day some of your inventions taken from you: for I remember long since you told me as much, that the motions of the planets were not perfect circles, So you taught me the curious way to observe veight in Water, and within a while after Ghetaldi comes out with it in print. A little before Vieta prevented you of the gharland of the great Invention of Algebra, al these were your deues and manie others that I could mention; and yet to great reservedness had robd you of these glories, but although the inventions be greate . . . yet when I survei your storehouse, I see they are the smallest things and such as in comparison of manie others are of smal or no value. Onlie let this remember you, that it is possible by to much procrastination to be prevented in the honour of some of your rarest inventions and speculations. . . .[1]
Lower is accurate as regards the dates of the work on specific gravity; one of Hariot's paper is dated 1601 and Ghetaldi published in 1603. Vieta's algebra came out from 1591-1600, and we may fairly suppose that Hariot's work was contemporary.
It was his "to great reservednesse" and "to much procrastination" that has hindered us from knowing exactly what his work comprised. One attempt was made by his friends to salvage it from oblivion. The "Artis Analyticae Praxis" came out posthumously in 1631, in the same year as Oughtred's "Clavis." The latter was in many ways inferior in originality, in scope, in suggestiveness; but as a textbook it was excellent, small and available. It was moreover a living product of a well-known author, not a work patched up from the manuscripts of a man ten years dead. The "Clavis" had a more direct influence on English teaching; but it is a fair question as to which had the greater effect on the history of research. For the "Praxis" was read by Descartes and every line of Descartes analysis bears token of the impression. The Frenchman carried to their conclusion, with typical French lucidity and brilliance, things that remained obscure to Hariot's executors. That there are omissions in the "Praxis" that Hariot would never have allowed is shown, for instance, by the general impression (fostered by Montucla) that he did not admit negative roots. But manuscripts in the Harleian collection of the British Museum show that on the other hand he was fully aware of them and accorded them equal rights. Such an omission a man of Descartes genius would fill up and would be fired to more than simple reparation. No attempt should be made to detract from Descartes, except perhaps from his complete originality. It was fortunate that the work fell into such hands, and the fact is regretted only by those who like to think of genius as without a precedent.
As for the book itself, it appeared in a thin folio. Percy had made the publication possible, and the dedication was to him. On the final page appeared the following note (translated):
- ↑ The letter is quoted in full in Rigaud, "Supplement to Dr. Bradley's Works," (Oxford, 1833) pp. 42-45, and in Stevens. "Life of Hariot," (London, 1900) pp. 120-124.
