his work is rarely to be met with, I shall give it here. ‘‘ Numerus quilibet est ad suum 
 Diagonalem, ascendendo versus sinistram, ut verticalis primi ad Marginalem secundi. Nu- 
 meri in Columna A sunt ad suos Diagonales in B ascendendo, ut 2. ad Marginalem se- 
 cundi. Hine sequitur numeros margini dextro adjacentes, reliquosque deinceps proximos, » 
 posse inveniri et continuart quo usque visum fuerit ; licet totus Abacus a Capite non sit 
 adscriptus.” I have looked anxiously, but in vain, through Napier’s manuscript to dis- 
 cover some expressions indicative of his observation of this important law of propor- 
 tion actually existing in the table he had formed. There is, however, no question 
 that his triangle is what would be now called a table of coefficients of the powers of a 
 binomial, which he framed for its most important application, that of extracting roots. 
 In doing this he was certainly at the confines of the Binomial Theorem. Had he only 
 recorded the observation of Briggs, it must have been admitted that he had ac- 
 tually stated the leading principle of that elegant theorem, which is engraved upon 
 the tomb of Newton as one of the greatest of his discoveries. The observation, which 
 leaves that laurel with Briggs, (and which Napier may have seen, though he did not state 
 it,) amounts to this, that, by a certain law of proportion existing betwixt the figures of 
 the diagram, which law he points out, all the terms of the binomial quantity could be 
 successively deduced, or raised, from the second term (the coefficients of the first and 
 second terms being always known,) without the necessity of finding the intermediate and 
 preceding powers. The application of this law (which Briggs verbally stated) is that 
 algebraic generalization of the principle of Napier’s triangle which supersedes the ne- 
 cessity of actually composing the whole table in order to obtain the terms and successive 
 powers of a binomial root; and upon the strength of Briggs’ observation of that law Dr 
 Hutton claims the Binomial Theorem for him, certainly with better reason than Bernoulli 
 does for Pascal. But the value of it is really dependent upon a play of symbols not 
 known in the time either of Napier or Briggs. What was necessary in order to make 
 the property, which the latter unquestionably pointed out, a valuable extension of the arith- 
 metical triangle, was to have the means of stating it in this form, 1 x ~ = Be = = x ek 
 &c. being Sir Isaac Newton’s genesis of the binomial powers in question. So far, indeed, 
 the Prince of Mathematicians only made the algebraic application of the principle of the 
 figurate table in the case of integral quantities, to which alone the triangle is applicable. 
 But Dr Hutton, probably for the sake of planting so fine a laurel upon the brow of 
 Briggs, seems inclined to slur over amost important extension of the Binomial Theorem, 
 when he says, ‘“ Sir Isaac was not the first inventor of it, the part of it properly belong- 
 ing to him seems to be only the extending of it to fractional indices, which was, indeed, an 
 immediate effect of the general method of denoting all roots like powers with fractional 
 exponents.” ‘True it was an improved notation that led Newton to consider the theorem 
 as he did, and moreover, to expand it into an infinite algebraic series, which, without 
 that notation, it were impossible to have done; but in this it was, that, to use the phrase 
 
486 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 of his last biographer, Newton must be acknowledged as ‘‘ the General who won the vic- 
 tory, and therefore wears the laurels.” In his hands the binomial table of Stifellius, Napier, 
 Briggs, and Pascal (each one of whom appears to have invented it) was expanded into 
 the Binomial Theorem par excellence. What he did beyond his predecessors is some- 
 what analogous to Napier’s merit when he generalized the logarithmic principle (pre- 
 viously observed by Archimedes, Stifellius, and others,) into a system of universal appli- 
 cation and omnipotent power. In that comparison, however, the important distinction 
 must be kept in view, that Newton’s generalization of the table of coefficients was forced 
 upon the attention of such a mind by the then ripened doctrine, and notation, of powers 
 and exponents, the very medium through which, in like manner, he must have detected 
 the Logarithms. Napier, on the other hand, instead of using that means to extend the 
 principle of Archimedes into a system of common Logarithms, and before such means was 
 in existence, took a totally different path of his own construction, and tore the veil from 
 a transcendental system of Logarithms, thus disclosed, as it were, before its time. 
 Although the Binomial Theorem is “ so very closely connected with the subject of 
 Logarithms as to be the foundation of the best methods of computing them,” (Maseres,) 
 and although our philosopher approached the confines of it in his beautiful diagram, (a 
 form perfectly original,) these circumstances must not be supposed to connect with his 
 great invention. In that path he could do nothing without algebraic notation, which in 
 his day was totally inadequate for such refined purposes. The analytical language may 
 be said to have first dawned in the works of Vieta, which only commenced to be spread 
 abroad, and to give an impulse to science after Napier’s career was closed. It is 
 of consequence, then, to see if, in the manuscript we are considering, there be any indi- 
 cations that Napier felt the trammels of a rude notation, and struggled to remove them. 
 As his system of numbers was never finished, and is only now first noticed to the world, 
 of course what he did in this manuscript can form no link in the progress of science, and 
 can be only referred to in further illustration of the mind that invented the Logarithms. 
 But it will be acknowledged, by all lovers of science, to be a very striking and interesting 
 circumstance, if, as we shall immediately show to have been the case, Napier not only de- 
 termined to become the liberator of the numerical scale, but had turned his powerful 
 mind to algebraic notation, with the same premeditated intention of reforming that. I 
 am not aware that any writer before his time had made the systematic attempt now to be 
 noticed. Immediate necessity, and accidental ingenuity, added very sparingly to the ab- 
 breviated language of algebra during the period between its introduction into Europe 
 and when Napier commenced a work of extreme beauty and high conceptions, which, had 
 he published it, even in its unconcluded state, must have given a decided impulse to 
 science, and Britain a distinguished place in the history of Algebra, independently of the 
 Logarithms. 
 In his consideration of radical partition, and extraction of roots, Napier did not fail to 
 observe, most profoundly and successfully, a species and property of numbers exceeding- 
 ly curious, and of high importance in the science. ‘The quantities alluded to are the 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 487 
 
 roots of those numbers whose roots cannot be numerically expressed ; and for this rea- 
 son, that a root is that quantity which is contained in another quantity any number of 
 times exactly, 7. e. without a remainder less than the root itself; and there are some num- 
 bers that contain no number whatever any number of times without a remainder. An 
 ordinary mind might be apt to conceive that such quantities had no roots, according to 
 the definition of that term. Mathematicians have decided otherwise. The roots lurk in 
 those quantities, though they cannot be extracted; they may be hunted into a corner, 
 but they cannot be caught; or, to use Napier’s expressions with regard to them, they 
 may be named, but they cannot be numbered. Having decided that such latent quantities 
 have a real existence, mathematicians, of course, will not suffer them to remain in 
 idleness, or unsubjected to the dominion of science. They have been called irration- 
 al quantities or surds, and hence the arithmetic of surds has become a special and 
 important department of numbers. No man before or since his day, knew better how 
 to hunt a surd than John Napier. He was thoroughly master of their whole philosophy, 
 and the manuscript before me contains, perhaps a more beautiful and complete exposi- 
 tion of their arithmetic than has ever been published. Consequently, this very curious 
 property had not escaped him, that a surd root, though it cannot be expressed in finite 
 number, lies between two other numbers that can be so expressed, and whose terms can 
 be brought closer and closer to each other by infinite approximations, without, however, 
 being capable of catching the latent surd. To give an easy example,—the square root of 
 9 is 3, because 3 times 3 is 9; but what is the square root of 10? In other words, what 
 is the number which, multiplied by itself, makes 10? Not 3 times 3, that is too little ; 
 nor 4 times 4, that being too much. But the doctrine of fractions enables us to express 
 numbers betwixt 3 and 4, and, consequently, nearer to each other than these. The ap- 
 proximations, however, are still found to be terms, the one too great, and the other too 
 small, to express the surd sought ; and the curious property is, that the fractional terms 
 may be brought closer and closer together by an endless approximation, and still the surd 
 shall be latent between them. Thus the actual existence of the quantity is ascertained, 
 but it can only be expressed by two separate finite terms indicating its position, or by 
 some special symbol invented to represent it. Now it was to the notation of these surds 
 that Napier, in that department, first turned his attention, as such quantities seemed pe- 
 culiarly dependent upon a symbolical notation. ‘The notation he proposed was never 
 published ; and I shall premise the translation with some notices of the state of irrational 
 expressions after his day, and, indeed, as it exists now. 
 
 Dr Wallis, the great contemporary of Newton, in his Algebra already quoted, after 
 explaining the nature of a surd root, adds, “ in such case we must either content our- 
 selyes with an approximation instead of the accurate value, or else with such note of ra- 
 dicality as shall intimate what is supposed to be, but cannot accurately be expressed 
 in numbers. As /2,or,/q2, the square root of the number 2. /¢3, the cubick 
 root of the number 3. Which supposed roots, thus designed, cannot in numbers be ac- 
 curately expressed, there being no effable number, integer or fraction, which, being mul- 
 
488 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 tiplied into itself, can make 2; or, beg cubically multiplied, can make 3.” Euler, in 
 his Algebra, says, ‘“ there is a sort of numbers which cannot be assigned by fractions, 
 and which are, nevertheless, determinate quantities ; as, for instance, the square root of 
 12; and we call this new species of numbers irrational numbers ; they occur wherever 
 we endeavour to find the square root of a number which is not a square; thus, 2 not 
 being a perfect square, the square root of 2, or the number which, multiplied by itself, 
 would produce 2, is an irrational quantity ; these numbers are also called surd quantities, 
 or incommensurables. ‘These irrational quantities, though they cannot be expressed by 
 fractions, are, nevertheless, magnitudes of which we may form an accurate idea; for, 
 however concealed the square root of 12, for example, may appear, we are not ignorant 
 that it must be a number which, when multiplied by itself, would exactly produce 12 ; 
 and this property is sufficient to give us an idea of the number, since it is in our power to 
 approximate towards it value continually. As we are, therefore, sufficiently acquainted 
 with the nature of the irrational numbers under our present consideration, a particular sign 
 has been agreed on to express the square roots of all numbers that are not perfect squares ; 
 which sign is written thus /, and is read the square root.” A great improvement, how- 
 ever, in this notation became established between the time of Wallis and Euler, and that 
 was to express the number of the root, or the order of the power, by a numeral index 
 placed within the radical sign, instead of the cumbrous repetition of initial letters. Besides 
 this improvement there is a more modern alternative notation of surd roots. Euler, in 
 his chapter “ of the method of rid dirk oe irrational numbers by fractional exponents,” 
 shows “ that a 4 is the same as ied a,” and so on; and then he adds, ‘‘ we might therefore 
 entirely reject the radical signs at present made use of, and employ in their stead the 
 fractional exponents which we have explained ; but as we have been long accustomed to 
 those signs, and meet with them in most books of algebra, it might be wrong to banish 
 them entirely from calculation ; there is, however, sufficient reason also to employ, as is 
 frequently done, the other method of notation, because it manifestly corresponds with the 
 nature of the thing.” It must also be observed, that, notwithstanding “ the rule, that we 
 must adhere to one notation for one thing,” the radical notation in question has not been 
 exclusively devoted to the same species of quantity. Kuler, in his chapter “ of roots, 
 with relation to powers in general,” and, speaking of rational roots, takes occasion to ex- 
 hibit the different roots of the number a, with their respective values. 
 
 a } [oa Inet 
 Va | | 3d 
 Sy i t isthe + 4th froot of + g 
 | sth : 
 
 a 
 
 | 6th | a and so on,” 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 489 
 
 being the same radical signs that are taken to express surds. Thus it appears that even 
 at present the notation of such irrational quantities is not of a very determined character ; 
 but, in the first place, possesses an alternate mode of expression ; and, in the second place, 
 a set of radical signs, shared in common with an opposite species of quantity. We may 
 now turn to Napier’s consideration of this subject in which we shall find, as usual, the 
 most unequivocal proofs of his original and penetrating genius. 
 
 In the fourth chapter of his first book, our philosopher, after explaining the genesis of asurd 
 root, and of the approximating terms between which it lurks, (sve supra, p. 467,) adds, “ but 
 geometricians, studious of greater accuracy, choose rather to prefix the sign of the index to the 
 radicate itself, than to include the root between twoterms; thus they note the tripartient root 
 of nine in this manner, ,/ c9, which they pronounce the cube root of nine. I, however, note 
 it thus, Lye 9, and call it the ¢ripartient root of nine; these signs I shall discuss more fully 
 in their place.” In the ninth chapter of his second book, entitled, “ Of the method of 
 amending imperfect extractions,” our philosopher enters minutely into the subject of the 
 approximating fractional terms, and teaches how to express an irrational root with the least 
 sensible error. ‘ So that,” to take the result of one of his examples, ‘“ without any sensible 
 error, especially in practical science (in mechanicis,) the bipartient root of 164860 may be 
 called 406,2;4,, or 406,25.” He afterwards observes, “ these methods, as they do not 
 make imperfect roots perfect, but merely render them less imperfect, are more pleasing 
 to practical men (mechanicis) than to mathematicians, as I have noticed in C. iv. Lib. i. 
 Geometricians, therefore, prefix the appropriate sign of the root to such radicates as 
 have no roots in numbers. Hence, from the radicates with these signs prefixed, arises 
 the first species of geometrical numbers, called wninomes. As in the above example of 
 the duplicates 164860 and 50, they neither extract the bipartient roots, because they pos- 
 sess none precisely in numbers, nor do they amend the imperfect extraction; but they 
 prefix to the number the sign of the root to be extracted, which they call the square 
 root (quadratam,) thus, ,/ Q 164860, and ./Q50, or thus, ,/¢ 164860, and ,/¢q50, 
 which they pronounce the square root of the number 164860, and the square root of the 
 number 50. I, however, note them thus, | | 164860, and |_]50 ; and pronounce them 
 the bipartient root of 164860, and the bipartient root of 50. So the tripartient root of 
 the number 998 they neither extract, as it is not in numbers, nor amend, but thus note, 
 ,/ ¢ 998, and pronounce, the cube root of 998. I, however, note it thus, | 998, and pro- 
 nounce it, the tripartient root of 998, as I shall discuss more amply in its place. How- 
 ever, these are called wninomia, or medialia, and are the foundation of Geometrical Logistic. 
 They shall be treated of, therefore, in the following book; here it is sufficient to have 
 pointed out their origin.” 
 
 In order to connect this subject, I shall pass immediately to the third book here re- 
 ferred to, reserving in the meantime what remains to be noticed of the first. It is en- 
 titled, Liber tertius de Logistica Geometrica,* Cap. i. Unfortunately it is a fragment, being 
 
 * J am not aware of a department of science known under that term now. Probably the best ex- 
 planation of it is that afforded by the fragment itself. ; 
 
 3Q 
 
490 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 all that his son Robert could find among his papers upon the subject, as he notes at the 
 end of his transcript. It is, however, so original and full of genius that no apology need 
 be offered for giving our readers a literal translation of the whole of it. 
 
 «¢ In the preceding book I have taught Arithmetic; here in order follows Geometrical 
 Logistic. The computation of concrete quantities by concrete numbers is called Geome- 
 trical Logistic. Thus 3*, if it relate to three lines, each a finger-breadth (digitales) thus, 
 , is a discrete number. When, however, it refers to a concrete 
 and continuous line of three finger-breadths, such as this #__-_+ 41 4, it is 
 called a concrete number ; but this zmproperly, and subject to reason. The roots of num- 
 bers which cannot be measured by any number, integral or fractional, are properly, and 
 in themselves, called concrete numbers. ‘Thus the bipartient or square root of seven 
 is greater than two, less than three, and with no fraction in the universal elements of 
 broken numbers is it equal or commensurable; it is therefore properly called a concrete 
 number. So the tripartient, or cube root of the number 10 is not a discrete number, 
 nor commensurable with number, but is concrete; and so are an infinity of other roots 
 of numbers, commonly called surds and irrational numbers (surdos et irrationales.) ‘These 
 concretes arise out of the extraction of roots from numbers in which those roots are not 
 seated ; as I have already noticed, C. zv. Sect. 8, Lib. i. and C. iz. Sect. 7, Lib. ii. Hence, 
 from the variety of roots arise various notations and nominations of concretes. As the bi- 
 partient root of seven, which is usually called the square root of seven (quadratam,) I note in 
 this manner Lal and pronounce the bipartient root of seven. So the cube root 10, I pro- 
 nounce the tripartient root of ten, and write it thus E 10. So the quadripartient of 11, I 
 note thus ss] 11. So the quintupartient of any number, thus, [7 ; the sextupartient thus 
 
 (a.) Ls . This single scheme, (a.) divided into compartments, (d.) withthe in- 
 dices numbered, (to assist the memory,) supplies us with this variety of ra- 
 dical characters. As in the preceding examples, Lid [e ai | is [on 
 prefixed to the numbers, denote the bipartient, tripartient, quadrupar- 
 tient, quintupartient, sextupartient roots; so is the septupartient, 
 
 the octupartient ; G the nocupartient ; ale the decupartient ; 
 
 ij] the undecupartient ; [I the duodecupartient ; mt the trede- 
 (d.) cupartient ; af -]; or 4 the quadrudecupartient ; otis) the quin- 
 
 sj [|2 [8 decupartient ; 6 the sedecupartient ; Tl the septemdecupartient ; 
 [ the octodecupartient ; LE the novemdecupartient ; | {° the vi- 
 
 4 [6 gecupartient ; Li 2d cats al Pp Aan Hi Q3ent, be = | or Lj Q4ent, 
 7] [8] lo et cetera. Also |_, 30%. —]° aot. [Jo soe, [ , coe, “1, 
 or a3 AV ih BOSE les goer, |” 100°", and so on in in- 
 
 finitum upon the principle of figurate arithmetic. * “‘ Geometrical numbers, which rather 
 
 name quantity than number it, are on that account commonly called nomials (nomina.) Of 
 
 * Napier’s notation is written about this size in the manuscript, apparently for the sake of distinct+ 
 ness in teaching; but it would appear that he meant it to be much smaller in practice, as it some- 
 
 times is written of a diminutive size, and even attached to fractions, thus u= yand Te 5 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 491 
 
 nomials some are uninomials, others plurinomials. A uninome is the same as a single concrete 
 number, proper or improper. Hence it follows that a uninome is either a single simple 
 number, or any root of a single simple number. Thus 10 is a simple number, and, by 
 geometricians, in frequent use as a uninome. So [| 10, ie 12, a) 26, and such like, 
 are roots of numbers, and, when taken by themselves, are truly uninomial radicates. 
 
 *¢ Now, since it is the case that a uninomial radicate may be the root either of an abun- 
 dant or defective number, and its index may be either even or odd, from this fourfold 
 cause it follows, that some uninomes are abundant, some defective, some both abundant 
 and defective, which are called double, and, finally, some are neither abundant nor de- 
 fective, which are called imaginary (nugacia.) I have already (Lib.i. C. vi.) laid the foun- 
 dation of this great algebraic secrete ; and although never, that I know of, hitherto revealed 
 by any one, how much it will enrich this art and the rest of the mathematics, shall after- 
 
 wards be manifest. * 
 ‘In abundant and defective uninomes, it is not of much consequence whether the ap- 
 
 propriate sign be prefixed or interposed; it is better, however, to prefix it. But in 
 double and imaginary uninomes, the appropriate sign must be always interposed. An 
 example of the first case is [| 10, or (which by C. vi. Lib. i. is the same thing) & + 10, an 
 abundant uninome. An example of the second case is lene 10, a defective uninome. 
 An example of the third case is |_] 10 or |_| + 10, (being, as above, the same,) which 
 
 * This certainly has no connection with the Logarithms, and most probably refers to some of those 
 profound views in algebra, and the theory of equations, which compose the triumphs of subsequent 
 philosophers. Unfortunately, the algebraic part of the manuscript is not entire; but from what has 
 been preserved, it is quite obvious that Napier was capable of any thing in that science, so far as the 
 existing notation made it possible for him to advance. Without attempting to say what Napier here 
 particularly contemplated, (which I leave for the learned,) some interesting illustrations of what he 
 actually lays down may be derived from the history of algebra. It must be kept in mind, that what 
 he calls abundant and defective quantities are now known under the terms positive and negative ; 
 (supra, p. 469, &c.;) as for imaginary quantities, | am not aware that any one before the date of this 
 MS., or for long after it, was so bold or profound as to give them their important place in calculation. 
 Accordingly Playfair, speaking of Girard, in the passage already quoted as to quantities less than 
 nothing, (supra, p. 469,) whose Invention Nouvelle en Algébre was printed in 1629, says, “ the same 
 mathematician conceived the notion of imaginary roots.’ Dr Hutton observes, “ Albert Girard gives 
 names to the three kinds of roots of equations, calling them greater than nothing, less than nothing, 
 and envelopée, as ./— bc ; but this was soon after called imaginary or impossible, as appears by Wallis’ 
 Algebra, p. 264, &c.” Yet we find that Napier considered, and was expounding, such quantities, in their 
 philosophy, nomenclature, and notation. So much is this the case, that a great part of Euler’s 13th 
 chapter “ of impossible or imaginary quantities” may stand, as usual, for a translation of Napier’s dis- 
 cussion of the same subject. The passages are too long to quote; but any one who takes an interest 
 in the history of algebra, or the genius of Napier, will be struck with the similarity betwixt that 
 chapter of Euler and what we have quoted at p. 471 from our philosopher’s manuscript, and also 
 above. Euler even adds the same warning against confounding the radical signs: “ We must not,” 
 he says “ confound the signs + and —, which are before the radical sign /, with the sign which comes 
 
 after.” 
 
492 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 signifies both an abundant quantity multiplied into itself, and yielding + 10, and also a 
 defective quantity multiplied into itself, and yielding + 10; or, for the ‘sake of a more 
 lucid example [_J9, or {al + 9 is as much + 3 as —8, according to what I have already 
 demonstrated, Lzd. 7. C. vi. An example of the last case is LJ — 9, which is merely 
 imaginary, and signifies nothing that either abounds or is deficient, for defective nine has 
 no bipartient root, as is made plain in Lid. «7. C. vi. s. b. 
 
 “¢ In imaginary quantities special care must be taken that the sign minus —, to be in- 
 terposed, be not prefixed. ‘Thus, if for { be — 9, which is the bipartient root of minus 
 nine, (minuti novenarit,) and infers an absurd and impossible quantity, there be taken 
 — |] 9, which signifies a quantity less by the square root of nine, a great mistake will be 
 committed ; for the bipartient root of nine, here abundant, namely, |_| 9, is double ; that 
 is, + 3 and — 3; and therefore, a quantity minus these geminals + 3 and —3 will be 
 geminal ; so that whoever for [J —9 writes — [| 9, puts forth a quantity of a geminal, 
 or double signification, instead of a quantity absurd, impossible, imaginary, and of no 
 signification (absurdo, impossibili, nugaci et nihil significante.) Take care, then, of such 
 prevalent confusion. 
 
 “ In all other uninomes (significant that is) it is the same thing whether the copula- 
 tive sign be placed between the radical sign (signum radicale,) and the number, or prefixed 
 to both; nor does it change the value of those uninomes to place the sign + before them 
 or in the middle. Thus |_| 9, and [_] +9, and +. [_| 9, and + L_] +9, are all precisely 
 the same, namely, as much + 3as—3. So [ sor: or} + 27, or + fat 27, or + lano7: 
 have the same value as + 3 only. So is — 27, or + |_— 27, or — fe 27, or — fits 
 + 27, have the same value as — 3 only. So imimaginary quantities, heal —9and+ {je 9 
 signify the same, as they both imply the same impossibility. But take care not to write in 
 their stead —| fo or Sih ee 9, as in the preceding section I have admonished. 
 
 ‘* So much for the affections of uninomes in themselves. The next consideration is the 
 manner in which they stand affected to each other. Two uninomes (uninomia bina) are 
 either commensurable with each other, or incommensurable. ‘Those are commensurable 
 which are to each other as discrete or absolute numbers. Hence every absolute num- 
 ber is commensurate with every absolute number. Moreover, two uninomes radicated 
 alike, [consimiliter radicata, i. e. raised to the same power, or whose indices are alike, ] 
 of which the oue simple number, when divided by the other, yields a number possessing 
 such a root as the radical sign indicates, are said to be commensurable with each other 
 in the ratio that the root indicates. Thus 5 and 7 are commensurable, because they are 
 absolute or rational numbers. So, of the two uninomes radicated alike ia 8 and [_] PAs 
 if the simple number 8 be divided by the simple number 2, the quotient is 4. Now the 
 number four has a root whose sign is lel; that is to say, bipartient, and it is the num- 
 ber 2. Therefore |_} 8 and |. | 2 are commensurable with each other in the ratio of the 
 root, which is as two to one. Consequently, all other uninomes which cannot be redu- 
 ced to this are incommensurable. ‘Thus [_ 12 and [ J 3, because they are differently ra- 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 493 
 
 dicated, are incommensurable. So L_] 6, et | | 2, (although radicated alike,) are incom- 
 mensurable, because 6 divided by 2 produces 3, which wants the root whose sign is bal, 
 that is, the bipartient. But 12 and he 4 are commensurable, because when reduced they 
 are equivalent to 12 and 2, &c.” 
 
 ** I could find no more of his geometrical pairt amonst all his fragments.” * 
 
 I now return to the concluding chapters of Napier’s second book, of which it is only 
 possible here to give a hurried and imperfect view. Having in the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 
 9th chapters disposed in the most brilliant manner of involution and evolution, our phi- 
 losopher, never losing sight of perfect symmetry in his arrangement, again takes up, in 
 chapter 10, the rules of proportion of integers. Referring to those already given in his 
 first book, he now expounds several particular and compendious rules of proportion, of 
 which one example may be selected, as being characteristic of the constant war he waged 
 against the tyranny of derivative computation. 
 
 “« There is,” says he, ‘ another compendious method without the omission of figures. 
 Let all the given numbers of the question be arranged in their proper places above and 
 below the line, as I have expounded in the general method proposed in C. v. Lib. i. Then 
 let each of two numbers, one above the line, as if numerator, and the other below the 
 line, as if denominator, be divided by the greatest common divisor until each of the nu- 
 merators shall be to each of the denominators in the first or least ratio to each other, all 
 the last quotients being noted. Finally, let the multiple of all the upper quotients be 
 divided by the multiple of the lower quotient; this quotient will be the answer sought, 
 and solve the question. Thus, if 4 builders construct a wall 6 feet high and 48 ells long 
 in 42 days, it is demanded, in how many days will 5 builders erect a wall 9 feet high, 
 and 50 ells long? Let all the numbers be arranged according to the rule laid down in 
 C. v. Lib. i. and they will stand as on the margin. Then abbreviate the upper number 
 4, and the lower number 6, by 2, the greatest divisor, which gives 3 in this form 
 —— Then divide 2 above, and 48 below, by the common divisor 2, which 
 gives 1, and 24, in this form 1.9.90. | Then divide 9 and 3 by 3, which gives 3 
 
 5.3. 24. 
 above and 1 below, in this “eqn et aes . Then divide 50 and 5 by 5, which gives 
 10 above and 1 below, in this form Oe . Then divide 10 and 24 by the great- 
 
 est common divisor 2, which gives 5 above and 12 below, in this form eee . Finally, 
 divide 42 and 12 by the greatest common divisor 6, which gives 7 above and 2 below in 
 this form, ea . So you now have the familiar and tractable numbers 1.3.5.7. and 
 1.1.2. to be multiplied together, instead of the given numbers, which were somewhat 
 bigger. Let, then, 1.3.5.7 be multiplied into each other, which gives 105; let the same be 
 
 done with the lower numbers 1. 1.2. which gives 2, by which divide 105, and the 
 
 * Note by Robert Napier, addressed to Henry Briggs. 
 
 Edific. Pedes. Ulne. Dies. 
 4 9 5 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 50 42 
 
 48 quot dies. 
 
404 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 quotient will come forth 524, being the number of the days, satisfying the question with- 
 out great and laborious multiplications and divisions.” 
 
 The five remaining chapters of this book, namely, the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th, 
 are devoted to the arithmetic of fractions, the general rules of which have been already 
 given. He carries them minutely through all the operations of addition, subtraction, 
 multiplication, involution, evolution, and rules of proportion. It would occupy too much 
 space to give any thing like a satisfactory abstract of these operations, in which the ele- 
 gant and profound character of the work is completely sustained. This must again be 
 observed, however, that his division of the subject of fractions clearly intimates, that at 
 this time Napier had not considered decimal fractions as a distinct department. He says, 
 ‘* of fractions, some are called vulgares, others physice.” He defines vulgar fractions as 
 those ** whose denominators are various and free ; as, one-half, two-thirds, four-elevenths, 
 &c.” He then explains that “ the denominator is that which names into how many equal 
 parts unity is distributed ; the numerator is that which numbers how many of these parts 
 are taken ; the numerator is pronounced in cardinal number, the denominator in ordinal, 
 the numerator above the line, the denominator below.” He then refers to the fractions of frac- 
 tions, and his own method of noting them; “ there are some improper fractions, he says, 
 which are not expressly a part or parts of unity, but are the parts of fractions ; and these 
 are called fractions of fractions. I note them by interposing the particle ex ; others note them 
 by omitting the line or lines of the posterior fractions. Thus, two-fifth parts of three-fourth 
 parts I note ? ex $; others note them thus, ? 7,” &c. * 
 
 Napier defines physical fractions, “‘ the part or parts of a whole, divided by some ap- 
 pointed and commonly received divisor, which its authors put in the place of denominator. 
 Thus it hath pleased owr mint-masters to divide the pound of money, not into what number 
 of parts you will, but into 20 parts, and to put shillings in the place of denominator ; so the 
 Apothecaries divide the pound weight into 12 parts, which they name ounces, an ounce into 
 8 drachms, a drachm into 3 scruples, &c.; Chronologists divide the year into 12 months, 
 the months into 80 days or thereabouts, the day into 24 hours, &c. ; Astronomers divide 
 the degree into 60 prime scruples or minutes, the primes into 60 seconds, the seconds 
 into 60 thirds, &c.” But Napier nowhere, in all his minute exposition of fractions in 
 this work, refers to the system of decimals. The chapter of physical fractions closes his 
 book of arithmetic, the last sentence of which must not be omitted,—“ And now to Gad, 
 the Father Almighty, and in all His Numbers, infinite, immense, and perfect, be ascribed 
 all the praise, honour, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen. Finis.” 
 
 Napier, in the first chapter of his Arithmetic, refers to Geometrical Logistic as the 
 subject of his third book, (the fragment already given,) and to Algebra, as treated of in 
 his fourth book. It would appear, however, that although he has also left a manuscript 
 treatise on Algebra, it is an earlier production than what we have been considering. 
 
 * “Compound fractions are fractions of fractions, and consist of several fractions connected together 
 
 by the word of; as 3 of 3, or 3 of 2 of 3.”—Hutton’s Math, Dict. 
 A 
 
 a 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 495 
 
 This is manifest from several circumstances. 1. It is entitled, “ The Algebra of John 
 Naper, Baron of Merchistoun,” but not diver quartus, in correspondence with the other 
 books. 2. Arithmetic is referred to in it; but there is no reference to his own book 
 of Arithmetic, as unquestionably (according to his practice throughout the rest of 
 the manuscript,) there would have been had that existed at the time. 3. This treatise 
 is itself divided into two books; and while there is a systematic reference to its com- 
 ponent parts, there is none whatever to the treatise we have considered. 4. Napier 
 adopts in his Algebra the radical nomination and notation, which in the other treatise he 
 had superseded by a superior system of his own; and there is here no reference 
 to his peculiar notation of surds. There can be little doubt, therefore, that, although 
 what we have reviewed was written before he had conceived the Logarithms, this trea- 
 tise is a still earlier production. From the circumstance, however, that Robert Napier 
 has paged the two books of Algebra continuously with the rest, it is probably that they 
 are so much of what the philosopher intended to compose the fourth book, to which he 
 alludes. Yet it is singular that there is no appearance of crude or youthful composition 
 in this his earliest work. It is stampt with the same characteristics of simple exposition, 
 profound views, and symmetrical arrangement as all his other productions. Our limits 
 will not enable us to do it justice ; but some extracts from the first chapter, which he en- 
 titles, “‘ of the definitions, the divisions of the parts, and the vocabulary of the art,” will 
 afford an interesting specimen, and also evidence that his Algebra was written prior to 
 his arithmetic. 
 
 “ Algebra is the science which treats of solving questions of magnitude and multitude. 
 It is twofold; the one part regards xominate quantities, the other positive. Nominate 
 quantities are named from numbers, rational or irrational. Rational numbers are either 
 absolute numbers, or fractions, of which arithmetic also treats. Irrational numbers are 
 roots of those rational numbers which have no roots in numbers; and these, as they are 
 quantities, also belong to geometry. The positive part of algebra is that which explicates 
 quantities and numbers through the medium of fictitious suppositions, and of which I 
 shall treat in the second book. In this first book I shall teach the first part of algebra, 
 concerning nominate numbers and quantities. ‘There are three species of nominates ; 
 uninomia, plurinomia, and universalia. Uninomia are either a single simple number, or 
 any root of a single simple number. But the roots of numbers are various; therefore, 
 for the sake of art and learning, they are expressed by characters prefixed, called radical 
 signs (signa radicalia,) and noted thus :— 
 
 nie: - radix quadrata. 
 
 al Gs - radix cubica. 
 
 J QQ, - = radix quadrati quadrata. 
 
 7 Ss; - radix supersolida. 
 
 RUQC; - radix quadrati cubica. 
 Nas, f= radix secunda supersolida. 
 J QQQ, - radix quad. quad. quadrata. 
 
 Me CO. - radix cubi cubica. et sic de ceteris in infinitum. 
 
496 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Our philosopher then minutely expounds the various compositions and combinations of 
 these radical signs and quantities, with their relations to each other. In the second chapter he 
 commences their arithmetical operations with “ addition of uninomes ;” and thus, in seven- 
 teen chapters, which compose this first book, he gives the most beautiful treatise on the arith- 
 metic of surds perhaps ever written. His leading arrangement is always genealogical. He 
 shows how uninomes are born of the extraction of roots that have no roots of numbers, of 
 which his first part treats,—how, from the addition and subtraction of uninomes that are 
 incommensurable arise plurinomes, of which his second part treats,—and how, from the ex- 
 traction of the obscure roots of plurinomes arise universals, of which the third and last part 
 treats; and then he adds, “so in like manner from universals arise universals of univer- 
 sals, and from these again others ad infinitum universalissima, the art of which, should it 
 require to be practised, which rarely happens, may easily be gathered from what has been 
 laid down.” ’ 
 
 Napier’s second book, entitled “ of positive or cossic algebra,” commences, like the last, 
 with definitions, divisions, and a vocabulary. He defines the positive part of algebra to be 
 that which “ discloses, by means of feigned suppositions, a true quantity and true num- 
 ber sought.” He defines suppositions or positions, “ certain fictitious symbols attached to 
 unity, which, in the place and on the part of quantities and numbers unknown, we add, 
 subtract, multiply, and divide. ‘Positions and the symbols of positions are as various 
 and dissimilar as the unknown quantities which the question embraces. Their figures 
 and names are, ex. gr. 1 B, which is pronounced one first position ; 1 a, pronounced one a, 
 or one second position ; 1 b, one b, or one third position, and so on through the rest of the 
 alphabet.” ‘These symbols compose what our philosopher calls “ things first in order.” 
 He then proceeds to deduce the successive orders [2. e. powers] in infinitum by the involu- 
 ’ tion of these symbols, and illustrates his exposition by the following table : 
 
 Numeri | Characteres et exem- | Characteres et exem- { Characteres et exem- 
 
 ordinum. | pla ordinum prime | pla ordinumsecunde | pla ordinum tertia|&c- 
 0 positionis. positionis. positionis. 
 Liat lk 3|la 2| 16 ~ 
 2 |1Q 9|14aQ Pe wots AG 
 37 SFC 27| la 8|16C 64 
 4. [1QQ 81 | 1a QQ 16 | 16 QQ 256 
 5 1 Ss 243 | laSs 32| 168s 1024 
 6 |1QC 729 | 1a QC 64| 15 QC 4096 
 1 RPS Ss 2187 | la SSs 128 | 16 S8s 16384\&c. 
 8 |1QQQ 6561 | 1a QQQ 256 | 16 QQQ 65536 
 a REGS! 19683 | La CC 512 | 16CC 262144 
 10 |1QS8s 59049 | la QSs 1024[15QSs 1048576 
 ll | 1SSSs 177147 [ 1a SSSs 2048 [16SSSs 4194304 
 12 |1QQC 531441 | 1a QQC 4096 | 16QQC 16777216 
 13 | 1 SSSSs 1594323 | 1a SSSSs 8192 | 16 SSSSs 67108864 
 Xe. &e. &e. 
 
 “In this table,” he says, ‘‘ I have supposed, for example’s sake, that 1 B. is equivalent 
 to 8, 1 a to 2, and 1 } to 4; which being given, the values of the successive orders fol- 
 low, necessarily, as noted.” 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 497 
 
 The symbolical language and applications of algebra have undergone so great a re- 
 volution since Napier wrote, that to give a sufficiently illustrated analysis of the whole 
 of this part of his work would occupy more space than we can afford. It is rich in de- 
 finitions, and he leaves no step in his progress unexplained. He uses figures for the 
 known quantities, the universal literal system having been introduced at a later period. 
 We see from the preceding table and nomenclature, that the wnknown quantities he class- 
 ed in positions, and called positives, or things, which last term is not strange in the history 
 of algebra, the science having been called by the Italian authors Regola de la Cosa, or 
 Rule of the thing, which is also the derivation of the term cossic. From the second chap- 
 ter to the eighth inclusive, Napier proceeds, in his usual minute and symmetrical manner, 
 through the whole arithmetic of the cossic art. In chapters ninth and tenth he enters 
 upon the theory of equations, one of the most important and complicated departments of 
 analytical science, and in which he is far before the algebra of the period when he com- 
 posed this treatise. How little was it ever suspected that the algebraic triumphs of 
 Vieta, Harriot, and Girard, whose principal works were not known to the world for 
 many years after the date of this manuscript, were some of them actually in the 
 possession of this retired and unpretending Scottish baron, though laid aside among his 
 papers, and never known publickly till now! Professor Playfair, in his Dissertation, 
 sketches the history of the slow progress of this branch of algebra, and shows that the 
 genesis of equations first received a decided explication in the works of Harriot, not 
 published till the year 1631. He adds, “ ‘Their slow progress arose from this, that they 
 worked with an instrument, the use of which they did not fully comprehend, and em- 
 ployed a language which expressed more than they were prepared to understand ; a lan- 
 guage which, under the notion first of negative, and then of imaginary quantities, seemed to 
 involve such mysteries as the accuracy of mathematical science must necessarily refuse to 
 admit.” But early and rude as was the period in the history of algebra to which we 
 must refer the composition of Napier’s manuscript, we find him treating these mysteri- 
 ous quantities as if he had a perfect command of them, and looking forward with exul- 
 tation to his future applications of such great algebraic secrets. Nothing can be more 
 interesting in the whole history of his studies, than his opening chapters of that re- 
 doubtable subject Equations. They prove beyond question that he was among the 
 very first to understand that recondite subject; which he did so thoroughly as to com- 
 pose a treatise, the fragment of which may be compared with any of the greatest that 
 have succeeded him, from Harriot to Euler. Now this is very striking. The inter- 
 nal evidence is irresistible that Napier composed his algebra before his arithmetic, and 
 geometrical logistic. ‘The progress of his studies appears to have been in this order. 
 Having mastered algebra he conceived the noble project of composing four books embra- 
 cing every department of numerical science ; he returned accordingly to the simplest ele- 
 ments, and with an extensive prospect and command of the vast field before him, he had 
 
 digested his subject, and ‘ sett it orderlie doun,” nearly as far as his original books of al- 
 SR 
 
498 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 gebra, and had even commenced a systematic reformation of the symbolical language of 
 algebra, when the invention of Logarithms interrupted his original plan. This great in- 
 vention, however, had, it seems, occurred to him before the year 1594, when Tycho got 
 a hint of it from Napier’s friend Craig ; and, indeed, from his own expressions, we must 
 date his conception of the Logarithms many years before their publication. His treatise 
 ou Numbers, then, in which he betrays no idea either of Logarithms or Decimal fractions, 
 must be referred to a very early period, and it is impossible that when he wrote it he 
 could know any thing of the writings of Vieta. “ Most of Vieta’s algebraic works,” 
 says Dr Hutton, “ were written about or before the year 1600, but some of them were 
 not published till after his death, which happened in 1603.” And this is most material 
 to observe that, “the two books de equationum recognitione et emendatione, which contain 
 Vieta’s chief improvements in algebra, were not published till the year 1615 ;” indeed, 
 his scattered works were only first collected into a volume thirty years after our philo- 
 sopher’s death. 
 
 But the historians of science are agreed that, although some important conquests were 
 achieved in that department by Tartalea, Cardan, and a few others, the general theory 
 of equations was only first opened by Vieta, who paved the way for Harriot and Des- 
 cartes. Montucla says, ‘‘ The different transformations which may be adopted to give 
 an equation a more commodious form, are, at least for the most part, the invention of 
 M. Vieta, who taught the method in his book entitled De Emendatione Aiquationum. 
 We there learn how to perform all the operations of arithmetic, addition, subtraction, 
 multiplication, and division, upon the roots of equations. By means of that he causes the 
 second term of an equation to disappear; an operation which at once resolves quadratic 
 equations, and prepares the cubic. Itis thus, too, he causes the fractions to vanish which 
 embarrass an equation, that he delivers it from irrationality when any of the terms are 
 embarrassed thereby; all these things have been adopted by the modern analysts, and form 
 what they call the preparation of equations; after these preliminaries M. Vieta passes to 
 the resolution of equations of all degrees.” This is just the object of the two chapters 
 on equations with which, unfortunately, our philosopher’s manuscript concludes. The 
 first of them, being the 9th of the 2d book of his aglebra, is entitled “ of Equations and 
 their Roots,” and the one following is “ of the general Preparation of Equations.” No 
 more is extant; but in these chapters he refers to succeeding ones, as if already composed, 
 and expressly mentions that, after laying down all the rules of preparation, he means to give 
 the methods of resolution. 'Though none of these valuable lucubrations were ever pub- 
 lished, and only a fragment has been saved, yet in the history of his own mind, and in 
 estimating the honour he confers upon his country, the fact is most interesting. Euler, 
 of whom those most capable to judge have said, ‘“ that he was indisputably the greatest 
 analyst that has ever appeared,” concludes the work, by which I have all along tested 
 Napier’s, with the theory of equations. So does our philosopher his, and here again the 
 same comparison may be safely challenged. ‘ Even in the state in which he left his work, 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 499 
 
 among his loose papers, and not remodelled and fitted to the first books, as he obviously 
 intended to have done, all that remains of his doctrine of equations is richer in tuition, 
 more systematically arranged, and appears to lay the foundation for a more masterly exa- 
 mination of the subject than the corresponding chapters of Euler’s finished work. This 
 pretension is so high that, in order to justify it, I have given the two last chapters of the 
 manuscript entire in the Appendix, and have translated them for the benefit of those who 
 might not take the trouble to read algebra in Latin. In the translation, I have adhered 
 as literally as possible to the original. Some of his terms, and of course his symbolical 
 language, differ from that now in use; but he is so precise and explanatory that, with 
 the aid of the vocabulary already quoted, it is easy for any one acquainted with the his- 
 tory of algebra to follow him. ‘The learned will there find that he is not only anticipat- 
 ing Vieta in what Montucla refers to that philosopher, and from whose merit, of course, 
 Napier’s unpublished work cannot detract, but that he is evidently stretching beyond the 
 triumphs of Vieta to those of Girard and Harriot. It is impossible to read his opening 
 chapters of equations, and not admit that they indicate a maturity in the subject for which 
 Vieta is held only to have paved the way. Girard is considered the first in whose work, 
 published long after Napier’s death, the refined and difficult doctrine of imaginary quan- 
 tities and roots assumes a place in science. Our philosopher clearly has this doctrine, 
 and apparently a great command of the subject. The reduction of equations he calls 
 expositio, and the root exponens. He states how various are those roots; that they are 
 valida when prenoted with the sign +, and invalida with the sign —; in other words, po- 
 sitive and negative roots. He also defines the nature of an impossible equation, with the 
 view of preparing the way for his doctrine of imaginary roots; a doctrine which it is ob- 
 vious he had profoundly considered ; indeed, he lays the foundation for it, as a great al- 
 gebraic secret not then known, in his chapter of abundant and defective quantities which 
 has been quoted. He also refers to roots of every description, capable of beg expres- 
 sed by number or quantity, or both, or neither; clearly embracing all roots, rational and 
 irrational, real, and imaginary ; and then he expressly adds, that “ these with their ex- 
 amples shall be amply discussed in chapters 11, 12 and 13,”—the chapters which ought 
 immediately to follow that with which the manuscript abruptly concludes. The terms 
 he so frequently and fearlessly uses of quantities less than nothing, and impossible or ima- 
 ginary quantities, all of which have been referred to Girard as their originator, indicate 
 that command of the subject which was not to be daunted by the difficulty of naming 
 such quantities, and that he was prepared to show how the phrases were justified in 
 science. It is also very interesting to observe, that although he does not adopt, as Vieta 
 did, letters for the known quantities, his notation is in some material circumstances be- 
 yond that philosopher’s. Mr Babbage, in his History of Notation, observes, “ it is a curi- 
 ous circumstance that the symbol which now represents equality was first used to denote 
 subtraction, in which sense it was employed by Albert Girard, and that a word signify- 
 ing equality was always used instead until the time of Harriot.” This sentence, it must 
 
500 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 be observed, overlooks the claim of Recorde, who, if he did not succeed in establishing 
 the sign of equality, unquestionably proposed it, as I have elsewhere noticed. Napier, 
 however, adopts it, and, with his usual precision, defines it in these words; “ betwixt the 
 parts of an equation that are equal to each other a double line is interposed, which is the 
 sign of equation (signum equationis); thus, 1 RB = 7, which is pronounced, one thing 
 equal to seven.” ‘To Vieta is ascribed the vinculum in algebraic notation, which Girard 
 changed to the parenthesis. ‘This, as is well known to algebraists, is used to denote the 
 compound of binomial surds yielding what are termed roots universal. ‘The English 
 algebraists, chiefly, use the vinculum, which is drawn above the compound thus, ,/ a + 6. 
 Napier explains and uses this notation, with the simple variation of drawing the line un- 
 der the compound. In the 12th chapter of his arithmetic of surds he lays down; “ to 
 extract the square root of this quantity ./ Q 48 + / Q 28, prefix to this binomial (huic 
 binomio ) the following radical sign ,/ Q, with a period after it thus, / Q. ,/ Q48+ ./ Q28,” 
 &c. and in the 17th chapter of the same book he gives this example, after explaining the 
 notation, “ the square root is extracted from this quantity 5 + ,/c2— / Q38—J/ Q2, 
 by prefixing the sign of the root universal with a line drawn in this manner, 
 /Q.5+ /c2—/Q.38—,/Q2.” &e. Accordingly, this vinculum will be found frequently 
 used in his equations, and sometimes a vinculum withinavinculum. Yet even later than 
 Vieta that convenient notation was not in constant use. Oughtred adopts the wu after / 
 to denote universal, instead of what is called ‘* the vinculum of Vieta.” I can nowhere 
 find in Napier the sign x of multiplication, which Oughtred introduced. In the pre- 
 paration of equations our philosopher is far in advance of the date of his manuscript. 
 ‘“¢ Harriot,” says Bossut, * was the first who thought of placing all the terms of an equa- 
 tion on one side, and thus distinctly saw, what Vieta had only pointed out in a confused 
 manner, that in every equation the coefficient of the second term is the sum of the roots 
 taken with contrary signs,” &c. Butit will be observed that Napier had this mode of pre- 
 paration, and made much of it.‘ If,” says he, “ you transpose all the terms of one side 
 of an equation to the opposite side, the whole will be made equal to nothing, and this is 
 called an equation to nothing,” &c. 
 
 What I have thus imperfectly abstracted from this most interesting relic will enable 
 the world to see that the Inventor of Logarithms was not a mere calculator who had made 
 a lucky hit in a path where others were close behind him; but that had he only pub- 
 lished his treatise on Logistic, without having invented the Logarithms, he would have tak- 
 en the place of Vieta,—have anticipated the triumphs of Harriot—and, at a still earlier 
 period, have placed Britain in the very highest ranks of those countries from which ana- 
 lytical science has received its greatest impulses. 
 
 It appears to me unquestionable that Napier composed his Arithmetic, and conse- 
 quently his Algebra, before conceiving any of those mechanical inventions in aid of cal- 
 culation, of which his own account has been given in the preceding memoirs. His 
 
 4 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 501 
 
 Rabdologia and his Promptuarium would otherwise have been frequently and promi- 
 nently referred to.* In the former of these inventions, so well: known under the name 
 of Neper’s Bones, the philosopher’s object was to reduce the labour of multiplication and 
 division to the less laborious operations of addition and subtraction,—to make the pri- 
 matives do the work of the derivatives. From the moment he commanded the genealogy 
 of numbers, this seems to have been his constant endeavour. ‘* Napier,” said poor Pin- 
 kerton, ‘‘ was not a great inventor, he was only a useful abbreviator of a particular 
 branch of the mathematics.” But it was the power of his mind that impelled him to this. 
 The finest geniuses are they who have felt most intensely the trammels of calculation. 
 Many a man passes for a great mathematician, because he is a huge computer. Hutton 
 and Maseres were great calculators rather than great mathematicians, When their pages 
 were full of figures and symbols they were happy ; and they took up the subject of Lo- 
 garithms, con amore, from the very love of that labour to which the Logarithms were 
 opposed. Archimedes and Napier were antt-calculators. But Napier alone, of all philo- 
 sophers in all ages, made it the grand object of his life to obtain the power of calculation 
 without its prolixity. At whatever period, therefore, our philosopher composed his 
 minor works, they must be regarded with great interest, from the evidence they afford, 
 that, with this object constantly before him, he left no department of numerical science 
 not enriched by his most original genius. ‘They compose a chapter, and no mean one, 
 of his universal system of numbers. 
 
 Mr Herschel, in his History of Mathematics, has said, ‘ Napier, struck with the dif- 
 ficulties which encumbered arithmetical computation of any length, and which various 
 circumstances had about that time concurred to place in a very prominent light, after 
 bestowing much fruitless labour on the invention of mechanical contrivances for multi- 
 plication and division, rejected this plan, and struck on the happy idea of Logarithms.” 
 Yet the great Wolff has devoted an elaborate chapter of his Llementa Matheseos to the 
 “¢ Tamellas Neperianas, quarum ope multiplicationem ac divisionem facilius absolvere licet 
 quam per abacum Pythagoricum.” ‘The great Leibnitz did not disdain such mechanical 
 inventions, and has referred pointedly to Napier’s while praising his own in competition 
 with the machine invented by Pascal. + It is interesting to regard our philosopher as 
 
 * The only reference to his minor inventions which occurs in the manuscript tends to confirm this re- 
 mark. In his chapter entitled “ Miscellaneous short methods of Multiplication and Division” this note 
 is marked as an interpolation to a passage regarding short methods of multiplication, “ sive omnium 
 facillime per ossa Rabdologie nostre,” clearly implying that he had not the method when he wrote his 
 Arithmetic. Had Napier lived to finish his treatise on Logistic, it would have been the most splendid 
 work of the kind in existence. His Mechanical Arithmetic, Logarithms, and Decimal Fractions, with 
 all his improvements in notation would have been added to his system; and how much of that system 
 would have been his own! 
 
 +- © Jai encore eu le bonheur de produire une machine arithmetique infinement différente de celle 
 de M. Pascal, puisque la mienne fait les grands multiplications et divisions en un moment, et sans 
 additions ou soustractions auxiliares; au lieu que celle de M. Pascal, dont on parloit comme d’une 
 
502 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 the father of this school too,—a school whose labours are fruitless, just because the Lo- 
 garithms have superseded their utility, unless, perhaps, we except that Leviathan of an 
 abacus, so fearfully constructed ‘‘ that the machine can itself correct the errors which 
 it may commit, and that the results of its calculations, when absolutely free from error, 
 can be printed off without the aid of human hands, or the operation of human intelli- 
 gence” (Brewster) ; and this Mr Babbage is inventing chiefly for the purpose of comput- 
 ing Logarithms. Iam inclined to doubt the theory that Napier rejected Rabdologia, 
 and then set himself to seek the Logarithms. From his letter to the Chancellor, a very 
 different idea may be gathered. He appears to say that he contrived such artifices for 
 the special benefit of those who might distrust the artificial numbers. ‘There occurs 
 in the work, “* Tabulato anno Domini 1615,” an example, however, that may possibly 
 have been added when he was preparing for the press this profound and elegant little 
 volume, which we are sure Mr Herschel had never looked at when he slighted its con- 
 tents. Independently of other merits, it is hallowed by the fact, of containing perhaps 
 the earliest chapter upon decimal fractions ever composed in Britain, and under the per- 
 
 fect notation which Napier was the first to adopt. 
 
 It is singular, that, after having proceeded so far in the path of numbers, our philoso- 
 pher achieved his greatest conquest, which lay directly in that very path, and not far 
 before him, by a different and an eccentric route, belonging to an opposite branch of 
 science. The Logarithms should have been the offspring of his Arithmetic and his 
 Algebra. He made them the offspring of his Geometry and his Arithmetic. Instead of 
 prosecuting the arithmetic of powers and exponents, he turned to the geometry of his 
 fluxions and his fluents,—terms unknown till then,—a method strange and startling to 
 the philosophers of his times,—distrusted in another age when once again it reappeared 
 in the hands of Newton,—yet successively productive of the Logarithms and the Calculus. 
 The fact is, that Napier was as fearless and as powerful in geometry as he was in logis- 
 tic, which accounts for the method he adopted. _ Who but himself, with the whole sys- 
 tem of arithmetic and algebra brought under his control, would, in aid of calculation, have 
 set to work with a flowing point! His fluxionary method was characteristic of the same 
 unfettered genius that commanded the scale on either side of zero, and could even see 
 that quantities, ‘ impossibiles et nihil significantes,” though revolting in language, were 
 precious in calculation. The application of arithmetic to geometry created the science of 
 trigonometry. Napier made the application anew, and revolutionized that science, not 
 merely in its tables, but in its rules. As a geometrician, therefore, he may almost be said 
 to have been more successful than as an arithmetician, for the Logarithms themselves were 
 
 chose merveilleuse, et non pas sans raison, n’etoit proprement que pour les additions et soustractions, 
 qu’on pouvoit combiner avec les batons de Neper, comme a fait depuis Mr Moreland.”— Lezbnitii 
 
 Opera, Tome vi. p. 248. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 503 
 
 a geometrical conquest. ‘ As a geometrician,” says Playfair, “‘ Napier has left behind 
 him a noble monument in the two trigonometrical theorems which are known by his name, 
 and which appear first to have been communicated in writing to Cavalieri, who has men- 
 tioned them with great eulogy ; they are theorems not a little difficult, and of much use, 
 as being particularly adapted to logarithmic calculation.” * 
 
 The rules alluded to, generally termed Napier’s Analogies, are well known to mathema- 
 ticians. One of his demonstrations is characterized by peculiar elegance and originality. 
 In the optical illustration, we may observe an indication of those habits and acquisitions, 
 which led him to revive the lost catoptrics of Archimedes, whose history is given in 
 the memoirs. I shall adopt here the abridgement of it by Dr Minto, referring the 
 reader to the Canon Mirificus for the original. 
 
 ** Let a plane MN touch the sphere ADP at the point A, the extremity of its diame- 
 ter PA. Upon the surface of the sphere let there be described the triangle Ady acute 
 in y, or AX€ obtuse in. Let the sine Ad and the base Ay or A® be produced to the 
 point P. With the pole 4 and distance ’y or its equal 1¢ let the small circle of the sphere 
 Cyz6 intersecting AP in « and AA in 6 be described: and from A let the arc Aw be drawn 
 perpendicular to A¢y. Ay is the sum of the segments of the base and A¢ their difference. 
 A: is the sum of the sides and Aé their difference. Let there be supposed a luminous 
 point in P: The shadows, A, d, and ¢, of the points A, € and y, upon the plane MN, are 
 in the same straight line, because the points A, ¢, y, and P are in the same circular plane: 
 also the shadow A, d, and e, of A, 6, and <, upon the plane MN, are in the same straight 
 line, because A, 6, <, and P, are in the same circular plane. Since PA is perpendicular 
 to the plane MN, the plane triangles PAc, PA’, PAe, and PAd, are rectangular in A: 
 therefore, to the radius PA, the straight lines Ac, Ad, Ae, and Ad, are the tangents of 
 the angles APe or APy, APO or APc, APe or APs, and APd or AP? respectively. 
 
 * Professor Powell has also said (Historical View, &c. p. 194,) that Napier, before he published his 
 trigonometrical theorems, “ communicated them in manuscript to Cavalieri, who mentions them with 
 high commendation.” There is, however, a strange mistake here. Napier never corresponded with 
 Cavalieri. That great philosopher was the first Italian commentator upon the Logarithms, but he was 
 only born in the year 1598, as Professor Playfair himself tells us, and as Professor Powell of course re- 
 peats. Consequently, when Napier had his rules in manuscript, Cavalieri was an infant, or, at least, a 
 child. Besides, Bonaventura Cavalieri was a Papist! a friar of the order of the Jesuati of St Jerome! 
 And the old Scotch baron, who, God bless him, never communicated the scrape of a pen to any philo- 
 sopher, would not have sent his theorems to one who was a jesuitical friar. Playfair quotes Wallis as 
 his authority; but the passage has been misunderstood. Wallis ( Opera Math. Tom. ii. p. 875,) says, 
 “ Proportiones sequentes duas Cavalierius acceptas refert Nepero ; nec immerito eas dicit alte indagi-- 
 nis? But it is manifest that this means no more than that the Italian philosopher acknowledged that 
 science was indebted to Napier for those rules, which, he adds, evince a lofty genius. The same is 
 also apparent in Cavalieri’s great work on Logarithms, of which the editions are dated 1632 and 
 1643. 
 
 This philosopher has the honour of being the first who established the Logarithms in Italy. 
 
504 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 But these angles, being at the circumference of the sphere, have for their measures the 
 halves of the arcs intercepted by their sides: therefore Ac, Ad, Ae, and Ad, are the tan- 
 gents of the halves of Ay, Aé, Az, and Aé respectively. Now, by optics, the shadow of 
 any circle, described on the surface of the sphere, produced by rays from a luminous point 
 situated in any point of that surface excepting the circumference of the circle, forms a 
 circle on the plane perpendicular to the diameter at whose extremity the luminous point 
 is placed: therefore the points c, J, e, and d, are in the circumference of a circle : there- 
 
 fore Ac x AJ = Ae X Ad. Q. E. D.” 
 
 GC 
 
 M. 
 MULL MLE 
 
 But it is not merely by his Analogies that our philosopher is distinguished in trigono- 
 metry. The same object that he constantly pursued in numbers, he struggled to attain 
 in his geometrical path. He determined to enable the student, with the least retentive 
 memory, to carry as it were the whole science of trigonometry in his head, and he actu- 
 ally succeeded. ‘There is not a modern work upon the subject in which Napier’s rule of 
 the circular parts is not the relief of study, and the theme of praise. If we turn to the 
 most distinguished elementary works we find it said, “ the rule of the Circular Parts in- 
 vented by Napier, is of great use in spherical trigonometry, by reducing all the theorems 
 employed in the solution of right-angled triangles to two. ‘These two are not new proposi- 
 tions, but are merely enunciations which, by help of a particular arrangement and classifi- 
 cation of the parts of a triangle, include all the six propositions with their corollaries ; 
 they are perhaps the happiest example of artificial memory that is known.” ( Playfair’s Ele- 
 ments). If we turn to the most distinguished philosophical treatises, we find, “ these 
 forms are not easily remembered, and, therefore, an artificial memory has been sup- 
 plied to the student and computist, by rules known by the title of Napier’s Rules for Cir- 
 cular Parts ; and in the whole compass of mathematical science, there cannot be found, per- 
 haps, rules which more completely attain that which is the proper object of rules, facility and 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 505 
 
 brevity of computation.” —( Woodhouse, of Cambridge.) If we turn to the great histo- 
 rians of science the same eulogy is to be met with. Wallis expounds the rule, and adds, 
 ** this, Napier excogitated for the relief of memory, and Cavallerius, Ursinus, Vlaccus, 
 and our own Gellibrand, Oughtred, Norwood, Ward and Wing, have applied it to va- 
 rious cases.” Montucla observes, ‘* it would appear that Napier’s views always tended to 
 the simplification of practice ; among his inventions, one for the resolution of spherical 
 rectangular triangles is especially remarkable, and in the judgment of all acquainted with 
 it extremely ingenious and convenient; indeed those versant in spherical trigonometry 
 know that sixteen cases in spherical rectangular triangles may be proposed, and of these 
 there are ten or twelve so difficult that authors who have written on the subject have been 
 obliged to construct a table to consult for the relief of memory; Napier’s rule reduces all 
 these cases to a single rule, composed of two parts, whose elegant form is particularly apt 
 to impress itself profoundly on the memory; hence the English trigonometrists generally 
 adopt it, and I cannot conceal my surprise at scarcely finding a trace of it in various 
 French and Continental treatises upon trigonometry, published since that epoch; M. 
 Wolff, however, has felt the merit of it, and taught it in his Hlementa Matheseos Uni- 
 versalis.” ; 
 
 No wonder, then, that, with such geometrical powers of invention, our philosopher 
 reached the Logarithms through that path. But it would, indeed, have been wonderful, 
 if, after having done so, he had not, with all his command of numbers, have immediately 
 perceived that the transcendental system he had created was not fitted for ordinary calcu- 
 lation, and if he could not have supplied the desideratum. ‘There were various practical 
 inconveniences in his system which it was impossible he could fail to perceive. Above 
 all it was inconvenient and unsuitable, for common operations, to have a system of Loga- 
 rithms whose fundamental progression was not accommodated to the root, or base, of the 
 arithmetical scale in use. This fact could escape no calculator the moment he attempted 
 to work with the new-born power, and to doubt the fact which Napier asserts, and which 
 Briggs never upon any occasion hesitated to admit, namely, that he (the object of whose 
 lite was to increase the power, by simplifying the means of calculation,) had himself ob- 
 served and provided against that inconvenience, is just as absurd as we have seen that it 
 is unjust. He had only to return from his geometrical flight,—which, however, had 
 brought out the lofty system that is the parent of all others,—to his simplest arithmetical 
 considerations, in order, as he says himself, “ to set out such Logarithms as shall make 
 those numbers to fall upon decimal numbers, such as 100,000,000, 200,000,000, 
 300,000,000, &c. which are easy to be added or abated to or from any other number.” 
 It was the practical inconvenience, and not the algorithm of powers and exponents, that 
 led to this change ; a change which itslf first opened the doctrine of fractional exponents. * 
 
 * 1000 equals 10 raised to the third power ; 10,000 equals 10, to the fourth power ; 3 and 4 respec- 
 tively are the logarithms of those numbers; and, taken as powers and exponents, are written thus, 
 10° 10%. But what is the logarithm of 2000? which, in the modern view of the subject, is the same as 
 
 358 
 
506 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 There never was before, or has been since, or can be again, such a destiny in numbers. 
 What could have compensated his country for the suppression of his system of algebra 
 but that he forsook it to invent the Logarithms? Who would not have advised him 
 to turn neither to the right hand nor to the left from that analytical career in which he 
 had triumphed so far? A step or two in notation,—and he had systematically com- 
 menced to clear that path,—would have opened to him the arithmetic of exponents,— 
 the Logarithms,—the Binomial Theorem! all of which, from a mind such as his analy- 
 tical treatise displays, we may safely say nothing but a rude notation veiled. But he was not 
 satisfied with the powerful machinery of integers and fractions, abundant, defective, and 
 imaginary quantities, uninomes and plurinomes, and all the play of radical and cossic signs 
 that he had reduced to obedience. ‘The stars were becoming too many for Tycho and 
 Kepler,—so he determined to attack the numeral scale through another medium. ‘Then 
 what a result—what an episode in his analytical labours—what a corollary to his great de- 
 sien! Having surveyed, and mastered, and nearly digested the whole field of Logistic, so 
 that his unfinished manuscript may compete with Euler’s finished production,—having con- 
 quered computation and attacked notation, the ARCHIMEDES OF THE NORTH paused, not 
 to rest, but to seek another path of conquest. In that very departure from his alge- 
 braic career he brought out, as it were by a single blow, two great sections of the Arabic 
 scale, which had been latent till then, and caused an important end of the exponential 
 system to become the means of developing that very doctrine. Then how thoroughly 
 was the object of his constant study fulfilled in the Logarithms! ‘ By their means it is 
 that numbers almost infinite, and such as are otherwise impracticable, are managed with 
 ease and expedition. By their assistance the mariner steers his vessel—the geometrician 
 investigates the nature of the higher curves—the astronomer determines the places of the 
 stars—the philosopher accounts for other phenomena of nature—and lastly, the usurer 
 computes the interest of his money.”—(Kevll.) But in what age, or in what department 
 of science, can we limit the impulse which the crowning success of Napier’s ruling propensity 
 created? ‘ The quadrature of the hyperbola,” says another elegant and distinguished phi- 
 losopher, ‘ was now no longer a matter of mere speculative curiosity. Practical utility was 
 become deeply interested in the investigation by a discovery which the beginning of the 
 seventeenth century produced, but which we deferred speaking of that we might connect 
 it with its proper link in the great chain.”—‘“ The invention of Logarithms was a most 
 invaluable present to the calculator, but its influence extended still wider. Gregory St 
 Vincent in 1647 had demonstrated the grand property of the hyperbola which connects 
 its area with the logarithmic function; and Mercator, pursuing this subject at length in 
 his Logarithmotechnia (1667,) distinctly reduced the construction of logarithmic tables 
 
 to ask, what power of 10 is 2000? It must be represented by three integers and a decimal fraction thus, 
 3.301. It is obvious, therefore, how the common logarithms are connected with the doctrine of frac- 
 tional exponents. So, reversing Dr Hutton’s dictum, we may say, that the invention of Logarithms 
 led to the algorithm of powers and exponents,—the very path that would have led to them. 
 
INVENTION OF LOGARITHMS. 507 
 
 to the quadrature of hyperbolic spaces. The unsuccessful attempts of Wallis now came 
 under his contemplation, and what that geometer could not accomplish, Mercator effected 
 by the simple but happy idea of continuing the division of the numerator by the deno- 
 minator to infinity, as in the decimal arithmetic, and applying the method of Wallis to the 
 series of positive powers which results. The first general quadrature of the hyperbola 
 was thus obtained at the same time that the regular developement of a function in series 
 was now distinctly exhibited.”—‘* Such were the grounds upon which Newton was to 
 raise the mighty fabric of his mathematical discoveries. Previous to the publication of 
 Mercator’s series, the perusal of Wallis’ work, as himself relates, had led him to con- 
 sider how the general or indefinite values had afforded that writer his quadrature of the 
 whole circle. ‘This was a work of comparatively greater facility than that undertaken by 
 Wallis, and his undertaking was accordingly successful. It immediately struck him that 
 the same method of interpolation might be applied to the ordinates as to the areas, and, 
 by pursuing this idea, he arrived at his Binomial Theorem, which proved the key to the 
 whole doctrine of series.” —( Herschel.) 
 
 I have done my best to illustrate the domestic history—the Christian character—the 
 philosophical power of Napier; and, however rudely the task may have been performed, 
 the world has now a better basis for his eulogy than, perhaps, England’s historian was 
 aware of when he called him “ the person to whom the title of a Grear Man is more 
 
 justly due than to any other whom his country ever produced.” 
 
ui eg? Th is: ica ier , ars: 
 tee’ ‘> eli Vinabietl peter gm Oh iboon rien td 
 
 ; © sree Mabrane ol NM ee eyes any eah ne: tea 
 YN Tey fae etl aes tink eouinhlte hiatal i niin 
 
 ‘Ty alin bingy tlie oi vertanen ily Seip ae iene 
 
 4 ' m4enya 15 ; Veh ip ie oal) eda ft] 4j iy te tan Fabel te i b 
 a * . 1 
 
 = 
 
 . 
 fi uta. 
 : # 
 _ 
 - _ 
 a 4 
 ic 
 » 
 7 @ 
 
i THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 OF ILLINGIS 
 
Ry 
 SS Jj 
 - 2» 
 WAP Portrey, 
 P Op, 
 eS ee fey, 
 : = 26 
 
 a 
 2, \ 
 Sy % 
 a % ca 
 a “> % 
 3 vo fA wc 
 BS Te a 
 inf = 
 cf Sie | % 
 re) tal 
 gs J we] § 
 | oe al 
 j a Ron 
 LD Resas Ra 2 2 
 ~"Danginte® oe 
 Robert M*™ o 9 
 
 Son Patrick 
 
 Lats \ 
 \ 
 
 Shewing the PHILOSOPHER 
 
 E 
 © 
 wn 
 rc) 
 F 
 ei 
 £ 
 Z 
 2 
 : 
 FE 
 = 
 o 
 na 
 : 
 = 
 z 
 B 
 ° 
 rc 
 z 
 : 
 E 
 i= 
 3 
 g 
 = 
 : 
 v 
 £ 
 2 
 nm 
 
 , 
 tit 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTES AND REFERENCES. 
 
 Nore A. 
 
 Tuart the earliest ancestor of the philosopher’s, in lineal male ascent, who can be dis- 
 tinctly traced, was the first Napier of Merchiston, is proved by an entry in the great 
 Chamberlain Rolls of Scotland, preserved in the Register-House, from which it appears 
 that ‘‘ Alexander Napare” acquired the lands of Nether-Merchiston by wadset from 
 James I. sometime before the year 1438. The genealogical document transmitted by 
 the first Lord Napier to Sir William Segar is printed in Hutchins’ Dorsetshire, ii. 48, 
 where the genealogical history of the distinguished English cadets of Merchiston, Na- 
 piers of Luton-hoo and Napiers of Morecritchill are given. This author says, “ the 
 Napiers of Scotland are also extinct, though the barony of Merchiston still exists in 
 another family, their descendants.” ‘This is very inaccurate. The Lord Napier of Mer- 
 chiston is the lineal descendant of the philosopher, and represents him in his right to the 
 dormant Earldom of Levenax, although he is not lineal heir-male of Napier. But the 
 philosopher is represented in the direct male line by Sir William Milliken Napier of 
 Napier and Milliken, Bart. who has many sons. William Napier, Esq. of Blackstone, 
 of whose hospitable house we wish the same could be said, is also a lineal male descen- 
 dant of the philosopher’s. Besides, are the Generals, and Colonels, and Majors, and 
 Captains Napier, distinguished in the service of their country, and who have scattered 
 ‘‘ Neper’s bones” by sea and land in the shape of their own limbs, to be forgotten as scions 
 of Merchiston? This note was intended to record the Scottish Napiers; but the clan and 
 their gallant deeds are so numerous that I must sum them up in one word, Carlos da 
 Ponza, Count Cape St Vincent, who, alas! has no'son. For English and Irish Napiers, 
 cadets of Merchiston, see Collins’ Peerage, passim. 
 
 Nore B. 
 I found many interesting genealogical facts, particularly in the records of wills, and 
 the ancient protocols of Edinburgh, regarding the families of Bellenden and Bothwell, 
 for which, however, I must refer the curious reader to those sources. 
 
510 APPENDIX. 
 
 Note C. 
 
 Of many particulars regarding the state of the College of St Salvator, when the phi- 
 Josopher was there, (kindly communicated to me by Dr Lee,) I have only space to insert 
 the names of those under whose immediate tuition he must have been. John Ruther- 
 ford, Principal. William Ramsay, second principal master. David Guild, third prin- 
 cipal master. James Martyn, John Ker, Thomas Brown, Jobn Arthur, Regents. 
 
 Note D. 
 
 The philosopher’s reply to the queries of Sir John Skene are, like every thing he 
 composed, characterized by consummate skill and the most unpretending simplicity. The 
 reader will find them in Skene’s treatise De Verborum Significatione, voce Perticata. 
 
 Note E. 
 
 The peerage writers have generally recorded that the second wife of the philosopher’s 
 father was Elizabeth Mowbray, daughter of Mowbray of Barnbougall. Mr 
 Wood supposed this lady to have been the daughter of Robert Mowbray; but dates and 
 facts have led me to the conclusion that she was the daughter of John Mowbray, Ro- 
 bert’s son. Sir Archibald Napier was married to this lady about the year 157], at 
 which period the laird of Barnbougall was John. In the register of obligations, pre- 
 served in the Register House, there is a marriage-contract, dated at Barnbougall, 6th 
 August 1572, ** betwixt honarabill persones, Johne Moubray of Barnebougall and Agnes 
 Moubray, his dochter, and Maister Robert Creychton of Eliok,” &c. John Mowbray had 
 a daughter Elizabeth, who is named ina deed, dated 2d February 1585-6, dividing a pro- 
 vision of 1500 merks among his family. Of this sum, 1460 merks are allotted to John 
 Mowbray’s daughter Marion, and only 20 to Elizabeth, her sister ; probably because she 
 was sufficiently provided for by marriage to Sir Archibald Napier. Agnes was dead at this 
 time, as appears by a previous deed, dated 14th September 1575. ‘The other sisters were 
 with Queen Mary. The children of John Mowbray were, through their mother, cousins 
 to Sir Archibald Napier. Barbara and Gilles Mowbray were the companions of Queen 
 Mary in her captivity. In “la mort de la Royne d’Escosse,” which records the se- 
 verity of the English government towards the domestics of Mary after her execution, 
 this sentence occurs; ‘‘ le Baron de Barnestrudgal, gentilhomme Escossois, qui avoit 
 deux de ses filles en prison, vint 4 Londres, ou ayant commandement du Roy d’Escosse 
 de parler pour les serviteurs de sa mere, poursuyuit leur deliverance.” Mary’s fu- 
 neral took place immediately afterwards, and “ Madamoyselle Barbe Maubray” and 
 ‘“¢ Gilles Maubray” are recorded among “ Jes femmes de la Royne d’Escosse,” who 
 walked in the pageantry. Barbara Mowbray’s tomb at Antwerp records her fidelity to 
 Queen Mary, and the fact that she was the daughter of John Mowbray, a Scottish baron. 
 There can be no doubt that Barnestrudgal is a corruption of Barnbougall; and that Bar- 
 
 bara and Gilles were the two daughters whose release from prison the venerable father- 
 in-law of Sir Archibald Napier travelled to procure. Fora particular and most interest- 
 
APPENDIX. 511 
 
 ing account of Barbara’s tomb at Antwerp, and the story of Queen Mary's head, see An- 
 tiquarian Repertory, Vol. iii. p. 3888. The ill-fated Francis Mowbray was the brother of 
 _ these young ladies. Barnbougall is now the property of the Earl of Rosbery, but the 
 fine old name is changed to one of no meaning. Bar-na-buoi-gall signifies the point of 
 land of the victory of strangers. 
 
 ORIGINAL CHARTERS, &c. 
 
 No. I. 
 [Extract from the Philde Charter, with fac-simile of the autograph of James IT] 
 
 *« Jacosus,” &c. “ dedisse, concessisse et hac presenti carta nostra confirmasse dilecto 
 nostro Alexandro Napare nostrorum computorum rotulatori pro continuo et fideli servi- 
 tio quondam carissime matri nostre Regine impenso, et recompensatione lesionis sui cor- 
 poris ac gravaminum et dampnorum sibi illatorum tempore proditorie captionis et incar- 
 cerationis dicte carissime matris nostre per Alexandrum de Leuingston militem et Jaco- 
 bum de Leuingston filium suum ac suos complices nequiter perpetrate. Et pro dicti etiam 
 Alexandri Napare fideli servitio nobis impenso et impendendo totas et integras terras 
 nostras de Philde cum pertinentiis jacentes in domino nostro de Methuen infra vicecomi- 
 tatum de Perth; que terre de Philde ad manus nostras devenerunt ratione forisfacture 
 Alexandri de Leuingston filii dicti Alexandri de Leuingston militis,” &c.— Apud Edyn- 
 burgh septimo die mensis Marcii Anno Domini millesimo quadringentisimo quadragesimo 
 nono, et Regni nostri decimo quarto.” 
 
 No. II. 
 [Grant from Henry VI. of England to John Napier of Rushy.] 
 
 Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglie et Francie et Dominus Hibernie, omnibus ad quos 
 presentes littere peruenerint salutem Sciatis quod nos bona et gratuita obsequia que di- 
 lectus noster. Johannes Naper de regno Scotie armigero nobis impendit et in futurum 
 impendere desiderat considerantes de nostra gratia speciali concessimus ei quinquaginta 
 marcas tenendas et percipiendas annuatim pro termino vite sue ad receptum scaccarii nostri 
 per manus Thesaurarii et Camerarii nostrorum ibidem tempore existente ad terminos 
 scilicet michalis et pasche per equales porciones. In cujus rei testimonium has litteras 
 nostras fieri fecimus patentes, teste me ipso apud Edinburgh vicessimo octavo die Au- 
 gusti, anno regni nostri tricesimo nono. [1461.] 
 
 [No seal or signature. | 
 
512 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 Instructionis to be gevin to Schir Alexander Napare of Merchanstoune, Knicht, on the behalve 
 of the King, to be shawin to the Duc of Burgunze, his derrest coussing and confederat. 
 
 In the first, to schew to the said Lorde Duc how that the King understands, nocht 
 alanerly be the relations of the said Schir Alexander Napare, the tyme that he cam last 
 fra his said cousing, the gret kindnes and towart dispositione that he has to the King and 
 his realm, but alsa be the hertly and tendre ressaving of his last ambaxate send unto him, 
 and of the gude deliverance of thame, of the quhilk he sal thank his said cousing, praying 
 him of gudely continuance. 
 
 IreM, to schew to the saide Lorde Duc of [sic] the behalve of the King, that his en- 
 tent of the sending of his last ambaxat was for to approve and renew the ald confedera- 
 tions and appointmentis made of befor betwix baith thare predecessours, and to conclude 
 apon a certane article of new, tusching the sending of certane men of war upon the expenss 
 of the party requerand, as is mar at lenth contenit in the endenture made betwix baith 
 the commissionars thareuppoun, and evar to haue hade the said confedarations of mar 
 strenth and effect than thai war of befor than of less, nochtwithstanding the Kingis am- 
 bassiat, quether reklessly or of necligence he wait nocht, excedit the bounds of thare 
 instructionis, and consentit to ane inconvenient, and concludit tharuppoun ; that is to say, 
 that his said cousing the Duc exceppit in his band the King of Ingland, and becaus the 
 King has nane uthir Prince that makis war apon him, he couth nocht fynde the way to 
 appruve nor conferme the said appomtmentis ; and tharefor, for his part, he has left owt 
 the exceptioun of the King of Denmark, his gude-fader, likeas he has schewin now 
 of late mar at lenth to the ambaxators of the said Lorde Ducis: For the quhilk causs, 
 and to the effect and entent that the King desirs the tendernes and favours of his said 
 cousing, and to pless him sa far as he gudely may with his honour, baith becaus of nere- 
 nes of blude and the repar of his liegs and merchands in his lordschippis and tounys in 
 thai partis, he has send to him his treue and famuliar knicht, Schir Alexander Napare, 
 with his letter under his Great Sele, in effect comprehendand baith the auld confedera- 
 tioun and new in all points and articlis, the exceptioun of the said King of England 
 alenarly left out for the party of the said Lorde Duc, and for the party of the King, the 
 excepping of his gude-fader of Denmark richt swa left owt. Requerand his said cous- 
 ing the Duc, that gif the forme of the said new confederatioun sent to him be acceptable, 
 that he will ressaive it, and deliver siclike under his Gret Sele to the said Schir Alex- 
 ander. 
 
 Irem, to schaw to the said Lorde Duc, and remember how that now of late his am- 
 baxat has bene at the King, desiring ane new abstinence of war and trewis betwix him 
 
 and the King of Ingland for twa zeris, under certane forme and effect, likeas was con- 
 4 
 
APPENDIX. 513 
 
 tenit in thare instructonis ; and, nochtwithstanding that trewis was taken for lang termez 
 and mony zeris of befor betwix baith the said princes, and that the Kingis lieges, baith 
 be sey and be land, has sustenit gret skaith and dampnage unredressit, and letters of 
 promitt of King Edward and uthers under him bundyn tharfor ; nevertheless, becaus 
 it was understanden be the king that the said abstinence and trewis was desirit be the 
 said Lorde Duc, his cousing, for the gude ese and support of him, yet tharefor the 
 King, his cousing, consentit and aggreit thareto at the emplesance of him, the quhilk he 
 wald nocht have done be na manner of way at the instance of the King of Ingland, con- 
 sidering that he and his people remanys plantwiss on him, and Inglismen unredressit. 
 
 Irem, to schaw to the said Lorde Duc, that sen at the emplesance of him his cousing, 
 the King of Scotland has consentit and taken sic trewis with King Edward for the 
 termez desere be him, that tharefor he write his autentik letters with personis of fame 
 and auctorite to the said King Edward, to mak him redress incontinent the bargh 
 broken at Balmburgh, and the laif of the attemptats that ware adiugit to be redres- 
 sit the last diet haldin at the Newcastel, and sensyne, for thair part, like as the King 
 here is reddy to mak redress for his part; and that he certify King Edward in his said 
 letters, that without redres be made the peple of his realme that ar herijt, hurt, and 
 grevit, cannocht kepe pece in case trewis be never sa sikker bundyn. 
 
 Item, to schaw to the Duke that the King traists it is nocht owt of his mynde how that 
 the merchandis of his realme has license of his fader and of himself to cheiss thare stapill 
 within his Lordschippes in ony toune under him; that tharefor he wald remane in the 
 samyn will to his merchandis, and that thai may have his license and gude will in any 
 toune of his cuntre to chese thar staple, sen thai ar in sumpart grevit in thar previleges 
 in the toune of Bruges, and nocht sa wele tretit be thame as frends suld be, na as thai 
 ar tretit in Scotland quhen thai cum. 
 
 pa 
 
514 APPENDIX. 
 
 Irem, into the matter of Gelrill, the said Schir Alexander Naper sal schaw, in oure 
 Sourane Lordi’s name, to his cousing the Duc of Burgunze, how his grant-schir the Duc 
 of Gelrill, quham God assoilze, wrate til him of late how that his son had cruelly put 
 handis til his person, and takin him and put him in preson, and demainit him, as is wele 
 knawin ; for the quhilk his said son, nor nane that mycht cum of him, mycht never apon 
 law succede til his heritage ; for the quhilk, sen our Sourane Lord was his eldest doch- 
 ter son, he exhortit and requirit him that he wald cum in the cuntrie, or send ane of his 
 brethir, and he suld, with the aviss of nebles and baronis of his land, put him in the full 
 possessioune of his said Duchery, sen he knew him nerrest and maist lachfull heretar 
 til him. 
 
 And now sen the said Duc is decessit, oure Sourane Lord, quhilk be the informatione 
 of his foresaid grant-schir traistand to have full richt to the succession of the same, will 
 nocht labour na put his hand to the said matter withoute counsale and aviss of his said 
 cousing, the Duc of Burgunze, traisting verraly to have throu him supportatione, aide, 
 and supplie in the said matter, and in the recovering of his richt, as he that is als ner of 
 blude til him as ony uther that pretendis to have interess thairto, and sal be mair thank- 
 full till him, baith in the demeinning of that matter and in al utheris, than ony utheris. 
 Apon the quhilk matter, the said Schir Alexander sal require the said-foure Duc of Bur-. 
 gunze that he will in haisty wiss send his entent therapon til oure Sourane Lord, and 
 lat him wyt baith his counsale, directione, and aviss in the said matter, and quhat that he 
 sal traist and lippen therto, sen he has the personage in hand that pretendis to have richt 
 
 or interess therto. 
 
 [The royal signature (James III. )is repeated in the original, because the last item is on a se- 
 parate sheet. ] 
 
a 
 
 APPENDIX. 515 
 
 No: LV. 
 
 [ The Philosopher's Theory of Equations literally translated from the unpublished Latin 
 Manuscript. | 
 
 Cuap. 9.—Or Equations anD THEIR Exponents. 
 
 1. Equation is the collation of the uncertain values of positives [the unknown quanti- 
 ties| with others of equal value, from which the value of the position is demanded. Thus, 
 if for the number or quantity sought any one should place 1 B ignorant of its value, and 
 then, from the hypothesis of the question, should find 3 & equal to 21, thus comparing 
 three things with their equals 21, that collation of equality is termed @quatio ; and from it 
 is inferred, that the value of one thing, or one position, is 7. 
 
 2. Betwixt the parts of an equation that are equal to each other a double line is inter- 
 posed, which is the sign of equation, (signum equationis ;) thus 3 R = 7, which is pro- 
 nounced, one thing equal to seven. 
 
 3. Of equations, some are only of one position, others of more; thus, as an instance of 
 one position, 1aQ + 3a= 10; of more positions, 2Q—la=6. 
 
 4, Again, of equations, some are rude, and may be reduced to lesser terms, more per- 
 spicuous and succinct ; others are called most perfect, which are as perspicuous and suc- 
 cinct as possible. Thus, 3 = 21 is a rude equation, because it may be reduced into 
 the most perfect form, namely, 1K =7. So 5aQ= 20 is a rude equation, because it 
 can be reduced into a more perfect one, namely, laQ=4; but laQ= 4 is also a rude 
 equation, because it may be reduced to one even of the most perfect form, namely, 
 1 a= 2; an art of which I shall treat hereafter. So 12Q+3a=6 is a rude equation, 
 because it can be reduced into the more perfect one, 4Q+la= 2. 
 
 5. Again, of equations, some are simple, some quadrate, some cubic, and some higher. 
 Those are called simple which consist of no more than two orders. Thus, 3B = 27, or 
 1BR=9; so 56Q= 20, are called simple equations. 
 
 6. Of simple equations, some are real, which are things equal to number ; others are 
 radical, which are the equation of quadrates, cubics, or any of the higher orders, to num- 
 ber. Thus, 3R=21, or 1K=7; alsola=3; so2R=,/ Q3—1 are real equations ; 
 but 2Q = 8, also 3C = 24; also laSs= J CQ, &c. are radical equations. 
 
 7. That is a quadratic equation which consists of three proportional orders, thus, 
 2Q43B=4, or 83R=2 Q—4; also laQC— 10=3aQ; also 12—/QIB=1B8. 
 
 8. That is a cubic equation which consists of four proportional orders, thus 1 C—9Q 
 — 24— 26B; also 1 C + 0Q—2R=4; this also, laQC—2aQ=4, is a cubic equa- 
 tion, because, (according to our fourth proposition, c. 6,) collected in this manner, 
 1aQC+0aQQ—2aQ=4, it consists of four orders. 
 
 9, A quadrati-quadratical equation consists of five, a supersolid of six, a quadrati-cubi- 
 cal of seven proportional orders, and so on of all the higher orders in infinitum ; thus 
 2QQ— 28C + 142 Q = 308 K — 240, is a quadrati-quadratical equation; 14 Q Ss — 
 
516 APPENDIX. 
 
 4b QQQ + 16QC—3)Q Q— 10 Q = 121s a supersolid equation; 1laQC—3aSs 
 +2aQQ—6aC+ laQ=1la+6, isa quadrati-cubical equation. 
 
 10. An illusive equation (2/usiva) is that which asserts an impossibility ; and if any 
 one demands an impossibility in an illusive equation, his answer falls; thus 1 B =3 Bis 
 an illusive equation, seeing it is impossible that any thing can be equal to the triple of 
 itself; also 1 Q = 4B — 5 is an illusive equation, seeing that no quadrate can equal four 
 things, or its roots, minus five ; as will be made manifest hereafter. 
 
 11. Exposition (ezpositio) is the reduction of a rude equation to the most perfect and 
 real equation, and that part of the real equation which is equal to one thing is called the 
 exponent (exponens ), and solves the question; thus, when this rude equation 3B = 21, 
 is reduced to this most perfect 1B =7, the exponent of either equation will be 7, be- 
 cause that is equal to one thing, namely, to 1B. Again, this rude equation 5 Q = 20 
 is reduced to this more perfect one 1Q — 4; then to this most perfect and real equation 
 1B=2; now the work of reduction is called exposition, and 2 the exponent, because 
 it is equal to one thing. I shall afterwards teach how the exponent solves the question. 
 
 12. Every equation, except an illusive one, has at least one exponent, valid or invalid. 
 I shall teach this hereafter ; at present it is sufficient to have premised so much. 
 
 13. Valid exponents are those which placed by themselves are noted with this sign 
 +, and are always greater than nothing; but invalid exponents are those which placed 
 by themselves are noted with this sign —, and these are less than nothing, (minora sunt 
 nihilo) ; thus, in this equation 1 B. = 7, seven is a valid exponent, because (as by C. 6, 
 Prop. 1, Lib. 1,) it is understood to be noted with the copula +; but in this real equa- 
 tion 1 = —7, by parity of reasoning the exponent is termed invalid, because it is noted 
 with the copula —, thus — 7, and is less than nothing. 
 
 14. Of exponents, some are capable of being expressed entirely by a single number, 
 others again entirely by a single quantity ; some can only be expressed in a single num- 
 ber, some only in a single quantity ; some partly one way and partly the other, some in 
 neither way. These, with their examples, shall be amply discussed in their order in chapters 
 11;12;tand 13. 
 
 15. Every portion of an equation, subject to one leading sign, is called a term (minzma,) 
 whatever number of signs and terms there may be; the leading and predominant sign is 
 called the ductriz, and the rest are called intermedie ; thus in this equation 1C—3 + ,/ Q2 
 
 +ioet — /Q.6+4+ ,Q1B =0, in which | Cis called a term, and + its ductrix; 
 3R—4 
 
 so 3 is called a term, and — its ductrix ; so ,/ Q 2 is a term, and + its ductrix ; so TOL 
 is a term, and + its ductrix, because its power extends throughout the whole fraction ; but 
 the other signs of this fraction are called intermediates; so / Q.6 + ./ Q1B is called 
 
 a term, and the sign — its ductrix, because its power extends throughout the aggregate value 
 of the whole universal root ; the remaining sign + is called intermediate. 
 
~y 
 
 APPENDIX. 5] 
 
 ~ 
 
 Cuap. 10.—Or THE GENERAL PREPARATION OF EQuations. 
 
 1. Preparation is the reduction of rude equations to more perfect ones, which are 
 afterwards reduced to the most perfect real equations by exposition ; thus 5 a Q = 20 is 
 first prepared, and becomes 1 a Q = 4, then it is expounded 1 a = 2; the modes of pre- 
 paration shall now be laid down; the modes of reducing shall afterwards appear. 
 
 2. Rude equations are prepared and made conspicuous in five ways; by ¢ransposition, 
 abbreviation, dimsion, multiplication, and extraction. Of these modes the rules and examples 
 follow. 
 
 3. If you transfer a term from one part of an equation to the opposite, and prefix the op- 
 posite sign as ductrix, the parts are equal, and this is called transposition : as thus in this 
 equation 4 R — 6 = 5 — 20, if — 20 be transposed from the posterior to the prior 
 part of the equation, and the sign changed in this form, 41. —6 + 20 = 5B; again, 
 transpose 4 B, and you have — 4 B, in this form — 6 + 20 = 5B — 4B; so of this 
 equation 1Q— / Q.3 Q— 2= 3a, transpose — ,/ Q. 3 Q — 2, it becomes + / Q.3 
 Q— 2 inthis form, 1Q=3a+ /Q.3Q—2; and again, transpose 3a, that gives 
 —3ain this form, + Q—3a=VJ/ Q.3 Q—2, and the opposite parts are equal as before. 
 
 4, If (as premised) you transpose all the terms of one side of an equation to the op- 
 posite side, the whole compound will be made equal to nothing, and this is called an 
 equation to nothing ; and, by the 4th prop. 2 c. of this book, ought to be abbreviated : thus, 
 in the above example 4 RB — 6 = 5 B& — 20, transpose 5 B — 20, and you have — 5 & 
 + 20 in this form, 4 RB — 6 — 5} + 20= 0, which abbreviated, becomes — 1 RB, + 14 
 = 0, and is an equation to nothing; so, in the equation 1Q—/Q.3Q—2= 3a, 
 transpose the left side to the right, and you have 0 = —1Q+J/Q.3Q—2+4 34, 
 which is also an equation to nothing. 
 
 5. If the highest unknown quantity have the sign — in front, convert all the ductrices 
 of all the terms, and a more perspicuous equation will be produced; thus, to take the 
 above example, if —1. + 14= 0, consequently + 1R—14= 0; so—1 Q +3a+ /Q. 
 3Q — 2= 0 becomes 1Q — 8a— ¥ Q.83Q—2= 0; so—1L BR—14 oo =" 0» be- 
 
 32 
 comes 1R + Le YO ieee 0. 
 
 6. If you divide all the unknown quantities of the highest order by unity signed with 
 the positive and radical signs of the same order, and then divide the whole equation by 
 the quotient, a perspicuous equation will arise, having the highest order signed with unity. 
 Thus, in the equation 2C—8Q+ 6B = 0, divide the unknown quantity of the highest 
 order, namely, 2 C by 1 C, the quotient is 2; then divide the whole equation by 2, and it 
 becomes 1 C—4Q+ 3B = 0; so, in this equation 3K — y Q2 Q— 6 = 0, the un- 
 known quantities of the highest orders are 3B — / Q 2 Q, which, by 5th prop. c. 4 of 
 this book, are of the same order of power, and their order is of things ; divide, then, 
 3BR— y Q2Q by 1B, or (which is the same thing) by / Q1Q and the quotient is 
 3— JQ 2; by this pecan, nae to 2 prop. c. 11, lib. 1, divide the whole equa- 
 
 tion and you have 1— 3 —*-;—= 0, which, athough it be a fraction, is more 
 
& 
 518 APPENDIX. 
 
 perspicuous than before, in so far as the sign Q is removed ; so, to give a third ex- 
 ample, 1Ra-+1a+1BR—31=0, from which, if you wish to expunge and delete the 
 mixed sign, namely, 1 B a, divide 1 Ra+ 1a, by la,or 1Ra+I1RB, by 1 B, (which- 
 ever you wish to receive in the place of the highest order ;) for example’s sake, Jet 1 BR 
 be taken; divide, then, 1 Ra +1 per 1 B, the quotient will be 1a + 1, by which di- 
 vide the whole equation 1Ra+ 1B + 1a—31=0, and the equation becomes 1R + 1 
 a = 0, which, though a fraction, is more perspicuous than before, in so far as that 
 the mixed sign, which previously was obscure, is removed. 
 
 7. If the lowest order of an equation be an unknown quantity, then divide the whole 
 equation by unity signed with the sign of the lowest order, and there arises a perspicuous 
 equation, having an absolute number in the ‘place of the lowest order; thus, divide 1 C 
 —4Q+3K=0, by unity of the lowest order, namely, by 1 B, and it becomes 1 Q— 
 4BRB+38—0; s083Q—,/ Q2BR=0 divide by / Q 1B, and this equation is obtained, 
 /Q9C— JV Q2= 0, of which the last series is always number. 
 
 8. If any particles of an equation be true fractions, multiply the whole equation by their 
 denominators, and there will be produced an integral equation more perspicuous; thus, 
 
 s 6BR—8 : 5 : : 
 in this equation fopoat 2 = 0, there is a true fraction, though abbreviable; multiply 
 
 then the whole equation by the denominator 1C—3 Band you have2C + 12R— 8 Q=0; 
 so, multiply this equation 1Q sues a = 0 by 3, and you have, in the first place, 
 3Q4+2BR— se 0; multiply this again by 75, and you have 225Q + 150 B — 264= 0, 
 which are integral equations freed of fractions. 
 
 9. If there be in an equation a single root universal, separate it from the rest of the 
 equation, (3d prop.) then multiply each side of the equation together as often as the sign 
 universal denotes, and there will be produced a more perspicuous equation, for it will 
 have no universal signs; thus2Q+3R— ,/Q.12C + 4QQ 4+ 18=— 0, first, by trans- 
 position, becomes 2 Q 4+ 3R =,/Q.12C 4+ 4QQ-+ 18; then let the sides be squared, be- 
 cause the sign universal is ,/ Q.and they become4QQ + 12C+9Q=12C+4QQ + 18; 
 and, consequently, being transposed and abbreviated, become 1Q —2: To give ano- 
 ther example; /C.2RK—6=83B8 the sides being cubically multiplied, become 
 2B — 6 = 27 C; otherwise, 2 R — 27 C—6=0. 
 
 10. If an equation consist of two roots universal similarly radicated, without any other 
 terms, let them be separated by transposition, and multiplied together as often as the 
 sign universal denotes ; and a perspicuous equation will be produced, free of roots univer- 
 sal: thus let /Q.2B 4 5—/Q.83BR—4=0 be separated, and they become yQ.2B 
 4+5= /Q.3B— 4, which quadratically multiplied become 2B + 5= 3B — 4, and, 
 by transposition and abbreviation, 1 B. —9 = 0. 
 
 11. If an equation consist only of two roots universal, dissimilarly radicated, let the 
 universals be separated, and let each side be multiplied together, according to the quality 
 of each sign of the dissimilar universals, and a perspicuous equation, free of universals, 
 
APPENDIX. 519 
 
 will come out; thus, let y Ss.3Q+6—/Q.2B—3=0 be first separated by 
 transposition in this manner, ,/ Ss.3Q + 6=,/Q.2BR—=83; then let the sides be 
 quadrati-supersolide multiplied together, and they become 32 Ss—240 QQ + 720C 
 —1080Q+810K— 243 —9QQ + 36Q + 36, which transposed and abbreviated become 
 32 Ss — 249 QQ + 720 C— 1116 Q + 810 BR — 279 — 0. 
 
 12. If there be two roots universal squared with other simple quantities or uninomes 
 in an equation, separate both the universals with their signs from the rest, and multiply 
 quadratically the two sides together, and an equation comes out, consisting of only one 
 root universal, which also may be removed by prop. 9 of this chapter: thus, if this equa- 
 tion} + J Q.484+1BRB—1Q+4BR—VQ.79— ¢ Q =O, be transposed in this 
 manner, / Q.79—#Q—/Q.48/+1B—1Q=3B + f, then each side being 
 squared become 127 1 + 1B —12?Q— /Q. 15247 + 316 R— 4602 Q— 7 C4 
 3QQ =4iQ+4%+4; transpose and abbreviate this, and it becomes / Q. 15247 + 
 316 B — 4603 Q— 8C + 3QQ= 127 + } R—2 Q, which finally, by prop. 9, become 
 1QQ+4+ 1C— 47 Q— 189B + 892 = 0. 
 
 13. If an equation consist of three roots universal squared, without any other terms, 
 let the two quadrates be separated from the rest by transposition, and the sides be squared, 
 and an equation will be produced of only one universal, to be deleted by prop. 9: thus, 
 let the equation /Q.3R+ 2+ /Q.2B—1— /Q.4R—2-—0, he separated in this 
 manner, /Q.3R—24 /Q.2RB+4+1=,//Q.4K4 2; let the sides be squared, and 
 they become 5h —1 + ,/ Q.6Q—1BR—2= 45 +2; then, by abbreviation, they be- 
 come / Q.6 Q— 1K — 2 -- 3— 1B; afterwards, by prop. 9, they beome, 6Q — 1B 
 —2=1Q—6K+49; and finally, 5 Q + 5R—11=0, otherwise 1 Q + 1R— 2! = 0. 
 
 14. If an equation consist of three universals squared, with one uninome or simple | 
 
 quantity ; let two universals be transposed from the rest, and the sides squared, and 
 an equation is produced of two roots universal to be removed by prop. 12: thus, let the 
 equation /Q. /C2B4+84+ /Q.3R—2—2B—/Q.2Q+41=0, be transposed 
 in this manner, /Q.,/C2B434+/Q.3R—2=2B4 /Q.2Q+1; let the 
 sides be quadratically multiplied together, and they become ,/ Q.,/ C 3456 QQ — vy C 
 1024 B + 86 RB — 244 yC2B4+3B41=6Q41+7Q.32 QQ + 8B, consist- 
 ing of two universals squared, to be deleted by prop. 12. 
 
 15. If an equation consist of four universals squared, without other terms, let two from 
 two be separated by transposition, and the sides squared, which will produce an equation 
 of only two universals to be deleted by prop. 12: thus, let the equation be transposed 
 in this manner, / Q.5Q—2KR—V/Q.10—1IB—~/Q.2BR+6+4+ /Q.1Q+ 4; 
 the sides being squared, give 5Q— 3% + 10— vy Q.208Q— 20C— 80B—1Q+2B 
 +104 /Q8C + 24 Q + 32 B 4+ 96; which consist only of two universals, to be 
 
 deleted by prop. 12. 
 16. Ifasingle universallissima on one side be equalled to a universallissima alone, whether 
 
520 APPENDIX. 
 
 on the other side there be a universal alone, or a universal and uninome together, or 
 uninomes or simple quantities only, multiply the sides together to the qualities of the 
 universal signs, and the wniversallissima sign will be removed, the other universals being 
 removed by the preceding rules: thus, in this equation /Q.10+ /Q.5R—2=y¥ 
 
 Q.34+ /Q.8B +41, universallissima is equalled to universallissima ; let the sides be 
 squared, and they become 10 + ./Q.5B—2=8+ /Q.3B4]or7+ /Q.5BR— 
 2— /Q.3R +41; of which you may delete the universals by prop. 12. Another ex- 
 ample is as follows: Of the equation ,/Q Ss.3+ /Q.2B—1=,/CSs.5+/Q.33—4 
 
 let the sides be multiplied together quadrati-cubice-supersolide, and they become 18 8 + 
 18+ /Q.8C—12Q46BR—1+, Q. 1458 B — 729 = 214.38 + ¥ Q. 300 BR — 
 400, or 15B —34+ /Q.8C—12Q+6BR—1+4/Q. 1458 B — 729 = / Q. 300 
 R — 400, of which the universals cannot be deleted. A third example is as follows. Of 
 the equation / C.84 /Q.2BR—1=, C.20—4B multiply the sides together cubically, 
 and they become 3 + / Q.2B— 1=—20—4B, or /Q.2R—1= 17 — 4B, of which 
 you will delete the universal by prop. 9. 
 
 17. By the same propositions which have been laid down for deleting universals, so 
 may simple irrationals, betwixt rationals, be transposed, multiplied, and then deleted ; 
 thus, let the equation 12 —,/Q 1B = 18 be separated in this manner 12—1 R= ,/Q18; 
 then the sides quadratically multiplied together become 1Q— 24B + 144= 18, or 1Q 
 — 25 BR + 144 — 0, which are entirely rational. ‘Therefore, what has been said of uni- 
 versals in propositions 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, must be understood to apply to simple 
 radical quantities. 
 
 18. If not prepared as above, there is another mode of preparing these equations; for 
 the multiplication of simple irrationals for the most part exhibits more roots than requir- 
 ed; thus, to take the foregoing example, 12 — ,/ Q 1 BR — 1 B, multiplied as above, re- 
 turns the equation 1 Q — 25 B + 144 = 0, which has two valid [positive] roots, namely, 
 16 and 9, when truly the principal equation itself 12 — yQ1B = 15 has only one 
 root, namely, 9, as afterwards will appear ; therefore, that principal equation, unless pre- 
 pared according to prop. 17, may be better and more simply prepared by prop. 20 here- 
 after, as will there be shown. 
 
 19. If, from an equation to 0 there be extracted any true root, (that is, leaving no re- 
 mainder,) that root will be a more succinct equation to 0; thus, from the equation 1 C — 
 6Q+ 12 BR — 8= 0 extract the true cube root, namely, 1 R — 2 — 0, which will be an 
 abbreviated and succinct equation; so from the equation 1 Rh — / Q36B + 9=0 ex- 
 tract the square root, which will be true (dy Cap. 8,) namely, / Q1 BR — 3 = 0, being 
 a more succinct equation. 
 
 ‘«¢ Ther is no more of his algebra orderlie sett doun.”—(Note by Robert Napier to 
 Henry Briggs.) 
 
APPENDIX. 521 
 
 No. V. 
 
 [Kepier’s Letter. | 
 Mlustri et Generoso D. D. Joanni Nepero, Baroni Merchistonij, Scoto. 8. P. D. 
 
 Ceepi superioribus annis in vestibulis Ephemeridum Lectores de Tabularum Rudol- 
 phinarum statu certiores reddere, causasque explicare morarum quas illi crebris et literis et 
 publicis scriptis increpabant: Hac vice, Te, Illustris Baro, compello, seorsim quidem a 
 ceteris, quia sic postulat res ipsa, et liber tuus, cui titulus, Mirificus Logarithmorum 
 Canon: publicé tamen, quia que tecum confero, illa ad omnium lectorum notitiam pertinent. 
 
 Quod igitur moris meis rursum unus accessit annus, preter generales illas quae hactenus 
 me impedierunt, singulares etiam in hunec annum cause concurrerunt: quarum aliquas 
 fama publica loquitur, Bella et cometas, aliquas preedixi aut tetigi in vestibulis Ephemeridum 
 in annos 1617 et 1619, que anno 1618 prodierunt; scilicet editionem librorum V. Harmo- 
 nices Mundi: que sola editio (ut non adnumerem precedentem illorum elucubrationem) 
 me per annum solidum tenuit occupatum; absoluta tamen est, favente supremo Mundi 
 totius Harmosta, necquicquam fremente et infrendente et horridé admodum interstrepente 
 Bellon’ cum Bombardis Tubis et Taratantaris suis: ut nisi nos etiamnum vel hee Diva 
 obsederit domi forisvé, vel Mercurialium tergiversationes destituerint, (ut accidit in altera 
 parte Epitomes seu doctrina Theorica, in qua Typi non ultra primam paginam progressicon- 
 quieverunt hactenus:) exemplaria tam Harmonicorum, quam descriptionis Cometarum (qu 
 jam in tertiam mensem heret Auguste) his Autumnalibus nundinis Francofurto habere 
 possint ij, quibus cordi est, Opera manuum Dei, mentis lumine collustrata, penitus intueri. 
 
 Princeps verd causa, que progressibus meis in condendis Tabulis hoc anno intercur- 
 rit, est, nova plané sed fcelix calamitas Tabularum partis 4 me jam dudum perfectzx liber 
 scilicet ille tuus, Illustris Baro; quem Edimburgi in Scotia impressum ante annos V., 
 primum vidi Prage ante biennium; perlegere tamen non potui: donec superiori anno, 
 nactus libellum Benjaminis Ursini, mei dudum domestici, nunc Astronomi Marchici (quo 
 ille rei summam ex tuo libro transcriptam verbis brevissimis comprehendit) quid rei 
 esset cognoscerem. Vix autem uno tentato exemplo, deprehendi magna gratulatione, 
 generale factum abs te exercitium ilud numerorum, cujus ego particulam exiguam jam 
 >} multis annis in usu habebam, Tabularumq. partem facere proposueram ; preecipué in 
 negotio Parallaxium et scrupulorum durationis et more in eclipsibus, cujus methodi 
 exemplum hee ipsa Ephemeris exhibet. Sciebam equidem, illi mez methodo locum non 
 esse, nisi ubi arcus 4 rectis nihil sensibile differrent: at illud ignorabam, ex secantuum 
 excessibus fieri posse Logarithmos, qui methodum hance universalem faciant, per omnem 
 arcuum longitudinem. Satagebat igitur animus ante omnia videre, num etiam exquisiti 
 essent in Ursini libello Logarithmi. Usus igitur opera Jani Gringalleti Sabaudi, domes- 
 tici mei, jussi millesimam sinus totius auférre ; a residuo rursum millesimam, idque plus 
 quam bis millies ; donec de sinu toto restaret pars decima circiter ; sinus, vero, qui ami- 
 
 3 U 
 
529 APPENDIX. 
 
 sisset millesimam totius, Logarithmum curiosissimé constitui, orsus ab unitate divisionis 
 illius qua Pitiscus utitur numerosissima, quippe duodecim ordinum: hune sic constitutum 
 Logarithmum adnumeravi residuis omnium substractionum ex equo. Itaque deprehensum 
 est, ad rei summam nihil illis deesse Logarithmis; errores vero incidisse pauculos, vel 
 typi, vel in distributione illa minuta Logarithmorum maximorum circa principium qua- 
 drantis. Hee te obiter scire volui, ut quibus tu methodis incesseris, quas non dubito et 
 plurimas et ingeniosissimas tibi in promptu esse, eas publici juris fieri, mihi saltem (puto 
 et ceteris) scires fore gratissimum; eoque percepto, tua promissa folio 57, in debitum 
 cecidisse intelligeres. 
 
 Nune ad tabulas propitis. Vix tandem enim hoc ipso Julio mense Lincium allato ex- 
 emplari libri tui, ut ad fol. 28 legendo perveni: considerare coepi occasione tui consilil ; 
 num fortasse sufficiant sole epochz, et deductiones motuum mediorum, et magnitudines 
 Eccentricitatum semidiametrorumque et tui Logarithmi ; equationum vero tabule penitus 
 possint omitti, quippe que meris additionibus vel substractionibus facilime perficiantur ? 
 Atqui res habet paulo aliter. Primum, non omnis molestia cum multiplicatione et divi- 
 sione sinuum sublata est: restat etiamnum attentio et cautele varie, circa usum additio- 
 num et divisionum, que succedunt sublatis ; ubi non tantum hebetiores, sed enim ingenio- 
 sissimos interdum contingit hallucinari: quibus utrisque tam ad sublevandam memoriam, 
 quam ad redimendum tempus, succurrendum est per tabulas wquationum, que summam 
 ejus, quod Logarithmorum tractationibus elicitur, proximis numeris debitam, statim ad 
 primum intuitum exhibeant. Sané quo consilio Logarithmos ipsos in libello communica~ 
 mus, cium possent illi computari ab uno quolibet modum edocto, idque longé faciliis quam 
 sinus, eodem consilio et tabulas condimus zquationum. Deinde cim duz sint classes, 
 prior eccentri equationum, posterior Orbis magni (seu Ptolemzo, Epicycli:) neutrobique 
 neque eccentricitates, neque semidiametri, quod tu presupponis, constantem tuentur mag- 
 nitudinem; frustra hic respectamus antiquam formam; Braheane nos observationes aliud 
 docuerunt. Vera quidem itineris planetarii eccentricitas constans est ; at zequantis (vete- 
 ribus dicti) eccentricitas, si quis hac potius, quam mea forma computandi, velit uti, varia- 
 bilis erit perpetud: aut non exacta nec nature vestigiis insistens prodibit altera pars equa- 
 tionis. Rursum semper quidem est eadem maxima orbite planetarie diameter: at non 
 omnes diametri per omnem ambitum sunt equales, quippe orbit planetarum sunt ellipti- 
 
 ex. Quod vero attinet classem equationum alteram ibi neque orbis magni neque Epicycli 
 Ptolemaici semidiametri constans usurpari potest; h. e. ut ad formam loquar astronomie 
 reformate, variabilis est distantia Solis 4 Terra, variabilis et distantia planet a Sole: nec 
 potest pro sole punctum aliquod soli vicinum eligi, quod semper distet a terra equaliter ; nisi 
 motum ejus circa terram ineequabilem velimus admittere, majore incommodo. Itaque in 
 triangulo inter terram solem et planetam latera duo data, sunt utraque variabilia. Qua de 
 caus’ ratio talis mihi fuit ineunda hactenus, ut duz essent pro uno quolibet planeta tabu- 
 le, altera indicis (intellige indicem proportionis, datorum laterum summe ad differentiam) 
 
 altera anguli (Elongationis a Sole) cum indice et anomalid commutationis excerpendi. 
 4 
 
APPENDIX. 523 
 
 Hee illa pars est tabularum, ad tuos Logarithmos reformanda. Nam si meos exhibeam in- 
 dices, non poterunt ii servire volenti computare per ipsa triangula, nisi is multiplicaverit 
 indicem in tangentem dimidiz anomalia commutationis. At si pro indicibus ponam Lo- 
 garithmos, ii tantummodo adduntur ad ejusdem dimidie anomalize medium Logarithmi- 
 cum. Indices igitur convertendi sunt in Logarithmos ; ut quod singuli seepissimé facere 
 deberent, detrahere scilicet Logarithmum summe laterum a Logarithmo differenti: id a 
 me uno semel fiat. Anguli vero tabula de nova est condenda, et accommodande are seu 
 elongationes a Sole, ad equales saltus Logarithmorum; que prius respondebant xqualibus 
 saltibus indicum. Quo ratione et responsus utrinque wxquabilior, et tota Tabula Anguli 
 brevior multo fieri poterit: manebitque forma cruciformis ingressus, et correctio per partem 
 proportionalem, usitata hactenus, pro iis, qui ea volent esse contenti. At cum omnis cru- 
 ciformis excerptio, ob multiplicationem logisticam duplicem, sit teediosa et cerebrosa: lo- 
 gista illam effugere poterit per tractionem Logarithmorum expeditissimam, quippe accu- 
 ratis Logarithmis opus erit minimeé: nihiloque minus tabulaanguli, summam quesite proxi- 
 mam ob oculos statuens, logistam in usu Logarithmorum non patietur aberrare. Mult 
 vero maxima solicitudine circa latitudines me liberant tui Logarithmi: absque his enim si 
 fuisset, duorum alterum necessarium fuisset, aut ut Logistam ad parallacticam meam re- 
 mitterem, insertam mez astronomiz parti optice, imperato duplici quadrato ingressu, ve- 
 rius duplici cruce, nec id satis accurato successu: aut certé, ut duas insuper pro quolibet 
 Planeta conderem tabulas latitudinis eque prolixas prioribus: unam indicis latitudinarii, 
 alteram latitudinis ipsius. Opus ipsum longissimi temporis et fastidiosi laboris, usus ejus 
 intricatus fuisset. AT NUNC MELIUS EsT. Facile per data, duos excerpemus Logarithmos, 
 eorumque differentiam addemus medio Logarithmico inclinationis locorum eccentri, quod 
 exhibebitur ex tabuld cujusque planeta ; summa confecta, ut medium Logarithmicum, ex 
 Canone exhibebit latitudinem: scrupulosis Logarithmis opus erit rarissimé. Et ne quis 
 dubitet, hoc equidem artificio Ephemeris ista confecta est; eoque tibi, Illustris Baro, jure 
 inscribitur. Ita Logarithmi tui necessario pars fient tabularum Rodolphi; prius tamen in 
 officina mea recusi: eritque cur sibi gratulentur astronomici de moris meis. Tu si quid 
 commodius habes, ejus me queso participem primo quoque tempore facito; quod item 
 et Astronomie Professores, ut dudum privatis literis aliquos, sic nunc publicé universos, 
 rogatos volo. Vale Illustris Baro; et hance compellationem, ab inferioris conditionis ho- 
 mine, ex usu communium studiorum estima. Lentiis ad Istrum. V. Cal. Sextiles Anno 
 MDCXIX, 
 Illustris generositatis tue observantissimus, 
 JoANNES KEPPLERUS. 
 
524 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 Reply to some Erroneous Historical Passages relating to Levenax and Menteith. 
 
 THE most remarkable fact in the history of our Philosopher’s lineage is one little 
 known, but possessing no slight degree of historical interest. He was, through a female, 
 de jure, an Ear] of that ancient race of Levenax, from which his family, as stated in the 
 Memoirs, claimed a lineal male cadency. By a royal deed, dated at Edinburgh 26th 
 March 1455, and still preserved among the Merchiston papers, James II of Scotland 
 bestowed upon John, the son and heir of his master of household, Sir Alexander 
 Napier, the maritagium of Elizabeth Menteith. That is to say, the King gifted him 
 with the casualty of her marriage, due, by the feudal customs, to the sovereign su- 
 perior in consequence of the succession of the daughters of Sir Murdoch Menteith to 
 the family estates. The gift was, in fact, part of the settlements of a marriage which 
 took place not long afterwards. ‘The young lady was one of two very interesting and 
 high-born wards whose persons and estates had come, by feudal incident at that time 
 in full force, under the guardianship of King James, about the middle of the fifteenth cen- 
 tury. Elizabeth and Agnes were the sole surviving children, and consequently co-heir- 
 esses, of Sir Murdoch Menteith of Rusky, son of Sir Robert Menteith, and Lady Mar- 
 garet, second daughter of Duncan eighth Earl of Levenax. Sir Murdoch was heir-male 
 of those Earls of Menteith whose honours, which flowed in a female line of succession, 
 set so deeply in blood upon the same scaffold where the venerable Earl Duncan died. 
 Thus these young ladies came to inherit between them one-half of the whole comitatus 
 of Levenax, besides goodly baronies in “ the varied realms of fair Menteith.” 
 
 Our best historians have sadly confused the history of the Levenax. Not to mention 
 others of less note, Dr Robertson tells us that Earl Duncan beheaded by James I. was 
 forfeited, and his possessions added to the crown. Mr Tytler, whose excellent history is still 
 in the course of publication, has adopted the error of Dr Robertson. ‘ These execu- 
 tions,” says he, “ were followed by the forfeiture to the crown, of the immense estates 
 belonging to the family of Albany and to the Karl of Lennox ; a seasonable supply of re- 
 venue,” &c. (iii, 227.) No authority is quoted by these historians in support of their 
 assertion, and it is curious to observe the careless manner in which both of them again 
 introduce an Earl of Lennox upon the restless stage of Scotland’s miserable commotions, 
 without any explanation of the revival of the honours, and at periods too, when, in point 
 of fact, no one had resumed them. But how came the Levenax to pass by inheritance, 
 and be taken by services and retours to this very Earl Duncan, if his estates were for- 
 feited to the crown? This important question our historians have never considered. ‘The 
 truth is, Earl Duncan suffered no attainder in title or estates. There is no proof that he 
 did,—there is unquestionable proof that he did not. Of this our limits only admit of a 
 summary notice. 
 
 1. Earl Duncan’s eldest daughter and heiress, Isabella, was married to Murdoch, eldest 
 
APPENDIX. 525 
 
 son of Robert Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland. * By the marriage settlements the 
 comitatus of the Levenax was vested in this lady, in the event of her father leaving no 
 legitimate son, and failing her it vested in her two sisters, as heirs-general of Earl Duncan. 
 Isabella, now Duchess of Albany, was bereft of her father, her husband, and her family, 
 by the executions above-mentioned. In virtue, however, of the family settlements, that 
 lady kept possession of the whole estates of the Levenax,—exercised without challenge the 
 rights of feudal chief,—resided on the Island of Inchmurrin in Lochlomond, being the prin- 
 cipal messuage,—granted many charters of lands belonging to the comitatus,—and in those 
 charters used the style “ Isabel Duchess of Albany and Countess of the Levenax,” and all 
 this for about thirty years, the period she survived her father. 
 
 2. This state of possession was not only not disturbed by the sovereign but expressly 
 acknowledged by him. In the great chamberlain rolls preserved in the Register-House, 
 and bearing date from 16th July 1455, to 7th October 1456,—being the royal accounts in 
 which the King’s interests are particularly attended to,—there is an entry which unequivo- 
 cally declares the King’s interest in the lands of the Levenax to be simply that of Over- 
 lord,—which expressly recognizes the countess under that title, calling her antiquacomitissa 
 de Lenax ; acknowledges the casualty of relief to have been paid, and the issuing of a pre- 
 cept of seisin to the heir ; and complains of continued non-entry at the same time that she 
 is enjoying the fruits. 
 
 3. This was not a mere personal indulgence to the Duchess. Her liferent rights hav- 
 ing fallen by her death, the comitatus came, not to the crown, but to the representatives 
 of her two sisters; which representatives made up their titles, and took as hetrs-general of 
 Earl Duncan, who, as those titles expressly bear, died at the faith and peace of the King ; an 
 expression which, under the circumstances, can only mean that that nobleman did not pe- 
 rish for treason, and was not forfeited. The original titles of these representatives are still 
 extant, and were confirmed by successive sovereigns from generation to generation. In 
 virtue of these titles it was that the romantic country, with which our historians have en- 
 riched the crowns of the early Jameses, continued to descend through the heirs-general of 
 Earl Duncan. These were the representatives of his remaining daughters, Margaret and 
 Elizabeth, co-heiresses after the failure of the rights of Duchess Isabella. Margaret, the 
 elder, was represented by the family of Rusky; Elizabeth, the youngest, by the family of 
 Dernely. Elizabeth Menteith, the eldest co-heiress of Rusky, transmitted her lands in the 
 
 * Every historian, from Fordun to Mr Tytler, without any exception that I am aware of, has record- 
 ed that the Regent, Robert Duke of Albany, died 3d September 1419, I find, however, in the Regis- 
 ter of the Great Seal in the Register-House, a charter of confirmation by James I. dated at Edinburgh, 
 August 29, 1430, of a charter “ avunculi sut Roberti Ducis Albania,” which charter of Duke Robert 
 is dated “ apud Falkland, August 4, 1420, an. gub, 15.” This clears up a difficulty started by Pinker- 
 ton, that in the records the year 1423 is called an. gub. 3. of Duke Murdoch. Pinkerton explains this 
 by the inference that, although Duke Robert died in 1419, his son Murdoch was not recognized as Re- 
 gent until 1420. 
 
526 APPENDIX. 
 
 Levyenax, and her right to the earldom, to the Inventor of Logarithms, her lineal male 
 representative. Agnes, her younger sister, transmitted her share to Haldane of Glen- 
 eagles; and the lands came to the Earl of Camperdown as heir of entail of Gleneagles. 
 Dernely, who eventually usurped the Earldom of Levenax from the elder branch, 
 Rusky, but still through the semblance of a service to Earl Duncan, transmitted that 
 usurped title to James VI. 
 
 These proofs rest upon original records extant; and more could be added, But 
 in one word, we put it to historians, how came the Inventor of Logarithms to speak of 
 “‘ my landis in the Lennos,” if, as they have recorded, those very lands were added to the 
 crown when Earl Duncan died ? 
 
 Another error has found its way into history in reference to this Earldom, and that is, 
 that Earl Duncan left a legitimate son, his heir, who is now represented ! This is record- 
 ed by Mr Chalmers in that excellent work the Caledonia, but most incautiously from an 
 ex parte compilation, of a modern date, by an antiquarian lawyer who wrote on behalf 
 of Miss Lennox of Woodhead. The family of Woodhead (now represented by Mr 
 Kincaid of Kincaid) unquestionably descends from Donald of Ballcorrach, ason of Earl 
 Duncan. But it is just as unquestionable that he was an dllegitimate son. 
 
 1. According to the proofs already alluded to, Earl Duncan’s honours and estates pas- 
 sed to his daughter, and in virtue of an investiture wherein she was expressly postponed to 
 any legitimate son of her father. Yet the Donald in question was then alive, and held 
 lands in the Earldom as the vassal of his sister, whom he acknowledges for his superior. 
 
 2. The comitatus was afterwards divided between the other daughters of Earl Duncan, 
 as his co-heiresses, without challenge from Donald, or his lineal male representative, who 
 continued to hold subordinate rights in the Levenax. 
 
 3. There is an original charter under the great seal, dated 25th August 1423, and 
 preserved in the Register-House, where Duchess Isabella is styled “ Harepem Comitatus 
 de Lenax.” Of this date the Donald in question was holding lands in the Levenax from 
 his father Earl Duncan. 
 
 4, There is an original charter (preserved in the Brisbane charter chest) by Earl 
 Duncan, dated 12th August 1423, and relating to lands adjoining Donald’s estate, which 
 is witnessed by “ Malcolmo Thoma, et Donaldo filius nostris naturalibus.” * 
 
 5. There is extant an ancient charter seal of this Donald’s, which carries the arms of 
 Levenax. But not the pure arms, nor yet with the label of an heir, but with a star on 
 the centre of the cross. Enough has been said to meet the ridiculous pretension of 
 Woodhead. More might be said; but, in one word, how came the Inventor of Lo- 
 garithms to possess so much of the Levenax, if Earl Duncan left a son and heir, who is 
 still represented ? 
 
 The claim of Lord Napier to the honours of Levenax has been presented to his Ma- 
 jesty. A case for his Lordship will be published, containing a complete history of the 
 
 * Discovered by Mr Riddell. See that gentleman’s notes to his Reply to Dr Hamilton of Bardowie. 
 
APPENDIX. 527 
 
 partition of the comitatus, with the proofs of Dernely’s usurpation, and of the seniority 
 of Elizabeth Menteith of Rusky, (through whom Napier claims the Earldom,) to her sis- 
 ter Agnes, the ancestress of Gleneagles. * 
 
 Next to his rights m “ the Levenax,” our philosopher’s patrimonial connection with 
 “the Menteith” possesses historical interest. The name of Napier-Rusky is still fa- 
 miliar to those who inhabit the beautiful vale of the Teith. The family of Rusky, the 
 honours of whose eldest co-heiress descended to Napier, flowed from “* Sir John de Me- 
 neteth,” second son of Walter Earl of Menteith, who was third son of Walter, High 
 Steward of Scotland. This lineal ancestor of our philosopher has been most ground- 
 lessly maligned; and to remove an idle calumny from the honourable house of Menteith, 
 is to clear history of a blot anda fable. Who, in his reminiscences of nursery lore, is un- 
 mindful of the Wallace wight, and his false friend the traitor Menteith ? 'To the nursery 
 should that fable be confined. 
 
 Some vague and scanty expressions of certain old chronicles, furnishing no details, and 
 beyond the reach of cross-examination, had, in the progress of centuries and through 
 the mists of the cloister, become magnified into popular obloquy against Sir John Men- 
 teith. The tragic fate of Wallace, moreover, created a predisposition to sacrifice great 
 names to the manes of the patriot; and at length our philosopher’s ancestor, (called 
 for the occasion the bosom friend of Wallace,) obtained infamous celebrity. Lorp 
 Hares, to whom the annals of his country are so deeply indebted,—who may be 
 said to have destroyed a school of chroniclers with us, who, affecting an air of re- 
 search, were apt to put forth the most unwarrantable assumptions,—Lord Hailes, 
 whose fastidious accuracy, and philosophical impartiality, created a new era in the his- 
 torical department of Scottish letters, —paused at this popular condemnation of a baron, 
 who ranked so high among the noble and virtuous of his country, and, struck with the 
 illustration afforded of the peculiar vice he laboured to eradicate, recorded his doubts 
 and his dissent. None could more critically appreciate those meagre remnants of an- 
 cient chronicles, which have been said to couple the name of Menteith with the most 
 dishonourable odium of the fate of Wallace; but he tested their truth, or their mean- 
 ing, by the authentic facts of the distinguished career of Menteith, and satisfied him- 
 self that the slight expressions of chroniclers on the subject must be more rationally 
 explained, than by making that individual baron the scape-goat for the nearly universal 
 inconstancy, and disaffection, by which the nobles of Scotland sacrificed her single patriot. 
 Above all, Lord Hailes scorned the fables of a mendicant minstrel of the fifteenth cen- 
 tury, yclept Blind Harry, who took the ill-fated Wallace for the hero of his muse. Our 
 great annalist, whose acumen was unrivalled in that walk of letters, at once perceived 
 that to the inventive genius of that rude poet might be traced all the faitour colouring 
 
 * For the most accurate antiquities of the Levenax, see Cartularium de Levenaz, edited, with a 
 historical preface, for the Maitland Club, by Mr Dennistoun of Dennistoun, 1833. 
 
528 APPENDIX. 
 
 cast upon Menteith, which time has served to deepen ; and the few remarks he could 
 afford, upon so minute a point in his Annals, are chiefly confined to an exposé of the fact 
 that no contemporary authority exists for the prevalent allegation, so essential to the ca- 
 lumny, that Menteith was the personal friend of Wallace, and then basely betrayed him. 
 ‘«‘ Sir John Menteith,” says Lord Hailes, “ was of high birth, a son of Walter Stewart 
 Earl of Menteith. At this time the important fortress of Dumbarton was committed to 
 his charge by Edward. That he had ever any intercourse of friendship or familiarity 
 with Wallace, Iam yet to learn. So, indeed, is said by Blind Harry, whom every his- 
 torian copies, yet whom no historian but Sir Robert Sibbald will venture to quote. It 
 is most improbable that Wallace should have put himself in the power of a man whom 
 he knew to be in an office of distinguished trust under Edward ; but it is probable that 
 Wallace may have been committed to the castle of Dumbarton, where Menteith com- 
 manded. The rest of the story may have arisen from common fame, credulity, the spirit 
 of obloquy, and the love of the marvellous.”—Annals, Vol. i. p. 281. 
 
 Blind Harry, whose surname has escaped all human record, found an able and enthu- 
 siastic editor in Dr Jamieson; no match, however, for Lord Hailes, in the walk of an- 
 tiquities, to which both were attached. With the natural leaning of an editor, Dr Ja- 
 mieson, though he candidly admits the fabulous tendency of the minstrel in general, is 
 anxious to redeem the main incident of the poem, and to place it among the stores of 
 authentic history. This he attempts, not by fortifying the fact with proofs, but by chal- 
 lenging the critique of Lord Hailes, in a vein of flimsy and fallacious controversy that 
 is not difficult to answer.—(See Notes to Dr Jamieson’s Wallace and Bruce.) 
 
 Mr Tytler, in his History of Scotland, instead of expanding Lord Hailes’s remarks, 
 has treated his readers with an elaborate rifaciménto of Dr Jamieson’s controversial note, 
 to which he has added nothing of any consequence, except a most unmeasured increase of 
 the disrespectful tone assumed towards Lord Hailes by the editor of Blind Harry.* Our 
 limits are too confined for long quotations and a minute critical exposition. At present 
 no more can be done than to offer what may suffice to justify our remarks. 
 
 The case against Menteith is, that he was the especial friend of Wallace, and then 
 basely and meanly betrayed him,—or there is no case at all. Every reader of Scotch 
 history knows this. Nearly all the nobles of Scotland (including Bruce and Randolph, 
 who were among the noblest,) were, during the feverish state of subjugation under which 
 Scotland suffered, alternately false to their country, and faithless to their conqueror. If 
 
 * Mr Tytler’s note is prefixed to Volume Ist of his History of Scotland, and commences, “ I have else- 
 where observed that Lord Hailesis fond of displaying his ingenuity in whitewashing“dubious characters ; 
 and that, with an appearance of hypercritical accuracy in his remarks upon other historians, he is often 
 glaringly inaccurate himself.” The charge of whitewashing is bold froma Tytler. Our historian really 
 adds nothing to the critique of Dr Jamieson. He only quotes in addition two old English chronicles, 
 the Scala Chronicle, which actually says nothing to the point at all; and Langtoft, which, so far as it 
 is intelligible, refers the friendship and treachery, not to Menteith, but to one Jack Short, a retainer of 
 Wallace’s. 
 
APPENDIX. 529 
 
 Sir John Menteith had acted the same part, (which he did not,) still there would be no 
 ground for making him the political traitor par excellence. Accordingly, that is not the 
 charge against him. He is charged with peculiar perfidy towards Wallace. He is made the 
 Judas of profane history. This is the charge upon which alone Mr Tytler can say, that “ it 
 was natural that the voice of popular tradition should continue from century to century to 
 execrate the memory of such a man.” ‘This is the charge which Lord Hailes said was not 
 proved, and without proof of which the calumny is baseless. True, certain old chroni- 
 cles couple, in a few words, the name of Sir John Menteith with the capture of the 
 patriot. But Scotland was then completely under the yoke of Edward, and Men- 
 teith was at the head of the executive in the district where Wallace was captured ; 
 and held, for England, the castle of Dumbarton, to which Wallace was at first con- 
 veyed. This fact is sufficient to account for the names of Menteith and Wallace being so 
 coupled, and for the poetical fiction of Blind Harry. Dr Jamieson admits it to be so, when 
 he says, “ But at this time, we are told, (by Lord Hailes,) the important fortress of Dum- 
 barton was committed to his (Menteith’s) charge by Edward; here it would seem the 
 learned writer fights the poor minstrel with his own weapons; for I find no evidence of 
 this fact in the Foedera, Hemingford, or the decem Scriptores ; and Lord Hailes refers to 
 no authority, so that there is reason to suspect, to use his own language, that he here 
 ‘ copies’ what is said by Blind Harry, whom no historian but Sir Robert Sibbald will 
 venture to quote ; if Harry’s narrative be received as authority, it is but justice to receive 
 his testimony as he gave it.” ‘The affectation of considering Lord Hailes as having bor- 
 rowed this important fact from Blind Harry, the very authority he was crushing, can 
 never rank higher than a sneer. We are content to select this passage as the test of the 
 critique of Harry’s editor. Had the Doctor read the Annals he must have found that Lord 
 Hailes relies upon official records for the fact. He quotes Ryley, Placita Parlamentaria, 
 repeatedly, both in reference to the circumstances attending the capture of the patriot, 
 and also the settlement of Scotland at that period. He gives, in his notes, extracts from 
 that record, and shows not only that King Edward then appointed Menteith sheriff 
 of that county, but that he had continued him in the command of Dumbarton Castle, 
 which Menteith had previously held for England! Which, then, is right? Dr Jamie- 
 son with his sneer, or Lord Hailes with Ryley? Let us attend for a moment to 
 facts and dates. In the year 1303, Comyn and others assembled a large force before 
 Stirling for the purpose of protecting that fortress from reduction by Edward I. The 
 aged but invincible monarch, who was there in person, dispersed them without difficulty, 
 and Comyn and his followers formally submitted to the conqueror, 9th February 1303-4. 
 At this time, Menteith was still an adherent of Edward’s, and not with Comyn. After 
 this victory, Edward assembled a parliament at St Andrews, from whence he issued a sum- 
 mons to the garrison of Stirling, which refused to surrender, and that memorable siege 
 commenced on the 23d April 1804. The castle surrendered on the 20th of July follow- 
 ing. It was in 1805 that Wallace was captured, and he was executed in London upon 
 the 23d August of that year. Now I find among the transcripts of ancient deeds in the 
 3x 
 
530 APPENDIX. 
 
 Advocates’ Library, the grant from Edward I. to Sir John Menteith of the sheriffdom and 
 castle of Dumbarton ; and it calls upon all the subjects of the conqueror to be vigilant 
 in aiding, and faithful in obedience to, Menteith in his important jurisdiction. It is dated 
 20th March at St Andrews. No year is mentioned, but unquestionably it is March 
 1303-4, when Edward was at St Andrews before the siege of Stirling, which occurred 
 in the following month.* This deed appears to have escaped Lord Hailes, but it proves 
 that he was not deceived in his reliance upon Ryley. There, in the meantime, we leave 
 Blind Harry’s editor. 
 Now we venture to say that Mr Tytler would have been better and more safely occu- 
 pied in redeeming Lord Hailes from such an attack, than in repeating Dr Jamieson. Has 
 our excellent historian himself always carefully read the annals he impugns ? We fear he 
 has not, if we may judge from the fact that he has quoted them hastily and inaccurately. 
 There is a spurious chronicle, of which no one can give a distinct account, called Rela- 
 tiones Arnaldi Blair, in which it is said that, upon a certain occasion in the year 1298, 
 Menteith, Wallace, and some others, went together in arms upon a warlike expedition. 
 The passage asserts nothing about friendship between Menteith and Wallace, beyond the 
 bare allegation that they were in arms together. Lord Hailes, in his Annals, takes 
 this authority and destroys it. He convicts it of anachronism, inconsistency, and im- 
 probability ; and very properly rejects it as worthless. Now, both Dr Jamieson and Mr 
 Tytler quote this passage against Lord Hailes, meagre and inconsequential though it 
 be, as if it had entirely escaped the observation of the annalist; while the fact is, that he 
 examined the authority critically, and his antagonists have not. Again, the object in 
 quoting this authority against Lord Hailes is to establish the fact of friendship at one time 
 existing between Menteith and Wallace. ‘This it by no means does, even could it be 
 relied upon. If any thing, it proves a solitary instance of military intercourse or co- 
 operation, but nothing more ; and the whole ‘calumny against Menteith depends upon the 
 allegation of a base breach of private friendship. Here, again, we are constrained to say, 
 that Mr Tytler has not read the Annals. He exclaims, “ Hailes has also remarked, that 
 he has yet to learn that Menteith had ever any intercourse on friendship and familiarity 
 with Wallace; yet that Menteith acted in concert with Wallace is proved by the fol- 
 lowing passage from Bower, preserved in Relationes Arnaldi Blair.” Now what Lord 
 Hailes says is something quite different, though a very little word makes that difference. 
 He says, that he has “yet to learn that Menteith had ever any intercourse oF friendship 
 or familiarity,” &c. A proof of their having upon one occasion acted in concert would 
 not prove the friendship alleged, but would certainly contradict an assertion of “ no inter- 
 course or friendship and familiarity ;” such proof, however, manifestly would not meet the 
 allegation of “ no intercourse of friendship or familiarity.” Now, friendly and familiar 
 
 * Wodrow’s MSS. Jac. Vol. i. 14, No. 9, referring to the original in the Tower. “ Edwardus,” &c. 
 “ universis et singulis tenentibus ceterisque jidelibus nostris de castro de villa et de vicecomitatu de Dun- 
 bretan,” &c. “ custodiam castri ville et vicecomitatus predictorum cum omnibus pertinentiis suis dilecto 
 et fideli nostro Johanni de Meneteth nos commississe noveritis,’ &c. “ Dat apud villam Sancti An- 
 dree xx Marti.” 
 
 ae es 
 
APPENDIX 531 
 
 intercourse is just what Lord Hailes denies. This he elsewhere shows pointedly by putting 
 the word friend in Italics,—an ocular emphasis which I do not find preserved in Mr Tyt- 
 ler’s quotation of that passage. 
 
 But our historian, with regret we say it, has, in respect of Sir John Menteith, forsaken 
 his true mistress, the Genius of History, to follow that false Duessa, partial controversy. 
 He has omitted to record the historical facts of Menteith’s career. He has recorded that 
 “« Sir John de Menteith, a Scottish baron who had served along with and under Wallace against 
 the English, deserted his country, swore homage to Edward; and employed a servant of 
 Wallace to betray his master into his hands; that he seized him in bed,” &c. and from 
 these violent assumptions our historian deduces his moral remark, that “ it was na- 
 tural that the voice of popular tradition should continue from century to century to eze- 
 erate the memory of such a man.” But to no redeeming point in the long career of Men- 
 teith,—to no circumstance, however authentic and within the pale of legitimate history, 
 which might contradict this mixture of fable and calumny, does he even slightly allude. 
 Let us turn again to facts and dates. 
 
 Mr Tytler, in his own history, particularly records the battle of Dunbar gained by 
 the Earl of Surrey in the year 1296; and also the fact that the principal Scottish no- 
 bility, there taken prisoners, ‘‘ were immediately sent in chains to England, where they 
 were for the present confined to close confinement in different Welsh and English castles; 
 after some time the king compelled them to attend him in his wars in France, but even 
 this partial liberty was not allowed them till their sons were delivered into his hands as 
 hostages.” But our historian, while he particularizes other nobles, does not record that 
 Sir John Menteith was one of these prisoners ; and that, so far from there being the slightest 
 evidence that he was among the first to bend to the conqueror, his name does not occur 
 in that degrading document the Ragman Roll. ‘There can be no question that this is the 
 true history of Menteith’s involuntary allegiance to Edward I. In the Rotuli Scotie 
 will be found, under date 30th July 1297, the mandate of the English monarch, that the 
 “© magnates” of Scotland, taken at Dunbar, should be liberated, and have their lands 
 again, as they were about to perform military service in France and elsewhere. It will be 
 remembered that this was the expedition in reference to which Edward said to Hum- 
 phrey Bohun, the haughtiest earl in England, “ Sir Karl, by God, you shall either 
 go or hang.” Sir John Menteith is one of the Scotch nobles particularly mentioned 
 as being released upon the condition of foreign service. Nor is this all. The Fa- 
 dera afford the very terms of the oath which Menteith was compelled to take. Up- 
 on the 9th day of August 1297, Comyn was, by the king’s command, released from 
 prison, and made to swear with his hand on the holy Scripture, that he would ac- 
 company Edward to France against his enemies, and serve him faithfully according 
 to the terms of a formal written obligation containing the highest penalties; and, 
 moreover, that before the expedition set sail, he, Comyn, should find sufficient se- 
 curity. Immediately follows, in this public record, that an oath to the same effect, 
 and precisely in the same terms, was extorted from Sir John Menteith,—‘* Eodem 
 
532 | APPENDIX. 
 
 modo, juravit et literam dedit, et manucaptionem dare promistt, Johannen de Meneteth, frater 
 comitis de Meneteth.” Not one word of this is recorded in Mr Tytler’s history, although 
 among his charges against Menteith is, that ‘‘ he deserted his country, swore homage to 
 Edward,” &c. That monarch returned from the foreign campaign, in which Menteith 
 accompanied him, upon the 14th March 1297-8. During his short absence, Wallace 
 had reached, through a brilliant career of arms, the governorship of Scotland. Edward, 
 upon the 22d July 1298, a few months after his return, met the patriot at Falkirk, 
 where the humbler star of Wallace paled before that of Plantagenet. While most of 
 the Scottish nobles were continually changing sides, I have not been able to discover a 
 vestige of evidence or probability that the services of Menteith were for a moment re- 
 stored to Scotland, until after the death of Edward I. His oath,—his bond,—his hos.- 
 tages,—the heavy penalties stipulated, are his excuse. Had Bruce so good a one for 
 his fickle conduct ? Menteith may even have conceived an affection for his conqueror 
 while serving with him abroad; and, foreseeing no brighter prospect for his unhappy 
 country, have hailed Edward, with abated reluctance, as her king. When and where 
 was his private friendship with Wallace contracted? ‘The patriot only emerged 
 from comparative obscurity after Menteith was a prisoner of war in England! When 
 and where did he serve “ with and under Wallace against the English?” The time 
 and occasion alleged by Mr Tytler, following the spurious Relationes, is a miserable 
 expedition of fire-raising, a case of creeping arson, said to have occurred in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Ayr, upon the 28th August 1298. Now it is incredible that Menteith 
 could have been engaged in any such expedition a few months after his return from 
 abroad with the king of England, if, indeed, he did immediately return with the con- 
 queror. ‘There is no authority for the fact, except the Relationes ; and Lord Hailes 
 (though his adversary does not notice it) destroyed that authority, and showed that ano- 
 ther is also named by that unknown writer, as a companion of Wallace upon this 
 occasion, who was killed at the previous battle of Falkirk. Aware of this difficulty, and 
 anxious to prove one instance of companionship betwixt Wallace and Menteith, Dr 
 Jamieson endeavours to make out the date in the Relationes an error, and to transfer the 
 incident to the time of the treaty of Irvine in 1297. Be it so. Had Blind Harry’s editor 
 taken the Rotuli Scotie along with him, he would have found that of that other date 
 Menteith was a prisoner of war in England! ‘Thus the assertion, that Menteith deserted 
 his country, and served under Wallace, is absolutely inconsistent with the public records, 
 which our historians overlook, while clinging to a legendary fable in the vain hope of 
 discomfiting the father of accurate Scottish history. 
 
 But, says Mr Tytler, the memory of Menteith has been naturally execrated from gene- 
 ration to generation !_ And why does our historian not record the facts (worth a million 
 of his legends) that prove how trusted, honoured, and beloved Menteith was in his own 
 generation after the death of Wallace ? Again let us turn to facts and dates. By the deed 
 already quoted, of date 20th March 1803-4, it is proved that Sir John Menteith was in the 
 highest favour with Edward I. and was ae with the most important jurisdiction in 
 
APPENDIX. 533 
 
 Scotland. This destroys all probability that Menteith, between this period and his return 
 from the foreign campaign, had any dealings with Wallace, far less served with him against 
 the English. The patriot was captured within Menteith’s jurisdiction, or placed under his 
 charge before being sent to England, where he was executed 1305. Edward I. died 7th 
 July 1307. Edward II. went to the continent about the close of that year, and toa state 
 paper, by which he provides for the quiet of Scotland during his absence, appears the name 
 of Menteith. This indicates that he had not swerved from his oath to Edward I. before 
 that monarch’s death. But it is proved by the Feedera, that, in August 1309, Men- 
 teith was the leading commissioner for Scotland to conclude a truce with England. 
 He was joined with Sir Nigel Campbell. Mr Tytler does not record this negotia- 
 tion.* But it is most material. It proves that Menteith had taken the earliest 
 opportunity to return to his country after the death of Edward I. released him from 
 his bond; and that he stood in the highest esteem with both countries. Had his con- 
 duct towards his country, or towards Wallace, deserved execration, Menteith would not 
 have been associated with the King’s brother-in-law upon this most important mission. 
 In 1615 Menteith was the companion in arms of Randolph, the King’s nephew, in the 
 expedition to Ireland. In 1616, Menteith accompanied the same nobleman on a mission 
 to England. Menteith and Randolph were bosom friends, companions in arms, and in 
 diplomacy ; and here is Mr Tytler’s own translation of Barbour’s character of Randolph ; 
 “loving honour and loyalty, and hating falsehood above all things, ever fond of having 
 the bravest knights about him whom he dearly loved.” ‘This companionship of Menteith 
 and Randolph is not to be found in Mr Tytler’s history, but is proved by the public re- 
 cords. Menteith is one of the barons who, in the year 1320, signed the memorable ma- 
 nifesto of Scottish independence. Our historian records this spirited appeal with the 
 highest commendation, but does not record that one of the names attached to it is “ Johan- 
 nis de Menteth custos comitatus de Menteth.” Menteith was one of the commissioners and 
 conservators of the truce with England at the famous treaty of Berwick in the year 1323. 
 Mr Tytler has not recorded this fact, or indeed any fact in favour of Menteith, who died 
 not long after the above date, without a stain upon his shield. Under the circumstances, 
 his allegiance to Edward I. was no stain at all. 
 
 Ancient chronicles, meagre and equivocal in their expressions, some of them English, 
 some of them anonymous, or of doubtful authorship, some of them unintelligible, none 
 
 * This was the negotiation with Richard de Burgo Earl of Ulster, 2d and 21st August 1309.—Fe- 
 dera. It was before this, (but after Des Roches’s treaty,) namely, 30th July 1309, that Edward, alleg- 
 ing the truce to be broken by the Scots, declared war. It was after the negotiation of Menteith and 
 Campbell with De Burgo, that the king of France sent Count de Evreux to Edward, namely, 29th 
 November 1309. Now Mr Tytler omits entirely De Burgo’s negotiation—speaks of Count De Evreux’s 
 mission as that which immediately followed Des Roches’s, and then refers to Edward’s declaration of 
 30th July 1309 as subsequent to Evreux’s mission which occurred in November following. Lord Hailes, 
 on the other hand, is minutely accurate with regard to all these transactions. Correct Tytler, Vol. i. 
 pp. 277, 278, by Hailes, second Vol. pp. 28, 29; and by the Federa. 
 
534 APPENDIX. 
 
 of them susceptible of being thoroughly sifted upon the point, and the most explicit of 
 them written long after the event, are referred to triumphantly by Dr Jamieson and Mr 
 Tytler, to the exclusion of legitimate history. I must here content myself with a single 
 instance of Mr Tytler’s aptitude to grasp too hastily at these shreds and patches 
 of dim and legendary records. Wyntoun, one of the best of the old chroniclers, but not 
 born.for more than half a century after Wallace’s death, simply records that Menteith 
 “tuk in Glasgow Willame Walays.” ‘This proves nothing. But our historian, in 
 quoting it, also quotes the rubric of the chapter which says that Menteith “ dissavit gud 
 Willame Walays.” Now Wyntoun’s enthusiastic editor, Mr James M‘ Pherson, who 
 brought that chronicle into repute, scouts the fable of Menteith’s treachery, and adds, 
 ** Wyntoun only says that he ‘ tuk Walays:” the word “ dissavit” being the addition 
 of the rubricator, and probably from the report then circulating.” Mr Tytler does not 
 meet this. As for the evidence said to be afforded by the Scotichronicon, 1. It is not 
 contemporary. 2. The scanty expressions attributed to Fordun on the subject cannot 
 with certainty be separated from his continuators and interpolators. 3. If used by For- 
 dun, they show that that prolix chronicler was acquainted with xo details of Menteith’s 
 perfidy, or he would have noted them. 3. Bower, Fordun’s alleged continuator and in- 
 terpolator, is still farther removed from the event. He, too, has given no details of the 
 perfidy, and obviously had none to give. 4. The violent tirade against Menteith, con- 
 tained in the Relationes, and by some attributed to Bower, destroys itself; and Mr Tytler 
 has wisely excluded from the pages of his history all the monkish trash, attributed to 
 Bower on the subject of Menteith, to which in his controversial note he makes a vague 
 and general reference. But we take fearlessly, what the antagonists of Lord Hailes 
 have rejected, the Federa and the Rotuli Scotie, against the whole field of subsequent 
 chroniclers and popular calumny. The moral principles which influenced one individual 
 towards another, five hundred years ago, the degree of private personal friendship — 
 existing between them, and the minute circumstances of action composing the merits 
 of such a case, are just those questions of all others in which even a contemporary chro- 
 nicler, expressing popular, perhaps his own individual opinion, cannot be relied upon. 
 It is a fatal mistake in a historian to suppose that because an authority is old it must be 
 trust-worthy. Mr Tytler parades his legendary lore as if he had found charter and 
 seisin against the Menteith. He arranges his authorities with the air of marshalling 
 veteran, irresistible troops. But, at the best, they are like Falstaffe’s tattered recruits,— 
 “ ragged old-faced ancients,—nay, and the villains march wide betwixt the legs as if 
 they had gyves on,—there’s but a shirt and a half in all their company.” 
 
 THE END. 
 
 * EDINBURGH : 
 PRINTED BY JOHN STARK, OLD ASSEMBLY CLOSE. 
 
i 
 
 @ 
 
 at vv 
 
 —_ a _ 
 4 pi 
 an 
 
 ' a 
 4 aoe 
 ae, &: 
 
 sa) 
 a; APA 
 ss 
 
i Aa 
 me 
 
PPB 
 
 Fat ayers Praeon 
 
 CS eae ae 
 
 Se aie 
 
 Sosies 
 
 er aed 
 een 
 
 ee 
 a ae aie 
 
 LS a ae 
 Se eh ae 
 Re 
 
 Hin = 
 Po Sis ge hes Sir 
 
 oye Gia Bp ea 
 is ome ee as ie ae ae 
 Stel ioe 
 as ed 
 ti arin Pera 
 Ap eS 
 
 fit 
 nyse aw 
 peo 
 
 Or eae 
 2 iene 
 
 Ri er 
 
 a aaa 
 
 3S 
 
 Pic 
 ee ee 
 aoe oe eth 
 
 Sogn i 
 mug ts 
 
 a 
 
 oe 
 
 pola Te ie 
 
 mereanants 
 
 cee ye 
 Geos 
 meyer ey PEE 
 (Ne SS 
 
 ode eons 
 
 BP ae 
 
 Dhak ars eee 
 
 a a a ec eit 
 
 A yaw 
 
 ee mir ecmies 
 Sap Pie ite 
 
 je aie Bae . ce 
 : $ i > portent ary 
 ; \ sey : Se 
 7 tire - ue 
 
 Se eee 
 A Fe 
 ee eee 
 
 ee 
 
 ipso = 
 
 fr ogponirt ie preys im 
 Si SOILS I ee etl dei 
 er a eat 
 Sie ee TI ite oe ee . : 
 ya eeereee ne Sg ae eae ae / 
 SP LS ee a a ’ i 
 = neem 
 . eS a a 
 
 Te ae te ge geatiy we ee eee ENS “ 
 - or SEPP TRE ALTA 2 
 Cr 4. a fi PO OIE ne add 
 De OFF ee ‘ 
 
 a yeaa 
 
 PPC EL TT Lr r 
 
 Satara 
 
 ag eh ee mad 
 os oe ee