On the History of Gunter’s Scale and the Slide Rule During the Seventeenth Century, by Florian Cajori

His enlarged circular rules are illustrated in the Bodleian Library copy of Grammelogia IV by four diagrams, two of them being the two drawings on the two title-pages at the beginning of the Grammelogia IV, 4 inches in external diameter, and exhibiting eleven concentric circular lines carrying graduations of different sorts. In the second of these designs all circles are fixed. The other two drawings are each 10¾ inches in external diameter and exhibit 18 concentric circular lines; the folded sheet of the first of these drawings is inserted between pages (23) and (24), the second folded sheet between pages (83) and (84). All circles of this second instrument are fixed. Counting in the two small drawings in Grammelogia III, there are in all six drawings of slide rules in the Bodleian Grammelogia IV. On pages (24) to (43) Delamain explains the graduation of slide rules. He takes first a rule which has one circle of equal parts, divided into 1000 equal divisions. From a table of logarithms he gets log 2 = 0.301; from the number 301 in the circle of equal parts he draws a line to the center of the circle and marks the intersection with the circles of numbers by the figure 2. Thus he proceeds with log 3, log 4, and so on; also with log sin x and log tan x. For log sin x he uses two circles, the first (see page (27)) for angles from 34′ 24″ to 5° 44′ 22″, the second circle from 5° 44′ 22″ to 90°. The drawings do not show the seconds. He suggests many different designs of rules. On page (29) he says:

In addition to these lines he proceeds to mention the circle giving the ordinary division into degrees and minutes, and two circles of tangents on the other side of the rule.

Next Delamain explains an arrangement of all the graduation on one side of the rule by means of “a small channell in the innermost fixed Circle, in which may be placed a small single Index, which may have sufficient length to reach from the innermost edge of the Mooveable Circle, unto the outmost edge of the fixed Circle, which may be mooved to and fro at pleasure, in the channell, which Index may serve to shew the opposition of Numbers” (p. (31)). From this it is clear that the invention of the “runner” goes back to the very first writers on the slide rule.

After describing a modification of the above arrangement, he adds, “many other formes might be deliverd, about this single projection” (p. (32)).

Proceeding to the “enlarging” of the circles in the Ring, to, say, the “Quadruple to that which is single, that is, foure times greater,” the “equall parts” are distributed over four circles instead of only one circle, but the general method of graduation is the same as before (p. (33)); there being now four circles carrying the logarithms of numbers, and so on. Next he points out “severall wayes how the Circles of the Mathematicall Ring (being inlarged) may be accommodated for practicall use:” (1) The Circles are all fixed in a plain and movable flat compasses (or better, a movable semicircle) are used for fixing any two positions; (2) There is a “double projection” of each logarithmic line “inlarged on a Plaine,” one fixed, the other movable, as shown in his first figure on the title-page, a single index only being used; (3) use of “my great Cylinder which I have long proposed (in which all the Circles are of equall greatnesse,) and it may be made of any magnitude or capacity, but for a study (hee that will be at the charge) it may be of a yard diameter and of such an indifferent length that it may containe 100 or more Circles fixed parallel one to the other on the Cylinder, having a space betweene each of them, so that there may bee as many mooveable Circles, as there are fixed ones, and these of the mooveable linked, or fastened together, so that they may all moove together by the fixed ones in these spaces, whose edges both of the fixed, and mooveable being graduated by helpe of a single Index will shew the proportionalls by opposition in this double Projection, or by a double Index in a single Projection” (p. (36)).

Next follows the detailed description of his Ring “on a Plaine, according to the diagramme that was given the King (for a view of that projection) and afterwards the Ring it selve.” The diagram is the large one which we mentioned as inserted between pages (23) and (24). The instrument has two circles, one moveable, upon each of which are described 13 distinct circular graduations. The lines on the fixed circle are: “The Circle of degrees and calendar,” E. “Circle of equall parts, and part of the Equator, and Meridian,” TT. “The Circle of Tangents,” S. “The Circle of Sines,” D. “The Circle of Decimals,” N. “The Circle of Numbers.” The lines on the movable circle are: N. “The Circle of Numbers,” E. “The Circle of equated figures, and bodies,” S. “The Circle of Sines,” TT. “The Circle of Tangents,” Y. “The Circle of time, yeares, and monethes.”

On pages (84)-(88) Delamain explains an enlargement of his Ring for computations involving the sines of angles near to 90°. On page (86) he says:

He explains the manner of using these extra graduations. Thus he claims to have attained degrees of accuracy which enabled him to do what “some one” had declared “could not bee done.” It is hardly necessary to point out that Delamain’s Grammelogia IV suggests designs of slide rules which inventors two hundred or more years later were endeavouring to produce. Which of Delamain’s designs of rules were actually made and used, he does not state explicitly. He refers to a rule 18 inches in diameter as if it had been actually constructed (pages (86), (88)). Oughtred showed no appreciation of such study in designing and ridiculed Delamain’s efforts, in his Epistle.

Additional elucidations of his designs of rules, along with explanations of the relations of his work to that of Gunter and Napier, and sallies directed against Oughtred and Forster, are contained on pages (8)-(21) of his Grammelogia IV.

V. INDEPENDENCE AND PRIORITY OF INVENTION

The question of independence and priority of invention is discussed by Delamain more specifically on pages (89)-(113); Oughtred devotes his entire Epistle to it. It is difficult to determine definitely which publication is the later, Delamain’s Grammelogia IV or Oughtred’s Epistle. Each seems to quote from the other. Probably the explanation is that the two publications contain arguments which were previously passed from one antagonist to the other by word of mouth or by private letter. Oughtred refers in his Epistle (p. (12)) to a letter from Delamain. We believe that the Epistle came after Delamain’s Grammelogia IV. Delamain claims for himself the invention of the circular slide rule. He says in his Grammelogia IV. (p. (99)), “when I had a sight of it, which was in February, 1629 (as I specified in my Epistle) I could not conceale it longer, envying my selfe, that others did not tast of that which I found to carry with it so delightfull and pleasant a goate [taste] . . .” Delamain asserts (without proof) that Oughtred “never saw it as he now challengeth it to be his invention, untill it was so fitted to his hand, and that he made all his practise on it after the publishing of my Booke upon my Ring, and not before; so it was easie for him or some other to write some uses of it in Latin after Christmas, 1630 and not the Sommer before, as is falsely alledged by some one . . .” (p. (91)). Delamain’s accusation of theft on the part of Oughtred cannot be seriously considered. Oughtred’s reputation as a mathematician and his standing in his community go against such a supposition. Moreover, William Forster is a witness for Oughtred. The fact that Oughtred had the mastery of the rectilinear slide rule as well, while Delamain in 1630 speaks only of the circular rule, weighs in Oughtred’s favour.

Oughtred says he invented the slide rule “above twelve yeares agoe,” that is, about 1621, and “I with mine owne hand made me two such Circles, which I have used ever since, as my occasions required,” (Epistle p. (22)). On the same page, he describes his mode of discovery thus:

Oughtred said that he had no desire to publish his invention, but in the vacation of 1630 finally promised William Forster to let him bring out a translation. Oughtred claims that Delamain got the invention from him at Alhallontide [November 1], 1630, when they met in London. The accounts of that meeting we proceed to give in double column.

This and other statements made by Oughtred seem damaging to Delamain’s reputation. But it is quite possible that Oughtred’s guesses as to Delamain’s motives are wrong. Moreover, some of Oughtred’s statements are not first hand knowledge with him, but mere hearsay. One may accept his first hand facts and still clear Delamain of wrong doing. There is always danger that rival claimants of an invention or discovery will proceed on the assumption that no one else could possibly have come independently upon the same devices that they themselves did; the history of science proves the opposite. Seldom is an invention of any note made by only one man. We do not feel competent to judge Delamain’s case. We know too little about him as a man. We incline to the opinion that the hypothesis of independent invention is the most plausible. At any rate, Delamain figures in the history of the slide rule as the publisher of the earliest book thereon and as an enthusiastic and skillful designer of slide rules.

The effect of this controversy upon interested friends was probably small. Doubtless few people read both sides. Oughtred says:[21] “this scandall . . . hath with them, to whom I am not knowne, wrought me much prejudice and disadvantage . .” Aubrey,[22] a friend of Oughtred, refers to Delamain “who was so sawcy to write against him” and remembers having seen “many yeares since, twenty or more good verses made” against Delamain. Another friend of Oughtred, William Robinson, who had seen some of Delamain’s publications, but not his Grammelogia IV, wrote in a letter to Oughtred, shortly before the appearance of the latter’s Epistle:

Delamain presented King Charles I with one of his sun-dials, also with a manuscript and, later, with a printed copy of his book of 1630. A drawing of his improved slide rule was sent to the King and the Grammelogia IV is dedicated to him. The King must have been favorably impressed, for Delamain was appointed tutor to the King in mathematics. His widow petitioned the House of Lords in 1645 for relief; he had ten children.[24]

Anthony Wood states that Charles I, on the day of his execution, commanded his friend Thomas Herbert “to give his son the duke of York his large ring-sundial of silver, a jewel his maj. much valued.” Anthony Wood adds, “it was invented and made by Rich. Delamaine a very able mathematician, who projected it, and in a little printed book did shew its excellent use in resolving many questions in arithmetic and other rare operations to be wrought by it in the mathematics.”[25]

VI. OUGHTRED’S GAUGING LINE, 1633

It has not been generally known, hitherto, that Oughtred designed a rectilinear slide rule for gauging and published a description thereof in 1633.[26] In his Circles of Proportion, chapter IX, Oughtred had offered a closer approximation than that of Gunter for the capacity of casks. The Gauger of London expostulated with Oughtred for presuming to question anything that Gunter had written. The ensuing discussion led to an invitation extended by the Company of Vintners to the instrument maker Elias Allen to request Oughtred to design a gauging rod.[27] This he did, and Allen received an order for “threescore” instruments. On page 19 Oughtred describes his ‘Gauging Rod:’

There are graduations on three sides of the rulers, one graduation being the logarithmic line of numbers. He says (p. 39), “the maner of computing the Gauge-divisions I have concealed.” W. Robinson, who was a friend of Oughtred, wrote him as follows:[28]

Another of Oughtred’s admirers, Sir Charles Cavendish, wrote, on February 11, 1635 thus:[29]

On April 20, 1638, we find Oughtred giving Elias Allen directions[30] “about the making of the two rulers.” As in 1633,[31] so now, Oughtred takes one ruler longer than the other. This 1633 instrument was used also as “a crosse-staffe to take the height of the Sunne, or any Starre above the Horizon, and also their distances.” The longer ruler was called staffe, the shorter transversarie. While in 1633 he took the lengths of the two in the ratio “almost 3 to 2,” in 1638, he took “the transversary three quarters of the staff’s length, . . . that the divisions may be larger.”

VII. OTHER SEVENTEENTH CENTURY SLIDE RULES

In my History of the Slide Rule I treat of Seth Partridge, Thomas Everard, Henry Coggeshall, W. Hunt and Sir Isaac Newton.[32] Of Partridge’s Double Scale of Proportion, London, I have examined a copy dated 1661, which is the earliest date for this book that I have seen. As far as we know, 1661 is the earliest date of publications on the slide rule, since Oughtred and Delamain. But it would not be surprising if the intervening 28 years were found not so barren as they seem at present. The 1661 and 1662 impressions of Partridge are identical, except for the date on the title-page. William Leybourn, who printed Partridge’s book, speaks in high appreciation of it in his own book.[33]

In 1661 was published also John Brown’s first book, Description and Use of a Joynt-Rule, previously mentioned. In Chapter XVIII he describes the use of “Mr. Whites rule” for the measuring of board and timber, round and square. He calls this a “sliding rule.” The existence, in 1661, of a “Whites rule” indicates activities in designing of which we know as yet very little. In his book of 1761, previously quoted, Brown gives a drawing of “White’s sliding rule” (p. 193); also a special contrivance of his own, as indicated by him in these words:

He gives no drawing of his “triangular quadrant,” hence his account of it is unsatisfactory. He explains the use of “gage-points.” His placing logarithmic lines on the edges of instrument boxes was outdone in oddity later by Everard who placed them on tobacco-boxes.[34] In Brown’s publication of 1704 the White slide rule is given again, “being as neat and ready a way as ever was used.” He tells also of a “glasier’s sliding rule.” William Leybourn explains in 1673 how Wingate’s double and triple lines for squaring and cubing, or square and cube root, can be used on slide rules.[35]

Beginning early in the history of the slide rule, when Oughtred designed his “gauging rod,” we notice the designing of rules intended for very special purposes. Another such contrivance, which enjoyed long popularity, was the Timber Measure by a Line, by Hen. Coggeshall, Gent., London, 1677, a booklet of 35 pages. Coggeshall says in his preface:

One line on Coggeshall’s rule begins with 4 and extends to 40, these numbers being the “Girt” (a quarter of the circumference), which in ordinary practice of measuring round timber lies between 4 inches and 40 inches. This “Girt line” slides “against the line of Numbers in two Lengths, to which it is exactly equal.” A second edition, 1682, shows some changes in the rule, as well as an enlargement and change of title of the book itself: A Treatise of Measures, by a Two-foot Rule, by H. C. Gent, London, 1682. In this, the description of the rule is given thus:

It is worthy of note that Coggeshall’s slide rule book, The Art of Practical Measuring, was reviewed in the Acta eruditorum, anno 1691, p. 473; hence Leupold’s description[37] of the rectilinear slide rule in his Theatrum arithmetico-geometricum, Leipzig, 1727, Cap. XIII, p. 71, is not the earliest reference to the rectilinear rule found in German publications. The above date is earlier even than Biler’s reference to a circular slide rule in his Descriptio instrumenti mathematici universalis of 1696.

Two noted slide rules for gauging were described by Tho. Everard, Philomath, in his Stereometry made easie, London, 1684. He designates his lines by the capital letters A, B, C, D, E. On the first instrument, A on the rule, and B and C on the slide, have each two radiuses of numbers, D has only one, while E has three. The second rule is described in an Appendix; it is one foot long, with two slides enabling the rule to be extended to 3 feet.

Everard’s instruments were made in London by Isaac Carver who, soon after, himself wrote a sixteen-page Description and Use of a New Sliding Rule, projected from the Tables in the Gauger’s Magazine, London, 1687, which was “printed for William Hunt” and bound in one volume with a book by Hunt, called The Gauger’s Magazine, London, 1687. This appears to be the same William Hunt who later brought out descriptions of his own of slide rules. The instrument described by Carver “consists of three pieces, two whereof are moveable to be drawn out till the whole be 36 inches long.” It has several non-logarithmic graduations, together with logarithmic lines marked A, B, C, D, of which A, B, C are “double lines,” and D a “single line” used for squares and square roots. It is designed for the determination of the vacuity of a “spheroidal cask lying,” a “spheroidal cask standing,” and a “parabolical cask lying.”

Another seventeenth century writer on the slide rule is John Atkinson, whom we have mentioned earlier. He says:[38] “The Lines of Numbers, Sines and Tangents, are set double, that is, one on each side, as the middle piece slides: which middle piece is so contrived, to slip to and fro easily, to slide out, and to be put in any side uppermost, in order to bring those Lines together (or against one another) most proper for solving the Question, wrought by Sliding-Gunter.”

The data presented in this article show that, while the earliest slide rules were of the circular type, the later slide rules of the seventeenth century were of the rectilinear type.[39]

Footnotes

[1]F. Cajori, History of the Logarithmic Slide Rule and Allied Instruments, New York, 1909, pp. 7-14, also Addenda i-vi.

[2]F. Cajori, “On the Invention of the Slide Rule,” in Colorado College Publication, Engineering Series Vol. 1, 1910. An abstract of this is given in Nature (London), Vol. 82, 1909, p. 267.

[3]F. Cajori, History etc., p. 14.

[4]Art. “Slide Rule” in the Penny Cyclopaedia and in the English Cyclopaedia [Arts and Sciences].

[5]Anthony Wood, Athenae oxonienses (Ed. P. Bliss), London, Vol. III, 1817, p. 423.

[6]The full title of the book which Wingate published on this subject in Paris is as follows:

Εἂν ἧς φιλεμαθὴς, ἕση ἥση πολυμαθὴς.

In tenui, sed nõ tenuis vsusve, laborne. |

Back of the title page is the announcement:

Notez que la Reigle de Proportion en toutes façons se vend à Paris chez Melchior Tauernier, Graueur & Imprimeur du Roy pour les Tailles douces, demeurant en l’Isle du Palais sur le Quay qui regarde la Megisserie à l’Espic d’or.

[7]The title-page of the edition of 1658 is as follows:

The Use of the Rule of Proportion in Arithmetick & Geometrie. First published at Paris in the French tongue, and dedicated to Monsieur, the then king’s onely Brother (now Duke of Orleance). By Edm. Wingate, an English Gent. And now translated into English by the Author. Whereinto is now also inserted the Construction of the same Rule, & a farther use thereof . . . 2nd edition inlarged and amended. London, 1658.

[8]Memories of the Life of that Learned Antiquary, Elias Ashmole, Esq.; Drawn up by himself by way of Diary. With Appendix of original Letters. Publish’d by Charles Burman, Esq., London, 1717, p. 23.

[9]Mathematical Tables, 1811, p. 36, and art. “Gunter’s Line” in his Phil. and Math. Dictionary, London, 1815.

[10]To the English Gentrie, and all others studious of the Mathematicks, which shall bee readers hereof. The just Apologie of Wil: Ovghtred, against the slaunderous insimulations of Richard Delamain, in a Pamphlet called Grammelogia, or the Mathematicall Ring, or Mirifica logarithmorum projectio circularis. We shall refer to this document as Epistle. It was published without date in 32 unnumbered pages of fine print, and was bound in with Oughtred’s Circles of Proportion, in the editions of 1633 and 1639. In the 1633 edition it is inserted at the end of the volume just after the Addition vnto the Vse of the Instrument etc., and in that of 1639 immediately after the preface. It was omitted from the Oxford edition of 1660. The Epistle was also published separately. There is a separate copy in the British Museum, London. Aubrey, in his Brief Lives, edited by A. Clark, Vol. II, Oxford, 1898, p. 113, says quaintly, “He writt a stitch’t pamphlet about 163(?4) against . . . Delamaine.”

[11]Thomas Browne is mentioned by Stone in his Mathematical Instruments, London 1723, p. 16. See also Cajori, History of the Slide Rule, New York, 1909, p. 15.

[12]The Description and Use of a Joynt-Rule: . . . also the use of Mr. White’s Rule for measuring of Board and Timber, round and square; With the manner of Vsing the Serpentine-line of Numbers, Sines, Tangents, and Versed Sines. By J. Brown, Philom., London, 1661.

[13]A Collection of Centers and Useful Proportions on the Line of Numbers, by John Brown, 1662(?), 16 pages; Description and Use of the Triangular Quadrant, by John Brown, London, 1671; Wingate’s Rule of Proportion in Arithmetick and Geometry: or Gunter’s Line. Newly rectified by Mr. Brown and Mr. Atkinson, Teachers of the Mathematicks, London, 1683; The Description and Use of the Carpenter’s-Rule: Together with the Use of the Line of Numbers commonly call’d Gunter’s-Line, by John Brown, London, 1704.

[14]William Leybourn, op. cit., pp. 129, 130, 132, 133.

[15]James Atkinson’s edition of Andrew Wakely’s The Mariners Compass Rectified, London, 1694 [Wakely’s preface dated 1664, Atkinson’s preface, 1693]. Atkinson adds An Appendix containing Use of Instruments most useful in Navigation. Our quotation is from this Appendix, p. 199.

[16]R. Delamain, The Making, Description, and Use of a small portable Instrument . . . called a Horizontall Quadrant, etc., London, 1631.

[17]Oughtred’s description of his circular slide rule of 1632 and his rectilinear slide rule of 1633, as well as a drawing of the circular slide rule, are reproduced in Cajori’s History of the Slide Rule, Addenda, pp. ii-vi.

[18]The full title of the Grammelogia I is as follows:

[19]Grammelogia III is the same as Grammelogia I, except for the addition of an appendix, entitled:

. . . The next line or two of this title-page which probably contained the date of publication, were cut off by the binder in trimming the edges of this and several other pamphlets for binding into one volume.

[20]Grammelogia IV has two title pages. The first is Mirifica Logarithmoru’ Projectio Circularis. There follows a diagram of a circular slide rule, with the inscription within the innermost ring: Nil Finis, Motvs, Circvlvs vllvs Habet. The second title page is as follows:

Grammelogia | Or, the Mathematicall Ring. | Extracted from the Logarythmes, and projected Circular: Now published in the | inlargement thereof unto any magnitude fit for use: shewing any reason- | able capacity that hath not Arithmeticke how to resolve and worke, | all ordinary operations of Arithmeticke: | And those that are most difficult with greatest facilitie, the extracti- | on of Rootes, the valuation of Leases, &c. the measuring of Plaines and Solids, | with the resolution of Plaine and Sphericall Triangles applied to the | Practicall parts of Geometrie, Horologographie, Geographie | Fortification, Navigation, Astronomie, &c. | And that onely by an ocular inspection, and a Circular motion, Invented and first published, by R. Delamain, Teacher, and Student of the Mathematicks. | Naturae secreta tempus aperit. |

There is no date. There follows the diagram of a second circular slide rule, with the inscription within the innermost ring: Typus proiectionis Annuli adaucti vt in Conslusione Lybri praelo commissi, Anno 1630 promisi. There are numerous drawings in the Grammelogia, all of which, excepting the drawings of slide rules on the engraved title-pages of Grammelogia IV and V, were printed upon separate pieces of paper and then inserted by hand into the vacant spaces on the printed pages reserved for them. Some drawings are missing, so that the Bodleian Grammelogia IV differs in this respect slightly from the copy in the British Museum and from the British Museum copy of Grammelogia V.

[21]Epistle, p. (8).

[22]Aubrey, op. cit., Vol. II., p. 111.

[23]Rigaud, Correspondence of Scientific Men during the 17th Century, Vol. I, Oxford, 1841, p. 11.

[24]Dictionary of National Biography, Art. “Delamain, Richard.” See also Rev. Charles J. Robinson, Taylors’ School, from A.D. 1562 to 1874, Vol. I, 1882, p. 151; Journal of the House of Commons, Vol. IV., p. 197b; Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Part I, Report and Appendix, London, 1877. In this Appendix, p. 82, we read the following:

Oct. 22 [1645] Petition of Sarah Delamain, relict of Richard Delamain. Petitioner’s husband was servant to the King, and one of His Majesty’s engineers for the fortification of the kingdom, and his tutor in mathematical arts; but upon the breaking out of the war he deserted the Court, and was called by the State to several employments, in fortifying the towns of Northampton, Newport, and Abingdon; and was also abroad with the armies as Quartermaster-General of the Foot, and therein died. Petitioner is left a disconsolate widow with ten children, the four least of whom are now afflicted with sickness, and petitioner has nothing left to support them. There are several considerable sums of money due to the petitioner, as well from the King as the State. Prays that she may have some relief amongst other widows. See L. J., VII. 6. 657.

[25]Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses (Edition Bliss) Vol. IV., London, 1820, p. 34.

[26]The New Artificial Gauging Line or Rod: together with rules concerning the use thereof: Invented and written by WILLIAM OUGHTRED, etc., London, 1633. The copy we have seen is in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. The book is small sized and has 40 pages.

[27]Oughtred, op. cit., p. 11.

[28]S. J. Rigaud, Correspondence of Scientific Men of the 17th Century, Oxford, Vol. I, 1841, p. 17.

[29]Rigaud, loc. cit., p. 22.

[30]Rigaud, loc. cit., pp. 30, 31.

[31]Oughtred, An Addition vnto the Vse of the Instrument called the Circles of Proportion, London, 1633, p. 63.

[32]F. Cajori, History of the Slide Rule, New York, 1909, pp. 16-22, Addenda, pp. vi-ix.

[33]W. Leybourn, op. cit., 1673, Preface, and pp. 128-29.

[34]Cajori op. cit., Addenda, p. ix.

[35]William Leybourn, op. cit., 1673, p. 35.

[36]See Cajori, op. cit., pp. 20, 28, Addenda, p. ix.

[37]See F. Cajori, “A Note on the History of the Slide Rule,” Bibliotheca mathematica, 3 F., Vol. 10, pp. 161-163.

[38]John Atkinson, op. cit., 1694, p. 204.

[39]Probably the oldest slide rule now in existence is owned by St. John’s College, Oxford, and is in the form of a brass disc, 1 ft. 6 in. in diameter. It was exhibited along with other instruments in May, 1919. According to the Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition of Early Scientific Instruments in Oxford, opened May 16, 1919, the instrument is inscribed with the name of the maker (“Elias Allen fecit”) and with the name of the donor, Georgius Barkham. It is dated 1635, which is only three years after the first publication of Oughtred’s description of his circular slide rule. It is stated in the Catalogue: “Unfortunately all the movable parts but the base-plate and a couple of thumb-screws are missing. The face of the instrument is engraved with Oughtred’s Horizontal Instrument. The back is engraved with eleven Circles of Proportion as described in Arthur Haughton’s book, a copy of which was presented to St. John’s College by George Barkham, to explain the use of the instrument.” As Arthur Haughton’s Oxford edition of Oughtred’s Circles of Proportion did not appear until 1660, it would seem that the instrument was probably not presented to the College before 1660. As far as is known, the next oldest slide rule is of the year 1654, kept in the South Kensington Museum, London, and is described in Nature of March 5, 1914. It is a rectilinear rule, “of boxwood, well made, and bound together with brass at the two ends. It is of the square type, a little more than 2 ft. in length, and bears the logarithmic lines first described by Edmund Gunter. Of these, the num, sin and tan lines are arranged in pairs, identical and contiguous, one line in each pair being on the fixed part, and the other on the slide.” The instrument is inscribed, “Made by Robert Bissaker for T. W., 1654.” Nowhere else have we seen reference to Robert Bissaker. His slide rule seems to antedate the “Whites rule” mentioned above. [This foot-note was added on October 15, 1919.]