Abstract
A review of several early modern English algebras will provide a glimpse of the beginnings of numbers being treated as continuous in the Aristotelian sense rather than discrete. Some of these texts claimed to hold to the classical notion of numbers, but they also operated on fractions and irrationals without committing themselves as to their actual status as numbers. These algebras also show a progression from abacus style, or problem oriented texts, to a purely symbolic, abstract style. Although this chapter traces this development of English algebra, it is not our primary focus. Instead, we will investigate whether the shift from a practical to a theoretical orientation influenced the treatment of numbers in algebraic texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Thomas Blundeville, His Exercises, Containing Sixe Treatises ... (London, 1594) Sig. A4.
Kenneth R. Andrews, Trade, Plunder and Settlemen (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 10.
Kenneth Andrews, Trade, plunder and settlement: Maritime enterprise and the genesis of the British Empire 1480–1630, (Cambridge, 1984), p. 8.
E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor & Stuart England, (Cambridge, 1954), p. 193.
Kenneth Andrews, Trade, plunder and settlement: Maritime enterprise and the genesis of the British Empire 1480–1630, p.20.
John Tapp, The Path-Way to Knovvledge ..., (London, 1613), Sig. A21.
See Frances Willmoth’s excellent Sir Jonas Moore: Practical Mathematics and Restoration Science (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1993), p. 45, for Oughtred’s early patrons among the local Surrey gentry.
The Clavis appeared in five Latin editions, the first in 1631, and the last in 1698. There were also two independent English editions. The first English edition, London, 1647, was translated by Robert Wood.
Joy Easton, Dictionary of Scientific Biograhpy, p. 339.
A. J. Turner, “William Oughtred, Richard Delamain and the Horizontal Instrument in Seventeenth Century England,” in Annali Dell ‘Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza di Firenze’ 6 (1981), p.101.
Warren Van Egmond, “The Commercial Revolution and the Beginnings of Western Mathematics in Renaissance Florence, 1300–1500”, diss. Indiana University, 1976, p.121.
The Grounde of Artes first appeared in 1543, and forty-five editions of this work were printed under various editors; The Pathewway to Knowledge, London, 1551 (also in 1574 and 1620); The Castle of Knowledge, London, 1556 (reprinted 1596); The Wherstone of Witte, London, 1557. For fuller details of Recorde’s life, see: F.M. Clark, “New Light on Robert Recorde”, Isis (1926), 8, 50–70;
E. Kaplan, “Robert Recorde: Studies in the Life of a Tudor Scientist”, PhD dissertation, New York University, 1960.
D.C. Coleman, The Economy of England 1450–1750 (London: Oxford University Press, 1977), p.59.
Coleman, The Economy of England 1450–1750, p.69.
15Robert Recorde, The Whetstone of Witte, (London, 1557), sig. Aiv.
16Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Aiiir. 15Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Aiiv.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Hiir.
Recorde’s defintion also called ‘surd nombers’ “nombers irrationalle because many of thenn are soche, as can not bee expressed, by common nombers Abstracte, norther by an certain rationale nomber. Other men call them more aptly Surde nombers.” Basically, he is stating that such numbers can not be expressed as integers or rational numbers.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Liiv.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Liiv.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Miir.
Recorde, Whetstone in Witte, sig. Miir.
Leonard and Thomas Digges, Stratioticos, (London, 1579), p.52.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Siv-Siir.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Sir.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Siir.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Bbiiiv.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Eeivv-Ffir. The quotation follows the original printer’s layout of Recorde’s text.
Recorde, Whetstone of Witte, sig. Lliijr.
Recorde, Whetstone, sig. Nniiv.
Easton, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, p.339.
Humfrey Baker, The Well Springe of Sciences (London, 1562); I’m quoting from an augmented 1574 edition, Sig. B.ir.
Baker, The Well Springe of Sciences, fol. 50.
Blundeville, His Exercises Containing Sixe Treatises, (London, 1594), Sig. A31.
Blundeville, His Exercises Containing Sixe Treatises, p. 1.
Tapp, The Path-Way to Knovvledge, p. 302.
London (1588)
Richard W. Hadden, The Social Origins of Early Modern Science (McMaster University: 1984), p.205.
Robert Kargon, Atomism in England from Harriot to Newton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p.6. The Ninth Earl of Northumberland (1564–1632) is now remembered for his patronage of scholars and scientists including Thomas Harriot, Walter Warner and Robert Hues. In his own time he was widely admired for his studies in natural philosophy.
Edward Rosen, “Harriot’s Science: The Intellectual Background,” in Thomas Harriot: Renaissance Scientist, ed. John Shirley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), p.103.
John Shirley, “The Scientific Experiments of Sir Walter Raleigh, the Wizard Earl, and the Three Magi in the Tower, 1603–1617,” in A Source Book for the Study of Thomas Harriot, ed. by John Shirley (New York: Arno Press, 1981), p.58.
Frank Morley, “Thomas Harriot: 1560–1621,” in A Source Book for the Study of Thomas Harriot, ed. by John Shirley (New York: Arno Press, 1981), p.63.
J.A. van Lohne, “Thomas Harriot als Mathematiker,” Centaurus 11 (1965), p. 31.
Jean Jacuot, “Thomas Harriot’s Reputation for Impiety,” in A Source Book for the Study of Thomas Harriot, ed. John Shirley (New York: Arno Press, 1981), p.165.
Frank Morley, “Thomas Harriot: 1560–1621,” in A Source Book for the Study of Thomas Harriot, ed. by John Shirley (New York: Arno Press, 1981), p.64.
Florian Cajori, “A Revaluation of Harriot’s Artis Analyticae Praxis,” Isis 11 (1928), p.316.
J.A. Lohne, DBS, p. 124.
Florian Cajori, “A Revaluation of Harriot’s Artis Analyticae Praxis,” p. 318, agrees with this point although in general he found the Praxis to be overrated.
Thomas Harriot, Artis Analyticae Praxis (London: 1631), p.7–9.
Harriot, p.10.
Harriot, p. 12.
R.C.H. Tanner, “Henry Stevens and the Associates of Thomas Harriot,” in Thomas Harriot: Renaissance Scientist (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), p.101.
Albert C. Lewis “Complex Numbers and Vector Algebra,” in Companion Encyclopedia of the History and Philosophy of the Mathematical Sciences, ed. I. Grattan-Guiness (New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 723.
Harriot, p. 17.
John Wallis, A Treatise of Algebra, Both Historical and Practical (London: 1683), p.128.
Wallis, Algebra, p.132.
R.C.H. Tanner, “The Ordered Regiment of the Minus Sign: Off-beat Mathematics in Harriot’s Manuscripts,” Annals of Science 37 (1980), p.137.
J.F. Scott, “John Wallis as a Historian of Mathematics,” Annals of Science 3 (1936), p. 346.
Scott, “John Wallis as a Historian of Mathematics,” p. 347.
Kargon, p.38.
Amir Alexander, “The Imperialist Space of Elizabethan Mathematics”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 26 (1995):559–592.
B.L. Add. MS. 6782, ff. 362–364v.
Hilary Gatti,The Renaissance Drama of Knowledge: Giordano Bruno in England (London: Routledge, 1989), p.65.
John Henry, “Thomas Harriot and Atomism: A Reappraisal”, History of Science 20 (1982): 267–296 points out that it is more doubtful that Harriot was actually a mathematical atomists.
Kargon, p.7.
Jean Jacuot, “Thomas Harriot’s Reputation for Impiety,” p.180.
Gatti, p.52. Nicholas Hill and Warner also make direct references to Bruno’s work.
Jean Jacquot, “Harriot, Hill, Warner and the New Philosophy,” in Thomas Harriot: Renaissance Scientist, ed. by John Shirley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), p. 108.
Gatti, p.58. Henry, however, severely criticised the claim of a Harriot/Bruno connection.
Kargon, p.10.
Alexander posits that Harriot was also influenced by the patterns of the new world discovery narrative. He believes that Harriot’s work was very much shaped by the “Elizabethan expansionist enterprise.” See especially pages 35 and 36.
Kargon, p.26.
The atomic theory was not controversial in itself, but several ideas were associated with it that were not in agreement with later Christian theology. For example, the idea that ex nihilo nihifit, and that therefore the universe had always existed, was clearly in contradiction with Genesis. Moreover, the atomists were also associated with the idea that the soul is a material, mortal substance that is dispersed with the body after death. See David A. Hedrich Hirsch, “Donne’s Atomies and Anatomies: Deconstructed Bodies and the Resurrection of Atomic Theory,” SEL 31 (1991), pp. 71–72 and G. B. Stones, “The Atomic View of Matter in the Xvth, XVIth, and XVIIth Centuries,” Isis 10, 1 (1928): 445–65.
Kargon, p.27.
John Aubrey, Aubrey’s Brief Lives, ed. Andrew Clark (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1898), p.292.
Although Feingold argues in The Mathematicians ‘Apprenticeship: Science, Universities and Society in England’, 1560–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) that there was more mathematics taught in universities than is usually admitted, Oughtred claimed that he taught himself. In his “To the English Gentrie...the Just Apologie of William Oughtred” (1634), he stated “in Cambridge in Kings College....over and above the usuall studies I employed upon the Mathematicall sciences, I redeemed night by night from my natural sleep, defrauding my body, and inuring it to watching, cold, and labour, while most others tooke thier rest.” fol. Br.
Florian Cajori, William Oughtred: A Great Seventeenth-Century Teacher of Mathematics (Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co., 1916), p. 4.
William Oughtred, Clavis Mathematicae, trans. Robert Wood (London: 1647), ff. B4i-B4ii.
Oughtred, Clavis, f. B4iii. These notes and species refer to Oughtred’s own brand of symbolism, which was similar to, but more complicated than, Viète’s.
Oughtred, Clavis, p.4
Oughtred, Clavis, p. 33. In chapter twelve, Oughtred explains how to apply his symbols and their operations to familiar geometric problems.
Oughtred, Clavis, p.28.
Carl Boyer, A History of Mathematics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 337.
Oughtred, Clavis, p.48.
Oughtred, Clavis, pp. 49–50.
Oughtred, Clavis, p.51.
Stephen Rigaud, Correspondence of Scientific Men of the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1841), p.66.
Oughtred, Clavis, p.72.
Cajori, William Oughtred, p.6.
Oughtred, Clavis, p.135.
Oughtred, Clavis, p.172.
Cajori, William Oughtred, p.47.
For more details on Oughtred’s views on this subject, see Katherine Hill “‘Juglers or Schollers?’: Negotiating the Role of a Mathematical Practitioner” British Journal for the History of Science 31 (1998): 253–74.
Stephen Rigaud, Correspondence of Scientific Men of the Seventeenth, p.27
Rigaud, Correspondence of Scientific Men of the Seventeenth, p.10.
Cajori, William Oughtred, p.60.
Rigaud, Correspondence of Scientific Men of the Seventeenth, p 59.
Rigaud, Correspondence of Scientific Men of the Seventeenth, p. 67.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neal, K. (2002). Early Modern English Algebra. In: From Discrete to Continuous. Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0077-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0077-1_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5993-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0077-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive