William Oughtred

Amongst the mathematical rarities these times have afforded, there are none of that small number I (a late intruder into these studies) have yet viewed, which so fully demonstrates their authors’ great abilities as your Clavis, not richer in augmentations, than valuable for contraction;..

Your belief that there is in all inventions aliquid divinum, an infusion beyond human cogitations, I am confident will appear notably strengthened, if you please to afford this truth belief, that I entered upon these studies accidentally after I betook myself to the country, having never had so much aid as to be taught addition, nor the discourse of an artist (having left both Oxford and London before I knew what any proposition in geometry meant) to inform me what were the best authors.59

The following extracts from two letters by W. Robinson, written before the appearance of the 1647 English edition of the Clavis, express the feeling of many readers of the Clavis on its extreme conciseness and brevity of explanation:

I shall long exceedingly till I see your Clavis turned into a pick-lock; and I beseech you enlarge it, and explain it what you can, for we shall not need to fear either tautology or superfluity; you are naturally concise, and your clear judgment makes you both methodical and pithy; and your analytical way is indeed the only way…

I will once again earnestly entreat you, that you be rather diffuse in the setting forth of your English mathematical Clavis, than concise, considering that the wisest of men noted of old, and said stultorum infinitus est numerus, these arts cannot be made too easy, they are so abstruse of themselves, and men either so lazy or dull, that their fastidious wits take a loathing at the very entrance of these studies, unless it be sweetened on with plainness and facility. Brevity may well argue a learned author, that without any excess or redundance, either of matter or words, can give the very substance and essence of the thing treated of; but it seldom makes a learned scholar; and if one be capable, twenty are not; and if the master sum up in brief the pith of his own long labours and travails, it is not easy to imagine that scholars can with less labour than it cost their masters dive into the depths thereof.60

Here is the judgment of another of Oughtred’s friends:

… with the character I received from your and my noble friend Sir Charles Cavendish, then at Paris, of your second edition of the same piece, made me at my return into England speedily to get, and diligently peruse the same. Neither truly did I find my expectation deceived; having with admiration often considered how it was possible (even in the hardest things of geometry) to deliver so much matter in so few words, yet with such demonstrative clearness and perspicuity: and hath often put me in mind of learned Mersennus his judgment (since dead) of it, that there was more matter comprehended in that little book than in Diophantus, and all the ancients…61

Oughtred’s own feeling was against diffuseness in textbook writing. In his revisions of his Clavis the original character of that book was not altered. In his reply to W. Robinson, Oughtred said:

… But my art for all such mathematical inventions I have set down in my Clavis Mathematica, which therefore in my title I say is tum logisticae cum analyticae adeoque totius mathematicae quasi clavis, which if any one of a mathematical genius will carefully study, (and indeed it must be carefully studied,) he will not admire others, but himself do wonders. But I (such is my tenuity) have enough fungi vice cotis, acutum reddere quae ferrum valet, exsors ipsa secandi, or like the touchstone, which being but a stone, base and little worth, can shew the excellence and riches of gold.62

John Wallis held Oughtred’s Clavis in high regard. When in correspondence with John Collins concerning plans for a new edition, Wallis wrote in 1666-67, six years after the death of Oughtred:

… But for the goodness of the book in itself, it is that (I confess) which I look upon as a very good book, and which doth in as little room deliver as much of the fundamental and useful part of geometry (as well as of arithmetic and algebra) as any book I know; and why it should not be now acceptable I do not see. It is true, that as in other things so in mathematics, fashions will daily alter, and that which Mr. Oughtred designed by great letters may be now by others be designed by small; but a mathematician will, with the same ease and advantage, understand Ac, and a³ or aaa… And the like I judge of Mr. Oughtred’s Clavis, which I look upon (as those pieces of Vieta who first went in that way) as lasting books and classic authors in this kind; to which, notwithstanding, every day may make new additions…

But I confess, as to my own judgment, I am not for making the book bigger, because it is contrary to the design of it, being intended for a manual or contract; whereas comments, by enlarging it, do rather destroy it… But it was by him intended, in a small epitome, to give the substance of what is by others delivered in larger volumes…63

That there continued to be a group of students and teachers who desired a fuller exposition than is given by Oughtred is evident from the appearance, over fifty years after the first publication of the Clavis, of a booklet by Gilbert Clark, entitled Oughtredus Explicatus, London, 1682. A review of this appeared in the Acta Eruditorum (Leipzig, 1684), on p. 168, wherein Oughtred is named “clarissimus Angliae mathematicus.” John Collins wrote Wallis in 1666-67 that Clark, “who lives with Sir Justinian Isham, within seven miles of Northampton… intimates he wrote a comment on the Clavis, which lay long in the hands of a printer, by whom he was abused, meaning Leybourne.”64

We shall have occasion below to refer to Oughtred’s inability to secure a copy of a noted Italian mathematical work published a few years before. In those days the condition of the book trade in England must have been somewhat extraordinary. Dr. J. W. L. Glaisher throws some light upon this subject.65 He found in the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1637, a petition to Archbishop Laud in which it is set forth that when Hooganhuysen, a Dutchman, “heretofore complained of in the High Commission for importing books printed beyond the seas,” had been bound “not to bring in any more,” one Vlacq (the computer and publisher of logarithmic tables) “kept up the same agency and sold books in his stead… Vlacq is now preparing to go beyond the seas to avoid answering his late bringing over nine bales of books contrary to the decree of the Star Chamber.” Judgment was passed that, “Considering the ill-consequence and scandal that would arise by strangers importing and venting in this kingdom books printed beyond the seas,” certain importations be prohibited, and seized if brought over.

This want of easy intercommunication of results of scientific research in Oughtred’s time is revealed in the following letter, written by Oughtred to Robert Keylway, in 1645:

I speak this the rather, and am induced to a better confidence of your performance, by reason of a geometric-analytical art or practice found out by one Cavalieri, an Italian, of which about three years since I received information by a letter from Paris, wherein was praelibated only a small taste thereof, yet so that I divine great enlargement of the bounds of the mathematical empire will ensue. I was then very desirous to see the author’s own book while my spirits were more free and lightsome, but I could not get it in France. Since, being more stept into years, daunted and broken with the sufferings of these disastrous times, I must content myself to keep home, and not put out to any foreign discoveries.66

It was in 1655, when Oughtred was about eighty years old, that John Wallis, the great forerunner of Newton in Great Britain, began to publish his great researches on the arithmetic of infinites. Oughtred rejoiced over the achievements of his former pupil. In 1655, Oughtred wrote John Wallis as follows:

I have with unspeakable delight, so far as my necessary businesses, the infirmness of my health, and the greatness of my age (approaching now to an end) would permit, perused your most learned papers, of several choice arguments, which you sent me: wherein I do first with thankfulness acknowledge to God, the Father of lights, the great light he hath given you; and next I congratulate you, even with admiration, the clearness and perspicacity of your understanding and genius, who have not only gone, but also opened a way into these profoundest mysteries of art, unknown and not thought of by the ancients. With which your mysterious inventions I am the more affected, because full twenty years ago, the learned patron of learning, Sir Charles Cavendish, shewed me a paper written, wherein were some few excellent new theorems, wrought by the way, as I suppose, of Cavalieri, which I wrought over again more agreeably to my way. The paper, wherein I wrought it, I shewed to many, whereof some took copies, but my own I cannot find. I mention it for this, because I saw therein a light breaking out for the discovery of wonders to be revealed to mankind, in this last age of the world: which light I did salute as afar off, and now at a nearer distance embrace in your prosperous beginnings. Sir, that you are pleased to mention my name in your never dying papers, that is your noble favour to me, who can add nothing to your glory, but only my applause…67

The last sentence has reference to Wallis’ appreciative and eulogistic reference to Oughtred in the preface. It is of interest to secure the opinion of later English writers who knew Oughtred only through his books. John Locke wrote in his journal under the date, June 24, 1681, “the best algebra yet extant is Outred’s.”68 John Collins, who is known in the history of mathematics chiefly through his very extensive correspondence with nearly all mathematicians of his day, was inclined to be more critical. He wrote Wallis about 1667:

It was not my intent to disparage the author, though I know many that did lightly esteem him when living, some whereof are at rest, as Mr. Foster and Mr. Gibson… You grant the author is brief, and therefore obscure, and I say it is but a collection, which, if himself knew, he had done well to have quoted his authors, whereto the reader might have repaired. You do not like those words of Vieta in his theorems, ex adjunctione plano solidi, plus quadrato quadrati, etc., and think Mr. Oughtred the first that abridged those expressions by symbols; but I dissent, and tell you ’twas done before by Cataldus, Geysius, and Camillus Gloriosus,69 who in his first decade of exercises, (not the first tract,) printed at Naples in 1627, which was four years before the first edition of the Clavis, proposeth this equation just as I here give it you, viz. 1ccc+16qcc+41qqc-2304cc-18364qc-133000qq-54505c+3728q+8064 N aequatur 4608, finds N or a root of it to be 24, and composeth the whole out of it for proof, just in Mr. Oughtred’s symbols and method. Cataldus on Vieta came out fifteen years before, and I cannot quote that, as not having it by me.

… And as for Mr. Oughtred’s method of symbols, this I say to it; it may be proper for you as a commentator to follow it, but divers I know, men of inferior rank that have good skill in algebra, that neither use nor approve it… Is not A⁵ sooner wrote than Aqc? Let A be 2, the cube of 2 is 8, which squared is 64: one of the questions between Maghet Grisio and Gloriosus is whether 64=Acc or Aqc. The Cartesian method tells you it is A⁶, and decides the doubt…70

There is some ground for the criticisms passed by Collins. To be sure, the first edition of the Clavis is dated 1631 – six years before Descartes suggested the exponential notation which came to be adopted as the symbolism in our modern algebra. But the second edition of the Clavis, 1647, appeared ten years after Descartes’ innovation. Had Oughtred seen fit to adopt the new exponential notation in 1647, the step would have been epoch-making in the teaching of algebra in England. We have seen no indication that Oughtred was familiar with Descartes’ Géométrie of 1637.

The year preceding Oughtred’s death Mr. John Twysden expressed himself as follows in the preface to his Miscellanies:

It remains that I should adde something touching the beginning, and use of these Sciences… I shall only, to their honours, name some of our own Nation yet living, who have happily laboured upon both stages. That succeeding ages may understand that in this of ours, there yet remained some who were neither ignorant of these Arts, as if they had held them vain, nor condemn them as superfluous. Amongst them all let Mr. William Oughtred, of Aeton, be named in the first place, a Person of venerable grey haires, and exemplary piety, who indeed exceeds all praise we can bestow upon him. Who by an easie method, and admirable Key, hath unlocked the hidden things of geometry. Who by an accurate Trigonometry and furniture of Instruments, hath inriched, as well geometry, as Astronomy. Let D. John Wallis, and D. Seth Ward, succeed in the next place, both famous Persons, and Doctors in Divinity, the one of geometry, the other of astronomy, Savilian Professors in the University of Oxford.71

The astronomer Edmund Halley, in his preface to the 1694 English edition of the Clavis, speaks of this book as one of “so established a reputation, that it were needless to say anything thereof,” though “the concise Brevity of the author is such, as in many places to need Explication, to render it Intelligible to the less knowing Mathematical matters.”

In closing this part of our monograph, we quote the testimony of Robert Boyle, the experimental physicist, as given May 8, 1647, in a letter to Mr. Hartlib:

The Englishing of, and additions to Oughtred’s Clavis mathematica does much content me, I having formerly spent much study on the original of that algebra, which I have long since esteemed a much more instructive way of logic, than that of Aristotle.72

WAS DESCARTES INDEBTED TO OUGHTRED?

This question first arose in the seventeenth century, when John Wallis, of Oxford, in his Algebra (the English edition of 1685, and more particularly the Latin edition of 1693), raised the issue of Descartes’ indebtedness to the English scientists, Thomas Harriot and William Oughtred. In discussing matters of priority between Harriot and Descartes, relating to the theory of equations, Wallis is generally held to have shown marked partiality to Harriot. Less attention has been given by historians of mathematics to Descartes’ indebtedness to Oughtred. Yet this question is of importance in tracing Oughtred’s influence upon his time.

On January 8, 1688-89, Samuel Morland addressed a letter of inquiry to John Wallis, containing a passage which we translate from the Latin:

Some time ago I read in the elegant and truly precious book that you have written on Algebra, about Descartes, this philosopher so extolled above all for having arrived at a very perfect system by his own powers, without the aid of others, this Descartes, I say, who has received in geometry very great light from our Oughtred and our Harriot, and has followed their track though he carefully suppressed their names. I stated this in a conversation with a professor in Utrecht (where I reside at present). He requested me to indicate to him the page-numbers in the two authors which justified this accusation. I admitted that I could not do so. The Géométrie of Descartes is not sufficiently familiar to me, although with Oughtred I am fairly familiar. I pray you therefore that you will assume this burden. Give me at least those references to passages of the two authors from the comparison of which the plagiarism by Descartes is the most striking.73

Following Morland’s letter in the De algebra tractatus, is printed Wallis’ reply, dated March 12, 1688 (“Stilo Angliae”), which is, in part, as follows:

I nowhere give him the name of a plagiarist; I would not appear so impolite. However this I say, the major part of his algebra (if not all) is found before him in other authors (notably in our Harriot) whom he does not designate by name. That algebra may be applied to geometry, and that it is in fact so applied, is nothing new. Passing the ancients in silence, we state that this has been done by Vieta, Ghetaldi, Oughtred and others, before Descartes. They have resolved by algebra and specious arithmetic [literal arithmetic] many geometrical problems… But the question is not as to application of algebra to geometry (a thing quite old), but of the Cartesian algebra considered by itself.

Wallis then indicates in the 1659 edition of Descartes’ Géométrie where the subjects treated on the first six pages are found in the writings of earlier algebraists, particularly of Harriot and Oughtred. For example, what is found on the first page of Descartes, relating to addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and root extraction, is declared by Wallis to be drawn from Vieta, Ghetaldi, and Oughtred.

It is true that Descartes makes no mention of modern writers, except once of Cardan. But it was not the purpose of Descartes to write a history of algebra. To be sure, references to such of his immediate predecessors as he had read would not have been out of place. Nevertheless, Wallis fails to show that Descartes made illegitimate use of anything he may have seen in Harriot or Oughtred.

The first inquiry to be made is, Did Descartes possess copies of the books of Harriot and Oughtred? It is only in recent time that this question has been answered as to Harriot. As to Oughtred, it is still unanswered. It is now known that Descartes had seen Harriot’s Artis analyticae praxis (1631). Descartes wrote a letter to Constantin Huygens in which he states that he is sending Harriot’s book.74

An able discussion of the question, what effect, if any, Oughtred’s Clavis mathematicae of 1631 had upon Descartes’75 Géométrie of 1637, is given by H. Bosmans in a recent article. According to Bosmans no evidence has been found that Descartes possessed a copy of Oughtred’s book, or that he had examined it. Bosmans believes nevertheless that Descartes was influenced by the Clavis, either directly or indirectly. He says:

If Descartes did not read it carefully, which is not proved, he was none the less well informed with regard to it. No one denies his intimate knowledge of the intellectual movement of his time. The Clavis mathematica enjoyed a rapid success. It is impossible that, at least indirectly, he did not know the more original ideas which it contained. Far from belittling Descartes, as I much desire to repeat, this rather makes him the greater.76

We ourselves would hardly go as far as does Bosmans. Unless Descartes actually examined a copy of Oughtred it is not likely that he was influenced by Oughtred in appreciable degree. Book reviews were quite unknown in those days. No evidence has yet been adduced to show that Descartes obtained a knowledge of Oughtred by correspondence. A most striking feature about Oughtred’s Clavis is its notation. No trace of the Englishman’s symbolism has been pointed out in Descartes’ Géométrie of 1637. Only six years intervened between the publication of the Clavis and the Géométrie. It took longer than this period for the Clavis to show evidence of its influence upon mathematical books published in England; it is not probable that abroad the contact was more immediate than at home. Our study of seventeenth-century algebra has led us to the conviction that Oughtred deserves a higher place in the development of this science than is usually accorded to him; but that it took several decennia for his influence fully to develop.

THE SPREAD OF OUGHTRED’S NOTATIONS

An idea of Oughtred’s influence upon mathematical thought and teaching can be obtained from the spread of his symbolism. This study indicates that the adoption was not immediate. The earliest use that we have been able to find of Oughtred’s notation for proportion, A.B::C.D, occurs nineteen years after the Clavis mathematicae of 1631. In 1650 John Kersey brought out in London an edition of Edmund Wingates’ Arithmetique made easie, in which this notation is used. After this date publications employing it became frequent, some of them being the productions of pupils of Oughtred. We have seen it in Vincent Wing (1651),77 Seth Ward (1653),78 John Wallis (1655),79 in “R. B.,” a schoolmaster in Suffolk,80 Samuel Foster (1659),81 Jonas Moore (1660),82 and Isaac Barrow (1657).83 In the latter part of the seventeenth century Oughtred’s notation, A.B::C.D, became the prevalent, though not universal, notation in Great Britain. A tremendous impetus to their adoption was given by Seth Ward, Isaac Barrow, and particularly by John Wallis, who was rising to international eminence as a mathematician.

In France we have noticed Oughtred’s notation for proportion in Franciscus Dulaurens (1667),84 J. Prestet (1675),85 R. P. Bernard Lamy (1684),86 Ozanam (1691),87 De l’Hospital (1696),88 R. P. Petro Nicolas (1697).89

In the Netherlands we have noticed it in R. P. Bernard Lamy (1680),90 and in an anonymous work of 1690.91 In German and Italian works of the seventeenth century we have not seen Oughtred’s notation for proportion.

In England a modified notation soon sprang up in which ratio was indicated by two dots instead of a single dot, thus A:B::C:D. The reason for the change lies probably in the inclination to use the single dot to designate decimal fractions. W. W. Beman pointed out that this modified symbolism (:) for ratio is found as early as 1657 in the end of the trigonometric and logarithmic tables that were bound with Oughtred’s Trigonometria.92 It is not probable, however, that this notation was used by Oughtred himself. The Trigonometria proper has Oughtred’s A.B::C.D throughout. Moreover, in the English edition of this trigonometry, which appeared the same year, 1657, but subsequent to the Latin edition, the passages which contained the colon as the symbol for ratio, when not omitted, are recast, and the regular Oughtredian notation is introduced. In Oughtred’s posthumous work, Opuscula mathematica hactenus inedita, 1677, the colon appears quite often but is most likely due to the editor of the book.

We have noticed that the notation A:B::C:D antedates the year 1657. Vincent Wing, the astronomer, published in 1651 in London the Harmonicon coeleste, in which is found not only Oughtred’s notation A.B::C.D but also the modified form of it given above. The two are used interchangeably. His later works, the Logistica astronomica (1656), Doctrina spherica (1655), and Doctrina theorica, published in one volume in London, all use the symbols A:B::C:D exclusively. The author of a book entitled, An Idea of Arithmetick at first designed for the use of the Free Schoole at Thurlow in Suffolk.. by R. B., Schoolmaster there, London, 1655, writes A:a::C:c, though part of the time he uses Oughtred’s unmodified notation.

We can best indicate the trend in England by indicating the authors of the seventeenth century whom we have found using the notation A:B::C:D and the authors of the eighteenth century whom we have found using A.B::C.D. The former notation was the less common during the seventeenth but the more common during the eighteenth century. We have observed the symbols A:B::C:D (besides the authors already named) in John Collins (1659),93 James Gregory (1663),94 Christopher Wren (1668-69),95 William Leybourn (1673),96 William Sanders (1686),97 John Hawkins (1684),98 Joseph Raphson (1697),99 E. Wells (1698),100 and John Ward (1698).101